@@luigirossi835 love how atheists try to educate Christians on the bible teachings when they never really read it completely and studied it fully. And don't believe in it. It's like me trying to educate a mechanic on fixing cars because i heard a few things from youtube videos and remembered a couple things :). we are also called to defend the faith. but you would know that if you actually know what the bible teaches. but no, you just use the commonly known verses you've heard from others. Also who says he didn't forgive him? didn't know you can read Eric's mind.
@@powerdrunk6818 - I agree fully. And another good example is someone with no science background trying to educate a biologist because they heard something on a creationist site once.
I lost count of the amount of times the Christian interrupted, talked over and derailed the discussion while accusing his opponent of doing exactly that.
What the heck man. Eric, seriously, I can see why Aron was getting pissed. You ask circular questions, you go round and round about nothing and didn't present any evidence for the soul. Let me look at the comments, lets see how others felt.
@@gaborjuracsik4847 Are ypu daft? The demand for empirical evidence is about providing a rational basis for the acceptance of a claim with regard to reality..
Hearing Eric get mad about Aron Ra interrupting him is priceless. At least Aron Ra waits until he has a point of clarification to interrupt. Eric starts interrupting the second Aron opens his mouth every single time Aron opens his mouth.
Perhaps, but Aron doesn’t answer questions. He thinks he does, because he doesn’t even comprehend the question; or he just argues over things he is completely wrong about despite being corrected by theists and atheists numerous times.
@TheMindIlluminated Except Aron admits when he's wrong. I've seen that numerous times. The problem is that Christians don't like the answer and have to keep siding or repeating the question until they get answer they want to hear, not the one they need to hear
Find a single point in this video where Eric speaks for just 5 seconds without getting cut off. You can't cause Ra interrupts everything. He's so childish!
@@TheMindIlluminated I believe you are confusing Kent Hovind with Aron, Aron is quite possibly the only honest person in any religious debates and he is the most calculated with the most and best understanding of modern science.
@Joseph because Eric keeps misrepresenting Aaron. His belief in souls originates from his religion which ORIGINATED in the bible. If the bible NEVER mentioned an afterlife there would be NO soul belief. How hard is this to understand?
Eric's entire strategy is (1) claim the other person doesn't understand just about everything, (2) he whines that people need to discuss HIs beliefs only, (3) using subtle and condescending whining under his breath. He does this with nearly every debate/discussion he uploads. Eric is horrible. There's a reason why his FB account has only 3400 followers on FB.
Is like he is purposely trying not to answer very simple questions and instead goes off on incoherent rants. It is a simple question... can you force yourself to believe something, don't talk about what other people have claimed. Can YOU force yourself to believe something that is false?
Eric keeps saying, "What do I believe?" "That's not what I believe?" "Do you want to know what I believe?" Over and over and never says it. Just say what you believe!
@@BrianLovesBeans What? Eric is definitely a guy that can stand up for himself. AT ANY TIME he could have just said, this is what I believe. I kept waiting. Just say it dude.
@@joecheffo5942 it seemed his point with all these comments to is that Aron just keep stating what Eric believed, telling Eric what he believed, instead of asking and having a discussion about it. Aron was putting words in his mouth instead of having an honest debate or discussion about it. That was pretty obvious. Eric could barely finish a single sentence in this exchange let alone give a full explanation without Aaron jumping in. Anyways
@@BrianLovesBeans In like two hours he cant talk? So why did he stay and be disrespected? I saw him do this in different debates. I know you want souls yo exist because having people tortured gorber gives you a hard on, I guess you will have to find another hero. Or you can understand that the idea of a soull snd hell are pagan concepts. The Kindom to come is a bodily resurrection on Earth. Thats what Jews in Jesus time thought.
@@joecheffo5942 lol now you’re doing the same thing Aron did, telling the individual you’re engaged with what they believe instead of as asking or encouraging meaningful dialogue. I don’t believe in a soul, I don’t agree with Eric’s position or syllogistic arguments for it given in other videos/debates, I disagree with his world view and feel his arguments for the soul are primarily just assertions, he nor any god if that’s what you meant is not my hero, I am not religious but rather extremely anti-theistic. My point is that Aron’s conduct did not encourage meaningful or respectful dialogue between individuals. He wasn’t engaged in honest debate or open exchange of ideas but rather just seemed to flex his self proclaimed superiority over Eric. I will not read any further replies from you so know that if you choose to respond it won’t be me who’ll be reading it. Enjoy your purposeless, completely devoid of inherent meaning, and absurd existence internet stranger; I’ll be doing the same…this little exchange has made clear value in life won’t come from engaging with interlocutors like yourself. HAIL SATAN!
Eric: Is the soul physical or not? Aron: Starts to give his opinion on the soul. Eric: Nope. Try again. You're making assertions. Dude, you asked a question and he's trying to answer you. If you want to know his opinion on the soul let him answer. I give Aron a lot of credit for his Christlike patience here, especially given how many times he has to walk through very basic things and get interrupted just trying to answer or elaborate.
It's nice to see that you uploaded this. Despite getting your ass handed to you on a plate, you didn't shy away from people seeing it. Got to give you credit for that at least.
imsporticus1 How so?! By being intellectually dishonest, using circular reasoning and perpetually talking over the other person?! Yes, if you like this, then AronRa is your guy.
@@johnlovestosing04 obviously ur not very smart. Everything aron said was true demonstrable facts backed by science logic and reason and even Erics own book of fairy tales. while Eric was talking in circles, went off topic to every subject but the topic, threw out wild baseless assertions, cudnt comprehend any words coming out of arons mouth and doesn't even understand his own faith better than an anti thiest yet accused him of being the dishonest one, going off topic and making false assertions yet they were all backed by scientific evidence. Clearly eric doesn't understand shit about science nor his own religion and even had the audacity to imply aron was an "incredibly stupid person". This was laughably painful for Eric and even a Christian wud agree, but since people of faith are the most dishonest people there are can't admit when wrong or when their position was successfully challenged, again. They aren't honest with themselves obviously they aren't gonna be honest with others.
@@johnlovestosing04 not to mention the soul is physically impossible and wud require that quantum field theory is fundamentally flawed and incorrect all around yet it's not. Just look up Sean carroll paper on why the soul cannot exist based on everything we know about physics and ull understand why it's just as ridiculous as believing the moon is made of green cheese. He actually shows how the electron equation of QFT directly disproves any notion of a "soul" of any form.
Mark Money No sir. I don’t do the internet bravery thing, because I’m quite certain you wouldn’t speak that way to me in person. I’m also not into internet trolling pointlessly hurling insults at people I don’t know. Aron Ra is probably the internet atheists I have the least respect for so please don’t try to defend him. I like Matt Dillahunty a lot more because he’s reasonable and mostly respectful to the people he’s having dialogue with. It’s obvious that you’re not capable to have a civil discussion so I’m not taking any more of my time.
@@thegentlymad5769 thank you for your answer. How do you know the babies are resurrected? And why would these babies want to live with god after that being killed them? I also like how how you told me what my position was on abortion. I havent put much thought to the issue. I dont plan on having kids and it's not my body getting pregnant.
@@thegentlymad5769 I hadn't put much thought into the abortion issue and then I explained why. I dont know if god is real, but im assuming you do so that is why I wanted to know how you know of anything that he does. And that is what my follow up question represented. How do you know he ressurescts babies? Have you seen it happen? Did he tell you? So far you have just asserted he does. Though it was a disgusting answer, kudos to you for answering my first question. It was to set up to see if you would answer it honestly.
I just want to be clear Aron did at some points interrupt but this ^ did happen though. Like I hate to be an ass but I'm like 55 minutes in and genuinely all you're doing Eric is claiming the moral high ground. This is something a lot of people do because they think this gives them an upper hand in a debate but it doesnt. It's also counter productive because it doesn't allow the debate to happen
@@EricHernandez (edit) i cant believe you really counted tho for real you miss my point "Youre interrupting" is not an argument. Having the morale High ground is also not an argument i recognize that aron did Interrupt at some points and perhaps there should have been a moderator but there were things you genuinely didnt understand and i think still dont. For example the soul thing. asking what You in particular believe isnt necessary nor is it relevant. What Aron was trying to say in so many words was that Eric Hernandez didnt invent the concept of a soul so whatever your interpretation of what a soul is doesnt matter its still based on the original concept that was Rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world works.
Eric is not listening in this discussion. He repeatedly insists upon a definition which Aron uses - accurately or otherwise - and is unwilling to come to understand Aron's real vocabulary whenever Aron attempts to clarify what he means. This as a classic example of waiting for your turn to speak rather than listening. Could have railroaded the first half hour of talking by simply listening to what the other person is saying.
Eric is sooooo arrogant, up himself and closed minded it would be a total waste of time trying to reason with him, his mother has been telling him for years that he is some sort of massia, totally brain washed. He is an embarrassment to Christianity
Eric- How do you define evidently possible? Aron- The possibility is supported by evidence. Eric- No thats not what it means... Are you serious ? to be Evident is to be supported by evidence. To deny this definition is absurd.
I just looked it up, and the definition says nothing about supporting evidence. Evident just means obvious, so evidently possible just means obviously possible. For example all 3 of you above me were evidently wrong about the definition of evidently.
@@jasonsimms8251 hahaha. What makes something obvious ? Evidence! Its literally in the word. Evident... Evidence.. if something is Evident then it's supported by the evidence. Genius. Saying something is obvious is just another way to say it's clear according to the evidence.
@@skepticallyskeptic you can tap dance all you want but what i gave you was the literal definition of the word. *evident* plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood. "she ate the cookies with evident enjoyment" synonyms: obvious · apparent · noticeable · conspicuous · perceptible · perceivable · visible · observable · [more]
The reason “you got nowhere” Aron is because people have to spend the first hour of every conversation with you literally explaining the most basic concepts in philosophy that you refuse to learn and pretend to understand. No idea how this Ra guy has any kind of following....
@@EricHernandez this dude is more educated in every aspect of life than you are. I mean you literally believe in a God. You're like 45 years old. You still believe in Santa too? You got destroyed by Dillahunty and then you got destroyed by Ra. Why don't you admit that you just can't prove the existence of a God, and if a god existed in the first place he would look down on people like you and say wow, this guy is complete dogshit at debates and I'm going to just prove I exists to everyone. But he can't do that because he doesn't exist. And if he does exist he is an immortal scumbag piece of shit that doesn't deserve a following. It's not our fault that your beliefs are stupid and outdated and you can't prove them or even show that it's logical to believe them. Science is slowly dismantling religion every year and while it's not going to go completely away in my lifetime there will be a time where Christianity as well as every other religion will be a mythology just like Zeus and all the other Greek gods. Watch me do a better job at being God than your stupid belief. One. Do not murder, two. Do not own other people as property. No slaves no Servitude no owning people as property. If you do it you're going to hell and the story. No rape. If you do you're going to hell. no genocide. Going to hell. Wearing mixed wearing mixed fabrics and Eating shellfish is totally fine. Do you see that? I already did a better job than your God. Now take your head out of your butt and open a science book. (excuse grammar I'm driving and using talk to text.)
How do you not understand what objectively verified means? He wasn't giving the definition of verify because he respected your intelligence enough to assume you know what it means to verify something objectively. . He was wrong to do so apparently.
@@EricHernandez How is it empiricism for Aron to assume you have an understanding of two relatively common words? Are you arguing that since we need to use our ears to hear language that it's empiricism?
@@EricHernandez you are typical dodging Christian. Objectively verified? You don't know what it means. Smh dishonest. I am arguing with another theists and I asked for a demonstration or evidence of this god. His response? What do u mean by demonstration or evidence?!?
@@EricHernandez You totally got owned, and I'm a theist. Cant defend a false Religion that think a man is a god LoL stop worshiping your Antichrist LoL
He explained to you five times what objectively verifiable means. You chose not to accept that premise or you're cognitive dissonance just wouldn't let you. I 'believe' the latter to be true.
He explained what it means to be objective, which everyone should already know, and the says it’s verifiable if we can verify it. No. He didn’t explain it five times. He repeated himself circularly five times.
@@EricHernandez so he did explain himself you just said so ffs, man you need to make up your mind. Oh btw you spelled then "the" so first of all go back to school asap you backwards fool.
@@EricHernandez wouldn’t saying “it’s verifiable if we can verify it” a question begging fallacy on his part? I can’t believe Aron has any people that still take him seriously, the guy is really dumb. Just because he happens to be somewhat eloquent and has a good memory with Biology doesn’t mean he’s at all worth listening to. I have seen plenty of other atheists try to explain just merely BASIC philosophical things to him and point out why his reasoning is bad, and he either refuses to understand or just genuinely has no idea. His ego forced him to argue no matter what.
How did he try his hardest ? He didn’t even try at all. He was just trying to get some common ground first but couldn’t because Aron was going all over the place.
@@mtchll306 no aron was trying to answer circular questions from eric who only wants to avoid any actual questions that not only challenge his beliefs but show how intellectually devoid the whole belief system is
@Bigtombowski "curious use of the word rely" You did ask "can you account for logic without relying on logic", so you're suspicious of your own argument. You say I rely on god to breathe. I rely on my lungs and on the existence of breathable air. Can you demonstrate I need god to be able to breathe? Also, please do the following. Copy your previous answer, but substitute every instance of the word "god" with one of the following: "very powerful unicorn named Tim", "a conglomerate of unierse creating pixies", "the leprechaun that lives at the edge of the universe", "the kurkolkfragens that live in the lakrisdeduttioningaretikar dimension". You will realize you are doing nothing more than making up an entity that you claim is the answer. Any of the entities I mentioned above can substitute god in your assertions. Therefore you did not provide evidence nor did you demonstrate your case
@@EricHernandez well, you don't have any useful argument. I think an almighty all knowing God could do better if He wanted to be known. I would do better if I were Him. I wouldn't try to make myself known by obscure ancient books from a time when proper reasoning and consideration of adequate evidence were so infrequent. Suppose you're God. You create people. You want people to love you. To do so they would have to know you first. Is "the Bible" the way you would go about it? Would a compilation of contradictory fairy tale books be your best effort? Wouldn't you know exactly what it takes to convice every one and wouldn't you do just that instead of playing hide and seek and have humanity arguing about who you really are or if you even exist? You're just human. You fear death. You don't want to die. You want to live forever. There is a narrative held by many people in your country that grants you just that so you embrace it. Had you been born in Iran, you would be a muslim.
@@jaredm2988 exactly. He didn't have any good arguments so he made it all about not really listening what Aron had to say but trying to "catch" him instead, no matter what. And that's one of the best ways to not have a conversation. Good job Eric, you did it.
@@TheMindIlluminated its not only a joke but self explanatory, if pain was not physical, none of the simple molecules in painkillers would work on us. you have to ignore entirety of neuroscience to think that pain is not physical and eric obviously does
@@erneststyczen7071 yeah, the firing of the neurons that cause pain are obviously physical, but aren’t there other traits we would associate with pain? If so, where do they come from and how do we distinguish the two? On and on the questions could go. That’s why the pain killer thing doesn’t address anything. Are the neurons identical to the pain, for example? It’s just not a sufficient response regardless of the position.
@@TheMindIlluminated you mean nerve impulses and psychological pain? all of this is very well understood by neuroscientists who study this for a living. from a scientists' perspective neither you or i know even the basics
@@TheMindIlluminated So, basically what you're saying is that the question "Is pain physical?" is a lazy formulated question that you can now use to shift the goal posts with and side track to a completely different topic (but not really...), and get your ass handed to you a different way..... Got it. nitwit
Fossil Fish Leg what are YOU trying to find out? Your comment is pointless and worthless. And you don’t want to hear the answers... See how that did nothing for you? Yea... same here.
I’m so glad that you called him out for trying to _(tell)_ you what you believe instead of trying to _(determine)_ what you believe! The second Aron tried to say that the Bible and the Quran both teach that faith means _”you believe or else”_ I knew that he wasn’t going to be doing anything of meaningful scholarly value. I’d also like to see someone like Dr. James White give this man a thorough schooling on the biblical languages, definitions, and what constitutes proper research!
@@EricHernandez lol do you stay up late looking at old comments on old videos and come up with shitty come backs? Does it keep you up at night? Get out of the comments. Arguing with people in the comments of your own debate or discussion makes you look even worse. You clearly lost here. It shows. The likes to dislike ratio says it. The constant back and forth with random comments also says it.
smh, an hours worth of the semantics here over this word could have frustratingly been resolved in less than 5 mins. Definitions from the dictionary are descriptive and NOT prescriptive. The root of “faith” is totally irrelevant because the use of words change every single day. The label “atheist” is what Christians were originally called by the Romans. Using your logic this means Christians should go back to being called “atheist” since it’s where the label originated. Lastly, why would an all knowing, all powerful, “God” with perfect sight of the future give his ppl a book in a language that he knew would die out and cause this much confusion over his supposedly “perfect” book. Even his own believers can’t come to an agreement on this word or scripture. The Bible says “God isn’t the author of confusion”. if so he’s doing a really shitty job of it.
Infinite Fantasy first of all Christians were initially called “followers of the way” not atheists. Secondly if the Bible is so hard to interpret and the language has supposedly died out then why are the definitions of these Greek words so easily accessible? Why do all Christian apologists know it? Why does the Bible make it the meaning clear? Why is Christianity so prevalent in the world? Why do atheists completely ignore any proof to the contrary? You claim God is dumb but can’t even see your own logical absurdities that goes for Aron too. Case in point, the root of the word faith cannot be irrelevant if that was the case then the entire English language would be irrelevant because our language has root words and they all have meaning and come from other older, some dead languages. Without our root meanings we would have no English language.
Forgiven the Greek words ARENT accessible which is why you have to be a scholar in modern day to understand it clearly which is why this is even a debate in the first place. You can TH-cam debates between apologist like Matt Slick where they debate other theist apologist on the biblical definition of this word and scriptures. There’s over 3000 Christians denominations where they all disagree with the next because this book is an incoherent mess. Lastly, the amount of followers something has is irrelevant. You’re making an argument from ad-populum.
@@forgiven1683 you didn't address the point. And why the fuck have all you religious lunatics got TH-cam names like Forgiven or the truth or the word, what in the fuck does that even mean like lol, you ppl are your own worst enemy. 🤪
@@infinitefantasy5277 i too was about to say he's making an ad-populum argument, these ppl have to answer a lot of thing's but never do. Believing without evidence is the definition of faith. This Eric guy is beyond help.
@31:18 Eric says to Aron in response to him answering a question "you say one thing and keep going" to me, that's just answering a question in words other than a simple "yes" or "no." Eric appears to insist on yes or no answers and tries to interrupt when that doesn't happen. Still watching...
It's because Aron's answers are confusing and Eric keeps asking for a straight answer. Eric was trying to point out that paying someone to believe doesn't make them actually believe. Aron's answer to this should have just been no because it's clear no one offering him any kind of bribe is going to make him believe.
omaga onion He wouldn't answer the question "if someone gave you a million dollars to believe, would that make you believe?" It seems like a simple question that should be answered by saying yes or no. Aron didn't do that, though, which raises questions about his motives and intentions. Eric didn't ask "could you believe?" or "has this situation ever occurred in history?" So why would Aron respond to those questions unless he didn't actually want to answer the question asked?
@@Levi-rl3fu just because Eric demands a yes or no answer, Aron does not have to comply to that. Also, using that is a typical tactic to control the conversation, not through logic in your arguments, but to dominate the other party. This is especially used by people who have no substance in their arguments. Aron seemingly won't have any of that and I don't think he should.
Edvin Löfgren Eric was trying to start with common ground to move on to another question while Aron was using obfuscation to avoid the implications of a firm response to the question. Asking for yes or no answers can be done for multiple reasons-certainly in these days where people are trying to trick their opponents into providing a sound bite to take out of context or mock. They can also be used in the case of an obvious common ground as the start of an honest discussion, but Aron definitely wasn't having any of that. In normal conversation, answers are simply provided without any kind of forcing. In debates, the answers must be forced out at times because he opponent is trying to avoid the topic.
@@EricHernandez Well, in the past we all know what happened to them when they did? The religious rewarded them.. With death. Thankfully, we discarded that barbaric way of thinking!
@@EricHernandez with apologetic like you publicly defending christianity, it is a matter of time before the bullshit beliefs end. Less and less Christians every year. You guys HAVE to brainwash the YOUNG. Trying to convert a THINKING ADULT is difficult.
Aron Ra - A 20+ year veteran being an apologist for atheism (a philosophical position) who, to this day, still has yet to even realize he's debating in the domain of philosophy. It's surreal.
I don't think it is a philosophical or scientific position as neither field recognises religion or any other supernatural phenomenon. I suspect 'apologist' is a religious term, not secular, is part of their [system] and not part of ours; I remember watching something explaining the origin of the word. Maybe this Minister could have a look at the history and etymology of his religion's term 'apologist,' or, simply look up the words in a dictionary, although I grasped as a young child that religion attaches special meaning to the secular words 'faith' and 'belief,' special in that it wholly unseats those essential words, undermining the self-same rationality with which it seeks to make false equivalence. Ultimately I do not think 'apologist' is, or should be, a general term meaning 'proponent, defender' etc as it means something totally different: in secular or rational terms it means a mendacious charlatan of the first order. Those of us who do not subscribe to a religion, that is, have no supernatural 'beliefs,' have no reason to invent a pseudo science, only to justify convictions we do not hold.
@hinteregions Any creator God is claimed to be a universal mind which all dependent facts ultimately derive from. That's a metaphysical category, which is philosophy. Metaphysics = your theory for what exists, how it exists, what is real, etc. Atheists almost always believe the metaphysical theory of Materialism (that the material is ALL that exists).
@hinteregions Based by the way you're writing, you seem to be deceived by what "religion" really means too. As atheists often do, you seem to be defining it as if it means "any theistic worldview" but does not apply to any non-theistic worldview. That's not what the word "religion" means, but it's how pretty much all atheists seem to define it for some reason. There isn't a single definition of the word "religion," anywhere, which specifies it required belief in God or applies only to theistic worldviews but not to non-theistic worldviews. The term "religion" has no prescriptive definition that scholars agree upon... and is actually a completely meaningless term. Other cultures have no word to describe the same concept and it only exists in the West in modern times only. If you replace the word "religion" with "worldview" (something everyone has) it fixes the problems you're having. It'll also solve the Science VS Religion false dichotomy that atheists are all indoctrinated with too... because it wouldn't make any sense to say Science VS Worldview... since all empirical evidence can be interpreted through any worldview. In fact, all empirical evidence is necessarily theory-laden like that. This is taught in any Philosophy of Science course.
Aron, you most certainly went on several rants. 😂😂😂. Dude, is so emotional and passive aggressive. He tries so hard to control himself, but he can’t because his skin is so thin. Sheesh Eric, how did you last 1hr 40min with this high level of emotions?
Because Eric never presented anything. He didn’t even make a case. If anything Eric did a wonderful job dodging the root problem with the issue of faith in the idea of believing in an imaginary God hypothesis. To which there was no empirical data for. And that was the whole point that U2 don’t seem to understand. Of course you’ll do this with the other God believes from other religions to which you are skeptical of you will use the same process. But want to comes to yours you were incredibly dishonest of that issue. ...
@@EricHernandez I was confused by you Eric. What was it you were trying to present? Because science is the only thing we can use to indentify anything that is unknown. Faith doesn't get us there. So why are you trying to argue on behalf of faith when faith doesn't get us to the initial question or the unknown
Hi Eric. Please make a review video about this conversation plus make a compilation replay of his self contradictions just to prove with empirical evidence that this guy is a liar. Thanks mate!
I would say that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then Ra would be correct that we are living and sharing a lie. Which is what the apostle Paul said. I understand Christians claim that we have evidence to support that the resurrection did happen but that's not the kind of evidence that Ra needs. On the other hand I don't think Ra can prove that we are lying unless he takes a deep dive and study the evidence of the resurrection. But with 20 years of experience he probably has. In my opinion I don't think its worth debating Ra about the definition of faith. I'm more intrigued with debates about the resurrection of Jesus because that's what Christianity hangs on.
Well, this was painful. As a former atheist who was a strong follower of Ra for several years, he fell into his typical pitfalls, and kept talking past the guy he's talking to, and relying on emotion more than reason. Also, scientism is strong with this one. Contrary to the comments, you did well here Eric
**Aron Ra's beliefs are based on blind faith P1. In order for Aron Ra to have beliefs not based on blind faith Aron Ra's beliefs must be able to be chosen by him on the basis of reason P2. If Aron Ra's worldview (atheistic materialism) is true his beliefs are determined for him on the basis of the laws of physics P3. Aron Ra is not able to choose his beliefs on the basis of reason C. Aron Ra's beliefs are based on blind faith
Your reasoning is unsound. Why? It is due to a deterministic (cause/effect limkahe) state of affairs that we can make rational conclusions. It is the reason that we are making progress with regard to AI systems. Further, at every level of review we are a product and process of deterministic processes.
@@MyContext You say: Your reasoning is unsound. Why? It is due to a deterministic (cause/effect limkahe) state of affairs that we can make rational conclusions. // Did you choose to hold this belief on the basis of reason or is it determined for you on the basis of the laws of physics..?
@@MidiwaveProductions Reasoning is a deterministic process. Our cognitive capacities are based on a sufficiently intact brain which is also deterministic based on what we know. The deterministic state of affairs is what allows the development of low level AI systems with later AI systems expected to exceed human capacities.
@@MyContext You say: Reasoning is a deterministic process. // Did you choose to hold this belief on the basis of reason or is it determined for you on the basis of the laws of physics..?
He is a Christian apologist. "Christian Apologetics" is the defense of the Christian faith regardless of whether or not it reflects truth. So for Eric, the explanations just don't matter.
Eric didn’t do an amazing job, but atheists lose repeatedly against more qualified theistic interlocutors. Aron is wrong about the basic definition of faith (pistis) and the passages he thought supported him were simply saying that faith is trusting in that which, although you cannot see it, is obviously true, by the things you can see. Jesus told John’s disciples to go and tell him what they had seen and heard. What John’s disciples were seeing and hearing confirmed Jesus’ identity as the Messiah of God. They saw him casting out demons, healing the sick, etc. and heard him preaching the good news of the gospel. . . things 1st century Jews expected to find the Messiah doing.
The argument that faith means "blind faith" is a red herring. Trust, faith is dependant upon evidence. Otherwise, it is merely presumption. When we take Hebrews 11:1, for instance, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen," this is an example of how faith (trust ) can give us have confidence is things that are not seen, for the simple fact that evidence and experience have developed a relationship that allows us to trust, when there are things that cannot be discerned. That is, I trust God, because of the evidence and experience that I have had, for things that I cannot yet see. This is not blind faith. Everyone exercises faith, in this sense, in some things. Aron Ra is trying to win an argument by redefining words.
@@markryan3018 He first said just "evidence" then later he refined it to "empirical evidence." How can you have empirical evidence for a being that is not part of nature? The evidence we have for God's existence is not "empirical".
@@theodoreturner5567 No, he did not. He always asked for solid empirical evidence. He restated this prerequisite over and over, from the very beginning. If you would like to admit that there is no empirical evidence for gods, then we are all good. Is that your final answer?
Eric didn’t have much chance to do a good job here. I’m not even a follower of his or a believer but Aaron really dominated the time and didn’t give him a chance to talk and when he did just instantly interrupted.
@BrianLovesBeans oh right. You must be talking about a different video because I'm talking about this video when Eric constantly talks over Aron and interrupts Aron and then lies and says it's him that is being interrupted because he knows he is being exposed as a closed minded, lying, ignoramus.
I could not stop laughing throughout this video...Aron is so deluded that everytime he kept screaming something like "I havent been wrong one time since we've started this and I havent made one single assertion" I could not help but start laughing. I even caught Eric laughing a couple times too...too funny!
Aron showed that his definition of faith was accurate which is what this whole talk was about. He repeatedly had to tell you that faith is not based on empirical evidence yet you continued to miss the point. Your subjective evidence is evidence for you and those willing to believe you on faith. Hence there is no evidence to back your claim. The end
@@NapcitycellGaming There is empirical evidence of design, maybe not the designer per se. But it's a matter of logical necessity and ontological contingency. There are more ways to knowing than empiricism.
Braden Sorenson Oh I didn't know that but I doubt Screamingeagle1200 would have put down anything much different than what he did if the video was any different itself.
We all must admit that both Christians and Atheists are in an echo chamber. Look at the comments from Arons channel. It is incredible! I find it quite interesting that Atheist celebrate someone like Aron like one of their biggest champions. And they are full of pride and arrogance :)
We don't have to admit anything. You are trying to imply a false equivalence, which already plagues this kind of debates. Truth is, as long as someone is trying to put logic and evidence-based reasoning first, he'll always have my vote against snake oil sellers and proselytes talking about faith. Even if he's flawed like Ra is.
Ra says that the other person is doing the things that he himself is doing. He will not debate he talks over everybody. He can’t answer a simple question.
@@PaulBrown-uj5le: Your rhetoric is typical of atheist assholes. Nelson has no credibility even amongst atheist scholars. Find a new guru. historyforatheists.com/2019/08/aron-ra-gets-everything-wrong/
Eric - I REALLY don't believe that you comprehend your own arguments; given the fact that you vacillate your arguments often. You use arguments that have nothing to do with Aron Ra whatsoever (nor claims that he has made)...and you're fine with that when it benefits you. Aron Ra was more than capable of speaking in generalities to accommodate you and the viewer. But when he uses examples of theists arguments, you say (at 33:53) "But....you're talking to ME." Magically, the rules change in your head. You do this in many, many ways. Secondly, using such a childish argument as 'the 20 years comments' is embarrassing. It shows the weakness in your tactic. When I was young, my mom taught me how to bake. I was still an amateur baker after 20 years. But back then, I could easily make the truthful statement - 'I've been baking for about 20 years.' After I was about 35 years old, I got REALLY into baking and started baking professionally for 20 years. I would still say - "I've been baking for 20 years.' Once, for 20 years as a novice and also for 20 years as a professional. Anyone trying to parse those comments to make them sound invalid is embarrassing. It's called a 'loser's limp.' And finally, your continual eye-rolling and subtle/snarky comments under your breath during the exchange makes you appear immature, condescending, sanctimonious and egotistical. You are a horrible representative of your faith. Horrible.
Aron Ra didn’t display intelligence here, he displayed anger and arrogance. Eric was cool and calm the whole time. He also made the point that science is only valid if it has a valid philosophical basis. Eric therefore used philosophy to undermine Aron’s arguments. Aron couldn’t handle it and kept losing it.
Eric, you believe in something that cannot be demonstrated to exist. This is different than faith(trust) where you can point to actual facts to support that trust. Your faith is just hope. You hope that the Bible is correct because it makes you feel good and allows you to pass off your personal preference as coming not from you, but from some superior being. You can call it whatever word you want, but don’t expect us to take it seriously.
AronRa is confusing. He said that faith is not based on evidence. He defines evidence as scientific evidence. Then, he said faith is not based on empirical evidence. Make up your mind on what you mean about evidence. Empirical and scientific evidence are not the same. Scientific evidence is a type of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is observed or measured. Let's say Christianity is not based on empirical or scientific evidence, that doesn't mean it is not based on evidence. I bet AronRa believes every person in history existed, and there is no empirical evidence for their existence. There is no scientific research to say this specific person existed, and we didn't observe them ourselves.
AronRa is appealing to the idea of evidence as *that which is demonstrably supported* whether one uses the term empirical or scientific it is the same thing - SHOW a cause/effect linkage. If it is NOT base on some demonstrable facts about reality, then it is an assertion. The core issue being that IF we are appealing to imaginary notions, one can in fact claim ANYTHING given a sufficiently long chain of assertions. This is totally unacceptable to AronRa and others such as myself; and I would even dare say believers in general. The basic principle being that IF I want others to accept something, I must show that what I am claiming is reasonable. If another person cannot review what is being said, then they have no rational basis to accept what is being claimed. Considered the following two statements: A. John (a human) walked across the street. B. John (a human) teleport-ed across the street. Statement A is within the scope of what we understand of humans and thus an intrinsically acceptable statement whereas statement B is not rationally acceptable regardless of how many people made the claim. The issue being that until evidence of a human being able to teleport is shown, the claim is pragmatically false. The same issue plagues "supernatural" claims, "miracles", and more - they are claims which have not been shown to be an aspect of reality and therefore are irrational to accept. I will grant that a lack of evidence DOESN'T entail that a claim is actually false, but it does entail that a claim is pragmatically false (within the context of what we currently know). I grant all sorts of appeals to notions outside of what we know can be made just like the idea of Last Thursdayism. I should note that Last Thursdayism changed me from just leaning to pragmatism (any claim that cannot be shown to be true is considered false until such time the claim can be shown to be true) to be an outright pragmatist, since, the idea made it clear just how easy it is the accept imaginary notions when one's reasons departs for reality. It was also when I realized that the term possibility has at least two distinctly different notions; one within the context of what we know and the other outside of what we know. It is the later notion of possibility that I denote as an appeal to imagination which is where theological claims reside. Theological notions are a mother-load reality departures. Here's a short summary of pragmatically false claims of Christianity: 1. Virgins having kids 2. Demon possession 3. Noah's ark tale 4. Creation Account Each of the points listed is either completely unsubstantiated (we only have claims, but not a shred of evidence) or has evidence against the idea. It is NOT in the basis of the Bible that AronRa references faith as he does, but the parade of believers claiming unsubstantiated to false statements.
Empirical and Scientific, in the context of these statements and this argument, are synonyms. If you can prove/show something, then you "know" it. You don't need faith to believe it, because you have evidence. You know it because you have evidence, and knowing it means that you aren't using faith. When you DON'T have evidence for something, you DON'T know it... BUT... you can still BELIEVE it. If you are believing it without knowing it, that is faith. This is the difference between faith and knowledge. The absence of knowledge is the entire point of the word "faith" existing. Therefore, faith beliefs are never supported by evidence, because if you had evidence for that belief, you would know it.
Spidershoes No matter what the context is, the meaning of empirical doesn't change. Scientific evidence is not the only empirical evidence; scientific evidence a type of empirical evidence. Faith is confidence in something that is believed to be true. If you have confidence in something, that means there is a reason why you believe. If there is a reason, that means you some type of evidence led you to to have a strong belief. It is not sufficient evidence to say ”you know”, but it is enough to say ”you believe” beyond a reasonable doubt. Atheists agree with this statement because they are always asking theists evidence for their BELIEFS. If there is no empirical evidence, that doesn't mean there is no evidence. There are other evidences people can use to find the truth. As in my history example, there is no empirical evidence for the vast majority of people we learned in history, but we still say they lived. Since you believe the only evidence that is acceptable is scientific evidence, what scientific experiment proves that? If you only want scientific evidence to prove someone’s existence, what scientific evidence shows Thomas Jefferson existed and he was the one that wrote the Declaration of Independence?
Ra isn't looking for evidence, he wants absolute proof of God's existence. But even scientific evidence isn't even absolute, it's only tentative and contingent.
@@vtaylor21 I suppose Thomas Jefferson's bones could be reviewed. www.presidentsusa.net/jeffersongravesite.html But seriously, the issue isn't about what is rationally the case based on ACTUAL knowledge, but claims made wherein there is no knowledge of such being shown. We don't have evidence of people coming back from the dead, we have evidence of people being thought to be dead and weren't in fact dead. We don't have evidence of gods, we have evidence of people making up stories to explain reality and/or justify their position/claimants. Worse, the idea of God (non-contingent entity) is an impossibility based on what we observe.
Aron Hernandez displays an incredible lack of understanding of philosophy, science, debate, etc. Aron spends his entire time strawmanning Eric and sucking the air out of the room. Aron seems like he would be flummoxed by basic philosophical questions.
That literally makes no sense, that would make him a garbage debater, scientific knowledge much much better, that's why he wins and continue to win. He beat eric down without even trying
Just so you guys know, gentleness, patience and self control are just a few of the fruits of the spirit and whether you're religious or not, it doesn't take a genius to put it into practice. Other than it being a Christian Theological concept, it can have a practical aspect to it for a secular person as well, such as one practicing "Chi" control in Kung Fu. If you guys didn't notice, I was being being comical with this comment haha I mean "Atheist accepting Holy Spirit".. C'mon it's too obvious guys. Also whether you like it or not, presentation matters, especially for debate. Personally I thought he made some really good points here and wasn't too awful in how he presented himself, but from the others I've seen.. Yikes! (vs. Inspiring Philosophy has to be one of the worst) Not that it diminishes the weight of his arguments, but it wouldn't hurt to practice composure. Cheers ❤ P.S Here's one reference haha 1:09:56
@@azharsofjan9181 Exactly, what is spirit? And how does it work? Until you SHOW there is such a thing as spirit, your claim is on par with claiming that only the gentle have the guidance of pixies.
Hey Mr. Hernandez Is a syllogistic form of your argument for the soul available anywhere? I’m coming fresh from your discussion with David Smalley and I’d like to review the argument in its entirety at my own pace.
51:28 EH: "I don't know why you're putting so much emphasis on science as if it's the only domain or way to gain knowledge." AR: "Because I see it as such." Says quite a lot in just a few words.
Yeah stupid that’s the way knowledge works, you use the scientific method. If someone says they have a headache you can believe them but you will never actually know based on their testimony. Testimony alone is worthless
Yup! Every time Eric saw that Aaron could answer his silly question he interrupts and distracts with petty character attacks and bad arguments hahaha. Typical apologist. No wonder their religion is circling the drain
@@johnlovestosing04 how so? That was true. Eric interrupts to try to not let Aaron answer the question. This is something I see from many many apologists. So it's typical. I also think Christians who are honest with themselves can see that their guy is doing that and end up leaving after they look into why. So that explains the draining of the pews. What part was not true?
@@EricHernandez Lol I know, the words most calm and Aron Ra are rarely used in a sentence together haha. I just took a quick look at the comments of this video and I see a LOT of salty atheists. That's a testament to the fact you are doing great apologetics, when the atheists are this triggered you must be doing something right.
Alucard Ican if God isn't real why do atheist apologists need to speak about it? Or attack believers? If God can speak for himself, then surely the lack of God can speak for itself too. Perhaps no apologists on either side should speak about God or a lack of God. To answer your question directly, God doesn't need apologists to speak for him. But seeing as we are people, speaking to other people, in an ongoing debate/ discussion, it would be pretty one sided without religious apologists. If only atheists spoke on the matter, that is.
" so you want me to just believe you on faith?" Hahaha eric you just used the word faith exactly like aron says that people use it. You want to equivocate. You give one definition but then use the word in another way.
Aron said there is no proof for the soul. This shows a real lack in knowledge of the history of philosophy. Socrates proved that the soul exists and is immortal more than two thousand years ago! This proof that the soul is immortal is based on the idea that human beings form universal concepts. Socrates was challenging "Meno's Paradox" which was claiming that human beings can't learn anything (extreme skepticism). In other words, Socrates saved the notion that human beings can know and do science, and he did this based on the idea that the soul is immortal. The notion that the soul, also known as the mind, understands universal concepts by way of an immortal soul is the basis for all the scientific progress and discoveries that Western Civilization is known for!
@@sirsecular1277 I think you're joking. But just in case you're not, the major premise for Plato's theory of Recollection is based on the immortality of the soul.
@@philosophyteacher3852 1. Having a supposed premise and that premise being factually the case are NOT the same. 2. Scientific progress has been predicated on the idea of evidence (demonstrable cause/effect linkages) which allows for continuous advancement and correction as the data set of knowledge expands.
@@MyContext Nobody is arguing for a "supposed premise." Factually true premises are needed for a sound argument. The point I am making about science is that you must first believe that you can know something before you can do science. Socrates backed up the notion that human beings can know things for certain, and he did this based on the notion of universal ideas and the immortality of the soul. There are two sides in philosophy: One side thinks human beings know things for certain (Socrates, Aristotle, Aquinas); The other side thinks that we cannot know things for certain (most modern philosophers).
@@philosophyteacher3852 I will grant conceptual linkages as a form of knowledge, however, such is a different category from a review of reality. Thus, it seems we were talking past each other. Claims about reality are about what can be shown (the evidence - various cause/effect linkages observed). Thus, to KNOW things about reality requires observations about reality. I grant that humanity in general places a lot of trust with regard to what we are told and I will grant that acceptance is generally reasonable UNTIL a problem of some sort is found with regard to what is being presented. When I general talk about knowledge with respect to reality, I am actually talking about what can be shown to be the case such that whatever conceptual linkages gleaned will allow various extrapolations for an even broader view. So, with respect to the idea of a soul - *What evidence (demonstrable cause/effect linkage) shows such as an aspect of reality?* I would dare say nothing, but it would be best if you could show that I am incorrect in my assessment by providing evidence. I grant that something can be factually the case even if there is no evidence being shown, however, we can only rationally claim and make extrapolations predicated on what is shown in the context of reality, since, other appeals are a non-sequitur with respect to what can be rationally claimed of reality. [ There are two sides in philosophy: ] There is huge continuum of notions with regard to the idea of knowledge. It would seem that I fall under the category of pragmatism. I say category, since, it seems there is more than one "school" of thought in this camp.
....this was painful to watch. I felt your emotions in this one Eric. The more pissed off he got the more he felt the need to interrupt and go on rants and then have the audacity to say that you are the one doing exactly that. Pride is clearly the underlying issue with Aron. Nothing is wrong unless he says it’s wrong or unless some professor agrees with his bias that he is wrong. He’s really an insufferable person so props to you for going in the ring. Sounds like once things started going bad for him he retreated to the, “See?! You proved my point. There is no SCIENTIFIC data to prove your God. I win! you lose!” Once you started taking him down the path that science doesn’t have all the answers and relies on philosophy he started getting defensive and insisting that this MUST be a scientific thing because that’s all he knows. Well as arguably the smartest scientist, Einstein said, “The man of science is a poor philosopher.” That was just “scientifically” proven in this conversation.
Eric Hernandez I appreciate YOU. I called into one of those atheists things Sunday and didn’t realize just how hard it is to carry these kinds of conversations granted I was ill prepared and mostly called to ask questions not necessarily to argue so I can’t imagine what it’s like to actually defend arguments against someone like Aron.
Aron is very openminded person, try to listen more to what he says and less what you think he should say. And again stop slandering and proof your own side
@@theconservativechristian7308 I'm srry if you can't read your own words, How you speak about aron is not good. And not constructive to progress to thinking in anyway
I love how Eric could literally be read the definition of a theologian, shown that it says nothing about “scholarship” and then still argue that it does. That is being intellectually dishonest.
27:45 I love how he gave proof of the metaphysical when stating it`s mind over matter. How can mind over matter be true in his world? Apart from that, what an utter waste of time this debate was. Aron Ra`s mind is completely made up, and nothing anyone will ever say will change it.
Evidence will change it. That's the problem. Creationists do not provide any evidence. They never develop a testable hypothesis. They never make new discoveries.
@@Chomper750 Are you Aron Ra in disguise? There are the various arguments for God's existence. I'm quite sure you're aware of them. They are evidences of the necessity of a supernatural being. No matter how you slice it, they are. You may not like that, but they won't go away, because they're true. What they are not is the scientific method, ie, that which is used to explain the physical world, or how it works to a certain extent. But as Eric rightly explained, this is where atheist make a category error. I'm not even sure it is an error any more on the part of the atheist, but a disingenuous attempt to avoid the issue at hand, and that is the various arguments for God's existence. Apart from that, Jesus Christ is the best evidence there is. His life, his teachings, his miracles, and his death and resurrection, recorded down in history for all future generations to know. And yes, the Bible is an historical book, like it or not. To argue it's not is disingenuous and an atheist bias. Furthermore, there were those who were witnesses to the risen Lord, and they were willing to die for that belief. That's not something any liar is willing to do, die for his lie. You have to take many things into account besides 'show me God in a bloody science book'. That is limiting and constricting other forms of evidence in an attempt to not have to consider the reality of God and remain in what in all reality is an intellectual safe space. I promise you, you cannot hide in it forever and one day the biggest test of YOUR faith, that God does not exist will be put to the ultimate test when you're gasping out your last. I hope you open your mind before that day comes.
@Jesus is God You have no proof god ever said any of that. You have words written by superstitious bronze age men. But in response to Romans.. how about Matthew 5:22 "22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e]you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[h]of fire. "
@Jesus is God Oh wow, using the Bible to prove the Bible? that's cringe-worthy man, I might as well use the Bhagavad Gita to prove the Bhagavad Gita and believe in those blue gods with elephants heads just like you do with the Bible, it's stupid man, stop.
Eric Hernandez, my brother. Why did you go down in flames in this debate? You seem to be very well read, yet understudied. You have the best attempted bob and weave game I've seen in years. Restating over and over to someone that they are going in circles, or some other verbal tool of diversion gets you no closer to understanding or to a point than the person with whom your talking to. Listen and Silent are spelled with the same letters. Also trying to understand instead of being understood would help you in further attempts to gain better understanding and wisdom about your beliefs and what others are. My best wishes to you and your journey. ✊
@@EricHernandez its really irrevelvant whom invited whom, when the understanding and the attaining of knowledge from the flip side of the coin is the primary focus and goal. If I was put into a situation in which i had been questioned upon my belief structure, and invited to share upon mine, then even in the face of resilience and disagreement, (which would be EXPECTED, of course ) I would have to seemingly force myself to a place of mind where i can learn, regardless of the brashness and ambiguity of the other person(s) invovled, alley for MY SAKE, and MY EMBETTERMENT. That is what I was stating. That you seem like a very well read individual yet understudied, and that i support you but that this video HAD very potential to be educational and informational, but it was lost through alot of quibble over spilled milk, of i may be blunt... And also...I really appreciate you commenting me back, that really shows alot about your character as a man and for what you believe in.
Man that's what I thought, too. The guy kept trying to paint Mr. Ra into some kinda definition corner. I wish Eric would have tried to argue on the merit of his position instead.
How awful! I really tried to be charitable but this is too much... how can I explain Aron Ra's poor performance?! It has to be low IQ or some kind of fanaticism beyond human understanding!
BananaJunior11 What you just said is much closer to an actual argument than what Aron said. His assertion is that brain activity is the same as mental activity in all cases. This is clearly true in some cases, or at least appears to be based on what we can observe, but not all cases. The Christian perspective is that mental activity is seated in the brain but doesn't have to remain seated there (as in an out of body experience) and can exist separately from a brain (after death). Neither of those can be disproven scientifically, so to say they have been is an assertion.
BananaJunior11 How precisely do you suggest we scientifically prove such a thing? You seem to think that something isn't true if it can't be scientifically verified, but that is begging the question since that is the topic of the debate. It is not a fallacy to say you should prove it if you assert it. You can't scientifically prove that the mind is just brain output.
hawkxlr Enlighten me on this "hull hypothesis." Do you mean null hypothesis? If you just had typo: what correlation do you propose to use to show that God is unlikely to exist? I see a universe that began to exist as a pretty basic fact which would be fully explained by an omnipotent supernatural being. Is the fact of the big bang allowed as evidence in your proposed model? A physical process which caused the universe to exist would need a separate explanation for its existence, back to the first cause, and thus is a more complex and less likely explanation.
@@Levi-rl3fu Yeah, twas a typo. If we do apply the null hypothesis, the onus wouldn't be on me to disprove your God hypothesis in regards to the origin of the universe. That onus is on you
Aron has shown painfully obvious he’s never touched a Bible nor read the New Testament, or else he would quickly recognize his mistake when during the many stories in the NT, Jesus is often confronted by religious folks who REFUSE to believe in anything with EVIDENCE shown right in front of them! Matthew 16:3, “the Pharisees and sadducees came to Jesus and TESTED him by asking him to show them a SIGN from heaven.” This doesn’t sound like a superstitious people that believe in anything without examination, testing, and empirical evidence shown before them, and Jesus shows them just that!
This is ludicrous. If you knew just a bit of ra's content, you'd know that he in fact knows a lot about it. You can dislike them all you want, but that kind of person (ra, dillahunty and the sort) very often know more about the texts than their opponents. And that's logical, those texts are very easy to interpret one way or another, so they provide with lots of potential points for their arguments)
But that's not proof of anything other than a story being written down. Your claiming that a book of myth confirms its veracity by its existence. It's a circular argument.
The way I see it, even if one were to grant Jones' point about the scholarly definition of faith, the very definition that he sites also backs Ra's claim. Faith as a response to revelation is still not empirical. If someone has a vision from a deity, the occurrence of that vision does not inherently make the contents of that vision true or useful.
Royalwolf 7 but they weren’t debating whether the beliefs were useful or true, they were arguing over whether faith in the biblical context was blind. Clearly seeing things is, in the mind of the believer, a clear sign of evidence.
Oh my goodness! I hate to sound unchristian, but Ra won't shut up long enough for Eric to even respond properly. The easiest way to know that your opponent has no intellectual integrity, epistemological grounding or even common sense understanding is when they literally will not allow you a chance to speak for yourself concerning the very things in which they accuse you of believing. Watching this made my head hurt. It was as if Ra was simply debating in a mirror because he wasn't even trying to hear you all he heard was the resounding noise of his own wisdom and understanding. His Pomp and arrogance was so loud he couldn't have heard the truth if you were yelling at him with a Bullhorn in front of his face.
I'll bet you sound unchristian all the time. Every single fucking one of you is a hypocritical piece of fucking shit. Especially the ugly, greasy, dweeby, Ben Shapiro clone.
" His Pomp and arrogance was so loud he couldn't have heard the truth if you were yelling at him with a Bullhorn in front of his face." that was beautiful.
@@luigirossi835 You know what? I do sound "un-christian" at times. It's called being human and having a "fallen" nature. But thanks be to God the Father and to the Lord Jesus Christ in whom all blessings flow, for saving me, forgiving me and creating in me a "new nature", for I am a "new creation" in Christ Jesus. I say all that to acknowledge that I am a flawed human and I fail many times at living up to the standard and example of Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah. As such, I can freely and unashamedly call myself out for and accept criticism for being a hypocrite at times in my speech and in my actions. I well know that I can not, of myself, live out Christ's example. But glory be to God in the highest for His Spirit that is in me, transforming me into the image of His Son and my Lord. Each day I am further away from who and what I was and closer to who and what I will become in Christ. What's your excuse for being hysterical? And what is your standard by which you can judge anything hypocritical while at the same time denying your own hypocrisy? Your language betrays you. You say we are "all" hypocrites and yet you site no examples or make a coherent or cogent argument for your assertion but rather you use foul, profane language and name calling in order to somehow hammer home a point that seems at best irrelevant to the topic at hand. Ad hominem attacks are the sign of the intellectually dishonest and those who refuse to reason. May God bless you and protect you and bring you to the knowledge and salvation of Jesus Christ.
@@luigirossi835 like I said, ad hominem attacks and name calling is a sign of a weak argument and a weak mind. Please, take a moment, gather your thoughts and try to be cogent, poignant and polite. If you disagree with me or anyone for that matter, use logic and reason to make you case and do so respectfully. We may disagree but that doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. You sound like the ignorant bully in high school who picks on the nerds because they make him feel inferior and self conscious about his lack knowledge. Don't be that guy, you're better than that. I believe in you! May God richly bless you my friend.
@@DonMan81 You hilariously think that your comments are considered and intelligent. They aren't. They are cliched, banal, unimaginative and fucking boring.
Aaron Ra's personality is so abrasively arrogant that I have a hard time watching him. By contrast, Eric Hernandez's personality has an almost artistic combination of arrogance and ignorance. These two are like moonshine and champagne.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
If you have not seen my original video of Aron they started this whole thing, here it is: th-cam.com/video/tw6h0XjI-aQ/w-d-xo.html
How about FORGIVING him for making you cry? How about TURNING THE OTHER CHEEK? Didn't think you could, you hypocritical, greasy little dweeb!
@@luigirossi835 love how atheists try to educate Christians on the bible teachings when they never really read it completely and studied it fully. And don't believe in it. It's like me trying to educate a mechanic on fixing cars because i heard a few things from youtube videos and remembered a couple things :).
we are also called to defend the faith. but you would know that if you actually know what the bible teaches. but no, you just use the commonly known verses you've heard from others.
Also who says he didn't forgive him? didn't know you can read Eric's mind.
@@phytoplankton2281 He's just a fat little dweeb with no evidence for his bullshit.
Weve seen it. You got nowhere. He answered your questions repeatedly. All you did was go in a circle
@@powerdrunk6818 - I agree fully. And another good example is someone with no science background trying to educate a biologist because they heard something on a creationist site once.
I lost count of the amount of times the Christian interrupted, talked over and derailed the discussion while accusing his opponent of doing exactly that.
Lol
You can be respectful and at least use his name...
What the heck man. Eric, seriously, I can see why Aron was getting pissed. You ask circular questions, you go round and round about nothing and didn't present any evidence for the soul. Let me look at the comments, lets see how others felt.
@roasted pancakes There is no timestamp, since, Eric didn't present any evidence for a soul.
@@MyContext And again. Empirical evidence for an intangible something. It does not matter that information cannot be defined under these conditions.
@@gaborjuracsik4847
No empirical evidence, no basis by which to consider a claim of existence.
@@MyContext Sorry, but that doesn't make sense of what you wrote. You have not provided empirical evidence that what you post makes sense.
@@gaborjuracsik4847
Are ypu daft? The demand for empirical evidence is about providing a rational basis for the acceptance of a claim with regard to reality..
Hearing Eric get mad about Aron Ra interrupting him is priceless. At least Aron Ra waits until he has a point of clarification to interrupt. Eric starts interrupting the second Aron opens his mouth every single time Aron opens his mouth.
Perhaps, but Aron doesn’t answer questions. He thinks he does, because he doesn’t even comprehend the question; or he just argues over things he is completely wrong about despite being corrected by theists and atheists numerous times.
@TheMindIlluminated Except Aron admits when he's wrong. I've seen that numerous times. The problem is that Christians don't like the answer and have to keep siding or repeating the question until they get answer they want to hear, not the one they need to hear
This was embarrassing for aronra. Dude is inept when it comes to philosophy 😅
Find a single point in this video where Eric speaks for just 5 seconds without getting cut off. You can't cause Ra interrupts everything. He's so childish!
@@TheMindIlluminated I believe you are confusing Kent Hovind with Aron, Aron is quite possibly the only honest person in any religious debates and he is the most calculated with the most and best understanding of modern science.
Why did you upload this? Lol. Makes you look really bad.
Was thinking the exact same thing. This guy is the worst lol
Eric is smug
@Joseph because Eric keeps misrepresenting Aaron. His belief in souls originates from his religion which ORIGINATED in the bible.
If the bible NEVER mentioned an afterlife there would be NO soul belief.
How hard is this to understand?
Eric's entire strategy is (1) claim the other person doesn't understand just about everything, (2) he whines that people need to discuss HIs beliefs only, (3) using subtle and condescending whining under his breath. He does this with nearly every debate/discussion he uploads. Eric is horrible. There's a reason why his FB account has only 3400 followers on FB.
@Joseph jackass. Thats what its called. Its being a jackass, like you.
Is like he is purposely trying not to answer very simple questions and instead goes off on incoherent rants. It is a simple question... can you force yourself to believe something, don't talk about what other people have claimed. Can YOU force yourself to believe something that is false?
We can't "force" ourselves, but we can "convince" ourselves. We do it all the time.
InspiringPhilosophy it was almost impressive...
@@jockyoung4491,
The question is "force" not "convince"!
Regardless, other than atheism, what false belief have you "convinced" yourself of lately?
Par for the course for Aron.
"Ra" is the Hebrew word for "evil" by the way
Eric keeps saying, "What do I believe?" "That's not what I believe?"
"Do you want to know what I believe?" Over and over and never says it. Just say what you believe!
Aaron’s didn’t give him much chance to tho
@@BrianLovesBeans What? Eric is definitely a guy that can stand up for himself. AT ANY TIME he could have just said, this is what I believe. I kept waiting. Just say it dude.
@@joecheffo5942 it seemed his point with all these comments to is that Aron just keep stating what Eric believed, telling Eric what he believed, instead of asking and having a discussion about it. Aron was putting words in his mouth instead of having an honest debate or discussion about it. That was pretty obvious. Eric could barely finish a single sentence in this exchange let alone give a full explanation without Aaron jumping in. Anyways
@@BrianLovesBeans In like two hours he cant talk? So why did he stay and be disrespected?
I saw him do this in different debates. I know you want souls yo exist because having people tortured gorber gives you a hard on, I guess you will have to find another hero. Or you can understand that the idea of a soull snd hell are pagan concepts. The Kindom to
come is a bodily resurrection on Earth. Thats what Jews in Jesus time thought.
@@joecheffo5942 lol now you’re doing the same thing Aron did, telling the individual you’re engaged with what they believe instead of as asking or encouraging meaningful dialogue. I don’t believe in a soul, I don’t agree with Eric’s position or syllogistic arguments for it given in other videos/debates, I disagree with his world view and feel his arguments for the soul are primarily just assertions, he nor any god if that’s what you meant is not my hero, I am not religious but rather extremely anti-theistic.
My point is that Aron’s conduct did not encourage meaningful or respectful dialogue between individuals. He wasn’t engaged in honest debate or open exchange of ideas but rather just seemed to flex his self proclaimed superiority over Eric.
I will not read any further replies from you so know that if you choose to respond it won’t be me who’ll be reading it. Enjoy your purposeless, completely devoid of inherent meaning, and absurd existence internet stranger; I’ll be doing the same…this little exchange has made clear value in life won’t come from engaging with interlocutors like yourself. HAIL SATAN!
Eric: Is the soul physical or not?
Aron: Starts to give his opinion on the soul.
Eric: Nope. Try again. You're making assertions.
Dude, you asked a question and he's trying to answer you. If you want to know his opinion on the soul let him answer.
I give Aron a lot of credit for his Christlike patience here, especially given how many times he has to walk through very basic things and get interrupted just trying to answer or elaborate.
Christlike 😂 that's insulting to genuinely honest and non social adherence to pleading to piety. Many, many are far greater in patience than Je...
@@madra000What do you mean?
It's nice to see that you uploaded this. Despite getting your ass handed to you on a plate, you didn't shy away from people seeing it. Got to give you credit for that at least.
Lol thanks I suppose! I'll take the credit!
imsporticus1 How so?! By being intellectually dishonest, using circular reasoning and perpetually talking over the other person?! Yes, if you like this, then AronRa is your guy.
@@johnlovestosing04 obviously ur not very smart. Everything aron said was true demonstrable facts backed by science logic and reason and even Erics own book of fairy tales. while Eric was talking in circles, went off topic to every subject but the topic, threw out wild baseless assertions, cudnt comprehend any words coming out of arons mouth and doesn't even understand his own faith better than an anti thiest yet accused him of being the dishonest one, going off topic and making false assertions yet they were all backed by scientific evidence. Clearly eric doesn't understand shit about science nor his own religion and even had the audacity to imply aron was an "incredibly stupid person". This was laughably painful for Eric and even a Christian wud agree, but since people of faith are the most dishonest people there are can't admit when wrong or when their position was successfully challenged, again. They aren't honest with themselves obviously they aren't gonna be honest with others.
@@johnlovestosing04 not to mention the soul is physically impossible and wud require that quantum field theory is fundamentally flawed and incorrect all around yet it's not. Just look up Sean carroll paper on why the soul cannot exist based on everything we know about physics and ull understand why it's just as ridiculous as believing the moon is made of green cheese. He actually shows how the electron equation of QFT directly disproves any notion of a "soul" of any form.
Mark Money No sir. I don’t do the internet bravery thing, because I’m quite certain you wouldn’t speak that way to me in person. I’m also not into internet trolling pointlessly hurling insults at people I don’t know. Aron Ra is probably the internet atheists I have the least respect for so please don’t try to defend him. I like Matt Dillahunty a lot more because he’s reasonable and mostly respectful to the people he’s having dialogue with. It’s obvious that you’re not capable to have a civil discussion so I’m not taking any more of my time.
Bottom line, it's Eric who is selling the product.
honest conversations and christian apologists go together like peanut butter and ketchup
Nailed it
@@thegentlymad5769 so tell me, why does god kill babies?
@@thegentlymad5769 thank you for your answer.
How do you know the babies are resurrected? And why would these babies want to live with god after that being killed them?
I also like how how you told me what my position was on abortion. I havent put much thought to the issue. I dont plan on having kids and it's not my body getting pregnant.
Like Fish-Heads and Ice Cream.
@@thegentlymad5769 I hadn't put much thought into the abortion issue and then I explained why.
I dont know if god is real, but im assuming you do so that is why I wanted to know how you know of anything that he does. And that is what my follow up question represented. How do you know he ressurescts babies? Have you seen it happen? Did he tell you? So far you have just asserted he does.
Though it was a disgusting answer, kudos to you for answering my first question. It was to set up to see if you would answer it honestly.
Eric: *asks a question*
Aron: *starts to answer*
Eric: "You're interrupting me again"
I just want to be clear Aron did at some points interrupt but this ^ did happen though. Like I hate to be an ass but I'm like 55 minutes in and genuinely all you're doing Eric is claiming the moral high ground. This is something a lot of people do because they think this gives them an upper hand in a debate but it doesnt. It's also counter productive because it doesn't allow the debate to happen
I think last I counted Aron interrupted about 220 times
@@EricHernandez (edit) i cant believe you really counted tho for real
you miss my point "Youre interrupting" is not an argument. Having the morale High ground is also not an argument i recognize that aron did Interrupt at some points and perhaps there should have been a moderator but there were things you genuinely didnt understand and i think still dont. For example the soul thing. asking what You in particular believe isnt necessary nor is it relevant. What Aron was trying to say in so many words was that Eric Hernandez didnt invent the concept of a soul so whatever your interpretation of what a soul is doesnt matter its still based on the original concept that was Rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of the way the world works.
@@lostgamingnexus6950 God bless you. I hope that one day you could drop your bias and face life with honesty and not hiding behind empty phylosophies.
Eric is not listening in this discussion. He repeatedly insists upon a definition which Aron uses - accurately or otherwise - and is unwilling to come to understand Aron's real vocabulary whenever Aron attempts to clarify what he means. This as a classic example of waiting for your turn to speak rather than listening. Could have railroaded the first half hour of talking by simply listening to what the other person is saying.
Hey Hernandez? Stop whining whenever Aron isn't answering you the way you want him to answer you. It's embarrassing.
Your comment is embarrassing lol.
@@EricHernandez *" I know you are but what am III ?! "* Aww buddy...
Lol
Eric Hernandez Your comebacks are basically “no u” lol that’s even more embarrassing.
@@kyled1673 Lol. You're underneath this comment too. It's good that you also recognize that this guy is a joke.
You Eric, are a blockhead. Did you re-watch this and notice how often you were a hypocrite and interrupted Aron.
k.
@@EricHernandez "k" is the best argument I've heard you make. Even in this video.
@@threefought1949 so true lol
Eric is sooooo arrogant, up himself and closed minded it would be a total waste of time trying to reason with him, his mother has been telling him for years that he is some sort of massia, totally brain washed. He is an embarrassment to Christianity
@@Irving3805 wait really? his mom told him he is the messiah?
Eric- How do you define evidently possible?
Aron- The possibility is supported by evidence.
Eric- No thats not what it means...
Are you serious ? to be Evident is to be supported by evidence.
To deny this definition is absurd.
Ik. Eric is irritating af
Eric Hernandez is a total blockhead, can't stand him, he is sooo far up his own arse
I just looked it up, and the definition says nothing about supporting evidence. Evident just means obvious, so evidently possible just means obviously possible. For example all 3 of you above me were evidently wrong about the definition of evidently.
@@jasonsimms8251 hahaha. What makes something obvious ? Evidence! Its literally in the word. Evident... Evidence.. if something is Evident then it's supported by the evidence. Genius. Saying something is obvious is just another way to say it's clear according to the evidence.
@@skepticallyskeptic you can tap dance all you want but what i gave you was the literal definition of the word.
*evident*
plain or obvious; clearly seen or understood.
"she ate the cookies with evident enjoyment"
synonyms:
obvious · apparent · noticeable · conspicuous · perceptible · perceivable · visible · observable ·
[more]
Keep up the good work Aron your are a lègend 👍👍
Exposing charlatans !!
Psst! This isn't his channel! You got the Christain channel!
LOL
PSST👋 hey dumb ass. He knows
Aaron ra is a joke lol.
@@andrewlailvaux1571 please explain
I wonder if Eric will ever realize what he sounds like, so hostile and way defensive and just trying to twist everything into personality statements.
If I were a Christian, I'd be very pissed at him for representing Christians that way.
The reason “you got nowhere” Aron is because people have to spend the first hour of every conversation with you literally explaining the most basic concepts in philosophy that you refuse to learn and pretend to understand. No idea how this Ra guy has any kind of following....
Me either... especially on these matters.
@@EricHernandez this dude is more educated in every aspect of life than you are. I mean you literally believe in a God. You're like 45 years old. You still believe in Santa too? You got destroyed by Dillahunty and then you got destroyed by Ra. Why don't you admit that you just can't prove the existence of a God, and if a god existed in the first place he would look down on people like you and say wow, this guy is complete dogshit at debates and I'm going to just prove I exists to everyone. But he can't do that because he doesn't exist. And if he does exist he is an immortal scumbag piece of shit that doesn't deserve a following. It's not our fault that your beliefs are stupid and outdated and you can't prove them or even show that it's logical to believe them. Science is slowly dismantling religion every year and while it's not going to go completely away in my lifetime there will be a time where Christianity as well as every other religion will be a mythology just like Zeus and all the other Greek gods. Watch me do a better job at being God than your stupid belief. One. Do not murder, two. Do not own other people as property. No slaves no Servitude no owning people as property. If you do it you're going to hell and the story. No rape. If you do you're going to hell. no genocide. Going to hell. Wearing mixed wearing mixed fabrics and Eating shellfish is totally fine. Do you see that? I already did a better job than your God. Now take your head out of your butt and open a science book.
(excuse grammar I'm driving and using talk to text.)
Because he doesn't care about philosophy, but imperical evidence and science are king.
Nailed it
Pip Venter interesting philosophical statement you just made. #philosophyisking
Hernandez isn’t intelligent or humble enough to have this conversation
Thanks
@@EricHernandez Thank YOU for proving my point remains strong
@@christianevans2956 you’re welcome.
How do you not understand what objectively verified means? He wasn't giving the definition of verify because he respected your intelligence enough to assume you know what it means to verify something objectively. . He was wrong to do so apparently.
Because he's appealing to empiricism. Duh.
@@EricHernandez he is appealing to empiricism? Which makes you have trouble with the words objectively and verify ?
@@EricHernandez How is it empiricism for Aron to assume you have an understanding of two relatively common words? Are you arguing that since we need to use our ears to hear language that it's empiricism?
@@EricHernandez you are typical dodging Christian.
Objectively verified? You don't know what it means. Smh dishonest.
I am arguing with another theists and I asked for a demonstration or evidence of this god.
His response? What do u mean by demonstration or evidence?!?
@@EricHernandez You totally got owned, and I'm a theist. Cant defend a false Religion that think a man is a god LoL stop worshiping your Antichrist LoL
Your best advice here is “don’t listen to what any believer tells you”
Hahaha!! Agreed.
Idiots
Yep love it when Christians inadvertently discredit the entire Bible.
It's almost like Aron Ra is taking to a wall because everything eric is saying is going over his head
Almost except you mixed the names up.
Eric, you are correct - believing the universe had a beginning is not a religious belief
He explained to you five times what objectively verifiable means. You chose not to accept that premise or you're cognitive dissonance just wouldn't let you. I 'believe' the latter to be true.
He explained what it means to be objective, which everyone should already know, and the says it’s verifiable if we can verify it. No. He didn’t explain it five times. He repeated himself circularly five times.
@@EricHernandez so he did explain himself you just said so ffs, man you need to make up your mind. Oh btw you spelled then "the" so first of all go back to school asap you backwards fool.
@@EricHernandez wouldn’t saying “it’s verifiable if we can verify it” a question begging fallacy on his part? I can’t believe Aron has any people that still take him seriously, the guy is really dumb. Just because he happens to be somewhat eloquent and has a good memory with Biology doesn’t mean he’s at all worth listening to. I have seen plenty of other atheists try to explain just merely BASIC philosophical things to him and point out why his reasoning is bad, and he either refuses to understand or just genuinely has no idea. His ego forced him to argue no matter what.
A study in how a religious person tries his hardest to avoid the point.
How did he try his hardest ? He didn’t even try at all. He was just trying to get some common ground first but couldn’t because Aron was going all over the place.
@@mtchll306 no aron was trying to answer circular questions from eric who only wants to avoid any actual questions that not only challenge his beliefs but show how intellectually devoid the whole belief system is
tbosley314 Aron was the one that demonstrated he has no clue what philosophy is.
@Bigtombowski can you account for the god you believe in, without relying on god?
@Bigtombowski "curious use of the word rely"
You did ask "can you account for logic without relying on logic", so you're suspicious of your own argument.
You say I rely on god to breathe. I rely on my lungs and on the existence of breathable air. Can you demonstrate I need god to be able to breathe?
Also, please do the following. Copy your previous answer, but substitute every instance of the word "god" with one of the following: "very powerful unicorn named Tim", "a conglomerate of unierse creating pixies", "the leprechaun that lives at the edge of the universe", "the kurkolkfragens that live in the lakrisdeduttioningaretikar dimension".
You will realize you are doing nothing more than making up an entity that you claim is the answer. Any of the entities I mentioned above can substitute god in your assertions. Therefore you did not provide evidence nor did you demonstrate your case
Eric Hernandez: "Hmm, i don't have any arguments, so i guess i'll just be an obnoxious jerk, that should work."
Hey! I did have arguments 🙃
@@EricHernandez well, you don't have any useful argument. I think an almighty all knowing God could do better if He wanted to be known. I would do better if I were Him. I wouldn't try to make myself known by obscure ancient books from a time when proper reasoning and consideration of adequate evidence were so infrequent. Suppose you're God. You create people. You want people to love you. To do so they would have to know you first. Is "the Bible" the way you would go about it? Would a compilation of contradictory fairy tale books be your best effort? Wouldn't you know exactly what it takes to convice every one and wouldn't you do just that instead of playing hide and seek and have humanity arguing about who you really are or if you even exist?
You're just human. You fear death. You don't want to die. You want to live forever. There is a narrative held by many people in your country that grants you just that so you embrace it. Had you been born in Iran, you would be a muslim.
Eric, no you didn’t. You acted like a child and complete missed the point on just about everything.
@@jaredm2988 exactly. He didn't have any good arguments so he made it all about not really listening what Aron had to say but trying to "catch" him instead, no matter what. And that's one of the best ways to not have a conversation. Good job Eric, you did it.
@@EricHernandez What arguments?
"Is pain physical?"
The answer should be:
"Do you know what a painkiller is?"
That’s a terrible response outside of being a joke.
@@TheMindIlluminated its not only a joke but self explanatory, if pain was not physical, none of the simple molecules in painkillers would work on us. you have to ignore entirety of neuroscience to think that pain is not physical and eric obviously does
@@erneststyczen7071 yeah, the firing of the neurons that cause pain are obviously physical, but aren’t there other traits we would associate with pain? If so, where do they come from and how do we distinguish the two? On and on the questions could go. That’s why the pain killer thing doesn’t address anything. Are the neurons identical to the pain, for example? It’s just not a sufficient response regardless of the position.
@@TheMindIlluminated you mean nerve impulses and psychological pain? all of this is very well understood by neuroscientists who study this for a living. from a scientists' perspective neither you or i know even the basics
@@TheMindIlluminated
So, basically what you're saying is that the question "Is pain physical?" is a lazy formulated question that you can now use to shift the goal posts with and side track to a completely different topic (but not really...), and get your ass handed to you a different way.....
Got it.
nitwit
Eric stop trying to make Aron look bad. Try listing to what he is saying before you interrupt him. Your making yourself look like a fool!
What are you trying to find out Eric? You're questions are pointless and worthless. And you don't want to hear the answers.
Fossil Fish Leg what are YOU trying to find out? Your comment is pointless and worthless. And you don’t want to hear the answers... See how that did nothing for you? Yea... same here.
@@EricHernandez He's trying to inform you that you made a fool of yourself, and wasted everyone's time.
I’m so glad that you called him out for trying to _(tell)_ you what you believe instead of trying to _(determine)_ what you believe!
The second Aron tried to say that the Bible and the Quran both teach that faith means _”you believe or else”_ I knew that he wasn’t going to be doing anything of meaningful scholarly value.
I’d also like to see someone like Dr. James White give this man a thorough schooling on the biblical languages, definitions, and what constitutes proper research!
Thank you! And I'd love to see that myself!
@ Eric Hernandez
You thoroughly cleaned this mans clock! It was embarrassing for him.
I'm happy you posted this Eric, shows how much you don't know what your talking about. Good to know who's rational and who isn't
Aran Ra: “I haven’t been wrong yet”.
My thoughts: “Can you scientifically prove it?!”
Boom! Nice
@@EricHernandez You're just so sad Eric.
See that's the thing he can
If I want to destroy Christianity I will employ Eric as an Apologist !
If I want to expose the idiocy of youtube atheists, I''ll employ this comment as an example!
@@EricHernandez lol do you stay up late looking at old comments on old videos and come up with shitty come backs? Does it keep you up at night? Get out of the comments. Arguing with people in the comments of your own debate or discussion makes you look even worse. You clearly lost here. It shows. The likes to dislike ratio says it. The constant back and forth with random comments also says it.
@@skepticallyskeptic No. I look at these comments usually while I'm on the toilet, which seems fitting. Take your comment for example...
smh, an hours worth of the semantics here over this word could have frustratingly been resolved in less than 5 mins. Definitions from the dictionary are descriptive and NOT prescriptive. The root of “faith” is totally irrelevant because the use of words change every single day.
The label “atheist” is what Christians were originally called by the Romans. Using your logic this means Christians should go back to being called “atheist” since it’s where the label originated.
Lastly, why would an all knowing, all powerful, “God” with perfect sight of the future give his ppl a book in a language that he knew would die out and cause this much confusion over his supposedly “perfect” book. Even his own believers can’t come to an agreement on this word or scripture. The Bible says “God isn’t the author of confusion”. if so he’s doing a really shitty job of it.
Infinite Fantasy first of all Christians were initially called “followers of the way” not atheists. Secondly if the Bible is so hard to interpret and the language has supposedly died out then why are the definitions of these Greek words so easily accessible? Why do all Christian apologists know it? Why does the Bible make it the meaning clear? Why is Christianity so prevalent in the world? Why do atheists completely ignore any proof to the contrary? You claim God is dumb but can’t even see your own logical absurdities that goes for Aron too. Case in point, the root of the word faith cannot be irrelevant if that was the case then the entire English language would be irrelevant because our language has root words and they all have meaning and come from other older, some dead languages. Without our root meanings we would have no English language.
Forgiven the Greek words ARENT accessible which is why you have to be a scholar in modern day to understand it clearly which is why this is even a debate in the first place. You can TH-cam debates between apologist like Matt Slick where they debate other theist apologist on the biblical definition of this word and scriptures. There’s over 3000 Christians denominations where they all disagree with the next because this book is an incoherent mess.
Lastly, the amount of followers something has is irrelevant. You’re making an argument from ad-populum.
@@forgiven1683 you didn't address the point. And why the fuck have all you religious lunatics got TH-cam names like Forgiven or the truth or the word, what in the fuck does that even mean like lol, you ppl are your own worst enemy. 🤪
@@infinitefantasy5277 i too was about to say he's making an ad-populum argument, these ppl have to answer a lot of thing's but never do. Believing without evidence is the definition of faith. This Eric guy is beyond help.
Paul Brown why would an all powerful, all knowing“god” give them such shitty arguments to prove he exist lol?
@31:18 Eric says to Aron in response to him answering a question "you say one thing and keep going" to me, that's just answering a question in words other than a simple "yes" or "no." Eric appears to insist on yes or no answers and tries to interrupt when that doesn't happen. Still watching...
It's because Aron's answers are confusing and Eric keeps asking for a straight answer. Eric was trying to point out that paying someone to believe doesn't make them actually believe. Aron's answer to this should have just been no because it's clear no one offering him any kind of bribe is going to make him believe.
@@Levi-rl3fu "It's because Aron's answers are confusing and Eric"
i think a lot of things are confusing for eric.
omaga onion He wouldn't answer the question "if someone gave you a million dollars to believe, would that make you believe?" It seems like a simple question that should be answered by saying yes or no. Aron didn't do that, though, which raises questions about his motives and intentions. Eric didn't ask "could you believe?" or "has this situation ever occurred in history?" So why would Aron respond to those questions unless he didn't actually want to answer the question asked?
@@Levi-rl3fu just because Eric demands a yes or no answer, Aron does not have to comply to that. Also, using that is a typical tactic to control the conversation, not through logic in your arguments, but to dominate the other party. This is especially used by people who have no substance in their arguments. Aron seemingly won't have any of that and I don't think he should.
Edvin Löfgren Eric was trying to start with common ground to move on to another question while Aron was using obfuscation to avoid the implications of a firm response to the question. Asking for yes or no answers can be done for multiple reasons-certainly in these days where people are trying to trick their opponents into providing a sound bite to take out of context or mock. They can also be used in the case of an obvious common ground as the start of an honest discussion, but Aron definitely wasn't having any of that.
In normal conversation, answers are simply provided without any kind of forcing. In debates, the answers must be forced out at times because he opponent is trying to avoid the topic.
Go Aron😁👍Supernatural beliefs are being eroded daily, and hopefully religions will be rare within a couple of generations.
Hopefully comments like these will be eroded in a couple of generations
@@EricHernandez Well, in the past we all know what happened to them when they did? The religious rewarded them.. With death. Thankfully, we discarded that barbaric way of thinking!
@@EricHernandez ohh poor you. Seems like religions arr being eroded over subsequent generations. Ask Europe.
@@EricHernandez with apologetic like you publicly defending christianity, it is a matter of time before the bullshit beliefs end.
Less and less Christians every year. You guys HAVE to brainwash the YOUNG.
Trying to convert a THINKING ADULT is difficult.
@@ImKonaTV oh poor you. you will be too busy being stardust to even care.
Hernandez getting pummeled
Aron Ra - A 20+ year veteran being an apologist for atheism (a philosophical position) who, to this day, still has yet to even realize he's debating in the domain of philosophy. It's surreal.
Lol, well, you're not wrong!
I don't think it is a philosophical or scientific position as neither field recognises religion or any other supernatural phenomenon. I suspect 'apologist' is a religious term, not secular, is part of their [system] and not part of ours; I remember watching something explaining the origin of the word. Maybe this Minister could have a look at the history and etymology of his religion's term 'apologist,' or, simply look up the words in a dictionary, although I grasped as a young child that religion attaches special meaning to the secular words 'faith' and 'belief,' special in that it wholly unseats those essential words, undermining the self-same rationality with which it seeks to make false equivalence. Ultimately I do not think 'apologist' is, or should be, a general term meaning 'proponent, defender' etc as it means something totally different: in secular or rational terms it means a mendacious charlatan of the first order. Those of us who do not subscribe to a religion, that is, have no supernatural 'beliefs,' have no reason to invent a pseudo science, only to justify convictions we do not hold.
@hinteregions Any creator God is claimed to be a universal mind which all dependent facts ultimately derive from. That's a metaphysical category, which is philosophy.
Metaphysics = your theory for what exists, how it exists, what is real, etc.
Atheists almost always believe the metaphysical theory of Materialism (that the material is ALL that exists).
@@hinteregions Also, the term apologist simply refers to anyone who argues in support of a particular ideology. Aron Ra is an atheist apologist.
@hinteregions Based by the way you're writing, you seem to be deceived by what "religion" really means too. As atheists often do, you seem to be defining it as if it means "any theistic worldview" but does not apply to any non-theistic worldview.
That's not what the word "religion" means, but it's how pretty much all atheists seem to define it for some reason.
There isn't a single definition of the word "religion," anywhere, which specifies it required belief in God or applies only to theistic worldviews but not to non-theistic worldviews.
The term "religion" has no prescriptive definition that scholars agree upon... and is actually a completely meaningless term. Other cultures have no word to describe the same concept and it only exists in the West in modern times only.
If you replace the word "religion" with "worldview" (something everyone has) it fixes the problems you're having.
It'll also solve the Science VS Religion false dichotomy that atheists are all indoctrinated with too... because it wouldn't make any sense to say Science VS Worldview... since all empirical evidence can be interpreted through any worldview.
In fact, all empirical evidence is necessarily theory-laden like that. This is taught in any Philosophy of Science course.
Aron, you most certainly went on several rants. 😂😂😂. Dude, is so emotional and passive aggressive. He tries so hard to control himself, but he can’t because his skin is so thin. Sheesh Eric, how did you last 1hr 40min with this high level of emotions?
Matthew 17:21...
Because Eric never presented anything. He didn’t even make a case. If anything Eric did a wonderful job dodging the root problem with the issue of faith in the idea of believing in an imaginary God hypothesis. To which there was no empirical data for. And that was the whole point that U2 don’t seem to understand. Of course you’ll do this with the other God believes from other religions to which you are skeptical of you will use the same process. But want to comes to yours you were incredibly dishonest of that issue. ...
@@EricHernandez I was confused by you Eric. What was it you were trying to present? Because science is the only thing we can use to indentify anything that is unknown. Faith doesn't get us there. So why are you trying to argue on behalf of faith when faith doesn't get us to the initial question or the unknown
No, he simply reiterated the points Eric simply couldn't grasp.
Aron had to do it over and over again because Eric couldnt be honest.
@@markryan3018 Notice the little bitch has nothing to say for himself.
It's very ironic how many times you state "You're not tracking", lol.
You don’t agree with objectively verifiable?
Can’t show it’s true? Not true then. That’s it.
Nailed it
John McGuire not how epistemology works.
Nailed it
It doesn't work
Eric Hernandez it’s literally how it works. We realize what’s objective by showing it’s objective. Showing truth. Literally what that is.
Hi Eric. Please make a review video about this conversation plus make a compilation replay of his self contradictions just to prove with empirical evidence that this guy is a liar. Thanks mate!
I would say that if Jesus didn't rise from the dead then Ra would be correct that we are living and sharing a lie. Which is what the apostle Paul said. I understand Christians claim that we have evidence to support that the resurrection did happen but that's not the kind of evidence that Ra needs. On the other hand I don't think Ra can prove that we are lying unless he takes a deep dive and study the evidence of the resurrection. But with 20 years of experience he probably has. In my opinion I don't think its worth debating Ra about the definition of faith. I'm more intrigued with debates about the resurrection of Jesus because that's what Christianity hangs on.
Wow...this has been seriously exhausting and now I have a headache. 😨
Right
Yep. Trying to have a conversation with Ra is impossible. He interrupts and gives speeches.
@@SM-hn7sh he is not the problem...
I made it 3 minutes and 30 seconds into the video before I couldn’t take any more. This is excruciating.
Kyle Huitt Because of Eric, correct?
Yeah I’m just super averse to calm rationality. I much prefer raving lunacy.
@@k.williamhuitt1228 LOL!!! That last comment hurt my nose when I laughed at it.
Kyle Huitt You know which one Eric is, don’t you?
Eric Hernandez payback for what your video did to my brain ;)
This is goofy. Either there is evidence for "God" or there isn't. A book filled with errors is not evidence.
Eric was so hard to listen to
Well, this was painful. As a former atheist who was a strong follower of Ra for several years, he fell into his typical pitfalls, and kept talking past the guy he's talking to, and relying on emotion more than reason. Also, scientism is strong with this one. Contrary to the comments, you did well here Eric
Wow thank you that means a lot considering your background. And I agree ;)
Oooh! A former atheist! What changed your mind?
@@richardsteele1746hello fanatic.
One hour in and Eric has listened to nothing.
false.
Fact
This Eric dude is terrible. How can anyone stand to talk to him?
Awww
You can write a letter to Santa, priceless Aron .
Silly Aron.
**Aron Ra's beliefs are based on blind faith
P1. In order for Aron Ra to have beliefs not based on blind faith Aron Ra's beliefs must be able to be chosen by him on the basis of reason
P2. If Aron Ra's worldview (atheistic materialism) is true his beliefs are determined for him on the basis of the laws of physics
P3. Aron Ra is not able to choose his beliefs on the basis of reason
C. Aron Ra's beliefs are based on blind faith
Your reasoning is unsound. Why? It is due to a deterministic (cause/effect limkahe) state of affairs that we can make rational conclusions.
It is the reason that we are making progress with regard to AI systems.
Further, at every level of review we are a product and process of deterministic processes.
@@MyContext You say: Your reasoning is unsound. Why? It is due to a deterministic (cause/effect limkahe) state of affairs that we can make rational conclusions.
// Did you choose to hold this belief on the basis of reason or is it determined for you on the basis of the laws of physics..?
@@MidiwaveProductions
Reasoning is a deterministic process. Our cognitive capacities are based on a sufficiently intact brain which is also deterministic based on what we know.
The deterministic state of affairs is what allows the development of low level AI systems with later AI systems expected to exceed human capacities.
@@MyContext You say: Reasoning is a deterministic process.
// Did you choose to hold this belief on the basis of reason or is it determined for you on the basis of the laws of physics..?
P1 All cats are mammals
P2 I'm a mammal
C. Im a cat.
Validity doesn't equal truth
Hernandez you are not as clever as you think you are
Fox you are not as clever as you think you are
He’s an idiot who tries to sound witty and intelligent to make his points seem more solid.
It’s obvious, Aron is internally torn !! He needs the peace that surpasses all understanding!!
Yes he does
Why is Eric so dishonest and unable to listen to the explanations, especially when they are explained over and over and over and over again
He is a Christian apologist. "Christian Apologetics" is the defense of the Christian faith regardless of whether or not it reflects truth. So for Eric, the explanations just don't matter.
😂😂😂 good one!
Eric didn’t do an amazing job, but atheists lose repeatedly against more qualified theistic interlocutors. Aron is wrong about the basic definition of faith (pistis) and the passages he thought supported him were simply saying that faith is trusting in that which, although you cannot see it, is obviously true, by the things you can see. Jesus told John’s disciples to go and tell him what they had seen and heard. What John’s disciples were seeing and hearing confirmed Jesus’ identity as the Messiah of God. They saw him casting out demons, healing the sick, etc. and heard him preaching the good news of the gospel. . . things 1st century Jews expected to find the Messiah doing.
The argument that faith means "blind faith" is a red herring. Trust, faith is dependant upon evidence. Otherwise, it is merely presumption.
When we take Hebrews 11:1, for instance, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen," this is an example of how faith (trust ) can give us have confidence is things that are not seen, for the simple fact that evidence and experience have developed a relationship that allows us to trust, when there are things that cannot be discerned. That is, I trust God, because of the evidence and experience that I have had, for things that I cannot yet see. This is not blind faith.
Everyone exercises faith, in this sense, in some things. Aron Ra is trying to win an argument by redefining words.
Then simply present the evidence.
Thats all Aron is asking.
@@markryan3018 He is asking for empirical evidence. that is different than asking for evidence.
@@theodoreturner5567 He always said it must be empirical evidence.
Never claimed to say anything else.
@@markryan3018 He first said just "evidence" then later he refined it to "empirical evidence." How can you have empirical evidence for a being that is not part of nature? The evidence we have for God's existence is not "empirical".
@@theodoreturner5567 No, he did not.
He always asked for solid empirical evidence.
He restated this prerequisite over and over, from the very beginning.
If you would like to admit that there is no empirical evidence for gods, then we are all good.
Is that your final answer?
How could anyone who watched this think that Eric did a good job?
Eric didn’t have much chance to do a good job here. I’m not even a follower of his or a believer but Aaron really dominated the time and didn’t give him a chance to talk and when he did just instantly interrupted.
@BrianLovesBeans oh right. You must be talking about a different video because I'm talking about this video when Eric constantly talks over Aron and interrupts Aron and then lies and says it's him that is being interrupted because he knows he is being exposed as a closed minded, lying, ignoramus.
@@anti-duhringbattalion4801 that’s ridiculous and anyway who watches this without bias would not say that. Have a nice life internet stranger.
I could not stop laughing throughout this video...Aron is so deluded that everytime he kept screaming something like "I havent been wrong one time since we've started this and I havent made one single assertion" I could not help but start laughing. I even caught Eric laughing a couple times too...too funny!
At one point i had to pull my face away from the mic because of how I was laughing!
@BananaJunior11
Sounds like narcolepsy. You should probably see a doctor about that.
@@sethtipps7093 No, he should just stop listening to EH.
I laugh at adults who have imaginary friends.
@@luigirossi835
Me too, its like a creationist projection circle jerk in here.
Haha, this is just silly. This Eric guy is a joke.
This comment is a joke
Aron showed that his definition of faith was accurate which is what this whole talk was about. He repeatedly had to tell you that faith is not based on empirical evidence yet you continued to miss the point. Your subjective evidence is evidence for you and those willing to believe you on faith. Hence there is no evidence to back your claim. The end
But it depends on how you interpret the empirical evidence.
@@johncart07 the point is there is no empirical evidence to support the god claim. If I'm wrong then present it.
@@johncart07 even Eric admitted that there is no empirical evidence for a god so your comment is literally useless.
@@NapcitycellGaming What constitutes empirical evidence for God?
@@NapcitycellGaming There is empirical evidence of design, maybe not the designer per se. But it's a matter of logical necessity and ontological contingency. There are more ways to knowing than empiricism.
Screamingeagle1200 cant help himself but comment before even watching the entirety of the video.
Tristen Kidd This video is also on Aron’s channel.
Incredible, isn't it.
Braden Sorenson Oh I didn't know that but I doubt Screamingeagle1200 would have put down anything much different than what he did if the video was any different itself.
Tristen Kidd To be fair, Eric does fail very early into the video. He then continues to fail over and over again.
@@bradensorensen966 you misspelled Aron.
We all must admit that both Christians and Atheists are in an echo chamber. Look at the comments from Arons channel. It is incredible! I find it quite interesting that Atheist celebrate someone like Aron like one of their biggest champions. And they are full of pride and arrogance :)
We don't have to admit anything. You are trying to imply a false equivalence, which already plagues this kind of debates. Truth is, as long as someone is trying to put logic and evidence-based reasoning first, he'll always have my vote against snake oil sellers and proselytes talking about faith. Even if he's flawed like Ra is.
@@Rico-nj3vl Whatever.
Which it is why it is pointless to debate faith.
Ra says that the other person is doing the things that he himself is doing. He will not debate he talks over everybody. He can’t answer a simple question.
Exactly!
It's cute how hard this kid is trying!🤭
it sounds like Aron has a parakeet that repeats his name repeatedly in the background lol
Grace Through Faith I think so actually
@@PaulBrown-uj5le: Your rhetoric is typical of atheist assholes. Nelson has no credibility even amongst atheist scholars. Find a new guru.
historyforatheists.com/2019/08/aron-ra-gets-everything-wrong/
Eric - I REALLY don't believe that you comprehend your own arguments; given the fact that you vacillate your arguments often. You use arguments that have nothing to do with Aron Ra whatsoever (nor claims that he has made)...and you're fine with that when it benefits you. Aron Ra was more than capable of speaking in generalities to accommodate you and the viewer. But when he uses examples of theists arguments, you say (at 33:53) "But....you're talking to ME." Magically, the rules change in your head. You do this in many, many ways.
Secondly, using such a childish argument as 'the 20 years comments' is embarrassing. It shows the weakness in your tactic. When I was young, my mom taught me how to bake. I was still an amateur baker after 20 years. But back then, I could easily make the truthful statement - 'I've been baking for about 20 years.' After I was about 35 years old, I got REALLY into baking and started baking professionally for 20 years. I would still say - "I've been baking for 20 years.' Once, for 20 years as a novice and also for 20 years as a professional. Anyone trying to parse those comments to make them sound invalid is embarrassing. It's called a 'loser's limp.'
And finally, your continual eye-rolling and subtle/snarky comments under your breath during the exchange makes you appear immature, condescending, sanctimonious and egotistical. You are a horrible representative of your faith. Horrible.
I do not understand how Eric can get a platform anywhere ? He needs to study circles ! A 6year old child could reason better than him.
A six year old child can reason better than you.
See how these things don't get us anywhere?
Aron Ra didn’t display intelligence here, he displayed anger and arrogance. Eric was cool and calm the whole time. He also made the point that science is only valid if it has a valid philosophical basis. Eric therefore used philosophy to undermine Aron’s arguments. Aron couldn’t handle it and kept losing it.
Eric, you believe in something that cannot be demonstrated to exist. This is different than faith(trust) where you can point to actual facts to support that trust. Your faith is just hope. You hope that the Bible is correct because it makes you feel good and allows you to pass off your personal preference as coming not from you, but from some superior being. You can call it whatever word you want, but don’t expect us to take it seriously.
Nobody learns anything by watching this discussion! Moderator was really necessary!
Have you ever hear Aron ra on the radio with a moderator, lol it gets worse. He interrupts everyone.
@@tsapp2831
If you want to know what a sycophant is, look in the mirror.
Indeed, Aron already knows "gods-believers" don't want to listen and the" gods-believers" don't listen....
AronRa is confusing. He said that faith is not based on evidence. He defines evidence as scientific evidence. Then, he said faith is not based on empirical evidence.
Make up your mind on what you mean about evidence. Empirical and scientific evidence are not the same. Scientific evidence is a type of empirical evidence. Empirical evidence is observed or measured.
Let's say Christianity is not based on empirical or scientific evidence, that doesn't mean it is not based on evidence. I bet AronRa believes every person in history existed, and there is no empirical evidence for their existence. There is no scientific research to say this specific person existed, and we didn't observe them ourselves.
AronRa is appealing to the idea of evidence as *that which is demonstrably supported* whether one uses the term empirical or scientific it is the same thing - SHOW a cause/effect linkage.
If it is NOT base on some demonstrable facts about reality, then it is an assertion. The core issue being that IF we are appealing to imaginary notions, one can in fact claim ANYTHING given a sufficiently long chain of assertions. This is totally unacceptable to AronRa and others such as myself; and I would even dare say believers in general.
The basic principle being that IF I want others to accept something, I must show that what I am claiming is reasonable. If another person cannot review what is being said, then they have no rational basis to accept what is being claimed. Considered the following two statements:
A. John (a human) walked across the street.
B. John (a human) teleport-ed across the street.
Statement A is within the scope of what we understand of humans and thus an intrinsically acceptable statement whereas statement B is not rationally acceptable regardless of how many people made the claim. The issue being that until evidence of a human being able to teleport is shown, the claim is pragmatically false. The same issue plagues "supernatural" claims, "miracles", and more - they are claims which have not been shown to be an aspect of reality and therefore are irrational to accept.
I will grant that a lack of evidence DOESN'T entail that a claim is actually false, but it does entail that a claim is pragmatically false (within the context of what we currently know). I grant all sorts of appeals to notions outside of what we know can be made just like the idea of Last Thursdayism. I should note that Last Thursdayism changed me from just leaning to pragmatism (any claim that cannot be shown to be true is considered false until such time the claim can be shown to be true) to be an outright pragmatist, since, the idea made it clear just how easy it is the accept imaginary notions when one's reasons departs for reality. It was also when I realized that the term possibility has at least two distinctly different notions; one within the context of what we know and the other outside of what we know. It is the later notion of possibility that I denote as an appeal to imagination which is where theological claims reside.
Theological notions are a mother-load reality departures. Here's a short summary of pragmatically false claims of Christianity:
1. Virgins having kids
2. Demon possession
3. Noah's ark tale
4. Creation Account
Each of the points listed is either completely unsubstantiated (we only have claims, but not a shred of evidence) or has evidence against the idea. It is NOT in the basis of the Bible that AronRa references faith as he does, but the parade of believers claiming unsubstantiated to false statements.
Empirical and Scientific, in the context of these statements and this argument, are synonyms. If you can prove/show something, then you "know" it. You don't need faith to believe it, because you have evidence. You know it because you have evidence, and knowing it means that you aren't using faith.
When you DON'T have evidence for something, you DON'T know it... BUT... you can still BELIEVE it. If you are believing it without knowing it, that is faith. This is the difference between faith and knowledge. The absence of knowledge is the entire point of the word "faith" existing.
Therefore, faith beliefs are never supported by evidence, because if you had evidence for that belief, you would know it.
Spidershoes
No matter what the context is, the meaning of empirical doesn't change. Scientific evidence is not the only empirical evidence; scientific evidence a type of empirical evidence.
Faith is confidence in something that is believed to be true. If you have confidence in something, that means there is a reason why you believe. If there is a reason, that means you some type of evidence led you to to have a strong belief. It is not sufficient evidence to say ”you know”, but it is enough to say ”you believe” beyond a reasonable doubt. Atheists agree with this statement because they are always asking theists evidence for their BELIEFS.
If there is no empirical evidence, that doesn't mean there is no evidence. There are other evidences people can use to find the truth. As in my history example, there is no empirical evidence for the vast majority of people we learned in history, but we still say they lived.
Since you believe the only evidence that is acceptable is scientific evidence, what scientific experiment proves that?
If you only want scientific evidence to prove someone’s existence, what scientific evidence shows Thomas Jefferson existed and he was the one that wrote the Declaration of Independence?
Ra isn't looking for evidence, he wants absolute proof of God's existence. But even scientific evidence isn't even absolute, it's only tentative and contingent.
@@vtaylor21 I suppose Thomas Jefferson's bones could be reviewed.
www.presidentsusa.net/jeffersongravesite.html
But seriously, the issue isn't about what is rationally the case based on ACTUAL knowledge, but claims made wherein there is no knowledge of such being shown.
We don't have evidence of people coming back from the dead, we have evidence of people being thought to be dead and weren't in fact dead.
We don't have evidence of gods, we have evidence of people making up stories to explain reality and/or justify their position/claimants.
Worse, the idea of God (non-contingent entity) is an impossibility based on what we observe.
Glad Aron straightened him out.
Only 24 mins in and Eric's OWN comments has him backed into a corner. Let the tap dancing begin!🤣
Nope.
Yep
Thomas Willis often referred to as the father of neurology said the mind is a product of the brain in the 17th century ,lmao
Aron Hernandez displays an incredible lack of understanding of philosophy, science, debate, etc. Aron spends his entire time strawmanning Eric and sucking the air out of the room. Aron seems like he would be flummoxed by basic philosophical questions.
he does not seem to like philosophy but engages in it ALL the time. It's incredible.
Eric Hernandez and you seem incapable of understanding how logic and evidence even works
@@JAM609 demonstrate how.
I would ask Aron how he could use empiricism to prove that empirical evidence is a prerequisite for truth claims.
If only Aron accepted The Holy Spirit in his heart, he would be a much better debater
That literally makes no sense, that would make him a garbage debater, scientific knowledge much much better, that's why he wins and continue to win.
He beat eric down without even trying
An appeal to fiction doesn't improve one's capacities.
Just so you guys know, gentleness, patience and self control are just a few of the fruits of the spirit and whether you're religious or not, it doesn't take a genius to put it into practice. Other than it being a Christian Theological concept, it can have a practical aspect to it for a secular person as well, such as one practicing "Chi" control in Kung Fu. If you guys didn't notice, I was being being comical with this comment haha I mean "Atheist accepting Holy Spirit".. C'mon it's too obvious guys. Also whether you like it or not, presentation matters, especially for debate. Personally I thought he made some really good points here and wasn't too awful in how he presented himself, but from the others I've seen.. Yikes! (vs. Inspiring Philosophy has to be one of the worst) Not that it diminishes the weight of his arguments, but it wouldn't hurt to practice composure.
Cheers ❤
P.S Here's one reference haha 1:09:56
@@azharsofjan9181
Exactly, what is spirit? And how does it work?
Until you SHOW there is such a thing as spirit, your claim is on par with claiming that only the gentle have the guidance of pixies.
It sounds like someone keeps yelling "Aron".
Hey Mr. Hernandez
Is a syllogistic form of your argument for the soul available anywhere? I’m coming fresh from your discussion with David Smalley and I’d like to review the argument in its entirety at my own pace.
Yes! Here in my opening from my debate with Aron Ra on the existence of the soul: th-cam.com/video/utNKIpLq7HM/w-d-xo.html
Why don't you just ask James Brown? He knows everything about Soul.
51:28
EH:
"I don't know why you're putting so much emphasis on science as if it's the only domain or way to gain knowledge."
AR:
"Because I see it as such."
Says quite a lot in just a few words.
Yep. He is a Scientism Fundamentalist (a term that really needs to be popularized, as we need a way to call them out)
Thanks for time stamping this. I'm going to use it in a video I'm making about atheists and scientism
Yeah stupid that’s the way knowledge works, you use the scientific method. If someone says they have a headache you can believe them but you will never actually know based on their testimony. Testimony alone is worthless
@@lightbeforethetunnelgoofy🤡🤡🤡
Eric "the plank" Hernandez
Eric seems to struggle with the basics of the English language..... Fuckin arrogant twat
Wow, the intellectual dishonesty of "believers" are amazing! Just amazing! ...keep it up, very entertaining zZ zzZZ
Ha!
Wood'O'Chile Is making ad hominem assertions without clarity an atheist thing?
Yup! Every time Eric saw that Aaron could answer his silly question he interrupts and distracts with petty character attacks and bad arguments hahaha.
Typical apologist. No wonder their religion is circling the drain
Bothell Guy I’m not sure why you took to time to type any of that. It’s not a good look for atheists.
@@johnlovestosing04 how so? That was true. Eric interrupts to try to not let Aaron answer the question. This is something I see from many many apologists. So it's typical. I also think Christians who are honest with themselves can see that their guy is doing that and end up leaving after they look into why. So that explains the draining of the pews.
What part was not true?
You were on point Eric, really great debate. Also I'm shocked lol this is the most calm I have ever seen Aron Ra.
Most calm? Lol! And thank you 🙏🏼
@@EricHernandez Lol I know, the words most calm and Aron Ra are rarely used in a sentence together haha. I just took a quick look at the comments of this video and I see a LOT of salty atheists. That's a testament to the fact you are doing great apologetics, when the atheists are this triggered you must be doing something right.
@@Daniel-Marson if God is so real why does he need apologetics to speak for him
Alucard Ican if God isn't real why do atheist apologists need to speak about it? Or attack believers? If God can speak for himself, then surely the lack of God can speak for itself too.
Perhaps no apologists on either side should speak about God or a lack of God.
To answer your question directly, God doesn't need apologists to speak for him. But seeing as we are people, speaking to other people, in an ongoing debate/ discussion, it would be pretty one sided without religious apologists. If only atheists spoke on the matter, that is.
Eric you sound like TheBudday lmaoooooo
" so you want me to just believe you on faith?" Hahaha eric you just used the word faith exactly like aron says that people use it. You want to equivocate. You give one definition but then use the word in another way.
It was pointing out the irony of his own view of the word. Duh.
@@EricHernandez it was a slip up, duh
@@EricHernandez You need to stretch before those kind of mental gymnastics
Aron said there is no proof for the soul. This shows a real lack in knowledge of the history of philosophy. Socrates proved that the soul exists and is immortal more than two thousand years ago! This proof that the soul is immortal is based on the idea that human beings form universal concepts. Socrates was challenging "Meno's Paradox" which was claiming that human beings can't learn anything (extreme skepticism). In other words, Socrates saved the notion that human beings can know and do science, and he did this based on the idea that the soul is immortal. The notion that the soul, also known as the mind, understands universal concepts by way of an immortal soul is the basis for all the scientific progress and discoveries that Western Civilization is known for!
So much nonsense. Socrates did not prove anything. Not a single one of his parameters relies on the existence of a soul
@@sirsecular1277 I think you're joking. But just in case you're not, the major premise for Plato's theory of Recollection is based on the immortality of the soul.
@@philosophyteacher3852
1. Having a supposed premise and that premise being factually the case are NOT the same.
2. Scientific progress has been predicated on the idea of evidence (demonstrable cause/effect linkages) which allows for continuous advancement and correction as the data set of knowledge expands.
@@MyContext Nobody is arguing for a "supposed premise." Factually true premises are needed for a sound argument. The point I am making about science is that you must first believe that you can know something before you can do science. Socrates backed up the notion that human beings can know things for certain, and he did this based on the notion of universal ideas and the immortality of the soul. There are two sides in philosophy: One side thinks human beings know things for certain (Socrates, Aristotle, Aquinas); The other side thinks that we cannot know things for certain (most modern philosophers).
@@philosophyteacher3852
I will grant conceptual linkages as a form of knowledge, however, such is a different category from a review of reality. Thus, it seems we were talking past each other.
Claims about reality are about what can be shown (the evidence - various cause/effect linkages observed). Thus, to KNOW things about reality requires observations about reality. I grant that humanity in general places a lot of trust with regard to what we are told and I will grant that acceptance is generally reasonable UNTIL a problem of some sort is found with regard to what is being presented.
When I general talk about knowledge with respect to reality, I am actually talking about what can be shown to be the case such that whatever conceptual linkages gleaned will allow various extrapolations for an even broader view.
So, with respect to the idea of a soul - *What evidence (demonstrable cause/effect linkage) shows such as an aspect of reality?*
I would dare say nothing, but it would be best if you could show that I am incorrect in my assessment by providing evidence.
I grant that something can be factually the case even if there is no evidence being shown, however, we can only rationally claim and make extrapolations predicated on what is shown in the context of reality, since, other appeals are a non-sequitur with respect to what can be rationally claimed of reality.
[ There are two sides in philosophy: ]
There is huge continuum of notions with regard to the idea of knowledge. It would seem that I fall under the category of pragmatism. I say category, since, it seems there is more than one "school" of thought in this camp.
....this was painful to watch. I felt your emotions in this one Eric. The more pissed off he got the more he felt the need to interrupt and go on rants and then have the audacity to say that you are the one doing exactly that. Pride is clearly the underlying issue with Aron. Nothing is wrong unless he says it’s wrong or unless some professor agrees with his bias that he is wrong. He’s really an insufferable person so props to you for going in the ring. Sounds like once things started going bad for him he retreated to the, “See?! You proved my point. There is no SCIENTIFIC data to prove your God. I win! you lose!” Once you started taking him down the path that science doesn’t have all the answers and relies on philosophy he started getting defensive and insisting that this MUST be a scientific thing because that’s all he knows. Well as arguably the smartest scientist, Einstein said, “The man of science is a poor philosopher.” That was just “scientifically” proven in this conversation.
The Conservative Christian LoL thank you and this was a fantastic summary. I appreciate the support 🙏🏼
Eric Hernandez I appreciate YOU. I called into one of those atheists things Sunday and didn’t realize just how hard it is to carry these kinds of conversations granted I was ill prepared and mostly called to ask questions not necessarily to argue so I can’t imagine what it’s like to actually defend arguments against someone like Aron.
Aron is very openminded person, try to listen more to what he says and less what you think he should say. And again stop slandering and proof your own side
Boddin Jimmy Where did I slander?
@@theconservativechristian7308 I'm srry if you can't read your own words, How you speak about aron is not good. And not constructive to progress to thinking in anyway
I love how Eric could literally be read the definition of a theologian, shown that it says nothing about “scholarship” and then still argue that it does. That is being intellectually dishonest.
Oh gosh wow lol
@@EricHernandez Dude, you...actually did do that. We all watched you do just that.
@@EricHernandez you really should not be being doing this......EVER lol
27:45 I love how he gave proof of the metaphysical when stating it`s mind over matter. How can mind over matter be true in his world? Apart from that, what an utter waste of time this debate was. Aron Ra`s mind is completely made up, and nothing anyone will ever say will change it.
Evidence will change it. That's the problem. Creationists do not provide any evidence. They never develop a testable hypothesis. They never make new discoveries.
@@Chomper750 Are you Aron Ra in disguise? There are the various arguments for God's existence. I'm quite sure you're aware of them. They are evidences of the necessity of a supernatural being. No matter how you slice it, they are. You may not like that, but they won't go away, because they're true. What they are not is the scientific method, ie, that which is used to explain the physical world, or how it works to a certain extent. But as Eric rightly explained, this is where atheist make a category error. I'm not even sure it is an error any more on the part of the atheist, but a disingenuous attempt to avoid the issue at hand, and that is the various arguments for God's existence. Apart from that, Jesus Christ is the best evidence there is. His life, his teachings, his miracles, and his death and resurrection, recorded down in history for all future generations to know. And yes, the Bible is an historical book, like it or not. To argue it's not is disingenuous and an atheist bias. Furthermore, there were those who were witnesses to the risen Lord, and they were willing to die for that belief. That's not something any liar is willing to do, die for his lie. You have to take many things into account besides 'show me God in a bloody science book'. That is limiting and constricting other forms of evidence in an attempt to not have to consider the reality of God and remain in what in all reality is an intellectual safe space. I promise you, you cannot hide in it forever and one day the biggest test of YOUR faith, that God does not exist will be put to the ultimate test when you're gasping out your last. I hope you open your mind before that day comes.
@Jesus is God You have no proof god ever said any of that. You have words written by superstitious bronze age men.
But in response to Romans.. how about Matthew 5:22 "22 But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister,[e]you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult[f] a brother or sister,[g] you will be liable to the council; and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell[h]of fire. "
@Jesus is God Oh wow, using the Bible to prove the Bible? that's cringe-worthy man, I might as well use the Bhagavad Gita to prove the Bhagavad Gita and believe in those blue gods with elephants heads just like you do with the Bible, it's stupid man, stop.
@@Chomper750 he never answered lol typical religious fool.
Eric was out of his league.
You misspelled Aron.
6:01
'but you're NOT talking to a Buddhist"
Eric, come on.
He literally said he isn't at your time stamp.
@@thegalacticfederation4007
yeah, i forgot "Not"
i wasn't really paying attention since i was laughing, so sorry about that.
@@thegalacticfederation4007 all patched up now.
Yeah, I know, Aron screaming a lot can be quite funny.
@@thegalacticfederation4007
Aron wasn't screaming on that timestamp.
That is a ginormous water jug Eric 😂
No he's just a tiny little prick
@@ApexHerbivore classic lol, i was thinking the same thing.
Haha
Or is it normal sized and Eric is just a pipsqueak.
Eric Hernandez, my brother.
Why did you go down in flames in this debate? You seem to be very well read, yet understudied. You have the best attempted bob and weave game I've seen in years. Restating over and over to someone that they are going in circles, or some other verbal tool of diversion gets you no closer to understanding or to a point than the person with whom your talking to. Listen and Silent are spelled with the same letters. Also trying to understand instead of being understood would help you in further attempts to gain better understanding and wisdom about your beliefs and what others are.
My best wishes to you and your journey. ✊
He invited me on his show to know about my beliefs. I don't think you understand who failed to listen and understand.
@@EricHernandez its really irrevelvant whom invited whom, when the understanding and the attaining of knowledge from the flip side of the coin is the primary focus and goal. If I was put into a situation in which i had been questioned upon my belief structure, and invited to share upon mine, then even in the face of resilience and disagreement, (which would be EXPECTED, of course ) I would have to seemingly force myself to a place of mind where i can learn, regardless of the brashness and ambiguity of the other person(s) invovled, alley for MY SAKE, and MY EMBETTERMENT. That is what I was stating. That you seem like a very well read individual yet understudied, and that i support you but that this video HAD very potential to be educational and informational, but it was lost through alot of quibble over spilled milk, of i may be blunt... And also...I really appreciate you commenting me back, that really shows alot about your character as a man and for what you believe in.
I saw a whole lot of lame steps trying to lead up to a lame "gotcha" that Aron saw coming. Way to go Aron.
Man that's what I thought, too. The guy kept trying to paint Mr. Ra into some kinda definition corner. I wish Eric would have tried to argue on the merit of his position instead.
Because Ra says so.
lol
How awful! I really tried to be charitable but this is too much... how can I explain Aron Ra's poor performance?! It has to be low IQ or some kind of fanaticism beyond human understanding!
1:08:45
"The mind is a product of the brain...the data produced by the brain"
1:09:24
"I'm not the one making assertions!"
😂😂😂
BananaJunior11 What you just said is much closer to an actual argument than what Aron said. His assertion is that brain activity is the same as mental activity in all cases. This is clearly true in some cases, or at least appears to be based on what we can observe, but not all cases. The Christian perspective is that mental activity is seated in the brain but doesn't have to remain seated there (as in an out of body experience) and can exist separately from a brain (after death). Neither of those can be disproven scientifically, so to say they have been is an assertion.
BananaJunior11 How precisely do you suggest we scientifically prove such a thing? You seem to think that something isn't true if it can't be scientifically verified, but that is begging the question since that is the topic of the debate.
It is not a fallacy to say you should prove it if you assert it. You can't scientifically prove that the mind is just brain output.
@@Levi-rl3fu I think you need to look up the definition of the hull hypothesis
hawkxlr Enlighten me on this "hull hypothesis." Do you mean null hypothesis?
If you just had typo: what correlation do you propose to use to show that God is unlikely to exist?
I see a universe that began to exist as a pretty basic fact which would be fully explained by an omnipotent supernatural being. Is the fact of the big bang allowed as evidence in your proposed model?
A physical process which caused the universe to exist would need a separate explanation for its existence, back to the first cause, and thus is a more complex and less likely explanation.
@@Levi-rl3fu Yeah, twas a typo. If we do apply the null hypothesis, the onus wouldn't be on me to disprove your God hypothesis in regards to the origin of the universe. That onus is on you
Aron has shown painfully obvious he’s never touched a Bible nor read the New Testament, or else he would quickly recognize his mistake when during the many stories in the NT, Jesus is often confronted by religious folks who REFUSE to believe in anything with EVIDENCE shown right in front of them! Matthew 16:3, “the Pharisees and sadducees came to Jesus and TESTED him by asking him to show them a SIGN from heaven.” This doesn’t sound like a superstitious people that believe in anything without examination, testing, and empirical evidence shown before them, and Jesus shows them just that!
THANK YOU. Exactly.
This is ludicrous. If you knew just a bit of ra's content, you'd know that he in fact knows a lot about it. You can dislike them all you want, but that kind of person (ra, dillahunty and the sort) very often know more about the texts than their opponents. And that's logical, those texts are very easy to interpret one way or another, so they provide with lots of potential points for their arguments)
But that's not proof of anything other than a story being written down.
Your claiming that a book of myth confirms its veracity by its existence.
It's a circular argument.
Only 10 minutes in and watch Eric Hernandez scramble. What a Con Man.
You're a con man...
The way I see it, even if one were to grant Jones' point about the scholarly definition of faith, the very definition that he sites also backs Ra's claim. Faith as a response to revelation is still not empirical. If someone has a vision from a deity, the occurrence of that vision does not inherently make the contents of that vision true or useful.
Royalwolf 7 but they weren’t debating whether the beliefs were useful or true, they were arguing over whether faith in the biblical context was blind. Clearly seeing things is, in the mind of the believer, a clear sign of evidence.
@@nima7205 maybe in the mind of the believer, but not in reality that the believer has to live in
@@alucardican9785 hahahha
@@nima7205 don't really see how that's funny
@@alucardican9785 sounds like a you problem
Oh my goodness! I hate to sound unchristian, but Ra won't shut up long enough for Eric to even respond properly. The easiest way to know that your opponent has no intellectual integrity, epistemological grounding or even common sense understanding is when they literally will not allow you a chance to speak for yourself concerning the very things in which they accuse you of believing. Watching this made my head hurt. It was as if Ra was simply debating in a mirror because he wasn't even trying to hear you all he heard was the resounding noise of his own wisdom and understanding. His Pomp and arrogance was so loud he couldn't have heard the truth if you were yelling at him with a Bullhorn in front of his face.
I'll bet you sound unchristian all the time. Every single fucking one of you is a hypocritical piece of fucking shit. Especially the ugly, greasy, dweeby, Ben Shapiro clone.
" His Pomp and arrogance was so loud he couldn't have heard the truth if you were yelling at him with a Bullhorn in front of his face." that was beautiful.
@@luigirossi835 You know what? I do sound "un-christian" at times. It's called being human and having a "fallen" nature. But thanks be to God the Father and to the Lord Jesus Christ in whom all blessings flow, for saving me, forgiving me and creating in me a "new nature", for I am a "new creation" in Christ Jesus. I say all that to acknowledge that I am a flawed human and I fail many times at living up to the standard and example of Jesus of Nazareth the Messiah. As such, I can freely and unashamedly call myself out for and accept criticism for being a hypocrite at times in my speech and in my actions. I well know that I can not, of myself, live out Christ's example. But glory be to God in the highest for His Spirit that is in me, transforming me into the image of His Son and my Lord. Each day I am further away from who and what I was and closer to who and what I will become in Christ. What's your excuse for being hysterical? And what is your standard by which you can judge anything hypocritical while at the same time denying your own hypocrisy? Your language betrays you. You say we are "all" hypocrites and yet you site no examples or make a coherent or cogent argument for your assertion but rather you use foul, profane language and name calling in order to somehow hammer home a point that seems at best irrelevant to the topic at hand. Ad hominem attacks are the sign of the intellectually dishonest and those who refuse to reason. May God bless you and protect you and bring you to the knowledge and salvation of Jesus Christ.
@@luigirossi835 like I said, ad hominem attacks and name calling is a sign of a weak argument and a weak mind. Please, take a moment, gather your thoughts and try to be cogent, poignant and polite. If you disagree with me or anyone for that matter, use logic and reason to make you case and do so respectfully. We may disagree but that doesn't mean we have to be disagreeable. You sound like the ignorant bully in high school who picks on the nerds because they make him feel inferior and self conscious about his lack knowledge. Don't be that guy, you're better than that. I believe in you! May God richly bless you my friend.
@@DonMan81 You hilariously think that your comments are considered and intelligent. They aren't. They are cliched, banal, unimaginative and fucking boring.
Aaron Ra's personality is so abrasively arrogant that I have a hard time watching him. By contrast, Eric Hernandez's personality has an almost artistic combination of arrogance and ignorance. These two are like moonshine and champagne.