Alex’s partner was Phil Halper, who is best known for a detailed videos with experts challenging the cosmological arguments for god, etc. th-cam.com/video/jJ-fj3lqJ6M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=pnWEqgUJsmg6ldJ6
today I learned that in fact steel was invented way earlier than I thought. Like you guys, I kinda assumed it was a more modern product - but apparently there's evidence of steel production from 4000 years ago.
yeah I found out later that when smelting iron ore, a little bit of steel is produced, but it was in tiny amounts and thus reaaaaaallly expensive. I think that's why it didn't seem to proliferate until after more extensive trade / contact with India.
From Cliffe Knechtle’s autobio: “Born in New York City and a graduate of Davidson College in North Carolina, he then attended Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary just outside of Boston.” No idea if he graduated with any qualifications.
I don't watch many debates but I did catch that one and it was a dumpster fire. I was just waiting for Stuart to pop a vein in his head you can tell they're both high strung and let their emotions get the best of them when they don't have the arguments to back anything up
To be honest, this was an underperformance from both sides. Between uncontrolled emotions and bad arguments. I expected Alex and Phil to win, and they did, but their arguments were very unlike them. The internal critique was pretty bad, and if they were debating people more well informed they could have gotten hammered on that. I also noticed Alex said suffering is expected on atheism. This is poor phrasing. Because a theist could simply turn that point on them, and say that all the things that he presupposed to get to that expectation actually support theism.
@@francisa4636 Alex presupposes that suffering is expected on an atheistic worldview. This entails the something would exist rather than nothing, that the universe is fine-tuned, that life develops in a fine-tuned universe, that life evolves to develop consciousness and accurate reasoning capacities in order to reflect on the perception of suffering, etc. These reflect arguments often used by theists to argue against atheism. I suspect that Christians would expect nothing if atheism were true, so if theists spotted the presupposition, they would obviously reject it, which undermines his whole argument. Or the theist can just say, explain these presuppositions on atheism, and now he has to combat half a dozen arguments frequently used against atheism.
@@jackricky5453 1. “Alex presupposes that suffering is expected on an atheistic worldview. “ It is expected, a naturalism provides a perfectly coherent and well explained account 2. “This entails the something would exist rather than nothing” No this is incorrect. Atheism doesn’t presuppose this AT ALL. Many atheists including myself consider an infinte regress more likely. Further it’s the Christian position that something comes from nothing oie god created the universe ex nihilo. 3. “that the universe is fine-tuned” Again, incorrect this is a theistic claim not a presupposition of atheism 4. “that life develops in a fine-tuned universe” The is just repetition of the above 5. that life evolves to develop consciousness and accurate reasoning capacities in order to reflect on the perception of suffering, etc. We know that this is the case, this isn’t what is meant by a presupposition. 6. Its pretty clear you don’t understand what a presupposition is, none of these relate to presuppositions.
@@francisa4636 1.) A theist would obviously disagree, so Alex would have to justify the presupposition. What if a Christian said, "Suffering is expected on Christain worldview." Are you going to take that for granted or object to it? 2.) Again, a vicious regress is presuppositional. A theist would just say that an infinite chain is contingent, so it suffers the same problem. A theist could just pull out a contingency argument or argue that infinite sets lead to contradictions. 3.) This is absolutely false. Fine-tuning is widely acknowledged across worldviews including atheism and agnosticism. It is not some made up fact that if any constant changed slightly, life as we know it would not exist. It may be associated with a theism, but it's not a theistic claim, it is an objective observation of the natural world.
From Cliffe Knechtle’s autobio: “Born in New York City and a graduate of Davidson College in North Carolina, he then attended Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary just outside of Boston.” Edited to add, his autobio introduction says he “went to Gordon Conwell theological seminary where he received a Masters of Divinity and a Masters of mental health-marriage/family therapy.”
I went to a party once at Obbink's apartment int he late 1980s. All he did was whine and complain then: "Here I am stuck with a tenure track job at Barnard! I'll never have any graduate students. Next summer I'm going to my parents house in Nebraska next summer to have a surgery; my insurance is paying everything for (but not my plane ticket)." On the other hand he did some nice work on the Villa of the Papyri material. At least he use the products of his fraud to buy a nice house (he had to sell it to pay his legal fees and it was bought by one of those home remodeling shows).
The first issue about linear vs circular time - I took that at a purely superficial level. Christianity has linear time - yesterday - today - and tomorrow. Compared to some eastern traditions of birth - death - rebirth for individuals but also for creation. [ looked it up - Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer. With every destruction followed by a new creation] But then I am not aware of the context of this post compared to others which may make more sense about why you assume he is talking about textual things.
If I said that, I misspoke. I think that Islamaphobia is gross, and I recognise that an aggressive tack of "anti-Islam" rhetoric can quickly degenerate into that.
@VadimRadtchenko And you think that coddling a violent cult that can and has murdered people just for criticizing it or even just drawing their prophet is better? Ignorantly shielding religions and other nonsense from being rightfully despised just because you're scared of some nebulous potential violence is completely absurd, especially when those religions have a documented history of actual violence towards other religions and nonbelievers. Islam isn't unique in this, but for some reason, it's the one that people on the internet seem keen to defend at all costs. Also, religions and races aren't the same thing. Not even close. One is an immutable characteristic that one is born with, the other is a choice that can be changed at any time.
I might have misunderstood, but it seemed y’all were unnecessarily dismissive / mocking of Alex’s animal suffering argument without really nailing down what he’s arguing. His point is that apologists excuse human suffering because leads to a greater good. You can’t have courage without adversity, etc. Alex generally argues that even if you grant that, it doesn’t explain why an all-loving god would let a tree fall on a deer and let it spend several days starving to death in extreme pain, since there is no great ethical/moral purpose being served. You still may not find it to be a great argument; I just found your treatment of it a little bizarre. Love your videos - can’t wait for lunch today so I can finish this one.
I was dismissive of it because I don't care. I generally agree that animal suffering is a complication for believers in the all good, all benevolent biblical god, but this is the kind of stuff that I just do not cover on my channel. This channel is about the Bible and biblical scholarship.
I know you, Kipp and Vistani, have a wealth of knowledge, and it is hard not to use other sources to show weakness in apologist arguments. However, it is at some point distracting from the main point of showing the errors of Cliff and Stan. I would ask to stay more on point of why Cliff is wrong other than going on talking about some other person and then showing their errors. Case in point the long discussion about Wood's. And the adjoining rabbet trails about evolution. I for one would rather have listened to Cliff's moral statements than skipping over this while having listened for 10 minutes of discussion rabbet trails. With respect.
I dont defend catholic inquisition or napoleonic empires at all. Nor pharisees as far as i understand them. About high mesopotamia College of France scholar Dominique charpin studies Shamash the god of sun and justice ie esnunna law.
Alex’s partner was Phil Halper, who is best known for a detailed videos with experts challenging the cosmological arguments for god, etc.
th-cam.com/video/jJ-fj3lqJ6M/w-d-xo.htmlsi=pnWEqgUJsmg6ldJ6
What are the odds the Stuart has the same exact religion of his Pastor Dad Cliffe? It's Amazing!
Doctrine was never imposed by evidence or arguments. The instrument has always been force. He said it, it's true, believe it or die.
today I learned that in fact steel was invented way earlier than I thought. Like you guys, I kinda assumed it was a more modern product - but apparently there's evidence of steel production from 4000 years ago.
yeah I found out later that when smelting iron ore, a little bit of steel is produced, but it was in tiny amounts and thus reaaaaaallly expensive. I think that's why it didn't seem to proliferate until after more extensive trade / contact with India.
It's one of those phenomenon where they were making it before they understood how to make it. (Eg. Egyptians and meteorites)
@@Robert_Browne Pharaoh: hey check out my sick-ass space dagger
@@Robert_Browne
an accidental invention - like the slinky.
@@Vishanti
literally cutting edge technology.
The real question is: Who has the more authentic beard, Kipp or Aron Ra?
If Aaron Ra shaves his beard and leaves it in the sink. Is Aaron Ra’s beard an atheist?
From Cliffe Knechtle’s autobio: “Born in New York City and a graduate of Davidson College in North Carolina, he then attended Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary just outside of Boston.”
No idea if he graduated with any qualifications.
sorry I missed this live! looking forward to watching this!
I don't watch many debates but I did catch that one and it was a dumpster fire.
I was just waiting for Stuart to pop a vein in his head you can tell they're both high strung and let their emotions get the best of them when they don't have the arguments to back anything up
@Vishanti love your background, where's it from? It reminds me of the legendary Farscape series.
To be honest, this was an underperformance from both sides. Between uncontrolled emotions and bad arguments. I expected Alex and Phil to win, and they did, but their arguments were very unlike them. The internal critique was pretty bad, and if they were debating people more well informed they could have gotten hammered on that. I also noticed Alex said suffering is expected on atheism. This is poor phrasing. Because a theist could simply turn that point on them, and say that all the things that he presupposed to get to that expectation actually support theism.
That's my exact view about the whole thing
I'm confused as to what your counterpoint is. What presuppositions could a theist point to that support theism?
@@francisa4636 Alex presupposes that suffering is expected on an atheistic worldview. This entails the something would exist rather than nothing, that the universe is fine-tuned, that life develops in a fine-tuned universe, that life evolves to develop consciousness and accurate reasoning capacities in order to reflect on the perception of suffering, etc. These reflect arguments often used by theists to argue against atheism. I suspect that Christians would expect nothing if atheism were true, so if theists spotted the presupposition, they would obviously reject it, which undermines his whole argument. Or the theist can just say, explain these presuppositions on atheism, and now he has to combat half a dozen arguments frequently used against atheism.
@@jackricky5453
1. “Alex presupposes that suffering is expected on an atheistic worldview. “
It is expected, a naturalism provides a perfectly coherent and well explained account
2. “This entails the something would exist rather than nothing”
No this is incorrect. Atheism doesn’t presuppose this AT ALL. Many atheists including myself consider an infinte regress more likely. Further it’s the Christian position that something comes from nothing oie god created the universe ex nihilo.
3. “that the universe is fine-tuned”
Again, incorrect this is a theistic claim not a presupposition of atheism
4. “that life develops in a fine-tuned universe”
The is just repetition of the above
5. that life evolves to develop consciousness and accurate reasoning capacities in order to reflect on the perception of suffering, etc.
We know that this is the case, this isn’t what is meant by a presupposition.
6. Its pretty clear you don’t understand what a presupposition is, none of these relate to presuppositions.
@@francisa4636 1.) A theist would obviously disagree, so Alex would have to justify the presupposition. What if a Christian said, "Suffering is expected on Christain worldview." Are you going to take that for granted or object to it?
2.) Again, a vicious regress is presuppositional. A theist would just say that an infinite chain is contingent, so it suffers the same problem. A theist could just pull out a contingency argument or argue that infinite sets lead to contradictions.
3.) This is absolutely false. Fine-tuning is widely acknowledged across worldviews including atheism and agnosticism. It is not some made up fact that if any constant changed slightly, life as we know it would not exist. It may be associated with a theism, but it's not a theistic claim, it is an objective observation of the natural world.
From Cliffe Knechtle’s autobio: “Born in New York City and a graduate of Davidson College in North Carolina, he then attended Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary just outside of Boston.”
Edited to add, his autobio introduction says he “went to Gordon Conwell theological seminary where he received a Masters of Divinity and a Masters of mental health-marriage/family therapy.”
Sorry, I have to correct
my previous comments: it’s the son, Stuart, who has the masters degrees.
This is a much better reveal than Daniel Wallace and the fragment of Mark’s Gospel.
24:56 It feels amazing! Feels like tasting cheesecake for the very 1st time, every time.
The woke babble at 25.00 was hilarious!
Cliffe came to my college in the late 80s, so he‘s been around a long time. This is the angriest I’ve seen him.
I went to a party once at Obbink's apartment int he late 1980s. All he did was whine and complain then: "Here I am stuck with a tenure track job at Barnard! I'll never have any graduate students. Next summer I'm going to my parents house in Nebraska next summer to have a surgery; my insurance is paying everything for (but not my plane ticket)." On the other hand he did some nice work on the Villa of the Papyri material. At least he use the products of his fraud to buy a nice house (he had to sell it to pay his legal fees and it was bought by one of those home remodeling shows).
The biggest mystery is why Phil only blinks with one eye. 👁️ ☺️
his main interest is astronomy - he spends a lot of time looking through a telescope. And I'm only half joking.
The first issue about linear vs circular time - I took that at a purely superficial level. Christianity has linear time - yesterday - today - and tomorrow. Compared to some eastern traditions of birth - death - rebirth for individuals but also for creation.
[ looked it up - Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer. With every destruction followed by a new creation]
But then I am not aware of the context of this post compared to others which may make more sense about why you assume he is talking about textual things.
I like Josh's beard
Kipp, you must make a video introducing your doggos!
I can’t not see “give mean answer”. And it works with his debate style
9:30 Channel quality is unfortunately very often inversely proportional to subscribers count. That's how I know you're smart 😅
It was a frustrating debate to watch
Did Kipp just say that being anti-Islam is a bad thing? Is Islam a protected religion now?
If I said that, I misspoke. I think that Islamaphobia is gross, and I recognise that an aggressive tack of "anti-Islam" rhetoric can quickly degenerate into that.
Being anti-(a religion) or (a race) is frowned upon in modern society as we seen way too many attempted and successful genocides so far...
@VadimRadtchenko And you think that coddling a violent cult that can and has murdered people just for criticizing it or even just drawing their prophet is better?
Ignorantly shielding religions and other nonsense from being rightfully despised just because you're scared of some nebulous potential violence is completely absurd, especially when those religions have a documented history of actual violence towards other religions and nonbelievers. Islam isn't unique in this, but for some reason, it's the one that people on the internet seem keen to defend at all costs.
Also, religions and races aren't the same thing. Not even close. One is an immutable characteristic that one is born with, the other is a choice that can be changed at any time.
Twin Peaks gang
BLUE ROSE CLUB
The past is never dead, it is not even past
I might have misunderstood, but it seemed y’all were unnecessarily dismissive / mocking of Alex’s animal suffering argument without really nailing down what he’s arguing. His point is that apologists excuse human suffering because leads to a greater good. You can’t have courage without adversity, etc. Alex generally argues that even if you grant that, it doesn’t explain why an all-loving god would let a tree fall on a deer and let it spend several days starving to death in extreme pain, since there is no great ethical/moral purpose being served.
You still may not find it to be a great argument; I just found your treatment of it a little bizarre.
Love your videos - can’t wait for lunch today so I can finish this one.
I was dismissive of it because I don't care. I generally agree that animal suffering is a complication for believers in the all good, all benevolent biblical god, but this is the kind of stuff that I just do not cover on my channel. This channel is about the Bible and biblical scholarship.
I know you, Kipp and Vistani, have a wealth of knowledge, and it is hard not to use other sources to show weakness in apologist arguments. However, it is at some point distracting from the main point of showing the errors of Cliff and Stan. I would ask to stay more on point of why Cliff is wrong other than going on talking about some other person and then showing their errors. Case in point the long discussion about Wood's. And the adjoining rabbet trails about evolution. I for one would rather have listened to Cliff's moral statements than skipping over this while having listened for 10 minutes of discussion rabbet trails. With respect.
I dont defend catholic inquisition or napoleonic empires at all. Nor pharisees as far as i understand them.
About high mesopotamia College of France scholar Dominique charpin studies Shamash the god of sun and justice ie esnunna law.
my cat's breath smells like cat food.
Excruciating. Structure your videos ffs.
It feels really awesome to be powerful enough to force you to watch all the way through
@Vishanti 😂 ok, well I'm glad you're enjoying yourself Vish 😄