Even African traditional myths stated that the world had a beginning; this isn't some grand discovery of Judaism. Humans everywhere could extrapolate properties of the things around them to the wider world and believe that the world began in some form.
And the great step forward was when we began to trust reason over common sense. Dummies like me can’t do the maths that let clever people work with quantum physics, but I respect the fact that they can actually get the desired outcome. So if there are physicists who claim “The Universe had no beginning. The Singularity was always there” or whatever, I don’t light my hair on fire like Willian Lane Craig. . Either I learn the maths to understand the theories, or I nod, smile, read the sports pages.
Pretty much every isolated civilisation on earth has made up its own myths and legends regarding origins and gods. It is human nature to make things up when we don't have all the facts and are afraid of the unknown. Christianity, judaism and islam are no different.
Even African myths, don't know what is implied here but, it is possible yawe is a north African local god of thunder and raid since is not part of the canannean pantheon originally, which also takes part here due the fact yawe absorved and syncretized with el which is the one originally god creator in that pantheon ... 😂😂😂, hindu's akasha might have a crazy similarity with quantum fields definition, or the idea we live inside the dream of Brahma, those are ideas millions times more interesting than jew-christian cosmogony... 😂😂😂
I expected a dodge, but this one was really weird. Pretending as if he doesn't know the order of creation? Claiming that they aren't literal days makes it better? So bizarre.
The banned book of Enoch has mentions of Xpoints and Black holes. The X-point description is fascinating. The book of Enoch has a very strong similarity to Nasa's definition of X points. Very strange stuff. Also it's funny that the most scientifically accurate book was banned and considered non-canon.
@@reredrumuoy You mean to say, the book of Enoch has accounts of fever dreams, parts of which could be retro-actively interpreted as vague and sketchy descriptions of x-points and black holes, provided one's bullshit detector is sufficiently out of whack.
That’s basically the entire debate… It’s like he never really considered what someone who disagrees with him might respond. He is like a fundamentalist who just discovered the internet and still thinks that all of his arguments are amazing.
Starts an answer, knows he doesn't have one, stops, says 'well, let me put it this way' and then use that phrase as an escape hatch to introduce some long, irrelevant story or analogy that doesn't address the point. That's the whole debate.
Educated perhaps; nothing about Dinesh seems intelligent to me. And I don’t say this merely because I disagree with him. He simply has very infantile thinking and rudimentary argumentation. He’s a completely transparent grifter.
It was so dishonest of him to then play the "well which passage is it? You'll have to show it to me because I've never read that" what a cop out in Desperate attempt to claw his way out of a loss
It's funny because his big so called turning point argument that the bible puts the creation of the earth before the sun is flat out false. "Let" is not a word of creation it's a word of permission, let there be light is not the creation of light, the sun was already created it says in Psalms and Isaiah God sealed the sky, no light no warmth hitting the surface means the earth was in an ice age. God was unsealing the sky and restoring conditions on the earth for life. Just a reminder the creation of the universe including the earth happened first verse in Genesis not, all the way after during the seven days lol.
@@Pikkinmink7It has something to do with experience and time studying the subject. In this case Alex, due to him being younger, spent less time researching and studying but is still beating the older guy in an intellectual debate.
You didn't specify whom you meant by "someone", but having watched the video, I have to assume you meant D'Souza. What a clown! And to be clear it's D'Souza weating the red nose and floppy shoes.
I would ask, why try to convert someone to atheism? Isn’t it totally irrelevant, as with everything else in the universe (from a fundamental atheist perspective)?
If you believed this was your singular chance at existence and the beings around you that you had to collaborate with were making decisions based on bad reasoning and these choices could negatively effect you or others you care about are you seriously saying you can't think of a single reason why you might want to encourage more critical thinking from your peers?
like dinesh many other christians also didnt notice the contradiction about the order of creation between sun and earth. if we are to be as lenient as a christian, we might say the light doesn't necessarily mean the sun in our attempt to act as god's advocate, which is very damning since many other doctrines have been formed out of greater leap in interpretation it is not the improper order of creation of sun and earth that is truly damning but the fact that the second chapter outright contradicts the 1st, on the order of the creation of plant vs mankind. it's so obvious to any christian who reads it honestly that even when I was a christian, i notice this giant contradiction.
@@soonernation37 Fair enough, we all have a tendency to see what we want to see, but I challenge you to say where Alex's argument failed. Certainly I would understand why you wouldn't accept the argument, but I don't see where it actually fails. Dinesh brought up how astonishing it is that Science does all the work of generating the evidence and proof for the current model of universal origins only to find that the ancient Hebrews got it right millennia ago. And Alex pointed out that guessing whether the universe had a beginning or not would leave you with 50/50 odds, but it would be even easier than that to seem correct because we are interpreting poetic text and it could almost as easily be interpreted to support a completely different actual model. He then points out that while it gets one part right, it very explicitly gets the order of established events wrong. Dinesh tried to present skepticism, but Alex is quite right: the biblical order of creation includes Earth being created then > Light > Land > Plants > Sun > Animals ; which is Very different from what verified science actually shows. Of course there are plently of creationist arguments for why the bible and science don't agree here, but Dinesh is not able to honestly argue most of them, and he didn't want to admit that he didn't have succinct explanations for why this should be the case, so he just says that Genisis is not a scientific text. Alex then asked why Dinesh brought up science and the bible if he doesn't think they have anything to do with each other, and Dinesh suggested moving on. So to summarize: Couldn't the seeming accuracies be a combination of lucky guessing and charitable interpretation? What about the blatant inaccuracies? Why bring up how surprising and mysterious the scientific knowledge in then bible is and then insist that it isn't meant as a scientific document after it's disagreement with science is pointed out? From the comfort of our armchairs, I'm sure we could come up with some answers to these questions, but Dinesh could not in the moment.
Dinesh takes so long to say the most basic things, this is how you know he just keeps talking until he accidentally falls onto a point regardless of its validity or explanatory power
"thinking out loud"... I've never witnessed anyone less prepared for a debate on Christianity or the Bible. The fact that he didn't know the progression of the Creation Story tells me all I need to know.
This is the intellectual equivalent of a kindergarten bully challenging a heavyweight boxer, and the boxer just stood there with their hand on the kid's forehead, watching them swing... 🤣🤣🤣
not even. just an adult. alex didn't even push back on the notion that the bible thinks the universe began. this is misunderstanding the hebrew grammar, and a biblical scholar would have absolutely demolished him on this. he doesn't even know what the text says in english.
No it’s the equivalent of two boxers in a ring, one throws a punch and the other picks up a rocket launcher and blows him to kingdom come. Dinesh got owned because of his position and the material he had to work with. Many smart people turn into raving lunatics as soon as they start defending their belief in a god and on their religion.
No, not even a little bit. Let me educate all the lost & clueless here (atheists). The Bible is clear that God created FINITE NATURE (time/space/matter/energy): "In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter/energy)." - Genesis 1:1 Furthermore, "God is light" - 1John 1:5. God doesn't need the sun, moon, stars or anything else for LIGHT. And creation is SUPERNATURAL - not NATURAL; thus, "science" is a useless tool to discern CREATION. NOW you're all not so lost & clueless. Any questions?
Pretty ridiculous of Dinesh to act surprised to hear that the Bible says the Earth was formed before the sun, but I'm not surprised. He's one of the most dishonest little weasels I've ever heard. He never argues in good faith.
You're telling me Dinesh D'Souza, an Olympic gold medalist in mental gymastics didn't make a compelling case? That the director of the cinematic masterpiece "2000 Mules" a movie so full of truth that not even Fox News nor Newsmax would touch it, didn't persuade you?
When he tries to dismiss the part where sun was created after the earth by saying 'I don't think it says that, show me. Oh you don't have a bible handy? Well then let's just forget about it'... that was jaw dropping.
@@kevinfernandez9999 Gensis 1:16 "God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars." I mean, if you want to go ahead and argue this is not a claim that the sun wasn't created go nuts but I don't see what motivates you. If you were a Christian you'd believe that God created the universe and everything in it so you're obviously just some troll. You should at least try to be funny when trolling.
@@ogden700 Evolution has a great deal of evidence, AND it makes testable predictions which prove out, over and over. There are still some things we don't know...and that is where discovery and learning happens. Religion, on the other hand, exists without evidence...and believers insist they already know everything regardless. It's not remotely the same thing.
@@njhoepner I support your right to make unsupported assertions. However, I take the liberty of recommending that you refrain from polemical over-simplifications in public: you give your peers momentary affirmation, but at the cost of presenting yourself as unlettered and ill-considered to erudite readers or hearers. [_E.g._ saying 'evolution' makes testable predictions is to say 'gravity' makes testable predictions. To speak, that is, mere gibberish. Some people make some hypotheses about evolution (or gravity) and some of these (under the necessarily-restrictive paradigm within which the hypotheses are framed) are, for the moment, 'failed to be rejected', while others simply fail.] You're welcome.
Oh you bet it’s living rent free in Dinesh’s head as well. It’s the kind of personal calamity your brain will kindly replay on loop for years to come when you try to fall asleep at night.
I watched the whole discussion and frankly Dinesh was all over the map jumping from word salad to word salad, obviously trying to cover his discomfort in the face of a far superior debater that repeatedly made him appear so unprepared and unknowledgible. I donèt know whether or not Alex knew anything about Dinesh beforehand but I can bet that he will never again waste his precious time on debating Dinesh.
It should be noted that the big bang is simply when classical mechanics breaks down, not the beginning of the universe. The universe might have had a beginning, I'm not dogmatically closed off to that possibility, but we ultimately just don't know. Apologists love misinterpreting what the evidence actually shows.
We already have the evidence. Let me educate all the lost & clueless here (atheists). The Bible is clear that God created FINITE NATURE (time/space/matter/energy): "In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter/energy)." - Genesis 1:1 Furthermore, "God is light" - 1John 1:5. God doesn't need the sun, moon, stars or anything else for LIGHT. And creation is SUPERNATURAL - not NATURAL; thus, "science" is a useless tool to discern CREATION. NOW you're all not so lost & clueless. Any questions?
We've had the evidence from day one. People don’t want to give-up their God self, so they comfort themselves in atheism. But when they look at atheist ideas, they see that all atheist ideas are impossible and never observed. Simply put, a rock can’t come from a bang, get wet & produce the human being, 9 million different species & 300,000 different plants.
said while being totally wrong and ignoring the creation of the light and earth first verse of the bible not during the seven days, nor knowing the definition of the word "let" which is a word of permission not creation. And so on...
Thank you for uploading these small clips so I can experience the cringe all over again because I keep second guessing myself thinking i must be misremembering just how bad Dinesh was here. Very unfortunate.
I remember Dinesh making this same point about how the Bible knew the universe had a beginning in a different debate years ago. I think it was a debate he had with Lawrence Krauss and a few others. Krauss brought up another scientific claim that was wrong in Genesis. Dinesh pulled the same thing and went off on how the Bible isn't actually supposed to be viewed as a science book. He'll keep using the same arguments even when he's shown to be wrong. He doesn't care.
I wonder and suspect there's a few things going on why he repeats himself. The overarching reason is basically yours, a lack of personal intellectual integrity. Within that, possibly forgetting he's said it before. Likely running off of an overall shell script he uses for every debate/lecture. Possibly thinking those who see the debates won't be repeat viewers/attendees. Say it enough and it's got to be true.
@@harshdeshpande9779 I actually feel so disappointed that supposedly "skeptical" people are able to avoid believing in a more ancient imperial religious campaign but then eagerly accept a new b*g green one or some other trendy historically negative political ideas. So I don't think even the supposed "skeptics" are skeptical enough. The Ancient Roman empire btw also advertised the world is ending due to human behavior trope. And there was absolutely nothing humans were doing that caused Pompeii disaster or other earthquakes. Good for fear stoking though and power grabs. Most people are landing correctly on some side of skepticism somewhere but often by accident instead of enough thorough investigation. We all have our differing sources and echo chambers but tend to view these as antagonistic elements rather than pieces to an overall puzzle. Think this leads to overconfidence and lacking empathy.
do animals have language? because you don't understand it doesn't make it any less true; what about incest? you realize we are all genetically related right; that even your mother and father were related ; is that incest? the people in this thread make childish statements and those that can't even do that just repeat what others are saying all to avoid the actual topic; the real question here is 1) how many scientific facts , proofs, theories are hidden in the Bible; if you are serious then take that on and let us know what you find; my understanding is you will be amazed; but since the majority of you are too lazy to actually read or study in earnest you will remain ignorant
@@andyarellanoChannel You’re wrong on many things. Animals do not communicate verbally with humans and it’s a proven fact that reproducing with members within your immediate family will lead to some massive health complications and even death along the way. This is not even remotely analogous to the idea of species being its own “family”.
That'd be an improvement. Here he was doing it with something that they couldn't know because it isn't known right now. It's still one of the big questions for cosmology. So he's not just pretending that the writers knew something when they obviously didn't, and using that BS to pretend the rest of the Bible is trustworthy when that wouldn't follow, he's doing all of this on yet more lying about the science.
@@archapmangcmg And when Alex ask him about Sun and Earth, he says day doesn't mean day but longer period, as if he doesn't realize that's even worse for his side.
@@78endriago At some point, even logic breaks down into nothing. Everyone loses. All of yesterday's winners, too. It's the aging process or the creation process in reverse. Then the cycle begins anew. We can hope.
Lol on you @robadkerson, it says all things of the universe have beginning, but God is out of time, space and matter. Kalam argument is that everything which comes to existence has beginning, universe came to existence, it means universe has beginning but God didn't come to existence. He had already existed, so God has no beginning.
@@john-xp4em ok, you are right. water isn't wet and fire isn't hot and words have no meaning and you can string together a sentence that literally means nothing and supports the beliefs others told you to believe. No need for critical thinking or any intellectual effort on your part.
I have no idea why he's even prominent. He's been dead wrong about everything I've watched with him, sometimes even comically stupid. I guess with the new conservative movement nothing can come as a surprise anymore.
Didn't Hitchens "lose" to Dinesh? I think Pangburn said so in his introduction to this debate, which just blows my mind. Like, are there people who think Dinesh won this debate too? I just can't get my head around how people can justify such a thing to themselves.
The ancient Egyptians believed the world was created by Geb and Nut getting freaky with each other. If the universe having a beginning counts as some sort of proof for Christianity then it also counts as proof that the Egyptian gods are real... along with a huge number of other gods from different religions.
Thought I'd point out the little passage "ye shall have no other gods before me..." Belief in one and excluding others, just like those traditions that believe or worship in their respective pantheons. Then you get into the triune aspect of Christianity's monotheism which is something of a mind bender and another reason why Catholic's even to this day in mass say "let us contemplate the mysteries of our faith...". Of course you could believe in something even crazier, like wrong souls in the wrong sexed body but hey, lets just judge everything and be left with nothing except nihilism.
@@adamr5031 - The idea of people not conforming to current societal expectations of gender is a lot less "crazy" than the idea of supernatural entities creating our reality and making rules about what we can do with our genitals.
@@viggoulander9671 Yes and you have chaos in Greek mythology, in my opinion that’s the essence of nothingness from which the universe arrives spontaneously
@@joannware6228 Because I follow Alex a lot, love his work, and think he should not waste his time and energy debating religion anymore. And platforming religious thinkers makes religions sound somewhat plausible.
@@arthurtfm All from the viewpoint of an atheist. Sad that someone evidently as talented as you would be content with such a limited philosophical and spiritual experience.
How did the author of Genesis know that the world had a beginning? Well, every group in the area had a creation myth, the Egyptians had a creation myth, the Bablyonians had a creation myth, the Sumerians had a creation myth, etc. Every creation myth had their god or gods creating the world in some way. Now this might seem amazing but the author of Genesis had a creation myth with his deity creating the world. Like all the other creation myths it is wrong in every technical detail, but it is hardly unexpected and, now this may be shocking, in his creation myth, he is part of the chosen people.
Precisely. Children have parents, rivers have a source, buildings have a builder, thus ancient people, without the benefit of additional knowledge (and science) to suggest otherwise might rationally conclude that all of existence has a beginning. In hindsight, we're now looking at a universe where time itself may have had a "beginning", but have no context as to what that means...is there something "beyond" the beginning of time? The difference is we're now clever enough to say, "we don't know...we don't even know if that's a meaningful question, and it may exist outside our ability to grasp it", but we can acknowledge our difficulty and move on exploring. The only way most Christian apologists give us anything to that end is the assertion that God is eternal, but the universe cannot be, because intelligence? Ugh...it's so frustrating tracing their spirals and circles into nonsensical dead ends.
@@nickmonks9563they conclude the universe began to exist (for a pretty mediocre reason) but instead of admitting that knowing how it came to be is pretty much beyond us they go “AND THE ONE WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE IS THE DEITY THAT INSPIRED A BUNCH OF DESERT DWELLERS TO WRITE A BOOK THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO AND SENT HIS SON AND….”
Judaism Christianity? A copy? No. The Calendar does not decide truth, and the eternal infinite Christ existed before any cult or man or demon G0D period. Apparently, what you don’t realize is that G0D was the first on the scene and then Satan. Since that moment, Satan has counterfeited G0D, KNOWING WHAT WAS COMING. And that’s why you have cults and cheap COPIES of the Bible exhibiting The Doctrine of Demons (cults such as atheism, evolution, abiogenesis, star formation, big bang). So it doesn’t matter “when” G0D was “counterfeited” as long as you understand G0D was here first and after Lucifer (Satan) was cast out of heaven, he started to counterfeit G0D’S aims from that point onward. Let me educate all the lost & clueless here (atheists). The Bible is clear that God created FINITE NATURE (time/space/matter/energy): "In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter/energy)." - Genesis 1:1 Furthermore, "God is light" - 1John 1:5. God doesn't need the sun, moon, stars or anything else for LIGHT. And creation is SUPERNATURAL - not NATURAL; thus, "science" is a useless tool to discern CREATION. NOW you're all not so lost & clueless. Any questions?
@@patriciadechamps3169 No, they are just different views of the same events. People don’t want to give-up their God self, so they comfort themselves in atheism. But when they look at atheist ideas, they see that all atheist ideas are impossible and never observed. Simply put, a rock can’t come from a bang, get wet & produce the human being, 9 million different species & 300,000 different plants.
3:10 " You can't now move the goalposts, especially if you're still gonna miss..." That's the most succinct take down I've ever heard! I don't think even Hitch would have said something like that!! Beautiful work :)
Nailed it, so glad you exist Alex you really have an amazing brain! You not only educate and explain beautifully you also make me want to educate myself more with every video 🙂🙂
You both are wrong. God said let sea and dry land appear much after he said let there be light. GOD FIRST CREATED THE HEAVEANS (SPACE) AND THE EARTH (MATTER) THEN GENESIS GOES ON TO SAY THAT THIS MATTER HAD NO FORM, INCLUDING WHAT WOULD BECOME WATER AND EARTH, THEN HE SAID LET THERE BE LIGHT AS THE FIRST THING, AND THEN LATER ON SAID LET DRY LAND AND SEA APPEAR. YOU ARE A FOOL ALEX AND DINESH SHOULD KNOW BETTER. No wonder you scurried away when DINESH said "show me" but no one will say a word of this.
Dinesh was right and Alex was flat out mistaken and wrong though did you not watch the video or ever read Genesis for yourself? lol I won't give anymore context prove you even know what I'm referring to because it's as obvious as it gets Alex was wrong. Dinesh must have had jet lag to not call him out.
I don't know what Alex was thinking when he decided to debate someone so under-qualified to defend the Bible, and I don't know what Dinesh was thinking when he decided to debate someone who is over-qualified to destroy him
As a Christian, Dinesh does not represent me haha. I mean, he could have done a whole lot better explaining what he meant by the Bible is not a science book. It gives an account of the miraculous creation of all things, it does not explain how it happened in detail. Apart from the fact that God doesn't have to work within the confines of the system He Himself created. If He exists and is all powerful, He could have created a jukebox first and then the cosmos afterwards. Which of course is completely nonsensical within the realm of scientific understanding. This guy just sucks at his job, that's the problem. Not here to argue about creation, just here to point out Dinesh seems completely unprepared and ill-equipped for this discussion. Total train wreck haha
@@chadmccleary9032 Determinist don't think you don't make decisions. They think your decisions cannot be random or uncaused by factors. Do you think that if given the choice between vanilla and chocolate that you would choose to eat shit? If the answer is 'no' there are determining factors when you make a decision, and to the determinist, we aren't concious of all the factors. Free will is an attempt to save the idea of a soul by philosophers throughout the ages. Once you start picking into them, they are either talking about random or ghosts, neither of which is what actually happens. If you want an actual breakdown on the problem of free will in approachable terminology, look up AnticitizenX and his free will videos. It really puts the problem of free will in perspective and also gives a definition of free will that can actually work for what we want it to do.
@@chadmccleary9032 the lack of free will position does not state that there is no decision at all. Alex did choose to debate dinesh, it's just at the time of his decision, his thoughts that went through, his neurons, his previous knowledge and current knowledge of everything, and how he was genetically born, has been determined to choose to debate dinesh, and that he could not have chosen otherwise. Hence the will is not free, not that there is no will
@@arlandberutu9306 Why are you trying to correct me? I wrote what I wrote. It was already determined what I would write. I have no ability to take what you’re saying and do anything with it. If I could, that would imply that I’d have free will.
@@jonathandewberry289 You mean other than the fact that the company which produced the movie apologized for the falsehoods presented by D'Souza, disavowed the film, and withdrew the film from circulation after an investigation revealed D'Souza essentially made up the contentions in the film?
"You can't just move the goal posts, especially if your still going to miss." That's one of the greatest lines anyone in history has ever said. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
That's what the Hebrews did other ones who actually have secret Tales or Mythos as you would say actually tell the truth and got it right spiritually factory religiously as well as even confirmed by scientific finds.
Yes that is true about your comment that dozens of religions have creaton myths just like there is stories of a global flood that wiped out most of mankind told by ancient tribes. Now today we have gone to the other extreme that all life and it's systems came about by a series of chances!
Nothing about the big bang theory implies that it was the absolute beginning of everything. Only the beginning of the universe in it's current state. Apologists really need to get this through their heads.
I remember reading in a physics book (I think the one by Max Tegmark) that the Big Bang was simply a huge expansion of matter that occurred some billions of years ago. There’s no claim that it came from nothing or anything- but theists will do anything they can to find a gap where they can insert their God
@@slashmonkey8545even atheists believe that something was eternal. It would have to be. Christians say that eternal thing is intelligent. Atheists think it was matter.
It isn’t new that religious people always says “this particular thing is scientific accuracy and the Bible is amazing” and then one mention something wrong and they are like “ well is an old book written by people” 😂
It's funny because his big so called turning point argument that the bible puts the creation of the earth before the sun is flat out false. "Let" is not a word of creation it's a word of permission, let there be light is not the creation of light, the sun was already created it says in Psalms and Isaiah God sealed the sky, no light no warmth hitting the surface means the earth was in an ice age. God was unsealing the sky and restoring conditions on the earth for life. Just a reminder the creation of the universe including the earth happened first verse in Genesis not all the way after during the seven days lol.
actually that is somewhat new, throughout history Biblical theories have been regarded as true, just because some people speak for God... doesn't mean that God speaks through them
@@knarfx4732 You really gonna repeat my argument back to me? lol sure the people who read the book are the ones who are most going to cherry pick and not read it in context. Sure lets go with that one...
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeepthe context of Dinesh’s argument was basically “look what Genesis says about this specific thing! How could the writers possibly known something 2000 years in advance of its scientific discovery” to which Alex’s response was to point out that literally the next verse says something that is scientifically incorrect. Dinesh (and Christians) can’t have their cake and eat it. You can’t claim a book must be divinely inspired because it says things that have been subsequently scientifically proven, whilst also claiming that other claims are just poetry, or symbolic, or that it’s just a story that isn’t designed to be scientifically accurate. This approach just creates a really warped view of how evidence, critical thinking, and the scientific method all work.
@@NAMELESS-ln7gm It's actually not well settled, and is becoming increasingly debated in scientific circles. We observe the universe expanded from a point, but we know nothing about what came before that (or if there is a before that).
This is an example of how the best way to make an argument in favour of the Bible is to know nothing about any other subject. There is nothing unique to the Bible about stories of the universe coming into existence. You could put that argument to rest just by doing a Google search of creation myths.
Yes Dinesh fumbled this 1 but the Christian response in brief is - God made the Sun, Moon, and stars before any of the events described in the six days of creation in Genesis 1. The point of view for the six creation days is that of an observer on Earth’s surface (Genesis 1:2). “Let there be light” in the text describing creation day 1 is when the visible light of the Sun, Moon, and stars first appears on Earth’s surface. “Let there be the great lights” so that they may serve as signs marking seasons, days, and years in Genesis 1:14 implies that the Sun, Moon, and stars only became visible as distinct objects in the sky to creatures on Earth’s surface on creation day 4.
Making shit up isn't really answering to anything here. its specifically says that sun was made on day 4, not placed at that spot or turned on or cloud been cleared for it to be seen from the surface of the earth, but actually made on day 4. On top of this... Who the hell was on earth's surface on day 1 to start recording events? Who the hell made this records? Your comment makes no sense.
@@Zripas wow you are so based! Not really - try going to the source documents Genesis 1.2 - the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. God was hovering over the waters on the Earth then that answers your question
@@buxboi5308 ISS is hovering over earth's waters too... Is it inside earth's atmosphere? So again, you just making shit up in hopes to create excuse for error in bible. How long will you try to do it? Like lets take basic thing here, bible talks about global flood which killed everyone, well, in reality it never actually happen, so you have atleast one false claim in that book, while getting creation order isint even that big of a deal, you could just "explain" it by saying that writers (humans) made a human mistake and got that order wrong, but no, you are just creating excuses left and right trying to claim that bible isint saying what its saying... C'mon... Have some self respect here.
@@kaaoi1640 You say it could be a spaghetti monster as an insult; but you don't actually believe your own point. Because if you did, it's just a matter of the description of god, not the existence
I don't know why you let him get away with claiming science says the universe had a beginning. The big bang theory just says everything's expanding and if you reversed time it would coalesce back in to a hot, dense state. It says nothing about where that hot, dense state came from and if it's eternal. And that hot, dense everything is the whole universe. No-one knows if it had a beginning before that.
Alex isn’t a scientist though and knowing Dinesh, he’d probably just have lied straight to Alex’s face that the science was confirmed etc. and that Alex is just being difficult. I think it was a good idea for Alex to ignore the scientific claim and move on to the philosophical arena where he also destroyed Dinesh easily
That's usually how it goes when they make such claims. "Genesis knew how the universe was created!" "It got it wrong, though." "...uh, well, you see, the thing with that is, it's trying to explain things to us, not necessarily in a scientific way, and, uh..."
Mr D'Souza, just like Jordan Peterson, is so bewitched by how clever he is, that he starts talking absolute bollocks. And taking wearying ages to do it.
Alex is wrong: Dr. Hugh Ross explores how the early chapters of Genesis contain strong scientific evidence for the Bible's supernatural accuracy123. His book "The Genesis Question" and later work "Navigating Genesis" address this topic, integrating the message of both the Bible and science.
I think alot of people forget that when you are debating a topic your meant to learn about both sides. Like here alex clearly knows what the bible says and how people will interpret it. While Dinesh didn't do any research on the opposite side.
This to me was the defining characteristic of this whole debate. This whole moment indicated not interest in honest analysis but winning the debate for the audience (ignoring how often Dinesh faced the audiance compared to Alex). This was a trainwreck of a debate.
This keeps on coming up in my feed and I haven't got sick of it yet. Good to see Alex showing his irritation with Dinesh's arguments. Literally got sick of them. Day 4 comes after day 1. 4:39 Brilliant. Dinesh- "let's move on" (please)
What I've always found baffling about this claim is that "the world had a beginning" is only an extraordinary claim in the context of the relatively recent hypothesis of eternal history. Before then, the idea that the world had a beginning was so intuitively obvious that it was the default claim, to the point where virtually every religion has some form of creation myth.
That is because it's natural to assume that everything has a beginning due to the nature around you behaving like that: you can see birth and you can see death - beginning and end. However, universe itself isn't proven to have had a beginning
I think you're wrong. In eastern religions time is limitless, even in Greece and Rome there were created gods, but THIS particular God is the one who creates time (good luck finding it outside of Aristotle and Plato), space (every god was subject to space and time) and matter. It says it plain and clear in Genisis 1-1. In the beginning (creation of time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)
@ilverolav I politely disagree. First of all, many of the Greek and Roman religions have Chronos, a.k.a. Father Time. Literally, the being who creates and manages time, and all of creation was caused by him going from an inert state (no time) to an active state (beginning of time). Either he creates (or they are formed naturally by the creation of time), Aether (space) and Chaos (entropy), who will, in turn, create Gaia (matter) Also, by the same argument you made about creator gods not necessarily creating time, Yahweh is not listed as creating time. It states, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." It does NOT state that God Yahweh created time, nor that time was created at all. In fact, a lot of older interpretations of Genesis is that before "the beginning," there was nothing but an endless ocean (and endless time) My point is that most myths have a "in the beginning," and it's nebulous if that's the beginning of time itself, or just the beginning of everything else. And the Bible is no exception.
@@MasamiPhoenix Firstly Aether is actually a substance (check Aristotle), secondly Chronos was the god of time but he was still limited by space and matter, Chaos was just "the beginning" where there was already something but it wasn't ordered ang Gaia is simply the goddes of the dirt and fertility, what have you even studied? Also "IN THE BEGINNING" implies that BEFORE there was NOTHING, it doesn't say "in the beginning of the earth, of the ocean or the woods" it simply says "IN THE BEGINNING", nothing before. Also earth at that time was the same as universe, so "God created the earth" for Jews could mean "God created the universe", as the concept was fairly similar.
@ilverolav I could argue the details with you all day, but this is pretty much proving my point: Modern apologetics can pretty much twist any text to support any view. If we found evidence that time did have an infinite regress, there would be apologists (most of them the same ones we have now) insisting that was proof that the Bible was correct and it was the only text that DIDN'T claim an origin of time.
"Do you think the Universe had a beginning?" Ugh. Either it did, or it didn't, or the question doesn't make sense. The compilers of the Bible didn't *know* anything, they *asserted* the one that gave the most credit to God. Is this surprising to anyone? The current scientific answer is that our models predict back around 14 billion years and then break down and we don't know what happened prior to that, or *if* there was a "prior" to that. And one of the options is "that question doesn't make sense". What does a person mean by "beginning"? That's there's a *tick* of time in our universe when something didn't exist in our universe, and a next *tock* of time in our universe when that thing *did* exist in our universe. That's our experience of "beginnings" during *our* existence in our universe. If we confine ourselves to ticks and tocks *within* our universe, and *if* our universe had a first tock, then that tock did *not* have a tick *prior* to it in our universe, and therefore no *beginning*. The first tock in our universe did not *begin* as we normally mean "begin". You have to posit some meta universe with meta time and meta beginnings to meaningfully talk about a beginning of our universe. Did our universe meta begin in some meta universe? Who the hell knows? Certainly not the person who is implicitly equivocating between beginnings as we mean them in our universe and meta beginnings in some meta universe. But this is always the game. There's always some beyond where the usual rules of knowledge are not applied that is used as the argument for why an invisible wizard must exist to explain the not beyond.
Exactly. People are trying to apply common sense to a question where there is no such thing as common sense, and can't be. And they do that while knowing nothing about it.
LOL, I think D'Souza just became the first person in history to break the sound barrier while pedaling backwards. Nice to see Alex going for the jugular on this one. He needs to do this more often.
@@joed9305LMAO. It’s actually ridiculous how theists can flip flop from “WOW IT ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THE WHOLE UNIVERSE- ITS CLEARLY DIVINE” to “NOOO ITS JUST A METAPHOR!!! HOW COULD YOU INTERPRET IT SO BADLY”
@@krishvids608 Whenever religion is proven to be scientifically unworkable, then all-of-a-sudden, it becomes a metaphor, symbolism, not literal, you weren't supposed to take it seriously.
All that's needed is that little melody from Jeopardy when the players are trying to come up with there best answer... and then the buzzer sounds...times up Alex wins.
I needed a bit of Alex to brighten my day. So intelligent, eloquent and knowledgeable. If I could have a tenth of his capacities, I would be very happy!
Let's all learn something from this exchange. If you start a logical argument with an assertion that you take as axiomatic then of course you're going to see support for that proposition in something as ambiguous as the Bible. We all need to be constantly challenging our own assertions, and science is a magnificent tool for so doing.
The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi pointed out that the original Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 includes a temporal clause; it should be rendered “When God began to create the heavens and the earth…” This suggests that creation is a process of ordering and separation that begins with pre-existing matter-this does _not_ at all suggest creatio ex nihilio.
Cool thing about the Bible is that it can be interpreted to say pretty much whatever you want it to say. Kinda like you did by saying it “suggests” something it doesn’t say. Maybe because it’s translated from an archaic language, maybe because it’s mostly ancient poetry and folklore, maybe because the writing styles just leave open interpretations; point is that it doesn’t matter what it says to someone who believes it contains the infallible word of a god, it will always be right no matter what.
@@mabatch3769 well sure, any written text can be interpreted any number of ways, as literary theory has shown-but that doesn’t mean any and every interpretation is just as valid (particularly if it cannot be substantiated based on all of the accumulated background knowledge of the text).
A great point. It also suggests to me that Genesis should not be used to justify any position as its status is no disputed. As I understand it, this is not necessarily a bad thing - the variety of meanings that can be derived from a text is potentially a source of rich insights about ourselves and our place in the world. Like any great fiction, in fact. What it cannot do is to be used for is to establish the validity of any one particular philosophical, religious or political position. Sadly we humans are very bad at accepting this.
That’s been quashed for the same reason evolution was: a perfect god would create perfect beings. Stating that it’s a process implies things aren’t perfectly formed and calls into question the perfect nature of the fairytale. Don’t try to find outs for these people. Just laugh like the rest of us. Attempting to rationalize it makes you… one of them
They love to ignore that it was because of the ancient Hebrews and later Greeks wrote down and later was compiled into a bible that the church for over a thousand years thought the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. That in Joshua it says that the Sun stood still for three days. That every eye would see Jesus when he descends from the heavens, that the devil showed Jesus all the world from a top a mountain, that god placed the world atop immovable pillars, etc. Some thought it was flat and square, others that it was flat and round, all thought it was the moon, sun, and stars that moved, not the earth and none of them thought it was as big and as old as it really is.
Not only did the writer of Genesis not know that the universe had a begining, the writer of Genesis did not write that the universe had a begining. According to scholarly consensus, the commonly used translation of Genesis 1:1 "In the begining God created ..." Is a mistranslation. That scripture would more accurately be translated something like, "When God began to create ..." This more accurate translation does not suggest the earth was created exnihilo.
@@kitmoore9969 How can you not see a difference when one suggests a begining, and one does not? Day 1 on earth does not translate to day 1 all over the universe. One suggests that god created everything. The other suggests that material already existed, and god just arranged it into something useful. The implications are wildly different. I don't believe YT filters take kindly to links that direct its audience off the site. Google info on the Genesis 1:1 translation controversy. You will definitely discover discussion on this topic quite easily, but don't expect to understand much of what you read unless you have some expertise in ancient Hebrew.
![[LIVE] BABYMONSTER(베이비몬스터) - DRIP | 두시탈출 컬투쇼](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UG05pxLGwzc/mqdefault.jpg)
This debate was a massacre, it reminds me of what happened to the canaanites
Too early, mate. Too early.
clever, very clever
😆
Some how your reply is funnier then the original comment @@brotherben4357
D’Souza is painful to listen to. He is such a light weight pseudo “intellectual”.
"You can't move the goalposts, especially if you're going to MISS" 💀💀 This statement was perfectly timed and brutal.
Should be a T-shirt. 😂
Timestamp?
3:06
I only grieve the fact that the audience didn't seem to pick up on it very much lol
He said it kind of quietly, unfortunately.@@yaswedishboy7226
Even African traditional myths stated that the world had a beginning; this isn't some grand discovery of Judaism. Humans everywhere could extrapolate properties of the things around them to the wider world and believe that the world began in some form.
Anthropologically speaking like almost every culture has some kind of creation story
The Australian aborigines as well. They even put their Dream Time origin myths on walls of caves.
And the great step forward was when we began to trust reason over common sense. Dummies like me can’t do the maths that let clever people work with quantum physics, but I respect the fact that they can actually get the desired outcome. So if there are physicists who claim “The Universe had no beginning. The Singularity was always there” or whatever, I don’t light my hair on fire like Willian Lane Craig. . Either I learn the maths to understand the theories, or I nod, smile, read the sports pages.
Pretty much every isolated civilisation on earth has made up its own myths and legends regarding origins and gods. It is human nature to make things up when we don't have all the facts and are afraid of the unknown. Christianity, judaism and islam are no different.
Even African myths, don't know what is implied here but, it is possible yawe is a north African local god of thunder and raid since is not part of the canannean pantheon originally, which also takes part here due the fact yawe absorved and syncretized with el which is the one originally god creator in that pantheon ... 😂😂😂, hindu's akasha might have a crazy similarity with quantum fields definition, or the idea we live inside the dream of Brahma, those are ideas millions times more interesting than jew-christian cosmogony... 😂😂😂
"Let's move on, let's move on." The greatest statement from a person who is getting crushed on a subject and wants the torture to end.
"Show me."
He might've as well just honked his nose and driven off the stage on a tiny bicycle.
I expected a dodge, but this one was really weird.
Pretending as if he doesn't know the order of creation? Claiming that they aren't literal days makes it better?
So bizarre.
Well he did enter the stage from a tiny car with 15 other people exiting it
😂😂😂 nice
The banned book of Enoch has mentions of Xpoints and Black holes. The X-point description is fascinating. The book of Enoch has a very strong similarity to Nasa's definition of X points. Very strange stuff. Also it's funny that the most scientifically accurate book was banned and considered non-canon.
@@reredrumuoy You mean to say, the book of Enoch has accounts of fever dreams, parts of which could be retro-actively interpreted as vague and sketchy descriptions of x-points and black holes, provided one's bullshit detector is sufficiently out of whack.
I'm sure any of Dinesh's professors that are still alive are thrilled when he mentions them.
I don’t think they are.
I don’t think they are that thrilled of being affiliated with him.
@@generaltom6850 I believe you are being anti-sarcastically sarcastic but just for confirmation the og comment is joking.
His professors are probably too dumb themselves to feel bad.
He probably lied about this "professor" the same way he lies about everything.
You can see him thinking “ah shit, how am I gonna spin this” every time he pauses
That’s basically the entire debate…
It’s like he never really considered what someone who disagrees with him might respond.
He is like a fundamentalist who just discovered the internet and still thinks that all of his arguments are amazing.
"Ohgodohfuckohgodohfuck"
Pay your tithes!!!!!!
Starts an answer, knows he doesn't have one, stops, says 'well, let me put it this way' and then use that phrase as an escape hatch to introduce some long, irrelevant story or analogy that doesn't address the point. That's the whole debate.
Like a man caught in a lie, Dinesh stumbles.
Dinesh is a perfect example of a highly educated, seemingly intelligent, articulate snake oil salesmen.
Dinesh is an opportunist
I don't know the guy but I'm happy he's a salesman and not a preacher
He's a felon. He belongs back in jail.
Educated perhaps; nothing about Dinesh seems intelligent to me. And I don’t say this merely because I disagree with him. He simply has very infantile thinking and rudimentary argumentation. He’s a completely transparent grifter.
He's nothing more than a delusional grifter. Pathetic
Alex won this portion of the debate with 10% of his mental capacity.
This reminds of that old “fact” that you only use 10% of your brain. It seems Dinesh was unable to muster even that.
He also cajoled the most reckless layperson from the bazaar to defend a most illogical anthology.
@@11235butWhat’s a fairy tale?
@@bradleyperry1735 it's a tale with fairies
And Dinesh used all of his Dunning Kruger powers.
The moment of silence after Alex mentions a problem with the creation story lmao
That was great!
It was so dishonest of him to then play the "well which passage is it? You'll have to show it to me because I've never read that" what a cop out in Desperate attempt to claw his way out of a loss
Meme it please anyone.
@@SheikhN-bible-syndrome And then Alex asks the audience and they confirm what he just said, making Dinesh look even worse
This is what cognitive dissonance looks like when being experienced
Alex: How do we know the Bible is true?
Dinesh: It has Electrolytes.
💀💀💀
It’s got what plants crave
it's what plants crave!
@@Upsideround But WHY do they crave it? do you even know? :D
trying not to laugh - but it's hard
dineshes ego has never been bruised this badly, getting absolutely cooked by someone less than half your age
It's funny because his big so called turning point argument that the bible puts the creation of the earth before the sun is flat out false. "Let" is not a word of creation it's a word of permission, let there be light is not the creation of light, the sun was already created it says in Psalms and Isaiah God sealed the sky, no light no warmth hitting the surface means the earth was in an ice age. God was unsealing the sky and restoring conditions on the earth for life. Just a reminder the creation of the universe including the earth happened first verse in Genesis not, all the way after during the seven days lol.
Age's got nothing to do with intellect
@@Pikkinmink7It has something to do with experience and time studying the subject. In this case Alex, due to him being younger, spent less time researching and studying but is still beating the older guy in an intellectual debate.
You can see how flustered Dinesh is getting as it’s proportional to his water consumption. “Let’s move on…..gulp”.
Ha ha ha ha ha. 😂
The fools sip
His mouth is as dry as gravel, evidence of nerves.
@@DictumMeumPactum, Dry mouth from Dartmouth.
I dont see that.. your buddy Alex is the one who seems scared. Dinesh at least seems relaxed. At least he's trying...
And you people?
Wow, as a Christian, I have never seen someone get torn apart this badly in a debate
Glad you are open minded, keep going!
You didn't specify whom you meant by "someone", but having watched the video, I have to assume you meant D'Souza. What a clown!
And to be clear it's D'Souza weating the red nose and floppy shoes.
I would ask, why try to convert someone to atheism? Isn’t it totally irrelevant, as with everything else in the universe (from a fundamental atheist perspective)?
@@ThunderboxMusic Because religious people harm and cause others to suffer based on their false beliefs.
If you believed this was your singular chance at existence and the beings around you that you had to collaborate with were making decisions based on bad reasoning and these choices could negatively effect you or others you care about are you seriously saying you can't think of a single reason why you might want to encourage more critical thinking from your peers?
That pause when Dinesh is asked about the sun 😂 keep up the good work Alex
2:45 - Classic! 😂
He probably thought… damn, is that really true?
"Let's move on, let's move on" haha
like dinesh many other christians also didnt notice the contradiction about the order of creation between sun and earth. if we are to be as lenient as a christian, we might say the light doesn't necessarily mean the sun in our attempt to act as god's advocate, which is very damning since many other doctrines have been formed out of greater leap in interpretation
it is not the improper order of creation of sun and earth that is truly damning but the fact that the second chapter outright contradicts the 1st, on the order of the creation of plant vs mankind. it's so obvious to any christian who reads it honestly that even when I was a christian, i notice this giant contradiction.
the timing was insanely comedic.
"Let's move on [from the very topic I brought up because I am now getting absolutely demolished]" - Dinesh
Depends on what you believe. I don't think he got beat in any way. You are just a fan of this channel, and that's perfectly ok.
@@soonernation37no, does not depend on belief. Alex made better arguments, period.
@@soonernation37 He literally jump from one argument to another when Alex tell him his logical fraud
@@soonernation37 Fair enough, we all have a tendency to see what we want to see, but I challenge you to say where Alex's argument failed. Certainly I would understand why you wouldn't accept the argument, but I don't see where it actually fails.
Dinesh brought up how astonishing it is that Science does all the work of generating the evidence and proof for the current model of universal origins only to find that the ancient Hebrews got it right millennia ago. And Alex pointed out that guessing whether the universe had a beginning or not would leave you with 50/50 odds, but it would be even easier than that to seem correct because we are interpreting poetic text and it could almost as easily be interpreted to support a completely different actual model. He then points out that while it gets one part right, it very explicitly gets the order of established events wrong. Dinesh tried to present skepticism, but Alex is quite right: the biblical order of creation includes Earth being created then > Light > Land > Plants > Sun > Animals ; which is Very different from what verified science actually shows. Of course there are plently of creationist arguments for why the bible and science don't agree here, but Dinesh is not able to honestly argue most of them, and he didn't want to admit that he didn't have succinct explanations for why this should be the case, so he just says that Genisis is not a scientific text. Alex then asked why Dinesh brought up science and the bible if he doesn't think they have anything to do with each other, and Dinesh suggested moving on.
So to summarize: Couldn't the seeming accuracies be a combination of lucky guessing and charitable interpretation? What about the blatant inaccuracies? Why bring up how surprising and mysterious the scientific knowledge in then bible is and then insist that it isn't meant as a scientific document after it's disagreement with science is pointed out? From the comfort of our armchairs, I'm sure we could come up with some answers to these questions, but Dinesh could not in the moment.
happy someone said it. He didn't get beat. The comments do certainly have a confirmation bias. @@soonernation37
Dinesh takes so long to say the most basic things, this is how you know he just keeps talking until he accidentally falls onto a point regardless of its validity or explanatory power
"thinking out loud"...
I've never witnessed anyone less prepared for a debate on Christianity or the Bible. The fact that he didn't know the progression of the Creation Story tells me all I need to know.
"If I talk for long enough, everyone will have forgotten the question I'm supposed to be answering...."
@@--Justin-- lol "or I'll end up reframing it"
Yeah he does take too long, ... so much waffle designed to sound thoughtful and poetic.
No he’s trying to kill time and at the same time build authority by namedropping institutions he’s a part of and colleagues who are smarter than him
This is the intellectual equivalent of a kindergarten bully challenging a heavyweight boxer, and the boxer just stood there with their hand on the kid's forehead, watching them swing... 🤣🤣🤣
😂😂
Exactly
not even. just an adult.
alex didn't even push back on the notion that the bible thinks the universe began. this is misunderstanding the hebrew grammar, and a biblical scholar would have absolutely demolished him on this.
he doesn't even know what the text says in english.
No it’s the equivalent of two boxers in a ring, one throws a punch and the other picks up a rocket launcher and blows him to kingdom come. Dinesh got owned because of his position and the material he had to work with. Many smart people turn into raving lunatics as soon as they start defending their belief in a god and on their religion.
@@Simon-nv5zj Exactly, all of his work was ahead of him
This seven-minute video is a case study on deconstructing creation myth absurdity with stoic precision. Brilliant.
It's not even stoic precision. It's high-school level logic and philosophy.
@@argfasdfgadfgasdfgsdfgsdfg6351don’t give high school bad name, it was only fit enough for children story book.
@@argfasdfgadfgasdfgsdfgsdfg6351 "It's high-school level logic" much like the effort put into naming your account.
what is 'stoic' precision?
No, not even a little bit. Let me educate all the lost & clueless here (atheists). The Bible is clear that God created FINITE NATURE (time/space/matter/energy):
"In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter/energy)." - Genesis 1:1
Furthermore, "God is light" - 1John 1:5. God doesn't need the sun, moon, stars or anything else for LIGHT. And creation is SUPERNATURAL - not NATURAL; thus, "science" is a useless tool to discern CREATION.
NOW you're all not so lost & clueless. Any questions?
Pretty ridiculous of Dinesh to act surprised to hear that the Bible says the Earth was formed before the sun, but I'm not surprised. He's one of the most dishonest little weasels I've ever heard. He never argues in good faith.
Somehow I lose brain cells watching Dinesh
He’s a fantastic example of the brainrot that exists at every level of the MAGA universe.
But remember he's no Fool
Don't watch the "2000 mules"..
@__Rafsanul__Haq__No he doesn't. He is afraid of being poor and irrelevant.
You're telling me Dinesh D'Souza, an Olympic gold medalist in mental gymastics didn't make a compelling case? That the director of the cinematic masterpiece "2000 Mules" a movie so full of truth that not even Fox News nor Newsmax would touch it, didn't persuade you?
Meanwhile, 'god' remains unavailable for comment.
Sky daddy 404
This was such an awesome comment!!! LMAO
😂😂😂
Probably too embarrassed...
He was busy in Africa giving AIDS to babies.
-Ricky Gervais
When he tries to dismiss the part where sun was created after the earth by saying 'I don't think it says that, show me. Oh you don't have a bible handy? Well then let's just forget about it'... that was jaw dropping.
It happens frequently, that Christians don't know their "Scriptures" as well as former Christians... and this is often WHY they are former Christians.
I looked it up, the verse doesn't at all make any claims about the sun being created
@@kevinfernandez9999 genesis 1:14-16
@@kinglouis3002 yep couldn't find anything there
@@kevinfernandez9999 Gensis 1:16 "God made two great lights-the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars."
I mean, if you want to go ahead and argue this is not a claim that the sun wasn't created go nuts but I don't see what motivates you. If you were a Christian you'd believe that God created the universe and everything in it so you're obviously just some troll. You should at least try to be funny when trolling.
“You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe”
― Carl Sagan
So believers in evolution believe because of a deep seated reason to believe. Wow, you could say that about almost anything couldn't you, (I believe.)
@@rafhenlow Except for the evidence component...you left that out for some reason.
@@njhoepner Darwinian evolution equally has its non-evidentiary (i.e. theoretic-interpretive) components: ontogenesis, for one.
@@ogden700 Evolution has a great deal of evidence, AND it makes testable predictions which prove out, over and over. There are still some things we don't know...and that is where discovery and learning happens.
Religion, on the other hand, exists without evidence...and believers insist they already know everything regardless. It's not remotely the same thing.
@@njhoepner
I support your right to make unsupported assertions.
However, I take the liberty of recommending that you refrain from polemical over-simplifications in public: you give your peers momentary affirmation, but at the cost of presenting yourself as unlettered and ill-considered to erudite readers or hearers.
[_E.g._ saying 'evolution' makes testable predictions is to say 'gravity' makes testable predictions. To speak, that is, mere gibberish.
Some people make some hypotheses about evolution (or gravity) and some of these (under the necessarily-restrictive paradigm within which the hypotheses are framed) are, for the moment, 'failed to be rejected', while others simply fail.]
You're welcome.
2:53 this moment is living rent free in my head. Alex's face, the moment of silence. This is absolute cinema
Oh you bet it’s living rent free in Dinesh’s head as well. It’s the kind of personal calamity your brain will kindly replay on loop for years to come when you try to fall asleep at night.
Dinesh be like: "... so, So *SO* ... yes, the bible is not... (inaudible? ) no"
It's like they don't even read the book.
The little laugh you can hear in the background is just the icing on the cake.
I watched the whole discussion and frankly Dinesh was all over the map jumping from word salad to word salad, obviously trying to cover his discomfort in the face of a far superior debater that repeatedly made him appear so unprepared and unknowledgible. I donèt know whether or not Alex knew anything about Dinesh beforehand but I can bet that he will never again waste his precious time on debating Dinesh.
Dinesh learned that gish galloping is far less effective in a live debate when your case can be called out and addressed.
It should be noted that the big bang is simply when classical mechanics breaks down, not the beginning of the universe. The universe might have had a beginning, I'm not dogmatically closed off to that possibility, but we ultimately just don't know. Apologists love misinterpreting what the evidence actually shows.
We already have the evidence. Let me educate all the lost & clueless here (atheists). The Bible is clear that God created FINITE NATURE (time/space/matter/energy):
"In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter/energy)." - Genesis 1:1
Furthermore, "God is light" - 1John 1:5. God doesn't need the sun, moon, stars or anything else for LIGHT. And creation is SUPERNATURAL - not NATURAL; thus, "science" is a useless tool to discern CREATION.
NOW you're all not so lost & clueless. Any questions?
Thanks for clarifying that as most people simply do not know or do not understand ! 👍
We've had the evidence from day one. People don’t want to give-up their God self, so they comfort themselves in atheism. But when they look at atheist ideas, they see that all atheist ideas are impossible and never observed. Simply put, a rock can’t come from a bang, get wet & produce the human being, 9 million different species & 300,000 different plants.
"You can't just move the goalpost, especially if you're still gling to miss" absolutley golden line
Whats golden is that God created the universe. FACT! An explosion created the Earth and universe?? LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL!!
The smugness of Dinesh at begining made it so better.
@@roycegrissett3580what 😮
@@roycegrissett3580so you believe an entity with no explanation to his existence conjured it up instead?
said while being totally wrong and ignoring the creation of the light and earth first verse of the bible not during the seven days, nor knowing the definition of the word "let" which is a word of permission not creation. And so on...
Alex hit so many clips on Dinesh
he’s set up a private match to instaswap on a bot
Thank you for uploading these small clips so I can experience the cringe all over again because I keep second guessing myself thinking i must be misremembering just how bad Dinesh was here. Very unfortunate.
Dinesh is so outclassed lol
He's outclassed by a bowl of Jell-O
He’s a semi-clever liar who gets caught regularly. It’s no surprise that he’s popular with people who “believe.”
The fact he says "let's move on" just because he was losing is hilarious 😂.
I think Dinesh was the perfect representative of Christian logic.
I'd say he gives Christianity a bad look still, which is saying something.
*Christian apologist logic
@@weedlol What's the difference?
@@m-ox2tx Most Christians aren't Dinesh, enough said.
@@m-ox2tx Most Christians don’t think about these things that much.
I remember Dinesh making this same point about how the Bible knew the universe had a beginning in a different debate years ago. I think it was a debate he had with Lawrence Krauss and a few others.
Krauss brought up another scientific claim that was wrong in Genesis. Dinesh pulled the same thing and went off on how the Bible isn't actually supposed to be viewed as a science book.
He'll keep using the same arguments even when he's shown to be wrong. He doesn't care.
he is just a cheap slimy eel... unbearable moron
I wonder and suspect there's a few things going on why he repeats himself. The overarching reason is basically yours, a lack of personal intellectual integrity. Within that, possibly forgetting he's said it before. Likely running off of an overall shell script he uses for every debate/lecture. Possibly thinking those who see the debates won't be repeat viewers/attendees. Say it enough and it's got to be true.
Just remember genesis is not a scientific book ....unlike Euclid.
@@_S0me__0ne You said shell script in regard to Dinesh and I immediately thought Bash.
Scientists have been climbing this mountain and find a bunch of prophets at the peak?
What a load of fucking claptrap
Especially since this is one of very few peaks they were found on in the whole mountain range...
And yet this is an extremely old and well-rehearsed apologetics line.
Kinda on-brand coming from a notorious climate denier (Jastrow). That's Dinesh's idea of a scientific genius and a "true skeptic".
Haha yeah that was a ridiculous comment. I think the scientists did all the heavy lifting on that one!
@@harshdeshpande9779 I actually feel so disappointed that supposedly "skeptical" people are able to avoid believing in a more ancient imperial religious campaign but then eagerly accept a new b*g green one or some other trendy historically negative political ideas. So I don't think even the supposed "skeptics" are skeptical enough. The Ancient Roman empire btw also advertised the world is ending due to human behavior trope. And there was absolutely nothing humans were doing that caused Pompeii disaster or other earthquakes. Good for fear stoking though and power grabs. Most people are landing correctly on some side of skepticism somewhere but often by accident instead of enough thorough investigation. We all have our differing sources and echo chambers but tend to view these as antagonistic elements rather than pieces to an overall puzzle. Think this leads to overconfidence and lacking empathy.
“Let’s move on,” says the guy who has backed himself into a corner and can’t think of anything else to say 😂
I don’t think a book full of talking snakes and incest has any right to pretend it’s scientific.
“talking snakes and incest” 😅
@@pmaitrasm Genesis alone is full of both.
Yeah, Christianity has been a real drag on scientific discovery 🙄
do animals have language? because you don't understand it doesn't make it any less true; what about incest? you realize we are all genetically related right; that even your mother and father were related ; is that incest? the people in this thread make childish statements and those that can't even do that just repeat what others are saying all to avoid the actual topic; the real question here is 1) how many scientific facts , proofs, theories are hidden in the Bible; if you are serious then take that on and let us know what you find; my understanding is you will be amazed; but since the majority of you are too lazy to actually read or study in earnest you will remain ignorant
@@andyarellanoChannel You’re wrong on many things.
Animals do not communicate verbally with humans and it’s a proven fact that reproducing with members within your immediate family will lead to some massive health complications and even death along the way.
This is not even remotely analogous to the idea of species being its own “family”.
"Let's move on!! Because I've painted myself into a corner and want to DESPARATELY talk about anything else!"
Next apologists will be saying "the Bible says stuff exists. How could the writers possibly know that?"
That'd be an improvement. Here he was doing it with something that they couldn't know because it isn't known right now. It's still one of the big questions for cosmology.
So he's not just pretending that the writers knew something when they obviously didn't, and using that BS to pretend the rest of the Bible is trustworthy when that wouldn't follow, he's doing all of this on yet more lying about the science.
@@archapmangcmg And when Alex ask him about Sun and Earth, he says day doesn't mean day but longer period, as if he doesn't realize that's even worse for his side.
@@goranmilic442 I don't think he does realise it because he doesn't actually care.
The bible is in English, they obviously knew about the English language before it was invented! /s
@@Alt-mb3uc the only ones who could read the bible 3500 years ago were a few scribes and priests ,everyone else just believed what they were told .
"I've read that passage maybe a dozen times and I've never spotted this contradiction that you're describing" He really said that.
Dinesh: "bible smart cuz it says everything has a beginning."
Dinesh (hidden assumption): "God had no beginning"
*religious logic
As a former moose-lim this is the typa thing u hear with the Qurans scientific miracles.
that is because god is not a thing.
nothing is not a thing.
therefore god is nothing
and nothing created everything.
@@78endriago At some point, even logic breaks down into nothing. Everyone loses. All of yesterday's winners, too. It's the aging process or the creation process in reverse. Then the cycle begins anew. We can hope.
Lol on you @robadkerson, it says all things of the universe have beginning, but God is out of time, space and matter.
Kalam argument is that everything which comes to existence has beginning, universe came to existence, it means universe has beginning but God didn't come to existence. He had already existed, so God has no beginning.
@@john-xp4em ok, you are right. water isn't wet and fire isn't hot and words have no meaning and you can string together a sentence that literally means nothing and supports the beliefs others told you to believe. No need for critical thinking or any intellectual effort on your part.
No wonder Hitch had such an easy time with this guy
I have no idea why he's even prominent. He's been dead wrong about everything I've watched with him, sometimes even comically stupid. I guess with the new conservative movement nothing can come as a surprise anymore.
Didn't Hitchens "lose" to Dinesh? I think Pangburn said so in his introduction to this debate, which just blows my mind.
Like, are there people who think Dinesh won this debate too? I just can't get my head around how people can justify such a thing to themselves.
@@Nyghl0 I think people say whatever gets more eyes on the post. Period. It’s a shame, but true…
The ancient Egyptians believed the world was created by Geb and Nut getting freaky with each other. If the universe having a beginning counts as some sort of proof for Christianity then it also counts as proof that the Egyptian gods are real... along with a huge number of other gods from different religions.
Yes, Norse mythology, Greek mythology, Egyptian mythology, Persian mythology, Assyrian mythology...The list goes on.
Thought I'd point out the little passage "ye shall have no other gods before me..." Belief in one and excluding others, just like those traditions that believe or worship in their respective pantheons. Then you get into the triune aspect of Christianity's monotheism which is something of a mind bender and another reason why Catholic's even to this day in mass say "let us contemplate the mysteries of our faith...". Of course you could believe in something even crazier, like wrong souls in the wrong sexed body but hey, lets just judge everything and be left with nothing except nihilism.
@@adamr5031 - The idea of people not conforming to current societal expectations of gender is a lot less "crazy" than the idea of supernatural entities creating our reality and making rules about what we can do with our genitals.
@@MHCrypticsNot Norse. Ginnungagap always was
@@viggoulander9671 Yes and you have chaos in Greek mythology, in my opinion that’s the essence of nothingness from which the universe arrives spontaneously
On the fourth day, God moved the goalposts.
and seventh day slept beside it
It's baffling to me that in 2024 people are still debating Bronze age myths
Why are you commenting here? Don't you have better things to do.
@@joannware6228 Because I follow Alex a lot, love his work, and think he should not waste his time and energy debating religion anymore. And platforming religious thinkers makes religions sound somewhat plausible.
@@arthurtfm What else can he debate? That's his bailiwick.
@@joannware6228 He discusses many interesting philosophical views in his channel, like Free Will, Morality, Epistemology, Vegetarianism...
@@arthurtfm All from the viewpoint of an atheist. Sad that someone evidently as talented as you would be content with such a limited philosophical and spiritual experience.
How did the author of Genesis know that the world had a beginning? Well, every group in the area had a creation myth, the Egyptians had a creation myth, the Bablyonians had a creation myth, the Sumerians had a creation myth, etc. Every creation myth had their god or gods creating the world in some way. Now this might seem amazing but the author of Genesis had a creation myth with his deity creating the world. Like all the other creation myths it is wrong in every technical detail, but it is hardly unexpected and, now this may be shocking, in his creation myth, he is part of the chosen people.
Precisely. Children have parents, rivers have a source, buildings have a builder, thus ancient people, without the benefit of additional knowledge (and science) to suggest otherwise might rationally conclude that all of existence has a beginning. In hindsight, we're now looking at a universe where time itself may have had a "beginning", but have no context as to what that means...is there something "beyond" the beginning of time? The difference is we're now clever enough to say, "we don't know...we don't even know if that's a meaningful question, and it may exist outside our ability to grasp it", but we can acknowledge our difficulty and move on exploring. The only way most Christian apologists give us anything to that end is the assertion that God is eternal, but the universe cannot be, because intelligence? Ugh...it's so frustrating tracing their spirals and circles into nonsensical dead ends.
@@nickmonks9563they conclude the universe began to exist (for a pretty mediocre reason) but instead of admitting that knowing how it came to be is pretty much beyond us they go “AND THE ONE WHO CREATED THE UNIVERSE IS THE DEITY THAT INSPIRED A BUNCH OF DESERT DWELLERS TO WRITE A BOOK THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO AND SENT HIS SON AND….”
Judaism Christianity? A copy? No. The Calendar does not decide truth, and the eternal infinite Christ existed before any cult or man or demon G0D period. Apparently, what you don’t realize is that G0D was the first on the scene and then Satan. Since that moment, Satan has counterfeited G0D, KNOWING WHAT WAS COMING. And that’s why you have cults and cheap COPIES of the Bible exhibiting The Doctrine of Demons (cults such as atheism, evolution, abiogenesis, star formation, big bang). So it doesn’t matter “when” G0D was “counterfeited” as long as you understand G0D was here first and after Lucifer (Satan) was cast out of heaven, he started to counterfeit G0D’S aims from that point onward.
Let me educate all the lost & clueless here (atheists). The Bible is clear that God created FINITE NATURE (time/space/matter/energy):
"In the beginning (time), God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter/energy)." - Genesis 1:1
Furthermore, "God is light" - 1John 1:5. God doesn't need the sun, moon, stars or anything else for LIGHT. And creation is SUPERNATURAL - not NATURAL; thus, "science" is a useless tool to discern CREATION.
NOW you're all not so lost & clueless. Any questions?
And in the Bible, there are 2 different tales of the Creation, which contradict each other.
(+ 2 different tales of Nativity, JC's death, etc etc 😂😂).
@@patriciadechamps3169 No, they are just different views of the same events. People don’t want to give-up their God self, so they comfort themselves in atheism. But when they look at atheist ideas, they see that all atheist ideas are impossible and never observed. Simply put, a rock can’t come from a bang, get wet & produce the human being, 9 million different species & 300,000 different plants.
Sometimes it get things right, sometimes it gets thing wrong!
Bible summed up in one sentence. Thanks Alex!
Alex, I don't know how you were willing to debate/talk with this person who usually plays dirty. In any case, congratulations.
"Let's move on."
D'Sousa is failing so hard throughout all these videos. As he must.
I love how his VERY FIRST QUESTION was a failed gotcha because Alex just obliterated his bs with reasonable answer.
3:10 " You can't now move the goalposts, especially if you're still gonna miss..."
That's the most succinct take down I've ever heard!
I don't think even Hitch would have said something like that!!
Beautiful work :)
Nailed it, so glad you exist Alex you really have an amazing brain! You not only educate and explain beautifully you also make me want to educate myself more with every video 🙂🙂
Damn. I should have applied to Dartmouth. Apparently they'll let just anyone in.
Let’s forget about Dartmouth and talk about Dinesh’s chronic Drymouth.
@@peterpsylo9178, 😂
Dinesh was intellectually terrible here but you can point out some nasty rhetorical techniques which point to some rhetorical talent.
He was known as "Distort D'Newsa" when he was at Dartmouth...
Dinesh is an obvious liar. Of course he wants to move on.
It’s why he pretends he doesn’t know what Genesis 1 fucking says.
Eh, I find it's plausible that Dinesh genuinely has no idea one about one of the most famous chapters in the bible.
He also says he read it a dozen times 😆
@@camipco I sincerely doubt he even believes in all that nonsense to begin with. He's just another right wing grifter.
You both are wrong. God said let sea and dry land appear much after he said let there be light.
GOD FIRST CREATED THE HEAVEANS (SPACE) AND THE EARTH (MATTER) THEN GENESIS GOES ON TO SAY THAT THIS MATTER HAD NO FORM, INCLUDING WHAT WOULD BECOME WATER AND EARTH, THEN HE SAID LET THERE BE LIGHT AS THE FIRST THING, AND THEN LATER ON SAID LET DRY LAND AND SEA APPEAR. YOU ARE A FOOL ALEX AND DINESH SHOULD KNOW BETTER.
No wonder you scurried away when DINESH said "show me" but no one will say a word of this.
Dinesh was right and Alex was flat out mistaken and wrong though did you not watch the video or ever read Genesis for yourself? lol I won't give anymore context prove you even know what I'm referring to because it's as obvious as it gets Alex was wrong. Dinesh must have had jet lag to not call him out.
I don't know what Alex was thinking when he decided to debate someone so under-qualified to defend the Bible, and I don't know what Dinesh was thinking when he decided to debate someone who is over-qualified to destroy him
As a Christian, Dinesh does not represent me haha. I mean, he could have done a whole lot better explaining what he meant by the Bible is not a science book. It gives an account of the miraculous creation of all things, it does not explain how it happened in detail. Apart from the fact that God doesn't have to work within the confines of the system He Himself created. If He exists and is all powerful, He could have created a jukebox first and then the cosmos afterwards. Which of course is completely nonsensical within the realm of scientific understanding. This guy just sucks at his job, that's the problem. Not here to argue about creation, just here to point out Dinesh seems completely unprepared and ill-equipped for this discussion. Total train wreck haha
Alex doesn’t believe in free will, so he didn’t “decide” to the debate.
@@chadmccleary9032 Determinist don't think you don't make decisions. They think your decisions cannot be random or uncaused by factors.
Do you think that if given the choice between vanilla and chocolate that you would choose to eat shit? If the answer is 'no' there are determining factors when you make a decision, and to the determinist, we aren't concious of all the factors.
Free will is an attempt to save the idea of a soul by philosophers throughout the ages. Once you start picking into them, they are either talking about random or ghosts, neither of which is what actually happens.
If you want an actual breakdown on the problem of free will in approachable terminology, look up AnticitizenX and his free will videos. It really puts the problem of free will in perspective and also gives a definition of free will that can actually work for what we want it to do.
@@chadmccleary9032 the lack of free will position does not state that there is no decision at all. Alex did choose to debate dinesh, it's just at the time of his decision, his thoughts that went through, his neurons, his previous knowledge and current knowledge of everything, and how he was genetically born, has been determined to choose to debate dinesh, and that he could not have chosen otherwise. Hence the will is not free, not that there is no will
@@arlandberutu9306 Why are you trying to correct me? I wrote what I wrote. It was already determined what I would write. I have no ability to take what you’re saying and do anything with it. If I could, that would imply that I’d have free will.
Alex well done. Thank you for your great expression of pure simple logic.
DeSouza is NOT a serious, intellectually honest person in anyway. His part in 2000 Mules proves this.
What did you think was wrong with the doc?
* any way
@@jonathandewberry289 You mean other than the fact that the company which produced the movie apologized for the falsehoods presented by D'Souza, disavowed the film, and withdrew the film from circulation after an investigation revealed D'Souza essentially made up the contentions in the film?
@@jonathandewberry289 you're kidding, right?
@@brucecoutant4874 dont do that.
"You can't just move the goal posts, especially if your still going to miss."
That's one of the greatest lines anyone in history has ever said. 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂
O'Conner slap, just doesn't have the right ring to it tho
@@ryanunruh2683 That's because Hitch slap was a play on bitch slap. O'Conner kebab? O'Conner goner? I got nuthin...
@@PolyQuasiStraight O’Connerage
🔥🚬
Dozens of religions have creation myths. People looked around and thought, "Where did all this come from?" Then decided "A god made it."
That's what the Hebrews did other ones who actually have secret Tales or Mythos as you would say actually tell the truth and got it right spiritually factory religiously as well as even confirmed by scientific finds.
Yes that is true about your comment that dozens of religions have creaton myths just like there is stories of a global flood that wiped out most of mankind told by ancient tribes. Now today we have gone to the other extreme that all life and it's systems came about by a series of chances!
@@mirandahotspring4019 so no creation myth can be valid since there exists more than one ?
The cognitive dissonance of religious people is legendary.
Nothing about the big bang theory implies that it was the absolute beginning of everything. Only the beginning of the universe in it's current state. Apologists really need to get this through their heads.
I remember reading in a physics book (I think the one by Max Tegmark) that the Big Bang was simply a huge expansion of matter that occurred some billions of years ago. There’s no claim that it came from nothing or anything- but theists will do anything they can to find a gap where they can insert their God
_"Faith means not wanting to know what's true."_ [Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche]
(Glaube heißt Nicht-wissen-wollen, was wahr ist.)
No theist says that the big bang was the absolute beginning of everything. Since everything would also include God.
It's also just the furthest back we can observe and do mathematics, since time and space seemed to have started there.
@@slashmonkey8545even atheists believe that something was eternal. It would have to be. Christians say that eternal thing is intelligent. Atheists think it was matter.
To see how young Alex is combined with such a brilliant mind gives me great hope for the future
It isn’t new that religious people always says “this particular thing is scientific accuracy and the Bible is amazing” and then one mention something wrong and they are like “ well is an old book written by people” 😂
It's funny because his big so called turning point argument that the bible puts the creation of the earth before the sun is flat out false. "Let" is not a word of creation it's a word of permission, let there be light is not the creation of light, the sun was already created it says in Psalms and Isaiah God sealed the sky, no light no warmth hitting the surface means the earth was in an ice age. God was unsealing the sky and restoring conditions on the earth for life. Just a reminder the creation of the universe including the earth happened first verse in Genesis not all the way after during the seven days lol.
actually that is somewhat new, throughout history Biblical theories have been regarded as true, just because some people speak for God... doesn't mean that God speaks through them
The problem is people like you not being able to establish the context of what they are reading.
@@knarfx4732 You really gonna repeat my argument back to me? lol sure the people who read the book are the ones who are most going to cherry pick and not read it in context. Sure lets go with that one...
@@WaterspoutsOfTheDeepthe context of Dinesh’s argument was basically “look what Genesis says about this specific thing! How could the writers possibly known something 2000 years in advance of its scientific discovery” to which Alex’s response was to point out that literally the next verse says something that is scientifically incorrect. Dinesh (and Christians) can’t have their cake and eat it. You can’t claim a book must be divinely inspired because it says things that have been subsequently scientifically proven, whilst also claiming that other claims are just poetry, or symbolic, or that it’s just a story that isn’t designed to be scientifically accurate.
This approach just creates a really warped view of how evidence, critical thinking, and the scientific method all work.
Discussing with a believer is wasting one's time. They are blind and deaf to any rational thinking. Poor souls ! ☹️
Dinesh is like the preacher in the Young Sheldon series.
Dinesh should stick to making feelings based arguments to defend Trump.
Fact based arguments were never his strong suit.
The universe having a beginning isn't even a universally agreed upon theory.
It’s pretty well settled, but yeah, not every one will agree. However, there is sufficient evidence that most who study it conclude it had a beginning
@@NAMELESS-ln7gm It's actually not well settled, and is becoming increasingly debated in scientific circles. We observe the universe expanded from a point, but we know nothing about what came before that (or if there is a before that).
@@NAMELESS-ln7gm the expansion, big bang, had a beginning but the singularity it was "before" doesnt need to be
The Bible does no claim it is a science book
Today science claim that the universe has a beginning ,so is the bible,they only contradict on how it happened.
Without even watching im going to say two things:
1. Even a broken clock is right twice a day
2. Simpsons
This whole thing is giving Sam Harris and Deepak Chopra, but even worse, poor Alex
My brain is screaming and deteriorating with every word Dinesh utters..
This is an example of how the best way to make an argument in favour of the Bible is to know nothing about any other subject. There is nothing unique to the Bible about stories of the universe coming into existence. You could put that argument to rest just by doing a Google search of creation myths.
Yes Dinesh fumbled this 1 but the Christian response in brief is - God made the Sun, Moon, and stars before any of the events described in the six days of creation in Genesis 1. The point of view for the six creation days is that of an observer on Earth’s surface (Genesis 1:2). “Let there be light” in the text describing creation day 1 is when the visible light of the Sun, Moon, and stars first appears on Earth’s surface. “Let there be the great lights” so that they may serve as signs marking seasons, days, and years in Genesis 1:14 implies that the Sun, Moon, and stars only became visible as distinct objects in the sky to creatures on Earth’s surface on creation day 4.
Making shit up isn't really answering to anything here. its specifically says that sun was made on day 4, not placed at that spot or turned on or cloud been cleared for it to be seen from the surface of the earth, but actually made on day 4.
On top of this... Who the hell was on earth's surface on day 1 to start recording events? Who the hell made this records? Your comment makes no sense.
@@Zripas wow you are so based! Not really - try going to the source documents Genesis 1.2 - the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
God was hovering over the waters on the Earth then that answers your question
@@buxboi5308
ISS is hovering over earth's waters too... Is it inside earth's atmosphere? So again, you just making shit up in hopes to create excuse for error in bible. How long will you try to do it? Like lets take basic thing here, bible talks about global flood which killed everyone, well, in reality it never actually happen, so you have atleast one false claim in that book, while getting creation order isint even that big of a deal, you could just "explain" it by saying that writers (humans) made a human mistake and got that order wrong, but no, you are just creating excuses left and right trying to claim that bible isint saying what its saying... C'mon... Have some self respect here.
so his argument is - humans were too stupid to figure that out in the past, therefore this imaginary character must be responsible.
Yeah it's ridiculous. The idea of "stuff begins" is not some amazing observation.
It doesn't even have to be his imaginary god being, might as well be the flying spaghetti monster lol
@@kaaoi1640 You say it could be a spaghetti monster as an insult; but you don't actually believe your own point. Because if you did, it's just a matter of the description of god, not the existence
@@jherandsoleil6335 every description of god is equally ridiculous so by default there is no serious meaning behind it
@@kaaoi1640 Every? Why does does the mere thought if God's existence even bother you?
I don't know why you let him get away with claiming science says the universe had a beginning. The big bang theory just says everything's expanding and if you reversed time it would coalesce back in to a hot, dense state. It says nothing about where that hot, dense state came from and if it's eternal. And that hot, dense everything is the whole universe. No-one knows if it had a beginning before that.
He said "I don't know". He only says "I assume so" to concede the possibility so Dinesh would continue his word salad
Yes, that's a fair point.
Alex isn’t a scientist though and knowing Dinesh, he’d probably just have lied straight to Alex’s face that the science was confirmed etc. and that Alex is just being difficult.
I think it was a good idea for Alex to ignore the scientific claim and move on to the philosophical arena where he also destroyed Dinesh easily
That's usually how it goes when they make such claims.
"Genesis knew how the universe was created!"
"It got it wrong, though."
"...uh, well, you see, the thing with that is, it's trying to explain things to us, not necessarily in a scientific way, and, uh..."
Gotta say Alex your points were excellent, you did really well here.
Mr D'Souza, just like Jordan Peterson, is so bewitched by how clever he is, that he starts talking absolute bollocks. And taking wearying ages to do it.
I love Alex dodged the first question and didn't answer the question just like every other atheist does when cornered.
@@TomHensley-g1n but what do you mean by "dodge" and "cornered"?
@@sunflare8798 what do you think dodged and cornered mean? Words mean something.
@@sunflare8798 dodging the question seems to be a typical atheist move when they can't answer a question they tire to change the subject.
Alex is wrong:
Dr. Hugh Ross explores how the early chapters of Genesis contain strong scientific evidence for the Bible's supernatural accuracy123. His book "The Genesis Question" and later work "Navigating Genesis" address this topic, integrating the message of both the Bible and science.
I think alot of people forget that when you are debating a topic your meant to learn about both sides. Like here alex clearly knows what the bible says and how people will interpret it. While Dinesh didn't do any research on the opposite side.
Dinesh is just a snake-oil salesman - he tries to shift the goal-posts, since his logical comprehension has too many flaws
Exactly. He did not prepare defences for attacks that a good commander would expect from the enemy.
This to me was the defining characteristic of this whole debate. This whole moment indicated not interest in honest analysis but winning the debate for the audience (ignoring how often Dinesh faced the audiance compared to Alex). This was a trainwreck of a debate.
This keeps on coming up in my feed and I haven't got sick of it yet. Good to see Alex showing his irritation with Dinesh's arguments. Literally got sick of them.
Day 4 comes after day 1. 4:39
Brilliant.
Dinesh- "let's move on" (please)
Given that we can’t really see the other side of the big bang’s singularity, this question isn’t really answerable
What I've always found baffling about this claim is that "the world had a beginning" is only an extraordinary claim in the context of the relatively recent hypothesis of eternal history.
Before then, the idea that the world had a beginning was so intuitively obvious that it was the default claim, to the point where virtually every religion has some form of creation myth.
That is because it's natural to assume that everything has a beginning due to the nature around you behaving like that: you can see birth and you can see death - beginning and end. However, universe itself isn't proven to have had a beginning
I think you're wrong. In eastern religions time is limitless, even in Greece and Rome there were created gods, but THIS particular God is the one who creates time (good luck finding it outside of Aristotle and Plato), space (every god was subject to space and time) and matter. It says it plain and clear in Genisis 1-1. In the beginning (creation of time) God created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter)
@ilverolav I politely disagree.
First of all, many of the Greek and Roman religions have Chronos, a.k.a. Father Time. Literally, the being who creates and manages time, and all of creation was caused by him going from an inert state (no time) to an active state (beginning of time). Either he creates (or they are formed naturally by the creation of time), Aether (space) and Chaos (entropy), who will, in turn, create Gaia (matter)
Also, by the same argument you made about creator gods not necessarily creating time, Yahweh is not listed as creating time. It states, "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth." It does NOT state that God Yahweh created time, nor that time was created at all. In fact, a lot of older interpretations of Genesis is that before "the beginning," there was nothing but an endless ocean (and endless time)
My point is that most myths have a "in the beginning," and it's nebulous if that's the beginning of time itself, or just the beginning of everything else. And the Bible is no exception.
@@MasamiPhoenix Firstly Aether is actually a substance (check Aristotle), secondly Chronos was the god of time but he was still limited by space and matter, Chaos was just "the beginning" where there was already something but it wasn't ordered ang Gaia is simply the goddes of the dirt and fertility, what have you even studied? Also "IN THE BEGINNING" implies that BEFORE there was NOTHING, it doesn't say "in the beginning of the earth, of the ocean or the woods" it simply says "IN THE BEGINNING", nothing before. Also earth at that time was the same as universe, so "God created the earth" for Jews could mean "God created the universe", as the concept was fairly similar.
@ilverolav I could argue the details with you all day, but this is pretty much proving my point:
Modern apologetics can pretty much twist any text to support any view. If we found evidence that time did have an infinite regress, there would be apologists (most of them the same ones we have now) insisting that was proof that the Bible was correct and it was the only text that DIDN'T claim an origin of time.
3:58 - Dinesh literally cannot read his own Bible, that's pretty amazing to see.
"Do you think the Universe had a beginning?"
Ugh. Either it did, or it didn't, or the question doesn't make sense.
The compilers of the Bible didn't *know* anything, they *asserted* the one that gave the most credit to God. Is this surprising to anyone?
The current scientific answer is that our models predict back around 14 billion years and then break down and we don't know what happened prior to that, or *if* there was a "prior" to that.
And one of the options is "that question doesn't make sense".
What does a person mean by "beginning"? That's there's a *tick* of time in our universe when something didn't exist in our universe, and a next *tock* of time in our universe when that thing *did* exist in our universe. That's our experience of "beginnings" during *our* existence in our universe.
If we confine ourselves to ticks and tocks *within* our universe, and *if* our universe had a first tock, then that tock did *not* have a tick *prior* to it in our universe, and therefore no *beginning*. The first tock in our universe did not *begin* as we normally mean "begin".
You have to posit some meta universe with meta time and meta beginnings to meaningfully talk about a beginning of our universe. Did our universe meta begin in some meta universe? Who the hell knows? Certainly not the person who is implicitly equivocating between beginnings as we mean them in our universe and meta beginnings in some meta universe.
But this is always the game. There's always some beyond where the usual rules of knowledge are not applied that is used as the argument for why an invisible wizard must exist to explain the not beyond.
Exactly. People are trying to apply common sense to a question where there is no such thing as common sense, and can't be. And they do that while knowing nothing about it.
This was a one sided beatdown
"Let's move on"
Me, halfway through the clip: "Has Dinesh always been digging this hole or did it have a beginning at some point in the distant past?"
It always existed
Genesis doesn't say creation out of nothing. It says there was already 'the waters' (tiamat/chaos)...
LOL, I think D'Souza just became the first person in history to break the sound barrier while pedaling backwards.
Nice to see Alex going for the jugular on this one. He needs to do this more often.
The Bible states the moon is a literal light as *two* lights were made (Genesis 1:16). That's wrong.
No, no, no. That's just a metaphor. The parts that seem scientifically accurate though, those aren't metaphors.
@@joed9305LMAO. It’s actually ridiculous how theists can flip flop from “WOW IT ACCURATELY DESCRIBES THE WHOLE UNIVERSE- ITS CLEARLY DIVINE” to “NOOO ITS JUST A METAPHOR!!! HOW COULD YOU INTERPRET IT SO BADLY”
@@krishvids608 Whenever religion is proven to be scientifically unworkable, then all-of-a-sudden, it becomes a metaphor, symbolism, not literal, you weren't supposed to take it seriously.
I thought the moon gave light, you know, reflected light. No moon no light at night. That sort of thing. Darkness is just an absence of light.
I cannot help but laughing from the awkward silence around 02:50 😄
All that's needed is that little melody from Jeopardy when the players are trying to come up with there best answer... and then the buzzer sounds...times up Alex wins.
I needed a bit of Alex to brighten my day. So intelligent, eloquent and knowledgeable. If I could have a tenth of his capacities, I would be very happy!
Let's all learn something from this exchange. If you start a logical argument with an assertion that you take as axiomatic then of course you're going to see support for that proposition in something as ambiguous as the Bible. We all need to be constantly challenging our own assertions, and science is a magnificent tool for so doing.
The medieval Jewish commentator Rashi pointed out that the original Hebrew of Genesis 1:1 includes a temporal clause; it should be rendered “When God began to create the heavens and the earth…”
This suggests that creation is a process of ordering and separation that begins with pre-existing matter-this does _not_ at all suggest creatio ex nihilio.
Exactly.
Cool thing about the Bible is that it can be interpreted to say pretty much whatever you want it to say. Kinda like you did by saying it “suggests” something it doesn’t say. Maybe because it’s translated from an archaic language, maybe because it’s mostly ancient poetry and folklore, maybe because the writing styles just leave open interpretations; point is that it doesn’t matter what it says to someone who believes it contains the infallible word of a god, it will always be right no matter what.
@@mabatch3769 well sure, any written text can be interpreted any number of ways, as literary theory has shown-but that doesn’t mean any and every interpretation is just as valid (particularly if it cannot be substantiated based on all of the accumulated background knowledge of the text).
A great point. It also suggests to me that Genesis should not be used to justify any position as its status is no disputed. As I understand it, this is not necessarily a bad thing - the variety of meanings that can be derived from a text is potentially a source of rich insights about ourselves and our place in the world. Like any great fiction, in fact. What it cannot do is to be used for is to establish the validity of any one particular philosophical, religious or political position. Sadly we humans are very bad at accepting this.
That’s been quashed for the same reason evolution was: a perfect god would create perfect beings.
Stating that it’s a process implies things aren’t perfectly formed and calls into question the perfect nature of the fairytale.
Don’t try to find outs for these people. Just laugh like the rest of us.
Attempting to rationalize it makes you… one of them
My forth grade self is screaming that the ancient Greeks also believed that from nothing came something and that the universe had a beginning
Greeks were ahead of their Times.
When you realise and accept there's simply no god to start with, everything becomes very clear.
Dinesh: Creation account! Genesis! It happened!
Also Dinesh: Let's ignore everything about the old testament, that's not how it happened!
🤷🏻♂️🤷🏻♂️
They love to ignore that it was because of the ancient Hebrews and later Greeks wrote down and later was compiled into a bible that the church for over a thousand years thought the earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it. That in Joshua it says that the Sun stood still for three days. That every eye would see Jesus when he descends from the heavens, that the devil showed Jesus all the world from a top a mountain, that god placed the world atop immovable pillars, etc. Some thought it was flat and square, others that it was flat and round, all thought it was the moon, sun, and stars that moved, not the earth and none of them thought it was as big and as old as it really is.
Not only did the writer of Genesis not know that the universe had a begining, the writer of Genesis did not write that the universe had a begining.
According to scholarly consensus, the commonly used translation of Genesis 1:1 "In the begining God created ..." Is a mistranslation.
That scripture would more accurately be translated something like, "When God began to create ..."
This more accurate translation does not suggest the earth was created exnihilo.
Correct
I don't see the difference. If the beginning was "day" 1, then that's when it began.
Link?
@@kitmoore9969 How can you not see a difference when one suggests a begining, and one does not? Day 1 on earth does not translate to day 1 all over the universe.
One suggests that god created everything. The other suggests that material already existed, and god just arranged it into something useful. The implications are wildly different. I don't believe YT filters take kindly to links that direct its audience off the site. Google info on the Genesis 1:1 translation controversy. You will definitely discover discussion on this topic quite easily, but don't expect to understand much of what you read unless you have some expertise in ancient Hebrew.
Dinesh is a poor advocate for his cause. The stumbles and evades and seems to make things up on the fly.