Thanks for recommending this video Mr B. Loved it and have subscribed. I hope it will prepare me against the day I am called to debate formally too. God bless both these channels
I was saved in 1981, and I remember that day in more detail that 9/11. I could feel his pull while sitting in the church service. I was afraid to go up when they had altar call. I was going to commit suicide that night after leaving the church. I sat in my car as members where leaving the church and I had an overwhelming urge to speak with the evangelist before he got to his car. I ran up to him and said can you pray for me, I’m lost. He prayed with me, I accepted Jesus and a miracle happened. I was changed from night to day, I had happiness instead of sorrow. My mind was changed completely. My life would have ended that night if it wasn’t for Jesus. If the atheist’s only knew Jesus the way I know him, they would have joy instead of sorrow.
You didn’t lose the sorrow, you gained what you were missing. I notice this constantly, people who aren’t saved usually aren’t happy. They have fun and all that but it’s a fleeting happiness, what I’m talking about is the joy of the Lord. I’m overjoyed you came to the Lord before you starved out, a good end to your old man and a wonderful beginning to the new one.
This type of lazy thinking demonstrated by these atheist scholars filters down to the rank-and-file, run-of-the-mill atheists who argue "I just lack a belief, therefore all the burden of proof falls on the theist."
I watched that debate when it was first posted. I was blown away by how the other side of the debate was handled. But, sitting here at 2am eating dinner, I got to "that was a dumpster fire," and about choked on some bacon. Haha! I was already laughing when I looked up and saw the popcorn. Well played sir. Also, thank you for this very specific but helpful content. I have brain damage from certain life experiences, and it's very hard for me to track trains of thought, sometimes even my own. It helps me watching debates like that and trying to dissect them as I go, the arguments I mean. However, it's very helpful having your commentary and articulating why and how an argument doesn't track or why it does work. So, thank you. This is helping.
Saw Red Pen Logic post for this. Checked it out. Found the commentary on a debate I've been looking for, for years. Thank you sir for starting this channel. It is much needed.
@@WiseDisciple Micheal Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) vs Matt Dilhunty/ Aron Ra/ Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic), Stephen Woodford (Rationality Rules) . Any or all.
I think this serves as an excellent example on how NOT to enter or argue a formal debate! 👍 Thank you! Emotions can run high, but one should make every effort to remain calm, be clear and stay on point.
It seems that Dr.Clark's plan for this debate was to seemingly walk in unprepared and treat this debate like he was teaching a class. Steamrolling only works if you're debating someone who is ignorant. Durbin and White clearly aren't imho.
If I was God, and you were mocking me, I would not give you a miracle. 🙄 Just sayin' 😉 🤣 God is not your magic genie. The awesomeness of nature proclaims the greatness of God❣️☺️
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God." Blessed is every man that encounters this Grace. If only all Christians could come together..
The Atheist here did not lose because they're dumb or had poor arguments they lost because they didn't understand the arguments of those that they opposed. Furthermore even if they had studied the opponent's views they probably wouldn't study them enough to learn anything because simply put they do not want to learn anything at all about their opponents belifes.
Holy cow! That one atheist is acting like a nut job! Guess they really hit a nerve when he realized some his beliefs were illogical and arbitrary. But resorting to goading and mockery because he's not accustomed to looking like a fool just made him look more of a fool
I would really like to see Jeff Durbin and Matt Dillahunty debate. Matt backed out of a (paid) debate with Dr. White, which is disappointing because that would have been great. I think Jeff would do pretty good debating Matt. My dream debate is to see Jason Lisle debate Aron Ra. Jason doesn't really debate atheist though, unfortunately.
@Joshua Opell Right because I'm sure they have nothing in comparison to you. I mean White with almost 4 decades of debate experience doesn't even deserved to be compared to an intellect such as yourself
Dr Clark is having a meltdown. When he asked James White why God doesn't grow his hair, I couldn't help to think about Kennith Copeland putting his hands on top of his head and declaring "hair grow".
Thank you so much sir! I'm just wondering what is your thoughts about scoring a debate? For example, I read in Mr. Nabeel Qureshi's book "Seeking Allah Finding Jesus" a section of the debate that he taught that a Muslim won the debate because of the zeal and confidence the Muslim debater has and thought that the Christian apologist was kinda soft contrary to what Dr. David Wood was thinking which is more focus on the actual arguments. Sorry for name dropping a lot.
Hi Mariem! Thanks for the question! In a full debate (as opposed to clash or cross examination, where I typically fix my focus in these videos), both elements are weighed as part of the judgment of the debate (by a judge). That is to say, Nabeel is right that confidence and zeal plays a part in debate, because judges do take into consideration the Ethos of the debater. But David Wood is also right because the arguments themselves (or the Logos) are crucial to judging as well. If I had to separate these out and give one element more weight than the other, I'd side with Wood and focus on the arguments. Hope that helps :)
Another fun debate to analyze would be James White vs David (whatshisname) with Berean Call. The debate was embarrassing to watch, but there are a lot of good pointers on what to do and what not to do in a debate.
What about the part when Dr. Clark asked James and Jeff to drink antifreeze...... I was so frustrated at that point,if I had be on the affirmative.....I may have gone for it.
"Sir, you are the angriest man I ever met" (Dr. White) doesn't even begin to describe the antics and tone of Dr. Clark. If you haven't seen the whole debate, be warned. At one point, Clark challenges his opponents and the audience to drink anti-freeze (yep, brought in the jug and poured it in a glass) to "show him" that Mark 16:18 is the infallible word of God. (“. . . if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;”) This message to the disciples was to show that the Holy Spirit would validate their message and authority through miracles; not an ongoing protection for "true believers" as Clark assumed. One wonders what Clark would have done if someone had taken him up on the proposal.
Abstract concepts are things like love, beauty, music, math, philosophy, etc. these are things which can either exist in reality or not, but can be thought of by human minds either way. Artistic creation is an abstract concept, for example.
These guys have no business being on the debate stage with Durban and White. Their position aside, the intellect on display here is wildly insufficient.
Immaterial laws are the laws which govern human thought and reason; the law of non-contradiction, law of excluded the excluded middle, etc, and also the laws of cause and effect. For example, if someone claims “There is no such thing as truth”, they are violating the law of non-contradiction. We show this by turning the claim on itself… If there is no such thing as truth, then the claim “there is no such thing as truth” can’t be true. It violates its own standard. Another example would be the claim “My brother is an only child”. Since you and your brother both exist, neither of you can logically be an only child.
@JO Because they don’t undermine them. The liar’s paradox has no connection; it is neither affirming nor disproving logical reasoning and truth. The reasons vary based on which form of the paradox you care to address. The statement “This sentence is false”, for example, is oft-cited. It isn’t applicable because sentences don’t have any possible truth value. The statement “what I’m saying is false” has no referent; it’s an incomplete claim, therefore it can’t be tested for truth value, therefore can’t be a paradox. In other words, the sentence objectively claims “is false”. That’s not a testable claim in any language.
@JO That’s my point; self-referential statements aren’t truth claims. They’re just words in a certain order in a particular language. Only claims of truth can be tested. Statements like the liar’s paradox fall under the category of linguistics, not logical reasoning. It’s the same as saying “blue tastes like the number 16”. Those are all English words, and it’s grammatically fine, but it doesn’t mean anything and doesn’t make any objective claim. It makes a category error.
@@butdidjudye It’s normal for him to not cover the opening, but the antifreeze (if I remember correctly) was in the cross exam which is what he always focuses on.
17:30 Ellis says the laws of logic come from human thought but he also says they are immaterial and they would exist even if no humans existed. Wow, the absolute irony. He's sitting here pretending that his beliefs are rooted in logic while simultaneously using the most abysmally illogical argumentation. How does he not see this?
@@crobeastness The topic was "the Triune God of scripture exists". The negative side could have made it so the affirmative side had to prove God was necesarily triune or something like that, but they didn't.
@@davidnewhart2533 Yes but the argument for atheists (or better yet agnostics) is that there doesn't appear to be a significant reason to assume the Triune God of Scripture exists, and this hasn't been affirmatively proven yet. It has definitely been suggested as a likely explanation, but it hasn't been proven, hence, the reason for the debate.
@@TheSpacePlaceYTThe triune God exists because the actual standard for morality is perfect love. There can be no love without another person. God is triune because God is love. He’s not just the standard for a set of moral absolutes. He created outwardly from himself out of love. The greatest act of morality was the Triune sacrifice of Jesus - a loving Father - a willing Son - a Spirit who witnessed, and who reports the good news - offering the gift to anyone who believes.
The atheist worldview isn't insane. That the universe is set up so that if people don't believe in a particular God they will burn in hell for eternity, now that's insane.
What is missing (the one little thing) from Durbin and White here is the response to the atheist objection that “well you haven’t demonstrated that your standard exists!” My response: “Fair enough, I haven’t met your standard of evidence. What I have done is demonstrated that we have an objective standard that makes things like induction and ethics intelligible, and you have none. As such, mine is better than yours, therefore you should believe it, but you won’t, and why? Because you don’t like it.”
@Retsuko Fanatic123 "Regarding the secular standard for ethics, ethics are a careful consideration of the rights and consequences of one's actions. It's these considerations that are how we knew murder was wrong before Christianity ever came to be. Murder is wrong because it is the intentional ending of a life which, even if said life was not a productive or contributing member of society, was still a human being who has the potential to contribute to others." I believe that the potential of contribution would not be enough in my opinion to consider society today to be completely sensible. While I agree that murder is wrong due to this reason, I believe that if the contribution to society is something that is worth the most value, our system should be a little more akin to slavery, and I feel like _controversial_ issues such as the position of pro-life in abortion should be further pushed so that we produce as many human beings as possible due to the outweighing benefit of the person who may grow up to contribute to society vs the feelings of the mother. While I am in the pro life position, this is not the reason why I believe it is right. I believe it's right due to objective morality. "Rape is wrong because while the rapist derives pleasure from their horrid deed, the victim is always traumatized. Rape is by definition always unwanted, and nobody wants to be raped. Victims of trauma have their whole lives effected by the trauma, their relationships and output can also be deeply affected." The problem with this argument is that the basis for morality is simply unknown. In the context of a secularist/atheist/materialist etc., making objective standards and making a society follow the standards doesn't appear to be justified. If there _is_ objective morality, and it is not purely the opinion of others, atheists cannot explain what the basis of their objective moral values lies on, while us believers can because our objective morality is based on God. If there is _not_ objective morality, then what authority do we have to criticize others for having an opinion or view of morality that is different than ours? What would be morally "wrong" with psychopaths if morality is subjective? We would only be assuming that the opinion of certain human beings are less sensible and shunned upon either due to popularity or due to certain people objecting to the reasoning of others, but without an objective moral standard, this basis does not exist, and even though we can try to explain this, we have no reasonable obligation to do anything morally "right" besides sparing our lives from an unjustified life of captivity (jail). "We also such misconstrued morality with Nazi Germany, who scapegoated whole people and murdered them out of the belief that those people were a threat to their way of life. Fear for one's welfare and the welfare of those one loves can drive whole civilizations into committing heinous acts, but genocide is objectively wrong as those whole groups that were wiped out were human beings who could have contributed greatly to the world as a whole." The first half of the paragraph I took this quote from makes complete sense, so I won't address it. When you say that genocide is "objectively wrong" the basis of which it is wrong, as explained above, is unknown. I believe it is objectively wrong because God very clearly said "thou shall not kill" and the only exception is if God specifically tells someone to do so. This does not actually provide much of an explanation for objective moral standards, because we assume that genocide was a heinous and truly terrible act, but if we have no objective moral basis, then all there is on the subject is an opinion. You could have condemned or consoled what Hitler did, and you wouldn't be objectively wrong for doing so, just shunned by the society you evolved to live in. "So induction is not the result of God, but came about as a means for lifeforms to better live in their environment. As for where these lifeforms came from, we don't know yet. There are many theories with God being one such theory, but we can observe that object morality and induction are still plausible even in a world without a God." I believe that objective morality is not plausible without a necessary foundation of reality, and I don't think that has been proven to be falsified yet, despite the brilliant minds of people in the technological era. While life-forms better living in their environment is a positive thing in my view, I believe the standard of which these things are formulated or deduced to be right or wrong does not exist. We aren't saying morality can't exist without God. That's absurd. What we are saying is that there is no foundation of objective morality except for God. Explaining how this god is the Christian God is for a different debate. Keep in mind I'm only 13, so I might not be able to address everything. Thank you for reading, and if you don't see this, thank everyone else for looking at the replies.
@@TheSpacePlaceYTYou are a smart kid The basis for atheist morality will always be “such and such is wrong because it’s terrible; and it’s terrible because we don’t like it, and we don’t like it because it’s wrong.” They have no answer for why terrible things should not exist. Why? Because they are attempting to derive an “ought” from an “is.” The universe just is. It does not provide an ought. They can’t admit that, because it would lead to insanity. Richard Dawkins once admitted it on paper, and he of course has gone insane trying to live consistently with it.
I remember watching it on livestream and it was so cringe when the atheists were getting butthurt. They sounded like little kids when they throw a fit.
@@jonathanhauhnar8434 its sad how divisive people can be. Calvinists, arminianists, provisionists, and all other christians believe in Jesus and what He did for us so can we all unite in that.
MORE! OF! THESE! I was aware Dr. White did decades of debates, haven't seen any with Jeff D. in them; thanks for bringing this to my attention. I highly encourage more debates with one of these two in the future, i subscribe to AO's channel, they seem to have a good head on their shoulders biblically & I learned a lot from them. God bless WD Team! Always look forward to ANY videos, but especially challenging debate videos to flesh out any blind spots i may have.
When I watched this years ago I had no idea Dr. White was such an amazing debater because Jeff Durbin really stole the spotlight with his rhetorical control.
I think at least one of the atheists had already taken a hefty swig from the bottle before the debate. That's the only explanation I can come up with for some of that behavior.
I'd like to hear some insight on that debate. A bunch of people didn't like it cuz of the way it was structured. I don't like it for the same reason. I would like to hear what a debate teacher would have to say on it.
Lol @ more cringe than a limp handshake! 🤣😂 True story... I do not like greeting time at church because it’s so awkward, and I’ve never encountered more limp handshakes than greeting time in church!
I agree, one of the concerns i bring to my church elders is the minute or less we get to greet each other after worship. I have plenty of time before/after service, but no real felt genuineness while greeting imo.
Hey, just found this channel and am loving the debate commentary. Could you maybe watch/critique Mike Winger vs Matt Dillahunty on Jesus’s resurrection? It seemed to me that Matt was shifting the goal posts so to speak by defining what constitutes to be “evidence.” Would love to hear your thoughts.
Just found your channel thanks to Red Pen, fantastic breakdown of a strange debate indeed. Having watched many of James White's debates and knowing how scholarly he is, the frustration in him was evident but entertaining. Another debate that you could possibly cover (albeit no video) is titled "The Great Debate, Does God Exist" between Christian Dr. Bahnsen and atheist Dr. Stein, I found it to be a masterful debate but a breakdown as you provided with the insights you offer should be great! the link if interested th-cam.com/video/ZLZdOGCE5KQ/w-d-xo.html. Cheers
I really appreciate where you critique the debate technique. I've watched several of White's debates but the critiques are always about what is said more so than how it's argued.
This was a fun debate to watch but at the same time pretty sad for the atheists here...actually embarrassing... For a better debate between a Christian and atheist, it would be better to watch Doug Wilson vs Christopher Hitchens.
Good day sir. I would like to ask if it is right to raise objection during the presentation of the opponent especially when you see his presentation was out of the topic? Thank you for your response.
There was only one debate I've seen where someone interrupted an opening statement because they had an issue with what their opponent was saying. It was James White vs Dan Barker. In Dr. White's opening statement he began to refer to Barker's most recent book, and Barker interrupted with an objection because he didn't want his book being referenced in the debate. It's a highly abnormal thing to do. However, it is very common to interrupt an opponent during cross-examination. Sometimes people will misunderstand a question and begin answering something that wasn't asked. At that point it would be perfectly acceptable to interrupt. It's also something the moderator could do. Here's the clip from the White vs Barker debate. th-cam.com/video/MJ-NBFFMm90/w-d-xo.html
Jeff Durban is my favorite, respect to James but there's something about Jeff that speaks. His way he relates to the person on a level of a image bearer is amazing.
I don't know is better than god of the gaps. What is the historic track record of god of the gaps? Does God cause disease? Is extreme weather caused by God? Is the earth the center of the universe?
There's no shortage of material from Dr. White and Pastor Durbin. Dr. White has engaged in over 200 (i believe) moderated debates and is one of the world's leading apologists. Jeff is also one of the best apologists that I know of and has also done many debates, both moderated and "on the street". You can find their material on both Alpha and Omega Ministries page and Apologia church's page!
If your christian interlocutor propose the explaination proposes the answer is god. Do you have propose an alternative explaination? Do you lose points if you think that their explaination of god is incorrect and you alternative explaination is I/we don't know. If this isn't acceptable then give me a question I couldn't propose god as the explaination for.
You skipped the best part! When Dr. Clark LITERALLY brought out ENGINE COOLANT!!!! And dared members of the audience to drink it. This was after he told off Dr. White for holding up an iPad with a small picture of a scroll on it earlier in the debate.
“Does God Exist” As a note: Dr. Greg Bahnsen is a great influence upon the debate style and approach that Jeff Durbin and James White took. So if you liked their approach and how they strong-armed the atheists, you should watch this one too. It is a rubric for destroying atheism.
The bro said that immaterial laws of logic, and numbers as well, would exist if no humans existed, then--in answering the next question--said that humans created them.🤣🤣🤣
I watched that entire “debate” when it was first released; and…oooh, boy! You are so right. It got cringe-ey from the start due solely to the presence of one man - Dr. Clark. Dr. White’s challenge to him after the debate ended, but the mics were still hot, is instructive - his heart is angry. Not a good emotional state to be in when faced with an audience looking for reasoned answers.
I hate to say it but watching Dr. Clark made me think of Vizzini from The Princess Bride. Also, when watching the original debate I remember how painful it was watching the very end when the offer of prayer was extended and, at least to me, was so forcefully rejected.
Best opening ever! 🍿
Ha! Thanks very much for watching! Love your channel as well! Subscribed!
Thanks for recommending this video Mr B. Loved it and have subscribed. I hope it will prepare me against the day I am called to debate formally too. God bless both these channels
@@timskinner4118 Thanks so much for the encouragement, Tim! I agree, I hope these prepare you well! :)
Thanks to Mr B. I found another great channel and subscribed.
@@kennm399 Thanks so much for subscribing! If there's a specific debate you'd like me to react to, let me know :)
I was at this debate, what you don’t see on camera is when he was throwing the books into the trash he missed every time
Brother you channel is an absolute blessing! I'm binging through these "Debate Teacher Reacts" series
Sameeeeee
What, no antifreeze cocktail? Durbin's mic picking up "oh, this is bad" is definitely a popcorn-munching moment.
Oh, I remember watching this debate. One of the most crazy ones I ever seen!
Yes, crazy is definitely a word I'd use! Thanks for watching, Daniel :)
This debate was an abomination. The atheist, DR Clark, was so embarrassing watch.
@@christopherneedham9584 what is he a doctor of, I wonder....🤔
@@Mark-cd2wf Neuroscience (like Sam Harris)
@@christopherneedham9584
Vo
I was saved in 1981, and I remember that day in more detail that 9/11. I could feel his pull while sitting in the church service. I was afraid to go up when they had altar call. I was going to commit suicide that night after leaving the church. I sat in my car as members where leaving the church and I had an overwhelming urge to speak with the evangelist before he got to his car.
I ran up to him and said can you pray for me, I’m lost. He prayed with me, I accepted Jesus and a miracle happened. I was changed from night to day, I had happiness instead of sorrow. My mind was changed completely.
My life would have ended that night if it wasn’t for Jesus. If the atheist’s only knew Jesus the way I know him, they would have joy instead of sorrow.
You didn’t lose the sorrow, you gained what you were missing. I notice this constantly, people who aren’t saved usually aren’t happy. They have fun and all that but it’s a fleeting happiness, what I’m talking about is the joy of the Lord. I’m overjoyed you came to the Lord before you starved out, a good end to your old man and a wonderful beginning to the new one.
@@anondabomb that was 44 years ago
This type of lazy thinking demonstrated by these atheist scholars filters down to the rank-and-file, run-of-the-mill atheists who argue "I just lack a belief, therefore all the burden of proof falls on the theist."
They just constantly have to play semantics.
Thanks for this analysis. It really helps me understand the debate. 🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼 please continue to do these
You got it! Thanks so much for watching :)
I watched that debate when it was first posted. I was blown away by how the other side of the debate was handled. But, sitting here at 2am eating dinner, I got to "that was a dumpster fire," and about choked on some bacon. Haha! I was already laughing when I looked up and saw the popcorn. Well played sir.
Also, thank you for this very specific but helpful content. I have brain damage from certain life experiences, and it's very hard for me to track trains of thought, sometimes even my own. It helps me watching debates like that and trying to dissect them as I go, the arguments I mean. However, it's very helpful having your commentary and articulating why and how an argument doesn't track or why it does work.
So, thank you. This is helping.
Saw Red Pen Logic post for this. Checked it out. Found the commentary on a debate I've been looking for, for years. Thank you sir for starting this channel. It is much needed.
Thanks so much for watching Jonathan! Glad you found my channel. If there's a specific debate you'd like me to react to, let me know :)
@@WiseDisciple Micheal Jones (Inspiring Philosophy) vs Matt Dilhunty/ Aron Ra/ Alex O'Connor (Cosmic Skeptic), Stephen Woodford (Rationality Rules) . Any or all.
@@JohnsonJLB I'll check it out! Thanks :)
@@JohnsonJLB A wise recommendation for Michael Jones vs. Aron Ra. Michael Jones crushed Aron Ra in the opening arguments alone!
@@JohnsonJLB Granted, I didn't watch the full thing, but he still crushed Aron Ra.
I think this serves as an excellent example on how NOT to enter or argue a formal debate! 👍 Thank you! Emotions can run high, but one should make every effort to remain calm, be clear and stay on point.
Atheists have no other retort than an emotional one.
That's not a debate. That's a train wreck.
Great analogy using the restaurant
It seems that Dr.Clark's plan for this debate was to seemingly walk in unprepared and treat this debate like he was teaching a class.
Steamrolling only works if you're debating someone who is ignorant. Durbin and White clearly aren't imho.
This was an epic beat down from Durbin-White
If I was God, and you were mocking me, I would not give you a miracle. 🙄 Just sayin' 😉 🤣 God is not your magic genie.
The awesomeness of nature proclaims the greatness of God❣️☺️
Pharaoh was given miracles in the common usage of the word. But I'm guessing you're using "give you a miracle" in the more positive sense.
Totally! Thanks for watching, Jill :)
@@5SADH Yes. A Godly miracle , as opposed to a demonic miracle. ☺️
The great debate with Stein vs Bahnsen
In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God and the word was God." Blessed is every man that encounters this Grace. If only all Christians could come together..
Hi Nate would you please critic James White and A Jahoveh witness debate its one of the debates I've heard I would love your view points.
Great video!!
Thanks for watching :)
Please react to the debate between Walter Sinnott Armstrong and William Lane Craig.
I'll check it out! Thanks for the suggestion :)
Wow. That was so bad. Thanks for posting!
The Atheist here did not lose because they're dumb or had poor arguments they lost because they didn't understand the arguments of those that they opposed. Furthermore even if they had studied the opponent's views they probably wouldn't study them enough to learn anything because simply put they do not want to learn anything at all about their opponents belifes.
Try listening to the one with Steve Tassi. It's second only to this one in absurdity.
Nice vid!
Thanks for watching, Derek! :)
Holy cow! That one atheist is acting like a nut job! Guess they really hit a nerve when he realized some his beliefs were illogical and arbitrary. But resorting to goading and mockery because he's not accustomed to looking like a fool just made him look more of a fool
I would really like to see Jeff Durbin and Matt Dillahunty debate. Matt backed out of a (paid) debate with Dr. White, which is disappointing because that would have been great. I think Jeff would do pretty good debating Matt. My dream debate is to see Jason Lisle debate Aron Ra. Jason doesn't really debate atheist though, unfortunately.
@Joshua Opell Right because I'm sure they have nothing in comparison to you. I mean White with almost 4 decades of debate experience doesn't even deserved to be compared to an intellect such as yourself
I want james and jeff to do more of these debates together i like them
Dr Clark is having a meltdown. When he asked James White why God doesn't grow his hair, I couldn't help to think about Kennith Copeland putting his hands on top of his head and declaring "hair grow".
Thank you so much sir! I'm just wondering what is your thoughts about scoring a debate? For example, I read in Mr. Nabeel Qureshi's book "Seeking Allah Finding Jesus" a section of the debate that he taught that a Muslim won the debate because of the zeal and confidence the Muslim debater has and thought that the Christian apologist was kinda soft contrary to what Dr. David Wood was thinking which is more focus on the actual arguments. Sorry for name dropping a lot.
Hi Mariem! Thanks for the question! In a full debate (as opposed to clash or cross examination, where I typically fix my focus in these videos), both elements are weighed as part of the judgment of the debate (by a judge). That is to say, Nabeel is right that confidence and zeal plays a part in debate, because judges do take into consideration the Ethos of the debater. But David Wood is also right because the arguments themselves (or the Logos) are crucial to judging as well. If I had to separate these out and give one element more weight than the other, I'd side with Wood and focus on the arguments. Hope that helps :)
Wow. Dr. Clark definitely new he had nowhere to go so he just tried to turn it to an attack.
Why is that leprechaun so angry? Did Dr White steal his gold?
Another fun debate to analyze would be James White vs David (whatshisname) with Berean Call.
The debate was embarrassing to watch, but there are a lot of good pointers on what to do and what not to do in a debate.
No sound?
What about the part when Dr. Clark asked James and Jeff to drink antifreeze......
I was so frustrated at that point,if I had be on the affirmative.....I may have gone for it.
11:32 - absolute morality
Would to see you cover the debate between John Lennox and Richard Dawkins
"Sir, you are the angriest man I ever met" (Dr. White) doesn't even begin to describe the antics and tone of Dr. Clark. If you haven't seen the whole debate, be warned. At one point, Clark challenges his opponents and the audience to drink anti-freeze (yep, brought in the jug and poured it in a glass) to "show him" that Mark 16:18 is the infallible word of God. (“. . . if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them;”) This message to the disciples was to show that the Holy Spirit would validate their message and authority through miracles; not an ongoing protection for "true believers" as Clark assumed. One wonders what Clark would have done if someone had taken him up on the proposal.
Is there anything wrong with saying the truth - that you do not know something?
all jeff does is debate Mormans on the streets of Salt Lake City Utah. 10:14
I feel like every debate Jeff Durbin is apart of ends up kinda wild. No idea why that might be
The popcorn lol
You need to be in this game for sure!
What are abstract concepts?
Abstract concepts are things like love, beauty, music, math, philosophy, etc. these are things which can either exist in reality or not, but can be thought of by human minds either way. Artistic creation is an abstract concept, for example.
I'm sure Dr. Clark is brilliant in his own field But this reminds me of the chess with a pigeon analogy.
LOL!
These guys have no business being on the debate stage with Durban and White. Their position aside, the intellect on display here is wildly insufficient.
30 seconds in and you get a like sir! Love your reaction
Yikes... Gordon Stein offered a greater challenge to Bahnsen than these guys did against the apologia team.
What is immaterial laws?
Immaterial laws are the laws which govern human thought and reason; the law of non-contradiction, law of excluded the excluded middle, etc, and also the laws of cause and effect.
For example, if someone claims “There is no such thing as truth”, they are violating the law of non-contradiction. We show this by turning the claim on itself…
If there is no such thing as truth, then the claim “there is no such thing as truth” can’t be true. It violates its own standard. Another example would be the claim “My brother is an only child”. Since you and your brother both exist, neither of you can logically be an only child.
@JO Because they don’t undermine them. The liar’s paradox has no connection; it is neither affirming nor disproving logical reasoning and truth.
The reasons vary based on which form of the paradox you care to address. The statement “This sentence is false”, for example, is oft-cited. It isn’t applicable because sentences don’t have any possible truth value.
The statement “what I’m saying is false” has no referent; it’s an incomplete claim, therefore it can’t be tested for truth value, therefore can’t be a paradox. In other words, the sentence objectively claims “is false”. That’s not a testable claim in any language.
@JO That’s my point; self-referential statements aren’t truth claims. They’re just words in a certain order in a particular language. Only claims of truth can be tested. Statements like the liar’s paradox fall under the category of linguistics, not logical reasoning. It’s the same as saying “blue tastes like the number 16”. Those are all English words, and it’s grammatically fine, but it doesn’t mean anything and doesn’t make any objective claim. It makes a category error.
Sam Harris, come back! We love you! Anybody is better than Dr. Clark!
Dr Clark is still to the day one the worst debaters I’ve witnessed. Jeff and James absolutely steamed rolled them on every level. 😂
😂😂 the popcorn 😂😂😂😂❤
Dumpster fire extraordinaire! Lol 😂
23:08 - white should have said, No, i will not call fire down becuase you will be destroyed.
What is ontological?
Surprised you didn’t cover the drinking antifreeze part.
lol the craziest thing I've ever seen take place at a formal debate for sure
😂😂😂
@@mjs0686 Stanley Sjoberg got that challenge from Ahmed Deedat ~3 decades ago.
Or the opening statements
@@butdidjudye
It’s normal for him to not cover the opening, but the antifreeze (if I remember correctly) was in the cross exam which is what he always focuses on.
Please do any of Dr. White's debates! There are many! At Alpha and Omega ministries channel!
Dr. James White the 🐐 of debate.
17:30 Ellis says the laws of logic come from human thought but he also says they are immaterial and they would exist even if no humans existed. Wow, the absolute irony. He's sitting here pretending that his beliefs are rooted in logic while simultaneously using the most abysmally illogical argumentation. How does he not see this?
Please explain
@@alp5088In a single line of questions, Ellis said that laws of logic exist even without humans around, and also that they come from humans.
Hey, I remember this debate. I remember thinking the atheists had the advantage, given the topic. Boy was I wrong.
I'm not understanding how the atheists would have the advantage?
@@crobeastness The topic was "the Triune God of scripture exists". The negative side could have made it so the affirmative side had to prove God was necesarily triune or something like that, but they didn't.
@@gospel2dgeek
I mean, God is pretty much confirmed to be Triune in scripture.
@@davidnewhart2533 Yes but the argument for atheists (or better yet agnostics) is that there doesn't appear to be a significant reason to assume the Triune God of Scripture exists, and this hasn't been affirmatively proven yet. It has definitely been suggested as a likely explanation, but it hasn't been proven, hence, the reason for the debate.
@@TheSpacePlaceYTThe triune God exists because the actual standard for morality is perfect love. There can be no love without another person. God is triune because God is love. He’s not just the standard for a set of moral absolutes. He created outwardly from himself out of love.
The greatest act of morality was the Triune sacrifice of Jesus - a loving Father - a willing Son - a Spirit who witnessed, and who reports the good news - offering the gift to anyone who believes.
This was the greatest debate ever! This showed the total insanity of the Atheist world view, and the cuckoo of the Atheists specifically!
The atheist worldview isn't insane.
That the universe is set up so that if people don't believe in a particular God they will burn in hell for eternity, now that's insane.
@@Whatsisface4that is not what the Bible teaches
@@MartinSulman It's certainly what a lot of Christians tell me is going to happen to me. What do you think the Bible teaches?
There's no such a thing as the atheist wordlview as atheism is compatible with plenty different worldviews
@@tomasrocha6139 nope.
What is missing (the one little thing) from Durbin and White here is the response to the atheist objection that “well you haven’t demonstrated that your standard exists!”
My response:
“Fair enough, I haven’t met your standard of evidence. What I have done is demonstrated that we have an objective standard that makes things like induction and ethics intelligible, and you have none. As such, mine is better than yours, therefore you should believe it, but you won’t, and why? Because you don’t like it.”
Good response! This debate was a DOOZY ;)
@Retsuko Fanatic123 "Regarding the secular standard for ethics, ethics are a careful consideration of the rights and consequences of one's actions. It's these considerations that are how we knew murder was wrong before Christianity ever came to be. Murder is wrong because it is the intentional ending of a life which, even if said life was not a productive or contributing member of society, was still a human being who has the potential to contribute to others."
I believe that the potential of contribution would not be enough in my opinion to consider society today to be completely sensible. While I agree that murder is wrong due to this reason, I believe that if the contribution to society is something that is worth the most value, our system should be a little more akin to slavery, and I feel like _controversial_ issues such as the position of pro-life in abortion should be further pushed so that we produce as many human beings as possible due to the outweighing benefit of the person who may grow up to contribute to society vs the feelings of the mother. While I am in the pro life position, this is not the reason why I believe it is right. I believe it's right due to objective morality.
"Rape is wrong because while the rapist derives pleasure from their horrid deed, the victim is always traumatized. Rape is by definition always unwanted, and nobody wants to be raped. Victims of trauma have their whole lives effected by the trauma, their relationships and output can also be deeply affected."
The problem with this argument is that the basis for morality is simply unknown. In the context of a secularist/atheist/materialist etc., making objective standards and making a society follow the standards doesn't appear to be justified. If there _is_ objective morality, and it is not purely the opinion of others, atheists cannot explain what the basis of their objective moral values lies on, while us believers can because our objective morality is based on God. If there is _not_ objective morality, then what authority do we have to criticize others for having an opinion or view of morality that is different than ours? What would be morally "wrong" with psychopaths if morality is subjective? We would only be assuming that the opinion of certain human beings are less sensible and shunned upon either due to popularity or due to certain people objecting to the reasoning of others, but without an objective moral standard, this basis does not exist, and even though we can try to explain this, we have no reasonable obligation to do anything morally "right" besides sparing our lives from an unjustified life of captivity (jail).
"We also such misconstrued morality with Nazi Germany, who scapegoated whole people and murdered them out of the belief that those people were a threat to their way of life. Fear for one's welfare and the welfare of those one loves can drive whole civilizations into committing heinous acts, but genocide is objectively wrong as those whole groups that were wiped out were human beings who could have contributed greatly to the world as a whole."
The first half of the paragraph I took this quote from makes complete sense, so I won't address it. When you say that genocide is "objectively wrong" the basis of which it is wrong, as explained above, is unknown. I believe it is objectively wrong because God very clearly said "thou shall not kill" and the only exception is if God specifically tells someone to do so. This does not actually provide much of an explanation for objective moral standards, because we assume that genocide was a heinous and truly terrible act, but if we have no objective moral basis, then all there is on the subject is an opinion. You could have condemned or consoled what Hitler did, and you wouldn't be objectively wrong for doing so, just shunned by the society you evolved to live in.
"So induction is not the result of God, but came about as a means for lifeforms to better live in their environment. As for where these lifeforms came from, we don't know yet. There are many theories with God being one such theory, but we can observe that object morality and induction are still plausible even in a world without a God."
I believe that objective morality is not plausible without a necessary foundation of reality, and I don't think that has been proven to be falsified yet, despite the brilliant minds of people in the technological era. While life-forms better living in their environment is a positive thing in my view, I believe the standard of which these things are formulated or deduced to be right or wrong does not exist. We aren't saying morality can't exist without God. That's absurd. What we are saying is that there is no foundation of objective morality except for God. Explaining how this god is the Christian God is for a different debate.
Keep in mind I'm only 13, so I might not be able to address everything. Thank you for reading, and if you don't see this, thank everyone else for looking at the replies.
@@TheSpacePlaceYTYou are a smart kid
The basis for atheist morality will always be “such and such is wrong because it’s terrible; and it’s terrible because we don’t like it, and we don’t like it because it’s wrong.”
They have no answer for why terrible things should not exist.
Why? Because they are attempting to derive an “ought” from an “is.”
The universe just is. It does not provide an ought. They can’t admit that, because it would lead to insanity.
Richard Dawkins once admitted it on paper, and he of course has gone insane trying to live consistently with it.
I believe what my point here would be that I wasn't asking for your thoughts on my belief, I was asking about his.
I remember watching it on livestream and it was so cringe when the atheists were getting butthurt. They sounded like little kids when they throw a fit.
#cringe 😄 Thanks so much for watching!
Usually James White is the one getting in his feelings. It’s typical with calvinist.
@@TheChurchIsLikenUntoTheMoon Do you really need to bring the Calvinism stuff?
@@jonathanhauhnar8434 its sad how divisive people can be. Calvinists, arminianists, provisionists, and all other christians believe in Jesus and what He did for us so can we all unite in that.
MORE! OF! THESE! I was aware Dr. White did decades of debates, haven't seen any with Jeff D. in them; thanks for bringing this to my attention. I highly encourage more debates with one of these two in the future, i subscribe to AO's channel, they seem to have a good head on their shoulders biblically & I learned a lot from them. God bless WD Team! Always look forward to ANY videos, but especially challenging debate videos to flesh out any blind spots i may have.
Durbin & White are obviously very familiar with debate. We'll keep an eye out!
If I understand this is Jeff's first formal public debate. His teacher is sitting right beside him.
@@SilenceDogwood. White has honed his skills to a fine edge
When I watched this years ago I had no idea Dr. White was such an amazing debater because Jeff Durbin really stole the spotlight with his rhetorical control.
You missed the best part, when the atheist brought out the anti-freeze.
By “best” you mean dumbest, right?
@@gustavibrowzinbehrd3871 yes, sarcasm is lost in the comments. Pray that you are in a good Church, where ever you are.
I think at least one of the atheists had already taken a hefty swig from the bottle before the debate. That's the only explanation I can come up with for some of that behavior.
Lennox v. Dawkins was cool. You may like that debate
I'd like to hear some insight on that debate. A bunch of people didn't like it cuz of the way it was structured. I don't like it for the same reason. I would like to hear what a debate teacher would have to say on it.
The Greg Bahnsen vs Gordon Stein debate would be an excellent debate to review.
I second this.
th-cam.com/video/GyGcYG2YNvU/w-d-xo.html
Lol @ more cringe than a limp handshake! 🤣😂 True story... I do not like greeting time at church because it’s so awkward, and I’ve never encountered more limp handshakes than greeting time in church!
I agree, one of the concerns i bring to my church elders is the minute or less we get to greet each other after worship. I have plenty of time before/after service, but no real felt genuineness while greeting imo.
That's when you just squeeze those hands as hard as possible! Ha!
Loved the popcorn, bro! Hilarious touch😂
LOL!
David Falk will always be the greatest person to ever wield the mighty popcorn though.
Hey, just found this channel and am loving the debate commentary. Could you maybe watch/critique Mike Winger vs Matt Dillahunty on Jesus’s resurrection? It seemed to me that Matt was shifting the goal posts so to speak by defining what constitutes to be “evidence.” Would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks for the suggestion (and for watching)! I'll check it out! :)
Try James white vs joe ventilacion
Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check it out :)
@@WiseDisciple yey! Great content. May God bless you and your work.
A classic debate 😂 I knew I wasn’t the only one that found it a bit odd!
I hadn't seen this before reviewing it. Wowzers... :)
Yoooo YOURE INTO APOLOGETICS TOO??? It’s me from tiktok!!
@@colemorganti9349 Hey man! I am very much so! I'm a nerd about this stuff lol
Just found your channel thanks to Red Pen, fantastic breakdown of a strange debate indeed. Having watched many of James White's debates and knowing how scholarly he is, the frustration in him was evident but entertaining.
Another debate that you could possibly cover (albeit no video) is titled "The Great Debate, Does God Exist" between Christian Dr. Bahnsen and atheist Dr. Stein, I found it to be a masterful debate but a breakdown as you provided with the insights you offer should be great! the link if interested th-cam.com/video/ZLZdOGCE5KQ/w-d-xo.html.
Cheers
Thanks very much for watching, and for the suggestion! I'll check it out :)
Very edifying reaction that definitely added to the discussion
Thanks very much for watching, Taylor! :)
Definitely a barn burner of a debate. Theists W - Atheists L
You made that debate watchable
I really appreciate where you critique the debate technique. I've watched several of White's debates but the critiques are always about what is said more so than how it's argued.
Clark is awful 😢 !!!
This debate was wild. I remember when it was first posted. I think I watched it 4 times and shared like a madman.
Found your channel and I just had to make popcorn 🍿. Seriously love your the channel and content. New sub👍
Awesome! Thanks so much for the sub 😊 Let me know if there’s a particular debate you’d like me to react to!
Oooh popcorn! 🍿
That was the best part!
This was a fun debate to watch but at the same time pretty sad for the atheists here...actually embarrassing...
For a better debate between a Christian and atheist, it would be better to watch Doug Wilson vs Christopher Hitchens.
Good day sir. I would like to ask if it is right to raise objection during the presentation of the opponent especially when you see his presentation was out of the topic? Thank you for your response.
There was only one debate I've seen where someone interrupted an opening statement because they had an issue with what their opponent was saying. It was James White vs Dan Barker. In Dr. White's opening statement he began to refer to Barker's most recent book, and Barker interrupted with an objection because he didn't want his book being referenced in the debate. It's a highly abnormal thing to do. However, it is very common to interrupt an opponent during cross-examination. Sometimes people will misunderstand a question and begin answering something that wasn't asked. At that point it would be perfectly acceptable to interrupt. It's also something the moderator could do. Here's the clip from the White vs Barker debate. th-cam.com/video/MJ-NBFFMm90/w-d-xo.html
Subscribed! ✅ this was a good reaction / break down!
Thanks for watching, and for the encouragement! :)
Jeff Durban is my favorite, respect to James but there's something about Jeff that speaks. His way he relates to the person on a level of a image bearer is amazing.
I don't know is better than god of the gaps. What is the historic track record of god of the gaps? Does God cause disease? Is extreme weather caused by God? Is the earth the center of the universe?
“God of the Gaps” is a nonsensical slogan. There’s no gap in our knowledge because we reasoned from effect to cause.
There's no shortage of material from Dr. White and Pastor Durbin. Dr. White has engaged in over 200 (i believe) moderated debates and is one of the world's leading apologists. Jeff is also one of the best apologists that I know of and has also done many debates, both moderated and "on the street". You can find their material on both Alpha and Omega Ministries page and Apologia church's page!
I watched this video when it first came out and it was the cringiest debate I have ever seen. Thank you for such a thorough and thoughtful response.
Presuppositionalism is, granted, VERY very irritating!!
If your christian interlocutor propose the explaination proposes the answer is god. Do you have propose an alternative explaination? Do you lose points if you think that their explaination of god is incorrect and you alternative explaination is I/we don't know. If this isn't acceptable then give me a question I couldn't propose god as the explaination for.
You didn't show the part where Clark tried to get White and Durbin to drink antifreeze. lol
I saw this debate a while ago and before I even knew anything about debate it made me cringe 😂
You skipped the best part! When Dr. Clark LITERALLY brought out ENGINE COOLANT!!!! And dared members of the audience to drink it. This was after he told off Dr. White for holding up an iPad with a small picture of a scroll on it earlier in the debate.
Hahahaha I didn’t know that! That’s so wild
Do this one:
Dr. Greg Bahnsen v Dr Gordon Stein
th-cam.com/video/ZLZdOGCE5KQ/w-d-xo.html
“Does God Exist”
As a note: Dr. Greg Bahnsen is a great influence upon the debate style and approach that Jeff Durbin and James White took. So if you liked their approach and how they strong-armed the atheists, you should watch this one too. It is a rubric for destroying atheism.
Would you consider reacting to a flat earth debate?
The bro said that immaterial laws of logic, and numbers as well, would exist if no humans existed, then--in answering the next question--said that humans created them.🤣🤣🤣
Haha I noticed that 😂 the intelligence on the atheist side was definitely underwhelming
I watched that entire “debate” when it was first released; and…oooh, boy! You are so right. It got cringe-ey from the start due solely to the presence of one man - Dr. Clark.
Dr. White’s challenge to him after the debate ended, but the mics were still hot, is instructive - his heart is angry. Not a good emotional state to be in when faced with an audience looking for reasoned answers.
"What color is the number 2?" - my most favorite Jeff Durbin quote 🤣
I hate to say it but watching Dr. Clark made me think of Vizzini from The Princess Bride.
Also, when watching the original debate I remember how painful it was watching the very end when the offer of prayer was extended and, at least to me, was so forcefully rejected.
You should do the James White/Steve Tassi debate... it was arguably more cringe-worthy than this one.