I just cannot thank you enough for this show. I am on a very similar journey as Sam, and this is my go to place to hear both sides of an argument. I have been surprised by how many Christians I have asked questions of, who not only don’t have answers but also just seem to want my questions to go away and want me to “just believe.” You seem to really understand that people like me and Sam are on a genuine journey and want to know the truth. I . I also watch Melissa Dougherty’s channel, and she talks so much about how churches need to be training people up in apologetics. I actually sent my son, who had a ton of questions, to speak to our pastor and he said that he “just knows it’s true because he knows it’s true.” My son is a very intelligent young man, and answers like that will never satisfy him. I think the attitude in some churches which feel that questioning is dangerous, and also tend to reach a very distorted view of God (think prosperity gospel) is a good part of the reason you see so many people, who when exposed to a wider range of viewpoints, end up loosing their faith. For instance, one of your guests said the turning point for him was traveling to a third world country and seeing how much suffering some people endure and wondering “if God cares about helping me get a good parking spot why doesn’t he care more about these people?” But does God “help” you get parking spots? I think there is a lot of unbiblical teaching that sets many of us up to be let down and then loose faith. That is certainly a part of my story. So, again, I am so grateful to have a channel that takes my questions seriously. I agree that in the end belief is a leap of faith, but i also believe it has to be founded in food evidence. If God exists he gave us a brain and I believe he he wants us to use it along with our heart. Thanks for what you do!
I'm a Christian but good luck with your journey! Just keep searching for truth and following your heart and keeping an open mind and you'll find the truth. Hope things turn out well :)
@@barry.anderberg that very well may be. I think the kind of churches of have gone to have tended to be a little more fundamentalist...and I think they tend to be less intellectual. Can you tell me more about your experience?
@@lifetogether4782 Well I guess for starters I just wouldn't ask anyone at most churches. Even most pastors aren't well versed in apologetics, history, philosophy, etc. I prefer to seek out the work of Christian scholars in the area(s) I have questions about. I'm with you though, any church that tells people not to ask questions or gives pat answers like "just have faith" are doing a grave disservice to the universal Church and probably driving more people away than they're retaining.
If you are interested in science, dr James Tour has a great talk on the origins of life. He is a bit acerbic but the info he provides is good. I have even seen an origin of life scientist agree with him that so far, there is no evidence to support the possibility of life spontaneously arising. They don't really even have any hypothesis on how it could happen. Dr Georgia Purdom has done some talks about genetics which I find very convincing and Mike Lycona and cold case Christianity have some good stuff on why we should believe in the resurrection. Pastor Mike Winger has a bit on the consistency of the bible and there is plenty of resources that places like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministry International provide. Scientists have often been wrong in the past (especially when they are taught something is true through all their schooling like they are with evolutionary theories) but if you can't get around evolution, Hugh Ross has reasons to believe.
@@prosperitynuggets Yes we shot always show the truth of Christian friendliness and open warmth. We should treat everyone as if we were talking to angels unawares. So I agree
@@prosperitynuggets I can provide many many examples of very civil atheists and many many examples of very arrogant and rude evangelicals Obviously one's theology has nothing to do one's civility Usually it relates to one's maturity which definitely does not relate to one's age.
Thank you Justin for having these respectful discussions. You are a great moderator and do a great job remaining unbiased with your moderation. To me a grate moderator is when I have no idea what the moderator believes during the show. So, thank you! ☀️👍🌸
I like the way that Sam Devis has a grasp of the Christian faith and how he puts it across as far as he is able to. And yet the element that is not talked about much is that of 'Faith.' As was said in the discussion, "Reason is never going to provide all the answers" - there comes a time where it is a 'leap of faith." Faith can be a journey and it can also suddenly be the king pin in making sense in accepting the Christian Faith. Two men I know that started from a non-Christian position investigating Christianity are Frank Morrison who wrote 'Who moved the stone' and came to faith in Christ the Messiah and the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who I believe was born four years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and yet did not come to faith in Jesus Christ. From his writings of "Jewish Antiquities" it's clear that Josephus accepted the existence of Jesus the Christ before and after the resurrection as he had interaction with those in the early church in the first century AD.
I used to try to find proof that God exists (or not) by intellectualizing the issue, and the more I tried, the more confused I got. Other people's opinions did not help at all, because even if they were right, I still was not SURE whether they were right or not. When I finally gave up that exercise (out of frustration), all the answers simply presented themselves through everyday life experiences. Interestingly and amazingly, it appears that life situations are "created" specifically for us individually, in order to "deliver" such answers by and through our life experiences (synchronicity). The trick is to BE IN EACH SITUATION, to listen, to observe and to "spot" the message. God is doing all sorts of things to get our attention, but we fail to notice because we are too busy living in our "heads". In the Torah (Old Testament), God is related as saying "I am that I am"; more appropriate (more accurate) translation might be "I will be as I will be", meaning YOU WILL EXPERIENCE ME (and thus know me). We cannot reason with the UNKNOWN before we experience IT. For example, we can debate the existence of headaches " 'till cows come home", but unless and until we have one, we cannot possibly KNOW for certain. We might choose to BELIEVE or NOT, but we simply DO NOT KNOW until we experience something. Experience must come first, reasoning later. Perhaps it might be better to RELAX and let God find US, which he actually does if invited. When that happens, we KNOW for sure. As simple as that. Thanks for reading. Most kind regards, and best wishes for all..
Isn’t every religion saying this ? People from different religions are looking at things happening in their life and saying yes their god caused this to happen. I would listen to a lot of street epistemology videos to make sure you understand this. The ideal question to ask is if you were a Hindu or Muslim or Zeus follower , why wouldn’t you think that that god was the reason for things happening in your life ???
Hello @@jthomas3206 . Your comment is absolutely valid, and deserves a good answer. I hope I have one. There are many things to be said about that which we call GOD. - One is that IT (god) can be experienced under many different names. Just because we human beings give "god" different names, (Zeus, Allah, Yahweh, etc.) it does not necessarily mean that we do not MEAN or experience the SAME THING. We have many different languages and many different words that symbolize the exact same thing. For example, English word CHAIR and German word STUHL sound different, but their meaning is the same, and it would be ludicrous to say that one is right and the other wrong. - Another important thing to say about "god" is that IT can be experienced on many different levels and dimensions. Different personalities tend to experience "life" differently, largely depending on our UNIQUENESS (gender, age, etc.) and our FOCUS. Consequently we ASSIGN MEANINGS to experiences of "god" according to that focus, and our uniqueness. - Yet another fact is that our ability to describe such experiences are not the same for everyone, so it is easy to get baffled by different accounts of the same experience, and decide that these experiences are different by nature, when they are not. To make things even more difficult in this department, we use different terms (words) by different "disciplines" to describe the same thing. For example, religious terms for PSYCHE and SOMA (psychology) are SPIRIT and FLESH. By just looking at those terms one gets the "sense" that they are different things. We have managed to divide ourselves on many different levels, unfortunately. It might be a good idea to start looking at our SIMILARITIES rather than our DIFFERENCES... - In addition to all that, our "human problem" is that we tend to view ANYTHING DIFFERENT as WRONG, or NOT TRUE. For whatever reason, we always think that "I AM RIGHT and YOU ARE WRONG". That is unfortunate...A much better way might be to show respect and interest, and to "study" rather than to REJECT something different before we fully understand it. In short, it is the "UNIQUENESS of our EGO" that prevents us from getting to "the bottom" of it all. We have become "TOO SOPHISTICATED" and TOO SELF CENTERED for our own good. It might not be a bad idea to start with a COMMON DEFINITION of what we understand ( or hypothesize) GOD to be. Then PROPERLY (scientifically) research the PHENOMENON of GOD. I am CERTAIN that if done properly, we can establish the EXISTENCE of GOD. It is not an easy task, but then, how can you prove to me that you are feeling an emotion, or entertaining a thought. Thoughts and feelings (spiritual things) are not OBSERVABLE or QUANTIFIABLE by nature, but we all agree that they EXIST, and to a certain degree we have learned to observe them by technology and by the EXPRESSIONS of them in human behavior. Should we not give the phenomenon of GOD the same attention? Please write again if you feel up to it. I enjoy very much intelligent, rational and friendly dialogues. Best wishes.
Hey there. You have just uttered one of the biggest "truths" ever spoken @Dave The Brahman (in my opinion). I honestly am very much impressed by your own reasoning. Reasoning is a great tool, unless it becomes an obsession, and stands in the way of CONTENTMENT and HAPPINESS (complete love of life with all its ups and downs). If I had to choose (luckily we do not) between being a "happy and content idiot" and an "unhappy and discontent braniac", I would without hesitation choose happiness. How's that for reasoning? Our so called "science" of today, which always seeks "acceptable (to IT) proofs", is a type of RELIGION also; it is highly limited, highly dogmatic and inflexible. It has its own BELIEFS, CREED, its own GOD, and its own "worship rituals"; and, just like all other religions, it is self protective and highly intolerant of "disbelievers". Personally, I prefer completeness (an integration of all human faculties), and I disfavor ORGANIZED RELIGION (BELIEF) of ANY kind, because all of them curtail human freedom of thought, creativity, and spiritual growth processes. In my opinion ( based on my life experiences) all human "religions", which include "political schools of thought" as well, keep us away from that which I call GOD, and which I would describe as living, timeless, limitless, creative, sum total of ALL POSSIBILITIES. Still, the way we do "life" at the present, is one of such possibilities. It is for US to decide whether we like it the way it is, or not. Keep in touch, you are a gem.
Thank you @Dave The Brahman . Likewise. You are a very special (and rare nowadays) person, who seems to understand that one cannot ascertain the aroma of a flower by reasoning about its existence; one must smell it. And, one cannot be moved by fine music, merely by sitting in silence and reasoning about its existence; one must open up one's ears and listens to its sound. Also, one cannot determine the existence of love by reasoning about it; one must DO it to know it. The same principle applies to the knowledge of God; one must experience IT. By the way, I am sure you will... Wishing you EVERY kind of joy and happiness life has to offer.
@When Belief Dies No problem.... Sauce be upon him. :) Ramen... Actually, I'm a Mystic, and to me, everyone's path in Life is sacred, and so long as no one intentionally causes suffering to others, so let it be....
@When Belief Dies Yup! ^^ May joy find you, and may you be at peace, beyond all imagination.... :) Of course, maybe Life is the journey, but Sushi and Programming are nice stops along the road which changes form and color every time we blink... :D
I love the Book Sapiens. I am still a Christian but yes I did question my faith after reading this book. I can understand why someone would leave the Christian faith or deconstruct after reading the book. Yuval Noah Harari wrote the book excellently and explained about how we were able to create fictions.
@@martifingersthat's a great question. if you are asking for me I compare Christianity to the alternatives. I also believe you can remain Christian and ask difficult questions. There is someone who said the opposite of faith is not doubt it's unbelief. I was an atheist then became a Christian thus I can easily compare. What I normally do is ask myself would the other alternatives be good for me. So Atheism has it's problems, Islam and Buddhism. I am speaking for myself those belief systems may be great for others. I thought about going back to my African traditions but they are too involving and are not that satisfying neither. The saying I used at one point is the one from Winston Churchill except replace Democracy with Christianity "Christianity is the worst belief system except for all the others." So the posture I have is I will ask any question and pray about it. Sometimes I get answers and sometimes I don't. Sapiens spoke of these as useful fiction. It was great at explaining that. Also the book is great at explaining other possible reasons why humans dominate. I have a hard time for example ascribing the idea that we are superior to animals for example. I think we are deluding ourselves. Off course Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 seems to disagree with me but I still question that. But that's another topic for another day. Sapiens shows that our development as human species was majorly based on luck. Nevertheless I remain Christian. That is because it is difficult for me to believe that the witnesses to Christ's death and resurrection were lying and mistaken. I believe they were actually telling the truth. I can understand why someone else could think differently but I have explored the alternatives and believe something extraordinary happened regarding the death and resurrection of Christ. When I talk to my friends about Christ I ask if they believe the death and resurrection of Christ happened or if they think it did? If they do then I will invite them to church and may be even recommend some apologists such as NT Wright. I apologize for my long answer.
@@Lepocoloco great question. I don't see Atheism as having a greater moral foundation than Christianity. I was previously an atheist for a number of years after leaving Christianity as a teenager. There was a lack of coherence in Atheism. Atheism is great at pointing out the flaws in Christianity and that needs to continue. In my view they do not offer a viable alternative with a great moral foundation. For me Atheism is the equivalent of a person who correctly points out you are going in the wrong direction but fails to tell you where the right direction is at. Christianity does have a lot of work. For example Christian treatment of some minority groups such as LGBTQs by a number of Christians has been abhorrent. But Christianity does offer some direction and some sort of moral foundation in a way that Atheism does not. That's why I came back to Christianity. I prefer to help better Christianity within than outside it.
Sam, I think you would enjoy speaking to Paul Vanderklay. He talks about CS Lewis “Miracles” a lot and is knowledgeable on many of the areas I think you want to explore.
@When Belief Dies I second Fiona’s comment, lots of people like you and me in this little corner of the internet. We also have a discord community with people from different backgrounds (lots of ex-atheists and re-converts but also many agnostics, atheists, christians from all sides of the theological spectrum who simply are seeking for truth) and have regular conversations about stuff in a very honest and transparent way. This channel has been one of the biggest blessing for me...
@When Belief Dies just to go to PVK’s channel and click on any of his videos. He usually leaves a link to the discord in the description. My discord name is Super Chill Bertie. I don’t really participate in the discord but I’ve been thinking for a long time to have a chat with Paul. Also, I forgot to mention Jonathan Pageau’s channel, one of the wisest guys out there.. his channel is a real gold mine if you’re interested in symbolic interpretations of the world and Christianity (and more).
One of my FAVES!!! Give us more, Mr Brierley - - this is the topic of our times and it appeals to everyone with a half-decent brain and basic reasoning skills to believe or disbelieve in the face of basic arguments and counters! MORE, Please!!!
I wasn't impressed by stating "Evolution' is true" as if the statement *makes it true* . That leads to questioning if he is unscientific in his approach, intelligently. Evolution' is false due to lack of agreement within Science community on explained "evidences" for it. There are hundreds of reviewed journals that disprove a theory within a evolution theory view on how species are even evolving right now. Such as monkeys evolving into a man. That does not give reason as to why at this era of 'evolution theory', monkeys and Humans do not create their own Vitamin C. Most other species do. And they do not produce vital minerals and antioxidants needed to support our own immune system. Why do technologies that even man creates, have demonstrable weaknesses such as extremely long disintegration feature (chemical epoxies, diamonds), yet these entities do not sustain *Life* . These are lifeless chemicals and molecular structures. Ages of Life sustainable creatures have differing age related timespans, and we do breakdown compositionally. Back into dust. A sea tortoise lives a hundred years, a bacteria dies in days, there doesn't appear to be any evolution' into an immune resisting tortoise. And sea turtles are androgynous depending on the heat or coldness temp they were spawned in. "During incubation, sex is determined by the temperature of the surrounding environment. *Warm temperatures tend to produce more female* hatchlings, whereas *cooler temps result in males* " Did we as humans evolve away from This ancient water based environmental evolution? Nonsense
@@abashedsanctimony154 Evolution is a fact, regardless of your inability to understand. Every backwards creationist talking point you made demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic science.
@@abashedsanctimony154 I don’t give a shit what the Bible says. It claims there were plants on earth before the sun existed. It was written by stupid Bronze Age dipshits.
OK for starters at the 30:40 mark to paraphrase "you can't prove the Resurrection but I find the evidence quite strong". One should see that there is a problem here and what he should have said was "because the evidence for the resurrection is weak you can't prove it happened but I am going to believe it anyway" . As soon as he evoked Keith Ward you knew there was going to be a problem.
You can't "prove" something historically; it's just not possible in the positivistic sense of the word. But you can demonstrate very strong evidence that something did happen and there is far stronger evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus than just about any other event of ancient history. For further reading check NT Wright's the Resurrection of the Son of God.
The vast majority of believers are YEC@@betsalprince and if they left because of YEC then they were either weak in faith or just trusted whatever they were told to believe in school and never bothered to actually research further. It is probably best they left, as we do not need weak faithless braindead compromisers on our side anyways.
Looking forward to this! I suppose there are three areas in which the current evolutionary model - appears - to undermine Christian belief: 1) How does the evolutionary account fit in with the Creation story we read in Genesis 1 and 2? 2) How does a directionless evolutionary process fit in with the belief that we created in the image of God? 3) Why would God use a process that lasted billions of years, causing seemingly unnecessary suffering? I think that there are potentially reasonable answers to these questions, but I am intrigued as to whether the discussion will cover these topics.
@When Belief Dies Thanks for the discussion Sam, I enjoyed it! I'm a Christian due to the evidence for the resurrection, so I would definitely recommend you pursue that further, perhaps by reading Michael Licona's 'The Resurrection of Jesus' as a great introduction. God bless.
@When Belief Dies Oh, and if you were looking for an example of a non-Christian ancient historian who accepted the resurrection after examining the evidence, I'd have a read of the Jewish Jesus scholar Pinchas Lapide.
The human use of the mathematical disciplines...are the works of that reason by which men surpass beasts, for brutes cannot number, weigh, and measure. The Laws of nature are ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight and that man alone have the unerring knowledge of what exists, and to know the structure of the world. God had made it so that man would know Him.
@@jotunman627 Math is a manmade concept. Its descriptive not prescriptive. And there is humans on earth that don`t use math, or counting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people
@@sora012 i have known two prisoners; a man and a woman, who both came to the lord because they were using the pages of gideon bibles for making cigarettes; they ended up reading them. i cannot think of a published example off the top of may head. if i do i'll put it down.
Before the Fall, mankind existed in a state of bliss, free from suffering, without knowledge of good and evil . Suffering is a consequence of being separated from God through man's failure to obey His Will and Word which resulted in spiritual and subsequently, physical death. Man's faith in the grace of the atoning death, burial and resurrection of God the Son, Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, reconciles, restores and returns him to the original state of spiritual righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit that his Creator intended. Shalom in Yeshua HaMashiach.
"Before the Fall, mankind existed in a state of bliss, free from suffering, without knowledge of good and evil". Care to share a piece of evidence for that statement?
1) To answer the question of someone studying Christianity and coming to their faith, Sir William Ramsay sought out to disprove the validity and reliability of the book of Acts, starting his journey not as a Christian. He later found, after some 20 years of study, that not only was Acts reliable but that it was the most accurate historical text in existence, aiding to his belief in God later on. 2) The Naturalist guest mentioned examples of purpose and how his newfound purpose in meditation was different and better. The issue is with his definition of purpose as exposed through his examples. His examples show purpose with a self-focus and on day-to-day worries, however, life purpose is defined academically as a commitment to engage in goals that have a beyond-the-self orientation (Damon, Menon, &. Bronk, 2003). This was exactly his definition of his newfound purpose. Therefore, these purposes are one and the same, a strawman argument provided. Damon, W., Menon, J., & Cotton Bronk, K. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119-128. 3) The statements of the Naturalist seemed to be intellectually focused on none human-emotion-values, and yet, this focus is the same problem that every tyrant and dictator of the past 100 years lived by. It is by rationalization of the intellect that brings about a shielding of one's eyes to the obvious in what is held to ourselves. However, intellect must be first built on human-emotion-values or intellect is merely illusionary for it rests on nothing but the realm of the speculative. Think of science, for without ethics and math, each requiring standards in God's sustaining in reliability and eternality for use, science itself would be of no effect, for science requires ethics and math to be itself useful. Just as with intellect, values must be present, a philosophy of acceptance in some standard, for proper use. Without a God, the standard itself is illusionary, for it is a self-created standard that can change in a whim, as evil men can murder in the name of evolutionary progress and suffice a heart to agree to it. Values from God allow intellect and science to reign. One of the originators of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon, said this about philosophy and God, "God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”( The Works of Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England, Volume 16, Issue 2, CCCCXLIV) Without a value of 'why' (which can't truly be provided in naturalism for the why is merely illusionary, as there is nothing that exists because it will all at one day not exist), yet we know the 'why' matters most. The idea that the 'why' is self-produced and illusionary is, therefore, proof not that one develops religion to suffice a misaligned evolutionary development but that this glimpse into why the 'why' matters itself defines God. The 'why' is why we believe. The 'why' is the point from which values move toward and from. 'Why' is God, to the atheist and the Christian. Love you people. We need each other!
Enjoying this discussion and I think that Christians get hung up on the issue of original sin. Surely if Christ offers us a solution to our corruption then we are obliged to take up His offer, regardless of how we got into this state? So what if we cannot trace sin back to a particular point in time, we cannot deny it is here now!
@When Belief Dies That’s what Jesus said in John chapter 15 verse 22 “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; But now they have no excuse for their sin.”
@@MarkHunterSolo But original sin would predate this scripture. If god created the option of sin, knowing the decision Eve would make, he allowed sin. It was predestined. We were doomed from the start and god is the villain in this fiction.
@@Джонатан-р8д You are missing the point of what I believe Jesus was saying here. With great power comes great responsibility. If Jesis is the light of the world and his words give us eyes to see, then we become responsible for our actions (forget about how sin started as it could be allegorical about Adam & Eve eating fruit). That is why Jesus says "For I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day" (John 12:47-48)
@@MarkHunterSolo You cannot say "forget about how sin started." If there was no original sin, there was no reason for Jesus to die and redeem humanity, and your entire religion loses its purpose.
@@Джонатан-р8д That is a very narrow view of why Christ died. Colossians 2:15 shows how evil forces were put to shame by the cross as the blazing glory of God's love showed clearly the full disgrace of the deeds of darkness. In the light of the cross I see my sinful nature for what it is and realize I need God's grace to change me. Sin is not just what we do - it is what we are...
I’m stunned to hear a biochemist assert that the lack of a complete understanding of quantum physics is equivalent to saying a man walked on water and resurrected from the dead 2,000 years ago.
@@gradystein5765 ?? The singularity is accepting that there was a beginning. Pre 1950`s I believe it was thought to have no beginning by science and the singularity wasnt accepted theory.
talking about shifting ideas; Hypatia of Alexandria's theory of the elliptic orbits of the planets was opposed by Platonists, for whom the circle/sphere as 'perfection', and the ellipse 'imperfect', and thus unthinkable for the 'perfect' heavens.
Around 52.30 Sam mentions how he is tired of both atheists and apologists sitting in echo chambers without any real dialogue. I totally agree but with a rather major caveat that harkens back to what Sam said earlier about how religion is (mostly?) a psychological issue turned into a philosophical one. It seems to me that people's religious faith functions as part of their cultural identity and that culture is itself a product of a psychological need. I have become convinced that a major purpose of these beliefs is to provide a amelioration or reduction in the anxiety we have about our own mortality. So, putting it another way, while Prof Halestrap believes that for some unknown reason (!) God chose to breathe a special exceptional quality into a great ape species homo sapiens , my understanding is the precise opposite. It's precisely because of the unique cognitive ability we developed as a species, people began to realize (individually and collectively) that we were mortal, and then we created culture and soon enough no doubt, gods. We created "meaning", "purpose", exceptionalism. There is of course a whole branch of psychology exploring this hypothesis (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory; www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7498956/#:~:text=With%20his%20colleagues%20Jeff%20Greenberg,results%20from%20the%20uniquely%20human, th-cam.com/video/SS0mwd9cR24/w-d-xo.html) but it strikes me significant that Prof Halestrap (as for many, if not most Christians) makes the resurrection the central meaning of his faith. Not enough that a teacher can preach a good moral message for our life on earth, we need more. The alternative is almost literally unthinkable. Anyhow that is a slightly rambling (and possible incoherent!) way of saying that much as I value and indeed have learned from this sort of debate, I would expect there to be a psychological dimension to all these exchanges. In particular, given what is at stake, intellectual discussions will only go so far. Thus the weight given to an argument like the fine tuning idea which seems to me to have been obviously debunked and about which I would ask similar questions as Sam does about the evidence for the resurrection (has any knowledgeable scientist really found faith on the basis of the persuasiveness of that argument?) If I am right we are ultimately dealing with people's deepest sense of themselves and their defence against death anxiety which by its nature is unconscious. I am totally aware of many of the problems in what I'm suggesting (e.g. ascribing unconscious motives to people as all psychodynamic theories require, why is my theory immune from the very process I am positing etc. etc.) I readily concede a whole bunch of them. In particular I would point out that this is not an "attack" on religious belief since the theory would suggest we see all forms of cultural identity (political ideology, acquisitiveness, celebrity cultures etc. etc.) in a very different way. And it doesn't necessarily "prove " there is no God. What it does do, like Harari's provocative and important work, is to get us to think, be honest and possible even be humble. Paradoxically aren't those often listed as religious virtues?
Hi All - when can we see High Ross or someone from Reasons to Believe to help with the harder evolutionary and science related questions here? Andrew is great, but I think Sam could benefit from experts on the Reasons to Believe staff
@@davidbradley834 What does your question mean exactly by accept? What scientists? What views? On what topic? Based on what? Would you accept Nazi scientists and their views on human dignity? Just an example.
@@janwaska521 Well let's be clear: 1. Do you have evidence human dignity is real (meaning not _just_ a social construct; it _is_ a real social construct, obviously)? 2. Do you have evidence of objective morality? Nobody I've asked does, so nobody can decisively say there's one single _correct_ goal we ought to pursue. 3. So what goals ought we to pursue? Well most subjectively value on well-being, so getting them to agree on that is easy. It's a little harder to go a step further and get them to value _everyone's_ well-being, even though it's essentially the same thing (for example I had coffee and donuts delivered to my door today which improved my well-being in a way which would be _impossible_ without the well-being of every single cook, manager, farmer, all the delivery people along the way, etc who were involved.) 4. Choosing the goal is subjective (because we don't have evidence of objective morality). Once we have a goal, measuring it is usually objective. For example science can measure well-being in a variety of ways (Health metrics, GDP, psychological metrics; it gets a little trickier to measure personal freedoms but there are already world indexes for that sort of thing too, so _some_ work has been put into quantifying it). 5. So then when ideas come along like the Nazis or Leviticus 25:44, if we really truly care about our own well-being then we'll understand its contingent on others' well-being and these bad ideas fail to maximize that so they should be rejected. 6. Also I should clarify that our current economy does okay (donuts and coffee _did_ appear magically at my front door) but definitely isn't maximizing the well-being of everyone along the way (many of those people involved in my meal work extremely hard for terrible pay and lousy/non-existent benefits), so we definitely have a lot of room for improvement (which would further improve our own well-being!) Now I agree with most of your post, which broadly points out we should rely on experts only on topics where their expertise is relevant. * Regarding morality there doesn't appear to be a single right answer, so science's expertise is NOT relevant. * Regarding whether evolution happens there is an objectively right answer, science's expertise is totally relevant. * Regarding whether a god exists there is also an objectively right answer, so when science fails to have sufficient evidence to justify belief in gods _we shouldn't believe in them._
Sorry I meant Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe. He is a PhD and did his post doc at CatTech. Fazale Rana from Reasons to Believe is also an expert on hominids and can speak to the Reasons to Believe creation model - which is grounded in science
Faith will survive because the final revelation is that God is within us all and for those that are slaves to addictions, depression, paranoia and illness can find freedom if willing to let go of ownership with faith that God is the power within to transform and heal our souls and body. It works but you have to end up in the pigs trough eating slops to want no more and to call for help :-) No religion needed.
15:15 "I always felt that the truth revealed by scripture and the truth revealed by science must be compatible" - I can't fathom how someone who is a biochemist would be satisfied with this kind of a cul-de-sac perspective.
I cant fathom how someone could see this as a cul-de-sac perspective. If the truth in the bible is based on the existence of an ultimate cause and science is based on the same truth of ultimate causality they have to be compatible.
@@gerhardg8101 Try rephrasing that. My point is there is a difference between someone saying "A has to be commensurate with B" vs. "If A, it must be commensurate with B".
My question for evolutionists, why is the human species the only species that "evolve" in the way we did? Why do we not see other species reach the same level of evolution as the humans.
The age of the earth isn't necessary for Christians to believe Jesus Christ died on the cross, but it's foundational for arguments for an alternative explanation to special divine creation. Everyone of these discussions requires an old age argument as necessary to replace divine creation.
The young earth model is scientifically incompatible. I still don't understand the apologists who try and defend it. Or those who argue against evolution. Tis bizarre.
@@watchman2866 By incompatible I mean sciences showing the earth was not created 4000-10,000 years ago. By evolution I mean the diversification of life by natural selection. As opposed to creationism. What do you think evolution is?
@@Джонатан-р8д That's all been well contest from the 1800s. I understand evolution as an attempt to explain the history of life on earth, starting with an original archetypal cell that was able to replicate itself. A history that this cell gave rise to every lifeform current present on earth today. Today long after all this is believed to have happened, phylogenetic trees have been proposed to illustrate this. What I see in these diagrams are they same body plans today as at the start. Bacteria, earyotic, Archaea are supposed to be at the foundation of these trees, but they are the same level of development today, basically unchanged. I see two choices, divine creation from an intelligent God who is eternal, or nature is eternal and created. Either way we end up with today's universe. Creation makes much more sense when we look at life on earth.
@@watchman2866 No, sorry. That's a misunderstanding of evolution. No one believes a single cell gave life the entire universe. Your position is still an argument from incredulity. You don't know how it could have happened any other way, there for god. We still haven't proven a god to exist. Doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't exist, but the time to believe something is when you have good evidence for it. You've built your house on an increasingly faster collapsing foundation.
“Apologetics only works on people who want it to work.” “You can’t argue someone with pure reason into the faith”. Two very honest and very revealing statements by Christians, and why many reject the faith.
23:30 As Sam says, If evolution is assumed then God has no irrefutable testimony in creation. Theistic evolutionists must deny Romans 1, and with it the prerequisites for belief: Romans 1:20 NASB [20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Sam’s point about why historians are not becoming Christians due to evidence for the resurrection pre-supposes that faith is an intellectual affirmation. It is surely a combination of our rationale and also our moral intuition that recognises the penetrative power of the words of Christ exposing our inner darkness and pointing us to a higher way of living in the light. “My sheep hear my voice” Jesus said. Many live in denial or have not heard his words.
@@martifingers The gospel is totally different to the “rules for life” that other religions offer. Christian baptism signifies death to our self life which we trade in for a new life of Christ. The words of Christ only make sense in that context (eg. Matthew 16:24 “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me”. Also John 12:24 “Unless a seed falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds”. The apostle Paul says it in 2 Corinthians 4:12 “Death is at work in us, but life is at work in you”). It is not about self improvement as with other religions, it is about self crucifixion.
@@MarkHunterSolo Thanks for the reply and the references. In fact my question was a slightly different one in that I was really asking how we are meant to (a) decide which scriptures are actually the words of Jesus since , as far as I know, this is widely disputed by scholars and (b) how to interpret texts which appear obscure or ambiguous etc. It also raises issues about the canon itself - do you count The Gospel of Thomas for instance? If not why not? As it is, your answer addresses a really interesting concept but one that opens up lots of questions. Firstly I would suggest that the notion of "rebirth" is not the sole preserve of Christianity - Buddhist ideas about "nirvana" or extinguishing aspects of the ego seems very similar for instance. The language may be a problem here but what exactly is "self life" ? You suggest that "self improvement" is not the aim. That would seem to be a reductionist view of other religions . It would also seem to imply that "good works" are not necessary for salvation. I guess it's hard to generalise as there are so many Christian denominations but my understanding is that for most of the major ones faith and good works are necessary for salvation. Here I am equating faith with your "taking up your cross" and "good works" with what you call self improvement? That may not be correct of course. As I say, thanks again for your reply.
@@martifingers Hi again, I have never read the gospel of Thomas as it is not in the canon of scripture. It is probably an interesting read like the other apocryphal writings but the church only included the most authoritative in the Protestant bible. The Westminster shorter catechism states the purpose of man as this “Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” I think the concept of God’s glory is what you really want to explore. The Hebrew word is “Kabod” and has the sense of the weight of God’s character in it. Apparently we are changed as we look into it by having Christ revealed to us by Faith under the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. In other words christianity is not just a rebirth but a constant feeding on the body of Christ ( see John 6:53 - Jesus said to them “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”). You will know that Jesus said that man cannot live by bread alone but by every word of God - well it is only in the bible you can find the words of God since the Holy Spirit inspired the words and he can create glory in our lives as we consume the words and live by them. There is no other way but to trust and obey.
@@MarkHunterSolo Hi again and thanks for the reply. I was fully aware of the apocryphal status of Thomas - that was my point! I mentioned it as it is entirely (I think) sayings attributed to Jesus. But my understanding is modern scholarship has cast doubt on whether Jesus actually did say what is reported even in the "official" New Testament. It would seem we have to immediately believe that there was divine intervention in the deciding of what is canonical or not. Do you see what I mean? I am afraid that I see things very differently to you !
The improbability argument for the existence of the universe is incoherent unless we have other universes to compare this one with or prove somehow that the physical constants COULD have been any different. If for some reason theists “feel” like the universe needs some kind of explanation- rather than accepting it as a brute fact, then why must atheists accept that god is a non-contingent brute fact that needs no explanation? Isn’t this special pleading? Finding meaning and purpose in life is evolutionarily advantageous. Just because the purpose of life is not infinite or cosmic does not make it meaningless. In fact, the very thing that makes life so meaningful is it’s finitude.
Blimey, at the 41:55 mark " If the resurrection was real, then it adds credence to the whole story".It certainly would but we live in hope that the evidence will get stronger as it isn't there yet.
If one requires a physical resurrection as foundation of ones belief in Christ one is a materialist. It is the desire to be self eternal that created the mess in the first place.
@@dominichowles9092 it's metaphysical, not metaphorical. To real Christians Jesus has come alive inside them and they in him. That most Christians believe God to be a kind of Santa that fulfils their wishes for reality upon prayer is a sad reflection of human gullibility, excusable for the naive that really believe so, but inexcusable for those who claim intellectual superiority over them by those who claim God not to exist because there is no Santa in the sky.
I think we all know that there was a beginning. Christianity works when you accept everything without question.christianity falls away when questions are asked. Eg Paul says if christ did not rise christianity is in vain but christ did rise. so believe.
historians from the past have come to Christ through study. The problem with modern study is that we are swimming in information and we have 2000 years of Christian culture with all it's challenges. The truth about humans is that we believe based on emotional convincing. Half of all marriages fail yet people still marry. Why? Because we have a need beyond logic and reason. We need these relationships in some form or fashion. Believing in a creator is something we do in some form or fashion.
I'm a young earth creationist who believes many of the scientific conclusions of the animal relations are true, but others are not. We cannot come together unless we make sacrifices. Therefore let both sides make sacrifices, that we and evolutionists can come together and learn more about the salvation through Jesus christ.
@@gradystein5765 I agree with evolution in that the hyrax is related to the elephant and the hyena is related to the cat. But the creatures have not evolved.
@@grandmasterlucien Would you do me a huge favor? I'm looking for a video or photos or illustrations of how lungfish breathe oxygen through nostrils. Could you please find me an example of this?
We can attest that evidence by Law of God reveals legitimacy of God's existence The question will arise in the analysis of the doctrine: How does the *death of Christ save* us? No specific answer has ever been generally satisfactory, unless understanding given. We have numerous theories of the Atonement. We have already intimated that the answer to this question will depend upon our idea of the *nature of God* , the *nature of sin* , the content of salvation, the *nature of man* , and our *idea of Satan and evil spirits* (even pagans believe in spirits) so to say gods do not exist is hypocrisy). We ought at once to dismiss all merely quantitative and commercial conceptions of exchange of merit. There is no longer any question that the doctrines of imputation, both of Adam's sin and of Christ's righteousness, were overwrought and applied by the early theologians with a fatal exclusiveness, without warrant in the Word of God. On the other hand no theory can hold much weight that presupposes that sin is a thing of light consequence in the nature of man and in the economy of God. Unless one is prepared to resist unto blood striving against sin (Hebrews 12:2-4), he cannot know the meaning of the Christ. Again, it may be said that the notion that the death of Christ is to be considered apart from His life, eternal and incarnate life, as the atoning work, is far too narrow to express the teaching of the Bible and far too shallow to meet the demands of an ethical conscience. It would serve clearness if we reminded ourselves that the question of how in the Atonement may involve various elements. We may inquire: (a) for the ground on which God may righteously receive the sinner; (b) for the means by which God places the restoration within the reach of the sinner; (c) for the influence by which the sinner is persuaded to accept the reconciliation; (d) for the attitude or exercise of the sinner toward God in Christ wherein he actually enters the state of restored union with God. The various theories have seemed to be exclusive, or at least mutually antagonistic, largely because they have taken partial views of the whole subject and have emphasized some one feature of the whole content. All serious theories partly express the truth and all together are inadequate fully to declare how the Daystar from on high doth guide our feet into the way of peace (Luke 1:79). (4) Another question over which theologians have sorely vexed themselves and each other concerns the extent of the Atonement, whether it is available for all men or only for certain particular, elect ones. That controversy may now be passed by. It is no longer possible to read the Bible and suppose that God relates himself sympathetically with only a part of the race. All segregated passages of Scripture formerly employed in support of such a view have now taken their place in the progressive self-interpretation of God to men through Christ who is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). No man cometh unto the Father but by Him (John 14:6): but whosoever does thus call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Joel 2:32 Acts 2:21).
@@nathanmckenzie904 Ah then perhaps ROMs 2:1 is evidence. John 12:32As for Me, if I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to Myself." This is the main idea for calling. There is two callings, both for the same purposes but with a certain goal in mind. Christ be accepted as Saviour. Jesus said "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up on the last day.'' (John 6:44). Many refer to this verse in an effort to support a man-made doctrine which says that only those whom the Lord "calls'' in some mystical way can be saved. They will say that this calling is some sort of direct operation of the Spirit. Calvinism teaches that man is totally passive and cannot do anything until God zaps him with some special anointing, thereby enabling him to believe. Such an idea is foreign to the scriptures. Our Lord does draw people to Him, and no one can come to the Lord apart from God's drawing power. But this is not a matter of God electing to save some of us and condemn others of us arbitrarily. Consider: God wants all to be saved, and the reason some are lost is not because God has unconditionally chosen them to be. For Whom Does God Desire Salvation? The good news is that God does not desire anyone to be lost. No one! God is "...patient, not wishing for any to perish." (II Peter 3:9). God is "compassionate" (Matthew 9:36; Psalm 86:15) God is "...just" (Romans 3:24-26). God is "Sorrowful" that many are lost (Ezekiel 18:23; 31,32; cf. Matthew 23:37). To suggest that man cannot respond to God's gospel apart from a special anointing or calling that God gives to them that He does not give to all others makes God responsible for the lost being lost. But that does not fit with the Biblical description of God's character and nature. God made salvation available to all. Salvation is available for all men, not just a select few. Jesus died for everyone (Hebrews 2:9; John 3:16). God wants all to come to know the truth (I Timothy 2:4). The invitation is open to all, 24 hours a day. There's no such thing as waiting on God's "special call.'' (Matthew 11:28-30; Revelation 22:17). He has already issued His call, and it has gone out unto the whole world. Any of us can choose to answer it, or not. How God Draws People Unto Himself The context of Jesus' statement explains how God draws men and women to Himself. There is nothing mystical about it. The following verse in the context (John 6:45) reveals how God draws men unto Himself. "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." Note the words "taught" and "every man" (all drawn the same way; by being taught) and "hear" and "learn" and "come". These are not mystical words. They are common, everyday words which are used to describe how it is that people are drawn to Christ. What is it that is taught and heard and learned? The means or method by which God "calls'' or "draws'' all men is the Gospel. "And it was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thessalonians 2:14). There is no special, mystical anointing of the Holy Spirit, but rather, the Holy Spirit calls men through the gospel; and it is the gospel that is the power (Romans 1:16). God draws people unto Himself through the teaching of the gospel. The preaching of the gospel is God's power, his drawing power, to save (I Corinthians 1:18-21). Therefore, all people, when they hear the gospel, at any moment, have the ability to respond to God's gospel call. They also have the ability to reject it (Acts 13:45-48). Sinners are saved by God's grace when they respond in faithful obedience to the gospel that draws them to God (Matthew 7:21). God is always ready for men to repent and obey (Acts 17:30). It is those who will do so that God has predestined for salvation (1 Thessalonians 5:9). This is an important concept to recognize. God has not predestined individuals to be saved or lost, but rather, has predestined the method by which we are saved. If we obey the gospel, we are baptized "into Christ" (Romans 6:3,4). God has predestined all those "in Christ" to be "blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 1:3). But it is up to us as to whether we will obey or not. How To Be Drawn To God's Son And Be Saved There are not many ways to be drawn to God. In fact, there is only one way to come to the Father (John 14:6). One cannot get to heaven through Jesus apart from obeying Him (Hebrews 5:9). Those who attempt to enter another way are counted as thieves and robbers and will be unsuccessful (John 10:1). How does one answer God's call? This is important for you to know because God is calling you. Have you answered? If not, will you? Will you call upon Him? For whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." (Acts 2:21). The people who heard this wanted to know how to do so (Acts 2:37) They were told "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Men must believe and obey (Mark 16:16). Saving faith is alive, not dead, and proves itself by obedience to the gospel. The gospel is God's call to us by which we are drawn to Him. Our obedient faith needs to be the answer we give His call.
To A World Without a Clue - TRUE FAITH IS BIRTHED FROM HEAVEN - & No, You Were Never a Christian - You Were Never Born Again - That's Born FROM HEAVEN 🙏🤗🙏
Jim Wallace is a deceiver. Mis-representing and hiding real data. I looked into this a bit and he does not present all infor and distorts info a lot to make his case.
One example is the flood narritive. The Bible account is written after the flood account from the epic of gilgamesh which was written much earlier. Scholars agree on this based on language and archeology. This is a tough fact for many Christans to accept.
I have never had an answer to this but why would god choose evolution as a way to get to us? I mean evolution causes and incredible amount of pain and suffering, whats the point ?
Well its survived so far, you've got evangelicals that just flat out deny evolution and you've got Catholics who embrace it but are challenged with explaining that original sin didn't literally happen, despite New Testament references, including genealogy back to Adam, saying it was an actual event. Though I'm sure it turns some people away from Christianity when they simply just can't reconcile the disconnect. But its not only human evolution they need to contend with, but also the evolution of religion itself, which is certainly a huge red flag that its man made. Religious belief is traced back 10s of thousands of years, evidenced with archaeological discovery of ritual burials, items for the afterlife, and cave paintings that indicated various cult worship. Then organized religion developed around 10,000 years ago, with the first recorded religions about 4000 years ago, Babylonian, Egyptian, etc, which influenced Canaanite beliefs that Judaism was originally derived from, originally polytheistic and finally just recognizing Yahweh as the one and only god, denying all others. There's numerous references in the Old Testament calling out some of them as false gods, and of course the 1st commandment is directed at cancelling the others. Then of course Christianity branches off Judaism and further bakes in other pagan god elements, resurrection, virgin birth, etc., in fact, Christianity is one of the most syncretized religions there is. So this too is difficult to reconcile with why a real god would undergo such radical changes, the answer is it wouldn't.
The scientific paper, _"Age of Lucy and the First Family: Single-crystal..."_ (Walter, 1994) uses argon-argon dating to show Lucy is 3.18 million years ago.
I think evolution has so many evidences from so many sciences that it is now virtually proven. We are just an intelligent ape species. So how that fits in with the Bible account of creation is something I am really looking forward to hearing in this video.
Hebrews 1:1-3 KJVS [1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, [2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; [3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Intelligent design as a theory is founded on real and tangible evidence that evolutionists have made no significant case for overturning. Just ridicule, mockery and constant straw manning of their very sound arguments. Evolution however is propped up by paper thin speculation and outright fraud. Icons of Evolution by Jonathon Wells exposes the fact that much of the iconic proofs for evolution taught to children, are anything but science.
@@johnhammond6423 It's called brainwashing and indoctrination John. Clearly having suffered the same fate, you're struggling to wrap your head around the idea that yes, the vast majority of scientists (regular humans in white coats) are wrong. I mentioned a book by Jonathon Wells called Icons of Evolution. Many of the proofs that convinced leading scientists of evolution are provably fraudulent. A classic example would be Haeckel's Embroys which famed evolutionist Jerry Coyne acknowledged being embarrassed to have taught to his students. This fraudulent proof was also one of Darwins favourite proofs. These are facts that you can verify yourself. Or are you too busy face palming yourself and wallowing in your own ignorance?
Lee strobel wanted to see it as true and guess what it turned out to be true. His wife was a christian so there might have been bias there. He started his career from their, did money persuade him it was true. I wonder whether he was completely honest with his reasoning of faith
Sam do you know what challenge Satan throws down to God ?Job 1:6-12 Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them. 7 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where have you come from?” Satan answered Jehovah: “From roving about on the earth and from walking about in it.” 8 And Jehovah said to Satan: “Have you taken note of my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth. He is an upright man of integrity, fearing God and shunning what is bad.” 9 At that Satan answered Jehovah: “Is it for nothing that Job has feared God? 10 Have you not put up a protective hedge around him and his house and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock has spread out in the land. 11 But, for a change, stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your very face.” 12 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Look! Everything that he has is in your hand. Only do not lay your hand on the man himself!” So Satan went out from the presence of Jehovah. Genesis is true and your geezer who is supposed to believe in creation is talking rubbish.Look up James Tour :The mystery of the origin of life.The six day creation is NOT literally 24 hour days the word for day is(YOHM) like in my fathers day.Job 2:1-6 ) Afterward the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them to take his station before Jehovah. 2 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where have you come from?” Satan answered Jehovah: “From roving about on the earth and from walking about in it.” 3 And Jehovah said to Satan: “Have you taken note of my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth. He is an upright man of integrity, fearing God and shunning what is bad. He is still holding firmly to his integrity, even though you try to incite me against him to destroy him for no reason.” 4 But Satan answered Jehovah: “Skin for skin. A man will give everything that he has for his life. 5 But, for a change, stretch out your hand and strike his bone and flesh, and he will surely curse you to your very face.” 6 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Look! He is in your hand! Only do not take his life!” That is still his challenge to God today and it has been answered percfectly by Christ.
Sam Davis' use of the word ruach is flawed; it does not appear in the creation of Adam. Genesis 2:7 " then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." (ESV) uses completely different vocabulary.
Faith is belief without evidence, so at the point where someone relies on it to believe an idea I don't see why facts would intrude on it. Faith in a broad sense is to believe something _regardless of what the facts indicate,_ so relying on it really indicates the person isn't using truth to guide their beliefs in the first place.
@@littleboots9800 It's the Biblical definition _minus the nonsense part of the Bible's definition:_ * Faith is an assurance of things hoped for. This is nonsense. An assurance is a promise. To understand how nonsensical it is, imagine you're hoping your car gets fixed and the mechanic literally tells you "I faith to fix your car". That's consistent with the Bible's definition, but it's nonsense. * Faith is a conviction of things not seen. This is flat-out the version I mentioned earlier (belief without evidence), and we know it's a terrible way to form one's beliefs. (If you have conviction of leprechauns, they don't magically exist.) _Throughout your life you'll notice ONE CONSTANT: the only people trying to convince you to abandon reliable methods of knowing truth are those who want to take advantage of you._ So the fact that the Bible makes a concerted effort to convince people to rely on faith -- a method _we know_ isn't reliable -- should be a huge red flag. Of course the fact that we have no evidence is the biggest reason not to believe the Bible's supernatural claims.
@@majm4606 faith noun \ ˈfāth \ plural faiths\ ˈfāths , sometimes ˈfāt͟hz \ Definition of faith (Entry 1 of 2) 1a: allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b(1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions 2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust 3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction especially : a system of religious beliefs
One could think you have faith in your belief that you can form a belief without evidence. In fact, evidence is that what causes a belief. It is the true Brights who believe that and they have no evidence to support it apart from quotes from their disciples. which by theri definition are not evidence. Such definition of Faith is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy :-).
@@gerhardg8101 Fair enough: theists form the belief on _bad_ evidence. * A victim treats the Nigerian Prince's word as evidence, when it's not reasonable evidence, and believes that by participating in the con, they'll receive money. * A victim treats the Bible's claim (the word) as evidence, when it's not reasonable evidence, and believes that by participating in the religion, they'll receive eternal life. I mean I think you'll probably agree, given you didn't exactly come right out and present sufficient, reasonable evidence that a god exists (or evidence of any other of the supernatural claims any religion makes).
Think the story makes no sense (even if it DID happen) a god dying, (briefly) and then coming back to save us from what HE himself will do to us, I can understand if there was some more powerful being that god had to make a sacrifice to , to save us, but (according to the belief) there isn't,we are being saved from *him* (who else ?)
Well from what I've read the Christian view of Hell isn't that God will send you to Hell but that Hell is something you create within yourself. So God's sacrifice isn't saving us from God but saving us from ourselves. If you think of humanity as a battle between good and evil within each of us then God's sacrifice is like offering us the extra help we need to beat evil and become fully good in the end. C.S. Lewis explains this pretty well in his works, I can send you some youtube links where you'll be able to listen free of charge.
@@vilwyn273 Luke 12:4-6 speaks of God having the authority to send someone to Hell. Does anyone else have that authority? If not, then what Frank described is true: the story doesn't make sense, because a loving god would simply forgive us if that was their intent. Instead, it's _God's_ threat of infinite punishment for finite crimes that's said to loom over us, a dramatically unfair punishment and not something any reasonable person would consider justice. But as Frank sort of mentioned, we don't actually have a reason to believe _any_ of the supernatural claims of the Bible, so there's no actual reason to think these things are real (which is why we shouldn't believe them).
@@majm4606 Well there is the fact that the resurrection is one of the best evidenced events of the ancient world. The resurrection of Jesus is a big claim but no other theories (mythic, conspiracy, hallucination, and so on) work.
@@vilwyn273 Remind me: what evidence outside the Bible (the source of the claim of a resurrection) indicates a resurrection happened? A single book claiming something happened definitely doesn't make it one of the best evidenced events. I mean consider evidence that Rome's empire extended to Britain: the Roman Hadrian built a wall there which is still standing today, there are Roman baths in the city of Bath in Somerset, we've found archaeological forts like Isca Dumnoniorum, roads like Blackstone Edge, on Rishworth Moor near Manchester built using Roman techniques, and even many of the cities are still named ending in "chester", "caster", or "cester" are named that way due to the Latin word 'castrum' which means 'a fort'. So there _are_ topics deep in history where we truly do have overwhelming evidence. The resurrection _is not_ one of them. You have one book claiming it happened, and no outside evidence at all. (The closest is that there's outside evidence Christ was crucified. Not evidence of a resurrection.) _Do books ever contain deliberate falsehoods?_ Because if (a) books DO sometimes contain falsehoods but (b) we have no evidence of a resurrection, the simplest explanation here is a book told a lie. Frankly it's weird that you seem to think these possibilities are ruled out. I don't see how you ruled out that the Bible's authors weren't some combination of (a) fooled followers and/or (b) conspirators lying in a book. Additionally you maybe aren't aware of the Synoptic Gospels being extremely derivative of each other, to the point where maybe they represent only one actual perspective which was copied to the other books, which means it's possible there are only _two authors_ claiming a resurrection happened. Sometimes people claim the disciples must've strongly believed it due to the threats they faced, but strangely when I ask them of _evidence_ that they actually faced those hardships, they never produce any. I mean even if we lowered our bar and didn't demand _reasonable evidence_ but instead accepted _church traditions_ of how the disciples died, the tradition about John (one of those two authors claiming a resurrection happened) is that he died of old age! I really do recommend you research the topic. The story really just falls apart the more you research it.
The real issue is if science can survive a naturalist macro-evolutionary cause of the current universe. The answer is no. That would be ridiculous. It would be much easier to believe in flying spaghetti monsters.
Hebrews 1:1-3 KJVS [1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, [2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; [3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
28:04 Andrew: "this universe is improbable" -- How do you know and who says that ? 28:10 Andrew about occams razor: "the simplest explanation" -- a god would not provide any explanation, it would still be a placeholder for the real explanation. 30:00 classic... "I want to feel and have purpose and meaning, so a god must exist then" This is such an unbelievable narcissistic narrow anthropic point of view. 44:00 Sam: "Is there any historian that became a christian because of convincing historic evidence ?" -- great point! -- "who moved the stone" : the writer already had a "high reverence" for Jesus. He was a journalist. Check the critical reviews by christians and non-christians. 59:00 Andrew: "one thing that i'm sure of is you can't argue someone in pure reason into faith" 1:00:00 Andrew: "Faith is a mystery, scientists are used to live with mystery , look at quantumtheory". -- Sorry andrew, when i look beyond the sound and poeticness of what you are actually saying , you seem to be saying nothing much at all. You seem to be defending more so the poeticness of what you belief than the truth of what you believe.
I don't know why this is a question. Evolution does not contradict faith in the in the slightest. Genesis is near perfect explanation of the big bang theory of the universe from people who had no concept of the universe. Furthermore why does it matter if God made the universe in 7 days or billions of years? It would have zero effect on the reality we find ourselves in. Plenty of the bible uses metaphors and non-literal stories or metaphors to describe reality or truths and I argue that the bible isn't even using a metaphor in genesis. You could not get a better description of the creation of the universe from science than genesis without understanding astrophysics. I'll also pose that what's wrong with evolution being the way that God created everything? This world is a wonderful and amazing place and we can see God everywhere in it... so why would we expect to find misleading evidence?
I used to believe in a literal Adam as the first man , I can accepts him as an archetype ..still believe he existed as the Paul mentions him a lot in the book of Romans., I think the Neanderthal dna put a spanner in the works. Only thing I've read is that there's no missing links found between these hominids if true. All a bit confused 😂 . If man has been around for say over 6000 yrs or 60000yrs ? Civilization began about 4000bc in mesopotamia Historians tell us so man must be here quite recently! Anyone have any more take on this?
Sam is the winner because he comes with solid facts, nothing illusory. However, I believe that Christianity should not use the name "Jesus" because it knows not a thing about Jesus, right, other than having those illusory faith. After discarding humanity of Jesus, there is no divinity, for some understanding. Christianity sees his humanity mostly, if not only, on the cross, as suffering and dying son of God! Bible says that if humans don't love their neighbours, they cannot love God. One must look at the way of our world. Do you see such thing as "love" anywhere, even including the churches? Be serious and honest, to answer this to yourself. World of misery and dying humanity, that's all there is.
You want to know how God can tell whether someone is saved or not? What they believe in. It's your choice and your entire history is encoded into your DNA. It's what makes.you specific. Pigs act like pigs, dogs act like dogs. Humans act like they have beliefs that are more correct than the next person. God doesn't sleep, He rests.
@@Джонатан-р8д another day, another illiterate misinformed sheep on the internet. If you ponder about your beliefs carefully, you would notice hints of paganism imbricated in it. If you think dancing around naked worshipping a tree is cool, then so be it. I'm not gonna teach you what coolness is.
For the life of me, I can't understand why any Christian is threatened by an evolutionary account of human origins. These worries presuppose a certain hermeneutic of scripture as well as a certain epistemology about science, and fundamental reality, neither of which are even remotely certain or even probably true.
@@martinploughboy988 Meh, it seems pretty well supported by the science as I understand it, but I haven't really spent much time looking into it. It just doesn't seem relevant. If God wants to create using a process that looks really slow from our perspective, what's the problem?
@@barry.anderberg What science? Has anybody ever observed common descent? And since God describes how He created in Genesis, which is completely at odds with Evolution, if He had used Evolution He would be lying.
@Dave The Brahman You do realise that science isn't done by consensus? Evolution does not "unites in one explanatory system all the data from biochemistry, medicine, zooology, genetics and geology", rather it is the filter that is imposed on these fields, often causing error. Take for example the concept of vestigial organs, based on a belief in Evolution, it has now been shown that not one of the once claimed vestigial organs in the human body is actually vestigial and without purpose. Equally, it was once claimed that Junk DNA was the result of Evolution, yet we are increasingly seeing what was once described as 'junk' now being revealed as essential parts of the genome. The stupidity isn't in Christians but in those clinging to a Victorian pseudo science despite the lack of supporting evidence.
We are chosen by God and Christ. There is nothing we can do. No evidence would convince anyone - you must be born again to understand. Sam isn't chosen, he grew up in a Christian family and followed them. Being chosen and born again is NOT growing up in a Christian family. I wish him well! I have a feeling he is more interested in being famous/well known than seeking the truth. Seems like he wants fame and status more than anything else.
Don't write off Sam. I was a believer who became an atheist for 7 years but was called back. We don't know Sam's reasons. He seems hurt and confused to me. God loves him and will call him back in the right time like he did me if he truly believed and gave his life to Jesus. Some believers need space to test out what they really believe. God is not afraid of this. He can handle anyone's questions if they ask in all honesty and willingness to be open.
As they always say "oh it's a very good question" :-) - no it isn't. Much ado about nothing would be a better title. The incoherence of thinking is priceless. SD did not start to doubt the God story when reading Sapiens but when his Big Santa God did not deliver the goods he wished for. He even says so himself as clearly if a God he could worship exists he would not make him have backpain. @When Belief Dies you should try your broken string analogy on himself and try to figure out where in being a human you started to your own will consciously and you might figure out when you get out of puberty
The Lord has said -HE is who makes the sun shine and the moon and stars shine and stirs up the sea and its waves roar if these laws vanish from my sight then ISRAEL WILL CEASE BEING A NATION BEFORE ME declares Yahweh (our God)- a living proof of the veracity of scriptures written 3000 years ago REMARKABLE - Jesus said in Luke 4 that He was fulfilling that on that day prophesy of Isiah 61 which was ..."to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." We are in the Year 2021 of the Year of the Lord . absolutely REMARKABLE... Sooorrrrry I just dont understand how could anybody who knows scripture could become and atheist
can evolution survive the biblical account of history? can it hold up? that should be your question, the bible is our first authority, not man's word. Is Jesus your Lord if you pressupose a brand of so called science(man's word) instead of scripture?
The Mankind of Genesis 1 is not the Adam and Eve of Genesis 2. They were created before Adam and Eve. They are the people Cain got his wife from. They are the ones Cain thought might kill him. They also helped Cain build his city. They are the daughters of men the sons of God (males from Adam) took wives from. The creation days were long periods of time. The Mankind of Genesis 1 was created in the sixth time period. Adam and Eve were created at the very end of the sixth beginning of the seventh. This could have been a difference of a few million years. If the Mankind being spoke of in Genesis 1 is strictly Homo Sapiens then a few hundred thousand years.
Gee - Atheist want solid proof that God is real to believe - not knowing that if God can be proven it'd curtail the freedom to sin... and ":SIN" is what this all about.
Good books that debunk evolution from a scientific perspective: Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, by Denton. "The Transformist Illusion" by Douglas Dewar
@@timid3000 Great, thanks! I believe the Muslim-American scientist Seyyed Hossein Nasr is either working to compile or has compiled a volume of scientific writings against Darwinism. Darwinism truly is a "theory in crisis." But this absurd theory is the lynchpin of modernity, the keystone holding up the whole rotten structure, and that is why it is defended so adamantly, and why those who criticize it are so calumniated. If I deny the Big Bang, no one really cares. But if I deny Darwinism, I am some sort of lunatic.
@@Mike-md7op They do care if you deny the Big Bang Mike, as far as I have experienced they do. Evolution is not the only absurd theory we have been brainwashed to believe. I'd say that the earth being a huge spinning ball that is rocketing through space at 2 million miles an hour is the most absurd. I'm splitting hairs though. th-cam.com/video/0NM5q22j5VI/w-d-xo.html
31:29 is the embarrassing statement of a pseudo-intellectual about evolution. The concept of randomness might describe their thought process, clearly lacking the free will to think. Similarly the idea that God created life. That by definition declares God dead and the intellectual bankruptcy in theological terms. God is life as in the cause of primary movement of energy and matter.
@@gulanhem9495 just hold your breath for a moment. I thought better to set the time stamp a bit earlier.another 10 sec so you get the intro into the sentence
@@gerhardg8101 All right. But it's still hard to get what you are commenting on and what your position is. Are you objecting to the notion that universe has no purpose?
I don't know why this is a question. Evolution does not contradict faith in the in the slightest. Genesis is near perfect explanation of the big bang theory of the universe from people who had no concept of the universe. Furthermore why does it matter if God made the universe in 7 days or billions of years? It would have zero effect on the reality we find ourselves in. Plenty of the bible uses metaphors and non-literal stories or metaphors to describe reality or truths and I argue that the bible isn't even using a metaphor in genesis. You could not get a better description of the creation of the universe from science than genesis without understanding astrophysics. I'll also pose that what's wrong with evolution being the way that God created everything? This world is a wonderful and amazing place and we can see God everywhere in it... so why would we expect to find misleading evidence?
@@davidsmith5946 Separation of the earth and sky- Formation of planets Let there be light- stars/big bang Creation of oceans and land... self explanatory... hopefully formation of plants > formation of animals > creation of man In order how evolution would have taken place
First off, plz don`t butcher occam's razor like that, learn what it says and means or don`t mention it. And the fine tuning is, first of wrong, but even if right, and the odds are correct in whatever to the power of whatever. What is the odds of magic? that must be a magnitude of infiniti.
Hi Mats. Another (in my mind, fatal) objection is why God made it necessary to have a universe that needed to be finetuned in the first place (assuming we go along with the daft dice throwing idea).
@@Джонатан-р8д Ty, Will check. I have one for you, old and fun. Nonstampcollector Noah part 1 and 2 reductio ad absurdum is the solution to the Ontological argument.
I just cannot thank you enough for this show. I am on a very similar journey as Sam, and this is my go to place to hear both sides of an argument. I have been surprised by how many Christians I have asked questions of, who not only don’t have answers but also just seem to want my questions to go away and want me to “just believe.” You seem to really understand that people like me and Sam are on a genuine journey and want to know the truth. I
. I also watch Melissa Dougherty’s channel, and she talks so much about how churches need to be training people up in apologetics. I actually sent my son, who had a ton of questions, to speak to our pastor and he said that he “just knows it’s true because he knows it’s true.” My son is a very intelligent young man, and answers like that will never satisfy him. I think the attitude in some churches which feel that questioning is dangerous, and also tend to reach a very distorted view of God (think prosperity gospel) is a good part of the reason you see so many people, who when exposed to a wider range of viewpoints, end up loosing their faith. For instance, one of your guests said the turning point for him was traveling to a third world country and seeing how much suffering some people endure and wondering “if God cares about helping me get a good parking spot why doesn’t he care more about these people?” But does God “help” you get parking spots? I think there is a lot of unbiblical teaching that sets many of us up to be let down and then loose faith. That is certainly a part of my story.
So, again, I am so grateful to have a channel that takes my questions seriously. I agree that in the end belief is a leap of faith, but i also believe it has to be founded in food evidence. If God exists he gave us a brain and I believe he he wants us to use it along with our heart. Thanks for what you do!
I'm a Christian but good luck with your journey! Just keep searching for truth and following your heart and keeping an open mind and you'll find the truth. Hope things turn out well :)
Really? Which Christians are you asking? You're clearly looking in the wrong place.
@@barry.anderberg that very well may be. I think the kind of churches of have gone to have tended to be a little more fundamentalist...and I think they tend to be less intellectual. Can you tell me more about your experience?
@@lifetogether4782 Well I guess for starters I just wouldn't ask anyone at most churches. Even most pastors aren't well versed in apologetics, history, philosophy, etc. I prefer to seek out the work of Christian scholars in the area(s) I have questions about. I'm with you though, any church that tells people not to ask questions or gives pat answers like "just have faith" are doing a grave disservice to the universal Church and probably driving more people away than they're retaining.
If you are interested in science, dr James Tour has a great talk on the origins of life. He is a bit acerbic but the info he provides is good. I have even seen an origin of life scientist agree with him that so far, there is no evidence to support the possibility of life spontaneously arising. They don't really even have any hypothesis on how it could happen. Dr Georgia Purdom has done some talks about genetics which I find very convincing and Mike Lycona and cold case Christianity have some good stuff on why we should believe in the resurrection. Pastor Mike Winger has a bit on the consistency of the bible and there is plenty of resources that places like Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministry International provide. Scientists have often been wrong in the past (especially when they are taught something is true through all their schooling like they are with evolutionary theories) but if you can't get around evolution, Hugh Ross has reasons to believe.
As a Christian, I’m super impressed by Sam’s openness to truth wherever it leads. Awesome to see!
I've watched so many atheists debate I just expect them to be rude or bad tempered at this point. Sam is a breath of fresh mentos
@@prosperitynuggets Yes we shot always show the truth of Christian friendliness and open warmth.
We should treat everyone as if we were talking to angels unawares. So I agree
@@prosperitynuggets
I can provide many many examples of very civil atheists and many many examples of very arrogant and rude evangelicals
Obviously one's theology has nothing to do one's civility
Usually it relates to one's maturity which definitely does not relate to one's age.
Except that God says that none of us are open to the truth.
no one understands;
no one seeks for God.
(Romans 3:11 [ESV2011])
@@greglogan7706 Civility never saved anyone.
Thank you Justin for having these respectful discussions. You are a great moderator and do a great job remaining unbiased with your moderation. To me a grate moderator is when I have no idea what the moderator believes during the show. So, thank you! ☀️👍🌸
@When Belief Dies 🙂✌️🌸
👏🏾👏🏽👏🏿👏🏼
Amazing convo. Both Sam and Andrew are kind and honest! Praying for you Sam and all the authentic seekers.
But you have to accept it, if they don't come to the same conclusion as you?
@@davidbradley834 As all things, good or bad.
I like the way that Sam Devis has a grasp of the Christian faith and how he puts it across as far as he is able to. And yet the element that is not talked about much is that of 'Faith.' As was said in the discussion, "Reason is never going to provide all the answers" - there comes a time where it is a 'leap of faith." Faith can be a journey and it can also suddenly be the king pin in making sense in accepting the Christian Faith. Two men I know that started from a non-Christian position investigating Christianity are Frank Morrison who wrote 'Who moved the stone' and came to faith in Christ the Messiah and the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus who I believe was born four years after the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and yet did not come to faith in Jesus Christ. From his writings of "Jewish Antiquities" it's clear that Josephus accepted the existence of Jesus the Christ before and after the resurrection as he had interaction with those in the early church in the first century AD.
I used to try to find proof that God exists (or not) by intellectualizing the issue, and the more I tried, the more confused I got.
Other people's opinions did not help at all, because even if they were right, I still was not SURE whether they were right or not.
When I finally gave up that exercise (out of frustration), all the answers simply presented themselves through everyday life experiences.
Interestingly and amazingly, it appears that life situations are "created" specifically for us individually, in order to "deliver" such answers by and through our life experiences (synchronicity). The trick is to BE IN EACH SITUATION, to listen, to observe and to "spot" the message. God is doing all sorts of things to get our attention, but we fail to notice because we are too busy living in our "heads".
In the Torah (Old Testament), God is related as saying "I am that I am"; more appropriate (more accurate) translation might be "I will be as I will be",
meaning YOU WILL EXPERIENCE ME (and thus know me).
We cannot reason with the UNKNOWN before we experience IT. For example, we can debate the existence of headaches " 'till cows come home",
but unless and until we have one, we cannot possibly KNOW for certain. We might choose to BELIEVE or NOT, but we simply DO NOT KNOW until we experience something.
Experience must come first, reasoning later.
Perhaps it might be better to RELAX and let God find US, which he actually does if invited. When that happens, we KNOW for sure. As simple as that.
Thanks for reading. Most kind regards, and best wishes for all..
Isn’t every religion saying this ? People from different religions are looking at things happening in their life and saying yes their god caused this to happen. I would listen to a lot of street epistemology videos to make sure you understand this. The ideal question to ask is if you were a Hindu or Muslim or Zeus follower , why wouldn’t you think that that god was the reason for things happening in your life ???
Hello @@jthomas3206 . Your comment is absolutely valid, and deserves a good answer. I hope I have one.
There are many things to be said about that which we call GOD.
- One is that IT (god) can be experienced under many different names. Just because we human beings give "god" different names, (Zeus, Allah, Yahweh, etc.) it does not necessarily mean that we do not MEAN or experience the SAME THING. We have many different languages and many different words that symbolize the exact same thing. For example, English word CHAIR and German word STUHL sound different, but their meaning is the same, and it would be ludicrous to say that one is right and the other wrong.
- Another important thing to say about "god" is that IT can be experienced on many different levels and dimensions. Different personalities tend to experience "life" differently, largely depending on our UNIQUENESS (gender, age, etc.) and our FOCUS. Consequently we ASSIGN MEANINGS to experiences of "god" according to that focus, and our uniqueness.
- Yet another fact is that our ability to describe such experiences are not the same for everyone, so it is easy to get baffled by different accounts of the same experience, and decide that these experiences are different by nature, when they are not. To make things even more difficult in this department, we use different terms (words) by different "disciplines" to describe the same thing. For example, religious terms for PSYCHE and SOMA (psychology) are SPIRIT and FLESH. By just looking at those terms one gets the "sense" that they are different things. We have managed to divide ourselves on many different levels, unfortunately.
It might be a good idea to start looking at our SIMILARITIES rather than our DIFFERENCES...
- In addition to all that, our "human problem" is that we tend to view ANYTHING DIFFERENT as WRONG, or NOT TRUE. For whatever reason, we always think that "I AM RIGHT and YOU ARE WRONG". That is unfortunate...A much better way might be to show respect and interest, and to "study" rather than to REJECT something different before we fully understand it.
In short, it is the "UNIQUENESS of our EGO" that prevents us from getting to "the bottom" of it all. We have become "TOO SOPHISTICATED" and TOO SELF CENTERED for our own good.
It might not be a bad idea to start with a COMMON DEFINITION of what we understand ( or hypothesize) GOD to be. Then PROPERLY (scientifically) research the PHENOMENON of GOD. I am CERTAIN that if done properly, we can establish the EXISTENCE of GOD. It is not an easy task, but then, how can you prove to me that you are feeling an emotion, or entertaining a thought. Thoughts and feelings (spiritual things) are not OBSERVABLE or QUANTIFIABLE by nature, but we all agree that they EXIST, and to a certain degree we have learned to observe them by technology and by the EXPRESSIONS of them in human behavior. Should we not give the phenomenon of GOD the same attention?
Please write again if you feel up to it. I enjoy very much intelligent, rational and friendly dialogues.
Best wishes.
Hey there. You have just uttered one of the biggest "truths" ever spoken @Dave The Brahman (in my opinion). I honestly am very much impressed by your own reasoning.
Reasoning is a great tool, unless it becomes an obsession, and stands in the way of CONTENTMENT and HAPPINESS (complete love of life with all its ups and downs). If I had to choose (luckily we do not) between being a "happy and content idiot" and an "unhappy and discontent braniac", I would without hesitation choose happiness. How's that for reasoning?
Our so called "science" of today, which always seeks "acceptable (to IT) proofs", is a type of RELIGION also; it is highly limited, highly dogmatic and inflexible.
It has its own BELIEFS, CREED, its own GOD, and its own "worship rituals"; and, just like all other religions, it is self protective and highly intolerant of "disbelievers".
Personally, I prefer completeness (an integration of all human faculties), and I disfavor ORGANIZED RELIGION (BELIEF) of ANY kind, because all of them curtail human freedom of thought, creativity, and spiritual growth processes. In my opinion ( based on my life experiences) all human "religions", which include "political schools of thought" as well, keep us away from that which I call GOD, and which I would describe as living, timeless, limitless, creative, sum total of ALL POSSIBILITIES.
Still, the way we do "life" at the present, is one of such possibilities. It is for US to decide whether we like it the way it is, or not.
Keep in touch, you are a gem.
Thank you @Dave The Brahman . Likewise.
You are a very special (and rare nowadays) person, who seems to understand that one cannot ascertain the aroma of a flower by reasoning about its existence; one must smell it. And, one cannot be moved by fine music, merely by sitting in silence and reasoning about its existence; one must open up one's ears and listens to its sound. Also, one cannot determine the existence of love by reasoning about it; one must DO it to know it.
The same principle applies to the knowledge of God; one must experience IT. By the way, I am sure you will...
Wishing you EVERY kind of joy and happiness life has to offer.
Wow. An actual discussion about this kind of stuff without malice and Ad-Homicide.
@When Belief Dies No problem.... Sauce be upon him. :) Ramen... Actually, I'm a Mystic, and to me, everyone's path in Life is sacred, and so long as no one intentionally causes suffering to others, so let it be....
@When Belief Dies Yup! ^^ May joy find you, and may you be at peace, beyond all imagination.... :) Of course, maybe Life is the journey, but Sushi and Programming are nice stops along the road which changes form and color every time we blink... :D
I love the Book Sapiens. I am still a Christian but yes I did question my faith after reading this book. I can understand why someone would leave the Christian faith or deconstruct after reading the book. Yuval Noah Harari wrote the book excellently and explained about how we were able to create fictions.
Hi Chindi. That's a very honest reply. May I ask why, in the end, you chose to remain in the faith? Have you changed as a result?
@@martifingersthat's a great question. if you are asking for me I compare Christianity to the alternatives. I also believe you can remain Christian and ask difficult questions. There is someone who said the opposite of faith is not doubt it's unbelief. I was an atheist then became a Christian thus I can easily compare. What I normally do is ask myself would the other alternatives be good for me. So Atheism has it's problems, Islam and Buddhism. I am speaking for myself those belief systems may be great for others. I thought about going back to my African traditions but they are too involving and are not that satisfying neither. The saying I used at one point is the one from Winston Churchill except replace Democracy with Christianity "Christianity is the worst belief system except for all the others."
So the posture I have is I will ask any question and pray about it. Sometimes I get answers and sometimes I don't. Sapiens spoke of these as useful fiction. It was great at explaining that. Also the book is great at explaining other possible reasons why humans dominate. I have a hard time for example ascribing the idea that we are superior to animals for example. I think we are deluding ourselves. Off course Genesis Chapters 1 and 2 seems to disagree with me but I still question that. But that's another topic for another day. Sapiens shows that our development as human species was majorly based on luck.
Nevertheless I remain Christian. That is because it is difficult for me to believe that the witnesses to Christ's death and resurrection were lying and mistaken. I believe they were actually telling the truth. I can understand why someone else could think differently but I have explored the alternatives and believe something extraordinary happened regarding the death and resurrection of Christ. When I talk to my friends about Christ I ask if they believe the death and resurrection of Christ happened or if they think it did? If they do then I will invite them to church and may be even recommend some apologists such as NT Wright.
I apologize for my long answer.
If you really want to leave Christianity, I suggest you read the Bible.
@@chindi17 What "problems" does Atheism have?
@@Lepocoloco great question. I don't see Atheism as having a greater moral foundation than Christianity. I was previously an atheist for a number of years after leaving Christianity as a teenager. There was a lack of coherence in Atheism. Atheism is great at pointing out the flaws in Christianity and that needs to continue. In my view they do not offer a viable alternative with a great moral foundation. For me Atheism is the equivalent of a person who correctly points out you are going in the wrong direction but fails to tell you where the right direction is at.
Christianity does have a lot of work. For example Christian treatment of some minority groups such as LGBTQs by a number of Christians has been abhorrent.
But Christianity does offer some direction and some sort of moral foundation in a way that Atheism does not. That's why I came back to Christianity. I prefer to help better Christianity within than outside it.
Thanks Sam, your honesty was disarming and powerful.
Sam, I think you would enjoy speaking to Paul Vanderklay. He talks about CS Lewis “Miracles” a lot and is knowledgeable on many of the areas I think you want to explore.
@When Belief Dies I second Fiona’s comment, lots of people like you and me in this little corner of the internet. We also have a discord community with people from different backgrounds (lots of ex-atheists and re-converts but also many agnostics, atheists, christians from all sides of the theological spectrum who simply are seeking for truth) and have regular conversations about stuff in a very honest and transparent way. This channel has been one of the biggest blessing for me...
@When Belief Dies just to go to PVK’s channel and click on any of his videos. He usually leaves a link to the discord in the description. My discord name is Super Chill Bertie. I don’t really participate in the discord but I’ve been thinking for a long time to have a chat with Paul.
Also, I forgot to mention Jonathan Pageau’s channel, one of the wisest guys out there.. his channel is a real gold mine if you’re interested in symbolic interpretations of the world and Christianity (and more).
One of my FAVES!!! Give us more, Mr Brierley - - this is the topic of our times and it appeals to everyone with a half-decent brain and basic reasoning skills to believe or disbelieve in the face of basic arguments and counters! MORE, Please!!!
I wasn't impressed by stating "Evolution' is true" as if the statement *makes it true* . That leads to questioning if he is unscientific in his approach, intelligently.
Evolution' is false due to lack of agreement within Science community on explained "evidences" for it. There are hundreds of reviewed journals that disprove a theory within a evolution theory view on how species are even evolving right now. Such as monkeys evolving into a man. That does not give reason as to why at this era of 'evolution theory', monkeys and Humans do not create their own Vitamin C. Most other species do. And they do not produce vital minerals and antioxidants needed to support our own immune system.
Why do technologies that even man creates, have demonstrable weaknesses such as extremely long disintegration feature (chemical epoxies, diamonds), yet these entities do not sustain *Life* . These are lifeless chemicals and molecular structures. Ages of Life sustainable creatures have differing age related timespans, and we do breakdown compositionally. Back into dust.
A sea tortoise lives a hundred years, a bacteria dies in days, there doesn't appear to be any evolution' into an immune resisting tortoise. And sea turtles are androgynous depending on the heat or coldness temp they were spawned in.
"During incubation, sex is determined by the temperature of the surrounding environment. *Warm temperatures tend to produce more female* hatchlings, whereas *cooler temps result in males* "
Did we as humans evolve away from This ancient water based environmental evolution? Nonsense
@@abashedsanctimony154 Evolution is a fact, regardless of your inability to understand. Every backwards creationist talking point you made demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of the basic science.
@@gradystein5765
Gen 1:1 In [the] beginning God created the heavens and the earth, 2and the earth was formless and void, and darkness [was] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God [was] fluttering on the face of the waters,
3and God says, “Let light be”; and light is. 4And God sees that the light [is] good, and God separates between the light and the darkness, 5and God calls the light “Day,” and the darkness He has called “Night”; and there is an evening, and there is a morning-[the] first day.
6And God says, “Let an expanse be in the midst of the waters, and let it be separating between waters and waters.” 7And God makes the expanse, and it separates between the waters which [are] under the expanse, and the waters which [are] above the expanse: and it is so. 8And God calls the expanse “Heavens”; and there is an evening, and there is a morning-[the] second day."
Genesis means Beginnings of Creation. Literally.
*Dictionary : Cambridge* ©
*genesis* definition: 1. the origin of something, when it is begun or *starts to exist*
genesis
noun [ S ] formal
UK /ˈdʒen.ə.sɪs/ US /ˈdʒen.ə.sɪs/
plural geneses/ ˈge-nə-ˌsēz
the origin of something, when it is begun or starts to exist:
Ex. "research into the *genesis* of cancer"
"Genesis, Hebrew Bereshit (“In the Beginning”), the first book of the Bible. Its name derives from the opening words: “In the beginning….” Genesis narrates the primeval history of the world (chapters 1-11) and the patriarchal history of the Israelite people (chapters 12-50). The primeval history includes the familiar stories of the Creation, the Garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, Noah and the Flood, and the Tower of Babel. The patriarchal history begins with the divine promise to Abraham that “I will make of you a great nation” (12:2) and tells the stories of Abraham (chapters 12-25) and his descendants: Isaac and his twin sons Jacob and Esau (chapters 26-36) and Jacob’s family, the principal figure being Joseph (chapters 37-50), whose story tells how the Israelites came to be in Egypt. Their deliverance is narrated in the following book of Exodus. Genesis must thus be seen as a part of a larger unit of material traditionally understood to comprise the first five books of the Bible, called the Torah or the Pentateuch" ~- Britannica
@@abashedsanctimony154 I don’t give a shit what the Bible says. It claims there were plants on earth before the sun existed. It was written by stupid Bronze Age dipshits.
@@gradystein5765 The bible doesnt say anything about science or claim to. Genesis is theology not science.
OK for starters at the 30:40 mark to paraphrase "you can't prove the Resurrection but I find the evidence quite strong". One should see that there is a problem here and what he should have said was "because the evidence for the resurrection is weak you can't prove it happened but I am going to believe it anyway" . As soon as he evoked Keith Ward you knew there was going to be a problem.
You can't "prove" something historically; it's just not possible in the positivistic sense of the word. But you can demonstrate very strong evidence that something did happen and there is far stronger evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus than just about any other event of ancient history. For further reading check NT Wright's the Resurrection of the Son of God.
@@leenicholas278 Best of luck with NT Wright, I think there are a lot of better scholars out there than him.
The fact that evolution can drive a believer away from faith is enough evidence to know it comes from the evil one.
Young Earth Creationists drive more people away from faith.
The vast majority of believers are YEC@@betsalprince and if they left because of YEC then they were either weak in faith or just trusted whatever they were told to believe in school and never bothered to actually research further. It is probably best they left, as we do not need weak faithless braindead compromisers on our side anyways.
Looking forward to this! I suppose there are three areas in which the current evolutionary model - appears - to undermine Christian belief:
1) How does the evolutionary account fit in with the Creation story we read in Genesis 1 and 2?
2) How does a directionless evolutionary process fit in with the belief that we created in the image of God?
3) Why would God use a process that lasted billions of years, causing seemingly unnecessary suffering?
I think that there are potentially reasonable answers to these questions, but I am intrigued as to whether the discussion will cover these topics.
@When Belief Dies Thanks for the discussion Sam, I enjoyed it! I'm a Christian due to the evidence for the resurrection, so I would definitely recommend you pursue that further, perhaps by reading Michael Licona's 'The Resurrection of Jesus' as a great introduction. God bless.
@When Belief Dies Oh, and if you were looking for an example of a non-Christian ancient historian who accepted the resurrection after examining the evidence, I'd have a read of the Jewish Jesus scholar Pinchas Lapide.
The human use of the mathematical disciplines...are the works of that reason by which men surpass beasts, for brutes cannot number, weigh, and measure.
The Laws of nature are ordered all things in measure, and number, and weight and that man alone have the unerring knowledge of what exists, and to know the structure of the world. God had made it so that man would know Him.
@@jotunman627 Math is a manmade concept. Its descriptive not prescriptive. And there is humans on earth that don`t use math, or counting. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people
Sam Devis' request for someone converted by reading the gospel has been answered many times; both journalists and historians.
@@sora012 i have known two prisoners; a man and a woman, who both came to the lord because they were using the pages of gideon bibles for making cigarettes; they ended up reading them. i cannot think of a published example off the top of may head. if i do i'll put it down.
Before the Fall, mankind existed in a state of bliss, free from suffering, without knowledge of good and evil . Suffering is a consequence of being separated from God through man's failure to obey His Will and Word which resulted in spiritual and subsequently, physical death. Man's faith in the grace of the atoning death, burial and resurrection of God the Son, Jesus Christ, the Second Adam, reconciles, restores and returns him to the original state of spiritual righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit that his Creator intended. Shalom in Yeshua HaMashiach.
"Before the Fall, mankind existed in a state of bliss, free from suffering, without knowledge of good and evil". Care to share a piece of evidence for that statement?
Did God buggar up? Possibly.
1) To answer the question of someone studying Christianity and coming to their faith, Sir William Ramsay sought out to disprove the validity and reliability of the book of Acts, starting his journey not as a Christian. He later found, after some 20 years of study, that not only was Acts reliable but that it was the most accurate historical text in existence, aiding to his belief in God later on.
2) The Naturalist guest mentioned examples of purpose and how his newfound purpose in meditation was different and better. The issue is with his definition of purpose as exposed through his examples. His examples show purpose with a self-focus and on day-to-day worries, however, life purpose is defined academically as a commitment to engage in goals that have a beyond-the-self orientation (Damon, Menon, &. Bronk, 2003). This was exactly his definition of his newfound purpose. Therefore, these purposes are one and the same, a strawman argument provided.
Damon, W., Menon, J., & Cotton Bronk, K. (2003). The development of purpose during adolescence. Applied Developmental Science, 7(3), 119-128.
3) The statements of the Naturalist seemed to be intellectually focused on none human-emotion-values, and yet, this focus is the same problem that every tyrant and dictator of the past 100 years lived by. It is by rationalization of the intellect that brings about a shielding of one's eyes to the obvious in what is held to ourselves. However, intellect must be first built on human-emotion-values or intellect is merely illusionary for it rests on nothing but the realm of the speculative. Think of science, for without ethics and math, each requiring standards in God's sustaining in reliability and eternality for use, science itself would be of no effect, for science requires ethics and math to be itself useful. Just as with intellect, values must be present, a philosophy of acceptance in some standard, for proper use. Without a God, the standard itself is illusionary, for it is a self-created standard that can change in a whim, as evil men can murder in the name of evolutionary progress and suffice a heart to agree to it. Values from God allow intellect and science to reign.
One of the originators of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon, said this about philosophy and God, "God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it. It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.”( The Works of Francis Bacon, Lord Chancellor of England, Volume 16, Issue 2, CCCCXLIV)
Without a value of 'why' (which can't truly be provided in naturalism for the why is merely illusionary, as there is nothing that exists because it will all at one day not exist), yet we know the 'why' matters most. The idea that the 'why' is self-produced and illusionary is, therefore, proof not that one develops religion to suffice a misaligned evolutionary development but that this glimpse into why the 'why' matters itself defines God. The 'why' is why we believe. The 'why' is the point from which values move toward and from. 'Why' is God, to the atheist and the Christian.
Love you people. We need each other!
Enjoying this discussion and I think that Christians get hung up on the issue of original sin. Surely if Christ offers us a solution to our corruption then we are obliged to take up His offer, regardless of how we got into this state? So what if we cannot trace sin back to a particular point in time, we cannot deny it is here now!
@When Belief Dies That’s what Jesus said in John chapter 15 verse 22 “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; But now they have no excuse for their sin.”
@@MarkHunterSolo But original sin would predate this scripture.
If god created the option of sin, knowing the decision Eve would make, he allowed sin. It was predestined.
We were doomed from the start and god is the villain in this fiction.
@@Джонатан-р8д You are missing the point of what I believe Jesus was saying here. With great power comes great responsibility. If Jesis is the light of the world and his words give us eyes to see, then we become responsible for our actions (forget about how sin started as it could be allegorical about Adam & Eve eating fruit). That is why Jesus says "For I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day" (John 12:47-48)
@@MarkHunterSolo You cannot say "forget about how sin started." If there was no original sin, there was no reason for Jesus to die and redeem humanity, and your entire religion loses its purpose.
@@Джонатан-р8д That is a very narrow view of why Christ died. Colossians 2:15 shows how evil forces were put to shame by the cross as the blazing glory of God's love showed clearly the full disgrace of the deeds of darkness. In the light of the cross I see my sinful nature for what it is and realize I need God's grace to change me. Sin is not just what we do - it is what we are...
I’m stunned to hear a biochemist assert that the lack of a complete understanding of quantum physics is equivalent to saying a man walked on water and resurrected from the dead 2,000 years ago.
Science has finally come around to accepting the Bibles account of the universe had a beginning.'
Took a while but finally got there.
No it hasn’t.
@@gradystein5765 ?? The singularity is accepting that there was a beginning.
Pre 1950`s I believe it was thought to have no beginning by science and the singularity wasnt accepted theory.
@@bop-ya-good What "singularity" are you referring to?
talking about shifting ideas; Hypatia of Alexandria's theory of the elliptic orbits of the planets was opposed by Platonists, for whom the circle/sphere as 'perfection', and the ellipse 'imperfect', and thus unthinkable for the 'perfect' heavens.
Around 52.30 Sam mentions how he is tired of both atheists and apologists sitting in echo chambers without any real dialogue. I totally agree but with a rather major caveat that harkens back to what Sam said earlier about how religion is (mostly?) a psychological issue turned into a philosophical one. It seems to me that people's religious faith functions as part of their cultural identity and that culture is itself a product of a psychological need. I have become convinced that a major purpose of these beliefs is to provide a amelioration or reduction in the anxiety we have about our own mortality. So, putting it another way, while Prof Halestrap believes that for some unknown reason (!) God chose to breathe a special exceptional quality into a great ape species homo sapiens , my understanding is the precise opposite. It's precisely because of the unique cognitive ability we developed as a species, people began to realize (individually and collectively) that we were mortal, and then we created culture and soon enough no doubt, gods. We created "meaning", "purpose", exceptionalism.
There is of course a whole branch of psychology exploring this hypothesis (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terror_management_theory; www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7498956/#:~:text=With%20his%20colleagues%20Jeff%20Greenberg,results%20from%20the%20uniquely%20human, th-cam.com/video/SS0mwd9cR24/w-d-xo.html) but it strikes me significant that Prof Halestrap (as for many, if not most Christians) makes the resurrection the central meaning of his faith. Not enough that a teacher can preach a good moral message for our life on earth, we need more. The alternative is almost literally unthinkable.
Anyhow that is a slightly rambling (and possible incoherent!) way of saying that much as I value and indeed have learned from this sort of debate, I would expect there to be a psychological dimension to all these exchanges. In particular, given what is at stake, intellectual discussions will only go so far. Thus the weight given to an argument like the fine tuning idea which seems to me to have been obviously debunked and about which I would ask similar questions as Sam does about the evidence for the resurrection (has any knowledgeable scientist really found faith on the basis of the persuasiveness of that argument?) If I am right we are ultimately dealing with people's deepest sense of themselves and their defence against death anxiety which by its nature is unconscious.
I am totally aware of many of the problems in what I'm suggesting (e.g. ascribing unconscious motives to people as all psychodynamic theories require, why is my theory immune from the very process I am positing etc. etc.) I readily concede a whole bunch of them. In particular I would point out that this is not an "attack" on religious belief since the theory would suggest we see all forms of cultural identity (political ideology, acquisitiveness, celebrity cultures etc. etc.) in a very different way. And it doesn't necessarily "prove " there is no God. What it does do, like Harari's provocative and important work, is to get us to think, be honest and possible even be humble. Paradoxically aren't those often listed as religious virtues?
Sam had a good chat with Trent Horn on his podcast. Trent easily addressed all of his concerns.
When was this? I can’t find it on the counsel of Trent.
Hi All - when can we see High Ross or someone from Reasons to Believe to help with the harder evolutionary and science related questions here? Andrew is great, but I think Sam could benefit from experts on the Reasons to Believe staff
So Ryan would you accept scientists and their views
@@davidbradley834
What does your question mean exactly by accept? What scientists? What views? On what topic? Based on what?
Would you accept Nazi scientists and their views on human dignity? Just an example.
Oh they have to be christian for you to take their view seriously
@@janwaska521 Well let's be clear:
1. Do you have evidence human dignity is real (meaning not _just_ a social construct; it _is_ a real social construct, obviously)?
2. Do you have evidence of objective morality? Nobody I've asked does, so nobody can decisively say there's one single _correct_ goal we ought to pursue.
3. So what goals ought we to pursue? Well most subjectively value on well-being, so getting them to agree on that is easy. It's a little harder to go a step further and get them to value _everyone's_ well-being, even though it's essentially the same thing (for example I had coffee and donuts delivered to my door today which improved my well-being in a way which would be _impossible_ without the well-being of every single cook, manager, farmer, all the delivery people along the way, etc who were involved.)
4. Choosing the goal is subjective (because we don't have evidence of objective morality). Once we have a goal, measuring it is usually objective. For example science can measure well-being in a variety of ways (Health metrics, GDP, psychological metrics; it gets a little trickier to measure personal freedoms but there are already world indexes for that sort of thing too, so _some_ work has been put into quantifying it).
5. So then when ideas come along like the Nazis or Leviticus 25:44, if we really truly care about our own well-being then we'll understand its contingent on others' well-being and these bad ideas fail to maximize that so they should be rejected.
6. Also I should clarify that our current economy does okay (donuts and coffee _did_ appear magically at my front door) but definitely isn't maximizing the well-being of everyone along the way (many of those people involved in my meal work extremely hard for terrible pay and lousy/non-existent benefits), so we definitely have a lot of room for improvement (which would further improve our own well-being!)
Now I agree with most of your post, which broadly points out we should rely on experts only on topics where their expertise is relevant.
* Regarding morality there doesn't appear to be a single right answer, so science's expertise is NOT relevant.
* Regarding whether evolution happens there is an objectively right answer, science's expertise is totally relevant.
* Regarding whether a god exists there is also an objectively right answer, so when science fails to have sufficient evidence to justify belief in gods _we shouldn't believe in them._
Sorry I meant Hugh Ross from Reasons to Believe. He is a PhD and did his post doc at CatTech. Fazale Rana from Reasons to Believe is also an expert on hominids and can speak to the Reasons to Believe creation model - which is grounded in science
Faith will survive because the final revelation is that God is within us all and for those that are slaves to addictions, depression, paranoia and illness can find freedom if willing to let go of ownership with faith that God is the power within to transform and heal our souls and body. It works but you have to end up in the pigs trough eating slops to want no more and to call for help :-)
No religion needed.
Sam, when you come back to the faith 😉. You would make a great apologist.
@When Belief Dies Hi.
@When Belief Dies Oh, hey, I just responded to your comment replying to me....
15:15 "I always felt that the truth revealed by scripture and the truth revealed by science must be compatible" - I can't fathom how someone who is a biochemist would be satisfied with this kind of a cul-de-sac perspective.
I cant fathom how someone could see this as a cul-de-sac perspective. If the truth in the bible is based on the existence of an ultimate cause and science is based on the same truth of ultimate causality they have to be compatible.
@@gerhardg8101 You can't fathom it, yet you added a two-letter word that completely shifts the emphasis of the perspective. You added "if".
@@AR333 it is there to ask yourself the question why it should not be so in your eyes.
@@gerhardg8101 Try rephrasing that. My point is there is a difference between someone saying "A has to be commensurate with B" vs. "If A, it must be commensurate with B".
My question for evolutionists, why is the human species the only species that "evolve" in the way we did? Why do we not see other species reach the same level of evolution as the humans.
The age of the earth isn't necessary for Christians to believe Jesus Christ died on the cross, but it's foundational for arguments for an alternative explanation to special divine creation. Everyone of these discussions requires an old age argument as necessary to replace divine creation.
The young earth model is scientifically incompatible. I still don't understand the apologists who try and defend it. Or those who argue against evolution. Tis bizarre.
@@Джонатан-р8д How is it incompatible?
I don't understand what people think they are arguing when they say evolution, what do you understand by it?
@@watchman2866 By incompatible I mean sciences showing the earth was not created 4000-10,000 years ago.
By evolution I mean the diversification of life by natural selection. As opposed to creationism.
What do you think evolution is?
@@Джонатан-р8д That's all been well contest from the 1800s.
I understand evolution as an attempt to explain the history of life on earth, starting with an original archetypal cell that was able to replicate itself. A history that this cell gave rise to every lifeform current present on earth today. Today long after all this is believed to have happened, phylogenetic trees have been proposed to illustrate this. What I see in these diagrams are they same body plans today as at the start. Bacteria, earyotic, Archaea are supposed to be at the foundation of these trees, but they are the same level of development today, basically unchanged.
I see two choices, divine creation from an intelligent God who is eternal, or nature is eternal and created. Either way we end up with today's universe. Creation makes much more sense when we look at life on earth.
@@watchman2866 No, sorry. That's a misunderstanding of evolution. No one believes a single cell gave life the entire universe.
Your position is still an argument from incredulity. You don't know how it could have happened any other way, there for god. We still haven't proven a god to exist. Doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't exist, but the time to believe something is when you have good evidence for it. You've built your house on an increasingly faster collapsing foundation.
“Apologetics only works on people who want it to work.”
“You can’t argue someone with pure reason into the faith”.
Two very honest and very revealing statements by Christians, and why many reject the faith.
23:30 As Sam says, If evolution is assumed then God has no irrefutable testimony in creation. Theistic evolutionists must deny Romans 1, and with it the prerequisites for belief:
Romans 1:20 NASB
[20] For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.
Sam’s point about why historians are not becoming Christians due to evidence for the resurrection pre-supposes that faith is an intellectual affirmation. It is surely a combination of our rationale and also our moral intuition that recognises the penetrative power of the words of Christ exposing our inner darkness and pointing us to a higher way of living in the light. “My sheep hear my voice” Jesus said. Many live in denial or have not heard his words.
Hi Faith Defender. Which words of Christ are we supposed to recognise? Is this a matter of exegesis or "hearing" in some mystical sense?
@@martifingers The gospel is totally different to the “rules for life” that other religions offer. Christian baptism signifies death to our self life which we trade in for a new life of Christ. The words of Christ only make sense in that context (eg. Matthew 16:24 “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me”. Also John 12:24 “Unless a seed falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds”. The apostle Paul says it in 2 Corinthians 4:12 “Death is at work in us, but life is at work in you”). It is not about self improvement as with other religions, it is about self crucifixion.
@@MarkHunterSolo Thanks for the reply and the references. In fact my question was a slightly different one in that I was really asking how we are meant to (a) decide which scriptures are actually the words of Jesus since , as far as I know, this is widely disputed by scholars and (b) how to interpret texts which appear obscure or ambiguous etc. It also raises issues about the canon itself - do you count The Gospel of Thomas for instance? If not why not?
As it is, your answer addresses a really interesting concept but one that opens up lots of questions. Firstly I would suggest that the notion of "rebirth" is not the sole preserve of Christianity - Buddhist ideas about "nirvana" or extinguishing aspects of the ego seems very similar for instance.
The language may be a problem here but what exactly is "self life" ?
You suggest that "self improvement" is not the aim. That would seem to be a reductionist view of other religions .
It would also seem to imply that "good works" are not necessary for salvation. I guess it's hard to generalise as there are so many Christian denominations but my understanding is that for most of the major ones faith and good works are necessary for salvation. Here I am equating faith with your "taking up your cross" and "good works" with what you call self improvement? That may not be correct of course.
As I say, thanks again for your reply.
@@martifingers Hi again, I have never read the gospel of Thomas as it is not in the canon of scripture. It is probably an interesting read like the other apocryphal writings but the church only included the most authoritative in the Protestant bible. The Westminster shorter catechism states the purpose of man as this “Man's chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.” I think the concept of God’s glory is what you really want to explore. The Hebrew word is “Kabod” and has the sense of the weight of God’s character in it. Apparently we are changed as we look into it by having Christ revealed to us by Faith under the transforming power of the Holy Spirit. In other words christianity is not just a rebirth but a constant feeding on the body of Christ ( see John 6:53 - Jesus said to them “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”). You will know that Jesus said that man cannot live by bread alone but by every word of God - well it is only in the bible you can find the words of God since the Holy Spirit inspired the words and he can create glory in our lives as we consume the words and live by them. There is no other way but to trust and obey.
@@MarkHunterSolo Hi again and thanks for the reply. I was fully aware of the apocryphal status of Thomas - that was my point! I mentioned it as it is entirely (I think) sayings attributed to Jesus. But my understanding is modern scholarship has cast doubt on whether Jesus actually did say what is reported even in the "official" New Testament. It would seem we have to immediately believe that there was divine intervention in the deciding of what is canonical or not. Do you see what I mean? I am afraid that I see things very differently to you !
I wonder If sam can tells us the Gospel that saves that he has rejected?
The improbability argument for the existence of the universe is incoherent unless we have other universes to compare this one with or prove somehow that the physical constants COULD have been any different. If for some reason theists “feel” like the universe needs some kind of explanation- rather than accepting it as a brute fact, then why must atheists accept that god is a non-contingent brute fact that needs no explanation? Isn’t this special pleading?
Finding meaning and purpose in life is evolutionarily advantageous. Just because the purpose of life is not infinite or cosmic does not make it meaningless. In fact, the very thing that makes life so meaningful is it’s finitude.
Blimey, at the 41:55 mark " If the resurrection was real, then it adds credence to the whole story".It certainly would but we live in hope that the evidence will get stronger as it isn't there yet.
If one requires a physical resurrection as foundation of ones belief in Christ one is a materialist. It is the desire to be self eternal that created the mess in the first place.
@@gerhardg8101 I agree but don't most Christians believe in a physical resurrection as opposed to a metaphorical one.
@@dominichowles9092 it's metaphysical, not metaphorical. To real Christians Jesus has come alive inside them and they in him. That most Christians believe God to be a kind of Santa that fulfils their wishes for reality upon prayer is a sad reflection of human gullibility, excusable for the naive that really believe so, but inexcusable for those who claim intellectual superiority over them by those who claim God not to exist because there is no Santa in the sky.
I'm curious to see how Andrew handles Genesis!
@When Belief Dies Seems like it! You should check out my channel if you get a chance also!
Science has finally come around to accepting the Bibles account of the universe had a beginning.'
Took a while but finally got there.
I think we all know that there was a beginning. Christianity works when you accept everything without question.christianity falls away when questions are asked.
Eg Paul says if christ did not rise christianity is in vain but christ did rise. so believe.
@@davidbradley834 ?? science didnt know there was a beginning till the 1940`s....
Bible being saying it for millennia.
historians from the past have come to Christ through study. The problem with modern study is that we are swimming in information and we have 2000 years of Christian culture with all it's challenges. The truth about humans is that we believe based on emotional convincing. Half of all marriages fail yet people still marry. Why? Because we have a need beyond logic and reason. We need these relationships in some form or fashion. Believing in a creator is something we do in some form or fashion.
Love the beat at the start ! 😊 wonder what it is ? Does anyone know ?🙂
Probably just a generic stock tune. It is quite relaxing.
Great Video i subscribe💝. Well Put together. Peace and Prosperity this New Year. 💝 blessings in abundant Great Watch my Friend....
I'm a young earth creationist who believes many of the scientific conclusions of the animal relations are true, but others are not.
We cannot come together unless we make sacrifices.
Therefore let both sides make sacrifices, that we and evolutionists can come together and learn more about the salvation through Jesus christ.
There’s no evidence that any gods exist, and evolution is a fact.
@@gradystein5765
I agree with evolution in that the hyrax is related to the elephant and the hyena is related to the cat. But the creatures have not evolved.
@@gradystein5765
I gladly invite you to learn about Jesus Christ and the sacrifice He made.
@@theriveroffaith852 Thats called micro evolution as opposed to macro evolution.
@@grandmasterlucien
Would you do me a huge favor?
I'm looking for a video or photos or illustrations of how lungfish breathe oxygen through nostrils.
Could you please find me an example of this?
Why is Christian call strongly held beliefs evidence.
Yes, why indeed... 🤔
We can attest that evidence by Law of God reveals legitimacy of God's existence
The question will arise in the analysis of the doctrine: How does the *death of Christ save* us? No specific answer has ever been generally satisfactory, unless understanding given. We have numerous theories of the Atonement. We have already intimated that the answer to this question will depend upon our idea of the *nature of God* , the *nature of sin* , the content of salvation, the *nature of man* , and our *idea of Satan and evil spirits* (even pagans believe in spirits) so to say gods do not exist is hypocrisy). We ought at once to dismiss all merely quantitative and commercial conceptions of exchange of merit. There is no longer any question that the doctrines of imputation, both of Adam's sin and of Christ's righteousness, were overwrought and applied by the early theologians with a fatal exclusiveness, without warrant in the Word of God. On the other hand no theory can hold much weight that presupposes that sin is a thing of light consequence in the nature of man and in the economy of God. Unless one is prepared to resist unto blood striving against sin (Hebrews 12:2-4), he cannot know the meaning of the Christ. Again, it may be said that the notion that the death of Christ is to be considered apart from His life, eternal and incarnate life, as the atoning work, is far too narrow to express the teaching of the Bible and far too shallow to meet the demands of an ethical conscience.
It would serve clearness if we reminded ourselves that the question of how in the Atonement may involve various elements. We may inquire: (a) for the ground on which God may righteously receive the sinner; (b) for the means by which God places the restoration within the reach of the sinner; (c) for the influence by which the sinner is persuaded to accept the reconciliation; (d) for the attitude or exercise of the sinner toward God in Christ wherein he actually enters the state of restored union with God. The various theories have seemed to be exclusive, or at least mutually antagonistic, largely because they have taken partial views of the whole subject and have emphasized some one feature of the whole content. All serious theories partly express the truth and all together are inadequate fully to declare how the Daystar from on high doth guide our feet into the way of peace (Luke 1:79).
(4) Another question over which theologians have sorely vexed themselves and each other concerns the extent of the Atonement, whether it is available for all men or only for certain particular, elect ones. That controversy may now be passed by. It is no longer possible to read the Bible and suppose that God relates himself sympathetically with only a part of the race. All segregated passages of Scripture formerly employed in support of such a view have now taken their place in the progressive self-interpretation of God to men through Christ who is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). No man cometh unto the Father but by Him (John 14:6): but whosoever does thus call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved (Joel 2:32 Acts 2:21).
@@abashedsanctimony154 you didn't answer his question, you just said words
@@nathanmckenzie904 Ah then perhaps ROMs 2:1 is evidence.
John 12:32As for Me, if I am lifted up from the earth I will draw all people to Myself." This is the main idea for calling. There is two callings, both for the same purposes but with a certain goal in mind. Christ be accepted as Saviour.
Jesus said "No one can come to Me, unless the Father who sent Me draw him: and I will raise him up on the last day.'' (John 6:44). Many refer to this verse in an effort to support a man-made doctrine which says that only those whom the Lord "calls'' in some mystical way can be saved. They will say that this calling is some sort of direct operation of the Spirit. Calvinism teaches that man is totally passive and cannot do anything until God zaps him with some special anointing, thereby enabling him to believe. Such an idea is foreign to the scriptures.
Our Lord does draw people to Him, and no one can come to the Lord apart from God's drawing power. But this is not a matter of God electing to save some of us and condemn others of us arbitrarily. Consider: God wants all to be saved, and the reason some are lost is not because God has unconditionally chosen them to be.
For Whom Does God Desire Salvation?
The good news is that God does not desire anyone to be lost. No one! God is "...patient, not wishing for any to perish." (II Peter 3:9). God is "compassionate" (Matthew 9:36; Psalm 86:15) God is "...just" (Romans 3:24-26). God is "Sorrowful" that many are lost (Ezekiel 18:23; 31,32; cf. Matthew 23:37). To suggest that man cannot respond to God's gospel apart from a special anointing or calling that God gives to them that He does not give to all others makes God responsible for the lost being lost. But that does not fit with the Biblical description of God's character and nature.
God made salvation available to all. Salvation is available for all men, not just a select few. Jesus died for everyone (Hebrews 2:9; John 3:16). God wants all to come to know the truth (I Timothy 2:4). The invitation is open to all, 24 hours a day. There's no such thing as waiting on God's "special call.'' (Matthew 11:28-30; Revelation 22:17). He has already issued His call, and it has gone out unto the whole world. Any of us can choose to answer it, or not.
How God Draws People Unto Himself
The context of Jesus' statement explains how God draws men and women to Himself. There is nothing mystical about it. The following verse in the context (John 6:45) reveals how God draws men unto Himself. "It is written in the prophets, 'And they shall all be taught of God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me." Note the words "taught" and "every man" (all drawn the same way; by being taught) and "hear" and "learn" and "come". These are not mystical words. They are common, everyday words which are used to describe how it is that people are drawn to Christ.
What is it that is taught and heard and learned? The means or method by which God "calls'' or "draws'' all men is the Gospel. "And it was for this He called you through our gospel, that you may gain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ." (II Thessalonians 2:14). There is no special, mystical anointing of the Holy Spirit, but rather, the Holy Spirit calls men through the gospel; and it is the gospel that is the power (Romans 1:16).
God draws people unto Himself through the teaching of the gospel. The preaching of the gospel is God's power, his drawing power, to save (I Corinthians 1:18-21). Therefore, all people, when they hear the gospel, at any moment, have the ability to respond to God's gospel call. They also have the ability to reject it (Acts 13:45-48).
Sinners are saved by God's grace when they respond in faithful obedience to the gospel that draws them to God (Matthew 7:21). God is always ready for men to repent and obey (Acts 17:30). It is those who will do so that God has predestined for salvation (1 Thessalonians 5:9). This is an important concept to recognize. God has not predestined individuals to be saved or lost, but rather, has predestined the method by which we are saved. If we obey the gospel, we are baptized "into Christ" (Romans 6:3,4). God has predestined all those "in Christ" to be "blessed with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places" (Ephesians 1:3). But it is up to us as to whether we will obey or not.
How To Be Drawn To God's Son And Be Saved
There are not many ways to be drawn to God. In fact, there is only one way to come to the Father (John 14:6). One cannot get to heaven through Jesus apart from obeying Him (Hebrews 5:9). Those who attempt to enter another way are counted as thieves and robbers and will be unsuccessful (John 10:1).
How does one answer God's call? This is important for you to know because God is calling you. Have you answered? If not, will you? Will you call upon Him? For whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved." (Acts 2:21). The people who heard this wanted to know how to do so (Acts 2:37) They were told "Repent and be baptized, everyone of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). Men must believe and obey (Mark 16:16). Saving faith is alive, not dead, and proves itself by obedience to the gospel. The gospel is God's call to us by which we are drawn to Him. Our obedient faith needs to be the answer we give His call.
1 more time.. let's skip the Bible quotes, and answer the question that was asked
To A World Without a Clue - TRUE FAITH IS BIRTHED FROM HEAVEN - & No, You Were Never a Christian - You Were Never Born Again - That's Born FROM HEAVEN 🙏🤗🙏
Sam, have you read Jim Wallace’s “Cold Case Christianity”- a non-believer convinced by the evidence
If you want check out pineCreek and paulogia blow up Jim Warner Wallace's "evidence "
Jim Wallace is a deceiver. Mis-representing and hiding real data. I looked into this a bit and he does not present all infor and distorts info a lot to make his case.
One example is the flood narritive. The Bible account is written after the flood account from the epic of gilgamesh which was written much earlier. Scholars agree on this based on language and archeology. This is a tough fact for many Christans to accept.
I have never had an answer to this but why would god choose evolution as a way to get to us? I mean evolution causes and incredible amount of pain and suffering, whats the point ?
victor reppert's book very good.
Well its survived so far, you've got evangelicals that just flat out deny evolution and you've got Catholics who embrace it but are challenged with explaining that original sin didn't literally happen, despite New Testament references, including genealogy back to Adam, saying it was an actual event. Though I'm sure it turns some people away from Christianity when they simply just can't reconcile the disconnect.
But its not only human evolution they need to contend with, but also the evolution of religion itself, which is certainly a huge red flag that its man made. Religious belief is traced back 10s of thousands of years, evidenced with archaeological discovery of ritual burials, items for the afterlife, and cave paintings that indicated various cult worship. Then organized religion developed around 10,000 years ago, with the first recorded religions about 4000 years ago, Babylonian, Egyptian, etc, which influenced Canaanite beliefs that Judaism was originally derived from, originally polytheistic and finally just recognizing Yahweh as the one and only god, denying all others. There's numerous references in the Old Testament calling out some of them as false gods, and of course the 1st commandment is directed at cancelling the others. Then of course Christianity branches off Judaism and further bakes in other pagan god elements, resurrection, virgin birth, etc., in fact, Christianity is one of the most syncretized religions there is. So this too is difficult to reconcile with why a real god would undergo such radical changes, the answer is it wouldn't.
What empirical evidence is there that Lucy is 3.5 million years old?
The scientific paper, _"Age of Lucy and the First Family: Single-crystal..."_ (Walter, 1994) uses argon-argon dating to show Lucy is 3.18 million years ago.
I think evolution has so many evidences from so many sciences that it is now virtually proven. We are just an intelligent ape species.
So how that fits in with the Bible account of creation is something I am really looking forward to hearing in this video.
Hebrews 1:1-3 KJVS
[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, [2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; [3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Intelligent design as a theory is founded on real and tangible evidence that evolutionists have made no significant case for overturning. Just ridicule, mockery and constant straw manning of their very sound arguments. Evolution however is propped up by paper thin speculation and outright fraud. Icons of Evolution by Jonathon Wells exposes the fact that much of the iconic proofs for evolution taught to children, are anything but science.
@@timid3000
So the vast majority of the worlds scientists are ether wrong, or they are lying?
O.K. got it. [facepalm]
@@johnhammond6423 It's called brainwashing and indoctrination John. Clearly having suffered the same fate, you're struggling to wrap your head around the idea that yes, the vast majority of scientists (regular humans in white coats) are wrong. I mentioned a book by Jonathon Wells called Icons of Evolution. Many of the proofs that convinced leading scientists of evolution are provably fraudulent. A classic example would be Haeckel's Embroys which famed evolutionist Jerry Coyne acknowledged being embarrassed to have taught to his students. This fraudulent proof was also one of Darwins favourite proofs. These are facts that you can verify yourself. Or are you too busy face palming yourself and wallowing in your own ignorance?
@When Belief Dies
Is this sarcasm or a compliment?
Evolution is true.
44:28 Lee strobel wrote the case for Christ doing exactly what Sam was wanting an example of.
Lee strobel wanted to see it as true and guess what it turned out to be true. His wife was a christian so there might have been bias there. He started his career from their, did money persuade him it was true. I wonder whether he was completely honest with his reasoning of faith
@@davidbradley834 regardless, completely secular unbiased evidence is presented in the book
@@tristanbarga5265 from the bible
@@tristanbarga5265 😆that's the funniest thing I have read all day
Was the resurection à myth of Christian Connerie?
Sam do you know what challenge Satan throws down to God ?Job 1:6-12 Now the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them. 7 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where have you come from?” Satan answered Jehovah: “From roving about on the earth and from walking about in it.” 8 And Jehovah said to Satan: “Have you taken note of my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth. He is an upright man of integrity, fearing God and shunning what is bad.” 9 At that Satan answered Jehovah: “Is it for nothing that Job has feared God? 10 Have you not put up a protective hedge around him and his house and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his livestock has spread out in the land. 11 But, for a change, stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your very face.” 12 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Look! Everything that he has is in your hand. Only do not lay your hand on the man himself!” So Satan went out from the presence of Jehovah.
Genesis is true and your geezer who is supposed to believe in creation is talking rubbish.Look up James Tour :The mystery of the origin of life.The six day creation is NOT literally 24 hour days the word for day is(YOHM) like in my fathers day.Job 2:1-6 ) Afterward the day came when the sons of the true God entered to take their station before Jehovah, and Satan also entered among them to take his station before Jehovah. 2 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Where have you come from?” Satan answered Jehovah: “From roving about on the earth and from walking about in it.” 3 And Jehovah said to Satan: “Have you taken note of my servant Job? There is no one like him on the earth. He is an upright man of integrity, fearing God and shunning what is bad. He is still holding firmly to his integrity, even though you try to incite me against him to destroy him for no reason.” 4 But Satan answered Jehovah: “Skin for skin. A man will give everything that he has for his life. 5 But, for a change, stretch out your hand and strike his bone and flesh, and he will surely curse you to your very face.” 6 Then Jehovah said to Satan: “Look! He is in your hand! Only do not take his life!”
That is still his challenge to God today and it has been answered percfectly by Christ.
It can survive unfortunately .
Stupidity is unbeatable !!!
“The evidence for the resurrection is good” 🤨..... oh dear
I would love to be a Martyr actually but I am strange and that might sound suicidal but I just have extreme faith in Jesus
Sam Davis' use of the word ruach is flawed; it does not appear in the creation of Adam. Genesis 2:7 " then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature." (ESV) uses completely different vocabulary.
Faith is belief without evidence, so at the point where someone relies on it to believe an idea I don't see why facts would intrude on it. Faith in a broad sense is to believe something _regardless of what the facts indicate,_ so relying on it really indicates the person isn't using truth to guide their beliefs in the first place.
That's not the biblical definition of Faith. It's just not.
@@littleboots9800 It's the Biblical definition _minus the nonsense part of the Bible's definition:_
* Faith is an assurance of things hoped for. This is nonsense. An assurance is a promise. To understand how nonsensical it is, imagine you're hoping your car gets fixed and the mechanic literally tells you "I faith to fix your car". That's consistent with the Bible's definition, but it's nonsense.
* Faith is a conviction of things not seen. This is flat-out the version I mentioned earlier (belief without evidence), and we know it's a terrible way to form one's beliefs. (If you have conviction of leprechauns, they don't magically exist.)
_Throughout your life you'll notice ONE CONSTANT: the only people trying to convince you to abandon reliable methods of knowing truth are those who want to take advantage of you._ So the fact that the Bible makes a concerted effort to convince people to rely on faith -- a method _we know_ isn't reliable -- should be a huge red flag. Of course the fact that we have no evidence is the biggest reason not to believe the Bible's supernatural claims.
@@majm4606 faith noun
\ ˈfāth \
plural faiths\ ˈfāths , sometimes ˈfāt͟hz \
Definition of faith (Entry 1 of 2)
1a: allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
b(1): fidelity to one's promises
(2): sincerity of intentions
2a(1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b(1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof
(2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction
especially : a system of religious beliefs
One could think you have faith in your belief that you can form a belief without evidence. In fact, evidence is that what causes a belief. It is the true Brights who believe that and they have no evidence to support it apart from quotes from their disciples. which by theri definition are not evidence. Such definition of Faith is a declaration of intellectual bankruptcy :-).
@@gerhardg8101 Fair enough: theists form the belief on _bad_ evidence.
* A victim treats the Nigerian Prince's word as evidence, when it's not reasonable evidence, and believes that by participating in the con, they'll receive money.
* A victim treats the Bible's claim (the word) as evidence, when it's not reasonable evidence, and believes that by participating in the religion, they'll receive eternal life.
I mean I think you'll probably agree, given you didn't exactly come right out and present sufficient, reasonable evidence that a god exists (or evidence of any other of the supernatural claims any religion makes).
Think the story makes no sense (even if it DID happen)
a god dying, (briefly) and then coming back to save us from what HE himself will do to us,
I can understand if there was some more powerful being that god had to
make a sacrifice to ,
to save us,
but (according to the belief) there isn't,we are being saved from *him* (who else ?)
Well from what I've read the Christian view of Hell isn't that God will send you to Hell but that Hell is something you create within yourself. So God's sacrifice isn't saving us from God but saving us from ourselves.
If you think of humanity as a battle between good and evil within each of us then God's sacrifice is like offering us the extra help we need to beat evil and become fully good in the end.
C.S. Lewis explains this pretty well in his works, I can send you some youtube links where you'll be able to listen free of charge.
@@vilwyn273 Luke 12:4-6 speaks of God having the authority to send someone to Hell. Does anyone else have that authority? If not, then what Frank described is true: the story doesn't make sense, because a loving god would simply forgive us if that was their intent. Instead, it's _God's_ threat of infinite punishment for finite crimes that's said to loom over us, a dramatically unfair punishment and not something any reasonable person would consider justice.
But as Frank sort of mentioned, we don't actually have a reason to believe _any_ of the supernatural claims of the Bible, so there's no actual reason to think these things are real (which is why we shouldn't believe them).
@@majm4606 Well there is the fact that the resurrection is one of the best evidenced events of the ancient world. The resurrection of Jesus is a big claim but no other theories (mythic, conspiracy, hallucination, and so on) work.
@@vilwyn273 Remind me: what evidence outside the Bible (the source of the claim of a resurrection) indicates a resurrection happened? A single book claiming something happened definitely doesn't make it one of the best evidenced events.
I mean consider evidence that Rome's empire extended to Britain: the Roman Hadrian built a wall there which is still standing today, there are Roman baths in the city of Bath in Somerset, we've found archaeological forts like Isca Dumnoniorum, roads like Blackstone Edge, on Rishworth Moor near Manchester built using Roman techniques, and even many of the cities are still named ending in "chester", "caster", or "cester" are named that way due to the Latin word 'castrum' which means 'a fort'.
So there _are_ topics deep in history where we truly do have overwhelming evidence. The resurrection _is not_ one of them. You have one book claiming it happened, and no outside evidence at all. (The closest is that there's outside evidence Christ was crucified. Not evidence of a resurrection.)
_Do books ever contain deliberate falsehoods?_ Because if (a) books DO sometimes contain falsehoods but (b) we have no evidence of a resurrection, the simplest explanation here is a book told a lie. Frankly it's weird that you seem to think these possibilities are ruled out. I don't see how you ruled out that the Bible's authors weren't some combination of (a) fooled followers and/or (b) conspirators lying in a book. Additionally you maybe aren't aware of the Synoptic Gospels being extremely derivative of each other, to the point where maybe they represent only one actual perspective which was copied to the other books, which means it's possible there are only _two authors_ claiming a resurrection happened.
Sometimes people claim the disciples must've strongly believed it due to the threats they faced, but strangely when I ask them of _evidence_ that they actually faced those hardships, they never produce any. I mean even if we lowered our bar and didn't demand _reasonable evidence_ but instead accepted _church traditions_ of how the disciples died, the tradition about John (one of those two authors claiming a resurrection happened) is that he died of old age!
I really do recommend you research the topic. The story really just falls apart the more you research it.
@@majm4606 Very well written. It’s refreshing to see some rigorous critical thought!
Can God create haven and earth
The real issue is if science can survive a naturalist macro-evolutionary cause of the current universe. The answer is no. That would be ridiculous. It would be much easier to believe in flying spaghetti monsters.
All hail Its al dente appendages!
Hebrews 1:1-3 KJVS
[1] God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, [2] Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; [3] Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Amén
28:04 Andrew: "this universe is improbable"
-- How do you know and who says that ?
28:10 Andrew about occams razor: "the simplest explanation"
-- a god would not provide any explanation, it would still be a placeholder for the real explanation.
30:00 classic... "I want to feel and have purpose and meaning, so a god must exist then"
This is such an unbelievable narcissistic narrow anthropic point of view.
44:00 Sam: "Is there any historian that became a christian because of convincing historic evidence ?"
-- great point!
-- "who moved the stone" : the writer already had a "high reverence" for Jesus. He was a journalist. Check the critical reviews by christians and non-christians.
59:00 Andrew: "one thing that i'm sure of is you can't argue someone in pure reason into faith"
1:00:00 Andrew: "Faith is a mystery, scientists are used to live with mystery , look at quantumtheory".
-- Sorry andrew, when i look beyond the sound and poeticness of what you are actually saying , you seem to be saying nothing much at all.
You seem to be defending more so the poeticness of what you belief than the truth of what you believe.
I don't know why this is a question. Evolution does not contradict faith in the in the slightest. Genesis is near perfect explanation of the big bang theory of the universe from people who had no concept of the universe. Furthermore why does it matter if God made the universe in 7 days or billions of years? It would have zero effect on the reality we find ourselves in. Plenty of the bible uses metaphors and non-literal stories or metaphors to describe reality or truths and I argue that the bible isn't even using a metaphor in genesis. You could not get a better description of the creation of the universe from science than genesis without understanding astrophysics.
I'll also pose that what's wrong with evolution being the way that God created everything? This world is a wonderful and amazing place and we can see God everywhere in it... so why would we expect to find misleading evidence?
I used to believe in a literal Adam as the first man , I can accepts him as an archetype ..still believe he existed as the Paul mentions him a lot in the book of Romans., I think the Neanderthal dna put a spanner in the works. Only thing I've read is that there's no missing links found between these hominids if true. All a bit confused 😂 . If man has been around for say over 6000 yrs or 60000yrs ? Civilization began about 4000bc in mesopotamia Historians tell us so man must be here quite recently! Anyone have any more take on this?
Sam is the winner because he comes with solid facts, nothing illusory. However, I believe that Christianity should not use the name "Jesus" because it knows not a thing about Jesus, right, other than having those illusory faith.
After discarding humanity of Jesus, there is no divinity, for some understanding. Christianity sees his humanity mostly, if not only, on the cross, as suffering and dying son of God!
Bible says that if humans don't love their neighbours, they cannot love God. One must look at the way of our world. Do you see such thing as "love" anywhere, even including the churches? Be serious and honest, to answer this to yourself. World of misery and dying humanity, that's all there is.
God:- What's the status quo?
Angels:- It's 2021 and humans still believe in evolution.
God (with shock and utter despondence):- goes back to sleep.
You want to know how God can tell whether someone is saved or not?
What they believe in. It's your choice and your entire history is encoded into your DNA. It's what makes.you specific. Pigs act like pigs, dogs act like dogs. Humans act like they have beliefs that are more correct than the next person. God doesn't sleep, He rests.
This is the hardest I've cringed all week 😬
@@Джонатан-р8д truth can be a little cringe worthy for all the pagans.
@@samuelking6432 Oh, I'm not a pagan. Although, paganism is way cooler than Christianity. Heavily influenced Christians too 🤗
@@Джонатан-р8д another day, another illiterate misinformed sheep on the internet. If you ponder about your beliefs carefully, you would notice hints of paganism imbricated in it. If you think dancing around naked worshipping a tree is cool, then so be it. I'm not gonna teach you what coolness is.
For the life of me, I can't understand why any Christian is threatened by an evolutionary account of human origins. These worries presuppose a certain hermeneutic of scripture as well as a certain epistemology about science, and fundamental reality, neither of which are even remotely certain or even probably true.
Nor can I, Evolution is clearly a non starter in the explanation stakes. No one can provide evidence for it.
@@martinploughboy988 Meh, it seems pretty well supported by the science as I understand it, but I haven't really spent much time looking into it. It just doesn't seem relevant. If God wants to create using a process that looks really slow from our perspective, what's the problem?
@@barry.anderberg What science? Has anybody ever observed common descent? And since God describes how He created in Genesis, which is completely at odds with Evolution, if He had used Evolution He would be lying.
@Dave The Brahman You do realise that Darwin's idea doesn't have any supporting evidence.
@Dave The Brahman You do realise that science isn't done by consensus? Evolution does not "unites in one explanatory system all the data from biochemistry, medicine, zooology, genetics and geology", rather it is the filter that is imposed on these fields, often causing error.
Take for example the concept of vestigial organs, based on a belief in Evolution, it has now been shown that not one of the once claimed vestigial organs in the human body is actually vestigial and without purpose. Equally, it was once claimed that Junk DNA was the result of Evolution, yet we are increasingly seeing what was once described as 'junk' now being revealed as essential parts of the genome.
The stupidity isn't in Christians but in those clinging to a Victorian pseudo science despite the lack of supporting evidence.
Misleading title. A almost nothing about evolution and faith. This misleading title just stole a precious hour of my life.
We are chosen by God and Christ. There is nothing we can do. No evidence would convince anyone - you must be born again to understand. Sam isn't chosen, he grew up in a Christian family and followed them. Being chosen and born again is NOT growing up in a Christian family. I wish him well! I have a feeling he is more interested in being famous/well known than seeking the truth. Seems like he wants fame and status more than anything else.
Do you believe humans have free will?
Don't write off Sam. I was a believer who became an atheist for 7 years but was called back. We don't know Sam's reasons. He seems hurt and confused to me. God loves him and will call him back in the right time like he did me if he truly believed and gave his life to Jesus. Some believers need space to test out what they really believe. God is not afraid of this. He can handle anyone's questions if they ask in all honesty and willingness to be open.
@@gmac8586 You say you were an atheist but you were obviously not very skeptical. What "called you back" to Christianity?
As they always say "oh it's a very good question" :-) - no it isn't. Much ado about nothing would be a better title. The incoherence of thinking is priceless. SD did not start to doubt the God story when reading Sapiens but when his Big Santa God did not deliver the goods he wished for. He even says so himself as clearly if a God he could worship exists he would not make him have backpain.
@When Belief Dies you should try your broken string analogy on himself and try to figure out where in being a human you started to your own will consciously and you might figure out when you get out of puberty
The Lord has said -HE is who makes the sun shine and the moon
and stars shine and stirs up the sea and its waves roar if these laws
vanish from my sight then ISRAEL WILL CEASE BEING A NATION BEFORE ME
declares Yahweh (our God)- a living proof of the veracity of scriptures
written 3000 years ago REMARKABLE - Jesus said in Luke 4 that He was
fulfilling that on that day prophesy of Isiah 61 which was ..."to
proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." We are in the Year 2021 of
the Year of the Lord . absolutely REMARKABLE... Sooorrrrry I just dont
understand how could anybody who knows scripture could become and
atheist
can evolution survive the biblical account of history? can it hold up? that should be your question, the bible is our first authority, not man's word. Is Jesus your Lord if you pressupose a brand of so called science(man's word) instead of scripture?
Because maybe it gives more answers than God did it.
The Bible is the claim, not the evidence
Can gravity survive The Adventures of Curious George?
The Mankind of Genesis 1 is not the Adam and Eve of Genesis 2. They were created before Adam and Eve. They are the people Cain got his wife from. They are the ones Cain thought might kill him. They also helped Cain build his city. They are the daughters of men the sons of God (males from Adam) took wives from.
The creation days were long periods of time. The Mankind of Genesis 1 was created in the sixth time period. Adam and Eve were created at the very end of the sixth beginning of the seventh. This could have been a difference of a few million years. If the Mankind being spoke of in Genesis 1 is strictly Homo Sapiens then a few hundred thousand years.
Unimpressed. God isn’t here to enable us to do our thing better.
God is not anywhere.
Gee - Atheist want solid proof that God is real to believe - not knowing that if God can be proven it'd curtail the freedom to sin... and ":SIN" is what this all about.
Well that's what God should provide, as he is God. Maybe you believe because the pastor says so?
If we are not skeptical you can fall for everything
Good books that debunk evolution from a scientific perspective: Evolution, A Theory in Crisis, by Denton. "The Transformist Illusion" by Douglas Dewar
Darwin’s Black Box, Darwin’s Doubt and Icons of Evolution are great reads too! 🙏
@@timid3000 Great, thanks! I believe the Muslim-American scientist Seyyed Hossein Nasr is either working to compile or has compiled a volume of scientific writings against Darwinism. Darwinism truly is a "theory in crisis."
But this absurd theory is the lynchpin of modernity, the keystone holding up the whole rotten structure, and that is why it is defended so adamantly, and why those who criticize it are so calumniated.
If I deny the Big Bang, no one really cares. But if I deny Darwinism, I am some sort of lunatic.
If you are going to deny evolution, why you need to read a book? Oh wait.....you are pretending evolution is not a fact. I forget that sometimes.
@@skyeangelofdeath7363 Brace yourself Mike, an idiot has entered the discussion.
@@Mike-md7op They do care if you deny the Big Bang Mike, as far as I have experienced they do. Evolution is not the only absurd theory we have been brainwashed to believe. I'd say that the earth being a huge spinning ball that is rocketing through space at 2 million miles an hour is the most absurd. I'm splitting hairs though. th-cam.com/video/0NM5q22j5VI/w-d-xo.html
31:29 is the embarrassing statement of a pseudo-intellectual about evolution. The concept of randomness might describe their thought process, clearly lacking the free will to think. Similarly the idea that God created life. That by definition declares God dead and the intellectual bankruptcy in theological terms. God is life as in the cause of primary movement of energy and matter.
"plenty of say to that"? 31:29
What are you commenting really?
@@gulanhem9495 To see the evolutionary process as blind requires a level of blindness that goes far beyond the loss of eyesight.
@@gerhardg8101
You make no sense. There is no such quote at your timestamp.
@@gulanhem9495 just hold your breath for a moment. I thought better to set the time stamp a bit earlier.another 10 sec so you get the intro into the sentence
@@gerhardg8101
All right. But it's still hard to get what you are commenting on and what your position is.
Are you objecting to the notion that universe has no purpose?
Cam faith survive evolution? Of course it can! Why? Because God can be made compatible with 𝘢𝘯𝘺 state of affairs.
'nuf said.
boring bye bye
THE FAITH IN EVOLUTION CANT SURVIVE...
I don't know why this is a question. Evolution does not contradict faith in the in the slightest. Genesis is near perfect explanation of the big bang theory of the universe from people who had no concept of the universe. Furthermore why does it matter if God made the universe in 7 days or billions of years? It would have zero effect on the reality we find ourselves in. Plenty of the bible uses metaphors and non-literal stories or metaphors to describe reality or truths and I argue that the bible isn't even using a metaphor in genesis. You could not get a better description of the creation of the universe from science than genesis without understanding astrophysics.
I'll also pose that what's wrong with evolution being the way that God created everything? This world is a wonderful and amazing place and we can see God everywhere in it... so why would we expect to find misleading evidence?
@@eradian1 genesis is not accurate
@@davidsmith5946 Separation of the earth and sky- Formation of planets
Let there be light- stars/big bang
Creation of oceans and land... self explanatory... hopefully
formation of plants > formation of animals > creation of man
In order how evolution would have taken place
@@eradian1 not true
@@davidsmith5946 Try actually explaining instead of just stating things.
First off, plz don`t butcher occam's razor like that, learn what it says and means or don`t mention it. And the fine tuning is, first of wrong, but even if right, and the odds are correct in whatever to the power of whatever. What is the odds of magic? that must be a magnitude of infiniti.
Hi Mats. Another (in my mind, fatal) objection is why God made it necessary to have a universe that needed to be finetuned in the first place (assuming we go along with the daft dice throwing idea).
@@martifingers Correct, if we where living in a universe that couldn't support us, that would be more impressive.
@@matsjonsson1704 If you haven't already, look up Douglas Gasking's Ontological Parody. I think it'll give you a good chuckle 😊
@@Джонатан-р8д Ty, Will check. I have one for you, old and fun. Nonstampcollector Noah part 1 and 2
reductio ad absurdum is the solution to the Ontological argument.