Biochemist Sy Garte vs. Youtube Atheist
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2024
- Rationality Rules posted a video arguing "The Case for Atheism." Sy Garte was raised as an atheist but converted to Christianity. He joins us to see if RR's video really is a good case for atheism.
Sy Garte's new book: www.amazon.com/Science-Faith-...
Original Video: • Why God Got It Wrong: ... - บันเทิง
I literally can't keep up counting the logical fallacies spewed out by Rationality Rules. It's like a fallacy a minute.
I find many atheists run in that lane.
@@michaelbabbitt3837cause most “atheists” are actually anti-theists. Intellectual dishonesty is their superpower. “I want evidence for the existence of your God but even if you give me evidence I still won’t believe it and just assume I’m hallucinating” yeah very rational and scientific of you there bud.
Atheists don't even know about fallacies
Well at least he got rid of that haircut . Now I no longer believe he is aron ra’s illegitimate son loo😂
@@michaelbabbitt3837why do you think I left atheism 13 years ago . I could no longer hold to it as intellectually tenable
I hope RR’s arguments here won’t be as weak and lackadaisical as they were in his little hit piece on D. Wood.
Disappointed yet?
The hopes you had were far to high for RR
If you didn't like that then just watch his earlier resurrection debunked video.
They've always been that bad. People are just finally saying so out loud.
Yeah that was rough
I find it funny that RR is criticizing the idea of objective moral laws while appealing to “progress” which implies a set and perfect end which that morality _ought to_ approach.
If you believe in a set of objective moral laws from the Christian god....then you must accept murdering children & infants as morally good.
1 Samuel 15: 1-3
@@thedude0000 That’s middle eastern war language. It’s similar to saying things like “the Baltimore Ravens totally destroyed the Steelers”, just with much more hyperbole. The Egyptians also formulated their records of conquests in the same way. The Alamekites appear later in other passages, so clearly this verse is not to be taken 100% literally. You probably think murdering millions of infants through abortion is morally good too so if that is the case then by your own arbitrary standards you’re likewise “evil” as well. On materialism, people are literally just assemblages of molecules and chemical signals. Smashing a baby against a wall is the moral equivalent to an apple falling from a tree and splattering on a rock because morality doesn’t exist and is just a cope to justify certain arbitrary things.
@@Nasaj_Tengras Hopefully you limbered up your brain before you did all those mental gymnastics.
@@Nasaj_Tengras _The Alamekites appear later in other passages, so clearly this verse is not to be taken 100% literally_
I always find this approach to the Bible funny. On what criteria do you base what is literal and is figurative in Bible?!?
Seriously, I could state the crucifixion is just figurative and provide tons of reasons to justify it .
@@thedude0000 The first half of my comment was providing justification for that interpretation.
Soy viking strikes again
Hahaha
😂😂😂
Exactly
And there went my soda I just took a sip out of LOL
If they die while arguing the immorality of the dinosaurs extinction they go to soyhalla.
Rationality Rules' argument about science continuing to make victories over supernatural explanations is an unfalsifiable point. He obviously doesn't count all of the times a scientist has said something wrong, and he doesn't count all of the things that science can't yet explain. So in what way could he possibly be wrong? He literally only counts the wins for science, and then claims science is undefeated.
Is it a fact that many of the explanations provided by theism that credited phenomena to supernatural explanations later were discovered by scientific methodology to be, instead, an explainable and natural process?
@@Theo_Skeptomai yeah, why do you ask? The fact that you're asking that question implies my point went completely over your head.
@@jeremyinvictusAre you aware of ANY occasion when the reverse (vice-versa) occurred?
@@Theo_Skeptomai What is the "reverse"?
@@jeremyinvictus Is it a fact that no natural explanation of a phenomenon, discovered by scientific methodology, has ever been replaced with a "better" supernatural explanation?
I feel a little bad for Rationality Rules he's really made a bit of a bed for himself of late, and people are making him sleep in it. He hasn't reached TJ Kirk, or God forbid Aron Ra levels of lolcow, but damn is he on his way there fast. It's a shame too, as it's clear he could be a good debater if he didn't let his own biases and quite frankly, bigotry get in the way.
I mean, he can't even seem to answer his same rationality toward gender make believe, which makes RR way more irrational than Kirk or Ra, eh? I support trans folks as a Christian, but at least I'm consistent lol. I'd feel bad for RR if he didn't do this to himself. He's the one who opened the doors to severe contradictions in his logic.
@@drockopotamus1I love all ppl but do not support homosexuality rather that annoys or bothers ppl I really honestly don't care because I'll stick up for god and his word even to death but I do believe we should at all times preach truth even when it offends you can't have one foot in the world and one foot out you should stop trying to please ppl and talk more truth
Sorry I'm still trying to deal with William Lane Craig's love of killing babies right now and his rationality for supporting genocide as a good thing, if god so decrees it. You think Rationality Rules is stepping in it? Nah, apologists still set the gold standard of absurdity.
Happy to see someone else notice Aron Ra as a lowball. I first noticed it sharply in his "no prophecy" video some years back [where he hillariously said the bible claims Jesus was not a jew nor the descendent of David.]
And even more in his debate with Inspiring Philisophy about "Is christianity harmful (loosely remembered)" where IP did an excellent job in showing Aron Ras inconsistency and question begging. And Aron Ra didnt even notice his own fallacies!!
On a different topic - can anyone suggest atheists with intelligent, clear and good content against christianity instead of the mocking, misrepresenting fallacious kind?
I gotta disagree a bit, is Aran Ra really on the level of TJ, I mean you should look into the banana incident, or even worse, his little furry vore adult comic that is absolutely disgusting in every way.
Something I read, not too long ago, was that microbiologist have to continuously tell themselves, “this looks like it’s intelligently designed, but it’s not.”
Now, if we’re talking about science, shouldn’t they follow that line of thinking? If it appears to be something, that should be assumed or at least part of the equation, when looking for explanations?
Do you have a link to where you read that?
@@sircourgette I believe he is referencing Richard Dawkins book The God Delusion
@@sircourgette I believe it was in the book Confronting Christianity by Rebecca McLaughlin, but I’m not 100% positive. It was almost a year ago when I read it.
How so you tell the difference between a designed thing and a non-designed thing?
How does it look intellegently designed though? We recognize Design in contrast to what is naturally occuring and another hallmark is Simplicity. If you tell me a bacteria looks intelligently designed then I would ask, since a Bacteria occurs in nature, how do you distinguish between a designed Atom (or Molecule) and a naturally occuring one? In Science we don´t have any reason to think that Atoms were designed, we only know they are part of nature and we constantly find natural processes that explain things in nature. It would require evidence to say that someone designed nature, not just the Illusion of Design because we are capable of designing things.
As atheism grows in America insanity grows. I know correlation is not causation but there is definitely connection there
Demonising the out group doesn't defacto make the in group right.
Whats you measure for insanity
@@XraynPR let’s see the fact the medical Field is stating western youth is facing a mental health crisis, people thinking they can change their biology, people accepting the abuse of the culture and growing dysfunctional families pushing sexual perversion. The fact kids push multiple personalities as good on social media, youth taking their lives at an exponential rate, people thinking their animals, people pushing Marxism, people murdering babies and ignoring the science of biology and conception. The list goes on. That’s Insanity. Ignoring science, evidence, and facts for subjective beliefs which contradict reality. Atheism makes the lie subjectivity popular leading to all the nonsense discussed. There’s your connection.
@@XraynPR wokeness
@@downenout8705 oh my friend secularists are crazy
Awesome video as always Michael. You have helped me a lot in hard times before. Thank you and God bless you❤
Hedonism is rationality rules worldwide.
?!?
Rationalization Rules more like it.
You did not have to cook him that hard lmao.
A huge reason American pop culture has “science vs faith” thing is decades of the vocal minority of young earth creationists in America portraying the Bible as a scientific document incompatible with mainstream science.
The breadth and severity of damage that staunch Young Earth creationists have done to our culture is staggering and should be a lesson to us all to be humble in our beliefs.
To tell you the truth, young Earth creationism never portrayed the Bible as a scientific document. However, they only portray the part of the Bible that is supposed to be taken scientifically as science. Before you ask how do we know we should take things scientifically or now, we know to take it scientifically based on the context. The context is king in the Bible.
Also if Biblical creationism (Young Earth Creationism) isn't true, you can kiss your Christian faith goodbye. Because if Adam never existed or if he didn't exist in the time that the Bible tells you that he did (which is around 7560 years ago), then Jesus Christ who is the 2nd Adam never existed either and if our Lord Jesus Christ didn't exist, then he didn't die for our sins and he didn't resurrect. And if he didn't resurrect, then Christianity is finished exactly as Paul said.
Also, if you want to know why should mainstream sciences lie to us about the age of humanity, the Earth and the universe? It is because they are committing the sunk cost fallacy. They cannot afford to accept the reality that all their heavily invested time, effort and money have completely gone to waste. So they will gaslight anyone who criticize their theories. Because it can't be that they have committed a massive mistake, it's far more comfortable for them to gaslight YECs and other controversial scientific ideas.
Also, if you want to know why should mainstream sciences lie to us about the age of humanity, the Earth and the universe? It is because they are committing the sunk cost fallacy.
@GFitz172 Also, if you want to know why should mainstream sciences l1e to us about the @ge of humanity, the Earth and the universe? It is because they are committing the sunk cost fallacy. They cannot afford to accept the reality that all their heavily invested time, effort and money have completely gone to waste. So they will gaslight anyone who criticize their theories. Because it can't be that they have committed a massive mistake, it's far more comfortable for them to gaslight YECs and other controversial scientific ideas.
@@sabhishek9289 Hey Sab I'm a young earth creationist, have been my whole life always will be. but I think as long as someone believes in Jesus, has the Holy Spirit and stays connected to the vine, and looks forward to our redemption, His return, then they are a brother, I wouldn't attack others for difference in Theology, They still believe God created everything, they just take more time into it lol. I know they come against us, but I personally am secure in what I believe and I don't need their approval to valid what I hold true. The bible tells us, not many wise are called, I do not think God is holding us to know everything single thing about theology, So just love them, please :)
Somehow the improbability of us existing is evidence against God's existence? I've heard some new atheists say "well we're here" as if it's some kind of gotcha, and I find that dismissal very telling for the atheist faith.
Yes we are indeed here. Why only here though, whats the point in nigh limitless space and using only an unimaginably small part of it
@@XraynPR wouldn't it take a lot of stars to produce the elements for our solar system?
@@DaddyBooneDon Probably. Not uncounted trillions though.
@@XraynPR but I would say there is some law of consistency in that whatever is happening locally is probably happening all through the universe
Never heard anyone even remotely suggest such a thing. We exist therefore god does not? Obviously, there will always be an exception….(somebody somewhere probably did say such an unreasonable conclusion) but appealing to the exception and not the norm is quite misleading and drawing a conclusion from it is self deceiving. There is no such thing as an atheist faith…..nonsensical statement. Christians have faith….but it is demonstrated as confidence in a person…(Christ) there is no correlation to atheists….as they don’t explicit any such trust in any individuals for an end result (I.e. salvation).
It's amazing that RR thinks he can do theology for us Christians. The depiction he gives of the universe as an attempt to debunk that our God could have made it His idea of what a universe should look like if it was made by a perfect, elegant, benevolent creator is a straw man based on his own limited, human understanding. We take the universe as is, and use it to learn about God. We learn that our good God is not afraid of struggle, and suffering because the world He made contains both. In fact, He chose instead of getting rid of suffering, to join us in our suffering.
God is into sadomasochism? Kinda weird
@@XraynPR God is into creation with striving. Look at how nature works. Nature is tough as nails on even capable things, but is absolutely impossible for that which doesn't strive. Compare with the Parable of the talents in Matthew.
God, I think, is more like a musical composer than a mechanistic builder.
So like Eru Illuvatar?
@@HangrySaturn Probably not a bad comparison given Tolkien was a devout Catholic, and has stated his faith influenced his work.
Thanks for sharing this IP, God bless ❤
Another amazing video from IP✊
Ahh, irrationality rules is at it again, repeating the same errors.
if you have proof of your God show it step up and win the prize
I wonder how many atheists actually donate the cancer research centers, or adopt children, or volunteer to help the elderly and/or disabled, or any of the things many Christians do without ever telling anyone about it. God allows suffering to soften our hard hearts and humble us, so we have the opportunity to care for our fellow human beings. Notice how many people who actually suffer, such as children with diseases or people with disabilities, never seem mad at the entire world or at God. In actuality they are always very humble and kind and forgiving of any wrongs done to them, while perfectly healthy and usually financially better-off atheists are screaming out at God, rather than even donating $5 and helping those people and following the example of the people whose behalf they believe they represent. I know this is a very mean spirited comment, but Its so infuriating to be told that I'm "holding humanity back" by people who disgustingly mock grieving families online when they have a funeral. Talk about barbarism.
Indeed. So true.
Facts, the atheists who are all mad at God, in my observation, are people who believe they’ve been wronged in some incorrectable way, whether that be looks or some other area of their life. Nowadays, the main reason why people are mad at God is because of the boundaries the bible states in the area of sex. I wholeheartedly believe that had the bible not spoken about that subject and rather stated that people could engage in sex with whomever or however they wanted to, there wouldn’t be so much hostility towards religion in general. It’s usually people in their late teens and early twenties who start to turn away from the faith for this specific reason and as time goes by they look for other reasons to reject it, but the first sole cause was the boundaries on sex. Younger people typically want approval for everything and atheism gives them that. I’ve seen people in extreme poverty and suffering praise God but the only people who I see bashing him are people who are relatively well-off and just look to blame God for everything, I’ve seen some of these people literally bash God on a video of a bunch of lions hunting warthogs. For a bunch of people that say that God doesn’t exist, they sure love to let him live rent-free in their heads. If only they took the time to actually understand why the world is the way it is today according to scripture instead of just whining.
Try standing on a street in any Scandinavian country and start vomiting up this asinine nonsense.
I don’t think you’re mean-spirited. It’s frustrating for me too.
i do those things you mention and I don't brag about it Orth, I'm an atheist. The bigger question for me is why a God would allow suffering of innocent children and babies, this is the big problem for Christianity, i've yet to hear of a common sense reason. Also, why does God never completely heal people with incurable ailments?
Although I don't particularly like IP's theology, there's still some good and interesting points he brings. So I guess it comes down to: "Examine all things; hold fast to what is good."
1:33:10 Smart move. I watched Aidan of the Lore Lodge try to debate a channel like that. They would steamroll him, prevent him from presenting his arguments, and demean him the whole time. Then when he raised his voice even a little, they accused him of being irrational.
This is why there is an Ancient Egyptian proverb that advises silence when someone verbally attacks you, so that everyone will see their railings and it will make them look foolish and in-composed.
@@micahprice2807it’s actually in proverbs! I can’t remember word for word…but basically the proverb is a fool doesn’t know when to keep his mouth shut
@@JesusChristisKing94 true! I’ve read that one as well! We have to keep in mind that a lot of Israelite culture is influenced by Egyptian culture as well! Maybe that’s an example? Lots of proverb collections in the ancient world, and king Solomon would definitely have interacted with those works in his quest for wisdom.
@@JesusChristisKing94 Proverbs 26:4 - Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest you be like him yourself.
Thanks. It is good to see more and more highly educated science types discover that atheism is philosophically bankrupt, and come to Christ. They are great witnesses to the Gospel.
Why am I philosophically bankrupt? Im just not following any religion ....
@@XraynPR , that you even ask this question proves that you have not thoroughly explored the full ontological and philosophical implications of atheism. Do so, and then we will have common ground for discussion.
@@mysotiras21 no, thanks. I dont care to do that. I ask you because you seem to care, but apparently not enough.
"philosophically bankrupt"
Uh huh. Sure buddy.
Lol, he asks " how am I philosophically bankrupt, then you explained to him why that is, and he agrees with. 😂
I don't understand why people think RR is a smart guy? He has never demonstrated particular intelligence in ANY of his videos that I have seen.....
Same with Dave Farina, who is nothing but a sophomoric jerk. He is not a professor of anything.
It’s the accent and the facial expression. It’s very disarming and intellectual.
Plus of course the flow sub par but plausible sounding points. And his card game
@@benjaminschaefer1646 no i sorta get why his intended audience is impressed by him. What i don't understand is why actual intelligent people like Sy Garte are impressed by him.
@@davidryan8547 to be fair he did apparently amend a scientific mistake he made, I don’t pay attention to his channel so I don’t know what Sy was talking about specifically.
To me RR just seems like a wrong guy who genuinely thinks theism is wrong and wants us to believe it too.
He just doesn’t realize he’s using fallacies and rhetoric to do it
@@benjaminschaefer1646 It's not just the fallacies its that he will make a whole video where he only responds to David Wood's intro to one of David's videos. Which is just dishonesty on display from RR.
Christ is King ❤
God bless y'all in Jesus name Amen 🙏
Do me a favor, no dont like the comment,
LOVE GOD WITH YOUR HEART
SERVE OTHERS
KEEP YOUR EYES ON CHRIST
AND
BE EASY, GOD got YOU 💪
All knees will bow all mouths will confess.
He is the truth the way the life.
The light of this world.
I used to watch some of Rationality Rules, not because im an atheist, ive never been an atheist. But i enjoy the debates. At one point Rationality Rules wasn't that bad, then i dont know what happened (probably the time he had the guts to criticise trans in sports and totally flip flopped), he then became incredibly insufferable and started none stop childish attacks on Christianity, that would have made even Christopher Hitchens roll his eyes.
Yes ......i used to watch RR cause he told the truth. Up until he told the truth on trans......
I liked him and i saw that video. He then took it down because the atheist group in Austin that he wanted to be in, told him he went too far against the lgbt community. So he asked his follwers for help to petition for him and he apologized and remade the video.
After that.....he went down and he is only in it for the money. Its not about truth. It is only about the rationality that he gets money for spinning the truth
@@user-fc9iq6le2g Wow i didn't know that about him, I remember the trans flip flop and noticed the drastic change, he seemed fair and honest before the trans debacle. I remember a trans (or gay) TH-camr who really had a hard on for RR, made none stop hate videos trashing everything RR said, even though they were atheist too, it was bonkers.
Is that atheist group Matt Dillahuntys group? Some of the more aggressive atheist communities are a bit odd, just look at how the vegan atheists went after Alex O'Connor when he developed IB and couldn't be a vegan any more, he got death threats and everything. Last time I watched cosmic skeptic he admitted to calling out to God during turbulence on a plane.. quite amusing to think of him doing that. Haven't watched him since though.
@@dgmr22 i dont remember what atheist group it was. I just know it was or is in Austin. I really liked RR until that point. Matt is definately an extremist and just a douche. Im not surprised about Alex calling on god though. That kid is dangerously close to turning. I say its the money that keeps him on the atheist side. Actually, i say its all of them that are in it for the money. Its not about finding the truth, its about how much can i get paid. But thats my opinion.
My mental health also improved after I converted.
That tweet slapped Dave down so hard, dang
How is nobody else talking about that. Honestly I could not recover from being fried alive like that. Jeez.
I'm a theist leaning agnostic but RR is horrible
I was in a similar belief situation as you. I'd agree with you that I don't agree with most RR says.
Theist leaning agnostic? Care to share what you mean by that.
@@corning1 like I'm an agnostic but theistic arguments aren't completely bunk to me
@@corning1 all religious arguments are nonsense to me though, but I keep an open mind
Is this the guy that called David wood cringe for a joke, but pretends to be the yugioh of his fallacy card game?
Yes
LMAO I NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT THAT
At this point the super chat had more engaging content than the video they were watching
Soy Viking and his little fallacy card game
?!?
Who is soy Viking?
@@Andrew-pp2ql I am wondering the same. I am thinking a character from a fantasy card game. D&D type game?!?
@@Andrew-pp2ql I am thinking he meant a 'fantasy', not 'fallacy', card game. But then again, I am not the sharpest lightbulb in the crayon box.
@@Theo_Skeptomai thanks….just curious. I think you’re probably correct just a game I’m not familiar with so went right over my head! I also thought there might be some name people attached to the RR individual too….google it up later.
I make the analogy that hearing God or seeing visions internally is similar to having a biological Skype connection.
Believers connection is a live call. Atheists is disconnected but they have the same hardware.
I am not convinced any particular god is a reality, for I have never encountered any credible evidence suggesting such a reality. So,until I do encounter sufficient credible evidence that such a reality exists, I will continue to suspend any acknowledgment concerning the truth of _your_ claim that one does.
THAT represents the entirety of my position of atheism. Instead of fearing this rational position and disparaging those that hold to it, take the time and effort to understand the position.
I don't care.
Your opinion on my personal experiences concerning the Founder of the historically and archaeologically supported movement called Christianity are completely irrelevant to my living them and what God chooses to show me.
To me, you appear to be out on the street, in the cold weather, refusing to come inside to the hot turkey dinner waiting for you. To me, your position looks dumb. And you keep making the same assertions of "He doesn't exist!". Those are YOUR claims.
I wasn't addressing you, but my fellow workers. Yet here you are again interjecting your irrelevant opinions on something that you don't believe in.
Why are you here?
@Theo_Skeptomai That's agnosticism. Which is fair enough, we live in an obscured world and convincing proof is hard to come by, but what does that have to do with this guy's comment?
@@peanutgallery4 how can u say there is no convincing proof? With the virulence of internet & how far science has come, how can all this not point to a creator? Even if God walked into some folks bedroom no amount of evidence will make them believe what they chose not to!
@@smoothchilling64 That's not true to say "no amount of evidence will make them believe what they chose not to", as a non believer, it would be relatively easy to convince me.
Curious what you think of Mike Winger's view of the passages about "womanly subservience." He seems to see that the research and consensus about Paul's supposed quotation of the Ephesian church, and the existence of the Cult of Artemis is sketchy and that the "cult" was far more mild than is being presented by modern day scholars. I'm not sure exactly what to think about it one way or the other.
I have been reeding Exodus lately, and yesterday I read Exodus 34 and stumbled across verse 28 that says that Moses was with the lord for 40 days and 40 nights without eating nor drinking, but how is that possible? How can a human be without water for 40 days? What are your toughts about that? Love your content by the way.
Because it's a fairy tale.
@@johnhammond6423 your bias are showing😂
"You can find faces in clouds if you look hard enough."
The best explanation of Evolution, the Big Bang, Quantum Mechanics... I have so far heard.
"You can find faces in clouds if you look hard enough".
The best explanation of Genesis creation, the flood and the resurrection.... I have so far heard.
@@downenout8705 You haven't heard anything yet.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
By the way, when I was a kid we were taught science (1950s and 60s). I grew up respecting science and scientists. As I grew older I kept running into the fact that scientists are just human at best. After decades of reading both sides of the issues I have found that "science" has far more proveable lies than you can make up about the Bible.
@@vernonkuhns3561 Says the person who believes in a talking snake, donkey and shrubbery. Guess the science books that you read were lying when they say this isn't possible.
Calling something a lie because it doesn't align with your bumper book of magic, doesn't defacto make you right.
@@downenout8705 You took the bait. "Science" is proven a lie almost daily mainly because the "scientists" do not follow scientific process. The best statement there is about science is this:
All science is wrong. Some science is useable.
No, a religious person did not say that. Do you still believe in Michael Mann's hockeystick? How about the effectiveness of the Vax? Why can no Origin of Life scientists come up with even a somewhat plausible scenario for abiogenesis? Why are there enormous galaxies and stars at distances that should be near the BB but still look like they are billions of years old? Why is most of the evidence for evolution found to be fraudulent when looked into?? I could go on but I don't want to bore such an incisive wit as you.
@@downenout8705These 2 comments are legitimateley so dumb and shallow
We are not just a fallen world. After man sinned against God he CURSED creation!!!
Are you aware of any _evidentiary facts_ that can substantiate your claim? Yes or no.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Other than the fact it is clearly written in the Bible and there is death, disease, pestilence etc, no.
@@vernonkuhns3561 The bible is the only _source_ of your claim. Is that correct? Yes or no.
You can see the curse@@Theo_Skeptomai
@@MeanBeanComedy ?!? I am not following. Please elaborate.
You could title this video "armchair expert vs real scientist"
Hello IP I’m requesting you do video on what separates Israelis from Canaanites as many scholars love to say Israel did not come from force but from Canaanites and the exodus was a story of the past that evolved along with monotheistic ideas
RationalityRules is like the dumb guy in class
How so? Can you quote him stating something 'dumb'?
Basically every single one of his videos contains multiple errors. Especially his claims about the evil deeds of "The Church" which are mostly directly based on the Antichristian propaganda of the French Revolution. Everyone who has even the slightest interest in actual history would see it, but of course not the fanboys.
@@Theo_Skeptomaihis video where he 'debunked' David woods video, where he got only a 14th of the way through and never even got through the intro, meanwhile misusing all the logical fallacies
@@MrSeedi76 Quote such an error.
@@briandiehl9257 Quote such a fallacy of his.
Why do always atheist speaker obsess with vikings?
Because the popular viking image is cool?
Let's dive deeper into the implications of embracing a "both/and" perspective over an "either/or" perspective, and how the concepts of non-contradiction, contradiction, zero, and non-zero relate to this shift.
At its core, the "both/and" perspective is about recognizing and embracing the intrinsic diversity, complementarity, and even paradoxicality of reality. It rejects the notion that existence can be reduced to any single, monolithic, either/or description or formal system. Instead, it sees the universe as a complexly interwoven, holistically entangled pluriverse whose true character can only be captured by a multiplicity of partial, context-dependent, and even seemingly contradictory models and perspectives.
In this view, the deepest truths are not found in starkly binary, mutually exclusive oppositions, but in the nuanced, relational, and often tensional interplay between apparent polarities. Light is both wave and particle. Quantum entities are both localized and non-localized. Mind and matter are both distinct and inseparable. The challenge is to develop meta-frameworks that can accommodate and integrate these "both/and" realities rather than artificially forcing them into "either/or" boxes.
This is where the concepts of non-contradiction, contradiction, zero, and non-zero come into play. In classical logic and mathematics, the principle of non-contradiction (PNC) states that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. This leads to an emphasis on eliminative either/or thinking - if proposition A is true, then not-A must be false, and vice versa.
However, as we've seen, quantum phenomena like entanglement and superposition seem to directly violate PNC by exhibiting behavior that is "both/and" - e.g. an electron being in a superposition of both spin-up and spin-down states until measured. This suggests that, at the most fundamental level, reality is not beholden to naive either/or PNC but has an intrinsically paradoxical both/and character.
Similarly, in classical mathematics, zero and non-zero are treated as mutually exclusive, either/or categories. An element is either zero or not-zero, never both. But in more exotic formalisms like wheel theory, complex numbers, and non-standard analysis, zero can take on a much more nuanced, both/and character. Infinitesimals, for instance, are non-zero quantities smaller than any standard real number yet still "zero-like" in many respects. Centering the primacy of such both/and zerological thinking may be key to developing the more sophisticated, contradiction-tolerant meta-formalisms needed for quantum gravity and consciousness.
Ultimately, I believe the path forward lies in embracing PNC and zero as regulative ideals and departure points for inquiry rather than as absolute either/or laws. We should strive to minimize and isolate contradictions in our models while still recognizing that, at the deepest levels, reality has an irreducibly perspectival, both/and, and even zerological character that will never fully fit into pure either/or PNC boxes.
The goal should be to develop meta-mathematical and meta-physical frameworks that elegantly integrate both/and and either/or thinking, both zero and non-zero ontologies, in a way that "locally" obeys PNC and zero/non-zero distinctions while still "globally" embracing the deeper both/and and zerological polyphony of existence. Category theory, homotopy type theory, and structural realism are showing great promise as formal meta-langs for this kind of nuanced, contradiction-tolerant yet still maximally coherent model-building.
So in summary, transcending naive either/or thinking in favor of nuanced both/and thinking is not about abandoning PNC or zero, but about contextualizing them within a broader, more flexible meta-framework that can accommodate reality's intrinsic diversity, complementarity, and paradoxicality. It's about learning to think in terms of spectra, holisms, and strange loops rather than simplistic binary oppositions or exclusions.
Centering this both/and approach will be essential for developing better physical, mathematical, and conceptual languages for navigating the quantum-relativistic-conscious interplexities ahead while still preserving locality and consistency. Far from mere poetic handwaving, it's fast becoming an inescapable formal imperative for unlocking the next level of humanity's cosmic comprehension. An authentically integral metacosmic vision now demands nothing less than a zerological, PNC-savvy yet contradiction-tolerant omnijectivity.
I like turtles!
A very good example is how light is somehow both energy (wave behaviour) and matter (particle behaviour)
I enjoy part of this conversation. However, sometimes Michael seemed arrogant like in the part on slavery: “you want talk about slavery, well I have this book and this other book and this other book” as implying “I’m the smartest guy and little rookie I can educate you poor atheist”. This spirit I found it less charitable
rationalityrules kinda suck in his theology. An amature to say the least.
Because I'm sure you are certainly most capable in theology.
RR is just a lolcow at this point.
Always has been… I really don’t like to say this kind of thing about an actual human but he’s always been so, so far from the standards of an Alex O’Connor or Joe Schmid. GMS I used to think was terrible too but idk if I just remembered him wrong and lumped him in with the RRs and Aron Ra’s, or he changed his approach radically sometime after 2017 or so and he’s been alright. I don’t think he has the best arguments for atheism when he does touch upon that but he also doesn’t seem to be focused on that entirely nowadays. But, whatever maintains his audience, I guess it’s a reliable approach that he can remain comfortable in on all fronts of his life 🤷🏻
@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 GMS is just as bad. Just lots of appeals to emotion and psychological nonsense with his faux genuine attitude. I think he hates religion the most out of all of them. He's also the least intelligent of the bunch.
@@noahfletcher3019 idk my perception has been that his focus is definitely psychological, but though he has crazy blind spots I think he is genuine about what he thinks these days and I think he comes at it from a perspective of wanting to help people out of religion which he thinks to be right. But I also only check out videos from any of these guys from time to time so I might be missing something about him.
Can I ask who the best atheist YT and best apologist are?
@@XraynPR Joe Schmidt is the best I've seen. But he doesn't argue that theism is irrational cuz he's not a midwit.
Which video are you going to ge responding to IP?
The Bible is very specific about using quotation marks when quoting something someone aside from the speaker has previously said, so the idea that Paul isn't himself talking about women but quoting the Corinthian church themselves is a wrongful assumption. Verse 34 starts mid sentence from 33, which starts by saying "as in all the churches of the saints, the women should be kept silent in the churches". So it wasn't just the Corinthian church, but ALL the churches that this was fundamental church practice. Furthermore, verse 34 ends by saying they should be in submission "as the law also says". So Paul was actually encouraging this by backing it up with the law. If these verses started with "you have said" and then Paul proceeded to quote them with quotation marks, then I would absolutely agree with this premise, but he did not say this and did not use quotation marks, therefore was making a statement.
Yea, I heard that and had to look into it. I agree with you ultimately and don't think Paul was saying women should teach, especially since so many other places say the exact opposite.
Quotation marks didn’t exist yet in Greek. All those are later additions added by Biblical translators today. They’re guesses. Greek had little to no grammar. They didn’t even have periods. So there’s no way to tell.
Always a good day when an anti-thiest starts to critizize evolution like a YEC.
It is very difficult for me to believe that Steven does these debates in good faith. He has been regurgitating the same talking points for ages and either refuses or is incapable of intellectual debate...
"He has been regurgitating the same talking points for ages" lol that's beyond comical considering how the entire apologetics world has been recirculating the same arguments for decades if not longer.
@@user-pn8ke3kf5f"every painting needs a painter" and other jokes you can tell yourselves
You burner accounts really don't watch the video at all or just leave it paused and reply to comments because ya'lls IQ has to be, at max, 5 points below room temperature at any given moment... given the way you never addressed anything in the video and just spouted more talking points as usual
@@felixperez7912 I mean, I'm not gonna sit for an hour and a half watching these two shmucks when I can instead engage with people for myself and talk.
Looks exciting
Rationality Rules was not very interesting but I did enjoy the discussions by you, Mike, and by Sy. He is an interesting man.
I always want to ask people like Rationality Rules what they would believe if they learned without a doubt that Christianity was true. Would that change his worldview or would his distaste for theism cause him to willingly be blind to it?
If I learned atheism was undeniably true, I would be devastated, but not in denial.
I suspect that RR is in the Thomas Nagel camp:
“In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper-namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.
I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)”
_if they learned without a doubt that Christianity was true_
Why don't we just cross that hurdle first!! Demonstrate that Christianity is true and then we can discuss what comes after that.
@@thedude0000 , what evidence would you accept, peanut? Atheists and skeptics have carefully stacked the deck so that they can find a way to reject EVERY bit of evidence Christians present. Moreover, it is the SUM TOTAL of evidence that convinces, NOT one or two factoids. But skeptics don't want to look at the sum total. They want a hype-simplistic response that they can stomp all over, then run off cooing about their "victory". Whole LIBRARIES have been written on why Christianity is true. If you are seriously interested, GO RESEARCH the matter, honestly and objectively, instead of making a pest of yourself in a YT comment section.
I might be able to answer.
I would accept it. I would however not pray to your god, since I consider that entity as described in the bible not worthy of prayer.
I might try to cheese getting the good afterlife by paying lipservice to your religion in the end, but would probably end in hell anyways.
How bad that would be Im not sure, youd have to tell me which interpretation of hell (if thats even a thing) is the current one
Atheism cannot be true. It’s impossible. Alien, computer, God, whatever. Something higher is out there. Is it even possible that there isn’t?
I disagree with Sy on Stephen being smart and meaning well. No one that mocks and belittles others while simultaneously relying heavily on fallacies and appeals to ridicule can possibly be 'well meaning'. And I don't think he has made any unique arguments; it is the same tried and cliche atheist talking points; Hitchens did it better and Alex O'Connor is actually honest and well meaning (or better at hiding his scorn for Christianity, it is hard to tell)
Good stuff!
21:43 If there’s anything humbling about the size of the milky way compared to the millions of universes and the human history compared to the universe’s history, it’s that God gave His full attention to the “spec of dust” which wandered about for “3 minutes”.
Life existing is not in and of itself evidence for abiogenesis which is a particular explanation for the origin of life. Life existing is evidence for life existing. How life began requires different evidence. Because there is more than one possibility for how life began. So you cannot say life is evidence that life began in a specific way.
He didn’t have to open his mouth for me to make up my mind, the hair cut sealed the deal! 😏
How very shallow of you! You certainly embrace bigotry well. And your command of ignorance is unmatched. Great Job!!
@@Theo_Skeptomai You’re right that was kinda close minded, but I don’t know man, that hair!🤔
@@kahnlives test
@@kahnlives My positive and cordial response to you has been continually deleted. I guess I am in YT timeout again.
I know right? Looks like Jesu- I mean a cave ma- I mean….
RR seems really unaware of the more sophisticated literature written on philosophy of religion. He uses some but not the best.
Shout-out to Zygarde, great having the Order Pokemon on the show.
How many times in history has the answer "God was responsible" been definitively shown to be the scientific answer to the issue at hand?
never
Oh no not Dave farina hahahaha the dude who got owned by James tour
I bet you can’t even begin to explain in detail how he got owned.
@@Pancakegr8but you certainly can 😂.
@@MrSeedi76 Nope, and I’m not afraid to admit that chemistry is not my forte. But apparently you guys are experts on everything, I mean how else would you determine that Farina got destroyed?
@@Pancakegr8 You can watch the video debate yourself and make up your own mind...but it'd appear the audience agree Dave was out of his depth.
@@Pancakegr8 Here's the thing pal. It doesn't matter if Farina was right or wrong (I mean if does matter BUT) in a debate, you could be arguing for the truth and still lose to a better-spoken opponent. The thing about Farina is that even if we grant he was on the right side of truth, his performance was so off and bad, he in fact LOST that debate. The moment you resort to personal attacks, insult the audience and use start using fallacies, pal, you've just lost the debate.
35:00 Why is sy guessing here? Fruit has a higher caloric density than ANY meat, and milk products have higher protein density than the meat of the cow that makes.
27:05 he says morality didn't come from evolution. Seems perfectly reasonable that it did. One of our greatest advantages came from our ability to coordinate. This seems to have come from the fact that we are an extremely altricial species (meaning our young need a lot of care before they can be independent, as opposed to precocial species, like chickens, who are up and running very soon after hatching). The reason we're altricial is because we have learning type brains rather than instinctual type brains. We need time to learn, whereas species like chickens don't. We don't survive without others who care for us. What happens when others care for us? We learn to care for others. That gave rise to our ability to coordinate. That advantage gave rise to morality, a way of behaving for the benefit of others.
Edit: 29:55 Rationality Rules is quite familiar with what scripture says. That's what he's arguing against. So, just bringing up scripture and saying "that's not what scripture says" isn't an argument. A perfect god would only create a world with suffering if it was that god's intention to do so. Scripture paints a narrative of disobedience and regret; all things God would have foreseen, thus the inconsistency. Regret means you would have done it differently if you had known. I believe this inconsistency is borne by the fact that people used to think of God very differently than we did later, that they did not think he was omniscient.
These two criticisms came about by randomly clicking on the timeline. I can't seem to go more than a few minutes without finding something wrong with this video, so because I don't feel like writing a book in these comments, I'm going to leave the video here. Take care.
On the point about mental health and religiosity, it really does just depends on what kind of beliefs you have. For me, the idea that the majority of people are going to be tortured forever in Hell made me really, really depressed and I spent 2 years wishing I was never born.
Two. Years.
For two years I was more depressed than the donkey from that winnie the pooh show
My only motivation to not unalive myself was that, I believed, God would torture me forever if I did
I was passionate, energetic, cheerful and bubbly before thinking about Hell and its denizens
But after that I was reduced to nothing but a husk with one prayer only: for my pain to end forever, even if it meant being erased from existence forever.
As should be clear: my particular interpretation of my religion was horrible for my mental health
You misunderstood religion. Whose fault is that? God's? Grow up.
I don't want to turn your confession of suffering here into an argument, but you have commented here, under a video debate with philosophical contentions.
I don't know what religion you were a part of (I assume Islam based on your Arabic name, I'm sorry if that's presumptuous), but I do think *Jesus* asserted annihilationism (I don't know how you can argue against "...He will destroy soul and body in Gehenna..."), and under that assumption, Hell, now, is like prison. In the Bible, it's even compared to prison multiple times (ex. "...He [Christ] went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison...," "They shall go down to the bars of the pit, when our rest together is in the dust.")
There are 10.35 million people imprisoned on Earth right now, from a quick search. I'm sure it's not very pleasant for most of them. Nobody can really debate that number, or the existence of prisons. Most people, unless they believe in abolishing prisons, accept the existence of most of that suffering knowing that those people deserve what they are getting, and atheists specifically, accept that believing that those people will be in prison until they are annihilated from existence.
Annihilationist Christians do not believe anything majorly different, except that the "prison" is Hades (or Sheol or Hell), and that the "execution" of these people is destruction in Gehenna.
@@RepublicConstitution .....
I misunderstood religion? My religion?
Sorry, idk which religion you're from but the literal consensus in mine is that Hell exists, and people will be tortured forever there, that's the consensus of the scholars, even the more "liberal" scholars in MY religion are in full agreement that Hell exists and that people will be tortured there forever, next time your think about being smug about someone else's trauma and tell them to "grow up" maybe try looking in the mirror
I tried ending my own life
My brother snatched my rope away from me, and I was too emotionally compromised to snatch it back
since them my life hasn't been bright
I specifically said that it depends on what interpretation you have of what religion
You somehow spun that into "Nuh uh! You misinterpreted! Not God!"
God put me from birth into a house hold that taught me these beliefs
God put me in a religion that seemed authentic to the rationality and INTUITIONS THAT HE GAVE ME
God put me in a religion where it's the schoalrly consensus that there is a Hell and people will indeed be tortured forever
I assume you're Christian, or maybe jewish, congrats, you have a more nuanced and light hearted view of Hell, unlike, as my user name suggests, Islam
"You misinterpreted religion" sure, sure buddy
@@Konxovar0 Thank you for NOT being an inconsiderate asshole like @RepublicConstitution
Yes, I would really like for Annihilationism to be true, that's nice
And seems neat on philosophical grounds as well
Since detachment form the source of all being seems to be an absence of being, pretty simple stuff
Simply put for Sy, God is a moral dwarf whose 3rd commandment should be "No sexism, racism, nor slavery."
The 10th commandment?
@misterauctor7353 The 10th is "You must NOT desire ...", which is not what I said.
Moral dwarf - compared to what? How did you derive the moral framework by which to judge God? How did you determine, for example, "sexism is bad"? The bounds of sexism were never really defined, and yet you think it's something neatly wrapped up with "no".
@@o00nemesis00o Compared to most people who exist today in civilized parts of the world.
@@o00nemesis00o Compared to you, to begin with, and by logical implication any other psychologically healthy person.
What really grinds my gears is how he keeps using Theism/Religion when he's talking specifically about certain forms of Monotheism. That's not all Theism.
Thanks!
Thank you for the donation.
Sy has the gift of Misunderstanding, but I think it's on purpose. I mean, a PhD misunderstanding a short sentence? I have blind faith that God is incapable of hardening Sy's head THAT much.
40 minutes in, and I feel like I'm losing my mind. 2 intelligent people can't come together to understand what the guy on the video is trying to say?
@@LordConnorrLOL 😂
1:32:43 I’ve never heard or taken seriously this answer about Cain. The obvious yec answer should be, YES Cain’s wife was his sister or 1:32:43 cousin. Incest was not an issue yet, and Jewish people who read it and wrote it don’t seem to have an issue with that.
The root of this argument seems to be a false equivalence between “literal” and “literary”… yes there are genre’s in the Bible, no one denies that that I am aware of…
25:54 I think Garte just made a Skyrim reference. If it was, then I hope Rationality Rules sees that clip. He’s likely to have at least a small laugh.
God bless,sir do write more books❤❤✝️💪💪🇺🇸
Ugh. Stephen’s presentation was bad and Gartes rebuttal was even worse. I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with Woodfurd on anything till now.
Lot of pretentious people in this comment section.
1:24:28: the friendly atheist podcast also said what you said InspiringPhilosophy.
Very important point starting at about 1:26:00.
43:57 Totally agree on this one but I think the reason why a lot of atheists go with the young Earth creationist is because it seems like they're the most popular or they have or seem to get the most leverage in authority which I think dance of the reason why they usually think that most of my old Christians are like younger creationists because the authorities that are dictation policies they are justification is usually based on the religious belief which most of them are younger creationists literalist.
So when it seems to look like they're strawmaning Christianity, in some cases they are but the reason why they are is because when they look at the authorities justifications for certain things politically they can point that back to what they believe religiously and most of them are young Earth creationists literalist which at the end of the day you shouldn't do that to every single Christian because we can easily say, well the authorities like Stalin were atheist so all atheist are like that but they would say he doesn't represent every atheist, that's true, same thing that not all Christians are young Earth creationists literalist.
If the creation story in Genesis is purely allegorical, why does the rest of the Bible and Jesus himself keep referring back to it as if it was historical fact? Like when the Bible lists the genealogies and such?
What's the goal of the bible? Is it a book of history or a book of divine truths? If it's a book of history then we can dismiss it as divinely inspired since it's just another relic of the past, If it is only made of divine truths then we can ignore all history regarding it and focus only on that, however we don't do that, the bible is both a book of history and divine truths, understanding what's real and what's divinely inspired is the true goal of he who studies the scriptures; Jesus quotes the flood when he wants to make a parable about what's coming, he quotes Abel when he talks about being righteous, and whenever he talks about the old testament it is in way to portray a message to the jews and gentiles of his day who already had familiarity with such texts, to claim that Jesus or anyone else treated those texts as literal historical events is to claim in 2000 years from now that people believed in the little red hood or snow white because they quoted these stories as a way to portray messages and meaning.
1:11:22 I think this interpretation of 1 Corinthians 14 is flawed, Paul doesn’t offer clarity or nuance like he does in other quote/refutation passages. And there is nothing that really indicates he’s contradicting the supposed “quote”
I think it would be better if we paired this with the understanding that Paul knew about and approved of women prophesying in the church. And this may be just reinforcement of his earlier comments “be quiet while other people are prophesying,” and “prophesy one at a time”
It may also refer to the judging of the prophesy which was supposed to be done by elders
Aron ra is a Meg's lolcow now we've got this guy
Freud and Erich Fromm do see something humbling about the entire age of the universe dedicating all its energy all its purpose to things without human life and then only much later we humans now dominate over. Freud and Fromm claim this is actually where a lot of suffering comes from. Time does determine value for Freud and fromm. From a psychological perspective time does make a difference for significance of human existance.
1:15:00 I agree with most of your points, but I think your conclusions here are a bit off the mark. The evidence for the weird woman-cult of Ephesus is basically non-existent. For anyone curious, Mike Winger did a 6 (or maybe 13) hour long video going deep into scholarship about that verse, and the other verses about women in ministry.
Still, love your channel IP! Keep up proclaiming the Kingdom to all who need to hear it!
1:39:48 - JBP is probably Jordan Peterson - Would have liked an answer from Mike
1:24:49 “he’s read Tom Hollands ‘dominion’ and didn’t like it” lol!!
37:40 it takes fewer than a million lines of code to run TH-cam at the python level. Maybe billions at the lowest level of you add the assembly languages and different operating systems.
The smirking attitude is not helping either..... but the assertions themselves are outdated, too! Atheists must keep up with "our day and age"!
32:48 I can understand what I would call the movie argument that God did in a sense of a way to create an imperfect world so we would understand courage because without fear there is no courage etc but I think the problem with that is it seems to me that God's is quite clear that there are certain parts of suffering not all types of suffering that was not meant to be via before the fall and now we do have suffering or the bad parts of it but God is with us.
So I think ultimately God saw two possibilities and was prepared for those two possibilities which were either Adam and Eve did eat the fruit or didn't eat the fruit and so with that we see a lot of things that seem to be quite evil and bad in the Old testament but at the end of the day in a sense of a way way God is working with what we got AKA working with our free will choices weather bad or good, not his original plan in motion because his original plan is not in motion yet, that's the point of the Fall which is the point of Christ death on the cross, burial, and resurrection, and the point of the new Heavens and New Earth.
But at the end of the day I believe this is not a big deal, as in if you believe this way you go to heaven if you don't you go to hell situation AKA it's a secondary importance.
Rationality "what's the good of being an adult if requires you to grow up (1:90:00)" Rules
1:30 As CS Lewis pointed out back in 1958, Extraterrestrial life is yet another nonsensical 'heads I win, tails you loose' attack on Christianity. He said "We were alone in an infinite desert. Which just showed the absurdity of the Christian idea that there was a Creator who was interested in living creatures. But then came Professor F. B. Hoyle, the Cambridge cosmologist, and in a fortnight or so everyone I met seemed to have decided that the universe was probably quite well provided with inhabitable globes and with livestock to inhabit them. Which just showed (equally well) the absurdity of Christianity with its parochial idea that Man could be important to God. This is a warning to what we may expect if we ever do discover animal life (vegetable does not matter) on another planet. Each new discovery, even every new theory, is held at first to have the most wide-reaching
theological and philosophical consequences. It is seized by unbelievers as the basis for a new attack on Christianity; it is often, and more embarrassingly, seized by injudicious believers as the basis for a new defense.
But usually, when the popular hubbub has subsided and the novelty has been chewed over by real theologians, real scientists and real philosophers, both sides find themselves pretty much where they were before. So it was with Copernican astronomy, with Darwinism, with Biblical Criticism, with the new psychology. So, I cannot help expecting, it will be with the discovery of 'life on other planets' if that discovery is ever made." (C.S.Lewis, 1958, “Religion and Rocketry”)
Nice to see that you have Sy Garte on.
~42:15 I think your response here is weaker than is could have been.
I'm aware that neither of you are YEC. But just dodging the arguments by saying RR's arguments only apply to YEC is wrong. I hoped that you have interacted with YECs enough to notice, that they have pretty good responses to the RR statements. Not only that, RR says the complexity was a mystery then, and now we know better. But the thing we know better is that the complexity is actually much greater than expect. That's why the evolutionists always downplay it and say it is messy and faulty. Because their theories only work if it were simple goo and biochemistry was simple and easy to work with. None of that is the case. But not only YEC highlight the complexity, all types of Christians and non-Christians can hold to the idea of ID.
Also RR acts as if all predictions of Christians were wrong while all predictions of Atheism is correct. Tell me again who in favor of the steady state universe and who is in favor of a beginning of the universe. Atheists change their theories all the time when new things come out and they call it science. When Christians do the very same they call it Ad-Hoc.
I think the statement that YEC is 100 years old is both wrong and correct. The idea grew over time and various people held to various aspects of it over time. But 100 years ago someone came and put a theory together. It is about the same as saying "theistic evolution is on x years old". Stating the age of a theory is a bit misleading, at least the way you did it. Sure, YECs also use misleading and wrong statements when it comes to the historical aspects, and we should call out both sides.
56:10 I guess give the response I would liked that you give from here on.
1:40:38 I don't care if Christianity stays or goes -- just want it to get a couple of updates.
35:30 Michael, you let him lie to you! We get the VAST MAJORITY of energy in normal diets from plants right now!
Dang! I bet that burn is still stinging! 1:45
31:28 the reason why I would go for Lord of the rings is because Teletubbies is suffering 😂
Jbp is jordan peterson btw
You serious??? THIS guy was debating Dr. Paul Copan???
1:31:21 woah now there's an idea
1:34:37
Dave Furina; his ignorance is superceeded only by his aarogance.
Nice
1:39:59 JBP is Jordan B Peterson
29:00 Steven implies that he is capable of making a better universe than this. The idea that a better universe than this was possible is complete conjecture.
I wonder what we will do about atheologica he is getting troublesome