@@Harpazo_to_Yeshua please do explain how and what was crumbled? Atheism isn’t a religion no matter how many times you say it. Be nice if you all listened to that part.
Hawking is just another example of those who: " Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." To the uploader of this vid: (Is this really part 2? It seems to be the ending that's included in part 1. Or perhaps there's a glitch in the matrix.)
Einstein said science without religion is blind , religion without science is lame ; it doesn't matter how advanced our theories become they can will never unequivocally disprove the existence of God . Alistair Roberts
@@guyjosephs5654 If he really tried to understand the universe, he wouldn't make so many assumptions based on absolutely no scientific evidence. What he does is not honorable in front of such a precise universe.
That is my problem with Christianity. I do NOT see anything wrong with not believing. You are going to hell for all eternity for not believing in Jesus. That is not only absurd but ridiculous.
@@salvadoralvarado8685 No, you don't understand this argument. Something must exist necessarily (i.e. it cannot not exist). Otherwise, all explanations of the origin of the Universe will end up in a fallacy such the Universe created itself or the Universe always existed. An infinite chain of events is a fallacy. You are incorrectly assuming at everything must be created.
I think that the laws or principles of logic cannot have exceptions. If there can be something that have always existed it could be matter, energy or the universe itself, it doesn’t need to be exclusively god. That only god could be uncreated is a religious opinion, it isn’t philosophical much less scientific. We don’t know much about our universe, it could be that there are many universe in an infinite chain of which ours is just one more. We simply don’t know.
If that’s what you think then you haven’t been paying attention to the actual scientists and only to people like Frank who aren’t scientists. And do explain the “ “ around the scientists
@@55k3v1n when you say that it shows you either dont understand or do and purposely misrepresent. Which is it? Atheism is a response to a single question. That’s it. From there people develop philosophies and world views. Atheism doesn’t say or make any claims beyond that question. So when you say what you said it shows you don’t get it. while in the past some scientists said that, almost non do today. You know who does say it? _theists_
its funny how ppl get mad at turek bc no one can answer any of his questions, bc if u go as deep as the questions then u have to admit theres a creator
I don't think you get the point. Diamonds are supposedly 1-3 billion years old and C14 has a half life (t½) is only 5,730 years, yet we find C14 in Diamonds. Diamond is the hardest substance known, so its interior should be also be very resistant to contamination. So how do you explain the presence of C14 in a Diamond?
if we are truly seeking for truth without agenda, we need to explore where intangible laws of logic, maths, morals come from? What is the source of these things? Only an immaterial, moral mind which established it. This is by default absolute truth which everyone must be aligned with. Not everything in life is absolute but there are a few that have already been established. Also, buildings, painting, and lego houses don't build themselves. Humans are more complicated than lego houses.
Gravity is an interesting concept from the secularist viewpoint given the following; It needs to be pre-present in order to bring things together, therefore gravity fundamentally would have needed to exist in the nothingness into which the "Big Bang" exploded. After the big bang had occurred, gravity remained obscure even so to this very day, given the FACT that even the secular scientists confirm the universe is expanding, and this expansion is the exact opposite of the gravitational effect. Errrr..Gentlemen, Ladies, we seem to have a really Big Problem, it's called Gravity, and it deposes all our secular philosophy (science). The future secularist solution to this Gravity embarrassment, will be to say it simply doesn't exist, mark my words!
Even then, gravity would've had to have had a beginning, because with nothing but that law, it won't work. You need an object that is affected by gravity for it to act upon said object.
Sean Carrol dispatched with all of this nonsense against WLC. And Turek mischaracterizes Vilenkin here about the beginning of the universe. Even Guth admitted the universe is likely eternal in that debate.
well if I thought 2+2=5 with my whole heart and someone showed me it was actually 4, my heart would be broken for a while but in the end i'd thank that person for being bold enough, not to sugar coat lies to me.
Guess you know that it doesn't really matter whether you use 5 instead of 4 to represent the sum of 2 + 2 as long as you know the number system you are using, right?
"And what does C14 in diamonds have to do with the age of the earth?" There should be NO C14 in diamonds if they are billions of years old. Diamonds are supposed to be 1-3 billion years old. So something is wrong! If we are told Diamonds are billions of years old but they are actually only thousands of years old then alarm bells should be ringing. This is just the tip of the ice-burg. I have not ignored other evidence, I have just focused on this one. We can move on to fossils if you want.
You are pointing YEC... we already have the answer earth is billion years old and the days written in bible are not actual 24 hour day... It's some period of time we don't know...
@@Spieler1980 okay. Thank you for clarifying. So I guess then the follow up question would what did Frank say that was great stuff? What was the pure basic logic?
@@nickjones5435 that is so easy. 1.step: open your eyes 2. Look around 3. Just admit that there is a creator. It must take a lot more faith to believe that all taht came to exist out od nowhere/nobody... I really do admire atheists for believing in that. Until the point od their death. Then it will be too late...
You don't have to wake up to know you're dreaming. I've had lots of dreams and I have known I was dreaming while in the dream. Your mind can know you’re dreaming if you can be aware of what’s real and what’s not real.
Yeah, here he goes again. Frank trying to pass himself off as smarter and more reasonable that Stephen Hawking. It’s a rather pathetic and sad, and yet audaciously arrogant for Frank to use Hawking’s brilliant observations and then essentially say that Hawking couldn’t see what Frank says is “more reasonable”. Frank is an entertainer, nothing more. Frank loves to quote theories, formulations and statements that Stephen Hawking made. He falls all over himself to be sure to add that “even Stephen Hawking says…”. The fact is that Frank would be quick to point out if people were cherry-picking verses out of the Bible to make their points, taking the verses out of context, yet that is exactly what he does with Stephen Hawking’s statements. Frank will cherry-pick statements from this obviously brilliant man, trying to make it appear that Hawking’s points support the existence of god, but he completely abandons, ignores, and even covers up Hawking’s ultimate conclusion regarding the origin and direction of the universe: there is no god. If he wants to name-drop names like Hawking who is infinity smarter than just about every one of us humans on earth, Frank should be honest with his audiences and make it clear that Hawking has no struggle whatsoever coming to the simple and obvious conclusion that a god doesn’t exist, and he does it with all of the same “discoveries” that Frank uses to pervert Hawking’s ultimate application of those principles to the question of the existence of a god. If Frank thinks Hawking is so darn brilliant, he might want to actually listen to what Hawking has to say about the matters Frank can barely fumbles through. Then again, he makes his living off of selling these painfully subpar arguments for the existence of not only A god, but THE god, the Christian god. Selling seminars, books, etc. to evangelicals is big business. Folks, go out with a truly neutral mindset. Seek out and listen to the best arguments that are in opposition or contradiction with those of Frank. Not just pop-atheist apologists like Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris, but some very deep thinkers. Don’t listen to the cartoonish characterizations of opposing views that Frank puts in front of his audiences. He presents the arguments very poorly so that he can easily bat them down, trying to make it look as if intellectual resistance is futile! Research, folks. DO NOT just take Frank’s arguments as sound arguments. Frank pretty much makes the majority of his living off of the church. He has to keep pumping this stuff out. It sounds great on the surface. Most people don’t question it much and they think Frank is brilliant. Well, he won’t even acknowledge that even one of his arguments could be wrong, let alone the fact that MANY of his arguments ARE wrong. Study, folks. Listen. This man is simply another evangelical “pop star” cashing in on pop-Christian apologetics. Sorry to be so pointed, but when “teachers” don’t honestly present both sides as convincingly as possible, then they aren’t teaching. They are indoctrinating at best, but more likely just brainwashing their listeners, selling their stuff, cashing the checks.
The problem with that statement is that Steve Hawking literally says "there is no objective reality" who is the you that thinks this is the objective reality?
Explain how it is cherrypicking Steven Hawking's words to prove a point. Mr Turek is not saying he is as smart as Hawking but he made a lot of bad points.
I don't think you understand. I am NOT trying to date a diamond, merely stating that C14 should not theoretically be in a Diamond if they are 1-3 billion years old like we are told. Plus, C14 dating IS used for inanimate objects all the time!! 1. C14 half life (t½) is only 5,730 years. C14 can only remain for max approx 60,000 years. 2. Diamond has C14. 3. Diamonds cannot be contaminated. 4. Nitrogen does not account for even 1/10,000 th of C14 in Diamonds 5. C14 is present in Diamonds!
@TheRipcity22... Actually, I am NOT deviating from Christianity by being open. Authentic Christianity requires such questioning, openness, and willingness to change. We are not COMMANDED to force belief on anyone. I'm curious, why do you think that "by being open for discussion [I am] deviating from [my] faith"? What is the basis for your claim that "[I am] COMMANDED to force [my] beliefs on others"?
i've never understood someone who gets so emotional about something they don't believe in? "everything that exists was created naturally" not even the top origin scientists would say that lol They understand that when we deal with origins, we deal with faith because no one was there to OBSERVE it. Meaning its outside scientific perimeters. Nature can only select from what is there, it can't create new stuff. You believe in a creative force, that's your God cuz He's incompetent to judge sin.
determining truth comes from having 100% knowledge of something. we all know 2+2=4 with 100% certainty. The question is why do we know it with certainty. Knowledge is linear, not circular. In order to know A, I have to trust B, in order to know B, I have to trust C, in order to trust C, I have to trust D etc etc... it never ends. The only 2 options i'm left with is to be all knowing myself, or to receive revelation from someone who is all knowing. God reveals to us objective reality.
@theawesomemanman He was saying Stephen Hawkins says we are bsically in a matrix of some sort. Is all basically a dream. But the only way to know you are asleep is cause you wake up from a dream. Then how did Stephen Hawkins wake up to know he was dreaming then said to himselve I must go back to sleep to warn everyone else in my dream.
Even the smartest atheist scientist ends up worshipping the paint , the canvas , the paintbrushes and the painting and ignore the artist - it's that simple
"Then how do you know *that* about the real world" Very simple. We know it by studying human nature using our fallible senses and come to the conclusion that what humans experience is an internal reconstruction/model based on fallible sensory mechanisms. There are two possibilities here: 1. Our senses are accurate enough to support the conclusion that we can't know the real world. 2. Our senses are not accurate enough to know the real world. All possibilities produce the same conclusion..
And what is your proof that the C14 in diamonds is not the result of contamination? What is the actual concentration of C14 found inside of the diamonds? What is your proof that the C14 is not an artifact of an alternate genesis other than the sun or from contamination?
@GodTheHypothesis so, you're saying that most scientists you know aren't self-proclaimed atheists? that's helpfull, seriously. thanks. can i quote you?
Wiki???? Try again.....Wikipedia can be updated by anyone and has been cited as an incredibly unreliable source..Since I can't seem to find your sources and I don't know what I'm talking about, where is your information coming from?
Also, what you consider evidence is key. If you consider evidence from all forms of knowledge ie. history, philosophy and science; that's fair. You you only consider evidence from science (what can be observed int he natural) then you have short changed yourself on exploring so many layers. A scientist can look at history and say there is much historical eye witness evidence of supernatural events. cont2
@TheRipcity22 I am a theist, specifically a Christian. I have a question: why would an atheist argue with a believer? Why not simply ignore us - especially if the theist is willing to respect your decision. I personally get frustrated when theist such as Jehovah's Witnesses don't accept my "no" when they come to my door. Some religious people deserve being called names. it was wrong for @ProbablyStealingThis to call you names.
@VeritasLiber Apparently, that 0.00000001% of the house that the mouse lives, eats, sleeps and plays in (the mouse cage) is designed specifically for him and the other 99.99999999 % of the house is there to provide a setting for the mouse's playpen. Just because we can't survive in most of the universe doesn't mean that it has no role in supporting our existence. Fine tuning should lead the rational man to the "Tuner", but man has broken his own rationality. Only the "Tuner" can fix it.
cont2 But if a scientists only considers evidence as only what can be observed today, he's limited his learning capacity. Others say: let me explain it away with science, not realizing that to make the difference between an illusion and a supernatural even can be difficult especially when the supernatural event is not overtly obvious in nature. Every scientist has their personal beliefs and some do bad science in order to protect their personal preferences. ie. red blood cells in dinosaurs.
I agree with Hawking in the terms that this might be just like matrix only that I believe that the afterlife is the reality just like many of the near death survivors said, "this is not the reality but the afterlife as they also said that it felt to be more real out there than here".God bless you all!❤️
cont... It's like saying someone is self righteous for saying: "2+2=4, it will always be that way and anyone who thinks differently is wrong." That's isn't self righteouss, it's just what's true. When you get down to it it's not intellectual, anyone who is sincere with half a brain can understand this. It comes down to a moral issue. There are certain sins you might be holding onto, which you may not want to give up, so you try to intellectualise your way out of it.
@GodTheHypothesis P2 Skepticism and scientific naturalism can provide an ethic of mutual altruism, but that is the only basis I can think of for avoiding what we might agree to defined as evil. Is there another foundation outside of power and the masses (i.e. civilization) providing the debate, discussions, and agreements on who the authorities are and what constitutes a breach in the collective ethical fabric? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
cont... You might take this as arrogance, but you could say the same thing for every good teacher in schools. A student might get offended and think the teacher is arrogant for claiming to have absolute mathematical truth, if the student had preconceived presuppositions. If you just concentrate on the message instead of the messenger, you can live a life free from dependence on other people's attitudes.
@Rocketryman ...I thought you were talking about Turek, but I think you meant his point was that what Hawking thinks, which is true....check out John 3:16-20
Did nothing exist before gravity & other natural forces? If it was nothing how could it exist? What is nothing, what can you put into then extract from nothing? Can something be de-created into nothing? Is nothing an unknown or a known? Is nothing a label we use to describe what isn't actually nothing but an unknown or a factor that isn't determined or defined? I think people have different ideas of what nothing is &/or disingenuously misrepresent what the opposition describes as nothing.
A man of science is a poor philosopher. And a man of philosophy is a poor scientist. So now all scientific related explanations of God are off the table.
Lol, wow I don't what else to tell you except that "I have been in a dream AND knew it was a dream." I have experienced this MANY times. Many people have.
Here's my answer to the 'how do you explain why the universe is so fine tuned for life'. It's not. A house that a mouse can only survive in 0.00000001% of it is not fined tuned for mice.
Hawking never said there's no god. He said that god isn't a necessary condition for the existence of our Universe. If god created our Universe then he either created it from nothing or he used something (and that "something" couldn't have possibly been created by god) that had already existed to create the Universe. If something had existed before our Universe began then the creator is either god or the laws of nature. If god created something from nothing then, I guess, magic is possible.
So I'm in a dream??? So I can go to sleep and have dreams in my dream??? Wow u learn something new every day........... God bless Stephen Hawkins such a huge waste of a gift!!
the thing is i would do that if it were true. i've discovered we can all know something 100% certainty and we do every single day. its ok to admit you know something and everything else is false. this is called the reality of non contradiction. 2+2=4 is true and everything is false by default. Once you find truth it is exclusive.
@ahhninjadragon testable fact: a universe never came out of a test tube filled with nothingness. testable fact: people want to have a reason for being here besides cosmological coincidence and random unjust accident. welcome to the human condition. we have questions that science can't answer, but christianity can. it doesn't mean science is useless, it just means that science needs to remember what it's about. it ain't about spiritual things, i'm pretty sure.
The universe was created by 2 black holes colliding. The resulting debris field became our universe. All matter attracts all other matter. The greater the quantity, the greater the attraction.
@@acelinomckinzie1956 My IQ was tested to be 140 by the US military. I have worked and lived in 20 countries. One of the books I am named in is "Inside The Covert Operations Of The CIA And Israel's Mossad" by Joel Bainerman." It is out of print now but you can still get a copy from Amazon. It is rare. The price the last time I checked was $125 for a used paperback.
Sorry, but ask any scientist and they will tell you that Nitrogen would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount of C14 in diamonds. Any more ideas?
why does he keep asserting that everything needs a cause? It's simply not true. If everything needed a cause, then nothing would be in existence, ever.
Hold on. My Hypothesis? Tell me, why do we see C14 in Diamonds - please tell me. I'm interested how something, which even you say can not last more than 60,000 years is present in something that is supposedly 3 billion years old. Tell me how this has been explained, when neither contamination nor nitrogen are viable. We can go onto fossils in a short time, let finish this subject first. Give me an answer to this and we'll move on.
Hawking regarded "the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail", and the concept of an afterlife as a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
Actually it makes perfect sense. If you think about what he is saying, if their is no God, their is no purpose or justice in life. And Love is just a chemical in our body so their is no real love, but if their is a God, their is a purpose and hope and real justice, and real love that he freely gets. He may babble on but he does make sense. God Loves you and he made a way for sinners to be with him.
I am an atheist who’s becoming a scientist. I don’t see any issue either way. It’s only when someone say discards data over their beliefs and allows that to counter something they have learned. (Not saying you, talking about others) I think many apologists seem to forget or not understand that there are people like you out there.
That's a good point. But why shouldn't they study and measure what is there to be studied and measured? Why should they add or assume something more, like spirits, demons or god, that are not measurable and are not even there?
Well the evidance for Christianity is the life of priests prophets and many other people that are documented in the Bible. Further evidance is completed in the life of Jesus. What evidance do you have that says that the spiritual world does not exist? You need something to back it up...not just your mind that doesn't believe in God or a spiritual world. Happy to look at evidance.
I am a Scientist but not an atheist. I am a deep believer in the uncreated Creator. I have no problem believing and being a scientist because God could have created this universe anyway he saw fit. There is a designer nothing could have happened down to a singularity all in the billionth of a second it would have taken to make this universe out of nothing. That's not going to happen by science that's going to happen by a grand designer.
Faith has power to achieve results which technology and science cannot. I truly believe that if Stephen hawking used his faith and was more determined to have a Christian outlook and practice faith to a stronger level, he would of had a more successful physical health. It works for me, i do not heal everything in everyway but faith in Jesus and the use of His name is helpful. But we must be persistent. That is the core doctrine and focus of Christianity which makes the mind of a Christian different to an atheist.
Frank Turek, author of "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist". Also known as "I have an irrational fear of the unknown ". Or, "I don't want to go to Hell".
I'm having a TH-cam spat with some young atheist, and he is stuck on these couple of videos of Franks' - just cannot deal. So, what I proposed to him, and I'm going to propose to you right now: just imagine the strongest form of *nothing* possible. Just try to imagine nothing, nothing at all, absolute nothing: no space, no time, no dimensions, no natural laws, no fundamental physical constants, no charge of the electron, no mass of the proton, no quantum-f&@king vacuum - nothing at all. Now just hold that thought for a minute. Really, just hold the thought of absolute nothing - sit with it.
• “The movement from the finite to the infinite as embodied in the cosmological argument is quite illegitimate; and the argument fails in toto. IIt is, however, obvious that a finite effect can give only a finite cause, or at most an infinite series of such causes. To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an un-caused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds." Muhammad Iqbal
The philosophical idea of "free will" is dead---to paraphrase Hawkings. Free will is very generally the ability to choose. The problem of this is that an experience we have at three years old, an experience we had ten years ago, or even an experience we had 5 minutes ago all will effect our present and future choices. Free will, as argued here is largely an illusion. We can't know what someone will choose to do because of something like chaos theory. The multitude of possibilities are infinite.
If God exists, what was the cause of it existence? Carl Sagan once said : "If we decide that it is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question."
I've never said there's evidence against God. I'm saying that religious dogmas could in principle be disproved and most of them have already been disproved.
I almost agree with part of your comment, except I would word it. Anything that interacts with our natural world shouldn't be attributed to anything supernatural hence leaving superstitious religious & other supernatural nonsense out of the explanation since it has time and time again been shown to have near to or zero explanatory, & evidentiary value. If(place any absurd untestable assertion here)surpasses the ability to be tested, observed, repeated ETC. how then can science get involved?
@SuperJBrowne, no apology needed. your statement is somewhat true but it's just as true to say that non-believers attempt to legislate away faith. Spirituality - be it western or the more mystical eastern world views - are an inseparable part of the heart and soul of a person of faith. It's like putting pictures of your family on your desk at work. I do not want to force my beliefs or theology on you or anyone else, although I am always open to honest and sincere discussions.
The question is not whether God exist or not? The question is who/what is your God? Is it nature or some supernatural being/entity? Is your God a thing or living entity in nature or something out of nature? Is it your brain or that of another/others? It's either your God is an idol or is a self existing being. Which ever is the case for you, know exactly what evidence you got to hold on such a god.
Religion is a huge topic, and everyone has their opinion on it. In the world we live in today, "be tolerant" is constantly a banging drum. However, Christianity is bashed more than any other religion. Why? Because we are "untolerant". What a contradiction. Our beliefs tell us to be sure and firm about our faith, and not to lie. When we tell someone about their sin nature and how they need to be forgiven, we are being "intolerant." Why cant you be "tolerant" of our beliefs to being truthful?
@GodTheHypothesis 1. How do you define evil? 2.you didn't address pure scientific naturalism - your thoughts on the basis for ethics - my statement regarding "mutual altruism" - would you agree that this is the basis for ethics - oversimplified of course (after all this is only TH-cam comments!) but nonetheless, the basis for a naturalistic value system.
i disagree with 'the only way out of the matrix is to wake up'. another way, depending on the individuals' reaction to it, is to witness something out of this world. to witness something 'supernatural'. seeing something like that and then drawing reasonable conclusions from it would lead you to reject the dream world. of course, there will be those who say the supernatural isn't possible. and, of course, that's why a miracle would be indicative of something outside nature. simple logic.
whenever i see lots of dislikes on a issue of creation i know it is a good video.
So many triggered, grumbling atheists hate seeing their petty, mindless religion crumble before their very own eyes. :)
Too True Josh .
@@Harpazo_to_Yeshua please do explain how and what was crumbled?
Atheism isn’t a religion no matter how many times you say it. Be nice if you all listened to that part.
Or the video is misrepresenting things like atheism and science. As soon often happens with apologists videos.
We are on to something
Hawking is just another example of those who:
" Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."
To the uploader of this vid:
(Is this really part 2? It seems to be the ending that's included in part 1. Or perhaps there's a glitch in the matrix.)
must be a glitch in the matrix...I love this lololol
I think that’s just British people swap Richard Dawkins and frank tureks accents and dawkins would sound like a fool
Please explain why he’s a fool for trying to understand the universe?
Einstein said science without religion is blind , religion without science is lame ; it doesn't matter how advanced our theories become they can will never unequivocally disprove the existence of God . Alistair Roberts
@@guyjosephs5654 If he really tried to understand the universe, he wouldn't make so many assumptions based on absolutely no scientific evidence. What he does is not honorable in front of such a precise universe.
Just because you absolutely dislike or hate something doesn't mean it isn't true.
Where is hawking now ? Hope he changed his mind and got saved at the end , and still he led alot of souls down the wrong path
what was the wrong path?
That is my problem with Christianity. I do NOT see anything wrong with not believing.
You are going to hell for all eternity for not believing in Jesus. That is not only absurd but ridiculous.
@@salvadoralvarado8685 the answer is love
@@salvadoralvarado8685It all depends on if you see anything wrong with yourself.
Or are we humans in 21st century better than our ancestors?
@@salvadoralvarado8685 its not absurd Hell is real please for your sake accept Jesus
Great video, great arguments.
Yea, the Universe didn't create itself. This would be a fallacy of circular reasoning.
@@les2997 No it isn’t. E= mc2 allows mass to come from energy.
The universe cannot create itself, but god can create himself.
What a great argument.
@@salvadoralvarado8685 No, you don't understand this argument. Something must exist necessarily (i.e. it cannot not exist). Otherwise, all explanations of the origin of the Universe will end up in a fallacy such the Universe created itself or the Universe always existed. An infinite chain of events is a fallacy. You are incorrectly assuming at everything must be created.
@@salvadoralvarado8685 if God created time and space, he must be spaceless and timeless. If he has no time, than no beggining is needed.
I think that the laws or principles of logic cannot have exceptions. If there can be something that have always existed it could be matter, energy or the universe itself, it doesn’t need to be exclusively god. That only god could be uncreated is a religious opinion, it isn’t philosophical much less scientific.
We don’t know much about our universe, it could be that there are many universe in an infinite chain of which ours is just one more. We simply don’t know.
The multiverse. These “scientists” have resorted to Marvel Comics for their theories and arguments.
If that’s what you think then you haven’t been paying attention to the actual scientists and only to people like Frank who aren’t scientists. And do explain the “ “ around the scientists
@@guyjosephs5654 The multiverse hypothesis is NOT science. Accept that fact and get over it.
@@lysanderofsparta3708 are you aware where it comes from?
“Accept that fact and get over it”
Mate what is your issue here? Why the attitude?
I absolutely LOVE Frank Turek! Excellent apologetics brother!
Yeah, anything he says conforms with my biases and makes me feel good. I feel validated.
So the god of atheism is "gravity"! Now it all makes sense! Yay!
55k3v1n 4Years late but this is 😂 funny
@@philgaming1176 2 years later.. Still funny 🤣😂
Many years later and it’s silly and not at all accurate, but what can I expect from a Turek video.
@@guyjosephs5654 Yeah, actually the atheist god is "Nothing"...that brought forth all things
@@55k3v1n when you say that it shows you either dont understand or do and purposely misrepresent. Which is it? Atheism is a response to a single question. That’s it. From there people develop philosophies and world views. Atheism doesn’t say or make any claims beyond that question. So when you say what you said it shows you don’t get it.
while in the past some scientists said that, almost non do today. You know who does say it? _theists_
its funny how ppl get mad at turek bc no one can answer any of his questions, bc if u go as deep as the questions then u have to admit theres a creator
I don't think you get the point. Diamonds are supposedly 1-3 billion years old and C14 has a half life (t½) is only 5,730 years, yet we find C14 in Diamonds. Diamond is the hardest substance known, so its interior should be also be very resistant to contamination. So how do you explain the presence of C14 in a Diamond?
So why have I never seen anything pop into existence out of nothing?
if we are truly seeking for truth without agenda, we need to explore where intangible laws of logic, maths, morals come from?
What is the source of these things?
Only an immaterial, moral mind which established it.
This is by default absolute truth which everyone must be aligned with. Not everything in life is absolute but there are a few that have already been established.
Also, buildings, painting, and lego houses don't build themselves. Humans are more complicated than lego houses.
Gravity is an interesting concept from the secularist viewpoint given the following;
It needs to be pre-present in order to bring things together, therefore gravity fundamentally would have needed to exist in the nothingness into which the "Big Bang" exploded.
After the big bang had occurred, gravity remained obscure even so to this very day, given the FACT that even the secular scientists confirm the universe is expanding, and this expansion is the exact opposite of the gravitational effect.
Errrr..Gentlemen, Ladies, we seem to have a really Big Problem, it's called Gravity, and it deposes all our secular philosophy (science).
The future secularist solution to this Gravity embarrassment, will be to say it simply doesn't exist, mark my words!
Even then, gravity would've had to have had a beginning, because with nothing but that law, it won't work. You need an object that is affected by gravity for it to act upon said object.
@@isaacm.3535 Poor Isaac, hates the truth. Atheism = idiocy.
@@isaacm.3535 without mass there is no gravity therefore nothing massive enough at the beginning to cause gravity to create the big bang
Sean Carrol dispatched with all of this nonsense against WLC. And Turek mischaracterizes Vilenkin here about the beginning of the universe. Even Guth admitted the universe is likely eternal in that debate.
😂 Sean Carroll lost that debate against William Lane Craig.
@@acelinomckinzie1956 you must not have watched it or are dishonest.
@@acelinomckinzie1956 welcome to your opinion just like anyone. Could you give us an example or two of why you think WLC won?
People need to wake up out of the brainwashing and start thinking for themselves. Good job of helping them.
well if I thought 2+2=5 with my whole heart and someone showed me it was actually 4, my heart would be broken for a while but in the end i'd thank that person for being bold enough, not to sugar coat lies to me.
Guess you know that it doesn't really matter whether you use 5 instead of 4 to represent the sum of 2 + 2 as long as you know the number system you are using, right?
Excellent message.
"And what does C14 in diamonds have to do with the age of the earth?"
There should be NO C14 in diamonds if they are billions of years old. Diamonds are supposed to be 1-3 billion years old. So something is wrong! If we are told Diamonds are billions of years old but they are actually only thousands of years old then alarm bells should be ringing. This is just the tip of the ice-burg. I have not ignored other evidence, I have just focused on this one. We can move on to fossils if you want.
Yes please, let's move to fossils, i want to
You are pointing YEC... we already have the answer earth is billion years old and the days written in bible are not actual 24 hour day... It's some period of time we don't know...
LOGIC, that always gives me a laugh
Why part 2? It's the same as part 1
Great stuff!!! Pure basic logics...
Joking or serious?
100% serious
@@Spieler1980 okay. Thank you for clarifying. So I guess then the follow up question would what did Frank say that was great stuff?
What was the pure basic logic?
@@Spieler1980 you cant answer rick???
@@nickjones5435 that is so easy. 1.step: open your eyes 2. Look around 3. Just admit that there is a creator. It must take a lot more faith to believe that all taht came to exist out od nowhere/nobody... I really do admire atheists for believing in that. Until the point od their death. Then it will be too late...
"...I can debate this guy and destroy all his arguments...." can you share one?
All this guy has is a loud n offensive voice.
You don't have to wake up to know you're dreaming. I've had lots of dreams and I have known I was dreaming while in the dream. Your mind can know you’re dreaming if you can be aware of what’s real and what’s not real.
Yeah, here he goes again. Frank trying to pass himself off as smarter and more reasonable that Stephen Hawking. It’s a rather pathetic and sad, and yet audaciously arrogant for Frank to use Hawking’s brilliant observations and then essentially say that Hawking couldn’t see what Frank says is “more reasonable”. Frank is an entertainer, nothing more.
Frank loves to quote theories, formulations and statements that Stephen Hawking made. He falls all over himself to be sure to add that “even Stephen Hawking says…”.
The fact is that Frank would be quick to point out if people were cherry-picking verses out of the Bible to make their points, taking the verses out of context, yet that is exactly what he does with Stephen Hawking’s statements.
Frank will cherry-pick statements from this obviously brilliant man, trying to make it appear that Hawking’s points support the existence of god, but he completely abandons, ignores, and even covers up Hawking’s ultimate conclusion regarding the origin and direction of the universe: there is no god.
If he wants to name-drop names like Hawking who is infinity smarter than just about every one of us humans on earth, Frank should be honest with his audiences and make it clear that Hawking has no struggle whatsoever coming to the simple and obvious conclusion that a god doesn’t exist, and he does it with all of the same “discoveries” that Frank uses to pervert Hawking’s ultimate application of those principles to the question of the existence of a god.
If Frank thinks Hawking is so darn brilliant, he might want to actually listen to what Hawking has to say about the matters Frank can barely fumbles through.
Then again, he makes his living off of selling these painfully subpar arguments for the existence of not only A god, but THE god, the Christian god. Selling seminars, books, etc. to evangelicals is big business.
Folks, go out with a truly neutral mindset. Seek out and listen to the best arguments that are in opposition or contradiction with those of Frank. Not just pop-atheist apologists like Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris, but some very deep thinkers. Don’t listen to the cartoonish characterizations of opposing views that Frank puts in front of his audiences. He presents the arguments very poorly so that he can easily bat them down, trying to make it look as if intellectual resistance is futile! Research, folks. DO NOT just take Frank’s arguments as sound arguments.
Frank pretty much makes the majority of his living off of the church. He has to keep pumping this stuff out. It sounds great on the surface. Most people don’t question it much and they think Frank is brilliant. Well, he won’t even acknowledge that even one of his arguments could be wrong, let alone the fact that MANY of his arguments ARE wrong.
Study, folks. Listen. This man is simply another evangelical “pop star” cashing in on pop-Christian apologetics.
Sorry to be so pointed, but when “teachers” don’t honestly present both sides as convincingly as possible, then they aren’t teaching. They are indoctrinating at best, but more likely just brainwashing their listeners, selling their stuff, cashing the checks.
Well said mate. Glad I’m not only one who sees that as well
The problem with that statement is that Steve Hawking literally says "there is no objective reality" who is the you that thinks this is the objective reality?
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 Steven Hawking also believed there was no god.
@@davidandthatotherguy1369 So you are a Steven Hawking fan?
Explain how it is cherrypicking Steven Hawking's words to prove a point. Mr Turek is not saying he is as smart as Hawking but he made a lot of bad points.
I don't think you understand. I am NOT trying to date a diamond, merely stating that C14 should not theoretically be in a Diamond if they are 1-3 billion years old like we are told. Plus, C14 dating IS used for inanimate objects all the time!!
1. C14 half life (t½) is only 5,730 years. C14 can only remain for max approx 60,000 years.
2. Diamond has C14.
3. Diamonds cannot be contaminated.
4. Nitrogen does not account for even 1/10,000 th of C14 in Diamonds
5. C14 is present in Diamonds!
This is not really part 2, it's the same content as 1.
@TheRipcity22... Actually, I am NOT deviating from Christianity by being open. Authentic Christianity requires such questioning, openness, and willingness to change. We are not COMMANDED to force belief on anyone. I'm curious, why do you think that "by being open for discussion [I am] deviating from [my] faith"? What is the basis for your claim that "[I am] COMMANDED to force [my] beliefs on others"?
Dang. Is there any recent comment here, or just me?
Why is there a part two, when part one showed this already?
Does his religion really justify telling lies for a living?
@papermermaid so explain to me why, according to darwin/dawkins/harris/singer/hitchens... you enjoyed riding the bike?
Did not need 9:45 to prove his point. His point is... He believes what he does because that is what he wants to believe. Case closed.
i've never understood someone who gets so emotional about something they don't believe in?
"everything that exists was created naturally"
not even the top origin scientists would say that lol They understand that when we deal with origins, we deal with faith because no one was there to OBSERVE it. Meaning its outside scientific perimeters.
Nature can only select from what is there, it can't create new stuff.
You believe in a creative force, that's your God cuz He's incompetent to judge sin.
determining truth comes from having 100% knowledge of something.
we all know 2+2=4 with 100% certainty. The question is why do we know it with certainty.
Knowledge is linear, not circular.
In order to know A, I have to trust B, in order to know B, I have to trust C, in order to trust C, I have to trust D etc etc... it never ends.
The only 2 options i'm left with is to be all knowing myself, or to receive revelation from someone who is all knowing.
God reveals to us objective reality.
Part 1 and part 2 are the same.
@theawesomemanman He was saying Stephen Hawkins says we are bsically in a matrix of some sort. Is all basically a dream. But the only way to know you are asleep is cause you wake up from a dream. Then how did Stephen Hawkins wake up to know he was dreaming then said to himselve I must go back to sleep to warn everyone else in my dream.
Even the smartest atheist scientist ends up worshipping the paint , the canvas , the paintbrushes and the painting and ignore the artist - it's that simple
"Then how do you know *that* about the real world"
Very simple. We know it by studying human nature using our fallible senses and come to the conclusion that what humans experience is an internal reconstruction/model based on fallible sensory mechanisms. There are two possibilities here:
1. Our senses are accurate enough to support the conclusion that we can't know the real world.
2. Our senses are not accurate enough to know the real world.
All possibilities produce the same conclusion..
I think you're on to something McChulo, but I'm not sure. Can you elaborate?
And what is your proof that the C14 in diamonds is not the result of contamination? What is the actual concentration of C14 found inside of the diamonds? What is your proof that the C14 is not an artifact of an alternate genesis other than the sun or from contamination?
@GodTheHypothesis so, you're saying that most scientists you know aren't self-proclaimed atheists? that's helpfull, seriously. thanks. can i quote you?
Wiki???? Try again.....Wikipedia can be updated by anyone and has been cited as an incredibly unreliable source..Since I can't seem to find your sources and I don't know what I'm talking about, where is your information coming from?
Also, what you consider evidence is key.
If you consider evidence from all forms of knowledge ie. history, philosophy and science; that's fair.
You you only consider evidence from science (what can be observed int he natural) then you have short changed yourself on exploring so many layers.
A scientist can look at history and say there is much historical eye witness evidence of supernatural events.
cont2
@TheRipcity22 I am a theist, specifically a Christian. I have a question: why would an atheist argue with a believer? Why not simply ignore us - especially if the theist is willing to respect your decision. I personally get frustrated when theist such as Jehovah's Witnesses don't accept my "no" when they come to my door. Some religious people deserve being called names. it was wrong for @ProbablyStealingThis to call you names.
@VeritasLiber Apparently, that 0.00000001% of the house that the mouse lives, eats, sleeps and plays in (the mouse cage) is designed specifically for him and the other 99.99999999 % of the house is there to provide a setting for the mouse's playpen. Just because we can't survive in most of the universe doesn't mean that it has no role in supporting our existence. Fine tuning should lead the rational man to the "Tuner", but man has broken his own rationality. Only the "Tuner" can fix it.
cont2
But if a scientists only considers evidence as only what can be observed today, he's limited his learning capacity.
Others say: let me explain it away with science, not realizing that to make the difference between an illusion and a supernatural even can be difficult especially when the supernatural event is not overtly obvious in nature.
Every scientist has their personal beliefs and some do bad science in order to protect their personal preferences. ie. red blood cells in dinosaurs.
Depends what information you want. I'll tell you where it comes from. But why not answer the question? Why is there C14 in Diamonds??
I agree with Hawking in the terms that this might be just like matrix only that I believe that the afterlife is the reality just like many of the near death survivors said, "this is not the reality but the afterlife as they also said that it felt to be more real out there than here".God bless you all!❤️
cont...
It's like saying someone is self righteous for saying: "2+2=4, it will always be that way and anyone who thinks differently is wrong."
That's isn't self righteouss, it's just what's true.
When you get down to it it's not intellectual, anyone who is sincere with half a brain can understand this. It comes down to a moral issue.
There are certain sins you might be holding onto, which you may not want to give up, so you try to intellectualise your way out of it.
@GodTheHypothesis
P2
Skepticism and scientific naturalism can provide an ethic of mutual altruism, but that is the only basis I can think of for avoiding what we might agree to defined as evil. Is there another foundation outside of power and the masses (i.e. civilization) providing the debate, discussions, and agreements on who the authorities are and what constitutes a breach in the collective ethical fabric? I'm interested in your thoughts on this.
Atheists do not say we appear to be in a designed universe. I hate it when creationists blatantly lie.
cont...
You might take this as arrogance, but you could say the same thing for every good teacher in schools. A student might get offended and think the teacher is arrogant for claiming to have absolute mathematical truth, if the student had preconceived presuppositions.
If you just concentrate on the message instead of the messenger, you can live a life free from dependence on other people's attitudes.
What kind of people would listen to this Bible expert contradict Hawking?
How does he explain virus mutations than? Viruses evolve from one virus to many different types of viruses.
@Rocketryman ...I thought you were talking about Turek, but I think you meant his point was that what Hawking thinks, which is true....check out John 3:16-20
Did nothing exist before gravity & other natural forces? If it was nothing how could it exist? What is nothing, what can you put into then extract from nothing? Can something be de-created into nothing?
Is nothing an unknown or a known?
Is nothing a label we use to describe what isn't actually nothing but an unknown or a factor that isn't determined or defined?
I think people have different ideas of what nothing is &/or disingenuously misrepresent what the opposition describes as nothing.
A man of science is a poor philosopher.
And a man of philosophy is a poor scientist. So now all scientific related explanations of God are off the table.
Lol, wow I don't what else to tell you except that "I have been in a dream AND knew it was a dream." I have experienced this MANY times. Many people have.
Here's my answer to the 'how do you explain why the universe is so fine tuned for life'. It's not. A house that a mouse can only survive in 0.00000001% of it is not fined tuned for mice.
Hawking never said there's no god. He said that god isn't a necessary condition for the existence of our Universe.
If god created our Universe then he either created it from nothing or he used something (and that "something" couldn't have possibly been created by god) that had already existed to create the Universe. If something had existed before our Universe began then the creator is either god or the laws of nature. If god created something from nothing then, I guess, magic is possible.
So I'm in a dream??? So I can go to sleep and have dreams in my dream??? Wow u learn something new every day........... God bless Stephen Hawkins such a huge waste of a gift!!
@papermermaid it's false to say a mere chemical byproduct has no moral basis for judgement?
But the Hindu, the Muslim, the Morman and the strong atheist have also found absolute truth. Are their truths also exclusive? Or just yours?
the thing is i would do that if it were true.
i've discovered we can all know something 100% certainty and we do every single day. its ok to admit you know something and everything else is false.
this is called the reality of non contradiction. 2+2=4 is true and everything is false by default. Once you find truth it is exclusive.
@ahhninjadragon testable fact: a universe never came out of a test tube filled with nothingness. testable fact: people want to have a reason for being here besides cosmological coincidence and random unjust accident.
welcome to the human condition. we have questions that science can't answer, but christianity can. it doesn't mean science is useless, it just means that science needs to remember what it's about. it ain't about spiritual things, i'm pretty sure.
I think you should study science seriously...
The universe was created by 2 black holes colliding. The resulting debris field became our universe. All matter attracts all other matter. The greater the quantity, the greater the attraction.
😂 You’re really ignorant.
@@acelinomckinzie1956 My IQ was tested to be 140 by the US military. I have worked and lived in 20 countries. One of the books I am named in is "Inside The Covert Operations Of The CIA And Israel's Mossad" by Joel Bainerman." It is out of print now but you can still get a copy from Amazon. It is rare. The price the last time I checked was $125 for a used paperback.
@@tedbishop 😂 And you can’t understand basic philosophical contradictions. Worthless. Looked up IQ scores you’re just above average, nice.
This is same as part 1. But it's not surprising.
Sorry, but ask any scientist and they will tell you that Nitrogen would generate less than one ten-thousandth of the measured amount of C14 in diamonds. Any more ideas?
why does he keep asserting that everything needs a cause? It's simply not true. If everything needed a cause, then nothing would be in existence, ever.
Hold on. My Hypothesis? Tell me, why do we see C14 in Diamonds - please tell me. I'm interested how something, which even you say can not last more than 60,000 years is present in something that is supposedly 3 billion years old. Tell me how this has been explained, when neither contamination nor nitrogen are viable. We can go onto fossils in a short time, let finish this subject first. Give me an answer to this and we'll move on.
Hawking regarded "the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail", and the concept of an afterlife as a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark."
And people are more afraid of the light than the dark because the light would reveal their wrongdoings....
Actually it makes perfect sense. If you think about what he is saying, if their is no God, their is no purpose or justice in life. And Love is just a chemical in our body so their is no real love, but if their is a God, their is a purpose and hope and real justice, and real love that he freely gets. He may babble on but he does make sense. God Loves you and he made a way for sinners to be with him.
I am a scientist who has never been an atheist.
I am an atheist who’s becoming a scientist. I don’t see any issue either way. It’s only when someone say discards data over their beliefs and allows that to counter something they have learned. (Not saying you, talking about others) I think many apologists seem to forget or not understand that there are people like you out there.
@@guyjosephs5654 yes and that would be fundamentally unethical to do!
Yea,just go louder,that helps😂😂😂
That's a good point. But why shouldn't they study and measure what is there to be studied and measured? Why should they add or assume something more, like spirits, demons or god, that are not measurable and are not even there?
Well the evidance for Christianity is the life of priests prophets and many other people that are documented in the Bible. Further evidance is completed in the life of Jesus.
What evidance do you have that says that the spiritual world does not exist? You need something to back it up...not just your mind that doesn't believe in God or a spiritual world. Happy to look at evidance.
I am a Scientist but not an atheist. I am a deep believer in the uncreated Creator. I have no problem believing and being a scientist because God could have created this universe anyway he saw fit. There is a designer nothing could have happened down to a singularity all in the billionth of a second it would have taken to make this universe out of nothing. That's not going to happen by science that's going to happen by a grand designer.
Faith has power to achieve results which technology and science cannot. I truly believe that if Stephen hawking used his faith and was more determined to have a Christian outlook and practice faith to a stronger level, he would of had a more successful physical health. It works for me, i do not heal everything in everyway but faith in Jesus and the use of His name is helpful. But we must be persistent. That is the core doctrine and focus of Christianity which makes the mind of a Christian different to an atheist.
Frank Turek, author of "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist". Also known as "I have an irrational fear of the unknown ". Or, "I don't want to go to Hell".
So what's your point?
So miracles are not supernatural, are they? Miracles can happen naturally, without god?
All this info is readily available. Which particular info would you like a source on?
I'm having a TH-cam spat with some young atheist, and he is stuck on these couple of videos of Franks' - just cannot deal. So, what I proposed to him, and I'm going to propose to you right now: just imagine the strongest form of *nothing* possible. Just try to imagine nothing, nothing at all, absolute nothing: no space, no time, no dimensions, no natural laws, no fundamental physical constants, no charge of the electron, no mass of the proton, no quantum-f&@king vacuum - nothing at all. Now just hold that thought for a minute. Really, just hold the thought of absolute nothing - sit with it.
• “The movement from the finite to the infinite as embodied in the cosmological argument is quite illegitimate; and the argument fails in toto. IIt is, however, obvious that a finite effect can give only a finite cause, or at most an infinite series of such causes. To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an un-caused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds."
Muhammad Iqbal
@gshefer11 did you just talk about hawking in a tennis match?! isn't that... bad?
The philosophical idea of "free will" is dead---to paraphrase Hawkings. Free will is very generally the ability to choose. The problem of this is that an experience we have at three years old, an experience we had ten years ago, or even an experience we had 5 minutes ago all will effect our present and future choices. Free will, as argued here is largely an illusion. We can't know what someone will choose to do because of something like chaos theory. The multitude of possibilities are infinite.
If God exists, what was the cause of it existence? Carl Sagan once said : "If we decide that it is an unanswerable question, why not save a step and conclude that the origin of the Universe is an unanswerable question."
Why?
How do they know there are" multi universes out there...???anybody happen to see any of these..." multi universes...??? & where did they come fm...???
Sometimes I think guys like him take part in a competition, the more stupid things you say and the less time it takes, the better.
I've never said there's evidence against God. I'm saying that religious dogmas could in principle be disproved and most of them have already been disproved.
I almost agree with part of your comment, except I would word it.
Anything that interacts with our natural world shouldn't be attributed to anything supernatural hence leaving superstitious religious & other supernatural nonsense out of the explanation since it has time and time again been shown to have near to or zero explanatory, & evidentiary value.
If(place any absurd untestable assertion here)surpasses the ability to be tested, observed, repeated ETC. how then can science get involved?
@SuperJBrowne, no apology needed. your statement is somewhat true but it's just as true to say that non-believers attempt to legislate away faith. Spirituality - be it western or the more mystical eastern world views - are an inseparable part of the heart and soul of a person of faith. It's like putting pictures of your family on your desk at work. I do not want to force my beliefs or theology on you or anyone else, although I am always open to honest and sincere discussions.
Stephen Hawking's should responded to this...
everyone knows there are absolute truths, because they know there's an absolute truth giver.
(Romans 1:18-22)
Do you want an absolute truth ?
The four basic math operations.
That’s it.
Particles don't come out of nothing. That would be magic if they did. They come out of energy.
through energy which is carried by what exactly?
The question is not whether God exist or not? The question is who/what is your God? Is it nature or some supernatural being/entity? Is your God a thing or living entity in nature or something out of nature? Is it your brain or that of another/others? It's either your God is an idol or is a self existing being. Which ever is the case for you, know exactly what evidence you got to hold on such a god.
Religion is a huge topic, and everyone has their opinion on it. In the world we live in today, "be tolerant" is constantly a banging drum. However, Christianity is bashed more than any other religion. Why? Because we are "untolerant". What a contradiction. Our beliefs tell us to be sure and firm about our faith, and not to lie. When we tell someone about their sin nature and how they need to be forgiven, we are being "intolerant." Why cant you be "tolerant" of our beliefs to being truthful?
@GodTheHypothesis 1. How do you define evil? 2.you didn't address pure scientific naturalism - your thoughts on the basis for ethics - my statement regarding "mutual altruism" - would you agree that this is the basis for ethics - oversimplified of course (after all this is only TH-cam comments!) but nonetheless, the basis for a naturalistic value system.
ever heard of lucid dreams? those are dreams where you know you're in a dream. you don't have to wake up to know that.
No, you have to wake up to know that.
i disagree with 'the only way out of the matrix is to wake up'. another way, depending on the individuals' reaction to it, is to witness something out of this world. to witness something 'supernatural'. seeing something like that and then drawing reasonable conclusions from it would lead you to reject the dream world. of course, there will be those who say the supernatural isn't possible. and, of course, that's why a miracle would be indicative of something outside nature. simple logic.