@@frankcardano4142 well theres reasonable faith, and there is blind faith. Did you ever fly in a plane? Did you know the pilot wasnt going to wreck? Or did you have reasonable faith that he wouldnt.
@@nickjones5435 LOL! You'll find out. In a Hundred years from now you won't be an atheist. Why not humble yourself and open your mind? no? that is why you are damned. Humble people have open minds and find the truth.
If you took money out of this entire equation, Frank Turek and Cross Examined would quit in a heartbeat. These aren't real Christians - they're charlatans that saw a financial opportunity through religion and seized upon it.
@@upturnedblousecollar5811 I don't think you're quite making the point that you wanted to. As with most businesses, without money they cease to function. Many travelling evangelists such as Dr. Turek rely heavily on donations that they re-invest into the ministry. Traveling thousands of miles per week to host FREE speeches is not cheap by any means. I'm not sure what money had to do with my first comment, but I wish you the best!
@@bigkahuna8823 I think you're typing drivel and presenting it as if it were fact. Like your religion, you didn't show one ounce of proof to prove your claims to be true. And we both know WHY you didn't.
True, that. The calm ones actually think it through instead of basing it off their emotions and are more likely to accept logical answers even if it goes against their original beliefs
I've heard some atheists argue that things such as reason and purpose are just man made constructs. Forgot what else they said along those lines. Essentially, these things just happened by chance. I'm like - "That's a whole lot of coincidences."
Do you remember how they addressed the the concept in this video of complex coincidences like going to be beach and seeing a full sentence written out? (Like 'John loves Mary's)?
@@briankelly1240 I don't recall. Honestly, it seems like they're somehow fine with some things just being explained away as just coincidences. Not sure how they would argue this one.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I believe that part of the argument they made was the series of coincidences that led to them. Essentially starting from the moment of the Big Bang. That's the condensed summary of what I recall.
Atheism can’t answer the questions of how and why. When pressed, it’s “we don’t know”. God answers those questions and He’s the only one who can. “We don’t know” must also mean God is just as likely possible but that’s rarely agreed to.
The trouble is that magical pixies also answer the question just as well as any god. Just replace "magical pixies did it" for all of your "god did it" answers and you will see how silly it is.
Respectfully, and I'm a Christian, you just made a "God of the gaps" argument. The problem with this is that those gaps are smaller now than they were 100 years ago. And we have every reason to believe will be smaller 100 years from today.
@@1Corinthians13.4_7 That's because it's a silly question... Much better question would be: Can there be an undesigned computer? And how would it become to be a computer in the first place?
To Franks sound engineer: please raise the threshold of the noise gate a little and the attack time on the mics. It'll help the sound not chop off so quick and sound more natural.
I agree completely, but the sad thing is that for every one Christian that hears this, there are thousands more who don't. The leaders in the modern church are 50 to 100 years behind the times as for how to craft a message of truth that resonates in the 21st Century.
We trust our reasoning based on its ability to give reliable results. I would trust an undesigned computer based on its ability to give reliable results. Our origins are secondary to trusting our reasoning, because what matters is that our reasoning is rational, and reliable. Also notice that the computers we design are entirely physical, so reliable results can be achieved through physical means. Then apply that to us. Recognizing writing in the sand, and a skull in the rocks are both pattern recognition, but the writing is a human construct, and we have past experiences with writing. The distinction between specified complexity and unspecified complexity is arbitrary, and up the the interpreter without further information. If you believe a God created everything, then there is also no distinction, as everything is designed.
How blessed are the ignorants that trust computers... Especially if they have Windows as their OS lol I agree with what you put in there. Trust is something so subjective and relative. It should not be used as an argument to find truth. What I trust isn't necessary is what others trust. Each of us have different standards when it comes to deciding who or what we trust.
@@dfurda18 without mind you cannot do anything, like having faith or believe in a god so if you can´t trust your mind, you can´t even trust faith so the whole argument of this man fails from it´s very core.
@@0shaade0 Your actually making his case. Frank is saying we were created by an intelligent designer who gave us minds. The atheist is saying we don’t have to be designed to be able to find truth and Frank is saying would you trust a computer that wasn’t designed? And the atheist is saying no here and admitting something needs to be designed in order to be reliable. The fact we can reason all this out with our minds and come to the conclusion God exists is more proof there is a God.
@@sean_diddy3262Trusting a computer that was not designed would be poor judgement, as there are computers that are designed, and their designers are known, factually. The difference between that, and trusting a god as a designer, is that there is no evidence of the designer, only the imagined appearance that one might have been there. One is factual, the other mere faith.
How many times has Frank Turek given a speech about Jesus teaching _"Sell all your possessions and give to the poor."_ I'd wager the sum total to be none. (I'm more than willing to be shown evidence where this multi-millionaire has.) All of these American apologists for Christianity are really just trying to sell Jesus to make themselves rich. They don't worship Jesus, they worship the bank balance it brings from selling Jesus. Even this "CrossExamined" fraud is doing it, look at their video description. Money is their real god.
Stop searing your conscience. God exists, we could all be nonbelievers and God would still be. and you don’t even realize ur being used by evil to make urself and others stumble because your flesh isn’t satisfied by the things of the spirit. To the point where it’s shifted to “should I follow God and his law or not” to “does God exist”. I don’t say this to bash you.
@@ntkmw8058 My concern is that we have don't have reason to believe this was true. If we tried to find what is most likely to be true in the world, we'd have no reason to believe in Christianity.
@@gamefreak23788 oh really? Nice.... so, the other question is... if you are floating bag of goo that is just chemically reacting, why can you trust your conclusions?
@@Theo_SkeptomaiIt's probably the only reasonable position when it comes to the supernatural. Other positions all rely on faith, or assumptions, to differing degrees. Atheism just simply says, no evidence no belief. Nothing else implied or wished for. Seems entirely reasonable.
I was an atheist for most of my life, many things happened that made me believe that there is a creator. Now I have the challenge to search for the truth
@@reality1958 That's the trick of the Devil. The Bible being evil also has been exposed as manipulation lot of times, all it takes is to cherry-pick each scripture without context and parables.
@@reality1958 Butchering children was what the Canaanites were notorious for. The Hebrews demanded them to stop, but they refused, God's orders: "End their whole population from spreading the Earth, even the animals they had sex with, but spare the untouched women."
I found many contradictions in the Catholic teachings since I was 7 years old. I decided that if God exists, and God is just, I will find God regardless of accessibility to a book, places I lived, people I hung out with. I decided not to follow any religion, but I was going to stay open to what arrives into my life. Life took me to the point of finding God. First, within myself, and later in everything God has created. Some aspects match Christian faith, some don't. I've met Catholics turning into atheists and atheists into believers of God. And none of those situations contradict the God I found. Whichever path you choose to follow, keep going with it. As long as you are true to yourself, you will arrive at a place you will feel proud of. I found personal proofs that are hard to replicate in others, they were very circumstantial and if you don't live something similar, it will not help at all. And why would you believe what I say I experienced? One thing I can say, when I talked to a friend who was raised Atheist telling me that he went to the UK and practiced yoga and meditation, I told him, but you are atheist right? And he said: yes, but there was no religious background, as if he were justifying his actions. I replied, but regardless of the religious background, that path will take you out of atheism, especially to someone honest like you. A week later while having coffee, he told me that I was right, that he doesn't know details, but now he knows there's something out there, he feels ashamed to confess it, especially to his family. This was a very hard, yet gratifying transition to him. As a mathematician, he finds it hard to reach these conclusions without hard facts. But he could not deny what he experienced. My message to atheists is: God might not be what you think, you don't have to believe in God to be happy or to be close to God. You don't have to acknowledge God, or abide your life by a set of rules someone tells you describe God. Just keep your eyes open, you might see God there. And never stop questioning because sometimes our eyes deceive us. Stay true to yourself. And try to be the best version of yourself (whatever that means to you). My message to Christians-based person (Catholics, etc...). When discussing with atheists, remember they don't accept the Bible like you do. So anything you quote from it will mean nothing to them. Instead, abstract the teachings, and find the core of your beliefs, be prepared to be challenged and seek inspiration when answering. You might be surprised of what comes out of your mouth. Just keep questioning everything you see and hear, because we might be deceived easily. And stay true to yourself.
5:45 I plaid his honesty, I was on his position when I posed myself this question, not immediately I could say yes, but thinking of what truth means, so to be honest with my own self I would accept the truth if truth is true.
Its more a problem of what is ment by "become a christian" for me. If it means "Wopuld you believe it it were true" then yes, of course. But if it m,eans "WOuld you follow the rules and bow down to god" then absolutely not. That god is an evil sob. By my standard, by the bibles standard, and likely by your standard aswell. I dont believe because its clearly not true. I wouldn't follow because your god is evil. These are 2 separate issues and its very dishonest of Frank to try and conflate them.
@@DrSauce If the bible is to be believed, than your god has commited atrocious evils. and continues to do so. My my standar, by the bibles standard, by most other religious books' standards, and likely by your standard aswell.
I find that pause after the end question interesting…… It’s like he’s bombarded with so many questions instantly (and he is). What is the right answer? What would this mean for my life? How would this change my life? Should I be honest with my answer? What would I have to give up in order to do this? Would I honestly even consider doing this? What would my friends think of me? What would society think of me? Is this a trick question? Do I really want to know if it’s true? Can I get out of answering this question?
I suggest the main question he's asking himself is, "How come this guy gets away with asserting, "It's magic" but *I'm* required to provide a description of the whole of the evolutionary history of consciousness, reasoning, and the functioning of the brain?"
@@sandina2cents779 I too would have been left befuddled if I'd asked a question, and got 20 in return. Even worse, if my question isn't answered. Turek's assertions that "this computer is designed - that's why we can trust it" and that "DNA is a software programme" are patently absurd. But he gets away with it by distracting the audience and suggesting the questioner is naive because *he* can't answer questions like how does brain chemistry generate thought, how physical laws lead to language and where the genetic code "comes from". Turek has no idea himself, of course. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that his audience thinks he's "beaten" the "enemy".
Textbook argument from ignorance. "I can't understand how a brain works; therefore, it must be magic..." it amazes me that Turek has been an apologist this long and still doesn't understand that nor what atheism is...
Since when was God magic? It is completely logical to postulate, test , validate or believe in God if the evidence fits. And yes it does if you don't have a philosophical barrier applied to science and reasoning.
Desperately in need of answers so if I pretend hard enough it’s true. Atheist doesn’t answer any questions because they simply don’t believe your claim of a magical deity. Religion holds zero answers because it’s not supposed to ask anything it just requires you to believe period. That’s not the reason religion exists and frank lost his way because he needs to earn money for himself and his family. I know why religion is what it is but it’s kind of a secret.
Good question. . The answer lies is what is the "self?" If the thing we perceive as "self" is just a response to the chance collection of chemicals in our skulls, then our thoughts are not independent and are just manifestations of our chemical makeup. However, if there is "something more" to the self than physical reality, then it is possible that we are not solely responding to our chemical makeup and can have thoughts that are independent of physical reality. . Example, I could ask if you freely asked your question, or if your chemical make up forced you to ask it.
@@sidwhiting665 Our subconscious mind makes decisions for us before our conscious mind is even aware of it. This has been tested. Either way, it’s not really the ‘self’ or ‘I’ making these decisions but something ‘outside’ of it, out of my conscious control-regardless of whether the thing doing the actual deciding is my ‘soul’/‘spirit’, or if it comes from the neuro-chemical matrix of my brain. We can’t ’measure’ a soul empirically. We can, however, measure brain activity. This is a problem neuroscience can investigate. What religion attempts to do, however, is to just put a band-aid on the problem as a quick solution, to make us feel better.
Let's be real - I've seen arrogance run both ways in worldview conversations. Even though I don't think I would consider Dr. Turek to be at the forefront of philosophy, I don't think the _real_ arrogance is coming from guys like him. He is a seasoned scholar who has had a lot of practice working through the fundamental, generalized questions that he gets asked over and over again in public. There isn't a question that he is being asked in these Q&A sessions that he hasn't already wrestled with himself dozens (if not hundreds) of times from different perspectives in order to answer the more nuanced and contextual questions that run even deeper. There are plenty of questions that these men and women would admit they can't directly answer - if you asked the question the right way with the right pretext. Otherwise, they are general questions that they are not particularly challenged to answer. You would see the same air of confidence from an atheist philosopher who has defended his ideas for years and I don't think it's fair to suggest that there's anything specially arrogant about that. The demonstrable arrogance that I see is routinely from those who _profess_ to understand but do not (and, more to the point - _will_ not). In short - laypeople trying to be apologists. Believers and non-believers alike, unfortunately.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that laypeople (like me) cannot have conversations - they just need to be willing to admit when they've reached the limit of their understanding. Usually, it's right around the same time that you've felt yourself dig your heels in. ;)
Arguing with a non-woke person is totally different. This conversation is very satisfying. There is respect in the conversation. The guy is an atheist but he is respectful.
I feel like between Christians and atheist atheist seem to have more reason. Some not all approach with an idk attitude while Christins approach with I know all the answers but they really don’t know either cause the truth is no one really does.
If Christian’s say they know the right answer and Atheist are saying they don’t know the right answer you couldn’t know the wrong answer unless you knew the right answer. When someone says 2 + 2 is 9 you know they don’t know what they are talking about becuase you know the right answer is 2.
@@TheREbelAlliance324 because you can’t you can claim but no one knows the truth .. can you prove someone knows the truth ? No no one can so the only truth to it is no one knows the truth
The main point is that we dont know many things as humans. We know that we dont know most things for certain. Everyone lives in faith actually, the question is what or who do we put our trust and faith in.
A guy who believes in ghosts, demons, angels, talking serpents, talking donkeys, and human sacrifice is going to try to tell me who is reasonable and who isn't? Oh my Buddha, the irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Religion is the sworn enemy of Reason. If you are susceptible to manipulative lies about impossible supernatural beings and phenomena, guilt, shame, and fear...you will become religious. If you are susceptible to reason... you will tend toward Atheism.
My eye is a camera. Cameras are made by Kodak. Therefore, my eye was made by Kodak. If we use word X to describe Y, and Y is made by humans, then everything else we describe with word X must have also been made by an intelligent being. Makes perfect sense. This guy should get the Nobel prize for proving God's existence.
The question that the quote provokes is; if structure came out of chaos can we trust chaos? There are some outliers but generally the answer is no. So if chaos cannot be trusted then there had to something that was structured that created structure.
That's as ridiculous as what he said your eye is not a camera it performs similar functions that's all. There is no proof that god exists even the devoutest christian will tell you it's a matter of faith!
@@Praying_Mantis3 "if structure came out of chaos" There is no "chaos", technically, just different kinds of structure. "can we trust chaos" You can trust chaos to be chaos, you can trust structure to be structure, you can trust stones to be stones, you can trust humans to be humans, you can trust minds to be minds, you can trust senses to be senses. What other kind of "trust" would you expect?
@@Mannwhich "only an intelligence can make another intelligence" Is that conclusion actually based on anything? Because we can make a thing from another thing, that's demonstrable. More than that, things become other things all the time without our help, too, that's also demonstrable. Even more than that, there doesn't seem to be anything that DOESN'T change into another thing, given enough time. So why do you say that intelligence can only come from intelligence?
This is great. I remember the professor in a theology class I took saying that a dog can be really “smart,” and well trained, but if a dog is flying to China, he doesn’t spend the flight wondering if Chinese fire hydrants are just like the ones at home. This is because he has no immaterial aspect to his being.
Flying a plane is a really complicated process that requires a lot of concentration - the dog doesn't have time to think about fire hydrants. In all seriousness though, No, it's because the dog's brain is not as complex as the human brain, and so cannot operate at a high enough cognitive level to comprehend such things. The term 'immaterial aspect to his being' is something that doesn't really mean anything, though promises a lot. We know the material exists. The idea of the immaterial is something you need to demonstrate to be taken seriously.
Your wrong to say such a thing because you are not a dog or that doesufic dog so you don't know what he thinks about. An inescapable truth. Humans are always so arrogant that they think they know what animals think. It's so rediculous.
3:12 Not random, but Turek will never admit that. Mutations are random, the traits that are most likely to survive are not. A brain that can derive conclusions accurate to reality reliably are more likely to survive. Period, no need to go further. Evolution explains the reliability of the human brain perfectly. Mind you, it still fails a lot of time. It just works reliably most of the time. Which begs the question, why did a perfect God create humans with faulty reasoning?
@@Golfinthefamily Macroevolution is change at or above the specie level. We have verified speciation events before. You don't seem to understand that our minds are no different than your idea of a disembodied mind if it is a product of our brain. It still functions practically the same.
@@akoskormendi9711 You defined macroevolution... but nothing has changed kind observationally. In fact, we have evidence of the opposite...after 30 years ecoli was still ecoli.... after generations and generations...fruit flies were still fruit flies... macroevolution is a false conflation. You literally cannot prove it to be true. You have a faith position.
@@littlebitofhope1489 I don't believe that a pond of sludge got struck by lightning and became intelligent beings who could go to space... Your caricature of God is quite telling. You should really read some better atheists at least.
After the endless yakking, the only thing that is honest is God has left us in the lurch. Science has and is bringing light to the darkness, while we have to contend with thousands of years of ignorance from the bible. If you say God is who you say he is, then no more talking, shut up and prove it. The time has come. Prove what you contend or sit silent while mankind slowly unravels the mysteries.
@@oreally8605 You mean gods choice, he made me. I am his responsibility. He already knows what i am gonna choose, he knew before he created me and did it anyway. If i go to hell i blame god.
@@oreally8605 "On earth 🌎 or in Hell sadly... ( Your choice)" Okay, I've made the conscious decision not to go to Hell. Now what? Just as an FYI, petty threats unsupported by evidence don't work.
Problems with the argument is that trust is a relationship between us and what we are working with. We actually trust through experience not design. And we trust through probability rather than absolutes. That was Hawkings great contribution. Secondly explaining and understanding are traits necessary for the mind not for the world around us. We need to understand to make sense of our world and our understandings don't even need proof to be useful to us (case in point watts which is not a scientific concept of actual electricity measurement yet we use it as if it is). If we need trust in order to prove design then we are restricted to the limits of our own minds to prove any point. Is that a safe place to reason from?
If Frank's question is how can we know what we know, there is a field of philosophy that is dedicated to this answer called epistemological. Religion is not the only answer that is out there.
The reason we know things is grounded on the reality of God. Atheists have no basis to trust brains let alone anything else. Talking about epistemology when you can't trust your brain is empty.
Well, I'm not an atheist, but the "I don't know" answer is a valid response. Ignorance does not mean there is no answer. That is just a personal statement of one's own extent of knowledge. I will be the first to admit that the human mind is a brilliant thing and that not everything can be understood from an empirical perspective, there is a mystical element to human existence. However, even if there was a mystical force that propelled human life, we have not established that this is even the same force written in theology and the various religious books throughout history. We don't know if, for example, God just created earth and humanity and left it there. No commandments, no authority, no afterlife, no prophets, no messiahs, etc. Just as equally, we cannot trust our mind to be the product of accidents without proof, we cannot trust the idea that there was a design in mind either. We can trust that we just are. I do believe atheism is a form of neuroticism, don't get me wrong, but there are many beliefs out there that can facilitate the mind or brains abstract need for meaning and purpose.
@@justin10292000 i never said i didn't want answers, but that the questions were more important than the answers. Some answers we can not know definitively. Some answers are designed to stifle questions. They are based on an unquestionable authority. "It says in the Bible..." is not a good answer. From a question should come a testable hypothesis. Faith relies on the authority of ancient texts, not on provable data. Sure, there may well be a creator God who requires blind faith, but there is absolutely no evidence for such a being. There is no evidence for an afterlife. Why should we have an afterlife? But why should humans get an eternity with their ancestors? why not cows? Or insects? "it says in the bible..." so what?
As a Christian, I don’t really understand this argument. For an atheist, couldn’t they just say laws of physics are just pattern recognition? They just see how things interact, they never don’t interact that way, so then it becomes a law. (Again I’m a strong Christian, I just don’t really see how this is a strong argument for god)
But that would be viciously circular, would it not? That's assuming that the future will always be like the past, because, to the best of your knowledge, the future has always been like the past. But just because in your experience it has been doesn't mean that it will be. How does one know that things won't change in the future?
@@jessebryant9233 wow you went right there did ya. And I’d course there’s the rudeness. Tell ya. Why don’t you agree to state your position and make a case for it and I’ll do the same. What do you say? Because what you said isn’t true at all. You should also explain why and how there isn’t a case for my position, after all, yore the one saying there isn’t. Back it up. Explain how there isn’t one and then explain to us what there is one for.
…that’s blatantly false, and multiple studies have shown that scientists worldwide are less religious than the general population of their country, with very few exceptions
We trust our thought from previous experience. That’s why your level of confidence in what you are thinking on varies depending on subject. This man would not trust his thoughts on something like how to instal an hvac system in his house. He speaks confidently when talking about his focus points on god because he studies it. He studies religion just like a science. And trusting your thoughts doesn’t make you right. Remember when Christmas burned women for being witches, denied the existence of dinosaurs, or thought the sun revolves around the earth?
so.... Truth is not found with god it is found in jesus christ alone ? WOW.. CLEARLY PEOPLE SHOULD LISTEN TO YOU also why is your comment not "Very respectful young man, Trying to seek for answers, May he find the answers he's looking for" why did god have to be part of this ? but i suppose since you don't have a solid understanding of how the religion works, anything you say is going to be acceptable right and others have to listen to it Tell me this WHEN DO CHRISTIANS START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR WORDS ?
One of the best around - he, Bill Craig and Whaddo You Meme are the three I credit most with breaking down my barriers to faith and letting the Spirit do His thing and bring me to the faith 😊
OK.....repeat to yourself: Because a person can't answer a question in exquisite detail DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD DID IT. Until religious apologists can DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR GOD IS THE CAUSE OF MINDS, it's perfectly ok to be skeptical. Frank insists that existence and natural law is a "software program". How does he know this? He insists that DNA is a "message". How does he know this?
@@Golfinthefamily I'm not sure if I understand the question but I generally think that most "knowledge" is provisional. I try to always leave open the possibility that more might be revealed about most subjects. Does that answer your question?
@@drumrnva Have you studied how complex DNA is? How about the immune system? How deep the solar system is? But that all happened by chance, right? Let’s be real sir
@@jfast787 I don't know if anything happened "by chance", and I never said that. I have no reason to think "by chance" and the Christian god are the only two possible explanations. Yes, DNA is complex. Life on earth apparently started with very simple forms.
Frank is a perfect example of “circumlocution, or shall we use filibustering?” The art of Speak A lot, Without Saying Anything Substantial. He is like many religious people and in the same league as dubious politicians and dishonest business people. Frank
I think the key take away from this is "I don't know". Our limited perception of reality doesn't allow us to know and there's nothing wrong with that. The consciousness realm of reality doesn't abide by the physical realm that we live in, and to me it's disingenuous to use the Bible and faith as a matter of fact when the underlying truth is that, we don't know. Atheist can't claim to know just as much as Christians can't claim to know.
Common question among Christians: if there are laws of nature, then who wrote them? It's their way of trying to prove the existence of God, but it really doesn't hold up. We think of them as "laws" in human terms because that is the best human way to come to terms with the way the world works.
In other words, regardless if every star is totally different, a super nova explosion does not give us prescriptive information....no matter how many heavy elements we possess.
Basically he's making an argument from ignorance. "If we cant explain it then it must be what I believe, but cant prove" assuming there are no other possibilities within the unknown.
@@BJtheMountaineerguy How do you get an intelligent designer without a more intelligent designer to design the intelligent designer? And how do you get a more intelligent designer without an even more intelligent designer to design the more intelligent designer? Let me guess, you are going to invoke some sort of special pleading. You are going to say that your god doesn't need a designer. Well if that is true, then why can't we also say the universe doesn't need a designer either? Whatever you can say about your god can also be said about the universe. Gee, for some reason I don't feel shut down as you suggested in your OP.
@@Generatorman59 The same thing can't be said about the universe because the universe isn't intelligent, you need a spirit to be able to design.. God has no beginning or end, God is infinite..
Quite literally evolution answers most of his questions. Evolution not over 10 years or 100 years, over 3.8 billion years. In that amount of time, random mutations have made bacteria become humans, but it's not happened in 1 step, it has happened over thousands of steps and small mutations. Homo Sapiens as a species are relatively new, only 300,000 years ago. There has been 12,000x the amount of time before humans came to be, so clearly it is possible. We have conversation because neurons fire in our brain and create signals, that give us the ability to speak. There are also general laws of nature in physics, yes. But why people are different is because the different pattern of firing neurons. There are no physical laws that limit the firing of a neuron in a specific pattern. A book written by humans that came out of an esoteric Jewish sect is not the law of nature. You cannot quote the bible as a reliable source of information. Why is say your god true, but not Allah, but not Hindu gods. There are religions older than Christianity who claim to have the whole truth, yet there is no empirical evidence. I can say there is gravity, but all that connotes is that there is some force acting on my body that makes it accelerate at 9.81ms^-2 because of rigorous testing, not because a book said so.
Quite literally Evolution doesn't answer any of his questions - the reason you can say so is because you haven't heard what he said. Actually, let me make a correction - Frank didn't actually make the whole argument but of course your answer for anything is "Evolution", so I'm not that sure that it matters whether Frank made the actual argument or not. I've always wanted to ask a thorough going evolutionist about evolution - at its most basic, evolution is RM-NS (Random Mutation)-(Natural Selection). The thing that I don't understand at these two terms - Random, Natural. Why is the mutation random? How can you tell? Secondly, what is natural? Is that just a round about way of saying random again or saying that the same set of events/causes are just termed random and natural arbitrarily? Without defining these terms random and natural - it doesn't matter that there's 3.8 billion years or 500 billion years, impossible events will never happen, highly improbably events will almost likely never happen and so on. Another assumption that I see evolutionists making in their just-so stories is 1 step (say abiogenesis) followed by 1000 other steps - the assumption that is always inserted here is conservation. There's no reason to conserve the step made, the step can move forward one and then move backward two. There's no need for aggregation at all (i.e. aggregation of all these steps that are beneficial but absolutely necessary) in evolution -it's undirected, purposeless and meaningless. So there's no need for conservation of things that get aggregated - you can conserve a 100 beneficial steps but then the next 10 steps just return it back to zero. So why this conservation being introduced with a sleight of hand?
@@ajsirch so because you don't understand Evolution very well it's false? All the most brilliant biologists in the world accept it no problem. Are you calling them wrong? Evolution is a scientific theory, it'll be quite the task to falsify/ debunk...
I think people gloss over that last question he always asks to these reasonable people. "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?" He's asking this because if they say yes then he knows they are of sound mind whereas someone who says no is just trying to prove themselves right even if they know they are wrong. Those are the people who can't be saved because they don't want to be saved even if they know they need saved. A captain going down with his ship even though he knows there's no possible good outcome of him doing this
Not necessarily somebody(s) may accept Christianity as being true but refuse it because they don't like its philosophy. I saw this answer on You Tube once.
Dear God, pun intended, the amount of logical fallacies and nonsensical questions this speaker is asking. The student tried his best, but he was also probably very nervous and struggled to maneuver around some if these gotcha questions that serve as nothing but publicly acts.
We atheist subscribe to nature and the universe while believers subscribe to their imagination which makes them overpowered like for example using the God of the gaps. There might be a God or not for all we know but I'm 90% sure there isn't the real question is even if there is a God who is it? The universe doesn't need a why answer to it because it only needs a how why answers are for our satisfaction or to suit ourselves but realizing that all you need to know is how the universe came into existence or how it function. And save the why for your kids when they come back late at home.
@@T.One_way Dude, I have studied it. You haven't studied the historicity of Jesus. You made that clear. You then audaciously claim that Jesus is NOT Lord-- without evidence at all to the contrary. You have put forth no good evidence for your claim other than you think resurrection is a fantastic claim and hard to believe (which I would agree). So... it is a miracle for a reason... people don't go to death for something they KNOW is a lie. -- I think your projection is telling. It seems you have a hardened heart and want to come off as astute or thoughtful but really you aren't open to looking or searching it out.
@@Golfinthefamily Bro when did I say all of this why straw man me. And also I was a Christian before becoming an atheist after seeing how the new testament forces itself into the old testament.
@@T.One_way whoops on regards to the red herrings...I'm commenting back on several threads... seriously...sorry for that. I have studied evolution... it says that the main creating force is random mutation via natural selection... genetic variation leads to changes in traits with a vast majority of them being detrimental or degrading. Darwinists believe that somehow through all of these cosmic accidents...somehow we got a genetic code with millions of character, we got the eye, etc... The Cambrian explosion demonstrates there isn't enough time specific complexity shows us there is no gradual process to the complexity we see Observation and testing has always demonstrated an organism remaining the same kind of organism (ecoli remains ecoli, fruit flies remain fruit flies... etc.) Macroevolution is an unsubstantiated conflation of genetic change. It cannot be proven. Christianity is true. Jesus rose from the dead. I'd be curious to know how you feel like the New Testament forces itself into the New Testament.. that is quite a claim that I'd like to have evidence for. Grace and peace to you.
3:48 Neuro. Science. Apologists love to pretend they know what they talk about don't they? The brain is a biological machinery that has a lot of capabilities. One of which is conversation.
@@akoskormendi9711 Here is your answer, it’s silly to say the solar system all the way down to molecules and DNA happened by chance, be honest: Me: so you’re an atheist? Atheist: yes Me: why don’t you believe in God? Atheist: Because I don’t believe in fairy tales Me: So who created the universe? Atheist: it came from nothing Me : 🤣😂
@@benjasabukid2321 A Christian's ability to try do dictate what I believe never ceases to amaze me. Hit me up when you are actually ready for a honest conversation
@@benjasabukid2321 Already doing that. I don't think you understand how ironic it is that you talk about me having an ego while thinking that you know me better than me. If you think I deny God because it would be a big inconvinience in my life you are sorely mistaken. You don't deny Allah because you want women to not be covered up head to toe, do you? Well, I don't deny God either because anything it would entail. The evidence is not only lacking, for a few versions, there is evidence against it.
It makes me happy to see those at least skeptical or open enough to see some of the light. There are so many "scientific" assumptions that get made when saying something like "this evolved from this". Unfortunately most don't even bother to think of the implications accepting things at face value. Just because someone went to school and studied the origin of the universe and say got a degree in it, doesn't mean it warrants their opinion to the "right" or "correct". At least on the bases of age the earth and evolution talking billions of years, many cannot come to admitting that it's false or is unknown. Despite being able to to say "I don't know" to many other subjects they don't actually know about. Well why is it so hard to question "science" on a timeframe that no one alive today was present for (if millions of years existed). No one has ever seen a universe form, been alive long enough to see a star form, seen chemicals make the building blocks of life, then assemble them into life. We do not have a rational reason to say anything came from nothing. Which is why we know this is a spiritual battle. Logic and reason completely go out the window with the billions of years and evolution claims that absent a textbook that "says so", no one would say it makes sense.
@@johnharrison6745 I'd recommend less WLC and more actual science. "At least on the bases of age the earth and evolution talking billions of years, many cannot come to admitting that it's false or is unknown" That will be because of the preponderance of evidence supporting the age of the Earth to a high degree of accuracy as well as the likes of genetics to support evolutionary theory. You know who does have a hard time saying "I don't know"? Apologists like Frank Turek. He pretends to know. His career depends on pretending he does know.
@@paulcooper1223 In spite of the fact that your post was so poorly written that it was almost incoherent, I'm pretty sure that I DID get the gist of it. 😏 "I'd recommend more real science": Sweet 'Em's, I've probably FORGOTTEN more about science than YOU'LL EVER know. The guy who "mentored" me out of my own real, actual atheism [as opposed-to the "atheism" of Dawkins fan-club types] holds a doctorate in applied-physics from Stanford; and, his wife holds a doctorate in astrophysics from Rice. Both have had *STELLAR* careers; both are the kind of scientist that the VAST majority of other scientists would give their right-arm AND left-leg to be. And, they're both CONVINCED, DEDICATED Christians. [so you can just "ROUND-FILE" your POSTURING and POSING regarding "science" when it comes-to me; you might as well be fighting a tank with a stick 😏] "less W.L.C.": You say that because he positively HUMILIATES your "champions". 🤪 "age of the Earth": Did I strike you as being a Young Earth creationist? I have as much contempt for that silliness as anyone. Young Earth creationism and anti-theism/New-Atheism are just the obverse and reverse of the same COUNTERFEIT coin. 😉 "evolutionary theory": I'm happy to tell you or anyone else that it's essentially indisputable that biological-life has existed on this planet for billions of years [what's the best-estimate now; 3.7 billion years?], and, that it's been changing a lot during that time. 🤷 "admitting that it's false or unknown": It would, indeed, be improper to admit that it's false, because it hasn't been demonstrated to be false; but, unknown? There's A LOT of circumstantial evidence for biological-life having been going-through 'evolution' through various forms of mutation and selection, since it first came-to-be on this planet; but, the fact is, it wasn't observed and recorded over all of those 'eons', and, it hasn't been tested, repeated, verified, and reproduced in the lab; so, it wouldn't be so improper to say that it's unknown. [because that's what real, actual science is 😉] Your calumnies about "Frank": He makes you people look like the damaged pseudo-intellectuals that you are, all the time; and, you're backside-burned about it. 🤪
@@johnharrison6745 There was nothing incoherent about my reply. It says a lot when you have to resort to petty insults. The old "I used to be an atheist" routine doesn't impress me. How did science make you believe in a god? Where is any god mentioned in science? They're dedicated Christians and scientists. What's your point? Frank Turek isn't a scientist. He also denies science like the theory of evolution. Do you also deny evolutionary theory? Is that the part of science you forgot? Apart from making you look arrogant, I'm not sure why you'd claim to have forgotten more about science than what I know when you don't know what I know about science... WLC is also not a scientist but loves to opine on subjects he knows nothing about. Which of my "champions" does he humiliate? He didn't humiliate Sean Carroll who had to school him on theoretical physics and cosmology. WLC has made a few comments as of late which has made him a laughing stock on some skeptic TH-cam channels, particularly the statement about how he would still believe even if there was evidence which contradicts his belief because of his personal witness of the Holy spirit while dismissing the personal experiences of other theists who don't share his beliefs. A nice example of special pleading there. Then there's also the time he said Christians should be lowering their standards of evidence rather than raising them, and how if there was just a one-in-a-million chance it was sufficient for him to believe. He's just another apologist who preaches to the choir and his arguments are merely designed to convince him his belief is correct. Your arguments are no better than that of a young earth creationist. No such thing as "new atheism" when atheism is just a non-belief in a god. Comparing it to young earth creationism is a false equivalence. You don't have to reproduce something in a lab for it to be accurate. We don't reproduce black holes in a lab. Does that mean they don't exist? Of course not. Science is about producing accurate models of reality with predictive power. In regards to evolutionary theory, it works in harmony with genetics which has gathered a preponderance of evidence to support it, from examining Chromosome number 2 in chimps and humans to conclude we share a common ancestor with them and the other great apes along with the presence of ERVs in the same places in chimps and humans to further support common ancestry. That and the fossil record, geology, palaeontology, astronomy... Is this also the science you forgot? Frank isn't taken seriously by anyone but his fanboys who parrot his arguments and end up looking foolish. A science denying apologist. Probably your hero.
@@paulcooper1223 Your initial post was QUITE incoherent; it WAS poorly written. I didn't employ the 'I used-to-be an atheist routine'; I gave you a LITTLE HINT about how much I know. I didn't say that science MADE me believe-in god; what I IMPLIED was that a couple of the creme' "day" la creme' of scientists think that you and yours are "we Todd's". 🤪 I've NEVER heard Dr. T 'deny the theory of evolution'; and, I couldn't care less either way about his positions/beliefs regarding it. I don't deny "evolutionary theory". In fact, I regard it as being one of the best-supported scientific theories in existence. The probability that you know no more about science than the typical anti-theist/New-Atheist whom I've chatted-with [ *LOTS* ] is VERY HIGH. 99.9999% of the time, the "atheist" I'm talking-with is some pretentious, pompous, posing little smart-person-wannabe, who thinks that he's well-informed about biology, cosmology/cosmogony, and theoretical/quantum physics, because he's spent an inordinate amount of time 'rubbing one out' while watching Nat. Geo., Discovery, Professor Dave Explains, Physics Girl, Dawkins/Sam-Harris/Lawrence-Crass, etc. 'Which of your "champions" did W.L.C. humiliate?' TAKE YOUR PICK. 'Sean Carroll'? Did you ever watch the FOLLOW-UP videos on that? Gimme break..... Seeing-as I have UTTER CONTEMPT for the so-called "skeptics" on TH-cam, their laughter is of about as much consequence to me as the noise mosquitoes' wings. 🤪 Yeah; I know Dr. Craig 'recommended' persistence in belief-in-Christ in-the-face-of 'evidence that contradicted it'. WHAT ABOUT IT? Yeah; I heard-about Dr. Craig saying what he said about 'standards of evidence'. WHY SHOULD 'Christians raise their standards of evidence'? No; Dr. Craig is, as Dr. Sam Harris said, 'the one apologist who puts the fear-of-god into his [Sam's] colleagues'. I haven't made any arguments; I've just stated relevant facts. No; the assertion that 'atheism is just a lack of belief in god' is a LIE that was pushed by Antony Flew and some of his contemporaries/colleagues back in the Day, to make atheists seem more harmless and innocuous than they actually are. The reality is, atheism is the position that deity/divinity probably doesn't exist; and, anti-theism/New-Atheism is a bunch of damaged misfits who engage-in a constant "war" of baloney-propaganda and frivolous litigation against every vestige/reminder of Christianity/belief-in-god. I didn't say that 'you have to reproduce something in a lab for it to be accurate'; I said that for something to be really, actually scientifically-proven, it has to testable, repeatable, reproducible, and verifiable.That's what separates real, actual science from disciplines that just employ some of the methods/aspects/products of real, actual science... science-RELATED disciplines like "geology, paleontology, and astronomy". No; what "science is about" is investigation of physical reality through the use of the most accurate and reliable methods, rules, and tools available. Yes; humans share *A LOT* of genetic material with 'the other great apes'. And,the science-RELATED disciplines that you listed CAN be APPEALED-TO to support common ancestry there. Now, PROVE (through a process that's testable, repeatable/reproducible, verifiable, and that produces HARD results [i.e., REAL ,ACTUAL SCIENCE]) that "evolution did it". [go on; I "promise", I'll wait 😉] Dr. T is taken-seriously enough that the comment-section under his videos, and his campus events, are always FULL-of anti-theists/New-Atheists, absolutely FOAMING and FLAILING (and FAILING utterly) to "defeat" him. 😉 Now; got any more fistfuls of you-know-what to fling-at me, "Science" Man? 🤪
Frank is saying to the young man something akin to - "Explain how the mind comes to be and unless you can, therefore God". But God does not explain how our minds come to exist either. "God" is just a word. "God did it" is just an assertion. The young man can easily make a counter assertion - “Mind emerges from states of the brain”. We do at least know that brains and brain states exist.
Religion has an ending of thier story about our origin or reality, but science is like catching up through the intire universe.. Thats why its always behind, but more realistic than the mystical powers of Gods...
@@jessebryant9233 if my brain was designed. It was done so poorly, just like the rest of my body. I can only trust my brain as much as i can. What that means is my brain has the capacity to be reliable but isnt always. So i need to be conscious about my brain tricking me.
@@troyhenry6111 Done poorly according to whose or what standard and how do you know that? How do you know that your brain has the capacity to be reliable? Are you not aware of how viciously circular your thinking in here? And are you saying that there is an immaterial mind behind your brain? Are you a brain or do you use a brain to think?
Atheism is just the ability to use logic to say "This man-made concept of a god doesn't exist". Atheism IS logic and reasoning, beleiving in a deity isn't.
@@sapphirelane1714 huh? Of course not. Having all the answers would at minimum require infinite data, which I don't have. So without faith there are plenty of questions that I can't currently answer. Infinitely many in fact.
@@sapphirelane1714 Atheism is a _position_ on but one issue - the theistic claim that a god exists - and requires no faith. This position simply states the individual is not convinced of the claim because such claim has not met its burden of evidence. And no. Atheism doesn't propose ANY answers. Atheism is the position of suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. Wouldn't you agree?
I'm not sure what I gained from this video... So if we can trust our mind because it designed, who designed the designer? Can we then trust that designer's mind who in turn had no designer? I'm not sure that a computer analogy helps. Computers and their software are full of bugs and sometimes cannot be always be trusted (If we could, I'd still be running my Windows 95 PC! 😁 ) I honestly don't feel that you can convince people of something that they already have some sort of sense of or have accepted evidence of... I find these sorts of discussions fascinating, but ultimately the vast majority of people go home and continue the way they were... One thing I have always wondered - would I have a concept of God, if nobody had ever mentioned it? Obviously, I'll never know...
@@Thyalwaysseek do you really believe that statement as you wrote it? My understanding is that God has simply always been. The 'law of conservation energy' says that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Energy just is, like God.
The atheist just proved at the end with his response to the question "if Christianity were true would you become a Christian" , that it is not a matter of evidence it is a matter of morality, humility and surrender. In his hesitation he was thinking am I ready to give up my selfish lifestyle, for what is deemed to be the truth.
False. Which denomination or version of Christianity? Which books are and aren’t included in the Bible? Is it to be taken literally or figuratively? These are important things Frank leaves out.
@@therick363 The one that follows Christ. The one that says Jesus is our savior and we must repent and ask him to save us. So every Christian. The rest is secondary issues.
@@mastershake4641 well that’s not correct. Those aren’t secondary issues at all. They are obviously important ones. After all, why aren’t all the “books” in each Bible? Why are some excluded?
Even for Christians that realization and the surrender that comes with it is insanely hard. We want to cling to what we have, but in the end it’s that clinging that will be our downfall. It’s really horrible to give up everything because it’s all we know, but doing so is the only way to be with our Father and that is a feeling unlike anything we can imagine here in earth.
Proposing a mind that has no physical body as Turek is doing is not just absurd it requires proof because never have we found a mind that does not have a physical brain. We have never needed god as an explanation.
I’m always amazed that people say ‘yes’ when asked if they would become a Christian! Indicates a true thirst for knowledge, and a willingness to face the implications of the evidence before them.
If I were convinced that the claims of Christianity were true, I wouldn't have a choice but to acknowledge and become a Christian. But I have yet to encounter ANY evidentiary facts or sound arguments that suggest the claims of the bible are true. Are YOU aware of ANY evidentiary facts or sound arguments that demonstrate the god of Christianity is a reality? Yes or no.
Just another clip of a guy apologizing for a deity who can’t seem to do it on its own. I mean, really… why in the world would a maximally great being need to be argued for? It’s like if we would need apologists to get people to eat and poop.
When did physical laws start "creating" responses in conversations? Wow, that is a solid and dishonest misrepresentation of what physical laws are and can do. As well as a solid attempt to shoehorn in "a creator" into the conversation.
@@christopherhearn4309 The whole argument is that nature doesn't form complex things but the student gives an example of a skull image being formed from waves and it is quickly dismissed in a panic.
@@terry9819 Okay. I would agree with Frank's take that this is not a very good example of something that is complex. For example, an image that kind of looks like a skull is nothing compared to the DNA in the human body and how it works. There are many other examples of complexity in nature, and it seems very hard to believe that they are formed by random chance.
He really doesn’t know he just doesn’t want to say that. So he is dancing in any direction he can. So Frank keeps returning to the same point because he is doing that.
Personally, I think we have more reason to trust our minds if they had evolved naturally and were subject to the laws of nature, than if our minds had been designed by some supernatural puppet master. If a creator God had "designed" our mind, then how could I trust my mind at all? Would I not constantly have to question whether or not whatever I perceived or thought had not been planted there on purpose? Think about it for a second; if you object and say that the God you believe in wouldn't do such a thing, because he loves us or wants us to have "free will" or whatever, how could you know that thought had not been "designed" into your mind by this deity? The whole idea seems like a house of cards that stands or falls with the irrational faith that it just ain't so, even though by definition you could never truly know whether it was so or not. I think that is a much less rational and much more scary notion than the one in which our minds have evolved naturally. On top of that, the evidence also favors natural evolution over supernatural creation.
Nah. If you're honest with yourself, you're still believing in a "supernatural puppet master" either way. "We are here because we were created by an invisible sky daddy" is on the same level as "an aggregation of molecules came together randomly, and magically became alive on their own." Neither is observable in nature, or repeatable in a lab. But one is "science," and the other is "faith." Don't forget that your "magical puppet master" also imprints or "designs" thoughts/behaviors. So you're on the same boat.
@@foxwithtubesox1075 You said: _"Nah. If you're honest with yourself, you're still believing in a "supernatural puppet master" either way."_ I'm sorry, but you will have to explain how nature and evolution can be seen as a "supernatural puppet master". You said: _" "We are here because we were created by an invisible sky daddy" is on the same level as "an aggregation of molecules came together randomly, and magically became alive on their own." "_ I think "magically" is where you are taking a wrong turn. You said: _"Neither is observable in nature, or repeatable in a lab."_ You seem to be under the mistaken impression that original events need to be "repeatable in a lab". They do not. What needs to be repeatable according to the scientific method are the observations and experiments that produce the evidence or data that can falsify or strengthen the hypothesis about the original event. Not the original event itself. You said: _"But one is "science," and the other is "faith." "_ You skepticism is noted. You said: _"Don't forget that your "magical puppet master" also imprints or "designs" thoughts/behaviors. So you're on the same boat."_ I don't understand what you mean.
With such a myopic view of the Creator your conclusion is understandable. Take a look at the infinitely complex, wonderful, wise, powerful world of life and the cosmos and genuinely understand what kind of intelligence and creator is required for such to exit, then your appreciation and awe of the Creator will vastly exceed the average small minded or small visioned religious person.
I'd disagree, most people would believe they have reason, you yourself used it to write this comment, how can reason which is a byproduct of thought which is intern a byproduct of chemistry and physics exist if its guided by mere forces? How can you trust your thoughts and intern your very reason if its guided by non intelligent forces? Not only that but how can reason exist to begin with? That doesn't obviously mean a "God" designed our minds rather that the "mind" is separate from the body and that we lack an understanding of reality, that being "mind" exists independent of the body
Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second.”
Everytime I stumble across one of these religious lectures I am amazed that no one mentions the fact that there is nothing written by "God". I hear and see a whole lot of "His word" or "His teachings" but no one cares to take on the fact that everything was written by men, preached by men and perpetuated through the centuries (and altered) by men.
It isnt the words of a god, its the words of the human men that wrote it. And the talking donkey should be more than enough to show you how false it it.
Christianity never claimed that the Bible was written by God. In fact, it makes it clear that it was written by men. If a king had one of his scribes write a letter for him, and he stamped it with his royal seal, would the letter be any less valid because the king didn't write it with his own hand?
If God exists then what is the difficulty in God using men, guided by him, to writing things using their own giftings and perspectives as a means of conveying a message to those beyond their original audience? I fail to see any difficulty here.
@@foxwithtubesox1075 2 Timothy 3:16 states that all Scripture is God breathed or inspired by God. In 2 Peter, Peter mentions that no prophecy was ever carried out by men, but that man was carried along by the Holy Spirit (and the NT and OT are filled with prophecies). God divinely spoke the words to the authors; they then penned the words but used their own literary nuances and styles to write them.
FREE Download of sermon I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist!: 👉📱cutt.ly/cInI1eo
What a ridiculous frase, to be an Atheist you don't need an ounce of faith.
Seems like using faith must be an insecure reason to believe something.
@@frankcardano4142 NAH 😂
@@fidenful sure you do... you believe in the laws of physics? How about induction? How about something came from nothing? Pssssh, silly atheists.
@@frankcardano4142 well theres reasonable faith, and there is blind faith. Did you ever fly in a plane? Did you know the pilot wasnt going to wreck? Or did you have reasonable faith that he wouldnt.
This guy asking the questions comes across as sensible and humble not ruled by emotion or anger. Good on him.
Yeah hes a great young man like myself! He asked the correct questions. Very nice 👍
The student is humble. He's way ahead of most people already
@@nickjones5435 Name a point fact or argument. Or are you a 13 year old?
Amen. True atheists are humble. God-haters just pretend to be atheists.
@@nickjones5435 LOL! You'll find out. In a Hundred years from now you won't be an atheist. Why not humble yourself and open your mind? no? that is why you are damned. Humble people have open minds and find the truth.
@@Scotty-Z70
I don't "gate god." I just don't believe in any.
@@HellRehab7732 What is "gate god"? is that in Stargate SG-1?
You gotta love the kid. A true scientist, just wants to find the truth.
The atheist?
He doesn’t want the truth he clearly wants to desperately go against the truth.
Even stumbled when being asked if Christianity was true would he be a Christian..
@@daekwonrose3160 truth can be demonstrated, that's where Christianity fails
@@logicalatheist1065 can you demonstrate the big bang theory?
What an awesome kid. Willing to listen, and when he doesn’t know, he simply says, “I don’t know”. Great convo
If you took money out of this entire equation, Frank Turek and Cross Examined would quit in a heartbeat. These aren't real Christians - they're charlatans that saw a financial opportunity through religion and seized upon it.
@@upturnedblousecollar5811 I don't think you're quite making the point that you wanted to. As with most businesses, without money they cease to function. Many travelling evangelists such as Dr. Turek rely heavily on donations that they re-invest into the ministry. Traveling thousands of miles per week to host FREE speeches is not cheap by any means. I'm not sure what money had to do with my first comment, but I wish you the best!
Unlike Frank
@@bigkahuna8823 I think you're typing drivel and presenting it as if it were fact. Like your religion, you didn't show one ounce of proof to prove your claims to be true. And we both know WHY you didn't.
To bad Christains can not do the same.When they do not kow the answer is "Well it must be God " !
I learn so much from these dialogues each time I watch them. Thanks for posting these, Frank & CE team!
me too!!! 😊
The only thing I learn is how dumb atheist arguments are because I hear ones I haven't heard before.
@@lilchristuten7568 and learn how dumb apologists arguments are
Please slow down and consider what Frank is saying carefully. There is a TON of bad reasoning in this conversation, mostly by Frank.
@@incredulouspasta3304 is there bad reasoning or your opinion that it's bad?
Usually it's the calm and respectful skeptic that makes the best arguments.
True, that. The calm ones actually think it through instead of basing it off their emotions and are more likely to accept logical answers even if it goes against their original beliefs
Wow damn it! I have to admit this atheist is respectful and calm with his emotions in checking mate!
I've heard some atheists argue that things such as reason and purpose are just man made constructs. Forgot what else they said along those lines.
Essentially, these things just happened by chance. I'm like - "That's a whole lot of coincidences."
Do you remember how they addressed the the concept in this video of complex coincidences like going to be beach and seeing a full sentence written out? (Like 'John loves Mary's)?
@@briankelly1240 I don't recall. Honestly, it seems like they're somehow fine with some things just being explained away as just coincidences. Not sure how they would argue this one.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I believe that part of the argument they made was the series of coincidences that led to them. Essentially starting from the moment of the Big Bang. That's the condensed summary of what I recall.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 ask them. If you happen upon them that is.
No reason then to understand their reasoning!
The more I watch and listen to Frank the more I understand…..and I’m already a Christian! Thank you for so much!!
I don't bother listening to him at all. I don't do superstitious gibberish
I enjoy the superstitious gibberish
Atheism can’t answer the questions of how and why. When pressed, it’s “we don’t know”. God answers those questions and He’s the only one who can. “We don’t know” must also mean God is just as likely possible but that’s rarely agreed to.
The trouble is that magical pixies also answer the question just as well as any god. Just replace "magical pixies did it" for all of your "god did it" answers and you will see how silly it is.
@@AnotherViewer Silly is having an emotional reaction like yours and pretending that this is a science based rejection of God.
It's not shameful to admit you don't know something. God is just as likely a possible answer as the flying spaghetti monster. You have no evidence
@@festushaggen2563 So, based on your non-answer reply you agree that magical pixies can be a valid substitute for god.
Respectfully, and I'm a Christian, you just made a "God of the gaps" argument. The problem with this is that those gaps are smaller now than they were 100 years ago. And we have every reason to believe will be smaller 100 years from today.
If a computer weren’t designed would it even be a computer?
Yes
@@CaptainFantastic222
How’s that?
@@thomasb4467 By definition, you said its a computer so its a computer.
@@macmac1022 that is honestly silly
@@1Corinthians13.4_7 That's because it's a silly question... Much better question would be: Can there be an undesigned computer? And how would it become to be a computer in the first place?
To God be the glory.
Be a man take responsibility for yourself.
@@brianpeterson8908 We do take responsibility for ourselves, and give God the Glory :)
@@justin10292000 Lies are a penny a dozen dude, none of you take any responsibility for anything, you just lie that you do.
@Brian Peterson we do, but not for ourselves, but for a better relationship with the Heavenly Father.
To Franks sound engineer: please raise the threshold of the noise gate a little and the attack time on the mics. It'll help the sound not chop off so quick and sound more natural.
Lol you must be a sound engineer
@@alexyandell. How'd you guess? 😄 It's been driving me crazy.
@@KeyofGtutorials that drove me nuts but deterred me not from what was being said 😂
Oh, I thought it was just me who hated that. I thought sound enigeers loved this sound more.
@@sherlockhomeless7138 Not one's who know what they're doing lol
So happy that there is people who can articulate so well the complexities and simplicity for God's glory!
Praise Jupiter.
@@harveywabbit9541 huh?
@Harvey Wabbit praise those rocks 😄
I agree completely, but the sad thing is that for every one Christian that hears this, there are thousands more who don't. The leaders in the modern church are 50 to 100 years behind the times as for how to craft a message of truth that resonates in the 21st Century.
@@chrispatterson8210 it is our job to learn from this man and do it too, that is how we have domino effect!
We trust our reasoning based on its ability to give reliable results. I would trust an undesigned computer based on its ability to give reliable results. Our origins are secondary to trusting our reasoning, because what matters is that our reasoning is rational, and reliable. Also notice that the computers we design are entirely physical, so reliable results can be achieved through physical means. Then apply that to us. Recognizing writing in the sand, and a skull in the rocks are both pattern recognition, but the writing is a human construct, and we have past experiences with writing. The distinction between specified complexity and unspecified complexity is arbitrary, and up the the interpreter without further information. If you believe a God created everything, then there is also no distinction, as everything is designed.
How blessed are the ignorants that trust computers... Especially if they have Windows as their OS lol
I agree with what you put in there. Trust is something so subjective and relative. It should not be used as an argument to find truth. What I trust isn't necessary is what others trust. Each of us have different standards when it comes to deciding who or what we trust.
@@dfurda18 Understandable.
@@dfurda18 without mind you cannot do anything, like having faith or believe in a god so if you can´t trust your mind, you can´t even trust faith so the whole argument of this man fails from it´s very core.
@@0shaade0 Your actually making his case. Frank is saying we were created by an intelligent designer who gave us minds. The atheist is saying we don’t have to be designed to be able to find truth and Frank is saying would you trust a computer that wasn’t designed? And the atheist is saying no here and admitting something needs to be designed in order to be reliable. The fact we can reason all this out with our minds and come to the conclusion God exists is more proof there is a God.
@@sean_diddy3262Trusting a computer that was not designed would be poor judgement, as there are computers that are designed, and their designers are known, factually. The difference between that, and trusting a god as a designer, is that there is no evidence of the designer, only the imagined appearance that one might have been there.
One is factual, the other mere faith.
Praise the Lord!! 🙏
Frank, thank you for all you do!! 🙏
How many times has Frank Turek given a speech about Jesus teaching _"Sell all your possessions and give to the poor."_ I'd wager the sum total to be none. (I'm more than willing to be shown evidence where this multi-millionaire has.) All of these American apologists for Christianity are really just trying to sell Jesus to make themselves rich. They don't worship Jesus, they worship the bank balance it brings from selling Jesus. Even this "CrossExamined" fraud is doing it, look at their video description. Money is their real god.
Atheism is the most logical and reasonable position as no god has ever been demonstrated to exist.
You can't prove God, but you can't disprove God either. A deity is just within the realm of possibility
@@JLTrj00913 so there's no reason to believe in gods then .. 😂 lol
So, 10k people were just convinced by a man begging the question. Very nice.
what is logic to a pile of fizzing chemicals...
Stop searing your conscience. God exists, we could all be nonbelievers and God would still be. and you don’t even realize ur being used by evil to make urself and others stumble because your flesh isn’t satisfied by the things of the spirit. To the point where it’s shifted to “should I follow God and his law or not” to “does God exist”. I don’t say this to bash you.
@@Golfinthefamily Chemicals use logic.
@@ntkmw8058 My concern is that we have don't have reason to believe this was true. If we tried to find what is most likely to be true in the world, we'd have no reason to believe in Christianity.
@@gamefreak23788 oh really? Nice.... so, the other question is... if you are floating bag of goo that is just chemically reacting, why can you trust your conclusions?
I appreciate the guy's attitude and desire to seek answers.
What a wonderful conversation! ❤
Sweet destruction of an ape wonnabe :)
@@bishopheahmund3032 bro, be more respectful. Nobody can help how they were indoctrinated from birth, whether from theism or atheism.
@@gangsterg1936 ape is not a rude word for the time worshippers , they proudly claim that they are apes
“Is every star the same?” Can any star decide which way it is going or what direction it may spin?
He has an open mind. I pray he gets the wisdom to see clearly. He'
s a wonderful and humble person.
He lives in reality unlike Frank !
Good conversation. The dude raised real questions and not just atheistic attack points.
Do you believe atheism to be a rationally justified position?
@@Theo_Skeptomai on assuming certain axioms, yes, it can be a rational position.
@@Theo_SkeptomaiIt's probably the only reasonable position when it comes to the supernatural. Other positions all rely on faith, or assumptions, to differing degrees. Atheism just simply says, no evidence no belief. Nothing else implied or wished for. Seems entirely reasonable.
It takes courage amd humility to learn and recognize that you may have been mistaken. That kid seems to have both.
I must say I have to agree with you on that one.
Yes, good on him
UNFORTUNATE THAT FRANK DOESN'T HAVE THAT QUALITY THOUGH
@@mash9809
Agree
Atheism is the most logical and reasonable position
Says the guy who's opinions are biased towards atheism
@@JLTrj00913 which is what? Atheism only means one thing
I was an atheist for most of my life, many things happened that made me believe that there is a creator. Now I have the challenge to search for the truth
@@reality1958
What ever happened to *Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding?*
@@reality1958
That's the trick of the Devil.
The Bible being evil also has been exposed as manipulation lot of times, all it takes is to cherry-pick each scripture without context and parables.
@@reality1958
Butchering children was what the Canaanites were notorious for. The Hebrews demanded them to stop, but they refused, God's orders: "End their whole population from spreading the Earth, even the animals they had sex with, but spare the untouched women."
I found many contradictions in the Catholic teachings since I was 7 years old. I decided that if God exists, and God is just, I will find God regardless of accessibility to a book, places I lived, people I hung out with. I decided not to follow any religion, but I was going to stay open to what arrives into my life.
Life took me to the point of finding God. First, within myself, and later in everything God has created. Some aspects match Christian faith, some don't. I've met Catholics turning into atheists and atheists into believers of God. And none of those situations contradict the God I found. Whichever path you choose to follow, keep going with it. As long as you are true to yourself, you will arrive at a place you will feel proud of. I found personal proofs that are hard to replicate in others, they were very circumstantial and if you don't live something similar, it will not help at all. And why would you believe what I say I experienced?
One thing I can say, when I talked to a friend who was raised Atheist telling me that he went to the UK and practiced yoga and meditation, I told him, but you are atheist right? And he said: yes, but there was no religious background, as if he were justifying his actions. I replied, but regardless of the religious background, that path will take you out of atheism, especially to someone honest like you.
A week later while having coffee, he told me that I was right, that he doesn't know details, but now he knows there's something out there, he feels ashamed to confess it, especially to his family. This was a very hard, yet gratifying transition to him. As a mathematician, he finds it hard to reach these conclusions without hard facts. But he could not deny what he experienced.
My message to atheists is: God might not be what you think, you don't have to believe in God to be happy or to be close to God. You don't have to acknowledge God, or abide your life by a set of rules someone tells you describe God. Just keep your eyes open, you might see God there. And never stop questioning because sometimes our eyes deceive us. Stay true to yourself. And try to be the best version of yourself (whatever that means to you).
My message to Christians-based person (Catholics, etc...). When discussing with atheists, remember they don't accept the Bible like you do. So anything you quote from it will mean nothing to them. Instead, abstract the teachings, and find the core of your beliefs, be prepared to be challenged and seek inspiration when answering. You might be surprised of what comes out of your mouth. Just keep questioning everything you see and hear, because we might be deceived easily. And stay true to yourself.
Btw I love every comment in this thread, all questions are very good and we should all try to find our own answers to them.
I admire Frank He is brilliant and patient. A joy to listen to.
Keep up the good work over there brother, love from Europe. We need more guys like you here.
Yes!!!! Too bad there's no major apologetics majorly league over there in Europe!
Please no
Mr. Turek DOMINATES this kid and then says "If I gave you a book...". Love it!!
Really? Turek is an ignorant hack. You should really educate yourself with something outside of your echo chamber.
“Dominates”?
I would have responded and if I gave you a book...Love it!!
5:45 I plaid his honesty, I was on his position when I posed myself this question, not immediately I could say yes, but thinking of what truth means, so to be honest with my own self I would accept the truth if truth is true.
Did you plaid your shirt too?
Its more a problem of what is ment by "become a christian" for me.
If it means "Wopuld you believe it it were true" then yes, of course.
But if it m,eans "WOuld you follow the rules and bow down to god" then absolutely not.
That god is an evil sob. By my standard, by the bibles standard, and likely by your standard aswell.
I dont believe because its clearly not true.
I wouldn't follow because your god is evil.
These are 2 separate issues and its very dishonest of Frank to try and conflate them.
@@somerandom3247 In what way is God evil? Whose moral standards are you using as a metric?
@@DrSauce
If the bible is to be believed, than your god has commited atrocious evils. and continues to do so.
My my standar, by the bibles standard, by most other religious books' standards, and likely by your standard aswell.
@@somerandom3247 Atrocious evils like...?
I find that pause after the end question interesting……
It’s like he’s bombarded with so many questions instantly (and he is). What is the right answer? What would this mean for my life? How would this change my life? Should I be honest with my answer? What would I have to give up in order to do this? Would I honestly even consider doing this? What would my friends think of me? What would society think of me? Is this a trick question? Do I really want to know if it’s true? Can I get out of answering this question?
I suggest the main question he's asking himself is, "How come this guy gets away with asserting, "It's magic" but *I'm* required to provide a description of the whole of the evolutionary history of consciousness, reasoning, and the functioning of the brain?"
@@shinywarm6906 Even if it was his question, he still has no clue.
@@shinywarm6906 Even if it was his question, he still has no clue.
@@sandina2cents779 I too would have been left befuddled if I'd asked a question, and got 20 in return. Even worse, if my question isn't answered. Turek's assertions that "this computer is designed - that's why we can trust it" and that "DNA is a software programme" are patently absurd. But he gets away with it by distracting the audience and suggesting the questioner is naive because *he* can't answer questions like how does brain chemistry generate thought, how physical laws lead to language and where the genetic code "comes from". Turek has no idea himself, of course. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that his audience thinks he's "beaten" the "enemy".
@@shinywarm6906 I understand Everything Frank Turek said just fine. I don’t understand the confusion.
Textbook argument from ignorance. "I can't understand how a brain works; therefore, it must be magic..." it amazes me that Turek has been an apologist this long and still doesn't understand that nor what atheism is...
Apologetics is based off lying
Since when was God magic? It is completely logical to postulate, test , validate or believe in God if the evidence fits. And yes it does if you don't have a philosophical barrier applied to science and reasoning.
@@stephenking4170 what evidence? No evidence supports any of the 3000 + claims of gods.
@@stephenking4170 science has absolutely nothing to do with any religion
ironically that is exactly what the theory of evolution is.... macroevolution is unverifiable and unfalsifiable.
Desperately in need of answers so if I pretend hard enough it’s true.
Atheist doesn’t answer any questions because they simply don’t believe your claim of a magical deity.
Religion holds zero answers because it’s not supposed to ask anything it just requires you to believe period.
That’s not the reason religion exists and frank lost his way because he needs to earn money for himself and his family.
I know why religion is what it is but it’s kind of a secret.
3:09 that lady at the back felt it😄
This is Good work frank👍
Like she was watching a boxing match!
Why does religion get to hold a monopoly on reason?
Good question.
.
The answer lies is what is the "self?" If the thing we perceive as "self" is just a response to the chance collection of chemicals in our skulls, then our thoughts are not independent and are just manifestations of our chemical makeup. However, if there is "something more" to the self than physical reality, then it is possible that we are not solely responding to our chemical makeup and can have thoughts that are independent of physical reality.
.
Example, I could ask if you freely asked your question, or if your chemical make up forced you to ask it.
@@sidwhiting665 Our subconscious mind makes decisions for us before our conscious mind is even aware of it. This has been tested. Either way, it’s not really the ‘self’ or ‘I’ making these decisions but something ‘outside’ of it, out of my conscious control-regardless of whether the thing doing the actual deciding is my ‘soul’/‘spirit’, or if it comes from the neuro-chemical matrix of my brain.
We can’t ’measure’ a soul empirically. We can, however, measure brain activity.
This is a problem neuroscience can investigate. What religion attempts to do, however, is to just put a band-aid on the problem as a quick solution, to make us feel better.
It doesn't.
Religion is the suspention of reason. not the answer for it.
@@somerandom3247 did you watch the video?
It doesn't. It's all about feels.
Can any theist just admit that maybe they just don’t know stuff?
Let's be real - I've seen arrogance run both ways in worldview conversations.
Even though I don't think I would consider Dr. Turek to be at the forefront of philosophy, I don't think the _real_ arrogance is coming from guys like him. He is a seasoned scholar who has had a lot of practice working through the fundamental, generalized questions that he gets asked over and over again in public. There isn't a question that he is being asked in these Q&A sessions that he hasn't already wrestled with himself dozens (if not hundreds) of times from different perspectives in order to answer the more nuanced and contextual questions that run even deeper.
There are plenty of questions that these men and women would admit they can't directly answer - if you asked the question the right way with the right pretext. Otherwise, they are general questions that they are not particularly challenged to answer. You would see the same air of confidence from an atheist philosopher who has defended his ideas for years and I don't think it's fair to suggest that there's anything specially arrogant about that.
The demonstrable arrogance that I see is routinely from those who _profess_ to understand but do not (and, more to the point - _will_ not). In short - laypeople trying to be apologists. Believers and non-believers alike, unfortunately.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that laypeople (like me) cannot have conversations - they just need to be willing to admit when they've reached the limit of their understanding. Usually, it's right around the same time that you've felt yourself dig your heels in. ;)
We do, but the only solution to that is to find that answer.
If only most Atheist like him can do that more often.
Because people want there to be purpose to their lives. A lot of people simply need to believe that there is someone out there looking out for them
I can accept that.@@RichardsGaySon
Arguing with a non-woke person is totally different. This conversation is very satisfying. There is respect in the conversation. The guy is an atheist but he is respectful.
I learn more from Frank's channel than I have in 20 years of church.
Can you identify one _evidentiary fact_ that Frank has stated that can be _demonstrated_ to be true? Yes or no.
Then you’ve wasted your time in both areas, I guess?
@@Bomtombadi1 Why are you here wasting your time?
@@Theo_Skeptomai Can you identify one evidentiary fact that Frank has stated that can be demonstrated to be false? Yes or no
@@dallaskinard3143 Do you always avoid straightforward questions by asking irrelevant questions of your own?
Turek asks a bunch of questions instead of answering the question. Turek has no justification for believing that on naturalism reasoning is impossible
maybe that's the Socratic method, asking questions so they can come up with their own answers. Instead of being told everything.
@@marcusmuse4787 are questions answers?
@@New_Essay_6416 They could be, can't they?
Why don't people answer!
I feel like between Christians and atheist atheist seem to have more reason. Some not all approach with an idk attitude while Christins approach with I know all the answers but they really don’t know either cause the truth is no one really does.
If no one knows the truth, how can you know that no one’s knows the truth? You are making a truth claim that no one knows the truth.
If Christian’s say they know the right answer and Atheist are saying they don’t know the right answer you couldn’t know the wrong answer unless you knew the right answer. When someone says 2 + 2 is 9 you know they don’t know what they are talking about becuase you know the right answer is 2.
@@TheREbelAlliance324 because you can’t you can claim but no one knows the truth .. can you prove someone knows the truth ? No no one can so the only truth to it is no one knows the truth
Oh, Frank. You're serious, aren't you? How about talking to someone one on one who can dismantle everything you say? I'll wait.
The main point is that we dont know many things as humans. We know that we dont know most things for certain. Everyone lives in faith actually, the question is what or who do we put our trust and faith in.
I disagree. I hold no faith based beliefs
No not at all.
If agnostics are admitting they don’t know, why are they so committed and passionate about dissuading others?
Trying to explain Spiritual Truth to an atheist is analogous to attempting to explain a symphony orchestra concert to someone who is deaf and blind.
That ending was pure joy hahahahaha.
A guy who believes in ghosts, demons, angels, talking serpents, talking donkeys, and human sacrifice is going to try to tell me who is reasonable and who isn't? Oh my Buddha, the irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife. Religion is the sworn enemy of Reason. If you are susceptible to manipulative lies about impossible supernatural beings and phenomena, guilt, shame, and fear...you will become religious. If you are susceptible to reason... you will tend toward Atheism.
👌
My eye is a camera. Cameras are made by Kodak. Therefore, my eye was made by Kodak. If we use word X to describe Y, and Y is made by humans, then everything else we describe with word X must have also been made by an intelligent being. Makes perfect sense. This guy should get the Nobel prize for proving God's existence.
The question that the quote provokes is; if structure came out of chaos can we trust chaos? There are some outliers but generally the answer is no. So if chaos cannot be trusted then there had to something that was structured that created structure.
@@Praying_Mantis3 Well said! As only an intelligence can make another intelligence.
That's as ridiculous as what he said your eye is not a camera it performs similar functions that's all. There is no proof that god exists even the devoutest christian will tell you it's a matter of faith!
@@Praying_Mantis3 "if structure came out of chaos" There is no "chaos", technically, just different kinds of structure.
"can we trust chaos"
You can trust chaos to be chaos, you can trust structure to be structure, you can trust stones to be stones, you can trust humans to be humans, you can trust minds to be minds, you can trust senses to be senses.
What other kind of "trust" would you expect?
@@Mannwhich "only an intelligence can make another intelligence"
Is that conclusion actually based on anything?
Because we can make a thing from another thing, that's demonstrable. More than that, things become other things all the time without our help, too, that's also demonstrable. Even more than that, there doesn't seem to be anything that DOESN'T change into another thing, given enough time.
So why do you say that intelligence can only come from intelligence?
This is great. I remember the professor in a theology class I took saying that a dog can be really “smart,” and well trained, but if a dog is flying to China, he doesn’t spend the flight wondering if Chinese fire hydrants are just like the ones at home. This is because he has no immaterial aspect to his being.
Flying a plane is a really complicated process that requires a lot of concentration - the dog doesn't have time to think about fire hydrants.
In all seriousness though,
No, it's because the dog's brain is not as complex as the human brain, and so cannot operate at a high enough cognitive level to comprehend such things.
The term 'immaterial aspect to his being' is something that doesn't really mean anything, though promises a lot. We know the material exists. The idea of the immaterial is something you need to demonstrate to be taken seriously.
That argument is so stupendously dumb that it depresses me that anyone ever bought it, ever.
Your wrong to say such a thing because you are not a dog or that doesufic dog so you don't know what he thinks about. An inescapable truth. Humans are always so arrogant that they think they know what animals think. It's so rediculous.
3:12 Not random, but Turek will never admit that. Mutations are random, the traits that are most likely to survive are not. A brain that can derive conclusions accurate to reality reliably are more likely to survive. Period, no need to go further. Evolution explains the reliability of the human brain perfectly. Mind you, it still fails a lot of time. It just works reliably most of the time.
Which begs the question, why did a perfect God create humans with faulty reasoning?
macroevolution cannot be empirically verified. And piles of fizzing chemicals can't be trusted either on their own merit.
@@Golfinthefamily But a sky daddy can be? Ok, do it.
@@Golfinthefamily Macroevolution is change at or above the specie level. We have verified speciation events before.
You don't seem to understand that our minds are no different than your idea of a disembodied mind if it is a product of our brain. It still functions practically the same.
@@akoskormendi9711 You defined macroevolution... but nothing has changed kind observationally. In fact, we have evidence of the opposite...after 30 years ecoli was still ecoli.... after generations and generations...fruit flies were still fruit flies... macroevolution is a false conflation. You literally cannot prove it to be true. You have a faith position.
@@littlebitofhope1489 I don't believe that a pond of sludge got struck by lightning and became intelligent beings who could go to space... Your caricature of God is quite telling. You should really read some better atheists at least.
After the endless yakking, the only thing that is honest is God has left us in the lurch. Science has and is bringing light to the darkness, while we have to contend with thousands of years of ignorance from the bible. If you say God is who you say he is, then no more talking, shut up and prove it. The time has come. Prove what you contend or sit silent while mankind slowly unravels the mysteries.
Praise the lord
= praise Jupiter.
@@harveywabbit9541 what?
@@harveywabbit9541 Praise God that atheists will believe one day. On earth 🌎 or in Hell sadly... ( Your choice)
@@oreally8605 You mean gods choice, he made me. I am his responsibility.
He already knows what i am gonna choose, he knew before he created me and did it anyway.
If i go to hell i blame god.
@@oreally8605 "On earth 🌎 or in Hell sadly... ( Your choice)"
Okay, I've made the conscious decision not to go to Hell. Now what?
Just as an FYI, petty threats unsupported by evidence don't work.
Problems with the argument is that trust is a relationship between us and what we are working with. We actually trust through experience not design. And we trust through probability rather than absolutes. That was Hawkings great contribution. Secondly explaining and understanding are traits necessary for the mind not for the world around us. We need to understand to make sense of our world and our understandings don't even need proof to be useful to us (case in point watts which is not a scientific concept of actual electricity measurement yet we use it as if it is). If we need trust in order to prove design then we are restricted to the limits of our own minds to prove any point. Is that a safe place to reason from?
If Frank's question is how can we know what we know, there is a field of philosophy that is dedicated to this answer called epistemological. Religion is not the only answer that is out there.
Preach that
The reason we know things is grounded on the reality of God. Atheists have no basis to trust brains let alone anything else. Talking about epistemology when you can't trust your brain is empty.
@@jesusisgod2953
But how can you know that a God is real if you can't trust your brain
Why can't you trust your brain?@@tedidk8639
OOps sorry I texted the wrong person.
without God all crumbles in the end.
God is a cookie monster.
so the fact that everything crubles in the end shows that there is no god?
Well, I'm not an atheist, but the "I don't know" answer is a valid response. Ignorance does not mean there is no answer. That is just a personal statement of one's own extent of knowledge. I will be the first to admit that the human mind is a brilliant thing and that not everything can be understood from an empirical perspective, there is a mystical element to human existence. However, even if there was a mystical force that propelled human life, we have not established that this is even the same force written in theology and the various religious books throughout history.
We don't know if, for example, God just created earth and humanity and left it there. No commandments, no authority, no afterlife, no prophets, no messiahs, etc. Just as equally, we cannot trust our mind to be the product of accidents without proof, we cannot trust the idea that there was a design in mind either. We can trust that we just are. I do believe atheism is a form of neuroticism, don't get me wrong, but there are many beliefs out there that can facilitate the mind or brains abstract need for meaning and purpose.
I encourage you to look into the evidence for Jesus Christ for your answer
So well explained ! I hope that guy found some answers
it's not the answers that are important, it's the willingness to ask questions.
@@roberts5539 Why ask questions if you don't want answers?
@@justin10292000 i never said i didn't want answers, but that the questions were more important than the answers. Some answers we can not know definitively.
Some answers are designed to stifle questions. They are based on an unquestionable authority.
"It says in the Bible..." is not a good answer.
From a question should come a testable hypothesis. Faith relies on the authority of ancient texts, not on provable data.
Sure, there may well be a creator God who requires blind faith, but there is absolutely no evidence for such a being. There is no evidence for an afterlife. Why should we have an afterlife?
But why should humans get an eternity with their ancestors?
why not cows? Or insects?
"it says in the bible..."
so what?
Супер! Как-то не думал об этом! "Почему мы можем доверять .."
As a Christian, I don’t really understand this argument.
For an atheist, couldn’t they just say laws of physics are just pattern recognition? They just see how things interact, they never don’t interact that way, so then it becomes a law.
(Again I’m a strong Christian, I just don’t really see how this is a strong argument for god)
But that would be viciously circular, would it not? That's assuming that the future will always be like the past, because, to the best of your knowledge, the future has always been like the past. But just because in your experience it has been doesn't mean that it will be. How does one know that things won't change in the future?
Frank never has any strong arguments, he doesn't even know what atheism is, he has to lie to his viewers
Thank you for your words. I’m an atheist and I agree what was said isn’t a strong argument for a God.
@@therick363
And I'm sure you're also aware that there are no strong arguments for your naturalistic position. We both know you can't provide one...
@@jessebryant9233 wow you went right there did ya. And I’d course there’s the rudeness.
Tell ya. Why don’t you agree to state your position and make a case for it and I’ll do the same. What do you say? Because what you said isn’t true at all.
You should also explain why and how there isn’t a case for my position, after all, yore the one saying there isn’t. Back it up. Explain how there isn’t one and then explain to us what there is one for.
Literally every significant scientist accepted God and rejected Atheism
Amen
…that’s blatantly false, and multiple studies have shown that scientists worldwide are less religious than the general population of their country, with very few exceptions
@@dariustanz8030 Please go and study scientific history. All founders of modern science accepted God
Jupiter is the savior.
Lying and lying
I love frank bey!
God bless brother, thank you for this amazing work you’re doing
🙏
We trust our thought from previous experience. That’s why your level of confidence in what you are thinking on varies depending on subject. This man would not trust his thoughts on something like how to instal an hvac system in his house. He speaks confidently when talking about his focus points on god because he studies it. He studies religion just like a science. And trusting your thoughts doesn’t make you right. Remember when Christmas burned women for being witches, denied the existence of dinosaurs, or thought the sun revolves around the earth?
Very respectful young man, Trying to seek for answers, may God lead Him to the truth, which is found in the Lord Jesus Christ alone!
so.... Truth is not found with god
it is found in jesus christ alone ?
WOW.. CLEARLY PEOPLE SHOULD LISTEN TO YOU
also why is your comment not
"Very respectful young man, Trying to seek for answers, May he find the answers he's looking for"
why did god have to be part of this ?
but i suppose since you don't have a solid understanding of how the religion works, anything you say is going to be acceptable right and others have to listen to it
Tell me this
WHEN DO CHRISTIANS START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR WORDS ?
Thought provoking
Love Frank he doesn't know how much I Have learnt
same.
Ive learn how little christianity has to offer.
One of the best around - he, Bill Craig and Whaddo You Meme are the three I credit most with breaking down my barriers to faith and letting the Spirit do His thing and bring me to the faith 😊
@@ChristopherDolbyyes! The three who all lower the epistemological bar!
@@Bomtombadi1 bahahahahahahahaaa!
@@ChristopherDolby Billy Craig smugly admitted as such
OK.....repeat to yourself: Because a person can't answer a question in exquisite detail DOES NOT MEAN THAT GOD DID IT. Until religious apologists can DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR GOD IS THE CAUSE OF MINDS, it's perfectly ok to be skeptical. Frank insists that existence and natural law is a "software program". How does he know this? He insists that DNA is a "message". How does he know this?
are you skeptical of your skepticism?
@@Golfinthefamily I'm not sure if I understand the question but I generally think that most "knowledge" is provisional. I try to always leave open the possibility that more might be revealed about most subjects. Does that answer your question?
@@drumrnva Have you studied how complex DNA is? How about the immune system? How deep the solar system is? But that all happened by chance, right? Let’s be real sir
@@jfast787 I don't know if anything happened "by chance", and I never said that. I have no reason to think "by chance" and the Christian god are the only two possible explanations. Yes, DNA is complex. Life on earth apparently started with very simple forms.
Frank is pretty good at supporting the argument “Since we don’t know the answer it must be God”.
Frank is a perfect example of “circumlocution, or shall we use filibustering?” The art of Speak A lot, Without Saying Anything Substantial.
He is like many religious people and in the same league as dubious politicians and dishonest business people.
Frank
I think the key take away from this is "I don't know". Our limited perception of reality doesn't allow us to know and there's nothing wrong with that. The consciousness realm of reality doesn't abide by the physical realm that we live in, and to me it's disingenuous to use the Bible and faith as a matter of fact when the underlying truth is that, we don't know. Atheist can't claim to know just as much as Christians can't claim to know.
But we can know a lot about God. There is evidence, but many disregard it
And that's why I'm an agnostic.
What are they pray tell?@@trustthetruth2779
Common question among Christians: if there are laws of nature, then who wrote them? It's their way of trying to prove the existence of God, but it really doesn't hold up. We think of them as "laws" in human terms because that is the best human way to come to terms with the way the world works.
In other words, regardless if every star is totally different, a super nova explosion does not give us prescriptive information....no matter how many heavy elements we possess.
Basically he's making an argument from ignorance. "If we cant explain it then it must be what I believe, but cant prove" assuming there are no other possibilities within the unknown.
Facts like that will completely shut down an atheist..
Where were the facts? Frank's response was terrible.
Could you share some of the facts to which you are referring?
@@therick363 how do you get an intelligent being without an intelligent designer..
@@BJtheMountaineerguy How do you get an intelligent designer without a more intelligent designer to design the intelligent designer? And how do you get a more intelligent designer without an even more intelligent designer to design the more intelligent designer?
Let me guess, you are going to invoke some sort of special pleading. You are going to say that your god doesn't need a designer. Well if that is true, then why can't we also say the universe doesn't need a designer either? Whatever you can say about your god can also be said about the universe.
Gee, for some reason I don't feel shut down as you suggested in your OP.
@@Generatorman59 The same thing can't be said about the universe because the universe isn't intelligent, you need a spirit to be able to design.. God has no beginning or end, God is infinite..
Quite literally evolution answers most of his questions. Evolution not over 10 years or 100 years, over 3.8 billion years. In that amount of time, random mutations have made bacteria become humans, but it's not happened in 1 step, it has happened over thousands of steps and small mutations. Homo Sapiens as a species are relatively new, only 300,000 years ago. There has been 12,000x the amount of time before humans came to be, so clearly it is possible. We have conversation because neurons fire in our brain and create signals, that give us the ability to speak. There are also general laws of nature in physics, yes. But why people are different is because the different pattern of firing neurons. There are no physical laws that limit the firing of a neuron in a specific pattern. A book written by humans that came out of an esoteric Jewish sect is not the law of nature. You cannot quote the bible as a reliable source of information. Why is say your god true, but not Allah, but not Hindu gods. There are religions older than Christianity who claim to have the whole truth, yet there is no empirical evidence. I can say there is gravity, but all that connotes is that there is some force acting on my body that makes it accelerate at 9.81ms^-2 because of rigorous testing, not because a book said so.
Nope!!11one
Bronze age book by illiterate sheppards says you're wrong
Quite literally Evolution doesn't answer any of his questions - the reason you can say so is because you haven't heard what he said. Actually, let me make a correction - Frank didn't actually make the whole argument but of course your answer for anything is "Evolution", so I'm not that sure that it matters whether Frank made the actual argument or not.
I've always wanted to ask a thorough going evolutionist about evolution - at its most basic, evolution is RM-NS (Random Mutation)-(Natural Selection). The thing that I don't understand at these two terms - Random, Natural. Why is the mutation random? How can you tell? Secondly, what is natural? Is that just a round about way of saying random again or saying that the same set of events/causes are just termed random and natural arbitrarily? Without defining these terms random and natural - it doesn't matter that there's 3.8 billion years or 500 billion years, impossible events will never happen, highly improbably events will almost likely never happen and so on.
Another assumption that I see evolutionists making in their just-so stories is 1 step (say abiogenesis) followed by 1000 other steps - the assumption that is always inserted here is conservation. There's no reason to conserve the step made, the step can move forward one and then move backward two. There's no need for aggregation at all (i.e. aggregation of all these steps that are beneficial but absolutely necessary) in evolution -it's undirected, purposeless and meaningless. So there's no need for conservation of things that get aggregated - you can conserve a 100 beneficial steps but then the next 10 steps just return it back to zero. So why this conservation being introduced with a sleight of hand?
@@ajsirch so because you don't understand Evolution very well it's false?
All the most brilliant biologists in the world accept it no problem. Are you calling them wrong?
Evolution is a scientific theory, it'll be quite the task to falsify/ debunk...
@@logicalatheist1065 Can you answer the question(s)? Or are you deferring to the infallible brilliant biologists?
@@ajsirch which questions?
No, evolution isn't an opinion, it's science.
I think people gloss over that last question he always asks to these reasonable people. "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?" He's asking this because if they say yes then he knows they are of sound mind whereas someone who says no is just trying to prove themselves right even if they know they are wrong. Those are the people who can't be saved because they don't want to be saved even if they know they need saved. A captain going down with his ship even though he knows there's no possible good outcome of him doing this
Not necessarily somebody(s) may accept Christianity as being true but refuse it because they don't like its philosophy. I saw this answer on You Tube once.
Where did the laws that allow God to exist come from? Existence is a logical construct, and logic is made of laws.
God is eternal some guy
So the entire argument here is the "god of the gaps".
Nah I disagree. He's just showing how silly it seems to trust a computer that just appeared out of nowhere.
Dear God, pun intended, the amount of logical fallacies and nonsensical questions this speaker is asking. The student tried his best, but he was also probably very nervous and struggled to maneuver around some if these gotcha questions that serve as nothing but publicly acts.
We atheist subscribe to nature and the universe while believers subscribe to their imagination which makes them overpowered like for example using the God of the gaps. There might be a God or not for all we know but I'm 90% sure there isn't the real question is even if there is a God who is it?
The universe doesn't need a why answer to it because it only needs a how why answers are for our satisfaction or to suit ourselves but realizing that all you need to know is how the universe came into existence or how it function. And save the why for your kids when they come back late at home.
the theory of evolution (macroevolution) is the greatest creation myth known to man.
@@Golfinthefamily Go and study it an understand before you talk about it.
@@T.One_way Dude, I have studied it. You haven't studied the historicity of Jesus. You made that clear. You then audaciously claim that Jesus is NOT Lord-- without evidence at all to the contrary. You have put forth no good evidence for your claim other than you think resurrection is a fantastic claim and hard to believe (which I would agree). So... it is a miracle for a reason... people don't go to death for something they KNOW is a lie. -- I think your projection is telling. It seems you have a hardened heart and want to come off as astute or thoughtful but really you aren't open to looking or searching it out.
@@Golfinthefamily Bro when did I say all of this why straw man me. And also I was a Christian before becoming an atheist after seeing how the new testament forces itself into the old testament.
@@T.One_way whoops on regards to the red herrings...I'm commenting back on several threads... seriously...sorry for that.
I have studied evolution... it says that the main creating force is random mutation via natural selection... genetic variation leads to changes in traits with a vast majority of them being detrimental or degrading.
Darwinists believe that somehow through all of these cosmic accidents...somehow we got a genetic code with millions of character, we got the eye, etc...
The Cambrian explosion demonstrates there isn't enough time
specific complexity shows us there is no gradual process to the complexity we see
Observation and testing has always demonstrated an organism remaining the same kind of organism (ecoli remains ecoli, fruit flies remain fruit flies... etc.)
Macroevolution is an unsubstantiated conflation of genetic change. It cannot be proven.
Christianity is true. Jesus rose from the dead. I'd be curious to know how you feel like the New Testament forces itself into the New Testament.. that is quite a claim that I'd like to have evidence for.
Grace and peace to you.
3:48 Neuro. Science. Apologists love to pretend they know what they talk about don't they? The brain is a biological machinery that has a lot of capabilities. One of which is conversation.
@@benjasabukid2321 Evidence?
@@akoskormendi9711
Here is your answer, it’s silly to say the solar system all the way down to molecules and DNA happened by chance, be honest:
Me: so you’re an atheist?
Atheist: yes
Me: why don’t you believe in God?
Atheist: Because I don’t believe in fairy tales
Me: So who created the universe?
Atheist: it came from nothing
Me : 🤣😂
@@jfast787 I don't say or believe it came from nothing. So nice strawman you got there
@@benjasabukid2321 A Christian's ability to try do dictate what I believe never ceases to amaze me. Hit me up when you are actually ready for a honest conversation
@@benjasabukid2321 Already doing that. I don't think you understand how ironic it is that you talk about me having an ego while thinking that you know me better than me. If you think I deny God because it would be a big inconvinience in my life you are sorely mistaken. You don't deny Allah because you want women to not be covered up head to toe, do you? Well, I don't deny God either because anything it would entail. The evidence is not only lacking, for a few versions, there is evidence against it.
Watching two pseudo-intellectuals debate is painful
It makes me happy to see those at least skeptical or open enough to see some of the light. There are so many "scientific" assumptions that get made when saying something like "this evolved from this". Unfortunately most don't even bother to think of the implications accepting things at face value.
Just because someone went to school and studied the origin of the universe and say got a degree in it, doesn't mean it warrants their opinion to the "right" or "correct".
At least on the bases of age the earth and evolution talking billions of years, many cannot come to admitting that it's false or is unknown. Despite being able to to say "I don't know" to many other subjects they don't actually know about. Well why is it so hard to question "science" on a timeframe that no one alive today was present for (if millions of years existed). No one has ever seen a universe form, been alive long enough to see a star form, seen chemicals make the building blocks of life, then assemble them into life. We do not have a rational reason to say anything came from nothing. Which is why we know this is a spiritual battle. Logic and reason completely go out the window with the billions of years and evolution claims that absent a textbook that "says so", no one would say it makes sense.
"Yeah"; I'd recommend MORE William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross, and LESS Kent Hovind and Bill Nye.....
@@johnharrison6745 I'd recommend less WLC and more actual science.
"At least on the bases of age the earth and evolution talking billions of years, many cannot come to admitting that it's false or is unknown"
That will be because of the preponderance of evidence supporting the age of the Earth to a high degree of accuracy as well as the likes of genetics to support evolutionary theory.
You know who does have a hard time saying "I don't know"? Apologists like Frank Turek. He pretends to know. His career depends on pretending he does know.
@@paulcooper1223 In spite of the fact that your post was so poorly written that it was almost incoherent, I'm pretty sure that I DID get the gist of it. 😏
"I'd recommend more real science": Sweet 'Em's, I've probably FORGOTTEN more about science than YOU'LL EVER know. The guy who "mentored" me out of my own real, actual atheism [as opposed-to the "atheism" of Dawkins fan-club types] holds a doctorate in applied-physics from Stanford; and, his wife holds a doctorate in astrophysics from Rice. Both have had *STELLAR* careers; both are the kind of scientist that the VAST majority of other scientists would give their right-arm AND left-leg to be. And, they're both CONVINCED, DEDICATED Christians. [so you can just "ROUND-FILE" your POSTURING and POSING regarding "science" when it comes-to me; you might as well be fighting a tank with a stick 😏]
"less W.L.C.": You say that because he positively HUMILIATES your "champions". 🤪
"age of the Earth": Did I strike you as being a Young Earth creationist? I have as much contempt for that silliness as anyone. Young Earth creationism and anti-theism/New-Atheism are just the obverse and reverse of the same COUNTERFEIT coin. 😉
"evolutionary theory": I'm happy to tell you or anyone else that it's essentially indisputable that biological-life has existed on this planet for billions of years [what's the best-estimate now; 3.7 billion years?], and, that it's been changing a lot during that time. 🤷
"admitting that it's false or unknown": It would, indeed, be improper to admit that it's false, because it hasn't been demonstrated to be false; but, unknown? There's A LOT of circumstantial evidence for biological-life having been going-through 'evolution' through various forms of mutation and selection, since it first came-to-be on this planet; but, the fact is, it wasn't observed and recorded over all of those 'eons', and, it hasn't been tested, repeated, verified, and reproduced in the lab; so, it wouldn't be so improper to say that it's unknown. [because that's what real, actual science is 😉]
Your calumnies about "Frank": He makes you people look like the damaged pseudo-intellectuals that you are, all the time; and, you're backside-burned about it. 🤪
@@johnharrison6745 There was nothing incoherent about my reply. It says a lot when you have to resort to petty insults.
The old "I used to be an atheist" routine doesn't impress me.
How did science make you believe in a god? Where is any god mentioned in science?
They're dedicated Christians and scientists. What's your point? Frank Turek isn't a scientist. He also denies science like the theory of evolution.
Do you also deny evolutionary theory? Is that the part of science you forgot?
Apart from making you look arrogant, I'm not sure why you'd claim to have forgotten more about science than what I know when you don't know what I know about science...
WLC is also not a scientist but loves to opine on subjects he knows nothing about. Which of my "champions" does he humiliate? He didn't humiliate Sean Carroll who had to school him on theoretical physics and cosmology.
WLC has made a few comments as of late which has made him a laughing stock on some skeptic TH-cam channels, particularly the statement about how he would still believe even if there was evidence which contradicts his belief because of his personal witness of the Holy spirit while dismissing the personal experiences of other theists who don't share his beliefs. A nice example of special pleading there.
Then there's also the time he said Christians should be lowering their standards of evidence rather than raising them, and how if there was just a one-in-a-million chance it was sufficient for him to believe.
He's just another apologist who preaches to the choir and his arguments are merely designed to convince him his belief is correct.
Your arguments are no better than that of a young earth creationist.
No such thing as "new atheism" when atheism is just a non-belief in a god. Comparing it to young earth creationism is a false equivalence.
You don't have to reproduce something in a lab for it to be accurate. We don't reproduce black holes in a lab. Does that mean they don't exist? Of course not.
Science is about producing accurate models of reality with predictive power.
In regards to evolutionary theory, it works in harmony with genetics which has gathered a preponderance of evidence to support it, from examining Chromosome number 2 in chimps and humans to conclude we share a common ancestor with them and the other great apes along with the presence of ERVs in the same places in chimps and humans to further support common ancestry.
That and the fossil record, geology, palaeontology, astronomy...
Is this also the science you forgot?
Frank isn't taken seriously by anyone but his fanboys who parrot his arguments and end up looking foolish.
A science denying apologist. Probably your hero.
@@paulcooper1223 Your initial post was QUITE incoherent; it WAS poorly written.
I didn't employ the 'I used-to-be an atheist routine'; I gave you a LITTLE HINT about how much I know.
I didn't say that science MADE me believe-in god; what I IMPLIED was that a couple of the creme' "day" la creme' of scientists think that you and yours are "we Todd's". 🤪
I've NEVER heard Dr. T 'deny the theory of evolution'; and, I couldn't care less either way about his positions/beliefs regarding it.
I don't deny "evolutionary theory". In fact, I regard it as being one of the best-supported scientific theories in existence.
The probability that you know no more about science than the typical anti-theist/New-Atheist whom I've chatted-with [ *LOTS* ] is VERY HIGH. 99.9999% of the time, the "atheist" I'm talking-with is some pretentious, pompous, posing little smart-person-wannabe, who thinks that he's well-informed about biology, cosmology/cosmogony, and theoretical/quantum physics, because he's spent an inordinate amount of time 'rubbing one out' while watching Nat. Geo., Discovery, Professor Dave Explains, Physics Girl, Dawkins/Sam-Harris/Lawrence-Crass, etc.
'Which of your "champions" did W.L.C. humiliate?' TAKE YOUR PICK.
'Sean Carroll'? Did you ever watch the FOLLOW-UP videos on that? Gimme break.....
Seeing-as I have UTTER CONTEMPT for the so-called "skeptics" on TH-cam, their laughter is of about as much consequence to me as the noise mosquitoes' wings. 🤪
Yeah; I know Dr. Craig 'recommended' persistence in belief-in-Christ in-the-face-of 'evidence that contradicted it'. WHAT ABOUT IT?
Yeah; I heard-about Dr. Craig saying what he said about 'standards of evidence'. WHY SHOULD 'Christians raise their standards of evidence'?
No; Dr. Craig is, as Dr. Sam Harris said, 'the one apologist who puts the fear-of-god into his [Sam's] colleagues'.
I haven't made any arguments; I've just stated relevant facts.
No; the assertion that 'atheism is just a lack of belief in god' is a LIE that was pushed by Antony Flew and some of his contemporaries/colleagues back in the Day, to make atheists seem more harmless and innocuous than they actually are. The reality is, atheism is the position that deity/divinity probably doesn't exist; and, anti-theism/New-Atheism is a bunch of damaged misfits who engage-in a constant "war" of baloney-propaganda and frivolous litigation against every vestige/reminder of Christianity/belief-in-god.
I didn't say that 'you have to reproduce something in a lab for it to be accurate'; I said that for something to be really, actually scientifically-proven, it has to testable, repeatable, reproducible, and verifiable.That's what separates real, actual science from disciplines that just employ some of the methods/aspects/products of real, actual science... science-RELATED disciplines like "geology, paleontology, and astronomy".
No; what "science is about" is investigation of physical reality through the use of the most accurate and reliable methods, rules, and tools available.
Yes; humans share *A LOT* of genetic material with 'the other great apes'. And,the science-RELATED disciplines that you listed CAN be APPEALED-TO to support common ancestry there. Now, PROVE (through a process that's testable, repeatable/reproducible, verifiable, and that produces HARD results [i.e., REAL ,ACTUAL SCIENCE]) that "evolution did it". [go on; I "promise", I'll wait 😉]
Dr. T is taken-seriously enough that the comment-section under his videos, and his campus events, are always FULL-of anti-theists/New-Atheists, absolutely FOAMING and FLAILING (and FAILING utterly) to "defeat" him. 😉
Now; got any more fistfuls of you-know-what to fling-at me, "Science" Man? 🤪
Frank is saying to the young man something akin to - "Explain how the mind comes to be and unless you can, therefore God". But God does not explain how our minds come to exist either. "God" is just a word. "God did it" is just an assertion. The young man can easily make a counter assertion - “Mind emerges from states of the brain”. We do at least know that brains and brain states exist.
Lmao you lack so much understanding
@@YAHWEH-SAVES777 Really? What is roland watts not understanding? Please explain in plain English.
@@YAHWEH-SAVES777 Perhaps I do but you did not explain why you think so. What did I write that was wrong?
Religion has an ending of thier story about our origin or reality, but science is like catching up through the intire universe.. Thats why its always behind, but more realistic than the mystical powers of Gods...
I'd trust a computer that wasn't designed. It's called my brain.
His arguments for dpecified complexity fail at every turn
How do you know that your brain wasn't designed? And why do you trust it? How does the argument of specified complexity fail?
@@jessebryant9233 if my brain was designed. It was done so poorly, just like the rest of my body.
I can only trust my brain as much as i can. What that means is my brain has the capacity to be reliable but isnt always. So i need to be conscious about my brain tricking me.
@@troyhenry6111
Done poorly according to whose or what standard and how do you know that? How do you know that your brain has the capacity to be reliable? Are you not aware of how viciously circular your thinking in here? And are you saying that there is an immaterial mind behind your brain? Are you a brain or do you use a brain to think?
@@jessebryant9233 human body debunks intelligent design
@@jessebryant9233 intelligent design was never factual
Atheism is just the ability to use logic to say "This man-made concept of a god doesn't exist".
Atheism IS logic and reasoning, beleiving in a deity isn't.
It's not logic and reasoning, but you can arrive to the conclusion of atheism by logic and reasoning.
You can't be logical and believe intelligence comes from non-intelligence.
@@quinty26 Why?
@@quinty26 yea, why?
@@logicalatheist1065 If you have to ask 'why', you are not equipped to engage me in any conversation.
Atheism is the most logical and reasonable position.
Frank fails yet again
Atheism/logic rely on just as much faith. Otherwise, wouldn’t you have all the answers?
@@sapphirelane1714 huh? Of course not. Having all the answers would at minimum require infinite data, which I don't have. So without faith there are plenty of questions that I can't currently answer. Infinitely many in fact.
@@sapphirelane1714 atheism doesn't require faith at all.
You're not doing to well, maybe ask for help?
@@sapphirelane1714 Atheism is a _position_ on but one issue - the theistic claim that a god exists - and requires no faith. This position simply states the individual is not convinced of the claim because such claim has not met its burden of evidence.
And no. Atheism doesn't propose ANY answers. Atheism is the position of suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones.
Wouldn't you agree?
@@Nuclearburrit0 these religious clowns really lack the ability to think
I'm not sure what I gained from this video... So if we can trust our mind because it designed, who designed the designer? Can we then trust that designer's mind who in turn had no designer? I'm not sure that a computer analogy helps. Computers and their software are full of bugs and sometimes cannot be always be trusted (If we could, I'd still be running my Windows 95 PC! 😁 )
I honestly don't feel that you can convince people of something that they already have some sort of sense of or have accepted evidence of... I find these sorts of discussions fascinating, but ultimately the vast majority of people go home and continue the way they were... One thing I have always wondered - would I have a concept of God, if nobody had ever mentioned it? Obviously, I'll never know...
The Designer is self created.
@@Thyalwaysseek Hmmm... not sure how that works. Can one really create itself?
@@Thyalwaysseek do you really believe that statement as you wrote it? My understanding is that God has simply always been. The 'law of conservation energy' says that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Energy just is, like God.
@@knowone11111 Yes the Creator thought itself into existence, the Universe is mental, held in the Mind of the The All.
@@knowone11111 Mind is not energy.
I love Lewis he is still the most influential writer of our day.
I wish I have the patience of Frank
The atheist just proved at the end with his response to the question "if Christianity were true would you become a Christian" , that it is not a matter of evidence it is a matter of morality, humility and surrender. In his hesitation he was thinking am I ready to give up my selfish lifestyle, for what is deemed to be the truth.
False. Which denomination or version of Christianity? Which books are and aren’t included in the Bible? Is it to be taken literally or figuratively? These are important things Frank leaves out.
@@therick363 The one that follows Christ. The one that says Jesus is our savior and we must repent and ask him to save us. So every Christian. The rest is secondary issues.
@@mastershake4641 well that’s not correct. Those aren’t secondary issues at all. They are obviously important ones. After all, why aren’t all the “books” in each Bible? Why are some excluded?
@@therick363 Salvation is the primary issue. Everything else is a secondary issue.
Even for Christians that realization and the surrender that comes with it is insanely hard. We want to cling to what we have, but in the end it’s that clinging that will be our downfall. It’s really horrible to give up everything because it’s all we know, but doing so is the only way to be with our Father and that is a feeling unlike anything we can imagine here in earth.
Proposing a mind that has no physical body as Turek is doing is not just absurd it requires proof because never have we found a mind that does not have a physical brain. We have never needed god as an explanation.
What drives evolution?
Natural selection.
Why does natural selection exist?
@@Doc-Holliday1851
That question is nonsense.
@@Mavors1099no it’s not. Why does such a process or phenomenon exist?
@@Doc-Holliday1851
It is. Do you know how ns works?
No such thing. 'Natural selection' is a accident. Accidents don't create order or intelligence.
I’m always amazed that people say ‘yes’ when asked if they would become a Christian!
Indicates a true thirst for knowledge, and a willingness to face the implications of the evidence before them.
If I were convinced that the claims of Christianity were true, I wouldn't have a choice but to acknowledge and become a Christian. But I have yet to encounter ANY evidentiary facts or sound arguments that suggest the claims of the bible are true.
Are YOU aware of ANY evidentiary facts or sound arguments that demonstrate the god of Christianity is a reality? Yes or no.
That's a very common tactic that confidence men use, Jack.
@@jamesoneil1388 Exactly.
Just another clip of a guy apologizing for a deity who can’t seem to do it on its own. I mean, really… why in the world would a maximally great being need to be argued for? It’s like if we would need apologists to get people to eat and poop.
When did physical laws start "creating" responses in conversations? Wow, that is a solid and dishonest misrepresentation of what physical laws are and can do. As well as a solid attempt to shoehorn in "a creator" into the conversation.
Frank with his Yahweh smuggling again.
Frank loves to do this parlor trick.
Why don't Christians understand that God is an assertion, which can be swapped with Odin, Atum or any other Deity in other creation stories
After all that the student turns the example around and wins the argument, got to love the panic at the end.
How does the student win the argument in the end?
@@christopherhearn4309 The whole argument is that nature doesn't form complex things but the student gives an example of a skull image being formed from waves and it is quickly dismissed in a panic.
@@terry9819 Okay. I would agree with Frank's take that this is not a very good example of something that is complex. For example, an image that kind of looks like a skull is nothing compared to the DNA in the human body and how it works. There are many other examples of complexity in nature, and it seems very hard to believe that they are formed by random chance.
A pattern of rocks which vaguely resembles a skull on a beach is not remotely complex.
I’m guessing you’re an atheist or agnostic, Terry?
Frank is so dishonest. If he didn't have his word games he wouldn't be able to say anything.
SideSwipeGTA I am curious: by what standard do you determine whether any particular statement is "dishonest" or "honest"?
Show us what real honesty is sideswipe
He really doesn’t know he just doesn’t want to say that. So he is dancing in any direction he can. So Frank keeps returning to the same point because he is doing that.
Personally, I think we have more reason to trust our minds if they had evolved naturally and were subject to the laws of nature, than if our minds had been designed by some supernatural puppet master.
If a creator God had "designed" our mind, then how could I trust my mind at all? Would I not constantly have to question whether or not whatever I perceived or thought had not been planted there on purpose? Think about it for a second; if you object and say that the God you believe in wouldn't do such a thing, because he loves us or wants us to have "free will" or whatever, how could you know that thought had not been "designed" into your mind by this deity? The whole idea seems like a house of cards that stands or falls with the irrational faith that it just ain't so, even though by definition you could never truly know whether it was so or not.
I think that is a much less rational and much more scary notion than the one in which our minds have evolved naturally. On top of that, the evidence also favors natural evolution over supernatural creation.
Nah. If you're honest with yourself, you're still believing in a "supernatural puppet master" either way. "We are here because we were created by an invisible sky daddy" is on the same level as "an aggregation of molecules came together randomly, and magically became alive on their own." Neither is observable in nature, or repeatable in a lab. But one is "science," and the other is "faith."
Don't forget that your "magical puppet master" also imprints or "designs" thoughts/behaviors. So you're on the same boat.
@@foxwithtubesox1075 You said: _"Nah. If you're honest with yourself, you're still believing in a "supernatural puppet master" either way."_
I'm sorry, but you will have to explain how nature and evolution can be seen as a "supernatural puppet master".
You said: _" "We are here because we were created by an invisible sky daddy" is on the same level as "an aggregation of molecules came together randomly, and magically became alive on their own." "_
I think "magically" is where you are taking a wrong turn.
You said: _"Neither is observable in nature, or repeatable in a lab."_
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that original events need to be "repeatable in a lab". They do not. What needs to be repeatable according to the scientific method are the observations and experiments that produce the evidence or data that can falsify or strengthen the hypothesis about the original event. Not the original event itself.
You said: _"But one is "science," and the other is "faith." "_
You skepticism is noted.
You said: _"Don't forget that your "magical puppet master" also imprints or "designs" thoughts/behaviors. So you're on the same boat."_
I don't understand what you mean.
With such a myopic view of the Creator your conclusion is understandable. Take a look at the infinitely complex, wonderful, wise, powerful world of life and the cosmos and genuinely understand what kind of intelligence and creator is required for such to exit, then your appreciation and awe of the Creator will vastly exceed the average small minded or small visioned religious person.
I'd disagree, most people would believe they have reason, you yourself used it to write this comment, how can reason which is a byproduct of thought which is intern a byproduct of chemistry and physics exist if its guided by mere forces? How can you trust your thoughts and intern your very reason if its guided by non intelligent forces?
Not only that but how can reason exist to begin with?
That doesn't obviously mean a "God" designed our minds rather that the "mind" is separate from the body and that we lack an understanding of reality, that being "mind" exists independent of the body
Either human intelligence ultimately owes its origin to mindless matter; or there is a Creator. It is strange that some people claim that it is their intelligence that leads them to prefer the first to the second.”
Everytime I stumble across one of these religious lectures I am amazed that no one mentions the fact that there is nothing written by "God". I hear and see a whole lot of "His word" or "His teachings" but no one cares to take on the fact that everything was written by men, preached by men and perpetuated through the centuries (and altered) by men.
It isnt the words of a god, its the words of the human men that wrote it.
And the talking donkey should be more than enough to show you how false it it.
Christianity never claimed that the Bible was written by God. In fact, it makes it clear that it was written by men.
If a king had one of his scribes write a letter for him, and he stamped it with his royal seal, would the letter be any less valid because the king didn't write it with his own hand?
If God exists then what is the difficulty in God using men, guided by him, to writing things using their own giftings and perspectives as a means of conveying a message to those beyond their original audience? I fail to see any difficulty here.
@@foxwithtubesox1075 2 Timothy 3:16 states that all Scripture is God breathed or inspired by God. In 2 Peter, Peter mentions that no prophecy was ever carried out by men, but that man was carried along by the Holy Spirit (and the NT and OT are filled with prophecies). God divinely spoke the words to the authors; they then penned the words but used their own literary nuances and styles to write them.
Atheist: there is nothing written by God
Christian: well there actually is it’s called the Bible
Atheist: well um um except that
Christian:🤦🏽♂️