Why God MUST Exist (and the Logical Error of Atheism)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 28 ส.ค. 2024
- JOIN The Wisdom Society: www.dailydoseo...
WATCH My Documentary Film (FREE): www.dailydoseo...
Instagram: / the_daily_dose_of_wisdom
TikTok: / dose_of_wisdom
Facebook: / dailydoseofwisdomofficial
Whenever they ask “which god?” you simply reply: “The God revealed in the Bible, the only one you hate of the 4,000+ gods.”
@thirdplace3973 Which version of the Bible?
@@quintessence3991 The Byzantine line of Greek manuscripts, or were you asking which translation?
That's an awful response. It's presumptuous and gives no reason why.
@@thirdplace3973 Does the translation make a difference?
What you are doing is showing anger and that's not good for your side of the discussion. I'm an Atheist and I don't hate God as God doesn't exist so why be hateful?
I'm not religious at all but the main reason I believe in God is because logically atheism fails in every aspect, it makes zero sense.
That is pretentious gobbledygook.
@@Dmidnightmachine can you justify that opinion?
Ya totally. So the only option is to believe in something that can’t be seen. Simply saying I don’t know isn’t allowed. It has to be I believe or I don’t believe, no other way.
I think you don't know what atheism means
@@antonjoubert6980 Atheism is garbage, blind faith, and that's exactly what it means
My favorite description of God is how God describes himself, I AM.
Well it's written in an old book, but with no proof of a god existing, let alone knowing what it knows, does or says.
@@sids5002You missed the whole basic point of the video. Category Error Fallacy and Strawmanning Fallacy. God, I Am, is NOT "a god."
@@justin10292000 Ok. What is it? Is it supernatural? How would anyone know what it thinks or wants?
@sids5002 "It"? That is also an incoherent term for what is being discussed in the video. Still missing the point.
@@justin10292000 According to you. But then you seem to be avoiding explaining yourself.
What point has been missed?
Vague accusations are quite telling, without explanation.
I don't accept the claim that God exist based on insufficient evidence. There is no logical error with not accepting a claim because there is no evidence to support that claim.
God is very personal. He knows everything about each of us, more than we know ourselves. He is omnipresent and omniscient. Listen to Him. He knows you personally. Give Him the love he deserves, adore Him, and worship Him.
You can make your whole statement absolutely true if you merely add the phrase "I believe that......"
@@stevepierce6467 I believe that you believe that.
@@papermason I do not believe it, I know it. Without substantiating evidence, your sentences are merely claims, not statements of fact.
Did God know, before you were born, whether or not you would be going to heaven when you die?
@@stevepierce6467 "I do not believe it, I know it." That really made me laugh. You say you KNOW something, rather than merely believe it. Then you go on to say "Without substantiating evidence, your sentences are merely claims, not statements of fact." So where is the substantiating evidence about your initial statements about God, or even for the allegation that he even exists?
Keep doing what you’re doing and God bless you my brother!
If God is the author of the world or of everything , then he needed an editor. So much needed and needs to be corrected
The universe is incomprehensible. We know a speck of information about it really. But you're qualified to edit its author? Or know that he needs one? Human-centric thinking is small-mindedness.
God is not A being, but Being itself;)
And without Him nothing actually really makes sense...
So just a metaphor for the universe or all of existence, then.
@@mauijttewaal I agree you don't
Very cool
Hang on a sec. - Geneses 1, verse 27 says: "So God created man in his own image". So if God is not a being then neither are we. Assuming that God exists (unlikely), then is he a being or isn't he a being? I guess there are 3 possibilities: 1. the Bible (Genesis) is wrong, 2. The speaker in the video is wrong or 3. We are not beings. The third option seems unlikely to me.
There's quite a bit wrong here.
1. Bertrand Russell/Richard Dawkins saying that trying to disprove God's existence is like trying to disprove the existence of a teacup in outer space. The speaker says that this is a category error because unlike the cosmic teacup, God does not exist as an object in the Universe.
It's not a category error. The point of this analogy is to say that it's impossible to disprove something that's unobservable. You can say, "Well, I don't see any evidence," but it's always possible that the evidence is hidden. You can't disprove it; you can only say that the evidence doesn't support it. The analogy holds whether God exists within the Universe or outside of it--or even if God is the Universe. The category here is irrelevant to the point being made.
2. The burden of proof, then, is on theists to point to evidence for God. Not necessarily prove God's existence, but at least find some evidence to explain why they believe. Can someone provide this evidence? The speaker says yes: "We can through metaphysical analysis, through philosophical reasoning" (3:33).
Okay--so how do we do this? His answer is through metaphor, poetry, and analogy. God is like a rock or a lion or a sub-atomic particle. God is the thing that "sneaks up on us." God is "the horizon at the limit of what we can know." Okay--that feels like a way of talking about faith as an experience. And it's all well and good. But none of it refutes what Russell, Dawkins, or other atheists have said. If there's a category error here, it's in talking about what "evidence" means. Is a faith experience "evidence"? Clearly, not in the same way that either logic or material facts are evidence. That's the difference between faith and reason.
2. "Daily Dose of Wisdom" seems to try to steer the point back to logical evidence. He uses the J.R.R. Tolkien example to point out that just as a book requires an author, the Universe requires a creator. That's not the point the speaker was making, though. He was trying to say that, like the author, the creator isn't actually in his own story. (Which, at least if you believe the Bible, is a rather outrageous claim to make). But this IS an example of a category error, and it's the problem that you run into if you confuse analogy with logic. The Universe is not a book. It doesn't require an author. I won't beat that particular dead horse here since it's just a variation on William Paley's "watchmaker" argument, which has been refuted numerous times over the last 200 years. If you want to know more about it, you can certainly search for it on TH-cam.
Just discovered this clip. Thanks for taking the trouble to spell all this out; as you can see above, I don't have the patience.
What's your evidence that the universe doesn't require an author? That claim is just as unverifiable as the counter argument and rest on the unproven materialst idea that only that which can be observed and measured exist. The materialist claim is not proven at all and is based on faith despite what Russel and Dawkins would believe.
@@NTNG13 "What's your evidence that the universe doesn't require an author?"
What's your evidence that a bed requires an elephant? It's just a nonsensical comparison.
@@NTNG13 It’s simply because you cannot explain how the universe came to be that you require to surrender to the idea that it was created by a higher being. It is not philosophical evidence it’s actually failed logic since we humans don’t have all the answers we created an entity that could give a possible explanation.
Is your issue with a lack of evidence scientific? Meaning if you could prove God in terms of space matter and time then you would believe? Or is it more connected to people claiming God is real and they evidence they provide is personal experience?
Other sources of evidence exist, like historical accuracy.
You can know God because there is a place in your soul where God is. You cannot know entire unspeakable truth but can have an inner knowing if you will of God.
God made us in his image, and has placed eternity in our hearts. That’s probably why we have the capacity to understand eternal things, including communing with him.
Where is my soul located?
@@jdrein9511 idk maybe you don't have one :D
@@hekate314 if the christian god is in everyone's heart, shouldnt christianity spawned all across the world in all civilizations? But instead majority of people got introduced to the christian god under the sword and guns of western imperialism
The world has no shortage of people saying they know god or god can be known.
Meanwhile the world appears to have *zero* people who can prove they know god with evidence.
Barron is no exception, going to the same tired, *wrong* arguments as those who came before him.
That quote from CS Lewis gave me great pause. Literally illuminating. Thank you for this video
Atheism generally means the lack of belief in a god, which is not the same as believing there is no god.
god cannot "exist" as defined by believers.
one is agnostic atheism and the other is positive or "strong" atheism
@@lanazak773 yes, but atheists don’t know that distinction lol
@@Jake-mv7yo That's why I said "generally" (what I read sounded like "strong atheism" is a subset of "atheism"), but thanks for the terms; now I can use "agnostic atheist"🙂
@@Jake-mv7yo@edgarbenjoseph3879, nope. agnistisicm is a claim on knowledge. A gnostic is someone that claims to know God does not exist or not. An Agnostic claims that the existence of god unknowable. Atheistm is neither.
Thank you for this, God bless you.
Jesus Christ makes it possible to know God. "The Bible imagines God as a human being." 🤦🏼♀️ Jesus IS God in human form.
How do you know Jesus is God in human form?
*Miracles and Apotheosis in the Ancient Mediterranean World*
*"It should first be noted that miracle stories are not uncommon in the literature of this period.* Ancient people believed in a world permeated by the supernatural and readily accepted stories of miracles and believed in stories of visions and visitors from the world of the divine all the time. *Even very sober and sometimes sceptical historians like Tacitus will pass on accounts of miracles that he clearly accepts and expects his audience to believe as historical.*
So when we read stories of how the emperor Augustus was *miraculously conceived by the god Apollo,* or how his birth was *presaged by a new star in the heavens,* or how Julius Caesar was seen *ascending into the heaven* after his death or how Vespasian *healed lame and blind people* who asked him for a miracle, we accept that these stories represent the kinds of things ancient people genuinely believed about great men. Or we accept that they are at least told to indicate that the man in question was great. *What we don't do is accept that simply because people believed these stories they must mean that they really happened.*
And this is even when the stories are presented to us by a very careful historian and given to us as verified fact. Take Tacitus' account of the miracles of the emperor Vespasian:
"In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. .... And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. *The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood."* (Histories, IV, 81)
Tacitus was closely connected to the court of Vespasian's sons and successors, Titus and Domitian, and so in a position to know the "persons actually present" and to consult them long after Vespasian's death "when nothing is to be gained by falsehood". He was also a very careful historian who scorned those who took rumour and stories as fact without checking them against sources and eye witnesses and who condemned those who "catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history" (Annals, IV,11).
*Despite this, I don't know anyone who would read the account above and conclude that the emperor really had magical healing powers and genuinely used his supernatural abilities to heal people.* The fact that even a judicious and often sceptical analyst like Tacitus accepted this story shows us just how readily people in the ancient world accepted claims of the miraculous.
*One form of miracle that was widely believed in was the idea of apotheosis, where a great man is physically taken up in to the heavens and raised to divine status.* It was claimed that Romulus, the founder of Rome, underwent this process and *later appeared to his friend Julius Proculus to declare his new celestial status.* The same claim was made about Julius Caesar and Augustus, *with supposed witnesses observing their ascent into the heavenly realm.* Lucian's satire The Passing of Peregrinus includes his scorn for the claim that the philosopher was *taken up into the celestial realm and was later seen walking around on earth after his death.* The Chariton novel Callirhoe has its hero Chaereas visiting the tomb of his recently dead wife, saying he *"arrived at the tomb at daybreak"* where he *"found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright."* Others are afraid to enter the tomb, but Chaereas goes in and finds his wife's *body missing* and concludes she has been *taken up by the gods."*
If you want to read how the resurrection legend grew over time, read the below article by Tim O'Neill who is a former Christian and has been studying the scholarship for over 25 years.
*Answer*
What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1 - Quora
You can also read the below article by a former Christian apologist on how he agrees with the mainstream scholarship that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.
*"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"*
Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity.
*“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
*"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*
*"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53
*"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
*"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"*
*"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"What Do the Apostles’ Deaths Prove? Guest Post by Kyle Smith. - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
@@colinmattshe is part of the trinity.
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God. The word became flesh. ( Jesus Christ)
@@1jw298 How do you know any of that is true?
@@colinmatts Faith, my friend. If you really look at how you know anything, you will see that you have to assume an axiom is true before you can begin to reason. That takes faith. The truth you assert in the beginning determines the conclusions you believe to be true at the end. Either everything is random, including your thoughts, or there is some source of intention in the processes that created everything, including your ability to think and assume that anything should be logical at all.
Jesus walked the Earth. People believed his testimony at a time when they were persecuted severely for it. They heard and saw something amazing that made them willing to risk their lives. We become like what we believe.
The truth is that when you look at the book, it becomes obvious that it was written by humans. And it has clear characteristics of God as a character.
The existence of the Universe and the laws of physics testifies to the existence of God?? This is the same as the existence of God was evidenced by lightning, thunder, earthquakes, storms, etc. Religious people keep applying the same primitive “logic” for thousands of years, and never understand that it is WRONG.
No gods are required to exist and atheism is a very rational position to hold as no religion has ever demonstrated their burden of proof nor their god’s supposed existence.
Natural explanations replace religious “explanations “ all the time, but religion never explains anything better than science.
This is so frustrating. Bertrand Russel didn't claim God was like a teapot; his analogy was concerning BELIEVING that a god exists is like BELIEVING there was a teapot floating in space that no human could detect. The analogy is about the burden of proof and using subjective faith to answer objective questions.
In other words its a strawman
@@MarkPatmos No, it's a teapot!
@@MarkPatmos Fine. It's like a straw man floating in space that nobody can detect. It's like you deliberately try to not understand the point.
No, Barron characterized the argument correctly. Russel just as Dawkins don’t understand what is meant by God.
We can talk about a god existing as long as it's not the god of the bible.
If you are liking god as the author of the story and then blaming the actors that fulfill their written scripts for the mess that story has become you are completely off
Some actors go off script
The story is poorly written. The author is no good.
God does not abandon us - it is we, who abandon God.
God is most certainly involved in my life. He communicates. He is a character in my story, while also being the author.
@joelnugteren5206 oh, okay ... lol
So, based on what the bishop has said in this video, the bishop will think you're mistaken.
@@davegaskell7680 yes, that's why I was compelled to comment. I think he is sorely mistaken, trying to make an intellectual comment on the ontology of God because he's actually a little befuddled by a problem that doesn't exist.
Edit: And Biblically.... um... God plays a rather large "character" role.
@@jbc242424 I don't believe in any gods but I respect the integrity of your opinion/comment more than the meaningless poetic fluff that the bishop was saying. Best wishes.
A character, Fictional ?
The argument in the video is a classic apologist switcheroo that I've seen countless times.
First, they define god in abstract terms. In this case, they define god, not as "a being" but as "being itself". Therefore if you try to ask fr proof that god exists they start mocking you and accusing you of a category error.
And they are right! At least, as far as it goes. They have basically defined god as being synonymous with existence, so asking for proof that god exists is like asking for proof that existence exists, which is indeed nonsense. But that is just wordplay. They have just redefined the word god in such a way that you can't say that god doesn't exist.
Now the switch! They suddenly tell you that god, which they have defined to simply mean existence, is also the God of the Bible. And then they carry on as if this new fact requires no proof either.
But the Bible does exist in the material world. It is a physical book. If they are claiming that this book contains the ultimate answer to what existence means, then they need to prove it. It is not a category error to ask for proof that a particular book is telling the truth.
They brush over the fact that they have put god in a category (or rather an unreachable void) prior to the atheist's response. In that sense, asking evidence in support of its existence is far from a category error rather a valid question that exposes their blatant 'cop out'.
I can relate such 'moves' (ignoratio elenchi ) to many preachers who deflect from genuine concerns to gods by responding with "god acts in mysterious ways", or "our mind is too limited to understand him".
It's preposterous and so obviously apologetic. In this sense, these preachers have taken "explaining away" to a whole new level of dishonesty. While it doesn't "explain" a thing, it is equally preposterous that one dismiss existential problems concerning proposed gods by magically removing them from the realm of reasonable inquiry.
It's the old carnival 1, 2, 3, trick, first, make a target that no one can hit, second, tilt the playing field, third, keep moving the target.
😂 it is a category error by definition.
A created thing can never be God who is uncreated and eternal
@@davidbell2547 Nope, "god is uncreated and eternal" is just a claim ... not evidence.
Until you provide verifiable evidence for this god being uncreated and eternal, it remains a silly cop out and there's no category error on our side.
So you can drop the smilies because they only accentuate your lack of basic common sense.
@@davidbell2547 What if I say the universe is eternal and uncreated? It could be, for all anybody knows.
Then the Christian claim that God created the universe would be a category error. Have I just proved that God doesn't exist?
I don't care what Atheists think. I've heard it All before and many times. I'm happy and at peace.. that's all that matters to me.
That’s the definition of a closed mind.
So why comment then? Unless you're some bot that's here to get replies I'd keep that to myself
Enjoy being a very typical delusional religious moron, I guess.
And what about all us atheists who are "happy and at peace"?
@@anthonyeaton5153which is okay at times. Some ppl can't handle the brutal truth , cruelty and injustice etc. as long as they don't shove their sky D into other ppls throat.
really appreciate Lex's openness to this whole topic. his thoughtful questions.
He also wants to know.
This is what sets him aside from the many.
"God is not in any genus, even the genus of being"
So, god doesn't exist. Got it.
1) Tolkien was Beren and his wife was Luthien.
2) No atheist positions were harmed by the waffle in this video.
I like waffles.
I don't understand how there's an error in saying "i don't know".
*Romans 1:15-32*
15 Therefore, as much as is in me, I am ready to preach the Gospel to you also who are in Rome.
16 For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ. For it is the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes; to the Jew first and also to the Greek.
17 For by it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith. As it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of man, who withholds the truth in unrighteousness.
19 *Because that which may be known of God is visible among them, for God has shown it to them.*
20 *For the invisible things of Him - that is, His eternal power and Godhead - are seen by the creation of the world; being perceived in His works, so that they are without excuse.*
21 Because when they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were they thankful; but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was full of darkness.
22 When they professed themselves to be wise, they became fools.
23 For they turned the glory of the incorruptible God to the likeness of the image of a corruptible man; and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and of creeping things.
24 Therefore, God also gave them up to the lusts of their hearts-unto uncleanness-to defile their own bodies among themselves.
25 They turned the truth of God into a lie - and worshipped and served the creature-forsaking the Creator, Who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason, God gave them up to vile affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
27 And likewise the men left the natural use of the woman and burned in their lust one toward another. And man committed indecency with man and received in themselves such recompense as was proper for their error.
28 For as they decided not to acknowledge God, so God delivered them up to a reprobate mind-to do those things which are not proper-
29 being full of all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, of murder, of strife, of deceit, maliciousness; gossips,
30 slanderers, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, covenant breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, merciless.
32 Those who, though they knew the Law of God (how that those who commit such things are worthy of death) not only do the same, but also favor those who do them.
I don't know would be agnosticism
@@julianmanjarres1998 .... Ok I see. So atheism would basically reply with "I'm not convinced?" Which to me is still difficult to say that's a response which is flawed..
@@terrellwilliams5366 It isn't flawed...no worries.
Russel figured out those "believers" a long time ago...“There is something feeble and a little contemptible about a man who cannot face the perils of life without the help of comfortable myths. Almost inevitably some part of him is aware that they are myths and that he believes them only because they are comforting. But he dare not face this thought! Moreover, since he is aware, however dimly, that his opinions are not rational, he becomes furious when they are disputed.”
Fide in Latin… fidelity, trust. This is Biblical “faith”.
exactly, and atheist usually defines faith as if it always associated with religion which then define faith as a blind faith..
but every faith comes wiht evidence, and that is what we called evidence based faith. like trusting having faith in your doctor due to historical expertise of that doctor in treating an illness.
@@marvelstark3797 Correct. The Greek “pistis” also includes a trusting.
Yep, believing in something because you trust in it based on evidence. The testimony of literally millions. It's how the justice system works too. Testimony.
Why does it matter what some word means in a dead language?
@@tarminas6805 In the justice system, we also know for fact that witness testimony is the worst evidence possible.
But even so, let's assume the testimony of lots of ancient men is trustworthy. Then by definition all religions are true and all gods exist. Yet that is impossible because many civilizations claim many radically different and opposing "divine" things about their gods and what they have done, and can do.
The major flaw is that you trust what others (witnesses) say, and that is problematic to say the least. Do you equally believe Zeus exists because Homer wrote about him in the Iliad and millions of Greeks attested to his reality?
If you do not while nevertheless do it concerning your personal deity, then you fall to special pleading since you lack any sound basis for holding one for "true" over the thousands of others.
Impressive how people who know nothing will try to fill the air with nonsense void and try to call it wisdom
This was painful to listen to.
No one forced you to watch it and troll so you can move along now.
@@rayspeakmon2954 I'm not trolling. I'm damn serious. As for watching it I like confronting myself to very wrong ideas
@@Chtchav See comment above.
@@rayspeakmon2954 ahahaha
That Tolkein analogy was incredible
They're really good at saying what god is not.
In what way? If God interacts within the universe than he isn’t analogous to an author.
If he is analogous to an author then he is 100% responsible for every ounce of suffering within the pages of reality. I’ve never understood why people who typically God answers prayers *and* believe in free will would use this analogy.
@@JesseDriftwood I don’t believe suffering is the be all and end all of our experience. We like to point at God and say “you did this wrong” but we aren’t in control so who are we as mere 80 year specs to define the role of suffering particularly in the afterlife being reality, does suffering then take a more temporal role? I believe this life we live is only part of our existence within the eternal span of spirits. And directly in the free will - I believe God gives us the power to change reality with our actions and behaviours as spiritual beings from his making with autonomy while interacting when as he so fits. Sometimes our faith and behaviours can change things, sometimes they can’t and that’s the way it is - that’s why the serenity prayer is a great framework in my opinion in our lack as humans,
@@dt8384 We aren’t just discussing some instances of suffering, or instances that have a potential benefit. All instances of unjust and unnecessary suffering, not only that but the fact that suffering is built into the fabric of existence, for the entire animal kingdom.
Whether or not you find that problematic is a different story, but in my view appealing to “well there good be some reason for it that we don’t know” isn’t a valid answer.
So again, what part of this analogy feels particularly useful or true? To me it falls apart at every turn, even from the Christian perspective!
it was completely pointless. If anything, it shows that god doesnt exist, just like tolkien doesnt exist in the Lord of the Rings Universe.
Please pray for me yall, been doubting recently. Was talking to an atheist yesterday and he was making some interesting points.
@@gregeckert1660 are you trolling? Lol
@@duppyconqueror420 No. if you got nothing to say besides things that are inconsiderate I really have no interest in it chief.
I think if you look into the core your soul, you will find Gods love. That is the heart of who you really are. I think when we deny it, it gets suppressed but when we find it, it gets embarrassed.
I will keep you in my prayers ❤
@@Sjb1 you know it’s crazy you say that because that’s been my experience to a T, you may have hit the nail right on the head I appreciate you very much❤️🤝
@@gregeckert1660 what points was he making?
Thank you for the message. 🙏🙏🙏
“Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us” Have I been so long time with you, and dost thou not know me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; how sayest thou, Show us the Father?
Loving prayers and blessings to you in Jesus name! 🙏💪☝️
Atheism seems much more likely than theism.
Something created from nothing? If so, what was that something and why was that something?
How often do you see example of something coming from nothing in your daily life? I see examples of Gods creation all around us.
Maybe it’s just that I want there to be a God…but even then…if there is no God, why do I yearn for there to be one in the first place like the way the thirsty man craves water or the fat man craves cake.
@boxbury I don't believe something came from nothing. I think there was always something. I don't know ow of a single atheist who believes something came from.nothing.
Something had to have always been. That something has to be a brute fact without explanation. A theist thinks it more likely an infinitely complex, possibly internally incoherent, omnimax personality just happened to exist first. I prefer any of the various naturalistic possibilities for a brute fact: infinitely.old universe, quantum vacuum, multiverse, cyclical.universe etc.
Something indeed created earth, but bot your god. It was allah. Read the Coran and open your heart to the most good and most merciful Allah. Open your heart.
@@123telamon I've read the Quran. It's dull and unpleasant.
@boxbury No. I think it more likely that Something always was. Just that the brute fact wasn't God.
You yearn for God because God is a projection of your highest ideals and who wouldn't want God to exist? But he doesn't. I want many things to be true or come to pass that aren't and never will.
If this dude was my pastor I would have never missed church on Sunday
Great message about the being nature of God! His word is perfect. Mark 16:16 "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned."
If baptism is necessary for salvation, how was the thief on the cross saved?
Jesus himself defined salvation in John 3:16-21...most people stop at verse 16 but the next verses are the crucial ones...
@@nicholas3073 I'm quoting Jesus. Do you disagree with Him? Your question is a good one though! The key is that the thief was saved before the new covenant took effect. "For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives." Hebrews 9:16-17 Jesus was not yet dead so the old covenant was still in effect. Jesus saved the thief while under the old covenant which is His right to do! Now on the day of Pentecost (under the new covenant) the reading of that new covenant was made. Peter preached the gospel for the first time in history that day! He said.. "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ-this Jesus whom you crucified.” Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.” Acts 2:36-38 They asked Peter "What must we do?" Did Peter say come up front and say this prayer with me and "accept Jesus into your heart?" NO! He said "Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." If you can not see this or are not willing to see this then Satan has blinded you to the clear truth right before your eyes. Yes, belief is necessary! You can't be saved without a saving belief! Jesus says to "believe and be baptized to be saved" Why baptism? Romans 6:1-11 says it really well. "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with Him in the likeness of His death, certainly we shall also be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin; for he who has died is freed from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, is never to die again; death no longer is master over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Even so consider yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus." When we believe and are baptized in Jesus name we obey the gospel! Did Paul.. mention anything about a sinner's prayer? NO! He talks about the significance of baptism in that it is when your sins are forgiven and you are raised up to walk in newness of life (receiving the indwelling Holy Spirit) this matches perfectly with Acts 2:38. Search it out. It's right before your eyes.
@@marylinsmith4290 John 3:16 perfectly aligns with Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38. Belief is necessary. Faith is necessary! Obedience to the gospel is necessary! "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved," as said in Mark 16:16 is belief + obedience to the gospel. Romans 6 really goes into depth of what actually takes place when we believe and are baptized. Before Jesus ascended to heaven he told the disciples "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved" Peter preaches the gospel for the first time in History on the day of Pentecost read it for yourself! Acts 2:37-38.
@@nicholas3073 Baptism of desire
Daily Dose bringing another argument from ignorance, how surprising...
Atheism doesn't have any logical errors until you (or anyone else) can prove a god, since that has never happened, atheism is the only logical position.
It literally cant be this hard to understand such basic fallacies.
The human intellect really hasn’t come far.
Random process is a logical error. Processes have predictable results. Randomness is not predictable.
If you can't prove that you have consciousness then it is only logical to assume you do not have consciousness.
Has anyone got a timestamp for the proof that God MUST exist. I can't seem to find it?
No doubt a way to get people to watch the video. They just seem to spout jibberish 🙂
The timestamp exists outside of time, where god exists 😂
I love that to attempt to describe/encapsulate/understand God, some of the only types of language we have that can even attempt to approach the idea are poetry or analogy.
To attempt to encapsulate something infinite in our limited understanding/vocabulary is like trying to capture smoke in your hands. You try to catch a small portion of it, but when you open your hands, it's gone. A remnant or residue remains. A minute piece is left behind by something that will never end, and even if we are able to get more of an understanding than others, we still have but only an infantesimal amount, compared to an infinite being outside of our universe.
What is the worth, value, and importance of Religions to human beings?
ANSWER -
Jehovah's Witnesses, SDAs, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Born Again Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
who believe and preach the Unbiblical teachings and doctrines of their Pastors and Leaders about
"hellfire", "immortality of the souls", "afterlife", "Trinity", "Armageddon", "rapture", and "reincarnation"
will
never be glorified in their make-believe and fairy tale Heaven nor tortured for eternity in their invented and fictitious Hell
but just turn into worthless and useless dusts on earth forever after their natural deaths.
What is the worth, value, and importance of human beings to GOD and Jesus Christ?
ANSWER -
GOD KNOWS
that all persons on earth who honor Jesus Christ as their loving, kind, and merciful Master and Heavenly King
and obey his teachings too about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" written in Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25: 26
will
definitely bring themselves honor and his favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4.
GOD KNOWS
that all human beings will just return to dusts after their deaths just like the animals as written in Ecclesiastes 3: 19, 20
but
he knows too
that
he will not let all the loving, kind, considerate, and respectful persons on earth
who
died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others to remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever,
instead,
he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily and honorably live and exist on earth forever as citizens and subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or His Kingdom
and fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity
under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
What is the worth, value, and importance of Religions to human beings?
ANSWER -
Jehovah's Witnesses, SDAs, Mormons, Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Born Again Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
who believe and preach the Unbiblical teachings and doctrines of their Pastors and Leaders about
"hellfire", "immortality of the souls", "afterlife", "Trinity", "Armageddon", "rapture", and "reincarnation"
will
never be glorified in their make-believe and fairy tale Heaven nor tortured for eternity in their invented and fictitious Hell
but just turn into worthless and useless dusts on earth forever after their natural deaths.
What is the worth, value, and importance of Jesus Christ and the Bible to human beings?
ANSWER -
GOD KNOWS
that thousands of years ago, Jesus Christ was hated, insulted, dishonored, tortured, and murdered
by
arrogant, cruel, merciless, and deceitful persons
who
were violently opposed and against his Sovereignty and commandments and his Christ's authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
GOD KNOWS
that thousands of years and nothing has changed, just the same.....
his favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence on earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4
is still
NOT for arrogant, cruel, merciless, and deceitful persons on earth
but
ONLY for lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons
who
honor Jesus Christ as their loving, kind, and merciful Master and Heavenly King
and obey his teachings too about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" written in Luke 4: 43 and John 11: 25, 26.
GOD KNOWS
that all human beings will just return to dusts after their deaths just like the animals as written in Ecclesiastes 3: 19, 20
but
he knows too
that
he will not let all the loving, kind, considerate, and respectful persons on earth
who
died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, Naomi, Ruth, King David, Jesus Christ's Followers and disciples, and many others to remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever,
instead,
he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily and honorably live and exist on earth forever as citizens and subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or His Kingdom
and fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity
under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.
People always misconstrue what atheism is. The word itself just literally means "without theism." We aren't making any arguments for or against anything, It simply is a matter of not having the belief at all. There can't be a logical error, because there's no attempt to apply any logic in the first place.
Everybody believes in something. Theists believe there is a God behind everything, atheists believe there is nothing behind everything. But can you *know* that? Of course not. You weren't there when all the things started and so you "believe" that that is true.
Put it this way... I believe that every person on this planet has a "life" that is at least as important to them as mine is to me. They have hopes, dreams, their own struggles and joys, their own experience of the world. But can I *know* that? I haven't been anyone but myself. But I can make an inference based on what I know about me.
I personally think, and maybe I'm wrong, people say this thing "well, I just don't have belief in something outside of what we can know" as an attempt to pull the rug out from under theists. A "gotcha!" if you will. Maybe I'm wrong, but I thoroughly believe (interesting phrasing) that everybody believes in something, or else they're apathetic to the of laziness about important matters and are only interested in being entertained through this life, not understanding the purpose of it.
Cheers, friend.
People also misconstrue what faith and belief in God is. If you don’t like it to be done to you, then don’t do it to others.
Then why are you guys always flooding Christian videos? If it was simply nonbelief, you'd have nothing to say about it.
@@aaronharlow2137I would offer that atheists come and respond because channels like this keep talking about atheists or science and we have to correct things or offer replies to things said about us.
@@aaronharlow2137 They need to feel like they are right for some reason. It’s actually a logical fallacy to say there is no God. Because we all know that there is no human mind that can gather all of the variables to say for sure that their isn’t. However it is possible to say there is a God, there are evidences that make it more probable than not. It is astronomically more probably than not in fact. So it’s foolish to say that there isn’t when you can’t do that. They have a lot of faith don’t they?
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS.
This video starts by saying that atheists make the mistake of thinking we should expect the kind of rational and empirical evidence for god that we have for other objects and beings in our universe....BUT ALSO it goes on to say that he is personal and knowable and enters into this world and reveals himself.
Is he in this reality operating exactly like a being, in ways that are tangible to our lives and reality, OR is he the poetic ground of all being?
Apologists often try to evade challenges and skepticism with the first half but then want to sneak the second half back in.
If god is truly the cosmic first cause and ungraspable scientifically, that's great, but then christians need to recognize that they revive their burden of proof with specific claims about answered prayers, eternal life, god speaking to individuals, god having intentions and desires, miracles, etc and those claims absolutely justify the demand for rational, empirical, and objective evidence.
At the VERY LEAST, this should cause modern christians to be much less certain about theological ideas and much more open handed about the merits of skepticism and provisional ignorance in the face of particular religious ideas.
So I was raised Catholic but things which the church has allowed in the past and today tbh I don’t trust it. To me this priest makes really complicated about the nature of God. I don’t think it’s that deep. I believe in an intelligent designer who lets us fuck up if we choose to. Free will. Don’t understand why or how etc. But I have faith in Him. That’s it.
I know. It's like God wasn't really speaking to Moses on that mountain but you should totally do what he said anyway.
@@landonpontius2478 If I'm understanding your comment correctly, the evidence of God as a being is precisely the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth. Do we just ignore the historical and literary evidence of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Its my understanding that atheist scholars do not deny the historical figure of Jesus but rather the narrative surrounding his resurrection. If you were given perfect signs then you wouldn't really need faith would you?
@@JJChalupniktestimony is not evidence of things with no empirical basis like resurrections.
God existing outside the universe doesn't imply He can't interact or enter it whenever He wants. When playing a videogame you exist both outside the game as the player and inside the game trough your avatar, you can interact with the game world, move the objects inside it, create or destroy things and so on and so forth, if we can exist in two worlds simultaneously why God can't?
I genuinely don’t understand the author/novel to creator/existence analogy *unless* we’re discussing a deist God who doesn’t interact with the universe. The moment you have God interacting within the world, he ceases to be outside of the book, he writes himself into as a character, a character that also claims to be the author of the book no less. The world is full of people of have claimed to be the author of reality, and we’d agree on 99.999% of them being false.
What am I missing here in the analogy?
If God is analogous in someway to an author (who is in every aspect of the book) then he’s responsible for every ounce of suffering that has ever taken place just like Tolkien is responsible for which characters die and by what means. Free will goes out the window.
@@JesseDriftwood All great points. I've noticed the guy who runs this channel never seems to reply to challenges to his commentary, so I wouldn't hold my breath that he'll deal with your questions either. This isn't a channel that fosters discussion; it's just this guy clipping excerpts from other commentators that he tries to use to support his own beliefs. In this case, he highlights a priest who essentially says god isn't a being, but rather the act of being itself, but then he (this show runner) says, well, actually god is a being and character in the story, a character by the name of Jesus. Basically, there's no real open mindedness on the show runner's part, he's already fixated on "Jesus the savior", and the Biblical account, so however he can shoehorn that premise into the discussion, that's how he sees the world. My contention is that we really can't even get past the debate over what the definition of god is; everyone has their own idea about it, and there's no agreement. I'd propose that god is actually "undefined" and impossible to define, and therefore impossible to prove or disprove its existence. Personally, I don't even see evidence of intervention in the daily lives of people beyond perhaps their own belief or disbelief that something is interceding on their behalf. If it makes you feel good to believe there's a god out there helping you out, or inspiring you to do good things, that's great; more power to you. But, I have a problem when public policies are lobbied for and designed on the basis of some religious tradition. You might as well be reading the good book of Tolkien or any other fairy tale for guidance to public policy, then.
@@marshallross3373 He used to dialogue with me quite a lot and had even offered to have some type of conversation on the channel, though I’m not entirely sure if that was a genuine request.
I think the problem with a concept that we can’t agree on what it even entails, is that there ceases to be a reason to even use the word God. It feels like a placeholder for “whatever else there might be”. Language is descriptive, and typically the descriptions are based off of observation and cohesive agreement within a group. If we say god is something that is impossible to define, prove, or disprove, how is that any different from something that doesn’t exist at all? This sounds like the definition of absolute nothingness, impossible to define, prove or disprove.
The rest I’m with you, I’m glad that a lot of people find comfort and joy out of their beliefs, I’m less glad about people who make public truth claims without sufficient evidence, religious or not.
@@JesseDriftwood Agree. In a way, the term "god" doesn't even have meaning because everyone has a different definition. On that score consider this: every human on Earth has a different amount of exposure to the content of the Bible--from nothing to multiple readings. Each person who's actually read it or heard about it, then has a unique interpretation and understanding of it based on their personal intellect, interest, and world view. So, there's already a huge range of possibilities with regard to this whole issue. I think this fellow has concluded "god" means Jesus, and Jesus is the savior, etc. in the way he sees and thinks about it. So, if you don't accept that definition, either you, me, or anyone else is just talking past him entirely. Theology, in my opinion, is mostly a study of rhetoric and propaganda. Anyway, nice side chat with you. Cheers!
So are you complaining about it because God wants you to? And why else would you be trying to do away with the concept of free will other than to refute God's claim that you belong in hell?
There is no point in the video where he actually proves what the title says
So basically: if I choose to define the undefined as God, God exists for me. That’s all good, but it just isn’t a convincing POV for someone who isn’t intrinsically drawn towards that kind of perspective. And it certainly isn’t evidence of anything. As isn’t the “things exist, therefore a creator must exist” argument. Because you can apply the same thing to God. If he exists, who created him? And if the answer is “no one,” then why can’t you just skip this step entirely and apply the same answer to the question of “who created the universe?”
It's funny how this god used to interact with us as a being, complete with emotions and a requirement to be worshipped etc, but now that this is considered absurd it gets hidden away in the shadows of "the unknowable". And you must simply have faith in this being true.
Asceticists are the worst fools, because they believe they are geniuses.
Yep, they've had to push god so far out that he now exists outside of space and time.
So at no time does god exist and there's no space for god to exist in.
He's basically saying it's the god of the gaps and the Divine fallacy that God exists. The author of the book analogy doesn't work because we no and have evidence for the majority of authors of books. The authors are real people within our world. It's all a Dodge for lacking proof which is why faith is necessary. There is no logical error in atheism. The common definition these days for atheism is just a lack of belief of gods. There's no error there. Belief is a subset of knowledge so you need to have knowledge of something before you can believe it and the problem is that everyone starts with the belief and then they try to figure out their evidence whereas they should wait for the evidence and then form the belief.
If you truly look at the evidence, there HAS to be a creator outside of space, time and matter. The more we know of the universe and life we learn how complicated it is, and it has become obvious that it was designed. Most atheists do what you stated, which is have a preconceived belief that there is no creator, then look at the evidence and try to make it fit that belief. The reality is the more we know, the more the evidence points to a creator. You may not like to call that creator God, but the evidence simply does not support a naturalistic explanation for creation.
@@skylerjamestesi9530 you can’t get life from nothing, in what world ever does nothing create something? Only something can create something. There’s huge logical error with atheism, it doesn’t make sense. Something doesn’t have to be physical for it to be real. Love is the biggest example, you don’t see it but it’s evident in everyday life. “Love is just a chemical reaction in your brain” “it’s proved by science” science explains how god works, he is not a magician, he is the universal engineer. Look at the universal constants and the formation of our solar system, we are placed In the perfect spot for our planet to sustain life. The sun our heat source brings food from the ground while the moon allows for ocean ecosystems to thrive. All by chance? How did such a random moment in time create complex life? And how did it create a sense of morality? God has written his law on our hearts, that’s why we know deep down when something is good or bad. We tap into spirituality everyday and we don’t even realize it
Amen 😂
@@bmckenzie69no, atheists come to conclusions based on or lack of evidence.
@@bmckenzie69 Nature/Creation has no god(s). It needs no creator, it is complete and absolute and every living and non living thing is a part of it and brought about by its energy. It is neutral to everything and therefore not loving or hateful, not merciful or merciless. The goal of creation is evolution. Every conscious being evolves in knowledge through experiences through multiple personalities in a long cycle of life and death. Through this, the human being evolves to eventually become one with creation and in turn it too can evolve. This is the TRUTH.
Oh my gosh, I love these challenging questions. These conversations are so beautiful. I feel blessed for stumbling upon your video this morning as I try to find inspiration. Thank you. 🙏🏾
I watched this entire interview, it was captivating and I found the line of questioning intelligent and respectful.
I like the book metaphor. Imagine you're writing a book and you create all of the characters and setting, but you give the characters free will. You've still created who they are and where they are, but they have free reign to do as they please. But you want to influence all the characters to be good without forcing them. So to do that you create a character that is you. Like the other characters, the you that is now in the story has free will. In order to influence the other characters to be good, you sacrifice yourself in the worst way possible and offer that sacrifice up to the rest of the characters. You then show them that you are beyond life and death, and come back to life and then leave the world and rejoin with the you that is writing the story.
@@gardnert1 I love that :)
Fantastic but all totally unnecessary if you're omnipotent and omniscient .
Why would an all powerful all knowing God need to do any of that when it can make the outcome however it likes?
God must exist because everything must have a cause. (Apologists take this to be irrefutable)
Except for God, he doesn't have a cause. (Apologists don't think this needs further explanation)
Something can't come from nothing. (Apologists take this to be irrefutable)
Except that God (a timeless, formless, immaterial being) can inexplicably create everything from nothing using magic (Apologists don't think this needs further explanation)
In other words.. something is eternal, and we know thanks to science that it isn’t nature….
God must exist because everything must have a cause. - Not everything, but whatever comes into existence
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom we do not "know" that from science. We do not know that our universe is the first or only in existence, we do not know that something is or must be eternal, we do not know definitively that the energy/matter of our universe came into being out of nothing at any point.
Surely you can see the asymmetry here. The theist claims are based on intuition and experience (we've never seen an example of something coming from nothing etc) but the solution is another completely unprecedented thing for which we don't, and maybe even can't, have any direct evidence.
Why is "i don't know" not the most intellectually honest position to hold?
@@bennyredpilled5455 what makes you believe that? We've never seen anything come into existence...by a cause or otherwise. And we have no reason to believe that anything can be "eternal" but that's readily attributed to "god."
@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom we are not faced with only two options: NOTHING or "GOD"
We can posit a million different explanations and all of them are purely speculative, especially if we're allowed to posit explanations that are completely unprecedented and that break the rules of our universe (in the way that the christian god does).
Be very careful conflating the words ‘evidence’ with ‘must.’ Whenever you invoke the laws of physics or chemistry, physicists will immediately point to the fact that, to our best measurements, our universe’s total energy is zero to within measurement error, meaning there is no law of physics violated by our universe coming into existence by chance by quantum fluctuations, and God is not needed to explain that mechanism.
We are all created in the image of God. If you find yourself asking "which God?" Just pray and let God reveal himself to you.
“Faith is the assured expectation of what is hoped for the evident demonstration of realities you cannot see”.
Hebrews 11:1
There's lots of realities we cannot see. But none we cannot measure
Faith is incredibly simple. It HAS to be because Jesus said this:
Matthew 18:3
And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Faith means "to be fully persuaded that something is true". That's it. It really is that simple. Romans 4:20-22 explains:
"20 He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; 21 And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. 22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness."
God is not HIDING salvation from you! He wants ALL to be saved! 2 Peter 3:9
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Do not be deceived! Salvation is EASY! Discipleship is HARD. Salvation is FREE. Discipleship costs you EVERYTHING.
You CANNOT EARN a GIFT! Otherwise it is no longer a gift!
Romans 11:6
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ ALONE and be saved!
@@colinmatts Do u believe that evolved gradually? How could living beings not died without mouth?
Faith is not a substitute for evidence.
Can you measure the number of stars beyond the observable universe?
Can you measure the number of other possible universes?
If you cannot even measure everything in physical reality, (hiesenburg uncertainty, nth digit of pi beyond the heat death of the universe, anything below Planck scale, or what’s really inside a black hole), what gives you the confidence to believe nothing outside your ability to measure could exist?
after so many years i still believe some theist has come up with a coherent argument, when I see a title like this, but every time its a disappointment.
Perhaps this speaks to the limitations of either the human mind or our language.
Using rationale and logic - by which we understand things of this world - and words used to describe these - that we learn from observation and experience of the world - it would be no surprise that a creator of such a universe would be indescribable and incomprehensible to us humans.
This would also explain why we would need Jesus and faith in the first place since there would be no other way to God, hence why Jesus says he is the only way to God.
@@Bennerboi or perhaps god just doesnt exist, which - even though less desirable - sounds more reasonable to me
Same old recycled fallacies over n over n over n over.
It's pretty pathetic now
I hate that you cherry-picked the comments of him dismissing the teapot argument by relabeling God and moving the goalpost. It's intellectually dishonest.
My brain hurts! And yet...I want to think on this more and learn more. Thank you!
One of the greatest Christian accomplishments is creating a god as target that can never be hit, justified, or explained. Yet because of its non existent existence nature it is a great thing. Smh
This is a nonsense statement. While the wholeness of God is beyond human understanding, the basic truths about him are sighted in the Nicene Creed every Mass since the 4th century, over a thousand years. It is shouted from rooftops and rung from steeples. How in the world can you claim the claims we are making undecipable or indeterminate? Even minor nuances of theology have been rigorously and publicly debated for centuries.
One of the greatest atheist accomplishments is creating a religion that can never be questioned, does not need to justify its existence, and has no burden to prove its reality or the miracles it demands its followers to believe.
@@The_world_is_not_worthy_of_Himthere’s the lying cowardly troll
@@johnwright1447 beyond understanding yet we understand the basic truths. Okay buddy lol
@@The_world_is_not_worthy_of_Him make sure you don’t miss the short bus tomorrow
"I don't want childish credulity." But I have faith in a big daddy in the sky who loves me and and performs magic when he wants.
You didn't watch or understand the video. You are making EXACTLY the mistake described in the video. Or do you need that strawman to avoid reality?
@@gary00333It wasn't a strawman, it was a reductio ad absurdum.
You aren't listening and trying to understand. You completely miss the essence of what he is saying.
@@gary00333 One man's faith is another's childish credulity.
This guy just said that god is not an "entity." An entity is defined as "a thing with distinct and independent existence." Does he not see who his argument is self-defeating?
How can we be made in his image if he’s not an entity?
Exactly. Reminds me of this verse from Titus:
But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.
There is no proft in this. Believe on The Lord Jesus Christ ALONE and be saved today!
An important and beautiful question. It all revolves around what "made in his image" actually represents on this mortal plane. It certainly doesn't mean that we partake of God, that we 'become' God in some sense.
If I was a better christian my life and actions would be a demonstration of what it means to be made in the image of God, but my addiction to vices of one sort and another make my life a poor example. Such is the sorry history of an imperfect christian example that is the church.
Fortunately, there's one who is a better demonstration: Jesus (the Entity), the Messiah given to us by God as an example of what it does mean. In his letter to the church at Philippi, the apostle Paul says, "For the divine nature was his from the first; yet he did not think to snatch at equality with God, but made himself nothing, assuming the nature of a slave. Bearing the human likeness, revealed in human shape, he humbled himself, and in obedience accepted even death -- death on a cross."
In answer to one of his disciples asking him to show them the father, Jesus said, "Have I been with you all this time, Philip, and yet you still don’t know who I am? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father! So why are you asking me to show him to you?"
Whatever we believe or don't believe about the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, his life was a demonstration of what it means to be "made in the image of God".
In believing the resurrection was a historical event, I have no difficulty accepting that on the one hand he emptied himself out, going even to death, and on the other hand could say things like, "I and the father are one" and, "before Abraham was, I am", assertions that got him killed in the first place.
Jesus' answer is a demonstration of our tendency to make category errors about God's nature and our nature. ("Show us the Father.") His resurrection, if we accept it, is God's demonstration that what Jesus claimed about himself was and is true.
If you haven’t heard of Jerry Root, you should look into him and do a reaction to some of the videos he has been in! He is a CS Lewis scholar and is so underrated for how intelligent and eloquent he is! He doesn’t have his own channel so look for a thumbnail with a semi bald old man with big glasses lol
Love what you do and keep up the great content!
God is Absolute, that covers it all... 😁😁👍👍
Only if you are satisfied with a meaningless answer
So God is cancer too.
@@colinmatts 😂😂😂😂 is the brain dead nonhuman athiest trash mad at the truth again awwww how cute 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
ab·so·lute
/ˈabsəˌlo͞ot/
adjective
1.
not qualified or diminished in any way; total.
So...how does one begin to have a personal relationship with "Not Qualified or Diminished in Any Way"?
@@saintmalaclypse3217 When the Absolute decides He wants to, if we're using this phrasing. That's what Jesus is all about.
Jesus is God and God is very personal to anyone who accepts Him.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" -Epicurus
At what point is this channel going to make the minuscule effort it takes to understand what atheism is? I won't hold my breath, but it would be nice
Most atheists don't remotely understand what atheism is. And btw, a majority of philosophical atheists, like Graham Oppy, who completely understand the subject, find the argument "The burden of proof is on a theist, because a theist is making a claim, and I simply am not convinced", to be a perfectly absurd position, because it is.
Please learn the subject from sources other than frog biologists, comedians, magicians and journalists. It's simply ridiculous.
@@godfreydebouillon8807:
The vast majority of atheists understand perfectly well what atheism is. The problem is rather that 100% of theists are delusional morons who have been brainwashed into believing and spouting utter bullshit with zero basis in reality.
@@godfreydebouillon8807 how is that absurd?
@@hoon_solWow, that was brilliant.
@@duppyconqueror420If you remotely understand the subject, which 99% of atheists do not, then you would understand terms of mathematical logic such as The Law of Non Contradiction and The Law of the Excluded Middle.
Look them up, read them, and then you come back and tell me. Any denial of proposition P is an affirmation of the denial of proposition P, and you must support your position.
If you don't understand what I just said then you're simply incapable of having an opinion on much of anything.
Some people cannot let go of imaginary friend
Is there anything you know with certainty? And if so, how do you know it?
right? even weirder when they call it a "big bang" or "evolution" 😂😂😂😂 like grow tf up already.
@@The_world_is_not_worthy_of_Him come on, you don’t take self-professed soulless apes seriously?
@@deanodebowell “janfu” is clearly a child who’s trolling and lying.
Who’s a soulless ape? Are you referring to atheists?
@@The_world_is_not_worthy_of_Himthe hypocrisy of you telling others to grow up. You don’t even know what the Big Bang was.
If we can all agree that reality is infinite, then everything can and will exist
I've seen three miracles just this year. The first one was lake Mead filling back up after everyone knew it was going to dry up. The second was the attempt on Bishop Mar Mari's life, and the third was Crooks missing 5+ attempts at the president which would be doable without a scope. God amazes me every time even though I know all things are possible through God. I shouldn't be here either, but God thought that I was important enough to save my life twice when I OD'd alone. I'm so unworthy, but he loves me for some reason. The Lord is the best, I pray that I can have as close of a relationship with God as possible.
I witnessed a miracle too. I had a cold and I took some aspirin and lo and behold, a day later i was better
So the man in the crowd who's brains got blown out... No miracle for him I guess?
@@Mediocre_JT if you believe your unworthy... you're unworthy.
If you believe you're worthy... you're worthy.
Believe plus thought and imagination creates the illusion of Matter. The mind sustains the idea of a body.
It is all play. It is all temporary form through a persona.
Don't take it too seriously.
All miracles are identical in worth and value.
All miracles fall under the umbrella of the miracle of existence.
Trying to overcome drugs also good for you brother 🤍 Amen.
@@3ldyrnce759 the next time I think about drugs ( it's been 30 years) I'll remember your kind words. Lol.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*
And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.
1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
There is one way you can be sure, but it is up to you to pursue it. Examine the evidence for the resurrection, honestly, with genuine integrity, and see where it leads. A number of people have done that and concluded it happened. Among those who tried to disprove the resurrection are Frank Morrison in “Who moved the stone., and the man who wrote Ben Hur, which he wrote because he could not disprove the resurrection of Jesus. It is the rock solid reason for Christianity. As the apostle Paul wrote “ If Christ be not risen from the dead we are of all men most miserable, but now is Christ risen” 1Corinthians 15v19-20. There are many other passages that endorse the resurrection. Disprove the resurrection and Christianity will die. But it continues to grow based on this fact.
May you find the truth and with it the forgiveness and peace He gives.
Bearing in mind that God wants us free, it would be logical that witholding belief until sufficient and credible evidence is demonstrated makes sense. If there was an undeniable rational case for God, anyone reasonable would need to agree would need to agree. Faith would then not be faith but logic and science, God would not let us be free and His love questionnable.
@@TheoSkeptomai I don’t believe there is any credible evidence for Atheism. i.e. that a mind did not create space time and matter.
@pascalmoisan3055 Are you asserting faith is a _reliable_ path to truth?
@@Bisotun That has nothing to do with atheism. The fact that I am not convinced any god to be a reality is proof of atheism. PERIOD.
the fact that you can trust what your brain produces means it (your brain) must be put together by an intelligent being. Period
But not necessarily by a loving being.
@@haitaelpastor976 Why? This being gave you free will. So good or evil is up to you and you alone. Its easy to blame God and not yourself.
@@crisis4905 There is a load of evil that doesn't come from human free will. It must come from God then.
@@haitaelpastor976 there's a load of good too. The fact that we can choose suggests otherwise
@@haitaelpastor976 Are you talking about animals or Nature? Only Human beings with a free will are capable of doing evil things because we are capable of telling the difference. An animal for example could never murder, only kill and there is a big difference between the two.
Such an abstract argument doesn't hold up logicly.
I’m so glad you mentioned your documentary in this! I haven’t heard you say anything about it before so must be in videos I haven’t watched yet but I watched it and it was so good!!!! Thank you and may you be truely blessed by God. 😊
Bishop Barron is amazing and one of the main reasons I became Catholic.
Yes, I can understand that. He has a knack of making rubbish sound true, so has probably converted many folk to Catholicism.
Never join anything because of a man. He will let you down. Study things for yourself, lazy ass
@@Chris-hf2sl Nihilism and hedonism will doom you. Stop being cynnical.
@@Chris-hf2sl Rubbish like what?
Could you answer me this one question: How do you know you're saved?
This reveals a lot! If you say you don't know (or can't know) then please look at what 1 John 5:13 tells us!
13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.
You can KNOW you are saved! How? Jesus, God in Human form, died for YOUR sins, was buried and was resurrected on the third day. Do you believe this? Then you ARE SAVED! How? Because you trust JESUS.
He said He'd save you. Do you believe Him or not? IT really is that simple!
John 1:12
But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
John 6:40
40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
All who BELIEVE shall be saved. Please. Catholic friends, believe the Gospel! Do not put your trust in man. If you answer with ANYTHING other than what the Bible says, you are trusting in MAN!
Romans 11:6
6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ ALONE and be saved!
So straight away he says atheists make mistakes about their perception of what god is. I have only ever argued against whatever theists tell me. I didn't make up the idea of god. I go with their definition. Interestingly theists can't seem to agree on what god is.
Don't blame atheists because your god is a vague, nebulous concept that has whatever attribute you need it to have at any given minute...
Absolutely. First rule of apologetics, redefine atheist to something that we can dismiss.
Exactly
Total nonsense, it’s like watching a flat earth debate. Anytime you hear someone say they have evidence of any god, you know it’s false
I cannot stand CS Lewis. Then what happened is that in college I had a running buddy who was really attractive and she was a member of the CS Lewis society and she begged me to come to one of their meetings. And at this meeting they took a photo of the CS Lewis Society for the yearbook and so I became a de facto member. And I never went back. And this was all for a woman, friends. And the worst part is we never hooked up.
Smart girl.
being a figment of your imagination god can be anything you want him to be and can do anything that you are able to do for him.
🥱
good thing He reveled Himself in the Bible for us to not mistake Him for our own imagination but for Him to show who He is.
@@itssslashhere5245 How do you know he revealed himself in the bible?
@@itssslashhere5245 yeah exodus 33:20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. so you really know what you're talking about.
@@Bisotuncan’t debate it? Not based on factual demonstrable evidence for you to refute? Good thing you got emojis.
All this secular, long-winded, big-worded, talk about the existence of God - it is self-aggrandizing, misleading, and totally unnecessary. God does not make use of such worldly wisdom to make Himself known to full satisfaction by ordinary people. You just need to by humble in heart and sincerely seek him.
If there is a God you can expect him to be distant and unaffected by human behavior and consequence. He wouldn't be outside of time because time is arbitrary. He would allow things to play out after setting things in motion. He would understand that the human limited capacity would cause evil actions, but since all roads lead to death He would allow it. He would give us glimpses of his essence through the various joys of life. He would ease us into life and ease us out, by default.
When someone says, “there is no God,” I like to say, “spoken like a true 3D being.” No human mind or body has ever experienced the eternal possibilities of eternally possible states of being, whether matter that we are familiar with, or whether immaterial states of being like the “spiritual” states of being that we have no ability to quantify or prove one way or another. Saying, “there is no God,” is such an arrogant statement.
@@JohnSmith-wu6yx seems the same logic apply to saying “there is a God”
@@duppyconqueror420 What does the evidence say?
@@strykervirus1724 what evidence?
@duppyconqueror420 I believe some were discussed in the video if you watched it.
@@duppyconqueror420 How is it the same logic? Please explain.
History is..... His Story.
What about the history that happened before the bible?
@@colinmatts God was before the Bible. We make the mistake of thinking He is a created being, when He was, is and always will be. He is eternal. Just because there are things we may not understand or see with our eyes doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Blessings 😊
@@reformedwheat5648 How do you know he's eternal? It sounds like you're just taking all of history and crediting God with it. That's stupid
@@colinmatts what history 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
In Spanish the word is historia, his is not an adjective, neither storia nor toria are words, so there is no god/Jesus character in the Hispanic world. I wonder if their panic at having no god is just like "his panic" at not being there for them.!
I envy the ability to think that there is an God. Faith is either to much sensitivity to see something i can not see, or insanity.
And yet God s upset when a little bird falls, and He is happy when a little bird is born. That is the mistery for me.
Please explain. He is happy for bad and good?
@InnovativeSaint He is so big, but a little lottle bird is important for Him.
@@medusa210562 the mystery of God’s concern for us, on this small dot in the cosmos?
Oh no, not the same old clockmaker-argument again!
Old arguments bad arguments. Unless you know of clocks that spontaneously build themselves out of nothing, you might give the argument from design some additional consideration before dismissing it wholesale.
@@sidwhiting665 The watchmaker-argument has already been refuted time and time again. Is it really necessary to repeat it still?
@@sidwhiting665 Then God is an awful watchmaker.
@@haitaelpastor976 "waaaah waaaah why don't I get every single thing I want in life waaaah waaaah why isn't life easy and effortless waaah waaaaaah waaaaaah" 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@sidwhiting665
We know watches don't occur naturally because we can compare them to things that do.
What are you comparing the universe to in order to confirm that it musnt have formed naturally?
Not a very good title is it? "Why god must exist (and the logical error of Atheism)" I listened to the preacher, I'm yet to find out anything relating to the requirement of a god or any atheist logical error:
First, fundamental, mistake: God made man in his image and the Jesus guy supposedly got resurrected in mans/gods image. So, wrong, god has already designated itself as a "being" in Genesis and the New Testament. Let's not forget that "staring in the face" of god would kill you according to Moses' crowd firmly places god as a being.
Second fundamental mistake: If first sin had never occurred the earth would have been heaven (eternal not limited to 10 billion years). And, of course Adam wouldn't have been walking in the Garden of Eden with god.
Third fundamental mistake: If god finds you clearly its not finding the vast majority of the world so it must be acting with bias. We would also not be told "seek and you will find" if we weren't to seek god. The comment is an abject failure. What is he trying to convey? God finds you but only if you look? The comment gives the impression, you do nothing until the phone rings and announces: "Hi, I'm god".
Fourth fundamental mistake: Trying to fumble through some circumlocutory speech that never reaches it's goal about faith when faith is so easy a concept having two versions: theistic and rational. Theistic faith is an unwavering understanding and belief a god exists without proof (that's what the bible demands and was designed as a subterfuge for the Torah's authors knowledge, as there is no god, no one would ever see it). Rational faith is more a hope something will be proved true eventually be that the Big Bang or there will be cutlery on the table in the restaurant.
Fifth fundamental mistake: The Lord of the Rings analogy: Tolkien is not in the book as a character, god is the lead character in the bible therefore, whilst we never expect to see Tolkien, there is, most definitely, reason to assume we will see god. And that is, of course even before we take into account the bible isn't supposed to be fiction.
Sixth fundamental error: There's actually nothing said that atheists don't understand beyond the preachers self manufactured view of the bible and god which is in total conflict with the scriptures and in defiance of gods word i.e. he's unsuccessfully trying to write his own biblically incorrect version of Lord of the Rings.
you said it, brother, “the ultimate fairytale come to life.” Jesus is the uberhero, humanity’s cosmic rescuer… the gospels, the divine comic book, the 1st century’s gcu;
thanks for the clarity
I’m so proud of you brother! Keep up the great work. God bless 🙏☝️
Listening to this makes me nowhere closer to "god must exist".
@AliagaAyin
That's precisely the point: Your mind misrepresents how you imagine God (capital letter); hence He cannot exist for you! It's that simple.
Im understand your frustration and I would suggest that you reed Dr. Stephen Meyer's book, " The Return of the God Hypothesis for a more scientific approach.
@@hbarfarkle
This Sunday morning I woke up getting your comment on *frustration* as the first one of the day after turning on my internet connection.
Last night I went to bed writing a few comments here that also handled with *frustration* .
I'm not familiar with the book *The Return of the God Hypothesis* by this Dr. Stephen Meyer you mention, but having followed this channel I remembered it was the guy that often appears in these videos.
I'm familiar with Bishop Barron though, and many other authors and related subjects.
One thing I can make out of all that has been said here so far:
We need an extra *subject matter* ( a person, a book, a movie, a piece of music, etc.) as a *common component* of our conversations, which can function as a BRIDGE to the main topic, which according to the video is GOD.
The *two* approaches that have been
used so far are SCIENCE vs. FAITH (RELIGION), and with the third, *our common REASON* , that tries to connect the previous *two* , by building an ANALOGICAL bridge ARGUMENT.
Now, when this is said, where would you suggest we could go next?
@@therealonghoe condescending
@@therealong Firstly, that was a well thought out reply and was appreciated for its defining of your approach to the topic. I don believe that the 3 books written by Dr. Stephen Meyer are crucial to defining, not only the argument I would advance, but the most plausible answer.
His 3 books are, 1. Signature in the Cell 2. Darwins Doubt 3. The Return of the Good Hypothesis, as well as other remarkable books like, Science and Faith in Dialogue, Four Views On Creation, Evolution, And Intelligent Design and Theistic Evolution are wonderfully written and very scientific approaches to the argument off Intelligent Design vs Big Bang Theory.
Dr. Meyer also explains why, from a purely scientific perspective, why evolution, although it does explain minor changes in animals such as the finches who's beaks got longer in response to climate change, it doses not and can not explain larger and, in any evolutionary sense, very rapid major changes resulting in new species. A prime example is the Cambrian Period 510 million years ago.
Thank you for an intelligent and thoughtful conversation.
To even type “the logical error of atheism” demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of these topics
"The existence of the universe itself, that there is anything rather than nothing, is evidence." Nope. It's just that people who believe in God attribute it to him. There's no evidence whatsoever that a god exists or created the universe, etc. Everything you say about him is simply stuff that believers have made up.
I fail to see how you can have organised structure without the involvement of an intelligence. The universe is extremely well-organised. To me, the idea that there is no god is insane given that the blatantly obvious proof is all around us. Atheism, in my view, is the first sign of someone having lost touch with reality.
Some thoughts:
1. By definition, it's impossible for an author of a story to enter into that story. Even if J.R.R. Tolkien were to create a character in his stories called J.R.R. Tolkien, it would still be just a character. It wouldn't be the author. For instance, if it died in the story, the real J.R.R. Tolkien wouldn't die.
2. The characters in a story can be said to have obligations towards one another, but they cannot meaningfully be said to have obligations towards their author. Harry Potter has no obligations towards J.K. Rowling.
3. The characters in a story do not possess libertarian freedom, relative to their author. They can defy one another, but they cannot defy their author.
4. While the characters in a story can blame other characters for their misdeeds, the author of a story cannot blame the characters for their misdeeds. Try to imagine J.K. Rowling writing a scene in which Draco Malfoy does something mean to Harry Potter, and thinking to herself as she does so, "You are such an evil person, Draco Malfoy!" Draco is only as bad as J.K. Rowling makes him: no better and no worse. Harry can blame Draco for what he does, but J.K. Rowling can't. It is a self-referential contradiction to say to someone: "You shouldn't have done that" AND "I made you do that." You can say one or the other, but not both.
5. In the end, the author-character analogy destroys human freedom, even if it preserves the transcendence of God.
@@VincentTorleyYKH i am confused 🫤
Right. Characters in a story don't possess freedom. They're scripted. And that obliterates Christian theology and ideas of sin, redemption, and damnation. It would just be god playing a game of pretend with itself and using us as dolls.
Except you are limiting God to the author of a story when God by definition is not fully comprehensible by the human mind. God is like the author of a story but so much more than that.
God is timeless and eternal, the beginning and the end. The result of the choices we make with our own free will are already known to God, but not to us. God did not create sin. God created free will, knowing the results, and sometimes even softens or hardens people's hearts to influence their decisions. Satan has free will, and sometimes God allows him to act against humanity or not, according to God's will.
Blame God at your own peril. This is what the book of Job is about. The mediator between God and man that Job speaks about is the incarnation of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of the sins of man from the beginning with Adam.
We are the authors of our own character in a story that has already been written.
@@johnbrion4565 its the guy in the video that presented the analogy. But you are correct, the analogy is meaningless
A book exists so that must mean that god exists. Damn. That's MIT level science being performed.
This is a massive straw man
It’s an analogy, that’s basic level English language
I'd argue that faith is a far simpler thing.
It is a reasonable expectation that the unknown will be consistent with the known.
I expect my airline flight to arrive safely, because I know the safety record of that airline.
I expect my car to stop when I use the brakes, because I know how brakes work and I know that every other time I used the brakes.
I expect God to be consistent with the way He has revealed himself, making due allowance for the fact that my knowledge is limited.
Faith is NOT committing to a proposition that is without evidence or contrary to all known evidence.
God is everything, everything is god
Life is but a dream
Glad to see Father Barron on the Channel
The Bishop is undeniably articulate, reasoned and passionate about his subject but the fundamental problem is and the question that requires an answer is how does he know these things and why is that knowledge not available to me for example? The bottom line is that despite the beautifully floral language and sincere delivery what he's talking about is faith and nothing more. There's absolutely no compelling or factual evidence to what he has to say...
Because the God of the Bible revealed himself and the witnesses that wrote down told others about him. Even if God stands in front of an unbelieving person, he will believe he is hallucinating because he has convinced himself of atheism. Atheism itself makes no sense in this, as it is a biased idea that lacks evidences.
@@Tom-vb6fk ideas arent biased, people are. Also, as long as no coherent argument for the existence of god has been brought up, atheism is the default position.
It’s called philosophy
@@yeethoven4204 people are biased and so their ideas isnt it.😂 If the simplest fundamental matters exist without a cause, then they are really god as they exist eternally and why will life forms be, when it is a less stable and sustainable way to exist.
@@kevinjensen2071 dont u think atheism is more illogical? And is in fact not be supported with any proofs. Why then do u still hold to this idea?
No, to believe in something that has not given a single piece of evidence for several thousand years, and is contrary to scientific data, is not “superrational” or “infrarational,” it is simply IRRATIONAL!
Love your content brother! Keep it up 👍🏼
Bishop Robert Barron is an excellent communicator.😊