That's Just Your Opinion
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 23 ธ.ค. 2024
- Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason shares how to respond when someone says, "That's just you're opinion" when you're sharing your faith.
#StandtoReason #Apologetics #Christianity
----- CONNECT -----
Website: www.str.org/
Stand to Reason University: training.str.org/
Stand to Reason Apps: www.str.org/apps
Twitter: / strtweets
Facebook: / standtoreason93
Instagram: / standtoreason
LinkedIn: / stand-to-reason
Have a question or comment? Call Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason live Tuesdays 4-6pm Pacific Time - (855) 243-9975. If you'd like to submit your question ahead of time, fill out the online form here: www.str.org/br....
----- GIVE -----
Support the work of Stand to Reason: str.org/donate
The “true for you but not for me” view of religion is deeply ingrained in our culture. But Christians make claims that they believe are objectively true descriptions of reality. Are these claims only subjective opinions? How can we recognize truth? Can we gain knowledge from more than just science? Here are some resources to help you answer these questions:
What do you say to someone who says you can’t ground objective morality in God because every religion is just opinion?
rsn.pub/42kj1SI
“You’re Not Objective So Your Opinion Doesn’t Count”
rsn.pub/3SuWcbC
Scientism: An Obstacle to the Gospel
rsn.pub/47NMDsD
Jeff Myers - Truth Changes Everything
rsn.pub/3Ua7aEH
Intuition: A Special Way of Knowing
rsn.pub/3vQHbrK
Opinions just don't happen nor are they created out of nothing. We form opinions for reasons and many may be based on actual observations and experiences. Reason can be facts.
yes, but what are you getting at?
Hey Kiwi! In this conversation, I find it's important to distinguish between truth, fact, and opinion. Truth correlates with reality. Opinions are beliefs that has evidence that may or may not be justified. So an opinion *could* be based on actual observations and experiences, but that doesn't necessarily make it a fact. A fact is verified, true information. For example, I wore a purple shirt today. That is a fact and it is true because the statement aligns with reality. Sometimes, clearly defining terms can be helpful. Do you have any other thoughts to add to this?
@@sagebjornrud7823 as you suggest, just because someone has seen and experienced something and you cannot prove it or disprove it either way, does not necessarily mean you should label it a nonfact for you don't know. So we should not pass such a judgement on it at all given you have no evidence. Would you convict a man with no evidence?
As to your wearing a purple shirt today, I should not be able to say if you are a liar or whether you did or did not actual wear one, as I have no evidence either way. However, I will grant it may be true rather than it being necessarily a lie. Although time and experience may well cause me to doubt your claim to have worn one.
Good questions.
Brilliant thankyou
The cause of time, space and matter cannot be made of time space or matter since they didn't yet exist. Even most scientists now agree that the universe had a beginning.
Be careful though. As no science shows the Universe had a beginning.
What you are saying is too speculative. The data provides few conclusions as we unwind the universe.
That your belief in your faith is based on factual things is also just your opinion.
that's how I feel
STRvideos As a nonreligious person, I get this answer whenever I talk about morality with a Christian. I'm wondering what you think of that. This 'just your opinion, maaaan' thing seems to go both ways, depending on the subject.
Sure, Christians don't always have the appropriate thing to say in every situation---just like anybody else---and may say things like this, too. Which makes me grateful for helpful tips in navigating discussions like the one in the video above.
Ian Wallace You think the tips are helpful? That's just your opinion, maaaan. JK.
BennyOcean Lol
BennyOcean A distinction should be established between an opinion and an argument, in order to determine the truth, when two opposite views are presented...so, an opinion is much more like a preference rather than an objective way to see reality.
David Jiménez Garcia Can you think of an example of an 'objective way to see reality'? It's worth mentioning that we haven't defined what's meant by 'objective', and from experience I would expect that we might not agree on that. I would define it as mind-independent. Whereas subjective things are dependent on an individual's perspective, objective things are not. Based on that definition, I don't think there is an 'objective way to see reality' since 'seeing' implies a 'seer' which is the subject... in other words you and me. We can only view the world subjectively through our own cognitive biases, through our own flawed cognitive abilities, based on our own life experiences or lack thereof.
If someone says "that's just your opinion", I think it's pretty self-explanatory what they mean.
that it's a copout and asking questions is still warranted?
googIesux Nice.
"Just your opinion" could mean just YOUR way of looking at it, not mine.
When it comes to things like math or even physics, to convince someone of something, do they have to go through this strange language that Koukl thinks is necessary to prove Christianity?
What do you mean by that?
When necessary, yeah. For example, what's a boy?
Proof positive text reading - makes ppl think they “know”. Read The Sin of Certainty. And understand the origins of what you believe (Stone Campbell interpretation, which is one of MANY ways of interpreting the Bible). When ppl only surround themselves with ppl who were indoctrinated into the same belief - that vacuum makes them think it’s “true”.
Very nice
What did Jesus have for breakfast three days before his 12 birthday and how do you know?
Since science can't account for its own success (by scientific means) it is also just an opinion. Philosophers since David Hume told us that.
"opinion vs knowledge" goes back all the way to the Greeks. Leftists simply rehash that old flawed argument. They assume your statement isn't "knowledge" because it depends on you therefore it's not "absolutely objective" but contingent. "absolutely objective" independent of the subject is not the definition of knowledge. After all scientific postulates are also dependent on subjects, but not on that account unreal. Leftists simply can't account for plurality: If there is plurality (of views), they are not real simply because they are many. It doesn't occur to them that knowledge is any statement which successfully predicts experience. If the statement "the judgment day is coming" predicts future event then it's knowledge.
Science is not 'just an opinion'. That's a ridiculous thing to say. Science is a process and that process had led to undeniable results. The 'account' you're looking for is unclear, but calling it an opinion is crazy talk.
@@BennyOcean The original poster wasn't categorizing science as mere opinion. That was a tongue-in-cheek way of applying the reasoning of the "just your opinion" quip to those who wield science as uniquely and solely epistemic.
When miracles are taken for granted, of course, there's no God. Buy 2 pounds of hamburger, roll it in a ball, slap it down on a table. Tell yourself a piece of meat, capable of making decisions, and coming up with inventions, is not a miracle. Well then, of course there's no God. When miracles are taken for granted, of course there's no God.
The Universe didn't come into being. And it is very outdated to spout the Big Bang as evidence for the Universe beginning.
It doesnt even make coherent sense to say all of the physical realm came into being, since only the physical has causal agency on its own, to begin with.
Hello,
I'm thinking that it doesn't make sense for the Universe not to have a beginning because if it existed infinitely in the past, the present moment would not exist, for it is impossible to cross infinity. But since there is such a thing as a "now", it makes sense to think that there was only a finite amount of time since the Universe came to be.
Furthermore, given the second law of Thermodynamics (nature tends to disorder in isolated systems), if the universe existed infinitely in the past, then there should be no order in the universe at all by now, since nature had an infinite amount of time to become disordered. But since we see order in the Universe (the fine-tuning of the Universe for life), it makes sense that the Universe has only existed for a finite amount of time.
What do you think?
By the way, the age of an argument has no bearing on its truth or falsity, so to claim that it's "outdated" is logically irrelevant. Just saying...
Ian Wallace
All of the objections you presented I've already addressed and answered a long time ago in this video:
th-cam.com/video/t9t2ryg-41M/w-d-xo.html
But in case you don't want to screen that video I will answer your objections in text
_"if it existed infinitely in the past, the present moment would not exist,"_
The reason why the above objection is false is because you presuppose that in order for the Universe to be eternal, it has to be infinite in time. That is not true The universe can be eternal while not being infinite in time if one is a relationist to time.
_"if the universe existed infinitely in the past,"_
The above is erroneous. On a relationist view of time, the Universe does not have to exist infinitely into the past.
_"nature tends to disorder in isolated systems"_
I understand the Universe to be the totality of existence, but at the very least it is all of the physical. Therefore the Universe is not an isolated system, since it is the sum of all systems. The sum of all systems is not a system itself. Therefore the second law of thermodynamics does not apply to the Universe as a whole. It's as inapplicable to it as asking what is north of the north pole, or what is before time, or what happens at or past the speed of light.
_"By the way, the age of an argument has no bearing on its truth or falsity, so to claim that it's "outdated" is logically irrelevant."_
You misunderstand. The word outdated wasn't used to mean it is old so it is irrelevant or doesn't matter simply by virtue of being old. Outdated was used to mean that it is false because we know better now. It's not our current understanding. In other words, outdated was being used to mean it is no longer valid.
We've known for about 30 years or more that the big bang theory doesn't show the Universe began to exist because it's based on General Relativity.
Lol, you're assuming what you're trying to prove;)
mytuber81
How so?
Eclectic Media "since only the physical has causal agency on its own" - That's an assertion that you cannot prove by logic, science or experience.
Big bang? don't mix Hinduism with Christianity. Look into the pagan roots of evolution!
Infinite regression is really not an answer. I REALLY want to find God, but the Bible is like Korean stereo instructions, for every point it makes a contradictory point can be found. When you use science as a boogey man that prevents you from making a "Leap of faith", you are undermining your argument. Faith is an acceptance of an unprovided hypothesis. What I had for breakfast (and by the way I could have my stomached pumped and it's contents analyzed), doesn't seem to me to be in the realm of is there a God, and does he care about me as an individual. It seems to me that you are trying to take someone searching for truth and using "tricks", such as "What are your reasons" in order to corner someone that's not literate to use memory and testimony (both of which are not tangible facts) to persuade them. Sorry, but I'm not seeing God in your argument...
+Kelly Limbach Are you still wanting to find God? And Would you like a response to your comment? (I ask because it was 7months ago).
isn't that what faith means? No evidence, no testable evidence, FAITH...
Kelly Limbach No not at all Kelly. Unfortunately this definition has been going around and around, propagated by the new atheists especially. I don't know when it started but it can't be too old. The biblical definition of faith is more like what we would call an 'active trust'.
Let me give an illustration. Imagine somebody abseiling that hates heights (me for example). So I could know that the ropes and carabineers can hold my weight and much more. I can know the knots are perfect. I know the person helping me is very skilled and I can even trust that knowledge in my mind as to being true. But until I lean out over that ledge and have the gear take my weight I haven't put my active trust or my "Faith" in it.
That is the Christian definition of faith. And that is the Faith we need in God according to the bible.
So I hope that helps illustrate that its not just merely believing in something. It is in fact believing in something where you do have evidence (warrant) to believe and then trusting ourselves to that.
I didn't want to make it to long but I can give you some more info if you like.
+scottecooke I wish that I could know God, but he still hasn't revealed Himself to me... That makes me feel that I'm a failure, or not worthy of His
love.
Kelly Limbach Don't think me cruel but I had to laugh a little. Why? Two things one is you remind me of me when you said that. And the other is that none of us are worthy of His love. Romans3:10 says There is no one righteous, not even one.
Psalm130:3-4 says, If you, Lord, kept a record of sins, Lord, who could stand? But with you there is forgiveness, so that we can, with reverence, serve you.
So in short we are all failures and are not worthy of his love. But with God there is forgiveness and restoration.
You see God has been working throughout history since we fell to bring us humans back into harmony with himself.
None of this is because we deserve it. They call it grace. It means unmerited favor. God is also merciful. That means that we don't get what we are deserving of (as a punishment).
What that means is that we are offered something we don't deserve in place of the judgment we do deserve and it is offered free. We just have to take the pardon on God's terms. And that is to trust Him with everything.
When you say he hasn't revealed himself to you what do you mean? Could you give some context around what you expect as a revelation and stuff like that.
Also if you think it will get to personal for the comment section we can email or something instead.