U said in the debate that if some sort of beign came out of the sky and claimed to be god u would take that as proof. How would u know that ur not hallucinating or dreaming?
@@TurkiyedeBirHristiyan Thank you! I think it is a solid argument that, however, relies on some false assumptions. Most importantly, it assumes that the universe began to exist and that this is the beginning of everything. We don't actually know whether everything, or what we currently call "the universe" began to "exist" and what came before it. The second false assumption is the conclusion that if the universe has a cause, there must be an uncaused originator behind the cause. That is a good argument but not one that can be appropriately substantiated.
@@samdis1890 I clearly added before that this should be observable and proven. Finally, even if a giant hand came from the sky, it would still not be absolute proof but only supporting evidence until this is explained.
IP's premises were untestable claims therefore his conclusions are invalid and therefore not to be taken seriously. He even begins premises with "IF" X is true... but "IF NOT" then X is false. There is no evidence or data on which to base his assumptions.
AP I like that he’s not a jerk, I watch him and his vids against Islam, he just had a really hard time in that false religion, and he felt like he couldn’t ask questions, and now Muslims want to kill him. Pray for him that he gets saved
Leaving one cult to join another isnt the goal. Its to overcome the poor coping mechanisms that is religious indoctrination. All of the same points for islam apply for the christcults and its thousand variants.
@@wet-readnot really. If you were 'anti' you're against them. So yes you can be polite but if you're against them, it's a somewhat fake or superficial politeness
@@LionOfLight-ju5ww Yes, that is a valid point. I do tend to think that, BUT I can still be polite and charitable while conversing with someone who is religious. That was MY point. You may or may not believe this, but I have been treated like garbage by Christians. I rarely respond in kind. One such episode got a Christian treating me that way in a discussion group the ban hammer... by a fellow Christian!
I’m a Christian evangelist, this is my first watch of a debate on CC’s channel (brought here by AP)! Great watch, thoroughly enjoyed cleaning up my toolkit for the front lines! Keep going, God bless and put your trust in Jesus taking the punishment for you as the only reason you can be right with God!
@@reesecane7878 What an ignoramus, you'veturned out to be.... it's because the nonsense in the Koran keeps you ignorant. Christians have never worshipped anyone but God. Unlike your impotent Allah, who says he is one, but says he "needs" a consort to have a child, then in another verse he says if he needed a consort he would take it from "ourselves" ... really??? Who exactly is this "ourselves" that Allah needs to reproduce out of??? Our God is mighty enough to take any form he desires, and as per His promise He took the form of man... Jesus, conceived from a woman, without the help of another man.... Christians worship Jesus as God, NOT man.... get it right...
@@thomaspaul5989 Haha, aaawww you're upset. Haha You worship the "man-god" as James White called Jesus. The flesh you eat, blood you drink is human, you pagan. Your theology, pagan, Greek. And the books you rely on are anonymous. So, you're xtian belief is ignorance based.
@@reesecane7878 .... and now I see why you don't approve if AP... it's because he has put a big red chili up your behind, when he bashes the pagan stone licking religion of islam, and the false god Al Lah who has three daughters and a sick sense of humor for choosing a pedophile to be his prophet.... We do worship Jesus, NOT for His humanity but his pre existence that even the Koran acknowledges.... what a dummy you are.
Thanks for hosting these debates, Cameron. I’ve got a ways to go philosophically, but having the opportunity to engage with people and to learn more about these topics is a great privilege. Have an awesome rest of the week, everyone!
@@AU-ic7ur I mean that’s a pretty good point actually. I was referring to how he was toward IP though. Most atheists are ... well, less than this guy in the politeness category lol
It was interesting to see how AP said that we can't know if God exists or not, but yet he said that he believes there is 0% probability that God exists. In other words he believes there is a 100% probability that God doesn't exist, which is the same to say that it is impossible that God exists. IP also questioned him a lot on why he blatantly dismisses inference to theism based on the best available data but would still believe based on inference from the best data, for example, evolution. I would think that AP is a smart guy, but this is not his area of expertise. It is also shown in the fact that his main arguments says nothing about the ontological existence of God, but rather would call into question God's intensions and how Christians can claim that they worship the true God.
Yeah true. I think AP gave a % on how certain he is about God existing, rather than chances of Him existing. An event with a probability of 0 must imply a logical contradiction.
Yeah that’s why he said at the beginning, neither of them can give the actual truth only their own philosophical conclusions from the available information. That was his... there’s no scientific demonstrable evidence
That's why I clarified my position at the beginning, which is: "There is no reason to believe in God and God can be dismissed without further discussion," not: "We can prove God doesn't exist." You can still believe in a God, but it would be absurd. Since it is an absurd suggestion, I don't leave the possibility open and don't identify with agnosticism. My position can be better described as post-theism.
@@ApostateProphet If there is no God, no souls, nothing supernatural at all; only matter and energy governed by the laws of nature... Then please tell me how there would be any YOU left as a personal agent who can act with intent? (Every tiny atom in your body would be forced to act in FIXED ways according to the laws of nature, and your free will to act deliberately and make decisions as a distinct individual would just be an illusion.) Please tell me how you avoid DETERMINISM if every tiny physical subatomic particle in the universe is just pieces of matter in motion obeying the laws of nature? This is just the tip of the iceberg in evidence for God. The ironic part is, you have to cut off the very branch of reason that you are standing on just to avoid admitting that God is real. All your boasting about being right, or your conclusions about atheism being more probable would become void.
To be honest IP was way too strong irrefutable and AP was struggling a lot as he is not used to this. I have a great respect for AP and IP is my best Christian channel and I would say the best Christian channel of all time because of the much needed information that he provides.
Michael Jones is seriously the smartest guys I have ever seen. Half of those videos he referenced gave me a headache when I watched them. Yes, AP was way out of his league in this debate, but he conducted himself very well against IP, and he knew where to shift the debate away from where he was outgunned. I've not seen anybody hold their ground as well as AP in a debate with IP. He neither raged in self-defense like Aron Ra, nor just rolled over like Michael Shermer. He calmly kept his demeanor and stood his ground respectfully.
@@piage84 The material brain is also affected by consciousness like an overload of negative thinking producing changes in the brain leading to poorer cognitive functioning so what about that?
@lrvogt1257 I believe that the bible is God's word. When I follow the instructions in scripture and receive the results promised I believe that I can safely and wisely c occluded that the author knows what He is talking about and knows what He is d oing. For me based on my experience and knowledge and application of truths found in scripture I conclude that God is genuine and lovingly active in the lives of people who trust and believe his word. When we do good we receive the benefits When we reject God and do wrong we receive the negative consequences, not because God issues those consequences but because we reap what we sow
@@respectgod3302 : Fine but there is no rational reason for me to believe it. I find everything from the threats to obey or I'll make you eat the flesh of your children, the flood , Leviticus, Lot, and the genocide of the Canaanites all cruel, malicious, and appalling and hardly paragons of virtue. All this need to be worshiped or else seems pretty needy. Be nice to others and they'll be nice to you doesn't require much more than common sense and existed long before any of this primitive fantasy.
I've been waiting for this one for some time; both of these debaters are some of my favorites in their respected position. AP seems like the first opponent of IP who actually spent time preparing for a debate with IP specifically, and AP approached this debate very wisely. He tried shifting the focus from the scientific contingency and quantum/consciousness, and rather focused more on an extremely sophisticated version of the God of the Gaps and other philosophical problems with God. However, IP was also wise and kept roping the discussion back to those elements. IP absolutely dominates nearly every debate he's in, and so for AP to try to shift the battle into his court was a wise move. IP is incredibly smart, and half the videos he referenced seriously gave me headaches when I watched them. Even so, AP really held his ground well; knowing where he was outmatched, he didn't dig his own grave in lingering there trying to recover, rather spread his resources well.
That sounds like a sports commentary Debaters sadly do not want to come to a conclusion neither do most of them ever want to admit that they were wrong It’s not about who is right or wrong, who is more logical It’s just about who can argue and debate better than the other that’s why I don’t like to watch debates as much as I used to
People pray for others when they just want to Feel like they're doing something good for others. AP would prob say "thanks but you can keep your prayers"
They both had good arguments and is the best debate between two different ideas. AP just teach us why we need a God, not that God doesn't exist. I'm continue bean a Christian scientist.
Hey dude pls contact IP there are some problems in some parts of hes argument acording to some quatam phycisits so pls tell him to make hes arguments more stronger
@@zahydierodriguez4702 Quantum physics is a theory. There are many speculation about it. We believe that God doesn't fallow this because HE is outside time and space and HE is not material.
@@piage84 But theories can be change with another and even that new theory can be change with another. I'm agreeing with you that nothing is 100% and science don't have all the answer it just a way to explain nature.
nah quantum physics was addressing the emergent nature of matter (so yeah God is still compatible with quantum physics as he is the mind from which matter emerges)@@LuisVazquez-hx3bk
We need to seed the Gospel - the word of God- in every corner of the Internet. Plant a few words here, a few words there and, if they find the right soil, they will grow, produce fruit and multiply. We just need to say the truth, nothing more, nothing less. Praise be to the Lord.
True, see the parable of the mustard seed. Those who reap and sow get to rejoice together in the harvest. You don't always need to try to convert people "on the spot", plant a seed and let God tend to it from there. I got this concept from Greg Koukl's "Tactics".
As a data scientist that builds ML models, including those using NNs, I absolutely LOVE that IP is bringing that together with my faith and interest in apologetics! First time hearing Neural Networks brought into the argument for God's existence. Love it!
AP: “The only way to know that there was a God would be for that God to have a massive interference/intervention in our lives.” Me: Have you read the New Testament? Typical “pushing the goal posts” argumentation from an atheist who doesn’t want God to exist. I appreciated how chill this conversation was though. Wish more debates were respectful like this. Aside from my disagreement with him, I really like AP.
Brushed RED If I have to be generous, he simply didn’t give it much thought. What stops him from considering natural explanations rather than take the massive interference at its word? Even if a person appears, performs numerous miracles and make statements like “before Abraham was, I am”, there is still no guarantee AP would believe. It’s not just the evidence itself, but how we interpret the evidence. Frankly, AP hasn’t understood the impact having his own biases and goggles has on his understanding of the world. Yes, he switched his goggles from an Islamic one to a naturalist one.
I very much disagree with this statement. AP has many times in the past said he would like there to be a God. He just honestly doesn’t believe it’s possible. And the New Testament(of which God is a man), Bahavad Gita(of which God is androgynous), Tao Te Ching(of which God is a woman), etc is based on hearsay. This is not an evidence that he is talking about. The reality is… most religious people want God to exist. Not many irreligious people want God to not exist. Most irreligious people I have met aren’t choosing based on what they want. They are choosing based on what they think. I can agree, however, that most atheists or other theists, if God existed, don’t want the Abrahamic God to be that God. All people’s (who are not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) do not want that kind of God. When they say they would like God to exist, they don’t mean the Abrahamic God or Allah. Ap, on the other hand, doesn’t dislike the Christian God. He only dislikes the Muslim God. Which is why he debates respectfully with Christian’s and Jews.
When AP said I would put it at a” 0% chance for there being a God “ is the moment we all knew he is just lying for his atheist audience. That would mean not even one argument points to God when there are plenty of arguments that point to a God.
As an atheist I can say that I actually hated his answer and I think that was one of his biggest mistakes. Most rational atheists I know, would say something like 1 to 5%, but never 0. Saying 0% (or 100% for that matter), to that question shows unwillingness to ever change your mind, even when presented with some new, strong evidence against your position. And that is fundamentally irrational and close-minded. Still, knowing AP, I don't think he really meant it this way and simply didn't consider his answer hard enough.
@@psow4062 If you dont mind me asking. What do you based those numbers on?? It seems almost impossible that my confidence in the existence of God is 99% and an atheists belief in the non existence is also 99% if we ate looking at the same evidence.
@@alejandromartin8347 So my view is that it's impossible to conclusively prove either way. Therefore each side can only present some arguments that (if accepted) make their case more likely. And this acceptance is tricky, because people value different things and find different things convincing. Personally, I try to be as objective as I can, remove the feelings from consideration and use cold logic. I don't know about you, but many people simply value their feelings more than rational thought (and they are wrong ;)). The other thing is that I'm not so sure we are looking at exactly the same data. When I was still a Christian I was almost exclusively listening to one side. I was in church every Sunday, but I didn't listen to atheist arguments one hour a week at the same time. That's not a way to arrive to an unbiased opinion on anything. I'm mentioning that, because most theistic arguments are repetitive and were already either debunked or at least found to have severe weaknesses, and most believes are simply unaware of that. I certainly wasn't back then.
@@psow4062 And by logic you mean actual logic like setting axioms and standards to go by. Defining terms and avoiding fallacies?? Or fake logik like saying believing in this is not logical and any logical person would conclude that. Sadly atheists I’ve listened to only use fake logik. Not sure what argument convinced you that there is no God. I would love to hear it. I’ve presented some original arguments for the existence of God that have yet to be refuted by any atheist. Not sure if you would like to hear it. But it does require setting axioms and defining terms. So it does take long set up. But its done so atheists cant deny the logic they have set.
@Alejandro Martin In general I try to be as close as I can to using actual logic. Still, I'm not a philosopher just so we are clear. If you are interested in that sort of thing (formal, logical critique of theistic arguments) I can recommend some TH-cam channels like: Rationality Rules or Cosmic Sceptic. In general I can't say that I'm convinced that there is no God. I'd rather say that I concluded that it's unlikely that he exists and for everyday life I assume he's not there. And it wasn't a single argument that put me here, rather many different ones. Sure, I would like to see your argument.
”The fool has said in his heart, “ There is no God.” They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none who does good.” Psalms 53:1 NKJV
@Ruben why don't you consider feeding the hungry, or feeding homeless dogs the right thing to do? apparently you haven't taken the time to think about how the bible was supposed to have been written. i understand, you think your God is so stupid and incompetent that he he isn't smart enough to even figure out how to convince me of his own existence.
@Ghostwriter 86 so exactly the same as every other fictional character. apparently you never bothered to apply critical thinking to what you just said.
@Ghostwriter 86 if you actually believe that. show your work. do you even know how to form a logical syllogism? i have never seen a sound logical argument for the existence of a God. since all i have seen start with the presumption that a God already exists. you have to demonstrate the existence of a God, before you can determine what a God can do.
@Ghostwriter 86 i understand, you have nothing to offer your God to convince your God to come out of hiding and contact us. fictional characters aren't able to contact non-believers.
IP: here is a series of data points that supports a philosophical point that at the very least makes theism a rational view. AP: I'm not here the prove anything, I could easily btfo IP but I won't. BTW I look around and see chaos and meaningless things therefore theism is false.
Most popular mindset of atheist. The lot are just frustrated and angry. They think disorder in the world makes Christianity or God any less real like it actually is more proof for us that doesn't take away the cosmic order we see
You have IP laying out carefully constructed logical arguments with premises and conclusions, and then you have AP basically ignoring all that and saying "It is what it is", "everything is meaningless and chaos". No offense to AP, but he's just not able to engage with the content here at the level that it requires.
Sounds like AP is a solipsist. "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind."
@DonnyBlips he is not intelligent This is not the first time he entered debate with zero qualifications studies or preparation He did the same with DH and got washed He’s at fault for choosing to stay ignorant
@@Just_abigheadnoob But then why do you people take him as an authority on Islam? I knew from the 1st moment as a Muslim that IP will humiliate him as Mohammad Hijab, Daniel Haqiqatjou and Farid did in the past.
@@noybiznatch The basic way to show solpsism is untrue, is to simply think about the fact that you cannot learn something new from someone else (if solpsism is true) because that would mean you knew the information but kept it from yourselves, which is a contradiction.
IP: here’s data and scientific studies that show my point along with clear syllogisms that hold up to both formal and informal logical rules. AP: mean things happen, here let’s list them and then draw a non sequiter from it and pretend we’ve made a point. Also, any point I’ve made is just my own opinion and I don’t think there’s any way to know truth anyway so it’s totally cool I didn’t prepare for this. Also there’s definitely no God and everything is meaningless, except this argument which is meaningful and a fact, even though we can’t know truth about anything. 😂 atheists are so silly
@@danielhaqiqatjuuuuala3781 That's because A.P's a blowhard charlatan. How C.C. agreed to host such a debate is the real question. Is it because A.P. bashes Islam? Are ex-muslims viewed as knowledgeable of Islam, philosophy, science by dint of their leaving Islam? Is C.C just wanting to promote an anti-Islamic TH-cam channel because he's Christian? It'll all backfire, as A.P. as stated is a charlatan. P.s. his 10 minute qna was hilarious. At least I.P. recognised he'd been had.
@@yohanessaputra9274 You must be new to A.P. or don't understand what a "charlatan" is. Look it up and realise "charlatans" don't learn until they're caught, even then because he's making money from lowbrow xtians he'll continue to lie to them and they'll lap it up, most until Hell-fire surrounds them. Don't be one of them.
@@reesecane7878 i know what a charlatan is, and i do agree with you, but AP could change and become more serious in his youtube rather than merely selling his ex-muslim narrative. As is the case of cosmicskeptic, he will learn that there is more to this debates than just "winning" it. It's more of learning than winning, and that's why cosmicskeptic changed his course. AP can too, just give him time
That was a wild bear attack of nonsense words make no sense, on a well-adjusted person that handled the debate perfectly when this subject is out of his realm and not is expertise AP did a great job
Just because you are repetitive and make the assertion that you are right and use the words that are higher than common use you right down the pitch and you open the debate and run away from the real subject that is your personal God that you don’t wanna discuss because you know that he’s fake
Poor AP! He's doomed for the kingdom (good doomed, I mean). He has too many Christian friends. Always a sign God's got 'im on His hook. Just a matter of time. I understand why AP would be so leery of religion generally after coming out of Islam, but I think he's gonna get to know the one true God eventually and come around. Can't wait! Love this guy! It'll be awesome to call him brother.
@Xiuh No where in Christian scripture is bloodshed, barbarism and terrorism promoted, unlike the Quran. As far as moral and philosophical inconsistencies go, the Bible is older than the Quran and has undergone far more scrutiny and criticism than the Quran, and still exists, and so does the church, preserving much of the same traditions it has had for thousands of years (unlike Islam which has gone through phases and now teaches things such as the corruption of previous scriptures, and other new doctrine contradicting the first doctrine.)
@@orthodoxinquirer5693 Bruh you read that thing in your holy book before the new testament? Makes the Islamic claim that the new testament was corrupted seem like a likely explanation given the Quran seems to be more consistent with the angry God in the Quran than the fun and loving God in the new testament
@@analyticallysound2716 That's cute considering Christians don't follow the Old Testament, Jewish people do. Which you probably knew, "Analytically Sound" my ass. It seems you have something against Judaism, not Christianity.
AP begins his argument with how the chaotic nature of the universe is proof, that it could not possibly be the creation of a perfect God. Yet in his arguments displays a human perspective when observing and assessing phenomena he describes as chaotic. In the grand scheme of things, are the things he really mentioned chaotic, or is that merely the human perception of them? Furthermore there is a ridiculous amount of order necessary in the universe (according to science) just for the earth to exist, and for it to sustain life, so are we just going to disregard that insane amount of order and instead present things we percieve as being chaotic from our narrow minded perspective? Another important point is that the deficiency and imperfection of all of creation (and it limitations) -contrary to his argument-is proof that nothing within creation can possibly be responsible for the existence of creation, and hence (ofc with many other philosophical arguments about cause and effect) a perfect 'existence' is a necessity in the existence of the universe. And it is divine wisdom that all creation is limited by something, ie death, or in need of something to exist as a stark contrast to God himself who is not dependent on or limited by anything. AP also avoids answering the proof that michael presents, which makes me think his argument that God doesn't exist is purely subjective Ps. He also says that removing any planet from the solar system would not affect us "As far as we know" Not only could that be majorly inaccurate (Jupiter is like an asteroid magnet protecting earth) but also again, he is forming his view about the purpose of things purely based on its utility to humans (which isn't a neccessity) and also based on the limited assumed knowledge we have.
Its like that type of a lady/woman; "she is beautiful, why is she not married?" "her heart was broken, betrayed by a guy she loved, she said she will never love another man forever, for the bitterness of her broken heart has made her believes all man are the same." Some atheists are like those ladies/women.
Im an atheist let me fix your analogy. Its more like a lady was told her whole life by her family that her dad was Harry Potter. So she asked everyone to show her Harry Potter and let her talk to him but everyone said that she just had to believe it in faith and read the Harry Potter novels as proof that he exists. Finally when she learned about logic, reason, science and scepticism and she discovered that everything her family had taught her about Harry Potter and magic and wizardry was inconsistent with the reality that she observes, she had no choice but to stop believing in any of it. She then set off to find who her dad really was and to better understand the world and reality free from delusion and fantasy.
@@dannielz6 you do realize that goes both ways. Harry potter can also be the atheism, and after using logic and science you she find out her real father - theism. Now shall we observe using logic and science? Here is one question no atheists can answer... What is the Final Cause of the existence (of the Universe)? Is the universe (Natural) exist out of nothing, if so is that natural? Don't bother to reply, I already know the answer. Just go find your father... real father.
Two of my very favourite TH-camrs in debate on one of my favourite topics. What a treat this was! Well done to both of you, and special compliment for dealing with each other kindly. I very much enjoyed this debate. Thank you. Still waiting for the day @Apostate Prophet becomes a believer, though. :)
I think it helps A LOT to have a strong philosophy background in debates like this. I think that if AP is serious about doing more debates about existence of God, he has to get better in philosophy, otherwise he will be at a disadvantage every time. Overall, even though I also don't have philosophy background, I caught several opportunities that AP missed. Like explaining that even in absence of any evidence, the materialistic explanation for consciousness is way more likely than any supernatural one (by simply applying Occam's Razor and pointing out that no supernatural explanation for anything was ever proven to be true). That being said, AP correctly (in my opinion) pointed out, that IP didn't really proved his first premise ("if the universe is emergent, it is emergent from a mind""). IP is actually taking a huge leap from "those 2 things have some interesting similarities", to "one of those things was necessary to create the other".
@@richardstevenwalz4968Who are you talking to? Also what you call "phony physics", we have EVIDENCE for. So apparently evidence is phony when you don't like it.
ouch this debate really hurt to watch. I've seen Inspiring Philosophy do much much better when discussing philosophy although I must say he didn't do too bad making his arguments as far as Apostate prophet is concerned he didn't seem prepared. he did say it was his first debate but still I was a little disappointed of the intellectual level of this debate. otherwise very likeable. sorry for being so blunt but I call it like I see it. I really enjoyed the discussion between INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY and ALEX O'CONNER on moral duties and truths , that I must say INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY surpassed my expectations. it was the fist time I seen him. I guess that's why I must of held the bar a little high for this debate. looking forward to more of his discussions and or debates.
@Excuse me, but I couldn't find anything on google except for this one kid who was born with anencephaly, but his brain ended up mostly growing back, and he wasn't born without one.
@Excuse me, but It isn't the first debate that he said that in. A lot of his opening statement was stuff he had said in his debate with Matt Dillahunty a while back. He also said plants are conscious in that one. I see Cam liked that post, which makes me laugh
@Excuse me, but Yeah, I haven't heard much about panpsychism. My position tentatively is that consciousness is a material process that was evolved by natural selection. I just want to know how people justify saying that everything that we know about the physics and biology of everyday life is suddenly wrong. Plants are not conscious, IP and that guy are hilariously incorrect if they think that they are. They are capable of responding to external stimuli from the environment. Cool. So are amoebas. So are bacteria. So is literally every other organism on this entire planet. I'm sorry, it just really bugs me when people say stuff like this. I hate when science is attributed so much woo. IP also thinks that "phenotypic plasticity is plant movement." Damn, someone needs to tell him that phenotypic plasticity applies to animals, too, and it has nothing to do with "movement" in the first place.
@Excuse me, but I will cruise TJump's channel to see if I can find this video he's talking about. I'm now interested to see if my previous pop off applies to him haha
Since i only discorvered both of them last year i would have never expected to see them debate considering how chummy they are now idk if it was davids doing probably is but dam i couldn't imagine a reality where they weren't friends yet somehow it was this one
I was honestly hoping AP would present arguments that show that God couldn’t possibly exist. Instead like most atheist I’ve heard it always the call to reason argument. (How can there be a God if)
1. Ok first off Many of AP's fans think michael is a YEcs But he is not a YEcs michael is a theistic evolutionist and a Old earth creationist. And also IP was never arguing for christianity because I saw many of hes fans saying to prove the existence if the judeo-christian God when IP clearly said that he will be arguing for classical *THEISM* not christian theism 2. I would give a little bit of credit to AP for being in this debate. But I dont think AP's arguments are that good what I could only see was basically all athiest arguments against God existence mashed up and most of what AP was saying were assertions and something else I Really REALLY want to see what AP said about matirialism in this debate either if there papers or etc.... Also I dont think AP is an athiest I think AP is more of a Radical Agnóstic athiest like Dr. Shermer. Also I really was interested of what AP said about religios expirience because I get what hes talking about but my religios expirience was never what AP said at all. Over all Good for both 👏👏👏 But im going to go with IP On this one because I really was trying to look deeper on AP's arguments and most of them didnt refute most of IP's opening statement and something else IP already did a video about the problem of evil and hes is soon going to make another one. Well thank you for making this debate possible guys 🙋
Very well said, but I think that the only error you made is that inspiring philosophy does try to prove for the Christian God. (Just wanted to clarify what he believes in). But besides that very well said.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Actually I asked him one time ( IP ) If he will ever debate this with any phycisit? And then I said will you ever debate sean carrol on this and he said yes he said maybe in the future so im very hyped for that debate to happen
@@Qwerty-jy9mj inspiring philosophy doesn't believe in the Christian God that's why he calls himself a Christian. Also in this particular debate I think he was just trying to show a god what he does bring up the Christian God or the Christian God worldview multiple times
@@UniteAgainstEvilNo, we already believe in Jesus as a prophet and the messiah but not God even the bible itself says God is not a man or the son of man wheras Jesus was indeed a man and called the son of man.
@@convert2islaam500cmon man. If you’re gonna argue against Christianity, you have to use some sort of better argument. The ones you pointed can be deconstructed with a simple google search. But a quick answer is that you’re referring to Numbers 23:19. First point is that Jesus hasn’t been incarnated yet, this is the Old Testament, thousands of years before. Second is that it’s referring to human nature qualities. If you would actually read the verse, it says that God isn’t a man or son of man (referring to a literal son, whereas Jesus being called Son of Man is for an entirely different reason) because God doesn’t possess qualities such that he would lie, which is a human trait.
The problem with this debate format is that the opening statements is pre-planned and such the second speaker does not attempt to rebutt any of the first speakers argument, but ends up rebutting the argument from design (which the first speaker did not present).
It’s unbelievable that AP has more subscribers than IP, AP lacks a basic philosophical understanding. He didn’t realize his enormous double standard regarding burdens of proof for Gods existence as opposed to Naturalism. He provided no evidence to his claims, especially the head of one person attaching to another persons body! Then he admits we can even do that with current technology 😂😂
Please don't plan to travel to counties like Netherlands or Czech republic, where you may find 75% people unlikeable in your view.. I am sure they'll forgive though, because you are surely otherwise a nice person
The two pillars of modern physics, General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, both treat space-time as a fundamental aspect of their models. I would start there, but I have other questions... like is Mike suggesting that the reason we see a cosmic web that has some resemblance to our brains is we are in a giant brain?
IP like always having convincing arguments based on extensive research. AP was ok, but like any atheist it's just limited to evolution, suffering questions, existential questions and expansionism of the universe that goes into a circle reaching nowhere. IP is based on history, translations, science, logic, physics, scientific opinions. Although I really enjoyed the debate.
AP I love you dude but you you wrecked yourself and IP truly cleaned house.... This debate should have been with David Wood as mentioned a while back.... dissapointed .... cannot believe he claims that the surrounding planets or celestial bodies have no purpose.... I guess you dont understand jupiter or the sun.... or the moon... and how seemingly fine tuned they are.... on top of that you stumbles constantly contradicting yourself... I would love to see a critique on this debate so that you could perhaps see the incredible flaws in your arguments and assumptions...
@Frank Beans Well first off its "history" not "myth" but my QUESTION is why does stardust (you) have the right to say that something that other stardust (me) is doing is "wrong" ? Why do you care? Your acting like a Christian did you know that? Your acting as if right and wrong are objective... Every time you say that something is "right" or "wrong" you have the burden of proof to justify why it is right or wrong.... Sorry bud but without God in the equation you have no justification to say anything is right or wrong.... its just your opinion... See frank you know God but you suppress him... no amount of "feeling" will ever change the fact that he does indeed exist... he loves you man... why do you deny him?
Roberto Piagentini Your misunderstanding of what a “myth” is shows your ignorance my dude. From the bible to secular texts we have more information about this event than one would obviously care to consider, not to mention the unprecedented impact it still has on scholars and intellectuals. If you think it’s a mere “myth” I would encourage you to look at the worlds leading scholar on the topic and what he has to say about it - Gary habermas Then if you still think it’s a “myth” you can look up the leading scholar skeptic Bart ehrman and what he has to say about the rich historicity of Jesus Christ 🤷🏻♂️ I’ll also leave you with this - either God exists or he doesn’t, both of these instances are terrifying. On one hand if he does exist it would logically follow he reveal himself to the world and wants something from you as his creation. On the other hand if he doesn’t exist then your hopeless and meaningless existence is just that... hopeless and meaningless... leaving you no justification behind your moral judgments and no ground to stand on saying anything is right or wrong. 😊💥💯
Frank Beans 😂😂 idiots? Maybe it’s time you were taught something pretorists get wrong (if you even know what a pretorist is you newb 😂) how do we know that almost all of the other New Testament uses of “this generation” refer to Christ’s contemporaries? We learn this by going and examining how each is used in their context. For example, Mark 8:12 says, “And sighing deeply in His spirit [Jesus is speaking], He said, ‘Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.’” Why do we conclude that “this generation,” in this passage refers to Christ’s contemporaries? We know this because the referent in this passage is to Christ’s contemporaries, who were seeking for a sign from Jesus. Thus, it refers to Christ’s contemporaries, because of the controlling factor of the immediate context. Matthew 23:36 says, “Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.” To whom does “this generation” refer? In this context, “this generation” refers to Christ’s contemporaries because of contextual support. “This generation” is governed or controlled grammatically by the phrase “all these things.” All these things refer to the judgments that Christ pronounces in Matthew 22-23. We should now realize that in each instance of “this generation,” the use is determined by what it modifies in its immediate context. The scope of use of every occurrence of this generation is determined in the same way.
IP was incredible this debate. I think AP misunderstood his arguments. AP isn’t that good of a debater he is just a atheist he’s not a philosopher or theologian he’s just an atheist. I do believe IP destroyed him but it was really just a fun friendly conversation since AP is not a profesional.
Matter creating concsienceness is the nice trick for the lazy thought. No matter how things are chemically complicated in real life, at the end the matter is still a matter. Therefore concsienceness also the illusion of the material process that makes us feel like it exist but it isn't. Since this is the only logical conclusion for matter producing 'concsienceness'. What we think, motivated, love, and inspire are the passive result of an illusion not an active decision that guides our mortal being. Therefore, our action is caused by materialistic process that are determined in the beginning of this universe whether you belive that is to be big bang or what not. In this view, their is no point of arguing if one's belief system is right or wrong because none of us had an active decision to choose anything but are natural result that are unguided by our active decisions. Therefore, AP's attempt to prove or disprove itself is meaningless. On the otherhand, if you believe in consciousness that are capable of regulating and actively 'making' decisions, you have to conclude that such process is outside of mere chemical process as a passive outcome. If that is the case, our being is intrinsically different to the any non living matters and evolution cannot handle this problem because there has to be more explanations on at which point of time we recieved such non material being. And If concsienceness exist not in AP's sense, there are open possibilities about God theory.
good debate Michael won though he proved god scientifically,physcologically,mentally and with logical rationalizing over all the apostate kept ignoring that God was the missing gap to free will and how things are brought to existence and the fact that our consciousness isn't created from a brain but from a higher being who we can connect with spiritually glory to God amen.
@@eternalbyzantium262 Are you interested in discussing God's existence on the basis of science and logic, rather than the Bible? That's what I like doing!
@@20july1944 Yeah the Bible is the most important to me, and the existence of God is rooted in both science and logic. Don't think your cynicism will get you anywhere or that it puts you in some quasi-superior moral high ground. Even sophisticated atheists are able to concede the seriousness of theological arguments. You're an absolute waste of time. Mock me all you want, gnash your teeth and pour scorn. Jesus is Lord, and he who accepth Him shall inherit the Kingdom of God. I myself was a harsh critic of Christianity, Christopher Hitchens being my idol. I was a hardcore atheist. That was until I humbled myself to learn the arguments of the other side, and I gave my life to Christ. I invite you to do the same while you still have time. Just in case you're interested: toleadasoul.blogspot.com/?m=1 I wrote a blogpost about it. Take care.
It is truly amazing that there are minds that can be easily confused into questioning God's existence. Sad that some do because they are weak and scared to go against the mainstream.
@@CapturingChristianity awesome, second suggestion, if you could have a discussion with Cosmic Skeptic and Fr. Gregory Pine I think would be a very stimulating and thought provoking discussion on the existence of God, God bless brother!
AP thinks our outer planets could disappear and their disappearance would have no significant impact. AP, what do you think would happen if Jupiter were to disappear? What impact do you think that would have on the orbits of the other planets and moons in our solar system? What would happen to us with no massive object keeping millions of asteroids on a leash?
AP, I love you, but unfortunately your answers were not the same calibre as that of IP. The material universe is NOT eternal, so using cause and effect in the known universe, it would require "faith" to believe that it could "create" itself.
Absolute class from Both. I recently found AP as it was recommended and Actually found IP through one of his recent debate reviews with AP. As soon I seen this gem I instantly clicked and wow this is why I watch both of you. Wish I could extend my gratitude financially. One day….
I Love you Ridvan. I have a question for you: If there is only chaos and accident as far as Life goes, and therefore no objective good and evil, only survival, why do you have a fundamental drive to fight Islam and bring people out of that mindset?
He would probably say it doesn’t matter whether fighting Islam is objectively good or has lasting meaning. He would likely focus on the idea that Islam brings pain into the world, and he wants to prevent others from experiencing that pain. He would want to do this not because he thinks he “should” or that there’s a meaning, but because he wants to as an empathetic person.
Man I feel the nihilistic angst that AP is feeling. I was in that place before. Its a swamp that won't let go as you feel a sweet self destructing pleasure in the nihilistic despair yet knowing that it is killing you.
Nobody can live or believe in nihilism. Its against human nature. You can talk about it, say u believe it, preach it but your actions will always speak otherwise. Ive felt nihilistic many times especially due to pain, depression and the problem of suffering. But my actions & thinking cannot get myself to be a nihilist. When i see evil or good deeds i get the intuition that this is good or bad objecively, not just meaningless atoms
A contractor graciously gave a laborer a job. The laborer complained, "It would be easier for me if you would provide a nail gun." The contractor replied, "If I had a nail gun I wouldn't need you." We are put here to manage our world and bring order to it as God has brought order to our universe. He's the hand, we're the glove, and everything he touches turns to love.
Kosovo is Serbia. Edit: while I do believe in what I said, this was meant to be just a joke considering I saw the commenters name, so I hope I didn't offend anyone
@@catholicorthodoxperson6979 Not the comment I thought that I would come across, but Kosovo definitely is not Serbia. It was temporarily during certain periods of history, but prior to the Slavic migration in the Balkans, Kosovo was known as Dardania, and it was inhabited by the Albanian tribes. This is a fact. I am sorry.
@@TheOrthodoxAlbanian ahem. *laughs in Raska* *Laughs in Nemanjici dinasty as of whole* *Laughs in Serbian Empire* *Laughs in Moravian Serbia* *Laughs in Serbian monasteries there (Kosovo and *Metohija* *land of monasteries*) Laughs in *Ottoman empir-*
@@catholicorthodoxperson6979 There is a lot of nuance in this discussion, from if the resolutions (1244) that were introduced were legal, if the NATO bombing was legal and ethical, and many other things. But one must not forget the killings of many innocent Albanians that took place, the rape, etc (likewise killing happening on the opposite side. These are being looked into right now at The Hague). This is why I do not like to engage in politics. We are Christians, and even better, identify as Orthodox. We need to be together and spread Orthodoxy. God willing one day we can have something similar to the Byzantine Empire but even greater, with the belief in the Gospel being accepted all the way around the world. Thinking of a few territories here and there should not be the concern of the believer. Let’s unite and destroy heresy and expose the falsehood of Islam and other pagan religions which are against Christ. On topic of the conversation however, it is indeed a fact that Slavic migrations to the Balkans occurred in the mid-6th century. The original name of Kosovo was Dardania, which comes from the Albanian word, “dardhë” to mean, “pear”, because that is one of many things the the land was known for. The people were known as the Dardani’s. There were kings, Bardylis for example (coming from the word bardhë for white), an Albanian, from as far back as 448 BC that had control of those lands. The Slavic tribes were not in Kosovo at this time.
Everything is information. Information needs to be interpreted (mind, consciousness, perception, soul whatever you call it). Information ASSUMES a preceding READER. The MIND CAME FIRST...This really isn't difficult.
AP should Debate IP On the Problem of Evil and Morality cause that's his Subject. IP did a Really Great Job On this Debate Does God exist, I enjoy Watching and AP did Good Too.
AP. We love your honesty. You're my best atheist friend at the moment. Praying for you, it won't be long before the light of the gospel illuminates the way and points you to our Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ.
Hi. Sorry that my English isn't perfect . Can you please tell that why people in comment section think that AP lost debate? Btw what was certain proof of IP which claims that God certainly exist?
IP in every single video : " Accordingly to more recent studies, it seems that we can't find no reason whatsoever to believe any sort of alleged evidences that I have produced throughout this video......HOWEVER...." Just kidding i love your channel very much God bless you
AP was very polite, which I appreciate. But his "arguments" for atheism (like all of "arguments" for atheism) were pitiful. "I don't think we'll ever terraform Jupiter. That means the universe is chaotic and therefore God probably doesn't exist." Just like Romans 1 says. People don't reject God because of a lack of evidence. They reject God because they're evil. They refuse to love the truth and so be saved.
It is neat though if a debate can actually be respected on both sides, like without some smug atheists just acting like a pompous jerk to the Religious guy, and vice versa I suppose, though my experience has definitely been more of the former then the later.
Thanks again! It was a pleasure!
Hi 🙋
Maybe I can ask it here: Do you know the Kalam Cosmological Argument and if so, what do you think about it? Any objections or reactions?
U said in the debate that if some sort of beign came out of the sky and claimed to be god u would take that as proof.
How would u know that ur not hallucinating or dreaming?
@@TurkiyedeBirHristiyan Thank you! I think it is a solid argument that, however, relies on some false assumptions. Most importantly, it assumes that the universe began to exist and that this is the beginning of everything. We don't actually know whether everything, or what we currently call "the universe" began to "exist" and what came before it.
The second false assumption is the conclusion that if the universe has a cause, there must be an uncaused originator behind the cause. That is a good argument but not one that can be appropriately substantiated.
@@samdis1890 I clearly added before that this should be observable and proven. Finally, even if a giant hand came from the sky, it would still not be absolute proof but only supporting evidence until this is explained.
Dude, IP an on another level. Wow, I'm really impressed.
IP's premises were untestable claims therefore his conclusions are invalid and therefore not to be taken seriously. He even begins premises with "IF" X is true... but "IF NOT" then X is false. There is no evidence or data on which to base his assumptions.
yup
Yeah, he’s No joke.
AP I like that he’s not a jerk, I watch him and his vids against Islam, he just had a really hard time in that false religion, and he felt like he couldn’t ask questions, and now Muslims want to kill him. Pray for him that he gets saved
Boo Apuss
Leaving one cult to join another isnt the goal. Its to overcome the poor coping mechanisms that is religious indoctrination. All of the same points for islam apply for the christcults and its thousand variants.
I have to say, AP not being an Anti Theist makes him so much more likeable in a debate.
🤔 You can be an anti-theist and still polite in a discussion or debate with a theist.
@@wet-readnot really. If you were 'anti' you're against them.
So yes you can be polite but if you're against them, it's a somewhat fake or superficial politeness
@@davidbell2547
Anti-theism just means opposition to theism.
@@LionOfLight-ju5ww
Yes, that is a valid point. I do tend to think that, BUT I can still be polite and charitable while conversing with someone who is religious. That was MY point.
You may or may not believe this, but I have been treated like garbage by Christians. I rarely respond in kind. One such episode got a Christian treating me that way in a discussion group the ban hammer... by a fellow Christian!
Are you kidding me he’s annoying
I’m a Christian evangelist, this is my first watch of a debate on CC’s channel (brought here by AP)! Great watch, thoroughly enjoyed cleaning up my toolkit for the front lines! Keep going, God bless and put your trust in Jesus taking the punishment for you as the only reason you can be right with God!
Same here!
No, you'll be taking your own punishment, if you keep worshipping a man instead of God.
@@reesecane7878 What an ignoramus, you'veturned out to be.... it's because the nonsense in the Koran keeps you ignorant. Christians have never worshipped anyone but God.
Unlike your impotent Allah, who says he is one, but says he "needs" a consort to have a child, then in another verse he says if he needed a consort he would take it from "ourselves" ... really??? Who exactly is this "ourselves" that Allah needs to reproduce out of???
Our God is mighty enough to take any form he desires, and as per His promise He took the form of man... Jesus, conceived from a woman, without the help of another man....
Christians worship Jesus as God, NOT man.... get it right...
@@thomaspaul5989
Haha, aaawww you're upset. Haha
You worship the "man-god" as James White called Jesus.
The flesh you eat, blood you drink is human, you pagan. Your theology, pagan, Greek.
And the books you rely on are anonymous.
So, you're xtian belief is ignorance based.
@@reesecane7878 .... and now I see why you don't approve if AP... it's because he has put a big red chili up your behind, when he bashes the pagan stone licking religion of islam, and the false god Al Lah who has three daughters and a sick sense of humor for choosing a pedophile to be his prophet....
We do worship Jesus, NOT for His humanity but his pre existence that even the Koran acknowledges.... what a dummy you are.
Thanks for hosting these debates, Cameron. I’ve got a ways to go philosophically, but having the opportunity to engage with people and to learn more about these topics is a great privilege. Have an awesome rest of the week, everyone!
AP is WAAAY out of his league. That was brutal lol. Gj IP. I don't mind AP though, he was pleasant at least.
@@AU-ic7ur I mean that’s a pretty good point actually. I was referring to how he was toward IP though. Most atheists are ... well, less than this guy in the politeness category lol
He always does this, he talks about things he has no knowledge of. Idk why ppl still take him seriously.
@@AU-ic7ur All publicity is good publicity I guess
@@AU-ic7ur lol true
AP was a bit unprepared but dealt with facts. IP was a better debater but his premises are false so his conclusions are unsound.
IP: Hey AP, someone said you also sound like an owl.
AP: Who?
IP:
Haha
🙂😄😂🤣😆
It was interesting to see how AP said that we can't know if God exists or not, but yet he said that he believes there is 0% probability that God exists. In other words he believes there is a 100% probability that God doesn't exist, which is the same to say that it is impossible that God exists. IP also questioned him a lot on why he blatantly dismisses inference to theism based on the best available data but would still believe based on inference from the best data, for example, evolution. I would think that AP is a smart guy, but this is not his area of expertise. It is also shown in the fact that his main arguments says nothing about the ontological existence of God, but rather would call into question God's intensions and how Christians can claim that they worship the true God.
Yeah true. I think AP gave a % on how certain he is about God existing, rather than chances of Him existing. An event with a probability of 0 must imply a logical contradiction.
Typical AP logic 😂
Yeah that’s why he said at the beginning, neither of them can give the actual truth only their own philosophical conclusions from the available information. That was his... there’s no scientific demonstrable evidence
That's why I clarified my position at the beginning, which is: "There is no reason to believe in God and God can be dismissed without further discussion," not: "We can prove God doesn't exist."
You can still believe in a God, but it would be absurd. Since it is an absurd suggestion, I don't leave the possibility open and don't identify with agnosticism. My position can be better described as post-theism.
@@ApostateProphet
If there is no God, no souls, nothing supernatural at all; only matter and energy governed by the laws of nature... Then please tell me how there would be any YOU left as a personal agent who can act with intent?
(Every tiny atom in your body would be forced to act in FIXED ways according to the laws of nature, and your free will to act deliberately and make decisions as a distinct individual would just be an illusion.)
Please tell me how you avoid DETERMINISM if every tiny physical subatomic particle in the universe is just pieces of matter in motion obeying the laws of nature?
This is just the tip of the iceberg in evidence for God. The ironic part is, you have to cut off the very branch of reason that you are standing on just to avoid admitting that God is real. All your boasting about being right, or your conclusions about atheism being more probable would become void.
I am a fan of both of you, and it was amazing to watch this discussion. Thank you Cameron for hosting this debate 🙂
To be honest IP was way too strong irrefutable and AP was struggling a lot as he is not used to this. I have a great respect for AP and IP is my best Christian channel and I would say the best Christian channel of all time because of the much needed information that he provides.
I’d say Sam shamoun
Michael Jones is seriously the smartest guys I have ever seen. Half of those videos he referenced gave me a headache when I watched them. Yes, AP was way out of his league in this debate, but he conducted himself very well against IP, and he knew where to shift the debate away from where he was outgunned. I've not seen anybody hold their ground as well as AP in a debate with IP. He neither raged in self-defense like Aron Ra, nor just rolled over like Michael Shermer. He calmly kept his demeanor and stood his ground respectfully.
@@piage84 The material brain is also affected by consciousness like an overload of negative thinking producing changes in the brain leading to poorer cognitive functioning so what about that?
@@chrisj9892 ....??? You sound like Deepak!
@@piage84 Couldn't agree more. Using studies we don't understand, as evidence, is not so wise.
Actually, God not only exists, God is doing quite well
He's certainly kept it to himself. No one has any evidence of it or data to test. But, hey... who needs data when you know it's magic.
@lrvogt1257 I believe that the bible is God's word. When I follow the instructions in scripture and receive the results promised I believe that I can safely and wisely c occluded that the author knows what He is talking about and knows what He is d oing.
For me based on my experience and knowledge and application of truths found in scripture I conclude that God is genuine and lovingly active in the lives of people who trust and believe his word.
When we do good we receive the benefits
When we reject God and do wrong we receive the negative consequences, not because God issues those consequences but because we reap what we sow
@@respectgod3302 : Fine but there is no rational reason for me to believe it. I find everything from the threats to obey or I'll make you eat the flesh of your children, the flood , Leviticus, Lot, and the genocide of the Canaanites all cruel, malicious, and appalling and hardly paragons of virtue.
All this need to be worshiped or else seems pretty needy.
Be nice to others and they'll be nice to you doesn't require much more than common sense and existed long before any of this primitive fantasy.
@@lrvogt1257looking in the wrong places.
@@KacenTheChristian : OK. Sure.
I've been waiting for this one for some time; both of these debaters are some of my favorites in their respected position. AP seems like the first opponent of IP who actually spent time preparing for a debate with IP specifically, and AP approached this debate very wisely. He tried shifting the focus from the scientific contingency and quantum/consciousness, and rather focused more on an extremely sophisticated version of the God of the Gaps and other philosophical problems with God. However, IP was also wise and kept roping the discussion back to those elements. IP absolutely dominates nearly every debate he's in, and so for AP to try to shift the battle into his court was a wise move. IP is incredibly smart, and half the videos he referenced seriously gave me headaches when I watched them. Even so, AP really held his ground well; knowing where he was outmatched, he didn't dig his own grave in lingering there trying to recover, rather spread his resources well.
That sounds like a sports commentary
Debaters sadly do not want to come to a conclusion neither do most of them ever want to admit that they were wrong
It’s not about who is right or wrong, who is more logical
It’s just about who can argue and debate better than the other that’s why I don’t like to watch debates as much as I used to
Props to you, that analysis was top tier commentary. Hats off👍
Shout out to my fellow Bassist!!
I pray AP is able to move past the people that have hurt him in "religon" in order for him to lose his sense of Faith.
People pray for others when they just want to Feel like they're doing something good for others. AP would prob say "thanks but you can keep your prayers"
Prayer doesn't change God, but changes him who prays. - Kierkegaar, Soren
@@theclownprinceofchrist5224 True!!
Why? What's wrong with not believing in mythology and superstition?
Based comment 👌
This was a very pleasant debate, and it's nice to see 2 people who disagree being respectful of one another, instead of tearing each other's heads off
IP has increased my interest towards Christianity. Inshallah I will read more about it.
I pray you find Jesus brother, I love you man, I hope your doing well and I pray God reveals to you the divinity of His Son.
Look up farid responds
@@daMillenialTruckerLol. Not even in the original followers of Christ believed he was God.
@@John-lf3xfUnpopular opinion. Because you'd be wrong.
@@gooseman4177 baseless assertion dismissed
They both had good arguments and is the best debate between two different ideas.
AP just teach us why we need a God, not that God doesn't exist.
I'm continue bean a Christian scientist.
Hey dude pls contact IP there are some problems in some parts of hes argument acording to some quatam phycisits so pls tell him to make hes arguments more stronger
@@zahydierodriguez4702
Quantum physics is a theory. There are many speculation about it.
We believe that God doesn't fallow this because HE is outside time and space and HE is not material.
@@piage84
But theories can be change with another and even that new theory can be change with another.
I'm agreeing with you that nothing is 100% and science don't have all the answer it just a way to explain nature.
nah quantum physics was addressing the emergent nature of matter (so yeah God is still compatible with quantum physics as he is the mind from which matter emerges)@@LuisVazquez-hx3bk
reallllly
Greatly enjoyed this debate - both sides had well thought out questions and responses. Nice to see the mutual respect! 😊
I’m sorry but Ap completely misunderstood IP’s first two arguments he completely strawmaned them.
Oh, of course. That's how the devil works, and he's just like his father
@@DarthTwilight what?
@Congolese Giant lol😂
it sounds a little pantheistic
IP's opening remarks were clever nonsense built on fantasy and speculation.
Thank you, Cameron! It was great to see IP vs. AP
Turkish Christian? Wow.
@@maxpayne3628 👋
@@TurkiyedeBirHristiyan Are you an Ex-Muslim?
@@maxpayne3628 Yes. Became a Christian almost 9 years ago.
@@TurkiyedeBirHristiyan Oh, so why did you leave Islam?
We need to seed the Gospel - the word of God- in every corner of the Internet.
Plant a few words here, a few words there and, if they find the right soil, they will grow, produce fruit and multiply. We just need to say the truth, nothing more, nothing less.
Praise be to the Lord.
True, see the parable of the mustard seed. Those who reap and sow get to rejoice together in the harvest. You don't always need to try to convert people "on the spot", plant a seed and let God tend to it from there. I got this concept from Greg Koukl's "Tactics".
@@ericb.1384 Exactly! Just a few words to prompt a bit of curiosity, a big of doubt...
@A Memento in order to believe in the christian god, you have to believe in god, duh 🙄
1:47 "babies don't believe in God" yeah they don't believe in anything. By this analogy, being neutral means you don't know anything.
Belief and knowledge. Teo very different things bud.
This was first thing I did after finishing school for the day.
same
Oh hello Fortified,I am Majestic
@farhan imroze How about IP and Hamza Thzortziz
@@majesticrainmaker1460 L Lawliet - Death Note
@@majesticrainmaker1460 Oh hello Majestic, I am Fortified.
Thank you all three for setting this up / participating! I immensely enjoyed it
Judging by his opening argument, I think AP would benefit greatly from Hugh Ross's book, Why the Universe Is the Way It Is.
Outstanding book! Loved it😁
As a data scientist that builds ML models, including those using NNs, I absolutely LOVE that IP is bringing that together with my faith and interest in apologetics! First time hearing Neural Networks brought into the argument for God's existence. Love it!
AP: “The only way to know that there was a God would be for that God to have a massive interference/intervention in our lives.”
Me: Have you read the New Testament?
Typical “pushing the goal posts” argumentation from an atheist who doesn’t want God to exist.
I appreciated how chill this conversation was though. Wish more debates were respectful like this. Aside from my disagreement with him, I really like AP.
Brushed RED If I have to be generous, he simply didn’t give it much thought. What stops him from considering natural explanations rather than take the massive interference at its word? Even if a person appears, performs numerous miracles and make statements like “before Abraham was, I am”, there is still no guarantee AP would believe. It’s not just the evidence itself, but how we interpret the evidence.
Frankly, AP hasn’t understood the impact having his own biases and goggles has on his understanding of the world. Yes, he switched his goggles from an Islamic one to a naturalist one.
Have you read the Koran? Is the Koran convincing to you? Then why would then New Testament be convincing to an atheist?
I very much disagree with this statement. AP has many times in the past said he would like there to be a God. He just honestly doesn’t believe it’s possible.
And the New Testament(of which God is a man), Bahavad Gita(of which God is androgynous), Tao Te Ching(of which God is a woman), etc is based on hearsay. This is not an evidence that he is talking about.
The reality is… most religious people want God to exist. Not many irreligious people want God to not exist. Most irreligious people I have met aren’t choosing based on what they want. They are choosing based on what they think.
I can agree, however, that most atheists or other theists, if God existed, don’t want the Abrahamic God to be that God. All people’s (who are not Jewish, Christian, or Muslim) do not want that kind of God. When they say they would like God to exist, they don’t mean the Abrahamic God or Allah.
Ap, on the other hand, doesn’t dislike the Christian God. He only dislikes the Muslim God. Which is why he debates respectfully with Christian’s and Jews.
When AP said I would put it at a” 0% chance for there being a God “ is the moment we all knew he is just lying for his atheist audience. That would mean not even one argument points to God when there are plenty of arguments that point to a God.
As an atheist I can say that I actually hated his answer and I think that was one of his biggest mistakes. Most rational atheists I know, would say something like 1 to 5%, but never 0. Saying 0% (or 100% for that matter), to that question shows unwillingness to ever change your mind, even when presented with some new, strong evidence against your position. And that is fundamentally irrational and close-minded. Still, knowing AP, I don't think he really meant it this way and simply didn't consider his answer hard enough.
@@psow4062 If you dont mind me asking. What do you based those numbers on?? It seems almost impossible that my confidence in the existence of God is 99% and an atheists belief in the non existence is also 99% if we ate looking at the same evidence.
@@alejandromartin8347 So my view is that it's impossible to conclusively prove either way. Therefore each side can only present some arguments that (if accepted) make their case more likely. And this acceptance is tricky, because people value different things and find different things convincing. Personally, I try to be as objective as I can, remove the feelings from consideration and use cold logic. I don't know about you, but many people simply value their feelings more than rational thought (and they are wrong ;)).
The other thing is that I'm not so sure we are looking at exactly the same data. When I was still a Christian I was almost exclusively listening to one side. I was in church every Sunday, but I didn't listen to atheist arguments one hour a week at the same time. That's not a way to arrive to an unbiased opinion on anything. I'm mentioning that, because most theistic arguments are repetitive and were already either debunked or at least found to have severe weaknesses, and most believes are simply unaware of that. I certainly wasn't back then.
@@psow4062 And by logic you mean actual logic like setting axioms and standards to go by. Defining terms and avoiding fallacies??
Or fake logik like saying believing in this is not logical and any logical person would conclude that. Sadly atheists I’ve listened to only use fake logik. Not sure what argument convinced you that there is no God. I would love to hear it.
I’ve presented some original arguments for the existence of God that have yet to be refuted by any atheist. Not sure if you would like to hear it. But it does require setting axioms and defining terms. So it does take long set up. But its done so atheists cant deny the logic they have set.
@Alejandro Martin In general I try to be as close as I can to using actual logic. Still, I'm not a philosopher just so we are clear. If you are interested in that sort of thing (formal, logical critique of theistic arguments) I can recommend some TH-cam channels like: Rationality Rules or Cosmic Sceptic.
In general I can't say that I'm convinced that there is no God. I'd rather say that I concluded that it's unlikely that he exists and for everyday life I assume he's not there. And it wasn't a single argument that put me here, rather many different ones.
Sure, I would like to see your argument.
”The fool has said in his heart, “ There is no God.” They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none who does good.”
Psalms 53:1 NKJV
that is one of my favorite verses, since the verse is so clearly wrong. if you had any morals at all, you would know the verse is wrong.
@Ruben why don't you consider feeding the hungry, or feeding homeless dogs the right thing to do?
apparently you haven't taken the time to think about how the bible was supposed to have been written.
i understand, you think your God is so stupid and incompetent that he he isn't smart enough to even figure out how to convince me of his own existence.
@Ghostwriter 86 so exactly the same as every other fictional character.
apparently you never bothered to apply critical thinking to what you just said.
@Ghostwriter 86 if you actually believe that. show your work.
do you even know how to form a logical syllogism?
i have never seen a sound logical argument for the existence of a God.
since all i have seen start with the presumption that a God already exists.
you have to demonstrate the existence of a God, before you can determine what a God can do.
@Ghostwriter 86 i understand, you have nothing to offer your God to convince your God to come out of hiding and contact us.
fictional characters aren't able to contact non-believers.
IP: here is a series of data points that supports a philosophical point that at the very least makes theism a rational view.
AP: I'm not here the prove anything, I could easily btfo IP but I won't. BTW I look around and see chaos and meaningless things therefore theism is false.
That last argument doesn't work logically.
Most popular mindset of atheist. The lot are just frustrated and angry. They think disorder in the world makes Christianity or God any less real like it actually is more proof for us that doesn't take away the cosmic order we see
Hahaha! It’s sad but that literally was the debate in a nutshell..
You have IP laying out carefully constructed logical arguments with premises and conclusions, and then you have AP basically ignoring all that and saying "It is what it is", "everything is meaningless and chaos". No offense to AP, but he's just not able to engage with the content here at the level that it requires.
Sounds like AP is a solipsist.
"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind."
@DonnyBlips he is not intelligent
This is not the first time he entered debate with zero qualifications studies or preparation
He did the same with DH and got washed
He’s at fault for choosing to stay ignorant
@@Just_abigheadnoob But then why do you people take him as an authority on Islam? I knew from the 1st moment as a Muslim that IP will humiliate him as Mohammad Hijab, Daniel Haqiqatjou and Farid did in the past.
That was his opening statement. He need not rebut IPs points in his opening statement..
@@noybiznatch The basic way to show solpsism is untrue, is to simply think about the fact that you cannot learn something new from someone else (if solpsism is true) because that would mean you knew the information but kept it from yourselves, which is a contradiction.
IP: here’s data and scientific studies that show my point along with clear syllogisms that hold up to both formal and informal logical rules. AP: mean things happen, here let’s list them and then draw a non sequiter from it and pretend we’ve made a point. Also, any point I’ve made is just my own opinion and I don’t think there’s any way to know truth anyway so it’s totally cool I didn’t prepare for this. Also there’s definitely no God and everything is meaningless, except this argument which is meaningful and a fact, even though we can’t know truth about anything. 😂 atheists are so silly
AP is new to debating God’s existence.
Yeah very very new. You can see IP was kind of annoyed because AP had nothing new on the table and he was not getting IP's argument
@@danielhaqiqatjuuuuala3781
That's because A.P's a blowhard charlatan. How C.C. agreed to host such a debate is the real question.
Is it because A.P. bashes Islam?
Are ex-muslims viewed as knowledgeable of Islam, philosophy, science by dint of their leaving Islam? Is C.C just wanting to promote an anti-Islamic TH-cam channel because he's Christian?
It'll all backfire, as A.P. as stated is a charlatan.
P.s. his 10 minute qna was hilarious.
At least I.P. recognised he'd been had.
@@reesecane7878 oh stop with your complaining, and tolerate people lower than you. AP is new to this, let him learn
@@yohanessaputra9274
You must be new to A.P. or don't understand what a "charlatan" is.
Look it up and realise "charlatans" don't learn until they're caught, even then because he's making money from lowbrow xtians he'll continue to lie to them and they'll lap it up, most until Hell-fire surrounds them.
Don't be one of them.
@@reesecane7878 i know what a charlatan is, and i do agree with you, but AP could change and become more serious in his youtube rather than merely selling his ex-muslim narrative. As is the case of cosmicskeptic, he will learn that there is more to this debates than just "winning" it. It's more of learning than winning, and that's why cosmicskeptic changed his course. AP can too, just give him time
This was like watching a wild bear attack.
Please pray for AP and his family to come to Jesus Christ.
OK I’ll pray to Zeus
OK I’ll pray to Allah
lol
That was a wild bear attack of nonsense words make no sense, on a well-adjusted person that handled the debate perfectly when this subject is out of his realm and not is expertise AP did a great job
Just because you are repetitive and make the assertion that you are right and use the words that are higher than common use you right down the pitch and you open the debate and run away from the real subject that is your personal God that you don’t wanna discuss because you know that he’s fake
Poor AP! He's doomed for the kingdom (good doomed, I mean). He has too many Christian friends. Always a sign God's got 'im on His hook. Just a matter of time. I understand why AP would be so leery of religion generally after coming out of Islam, but I think he's gonna get to know the one true God eventually and come around. Can't wait! Love this guy! It'll be awesome to call him brother.
That's ripe coming from a Communist
@Xiuh No where in Christian scripture is bloodshed, barbarism and terrorism promoted, unlike the Quran.
As far as moral and philosophical inconsistencies go, the Bible is older than the Quran and has undergone far more scrutiny and criticism than the Quran, and still exists, and so does the church, preserving much of the same traditions it has had for thousands of years (unlike Islam which has gone through phases and now teaches things such as the corruption of previous scriptures, and other new doctrine contradicting the first doctrine.)
@@orthodoxinquirer5693 Bruh you read that thing in your holy book before the new testament? Makes the Islamic claim that the new testament was corrupted seem like a likely explanation given the Quran seems to be more consistent with the angry God in the Quran than the fun and loving God in the new testament
@@analyticallysound2716 That's cute considering Christians don't follow the Old Testament, Jewish people do. Which you probably knew, "Analytically Sound" my ass. It seems you have something against Judaism, not Christianity.
@@analyticallysound2716 What thing are you referring to?
AP begins his argument with how the chaotic nature of the universe is proof, that it could not possibly be the creation of a perfect God. Yet in his arguments displays a human perspective when observing and assessing phenomena he describes as chaotic. In the grand scheme of things, are the things he really mentioned chaotic, or is that merely the human perception of them?
Furthermore there is a ridiculous amount of order necessary in the universe (according to science) just for the earth to exist, and for it to sustain life, so are we just going to disregard that insane amount of order and instead present things we percieve as being chaotic from our narrow minded perspective?
Another important point is that the deficiency and imperfection of all of creation (and it limitations) -contrary to his argument-is proof that nothing within creation can possibly be responsible for the existence of creation, and hence (ofc with many other philosophical arguments about cause and effect) a perfect 'existence' is a necessity in the existence of the universe.
And it is divine wisdom that all creation is limited by something, ie death, or in need of something to exist as a stark contrast to God himself who is not dependent on or limited by anything.
AP also avoids answering the proof that michael presents, which makes me think his argument that God doesn't exist is purely subjective
Ps.
He also says that removing any planet from the solar system would not affect us "As far as we know"
Not only could that be majorly inaccurate (Jupiter is like an asteroid magnet protecting earth) but also again, he is forming his view about the purpose of things purely based on its utility to humans (which isn't a neccessity) and also based on the limited assumed knowledge we have.
I don't think AP was very prepared for this debate especially on the cross examination.
Its like that type of a lady/woman; "she is beautiful, why is she not married?"
"her heart was broken, betrayed by a guy she loved, she said she will never love another man forever, for the bitterness of her broken heart has made her believes all man are the same."
Some atheists are like those ladies/women.
Wooow
Good analogy!!!
Im an atheist let me fix your analogy. Its more like a lady was told her whole life by her family that her dad was Harry Potter. So she asked everyone to show her Harry Potter and let her talk to him but everyone said that she just had to believe it in faith and read the Harry Potter novels as proof that he exists. Finally when she learned about logic, reason, science and scepticism and she discovered that everything her family had taught her about Harry Potter and magic and wizardry was inconsistent with the reality that she observes, she had no choice but to stop believing in any of it. She then set off to find who her dad really was and to better understand the world and reality free from delusion and fantasy.
@@dannielz6 you do realize that goes both ways.
Harry potter can also be the atheism, and after using logic and science you she find out her real father - theism.
Now shall we observe using logic and science?
Here is one question no atheists can answer... What is the Final Cause of the existence (of the Universe)?
Is the universe (Natural) exist out of nothing, if so is that natural?
Don't bother to reply, I already know the answer.
Just go find your father... real father.
Two of my very favourite TH-camrs in debate on one of my favourite topics.
What a treat this was!
Well done to both of you, and special compliment for dealing with each other kindly.
I very much enjoyed this debate.
Thank you.
Still waiting for the day @Apostate Prophet becomes a believer, though. :)
While AP was wrong, he wasn't rude or hypocritical. A civil debate on God's existence. There's something you don't see everyday.
I think it helps A LOT to have a strong philosophy background in debates like this. I think that if AP is serious about doing more debates about existence of God, he has to get better in philosophy, otherwise he will be at a disadvantage every time. Overall, even though I also don't have philosophy background, I caught several opportunities that AP missed. Like explaining that even in absence of any evidence, the materialistic explanation for consciousness is way more likely than any supernatural one (by simply applying Occam's Razor and pointing out that no supernatural explanation for anything was ever proven to be true).
That being said, AP correctly (in my opinion) pointed out, that IP didn't really proved his first premise ("if the universe is emergent, it is emergent from a mind""). IP is actually taking a huge leap from "those 2 things have some interesting similarities", to "one of those things was necessary to create the other".
I agree
It was more of a philosophical discussion about consciousness than "God" (religion).
You got snowed by IP's phony physics!
@@richardstevenwalz4968Who are you talking to? Also what you call "phony physics", we have EVIDENCE for. So apparently evidence is phony when you don't like it.
ouch this debate really hurt to watch. I've seen Inspiring Philosophy do much much better when discussing philosophy although I must say he didn't do too bad making his arguments as far as Apostate prophet is concerned he didn't seem prepared. he did say it was his first debate but still I was a little disappointed of the intellectual level of this debate. otherwise very likeable. sorry for being so blunt but I call it like I see it. I really enjoyed the discussion between INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY and ALEX O'CONNER on moral duties and truths , that I must say INSPIRING PHILOSOPHY surpassed my expectations. it was the fist time I seen him. I guess that's why I must of held the bar a little high for this debate. looking forward to more of his discussions and or debates.
I'm incredibly thrilled that we didn't hear the words "plants are conscious" in today's discussion.
@Excuse me, but I'm calling bulls**t on that one
@Excuse me, but I couldn't find anything on google except for this one kid who was born with anencephaly, but his brain ended up mostly growing back, and he wasn't born without one.
@Excuse me, but It isn't the first debate that he said that in. A lot of his opening statement was stuff he had said in his debate with Matt Dillahunty a while back. He also said plants are conscious in that one. I see Cam liked that post, which makes me laugh
@Excuse me, but Yeah, I haven't heard much about panpsychism. My position tentatively is that consciousness is a material process that was evolved by natural selection. I just want to know how people justify saying that everything that we know about the physics and biology of everyday life is suddenly wrong.
Plants are not conscious, IP and that guy are hilariously incorrect if they think that they are. They are capable of responding to external stimuli from the environment. Cool. So are amoebas. So are bacteria. So is literally every other organism on this entire planet. I'm sorry, it just really bugs me when people say stuff like this. I hate when science is attributed so much woo. IP also thinks that "phenotypic plasticity is plant movement." Damn, someone needs to tell him that phenotypic plasticity applies to animals, too, and it has nothing to do with "movement" in the first place.
@Excuse me, but I will cruise TJump's channel to see if I can find this video he's talking about. I'm now interested to see if my previous pop off applies to him haha
Since i only discorvered both of them last year i would have never expected to see them debate considering how chummy they are now idk if it was davids doing probably is but dam i couldn't imagine a reality where they weren't friends yet somehow it was this one
I really love David Wood, AP and IP’s friendship. I love God’s hand in bringing three men together through their comedy.
I was honestly hoping AP would present arguments that show that God couldn’t possibly exist. Instead like most atheist I’ve heard it always the call to reason argument. (How can there be a God if)
5:51 IP
20:07 AP
1. Ok first off
Many of AP's fans think michael is a YEcs
But he is not a YEcs michael is a theistic evolutionist and a Old earth creationist. And also IP was never arguing for christianity because I saw many of hes fans saying to prove the existence if the judeo-christian God when IP clearly said that he will be arguing for classical *THEISM* not christian theism
2. I would give a little bit of credit to AP for being in this debate. But I dont think AP's arguments are that good what I could only see was basically all athiest arguments against God existence mashed up and most of what AP was saying were assertions and something else I Really REALLY want to see what AP said about matirialism in this debate either if there papers or etc....
Also I dont think AP is an athiest I think AP is more of a Radical Agnóstic athiest like Dr. Shermer. Also I really was interested of what AP said about religios expirience because I get what hes talking about but my religios expirience was never what AP said at all. Over all Good for both 👏👏👏
But im going to go with IP
On this one because I really was trying to look deeper on AP's arguments and most of them didnt refute most of IP's opening statement and something else IP already did a video about the problem of evil and hes is soon going to make another one.
Well thank you for making this debate possible guys 🙋
Very well said, but I think that the only error you made is that inspiring philosophy does try to prove for the Christian God. (Just wanted to clarify what he believes in). But besides that very well said.
@@webslinger527 opps yeah sorry but thanks for taking the error away
@@webslinger527
That's what he believes but it's not the topic of this particular debate, me mentioned that at the beginning
@@Qwerty-jy9mj Actually I asked him one time ( IP )
If he will ever debate this with any phycisit? And then I said will you ever debate sean carrol on this and he said yes he said maybe in the future so im very hyped for that debate to happen
@@Qwerty-jy9mj inspiring philosophy doesn't believe in the Christian God that's why he calls himself a Christian. Also in this particular debate I think he was just trying to show a god what he does bring up the Christian God or the Christian God worldview multiple times
Though I am Muslim but I have become a fan of IP the way he discuss his topic. Much to learn from him. New subscriber I am after this debate.
my dear friend, come in to the loving arms of your Savior, Jesus Christ ❤✝️❤
@@UniteAgainstEvilNo, we already believe in Jesus as a prophet and the messiah but not God even the bible itself says God is not a man or the son of man wheras Jesus was indeed a man and called the son of man.
@@convert2islaam500cmon man. If you’re gonna argue against Christianity, you have to use some sort of better argument. The ones you pointed can be deconstructed with a simple google search. But a quick answer is that you’re referring to Numbers 23:19. First point is that Jesus hasn’t been incarnated yet, this is the Old Testament, thousands of years before. Second is that it’s referring to human nature qualities. If you would actually read the verse, it says that God isn’t a man or son of man (referring to a literal son, whereas Jesus being called Son of Man is for an entirely different reason) because God doesn’t possess qualities such that he would lie, which is a human trait.
InspiringPhilosophy completely DESTROYED apostate prophet.
Nope
Yes
@@KevinChantal Nope
Are AP and David Wood still going to debate?
at least they both agree that Islam is false
I know I’ve been waiting for that but I don’t know what happened
I've been wondering that for so long lol. It would be epic
Is
Wood could not prepare and still wash him people forget he has a PhD in philosophy I’m guessing he will go easy on AP
Thanks AP for showing how ridiculous atheism is once again 😊
Rip your notifications
I'm not an atheist but i don't see why it would be ridiculous. It pretty logical
@Natural Beauty weirdo
Christianity is the most ridiculous religion ever .
@@marchforward1929 Islam is the most logical and pragmatic religion. Alhamdulillah ☝🏽☪️🕋
The problem with this debate format is that the opening statements is pre-planned and such the second speaker does not attempt to rebutt any of the first speakers argument, but ends up rebutting the argument from design (which the first speaker did not present).
Agreed. Or you need the second speaker to be an actual specialist in the fields used in the presented arguments.
IP: Presents a valid argument with proper scientific research papers and argumentation
AP: Your argument is wrong because I think it is wrong
Lol there are no scientific papers that have concluded any god exists.
@@kartashuvit4971 where did IP say otherwise? looks like you creating a strawman.
@@commandar88 who are you talking to, me or Sheikh? He's the one who said IP used research papers
@@kartashuvit4971 i thought you were saying that IP said his scentific references says God exists
@@commandar88 no im just stating there are no studies that have confirmed the existence of god
The guy I like totally crushed the guy I don't like. Man that guy I don't like is so unlikeable, why can't they be more like the guy I do like?!
IP Michael`s voice souds like he is still stuck in puberty . Very interesting ideas and arguments
It’s unbelievable that AP has more subscribers than IP, AP lacks a basic philosophical understanding. He didn’t realize his enormous double standard regarding burdens of proof for Gods existence as opposed to Naturalism. He provided no evidence to his claims, especially the head of one person attaching to another persons body! Then he admits we can even do that with current technology 😂😂
It's easier to understand how wrong Islam is than to understand how correct Christianity is.
@@CrossWarrior7ForTheLord 🤣🤣🤣
I like AP content and as a person but Ip nailed this debate and I think Ip won this debate 👍🙏
InspiringPhilosophys ''basic arguement'' is some next level stuff
I apriciate 5% of all atheists(nice atheists)
I think 5 is a little too high.
Please don't plan to travel to counties like Netherlands or Czech republic, where you may find 75% people unlikeable in your view.. I am sure they'll forgive though, because you are surely otherwise a nice person
@@jiriblaha873 Netherland is one of the most peaceful country in history lol. It still one of best regardless of religion of people.
@@Kenji17171 what about drugs...
@@g--br1el985 huh
The two pillars of modern physics, General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory, both treat space-time as a fundamental aspect of their models. I would start there, but I have other questions... like is Mike suggesting that the reason we see a cosmic web that has some resemblance to our brains is we are in a giant brain?
IP like always having convincing arguments based on extensive research. AP was ok, but like any atheist it's just limited to evolution, suffering questions, existential questions and expansionism of the universe that goes into a circle reaching nowhere. IP is based on history, translations, science, logic, physics, scientific opinions.
Although I really enjoyed the debate.
You’re saying IP had scientific, logic, physics to support the idea of a god or proved a god?
InspiringPhilosophy is the best theologian in the 21st century change my mind
Does AP really think that natural disasters points to Disorder??
I guess he does
Basic athiest logic:
This car dosent have wings and fly so then that means this car is NOT fined tunned 🤦
@@zahydierodriguez4702 I haven't even listened to IPs response yet, but I feel like this is should be too ridiculous to even be said.
AP I love you dude but you you wrecked yourself and IP truly cleaned house.... This debate should have been with David Wood as mentioned a while back.... dissapointed .... cannot believe he claims that the surrounding planets or celestial bodies have no purpose.... I guess you dont understand jupiter or the sun.... or the moon... and how seemingly fine tuned they are.... on top of that you stumbles constantly contradicting yourself... I would love to see a critique on this debate so that you could perhaps see the incredible flaws in your arguments and assumptions...
@Frank Beans Is being in a cult a "bad" thing?
@Frank Beans Well first off its "history" not "myth" but my QUESTION is why does stardust (you) have the right to say that something that other stardust (me) is doing is "wrong" ?
Why do you care?
Your acting like a Christian did you know that?
Your acting as if right and wrong are objective...
Every time you say that something is "right" or "wrong" you have the burden of proof to justify why it is right or wrong.... Sorry bud but without God in the equation you have no justification to say anything is right or wrong.... its just your opinion...
See frank you know God but you suppress him... no amount of "feeling" will ever change the fact that he does indeed exist... he loves you man... why do you deny him?
I did not know the sun and the moon are planets. 🙏
Roberto Piagentini Your misunderstanding of what a “myth” is shows your ignorance my dude.
From the bible to secular texts we have more information about this event than one would obviously care to consider, not to mention the unprecedented impact it still has on scholars and intellectuals.
If you think it’s a mere “myth” I would encourage you to look at the worlds leading scholar on the topic and what he has to say about it - Gary habermas
Then if you still think it’s a “myth” you can look up the leading scholar skeptic Bart ehrman and what he has to say about the rich historicity of Jesus Christ 🤷🏻♂️
I’ll also leave you with this - either God exists or he doesn’t, both of these instances are terrifying.
On one hand if he does exist it would logically follow he reveal himself to the world and wants something from you as his creation.
On the other hand if he doesn’t exist then your hopeless and meaningless existence is just that... hopeless and meaningless... leaving you no justification behind your moral judgments and no ground to stand on saying anything is right or wrong.
😊💥💯
Frank Beans 😂😂 idiots? Maybe it’s time you were taught something pretorists get wrong (if you even know what a pretorist is you newb 😂)
how do we know that almost all of the other New Testament uses of “this generation” refer to Christ’s contemporaries? We learn this by going and examining how each is used in their context. For example, Mark 8:12 says, “And sighing deeply in His spirit [Jesus is speaking], He said, ‘Why does this generation seek for a sign? Truly I say to you, no sign shall be given to this generation.’” Why do we conclude that “this generation,” in this passage refers to Christ’s contemporaries? We know this because the referent in this passage is to Christ’s contemporaries, who were seeking for a sign from Jesus. Thus, it refers to Christ’s contemporaries, because of the controlling factor of the immediate context.
Matthew 23:36 says, “Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.” To whom does “this generation” refer? In this context, “this generation” refers to Christ’s contemporaries because of contextual support. “This generation” is governed or controlled grammatically by the phrase “all these things.” All these things refer to the judgments that Christ pronounces in Matthew 22-23. We should now realize that in each instance of “this generation,” the use is determined by what it modifies in its immediate context. The scope of use of every occurrence of this generation is determined in the same way.
IP was incredible this debate. I think AP misunderstood his arguments. AP isn’t that good of a debater he is just a atheist he’s not a philosopher or theologian he’s just an atheist. I do believe IP destroyed him but it was really just a fun friendly conversation since AP is not a profesional.
I am Catholic and always will be and I have learned so much from apostate prophet...much love 💘
Just so you know all he does is lie about Islam
@@JohnDove-wi8dowhy?
AP is my favorite atheist! Praying for him!
IP was on 🔥
Matter creating concsienceness is the nice trick for the lazy thought. No matter how things are chemically complicated in real life, at the end the matter is still a matter. Therefore concsienceness also the illusion of the material process that makes us feel like it exist but it isn't. Since this is the only logical conclusion for matter producing 'concsienceness'. What we think, motivated, love, and inspire are the passive result of an illusion not an active decision that guides our mortal being. Therefore, our action is caused by materialistic process that are determined in the beginning of this universe whether you belive that is to be big bang or what not. In this view, their is no point of arguing if one's belief system is right or wrong because none of us had an active decision to choose anything but are natural result that are unguided by our active decisions. Therefore, AP's attempt to prove or disprove itself is meaningless.
On the otherhand, if you believe in consciousness that are capable of regulating and actively 'making' decisions, you have to conclude that such process is outside of mere chemical process as a passive outcome. If that is the case, our being is intrinsically different to the any non living matters and evolution cannot handle this problem because there has to be more explanations on at which point of time we recieved such non material being. And If concsienceness exist not in AP's sense, there are open possibilities about God theory.
man, AP really wasn't prepared for this. Still, it was a nice discussion though
good debate Michael won though he proved god scientifically,physcologically,mentally and with logical rationalizing over all the apostate kept ignoring that God was the missing gap to free will and how things are brought to existence and the fact that our consciousness isn't created from a brain but from a higher being who we can connect with spiritually glory to God amen.
Ip please post the same explanation of God's existence in your channel done in your opening statement here.
Interesting discussion. Thank you both.
1:03:22 Congrats IP you just wasted 2 hours of your life on this guy
Yeah amazing how Jesus ironically didn't come to his mind right away
I was Rofl at that part .
Otherwise, Good to see you Power :)
@@eternalbyzantium262 Are you interested in discussing God's existence on the basis of science and logic, rather than the Bible? That's what I like doing!
@@20july1944 Yeah the Bible is the most important to me, and the existence of God is rooted in both science and logic. Don't think your cynicism will get you anywhere or that it puts you in some quasi-superior moral high ground. Even sophisticated atheists are able to concede the seriousness of theological arguments. You're an absolute waste of time. Mock me all you want, gnash your teeth and pour scorn. Jesus is Lord, and he who accepth Him shall inherit the Kingdom of God. I myself was a harsh critic of Christianity, Christopher Hitchens being my idol. I was a hardcore atheist. That was until I humbled myself to learn the arguments of the other side, and I gave my life to Christ. I invite you to do the same while you still have time. Just in case you're interested:
toleadasoul.blogspot.com/?m=1
I wrote a blogpost about it. Take care.
@@eternalbyzantium262 I am a lifelong Christian.
However, I don't like using the Bible in evangelizing for theism.
It is truly amazing that there are minds that can be easily confused into questioning God's existence. Sad that some do because they are weak and scared to go against the mainstream.
@Capturing Christianity, can you do a top 10 debates to watch, always looking for insightful and thought provoking debates
This is an amazing idea!
@@CapturingChristianity awesome, second suggestion, if you could have a discussion with Cosmic Skeptic and Fr. Gregory Pine I think would be a very stimulating and thought provoking discussion on the existence of God, God bless brother!
Please, please, please do a debate with Cosmicskeptic and IP on free will.
AP thinks our outer planets could disappear and their disappearance would have no significant impact. AP, what do you think would happen if Jupiter were to disappear? What impact do you think that would have on the orbits of the other planets and moons in our solar system? What would happen to us with no massive object keeping millions of asteroids on a leash?
He doesn’t think that. Jupiter is very necessary for our solar system and this planet.
AP, I love you, but unfortunately your answers were not the same calibre as that of IP.
The material universe is NOT eternal, so using cause and effect in the known universe, it would require "faith" to believe that it could "create" itself.
Absolute class from Both. I recently found AP as it was recommended and Actually found IP through one of his recent debate reviews with AP. As soon I seen this gem I instantly clicked and wow this is why I watch both of you. Wish I could extend my gratitude financially. One day….
Christian argues scientific evidence. Atheist argues against the existence of truth. Who is it that does not believe in science???
@Wake No. WOW, cognitive dissidents on full display.
Saying that things are meaningless doesn’t disprove god it only proves that they may be imperfect to us.
Get IP to debate Skydive Phil or Rationality Rules PLEASE!!
@Natural Beauty He should stick to politics instead of religion I would watch him if he made more political videos
@@lebronbrady6638 yup
I Love you Ridvan. I have a question for you: If there is only chaos and accident as far as Life goes, and therefore no objective good and evil, only survival, why do you have a fundamental drive to fight Islam and bring people out of that mindset?
He would probably say it doesn’t matter whether fighting Islam is objectively good or has lasting meaning. He would likely focus on the idea that Islam brings pain into the world, and he wants to prevent others from experiencing that pain. He would want to do this not because he thinks he “should” or that there’s a meaning, but because he wants to as an empathetic person.
Man I feel the nihilistic angst that AP is feeling. I was in that place before. Its a swamp that won't let go as you feel a sweet self destructing pleasure in the nihilistic despair yet knowing that it is killing you.
Nobody can live or believe in nihilism. Its against human nature. You can talk about it, say u believe it, preach it but your actions will always speak otherwise. Ive felt nihilistic many times especially due to pain, depression and the problem of suffering. But my actions & thinking cannot get myself to be a nihilist. When i see evil or good deeds i get the intuition that this is good or bad objecively, not just meaningless atoms
@@Yameen200 It's against the nature of all organic life, but it is the way the universe is built.
@Badi Manshadi Sometimes. Other times when I go to church I get meaning and holy spirit.
@Badi Manshadi yes
How do you know what AP is feeling? Did you ever think he might be a lot happier since letting go of Islam?
There was only one debater in this debate. The other participant was far outclassed. It was like watching Nolan Ryan pitch against a little leaguer.
A contractor graciously gave a laborer a job. The laborer complained, "It would be easier for me if you would provide a nail gun." The contractor replied, "If I had a nail gun I wouldn't need you." We are put here to manage our world and bring order to it as God has brought order to our universe. He's the hand, we're the glove, and everything he touches turns to love.
Bad analogy. If the Contractor was an omnipotent god then he wouldnt need the worker, nail gun or not.
Nice job Cameron, Michael & AP.
Bad day for AP.
Kosovo is Serbia.
Edit: while I do believe in what I said, this was meant to be just a joke considering I saw the commenters name, so I hope I didn't offend anyone
@@catholicorthodoxperson6979 it always was
@@catholicorthodoxperson6979 Not the comment I thought that I would come across, but Kosovo definitely is not Serbia. It was temporarily during certain periods of history, but prior to the Slavic migration in the Balkans, Kosovo was known as Dardania, and it was inhabited by the Albanian tribes.
This is a fact. I am sorry.
@@TheOrthodoxAlbanian ahem.
*laughs in Raska*
*Laughs in Nemanjici dinasty as of whole*
*Laughs in Serbian Empire*
*Laughs in Moravian Serbia*
*Laughs in Serbian monasteries there (Kosovo and *Metohija* *land of monasteries*)
Laughs in
*Ottoman empir-*
@@catholicorthodoxperson6979 There is a lot of nuance in this discussion, from if the resolutions (1244) that were introduced were legal, if the NATO bombing was legal and ethical, and many other things. But one must not forget the killings of many innocent Albanians that took place, the rape, etc (likewise killing happening on the opposite side. These are being looked into right now at The Hague).
This is why I do not like to engage in politics. We are Christians, and even better, identify as Orthodox. We need to be together and spread Orthodoxy. God willing one day we can have something similar to the Byzantine Empire but even greater, with the belief in the Gospel being accepted all the way around the world. Thinking of a few territories here and there should not be the concern of the believer. Let’s unite and destroy heresy and expose the falsehood of Islam and other pagan religions which are against Christ.
On topic of the conversation however, it is indeed a fact that Slavic migrations to the Balkans occurred in the mid-6th century. The original name of Kosovo was Dardania, which comes from the Albanian word, “dardhë” to mean, “pear”, because that is one of many things the the land was known for. The people were known as the Dardani’s. There were kings, Bardylis for example (coming from the word bardhë for white), an Albanian, from as far back as 448 BC that had control of those lands. The Slavic tribes were not in Kosovo at this time.
Everything is information. Information needs to be interpreted (mind, consciousness, perception, soul whatever you call it). Information ASSUMES a preceding READER. The MIND CAME FIRST...This really isn't difficult.
*IP's brain is so quick and intelligent and can answer any questions quickly...*
He’s not your standard Christian apologist.
AP should Debate IP On the Problem of Evil and Morality cause that's his Subject.
IP did a Really Great Job On this Debate Does God exist, I enjoy Watching and AP did Good Too.
Ap believes in more than 3 morality I don’t know how this is even possible he will make fool on himself
IP already did a video on the problem of evil you know...
AP points are depressing tbh.
AP seems to have confused IP's emergent universe argument and the Cosmological argument
AP. We love your honesty. You're my best atheist friend at the moment. Praying for you, it won't be long before the light of the gospel illuminates the way and points you to our Lord and saviour, Jesus Christ.
This is a good, charitable response 👍
Hi. Sorry that my English isn't perfect . Can you please tell that why people in comment section think that AP lost debate? Btw what was certain proof of IP which claims that God certainly exist?
Thanks to all for a good debate and discussion.
The universe is huge to keep us in awe, which it does. All physicists are amazed.
God bless you, IP! You destroyed AP!!!
IP in every single video : " Accordingly to more recent studies, it seems that we can't find no reason whatsoever to believe any sort of alleged evidences that I have produced throughout this video......HOWEVER...."
Just kidding i love your channel very much God bless you
AP was very polite, which I appreciate. But his "arguments" for atheism (like all of "arguments" for atheism) were pitiful.
"I don't think we'll ever terraform Jupiter. That means the universe is chaotic and therefore God probably doesn't exist."
Just like Romans 1 says. People don't reject God because of a lack of evidence. They reject God because they're evil. They refuse to love the truth and so be saved.
It is neat though if a debate can actually be respected on both sides, like without some smug atheists just acting like a pompous jerk to the Religious guy, and vice versa I suppose, though my experience has definitely been more of the former then the later.