He clearly has an open mind and is willing to ask question and also learn from it. He doesn't have to agree, but he has the pillar stone of showing understanding and respect. A great example of how to act when debating.
The bible is clear enough on it’s own for anyone to understand. It says how God made everything good but because people like going their own way, we sin and that ruined everything. And since God loves us, He died for us on the cross so that we do not need to be punished for eternity if you believe. So if you believe in what He did and understand that your good deeds cannot get you to heaven, then you will be saved
This Preacher is precise and caring, some us let our emotions get the better of us. I don't see how you can take God out of this Earth and Life, millions of species, millions of cells in our eyes to see Him yet some don't. He is the Author of life.
@@neilfletcher1841 in fact, god even makes sure we know this in isaiah 45:7. but we already knew he's evil from when he killed everyone on earth and forced a small group of people to reproduce through close incest before causing multiple wars.
@@neilfletcher1841 Lol 😂😂😂 what planet are you from? Stalin Hitler They killed more people than God ever did from Genesis to Revelation. Infact just one of them alone killed more people than God. The flood was Judgement of sin & He had mercy on us because He could have totally annihilated all of mankind. Second chances. 🙏🙏🙏 do you not belt your kids depending on the crime they have committed? Are you a 5min break parent?
@@neilfletcher1841 Atheists: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong murdered more than 100 million between them. During Noahs days there weren't even a million people on earth. Funny logic, you point 1 finger at God and you have another 3 pointing back at ya. 🙏🙏
@@Chase-vi1kh Oh I have surely figured it out long time ago...having imaginary sky friends doesn't do much for me - living the reality is what I stick to.
0:16 "Order and design do not come out of chaos by chance." Cliffe is going to have to pin down what he means by "chaos". Chaos actually speaks to how difficult something may be to predict due to the number of factors affecting it. That is to say, we cannot easily predict complex outcomes. Order regularly emerges from chaos (like the collection of matter into stars and planets due to gravity). The system is too complex to predict exactly what stars or planets will form from any given nebula, but we can predict that stars and planets will form.
@@spacecoastz4026 “And who made that gravity, the motion, the energy, and the matter?” I think you’ve missed the premise of my reply; My position is that order can come from chaos, where “chaos” means any incomprehensible complex system. That aligns with the notion that none of what happens is guided by a “who”, as your question alludes to. It’s a curious position to suggest that “order can’t come from chaos” or “the properties of the universe can’t come from nothing” while also asserting a fundamentally complex being that is both ordered and has no origin. Of course, the correct answer (for the religious or atheist) is that we don’t know how or why certain properties of the universe are the way they are. We currently have no way to determine answer to that question any more than you could explain the mechanism used by a god to create a universe (and “spoke it into existence” is insufficient as we have no example or evidence that this is actually how the universe came to be). And to put a different perspective on your question, if I see an extinct volcano, I don’t ask, “Who made that large hill?” There are lots of examples of things we observe that weren’t made by any being, but are just the result of well understood, natural processes. In contrast, if I find a device that looks like things I’ve observed humans make, then I consider a human has made it (the watchmaker argument). I know a watch has a maker, because I can observe examples of humans making watches; there are no examples or observations of a universe-maker beyond effects that are indistinguishable from unguided nature.
@@HonestlyCurious-bp4gv I didn't miss the premise of your reply, I just don't agree with it. Chaos is what made the Grand Canyon. Sure you can call that result "order", but that order also came about from things that God created and put into existence. *It’s a curious position to suggest that “order can’t come from chaos” or “the properties of the universe can’t come from nothing* I think its an unreachable and unreasonable concept that "nothing" can create a universe, which includes order and design...and life. *there are no examples or observations of a universe-maker beyond effects that are indistinguishable from unguided nature* Which mean that nature is your god. As written in Scripture: 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man- Romans
@@spacecoastz4026 “Chaos is what made the Grand Canyon.” What do you mean by “chaos”? There is a well-known geological process that led to the formation of the Grand Canyon (erosion). Erosion isn’t not considered chaotic. The chaos you may be referring to is merely the aspect that, were we to observe the land before the Grand Canyon forming, we couldn’t accurately predict exactly what it would look like. However, we could predict that a massive canyon would form. “I think it’s an unreachable and unreasonable concept that “nothing” can create the universe…” I am not asserting that the universe was created or that it definitely wasn’t created. I made clear that we do not have any evidence to tell us why or how the universe is the way it is. “Which mean that nature is your god.” You may have to define what you mean by a “god” in this sentence. I have observed religious people redefining words like this (like calling science a religion) to sound profound, but they don’t check whether it is a coherent expression. My general understanding of a god is that it is sentient and has some capacity to communicate with humans (in an intelligible form). In that sense, a god is very much the antithesis of nature, as I define nature as being explicitly mindless and uncommunicative. This is to say, for your sentence to mean something to me, you’ll have to clarify how mindless nature can somehow be labeled as a concept that I’ve understood to explicitly mean a sort of mind that may be interested in nature but is more interested in human behaviours. “As written in Scripture: … For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen…” This is the epitome of religious thinking, in my eyes. Being told that “invisible attributes are clearly seen”, and being so keen to go along with the story that you refuse to acknowledge that it’s a blatant contradiction. While you may offer a mitigating explanation, my point is simply that it is poorly worded, and signals a kind of trickery or deception that normal communication doesn’t employ. You might say it is describing how you see the attributes everywhere, but it doth protest to much when it specifically calls them “invisible”; That is to say, the author(s) knew it isn’t clear that what we see is “His… attributes”. This passage aligns with what I said in my prior reply: the evidence for a universe-maker is conspicuously indistinguishable from the unguided nature we see. If it were guided, I’d expect it to be apparent (like the Grand Canyon inexplicably shaped like exact passages in the Bible or a Bible prophecy saying earth will get a 2nd moon next month and it shows up). In any case, I want to say that I appreciate you engaging this with the thoroughness you have. While we may be going back and forth on this topic, I do want to acknowledge that it means something to be willing to reach out to people that may not understand you in the hopes of better mutual understanding.
@@HonestlyCurious-bp4gv And I would leave it with these two questions.. Which really is more logical and plausible, that everything around us came to be without God...all on its own by some "force of nature" which nothing created....or GOD created Creation? And secondly, did Jesus exist? Did Jesus, the Son of God come to this earth as an atonement for our sins, so that the perfect righteousness of God the Father could be satisfied, and thus those willing to come to Him could have eternal fellowship?
It is not a riveting debate. Cliffe cannot debate because what he says is so illogical. God is eternal. Why? Because he is. Can that not apply to the universe? No. Why not? Because it had a beginning. Did god not have a beginning? No. Why not? Because he is eternal. The circularity makes one dizzy yet Cliffe seems quite happy with that. The young man has the wisdom to understand that it is useless to discuss with Cliffe.
Modern cosmology indicates the universe had a beginning. The bible does as well. Cliff is making an prime mover argument see Aristotle. There must be a unmoved mover in order to start any motion. "An infinite regress of causation is neither possible nor necessary. Consider that you can never get to the end of an infinity, and for the same reason, we could never get here via an infinity of steps. Another way to look at it is that each step in a chain of causation takes time, no matter how small." here is a good vid on this th-cam.com/video/N6UW3Imn5b8/w-d-xo.html
The universe is a creation. The sun is exactly positioned so it doesn’t burn up the earth. Gravity works& is precisely as it should be. A person’s body is not a jumble of out-of-order parts…your nose isn’t at the top of your head…hence you don’t drown in the rain. Intelligent design…by God…who is eternal. Simple.
God is eternal. He must be eternal. Existence cannot possibly come from nothing. Why? Because there is nothing there. Absolutely nothing. If there is nothing, then there is no energy or cause to cause something to exist. There is literally just nothing. But if God exists, and He is eternal, then that makes sense BECAUSE eternity indicates that He has always existed and always will exist. He himself doesn't have a beginning. That might be hard to imagine, but think of the number line from negative infinity to positive infinity. It doesn't have a beginning...there is no "first number" or "start" to the numbers from negative to positive infinity. In the same way, God does not have a beginning, he has always existed and always will. He caused the universe to exist
Yikes, I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate you attempting to indoctrinate him like that. He's better off not worrying about any of that and living his best life without it
A true gentleman debate conversation by two men. Shame we don’t have many people like this willing to listen and be respectful together on opposing views. 👏🏻
Is it rational for me to say I'm never going to workout because that's painful to my body? Pain is a feeling. But not all painful things are bad or irrational to continue.
"Faith is a malignancy that no system can tolerate with impunity ; and the man who succumbs to it , will call on it in precisely those issues where he needs his reason the most." -Nathaniel Branden-
I mean if you want to guess stuff based on feelings and that’s going well for you, than you do you I guess man but it’s likely your hurting a lot of people much like a father who turns away his gay child forever, or a witch burnt at the stake, or a deformed child being shunned for their appearance, because that and most likely any evil horrible thing you can think of is faith.
@@FantasyAimonstersoh yeah all the world wars were created cus God said so, what a fuckin ridiculous argument, wars are man made, we broke Gods law, and man did wars, atrocities and evil.
@@i_love_ujesus7228But god created humans right? If he’s “all powerful, all loving and all good” this universe would not exist as it does. Look up “the problem of evil”. It’s the biggest piece of evidence the Christian god does not exist. It takes free will and all those nonsense excuses you all preach into account too I promise
I do agree with the kid's last point and Cliffe didn't make a good argument against it. The kid was just too nervous to make a proper case for his point: If Cliffe wants to be part of a gang that wants him to commit murder, that gang still exists within a larger society where murder is bad. The gang might accept him, but society in general will still shun him and hunt him down. That is because we, as humans, don't benefit from murder being allowed. Nobody wants to be murdered. So you make it illegal for everybody to commit murder. To counter Cliffe's argument: if the entire tribe, not just the gang existing in a civilised society, decides that murdering members of another tribe is okay, murder becomes okay. The entire tribe being "the nation". War is allowed, and participating in that war, killing members of the other nation, is generally regarded as (awful but) heroic and respectable.
@@lesliefuller1456 First of all,absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. But If you really struggle with evidence then let me provide you with eye witness testimonies that have seen a man dead and then seen him risen FROM the dead. If you want even more you can read the whole New Testament and the sources that back it up historically.
@@mild-ep1rm 😂😂😂😂😂 eye witness testimonies are the single most unreliable source of evidence on the planet. Verifiable proof is what is required. Where is it? There isn’t any. Thousands of people have tried for thousands of years to provide it, so far no one has succeeded.
Remember the atheist formula: Insult God insult Christians insult Christianity = they win the debate. "Show me how to make a Chocolate cake without sugar, cream, or chocolate. Now go ahead. That's how they sound. To try and discredit The Bible then ask us to debate. Makes zero sense. That young man is miles ahead of the typical atheist. He was willing to listen...
@@jerrylong6238 They are just pointing out that a lot of people who are atheist tend to fit that stereotype when debating with a christian, but yes you are correct atheists don't believe on what theists claim.
Are you aware that hundreds of millions of people live in nations where leaving the state religion to become an atheist is punishable by death? This was true in with Christianity in Europe for more than 1000 years. After all the torture and oppression I don't think you get to act like atheists are the negative ones.
I appreciate people like this student. They’re respectful and reasonable with genuine hearts and open minds to seek answers for what they do not understand. Not like those who immediately get triggered by the mere mention of God.
"Where is the creative mechanism in evolution?" Well I should also then ask "Where is the creative mechanism in god's existence" The logic of something cannot come from nothing only opens room to another bigger question "Where did god come from?"
@@RedS-MP Maybe we didnt discovered right way, that evolution had, yet. Or maybe there were enough planets like earth in universe to make even small chance work.
He sounds more like a politician than a religious leader. Talking in circles not making sense or actually proving any points. Keeps trying to change the subject. This guy belongs in the senate not the church
I’m thinking of writing a book “How to convert Atheists to Religion - A beginners Guide” and wondered if you had any advice? Remember people, this is about winning hearts and minds! This is what I’ve got so far: Chapter 1: How to mock science for the absurdity of claiming the universe a) has a beginning and/or b) has no beginning (is infinite), whilst proclaiming the obvious truth of an infinite God, with no sense of irony. Chapter 2: How to mock the legitimacy of science, using selective pseudo-scientific ideas, whilst proving God through the scientific principles established in any given holy book of choice. Chapter 3: How to mock science for having scientists with contradictory views, whilst explaining there is only one version of God (albeit it with thousands of different interpretations and contradictions). Chapter 4: How to mock atheists for having no concept of good and evil because they have to decide for themselves, whilst theists fully understand good and evil, because it’s whatever their God tells them (otherwise known as the ‘suicide bomber justification’). Chapter 5: How to mock atheists/scientists for not being certain about things, which is clearly a far inferior position to hold than the absolute certainty of truth that we hold as theists. Chapter 6: How to mock atheists/scientists for believing in evolution, because everyone knows that the world is only 6500 years old and you can’t possibly grow a man from a fish. Chapter 7: How to mock scientists for their concept of evidence, which seems to involve repeatedly and empirically testing claims to establish predictable outcomes, as opposed to the far superior documentary evidence of second hand witness accounts of first century peasants. Chapter 8: How to mock atheists for denying the power of prayer, when God clearly prioritises the faith healing of middle class Americans over the less deserving starving African masses. Chapter 9: How to mock atheists over their disrespect of our religious leaders, who are perfectly justified in covering up any form of corruption or criminal behaviour within their ranks, because they are Gods chosen ones and beyond reproach. It’s only in draft form at the moment, but any more ideas on how we can convert these lost souls, or alternatively remove these godless creatures from the face of the earth, in the name of god’s love, would be much appreciated.
Sadly atheists dont believe in a god because they require evidence to prove such a thing exists. You can mock them all day long, but without proving your claims and using circular logic by only referencing an ancient old book is not going to win them over. The proof for evidence lies on the person making the claim. We atheists dont make claims we keep searching for evidence and so far no one has been able to prove a god let alone any specific god.
We have fossils much older than 6500 years old 😭 Educate yourself on the *theory* of evolution 😭 Explain how 2000 year old eyewitness testimony is better evidence than constant testing using logical methods 😭
This is a lovely joke, and this made me laugh. Please don't fall into the trap of hating people though. We are all clueless, whether we cling to God or to science or to pseudo intellectual nonsense, nobody knows the full truth about the universe. Let's find out together, and then help others find the truth ❤️
@@petritdauti Of course, I completely agree with your sentiments. This is only meant to be satire (although it is meant to be pointed) and I don't hate anyone with honestly held religious convictions. I respect peoples right to believe whatever they like as long as they don't try and impose it on others. I do however have a strong dislike of religious institutions that exploit and manipulate people's desire to seek hope and find comfort in the world. Just as I have a strong dislike for clairvoyants who exploit people's emotional vulnerabilities, but not the people who go to them looking for peace of mind.
"We are still too rational, too this-worldly, and too individualistic to submit to naked tyranny. We are still being protected by the fading remnants of our Enlightenment heritage." -Leonard Peikoff- 1986
God has no beginning, very nice set up for discussion. Philosophers love this kind of set up for conditions for discussion as it complete closes options and leads to self proving concept of God. That does not prove God is exist or eternal.
i love these intelligent minds earnestly seeking truth, asking questions they actually want answers for. may god bless and watch over them. bring them home! cliffe is such a good advocate for the most high.
Lots of gripes in here about Cliffe's claim that order can't come from chaos. Maybe a better way to put it is to ask, does disorder have creative power? Is entropy the cause of the upward pressure in biology toward ever more complex organisms? The examples I've seen so far in here if order from chaos are like claiming that water miraculously takes the shape of a bucket when poured into a bucket -- and therefore, given enough time, it will form itself into a world-class ice sculpture that can do your taxes and has hopes, fears and dreams. Disorder has no creative power in a universe where entropy is king. That pressure toward organization has to come from elsewhere.
"Disorder has no creative power in a universe where entropy is king. That pressure toward organization has to come from elsewhere." That is a really ignorant statement. Low entropy from the sun can create order from chaos. That is how plant based life such are trees get the energy to grow. This is why snowflakes are forms when entropy decreases and crystals form when material cools down. You're just parroting creationist misleading creationist slogans.
Order may be a stopping point along the way from one disorder to the next. Taxes and world class ice sculptures aren't eternal things. And even if this wasn't the case, that the perceived order means there must be a conscious agent manipulating the universe into its course, it really calls in to question the moral character of such a conscious agent- because it seems the health and well-being of life is somewhat of an afterthought
He's debating with college students so that's why their questions are pretty basic and predictable. They're also the easiest crowd next to high school students to mislead. Perfect for recruiting.
@@matheusazevedooliveira8222 that's perceived chaos and perceived order. If you can claim that it is all order, you can also claim that it is all chaos. There will be periods of chaos and order that alternate between/follow each other. If you have a box filled with perpetually bouncing balls, there will be periods where some appear to be bouncing in a pattern or in sync with each other before the trajectory of one collides and breaks up the pattern. That is what order and chaos looks like.
A lot of us want to believe but struggle with the ability to feel in our hearts without a doubt that it's true. Is it better to lie and say you believe truly or is it better to a knowledge that you don't believe truly but are open to god
@@APIAlchemistYeah but then you get those morons who act like they’ve had a revolutionary idea and follow that up with the conclusion “therefore the universe IS god 🤯”. If we’re calling the universe god then we’re no longer talking about the same thing. Words mean things for a reason
@@Mattropolis97 But we also have to appreciate that language is always evolving and that words change their meaning over time. This is called Semantic Shift. It makes debates much harder than they should be a lot of the time.
@@tylerhamilton7058 The Universe as we know it now started with a Big Bang, yes but The Big Crunch theory shows how in theory at least, the Universe could be eternal.
I love the arguments and conversation here, especially the respect and thought-provoking material given by all sides, however, there is one thing I think Cliffe and I disagree with, or at least to an extent depending on how he defines it, and it definitely doesn't go with most scientists, though I would say it actually does align with science. Evolution isn't actually as proven as people think, and it doesn't necessarily have nearly as much evidence, or even as much backing as people think. At least, it doesn't have evidential based backing. One of the biggest problems with modern evolution and evolutionary theory is that, almost every reason, from each generation's childhood, that was used as evidence and major breakthroughs in the theory of evolution has been disproven, and virtually every scientists supports the theory, and doesn't give any pushback or even challenge it, which means quite frankly until it gets serious scrutiny, it has once again become an extremely ignorant theory based on sheer assumption and faith without evidence. The theory of evolution alone is proven wrong, at least from a scientific perspective without the necessity of God, due to irreducible complexity, which the early evidence given by Charles Darwin as a flaw was the eyeball and the functions it has, and I would also argue even down to skin and how it interacts with hair follicles, blood, blood types, blood vessels, different layers of skin, individual muscles, bones, arteries, the heart, a lot of the stuff can't actually be reduced all that far, and the few parts of this that can be reduced, it can't be added out of order through millions of years, it would have to be added relatively instantaneously or at max within a single generation to be able to function properly. Macro evolution does not actually hold any water anymore, even if you use it from the Christian perspective of God initiating evolution As a form of intelligent process, the actual evidence of evolution is not only lacking, it doesn't make sense even from God's perspective unless every step of the was its own individual miracle. Microevolution is a fancy word for adaptation, which has been proven by Charles Darwin and many others from the same bird across different areas and other such similarities. Adaptation is relatively normal, your average human who decides to become a hard worker after being a scholar or at school and learning guitar is going to have rougher hands and calluses, this is not the primary evidence towards microevolution, but this is an example of adaptation, as it doesn't just come from scabbing. Other examples include Darwin's birds He studied on an island. We have abundance of proof and evidence for adaptation and microevolution, but we don't actually have any evidence whatsoever towards macroevolution, which is the main concept of evolutionary theory. Evolution doesn't actually explain anything, and even when you look at the charts for evolution, pretty much every species has come into existence ny instantaneously, not over millions of years otherwise we would be finding fossil records of the in between transition fossils and not just predecessor and descendant. In fact, if that were the case, we should still be seeing more in between species today, those in the middle of adaptation where is very clear, yet we can't actually point to any of those except for those that are in the same species family in the kingdom of animalia, and though scientists say that those have evolved similar, that's not what they're trying to say. There are many things about today that do not make sense in terms of evolution, especially when you take the fact that evolution should be the adaptation long-term to change to meet a higher standard or better quality, or on rare occasion a worse quality if there was a temporary reason to believe it was better, from the body standpoint, yet there are many things even just about the human body and the human mind that don't make sense as an evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory simply just does not hold any actual sense of evidence, and in my opinion, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God, especially when you consider believing the Big bang was something initiated from nothing and by nothing to create order and design also takes a respectable amount of faith I don't see many have in actual religions. The scientific standard of evolutionary theory, and especially of Big bang theory, particularly in cases where one believes in the non-existence of God and simply scientific processes naturally, and even more so when you have people who believe in the concept of living in a black hole or multiverse theory, these are all things that take far more faith and have far less evidence than even some other religions beyond Christianity, and Christianity and Judaism actually do have a massive amount of evidence to convince their case unlike some unfortunately accepted scientific theories that are promoted by scientists and religions. Follow the evidence, not the people telling you their conclusion.
I feel similarly, big bang and evolution lack in any solid evidence just conjecture upon conjecture, but ask some questions and they fall apart like a sand castle in the tide. The theories are to simple to explain our universe, and too difficult to believe as probable or plausible cause.
@@victorvolobuev507 The thing is, and to be fair my parents and I actually disagree on this part religiously and scientifically, but I actually don't think the Big bang theory has a significant problem if you think about it from a religious perspective, it just has a massive problem if you think about it from a naturalistic perspective. All powerful God saying let there be light and creating the cosmos sounds pretty equivalent to Big bang theory, and in fact the original Big bang theory was actually created by a theistic creationist, and fought by Albert Einstein because it implies a creator, it's the illogical scientists who later championed it as if it actually denied God when it actually proves it. Saying all the matter and energy that would ever exist in the universe existed in the area of half the size of the head of a needle, eventually turned erratic, and then exploded to make the universe as it is, over billions of years, which is more or less the naturalistic scientific Big bang theory, that doesn't actually answer the question they want you to believe it does, and it's completely illogical. I have heard some people saying that the expansion of the universe and gases and matter combining and reacting over time to make planets and galaxies is a form of evolutionary theory, apparently, which I don't agree on that definition and personally I believe in a timeless God who could survive well over trillions of years, I actually do believe in old earth personally, so though I disagree on the means, I mostly agree with science when it comes to space, just not the reason. I disagree with evolutionary theory because I think that makes a lot of leaps and logic, But the Big bang theory actually think is a pretty good one, just not the way they look at it naturalistically. That said, I should also point out that while I do agree with science when it comes to most things regarding space, I am also going to immediately admit that we haven't been anywhere or studied any significant majority of space, everything we have is based on assumptions which are based on 20 more assumptions, which is fine so long as you recognize there's no stability in the theories other than educated guesses. We don't actually know how old a star is, we've only seen two stars go supernova, we know Beetlejuice is going to eventually, and we know one is going to this year in a dual star system, allegedly. Though I roughly agree with it until for the notice, the ages and overall million and even billion year processes of celestial bodies are complete conjecture. I do think the fact that so many scientists look at those as if they are completely proven are just as religious in those scientific theories as any religious person, if not more, honestly. I somewhat admire the faith of a scientist, ironically.
@@genozp2328 i used to believe evolution and big bang was possible, because i never asked any questions. So, although I believed in God, I assumed that scientists, using science can find the truth. As I studied Christianity, i came to the realization that man is fallible and corruptible, often times more so than man would admit to himself. I learned about logic and reason and realized the claim that “everything can be explained by science” is horse manure. Who uses science to study things like math, justice, afterlife, faith, greed, pride, patience, language, God or no god etc? Generally, science can be used to study the physical domain, but thoughts feelings and ideas, if based on science, will only find grey brain matter, and electrochemical signals bouncing therein. Synapses in the brain, firing away explains human thoughts and ideas and feeling, wow that’s the biggest scientific fail i heard of. Sure it explains some things, but it cannot explain the metaphysical, for example the eye is an amazing apparatus that allows us to see, there are nerve endings that travel from the back of the eye to the brain that send signals to the brain, which the brain, then interprets into a reflection of the thing in front of our eyes. That’s great, but where is the tiny man inside that looks at the picture, acknowledges and understands it and acts based on what he sees? No, according to science, there is nothing beyond the physical world, that cannot be measured and tested…. Personally, it seems the metaphysical is much more expansive than the physical. Otherwise, why do humans study philosophers like Plato? If pure science is to believed, then Plato must have been taking some serious does of psychedelics to come with his theory of the shadows in the cave. If he was just nuts, why do humans even thousands of years later study him and other philosophers today and his ideas today? Are we all that crazy? Personally, I like Socrates. But Athenians sentenced him to death by accusing him of corrupting the young and impiety. Which is weird, because he didnt commit any crime, such as theft, murder, adultery, rape or fraud or any other deed detrimental to his society. All Socrates really did was to ask the question, does he know a thing enough to be able to truthfully understand at as is reflected in reality and he found that he had limits to his understanding and he found other people’s limits of their understanding, and when he showed people, “look, you don’t understand reality as well as you thought you did” that caused peoples’ egos to deflate and they thought ill of him. No, science does not have all the answers. Far from it. Any way, imo both Big Bang and evolution theories are flawed and cannot be proven by science. The limit of Big Bang is not that, given enough time, space, matter and energy, a random explosion can occur to create the universe as we know it. Hey, no problem, I am happy to hypothetically give the theory all those things, except order. Random means chaotic. So are explosions, and bangs, those are also chaotic and random. Now, is there any experiment that we can devise to show us how structure and order can come from chaos? Many people have attempted this, but logic tells us that order cannot come from chaos, that would be a contradiction in terms. This is my only question for Big bang theory, to give at least one practical example where this is possible, it can have eons of time, infinite masses of singularities, and incalculable amount of energy and randomness up the wazoo as it wants. What it can’t have is intelligent design, or laws of physics and biology and math, because those are not chaotic or random in nature. And I find that Big Bang falls grossly short of it’s attempt to explain the universe as we know it. On a practical note, let’s say I bought all the parts of a build-it-yourself car. But instead meticulously following the instructions and putting the car together, I decided to just pile up all the parts and add dynamite. Bang. Let’s say i have all the time and money in the world to create a limitless supply of car parts bunched up together and adding various variables of energy, not just dynamite, i could use heat, electricity or controlled radiation. Is it possible that at some random point, the energy added to the car parts pile that it can put together the car in proper working order? No? Why not? Because chaos does not produce order. And i submit anyone scrutiny, that it appears that the universe we live in has a law, that chaos and randomness has nothing to do with order and structure and the universe is infinitely more complex and intricate than the design of even the most expensive, newest tech, latest car. Evolution has the same flaw + how can inanimate matter develop DNA which is a book of instructions for even a single celled organism? Nope. It’s gonna take a whole lot more faith than i have to believe those theories are even getting close to anything factual resembling our universe as we know it.
What a lot of nonsense! Evolution is probably the best supported and best understood of all scientific theories. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity! Does that, in your mind, mean gravity doesn't exist? Evolution is supported by practically every field of science. God however fails every scientific examination! About 5 billion years from now, the Sun will become a red giant and engulf the inner solar system, and Earth will be gone. And from that point on, the core of the Sun will cool to a white dwarf and eventually fade away. So much for the finely tuned universe your god made. All over the world there is science. It is not different science for different countries or cultures, it is all the same science, in fact identical science. Science text books are the same everywhere. But all over the world there are many different religions, with vastly different scriptual texts, fairly clearly delineated on national borders. How does a universal god only appeal to about a quarter of the world's population? Why are there nearly as many Muslims as there are Christians? There are over a billion Hindu! There are Buddhists, Taoists, Shinto, hundreds of different religions worshipping different gods. If a god was a universal reality there would only be a single religion, or a single one with minor variations, not many vastly different religions!
ignoring the atheists nervousness in debate, cliffe made some seriously stupid points. right off the bat cliffe is completely wrong, order does in fact come out of chaos as well as chaos out of order. "how do you get something from nothing in evolution?" you dont. where the hell cliffe and his followers get that idea is beyond me. we dont have any reason to believe the universe came out of nothing in the big bang model. christians all believe that though. im too bored to keep going
Christians agree that the big bang model came from something, God. If the big bang is the beginning of material existence, God caused it because something cannot come from nothing. Intellectually speaking there must be God because again creation started at some point, and creation indicates a creator. And on your first point, order absolutely does not come from chaos, there are exact opposites, you must give an explanation to how it is honestly possible that order can come from chaos
@@ALE-vs9zp what? christians do not agree on the big bang lmfao. most actively deny it. they do, however, argue that the big bang must come from something IF it were have happened. your concept of the big bang is skewed, its not the "beginning of matter", its simply the rapid expanse of the universe(in laymans terms). we do see it being the start of time though, which means asking any questions about a "before the bigbang", are nonsensical, as well as any cause-effect(because a cause is temporal). quantum physics shows that quark-antiquark pairs "pop" in and out of existence, so it might be possible for something to be "uncaused", although im not sure exactly how it works as i am not a quantum physicist. the only honest answer to the origin of the universe is "i dont know". order can come from chaos; within an open system. our universe is a closed system, meaning there is no external energy to it. our planet is an open system, which means that we take energy externally(the sun) and are sustained until that energy source depletes. this is how we can see order from chaos.
Religion answers everything to some. Forget logic and accept God, goddesses, angels, fairies, and all other spiritual hocus pocus. Science and theoretical evidence is real whether anyone believes it or not. You can show and prove a theory up to that point until more further data is needed to finalize it into fact. Not beliefs.
As a Christian, I 100% agree with you. Science is an amazing branch of knowledge that has helped advance our society in so many ways. I don’t think that any Christian would disagree with you. But as a Christian, I believe God created science as a means by which to code the universe.
@@zeppa The problem with your line of thinking is god is answer for everything, making god an answer for nothing. You speak of science in such a respectful way but do you know how many times science has proved god or Christianity wrong in the past? Once upon a time the Church taught that Earth was the center of all things, science proved the Church was wrong. People used to think storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, ext were all caused by god/gods, science proved them wrong. You know what's never happened once? A religion/Christianity proving science wrong.
It's funny that you talk about theoretical evidence. I assume you are an atheist. As an atheist, you must believe that life came from non-life or abiogenesis. There are already countless lab experiments done about abiogenesis. Not one became successful. Not one scientist was able to create life from non-life. If you are a rational and a logical person, you would accept by now that abiogenesis doesn't happen. Theoretical evidence points to abiogenesis as not happening at all. If life didn't come from non-life, then a creator God created life. That is the only other option left. There is no third option. So if you believe in science and if you believe in evidence, then you have to believe in God. Unless you have faith that abiogenesis might happen someday.
@@科 If that's the case, then why is the universe expanding all the time without a cause, because all force needs to have another force push it right? If the universe was here all the time, then how do you explain the universe expanding? It must have a beginning point right, like a big bang. But a big bang needs something to make it, because all beginnings need a cause.
@@科 yep thats what I thought as well he condradicted himself no one created the universe it always was . I just think it's stupid how while there are trillions and gazillions of planets and stars people on earth think they are the center of it all , they create all these religions and beliefs as if ''God'' created it all just for them , to follow a cult and live by the bible.
If there is no cause then there is no objectiveness in morals, and anything goes. There's no meaning and it doesn't make sense. Didn't you hear him? The non rational can't give reason to the rational. It doesn't add up. Can a balloon create an AI? No, but we, who have reason, can. It won't be perfect, since we aren't, but it'll be reasonable enough
You’re limiting God power by questioning where does he come from. If someone created God then he is not God because he is created by something else bigger and there is nothing bigger than God unless you have another fantasy
Then why can't that logic apply to the universe. See how hypocritical that is. God can be eternal, and not be created by anyone of anything. But the universe can't also be eternal, and not created by anyone or anything. If the universe can't be eternal, and needs to have a begging, so does God, following your own logic. You can't just create gaps of logic so you can fit whatever BS you believe in, just because you refuse to stop and think for a little.
@@pedropereira1285incorrect because the argument isn’t that all things that exist need cause but rather all things effects or things created need a cause. Which we know the universe and the Big Bang are effects, not causes.
@@professorcheckmate not really. Big bang doesnt say universe is caused or effect. It just explains the beggining of its expansion, not its cause origin or effect. So it can infact, be eternal and not created.
Ok I'm a little over a minute in but Cliff has a gross understaning of evolution and cosmology even in just their most basic forms. He makes an assertion about cosmology and then cites Einstein without actually basing it on a proper premise. Also with evolution all he does is strawman what it is. Evolution is a process that all living organisms follow not a process for creating life. The fact that he bought that up is irrelevant to evolution because its outside of evolutions scope. We know evolution is a thing, but when you bring up creation of life thats more of something within the scope of abiogenesis. This is just dishonest rhetoric by Cliff. If he has little knowledge on the topic, just admit that. Sometimes when you don't have the answer to something its ok to say, "I don't know"
He was talking about survival of the fittest. Meaning having babies with others and continuing the genetic pool. I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say.
@@relaxmore2319 no, he redirected both theories into areas they don’t cover, which means he doesn’t know what they are. If you want to debunk evolution or the Big Bang, you address what it is and what it covers, not talk about a topic independent of them and use that as a premise
@@Suriraa Or maybe he knows, and he makes sure to redirect both theories into areas they don't cover. Notice how this type of people, everything you bring a point that makes sense and they don't have a good answer, they just start redirecting and strawmanning everything
Demonstrate that the universe is eternal. Evidence points that it had a beginning. There is no evidence that it's eternal. Even basic logic says that that is unreasonable.
@@spacecoastz4026 Time, as we know it, is built into the fabric of the universe. Therefore, there can be no point in time when the universe has not existed.
@@Chidds That is why the very first verse of the Bible explains its. In the beginning (the start of time), God made the heavens (space) and the earth. Think about that...God gave that wisdom and understanding to a man thousands of years ago.
Big Bang cosmology proves that the universe had a finite beginning. There is no evidential model that supports that the universe is eternal. The universe is measurable from its background radiation and is demonstrated to be 13.7 billion years old give or take 200 million years.
His point is that you and I have rational minds because we originated from a rational being... rather than merely random atoms leading to trustworthy rational orderly thinking.
I came here at a recommendation of a friend telling me this guy would have some rational conversations about the existence of God. Instead I got word salad and going in circles with nonsense. Typical.
@thecapitalg I did and it's the same circular logic and word salad. It's really comical seeing him get really REALLY angry when debating a non believer with some knowledge.
@pedropereira1285 okay let's say it has. But the issue with that logic, how did everything aline perfectly to form planets if it was just empty before? How did water get on the planets? I'm open to a conversation if you have insta or disc
@@theunseeing1916 Those are separate questions. The central question is: why can God be eternal, but not the universe? My point is that, often, those who defend the existence of God create rules like 'everything has a cause,' 'something can't come from nothing,' or 'everything has a designer.' You’d expect someone who holds these views to have a solid and compelling argument for the cause of God, where He came from, or why a higher God didn’t create their God. But instead, they just say that God is the exception. At that point, it turns into a rather dishonest debate. As for the formation of planets, that’s just how matter behaves-it clumps together. Planets are round because of gravity, which pulls all matter toward the center, resulting in a spherical shape. Regarding water, it’s simply H2O, so if a planet forms with hydrogen, oxygen, and an atmosphere, the odds of it having water increase significantly. And things didn’t 'align perfectly'; the universe is full of destruction and pure chaos, including right here on Earth.
@pedropereira1285 I obviously responded to this a while ago bc I don't even remember the original point to this so it'd be kinda hard to converse. But your point is God can be so why can't the universe? And in respose to that I point to the original formation of the planets as it is. Because despite being a separate question it still plays into the need for deity to explain things. I went to the separate question due to you being correct. Why can God be eternal but the universe can't? Because the universe is held to creation. You can't say that planets came from nothing. Something had to of created them, some motion to set it in action. You don't see a ball flying and think it came from nothing. Something threw it. So what caused the clash? It's all really complicated to explain and tbh like I said, I don't even remember the original point to begin with since I don't remember any of what I read here. So I'm not responding again unless you'd like to friend me on something and talk casually. Not particularly looking for a debate
I still wonder why some of these so called rational-minded people when they come to India, they accept Hinduism just like that. They hardly question the Sadhus.
They just want to be counter cultural against their own culture. Since Christianity is the primary religion in the West, they focus all their effort against it and rarely critic other religions for fear of being considered a bigot.
@@Heinstein69 true, or as I heard someone say, they are so open minded, their brains fell out. Personally, it think what happened was that humans have free will and , by being “open minded” as they say, means that the are open to sin, corruption and fallacy, but at the same time, if one is open to corruption, how can he therefore accept reason, facts, truth and the moral law? So the Bible is proven right once again, “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” Romans 1:22-27
@@mirandahotspring4019 because cow worship is called idolatry in the Bible. We are taught not to worship anything in creation. Worship only belongs to the Creator of the universe. That’s actually covered in the first two Commandments of the Ten. I mean disrespect to any Hindu and i do not wish for them to perish, my only hope is for them to desire to search and love the truth, and i sincerely believe God will give them a heart to discern between truth and fiction, fact and lie, if they so desire.
@IL1keDirtits logical to think some few thousand year old man is floating around the sky after making humans from one of his ribs? 😅 yes very logical.....
@@Nickersons-ThemeSince you are giving a really poor and misguided explanation of what actually happened without providing any context,why would it be wrong of me to say “ Evolution says we came out mice because we are 98% identical in DNA?” See how your logic is stupid?
@@mild-ep1rm Many many animals share some form of DNA, humans are after all also an animal. There's at least PROOF that we share dna with animals. There's no proof of this mystical man who can see everyone and everything. Have some common sense.
@@mild-ep1rmno? Dna is adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, along with the basic structures of phosphates and basic sugars, even if you alter a piece of steel and change it several times it’s still steel, same with dna, it’s all the same chemicals meaning no matter what life exists on the universe there is always a correlation to every species including all extraterrestrial life, and also we evolved from apes and that’s why share 99% of our dna with apes and only. 98% with mice.
If God is eternal and doesn’t have a beginning then it is perfectly acceptable for the exact same reason for the universe to be eternal and does not have a beginning. Moral values are valid in the particular human framework that we are looking at, they can be different in another framework and there is nothing to stop that whether you have absolute morals or not, someone might have different morals than you.
I agree with you so much! Thank you! I've tried to say the same thing in a comment but it was less clear since my English is very bad... I think that we can argue on the variability of the moral saying that some act remains unmoral equally in all of the societys... I still think that a "survivor of the fittest" can counter this as "the will of power" theory of Nietzsche can also! On the question of the universe I think that the limit of the theory, as pointed in the video, is that you can't accept the mathematical causes and effect relationship between all event (the mathematical explanation of everything) and the idea of an infinite universe because then, what is the first cause ? Where does the big bang come from? What is the first point of this infity because we must have one if we accept the causes and effect relationship!
the thing is what you're doing is putting God in "Time, Matter and Space" you're limiting God, God basically means the one who can make the impossible possible.
@@antichrist_destroyer never admit in my statement at all that God does exist. All i said was the perspective of the other person was without a God/Creator. For all i care, there isnt anything outside of space and time and the universe was always here. Everything is just theory really, but once more dont misintrept statements and read them for what they are. cheers mate.
The entire problem is nobody can prove any god exists. By extension you can't claim to know any details about a god (like that they don't have a beginning).
@@majmage well, it s the same process of creation as for a computer : the creator of the computer must be outside of the computer to create it. Since there is time, God created it, therefore he s outside of it, so he doesn t have a beginning, there is nothing before him.
@@maharorand507 Sure but you've just run into tons of problems. 1. Does (a) everything or (b) not everything have a cause? If "a", an uncaused god is impossible, but if "b" then causation cannot be an argument for a god (because any given thing might be uncaused). 2. 100% of the creators we're aware of so far aren't gods. So by default an argument for a creator isn't an argument for a god (in fact when believers' arguments retreat to "creator" it makes their argument seem weaker, not stronger). 3. But sure, if the universe is like things inside the universe (and that may *not* be the case) then the cause would be something not made of *the universe's time/space/matter.* How does that get you a step towards a god? (You can't even demonstrate the cause of our universe is timeless/spaceless/immaterial with this rule. And you'd need to go past that to show the cause was an actual god, which you haven't presented any evidence of.)
@@majmage Alright, i understand your arguments, but let me try to answer you in the best way i can : 1. Causality is the best answer. You talked about IF "a" is an impossible uncaused god. Therefore, if it is right, then God would be limited, so he wouldn t be God. So this is why i believe He created everything, which leads us to the 2nd point. 2. I may not understand what you mean by "creators" here, but if all creators aren t gods, that doesn t mean that gods cannot be creators. Besides, the definition itself of "God" is "an eternal, unique, judge and CREATOR being". 3. I did not say that the universe is like things inside a universe. I said that to create a universe, you must be outside of it (and powerful enough to create something that can expand infinitely -therefore, you must be infinitely powerful-). By following this "rule", the creator of the universe (which countains time, space and matter) must be eternal, out of time. And the only beings with such properties are only gods, and not anything else. We, humans, have given these all-powerful, all-knowing beings the name of gods, which leads to any supernatural beings (all natural things are considered being inside of the universe, so beyond it are all supernatural things). Warning : we cannot prove anything in life. We can only have enough evidences, may they be strong or weak, to consider the theory as proved. If you feel any doubt or counter argument, please give them to me in a respectful way, to turn our debate to a fruitful and intellectually useful ending. (I did not say you weren t being respectful though)
@@maharorand507 Your response to the first point doesn't address the problem. The problem is we live in a reality where one of these must be true: (A) everything or (B) not everything has a cause. If causality is a hard rule (that's "A") then God must have a cause, and so most believers cannot accept "A" (it contradicts their idea of an uncaused god). That commits you to "B", but then if "B" is your answer then causality isn't a hard rule (not everything has a cause). That specifically applies to arguments that try to say a god is needed to cause everything, otherwise how could it start. Those arguments do this dishonest thing where they want to say causality is a hard rule (answer "A") for the first part of their argument, but they want to conclude an uncaused god exists (which requires answer "B"). So they switch answers mid-argument. To be clear, you didn't make a full argument like that (and so you also didn't make the mistake I just described), I was probably premature to even make that point about causality. 2. Agreed, if a boy grows up and sees only red cars that doesn't prove green cars don't exist. Similarly 100% of the creators being non-gods so far doesn't prove there can't be a creator god. But it demonstrates why *the word "creator"* is off topic. If you want to convince an atheist avoid the word entirely -- you either have an argument that can conclude with a god, or your argument is extremely poor evidence. 3. My example of me simulating a universe and *still experiencing time* is why the cause of our own universe isn't necessarily timeless. It's probably outside the time *of our universe,* but most arguments try to say it's "timeless". (This also sabotages their own arguments, because time is actually required to separate events; it doesn't seem possible for a timeless being to cause or do anything.) 4. *I'm asking for evidence of a god.* If you see me use the word "prove" I'm using it only in the casual sense of _having enough evidence to justify believing an idea._ Do you feel you've presented sufficiently strong evidence of a god? I feel like I've explained why the arguments I did see don't seem to reasonably get us to a god conclusion (they aren't proof in that casual sense). I definitely veered off topic a little bit, trying to pin down points I suspected you might try to make, and probably I shouldn't have done that. But many of these conversations fizzle out so quickly and there are so many important points to make that sometimes I get ahead of myself.
How dumb can it get? Cliffe argues that claiming a universe comes from nothing is stupid, then happily asserts his god made it... from NOTHING! Saying it comes from nothing is a straw man anyway! We don't know for sure where it came from. The Big Bang wasn't necessarily the absolute beginning of everything, it was just the beginning of the universe as we know it, a point our current knowledge of physics allows us to see back to. It was a stage where sub atomic particles fluctuated in and out of existence. The current hypothesis is that a singularity of almost infinite heat and density rapidly inflated and created the first sub atomic particles. The Big Bang. But our current understanding of physics does not allow us to see back further than this rapid inflation. In fact we can't see back beyond the Planck Epoch. Anything prior to this is purely conjecture. But as the First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another, we can conclude that the universe existed in a different form or state prior to the Big Bang. Perhaps as a ball of pure energy. Then he goes on to straw man atheists claiming atheists say their rational mind comes from the non rational and mocks it. I've never heard any atheist make that claim! You know your biblical cost for lying Cliffe!
The whole thing is disingenuous anyway because the preacher is making a case for deism, but he is a Christian preacher, so his job is to convince us of a theistic Christian world view.It's a classic Motte and Bailey fallasy. He doesn't want to make the argument for Christianity, because he knows it's ridiculous on any scientific or rational level, so he reverts back to the safety of a more palatable reasonable argument, (that can be easily scientifically disputed as you say), but at least it doesn't involve a virgin birth and a guy coming back from the dead.
I think perhaps another way to phrase it, is that God, the creator, is an intrinsic property of reality, apart from time or space or the universe or multiverse (if we have one). Would it be fair to say that two conditions are possible: either matter/energy is an intrinsic property of reality, or God is? Both should be equally valid, from a scientific standpoint. But modern scientists (most of them) want to zero out the "God" possibility.
Are you saying, you don’t know this already? Does this mean what? Are atoms, photons and viruses radiation, justice, love, thoughts real? Maybe we should question their existence too.
Ah yes, cause you have high quality eye-witness testimonies that document about what happened and then get brutally killed because you're getting too popular because everybody knew or heard about it
@@oggyoggy1299 you’re about 2k years too late for that party, the Jews at the hands of their Roman colonizers, already did that. Funny thing about Jesus, he claimed to be the Son of God in the flesh, and he has authority over death, because the wages of sin is death and that’s why we humans perish. But since He had no sin, The Father found Him worthy and gave Him all power and honor and flory so that every knee will bow to Him. And he rose and conquered death. All praise belongs to God!
Without even watching a second of this video, the title is very misleading. No meaning debate happens in less than 9 minutes. Be honest and call this what it is: a discussion or interchange or conversation. It has no resemblance to a debate, by the sheer length of it alone. It is not uncommon for people to misuse the term “debate “ even with the best intentions.
“ an atheist will say a rational mind comes from the non rational. That doesnt make any sense.” Your right, your statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A rational mind can absolutely be created from a non rational mind do you what that is called? EVOLUTION!
@@spacecoastz4026 Think for two seconds just how insane it is to believe you actually have direct access to the mind of another person, to tell them what knowledge they possess, simply because an ancient book says you do. Then critically analyze what’s more probable: that your belief in one specific deity has given you literal psychic access to my mind or that you were indoctrinated by a cult into believing you do as a self-affirmation tactic? And how could I rationally acknowledge something as if it existed for which there is no evidence that it exists? You haven’t thought much about this have you?
The term Big Bang was coined by Fred Hoyle during a talk for a March 1949 BBC Radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past."
Which god? Thor? Zeus? Allah? Apollo? Jehovah? Set? Ganesha? Loki? Let me guess: "The ONE true God", which just happens to be YOUR God. Convenient! Where's your demonstrable n falsifiable evidence for your God?
The one with the most evidence backing up what he said.(which of course is Jesus Christ). How about you stop trying to act intelligent and start actually thinking a bit.
@mild-ep1rm Christ may have existed. However, where's this demonstrable evidence you speak of that shows that he could perform magic n was the creator of the Universe? Lemme guess: eyewitness testimony n the Bible?
@@Dostoevsky_866 He did exist and there is proof backing it up. The fact that you are ignorant of that is irrelevant. • Tacitus (Roman historian, c. AD 56-120) mentioned Jesus in his Annals, describing how Emperor Nero blamed Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64. Tacitus noted that “Christus,” the founder of the Christian movement, had been executed by Pontius Pilate. • Josephus (Jewish historian, c. AD 37-100) wrote about Jesus twice in his Antiquities of the Jews. One of these references (known as the Testimonium Flavianum) describes Jesus as a wise teacher and mentions his crucifixion under Pilate. Your guess was ill informed…
@mild-ep1rm Considered credible by who? Other people of the same faith, but not those of a different faith and/or denomination!? Eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence. Had you'd read any peer reviewed journals you'd know this rather that purporting otherwise. Listen, I support people's right to believe whatever they want. However, just because some book claims that people witnessed a man raising from the dead simply doesn't make it true. Would that also mean that the story of Muhammad flying up on a winged horse n then splitting the Moon in two is true because the Qur'an says happened n allegedly has eyewitness testimony?
Cliffe Knecktle has another gospel. He redefines faith as obedience and belief as total commitment. He says it's not by works but immediately tells you that saving faith is never alone. Free grace is the only true gospel. Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.
“Faith as obedience” Was Abraham righteous? What did Abraham do that’s written about in the Bible that God attributed righteousness to him? “And he(Abraham) believed in the Lord(God promised him descendants as many as stars in heaven), and He accounted it to him for righteousness.” Genesis 15:6 I added the parentheses. Check your Bible for yourself. In other words Abraham’s faith in God’s word was counted as obedience to God and therefore granted righteousness. Abraham didn’t do anything, he trusted God to hold his promise, that’s all. As for total commitment, this happens when a person decides to follow Christ, he then is baptized which is the official symbol of total commitment to God, being dead to sin and alive for good works. “Not by works” Indeed, if a person goes before a judge and he has raped and killed someone, but now he changed his ways, so he tells the judge, “i dont kill and rape anymore, I also feed the poor and hungry, provide housing, clothing and food for orphans and i go help widows with home maintenance” The judge will not pardon him and say, “oh you changed, so that’s ok, you can go. No, people would call that judge corrupt and unjust if he did that. No, the judge will say, “it’s good that you changed, as you should, and it’s good that you aid the poor and needy, as you should. But crimes of murder and rape were committed and justice requires recompense. In other words, no amount of good works can blot out our evil deeds before God, only the blood of Jesus can wash our sin away. And then after repentance and faith in Jesus, yes, good works for God will store up treasure for the believer in Heaven.
@@justananonymouspotato I’m not fascist, It is a joke and is not meant to be serious. The fascist powers hated Christianity as it was based off of Jews and wasn’t a aryan religion. Get your facts straight before assuming that i am a part of a dead political party and because of that, think that I am Christian because I am “Fascist”. Politics have no correlation to religion unless it is theocracy. So before talking, learn before speaking.
God isnt made, allow me to elaborate. If accept the presupposition of God, you accept the qualities that make up god, mainly that he is eternal, immaterial, and spaceless. Eternal meaning that He has no beginning or end, He was before us, and will be after us. I hope this is understandable
none, He created everything, the question is unlogically, if God created everything like time and so on... but its not really Imaginable for humans in 3d
@@professorcheckmate -- Your god created hell for rebellious angels and then decided to send sinners there. His angels will cast the damned into a "blazing furnace." It's not the absence of his presence that's terrifying. It's the blazing furnace where "[t]hey will cry and be in extreme pain there." Matthew 13:50 GOD’S WORD Translation
@@gordon3186 No, he decided to let sinners go there based on their own choice to spend eternity with God or without God. You are correct that hell was not designed for humans.
@@professorcheckmate--- Well then, I won't go there. Oh, wait, his angels will throw me into that blazing furnace...I see an eternity not spent with someone who drowned children, and his witless followers, as an added benefit if no torture is involved. A decision made under duress isn't a choice freely made. The dictionary calls it "extortion."
@@professorcheckmate --- I'm not interested in spending eternity with anyone who'd drown children. Or with someone who'd torture anyone for refusing him. Face it, the Bible is a barbaric book about a barbaric god.
7:35 this segment shows how faith can change people. This is one Christian taking another Christian’s bag. He has zero instinct to stop that from happening because he knows that this man is a son of god and trust worthy enough to not steal his bag. It’s the same as Christian’s having faith in god enough to devote their lives to him and know that he’s real. I might be rambling though.
@@Jakiśfacet Of course, there is no proof in the sense of mathematical proof - such as the proof of Pythagoras's theorem or proof as in chemistry predicting the outcome of mixing two chemicals. However, there is the enterprise of examining hypotheses that 1) proposes the agency of God and 2) proposes the agency of accidental random elements/forces(?). The fine tuning of the universe and the complexity of living creatures can reasonably be regarded as evidence [not proof in the mathematical sense] of an entity capable of complex operations and design - a grand masterful designer.
He’s eternal outside of our knowledge of space, time and matter. He can’t be inside space time and matter and also create space time and matter. That’s like looking at your iPhone and saying “well I don’t see Steve Jobs in here so he couldn’t have created the IPhone.”
I believe a unicorn that exists outside of our knowledge of space, time and matter expelled the universe from its bottom. How is your belief in the formation of the universe any more valid than mine.
"something can't come from nothing unless that something is god" - Straw man fallacy, as that is not the belief Cliffe expressed. God being eternal means your notion of "come from" doesn't apply. There was no "come from" moment with God.
@@ZIAFN That question, as in why there is something rather then nothing, has never been answered! Some put a magic man "god" into the mix.what say you?
The only problem with that way of thinking is that if you're saying that physics and using science can Define things then you still have to explain where science comes from because if the universe was created out of nothing then science can't say that something was created from nothing. Even other famous atheists believe the universe had a beginning. So by logic, you can't have something created out of nothing by science. No science would have existed yet if there was nothing.
@@paulnone9984 Firstly i do not know what nothing is, do you? for nothing to exist, one would have to remove time, space , matter , and all quantum interactions, how do you do that?
@@gknight4719 you're exactly right. You'd have to have no space, time and matter to have nothing. So therefore, something spaceless, timeless and immaterial had to create space time and matter
one thing about the whole "life always comes from life" or "existence always comes from existence", is that cliffe implies that existence/life has a beginning/end. but apparently, for some reason, God doesn't? I feel like this exempts God from being an existence, because if he was, he would have a beginning. And, if there are things that are existing, that can be timeless, then the universe would technically also be timeless by that logic. But, it isn't. So, I wanna know why God is exempt from this requirement.
He’s Eternal. We can’t grasp eternity until we die. God created a window of opportunity (time) because it only makes sense that there had to have been something greater, came before time. 😊
@@lazr9672 tbh eternal existence to me doesn't make sense at all. Another thing is, how would God know all the variables to what makes a universe? Has he done this before? There are multiple other things that I find to not make sense in The Bible.
@@professorcheckmate Define "we" and give the articles and research that proves the universe isn't. Good luck on ur quest of find the articles and proof that doesn't exist. You can't base reality on faith, otherwise, you'd still believe that rain is God's doing, and that thunder is God's rage. Or that your uncle getting sick and dying is God punishing him. Or that Adam was created by God with clay, and Eve with a rib from Adam, and then started thei biggest inc*st family that this universe ever knew. If i had a book, that said X thing, and i go and verify it's false, and then i do it 100s of times, and all of them are false, and just a few are true, do you think that's an accurate book to describe reality? Then why use religious books to describe reality. You wanna have your faith, go for it. Just don't use it to describe reality, you will just show how blindsided you are.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. (I love you too, not as much as God loves you but I do love you)❤🙏 Just close your eyes and say “Jesus, I don’t have faith in you, please help me believe” Jesus loves you, turn to Him. He loves you so much that He died for you. ❤
his logic is NOTHING can exist without being created and he doesnt answer where did god come from just saying he simply existed and is the beginning of the start and the end is no answer its simply impossible and there is not a single bit of evidence to point hes real its all just come from a man made book
Because God is the Alpha and the Omega! He was our Creator and is eternal, he was there that's why we were created. Nobody created God because he was there from forever!
If God can make all of creation with a single word why is it hard to believe he existed forever when there was no time before the big bang we cannot limit God to our understanding because he obviously knows more and cannot be limited hope this helps love you 🙏🏽❤️
I've noticed that theists will take everything from science that suits their perspective, and discard everything from science that disagrees with it. Funny how that works, isn't it?
No offense, but you may want to bring at least one example of this. And also, where is it written that theists are right? No, they make mistakes just like anyone else, but hopefully we all are willing to correct our own mistakes and fallacies.
@@victorvolobuev507 Cliff does it in the video. He points to the Big Bang and says 'that's proof of a beginning'. But that's not actually what science concludes.
@@king_lou_fassa sorry, but i don’t agree with Cliff on that point and will not defend it, although there was a time I also believed big bang and evolution a plausible theories. They have too many conjectures, but lack basic scientific and logical evidence. I understand the chain they are trying to make, but the missing links are to buggy and too big to ignore. Yeah, Cliffe is wrong about evolution and if he believes there was a big bang, he’s wrong there too. Everything else seems logical to me. Rationality cannot come if chaos makes the rules. Similarly with order and structure and consistency. I have yet to understand how inanimate mater became life by random chance, even if it was an amoeba. There is no hard evidence of an amoeba changing it’s DNA to become seaweed, or sand dollar or plankton or whatever it is that’s supposed to be next on the evolutionary chain of most simple organism to the next more complex. Also, how did non sentient life become sentient, is beyond me if we were to follow the evolutionary theory. Evolution can make no sense of any of it.
No to mention the primate conundrum, why are humans the only ones to have reached sentience and none of the other branches. Or why do we still have primates like gorillas and orangutans if humans are the higher evolutionary species up the chain? And branches of a tree or roots of a tree doesnt explain any of this. Because a tree’s DNA is constistent whether it’s roots, trunk, leaves or branches. The evolutionary theory of species branches and their DNA are inconsistent.
You do know that For the past millennial scientists have assumed the universe had to be eternal and it wasn’t until the discovery of the big bang that they have conceded the universe is finite. In fact they very much hated the evidence for the big bang because it aligned with the Bible exactly.
Надеюсь переводчик работает. Для начала - я сторонник теории цикличности, что все во вселенной бесконечно расширяется и сжимается. Происходит Большой Взрыв, вся материя во вселенной сосредотачивается в одной точке, а затем расширяется, формируя звезды, галактики и черные дыры, а затем когда одна из черных дыр становится настолько тяжёлой, то она становится центром вселенной и останавлиет частицы которые вме ещë летят из-за большого взрыва. Таким образом все опять собирается в одной точке, материя обрушивается внутрь себя и опять происходит Большой Взрыв. И рассказывая про эту теорию вопрос: "Что было до Большого Взрыва, откуда взяласб вся материя?" также некоректен как вопрос "Кто создал бога?". Процесс цикличности бесконечен, а значит не имеет начала и конца, как прямая линия в математике. Есть только одна точка - пересечение с осью, а именно та точка где находиися мы сейчас. Спасибо тем кто прочитал, надеюсь на конструктианый ответ
If the universe does operate in cycles, does that negate the Creator? What is your analysis of the Fibonacci sequence found throughout nature? How does a logical geometric progression come about through random interactions in nature and even the universe? I find it very interesting that the woodpecker's tongue wraps around its brain to act as a schock absorber to protect the brain from too much shaking when the bird pecks rapidly. How can that simply evolve? There are so many similar examples found in nature. I hope this post isn't too late. Thank you.
Ur dodging his point, God is Eternal, simple logic says “creation needs a creator”. Look at the nearest house/building, it didn’t just happen to be there, that’s irrational. Someone had to have built the building, we know they existed, same with God.
Are you serious? So if I claim the order/design of the cosmos was caused by a leprechaun, then you're just going to blindly believe (A) the order/design I vaguely mention exists, and (B) it was caused by leprechauns, and (c) so that proves leprechauns? That isn't "facts". It's a baseless assertion.
@@majmage Are you serious? A leprechaun? God is omnipotent and omniscient - a leprechaun is not. Even in fantasy, a leprechaun has very limited powers.
@@TheKantele Do you understand that if an argument can be shown to be illogical, then it can't be evidence? My explanation shows why Cliffe's argument isn't logical. The type of error is called "fallacy of bare assertion". Just a fancy way of saying that Cliffe is saying something is true for no reason. (He isn't presenting logic or evidence. He's just saying (A) order/design of the cosmos exists, and (B) God caused it.) Which took us to my counter-example of saying leprechauns caused it. It's an equally good argument. (Meaning: it's not a good argument. *It's a terrible argument.* That's the point! It's illogical. It's saying something is true without evidence. Nobody should respect arguments like that.) Well my argument doesn't call Cliffe wrong for no reason. I've explained my reasons, based on logic.
@@TheKantele Yeah I'm seriously explaining why *just saying things are true for no reason* isn't a good argument. Do you think Cliffe's argument is good? If you do, then my leprechaun argument is also good. The reason my leprechaun argument is bad isn't the one you mentioned -- after all you're clearly not describing the order/design-causing leprechauns I've told you exist. The mistake to my argument is *I'm just saying something is true for no reason.* That's an error called "fallacy of bare assertion". When a person just says something is true for no reason, we know that isn't a good reason to think it's true. It's not logical. So because Cliffe isn't providing evidence/logic arguing for a god with his order/design argument, *it isn't logical.* So it isn't evidence.
@@majmage You are wrong. Cliffe's argument about God [with omnipotence and omniscience] is a much better argument than yours about the leprechaun [which lacks omnipotence and omniscience]. You will find people spending thousands of hours and giving thousands of comments debating the possibility of God as the cause for things existing. However, no serious time or discussion is ever spent proposing the leprechaun as a causative agent. The leprechaun is a very weak proposal for a causative agent.
Personally, I believe that the universe does not have a beginning; it always has existed and always will. Everything changes and morphs over time. Everything that exists and will exist always has.
Theres 1 major flaw in ur argument, why does everything have to die? Why does (your point is almost correct) us that can seemingly live forever, have to die?
Very interesting and calm debate. As an agnostic, two arguments are still weak, can you guys can maybe light me on this. First the argument of the existence of supreme values made by god. Those are, in my opinion, human creations, subjective ones, the values we have in occident are heritages of Christianity of course, and established on the ultimate values of Platon (the genealogy of this morale is depicted deeply by Nietzsche in "moral genealogy"). So it's mixed of "will of power" and Christian morality. For the question of the creation, why it would necessarily be the will of an interested and omnipotent god at this beginning of the times as depicted in the bible and not just the desinterested action of an "non god entity"? Sorry for my bad english, I hope some of you will answer!
As someone who doesn't outright believe in god and has spent countless hours thinking about it, I genuinely think God is THE best written god if looked at from a fictional standpoint. Mankind from the beginning of our existence always tried to find answers for things. We are intelligent enough to be able to draw connection in everything, which is the reason science exists. But for this simple reason, God is unarguable, because God can't be traced back to anything it is eternal, there is no possible way to disprove God aside from looking at religion and the birth of christanity. Which is why most athiests and for a long time myself completely rid myself of religion, hence there is no way to disprove God himself. I hope this made some sense, it's hard to put my thoughts together on this matter.
Cliff “Because existence cannot come out of non-existence” Atheist dude: “But god can?” Cliff: “No” I so wish I was there to say “So therefore god doesn’t exist.” It’s a really good argument against people who argue intelligent design specifically.
I mean pretty much every Christian argument that’s an “actual argument” meaning it has “ground to stand” on has to resort to god magic which you can’t really argue with because it’s just the classic they believe nonsense because they believe nonsense argument, I’m not saying a Christian’s ability to argue or whatever is nonsense but an argument they would be able to make for the existence of god would functionally have to be, kinda why faith belief without being given any actual reason to believe is one of the top popular ideas lol. (This kid is being so nice and reasonable and here’s this dude obsessed with thinking he’s right for no reason, just sucks to see I hate these cycles of abuse where the one is willing to understand and the other not and guess who suffers, certainly not Christian’s at least in my experience, I guess theirs probably some that really try to understand but if their still a Christian they would have to be subjected to mass brain washing or only kinda be a Christian and more realistically be agnostic.
![ละลาย (LALALYE) - DAOU PITTAYA ต้าห์อู๋ พิทยา [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/wo6r9TgausI/mqdefault.jpg)
Anyone else like this kid ? He’s genuine
Really seems like he is searching for truth.
Yeah, his questions were genuine unlike a lot of fools desperate for God's love but too proud to admit it.
This young gentleman is so respectful and humble. God bless him..!
🙏
He clearly has an open mind and is willing to ask question and also learn from it. He doesn't have to agree, but he has the pillar stone of showing understanding and respect. A great example of how to act when debating.
He clearly did not understand what this religious guy was saying. When have you ever seen anything begin to exist? Like really begin to exist.
He's debating whether God is real not gender or pronouns 😂😂
@@trellgold6998 pronouns exist we have no evidence sufficient to say God does
Finally, a calm conversation about religion between a Christian and an atheist
You should watch some of Christopher Hitchens debates.
What a cringe thing to say. They’re literally everywhere, you just don’t look 😂
@@Mattropolis97 Remember, only a Theist can interpret/clarify what they bible meant and use straw arguments.
hahaha
The bible is clear enough on it’s own for anyone to understand. It says how God made everything good but because people like going their own way, we sin and that ruined everything. And since God loves us, He died for us on the cross so that we do not need to be punished for eternity if you believe. So if you believe in what He did and understand that your good deeds cannot get you to heaven, then you will be saved
If only more Atheists could be like this boy....he's so humble
Most atheists arent fooled as easily
You need to check yourself.
Why should atheists have to be humble?
@@larrycarter3765 everyone should be humble..this world would be much better place
Same can be said about christians
This is awesome! A healthy, nontoxic debate between two people who have very different beliefs.
Much respect to this young man, and thank you Lord for giving him ears to hear.
Yes thank Zeus for that.
@@jerrylong6238you misspelled Jesus.
@@jerrylong6238 zeus??
@@jerrylong6238no thank hades
@@lilbrazilian6902 jeebus. there yuh go, fixed it for yuh.
This Preacher is precise and caring, some us let our emotions get the better of us.
I don't see how you can take God out of this Earth and Life, millions of species, millions of cells in our eyes to see Him yet some don't.
He is the Author of life.
@@neilfletcher1841 in fact, god even makes sure we know this in isaiah 45:7. but we already knew he's evil from when he killed everyone on earth and forced a small group of people to reproduce through close incest before causing multiple wars.
@@Abzero-mx2pb Good thing 4 u.
I work for an optician so I can get you glasses to really see Him.
@@neilfletcher1841 Lol 😂😂😂 what planet are you from?
Stalin
Hitler
They killed more people than God ever did from Genesis to Revelation. Infact just one of them alone killed more people than God.
The flood was Judgement of sin & He had mercy on us because He could have totally annihilated all of mankind. Second chances. 🙏🙏🙏
do you not belt your kids depending on the crime they have committed?
Are you a 5min break parent?
@@neilfletcher1841 Atheists: Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong murdered more than 100 million between them.
During Noahs days there weren't even a million people on earth.
Funny logic, you point 1 finger at God and you have another 3 pointing back at ya. 🙏🙏
@@tknciliba4743 no, thanks, I have 20/20 vision.
I was an atheist for many years, and if I had met Cliffe debate our lord and savior I would have absolutely been blown away
Well, I definitely am blown away by Cliffe...way more away from the religion than I ever was before.
Start slower @verko5292
We have faith you'll figure it out. Some are late bloomers that's okay :)
@@Chase-vi1kh Oh I have surely figured it out long time ago...having imaginary sky friends doesn't do much for me - living the reality is what I stick to.
@@verko5292me too 😂
I am so amazed at How IQ u guys have!Its mind blowing me 😂
Good to see they can discuss without violence..or disrespect
0:16 "Order and design do not come out of chaos by chance." Cliffe is going to have to pin down what he means by "chaos". Chaos actually speaks to how difficult something may be to predict due to the number of factors affecting it. That is to say, we cannot easily predict complex outcomes. Order regularly emerges from chaos (like the collection of matter into stars and planets due to gravity). The system is too complex to predict exactly what stars or planets will form from any given nebula, but we can predict that stars and planets will form.
And who made that gravity, the motion, the energy, and the matter?
@@spacecoastz4026 “And who made that gravity, the motion, the energy, and the matter?” I think you’ve missed the premise of my reply; My position is that order can come from chaos, where “chaos” means any incomprehensible complex system. That aligns with the notion that none of what happens is guided by a “who”, as your question alludes to. It’s a curious position to suggest that “order can’t come from chaos” or “the properties of the universe can’t come from nothing” while also asserting a fundamentally complex being that is both ordered and has no origin.
Of course, the correct answer (for the religious or atheist) is that we don’t know how or why certain properties of the universe are the way they are. We currently have no way to determine answer to that question any more than you could explain the mechanism used by a god to create a universe (and “spoke it into existence” is insufficient as we have no example or evidence that this is actually how the universe came to be).
And to put a different perspective on your question, if I see an extinct volcano, I don’t ask, “Who made that large hill?” There are lots of examples of things we observe that weren’t made by any being, but are just the result of well understood, natural processes. In contrast, if I find a device that looks like things I’ve observed humans make, then I consider a human has made it (the watchmaker argument). I know a watch has a maker, because I can observe examples of humans making watches; there are no examples or observations of a universe-maker beyond effects that are indistinguishable from unguided nature.
@@HonestlyCurious-bp4gv I didn't miss the premise of your reply, I just don't agree with it. Chaos is what made the Grand Canyon. Sure you can call that result "order", but that order also came about from things that God created and put into existence.
*It’s a curious position to suggest that “order can’t come from chaos” or “the properties of the universe can’t come from nothing*
I think its an unreachable and unreasonable concept that "nothing" can create a universe, which includes order and design...and life.
*there are no examples or observations of a universe-maker beyond effects that are indistinguishable from unguided nature*
Which mean that nature is your god.
As written in Scripture:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-
Romans
@@spacecoastz4026 “Chaos is what made the Grand Canyon.” What do you mean by “chaos”? There is a well-known geological process that led to the formation of the Grand Canyon (erosion). Erosion isn’t not considered chaotic. The chaos you may be referring to is merely the aspect that, were we to observe the land before the Grand Canyon forming, we couldn’t accurately predict exactly what it would look like. However, we could predict that a massive canyon would form.
“I think it’s an unreachable and unreasonable concept that “nothing” can create the universe…” I am not asserting that the universe was created or that it definitely wasn’t created. I made clear that we do not have any evidence to tell us why or how the universe is the way it is.
“Which mean that nature is your god.” You may have to define what you mean by a “god” in this sentence. I have observed religious people redefining words like this (like calling science a religion) to sound profound, but they don’t check whether it is a coherent expression. My general understanding of a god is that it is sentient and has some capacity to communicate with humans (in an intelligible form). In that sense, a god is very much the antithesis of nature, as I define nature as being explicitly mindless and uncommunicative. This is to say, for your sentence to mean something to me, you’ll have to clarify how mindless nature can somehow be labeled as a concept that I’ve understood to explicitly mean a sort of mind that may be interested in nature but is more interested in human behaviours.
“As written in Scripture: … For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen…” This is the epitome of religious thinking, in my eyes. Being told that “invisible attributes are clearly seen”, and being so keen to go along with the story that you refuse to acknowledge that it’s a blatant contradiction. While you may offer a mitigating explanation, my point is simply that it is poorly worded, and signals a kind of trickery or deception that normal communication doesn’t employ. You might say it is describing how you see the attributes everywhere, but it doth protest to much when it specifically calls them “invisible”; That is to say, the author(s) knew it isn’t clear that what we see is “His… attributes”. This passage aligns with what I said in my prior reply: the evidence for a universe-maker is conspicuously indistinguishable from the unguided nature we see. If it were guided, I’d expect it to be apparent (like the Grand Canyon inexplicably shaped like exact passages in the Bible or a Bible prophecy saying earth will get a 2nd moon next month and it shows up).
In any case, I want to say that I appreciate you engaging this with the thoroughness you have. While we may be going back and forth on this topic, I do want to acknowledge that it means something to be willing to reach out to people that may not understand you in the hopes of better mutual understanding.
@@HonestlyCurious-bp4gv And I would leave it with these two questions..
Which really is more logical and plausible, that everything around us came to be without God...all on its own by some "force of nature" which nothing created....or GOD created Creation?
And secondly, did Jesus exist? Did Jesus, the Son of God come to this earth as an atonement for our sins, so that the perfect righteousness of God the Father could be satisfied, and thus those willing to come to Him could have eternal fellowship?
It is not a riveting debate. Cliffe cannot debate because what he says is so illogical. God is eternal. Why? Because he is. Can that not apply to the universe? No. Why not? Because it had a beginning. Did god not have a beginning? No. Why not? Because he is eternal. The circularity makes one dizzy yet Cliffe seems quite happy with that. The young man has the wisdom to understand that it is useless to discuss with Cliffe.
Number one comment. First thing I picked up was this.
Modern cosmology indicates the universe had a beginning. The bible does as well. Cliff is making an prime mover argument see Aristotle. There must be a unmoved mover in order to start any motion.
"An infinite regress of causation is neither possible nor necessary. Consider that you can never get to the end of an infinity, and for the same reason, we could never get here via an infinity of steps. Another way to look at it is that each step in a chain of causation takes time, no matter how small."
here is a good vid on this
th-cam.com/video/N6UW3Imn5b8/w-d-xo.html
But if the kid thought Cliffe was a blasphemer why did he stay to listen and debate. There is no actual proof but evidence is in the bible
The universe is a creation. The sun is exactly positioned so it doesn’t burn up the earth. Gravity works& is precisely as it should be. A person’s body is not a jumble of out-of-order parts…your nose isn’t at the top of your head…hence you don’t drown in the rain. Intelligent design…by God…who is eternal. Simple.
God is eternal. He must be eternal. Existence cannot possibly come from nothing. Why? Because there is nothing there. Absolutely nothing. If there is nothing, then there is no energy or cause to cause something to exist. There is literally just nothing.
But if God exists, and He is eternal, then that makes sense BECAUSE eternity indicates that He has always existed and always will exist. He himself doesn't have a beginning. That might be hard to imagine, but think of the number line from negative infinity to positive infinity. It doesn't have a beginning...there is no "first number" or "start" to the numbers from negative to positive infinity. In the same way, God does not have a beginning, he has always existed and always will. He caused the universe to exist
He's so respectful and humble, imagine what christianity could do for him and make of him. He's going somewhere if he lets the Holy Spirit in.
Yikes, I'm sure he wouldn't appreciate you attempting to indoctrinate him like that. He's better off not worrying about any of that and living his best life without it
05:45 this is how you talk to short people
A true gentleman debate conversation by two men. Shame we don’t have many people like this willing to listen and be respectful together on opposing views. 👏🏻
I'm a Muslim and you helped me understand the cosmological argument more clearly, thanks a lot.
Pain is how we make rational thoughts. If we feel physical or mental pain we tend to stop doing whatever it is that is hurting us.
Is it rational for me to say I'm never going to workout because that's painful to my body? Pain is a feeling. But not all painful things are bad or irrational to continue.
Cliffe talking about science is making people dumber.
"Faith is a malignancy that no system can tolerate with impunity ; and the man who succumbs to it , will call on it in precisely those issues where he needs his reason the most."
-Nathaniel Branden-
So should we all take your statement on faith?@BeefT-Sq
@@moracehann5857No? Like no right? Like obviously no? Ok I’m going to send this for comedic effect and get back to you.
Ya the answers no, in fact I think you’re funnily enough ironically being exemplary of what he’s saying.
I mean if you want to guess stuff based on feelings and that’s going well for you, than you do you I guess man but it’s likely your hurting a lot of people much like a father who turns away his gay child forever, or a witch burnt at the stake, or a deformed child being shunned for their appearance, because that and most likely any evil horrible thing you can think of is faith.
Don’t disturb God, he is busy watching wars.
Matthew 11:28. We cannot “disturb God” because God wants us to give our burdens to God. God loves you !
Humans create wars… its a sin issue not God’s
@@i_love_ujesus7228 pretty good way to blindfold the eyes of yourself and to make yourself in a false illusion that God exist.
@@FantasyAimonstersoh yeah all the world wars were created cus God said so, what a fuckin ridiculous argument, wars are man made, we broke Gods law, and man did wars, atrocities and evil.
@@i_love_ujesus7228But god created humans right? If he’s “all powerful, all loving and all good” this universe would not exist as it does.
Look up “the problem of evil”. It’s the biggest piece of evidence the Christian god does not exist. It takes free will and all those nonsense excuses you all preach into account too I promise
this guy comes off as crazy at first until you actually listen to what he says. God gave him some impressive wisdom
I do agree with the kid's last point and Cliffe didn't make a good argument against it. The kid was just too nervous to make a proper case for his point:
If Cliffe wants to be part of a gang that wants him to commit murder, that gang still exists within a larger society where murder is bad. The gang might accept him, but society in general will still shun him and hunt him down. That is because we, as humans, don't benefit from murder being allowed. Nobody wants to be murdered. So you make it illegal for everybody to commit murder.
To counter Cliffe's argument: if the entire tribe, not just the gang existing in a civilised society, decides that murdering members of another tribe is okay, murder becomes okay. The entire tribe being "the nation". War is allowed, and participating in that war, killing members of the other nation, is generally regarded as (awful but) heroic and respectable.
There is no debate. God exists solely in the minds of people with faith.
Exactly
It is as stupid to deny everything you hear as to agree with everything you hear. Your reasoning is flawed
@@mild-ep1rm why is my reasoning flawed? I don’t deny everything I hear. I only ask for evidence, no one has provided any yet.
@@lesliefuller1456 First of all,absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.
But If you really struggle with evidence then let me provide you with eye witness testimonies that have seen a man dead and then seen him risen FROM the dead. If you want even more you can read the whole New Testament and the sources that back it up historically.
@@mild-ep1rm 😂😂😂😂😂 eye witness testimonies are the single most unreliable source of evidence on the planet. Verifiable proof is what is required. Where is it? There isn’t any. Thousands of people have tried for thousands of years to provide it, so far no one has succeeded.
4:32 - it's not "you have an 8th value" in the subtitles. It's "you have INNATE value".
Remember the atheist formula: Insult God insult Christians insult Christianity = they win the debate. "Show me how to make a Chocolate cake without sugar, cream, or chocolate. Now go ahead. That's how they sound. To try and discredit The Bible then ask us to debate. Makes zero sense. That young man is miles ahead of the typical atheist. He was willing to listen...
Atheism is just not believing the theists claim, nothing else.
@@jerrylong6238 They are just pointing out that a lot of people who are atheist tend to fit that stereotype when debating with a christian, but yes you are correct atheists don't believe on what theists claim.
That's good to know. Thanks. I will remember that 👍
Are you aware that hundreds of millions of people live in nations where leaving the state religion to become an atheist is punishable by death? This was true in with Christianity in Europe for more than 1000 years. After all the torture and oppression I don't think you get to act like atheists are the negative ones.
Thanks for letting us know that atheists hurt your feelings.
I appreciate people like this student. They’re respectful and reasonable with genuine hearts and open minds to seek answers for what they do not understand. Not like those who immediately get triggered by the mere mention of God.
"Where is the creative mechanism in evolution?"
Well
I should also then ask
"Where is the creative mechanism in god's existence"
The logic of something cannot come from nothing only opens room to another bigger question
"Where did god come from?"
If you randomly sampled all the words in the English dictionary, eventually you’d get The Lord of the Rings.
and.....?
@@larrycarter3765 tell me you don’t understand without telling me you don’t understand
@@larrycarter3765 And this dude explained the start of evolution better and simplier then I ever did.
yes it’s murphys law but that takes an unbelievable amount of time which we haven’t had
@@RedS-MP Maybe we didnt discovered right way, that evolution had, yet. Or maybe there were enough planets like earth in universe to make even small chance work.
He sounds more like a politician than a religious leader. Talking in circles not making sense or actually proving any points. Keeps trying to change the subject. This guy belongs in the senate not the church
Are you joking? He laid it out so simply and absolute. How did you not comprehend it.
@@karenamyx2205 Because they don't want to
So sad that you have nothing to believe in. “Only fools believe in only what they see” 🎵🎼
@@donnataormina6617 true
But only a man of faith denies himself knowledge
I’m thinking of writing a book “How to convert Atheists to Religion - A beginners Guide” and wondered if you had any advice? Remember people, this is about winning hearts and minds! This is what I’ve got so far:
Chapter 1: How to mock science for the absurdity of claiming the universe a) has a beginning and/or b) has no beginning (is infinite), whilst proclaiming the obvious truth of an infinite God, with no sense of irony.
Chapter 2: How to mock the legitimacy of science, using selective pseudo-scientific ideas, whilst proving God through the scientific principles established in any given holy book of choice.
Chapter 3: How to mock science for having scientists with contradictory views, whilst explaining there is only one version of God (albeit it with thousands of different interpretations and contradictions).
Chapter 4: How to mock atheists for having no concept of good and evil because they have to decide for themselves, whilst theists fully understand good and evil, because it’s whatever their God tells them (otherwise known as the ‘suicide bomber justification’).
Chapter 5: How to mock atheists/scientists for not being certain about things, which is clearly a far inferior position to hold than the absolute certainty of truth that we hold as theists.
Chapter 6: How to mock atheists/scientists for believing in evolution, because everyone knows that the world is only 6500 years old and you can’t possibly grow a man from a fish.
Chapter 7: How to mock scientists for their concept of evidence, which seems to involve repeatedly and empirically testing claims to establish predictable outcomes, as opposed to the far superior documentary evidence of second hand witness accounts of first century peasants.
Chapter 8: How to mock atheists for denying the power of prayer, when God clearly prioritises the faith healing of middle class Americans over the less deserving starving African masses.
Chapter 9: How to mock atheists over their disrespect of our religious leaders, who are perfectly justified in covering up any form of corruption or criminal behaviour within their ranks, because they are Gods chosen ones and beyond reproach.
It’s only in draft form at the moment, but any more ideas on how we can convert these lost souls, or alternatively remove these godless creatures from the face of the earth, in the name of god’s love, would be much appreciated.
Sadly atheists dont believe in a god because they require evidence to prove such a thing exists. You can mock them all day long, but without proving your claims and using circular logic by only referencing an ancient old book is not going to win them over. The proof for evidence lies on the person making the claim. We atheists dont make claims we keep searching for evidence and so far no one has been able to prove a god let alone any specific god.
We have fossils much older than 6500 years old 😭
Educate yourself on the *theory* of evolution 😭
Explain how 2000 year old eyewitness testimony is better evidence than constant testing using logical methods 😭
this gave me a chuckle
This is a lovely joke, and this made me laugh. Please don't fall into the trap of hating people though. We are all clueless, whether we cling to God or to science or to pseudo intellectual nonsense, nobody knows the full truth about the universe. Let's find out together, and then help others find the truth ❤️
@@petritdauti Of course, I completely agree with your sentiments. This is only meant to be satire (although it is meant to be pointed) and I don't hate anyone with honestly held religious convictions. I respect peoples right to believe whatever they like as long as they don't try and impose it on others.
I do however have a strong dislike of religious institutions that exploit and manipulate people's desire to seek hope and find comfort in the world. Just as I have a strong dislike for clairvoyants who exploit people's emotional vulnerabilities, but not the people who go to them looking for peace of mind.
"We are still too rational, too this-worldly, and too individualistic to submit to naked tyranny. We are still being protected by the fading remnants of our Enlightenment heritage."
-Leonard Peikoff- 1986
God has no beginning, very nice set up for discussion. Philosophers love this kind of set up for conditions for discussion as it complete closes options and leads to self proving concept of God. That does not prove God is exist or eternal.
"Primordial soup" 1:02
He's referring to abiogenesis. But Cliff bringing that up was irrelevant because abiogenesis is independent of evolution.
i love these intelligent minds earnestly seeking truth, asking questions they actually want answers for. may god bless and watch over them. bring them home! cliffe is such a good advocate for the most high.
Lots of gripes in here about Cliffe's claim that order can't come from chaos.
Maybe a better way to put it is to ask, does disorder have creative power? Is entropy the cause of the upward pressure in biology toward ever more complex organisms?
The examples I've seen so far in here if order from chaos are like claiming that water miraculously takes the shape of a bucket when poured into a bucket -- and therefore, given enough time, it will form itself into a world-class ice sculpture that can do your taxes and has hopes, fears and dreams.
Disorder has no creative power in a universe where entropy is king. That pressure toward organization has to come from elsewhere.
But order cant really come from caos. If it did, then it wouldnt be chaos, but rather order. Those are conflicting terms
"Disorder has no creative power in a universe where entropy is king. That pressure toward organization has to come from elsewhere."
That is a really ignorant statement. Low entropy from the sun can create order from chaos. That is how plant based life such are trees get the energy to grow.
This is why snowflakes are forms when entropy decreases and crystals form when material cools down.
You're just parroting creationist misleading creationist slogans.
Order may be a stopping point along the way from one disorder to the next. Taxes and world class ice sculptures aren't eternal things.
And even if this wasn't the case, that the perceived order means there must be a conscious agent manipulating the universe into its course, it really calls in to question the moral character of such a conscious agent- because it seems the health and well-being of life is somewhat of an afterthought
He's debating with college students so that's why their questions are pretty basic and predictable. They're also the easiest crowd next to high school students to mislead. Perfect for recruiting.
@@matheusazevedooliveira8222 that's perceived chaos and perceived order. If you can claim that it is all order, you can also claim that it is all chaos. There will be periods of chaos and order that alternate between/follow each other. If you have a box filled with perpetually bouncing balls, there will be periods where some appear to be bouncing in a pattern or in sync with each other before the trajectory of one collides and breaks up the pattern. That is what order and chaos looks like.
A lot of us want to believe but struggle with the ability to feel in our hearts without a doubt that it's true. Is it better to lie and say you believe truly or is it better to a knowledge that you don't believe truly but are open to god
Belief has nothing to do with Salvation!
I am a solid Christian, and I thank this man for being very respectful.
If god can be eternal so can the universe/multiverse. End of story.
The Universe possessing some of the qualities of a God is apparently outside of the realm of possibility for theists.
@@APIAlchemistYeah but then you get those morons who act like they’ve had a revolutionary idea and follow that up with the conclusion “therefore the universe IS god 🤯”.
If we’re calling the universe god then we’re no longer talking about the same thing. Words mean things for a reason
@@Mattropolis97 But we also have to appreciate that language is always evolving and that words change their meaning over time. This is called Semantic Shift. It makes debates much harder than they should be a lot of the time.
Science proves that the universe had a beginning therefore it can never be eternal. Only what caused the universe is eternal
@@tylerhamilton7058 The Universe as we know it now started with a Big Bang, yes but The Big Crunch theory shows how in theory at least, the Universe could be eternal.
I love the arguments and conversation here, especially the respect and thought-provoking material given by all sides, however, there is one thing I think Cliffe and I disagree with, or at least to an extent depending on how he defines it, and it definitely doesn't go with most scientists, though I would say it actually does align with science.
Evolution isn't actually as proven as people think, and it doesn't necessarily have nearly as much evidence, or even as much backing as people think. At least, it doesn't have evidential based backing. One of the biggest problems with modern evolution and evolutionary theory is that, almost every reason, from each generation's childhood, that was used as evidence and major breakthroughs in the theory of evolution has been disproven, and virtually every scientists supports the theory, and doesn't give any pushback or even challenge it, which means quite frankly until it gets serious scrutiny, it has once again become an extremely ignorant theory based on sheer assumption and faith without evidence.
The theory of evolution alone is proven wrong, at least from a scientific perspective without the necessity of God, due to irreducible complexity, which the early evidence given by Charles Darwin as a flaw was the eyeball and the functions it has, and I would also argue even down to skin and how it interacts with hair follicles, blood, blood types, blood vessels, different layers of skin, individual muscles, bones, arteries, the heart, a lot of the stuff can't actually be reduced all that far, and the few parts of this that can be reduced, it can't be added out of order through millions of years, it would have to be added relatively instantaneously or at max within a single generation to be able to function properly. Macro evolution does not actually hold any water anymore, even if you use it from the Christian perspective of God initiating evolution As a form of intelligent process, the actual evidence of evolution is not only lacking, it doesn't make sense even from God's perspective unless every step of the was its own individual miracle. Microevolution is a fancy word for adaptation, which has been proven by Charles Darwin and many others from the same bird across different areas and other such similarities. Adaptation is relatively normal, your average human who decides to become a hard worker after being a scholar or at school and learning guitar is going to have rougher hands and calluses, this is not the primary evidence towards microevolution, but this is an example of adaptation, as it doesn't just come from scabbing. Other examples include Darwin's birds He studied on an island. We have abundance of proof and evidence for adaptation and microevolution, but we don't actually have any evidence whatsoever towards macroevolution, which is the main concept of evolutionary theory.
Evolution doesn't actually explain anything, and even when you look at the charts for evolution, pretty much every species has come into existence ny instantaneously, not over millions of years otherwise we would be finding fossil records of the in between transition fossils and not just predecessor and descendant. In fact, if that were the case, we should still be seeing more in between species today, those in the middle of adaptation where is very clear, yet we can't actually point to any of those except for those that are in the same species family in the kingdom of animalia, and though scientists say that those have evolved similar, that's not what they're trying to say. There are many things about today that do not make sense in terms of evolution, especially when you take the fact that evolution should be the adaptation long-term to change to meet a higher standard or better quality, or on rare occasion a worse quality if there was a temporary reason to believe it was better, from the body standpoint, yet there are many things even just about the human body and the human mind that don't make sense as an evolutionary theory.
Evolutionary theory simply just does not hold any actual sense of evidence, and in my opinion, it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in God, especially when you consider believing the Big bang was something initiated from nothing and by nothing to create order and design also takes a respectable amount of faith I don't see many have in actual religions. The scientific standard of evolutionary theory, and especially of Big bang theory, particularly in cases where one believes in the non-existence of God and simply scientific processes naturally, and even more so when you have people who believe in the concept of living in a black hole or multiverse theory, these are all things that take far more faith and have far less evidence than even some other religions beyond Christianity, and Christianity and Judaism actually do have a massive amount of evidence to convince their case unlike some unfortunately accepted scientific theories that are promoted by scientists and religions.
Follow the evidence, not the people telling you their conclusion.
I feel similarly, big bang and evolution lack in any solid evidence just conjecture upon conjecture, but ask some questions and they fall apart like a sand castle in the tide. The theories are to simple to explain our universe, and too difficult to believe as probable or plausible cause.
@@victorvolobuev507 The thing is, and to be fair my parents and I actually disagree on this part religiously and scientifically, but I actually don't think the Big bang theory has a significant problem if you think about it from a religious perspective, it just has a massive problem if you think about it from a naturalistic perspective. All powerful God saying let there be light and creating the cosmos sounds pretty equivalent to Big bang theory, and in fact the original Big bang theory was actually created by a theistic creationist, and fought by Albert Einstein because it implies a creator, it's the illogical scientists who later championed it as if it actually denied God when it actually proves it.
Saying all the matter and energy that would ever exist in the universe existed in the area of half the size of the head of a needle, eventually turned erratic, and then exploded to make the universe as it is, over billions of years, which is more or less the naturalistic scientific Big bang theory, that doesn't actually answer the question they want you to believe it does, and it's completely illogical. I have heard some people saying that the expansion of the universe and gases and matter combining and reacting over time to make planets and galaxies is a form of evolutionary theory, apparently, which I don't agree on that definition and personally I believe in a timeless God who could survive well over trillions of years, I actually do believe in old earth personally, so though I disagree on the means, I mostly agree with science when it comes to space, just not the reason. I disagree with evolutionary theory because I think that makes a lot of leaps and logic, But the Big bang theory actually think is a pretty good one, just not the way they look at it naturalistically. That said, I should also point out that while I do agree with science when it comes to most things regarding space, I am also going to immediately admit that we haven't been anywhere or studied any significant majority of space, everything we have is based on assumptions which are based on 20 more assumptions, which is fine so long as you recognize there's no stability in the theories other than educated guesses. We don't actually know how old a star is, we've only seen two stars go supernova, we know Beetlejuice is going to eventually, and we know one is going to this year in a dual star system, allegedly. Though I roughly agree with it until for the notice, the ages and overall million and even billion year processes of celestial bodies are complete conjecture. I do think the fact that so many scientists look at those as if they are completely proven are just as religious in those scientific theories as any religious person, if not more, honestly. I somewhat admire the faith of a scientist, ironically.
@@genozp2328 i used to believe evolution and big bang was possible, because i never asked any questions. So, although I believed in God, I assumed that scientists, using science can find the truth. As I studied Christianity, i came to the realization that man is fallible and corruptible, often times more so than man would admit to himself. I learned about logic and reason and realized the claim that “everything can be explained by science” is horse manure. Who uses science to study things like math, justice, afterlife, faith, greed, pride, patience, language, God or no god etc? Generally, science can be used to study the physical domain, but thoughts feelings and ideas, if based on science, will only find grey brain matter, and electrochemical signals bouncing therein. Synapses in the brain, firing away explains human thoughts and ideas and feeling, wow that’s the biggest scientific fail i heard of. Sure it explains some things, but it cannot explain the metaphysical, for example the eye is an amazing apparatus that allows us to see, there are nerve endings that travel from the back of the eye to the brain that send signals to the brain, which the brain, then interprets into a reflection of the thing in front of our eyes. That’s great, but where is the tiny man inside that looks at the picture, acknowledges and understands it and acts based on what he sees? No, according to science, there is nothing beyond the physical world, that cannot be measured and tested…. Personally, it seems the metaphysical is much more expansive than the physical. Otherwise, why do humans study philosophers like Plato? If pure science is to believed, then Plato must have been taking some serious does of psychedelics to come with his theory of the shadows in the cave. If he was just nuts, why do humans even thousands of years later study him and other philosophers today and his ideas today? Are we all that crazy? Personally, I like Socrates. But Athenians sentenced him to death by accusing him of corrupting the young and impiety. Which is weird, because he didnt commit any crime, such as theft, murder, adultery, rape or fraud or any other deed detrimental to his society. All Socrates really did was to ask the question, does he know a thing enough to be able to truthfully understand at as is reflected in reality and he found that he had limits to his understanding and he found other people’s limits of their understanding, and when he showed people, “look, you don’t understand reality as well as you thought you did” that caused peoples’ egos to deflate and they thought ill of him.
No, science does not have all the answers. Far from it.
Any way, imo both Big Bang and evolution theories are flawed and cannot be proven by science.
The limit of Big Bang is not that, given enough time, space, matter and energy, a random explosion can occur to create the universe as we know it. Hey, no problem, I am happy to hypothetically give the theory all those things, except order. Random means chaotic. So are explosions, and bangs, those are also chaotic and random. Now, is there any experiment that we can devise to show us how structure and order can come from chaos? Many people have attempted this, but logic tells us that order cannot come from chaos, that would be a contradiction in terms. This is my only question for Big bang theory, to give at least one practical example where this is possible, it can have eons of time, infinite masses of singularities, and incalculable amount of energy and randomness up the wazoo as it wants. What it can’t have is intelligent design, or laws of physics and biology and math, because those are not chaotic or random in nature. And I find that Big Bang falls grossly short of it’s attempt to explain the universe as we know it. On a practical note, let’s say I bought all the parts of a build-it-yourself car. But instead meticulously following the instructions and putting the car together, I decided to just pile up all the parts and add dynamite. Bang. Let’s say i have all the time and money in the world to create a limitless supply of car parts bunched up together and adding various variables of energy, not just dynamite, i could use heat, electricity or controlled radiation. Is it possible that at some random point, the energy added to the car parts pile that it can put together the car in proper working order? No? Why not? Because chaos does not produce order. And i submit anyone scrutiny, that it appears that the universe we live in has a law, that chaos and randomness has nothing to do with order and structure and the universe is infinitely more complex and intricate than the design of even the most expensive, newest tech, latest car.
Evolution has the same flaw + how can inanimate matter develop DNA which is a book of instructions for even a single celled organism?
Nope. It’s gonna take a whole lot more faith than i have to believe those theories are even getting close to anything factual resembling our universe as we know it.
What a lot of nonsense! Evolution is probably the best supported and best understood of all scientific theories. We know more about evolution than we do about gravity! Does that, in your mind, mean gravity doesn't exist?
Evolution is supported by practically every field of science. God however fails every scientific examination!
About 5 billion years from now, the Sun will become a red giant and engulf the inner solar system, and Earth will be gone. And from that point on, the core of the Sun will cool to a white dwarf and eventually fade away. So much for the finely tuned universe your god made.
All over the world there is science. It is not different science for different countries or cultures, it is all the same science, in fact identical science. Science text books are the same everywhere.
But all over the world there are many different religions, with vastly different scriptual texts, fairly clearly delineated on national borders. How does a universal god only appeal to about a quarter of the world's population? Why are there nearly as many Muslims as there are Christians? There are over a billion Hindu! There are Buddhists, Taoists, Shinto, hundreds of different religions worshipping different gods.
If a god was a universal reality there would only be a single religion, or a single one with minor variations, not many vastly different religions!
No, you’re wrong.
ignoring the atheists nervousness in debate, cliffe made some seriously stupid points.
right off the bat cliffe is completely wrong, order does in fact come out of chaos as well as chaos out of order.
"how do you get something from nothing in evolution?" you dont. where the hell cliffe and his followers get that idea is beyond me.
we dont have any reason to believe the universe came out of nothing in the big bang model. christians all believe that though.
im too bored to keep going
Jews did this
Christians agree that the big bang model came from something, God. If the big bang is the beginning of material existence, God caused it because something cannot come from nothing. Intellectually speaking there must be God because again creation started at some point, and creation indicates a creator. And on your first point, order absolutely does not come from chaos, there are exact opposites, you must give an explanation to how it is honestly possible that order can come from chaos
@@ALE-vs9zp what? christians do not agree on the big bang lmfao. most actively deny it. they do, however, argue that the big bang must come from something IF it were have happened.
your concept of the big bang is skewed, its not the "beginning of matter", its simply the rapid expanse of the universe(in laymans terms). we do see it being the start of time though, which means asking any questions about a "before the bigbang", are nonsensical, as well as any cause-effect(because a cause is temporal). quantum physics shows that quark-antiquark pairs "pop" in and out of existence, so it might be possible for something to be "uncaused", although im not sure exactly how it works as i am not a quantum physicist. the only honest answer to the origin of the universe is "i dont know".
order can come from chaos; within an open system. our universe is a closed system, meaning there is no external energy to it. our planet is an open system, which means that we take energy externally(the sun) and are sustained until that energy source depletes. this is how we can see order from chaos.
That argument makes no sense . Something can't come from nothing according to preacher ( except God)
@@TomSanders-mi2bg " except God" - Then something CAN come from nothing
I love Cliff's oratory and intellectual skills, but in this debate, he uses the God of the gaps fallacy.
Praise the Lord Jesus!!! The seed is being planted in this young man’s heart
Religion answers everything to some. Forget logic and accept God, goddesses, angels, fairies, and all other spiritual hocus pocus. Science and theoretical evidence is real whether anyone believes it or not. You can show and prove a theory up to that point until more further data is needed to finalize it into fact. Not beliefs.
As a Christian, I 100% agree with you. Science is an amazing branch of knowledge that has helped advance our society in so many ways. I don’t think that any Christian would disagree with you. But as a Christian, I believe God created science as a means by which to code the universe.
@@zeppa The problem with your line of thinking is god is answer for everything, making god an answer for nothing. You speak of science in such a respectful way but do you know how many times science has proved god or Christianity wrong in the past? Once upon a time the Church taught that Earth was the center of all things, science proved the Church was wrong. People used to think storms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, ext were all caused by god/gods, science proved them wrong.
You know what's never happened once? A religion/Christianity proving science wrong.
It's funny that you talk about theoretical evidence. I assume you are an atheist. As an atheist, you must believe that life came from non-life or abiogenesis. There are already countless lab experiments done about abiogenesis. Not one became successful. Not one scientist was able to create life from non-life.
If you are a rational and a logical person, you would accept by now that abiogenesis doesn't happen. Theoretical evidence points to abiogenesis as not happening at all. If life didn't come from non-life, then a creator God created life. That is the only other option left. There is no third option. So if you believe in science and if you believe in evidence, then you have to believe in God. Unless you have faith that abiogenesis might happen someday.
It's all hocus pocus until you have an experience, when you experience a love x 1000 any earthly love it goes from hocus pocus to very real real..
@@dexio8601 of course and that doesn't require religion.
Basically, we don’t know. He is just asserting that everything that begins to exist must have cause with giving no good proof.
@@科 If that's the case, then why is the universe expanding all the time without a cause, because all force needs to have another force push it right? If the universe was here all the time, then how do you explain the universe expanding? It must have a beginning point right, like a big bang. But a big bang needs something to make it, because all beginnings need a cause.
@@科 yep thats what I thought as well he condradicted himself no one created the universe it always was . I just think it's stupid how while there are trillions and gazillions of planets and stars people on earth think they are the center of it all , they create all these religions and beliefs as if ''God'' created it all just for them , to follow a cult and live by the bible.
@@科bro Ur comment makes no sense
If there is no cause then there is no objectiveness in morals, and anything goes. There's no meaning and it doesn't make sense. Didn't you hear him? The non rational can't give reason to the rational. It doesn't add up. Can a balloon create an AI? No, but we, who have reason, can. It won't be perfect, since we aren't, but it'll be reasonable enough
Does universe have an end?@@christophersamueldearlysih262
You’re limiting God power by questioning where does he come from. If someone created God then he is not God because he is created by something else bigger and there is nothing bigger than God unless you have another fantasy
Lmao yeah it’s fantasy
AMEN!
THE LORD GOD'S CAPABLITIES ARE LIMITLESS AND BEYOND HUMAN COMPREHENSION.
Then why can't that logic apply to the universe. See how hypocritical that is. God can be eternal, and not be created by anyone of anything. But the universe can't also be eternal, and not created by anyone or anything.
If the universe can't be eternal, and needs to have a begging, so does God, following your own logic. You can't just create gaps of logic so you can fit whatever BS you believe in, just because you refuse to stop and think for a little.
@@pedropereira1285incorrect because the argument isn’t that all things that exist need cause but rather all things effects or things created need a cause. Which we know the universe and the Big Bang are effects, not causes.
@@professorcheckmate not really. Big bang doesnt say universe is caused or effect. It just explains the beggining of its expansion, not its cause origin or effect.
So it can infact, be eternal and not created.
We need more of these types of discussions.
A Masterpiece ❤ extremely Thought provoking ❤ thanks
Ok I'm a little over a minute in but Cliff has a gross understaning of evolution and cosmology even in just their most basic forms. He makes an assertion about cosmology and then cites Einstein without actually basing it on a proper premise. Also with evolution all he does is strawman what it is. Evolution is a process that all living organisms follow not a process for creating life. The fact that he bought that up is irrelevant to evolution because its outside of evolutions scope. We know evolution is a thing, but when you bring up creation of life thats more of something within the scope of abiogenesis.
This is just dishonest rhetoric by Cliff. If he has little knowledge on the topic, just admit that. Sometimes when you don't have the answer to something its ok to say, "I don't know"
He was talking about survival of the fittest. Meaning having babies with others and continuing the genetic pool. I think you misunderstood what he was trying to say.
@@relaxmore2319 no, he redirected both theories into areas they don’t cover, which means he doesn’t know what they are. If you want to debunk evolution or the Big Bang, you address what it is and what it covers, not talk about a topic independent of them and use that as a premise
@@Suriraa Or maybe he knows, and he makes sure to redirect both theories into areas they don't cover. Notice how this type of people, everything you bring a point that makes sense and they don't have a good answer, they just start redirecting and strawmanning everything
Demonstrate that the universe came into existence.
Demonstrate that the universe is eternal. Evidence points that it had a beginning. There is no evidence that it's eternal. Even basic logic says that that is unreasonable.
@@spacecoastz4026
Time, as we know it, is built into the fabric of the universe. Therefore, there can be no point in time when the universe has not existed.
@@Chidds That is why the very first verse of the Bible explains its. In the beginning (the start of time), God made the heavens (space) and the earth. Think about that...God gave that wisdom and understanding to a man thousands of years ago.
Other ancient myths have better creation stories.
Big Bang cosmology proves that the universe had a finite beginning. There is no evidential model that supports that the universe is eternal. The universe is measurable from its background radiation and is demonstrated to be 13.7 billion years old give or take 200 million years.
Rational and irrational comes from the mind except in your case Cliffe, where rational missed the boat. That's if I'm being rational about this.
His point is that you and I have rational minds because we originated from a rational being... rather than merely random atoms leading to trustworthy rational orderly thinking.
@@bthigpen13 He hasn't proven his god with rational thinking to create rational thinkers.
@@bthigpen13Where did the original rational mind come from?
I came here at a recommendation of a friend telling me this guy would have some rational conversations about the existence of God. Instead I got word salad and going in circles with nonsense. Typical.
Honestly i think you should watch his other debates. See how far this goes!
@thecapitalg I did and it's the same circular logic and word salad. It's really comical seeing him get really REALLY angry when debating a non believer with some knowledge.
“Everything has a cause”
……..“Except for God, he just came out of nowhere”😂😂😂😂
Except for God, he has ALWAYS EXISTED. That was what he was saying.
@@theunseeing1916 Then why can't the universe have always existed. Funny how the exceptions are only in your favor, and never agaisnt you.
@pedropereira1285 okay let's say it has. But the issue with that logic, how did everything aline perfectly to form planets if it was just empty before? How did water get on the planets? I'm open to a conversation if you have insta or disc
@@theunseeing1916 Those are separate questions. The central question is: why can God be eternal, but not the universe? My point is that, often, those who defend the existence of God create rules like 'everything has a cause,' 'something can't come from nothing,' or 'everything has a designer.' You’d expect someone who holds these views to have a solid and compelling argument for the cause of God, where He came from, or why a higher God didn’t create their God.
But instead, they just say that God is the exception. At that point, it turns into a rather dishonest debate.
As for the formation of planets, that’s just how matter behaves-it clumps together. Planets are round because of gravity, which pulls all matter toward the center, resulting in a spherical shape. Regarding water, it’s simply H2O, so if a planet forms with hydrogen, oxygen, and an atmosphere, the odds of it having water increase significantly. And things didn’t 'align perfectly'; the universe is full of destruction and pure chaos, including right here on Earth.
@pedropereira1285 I obviously responded to this a while ago bc I don't even remember the original point to this so it'd be kinda hard to converse. But your point is God can be so why can't the universe? And in respose to that I point to the original formation of the planets as it is. Because despite being a separate question it still plays into the need for deity to explain things. I went to the separate question due to you being correct. Why can God be eternal but the universe can't? Because the universe is held to creation. You can't say that planets came from nothing. Something had to of created them, some motion to set it in action. You don't see a ball flying and think it came from nothing. Something threw it. So what caused the clash? It's all really complicated to explain and tbh like I said, I don't even remember the original point to begin with since I don't remember any of what I read here. So I'm not responding again unless you'd like to friend me on something and talk casually. Not particularly looking for a debate
I still wonder why some of these so called rational-minded people when they come to India, they accept Hinduism just like that. They hardly question the Sadhus.
It just proves that those "rational-minded" people who accepted Hinduism, weren't so rational-minded to begin with.
They just want to be counter cultural against their own culture. Since Christianity is the primary religion in the West, they focus all their effort against it and rarely critic other religions for fear of being considered a bigot.
@@Heinstein69 What an absolutely arrogant thing to say! Hindu have as much right to their beliefs as anyone else is to whatever belief they hold.
@@Heinstein69 true, or as I heard someone say, they are so open minded, their brains fell out.
Personally, it think what happened was that humans have free will and , by being “open minded” as they say, means that the are open to sin, corruption and fallacy, but at the same time, if one is open to corruption, how can he therefore accept reason, facts, truth and the moral law? So the Bible is proven right once again,
“Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man-and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”
Romans 1:22-27
@@mirandahotspring4019 because cow worship is called idolatry in the Bible. We are taught not to worship anything in creation. Worship only belongs to the Creator of the universe. That’s actually covered in the first two Commandments of the Ten.
I mean disrespect to any Hindu and i do not wish for them to perish, my only hope is for them to desire to search and love the truth, and i sincerely believe God will give them a heart to discern between truth and fiction, fact and lie, if they so desire.
Until proven otherwise:
Logic rules, religion fools.
@JoeKim-vt4yc Even If so, who cares?
@IL1keDirtits logical to think some few thousand year old man is floating around the sky after making humans from one of his ribs? 😅 yes very logical.....
@@Nickersons-ThemeSince you are giving a really poor and misguided explanation of what actually happened without providing any context,why would it be wrong of me to say “ Evolution says we came out mice because we are 98% identical in DNA?”
See how your logic is stupid?
@@mild-ep1rm Many many animals share some form of DNA, humans are after all also an animal. There's at least PROOF that we share dna with animals. There's no proof of this mystical man who can see everyone and everything. Have some common sense.
@@mild-ep1rmno? Dna is adenine, thymine, cytosine and guanine, along with the basic structures of phosphates and basic sugars, even if you alter a piece of steel and change it several times it’s still steel, same with dna, it’s all the same chemicals meaning no matter what life exists on the universe there is always a correlation to every species including all extraterrestrial life, and also we evolved from apes and that’s why share 99% of our dna with apes and only. 98% with mice.
I love Jesus❤
"A man of reason does not accept ideas on faith. "
-Nathaniel Branden-
@@BeefT-Sq"A man of faith does not accept the truth of knowledge"-The ghost I spoke to yesterday 🍺
"(FULL DEBATE)"
Nine minutes. A real deep dive into the topic.
Man, they are on the street 💀
I love this.. a nice calm debate without name calling and anger.
If God is eternal and doesn’t have a beginning then it is perfectly acceptable for the exact same reason for the universe to be eternal and does not have a beginning.
Moral values are valid in the particular human framework that we are looking at, they can be different in another framework and there is nothing to stop that whether you have absolute morals or not, someone might have different morals than you.
I agree with you so much! Thank you! I've tried to say the same thing in a comment but it was less clear since my English is very bad... I think that we can argue on the variability of the moral saying that some act remains unmoral equally in all of the societys... I still think that a "survivor of the fittest" can counter this as "the will of power" theory of Nietzsche can also! On the question of the universe I think that the limit of the theory, as pointed in the video, is that you can't accept the mathematical causes and effect relationship between all event (the mathematical explanation of everything) and the idea of an infinite universe because then, what is the first cause ? Where does the big bang come from? What is the first point of this infity because we must have one if we accept the causes and effect relationship!
the thing is what you're doing is putting God in "Time, Matter and Space" you're limiting God, God basically means the one who can make the impossible possible.
@@antichrist_destroyer yes but this is in the perspective without a creator.
@@iNatsuTTV then you admit that God does exist because hes not in time space and matter because he created it
@@antichrist_destroyer never admit in my statement at all that God does exist. All i said was the perspective of the other person was without a God/Creator. For all i care, there isnt anything outside of space and time and the universe was always here. Everything is just theory really, but once more dont misintrept statements and read them for what they are. cheers mate.
God doesn t have a beginning, because he is "the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the *Beginning* and the End"
The entire problem is nobody can prove any god exists. By extension you can't claim to know any details about a god (like that they don't have a beginning).
@@majmage well, it s the same process of creation as for a computer : the creator of the computer must be outside of the computer to create it. Since there is time, God created it, therefore he s outside of it, so he doesn t have a beginning, there is nothing before him.
@@maharorand507 Sure but you've just run into tons of problems.
1. Does (a) everything or (b) not everything have a cause? If "a", an uncaused god is impossible, but if "b" then causation cannot be an argument for a god (because any given thing might be uncaused).
2. 100% of the creators we're aware of so far aren't gods. So by default an argument for a creator isn't an argument for a god (in fact when believers' arguments retreat to "creator" it makes their argument seem weaker, not stronger).
3. But sure, if the universe is like things inside the universe (and that may *not* be the case) then the cause would be something not made of *the universe's time/space/matter.* How does that get you a step towards a god? (You can't even demonstrate the cause of our universe is timeless/spaceless/immaterial with this rule. And you'd need to go past that to show the cause was an actual god, which you haven't presented any evidence of.)
@@majmage Alright, i understand your arguments, but let me try to answer you in the best way i can :
1. Causality is the best answer. You talked about IF "a" is an impossible uncaused god. Therefore, if it is right, then God would be limited, so he wouldn t be God. So this is why i believe He created everything, which leads us to the 2nd point.
2. I may not understand what you mean by "creators" here, but if all creators aren t gods, that doesn t mean that gods cannot be creators. Besides, the definition itself of "God" is "an eternal, unique, judge and CREATOR being".
3. I did not say that the universe is like things inside a universe. I said that to create a universe, you must be outside of it (and powerful enough to create something that can expand infinitely -therefore, you must be infinitely powerful-). By following this "rule", the creator of the universe (which countains time, space and matter) must be eternal, out of time. And the only beings with such properties are only gods, and not anything else. We, humans, have given these all-powerful, all-knowing beings the name of gods, which leads to any supernatural beings (all natural things are considered being inside of the universe, so beyond it are all supernatural things).
Warning : we cannot prove anything in life. We can only have enough evidences, may they be strong or weak, to consider the theory as proved. If you feel any doubt or counter argument, please give them to me in a respectful way, to turn our debate to a fruitful and intellectually useful ending. (I did not say you weren t being respectful though)
@@maharorand507 Your response to the first point doesn't address the problem. The problem is we live in a reality where one of these must be true: (A) everything or (B) not everything has a cause. If causality is a hard rule (that's "A") then God must have a cause, and so most believers cannot accept "A" (it contradicts their idea of an uncaused god). That commits you to "B", but then if "B" is your answer then causality isn't a hard rule (not everything has a cause).
That specifically applies to arguments that try to say a god is needed to cause everything, otherwise how could it start. Those arguments do this dishonest thing where they want to say causality is a hard rule (answer "A") for the first part of their argument, but they want to conclude an uncaused god exists (which requires answer "B"). So they switch answers mid-argument. To be clear, you didn't make a full argument like that (and so you also didn't make the mistake I just described), I was probably premature to even make that point about causality.
2. Agreed, if a boy grows up and sees only red cars that doesn't prove green cars don't exist. Similarly 100% of the creators being non-gods so far doesn't prove there can't be a creator god. But it demonstrates why *the word "creator"* is off topic. If you want to convince an atheist avoid the word entirely -- you either have an argument that can conclude with a god, or your argument is extremely poor evidence.
3. My example of me simulating a universe and *still experiencing time* is why the cause of our own universe isn't necessarily timeless. It's probably outside the time *of our universe,* but most arguments try to say it's "timeless". (This also sabotages their own arguments, because time is actually required to separate events; it doesn't seem possible for a timeless being to cause or do anything.)
4. *I'm asking for evidence of a god.* If you see me use the word "prove" I'm using it only in the casual sense of _having enough evidence to justify believing an idea._
Do you feel you've presented sufficiently strong evidence of a god? I feel like I've explained why the arguments I did see don't seem to reasonably get us to a god conclusion (they aren't proof in that casual sense). I definitely veered off topic a little bit, trying to pin down points I suspected you might try to make, and probably I shouldn't have done that. But many of these conversations fizzle out so quickly and there are so many important points to make that sometimes I get ahead of myself.
How dumb can it get? Cliffe argues that claiming a universe comes from nothing is stupid, then happily asserts his god made it... from NOTHING!
Saying it comes from nothing is a straw man anyway! We don't know for sure where it came from.
The Big Bang wasn't necessarily the absolute beginning of everything, it was just the beginning of the universe as we know it, a point our current knowledge of physics allows us to see back to.
It was a stage where sub atomic particles fluctuated in and out of existence. The current hypothesis is that a singularity of almost infinite heat and density rapidly inflated and created the first sub atomic particles. The Big Bang.
But our current understanding of physics does not allow us to see back further than this rapid inflation. In fact we can't see back beyond the Planck Epoch.
Anything prior to this is purely conjecture. But as the First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed; it can only be converted from one form to another, we can conclude that the universe existed in a different form or state prior to the Big Bang. Perhaps as a ball of pure energy.
Then he goes on to straw man atheists claiming atheists say their rational mind comes from the non rational and mocks it. I've never heard any atheist make that claim! You know your biblical cost for lying Cliffe!
“How dumb can you get?”
And how ignorant can you get?
@@martindj1988 Probably as dumb and as ignorant as the idiots who believe Cliffe's bullshit! That's about as dumb and ignorant as its possible to get.
@@martindj1988 bro did not read allat
The whole thing is disingenuous anyway because the preacher is making a case for deism, but he is a Christian preacher, so his job is to convince us of a theistic Christian world view.It's a classic Motte and Bailey fallasy. He doesn't want to make the argument for Christianity, because he knows it's ridiculous on any scientific or rational level, so he reverts back to the safety of a more palatable reasonable argument, (that can be easily scientifically disputed as you say), but at least it doesn't involve a virgin birth and a guy coming back from the dead.
God is everything. We need to make from something god did from nothing. Now u got it
I think perhaps another way to phrase it, is that God, the creator, is an intrinsic property of reality, apart from time or space or the universe or multiverse (if we have one). Would it be fair to say that two conditions are possible: either matter/energy is an intrinsic property of reality, or God is? Both should be equally valid, from a scientific standpoint. But modern scientists (most of them) want to zero out the "God" possibility.
Only the Christian God huh?
This video told us: If there is no need to prove your words, you can made up everything.
Love Cliffe. He is awesome
Flying unicorns are real. Prove me wrong.
Are you saying, you don’t know this already?
Does this mean what?
Are atoms, photons and viruses radiation, justice, love, thoughts real? Maybe we should question their existence too.
They don't exist in the material world but they do in our inner world.
Ah yes, cause you have high quality eye-witness testimonies that document about what happened and then get brutally killed because you're getting too popular because everybody knew or heard about it
I rode one last night. We travelled at a trillion times the speed of light and blasted straight through God’s head. He’s dead. RIP God.
@@oggyoggy1299 you’re about 2k years too late for that party, the Jews at the hands of their Roman colonizers, already did that.
Funny thing about Jesus, he claimed to be the Son of God in the flesh, and he has authority over death, because the wages of sin is death and that’s why we humans perish. But since He had no sin, The Father found Him worthy and gave Him all power and honor and flory so that every knee will bow to Him. And he rose and conquered death. All praise belongs to God!
Without even watching a second of this video, the title is very misleading. No meaning debate happens in less than 9 minutes. Be honest and call this what it is: a discussion or interchange or conversation. It has no resemblance to a debate, by the sheer length of it alone.
It is not uncommon for people to misuse the term “debate “ even with the best intentions.
This literally fits the definition of debate, look it up
what a beautiful disposition on behalf of the young man.
Cliffe manipulates untrue premises. If we can accept god is eternal, then we can assume the universe to be eternal too.
Cliff proving again his lack of education! Evolution has nothing to do with origins. Evolution addresses how speciation occurs.
“ an atheist will say a rational mind comes from the non rational. That doesnt make any sense.”
Your right, your statement makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. A rational mind can absolutely be created from a non rational mind do you what that is called?
EVOLUTION!
He wont debate a well known atheist.
Why don't you?
HE DID.
@@WaRagud-h2uwho did he debate I’d like to watch that
U want to see a Christian apologist debate a well known atheist look up John Lennox he has debated some of the primordial atheists of today.
@@user-wp9ot6wb1h Didn't say no apologist debated an atheist.
This guy is just too good. I would pay a ridiculous amount of money to see him debate Richard Dawkins
You mean the religious one? Seriously? This is the most crazy guy and the one with the worst arguments I've seen in years.
Even though he had a stroke, he would still destroy this guy.
Proving God exists used to be a simple matter.
Nowadays you need 25 degrees in Biology and Physics.
But we are getting closer to the truth.
God is the mos plausible explanation of everything.
🤣
Sadly people don't want to accept that, because that would mean they are accountable to God.
@@spacecoastz4026 That you don’t see the failure of logic in that self-validating assertion speaks volumes.
@@JLWarren You know I'm right. Once you acknowledge God, then your world-view has to change.
@@spacecoastz4026 Think for two seconds just how insane it is to believe you actually have direct access to the mind of another person, to tell them what knowledge they possess, simply because an ancient book says you do.
Then critically analyze what’s more probable: that your belief in one specific deity has given you literal psychic access to my mind or that you were indoctrinated by a cult into believing you do as a self-affirmation tactic?
And how could I rationally acknowledge something as if it existed for which there is no evidence that it exists?
You haven’t thought much about this have you?
BIG BANGS do not create but destroys !!!!!!!!!!!! 😉
The term Big Bang was coined by Fred Hoyle during a talk for a March 1949 BBC Radio broadcast, saying: "These theories were based on the hypothesis that all the matter in the universe was created in one big bang at a particular time in the remote past."
@@mirandahotspring4019 God Jehovah SPOKE everything into existence
@@JamesJustice-rs5yc Yeah, from NOTHING. What bullshit!
we will never know when the universe started and we will never know its end,to the human eye its infinite but maybe reality is somewhat different
Which god? Thor? Zeus? Allah? Apollo? Jehovah? Set? Ganesha? Loki?
Let me guess: "The ONE true God", which just happens to be YOUR God.
Convenient!
Where's your demonstrable n falsifiable evidence for your God?
The one with the most evidence backing up what he said.(which of course is Jesus Christ). How about you stop trying to act intelligent and start actually thinking a bit.
@mild-ep1rm Christ may have existed. However, where's this demonstrable evidence you speak of that shows that he could perform magic n was the creator of the Universe?
Lemme guess: eyewitness testimony n the Bible?
@@Dostoevsky_866 He did exist and there is proof backing it up. The fact that you are ignorant of that is irrelevant.
• Tacitus (Roman historian, c. AD 56-120) mentioned Jesus in his Annals, describing how Emperor Nero blamed Christians for the Great Fire of Rome in AD 64. Tacitus noted that “Christus,” the founder of the Christian movement, had been executed by Pontius Pilate.
• Josephus (Jewish historian, c. AD 37-100) wrote about Jesus twice in his Antiquities of the Jews. One of these references (known as the Testimonium Flavianum) describes Jesus as a wise teacher and mentions his crucifixion under Pilate.
Your guess was ill informed…
@@Dostoevsky_866 About his divinity, yes it’s eye witness testimony which is credible and has been considered credible for the last 2000 years.
@mild-ep1rm Considered credible by who? Other people of the same faith, but not those of a different faith and/or denomination!?
Eyewitness testimony is the worst form of evidence. Had you'd read any peer reviewed journals you'd know this rather that purporting otherwise.
Listen, I support people's right to believe whatever they want. However, just because some book claims that people witnessed a man raising from the dead simply doesn't make it true.
Would that also mean that the story of Muhammad flying up on a winged horse n then splitting the Moon in two is true because the Qur'an says happened n allegedly has eyewitness testimony?
Cliff debates Matt, poor cliff
where? need to see that...
Cliffe Knecktle has another gospel.
He redefines faith as obedience and belief as total commitment.
He says it's not by works but immediately tells you that saving faith is never alone.
Free grace is the only true gospel.
Saving repentance is realizing that you are a sinner deserving of God's just punishment in Hell and turn (repent) from whatever you trusted in before, if indeed you trusted in anything; to trusting in the person and finished work of Christ alone for salvation.
“Faith as obedience”
Was Abraham righteous?
What did Abraham do that’s written about in the Bible that God attributed righteousness to him?
“And he(Abraham) believed in the Lord(God promised him descendants as many as stars in heaven), and He accounted it to him for righteousness.”
Genesis 15:6
I added the parentheses. Check your Bible for yourself.
In other words Abraham’s faith in God’s word was counted as obedience to God and therefore granted righteousness. Abraham didn’t do anything, he trusted God to hold his promise, that’s all.
As for total commitment, this happens when a person decides to follow Christ, he then is baptized which is the official symbol of total commitment to God, being dead to sin and alive for good works.
“Not by works”
Indeed, if a person goes before a judge and he has raped and killed someone, but now he changed his ways, so he tells the judge, “i dont kill and rape anymore, I also feed the poor and hungry, provide housing, clothing and food for orphans and i go help widows with home maintenance”
The judge will not pardon him and say, “oh you changed, so that’s ok, you can go. No, people would call that judge corrupt and unjust if he did that.
No, the judge will say, “it’s good that you changed, as you should, and it’s good that you aid the poor and needy, as you should. But crimes of murder and rape were committed and justice requires recompense.
In other words, no amount of good works can blot out our evil deeds before God, only the blood of Jesus can wash our sin away.
And then after repentance and faith in Jesus, yes, good works for God will store up treasure for the believer in Heaven.
The fruit of your faith is obedience!
@@verdadabsoluta9756 You are just backloading works into the gospel.
@@verdadabsoluta9756
You are just backloading works into the gospel.
God dose Exst.God is Almighty ❤️
dose Exst ?
mayhaps the deficiency of understanding in English contributed to the gullibility in believing in the supernatural
I have been atheist sine age 19. I am atheist now at 80. Atheism all the way.
Repent
@@FascistBoy9000okay middle schooler...... that username is fitting for your belief system btw
@@justananonymouspotato I’m not fascist, It is a joke and is not meant to be serious. The fascist powers hated Christianity as it was based off of Jews and wasn’t a aryan religion. Get your facts straight before assuming that i am a part of a dead political party and because of that, think that I am Christian because I am “Fascist”. Politics have no correlation to religion unless it is theocracy. So before talking, learn before speaking.
Who made god
God isnt made, allow me to elaborate. If accept the presupposition of God, you accept the qualities that make up god, mainly that he is eternal, immaterial, and spaceless. Eternal meaning that He has no beginning or end, He was before us, and will be after us. I hope this is understandable
none, He created everything, the question is unlogically, if God created everything like time and so on... but its not really Imaginable for humans in 3d
*Who'd willingly accept a personal relationship with anyone who threatened them with torture if they refused?*
God does not torture anyone. Going to hell is a choice by rejecting his salvation, it is the only place he chooses to be absent from us.
@@professorcheckmate -- Your god created hell for rebellious angels and then decided to send sinners there. His angels will cast the damned into a "blazing furnace." It's not the absence of his presence that's terrifying. It's the blazing furnace where "[t]hey will cry and be in extreme pain there." Matthew 13:50 GOD’S WORD Translation
@@gordon3186 No, he decided to let sinners go there based on their own choice to spend eternity with God or without God. You are correct that hell was not designed for humans.
@@professorcheckmate--- Well then, I won't go there. Oh, wait, his angels will throw me into that blazing furnace...I see an eternity not spent with someone who drowned children, and his witless followers, as an added benefit if no torture is involved.
A decision made under duress isn't a choice freely made. The dictionary calls it "extortion."
@@professorcheckmate --- I'm not interested in spending eternity with anyone who'd drown children. Or with someone who'd torture anyone for refusing him. Face it, the Bible is a barbaric book about a barbaric god.
7:35 this segment shows how faith can change people. This is one Christian taking another Christian’s bag. He has zero instinct to stop that from happening because he knows that this man is a son of god and trust worthy enough to not steal his bag. It’s the same as Christian’s having faith in god enough to devote their lives to him and know that he’s real. I might be rambling though.
This is just like believing in the tooth fairy, no proof
No, it is quite different. People who have a mature belief in God do not believe in the tooth fairy.
@@TheKantele but it’s still the same thing, no proof for either
@@Jakiśfacet Of course, there is no proof in the sense of mathematical proof - such as the proof of Pythagoras's theorem or proof as in chemistry predicting the outcome of mixing two chemicals. However, there is the enterprise of examining hypotheses that 1) proposes the agency of God and 2) proposes the agency of accidental random elements/forces(?). The fine tuning of the universe and the complexity of living creatures can reasonably be regarded as evidence [not proof in the mathematical sense] of an entity capable of complex operations and design - a grand masterful designer.
Then where did that dollar under my pillow come from?
@IL1keDirtgive the evidence
It's interesting that something can't come from nothing unless that something is god because conveniently god has always been there.
He’s eternal outside of our knowledge of space, time and matter. He can’t be inside space time and matter and also create space time and matter. That’s like looking at your iPhone and saying “well I don’t see Steve Jobs in here so he couldn’t have created the IPhone.”
I believe a unicorn that exists outside of our knowledge of space, time and matter expelled the universe from its bottom. How is your belief in the formation of the universe any more valid than mine.
@@evildan524 Were we made in the image of unicorns? Where is your evidence for such a claim?
"something can't come from nothing unless that something is god" - Straw man fallacy, as that is not the belief Cliffe expressed. God being eternal means your notion of "come from" doesn't apply. There was no "come from" moment with God.
@@Jerahzz I'm not claiming we were made in the image of unicorns.
The creative mechanism for cause, is chemistry and physics!
Can you have chemistry and physics come from nothing?
@@ZIAFN That question, as in why there is something rather then nothing, has never been answered!
Some put a magic man "god" into the mix.what say you?
The only problem with that way of thinking is that if you're saying that physics and using science can Define things then you still have to explain where science comes from because if the universe was created out of nothing then science can't say that something was created from nothing. Even other famous atheists believe the universe had a beginning. So by logic, you can't have something created out of nothing by science. No science would have existed yet if there was nothing.
@@paulnone9984 Firstly i do not know what nothing is, do you?
for nothing to exist, one would have to remove time, space , matter , and all
quantum interactions, how do you do that?
@@gknight4719 you're exactly right. You'd have to have no space, time and matter to have nothing. So therefore, something spaceless, timeless and immaterial had to create space time and matter
one thing about the whole "life always comes from life" or "existence always comes from existence", is that cliffe implies that existence/life has a beginning/end. but apparently, for some reason, God doesn't? I feel like this exempts God from being an existence, because if he was, he would have a beginning. And, if there are things that are existing, that can be timeless, then the universe would technically also be timeless by that logic. But, it isn't. So, I wanna know why God is exempt from this requirement.
He’s Eternal. We can’t grasp eternity until we die. God created a window of opportunity (time) because it only makes sense that there had to have been something greater, came before time. 😊
@@lazr9672 tbh eternal existence to me doesn't make sense at all. Another thing is, how would God know all the variables to what makes a universe? Has he done this before? There are multiple other things that I find to not make sense in The Bible.
@@lazr9672 And why can't the universe be eternal?
@@pedropereira1285 We already know the universe isn't.
@@professorcheckmate Define "we" and give the articles and research that proves the universe isn't. Good luck on ur quest of find the articles and proof that doesn't exist.
You can't base reality on faith, otherwise, you'd still believe that rain is God's doing, and that thunder is God's rage. Or that your uncle getting sick and dying is God punishing him. Or that Adam was created by God with clay, and Eve with a rib from Adam, and then started thei biggest inc*st family that this universe ever knew.
If i had a book, that said X thing, and i go and verify it's false, and then i do it 100s of times, and all of them are false, and just a few are true, do you think that's an accurate book to describe reality?
Then why use religious books to describe reality. You wanna have your faith, go for it. Just don't use it to describe reality, you will just show how blindsided you are.
John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.
(I love you too, not as much as God loves you but I do love you)❤🙏
Just close your eyes and say “Jesus, I don’t have faith in you, please help me believe” Jesus loves you, turn to Him. He loves you so much that He died for you. ❤
but... there is no proof, just saying.. so..
Religion is all about faith, you need to take the very reasonable evidence and come up with a belief based on that evidence.
There is also no proof we arent being mind controlled by aliens. But we have evidence that we arent
his logic is NOTHING can exist without being created and he doesnt answer where did god come from just saying he simply existed and is the beginning of the start and the end is no answer its simply impossible and there is not a single bit of evidence to point hes real its all just come from a man made book
Because God is the Alpha and the Omega!
He was our Creator and is eternal, he was there that's why we were created.
Nobody created God because he was there from forever!
@@186rebekachetry ok i can literally say the same about earth and u cant argue me cuz earth and mother nature is the alpha and omega
If God can make all of creation with a single word why is it hard to believe he existed forever when there was no time before the big bang we cannot limit God to our understanding because he obviously knows more and cannot be limited hope this helps love you 🙏🏽❤️
@@Trike2Trappy but somebody has to create the earth first ! I don't think it popped our of nowhere and humans started existing, doesn't make sense 🫂
The universe created and destroyed itself and will continue to do so eternally. Like there you go it is just as logical as your "proof" of god.
I've noticed that theists will take everything from science that suits their perspective, and discard everything from science that disagrees with it. Funny how that works, isn't it?
No offense, but you may want to bring at least one example of this.
And also, where is it written that theists are right? No, they make mistakes just like anyone else, but hopefully we all are willing to correct our own mistakes and fallacies.
@@victorvolobuev507 Cliff does it in the video. He points to the Big Bang and says 'that's proof of a beginning'. But that's not actually what science concludes.
@@king_lou_fassa sorry, but i don’t agree with Cliff on that point and will not defend it, although there was a time I also believed big bang and evolution a plausible theories.
They have too many conjectures, but lack basic scientific and logical evidence. I understand the chain they are trying to make, but the missing links are to buggy and too big to ignore.
Yeah, Cliffe is wrong about evolution and if he believes there was a big bang, he’s wrong there too.
Everything else seems logical to me. Rationality cannot come if chaos makes the rules. Similarly with order and structure and consistency.
I have yet to understand how inanimate mater became life by random chance, even if it was an amoeba.
There is no hard evidence of an amoeba changing it’s DNA to become seaweed, or sand dollar or plankton or whatever it is that’s supposed to be next on the evolutionary chain of most simple organism to the next more complex.
Also, how did non sentient life become sentient, is beyond me if we were to follow the evolutionary theory. Evolution can make no sense of any of it.
No to mention the primate conundrum, why are humans the only ones to have reached sentience and none of the other branches. Or why do we still have primates like gorillas and orangutans if humans are the higher evolutionary species up the chain?
And branches of a tree or roots of a tree doesnt explain any of this. Because a tree’s DNA is constistent whether it’s roots, trunk, leaves or branches. The evolutionary theory of species branches and their DNA are inconsistent.
You do know that For the past millennial scientists have assumed the universe had to be eternal and it wasn’t until the discovery of the big bang that they have conceded the universe is finite. In fact they very much hated the evidence for the big bang because it aligned with the Bible exactly.
Надеюсь переводчик работает.
Для начала - я сторонник теории цикличности, что все во вселенной бесконечно расширяется и сжимается. Происходит Большой Взрыв, вся материя во вселенной сосредотачивается в одной точке, а затем расширяется, формируя звезды, галактики и черные дыры, а затем когда одна из черных дыр становится настолько тяжёлой, то она становится центром вселенной и останавлиет частицы которые вме ещë летят из-за большого взрыва. Таким образом все опять собирается в одной точке, материя обрушивается внутрь себя и опять происходит Большой Взрыв.
И рассказывая про эту теорию вопрос: "Что было до Большого Взрыва, откуда взяласб вся материя?" также некоректен как вопрос "Кто создал бога?". Процесс цикличности бесконечен, а значит не имеет начала и конца, как прямая линия в математике. Есть только одна точка - пересечение с осью, а именно та точка где находиися мы сейчас.
Спасибо тем кто прочитал, надеюсь на конструктианый ответ
If the universe does operate in cycles, does that negate the Creator?
What is your analysis of the Fibonacci sequence found throughout nature? How does a logical geometric progression come about through random interactions in nature and even the universe?
I find it very interesting that the woodpecker's tongue wraps around its brain to act as a schock absorber to protect the brain from too much shaking when the bird pecks rapidly. How can that simply evolve?
There are so many similar examples found in nature.
I hope this post isn't too late. Thank you.
"Existence cannot come out of non-existence." Cliffe.
So you're saying that God does not exist...
Ur dodging his point, God is Eternal, simple logic says “creation needs a creator”. Look at the nearest house/building, it didn’t just happen to be there, that’s irrational. Someone had to have built the building, we know they existed, same with God.
@@lazr9672Then who built the builder?? Your logic should be consistent
Cliff talks nonsense every time and does not understand science.
Did you even watch the video
Bro is SPITTING straight FACTS
Are you serious? So if I claim the order/design of the cosmos was caused by a leprechaun, then you're just going to blindly believe (A) the order/design I vaguely mention exists, and (B) it was caused by leprechauns, and (c) so that proves leprechauns? That isn't "facts". It's a baseless assertion.
@@majmage Are you serious? A leprechaun? God is omnipotent and omniscient -
a leprechaun is not. Even in fantasy, a leprechaun has very limited powers.
@@TheKantele Do you understand that if an argument can be shown to be illogical, then it can't be evidence?
My explanation shows why Cliffe's argument isn't logical.
The type of error is called "fallacy of bare assertion". Just a fancy way of saying that Cliffe is saying something is true for no reason. (He isn't presenting logic or evidence. He's just saying (A) order/design of the cosmos exists, and (B) God caused it.)
Which took us to my counter-example of saying leprechauns caused it. It's an equally good argument. (Meaning: it's not a good argument. *It's a terrible argument.* That's the point! It's illogical. It's saying something is true without evidence. Nobody should respect arguments like that.)
Well my argument doesn't call Cliffe wrong for no reason. I've explained my reasons, based on logic.
@@TheKantele Yeah I'm seriously explaining why *just saying things are true for no reason* isn't a good argument.
Do you think Cliffe's argument is good? If you do, then my leprechaun argument is also good.
The reason my leprechaun argument is bad isn't the one you mentioned -- after all you're clearly not describing the order/design-causing leprechauns I've told you exist. The mistake to my argument is *I'm just saying something is true for no reason.* That's an error called "fallacy of bare assertion". When a person just says something is true for no reason, we know that isn't a good reason to think it's true. It's not logical.
So because Cliffe isn't providing evidence/logic arguing for a god with his order/design argument, *it isn't logical.* So it isn't evidence.
@@majmage You are wrong. Cliffe's argument about God [with omnipotence and omniscience] is a much better argument than yours about the leprechaun [which lacks omnipotence and omniscience]. You will find people spending thousands of hours and giving thousands of comments debating the possibility of God as the cause for things existing.
However, no serious time or discussion is ever spent proposing the leprechaun as a causative agent. The leprechaun is a very weak proposal for a causative agent.
Personally, I believe that the universe does not have a beginning; it always has existed and always will. Everything changes and morphs over time. Everything that exists and will exist always has.
Theres 1 major flaw in ur argument, why does everything have to die? Why does (your point is almost correct) us that can seemingly live forever, have to die?
Very interesting and calm debate. As an agnostic, two arguments are still weak, can you guys can maybe light me on this. First the argument of the existence of supreme values made by god. Those are, in my opinion, human creations, subjective ones, the values we have in occident are heritages of Christianity of course, and established on the ultimate values of Platon (the genealogy of this morale is depicted deeply by Nietzsche in "moral genealogy"). So it's mixed of "will of power" and Christian morality. For the question of the creation, why it would necessarily be the will of an interested and omnipotent god at this beginning of the times as depicted in the bible and not just the desinterested action of an "non god entity"? Sorry for my bad english, I hope some of you will answer!
Oh thanks for allowing a download which I was earnestly 😢waiting for. Goa india
All this time and he still can't demonstrate this god.
As someone who doesn't outright believe in god and has spent countless hours thinking about it, I genuinely think God is THE best written god if looked at from a fictional standpoint. Mankind from the beginning of our existence always tried to find answers for things. We are intelligent enough to be able to draw connection in everything, which is the reason science exists. But for this simple reason, God is unarguable, because God can't be traced back to anything it is eternal, there is no possible way to disprove God aside from looking at religion and the birth of christanity. Which is why most athiests and for a long time myself completely rid myself of religion, hence there is no way to disprove God himself. I hope this made some sense, it's hard to put my thoughts together on this matter.
Cliff “Because existence cannot come out of non-existence”
Atheist dude: “But god can?”
Cliff: “No”
I so wish I was there to say “So therefore god doesn’t exist.” It’s a really good argument against people who argue intelligent design specifically.
I mean pretty much every Christian argument that’s an “actual argument” meaning it has “ground to stand” on has to resort to god magic which you can’t really argue with because it’s just the classic they believe nonsense because they believe nonsense argument, I’m not saying a Christian’s ability to argue or whatever is nonsense but an argument they would be able to make for the existence of god would functionally have to be, kinda why faith belief without being given any actual reason to believe is one of the top popular ideas lol. (This kid is being so nice and reasonable and here’s this dude obsessed with thinking he’s right for no reason, just sucks to see I hate these cycles of abuse where the one is willing to understand and the other not and guess who suffers, certainly not Christian’s at least in my experience, I guess theirs probably some that really try to understand but if their still a Christian they would have to be subjected to mass brain washing or only kinda be a Christian and more realistically be agnostic.
Agnosticesk (LOL get it?)
"God doesn't have a beginning." Hearsay dismissed.
No human, book, or texts knows how or why we're here. The end.