Dear Frank I really like your logic on this subject. My teacher showed us this video in our philosophy class and our class loved it. Thank you for putting this video up
Your claim was: "These are semantic games. "Truth" is demonstrably relative." My response is: "Is your claim a "semantic game?" Is your claim relative?" No, your are making an absolute truth claim in declaring that all truth is relative. That defeats itself.
Frank Turek This is a good point, but I think that I just can't be sure about anything. Maybe I can be sure, but then how do I know if I can trust my certainty? Maybe there are absolute truths, but how could I know? To everything I say, "Maybe, maybe not."
@@ohmbasa Well, one way I think to tell if something is true or not, is to be found in the words spoken by Jesus, where He says: " You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." So, does it make you feel free? In other words, does it dispel the doubt, and do you feel that you've been completely disabused? There can be no formulaic acid test, or any scientific method for the answer, it's just simply something which one will inherently become aware of knowing; and knowing it with a certainty. I think that's the only real test. That's my criterion, at least, and the only one I can assert with any confidence. Peace
Clinton Wayne what I would say is that you can know truth by evidence and doing research. Just like frank mentioned gravity. How do we know gravity exists? Im sure scientists did their research and have the evidence on it. You know the sun is there because you can see it, seeing it would be your evidence in that situation. I know your comment was 2 years ago, but I hope you are doing good and staying safe out there. God bless you.
truth is what the facts are. if you can’t show it you don’t know it. like with gravity you can show that it exists by picking up an object and dropping it. with that you are demonstrating gravity even if you don’t understand why it works.
@@littleredpony6868 you are actually demonstrating an object's density and weight relative to the weight of the air, which is why helium floats and steam falls. The theory Gravity can not be imperically measured, and is only backed up by the theory of dark matter, which also can't be measured, viewed, or recreated in a lab. The earth has an electromagnetic field, if you can reverse an object's polarity, then it will move away from the ground. It's easier to prove that than gravity.
I am so glad God blessed Mr. Turek with the intellect and passion to be a great blessing to the world and I am very glad this man gets paid to do what he does, payment not only in this life but the next.
Yahweh God has made knowing the truth unbelievably simple. You don't need to wrack your brain to reason out the truth. TRUTH is a person. His name is Jesus Christ. Jesus said in (Jn 14), “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Follow Jesus and you'll have found the truth.
Charlie it’s not a word game it’s applying logic for those claims. What part of what he says sounds unreasonable or illogical? He isn’t making the case necessarily at this point that Christianity without a doubt is true but more pointing out the logical inconsistencies of atheists. To go deeper of why he believes in Christianity you’d have to look at another video.
Charlie it’s not a word game it’s applying logic for those claims. What part of what he says sounds unreasonable or illogical? He isn’t making the case necessarily at this point that Christianity without a doubt is true but more pointing out the logical inconsistencies of claims usually made by atheists. To go deeper of why he believes in Christianity you’d have to look at another video.
"our faith does not change whether God exists and if God and the Bible are true." -5:25 "'you ought not judge' - Then why are you judging me for judging?" -9:08 Amen!
These debate tactics are amazing! By the way, these "Self-defeating" statements are called *"Paradox"* in the realm of Science. I just discovered about it a week ago. Philosophy is such an awesome subject, I love it!
7:27 I tell them theyre correct.. Ecclesiastes 2 1 I thought in my heart, "Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good." But that also proved to be meaningless. 2 "Laughter," I said, "is foolish. And what does pleasure accomplish?" 3 I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly--my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was worthwhile for men to do under heaven during the few days of their lives. 4 I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards. 5 I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them. 6 I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees. 7 I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me. 8 I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired men and women singers, and a harem [1] as well--the delights of the heart of man. 9 I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me. 10 I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my work, and this was the reward for all my labor. 11 Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun. 12 Then I turned my thoughts to consider wisdom, and also madness and folly. What more can the king's successor do than what has already been done? 13 I saw that wisdom is better than folly, just as light is better than darkness. 14 The wise man has eyes in his head, while the fool walks in the darkness; but I came to realize that the same fate overtakes them both. 15 Then I thought in my heart, "The fate of the fool will overtake me also. What then do I gain by being wise?" I said in my heart, "This too is meaningless." 16 For the wise man, like the fool, will not be long remembered; in days to come both will be forgotten. Like the fool, the wise man too must die! 17 So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. 18 I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me. 19 And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will have control over all the work into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless. 20 So my heart began to despair over all my toilsome labor under the sun. 21 For a man may do his work with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then he must leave all he owns to someone who has not worked for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune. 22 What does a man get for all the toil and anxious striving with which he labors under the sun? 23 All his days his work is pain and grief; even at night his mind does not rest. This too is meaningless. 24 A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, 25 for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? 26 To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind. Enjoy your Lot
The example that Frank provided at the beginning of the video (about the person who states that s/he feels "warm"), seems problematic. For example, by what criterion could Frank ascertain whether his hypothetical person is telling the truth about "feeling warm"? In this case, the truth of the hypothetical person's statement doesn't seem to be absolute. JPB
I actually had the same conversation with someone today who told me there is no absolute truth. It was quite fun, watching the person think about it for a while. They were nice and polite and kept asking questions though and I look forward to talking to the person again
Let's not forget one of best quotes from Pontius Pilate "What is truth?" John 18:38 Honestly, truth is subjective; facts are objective. Yes, I love philosophy. There are many different "lenses" in which we interpret history.
Do you want to know the truth? Theirs a reason people preach the lie. “But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.” ~ Daniel 10:21 (KJV) John 16:7-13 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. Daniel 8:12-14 Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered. Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.” Rev 19:11-15 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
KingJames BibleBeliever 99.8% of those errors are spelling errors, for our manuscripts are handwritten copies. (That percentage is from Dan Wallace, who is widely considered the world best living Greek exegete)
If the Truth of God could be known outside of a revelation, we would all know the truth. Blind followers of the Word have not known the Truth but follow by sight like in the OT. God reveals Himself were He sees faith in a person, that has arisen from "hearing" His Word! Thank God for Jesus Christ
Sure, we can doubt everything and doubt our doubts themselves as well. After all the doubts the only certain thing would be “I have an existence at least on the moments I have sentience, that is, feel and think, be it as a simulation or whatever.” Save for that constant, and the very act of skepticism itself which would create an infinite loop when skepticism is applied to, I’d say everything can still be subject to doubt. For me the fact that I exist in some form may be true but it really depends on the definition of “exist” and “true” and also an outsider has total validity to doubt my claim.
Frank...I had seen some of your stuff before on Randall Niles channel. Glad to see you have a channel now. I will be checking out anything and everything of yours I can get my hands on and likely put this video on my main page. Keep up the good work!
I am currently exploring faith in the Christian community. I have been trying to ask many questions a lot so I can understand Christianity better, not to belittle anyone but because I am searching for truth myself…as I spent most of my life as agnostic. I wanted to say these are compelling arguments. I think the part that lost me is this: I feel trying to reply with something quick and “witty” like “is that true?” Is not a great answer in its entirety, because when I argued before the question of “no one can know the truth” it’s not that I am saying truth as a concept isn’t real but to know THE truth of God and what he wants from us. When I have said no one can know the truth, I mean the truth of our origins and purpose. I want to seek the truth but how can I find it? I want to offer perspective from the side of someone who struggles with belief so you can understand what we (I can’t speak for all of course) really mean by such statements. I mean no disrespect I just have been feeling frustrated in this area as I am trying to find my faith.
“Is that true” is more a tactic to make a person realize that saying “truth is subjective” is a self defeating statement. It’s a three word wake up call. Btw if you’d like to ask some questions or talk about some things I’m completely open to that. It’s always great seeing people who genuinely want to know things rather than use other people as ideological target practice.
@@skippy675it seems like you’re treating God’s truth like other people’s opinion. That’s a dangerous ground to stand on. God is not subjectively all-powerful. God is not subjectively all-knowing. God is not subjectively the Creator. Jesus did not subjectively die for us, and He certainly did not subjectively rise from the dead. If I have a friend sacrificed for me whatever he had, I’d be willing to at least listen to what they want from me. Not to mention an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator who died for me. Did I mention He rose from the dead?
@@skippy675 I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or you missed my point. I’ll pretend it’s the latter. It’s like a programmer that just designed and built his program said, “You’ll assist me in doing my daily things.” And the program would say, “Screw you. That’s just your opinion. It’s only true for you but not for me. Nah, I’ll do my own thing.” That program would be scrapped and destroyed if it behaved that way. We and God are not on par in any ways. Be wary of arrogance. P.S.: It is a BIG claim to say that either God has FEARS or FAILED on certain things. Please explain.
If you say none can know the truth you’re saying g that truth isn’t knowable, and so how did you come to the conclusion that truth isn’t knowable unless defeating your claim knowing a truth ?
The relevant question is not whether truth is knowable, but whether what you know to be true is actually true. If it is, then what some other people know to be true is not. How do you know that you are not actually one of those other people?
This analysis (from Frank) is a little sophomoric, though with some value. Whether or not "truth" is "absolute" can be hard to say. A coherent, universal definition of "truth" is hard to come by. A better way to think about this is that ideas, statements, and propositions are _contextualized_ - they apply with utility under certain circumstances, and not others. And they apply with relative degrees of certainty. What's trash in one circumstance can be treasure in another. This is where the idea of relativism comes in - circumstances change what people conceptualize as "true" because truth is closely tied to _meaning_ and _meaning_ is relative. Context, therefore, is everything for _comprehending_ *anything* . What's more important is to realize that _language_ - which is _inherently_ ambiguous - obscures the ability to coherently _discuss_ "absolute" truth in any meaningful way. Because our human psychology is *so* closely tied to our language, and the processes that govern language, it's virtually impossible to express any "true" statement without a degree of inherent _ambiguity_ - which leaves us between a rock and a hard place. We can conceptualize many things that we might _feel_ certain about and which we might even _agree_ to call "true," but we cannot _talk_ about them without _some_ degree of ambiguity, even if the ambiguity is vanishingly small. What is the implication? The implication is that if we are honest with ourselves, we can never make a _statement_ of "absolute truth" because ambiguity will always arise. Any attempt at further clarifying the statement will just result in other statements that are, being a part of language, themselves ambiguous again. You will thus be caught in an infinite regress of attempts to clarify your meaning. And the most interesting thing about this is that if you examine even how you justify conclusions to your own self (in your own internal monologue when you reason through something) you are even limited in this way when expressing ideas _to yourself_ - thus the problem comes full circle: if we can't even express a statement of "absolute truth" to ourselves - a statement without some ambiguity - what, then, are we to make of the _very_ concept of "absolute truth" itself? It becomes something _less_ than an actualized object, and is reduced to something _more like_ a goal, a path, or a process, and not some specific point of data or conclusion. This should give us hope that there is always work to be done in _communicating_ our ideas to one another, clarifying and refining our ideas further. Rather than be a source of continuing frustration because you can't "finally get at the truth" one should excitedly be ready to further explore ideas and paradigms and conquer the infinite challenges communication and information limitations present to us. It makes life meaningful and always with something further to achieve or aim for.
For sure its knowable. Fully. What lots of people (even pastors) don't (yet) understand. God created us according to His own image and likeness. Godly. Mankind/the first Adam fell. The image of God in man got lost. That's why there is all this predicament on earth (selfishness, greed, lust, wars, sicknesses, death, etc). We are all born into that mess. For the fall of man a perfect atoning sacrifice had to be made.... that is what God did in Christ. With His own once and for all perefect sacrifice, He paid the debt for the fall of man for us, so we can be indwelled by His Spirit again and finally receive the divine life of the ages back, the first Adam let got of in the fall of man. An amazing act of grace and love by our creator. That is what you see happening in Christ's first disciples. They too healed all and walked in unselfish love. And yes.... that is still avaible today. The holy blood is in place, the Holy Spirit is here to give us understanding, power and transform us back to origin. Not to be debated about, but to be embraced and be-come. So: The Kingdom of God already came. Through Christ, in Spiritform, in those that understand. Hence the divine healing miracles we experience. God manifested in Christ to give us back the divine life mankind lost in the fall of Adam. Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after in Gen 1. The image we lost in the fall of man. The image that can be freely restored by Christ's blood and Holy Spirit working IN us. What a plan. What a solution. What a love. What a God. Jesus is amazing. It is the ultimate conclusion of the word and plan of God. God came full circle. He Himself stooped down from glory to restore us back to original created value: Christlikeness. Walking in divine healing power and unselfish love. Jesus, born of the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God. The "Son" of God, the incarnated word, God in the flesh. For three years He healed all, raised the dead, casted out demons, controlled nature, spoke pure divine truth. He said: "Follow Me. If you see Me, you see the Father. The Father and I are one. The glory I have IN My Father, I give to you. It pleases the Father to give you His Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature. I will send Holy Spirit, the same as Me, He will be IN you, guide you into truth and give you explosive power. The same miracles i do, you will do too, because you will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am IN you. Freely I give you My Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, freely I give, freely share" Etc, etc, etc. I have experienced thousands of beautifull healing miracles through the power of Holy Spirit IN me already. Broken bones, cancers, covid, all kinds of infirmities healed in seconds. Demons manifesting and casted out by a simple "get out, in Jesus name". Jesus. De name above all names. In Him all power and wisdom is sourced and.... He calls us one with Him. God in man and man in God again. C'mon Jesus!! So.... again: God stooped down IN Christ to restore us back to Gen 1:27 were He said: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness and let them have authority.....": walk as Christ. Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after and being restored to by His atoning blood for the fall of man and indwelling Holy Spirit. You are free to receive this original divine life of the ages by Holy Spirit of Christ/God. Ask Him to guide you into truth. Read the Gospel of John and fall in love with your creator. You are not made for the fall of man and its effects, but for the image/glory of God and to walk like Christ. Holy Spirit is the guide and transforming power that will get you there. Amazing grace. A big leap in faith can be made when we start realizing we are already IN Christ, IN the last Adam. Free from the fall! Loved! Growing into awareness of our new (yet old) godly identity. Changing by Holy Spirit. The most fullfilled life ever. Paul healed all on Malta. He understood and wrote: "As in the first Adam ALL died (lost the divine nature), so also ALL were made alive IN Christ to walk in Zoë (= divine life) again". "IN Christ (the last Adam) we are co-cruisified (dead to the fall and its effects), co-raised (justified/made righteousness, holy, blameless, above reproach), co-seated (one with Him)" "The fullness of deity dwells in Christ and YOU HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETE IN HIM, who is the head of every principality and power". So.... thank you Jesus! Thank you for redeeming me from the fall of man. Thank you for your Holy Spirit that makes this new (yet old) divine life come alive in me. You are amazing! In the shadow of Peter the sick healed... He understood too and wrote: "By Gods power (Holy Spirit) and knowing Christ, we have become partakers of the divine nature and have escaped the fall of man". The divine life of the ages has been returned to us by Jesus once and for all perfect atoning sacrifice for the debt of the fall of man and His indwelling Holy Spirit in us. Jesus/God is amazing!!! Ask Him to give you revelation and change you to the way it was before the fall of man: Christlikeness. He will do so. For it is written: "the Spirit brings forth after His own kind". "I have come to give you Zoë (divine life) in abundance...."
That's a great realization about faith. Is faith that your car will start Get you to where you need to go ? Fact: First exercising a constant prayer life in Jesus & seeking Jesus like a daily habit you can't break, will cause your faith to become a reality faster than anything else you've tried.
In commenting on a video where an atheist objects to the ontological argument I quoted him and asked: If "absolute truths do not exist" should I accept that as true absolutely? If not, then are you saying that since absolute truths do NOT exist there is at least the possibility that absolute truths DO exist? His response was: What part of "absolute truth does not exist" do you not understand? It is a TRUE proposition that absolute truth does not exist, but it is not ABSOLUTELY true. Do you see the distinction?
There is no absolute truth. Seems like a contradictory statement doesn’t it. What it really means is that the idea of a truth is itself just a bunch of thoughts inside a human mind. Not only is there no such thing as absolute truth, there is no such thing as absolute wrong. Its all just concepts inside a mind (this whole comment is just a bunch of symbols, only being recognized by a mind, these symbols don’t mean anything outside of these minds/there is no interpretation). The human logic you would use to dismantle the first statement^ is itself just another limited/relative perspective of the world. Our logic barely holds in the gross world, it is completely destroyed by physics when studying the smaller parts of our world. Our logic is great for survival and living life, for so called “truth”? Not so much. In simpler terms, there are a million and 1 perspectives and none of them are true. Even what I just said is a perspective. Very mind-bending but its an infinite loop of concepts you can never escape, so just see it for what it is. Limited, vague, non-existent concepts.
It is so entertaining to watch college students question people like Frank Turek. They all (mostly) grossly over estimate their own intelligence and their understanding of their own claims and arguments.
Darren, in what context would that be a true statement? As Frank described, it is a self-defeating statement. The only way that statement would be true is to change the definition of truth. And if you try to do that it isn't true anymore.
We prove what does not exist by showing a logical contradiction. The subject of the contradiction cannot exist. A contradiction is expressed as "P and not P, at the same time". The subject of P, cannot exist. eg: the ball that is on fire and is not on fire at the same time, cannot exist. There is no such ball. We do this for the proposed Christian, Islamic or Jewish gods very easily. Saying those proposed beings exist is false, not a belief. A belief must be possibly true.
"X" = "The set of all distinct things". Every logical existent being must be contained within this set, else if any being were outside this set, then that being outside set "X" would be distinctly "Outside" of set "X". This would be contradictory because anything outside set "X" cannot be distinct. If some being were partially contained within set "X" and partially not contained, then that aspect of which is distinctly outside the set would also incur contradiction against the definition of the set. The alternative is that some being is outside the set "X", but is not distinct. Which is the same as saying that it is not different from "Being contained with set X", and thus is the same as "Being contained within set "X". Thus leading to contradiction again. "Y" = "The category of all beings of which are not contained within some at least some single category". If some being state is contained within category "Y", then contradiction occurs against the definition of the category, because any and all being contained within that category is contained within "Y", which itself is "At least some single category", which disqualifies anything from being consistently contained within the category "Y". Therefore, "Y" is empty. Therefore, any and all being is contained within at least some single universal category. Therefore, insofar as being is logical, then that being is an instantiation of "Distinct being". Therefore, if logic is universally true, then at least one universal absolute truth exists, particularly that all being is necessarily and universally "Distinct" from some other being state. Even the summed set of everything(Not anything, but "Everything") is distinct from it's sub-components. "C" = ("A", "B"), Where "C" = Totality of existence, and "A" and "B" are approximately distinct sub-components. "C" =/= "B" and "C" =/= "A", else "B" would be equal to "A"(But they are by definition distinct), thus the whole is not identical to each individual part by themselves only.
"tautalogous truths use logic solely to be resolved". Is it possible to be logically correct but arrive at the wrong conclusion if you start with the wrong premise?
syntex2902 an argument can be rationally valid if you have evidence that the premise is true but that does not make it sound. I'm pretty sure an argument is sound if the premise is true and something is true if there is a preponderance of evidence. The agent is rational as long as he or she is willing to change their beliefs when new, conflicting information is found. I think that's how it works.
2 TIMOTHY 2:23-26 23 Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights. 24 But a slave of the Lord* does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle* toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, 25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth, 26 and they may come back to their proper senses out from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him for the will of that one.
Here is an example of a relative truth. You and another person are watching two people having a catch. You stand on one side watching, while the other person stands on the opposing side. You say the ball is going left to right. The other individual says the ball is travelling from right to left. Who is correct? It is up to perspective, proving truths are relative.
We got a word for that, perspective. If we apply this relative truth to mirages, we'll have to accept that the reflection of sky is actually a body of water.
Yes, perspective, but if there is but one truth, whose perspective is the “truth”? Truth is relative outside the inventions of man, such as mathematics and labeling of objects/entities. Can men have babies? But, before such a question can be raised, a definition must be applied to a word. It is a tricky game unless an absolute such as god exists. A creator is needed for truth to exist. Otherwise, all is opinion.
I know this video is super old, but still. I don't feel like the claim "you should doubt everything" is a bad claim, or if it is then I've interpreted it wrong. What it seems to mean, to me, is that you shouldn't give anything for granted, and you should verify the validity of every claim that's possible to verify. It seems to me very much in line with what Mr. Turek is doing here, which is dig a bit into Christianity and try to verify its validity.
"Verify the validity of every claim," as you said, is way more constructive and helpful than "doubt everything." The latter defeats itself, because if it is to be taken seriously then we must doubt douting everything. Your phrase at the very least isn't self-defeating, and still accomplishes its aim.
@@kv8443 well thank you haha. I guess we just mean different things by "doubt", but yeah I do agree that "verify your claim" is a more precise phrase to express what I meant, and also a better strategy in and of itself.
@@morganatorricelli1413 I'd like to take this up to the next step. (Before doing that...In reading this over, the tone sounds a bit harsh to me, however, my intention is one of goodwill. I hope it will be received in that light). What we said works fine in a philosophical classroom, lab, exercise, or when fact checking imperfect humans in news reports, scholarly journals, and so forth...but when it comes to the words that Jesus Christ has spoken in the New Testament, about Himself, humanity, salvation, Heaven, Hell, God, the Kingdom of God, sin, Satan, repentance, resurrection, eternal life, being born again, and what is yet to come...there is a totally different approach to go by that Jesus, who says He is the Truth, gives us: "Do not be unbelieving, but believing." Or in a paraphrase "Don't doubt, do Believe." Or in a word, "Believe." Believe, why? Because Jesus said, "it is the work of God that you believe in the One He has sent." (Meaning Jesus). If it takes the work of GOD in order for us humans to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and King of Kings, who was crucified, died, and resurrected three days later, ascended into Heaven, who is now sitting at the right hand of God, and coming back to Earth one day (even after 2000 years have already past), then something more than "verify everything" is necessary. And that's where Faith, which is a priceless gift from God, comes in. Believe, first. Jesus told Thomas "You believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." "Believe." Because you can be sure that all of Jesus' words will be verified beyond doubt throughout the course of time, and especially in the fullness of time. (For instance, the Synoptic Gospels, after 1900 years or so, have been recognized by even non-Christian scholars and historians as the most reliable documents of the Ancient World. More reliable than documents giving us the histories of Alexander the Great and Socrates). "Verify everything" is the philosophy of humans, and is self-preserving and based on doubt, distrust, and suspicion. "Believe" is the philosophy of the Creator of philosophers, and is the basis of living forever with God because it is based on trust in Him. And if "Believe" is what Jesus enjoins us to do, it must be because God has given us enough evidence to be able to believe. And even though that it is enough evidence, it is often accompanied by new evidences that He gives as you walk in relationship with Him. Jesus says we must be like little children if we want to enter the Kingdom of God. That doesn't mean being gullible, it means not being so full of adult ego that everything must pass our standard (ie. verify everything) before our heart will be open to receiving something as true that is Truth. Some events, truths, claims are simply beyond our ability to explain, and that is where we can start to believe. God has already said He resists the proud. So the one who only always lives by "verify everything" cannot expect for God to appear before them simply because that's their mindset for accepting something as true or not. The king does not dance to the beggar's tune. However, we are given opportunity to have access to God when we meet Him on His terms, and it starts with "Believe." It must all sound foolish to those who don't yet believe. But God says He uses the foolish things to confound the wise. Meaning, those who think they are wise. Meaning, those who think their ways (ie. "verify everything") are wiser than God's ways (ie. "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe").
@@kv8443 I understand where you're coming from, and I partly agree with you, however we must consider one thing: anyone who ends up believing in the Gospel must have encountered Christ somehow. Now, let's say that I'm a non-believer, and I develop a friendship with a believer through whom I can learn about the Gospel. How am I to know that the wisdom contained in the Gospel is true if I don't test it firsthand? In my experience, testing the commandments and seeing how following them affected my life, as well as the lives of those who were already believers, was what convinced me of the validity of Christianity's teachings. Had I not done so, my faith would really be just blind fate in either the friend who first introduced me to Christianity, or the popularity of that religion. Because unless I develop an actual relationship with Christ, which is made up of my actions and His response, and not only of words printed in a book, I won't have faith in Him but only in those factors I cited. Now, after having tested a certain number of claims which require less time to give their fruits, I can then believe other claims which I can't test right away, because I know that so far the person who made those claims hasn't lied to me. For example, I won't know that waiting until marriage for intimacy with my partner will be the best way to conduct ourselves as a couple until we actually get married, but since I've seen that other commandments have worked well in my life I'm willing to wait due to my faith. Lastly, I wouldn't really consider "verify everything" an approach based on doubt, but merely on the fact that my knowledge as a human is limited, so I must let a claim play out and see its outcome before considering it reliable or otherwise. Overall though, I think we do agree on most things, we're just reaching the same conclusion from different points of view :)
More importantly, what lesson would you have the audience take away from your discussion on absolute truth in relation to the existence of the Christian God?
At least two for me. Firstly, there is only one true way to salvation. Religions with all their differences cannot all be true at the same time. Otherwise, your ways are true for you but not for me, and no conversations can be made. Once we have understood it, then we can have the first step to find the absolute truth. Secondly, our inability to understand or believe something doesn’t make it untrue. Disbelief in gravity doesn’t negate the effects of gravity. Nor does the disbelief that the earth is round.
During his early years as an apologist and speaker, he was really loud and this video is a part of that period. He may have been influenced this way by his military background. He was a naval flight officer in the u.s navy.
If a proposition is not proven true or false it is 1 of the 3 belief types and not true or false. Facts are properties of material objects. I showed the example of a tautologous truth that has no facts and is true independent of the facts. "It is raining out or it is not raining out" is true independent of whether it is raining out or not. It is not factual, it is logical. Realized solely by way of analysis, not contingent on any fact. Only empirical truths are contingent on facts.
He can insist forceably that all truth is absolute or that absolute truth exists. He can employ that it is a self-refuting claim that absolute truth doesn't exist. These are semantic games. "Truth" is demonstrably relative.
The lesson is that the postmodern/relativistic view is false. This doesn't prove the Christian God. It merely acknowledges that it could be true that the Christian God exists. In other words, absolute or objective truth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Christianity to be true. The book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" carries the argument further to the Christian God.
Frank again I would like to thank you for all the work you do. I say again because I have commented previously. .I do have an objection though; to be honest I feel it’s a fundamental aspect we as Christians should understand and that is faith. .My Objection stems from its often misuse..Fundamental in that it, or the result of it, according to scripture, alters the nature of a person's heart, their core being, to such an extent that they are new creations. .I have heard you argue that even a sociopath understands right and wrong but is unrestricted by that knowledge. I agree; I love bell curves, I suspect there are those in our society that exist/live on the other end of that curve, those that find it all but impossible to not be affected by empathy. This aspect of our nature seems to overcome intellect; and while most people feel knowledge changes reality for a person I say no; change has to come from a deeper place, some part of a man that if found in conflict with knowledge, this person will simply not even be able to except that truth. They will argue it away, they will justify, they will gather a support group of likeminded individuals, they will ultimately employ denial. . It is my contention that scripture describes humanity in this way, that it further proclaims salvation as being freed from this current state, by undergoing a change in the heart or core of the man by grace through faith. In stark contrast to all religions that offer change by works, which is why many including me would say that Christianity isn't a religion at all! Even though much that pretends to be Christianity is clearly works based religion. .So, to the question of believing which is an intellectual process or condition; I say that a great number of persons today have been debated into the position of intellectual assent, but they have not undergone a change of heart. William Lain Craige posted a letter on his website from just such a young philosopher that had seemingly perceived the dilemma that such a state had put him in. He possessed the knowledge of God, heaven, hell, and Yeshua as savor, yet at heart was still an Atheist, leaving him in a no man's land between. He starts the correspondence with "you ruined my life". .The definition of Faith found in a dictionary seems merely a different means by which we refer to intellectual apprehension or concord. Faith described in scripture, to the extent that gravity is described by Newton, its works, its source differs greatly. While belief is one of the normal outcomes of biblical faith; belief is not its cause or extent. Faith is the one thing scripture say we should contend for and I think to do so we first have to understand what according to scripture it actually is. .Romans 10:17 tells us where we get it; and please note that (word) in this text was translated from the Greek Rhema, which is a spoken word, rather than a written form which would have been logos. The best literal understanding of this would be that we have faith by hearing God speak. I find this is most often watered down; there should be no reason for it to be. We are told repeatedly that God speaks to His children, that they know His voice and follow. Faith more than believing is a certain fact, the difference between knowing about God and knowing God. .How strange would it be for anyone to ask "do you have faith that you had a mother"? .I and every Christian knows God personally because He speaks to His children. Yes there is scripture; "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" not for knowing God, and not salvation. He has often told me things I couldn’t have known from any other source. He has scolded me as a Father would a child. He has supported and encouraged me, not by scripture but personally, come along side and lifted me up. All this is promised in scripture and I say any person that knows God knows Him personally. Ephesians 2: 8-9 says salvation by grace through faith. God graciously saves all that respond to Him, to His calling. I think that many hear Him and ignore His voice too busy with chasing the dreams of wealth or power that are empty illusions. They ignore Him for fear of the cost of saying yes, they might think they are just a touch off sane or at least that people will see them as such; That was my first instinct lol. They ignore Him in a desire to make their own way, to present Him with a sacrifice of their own hands/works that they find pleasing but which He does not. Many might just think because they read the scripture and have accepted the logical truths found there that they have believed and confessed, been baptized and are on the right path. They know about Him but not Him, His sense of humor, His wisdom, His grace. .Called to worship how many picture a being sitting in a vast circle of other beings all bowing and scaping. How many understand it is Love you are saying yes to, to Truth, to Justice, to Wisdom, to Life, Worship is agreeing in your own heart that these are precious, this is treasure. God is Spirit; God is Love, Truth, Wisdom, Justice, Life, Power and more. To be in hell would be to find one's self in a place where God was not, a place without Love, or Truth, where there is no Justice but that of the gun which can be found, where every person was a Fool. To many think we live in a material world and in such a place none of these qualities can exist, they shake their fist at God and say how dare He threaten us with this hell, never realizing at all that He is simply giving them everything they have been demanding. .Words matter and Faith is an important one. Thx Frank.
He talked about doubting doubt. Doubt is an incredulity to an assertion. To deny doubt as a concept is to take any assertion on its face. Innocence of doubt is the only state in which one can be truly safe in their worldview. To deny doubt is to deny the ability to think critically. The weakness of doubt is a lack of firm knowledge, such as whether or not Christianity has any merit outside of mythology. You are not innocent. You will never be innocent again. You know doubt exists and you know that to forsake it is to forsake critical thought. To forsake doubt is to follow the snake oil salesmen. To forsake doubt is to lose your credibility. You are guilty of doubt. Embrace it, as the law of God is fucked.
Sorry for splitting hairs but you didn't ask if my claim was a "semantic game", you asked if it was a "semantic claim". We'd have to agree on exactly is meant by "relative" and "absolute" truths before going further. And I don't defend postmodern/relatvism. My criticism is that your argument builds from some false premises, (game playing). For instance: cold IS relative. When I walk into my 80 yr old mothers house, it is hot and the TV is too loud, imo. But not so for her.
Although I agree with almost everything that Frank says; except for the claim that "to know something is wrong, you must know what's right". That seems to be a logical fallacy. For example, if someone says "8653 x 498 = 3.7" I know that that is wrong, even though I haven't got the foggiest idea what the right answer is. If Frank, or anyone else, has a response to that, I'd really like to hear it, please.
@@nathanwalsh6300 Thanks for your reply. I suppose that that awareness comes from knowing the rules of the language. So, with my maths example, I may not have a clue as to the actual answer, but because I know the mathematical rule that multiplying two number larger than 1 will give a larger number, I can know that the answer of 3.7 must be wrong. Translating that into the realm of epistemology, my rational mind gives me the basic 'rules of the language', so I can know that something is wrong, even if I can't specify exactly what is right, like with the self-defeating statements Frank explores in the video.
@@CLAPGriffin Also just to make it clear you did verify we can know truth. For example, it is true that 3.7 is too low, therefore even if you don't know the exact number, you know it must be large Which means you know something about numbers.
@@nathanwalsh6300 Exactly - I can grasp something of the truth just by having the most fundamental grasp of the facts (the 'rules of the language', to use my earlier phrase). I may need to do more research or have greater instruction to determine the actual answer, but knowing that I have a wrong answer allows me to choose to persue the right one. Then, shifting to the moral/theological sphere, I may have a basic grasp of moral principles from my conscience, and a general sense of awe and wonder from creation at large. They can then spur me to research deeper and seek further instruction, which can lead to discovering the Truth. That makes sense; thank you 😀
(If you hit the reply button next to the comment you want to reply to, that person will be alerted by email you have responded. I just happened to ck back, that's how I found your comment to me).
I’d say all “truths” are subjective after all. Since this “truth” would not be true to some others who believe in “absolute truth” it won’t be a paradox after all. I’d say “truth” is an easily abused word and the word “facts” should be used instead to denote scientifically, mathematically, or historically provable things.
@@mateoaguilera7503 Actually, I’ve even gone past that. Now I don’t take “fact” for granted either, even though I go by the earlier definition I stated, because I don’t even assume scientific, mathematical, or historical proofs as absolute and invariant either. Nonetheless, even by my earlier criteria I did not exactly call the word “truth” as being absurd, just that it may be too vague and general, particularly because of its at least partly subjective property that makes testing validity difficult or downright impossible.
are you sure about that? BTW the all-knowing expert Wikipedia says "In evaluating world views, logicians do not concern themselves that the premises are correct or not, but whether the conclusions derive logically."...interesting....start with wrong premise end up with logically correct wrong conclusion (just how fast was that calf running when he ran into the back end of that cow asked the city boy to the farmer as farmer was delivering the calf)
too many jokes not enough discussion of course skeptics doubt their own methods. would be strange not to. it's also not a contradiction to say we can't know truth, because that statement is expressing a doubt in our ability to say perfectly true things. a better statement is that we generally can't expect to know the truth because we our language and thoughts are probably not up to the task.
![Why Moral Relativism Is Dangerous [And Disproves Itself!]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/vnxGWlciHI4/mqdefault.jpg)
Dear Frank I really like your logic on this subject. My teacher showed us this video in our philosophy class and our class loved it. Thank you for putting this video up
Your claim was: "These are semantic games. "Truth" is demonstrably relative."
My response is: "Is your claim a "semantic game?" Is your claim relative?" No, your are making an absolute truth claim in declaring that all truth is relative. That defeats itself.
Frank Turek This is a good point, but I think that I just can't be sure about anything. Maybe I can be sure, but then how do I know if I can trust my certainty? Maybe there are absolute truths, but how could I know? To everything I say, "Maybe, maybe not."
@@ohmbasa Well, one way I think to tell if something is true or not, is to be found in the words spoken by Jesus, where He says: " You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free." So, does it make you feel free? In other words, does it dispel the doubt, and do you feel that you've been completely disabused? There can be no formulaic acid test, or any scientific method for the answer, it's just simply something which one will inherently become aware of knowing; and knowing it with a certainty. I think that's the only real test. That's my criterion, at least, and the only one I can assert with any confidence. Peace
Clinton Wayne what I would say is that you can know truth by evidence and doing research. Just like frank mentioned gravity. How do we know gravity exists? Im sure scientists did their research and have the evidence on it. You know the sun is there because you can see it, seeing it would be your evidence in that situation. I know your comment was 2 years ago, but I hope you are doing good and staying safe out there. God bless you.
truth is what the facts are. if you can’t show it you don’t know it. like with gravity you can show that it exists by picking up an object and dropping it. with that you are demonstrating gravity even if you don’t understand why it works.
@@littleredpony6868 you are actually demonstrating an object's density and weight relative to the weight of the air, which is why helium floats and steam falls. The theory Gravity can not be imperically measured, and is only backed up by the theory of dark matter, which also can't be measured, viewed, or recreated in a lab. The earth has an electromagnetic field, if you can reverse an object's polarity, then it will move away from the ground. It's easier to prove that than gravity.
I am so glad God blessed Mr. Turek with the intellect and passion to be a great blessing to the world and I am very glad this man gets paid to do what he does, payment not only in this life but the next.
yah, this macho man is paid. well said
@@joeyfeliciano9199 🤦♂️
God also blessed Mr. Turek with being a good comedian...being able to make people laugh is a gift from God.
@@joeyfeliciano9199jealous?😂
That first line was ABSOLUTELY AWESOME! It is absolutely true for everybody that YOU ARE WARM RIGHT NOW!
Yahweh God has made knowing the truth unbelievably simple. You don't need to wrack your brain to reason out the truth. TRUTH is a person. His name is Jesus Christ. Jesus said in (Jn 14), “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." Follow Jesus and you'll have found the truth.
I feel like a philosophy graduate after watching this.
I KNOW THAT'S RIGHT, VINCENT! LOL
I should be able to like your comment like 10,000 times, Vincent!
Charlie it’s not a word game it’s applying logic for those claims. What part of what he says sounds unreasonable or illogical? He isn’t making the case necessarily at this point that Christianity without a doubt is true but more pointing out the logical inconsistencies of atheists. To go deeper of why he believes in Christianity you’d have to look at another video.
Charlie it’s not a word game it’s applying logic for those claims. What part of what he says sounds unreasonable or illogical? He isn’t making the case necessarily at this point that Christianity without a doubt is true but more pointing out the logical inconsistencies of claims usually made by atheists. To go deeper of why he believes in Christianity you’d have to look at another video.
Charlie he debates against atheism all the time so what do you mean?
Jesus said, "Ye shall knowu the truth and the truth shall set you free." John 8 : 32. So truth is knowable.
@Charlie With philosophical and historical accuracies to it
Charlie 😂 you smoking crack ?
Charlie I’ll pray the Lord opens your eyes.
Amen! Jesus has set me free. Ready to leave this evil world and celebrate with Him and all born again believers at the Wedding of all Weddings!
@@KJBTruth1611 stick to that path. We'll see you there
"our faith does not change whether God exists and if God and the Bible are true." -5:25
"'you ought not judge' - Then why are you judging me for judging?" -9:08
Amen!
Good work, Frank. We need a lot more people like you.
Dr. Turek is so great at simplifying complex topics and even making it entertaining
love it 👏
He is a blessing.
These debate tactics are amazing!
By the way, these "Self-defeating" statements are called *"Paradox"* in the realm of Science.
I just discovered about it a week ago.
Philosophy is such an awesome subject, I love it!
God bless Frank and his family.
The simplest title, best question for the most complicated subject of our reality. Faith is faith, that is why it is required.
That was awesome and funny, and I am so happy to see that. Thank you! God bless you.
I don't get the last one. The lie detector thing.
7:27 I tell them theyre correct.. Ecclesiastes 2
1
I thought in my heart, "Come now, I will test you with pleasure to find out what is good." But that also proved to be meaningless.
2
"Laughter," I said, "is foolish. And what does pleasure accomplish?"
3
I tried cheering myself with wine, and embracing folly--my mind still guiding me with wisdom. I wanted to see what was worthwhile for men to do under heaven during the few days of their lives.
4
I undertook great projects: I built houses for myself and planted vineyards.
5
I made gardens and parks and planted all kinds of fruit trees in them.
6
I made reservoirs to water groves of flourishing trees.
7
I bought male and female slaves and had other slaves who were born in my house. I also owned more herds and flocks than anyone in Jerusalem before me.
8
I amassed silver and gold for myself, and the treasure of kings and provinces. I acquired men and women singers, and a harem [1] as well--the delights of the heart of man.
9
I became greater by far than anyone in Jerusalem before me. In all this my wisdom stayed with me.
10
I denied myself nothing my eyes desired; I refused my heart no pleasure. My heart took delight in all my work, and this was the reward for all my labor.
11
Yet when I surveyed all that my hands had done and what I had toiled to achieve, everything was meaningless, a chasing after the wind; nothing was gained under the sun.
12
Then I turned my thoughts to consider wisdom, and also madness and folly. What more can the king's successor do than what has already been done?
13
I saw that wisdom is better than folly, just as light is better than darkness.
14
The wise man has eyes in his head, while the fool walks in the darkness; but I came to realize that the same fate overtakes them both.
15
Then I thought in my heart, "The fate of the fool will overtake me also. What then do I gain by being wise?" I said in my heart, "This too is meaningless."
16
For the wise man, like the fool, will not be long remembered; in days to come both will be forgotten. Like the fool, the wise man too must die!
17
So I hated life, because the work that is done under the sun was grievous to me. All of it is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
18
I hated all the things I had toiled for under the sun, because I must leave them to the one who comes after me.
19
And who knows whether he will be a wise man or a fool? Yet he will have control over all the work into which I have poured my effort and skill under the sun. This too is meaningless.
20
So my heart began to despair over all my toilsome labor under the sun.
21
For a man may do his work with wisdom, knowledge and skill, and then he must leave all he owns to someone who has not worked for it. This too is meaningless and a great misfortune.
22
What does a man get for all the toil and anxious striving with which he labors under the sun?
23
All his days his work is pain and grief; even at night his mind does not rest. This too is meaningless.
24
A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God,
25
for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment?
26
To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.
Enjoy your Lot
God bless Frank Turek
I love how Frank explains simple things, we are the ones who complicate things. Thanks Frank👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻❤️🙏🏻
The example that Frank provided at the beginning of the video (about the person who states that s/he feels "warm"), seems problematic.
For example, by what criterion could Frank ascertain whether his hypothetical person is telling the truth about "feeling warm"? In this case, the truth of the hypothetical person's statement doesn't seem to be absolute.
JPB
praise the Lord and God bless you
I actually had the same conversation with someone today who told me there is no absolute truth. It was quite fun, watching the person think about it for a while. They were nice and polite and kept asking questions though and I look forward to talking to the person again
I love to watch every cross examine video because it so helpful to me.
doubt your doubt. I love you.
I like the start of the video being a fellow Alaskan
Great video! Thank you so much.
Let's not forget one of best quotes from Pontius Pilate "What is truth?" John 18:38
Honestly, truth is subjective; facts are objective. Yes, I love philosophy. There are many different "lenses" in which we interpret history.
Good stuff, I love the logic. Thanks for posting your stuff for free!
Do you want to know the truth? Theirs a reason people preach the lie.
“But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.” ~ Daniel 10:21 (KJV)
John 16:7-13 Nevertheless I tell you the truth. It is to your advantage that I go away; for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you; but if I depart, I will send Him to you. And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: of sin, because they do not believe in Me; of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come.
Daniel 8:12-14 Because of transgression, an army was given over to the horn to oppose the daily sacrifices; and he cast truth down to the ground. He did all this and prospered. Then I heard a holy one speaking; and another holy one said to that certain one who was speaking, “How long will the vision be, concerning the daily sacrifices and the transgression of desolation, the giving of both the sanctuary and the host to be trampled underfoot?” And he said to me, “For two thousand three hundred days; then the sanctuary shall be cleansed.”
Rev 19:11-15 Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses. Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
Keep 👍sharing God's truths!
You will know the truth and the truth will set you free
Arguments don’t collapse if you keep moving the goal posts
Thanks TheEdge012! Appreciate you putting the video up.
I don't get the last one. The lie detector thing.
@@theobserver3753 It means you can't point out a contradiction of someone else if you're contradicting yourself first.
@@theobserver3753 most (if not all) of the objections are contractions.
We can look at it like social truths and relative trusts that stops the division
Hi Owheydusoapsk,
Is the claim "these are semantic claims" just a semantic claim?
Since you think the bible has errors than what is your final authority ?
KingJames BibleBeliever 99.8% of those errors are spelling errors, for our manuscripts are handwritten copies. (That percentage is from Dan Wallace, who is widely considered the world best living Greek exegete)
Very valuable 10 minutes video. Really opens up my mind.
You have many questions as I did. You can ask God for the truth and seek it. You will find it. :) God bless you!
This laugh track is stellar😂
I am agnostic and a big logic/philosophy guy. I watched this whole thing and I agree, the truth is knowable. Great oxymoronic title too.
If the Truth of God could be known outside of a revelation, we would all know the truth. Blind followers of the Word have not known the Truth but follow by sight like in the OT. God reveals Himself were He sees faith in a person, that has arisen from "hearing" His Word! Thank God for Jesus Christ
Sure, we can doubt everything and doubt our doubts themselves as well. After all the doubts the only certain thing would be “I have an existence at least on the moments I have sentience, that is, feel and think, be it as a simulation or whatever.” Save for that constant, and the very act of skepticism itself which would create an infinite loop when skepticism is applied to, I’d say everything can still be subject to doubt. For me the fact that I exist in some form may be true but it really depends on the definition of “exist” and “true” and also an outsider has total validity to doubt my claim.
Frank...I had seen some of your stuff before on Randall Niles channel. Glad to see you have a channel now. I will be checking out anything and everything of yours I can get my hands on and likely put this video on my main page. Keep up the good work!
Wow this man just blew my brain at 7:54
praise the only true living LORD and GOD bless you all glory be to the HOLY TRINITY forever and ever amen 💖✝✝✝...
I am currently exploring faith in the Christian community. I have been trying to ask many questions a lot so I can understand Christianity better, not to belittle anyone but because I am searching for truth myself…as I spent most of my life as agnostic. I wanted to say these are compelling arguments. I think the part that lost me is this:
I feel trying to reply with something quick and “witty” like “is that true?” Is not a great answer in its entirety, because when I argued before the question of “no one can know the truth” it’s not that I am saying truth as a concept isn’t real but to know THE truth of God and what he wants from us. When I have said no one can know the truth, I mean the truth of our origins and purpose. I want to seek the truth but how can I find it?
I want to offer perspective from the side of someone who struggles with belief so you can understand what we (I can’t speak for all of course) really mean by such statements. I mean no disrespect I just have been feeling frustrated in this area as I am trying to find my faith.
“Is that true” is more a tactic to make a person realize that saying “truth is subjective” is a self defeating statement. It’s a three word wake up call.
Btw if you’d like to ask some questions or talk about some things I’m completely open to that. It’s always great seeing people who genuinely want to know things rather than use other people as ideological target practice.
@@skippy675it seems like you’re treating God’s truth like other people’s opinion. That’s a dangerous ground to stand on.
God is not subjectively all-powerful.
God is not subjectively all-knowing.
God is not subjectively the Creator.
Jesus did not subjectively die for us, and He certainly did not subjectively rise from the dead.
If I have a friend sacrificed for me whatever he had, I’d be willing to at least listen to what they want from me. Not to mention an all-powerful, all-knowing Creator who died for me. Did I mention He rose from the dead?
@@skippy675 I don’t know if you’re being sarcastic or you missed my point. I’ll pretend it’s the latter.
It’s like a programmer that just designed and built his program said, “You’ll assist me in doing my daily things.” And the program would say, “Screw you. That’s just your opinion. It’s only true for you but not for me. Nah, I’ll do my own thing.” That program would be scrapped and destroyed if it behaved that way.
We and God are not on par in any ways. Be wary of arrogance.
P.S.: It is a BIG claim to say that either God has FEARS or FAILED on certain things. Please explain.
If you say none can know the truth you’re saying g that truth isn’t knowable, and so how did you come to the conclusion that truth isn’t knowable unless defeating your claim knowing a truth ?
The relevant question is not whether truth is knowable, but whether what you know to be true is actually true. If it is, then what some other people know to be true is not. How do you know that you are not actually one of those other people?
This analysis (from Frank) is a little sophomoric, though with some value. Whether or not "truth" is "absolute" can be hard to say. A coherent, universal definition of "truth" is hard to come by. A better way to think about this is that ideas, statements, and propositions are _contextualized_ - they apply with utility under certain circumstances, and not others. And they apply with relative degrees of certainty. What's trash in one circumstance can be treasure in another. This is where the idea of relativism comes in - circumstances change what people conceptualize as "true" because truth is closely tied to _meaning_ and _meaning_ is relative. Context, therefore, is everything for _comprehending_ *anything* .
What's more important is to realize that _language_ - which is _inherently_ ambiguous - obscures the ability to coherently _discuss_ "absolute" truth in any meaningful way. Because our human psychology is *so* closely tied to our language, and the processes that govern language, it's virtually impossible to express any "true" statement without a degree of inherent _ambiguity_ - which leaves us between a rock and a hard place. We can conceptualize many things that we might _feel_ certain about and which we might even _agree_ to call "true," but we cannot _talk_ about them without _some_ degree of ambiguity, even if the ambiguity is vanishingly small. What is the implication? The implication is that if we are honest with ourselves, we can never make a _statement_ of "absolute truth" because ambiguity will always arise. Any attempt at further clarifying the statement will just result in other statements that are, being a part of language, themselves ambiguous again. You will thus be caught in an infinite regress of attempts to clarify your meaning.
And the most interesting thing about this is that if you examine even how you justify conclusions to your own self (in your own internal monologue when you reason through something) you are even limited in this way when expressing ideas _to yourself_ - thus the problem comes full circle: if we can't even express a statement of "absolute truth" to ourselves - a statement without some ambiguity - what, then, are we to make of the _very_ concept of "absolute truth" itself? It becomes something _less_ than an actualized object, and is reduced to something _more like_ a goal, a path, or a process, and not some specific point of data or conclusion. This should give us hope that there is always work to be done in _communicating_ our ideas to one another, clarifying and refining our ideas further. Rather than be a source of continuing frustration because you can't "finally get at the truth" one should excitedly be ready to further explore ideas and paradigms and conquer the infinite challenges communication and information limitations present to us. It makes life meaningful and always with something further to achieve or aim for.
Clearly put. Insightful. I give it an A.
This can't be more relevant then today..
For sure its knowable. Fully.
What lots of people (even pastors) don't (yet) understand.
God created us according to His own image and likeness. Godly.
Mankind/the first Adam fell. The image of God in man got lost. That's why there is all this predicament on earth (selfishness, greed, lust, wars, sicknesses, death, etc).
We are all born into that mess.
For the fall of man a perfect atoning sacrifice had to be made.... that is what God did in Christ.
With His own once and for all perefect sacrifice, He paid the debt for the fall of man for us, so we can be indwelled by His Spirit again and finally receive the divine life of the ages back, the first Adam let got of in the fall of man. An amazing act of grace and love by our creator.
That is what you see happening in Christ's first disciples. They too healed all and walked in unselfish love.
And yes.... that is still avaible today. The holy blood is in place, the Holy Spirit is here to give us understanding, power and transform us back to origin.
Not to be debated about, but to be embraced and be-come.
So: The Kingdom of God already came. Through Christ, in Spiritform, in those that understand.
Hence the divine healing miracles we experience.
God manifested in Christ to give us back the divine life mankind lost in the fall of Adam.
Christ, the exact image of the invisible God.
The image we were created after in Gen 1.
The image we lost in the fall of man.
The image that can be freely restored by Christ's blood and Holy Spirit working IN us.
What a plan. What a solution. What a love. What a God. Jesus is amazing.
It is the ultimate conclusion of the word and plan of God. God came full circle.
He Himself stooped down from glory to restore us back to original created value: Christlikeness. Walking in divine healing power and unselfish love.
Jesus, born of the Spirit of God, filled with the spirit of God. The "Son" of God, the incarnated word, God in the flesh.
For three years He healed all, raised the dead, casted out demons, controlled nature, spoke pure divine truth.
He said:
"Follow Me. If you see Me, you see the Father. The Father and I are one. The glory I have IN My Father, I give to you. It pleases the Father to give you His Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature. I will send Holy Spirit, the same as Me, He will be IN you, guide you into truth and give you explosive power. The same miracles i do, you will do too, because you will understand that the Father is IN Me and I am IN you. Freely I give you My Kingdom/Holy Spirit/divine nature, heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, freely I give, freely share" Etc, etc, etc.
I have experienced thousands of beautifull healing miracles through the power of Holy Spirit IN me already. Broken bones, cancers, covid, all kinds of infirmities healed in seconds. Demons manifesting and casted out by a simple "get out, in Jesus name".
Jesus. De name above all names. In Him all power and wisdom is sourced and.... He calls us one with Him. God in man and man in God again. C'mon Jesus!!
So.... again: God stooped down IN Christ to restore us back to Gen 1:27 were He said: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness and let them have authority.....": walk as Christ.
Christ, the exact image of the invisible God. The image we were created after and being restored to by His atoning blood for the fall of man and indwelling Holy Spirit.
You are free to receive this original divine life of the ages by Holy Spirit of Christ/God. Ask Him to guide you into truth. Read the Gospel of John and fall in love with your creator.
You are not made for the fall of man and its effects, but for the image/glory of God and to walk like Christ. Holy Spirit is the guide and transforming power that will get you there. Amazing grace.
A big leap in faith can be made when we start realizing we are already IN Christ, IN the last Adam.
Free from the fall! Loved! Growing into awareness of our new (yet old) godly identity. Changing by Holy Spirit. The most fullfilled life ever.
Paul healed all on Malta. He understood and wrote:
"As in the first Adam ALL died (lost the divine nature), so also ALL were made alive IN Christ to walk in Zoë (= divine life) again".
"IN Christ (the last Adam) we are co-cruisified (dead to the fall and its effects), co-raised (justified/made righteousness, holy, blameless, above reproach), co-seated (one with Him)"
"The fullness of deity dwells in Christ and YOU HAVE BEEN MADE COMPLETE IN HIM, who is the head of every principality and power".
So.... thank you Jesus! Thank you for redeeming me from the fall of man. Thank you for your Holy Spirit that makes this new (yet old) divine life come alive in me. You are amazing!
In the shadow of Peter the sick healed... He understood too and wrote:
"By Gods power (Holy Spirit) and knowing Christ, we have become partakers of the divine nature and have escaped the fall of man".
The divine life of the ages has been returned to us by Jesus once and for all perfect atoning sacrifice for the debt of the fall of man and His indwelling Holy Spirit in us. Jesus/God is amazing!!!
Ask Him to give you revelation and change you to the way it was before the fall of man: Christlikeness.
He will do so. For it is written: "the Spirit brings forth after His own kind".
"I have come to give you Zoë (divine life) in abundance...."
😂😂😂😂😂😂♥️ That's so true.... Thank you so much..... I really love your debates thank you lots of love from Genova.....
That's a great realization about faith.
Is faith that your car will start Get you to where you need to go ?
Fact: First exercising a constant prayer life in Jesus & seeking Jesus like a daily habit you can't break, will cause your faith to become a reality faster than anything else you've tried.
MAN LIKE FRANK✝️
We show love, kindness etc exist via tautologous truths. We show material things exist via empirical truths.
In commenting on a video where an atheist objects to the ontological argument I quoted him and asked: If "absolute truths do not exist" should I accept that as true absolutely? If not, then are you saying that since absolute truths do NOT exist there is at least the possibility that absolute truths DO exist?
His response was: What part of "absolute truth does not exist" do you not understand? It is a TRUE proposition that absolute truth does not exist, but it is not ABSOLUTELY true. Do you see the distinction?
There is no absolute truth. Seems like a contradictory statement doesn’t it. What it really means is that the idea of a truth is itself just a bunch of thoughts inside a human mind. Not only is there no such thing as absolute truth, there is no such thing as absolute wrong. Its all just concepts inside a mind (this whole comment is just a bunch of symbols, only being recognized by a mind, these symbols don’t mean anything outside of these minds/there is no interpretation). The human logic you would use to dismantle the first statement^ is itself just another limited/relative perspective of the world. Our logic barely holds in the gross world, it is completely destroyed by physics when studying the smaller parts of our world. Our logic is great for survival and living life, for so called “truth”? Not so much.
In simpler terms, there are a million and 1 perspectives and none of them are true. Even what I just said is a perspective.
Very mind-bending but its an infinite loop of concepts you can never escape, so just see it for what it is. Limited, vague, non-existent concepts.
You got me. It's simply my opinion.
According to you, you cannot judge me. Thus, you cannot judge me.
FRANK I LIVE IN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA - WHEN IS YOUR NEXT DEBATE/EVENT TAKING PLACE OUT HERE? WE NEED YOU
To God be the glory.
Truth is objective reality.
It is so entertaining to watch college students question people like Frank Turek. They all (mostly) grossly over estimate their own intelligence and their understanding of their own claims and arguments.
There can only be one truth as Jesus said- for you shall know the truth for it shall set you free...
He took the simple phase "it's true for you and not for me" and bastardized it. He took the context of the phrase and took it to a literal level.
Darren Bailot Because the phrase is nonsense. Stop trying to make it legitimate.
Darren, in what context would that be a true statement? As Frank described, it is a self-defeating statement. The only way that statement would be true is to change the definition of truth. And if you try to do that it isn't true anymore.
If a truth is proven, and all are, then the truth is relative to the proof. ie: no truth can be absolute, because all truths require proof.
We prove what does not exist by showing a logical contradiction. The subject of the contradiction cannot exist.
A contradiction is expressed as "P and not P, at the same time". The subject of P, cannot exist.
eg: the ball that is on fire and is not on fire at the same time, cannot exist. There is no such ball.
We do this for the proposed Christian, Islamic or Jewish gods very easily. Saying those proposed beings exist is false, not a belief. A belief must be possibly true.
If there is no truth then everyone is a liar.
if there's no truth then you can't lie because lie presupposes truth, and you can't lie unless there's truth.
"X" = "The set of all distinct things". Every logical existent being must be contained within this set, else if any being were outside this set, then that being outside set "X" would be distinctly "Outside" of set "X". This would be contradictory because anything outside set "X" cannot be distinct. If some being were partially contained within set "X" and partially not contained, then that aspect of which is distinctly outside the set would also incur contradiction against the definition of the set. The alternative is that some being is outside the set "X", but is not distinct. Which is the same as saying that it is not different from "Being contained with set X", and thus is the same as "Being contained within set "X". Thus leading to contradiction again.
"Y" = "The category of all beings of which are not contained within some at least some single category".
If some being state is contained within category "Y", then contradiction occurs against the definition of the category, because any and all being contained within that category is contained within "Y", which itself is "At least some single category", which disqualifies anything from being consistently contained within the category "Y". Therefore, "Y" is empty. Therefore, any and all being is contained within at least some single universal category.
Therefore, insofar as being is logical, then that being is an instantiation of "Distinct being". Therefore, if logic is universally true, then at least one universal absolute truth exists, particularly that all being is necessarily and universally "Distinct" from some other being state. Even the summed set of everything(Not anything, but "Everything") is distinct from it's sub-components. "C" = ("A", "B"), Where "C" = Totality of existence, and "A" and "B" are approximately distinct sub-components. "C" =/= "B" and "C" =/= "A", else "B" would be equal to "A"(But they are by definition distinct), thus the whole is not identical to each individual part by themselves only.
Jesus is true as gravity, and truer
lol
"tautalogous truths use logic solely to be resolved". Is it possible to be logically correct but arrive at the wrong conclusion if you start with the wrong premise?
syntex2902 an argument can be rationally valid if you have evidence that the premise is true but that does not make it sound. I'm pretty sure an argument is sound if the premise is true and something is true if there is a preponderance of evidence. The agent is rational as long as he or she is willing to change their beliefs when new, conflicting information is found. I think that's how it works.
2 TIMOTHY 2:23-26
23 Further, turn down foolish and ignorant questionings, knowing they produce fights.
24 But a slave of the Lord* does not need to fight, but needs to be gentle* toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil,
25 instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed; as perhaps God may give them repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of truth,
26 and they may come back to their proper senses out from the snare of the Devil, seeing that they have been caught alive by him for the will of that one.
Here is an example of a relative truth.
You and another person are watching two people having a catch. You stand on one side watching, while the other person stands on the opposing side. You say the ball is going left to right. The other individual says the ball is travelling from right to left. Who is correct? It is up to perspective, proving truths are relative.
We got a word for that, perspective. If we apply this relative truth to mirages, we'll have to accept that the reflection of sky is actually a body of water.
Yes, perspective, but if there is but one truth, whose perspective is the “truth”? Truth is relative outside the inventions of man, such as mathematics and labeling of objects/entities. Can men have babies? But, before such a question can be raised, a definition must be applied to a word. It is a tricky game unless an absolute such as god exists. A creator is needed for truth to exist. Otherwise, all is opinion.
I know this video is super old, but still.
I don't feel like the claim "you should doubt everything" is a bad claim, or if it is then I've interpreted it wrong. What it seems to mean, to me, is that you shouldn't give anything for granted, and you should verify the validity of every claim that's possible to verify.
It seems to me very much in line with what Mr. Turek is doing here, which is dig a bit into Christianity and try to verify its validity.
"Verify the validity of every claim," as you said, is way more constructive and helpful than "doubt everything."
The latter defeats itself, because if it is to be taken seriously then we must doubt douting everything.
Your phrase at the very least isn't self-defeating, and still accomplishes its aim.
@@kv8443 well thank you haha. I guess we just mean different things by "doubt", but yeah I do agree that "verify your claim" is a more precise phrase to express what I meant, and also a better strategy in and of itself.
@@morganatorricelli1413 I'd like to take this up to the next step.
(Before doing that...In reading this over, the tone sounds a bit harsh to me, however, my intention is one of goodwill. I hope it will be received in that light).
What we said works fine in a philosophical classroom, lab, exercise, or when fact checking imperfect humans in news reports, scholarly journals, and so forth...but when it comes to the words that Jesus Christ has spoken in the New Testament, about Himself, humanity, salvation, Heaven, Hell, God, the Kingdom of God, sin, Satan, repentance, resurrection, eternal life, being born again, and what is yet to come...there is a totally different approach to go by that Jesus, who says He is the Truth, gives us: "Do not be unbelieving, but believing." Or in a paraphrase "Don't doubt, do Believe." Or in a word, "Believe."
Believe, why? Because Jesus said, "it is the work of God that you believe in the One He has sent." (Meaning Jesus). If it takes the work of GOD in order for us humans to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God and King of Kings, who was crucified, died, and resurrected three days later, ascended into Heaven, who is now sitting at the right hand of God, and coming back to Earth one day (even after 2000 years have already past), then something more than "verify everything" is necessary. And that's where Faith, which is a priceless gift from God, comes in. Believe, first. Jesus told Thomas "You believe because you have seen. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."
"Believe." Because you can be sure that all of Jesus' words will be verified beyond doubt throughout the course of time, and especially in the fullness of time. (For instance, the Synoptic Gospels, after 1900 years or so, have been recognized by even non-Christian scholars and historians as the most reliable documents of the Ancient World. More reliable than documents giving us the histories of Alexander the Great and Socrates).
"Verify everything" is the philosophy of humans, and is self-preserving and based on doubt, distrust, and suspicion. "Believe" is the philosophy of the Creator of philosophers, and is the basis of living forever with God because it is based on trust in Him. And if "Believe" is what Jesus enjoins us to do, it must be because God has given us enough evidence to be able to believe.
And even though that it is enough evidence, it is often accompanied by new evidences that He gives as you walk in relationship with Him.
Jesus says we must be like little children if we want to enter the Kingdom of God. That doesn't mean being gullible, it means not being so full of adult ego that everything must pass our standard (ie. verify everything) before our heart will be open to receiving something as true that is Truth. Some events, truths, claims are simply beyond our ability to explain, and that is where we can start to believe. God has already said He resists the proud. So the one who only always lives by "verify everything" cannot expect for God to appear before them simply because that's their mindset for accepting something as true or not. The king does not dance to the beggar's tune.
However, we are given opportunity to have access to God when we meet Him on His terms, and it starts with "Believe." It must all sound foolish to those who don't yet believe. But God says He uses the foolish things to confound the wise. Meaning, those who think they are wise. Meaning, those who think their ways (ie. "verify everything") are wiser than God's ways (ie. "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe").
@@kv8443 I understand where you're coming from, and I partly agree with you, however we must consider one thing: anyone who ends up believing in the Gospel must have encountered Christ somehow. Now, let's say that I'm a non-believer, and I develop a friendship with a believer through whom I can learn about the Gospel. How am I to know that the wisdom contained in the Gospel is true if I don't test it firsthand?
In my experience, testing the commandments and seeing how following them affected my life, as well as the lives of those who were already believers, was what convinced me of the validity of Christianity's teachings. Had I not done so, my faith would really be just blind fate in either the friend who first introduced me to Christianity, or the popularity of that religion. Because unless I develop an actual relationship with Christ, which is made up of my actions and His response, and not only of words printed in a book, I won't have faith in Him but only in those factors I cited.
Now, after having tested a certain number of claims which require less time to give their fruits, I can then believe other claims which I can't test right away, because I know that so far the person who made those claims hasn't lied to me. For example, I won't know that waiting until marriage for intimacy with my partner will be the best way to conduct ourselves as a couple until we actually get married, but since I've seen that other commandments have worked well in my life I'm willing to wait due to my faith.
Lastly, I wouldn't really consider "verify everything" an approach based on doubt, but merely on the fact that my knowledge as a human is limited, so I must let a claim play out and see its outcome before considering it reliable or otherwise.
Overall though, I think we do agree on most things, we're just reaching the same conclusion from different points of view :)
Frank Turek/CrossExamined :
Is it knowladgeable to be truthable?
More importantly, what lesson would you have the audience take away from your discussion on absolute truth in relation to the existence of the Christian God?
At least two for me.
Firstly, there is only one true way to salvation. Religions with all their differences cannot all be true at the same time. Otherwise, your ways are true for you but not for me, and no conversations can be made. Once we have understood it, then we can have the first step to find the absolute truth.
Secondly, our inability to understand or believe something doesn’t make it untrue. Disbelief in gravity doesn’t negate the effects of gravity. Nor does the disbelief that the earth is round.
Good content, but why is Frank speaking so loudly when he has a mic?
Maybe there's a lot of old folks in the audience. 😁
He’s passionate. Apparently you don’t know much about it lol watch and learn.
During his early years as an apologist and speaker, he was really loud and this video is a part of that period. He may have been influenced this way by his military background. He was a naval flight officer in the u.s navy.
If a proposition is not proven true or false it is 1 of the 3 belief types and not true or false.
Facts are properties of material objects. I showed the example of a tautologous truth that has no facts and is true independent of the facts. "It is raining out or it is not raining out" is true independent of whether it is raining out or not. It is not factual, it is logical. Realized solely by way of analysis, not contingent on any fact. Only empirical truths are contingent on facts.
Christianity and truth and love wins!
I love this 😀 ❤
Strikes me as a very honest answer, thank you. Did I hear you debate Richard Carrier?
then why kind of explanation can you give for the existence of love, kindness, and altruism?
yes 2+2=4. is there ever a time or place when that is not a truth?
Is that statement true?
In the quantum world, that statement might not always be true.
He can insist forceably that all truth is absolute or that absolute truth exists. He can employ that it is a self-refuting claim that absolute truth doesn't exist. These are semantic games. "Truth" is demonstrably relative.
“I am” appeared in the Bible before Descartes said anything about it.
There is only one truth, getting there is the hard part.
Can i get the full sermon ??
I don't get the last one. The lie detector thing.
@@theobserver3753 me neither. Can someone help please 😢
Im changing my major to philosophy
Using truth to ask the question lol... truth is awesome. It represents itself.
The lesson is that the postmodern/relativistic view is false. This doesn't prove the Christian God. It merely acknowledges that it could be true that the Christian God exists. In other words, absolute or objective truth is a necessary but not sufficient condition for Christianity to be true. The book "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" carries the argument further to the Christian God.
Full vide?
I’m Safe With God I Love God And Jesus Amen
Frank again I would like to thank you for all the work you do. I say again because I have commented previously. .I do have an objection though; to be honest I feel it’s a fundamental aspect we as Christians should understand and that is faith. .My Objection stems from its often misuse..Fundamental in that it, or the result of it, according to scripture, alters the nature of a person's heart, their core being, to such an extent that they are new creations. .I have heard you argue that even a sociopath understands right and wrong but is unrestricted by that knowledge. I agree; I love bell curves, I suspect there are those in our society that exist/live on the other end of that curve, those that find it all but impossible to not be affected by empathy. This aspect of our nature seems to overcome intellect; and while most people feel knowledge changes reality for a person I say no; change has to come from a deeper place, some part of a man that if found in conflict with knowledge, this person will simply not even be able to except that truth. They will argue it away, they will justify, they will gather a support group of likeminded individuals, they will ultimately employ denial. . It is my contention that scripture describes humanity in this way, that it further proclaims salvation as being freed from this current state, by undergoing a change in the heart or core of the man by grace through faith. In stark contrast to all religions that offer change by works, which is why many including me would say that Christianity isn't a religion at all! Even though much that pretends to be Christianity is clearly works based religion. .So, to the question of believing which is an intellectual process or condition; I say that a great number of persons today have been debated into the position of intellectual assent, but they have not undergone a change of heart. William Lain Craige posted a letter on his website from just such a young philosopher that had seemingly perceived the dilemma that such a state had put him in. He possessed the knowledge of God, heaven, hell, and Yeshua as savor, yet at heart was still an Atheist, leaving him in a no man's land between. He starts the correspondence with "you ruined my life". .The definition of Faith found in a dictionary seems merely a different means by which we refer to intellectual apprehension or concord. Faith described in scripture, to the extent that gravity is described by Newton, its works, its source differs greatly. While belief is one of the normal outcomes of biblical faith; belief is not its cause or extent. Faith is the one thing scripture say we should contend for and I think to do so we first have to understand what according to scripture it actually is. .Romans 10:17 tells us where we get it; and please note that (word) in this text was translated from the Greek Rhema, which is a spoken word, rather than a written form which would have been logos. The best literal understanding of this would be that we have faith by hearing God speak. I find this is most often watered down; there should be no reason for it to be. We are told repeatedly that God speaks to His children, that they know His voice and follow. Faith more than believing is a certain fact, the difference between knowing about God and knowing God. .How strange would it be for anyone to ask "do you have faith that you had a mother"? .I and every Christian knows God personally because He speaks to His children. Yes there is scripture; "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" not for knowing God, and not salvation. He has often told me things I couldn’t have known from any other source. He has scolded me as a Father would a child. He has supported and encouraged me, not by scripture but personally, come along side and lifted me up. All this is promised in scripture and I say any person that knows God knows Him personally. Ephesians 2: 8-9 says salvation by grace through faith. God graciously saves all that respond to Him, to His calling. I think that many hear Him and ignore His voice too busy with chasing the dreams of wealth or power that are empty illusions. They ignore Him for fear of the cost of saying yes, they might think they are just a touch off sane or at least that people will see them as such; That was my first instinct lol. They ignore Him in a desire to make their own way, to present Him with a sacrifice of their own hands/works that they find pleasing but which He does not. Many might just think because they read the scripture and have accepted the logical truths found there that they have believed and confessed, been baptized and are on the right path. They know about Him but not Him, His sense of humor, His wisdom, His grace. .Called to worship how many picture a being sitting in a vast circle of other beings all bowing and scaping. How many understand it is Love you are saying yes to, to Truth, to Justice, to Wisdom, to Life, Worship is agreeing in your own heart that these are precious, this is treasure. God is Spirit; God is Love, Truth, Wisdom, Justice, Life, Power and more. To be in hell would be to find one's self in a place where God was not, a place without Love, or Truth, where there is no Justice but that of the gun which can be found, where every person was a Fool. To many think we live in a material world and in such a place none of these qualities can exist, they shake their fist at God and say how dare He threaten us with this hell, never realizing at all that He is simply giving them everything they have been demanding. .Words matter and Faith is an important one. Thx Frank.
I love this mr. Turek I am working on mastering all these tactics and defending the faith as good as you
"Why don't skeptics doubt their doubts?"
Where can i find the full version of it?
He talked about doubting doubt.
Doubt is an incredulity to an assertion. To deny doubt as a concept is to take any assertion on its face.
Innocence of doubt is the only state in which one can be truly safe in their worldview. To deny doubt is to deny the ability to think critically. The weakness of doubt is a lack of firm knowledge, such as whether or not Christianity has any merit outside of mythology.
You are not innocent. You will never be innocent again. You know doubt exists and you know that to forsake it is to forsake critical thought. To forsake doubt is to follow the snake oil salesmen. To forsake doubt is to lose your credibility.
You are guilty of doubt. Embrace it, as the law of God is fucked.
Sorry for splitting hairs but you didn't ask if my claim was a "semantic game", you asked if it was a "semantic claim". We'd have to agree on exactly is meant by "relative" and "absolute" truths before going further. And I don't defend postmodern/relatvism. My criticism is that your argument builds from some false premises, (game playing). For instance: cold IS relative. When I walk into my 80 yr old mothers house, it is hot and the TV is too loud, imo. But not so for her.
Although I agree with almost everything that Frank says; except for the claim that "to know something is wrong, you must know what's right". That seems to be a logical fallacy. For example, if someone says "8653 x 498 = 3.7" I know that that is wrong, even though I haven't got the foggiest idea what the right answer is.
If Frank, or anyone else, has a response to that, I'd really like to hear it, please.
I would say that is partially true, but you must have some preconceived idea as to what is right in order to even justify that something is wrong.
@@nathanwalsh6300 Thanks for your reply. I suppose that that awareness comes from knowing the rules of the language. So, with my maths example, I may not have a clue as to the actual answer, but because I know the mathematical rule that multiplying two number larger than 1 will give a larger number, I can know that the answer of 3.7 must be wrong.
Translating that into the realm of epistemology, my rational mind gives me the basic 'rules of the language', so I can know that something is wrong, even if I can't specify exactly what is right, like with the self-defeating statements Frank explores in the video.
@@CLAPGriffin Are you Christian? Just wondering out of curiosity.
@@CLAPGriffin Also just to make it clear you did verify we can know truth. For example, it is true that 3.7 is too low, therefore even if you don't know the exact number, you know it must be large
Which means you know something about numbers.
@@nathanwalsh6300 Exactly - I can grasp something of the truth just by having the most fundamental grasp of the facts (the 'rules of the language', to use my earlier phrase). I may need to do more research or have greater instruction to determine the actual answer, but knowing that I have a wrong answer allows me to choose to persue the right one.
Then, shifting to the moral/theological sphere, I may have a basic grasp of moral principles from my conscience, and a general sense of awe and wonder from creation at large. They can then spur me to research deeper and seek further instruction, which can lead to discovering the Truth.
That makes sense; thank you 😀
There is more than one core meaning to 'meaning', though. The meaning of language is not the same meaning as the meaning of life.
(If you hit the reply button next to the comment you want to reply to, that person will be alerted by email you have responded. I just happened to ck back, that's how I found your comment to me).
I’d say all “truths” are subjective after all. Since this “truth” would not be true to some others who believe in “absolute truth” it won’t be a paradox after all. I’d say “truth” is an easily abused word and the word “facts” should be used instead to denote scientifically, mathematically, or historically provable things.
Is it a fact that the word “truth” is an absurd word? Can we test that fact ?
@@mateoaguilera7503 Actually, I’ve even gone past that. Now I don’t take “fact” for granted either, even though I go by the earlier definition I stated, because I don’t even assume scientific, mathematical, or historical proofs as absolute and invariant either. Nonetheless, even by my earlier criteria I did not exactly call the word “truth” as being absurd, just that it may be too vague and general, particularly because of its at least partly subjective property that makes testing validity difficult or downright impossible.
are you sure about that? BTW the all-knowing expert Wikipedia says "In evaluating world views, logicians do not concern themselves that the premises are correct or not, but whether the conclusions derive logically."...interesting....start with wrong premise end up with logically correct wrong conclusion (just how fast was that calf running when he ran into the back end of that cow asked the city boy to the farmer as farmer was delivering the calf)
too many jokes not enough discussion
of course skeptics doubt their own methods. would be strange not to.
it's also not a contradiction to say we can't know truth, because that statement is expressing a doubt in our ability to say perfectly true things. a better statement is that we generally can't expect to know the truth because we our language and thoughts are probably not up to the task.
All truth is absolute?
How do you know?
what if its worded as a question not a statement? for example:
"All truth is absolute truth."
"How do you know? / Prove it."
THe reply should be is that an absolute truth
Then you proceed and give examples of so called relative truths and you show they're actually absolute