Why are these videos not being watched? This is the best Christian channel I've seen, yet hardly any views. Such amazing content for those who defend their Christian faith.
I don't see why anyone would characterize doubt as a bad thing. Doubt is the reason why we have good methodology in different knowledge fields, it allows safety, it disallows gullibility, it allows us to second guess and be better for it, it also helps us differentiate truth from lies, it allows us to challenge our own world views and allow change. I say we should praise doubt.
Embrace those doubts, christians. That is the sensible part of your mind telling you that something about this doesn't add up. Follow those doubts and find your way out of this.
i'm wired to be a doubter by nature. and it's the simple fact that when it comes to God/Christianity, the existence of so many, many, many unanswered questions, the endless variety of bible verse interpretations, etc and so on.... is what makes me DOUBT. it's like an endless circle, the questions cause doubt and the doubt creates more questions, etc. oh well. but this is still a pretty decent channel-- thoughtful answers for some of those "big" questions can be found here.
@SomethingReal1119 if you think about it, there are even more unanswered questions in atheism, like where did life come from, why the universe exists instead of nothing, or why would we do the right thing as opposed to evil. There is an unconfortable silence and ignorance when you try to answer these questions within atheism and I think any other minor questions unanswer by christianity fall short compared to the big ones it can answer.
@Mathenaut No, the reason we don't believe in those things is not because of the lack of evidence for them but because we have good evidence they don't exist, unlike God. Second, there are good arguments for God's existance wich I've never seen refuted, for example, in any of William Lane Craig's debates so far. Third I'm glad you mentioned Dawkins, the one who refused to debate christian philosopher William Lane Craig this October in the UK. Look the videos about that here on youtube.
This is where I may struggle a little. See if this makes sense. Nature is a characteristic of the universe. The universe couldn't have created itself using "natural" processes bc nature didn't exist before the universe. It seems to me that something beyond all of this had to put it in motion. If the most minute forms of energy that would've existed in the very beginning cant be created or destroyed, then wouldn't it make sense that something supernatural is behind their existence at all?
@Mathenaut LOL. WLC refuted all of his arguments in The God Delusion and Dawkins hasn't yet responded to that. On October 25th in the Sheldonian theater Dawkins was invited to debate Craig and he obvisouly didn't appear, making a hilarious excuse in a forum. Instead, WLC was put next to an empty chair(Dawkins) and he presented his refutals for the God Delusion in front of 3 Oxford academics. He still came out invict.
@SomethingReal1119 Well we can't know for sure it's the God of the Bible, but looking at the evidence and thinking about it helps to understand it's more plausible than not that christianity is correct. This being said, I understand your doubts as I also have them sometimes and I think we'll only know for sure when we're dead and possibly in front of God. On the other hand, I recomend watching videos of John Piper, Tim Conway, Mark Driscoll and Paul Washer, they don't seem hypocrite at all.
And if actual infinities can't exist, which I take it you don't accept either, given your need to terminate the natural regress you get due to your presupposition, then it follows that you would have to regard nature to have a finite set of possible states if you were a naturalist. From this we can conclude that time would have to have a loop structure, because repetition is a necessity when nature is finite.
@Mathenaut it is the genetic fallacy because what you're saying is: God doesn't exist because the origin of it's belief is...X. If I'm wrong, I would like you to construct the argument, with it's premeses and it's following conclusion. thanks
@Mathenaut I see know problem with him not debating a former student. On the surface it may seem like a double standard or a cop out, but if you consider what is known about the situation then I don't really see an issue with him not debating him. Craig stated sometime around 1985 that he wouldn't take on former students. He is still being consistent with that statement. As for energy and matter, is it not logical to assume that if matter exists then it has a cause, hence it's creation?
Definitely not taking it seriously comparing doubts about ones faith to cologne. Mike is making light of the question. Its as if he don't wanna stay study the claims, study the gospels. This was a careful crafted answer. Dealing with doubts, here's what you do. You study everything and see if it makes sense. Follow the evidence and let it lead you to what more than likely happened.
I think the problem is the same in all cases, namely that you presuppose the A theory of time. This is a very common and often unstated assumption in arguments like the Kalam Cosmological argument. Basically, it views time/causality as a linear phenomenon, but this view is almost certainly false if naturalism is true because of the infinite regress issues. The naturalistic position would regard state transitions as a basic property of nature.
@Mathenaut Craig won't debate Loftus because he is a former student and feels it would be inappropriate. I HIGHLY doubt Craig fears Loftus at all. He has a long debating history with many opponents. I assume it's more out of respect that he won't debate him, saving Loftus from humiliation. To make the point further, Loftus hasn't proven himself to be much of a debater at all against his opponents. So I'd say that given what is known, Craig has enough good reason's to not debate him.
@signofthehammer What kind of an answer is 'god', so much as an excuse not to give a real answer? Does that actually address anything, or does it just alleviate the bother of having to think about those questions?
@fatheremmons85 No, it's not. That is a baseless assumption. Everything we know about matter and energy demonstrates that it cannot be created or destroyed - only transitioned. Why make up a creation story when one isn't necessary?
@signofthehammer No, you have NO evidence that a teapot isn't floating around. You've simply failed to find it, and you don't have the proper tools to properly search the region to begin with. Sound familiar? We can apply this to leprechauns, unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, and all manner of absurdity you can't disprove.
So what you end up with is just that we have evidence that nature exists and no reason to think other fundamental substances exist and frankly, it's not obvious to me what one would gain by introducing other substances. As far as I can see, one has to draw the line somewhere and simply declare that existence doesn't need explanation, because it's nonsense to say that existence as a whole needs something else to exist to ground its existence, and I draw that line at nature itself.
@Mathenaut so you're left with agnostithism. The teapot argument has been proven invalid because we DO have good evidence that such teapot isnt floating around, while we have no evidence that God does not exist.
@Mathenaut We have good evidence that those don't exist, that's why nobody believes in them, included yourself. We do have the tools to find out wether these exist and we've failed to prove they do, therefore we're safe to believe they don't exist. God, on the contrary, comes as a perfectly rational belief to wich we have no good argument against it's existence. In fact you admited you hold to agnosticism because you have no arguments against God's existence.
@signofthehammer Calling genetic fallacy (which this isn't), doesn't validate your god. It's like saying spiderman could exist, despite knowing how he was created. When people can properly understand why they are subject to these kinds of beliefs, they can better evaluate whether or not they're really prone to one of the faithful, or if they are just looking for a crutch to support an issue they aren't addressing in themselves.
@fatheremmons85 Wow. You'll accept that copout from a challenge, but will fault Dawkins for not giving Craig the time of day? That's a hell of a double standard.
@fatheremmons85 Fellow skeptics offered criticism far and beyond WLC's cheap goading for attention. Craig has no pull in the academic community, no credibility in the scientific community, and nothing to offer in debate aside from the same dead horses to beat on. I may as well call WLC a coward for refusing to debate the many people that have called him out and tore apart his arguments.
Christians can reduce all their doubts by giving up the bad habit of making stuff up that isn't in the Bible. For example: - Jesus never claimed to be God. - Jesus never stated that he would pay the price for your sins or for mine. - God never agreed to forgive your sins or to punish Jesus for your sins. - God has never stated that one man can pay the price for a different man's sins. (In reality, all of God's revealed scriptures explicitly state that each and every man pays for his own sins). - The so-called "trinity" is man-made, it is false, and it doesn't appear in any of God's revealed scriptures.
@Mathenaut you're also falling into the genetic fallacy by trying to say a belief is false showing how it originated. Even if people believed in God just to "alleviate" themselves, wich I disagree, it could still well be that God existed.
@Mathenaut Are you saying Dawkins wont debate Craig because Craig isn't an "authority figure in religion"? You have to be joking. There is a reason why Dawkins wont debate Craig and I highly doubt it's the reason you suggest. It shouldn't matter who is what. What matters is Dawkin's wrote a book. WLC picked it apart and suggested MANY fallacies were within it and made his case as to why he thinks this. Dawkin's won't even attempt to counter Craigs claims. Lack of confidence perhaps?
@800mEric Lennox pushing that intelligent design hilarity? That was embarrassing for the IDiots moreso than Dawkins. Also, Dawkins said he wants to debate someone who is an authority figure in religion, not an apologist without a standing argument that is picking at bigger figures in a lame publicity stunt. WLC is only a big deal to creationists.
@kenpca The exact opposite? He is deceptive, dishonest, far from knowledgeable in the sciences he speaks about...Pretty spot on. Dawkins debated with Craig. What is with Craig's refusal to debate the people that challenge him?
@signofthehammer Which is why I am no longer an atheist. I think there IS a Creator, just not sure he is a personal God. I reject religion/church/preachers b/c I think they are full of hypocrisy & make it even harder to believe. However, the atheist's narrow viewpoint makes even less sense than some of the Christian ideas. That whole emotional, hate filled "God sucks" agenda, coming from these young, militant, Dawkins sheep out there, really destroys the credibility of the atheist movement....
@Mathenaut What are his weak defenses of the Kalam? Be specific please. You say the arguments aren't valid, the science is bad, and the defense is weak. Again, be specific. You are making these claims and providing nothing to back them up. As for the debate, Dawkin's debating Craig "among colleauges" is hardly a debate at all! It was 3 on 3. There is no time to focus on any person's argument adequately and respond sufficiently. Hence Craig's numerous offers to a 1 on 1 debate. No dice.
@signofthehammer WLC didn't refute much of anything. Yes, there was criticism and alot of ad hominem, but other secularists provided better feedback than anything WLC had to say on it. It's like calling WLC a coward because he won't come debate me at my school, or debate any of the atheists on youtube that have called him out. It's a lame gimmick not to different from what Glenn Beck did with his White House 'redphone', calling the president a coward for not calling him. What a joke.
@signofthehammer That god doesn't exist is a conclusion YOU are drawing from it. Technically, your god could still exist even though the nature of your belief in him is invalid. After all, the celestial teapot could be floating around out there too.
@fatheremmons85 WLC takes some wildly liberal interpretation of the Big Bang Theory in positing the creation of matter. Consider, he insists the universe has a cause because things we generally interpret have causes. Then he insists that matter and energy were created despite failure to show that such is even conventionally possible. Even worse, the conclusion is ultimately nonsequitir with respect to the christian god that he insists must be behind all of it.
@fatheremmons85 Craig offers refutations to the most lame and inane objections to his statements. Other refutations (like his defense of Kalam or his objection to the FSM) are seriously weak. WLC isn't a scientist, and it shows. The arguments aren't valid, the science is bad, the defense is weak. Also, WLC and Dawkins HAVE debated, amongst colleagues. WLC refusing Loftus is delicious, hypocrite irony.
@signofthehammer You don't have evidence that they don't exist. You only have the fact that you haven't found them. You've established nothing against their existence beyond that. The case against them is the same as the case against your god. As for WLC...No. The only way you'd think that guy is good is if you've never looked into the material critical of his work. Lastly...Why would Dawkins debate WLC? They aren't even at the same level. I'd turn it down too if I were him.
@signofthehammer Don't you see the doublethink there? You don't believe the teapot, leprechauns, or FSM exist because there are no valid evidences for their existence. Yet, you insist upon your god despite no valid evidence for his existence. I identify as an atheist because, as Dawkins, I simply do not believe in your god. You can swap around labels all you want with it but in the end I still do not believe in your god. Changing the name makes me no more amenable to your faith.
Why are these videos not being watched? This is the best Christian channel I've seen, yet hardly any views. Such amazing content for those who defend their Christian faith.
I don't see why anyone would characterize doubt as a bad thing. Doubt is the reason why we have good methodology in different knowledge fields, it allows safety, it disallows gullibility, it allows us to second guess and be better for it, it also helps us differentiate truth from lies, it allows us to challenge our own world views and allow change. I say we should praise doubt.
Embrace those doubts, christians. That is the sensible part of your mind telling you that something about this doesn't add up.
Follow those doubts and find your way out of this.
i'm wired to be a doubter by nature. and it's the simple fact that when it comes to God/Christianity, the existence of so many, many, many unanswered questions, the endless variety of bible verse interpretations, etc and so on.... is what makes me DOUBT. it's like an endless circle, the questions cause doubt and the doubt creates more questions, etc. oh well. but this is still a pretty decent channel-- thoughtful answers for some of those "big" questions can be found here.
@SomethingReal1119 if you think about it, there are even more unanswered questions in atheism, like where did life come from, why the universe exists instead of nothing, or why would we do the right thing as opposed to evil. There is an unconfortable silence and ignorance when you try to answer these questions within atheism and I think any other minor questions unanswer by christianity fall short compared to the big ones it can answer.
@Mathenaut No, the reason we don't believe in those things is not because of the lack of evidence for them but because we have good evidence they don't exist, unlike God. Second, there are good arguments for God's existance wich I've never seen refuted, for example, in any of William Lane Craig's debates so far. Third I'm glad you mentioned Dawkins, the one who refused to debate christian philosopher William Lane Craig this October in the UK. Look the videos about that here on youtube.
This is where I may struggle a little. See if this makes sense. Nature is a characteristic of the universe. The universe couldn't have created itself using "natural" processes bc nature didn't exist before the universe. It seems to me that something beyond all of this had to put it in motion. If the most minute forms of energy that would've existed in the very beginning cant be created or destroyed, then wouldn't it make sense that something supernatural is behind their existence at all?
@Mathenaut LOL. WLC refuted all of his arguments in The God Delusion and Dawkins hasn't yet responded to that. On October 25th in the Sheldonian theater Dawkins was invited to debate Craig and he obvisouly didn't appear, making a hilarious excuse in a forum. Instead, WLC was put next to an empty chair(Dawkins) and he presented his refutals for the God Delusion in front of 3 Oxford academics. He still came out invict.
@SomethingReal1119 Well we can't know for sure it's the God of the Bible, but looking at the evidence and thinking about it helps to understand it's more plausible than not that christianity is correct. This being said, I understand your doubts as I also have them sometimes and I think we'll only know for sure when we're dead and possibly in front of God. On the other hand, I recomend watching videos of John Piper, Tim Conway, Mark Driscoll and Paul Washer, they don't seem hypocrite at all.
And if actual infinities can't exist, which I take it you don't accept either, given your need to terminate the natural regress you get due to your presupposition, then it follows that you would have to regard nature to have a finite set of possible states if you were a naturalist. From this we can conclude that time would have to have a loop structure, because repetition is a necessity when nature is finite.
@Mathenaut it is the genetic fallacy because what you're saying is: God doesn't exist because the origin of it's belief is...X. If I'm wrong, I would like you to construct the argument, with it's premeses and it's following conclusion. thanks
@Mathenaut I see know problem with him not debating a former student. On the surface it may seem like a double standard or a cop out, but if you consider what is known about the situation then I don't really see an issue with him not debating him. Craig stated sometime around 1985 that he wouldn't take on former students. He is still being consistent with that statement. As for energy and matter, is it not logical to assume that if matter exists then it has a cause, hence it's creation?
Definitely not taking it seriously comparing doubts about ones faith to cologne. Mike is making light of the question. Its as if he don't wanna stay study the claims, study the gospels. This was a careful crafted answer. Dealing with doubts, here's what you do. You study everything and see if it makes sense. Follow the evidence and let it lead you to what more than likely happened.
Very nice
I think the problem is the same in all cases, namely that you presuppose the A theory of time. This is a very common and often unstated assumption in arguments like the Kalam Cosmological argument. Basically, it views time/causality as a linear phenomenon, but this view is almost certainly false if naturalism is true because of the infinite regress issues. The naturalistic position would regard state transitions as a basic property of nature.
@Mathenaut You really should go to his Q&A section of his website. I'm sure you'd learn something.
@Mathenaut Craig won't debate Loftus because he is a former student and feels it would be inappropriate. I HIGHLY doubt Craig fears Loftus at all. He has a long debating history with many opponents. I assume it's more out of respect that he won't debate him, saving Loftus from humiliation. To make the point further, Loftus hasn't proven himself to be much of a debater at all against his opponents. So I'd say that given what is known, Craig has enough good reason's to not debate him.
@stallion2907 It is a great channel. Imho, Catholics don't care, some don't know what the word apologetics means.
@signofthehammer
What kind of an answer is 'god', so much as an excuse not to give a real answer? Does that actually address anything, or does it just alleviate the bother of having to think about those questions?
@fatheremmons85
No, it's not. That is a baseless assumption. Everything we know about matter and energy demonstrates that it cannot be created or destroyed - only transitioned.
Why make up a creation story when one isn't necessary?
@signofthehammer
No, you have NO evidence that a teapot isn't floating around. You've simply failed to find it, and you don't have the proper tools to properly search the region to begin with. Sound familiar?
We can apply this to leprechauns, unicorns, the flying spaghetti monster, and all manner of absurdity you can't disprove.
@kenpca
Look at the video recently put up by CrimsonReason.
So what you end up with is just that we have evidence that nature exists and no reason to think other fundamental substances exist and frankly, it's not obvious to me what one would gain by introducing other substances. As far as I can see, one has to draw the line somewhere and simply declare that existence doesn't need explanation, because it's nonsense to say that existence as a whole needs something else to exist to ground its existence, and I draw that line at nature itself.
@Mathenaut so you're left with agnostithism. The teapot argument has been proven invalid because we DO have good evidence that such teapot isnt floating around, while we have no evidence that God does not exist.
@Mathenaut We have good evidence that those don't exist, that's why nobody believes in them, included yourself. We do have the tools to find out wether these exist and we've failed to prove they do, therefore we're safe to believe they don't exist. God, on the contrary, comes as a perfectly rational belief to wich we have no good argument against it's existence. In fact you admited you hold to agnosticism because you have no arguments against God's existence.
@signofthehammer
Calling genetic fallacy (which this isn't), doesn't validate your god. It's like saying spiderman could exist, despite knowing how he was created.
When people can properly understand why they are subject to these kinds of beliefs, they can better evaluate whether or not they're really prone to one of the faithful, or if they are just looking for a crutch to support an issue they aren't addressing in themselves.
@fatheremmons85
Wow. You'll accept that copout from a challenge, but will fault Dawkins for not giving Craig the time of day? That's a hell of a double standard.
@fatheremmons85
Fellow skeptics offered criticism far and beyond WLC's cheap goading for attention. Craig has no pull in the academic community, no credibility in the scientific community, and nothing to offer in debate aside from the same dead horses to beat on.
I may as well call WLC a coward for refusing to debate the many people that have called him out and tore apart his arguments.
Christians can reduce all their doubts
by giving up the bad habit of making stuff up that isn't in the Bible.
For example:
- Jesus never claimed to be God.
- Jesus never stated that he would pay the price for your sins or for mine.
- God never agreed to forgive your sins or to punish Jesus for your sins.
- God has never stated that one man can pay the price for a different man's sins.
(In reality, all of God's revealed scriptures explicitly state that each and every man pays for his own sins).
- The so-called "trinity" is man-made, it is false, and it doesn't appear in any of God's revealed scriptures.
@Mathenaut you're also falling into the genetic fallacy by trying to say a belief is false showing how it originated. Even if people believed in God just to "alleviate" themselves, wich I disagree, it could still well be that God existed.
@Mathenaut Are you saying Dawkins wont debate Craig because Craig isn't an "authority figure in religion"? You have to be joking. There is a reason why Dawkins wont debate Craig and I highly doubt it's the reason you suggest. It shouldn't matter who is what. What matters is Dawkin's wrote a book. WLC picked it apart and suggested MANY fallacies were within it and made his case as to why he thinks this. Dawkin's won't even attempt to counter Craigs claims. Lack of confidence perhaps?
@Hufflewaffle What do you believe exactly, when it comes to the existence of God and Jesus?
@800mEric
Lennox pushing that intelligent design hilarity? That was embarrassing for the IDiots moreso than Dawkins.
Also, Dawkins said he wants to debate someone who is an authority figure in religion, not an apologist without a standing argument that is picking at bigger figures in a lame publicity stunt.
WLC is only a big deal to creationists.
@kenpca
The exact opposite? He is deceptive, dishonest, far from knowledgeable in the sciences he speaks about...Pretty spot on.
Dawkins debated with Craig. What is with Craig's refusal to debate the people that challenge him?
@signofthehammer Which is why I am no longer an atheist. I think there IS a Creator, just not sure he is a personal God. I reject religion/church/preachers b/c I think they are full of hypocrisy & make it even harder to believe. However, the atheist's narrow viewpoint makes even less sense than some of the Christian ideas. That whole emotional, hate filled "God sucks" agenda, coming from these young, militant, Dawkins sheep out there, really destroys the credibility of the atheist movement....
@Mathenaut What are his weak defenses of the Kalam? Be specific please. You say the arguments aren't valid, the science is bad, and the defense is weak. Again, be specific. You are making these claims and providing nothing to back them up. As for the debate, Dawkin's debating Craig "among colleauges" is hardly a debate at all! It was 3 on 3. There is no time to focus on any person's argument adequately and respond sufficiently. Hence Craig's numerous offers to a 1 on 1 debate. No dice.
@signofthehammer
WLC didn't refute much of anything. Yes, there was criticism and alot of ad hominem, but other secularists provided better feedback than anything WLC had to say on it.
It's like calling WLC a coward because he won't come debate me at my school, or debate any of the atheists on youtube that have called him out. It's a lame gimmick not to different from what Glenn Beck did with his White House 'redphone', calling the president a coward for not calling him.
What a joke.
@signofthehammer
That god doesn't exist is a conclusion YOU are drawing from it. Technically, your god could still exist even though the nature of your belief in him is invalid.
After all, the celestial teapot could be floating around out there too.
@fatheremmons85
WLC takes some wildly liberal interpretation of the Big Bang Theory in positing the creation of matter.
Consider, he insists the universe has a cause because things we generally interpret have causes. Then he insists that matter and energy were created despite failure to show that such is even conventionally possible.
Even worse, the conclusion is ultimately nonsequitir with respect to the christian god that he insists must be behind all of it.
@fatheremmons85
Craig offers refutations to the most lame and inane objections to his statements. Other refutations (like his defense of Kalam or his objection to the FSM) are seriously weak.
WLC isn't a scientist, and it shows. The arguments aren't valid, the science is bad, the defense is weak.
Also, WLC and Dawkins HAVE debated, amongst colleagues. WLC refusing Loftus is delicious, hypocrite irony.
@signofthehammer
You don't have evidence that they don't exist. You only have the fact that you haven't found them. You've established nothing against their existence beyond that. The case against them is the same as the case against your god.
As for WLC...No. The only way you'd think that guy is good is if you've never looked into the material critical of his work.
Lastly...Why would Dawkins debate WLC? They aren't even at the same level. I'd turn it down too if I were him.
@Hufflewaffle Why would you be watching a Catholic video? Go away. Far away.
@signofthehammer
Don't you see the doublethink there? You don't believe the teapot, leprechauns, or FSM exist because there are no valid evidences for their existence.
Yet, you insist upon your god despite no valid evidence for his existence.
I identify as an atheist because, as Dawkins, I simply do not believe in your god. You can swap around labels all you want with it but in the end I still do not believe in your god. Changing the name makes me no more amenable to your faith.