@G Will I was an atheist angry at the God i pretended didn't exist. I bought all the evolution garbage and didn't realize all the lies in it. Glad someone pointed out the lies!!!
NO...He is using circular reasoning...the meter stick exists therefore...the DESIGNER OF THAT STICK MUST EXIST!!! How SILLY to say the DESIGNER of that stick doesn't NECESSARILY HAVE TO EXIST!!!
I have felt His love. Is nothing like it on this earth. You can put everything that makes you happy together have all the love of all the people in the world and it would no compare at all. Greatest thing about Jesus love is that there is no end
Just wanna thank you Dr Turek - you (amongst a few others) are the reason I managed to get out my own way and let The Holy Spirit come into my life and have his way... God bless you and all watching this!!
Thank God first for he has given us the knowledge so that many others could be freed from the world to be in unity with Him. God bless you and I hope you have a blessed life, brother
Lol, I think you all misinterpreted that reaction. It’s not an excuse. It’s simply an out-of-the blue question. If I ask you if you’d read my book if I gave it to you, I don’t think your answer would be an instantaneous “yes,”. I think that your answer would be as noncommittal as his was. Taking a beat to consider your response isn’t = to resistance.
I think what he may mean to say is that Dr. Turek's definition of "objective" already includes a superhuman element, which Dr. Turek then twists into only referring to his God. I think that's why he used the example of a yard stick. We can measure things for ourselves with our thumbs, hand spans and feet, but those measurements are meaningless to other people. Only when we agree with others what the standard for those measurements should be, do they become reference material that is independent from our personal opinion, or "objective". But that doesn't mean that there is some divine "foot" in some realm beyond our world that our "foot" must refer to.
Frank Turek says our intuition is stronger evidence for morality being real than any evidence provided for morality not existing. Can we really say that our intuition is evidence though? I find this very confusing. Another question, if morality exists why does it have to come from God and not somewhere else?
@@hsingh5650 To your first question, yes! To your second question, the morality could come from something else, but it must transcend human mind -- it must exist within a mind beyond humans'. You could call this anything you'd like, but if it is moral, then it is good, and this already checks one big box found in the Bible: God *is* good. I know this is an old comment of yours, but I hope I offered a new perspective on your question!
@@JamesRichardWileyyour imagenary Jesús is just an ignorant claim Am from UK and was raised in a athiest house hold atheism was what lead me to Christianity i went to jerusalem i few moths ago and i found. Incredible evidence for Yeshua Aka Jesús. Jesús actually existed and I myself have found awesome evidence for the actuall Jesús/Yeshua not from Frank not from all the Christian apologist but from the reasearch i found hebrew scriptures and i myself studied every famous religión Like Budism Judaism Hinduism Islam Christianity And back then I hated to Say christianity has more evidence then the other religións but it's true Jesús/Yeshua Indeed exist He Indeed died in a terrible death And again I hate to Say it but he ressurected Am going back to jerusalem in about two weeks to do more research Ohh yeah something else thanks atheism You Made me a Christian 😁😁😁
Great points here Frank! I was thinking about the preamble to the Constitution right before you mentioned that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are among those God endowed, self-evident Truth's!
@Nick Jones No. Morality is not subjective to me. God makes His laws objective and holds all people accountable to them. That includes me. If morality was subjective to me then I'd be defining good and evil like the atheists do. If you care for innocent babies then I hope you're pro life because the athiest pro abortionists have slaughtered over 60 million babies in the womb since it's legalization. Or do they not count because you can't blame their deaths on God?
@Nick Jones Humanists are more moral? Do you think Planned Parenthood is a Christian organization? Are pro choice parades full of churches and pastors leading the way? Are key politicians who legalize and protect abortion born again Christians? Are the "my body my choice" women who've had multiple abortions Bible believing Christian women? The answer is no to all of those. Those are your moral humanists who are responsible for 60+ million baby deaths. Any that God killed in the Bible pales in comparison to that and He did it with the right and authority He has to do so. Blame the people who brought God's wrath on themselves by their evil deeds. God created those babies and He took them home with Him. I don't see the problem there. So not not only is your argument obviously biased and weak but it shows how desperate you are to accuse God of something you excuse man of. If you were that much of a baby lover, you'd be on a pro abortion feminist channel accusing them of murder or protesting an abortion clinic. But you don't care that much. No, dead babies are just a convenient platform for you to stand on to blame God and attack Christianity. Same goes with all atheists with the dead babies argument. Not a genuine care there and most are pro abortion. Besides, if you're accusing God of wrongdoing then you're acknowledging His existence. If you say God doesn't exist then I don't know who you're accusing. You can't have it both ways though. Either God exists or you have no accusation. Pick one.
While it was patiently and respectfully executed, this guy’s question was painfully articulated. It’s a shame he couldn’t better express his doubts as he seems to be genuine in his pursuit of truth.
@@badideass :: You're wrong. Apologetics is useful if you're trying to defend the faith. That's whole idea behind apologetics, defending the faith. So apologetics is a good skill for all Christians to have. So he is useful.
"Do we all have a moral compass?" Sure. And we each have our own subjective moral north for our moral compass. That's why some people will have the opinion that abortion is wrong while other people will have the opinion that abortion should be allowed.
@@johnlove2954 I did not say that everyone's compass pointed to what others would consider moral. I pointed out that morality is subjective. No one has ( so far) proved objective morality exists. As for rape, the Bible has god issuing instructions on what steps to take & under what circumstances you can rape a pretty woman. The Bible also has god deciding that the proper punishment for a man who has sinned is to have that man's wives publicly raped.
@@cnault3244 Well, why cannot God have different opinion than you about rape? There is no issue at all here. If you believe morality is subjective, even then there is no problem. God has decided that some things are wrong and he is more powerful than us. Your opinion against his is worthless. So, de facto, even if there is no objective morality, there is nothing we can do and we cannot complain about it if we believe it is all preference. So, the moral argument still works.
@@cnault3244 , are there any behaviors that you say are objectively wrong no matter what a person's opinion is on the matter? For example as Dr. Turek asks, "Is torturing babies for fun immoral?" or does it depend on someone's opinion? . Btw, the Bible doesn't say rape should be allowed. This is a common fallacy used to distract from the topic at hand. Let's stay on the topic of objective morality for now, without even referencing the Bible.
Nice, this is gentleman is a true skeptic. To a skeptic is to question the genuineness of any claim, but always seeking what is truth. We have all been skeptical at any point of our life, and that is ok. The problems of this arises when you use that title to avoid what is true. A person like that, shouldn't be called a skeptic, rather, this person has already made up his/her mind. Nowadays, to be skeptic is to doubt claims and to always counter good arguments with the typical "I'm not convinced" because you just don't want to accept the truth. God bless that gentleman!
@Nick Jones Man, am I the only one that is tired of people giving the same excuse over and over again. My friend, what you have is what would be referred as ignorance. To say that Christians hold their belief on baseless assertions is calling the 2.2 Billion people that believe in Jesus Christ "delusional." And sincerely, that is not a very educated way to refer your disagreement with a certain topic (in this case, Christianity). I would invite you review and at least read the many arguments that Christians have proposed for the existence of God, and then we can both have a good conversation knowing the facts already. Also, to say that it is not true that atheists do not accept truth just because they don't want to is completely false. Ask an Atheist the following question (note that this method to prove the genuine search of truth of a person is not mine, all credit goes to Dr. Frank Turek): "If I could prove to you that without a doubt Christianity is true, would you become a Christian?" I guarantee you, that there will be atheists that will say "No." Why is that? because they want to believe something that makes them happy, and not what is true. Now, I'm not saying that all atheists are like that, in fact, I have seen atheists that are faithfully looking for what is true, and listen to the arguments of others with respect and an open mind. So, before making the outrageous claim that Christians hold their beliefs on "baseless ASSERTIONS, logically fallacious arguments or hearsay." Is to really just embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge about a subject.
@Nick Jones My friend, here is the thing. I enjoy talking to Atheists, I really do. The problem here is that I don't go around leaving "senseless" comments and then "run away like a prepubescent schoolgirl." What I do is leave my arguments or reply to any topic, wait for a response, and then judge the response. In your case, I saw the typical online skeptic who uses the common cliche slogans when referring to theistic arguments. Something that caught my attention from your previous comment is the use of your ad-populum fallacy. When I said that calling 2.2 Billion people that believe in Christianity are all delusional, I did not mean that because this amount of people believe it, then it has to be true. I meant that out of 2.2 billion people (which by the way, is a massive number) it's not possible that all of them are idiotic people that blindly follow their pastors and priests, and are not people who have a good education and can distinguish what is true or not. So, either you used the fallacy in an unnecessary manner, or you simply did not understand what I wrote. When I see this kind of comments, in which the writer critiques Theistic convictions by calling them "BASELESS assertions" or "FALLACIOUS arguments," and after that, they do not offer the reason why they say that, then it is clear that I am wasting my time with a person like that, so I simply don't answer. Also, when you refer to me with insults, then I will naturally lose interest in speaking. I have nothing against you, and, as a matter of fact, I wish to speak to you! I enjoy seeing arguments that are against my position because that allows both people in a conversation to be challenged intellectually!! You asked me if I am interested in truth, and my answer is YES and mega YES. Truth is what I live for, and using the intellect that was given to me, I have come to understand that the truth is found in Jesus Christ. I spent 2 long years analyzing and investigating Christianity and Theism in comparison to Atheism, and in the end, I concluded that Christianity is indeed true. I can sometimes be attacked with doubts and questions, but there is nothing wrong with it, I keep digging, I keep investigating, and I always end up with Christianity. So yes, I am passionate about Truth, and as matter of fact, I keep investigating and understanding more about the truth (God). Anyway, I hope this answered your question. I look forward to having a great conversation with you man! God bless!
@Nick Jones Horray! I'm glad you accepted. I'm looking forward to analyzing your arguments! First, we have to address the elephant in the room, which is "EVIDENCE," so my question would be: What do you consider as evidence? There is Scientific evidence, Philosophical evidence, Forensic evidence, Logical evidence, and historical evidence. So before discussing our arguments, we have to agree on what evidence is.
Revelation 3 :20 - Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Sadly, many folks I encounter simply say that while they do believe that actions like murder are wrong, that is only in their own subjective opinion. When you point out that they are denying that anything is actually wrong, they deny it. And round and round!
. Tell me dear is your OPINION regarding the "correct" God who's allegedly the basis for morality a "SUBJECTIVE" one or a "OBJECTIVE" one ?? 🙄 Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.? 🙄 🤔 If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
Morality doesn't require any god. Morality is a social construction. Morality results from rational choices. Morality results from a complex interaction of genes, neural processes, and social interactions. Hence the origins of morality are both neural and social.
The skeptic asked an honest-intentioned question at 2:10 that I wish Turek would've addressed. He asked if morality needs a measuring stick who is to say the measuring stick even exists? Well if you didn't need a ruler to prove inches were short than we would presuppose that inches do not exist-cart before the horse. So we are back to where we started. If universal morality does exist, then the measuring stick is in fact necessary. So the skeptic would need to ask himself: does morality (no matter where you think it comes from) exist or not? He already admits it does, so the measuring stick (God) is Necessary and does also exist. If he says morality does not exist, then torturing babies (Turek's favorite example) is subjective which the skeptic would disagree with.
Lol what utter piffle, why does our measuring stick have to be a "God" ?? Tell me dear can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of.?? Or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed. If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
We have compasses but they all face different directions. A uniform standard of right and wrong isn’t baked into all of us. Somebody’s right may be another person’s wrong and vice versa. If that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t need to be taught right from wrong in the first place.
I was a bad person in the mind I could not let go of terrible thought so I went to god and prayed and begged and he healed me. The next day. Went to church they were sharing a story similar to mine but the village asked the guy to share it so I thought I would to god is great
quick question! why is God the objective standard? I would love to hear an answer that does include the Bible and an answer that does not include the Bible. :)
objective doesn't necessarily mean God, but it does mean, that its not just an opinion, saying 10 pounds is heavy, the 10 pounds is an objective standard, heavy is how it feels to you, the subjective part, both will always be in play, If we use what a Perfect Person would be, Jesus Christ, hes like the best friend, and best parent combined, He Loves you like you're the best thing to ever exist, hope that helps
Even if a god existed, and provided us with a moral guideline, that would still be subjective morality. Based in the opinions of one being. I think that Frank and the like argue the point that god knows everything, therefore he know what good and bad will come from any action and is suitably qualified to define morality so. But he doesn't get his morals from a god, or from the text that he believes is gods word. He starts with his personal opinion and believes it was given to him by a god.
@Some Random, That’s a very good point, but what I would like to point out is that since God is morally perfect he is able to measure morality based on what’s morally right and morally wrong. But what makes it objective for us is we have a objective moral reference point we can appeal to measure moral acts and I personally believe that God is that objective moral reference point we can appeal to.
@@Mike00513 If thats the case, you would need to prove a god existed in the first place. You couldn't use morality to prove your god if you need a god to prove your morality. That would be circular. Affectively throwing out the moral argument for a god. As it stands Christians are using the bible as their moral standard. And not even the whole thing, just the parts they choose to believe. That isn't objective at all.
Saying "murder is wrong" sounds good, but means nothing. All we can agree on is the saying or philosophy of "murder is wrong," but when we address what murder is, we often disagree. If the military bombs cities of innocent civilians who just happened to be born in enemy territories, is that murder and is that wrong? If the government executes a man convicted of a heinous act, even if the man was truly innocent, is that murder and is it wrong? If you have a vehicular accident that ends up killing someone, is that murder and is it wrong? What if I added the words "drunk driving" before "accident?" Then there are issues where one side believes they are defending rights whereas the other side thinks that those "rights" are contributing to deaths such as with abortion, guns, wearing masks to stop viruses, access to healthcare, global warming, etc. So we can all admit that murder is wrong and causing death is wrong. But we tend to not think of it as murder if it suits our interests and helps us sleep better at night.
This convo was very good. I'm from India and here people believe in a Justice system called karma which spans many lives. So they have an option to disbelieve God but believe in karma.
Karma is not justice at all and very often subjective and not objective. What is justice and who decides what is just? Ever thought that it is random like karma is? You might say it is not random but it is because for something to not be random, what must it be? If you can answer this question, you are perhaps on a clearer direction. When you said span many lives, did you mean one person's many lives or many people's lives? Because it is also very easy to disprove reincarnation. Just think about it logically, if you try you might be able to.
@Alex you shall not steal. Whether you believe it is subjective or objective or closely near to objective doesn't matter. These words subjective and objective are recent words. If a person follows "you shall not steal" it's wonderful. In Hinduism each person can believe in a different god. It's kind of their choice. But karma is not subjective. They believe karma does happen. Every one pays back for their sins, if not in this incarnation then in the next incarnation. It creates other problems. Some people's suffering is seen as them paying back their past incarnation's sins. Law is written on hearts of all humans. Even before Christianity started, before Moses wrote Genesis people knew stealing was wrong across all cultures. So knowledge of God is not a given. But Law is common knowledge so deeply ingrained. You don't need to acknowledge God but still you have the Law on your heart.
Karma is not a certainty, can you say when a bad thing happened to you it was for a specific thing you did? And what is a bad thing? Can we be sure for example being cheated on is bad? That was not meant to be. Or say someone robbed you? What if a mother stole for her starving baby? Or a rich man donating billions because may be he did something bad before? Karma isn't exactly paying back and it isn't systematic or definitive. Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is external. That is certain for God is the righteous judge who looks at our heart. Actually all man sin, it isn't enough to just know the law of the heart, get to know the one who created the law. John 14:6
@@hiddentreasure2398 I'm explaining what they believe. I'm not saying that karma or reincarnation is entirely true. I believe that both karma and reincarnation are false. Anyway we are in agreement.
Frank is equivocating over the concept of "objective morality". When Frank tries to prove that "objective morality" exists, he appeals to our deep intuitions that murder is wrong. But these deep intuitions don't require a God. They are just as easily explained by common social instincts that we share. We generally want to live healthy, peaceful, fulfilling lives, and allowing murder isn't conducive to that. But elsewhere in the argument, he isn't talking about common intuitions/instincts. He's talking about a divine mandate. If you want to show that there is a divine mandate against murder, then you _first_ need to prove that the divine actually exists. This is the circularity that the questioner was talking about. 1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist. (Objective morality = divine mandate/nature, requires a God) 2. Objective morality does exist. (Objective morality = common intuition/instinct, doesn't require a God.) 3. Therefore, God exists. (The conclusion doesn't follow due to equivocation in the terminology.) Apologists use slippery language. Be careful.
@@Dan4eva _"if there's no standard outside of us wouldn't right and wrong just be subjective?"_ It depends on your terminology. It helps to think about what an "objective standard" is outside of morality. For example, a meter stick is an objective standard for length. But you don't _have_ to use a meter stick. You can use a different objective standard, like a yard stick. As long as you are consistent and clear about what standard you are using, then you can objectively measure length. But there isn't an _objectively correct standard_ to use. The choice of standard is still subjective. Can you objectively measure actions against a subjectively chosen standard? Yes. Does this require a God? No. If this is what you mean by "objective morality", then yes, you can have objective morality without God. If you still want to classify this as subjective, then that's fine by me, as long as you are being clear about your criteria for subjective and objective. But what if God exists? Can we say that the _chosen standard_ is objectively correct, rather than subjective? I don't see how. By adding a God in the mix, all we have really done is transferred the subjectivity from humans to God. Perhaps God is stronger and wiser than everyone else, but that doesn't make it objectively correct. It's still subjective. Ultimately, the best we can do is come to an agreement on a fundamental principle to base morality on. The most fundamental principle that most everyone can agree on is the general well-being of people. But is this principle _really_ subjective? In my opinion, it's only subjective on a mere technicality. I think this fundamental desire/value is so deeply rooted in each of us that for all practical purposes, it's the only real option to base morality on, whether a God exists or not. I hope this helps. Let me know if anything I said sounds problematic.
@@thisisjudith _"Let me ask one question. How do you know it's common social intuition?"_ Because that's exactly what Frank is appealing to: general intuitive agreement that murder is wrong. That's the only thing he has to support the second premise. The question is whether it's anything _more_ than mere intuition or instinct. We have viable natural explanations for why most people share certain moral intuitions.
@@incredulouspasta3304 You're very smart haha. You definitely made it really clear to understand your perspective. If you haven't realized yet, I do believe in God and am a Christian. With that said you explained everything really well maybe on a intellectual level. For me it's a heart issue, I just can't see the fact there is no God. One question I would want to ask, If morality is just kinda human intuition then why feel bad about anything we do if as long as I don't get caught then I pretty much can do whatever I want, murdering children is extreme, but what if someone found pleasure in that and never got caught, he enjoyed it, so that's it no justice or anything? What if in his mind he felt no guilt and never goit caught but to him it's "right"
Do we have a moral compass? Of course we do, that's why we've create all of these gods as ways to encourage morality. Now we use laws, whereas we relied on anecdotal stories in less technological times.
@@somerandom3247 if a moral value were subjective, it means there would be no morally right or wrong thing. If it is objective, there is a set moral good and bad which is unaffected by our everyday feelings. If morality was subjective, that would mean our entire justice system defeats itself should be suspended because the government's right could be my wrong or vice versa. Also, it would mean Hiltler, ISIS and other terrorists weren't wrong in what they did because hey, it felt right to them so who are you to tell them it is wrong? See the logic? In order for society to function in itself it must have set rules unaffected by what we individually feel. So who sets those rules? Certainly not humans because we make decisions based on feelings. I mean, imagine if Hitler was in charge of setting the rules, he would make then based on what he felt was right. This means that there must be someone greater than humans who sets the rules. Someone always just in His ruling and seeking the greater good of mankind. That, my friend, is God.
@@somerandom3247 let's try this analogy: You were a university students submitting your papers to Me(lecturer) for evaluation. Then, i would purposely evaluate all of your paper to be wrong while you know that there is some right in it. Then you would contested againsts me saying that I evaluate it wrongly and not accordingly. What i did there was evaluating your papers based on my own standards; an opinion and you contested against it knowing the existence of a standard to properly evaluating it. Get it? A standard is extrinsically of oneself not intrinsically. Otherwise, it would be just an opnion.
@@sciencesociety2919 since you agree that God does exist, that narrows the religions down to the monotheistic ones; Christianity, Judaism and Islam. Judaism is like incomplete Christianity, it doesn't take into regard the new testament and the Messiah. Given the incredible historical evidence for Jesus and the New Testament, this cannot be true, so Judaism is ruled out. When you look at the origin, meaning, morality and destiny of both Islam and Christianity, Christianity is the only one which produces factually and logically true statements in all four fields that are coherent with each other. Islam has too many contradictions, promotes hate and has a morally questionable prophet among others. That leaves Christianity and it's book, the Bible. God is the God of the bible my friend. All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 2 Timothy 3:16 ESV
@@sciencesociety2919 oh okay I get what you mean. I'm sure there's hard proof that Christianity and the Bible are true though, I just need to read more on that topic. But thanks for the insight!
There is no objective standard of right and wrong. Since we a sentient beings, we have come up with rules that we (generally) all agree on to be "moral". These moral standards have shifted and changed throughout the course of human history. We used to think that slavery was OK, and now we don't. The Israelites though that stoning adulterers was the moral thing to do and now they don't agree with that. The list goes on and on. As we make technological and scientific advances, we change our way of thinking and in turn our moral standards. This is how we progress as a species and improve our societies.
Michael or standard objective or subjective that of right and wrong? Yes you’re subjective claim of truth is right, we make up our own standard of right and wrong. Then it is not objectively wrong for somebody to come murder you and take your stuff. We are close to the Chinese or Muslims taking over the world. Therefore you must then conform your morality to which ever of those groups might take over?
@@boyofGod81 Again that's moral Nihilism you're thinking of, it is not the same thing as subjective morality and I've explained this to you before. Seriously why is it so important for you to beleive that religion for morality?
@@RiggsBF thank you for your time. Thank you for clarifying that morals are just somebody’s beliefs of right and wrong. You are right with that. My words should have been that reality shows that nihilism is the best explanation for the Worldview that there is no intelligent designer. For without the intelligent designer, we live under survival of the fittest. The one that has more power money and sex is the better Or stronger specimen. Is there anything wrong with what the lion does? Modern moralists will be weeded out if dawinizm is true. Feminized men are not good for the specie. God’s best in your quest for truth.
@@boyofGod81 I never said that morals are just opinions. Morality is SUBJECTIVE (IT's not an opinion it is a fact. AND it is NOT the same thing as moral Nihlism) I have explained this to you before. And stop trying to connect things that have nothing to do with each other. Evolution has been proven time and time again. Survival of the Fittest is not evolution that's Social Darwinism which coems from Herbert Spencer not Charles Darwin. BTW Most Christians accept evolution. Again you have not answered my question. WHY is it so important for you to believe that morality comes from religion? (Its arrogant and rude to think it is and your reply proves this) And this time Answer the question.
@@RiggsBF thanks again for your time. Forgive me if I said you I said morals are just opinions. But if everyone can have different morals, that makes them opinions. I agree with you that morals are subjective. But without a giver of absolute morals, they mean nothing. Chinese communist party may take over the world. If that scenario comes true, universal Morals on this planet will be guided by the Morals of the CCP. Human slavery, murder, organs harvesting, totalitarianism, one party rule, will all Morals and opposing morals will be immoral. If you kill a Chinese doctor harvesting the babies organs will be murder and the doctor if he kills you will be honored and self-defense. Therefore Morals are only a tool by the fittest to rule over the weaker minds like yourself. Isn’t our goal in macro Evolution to propagate our genetics to the next generation? Move to China and start expressing your moral views and if you’re healthy see how long it is before your organs are harvested. God’s best in your quest for absolute truth. .
@@Mike00513 Great question. Just as each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality, we as a society appeal to the court as the sole arbiter of law. Morality is the process of differentiating between intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. Juris prudence is the process of differentiating between intentions, decision, and actions that are lawful from those not lawful. Each individual is soley responsible, capable, and culpable for their own intentions, decisions, and actions. Moral assessments are formed by the individual. Legal assessments are formed by the courts. I hope that answered your question satisfactorily. If not, please feel free to ask additional questions.
@Theo Skeptomai, thanks for being kind. I have another question. If we have our own version of morality to put it simply, and the court of law has their own like you said if I’m not mistaken, how would that be fair to prove someone guilty? I mean technically he/she hasn’t done anything objectively wrong right? Couldn’t that be a injustice?
﴿أَلهاكُمُ التَّكاثُرُ﴾ [التكاثر: ١] Competition in [worldly] increase diverts you - Saheeh International ﴿حَتّى زُرتُمُ المَقابِرَ﴾ [التكاثر: ٢] Until you visit the graveyards. - Saheeh International ﴿كَلّا سَوفَ تَعلَمونَ﴾ [التكاثر: ٣] No! You are going to know. - Saheeh International ﴿ثُمَّ كَلّا سَوفَ تَعلَمونَ﴾ [التكاثر: ٤] Then, no! You are going to know. - Saheeh International ﴿كَلّا لَو تَعلَمونَ عِلمَ اليَقينِ﴾ [التكاثر: ٥] No! If you only knew with knowledge of certainty... - Saheeh International ﴿لَتَرَوُنَّ الجَحيمَ﴾ [التكاثر: ٦] You will surely see the Hellfire. - Saheeh International ﴿ثُمَّ لَتَرَوُنَّها عَينَ اليَقينِ﴾ [التكاثر: ٧] Then you will surely see it with the eye of certainty. - Saheeh International ﴿ثُمَّ لَتُسأَلُنَّ يَومَئِذٍ عَنِ النَّعيمِ﴾ [التكاثر: ٨] Then you will surely be asked that Day about pleasure. - Saheeh International
The young man asked...if we need a meter stick to measure and we don't have one, then how do we measure- basically that was the way I saw his question....he then says if " he FEELS it is true...fact is not based on our feelings!
I had never been interested in religion until about 30 years ago. I looked into it and read the bible. I found that the bible contained quite a lot of the attitudes I have. It was then that I realised that I dont need religion. I've not read the bible since. I studied to be a social worker and was introduced to socialism and anti racist thought and psychology and I've been happy ever since.
Morality is the process of differentiating between intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality. One cannot pass the responsibility of moral assessments onto a mythological deity. Each individual is soley responsible, capable, and culpable for their own intentions, decisions, and actions.
The guy is right; only if you already define "objective" as including some reference to a deity can you go from a shared morality to the conclusion that this must mean that a deity exists. Otherwise, there is no logical reason for this conclusion. In fact of course, any innate or "self-evident" feeling that some act is "wrong" or "bad" is much more likely to be rooted in our common ancestry, which we do have objectively convincing evidence for, than in a supernatural phenomenon that we do not have objectively convincing evidence for.
@G Will If you believe that you are personally responsible for your behavior, then you must agree that your actions and your preferences are subjective.
@G Will Then where does the concept of a deity enter into your views? "Nature" and "nurture" do not need a deity to do their thing. I would also like to point out that as I cannot make your choices for you, your choices are also completely personal, individual, and therefore subjective.
But there are people in the world, since the beginning of time, who have committed murders and didn't think murdering is wrong. How can murder be objectively wrong, if not everyone has believed this?
There are people in the world, since the beginning of time, who believed that the Earth is flat and didn't think it was round, How can Earth be objectively round then, if not everyone has believed this?
I used God given logic and reason and came to a brief in God and His Word. If murder is objectively wrong but nobody believe this, why can't it still be objectively wrong?
@@johnlove2954 objectively curved water has not been demonstrated. But there are loads of evidence for the earth being still and not moving. Anyone interested in the Truth has the opportunity to seek answers to questions. Not here to debate or convince anyone.
Morality doesn't require any god. Morality is a social construction. Morality results from rational choices. Morality results from a complex interaction of genes, neural processes, and social interactions. Hence the origins of morality are both neural and social.
If we don’t need God to know morality how can we justify it. Say if Hitler kills you and your family and takes all of your belongings, how is he objectively wrong? Who told you that was wrong how do you know don’t give me a subjective answer.
@@Mike00513 you can't prove he was wrong to do that to your family. Just like you can't prove he's right. People do what they feel. Whether or not it's right or wrong.
Morality has always been a huge problem for religion. A religious person can be moral, but they have no way to explain, through faith, why any act is right or wrong. See how badly apologists fail on this. Or can any apologist manage it? All true morality is humanistic.
I don't understand why people act like the moral argument is such a thorn in the side of atheism. It's not. All the atheist has to do to resist the conclusion is provide counterexamples which are on par, or are better than the second premise of the argument in terms of explanatory power. Because without this second premise, the modus tollens inference of the argument doesn't work. As far as I can tell, moral error theory has just as much, if not more explanatory power for the alleged phenomena of moral experience than the second premise of the argument. Moral beliefs within humans can be explained away as false beliefs in this case. So, simply appealing to the fact that these beliefs are widespread, or perhaps, unavoidable when it comes to operating in the world, says nothing about whether or not those beliefs are actually true. All the time, I see proponents of the argument appeal to ad hominems or ad populums when trying to explain how premise two has explanatory power. If you think this argument is sound, you need to give legitimate reasons for why objective morality has more explanatory power than other counterexamples. However, I suspect the fans of Turek won't step up and provide this, since this whole argument, at least from the way Turek's fans use it, appears to simply be an exercise in rhetoric rather than sound reasoning.
Hi, I would like to ask for any evidence of any gods existence, or at the very least, a good reason to believe that any gods do, or ever have existed. Do you have such things?
What I noticed is that Turek didn't quite demonstrate an objective morality. He just brought up something that we all agree on. That's consensus, not objective. To say it is objective, is to commit the appeal to popularity fallacy.
I like the idea of intersubjectivity. If we can make it plausible that a vast majority of people agree on some moral principle over a vast range of cultures and time periods, then we can get as close to "objective" as is humanly possible.
Turek: An atheist must be able to justify secular morality through deductive reasoning (we need demonstrable proof); BUT self-evident truth (not requiring justification through deductive reasoning) exists.
Seeing how our morality is feeling based and not objective there is not definitive right or wrong there’s no Good or evil based on our standards because you can go into other parts of the world where eating people is okay marrying kids is okay having multiple wives and husbands is okay. “Also in some parts of America” but morality is based on emotions and traditions. Both can be changed so neither is objective
In the book of Acts 2 the bible says when Peter preached the gospel, Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. Salvation similar to love is an issue of the heart not the head. It doesn't make sense to the carnal mind because it is a Spiritual thing born on the inside of us by the Holy Spirit. I pray all who are genuinely seeking the truth will find it
I believe in good and evil but here is something I don't understand: We know truth is reality but good and evil only exists in our minds, in our conscience and feelings, if somebody kills, it doesn't show a sign that says: "this is evil". It's simply mental and emotional. How can good and evil exist If they are not in reality?
I want to ask you, I am a born again Christian, I have also fallen back in to drinking beer, and smoking cigarettes on a daily basis; am I going to hell?
"You should just go with the fact that torturing babies is wrong and therefore God exists" - So he's claiming that our sense of morality must come from God and thus proves God's existence. If it could be shown that morality doesn't have to come from a God will he accept this as proof that God doesn't exist? For years now Dr Frans De Wall has been showing examples of animals displaying empathy and reciprocity, the basic building blocks of morality.
Moral standard of God is perfection. People are given moral value that continue to grow with understanding and refer to perfect standard. But God gives sufficient freedom for people to choose whether to pursue these values or reject them.
We can’t trust our intuitions about morality or anything else. We have a million and one arbitrary personal intuitions that contradict each other, are too subjective to even articulate at times and aren’t necessarily universal. Reality is that we actually experience happiness and emotional distress as inherently good and bad (which means that happiness and emotional distress are self-evidently good and bad and that includes every possible mind’s happiness - suffering and only happiness-suffering because we can’t imagine a scenario where happiness did not feel inherently good or the existence of a thing that was comparably good despite not being happiness, in the same way we can’t imagine a wet thing that isn’t water) regardless of whether or not we rationalize otherwise or find the implications of this position to be repugnant. That is actually *reality*… and it has nothing to do with whether or not there is or isn’t a god. If something isn’t self-evidently good or bad then we can only project value on to it based on arbitrary and subjective criteria that has nothing to do with the nature of that thing. The law of non-contradiction is true by definition. If you accept that X contradicts Y then you’re already conceding that X and Y are mutually exclusive because that’s what it means for them to ‘contradict’ one another. The law of non-contradiction isn’t a source of knowledge (we disagree on which ideas are internally self-contradicting or which ideas are mutually exclusive, for example), direct experience is. There are plenty of arbitrary beliefs we must hold but that’s only because there is no non-arbitrary alternative. There is a non-arbitrary option (value) when it comes to morality. This is also related to why ideas need to be tested if you’re going to claim any kind of expertise or authority, because ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ is ultimately a subjective process that leads to a conclusion that only feels intuitively plausible or not if it’s not self-evidently true (and only direct experience is self-evidently real).
This argument is self defeating. If morals are objective why are they different country to country/culture to culture? If morals are objective why do they change over time? Either there is no absolute moral standard or this absolute moral standard sucks at giving and enforcing his standard.
This is one of the only ppl who had a legit question and not a “got ya” question
Plus, he was articulate and respectful
@@johnnyappleseed5029 I'd like to double that. Really cool to see someone kind and respectful in these debates.
@G Will Wow.
@G Will
I was an atheist angry at the God i pretended didn't exist. I bought all the evolution garbage and didn't realize all the lies in it. Glad someone pointed out the lies!!!
@@thegreatbehoover788
How were you an atheist if you were angry at god?
That makes no sense.
This guy is very respectful, and he has a smart mind searching for the truth. I pray he finds the truth and the peace that comes with it.
...no
NO...He is using circular reasoning...the meter stick exists therefore...the DESIGNER OF THAT STICK MUST EXIST!!! How SILLY to say the DESIGNER of that stick doesn't NECESSARILY HAVE TO EXIST!!!
@@thegreatbehoover788 ...
@@spawncampe
...try using logic.
@@thegreatbehoover788 was that last response to me?
It's refreshing to see a respectful and thoughtful dialogue between a Christian and and Atheist.
Literally my exact thought
I have nothing to add in this reply but that your comment is a delightful statement.
The man seems like he wants to be convinced that God loves him and is real.
He needs to come to Jesus first to come to God
I have felt His love. Is nothing like it on this earth. You can put everything that makes you happy together have all the love of all the people in the world and it would no compare at all. Greatest thing about Jesus love is that there is no end
It still doesn't make it real.
@@velkyn1 atheists don’t agree with other atheists so that means God has to exist 🧐
@@letsprayandfasttogether9618 no, it just means atheist have opinions
Just wanna thank you Dr Turek - you (amongst a few others) are the reason I managed to get out my own way and let The Holy Spirit come into my life and have his way... God bless you and all watching this!!
Thank God first for he has given us the knowledge so that many others could be freed from the world to be in unity with Him. God bless you and I hope you have a blessed life, brother
You have to respect someone who’s willing to accept a free book from someone with whom they disagree with.
I love the crazy responses Dr. Turek gets when he asks people of they would read a book if he gave them a copy of it
Likewise.
Lol yea people are hilarious. The excuses are so telling ya?
Lol, I think you all misinterpreted that reaction. It’s not an excuse. It’s simply an out-of-the blue question. If I ask you if you’d read my book if I gave it to you, I don’t think your answer would be an instantaneous “yes,”. I think that your answer would be as noncommittal as his was. Taking a beat to consider your response isn’t = to resistance.
"I can't quite articulate the circulatory that i am trying to prove". I'ma use this
Ikr so well phrased😂
I think what he may mean to say is that Dr. Turek's definition of "objective" already includes a superhuman element, which Dr. Turek then twists into only referring to his God. I think that's why he used the example of a yard stick. We can measure things for ourselves with our thumbs, hand spans and feet, but those measurements are meaningless to other people. Only when we agree with others what the standard for those measurements should be, do they become reference material that is independent from our personal opinion, or "objective". But that doesn't mean that there is some divine "foot" in some realm beyond our world that our "foot" must refer to.
Frank Turek says our intuition is stronger evidence for morality being real than any evidence provided for morality not existing. Can we really say that our intuition is evidence though? I find this very confusing.
Another question, if morality exists why does it have to come from God and not somewhere else?
@@hsingh5650 To your first question, yes!
To your second question, the morality could come from something else, but it must transcend human mind -- it must exist within a mind beyond humans'. You could call this anything you'd like, but if it is moral, then it is good, and this already checks one big box found in the Bible: God *is* good.
I know this is an old comment of yours, but I hope I offered a new perspective on your question!
Frank is a blessed man
Frank has a lot of wisdom.
@Nick Jones is that all you have is insults? You atheist claim to be intelligent but I don't see it. just contempt lies and insults
@Nick Jones i guess you just mad that god doesn't provide all things you ask for🤣
God only did for Him whatever he let God do through him
@Nick Jones hah! it’s not of this Earth. God can only do for us, what we allow him to do through us. I was replying to “frank is blessed” comment
You know Frank started praying, Lord let this boy get saved. HALLELUJAH
Amen!!!!
Problem:
Frank is afraid of being alone in a godless world.
Solution:
He has an invisible friend in Jesus
who is imaginary.
@@JamesRichardWileyyour imagenary Jesús is just an ignorant claim
Am from UK and was raised in a athiest house hold atheism was what lead me to Christianity i went to jerusalem i few moths ago and i found. Incredible evidence for Yeshua
Aka Jesús. Jesús actually existed and I myself have found awesome evidence for the actuall Jesús/Yeshua not from Frank not from all the Christian apologist but from the reasearch i found hebrew scriptures and i myself studied every famous religión
Like
Budism
Judaism
Hinduism
Islam
Christianity
And back then I hated to Say christianity has more evidence then the other religións but it's true
Jesús/Yeshua
Indeed exist
He Indeed died in a terrible death
And again I hate to Say it but he ressurected
Am going back to jerusalem in about two weeks to do more research
Ohh yeah something else thanks atheism
You Made me a Christian 😁😁😁
Amen !
@@enriqueirizarry2349 dude I'm from the UK too(Bournemouth)!! And was raised with a really Atheistic mother! Coming to Christ because of it
Thanks for this.
Like your Ike pfp.
This guy is a cross between Elvis and Robert Pattinson.
Dude that’s amazing. 😂 he also kind of looks like a vampire.
@@Mike00513 yes it was Pattinson's vampiric look in Twilight that I was referring to.
Great points here Frank! I was thinking about the preamble to the Constitution right before you mentioned that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are among those God endowed, self-evident Truth's!
God bless Frank and his ministry
That was a deep stare at the end tho. I liked it. I felt Frank’s confidence. God bless you all.
He kinda looks like the guy from all those vampire films
Yo I was thinking the same thing 😂
yepppp his voice too😂
Bro I thought I was the only one!!! 😂😂😂
That guy gives me weird vibes. Lol
Twilight Saga.😂😂🤣🤣🤣
“There is no right or wrong “said the atheist until “wrong “ happens to the atheist.
That's exactly right. Morality for them is subjective when it comes to God. When it's something they oppose it's absolutely objective.
True that. That is commonly heard and is blatant ignorance of why the law is present in the first place.
@Nick Jones No. Morality is not subjective to me. God makes His laws objective and holds all people accountable to them. That includes me. If morality was subjective to me then I'd be defining good and evil like the atheists do.
If you care for innocent babies then I hope you're pro life because the athiest pro abortionists have slaughtered over 60 million babies in the womb since it's legalization. Or do they not count because you can't blame their deaths on God?
@Nick Jones Humanists are more moral? Do you think Planned Parenthood is a Christian organization? Are pro choice parades full of churches and pastors leading the way? Are key politicians who legalize and protect abortion born again Christians? Are the "my body my choice" women who've had multiple abortions Bible believing Christian women? The answer is no to all of those. Those are your moral humanists who are responsible for 60+ million baby deaths. Any that God killed in the Bible pales in comparison to that and He did it with the right and authority He has to do so. Blame the people who brought God's wrath on themselves by their evil deeds. God created those babies and He took them home with Him. I don't see the problem there.
So not not only is your argument obviously biased and weak but it shows how desperate you are to accuse God of something you excuse man of. If you were that much of a baby lover, you'd be on a pro abortion feminist channel accusing them of murder or protesting an abortion clinic. But you don't care that much. No, dead babies are just a convenient platform for you to stand on to blame God and attack Christianity. Same goes with all atheists with the dead babies argument. Not a genuine care there and most are pro abortion.
Besides, if you're accusing God of wrongdoing then you're acknowledging His existence. If you say God doesn't exist then I don't know who you're accusing. You can't have it both ways though. Either God exists or you have no accusation. Pick one.
Humanism is just a bunch of Atheist getting together and stealing from religion
It’s I good to become a believer when your young. Sins can and will haunt you in the winter of your life.
What a cool conversation. Seems like a genuinely interested guy. I pray the Holy Spirit leads him to the knowledge of Christ.
While it was patiently and respectfully executed, this guy’s question was painfully articulated. It’s a shame he couldn’t better express his doubts as he seems to be genuine in his pursuit of truth.
Morality is a social construct.
Turek is awesome. I don't get why people don't see this. I love this ministry. Keep up the good work.
Because he's just an apologetic preacher, he's useless
@@badideass ::
You're wrong. Apologetics is useful if you're trying to defend the faith. That's whole idea behind apologetics, defending the faith. So apologetics is a good skill for all Christians to have. So he is useful.
@@KnighteMinistriez they are just people lying, apologetics is absolutely useless to reality
@@KnighteMinistriez faith is a useless dishonest position
@@badideass ::
I have no words for how wrong you are. You are just wrong.
"Do we all have a moral compass?"
Sure. And we each have our own subjective moral north for our moral compass.
That's why some people will have the opinion that abortion is wrong while other people will have the opinion that abortion should be allowed.
Would you say the same if someone had the opinion that rape should be allowed?
That's why God gave us the bible - so that we can set our subjective north to his true north.
@@johnlove2954 I did not say that everyone's compass pointed to what others would consider moral. I pointed out that morality is subjective. No one has ( so far) proved objective morality exists.
As for rape, the Bible has god issuing instructions on what steps to take & under what circumstances you can rape a pretty woman.
The Bible also has god deciding that the proper punishment for a man who has sinned is to have that man's wives publicly raped.
@@cnault3244 Well, why cannot God have different opinion than you about rape?
There is no issue at all here. If you believe morality is subjective, even then there is no problem. God has decided that some things are wrong and he is more powerful than us.
Your opinion against his is worthless. So, de facto, even if there is no objective morality, there is nothing we can do and we cannot complain about it if we believe it is all preference. So, the moral argument still works.
@@cnault3244 , are there any behaviors that you say are objectively wrong no matter what a person's opinion is on the matter? For example as Dr. Turek asks, "Is torturing babies for fun immoral?" or does it depend on someone's opinion?
.
Btw, the Bible doesn't say rape should be allowed. This is a common fallacy used to distract from the topic at hand. Let's stay on the topic of objective morality for now, without even referencing the Bible.
I'm not a Christian myself but I would read one of his books. He's my favorite religious philosopher.
Dude looks like Edward from Twilight.
it is
Love you Frank. For what it's worth, by my standards, you are a good man. Thanks for your obedience in God's call on your life.
Wether your a Christian or Atheist I’m pretty sure we can all agree that that dude debating with Frank Turks looks like a vampire. Lol
It’s pretty hilarious
@@Mike00513 I just started the video and your comment was one of the first I saw.
Now I can’t unsee the vampire
@Jacob Rainey, that’s hilarious 😆
That’s what I thought
Nice, this is gentleman is a true skeptic. To a skeptic is to question the genuineness of any claim, but always seeking what is truth. We have all been skeptical at any point of our life, and that is ok. The problems of this arises when you use that title to avoid what is true. A person like that, shouldn't be called a skeptic, rather, this person has already made up his/her mind. Nowadays, to be skeptic is to doubt claims and to always counter good arguments with the typical "I'm not convinced" because you just don't want to accept the truth. God bless that gentleman!
@Nick Jones Man, am I the only one that is tired of people giving the same excuse over and over again. My friend, what you have is what would be referred as ignorance. To say that Christians hold their belief on baseless assertions is calling the 2.2 Billion people that believe in Jesus Christ "delusional." And sincerely, that is not a very educated way to refer your disagreement with a certain topic (in this case, Christianity). I would invite you review and at least read the many arguments that Christians have proposed for the existence of God, and then we can both have a good conversation knowing the facts already.
Also, to say that it is not true that atheists do not accept truth just because they don't want to is completely false. Ask an Atheist the following question (note that this method to prove the genuine search of truth of a person is not mine, all credit goes to Dr. Frank Turek): "If I could prove to you that without a doubt Christianity is true, would you become a Christian?" I guarantee you, that there will be atheists that will say "No." Why is that? because they want to believe something that makes them happy, and not what is true. Now, I'm not saying that all atheists are like that, in fact, I have seen atheists that are faithfully looking for what is true, and listen to the arguments of others with respect and an open mind. So, before making the outrageous claim that Christians hold their beliefs on "baseless ASSERTIONS, logically fallacious arguments or hearsay." Is to really just embarrass yourself with your lack of knowledge about a subject.
@Nick Jones My friend, here is the thing. I enjoy talking to Atheists, I really do. The problem here is that I don't go around leaving "senseless" comments and then "run away like a prepubescent schoolgirl." What I do is leave my arguments or reply to any topic, wait for a response, and then judge the response. In your case, I saw the typical online skeptic who uses the common cliche slogans when referring to theistic arguments. Something that caught my attention from your previous comment is the use of your ad-populum fallacy. When I said that calling 2.2 Billion people that believe in Christianity are all delusional, I did not mean that because this amount of people believe it, then it has to be true. I meant that out of 2.2 billion people (which by the way, is a massive number) it's not possible that all of them are idiotic people that blindly follow their pastors and priests, and are not people who have a good education and can distinguish what is true or not. So, either you used the fallacy in an unnecessary manner, or you simply did not understand what I wrote.
When I see this kind of comments, in which the writer critiques Theistic convictions by calling them "BASELESS assertions" or "FALLACIOUS arguments," and after that, they do not offer the reason why they say that, then it is clear that I am wasting my time with a person like that, so I simply don't answer. Also, when you refer to me with insults, then I will naturally lose interest in speaking. I have nothing against you, and, as a matter of fact, I wish to speak to you! I enjoy seeing arguments that are against my position because that allows both people in a conversation to be challenged intellectually!!
You asked me if I am interested in truth, and my answer is YES and mega YES. Truth is what I live for, and using the intellect that was given to me, I have come to understand that the truth is found in Jesus Christ. I spent 2 long years analyzing and investigating Christianity and Theism in comparison to Atheism, and in the end, I concluded that Christianity is indeed true. I can sometimes be attacked with doubts and questions, but there is nothing wrong with it, I keep digging, I keep investigating, and I always end up with Christianity. So yes, I am passionate about Truth, and as matter of fact, I keep investigating and understanding more about the truth (God). Anyway, I hope this answered your question. I look forward to having a great conversation with you man! God bless!
@Nick Jones Horray! I'm glad you accepted. I'm looking forward to analyzing your arguments!
First, we have to address the elephant in the room, which is "EVIDENCE," so my question would be: What do you consider as evidence? There is Scientific evidence, Philosophical evidence, Forensic evidence, Logical evidence, and historical evidence. So before discussing our arguments, we have to agree on what evidence is.
Revelation 3 :20 - Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Sadly, many folks I encounter simply say that while they do believe that actions like murder are wrong, that is only in their own subjective opinion. When you point out that they are denying that anything is actually wrong, they deny it. And round and round!
.
Tell me dear is your OPINION regarding the "correct" God who's allegedly the basis for morality a "SUBJECTIVE" one or a "OBJECTIVE" one ?? 🙄
Can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.? 🙄 🤔
If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
Morality exists only when it is aligned with the Will of God.
Otherwise, it is nothing more than an idea or an opinion.
...morality is an idea and an opinion...
@@cuetoaa7074 how is it so? Care to share my friend?
Morality doesn't require any god. Morality is a social construction. Morality results from rational choices. Morality results from a complex interaction of genes, neural processes, and social interactions. Hence the origins of morality are both neural and social.
@@cuetoaa7074 - Only when it is disconnected from God's will and commands. Otherwise, it is morality.
@@yeshuachrist2300 - You are being sarcastic....right?
The skeptic asked an honest-intentioned question at 2:10 that I wish Turek would've addressed. He asked if morality needs a measuring stick who is to say the measuring stick even exists? Well if you didn't need a ruler to prove inches were short than we would presuppose that inches do not exist-cart before the horse. So we are back to where we started. If universal morality does exist, then the measuring stick is in fact necessary. So the skeptic would need to ask himself: does morality (no matter where you think it comes from) exist or not? He already admits it does, so the measuring stick (God) is Necessary and does also exist. If he says morality does not exist, then torturing babies (Turek's favorite example) is subjective which the skeptic would disagree with.
Lol what utter piffle, why does our measuring stick have to be a "God" ?? Tell me dear can we use *ANY* "God" as the basis for this "objective" moral standard you speak of.?? Or just the SPECIFIC SUBJECTIVE invisible being *YOU* determined to be the "correct" one out of the many thousands man has preposed.
If its the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if its the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow superior because its "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
Nice
At least Twilight was open to criticism 😌
Everything is whether one likes it or not.
We have compasses but they all face different directions. A uniform standard of right and wrong isn’t baked into all of us. Somebody’s right may be another person’s wrong and vice versa. If that weren’t the case, we wouldn’t need to be taught right from wrong in the first place.
Jesus is the only authority on morality. He gaves us our morals but his word is ultimately the standard
Any proof outside of the Bible for objectivity?
@@ParadiseLordRyu Not that i know of but am not interested outside of the bible.
Jesus was a first century itinerant Jewish preacher.
Not a god , not the son of a god
@Mr. Rogers lol I accept the bible as it is. God write the entire bible but he used people to do it. Why? Because he wanted to
@@mickqQ He was God but am not about to argue the truth with you
I was a bad person in the mind I could not let go of terrible thought so I went to god and prayed and begged and he healed me. The next day. Went to church they were sharing a story similar to mine but the village asked the guy to share it so I thought I would to god is great
quick question! why is God the objective standard? I would love to hear an answer that does include the Bible and an answer that does not include the Bible. :)
objective doesn't necessarily mean God, but it does mean, that its not just an opinion, saying 10 pounds is heavy, the 10 pounds is an objective standard, heavy is how it feels to you, the subjective part, both will always be in play, If we use what a Perfect Person would be, Jesus Christ, hes like the best friend, and best parent combined, He Loves you like you're the best thing to ever exist, hope that helps
Even if a god existed, and provided us with a moral guideline, that would still be subjective morality. Based in the opinions of one being.
I think that Frank and the like argue the point that god knows everything, therefore he know what good and bad will come from any action and is suitably qualified to define morality so.
But he doesn't get his morals from a god, or from the text that he believes is gods word.
He starts with his personal opinion and believes it was given to him by a god.
@Some Random, That’s a very good point, but what I would like to point out is that since God is morally perfect he is able to measure morality based on what’s morally right and morally wrong. But what makes it objective for us is we have a objective moral reference point we can appeal to measure moral acts and I personally believe that God is that objective moral reference point we can appeal to.
@@Mike00513
If thats the case, you would need to prove a god existed in the first place.
You couldn't use morality to prove your god if you need a god to prove your morality. That would be circular.
Affectively throwing out the moral argument for a god.
As it stands Christians are using the bible as their moral standard. And not even the whole thing, just the parts they choose to believe.
That isn't objective at all.
Wow, pray for him !
Saying "murder is wrong" sounds good, but means nothing. All we can agree on is the saying or philosophy of "murder is wrong," but when we address what murder is, we often disagree. If the military bombs cities of innocent civilians who just happened to be born in enemy territories, is that murder and is that wrong? If the government executes a man convicted of a heinous act, even if the man was truly innocent, is that murder and is it wrong? If you have a vehicular accident that ends up killing someone, is that murder and is it wrong? What if I added the words "drunk driving" before "accident?"
Then there are issues where one side believes they are defending rights whereas the other side thinks that those "rights" are contributing to deaths such as with abortion, guns, wearing masks to stop viruses, access to healthcare, global warming, etc. So we can all admit that murder is wrong and causing death is wrong. But we tend to not think of it as murder if it suits our interests and helps us sleep better at night.
No those are different categories of death. Not really murder.
This convo was very good. I'm from India and here people believe in a Justice system called karma which spans many lives. So they have an option to disbelieve God but believe in karma.
Karma is not justice at all and very often subjective and not objective. What is justice and who decides what is just? Ever thought that it is random like karma is? You might say it is not random but it is because for something to not be random, what must it be? If you can answer this question, you are perhaps on a clearer direction. When you said span many lives, did you mean one person's many lives or many people's lives? Because it is also very easy to disprove reincarnation. Just think about it logically, if you try you might be able to.
@Alex you shall not steal.
Whether you believe it is subjective or objective or closely near to objective doesn't matter. These words subjective and objective are recent words. If a person follows "you shall not steal" it's wonderful.
In Hinduism each person can believe in a different god. It's kind of their choice. But karma is not subjective. They believe karma does happen. Every one pays back for their sins, if not in this incarnation then in the next incarnation. It creates other problems. Some people's suffering is seen as them paying back their past incarnation's sins.
Law is written on hearts of all humans. Even before Christianity started, before Moses wrote Genesis people knew stealing was wrong across all cultures.
So knowledge of God is not a given. But Law is common knowledge so deeply ingrained. You don't need to acknowledge God but still you have the Law on your heart.
Karma is not a certainty, can you say when a bad thing happened to you it was for a specific thing you did? And what is a bad thing? Can we be sure for example being cheated on is bad? That was not meant to be. Or say someone robbed you? What if a mother stole for her starving baby? Or a rich man donating billions because may be he did something bad before? Karma isn't exactly paying back and it isn't systematic or definitive. Romans 6:23 says the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is external. That is certain for God is the righteous judge who looks at our heart.
Actually all man sin, it isn't enough to just know the law of the heart, get to know the one who created the law. John 14:6
@@hiddentreasure2398 I'm explaining what they believe. I'm not saying that karma or reincarnation is entirely true. I believe that both karma and reincarnation are false. Anyway we are in agreement.
Just like you, I was also explaining. So have you accepted Jesus Christ as lord and savior :) ?
Read the word of GOD and pray if you want proof and to believe this only comes from The Gospel.
John 6:44
Romans 8:16🕊
1 Corinthians 15
Very well explained
Frank is equivocating over the concept of "objective morality".
When Frank tries to prove that "objective morality" exists, he appeals to our deep intuitions that murder is wrong. But these deep intuitions don't require a God. They are just as easily explained by common social instincts that we share. We generally want to live healthy, peaceful, fulfilling lives, and allowing murder isn't conducive to that.
But elsewhere in the argument, he isn't talking about common intuitions/instincts. He's talking about a divine mandate. If you want to show that there is a divine mandate against murder, then you _first_ need to prove that the divine actually exists. This is the circularity that the questioner was talking about.
1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist. (Objective morality = divine mandate/nature, requires a God)
2. Objective morality does exist. (Objective morality = common intuition/instinct, doesn't require a God.)
3. Therefore, God exists. (The conclusion doesn't follow due to equivocation in the terminology.)
Apologists use slippery language. Be careful.
I see what your trying to say man but idk, if there's no standard outside of us wouldn't right and wrong just be subjective?
Let me ask one question. How do you know it's common social intuition?
@@Dan4eva _"if there's no standard outside of us wouldn't right and wrong just be subjective?"_
It depends on your terminology. It helps to think about what an "objective standard" is outside of morality. For example, a meter stick is an objective standard for length. But you don't _have_ to use a meter stick. You can use a different objective standard, like a yard stick. As long as you are consistent and clear about what standard you are using, then you can objectively measure length. But there isn't an _objectively correct standard_ to use. The choice of standard is still subjective.
Can you objectively measure actions against a subjectively chosen standard? Yes. Does this require a God? No. If this is what you mean by "objective morality", then yes, you can have objective morality without God. If you still want to classify this as subjective, then that's fine by me, as long as you are being clear about your criteria for subjective and objective.
But what if God exists? Can we say that the _chosen standard_ is objectively correct, rather than subjective? I don't see how. By adding a God in the mix, all we have really done is transferred the subjectivity from humans to God. Perhaps God is stronger and wiser than everyone else, but that doesn't make it objectively correct. It's still subjective.
Ultimately, the best we can do is come to an agreement on a fundamental principle to base morality on. The most fundamental principle that most everyone can agree on is the general well-being of people. But is this principle _really_ subjective? In my opinion, it's only subjective on a mere technicality. I think this fundamental desire/value is so deeply rooted in each of us that for all practical purposes, it's the only real option to base morality on, whether a God exists or not.
I hope this helps. Let me know if anything I said sounds problematic.
@@thisisjudith _"Let me ask one question. How do you know it's common social intuition?"_
Because that's exactly what Frank is appealing to: general intuitive agreement that murder is wrong. That's the only thing he has to support the second premise. The question is whether it's anything _more_ than mere intuition or instinct. We have viable natural explanations for why most people share certain moral intuitions.
@@incredulouspasta3304 You're very smart haha. You definitely made it really clear to understand your perspective. If you haven't realized yet, I do believe in God and am a Christian. With that said you explained everything really well maybe on a intellectual level. For me it's a heart issue, I just can't see the fact there is no God. One question I would want to ask, If morality is just kinda human intuition then why feel bad about anything we do if as long as I don't get caught then I pretty much can do whatever I want, murdering children is extreme, but what if someone found pleasure in that and never got caught, he enjoyed it, so that's it no justice or anything? What if in his mind he felt no guilt and never goit caught but to him it's "right"
Do we have a moral compass? Of course we do, that's why we've create all of these gods as ways to encourage morality.
Now we use laws, whereas we relied on anecdotal stories in less technological times.
Sceptic's like this young guy have already chosen to reject God. Their problem is not intelectual, it's in the heart.
Good boy.
You can repeat Frank’s catchphrases.
That student asking the question is refreshing
"If there is no God, objective moral values don't exist. But objective moral values do exist, therefore God exists"
Wow🤯
What makes a moral value objective instead of subjective? And why would objective morals require a god?
@@somerandom3247 if a moral value were subjective, it means there would be no morally right or wrong thing. If it is objective, there is a set moral good and bad which is unaffected by our everyday feelings.
If morality was subjective, that would mean our entire justice system defeats itself should be suspended because the government's right could be my wrong or vice versa. Also, it would mean Hiltler, ISIS and other terrorists weren't wrong in what they did because hey, it felt right to them so who are you to tell them it is wrong?
See the logic?
In order for society to function in itself it must have set rules unaffected by what we individually feel. So who sets those rules? Certainly not humans because we make decisions based on feelings. I mean, imagine if Hitler was in charge of setting the rules, he would make then based on what he felt was right.
This means that there must be someone greater than humans who sets the rules. Someone always just in His ruling and seeking the greater good of mankind.
That, my friend, is God.
@@somerandom3247 let's try this analogy:
You were a university students submitting your papers to Me(lecturer) for evaluation.
Then, i would purposely evaluate all of your paper to be wrong while you know that there is some right in it. Then you would contested againsts me saying that I evaluate it wrongly and not accordingly.
What i did there was evaluating your papers based on my own standards; an opinion and you contested against it knowing the existence of a standard to properly evaluating it. Get it?
A standard is extrinsically of oneself not intrinsically. Otherwise, it would be just an opnion.
@@sciencesociety2919 since you agree that God does exist, that narrows the religions down to the monotheistic ones; Christianity, Judaism and Islam.
Judaism is like incomplete Christianity, it doesn't take into regard the new testament and the Messiah. Given the incredible historical evidence for Jesus and the New Testament, this cannot be true, so Judaism is ruled out.
When you look at the origin, meaning, morality and destiny of both Islam and Christianity, Christianity is the only one which produces factually and logically true statements in all four fields that are coherent with each other. Islam has too many contradictions, promotes hate and has a morally questionable prophet among others.
That leaves Christianity and it's book, the Bible. God is the God of the bible my friend.
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
2 Timothy 3:16 ESV
@@sciencesociety2919 oh okay I get what you mean. I'm sure there's hard proof that Christianity and the Bible are true though, I just need to read more on that topic. But thanks for the insight!
There is no objective standard of right and wrong. Since we a sentient beings, we have come up with rules that we (generally) all agree on to be "moral". These moral standards have shifted and changed throughout the course of human history. We used to think that slavery was OK, and now we don't. The Israelites though that stoning adulterers was the moral thing to do and now they don't agree with that. The list goes on and on.
As we make technological and scientific advances, we change our way of thinking and in turn our moral standards. This is how we progress as a species and improve our societies.
Michael or standard objective or subjective that of right and wrong? Yes you’re subjective claim of truth is right, we make up our own standard of right and wrong. Then it is not objectively wrong for somebody to come murder you and take your stuff. We are close to the Chinese or Muslims taking over the world. Therefore you must then conform your morality to which ever of those groups might take over?
@@boyofGod81 Again that's moral Nihilism you're thinking of, it is not the same thing as subjective morality and I've explained this to you before. Seriously why is it so important for you to beleive that religion for morality?
@@RiggsBF thank you for your time. Thank you for clarifying that morals are just somebody’s beliefs of right and wrong. You are right with that.
My words should have been that reality shows that nihilism is the best explanation for the Worldview that there is no intelligent designer.
For without the intelligent designer, we live under survival of the fittest. The one that has more power money and sex is the better Or stronger specimen. Is there anything wrong with what the lion does?
Modern moralists will be weeded out if dawinizm is true. Feminized men are not good for the specie. God’s best in your quest for truth.
@@boyofGod81 I never said that morals are just opinions.
Morality is SUBJECTIVE (IT's not an opinion it is a fact. AND it is NOT the same thing as moral Nihlism) I have explained this to you before.
And stop trying to connect things that have nothing to do with each other. Evolution has been proven time and time again. Survival of the Fittest is not evolution that's Social Darwinism which coems from Herbert Spencer not Charles Darwin.
BTW Most Christians accept evolution.
Again you have not answered my question. WHY is it so important for you to believe that morality comes from religion? (Its arrogant and rude to think it is and your reply proves this) And this time Answer the question.
@@RiggsBF thanks again for your time.
Forgive me if I said you I said morals are just opinions. But if everyone can have different morals, that makes them opinions.
I agree with you that morals are subjective. But without a giver of absolute morals, they mean nothing. Chinese communist party may take over the world. If that scenario comes true, universal Morals on this planet will be guided by the Morals of the CCP. Human slavery, murder, organs harvesting, totalitarianism, one party rule, will all Morals and opposing morals will be immoral. If you kill a Chinese doctor harvesting the babies organs will be murder and the doctor if he kills you will be honored and self-defense.
Therefore Morals are only a tool by the fittest to rule over the weaker minds like yourself. Isn’t our goal in macro Evolution to propagate our genetics to the next generation? Move to China and start expressing your moral views and if you’re healthy see how long it is before your organs are harvested. God’s best in your quest for absolute truth. .
First
Nooooooo
Obama
Turek is perfect... :)
I think frank would agree subjectively, but not objectively that he is Perfect
Great voice.
Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality. There is no exemption from this truth.
@Theo Skeptomai, I feel like that is true to some extent, but if morality was truly subjective how would the court of law work?
@@Mike00513 Great question. Just as each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality, we as a society appeal to the court as the sole arbiter of law.
Morality is the process of differentiating between intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate.
Juris prudence is the process of differentiating between intentions, decision, and actions that are lawful from those not lawful.
Each individual is soley responsible, capable, and culpable for their own intentions, decisions, and actions. Moral assessments are formed by the individual. Legal assessments are formed by the courts.
I hope that answered your question satisfactorily. If not, please feel free to ask additional questions.
@Theo Skeptomai, thanks for being kind. I have another question. If we have our own version of morality to put it simply, and the court of law has their own like you said if I’m not mistaken, how would that be fair to prove someone guilty? I mean technically he/she hasn’t done anything objectively wrong right? Couldn’t that be a injustice?
@@Mike00513 Great question. I will address it later tonight. I am about to watch a game with friends. Peace.
@Theo Skeptomai, alright I’ll see you then! Have a great time!
Thanks Frank for the wisdom and knowledge, cant wait to hug you In heaven..hug you soon brother in christ
This was a good dialogue.
Yes.
﴿أَلهاكُمُ التَّكاثُرُ﴾ [التكاثر: ١]
Competition in [worldly] increase diverts you
- Saheeh International
﴿حَتّى زُرتُمُ المَقابِرَ﴾ [التكاثر: ٢]
Until you visit the graveyards.
- Saheeh International
﴿كَلّا سَوفَ تَعلَمونَ﴾ [التكاثر: ٣]
No! You are going to know.
- Saheeh International
﴿ثُمَّ كَلّا سَوفَ تَعلَمونَ﴾ [التكاثر: ٤]
Then, no! You are going to know.
- Saheeh International
﴿كَلّا لَو تَعلَمونَ عِلمَ اليَقينِ﴾ [التكاثر: ٥]
No! If you only knew with knowledge of certainty...
- Saheeh International
﴿لَتَرَوُنَّ الجَحيمَ﴾ [التكاثر: ٦]
You will surely see the Hellfire.
- Saheeh International
﴿ثُمَّ لَتَرَوُنَّها عَينَ اليَقينِ﴾ [التكاثر: ٧]
Then you will surely see it with the eye of certainty.
- Saheeh International
﴿ثُمَّ لَتُسأَلُنَّ يَومَئِذٍ عَنِ النَّعيمِ﴾ [التكاثر: ٨]
Then you will surely be asked that Day about pleasure.
- Saheeh International
Wholesome!
The young man asked...if we need a meter stick to measure and we don't have one, then how do we measure- basically that was the way I saw his question....he then says if " he FEELS it is true...fact is not based on our feelings!
I had never been interested in religion until about 30 years ago. I looked into it and read the bible. I found that the bible contained quite a lot of the attitudes I have. It was then that I realised that I dont need religion. I've not read the bible since. I studied to be a social worker and was introduced to socialism and anti racist thought and psychology and I've been happy ever since.
Reading the bible is what made me an atheist, I was dating a religious girl at the time LOL...
Towards that god anyways...
Awesome video
"There is no right or wrong, but don't you dare say mean things on the internet or you'll get cancelled!!!!"
They always say "sure, if I get proof" but want to believe everything they hear on TikTok, TV, c0vid....
If you need a book to differentiate between right and wrong then thank God for the book.
Morality is the process of differentiating between intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. Each and every individual is the sole arbiter of his/her own morality. One cannot pass the responsibility of moral assessments onto a mythological deity. Each individual is soley responsible, capable, and culpable for their own intentions, decisions, and actions.
So are you trying to say morality is subjective?
@@Mike00513 That wasn't my point. But, yes, I assert that morality is a subjective enterprise. You would agree, correct?
@Theo Skeptomai, I respect your opinion truthfully, but no think morality is objective.
@@Mike00513 So you think the process of differentiating appropriate intentions, decisions, and actions from those inappropriate is an objective one?
@Theo Skeptomai, could you clarify a little.
The guy is right; only if you already define "objective" as including some reference to a deity can you go from a shared morality to the conclusion that this must mean that a deity exists. Otherwise, there is no logical reason for this conclusion.
In fact of course, any innate or "self-evident" feeling that some act is "wrong" or "bad" is much more likely to be rooted in our common ancestry, which we do have objectively convincing evidence for, than in a supernatural phenomenon that we do not have objectively convincing evidence for.
@G Will If you believe that you are personally responsible for your behavior, then you must agree that your actions and your preferences are subjective.
@G Will Then where does the concept of a deity enter into your views? "Nature" and "nurture" do not need a deity to do their thing.
I would also like to point out that as I cannot make your choices for you, your choices are also completely personal, individual, and therefore subjective.
But there are people in the world, since the beginning of time, who have committed murders and didn't think murdering is wrong.
How can murder be objectively wrong, if not everyone has believed this?
Do not use logic. Believe in Bible!
There are people in the world, since the beginning of time, who believed that the Earth is flat and didn't think it was round,
How can Earth be objectively round then, if not everyone has believed this?
I used God given logic and reason and came to a brief in God and His Word.
If murder is objectively wrong but nobody believe this, why can't it still be objectively wrong?
@@johnlove2954 objectively curved water has not been demonstrated. But there are loads of evidence for the earth being still and not moving. Anyone interested in the Truth has the opportunity to seek answers to questions. Not here to debate or convince anyone.
they would have known know murder is wrong if the deed was done to them or someone important to them.
If man is only good because fear of punishment or hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed
When I first saw this guy, I thought it was the vampire from Twilight.
Morality doesn't require any god. Morality is a social construction. Morality results from rational choices. Morality results from a complex interaction of genes, neural processes, and social interactions. Hence the origins of morality are both neural and social.
So what's wrong with people like Frank? Why can't he understand?
If we don’t need God to know morality how can we justify it. Say if Hitler kills you and your family and takes all of your belongings, how is he objectively wrong? Who told you that was wrong how do you know don’t give me a subjective answer.
@@Mike00513 you can't prove he was wrong to do that to your family. Just like you can't prove he's right. People do what they feel. Whether or not it's right or wrong.
@@ddrse was your comment right or wrong just because you felt like commenting?
@@Jesus_Saves_66 you have free will to trust that it was part of God's plan or you can know if it's right or wrong. God will give you what you want.
Define Moral. It means different things to different people.
Morality has always been a huge problem for religion. A religious person can be moral, but they have no way to explain, through faith, why any act is right or wrong. See how badly apologists fail on this. Or can any apologist manage it? All true morality is humanistic.
I don't understand why people act like the moral argument is such a thorn in the side of atheism. It's not. All the atheist has to do to resist the conclusion is provide counterexamples which are on par, or are better than the second premise of the argument in terms of explanatory power. Because without this second premise, the modus tollens inference of the argument doesn't work. As far as I can tell, moral error theory has just as much, if not more explanatory power for the alleged phenomena of moral experience than the second premise of the argument. Moral beliefs within humans can be explained away as false beliefs in this case. So, simply appealing to the fact that these beliefs are widespread, or perhaps, unavoidable when it comes to operating in the world, says nothing about whether or not those beliefs are actually true. All the time, I see proponents of the argument appeal to ad hominems or ad populums when trying to explain how premise two has explanatory power. If you think this argument is sound, you need to give legitimate reasons for why objective morality has more explanatory power than other counterexamples. However, I suspect the fans of Turek won't step up and provide this, since this whole argument, at least from the way Turek's fans use it, appears to simply be an exercise in rhetoric rather than sound reasoning.
he was stumped!! lol nice jacket though
Always interesting & quite intriguing hearing these conversations 👍 😃
Ask and it will be given to you. Seek and you will find. Knock and it will be opened to you.
The hand that turns the knob. Opens the door
Hi, I would like to ask for any evidence of any gods existence, or at the very least, a good reason to believe that any gods do, or ever have existed.
Do you have such things?
Love you Frank! But "99 times out of 10" is a tough thing to imagine
I really wish there was updates on these students. Would love to read if they gave their life to Jesus.
What I noticed is that Turek didn't quite demonstrate an objective morality. He just brought up something that we all agree on. That's consensus, not objective. To say it is objective, is to commit the appeal to popularity fallacy.
I like the idea of intersubjectivity. If we can make it plausible that a vast majority of people agree on some moral principle over a vast range of cultures and time periods, then we can get as close to "objective" as is humanly possible.
@@hansdemos6510 I agree, that's the only thing that can come close to it.
Turek: An atheist must be able to justify secular morality through deductive reasoning (we need demonstrable proof); BUT self-evident truth (not requiring justification through deductive reasoning) exists.
Hi, could make a video of your interpretation regarding the Harrowing of Hell "the descent of Christ into Hell" 1 Peter 4:6. Tnks!
Seeing how our morality is feeling based and not objective there is not definitive right or wrong there’s no Good or evil based on our standards because you can go into other parts of the world where eating people is okay marrying kids is okay having multiple wives and husbands is okay. “Also in some parts of America” but morality is based on emotions and traditions. Both can be changed so neither is objective
In the book of Acts 2 the bible says when Peter preached the gospel,
Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Men and brethren, what shall we do?” Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call.” And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, “Be saved from this perverse generation.” Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them.
Salvation similar to love is an issue of the heart not the head. It doesn't make sense to the carnal mind because it is a Spiritual thing born on the inside of us by the Holy Spirit. I pray all who are genuinely seeking the truth will find it
"Truth is ascertained using EVIDENCE dear not "faith"
This guy has a point! Neither I could link those moral premises to god existence
What's the jump in the video at 3:03? Why edit it?
I believe in good and evil but here is something I don't understand: We know truth is reality but good and evil only exists in our minds, in our conscience and feelings, if somebody kills, it doesn't show a sign that says: "this is evil". It's simply mental and emotional. How can good and evil exist If they are not in reality?
they always say yeah they would read his book, I wonder how many of them do..
I want to ask you, I am a born again Christian, I have also fallen back in to drinking beer, and smoking cigarettes on a daily basis; am I going to hell?
You need to repent and turn away from your sin. Try praying and fasting because you’re going through a spiritual warefare.
I bet you can’t drink as much beer as me.
"You should just go with the fact that torturing babies is wrong and therefore God exists" - So he's claiming that our sense of morality must come from God and thus proves God's existence. If it could be shown that morality doesn't have to come from a God will he accept this as proof that God doesn't exist? For years now Dr Frans De Wall has been showing examples of animals displaying empathy and reciprocity, the basic building blocks of morality.
We all have a moral compass, depended on the lasting values we were taught.
Yes, there are signs you can pick up of someone's going off the rails...
@@badideass :)
I have a question here: If there was a ultimate law giver (god) then why we have different moral codes between different cultures ?
Moral standard of God is perfection.
People are given moral value that continue to grow with understanding and refer to perfect standard. But God gives sufficient freedom for people to choose whether to pursue these values or reject them.
We can’t trust our intuitions about morality or anything else. We have a million and one arbitrary personal intuitions that contradict each other, are too subjective to even articulate at times and aren’t necessarily universal. Reality is that we actually experience happiness and emotional distress as inherently good and bad (which means that happiness and emotional distress are self-evidently good and bad and that includes every possible mind’s happiness - suffering and only happiness-suffering because we can’t imagine a scenario where happiness did not feel inherently good or the existence of a thing that was comparably good despite not being happiness, in the same way we can’t imagine a wet thing that isn’t water) regardless of whether or not we rationalize otherwise or find the implications of this position to be repugnant. That is actually *reality*… and it has nothing to do with whether or not there is or isn’t a god. If something isn’t self-evidently good or bad then we can only project value on to it based on arbitrary and subjective criteria that has nothing to do with the nature of that thing.
The law of non-contradiction is true by definition. If you accept that X contradicts Y then you’re already conceding that X and Y are mutually exclusive because that’s what it means for them to ‘contradict’ one another. The law of non-contradiction isn’t a source of knowledge (we disagree on which ideas are internally self-contradicting or which ideas are mutually exclusive, for example), direct experience is. There are plenty of arbitrary beliefs we must hold but that’s only because there is no non-arbitrary alternative. There is a non-arbitrary option (value) when it comes to morality. This is also related to why ideas need to be tested if you’re going to claim any kind of expertise or authority, because ‘logic’ and ‘reason’ is ultimately a subjective process that leads to a conclusion that only feels intuitively plausible or not if it’s not self-evidently true (and only direct experience is self-evidently real).
Looks like a God seeker soul that man. 😊
He looks like Edward cullen
Please everyone note that as an agnostic we don't claim nick Jones
This argument is self defeating. If morals are objective why are they different country to country/culture to culture? If morals are objective why do they change over time? Either there is no absolute moral standard or this absolute moral standard sucks at giving and enforcing his standard.
It's easy to poke holes in their stories and statements
".....well i have a friend, he wrote a book, he's a professor and stuff..." Frank that isn't an argument and its completely irrelevant!
will be praying for that person....
Yeah so I’m gonna try to sound like I’m smart and everything, but my argument just got smashed
Wow an ad for Islam popped up for this video, specifically offering that you can get whatever you want in life if you give money to them....
My moral intuitions tell me that there is nothing wrong with homosexual sex and since this is Gods moral compass within me.....
Well we are all wicked and sinful in the heart. So yea don't go by you're feelings. Go by what God said.
@@stanfatou2002 what happened to morality being written on our hearts...