"You can not speak of a beginning of conciousness. The very ideas of beginning and time are within conciousness. To talk meaningfully of the beginning of anything, you must step out of it. And the moment you step out, you realise that there is no such thing and never was." ~ Nisargadatta
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens There is no evidence of angels, satan or gods. Do better next time. What else do you have?
Is that truly a question or you making a point? Do you feel he’s withholding? Evidence of Franks work seems very transparent to me. I appreciate his efforts. Although he does mention that often.
In this context, Frank was speaking on 4 different topics over an 8 hour day of lectures at our Project 3:15 Conference. Unfortunately, time constraints were a must!
Krauss received the gift of understanding, sees the “fingerprints” of God in His creation, but fails to see it because he denies Him. Everything Krauss said is confined to our material universe and by its time and space limits. Colbert had a Mike drop moment there. Krauss says he is an atheist but he worships, I mean, talks about the universe like a true pantheist, his real faith. Just replace the word universe and replace it with God and you’ll see where his faith is.
This is just a ridiculous, condescending attempt to deflect from the actual discussion. Let’s break it down: 1. **"Krauss received the gift of understanding, sees the 'fingerprints' of God in His creation, but fails to see it because he denies Him."** So now we’re supposed to believe that Krauss, a physicist with decades of expertise, somehow “fails to see” the god you believe in, while you-someone who likely lacks his scientific background-somehow have this divine insight? That’s laughable. Krauss doesn’t “fail” to see anything; he simply applies logic and evidence, which clearly show there’s no need to invoke a god to understand the universe. Pretending that denying your god means missing the “truth” is nothing more than projection. 2. **"Everything Krauss said is confined to our material universe and by its time and space limits."** Yes, that’s how science works. It deals with observable phenomena within the known universe, which is exactly what we should be doing when seeking knowledge. The fact that you seem to think that looking within the boundaries of time and space is somehow a limitation shows how little you understand about the nature of scientific inquiry. The question isn't about the "limits" of the universe-it’s about whether there’s any evidence for your god beyond wishful thinking. 3. **"Colbert had a Mike drop moment there."** Colbert may have made a nice one-liner, but that doesn't change the fact that he was just relying on humor and entertainment, not sound reasoning. A "mic drop" doesn't make an argument more valid; it’s just a cheap applause moment for the audience. If Colbert was trying to make a meaningful point, he failed to do so with any substantial evidence. You’re relying on emotional appeals, self-congratulatory claims, and vague assertions. Try actually addressing the scientific arguments that Krauss and others present, rather than just dismissing them because they don’t align with your beliefs.
The answer is BIG FAT NO. 1. **Strawman Fallacy:** The claim that Turek’s argument is “he can’t fathom it, so it must be God” oversimplifies and misrepresents his position. However, the core problem isn’t the supposed strawman-it’s that Turek’s argument itself is flawed. His appeal to a designer for the origin of complex information doesn’t solve the problem; it just pushes the explanation back a step without evidence to support his claim. **Rebuttal:** The analogy of DNA as a library or code isn’t evidence of divine design-it’s a rhetorical device meant to inject a sense of improbability. Complexity does not inherently imply intentionality, and invoking a designer adds unnecessary assumptions without explanatory power. 2. **Argument from Ridicule:** Ridicule like “Lol” and dismissive terms like “horrible logic” do little to advance the discussion. While derision isn’t productive, it stems from frustration with arguments that rely on analogies and assertions rather than rigorous evidence. **Rebuttal:** Mockery doesn’t invalidate Turek’s claims, but his analogies still fail because they lack scientific or empirical backing. The burden is on Turek to show why complexity requires a supernatural cause, not on critics to disprove his unsupported leaps. 3. **Misunderstanding of Evolution:** Turek consistently conflates abiogenesis (the origin of life) with evolution, which is a misrepresentation of how science explains natural processes. Evolution deals with the diversification of life, not the emergence of DNA. Using the gaps in our understanding of abiogenesis to argue for a designer is a textbook argument from ignorance. **Rebuttal:** The origin of DNA is an open question in science, but invoking a designer doesn’t provide an answer-it simply shifts the question to “where did the designer come from?” Natural processes are at least being studied and tested, whereas divine explanations are untestable and unfalsifiable. 4. **Genetic Fallacy:** Criticizing the use of Bill Gates’ quote as irrelevant because he isn’t a biologist misses the mark. The real issue is that the analogy between DNA and human-designed systems is flawed. DNA arises through natural processes, not intentional coding. Gates’ expertise in computing has no bearing on molecular biology. **Rebuttal:** The analogy falsely equates natural complexity with human-designed systems, ignoring key differences. DNA doesn’t require a programmer any more than crystals require an artisan. Science explains such structures through natural laws, not divine intervention. 5. **Failure to Address the Central Issue:** The central issue-how unguided natural processes account for DNA-is framed as an argument against naturalism. But this is a false dichotomy. Just because science hasn’t fully explained something doesn’t mean the answer is divine intervention. Turek’s argument is a classic god-of-the-gaps fallacy. **Rebuttal:** Science progresses by filling gaps with evidence, not assumptions. Claiming “God did it” halts inquiry rather than advancing understanding. The inability to currently explain the origin of DNA doesn’t mean it’s unexplainable-it means we don’t know yet. That’s not a weakness of science; it’s a strength. **Conclusion:** Turek’s argument relies on analogies, gaps in scientific understanding, and assumptions about complexity requiring intentionality. It doesn’t provide evidence for a designer but instead appeals to ignorance and misrepresents naturalistic explanations. Atheism doesn’t claim to have all the answers, but it rejects the leap to unproven supernatural causes as unnecessary and unjustified. Turek’s rhetoric might sound compelling, but it ultimately lacks substance.
Gods way of creating a perfect world: (…) To create the universe Wait Billions of years Create a man out of mud and a woman out of that man Tell them not to do something that you know they’re gonna do And then threaten them with death And then, when they do it, not kill them, just make their life difficult Then go through a comedy of errors of having people fail to love you or listen to you or obey you over and over Flood the world - start over again Confuse their languages in order to try to start over again, Encourage war Gradually go from walking and talking with them to not interacting in any detectable way And then magically impregnate a young girl so that you can take human form As a sort of god man that’s fully god but fully man - which doesn’t actually make sense So that you can sacrifice yourself to yourself as a blood magic loophole For rules you’re in charge off so you can set aside your own anger because that’s the thing that we’re being saved from - it’s God’s wrath its just that it’s declared to be justice Then expect future generations to believe without sufficient evidence. M. Dillahunty
Im glad to finally hear someone like me that can agree with the big bang and it not conflict with God's creation. Gods days aren't our days either btw.
@LGpi314 maybe do your own research or read the Bible. Here are several scriptures that emphasize the difference between God's sense of time and ours: 1. 2 Peter 3:8 "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." 2. Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night." 3. Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." 4. Ecclesiastes 3:11 "He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." 5. Habakkuk 2:3 "For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end-it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay." 6. Job 36:26 "Behold, God is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable." 7. Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’" These scriptures highlight that God's understanding of time, plans, and ways is vastly different from our human perspective. They encourage trust in His eternal timing and purposes.
@LGpi314 Here are several scriptures that emphasize the difference between God's sense of time and ours: 2 Peter 3:8 "But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." Psalm 90:4 "For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night." Isaiah 55:8-9 "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." Ecclesiastes 3:11 "He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end." Habakkuk 2:3 "For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end-it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay." Job 36:26 "Behold, God is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable." Isaiah 46:10 "Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’" These scriptures highlight that God's understanding of time, plans, and ways is vastly different from our human perspective. They encourage trust in His eternal timing and purposes.
@@Apassion4christ Bible is a poorly written fictional book. Snakes and donkeys do not talk. Resurrection did not happen. Genesis is full of contradictions. There is no evidence of global flood.
@@Apassion4christ Bible is the best book to make an atheist from a theist if theist has just little bit of critical thinking. Got it! Here’s the original list of contradictions, discrepancies, and mythological parallels in the Bible, presented more concisely: ### **1. Creation Accounts (Genesis 1 & 2):** - **Contradictions:** The two creation accounts in Genesis are different in terms of the order of creation. In Genesis 1, the world is created in six days, with plants created before humans. In Genesis 2, man is created first, followed by plants, animals, and woman. - **Scientific Issues:** Genesis 1’s timeline contradicts scientific evidence. The Earth is over 4.5 billion years old, and life evolved over millions of years, not in six literal days. ### **2. The Global Flood (Noah’s Ark):** - **Contradictions:** The story of Noah’s Ark presents logistical and biological challenges. The idea that all species were saved on a single boat contradicts what we know about genetics and biodiversity. - **Scientific Issues:** A global flood covering the entire Earth is unsupported by geological evidence. There are no fossil records or sediment layers indicating a worldwide flood. - **Impossibility:** The sheer logistics of gathering two of every species, providing for them on the Ark, and surviving a year-long flood defy biological and physical possibility. ### **3. Resurrection of Jesus & Mythological Parallels:** - **Contradictions:** The resurrection of Jesus, while central to Christian belief, mirrors earlier myths of dying and rising gods such as Osiris in Egypt, Dionysus in Greek mythology, and even Julius Caesar’s posthumous resurrection. - **Historical Context:** The resurrection story shares elements with these ancient myths, suggesting that the concept of a god's death and rebirth was not unique to Christianity but part of a broader cultural and religious narrative. ### **4. Genealogies and Discrepancies in the New Testament:** - **Contradictions:** The genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke differ significantly. Matthew lists 28 generations from David to Jesus, while Luke lists 43. These genealogies conflict in both the names and the number of generations. - **Historical Issues:** The differences in the genealogies suggest either errors in transmission or a deliberate attempt to fulfill prophecies, but they cannot both be historically accurate. ### **5. Scientific Impossibilities in Biblical Accounts:** - **Contradictions:** Numerous scientific inaccuracies appear in the Bible. For example, Genesis 1 places the creation of the sun and moon on the fourth day, yet plants are created on the third day, even though they would need sunlight to survive. - **Logistical Issues:** The Ark’s capacity to hold all species, along with the necessary food for them, is physically impossible. The claim that two of every species fit into a boat that would have been roughly 450 feet long defies modern understanding of biology and ecology. ### **6. The Bible as a Cultural Document:** - **Contradictions:** The Bible blends stories from various cultures, such as the flood narrative, which mirrors the older Mesopotamian story of Gilgamesh. These similarities suggest that biblical accounts were adapted from earlier mythologies. - **Mythological Parallels:** Many biblical stories, including creation myths, the flood, and the resurrection, are similar to those found in older religious traditions, indicating that these stories were not unique to the Israelites or Christianity but part of a shared mythological heritage. ### **7. The Improbability of Human History Post-Noah’s Ark:** - **Contradictions:** The idea that humanity could have descended from just eight people (Noah and his family) is scientifically implausible. Genetic evidence suggests that modern humans evolved from a much larger population, not a single family. - **Inbreeding Issues:** The genetic bottleneck created by such a small population would have caused serious inbreeding issues, which could not have supported the development of the diverse human populations that exist today. These contradictions, discrepancies, and mythological parallels raise significant questions about the Bible's historical and factual accuracy. While the Bible is valued by many for its moral teachings and spiritual significance, its claim to be a literal, divinely inspired document is deeply undermined by these inconsistencies.
I’m sorry but something is not created out of nothing. All things come from an idea a thought or a want so us being created out of nothing makes no sense to me for God had to first want us in order to create us.
And he did, we were a thought of him way before he placed us in our mother's womb. He created the heavens and earth and everything and everyone in it, when he thinks it and then speaks it, it is created.....
No knowledgeable person makes the claim that anything was created from nothing. Even Krauss book "Something from nothing" posits a field that allows for the creation of particles. The people who do claim something from nothing are theists who posit a god creating with his words out of nothing.
1:22 "it's wrong to torture babies FOR FUN". Haven't you wondered why apologists are compelled to add those last two words? It's because the Christian God doesn't hesitate to torture all kinds of people, including children. But if they add the qualifier "for fun", they think they can sneak past us. Pitiful reasoning.
@@CloudsStrife1 @CloudsStrife1 Noah's flood in Genesis would have drowned many, many children, some of whom would certainly have been old enough to grasp their fate , and to beseech God to have mercy. The plague brought upon Egypt in Exodus would also presumably have caused massive suffering to children. He is also said to have ordered the killing of entire Canaanite families, along with other non-Hebrews. These situations would necessarily have included unimaginable suffering for the children involved, before they themselves were killed. The OT god embraces the act of killing, because his character is a reflection of the values of the people at that time.
"You believe that God is one. Good for you. The devil also believes and tremble. " James 2:19. You see friend, it's not ultimately about "believing in God" that gets you saved. It's placing your trust in Him through Jesus Christ. And one last thing, you will never believe in something you don't want to no matter how much evidence is given to you. Only those who really "seek" end up finding. So may God have mercy on you and soften your heart.
Moral argument is silly. Theists argue that a god who condones slavery, commands and commits genocide, promotes misogyny and even accepts child sacrifice is the source of absolute universal morality. Funny to watch themselves tie themselves in knots to make it work. They end up saying that god's genocide is moral, rendering morality relative to god's actions - as subjective as it gets. Silly theists.
If he did not allow it we would not have our own choice on how to behave on earth. We all would either be doing all good. Or we all would be doing all bad. Which essenitally means we all would not believe in god. Or we all would believe in god. And since we have no choice in that decision if he takes away freewill, what is the point of making mindless robotic flesh beings that just do his will automatically? Are you saying you want to be chsnged systematically so that you can not get mad at someone for talking smack about your mother? Do you want your brain to be on autopilot where there is just no feelings whatsoever? Make it make sense. Your athiest arguments are easily destroyable.
@@WheresWaldo05 so tell me did the billions of persons who never heard of Christ and died end up in hell? Seems that way if the ONLY path to salvation is Christ. What "choice" did they have. My brain is not on autopilot. I chose to question my decades long belief, thinking if it is true it would withstand scrutiny. It did not and I could no longer believe. Are you honest enough to question it? How is genocide moral when god does it? How does an all powerful, all knowing all loving god creating a world in which he must know that man would fall and billions would be condemned to eternal torment make sense. Make it make sense.
If christianity is true then your argument would fail because God is above the law:- He is the law giver. He is not bound by that law:- say for example in the judiciary system in many jurisdictions, a lower court's decision cannot bind a court that is higher in hierarchy. That is the rationale for appealing a decision of a lower court to a higher court. 2nd, If Christianity is true and God is who He says He is, then He can restore life and He owns us since we are His creation, now property law is usually framed in such a manner that the owner has a right to deal with His/her property as He so pleases. It may be a little rude of you tell an artist, "how dare you destroy that piece of Art!" when you don't even know what plans He has in store with that piece.
@@muthonimwangi2827 that does nothing to counter my argument. If god is above the law, he is still the lawgiver and since his laws state killing is wrong and yet he commands and commits genocide, then his laws are arbitrary and subjective. So, he is not a source of absolute morals. My argument is even stronger of christianity is true. You can't just special plead that god has some status that puts him beyond logic.
Frank Turek’s arguments, while rhetorically engaging, collapse under closer scrutiny due to presuppositions and logical inconsistencies. The Kalam Cosmological Argument arbitrarily exempts God from its premises, making it circular, while the Intelligent Design Argument misrepresents evolutionary science, which robustly explains complexity without invoking a designer. The Moral Argument incorrectly ties morality to divine authority, ignoring secular frameworks rooted in human cooperation and well-being. The Resurrection Argument clashes with natural laws and relies on historical claims rather than universally verifiable evidence. The Argument from Desire commits a fallacy by assuming that human longing implies the existence of a higher power. Furthermore, Turek’s critique of atheism misunderstands materialism, which explains logic and morality as emergent properties of natural processes. Ironically, his reliance on atemporality-claiming a transcendent cause for existence-denies the necessity of time, the very framework essential for existence, causality, and change. Atemporality is incoherent, as even its discussion requires time, making it a self-defeating abstraction unsupported by modern physics or lived experience. Ultimately, Turek’s narrative, though persuasive to some, fails to provide a rational or consistent foundation for theism.
"You can not speak of a beginning of conciousness. The very ideas of beginning and time are within conciousness. To talk meaningfully of the beginning of anything, you must step out of it. And the moment you step out, you realise that there is no such thing and never was."
~ Nisargadatta
This is close to the most stupid thing I have ever read, but since I am outside of it then it does not exist.
@wisulliv why do you think this analogy is stupid?
@@wisulliv Wow, ignorance is bliss.
turned on subtitles, great job
24:34 "if there is no God, can't something come from him?" Absolutely brutal!!!
Where Tuker has no clue and cherry pick what Krauss says only show how delusional theists are.
What created this god? Would it be the same nothing?
@LGpi314 i noticed you athiests have no defense for your position, just snarky comments with no substance.
@Nick_LIFF maybe you need to learn what atheism is. It has no claim, so it has no position to defend. Do you even know how the burden of proof works?
YES! OUR DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER, our God IS supremely awesome!
Thats the power of imagination.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
There is no evidence of angels, satan or gods.
Do better next time. What else do you have?
Yes and Amen!
Just can't prove it or explain the bible contradictions. Got IT.
Is that truly a question or you making a point? Do you feel he’s withholding? Evidence of Franks work seems very transparent to me. I appreciate his efforts. Although he does mention that often.
Does God exist ?
I can answer that question,
if the price is right.
It doesn't take an hour to say no
Really? Check this out. Question: Why does anything exist? Answer 1: Because God. Answer 2: Because nothing.
@truthfan2822 Answer 3 Because it does. Change your name to mythologyfan822
But it will take an eternity to regret saying no.
@@ResoluteOakOfRighteousness Ooga booga
@@ScottByther How can you be sure God doesn’t exist?
Why does frank always say we don't have the time to cover all this. Is he on some kind of time constraint during his lectures.
In this context, Frank was speaking on 4 different topics over an 8 hour day of lectures at our Project 3:15 Conference. Unfortunately, time constraints were a must!
Yes.
@@MainStreetChurchChilliwackWhere is this held?
@@HeronChasing Our Project 3:15 Conference is held at our church in Chilliwack, BC, Canada every February.
@@MainStreetChurchChilliwack Very cool. Thank you for telling me. Your people seem good there.
Is there such a thing as a “hate-theist”?
Krauss received the gift of understanding, sees the “fingerprints” of God in His creation, but fails to see it because he denies Him.
Everything Krauss said is confined to our material universe and by its time and space limits. Colbert had a Mike drop moment there.
Krauss says he is an atheist but he worships, I mean, talks about the universe like a true pantheist, his real faith. Just replace the word universe and replace it with God and you’ll see where his faith is.
Yes stay within reality and skip the pure imagination and made up
This is just a ridiculous, condescending attempt to deflect from the actual discussion. Let’s break it down:
1. **"Krauss received the gift of understanding, sees the 'fingerprints' of God in His creation, but fails to see it because he denies Him."**
So now we’re supposed to believe that Krauss, a physicist with decades of expertise, somehow “fails to see” the god you believe in, while you-someone who likely lacks his scientific background-somehow have this divine insight? That’s laughable. Krauss doesn’t “fail” to see anything; he simply applies logic and evidence, which clearly show there’s no need to invoke a god to understand the universe. Pretending that denying your god means missing the “truth” is nothing more than projection.
2. **"Everything Krauss said is confined to our material universe and by its time and space limits."**
Yes, that’s how science works. It deals with observable phenomena within the known universe, which is exactly what we should be doing when seeking knowledge. The fact that you seem to think that looking within the boundaries of time and space is somehow a limitation shows how little you understand about the nature of scientific inquiry. The question isn't about the "limits" of the universe-it’s about whether there’s any evidence for your god beyond wishful thinking.
3. **"Colbert had a Mike drop moment there."**
Colbert may have made a nice one-liner, but that doesn't change the fact that he was just relying on humor and entertainment, not sound reasoning. A "mic drop" doesn't make an argument more valid; it’s just a cheap applause moment for the audience. If Colbert was trying to make a meaningful point, he failed to do so with any substantial evidence.
You’re relying on emotional appeals, self-congratulatory claims, and vague assertions. Try actually addressing the scientific arguments that Krauss and others present, rather than just dismissing them because they don’t align with your beliefs.
The answer is BIG FAT NO.
1. **Strawman Fallacy:**
The claim that Turek’s argument is “he can’t fathom it, so it must be God” oversimplifies and misrepresents his position. However, the core problem isn’t the supposed strawman-it’s that Turek’s argument itself is flawed. His appeal to a designer for the origin of complex information doesn’t solve the problem; it just pushes the explanation back a step without evidence to support his claim.
**Rebuttal:**
The analogy of DNA as a library or code isn’t evidence of divine design-it’s a rhetorical device meant to inject a sense of improbability. Complexity does not inherently imply intentionality, and invoking a designer adds unnecessary assumptions without explanatory power.
2. **Argument from Ridicule:**
Ridicule like “Lol” and dismissive terms like “horrible logic” do little to advance the discussion. While derision isn’t productive, it stems from frustration with arguments that rely on analogies and assertions rather than rigorous evidence.
**Rebuttal:**
Mockery doesn’t invalidate Turek’s claims, but his analogies still fail because they lack scientific or empirical backing. The burden is on Turek to show why complexity requires a supernatural cause, not on critics to disprove his unsupported leaps.
3. **Misunderstanding of Evolution:**
Turek consistently conflates abiogenesis (the origin of life) with evolution, which is a misrepresentation of how science explains natural processes. Evolution deals with the diversification of life, not the emergence of DNA. Using the gaps in our understanding of abiogenesis to argue for a designer is a textbook argument from ignorance.
**Rebuttal:**
The origin of DNA is an open question in science, but invoking a designer doesn’t provide an answer-it simply shifts the question to “where did the designer come from?” Natural processes are at least being studied and tested, whereas divine explanations are untestable and unfalsifiable.
4. **Genetic Fallacy:**
Criticizing the use of Bill Gates’ quote as irrelevant because he isn’t a biologist misses the mark. The real issue is that the analogy between DNA and human-designed systems is flawed. DNA arises through natural processes, not intentional coding. Gates’ expertise in computing has no bearing on molecular biology.
**Rebuttal:**
The analogy falsely equates natural complexity with human-designed systems, ignoring key differences. DNA doesn’t require a programmer any more than crystals require an artisan. Science explains such structures through natural laws, not divine intervention.
5. **Failure to Address the Central Issue:**
The central issue-how unguided natural processes account for DNA-is framed as an argument against naturalism. But this is a false dichotomy. Just because science hasn’t fully explained something doesn’t mean the answer is divine intervention. Turek’s argument is a classic god-of-the-gaps fallacy.
**Rebuttal:**
Science progresses by filling gaps with evidence, not assumptions. Claiming “God did it” halts inquiry rather than advancing understanding. The inability to currently explain the origin of DNA doesn’t mean it’s unexplainable-it means we don’t know yet. That’s not a weakness of science; it’s a strength.
**Conclusion:**
Turek’s argument relies on analogies, gaps in scientific understanding, and assumptions about complexity requiring intentionality. It doesn’t provide evidence for a designer but instead appeals to ignorance and misrepresents naturalistic explanations. Atheism doesn’t claim to have all the answers, but it rejects the leap to unproven supernatural causes as unnecessary and unjustified. Turek’s rhetoric might sound compelling, but it ultimately lacks substance.
Gods way of creating a perfect world:
(…)
To create the universe
Wait Billions of years
Create a man out of mud and a woman out of that man
Tell them not to do something that you know they’re gonna do
And then threaten them with death
And then, when they do it, not kill them, just make their life difficult
Then go through a comedy of errors of having people fail to love you or
listen to you or obey you over and over
Flood the world - start over again
Confuse their languages in order to try to start over again,
Encourage war
Gradually go from walking and talking with them to not interacting in any detectable way
And then magically impregnate a young girl so that you can take human form
As a sort of god man that’s fully god but fully man - which doesn’t actually make sense
So that you can sacrifice yourself to yourself as a blood magic loophole
For rules you’re in charge off so you can set aside your own anger because
that’s the thing that we’re being saved from - it’s God’s wrath its just that it’s declared to be justice
Then expect future generations to believe without sufficient evidence.
M. Dillahunty
Im glad to finally hear someone like me that can agree with the big bang and it not conflict with God's creation. Gods days aren't our days either btw.
" Gods days aren't our days either btw." Empty words mean nothing. How do you know?
@LGpi314 maybe do your own research or read the Bible.
Here are several scriptures that emphasize the difference between God's sense of time and ours:
1. 2 Peter 3:8
"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
2. Psalm 90:4
"For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night."
3. Isaiah 55:8-9
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
4. Ecclesiastes 3:11
"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."
5. Habakkuk 2:3
"For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end-it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay."
6. Job 36:26
"Behold, God is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable."
7. Isaiah 46:10
"Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’"
These scriptures highlight that God's understanding of time, plans, and ways is vastly different from our human perspective. They encourage trust in His eternal timing and purposes.
@LGpi314
Here are several scriptures that emphasize the difference between God's sense of time and ours:
2 Peter 3:8
"But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."
Psalm 90:4
"For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch in the night."
Isaiah 55:8-9
"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts."
Ecclesiastes 3:11
"He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end."
Habakkuk 2:3
"For still the vision awaits its appointed time; it hastens to the end-it will not lie. If it seems slow, wait for it; it will surely come; it will not delay."
Job 36:26
"Behold, God is great, and we know him not; the number of his years is unsearchable."
Isaiah 46:10
"Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose.’"
These scriptures highlight that God's understanding of time, plans, and ways is vastly different from our human perspective. They encourage trust in His eternal timing and purposes.
@@Apassion4christ Bible is a poorly written fictional book. Snakes and donkeys do not talk. Resurrection did not happen. Genesis is full of contradictions. There is no evidence of global flood.
@@Apassion4christ Bible is the best book to make an atheist from a theist if theist has just little bit of critical thinking.
Got it! Here’s the original list of contradictions, discrepancies, and mythological parallels in the Bible, presented more concisely:
### **1. Creation Accounts (Genesis 1 & 2):**
- **Contradictions:** The two creation accounts in Genesis are different in terms of the order of creation. In Genesis 1, the world is created in six days, with plants created before humans. In Genesis 2, man is created first, followed by plants, animals, and woman.
- **Scientific Issues:** Genesis 1’s timeline contradicts scientific evidence. The Earth is over 4.5 billion years old, and life evolved over millions of years, not in six literal days.
### **2. The Global Flood (Noah’s Ark):**
- **Contradictions:** The story of Noah’s Ark presents logistical and biological challenges. The idea that all species were saved on a single boat contradicts what we know about genetics and biodiversity.
- **Scientific Issues:** A global flood covering the entire Earth is unsupported by geological evidence. There are no fossil records or sediment layers indicating a worldwide flood.
- **Impossibility:** The sheer logistics of gathering two of every species, providing for them on the Ark, and surviving a year-long flood defy biological and physical possibility.
### **3. Resurrection of Jesus & Mythological Parallels:**
- **Contradictions:** The resurrection of Jesus, while central to Christian belief, mirrors earlier myths of dying and rising gods such as Osiris in Egypt, Dionysus in Greek mythology, and even Julius Caesar’s posthumous resurrection.
- **Historical Context:** The resurrection story shares elements with these ancient myths, suggesting that the concept of a god's death and rebirth was not unique to Christianity but part of a broader cultural and religious narrative.
### **4. Genealogies and Discrepancies in the New Testament:**
- **Contradictions:** The genealogies of Jesus in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke differ significantly. Matthew lists 28 generations from David to Jesus, while Luke lists 43. These genealogies conflict in both the names and the number of generations.
- **Historical Issues:** The differences in the genealogies suggest either errors in transmission or a deliberate attempt to fulfill prophecies, but they cannot both be historically accurate.
### **5. Scientific Impossibilities in Biblical Accounts:**
- **Contradictions:** Numerous scientific inaccuracies appear in the Bible. For example, Genesis 1 places the creation of the sun and moon on the fourth day, yet plants are created on the third day, even though they would need sunlight to survive.
- **Logistical Issues:** The Ark’s capacity to hold all species, along with the necessary food for them, is physically impossible. The claim that two of every species fit into a boat that would have been roughly 450 feet long defies modern understanding of biology and ecology.
### **6. The Bible as a Cultural Document:**
- **Contradictions:** The Bible blends stories from various cultures, such as the flood narrative, which mirrors the older Mesopotamian story of Gilgamesh. These similarities suggest that biblical accounts were adapted from earlier mythologies.
- **Mythological Parallels:** Many biblical stories, including creation myths, the flood, and the resurrection, are similar to those found in older religious traditions, indicating that these stories were not unique to the Israelites or Christianity but part of a shared mythological heritage.
### **7. The Improbability of Human History Post-Noah’s Ark:**
- **Contradictions:** The idea that humanity could have descended from just eight people (Noah and his family) is scientifically implausible. Genetic evidence suggests that modern humans evolved from a much larger population, not a single family.
- **Inbreeding Issues:** The genetic bottleneck created by such a small population would have caused serious inbreeding issues, which could not have supported the development of the diverse human populations that exist today.
These contradictions, discrepancies, and mythological parallels raise significant questions about the Bible's historical and factual accuracy. While the Bible is valued by many for its moral teachings and spiritual significance, its claim to be a literal, divinely inspired document is deeply undermined by these inconsistencies.
I’m sorry but something is not created out of nothing. All things come from an idea a thought or a want so us being created out of nothing makes no sense to me for God had to first want us in order to create us.
No physicist or knowledgable atheist claims the universe came from nothing. The Big Bang doesn't make that claim either. Typical theist strawman.
And he did, we were a thought of him way before he placed us in our mother's womb. He created the heavens and earth and everything and everyone in it, when he thinks it and then speaks it, it is created.....
He literally created Adam from the dust of the earth that he created 🤌
No knowledgeable person makes the claim that anything was created from nothing. Even Krauss book "Something from nothing" posits a field that allows for the creation of particles. The people who do claim something from nothing are theists who posit a god creating with his words out of nothing.
Gotta say, even though the information provided is amazing. Most of these arguments are still fallible
You cant prove god is real
You also can’t prove he isn’t
Idk I just let people believe what they want, as long as their happy and not hurting anyone
You can't prove ANYTHING
But, You can follow the evidence. And the evidence leads to God being real.
@@kapitan19969838 So post it then it's not just a claim but a fact.
1:22 "it's wrong to torture babies FOR FUN". Haven't you wondered why apologists are compelled to add those last two words? It's because the Christian God doesn't hesitate to torture all kinds of people, including children. But if they add the qualifier "for fun", they think they can sneak past us. Pitiful reasoning.
@@drumrnva Could you please provide the scenario in which this occurred? What was the context of this torture?
@@CloudsStrife1 @CloudsStrife1 Noah's flood in Genesis would have drowned many, many children, some of whom would certainly have been old enough to grasp their fate , and to beseech God to have mercy. The plague brought upon Egypt in Exodus would also presumably have caused massive suffering to children. He is also said to have ordered the killing of entire Canaanite families, along with other non-Hebrews. These situations would necessarily have included unimaginable suffering for the children involved, before they themselves were killed. The OT god embraces the act of killing, because his character is a reflection of the values of the people at that time.
And another guy trying to make a buck from religion.
It seems pretty easy though. A fool and their money...
You are talking about yourself.
Atheist & Believer these two system wrong way. The Nature is itself direct one type alternative god.
Nature is natural, there is nothing in nature that is supernatural. You are contradicting yourself. Words have meanings for a reason.
"Nothing is what rocks dream about"
NOT Aristotle !
A funny meme, but is not true ...
Yes, Turek got the quote from Zacharias who thought it was Aristotle ... The quotation originates with Jonathan Edwards from his essay "On Being."
@@ConsiderJAH
Good to know , Thanks !
I don't have enough faith to believe in God.
Give me one good reason and let's talk about it.
You can't handle the truth . You demonstrate that by your comment. Covid19 is a biblical plague.
You don't have to believe in God while you are alive, but the moment you die, you will believe.
@@grannynaumann7165 How can you believe if the brain is no longer functioning? Belief is a process of the mind. How does this logically work?
"You believe that God is one. Good for you. The devil also believes and tremble. " James 2:19. You see friend, it's not ultimately about "believing in God" that gets you saved. It's placing your trust in Him through Jesus Christ. And one last thing, you will never believe in something you don't want to no matter how much evidence is given to you. Only those who really "seek" end up finding. So may God have mercy on you and soften your heart.
@@j.peaceo1031 How do I place my trust in Him? Tell me the steps.
Moral argument is silly. Theists argue that a god who condones slavery, commands and commits genocide, promotes misogyny and even accepts child sacrifice is the source of absolute universal morality. Funny to watch themselves tie themselves in knots to make it work. They end up saying that god's genocide is moral, rendering morality relative to god's actions - as subjective as it gets. Silly theists.
If he did not allow it we would not have our own choice on how to behave on earth. We all would either be doing all good. Or we all would be doing all bad. Which essenitally means we all would not believe in god. Or we all would believe in god. And since we have no choice in that decision if he takes away freewill, what is the point of making mindless robotic flesh beings that just do his will automatically? Are you saying you want to be chsnged systematically so that you can not get mad at someone for talking smack about your mother? Do you want your brain to be on autopilot where there is just no feelings whatsoever?
Make it make sense. Your athiest arguments are easily destroyable.
@@WheresWaldo05 so tell me did the billions of persons who never heard of Christ and died end up in hell? Seems that way if the ONLY path to salvation is Christ. What "choice" did they have.
My brain is not on autopilot. I chose to question my decades long belief, thinking if it is true it would withstand scrutiny. It did not and I could no longer believe. Are you honest enough to question it?
How is genocide moral when god does it?
How does an all powerful, all knowing all loving god creating a world in which he must know that man would fall and billions would be condemned to eternal torment make sense. Make it make sense.
@@WheresWaldo05 so my choice is believe or be eternally tortured. That's coercion, not free choice. The abusive heavenly father.
If christianity is true then your argument would fail because God is above the law:- He is the law giver. He is not bound by that law:- say for example in the judiciary system in many jurisdictions, a lower court's decision cannot bind a court that is higher in hierarchy. That is the rationale for appealing a decision of a lower court to a higher court.
2nd, If Christianity is true and God is who He says He is, then He can restore life and He owns us since we are His creation, now property law is usually framed in such a manner that the owner has a right to deal with His/her property as He so pleases. It may be a little rude of you tell an artist, "how dare you destroy that piece of Art!" when you don't even know what plans He has in store with that piece.
@@muthonimwangi2827 that does nothing to counter my argument. If god is above the law, he is still the lawgiver and since his laws state killing is wrong and yet he commands and commits genocide, then his laws are arbitrary and subjective. So, he is not a source of absolute morals.
My argument is even stronger of christianity is true. You can't just special plead that god has some status that puts him beyond logic.
Frank Turek’s arguments, while rhetorically engaging, collapse under closer scrutiny due to presuppositions and logical inconsistencies. The Kalam Cosmological Argument arbitrarily exempts God from its premises, making it circular, while the Intelligent Design Argument misrepresents evolutionary science, which robustly explains complexity without invoking a designer. The Moral Argument incorrectly ties morality to divine authority, ignoring secular frameworks rooted in human cooperation and well-being. The Resurrection Argument clashes with natural laws and relies on historical claims rather than universally verifiable evidence. The Argument from Desire commits a fallacy by assuming that human longing implies the existence of a higher power. Furthermore, Turek’s critique of atheism misunderstands materialism, which explains logic and morality as emergent properties of natural processes. Ironically, his reliance on atemporality-claiming a transcendent cause for existence-denies the necessity of time, the very framework essential for existence, causality, and change. Atemporality is incoherent, as even its discussion requires time, making it a self-defeating abstraction unsupported by modern physics or lived experience. Ultimately, Turek’s narrative, though persuasive to some, fails to provide a rational or consistent foundation for theism.
Get real God is alive and well but hes getting a little pissed .
There are thousands of gods, all of them curiously invisible.
@@TonyEnglandUKThere's only one God and his name is Christ
@@TonyEnglandUKgame designers are not inside the game
@@RandomVideos-kn3pf I don't "do" religio-babble. Facts.
@@kapitan19969838 Then prove it with evidence. Show everyone the evidence you have that proves what you just said.
he believes in his own lies
Its not thay i dont have the faith to be an athiest; it's that im just too intelligent to believe something so stupid lol
Are you an atheist? If no, then what you said does not make you intelligent in anything.
I am God. And I say Frank is a liar. Prove me wrong.
Prove that you died and rose from the grave
@@Copenhagen111 You must prove me wrong.
If you are God tell me the name of my cat because God is all-knowing
@@Copenhagen111 Your jesus did not do it either.
If jesus was a god then crucifixion and resurrection were a farce and you still believe in magic.
@@EHonda-ds6ve He said god, not omni-all.
You don't have a cat. lol
Colbert is a waste of time
I'd say Krauss was/is.
But he was still funny as shiznit.