⚠ Sign up to become a founding member of my new men's apologetics and leadership community here: hammerandanvil.circle.so/c/join/join-the-hammer-anvil-society. My BRAND NEW Worldview Leader Journey is coming soon. Be the first to get notified when it's released. Try the Society for FREE now at that link.
No matter the starting worldview, as soon as the “well I don’t firmly believe knowledge is possible” card is played it’s over. They think that’s their save but it’s an admission of defeat because you’ve undercut your whole reason for debating.
This is the problem. It's like when Descartes said, I think or doubt therefore I exist. But when it's questioned, How can you be sure that you can think. His world view immediately crumbles.
It sounds like the host (sorry, I'm unfamiliar with who's who -- i just stumbled across this video) is in "debate mode" while the Buddhist is in a more explanatory mode. Either way, this seems like an exercise in miscommunication, like they're just talking past each other.
@jonperry7507 Talk past each other? It's part of the calvanist methodology to listen past everyone else. I'm not sure they ever get as far as talking past anyone else?
I was a Theravada Buddhist for 15 years and a monk for 3, and accepted Jesus 2 years ago. You guys did a great job respectfully challenging the caller, who did a good job himself representing the Buddha. I still hold the buddhadhamma in high regard, but Christ Jesus is the King of Kings and the only way to communion with our eternal creator.
The debate was over 5 minutes in. He was presupped immediately, and couldn’t grasp that he undermined his own worldview right from the get-go. Just goes to show the power of Presuppositional apologetics, and the power of God’s truth. God bless ✝️
@@Bewefau Bro said”Buddhism is true” and then went on to say “We can’t know anything Is true” 💀 make it make sense. So best case scenario under Buddhism, is that it might be true, but you can never know. Thats objectively a worse worldview than Christianity alone in the point of epistemology. Let alone any other points.
@@nemochuggles The host is claiming that because something is transient that means it’s necessarily unreliable. A microscope is transient, as long as it’s in working order it’s a useful tool for perception into tiny things.
@@Mangafandan you might want to call in and defend it better? But from what we know about buddhism, the caller was spot on. Could he have used more highbrow words? Sure! But it would have changed nothing, because buddhism is fundamentally flawed
@dawaj3715 thousands is a big stretch. There are 2 major schools mahayana and theravada. The same could ve said about Christian denominations but we all agree Christians agree on core principals. Like Buddhists all agree on major teachings like the 4 noble truths and meditation
Christianity does not agree with your core beliefs. The wages of sin is death but the gift of is Eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23. Read Romans CHAPTER 1 and psalms 135.
@@Mangafandan Thousands isn't a big stretch. The Buddha taught 84,000 teachings for the 84,000 different types of beings. Many of these teachings became their own unique schools. Also you forgot the school of Vajrayana which is another major school. As for Christians not all of them agree on core principals as far as I know. I'm not an expert but Mormons are Christians and doubt they agree on much of anything from other Christians. I imagine all schools of Buddhism would agree on the 4 noble truths but beyond that there are very different ideas about the buddhist path.
It's cute how Joel thinks that believing in an imaginary figure gives him any grounding for anything and acts smug by telling the other guy he has problems.... All the problems Joel raises for the Buddhist, work for Joel as well. Presup is so silly
@@nemochuggles that's called shifting the burden of proof, my friend. You know what all the non existent, imaginary things you can think of have in common (like ghosts, gnomes, elves poltergeist etc)? I'll tell you: all these things don't leave behind evidence for their non existence. If I make up something, it's not up to you too prove this thing is imaginary cause it's be impossible. It's up to me to prove it's not imaginary. God falls in this category. Not up to me to prove it's imaginary. It's up to whoever believes it's not imaginary to prove it's not imaginary. Hope this clarifies. Christians somehow struggle a lot with this simple concept.
Its unfortunate that this discussion was a debate and not a conversation. The clear use of debate tactics instead of actual attempt to understand the others worldview at the end of it is what's abhorrent about this. In the beginning Jole (sorry if i misspelled) was asking good questions to better understand the meaning or draw clarification but at some point he just kept asking for the guy to state the obvious and declared victory at the post. So at the beginning it seemed like he was actually digging to refute with actual knowledge but instead just refuted with interrogation tactics that basically forced answers and then reframed the whole thing into some sort of victory lap on how he crushed all his points. When instead I was hoping for an actual Christian perspective on the deeper metaphysical implications being made about what God has chosen to reveal of his nature. Like what would a Christian say about the fact that all matter decays over time and that God is the constant that holds it up and other such forms of postulations. I'm sorry but as far as informational this video didn't do much for me.
@@Will-zt9xzit was a great illustration as to why buddhism can't hold any weight when it comes to reality. Buddhism is a way to escape the reality. It is so sad what it has done to the countries which practice it😢😢😢: the caste system, for one. By the way, there would have still been the caste system, had it been left in the hands of buddhism. The Chinese outlawed it in 1959
Newton calculated that the time would be around 2050-2060 when he comes and he mentioned that nobody knows the exact date and time. Also, everything that he has to fulfill before he comes back hasn't yet been fulfilled. I don't mean that in a rude way, but I think you didn't invest time in studying this subject much and you lack of information about that.
@Jerry-ft5lo Newton was an alchemist, astrologer, magician, and angel believer, in addition to a very good physicist. I wouldn't believe anything he said outside of provable science. I spend ENOUGH time learning deeply about the Bible and AROUND the Bible, which makes me better than a PhD in Bible Studies. For example, that PhD knows a lot about Jesus and Aquinas, but I KNOW WHY Aquinas was a QUACK and Jesus a ph.@.l.z.e q.r.o.f.e.t.
@Jerry-ft5lo Newton was an alchemist, astrologer, magician, and angel believer, in addition to a very good physicist. I wouldn't believe anything he said outside of provable science.
@Jerry-ft5lo I spend ENOUGH time learning deeply about the Bible and AROUND the Bible, which makes me better than a PhD in Bible Studies. For example, that PhD knows a lot about Jesus and Aquinas, but I KNOW WHY Aquinas was a QUACK and Jesus a ph.@.l.z.e q.r.o.f.e.t.
his own worldviewdestroyed his own perception ..... why he didnt understand ... lucky though if im in the chat .. i already gone a lil emotional on that guy ..especially when he hols the name of a saint . its the same as wearing a jesus costume inside satancon
Did he really conclude that Christianity is false because Atheists say so, lol. The entire discussion he could not figure out why everything being transient including the worldview itself is self refuting.
I once read that being saved isnt a future event its the present reality. When exactly does the present reality begin for an individual? If being saved isnt a future event but a reality of the present then every person not born is, at this present time, aready either saved or not saved. Its a divinely arbitrary process. If this is true then whats the point of christians trying to save anyone? Strangely the only way anyone can know for sure if a person is saved or not is if they are ab0rt3d before b1rth or pass on very young. Thus giving them a free pass.
@@Yossarian. Interesting question. Being saved is predestined in the past, a present reality, and will be fully culminated in the future. You can be saved, when you repent of your sins, and believe the gospel. Trust in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, was buried, and was raised to life on the third day. It’s simple, and it will cost you everything, but you will gain everything.
@TheThinkInstitute So what I read was wrong? It said being saved isn't a future event. it's a present reality. What you just said means that being saved is a future event that can be achieved by your own actions.
@TheThinkInstitute I've tried to simplify the problem. So basically, it boils down to this: 1. In the past, you were saved. In the present, you are saved. In the future, you are still saved. Yes/no? 2. In the past, I was not saved. In the present I'm not saved. In the future, I'm not saved. Yes/no?
Is this guy for real. Sorry how would we know that. If your hungry, how then do you know that you're body is begging you for food. Do you even have a body to feed. Is your head a foot. Why go to work the paycheck isn't worth anything. Guys this is a joke right, is my sense perception telling me to stop watching. Oh the way to Eternal life is very narrow.
That was the only thing you got from this debate? I guess you couldn't refute any of the arguments posed by the host, but you just had to leave something negative in the comment section 😂
The Buddhist guy does not understand Buddhism. In Buddhism the absolute truth is the Dharma or Cosmic Law. That law includes transience of all things, excluding the Dharma itself. Otherwise it would be like asking if God can create a rock too heavy for Himself to lift or "Who created God?"
@@saddha1 Well I guess there will never be debates with Abrahamic religions again since Genesis 3 destroys the position clearly. It is not so simple my friend. The story of Adam and Eve in the garden is mythical not literal and the statement by God that the new couple must not be allowed to eat of the Tree of Life, is simply saying that as beings still in a state of rebellion they cannot live forever. Peace.
@@thenowchurch6419 it’s VERY simple. Man was created in his image with his breath, so the rebellion was his and an “all knowing god” would know that. That means he made humans to fail or as playthings for his amusement - he than curses humans to no end! Not to mention that there are actually 2 Genesis stories. So the level of contradictions is so immense, only someone brainwashed would believe this nonsense.
@@saddha1 It is a MYTH for people of a childlike mind state. It is not supposed to make rational sense. You are mixing up categories. It is not what actually happened. The two stories do not contradict each other, so not sure what you are talking about. You seem to be operating out of presupposition and bias. I could say "only someone brainwashed would believe that reincarnation is true without empirical proof." See how two can play that game?
I'm a Christian but i think that makes it all the more important to point out I believe your debate tactics especially towards the end were kinda underhanded :/
My point is instead of just understanding his position and responding with something clearly objective such as math you spent much longer than was needed dragging it out in attempt to humiliate him, then when he brought critisism against Christianity and clearly had interest in seeing if your world view held up similarly you ended the debate. This wasn't a debate it was a one sided teardown without chance to respond and I don't believe that's a very Christian way of "debating". Additionally your response to my initial reply says a lot about how you handle critisism from someone who views you as a brother in Christ.
I legitimately thought you were a bot. I'm sorry I offended you. I don't agree with your criticism of my takedown of this gentleman's false ideology, in light of 2 Timothy 2:24-25 and 2 Corinthians 10:5.
@@TheThinkInstitute yea I agree however I would like to point out 2tim 2:24 also emphasizes gentleness......were not to be some brute with a club beating down our foes but a surgeon with a scalpel adeptly dismantling falsehoods.....hence my point once your realized his viewpoint was subjective realism simply introducing something plainly objective would of been much more effective than you just trying to make him look like a fool.....do you think you looked charitable and gracious in this showing do you think people who actually have his view point will be convinced towards Christianity by the way you treated him even if they accept subjective realism is not a reliable worldview......how do you think you would feel if a Muslim or Hindu debater who actually had the skill to outsmart you on the topic treated you like that.......we are supposed to love our enemy as ourselves, again that's why Paul emphasizes gentleness. The way that "debate" ended made him seem much more graceful and forgiving, bc from an outside perspective (even though yea I understand it's not what you were going for) you tried to make him look like Hitler ended the debate before he could fire anything back at you and he shook your hand with a smile and said I appreciated the conversation.....so who do you really think won that debate
⚠ Sign up to become a founding member of my new men's apologetics and leadership community here: hammerandanvil.circle.so/c/join/join-the-hammer-anvil-society.
My BRAND NEW Worldview Leader Journey is coming soon. Be the first to get notified when it's released. Try the Society for FREE now at that link.
“Is empiricism itself transient?”
..he may not have understood what’s meant by that, but I did 😬
That’s a KO blow in the 1st round.
Wow this is rare!
Thanks for watching.
No matter the starting worldview, as soon as the “well I don’t firmly believe knowledge is possible” card is played it’s over. They think that’s their save but it’s an admission of defeat because you’ve undercut your whole reason for debating.
This is the problem. It's like when Descartes said, I think or doubt therefore I exist.
But when it's questioned, How can you be sure that you can think. His world view immediately crumbles.
@@WhoIsLikeHim Right.
Cartesian rationalism presupposes God without acknowledging it.
He is a relativist not a Buddhist proper.
That was awesome❤❤❤
Thanks for watching and commenting
It sounds like the host (sorry, I'm unfamiliar with who's who -- i just stumbled across this video) is in "debate mode" while the Buddhist is in a more explanatory mode. Either way, this seems like an exercise in miscommunication, like they're just talking past each other.
This was actually a debate. Thanks for watching.
@jonperry7507
Talk past each other? It's part of the calvanist methodology to listen past everyone else. I'm not sure they ever get as far as talking past anyone else?
@@TheThinkInstitute
Either the Buddhist was a bad representative or someone forgot to tell him it was a debate.
This is rare ❤this guy is knowledgeable. I am subscribing already.
@@segunadeosun thanks
Please link to the full video
@@segunadeosun It is in our live streams
@nemochuggles we can continue here if you would like.
My last question was, how do I get the grounding to trust my senses. Is it salvation?
I was a Theravada Buddhist for 15 years and a monk for 3, and accepted Jesus 2 years ago. You guys did a great job respectfully challenging the caller, who did a good job himself representing the Buddha. I still hold the buddhadhamma in high regard, but Christ Jesus is the King of Kings and the only way to communion with our eternal creator.
What a comment! Thanks for sharing.
@ArtKrishnamurti I was "similarly respectful" commenting about that exchange on the christian's epistemology.
The debate was over 5 minutes in. He was presupped immediately, and couldn’t grasp that he undermined his own worldview right from the get-go. Just goes to show the power of Presuppositional apologetics, and the power of God’s truth. God bless ✝️
Thanks for watching and commenting .
or you just know Buddhism
@@Bewefau Bro said”Buddhism is true” and then went on to say “We can’t know anything Is true” 💀 make it make sense. So best case scenario under Buddhism, is that it might be true, but you can never know. Thats objectively a worse worldview than Christianity alone in the point of epistemology. Let alone any other points.
GENESIS 3:22 end of debate.
@@nemochuggles The host is claiming that because something is transient that means it’s necessarily unreliable.
A microscope is transient, as long as it’s in working order it’s a useful tool for perception into tiny things.
I'm a buddhist and I can tell you that guy was a horrible representative of buddhist philosophy
@@Mangafandan you might want to call in and defend it better? But from what we know about buddhism, the caller was spot on. Could he have used more highbrow words? Sure! But it would have changed nothing, because buddhism is fundamentally flawed
The problem is there are thousands of different schools of buddhism and they don't all agree
@dawaj3715 thousands is a big stretch. There are 2 major schools mahayana and theravada. The same could ve said about Christian denominations but we all agree Christians agree on core principals. Like Buddhists all agree on major teachings like the 4 noble truths and meditation
Christianity does not agree with your core beliefs. The wages of sin is death but the gift of is Eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. Romans 6:23. Read Romans CHAPTER 1 and psalms 135.
@@Mangafandan Thousands isn't a big stretch. The Buddha taught 84,000 teachings for the 84,000 different types of beings. Many of these teachings became their own unique schools. Also you forgot the school of Vajrayana which is another major school. As for Christians not all of them agree on core principals as far as I know. I'm not an expert but Mormons are Christians and doubt they agree on much of anything from other Christians. I imagine all schools of Buddhism would agree on the 4 noble truths but beyond that there are very different ideas about the buddhist path.
It's cute how Joel thinks that believing in an imaginary figure gives him any grounding for anything and acts smug by telling the other guy he has problems.... All the problems Joel raises for the Buddhist, work for Joel as well.
Presup is so silly
@@piage84 thanks for watching and commenting
@@piage84 prove God is imaginary lol
@@nemochuggles that's called shifting the burden of proof, my friend. You know what all the non existent, imaginary things you can think of have in common (like ghosts, gnomes, elves poltergeist etc)?
I'll tell you: all these things don't leave behind evidence for their non existence.
If I make up something, it's not up to you too prove this thing is imaginary cause it's be impossible. It's up to me to prove it's not imaginary.
God falls in this category. Not up to me to prove it's imaginary. It's up to whoever believes it's not imaginary to prove it's not imaginary.
Hope this clarifies. Christians somehow struggle a lot with this simple concept.
"no MY superstition that MY mommy taught me is the right one!"
Troll somewhere else. This is a place for respectful dialogue.
@@Locust13 aren’t you embarrassed to admit you reject worldviews based on weak strawmans of their positions?
@@alexandria1663 If only the "strawman" wasn't accurate. But it is. Unlucky you.
@@Locust13 yes just like your secularism that the society you were raised in taught you
Its unfortunate that this discussion was a debate and not a conversation. The clear use of debate tactics instead of actual attempt to understand the others worldview at the end of it is what's abhorrent about this. In the beginning Jole (sorry if i misspelled) was asking good questions to better understand the meaning or draw clarification but at some point he just kept asking for the guy to state the obvious and declared victory at the post. So at the beginning it seemed like he was actually digging to refute with actual knowledge but instead just refuted with interrogation tactics that basically forced answers and then reframed the whole thing into some sort of victory lap on how he crushed all his points. When instead I was hoping for an actual Christian perspective on the deeper metaphysical implications being made about what God has chosen to reveal of his nature. Like what would a Christian say about the fact that all matter decays over time and that God is the constant that holds it up and other such forms of postulations. I'm sorry but as far as informational this video didn't do much for me.
This was actually a debate.
@TheThinkInstitute yes its why i said unfortunately this is what it was.
@@Will-zt9xzit was a great illustration as to why buddhism can't hold any weight when it comes to reality. Buddhism is a way to escape the reality. It is so sad what it has done to the countries which practice it😢😢😢: the caste system, for one. By the way, there would have still been the caste system, had it been left in the hands of buddhism. The Chinese outlawed it in 1959
"so then murder can be described as health care?" 😂
I believe James his Buddhism wins :)
@@Bewefau but you don't know that you believe James now, do you?
@@Bewefau rewatch the first 5 minutes
The christian says the budhist method is unreliable, but Jesus failed to come back, and his promises ARE NOT happening.
Newton calculated that the time would be around 2050-2060 when he comes and he mentioned that nobody knows the exact date and time. Also, everything that he has to fulfill before he comes back hasn't yet been fulfilled. I don't mean that in a rude way, but I think you didn't invest time in studying this subject much and you lack of information about that.
Tu quoque fallacy which isn’t even relevant.
Jesus failed to come back according to who? Christians? And what promises?
@Jerry-ft5lo Newton was an alchemist, astrologer, magician, and angel believer, in addition to a very good physicist. I wouldn't believe anything he said outside of provable science.
I spend ENOUGH time learning deeply about the Bible and AROUND the Bible, which makes me better than a PhD in Bible Studies. For example, that PhD knows a lot about Jesus and Aquinas, but I KNOW WHY Aquinas was a QUACK and Jesus a ph.@.l.z.e q.r.o.f.e.t.
@Jerry-ft5lo Newton was an alchemist, astrologer, magician, and angel believer, in addition to a very good physicist. I wouldn't believe anything he said outside of provable science.
@Jerry-ft5lo I spend ENOUGH time learning deeply about the Bible and AROUND the Bible, which makes me better than a PhD in Bible Studies. For example, that PhD knows a lot about Jesus and Aquinas, but I KNOW WHY Aquinas was a QUACK and Jesus a ph.@.l.z.e q.r.o.f.e.t.
his own worldviewdestroyed his own perception ..... why he didnt understand ...
lucky though if im in the chat .. i already gone a lil emotional on that guy ..especially when he hols the name of a saint . its the same as wearing a jesus costume inside satancon
Did he really conclude that Christianity is false because Atheists say so, lol. The entire discussion he could not figure out why everything being transient including the worldview itself is self refuting.
Yes. Pray for him! May the Lord open his eyes.
I once read that being saved isnt a future event its the present reality.
When exactly does the present reality begin for an individual?
If being saved isnt a future event but a reality of the present then every person not born is, at this present time, aready either saved or not saved.
Its a divinely arbitrary process.
If this is true then whats the point of christians trying to save anyone?
Strangely the only way anyone can know for sure if a person is saved or not is if they are ab0rt3d before b1rth or pass on very young.
Thus giving them a free pass.
@@Yossarian. Interesting question. Being saved is predestined in the past, a present reality, and will be fully culminated in the future. You can be saved, when you repent of your sins, and believe the gospel. Trust in Jesus Christ, who died for our sins, was buried, and was raised to life on the third day. It’s simple, and it will cost you everything, but you will gain everything.
@TheThinkInstitute
So what I read was wrong?
It said being saved isn't a future event. it's a present reality.
What you just said means that being saved is a future event that can be achieved by your own actions.
@@TheThinkInstitute
It's a conundrum isn't it?
@TheThinkInstitute
I've tried to simplify the problem.
So basically, it boils down to this:
1. In the past, you were saved.
In the present, you are saved.
In the future, you are still saved.
Yes/no?
2. In the past, I was not saved.
In the present I'm not saved.
In the future, I'm not saved.
Yes/no?
Is this guy for real. Sorry how would we know that. If your hungry, how then do you know that you're body is begging you for food. Do you even have a body to feed. Is your head a foot. Why go to work the paycheck isn't worth anything.
Guys this is a joke right, is my sense perception telling me to stop watching. Oh the way to Eternal life is very narrow.
Indeed it is. John 14:6.
The green screen of bookshelves is cringe
That was the only thing you got from this debate? I guess you couldn't refute any of the arguments posed by the host, but you just had to leave something negative in the comment section 😂
The Buddhist guy does not understand Buddhism.
In Buddhism the absolute truth is the Dharma or Cosmic Law.
That law includes transience of all things, excluding the Dharma itself.
Otherwise it would be like asking if God can create a rock too heavy for Himself to lift
or "Who created God?"
Buddhism is about debate however the debate has to be fair.
Gen 3:22 destroys all Abrahamic debates about god anyway.
@@saddha1 Well I guess there will never be debates with Abrahamic religions again since Genesis 3 destroys the position clearly.
It is not so simple my friend.
The story of Adam and Eve in the garden is mythical not literal and the
statement by God that the new couple must not be allowed to eat of the Tree of Life, is simply saying that as beings still in a state of rebellion they cannot live forever.
Peace.
@@thenowchurch6419 it’s VERY simple. Man was created in his image with his breath, so the rebellion was his and an “all knowing god” would know that. That means he made humans to fail or as playthings for his amusement - he than curses humans to no end!
Not to mention that there are actually 2 Genesis stories.
So the level of contradictions is so immense, only someone brainwashed would believe this nonsense.
@@saddha1 It is a MYTH for people of a childlike mind state.
It is not supposed to make rational sense.
You are mixing up categories.
It is not what actually happened.
The two stories do not contradict each other, so not sure what you are talking about.
You seem to be operating out of presupposition and bias. I could say
"only someone brainwashed would believe that reincarnation is true without empirical proof."
See how two can play that game?
@@thenowchurch6419 in Gen 3:22 God is afraid. Not very powerful.
I'm a Christian but i think that makes it all the more important to point out I believe your debate tactics especially towards the end were kinda underhanded :/
Name followed by 4 digits. Comment begins by introducing yourself according to some identifier.
You are a bot.
no, I just didn't take the time to change my user name 😮💨
My point is instead of just understanding his position and responding with something clearly objective such as math you spent much longer than was needed dragging it out in attempt to humiliate him, then when he brought critisism against Christianity and clearly had interest in seeing if your world view held up similarly you ended the debate.
This wasn't a debate it was a one sided teardown without chance to respond and I don't believe that's a very Christian way of "debating". Additionally your response to my initial reply says a lot about how you handle critisism from someone who views you as a brother in Christ.
I legitimately thought you were a bot. I'm sorry I offended you. I don't agree with your criticism of my takedown of this gentleman's false ideology, in light of 2 Timothy 2:24-25 and 2 Corinthians 10:5.
@@TheThinkInstitute yea I agree however I would like to point out 2tim 2:24 also emphasizes gentleness......were not to be some brute with a club beating down our foes but a surgeon with a scalpel adeptly dismantling falsehoods.....hence my point once your realized his viewpoint was subjective realism simply introducing something plainly objective would of been much more effective than you just trying to make him look like a fool.....do you think you looked charitable and gracious in this showing do you think people who actually have his view point will be convinced towards Christianity by the way you treated him even if they accept subjective realism is not a reliable worldview......how do you think you would feel if a Muslim or Hindu debater who actually had the skill to outsmart you on the topic treated you like that.......we are supposed to love our enemy as ourselves, again that's why Paul emphasizes gentleness. The way that "debate" ended made him seem much more graceful and forgiving, bc from an outside perspective (even though yea I understand it's not what you were going for) you tried to make him look like Hitler ended the debate before he could fire anything back at you and he shook your hand with a smile and said I appreciated the conversation.....so who do you really think won that debate