What really annoys me about these debates is the audience. They are told to ask questions and not to make statements.. then idiots stand up and make a statement. I feel that some of them only do it to try and make themselves sound intelligent. Just ask a question!
@@SooperFlye it is difficult having all your beliefs challenged so strongly by the likes of Hitchens! Maybe they want to be heard not answered, and/or realize they don’t have a question they’d want an answer to
+shiffterCL Yes I noticed this too, I wish I would skip what I had already heard yesterday not only because he is saying the same things but because I also don't like being shouted at.
Jarred, This is a debate, yes? One makes a statement trying to make his case for what he believes. The other, if they are able, tries to reply and show why the first person is wrong. Thats the purpose of a debate. "The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him." Proverbs !8:17. Hitch was just promoting his book. So he could do nothing else in those two hours? Turek was promoting his also, but he somehow found the time to show Hitchens failed to make his case. Turek commits several logical fallacies...Dont just make assertions. Give specifics please.
Watching this video from 9 years ago and watching Turek's videos from nowadays shows me that he learned that speak loud is bad for the public perception of the arguments.
@@Kitiwake they are terrible arguments. Eg the opening point of his rebuttal. ‘Hitchens mentioned Hume. Hume said something that I think is weak. I’ll spend the first few minutes of my rebuttal attacking that thing that Hume said, thus making Hume look weak, thus making Hitchens look weak’. Absolute time wasting inanity
Lol. When Turek speaks, I have to turn my volume down cause he's so loud. But when Hitchens speaks, I have to turn my volume up, because I can't hear him. Very interesting.
I think Hitchens has a very clever way of talking, by talking softly he makes everyone have to try and listen and that way commanding their attention. Turek is so shouty he puts people off
If you're wandering down here in the comment section during or before you've watched the video and you have seen the first debate between Hitchens and Turek-- don't bother continuing: it's the same debate with the same results, but with a few very minor rhetorical differences.
@gg ddfccc I don't think that it's relevant whether or not anyone knows turek if he has good arguments. It's only relevant WHAT they talk about and not WHO they are. The content is relevant and Hitchens only goes to say "Religious people are bad and i don't think god would let bad things happen in the world if he existed". It's sad that he really stands behind atheism as he doesn't have good arguments.
Having watched and read many theist vs atheist debates go through the familiar motions, followed by inevitable outcome that I totally believe my outlook is correct as you do yours. I'm starting to think a better question is, what makes otherwise very intelligent people reach such wildly different conclusions and feel so passionate about it?
The Bible has some answers for that, but I'm assuming you wouldn't accept them. Hint: Pride is very, very hard to swallow. A life full of experiences of superiority (by being more gifted than the average person), a life driven by a desire to obtain knowledge/power/skills, definitely does much for a puffing chest.
cubensis01 some men are proud and some are humble. And Christ said it is not those who are healthy that need a physician, but those who know they are sick with sin that will humble them selves and ask Jesus Christ to heal them of their sin disease!!
The principal objection to the fine tuning argument is that we (life) were adapted to the conditions we found ourselves in. If the constants were different, then life would have been different, but still adapted perfectly. However if fine tuning was necessary for any conceivable life, or indeed any physical existence at all, then the fine tuning argument still has weight.
That would require knowledge that we, for the moment, are unable to gather. We cannot know if the constants in this universe can be different, or if these constants are governed by some external phenomena. The fine tuning argument relies pretty heavily on anecdotal evidence. Someone arguing for a God will see the constants of our universe and tend toward the idea that they could be different and the reason they aren't is because of intelligent intervention. The opposing side will see the same constants and conclude that inductively we have no reason to presume they can or have changed.
here’s a tip that helped me with principle vs principal. principal, with a pal, is the leader of a school, because he’s your “pal”. principle, has no pal, and is not a person, it’s an idea. hope that helps 😁
@@BFizzi719 random and intentional are different. Law isn’t random. All scientific law is constant and unchanging. Never has for as long as it’s been recorded. That’s not random then. That’s intention. So you’d have to explain fine tuning.
@@lukereiling3279 and that's false, if the constants were different, the universe sure would be different, but it doesn't mean that any kind of life couldn't emerge, we don't know that.
The mediator of this debate is so irritating, consistently blockading the notion of flowing conversation and thus impeding the presentation of the ideas and philosophies that these two men have come here to discuss.
Not many ideas nor philosophies came from Christopher though. He simply bashed religion throughout the debate. He claims there is no God nor that a God was needed for the formation of the universe, yet when asked how the universe came to exist, He says we don’t know. Keep in mind that he generalized it here. He said he doesn’t know but then said frank doesn’t know. Frank knows. He claims God did it. Christopher knows, he claims nothing did it. But he chooses to change the topic forgetting he contradicted himself and the entire atheist community who claim God didn’t do it. when asked about it. Even if he didn’t know. That be a point to frank. Because how then can you trust a person who claims a supernatural entity did not intervene but yet anything outside of this he doesn’t know? it’s either An intelligent designer did it or nothing did it. In fact there are more options to think about when it comes to intelligent design and one to random chance. this shows that there’s more probability that someone created everything over nothing. Even if he doesn’t know, surely he can know so much about how life started on this earth. So then my question to him would be: if evolution is true as in macro, what came first the baby or it’s mother?
@@juniorsir9521 some form of micro organic bacteria came first, which then eventually became the mother with the capability of giving birth to the baby. I'm not sure why that question would ever propose a challenge to accepted science
@@juniorsir9521 Neither. I'm not a scientist but I'd assume that at some point the organism that would eventually become known as a "human being" evolved into a species with two different types of sexual organ configurations, again, I don't see how asking this question really proves or disproves anything
Turek is a preacher, so he projects his voice very firmly. This works well in some situations, but it makes it difficult to listen to him when a microphone is involved. I find it interesting that the first time I heard to him referred to as "Doctor Turek" my instant reaction was one of disbelief. This is more a reflection on the number of frauds using the title 'Doctor' when they have no right to it than a reflection on Turek himself. His doctorate may be entirely well deserved, but quite a few people claiming to be speaking from the same camp have tarnished that. Another thought on the voices.. When defensive, people will often sit back and fold arms or otherwise indicate distance desired. When trying to involve themselves or connect they'll sit forward. Especially if they're a person who likes to think about the thing being said. Speaking softly will often coax people closer to pay attention and listen, which sets us up as receptive. Speaking loudly or projecting will often make them withdraw if only to preserve their eardrums, which sets up a defensive reaction. Firm projection works well in a church, but doesn't work well in more intimate or thoughtful environments. I propose that watching a debate is a more thoughtful environment. Hitchens' habit of talking quietly serves him quite well here. Turek might benefit from toning things down a little to reach his audience better.
@@salvadorhpo2030 How the universe got here, no one knows for sure but they are alot of different models and they are no consensus of which one the scientist all agree on but one model which some scientist talk about is that the universe was just a transformation from one state to another which started after a rapid expansion of the cosmo's 13.8 billion years ago which this model could have other universes within the cosmo's so if you ever heard of multiverses then it probably came from this model and also this model states the cosmo might be eternal and time always existed so no need of a creator has it was always existed but no one says this model is true. Also all scientist says that the laws of thermodynamics apply only in this universe and they dont know if they would apply outside the universe as we dont know whats is outside our universe so he was wrong on that to.
The problem is that atheism cannot defend morality because it has no moral codec. This is exactly the reason for Stalins attrocities and it is the reason why all these atheists find no probem with incest. The morality problem cannot be solved for atheists. Therefore atheism is evil.
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable atheism is the assertion that theists haven’t proven there is a god or gods. That’s it! But you can, if you wish to, hold on to the “objective morality” of the Bible that regulates slavery, command the slaughter of entire tribes, including their “evil” babies, commands the stoning of disrespectful children and women who are not virgins on their wedding night. Stalin’s actions sound as if he was following Yahweh’s commands.
@@4um360 Actually the civilization were sacrificing their own babies. God gave them 400 years to change their ways and repent and they didn’t so he wiped them out.
@@igotstoknow2 sounds like you'd be an easy victim for con-men who displays "positive energy". let me guess you voted for trump. and you're religious lmao smi
Unfortunately things that can convince people: 1. Talking with confidence 2. Talking quickly 3. Using large vocabulary Things that do not prove your point at all, see above. NOTE: This isn't against Frank or Christopher, just an observation I notice with various talkers.
@@igotstoknow2 Um, no. He made no apologies for his fondness of Johnny Walker Black, but even if he'd consumed that much prior to this debate, he handily harpooned every single one of Frank Turek's points as he cared to. He would have destroyed a seemingly narrow-minded person as you come across to be had he been given the opportunity.
To Christopher Hitchens "in memoriam": If Frank Turek believes in the existence of an immaterial, intangible reality, which is not subject to the laws of physics and biology, and is therefore "supernatural"... why all this effort to prove that his belief has a scientific basis? About the moral competence of religion ... I was educated in a religious college during the Franco dictatorship in Spain. 99% of everything those priests preached was coercive, punitive, intimidating, threatening. Christopher Hitchens sums it up nicely: blackmail and bribery.
@Michael Walk bruh he explicitly goes back to the topic several times and the guy your replying to made a comment about the topic AND one about moral competence so don’t pretend they didn’t you dolt
Why does Turek keep insisting the universe couldn't possibly come from "something out of nothing"? What makes him (alonng with the carefully chosen opinions of others) think there was "nothing" simply because we don't yet have an identifier or description for that "nothing"? One more question: Does the degree of volume used to answer a question (even a question you yourself asked) imply the rhetoric's veracity? Turek's insistence on shouting every sentence indicates he was trained to speak with the intent of waking the sleeping... or the deceased. It's difficult to find meaning in words delivered at the sound level of a military fighter jet readying for take-off!
@@kratino I listened to the entire episode -- including Frank's melodious trilling -- but never heard Julie sing a note. Sigh. Of course, I've never heard *anyone's* "god" speak, either. OR a choir of angels bellowing hallelujahs... must not have been listening.
He was in the navy, so it might be hearing damage will increase volume of which you speak naturally…. Something coming from nothing is truly the dumbest thing anyone could say. Over 1000 PhD physicists agree with this, one of them being my dad. Nothing is in the ether, there is literally nothing in the void of space. The Big Bang plays off of this, which has been disproven incredibly quick. If you aren’t following Jesus Christ you probably should.
1:45:50... A DEEP question from a sharp mind that gets glossed over... It was brilliant. The supernatural is faith based. Why then use the material to attempt to prove the immaterial? Why not use the supernatural to prove the natural without involving ANY natural method?
These days I don't engage theists on Doctrine, history, morality and such. I just point out that their authority claim is based on supernatural claims and to provide credible evidence that supernatural events actually occur, can be objectively observed and tested. No Theist slam dunks so far.
@@kaibavelarde The supernatural is not "beyond scientific understanding". It is understood perfectly as unscientific, unfalsifiable data. But Theists claim that supernatural events happen and that they prove their case. They cite the supernatural as scientific proof of their claims. As if the supernatural was science, when it isn't.
@@con.troller4183 I'm just saying by definition thats what supernatural is. Would it really be observable though? I wouldn't think so because they seem to occur at the most personal of times. Which theists claim that supernatural evidence is scientific?
@@kaibavelarde "Which theists claim that supernatural evidence is scientific?" All of them. Ask them what evidence they have for the existence of god and they ultimately cite miracles. Miracles break the laws of nature. Miracles are supernatural. But they never provide credible, testable evidence for the existence of ANY miracles or any supernatural events. The fundamental basis if their faith is false.
@@thirst4wisdom Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it means that one cannot accept the claim that a good exists, and be rational and logical in that belief.
I am physically in pain whenever I have to listen to Frank Turek. He’s loud, thin voiced, aggressive , fast and anxious. I find him a terrible speaker at an intuitive level. I don’t like Hitchens either but I find him way more tolerable .
@@aiweeable This was indeed sad, he was loved by many, including his opponents during the debate. "He would often go out to dinner with them after and discuss philosophy and politics over pizza and wine" a quote from D'Souza was one of his great admirers.
@@kaufmanat1 I don't think he changed his mind. He even asked people not to pray for him when he was sick. It's quite sad bc at this time serious academic atheists are changing their thoughts on some of the classical grounding problems. Even the same Dawkins said he would be open to deism if the fine tuning argument could convince him, he says he consider it a good argument. Definitely he would not be open to religion at all, these people have serious prejudices against religion, but philosophywise, contemporary atheist are aware that their worldview has serious grounding issues.
I personally didn’t find it the least bit funny. It was rather disgusting… & completely inappropriate. Whether you agree with Hitchens or not, his alcoholism & crudeness may be charming at first, but wear off after about, hmmm… around 1 second. Then it’s back to foul-smelling, snarky alcoholic who not only eats but burps on stage like a pig 🐖🤮🌬
Wow, it really is annoying hearing frank turek misrepresent science this way. Among the many objections i could make, the one that absolutely needs to be made is to point out that DNA is NOT coded information, it is just a chemical structure that we impose the analogy of code upon to make it easier to teach. Leave it to the religious to always find absurd correlations where none exist.
Maybe try to google DNA or genetic information and you will find scientists explain it as information or code. It is stored, read and translated. It is referred to as instructions. DNA contains code for how to build a creature. Where limbs are placed, eye color, ear design, etc. It is much more, as a whole, than a chemical structure.
@@5va Christopher didn't believe there is anything after death, he found the idea of you living in eternal north korea after you're gone is absurd, not to mention, incredibly vile
Comment sections are a strange place. And this is far out of time, but I have to agree with Turek overall. Hitchens never gave a case for atheism as a worldview, or how it explains reality. Granted Turek did not sufficiently argue the point of how Theism is separated from Deism and why it explains the universe better, but at least he made a case. Hitchens also constantly begged a question that Turek pointed out multiple times which is on the origin and justification of morality. Basically he argued Christians are not moral, which I always thought was kind of the point of the system it upholds. I also am curious what that proves anyway. Why does morality matter in an atheistic worldview? I think his idea was to prove God is evil using the Christian sense of morality, but he never really went that far in his statements. However, I never found a definition for morality in his case, so even calling God evil would be an undefined concept if he attempts to do so. All in all, Frank gave a flawed argument by trying to encompass too much information into his case without defining some fundamentals, and Hitchens whined about evil, said Turek is taking illogical leaps (which in some cases I agree), and never really had a base case. I noticed a lot that whenever Turek would ask a question of atheism the habit of Hitchens was to take the question and then ask a counter question about how Christianity or the Church publicly deals with said subject. But that does not answer the question. You can ask the Christian view to be explained after, but when your worldview is questioned just saying the opposite view is not satisfactory, while not stating why yours does satisfy the question is not debating. It is just avoiding the question by hiding it.
This is a big false equivalency. Atheism is not a worldview. The world will go on if we were all dead. Gods will all cease to exist with the death of every human, so you must think about magic to keep it real in your minds because, without your minds, your gods never existed.
@@AnarchoPunkChad let me try. There's no such thing as an atheistic world view. The statement in itself doesn't make sense. How can you form your world view based upon what you don't believe? Even if no atheist on the planet can give you a satisfactory explanation of morality without needing to reference a diety, that doesn't make a belief in a diety true. It's like asking what I enjoy about not stamp collecting. Assuming you're a Christian, that would mean you aren't Jewish, you aren't Muslim, or Hindu, ect. How does not being those things shape your worldview? Your worldview is shaped by what you DO believe, not what you don't.
@@AnarchoPunkChad Going to butt in on the moral aspect of the argument. There are only subjective morals and these are usually dictated by the peers you live with. The culture you live in holds a standard of what is permissable and if you do not abide by these sets of standards, you will be sanctioned by the people in this group, not by supernatural entities or bad luck. So if you commit atrocities and don't get caught, you will not be punished by your group but if you have a conscience, it might not let you forget what you have done and devour you from within. Those "demons" are real but there is nothing supernatural behind them. It's your view about yourself and how your in-group sees you. No God required. Only psychology.
I like your form of questioning and I enjoy that you are honest and humble enough to concede some points. That shows an intelligence and a willing open mind to listening to the other side without just claiming you are right and the other side is wrong. So, cheers to ya mate. While I do disagree with you on the morality arguement...at least you left room for discussion. Unlike many other believers. As someone that believes in values more often associated with aethiests, I can say this with clarity. Religion had no innate or ground building effort in my morality. I do truly....as Hutchinson mentioned..it is a naturally occurring/intrinsic value of many social creatures that d ont require a religion or a god to exist. Period.
@@AnarchoPunkChad You are right. But if I subjectively value the wellbeing of my peers, family or friends, I can selfishly deem others morally in the wrong for hurting them. You will probably do the same. Because you prefer the people you know over strangers to you. Best of regards to you.
I'm neutral. But I watch debates. New christianity revealed : 52:08 - "Am I absolutely sure Christianity is true ? ... No, I'm not absolutely sure ... there's very few things you can be absolutely sure about ... I'm trying to give a probability argument, based on the evidence that there is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, moral, personal, intelligent creator, who ultimately revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, about 2000 years ago. Now, could I be WRONG about that ? YES I COULD !" He is not in harmony with Matthew 14 : 31 - "Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?" ... Throughout the New Testament, Jesus recommends faith without doubt ( in fact, when you say "faith" , you actually mean : "no doubt". )
That is how you and many interpret Mathew 14 : 31. If what the bible says is true, then anyone without doubt would be able to pull miracles, like moving a mountain. However I do not recall any human living or deceased being able to do such thing, or maybe it has happened and I just don't know about it. Even Job has doubt, that does not brake you away from the core concept of Christianity, it just means you have some doubts. And this core concept is simple: Believe Jesus Christ is the savior, God is real, and love one another. Is ok to doubt, is ok to question, is ok to make your own decision of what to believe, what is not ok is claiming the moral high ground and dictate among us who is better or worse based on faith. Of course the list of "not ok" things is bigger, but I will stop here.
@@zombiejoker911 ( see number 1. below ) 2. You're right. My answer is not a connection to miracles. Just to the basic message of christianity : "Am I absolutely sure Christianity is true ? ... No, I'm not absolutely sure." ... I should have given another verse as an example, like Hebrew 11 : 1.
@@zombiejoker911 3. Job didn't doubt the existence of God - like this assertion doubted christianity : "Am I absolutely sure Christianity is TRUE ? ... No, I'm not absolutely sure." --> Job only doubted God's FAIRNESS. But he went back to faith and stood up against his proud scholar friends, who only quoted the scriptures and didn't believe Job. In the end, God favored Job, not his friends. Job 42 : 7 "After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has." --> ... God said that, even if Eliphaz quoted the scriptures and meant well !
@@zombiejoker911 4. Love one another ... including enemies. Matthew 5 : 38-48. But one look at history and our daily lives, shows that pride and the desire of being "right" in personal speech is more prevalent than love.
@@zombiejoker911 5. I agree with you ! You wrote : "what is not ok is claiming the moral high ground and dictate among us who is better or worse based on faith." ... Jesus and Paul said the same thing. - Matthew 23 : 8-11 - “But you are NOT to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. NOR are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The GREATEST among you will be your servant." - Philippians 2 : 3 -- "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind REGARD ONE ANOTHER as more important than yourselves." ... ( New American Standard Bible ) -- "Do not act out of selfish ambition or conceit, but with humility think of others as being BETTER THAN YOURSELVES." ... ( International Standard Version ) -- "And you should not do anything with contention or empty glory, but in humility of mind, let EVERY PERSON esteem his neighbor as better than himself." ... ( Aramaic Bible in Plain English )
Why is Paley's Watch found on a beach, or in a forest? Because the beach/forest provides a *non-designed* point of contrast. But they hold that beaches and forests ARE designed. You can't have it both ways - is the beach/forest designed, or not?
@@Gumpmachine1 not really because either way you assume what’s opposite of reality. To see a tree in the field doesn’t lead to someone planting it or it did it itself. Reason being is because in that example we are talking open environment. Meaning any number of things could have happened do to the natural of the environment. The rate of rain, wind, weather, timing and age of tree, etc. the only thing that would lead to the possibility that someone put it there is if there is something specific to the tree that isn’t on its own natural. Like a bow entangled in the roots and vines and branches. Carvings on it. Obvious signs of up human upkeep, such as shaping.
@@vikkidonn you might but I don’t I would say I’m not sure how the tree got there. I’d have to compare it to other trees that have been planted intentionally and naturally occurring to try and figure it out
At some point, Mr. Turek asked something like whether we are just a "bunch of chemicals". It's an interesting question, but I guess when you boil it down, the answer appears to be "yes". I say that because, if you could suddenly, say, remove all the iron atoms from your body, you would become a corpse. For sure, we require certain chemical elements and compounds to exist as we are.
@@atronos3 the answer would be a decisive no. You're not just chemical elements, nor any other subunit or component of the bodily composition. There's also the principle that defines the bodily composition itself while living, which appears indistinguishable in essence from the mind and will. In other words, a soul. The best in my opinion view being Thomistic hylomorphism which recognizes that everything is like this really, not just humans. All material substances possess an immaterial aspect of form, and material component whereby they are made particular and manifest, a form simply defining a thing to be what it is, an essence. The human form, is animate, a soul. Really the hylomorphic model reveals a naturally intuited understanding that most things we commonly interact with are not reducable to the sum of their parts, but are in actuality whole things containing parts. This is the solution to the ship of theseus proposed by Aristotle so long ago.
The argument that since the natural laws of the universe allow the current reality to exist, and if the laws were different than we wouldn't exist is, to simplify, basically saying "if things were different, things would be different, but they aren't, therefore God". The massive assumption is that the laws of nature were set, or chosen, like a sound mixer sliding knobs on a board until all the natural laws are set to the perfect value. But what if the natural laws are just what the natural laws are, not chosen from a spectrum? And of course the universe has to exist the way it does because of what the natural laws are. If thr natural laws were in fact different, who's to say we wouldn't still have a universe, just one that formed according to those laws?
It’s crazy what people will come up to be comfortable with confusion or denying the existence of God..even if the laws where different..that will still sit in the realm of the creator ..I’m starting to see what it is..obviously if you take a personal creator out of the creation..then of course you can come up with any nonsense..but it still wouldn’t prove your very own existence..you will left with the unknown..the Bible gives us evidence for the existence of God..it speaks about sin and how corrupt the human heart is..you know God exist when you realize how sinful me and you’re..it’s call faith
@@hamedhinston9148 faith may be good enough for you, and that's fine, I'm not here to judge. It's not good enough for me. I need a reason to believe, which I currently do not have. Most of what I was saying wasn't directed at me trying to prove or disprove anything, it was just me commenting on the choice of arguments being used.
@@thekwjiboo wooooooooooow ..my friend just open the Bible ..I don’t understand why people complicate life when God literally gave us directions..it’s your unbelief that will keep you in the darkness ..the evidence for the existence of God is all around. You . The fact that you chose not to believe in The true God is still not an excuse..if you ever get a chance, open that Bible and read Romans 1:18,19,20….(read the whole book 😭🤣🤣) to know God, to accept Jesus has your savior is so the most important thing you will ever accept in this life..God do you love you ..but make no mistake he will judge our sins ..it just breaks my heart when people chose not to believe in God..my friend God made us to be critical thinkers..to actually use our brains and think for our own ..according to his words..Proverbs chapter 3:5-6--5 Trust in the Lord(A) with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. I pray God grant you faith ..when you come to Christ. I want the best for you honestly..I don’t know you personally..but I know the God I serve and if he is good and merciful too me, he will be the same good and merciful to you..be blessed and enjoy your day. I pray this help a little
@@hamedhinston9148 I have read the Bible in its entirety. Christians hate hearing this, but that's not my problem, but that's no different than a Muslim telling me to read the Quran to quell my doubts about their beliefs. Like I said, I need a reason to believe (and that goes for everything, not just theological questions), and the inherently circular reasoning of "read the bible" doesn't cut it. Why do I say it's circular? It's like this. The Bible is the word of God. How do you know that? Because the Bible says so. Why should I care what the Bible says? Because it's the word of God. Lather, rinse, repeat. Circular. Therefore, not convincing.
@@thekwjiboo soooooo wait ..even if God told you to do something , you won’t do it..you have to understand who you’re and who God his..my brother the Fact that God is real, and can be proven with countless evidence, speaks volume on why we should do as God says..and we focusing on the True God, the Bible speaks of Him..not the Muslim ..I just don’t understand how someone can be so bold towards God. But I know that God is willing to Forgive if you sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness..you make it seem like God is against you , when he is actually ready to save and justify you. God is an enemy of the wicked and willful sinners..but he give mercy and grace to the ones he deemed Just and righteous. It’s really not that complicated my friend
That's the reason I prefer evidence based debates for existence of god rather than stucking in between the morality debate .... About which we can have different opinions and different debates....
Well, in nuclear field we talk about things that are 99% correct and account (not forget or uncare) the 1%, but we have no fear to back-up behind that 99% as it is greater than that the 1%
I didn't see a lot of arguments from Hitchens that related to the beginning of the universe. He talked about religious fallacies but he didn't talk a lot about the origin of the universe.
and? he never claimed to know the answer he only claims to know god ISNT the answer.. and i and MANY people world wide see the truth of that. if every time we dont know something we just default to "cuz gawd" how far will we ever get? its intellectually lazy for anyone to assume because they have no answer or dont understand the answer NO OTHER HUMAN could possibly know it or understand it. its hubris of the highest order..
Krispy Bacon i see what your getting at, but at the same time you’ve got to consider that order always comes from intelligence and our planet is extremely intricate and orderly. The question at hand was what best explains the start of the universe and seeing as how humans haven’t observed something coming from nothing, and clearly know that the universe is finite, I’ve chosen to side with this Frank guy.
@@krispybacon9285 It's pretty logical to come to the conclusion that the universe we live in had a designer using science. I can go on about it if you'd like. God bless.
Odel Schwanck Well, he stated “at the end” so it does exist. Honestly if he didn’t put the word end I would have assumed he was talking about the whole argument.
Odel Schwanck He won the argument in his introduction. Did hitchens debunk a single thing Turek said or did turek debunk hitchens entire argument in the first 30 minutes of this video? I’m pretty sure hitchens just ranted about his opinions without and scientific or logical reasoning behind it. Watch their first debate, it’s just like this one. I’m guessing you believe that something comes from nothing? Hitchens is literally sweating beads when he walks up. His first words are so ironic because he says he doesn’t argue about Santa and things that don’t exist but he’s arguing about something he thinks doesn’t exist. He just goes on about things that he doesn’t like about the God he believes doesn’t exist lol he doesn’t want proof, he just wants to do what he wants. He contracts himself constantly, he’s a very angry man.
Humans latched on to burial rituals, ceremonies in wild animal skins, cave painting etc early in their evolution - all of which gave us "Religion" of various types. Religion is cultural and nothing more. When a man and his dog dies there is no God to be aware of either event. Grow up and live with the fact that when you're dead it's all over. Live the short life that you have and enjoy it - it's all you're going to get.
Far out this "doctor" is doing my head in. How is he so blindly mistaken about the atheist view of the big bang? The fact the universe has a beginning does not at all imply a beginner and we dont at all claim it came from nothing or was eternal.
He would have definitely been a better comedian than a defender of atheism. People just like to hear him talk but his arguments are emotional and childish
Frank Turek's proposition of saying that Zeus was 'in the world' is totally false, that is not what the Hellenes believed. Zeus was the Demiurge (Craftsman) he was the creator of the heavens, cosmos and the world. Zeus was separated from the world but also in it, in that he was present in peoples lives, a persona god.
From 4:40 to 4:55 He makes the statement that cosmologist suggest an eternal beginning. I would love to hear which cosmologist actually makes this statement.
He also said the universe is running out of energy and if it was eternal it would have run out of energy a long time ago… if it was eternal why would it run out of energy ?
"Christopher doesn't give evidence for his worldview." You don't have to give evidence for simply pointing out that the opposite position has no evidence.
Can you imagine the frustration in trying to debate someone who can't actually explain their own worldview and their ONLY argument is that yours is wrong? That's what it's like to debate an atheist. Christian vs atheist debates are the only debates in the world where one party essentially refuses to acknoledge what THEY beleive, but they just spend their whole time trying to explain how their opponent is wrong. The Christian has to explain his own position AND why his opponent's is wrong. Why can't atheists or agnostics just explain how they think the world is created? When they say "science" then that is nothing more than "faith" in science that they don't know/understand. How is that any different than what they think a Christian believes..?
@@cantrelljohansen2493 would you need to explain why you don't believe in Santa Claus, or just point out why it's nonsensical to do so? Atheism isn't actually a worldview, it's simply a rejection of God belief, so what else needs to be explained, other than why he doesn't believe in it? Imagine, on the other hand, debating with someone actually making positive assertions about something, claiming its validity with no evidence to back it up?
Feelings are chemical. Anyone with pets knows that they have feelings. There are chemical drugs that can cause certain feelings and certain drugs that can stop or inhibit other emotions...
foxglos so because pain is just due to chemical signals, why is torture wrong, as it isn't objectively wrong if you are a materialist? It's no different from pouring baking soda into vinegar apparently.
BRANDT9877 they only crucified Jesus because they didn’t believed that he was the messiah, and killed him for blasphemy. That doesn’t mean they didn’t think torture was wrong, they thought it was a just for them to do that.
I grew up on an island alone. Our village died out when I was 7. My mother was the last to go. There was no Bible, no Quran. No opportunity to read them. I died at 22. Did I go to a Hell?
What's your evidence of God? Look at the that moon and this mountain. What more do you want? Who do you think made them? "I don't know." See you don't know anything, it's God. Perfect, PhD for you and now you can have blessings.
Was watching a wonderful video about a man (Sean McDowell) who is pretending to be an atheist, speaking to a group of several hundred Christian students. At the end of the question/answer segment he confessed that he is actually not an atheist, but a teacher at a Christian school. He travels around trying to encourage young people, to think how they treat their atheist associates/friends. I guess I consider myself agnostic, and this guy, wow he sold me. He seems to be such a wonderful person, and I would love to be his friend.
@@acp865 So he manipulated the argument, and give disingenuous answers to an idea he didn't believe in, to shape the minds of children. You basically described church
@@acp865 do you think the other side of this would be productive? An atheist presents themself as a theist to present a straw man argument that they can then later tear down?
At 29:37 in the video,, Hitchens admitted the vacuum of the inner man, but avoided the truth of Scripture about it. Deuteronomy 4:12-19 NASB Then the LORD spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but you saw no form-only a voice. [13] So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. [14] The LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might perform them in the land where you are going over to possess it. [15] "So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, [16] so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, [17] the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, [18] the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth. [19] *And BEWARE NOT to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and BE DRAWN AWAY AND WORSHIP THEM and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.* Atheism fails the test as usual with its own preconceived Subjective Existential worldview.
The Bible cannot be used as evidence of a deity. I could right a book and use that book as evidence in my supernatural friend, Steve. That doesn’t mean Steve actually exists. Your confusion regarding the essence of humanity is not evidence for magic.
@@kappasigma1284 The Scriptures can be used as evidence! Archeologists and many noted scientists use the Scriptures as a based to test their theories on. And, many of their findings show the ACCURACY on the Biblical accounts. Your bias presuppositions has been debunked, prior to you initiating your first few words of your comment. Check your subjective worldview before responding.
@@Anicius_ No one's desperate, but the failure of Atheism trying to disprove the Authenticity and Accuracy of Scripture. Question: If God doesn't exist, why do Atheist spend so much time speaking about Him? Atheism is such an oxymoronic religion!
@@kappasigma1284 Steve have nature parents! Christ Jesus existed before the foundation of the universe, as the evidence shows! Your Faulty Appeal of Equivocation is quite comical! Here's a bonus: Does your "Steve" have a birth certificate or is "Steve" a figment of your imagination? This is too easy!
wasn't that closing statement just a tad bit manipulative? In any case, the navy SEAL's sacrifice saved his fellow soldiers from something that was about to happen to them, whereas Jesus' sacrifice was supposed to save all of us from the consequences of the original sin, that he himself (in one of his selves anyway) was about to visit on humanity. False equivalence much?
I've listened to many of these debates and especially Turek and D'Souza like to make points and claim things in the closing statements that go unchallenged. For Turek to claim that Hitchens says sacrifice is wrong is lying about the claim. Hitchens in his book says that vicarious redemption for many, even those that have not been born yet and who use this concept to persuade children that they spiritually sick from the time of their birth, is a wicked idea, especially if this redemption was made by a person who eventually lived forever.
I think the point was made that one does not have to be a Christian or religious to do good things or have morality.... But I also think it's a fair point to say that if we are just the byproducts of a material universe without a creator or being then who is to judge what is right or wrong? There's no basis for doing good or bad. It's just what our chemicals tell us to do. And yes I do believe that doing good is the best thing for humanity that's not an argument.
@@SimSim-zf9if so what about the innate sense that we all seem to have as humans that there is even the right or wrong? I'm assuming a materialist/ atheist/ agnostic would possibly chalk it up to evolution? So what would one say to one who goes rogue and goes against the general consensus? Once again, if there's not some kind of standard from without then who can say the consensus is right? The consensus being good could actually be wrong 😉 I get the argument that if we don't go along with the consensus then our genes may not get passed along.
@@SimSim-zf9if well the truth regardless. Is it humans generally speaking have an innate sense of morality it's an escapable reality And the fact is that we all know it and we expect it from others as well. I think CS Lewis made a good argument for this in Mere Christianity but the point being that if I slap someone in the face that individual would immediately feel and be wronged and vice versa. I would never be as bold as to say that non-Christians or atheists or whoever do not have a sense of morality. As a matter of fact, I'd argue the opposite.
@@mannycano4599 you keep talking about innate sense of morality. But here’s the thing, natural selection can explain that easily. Imagine a tribe. The tribe feels a sense of community and that improves their chances of survival. If one member begins acting more volatile and hurting members of the community, the tribe will start to think “if P1 hurt P2, what’s to stop them from hurting me”, and from there the sense of self preservation will lead the community to exile or kill the volatile individual (removing their genes from the gene pool). If you aren’t familiar with natural selection you might be wondering why they have an innate sense of self preservation. That’s easy: those who do live on to pass their genes to the next generation (which will include a sense of self preservation). We know that personality is part of an animal’s genetics, that’s how we got dogs from wolves. Natural selection not only explains human’s innate sense of morality, it also explains why we fundamentally disagree on many different aspects of right and wrong. Some consider execution okay for example, others don’t. Some consider killing in self defence okay. Others don’t. If we truly had writing morality on our hearts, we wouldn’t see so much disagreement between what is okay and what isn’t.
@@connorgrynol9021 sure, I've heard this explanation before and it has some merit no doubt. But I would still argue that there is still some general morality that is pushing on all human beings. Yes, I also agree that there's always that rogue individual that goes against what the general consensus is. And that's the thing regardless of whether one believes in god or a moral lawgiver or not doesn't change the fact that human beings are moral beings. We can't escape it!
Turek had valid arguments that where left simply ignored by Christopher on the fact that Christopher said that he is not a scientist and doesn't want to talk about that, but then he himself uses science to try to make some points.
okc ober Turek doesn't have valid arguments. Like most apologists, he pretends to be a physicist, he pretends to be an evolutionary biologist, and he pretends to have evidence for and know things that no one has evidence for or knows. Hitchens chooses intellectual honesty rather than just making stuff up.
Well you say he doesn't have valid arguments but you don't mention a single invalid argument? And you say he pretends to know stuff that no one knows and I'd ask you, like what?
Most of his arguments are either god of the gaps or arguments from ignorance. He starts with the cosmological argument and says that because Hitchens doesn't know why something exists and how life came to be, his answer of a personal creator must be correct. The teleological argument is flawed because it fails to incorporate how we recognize design. His moral argument is fallacious on 3 different levels. There are really too many to list. He doesn't understand physics, biology, philosophy, or mathematics. He's just a christian apologist who starts with a conclusion and then searches for confirmatory evidence later.
Turek's point - that with a tiny difference in one of the variables of the Big Bang, the result would be we would not exist - is a fundamental misrepresentation. Such a tiny difference does _not_ mean only nothing would be the result. It means that existence _as we know it_ - our experience of the cosmological order, our version of existence - would not be the result. Other versions of existence, another cosmological order or orders, would be the result. Speculating on the nature of those other potential results might be interesting, but is not material to the debate at hand, of course. It's just that Turek misrepresented, unsurprisingly, the substance of the initial observation.
“...but you have all your work ahead of you, Sir (or Ma’m), before you can say that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, let alone that he was the son of God, let alone that his mother was a virgin, let alone that he was resurrected; none of these things, by the way, would PROVE that he was the son of God if they DID happen, nor would they prove that his doctrines were not erroneous- a resurrected person who was the son of a virgin could still be talking nonsense.” In fact, more likely than not, I would think.
Cat Keys - but if this were all true and he claimed to be such, his testimony would have great weight, especially if his teachings contain great wisdom-which they do, as Hitchens himself will admit.
@@geoffstemen3652 it would be amazing if a lot of other things were true too. The fact that something would be amazing if it were true is in no way evidence for whether it is true or not.
C Doerrer - you missed what i was saying. i didn’t say “wouldn’t it be amazing if.” i said that, allowing it to be *possible* that the above things happened to this man, were done by him, his claims become much more significant. the OP is isolating one facet of a large body of multidisciplinary scholarly discourse and saying “where is the evidence? no, the *real* evidence!” people like him often believe that abiogenesis occurred, although there is NO evidence for that and jaw-dropping mathematical odds against it.
C Doerrer - you missed what i was saying. i didn’t say “wouldn’t it be amazing if.” i said that, allowing it to be *possible* that the above things happened to this man, were done by him, his claims become much more significant. the OP is isolating one facet of a large body of multidisciplinary scholarly discourse and saying “where is the evidence? no, the *real* evidence!” people like him often believe that abiogenesis occurred, although there is NO evidence for that and jaw-dropping mathematical odds against it.
So why are you devoting your time to talking about a man who was, in all likelihood, talking nonsense? Seems kinda wasteful for your one and only life.
I am a fan of Hitchens but I do feel that I still give the opposing argument a fair listen. So far, without exception, Christopher Hitchens reliably presents the clearest argument against religion, time and again. I wonder what Christopher would make of our current state of affairs?
I'm still hoping beyond anything that religion will die off but it seems Islam is taking over the Western world. The young women are being sucked into marriage with Muslim men too easily and having babies born into the religion. It's taking over.
What sad news today. That great friend of Christopher Hitchens, the man who he protected at risk of his own life, Mr Salman Rushdie has lost the sight in one eye and the use of one hand as a result of the horrific attack by a religious nutter some weeks ago. Hitch would be heartbroken and in some small way I'm glad he doesn't have to find out about this. I will weep on his behalf.
We've barely scratched the surface in the understanding of the universe and for thousands of years we've had people claim to know who the creator is and what they want, ohh the ego!
When a Christian asks me if I believe in god, I don't give them the satisfaction of pretending it's something I ever spend time thinking about. "Well of course not" is my answer. And it's not that I don't accept the self-evidently real force of nature that clearly must exist for me to be here enunciating thoughts through a computer, but because "God" so often means the murderous, psychopathic character in the Bible. So because I ponder such a deistic-style force of nature, I do not define myself with one word. If I was going to define myself with one word, it would probably be the name given to me at birth. Two words, and it would be my first and last name. 10 words and it might get a little interesting. 100 words, more interesting still. The point being that I'm me. I will never define myself into a box. Being a non-Christian is no more important to my identity as being a non-stamp collector or a non-scuba diver.
how self centered are you to think that it brings Christians some sort of satisfaction knowing that you believe in God? It is in your and your only interest to believe in God. Christians know they will be saved or at least hope they will be saved, so what benefit do they Get from knowing whether you believe in God or not? the only reason they ask is because they care about others, they care about your sole that's why they want you to believe. Also, that, as you said, "murderous" God loved as so much that he let his son die for us. God is not evil, evil is only possible when God steps away, bad things don't happen to you or others because God wants to, they happen because God decides to stop protecting you.
Ouch! That's a whole lot of stupid in one comment there igor. Every sentence was either totally generalizing or totally incorrect. Grow up already. Believing in a god who is so petulant as to "step away" and "stop protecting you" says more about you than anything else. You need a big imaginary bodyguard, a bully. Anyone says anything against your god, they are punished, with rape, robbery, death, whatever, it's their own fault, right? That's why bad things happen to people, right? God "decides" to stop protecting you. You see how stupid you sound?And you weird believers wonder why us intelligent people think religion is nonsense. And to the guy above, I am also a fellow non-scuba diver!
James Robbins you call yourself intelligent yet you believe that over time your car could assamble itself, yea my five year old niece believes in auch things too, well I guess that does make you intelligent but puts you on the same level as a 5 year old.
The strongest minds are the ones the noisy world hears least. End quote. That's why people with bad arguments shout. This serves to engage emotion to blind reason . I find Tureks constant personal, loud,attacks on Christopher to be not in the spirit of his religion or intellectually useful in any way. For ' your' gods sake come up with something better. And stop personally attacking those who disagree for genuine reasons.
Irrational indeed. The heart is a concept or a pump, not thought. And loudness is achieved by children, that's not truth. Seems you didn't think before typing. It's ok it's normal.
Chris Mac - Sorry, “the heart” is a common metaphor for the seat of emotion, and the argument was that being convinced makes you emphatic, not that being loud makes you right. Seems you enjoy taking cheap pedantic shots, it’s ok it’s normal.
@Joel truth matters. We don't have names for not believing in the tooth fairy or santa clause. If the faithful just kept it to themselves we wouldn't be having this text conversation. I think you'll find it's the atheists ( I don't accept the term) who have had to endure constant proselytizing. Threats of eternal suffering. Lying to children persecuting gay people o yes and the murder. If you have faith start with an apology.
I guess my question to Mr. Turek would be - do you know that there haven’t been an innumerable number of universes that existed that were just that slight bit off to not support life? You don’t? It’s entirely possible. The only reason you exist to ask that question is because you do happen to exist in a universe that supports life. Ya think this is the only universe to ever exist? Can you prove that?
Well the typical definition of universe is all of space and matter. Your speculations are not objections. He is arguing on what we currently do know to come to a conclusion.
@@acelinomckinzie1956 _"Well the typical definition of universe is all of space and matter"_ ..you mean the old definition. ...cosmologists think there could be a lot more than what we can currently see. _" He is arguing on what we currently do know to come to a conclusion"_ It would be arrogant to think that we know enough to understand the universe.
@@markh1011 Of course there is more than we see, more of the universe isn’t another universe. Not a lot of cosmologist believe in the multiverse, and a lot is speculation. And I never said we do know about all the universe. Hence why I said “currently do know.” We do this all the time. There wouldn’t be much science if we make conclusions based on our current understanding.
@@acelinomckinzie1956 _"Not a lot of cosmologist believe in the multiverse"_ 1. It's not a matter of "believe in"....it's just a possibility. 2. I think you'll find that a lot of them do... but even if they all did, would that change your mind? I suspect the number doesn't really matter to you. _"Hence why I said “currently do know.” We do this all the time. "_ I know. But to think we know enough to have the answers about the creation of the universe or universes would be hubris.
@@markh1011 Science is mainly based on conclusions that we don’t fully know, but we use our knowledge from the evidence. Using evidence to come to conclusions is always better than a speculation. And you can’t really critique someone that is using the evidence that leads to philosophical implications, and object with speculations.
The comment from Turek attempting to rebutt Hitchen's use of Hume's argument misses the point entirely - it wasn't that the common should be believed and the rare denounced; some totally natural events are rare - it's that the repeatable and measurable physical laws of nature should be taken as more likely true/accurate/ representative of truth and reality than events that deviate from the physical laws of nature i.e. the supernatural.
Because krauss has logic and reason with evidence which he describes and presents. On the other hand there's turek, All claims no evidence... No different than spoilt kid except turek knows words... In addition, krauss doesn't scream that much as turek
Frank Castle ...as an atheist and a skeptic, my position is to deny claims that lack empirical backing. Furthermore, it is my view that my position is the default position. Naturally, I deny all claims of the supernatural, given that I have seen no compelling empirical evidence for the actual existence of gods, goddesses, angels, demons, ghosts. intelligent designers, prime movers, etc. Postulating supernatural causation as an explanation * for anything* is patently ridiculous if one cannot demonstrate the actual existence anything supernatural. In other words, Turek’s/Craig’s/ countless apologists’ Kalam ‘argument’ of ‘the universe exists, therefore god’ is absurd; this ‘argument’ has been used by theists for centuries to ‘explain’ natural phenomena from night and day to natural disasters to the origin of life. Unfortunately for theists, as the scientific method gives humankind plausible, evidence-based explanations ( aka scientific *theories* ) for previously unexplained phenomena, gods are further relegated to the dimmer corners in the big room of human knowledge. As humanity gains and processes more empirical data, those dim corners in that room grow smaller, and the gods that haunt these darkened corners grow smaller as well. So, unless Turek or any of the countless apologists using the tired, weak, and ridiculously flawed Kalam ‘argument’ actually takes the time to actually back their assertions with empirical evidence for anything actually existing outside of nature, I will take the default, and more *rational,* position of denying such unsubstantiated claims.
@@jamessoltis5407 as an atheist you and all the rest of them hate and deny God. I watched the whole video, turek was the only one giving scientific evidence. The athiest however keeps bashing Christianity then says oh things just evolve naturally. Which is a very vague and broad argument. You yourself even say "naturally" but you have no evidence as to how it all naturally works.
@Allashka I wouldn't say, Atheist. Most of them believe in God but they hate Him because They want to rule. They want to be in control by any means necessary. They're closer to Satanists, some of them being Satanists.
01:14:04, “Is it not the case that the spread of Christianity-about which you spoke so warmly and affectingly in your opening remarks, attributing it to the innate truth of the Bible story-was spread by that means, or because the Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire? Which in your view contributed more to the spread of the faith?” Hitch mispoke.
Is the derisiveness really necessary though? Some, if not all, of these people are genuinely attempting to expand their thought processes. What does dismissing that based on the accessibility of the content actually accomplish? Idk bud idk
@@asimpleanimator8241 Exodus 20 : 4 ....Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth..... A non - Christian religion known as Roman Catholicism worships/venerates graven images , ie statues of saints, Mary , wafers etc. And have taken the above verse out of their bible/catechism.
@@IndianExMuslim99 We can’t assume that’s true. All our intuitions are based on living in a material universe where causes precede effects, but those intuitions can’t apply to a completely different context such as the start of a universe. We have no idea how such events occur or if even they occur at all. If what you say turns out to be true, then we must conclude that the universe has always existed or that some special conditions exist. The special condition in this case is the start of spactime. To say effects preced causes is to assume the existence of time, but if a “big bang” moment occurred, then that’s when time started. One cannot speak of anything happening before the existence of time, which means a cause cannot precede it. It’s analogous to their being nothing north of the North Pole; the question of what’s north of it is nonsensical.
@@chemquests the presence of intelligence design everywhere makes me conclude that the most likely explaination is that there was intelligence behind this Universe, and this ingelligence is responsible for everything that happens in the universe, and we can experience this intelligence through our limited rational and logical mind. We have faith in the rational tangibility of the universe, or else rationality and logic itself is an illusion of the mind, and yet we do experience rationality and logic in our life through our mind. And about Universr having a cause, then it's totally possible for the universe to have a cause to come into existence. We do know the universe did have a beginning through emperical evidences. But if the universe did have a beginning then there must be something that preceeded that beginning that is beyond time itself, it must be beyond our logical framework, why? Because the Universe is limited. It's finite, it's contingent to time and it is decaying and eventually die out. I would have had no problem equating the Universe self created if the Universe was eternal. The problem is Universe is not eternal, it's decaying and is going to ebentually collapse. The fact that time does exists, and a gran pattern exists and that complex life and intellegence exists tells me based on my logical analysis that mindless processes and nothingness without any intelligence could not have given rise to this. I have no horse in the race of religions. I am above it. I am seeking truth through pure reason, rationality and logic. And as far as the evidences are presented and the explainations are given, it seems to me that what ever was reaponsible for the creation and the maintainamce of the universe must have such intelligence that it could design it, and must be self-sustaining and independent and be omnipotent and omnipresent. That's all, and it fits the definition generally of a "God". Where I disagree is the claim of "this God is know to us to christ, muhammed.. and bla bla". I am just trying to find the truth. So far the arguments presented were logically consisten and coherent and based on emperical evidence. The axioms makes sense, the logic makes sense the conclusions make sense. I see no poasibility for atheism = a denial of a intelligence working behing and through universe to be logically consistent or coherent unless you cling to that belief out of fear of religion.
Once he started talking about the military I completely took him for being dishonest. He is a fraud and a charlatan to the best descriptive comparison I can make.
Turek is a well practiced charlatan. He speaks fast about things he doesn't understand with the hope that his rapidly changing topics befuddle his audience. Fortunately , more and more people are not fooled by this approach.
Nope, it’s the norm to talk fast and deliver arguments in debate It’s called arguments not “rapidly changing topics.” They have a certain amount of time to present their arguments. Do you understand the fundamentals of debates?
@@MichelleFrets His channel is dedicated to answering specific questions at length. Your comment here is as ignorant and disingenuous as it gets. Acelino correctly answered you and all you did was dismiss. Is that your "tactic"?
@@crazyworld54321 while Acelino did make a statement to me, he certainly did not answer anything. Indeed, I wasn't asking a question. I wasn't asking anything of Turek either and I never would. I don't know the motivations for his misrepresentations of nearly everything that comes out of his mouth. Is it honest misunderstanding or outright deceit? I don't know, but Turek is not someone I would look to for anything. If you've been fooled, I recommend that you learn more from people educated in their respective fields of knowledge and start thinking critically. You can do it.
I was on the debate team in highschool I always (along with all of my other teammates) used the same case with some tweaks until the topic changed so y’all need to chill
"If there was no resurrection, how could this life be the most influential life of all time? Was it just because a bunch of pious Jews in Jerusalem inexplicably decided to chuck Judaism and fabricate a resurrection story so they could fulfill their dream of getting beaten, tortured, and killed?" A debate tactic commonly used by teenagers is to take perfectly-plausible events and phrase them in a way that makes them sound implausible. As if that's a substitute for giving *reasons* to discount that event as plausible.
5:48 The Second Law of Thermodynamics according to Frank Turek: "The universe is running out of energy. If it was eternal it would have run out of energy a long time ago."
Chrischi7777 I think Turdek is a Doctor of Apologetics; IMO, failing an apologetics class is actually a sign of intelligence. As I’ve read on Urban Dictionary: Apologetics = the art of searching for a black cat down a black hole… and finding it !! :P
It always confounds me that every other time we use the word evolution we use it referencing things that have been designed. Example: evolution of cars, buildings, healthcare system . . . But when we use it for the universe we detach it from a designer? Things that make you go Hmmm.
@truth teller ok, now your ego just pity's me when you said "question what you been brainwashed to believe sweetie", when actually Im not brainwashed when I Haven't even been taught a thing about it. Anyway, The second definition is not a scientific fact, neither is the first one. But, the original word evolve comes from the Latin word ēvolvere. Which means to progress, for example technology or firepower. Not humans or animals. The definition of evolve was tooken out of context.
@@daysnottime999 its almost like colloquial and scientific meaning of words can be different. A theory is a body of facts are accepted as the highest level of scientific inquiry, whereas something is "just a theory" in common language. You are conflating 2 meanings: general evolution which is any change over time, and the Theory of Biological Evolution, which is widely supported by epidemiology, genealogy, paleontology, cell biology, and every other body of science that it touches. It has given us vaccinations, cancer treatments, our understanding of biology. And not anywhere within it is there a designer.
All that means is that people started using the term too loosely, or misusing it. It doesn’t disprove the theory of evolution. The same can happen with religious terms and I wouldn’t use that, of all things, as an argument against religion.
And so it should. It was a story of incredible strength and bravery. I lost a little respect for Frank Turek when he used it in comparison to Jesus' crucifixion and to the example Christopher Hitchens used when he said sacrifice is immoral, the throwing of virgins off Aztec pyramids. The Navy SEAL made a genuine sacrifice of his own volition, knowing he would not survive. Jesus supposedly came to earth and sacrificed himself having said several times that he would come back, that he had life eternal in his gift, and we are told to believe that this was the case, or burn in hell. It was his plan all along. The Aztecs were brainwashed or otherwise forced to sacrifice themselves to appease gods we all agree don't exist. It is a cheap trick to use a true story of a man's genuine heroism and self sacrifice to bolster support for a shoddy fairy tale, and Turek has revealed something about himself by doing it.
@@thenumbdave "Jesus supposedly came to earth and sacrificed himself"" How do a god sacrifice himself, how can a god die, who did resurrect this god. If there is a omnipotent omniscient god, then any human can do anything because this god can put everything straight afterwards, like resurrection, so where is the "cost" ?
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence I must consider when evaluating the claim by theists and as to why I currently hold to such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding any acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Not loaded, the first is unanswerable,. The existence of God is an opinion it cannot be proven or disproven. The real question is why we choose what we choose. So, why do you want there so much not be a God? Atheists never want to answer that question, as you have not.
On the stage, there unfolds a striking contrast between two figures. The first man stands as a beacon of enduring wisdom, intelligence, and moral integrity, destined to be celebrated and remembered throughout history. In sharp contrast, the second man represents the direct opposite of such esteem; he is either tainted by deceit and profound dishonesty, or he might simply be an unfortunate victim, a fool misled by the malignant influence of religious dogma.
it's too convenient to want scientific proof. How is a one time event, scientifically proven? Even if I could scientifically reenact and prove that resurrection is possible; does this give proof of Christ? I think not.
@@zuisudramyrs Why would the resurrection prove Christianity? My cleric in my D&D game resurrects his party members all the time--its magic! Why would the existence of magic prove Yahweh? Why not Gaia or some other made up deity, or even someone just pulling magic out of the air? I don't know what would convince me, but nothing has ever come CLOSE to date. God should know what would prove it to me, but he hasn't tried. Maybe a giant cloud with a mouth that raises everyone from the dead and ends human suffering and tells me his name is Yahweh. That might do it.
What God wants does NOT coincide with our desires. The opposite is true. We want exactly what you want. We want sex all the time everywhere. We want to commit violence unto those who have wronged us. We want to slander and gossip against others. We want to treasure up as much wealth as possible and live in luxury. The difference is, as followers of Christ, we recognize these things and repent from them, and turn away from them. You have a very poor understanding of the Christian faith and Jesus Christ, and that’s a shame, considering you have taken the bold step of criticizing it and it’s followers, of whom you do not have knowledge.
@@KeeganStephen0914its faith ofcourse everyone has different understanding of it if you change a country you'll find variants of cristianity. First make up your mind folks
@Karat Kravat you don't think the atrocious things Christians have done, and are still doing today such as conversion therapy have any scriptural basis?
@Karat Kravat I see it more as a chaotic mess, at times, with all kinds of loose ends, abuses, mix ups and vague verses, allowing all kinds of things. As 1 Corinthians 10 and Matthew 5:18 did. Also, we don't really have a single Christianity to attribute things to. It's not the people, so much as the system, maybe that is bad - or erratic.
Truth he didn't come to make people good he came to bring dead people to life. John 10:10 KJV The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
The belief that nothing created everything is absurd. And to state that you just don't know what created it means you should not be angry when a Christian claims God created it, as it is perfectly valid and a better proposition than nothing.
@@thetannernationwhich appeals to emotion but even worse, grossly misrepresents science and especially the Big Bang theory, no scientist will tell you everything exploded from nothing
![William Lane Craig vs. Christopher Hitchens | "Does God Exist?" | Biola University | [HD]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P0XRQd9YOUM/mqdefault.jpg)
What really annoys me about these debates is the audience. They are told to ask questions and not to make statements.. then idiots stand up and make a statement. I feel that some of them only do it to try and make themselves sound intelligent.
Just ask a question!
They are rhetorical questions so technically they are a form of question. It doesn’t break the rules…
@@macysondheim No, the audience was asked to ask questions, not make a point!
@@SooperFlye it is difficult having all your beliefs challenged so strongly by the likes of Hitchens! Maybe they want to be heard not answered, and/or realize they don’t have a question they’d want an answer to
@@sjsulews1 [eye roll]
@macysondheim7260
Technically, a rhetorical question isn't actually a question
1:34 Turek’s opening statement
25:45 Hitchens’s opening statement
44:07 Turek’s rebuttal
54:45 Hitchens’s rebuttal
1:06:18 QnA
1:52:21 Hitchens’s closing statement
1:57:40 Turek’s closing statement
Did anyone watch debate one and then debate two and realize Turek literally has the exact same arguments, almost word for word?
+shiffterCL Yes I noticed this too, I wish I would skip what I had already heard yesterday not only because he is saying the same things but because I also don't like being shouted at.
Even the same jokes..
watch ANY of his debates. They're the same time and again. I just like watching him set it up for his opponents to knock down. lol
Yes isn't it amazing? Despite knowing whats coming Hitchens still couldn't answer.
Jarred,
This is a debate, yes? One makes a statement trying to make his case for what he believes. The other, if they are able, tries to reply and show why the first person is wrong. Thats the purpose of a debate.
"The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him." Proverbs !8:17.
Hitch was just promoting his book. So he could do nothing else in those two hours? Turek was promoting his also, but he somehow found the time to show Hitchens failed to make his case.
Turek commits several logical fallacies...Dont just make assertions. Give specifics please.
Watching this video from 9 years ago and watching Turek's videos from nowadays shows me that he learned that speak loud is bad for the public perception of the arguments.
it is bad.
and he learned nothing. Presenting no arguments since then
I had a very hard time listening to him. He sounds like an athletic director or football coach. Very arrogant and unappealing.
@@dbarker7794 great arguments but badly presented.
@@Kitiwake they are terrible arguments. Eg the opening point of his rebuttal. ‘Hitchens mentioned Hume. Hume said something that I think is weak. I’ll spend the first few minutes of my rebuttal attacking that thing that Hume said, thus making Hume look weak, thus making Hitchens look weak’. Absolute time wasting inanity
Very telling that you don’t criticise the argument, but the style in which it was brought forth
Lol. When Turek speaks, I have to turn my volume down cause he's so loud. But when Hitchens speaks, I have to turn my volume up, because I can't hear him. Very interesting.
I think Hitchens has a very clever way of talking, by talking softly he makes everyone have to try and listen and that way commanding their attention. Turek is so shouty he puts people off
probably because Turek is sober and Hitchens pregamed
Preachers gonna preach and most of the time they do it loud so people are overwhelmed, not by the content, but by the dynamic.
You're very shallow
@@geoffstemen3652 honestly very sure he did since he died from it
If you're wandering down here in the comment section during or before you've watched the video and you have seen the first debate between Hitchens and Turek-- don't bother continuing: it's the same debate with the same results, but with a few very minor rhetorical differences.
That is literally me. Well, thanks.
So I’m just gonna guess that hitchens didn’t answer anything about why morality or how Big Bang? Cause he passed bo the those categories last time
@gg ddfccc I don't think that it's relevant whether or not anyone knows turek if he has good arguments. It's only relevant WHAT they talk about and not WHO they are. The content is relevant and Hitchens only goes to say "Religious people are bad and i don't think god would let bad things happen in the world if he existed". It's sad that he really stands behind atheism as he doesn't have good arguments.
@gg ddfccc And it wasn't a debate about how many gods there are or about christianity. It was just about whether or not god exists. Turek won.
@@bricehabekott5604 so hitchens admiring he’s not qualified to talk on physics equals a fail on his part?
Having watched and read many theist vs atheist debates go through the familiar motions, followed by inevitable outcome that I totally believe my outlook is correct as you do yours. I'm starting to think a better question is, what makes otherwise very intelligent people reach such wildly different conclusions and feel so passionate about it?
Great point! I always think about it
which very intelligent person came to a different conclusion?
GOD😁
The Bible has some answers for that, but I'm assuming you wouldn't accept them. Hint: Pride is very, very hard to swallow. A life full of experiences of superiority (by being more gifted than the average person), a life driven by a desire to obtain knowledge/power/skills, definitely does much for a puffing chest.
cubensis01 some men are proud and some are humble. And Christ said it is not those who are healthy that need a physician, but those who know they are sick with sin that will humble them selves and ask Jesus Christ to heal them of their sin disease!!
To know what rocks dream about, first you must be stoned.
I want this on a bumper sticker
Amen to that
To know what a rock believes, you must be arrogantly knowledgeable about the sentient beliefs of said rock.
Woah dude
That's witty AF.
The principal objection to the fine tuning argument is that we (life) were adapted to the conditions we found ourselves in. If the constants were different, then life would have been different, but still adapted perfectly. However if fine tuning was necessary for any conceivable life, or indeed any physical existence at all, then the fine tuning argument still has weight.
That would require knowledge that we, for the moment, are unable to gather. We cannot know if the constants in this universe can be different, or if these constants are governed by some external phenomena. The fine tuning argument relies pretty heavily on anecdotal evidence. Someone arguing for a God will see the constants of our universe and tend toward the idea that they could be different and the reason they aren't is because of intelligent intervention. The opposing side will see the same constants and conclude that inductively we have no reason to presume they can or have changed.
here’s a tip that helped me with principle vs principal.
principal, with a pal, is the leader of a school, because he’s your “pal”.
principle, has no pal, and is not a person, it’s an idea.
hope that helps 😁
@@BFizzi719 random and intentional are different. Law isn’t random. All scientific law is constant and unchanging. Never has for as long as it’s been recorded. That’s not random then. That’s intention. So you’d have to explain fine tuning.
Ok but the universe itself which as he said if anything in it was off my an infidecimal amount there would be no universe
@@lukereiling3279 and that's false, if the constants were different, the universe sure would be different, but it doesn't mean that any kind of life couldn't emerge, we don't know that.
Frank...Why must you shout?
+Norman Bates Because that makes what he is saying more true. Duh.
+SadBunny It's also more true if you talk quickly and wave your hands about.
Angus Davies Italians have known this for centuries.
Angus Davies Although speaking quickly could also be just a way to say more true things.
SadBunny If time is limited, yes.
The mediator of this debate is so irritating, consistently blockading the notion of flowing conversation and thus impeding the presentation of the ideas and philosophies that these two men have come here to discuss.
Not many ideas nor philosophies came from Christopher though. He simply bashed religion throughout the debate. He claims there is no God nor that a God was needed for the formation of the universe, yet when asked how the universe came to exist, He says we don’t know. Keep in mind that he generalized it here. He said he doesn’t know but then said frank doesn’t know. Frank knows. He claims God did it. Christopher knows, he claims nothing did it. But he chooses to change the topic forgetting he contradicted himself and the entire atheist community who claim God didn’t do it. when asked about it. Even if he didn’t know. That be a point to frank. Because how then can you trust a person who claims a supernatural entity did not intervene but yet anything outside of this he doesn’t know? it’s either An intelligent designer did it or nothing did it. In fact there are more options to think about when it comes to intelligent design and one to random chance. this shows that there’s more probability that someone created everything over nothing. Even if he doesn’t know, surely he can know so much about how life started on this earth. So then my question to him would be: if evolution is true as in macro, what came first the baby or it’s mother?
@@juniorsir9521 some form of micro organic bacteria came first, which then eventually became the mother with the capability of giving birth to the baby. I'm not sure why that question would ever propose a challenge to accepted science
@@jw_3d838 that wasn’t the question I asked now was it? But let me ask an even better question. What came first the male or the female?
@@juniorsir9521 Neither. I'm not a scientist but I'd assume that at some point the organism that would eventually become known as a "human being" evolved into a species with two different types of sexual organ configurations, again, I don't see how asking this question really proves or disproves anything
@@jw_3d838 where did the "micro organic bacteria" come from?
Turek is a preacher, so he projects his voice very firmly. This works well in some situations, but it makes it difficult to listen to him when a microphone is involved. I find it interesting that the first time I heard to him referred to as "Doctor Turek" my instant reaction was one of disbelief. This is more a reflection on the number of frauds using the title 'Doctor' when they have no right to it than a reflection on Turek himself. His doctorate may be entirely well deserved, but quite a few people claiming to be speaking from the same camp have tarnished that.
Another thought on the voices.. When defensive, people will often sit back and fold arms or otherwise indicate distance desired. When trying to involve themselves or connect they'll sit forward. Especially if they're a person who likes to think about the thing being said. Speaking softly will often coax people closer to pay attention and listen, which sets us up as receptive. Speaking loudly or projecting will often make them withdraw if only to preserve their eardrums, which sets up a defensive reaction. Firm projection works well in a church, but doesn't work well in more intimate or thoughtful environments. I propose that watching a debate is a more thoughtful environment. Hitchens' habit of talking quietly serves him quite well here. Turek might benefit from toning things down a little to reach his audience better.
Hitchens never answered the main point and title of this video.
Atheist does not explain reality, atheist is lack of belief in god or gods.
Also frank statement that the universe definitely had a begging is wrong.
@@ronmc4554
?? Please explain
@@salvadorhpo2030 which one
@@salvadorhpo2030 How the universe got here, no one knows for sure but they are alot of different models and they are no consensus of which one the scientist all agree on but one model which some scientist talk about is that the universe was just a transformation from one state to another which started after a rapid expansion of the cosmo's 13.8 billion years ago which this model could have other universes within the cosmo's so if you ever heard of multiverses then it probably came from this model and also this model states the cosmo might be eternal and time always existed so no need of a creator has it was always existed but no one says this model is true. Also all scientist says that the laws of thermodynamics apply only in this universe and they dont know if they would apply outside the universe as we dont know whats is outside our universe so he was wrong on that to.
"THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A TURTLE" - Frank Turek. 47:00
I don't think anyone can disagree with Frank here, he really caught them atheists
The problem is that atheism cannot defend morality because it has no moral codec. This is exactly the reason for Stalins attrocities and it is the reason why all these atheists find no probem with incest. The morality problem cannot be solved for atheists. Therefore atheism is evil.
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable I guess u r also evil because u do not have the Elvian moral code. U a-lordoftherrings, therefore u r evil
@@eloka4510 Go look up
laurence krauss on incest
@@AntiAtheismIsUnstoppable atheism is the assertion that theists haven’t proven there is a god or gods. That’s it!
But you can, if you wish to, hold on to the “objective morality” of the Bible that regulates slavery, command the slaughter of entire tribes, including their “evil” babies, commands the stoning of disrespectful children and women who are not virgins on their wedding night. Stalin’s actions sound as if he was following Yahweh’s commands.
@@4um360 Actually the civilization were sacrificing their own babies. God gave them 400 years to change their ways and repent and they didn’t so he wiped them out.
Frank: im going to talk fast now!
Also frank: proceeds to talk talk at the same rate but louder.
Frank has positive energy.
Hitchens had stupified alcoholism.
@@igotstoknow2 Does "positive energy" validate ones point? ... No
@@igotstoknow2 sounds like you'd be an easy victim for con-men who displays "positive energy". let me guess you voted for trump. and you're religious lmao smi
Unfortunately things that can convince people:
1. Talking with confidence
2. Talking quickly
3. Using large vocabulary
Things that do not prove your point at all, see above.
NOTE: This isn't against Frank or Christopher, just an observation I notice with various talkers.
@@igotstoknow2 Um, no. He made no apologies for his fondness of Johnny Walker Black, but even if he'd consumed that much prior to this debate, he handily harpooned every single one of Frank Turek's points as he cared to. He would have destroyed a seemingly narrow-minded person as you come across to be had he been given the opportunity.
To
Christopher Hitchens "in memoriam":
If Frank Turek believes in the existence of an immaterial, intangible reality, which is not subject to the laws of physics and biology, and is therefore "supernatural"... why all this effort to prove that his belief has a scientific basis?
About the moral competence of religion ... I was educated in a religious college during the Franco dictatorship in Spain. 99% of everything those priests preached was coercive, punitive, intimidating, threatening. Christopher Hitchens sums it up nicely: blackmail and bribery.
@Michael Walk bruh he explicitly goes back to the topic several times and the guy your replying to made a comment about the topic AND one about moral competence so don’t pretend they didn’t you dolt
So you take the actions of one college and say that they’re ALL like that?
@@Nameless-pt6oj not necessarily just providing an example of how religion doesn’t automatically make one moral
Why not ?
@@thomasgonn3437 because If, and I stress if, a supernatural being exists he cannot be explained with the natural
Why does Turek keep insisting the universe couldn't possibly come from "something out of nothing"? What makes him (alonng with the carefully chosen opinions of others) think there was "nothing" simply because we don't yet have an identifier or description for that "nothing"?
One more question: Does the degree of volume used to answer a question (even a question you yourself asked) imply the rhetoric's veracity? Turek's insistence on shouting every sentence indicates he was trained to speak with the intent of waking the sleeping... or the deceased. It's difficult to find meaning in words delivered at the sound level of a military fighter jet readying for take-off!
BECAUSE JULIE ANDREWS SANG IT! WEREN'T YOU LISTENING?
@@kratino I listened to the entire episode -- including Frank's melodious trilling -- but never heard Julie sing a note.
Sigh.
Of course, I've never heard *anyone's* "god" speak, either. OR a choir of angels bellowing hallelujahs... must not have been listening.
He was in the navy, so it might be hearing damage will increase volume of which you speak naturally…. Something coming from nothing is truly the dumbest thing anyone could say. Over 1000 PhD physicists agree with this, one of them being my dad. Nothing is in the ether, there is literally nothing in the void of space. The Big Bang plays off of this, which has been disproven incredibly quick. If you aren’t following Jesus Christ you probably should.
I want to know what the guy in the middle thinks
He thinks _"Hurry up, chaps, there's a cold beer waiting for me."_
@@TonyEnglandUK absolutely lol
1:45:50... A DEEP question from a sharp mind that gets glossed over... It was brilliant. The supernatural is faith based. Why then use the material to attempt to prove the immaterial? Why not use the supernatural to prove the natural without involving ANY natural method?
These days I don't engage theists on Doctrine, history, morality and such. I just point out that their authority claim is based on supernatural claims and to provide credible evidence that supernatural events actually occur, can be objectively observed and tested.
No Theist slam dunks so far.
@@con.troller4183 why would they? Supernatural by definition is something beyond scientific understanding.🤷♂️
@@kaibavelarde The supernatural is not "beyond scientific understanding". It is understood perfectly as unscientific, unfalsifiable data.
But Theists claim that supernatural events happen and that they prove their case. They cite the supernatural as scientific proof of their claims. As if the supernatural was science, when it isn't.
@@con.troller4183 I'm just saying by definition thats what supernatural is. Would it really be observable though? I wouldn't think so because they seem to occur at the most personal of times. Which theists claim that supernatural evidence is scientific?
@@kaibavelarde "Which theists claim that supernatural evidence is scientific?"
All of them. Ask them what evidence they have for the existence of god and they ultimately cite miracles. Miracles break the laws of nature. Miracles are supernatural. But they never provide credible, testable evidence for the existence of ANY miracles or any supernatural events.
The fundamental basis if their faith is false.
My name's James Taylor and after our debate I will be singing "Fire and Rain".
30:18 all you need to know to understand.
My thoughts exactly
“The absence of knowledge doesn’t prove the existence of a higher power”
The presence of your stupidity doesn't disprove the absence of a brain
Neither does it disprove it
@@thirst4wisdom shifting the burden of proof/evidence
@@thirst4wisdom
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it means that one cannot accept the claim that a good exists, and be rational and logical in that belief.
@@thirst4wisdomfirst prove it so we could disprove it. If not then prove me you are not a murderer
I am physically in pain whenever I have to listen to Frank Turek. He’s loud, thin voiced, aggressive , fast and anxious. I find him a terrible speaker at an intuitive level. I don’t like Hitchens either but I find him way more tolerable .
Since this debate is 10 years old I would love to hear from anyone who attended as to their thoughts.
Sadly Cristopher died not too long ago
@@aiweeable This was indeed sad, he was loved by many, including his opponents during the debate. "He would often go out to dinner with them after and discuss philosophy and politics over pizza and wine" a quote from D'Souza was one of his great admirers.
@@aiweeable I wonder if his opinions have changed since then. I'd imagine probably not.
@@kaufmanat1 Dead people can't change their opinions 🤦♀️
@@kaufmanat1 I don't think he changed his mind. He even asked people not to pray for him when he was sick.
It's quite sad bc at this time serious academic atheists are changing their thoughts on some of the classical grounding problems. Even the same Dawkins said he would be open to deism if the fine tuning argument could convince him, he says he consider it a good argument.
Definitely he would not be open to religion at all, these people have serious prejudices against religion, but philosophywise, contemporary atheist are aware that their worldview has serious grounding issues.
1:06:50 Hitch: "I suppose if I cant be erect, I can at least be upright." Delayed laughter once people understand what he said hahahaha
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Not everyone thinks like him...or you.
I personally didn’t find it the least bit funny. It was rather disgusting… & completely inappropriate. Whether you agree with Hitchens or not, his alcoholism & crudeness may be charming at first, but wear off after about, hmmm… around 1 second. Then it’s back to foul-smelling, snarky alcoholic who not only eats but burps on stage like a pig 🐖🤮🌬
Laughter and sarcasm doesn't refute theology
Shows his perversion.
The ending is so incredibly powerful…
And contrived.
It’s beautiful.
Dangerous ramblings that glorify war.
No, it’s not. Turken knew he failed and had to whip out his bleeding heart.
It’s an appeal to emotion and you got hooked.
"....there is no god and I hate him....." could be the example that gets shown when someone looks up the definition for a non-sequitur.
How about Frank vs Matt Dillahunty next.
47:00 - every time Frank says, "The universe is not eternal", I hear, "The universe is not a turtle!"
Speaking as a Turtlist, your logic is flawed.
Tony England
Bruh 😂😂
Funny, both statements have about as much credibility.
@@FakingANerve The universe had a beginning
@@almostafa4725
The universe is not a turtle...ooops...wrong person...:)
Wow, it really is annoying hearing frank turek misrepresent science this way. Among the many objections i could make, the one that absolutely needs to be made is to point out that DNA is NOT coded information, it is just a chemical structure that we impose the analogy of code upon to make it easier to teach.
Leave it to the religious to always find absurd correlations where none exist.
Erin Becker you’re wrong.
You are such a lost soul
@@unforgettablerandomtv6446 what evidence do you have for the soul?
"absurd correlations" ? it would suck finding out hell exists buddy
Maybe try to google DNA or genetic information and you will find scientists explain it as information or code. It is stored, read and translated. It is referred to as instructions. DNA contains code for how to build a creature. Where limbs are placed, eye color, ear design, etc. It is much more, as a whole, than a chemical structure.
RIP Christopher, even though we had/have different beliefs
Christopher would have laughed at the first word of your comment
@@jivanbhusal7690 what’s so funny about REST?
@@5va Christopher didn't believe there is anything after death, he found the idea of you living in eternal north korea after you're gone is absurd, not to mention, incredibly vile
@@jivanbhusal7690 wdym
@@JerryTheCamera chris doesnt believe in rip.... well in other wrds eternal life..
Life is special because it is finite. It means more and is more special because I cannot experience more.
Comment sections are a strange place. And this is far out of time, but I have to agree with Turek overall. Hitchens never gave a case for atheism as a worldview, or how it explains reality. Granted Turek did not sufficiently argue the point of how Theism is separated from Deism and why it explains the universe better, but at least he made a case. Hitchens also constantly begged a question that Turek pointed out multiple times which is on the origin and justification of morality. Basically he argued Christians are not moral, which I always thought was kind of the point of the system it upholds. I also am curious what that proves anyway. Why does morality matter in an atheistic worldview? I think his idea was to prove God is evil using the Christian sense of morality, but he never really went that far in his statements. However, I never found a definition for morality in his case, so even calling God evil would be an undefined concept if he attempts to do so. All in all, Frank gave a flawed argument by trying to encompass too much information into his case without defining some fundamentals, and Hitchens whined about evil, said Turek is taking illogical leaps (which in some cases I agree), and never really had a base case.
I noticed a lot that whenever Turek would ask a question of atheism the habit of Hitchens was to take the question and then ask a counter question about how Christianity or the Church publicly deals with said subject. But that does not answer the question. You can ask the Christian view to be explained after, but when your worldview is questioned just saying the opposite view is not satisfactory, while not stating why yours does satisfy the question is not debating. It is just avoiding the question by hiding it.
This is a big false equivalency. Atheism is not a worldview. The world will go on if we were all dead. Gods will all cease to exist with the death of every human, so you must think about magic to keep it real in your minds because, without your minds, your gods never existed.
@@AnarchoPunkChad let me try. There's no such thing as an atheistic world view. The statement in itself doesn't make sense. How can you form your world view based upon what you don't believe? Even if no atheist on the planet can give you a satisfactory explanation of morality without needing to reference a diety, that doesn't make a belief in a diety true. It's like asking what I enjoy about not stamp collecting. Assuming you're a Christian, that would mean you aren't Jewish, you aren't Muslim, or Hindu, ect. How does not being those things shape your worldview? Your worldview is shaped by what you DO believe, not what you don't.
@@AnarchoPunkChad
Going to butt in on the moral aspect of the argument.
There are only subjective morals and these are usually dictated by the peers you live with. The culture you live in holds a standard of what is permissable and if you do not abide by these sets of standards, you will be sanctioned by the people in this group, not by supernatural entities or bad luck.
So if you commit atrocities and don't get caught, you will not be punished by your group but if you have a conscience, it might not let you forget what you have done and devour you from within. Those "demons" are real but there is nothing supernatural behind them. It's your view about yourself and how your in-group sees you. No God required. Only psychology.
I like your form of questioning and I enjoy that you are honest and humble enough to concede some points. That shows an intelligence and a willing open mind to listening to the other side without just claiming you are right and the other side is wrong. So, cheers to ya mate. While I do disagree with you on the morality arguement...at least you left room for discussion. Unlike many other believers. As someone that believes in values more often associated with aethiests, I can say this with clarity. Religion had no innate or ground building effort in my morality. I do truly....as Hutchinson mentioned..it is a naturally occurring/intrinsic value of many social creatures that d ont require a religion or a god to exist. Period.
@@AnarchoPunkChad
You are right. But if I subjectively value the wellbeing of my peers, family or friends, I can selfishly deem others morally in the wrong for hurting them.
You will probably do the same. Because you prefer the people you know over strangers to you.
Best of regards to you.
I'm neutral. But I watch debates.
New christianity revealed :
52:08 - "Am I absolutely sure Christianity is true ? ... No, I'm not absolutely sure ... there's very few things you can be absolutely sure about ... I'm trying to give a probability argument, based on the evidence that there is a spaceless, timeless, immaterial, powerful, moral, personal, intelligent creator, who ultimately revealed Himself in Jesus Christ, about 2000 years ago. Now, could I be WRONG about that ? YES I COULD !"
He is not in harmony with Matthew 14 : 31 - "Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?" ... Throughout the New Testament, Jesus recommends faith without doubt ( in fact, when you say "faith" , you actually mean : "no doubt". )
That is how you and many interpret Mathew 14 : 31. If what the bible says is true, then anyone without doubt would be able to pull miracles, like moving a mountain. However I do not recall any human living or deceased being able to do such thing, or maybe it has happened and I just don't know about it. Even Job has doubt, that does not brake you away from the core concept of Christianity, it just means you have some doubts. And this core concept is simple: Believe Jesus Christ is the savior, God is real, and love one another. Is ok to doubt, is ok to question, is ok to make your own decision of what to believe, what is not ok is claiming the moral high ground and dictate among us who is better or worse based on faith. Of course the list of "not ok" things is bigger, but I will stop here.
@@zombiejoker911 ( see number 1. below ) 2. You're right. My answer is not a connection to miracles. Just to the basic message of christianity : "Am I absolutely sure Christianity is true ? ... No, I'm not absolutely sure." ... I should have given another verse as an example, like Hebrew 11 : 1.
@@zombiejoker911 3. Job didn't doubt the existence of God - like this assertion doubted christianity : "Am I absolutely sure Christianity is TRUE ? ... No, I'm not absolutely sure."
-->
Job only doubted God's FAIRNESS.
But he went back to faith and stood up against his proud scholar friends, who only quoted the scriptures and didn't believe Job. In the end, God favored Job, not his friends.
Job 42 : 7
"After the Lord had said these things to Job, he said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “I am angry with you and your two friends, because you have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has."
--> ... God said that, even if Eliphaz quoted the scriptures and meant well !
@@zombiejoker911 4. Love one another ... including enemies. Matthew 5 : 38-48. But one look at history and our daily lives, shows that pride and the desire of being "right" in personal speech is more prevalent than love.
@@zombiejoker911 5. I agree with you !
You wrote : "what is not ok is claiming the moral high ground and dictate among us who is better or worse based on faith."
... Jesus and Paul said the same thing.
- Matthew 23 : 8-11 - “But you are NOT to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. NOR are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. The GREATEST among you will be your servant."
- Philippians 2 : 3
-- "Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind REGARD ONE ANOTHER as more important than yourselves." ... ( New American Standard Bible )
-- "Do not act out of selfish ambition or conceit, but with humility think of others as being BETTER THAN YOURSELVES." ... ( International Standard Version )
-- "And you should not do anything with contention or empty glory, but in humility of mind, let EVERY PERSON esteem his neighbor as better than himself." ... ( Aramaic Bible in Plain English )
in church specialy born again, speaking in front of many people start at very young age. they are all good in story telling.
Agreed
Some people like yourself will never understand, scientific materialism has seeped into every aspect of society.
Yes, a Real Stories. 😂
You think Turk is a story teller and not Hitchens? My my I wonder if you were listening at all? Answer- doubtful
@@thegreatestkhan That may be the case but millennia of telling stories around the campfire has given talking bs a headstart over science.
1:03:30 That argument didn't age well.
Why is Paley's Watch found on a beach, or in a forest? Because the beach/forest provides a *non-designed* point of contrast.
But they hold that beaches and forests ARE designed.
You can't have it both ways - is the beach/forest designed, or not?
I use a random tree in a forest as an example, it’s possible it’s was intentionally placed there by someone but it also could of got there by itself.
@@Gumpmachine1 A tree in a field - good idea, the contrast with nature no longer applies.
"Did somebody plant it, or not? How do you tell?"
@JMUDoc exactly, it’s a much better comparison to the universe.
@@Gumpmachine1 not really because either way you assume what’s opposite of reality. To see a tree in the field doesn’t lead to someone planting it or it did it itself. Reason being is because in that example we are talking open environment. Meaning any number of things could have happened do to the natural of the environment. The rate of rain, wind, weather, timing and age of tree, etc. the only thing that would lead to the possibility that someone put it there is if there is something specific to the tree that isn’t on its own natural. Like a bow entangled in the roots and vines and branches. Carvings on it. Obvious signs of up human upkeep, such as shaping.
@@vikkidonn you might but I don’t
I would say I’m not sure how the tree got there.
I’d have to compare it to other trees that have been planted intentionally and naturally occurring to try and figure it out
At some point, Mr. Turek asked something like whether we are just a "bunch of chemicals". It's an interesting question, but I guess when you boil it down, the answer appears to be "yes". I say that because, if you could suddenly, say, remove all the iron atoms from your body, you would become a corpse. For sure, we require certain chemical elements and compounds to exist as we are.
yes you are right. But the questions is, are we "just" a bunch of chemicals.
@@atronos3 Yes.
@@atronos3 Yes, we are and everything around us.
@@atronos3 the answer would be a decisive no. You're not just chemical elements, nor any other subunit or component of the bodily composition. There's also the principle that defines the bodily composition itself while living, which appears indistinguishable in essence from the mind and will. In other words, a soul. The best in my opinion view being Thomistic hylomorphism which recognizes that everything is like this really, not just humans. All material substances possess an immaterial aspect of form, and material component whereby they are made particular and manifest, a form simply defining a thing to be what it is, an essence. The human form, is animate, a soul. Really the hylomorphic model reveals a naturally intuited understanding that most things we commonly interact with are not reducable to the sum of their parts, but are in actuality whole things containing parts. This is the solution to the ship of theseus proposed by Aristotle so long ago.
@@atronos3 what else would we be?
The argument that since the natural laws of the universe allow the current reality to exist, and if the laws were different than we wouldn't exist is, to simplify, basically saying "if things were different, things would be different, but they aren't, therefore God". The massive assumption is that the laws of nature were set, or chosen, like a sound mixer sliding knobs on a board until all the natural laws are set to the perfect value. But what if the natural laws are just what the natural laws are, not chosen from a spectrum? And of course the universe has to exist the way it does because of what the natural laws are. If thr natural laws were in fact different, who's to say we wouldn't still have a universe, just one that formed according to those laws?
It’s crazy what people will come up to be comfortable with confusion or denying the existence of God..even if the laws where different..that will still sit in the realm of the creator ..I’m starting to see what it is..obviously if you take a personal creator out of the creation..then of course you can come up with any nonsense..but it still wouldn’t prove your very own existence..you will left with the unknown..the Bible gives us evidence for the existence of God..it speaks about sin and how corrupt the human heart is..you know God exist when you realize how sinful me and you’re..it’s call faith
@@hamedhinston9148 faith may be good enough for you, and that's fine, I'm not here to judge. It's not good enough for me. I need a reason to believe, which I currently do not have. Most of what I was saying wasn't directed at me trying to prove or disprove anything, it was just me commenting on the choice of arguments being used.
@@thekwjiboo wooooooooooow ..my friend just open the Bible ..I don’t understand why people complicate life when God literally gave us directions..it’s your unbelief that will keep you in the darkness ..the evidence for the existence of God is all around. You . The fact that you chose not to believe in The true God is still not an excuse..if you ever get a chance, open that Bible and read Romans 1:18,19,20….(read the whole book 😭🤣🤣) to know God, to accept Jesus has your savior is so the most important thing you will ever accept in this life..God do you love you ..but make no mistake he will judge our sins ..it just breaks my heart when people chose not to believe in God..my friend God made us to be critical thinkers..to actually use our brains and think for our own ..according to his words..Proverbs chapter 3:5-6--5 Trust in the Lord(A) with all your heart
and lean not on your own understanding;
6 in all your ways submit to him,
and he will make your paths straight. I pray God grant you faith ..when you come to Christ. I want the best for you honestly..I don’t know you personally..but I know the God I serve and if he is good and merciful too me, he will be the same good and merciful to you..be blessed and enjoy your day. I pray this help a little
@@hamedhinston9148 I have read the Bible in its entirety. Christians hate hearing this, but that's not my problem, but that's no different than a Muslim telling me to read the Quran to quell my doubts about their beliefs. Like I said, I need a reason to believe (and that goes for everything, not just theological questions), and the inherently circular reasoning of "read the bible" doesn't cut it.
Why do I say it's circular? It's like this.
The Bible is the word of God.
How do you know that?
Because the Bible says so.
Why should I care what the Bible says?
Because it's the word of God.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Circular. Therefore, not convincing.
@@thekwjiboo soooooo wait ..even if God told you to do something , you won’t do it..you have to understand who you’re and who God his..my brother the Fact that God is real, and can be proven with countless evidence, speaks volume on why we should do as God says..and we focusing on the True God, the Bible speaks of Him..not the Muslim ..I just don’t understand how someone can be so bold towards God. But I know that God is willing to Forgive if you sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness..you make it seem like God is against you , when he is actually ready to save and justify you. God is an enemy of the wicked and willful sinners..but he give mercy and grace to the ones he deemed Just and righteous. It’s really not that complicated my friend
When you take the path of intellect than you'll never get the answers you want. You end up just debating morality endlessly until you die.
Interesting.
Good point
Facts!!
That's the reason I prefer evidence based debates for existence of god rather than stucking in between the morality debate ....
About which we can have different opinions and different debates....
It's easier just to learn from animals, that's what we did in the first place anyway.
This Turek guy doesn't talk as fast as he thinks he does he just talks louder every time he says he's going to talk faster and faster.....
Turek speaks about things as Hitchens said humanity is not 100% sure yet
Well, in nuclear field we talk about things that are 99% correct and account (not forget or uncare) the 1%, but we have no fear to back-up behind that 99% as it is greater than that the 1%
@@BringJoyNowIn this analogy whose position do you consider 99% and 1%?
Starts at 25:44
"For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without faith, no evidence will ever be enough."
I didn't see a lot of arguments from Hitchens that related to the beginning of the universe. He talked about religious fallacies but he didn't talk a lot about the origin of the universe.
Tim H if science has then seth didn’t Hitchens bring it up in response to Frank. It sound to me like HE was using science...
and?
he never claimed to know the answer
he only claims to know god ISNT the answer..
and i and MANY people world wide see the truth of that.
if every time we dont know something we just default to "cuz gawd" how far will we ever get?
its intellectually lazy for anyone to assume because they have no answer or dont understand the answer NO OTHER HUMAN could possibly know it or understand it.
its hubris of the highest order..
Krispy Bacon i see what your getting at, but at the same time you’ve got to consider that order always comes from intelligence and our planet is extremely intricate and orderly. The question at hand was what best explains the start of the universe and seeing as how humans haven’t observed something coming from nothing, and clearly know that the universe is finite, I’ve chosen to side with this Frank guy.
@@krispybacon9285 It's pretty logical to come to the conclusion that the universe we live in had a designer using science. I can go on about it if you'd like. God bless.
because he cant none of them can soo they go to the emotional arguments like look at suicide bombers thats because of religious
I love Turek's deconstruction of Hitchens' arguments at the end. Starts at 1:57:49.
Can you put in a time stamp?
Odel Schwanck
Well, he stated “at the end” so it does exist. Honestly if he didn’t put the word end I would have assumed he was talking about the whole argument.
Odel Schwanck are you even listening boi?
Odel Schwanck
He won the argument in his introduction. Did hitchens debunk a single thing Turek said or did turek debunk hitchens entire argument in the first 30 minutes of this video? I’m pretty sure hitchens just ranted about his opinions without and scientific or logical reasoning behind it.
Watch their first debate, it’s just like this one.
I’m guessing you believe that something comes from nothing?
Hitchens is literally sweating beads when he walks up.
His first words are so ironic because he says he doesn’t argue about Santa and things that don’t exist but he’s arguing about something he thinks doesn’t exist. He just goes on about things that he doesn’t like about the God he believes doesn’t exist lol he doesn’t want proof, he just wants to do what he wants.
He contracts himself constantly, he’s a very angry man.
@Odel Schwanck God would have to exsist for you to say that.
1:14:32- Classical Hitch
Humans latched on to burial rituals, ceremonies in wild animal skins, cave painting etc early in their evolution - all of which gave us "Religion" of various types. Religion is cultural and nothing more. When a man and his dog dies there is no God to be aware of either event. Grow up and live with the fact that when you're dead it's all over. Live the short life that you have and enjoy it - it's all you're going to get.
Far out this "doctor" is doing my head in. How is he so blindly mistaken about the atheist view of the big bang? The fact the universe has a beginning does not at all imply a beginner and we dont at all claim it came from nothing or was eternal.
What is the atheist view of the Big Bang?
@@kathyd456 What do you mean? It's a scientific theory backed up by evidence and experiment. It has nothing to do with atheism.
Dude confuses shrieking with righteousness.
Other Dude confuses not shrieking with righteousness
@@aldrinkinny,
Theists confuse objective morality with the divine-command.
"If I can't be erect I can at least be upright." -Hitch
Muglosx Sometimes it seems like he would have rather been a stand up comedian.
@@twelvedozen5075 He was both.
He would have definitely been a better comedian than a defender of atheism. People just like to hear him talk but his arguments are emotional and childish
@@Slayaja from whom? And if it's directed at Hitchens what does the 20years of being brought up theistic have to do with anything?
@@Slayaja nothing created everything and we became from a Rock! That is very knowledgeable argument. 🤔🤔🤔
Frank Turek's proposition of saying that Zeus was 'in the world' is totally false, that is not what the Hellenes believed. Zeus was the Demiurge (Craftsman) he was the creator of the heavens, cosmos and the world. Zeus was separated from the world but also in it, in that he was present in peoples lives, a persona god.
From 4:40 to 4:55 He makes the statement that cosmologist suggest an eternal beginning.
I would love to hear which cosmologist actually makes this statement.
15:40 - 16:15 he unknowingly destroyed his own argument.
If it's meant to be nothingness then before it has to have been eternal. No atheist follows their ideology to its end result ever. I've never seen it.
He also said the universe is running out of energy and if it was eternal it would have run out of energy a long time ago… if it was eternal why would it run out of energy ?
"Christopher doesn't give evidence for his worldview." You don't have to give evidence for simply pointing out that the opposite position has no evidence.
@@Robert-xp4bn I think that can be said of most people.
@@Robert-xp4bn the importance of religion depends on the person.
Can you imagine the frustration in trying to debate someone who can't actually explain their own worldview and their ONLY argument is that yours is wrong?
That's what it's like to debate an atheist. Christian vs atheist debates are the only debates in the world where one party essentially refuses to acknoledge what THEY beleive, but they just spend their whole time trying to explain how their opponent is wrong.
The Christian has to explain his own position AND why his opponent's is wrong. Why can't atheists or agnostics just explain how they think the world is created? When they say "science" then that is nothing more than "faith" in science that they don't know/understand. How is that any different than what they think a Christian believes..?
@@cantrelljohansen2493 would you need to explain why you don't believe in Santa Claus, or just point out why it's nonsensical to do so? Atheism isn't actually a worldview, it's simply a rejection of God belief, so what else needs to be explained, other than why he doesn't believe in it? Imagine, on the other hand, debating with someone actually making positive assertions about something, claiming its validity with no evidence to back it up?
Christopher gives NOTHING, he still needs to explain where we get DNA, intelligence and morals from nothing.
Feelings are chemical. Anyone with pets knows that they have feelings. There are chemical drugs that can cause certain feelings and certain drugs that can stop or inhibit other emotions...
foxglos so because pain is just due to chemical signals, why is torture wrong, as it isn't objectively wrong if you are a materialist? It's no different from pouring baking soda into vinegar apparently.
But what makes certain feeling good or bad? Y’all are missing the point
NothingButTheTruth The people that crucified Jesus didn’t think torture was objectively wrong.
BRANDT9877 they only crucified Jesus because they didn’t believed that he was the messiah, and killed him for blasphemy. That doesn’t mean they didn’t think torture was wrong, they thought it was a just for them to do that.
So I guess you really don't love your mama
I grew up on an island alone. Our village died out when I was 7. My mother was the last to go. There was no Bible, no Quran. No opportunity to read them. I died at 22. Did I go to a Hell?
Of course! Just like all those humans that lived from 200k years ago to about 2k years ago. So at least you won't be lonely.
What's your evidence of God?
Look at the that moon and this mountain. What more do you want?
Who do you think made them?
"I don't know."
See you don't know anything, it's God.
Perfect, PhD for you and now you can have blessings.
We have no choice but to have free will.... that's gonna resonate for a while.
Such a profound statement
If you are forced to make a specific choice, is it still free will?
You would have to have free will in order to make the choice to have free will. God Bless🙏 Jesus Loves You❤️
@@elliotcasson2808 That makes no sense.
@@2l84me8 exactly that’s the paradox, there is no way to choose free will
Was watching a wonderful video about a man (Sean McDowell) who is pretending to be an atheist, speaking to a group of several hundred Christian students. At the end of the question/answer segment he confessed that he is actually not an atheist, but a teacher at a Christian school. He travels around trying to encourage young people, to think how they treat their atheist associates/friends. I guess I consider myself agnostic, and this guy, wow he sold me. He seems to be such a wonderful person, and I would love to be his friend.
The video I referred to was entitled Atheist Debates Christian Students.
When I say that he sold me, I meant that he sold me on his great attitude, he was such a great speaker, so articulate, so caring and giving.
@@acp865 So he manipulated the argument, and give disingenuous answers to an idea he didn't believe in, to shape the minds of children. You basically described church
@@acp865 do you think the other side of this would be productive? An atheist presents themself as a theist to present a straw man argument that they can then later tear down?
Agnostic is a Latin word for a Greek word meaning "ignorant"
At 29:37 in the video,, Hitchens admitted the vacuum of the inner man, but avoided the truth of Scripture about it.
Deuteronomy 4:12-19 NASB
Then the LORD spoke to you from the midst of the fire; you heard the sound of words, but you saw no form-only a voice. [13] So He declared to you His covenant which He commanded you to perform, that is, the Ten Commandments; and He wrote them on two tablets of stone. [14] The LORD commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might perform them in the land where you are going over to possess it. [15] "So watch yourselves carefully, since you did not see any form on the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb from the midst of the fire, [16] so that you do not act corruptly and make a graven image for yourselves in the form of any figure, the likeness of male or female, [17] the likeness of any animal that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged bird that flies in the sky, [18] the likeness of anything that creeps on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in the water below the earth. [19] *And BEWARE NOT to lift up your eyes to heaven and see the sun and the moon and the stars, all the host of heaven, and BE DRAWN AWAY AND WORSHIP THEM and serve them, those which the LORD your God has allotted to all the peoples under the whole heaven.*
Atheism fails the test as usual with its own preconceived Subjective Existential worldview.
The Bible cannot be used as evidence of a deity. I could right a book and use that book as evidence in my supernatural friend, Steve. That doesn’t mean Steve actually exists. Your confusion regarding the essence of humanity is not evidence for magic.
@@kappasigma1284 they are desperate. Their interpretations would shock even jesus
@@kappasigma1284
The Scriptures can be used as evidence!
Archeologists and many noted scientists use the Scriptures as a based to test their theories on. And, many of their findings show the ACCURACY on the Biblical accounts.
Your bias presuppositions has been debunked, prior to you initiating your first few words of your comment.
Check your subjective worldview before responding.
@@Anicius_
No one's desperate, but the failure of Atheism trying to disprove the Authenticity and Accuracy of Scripture.
Question:
If God doesn't exist, why do Atheist spend so much time speaking about Him?
Atheism is such an oxymoronic religion!
@@kappasigma1284
Steve have nature parents!
Christ Jesus existed before the foundation of the universe, as the evidence shows!
Your Faulty Appeal of Equivocation is quite comical!
Here's a bonus:
Does your "Steve" have a birth certificate or is "Steve" a figment of your imagination?
This is too easy!
wasn't that closing statement just a tad bit manipulative?
In any case, the navy SEAL's sacrifice saved his fellow soldiers from something that was about to happen to them, whereas Jesus' sacrifice was supposed to save all of us from the consequences of the original sin, that he himself (in one of his selves anyway) was about to visit on humanity. False equivalence much?
I've listened to many of these debates and especially Turek and D'Souza like to make points and claim things in the closing statements that go unchallenged. For Turek to claim that Hitchens says sacrifice is wrong is lying about the claim. Hitchens in his book says that vicarious redemption for many, even those that have not been born yet and who use this concept to persuade children that they spiritually sick from the time of their birth, is a wicked idea, especially if this redemption was made by a person who eventually lived forever.
The whole debate was _highly_ manipulative on Turek's part. Too bad most people don't have the tools to realise it.
I think the point was made that one does not have to be a Christian or religious to do good things or have morality.... But I also think it's a fair point to say that if we are just the byproducts of a material universe without a creator or being then who is to judge what is right or wrong? There's no basis for doing good or bad. It's just what our chemicals tell us to do. And yes I do believe that doing good is the best thing for humanity that's not an argument.
@@SimSim-zf9if so what about the innate sense that we all seem to have as humans that there is even the right or wrong? I'm assuming a materialist/ atheist/ agnostic would possibly chalk it up to evolution? So what would one say to one who goes rogue and goes against the general consensus? Once again, if there's not some kind of standard from without then who can say the consensus is right? The consensus being good could actually be wrong 😉 I get the argument that if we don't go along with the consensus then our genes may not get passed along.
@@SimSim-zf9if well the truth regardless. Is it humans generally speaking have an innate sense of morality it's an escapable reality And the fact is that we all know it and we expect it from others as well. I think CS Lewis made a good argument for this in Mere Christianity but the point being that if I slap someone in the face that individual would immediately feel and be wronged and vice versa. I would never be as bold as to say that non-Christians or atheists or whoever do not have a sense of morality. As a matter of fact, I'd argue the opposite.
@@mannycano4599 you keep talking about innate sense of morality. But here’s the thing, natural selection can explain that easily.
Imagine a tribe. The tribe feels a sense of community and that improves their chances of survival. If one member begins acting more volatile and hurting members of the community, the tribe will start to think “if P1 hurt P2, what’s to stop them from hurting me”, and from there the sense of self preservation will lead the community to exile or kill the volatile individual (removing their genes from the gene pool).
If you aren’t familiar with natural selection you might be wondering why they have an innate sense of self preservation. That’s easy: those who do live on to pass their genes to the next generation (which will include a sense of self preservation). We know that personality is part of an animal’s genetics, that’s how we got dogs from wolves.
Natural selection not only explains human’s innate sense of morality, it also explains why we fundamentally disagree on many different aspects of right and wrong. Some consider execution okay for example, others don’t. Some consider killing in self defence okay. Others don’t. If we truly had writing morality on our hearts, we wouldn’t see so much disagreement between what is okay and what isn’t.
@@connorgrynol9021 sure, I've heard this explanation before and it has some merit no doubt. But I would still argue that there is still some general morality that is pushing on all human beings. Yes, I also agree that there's always that rogue individual that goes against what the general consensus is. And that's the thing regardless of whether one believes in god or a moral lawgiver or not doesn't change the fact that human beings are moral beings. We can't escape it!
@@connorgrynol9021 sorry if my words aren't all correct or right. I speak into my phone and it doesn't always get my words right.
Turek had valid arguments that where left simply ignored by Christopher on the fact that Christopher said that he is not a scientist and doesn't want to talk about that, but then he himself uses science to try to make some points.
okc ober Turek doesn't have valid arguments. Like most apologists, he pretends to be a physicist, he pretends to be an evolutionary biologist, and he pretends to have evidence for and know things that no one has evidence for or knows. Hitchens chooses intellectual honesty rather than just making stuff up.
Brett M what arguments of his aren't valid and why not? I'm a little confused by your statement
What about my statement are you confused by?
Well you say he doesn't have valid arguments but you don't mention a single invalid argument?
And you say he pretends to know stuff that no one knows and I'd ask you, like what?
Most of his arguments are either god of the gaps or arguments from ignorance.
He starts with the cosmological argument and says that because Hitchens doesn't know why something exists and how life came to be, his answer of a personal creator must be correct. The teleological argument is flawed because it fails to incorporate how we recognize design. His moral argument is fallacious on 3 different levels. There are really too many to list. He doesn't understand physics, biology, philosophy, or mathematics. He's just a christian apologist who starts with a conclusion and then searches for confirmatory evidence later.
Turek's point - that with a tiny difference in one of the variables of the Big Bang, the result would be we would not exist - is a fundamental misrepresentation.
Such a tiny difference does _not_ mean only nothing would be the result.
It means that existence _as we know it_ - our experience of the cosmological order, our version of existence - would not be the result.
Other versions of existence, another cosmological order or orders, would be the result. Speculating on the nature of those other potential results might be interesting, but is not material to the debate at hand, of course. It's just that Turek misrepresented, unsurprisingly, the substance of the initial observation.
“...but you have all your work ahead of you, Sir (or Ma’m), before you can say that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, let alone that he was the son of God, let alone that his mother was a virgin, let alone that he was resurrected; none of these things, by the way, would PROVE that he was the son of God if they DID happen, nor would they prove that his doctrines were not erroneous- a resurrected person who was the son of a virgin could still be talking nonsense.”
In fact, more likely than not, I would think.
Cat Keys - but if this were all true and he claimed to be such, his testimony would have great weight, especially if his teachings contain great wisdom-which they do, as Hitchens himself will admit.
@@geoffstemen3652 it would be amazing if a lot of other things were true too. The fact that something would be amazing if it were true is in no way evidence for whether it is true or not.
C Doerrer - you missed what i was saying. i didn’t say “wouldn’t it be amazing if.” i said that, allowing it to be *possible* that the above things happened to this man, were done by him, his claims become much more significant. the OP is isolating one facet of a large body of multidisciplinary scholarly discourse and saying “where is the evidence? no, the *real* evidence!” people like him often believe that abiogenesis occurred, although there is NO evidence for that and jaw-dropping mathematical odds against it.
C Doerrer - you missed what i was saying. i didn’t say “wouldn’t it be amazing if.” i said that, allowing it to be *possible* that the above things happened to this man, were done by him, his claims become much more significant. the OP is isolating one facet of a large body of multidisciplinary scholarly discourse and saying “where is the evidence? no, the *real* evidence!” people like him often believe that abiogenesis occurred, although there is NO evidence for that and jaw-dropping mathematical odds against it.
So why are you devoting your time to talking about a man who was, in all likelihood, talking nonsense?
Seems kinda wasteful for your one and only life.
I am a fan of Hitchens but I do feel that I still give the opposing argument a fair listen. So far, without exception, Christopher Hitchens reliably presents the clearest argument against religion, time and again. I wonder what Christopher would make of our current state of affairs?
I'm still hoping beyond anything that religion will die off but it seems Islam is taking over the Western world. The young women are being sucked into marriage with Muslim men too easily and having babies born into the religion. It's taking over.
What sad news today. That great friend of Christopher Hitchens, the man who he protected at risk of his own life, Mr Salman Rushdie has lost the sight in one eye and the use of one hand as a result of the horrific attack by a religious nutter some weeks ago. Hitch would be heartbroken and in some small way I'm glad he doesn't have to find out about this. I will weep on his behalf.
Can't wait to read his next book... The barbarism of religion is always knocking on our doors. We can't rest until it's Dogma is eliminated.
@@frankjackal Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind (Albert Einstein)
@@GaryCrant a known atheist
@@nickwood8203 exactly
@@GaryCrant
Einstein wasn’t religious. I have no idea why theists quote him to support their position. It does nothing to help their case.
We've barely scratched the surface in the understanding of the universe and for thousands of years we've had people claim to know who the creator is and what they want, ohh the ego!
When a Christian asks me if I believe in god, I don't give them the satisfaction of pretending it's something I ever spend time thinking about. "Well of course not" is my answer. And it's not that I don't accept the self-evidently real force of nature that clearly must exist for me to be here enunciating thoughts through a computer, but because "God" so often means the murderous, psychopathic character in the Bible. So because I ponder such a deistic-style force of nature, I do not define myself with one word. If I was going to define myself with one word, it would probably be the name given to me at birth. Two words, and it would be my first and last name. 10 words and it might get a little interesting. 100 words, more interesting still. The point being that I'm me. I will never define myself into a box. Being a non-Christian is no more important to my identity as being a non-stamp collector or a non-scuba diver.
Well put. Bravo.
how self centered are you to think that it brings Christians some sort of satisfaction knowing that you believe in God? It is in your and your only interest to believe in God. Christians know they will be saved or at least hope they will be saved, so what benefit do they Get from knowing whether you believe in God or not? the only reason they ask is because they care about others, they care about your sole that's why they want you to believe. Also, that, as you said, "murderous" God loved as so much that he let his son die for us. God is not evil, evil is only possible when God steps away, bad things don't happen to you or others because God wants to, they happen because God decides to stop protecting you.
Ouch! That's a whole lot of stupid in one comment there igor. Every sentence was either totally generalizing or totally incorrect. Grow up already. Believing in a god who is so petulant as to "step away" and "stop protecting you" says more about you than anything else. You need a big imaginary bodyguard, a bully. Anyone says anything against your god, they are punished, with rape, robbery, death, whatever, it's their own fault, right? That's why bad things happen to people, right? God "decides" to stop protecting you. You see how stupid you sound?And you weird believers wonder why us intelligent people think religion is nonsense.
And to the guy above, I am also a fellow non-scuba diver!
James Robbins you call yourself intelligent yet you believe that over time your car could assamble itself, yea my five year old niece believes in auch things too, well I guess that does make you intelligent but puts you on the same level as a 5 year old.
Do you know what a "straw man" is?
The strongest minds are the ones the noisy world hears least. End quote. That's why people with bad arguments shout. This serves to engage emotion to blind reason . I find Tureks constant personal, loud,attacks on Christopher to be not in the spirit of his religion or intellectually useful in any way. For ' your' gods sake come up with something better. And stop personally attacking those who disagree for genuine reasons.
Chris Mac - the heart is as much as the mind
I disagree I say people that have the truth shout!
Irrational indeed. The heart is a concept or a pump, not thought. And loudness is achieved by children, that's not truth. Seems you didn't think before typing. It's ok it's normal.
Chris Mac - Sorry, “the heart” is a common metaphor for the seat of emotion, and the argument was that being convinced makes you emphatic, not that being loud makes you right. Seems you enjoy taking cheap pedantic shots, it’s ok it’s normal.
@Joel truth matters. We don't have names for not believing in the tooth fairy or santa clause. If the faithful just kept it to themselves we wouldn't be having this text conversation. I think you'll find it's the atheists ( I don't accept the term) who have had to endure constant proselytizing. Threats of eternal suffering. Lying to children persecuting gay people o yes and the murder. If you have faith start with an apology.
I guess my question to Mr. Turek would be - do you know that there haven’t been an innumerable number of universes that existed that were just that slight bit off to not support life? You don’t? It’s entirely possible. The only reason you exist to ask that question is because you do happen to exist in a universe that supports life. Ya think this is the only universe to ever exist? Can you prove that?
Well the typical definition of universe is all of space and matter. Your speculations are not objections. He is arguing on what we currently do know to come to a conclusion.
@@acelinomckinzie1956
_"Well the typical definition of universe is all of space and matter"_
..you mean the old definition. ...cosmologists think there could be a lot more than what we can currently see.
_" He is arguing on what we currently do know to come to a conclusion"_
It would be arrogant to think that we know enough to understand the universe.
@@markh1011 Of course there is more than we see, more of the universe isn’t another universe. Not a lot of cosmologist believe in the multiverse, and a lot is speculation. And I never said we do know about all the universe. Hence why I said “currently do know.” We do this all the time. There wouldn’t be much science if we make conclusions based on our current understanding.
@@acelinomckinzie1956
_"Not a lot of cosmologist believe in the multiverse"_
1. It's not a matter of "believe in"....it's just a possibility.
2. I think you'll find that a lot of them do... but even if they all did, would that change your mind? I suspect the number doesn't really matter to you.
_"Hence why I said “currently do know.” We do this all the time. "_
I know. But to think we know enough to have the answers about the creation of the universe or universes would be hubris.
@@markh1011 Science is mainly based on conclusions that we don’t fully know, but we use our knowledge from the evidence. Using evidence to come to conclusions is always better than a speculation. And you can’t really critique someone that is using the evidence that leads to philosophical implications, and object with speculations.
The comment from Turek attempting to rebutt Hitchen's use of Hume's argument misses the point entirely - it wasn't that the common should be believed and the rare denounced; some totally natural events are rare - it's that the repeatable and measurable physical laws of nature should be taken as more likely true/accurate/ representative of truth and reality than events that deviate from the physical laws of nature i.e. the supernatural.
are we just gonna sit here and pretend most Atheist commenting here, can't hear Krauss shout all day and night?
Ah, Krauss... who seriously listens to that chappie?
Difference is Krauss isn’t chatting absolute bollocks for an hour and makes plenty of solid points.
Because krauss has logic and reason with evidence which he describes and presents.
On the other hand there's turek, All claims no evidence... No different than spoilt kid except turek knows words...
In addition, krauss doesn't scream that much as turek
CH: I just ask you to think for yourself and consider the evidence.
(Gives no evidence to why his worldview is right)
?
I dont think he gave any evidence and just kept saying well it just is and Christianity is wrong.
when he says "consider the evidence" he's saying there's no evidence for god because there isn't, not one atom!!!
@@kst68dog saying there is no evidence doesn't provide evidence.
Frank Castle ...as an atheist and a skeptic, my position is to deny claims that lack empirical backing. Furthermore, it is my view that my position is the default position. Naturally, I deny all claims of the supernatural, given that I have seen no compelling empirical evidence for the actual existence of gods, goddesses, angels, demons, ghosts. intelligent designers, prime movers, etc.
Postulating supernatural causation as an explanation * for anything* is patently ridiculous if one cannot demonstrate the actual existence anything supernatural. In other words, Turek’s/Craig’s/ countless apologists’ Kalam ‘argument’ of ‘the universe exists, therefore god’ is absurd; this ‘argument’ has been used by theists for centuries to ‘explain’ natural phenomena from night and day to natural disasters to the origin of life. Unfortunately for theists, as the scientific method gives humankind plausible, evidence-based explanations ( aka scientific *theories* ) for previously unexplained phenomena, gods are further relegated to the dimmer corners in the big room of human knowledge. As humanity gains and processes more empirical data, those dim corners in that room grow smaller, and the gods that haunt these darkened corners grow smaller as well.
So, unless Turek or any of the countless apologists using the tired, weak, and ridiculously flawed Kalam ‘argument’ actually takes the time to actually back their assertions with empirical evidence for anything actually existing outside of nature, I will take the default, and more *rational,* position of denying such unsubstantiated claims.
@@jamessoltis5407 as an atheist you and all the rest of them hate and deny God. I watched the whole video, turek was the only one giving scientific evidence. The athiest however keeps bashing Christianity then says oh things just evolve naturally. Which is a very vague and broad argument. You yourself even say "naturally" but you have no evidence as to how it all naturally works.
I see many very expensive cars outside churches owned by people in mansions yet billions have no clean water or enough to eat each day!
Allashka What is the source?
proves Jesus's point
@Allashka I wouldn't say, Atheist. Most of them believe in God but they hate Him because They want to rule. They want to be in control by any means necessary. They're closer to Satanists, some of them being Satanists.
@Allashka The richest people on earth are usually religious, and they couldn’t care less about other people nor their followers.
Absolutely not relevant and quite an irrational statement
01:14:04,
“Is it not the case that the spread of Christianity-about which you spoke so warmly and affectingly in your opening remarks, attributing it to the innate truth of the Bible story-was spread by that means, or because the Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire? Which in your view contributed more to the spread of the faith?”
Hitch mispoke.
youtube scholars, you got to love them. There's just something about a screen that makes people think they got the answers. .
mike murfree and most of them would never speak how they write here in person, cause it would show how classless they actually are.
Is the derisiveness really necessary though? Some, if not all, of these people are genuinely attempting to expand their thought processes. What does dismissing that based on the accessibility of the content actually accomplish? Idk bud idk
@@kobepmusic Most people aren't, and for the few that are genuinely trying to expand they ask more questions than give answers.
It's good to see people engaged in a serious subject regardless of their opinion.
No graven images.....so spend immense sums on churches instead of feeding the poor.
Where in the Bible does it say that?? Show me and I will believe u 🤔
@@asimpleanimator8241 Exodus 20 : 4 ....Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.....
A non - Christian religion known as Roman Catholicism worships/venerates graven images , ie statues of saints, Mary , wafers etc.
And have taken the above verse out of their bible/catechism.
So do you believe him? Have you not read the Bible?
Thank you very much, quite Stimulating.
We should never think that the material needs the immaterial. The term "immaterial" is completely vacuous; it literally stands for nothing.
The problem is matrial assumes it's existence to be a given without any cause. And nothing can never be a cause for something. 0 can't guve rise to 1.
@@IndianExMuslim99 We can’t assume that’s true. All our intuitions are based on living in a material universe where causes precede effects, but those intuitions can’t apply to a completely different context such as the start of a universe. We have no idea how such events occur or if even they occur at all. If what you say turns out to be true, then we must conclude that the universe has always existed or that some special conditions exist. The special condition in this case is the start of spactime. To say effects preced causes is to assume the existence of time, but if a “big bang” moment occurred, then that’s when time started. One cannot speak of anything happening before the existence of time, which means a cause cannot precede it. It’s analogous to their being nothing north of the North Pole; the question of what’s north of it is nonsensical.
@@chemquests the presence of intelligence design everywhere makes me conclude that the most likely explaination is that there was intelligence behind this Universe, and this ingelligence is responsible for everything that happens in the universe, and we can experience this intelligence through our limited rational and logical mind. We have faith in the rational tangibility of the universe, or else rationality and logic itself is an illusion of the mind, and yet we do experience rationality and logic in our life through our mind. And about Universr having a cause, then it's totally possible for the universe to have a cause to come into existence. We do know the universe did have a beginning through emperical evidences. But if the universe did have a beginning then there must be something that preceeded that beginning that is beyond time itself, it must be beyond our logical framework, why? Because the Universe is limited. It's finite, it's contingent to time and it is decaying and eventually die out. I would have had no problem equating the Universe self created if the Universe was eternal. The problem is Universe is not eternal, it's decaying and is going to ebentually collapse. The fact that time does exists, and a gran pattern exists and that complex life and intellegence exists tells me based on my logical analysis that mindless processes and nothingness without any intelligence could not have given rise to this. I have no horse in the race of religions. I am above it. I am seeking truth through pure reason, rationality and logic. And as far as the evidences are presented and the explainations are given, it seems to me that what ever was reaponsible for the creation and the maintainamce of the universe must have such intelligence that it could design it, and must be self-sustaining and independent and be omnipotent and omnipresent. That's all, and it fits the definition generally of a "God". Where I disagree is the claim of "this God is know to us to christ, muhammed.. and bla bla". I am just trying to find the truth. So far the arguments presented were logically consisten and coherent and based on emperical evidence. The axioms makes sense, the logic makes sense the conclusions make sense. I see no poasibility for atheism = a denial of a intelligence working behing and through universe to be logically consistent or coherent unless you cling to that belief out of fear of religion.
Pure desperation in Tureks closing statement delivered by a man defeated. Nothing left but to try and play on the heart strings of the audience.
Once he started talking about the military I completely took him for being dishonest. He is a fraud and a charlatan to the best descriptive comparison I can make.
If there were such a thing as god, he would surely stand back in awe at the debating skills of Christopher Hitchens.
Even if you hate God, Christopher, he loves you.
Christopher didn't hate God. To do that, he would have to believe in God.
Turek is a well practiced charlatan. He speaks fast about things he doesn't understand with the hope that his rapidly changing topics befuddle his audience. Fortunately , more and more people are not fooled by this approach.
Nope, it’s the norm to talk fast and deliver arguments in debate It’s called arguments not “rapidly changing topics.” They have a certain amount of time to present their arguments. Do you understand the fundamentals of debates?
@@acelinomckinzie1956 it's a tactic well known as a "gish gallop". It's meant to confuse the audience into thinking you have merit.
@@MichelleFrets His channel is dedicated to answering specific questions at length. Your comment here is as ignorant and disingenuous as it gets. Acelino correctly answered you and all you did was dismiss. Is that your "tactic"?
@@crazyworld54321 while Acelino did make a statement to me, he certainly did not answer anything. Indeed, I wasn't asking a question. I wasn't asking anything of Turek either and I never would. I don't know the motivations for his misrepresentations of nearly everything that comes out of his mouth. Is it honest misunderstanding or outright deceit? I don't know, but Turek is not someone I would look to for anything. If you've been fooled, I recommend that you learn more from people educated in their respective fields of knowledge and start thinking critically. You can do it.
@@MichelleFrets Well said👍
I was on the debate team in highschool I always (along with all of my other teammates) used the same case with some tweaks until the topic changed so y’all need to chill
OK Y,ALL
"If there was no resurrection, how could this life be the most influential life of all time? Was it just because a bunch of pious Jews in Jerusalem inexplicably decided to chuck Judaism and fabricate a resurrection story so they could fulfill their dream of getting beaten, tortured, and killed?" A debate tactic commonly used by teenagers is to take perfectly-plausible events and phrase them in a way that makes them sound implausible. As if that's a substitute for giving *reasons* to discount that event as plausible.
5:48 The Second Law of Thermodynamics according to Frank Turek: "The universe is running out of energy. If it was eternal it would have run out of energy a long time ago."
Yeah, that's some stupid comment.
Haha, it's so funny when they don't even understand high school science, but call themselves "Dr."
Chrischi7777 I think Turdek is a Doctor of Apologetics; IMO, failing an apologetics class is actually a sign of intelligence. As I’ve read on Urban Dictionary: Apologetics = the art of searching for a black cat down a black hole… and finding it !! :P
And that guy, supposedly, knows what he is talking about... (*SIGH*)
It always confounds me that every other time we use the word evolution we use it referencing things that have been designed. Example: evolution of cars, buildings, healthcare system . . . But when we use it for the universe we detach it from a designer? Things that make you go Hmmm.
So is it possible that the word is being improperly used when referring to cars, buildings and healthcare systems?
Two definitions of evolution:
1: Evolution from apes
2:evolution of books and knowledge. In others progress.
Which definition is first?
@truth teller ok, now your ego just pity's me when you said "question what you been brainwashed to believe sweetie", when actually Im not brainwashed when I Haven't even been taught a thing about it. Anyway, The second definition is not a scientific fact, neither is the first one. But, the original word evolve comes from the Latin word ēvolvere. Which means to progress, for example technology or firepower. Not humans or animals. The definition of evolve was tooken out of context.
@@daysnottime999 its almost like colloquial and scientific meaning of words can be different. A theory is a body of facts are accepted as the highest level of scientific inquiry, whereas something is "just a theory" in common language. You are conflating 2 meanings: general evolution which is any change over time, and the Theory of Biological Evolution, which is widely supported by epidemiology, genealogy, paleontology, cell biology, and every other body of science that it touches. It has given us vaccinations, cancer treatments, our understanding of biology. And not anywhere within it is there a designer.
All that means is that people started using the term too loosely, or misusing it. It doesn’t disprove the theory of evolution. The same can happen with religious terms and I wouldn’t use that, of all things, as an argument against religion.
That closing statement gives me Goosebumps.
@Kevin Creaghan Is emotional manipulation bad.
Kevin Creaghan ^^
And so it should. It was a story of incredible strength and bravery. I lost a little respect for Frank Turek when he used it in comparison to Jesus' crucifixion and to the example Christopher Hitchens used when he said sacrifice is immoral, the throwing of virgins off Aztec pyramids.
The Navy SEAL made a genuine sacrifice of his own volition, knowing he would not survive. Jesus supposedly came to earth and sacrificed himself having said several times that he would come back, that he had life eternal in his gift, and we are told to believe that this was the case, or burn in hell. It was his plan all along. The Aztecs were brainwashed or otherwise forced to sacrifice themselves to appease gods we all agree don't exist.
It is a cheap trick to use a true story of a man's genuine heroism and self sacrifice to bolster support for a shoddy fairy tale, and Turek has revealed something about himself by doing it.
@@thenumbdave
"Jesus supposedly came to earth and sacrificed himself""
How do a god sacrifice himself, how can a god die, who did resurrect this god.
If there is a omnipotent omniscient god, then any human can do anything because this god can put everything straight afterwards, like resurrection, so where is the "cost" ?
@Nautical Miles Sources PLease.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of gods until sufficient credible evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence I must consider when evaluating the claim by theists and as to why I currently hold to such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding any acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
Why is there something not nothing. Crickets. Ok then.
To paraphrase Thomas Nagel, why do you so much want there not to be a God?
@@CallMeWB Ahhh. You asked two loaded questions. How cute.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Not loaded, the first is unanswerable,. The existence of God is an opinion it cannot be proven or disproven.
The real question is why we choose what we choose.
So, why do you want there so much not be a God?
Atheists never want to answer that question, as you have not.
@@CallMeWB So you haven't a clue as to what constitutes a loaded question. Shocker!!
@@theoskeptomai2535 In your case apparently it means a question you can't answer so you try to change the subject
Turek opened exactly the same way he did last time, like some kind of comedian and this is his standup routine...
did not expect my philosophy professor to be the moderator😭😭😭you’re a king JT
Turek has an unmistakably distinctive modern preacher style. What time are were rising to sing the hymns?
On the stage, there unfolds a striking contrast between two figures. The first man stands as a beacon of enduring wisdom, intelligence, and moral integrity, destined to be celebrated and remembered throughout history. In sharp contrast, the second man represents the direct opposite of such esteem; he is either tainted by deceit and profound dishonesty, or he might simply be an unfortunate victim, a fool misled by the malignant influence of religious dogma.
Lol hitchens is loved remembered throughout Europe and even in us, no even knows who the other guy is.
29:50 Did Hitchens just say "we are pattern seeking mammals (...), we look for patterns, we're DESIGNED to look for them..."??
it's too convenient to want scientific proof. How is a one time event, scientifically proven? Even if I could scientifically reenact and prove that resurrection is possible; does this give proof of Christ? I think not.
If that wouldn't prove Christ what would in your opinion?
@@zuisudramyrs Why would the resurrection prove Christianity? My cleric in my D&D game resurrects his party members all the time--its magic! Why would the existence of magic prove Yahweh? Why not Gaia or some other made up deity, or even someone just pulling magic out of the air?
I don't know what would convince me, but nothing has ever come CLOSE to date. God should know what would prove it to me, but he hasn't tried. Maybe a giant cloud with a mouth that raises everyone from the dead and ends human suffering and tells me his name is Yahweh. That might do it.
@@frankwilliams5766 Exactly!
Believers seem to know what god wants and coincides with their desires. Red flag!
What God wants does NOT coincide with our desires. The opposite is true. We want exactly what you want. We want sex all the time everywhere. We want to commit violence unto those who have wronged us. We want to slander and gossip against others. We want to treasure up as much wealth as possible and live in luxury. The difference is, as followers of Christ, we recognize these things and repent from them, and turn away from them.
You have a very poor understanding of the Christian faith and Jesus Christ, and that’s a shame, considering you have taken the bold step of criticizing it and it’s followers, of whom you do not have knowledge.
@@KeeganStephen0914its faith ofcourse everyone has different understanding of it if you change a country you'll find variants of cristianity. First make up your mind folks
What a closing statement from Mr Turek.
Wow!!!
Appeals to emotion can be very compelling, but that's all they are.
@Karat Kravat you don't think the atrocious things Christians have done, and are still doing today such as conversion therapy have any scriptural basis?
@Karat Kravat You should be embarrassed to be a Christian.
@Karat Kravat I see it more as a chaotic mess, at times, with all kinds of loose ends, abuses, mix ups and vague verses, allowing all kinds of things. As 1 Corinthians 10 and Matthew 5:18 did.
Also, we don't really have a single Christianity to attribute things to.
It's not the people, so much as the system, maybe that is bad - or erratic.
It is not fair to compare the two sacrifices .. Michael A. Monsoor actually saved lived ..
28:11 “…….observable creation…..”
What? I thought he believed the universe just happened to start existing at one point, after it hadn’t existed
Truth he didn't come to make people good he came to bring dead people to life.
John 10:10 KJV
The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
He didn’t to bring peace, but the sword..
Which is why the 'social gospel' and it's friend the emerging Marxist state religion is pagan.
I just hope this comment is meant in an ironic sense! Especially from somebody whom has a ‘Captain Marvel’ shield as their profile picture
The belief that nothing created everything is absurd. And to state that you just don't know what created it means you should not be angry when a Christian claims God created it, as it is perfectly valid and a better proposition than nothing.
When u appeal to emotional your arguments are an empty box, fantastic final statement frank
Turek is appealing to emotion.
@@dbarker7794 literally not even close. Did you even listen to the COSMOS acronym
@@thetannernationwhich appeals to emotion but even worse, grossly misrepresents science and especially the Big Bang theory, no scientist will tell you everything exploded from nothing
29:36
55:24
1:02:05
1:07:14
1:14:05
1:17:47
1:19:23
1:28:43
1:35:27
1:44:05
1:52:44