Kind of a funny argument that the Allies were morally good, just because the opponents were worse. I think that Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are all evidence that both sides did some morally reprehensible things.
@@kennethgee2004 I never asserted any “right” for the Allies to do anything. Subjectively, I find them to have been less immoral, but they were certainly not blameless.
i adhere to tom jumps definition of morality, anything that imposes on your will without your consent is immoral, so yes, we acted immorally too, but all things being equal the allies would not have been involved in ANY killing had it not been for adolf.
@@michaelcolfin8464 And even if god's nature somehow Did make its morality objective (keyword Somehow), then that doesn't do anything for us. God doesn't actively communicate that objective standard to us and we're left to subjectively interpret this supposed morality anyway, through secondhand sources like the bible. The fact that there is no concensus among theists on what this supposed objective morality IS, is a glaring problem for Turek.
Frankie made a very damning statement at about 7:45: He rarely talks about this with people with opposing views. Maybe if he did this 30 years ago he'd be less serious in his obtuse ways of thinking... Paul literally talks about this stuff with people who oppose his view almost daily.
@@zeraphking1407 He makes his money by preaching to the believers. Pumping them up with Apologetic zeal, and then sending them out under prepared. To be smashed up by the first thinking Atheist they run into.
I love that Franks literally refutes his own argument with the football analogy but doesnt even realise. (Sorry I'm english and refuse to call it soccer!) We can have perfectly functional games of football. We can make objective statements about football. However the rules of football are invented by humans. They have no ontological existence.
This argument tends to annoy me, especially when it's put forth by someone who I know has had the answers explained to him many times. Also, what does it even mean for morality to be "objective"? Ignoring the fact that God's morality is subjective by definition, theists tend to speak of "objective morality" as if moral "laws" are as "real" or "true" as the laws of physics or math. As if it were somehow stitched into the fabric of reality/the universe at the moment of creation that stoning a young girl on her wedding night if it's found that she wasn't a virgin(based on the oh-so-infallible method of checking for blood on the wedding linens) and then dumping her mangled, bloody, lifeless body on her father's front porch is the exact right thing to do in that situation. As if God could have made our world differently, making completely different "objective moral laws/truths." Like making a world just like ours, but where stealing and raping and child abuse are completely moral. And even if it were true that Frank has an "objectively moral foundation", how does that help us? How is it that Frank even knows what this "objective morality" is? Is there a list? Perhaps like the 600+ commandments in the Pentateuch? What about things that aren't covered in the Bible? And can the "objective morality" of our world be changed?
"As if God could have made a world differently, making completely different objective moral laws/truths. Like making a world just like ours, but where stealing and raping and child abuse are completely moral." You seem to object? Does that mean you ARE admitting these are objectively immoral?
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue let me help. If he objected, that wouldn't mean the act is OBJECTIVELY wrong. The person objecting is a thinking agent and is therefore a subject and not an object. So his objection is SUBJECTIVE; just like every objection to any given act by any given thinking agent ever. Including any God that turns out to be real.
@@timcollett99 except the God in question is the creation of all that is objective, not a subordinate walking around within the objective, with their own subjective viewpoint within it. He has an vantage point and view point above and beyond the objective, as it is his subordinate. As creator of all substance, the laws of physics, and life itself. Thus if you WANT to view His view as subjective - it is still in no manner comparable to our own form of subjectivity. Your manner of calling His view subjective only arrives at what we mean when we can Him personal, when we call Him active, when we say he is live as well as justice. When we appeal to Him for morality itself, yes, it is indeed because He takes a side: good is good and evil is wicked. Since he makes ALL objectivity - His “subjective” view is, again, no different than objectivity because he supersedes both as the creator. So ultimately - you’re just stubbornly appealing to semantics and verbal gymnastics. Until you are the author of all life, a creator of all things from nothing, the creator of all substance, all physics, the judge of righteousness, the savior of all mankind, and the source of goodness and life - your subjectivity is simply so fat beneath his…. as your subjectivity does not make objectivity - it denies it. What you have done in comparing subjectivities of something so far off base is simply idolatry. You are not comparable to God.
Surprised Frank included the reference to nazis killing gays as a wrong when his holy book demands the same. And don’t start with the but, but, but old covenant. The NT has them burning for eternity instead of just being stoned.
@mattstiglic Hmmm, idk, maybe because it goes against basic human decency and the concept of morality. But of course, you'd say it's not wrong since your god drowns people, makes them sacrifice their children, and is for the murder of the gays?
Our lack of belief in a god doesn’t mean we don’t think there’s a purpose to life. It means we don’t think your god has anything to do with it. Turek just made up the idea that we don’t see purpose in life.
Atheism implicitly entails nihilism. If humans are ultimately bags of chemicals, that owe their origin to a pond of prehistoric goo it follows there is no meaning and no morality, period
What is the purpose of life then? Atheists even admit human beings have "no intrinsic value" and that the self is an illusion - even consciousness itself. So tell me the meaning of life then, and why that purpose is real?
This whole thinking that we need a higher power to tell us right from wrong is ridiculous. Paul said it in the video... If I see someone killed and I think "wow I don't want that to happen to me" then in that moment I decided that killing is bad. No where does a god need to be involved in that. Is it subjective? Yes. But I objectively saw someone killed, and I objectively do not want that to happen to me. So, I can subjectively say that killing is bad. It isn't that hard.
The entire futile theistic project is to make God necessary where he never was, because they know they can’t bring him down to earth with all their tears and prayers. They are like the priests of Baal in 1 Kings 18 wailing for hours for their God to show up. People like us are the Elijah’s of this world.
have you tried sleeping with an electric blanket , man , it's freaking nice ... , lol god doesn't have switch though , that you can set the temperature with
One entails identity outside of the material world, conciousness and purpose. Determinism means we're all just meat machines walking around with the illusion of conciousness and no purpose beyond replicating our DNA.
If you're a deterministic atheist then you're accepting that your world view isn't the product of rationality or intellect, so then what's the purpose of attempting to layout an intellectual framework for it? Are we just amoeba seeking stimulus through simulated debate with the illusion of free will?
If God derived morality is dependent on the thoughts of God, morality is subjective to the mind of God. If morality is objective absent Gods thoughts or opinions, God is not required for either subjective or objective morality.
I really like the way you state this. I wonder how Frank and/or other christians would respond. My guess is that they would say that God is perfect and therefore his being, knowledge, and his thoughts are perfect (whatever that means) and so his proclamations of morality would come from a perfect knowledge of morality so therefore that perfect knowledge provides a perfectly objective morality (meaning it could not be something else). I don't agree with this assessment, but just wonder if they might state something like that.
@@billmauer8117they typically claim morality is whatever God's "immutable nature" just so happens to be, whatever the consequences of obeying a proposed system would look like.
God is universal, therefore His moral decrees are universal and objective by definition. A human mind cannot give rise to universals, we can only identify and understand them.
@mattstiglic by your definition, you mean. Even if the eldritch being you worship did exist, its dictates could only have meaning if it artificially skewed the outcome of not obeying. But that relies on consequentialism, the thing that divine command theorists insist is scary and we need their god to avoid.
@Nemo12417 it's not my definition, it's the definition of the Christian God, eternal, universal. Everything else you said is a dodge to what I posited previously. If you want to do an internal critique, then you need to contend with God's universality and what that entails for objectivity. Can humans create universal concepts? Or merely attempt to apprehend them? To deny universals is to invoke them.
But if God personally told Frank that what the Nazis did during the Holocaust was a morally good thing, then he would have no choice but to say it was a good thing, while an atheist can still say it was wrong based on ones conscience and ability to feel empathy
@@memecity9849 except you didn't do that. No Christian thinks that. Bizarre nutbags claim such things all the time, so it is demonstrably proveable that Christians do not adopt what "God told them" to do. You're just an unserious person yapping and drooling-on-their-bib at the same time.
You can hear the defeat in Frank's voice. He's still suffering from the humiliation brought upon him by Christopher Hitchens back in the day. He is still saying the same type of things and has not learned one fucking thing since Hitchens beat the crap out of him in those debates.
Hitchens never won a single debate. Hitchens was at best a talented rhetorician, and at worst a blatant sophist. His entire argument against God can be summed up as an argument from incredulity. You might empathize with his point of view due to psychological reasons, but in no way has he ever won a debate, because he has never provided an argument aside from "if God real then why bad thing happen".
@@mattstiglic will remind turek was debating his "imaginary friend" hitch wasnt....i put quotation marks because i think frank is a fraud and doesnt believe in a god anymore than hitch did.....just another conman $$$$$$$$$$$$$
If a god were to be the source of our morality, which god would it be? There are so many, and even they don't agree. Instead of comparing the nazis and the allies, compare Allah and the Christian God, lol.
winning is never the purpose ... of any game ... the journey you have to Get to the end point , that's the ''purpose'' , if you have to Have a ''purpose'' the universe doesn't need one , but we can make one up on the spot , just don't get confused Why anyone does anything , not to win , to experience the journey is what it's all about , the endpoint is less important , i find and so would a lot of other people , if you asked them , i'm betting most Olympic gold medalists have tried to kill themselves Because they actually got To the end point and .... found ... there's just nothing there ...
@@LanceEads games in general . Example in the NHL the goal is for the team is to win the Stanley Cup. These players get paid to play. The purpose of other games is not to win but to have fun. Frank used a soccer game as an example. His point was he believes without God there is no purpose to anything.
Any science that requires adherence to repeatability isn't worth pursuing. Or- repeatability is the natural product of good science, just as worship is the natural product of knowing God.
@@georgedonner2115Why would a God require worship? This is why theology is bs. It’s literally all “Because the dude in the funny and smelly robes said so, normie! 😛”
What I find incredibly disappointing is Paulogia not turning the same arguments against Frank, because they're saying almost exactly the same thing. Frank says that we can't have morality or rationality because evolution and physics can't lead to truth, yet he uses supposedly immaterial reasoning to justify immaterial things. Frank says evolution can't get us to truth because we're only survival machines, yet thinks God suddenly gets us to truth by making us spirit-hosting survival machines. Not only that, but if we are just following instincts and physics with materialism, how is that any different from following the objective moral standard God put on our hearts and following God's plan? It's all functionally the same, the only difference is Frank slapping the God label on top of it. I think Paul should've been more on the offense, and put Frank's statements to the test.
@@acebailey2478 the statement wasnt about truth. It was about an “if” Thus another big if and its consequences are relevant. You’re changing the point.
@@acebailey2478 plainly stated. And based on their post, which was not about proof but about an “if.” I brought up the if on the other side that bears greater consequences. If we want to address the “if” directly, we would need them to define it more specifically than just such a label. Nor did nothing I say have anything to do with it “being hard to accept,” or that “difficulty”being proof against. Which is doubly funny as the main atheists definition of their entire positon is “im just not convinced.” They do this to cheat out of the burden of proof for what they do believe, of course…. but “Im just not convinced” is pretty much the same thing as “its hard to accept.” So by your own logic - the atheist definition of their own position is without merit on the face of it - as “being difficult to accept” has zero bearing on truth.
I do think the claim about us not being evolved for truth gets a bit overstated. Whilst I get there are some things that are beneficial to believe that aren't necessarily true, on the whole, we still have to believe in true things for survival, like the fact we we can't fly or breath underwater or that the cuddly looking Lion doesn't want to be friends.. etc. Also, I would say that self awareness is a by product of the high intelligence we evolved, which lets us look beyond our own instincts and recognise things like superstition, using reason.
Yeah, turek just Iies about that. His claim is that a brain through evolution *cannot* develop the ability to find truth. He usually never backs it up. And the few times i have seen him responding to pushback his answer is that as evolution doesnt have as a goal a brain that can find truth (as if evolution worked with goals) therefore it cannot be that a brain can gain that ability through evolution.
@@Julian0101 Yeah, they are always mad to me these arguments from theists. "We can't know truth... therefore God". Errr... Ok. I would say it is more an argument against religion, myself. We may have evolved to believe some things that are not true, but also the intelligence to realise that fact, so have developed methods to try and counter it, such as testable predictions, as Paul says. This would explain why most people are religious but less are the more we learn and why we separate real science from any God hypothesis.
Turek's position is despicable. We all have empathy, including the Nazis and the Allies during WW II. We all feel bad because of the death and devastation of war, no matter which side is doing the damage, with the exception of a few psychopaths. We do not need anything from any god to prefer a world where neither side is killing people. And the above comes from the facts of evolutionary psychology, not from any sacred book. We evolved as gregarious animals, and gregarious communities where there aren't too many psychopaths survive better than those with too many psychos, so with time, our communities tend to have many empathetic individuals and few psychos. Simple.
Nazis felt bad? I don't think so. They reasoned themselves into believing that those they murdered were less than human. Americans have done that before, and the British, and many others. It's not that the Nazis didn't have empathy. It's just that they only let their empathy extend to their own "tribe," and not to anyone that they saw as being outside the tribe.
The concept of morality itself, what one ought or ought not to do, is entirely meaningless in an atheistic worldview. Think of it this way: no one would say that the earth's orbiting the sun is morally right or morally wrong: it just is that way. Similarly, no one would argue that gravity is morally wrong because it pulls down instead of up: this is just the way things are. These things are just parts of nature, and there is nothing right or wrong about them. But if there is no God, then all human actions are merely parts of nature, just like the laws of gravity and planetary orbits. And just as it would be meaningless to say that gravity is morally right or wrong, so it would also be meaningless to assign moral value to human actions, if atheism is true. This means that something like murder, in the atheistic worldview, cannot possibly be seen as morally wrong in any objective sense, and therefore implies that the very notion of moral obligation is meaningless. If there is no God to function as an objective Lawgiver, there is no morality. Period. Nothing prevents you or any other atheist from practicing deeds which most people would consider "good," and in this sense, an atheist can indeed be a good, moral person. Nevertheless, you cannot consistently praise anything good or denounce anything evil without implicitly contradicting your own worldview. The best question, therefore, is not whether an atheist can be a good, moral person, but whether such a concept even makes sense in an atheistic worldview. And the best answer is that it simply does not. Let’s say that there is a woman who is in a coma in a hospital. A man is working at the hospital, and he rapes her. No one ever finds out and the woman is not injured emotionally, mentally, or physically. After all, she is completely unaware of the event. So, since the consequences were not harmful and since he was sexually satisfied, there is, so to speak, a positive overall effect where no harm is done and pleasure is increased. From the consequentialist perspective, was that rape right or wrong? If the consequences were good for the man and no harm suffered to the woman, then such a rape is morally good. In this, consequentialism can support immorality, In this case, rape. But if a secular humanist says that the rape is morally wrong, then he is abandoning consequentialism, because he is appealing to the inherent immorality of that particular action. But inherent immorality is not consequentialist. So, that’s a problem and it exposes yet another inconsistency in secular humanism. Rape is wrong in Christianity because God has revealed that to rape a woman in such a case is inherently immoral - whether or not anyone finds out about it. It is wrong because it goes against the holy nature of God who tells us that since we are made in his image, we are to grant honor and respect to one another. Rape, obviously, is not honorable.
No not everyone has empathy. Sociopaths lack empathy. You keep talking about psychopaths but sociopaths are far more common. And they will manipulate and get positions of power. Your mistake here is assuming everyone is somehow the same
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Gregarious animals, like wolves and humans, for example, have evolved with an instinctive sense of empathy. It is just the way nature works. Packs or groups where a good percentage of the individuals have a strong sense of empathy have a better probability of survival than groups with few or not empathetic individuals. This is the way in which the beginnings of morality took hold in every chordate gregarious species of animals. It is just how nature works.
@@seanodwyer4859 Read carefully what I wrote. I specifically stated that a large proportion of us humans have empathy, excluding psychopaths. It is not necessary for every individual in a group to be empathetic, it is enough for a large proportion to be caring. The few psychopaths will cause a lot of damage but are eventually weaned out most of the time.
Even Frank's safety glasses can't stop the overwhelming logic that Paul delivers. But Frankie's bottom line would be affected if he were to acknowledge apologetics was dishonest, at best.
@@acebailey2478 As much as I cringe saying this and have literally never said it before, I actually kind of agree with Frank’s point that Paul is just making an appeal to consensus. And under that view I can’t see any reason to actually call any action “good” or “bad”. It’s just going with whatever “got decided”. This seems like what a lot of atheists say (and to be clearer, I usually call myself agnostic). Personally, I believe morality is absolutely objective. But just like the existence of anything else that’s objective, we still don’t have perfect understanding of what it is or how it works. But it’s basically just whatever makes us happy, which I think is an objective thing, not really subjective if that makes sense. Anyways, I think atheists tie themselves in knots trying to answer the Christians’ inevitably retarded moral argument, then because it’s a bad answer, the Christian gets to walk away all smug thinking they won something
@@acebailey2478 Oooooo... tough man doesn't want to actually back up and stand by any of these supposed wonderful positions. Cause tough guy "don't gotta do nuffin." yeah, if you're going to act like the guy attacked an entirely religion well, you should be able to cite something.
Hitler was theist does Frank not know that. His first pact was with the Pope of the time & ensure the catholic religion became the official religion of Germany. The vatican celebrated Hitlers birthday up until the 60s. If 2 opposing sides a re theists & both appeal to the same God for a win how does that work out. Evidence of this is when you see opposing athletes crossing themselves before taking part in an event. Morality has to evolve to ensure the survival of the species. IF the laws of the bible were still followed our population would not have grown to its present numbers. All gay people would have been stoned as would adulterers etc etc etc. Absolutely no evidence of Franks God in the first place pure supposition.
He does know it, he just doesnt like how it tears apart his script so he ignores it. His fans dont fact chek him anwyay so repeating that Iie doesnt cost him anything.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue what do you think was the cause of the holocaust....do you not think the nearly 1500 years of persecution of jews by christians led to the hatred of jews not only in europe but around the world
The association football metaphor actually highlights how arbitrary morality is, when we get to the stakes of FIFA in which success of a team or of a player results in changes to contracts, and can make or break careers (in a society where it's of great benefit to be a footballer over say, a food server at a diner, or a soldier in a military), and so pro football, like countless other professional sports, teems with scandals of cheating, of stretching the rules, of engaging in poor sportsmanship because the players are driven more to advance their careers than to play a fair, friendly game. Similarly, the Allies weren't the _goodies_ in WWII nor the Axis the _baddies._ This is not to say the German genocide machine wasn't a wrongdoing against the human species, but that is a separate issue from the German offensive to take the Soviet Union (which expanded, to include allies of Poland once Germany started its campaign by attacking Poland). Among the international community, there are neither good guys nor bad guys, rather each nation is solely interested in power, which has informed the conduct of kingdoms and nations alike, of NATO and the Warsaw Pact alike. The US' expansion into North America, featured a similar genocide as the German holocaust four million people were massacred by the colonies and the United States, or 94% of the first nations population. And the US still doesn't fully recognize or acknowledge this harm, or have any interest in reparations, because the First Nation interests have much less political power than Jewish interests. The stories we're taught are based on who taught them to us, which is why here in the states, WWII starts in December 7, 1941, not September 1, 1939, or for that matter, July 7, 1937. It is all subjective, and Christian nationalists today in the US empathize more with the German Reich than they do the allies, even going as far as rekindling old antisemitic sentiments and myths. It appears when human beings live too long in scarcity, unneighborly sentiments accumulate and the ownership class turns to redirecting outrage at the usual suspects (that is, undesirables and marginalized groups), and like rats turning on each other when food is no longer plentiful, we look towards war and genocide. (The only thing particularly unique about the German holocaust was they realized participation in massacres was too harsh on the common worker, that even Heydrich was not iron-hearted, and so they created a system so that no-one had to look at the whole process and realize viscerally what was being done. Human beings don't usually like killing each other, so the Germans worked out how to hack the human brain so that mass executions weren't so terrible.)
C. S. Lewis follows a similar line of thought as Descartes with his _evil demon_ question. We atheists can also contemplate the possibility (it remains possible) that the universe is simulated, or is Azathoth's dream. (As per Lovecraft, though there are multiple fictional scenarios in which the universe is a dream.) And so yeah, this is agnostic. It's also a starting point, from which Descartes realized _Cogito ergo sum_ ( _I think therefore I am_ ) and tried to get further than that, but without satisfaction. So here's the thing, what I do know is the universe seems _very consistent_ around me. We have a lot of data-points that we measure with mechanical sensors greater than our own eyes and ears, from which we've created mathematical models that allow us to toss cans of people up in the air only to have them land safely thousands of miles away (or on the moon!) We've been able to figure out in minute detail how viruses and bacteria turn into transmissible diseases and how to create vaccines for them and inoculate the population. We've learned what plants are safe to eat, and that they grow well under specific consistent conditions, and so long as we can provide those conditions for their seeds or clippings, we can grow more of them so that we all have food. The world behaves not as the chaos of a whimsical dream, but as if it's a real place governed my natural laws. Where did these laws come from? We don't know, but we know they've been here a very long time and are consistent across expanses so vast we cannot comprehend. We don't even know if there's a _where_ or _when_ that everything started, rather it's beyond our horizon of perception. If there is a god that is manipulating things to serve Its own agenda, we haven't been able to provoke it, either to reward us for doing right, or punish us for doing wrong, or help us when we're needy, or to turn on hard mode because we're having an easy time of things. The sun shines on us unconditionally, as does the rain...well, the climate and weather are changing patterns due to causes we know, but that's natural mechanics mechanicking naturally. We once imagined lightning was an act of God, where now we know it functions via consistent electrostatic mechanics. And every time we were fooled by the complexity of nature to think dieties or supernatural spirits were involved, we found that, rather, those were natural phenomena too. So when it comes to things we still don't fully understand (sleep! ball lightning! the gyroscopic effect of bicycle wheels!) we can expect that it's physics there too, and not divine intervention.
@8:45: Paulogia agrees that what Hitler did wasn’t right or wrong because he was determined to do it. Public Service Announcement: don’t ever let this guy babysit your kids. Who knows what he might be _determined_ to do (although whatever it is, it wouldn’t be right or wrong, so why worry).
"Right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless. My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard. One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'. *What is your "goal" and why 'OUGHT' one do what your subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔
I think specific groups may be able to maintain an objective moral standard based on that group's agreement to submit to it, but for there to be a universally objective moral standard, that would require it to be unanimously accepted as the standard that everyone will submit to. Use the NBA or most physical sports for example. They have an objective standard of no use of Performance enhancing drugs to be accepted into the league. Everyone who wants to play in the NBA has to submit to that standard therefore, it's objective. It's not subjective like someone can say "no I want to use them and still play" you either submit or you can't join the league. I see a lot of church doctrines and denominations like that (although the larger those groups become, the harder it is to maintain that objectivity). Objectively baptists uphold spiritual and water baptism as a primary benchmark of membership, for many sects of Catholics, it's accepting the virgin Mary as a holy figure. To the extent that each member agrees and submits, it is objective to that group, but once you decide to step outside of that view, it then becomes subjective and you're no longer playing the same game as everyone else in the group. This on a global scale is what happens with morality more broadly.
The exact problem with atheism. This would seem reasonable to them. While at the same time they would scoff at the idea that you need God to be moral. Lol.
Did this thing just say the nazi's were protecting and the allies were protecting and how do we tell the difference? Do they HAVE to be dishonest? can they not stand on their ... morals.
I don't believe in absolute determinism because of the heisenberg uncertainty principle. On a quantum level you can never be completely sure of the speed or location of an object. Thus in our brains where thoughts are 'created' at any given instant, you can't be 100% certain to how a person will choice the answer to an arbitrary question. Say you ask me to pick a number and I say 4. Months later when I have forgotten that I was asked the question before. Under identical circumstances, you ask me to pick a number and I say 52. Before the number was asked to be picked, it wasn't determined which I would pick. There is a certain variation, and thus some uncertainty. Thus not deterministic.
agree. modern studies of quantum physics already has applications such as superconductors and quantum computers. In the face of obvious fact that there is this "uncaused cause" , this poses a reasonable doubt on the Kalam Cosmological argument, and another reasonable doubt on determinism due to chaos theory too. We have to agree that although we have predisposition or are limited in some sense, there is still a great possibility that free will exist.
@@thienyetan2035 Free will is a separate issue from determinism. If the universe is non-deterministic, it doesn't mean there is free will. I am a physicist and understand the mathematics of quantummechanics and I in no way do I see this as a point in favor of free will. Just because your decision was not deterministic, it doesn't mean you made it using free will.
@@smitty347 I agree. Maybe it is just wishful thinking that my brains screams it is wrong. Too wishful to hope that quantum fluctuations permeate the brain. Too hopeful that somehow this messes up everything from micro to macro states.
@@thienyetan2035 Of course quantum effects are in the brain as well and have an effect. That's just not equal to free will. It just means the things you have no control over are random instead of deterministic.
@@smitty347 Thank you for sharing your insights, @smitty347. As a physicist with expertise in quantum mechanics, your perspective is invaluable. I completely agree that the presence of quantum effects in the brain does not straightforwardly equate to free will. As you mentioned, quantum mechanics introduces inherent randomness at the microscopic level, suggesting that some aspects of our decision-making may be influenced by unpredictable factors rather than deterministic forces. This randomness alone does not define free will. However, I believe that free will encompasses more than just the presence of randomness. It involves the conscious ability to deliberate, reason, and make choices based on values, intentions, and cognitive processes. The interplay of deterministic and non-deterministic influences in our thought processes might allow for a form of free will that is nuanced and complex. What are your thoughts on the idea that free will could be viewed as the capacity for rational deliberation and autonomous decision-making, despite the underlying quantum randomness?
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I'll stay here as long as you're butt hurt about it. And don't pretend you're not, because your comments betray you. BTW, why are you triggered about something when don't even get the point? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
God has no objective referent of what good is absent creation. The argument from the reliability of brains presupposes the reliability of a brain to determine whether something is reliable or not. You can trust your thinking depending on how we define truth.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I don't need to try again. The argument that we cannot trust our thinking presuppose the reliability of our thinking to make the argument against the reliability of our thinking
If there is a god, then the rules are arbitrary since God doesn't gain anything because of the existance of humanity. So, what does it matter if hunanity succeeds. If humanity fails, no biggie to god since he can simply create more humans if he wants. If there is no god, then the rules (from our point of view) are the flourishing of the species in general, so the species continues and the members of the species are content/happy.
Don't anthropomorphize the laws of physics or nature. The _laws of physics_ are a mathematical model we use to predict and understand the mechanics of the world. It's a _model_ a conceptual thing. Same with mathematics. 1 + 1 = 2 because we decided it was axiomatic (by definition) that 2 was the symbol for 1 and another 1. God didn't make that. We made the language by which to express mathematics, and then working out the consistent properties (mostly consistent -- some math gets funny) which is discovery. I suspect Turek is motivated to continue to assert his Christian beliefs more than he is to follow material truth, whereas Paul found the informed narrative of Christianity wanting and inconsistent with perceived reality, so rejected it for a data-informed truth. Typically, we humans stay with the teachings we receive as kids until a crisis of identity forces us to reconsider. In Turek's case, I suspect that he's still invested in his faith (possibly because doing so profits him and therefore figures into his survival scheme) and so he cannot consider evidence that might suggest that his understanding of Christianity is wrong.
I don't agree with a god being necessary for morality, but I also don't believe in secular humanism as a source of morality. Secular humanism (like other religions) puts us at the top of the hierarchy of importance on this planet. We are the dominant beings, but we add zero value to anything but ourselves. No other species needs us. When earth dies, as it surely will, it will be because of our actions. IF a god were to have created us, it would be because that god had no respect for anything else on this planet. We are an invasive species.
The fact that Frank can't see why a person without a god can understand why Hitler was wrong amazes me. The only way you couldn't, is if you sold you humanity to an ideology. That you need to be spoon feed on how to be a decent human being. It's disgusting.
And yet - today - mass numbers of people are cavalier about abortion. So... why don't you go talk to them. It's disgusting. You're angry at Frank for a point - while a present day atrocity is happening right now, and you're doing nothing. Let me guess - you don't think it's that bad or the same.... interesting....
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue Abortion is the choice of the person who is pregnant. You have no say in the matter, it's not your body. I am not angry at Frank. I disgusted that he puts an ideology ahead of humanity. What is the present day atrocity that I'm doing nothing about?
@bismarckmark6566 I think you miss my point. If the story of a god gives you purpose and morals.. and that god is fictional.. then your purpose is based on fiction. Or the subjective opinions of our more primitive ancestors.
@bismarckmark6566 I see the disconnect. I do agree with you. The part where I disagree with them is where they insert these as true because an objective truth giver backs them. Despite the fact nobody can verity the god exists, or that they indeed captured the true and current intentions of said being. So please take my comments to mean.. the fiction of Objectively granted.
But conversely, hatred is as valid as altruism WITH something beyond us....unless we have some reason to think that 'something' beyond us doesn't like hatred and values altruism. On what basis can we tell?
If god is the arbitrator of morals and the bible is the word of god we'd still be stoning to death homosexual men and women who weren't virgins on their wedding night! But our society has evolved a more inclusive secular molarity and a lot of behaviour the bible considered sinful is today accepted by most societies as normal behaviour. The only places people are still being stoned to death are where fundamentalist religious groups are in charge. We evolved as social animals and empathy evolved as a trait that allowed us to function in cooperative groups for the better survival as a species. As such our morality is still tribal in a sense. Different groups exhibit different morality, and even within a group the morality can change over time. But a group is still able to put aside some moral precepts (like killing is bad) when in conflict against another group.
My sister in Christ when reading the old testament its important to read in context. Jesus would never order the stoning of a homosexual or non virgins. Rather he taught us to love each other no matter the circumstance as we all are sinners. None more righteous than the other but all made in the image of God. However he did teach us to hate sin and turn away from it. To the hate the sin but not the sinner.
@@Nani-du9ymIn what context is stoning people to death right? In what context is slavery right? And jesus specifically said he didn’t come here to change the laws instead to fulfill them.. So give me a reason why you think slavery is wrong.
How blind does Turek need to pretend to be not to see that society determines what is "good", and society is just a bunch of individuals some of whom share the same opinion. Is slavery "good"? It was in the bible and Roman Empire, and the southern US States until 1865. Not so sure the slaves though it was good though. Is capital punishment "good"? Some states say yes, many people think no. Maybe one day it will no longer be legal. On that day will it cease to be "good"?
huh what? itis not an appeal to a referee. Literally subjectivity morality means that the subject decides. I mean if there is a referee it is he individual.
get out of here with determinism. that was your choice as you i think and what you prefer is not determined. you have no way to say anything. you are just 0's and 1's.
Correct, and each time theists claim god is the referee or the law giver, means that it is a subject deciding. Which makes theistic morality subjective by definition.
The fact that people actually listen to palatial is scary. He has like teenager level argumentation. If there is no ultimate judge, no Supreme Court of the universe, then it is just my opinion against yours, which means might makes right. And when you have the Yuval Noah Harraris of the world start coming around and saying your “human rights” are a fiction then you have nothing to counteract because there is no ultimate judge. And the whole, “well we’re all humans so we should be kind to one another” isnt going to withstand even the slightest bit of weight. As Goebbels said, “I don’t deny the Jew is a human, but a bat is a mammal”. Who the hell cares whether we share some dna with other humans, anymore then we care that we share dna with mammals. This whole, “we don’t need God for morality” is such a naive take
// "Then it's just my opinion against yours" // 🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ?? If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍 The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
Wow you seriously think that because I recognise "morality" to be a cognitive determination relative to different goals and levels of understanding I can't make judgement about the superiority of one over another ?? 🤭😅 I completely understand that your desired goal is relative to your subjective perception of the nature/desires of the God Yarweh and others relative that of different subjective gods. Mine is relative to wellbeing and suffering and I can and indeed do "judge" this to be a superior moral goal. I don't give a hoot if the bible says Yahweh thinks the day of the week one picks sticks up on determines if you should face the death penalty SO WHAT ? 😡 I don't care if someone else thinks their God deems the eating of bacon immoral or not facing a specific direction and praying five time a day, again SO WHAT ?? The recognition that people have different opinions about the same subject doesn't make them all equally valid or useful dear. People have different relative and subjective perceptions of political ideologies does that mean I can't judge one to be superior to another ??
The fact that Paul appeals to an authority that is fallible makes his claim baseless and he knows that humans alone can draw upon faulty conclusion. And if that's the case that morality is subjective, he is inconsistent by rallying around saying that God doesn't exist which proves that he DOES believe that morality is objective, why couldn't he just live like a true moral relativist and stop wasting time building a youtube channel arguing that God doesn't exist.
No... Paul literally says morality is objective and you're proving it rn. You believe your understanding of God and the Bible are the sources of morality yet other denominations and other religions differ. So no, you're appealing tona theological authority as your source of morality like every other theist.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 well I guess you missed the timestamp 5:44 - 5:50 where he literally says that morality is subjective so what your doing now is either you don't understand what they are talking about or your simply lying. Your objection about interpretation has an unstated gross conclusion that anything that has different interpretations is somehow wrong. There are many interpretations on how gravity works but that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist!! The claim still stands that people like yourself and Paul act inconsistent with their worldview, claiming to be moral relativist yet you behave like you believe in moral absolutes by coming here trying to debate my view which is self refuting in of itself.
@lebogangncongwane4298 Yes, I believe in "moral absolutes" because I have a sense of morality Lebo. You should know that objective morality ke maaka, especially given the Apartheid and colonisation of South Africa. Wa tseba gore there was no objective morality that made the Europeans and Boers avoid doing what they did in the Bible. On the contrary, the Christians found verses supporting their mission. So "objective morality" ke masepa.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 Mara you just contradicted yourself gore there is no objective morality while you argue for moral absolutes, moral absolutes pressuposes that there are objective moral statements that it needs to abide too or else moral absolutes won't make sense within itself. Otherwise you wouldn't condemn apartheid and your morality would just be a mere opinion because you just "sense it" without any justification whatsoever which it's unreasonable for any person like yourself therefore leads to self refuting position. Before you reply I invite you to think what your are typing because it seems like you don't understand what your talking about.
@lebogangncongwane4298 But that's how morality works. If objective morality was real, the Bible would objectively oppose the stuff we call morally wrong. Rather, it encourages such. "Objective morality is the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion. It's the concept that some actions and beliefs are imperatively good or inherently bad and that the goodness or badness of those things holds true no matter who you are or what else you believe in." This definition excludes the need for god, ancestors, or society determining morality. But that's not what we see. Your religion used to kill other Christians for believing in "heresies" and thought that was morally good.
Sick of this guy and sick of this morality issue he keeps drolling on about. He needs to prove first his god and second that morality comes from god. He's never done this. He cannot explain why morality can't come from societal evolution. I just read an article on NIH that argues that even some animals are capable of morality. A serious argument can be made for this.
If determinism is true in the atheist view - it is also material - therefore within the realm entirely of science - and they DO bear the burden of proof - which, of course, they will avoid like the plague.
It pains me that this dude on his own cannot discern from a murderous dictator invading sovernt nations against they're will with that of groups of people at the time were pretty much just going about they're day. How pathetic are you that you can't tell right from wrong without someone saying so.
@@JoBo301Strawman. “Atheism” isn’t a worldview. It’s simply a simple answer to a question. “Do you believe in a god/gods”. Yes or no? I’m not even an atheist personally but it’s amusing to see such lame strawmans. “Atheism” says nothing about morality. Because it can’t. Because it’s not a moral system.
@@Hyperborean-fz9vt That's not true atheism. True atheism is a worldview because if atheism is true, 3 other things must be true which then form the worldview; 1. Mankind is not here on purpose or by design 2. All mankind will be dead forever. 3. Mankind has no value, purpose or value
Kind of a funny argument that the Allies were morally good, just because the opponents were worse. I think that Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki are all evidence that both sides did some morally reprehensible things.
but then on what grounds to you have to say that Allies had a right and what they deemed as a duty to ride the world of the Nazis?
@@kennethgee2004 to equate the things the allies did and the axis i agree is just plain stupid...
@@kennethgee2004 I never asserted any “right” for the Allies to do anything. Subjectively, I find them to have been less immoral, but they were certainly not blameless.
@@kennethgee2004 cos left to their own devices they would have been going to work. the SS started it basically. pretty obvious isn't it??
i adhere to tom jumps definition of morality, anything that imposes on your will without your consent is immoral, so yes, we acted immorally too, but all things being equal the allies would not have been involved in ANY killing had it not been for adolf.
a morality based on a god is still subjective....
incorrect as God sets the morality not humanity
@@kennethgee2004 So you are still for slavery, got it!
@@kennethgee2004that doesn't make it objective.
@@kennethgee2004 That would be that the subject is god. Not that they are objective to everyone including god.
@@michaelcolfin8464 And even if god's nature somehow Did make its morality objective (keyword Somehow), then that doesn't do anything for us. God doesn't actively communicate that objective standard to us and we're left to subjectively interpret this supposed morality anyway, through secondhand sources like the bible. The fact that there is no concensus among theists on what this supposed objective morality IS, is a glaring problem for Turek.
Is it just me, or do Turek's glasses look like safety glasses.
I have often thought that! I think he thinks it makes him look smart.
Safety first. God didn't stop the last egg from meeting his eye ;)
Frankie made a very damning statement at about 7:45: He rarely talks about this with people with opposing views. Maybe if he did this 30 years ago he'd be less serious in his obtuse ways of thinking... Paul literally talks about this stuff with people who oppose his view almost daily.
frank is worth $7 million so i doubt he really believes...just another conman
@@Pmrace1960 Christian apologetics is a profitable cottage industry.
@@mrcregg0915 Huh? He said he really gets to talk about it in such an in-depth fashion. What is damning?
@@SergeantSkeptic686 Lol.
But not atheism?
@@zeraphking1407 He makes his money by preaching to the believers. Pumping them up with Apologetic zeal, and then sending them out under prepared. To be smashed up by the first thinking Atheist they run into.
The moral argument for the existence of the sun...
Well done Paul.
I love that Franks literally refutes his own argument with the football analogy but doesnt even realise. (Sorry I'm english and refuse to call it soccer!)
We can have perfectly functional games of football. We can make objective statements about football.
However the rules of football are invented by humans. They have no ontological existence.
This argument tends to annoy me, especially when it's put forth by someone who I know has had the answers explained to him many times.
Also, what does it even mean for morality to be "objective"? Ignoring the fact that God's morality is subjective by definition, theists tend to speak of "objective morality" as if moral "laws" are as "real" or "true" as the laws of physics or math. As if it were somehow stitched into the fabric of reality/the universe at the moment of creation that stoning a young girl on her wedding night if it's found that she wasn't a virgin(based on the oh-so-infallible method of checking for blood on the wedding linens) and then dumping her mangled, bloody, lifeless body on her father's front porch is the exact right thing to do in that situation. As if God could have made our world differently, making completely different "objective moral laws/truths." Like making a world just like ours, but where stealing and raping and child abuse are completely moral.
And even if it were true that Frank has an "objectively moral foundation", how does that help us? How is it that Frank even knows what this "objective morality" is? Is there a list? Perhaps like the 600+ commandments in the Pentateuch? What about things that aren't covered in the Bible? And can the "objective morality" of our world be changed?
They don't seem to understand that the way they think of morality renders it frivolous and incoherent.
"As if God could have made a world differently, making completely different objective moral laws/truths. Like making a world just like ours, but where stealing and raping and child abuse are completely moral."
You seem to object?
Does that mean you ARE admitting these are objectively immoral?
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue You seem to have objectively missed the point.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue let me help. If he objected, that wouldn't mean the act is OBJECTIVELY wrong. The person objecting is a thinking agent and is therefore a subject and not an object. So his objection is SUBJECTIVE; just like every objection to any given act by any given thinking agent ever. Including any God that turns out to be real.
@@timcollett99 except the God in question is the creation of all that is objective, not a subordinate walking around within the objective, with their own subjective viewpoint within it. He has an vantage point and view point above and beyond the objective, as it is his subordinate. As creator of all substance, the laws of physics, and life itself.
Thus if you WANT to view His view as subjective - it is still in no manner comparable to our own form of subjectivity.
Your manner of calling His view subjective only arrives at what we mean when we can Him personal, when we call Him active, when we say he is live as well as justice. When we appeal to Him for morality itself, yes, it is indeed because He takes a side: good is good and evil is wicked.
Since he makes ALL objectivity - His “subjective” view is, again, no different than objectivity because he supersedes both as the creator.
So ultimately - you’re just stubbornly appealing to semantics and verbal gymnastics.
Until you are the author of all life, a creator of all things from nothing, the creator of all substance, all physics, the judge of righteousness, the savior of all mankind, and the source of goodness and life - your subjectivity is simply so fat beneath his…. as your subjectivity does not make objectivity - it denies it.
What you have done in comparing subjectivities of something so far off base is simply idolatry.
You are not comparable to God.
Surprised Frank included the reference to nazis killing gays as a wrong when his holy book demands the same. And don’t start with the but, but, but old covenant. The NT has them burning for eternity instead of just being stoned.
Precisely.
Only when it's convenient for him and his God.
Why is it wrong, objectively?
Homosexuality is wrong. Forget gods created order, it’s contrary to nature, it’s a reproductive dead end.
@mattstiglic Hmmm, idk, maybe because it goes against basic human decency and the concept of morality. But of course, you'd say it's not wrong since your god drowns people, makes them sacrifice their children, and is for the murder of the gays?
Our lack of belief in a god doesn’t mean we don’t think there’s a purpose to life. It means we don’t think your god has anything to do with it. Turek just made up the idea that we don’t see purpose in life.
franks purpose in life is to accumulate as much money as he can
Atheism implicitly entails nihilism. If humans are ultimately bags of chemicals, that owe their origin to a pond of prehistoric goo it follows there is no meaning and no morality, period
What is the purpose of life then? Atheists even admit human beings have "no intrinsic value" and that the self is an illusion - even consciousness itself. So tell me the meaning of life then, and why that purpose is real?
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue where do you get you morality??.........the bible??
This whole thinking that we need a higher power to tell us right from wrong is ridiculous. Paul said it in the video... If I see someone killed and I think "wow I don't want that to happen to me" then in that moment I decided that killing is bad. No where does a god need to be involved in that. Is it subjective? Yes. But I objectively saw someone killed, and I objectively do not want that to happen to me. So, I can subjectively say that killing is bad. It isn't that hard.
The entire futile theistic project is to make God necessary where he never was, because they know they can’t bring him down to earth with all their tears and prayers. They are like the priests of Baal in 1 Kings 18 wailing for hours for their God to show up. People like us are the Elijah’s of this world.
How is a God that literally determined EVERYTHING in the universe better (or different) than Determinism?
exactly, what's the difference between a soul and a brain that makes it special even if a soul did exist?
have you tried sleeping with an electric blanket , man , it's freaking nice ... , lol
god doesn't have switch though , that you can set the temperature with
One entails identity outside of the material world, conciousness and purpose. Determinism means we're all just meat machines walking around with the illusion of conciousness and no purpose beyond replicating our DNA.
If you're a deterministic atheist then you're accepting that your world view isn't the product of rationality or intellect, so then what's the purpose of attempting to layout an intellectual framework for it? Are we just amoeba seeking stimulus through simulated debate with the illusion of free will?
@@georgedonner2115 don't be silly, you clearly have no idea how determinism works. you might be an amoeba, i'll grant you that, you think like one.
If God derived morality is dependent on the thoughts of God, morality is subjective to the mind of God. If morality is objective absent Gods thoughts or opinions, God is not required for either subjective or objective morality.
I really like the way you state this. I wonder how Frank and/or other christians would respond. My guess is that they would say that God is perfect and therefore his being, knowledge, and his thoughts are perfect (whatever that means) and so his proclamations of morality would come from a perfect knowledge of morality so therefore that perfect knowledge provides a perfectly objective morality (meaning it could not be something else). I don't agree with this assessment, but just wonder if they might state something like that.
@@billmauer8117they typically claim morality is whatever God's "immutable nature" just so happens to be, whatever the consequences of obeying a proposed system would look like.
God is universal, therefore His moral decrees are universal and objective by definition. A human mind cannot give rise to universals, we can only identify and understand them.
@mattstiglic by your definition, you mean. Even if the eldritch being you worship did exist, its dictates could only have meaning if it artificially skewed the outcome of not obeying. But that relies on consequentialism, the thing that divine command theorists insist is scary and we need their god to avoid.
@Nemo12417 it's not my definition, it's the definition of the Christian God, eternal, universal. Everything else you said is a dodge to what I posited previously. If you want to do an internal critique, then you need to contend with God's universality and what that entails for objectivity. Can humans create universal concepts? Or merely attempt to apprehend them? To deny universals is to invoke them.
But if God personally told Frank that what the Nazis did during the Holocaust was a morally good thing, then he would have no choice but to say it was a good thing, while an atheist can still say it was wrong based on ones conscience and ability to feel empathy
no man among atheists but a strawman
@ithurtsbecauseitstrue or just using the Christian logic against them
@@memecity9849 except you didn't do that. No Christian thinks that. Bizarre nutbags claim such things all the time, so it is demonstrably proveable that Christians do not adopt what "God told them" to do.
You're just an unserious person yapping and drooling-on-their-bib at the same time.
You can hear the defeat in Frank's voice. He's still suffering from the humiliation brought upon him by Christopher Hitchens back in the day. He is still saying the same type of things and has not learned one fucking thing since Hitchens beat the crap out of him in those debates.
He destroyed Hitchens tbt
@@iamwtl crack is a powerful drug you silly Willy
@@iamwtl you watched a different debate to just about everyone else
Hitchens never won a single debate. Hitchens was at best a talented rhetorician, and at worst a blatant sophist. His entire argument against God can be summed up as an argument from incredulity. You might empathize with his point of view due to psychological reasons, but in no way has he ever won a debate, because he has never provided an argument aside from "if God real then why bad thing happen".
@@mattstiglic will remind turek was debating his "imaginary friend" hitch wasnt....i put quotation marks because i think frank is a fraud and doesnt believe in a god anymore than hitch did.....just another conman $$$$$$$$$$$$$
If a god were to be the source of our morality, which god would it be? There are so many, and even they don't agree. Instead of comparing the nazis and the allies, compare Allah and the Christian God, lol.
They are actually the same abrahamic god. Just different texts. But take a hindu god and your point is valid.
@@smitty347 muslims dont mind saying that but christians hate you saying that despite it being true
@@smitty347 And what about the god the Mayans worshipped, or the Northmen. The world is much bigger than that sandbox in the Middle East.
@@MrCanis4 sure, or the giant spaghettimonster. I don't care tbh.
Also, it doesn’t occur to them that the Nazis did believe in objective morality. So much for claiming moral realism is a safeguard for human rights!
The purpose of the GAME is to win period. The purpose of the player may not be to win . But winning is the purpose of the GAME.
winning is never the purpose ... of any game ...
the journey you have to Get to the end point , that's the ''purpose'' , if you have to Have a ''purpose''
the universe doesn't need one , but we can make one up on the spot ,
just don't get confused Why anyone does anything , not to win , to experience the journey is what it's all about ,
the endpoint is less important , i find
and so would a lot of other people , if you asked them , i'm betting
most Olympic gold medalists have tried to kill themselves Because they actually got To the end point and .... found ... there's just nothing there ...
@@ThermaL-ty7bw the purpose is to win . What happens to the team who scores the most points ? Lol they win.
@@ThermaL-ty7bw And such would be the conceptual end for atheists....there's just nothing there.
Are you talking strictly about games, or are you trying to make some larger point about life?
@@LanceEads games in general . Example in the NHL the goal is for the team is to win the Stanley Cup. These players get paid to play. The purpose of other games is not to win but to have fun. Frank used a soccer game as an example. His point was he believes without God there is no purpose to anything.
any god that requires worshipping isn’t worthy to worship
Any science that requires adherence to repeatability isn't worth pursuing. Or- repeatability is the natural product of good science, just as worship is the natural product of knowing God.
@@georgedonner2115 well,done, that is the most nonsensical answer I could have received.
@@convinceme6676 Your initial statement is nonsensical.
@@georgedonner2115Why would a God require worship? This is why theology is bs. It’s literally all “Because the dude in the funny and smelly robes said so, normie! 😛”
@@ManoverSuperman I told you, he doesn't require your worship, it's a byproduct of knowing him.
What I find incredibly disappointing is Paulogia not turning the same arguments against Frank, because they're saying almost exactly the same thing. Frank says that we can't have morality or rationality because evolution and physics can't lead to truth, yet he uses supposedly immaterial reasoning to justify immaterial things. Frank says evolution can't get us to truth because we're only survival machines, yet thinks God suddenly gets us to truth by making us spirit-hosting survival machines. Not only that, but if we are just following instincts and physics with materialism, how is that any different from following the objective moral standard God put on our hearts and following God's plan? It's all functionally the same, the only difference is Frank slapping the God label on top of it. I think Paul should've been more on the offense, and put Frank's statements to the test.
My biggest problem with the moral argument is that it is based on a very large "if".
and the “if” of “no actual morals” argument is a more tragic else.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue Huh?
@@acebailey2478 the statement wasnt about truth. It was about an “if”
Thus another big if and its consequences are relevant.
You’re changing the point.
@@acebailey2478 plainly stated. And based on their post, which was not about proof but about an “if.”
I brought up the if on the other side that bears greater consequences.
If we want to address the “if” directly, we would need them to define it more specifically than just such a label.
Nor did nothing I say have anything to do with it “being hard to accept,” or that “difficulty”being proof against.
Which is doubly funny as the main atheists definition of their entire positon is “im just not convinced.” They do this to cheat out of the burden of proof for what they do believe, of course…. but “Im just not convinced” is pretty much the same thing as “its hard to accept.” So by your own logic - the atheist definition of their own position is without merit on the face of it - as “being difficult to accept” has zero bearing on truth.
The problem with this discussion/debate is that two people are using the same word, but have two different meanings. They just talk passed each other.
I do think the claim about us not being evolved for truth gets a bit overstated.
Whilst I get there are some things that are beneficial to believe that aren't necessarily true, on the whole, we still have to believe in true things for survival, like the fact we we can't fly or breath underwater or that the cuddly looking Lion doesn't want to be friends.. etc.
Also, I would say that self awareness is a by product of the high intelligence we evolved, which lets us look beyond our own instincts and recognise things like superstition, using reason.
Yeah, turek just Iies about that. His claim is that a brain through evolution *cannot* develop the ability to find truth. He usually never backs it up.
And the few times i have seen him responding to pushback his answer is that as evolution doesnt have as a goal a brain that can find truth (as if evolution worked with goals) therefore it cannot be that a brain can gain that ability through evolution.
@@Julian0101 Yeah, they are always mad to me these arguments from theists. "We can't know truth... therefore God". Errr... Ok.
I would say it is more an argument against religion, myself. We may have evolved to believe some things that are not true, but also the intelligence to realise that fact, so have developed methods to try and counter it, such as testable predictions, as Paul says.
This would explain why most people are religious but less are the more we learn and why we separate real science from any God hypothesis.
When was this debate?
Turek's position is despicable. We all have empathy, including the Nazis and the Allies during WW II. We all feel bad because of the death and devastation of war, no matter which side is doing the damage, with the exception of a few psychopaths. We do not need anything from any god to prefer a world where neither side is killing people. And the above comes from the facts of evolutionary psychology, not from any sacred book. We evolved as gregarious animals, and gregarious communities where there aren't too many psychopaths survive better than those with too many psychos, so with time, our communities tend to have many empathetic individuals and few psychos. Simple.
Nazis felt bad? I don't think so. They reasoned themselves into believing that those they murdered were less than human. Americans have done that before, and the British, and many others. It's not that the Nazis didn't have empathy. It's just that they only let their empathy extend to their own "tribe," and not to anyone that they saw as being outside the tribe.
The concept of morality itself, what one ought or ought not to do, is entirely meaningless in an atheistic worldview. Think of it this way: no one would say that the earth's orbiting the sun is morally right or morally wrong: it just is that way. Similarly, no one would argue that gravity is morally wrong because it pulls down instead of up: this is just the way things are. These things are just parts of nature, and there is nothing right or wrong about them.
But if there is no God, then all human actions are merely parts of nature, just like the laws of gravity and planetary orbits. And just as it would be meaningless to say that gravity is morally right or wrong, so it would also be meaningless to assign moral value to human actions, if atheism is true. This means that something like murder, in the atheistic worldview, cannot possibly be seen as morally wrong in any objective sense, and therefore implies that the very notion of moral obligation is meaningless. If there is no God to function as an objective Lawgiver, there is no morality. Period.
Nothing prevents you or any other atheist from practicing deeds which most people would consider "good," and in this sense, an atheist can indeed be a good, moral person. Nevertheless, you cannot consistently praise anything good or denounce anything evil without implicitly contradicting your own worldview. The best question, therefore, is not whether an atheist can be a good, moral person, but whether such a concept even makes sense in an atheistic worldview. And the best answer is that it simply does not.
Let’s say that there is a woman who is in a coma in a hospital. A man is working at the hospital, and he rapes her. No one ever finds out and the woman is not injured emotionally, mentally, or physically. After all, she is completely unaware of the event. So, since the consequences were not harmful and since he was sexually satisfied, there is, so to speak, a positive overall effect where no harm is done and pleasure is increased. From the consequentialist perspective, was that rape right or wrong? If the consequences were good for the man and no harm suffered to the woman, then such a rape is morally good. In this, consequentialism can support immorality, In this case, rape. But if a secular humanist says that the rape is morally wrong, then he is abandoning consequentialism, because he is appealing to the inherent immorality of that particular action. But inherent immorality is not consequentialist. So, that’s a problem and it exposes yet another inconsistency in secular humanism. Rape is wrong in Christianity because God has revealed that to rape a woman in such a case is inherently immoral - whether or not anyone finds out about it. It is wrong because it goes against the holy nature of God who tells us that since we are made in his image, we are to grant honor and respect to one another. Rape, obviously, is not honorable.
No not everyone has empathy. Sociopaths lack empathy. You keep talking about psychopaths but sociopaths are far more common. And they will manipulate and get positions of power. Your mistake here is assuming everyone is somehow the same
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Gregarious animals, like wolves and humans, for example, have evolved with an instinctive sense of empathy. It is just the way nature works. Packs or groups where a good percentage of the individuals have a strong sense of empathy have a better probability of survival than groups with few or not empathetic individuals. This is the way in which the beginnings of morality took hold in every chordate gregarious species of animals. It is just how nature works.
@@seanodwyer4859 Read carefully what I wrote. I specifically stated that a large proportion of us humans have empathy, excluding psychopaths. It is not necessary for every individual in a group to be empathetic, it is enough for a large proportion to be caring. The few psychopaths will cause a lot of damage but are eventually weaned out most of the time.
Even Frank's safety glasses can't stop the overwhelming logic that Paul delivers. But Frankie's bottom line would be affected if he were to acknowledge apologetics was dishonest, at best.
i missed all of the logic. I caught your low brow snark. What logic did Paul deliver? Did he put enough postage on it? it never arrived.
paulogia is polite here but in his video he is hostile 😂
As an atheist, I still find Paul’s response really bad
As a fellow atheist, where do you think he responded poorly?
@@acebailey2478 As much as I cringe saying this and have literally never said it before, I actually kind of agree with Frank’s point that Paul is just making an appeal to consensus. And under that view I can’t see any reason to actually call any action “good” or “bad”. It’s just going with whatever “got decided”. This seems like what a lot of atheists say (and to be clearer, I usually call myself agnostic). Personally, I believe morality is absolutely objective. But just like the existence of anything else that’s objective, we still don’t have perfect understanding of what it is or how it works. But it’s basically just whatever makes us happy, which I think is an objective thing, not really subjective if that makes sense. Anyways, I think atheists tie themselves in knots trying to answer the Christians’ inevitably retarded moral argument, then because it’s a bad answer, the Christian gets to walk away all smug thinking they won something
@@acebailey2478Same I want an explanation
@@acebailey2478 And everyone else needs you to explain where he did well. Cause... you scary.
@@acebailey2478 Oooooo... tough man doesn't want to actually back up and stand by any of these supposed wonderful positions. Cause tough guy "don't gotta do nuffin."
yeah, if you're going to act like the guy attacked an entirely religion well, you should be able to cite something.
Hitler was theist does Frank not know that. His first pact was with the Pope of the time & ensure the catholic religion became the official religion of Germany. The vatican celebrated Hitlers birthday up until the 60s. If 2 opposing sides a re theists & both appeal to the same God for a win how does that work out. Evidence of this is when you see opposing athletes crossing themselves before taking part in an event. Morality has to evolve to ensure the survival of the species. IF the laws of the bible were still followed our population would not have grown to its present numbers. All gay people would have been stoned as would adulterers etc etc etc. Absolutely no evidence of Franks God in the first place pure supposition.
after the 1944 plot and hitler survived he said he was divinely saved .....not something a non believer would say
He does know it, he just doesnt like how it tears apart his script so he ignores it. His fans dont fact chek him anwyay so repeating that Iie doesnt cost him anything.
@@Julian0101 surprised or probably not surprised frank is worth $7 million............beats working
A pact is not a belief or a faith. We know the unserious trickery here.
Low end low tier low level BS.
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue what do you think was the cause of the holocaust....do you not think the nearly 1500 years of persecution of jews by christians led to the hatred of jews not only in europe but around the world
The association football metaphor actually highlights how arbitrary morality is, when we get to the stakes of FIFA in which success of a team or of a player results in changes to contracts, and can make or break careers (in a society where it's of great benefit to be a footballer over say, a food server at a diner, or a soldier in a military), and so pro football, like countless other professional sports, teems with scandals of cheating, of stretching the rules, of engaging in poor sportsmanship because the players are driven more to advance their careers than to play a fair, friendly game.
Similarly, the Allies weren't the _goodies_ in WWII nor the Axis the _baddies._ This is not to say the German genocide machine wasn't a wrongdoing against the human species, but that is a separate issue from the German offensive to take the Soviet Union (which expanded, to include allies of Poland once Germany started its campaign by attacking Poland). Among the international community, there are neither good guys nor bad guys, rather each nation is solely interested in power, which has informed the conduct of kingdoms and nations alike, of NATO and the Warsaw Pact alike.
The US' expansion into North America, featured a similar genocide as the German holocaust four million people were massacred by the colonies and the United States, or 94% of the first nations population. And the US still doesn't fully recognize or acknowledge this harm, or have any interest in reparations, because the First Nation interests have much less political power than Jewish interests. The stories we're taught are based on who taught them to us, which is why here in the states, WWII starts in December 7, 1941, not September 1, 1939, or for that matter, July 7, 1937.
It is all subjective, and Christian nationalists today in the US empathize more with the German Reich than they do the allies, even going as far as rekindling old antisemitic sentiments and myths. It appears when human beings live too long in scarcity, unneighborly sentiments accumulate and the ownership class turns to redirecting outrage at the usual suspects (that is, undesirables and marginalized groups), and like rats turning on each other when food is no longer plentiful, we look towards war and genocide.
(The only thing particularly unique about the German holocaust was they realized participation in massacres was too harsh on the common worker, that even Heydrich was not iron-hearted, and so they created a system so that no-one had to look at the whole process and realize viscerally what was being done. Human beings don't usually like killing each other, so the Germans worked out how to hack the human brain so that mass executions weren't so terrible.)
8:20 😂😂😂😂😂😂🗿🗿🥵🔥 frank won
he ended up in defeating himself
he cant ground determinism of his own thoughts
C. S. Lewis follows a similar line of thought as Descartes with his _evil demon_ question. We atheists can also contemplate the possibility (it remains possible) that the universe is simulated, or is Azathoth's dream. (As per Lovecraft, though there are multiple fictional scenarios in which the universe is a dream.) And so yeah, this is agnostic. It's also a starting point, from which Descartes realized _Cogito ergo sum_ ( _I think therefore I am_ ) and tried to get further than that, but without satisfaction.
So here's the thing, what I do know is the universe seems _very consistent_ around me. We have a lot of data-points that we measure with mechanical sensors greater than our own eyes and ears, from which we've created mathematical models that allow us to toss cans of people up in the air only to have them land safely thousands of miles away (or on the moon!) We've been able to figure out in minute detail how viruses and bacteria turn into transmissible diseases and how to create vaccines for them and inoculate the population. We've learned what plants are safe to eat, and that they grow well under specific consistent conditions, and so long as we can provide those conditions for their seeds or clippings, we can grow more of them so that we all have food.
The world behaves not as the chaos of a whimsical dream, but as if it's a real place governed my natural laws. Where did these laws come from? We don't know, but we know they've been here a very long time and are consistent across expanses so vast we cannot comprehend. We don't even know if there's a _where_ or _when_ that everything started, rather it's beyond our horizon of perception.
If there is a god that is manipulating things to serve Its own agenda, we haven't been able to provoke it, either to reward us for doing right, or punish us for doing wrong, or help us when we're needy, or to turn on hard mode because we're having an easy time of things. The sun shines on us unconditionally, as does the rain...well, the climate and weather are changing patterns due to causes we know, but that's natural mechanics mechanicking naturally.
We once imagined lightning was an act of God, where now we know it functions via consistent electrostatic mechanics. And every time we were fooled by the complexity of nature to think dieties or supernatural spirits were involved, we found that, rather, those were natural phenomena too. So when it comes to things we still don't fully understand (sleep! ball lightning! the gyroscopic effect of bicycle wheels!) we can expect that it's physics there too, and not divine intervention.
@8:45: Paulogia agrees that what Hitler did wasn’t right or wrong because he was determined to do it.
Public Service Announcement: don’t ever let this guy babysit your kids.
Who knows what he might be _determined_ to do (although whatever it is, it wouldn’t be right or wrong, so why worry).
"Right and wrong" are words that are relative to the actualization of a desired goal or outcome, absent said goal, the terms right and wrong become meaningless.
My "goal" is the actualization of a healthy flourishing coperative society based upon our common desires with respect to wellbeing and the values it incorporates, empathy, respect, equality, altruism, reciprocity. That is why one "ought" to treat another's as you would like to be treated, One "ought not steal if you wish to live in a society were property is not stolen. One "OUGHT" not murder if they want to live in a society were people are not murdered. This is our "reference point" or standard.
One "should" or "ought" do something if Its conducive with the actualisation of a situation that conforms with one's goals and values. These "values" themselves are subjective by definition however it is entirely possible to make Objective declarations or decisions 'Within a pre-agreed framework of subjective values'.
*What is your "goal" and why 'OUGHT' one do what your subjective God desires* ?? 🙄🤔
No response as expected 🤫
I think specific groups may be able to maintain an objective moral standard based on that group's agreement to submit to it, but for there to be a universally objective moral standard, that would require it to be unanimously accepted as the standard that everyone will submit to.
Use the NBA or most physical sports for example. They have an objective standard of no use of Performance enhancing drugs to be accepted into the league. Everyone who wants to play in the NBA has to submit to that standard therefore, it's objective. It's not subjective like someone can say "no I want to use them and still play" you either submit or you can't join the league.
I see a lot of church doctrines and denominations like that (although the larger those groups become, the harder it is to maintain that objectivity). Objectively baptists uphold spiritual and water baptism as a primary benchmark of membership, for many sects of Catholics, it's accepting the virgin Mary as a holy figure. To the extent that each member agrees and submits, it is objective to that group, but once you decide to step outside of that view, it then becomes subjective and you're no longer playing the same game as everyone else in the group. This on a global scale is what happens with morality more broadly.
Turek is right here. Moral is objective.
Ok so is it morally wrong to wipe out a whole race of people? Objectively yes or no?
Did you guys enjoyed the Atheist word salad 🥗
the pickle ball glasses….
The people that don't value life are just as valid as those that do.
The exact problem with atheism. This would seem reasonable to them. While at the same time they would scoff at the idea that you need God to be moral. Lol.
Its crazy to me to think I used to think like Paulogia. It’s one self refuting claim after another stacked on top of each other.
Did this thing just say the nazi's were protecting and the allies were protecting and how do we tell the difference? Do they HAVE to be dishonest? can they not stand on their ... morals.
I don't believe in absolute determinism because of the heisenberg uncertainty principle. On a quantum level you can never be completely sure of the speed or location of an object. Thus in our brains where thoughts are 'created' at any given instant, you can't be 100% certain to how a person will choice the answer to an arbitrary question.
Say you ask me to pick a number and I say 4. Months later when I have forgotten that I was asked the question before. Under identical circumstances, you ask me to pick a number and I say 52. Before the number was asked to be picked, it wasn't determined which I would pick. There is a certain variation, and thus some uncertainty. Thus not deterministic.
agree. modern studies of quantum physics already has applications such as superconductors and quantum computers. In the face of obvious fact that there is this "uncaused cause" , this poses a reasonable doubt on the Kalam Cosmological argument, and another reasonable doubt on determinism due to chaos theory too. We have to agree that although we have predisposition or are limited in some sense, there is still a great possibility that free will exist.
@@thienyetan2035 Free will is a separate issue from determinism. If the universe is non-deterministic, it doesn't mean there is free will. I am a physicist and understand the mathematics of quantummechanics and I in no way do I see this as a point in favor of free will.
Just because your decision was not deterministic, it doesn't mean you made it using free will.
@@smitty347 I agree. Maybe it is just wishful thinking that my brains screams it is wrong. Too wishful to hope that quantum fluctuations permeate the brain. Too hopeful that somehow this messes up everything from micro to macro states.
@@thienyetan2035 Of course quantum effects are in the brain as well and have an effect. That's just not equal to free will.
It just means the things you have no control over are random instead of deterministic.
@@smitty347 Thank you for sharing your insights, @smitty347. As a physicist with expertise in quantum mechanics, your perspective is invaluable.
I completely agree that the presence of quantum effects in the brain does not straightforwardly equate to free will. As you mentioned, quantum mechanics introduces inherent randomness at the microscopic level, suggesting that some aspects of our decision-making may be influenced by unpredictable factors rather than deterministic forces. This randomness alone does not define free will.
However, I believe that free will encompasses more than just the presence of randomness. It involves the conscious ability to deliberate, reason, and make choices based on values, intentions, and cognitive processes. The interplay of deterministic and non-deterministic influences in our thought processes might allow for a form of free will that is nuanced and complex.
What are your thoughts on the idea that free will could be viewed as the capacity for rational deliberation and autonomous decision-making, despite the underlying quantum randomness?
This video needs to be an apologetics class as an example of the most bumbling atheist arguments I’ve ever seen.
What if the Israelites had won all their battles, and turned the Roman Empire Jewish. Would that be a good thing, Frank?
wanna get around to your point?
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue it's flying above your head. Oops, too late.
@@benjamintrevino325 so no? you’ll just stay silly and low rent?
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I'll stay here as long as you're butt hurt about it. And don't pretend you're not, because your comments betray you.
BTW, why are you triggered about something when don't even get the point? 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@benjamintrevino325 you could try to form a more full statement. Im not butthurt. Just waiting…. for you… to form…. a whole idea.
Well it was entertaining.
God has no objective referent of what good is absent creation. The argument from the reliability of brains presupposes the reliability of a brain to determine whether something is reliable or not. You can trust your thinking depending on how we define truth.
reboot and try again. you're getting lost in the attempt to be clever
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue I don't need to try again. The argument that we cannot trust our thinking presuppose the reliability of our thinking to make the argument against the reliability of our thinking
If there is a god, then the rules are arbitrary since God doesn't gain anything because of the existance of humanity. So, what does it matter if hunanity succeeds. If humanity fails, no biggie to god since he can simply create more humans if he wants.
If there is no god, then the rules (from our point of view) are the flourishing of the species in general, so the species continues and the members of the species are content/happy.
lol. people say the dumbest things and think they're clever.
No, the rules being different would mean you are playing something other than soccer ⚽
Don't anthropomorphize the laws of physics or nature. The _laws of physics_ are a mathematical model we use to predict and understand the mechanics of the world. It's a _model_ a conceptual thing. Same with mathematics. 1 + 1 = 2 because we decided it was axiomatic (by definition) that 2 was the symbol for 1 and another 1. God didn't make that. We made the language by which to express mathematics, and then working out the consistent properties (mostly consistent -- some math gets funny) which is discovery.
I suspect Turek is motivated to continue to assert his Christian beliefs more than he is to follow material truth, whereas Paul found the informed narrative of Christianity wanting and inconsistent with perceived reality, so rejected it for a data-informed truth. Typically, we humans stay with the teachings we receive as kids until a crisis of identity forces us to reconsider. In Turek's case, I suspect that he's still invested in his faith (possibly because doing so profits him and therefore figures into his survival scheme) and so he cannot consider evidence that might suggest that his understanding of Christianity is wrong.
Morality prove God...
I don't agree with a god being necessary for morality, but I also don't believe in secular humanism as a source of morality. Secular humanism (like other religions) puts us at the top of the hierarchy of importance on this planet. We are the dominant beings, but we add zero value to anything but ourselves. No other species needs us. When earth dies, as it surely will, it will be because of our actions. IF a god were to have created us, it would be because that god had no respect for anything else on this planet. We are an invasive species.
The fact that Frank can't see why a person without a god can understand why Hitler was wrong amazes me. The only way you couldn't, is if you sold you humanity to an ideology. That you need to be spoon feed on how to be a decent human being. It's disgusting.
And yet - today - mass numbers of people are cavalier about abortion. So... why don't you go talk to them. It's disgusting. You're angry at Frank for a point - while a present day atrocity is happening right now, and you're doing nothing. Let me guess - you don't think it's that bad or the same.... interesting....
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue Abortion is the choice of the person who is pregnant. You have no say in the matter, it's not your body.
I am not angry at Frank. I disgusted that he puts an ideology ahead of humanity.
What is the present day atrocity that I'm doing nothing about?
If there is no god, then you are saying objective morals because fiction. Your ultimate purpose is fiction.
@bismarckmark6566 I think you miss my point. If the story of a god gives you purpose and morals.. and that god is fictional.. then your purpose is based on fiction. Or the subjective opinions of our more primitive ancestors.
@bismarckmark6566 I see the disconnect. I do agree with you.
The part where I disagree with them is where they insert these as true because an objective truth giver backs them. Despite the fact nobody can verity the god exists, or that they indeed captured the true and current intentions of said being.
So please take my comments to mean.. the fiction of Objectively granted.
Frank, did the Allies appeal to God to justify their resistance against Nazis?
Whats your point?
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue That it is not necessary to appeal to God to justify your disagreement with other people's moral system.
@@andrewtsai777 ….thats not the point tho
@@ithurtsbecauseitstrue Explain, please. Frank came up with this example, not me, in case you did not watch the video.
Hatred is just as valid as altruism without something beyond us.
But conversely, hatred is as valid as altruism WITH something beyond us....unless we have some reason to think that 'something' beyond us doesn't like hatred and values altruism. On what basis can we tell?
If god is the arbitrator of morals and the bible is the word of god we'd still be stoning to death homosexual men and women who weren't virgins on their wedding night! But our society has evolved a more inclusive secular molarity and a lot of behaviour the bible considered sinful is today accepted by most societies as normal behaviour. The only places people are still being stoned to death are where fundamentalist religious groups are in charge.
We evolved as social animals and empathy evolved as a trait that allowed us to function in cooperative groups for the better survival as a species. As such our morality is still tribal in a sense. Different groups exhibit different morality, and even within a group the morality can change over time. But a group is still able to put aside some moral precepts (like killing is bad) when in conflict against another group.
Even worse: if the girl couldn't prove her v1rginity based on the hymen/bl00d myth, something the claimed god should know because he created us.
My sister in Christ when reading the old testament its important to read in context. Jesus would never order the stoning of a homosexual or non virgins.
Rather he taught us to love each other no matter the circumstance as we all are sinners. None more righteous than the other but all made in the image of God. However he did teach us to hate sin and turn away from it. To the hate the sin but not the sinner.
@@Nani-du9ymIn what context is stoning people to death right? In what context is slavery right?
And jesus specifically said he didn’t come here to change the laws instead to fulfill them..
So give me a reason why you think slavery is wrong.
@@Nani-du9ym Isn't Jesus (part of) god? So at least you admit that morality is relative and god can't be (trusted) as the standard.
yes but you must read between the lines
How blind does Turek need to pretend to be not to see that society determines what is "good", and society is just a bunch of individuals some of whom share the same opinion.
Is slavery "good"? It was in the bible and Roman Empire, and the southern US States until 1865. Not so sure the slaves though it was good though.
Is capital punishment "good"? Some states say yes, many people think no. Maybe one day it will no longer be legal. On that day will it cease to be "good"?
huh what? itis not an appeal to a referee. Literally subjectivity morality means that the subject decides. I mean if there is a referee it is he individual.
get out of here with determinism. that was your choice as you i think and what you prefer is not determined. you have no way to say anything. you are just 0's and 1's.
determinism destroys all knowledge, all experience, and all minds.
@Paulogia does not exist then. there is no who there, there is no id, and no ego.
Correct, and each time theists claim god is the referee or the law giver, means that it is a subject deciding. Which makes theistic morality subjective by definition.
@@Julian0101 But that subject is the King and is different in relationship to us.
The fact that people actually listen to palatial is scary. He has like teenager level argumentation. If there is no ultimate judge, no Supreme Court of the universe, then it is just my opinion against yours, which means might makes right. And when you have the Yuval Noah Harraris of the world start coming around and saying your “human rights” are a fiction then you have nothing to counteract because there is no ultimate judge. And the whole, “well we’re all humans so we should be kind to one another” isnt going to withstand even the slightest bit of weight. As Goebbels said, “I don’t deny the Jew is a human, but a bat is a mammal”. Who the hell cares whether we share some dna with other humans, anymore then we care that we share dna with mammals. This whole, “we don’t need God for morality” is such a naive take
// "Then it's just my opinion against yours" //
🤔 Hmm is your "opinion" with regards the "right" God subjective or objective?? Can we ground morality in "any" God or just the particular one YOU determined is the "right" one out of the many thousands man has invented ??
If your answer is the latter then in actuality its *YOU* and YOUR SUBJECTIVE OPINION that is determining morality dear. if your answer is the former, then asserting objectivity to any moral claim based upon a "God" becomes a completely vacuous useless concept 👍
The claim that theistic morality is somehow "objective" is ridiculous. Theists are merely substituting their own subjective moral standards with the morals standards of the god they subjectively determine represents the "correct objective" morality. 🙄🤔
Wow you seriously think that because I recognise "morality" to be a cognitive determination relative to different goals and levels of understanding I can't make judgement about the superiority of one over another ?? 🤭😅
I completely understand that your desired goal is relative to your subjective perception of the nature/desires of the God Yarweh and others relative that of different subjective gods. Mine is relative to wellbeing and suffering and I can and indeed do "judge" this to be a superior moral goal.
I don't give a hoot if the bible says Yahweh thinks the day of the week one picks sticks up on determines if you should face the death penalty SO WHAT ? 😡 I don't care if someone else thinks their God deems the eating of bacon immoral or not facing a specific direction and praying five time a day, again SO WHAT ??
The recognition that people have different opinions about the same subject doesn't make them all equally valid or useful dear. People have different relative and subjective perceptions of political ideologies does that mean I can't judge one to be superior to another ??
The problem is Paul's worldview doesn't ground objective morality.
You're begging the question
@Brettwbeyer14 How so? That morality is objective?
If it's not, it's subjective which renders any opinion on the morality of God moot.
@zeraphking1407 What does "morality"" mean?
@@mattyd2818 In what context?
@@zeraphking1407 Is there more than one context? Let's try this: explain each and every context and the relevant definition.
The fact that Paul appeals to an authority that is fallible makes his claim baseless and he knows that humans alone can draw upon faulty conclusion. And if that's the case that morality is subjective, he is inconsistent by rallying around saying that God doesn't exist which proves that he DOES believe that morality is objective, why couldn't he just live like a true moral relativist and stop wasting time building a youtube channel arguing that God doesn't exist.
No... Paul literally says morality is objective and you're proving it rn. You believe your understanding of God and the Bible are the sources of morality yet other denominations and other religions differ. So no, you're appealing tona theological authority as your source of morality like every other theist.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 well I guess you missed the timestamp 5:44 - 5:50 where he literally says that morality is subjective so what your doing now is either you don't understand what they are talking about or your simply lying.
Your objection about interpretation has an unstated gross conclusion that anything that has different interpretations is somehow wrong. There are many interpretations on how gravity works but that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist!! The claim still stands that people like yourself and Paul act inconsistent with their worldview, claiming to be moral relativist yet you behave like you believe in moral absolutes by coming here trying to debate my view which is self refuting in of itself.
@lebogangncongwane4298 Yes, I believe in "moral absolutes" because I have a sense of morality Lebo.
You should know that objective morality ke maaka, especially given the Apartheid and colonisation of South Africa. Wa tseba gore there was no objective morality that made the Europeans and Boers avoid doing what they did in the Bible. On the contrary, the Christians found verses supporting their mission. So "objective morality" ke masepa.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 Mara you just contradicted yourself gore there is no objective morality while you argue for moral absolutes, moral absolutes pressuposes that there are objective moral statements that it needs to abide too or else moral absolutes won't make sense within itself. Otherwise you wouldn't condemn apartheid and your morality would just be a mere opinion because you just "sense it" without any justification whatsoever which it's unreasonable for any person like yourself therefore leads to self refuting position. Before you reply I invite you to think what your are typing because it seems like you don't understand what your talking about.
@lebogangncongwane4298 But that's how morality works. If objective morality was real, the Bible would objectively oppose the stuff we call morally wrong. Rather, it encourages such.
"Objective morality is the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion. It's the concept that some actions and beliefs are imperatively good or inherently bad and that the goodness or badness of those things holds true no matter who you are or what else you believe in."
This definition excludes the need for god, ancestors, or society determining morality.
But that's not what we see. Your religion used to kill other Christians for believing in "heresies" and thought that was morally good.
Maybe the Christian moral argument would be valid if the bible promoted well being. But it doesn't.
It does.
Sick of this guy and sick of this morality issue he keeps drolling on about. He needs to prove first his god and second that morality comes from god. He's never done this. He cannot explain why morality can't come from societal evolution. I just read an article on NIH that argues that even some animals are capable of morality. A serious argument can be made for this.
no. not all conversations amount to "godnorealdoh" if that's all you can address - you're the problem. Grow up.
And the Gold medal for mental gymnastics goes to Paulogia. He needs to retire and let someone else win for a change
If determinism is true, then nothing is true or false, and the atheist wouldnt bother debating. This is an absurd position on its face.
If determinism is true in the atheist view - it is also material - therefore within the realm entirely of science - and they DO bear the burden of proof - which, of course, they will avoid like the plague.
It pains me that this dude on his own cannot discern from a murderous dictator invading sovernt nations against they're will with that of groups of people at the time were pretty much just going about they're day. How pathetic are you that you can't tell right from wrong without someone saying so.
You haven't found objective morality Mr. Turek
frank is worth $7 million so probably doesnt believe unless matthew 19 23-26 doesnt apply to him
Frank offers an argument for his personal god belief but never delivers proof that his personal god exists.
Morality prove god
@@davidberar5905 Nah, morality can exist regardless of god.
@@Julian0101 Then it will be subjective
@@davidberar5905 And with god it can only be subjective.
@@Julian0101 Flase
Nazi was Christan.
Nazi was not Christians. Christians actually ran the plot to kill Hilter. Christians died opposing him IN GERMANY - not just the allies.
Atheism means you can do whatever you want - morality is not needed
source: believe me bro
@@torashi. source; atheism
@@JoBo301Strawman. “Atheism” isn’t a worldview. It’s simply a simple answer to a question. “Do you believe in a god/gods”. Yes or no? I’m not even an atheist personally but it’s amusing to see such lame strawmans. “Atheism” says nothing about morality. Because it can’t. Because it’s not a moral system.
@@Hyperborean-fz9vt That's not true atheism. True atheism is a worldview because if atheism is true, 3 other things must be true which then form the worldview;
1. Mankind is not here on purpose or by design
2. All mankind will be dead forever.
3. Mankind has no value, purpose or value
Turek is a total fool.
Man, Frank Turek Destroyed this guy. He does not even know what he is saying. He makes things more complicated.
i don't think you understand what he is saying nor are interested in understanding. I understand easily what he is saying
He totally crushed him.
How was he destroyed
Moral argument for God? Cognitively biased sophistry in the absence of any...you know...actual evidence, to put it more correctly.
actual evidence. So conversations shouldn't involve logic and reason - only material? you're stupid
You, Frank, despite being deluded, can be corrected by education!!