@@PhilHalper1 What do you think of the criticism that Andrew Ter Ern Loke has made of Paulogia and Bart Erham's skeptical positions on the resurrection ? He has also criticized other skeptical scholars on his TH-cam channel.
@gregrice1354 great news! If you are interested in learning my techniques, I am giving a way a free copy of my guide "Commenting on Videos About Weirdos" with every purchase of my book: "7 Steps to Protecting Your Condo from Alien/Demon Hybrids" Act now and I will throw in a set of steak knives! *we only accept bitcoin
I hope so! Mine great grandfather was the son of a slave who were forced to be Christians by the Anti-Soviet European Americans and we're literally breed by them. This guy sucks. I really hate how people randomly make analogies to sex slavery as if they actually care about the long term consequences of mass sex slavery they did in the US. Christianity is violent slaver holder religion practiced the most violently by Americans.
I must have received my PhD in astrophysics from a terrible school. We never once had a class on the cosmological implications of demons and angels. I feel cheated!
Demon talk has been spiking in popularity to the point where I believe it's getting artificially boosted. Notice Tucker Carlson talking about it? Jordan Peterson? And it's absolutely exploding on TikTok for various Christian Influencers. The clear crossover from "niche tiktok garbage" to "political pundits talking about this seriously" makes me think that there's a booster in play.
Or anyone who like... reads any kind of research? I'm a software developer and I'm on arxiv all the time lol I don't understand how you can be a part of any kind of scientific field and not know.
🛸 *Carl Sagan* explicitly “dismissed” alien spacecraft visiting Earth because there was no good evidence for the phenomena and there was strong evidence of its unlikeliness (distance, for example). Ross misrepresented Sagan.
So sorry Mr. scienceexplains. If you were familiar in any of the actual text and context of Dr. Ross' claims, which are very easily gathered by reading any of his books or watching any of his complete videos, rather than following anti-intellectuals make libelous, insulting pot shots at Ross, you might be a little better informed. The principles that Sagan used to dismiss alien spacecraft are precisely the ones presented by Ross in the very out-of-context snippets of video that this channel posted - they UFO phenomenon virtually ALL violate physics, those known, and any that may augment Physics in future, starting with law of Inertia. If you believe there are some other bases that Sagan used, and which you believe Ross did NOT use, from physics, please do respond.
Sadly, you are mistaken. The same principles for Sagan's dismissal of alien spacecraft are the one's that Ross uses to determine the facts and make his own assessment. In terms of physics, UFO phenomena often are clearly measured, documented on film, radar, and other telemetry and geospatial evaluations to violate natural laws of physics, whatever other laws may be developed in future. Be better than the operators of this hate-mongering video blog, and check your facts.
Another problem with Ross’s idea that God waited 13.8bys to create life so humans could see all of cosmic history, is that this only benefits a very small fraction of humans. Most humans have not been able to see this as it is only thanks to very specialized technology recently developed.
Not so good of a point. You demonstrate your lack of familiarity with the Bible you appear to want to be antagonistic toward. I encourage you to be informed about a subject before you suppose to claim to have a valid argument. Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19 clearly repeat the factual claim that all people are without excuse for not perceiving the nature of the Creator/God. These claims occur in the earliest or oldest text in the canon of 66 books, the book of Job - which also "happens' to include reference to life after death and the resurrection of believers. It's a beautiful and profound book, you should consider reading it for preparation for appreciation of world literature. And Job is established to have been recorded by about 1500 B.C., let alone any intervening years of recitation methods of memorializing the contents. The point is no advanced technology is needed for generations before industrial pollution of chemicals, as well as light pollution obscured the clear night sky. The fundamental Argument of from Design Evidence has always stood as valid and intuited by humans. It has never been validly disproved, though many atheists BELIEVE it has. (Scripture directs all people to prove all things, and only hold fast to the truth.) Bibles are freely available online. You might take a few minutes away from your video browsing to learn something of the most influential piece of literature in human history. I fear the host and speakers on this channel have failed to learn the simple facts of secular law, such as libel, let alone the eternal spiritual facts and laws.
Not so good a point, as the bible makes clear, from its older book in the canon, Job, to its final book. See Romans 1:19 and Psalm 19 for explicit declarations of God and His character as Creator, visible to all in the skies, day and night - at least before sinful man has polluted the skies with industrial chemical pollution and even light pollution. No one is with the excuse of "not knowing" of God, as the entire Creation declares it without end, and the Argument from Design Evidence remains valid, though many atheists BELIEVE it is not.
I had not knowingly come across Hugh Ross before this video. The first few minutes of him talking were actually quite disturbing. One knows, of course, that there are qualified scientists who park their scepticism (and knowledge?) at the church door, but this man's level of - let's be frank - self-delusion is startling.
Anyone that can watch footage of lions ripping apart still living young antelope or watch a zebra walk away from a watering hole after having half of its face ripped off by an croc/gator, and still hold to a omnibenevolent designer needs to seek psychological help. To dismiss such natural suffering is beyond me.
There are days I feel like I'll never accomplish any significant with my life, then I remember Hugh Ross' PhD and the people that hear him talk to learn stuff and my hope returns... wait, why do i feel like doind a cartwheel all of a sudden?
As a physicist myself, I agree, how did this guy even have a career as an astrophysicist? His understanding of physics is laughably wrong. Or he’s just grifting, he has to be.
@@BertrandLeRoy Now, now. Be a good little physicist and design a test of your hypothesis, "he has to be grifting". Hmm? Where to start? Ooohh. I'm no physicist, but how about trying reading ANYTHING or any of the 2 dozen books written by Dr. Ross over his 50+ year career? Many of his books are available for free in ebook form through public libraries. Slander is the folly of ignoramuses or hateful abusers. Sadly, that appears to be the practice of this YT video channel operators.
@@BertrandLeRoy Now, now. Try settling down and considering what an experimental physicist might do to verify one's already published derogatory claims. Ohh! Eureka! (though I'm no physicist) How about performing an experiment to determine if Ross "has to be grifting" by measuring and analyzing the science and reasoning he has used in all of his dozens of books on science and the bible? Wouldn't that give you some clue as to the facts? I hope I haven't burdened your too much. The web channel host seems to think so, as he has repeatedly erased replies of mine today.
Hugh is a typical apologetic, he can change opinion mid sentence, one statement directly contradict his next and all his "evidence" is in the following categories: 1) Science denial 2) Reality denial 3) "Trust me bruh" 4) Gobbledygook Just like every other apologetic. But this guy actually have an education.
_"He wanted us to be able to read the entirety of the 66 books of the bible, and he wanted us to be able to read the entirety of cosmic history."_ It's pretty amazing that he can say this with a straight face. The bible is *_*so*_* small and laughably limited compared to the history of our universe. The creation of all the infinite expanse we can observe was barely an afterthought in Genesis compared to even the genealogies. Something a person living today gets absolutely nothing out of other than "huh, that's a lot of pointless names to list."
I like the Quinean style epistemic arguments from naturalism as a response these cases. By the theists light they argue for non-naturalism via abductive elimination, but theres an infinity of potential rival naturalistic explanations which can’t be ruled out, so non-naturalism is either epistemically impossible or unjustifiable.
Be good to see Lisle under scrutiny, too, as he's a PhD in astrophysics AND a YEC. Some "interesting" views on the speed of light being instantaneous in one direction, but C/2 on the way back, rather than uniform in both directions. "Anisotropic Synchrony Convention Theory". lol
The justifications for why God needed to make the universe in a particular way always come down to turning one conceptual dial while keeping all the others static. "God had to give this parameter this particular value, because otherwise that would conflict with the OTHER parameters, which he obviously can't do anything about!"
Hey Phil - A suggestion for you and Alex and Dan. Though you obviously all don't agree with Ross, maybe start off by attempting to steel man Ross's beliefs and his position. That way, the audience would at least know you understood Ross's position, understood the Christian doctrine pertaining to the demonic realm, and understood the Bible, instead of just making fun of him. Imagine if the tables were turned, that a video featuring three Christians who just started mocking Hawking, Penrose, Everett or Carroll for their metaphysics, without even bothering to first demonstrate they understood the physics.
@@andreasplosky8516 Ahhhh. This must be the stated from the view of Consistent Atheist AntiTheology: If God does not exist, there are no doctrines of demons." Of course, this does not comport with the facts of science and history and the evidence of God from His Designed Creation.
There are a number of distinct hypotheses concerning the laws of nature. Atheism, itself, isn't committed to any particular account of laws, since atheism is only a view about God's existence. Here are four different accounts of what laws are. According to the Neo-Humean account, laws are the statements that best summarize patterns across space-time. According to the essentialist account, law statements are made true by the essences that various entities have. According to the Dretske-Tooley-Armstrong (DTA) account, laws are necessitation relations among universals. According to the primitivist account, laws are sui generis primitive entities. None of these accounts of laws require intelligent design. And some -- like the essentialist account -- are incompatible with intelligent design. Perhaps we will do a video on laws in the future.
Multiple people have told me that they have experienced something supernatural. Most of the time, after they describe their experience to me, it sounds like something I would have given a non-supernatural explanation had the experience happened to me. People are often just mistaken. I’ve also known people who have had hallucinations. I tend to think that people are telling me what they understand to be the truth. Most people are not lying. But that doesn’t mean they really experienced what they think they did.
@@brentward3082 Right. My grandmother told she thought she saw an angel once. It was when she woke up in the middle of the night; she said it was hovering over her. I think it was a dream.
@@JustADudeGamerYep, can’t tell if someone is lying, unless they also happen to be selling you snake oil. “Academics” will choose to believe academics, and “religious” will choose to believe religious. I believe when accounts have a Dr. that says he can’t explain medically how something happened, that’s a real stumper.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Cool story, bro! The religious mind poison is strong in this one - but this is beyond superstitious ignorance: the guy is also obviously lying for Jesus!
@@PhilHalper1 How much effort does it take to quash all of the crap (there's a lot) vs adding to scientific progress? Just to pose the question... but I know it's not a binary choice. OTOH, no matter what you do, there are still flat-earthers. For too many ppl is just one expert vs another.
@@KaiseruSoze i'm a carer for schizophrenia and people with mental health problems really don't need the religists accusing them of being sinners and having demons running around in their heads. that should be obvious.
Who is the target audience for these debunking videos? You provide good debunking evidence but does the audience need convincing? How can you get the debunking across to the followers of theistic chanels?
"How can you get the debunking across to the followers of theistic chanels?" - That is more or less impossible, 99.99% of theists don't want their fragile belief challenged. I've resently started watch a small channel called _Planet Peterson_ where some theist linked a video where he cooperated with _Grayson_ from another small channel. None of the theist troll have any clue on what the video was about (the scientific explanation to why we see agency where there is no agency), yet they "Nuh-hu" atheism, science and reality. Video title "How the History of God Proves He Isn't Real | Grayson"
The atheists rebuttal to Hugh Ross' theater-demons claim is very weak, it, in Alex Malpass' words, "boggles the mind." I expected much better. 1) Dan Linford retorts that Hugh Ross shouldn't be surprised at heckles given the adversarial context of audience. Uh... that wasn't Ross' argument. The hostility is remarkable only because of the way that it ended. Linford doesn't seem to know that Ross' entire point is that this is no ordinary heckling, as it is heckling accompanied by a prayer that, per Ross, made the heckling stop. That would be unexpected, which was Ross' point, and what Ross uses AS EVIDENCE FOR HIS POSITION THAT DEMONS EXIST. That's all that was: ev-i-dence. Not proof... supporting evidence for a claim. 2) Lindford's critique of Ross' screaming woman evidence is a good critique. I lived in Pasadena, in Old Town, which is where many LA crazies and schizophrenics walk around, and Linford is correct here, i.e., Ross should not be surprised that they scream and act crazy. Ross maybe should not have used that as good evidence. Malpass' disagreement is that Ross shouldn't be surprised at heckles given the adversarial context of audience. Uh... that wasn't Ross' argument.
@@robertblankenship5000 Well, we’re told that there were hecklers there one night and that people didn’t heckle the following night. We don’t know if the prayer present at the following night explains the fact that heckling didn’t happen the following night. We don’t even know that the same people were present. But even if I concede that this is *some* evidence that demons were in the audience, it’s not particularly good evidence, since there are just so many other more plausible explanations for the absence of heckling on the second night. Anyway, I think you missed what I think was my better point - that the story doesn’t really make sense.
I've been following Reasons to Believe for some time, being open to the notion that if there is real evidence for God that I to hear it and consider it scientifically, which is what RtoB purports to provide. With my modest understanding of the breath of scientific theories I've seen what I am confident are holes in each of their arguments. I was so looking forward to this video to get the opinions of real scientists. Instead I just found atheist thinkers. To assert that there is no God is just as scientific as it is to assert there is. While there is no empirical evidence in support, I think any good scientist will quickly agree that there is much we don't know, which makes it unreasonable to assert that there cannot be a God. I am deeply saddened that this channel is more atheist than scientific, giving it a non scientific agenda.
Neither Alex nor I claim that atheism is a scientific claim. Alex and I are philosophers and atheism is a philosophical claim. In any case, we do respond to some of the “scientific” claims that Ross makes.
Whilst we are atheists, in this video, we don't assert there is no God. We review Hugh Ross's claims. If you have a particular critique against what we say in the video and the arguments we make , many of which do touch on scientific issues, wed love to hear them . If you are only interested in the science videos we put out on this channel, Im happy to tell you there will be several more of those coming out soon. I hope you enjoy them.
This is difficult for atheists to understand as they do not believe in anything other than matter, the elemental, they do not know or understand or can explain what consciousness is; the hard problem, whether it is fundamental, and mind if it is elemental and emerges with quantum events. Not knowing this, still they posit that they know and can explain the nature of reality. (?). All the giggling is idiotic. Atheists who gave us communism and now threatens us with trans humanism should get a grip. I do not know whether what Mr. Ross said is the case so I keep an open mind as I do not know him or the situations he describes so it is not easy to vouch for it one way or the other. What I do know is that atheistic materialism today is as dogmatic as any dark age religion ever was; it is their perception that is real and nothing else. It has been said that in higher ages those who understood nothing but matter were employed in sweeping the streets. Today, as we can see, they are not sweeping the streets, they are giggling and dogmatically positing their viewpoint as being not open to question. This is offensive and a black mark on science in this video they are behaving like idiots. The idea of God having a beginning would not make sense as if all there is indicates that there is not anything outside God so what would God begin from? Even with the new space exploration it is understood that space is not finite but infinite, having no border. So much for atheists having the approach of open-mindedness, let the evidence speak for itself, they are not interested in anything other than only matter exists. . As science today focuses on matter it is material and dual it comes with both boons and banes; we cannot get one without the other. Atheists are clueless; they were with communism and no way are we going to be on board with their latest ideology trans humanism which is a worst threat than anything we have experienced so far. Mr. Ross is brave to express what he did in the atmosphere of atheistic science that prevails today, I would give him credit for that. So now God has to comply with the laws of physics. The definition of God or a Creator posits that Being is not subject to what is manifest or created. The Creator is not either/or but both; immanent and transcendent. . There is either unity or duality so we could be determined robots or have free will to align with Reality or not align which is what duality gives us; free will. They always bring up suffering, again have unity without duality and no suffering and no creation and no free will just determined goodness. Why creation so that we get to choose rather than being determined and thus become more conscious.
@@daniellinford9643I think the problem here is the title of your video and its claims of ‘debunking’ . Nothing is debunked. “ Athiests Disagree with Hugh Ross” would have been a more honest title. But mightn’t have got the clicks - including mine.
I get excited every time I see one of these videos get posted. I really enjoy them. Another good one!
thanks very much
@@PhilHalper1 What do you think of the criticism that Andrew Ter Ern Loke has made of Paulogia and Bart Erham's skeptical positions on the resurrection ? He has also criticized other skeptical scholars on his TH-cam channel.
Hugh, if you are reading this I need your help. I am a Nigerian prince...
lol
Funny!
What wise analysis. Surely the result of deep, thoughtful consideration and reason.
@gregrice1354 great news! If you are interested in learning my techniques, I am giving a way a free copy of my guide "Commenting on Videos About Weirdos" with every purchase of my book: "7 Steps to Protecting Your Condo from Alien/Demon Hybrids"
Act now and I will throw in a set of steak knives!
*we only accept bitcoin
😂
I just hope my grandfather was among the screaming soviets in that lecture
I hope so! Mine great grandfather was the son of a slave who were forced to be Christians by the Anti-Soviet European Americans and we're literally breed by them. This guy sucks. I really hate how people randomly make analogies to sex slavery as if they actually care about the long term consequences of mass sex slavery they did in the US. Christianity is violent slaver holder religion practiced the most violently by Americans.
Hugh Ross has an entry in the Encyclopedia of American Loons, he's number 339. He was also thoroughly refuted by the late Mark Perakh.
interesting thanks
Wow! That's miraculous! How did a dead dead guy refute ANYBODY? And do so "thoroughly"?!
@@gregrice1354 Perakh refuted Ross when he was alive.
I must have received my PhD in astrophysics from a terrible school. We never once had a class on the cosmological implications of demons and angels. I feel cheated!
yeah you must have been , thansk for the comment
In the first place, if God actually exists, why should we have to worship him? Usually a person who needs to be worshiped is a kind of psychopath
@@dominiqueubersfeld2282 I agree
Amen
@@PhilHalper1
Where In The Bible Does It Say God NEEDS to be Worshiped?
I was one of the sex slaves who got saved. Can confirm the story is real!
You got us then , case closed
Do not believe this person! They are still very much a sex slave. Hugh Ross's personal demon possessed sex slave.
I heard there are 500 witnesses.
Demon talk has been spiking in popularity to the point where I believe it's getting artificially boosted. Notice Tucker Carlson talking about it? Jordan Peterson? And it's absolutely exploding on TikTok for various Christian Influencers.
The clear crossover from "niche tiktok garbage" to "political pundits talking about this seriously" makes me think that there's a booster in play.
Hearing he hadn't heard of arxiv made me laugh out loud. How is that possible for anyone that claims to be any sort of physicist?
Or anyone who like... reads any kind of research? I'm a software developer and I'm on arxiv all the time lol I don't understand how you can be a part of any kind of scientific field and not know.
The reason is that he is astronomer not an astrophysicist. At least that’s what his wiki page says.
Seriously, though: it must be divine magic. The guy opens his mouth and ACTUAL horseshit comes out. That PROVES the baby jesus loves you all!
With evidence like that, who needs mythology? What a nutcase.
🛸 *Carl Sagan* explicitly “dismissed” alien spacecraft visiting Earth because there was no good evidence for the phenomena and there was strong evidence of its unlikeliness (distance, for example).
Ross misrepresented Sagan.
So sorry Mr. scienceexplains. If you were familiar in any of the actual text and context of Dr. Ross' claims, which are very easily gathered by reading any of his books or watching any of his complete videos, rather than following anti-intellectuals make libelous, insulting pot shots at Ross, you might be a little better informed.
The principles that Sagan used to dismiss alien spacecraft are precisely the ones presented by Ross in the very out-of-context snippets of video that this channel posted - they UFO phenomenon virtually ALL violate physics, those known, and any that may augment Physics in future, starting with law of Inertia. If you believe there are some other bases that Sagan used, and which you believe Ross did NOT use, from physics, please do respond.
Sadly, you are mistaken. The same principles for Sagan's dismissal of alien spacecraft are the one's that Ross uses to determine the facts and make his own assessment. In terms of physics, UFO phenomena often are clearly measured, documented on film, radar, and other telemetry and geospatial evaluations to violate natural laws of physics, whatever other laws may be developed in future.
Be better than the operators of this hate-mongering video blog, and check your facts.
Delusion is strong with this one "It was deamons" when at least a dozen natural explanations exist.
Another problem with Ross’s idea that God waited 13.8bys to create life so humans could see all of cosmic history, is that this only benefits a very small fraction of humans. Most humans have not been able to see this as it is only thanks to very specialized technology recently developed.
@@mathematicaluniverse7493 good point
Not so good of a point. You demonstrate your lack of familiarity with the Bible you appear to want to be antagonistic toward. I encourage you to be informed about a subject before you suppose to claim to have a valid argument.
Psalm 19 and Romans 1:19 clearly repeat the factual claim that all people are without excuse for not perceiving the nature of the Creator/God. These claims occur in the earliest or oldest text in the canon of 66 books, the book of Job - which also "happens' to include reference to life after death and the resurrection of believers. It's a beautiful and profound book, you should consider reading it for preparation for appreciation of world literature.
And Job is established to have been recorded by about 1500 B.C., let alone any intervening years of recitation methods of memorializing the contents. The point is no advanced technology is needed for generations before industrial pollution of chemicals, as well as light pollution obscured the clear night sky. The fundamental Argument of from Design Evidence has always stood as valid and intuited by humans. It has never been validly disproved, though many atheists BELIEVE it has. (Scripture directs all people to prove all things, and only hold fast to the truth.)
Bibles are freely available online. You might take a few minutes away from your video browsing to learn something of the most influential piece of literature in human history. I fear the host and speakers on this channel have failed to learn the simple facts of secular law, such as libel, let alone the eternal spiritual facts and laws.
Not so good a point, as the bible makes clear, from its older book in the canon, Job, to its final book. See Romans 1:19 and Psalm 19 for explicit declarations of God and His character as Creator, visible to all in the skies, day and night - at least before sinful man has polluted the skies with industrial chemical pollution and even light pollution. No one is with the excuse of "not knowing" of God, as the entire Creation declares it without end, and the Argument from Design Evidence remains valid, though many atheists BELIEVE it is not.
@@gregrice1354
You missed the point. But you also got the Bible wrong. Romans 1 and Psalm 14:1 are not about atheists. Context context context.
The demons cutout Dan's feed.
If I ever meet a "demon possessed person", I'll try to invoke the name of Gandalf.
Elbereth Gilthoniel works best. (Reportedly.) 😀
I had not knowingly come across Hugh Ross before this video. The first few minutes of him talking were actually quite disturbing. One knows, of course, that there are qualified scientists who park their scepticism (and knowledge?) at the church door, but this man's level of - let's be frank - self-delusion is startling.
yes it it really is , and he's a big deal in Christian popular apologetics.
Anyone that can watch footage of lions ripping apart still living young antelope or watch a zebra walk away from a watering hole after having half of its face ripped off by an croc/gator, and still hold to a omnibenevolent designer needs to seek psychological help. To dismiss such natural suffering is beyond me.
This
@@cultofscriabin9547 Ah, the ineloquence of the juvenile colloquial tendency of abbreviation!
@gregrice1354 this is a common youtube way of stating that I approve of the comment
@@cultofscriabin9547 Ah, the ineloquence of the juvenile tendency to abbreviate, without consideration of obscuration defeating communication!
@@gregrice1354 ok boomer
There are days I feel like I'll never accomplish any significant with my life, then I remember Hugh Ross' PhD and the people that hear him talk to learn stuff and my hope returns... wait, why do i feel like doind a cartwheel all of a sudden?
Ross falls into the category of Not Even Wrong. His vocabulary is gibberish to anyone who actually works in physics or cosmology.
yep
As a physicist myself, I agree, how did this guy even have a career as an astrophysicist? His understanding of physics is laughably wrong. Or he’s just grifting, he has to be.
@@BertrandLeRoy Now, now. Be a good little physicist and design a test of your hypothesis, "he has to be grifting". Hmm? Where to start? Ooohh. I'm no physicist, but how about trying reading ANYTHING or any of the 2 dozen books written by Dr. Ross over his 50+ year career? Many of his books are available for free in ebook form through public libraries.
Slander is the folly of ignoramuses or hateful abusers. Sadly, that appears to be the practice of this YT video channel operators.
@@BertrandLeRoy Now, now. Try settling down and considering what an experimental physicist might do to verify one's already published derogatory claims. Ohh! Eureka! (though I'm no physicist)
How about performing an experiment to determine if Ross "has to be grifting" by measuring and analyzing the science and reasoning he has used in all of his dozens of books on science and the bible? Wouldn't that give you some clue as to the facts? I hope I haven't burdened your too much. The web channel host seems to think so, as he has repeatedly erased replies of mine today.
Don’t talk about Ross anymore!! He’ll disappear quietly off the radar . Please
well we need to give him a proper goodbye as he goes
Hugh is a typical apologetic, he can change opinion mid sentence, one statement directly contradict his next and all his "evidence" is in the following categories:
1) Science denial
2) Reality denial
3) "Trust me bruh"
4) Gobbledygook
Just like every other apologetic. But this guy actually have an education.
it is amazing he has a PHd given the nonsense he talks.
This man is clearly insane.
I expect Daniel’s hair to look like Alex’s within 3 more TH-cam videos.
Phil might be immune, however, maybe 20…
Christian astrophysicist is a self-refuting term, like magical scientist or rational religion.
Missed it live but I'm sure this will be fun.
I also just remembered who this is. I hope you get to the "leprechaun phenomenon."
hope you enjoy it, we had fun recording it.
Demon possessed, I will remember that next time I get my teaching evaluated.
Phil Halper's mic is cutting out a lot this video, i think he has some sort of high threshold cutoff that needs to be adjusted
yeah well check that for next time , its mostly at the beginning
Thank you for addressing Dr Ross, he is so frustrating
@@BrennahAdrianna your welcome
I'm almost positive that Hugh believes that god is omnipresent.How does that fit neatly into Hugh's carefully constructed physics? Hmm?
_"He wanted us to be able to read the entirety of the 66 books of the bible, and he wanted us to be able to read the entirety of cosmic history."_
It's pretty amazing that he can say this with a straight face. The bible is *_*so*_* small and laughably limited compared to the history of our universe. The creation of all the infinite expanse we can observe was barely an afterthought in Genesis compared to even the genealogies. Something a person living today gets absolutely nothing out of other than "huh, that's a lot of pointless names to list."
66? Heresy I say! 72 it is!
If only it explained quantum gravity.
I like the Quinean style epistemic arguments from naturalism as a response these cases. By the theists light they argue for non-naturalism via abductive elimination, but theres an infinity of potential rival naturalistic explanations which can’t be ruled out, so non-naturalism is either epistemically impossible or unjustifiable.
Be good to see Lisle under scrutiny, too, as he's a PhD in astrophysics AND a YEC. Some "interesting" views on the speed of light being instantaneous in one direction, but C/2 on the way back, rather than uniform in both directions. "Anisotropic Synchrony Convention Theory". lol
Personally, I'd like to do a video on Jason Lisle. I disagree with Lisle (of course), but I think his views are really interesting.
@@daniellinford9643Really? They make absolutely no sense.
The justifications for why God needed to make the universe in a particular way always come down to turning one conceptual dial while keeping all the others static.
"God had to give this parameter this particular value, because otherwise that would conflict with the OTHER parameters, which he obviously can't do anything about!"
The halloween special! I love spooky stuff 👻
glad you enjoyed it
Hey Phil - A suggestion for you and Alex and Dan. Though you obviously all don't agree with Ross, maybe start off by attempting to steel man Ross's beliefs and his position. That way, the audience would at least know you understood Ross's position, understood the Christian doctrine pertaining to the demonic realm, and understood the Bible, instead of just making fun of him.
Imagine if the tables were turned, that a video featuring three Christians who just started mocking Hawking, Penrose, Everett or Carroll for their metaphysics, without even bothering to first demonstrate they understood the physics.
thanks for the suggestion.
"the Christian doctrine pertaining to the demonic realm"
There is no such thing.
@ There is, Andrea. Ephesians 6 for starters.
@@andreasplosky8516 Sounds as valid as the fundamental Atheist claim, "There is no such thing. . .as God" A blind, unreasonable, unsupported claim
@@andreasplosky8516 Ahhhh. This must be the stated from the view of Consistent Atheist AntiTheology: If God does not exist, there are no doctrines of demons." Of course, this does not comport with the facts of science and history and the evidence of God from His Designed Creation.
How do atheists explain what caused the laws of nature without Intelligent Design?
If you can assert the Designer needs no cause I can assert the laws need no cause. Difference is we know the laws exsit
There are a number of distinct hypotheses concerning the laws of nature. Atheism, itself, isn't committed to any particular account of laws, since atheism is only a view about God's existence.
Here are four different accounts of what laws are. According to the Neo-Humean account, laws are the statements that best summarize patterns across space-time. According to the essentialist account, law statements are made true by the essences that various entities have. According to the Dretske-Tooley-Armstrong (DTA) account, laws are necessitation relations among universals. According to the primitivist account, laws are sui generis primitive entities.
None of these accounts of laws require intelligent design. And some -- like the essentialist account -- are incompatible with intelligent design.
Perhaps we will do a video on laws in the future.
But, a sincere question. If someone you truly trust says they experienced something supernatural, what would you think?
@@JustADudeGamerMakes sense to me. Sounds reasonable.
Multiple people have told me that they have experienced something supernatural. Most of the time, after they describe their experience to me, it sounds like something I would have given a non-supernatural explanation had the experience happened to me. People are often just mistaken. I’ve also known people who have had hallucinations.
I tend to think that people are telling me what they understand to be the truth. Most people are not lying. But that doesn’t mean they really experienced what they think they did.
@@daniellinford9643I can see that, what they believe to be a true interpretation.
@@brentward3082 Right. My grandmother told she thought she saw an angel once. It was when she woke up in the middle of the night; she said it was hovering over her. I think it was a dream.
@@JustADudeGamerYep, can’t tell if someone is lying, unless they also happen to be selling you snake oil. “Academics” will choose to believe academics, and “religious” will choose to believe religious. I believe when accounts have a Dr. that says he can’t explain medically how something happened, that’s a real stumper.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL! Cool story, bro! The religious mind poison is strong in this one - but this is beyond superstitious ignorance: the guy is also obviously lying for Jesus!
hmmmmm... the time we spend on topics like this. What's the payoff?
Someone needs to point out that thsi guy who parades his Astro Phd is actually a peddler of nonsense.
@@PhilHalper1 How much effort does it take to quash all of the crap (there's a lot) vs adding to scientific progress? Just to pose the question... but I know it's not a binary choice. OTOH, no matter what you do, there are still flat-earthers. For too many ppl is just one expert vs another.
@@KaiseruSoze i'm a carer for schizophrenia and people with mental health problems really don't need the religists accusing them of being sinners and having demons running around in their heads. that should be obvious.
@KaiseruSoze a lot less effort to refute people like Ross, barely any effort at all.
@@PhilHalper1 Also Ross is very important in the apologist world. He certainly warrants rebuttal.
He is not an astrophysicist he is an astronomer. Big difference.
@@docbauk3643 he's really just a Christian apologist with an advanced degree
@ with all due respect I said so in my reply. His advance degree is in astronomy not astrophysics. The two are not the same
What he's just described it sounds like he's the demon
Less smug intro more actual debunk. The intro repels anyone you might want to reach. I am on board amd i find the smug giggling really off-putting.
Malpass at this point seems to be unable to stop himself from wedging in his left-wing politics. The podcast is certainly no better for it.
Being against Trump isn't left-wing. It is the position of 90% of the human race.
Baby talk!
Who is the target audience for these debunking videos? You provide good debunking evidence but does the audience need convincing? How can you get the debunking across to the followers of theistic chanels?
I have no idea, but I think its also valid to give atheists better answers if they come across these arguments
@ Your discussion definitely helps me improve the arguments I’d use. Thanks for that.
@richard8176 you're welcome
"How can you get the debunking across to the followers of theistic chanels?" - That is more or less impossible, 99.99% of theists don't want their fragile belief challenged. I've resently started watch a small channel called _Planet Peterson_ where some theist linked a video where he cooperated with _Grayson_ from another small channel. None of the theist troll have any clue on what the video was about (the scientific explanation to why we see agency where there is no agency), yet they "Nuh-hu" atheism, science and reality.
Video title "How the History of God Proves He Isn't Real | Grayson"
The atheists rebuttal to Hugh Ross' theater-demons claim is very weak, it, in Alex Malpass' words, "boggles the mind." I expected much better. 1) Dan Linford retorts that Hugh Ross shouldn't be surprised at heckles given the adversarial context of audience. Uh... that wasn't Ross' argument. The hostility is remarkable only because of the way that it ended. Linford doesn't seem to know that Ross' entire point is that this is no ordinary heckling, as it is heckling accompanied by a prayer that, per Ross, made the heckling stop. That would be unexpected, which was Ross' point, and what Ross uses AS EVIDENCE FOR HIS POSITION THAT DEMONS EXIST. That's all that was: ev-i-dence. Not proof... supporting evidence for a claim. 2) Lindford's critique of Ross' screaming woman evidence is a good critique. I lived in Pasadena, in Old Town, which is where many LA crazies and schizophrenics walk around, and Linford is correct here, i.e., Ross should not be surprised that they scream and act crazy. Ross maybe should not have used that as good evidence. Malpass' disagreement is that Ross shouldn't be surprised at heckles given the adversarial context of audience. Uh... that wasn't Ross' argument.
I don't need to rebut it, I'm merely not convinced by the claim.
@@robertblankenship5000 Well, we’re told that there were hecklers there one night and that people didn’t heckle the following night. We don’t know if the prayer present at the following night explains the fact that heckling didn’t happen the following night. We don’t even know that the same people were present. But even if I concede that this is *some* evidence that demons were in the audience, it’s not particularly good evidence, since there are just so many other more plausible explanations for the absence of heckling on the second night.
Anyway, I think you missed what I think was my better point - that the story doesn’t really make sense.
"other physicists" names, please.
I've been following Reasons to Believe for some time, being open to the notion that if there is real evidence for God that I to hear it and consider it scientifically, which is what RtoB purports to provide. With my modest understanding of the breath of scientific theories I've seen what I am confident are holes in each of their arguments. I was so looking forward to this video to get the opinions of real scientists. Instead I just found atheist thinkers. To assert that there is no God is just as scientific as it is to assert there is. While there is no empirical evidence in support, I think any good scientist will quickly agree that there is much we don't know, which makes it unreasonable to assert that there cannot be a God. I am deeply saddened that this channel is more atheist than scientific, giving it a non scientific agenda.
Neither Alex nor I claim that atheism is a scientific claim. Alex and I are philosophers and atheism is a philosophical claim.
In any case, we do respond to some of the “scientific” claims that Ross makes.
Of course saying there is no God is unscientific. The same way, saying there is no Xrumpfflop is also unscientific.
Whilst we are atheists, in this video, we don't assert there is no God. We review Hugh Ross's claims. If you have a particular critique against what we say in the video and the arguments we make , many of which do touch on scientific issues, wed love to hear them . If you are only interested in the science videos we put out on this channel, Im happy to tell you there will be several more of those coming out soon. I hope you enjoy them.
This is difficult for atheists to understand as they do not believe in anything other than matter, the elemental, they do not know or understand or can explain what consciousness is; the hard problem, whether it is fundamental, and mind if it is elemental and emerges with quantum events. Not knowing this, still they posit that they know and can explain the nature of reality. (?).
All the giggling is idiotic. Atheists who gave us communism and now threatens us with trans humanism should get a grip.
I do not know whether what Mr. Ross said is the case so I keep an open mind as I do not know him or the situations he describes so it is not easy to vouch for it one way or the other.
What I do know is that atheistic materialism today is as dogmatic as any dark age religion ever was; it is their perception that is real and nothing else. It has been said that in higher ages those who understood nothing but matter were employed in sweeping the streets. Today, as we can see, they are not sweeping the streets, they are giggling and dogmatically positing their viewpoint as being not open to question.
This is offensive and a black mark on science in this video they are behaving like idiots. The idea of God having a beginning would not make sense as if all there is indicates that there is not anything outside God so what would God begin from?
Even with the new space exploration it is understood that space is not finite but infinite, having no border. So much for atheists having the approach of open-mindedness, let the evidence speak for itself, they are not interested in anything other than only matter exists.
.
As science today focuses on matter it is material and dual it comes with both boons and banes; we cannot get one without the other.
Atheists are clueless; they were with communism and no way are we going to be on board with their latest ideology trans humanism which is a worst threat than anything we have experienced so far.
Mr. Ross is brave to express what he did in the atmosphere of atheistic science that prevails today, I would give him credit for that. So now God has to comply with the laws of physics. The definition of God or a Creator posits that Being is not subject to what is manifest or created. The Creator is not either/or but both; immanent and transcendent. .
There is either unity or duality so we could be determined robots or have free will to align with Reality or not align which is what duality gives us; free will. They always bring up suffering, again have unity without duality and no suffering and no creation and no free will just determined goodness. Why creation so that we get to choose rather than being determined and thus become more conscious.
@@daniellinford9643I think the problem here is the title of your video and its claims of ‘debunking’ . Nothing is debunked. “ Athiests Disagree with Hugh Ross” would have been a more honest title. But mightn’t have got the clicks - including mine.
pseudo science allround here, a waste of time
ha ha very funny...