Christian Helps Atheist Understand MORALITY (Uncut Conversation)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2024
- Stuart and Cliffe Knechtle from the TH-cam channel @givemeananswer allowed me to join them on the campus of UNC Chapel Hill to have some follow-up / sidebar conversations with the college students they were engaging with. This was one of those conversations and I really enjoyed it. I hope you do as well!
MY DOCUMENTARY FILM: vimeo.com/ondemand/miningforgod
INSTAGRAM: / the_daily_dose_of_wisdom
FACEBOOK: / dailydoseofwisdomofficial
![[TH] VCT Pacific - Playoffs Grand Final // PRX vs GEN](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/G345ud5yRGA/mqdefault.jpg)
At this point, we should give a little credit to any atheist who’s willing to have a civil conversation like this one.
Ikr, it's refreshing to not hear "if god exists why this and this whatever the fuck"
Why?
Here I am.
@@InHerMajestiesDefense
Nice to see you have a big vocabulary.
@@wet-readit's good to have an open mind. Many people think Christians never thought what if God doesn't exist or have never went back on god to start believing in nothing again. When really it's been lots of Christians who have thought...is this all in my head. Even I have done so and let me tell you god is more than we can understand, the holy spirit brung me back to god. These things aren't material nor scientific for the most part. It's majority spiritual this is what people don't understand in America somehow. We never think about the spiritual side of life simply because we can't see it.
One reason I came to understand there's a spiritual realm is through my own battles and from others friends I've had who practice witchcraft what they do are more real than this physical life we have. The physical goes away but the spiritual is eternal.
I was thrilled to see such a calm and respectful discussion. So frequently, we see scoffing and self righteous posturing. Great responses, too, Brandon
I like the open dialog concept. More please. Brandon, you did a great job.
This was a very good way of saying, "your basis for morality is relativistic and necessitates the conclusion that the ends justify the means" without saying that directly, and arguing God is the only solution we have to this problem that works.
My brothers and sisters in Christ. A group of us are going down to UT Austin to street preach today at 1145 local time.
Please pray for boldness in preaching the Word, that the Spirit will have his way with those there.
Pray for a softening of the heart.
In Jesus' name, Amen. 🙏🙏
Be careful, and be gentle
Enjoy the day; live the great commission!
Don't you remember that proselytizing is false worship? Sinners sure are sure they are forgiven for false worship but just remember your not clergy and your understanding of scripture is incomplete making every word you mutter on the topic is false worship. Your road to hell is well defined.
@@MrDogonjon for you Mr. Dogon, “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. For you neither enter yourselves nor allow those who would enter to go in.”
Matthew 23:13
As for the poster
Mark 16:15: "Go into all the world and preach the Gospel to all creation"
Matthew 28:19-20: "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age"
Matthew 24:14: "And the Good News about the Kingdom will be preached throughout the whole world, so that all nations will hear it; and then the end will come"
@@thegreatballplayer1 the road of hell is not real nor is the gateway of sky daddy palace
I have this frustration with some of my friends and family where it feels like they are pontificating JUST to pontificate, not to actually LEARN something. They don't seem to be navigating a question hypothetically to learn, they're doing it JUST to overthink past the point
Praying for Evan! Brandon, well done! Your calm and respectful demeanor is a real blessing to those your engaging with. You are doing wonderful things for our God, the body of Christ and those who yet to know Him. Blessings to you!
You were made for this! Very thought provoking
Hey, this is Evan! I just wanted to say thanks to Brandon and the rest of his team (as well as Cliffe and Stuart) for the engaging, respectful conversation. I really enjoyed our discussion, and I appreciate that my comments weren’t taken out of context, something unfortunately all too common on the internet.
I don't think my beliefs have changed much since our initial conversation, and I'm generally happy with the way my points came across, but I do want to offer a few clarifications based on some of the comments I’ve seen:
First, several comments have asked what motivation God would have to deceive us, especially given that he knows everything and could compel us to do whatever he wants if he wishes. I can’t point to any one definitive reason God would have to deceive us, but I think it’s at least possible, and this mere possibility makes it impossible to know God’s moral character with absolute certainty, as an all-powerful, all-knowing God would also have the potential to be all-deceiving.
One possibility is that God wants us to suffer (the aptly named “Evil God challenge”), and maximizing that suffering requires some degree of deception. For example, religious conflict causes suffering and also requires that participants believe their God is worth dying for. If God were unjust, then perhaps fewer people would be willing to go to war and die in God’s name. Thus, God would have an incentive to conceal his true character from us and claim moral virtue.
As to why God wouldn’t just compel us to go to war in this example, I think a parallel version of the free will theodicy could explain this. Under this view, God grants us free will because free will makes certain types of suffering more painful or allows for certain kinds of suffering that otherwise couldn’t exist. For example, betrayal would not hurt nearly as much if it were a foregone conclusion. Betrayal hurts precisely because you know that the other person made a conscious decision to violate your trust and harm you despite your kindness and support. Again, I’m not arguing that God is or must be evil/deceptive, but I don’t think this objection can be handwaved away.
Second, I wasn’t trying to say that evolution can ground objective morality (evolutionary ethics are subjective), just that it provides a plausible alternative to theistic explanations for why we have certain strong moral intuitions. I’ve heard theists assert that the fact that people generally have strong instincts not to rape, torture, or kill is evidence in favor of universal moral values, objective morality, a divine moral lawgiver, or related concepts.
However, from an evolutionary perspective, these intuitions can be explained as a result of selection for prosocial traits, such as cooperation and altruism. For example, a biological basis of empathy may be advantageous and encourage groups of animals to work together because they are affected by the suffering of each other. From these base intuitions, we can then extrapolate a series of moral rules that govern society using observation and logical reasoning. In other words, God or universal/objective moral laws are not necessary to explain these shared intuitions or moral rules. Again, I’m not trying to argue that this is what we ought to do, but I think it’s a plausible explanation for the moral landscape we inhabit.
Third, some comments have said that the idea of an evil or all-deceiving God is logically contradictory or impossible. If you define God as maximally great and define greatness to include maximal goodness/morality/virtue, then this is definitionally true, but I don’t think it’s meaningful because we’re trying to establish whether or not such a being exists to begin with. From what I’ve heard, most arguments that claim God is logically necessary focus on his omnipotence (all-powerful) and sometimes his omniscience (all-knowing), neither of which logically entails omnibenevolence (all-good/all-moral). More power and more knowledge do not necessarily make someone more moral, nor does their status as a creator.
The idea of maximum greatness or excellence also seems incredibly subjective. Pol Pot’s idea of a maximally great being would be substantially different from my idea of a maximally great being, and there’s no way to decide who would be correct without presupposing a set of objective moral values. There also doesn’t seem to be a logical reason why someone couldn’t assert that maximum greatness includes omnimalevolence (all-bad/all-evil) instead of omnibenevolence. In short, I don’t see a logical reason why God couldn’t be evil, deceptive, capricious, or otherwise morally imperfect.
Finally, if moral facts exist and God is all-knowing, it is true that God would have a complete understanding of objective morality, but we still need to establish that moral facts exist. However, if God creates moral facts, then why did he create those particular facts and not others? Furthermore, if moral acts are simply acts that align with God’s wishes, essence, or character, then it seems that 1) we’ve just redefined moral or good as synonyms for “Godly,” which seems to differ from the common usage of those terms, and 2) we still lack a prescriptive reason why we ought to do what is in God’s character that isn’t circular.
Okay, I guess that wasn’t as brief as I was hoping. That said, if you made it this far, thanks for reading! I hope this somewhat clarifies the points I was trying to make. I’m not trying to pontificate or be pedantic; these are just topics that I legitimately find fascinating, and I enjoy engaging with different perspectives that challenge my beliefs.
P.S. I’ll try to respond to some comments if I have time, but it’ll probably be hard to keep up as a full-time college student, especially as I enter finals season!
I appreciate that you actually took the time to clarify this much 😂😂. I get your points and I can’t say that I disagree. I asked a lot of those same questions in my personal journey.
I went down a rabbit hole trying to decipher a hypothetical god’s hypothetical motives for life and the universe lol. Eventually I realized that I could probably speculate almost infinitely from both sides of the argument.
What it ultimately boils down to is where we choose to direct our faith. Whether it’s in God, the absence of God, the self, the universe, or whatever, everyone’s faith flows somewhere. It’s even present in our various fields of discovery. In math, science, history, inventing, etc that last step into the unknown is always a leap of evidence based faith.
I suppose the theist view is to apply that sort of faith even pass physical death and into God and His nature. Though evolution does provide a plausible explanation for our strong sense of morality, that would mean that it’s all actually subjective. Even if we’ve evolved to preserve and protect life, regardless of our feelings the TRUTH of life is that murder, rape, pedophelia, and everything else that we consider awful aren’t actually “wrong”. They’re just unpopular, which is why theists reject the notion.
For admittedly understandable reasons they’d rather put faith in the idea that “Godly” behavior is good, right, and has your best interest at heart. Atleast that’s what they tell me lol. 🤷🏾♂️
I’m a chronic overthinker and it’s easy for me to get caught in an endless stream of speculation that sometimes takes me past the very idea I was considering 😅. I had to humble myself and accept that though useful (and often necessary), speculating can only take me so far. At some point it’ll be necessary to use faith. Ideally, that faith would lead to truth.
P.S. Not suggesting you need to be humbled like I was. Just food for thought ig. Take care, good luck with finals. 🥸
My comment to Brandon was simply not to throw pearls before swine (Matthew 7:6) and try save every lost soul. Deep down I think you know that feeling that there can only be the one true GOD with salvation only through JC - but you clearly prefer and enjoy all this superfluous mental gymnastics as a way to suppress facing the harshness of real truth.
Even GOD does not force you to believe...hearing that line the 1st time is what eventually made me realise the ultimate joy it brings in believing in the one true gospel of JC and
hopefully you will find the LORD while you still can
@@zoelong6021I don’t think that’s been demonstrated at all, and is rather judgmental of you to say. I think you should retract that and apologize.
And I’m a Christian
Evan, I feel you did very well in the video and here in your comment. I am a Christian, but I think the very same way you do about the moral argument used in an ungrounded and abstract way. Abstractly, we have no way to prove if God is deceiving us or not, and I will be honest with you and say that this has bothered me and been a challenge to my faith in the past.
However, I ultimately echo Brandon in my thinking, and what Brandon is saying I think is more eloquently and powerfully expressed by John Lennox. “If the Christian worldview is true, then what is God doing on a cross?” Ultimately, if God wants us to suffer, then why does he take part in the suffering? You could maybe argue that God suffers in some sort of sick sacrifice to convince humans to suffer more for him, but couldn’t God just make us all suffer on the cross? Why did he bear a death that in the culture he was born into was considered accursed? That’s not only pain he chose to suffer, but shame. In my eyes, the only reason Jesus would choose to suffer the crucifixion is the greatest love that mankind has known; maximally great love.
Ultimately I think that’s what Brandon was getting at, and it is what has helped me ground my thinking about this topic, and I would love to see you address it. This of course raises all sorts of questions about reliability of the Gospel accounts and whether they accurately represent Jesus, but frankly I just don’t have the energy for those😅 All that being said, I appreciate you being bold and respectful in how you’ve presented your arguments, and I wish you the best of luck in your future!
@@nathanielpappas6240 JC was very clear - Your salvation is the only important thing in life *REPENT or PERISH.- Luke 13*
All these intellectual dance-offs with atheists...are just that...intellectual dance-offs.
Be aware of spam comments saying they came to God by reading something and is now earning heaps of money. They're fake and the responses are bots.
Anyways have a great day and God Bless ❤️🙏
My first response to his comment on deception is this. If He's all powerful and all knowing, and infinite, why would He need to deceive us. He can technically compel us. He can forgo our will and just pull our strings. There's no need for Him to deceive us. If he wants something from us, He can simply force it. But He does not. More importantly, as He is infinite and perfect, He does not need anything from us. Or anything. So what motive is left for Him to deceive us?
But still, he permits charlatans to use his religion to bilk millions from ignorant followers. Some morals!
@@brud1729 That’s free will, not a moral failure of God.
@@brud1729 Are you suggesting you're a good person?
If the charlatan does not repent in the end, he will face ultimate justice.
As for the ignorant followers, that is an issue of trust. We all share to some degree that issue of knowing who to trust. If someone just blindly trusts someone without evidence, that is on the individual. That is their choice. The best one can do is then educate the individual on how to properly decide who to trust. After that, it's on them. Even teaching the concept requires trust.
@@JiraiyaSama86but such a god, if it exists, does deceive. It chooses to be invisible/undetectable which promotes doubt and unbelief.
And then for such a god to condemn disbelief is unjust/evil.
I am a good person. No religion can take that away from me
@@deozilaso a god who chooses to not speak for itself, but instead just watch as people deceive others, is not immoral?
Nice work brother. I love your cool and calm demeanor and patience explaining and listening on both sides with Evan. I'm praying for both of you. May God be with us all.
Love this type of format for your videos!
This was great dialogue. I really enjoyed listening to Evan’s perspective.
The phrase “gods children are not for sale” hit me in a way that nothing else has and started my journey back to Christ.
Apparenlty they are, though, as slavery is condoned in the Bible.
@StudentDad-mc3pu it's not condoned to enslave people in the bible. Prove me wrong without lying
@@moonstruck336 Leviticus 25: 45-47.
"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life.
@@StudentDad-mc3pu where does it say enslave them, as in you are allowed to take free men and make them slaves? You didn't answer my question
@@moonstruck336 You argument is trivial. The text is clear and does not need the word 'enslave' to show that the Bible condones people as property - this is specified in the text and the word slave is used several times.
Love cliffe and stuart! love that you all got to go out together, so awesome to see! This needs to happen more!!! God bless you all!
NO WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYY, i watch your channel and cliffs all the time. The fact that you guys are getting together and spreading the message of the gospel is amazing man. i love the videos don't work to hard and god bless.
It's hilarious you can hear cliffe yelling in the background 😅
I appreciate the civil, respectful dialogue from you both! Thanks!
Kudos to Evan for his open and honest conversation. Really shows that people can have rational discussions if we are genuinely seeking answers. Appreciate you Evan!
Finally some high quality content from this channel. Please make this style of content more often.
This channel needs more viewpoints from the other side of the table.
Thumbs up for this
Great discussion
I think the two of you spoke with respect to each other, it's nice to see these types of conversations
so nice to see respectful and intelligent people discuss issues
This guy brought some great arguments, and communicated them well, fair play. Good conversation
Cliff and his son are some of the best people one the internet. You have had an amazing opportunity and im happy for you and us!
i see a new DDoW video. i click "like". easy peasy
Brandon thanks for these videos, examples and interactions. You, Cliff and Stewart along with Nate Sala (Wise Disciple) have shot to the top of our "go-to" list for watching and listening together as a family. More please. As muxh as you can dish out. Thank you for your hard work, kind spirit and faithfulness at furthering God's kingdom.
The mental gymnastics are real.
That’s exactly what I was thinking 😭💀
On whose part?
I came to say this, this young man's mind would be BLOWN if he knew what the Bible teaches
@@wet-read the atheist obviously, his view is clearly arbitrary and inconsistent.
@@user-pd2yl1qq8iright because the book about us being here because a talking snake convinced a woman to eat fruit makes perfect sense.
Praise God for the good discussions you had! I’ve been looking forward to this video!
Some soil is rockier than others & God knows I’m certainly not the sharpest tool, but I also know He can use anyone willing and also that He is might to save! ❤
I love your channel!
Keep the good work up
(You are like the only commentator I watch because your actually good at it)
Thank lot Evan. This was great
The kid in the beginning looks
Like cliff to me lol. Love this!!!
Great points at the end!
People enjoy debating a nebulous "god" concept, but few deny the character of Jesus Christ and are forced to admit his superior morality. That's why some go as far as "mythicism" to claim Jesus never existed, despite even the scholarly atheists calling them idiots for doing so.
No, that's not why some people go a mythicist route.
This gentleman was certainly one of the more polite athiest I've seen and really a breath of fresh air over the usual loud and self-righteous ones I usually see. This was a great conversation.
This isn't so uncommon. Loud and rude people are a very noticable minority. Basically no one in my life outside of my immediate family even knows I am atheist. That's because its something I hardly ever talk about. Nobody looks at me and thinks "wow, that's one quiet and polite atheist". Because others don't even associate me with atheism in the first place.
What do you think? Is it really that most of us are noisy bafoons, or is it that you don't usually notice us when we're mellow or silent.
This reminds me of those wonderful University years, walking around campus and engaging in philosophical discussion with classmates and professors.
Makes me want to go back to school.
The college student's nodding along and saying "ok" "yeah" and "right" while you're talking, is just him not listening and preparing his next objection.
300%
No, it’s actually a form of social anxiety. Basically not knowing when to be quiet and when to talk. I used to struggle with the “uhuh” “yes” “right”, but I trained it out of myself.
i think he actually was very respectful, and also listened.
God is good. He couldn’t create the universe if He wasn’t holy and righteous. His holiness and righteousness is His power.
That's like saying Lex Luthor couldn't remake the west coast of the United States unless he was holy and righteous.
Nice claim, now how do you demonstrate that God's power is his holiness and righteousness?
Perhaps God is 100% malevolent, but only 75% all powerful and this explains why there is some good in the world.
Very brave, it's really hard doing this type of content!
You did well
That was the nicest exchange of ideas I've ever seen.
Descartes dealt with this. It is impossible for God to be God and be evil, as evil is a moral failing and God has to be morally perfect, by definition. In the Meditations, Descartes demonstrated that an evil God can't be all powerful by the simple fact that such a being couldn't deceive you as to the simple fact that you exist as a thinking being ("cogito ergo sum"). From that simple realization, the entire edifice of God as a Maximally Great being can be reconstructed.
A little bit of scholastic theology would have been a great help here.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl Thanks. I fear that a basic level of philosophical and theological literacy has been abdicated in favor of radical subjectivism cloaked as "my feelings" talk. Interestingly, when confronted with bleating radical subjectivists you can ask them if their thoughts are objectively true. Either way, it ends that debate.
Bruh that exactly what I said
Just defining something, i.e that God has to be morally perfect, doesn't mean that it is the case in reality.
@nitsujism That's true, but irrelevant. If your argument is predicated on a particular understanding of a concept or thing that isn't shared by your opponent, your argument needs to be updated. Since classical theism posits an omnibenevolent God, your argument needs to reflect that.
Dude, I love your approach to atheists. Out of all the apologists I follow, your energy towards them is uniquely respectful and loving....yet you never concede or waver on the truth.
@luke - Mr DD is NOT respectful at all cos he repeatedly LIES to everyone
You’ve got to be kidding. The host is constantly showing he doesn’t understand atheism or thinks it’s okay to misrepresent us on purpose
@@therick363 how’d you come to that conclusion?
@@luke_chase by watching his videos where he talks about atheism and atheists or science. Like when he says “this is why atheism is so incoherent”.
@@therick363 I see. Do you think Christianity is incoherent?
You partnered up with cliff is so cool to watch man
Alvin Plantinga's take on this is the best to use.
The basic argument I see at around the 4 minute mark is 'people are moral therefore god'.
But people do not agree on morality.
Look through history. It appears that humans have had to work all of this out on their own.
The argument doesn't follow at all.
That would make sense, but you're forgetting that intuition can also cause us to act in ways that are counterproductive to self-preservation. Like smoking. Or being a firefighter.
@@RanikBasa
_"but you're forgetting that intuition can also cause us to act in ways that are counterproductive to self-preservation."_
Sure, but how does oppose what I posted?
@MarkH-cu9zi buddy... how would those kinds of morals come to be in a world without God. Morals are directly counterproductive to self-preservation and natural selection, 2 of the driving factors for evolution. You presented an unsustainable and contradictory train of thought.
@MarkH-cu9zi you're presenting a contradictory train of thought. Assuming that you believe in natural selection. How would those morals have come to exist without a guiding hand?
@@RanikBasa
_"you're presenting a contradictory train of thought. "_
How so?
I'm talking about morality. You responded about intuition and evolution. You didn't even respond to my post.
"In his famous dialogue between Socrates and Euthyphro, a philosophical quandary is posed thusly: *“Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?” Known as the Euthyphro Dilemma, the problem boils down to this:* ***If something is morally good simply because it is commanded by God, then morality is arbitrary. God could decide tomorrow that murder and rape are morally acceptable, and voilà, it would be.*** *On the other hand, if God commands what is already morally good, then morality exists independently of God. He is not the source or creator of morality, not the one who determines right from wrong, but merely one who dispenses a system of ethics that transcends his own authority.*
In response, theists attempt to wiggle their way out of the dilemma by suggesting that God’s very nature, or character, is good, so that he would never condone such wicked acts as rape or murder. But then all one has to do is reformulate the question, à la philosopher Michael Martin: “Is God’s character the way it is because it is good, or is God’s character good simply because it is God’s character?” The dilemma stands, as God’s character remains subject to an external definition of what is moral or good. *Why is this? It’s because morality is an abstraction, or social contract, produced collectively by sentient beings, and to which all sentient beings are subject. And it’s something that naturally arises on a pragmatic basis for the sake of order and harmony within any civilized society. God, therefore, is neither the source of morality, nor a necessary explanation for its existence.*
*But imagine for a moment the sheer absurdity of suggesting that the biblical God is the supreme author of morality.* A God who demands the extermination of men, women, and children (1 Sam. 15:1-3), who delights in the retaliatory act of seizing infants and dashing them against rocks (Ps. 137:8-9), of raping the wives of Israel’s enemies (Is. 13:16), even orchestrating the brutal death of dozens of children by savage bears, merely for having mocked one of his prophets (2 Kgs. 2:23-24). *This is a ferociously partisan, bloodthirsty, and vengeful deity, not one bound by any high-minded or all-encompassing moral code.* Theists will typically defend such verses in one of three ways: 1) by suggesting that “those were different times,” thus invoking moral relativism and destroying their own case for an objective morality stemming from God; 2) by appealing to context, of which there simply isn’t any to justify the depravity above; and 3) by pleading, “that was the Old Testament,” or, “Jesus changed all that,” tacitly admitting that the God they ostensibly worship was once horrible and in need of change, which further contradicts any claims to the immutable and unchanging character of God (e.g., Mal. 3:6; Heb. 13:8; Jm. 1:17).
*Suffice it to say, neither God nor the Bible serve as the basis for morality."*
*"Is God Necessary for Morality? | atheologica"*
---------------------------------------------------------
Also look up:
*"God is the Source of Morality. (Not.) | atheologica"*
*"Morals Don't Come From God: For This I Know Because the Bible Tells Me So"* - Dr Steven DiMattei.
*"Secular Societies Fare Better Than Religious Societies | Psychology Today"*
Indeed!
You were actually making a great argument until you went into God condoning evil human acts. Many times this argument of ethic cleansing fails to tell the complete story of ethical cleansing as the true motivation. You also ascribed things to God that are false. But as to the question of moral law being good bc God commanded it or vice versa. The reason why it fails is because of 2 things. First you are presupossing a mind which has to be present in order to give a law. Gravity's properties are what they are by design. In the same sense moral law is what it is because of its law giver's designation. God being the ultimate personification of Love and goodness the law follows suit. Secondly food was made for the body and not the body for food. So the law does not exist to serve man but rather it exist to assist man in understanding why he is indeed in need of a Savior [if I can inject a post creation concept without ruining the premise]
@@jahyde33ifyplease show where morality is anything but subjective decisions of behavior
More of these type of videos please 🙏🙏
Great conversation, loved it. 2 very morally people having a discussion on GOD. 👍
Evolution isn't good or evil, it's a thing that happens, trying to ascribe morality to a process is nonsensical.
Then why did it stop without a designer and put all animals into their own kind? Where are any beings half evolved right now?
There's no such thing as evolution. This theory was created by a whimsical man with a low level of intelligence and appeals to people who follow suit.
@@randomCHELdad What do you mean evolution stopped? I look similar to my parents but I'm not identical to them either.
Our forefathers sought it fit to secure our divine inalienable rights.
When you are just an animal, then treated like one; just remember that it's not good or evil.
Just might happen, careful.
@@randomCHELdad It hasn't stopped. It's just slow, small changes because environments are pretty stable relatively and we humans are experiencing such a short timeframe of geological history.
Also, there is no such thing as kind. It is poorly defined and categorised, with some animals put into the same kind for different reasons compared to another kind, and also kinds should have a clear biological separation, but there is no such thing.
Really, there is no biological basis for it.
As an example, let's say a fish and a frog is a different kind. Where is the biological mechanism to restrict fish from evolving into frogs? As far as we can tell, there are no such boundaries since speciation is already possible, we know that
THAT guy is running a mile a second in his head slow it down take a breath
Great kingdom work Brandon!! Kudos to the atheist who actually has some argumentation to put forth, however errant, at least the guy didn’t give the stock "I don't know" response.
“Feel free to troll me in the comments” lolol now that’s how a good conversation is ended hahah too funny
There are no Atheist in foxholes or hell, their all believers by then. 😊
With respect to a foxhole, what a revealing observation on the nature of theism if you can define an atheist clutching at straws in a state of fear to be a theist. Go ahead and demonstrate hell exists.
With respect to theism, what a revealing observation on the nature of faith if you can define an atheist clutching at straws in a state of fear to be a theist. Go ahead and demonstrate hell exists.
Exactly, then they realize God is love and turn to Him until Christ is victorious over all and God is all in all 👍
Well at least you threw in a smiley face for eternal torment.
Nope. Genuine atheist here.
My dad was dying in the hospice in 2012. Never even thought of any gods.
3 weeks later my 80 yo mother went into major surgery with diverticulitis and had a foot of her colon removed. No gods then either.
When you truly lack any belief in gods the concept just isn’t any part of your life…so that is a false phrase
This may seem random but I grew up in the church and thought that was the whole religion just going to church every Sunday and eventually stopped going and started to do my own thing. I wanted to find the purpose of life because I knew everything we worked for would pass away. I was looking at all the religions unbiasedly, looking historically so I wouldn't have blind faith. Later on I had a tug on my heart to open up the Bible and saw the Jesus people talked about was completely different from what was in the Bible. I started to draw closer to the higher power and had a supernatural encounter with him and I felt his love and peace and was indescribable and overwhelming almost but was out of this world and everything looked brand new like it was the first time seeing it when I looked outside literally. I wasn't expecting the encounter either and was shocked when it happened. (I don't do drugs or alcohol) His name is Jesus and I’m here to tell you it’s about a relationship not religion and he is real and did die on the cross for you willingly and thinks you as the only person and was thinking of you while dying. You don’t have to believe my experience you can seek yourself, I suggest you start in the minimalistic facts of the resurrection because if the resurrection is false than Christianity is false. All we chase in this life is temporary think about your eternal life.
I went through the same experience .Its almost like youve been on Earth your whole life but you feel like spiritually you have arrived on Earth and saw it for the first time on a deeper level.
Now i want to ask you why do you name it ?And trust me i really went through the same experience.
But why do we have to call it God ?
Also can i ask you why do you think that experience happened to you?
@@Jayys647 I think it happened because I was desperate to know who is God, and seemed him in videos, reading etc and I think he just wanted to show me
@@Jayys647 Due to all my research of religion and I feel like this experince showed me that the path I was looking towards of Jesus was the truth like he said
@@postman77 You said we need to think about our Eternal life.I agree and this a question for you ,Have you seen Eternity?
I was wondering when you were going to get out there with these guys. L O L. You answered these questions ( in my opinion ) phenomenally. The first question about how would you know God’s character, and you answered by Jesus! That was amazing I was thinking the exact same thing before you said it. I applaud you my friend. God bless you my brother in Christ…….. And yes sir I said a prayer for Evan!
yesssss so awesome!!
Your outfit looks great, but I'm wondering if it might make sense to go without sunglasses. Then you can make more eye contact. Just thought I'd mention! Love your work brother, God bless!
Good stuff, you did a great job brother !
Brandon, I am so grateful that you made a video showing you engaging in apologetics with non-believers. I don't know how familiar you are with Greg Bahnsen. Apologia Studios has most of his lectures Archived He's a student of Cornelius Van Till. He was an influence on Frank Turek. He really emphasizes the presuppositional approach, not to the abandonment of Reason, but to recognition of the biblical mandate to revere Christ as Lord and even speak to the authority of scripture. The mind of the non-believer is darkened as stated in Romans 1. He comes from a different Camp than R.C. Sproul and a lot of the Ligonier guys. Not that I have any major gripes with them or doubt their faith. But I think you should investigate it. Thank you so much for sharing this. I love your videos brother, Keep reaching the lost
Great conversation. It's really easy to get lost in the philosophical nuances of a discussion like this, but I really appreciated how you brought it back to Jesus, because that's what it's really all about. I hope Evan is convicted to really search out who Jesus is - our Lord, God, and Savior. God Bless
ATHEISM and ALL RELIGIONS versus the CREATOR and JESUS CHRIST
All Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
KNOW
and are fully aware that their Satanic hatred, mockeries, OPPOSITION and DEFIANCE of the Creator's Sovereignty and his Christ's authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
will
definitely result in their own dishonor, disgrace, downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, worthless and useless dusts on earth forever.
The Creator KNOWS
that the SUBMISSIVENESS of lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons to the authority of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth
and OBEDIENCE to his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
will
definitely bring them honor and his favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence on Earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death.
Jesus Christ KNOWS
that his teaching about the "RESURRECTION of the DEAD"
is
the Creator's guarantee that loving, kind, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, King David, his Followers and disciples, and many others
will
all be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily, abundantly, and peacefully live and exist on earth forever as citizens and subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD"
and fully enjoy his and the Creator's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity
under his loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth.
I agree to this! He is the only right answer if a person questions the character of God
Thank you for modeling how to keep the gospel solution in sharp focus when responding to opposing views. You did it so naturally, that takes skill brother. Always the best first instinct. I wonder how you feel about bringing in something like divine simplicity, only after making your gospel connection. It’s coming at it from the abstract, philosophical perspective since I would appeal to it as a hypothesis and not as a biblical presupposition. I know it is quite ferociously opposed among philosophers and apologists, WLC included, but I still see a place for it in discussions on morality when used very selectively?
Please elaborate on this "devine simplicity" and its relevance to a discourse on morality
I love how this individual explained openly and honestly his ideas and theories. He is not declaring that one truth is better or not, just this is where he is coming from.
My only hang up with using an evolutionary version of morality, is what is the creative/deciding mechanism to "evolve morality" in a constant/upward/"better" direction? What decides what is morally good/better? And how does that come around? Wide social acceptance isn't correct as is easily disputed by regimes in history. What specifically is pointed to across the board for society to have objective morality? (Cross-culturally, across generations/time, and across socioeconomic boundries)
This is a fantastic comment. Morality evolves socially over time regardless of your beliefs. People's experiences, environment, upbringing, perception all influence moral beliefs.
@jtdubs828 Thank you, and you're correct, but my issue isn't that morality can evolve/change in response to circumstances. My issue more lies with if it wasn't given/defined by a higher power, why is morality a good thing? If evolution means survival of the fittest, then there is no reason to help others aside from the ones I assign value to. How does a "general consensus" belief go across cultures if it's only a result of morals changing over time? It stands to reason it would be morally relative and not objective. Morals can be objective, not all but a few. How does a secular form of relativistic morals justify itself to become the general consensus if it is always changing and doesn't have a backing.
@terrordude11 Given that 99% of species are extinct and we are top of the food chain despite not being physically impressive at all compared to other species I believe morality is something we picked up along the way of our evolutionary process. Somewhere along the line we learned to work together
@jtdubs828 Where did we "pick it up"? What was the creative mechanism that decided "humans, you will learn to be better"? It's easy to point to a theoretical process that may or may not have happened millions of years ago (which could be nothing since it may not have happened) but where is the point that it actually was first measured? We don't have recorded history that may go back that far biologically, neurologically, and philosophically. That at this point seems like a statement that "science will find it out later," so "I'll rely on the idea that science will figure it out during or after my lifetime."
And please, I'm not making targeted questions with an agenda behind it. You seem to have responded very civil and honestly. I wanted to hear your opinion to the questions as you seem to be someone who likes to dialog at this moment
BRAVO!
He seems like a great dude
What a wonderful lad. Praying he finds God.
This was a pretty good dialog. I think the problem with defining moral law for Christians is that they assume a law giver because humans create laws to be obeyed. Those would be authoritative laws. However there are descriptive laws that come from observations of consistency where a book falling to the ground is not following an authoritative law but the law of gravity is the observation of what books do when dropped. If morality is like gravity, an observational law rather than an authoritative law, there would be changes in our moral behavior as we make further observations in different environments and develop observational skills over time that help us see things from different perspectives.
Put differently, if morality were like live wires with varying degrees of shock depending on which moral wire that you touched, the majority of people would figure out which wires to absolutely not touch if you care about your survival and the survival of others. Then there would be moral wires you could touch that would cause varying degrees of pain but not death. Finally you have moral wires that are right on the border, where depending on the individual's body resistance, a shock may or may not be felt and it would be up to the individual to determine if that wire was morally okay or not. It is at this level, if the person does not personally get shocked but understands some people have lower body resistance and will get shocked that a warning sign of possible shock would be the correct thing if the goal is to avoid pain and suffering.
When humans make authoritative laws or rules, it is to control behavior and have a remedy for undesired behaviors. It is often the observation of consequences that leads to a change in behavior. A person who changes to leave a destructive life is motivated by the destructive life to do so, not authoritative laws. It is often the case that authoritative laws/rules serve as a warning to avoid destructive behaviors. With all of this in mind, Christians have the problem of proving moral laws are authoritative and not just a matter of observations. Considering morality has changed over time within the Christian community where the bible gets re-interpreted or cherry picked to align better with modern morality may be a clue that moral laws are observational, not authoritative and the moral laws that seem authoritative could just be like the high voltage wire that most everyone agrees objectively that it is bad to touch.
Read Mere Christianity. It addresses exactly the difference between the Moral Law, and Natural Law (like gravity), and goes on to discuss where it came from. But I couldn't do it justice in a single comment. It's in Book 1 Chapter 3: The Reality of the Law. But I highly recommend you read the entire book.
Also here's an excerpt taken from the article C.S. Lewis and “Mere Christianity”: The Moral Law:
The last thing Lewis discusses in this chapter is the common modern notion that the purpose of the Moral Law really is nothing more than to benefit society. Lewis responds by saying that of course obeying the Moral Law benefits society, but that’s not the purpose of the Moral Law. If you tell someone they ought to be unselfish, he might say, “Why?” If you then say, “In order to benefit society,” he will reply, “Why should I care about that, except if it benefits me personally?” You will then have to say, “Well, you should be unselfish.” And you’re back to where you started.
The point is simple: the purpose of moral behavior cannot simply be to benefit society-although it certainly does. There must be something more. It would be like saying that the purpose of playing soccer was to score goals. Well, trying to score goals is the game itself-it’s not the purpose. The reason or reasons someone plays soccer can be many-develop discipline, encourage teamwork, or get in shape. You play the game in order to develop character, discipline, or whatever. That’s the “something more.”
@@419 It has been a while, like some 30 years ago that I read several books popular among Christians at that time and Mere Christianity was one of them. I was attempting to understand religions in general but had great focus on the Christian religion that is prevalent here in the U.S..
You used some good examples to understand where you are coming from but if you think about it, purpose is whatever an intelligence defines it to be. The inventor of the screw driver may have had the purpose of driving screws with the tool but sometimes I re-purpose it as a light weight hammer or pry bar.
In considering many things about humans, if you focus on selfishness as a primary motivator, most if not everything makes sense, including morality. So the reason we might strive to be unselfish, is actually a selfish motivator. Selfishness is centered on the golden rule, do on to others as you would have them do unto you. You treat people good for the selfish reason of minimizing the chances of them doing harm to you.
Even with our authoritative human laws, we can usually understand why someone thought the laws was necessary. While you could say a God created moral laws with a purpose in mind and us humans can imagine such a purpose, I think the purpose still holds true should a God not exist or did not create them. Because of this, you could just as easily graft this purpose to advanced aliens because the intent is to say the moral law came from an intelligence. However that still holds true even if the moral laws came from our intelligence, which is a point that I don't think Christians can get around.
In general, that seems to be the problem of selling Christianity because there seems to be at least the possibility of natural explanations that could potentially work. Selling Christianity works best on people who again selfishly are looking to benefit from the religion or the belief. It is just very difficult to know the truth concerning the existence of any Gods or any religions representing the supposed existence of a God. There is enough mystery and coincidences to consider a God does exist but at the same time appear that we are seeing what we want to see.
Thanks for the mention of Mere Christianity, many Christians like this book and often refer it to others.
The uncion flowing from this atheist's mouth is overwhelming. There is such dripping condescension, vanity, pride to this wanna be self-god.
I didn’t gather that at all. He’s just a smart guy presenting a reasoned argument.
The universal consistency is good evidence that the moral law exists.
If I’m right that I’m right! The end.
Yep… no way to argue against circular reasoning.
I agree… circular reasoning can’t be beat!
And that's the atheists fail-safe mechanism... they think they are smart but it's all folly to hide from accountability
I was really excited to see you starting off talking to Mark Zuckerberg!
I like the way you closed out. I think Frank Turek uses that often too, If Jesus was who he said he was, we can trust in him.
Love these sorts of civil conversations. I will say I find the foundation of his question about God's honesty to be poor - deceit is a means of improving one's station. Lies are done to benefit the liar, even if at the cost of those lied to. If he is granting the premise that God is all powerful and all knowing, he would do well to recognize there would be no point in God being deceitful, as all-powerful and all-knowing implicitly mean a lie couldn't improve his station/position in any way. It would be pointless unless God were simply delighting in our suffering. That too, however, would suggest there are still objective (TRUE) morals known by God (else he couldn't lie to us about them) and then the question would become why do our instinctual morals tend to coincide perfectly with the "lies" we were told? If the TRUE objective morality were different, shouldn't we instinctively know as much?
Logically God is the only adequate objective moral standard, imo.
As I see it, among the important questions when debating absolute morality is: What qualities would a perfect law (absolute morality) have? What are the consequences (seen and unseen) of not obeying that perfect law? And how would that perfect law come about? (In other words, could humans actually develop a perfect law?)
0:40 kids side profile looks like young Cliffe!
Loved itt
Conversation could've ended when you said the initial argument felt like pontificating. I totally agree the only way we all know we shouldn't do certain things and innately feel bad doing them when no one is watching is because our morals were given by our Creator.
Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating between human intentions, decisions, and actions that are appropriate from those inappropriate. The recognition and evaluation of the consequences our choices have with regards to ourselves and others. My NOT believing in a mythological god in no way impedes the ability of forming such moral assessments.
We are self aware conscious pain and emotion feeling individuals capable of love or hate, incredible acts of altruism or depravity. It's how we navigate through life and these potential extremes that define us, not our belief ( or lack of ) in your specific subjective invisible friend.
Yes.
That was a great conversation ! You're good at this. :)
Amen ✝️
Exactly the question I used to have. But then I understand that God can't be evil for evil is not capable of creating.
So slavery, misogyny, stoning gays, genoc1de and r@ping virgin girls are not evil?
All condoned and/or ordered by your god.
@@KasperKatje ATHEISM and ALL RELIGIONS versus the CREATOR and JESUS CHRIST
All Atheists, Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions
KNOW
and are fully aware that their Satanic hatred, mockeries, OPPOSITION and DEFIANCE of the Creator's Sovereignty and his Christ's authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
will
definitely result in their own dishonor, disgrace, downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, worthless and useless dusts on earth forever.
The Creator KNOWS
that the SUBMISSIVENESS of lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons to the authority of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth
and OBEDIENCE to his teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead"
will
definitely bring them honor and his favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence on Earth without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death.
Jesus Christ KNOWS
that his teaching about the "RESURRECTION of the DEAD"
is
the Creator's guarantee that loving, kind, and respectful persons on earth who died recently and thousands of years ago like Abel, Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Job, King David, his Followers and disciples, and many others
will
all be RESURRECTED back to life in the right and proper time so they can happily, abundantly, and peacefully live and exist on earth forever as citizens and subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD"
and fully enjoy his and the Creator's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity
under his loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection as the Creator's Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth.
That's the second time I've seen the camera man shut down the conversation in these videos
Evan’s train of thought is a prime example of when the gift of intelligence goes haywire & turns on the self.
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. I Cor 2:14
This kid actually has some interesting points.
Very much enjoying the street conversations - Please keep them coming!
Yes, it can be explained. It’s called the ethics of reciprocity, and it’s been around loooooong before Christ and in multiple geographical locations.
I liked the all of Western Ethics are just a footnote to the Sermon on the Mount.
I'd add that my experience of reading the teachings of the Buddha is that I can accord almost everything he said with scriptures in the New and Old Testaments. It's not just the Western experience with God that has given us our shared morality. And it's hard not to conclude, when you read the texts side by side, that the same God who inspired men like Peter and Moses also inspired Siddartha Gutama.
8:34 It's interesting that he brings up this illustration. Because this type of question is also presented to the Christians. There are many acts that are commanded and accepted by God in the Bible that we in modern society would deem evil and even Christians currently today would deem evil. But given that they were commanded by God you would have to deem it as a good act as God can't command evil deeds. The Christian would just say that that was the old covenant and hand wave it away. Obviously forgetting about the nature of God being unchanging. But they often come up with some kind of excuse to hand wave away the changing nature of God's morals.
5:03 So the question becomes is it moral because God makes/issues/commands it moral, as in lawgiver, or is it moral as a law of reality and God is merely describing/telling it to us, or is it moral because it is a feature/aspect/essence/attribute of God? All answers are going to run into some issues.
*Priest Gould David* : 😅😅😅
In this discussion it's necessary to distinguish between instinct, that all animals have and morality that only humans have. Caring for offspring falls in the category of instinct in order to propagate the species. Morality is human instinct PLUS! and is objective.
I think God cannot lie. "Cannot" not in a limiting sense but in the sense that what He says is.
Why the time limit? Right when it gets interesting they abruptly ended it
C.S. Lewis mere Christianity explains this so easy. Keep up the our Lord works. Suggestions, I believe when we state "if" or "maybe" in our believes opens an ambiguity. I know it is not to be rough, but probably another approach that gives you certainty to whoever you are speaking with. In our tongue, there's power that we shouldn't forget. When Jesus asks to move the stone to resurrect Lazarus, the person who moves the stone can't think of "if" or "maybes." 😆 God bless you.
Heyo. I have a really important question I’ve been trying so so so hard to study this stuff, and I’m coming closer but then I ran into Exodus 21:20.. I don’t understand it, and it’s seriously making me wanna put this book down. I tried looking at videos of why slavery wasn’t condoned, but everybody keeps brushing over this verse in particular.. It’s genuinely tough reading this.. love you guys would seriously love an explanation of this verse❤️
There are great teachers on TH-cam. Highly recommend a couple. ‘Sam’ Shamounian, Lloyd DeJongh, Pints With Aquinas
Understandable! Remember to study the context and remember that the world was much different back then than what it is today. The laws given to the Israelites were to set them apart from any other nation to bring God glory.
The Bible builds upon itself. What is written first sets the foundation for what comes later.
In Exodus 21, God forbids chattel slavery and makes it punishable by death.
Exodus 21:16 (KJV) And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.
The "slavery" of the Bible is indentured servitude.
I guess you meant Exodus 21:21?
I doubt someone will come up with a relieving explanation.
The issue of slavery has been addressed many times. Slavery is bot condon3d in any way shape or form. The book of Philemon attest to that. The slave/servant owner and the slave/servant are brothers in Christ. The bible addresses conduct for social economic behavior during that particular times. Again it's goes back to the question of is God good. This could have easily been written as conduct for correction facilities to day.
The slavery mentioned refers to a debt repayment system that existed during the time period. Meaning at some point or other the slave in question owed a debt that they couldn't afford to pay and therefore legally would become the property of the one they were in debted to until they were able to pay or until they'd been in service to their debtor a full 6 years, which is also a stipulation made by God that this form of servitude was only allowed to last for a max of 6 years and go free in the 7th. Why would he say that if he wanted Slaves to be treated mercilessly? Paul also gives us more to ponder in ephesians 6:5-9 when he elaborates on the dynamic that should exist between slave and master. Exodus 21:20 while hard to wrap our minds around both culturally and morally, needs to be read with 3 things in mind. God abhors when humans devalue ourselves and one another, humans embraced sin and all the fixings that go along with, and God is the epitome of justice. If you break down the scripture you see that the command is that when warranted , you can punish your slave because they owe you for what they cannot repay you, but if you kill them you have taken what they did not owe you and you will now be punished. Keep in mind the recovery time as well. 1-2 days. How severe is the injury if you recover in 1-2 days. Could one be savagely beaten and recover fully in 1-2 days? (My personal theory) this is creating a distinction between punishment and abuse. A parent has the right to punish their child, not abuse and certainly not murder. Same here, if during the period of servitude the debted refuses an order, the debtor has the right to punish them. However, if the punishment leads to a dead servant, then it reveals the servant hasnt been punished, but instead abused and now murdered.
Awesome man, great job!
Lol I've never heard the "If all women stopped reproducing with all men, then EVOLUTIONARILY SPEAKING......." thing before but you've got a point. Definitely should be compelling for the "Science and evolutionary biology explains everything" crowd.
When he asked about the possibility of God being evil (infinitely deceptive) you could have pointed out that if you accept the definition of God as the greatest conceivable being, then a great-making quality he would have to possess would be moral perfection. I don’t think anyone would gain say the idea that a morally perfect all powerful being is greater than a morally imperfect, or perfectly immoral, all powerful being.
You just ask "what do you mean by 'truth'? What do you mean by 'evil'?
There were so many logical flaws in that question, I'm surprised he didn't call any of them out, but instead attempted to actually answer a bad faith question in good faith.
I suppose. But keep in mind, the insanely optimized attributes/properties a supreme being is said to have is manifold, and it isn't outlandish to suggest that, at the very least, there could be such a being that is uninterested in either morality or creating lesser beings at all. Such a being could still have some or all of the other properties, like omniscience, omnipotence, timeless*, etc.
* I'm not sure how viable that concept is when applied to beings rather than states
P.S.
I am not convinced that such properties, particularly omniscience, omnipotence, and "perfect goodness" are properties that exist or that must exist, and they do not seem particularly coherent, either.
I think the more interesting question is how the theist accounts for believing in moral realism and a mind dependent law giver. In other words, if you posit that God is a mind it seems illogical to assume that God’s will/laws are objective. They are, in this account, mind dependent and therefore subjective.
A legal system is mind dependent but is designed to be applied objectively, at least it's meant to be
sounds like a cliche at this point but it's true... "According to what standard? Good only exists as a reference to the most powerful standard."
nobody else noticed how much he looks like Cliffe Knechtle?
God is not evil and god is not tricking and is not mischievous
He’s shown us who he is that stuff he said you can say that about every single human on this planet