Відео

Commandment VII. Where Sean says that Christians are committed to people's "objective good" sounds like permitting all sorts of behaviour that is not loving in order to save their soul. So it doesn't matter if you deny rights to LGBTQ people, those people have chosen an ungodly life and must be forced into the ways of the lord. Same for denying reproductive rights, women's rights or rights of other faiths and no faith. As I've questioned and abandoned my own faith, my view on C.S. Lewis has altered somewhat; but Lewis was spot on when he identified that the worst possible tyranny is the one that is imposed "for the good of others". This probably wasn't what Lewis had in mind, but it feels very appropriate.

Bruddah🤜🏾🤛🏾

Craig's whole argument relies on the existence of free will, something that doesn't even seem to be verifiable in humans. So he's positing the existence of free will, then positing the existence of an unknowable being outside of our entire concept of space and time who then HAS that free will. And how evidence is "Because bikes don't just *appear*".

Answers in Genesis is the embodiment of "I'm not racist, but..."

You claim to not deny that miracles could have occurred but reject testimony as the sole evidence for them. Okay, but what other types of evidence *could* there be for a miraculous event other than testimony if that miracle didn't fundamentally alter anything physical that could persist until today to be examined? Isn't all of history (flawed as it often is) only testimony unless there's geological or archeological remains/effects to study?

All this is a red herring. The gospels cannot be an 'eye witness account', because they were not written down for decades afterward - 30, 50 and 60 years later. That's number 1. Number 2 is that they were written in Koine Greek, whereas Jesus (if he existed at all) and his disciples would have spoken Aramaic. Number 3 - there's no evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were literate. In that era, as it remained pretty much until a 3 or 4 generations ago, only the people who had the leisure to learn reading and writing were able to do so; and those people were largely wealthy. In the average family your kids were out earning money as soon as they could; that's why a lot of religion involves chanting, because the one person who could read would chant and the rest who couldn't read would chant along with him, learning as they went. I've seen it argued that Zebedee (father of two of the disciples) ran a large fishing fleet and therefore would have been able to read and write. This is nonsense; that's what people employed scribes and secretaries for. Zebedee might have been able to read and write, but he had no need to do so to be a successful businessman. So we have 4 gospels, written by people who are unlikely to have been able to write, in a language they didn't know, 30 and more years after the events of which they tell. There could have been an oral version of the 4 books that was handed down from believer to believer until they were transcribed, but that's the point - that would mean they *werent'* eye-witness accounts.

I can’t stand Kent. I am an atheist. But man that AJ dude is a major hypocrite. He spends years trying to get Kent’s UA-cam channel down. Successfully does it. Then still debates and obsesses over him. He has no problem promoting Kent when it brings views to his channel. So it’s ok for Kent to be heard when he gets views?

On Point 5: In some ways this is the strongest point because, if you want to offer a serious candidate cause other than an mind with agency, then you are welcome to do so and it can be put forward for consideration - but none of the options you gave seem particularly compelling, and you don't seem to be seriously arguing FOR any of them. In the absence of other candidate options, it's not unreasonable for Craig to assert agent causation. You argued why it might be "something else", vaguely, but you didn't argue why it couldn't be agent causation. Conversely, it's very weak indeed to say abstract information could have causal power.

Also on point 4: You state the reason why things don't come into being without a cause is because they have known necessary causes for coming into being. Well, exactly - if something does NOT have a necessary cause to allow it to come into being - why would it not just come into being all the time? You said the universe "does not have known necessary causes.." you then pivot in the next phrase to say "BUT instead.." and go on to say "It's just the totality of space and time itself." How is that a "BUT instead"? The two are not opposites. If something doesn't have a necessary cause, that precisely means it can come into being without a cause, and therefore it's inexplicable why it should not always be coming into being. You state finally it is "unknown" if there is a necessary cause. Well, no - it IS known that there must be a necessary cause - because if you didn't need a necessary cause for a universe - then there is no reason why new universes would not be appearing all around us all the time. One logical mistake is to think of the presence of the universe we live in as a sort of "inhibitory" cause. The presence of this universe is somehow inhibiting the coming into existence, uncaused, of other universes. BUT that just is to say that there ARE necessary conditions for a universe to come into existence including 1. The absence of a universe already. But that already concedes that the coming into existence of a universe is conditional upon some kind of pre-condition state into which the universe is coming.

On Point 4: "The ideas that if you could somehow go back to the first moment in time, the universe was somehow already there". Two points: First this is remarkable bald assertion and seems unreasonable. Second, if it was "already" there you seem to be suggesting that your first moment in time was not, in fact, the first moment in time. What you in fact seem to be doing is not arguing that the universe began to exist without a cause, but rather that the universe always existed. Well, the KCA doesn't claim that the universe needed a cause if it is eternal in the past. What you're arguing for here is a universe which is eternal in the past - but this is connected to all the other objections to a universe which is eternal in the past..

On Point 3: No - just wrong: A way to conceptualise the equations of Relativity is by imagining a tenseless theory of time, but that doesn't mean that is ontologically the case, but the BGV theorem is derived from the mathematical description of the theory of relativity, not from the tenseless conceptualisation of those equations. The BGV is true because the equations are true, not because one particular ontic interpretation of those equations is true.

Paul, could you do a video (or recomend one) refuting the claim that Daniel 70 weeks refers to Jesus?

What is the prior probability of the resurection?

Point 2 seems extraordinarily weak as an objection. What we mean by an infinitely old universe is one in which there are an infinite number of any defined unit of time prior to this one. ie. t = ∞ seconds. But this literally *is* craig's "counting down from infinity scenario in the sense we are counting down from t= -∞ to t=0 at the present moment". You can say "well, yes, but I don't mean infinity like THAT" which just begs the question, what do you mean then? Put it another way: suppose someone had been crossing off numbers from a chart, one number a day, and had just reached zero today (16th May 2024). He would have been on 365 one year ago, 3650 10 years ago. He would have been on 191,523 on the 1st of January 1500. Accepting that practicalities such as people not living for 500 years, and, if we go back far enough, the planet would have been molten lava not able to support life, and going back further still the universe itself was too hot and dense for anyone to have done any counting - but still, it's possible to theorise the farthest back point at which a count *could* have commenced and attribute a very large, (But finite) number to that point. Beyond that point you might say that the density of the universe was such that it caused such time dilation that there was no previous time to attribute a N+1 count to - OK, well, isn't that very much like saying that time had a beginning? If alternatively you want to say that there is no such point and the count could - in theory - continue to infinity, then Craig seems to have an entirely valid point: Why would the count be reaching zero today? Why not yesterday? as yesterday an infinite amount of time had already passed in which the count could have reached zero...

I don't see how 1 is a fatal flaw to the cosmological argument. It is admitted that The KCA is based upon a tensed, rather than tenseless theory of time. Your complaint seems to be that Craig doesn't have an exact answer for how a tensed theory of time works. So what? That doesn't mean its false. There are *massive* problems with a tenseless theory of time also: For example, if time is merely 4th dimension of the universe, then we are saying that our perception of the passing of time is entirely illusory, generated by the fact that our conscious awareness seems to be moving through the 4th dimension of the universe involuntarily in one direction. Being "in" 2024 rather than, say "in" 1980 is just the same as saying you are "in" London, rather than "in" Paris. It's purely a reference point of your own location. While time appears to "pass", it is only passing in the same sense that trees "pass" the window when you look out the window of a moving train. That's a very cool idea in some ways, but also an utterly anti-real one, and fraught with problems. This generates enormous problems for most of our sense of rationality and causality. Suppose I'm sitting working on a maths problem at 9:30am. On this view, 9:40am (at which time I generate the right answer to the maths problem) *already* exists. But on this view, it becomes inexplicable why the 10 minutes I spend logically trying to work out the answer have any rational meaning: It was already determined, and has been determined for the entire (eternal) existence of the universe, that at that particular point, 9:40am, on that particular day, I would get a certain answer to that maths problem. So in what sense did I ever "work out" the answer? And if I didn't "work it out", why would I have any confidence in it being rational or correct? On such a view, our entire sense of rationality and reason are illusory, which renders this entire video illusory. Now, my point here isn't that the KCA is right, but merely that, unless you're willing to sign up for all the problems entailed in accepting a tenseless theory of time - and pin your colours to that mast and say "I believe in a tenseless theory of time", it's just irrelevant that there are conceptual difficulties with a tensed theory of time, because there are conceptual difficulties with a tenseless theory of time also.

Holy crap did you speed that Shapiro wannabe up? Does he want to be heard or just talk with people around

To repeat a joke I made under a Dapper Dinosaur video, there are three books in the Young Earth Creationist Bible: Genesis, Behemoth, and Scoffers Scoffing.

Philosophy is not pathway to truth. It is a personal opinion spoken from a place of perceived authority, Philosophy has no peer review and in all cases is are response to actual scientific papers. religious philosopher's are are waste of time and money not to mention university funds. I do refute all alleged testimony concerning religion. Just listen to jordon peterson.

All 5 points are just word sauce. Dead cells cannot be revived. Also i have no scepticism of god or the resurrection, Neither exist or have existed , thus no scepticism needed. I am Australian Aboriginal , 65,000 years of civilisation and culture and no gods from the middle east just dream time . We keep our creation myths for around the kin fire at night, As gods interfering in Aboriginal existence in Australia would have resulted in our extinction.

Ive never read the atheist non commandments, but i can imagine they far surpass the biblical commandments. I know the seven commandments of satan do, and im sure in a blind taste test everyone would agree. Of course, the satanist have the advantage of writing in more modern times, and i dont know any satanist but i assume most are trolling anyway.

...well DUH... Just ask any Xtian...

Again time is the magic wand.

Very well known cientists like Steve Benner, Jack Szostak and Lee Cronin have been working in the field of abiogenesis for more than a decade, and they haven't been able to put together even a simple protein. Thinking that millions of years are going to do the trick is simply nonsense. Molecules don't move toward life.

Gravity is something that you can see in the present, evolution is something you can only assume.

Since at this point there is never any new evidence relating to the Resurrection it's all about finding new ways for them to creatively interpret the old data.

Can confirm, after sleeping around with many partners, I have become, in fact, less sticky tape.

Love how succinct you put this, Paul! Always great to listen to you.

NO god has any evidence to support their existence. Show me prothletising is not evidence of anything but incredulity.

There's a Jesus Calling Podcast out there where Strobel and wife, Leslie, are interviewed about their early life and in the article very clearly defines himself as a none (not interested, hadn't thought about it, felt jealous about his wife's belief in it, etc), not a skeptic or atheist. Strobel loves his wife, high school sweethearts in fact, and most likely was afraid he would lose her if he didn't embrace Christianity. So on his journey as he discovered how many smart people believed he realized it would be easier to believe himself than convince her it wasn't true. Certainly explains why all the scholars were also believers in the Case for Christ. But we'll never really know for sure as this is all speculation; I doubt Strobel really knows either with it being a cumulative case for him, love for his wife, and now his financials are tied to the apologetic profession.

"They divided my clothes among themselves for my clothes that cost lots"

The Books of John states that they seen Him.

The Christian position makes more sense, even when it’s on an atheist platform.

0:54 Fun fact: In Portuguese there are two words that are translated to "magic" in English. "Magia", that the kind of magic used by the the fairy godmother in a fairy tale. "Magica", that usually is used for the tricks a magician would use. And related to that, "magician" in Portuguese is "mágico" (if used as a substantive) and a "mage" would be a "mago".

Jesus' death = weekend at bernie's. 3 days dead...even though it was just his human form. I wish I had a cow to sacrifice to god that came back every 3 days. It would be a lot cheaper.

Me and my son , are athiests. For a laugh, we decided to do our own commandments and get it down to as few as possible. We got it down to one. Don't be a dick

It's so hard to listen to this guy... Evangelical Christians are liars, they're lying to others just as they lie to themselves. Evangelical Christians are completely untrustworthy and no one should believe anything they say without fact checking. I've found that Evangelical people are factually unreliable even when speaking about ordinary everyday accounts of people and things. They have magical thinking and they often change things to make a better story... in general they have a problem with reality. Now this isn't necessarily true for ordinary people who call themselves Christians or some other religion, but I've had way too much experience with Evangelicals. I'm kind of a trusting person and it took me a long time to figure this out... it took education and critical thinking and fact checking. My Mom is a Pentecostal chaplain; it took a lot of education in classics, religion, psychology, science, history, literary theory, and politics to understand all the ways she was lying to herself and anyone else who would listen. I really appreciate you and what you do. I don't have the energy to argue with these folks anymore but sometimes I still have to deal with them fearing for my immortal soul and it makes me sad. I choose reality and I wish they would too. I don't think any amount of factual information will ever change them... I have tried and failed again and again. I feel sorry for them. And I worry about their influence in politics and in all of our lives. I just hope religiosity continues to decline. Thank you for all your great content <3

#5 is inherently wrong. He's falling into LaPlace's trap... Don't worry Einstein didn't love this either... But we don't live in a predetermined universe, we live in a probabilistic universe.

I obviously disagree with this guy on many, many things. But it's still interesting to hear his perspective on AiG.

Kudo for Paulogia to give a better perspective on apathetic targeted audiences rather than TheMagicSkeptic talk about his strawman "opening gambit" compare "God" to "car". It's okay to be open and learn but it seem the guy have to open his mouth to say any negative as if he has trust issue.

Scientist creates solid computer model, of the evolution of the universe and start to play with it by changing constants. They find out their model goes way different way if they change of the constant even slightly. They publish the interesting find of the fragility of the model. Theists jump on it claiming design. The above in no way suggest if that given particular constant can be different in reality, it doesn't say if those constants aren't connected and if they would be different, they could still cause life permitting universe. On the other hand would perfect being need to create something? Is needing or wanting something imperfection? Hmm let's talk about that....

Evidence. The threshold for belief without evidence is high. Threats of heaven and Hell, the ultimate carrot and ultimate stick, isn’t enough to lie.

excusologists. They can't sell their story without resorting to dishonesty in some manner. I'd put a condition "you give me $1 for every time you say something that isn't accurate, and $10 for everything that is a lie"

Not only is that a logical inconsistency Paul but by your standards no historical statement can be true. Miracles are shown today in the medical field all the time. In fact Joe Rogan put it best atheist’s believe everything is material minus one miracle, the creation of the universe. Whether you believe in some evidence free version science claims about the beginning of the universe or that God created it it’s still miraculous. Besides consciousness is not material so the universe is not merely material. Either way Paulogias claims are not evidence. Oh and Capturing Christianity demolished your video on Christianity growing from naturalistic means.

Give Gary a type-o and he’ll write you a 100$ book

Uh, my answer is no. Some biblical accounts themselves suggest that Jesus merely fainted, hurriedly whisked away to his prepared tomb not tot bury him but to resussitate him. On his fainting spell, his loss of blood was minimal even with the use of the spear by the Roman soldier, the crowning with thorns and whiplashes on his body. In the tomb, he was revived with herbs, aloes and other curative herbs, and when revived, helped to walk out of the tomb in the dark of night to some other cave nearby but far from the familiar routes used for travel, and there he stayed, nourished and fed back to health. The cover to the tomb was used to delay discovery until the third day and when finally rolled back by Jesus' enemies to check on his body went back to the leaders of the Sanhedrin to report this fact, who could only think that the body was stolen. To Peter, the women and other disciples, not invloved in the plot, their surprise was genuine and came to believe in his "resurrection". Jesus' reappearnces in several occasions was indeed treated as a resurrection up to the point where Thomas checking Jesus' wounds in his hands and feet.

Apologists are strong evidence that lies are always a possibility, if not a probability.

Makes you wonder how many firefighters out there believe in phlogiston.

Sorry! Just can't listen to this giggle pair.