This comment section is absolutely ridiculous. All I can see is Theists completely, deliberately misunderstanding the arguments of Hitch, and also Atheists who seem to have not even bothered to listen to Turek's points, and just wanted to listen to Christopher. When you're watching a debate, you should try to watch it without any predisposed biases, of course you will have some, but if you have any sort of intellectual integrity, and are completely open to having your opinions swayed, or at least entertaining opposing ideas, you should temporarily put them aside while watching a debate.

@John_May.

7 жыл бұрын

"I'm not looking for consensus, baby, I'm just not in the mood"

@igorsemaniv8924

7 жыл бұрын

Big Zee I think the problem is - too much erogance on both sides. ill admit im guilty of it too but i only get errogant in response to arrogance..

@john_ron

7 жыл бұрын

they're predetermined to think this way

@DefenderOfLogic

7 жыл бұрын

About time someone pointed this out. If you go on any YT video on these subject matters you will find that the comment section is full of slander and verbal assaults from both sides. Name calling and slandering is simply a way of revealing the lack of competence one has on an argument.

@calebalvarez1234

7 жыл бұрын

Big Zee Exactly. All I ever see is name calling, foul language and insults from both sides. I'm A Christian myself and try my best to be completely open to the evidence put forth by both sides. Most google scholars in the youtube comments come off extremely immature and seem to lack intellectual integrity as you pointed out. We all need to tak Thumpers advise from Bambi, "If you can't nothin nice, don't say nothin at all." lol

What really annoys me about these debates is the audience. They are told to ask questions and not to make statements.. then idiots stand up and make a statement. I feel that some of them only do it to try and make themselves sound intelligent. Just ask a question!

@macysondheim

Жыл бұрын

They are rhetorical questions so technically they are a form of question. It doesn’t break the rules…

@SooperFlye

Жыл бұрын

@@macysondheim No, the audience was asked to ask questions, not make a point!

@sjsulews1

Жыл бұрын

@@SooperFlye it is difficult having all your beliefs challenged so strongly by the likes of Hitchens! Maybe they want to be heard not answered, and/or realize they don’t have a question they’d want an answer to

@notsocrates9529

11 ай бұрын

@@sjsulews1 [eye roll]

@timsans1170

11 ай бұрын

​@macysondheim7260 Technically, a rhetorical question isn't actually a question

1:34 Turek’s opening statement 25:45 Hitchens’s opening statement 44:07 Turek’s rebuttal 54:45 Hitchens’s rebuttal 1:06:18 QnA 1:52:21 Hitchens’s closing statement 1:57:40 Turek’s closing statement

Watching this video from 9 years ago and watching Turek's videos from nowadays shows me that he learned that speak loud is bad for the public perception of the arguments.

@clonetrooperichflo

2 жыл бұрын

it is bad. and he learned nothing. Presenting no arguments since then

@dbarker7794

2 жыл бұрын

I had a very hard time listening to him. He sounds like an athletic director or football coach. Very arrogant and unappealing.

@wolfthequarrelsome504

Жыл бұрын

@@dbarker7794 great arguments but badly presented.

@bentnob

Жыл бұрын

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 they are terrible arguments. Eg the opening point of his rebuttal. ‘Hitchens mentioned Hume. Hume said something that I think is weak. I’ll spend the first few minutes of my rebuttal attacking that thing that Hume said, thus making Hume look weak, thus making Hitchens look weak’. Absolute time wasting inanity

@GaryCrant

Жыл бұрын

Very telling that you don’t criticise the argument, but the style in which it was brought forth

Lol. When Turek speaks, I have to turn my volume down cause he's so loud. But when Hitchens speaks, I have to turn my volume up, because I can't hear him. Very interesting.

@drunkcatphil9911

7 жыл бұрын

I think Hitchens has a very clever way of talking, by talking softly he makes everyone have to try and listen and that way commanding their attention. Turek is so shouty he puts people off

@geoffstemen3652

4 жыл бұрын

probably because Turek is sober and Hitchens pregamed

@Ajinzem

4 жыл бұрын

Preachers gonna preach and most of the time they do it loud so people are overwhelmed, not by the content, but by the dynamic.

@jonathonrobinson7236

4 жыл бұрын

You're very shallow

@salvadorramirez4114

4 жыл бұрын

@@geoffstemen3652 honestly very sure he did since he died from it

Chris and Frank were walking down the road until they passed a movie poster. As they were both cinema loving individuals, they stopped and contemplated it for a moment. Frank broke the silence and asked rather smugly "Well Chris, I'm sure you've put in a LOT of thought on it by now, what do you think?". Chris paused for a moment. "Well... by taking into account the past projects and performances by the main cast, the director and producers, and also by the genre, setting and characters that the title and layout of the poster indicate... I can only guess. Only when I see the film will I be able to tell you what I think". Frank laughed mockingly, and said "So misguided are you. It's gonna be an action-packed, adrenaline fueled thriller and the greatest movie coming this summer". "Well you can certainly hypothesize that Frank, but you how can you be so sure?", Chris asked, surprised. Frank, pointing to the poster, said incredulously, "It says it right there under the title".

@broncosgjn

7 жыл бұрын

Chris Chris Chris. Nope, nothing happened to me.

@davecirlclux

5 жыл бұрын

Nice metaphor. Now translate that into reality please

@erinbecker4057

5 жыл бұрын

An apt analogy.

@hoop21itup

5 жыл бұрын

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

@junelledembroski9183

5 жыл бұрын

Alan Blythe He didn’t screw up and give us sin. Humans created sin by rebelling against God.

To know what rocks dream about, first you must be stoned.

@daylightdemon

2 жыл бұрын

I want this on a bumper sticker

@georgecrompton8663

2 жыл бұрын

Amen to that

@grimloki3107

2 жыл бұрын

To know what a rock believes, you must be arrogantly knowledgeable about the sentient beliefs of said rock.

@asorlokirunarsson9864

2 жыл бұрын

Woah dude

@obnoxious.

2 жыл бұрын

That's witty AF.

On the stage, there unfolds a striking contrast between two figures. The first man stands as a beacon of enduring wisdom, intelligence, and moral integrity, destined to be celebrated and remembered throughout history. In sharp contrast, the second man represents the direct opposite of such esteem; he is either tainted by deceit and profound dishonesty, or he might simply be an unfortunate victim, a fool misled by the malignant influence of religious dogma.

Did anyone watch debate one and then debate two and realize Turek literally has the exact same arguments, almost word for word?

@tittletotute6444

8 жыл бұрын

+shiffterCL Yes I noticed this too, I wish I would skip what I had already heard yesterday not only because he is saying the same things but because I also don't like being shouted at.

@miguelangelpazponce

8 жыл бұрын

Even the same jokes..

@jaewaitwhat4412

8 жыл бұрын

watch ANY of his debates. They're the same time and again. I just like watching him set it up for his opponents to knock down. lol

@kurtgrace9412

7 жыл бұрын

Yes isn't it amazing? Despite knowing whats coming Hitchens still couldn't answer.

@kurtgrace9412

7 жыл бұрын

Jarred, This is a debate, yes? One makes a statement trying to make his case for what he believes. The other, if they are able, tries to reply and show why the first person is wrong. Thats the purpose of a debate. "The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him." Proverbs !8:17. Hitch was just promoting his book. So he could do nothing else in those two hours? Turek was promoting his also, but he somehow found the time to show Hitchens failed to make his case. Turek commits several logical fallacies...Dont just make assertions. Give specifics please.

29:50. Hitchens:" We are looking for patterns. We ARE DESIGNED to look for them."

@patrick9501

5 жыл бұрын

Caught that and many others too.Great catch dmitry

@JosephNordenbrockartistraction

5 жыл бұрын

Don't blame the English language for being screwed up. Doesn't it feel good to trick the great hitch into being a closet believer ?? Your are as clever as a snail crawling in a puddle of beer just because it's wet.

@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl

3 жыл бұрын

@@JosephNordenbrockartistraction lmao 👍

@javiermartinez4294

3 жыл бұрын

He means that we are designed by the unguided force of natural selection. Yeah he used a word that carries baggage but I cant find a word that exactly explains it.-Lack of a better word

Turek is a preacher, so he projects his voice very firmly. This works well in some situations, but it makes it difficult to listen to him when a microphone is involved. I find it interesting that the first time I heard to him referred to as "Doctor Turek" my instant reaction was one of disbelief. This is more a reflection on the number of frauds using the title 'Doctor' when they have no right to it than a reflection on Turek himself. His doctorate may be entirely well deserved, but quite a few people claiming to be speaking from the same camp have tarnished that. Another thought on the voices.. When defensive, people will often sit back and fold arms or otherwise indicate distance desired. When trying to involve themselves or connect they'll sit forward. Especially if they're a person who likes to think about the thing being said. Speaking softly will often coax people closer to pay attention and listen, which sets us up as receptive. Speaking loudly or projecting will often make them withdraw if only to preserve their eardrums, which sets up a defensive reaction. Firm projection works well in a church, but doesn't work well in more intimate or thoughtful environments. I propose that watching a debate is a more thoughtful environment. Hitchens' habit of talking quietly serves him quite well here. Turek might benefit from toning things down a little to reach his audience better.

Atheism, no magic needed

1:13:47 CH 'My sail is coming from the same place as your wind.' FT 'You don't want any of my wind.' CH 'I politely decline.' Absolutely hilarious exchange. Hitchens was great here, just so calm and collected no matter what happened.

@yomilalgro

4 жыл бұрын

Always is, lol Turick is no match for Hitch...he raised his voice every time he was Hitch slapped!

@user-iu8ho4gf4m

4 жыл бұрын

@@yomilalgro ?

@mr16325

3 жыл бұрын

@@user-iu8ho4gf4m he’s right tbh

Thank you very much, quite Stimulating.

To Christopher Hitchens "in memoriam": If Frank Turek believes in the existence of an immaterial, intangible reality, which is not subject to the laws of physics and biology, and is therefore "supernatural"... why all this effort to prove that his belief has a scientific basis? About the moral competence of religion ... I was educated in a religious college during the Franco dictatorship in Spain. 99% of everything those priests preached was coercive, punitive, intimidating, threatening. Christopher Hitchens sums it up nicely: blackmail and bribery.

@ransomweslock2007

2 жыл бұрын

@@michaelwalk9861 bruh he explicitly goes back to the topic several times and the guy your replying to made a comment about the topic AND one about moral competence so don’t pretend they didn’t you dolt

@Nameless-pt6oj

2 жыл бұрын

So you take the actions of one college and say that they’re ALL like that?

@ransomweslock2007

2 жыл бұрын

@@Nameless-pt6oj not necessarily just providing an example of how religion doesn’t automatically make one moral

@thomasgonn3437

2 жыл бұрын

Why not ?

@ransomweslock2007

2 жыл бұрын

@@thomasgonn3437 because If, and I stress if, a supernatural being exists he cannot be explained with the natural

1:45:50... A DEEP question from a sharp mind that gets glossed over... It was brilliant. The supernatural is faith based. Why then use the material to attempt to prove the immaterial? Why not use the supernatural to prove the natural without involving ANY natural method?

@con.troller4183

2 жыл бұрын

These days I don't engage theists on Doctrine, history, morality and such. I just point out that their authority claim is based on supernatural claims and to provide credible evidence that supernatural events actually occur, can be objectively observed and tested. No Theist slam dunks so far.

@kaibavelarde

2 жыл бұрын

@@con.troller4183 why would they? Supernatural by definition is something beyond scientific understanding.🤷‍♂️

@con.troller4183

2 жыл бұрын

@@kaibavelarde The supernatural is not "beyond scientific understanding". It is understood perfectly as unscientific, unfalsifiable data. But Theists claim that supernatural events happen and that they prove their case. They cite the supernatural as scientific proof of their claims. As if the supernatural was science, when it isn't.

@kaibavelarde

2 жыл бұрын

@@con.troller4183 I'm just saying by definition thats what supernatural is. Would it really be observable though? I wouldn't think so because they seem to occur at the most personal of times. Which theists claim that supernatural evidence is scientific?

@con.troller4183

2 жыл бұрын

@@kaibavelarde "Which theists claim that supernatural evidence is scientific?" All of them. Ask them what evidence they have for the existence of god and they ultimately cite miracles. Miracles break the laws of nature. Miracles are supernatural. But they never provide credible, testable evidence for the existence of ANY miracles or any supernatural events. The fundamental basis if their faith is false.

If you're wandering down here in the comment section during or before you've watched the video and you have seen the first debate between Hitchens and Turek-- don't bother continuing: it's the same debate with the same results, but with a few very minor rhetorical differences.

@duderyandude9515

3 жыл бұрын

That is literally me. Well, thanks.

@bricehabekott5604

3 жыл бұрын

So I’m just gonna guess that hitchens didn’t answer anything about why morality or how Big Bang? Cause he passed bo the those categories last time

@Benny-sw8xs

3 жыл бұрын

@gg ddfccc I don't think that it's relevant whether or not anyone knows turek if he has good arguments. It's only relevant WHAT they talk about and not WHO they are. The content is relevant and Hitchens only goes to say "Religious people are bad and i don't think god would let bad things happen in the world if he existed". It's sad that he really stands behind atheism as he doesn't have good arguments.

@Benny-sw8xs

3 жыл бұрын

@gg ddfccc And it wasn't a debate about how many gods there are or about christianity. It was just about whether or not god exists. Turek won.

@guyjosephs5654

3 жыл бұрын

@@bricehabekott5604 so hitchens admiring he’s not qualified to talk on physics equals a fail on his part?

Having watched and read many theist vs atheist debates go through the familiar motions, followed by inevitable outcome that I totally believe my outlook is correct as you do yours. I'm starting to think a better question is, what makes otherwise very intelligent people reach such wildly different conclusions and feel so passionate about it?

@john_ron

7 жыл бұрын

Great point! I always think about it

@louiscyfer6944

5 жыл бұрын

which very intelligent person came to a different conclusion?

@tdubfpv3380

4 жыл бұрын

GOD😁

@krissmork

4 жыл бұрын

The Bible has some answers for that, but I'm assuming you wouldn't accept them. Hint: Pride is very, very hard to swallow. A life full of experiences of superiority (by being more gifted than the average person), a life driven by a desire to obtain knowledge/power/skills, definitely does much for a puffing chest.

@truthprevails6251

4 жыл бұрын

cubensis01 some men are proud and some are humble. And Christ said it is not those who are healthy that need a physician, but those who know they are sick with sin that will humble them selves and ask Jesus Christ to heal them of their sin disease!!

Can spiritual beings reside in the Quantum Field, and define the laws, physics and the biologies of a spiritual being according to Nature?

@thomasgonn3437

2 жыл бұрын

GOD SPOKE THE WORLD INTO EXISTENCE.

Hitchens obliterated this guy, I feel bad the for the schitzo

6 years ago a great brilliant man died. I salue you hitch. Your legacy will give you in a sense immortality

@Christ_died_for_your_sins_777.

4 жыл бұрын

Hahahah. I know where he is

@ecokanjukuoh4772

3 жыл бұрын

@@Christ_died_for_your_sins_777. haha me too (gnashing of teeth) 🤭

@cringeboyy739

2 жыл бұрын

@@ecokanjukuoh4772 what a lovely God,he created us with free will and throw in hell for using the free will...

Turek: "Everybody does evil things, I do evil things" Yea, like misrepresenting your opponents position at the end of the debate.

@geoffstemen3652

4 жыл бұрын

Kurt Krienke - just because he phrases it differently than Hitch would doesn’t make it a misrepresentation. He’s casting Hitchens’ argument in his (Turek’s) terms, which is part of debate

@PittsburghSonido

3 жыл бұрын

@@geoffstemen3652 And his casting is in itself a representation of his misunderstanding. Frank tries to say "Just because religious folk are immoral does not mean God isn't real". That's not the point. Those are rebuttals to "Without God people cannot be moral". He is directly conflating the two to attack Hitch as using fallacy. Thus, Frank is being dishonest on purpose. And if not on purpose then he does not understand the argument.

@geoffstemen3652

3 жыл бұрын

Tony H - My original opinion stands

@kratino

7 ай бұрын

@@geoffstemen3652 He straw mans all over the place.

@BFrydell

2 ай бұрын

@@PittsburghSonidocan’t be worse than Hitchens’s incessant misinterpretation of the moral argument as “atheists can’t do good things.” In each of his debates, he says it. And in each of them, the theist corrects him. And then he goes to the next debate and just says it again.

This is a very fun debate

1:14:26 Hitchslap one million 🔥🔥🔥😭😭😭😭😭

@G00N3YC4NG

Жыл бұрын

I often come back just to watch this moment. It's one of the most hilarious things I've ever seen in a religious debate.

The principal objection to the fine tuning argument is that we (life) were adapted to the conditions we found ourselves in. If the constants were different, then life would have been different, but still adapted perfectly. However if fine tuning was necessary for any conceivable life, or indeed any physical existence at all, then the fine tuning argument still has weight.

@BFizzi719

4 жыл бұрын

That would require knowledge that we, for the moment, are unable to gather. We cannot know if the constants in this universe can be different, or if these constants are governed by some external phenomena. The fine tuning argument relies pretty heavily on anecdotal evidence. Someone arguing for a God will see the constants of our universe and tend toward the idea that they could be different and the reason they aren't is because of intelligent intervention. The opposing side will see the same constants and conclude that inductively we have no reason to presume they can or have changed.

@gregfakerson6998

3 жыл бұрын

here’s a tip that helped me with principle vs principal. principal, with a pal, is the leader of a school, because he’s your “pal”. principle, has no pal, and is not a person, it’s an idea. hope that helps 😁

@vikkidonn

2 жыл бұрын

@@BFizzi719 random and intentional are different. Law isn’t random. All scientific law is constant and unchanging. Never has for as long as it’s been recorded. That’s not random then. That’s intention. So you’d have to explain fine tuning.

@lukereiling3279

2 жыл бұрын

Ok but the universe itself which as he said if anything in it was off my an infidecimal amount there would be no universe

@eliassandoval9530

2 жыл бұрын

@@lukereiling3279 and that's false, if the constants were different, the universe sure would be different, but it doesn't mean that any kind of life couldn't emerge, we don't know that.

*_"Explosion in a printing shop"?_* A drop of water has 1.5 sextillion molecules. Each molecule has a certain energy, a certain position, a certain motion, a certain angle. Each molecule has three atoms which in their nuclei have loads of quarks. They all, too, have a position, energy, motion and so on. If I was interested in them I could call all this information and it would surely be more information than printed in any book ever written, more information than the library of congress, than all libraries together have. Does that mean it takes a conscious mind (all-loving, omniscient, omnipotent and so on...) to put together that droplet of water in exactly the way it is? Furthermore, isn't it incredibly *_fine-tuned_* to turn out exactly the way it is?

@jorgerodriguez3392

4 жыл бұрын

Reminds me of a certain someone residing at 1600 Philadelphia ave washington dc

@Pit.Gutzmann

4 жыл бұрын

@@jorgerodriguez3392 You mean that guy in the bunker? What does he have to do with this?

@Pit.Gutzmann

4 жыл бұрын

@Aphrodite's Child Sarcasm is new to you, isn't it? I do not know how you come to that flerf conclusion. If you want to know, here is my channel. No flerf.

@jorgerodriguez3392

4 жыл бұрын

@@Pit.Gutzmann ohhh how eloquently he articulates his thoughts and how much knowledge his brain has ....

@theophilengangmeni8788

3 жыл бұрын

@Pit Gutzmann yes indeed that shows that a conscious mind was behind it. All of that implies purposeful design & order, which science claims is fleeting. The DNA argument serves to supplement life in particular, but rest assured it can also be applied to practically all matter.

01:14:04, “Is it not the case that the spread of Christianity-about which you spoke so warmly and affectingly in your opening remarks, attributing it to the innate truth of the Bible story-was spread by that means, or because the Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire? Which in your view contributed more to the spread of the faith?” Hitch mispoke.

The ending is so incredibly powerful…

@omnipitous4648

2 жыл бұрын

And contrived.

@Nameless-pt6oj

2 жыл бұрын

It’s beautiful.

@undercoverbrother67

Жыл бұрын

Dangerous ramblings that glorify war.

@bryanreidsands6854

8 ай бұрын

No, it’s not. Turken knew he failed and had to whip out his bleeding heart. It’s an appeal to emotion and you got hooked.

@DonkasaurusNZ

7 ай бұрын

"....there is no god and I hate him....." could be the example that gets shown when someone looks up the definition for a non-sequitur.

My name's James Taylor and after our debate I will be singing "Fire and Rain".

Why is Paley's Watch found on a beach, or in a forest? Because the beach/forest provides a *non-designed* point of contrast. But they hold that beaches and forests ARE designed. You can't have it both ways - is the beach/forest designed, or not?

@Gumpmachine1

3 жыл бұрын

I use a random tree in a forest as an example, it’s possible it’s was intentionally placed there by someone but it also could of got there by itself.

@JMUDoc

3 жыл бұрын

@@Gumpmachine1 A tree in a field - good idea, the contrast with nature no longer applies. "Did somebody plant it, or not? How do you tell?"

@Gumpmachine1

3 жыл бұрын

@JMUDoc exactly, it’s a much better comparison to the universe.

@vikkidonn

2 жыл бұрын

@@Gumpmachine1 not really because either way you assume what’s opposite of reality. To see a tree in the field doesn’t lead to someone planting it or it did it itself. Reason being is because in that example we are talking open environment. Meaning any number of things could have happened do to the natural of the environment. The rate of rain, wind, weather, timing and age of tree, etc. the only thing that would lead to the possibility that someone put it there is if there is something specific to the tree that isn’t on its own natural. Like a bow entangled in the roots and vines and branches. Carvings on it. Obvious signs of up human upkeep, such as shaping.

@Gumpmachine1

2 жыл бұрын

@@vikkidonn you might but I don’t I would say I’m not sure how the tree got there. I’d have to compare it to other trees that have been planted intentionally and naturally occurring to try and figure it out

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able not willing? Then why call him a god?

@zowiewowie4458

3 жыл бұрын

God has given humans freewill, so he will let them commit evil or good...this statement is really a series of dumb questions trying to sound wise...

@Pwwh0711

3 жыл бұрын

@@zowiewowie4458 That's convenient.

@kratino

7 ай бұрын

@@zowiewowie4458That would be able, but not willing. Malevolent.

This Turek guy doesn't talk as fast as he thinks he does he just talks louder every time he says he's going to talk faster and faster.....

in church specialy born again, speaking in front of many people start at very young age. they are all good in story telling.

@wolfthequarrelsome504

4 жыл бұрын

Agreed

@Jbarack98

3 жыл бұрын

Some people like yourself will never understand, scientific materialism has seeped into every aspect of society.

@ecokanjukuoh4772

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, a Real Stories. 😂

@GCAJr

3 жыл бұрын

You think Turk is a story teller and not Hitchens? My my I wonder if you were listening at all? Answer- doubtful

@vincemcmahonreadskoran3120

2 жыл бұрын

@@Jbarack98 That may be the case but millennia of telling stories around the campfire has given talking bs a headstart over science.

Any fans of The Office? Frank Turek is the Michael Scott of Christian Apologetics!

@larrycrabs5995

3 жыл бұрын

Yes!!! Totally!

@jasonTL

3 жыл бұрын

@The Naked Skeptic or twirl lol

@calmdown5559

3 жыл бұрын

That would imply he's lovable though

@qigung

3 жыл бұрын

Calm Down: Well, you do have a point. Yet all the people who did love Michael Scott also knew how annoying he was and often cringed before, during and after he made a statement. Lol.

@murakawa-san2279

3 жыл бұрын

I’d prefer a David Brent of christian apologists.

Why does Turek keep insisting the universe couldn't possibly come from "something out of nothing"? What makes him (alonng with the carefully chosen opinions of others) think there was "nothing" simply because we don't yet have an identifier or description for that "nothing"? One more question: Does the degree of volume used to answer a question (even a question you yourself asked) imply the rhetoric's veracity? Turek's insistence on shouting every sentence indicates he was trained to speak with the intent of waking the sleeping... or the deceased. It's difficult to find meaning in words delivered at the sound level of a military fighter jet readying for take-off!

@kratino

7 ай бұрын

BECAUSE JULIE ANDREWS SANG IT! WEREN'T YOU LISTENING?

@krisaaron5771

7 ай бұрын

@@kratino I listened to the entire episode -- including Frank's melodious trilling -- but never heard Julie sing a note. Sigh. Of course, I've never heard *anyone's* "god" speak, either. OR a choir of angels bellowing hallelujahs... must not have been listening.

@kayshaun3871

Ай бұрын

He was in the navy, so it might be hearing damage will increase volume of which you speak naturally…. Something coming from nothing is truly the dumbest thing anyone could say. Over 1000 PhD physicists agree with this, one of them being my dad. Nothing is in the ether, there is literally nothing in the void of space. The Big Bang plays off of this, which has been disproven incredibly quick. If you aren’t following Jesus Christ you probably should.

30:18 all you need to know to understand.

@jameslaver9545

2 жыл бұрын

My thoughts exactly

The mediator of this debate is so irritating, consistently blockading the notion of flowing conversation and thus impeding the presentation of the ideas and philosophies that these two men have come here to discuss.

@juniorsir9521

2 жыл бұрын

Not many ideas nor philosophies came from Christopher though. He simply bashed religion throughout the debate. He claims there is no God nor that a God was needed for the formation of the universe, yet when asked how the universe came to exist, He says we don’t know. Keep in mind that he generalized it here. He said he doesn’t know but then said frank doesn’t know. Frank knows. He claims God did it. Christopher knows, he claims nothing did it. But he chooses to change the topic forgetting he contradicted himself and the entire atheist community who claim God didn’t do it. when asked about it. Even if he didn’t know. That be a point to frank. Because how then can you trust a person who claims a supernatural entity did not intervene but yet anything outside of this he doesn’t know? it’s either An intelligent designer did it or nothing did it. In fact there are more options to think about when it comes to intelligent design and one to random chance. this shows that there’s more probability that someone created everything over nothing. Even if he doesn’t know, surely he can know so much about how life started on this earth. So then my question to him would be: if evolution is true as in macro, what came first the baby or it’s mother?

@jw_3d838

2 жыл бұрын

@@juniorsir9521 some form of micro organic bacteria came first, which then eventually became the mother with the capability of giving birth to the baby. I'm not sure why that question would ever propose a challenge to accepted science

@juniorsir9521

2 жыл бұрын

@@jw_3d838 that wasn’t the question I asked now was it? But let me ask an even better question. What came first the male or the female?

@jw_3d838

2 жыл бұрын

@@juniorsir9521 Neither. I'm not a scientist but I'd assume that at some point the organism that would eventually become known as a "human being" evolved into a species with two different types of sexual organ configurations, again, I don't see how asking this question really proves or disproves anything

@ruthadiscipleofjesuschrist1788

2 жыл бұрын

@@jw_3d838 where did the "micro organic bacteria" come from?

47:00 - every time Frank says, "The universe is not eternal", I hear, "The universe is not a turtle!"

@TonyEnglandUK

3 жыл бұрын

Speaking as a Turtlist, your logic is flawed.

@graypokedri1024

3 жыл бұрын

Tony England Bruh 😂😂

@FakingANerve

3 жыл бұрын

Funny, both statements have about as much credibility.

@almostafa4725

3 жыл бұрын

@@FakingANerve The universe had a beginning

@peli_candude554

3 жыл бұрын

@@almostafa4725 The universe is not a turtle...ooops...wrong person...:)

RIP Christopher, even though we had/have different beliefs

@jivanbhusal7690

2 жыл бұрын

Christopher would have laughed at the first word of your comment

@5va

2 жыл бұрын

@@jivanbhusal7690 what’s so funny about REST?

@amiramduby

2 жыл бұрын

@@5va Christopher didn't believe there is anything after death, he found the idea of you living in eternal north korea after you're gone is absurd, not to mention, incredibly vile

@JerryTheCamera

2 жыл бұрын

@@jivanbhusal7690 wdym

@joipatriot2762

2 жыл бұрын

@@JerryTheCamera chris doesnt believe in rip.... well in other wrds eternal life..

People like Dr Turek stregthens my Atheism

5:48 The Second Law of Thermodynamics according to Frank Turek: "The universe is running out of energy. If it was eternal it would have run out of energy a long time ago."

@lewis72

10 жыл бұрын

Yeah, that's some stupid comment.

@Chrischi7777

10 жыл бұрын

Haha, it's so funny when they don't even understand high school science, but call themselves "Dr."

@LordSpacey

10 жыл бұрын

Chrischi7777 I think Turdek is a Doctor of Apologetics; IMO, failing an apologetics class is actually a sign of intelligence. As I’ve read on Urban Dictionary: Apologetics = the art of searching for a black cat down a black hole… and finding it !! :P

@JSzitas

10 жыл бұрын

And that guy, supposedly, knows what he is talking about... (*SIGH*)

Ha Ha! I love the question at 1:42, 'since you wrote the intro to Kingsley Amis's Guide to Everyday Drinking' - What's your favourite drink?' Hitchens comes across as some cool guy at your house party, who keeps getting interrupted by your dad blundering into the room trying to be hip.

@kratino

7 ай бұрын

Exactly.

Decided to give Turek the benefit of the doubt and actually listen to him, but doesn't make any sense in his arguments at all. He hasn't provided any evidence that theism explains reality better. Theism likes to think it can fill the gaps in our knowledge, but eventually it will be squeezed out as our understanding of reality grows. And there certainly doesn't need to be a designer for humans as a species to make sense of the world around us.

@jogabenito8291

2 жыл бұрын

"God did it" the perfect excuse for a person that doesn t have any idea on what s happening around us.

@NWard1210

2 жыл бұрын

@Karat Kravat I’m assuming you’re religious and that’s why Turek’s arguments make sense to you. Hitchens relied on our own sense of self without the use of an external deity having a hand in our affairs and I stand by my point that we don’t need a deity to give us our sense of reason, morality or free will. I have free will because I have no choice but to have it and I don’t need a deity to tell me what’s morally right or wrong. And I can make sense of the world around me without a deity. In regards to the cosmos, the god of the gaps feels a bit like giving up on understanding the universe as we grow and I’m happy to say that I don’t know everything. I’m also happy to say that humanity as a whole doesn’t understand everything and that’s where science comes in. To say that god did it is a cop out and and it’s not true.

"THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A TURTLE" - Frank Turek. 47:00 I don't think anyone can disagree with Frank here, he really caught them atheists

@doyoufeel...thatyoulackcri6760

2 жыл бұрын

The problem is that atheism cannot defend morality because it has no moral codec. This is exactly the reason for Stalins attrocities and it is the reason why all these atheists find no probem with incest. The morality problem cannot be solved for atheists. Therefore atheism is evil.

@eloka4510

2 жыл бұрын

@@doyoufeel...thatyoulackcri6760 I guess u r also evil because u do not have the Elvian moral code. U a-lordoftherrings, therefore u r evil

@doyoufeel...thatyoulackcri6760

2 жыл бұрын

@@eloka4510 Go look up laurence krauss on incest

@4um360

2 жыл бұрын

@@doyoufeel...thatyoulackcri6760 atheism is the assertion that theists haven’t proven there is a god or gods. That’s it! But you can, if you wish to, hold on to the “objective morality” of the Bible that regulates slavery, command the slaughter of entire tribes, including their “evil” babies, commands the stoning of disrespectful children and women who are not virgins on their wedding night. Stalin’s actions sound as if he was following Yahweh’s commands.

@brandonsmith2172

2 жыл бұрын

@@4um360 Actually the civilization were sacrificing their own babies. God gave them 400 years to change their ways and repent and they didn’t so he wiped them out.

Shifting of the burden of proof, a gish gallop with arguments from incredulity, quote mining, strawmanning, bald assertions, god of the gaps, begging the question, and just disingenuous debating. Great opening statement Turek.

@infinitenature703

3 жыл бұрын

Do you believe what you just wrote?

@Sir-Chancelot

3 жыл бұрын

I agree, Hitchens could do much better. All joking aside, Hitchens was full of anecdotes and arguments against Christian fundamentalism - not true Christianity

@mastone3609

3 жыл бұрын

@@infinitenature703 which part? All the different errors made just in the opening statement? Or the sarcastic remark about it being great?

@ichigo449

3 жыл бұрын

@@Sir-Chancelot No true Scotsman indeed sir.

@boringname3657

3 жыл бұрын

@@Sir-Chancelot Right, not TRUE Christianity.

Frank: im going to talk fast now! Also frank: proceeds to talk talk at the same rate but louder.

@candeffect

4 жыл бұрын

Frank has positive energy. Hitchens had stupified alcoholism.

@riselikethephoenix1

4 жыл бұрын

@@candeffect Does "positive energy" validate ones point? ... No

@doh247

4 жыл бұрын

@@candeffect sounds like you'd be an easy victim for con-men who displays "positive energy". let me guess you voted for trump. and you're religious lmao smi

@ericfolsom4495

3 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately things that can convince people: 1. Talking with confidence 2. Talking quickly 3. Using large vocabulary Things that do not prove your point at all, see above. NOTE: This isn't against Frank or Christopher, just an observation I notice with various talkers.

@joeallgood5317

3 жыл бұрын

@@candeffect Um, no. He made no apologies for his fondness of Johnny Walker Black, but even if he'd consumed that much prior to this debate, he handily harpooned every single one of Frank Turek's points as he cared to. He would have destroyed a seemingly narrow-minded person as you come across to be had he been given the opportunity.

“The absence of knowledge doesn’t prove the existence of a higher power”

@matesus6007

Жыл бұрын

The presence of your stupidity doesn't disprove the absence of a brain

@thirst4wisdom

11 ай бұрын

Neither does it disprove it

@electrondynamics9721

8 ай бұрын

​@@thirst4wisdom shifting the burden of proof/evidence

@roems6396

7 ай бұрын

@@thirst4wisdom Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it means that one cannot accept the claim that a good exists, and be rational and logical in that belief.

@knightspygaming1287

5 ай бұрын

​@@thirst4wisdomfirst prove it so we could disprove it. If not then prove me you are not a murderer

The speaker interaction Q&A starts at 106:00

I just watched their first debate, and 1 thing i noticed is that dr. Turek's opening argument is completely the same word for word (even the jokes at the beggining) as the opening argument of the first debate. That leads me to think that he is just a showman doing a rehearsed show. The fact that this is not just accepted, but praised and admired by the audience doesen't actually surprise me since its the USA.

@chaoscore09

3 жыл бұрын

So you're just saying his arguments are strong?

@huskydragon2000

3 жыл бұрын

@R.J.J- El ganador No, because Turek is a sophist and is not in the pursuit of truth

@matwatson7947

3 жыл бұрын

11:38. I think this is part of the Theists issue. They cannot grasp how small we are. We are a product of that slim chance in much the way we are not the end product in evolutionary terms. We only think we are. We like to think that our spieces on this planet isthe final product. Thousands of years from now a completely different lifeform may be saying "If humans hadn't died out then we wouldn't be around." It's a subtle but important shift in perspective.

@katarinahinsey3931

3 жыл бұрын

He's a salesman, a fraud. I half expected him to ask for money during his speech, or at least try to sell me a car.

@kathyd456

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps it's the same because it is true what he is debating and why mess with a good thing...?

1:06:50 Hitch: "I suppose if I cant be erect, I can at least be upright." Delayed laughter once people understand what he said hahahaha

@russianaloha4576

2 жыл бұрын

🤣🤣🤣🤣

@wolfthequarrelsome504

Жыл бұрын

Not everyone thinks like him...or you.

@macysondheim

Жыл бұрын

I personally didn’t find it the least bit funny. It was rather disgusting… & completely inappropriate. Whether you agree with Hitchens or not, his alcoholism & crudeness may be charming at first, but wear off after about, hmmm… around 1 second. Then it’s back to foul-smelling, snarky alcoholic who not only eats but burps on stage like a pig 🐖🤮🌬

@michaelarojas

9 ай бұрын

Laughter and sarcasm doesn't refute theology

@RS54321

9 ай бұрын

Shows his perversion.

Turek's point - that with a tiny difference in one of the variables of the Big Bang, the result would be we would not exist - is a fundamental misrepresentation. Such a tiny difference does _not_ mean only nothing would be the result. It means that existence _as we know it_ - our experience of the cosmological order, our version of existence - would not be the result. Other versions of existence, another cosmological order or orders, would be the result. Speculating on the nature of those other potential results might be interesting, but is not material to the debate at hand, of course. It's just that Turek misrepresented, unsurprisingly, the substance of the initial observation.

The way the mediator looks at Hitchens, he, to me, looks like he is in awe.

@MrDaiseymay

2 жыл бұрын

we all are really, even if you can't grasp everything he says ,he has such 'authority.

@electricmanist

Жыл бұрын

@@MrDaiseymay I'm rather surprised that some people haven't actually bowed down as he walks past. But on second thoughts, maybe not, as he is only a man putting forward his views-- which are really no more valid than those of other people who see things differently.

@yourfbiagent7997

Жыл бұрын

@@electricmanistbro is doing spins on it 💀

@electricmanist

Жыл бұрын

@@yourfbiagent7997 The essence of all that is, is God. Of course many religions put (or add) their slant/own agenda to this fact--- not forgetting also, that some scientists come up with all sorts of theories as to the source/origin of all that is. The essential thing is, we together with the entire universe exists for an intelligent purpose. -(For example, consider the essence of all that is, which is the infinite power within each and every atom (particle) of matter).

1:14:32- Classical Hitch

Comment sections are a strange place. And this is far out of time, but I have to agree with Turek overall. Hitchens never gave a case for atheism as a worldview, or how it explains reality. Granted Turek did not sufficiently argue the point of how Theism is separated from Deism and why it explains the universe better, but at least he made a case. Hitchens also constantly begged a question that Turek pointed out multiple times which is on the origin and justification of morality. Basically he argued Christians are not moral, which I always thought was kind of the point of the system it upholds. I also am curious what that proves anyway. Why does morality matter in an atheistic worldview? I think his idea was to prove God is evil using the Christian sense of morality, but he never really went that far in his statements. However, I never found a definition for morality in his case, so even calling God evil would be an undefined concept if he attempts to do so. All in all, Frank gave a flawed argument by trying to encompass too much information into his case without defining some fundamentals, and Hitchens whined about evil, said Turek is taking illogical leaps (which in some cases I agree), and never really had a base case. I noticed a lot that whenever Turek would ask a question of atheism the habit of Hitchens was to take the question and then ask a counter question about how Christianity or the Church publicly deals with said subject. But that does not answer the question. You can ask the Christian view to be explained after, but when your worldview is questioned just saying the opposite view is not satisfactory, while not stating why yours does satisfy the question is not debating. It is just avoiding the question by hiding it.

@Scyllax

2 жыл бұрын

This is a big false equivalency. Atheism is not a worldview. The world will go on if we were all dead. Gods will all cease to exist with the death of every human, so you must think about magic to keep it real in your minds because, without your minds, your gods never existed.

@thekwjiboo

2 жыл бұрын

@@Based-Anarcho-Syndicalist-Chad let me try. There's no such thing as an atheistic world view. The statement in itself doesn't make sense. How can you form your world view based upon what you don't believe? Even if no atheist on the planet can give you a satisfactory explanation of morality without needing to reference a diety, that doesn't make a belief in a diety true. It's like asking what I enjoy about not stamp collecting. Assuming you're a Christian, that would mean you aren't Jewish, you aren't Muslim, or Hindu, ect. How does not being those things shape your worldview? Your worldview is shaped by what you DO believe, not what you don't.

@justanothernick3984

2 жыл бұрын

@@Based-Anarcho-Syndicalist-Chad Going to butt in on the moral aspect of the argument. There are only subjective morals and these are usually dictated by the peers you live with. The culture you live in holds a standard of what is permissable and if you do not abide by these sets of standards, you will be sanctioned by the people in this group, not by supernatural entities or bad luck. So if you commit atrocities and don't get caught, you will not be punished by your group but if you have a conscience, it might not let you forget what you have done and devour you from within. Those "demons" are real but there is nothing supernatural behind them. It's your view about yourself and how your in-group sees you. No God required. Only psychology.

@grimloki3107

2 жыл бұрын

I like your form of questioning and I enjoy that you are honest and humble enough to concede some points. That shows an intelligence and a willing open mind to listening to the other side without just claiming you are right and the other side is wrong. So, cheers to ya mate. While I do disagree with you on the morality arguement...at least you left room for discussion. Unlike many other believers. As someone that believes in values more often associated with aethiests, I can say this with clarity. Religion had no innate or ground building effort in my morality. I do truly....as Hutchinson mentioned..it is a naturally occurring/intrinsic value of many social creatures that d ont require a religion or a god to exist. Period.

@justanothernick3984

2 жыл бұрын

@@Based-Anarcho-Syndicalist-Chad You are right. But if I subjectively value the wellbeing of my peers, family or friends, I can selfishly deem others morally in the wrong for hurting them. You will probably do the same. Because you prefer the people you know over strangers to you. Best of regards to you.

Frank’s nonsensical gish gallop sprinkled with mined quotes is just further evidence that he doesn’t have sufficient evidence for his God.

Atheism doesn't need to explain anything. The burden of truth lies with the faithful.

I was on the debate team in highschool I always (along with all of my other teammates) used the same case with some tweaks until the topic changed so y’all need to chill

@pedohunter5117

Жыл бұрын

OK Y,ALL

Frank...Why must you shout?

@rijden-nu

8 жыл бұрын

+Norman Bates Because that makes what he is saying more true. Duh.

@seivaDsugnA

8 жыл бұрын

+SadBunny It's also more true if you talk quickly and wave your hands about.

@rijden-nu

8 жыл бұрын

Angus Davies Italians have known this for centuries.

@rijden-nu

8 жыл бұрын

Angus Davies Although speaking quickly could also be just a way to say more true things.

@seivaDsugnA

8 жыл бұрын

SadBunny If time is limited, yes.

Some of Turek's arguments around the insane level of precision needed or we wouldn't be here, only leads me to ask how does he or anyone know?? Maybe we'd be here but slightly different? Or we would have adapted and still be here, etc...

@izaruburs9389

10 ай бұрын

Not to mention that we don't even know if these constants could change. If they are always exactly what they are and were now then it's not really fine tuned, it just is the way it always has been and always will be. The premise that these constants could be any different is pure speculation and not really an argument.

29:36 55:24 1:02:05 1:07:14 1:14:05 1:17:47 1:19:23 1:28:43 1:35:27 1:44:05 1:52:44

Far out this "doctor" is doing my head in. How is he so blindly mistaken about the atheist view of the big bang? The fact the universe has a beginning does not at all imply a beginner and we dont at all claim it came from nothing or was eternal.

@kathyd456

Жыл бұрын

What is the atheist view of the Big Bang?

@NomadUniverse

Жыл бұрын

@@kathyd456 What do you mean? It's a scientific theory backed up by evidence and experiment. It has nothing to do with atheism.

What's your evidence of God? Look at the that moon and this mountain. What more do you want? Who do you think made them? "I don't know." See you don't know anything, it's God. Perfect, PhD for you and now you can have blessings.

In a twist of the irony he so much loved, Hitchens has the patience of a saint here.

47:50 "You can't go from a state of non-existence to a state of existence without making a choice" Choices and their results are timely events. Before and after the choice. There can't be timely events without time. If the Universe beginning to exist also made time, then it cannot have come by choice.

@double0seven856

2 жыл бұрын

Time is not an entity.

@Xgya2000

2 жыл бұрын

​@@double0seven856 ? What does that have to do with my comment? Spacetime had a beginning. Following that, spacetime went from a state of non-existence to existence. Which, according to the argument, would require a choice. Which can't be true, because a choice would require time.

@chrissonofpear1384

2 жыл бұрын

@@Xgya2000 technically a 'symmetry break' as we currently understand the concept. Which may, or may not, count as a choice.

@BringJoyNow

Жыл бұрын

Choice is a change of status, but that can involve time or not. Why? Because in our reality, choice is time linked in our mind, we live in time. If space could only go forward in 1 dimension it will be the same (like choosing to go left or right on a road). Now, a timeless creator lives outside time, so power of choice is not a pre/post scenario but a command (Christians by Genesis say that God's word are action, so while we cannot make a flame burst by giving order to the wood but have to require time to rub its pecies to allow it, God can order it and nature will instantaneously follow). Now, we are living in a universe where causality is one of its property. Why can we dare to say all is casual except its birth or the birth of the multiverse that made our universe rose? We can't, and being its cause beyond nature its by definition supernatural, and if it is supernatural then it is something that has the power to create out of nothing dimensions. But how? By ordering it. But to give order in a timeless scale you need choice, as no other action can cause the order to be sent. Hope I said everything correctly and logically ✌🏻

@Xgya2000

Жыл бұрын

@@BringJoyNow "God can order it and nature will instantaneously follow" "Nature will do something and God will instantaneously follow by ordering" If you can't differentiate a "before" and "after" a choice, you can't say one precedes the other. Timeless events are by definition all simultaneous. Another way to spell it is all simultaneous events have "always" happened (there was no moment in time at which they had not) Default states of existence (the sum of all things that have always been) do not need a cause. That IS how you get to God himself being causeless after all.

Only one winner here and it ain't 'shouty' Frank.

Turek speaks about things as Hitchens said humanity is not 100% sure yet

@BringJoyNow

Жыл бұрын

Well, in nuclear field we talk about things that are 99% correct and account (not forget or uncare) the 1%, but we have no fear to back-up behind that 99% as it is greater than that the 1%

When u appeal to emotional your arguments are an empty box, fantastic final statement frank

@dbarker7794

2 жыл бұрын

Turek is appealing to emotion.

@thetannernation

Жыл бұрын

@@dbarker7794 literally not even close. Did you even listen to the COSMOS acronym

@reesehinton9544

Ай бұрын

@@thetannernationwhich appeals to emotion but even worse, grossly misrepresents science and especially the Big Bang theory, no scientist will tell you everything exploded from nothing

1:25:55 Book of Isaiah was originally written during 8th century BC.

@Amos9.11

3 жыл бұрын

When Turek said, "the entire book of Isaiah dated from _at least_ 100 BC", he was not saying it was originally written in 100 BC. Just prior to this at 1:25:45 he referenced the Dead Sea Scrolls - which are copies of the Hebrew Bible estimated to have been made about 100 BC. The scrolls contained the entire Book of Isaiah thus establishing that that the prophecies in it about the Messiah were definitely written before the time of Christ.

@musicstaroffl

3 жыл бұрын

@@Amos9.11 Oh..okay. Thanks.

I want to know what the guy in the middle thinks

@TonyEnglandUK

3 жыл бұрын

He thinks _"Hurry up, chaps, there's a cold beer waiting for me."_

@gracemanus3955

3 жыл бұрын

@@TonyEnglandUK absolutely lol

I didn't see a lot of arguments from Hitchens that related to the beginning of the universe. He talked about religious fallacies but he didn't talk a lot about the origin of the universe.

@thebadgeclanfilms8002

4 жыл бұрын

Tim H if science has then seth didn’t Hitchens bring it up in response to Frank. It sound to me like HE was using science...

@krispybacon9285

4 жыл бұрын

and? he never claimed to know the answer he only claims to know god ISNT the answer.. and i and MANY people world wide see the truth of that. if every time we dont know something we just default to "cuz gawd" how far will we ever get? its intellectually lazy for anyone to assume because they have no answer or dont understand the answer NO OTHER HUMAN could possibly know it or understand it. its hubris of the highest order..

@thebadgeclanfilms8002

4 жыл бұрын

Krispy Bacon i see what your getting at, but at the same time you’ve got to consider that order always comes from intelligence and our planet is extremely intricate and orderly. The question at hand was what best explains the start of the universe and seeing as how humans haven’t observed something coming from nothing, and clearly know that the universe is finite, I’ve chosen to side with this Frank guy.

@peytonsingh6258

4 жыл бұрын

@@krispybacon9285 It's pretty logical to come to the conclusion that the universe we live in had a designer using science. I can go on about it if you'd like. God bless.

@boogiman14

4 жыл бұрын

because he cant none of them can soo they go to the emotional arguments like look at suicide bombers thats because of religious

A great analogy for the space, matter, and time is like a computer coder the person who makes the program and the logic DOES NOT LIVE IN THE COMPUTER HE'S OUTSIDE OF IT

@guyjosephs5654

3 жыл бұрын

very disagree. We don't know enough about "outside" the universe. If you need someone to create everything that's fine, but that doesn't equal it needs one.

@KillaCowboy

3 жыл бұрын

@@guyjosephs5654 have humans as intelligent as we are ever created life? Give the same ingredients, same chemicals atoms electric current and see if a human can create life... It's never happened nor will it.. You people rather believe everything started from a pool of chemicals that just randomly produced life. Life that can reproduce its own kind. Life that needs two different animals of the same likeness to get another.. Was the chicken or the egg first? And keep in mind a chicken can have eggs without mating but infertile, CANNOT reproduce without a rooster. The same animal developing two different ways and the end result of their differences is to make another of itself and all of this just happening randomly? I think not

@JoeMama-sd2kl

2 жыл бұрын

@@guyjosephs5654 but its logical based argument that asks on whats most probable? What makes more sense? Which has the higher chance of probability? A uncaused cause that caused the universe, a caused cause that cause the universe (which could lead to an uncaused cause ultimately or an infinite regress of caused causes) or the universe came out of nothing. I think we all deep down know whats more logically plausible

@guyjosephs5654

2 жыл бұрын

@@KillaCowboy sooooo because we can’t do it now that equals we never can, that it can’t be possible naturally because of our ego? And that therefor the only possible answer is a deity? That’s a weak reason. Why do you feel if we can’t do something or fully explain something we never can?

@guyjosephs5654

2 жыл бұрын

@@JoeMama-sd2kl well if you want to go with logic…why does the god get a free pass? Special pleading? Double standards? Why does some god never have to have an explanation for itself? Why does it get to be eternal? Why can’t energy be eternal and just keeps going through cycles of universes? Just because our human brains have a hard time grasping infinite cycle doesn’t equal it can’t be. No, you believe one explanation and that’s fine, but to say deep down we all know which is more logically plausible? No you are trying to force it. The correct logical thing to say is we don’t know.

CH is missed so badly, by so many. Yet many people are delighted he is no longer with us. I belong to the former group.

@kathybj

Жыл бұрын

Well, Christopher isn’t an atheist anymore now , is he?!

@billmiller3425

Жыл бұрын

Interesting that it's the "religious" people who are glad he died. Interesting isn't it? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

@muhammad_likes_dancing

Жыл бұрын

R u dumb ? Didnt you see how he didnt adress the issues and his way of talking is not looking like he cared

@kathyd456

Жыл бұрын

Why do you miss him so badly? Is there something lacking because he has died? I am genuinely curious. Thanks for your time.

@melonusk6120

Жыл бұрын

@@kathyd456 he is very entertaining in his speech.

We need to look at what the debate topic is... "what best explains reality", I watched this and tried to ignore my predispositions. And lets be real, Hitchens didn't even debate this at all. He just talked about all the bad things that have come from religion over Earth's history. At least Turek addressed this question and debated what was supposed to be debated.

@flavourlessjosephus2910

6 жыл бұрын

Dax Van Der Wal I believe the point is that all these evil things occurred due to religious people attemping to shape reality to fit their religiously defined world-view rather than fitting their world-view to reality.

@Favar1

6 жыл бұрын

I mean Hitchens did address it in the opening statement. He said that there is no way to disprove the prime mover. He then went into the argument of why that fact has no connotation to morality or religion and proves nothing. There is literally nothing more to say about that topic, he won then and there, and then spent the rest of his time to condemn the real injustices of a real institution of the church

@android4754

5 жыл бұрын

@@Favar1 He did not win there. Based on how the universe is you can assess qualities that a prime mover would have to have. Many of which Turek argued for. Though I do not believe he connected his assessment of qualities with that specific point of Hitchens so it was pretty easy to miss. Moreover, that is not a case for atheism, how it explains reality, or why it explains reality. It is a decent counter argument, but not much more. My other concern with your point is he argues Christians are amoral. This begs two questions which are how to justify morality, which Hitchens would need to define morality to do, and why that helps his case. What does proving that people are evil do for his case? The short answer is nothing. Saying everyone is evil is a basic principle of Christianity. I ask so what?

@peterscott1272

5 жыл бұрын

Proving what exactly

@lawless7859

5 жыл бұрын

Frank argued for deist. He didn't argue for god. He lost front his first speech.

Christopher Hitchens is a intellectual juggernaut and once again lays waste to another victim in the form of Frank Turek. After seeing the shellacking of Turek at the VCU debate...... at the hands of the intellectually superior wordsmith Hitchens. I was disappointed that Turek was unable to rise to the occasion and be a more formidable challenger. I however was entertained and captivated by the thrashing that Hitchens laid upon Turek. I am sure Turek is a nice man but was in way over his head.

@unforgettablerandomtv6446

3 жыл бұрын

You are just a lost soul, just like Christopher

@Jbarack98

3 жыл бұрын

@@unforgettablerandomtv6446 so many lost souls, it’s very sad, people have bought into scientific materialism.

@firstlast5630

3 жыл бұрын

Christopher Hitchens an intellectual juggernaut lmao... how much pot do you have to smoke to think that?

@jerryburd3284

3 жыл бұрын

@@firstlast5630 No pot necessary, just half a brain.

@firstlast5630

3 жыл бұрын

@@jerryburd3284 You're 100 % correct. Having half a brain is required for thinking Hitch is an intellectual juggernaut.

What sad news today. That great friend of Christopher Hitchens, the man who he protected at risk of his own life, Mr Salman Rushdie has lost the sight in one eye and the use of one hand as a result of the horrific attack by a religious nutter some weeks ago. Hitch would be heartbroken and in some small way I'm glad he doesn't have to find out about this. I will weep on his behalf.

@frankjackal

Жыл бұрын

Can't wait to read his next book... The barbarism of religion is always knocking on our doors. We can't rest until it's Dogma is eliminated.

@GaryCrant

Жыл бұрын

@@frankjackal Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind (Albert Einstein)

@nickwood8203

Жыл бұрын

@@GaryCrant a known atheist

@GaryCrant

Жыл бұрын

@@nickwood8203 exactly

@roems6396

7 ай бұрын

@@GaryCrant Einstein wasn’t religious. I have no idea why theists quote him to support their position. It does nothing to help their case.

When you take the path of intellect than you'll never get the answers you want. You end up just debating morality endlessly until you die.

@trials6502

2 жыл бұрын

Interesting.

@BabyUn0

Жыл бұрын

Good point

@calebhobbs9539

9 ай бұрын

Facts!!

@electrondynamics9721

8 ай бұрын

That's the reason I prefer evidence based debates for existence of god rather than stucking in between the morality debate .... About which we can have different opinions and different debates....

@MathewSteeleAtheology

8 ай бұрын

It's easier just to learn from animals, that's what we did in the first place anyway.

the title of the video is an ill-formed question. atheism is not a philosophy, or an explanation or even a claim. it's a position on a claim, that claim being "gods(or a god) exist", and that position being "i dont believe you". that's it. there's nothing more to it. it's kinda boring to propose a debate about atheism.

@connorjohn9256

10 жыл бұрын

Couldn't agree more.

@imthebossthere

10 жыл бұрын

very well said

@TimBurton1087

10 жыл бұрын

So, then, I would argue that the question is... backwards? If a form of theism is reality, then surely by pursuing that theistic view would find reality. But if reality is void of any gods whatsoever, then atheism would find that reality more easily. I rephrase the title as such: Which is better aligned with reality? Theism or atheism? I agree 100% that atheism does not try to explain reality, and simply is a statement of 'I don't find evidence in any existence of any god, therefore I live my life as such.' However, if atheism is better aligned with reality than theism, then it would be a better lifestyle and belief system (lack thereof, rather) to have when pursuing reality and answering questions regarding it. Anything else would just be obstacles and blindfolds.

@sabin97

10 жыл бұрын

Tim Burton "it would be a better lifestyle and belief system" except atheism is not a lifestyle or a belief system. it's one position about one claim, nothing more. the claim being "one or more gods exist" and the position being "you havent shown me any evidence for accepting that claim, so i will reject it until you do". but most importantly, are you banging that blonde?

@LFC-Star

10 жыл бұрын

sabin97 Religion is an invention of people's imagination. They want a god to exist so those who believe, then convince themselves that a god exists.

We have no choice but to have free will.... that's gonna resonate for a while.

@crackory1853

3 жыл бұрын

Such a profound statement

@Vaioplayer88

3 жыл бұрын

If you are forced to make a specific choice, is it still free will?

@elliotcasson2808

3 жыл бұрын

You would have to have free will in order to make the choice to have free will. God Bless🙏 Jesus Loves You❤️

@2l84me8

3 жыл бұрын

@@elliotcasson2808 That makes no sense.

@elliotcasson2808

3 жыл бұрын

@@2l84me8 exactly that’s the paradox, there is no way to choose free will

Since this debate is 10 years old I would love to hear from anyone who attended as to their thoughts.

@aiweeable

2 жыл бұрын

Sadly Cristopher died not too long ago

@nimashariatian2884

2 жыл бұрын

@@aiweeable This was indeed sad, he was loved by many, including his opponents during the debate. "He would often go out to dinner with them after and discuss philosophy and politics over pizza and wine" a quote from D'Souza was one of his great admirers.

@kaufmanat1

2 жыл бұрын

@@aiweeable I wonder if his opinions have changed since then. I'd imagine probably not.

@cdogthehedgehog6923

2 жыл бұрын

@@kaufmanat1 Dead people can't change their opinions 🤦‍♀️

@leonardoherreraornelas4667

Жыл бұрын

@@kaufmanat1 I don't think he changed his mind. He even asked people not to pray for him when he was sick. It's quite sad bc at this time serious academic atheists are changing their thoughts on some of the classical grounding problems. Even the same Dawkins said he would be open to deism if the fine tuning argument could convince him, he says he consider it a good argument. Definitely he would not be open to religion at all, these people have serious prejudices against religion, but philosophywise, contemporary atheist are aware that their worldview has serious grounding issues.

Turek orates like an evangelist!!

Turek opened exactly the same way he did last time, like some kind of comedian and this is his standup routine...

I love Turek's deconstruction of Hitchens' arguments at the end. Starts at 1:57:49.

@dr.zoidberg5096

4 жыл бұрын

Can you put in a time stamp?

@dr.zoidberg5096

4 жыл бұрын

Odel Schwanck Well, he stated “at the end” so it does exist. Honestly if he didn’t put the word end I would have assumed he was talking about the whole argument.

@jhoncadalin5887

4 жыл бұрын

Odel Schwanck are you even listening boi?

@dr.zoidberg5096

4 жыл бұрын

Odel Schwanck He won the argument in his introduction. Did hitchens debunk a single thing Turek said or did turek debunk hitchens entire argument in the first 30 minutes of this video? I’m pretty sure hitchens just ranted about his opinions without and scientific or logical reasoning behind it. Watch their first debate, it’s just like this one. I’m guessing you believe that something comes from nothing? Hitchens is literally sweating beads when he walks up. His first words are so ironic because he says he doesn’t argue about Santa and things that don’t exist but he’s arguing about something he thinks doesn’t exist. He just goes on about things that he doesn’t like about the God he believes doesn’t exist lol he doesn’t want proof, he just wants to do what he wants. He contracts himself constantly, he’s a very angry man.

@shaolinshowdown1123

4 жыл бұрын

@Odel Schwanck God would have to exsist for you to say that.

28:11 “…….observable creation…..” What? I thought he believed the universe just happened to start existing at one point, after it hadn’t existed

Frank Turek's proposition of saying that Zeus was 'in the world' is totally false, that is not what the Hellenes believed. Zeus was the Demiurge (Craftsman) he was the creator of the heavens, cosmos and the world. Zeus was separated from the world but also in it, in that he was present in peoples lives, a persona god.

And after finishing this video and comparing it to many of the comments on here, I think that many of you did not even watch the full debate, but instead gave Christopher positive comments because you admire him and his 'wit'. Frank was consistent in his assertions and assumptions about what we see in reality. He was correct when he stated that Chris MUST borrow from theism when making statements about morality. Without an absolute, everything is relative therefore nobody can claim to have the truth, but they can only try to instill their truth in others by use of force and manipulation. Christopher constantly makes philosophical statements but has no ground to stand on. If what he says is true, this world, and universe, is based on chaos and chemical interactions. Nothing more, nothing less.

@marianhalcombe3305

5 жыл бұрын

First of all, it's Christopher. He hated being called "Chris" Frank was consistent, organized and prepared, yes. Of course, the rest is only your opinion. "He was correct when he stated that Christopher MUST borrow from theism when making statements about morality. Without an absolute, everything is relative therefore nobody can claim to have the truth, but they can only try to instill their truth in others by use of force and manipulation. " Christopher must borrow from theism? I thought he said that God instilled every human with a sense of morality. This at least, makes sense. Holy books provide us with some wise moral suggestions and some absurd, outdated, and cruel suggestions. Yet, many theists pick out the positives and disregard the negatives. What enables them to determine the good and bad in the holy books? Perhaps an innate sense of right and wrong. You don't give human beings enough credit. We do good helpful things all the time of our own prerogative. Most things people do are for pleasure. Its not always so simple as "eat food and make babies". We like giving to charity because it makes us feel good. We give up our seat on the bus because it makes us feel good. There are some things that are inexplicable to me, because I'm not a scientist. The story that Frank told at the end, however irrelevant, was very touching. I can't explain the motive. Still everything IS relative. We're conditioned now to find certain things okay and other things morally unacceptable. In the days of public executions and gladiators, public killing seemed to be morally acceptable. Now it's not. Our society and our brains make the rules. "If what he says is true, this world, and universe, is based on chaos and chemical interactions. Nothing more, nothing less." What do you think this universe is based on? There's no way to deny God's existence (or to prove anything to be untrue for that matter, except by disproving the evidence of it's truth), but we can deny the traits He claims, as they're contradictory. If an all powerful being creates something, it shouldn't fall apart like a car. If it does, He should be able to stop it. If He doesn't want to, He's not all-loving. If He can't, he's not all-powerful. Either way, doom is coming in the form of Andromeda on a collision course with our galaxy or our own sun exploding. Is this not a universe of chaos? We are primates. We might even be apes. Perhaps there's more. Perhaps there's a reason why we love and we do selfless acts (usually or always for self-indulgent reasons). My opinion is that Frank speaks well and somewhat rationally but also a tad nonsensically. Christopher wasn't as organized and clear as he, but, in my opinion, won all the same.

@corb5654

5 жыл бұрын

Yep, good old Christian "morality". If all else fails drown everybody. Own people as slaves. Kill your kids for Christ...

@lonecrusaider

5 жыл бұрын

I agree, most of the commenters didn't watch the whole video.

@superstraightbyzantophile726

5 жыл бұрын

Agreed, it's clear judging from the comments section of any Hitchens video he was astoundingly a messiah or prophet figure to many people. Having watched many of his debates, he often appears drunk, condescending, completely unprepared and he can barely get through a sentence without committing some kind of logical fallacy. Turek summed Hitchens up very nicely in his closing remarks.

@sexyassbrowneyes

5 жыл бұрын

MrBDM13 exactly

I am a member of the party of Hitchens on this but I like Turek's quote "Nothing is what Rocks dream about".

@oysterpopsicles3362

10 жыл бұрын

Umm, that was Aristotle he was quoting.

@tylerkasuboski3366

4 жыл бұрын

Possibly the most idiotic statement made by Aristotle. "Absolute nothingness" cannot be conceptualized. The state of "nothingness" which physicists like Lawrence Krauss speak of is NOT an absolute form of nothingness. The number of logical fallacies in Turek's intro alone is staggering.

@pooterbilbo8132

4 жыл бұрын

@@tylerkasuboski3366 I prefer "nothing is what god dreams about"

@tdubfpv3380

4 жыл бұрын

Best Turek quote.."you dont believe in god....and you clearly hate him" So evident sadly in Hitchens arguments, RIP hitch

@Pwwh0711

3 жыл бұрын

@@tdubfpv3380 Yes, he hated the evil acts that made-up religions cause people to do in its name.

From 4:40 to 4:55 He makes the statement that cosmologist suggest an eternal beginning. I would love to hear which cosmologist actually makes this statement.

@theinnercircle404

5 ай бұрын

15:40 - 16:15 he unknowingly destroyed his own argument.

@Refulgent_Rascal

4 ай бұрын

If it's meant to be nothingness then before it has to have been eternal. No atheist follows their ideology to its end result ever. I've never seen it.

@jagged2tiger

4 ай бұрын

He also said the universe is running out of energy and if it was eternal it would have run out of energy a long time ago… if it was eternal why would it run out of energy ?

What a closing statement from Mr Turek. Wow!!!

@dja-bomb6397

2 жыл бұрын

Appeals to emotion can be very compelling, but that's all they are.

@dja-bomb6397

2 жыл бұрын

@Karat Kravat you don't think the atrocious things Christians have done, and are still doing today such as conversion therapy have any scriptural basis?

@jaskoe1

2 жыл бұрын

@Karat Kravat You should be embarrassed to be a Christian.

@chrissonofpear1384

2 жыл бұрын

@Karat Kravat I see it more as a chaotic mess, at times, with all kinds of loose ends, abuses, mix ups and vague verses, allowing all kinds of things. As 1 Corinthians 10 and Matthew 5:18 did. Also, we don't really have a single Christianity to attribute things to. It's not the people, so much as the system, maybe that is bad - or erratic.

@roshanjf

2 жыл бұрын

It is not fair to compare the two sacrifices .. Michael A. Monsoor actually saved lived ..

Dude confuses shrieking with righteousness.

@aldrinkinny

2 жыл бұрын

Other Dude confuses not shrieking with righteousness

@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy

2 жыл бұрын

@@aldrinkinny, Theists confuse objective morality with the divine-command.

The comment from Turek attempting to rebutt Hitchen's use of Hume's argument misses the point entirely - it wasn't that the common should be believed and the rare denounced; some totally natural events are rare - it's that the repeatable and measurable physical laws of nature should be taken as more likely true/accurate/ representative of truth and reality than events that deviate from the physical laws of nature i.e. the supernatural.

It's amazing how psychotic they get every time they feel their piece of bread is being questioned.

Feelings are chemical. Anyone with pets knows that they have feelings. There are chemical drugs that can cause certain feelings and certain drugs that can stop or inhibit other emotions...

@Lrapsody27

5 жыл бұрын

foxglos so because pain is just due to chemical signals, why is torture wrong, as it isn't objectively wrong if you are a materialist? It's no different from pouring baking soda into vinegar apparently.

@zymosan123

5 жыл бұрын

But what makes certain feeling good or bad? Y’all are missing the point

@BRANDT9877

4 жыл бұрын

NothingButTheTruth The people that crucified Jesus didn’t think torture was objectively wrong.

@johnwick1064

4 жыл бұрын

BRANDT9877 they only crucified Jesus because they didn’t believed that he was the messiah, and killed him for blasphemy. That doesn’t mean they didn’t think torture was wrong, they thought it was a just for them to do that.

@123tominator007

4 жыл бұрын

So I guess you really don't love your mama

are we just gonna sit here and pretend most Atheist commenting here, can't hear Krauss shout all day and night?

@hartleyhare251

2 жыл бұрын

Ah, Krauss... who seriously listens to that chappie?

@ItsSVO

2 жыл бұрын

Difference is Krauss isn’t chatting absolute bollocks for an hour and makes plenty of solid points.

The purpose of life is to reproduce as fast as possible without being eaten, and through a process that took many 100s of thousands of years,( evolution ) the human species learned through trial and error that other individuals have different skills that are more efficient, safer, and learning these skills from others and protecting them is beneficial to your survival, therefore a group,tribe, family that cares and shares for and with each other stands a better chance.. this is the birth of all morals

Turek what you ramble on about in my field is called Flight of Ideas... there is help 4 it . Cheers

51:00 Turek: you can't just use a personal anecdote and make a claim! Fifteen seconds later: uses personal anecdote (i.e. revelation) to make a claim

@peetahbak524

3 жыл бұрын

That’s not necessarily an anecdote, Turek is claiming that everyone experiences them which is by nature the opposite of an anecdote, but I see what you are saying where it is personal and unable to be identified by another individual

youtube scholars, you got to love them. There's just something about a screen that makes people think they got the answers. .

@02jail

7 жыл бұрын

mike murfree and most of them would never speak how they write here in person, cause it would show how classless they actually are.

@kobepmusic

3 жыл бұрын

Is the derisiveness really necessary though? Some, if not all, of these people are genuinely attempting to expand their thought processes. What does dismissing that based on the accessibility of the content actually accomplish? Idk bud idk

@daemonzap1481

3 жыл бұрын

@@kobepmusic Most people aren't, and for the few that are genuinely trying to expand they ask more questions than give answers.

@lrvogt1257

2 жыл бұрын

It's good to see people engaged in a serious subject regardless of their opinion.

Believers seem to know what god wants and coincides with their desires. Red flag!

@KeeganStephen0914

9 ай бұрын

What God wants does NOT coincide with our desires. The opposite is true. We want exactly what you want. We want sex all the time everywhere. We want to commit violence unto those who have wronged us. We want to slander and gossip against others. We want to treasure up as much wealth as possible and live in luxury. The difference is, as followers of Christ, we recognize these things and repent from them, and turn away from them. You have a very poor understanding of the Christian faith and Jesus Christ, and that’s a shame, considering you have taken the bold step of criticizing it and it’s followers, of whom you do not have knowledge.

Isn't it amazing that Hitchens qouted Rabbi Hillel the teacher of Apostle Paul but denied the fact that Apostle Paul existed?

@fleur_bleue9703

2 жыл бұрын

How does the teacher existing prove the existence of apostle Paul? Its like saying because a couple exist their child must exist, even if they dont have any children.

@Mr.Goodkat

2 жыл бұрын

@@fleur_bleue9703 True but it's missing the thought process behind the person making that statement, it's more that when dealing with a figure of ancient history which supports the other persons argument you say it's too far back and the evidence is shoddy because of it but then when dealing with someone just as far back and with as little (or even less) evidence (but now it supports YOUR point) existence can now be granted, shows it was never the shoddy evidence that was the issue in the first place.

@2l84me8

2 жыл бұрын

I can quote Harry Potter. It doesn’t mean I believe in Harry Potter. See how that works?

@kratino

7 ай бұрын

He denied Paul existed? Where?

@user-vv2pf1sy4m

2 ай бұрын

@@2l84me8 he doesn't see he is a religious simp lol

The argument that since the natural laws of the universe allow the current reality to exist, and if the laws were different than we wouldn't exist is, to simplify, basically saying "if things were different, things would be different, but they aren't, therefore God". The massive assumption is that the laws of nature were set, or chosen, like a sound mixer sliding knobs on a board until all the natural laws are set to the perfect value. But what if the natural laws are just what the natural laws are, not chosen from a spectrum? And of course the universe has to exist the way it does because of what the natural laws are. If thr natural laws were in fact different, who's to say we wouldn't still have a universe, just one that formed according to those laws?

@hamedhinston9148

2 жыл бұрын

It’s crazy what people will come up to be comfortable with confusion or denying the existence of God..even if the laws where different..that will still sit in the realm of the creator ..I’m starting to see what it is..obviously if you take a personal creator out of the creation..then of course you can come up with any nonsense..but it still wouldn’t prove your very own existence..you will left with the unknown..the Bible gives us evidence for the existence of God..it speaks about sin and how corrupt the human heart is..you know God exist when you realize how sinful me and you’re..it’s call faith

@thekwjiboo

2 жыл бұрын

@@hamedhinston9148 faith may be good enough for you, and that's fine, I'm not here to judge. It's not good enough for me. I need a reason to believe, which I currently do not have. Most of what I was saying wasn't directed at me trying to prove or disprove anything, it was just me commenting on the choice of arguments being used.

@hamedhinston9148

2 жыл бұрын

@@thekwjiboo wooooooooooow ..my friend just open the Bible ..I don’t understand why people complicate life when God literally gave us directions..it’s your unbelief that will keep you in the darkness ..the evidence for the existence of God is all around. You . The fact that you chose not to believe in The true God is still not an excuse..if you ever get a chance, open that Bible and read Romans 1:18,19,20….(read the whole book 😭🤣🤣) to know God, to accept Jesus has your savior is so the most important thing you will ever accept in this life..God do you love you ..but make no mistake he will judge our sins ..it just breaks my heart when people chose not to believe in God..my friend God made us to be critical thinkers..to actually use our brains and think for our own ..according to his words..Proverbs chapter 3:5-6--5 Trust in the Lord(A) with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; 6 in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight. I pray God grant you faith ..when you come to Christ. I want the best for you honestly..I don’t know you personally..but I know the God I serve and if he is good and merciful too me, he will be the same good and merciful to you..be blessed and enjoy your day. I pray this help a little

@thekwjiboo

2 жыл бұрын

@@hamedhinston9148 I have read the Bible in its entirety. Christians hate hearing this, but that's not my problem, but that's no different than a Muslim telling me to read the Quran to quell my doubts about their beliefs. Like I said, I need a reason to believe (and that goes for everything, not just theological questions), and the inherently circular reasoning of "read the bible" doesn't cut it. Why do I say it's circular? It's like this. The Bible is the word of God. How do you know that? Because the Bible says so. Why should I care what the Bible says? Because it's the word of God. Lather, rinse, repeat. Circular. Therefore, not convincing.

@hamedhinston9148

2 жыл бұрын

@@thekwjiboo soooooo wait ..even if God told you to do something , you won’t do it..you have to understand who you’re and who God his..my brother the Fact that God is real, and can be proven with countless evidence, speaks volume on why we should do as God says..and we focusing on the True God, the Bible speaks of Him..not the Muslim ..I just don’t understand how someone can be so bold towards God. But I know that God is willing to Forgive if you sincerely repent and ask for forgiveness..you make it seem like God is against you , when he is actually ready to save and justify you. God is an enemy of the wicked and willful sinners..but he give mercy and grace to the ones he deemed Just and righteous. It’s really not that complicated my friend