Debate: What Best Explains Reality: Theism or Atheism? (Frank Turek vs. Michael Shermer)
Vložit
- čas přidán 31. 08. 2018
- Does belief in God make sense of the world? Or does reality itself point to God’s absence? Is God real or is he a product of human minds?
#FrankTurek #MichaelShermer #Reality
"It's ok to be mad at God. He's an infinite being, He can take it."
This hit me hard. Thank you
Unless you die mad I think it's ok
...but he loves you and gets mad if you love another god? 😂
@@matsbjur2535 How would you feel if you had a kid and they called another man "dad?" Not only just that, they actively ignore you for this other dad. You'd be happy about that?
Mr. E
If my kid didn’t love me I’d look to my own self first and ask whether I did anything to deserve his love. Your god’s creation leaves a lot to be desired don’t you think? There maybe a god in another galaxy who did it better. I wouldn’t be surprised.
@@jefferyperkins4668 You obviously haven't watched any debates to listen or learn, just respond and react. I'm actively searching for the truth. Idk what I am. You should try it
I can't just stop listening to Frank. I actually applied some of the things I learnt from his videos and i was able to prove to an atheist that there is God. The person is now a believer.
Amen brother, me too!
What did you do hypnotise him or her with a swinging chain..
What arguments did you use to do this?
@@stevenhird1837nah just common sense
Small minded gullible man it must've been then
I think Frank did a better job arguing the existence of God as an explanation and grounding for our reality, than Michael did who mainly argued against religion via thought but couldn’t nail the objectivity of reality as clearly as Frank.
the usual arguments(kinda the only ones left for theists, fine tunning and the comsological argument, both which are mostly refused/refuted by physicsist , philosophers and biologists
What was the argument again? Can you explain arguing against anything without thought? How does an unfalsifiable concept explain anything, much less another concept that being the objectivity of reality?
Mr Shermer is rude, interruptive, uncouth, unsophisticated, obnoxious & Full of Himself!
The moderator is NOT a moderator in any sense of the word, and he should not take on this role Again!! He had Absolutely NO Control! He was useless in this situation. He allowed atheist to run rough shod over the entire proceeding!!! Quite disappointing indeed. It is a very tedious, unproductive, and difficult to get through this entire thing.
_3Big,_ how so? He didn't present reasonable evidence of a god, he just made the same old illogical arguments. You know like if Gary tells you leprechauns are the best explanation for objective morality and just says objective morals exist for no reason, do those two non-evidenced claims magically combine and become reasonable evidence of leprechauns? No. It's just Gary saying things without any real grounding in reality. A claim without evidence (baseless assertion) is an error of logic. Well all of Turek's arguments have errors like that, and those errors prevent those arguments from being evidence of a god.
Year late comment but...More and more evil is being accepted since I can remember. Everytime I listen to a debate against God, it only makes me more cemented in my faith as a believer whom trusts Jesus Christ more and more everyday. Love all my brothers and sisters in here.
Are you sure these beings even exist?
Amen
@@vuho2075 100%
Are the arguments _against_ atheism - being the basis from which to gain understanding of the existence of what we call reality - all so logical and reasonable and rational that they can't be denied?
Are the arguments against theism - being the basis from which we gain understanding of the reality surrounding us - so flawed and incoherent and illogical that they cannot be denied?
Lol funny myth man
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
God uses the foolish to shame the wise, and Dr Frank to own Apologetics 👊💀
@demigodzilla that was an inside job! Not "Middle Eastern" terrorist.
@@recieve.believe3344 Yeah sure, now do that with all the other atrocities committed in the name of the "right" god.
@@teresamcmud2605 When atrocities like this happen, the "god" of money is more likely than not the motive! Just ask Bush, Cheney and company.
@@recieve.believe3344 Yeah who cares what the facts show and the actual testimony of the people who committed the act. Is ISIS a Bush plant too?
How the heck is frank tureks son 30, frank looks 40
Josiah Haas well he’s 56 or 57 I think
so true! he looks 40
he is 58
I love you guys
God has kept him 😉
1:17:50 I love how Frank can go along with jokes even when they are against him. Respect✊🏾💯
There's no way he could do his job otherwise. He'd be dust and tears! You have to have thick skin to be that full of s*** in public
But he's _intellectually dishonest._
@@assininecomment1630relax
hmm was that supposed to be an argument? or was that an insult?@@assininecomment1630
@@assininecomment1630That's your own personal opinion.
I'm currently about 45 minutes in. So far I have heard an atheist who is against the God of the gaps argument use the exact argument to prove atheism, comparing God to off the magic dragon, and coy insults to people who disagree woth him. On The other hand Turek laid out a very well thought out and scientific argument for God.
Mate I EXACTLY thought the same thing at 45 minutes into the debate!!
Welcome to the world of Michael Shermer. Dude has no clue how to discuss any of these topics. None whatsoever, none of the popular atheist speakers do. Ask them a philosophical question and they have no clue what you’re even asking.
Atheists don’t see the difference between magic dragons and gods. They are all imaginary things.
I don’t understand how you people don’t get that!?
@@jacoblee5796 perhaps internet atheists, but any atheist that knows the subject matter would know that simply comparing god to the tooth fairy is not at all a good argument against god.
@@TheMindIlluminated You still don't seem to get it.....the atheist view is that god and tooth fairy are in the same category of imaginary things.
I understand the subject matter probably better than you do. My wife says i have an unhealthy obsession with the subject.
You say its not a good argument against god, i say there is no good argument for the existence of your god.
I actually watched the whole thing
Powerful..
Shalom from Johannesburg South Africa
About to do the same myself 🙂
Congrats!! Definitely worth your time
and what a waste of time it is...
@josué González Rivera your opinion is subjective
“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools” - That verse couldn’t be more appropriate for Michaels worldview
Or the worldview of many theists.
This gets really boring
In the last 300 year or so, we have seen advances in medicine, technology, engineering, behavioral and social sciences -even in the humanities- that save lives, make life easier, facilitate communications, calculate the age of the Earth, and so on. This makes me wonder, what advances have theology and religious philosophy made about God and what benefits have we received from that new knowledge?
@@estuchedepeluche2212 first of all, religion is not a science. Secondly, Christianity was responsible for many of the best and most iconic things in western culture. anyone who denies this is denying established facts and reality.
@@Xenotypal Dear Disciple of Christ, thanks for answering. But it seems to me that you misunderstood my question. I asked about advances and improvements, not iconic or cultural items. With all due respect and curiosity, can you mention examples? This way, we would both know we are referring to the same things. thanks
This was a fun and respectful discussion. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
Agreed, it was interesting to see the thought process of both. Clearly Tyrek is a better "debater", even though he couldn't prove any of his points with evidence
The term “ candidate “ was used jokingly throughout this debate ; But I think the term is very fitting for Dr Shermer. He answers questions like a politician . Avoiding the question asked and answering the question he wished was asked . This was a landslide . GREAT JOB FRANK 👏🏾
I became a Christian through facts and reason as an agnostic, by consuming tons of material on the arguments for Atheism and Theism and Christianity, and also watching countless debates, all at an agnostic standpoint. It took a while to make a decision to become a Christian to follow God, but I made that decision because the Christian God has to be the truth and I couldn't hold that conviction. I found it is the most probable by weighing up probabilities of different beliefs vs the probability of Christianity.
I realised that people can believe in any viewpoint or religion if they can make assumptions of the things we can't observe, such as how did everything come to be. Therefore even though there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a creator, people can decide what they believe in, on the subject of God.
Although this worldview is almost certain to be true because of all the evidence, it is not prove able as are other world views, so there is always space for assumptions and theories to deny the existence of God.
One of the biggest or the biggest reason people don't want to believe in God is so they can be the God of their own life, in order to stay in their own rebellion against a moral creator, avoid ultimate moral responsibility for themselves and stay in doing evil that violates their conscience and what they know is wrong. Therefore to understand why an atheist is close minded to the proposition of God ask this: If Christianity was the truth would you believe in it?
_"One of the biggest or the biggest reason people don't want to believe in God is so they can be the God of their own life"_
Do you really believe that? Because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, AND at the same time it is a huge insult. As such, you're not only insulting a billion people here, you are also insulting yourself by making yourself look like a fool.
For starters: imagine that I am a Theist believing in God. Now my neighbor has a pretty wife and I want to cheat my own wife by sleeping with the neighbors wife. According to what you say, I'd now tell myself _"Ok, I believe in God right now. But if I pretend not to believe, then God does not exist, and I can cheat on my wife."_
Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense to you to assume that the deity you worship disappears as soon as you pretend to not believe anymore? It just blows my mind that you consider that to make sense.
Also, if we look at the prisons, for example in the USA, then the number of Christians there is much higher than the number of Atheists. And I don't mean the absolute numbers, but those in relative to the number of Christians and Atheists in the entire population. In other words: if you are a Christian, you are much more likely to go to prison than if you are an Atheist. Now tell me: how does that match your claim, that people become Atheists in order to live a less moral life?
It's absolutely mindboggling how you believe that this insult and ignorant claim of yours makes any sense whatsoever. You must have never thought about it. I assume that you heard somebody else say it, and as it confirms your faith you decided to just repeat it without ever thinking about it.
_"a moral creator"_
A moral creator? Are you shitting me? Now, apart from your God not existing, look at those myths and stories regarding your deity: he supposedly knows everything, right? So when he created adam and eve, he knew exactly that if he planted a tree next to them, they'd eat from it, no matter what he said. Yet he did it. Why? Because he needed a lame excuse to throw them out? And he knew exactly how mankind will unfold in general, resulting in that flood where he murdered 99.99% of all life on the planet. If he knew that in advance, why tf didn't he do things differently? What was going on in his mind? _"Well, yes, I know, if I do this, they will become sinners and criminals, but then I can murder each and every one of them. That is fun, so I will do that."_
Oh, and then let's not get started about how the Bible condones slavery. Or how it says that you should murder all enemies in combat but the women, who you should take. Guess why? What would you do with them? Well, no problem: "do not rape" is not one of the ten commandments, and, as the Bible says, forcing the rape victim to marry the rapist makes everything just fine and ok.
Moral? You got to be kidding me. It's insanity.
_"evil that violates their conscience and what they know is wrong"_
Oh yes, like when the Church told millions of people in Africa not to use condoms, infecting hundreds of millions of people with deadly and crippling diseases. Man, how nice that was. Or when priests methodically rape children, to then get protected by the Church with the money people donate. Isn't that awesome. How moral they are, those good Christians.
_"Therefore to understand why an atheist is close minded"_
Oh yes, more insults please. I mean, if the Theist has no rational arguments, then what has he left but infantile insults?
Close minded? I listen to every argument people can bring forth that would support the supposed existence of a deity. And in my entire lifetime, not one person was capable of giving me one rational argument or one shred of evidence supporting gods supposed existence.
More the opposite. Just look at your own comment: full of arrogance and insults, without any reason or logic. If anything, then comments like yours convince people that there is no god.
_"If Christianity was the truth would you believe in it"_
If anybody would have any rational arguments and/or evidence for it, then yes. But nobody does. It's a fest of ignorance and insults, of violence and crime, of corruption and abuse and hatred.
_"Therefore even though there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a creator"_
Oh yes, the wise Christian, always quick to state that there is lots and lots of evidence, and even quicker to run away if you ask him to present it. Everybody can pretend that there is evidence if you don't have to present it. Here, let me try: _"There is masses of evidence that the Moon is actually shaped like a banana. What, evidence? Uhmm... uhm... I got to go."_ That is the way of the Theist.
_"I found it is the most probable by weighing up probabilities of different beliefs vs the probability of Christianity.
"_
Magic is the easy answer for the simple minded folk that doesn't care about the truth. That's why people with a higher education are less likely to be Creationists. If you know the actual answers, you don't have to pretend that something is magic.
Well said 🙏🏼
So what is your evidence that Jesus is the son of God?
See, reality can be proved, Christianity is opinion. No evidence. Your choice to be Christian isn't based on facts, just opinion. You can believe anything you want but if you want reality to guide your life then atheism or agnosticism are your choices. Otherwise, make believe is where you live.
Same 🙏 I was lost but now I’m saved.
Actual debate begins at 4:15
Thank you
Thanks
Frank destroyed him
Thanks
Thanks Shane
I get the impression that Mr Shermer is trying so hard to not believe what he in his heart does.
how do you know, what is going on in his heart?
@@TgfkaTrichter he gets the impression
@@eliavbenmelech2187 based on what?
@@TgfkaTrichter I don't know maybe he has a feeling or the way he speaks
@@eliavbenmelech2187 or maybe he is just projecting cause of his bias.
God has an amazing representative! Frank you were amazing like always. 👍😊
Screamin' mad Turek? He needs to trade up! LOL😂
@@sladegrey9272 1) Religion told us that man was created by god.
2) That our planet was a divine creation.
3) That all animals and plants were made by the god of the bible.
However, without any intention to prove religion wrong, science gave us the real explanation.
Now religion is singing the same song, telling us that the universe has been created by god.
How sure are we that this time religion is going to get it right ?
Dr. Shermer's go-to is a condescending, "we're at different levels here...quantum this - quantum that...quarks...stars...starving children".
@demigodzilla lol
He’s talking about science and human suffering? In a debate about the existence of a benevolent god? Insane.
I am not sure I understand your disapproval of his argument......
well to be honest frank turek may know a bit about science, but he twists it around to squeeze god in where god isn't, frank, if you looked closely enough, is dihonest, shermer may be faultering and a poor debate choice, but he's not telling lies, frank turek is telling lies, and telling them to YOU.
@@HarryNicNicholas A lie is something that isn't true, or something you don't believe to be true but profess to be true, a lie IS NOT something that you don't know to be true but profess to be true, if in fact you believe it to be true and/or it is actually true. I can say the light at the end of the road is green as I type this, and I don't know that, but it isn't a lie if the light is actually green. In Turek's defense, not only does he believe what he is saying is true, but in all likelihood it is true based on the evidence. So the reality is that YOU are lying Harry Nicholas if Turek is right. That being said, the only thing of what Turek says that I don't agree with is when he says we come to know God based on external evidence and logical deduction, when the Bible says that we come to know God, not just believe in Him, but Know Him, by His Spirit. God sends His Spirit into all those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and through His Spirit He reveals himself to them internally, and once a person has received this then they know for certain that God exists, even if they cannot show you He exist, they don't need to show it in order to know it. Salvation from sin through the will of God in Christ is enough to prove God's existence, but having proof provided to you is not the same thing as having something proven to you, because I can offer you a sugar cube as proof that sugar is sweet, but until you take the leap of faith and taste it for yourself, nothing has been proven to you.
2nd Thessalonians 2:11-12, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
God will decide if Frank is a liar my friend, and He will decide the same for me and for you, that you can be sure of.
you answered in a way that took every doubt I ever had!! I asked God to show me truth. He did through you
Amen, All Glory To Jesus Christ ✞🕊❤️
Great apologists do that! God bless Dr Frank!! 😇😇😇
I love how great and simple Frank can explain things. He was one of the first apologists that really strengthened my faith when first coming to Christ.
bob dunson Not a fan?
bob dunson LOL! I inferred what I didn’t know from what I did! 😉
I love Frank's humour throughout the debate
TALKING SNAKES AND DONKEYS?
@@blackkman1324 what?
@blackkman1324 I genuinely feel sorry for you. Your profile pic is a pentagram. That tells me everything I need to know. You don't believe in God because you don't want to. God still loves you and died on the cross for you. God won't force you to believe in him. You need to humble yourself and open your heart and genuinely seek him. Once you do that your life will change. I PROMISE.
@@Salvation37no god didn’t die for him he wasn’t even born.
@@Salvation37 that is not a pentagram, it has six points, a pentagram has 5.
This was an amazing debate, especially at the end honestly got me In tears.. beautiful exit
I love frank turek. He’s one of the greatest defenders of the faith
He didn’t answer most questions.
So God doesn’t need our worship, But he punishes us if we don’t give it to him, And he’s jealous if we don’t like him.
So there are levels of reward in heaven Hahahaha?!
God isnt a male with a beard. karmic punishment is metaphysical. Just think, if u do bad things yr gonna keep doing it and get worse and worse. Hard drugs, fraud, murder. These actions that God would contend are served for their wrongness or righteousness simply ny our innate connection to the entire universe.
There are so many charlatans pretending they know there is an invisible sky daddy and what the sky daddy wants. It does take faith to believe in an angry Easter Bunny...fortunately there is not a shred of proof the Easter Bunny (god(S)) exist.
i really love how Michael makes things wayyyyy more complicated. it takes more faith to believe what hes saying.
Its more like hes having a hard time trying convey complex scientific ideas , not that he makes it more complicated. It is more complicated. God did it is not an answer , its willful ignorance.
Robo Cop if you listen to the whole thing franks answers aren’t just “god did it”. It has many layers. But Michael didn’t answer any questions to a full understanding. Almost nothing he said made sense. I think he needed more time or someone else to convey his ideas better
@samantha sly
I did watch the whole thing. All his answers are basically put down to a god of the gaps argument. Its only assertions no proofs. I agree Michael's answers were not easy to understand and need work to be easier to understand for everyday people in the short time they both had
@@robocop4345 I understood the whole debate by Michael. And no, it doesn't take any faith to agree with what he's saying. You're confused.
@Reid Elson Waste your days? It sounds like you’re on a pursuit of happiness than a pursuit of truth. Would you believe something even if it hurt to swallow that pill of truth?
The kid had the best question! It tells you how we lose common sense due to indoctrination over time.
Shermer should talk first. He sounds lost after Turek communicates evidence that he is unequipped to refute.
Like what?
Like a single word in his first couple seconds of speaking.
Universe
Uni = One
Verse = A *spoken* sentence
Who created this word?
Who uses this word to discredit intelligent design and how intelligent are they, really?
Evidence, Turek had none, hard to have evidence for something that doesn’t exist like your god 🤣
@Matt C like “your” oxygen 😂😂😂
@@5va or gravity
I learn so much from you Frank, and I KNOW yr blessed by God to do what you do. I hope to do what you do someday because there is no-one here who does what you Apologists do......Keep on doing what you do !!!!!....Love and blessings from Cape Town South Africa
Do-do bird
A Convenient Truth
Bless you friend. I hope things in your country stay safe. God bless you from Palm Springs, California USA.
God says He will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you, so may you be blessed exceedingly more than your words have blessed me Robert...
Everything frank says is lies pretty much. There's no evidence for a god, not good evidence, don't let him infect you with his nonsense.
@@colinjava8447 every thing he says is lie.... ummmm lol. Im a Christian, the believes in evolution. If evolution is true than the death of one species for the rise of a new and better one is fact. Without a god u cant say Hitler was wrong because his race could of been the superior and u just put a end to something that was better than the previous. Same with murderers, they are reducing the population so that the fit and healthiest can survive. Rape is just the alpha planting his seed in fertile mothers. Theft is just the strong and smartest acquiring all the wealth to also help reproduce and live better lives. Fact is you cant say im wrong because they are your opinions. You just think its wrong because u are getting scrued over when in reality its survival of the fittest. The strong reproduce and the weak die.
Michael Shermer poorly debated on this one.
Its hard to debate against the truth.
Buddy Novander I WANT THE TRUTH!! YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!
much as i love shermer he's not really cut out to debate, he hesitates too much, his apparent lack of confidence undermines his knowledge base. turek on the other hand would be perfect for selling snake oil. or books in this case. turek may be "eloquant" but makes my skin crawl.
@@HarryNicNicholas why would he make your skin crawl? I can get David Wood making someone's skin crawl, but Frank Turek?
And turek turned every serious question into a joke. That how you play tennis without a net as Sam would put it
Hallelujah!! All glory to God!! Well done Frank.
Frank's arguments were absolutely horrible.
Frank lost this debate, what are you talking about lol.
He's a wonderful man.
frank dont just argue he wants to save michael also
Saved from what?
@@blueduck5589eternal damnation
Frank is becoming a front runner in defending Christian Faith .
I think at this point he's THE guy. Especially because he's able to explain complex concepts and information in such a concise and simplistic fashion, he was tailor made for today's 30 second soundbite culture.
@@RobbDepp absolutely right
Robert Bonilla THE guy is David Wood in my opinion but frank up there
I recently became an athiest. The thiest were more crucial in the switch than the athiest. The thiest arguments are not convincing and actually made me question how they can rationalize the immorality of the bible. The only answers they give are "god" and "the bible says so". I think he should find a different argument, this one does not work. If there is no other argument then quit debating.
I prefer those 1980's mullet headed Defenders of the Faith that played Led Zeppelin records backwards to get their apologetic message across.
While many of the comments on these videos are often cluttered with a pretty clear audience 😉, I'm very thankful that Frank posts his debates unabridged. It's great for thinking, and it's so valuable to have these debates open to the public who couldn't go themselves.
Thank you Frank Turek!!
It's interesting to see a scientist explain what they believe but then for every question or problem or paradox, have a rule or law that supercedes the problem to explain it.
Bingo
I agree, and I find that nearly all Christian apologists are guilty of the same.
@@mattr.1887It's about which makes the most sense.
Turek: if you are a timeless do you have a beginning?
Michael: Yes, you can 😂
How? You're not in time! I got to be in the audience for the debate and this debate helped strengthen my Christian views. I also got to attend Turek's IDHEFTBAA Seminar and it was amazing!
This just serves to prove, that there are atheists who are brilliant mathematicians, brilliant physicists, brilliant engineers, etc... the only thing an atheist can't be, is a brilliant atheist.
The smartest atheist has the same argument for atheism the dumbest has: none. Just pretend you can't see the evidence and pretend to be smart.
*[Turek] If you are a timeless do you have a beginning?*
One question: If God is timeless, then tell me pls, when did God create time?
@@kimbanton4398 at the beginning of time. T=0 is "when" He created time. There is no before that, so that's pretty obvious. The concept of "when" does not make sense in the context of creation of time anyway.
@@kimbanton4398 the idea is that God is beyond time, he is not limited by it
Dr. Turek's opening statement was one of the most compelling cases that I have ever heard.
Only if one believes intelligence is non-contingent in spite of everything that shows intelligence to be contingent.
You have a very low standard of 'compelling'.
@@asix9178 to be honest, I could not care any less about your opinion
@@aidank2108 Although the feeling is mutual, that doesn't negate the fact that you have a very low standard of 'compelling'.
@@asix9178 fact? that's your opinion
Just because someone is “Deeply religious” doesn’t mean they are searching for truth and not happiness, so for shermer to argue that religious Jews are on a search for truth by default is false and an overgeneralization.
Turek is right, people are not on a truth quest, they are on happiness quests.
Are Christians on a happiness quest?
@@mattr.1887
Some are.
But I’d say millions who are being persecuted for their faith, even up to imprisonment and dying chose the wrong faith then.
However if they, just like Christ’s apostles are willing to be ridiculed, persecuted, etc then they must have chosen for a different reason.
@Matt R. Real Christians or "what can God do for me" christians? Because they are both different. A real christian understands that we are not promised a happy and prosperous life in the way an atheist or even secular society might define happiness. We are promised eternal life and forgiveness for our sins regardless of life's up and downs. Our joy is in Jesus, spreading His word, and eternity after death.
@@mattr.1887 I think "happiness" is the wrong word "Fulfillment" is the correct word as long suffering is a fruit of the Spirit. In true worship one is filled with a joy that is indescribable. Even in our suffering we can still experience joy.
This was such a respectful and productive debate. This is such a wonderful example of how intelligent people can talk about different beliefs in peace. Wonderful work from both of these debaters!
However, it is necessary to _suspend_ one's intelligence, to make the leaps of logic to accept so many of Turek's assertions. 🤷🏼♂️🙈
What I would like to see is our smartest people going about the business of solving the world's problems. This hasn't happened yet, or maybe our smartest aren't as smart as we think.
You realize that guy is a Communist. Comrade is the Communist greeting. It's how they identify themselves to one another. There's no such thing as an intelligent Communist. Communists are indoctrinated, not educated. They are vulnerable to indoctrination because they're not smart enough to think for themselves. Frank Turek mops the floor with these guys.
@@assininecomment1630 Turek doesn't make "leaps of logic". He is exposing the illogic of atheism. Atheism is unreasonable. It's just easier for people who don't have the mental capacity to study complex subjects. The search for Truth is a decades long process for intellectuals. It's not for the faint of heart or weak minded people. It requires actual self-discipline.
Turek's case, even in just this video, is absolutely _littered_ with leaps of logic,@@valerieprice1745.
It's a logical fallacy known as 'non sequiter', to say that because a question can't be answered with (current) scientific knowledge, it demonstrates / proves an attribute of God - or the existence of said god.
Yes, it's an easy line to run with, especially amid the dynamics of a rapid-fire live presentation. Still, it simply falls at the first hurdle of rational consideration.
Also, it fails to recognise when this approach has been attempted previously, and been disproven. Scientific consideration, testing, analysis, re-testing, cross-checking, debate, and further investigation - gets answers. For centuries, even millenia, these human considerations have pushed away the barriers and blockages of understanding. What was previously and incorrectly attributed to the supernatural, or divine intervention, or magic, or other earth spirits, or dead relatives, or demons, or pixies, or a pantheon of gods, or a god's mother, or angels, or whatever. Practically everything previously attributed to miracles, has now been correctly attributed to nature.
We keep finding more answers. Nothing is learnt if we just say, "Don't know, can't know - so it must have been God."
He might be one of those who claim they seek 'Truth', but the stream of rhetorical questions he attempts, demonstrate that Turek isn't actually searching for true things at all.
This was such a fun and pleasant debate. I smiled a lot throughout listening to both debaters and I’m a staunch atheist. Turek is very charming.
That’s awesome! What are your doubts about God existing?
he doesnt want to believe is all.@@unrelatedkin
@@bryanbulmer6716or make believe,…
@MaclynLucille Wow! You're the first non-hostile amicable atheist I've seen in a YT comment.
Honestly, I thought at first that's how all atheists would be at first; smile at believers and not yell, name call, and send unprovoked threats.
Continue to be a respectable person ❤
@@abigailedwards3843
Who goes to hell for not make believing in a god? Unprovoked threats indeed,…
I think this was a good debate. One thing I wish was addressed concerning witches, women, race, etc., is that a) skepticism of God/religion is nothing new, and while many political heads used religion as a tool, that doesn't necessarily reflect God; I'm confident that God was equally disgusted - even more so for doing it 'in his name'. b) along the same lines, there have been non-religious/non-christians who would have/still are actively discriminating others; to peg it all on people of faith doesn't do anyone any good.
Frank Turek Addressed this in his book "I dont have enough faith to be an atheist" and "Legislating Morality"
He writes, "Another confusion exists between an absolute moral value and the understanding of the facts used in applying that value. For example, a couple of hundred years ago witches used to be sentenced as murders. But now they aren't. A relativist may argue, “See! Our moral values have changed because we no longer seek to kill witches. Morality is relative to time and culture.” But the relativists is claim is incorrect. What has changed is not the moral principle that murder is wrong, but the perception or factual understanding of whether witches can really murder people. People no longer believe they can. Hence, people no longer consider them murders. In other words, the perception of a moral situation is relative, but the moral values involved in the situation are not.
Failure to make this distinction also leads to people to believe that cultural differences reflect essential differences in the core moral values. For example, some people believe that since Hindus Revere cows and Americans eat them, there's an essential difference between the moral values of Americans and Hindus. But the reason people in India consider cows sacred has nothing to do with it or moral value - it has to do with their belief in reincarnation. Indians believe that cows May possess The Souls of deceased human being, so they don't eat cows. In the United States, we do not believe that the soul of our deceased relative maybe in a cow, so we freely eat cows.
In the final analysis, what appears to be a difference is actually in agreement. The core moral value that it's wrong to eat grandma is considered absolute by people in both cultures. They only disagree on where Grandma's Soul resides. This is a difference that's paste on the perception of the facts pertaining to the moral value. But there is a fundamental agreement that the moral value must be upheld."
I love hearing these debates!
i hate hearing these debates. they are stale and no conclusion is ever reached. they are just running in circles an listing the same points.
@@solarflare4240 meh, it's alright
solar flare I’ve heard it said that the debate is not to convince the other, but rather, to convince those present and listening.
I remember Turek’s debates with Hitchens when they first came out. Atheists present said that Turek was the clear winner and they had things to reconsider. THAT is the point of the debates.
@@Maikigai nice bro
@@solarflare4240 Perhaps it is because you don't understand both of their points and meaning but you focus on their arguing and words. Focus on their understanding and you will find meaning.....
That first kid had the best question! Loved it! 😄❤️
Shermer lost
"In the beginning it was nothing...then exploted."
Hahaha
Nothing exploded it expanded rapidly and its still expanding today
@@jriemofficial983 i think you just repeated him, but missed a comma haha
Lol
not too sure how people can say nothing exploded......and nothing was the cause of everything, and how something exploding causes creation, all the explosions ive seen dont cause creation but destruction
It is impossible to turn away from Jesus when you come to know who He is. Michael Shermer never knew God.
Love you Frank - learning so much from you on how to position myself to win territory for God. You are a bold voice and more Christians need to stand up and speak in this manner. Thank you for equipping us!
That’s false. You most definitely can change your mind. God won’t force you to keep believing. He’s definitely not going to force you to stay saved if you don’t want to
I feel so sorry for Michael, my heart aches that he can't understand or see past the end of his nose. He just loves by "because I said so".
@Merlin Hyde ... Why do you feel sorry for him? Why do Christians keep saying things like this.. 'My heart aches for him'? He's just going by the evidence... Dr turek has a completely wrong understanding of the way things work.. Literally every science related thing he says is a misconception... I feel sorry for dr turek.. I really wish someone could explain to him how physics works..
And you only believe you have value because you believe your imaginary friend says so. How absolutely pathetic and sad. I hope one day you’ll learn to find worth in yourself. Your life will be fuller and your relationships much healthier. I also hope you open your mind and actually read a book or take a class. Science is a beautiful thing and the scientific method is the most reliable way we have to discover magnificent truths in the universe. It takes an extraordinary lack of depth and imagination to be satisfied with “God did it”. There a world full of wonders out there if you ever decide to think for yourself.
@@amandamcgovern5744 true... The main problem is that religious people are against science for some reason.. Saying that evolution didn't happen is the modern 'the earth is flat'... The church has always been wrong about how the universe works.. For example they killed scientists who said the earth is round and then 200 years later apologized.. In the next 200 years they will say the same about evolution..
@@rushunnhfernandes lol evolution bro? come one man. I have a pet rock for christmas about 20 years ago that im still waiting to evolve into a real pet so i can feed it and love it. lmao smh
Dr. Shermer seems more interested in refuting a “religion” than God. You can find fault with religions. People are flawed, but that has nothing to do with if there is an intelligent designer or not.
"Which best explains reality, atheism or theism?" Theism is religion. It's not just flawed it's innately irrational, and it targets the most primitive part of our mind. It in no way accurately portrays reality, it is an illusion used to keep the poor and everyone who doesn't rule oppressed. That's it. You do what all religious people do when they realize they have no points and no arguments, they say that you can't disprove the existence of god. It's impossible to prove or disprove, so the best thing to do is to explain how it is illogical and ridiculous, which is what Shermer did.
@@endistherenown776 and failed
@@ikwuegbufavour1830 Yeah I'll give that to you. I'm an atheist, and he is one of the speakers that I don't like listening to a whole lot.
Nice.
@@endistherenown776 theism is not a religion
Incredibly impressive what Turek is doing here! Jesus is coming back!
jesus never existed, it doesn't take a great deal of research to find that one out.
Harry Nicholas than by your standards no one remotely historical exists. Jesus mysticism really doesn’t make atheists such as yourself look rational.
@@barrackobongo4842 there is much more evidence of people that are much older than 2000 years. Ancient Rome, the Egyptian empire, Chinese emperors and so on. Somehow God decided to not plant evidence for the, in the Christian sense, most important human/living God.
How long will it take for you to think that he isn't? 2000 years?
Don't be silly.
*breathes heavily and profusely* _Okay_
Once again, Frank raises great questions and Micheal ovoids them
That's why these debates are great and thanks for Frank for uploading them. Once he mentions diseases and says Bill Gates is trying to help. He just gave away his ignorance and lost the entire debate.
Oh really how about when Michael wasted His first 5 minutes making jokes
Dr. Shermer struggled heavily in answering questions he internally knows doesn’t come from chemical reaction, but morals he can’t explain through a naturalistic worldview.
He lost before they started
Frank was clear,concise, and consistent and Michael was unprepared.
Atheism preys on the unprepared mind. So they are weak by definition.
The reason they are losing the argument now finally is because we finally started to stand up and use our brains and reason and evidence and push back on the emptiness of atheistic arguments.
Taimoor Khan That’s right, Philosophical arguments. You don’t need to argue against God with naturalistic arguments and you can’t disprove a concept like “God” in the philosophical sense. Your wasting your time arguing with each other and your foolish to believe that your somehow infallible in your opinions. They are just our own personal beliefs and opinions, And that’s fine.
I believe in Evolution, I also believe in the geological record of the Earth and that it is billions of years old. I too believe that the root of existence happens to be conscious and capable of putting things like our own universe into motion. Christianity and Jesus Christ is another argument of a Historical and Philosophical stand point. These things need to be of our own beliefs and opinions and they do not need to clash with naturalistic science and modernity. They belong in their own respected arenas.
@Ryan Thomas - Yep, they should be separate, and that’s why the separation of church and state should be held concrete.
Fortunately atheism isnt “losing the argument”. Its that 10 yrs ago during the height of the popularity of “the new atheists” when hitchens, dennett, dawkins, and harris received a lot of public attention because they were speaking out about islamic extremists. Now that our own country is reverting back to the dark ages with constant disinformation and propaganda online and infighting between the religious republican extremists and the woke social justice warriors the discussion on the utility of religion has taken a back seat. Once we get out of this nightmare of a presidency and our own society regains some sense of normalcy we will hopefully be able to have sensible discussions again
Great debate. Even though I’m non religious, I get a big kick out of Dr. Turek. Both men got over their points and keep your attention.
What do you believe ?.
Jesus changed my life seek him bro
@@zioncataldo1295let them decide that for themselves
Such a great argument, praise God and Jesus💖💕💕🌿✝️✝️✝️ . I knew from the start Frank was going to go off 🤣😂😂
Yo straight facts!
Facts.
@Reid Elson Theism better explains reality! With the known science we have, apologetics in my eyes is the umbrella term for our archealogical, scientific, cause & effect, historical, and many more different kinds of evidence that confirms Theism is intellectual and based off of reason! God bless you on your journey or Do🙏✝️💖💕
Theism is every stronger than atheism. But remember to praise only God alone " Why do you call me good? No one is good, but One, that is, God." - Matthew 19:17.
Whenever someone brings up “no God, big bang”. I say I believe in The Big Bang I just know who lit the match!
"I believe in the big bang, I just know who banged it!"
- Frank Turek
Samuel Hunter-Gatherer from Spelunker Cell yep, I came up with my phrase before I heard Frank’s... I had so much pride when I heard him say it... and it bothers me when some christians deny the big bang when the big bang actually creates a problem for naturalists.
@@kainable8769 first off you have to realize that the Big Bang is the last gap possible for god to be thrown into these days. Imagine all the gaps where god was the answer just 300 years ago. Variety of life, the earth, dinosaurs, and speaking of the earth and science in the beginning god created the heaven and earth and then created light but a generation of stars had to die to create the carbon that then created the planets, I’m not sure why this gets missed by so many, well I should say the few who read it. And the prime mover argument gives you a first cause, a beginning step, not even close to the personal loving knowing watching and judgmental god.
That is the dishonest part apart this whole conversation anyone arguing for this from the theists perspective uses this to give us the god of the Bible. But to the point whatever started the universe if it is in fact created, is going to be outside of our intuition, it is going to go against the laws of nature, in order to say nothing to something has to come from something it seems improbable to have nothing pop into existence, but you have no example of nothing existing to compare probability. And what is evidence for god? Loss of faith. Faith requires lack of knowledge, is faith not enough for the believer? It would seem so.
@@kainable8769 the Big Bang does not create a problem for naturalism. Just because we don’t understand the before the Big Bang doesn’t equal an issue.
@@guyjosephs5654 it does. The question of life’s creation then is still not answered. You can not like it or not want to accept it but it certainly does cause an issue, what was before it. What made it
Frank seriously has the best presentation with the best arguments and evidence for God that I’ve seen so far.. I mean it is a very logical approach and would be hard to even try to refute them. Seriously great job Frank.
NewLight 777
Yet he hasn’t demonstrated that his god exists.
Baruch Spinoza
Is the only proof you would accept for the existence of God a physical body scientists can study?
Bors de Ganys
Something more than just our imagination would be a good start.
Baruch Spinoza
Is the universe more than our imagination? Creation? I’ll go on a limb and say you accept scientific consensus, that they don’t know what was before the universe or how the universe started, and we don’t know how life started. Scientists rule out God, I believe it’s evidence for God.
Baruch Spinoza
Was Jesus imagination? I believe it to be more likely than not that Jesus Christ the Messiah walked this earth performing miracles, was crucified, and rose again 3 days later as he predicted. I believe this because there is eyewitness testimony to support this claim, and I have no reason to doubt the claims of these eyewitnesses as they had nothing to gain from lying about the whole thing.
Dr. Shermer, thank you SO much. Thank you for making such a horrible defense for atheism that I grow even stronger in faith🙏
He's literally been debating for like 20 years, and he's never gotten better at them... Probably because his position is simply false, but you'd still think after 20 years he'd be a little better at debate. I remember his debates with Kent Hovind from the early 2000s and he got utterly stomped on.
Haha yep they are all like that. The worst. Weak arguments. Atheists are literally just die hard believers. They can't acknowledge evidence that goes against their religion. Frank literally answered all his arguments in the first round before he even started, but he went and proposed them anyway as though they hadn't been answered. Interesting was his analogy about the dragon being the creator... That's weird ...
@demigodzilla Just like you and your worship of Darwin and "time." Equally as religious. Equally based on faith.
Nonse..Turek is a Liar...he doesn't understand Science or Ancient history...the Bible is forged fiction or historized Fiction...Gods and Religions are human inventions
@@mickjames7962
Frank is wrong in everything he says...he lies and lives by Fallacies..check youtube:
Turek debunked
Thank you JESUS for my best friend the HOLY SPIRIT and for talking to me and showing me your glory and for saving me🙃❤️🙏🏼 JESUS has done so many miracles in my life that no one can take from me :).. one being PEACE that i NEVER had until the presence of the LORD entered my room that one sad sad sad night👀❤️..
As an atheist, I am constantly embarrassed by hearing about dragons and unicorns in debates. An analogy is not an argument. Shermer simply attacked existing religions and the idea of an omnipotent good god. He did not address Tuke's general points about theism vs atheism.
Because Franks generally points are idiotic….How exactly is Shermer suppose to address them?
If you are truly an atheist then you should have no problem understanding why he is brining up dragons and unicorns.
@@jacoblee5796 what ?😂😂grow up man.
@@cosmin3997 Its cool if you don't get it either.....
@@jacoblee5796 I can assure you that I am an atheist and that I believe that atheism has a good message. It is not advanced by childish arguments that convince only those who are already convinced, I believe this is known as preaching to the choir. Atheists need to be more critical of themselves and each other. Cosmic sceptic has made some progress in addressing this problem.
@@andrewdobson813 What message would that be? Atheism is just the stance on one position.
How is Michael’s point childish?
That message at the end of the video was 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Son of the Sun why couldn’t Jacky Cruz think Turek ? Everyone has to believe or think what you think ? People can’t make choices in your world or what ?
@Son of the Sun i hope you're not talking about shermer
Greg Smith he can’t make choices because he is a robot 🤖 since the molecules in motion in his brain make the decisions 🤷🏻♂️
I really enjoyed hearing both men's arguments, great video!
Me too! You rock my friend! 👊💀
Frank Turek I thank Jesus for you!!! You too Michael Shermer!!!
That dude responding to the little kids question using a lot of biological jargon was so funny to me 😂seriously though. Awesome kid. I hope he keeps questioning things, and searches for truth in an unbiased way.
Who's who?
God: If you argue for your limitations, you get to keep them.
God is not limiting humans.
Michael has God tugging at his heart so hard, he doesnt even believe what he is saying.
Would ya like to substantiate that claim?
@@SpurnOfHumanity The likes of Atheism tries to disprove *immaterial* God, using the *Materialism* philosophy as a standpoint. This makes no sense.
The only thing that would make sense is to use Materialism against a Material matter. A perfectly material matter here being: Jesus.
From a *material* standpoint, Christianity proves Jesus, then God, through Jesus. You have to hurdle an argument against Jesus as Son of God before it is possible to logically disprove God from the Atheistic Materialist standpoint.
Jesus has already been proven.
@@stevenc8717 🤣🤣🤣
@@stevenc8717 Tell that to the Billions of people who believe in Islam and not Jesus as the son of God. If you are religious, the last thing you should be worried about is Athiest. You need to prove that your religion is the Right religion out of all the other religions in the world. Saying that your book just says so isn’t proof. If that where the case then the Quran would also be the one true word of God because it also says so. And soo do many other religions before Christianity even existed. Religion isn’t new. Humans made up all the other religions in the world that you don’t believe in, but somehow you don’t think it’s possible for people to also have made up yours as well? Serious question 🤔
@@Zlist1994 Islam twists and then teaches people lies about Jesus’ life. If a muslim for example comes to understand the original Jesus story and leaves Islam, he is “to be killed” as Mohammed said; these days, the person is fully disowned as a “Murtadd” (a Muslim Apostate). Pretty much the only choice Muslims have is to believe the lies they’ve been told their entire life or else be disowned by the entire family. Today, there have literally been fake **funerals** made for Muslim Apostates for when they leave their faith. It’s that serious, and so they take believing their Imams and Islams re-written Jesus story just as seriously.
These debates should compile each question asked into a questionnaire for the audience to answer (in studio and online). It would be interesting to see a program that went over how a layperson answers the question compared to an expert in the related field.
I want to thank Dr. Shermer for his presentation. It was so devoid of anything that could be considered a real argument that it served to strengthen my faith in God. Thank you, Dr. Shermer.
Which god? There are thousands of them, don't forget, all suspiciously invisible?
@@upturnedblousecollar5811 The Christian God. The One that all the evidence points to.
@@Eric-en9hk You mean _"The only god you researched because he was the most-popular one in your country."_
@@upturnedblousecollar5811 Even if a person only researched the god of their country, that doesn't make their conclusions false. Beliefs are only false if they are in conflict with reality. A person might believe in the Christian God because they were raised Christian, but that does nothing to falsify their beliefs. Their beliefs might be entirely true. Your argument commits the evolutionary fallacy by assuming that a belief is wrong because of where it came from. This assumption is illogical.
@@Eric-en9hk Whoa, whoa, whoa, I didn't say that anywhere, that's your projection of what you're mistakenly reading into what I said. I didn't say _"Your beliefs are wrong because you only researched the god most-popular in your country"_ so don't correct me on something I didn't say. Thanks.
Shermer's opening talk attempts to conflate Science with Atheism...error...
Not as bad as Turek's opening where he just treats the proposition of the debate as "Deism Vs Atheism" which is wrong just by looking at the title of the video
i love the way religious people use science to prove that science is bad.
@@HarryNicNicholas who is saying science is bad?
We use science to analyse GOD's creation. Science is a study method a tool to understand things your statement is not valid
PotatoXGaming exactly when we say their is no need for God because of the way nature works we are essentially saying because the car works without someone inside it no creator is necessary this is why I’m not an atheist and a Christian because I’ve seen the arguments they fail for t atheist don’t respond with I’m a Christian because I’ve not looked because I literally tried to disprove Christianity and I could not because the Cross was my stumbling block
If michael keeps going to these debates he ain't gunna be an atheist for much longer😆
@Donald Nadeau C.R.I.M.E.S
He learned to think, you can't undo that. ;) Maybe a lobotomie can bring him back to Christianity...
Yeah he's pretty weak to be honest.
Intellectual pride is so strong in these atheists. They can't stand the thought of not being god themselves.
@demigodzilla No vultures have an important place in nature and the circle of life. Christianity is just an evil fairy tale, that is only concerned with scaring people into submission.
A beautiful argument from Frank turek but the fact of the matter is we're not in an infinite spaceball universe according to the word of God
Man, I like to stay neutral but Frank definitely won this one if there was a winner. Michael was fumbling all over the place....
I didn’t hear any knock down argument from FT. I heard many suppositions stated as facts.
Shermwr did a really bad job yes.
1:50:15 Shermer says “Oh Lord”. 🤔
Subconscious cry for help
Ive also heard hitchens say for heaven's sake to
He's using sarcasm, like saying: with the nonsense you're talking, l need a Lord to help me.
@@7outofthebox747 that was not sarcasm he even looked like he knew he stuffed up right after he said it
@Novak Ingood if you were in a life threating situation i almost guarantee you would say omg or jesus . Its a subliminal cry to the creator .its not a figure of speech its far deeper then that dont tell me u think we came from nothing .i bet you dont even not what truth is
“An atheist tries to put out rotten eggs instead of give good ones”
I was an atheist for a long time and I consider myself a hopeful/open agnostic but I find i have a much deeper respect for classical theology now. Not gonna lie, I think the average atheist is typically more knowledgable and rational in their atheism than the typical religious person in their religiosity, because affirming atheism requires at minimum some level of familiarity with the reasoning and the logic of belief, also because I feel most religious people have pretty lazy/uninspired reasons for their beliefs like family tradition, comfort of belief in an afterlife, etc. Most Christians aren't exactly picking up the Summa Theoligica and reading classical philosophy to reason themselves into becoming Christians.
That said, serious theologians and philosophers of religion like Thomas Aquinas and Alvin Plantinga, have significantly better and more sophisticated arguments than most bitter online atheists are willing to admit.
Most Christians or theists in general aren't religious. They don't attend a house of worship, or engage in fellowship with other believers; they have never read or rarely ever read the doctrine of their religion; and they know little to nothing about the history of their religion's origins. Essentially, they're believers in name only, and that makes them more of a detriment to the religion, because they often do a disservice by being poor representatives of their religion.
As a Christian, I agree. I read thousands of pages of theology and philosophy before being baptized. I read all Sam Harris’s books and was fascinated by consciousness research which I pored over from several authors. I also read books on pantheistic spiritualism. I took ayahuasca with hippies and meditated with Monks. I read an Taoism and Dharma and Advaita Vedanta -and then on to St Athanasius, St John of Damascus, Augustine, Aquinas, and apologetics from modern Calvinist and Arminianism apologists, I read About half of what William Lane Craig had ever written - and then dismissed Protestantism but not Christianity. And In the end I wasn’t just convinced God was the only possible reality, I was convinced the Gospel is true, and the Orthodox Church has preserved the faith Jesus delivered to his Apostles.
We have live and believed by faith and through the the Holy Sprite living in us and induring trails that The Lord would said happen to his followers and we sent other people and things and warnings ⚠️ from Jesus Christ to Confirm our faith in God
I’ve never really understood the fascination with Thomas Aquinas. The guy just ripped off Plato and Aristotle, he wasn’t an original thinker and in opinion his work is a bit of a joke. I think he’s been incredibly overrated as a great thinker.
Actually atheist doesn't make good, it's your opinion.
Why am I watching a 2 hour debate at 3 am
Same dude
That was an awesome debate. Thank you. I am so thankful for the gift of faith.
This is the most one-sided argument of all time. Jesus is Lord.
You were not convinced by this argument; you already believed before it started.
JMUDoc I think all of us had a preformed opinion before watching this
@@gabrielmarshall9132 You would be surprised how many atheists do not hold to the position that gods DON'T exist.
If Jesus is Lord, the Lord is a tyrant. "I would rather be in Hell than praise 'god' who woulda allow Hell to exist.". I was catholic until age 24,, by the way. I am anxious to read your response, Togba. And yes, I've already read Edward Feser, etc's numerous articles on Hell.
Michael Flores It’s okay to be angry at God, he can take it. However, the lord is no tyrant, if he were to remove hell and evil from existence then he would also be removing our free will, and that is ultimately what makes us human
Unreal performance as always Frank! Every time I watch you in debates or in your seminars, I truly feel as if God’s love for us is manifested in your incredibly intelligent and thoughtful words. Your closing was AMAZING!
He makes no intelligent or logically coherent statements. Saying god exists because I don't understand how things happen is idiotic. Worse, claiming YOUR religion is right and everyone else is wrong is beyond arrogant.
@@Johnsmith-pd3ukThat is your own personal opinion. It's subjective.
@@joeturner9219 science isn't opinion. It's fact
@@joeturner9219 reality isn't subjective
I rather believe in God and not be right than to not believe in God and be wrong. It's not worth the gamble to me 🙏🏽
I 100% agree.
What if you are wrong about which god really exists?
If christianity is real, muslims would be in hell. If islam is real, christians would be in hell.
If it is indeed a god up there and not an evil entity, he is not going to punish you for simply non belief.
You cannot "choose" to believe. You either do based on how convincing you find the evidence to be, or you don't. The idea that believing is a moral act is nonsensical.
What if you chose the wrong god
Healthy fear of the Lord. I like it.
This Frank Turek VS Michael Shermer debate was captivating. I was practically hanging on to every word they both had to say! In my honest opinion, Frank Turek made the strongest case. While Michael Shermer, on the other hand, repeatedly resorted to raising unanswered questions and alleged unresolvable conundrums.
LoveYourNeighbour
How is creation even an explanation for anything?
You’re missing his point. For example, Sherman brought up intelligent beings being able to create singularities and “pop” universes into existence. But that’s a fallacy because it begs the question. His “answer” requires just as much explanation as the thing he was trying to explain. He brought it up like it was a conundrum but didn’t realize he argued literally nothing at all.
When Turek brought up the infinite past, Shermer hand waved and sort of admitted there has to be a definite beginning otherwise you would need to traverse an infinite amount of time to arrive at the present, which makes no sense.
Turek did an amazing job and Shermer, like all atheists, offers explanations that beg the question. They argue from presuppositions they don’t realize they’re relying on. Shermer repeatedly tried to blow off all philosophical questions and respond with scientific answers, which makes no sense.
Furthermore, how is creation an explanation for anything? Did you not hear any of Turek’s arguments? Philosophical arguments REQUIRE a creator for us to exist. This has been hashed repeatedly over the past couple thousand years, with the same conclusion.
Please realize that philosophical/theological arguments and scientific arguments do not speak to each other. The source of morality or justice is not a question that science can answer. I can’t scientifically measure abstract ideas.
Seems obvious that unanswered questions make you so uncomfortable that you're willing to pretend or assert that you have those answers and you're to delusional to understand that you don't.
LoveYourNeighbour sometimes ‘I don’t know’ is an acceptable answer... for now. Asserting we have the answer without the supporting evidence is disingenuous.
@@DanUtley You admit you have no way of measuring God. Interesting. God is an abstract idea.
Atheist always comment saying, "he didn't provide any evidence" when he provided nothing but scientific, mathematical, philosophical and logical and historical evidence for God. Every time science makes a new discovery it always points to God. It's unscientific and irrational to say a subatomic particle or the invisible particle or quantum vacuum or dark matter or anything at all came from absolute nothingness, that is actually quite gratuitous to say the least.
Atheist always stumble on the middle mechanism. Richard Dawkins in debates he always said the cause of our world, life was a slow process. In an interview the host Ben Stein asked the right question. He asked Dawkins then how did this process get started. Dawkins was like suddenly short circuited in his brain. After a moment it slipped out from his mouth. He said an advanced alien civilization may have seeded life on earth.
Axel Smith you are trying to do damage control. What Dawkins said is crystal clear but I can't stop you from interpret whatever the way you see fit. There is an apple. You can argue this apple looks like an apple, smells like an apple, tastes like an apple hence it is not an apple. Everyone said it is an apple is misquoting straw-man fallacy.
If atheists can reason consistently according to well established definitions then they wouldn't be atheists after all.
Axel Smith I already said it in my original post. "Atheist always stumble on the middle mechanism." If someone fired a gun and the bullet killed someone. Atheist's mentality is the gun and the bullet killed, no evidence of a murder. Whereas theist's POV follows what the definition, meaning and purpose always originate from a mind. This is the only way we can recognize other minds other the one of our own.
@@adamc1694 Your statement about what Dawkins said is misleading, either because you are blinded by faith, or intentional. There are some things we don't know (yet!), abiogenesis is one of those things. Simple as that.
No one is saying they came from nothing, its just a possibility.
The problem is on your end, your claiming a god as a solution to explain the universe, but your answering a difficult question (where the universe came from) with an even more complex problem (where did god come from), so you haven't explained anything, you've just made it harder for yourself.
This is where the lies come in, one often says, god has existed forever:
But that implies a temporal realm of some sort exists forever so where did that come from, or do all gods come free with a temporal realm?
And if that was true, then why couldn't the universe have existed forever or something like a super giant blackhole that creates universes, existing forever?
So funny to hear Shermer saying in the middle of the debate "oh Lord!" 😂😂😂
In essence he expressed astonishment.
@@philipakers4846 👍😅
The last question was a killer. Left Shermer confused.
Do you mean the question the guy had about the probability of him meeting his wife? Of course Shermer was confused by that, because the question makes no sense. Even Turek agreed with Shermer on that.
59:45 Best Moment in the debate! Lol God bless Frank men!
Frank won "Full Stop"!
1:01:34 - If you ever wanna know who’s right in any debate about any topic, just side with the guy that says “I want you to put me on the spot”. Turek just won the debate right there 😂
God and religion are just a place holder for things unknown. When science figures it out it shrinks the need for a god. We all need science and philosophy, not religion.
True.
When the moderator put his hand up I just about died 😂😂😂
Timestamps are needed
@@Guthix198 26:32
Shermer makes the same mistake many atheist do and which he's made his entire career. He conflates the difference between "natural" and "supernatural" thereby making a category error.
In his desperation he's not above lying either. Both physicists and cosmologist agree the universe, space-time and matter, had a beginning and the universe is not past infinite, and Shermer's known this for some time.
He is contemptuous of arguments for God's existence but sees nothing wrong with introducing the highly speculative, likely indemonstrable multiverse.
Figuring out which religion best supports observational experiences you really don't belong on a stage arguing that God does not exist. You've just proven yourself incapable of reason.
Let's assume a God/Deity is the causer of what we call the big bang. In what way can anyone on earth literally show proof that not only was a God/Deity responsible, but that it was the Abrahamic God? It can't be done. Being an atheist I have to openly admit that I can't disprove the existence of a Deity, for all I know there is one. But according to every belief in every deity, the claim has been made that there is evidence and over time, those God's became myths and the evidence was passed along to the next God(s). The bible isn't reliable, claims and beliefs are not reliable, and since we cannot see a God, then why do believers claim that they not only believe in it but they know precisely what God demands but when they can't explain, it suddenly becomes mysterious?
But you did make good point about Shermer who I like and have to take in small doses.
@@sammysam2615,
You are making nothing but assertions. "YOU" think the Bible is unreliable, claims and beliefs are not reliable, etc.!
I have no idea what you mean by, "... then why do believers claim that they not only believe in it but they know precisely what God demands but when they can't explain, it suddenly becomes mysterious?"
I have never experienced anyone state God's "demands"(requirements) are mysterious.
What does, and according to you, which "god", demand?
"IF" there is a 'god" then it would be perfectly within reason to be able to reason which idea of "god" best comports to our observational experiences based on history, philosophy, science and personal attestation.
The "Big Bang" is actually a colloquial term used to identify the expansion of the universe. Based on general relativity we are fairly certain that there existed a boundary condition where space, time and matter came into being. Which means that space, time and matter didn't always exist.
Any naturalistic explanation results in infinite regress paradoxes and violates Ockham's Razor. Thereby, leaving a supernatural causal impetus as a valid proposition.
Since you admit that you cannot disprove God's existence it stands to reason that is based on evidentiary justifications for God's existence. If there wasn't any justifications for God's existence you'd well be able to "prove" God's non-existence solely based on naturalistic mechanisms and processes. Indicating that supernatural phenomenon exist and posit valid justifications for belief.
Peace.
Dude, can we be friends?
I find less speculative a multiverse than a timeless, spaceless, matterless, being.
@@salvadoralvarado8685 ,
Thanks for sharing,
NOT!!
I just watched all of it 👍 really worth it!
The more I hear about the processes of biology and scientific phenomena, the more I believe in God
Why?
Frank keep doing what God has called u for . Truth! 👍
You mean _making things up?_ Or repeating _other people's fictions?_
Jarrod who cares if he makes things up. Strange random universe we live. The fact that you point out that he makes things up is evidence that you believe in an absolute standard and truth. And why should we believe you that he is making things up? If we can’t know anything how can you even trust your own thoughts?
Keep using fallacies and dishonest tactics, that is your calling from GOD!
FreethoughtGreg oh, so the deciples managed to outsmart thousands of Roman soldiers, move a 2 ton stone, take the body of Jesus, and then say that he rose from the dead? And 500 people seeing the resurrection wasn’t enough? Were they all hallucinating at once? And did the believers that were killed fake the belief? No, they died for it! If they saw Jesus, and died for saying he rose and resurrected, chances are he probably did. What other explanation is there?
Provide evidence that happened.
Michael contradicted himself again first he said that we're speaking in higher terms, then he goes on to invoke the copernican principle, which means we're not special at all.
Atheists tend to do that
Prayers for the unbeliever...
Holy Spirit open the hearts and Minds.. remove the scales Satan has placed over their eyes..
By the power and authority of Jesus the Christ amen
The atheist couldn’t make a solid claim that couldn’t easily be refuted. Im 44 minutes in, I can already tell Turek will win. All love to my deceived brother🙏🏼
The likes of Atheism tries to disprove *immaterial* God, using the *Materialism* philosophy as a standpoint. This makes no sense.
The only thing that would make sense is to use Materialism against a Material matter. A perfectly material matter here being: Jesus.
From a *material* standpoint, Christianity proves Jesus, then God, through Jesus. You *have to* hurdle an argument against Jesus as Son of God before it is possible to logically disprove God from the Atheistic Materialist standpoint.
Jesus has already been proven
Shermer was definitely in critiquing arguments rather than hearing Frank's responses. Shermer did not make any attempt to understand, rather he just kept asserting that Franks's teaching illustrations were fallacious, as a means of dismissal. Love Franks comments about cats
I can smell the bitterness in his eyes lol
Jarrell Lemos
Well, it was a desperate attempt at teaching you critical thinking skills and the basics of a sound epistemology.
Tureks entire presentation is just an embarrassing collection of logical fallacies.
"just a quick question" - ten minutes later....
1:50:14 He admits. “Oh Lord”
For those who haven't noticed, Frank's debate tactic in long form and even short form debates (in the case of questioning and cross examining), is to ask very, very, complex questions, and then not allow his opponent to adequately reply. No solution is reached, no conclusion is made. Because an adequate conclusion is not reached, the audience assumes it is because the opponent does not have an adequate response and the questioner must be correct. Every debater does this, but Frank is much more aggressive and tactful about it. One more reason why I think individual investigation and research is far more valuable than gleaning ideas and worldviews from debates alone.
They both asked simple questions and complex questions the only difference was that one of them was able to answer the questions while the other was not. Don't make excuses.
@@billie-jeanmede2984saying "magic did it" is not an adequate answer
@@CitySeventeen17 is that why atheists keep saying that everything was created from nothing? Do they mean magic?
You can't try to explain things of the spiritual realm with physical realm logic and philosophy
agreee
Boom!! TRUTH!! It’s like using a metal detector on a beach in search of plastic bottles and concluding that plastic bottles don’t exist cause you don’t find any! 🤣🤣🤣
So you want us to jump into belief without testing for proof.
How do you define what something spiritual is?
The fact that it can't be explained by the physical world is the problem?...Theism falls apart without MAGIC....Also theism is the belief in a higher power...It doesnt clarify what that power is or if it cares about you lol
Time and time again, Frank makes the same case in debates, and each time the opposition simply does not answer adequately. In fact, what I've witnessed through all these debates is that whenever the overarching question is posed--namely "What Best Explains Reality: Theism or Atheism?"--the atheist in question always (or more often than not rather) ends up simply deferring to agnosticism in one form or another. Instead of providing their own evidence, they hide behind the fact that they simply cannot "know" for sure. Of course they can't! No one can! That's the whole point of these debates! The goal is to present better evidence for either world view. In the end, Theism (Christian in particular) simply states that the evidence itself (C.R.I.M.E.S.) points to the reality of there being a God. & I posit that it does it better than the alternative.
Probability itself points to the fact that all the evidence put forth favors the existence of a God. As a result, to reject that is to reject logical reasoning. Michael argues that probability does not insure that something is impossible, and I agree. I think we can all agree to that. However, that does not change the fact that the probability still exists. However minute it may be, of course it is still possible. That's a fact. The point is that choosing to reject the "more obvious" solution, represented by the alternative of the infinitesimally low probability, would by definition be illogical.
Yes
The bible is a despicable book, showing a jealous god, a mass-murderer, liar, condones slavery and incest,...
If the bible is right, god is there to keep us in eternal slavery. Read on Jephtah, Lot's daughters, even jezus is a human sacrifice.
If the bible can be dismissed, it's all left to what you like to believe. All stories made up by people and told by the campfire.
Marc, based off of your response I can tell the Bible is a book you never read. You found a person with your view that has also never read that book ran with what they said. Please read the book before your critique. Thank you much enjoy your week !!
@@brittany7196 Genesis 19 and the story of Jephtah, ... and the NT itself, god brings a human sacrifice in the pretense that we are born in sin? Despicable, how can you be such a snowflake to think that the entire universe was made just for you so you can be tested and made to suffer. Keep it real.
@@marcdecock7946 You are doing what many athiests do. Instead of defending your worldview, you attack the Bible. You don't understand it, and I would like to help you understand.
Ojalá que puedan poner subtitulos en español, hermanos:( no me puedo deleitar de la misma manera ya que no comprendo mucho la lengua.
Saludos de México y bendiciones
Sí pudiera lo haría para tí
Faith is very powerful and I wish I had more of it.
There is a tree blocking the view from my bedroom window.
(Luke 17:6)