Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Science DEBUNKS Miracles? Not So Fast...[The Skeptic's Guide to Miracles Part 1]
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 05. 2024
- Did David Hume completely debunk the argument for miracles? Not at all. Hume presented a false dilemma by setting reported miracles against the laws of nature. Science doesn't disprove miracles at all.
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubt...
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isje... for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
Recommended books on defending the Gospels: isjesusalive.c...
"Miracles are impossible."
That's.... that's the whole point of a miracle...
Indeed! And the skeptics show their lack of understanding by making demands, like "show me a miracle," or "I won't believe unless I see proof." The whole point of *_Faith_* is one of *_Humble Confidence._* Utter humility to God and His will, plus confidence that He can deliver on any request. *_And since Humility is the Opposite of Ego (selfishness),_* Christ's statement about tempting the Lord our God -- the Source of all miracles, even those of Christ -- is oxymoronic. You can't satisfy ego by reducing ego to *_Zero._* Proving miracles by performing miracles are two mutually exclusive conditions.
We don't arrive at *_Faith_* by seeing evidence; we arrive at *_Faith_* by knowing it exists and Asking God.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Indeed. Without God's power acting On the World, miracles wouldn't happen.
The fact that roughly 2/3rds of all miracles recorded in the Bible, still happened within the boundaries of the Natural Order...
_(And are considered "miraculous", largely because the Timing happening in Accordance with God's Will)_
Doesn't change that God's existence, is a fact that underpins the entire Bible, miracles included.
If you're not already presupposing that the impossible can be somehow done, then you don't really have reason to believe the impossible is so.ehow actually possible. The idea that miracles are impossible should also imply it always being more likely to believe absurd stretches of real explanations (such as a hallucination) than one without prior evidence that it even exists at all
@@Eliza-rg4vw missed the point of "impossible".
It is impossible... without God/God's existence.
However, to deny God's existence... one must be able to either Prove that God's existence is Truly Impossible as well... thus making the claims about God also requiring proof of impossible.
Or, one must prove that the *evidence provided* for a miraculous God's existence, to be somehow illogical(also impossible).
.......
Just claiming that God doesn't exist, is akin to just claiming Hallucinations are real without other evidence. _(That is, ignoring others evidence..._ _particularly evidence that has survived like the Biblical evidence for God's existence has._ *_Is Presupposition as I'm given to understand from your comments.)_*
@@RodMartinJr true, I once upset an Athiest because I conceded he can't prove God doesn't exist and I can't prove God does exist so we have to take it on faith that we are correct. He was most upset by me saying he has "faith" as if it was a word exclusive only to those who have religion. It was entertaining.
I used to play a lot of video games. In one game, you could instantly kill an enemy player by shooting them in the head or firing a rocket at them. This is how the game works. But sometimes, there would be a cheater, who bypassed the rules of the game and was immortal, because he had installed a cheat software.
So what would be the logical reaction, when you fire a rocket at an enemy player and they don't die? According to these philosophers, it would be: "Cheats go against the normal rules of the game, therefore cheats don't exist."
If some guy can bypass the rules of a videogame with a cheat software, that he downloaded from the internet, how much more can an all powerful God bypass the laws of nature, that he himself programmed?
For clarification: This does not prove, that miracles exist. It only shows, that if a God exists, then miracles can exist. If one starts with the presupposition, that God doesn't exist, then miracles are impossible. But you can't say, "God doesn't exist, because miracles don't exist" because then I will ask you, "How do you know that miracles don't exist", and you will have to answer, "Because God doesn't exist". So this becomes circular reasoning, just like saying "God exists because miracles exist, and miracles exist because God exists" would be circular reasoning - unless you prove, that a miracle/God does or does not exist. As long as we have no proof, we should say, "God may or may not exist". In this case, we can say, "God, if you exist, please show me." We have nothing to lose in this case. When I did it, God showed me enough evidence to convince me, that he does exist, and that the Bible is true. He showed me the prophecies in Daniel and Revelation, which have accurately predicted the future.
Jesus really do be no-scoping the critics
@@MacacoMoninheiro get me an MGL FaZe edit of this lol
Because he's the giver of life. Jesus did the things he did because it would be humanely IMPOSSIBLE to bring someone back to life. Doing this would establish that he was the real deal. God has all authority over life, so we can't limit him to our own ideals. @JoniDillak
Your example doesn’t hold, Let me explain.
If i fired a rocket at someone and he doesn’t die there could be many possibilities of what could have happened and one them is that person is cheating, but wait what if we are not familiar with the concept of cheating in a video game? what if i was the first person to encounter cheating in a video game? Then we don’t have evidence/information about cheating. thus we shouldn’t assume nor believe cheating exist. We could put a hypothesis of a cheater but unless proven true we can’t believe it exists.
What i’m trying to say is that miracles maybe exist but we shouldn’t believe they are miracles but rather take a more logical case of what could have happened instead. Miracles are like any other thing that we don’t believe in; Like unicorns. I’m sure you won’t believe someone who says i have seen a unicorn. and that is the same for miracles
@nawark4726 well, these people weren't stupid. They were uneducated, yes, but I'm pretty sure that they knew there's something illogical to walking on water and being risen from the dead, demonstrating the wounds that showed he should be... well.... dead. It goes past that point of thinking they're illogical. And, on top of all of that, his body went missing from his tomb. With the circumstances surrounding it, you'd have no other logical option than to accept what the disciples claimed happened. They claimed to have seen, touched, and ate with Jesus after his death, and then they went out preaching him with no gain or motivation to do so. They went through persecution, torture, and most likely martyrdom. So, with all the evidence put forth, it's really hard not to accept the resurrection.
Just because a popular scientific name thinks differently than you doesn't mean that they're right.
nobody thinking anything makes it right. that's not the argument being made. the problem is that science is reproducible and miracles aren't. so science, which describes reality as it happens almost all of the time, cant be used to display miracles. but the same standards that science uses aren't applied to miracles. those are chocked up to the "mystery of God". this is why people lack faith
Yes, but doesn't mean they're wrong. Ideas have people, people don't have ideas. Facts are facts regardless of who says it. Regardless of the topic.
@@Andromedon777 The laws of physics and nature can only be violated by make-believe ideas.
There's a possibility that the Holy Roman Empire destroyed all empirical evidence of miraculous events in order to cast doubt upon their official deadguyonastick religion, but it doesn't make sense, therefore isn't likely.
@@Andromedon777 Of course! Both extremes are logical fallacies.
@@Andromedon777 The fact is that miracles are real and Jesus Christ is God ☦❤
Hume’s argument has always basically boiled down to, “I, personally, have never seen a miracle when I wanted one, so I think they don’t exist and I refuse to believe anyone else’s account of one.”
There are something like 160 miracles in the Bible all of which take place over 4000 years so miracles only took place .01% of the days IN THE BIBLE. The reason why people don’t see miracles is because they’re miracles aka way out of the ordinary lol! Also if you think about it you really shouldn’t want to be around when miracles took place they were often in the most desperate and dark spiritual times.
And yet some miracles like child birth happen every day.
Exactly! And that is precisely what an Argument from Ignorance logical fallacy is all about. "I've never seen one, so they don't exist."
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Wasn't it Yuri Gagarin (or more likely Kruschev claimed he said it) who said he didn't see God while in space so he must not exist. Sounds similar to Hume.
I love the attitude coming from religious people because we’re not willing to believe in these accounts of literal magic.
If an event violates the laws of nature, it didn't happen.
If an event doesn't violate the laws of nature, it's not a miracle.
Heads, I win; tails, you lose. Unfalsifiable arguments are just the best.
Not to me if you were to heal an amputee after praying to whatever God you worship. I'll be convinced but if all you have are a bunch of stories that got written down sorry I got other religions that use that as evidence as well.
@@omnikevlar2338What other religions can cast the face of their saviour into a linen cloth with the illumination of light alone?
@@BigNorbert Is this about the shroud of turin?
Very good! And the Creation of Nature violates the laws of nature, because *_nothing_* in nature has the ability to perform that act.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@omnikevlar2338 Then you don't understand how witness testimony works.
Fun fact, the scientific method was created assuming man is wrong, and God’s creation is dependable and unchanging (laws of nature).
Science being anti-God is probably the biggest gaslight atheist have made. But at the same time, Americans are partly to blame since the Sale Trials have made popular opinions believe Christianity is anti-science
Nature has no law but God. Also all creation groans in expectation of the revelation of the Sons of God. Romans 8:19 & 22. So what we know of nature is incomplete and hindered as nature itself is incomplete and hindered
@@codeN_8 The Laws of Nature are part of creation. It's proof of God's existence.
@@FishermensCorner *creation* is proof of the Creator, Romans 8:19&20. The "laws of nature" are not "plain" or "clearly seen", they have been discovered over time and explain the proof we see. But as I said God Himself is the Law. Romans 11:36, Col 1:15-17.
@Coden11 Just as planets are discovered, so are the laws that govern them; they are part of creation.
“Who is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?” (Mark 4:41). It’s almost like miracles are God’s intervention in nature. I don’t know maybe that’s why people were so overwhelmed when they happened 😅
And yet one of them still betrayed him?
@@DagestanidudeI can attest you can sin gravely even if you're adamantly convinced of Jesus' divinity and all other claims of the Faith
But then god will get more angry at them
@@lanavandenberg2880 In what way?
@@NoghaStar if you sees someone performing many miracles in the name of God and telling that you will go to hell if you refuse him, then betraying that someone is the least rational thing to do
Science is a tool for studying the natural world. Trying to it to study miracles is necessarily misusing it, and the demand for scientific evidence for miracles necessarily divides miracles into two categories. "natural" miracles that are dismissed because they can be explained by science, and "impossible" miracles that are dismissed because they cannot.
science has a heckuva halo effect for a lot of ppl sadly
Using science to study miracles works when you use it correctly, namely, to rule out hoaxes and natural explanations for phenomena. For instance, Eucharistic miracles have been investigated by turning the Host over to scientists for examination without telling them the source of the sample and letting the findings speak for themselves.
if they are using science to disprove God its no longer science just people making excuses to not follow God.
This, in part, kind of reminds me of what Bart Ehrman says. History is a method for studying the past from a methodologically naturalistic perspective that is not suitable for assessing whether or not a miracle has happened.
"Real miracles bother people, like strange sudden pains unknown in medical literature. It's true: They rebut every rule all we good citizens take comfort in. Lazarus obeying orders and climbing up out of the grave - now there's a miracle, and you can bet it upset a lot of folks who were standing around at the time. When a person dies, the earth is generally unwilling to cough him back up. A miracle contradicts the will of the earth.”
― Leif Enger, Peace Like a River
"and you can bet it upset a lot of folks who were standing around at the time"
Funny how those "upset people" never wrote about it. Funny how only the bible talks about these "miracles". Funny how you believe in literal magic.
There are no miracles. Only stories of miracles made up by people desperate to "prove" their religion.
You can scoff at rational people who don't believe in magic all you want, but at the end of the day, you have literally nothing to prove your magic-belief, while rational people have denunked miracle claim after miracle claim with scientific knowledge and logic.
All your miracle claims are is stories and phenomena you don't understand. So made up stuff and personal incredulity.
@@Finckelstein so according to you, the events that happened two thousand years ago have to be well documented by everyone and well preserved? i would think that if we were to use this logic, we would have to question the validity of anything that happened in that time as well. black holes for one; and feel free to correct me, i'm not very well educated on this subject, violate the law of conservation of mass and energy.
again, miracles are meant to be impossible. can you provide the rational people's debunks, i would like to see them and see if they hold up. there's a reason why all prophecies in the old testament written hundreds of years before jesus were all fulfilled in jesus's lifespan, and "oh, he can't rise from the dead, that's magic". well my friend, it is based on eyewitness evidence, and if eyewitness evidence is untrustworthy, then we would have to discredit all claims made during that time, which include the existence of pluto etc.
finally, i would please appreciate it if you drop the confrontational and condescending tone. it's unnecessary and only shows your insecurity. hopefully one day you will realize that if you are to convince one to believe what you say, this type of method would never work. god bless you, have a great day
Hume's criteria is hopelessly question begging. And the fact that so many people even today think that those are good arguments is mind-boggling.
His world view, when subjected to the same critical standards he applied to Christianity, fail to provide the necessary preconditions for intelligibility. It is internally inconsistent and cannot account for the universal laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, or the objective standards of morality.
His worldview borrows from the Christian worldview to make sense of the world. It relies on the existence of God’s order and rationality, even as it deny the source of that order. Without the God of the Bible, one cannot make sense of human experience or knowledge. Thus, the denial of the Christian God, implicit or explicit in any worldview, ultimately leads to epistemological despair.
…
@@Boundless_Border your worldview fails to provide the preconditions for intelligibility. It is internally inconsistent and cannot account for the universal laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, or the objective standards of morality. For instance, naturalism cannot justify the laws of logic, as these are immaterial and universal, whereas naturalism can only account for that which is material and contingent. Similarly, ethical relativism fails to provide a basis for objective moral standards. If all that exists is matter and energy operating by blind, unguided natural processes, it becomes incoherent to treat things like reason and ethics as objectively real and binding. They would merely be neurological phenomena with no transcendent authority, … thus rendering moral discourse meaningless.
….
@@Boundless_Border It seems that you are either being intentionally obtuse or you genuinely do not grasp the philosophical issues you are raising. I have a feeling that it is the former, though I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt.
When I say atheistic naturalism cannot "account for" things like logic and objective morality, I mean it cannot ground or provide a coherent foundation for them within its metaphysical system. If all that exists is matter/energy following the blind laws of physics and chemistry, where do unchanging, universal abstractions like the laws of logic come from? They are immaterial and not contingent on the physical universe. Naturalism has no place for them.
As for ethical relativism, I'm well aware that under that view, one need not provide a basis for objective morality since it denies such a thing exists. That's precisely the *problem!*. 😅
Relativism reduces ethics to mere subjective preference, no more binding than someone's favorite ice cream flavor. It cannot ground genuine moral oughts and obligations that we all pragmatically know exist. Moral discourse becomes just people sharing their personal tastes, unable to genuinely condemn evil or praise good in any objective sense.
@@Boundless_Border You have the explanatory cart before the horse, my friend. Consistent behavior itself already presupposes the immaterial, universal laws of logic as the inviolable framework! Your argument commits a stolen concept fallacy - borrowing conceptual tools from the very worldview you seek to undermine.
Attempting to reduce logic to mere correlations or "trends" strips it of its vital normativity that distinguishes it from simple physical regularities. The laws of logic are not only descriptive, but also prescriptive and universal. To claim they are contingent on or derivative of physical systems is utterly incoherent. It inverts the proper order - physical intelligibility itself depends on these transcendent logical preconditions! To reason at all, one must utilize the laws of non-contradiction, identity, excluded middle, etc. These are not contingent on the physical universe - they are a priori, necessarily true preconditions for intelligibility.
Your sports analogy inadvertently undermines your own position by highlighting an inescapable philosophical reality - the existence of rules, values, and objective criteria in any domain necessarily presupposes the antecedent existence of a transcendent rule-making authority.
In every sport or game, there is an instituting body that legislates and decrees the rules that define the boundaries, values and standards of that activity. Remove this authoritative source, and you are left with a meaningless free-for-all devoid of purpose or coherence.
So it is with reality and ethics as a whole. To posit that objective morality, logical absolutes, or any kind of normative standards emerged spontaneously from a materialistic, mindless universe is literally analogous to a sport arising ex nihilo, complete with rules and values, yet no instituting entity to ground those rules.
The very notion is incoherent. Just as every game requires an intelligent source to define its parameters, so the biographies existence of rationality, ethics and laws of thought irrefutably points to the existence of a supreme, transcendent Lawgiver and source of all value/meaning - namely, the Biblical God.
You claim moral relativism simply "rejects objective moral values" as if that solves the dilemma. But even stating that rejection, you are implicitly operating within a conceptual framework of objective value distinctions between truth and falsehood that is ungrounded on your view.
If morality is purely subjective opinion, what justification do you have for rejecting moral positions you dislike? By your view, you are just expressing personal dislike, not making any objectively binding claims.
When you state "people can still condemn evil and praise good" on relativism, those terms have been drained of coherent meaning. Good/evil compared to what standard? You've removed any objective criterion for genuine praise or condemnation.
@@Boundless_Border Let us start with this blatant equivocation regarding the "laws of logic." You strawmanned my argument as suggesting logic was somehow proclaimed by divine fiat, betraying a profound misunderstanding. The laws of logic are not arbitrary divine edicts, but necessarily true transcendent realities that flow from the very rational nature of God Himself as the embodiment of TRUTH.
To posit that the immutable, universal laws that make rationality possible are mere "descriptions" that could be revised if reality behaved differently is a profound category error. It utterly misconstrues the essentialnormative character of logic as the invariant preconditions for intelligibility itself. Apart from these fixed logical axioms, reality becomes unintelligible - not just counter-intuitive.
You ask why I consider logical laws prescriptive? Because rationality and meaning themselves break down without treating them as immutable, universal prescriptions that cannot be revised or suspended based on contingent circumstances. To do so would be akin to an evolutionary "just-so" story where we simply define coherence into being despite its obvious self-refutation.
Your hypothetical about "contradictory things existing" begs the question. It incoherently presupposes the very laws of non-contradiction it claims could be revised, thereby reducing to gibberish. You cannot rationally conceive of a "reality" where A and not-A obtain simultaneously without contradicting the rules that make conception possible in the first place! This is the philosophical insanity materialism leads to.
Regarding ethical normativity, you continue obfuscating the crucial divide between personal subjective preferences and objective prescriptive oughts that morally bind all persons in all circumstances. Your sports analogy still commits the fatal flaw of covertly borrowing conceptual capital while simultaneously undercutting ontological justification for its existence.
Of course any invented human convention has underlying subjective elements defined by its framers. But the ability to conceive of, formulate, or evaluate such conventions already presupposes the objective ethical foundation I highlighted - fixed definitions of goodness, rationality, value, virtue etc. that cannot be accounted for on atheistic premises.
When you attempt to "define" logic or ethics, you engage in circular explanatory irreducibility - positing undefined conceptual primitives ("particles just behaving per their nature") that make the entire materialistic project self-refuting from the start. Only Biblical revelation supplies the metaphysical grounds for abstract conceptual realities like logic, ethics, intention, etc.
@@Boundless_Border you said, The justification I utilize is that the moral positions I dislike are more damaging than the ones I do like. And I think most people use this system. You think it is less damaging to follow your god's commands than to go against them. So we don't disagree on the standard. We just think the other is evaluating the situation poorly. Am I wrong?’
While superficially it may appear we are both appealing to a criterion of avoiding "damage" or negative consequences, this veneer quickly disintegrates under closer examination. For your worldview has no philosophically coherent grounds for evaluating what constitutes true "damage" or authoritative moral standards by which to measure it.
From my Biblically-derived worldview, avoiding "damage" flows from the objective moral reality that human beings are sacred image-bearers of God, and that which defaces or undermines our divine telos and purpose is truly damaging. There are inviolable ethical norms and an objective hierarchy of moral values rooted in the very nature of our transcendent Creator.
But the question remains, in your worldview, where do you get this notion of moral damage? If humans are merely accidental byproducts of a blind cosmic process, finite bundles of temporarily organized particles, then things like torture, rape, genocide are no more "damaging" in any objective sense than an earthquake or tidal wave. They simply represent matter/energy following its amoral existence according to the laws of physics.
It's weird how too many sceptics seem to treat Jesus' resurrection as something that's presented as naturally occurring and then disprove it based on that.
An example of this was Ehrman telling Licona that a resurrection violates the second law of thermodynamics back in their 2022 debate or Ludemann saying it was nonsense.
It really is strange, isn’t it? Most of their arguments about miracles pretty much boil down to “Miracles are impossible naturally, so they must be impossible period!” Like bro, yes, obviously miracles are not natural, that’s what makes them miracles. You can’t just assume there is no god (assuming Christianity is false) and then use that assumption to try to disprove miracles of Christianity. That is obviously faulty reasoning, but they do it all the time. It really makes it difficult to take them seriously.
Perhaps I've missed something in all these years, but doesn't the concept of evolution also violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics? I don't mean strictly in an individual organism as it will eventually metabolically die, but evolution as a whole in which living organisms gradually becomes more complicated over time?
How is macro evolution anything but a secular miracle?
@@Jinnyfir You're exactly right, even if nobody wants to admit it. A local decrease in entropy mandates a larger increase elsewhere, yes. But what nobody wants to admit is that the decrease requires a mechanism to make the decrease happen to begin with. And these mechanisms do not arise via natural means. This is one of the biggest reasons I accept Genesis 1 and 2 as literal history and reject abiogenesis and evolutionary thinking in general.
You base your world view on stories thought up by primitives who didn't know where the sun went at night. Stories that are so poorly written, they could be mistaken for the 8th season of Game of Thrones. And then you claim it weird that people don't accept magic as a candidate explanation for everything.
Sorry, but I prefer living in reality instead of your la la land. There was no resurrection and miracles are nonsense. If a miracle were ever to be proven true, it'd have to have a naturalistic explanation and thus not be a miracle. Because there are no miracles. What people call and called miracles were phenomena they couldn't explain. Quite literally a fallacy from personal incredulity. Funny how they are all either unfalsifiable or thoroughly debunked.
All you have is an old book and the credulous, gullible people who believe it.
@@Jinnyfir You did miss something. It's a little thing, we call it the sun. It's constantly beaming tons of energy down on us. Thus preventing us from being a closed system, thus negating the 2nd Law, which only works in closed systems.
Yes science, we are aware miracles are impossible in the natural world, that's why they are MIRACLES
And that’s why when we became sufficiently able to completely observe the world, they stopped happening! You will never see the splitting of a sea because it’s a made up story.
Double like. It's funny that the concept of a God existing who is outside of this dimension/reality/constraints who created everything that we experience isn't a logical difficulty; but the idea that the same God who formed everything could also change/interact with anything within it is a logical difficulty makes no [logical] sense.
If you can form it, you can change it.
Science changes all the time, but
God's word stays the same.
exactly, science has to change with new evidence so its not all written in stone.
@@diamondlife-gi7hgTo say it’s not converging is wrong however. Just approximations getting better. To say one day science will be turned on it’s head and confirm what you’ve believed all along is a pipe dream.
science can change with new information, your book doesn't.
Imagine thinking that's a flex. It only shows how useless your book is. Science brought up skyscrapers and smartphones. Religion brought us misery oppression.
And thus science has disproven god's word by changing and showing us that Genesis is wrong.
"Miracles break the laws of nature so they can't happen" is a level of bafflingly missing the point on par with, "If God created everything then who created God?"
Excellent! It shows a lack of humility and creativity to imagine conditions outside of their experience. *_Self-certain_* tends to do that, blinding the individual to other possibilities and contrary evidence.
ALL of physical reality is *_dichotomous_* (2-sided; good-evil, action-reaction, compassion-indifference, generous-selfish, etc). ALL of spirit is *_non-dichotomous_* and discontinuous in nature (cause-and-free will). God, as a non-dichotomous Source of ALL, can *_never_* be "effect." So, there can never be a "creator" of God.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
who created God?? he's God he lives in eternity no need for anyone to create him.
@@diamondlife-gi7hg Well said, but it might be more accurate to say that He is timeless (outside of ALL eternity, for time, as we know it, is PART of His creation).
And God is non-dichotomous (non-two-sided).
In the physical realm, everything is two-sided -- like action-reaction, hot-cold, up-down, past-future, love-hate, good-evil, compassion-indifference, generous-selfish, etc.
God is never effect, because spirit is never effect; He and spirit are *_always_* Cause.
Hope this helps.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@diamondlife-gi7hg That's just a cheap cop out through special pleading. All theists have is emotions and fallacies.
@@Finckelstein did you read any of the other guys replies?
The defeater for Hume: a dictionary.
Skeptics: Miracle never happen!
Soon to be Saint Carlo Acutis: Let me just intercede for this woman with a brain haemorrage and ask God to heal her completely
Yeah, they just need to look around and see what is happening.
All Christians are saints according to the Bible. It isn't some special class of believer... Also, Christ is the one and sole intercessor.
@@AR15andGODhe didn’t say they weren’t, what we canonize as saints are people we know for a fact are in Heaven, and the proof of that we have is the miracles they preform. So yes, all Christians become saints in heaven, but saints we canonize are ones we know are in heaven
I've personally never had any problem with miracles. If God can do anything, He can do, well, anything. Those who debunk the miracles as recorded in the Bible don't recognize how closed minded they are. Their limited experiences in life somehow qualify them to pontificate on things they do not understand at all.
Indeed, closed minded. And also Logically Fallacious. It is wholly remarkable how poor is the logic of virtually all skeptics (exceptions are *_rare)._* They are stuck in the deterministic, dichotomous and continuity-based physical reality, so thoroughly that they cannot imagine a cause-and-free will, non-dichotomous, and discontinuity-based realm (spirit and truth).
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
You realize science was supposed to show you you’ve been lied to the entire time. And you just begin drooling from the mouth saying “god can do anything 🤪”
@@DukeEllision329 Incredible the number of logical fallacies you pack into such a tiny comment.
And... no, that was *_not_* the purpose of science. ("...to show you you've been lied to the entire time.")
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@RodMartinJr And those are?
@@DukeEllision329
Bible says not to answer a fool according to his folly, so I won't.
Thanks!
Waiting for the muslims to bring their scientific miracles of the quran
There is one miracle: It's the best selling fanfiction of the Bible in the world.
@@KenCunkle Like darwinism?
@@KenCunkleevolution doesn't explain how living beings began, only how they change over time.
@KenCunkle There's a difference between Jesus healing a man with a touch or Moses making the sea part and... Jesus being able to talk at 2 days old in Quran, lol.
As said by someone in the comment section once: To the uneducated, scientific practices seem like magic.
And to those uneducated scientists who make such claims, they are *_blinded_* by their own certainty, preventing them from seeing the Logical Fallacies they are using. False Equivalence that all supposed miracles are the result of science and technology, miss the very real possibility that there may be exceptions to this "rule." And this claim also is an implied Argument from Ignorance, as if to say, "I've never seen evidence of miracles, so they don't exist."
Such blanket statements risk, for the claimant, an implied claim of "omniscience." How could a skeptic KNOW such things, unless they could see ALL of time and space in order to have the certainty to make such a claim. That, in itself, would be a miracle, for no technology that I know of currently exists which would allow them access to all points in space and time.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@LukePaplowski Kindly point me out where and who said that.
Athur C. Clarke had three laws:
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
That's not what we're talking about when we mention miracles though. To equate miracles to advanced technology would be to say that God used technology to perform them. Which would imply that someday we could gain that technology.
Instead, the miracles in the Bible are only possible by God's creative power. He can do as he wills in our universe because he created it and transcends it.
@@bbgun061 Amen! *_Well said!_* And, as Christ said, Ask and you will receive. BUT asking has a very specific form.
Asking does not come from the lips or the thoughts, but from the "Heart" (subconscious *_feeling_* mind).
And asking requires *_Humble-Confidence._* If, instead, you have dark emotions in your heart, then you will have asked for more dark emotions. See? You need to have in your Heart that for which you ask. If you have only ego and lusts in your heart, then you are condemning yourself to receive only the *_Status Quo_* of deterministic, physical continuity; in other words, a lack of anything spiritual. But if you ask, with Humility to God and to His Will, plus with Confidence in His ability to ALLOW what is asked into Physical Manifestation, then you will *_Receive_* that for which you have asked. And if you have not asked for a delay, then you will receive *_instantly._*
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
@@RodMartinJr I would not be so sure about 'instantly.'
The angel was delayed 21 days in response to Daniel's prayer. (Dan 10:13)
I got a Neil deGrasse Tyson masterclass ad after watching this video.
Lol
People who don't believe in miracles aren't basing their assumptions on a rational position they are asserting the view based on an emotional position. The fact of the matter is, miracles do happen. Those who argue they don't haven't usually investigated any examples of modern miracles to establish their veracity, they are arguing it because they don't WANT miracles to happen. That's not an argument from logic, it's a presupposition from their own personal desire.
If we’re doing psychoanalysis:
You believe in miracles and yet lots of other people don’t. How do you explain that? Is it that the evidence for miracles is not actually that strong? But then why is your conviction that miracles happen so strong? Could it be that your own beliefs are based more on personal desire than evidence? Sounds kind of uncomfortable. It must be that all those other people either haven’t investigated like you have (despite the fact that it’s easy to find skeptics detailing their investigations of alleged miracles) or they just don’t *want* miracles to happen (despite the fact that you have no way of seeing into their minds to check this). And just like that, your discomfort is resolved.
@@Electricalpenguinyou speak with such eloquence, and you work so hard to say it, I'm almost sad to disappoint you... I believe in miracles because they happen. I was deaf. You want me to pretend that I still can't hear. Sorry, but I am not that crazy.
@@bethyngalw Not sure why you think I want you to pretend you can’t hear. Happy to grant that your ability to hear has dramatically improved. Why do you think that divine intervention is responsible for that?
@@Electricalpenguin I'm not here to prove anything to you. Have you actually done what I said, or are you going to prove me right that you haven't? Give yourself six months to look into every miracle you can find, in detail, as scientifically as you are personally able, then get back to me. There are millions on this platform alone, many including reference to tests, records and interviews with surgeons. Go have fun, stop merely messing with hypotheticals, and look at the actual examples.
@@bethyngalw Up to you. You do seem interested in convincing people though, otherwise you wouldn’t be engaging in this discussion.
Unfortunately I do not have six months to devote to the investigation of modern miracles. Perhaps you could help expedite the process by sharing one or two of the best-evidenced modern miracles you’ve come across?
The reasoning of atheists to suggest miracles are scientifically impossible is completely nonsensical. It's based off the notion that if God did exist then somehow He can't supersede the laws of nature; how completely and utterly irrational. Obviously if God exists then He wouldn't be bound by His creation.
Perfectly logical.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
If you don’t have a scientific answer to a scientific question than don’t act like you have an answer to the question. You’re basically saying that because others don’t accept your entire worldview, their somehow nonsensical in disbelieving aspects of it
@@Alieth Ironically, many of the *_so-called_* scientific claims are ONLY *_Logical Fallacies!_*
There are Logical Fallacies used on BOTH sides of this debate. And virtually *_every_* skeptic has been guilty of at least one Logical Fallacy; frequently dozens, if not hundreds.
One common Logical Fallacy used by both believers and non-believers is the claim of "impossibility," or "you're wrong."
Both of these are Appeals to the Stone. Sometimes these are also Appeals to Authority, depending on how they are used. And quite often they are also Arguments from Ignorance, as if they -- by some miraculous omniscience -- simply "know" that their own claim is true.
If you don't use the flawed (heavily biased) paradigm of skepticism, you can use Scientific Method to investigate the topic of miracles, spirit and God.
😎♥✝🇺🇸💯
Uhhh we kinda assume there isn't a god in the first place. Meaning he can't alter the laws of physics in the first place.
@@levongevorgyan6789 That would be circular reasoning.
I'll tell you another miracle, did you see Jordon Peterson finally admit that Jesus came out of the grave in his interview with Cosmic Skeptic? That alone proves miracles😁. On a serious note, good video, we agree with this content!
Did you see that Jipper wore a blazer of "muh sacred icons"? Honestly would be offended had I been orthodox.
@@alexanderthegoat It was a colorful jacket for sure, didn't notice what was on it.
What atheists don't understand is that the Bible never claims these are natural events. Saying it's fake because it isn't naturally possible is nonsensical because no one ever said it was natural. It is by definition unnatural as it took God Himself for it to occur. This is the sort of argument that appealed to me back when I was an atheist at 15 years old. It's really strange honestly
Ok, assume miracles happen. How often does Yahweh raise people from the dead? Now compare that to how often people are mistaken and the ease with which misinformation spreads through a population.
now you need to prove that "unnatural things", or more accurately miracles occur. There is no evidence of these miracles outside of the gospels. There is no evidence of the creation myths and deluge as described in Genesis. There is no evidence of a great splitting of the sea, as described in Exodus. There is no evidence of anyone rising from the dead, outside of flawed observations.
I’m literally breaking the laws of nature right now by using my hand to suspend my phone in mid air, preventing the law of gravity from taking its course and dropping it to the ground.
WIZARDPOSTER
Umm… is this sarcasm?
@@nawark4726 I’m really just making fun of the idea that a being acting in reality to cause the laws of nature to act differently than they normally do is somehow miraculous.
@@harrygarris6921 gotchu
@@harrygarris6921 in what way is you holding a phone against the laws of nature?
Good video as always testify. Sorry I have to do this just once “First”.
wow! how'd you find the backdoor this time? lol
@@TestifyApologeticsa true magician never reveals his secrets
@@dumbsimpleton207you clicked on the playlists tab didn't you? 🤨
@@TestifyApologetics shhhh
The first will be last, and you can't take it back.
"People don't rise from the dead."
"Ya. We know. That's why it was kind of a big deal."
-Connal and Donnal meet Richard Dawkins
People commenting earlier isn't early access... It's a miracle. You *KNOW* it's true!
Let’s goooo. Cannot wait for the rest of the series to come out. God bless you and your family my man 🙌 love what you do
Arguing against the exception to the rule is rather ignorant... that's why miracles are a big deal... because we know what normal (or the usual order of things) actually is.
I first heard this illogical argument from Hume reading Richard Dawkins "The Magic of Reality". I've been struggling to see if I was missing something about the argument.
If you always choose to believe the most likely event...then it seems that you'd never choose to believe the exceptional.
I don't believe in Darwin's natural selection leads to everything idea... but Dawkins definitely does... and everything about evolution is choosing to believe that the exception to the rule continually happens.
Which would be the more likely... that life spontaneously arose from non-life OR that evolution didn't occur?
Obviously, it would be more likely that proteins didn't spontaneously form, DNA didn't suddenly create itself from non intelligence, an explosion from nothing didn't create everything, etc.
What am I missing about this Hume argument?
If you choose to believe in the Bible, you choose to believe that the exceptional happened... but you need to believe in the exceptional happening if you choose to believe in darwinian atheism as well?
Actually you just need to believe in One exceptional presupposition in the Christian worldview... that the God of the Bible exists...then everything else logically or naturally follows.
However if you choose to believe in darwinian atheism...then you need to believe in an almost infinite amount of exceptional presuppositions... and then nothing truly logically or naturally follows without even more exceptional presuppositions...if I'm seeing this correctly...
Miracles...
Christianity only truly needs one... Jesus Christ.
Darwinian atheism needs constant miracles (exceptions to the rules).
Maybe Hume was onto something after all ... which is more likely... that One miracle occurred or that an unlimited amount of miracles are needed?
I'll stick with the simplicity of the Gospel, thank you Mr. Hume. All other worldviews are too exceptional for me to believe.
@@Boundless_Border So you just believe what people tell you about the age of the earth... but that's ok with you?
I'm not believing what man has communicated but what Jesus has communicated through Godly men btw.
Before we leave the topic... which is more reasonable to believe?
That life evolved from non-life or that life doesn't spontaneously arise?
There's as much evidence supporting spontaneously life arising from non-life as there is archeological evidence that the events from the Book of Mormon took place... so I am interested how you justify believing something so magical/miraculous with no supporting evidence except for people saying that it must have happened.
How is believing this basic tenet of evolution reasonable for you to choose to believe?
I find it much more believable that life doesn't spontaneously arise. Louis Pasteur proved this about the same year as the Origin of Species was published in 1859.
@@Boundless_Border I will have to respectfully disagree that evolution doesn't involve abiogenesis. As far as definitions go, when I looked it up (abiogenesis) it gave me this from the Oxford dictionary.
"1.
the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances.
"to construct any convincing theory of abiogenesis, we must take into account the condition of the Earth about 4 billion years ago"
2.
HISTORICAL
old term for spontaneous generation."
From this definition at least, it appears that the three terms are synonyms.
I understand that many Christians accept the idea of Evolution and try to shoehorn it into the Bible. I disagree with this as Genesis leaves no room for evolution regardless of the destruction of context.
I do base my beliefs on the Bible first and then I evaluate the evidence from my worldview.
However, I do find that the evidence backs up the Bible (which is what I'd expect to find if the Bible is true).
I'll look into your asteroid information. I've heard of it before. I'd probably find it more reasonable that the asteroid was contaminated by the equipment than the asteroid had random organic material. I'd also have to ask what kind of organic material.
I've heard of some of the experiments unsuccessfully trying to produce life in a lab. I've heard that one produced protein or was it amino acids? But they were all "left handed"(?) and life requires the opposite. I also heard that whatever was produced would be destroyed by the presence of oxygen. I'd have to revisit the information.
I do find it interesting that you'd put your faith into these things instead of the Bible which has been verified (being the most highly scrutinized source ever) by history, geography, geology, archeology, biology, textual criticism, personal experiences (which would be required for the personal God of the Bible), philosophy, reason and logic, etc.
Did you know that there's 23 uniformitarian dating methods that say the earth is less than 10,000 years old? This is one of my beefs with evolutionary "science"; they disregard anything that disagrees with the current belief of evolution.
I'm not really sure where to go from here. You're free to choose to believe that evolution happened. Our beliefs never change the truth.
I find the combined evidential support for the Bible to far outweigh any other worldview.
I find the lack of evidence supporting evolution (counting it from abiogenesis or not) to be utterly lacking. The fossil record supports a young earth and a global flood.
People deceptively use the terms evolution and natural selection interchangeably, though evolution is the "what" and natural selection (which is demonstrably true) is the "how".
I've read Dawkins "Magic of Reality" and am just about finished with "The Greatest Show on Earth The Evidence for Evolution". I thought if there was evidence for evolution, that I'd especially find it in that book by the most well known evolutionary biologist. Each chapter has been demonstrably deceptive and dishonest.
I have diligently searched for valid evidence that demonstrates the case for evolution, but I haven't found any after ten years of looking. I've found things that people choose to believe are evidence for evolution: like similar anatomy, but that seems more like an excuse to believe than evidence.
I even read books like "God is not Great" by Hitchens and "Why I'm not a Christian" by Russell... trying to be open to evidence that would disagree with my worldview.
I have found after ten years of seeking and searching that Biblical Christianity is the Juggernaut of worldviews. I have looked into Islam, Shintoism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses and Atheism and Agnosticism, Judaism and some others.
What is your worldview? And why do you choose to believe that it's true?
Hume’s argument is no more sensible than someone saying that someone lifting weights is impossible because all natural laws describe how things fall under gravity.
Introducing a being with agency upends this entire concept, and the more power over the natural world that being has - and the divine Creator obviously has the ultimate authority - the more it does so.
This is so true. I witness a miracle every morning when my drunk husband gets up and gos to work. My second known miracle of the day is getting through to the doctors surgery.
‘Miracles don’t happen’. Meanwhile saw someone who couldn’t walk for years and was stuck in a wheelchair, get up and walk in Sunday service!!!!
Yeah, these are the most common miracle scams. Do yourself a favour and look that topic up. But here's a spoiler: Those aren't miracles, they're cons.
Let's be honest that is true,those are not miracles,they don't just happen randomly out of nowhere@@Finckelstein
I never understood this argument. Miracles aren't supposed to be natural. So using natural laws to explain something supernatural make absolutely no sense.
Besides, almost every scientist believes on the the greatest miracle ever. The creation of the universe from nothing.
Literally no scientist believes that. That's just an obvious lie your apologists fed you. And you're parroting it like a good little sheep.
Never thought I'd nee a Klingon thinking more rationally than so many humans, let alone the legendary warrior-king Kahless...
@@DerekGreen15 Well, Klingons fully believe in the supernatural. There is no such thing as a Klingon Atheist. So they're naturally more rational than a human atheist.
Disregarding evidence just because it's beyond natural is absolutely ridiculous. Believe the evidence, even if it points to an almighty creator. Believing evidence is the only path that makes sense.
They don't? They just accept the Universe was a single point 13 billion years ago. What happened before that is a mystery.
@@levongevorgyan6789 So again, you believe in a single event that is beyond natural (more commonly stated as "Supernatural"). This one event is far more difficult to accomplish than any of the other miracles in the Bible.
The laws of nature did not exist prior to the big bang. They all came into existence in the first microsecond of the universe. These are not my words. These are the words of atheist scientists.
Therefore, by definition, the big bang was supernatural. Another word for a supernatural event is, "Miracle".
I remember studying Hume in philosophy... the Empiricists view of the world is exceedingly obtuse ... Anything that you can't hear, smell, see, taste or feel doesn't exist? even if we go off of what you can detect off of instruments, there are an incomprehensible amount of things going on around us all the time that we are blissfully unaware of... The vaunted and lofty knowledge of science is constantly warping, adapting and receiving complete overhauls in response to single discoveries. The idea that science will ever be complete, and therefore our knowledge of the universe, is fantasy on the level that Hume would have considered a miracle. The world is FILLED with one off occurrences that we can't hope to replicate and study- nearly everyone you meet has at least one- according to an Empirical thinker, these would all have to be faulted on the observer for a lack of understanding of the natural principles behind said occurrence... However, if even one of these accounts WAS in fact, as it appeared to the observer, and was outside of the possibilities of natural "law" then the entire paradigm collapses on itself. It also seems rather funny to me that Hume would argue: because these things do not happen today, they couldn't possibly have occurred then! Yeah but if you saw something like that happen, you'd probably write it down, or at least tell someone? No? Often miraculous occurrences within the Bible occur in batches surrounding the formation of a covenant, or are performed by a prophet or neophyte in the face of extraordinary circumstances. These were not things that often happened in ordinary life- and thus, they were recorded as a thing of significance. No one would care about the diary of a random patriarch wandering in the desert 5000 years ago if it were mundane, nor would it have been kept or studied or even remembered for as long. As my own life has been rife with extraordinary and supernatural occurrences, (some of which I simply didn't realize were out of the ordinary until bouncing them off of other people), It isn't possible to establish a "garden variety" human experience, nor are we able to discount another's experiences by simply measuring them against our own. Before people came to the new world a tornado would have seemed a fantasy and an impossibility, yet in America when the warnings go off everyone shelters in a safe location. To quote a rather famous poet- "There are more things in
heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your
philosophy"
Jesus loves you. Jesus is God.
Has any scientist or theologian proposed this before?
1. If the only miracle that did occur was the resurrection of Jesus Christ after he was confirmed dead, Christianity would still have a working gospel with God being real.
2. A real God who could resurrect Jesus Christ could be powerful enough to perform any miracle in the Bible, and strongest and most abundant evidence for any miracle is that of the resurrection.
Therefore, the resurrection is sufficient evidence that God exists and has the power and authority to perform the rest of the miracles as he wanted.
Now this does not argue that it is true that the miracles did happen. Rather it suggests it irrational to conclude that they can be dismissed just because someone doesn’t know how God did it.
That said, isn’t a gap in knowledge just something scientists haven’t yet discovered? Then there is the idea that science experiments prove the theory that the world can be understood and we can understand? Shoot, I forgot the third part of that claim lol
Unfortunately, they of course also use Hume's 'intuitive' anti-miracle logic to forbid in their minds even the possibility of the resurrection having occurred even when presented w/ evidence.
"For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God." -- St.Paul, 1 Corinthians 1::22-24
Do they not realize that the God who created the laws of nature could just as easily bypass them?
Jesus love us all
I used to limit God, as a skeptic. They can't wrap their head around the fact that God can do whatever God wants and is far more intelligent than us :)
Great video. It would be interesting to see how you would respond to classical objections to your rebuttal i.e. you are misunderstanding hume, he is not question begging because of xyz, etc. Eitherway, keep up the great work.
I don't think he's begging the question
@@TestifyApologetics Okay but some do. I just categorized it within common objections to criticisms of Hume. A more used objection would be that of apparently misunderstanding Hume or his argument.
Short but great explanation.
I explained it to my nephew this way. I put an object on the table, then I asked him to pick it up. When he did, I asked him where it was. "In my hand." he said. "No." i replied. "It's still on the table, because objects at rest don't suddenly jump off the table of their own accord. That's the 'miracles just don't happen' argument. Now you see why it's stupid."
Can you please make a video about the evidence that the disciples died for Jesus and that they had the opportunity to renounce their claims? I'd love to see it.
I can make a video defending their willingness to suffer but that's beyond the evidence that we have. I still think we can make a strong case for their sincerity however. See my live tab and find the recent response to Paulogia
An excellent point about miracles. God is giving us a way to spot people with His stamp of approval. Also, few people in the Bible actually performed miracles. Miracles happen around people too, without a prophet or apostle to perform them.
If God is going to have to prove He exists, then He is going to have to do miracles?
Little does the atheist know that their worldview requires even more miracles. From beginning to now, existence itself is one mathematical impossibility after the next.
The fact that miracles rarely happen and can't be explained away by the laws of nature is the whole point of Christianity and what makes it stand out in the first place. Following Jesus, His teachings and His identity as God's Son would be meaningless if there was no supernatural component to it. God is by definition supernatural, so nature isn't going to have much to say about this, nor can it.
Speaking of Muhammad (3:37), would you ever make a video on Islam/the Quran in this sort of style?
If the New Testament is reliable Islam is false. So I don't think I need to much more.
So basically, Hume's reasoning rests on the presupposition that God doesn't exist. Because if a supernatural being doesn't exist, then there wouldn't be anything outside the natural order to make supernatural (miraculous) occurences, which would be the only way their claim can be validated. So his claim is, in itself, dishonest.
Miracles are unlikely because they are rare. Therefor we should assume miracles as the last option. And since it is the last option, we might as well not consider them at all.
I hope someone who follows that logic never works in the field of cancer testing. Cancer is rare, so we might as well not consider it at all.
Got me in the first half
Nobody thinks like this.
@@polygondeath2361 That's great then.
Hume to be right would mean that he knew everything about all the laws of the cosmos. That alone would be a miracle.
This is “Part 1,” so I assume you’ll move towards why one SHOULD believe in particular miracle “X” (walking on water, resurrections of Jesus, Lazarus, all those people in Jerusalem, healing the blind and lame etc … take your pick).
Saying that the argument from the regularity of nature isn’t a case against miracles does not help the case FOR miracles at all.
Some folks definitely get hung up on the first part (miracles by definition can’t happen without regularity to compare them to). But I think the more thoughtful skeptic is hung up on the second part … how do you prove a miracle? How can there be a threshold where that becomes a reasonable thing to believe, and where is that threshold?
Hopefully some of that will get flushed out in the forthcoming videos, as it will be interesting to see.
Addressing Hume is just addressing whether it can be rational to believe on in them on the basis of testimony. I've provided reasons why I think the Gospel authors are honest, reliable and close to the facts. Therefore what they claim likely goes back to witnesses. The content and context of their claims eliminate lying or mistakes as good options of explanation regarding the resurrection. See the previous 2 playlists.
This is more doing some philosophical brush cleaning. That said I'll talk about specific intriguing cases in future videos.
There are two kings of miracles: circumstantial and spontaneous. Circumstantial miracles happen constantly when something in nature occurs at the right moment; I think people only struggle with the spontaneous.
Honestly, Hume's argument against miracles is a sophisticated form of Circular Reasoning. "Miracles don't happen because they're impossible. Any proof of a miracle must be false because they don't happen." By going into the argument with the assumption that miracles don't happen, you can "justify" not being convinced by any proof of a miracle. You're assuming the conclusion to conclude the assumption.
Regarding the "People stay dead" argument, I find this one ironic. Let's grant it. An estimation I've seen is that 109,000,000,000 people have lived and died on Planet Earth. Of those 109 billion, how many have raised from the dead? Thus (excluding the people Jesus, Paul, and Elisha raised), we have 108,999,999,999 to 1 proof that Jesus did not rise.
But wait, hold on. We can use the same argument against the existence of the universe. The Big Bang happened in about 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 seconds. So, statistically, we could expect a Big Bang to happen 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (100 nonillion) times a second. The universe has been around for 13,700,000,000 (13.7 billion) years. There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year. So, we have 100 nonillion possible Big Bangs per second, 31.5 million seconds per year, over a span 13.7 billion years. That should give us the possibility of 43,155,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (43.2 quindecillion) occurrences of the Big Bang.
So, Jesus' Resurrection has a 1/109 billion chance. But the Big Bang has a 1/43 quindecillion chance. Atheists will call the later possible while scoffing at the former. We Christians believe that with God all things are possible (Matthew 19:26).
It’s not a miracle if God does it
I am interested in the rest of this series.
Thank you for making these.
Any way you would consider making a video defending the NT prophecies the Lord Jesus made concerning His second coming?
Specifically referring to the Olivet Discourse -- “This generation” prophecy.
It's a goal of mine just haven't got to it yet
@@TestifyApologetics 💯
Imagine the huge amount of faith an atheist need to have to think that a book that is extremely reliable in everything is not being reliable on the miracles part.
LMAO, reliable in what? Nonsense? Made up stuff? What the heck is reliable in the bible? You've never read the bible, have you? Otherwise you wouldn't be stating such easily debunked garbage. The bible is not only completely unreliable as a historical document, it's also internally incosistent and self-contradictory all the time. From multiple creation stories to multiple resurrection stories.
@@Finckelstein Undesigned coincidences, archeological proof, extra-biblical confirmation and more...
Very reliable.
Just because you think it is hard to believe it, does not mean that it have not happened.
It is not, there are only small contradictions, like, the size of an army, but it have an army, and those contradictions can be explained in a way that nullifies it.
In fact there is a lot of archeological evidences that shows it is reliable historically, and also stuffs that can be seem in unrelated history that matches the bible.
That is how you interpret, apologetic shows that those "multiple" are not multiple, but different time gaps with different details, that when joined together, makes a coherent history.
Have YOU read the bible? Or have you got the ideas of the bible on click-bait atheist fringe ideas?
@@Finckelstein
In parts:
Undesigned coincidences, archeological proof, extra-biblical confirmation and more...
Very reliable.
Just because you think it is hard to believe it, does not mean that it have not happened.
It is not, there are only small contradictions, like, the size of an army, but it have an army, and those contradictions can be explained in a way that nullifies it.
@@Finckelstein In fact there is a lot of archeological evidences that shows it is reliable historically, and also stuffs that can be seem in unrelated history that matches the bible.
That is how you interpret, apologetic shows that those "multiple" are not multiple, but different time gaps with different details, that when joined together, makes a coherent history.
Have YOU read the bible? Or have got it from fringe ideas of the bible from click-bait?
@@sophiacristina "In fact there is a lot of archeological evidences that shows it is reliable historically"
Name one that isn't an obvious forgery. Also, extrabiblical proof? Like what? A bunch of people writing a bunch of nonsense is not proof. And if it was you'd have to believe every single religion out there.
But you don't, because you're applying the special pleading fallacy to your god claims, while rejecting all the other god claims. In reality, your story has absolutely no more evidence going for it than the islamic, hindu or even hellenic mythologies.
Just because you're gullible doesn't mean what that useless book says is true.
O! Muhammad (Police be upon him)!
Hume's axiom against miracles & how many people uncritically & unwaveringly abide by it always frustrates me. Aside from what you've said in this video, i.e. miracles defying the 'laws of nature' (as we merely understand them to operate) precisely so as to stand out from the usual natural order being the whole point, & the God who created nature of course being able to alter it in ways we don't understand, I just think one ought to be open-minded about anything - even the implausible - provided evidence can be provided to credibly back it up (cue: the New Testament). The hardline anti-miracle stance is essentially a dogmatic religious conviction, & it's a shame that this pointlessly narrow-minded way of thinking is a stumbling block for many.
In my opinion, it is a proven miracle, that Daniel accurately predicted the future. But to understand it, you have to study chapters 2, 7, 8, 9 and maybe 11 and compare them with history. Doing this on your own is extremely difficult and time consuming, so I recommend studying with a SeventhDayAdventist or using a SeventhDayAdventist commentary (not AdventistToday) to make it easier. You won't hear these things from the other denominations, because the prophecy is very uncomfortable for the majority of Christianity.
Why have these miracles stop happening since we can prove if it happened or not... Hmm i wonder why
They haven't stayed tuned
4:25, that'd be a burning bush that was not consumed, not just a burning bush
I get where you're coming from, but it's implied with what I said, we all know the story
@@TestifyApologetics True, but it's worth pointing out for those who don't know, I think
You're kind of missing out on one big aspect here, as the top comment does too. If miracles actually happen they aren't violating the laws of nature, our understanding of the laws of nature are wrong.
Miracles, if they actually occur, are just as mundane as everything else.
then the definition of miracle would be scope of science
Funny, Hume talking about the laws of nature. Hmm who wrote those laws, why/how are there laws? That is the philosophy that underlines science, which the CHRISTIAN founders of science understood is the only reason science is possible. People today and even far back as Hume, look down on those giants and spit on them.
I do like the old way of thinking too, there being no difference between what we call the natural and supernatural, it is a more open way to approach the universe.
"Drop some bars as hot as mine"
It's over.
I also find that atheists tend to focus on one or two miracles in the Bible, such as walking on water. They may miss the bigger picture: if God exists and created the entire universe, including matter, energy, and space/time, then performing miracles such as those described in theistic Abrahamic faiths would likely be relatively easy for such a powerful being.
So the question then becomes one of whether a theistic God exists in the first place as the ultimate uncaused first cause, or unmoved mover as Aristotle spoke about. If such a being exists, then we can start figuring out what theology, i.e. the science of God, best explains this being. If indeed that is, say, for example, Christianity, then the miracles spoken of in these books are possible, and even probable in the context in which they are given.
thats pretty circular. if gods exists, he would be able to do the miracles. that says exactly zero about IF miracles exist. the whole problem is that no one ever has invented "the science of god". if you can achieve a science of god, that atheism is pretty much done
The only law that miracles seem to violate is the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is only in effect if options are available. This means that it is possible on occasion for very unusual options to happen as well.
I’d say the law it violates is the first law of thermodynamics, not the second. Because we’re talking about an energizing source coming from out of reality into reality. But at the same time nothing would exist if it weren’t possible for God to break the first law of thermodynamics so it’s pretty easy for me to accept that this is possible.
If a billion trillion humans died every second, for a billion trillion years, you would be wasting money in betting that even one of them comes back to life 3 days later by theormodynamic flukes.
Did you follow the Dream speedrunner chearing scandal?
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription
I don't think that the laws of thermodynamics have the ability to cause anything to happen. They only state that statistics can be applied. Likewise, I don't think the laws of physics can cause anything. They are only math equations we use simply because we find it effective so far. There is no logical derivation of physics that we should treat it as somehow deemed necessary. They are provisional.
@@mikejurney9102 i never said any law causes anything. I disagree they're provisional, our scientific models are provisional attempts at modeling the real laws.
Did you mean to reply to the other guy?
@@tafazziReadChannelDescription yeah that would be a crazy bet. Only problem is Christianity doesn’t claim that Jesus was raised to life on a “fluke”. He raised to life through the action of God.
insightful
Frankly, I come for the memes, all the useful and enlightening information is just secondary. :D
Megabased for showing image of Muhammad
I’m an atheist, primarily because I don’t think miracles make any sense. But my objections don’t go back to Hume, who I don’t find compelling, but Kant, who unfortunately is a lot more difficult to understand and explain.
Revelation 14:12
King James Version
12 Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
Ephesians 2:8-9
Bro, bless you for the videos and just because too in Jesus' name
Tide goes in, tide goes out, you can't explain that.
Muslims:"Muhammad Split the moon in two halves and half of the moon fell in a backyard"
Others:Why nobody except Arabs saw that?
Muslims:Everyone was asleep at the Night🤡
too memey
you pfp is a meme dog
@@TestifyApologetics touche
I was literally grappling with this very topic and here it is 😂
Nice
Fun fact: the universe is a miracle.
The universe is not natural but supernatural!
Why nobady talks about the eucaristic miracles? And all the cathlic miracles that the ateist scientist didn't responded the couses, like the Fatimas' Sun miracle?
It presumes that everyone can experience everything.
New TESTIFY VID GOD BLESS
2:54 this icon is not an image of the Resurrection but of the Harrowing of Hell, where we as Catholics believe that Christ went down to Hell and preached the Gospel to the Dead, during the 3 days He was in His grave (just saying)
it was part of the process
3:41 But Muhammad DID perform miracles in the Quran! He split the moon in two, and still the Meccan pagans wouldn't believe! (Quran 54:1-2) (I'm not a Muslim, just interested in how Christians address this.)
Mohammad said he was just a warner repeatedly. Some Muslims interpret this as figurative. His experience if he had one was not witnessed by anyone. Not compelling
@@TestifyApologetics It's not true (from Islam's point of view, at least) that no-one witnessed the splitting of the moon. In al-Bukhari (the most reliable hadith collection), Hadiths 3636-3638 and 3868-3871 show four different companions of Muhammad attesting to it.
(I don't believe a word of any hadiths, but to Muslims, they are trustworthy records of the observations of Muhammad's companions, who would have been eyewitnesses to everything during Muhammad's prophethood.)
Nice presentation
What proof is there of this statement tho? (I’m just curious)
which statement, a hundred were made in this video?
Shat statement
The laws of nature of descriptive, not prescriptive. We can describe how they operate under typical observation, but we can not use that observation to say a being outside of the universe, who has power over it, can not at His own choosing suspend or alter the laws we typically observe. In other words, you can describe how the laws of nature typically operate, but you can not use that observation to prescribe with any certainty that they must always, without any exception, behave that way.
To imply that there is an entity operating beyond the scope of our universe is a massive supposition. Sure that's a valid explanation for how something that defies logic can take place, but implying that things that defy logic can happen in the first place is just conjecture.
@@xXMACEMANXx We are not implying anything, we are allowing room for the possibility, since we don't have access to the things beyond this universe. If you want to definitively say no such being exists, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how you arrived at such a conclusion and what evidential basis you have for it. Until you can do that, then you must be open to the possibility of such a being existing, and therefore, it follows logically from that possibility that if such a being exists, miracles are possible.
@@VFXShawn Even though I don't believe in the miracles as described in the Bible, and I would more likely ascribe something more natural to those who claim to have experienced miracles, I still think it's completely logically sound to believe that miracles could have occured. You're entirely correct in that you can't use something from within our universe to disprove a function that lies beyond our universe. Your beliefs are your beliefs.
I just think that, while technically possible, it doesn't make it likely. There are more likely possibilities that can be taken into consideration before we have to resort to chalking something up as a miracle. I just don't see how this is the conclusion for so many people, that the laws of nature were temporarily suspended to account for certain events that favor an established religion, but to discredit claimed miracles of other faiths as false.
I've attempted reaching out to the creator of these videos, but they typically don't extend a hand out to me to give me a better understanding. I hope to extract some understanding about this belief system from our discussion.
@@xXMACEMANXx We are not actively trying to determine the likelihood of a miracle, that is simply not the scope of this discussion. If we were discussing something specific, like the resurrection of Jesus, or some other event historical or even personal, let's say you claim to have seen a ghost or witnessed a miraculous healing or something, then we would be discussing the "likelihood" of a miracle, and whether to attribute it to God, Satan, or some other supernatural being. As it stands, we are just discussing whether miracles, as a concept, are possible, and if the scientific method has ruled them out. I argued that no, the scientific method has absolutely no ability to do that, and it appears you agreed by stating " I still think it's completely logically sound to believe that miracles could have occured." That is all we are discussing at this point, whether miracles, or events that do not follow the ordinary laws of nature, can or have occurred. We agree, that is enough for now.
@@VFXShawn fair enough. I appreciate your considerate response, and thank you for your time.
Now add to that: The natural order that they use to "disprove" miracles ultimately itself is a miracle.
Thank you
My dad is a doctor and treated a Amish guy who fell off the roof of a barn and was completely fine. If that's not a miracle I don't know what is.
Miracles by definition defy science.
so? they are impossible or science is impossible?
I have a strong connection to since and i know they are real. If you have God you can have them, unfortunately though if you think God is fake, your going to Believe any of that.
what if im hindu? i would think my gods are not fake, as most believers on this planet think your god is fake
@@timber2lease that goes for every religio, that's not a fair excessiment
Creation itself is a miracle. You ever watch a planet get created?
well we can explain it without the need for any miracle
Do you have proof said miracles did happen though?
The Bible itself is baseless and doesn’t really provide anything to back itself up.
excellent video
If it had a tangible explaination it wouldnt be a miracle.
Bro went in on Muhammed hahaha .