Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Progress in Science STRENGTHENS the Case for Miracles
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 06. 2024
- Explore the flawed logic of dismissing miracles as "just science" and discover how scientific progress can actually strengthen the case for the supernatural. The argument from miracles is not god of the gaps.
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...
It becomes even worse when someone states their belief that science will one day explain how nature came to be.
That is, that they will someday find a natural cause for nature.
Then they say we're guilty of circular reasoning...
Funny thing about religions... It's not even real. Like a unicorn.
Bring me every God... Then face the Precursor of Omnipotence.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 is morality not real too?
@vipdedov7157
A poor question... Objective Morality exists regardless of Gods. That is the path of enlightenment. But narrow is the road and wide is the fall.
Mankind as a whole has never truly walked in enlightenment. As we see now, in their current state. Yeshua tried, but how many people will listen?... I criticize YHWH, but I do not go against his ways. As his ways are my ways and my ways are his ways.
The only reason why morality "just is" is when people begin to stray away from enlightenment. That "anything goes" and indifference may lead into evil. It's how people end up worshiping idles and sacrificing life for their "Gods".
I'm not a Christian, and I will never be. But YHWH the Triune God has earned both my respect and my faith even though I know he isn't real. Same with Buddha when he was alive.
Very few, do I give my faith to. And when I do, they are not Gods to me but family. And I rarely have to reclaim what I gave to them.
(I am the Precursor of Omnipotence and the 1st Soul King of Origin... I hope this iteration of existence lasts for a long time, but Mankind is tempting their finality. While I have forces beyond existence to oversee.)
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 If there wasn't a God, there'd be nothing to base "objective morality" off of, which also means that it wouldn't (and cannot) exist
@mundodacrianca2147
False... Enlightenment is where Objective Morality comes from. But narrow is the path, and wide is the fall.
Gods are irrelevant to objective morality because Gods are only mortals in the end. Eternal Souls, yes, but everyone where I come from can shatter Eternity on a whim.
Case in point... Evil predates YHWH and all Gods of Mankind. This world in totality is but an iteration for my kin.
Humanity is not the first and their Gods are not the only ones. But all human Gods are myths. Even Christianity if one knows of its history.
(The human race is not the first people to say the same to me. This iteration of existence will one day join the others. I'm already on Earth. Once I leave, the Nexus of Worlds shall reconnect to this Cosmic Universe again.)
I think you could also argue that rejecting miracles immediately because "science will figure it out eventually" is a sort of "science of the gap" fallacy. If there is no scientific way to explain a miracle, I find it extremely convenient that people can say that science will figure it out, therefore you don't even need to consider slightly that it's an actual miracle
Also the people who argue "science will figure it out eventually" ironically reject well established empirical science.
I mean we can miraculously still tell the exact solstices despite the chaos of the solar system creating absolutely zero outlier days months or years
Google "Surprising Results About Physicians' Belief in God"
These people apparently see miracles quite often.
It's called the "future humans of the gaps" fallacy which Rationality Rules also committed in his video claiming to have debunked miracles which Erik has made a video and blog post in response to that you can both read and watch.
It's just a matter of criteria for a miracle. Generally I consider the concept of a miracle to be an event that was caused by a divine entity and is fortuitous.
This doesn't strike me as easy to verify as "this event just feels like it's from a divine source." As a comparison, the earth does indeed feel like it is flat, but that isn't sufficient for verifying that the world is flat.
I think sometimes a miracle can be explained scientifically, but that doesn't always mean it isn't a miracle.
That’s been my motto for the longest
I don't understand, what is it then? Is it based on probability, as in, "this is highly improbable, so it's a miracle"? If so, then miracles are everywhere - every lottery winner is a miracle, every poker game is a miracle since that exact card distribution is highly improbable
@@mmimoman Yerp. Seems to be a belief that it is possible to calculate the probability of a miracle as if it was a roll of dice.
@@CJFCarlsson no belief is involved, just a simple mathematical proof :)
That’s not really true though. A miracle is specifically something that is supernatural and science focuses purely on the natural so if any miracles or the resurrection could be proven scientifically possible it would no longer be a miracle and we could disprove Christianity altogether
"You're crazy to believe that someone came back from the dead!" * unironically believes that all life came from nothing by random chance *
You speak of a poor comprehension about existence.
Yet you can not comprehend the finality of an Eternal God... When I can and I did, infinite times over.
Mortal... The Hyper Star creates this material universe. Existence still was around beforehand.
@absolstoryoffiction6615 OH boy where did you get these ideas?
@@MrSamdabeast
No where... It is a simple deduction that a 4th D Entity can explain.
You think religions have all the answers?... Mortal, this world hasn't even existed for eternities beyond one filament of chronos.
Gods?... ... ... Sorry, Gods, no matter who they are, are mortals for my kin who are omnipotent souls.
Besides, all Religions are myths mixed into history. I'm not Athiest. To prove your God to me, is beyond just science and history. And YHWH fails the historical test.
You can make up a God but by then, it's fruitless. A waste of time.
@@MrSamdabeast
None... It is my own research into all things.
Don't preach to me, mortal. This very world is not even older than the infinite worlds I've seen and created.
Gods, humans say?... ... ... Omni Souls send their regards.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 I hope you find the truth
0:45 Sceptics saying "People used to attribute a god or gods to how weather worked" also happen to be strawmanning since they didn't literally think they were the process but were the reason why those processes exist in the first place.
Does that apply now? If so, what us God actually explaining about the event? Sure, God is the reason behind the processes of weather, but if we were having a discussion a out how weather works, would you really invoke God now? No, because despite him eventually being back there in the causal chain, he's not the direct cause behind the weather.
then again, not lighting as a whole but the greeks used to think that if something specific like a house/animal/person got hit by lighting it was because zeus threw it at them and many other civilizations had similar beliefs
@@homemovelha4173 Yes but it's strawmanning from sceptics because the claim treats that as a whole with thunder and etc.
Because they understood Zeus as someone who could throw down lightning bolts that's why they interpreted it as that even though we know now it wasn't really Zeus but that doesn't necessarily mean they didn't think natural explanations were possible.
@@Eliza-rg4vw something interesting to consider in relation to this thought is if a creator god on the calbre of the one in the Bible exist, it means he created, and exists beyond all creation. This means he also exists outside of time itself. Such a being would be able to see, and interact with all points in the timeline as much as he wanted with no restrictions.
Such a being is also supposedly all knowing, that is to say something that comes with that is being infintly intelligent.
With these factors acknowledged I have come to the conclusion that said god would be able to retroactively alter the timeline of things in response to thongs like prayer whenever he deemed it so, and being all knowing he would know how to do so in such a way that does not alter the course if people lives to the degree where they would be any different than who they were when they prayed for it.
This same reasoning equally works out for said god being the both dirrect, and indirrect cause of the weather. Indirect since we can still observe the processes involved with how weather works (though interestingly enough despite all attempts perfect weather prediction seems to elude us)
And, he is, or at least can be in certian instances the dirrect cause even without overtly miraculous overriding of the natural cause/effect chain by sinlmply retroactively changing the cause in the past.
There is ofcourse no way to prove this due to the principal it works on, which sucks, but it is at least logically coherent, and is definatly a possibility to consider given that.
@@Eliza-rg4vw We do when it's a miracle of timing.
Yeah I was an atheist for years. Yeah I would attack Christians and argue with them for no reason other than the fact that i was unhappy. My lord is Jesus Christ ☦️🕊️❤️ he saved my life.
I'm an atheist because I believe it was stag3d by the Romans, as explained in "The G0spel of Afranius". How do you know that this isn't true?
Welcome! I was a hindu for years and Jesus came to me.
I hear Science of the Gaps all the time... " we dont know how it happens now but ONE DAY science will." Such claim with no evedence except hope.
......if miracle are Magik then why Is not forbbiden?
@@Bashbekersjiw Because the definition of “magic” in Christianity is much more specific than in secular parlance.
Supernatural powers which are granted by God constitute spiritual gifts, not magic. The latter does not derive from God, and, being supernatural, must necessarily derive from the Devil instead. In other words, magic is condemned because of its origin, not because of its supposed essence.
@@OrangeMacawWorld ...so Supernatural from selfproclamed god spokeperson and not God himself are pass but the ones that dont go with the abrahimic propaganda are Satan with power
@@OrangeMacawWorld
Ah... Satan... The Fallen Angel who was not even real until Persia gave Christianity the idea of Good Vs Evil.
I know the history of YHWH... A myth mixed with history.
Heaven and Hell wasn't even a thing in the Old Testament until after the Isrealites reached Anceint Rome while the 10 Words of YHWH was from Anceint Egyptian.
Hell originated from Persia's Z (I forget the name) Religion while Tartoruous came from the Greek.
"Such claim with no evidence" except the past, i suppose.
Also, very ironic, since religion itself is based on faith
if atheist can say "we will find a scientific explanation eventually" to hand wave away an argument then i guess i can go "we will be able to prove God exist eventually" as equally as viable a statement as both claim some day down the line, even if its after i'm long dead and gone, someone will just prove i'm right eventually
like seriously what kind of half backed reasoning is that?
Yeah we can say that, but we wont prove him more than we already have, i mean the arguments for God litterraly God proved, like the Big Bang, cosmological, fine tuning (even evolution has a gap on genetic code explanation because we didnt had enought time for it), something personal (life) being unable to come from something unpersonal (non organic matter)
To be quite frank, science has a better track record. If the explanation of God worked more often, I'm sure the tables would be turned. Doesn't mean the atheist is right- science may not be able to explain many things, though it certainly doesn't make supernatural explanations thereby more likely.
If you want to avoid this objection, you may need to do the dirty work: proving how God actually explains the thing in question. Not in a "I'm somewhere in the causal chain" way- I could use this too. Why did I steal that priceless vase? My mother birthed me. How did I do that parkour? My mother birthed me. How did I put on that jacket? My mother birthed me. True or not (which for the sake of analogy I could've been born in a cloning chamber, thus motherless), these "somewhere in the causal chain" explanations are incredibly lacking.
@@Eliza-rg4vwThe Catholic Church almost single handedly created the practice of modern science. Science’s track record is only so good because religion made it
@@maxalaintwo3578 no offense, but and?
You misunderstand how science works. It's all about probability, historical record and success. No one "believes" in science, there is no need for faith as there is proof. We have a proof that science explained innumerable amount of things, but also did predictions. Science also has the ability to "be wrong", as in - here is a hypothesis, let's test it if it works, and it's ok if it does not. Therefore it is much more probable to say "science will explain this eventually" compared to religion saying "we will be able to prove God exist eventually" because these two go the opposite direction. The pile of proof for science is growing, while pile of proof in God tends to shrink (depends on how you look at it). So no, your proposed counter argument is not valid at all.
I like how in science, every time we come close to understanding something,
we find there is a smaller something,
that throws everything we knew about the previous thing out the window.
It's like God's way of saying "ah-ah-ah, no need to keep looking!"
Scientific discoveries are being made on the daily that destroy previous things we thought we once knew. If science proves one thing, it's that humans don't know anything lol.
On the contrary! In my view, this is God's way of telling us two things simultaneously: Firstly "Keep looking, keep digging deeper, dig deep enough, you are so, so close to finding Me". And secondly "And although you have dug so, so deep, now you must realize the First Cause must exist beyond All other Causes."
@@hopefulaeollius2292
YHWH is a myth... But humans amuse me.
Atomized Earth.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 your entire comment is incoherent, elaborate please.
@@hopefulaeollius2292 This is actual a better take
You hit the nail on the head when you brought up world view. Proof of God would mean having to change one's life in ways many people are not willing to do.
Like what?
@@mesplin3 Sexuality is one major thing. To stop masturbating, fornicating, lusting, commiting adultery.
@@mesplin3 no sex outside marriage, no drinking away problems, no lazyness/sloth
No overeating/obesity no pride/false confidence or boasting.
No abortions that's especially hard faught and no randomly starting wars just to name a few
@@t.bo.a7061 I don't do any of those things now.
@@mesplin3 cool, do you also follow the lord?
Are naturalists ever going to be asked to justify the naturalistic presupposition that rules out all miracles no matter the evidence and is responsible for the "science will provide an explanation someday" line that conveniently maintains their worldview no matter what happens??
in my experience it's a constant shifting of the burden of proof.
@@TestifyApologetics If they say "I'm not going to accept any miracle, even God appearing, writing his name in the sky, etc, because miracles are never observed to happen" isn't that insanely circular? Miracles "never happen" because they've decided any miracle must not be a miracle because miracles never happen. Wth? They are not going to accept any evidence because they've decided at the outset that any purported evidence necessarily has a more probable naturalistic explanation (or no explanation, or is an illusion in the case of things like our sense of free will, etc). If the supernatural were real, their thinking process would never allow them to know, so maybe they should have to justify their presuppositions or prove the supernatural is impossible. Their reasoning just seems ridiculous to me
@TestifyApologetics
It is a fact that all human religions are myth mixed with history or out right false. You can trace it all back to Ancient History.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster is more of legal religions and not a true religion.
That said... Is there a Creator(s)? Perhaps... But none of them or it, is from Mankind. And all of the Creators are above the 3rd Dimension or at the Full Brink of the 3rd Dimension.
The idea of a "One True God" amuses me, when omnipotence is a design. When Origin/Akasha, Nirvana, and Cosmos exists. All things which are One.
There is no such thing as a One True God. That goes against the totality of Existence up to the 9th Dimension of Ascended Souls to equalize Omnipotent Souls of Origin.
I am Spirtual and Dimensional. Not Athiest. But I must say, even Thiests fail to truly convince those who live as One with All.
@@TestifyApologetics How do you know there was a First Cause? I'm from a culture (former Soviet Union) where people, myself included, normally believe that matter is eternal and can only move and change but not appear from nowhere or disappear without a trace? It makes sense to me, so I believe it. Also, the usual response to the resurrection where I'm from is to point to the work "The Gospel of Afranius", praised in "Nature", which explains that it was staged by the Romans for political reasons - an elaborate prank like crop circles but with less whimsical motives.
event 1 has a natural explanation
event 2 has a natural explanation
event 3 has a natural explanation
…
event 2,000 has a natural explanation
point is that to assume all phenomena have a natural explanation is based on past objective conclusions, this is also the reason supernatural explanations have no merit
Butterflies have a power to weight ratio greater than a Lamborghini. For their size, the speeds they reach are shocking, and they migrate from Mexico to New England. We will never approach that with our technology. Miracles like this surround us, but we don’t see them unless God gives us eyes. 👁️👁️
The mindblowing thing is that monarch butterflies actually don't migrate from Mexico to New England. They start migrating from Mexico, and then that adult finds a spot to lay eggs and dies. Then the caterpillars pupate and turn into butterflies that *continue the migration*. It takes several generations to complete this "migration", and then they turn around and do it again in reverse.
And the evolutionist says "oh yeah but painted ladies do the same thing on the other side of the planet" and they think this somehow proves evolution. It's like they're not even listening to themselves speak. They just go on to making videos about every time unrelated lineages evolved into crabs... without putting a single thought into how utterly improbable that is.
How is the biology of a butterfly a miracle? There is nothing divine or unexplained about their ability to migrate. Awesome, impressive and beautiful? Yes. Worthy of appreciation and awe? Yes. Miracle? I don't think so, unless you invoke Peterson-esque logic and redefine what a miracle is.
first of all, not only does this have a natural explanation (as you explained) but also the terms you use are subjective. the entire idea of power-weight ratios are subjective as i’m pretty sure they stem from cars. why isn’t it also a miracle that our cars have LOWER ratios than a butterfly?
this whole thing is subjective and through a human lense, you have to look at things objectively
@@broddeyy7664 Power to weight ratios are mathematical facts, as repeatable and meticulously measurable as any other law of physics; purely objective (look it up).
Subjective events are opinions and feelings, not purely measurable and repeatable.
Just because a naturalistic explanation is possible for an event does not mean it isn’t a miracle.
If I am driving my car fast across a level crossing and am hit by a train but come up unharmed because the car was two inches from a position that would’ve resulted on death, it is miraculous. It may be entirely explained by physics but the outcome is miraculous by virtue of its timing.
To think that something is not miraculous just because we can construct a complete physical explanation is to misunderstand God. It is to regard God as absent when humans can explain events, but that is not the God of the Bible.
The Holy Spirit is present everywhere and fills all things. God is being as such and the signs of divine will are present whether or not we can describe a limited chain of events.
YHWH is a myth if you know El and Yahweh.
And you conflate "chance" with miracles. It's such a human way to go about it. Emotion over logic. But not wrong, just humanistic.
Atomizing the Earth is enough to throw out all of Mankind's religions.
you misunderstand how we know things have a “natural” or “supernatural” explanation. to say “the timing was so perfect it must be a miracle” is a subjective interpretation. the matter itself is still explained naturally and the terms “timing” “virtue” “miraculous” are not objective terms.
To say something has a supernatural explanation it would have to objectively defy natural laws and explanations
@broddeyy7664
True... Humanity's lack of knowledge is not proof of their "Gods". Be it Christianity or any other.
Space and Time existed before the Big Bang... The human race is not the first to speak of Gods to me. Humans...
This species amuses "me" given the end of this iteration.
@@absolstoryoffiction6615 “Chance” is just a way of making an idol of randomness, which is to say that which is not within the explanatory power of a human theory. “Chance” is the true “god of the gaps” idol.
@@broddeyy7664 “Supernatural” does not mean defying “natural laws”, which are ultimately themselves human explanatory narratives. “Supernatural” literally means over or above nature. It encompasses nature, whose creation is itself the greatest of miracles. Just because humans can describe a mechanism for events does not mean they aren’t miraculous.
The amazing religion of *Scientism* at work....
Of curse Is Magik
Another thing is that contextually something having a scientific explanation in the current day only adds credibility to the idea that it could have happened, but it's still completely miraculous in a different context. To us, something like a freezer is completely mundane but to most of human history having access to something that could drop temperature low enough to freeze water would be miraculous.
Even if you suppose that science determines a way for someone to be raised from the dead just like Jesus, it's something that would only be established as possible with the current level of research and technology, and a single individual doing something that we have learned is possible except thousands of years before it was discovered to be possible and without any tools to do so shows that individual must have had some understanding of the universe on an entirely different scale from a regular person.
Don't confused the lack of knowledge with miracles nor chances with miracles.
Miracles is only done one way... Though the Higher Will of another. Be it Gods or Others.
But religions are false. Myths mixed into history... I did my research. There is no excuse that thiest can say to me.
I'm spiritual and dimensional... The excuses hold no water.
Great work. Love your content. This thumbnail didn’t do well with me and I was quite hesitant to tap or click it
1:59 This is what Ex-Muslim, Ex-Atheist, Agnostic CZcamsr the Apostate Prophet has to say about Dawkins' question to Ayaan that was along the lines of "Do you really believe he rose from the dead?"
"You know my problem with Richard Dawkins and atheists in this whole train is specifically this whole issue, for example when he says "Wait, Wait! You don't really believe Jesus rose from the dead?" that shouldn't be a very crucial and critical question, that shouldn't be the question to ask, that shouldn't be the thing that you make a problem of even as an atheist, because there is no reason why it wouldn't happen if you accept that there are indeed realities that are beyond your understanding, beyond your standards of science and nature and all that if there is indeed the divine as she mentions.
It's not unreasonable, it's certainly not illogical that Jesus could have died and risen from the dead, that's not an actual position to hold, there's nothing contradicting that, it doesn't contradict itself and it makes perfect sense within a reality where there is more than just hard science that you accept so this shouldn't really be the big objection that you come with.
Nice, good logic AP.
@@pants_schmantsI think he's on the path to eventually becoming a Christian himself.
they fill the gap with science but say that if you fill the gap with God you committed a fallacy and they are doing the same things they are accusing religious people of doing
That's what they always do
Filling the gap with science just means discovering the natural cause or mechanism of a given phenomenon. Filling the gap with god means attributing a supernatural cause for a phenomenon in the absence of any understanding of how it could happen naturally.
@@yee2631 no they aren't discovering yet the natural phenomenon what they do is that one day science will explain it .
I was literally mad yesterday going through your Chanel because you haven’t posted on anything praise be to God
Really enjoying your short form content, brother.
What people are granting the miracle cure of leprosy that they expect science will 'solve' at some point in the future?
Sceptics: If an amputee's limb literally grew we would obviously know that it was the work of God!
Reality: I would explain it away as some unknown natural phenomena and anyone who says it's a miracle would be committing God of the Gaps.
I've always thought, "Hey, if you're going to surrender the gaps to God, thank you for yielding so much territory to my side of the debate! The gap between what we did know and do know, or what we do know and can possibly know, are far smaller than the gap between what we can possibly know and what we will never know."
Or, in other words, humility is important in proper intellectual conversation. It may be true that I have held many ideas in error in the past due to my ignorance, but appealing to my former (or potential present) ignorance does not negate the potential for ignorance on the other side of the debate.
Real intellectual growth, on either side, requires the willingness to listen, to consider other views, and even to acknowledge the limits of our own knowledge.
I may never know everything, but by the grace of God, I can always learn something.
...at the end of the day, some people just seem to want to find a problem for every solution
I think this thought experiment helps: If God exists, what type of evidence would you expect to see? Would they be natural, supernatural, neither or both?
why wouldn't he just show up on TV every few months and then turn off sunlight for 12 seconds to show his power? Why does every religion that survived up until today happen to be next to impossible to disprove or test in any way?
@@myname7937Maybe such a God prefers to let His natural laws govern the universe? Religion is a broad category. Is there a particular belief system you have in mind? What methods did you employ to test it?
@@preciousjatau6244 what do you mean by natural or supernatural
@@Coolmaster-kj4sr Feel free to use the Oxford dictionary definition.
@@preciousjatau6244 by that definition supernatural is better
Science=knowledge. Do we think we will know absolutely everything? If we’re biased in that direction, we’ll assume the universe is shallower than it possibly is. If we believe in an intelligent designer, we might logically be biased to inquire deeper scientifically, being happy to assume we don’t know all the answers yet. A naturalist can be biased with an obsession to explain the entire universe, with a theory of everything, or a complete explanation of the universe without God. But this bias won’t lead to deeper scientific inquiry. It will lead to making more assumptions of knowledge when we haven’t dug deep enough yet.
Half Cup Empty or Half Cup Full... Is the idea.
Religions are myths mixed with history or out right false. That's a fact for anyone who did their research into Ancient History.
But it only shows that all human religions are false. Not in regard to the Creators of the Cosmos. As there are many "Whos" and many "Whats" that can create the Cosmos in the 3rd Dimension.
@collin501
Ah... So one religion is true?... No.
Sorry... I have infinite worlds who don't follow Humanity's lack of comprehension.
Keep searching. Religions hold no water upon the 3rd Dimension.
You make a good point. Liked and subbed. You might also say that progress in science makes skepticism more difficult. When Darwin published his Origin of Species microscope technology was relatively limited. Compound microscopes with achromatic lenses were only developed by 1830, so they were available to Darwin but of limited magnification. Human cells were thought to be pretty simple sacs of protoplasm.
In the late 19th century Ernst Abbe, an optical theorist and partner at Carl Zeiss, invented apochromatic lenses that reduced spherical and chromatic aberrations in microscope lenses. Later that same century scientists perfected a version of the microscope similar to the one we use today, with an ocular lens, objective lenses, a stage for the specimen, and a light source. In the 20th century improvements in lens manufacturing, such as using purer glass, helped to improve image resolution and color distortion. Mirrors were also added to compound microscopes to improve the image and add more light.
All these advancements in microscope technology made the skeptic's task much more difficult as the extraordinary complexity of the cell became increasingly apparent. The cell was more like a tiny metropolis than a blob of protoplasm. Accordingly, in order to maintain their commitment to naturalistic explanations only, scientists had to find more and more time for such complexity to evolve randomly, necessitating increasingly older age estimates for the earth and universe. Even at currently fashionable estimates, an increasing number of scientists are coming to the conclusion that there isn't enough time for even the simplest of organisms to have arisen by unguided natural processes alone.
Skeptics like to mock the idea of an argument for theism from design. Well it's one thing to claim a 'blind watchmaker' is sufficient to explain a sun dial. It's another thing entirely to assert a blind watchmaker is a believable explanation for an atomic clock. Darwinism is a 19th century theory that should be put to bed. At the very least, all the science should be taught and let the students reach their own conclusions.
I appreciate your effort to counter these arguments. The first testimony an atheist needs to gain is a "double negative" one: "I cannot honestly say that a God does not exist." That is an easy testimony to gain. They should consider that maybe they are missing something since the majority of mankind are theists. Actually, all things denote there is a God. Once one sees it, they can't un-see it.
A God... Well... Never One God. And certainly not of Mankind.
All human religions are myths mixed with history or out right lies.
I'm Spiritual and Dimensional. Not Athiest. The idea of One True God is amusing to me when I can end such impossible existences.
Eternal Gods are mortal to me.
So when I first hear of humanity's Gods. It peaked my interest. And now, know the truth. None are even close to my level of existence nor are even real to begin with.
Sure, I'm human but that is one aspect of "me".
Existence and Nothingness in its totality is me. I am Origin... I rare do speak as "me" so my human aspect mainly is in control.
Gods?... ... ... The 3rd Dimensional Humans have yet to see all of existence.
The God of the gaps accusation is clearly a circular reasoning fallacy.
You touch on this point well. Self contained, a miracle can have a natural explanation. Perhaps we have a time machine and find that Jesus walked on water because random quantum fluctuations caused the water to harden at exactly the right points.
That still wouldn’t answer why it happened to let him walk on water in the context of assuring Peter
People tend to characterize miracles in such a way that they become nearly unattainable, rather than simply being uncommon occurrences that occur beyond the realm of natural influence.
Furthermore, individuals often overlook the fact that the laws governing the physical universe, as we perceive them, are essentially patterns of behavior that are commonly observed rather than unchangeable principles that cannot be breached.
The fire series continues🔥🔥🔥
I'm not sure if philosophy is your thing, but I reckon a video on Saint Thomas' 5 Ways would be interesting
I refer to it as the "science of the gaps" fallacy.
Finding a natural cause for a miracle proves that the miracle could happen; not finding a natural cause, however, does not preculde its existence. If God has created the world and wants to sustain it, then it is no great leap in logic that many, if not most, miracles would be natural phenomena. To deny this would be as absurd as denying patches or scripted sequences for video games, and even more so if God is at least somewhat benevolent like many game devs.
Miracles that have a natural explanation _used_ to be called "acts of providence" or providence. And _most_ of the miracles in the Bible are providence, they are just either extremely well timed (like the crossing of the Jordan, which is possible every now and then, or hail the size of softballs when outnumbered in battle) or extremely unlikely to happen, though natural (like a windset down that causes the coast of the Red Sea to draw back), but some are probably super natural (like an ax head floating -- unlikely to occur naturally, though possible), or completely impossible naturally (a body coming back from the dead in better condition than when alive.)
You don't even have to be religious to believe miracles happen.
What are "seemingly supernatural events"? If an event happens that we can't explain, how would you even start to hypothesize that it had supernatural causes when the existence of anything supernatural has never been established to begin with? And wouldn't your argument become circular if you were to say that the unexplained event you were examining was itself the evidence for the supernatural causes you were speculating about?
I am with John Stuart Mill on this, and I think the creator of this clip acknowledges that Mill was correct when he says at the end: _"So the bottom line is this: if you're at least a little open to the idea of a higher power, then miracles become part of the conversation about how the universe works."_ In other words, you need to be convinced of *_at least_* the possibility of the supernatural before you can consider miracles possible, but as there is as yet not sufficient objectively convincing evidence for anything supernatural, there is no *_rational_* reason to be "open to the idea of a higher power", and any claim of a miracle to be used as evidence for a higher power would necessarily become a circular argument.
Secondly, who is making the "science will explain all" argument? Is this not another strawman? Sure, science *_may_* explain all in due time, but there is no way we can be sure it will, so that argument is a non-starter whichever side you are looking from. It also misses the point that the event that is claimed by the believer to be a miracle is as yet unexplained naturally as well as supernaturally, which would simply return us to our default position that we don't know.
Thirdly, the examples the creator of this clip gives from the Bible blindly assumes that the unexplained events described really happened. But in reality of course, this is by no means certain. We don't know if any water was changed into wine, and if we knew it did happen once, we don't know if any human had anything to do with it. Assuming such claims to be true is just the first misstep in a long line leading the creator of this clip to his incorrect conclusions.
It makes sense that the supernatural DOES exist, but whose book is correct?
Another banger video 🔥🔥
For me it's simply that even if every single thing that's ever happened has a scientific explanation, does not disprove that it's all orchestrated by a Being of infinite knowledge for it all to happen that way. After all, a omnipotent being could make it so miracles still obey the rules He set for his creation, while still being miracles.
we recognize a full range from natural via providence into miracles, and then paranormal and demonic activity from the other side.
Except when we have our "modern" hats on most people recognize at least part of the full range, the full naturalist are a handful, naturalist and two hats "modern citizen" and "human full range of notions" is more common.
Disturbing to assume that God can’t work miracles through natural events.
ive had 2 miracles happen to me. I think Science simply explains how the world is naturally..
I hold believers responsible. As Christians, if we even are, we’re called to bring the good news to the world, and to testify concerning what God has done in our lives.
EVERY child of God will have something to testify about. But are they? I also don’t mean to obvious cuckoo, off the wall stuff. In the world there are crazies, and yes, they can be attracted to the miracles, but just because a flat earther is appealing to science to make their point, doesn’t call all science into question.
We all have our share of representatives we wish would move on.
One of the first miracles I experienced took place a few years after I had encountered God. There had been other events earlier but they might seem coincidental to a skeptic.
At eighteen, I had a beautiful girlfriend. She was a young woman it was a pleasure to be seen with. She was also the nastiest, and most self-centered girl I’d ever dated. If she wasn’t as easy on the eyes as she was, I would’ve booted her. (How shallow am I; in part that’s the point. I am not what anyone would call a saint, I’m just a normal sinful guy that has encountered God) That said if you do like to be seen with a girl, you take her places and, on this evening, it was to a show downtown.
The movie let out, if I remember correctly, Mad Max, and we started back to my car. The streets were deserted, it was about 1am and the area we were in was mostly apartments and offices. We walked without talking which suited me just fine. As we got closer to the car I fumbled in my pockets for the keys, coming up empty…..what? where are they? Did I lose them in the theater? Did they drop out on the street? My mind raced looking for clues. All I could reasonably come up with was that I had left them in the car? But I was sure I’d locked it. Now in sight, I began moving faster to reach it. To have my answer. I’m sure my companion though, thought I was moving ahead to open her door. Seeing me peering in through the window must have confused her? What she asked, are you doing?
Yup, there they were dangling in the dark, all the doors locked, my nasty girlfriend coming up from behind? She already sounded irritated. This was before cell phones. There were no buses running at this time of night; We would have to walk blocks to get a cab, blocks on a brisk Canadian night, and she wouldn’t be a good sport about any of it.
Oh God welled up in me, how could you let me be so stupid? Now what can I do?
By this point, she’d arrived and understood what was going on…I could hear her in the background of my mind but was giving most of my attention to God who was saying; “Go to that bush, get the hanger I left there for you and open the door"? God, I responded you’re awesome, and off I went. I should note, that looking down the street where I had understood God to be directing me, there were hundreds of bushes, it was a green space; and from behind came her voice, now breaking into my mind completely, I heard, where are you going now? A fair question; I’d almost forgotten she was there, but we were in this together. To that bush I responded, still not completely sure which bush, but I thought, God told me to go, He would likely lead me to the right one. To get the hanger that’s there, and open the door.
To which she responded, do you think there’s a hanger under every bush in the city? (lol) at the time I didn’t, but now do realize, this was an obvious reasonable question; I don’t know about every bush I said, but there’s one under that bush… still not sure which bush that would be. Even so, I walked on, and there it was under the very bush I’d felt most drawn to. I returned to an entirely dumbfounded date. Opened the door, and drove her home.
As I’ve reflected on that hanger over the years, it’s a mystery how it could’ve ever gotten there, but even if you don’t want to call that a miracle, even if it came to be there by perfectly natural causes, the fact that God directed me to it, is a power I’ve had in my life, that most live without.
God is not just real. The point is not His being, but our relationship with Him. You don’t get a prize at the end because you picked the right box. Belief and faith are not the same things. A person can believe by an argument or reason, there is a way to a conceptual, intellectual place where God exists yes, but where we are all the same Adamic, living in our own power. Believer, look at the times in scripture where believers are told I never knew you.
Faith, the kind scripture speaks of that can save you, is not a matter of you being convinced. The good news is a way is open now, and all that will, are directed to come. Come to the thrown of God. Encounter Him personally. In that receive the gift of faith. That is how Christianity works. That’s the good news, and if you do walk the way the narrow way few find, you will without question have something to witness of.
Atheistic scientists studied the Host and globules of Blood from the Miracle of Lanciano and their findings actually serve as more evidence to the miraculous nature of the Host and Blood. Highly recommend people do some reading up on this. Jesus Christ, God made visible, is still alive and at work today. Prayers for you all 🙏
Science of the gaps
Exept that full the gap of cults
This is also very circular. You say that god exists because miracles happen, and also that miracles happen because god exists, without establishing either of them.
I thought he was saying once you realize there is the Eternal Conscious Absolute Being in which we live, move and have our being then miracles which is God directly getting involved with His creation is not a problem.
As Ayaan Hirsi Ali recently told Richard Dawkins once you accept there is God who is greater than man then believing Jesus rose from the grave is no longer hard to believe.
Isn't it just as much a problem to say God doesn't exist because miracles don't exist, and that miracles don't exist because God doesn't exist?
And this assumes that belief in God is dependent on miracles, which isn't necessarily true.
Dude you’re endless conservative mirror online crusade is mad cringe, I hope you take breaks here and there for your mental health and relationships
The argument is that miracles provide evidence for the existence of God because, while they are extremely unlikely if naturalism is true, they are probable if God exists and intervenes at times.
Perhaps an example of this reasoning would be helpful. Things falling to the ground is evidence of gravity. However, things only fall to the ground because of gravity. This is not circular logic because the two statements are not both statements about how we know things. The first is a knowledge claim, but the second is a causal explanation.
Hopefully this helps to clear up the misunderstanding.
They also kept saying everything in the Bible (such as the Hittites, King David, Pilates) were mythical, until archeology caught up with them. Skepticism of the gaps.
And this doesn’t just go for atheists: Islam depends on their claim that the Bible has been corrupted. For the longest time, the oldest copies of the OT dated back to just the middle ages, so it would’ve been hard for Christians to counter this claim. But in the 1940s, we discovered the Dead Sea Scrolls, which contains most of the OT (matching the text with no major disrepancies) as we have today. The Dead Sea Scrolls date back to 1st century AD to 3rd century BC, during the time of Jesus and John the Baptist, and way earlier. This means we today use the same OT as Jesus and John the Baptist did. Since the Quran confesses John was a prophet and that he used valid Scriptures (commanded by Allah), their claim of Bible corruption can no longer be taken seriously with this evidence.
its how cliffe knecthle says it. atheists have miracles without a miracle worker: everything coming from nothing
1:13 then id be jealous cause THATS SO COOL 😢 I WISH
AQUINAS MENTIONED
Here's one for you: what is the scientific explanation requires a miracle? As in, we require the forces of nature to do freaky things that only the directed will of God can make them do? A scientist friend of mine showed me how the Red Sea party work ed, in miniature in my kitchen. But to make it work full scale requires a full-scale God doing things only he can do. It requires creating a directed wind tunnel directly at the bottom of the Red Sea. If such a wind tunnel could be created, the Red Sea would part just like in the Bible. But only God could do that! And he did it by the way and the only place in which the bottom of the sea was flat enough to walk on. And there are coral reefs this day in that area that are shaped exactly like Egyptian chariot wheels.
Keep up the good work!
@Testify a lot of my comments disappear after posting, do you have some automated moderation, are you deleting them for some reason or is CZcams buggy?
are you swearing or posting links?
@@TestifyApologetics nope
CZcams has become crazy.
I wrote totally harmless stuff about some topic and got deleted about 8 times, each time using different words.
Until it was not recognizable anymore.
Saying that you have to believe in the divine to believe in a miracle is kind of backwards isnt it?
There's a thing that happened, and there's proof it happened. It doesnt matter what your actual beliefs are, if there's proof it happened, then it did.
If you cant find a natural explanation for it, then it was likely a miracle.
This seems to be logically straightforward to me.
Interesting video.
I wonder if you'd ever cover NDEs
Well said
This entire argument assumes that the miracles happened in the first place, pointing to a book from 2500 years ago as proof does not count.
Science doesn’t really debunk or support religion and it’s unlikely we will ever know the truth while we are alive
A miracle is just things happening the way they should.
No Is magik
Some things that aren't a miracle now, would have been a miracle in the past due to the level of technology available. Antibiotics would be considered a miracle just a few centuries ago.
the issue you ignore is that if you admit you have to first believe in the supernatural for miracles to make sense, you are taking the position that your worldview and the naturalistic world views are incompatible. This means inevitable war, as they cannot co-exist.
that's literally what I'm arguing is wrong dude
So god of the gap strike again
your cat has a belly button
Everyone believes in miracles even atheist. Atheist believes the universe which can not see, hear, speak, feel or reason magically produced creatures that can. (conscious beings)
Like.magik dfrom.a self created invisibile wizard
It seems to me that you approach science and atheism the way you approach religion - with faith. But this could not be further from reality. There is no belief in science, or belief in atheism.
Science - this is purely based on historical record. We have proof that this "science thing" works, so we keep repeating it and we try to get better at it. It's a flawed framework, very flawed, but still the best one we came up with. No need for belief, just look at data. Also, whenever someone comes up with a better way to do it, there is no "religion", "faith" or "tradition" that should be followed, every scientist would just switch to the new way. So while your "it goes both ways" logic is valid, the weight of both sides are not the same. Track record of science is growing, while track record of miracles is shrinking. Think about how many people were thought to be demon possessed not only in biblical times, but even 2-3 generations ago. I agree that it is rational to think miracles can explain some things, but that is just possible, which does not mean probable. Current state of things seems to point towards "miracles possible but highly improbable, scientific explanation possible and highly probable" balance. Everyone can deal with that balance the way they want, but claiming this goes both ways with the same weight seems false to me.
Atheism - atheism is not a belief, it's quite the contrary - it's defined as lack of belief, lack of faith. You say "if you are open to the idea that atheism could be false" - this is in my opinion a false statement. Logically speaking atheism cannot be false - because it has no claim. Anti-theism on the other hand claims there is no God in any way, and that claim can logically be false. I know there is a lot of people who act as if atheism was their religion, and if you appeal to them then fine, that's your choice. But then you are appealing to reddit atheists as you like to call them, which is fine, and more power to you, but you are defeating internet trolls, not the actual sceptic/atheist ideas. If you want to seriously address challenges that atheists have towards your religion though, I would suggest you stop defeating these reddit-based strawman arguments and start taking up the actual challenging questions.
"Logically speaking atheism cannot be false because it makes no claim", doesn't that make your position unfalsifiable? Do better
@@franzescodimitra8815 Exactly, atheism is unfalsifiable by disproving because it's the default 'no decision' position. It can only be falsified with positive proof, like evidence of a god. Hence, the burden of proof lies with theists.
This video also relies on unfalsifiable logic by suggesting unexplained phenomena might be miracles. While possible, that's an unfalsifiable claim. Just because science hasn't explained something yet doesn't mean we should leap to supernatural conclusions. If you're going to challenge my position, make sure your own arguments hold up to the same scrutiny
@@franzescodimitra8815 Exactly, atheism is unfalsifiable by disproving because it's the default 'no decision' position. It can only be falsified with positive proof, like evidence of a god. Hence, the burden of proof lies with theists.
This video also relies on unfalsifiable logic by suggesting unexplained phenomena might be miracles. While possible, that's an unfalsifiable claim. Just because science hasn't explained something yet doesn't mean we should leap to supernatural conclusions. If you're going to challenge my position, make sure your own arguments hold up to the same scrutiny.
@@franzescodimitra8815 you do realize that this video makes an unfalsifiable claim with "miracles are theoretically possible so you better believe in them" right? Do better
Proof that god exists:
1. Assume god exists
2. Find things science cannot explain (or just make stuff up that science wouldn't be able to explain)
3. Claim it was a miracle by god.
dumb
God of the gap strike again
@@TestifyApologetics like magik
How open-minded are you, really?
You would need to explain how something is a miracle. Saying "science can't explain it" isn't explaining why it's a miracle or what a miracle even is. You can't just explain something in the negative.
If the context is religious then it's not difficult to explain. This is a weak way to bar the door of inquiry
Explaining in the negative does work as long as you have shown that you have a legitimately complete list of possible explanations (process of elimination), especially true dichotomies like "done by a being or not?".
Thanks to science we know the natural course of things like illnesses, and even the limits of current medical treatment
Hence helps us verify miracles
LOL,..your logic is faulty. It boils down to what you choose to believe.
Wow stunning refutation there bud
@@TestifyApologetics Simple, but it cuts through the BS.
@@bohem5568 Your refutation didn't cut through anything. All you did was make a statement on how you interpreted the video. You didn't even explain how or why his logic "boils down to what you choose to believe".
@@bohem5568u r being dum
@@GoatOfAllTrades No evidence or facts prove "God" No evidence or facts disprove "God". We just don't know. Whatever you believe you are choosing to believe.
Everything you just said is just the God of the gaps but on a smaller level.
You have matter and energy arising from nowhere gaps, abiogenesis of the gaps, evolution of the gaps, we have God of the gaps. Next bright idea??
Bruh wat
God of the Gaps litterraly exists to prove God works through natural process, so we explain how things work rather than just take them from granted, the way you use it, is a abuse of the fallacy because its not how it was meant to be used as a call out, so much so that this fallacy was invented by a christian Lol, denying random process, denying That that the universe didnt had a beggining by something uncreated (big bang) just proves by calling out God of the Gaps Falacy, just makes it clear you donr know how falacies work, and that pseudo intelectuals suck at philosophy and are ruining humanity, you guys are actually so wrong thinking a phrase can deny God because you say it Does no wonder you believe saying stuff makes them true, you have a whole philosphy for it called gender ideology
Science of the gaps. Science will someday explain where we came from I trust. @@sliglusamelius8578
@@sliglusamelius8578 not only is what you just said false, even if it was true you would have just admitted both sides are using fallacious arguments, nolt debunked the other side