Atheists debunk confused Christian apologist Frank Turek
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 06. 2024
- Christian apologist Frank Turek says he doesn't have enough faith to be an atheist, but he really doesn't have enough knowledge. In this video, leading atheist thinkers Alex Malpass and Dan Linford join host Phil Halper to expose Turek's never-ending errors, especially concerning infinity and cosmology. How many mistakes can a Christian apologist make in 8 minutes? Place your bets.
Timeline:
00:00 Introduction
2:37 infinity
10:12 The SURGE argument and the 2nd law
22:39 expanding universe
28:41 radiation
42:08 Galaxy seeds
49:51 Einstein
1:02:43 Creation ex nihilo - Věda a technologie
I greatly enjoyed this video, and I’m a Christian! Thank you very much for making it. It was light hearted yet informative. Please make more like this. Thank you!
great to hear, really appreciate your comment.
btw big fan of your channel too
@@PhilHalper1 that is very encouraging coming from you!
TheAnalytic etc: "... I'm a Christian!" - Why? You must have some good, credible evidence for the existence of your specific "God". AND you must have some good, credible reason to believe that the "Jesus" character, as described in the New Testament" actually existed. What is this evidence?
@@TheAnalyticChristian I like your channel, too! Been watching for a long time. I’m glad that you are enjoying our podcast.
I don't hate most theists, but Turrek I cannot not to. He is _so_ arrogant, speaking about subject he obviously does not know nor understand almost _anything_ about. Very well done, gentlemen. We needed this
thanks. i dont hate Turek but he needs to be corrected,
@@PhilHalper1 as a non-free willian, I should adopt that way of thinking too. He didn't choose to become what he is
Frank Turek the used Jesus salesman.
Good luck with that
@@williamgullett5911 it's true, have you seen tureks twitter feed? it's nonsense, it's like he get chat gtp to write it for him and he never edits it. frank sells books, when was the last time he talked about jesus and the teachings of jesus? apologists sole purpose is to make money from atheist bashing, he's literally selling jesus, not promoting jesus. if you want to be a good christian, be atheist.
@@HarryNicNicholas who doesn't sell books? That means he is a poor Christian? And to be a good Christian is to he an atheist? What does that even mean?
@@williamgullett5911Frank is well aware of the fact that Yahweh is a Canaanite storm, volcano, and metallurgy deity from a polytheistic pantheon, plagiarized by the Israelites, then again by the Jews, then again by the Christians, then again by the Muslims, then again by the Mormons, etc, etc, etc.
Answer me this Mr Christian grifter, why does Frank keep talking about people sacrificing their children on, and I quote: " . . . the molten hot idle of the god Molech." Frank is well aware of the FACT that scholars have known FOR AT LEAST A CENTURY that 'Molech' isn't any god, but is actually a mistranslation of a word referring to 'a general sacrifice'. HE KNOWS THIS, HE HAS BEEN CONFRONTED WITH THE SCHOLARSHIP, HE KNOWS HE IS LYING. But like all Christian grifter clowns, he doesn't know how to correct himself and will just LIE AND LIE AND LIE, because he's a grifter.
This whole thing is a grift, Christianity specifically, the version that everybody has fallen for now, was pioneered by Paul, aka SAUL THE GRIFTER, who scammed early Christians for wealth, power, and women.
Remember what Saul said, definitely don't get married unless you can't control your lust, the world's going to end everyone, now heap praise on me!
Maybe don't trust grifters like Frank turek, or psychopaths like Greg kokle (sp?)l, because when someone threatens you with hell, you should treat that person as a threat to your safety, end of the safety of all living beings around you. Not because hell is real, it's not, but because the threat alone says that person is okay and totally fine with eternal conscious torment and eternal torture for a thought crime. In my opinion, Christians should be banned from using modern medicine and modern technology if they spread pseudoscientific lies, like Frank does. Frank drives a car, he flies in planes, he uses a computer and a phone, that computer and phone have plastics in them, plastics that are derived from hydrocarbons, hydrocarbons that are located and extracted thanks to radiometric dating and its assumption being accurate. What assumption you ask? The assumption that the universe behaves the same today as it did yesterday, and the day before that, and the day before that. I know, crazy right?! I bet Frank would be just fine receiving immunotherapies that were developed using predictive genetics and genomics that would not exist unless the modern synthesis was accurate, but I'm sure you don't know what that is Mr Christian because I'm sure you call it Darwinism because you have been lied to, or are you one of the liars also? Because as we know now for a fact, all Christians are either liars, or they are lied to, and there are no exceptions to this. Which one are you?
But go on and listen to Gary habermass and the rest of the grifters, and have them tell you lies about Christianity and archeology, when there is a piece of paper in a drawer at answers in Genesis or whatever grift factory they work at, that has their signature on it that affirms a statement of faith, a statement of faith that says in plain English that they will lie for Jesus, if they won't lie for Jesus, they can't work there. Affirm the biblical "truth" no matter what, right Mr Christian? Give me a break, you people have been messing around without consequences far too long, and now people have knowledge at their fingertips, you can't lie forever, but you can try, because let me guess, you're one of the liars you grifter clown.
Have you not watched this video? Frank just lied over and over and over again, and people will say that it's because he doesn't know anything and he's ignorant, but I don't believe that. He is a Christian apologist, so therefore he is a lying grifter, he knows what he's saying is nonsense, and he is scamming people like you, the undereducated and the gullible, for cash and control. Ken ham, Eric hovind, all of them, they're all lying grifters. Wake up, my goodness.
@@williamgullett5911And to answer your question, it means that atheists actually embody what Christians pretend to be. Christians borrow all their morality from secular sources, but I'm sure you'll say it comes from god, which is objective, but by definition if you get your morality from a being or a person or a God, you are taking their subjective morality. Also, your God is a Canaanite storm, volcano, and metallurgy deity from a polytheistic pantheon, maybe actually read some real scholarship and not grifter clowns who like to lie to you for cash and control. Have you ever read the Bible? Maybe start at the beginning, you know what Andrew Seidel said: "The road to atheism is littered with Bibles that have been read cover to cover."
Or maybe you're just scared, or maybe you're also a lying grifter just like Frank, that's probably it, because none of these Christians are actually true believers, how can you believe in any god, it's very obvious that you believe in absolutely nothing. Lying grifter.
The problem is that Turek does not know much about the topics he is speaking on while thinking he has a firm understanding. He also speaks to a church audiences that are also scientifically illiterate and accept him as some sort of expert.
yep
It's so funny to see the EVERY SINGLE TIME apologists absolutely sure about the scientific stuff that they use for apologising whereas the scientists who came up with those theories saying otherwise
yeah there s a huge gap between the two
@@PhilHalper1 apologists being wrong started since infinite ago when you turned on the flash light but you didn't because it was always on! :D
@@DeconvertedMan frank using science to diss science is what i find titillating. he's so used to double talking he even fools himself.
@@HarryNicNicholas he hurt himself in his confusion! :D
@@DeconvertedManTBF it would depend on what your views on god are.to me God is a personal mind that generates all reality.
He's universal in all cultures and the mystics know him to be the truth of all that exists.
As for evidence 3 bits.
1 there are hundreds of tribes pre Christian contact that speak about some supreme high god creating us in fact studies in Pappa neiguni the Americas and even Somoa all speak about a supreme high god. So monotheism or panentheism where the gods are the aspect of the 1 god are universal regardless of location.
2 mythic motifs being the same the origin stories of 1 man 1 women the flood of noah due to Humanities sins perhaps not the tower of Babel but the first shared collective epoch shows an primordial collection between all theologies of a distant original religion due to all the faiths sharing the same motifs they aren't all the same but that is a good thing because you know it's not plagiarism so this would imply the earliest we're monothiestic or an advanced form of panentheism where the gods are all lower emanations of the 1 god.
The 2nd bit of evidence is evidence from NDES and DMTS though the 2 are very different DMT is a physical phenomenon where the brain is excited to where it can see aspects of reality previously unforseeable just like how we don't see bacteria but at the end of the day the dmt realm is a part of this realm.
Ndes are cross realm transfer where 1 is between the realm of life and death and to date no studies have debunked ndes if anything they proved the validity of it.
These 2 distinct realms imply reality being sets of higher and lower realities. These higher and lower realities imply some higher aspect of this reality or perhaps now this doesn't point towards a cosmic mind persay you could have a naturalistic after life but the fact that the complexities in the after life combined with universal shaministic experience that speak of conservations with a supreme cosmic mind combined with the fact that we are all naturally religious would imply we are in some sort of an cosmic mind.
The 3rd reason I would argue we most likely are inside a cosmic eye is that the laws of physics even if useful descriptions often question beg starting point why are the laws of logic the way that they are ?
Because the innicital starting points of the universe ? Okay well all the starting point tells us is the total mass and energy of the universe which we ourselves don't know as the universe is expanding faster than the speed of light but what is propelling it to expand ? The starting explosion that laid the foundational laws of the universe ? Okay but why did it form in a way suitable for life when the likelihood infantismally low what propelled it to continue on building and we can tell the universe is intelligently ordered if not we couldn't form the laws of logic directly which presuppose all science ontop of that the anthropic principle states that he universe had to be designed well enough to support human life.
But to go deeper than that even if logic is a human made social construction we use to understand the world it still wouldn't explain why the real constructions we have operate interact and function so orderly.
You could say well naturalism itself can develop self sufficient systems that on its own develop impossible complex structures our human brains couldn't fathom.
But then this question begs the next point why does anything in naturalism work in 1 way and not infinite possibilities why doesn't everything degenerate into chaos due to entropy.
You will say the cosmic laws stop it from decaying which then gets you to the root point what causes that start the underlying subterfuge that lies in the nadir of reality that operates all?
This I would call the supreme cosmic god mind
Theists: Infinity can't be a thing!
Also theists: God exists forever!
O_o;
every step you take is an infinite.
Well, it just comes to biases i guess. It's up to a person if he is going to accept a creator who existed forever or if he is going to accept a infinite past. A person who thinks he is smart he will follow the herd of sheep of athiests. And person who is not lazy enough to follow rules and humble himself will follow the herd of sheep of theists.
@@Abu_Tuesday you have that backwards. Following a religion requires no thinking as you are told what to do and think. However, atheism is not about telling you anything. Because that's not what it is. Free thinker = no one path to follow.
@@DeconvertedMan not really, i see athiests in today's day and age just like thiests. They dont know why they dont or do believe in god. And also that's wrong that thiests dont have to do any thinking. Just read the early days philosophy written by Islamic or Christian scholars. Even the modern scientific method was invented by ibn-al haitham in his book of optics. And he got the idea for this from a verse of qur'an. He actually wrote that in his book, but idk if you know arabic otherwise you could have read it. Idk if it's translated. But yes we do have fixed rules, which we dont need think of much. do you know about house of wisdom in baghdad? Knowledge capital of 14th century. Or nalanda university of hindus in 7th century.
@@Abu_Tuesday It might be that you have encountered people who fit your construct thereof, but that has not been my experience for atheists. They do clearly know why they do not believe in any god.
It matters not who got science started. That does not make the people/group that start it "right" about other ideas they had.
I know there were places where knowledge was gathered and sadly many of those places were lost to time. But when you have knowledge you tend to find out you do not know much about anything, and part of that is finding out that religion, and belief in a god is something that is not needed. You can have it, if you want, but one is a rule set, and one is a belief. I can invent my own rules to follow so I do not need a religion. As far as a god belief, I find zero reason to hold it.
Now, if you think both the theist and non-theist are in the same boat, then what are you? What label best describes you?
I simply love this channel. Malpass is my favorite philosopher (while highly intelligent, still very kind to opposing interlocutors) and then these physicists joining these discussions are superb as well. Really love these
thank you so much, spread the word .
Words never uttered by a theist: "I don't know". Instead, "I am satisfied with God's mysterious nature." It is the ultimate disingenuous obfuscation of the actual state of affairs.
yes, good point at least not Turek and his ilk.
Nothing created something?
I bet atheist believes that a man can become pregnant
If God weren't real, it wouldn't matter anyway because nothing would matter yet here you are pretending it does. Flawed logic of most CZcams atheists today. There's a reason these clown wannabe atheists won't ever have any more than a handful of followers. You have to have absolutely no life to waste your time with this.
Well the thing is thiests like me are satisfied with the "evidence" given by religion. You dont have accept them but thiests like me dont want to take risk. I am not losing anything from believing in god rather i am gaining things arguably like i never touched alchohol, if i was athiests i would have 100% touched alchohol, most of my freinds drink and many even died. Never gambled, i am not allowed to see p*rn etc. I am not saying this is the evidence for god but i am saying i am not losing anything from believing in god. I will believe in god until we can get to a point when we can prove we did have infinite past. As they said scientist in 80s thought universe began to exist now we say that might be wrong or most likely is wrong. Where is the guarantee today we are right? This kind of speculative Science is not reliable enough for thiests to risk afterlife. If you as an athiests want to, then go for it.
@@Abu_Tuesday I thoroughly get, "Feels over Reals". 90+% of human thought and action is governed by emotional and preprogrammed responses. It's that 5% that needs processing and deliberation. And you are right, I am compelled to spend more than that percentage myself. Maybe enough like me will inch that 5% average up in the future. Just kidding. As the Youngbloods sang, "Love is but a song we sing. Fear's the way we die."
My philosophy includes "Don't live your life in fear."
I get fed up with apologists/theists ‘debunking’ atheism by just believing they’re right.
Among the many problems, the false dilemma between something created the 'universe` or it `created itself out of nothing` is nonsense. It's conflating a very specific scientific model, with a dogmatic belief that the energy contained in the BB just popped into existence out of nothing. As unlikely as that strawman is, even `that` makes more sense than an inexplicable being with no tether to reality whatsoever. Starting with the answer and then looking for things to apply it to, is not rational.
Yep
The Ray Comfort fallacy 😂
Drank a coffee at each glitch - gonna move some mountains now 😎
🤣
I still don't understand why you don't have a regular podcast.i watch your videos over, and over, and over again. I appreciate how your guests, you host, and you are are able to dumb it down for someone that only has an highschool education. Thank you for making my fascination fun! Your host, show guests, and you are very much appreciated!
Thanks for your comment. Much appreciated
A long overdue exposure of Frank Turek. Thank you!
your welcome
You’re* ;)
@@bigburton24 "yore"
Frank: What is the definition of infinity
Me: Anything with Cantor's property?
Frank: Something that has no end!
Me: *sighs*
I used to get annoyed at Frank Turek but the truth is I just laugh now. I have reached the same stage with Bill Craig too.
hope we gave you a giggle.
i think there needs to be a new term for atheists who pretend to be christians, i think turek doesn't really believe there is a god anymore, he just has a lot of old books to sell. his twitter is lazy, like he gets chat gtp to write them for him and he never looks ti see what they say, he just hopes that a few atheists will buy a book too, now all the christians have been exhausted. he's the elmer gantry of christian grift.
Yeah, same here. I used to take Craig really seriously, now he just seems like a joke to me.
Another great video! Loving this series!
thanks
Was looking forward to another episode in this series - oh and Frank is on, that will be fun, gonna grab some popcorn 😊
enjoy and thanks
Never send an apologist to do a philosophers/physicists job
🤦♂️
🤣
Great episode, thanks Phil et al ++
cheers, appreciate the comment
Lol, this will be fun. Turek is like the average internet theist.
We had a lot of fun recording it. I' hope you enjoy it
Excellent, thanks.
In regards to an infinite past, Dan Linford (and yourself) nail it 7:39.
I'm often reminded of this:
Could the past be infinite? - Richard Carrier:
"All arguments against a past infinity of time commit the fallacy of circular reasoning, e.g. "if the timeline began infinitely long ago, we would have reached this point in time infinitely long ago" presumes that the timeline "began" which is exactly what isn't the case if time is past-infinite. If time is past-infinite, then all points in time exist, which means our point in time exists, too".
thanks very much
It's so weird how much effort apologists expend trying to use creation ex nihilo to argue for Christianity when it's not essential to what seem like the most important aspects of the religion
My understanding is it wasnt adpoted as Church doctrine til 1215 Ad and many Jews and certainly Mormons reject it.
@@PhilHalper1 I didn't know it was that late, I just know the concept was first introduced in the 2nd century CE (after the Bible). One could be a Christian who thinks Jesus is God who died for your sins, and God is going to institute divine reward/punishment; the only difference is if God created the universe from nothing or arranged chaotic, eternal matter into something ordered that supports life.
It's probably all because WLC became so popular
@@benroberts2222@benroberts2222 Yeah, the idea does go to Philopinus, but it wasn't widely accepted until much later. And yes WLC has made it popular today . Genesis never mentions creation ex nihilo , God moves over the face of the waters before he starts creating.
I enjoyed this much more than I thought I would. Probably 'cuz it was really scientists debunking Turek. Plus I made a beer run and played the drinking game and had two pints. Thanks!
Two philosophers and a documentarian. ;) But thanks. :)
glad you enjoyed it.
Dan Is employed as a scientists but has his Phd in philosophy, I interview scientists and Alex is a philosopher publishing in leading journals but has left academia for work in industry for his employment.
To call someone 'confused' is to implicitly assume that they actually believe the things they are saying. In Frank Turek's case, I often find that a highly dubious assumption.
I think he believes it, but I could be wrong.
@@PhilHalper1 the way I see it is that you can only have the same misconceptions corrected so many times before the principle of Hanlon’s Razor ceases to be applicable. And pretty much every argument Turek makes qualifies as a PRATT at this point. I don’t think he’s really an atheist or anything, but I do think he’s 100% a grifter.
i like roger penrose joke about infinity "if the universe is infinite, then i can't reach my chair, over there" (reaches out and touches chair). you just have to put the "start of time" somewhere near "now".
i've always said that frank is a carnival act, he plays three card monty with words.
so, god doesn't require use of energy?
20:00 you said it for me, what if the battery has infinite energy. am i right, did sean carroll say that entropy might just go on forever, that there isn't an upper, or even lower limit, it just has a direction?
nice analogy
Frank has a Ph.D. Where did he get it from a Cracker Jack Box
No, he has a Doctorate of Ministry. That's not a PhD and I don't think you should put doctor in front of your name if you have that degree.
Turek..... Jesus. Even worse than WLC
yep
I don't know if it's too obscure of an idea, but I would love to see a vid on ignosticism or theological non-cognitivism. I'm obsessed with the idea but there aren't too many resources to understand it
Yeah that might be a bit obscure , but maybe
I think that might be a topic we could include in a future video, possibly as part of a broader discussion. I often see people misunderstand those concepts online.
I don’t have enough faith to be a bigot.
Sorry, the beginning here makes no sense.
they made the beginning out of nothing, but it does go one for an infinite amount of time.
Frank Turek is a very charismatic con artist.
Ideas for next show would be whatever we know about abiogenesis as last time people said "there is no evidence of that..." of course there is, perhaps other then just talking you can show whatever experiment, or is there one we can set up - oh! maybe that would be a good show - what experiments can we "do at home" to prove the harder to prove ideas of science like biological evolution or cosmology etc?
Hm. Those are some interesting ideas and certainly worth exploring. I think that abiogenesis is a bit outside of our respective areas of expertise. But I'd love to have an expert on abiogenesis come on to the show to discuss that topic at some point.
I'd have to think about what sort of experiments could be done at home to investigate topics like evolution or cosmology. I have some vague ideas, but -- really -- those are not easy ideas to prove at home!
@@daniellinford9643 Lots can be done via computer models or virtual reality - I'm not sure what is out there but maybe some computer way to do experiments. Would be awesome if there was a remote lab that you could connect to for some low fee or something to do some experiments in lab - learn how to do something then do it - that would be really neat.
@@DeconvertedMan Yeah, I’ll have to think about it. It’s a bit outside the realm of what any of us usually do.
@@daniellinford9643 :) look forward to whatever you guys do ^_^
@@DeconvertedMan Thanks!
If the universe had a beginning, it doesn't prove existence of god. If the universe doesn't have a beginning, it also doesn't prove the existence of god. Neither case provides enough evidence.
In the first minute this broadcast managed to personally attack another human being, and an entire country.
Hmmm, interesting. Dr. Linford said that the steady state theory posited that space is expanding between galaxies (where protons are created). But isn't this a later version of the model, i.e., the "quasi-steady state"? I thought that the earlier versions posited a perfectly static universe, such as Einstein's version (which is stabilized by the cosmological constant). 🤔
Einstein did propose a static universe, but that wasn't a steady state universe. Usually, physicists use the phrase "steady state" to refer to a state that is (i) not at equilibrium but (ii) is somehow held "fixed". For example, if there's a room, where there's an equal number of people entering as exit, then physicists might say that the population in the room is held at "steady state". So, an expanding universe might be held at steady state if, as the universe expands, new matter is created so that the density of the universe is held fixed.
Of course, this is really a semantic issue, so might not be all that interesting to most people.
@@daniellinford9643 he later on did propose the steady state but that was different from his static universe , he never published his steady state but historians found it recently arxiv.org/abs/1402.0132
@@daniellinford9643 Hmmm, ok! Nice clarification.
But I was wondering how they could posit that space is both expanding and that there was no initial hot phase of the universe. If it is expanding, there was some starting point of the expansion, right?
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco No, there doesn't need to be a start for the expansion. Let's borrow an analogy from George Gamow and modify it for steady state cosmology. Consider Hilbert's Hotel. The entire hotel is infinitely large, with an infinite number of equally sized rooms. Suppose that this is a funny sort of version of Hilbert's Hotel, where new rooms are spontaneously created between each room. As time goes on, the hotel expands in the sense that, between any two rooms, there are an ever increasing number of rooms. If we rewind history, we'll see rooms disappear, but, for every past time, the number rooms is infinite.
This is analogous to what happens in steady state cosmology. In steady state cosmology, the space between any two galaxies is always increasing, just as the number of rooms between any two rooms increased with time. But because new galaxies are always being created in the space between, the density of galaxies remains more or less constant. If we rewind history, we see galaxies go out of existence -- just as we earlier saw rooms go out of existence -- but the number of galaxies -- as with the number of rooms -- is always infinite for every time that there has ever been.
In Einstein's static cosmology, on the largest scales, nothing is moving apart and there are basically no dynamics. In contrast, in steady state cosmology, there is dynamics, but the dynamics work to keep the density of galaxies constant.
(By the way, there's no contradiction here between what Phil is pointing out -- in terms of Einstein proposing a steady state cosmology -- and my claim that Einstein proposed a static cosmology. Einstein actually proposed both models, first the static cosmology around 1917 and then, later, an early version of the steady state cosmology. But usually when people refer to the "Einstein Static Universe", they are referring to Einstein's 1917 model. Bertrand Russell wrote a beautiful popularization of General Relativity -- titled 'The ABC of General Relativity' -- which, in the original version, discusses Einstein's Static Universe. Unfortunately, that discussion was edited out (by Felix Pirani) in subsequent editions and replaced with a version of bounce cosmology resembling Gamow's.)
@@daniellinford9643 Whoa, I think I get it now! Thanks for this extensive and detailed explanation! I hope other readers will also learn by reading it like I did. Now that I think about it, it seems an elegant model. It is a pity it is wrong. Also, if eternal inflation is similar to that, that means it could well be eternal into the past as well (contrary to Vilenkin, Sinclair and Craig). Just replace "galaxies" with "inflationary regions." 🙂
In mathematics infinity can be a limit that is never reached. So if time is infinite, then at the beginning of the universe, our time would be infinitely far away and we'd never reach our time.
nope , there is no starting point if the universe is infinite in the past
In calculus*. Mathematics has many branches where the infinite is used as more than a limit
There wouldn't be a beginning of the universe if it is infinitely old, but if such a universe keeps changing state forever then it will be in every state that it will be in along the way in its own time
An infinite ladder still has every rung it does have, each one simply following the previous
@@PhilHalper1 hmmm, sean carroll had antonio padilla on the mindscape podcast a while back and at one point (i think) padilla said that you don't need infinite universes or multiverses for unlikely events to occur, he suggested that if you get in your space craft and go far enough sooner or later you will run into a galaxy pretty much identical to the milky way, no infinities and no multiverses required. it also makes me wonder about "almost" infinities - how big can numbers get that are almost but not quite infinite?
Go take a math course and get back to us when you understand infinity.
1:05:00 "nothing" - if god created the universe he either created it out of "nothing" (ie there was no existing universe, this universe is totally novel) or he created it out of a universe he had lying around, i don't think the theist has much to boast about, they are stuck with the same situation as the atheist. it was created out of nothing or it already existed in another form, same as us.
when it comes to turek vs vilenkin i like the early tom jump with his "naturalistic pantheism", it sounds like vilenkin is doing much the same, the universe is created by nature, quantum mechanics, in the same way as a god would, but with no mind at he helm. which reminds me, even if "god did it" we would still have to find out _how_ even god were real we still have to do the ACTUAL physics.
I saw a few of Frank Turek's CZcams videos quite a while ago but couldn't stand to see any more of him (I can understand why at the beginning of this video one of you said your wife told you to turn off the video of him after listening to his ranting for 5 minutes). Like many Christians he is arrogant and thinks he knows everything and belittles and criticizes everyone who disagrees with him (especially atheists). Whenever an audience member challenges him he interrupts them, not letting them finish (or he talks over the audience member) and if he doesn't have a satisfactory answer (which is a foregone conclusion) he evades the issue. For instance once an audience member asked him about god's morality and he interrupted and asked how there was a basis for morality without god. This of course is evading the issue.
yes that is very evasive.
Why do you even mind responding to someone like Turek? He is one of the worst apologists on the internet. He has a big ego, when he shouldn’t have one, he claims to know absolutely everything about the universe, and his inability to accept a basic scientific fact like evolution shows how bad his ability to reason is. You have had great scientists and philosophers on the channel; don’t lower yourself to his level.
Come on, relax... They are just having some fun.
This is an episode of our new podcast, the Sci-Phi Show. I think we included plenty of intellectual content in this video, despite the fact that we were responding to Turek. But we will also have future episodes where we interact with some higher brow content. I think the show is going to feature a good mix and that, regardless of who we are responding to, we will always be delivering high quality informational content.
@@daniellinford9643 sorry if I sounded rude, that was not my intention. I was just trying to make the point that Turek is not a good apologist and that you guys are better.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco yes I know, I didn’t want to sound rude. Sorry for that.
@@alexanderlopez-dt9ty I agree that Turek has a big and undeserved ego.
I didn't come to this channel for religion bashing. You won't change anyone's mind.
I love your other content and look forward to more of that instead. Thanks!
Then don't watch the video. Why is it that people have to comment how they personally don't agree with the content? This is a science channel, and Frank Turek and other apologists stretch and abuse "science" to push their complete bullshit. they should be called out as it weaken's the public's trust in science.
I appreciate the comment. I doubt expect to change many minds but rather to correct misinformation a lot of it about the science we do cover.
@@WooliteMammoth right on
Hey there! I hope that you give the video a shot. I don't think we bash religion in this video and we spend a fairly large amount of time talking about science.
To be absolutely clear, our intention in this episode is not to make religion look silly. There are plenty of very smart religious people -- we discuss some figures in the video that I really quite like (e.g., Caspar Isenkrahe and Georges Lemaitre). We would also gladly welcome religious thinkers on to our show.
people like frank really, really, really enjoy atheist bashing, watch ANY apologist show where they discuss atheists when they are no atheists in the room, to my mind frank and his chums are disgusting people and i have zero respect for them, "mocking" people like frank is legit, and god says they should enjoy being mocked anyway, so. they lie to their OWN people ffs.
i'm actually a little sick of the religists like frank, so i put it this way, people who say that god has the right to kill anyone he feels like just because they disagree with him, with no trial, no jury of peers, no counsel, no court even, with ONE crime that's not specified (sin) and ONE sentence - to burn for eternity, not to mention being drowned first, anyone who says that's fine and dandy is sick.
"i was only following -god's- orders" sound familiar?
i bash religion as often as i can.
this is nice gossip....but how about initiating public debates if you have better arguments?
weve all done public debates
Regarding Turek’s flashlight argument, let’s just grant that GR is the whole story and the universe actually begins at a single point. Well, GR also predicts infinite energy density at time zero. So, it seems Turek is conceding that infinite energy is possible. If infinite energy is possible, then it's also possible that an infinitely old universe could sustain without running out of energy. No?
It is not infinite energy, though; only infinite density. It contains finite energy but infinite density due to compression.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco Seems to me that infinite energy density in a finite volume leads to infinite energy.
U = ∞
U = E/V
E = U*V = ∞*V = ∞
No?
Or maybe V is infinitesimal, and the limit of U*V is finite?
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco i think the guys even said that if the battery has some amount of energy today, all that's required is it have some larger amount yesterday, and so on backwards, as long as there is a tad more yesterday than today it doesn't have to be infinite.
Dear Phil, could you list out the cosmologists that agree with a non-beginning of the universe? Theists NEVER have ANY citation for this stuff and I'd love to plunk down a list that pwns them when this darn argument pops up. Thanks! Oh! Maybe there could be a sign up for a declaration of "non-beginning" or "unknown" (or something) ie: Project Steve?
You’re not gonna get a list because it’s horse shit lol.
also! the models - are there diagrams or something that shows the different cosmological models or is it all maths?
We can safely conclude that Frank has read at least 2 books... the bible and whatever the one is he is getting ideas from that he gets wrong. :D (what was the books name?)
the idea of nothing without anything is perhaps impossible because you would always have a rule of no paradox - unless you don't but then you can have something from nothing, and if there is any rule, then you dont have nothing! :D
@@benliftin4awhile When you are shown to be wrong, you best post "I was wrong, sorry everyone."
@@DeconvertedMan there was more faith based nonscientific crap in this video than I’ve seen in religious ones, all of this shit was “we don’t know” “it could be this”
Do you not see the irony of this video even existing?
They can debunk Frank Turek all they want....its not Turek that will be their judge on judgement day
the every knee crap isn't the threat you think it is and it's a pathetic god that has to use threats to make people "love " him
i'm actually a little sick of the religists like frank, so i put it this way, people who say that god has the right to kill anyone he feels like just because they disagree with him, with no trial, no jury of peers, no counsel, no court even, with ONE crime that's not specified (sin) and ONE sentence - to burn for eternity, not to mention being drowned first, anyone who says that's fine and dandy is sick.
"i was only following god's orders" sound familiar?
i bash religion as often as i can.
"every knee shall bend" lol. so you don't care about truth, you just want to recruit me using threats? you can't reason me into faith, so you threaten me? christians are sick people. why would you even WANT me on your team? you're ridiculous, you want to threaten me so i join up even though you don't like me?
you're a joke, sick immoral joke.
Then there's nothing to worry about since there is no such thing as "judgment day."
How likely is the updated hawking hardle universe beginning from itself and with zero time?
Well, we made a film with Hartle And HAkwing, you can see it below. I would say there are a lot of different ideas for the early universe; this is merely one of them . So the chances of any of them being right is probably low, but hopefully, the chances fo one them being right isn't. czcams.com/video/Ry_pILPr7B8/video.html
@@PhilHalper1 Thanks! I know Turok has a spin on the same universe from nothing, both need more work to develop it seems. Love the progress!
00:54 " . . . I don't have enough *face* to be an atheist." Wtf?
slip of the tongue, he meant to say don't have enough faith to be an atheist
So the universe that contains entropy, in every area of the universe, is eternal.
Make that make sense.
You do not understand entropy. This seems to be a common problem among creationists.
@@andreasplosky8516 okay now if you know more than him about it why don’t you explain what it is then. Instead of saying “this is a common mistake for people who don’t understand” maybe send an article to help him out.
@@dayyy7493 You can do the research yourself now, instead of relying on someone like me, who you distrust anyway.
maybe entropy doesn't start at zero, and has no upper limit, how about that? put a line on a graph, move the line up and down, the values can change at both ends, but the slope always goes up.
@@dayyy7493 go watch some sean carroll vids, he is an entropy man, he can make sense of it for you.
H Y P E
Yo
Every experience we have with time completely contradicts the point these guys are trying to make. They are simply creating magical myth about the possibility of time not having a beginning. But actually scientifically looking at the evidence shows us that everything we are experiencing had a beginning.
If our experience of time superceeded the evidence we saw around us in the universe, models like general relativity wouldn't have been taken seriously - despite it being incredibly succesful at helping us understand the cosmos. Our experience of time is extremely fallible, so we should adapt out understanding to our best evidence, not the other way around
every experience we have is that every moment has a previous moment so if we go with our experience , time must be infinite into the past . But we don go with our experience becuase relativity has taught us an experience of time is not the full picture.
Hi Jessica -- Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think that "every experience we have with time completely contradicts the point these guys [that is, us] are trying to make". Maybe we could include a response in a future video! :)
got some examples? and our eyes will tell us that everyone on the planet (who can see) can be fooled by optical illusions, humans are really good at being mistaken about things that are "intuitive".
what exactly is this evidence you cite that shows everything has a beginning? cos to my mind this moment right here indicates to me that there are an infinite amount of moments just like this - why would there be a start or an end? okay i'll die, but that doesn't stop existence, just mine. intuitively to me time really is infinite, i have no other reason to think not, at least until i start looking at maths.
PS your channel needs a description, it looks like it's aimed at children?
29:00 or so. Hey Phil the CMBR was _hypothesized_ in 1948 by Gamow, Alpher, & Herman. It wasn’t “discovered” or “confirmed” until Penzias & Wilson in ‘65. Significant distinction. EDIT 1948, not 1940. my mistake.
you're just confused here, like Turek himself. If you watched the clip clearly you will see we weren't talking about Gamov, Alpher and Herman, but mckeellar who did discover the CMB before Penzias and Wilson. aether.lbl.gov/www/science/CMBTimeLine.html
@@PhilHalper1 Gamow & co were the first to call it cosmic microwave background radiation. McKellar’s temperature measurements btw did not match those of Penzias & Wilson. You absolutely _did_ mention Gamow, and thus my comment about him.
@@Psalm1968@Psalm1968 What it's called is irrelevant. Mckellar measurements didn't match Penzias and Wilson's? What are you talking about? You can't just drop enigmatic comments and not back them up with a reference, you know? Maybe you are referring to the 0.4 k difference in temperature, this is error bar stuff. No pone thinks that's significant. Its widely accepted that Mckellar discovered the CMb in the early 40's. See here for another source evincism.com/cosmic-microwave-background-radiation/
@@PhilHalper1 McKellar didn’t call it relic radiation nor hypothesize it as such. Sure, he took the first record of it, in a primitive sense. But it was Alpher, Herman, & Gamow who first suggested the cmbr as we understand it today. Again, check the timestamp and listen for your own mention of Gamow. That’s why I mentioned him originally. McKellar did not hypothesize the CMBR.
McKellar came up with 2.3. Penzias and Wilson came up with 3.5. That’s not .4, but 1.2. Granted the current avg is 2.7. I am not arguing McKellar didn’t take the first measurements, but only pointing out what Gamow & co’s hypothesis was and that it was _confirmed_ by Penzias & Wilson, as I said above.
@@Psalm1968 Neither did Penzias and Wilson hypothesize the CMB , so if you have to do that that rules them out too. As for the discrepancy, you didn't say what it was, so I was guessing. Mckelalr's estimate is closer to the current estimate of Penzias and Wilson. they had 3.5k , Mckellar had 2.7 . But again, these small discrepancies don't matter; they are just a result of having less precise instruments than we have today. The point is Mckellar detected it first.
You all realize this is a faith based argument? They “believe” that theists are wrong based on theory’s they don’t have. You can’t miss that irony.
how so ?
what god wants, is you to not be sure he actually exists, to have faith even though there is no reason to believe - to believe cos it's his word and his word is truth.
my faith is based on experience, i have faith in my chair cos i tightened the screws up myself, i don't trust it in fact, so i do an experiment to make sure it won't collapse. frank is a carnival act, he plays card tricks with words and his audience of dullards loves it, they love being told they are right, they love being told that people like sir roger penrose, a nobel winner, is a daft old man. it should be clear that you lot are far from being physicists, that putting satellites into space takes real brains and isn't just a bunch of thick atheists making crap up, but of course that gets ignored.
what frank and god do is tell you to not check for loose screws, to sit on the chair and take their word it won't collapse. if you think that's a good idea, go for it, but when you fall flat on your arse, cos all the screws fall out, don't come running to me.
even if "god did it" physicists would still have to work HOW it was done in order to get your phone to work. it is faith, but based on thousands of years of science. frank is ignorant, and what's worse is he is lying to YOU about science, frank is a joke to me, but YOU believe what amounts to outright lies. god or no god. so you can giggle about my "faith" and you can be a frank turek parrot if you want , and think you're smart, but there is no god and so far no one has produced a god, so i have "faith" he doesn't exist.
If he is an atheist, isn’t that an oxymoron. How can you not believe in God if you don’t believe in God?
Yea, any of these guys would get slept by Turek in a conversation with him.
slept?
lol. atheists have on average 6 points higher IQ than religists, and can answer more question correctly on the subject of religion - pew research. it shows.
@@PhilHalper1you’d be decimated, I completely agree too. This was such a ridiculous attempt at invalidating a man instead of focusing on purely the sciences. “Could be this, could be that”
Extremely unscientific.
@@benliftin4awhile and frank is not christian, ever heard him talk about jesus? all frank does is satisfy his audience requirement not to feel silly, all religists are needy and insecure and constantly require apologists to reassure them it's the atheist that is wrong - when you all rely totally on science from boiling kettles to satellites that make you phone work. you love to be lied to, you need to be lied to otherwise you'd be nervous wrecks not knowing if you'll be burned or not.
and you;'re acting like god has tea and biscuits with you, when no one has any evidence god is real to begin with. if i were you i'd keep the talking snake and donkey cult to myself until god puts in a personal appearance.
can you time stamp a video where frank talks about the teachings of jesus for more than one minute? i'd be amazed. he's a con man, not a christian.
@@benliftin4awhileyeah it sure sucks when scientists use all that science stuff to show how a non scientist doesn’t know science. And yes, a well versed snake oil salesman would out BS these guys.
Not a creationist, but almost all of the refutals that these gentlemen are making don't really check out. Hubble did surmise that since the Universe is expanding, there must be a beginning, so technically Turek is not wrong. And in principle he is absolutely right. Einstein did come to believe there was a beginning to the Universe, and his opinions were never static. So a little less hubris, gentlemen. It doesn't look nice.
do you have a reference? In an article in there LA times , Hubble wrote “ The nebulae could not be uniformly distributed, as the telescope shows they are, and still fit the explosion idea. Explanations which try to get around what the great telescope sees, he said, fail to stand up. The explosion, for example, would have had to start long after the earth was created, and possibly even after the first life appeared”
According to Allan Sandage,
"To the very end of his writings, he (Hubble) maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature.”
Hi there, Yuri! It's a common misconception that Hubble thought the Universe is expanding and that there must be a beginning. But if you look into the history of science literature or at the primary sources, you'll find a different story. The historiography supports the conclusion that Hubble never did come to accept the expanding universe or that the universe must have a beginning.
Did Einstein ever think the universe was static? We can check what Einstein actually wrote on this subject. First, Einstein proposed what's come to be called the Einstein Static State in 1917. Second, as historians have now shown, Einstein subsequently developed an early version of steady state cosmology.
What’d be a good explanation for the smug undertone and the sort of childish approach when referring to Turek? I’m puzzled as to how seemingly educated folks seem unable to criticize someone else’s position without engaging in mockery and verbiage proper of uneducated blokes. Rather than a matter of intellectual disagreement, these folks sound like they have some personal against Turek. Weird.
I think turks own tone demands it, and do we engage with him intellectually
@@PhilHalper1 You “think” Turek’s tone places a demand on you to engage his argument by attacking and mocking him personally? Amazing. This is a very innovative way of arguing.
@@sammyking9407 mocking someone while showing why their argument fails is only a bad thing for decorum. It would be unwarranted in something like an academic paper, but this is a CZcams video, there's no need to take it seriously
have you watched tureks approach? if he isn't A) trying to belittle atheists i don't know what he's trying to do and B) he lies to his own people about science. watch a video of frank and pals talking about atheists when there are no atheists about, apologists are disgusting people.
@@sammyking9407 turek is a carnival act, he's not even a serious christian - did he say anything at all about jesus in any of his presentations? his sole purpose is to sell books to the simple minded fools who swallow that crap that he talks - he has no interest, and no apologist seems to have any interest in the teaching of jesus, they want revenue and bashing atheists sells books.
Infinity is not a number. 🤦♂️
Romans 16:17 Final Instructions and Greetings
17 I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles * contrary
to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them.
This video was just a pool of insults on someone who it trying to reach people who state there is a lack of evidence of the existence of God. This man in question also pulls out scripture for his topics. I don’t understand why we keep dividing ourselves to the point where there is so unification.
We give specific details about Tureks mistakes, and you havent corrected any of them. What did we get wrong?
@@PhilHalper1 I don’t know what you got right or wrong, there was no articles given that I could readily go to, no research given or anything along those lines or even a book from the parts I’ve been in the video so far other than the book that he read from.
It’s all he said she said just like what you guys corrected him about in some portions such as how someone else discovered something at a different point in time. Which I can agree on because sometimes he does say “this is what someone said and thinks” and I have to say to myself, how does he know this and so on. So if you have the correct answer to what like Einstein said then I would really appreciate the letter/documentation that proofs he said that.
I lean towards his view because even if he gets it wrong he pulls out evidence from which he got it such as a book, discovers and so on. He might be wrong but I can go back and check it. Sometimes I think he’s pulling stuff from thin air but there always an option to check that and if there isn’t I won’t take it as fact or at least shouldn’t.
Another thing is the level of condescending, I may have read the facial expressions, laughing and other details wrong, but for the most part it seemed to just a roast video with some minor corrections with massive tangents that have just about the same texture as his because I can’t go and look anything up unless it’s from a well known scientist like Einstein but even then i dont know exactly where to find some points that were made.
Either way I don’t know exactly who’s wrong or right in any video until I’ve been given sufficient proof that dictates truth from falsehood. However I do appreciate the drive of wanted to spread truth and help others who might be confused or quoting him when they don’t fully understand (I do that with him and many others). I just think people would appreciate or at least just me, would like constructive feedback and correction that didn’t have levels of pride as the video that was being torn apart. God bless you
@@dayyy7493 we showed a reference at the beginning to our videos on the kalam where you can hear this stuff from the very sicneitsts Turek quotes , each them and come back to us czcams.com/video/pGKe6YzHiME/video.html
@@PhilHalper1 awsome I’ll go check it out, I started watching around 10 pm so I might have dozed off around then. Again I still appreciate your desire to spread your knowledge to others. I personally still stand that maybe not insulting his intelligence would back your views a bit better, for some people when others do that see it’s a self reflection. I don’t know or doubt that’s what you’re doing but I think people can resonate with a real break down completely destroying someone’s speech with at least less insults, to show humanity and humility. God bless you and your endeavors.
(Edit) I just looked at your channel and it seems like this might be a reposting channel or who posts on these topics. I’m not Entirely sure if you are in that video but when I’m referring to the comment above with being more respectful I would still stand by that to either those guys who made that video or you if that’s you.
Still none the less God bless you!
frank is a liar, and he is lying to YOU. if you want to believe frank it's no skin off my nose, but you clearly don't care about truth and you just add to my feeling that religists enjoy their ignorance as long as they can bash atheists. god was invented to enable bullies "it's not ME burning you at the stake, my god demands it" if you want to be that way, that's your problem, i trust science, not god. certainly not a carnival act like turek.
whats this about the universe having no beginning, this is news to me....
im glad we can update you but we are only saying it might have no beginning
@@PhilHalper1😂 you could say that it takes a lot of faith to have that thought. Ridiculously hilariously ironic.
@@benliftin4awhile my "faith" is based on experience and testing previous experiences, not just an empty "trust me bro". seeing as you're a keen religist what do you think of my idea that people who say god has the right to kill people just for disagreeing with him with no trial, no jury of peers, and in the case of the flood there is one unspecified crime (sin) and one sentence, to not only burn for eternity but to be drowned first, i say that is the product of a sick mind, do you agree?
i don't care how powerful god is, i have rights and god is subject to law, he is not someone to be worshiped, he should be in jail, and you seem to be saying "i was only following -god's- orders" - sound familiar? i think christians are horrible people.
@@benliftin4awhile just a quick reminder that the first amendment conflicts with the first commandment
"thou shalt worship whoever you want"
and that the declaration of human rights gives ME more rights than god.
and a history lesson cos the USA is a secular nation, not many people seem to know that,
and the founding fathers were at best deists and certainly not christian. hitchens became
a naturalised american purely because of the constitution. the UK is officially christian,
the US is officially secular.
is it annoying that the satanic temple has the SAME RIGHTS as the church ?
@@benliftin4awhile 1:05:00 "nothing" - if god created the universe he either created it out of "nothing" (ie there was no existing universe, this universe is totally novel) or he created it out of a universe he had lying around, i don't think the theist has much to boast about, they are stuck with the same situation as the atheist. it was created out of nothing or it already existed in another form, same as us.
15:50 the universe is fine tuned, but DEFINITELY NOT for life
at least for the entropy yes
Then what for? How is it not fine tuned for life when life exists. Where as nowhere else life can even percehvablly be? It’s a miracle we are here.
@@benliftin4awhile if a person was teleported to a random place in the universe right now, the odds of them dying would vastly outweigh the odds of them surviving. The universe is so hostile to life that, to claim that it's fine tuned for it, would be akin to saying that Jigsaw's traps in the Saw movies were fine tuned to not cause bodily harm. If you want something that's more successful than life in our universe look at black holes instead, or at regions of mostly empty space, or the number of galaxies. If the universe is fined tuned for something, it's way more likely for it to be tuned for something like that
@@ellyam991 I definitely hear you, but without all of what’s out there, we wouldn’t have our place in the universe, the right metals and elements in the amounts that we need for life. So in a way it is and it isn’t fine tuned for life.
@@ellyam991 love the metaphor though for sure. Very good one.
20:28 “why can’t the battery just have infinite energy, what’s wrong with that”
Are you fucking kidding me? This is one of the guys yall are listening to?
whats wrong with that? the very scientists Turek quotes say the same thing !
well also all you need is for the battery to have enough energy today, and slightly more energy yesterday and so on, it doesn't need to be an infinite amount of energy, just more each day going backwards.
@@HarryNicNicholas but what about forwards, I think Infiniti would show more of its true nature near the end of energy rather than the beginning of it. Is it really infinite? This is a mind boggler.
Just type in "Did Hubble reject the expanding universe?" and you will get an aray of responses...
but the real history is he did reject the Big Bang , he wrote about it in his book "In the Realm of the Nebula"
@@PhilHalper1so nasa’s website is incorrect?
@@benliftin4awhile where does it say Hubble believed in the Big Bang ?
@@PhilHalper1 nasas website states that the entire thing “hubbles law” is a root of the Big Bang theory, I can’t find ANYTHING that supports your claim, not that I’m saying it’s untrue, I just can’t find it, I’m gonna look at that book you referenced in another comment. I don’t ignore evidence from any side to support my beliefs.
If atheism simply means not to believe in God, rather than claiming that he does indeed not actually exist outside of one's own head, then every lamp, every table and every dog is also an atheist (though I'm not entirely sure about the dog) and the definition of "Atheism" is just a self-declaration of one's own mental state - which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with reality. So if no claim to objectivity is made, then someone could be an Atheist while God could still exist.
The claim that one simply does not believe in God would be completely irrelevant in the discourse, because one does not have to defend a belief rationally if it makes no claim to the truth. Then the question would be why one argues and debates “God does not exist” at all. Such a form of Atheism is therefore more of a kind of bias that is not based on rationality, while Agnostic Atheism is reduced to the statement "I don't know whether God exists" and thus also makes no claim to objectivity and truth and thus gives up reference to the most important axiom of all: namely, that objective truth even exists outside of our skulls at all.
Consequently, both forms of Atheism are ultimately irrelevant in the discourse because they make no statements about the real existence of God and therefore provide no reason for debate. Because who cares what someone believes as opposed to objective truth, right? The only positions relevant to the discourse are: 1.) “God exists!” and 2.) "God does not exist!", because they are represented with a claim to truth and are therefore subject to a burden of proof.
Can God's existence be proven, then? Oh, absolutely! You guys prove it with every word you say.
God's existence is proven by the fact that without his existence nothing would be provable at all. In order to know anything at all with certainty, you would either have to know absolutely everything so that what you think you know couldn't be refuted by higher knowledge, or you would need to have revelation from someone who knows everything. The manner in which this revelation occurs to you is of secondary importance. It could be a book like the Bible. In fact, it could well be...the Bible! ;-)
So you think a lamp and a table have the capacity to believe in god?
I recommend seeking immediate psychological council.
@@andreasplosky8516 I'm not saying that a lamp and a table have the capacity to believe in God. I'm saying that, if the premise is that Atheism is defined mereley as "a lack of belief in God", it follows that everyone and everything lacking a belief in God is an Atheist! And that's absurd, of course. So, it's the premise, which is false - not the conclusion!
Despite that, how can you be sure that you have the capacity to believe anything at all? According to the foundational philosophical premises of your worldview, you're evolved stardust, right? What's stardust's "capacity to believe"?
@@HenryDalcke you believe that that person you see across the street won’t come over to kill you don’t you? You also believe that the food you’re eating for a restaurant won’t give you food poisoning. You use beliefs to fill in the evidence given to you. If you go to a restaurant you believe that the cook is well informed on how to cook because the establishment hired them based around his cooking abilities. You absolutely use belief every day because you don’t know exactly what will happen. You also use faith when driving, when you’re driving down a 2 lane row you have faith that the other person coming towards you won’t just swerve to hit you for the heck of it. I didn’t watch all of this video but when the first 2 minutes is just insults I’m already turned off to the idea what these people will say is for better understanding and not just for the thrill of degrading a person’s intelligence for the acceptance and praise of others who agree on your insults and views.
God bless you guys.
@@dayyy7493 Exactly the point!
Gentlemen. It seems to me that you are using your opinions and those of your prophets and preachers that you put your faith in to try and discredit someone else's opinions. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be persuasive. Anyway, the next time you argue against the Christian worldview and talk about the cosmos, please be sure to include the effects of sin on the created, as well as the attributes of God that humans lack. Attributes like omniscience and omnipotence. Otherwise you are reducing the Christian understanding of the physical and God Himself to a straw man version of them which is easy to take down. I really think you could bring some interesting conversation to the table if you did that.
do you have a specific mistake you think we made , rather than just an omission?
can you tell me what the test is to see if anyone is omniscient?cos last i looked all god's "attributes" were inventions, omnipotence, omniscience, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, essentially they all amount to "non existent" but there is no way to know anything at all about god unless of course he's visited you for tea and biscuits and passed this knowledge to you. even if you were omniscient there is no way to know if someone else is.
if really a christian and not a pretend one like frank, can you ask god how to get cold fusion working, cos as he isn't interested in stopping putin and ending the war, the least he could do is help with my electricity bills, be a love and ask, but don't be pushy, god kills people at the drop of a hat.
if disease was caused by the fall god is slipping cos we've fixed a ton of them. any idea what "sin" is, it seems to cover a lot of ground.
by the way until you can present god maybe just keep the idea to yourself?
We weren’t arguing against the Christian Worldview. We were against a specific set of arguments used by a Christian apologist.
infinity, the way you guys are using it is hyperbolic language, but mathematically, Ifinity+1 is still infinity, at least be honest in your analysis... Why are atheist so dishonest, but i dare say, what is honesty in Atheism.
thats was what was said in the video at 5:36 so no dishonesty here .
lol.
Not worth waisting any time on religion and god.
unfortnatley these ideas are quite popular and influential
This is so sad. You can add a number to infinity? What wait Then that would mean it would have not been infinity in the first place but just a big number. This is atheism lol
no this is standard mathematics , nothing to do with atheism. math.ucr.edu/~res/math144-2022/week09/lecture17.pdf
@@PhilHalper1 it’s not standard math. Words have meanings and you cant redefine a word or else what’s the point of words. Like a man is a man but you know a man can actually be a women they just have to say it. Sheesh. Again it’s not infinite if you can add to it. It would be just a really big number you’re adding to. It’s just that simple!
@@rafaelsantiago9624 have you ever studied advanced level mathematics ?
@@PhilHalper1 I don’t know why you can’t understand if you can add to a number then it’s not infinity. Infinity it self is not a finite number because it can never be. It’s INFINITY. It’s a concept that can’t be demonstrated because it goes beyond the rules and laws of what we experience. Infinity has never been demonstrated because we know of nothing with in this universe to demonstrate it. Even this symbol ♾️ Is just a concept not a reality of what infinity is. So when you have math equations that claim to have infinity as part of the equation it’s just semantics because infinity can never be actualised or given a boundary in a math equation.
@@rafaelsantiago9624 you dint answer my question
Infinity only has one meaning its Infinity never ending unless they've changed the meaning of Infinity like they did to the word men and women.
It takes way more faith to believe in the multiverse that is more supernatural than Jesus who is the God of the universe could rise himself from the dead. Also, if the universe is eternal, you will still have to answer the question how did the universe created intelligent being out of chance and chaos.
What the... the concept of infinity having more than one usage has been around for centuries now. Aristotle used it, eastern philosophers used it, mathematicians used it, none of them in the same, "one true sense" of infinity.
@@ellyam991 you have to argue the point in context we all know what frank was talking about infinity as in endless or no beginning.
Their argument about the word infinity is kinda useless and confusing.
You said that infinity "only has one meaning" and it's "never ending". Well, let's see if that checks out. There are some things that have endings, but are also infinite. One example is the negative whole numbers -- there's a last negative whole number (namely, -1), but there's no first negative whole number. So, that cannot be the right definition of the word 'infinity'.
How do mathematicians define 'infinity'? According to mathematicians, a collection is infinite just in case there is a one-to-one correspondence with the members of the collection and a proper subset of the collection. It also turns out that a Christian -- Georg Cantor -- came up with that definition.
You are right that even if the universe has an infinite past, there may be other reasons -- like the existence of intelligent beings -- for believing that God exists. This video is not about that topic. Some Christians may even agree with us that there's no good argument for the view that the past is finite. For example, Thomas Aquinas was a Christian who thought there were no good arguments for the view that the past is finite. Showing that one argument for God's existence doesn't work is not an argument for atheism and shouldn't be confused for one.
@@daniellinford9643 you may be right there may be a difference in the meaning of Infinity but they are pretty similar. What these guys were debunking frank on was his use of the word infinity out of context. He use it as the meaning we all use the word infinity.
It's like saying one guy said "that celebrity was so cool in that movie." Then someone else comes up and say I debunk him because scientifically speaking he isn't cool he is in fact warm.
I'm 99% sure frank wasn't talking about mathematics infinity.
@@user-dy8wt9hf6w When you say “these guys”, you’re referring to me. I’m one of these guys.
Past years could be like the negative whole numbers. That is, there could be an infinity of past years without a beginning. That’s the issue Turek is discussing. We are discussing the same issue. And my previous message to you was also on that same issue.
turek never has a straight answer
he never has a right answer
15:18 Vastly-lower-than necessary entropy objection presupposes the _primary_ purpose of the low entropy at the beginning of the universe was for the creation of sentient beings.
From where are you deriving the assumption that God created the entropy at the beginning just for us?
I don’t know of a single Christian apologist or cosmologist or astrophysicist (and I know and have widely read & interviewed several) who advocate that the low entropy was designed explicitly and exclusively for sentient life. To my knowledge _no_ thoughtful Christian familiar with the FTA has ever claimed that.
The fine-tuning argument is for marketed as the universe being fine-tuned for life. Turek himself says " The argument argues that individual constants and quantities in nature cannot be much smaller or larger than they are, because it would remove the ability of the universe to support life of any kind." crossexamined.org/what-is-the-fine-tuning-argument-for-gods-existence-and-does-the-multiverse-counter-it/But when it comes to the entropy that isn't true , entropy could be enormously higher and life would still be fine.
@@PhilHalper1 Link doesn’t work. Where in this quote is he talking about entropy being specifically and exclusively related to sentient life?
I am well aware of it being lower at the beginning than is necessary for life, but again, the way Dan was objecting to it assumes Christians argue that the excessive low entropy was specifically and exclusively related to biological life.
From where are you or Dan getting this assumption?
@@Psalm1968 Ok try this one where Turek explicitly talks about the universe being fine-tuned fr life and gives the entrpy as an example crossexamined.org/fine-tuning-initial-conditions-support-life/
@@PhilHalper1 Nowhere in that section does Turek _exclusively_ equate low entropy at the beginning as being _solely_ related to sentient life. If I am mistaken, please show me where. In fact he seems to suggest one of God’s purposes for the low entropy could’ve been to avoid a universe full of black holes.
@@Psalm1968 Just read the article, its called context.
Unfortunately, nothing you say here will ever expose Turek for the fraud he is. He sells his incredulity to the incredulous and has been doing so for decades.
I think we do point out mistakes he makes that havent been pointed out before
Don't get me wrong, I applaud you for doing so, but I just feel as if Frank knows that your objections, though technically correct, won't sway his intended audience, who are drawn to his confidence and emotional claims. Thanks for the reply 👍
@@jimbob8992 yeah you are right
How would there be time in a universe with no beginning or ending? We know it will end, we absolutely know that. Through expansion and cooling. wtf point is this trying to make, this sounds more “magical” than God.
sorry we dont know it will end and why cant there by time with an eternal universe? I dont see the problem
@@PhilHalper1 if it’s expanding and cooling, which it is, then it’s got an end. You can count back to Infiniti in your beliefs, but you can’t count forward to it.
@@benliftin4awhile well depends on what you mean by end, penrose cyclic universe seems to imply that there is a point that you could call the end, but as the "next aeon" starts exactly at that point it's kinda eternal as well. what i like about penrose CCC is it does away with lots of the problems "one at a time" universes have.
besides, either there was matter lying around waiting to become a universe, or there was nothing one moment and a novel universe the next - and unless you can point out a third way both religion AND science have that problem. did god magic the universe from nothing, or did he have a universe in stock waiting to be created? or what?
@@HarryNicNicholas ya we just don’t know enough, but there is an answer in the holy bible at least for me, one that I’m satisfied with when compared to the science, Dr. Hugh Ross breaks genesis down pretty well in that aspect.
@@HarryNicNicholas hey I actually enjoy talking to you man, intelligent and you seem like you have integrity, you actually looked at what I’m about, just wanted to show some respect.
You quoted Einstein and he believes in God, not a personal one, but one nonetheless.
irrelevant
@@PhilHalper1 smh low integrity man.
so what? why is it so important to aquire members to your team? even einstein can be wrong - and he was.
@@HarryNicNicholas well than why would they quote him, you can’t say he’s wrong when I bring him up, but he’s not when the other side does. lol
Spinoza's god if you want to do justice to Einstein. And there is a question about how Spinoza's pantheism differs from naturalistic metaphysics. There is a case to be made that the difference is only linguistic.
Moreover, how is that relevant? Did they misquote Einstein regarding cosmology or something?
The last laugh is on you guys, not Dr. Turek. You can propose anything you want, and believe what you will. But ultimately, if your non-theistic worldview is right, then whatever you believe is "true" is meaningless because the minds you're using to arrive at that conclusion would just be tissue, nerves carrying electrical signals, and blood--much like your kidneys, heart, and spleen. Only somehow, this particular array of body parts inside your skull produce things like thoughts, dreams, emotions, memories, intuition, and the ability to mock people like Turek and feel superior.
What significance, what meaning, what purpose, what weight does that carry? None. Your brains are just the product of random mutations, biological processes, and chemistry. Why should their end product--namely, your thoughts and rationales--mean anything, or prove anything? Ultimately, your very existence carries no purpose or destiny or reason. It just IS.
You may as well assign significance to a mud splatter on a wall. Does it "mean" anything? No. It's without purpose, meaning, or destiny. It fits with nothing. It just IS. If you're happy with that, then have at it.
You're conflating reductive materialism with non-theism. One can be a non-theist and still accept that human minds have non-material properties or even be entirely non-material.
Sadly my emotions towards reality don't dictate how reality behaves. Even if somehow by god not existing everything you said is correct - which I don't think it is - then it would just be like that. Me feeling sad about the lack of purpose shouldn't justify me switching my beliefs about what is correct
Somehow I wake up everyday with purpose….ask my employer! If you cannot arrive at a sense of purpose or significance without your faith…that’s fine….however that does not mean others cannot find fulfillment and purpose in life that don’t hold to your preferred beliefs.
@@CosmoPhiloPharmaco But you can't explain them. You can't account for how a material brain can produce non-material realities like a memory or an emotion. There's no natural explanation.
@@L5player Maybe it is a brute fact; it is just the way it is. Or perhaps they exist by metaphysical necessity. Notice that, while theism can explain why human minds exist, theists will face the same 'problem' when it comes to God's mind; what explains the divine mind's existence? You'll either have to appeal to brute fact or necessity, both of which are available to the non-materialist non-theist.
Atheist content now? Well, I guess if you aren't going to mindlessly bash feminists a couple if years down the line... 😄
I've had atheist content on this channel since it started. And this video will look at false claims made about the Big Bang
@@PhilHalper1 I'm looking forward to it! I'm also glad that there doesn't seem to be some law of CZcams nature that turns reasonable atheists into right-wing nutjobs :D
@@unvergebeneid that's not going to happen
@@PhilHalper1 🫶
Since you bring up feminism, I’ve recently been watching a very bright and funny young woman who goes by The Authentic Observer. She brings a very balanced perspective IMO and skewers both the left and the right. She makes a very good case that there is a lot of thinly veiled misogyny on the far left to go along with the blatant misogyny on the right.
Yall won't debate him
Facts. When you have nothing, you try to discredit the person talking. Thats all I’m seeing so far, I’m 15 minutes in and all I’ve heard is semantics.
The universe had a start, pretty much everyone agrees where I’ve researched, must have missed these guys.
@@benliftin4awhile no they dont , just watch this : czcams.com/video/U7kvjTRW-tw/video.html
anyone of us is up for it. Ask him and see what he says crossexamined.org/contact/
@@benliftin4awhile you should stick to yu-go-oh mister look at my pecks, here's a task for you, time stamp a video where frank talks about the teachings of jesus for more than one minute.
frank is a book salesman, he has no interest in jesus, he is a liar and he is lying to his own people.
plenty of people have. what's your point in that?
Dude Frank Turk can run circles around these nimrods
No, he can not. Turek is one of the dumbest apologists out there. He is an atheist creating machine on his own.
id like to see him try , Ill bet he doesnt , why dont you ask him to debate any one of us and see what he says ?
probably, he is a master of talking so fast you can't keep up. i say frank is dishonest, all he is interested in is selling his books and making atheists look bad cos his audience laps it up, so to prove my point, that frank doesn't care about jesus and only cares about selling books, i'm issuing a challenge, time stamp a video where frank talks about the teachings of jesus for more than one minute.
it's probably a good idea you don't allow comments on your own videos, and no surprise your account was deleted. religists are weird people.
at least you got frank's name right.
Atheist go against science and logic.
um big silver bird in sky shiny mmm.
@@HarryNicNicholas
Nothing created something.
Stop going against logic and science and come to Jesus
@@HarryNicNicholas I bet you believe a man can become pregnant
@@NikosNikos-dr7wv atheism doesnt say nothing created something, thats a straw man.
@PhilHalper1
Atheist believe that nothing created something.
That's what you believe