How Atheism Is the WEAKEST Worldview
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 07. 2023
- Atheism is the weakest worldview. Calvin Smith breaks down why atheists can’t be angry that God exists... they can’t be certain of anything at all.
Subscribe to us for more high-quality biblical content every week.
_____________
DIGGING DEEPER
🔹 answersingenesis.org/answers
_____________
BLOG
🔹 See Calvin’s blog posts here: answersingenesis.org/blogs/ca...
_____________
FREE e-BOOK
Sign up for our email newsletter and get a free copy of Calvin’s eBook, “Fellow Biblical Creationists! - STOP Doing These 3 Things…”
🔹 answersingenesis.lpages.co/fe...
_____________
DONATIONS
🔹 answersingenesis.ca/donate
_____________
ANSWERS TV
Need answers? Get equipped to defend the gospel of Jesus Christ and the truth of God’s Word with live and on-demand video content from Answers in Genesis, the Ark Encounter, Creation Museum, and other Ministries worldwide.
🔹 Start your free trial today at www.answers.tv
I have always loved the "you can't know anything for certain, therefore God" argument. It's arguably one of the biggest _non-sequitur_ arguments ever presented by apologists.
I also love this same fictitious "college professor" story that so many apologists tell. This is probably the fourth or fifth time I have seen an apologist tell pretty much the same story (and it's always the same god-of-the-gaps argument of "you can't know everything, so God could fit in one of those gaps of knowledge"). Do you know what's the funniest thing about it? The fact that every single time I have heard a preacher or apologist tell the story, it always supposedly happened to him personally. It's never a story that happened to someone else, and the preacher is just recounting it. No, it always supposedly happened to the preacher himself.
Curiously they never name the supposed "professor", nor the university, or even the city, nor even when it happened. It's always "a professor" from "a university". Always unnamed. And always happened to the preacher himself. Funny that.
I've always loved the "I don't want to be accountable to God so the universe must have popped into existence out of nothing by itself" argument. It's arguably one of the biggest non-sequitur arguments ever presented by atheist apologists.
@@morefiction3264
Show me even one single atheist that has ever made that argument.
@@WarpRulez Would be funny, though, if there is this one professor out there who pretends to lose to these bad arguments. If a preacher is at his university, he confronts him, but always makes sure no cameras are around. Then he "loses" to the worst arguments possible and walks away defeated. And in the end no one believes the preachers, because the story sounds completely insane.
@@WarpRulez The atheist always argues the universe popped into existence out of nothing by itself and the only reason to believe that is you don't want to believe in God.
They used to say the universe itself is eternal but entropy and the expanding universe argues against that.
@@morefiction3264 Says the dude who believes in "magic", a magical person pops things into existence 😂😂😂
I'll take things that never happened for $100, Alex.
Ooh, I’m sorry. That joke has expired.
In fact, it's such a weak worldview that it's not even a worldview!
3 Billion Atheist worldwide , the other 5 billion people believe in the 4000 man made Gods over a 5000 year period And they are Atheist as well as they reject the other 3999 man made Gods to believe their only one God , so the only difference between 3 billion Atheist and 5 billion religious believers is 1 God , Which one ! Will the real God Please stand up & prove yourself .....! Its never going to happen but good luck waiting .
Calvin, challenge that college professor to a debate. He shouldn't be so hard to find. Make sure to tape it, I'm curious to see how it will go. I predict it will go very, very poorly for you if you don't get to frame what he said. That or he's made up.
99% he is made up like all the random atheists creationists meet in the wild
@@ravenvalentine4919 I would agree with it if it didn't once happen to me and Muslims with a debate on evolution. I'm quite sure the relevant Dawah Muslims are still preaching it. Strawman ridicule is a large portion of offensive apologetics.
Why don't you show a video of you vanquishing that professor? Would be fun to watch!
man christians are just so respectful. I heard so many stories of atheist professors being shown their place, but not once any video where we can see the whole thing play out in full. But showing other people losing on video would probably just be too disrespectful
No, not necessarily no. The propagandists at AiG are far from respectful. I find most creationists/christians not to be any more respectful than any other person, but way waay more self-righteous, arrogant and often wilfully ignorant.
@@razark9 obvious sarcasm was obvious
@@razark9 British by any chance? 😂
@@endersdragon34 You're right. Lol. I guess I just skimmed the comment earlier.
You think youre clever dont you, completely ignoring the fact that not everything is or has to be recorded on tape for it to be true, by that logic nothing in history happened before the camera came to be. And since youre clearly indirectly accussing him of lying, youd be well informed to know that true Christians dont lie on purpose, because we see lying as despicable behavior, unlike you atheists who just see it as an everyday occurence and think its completely okay to lie straight to someones face like it doesnt mean anything, just because you people have no dignity, doesnt mean us Christians play by the same crooked standards as you do.
The retreat into solipsism is among the weakest of arguments, and has in real life been discussed extensively by philosophers and theologians alike. If you had read them, you wouldn't have made up all of these strange lies about the subject.
How do you know that the retreat into solipsism is among the weakest of arguments?
It’s still beats this garbage. Calvin thinks that because he is a Christian his opponent will just also accept the Christian worldview.
Okay well Calvin I am a solipsist so that means you are not even real, you are nothing more than an intrusive thought in my mind
If you use his standards this would defeat his argument, sure it sucks but that doesn’t matter Calvin’s argument is still worse.
@@n0etic_f0x Demonstrate you KNOW my argument is worse, because if you have no logical basis to be able to do so, why would anyone listen to your drivel? : )
@@calvinsmith7575 I already told you if I am a solipsist I know absolutely that you are wrong. In fact I know absolutely that you are not even human, you are nothing more than a random thought in my mind and I know absolutely that you are wrong.
Now I admit this is a horrible argument but it is just removing unnecessary parts from Calvin’s argument thus making it stronger. It sucks but at least it is superior to what is presented here.
@@calvinsmith7575 As for why anyone would listen to this drivel I am not sure but they sure are. The non religious are the fastest growing stance on religion.
Christianity is plummeting as far as per capita goes every day the percentage of people who are Christian goes down, the percentage of people who are religious at all goes down, I don’t care if you listen because a lot of people are and they are finding it convincing.
Hey, Satan here, I decided to fess up and let you know _I'm_ the one who's been putting all of these feelings of certain knowledge in your head. The right answer was actually in the Bhagavad Gita. Sorry about that. It was funny for awhile, but it's getting a bit cringe.
ofc he would say that
Does it bother you that the god of the bible has a higher kill count than you, Satan?
Man, there's more "Atheist Professors" per square kilometer in Creationist's neighborhoods than there are in the rest of the world... So many anecdotes, never a name... Not even a recording of any of these billion occurrences, in 2023! The age of Iphones and permanent connectivity! That's crazy!
It's almost as if he made up a lie to cling desperately to his dwindling flock!
It is almost as if atheists take too much pride in their worldviews and happily try to debate any apologist to make themselves feel superior. Oh wait... that is true! Things like this have, honest to God, happened to me; and yes, it was at a person of higher education at a University. People who work in education tend to have an inflated view of themselves, and often seek to belittle others who don't conform to their values!
@@snowcat9308 I certainly hope you’re not implying that they’re lying for Jesus. Isn’t that some sort of sin?
@@himwhoisnottobenamed5427 Surely not! Christians know they shouldn't sin!
Well, we are somewhat lucky anyway: when they name someone, it's a quote mine or a misrepresentation. Made up stories makes my eyes roll, but qoutemines and misrepresentations just make my blood boil of disappointment.
"They always discuss philosophy rather than scientific facts!
So let me tell you a story about a guy who wanted to discuss scientific facts which I derailed to philosophy!"
It's not the theists fault that atheists are incapable of thinking deeply
How do you know what is scientific fact if you dont even know what is real.
i can have very reasonable confidence in what is real using science. You can make any kind of nonsense seem plausible with philosophy. @@Jlezy
@@mathiasrryba How do you know its nonsense if you cant even prove whats real.
Ya, I 'derailed' a professor of philosophy into a discussion about philosophy! : ) And he then revealed he couldn't know anything about science (or any other subject) for certain anyway, so why would I listen to his arguments? : )
Any Christian viewers please do answer me this:
When you hear the 15th apologist claim they went to an unnamed collage and debated an unnamed atheist professor of evolution and/or philosophy, do you start suspecting that maybe the guy telling you this didn't actually do what he is claiming or do you just assume there is a lot of atheist professors of evolution and philosophy getting constantly humiliated by christian apologist at collages and universities?
I assume there's a lot of athiest professors being debunked constantly. A quick CZcams search will support this.
Classic example, Dawkins vs Lennox.
@@andrewlynch1754 Lennox didn't disprove anything. He just gave a bunch of statements and comparisons that don't stand up to scrutiny.
He states that there's evidence of God, but he doesn't give any examples.
He tries comparing the faith in the existence of God, to having faith in one's wife to committed in their marriage.
He states that everything that exists must have had an intelligent creator due to how complex they are, using people making a computer factory as a comparison, forgetting that unlike gravity or life, computer factories can actually be observably proven to be made by people.
He states that God wasn't made by anyone and is eternal, forgetting that he's interpreting the complexity of existence as proof of it having a creator.
When faced with the atrocities committed by people in the names of their religions, he attempts to distance himself from the Christians that do so, claiming them to not be Christians due to going against God's teachings, despite how the Bible is full of examples of God and his disciples committing similar acts.
He also attempts to pull a Whataboutism by framing violent communist leaders and Hitler as being atheists, despite them having done what they've done to spread and maintain their influence over the lands they controlled, not to somehow stop everyone from believing in any God. To put salt on the wound, some of said leaders, like Stalin and Hitler, have used religion to further win over their own people.
Lennox refutes 6 day creation.
@@andrewlynch1754
So I assume you might have misunderstood.
My question wasn’t “do you think there are atheists professor’s being wrong and corrected on issues sometimes.” it was “when you see the 15th creation apologist claim he debated an unnamed professor at an unnamed university, do you just believe it or does it make you skeptical?”
I’m not really interested in whether you have seen Christians be able to argue that people can’t know for sure god might exists with an atheist as much as whether you believe the creationist apologists like the guy here, who won’t name the person or place where he supposedly debunked evolution against an atheist professor, are telling the truth or if you suspect they are making stuff up for the video.
Christian here. I don’t care. It’s the principles being engaged. The actual topics. If some dorky apologist wants to grandstand about victories that may or may not have been real, that’s on them. He said she said. Boring. Just show me the ideas - the principles. The logic, philosophy, etc. I mean, I’ll put it to you - would you rather discuss the nature of the singularity or “nuh uh, Ryan said this, and then Kelly was like no way, and I was like whaaaaa”??? Lol
This guy's arguments would barely pass an Intro to Philosophy class. (Pssst... contrary to the title, atheism ain't even a worldview.) The skeptical attack on certainty as being necessary for knowledge claims is basically the beginnings of modern philosophy with Descartes. And a lot has been said in reply (linguistic arguments & analysis, analytic synthetic distinction, language & coherence theories, and so on), with a lot more intellectual rigor and care, than can be rejected by this guy's causal one sentence defeaters. Hell, his "but how do you know that for certain - any course you take now commits suicide" approach was straight up illogical as a rebuttal against a "knowledge only requires a high degree of certainty" position. And he isn't even taking on atheism per se - and doesn't know enough to even realize that.
Oh, and I don't believe for one second this guy's story about his "win" against some PhD prides-on-besting-theists philosopher. Apologists are notorious for offering up such epic-win stories, because it's all okay when you're "lying for Jesus."
Anyway, if you're a Christian who only cares about getting big rhetorical wins by tripping up the unprepared, then this kind of junk is gold for you. But if you care about the truth, about thinking these things through thoroughly and carefully, you should look elsewhere.
Exactly! Well said mate
@@Rich7714
Thanks
atheism offers nothing of value
@@HS-zk5nn Correction; Atheism is the only thing of value, if we assume that truth=value. Unlike theists who believe in fairy tales.
@@Rich7714 "assuming" still offers nothing of value. thank you for admitting you dont have certainty
Its always suprising how people who believe in "no false witness" constantly lie to prop up their religion.
Exactly! Bang on mate!
What's surprising to me is the number of atheists who accuse Christians of being liars, as their rebuttal, without any attempt at justification for said accusation... which is just an ad hominem fallacy.
@@lightbeforethetunnelare you absolutely sure of that? 😂
@@wax99 Yes I am absolutely certain of it. If you want evidence, just look at the OP. Then continue your research by evaluating any atheist comment section. It's extremely common.
@@wax99 The Christian worldview entails that justified knowledge is possible, by the way. It's the only worldview which does.
So, asking "are you absolutely certain of that" does not work against the Christian worldview. It only works against non-Christians because they can't ultimately justify that they actually know anything is true, since any non-Christian worldview doesn't have justification for the pre-conditions for knowledge.
Of all the things that never happened, this is the most never happened at all.
And the funny thing is, so many apologetic channels used this very same story.
If it is true, why do you not name the University so we can fact check?
At least stop lying, if you cannot stop your church from perpetrating child abuse.
It's astounding the amount of apologists that have imaginary conversations with atheists. It's starting to become somewhat pathetic, but I try to enjoy them nonetheless.
Imagine thinking that you stumped a philosophy professor by asking Philosophy 101 questions...I recommend you construct these imaginary conversations against a student that havent had a chanse to ponder on these questions, Ray Comfort style.
These questions might be confusing or daunting for Christians, but the rest of the world has been pondering those questions for millennia. Dont know how you could possibly not know this.
i for certain love how atheist claim that something is not true or someone is lying when they don't like something, then come into youtube comment section complaining about what was said in the video, giving no counter arguments on the conversation they think did not happen because no atheist would be defeated so easily. So if that did not happen because the arguments were so bad, why do you not demolish his arguments since atheist are so good at arguing?
yours truly,
ex-atheist
@hosannayeshua4446 lol, don't worry, it's a popular trope to think that if atheists don't like something then it must be a lie. It's a practical way for theists to try and make sense through their religious lens. I don't blame you but I wish you were smarter. You apparently haven't been researching this for too long if you truly believe what you wrote while there's a friking myriad of videos, just on CZcams, on how to "demolish" this point.
I swear, there are more gullible people being born every day. By the way, I'd like to introduce you to a Nigerian prince I know.
@@hosannayeshua4446mate YOU assert there is a god so YOU have to prove it....that's how rationaltity and reason work. Are you that stupid or j ust indoctrinated and cannot challenge your poorly-founded opinions (again). I pity you finding faith, it is for the intellectually and morally weak.
Congratulations on winning your imaginary argument with your imaginary opponent at an imaginary event in an imaginary location. 😂
Congrats for allowing yourself to get sucked into the myth of evolution. Scientists all ovee the world are leaving darwinism but you still hang on to it.
Love your determination, love your faith especially when everything points to a young Earth. 😂😂
Scientists all over the world? 😂🤣
so you are telling me all the progress we modern medicine based on evolution does not exist because its a myth ? well funny enough my self and my wife who is an Actual biologist would like to hear about the myth of this thing that we use every day in our fields and industry @@technicianbis5250
also which scientists all over the world confirm that its young ? because i am one of them and i don't agree with you and neither does anyone in the fields related to mine@@technicianbis5250
put the drinks down please you sound like the flat earth people
@@technicianbis5250 🤣🤣🤣
Atheism is a worldview the same way not believing in the tooth fairy is a worldview
Wrong. You're not out there ridiculing the tooth fairy. Yet you're always trolling on vids and articles on God, via saying he doesn't exist (or probably doesn't exist). That is a worldview. Atheism isn't merely a lack of belief. It's a card-carrying club membership, otherwise a rock is an atheist and so is a pigeon. But they're not getting offended and commenting at the table. Atheism, generally, is a worldview. There's no getting away from it.
noun
a comprehensive conception or philosophy of the universe and of humanity's relation to it
by definition it is.
you tried.
When you don’t understand something . . Just say god!
When you do understand, say God.
When you don't, say no God.
Evolution (man evolving from apes) is pure fantasy. Give me just one observable evidence for evolution that doesn’t require faith?
Every living thing produces after their kind, humans produce humans and dogs produce dogs, etc.
There's different variations within a kind (which is biblical) but living things remain within their own.
The theory of evolution and big bang is anti-science because it's not observable or testable.
There's so much problems with those theory's.
Like, where did all the complex elements that supposedly made us come from?
Evolutionary scholars believe that the creation of life involved waters but here's the big problem with that. Sunlight and water destroys DNA, the very thing that destroys DNA somehow assembled it?
So how did the DNA code originate?
Just so many problems your theory can't answer because it's nothing more than political propaganda and yet we wonder why our society is the way it is.
Who determines what good and evil is?
👉Society does not determine morality.👈
I'm only saying these things because your life matter to God, he created you with purpose. He has been misrepresented by people who don't know him, Christianity is not church attendance and religion is dead but having a personal relationship with God is everything.
Nope. That is the god of the gaps. The true one is the one who make possible to do science.
Yep. Greek was the most popular religion when we didn’t know anything. Ancient aqua man made waves go, big guy who throws lightning bolts down from above causes death. Then we learned stuff about it and started to throw out the god stuff.
lol
I always love stories about these absolute real encounters with these angry and arrogant atheists, that always seem to happen at these nonspecific and unverifiable events... And always ends with the atheist humbled, speechless, agreeing or running with their tail between their legs. Trust me bro...
Like this philosophy teacher that for some reason forgot the only philosophical statement we can be certain of: "I think therefor I am".
And ofcourse this atheist misses the complete flaw in this argument that the answer to "can God give us tools to know things absolutely" is a resounding "NO". Because as long as Christians themselves are not all-knowing, any information God gives them, they can't be sure of.
They literally would not have the ability to to tell apart absolute knowledge given by God or thoughts produced by fever dreams... So, no, unless they themselves are made all-knowing, any knowledge provided by God would be just as unreliable and anything else.
So the insight or knowledge of anyone that assumes the existence of a God is just as unsure as somebody that doesn't have this notion.
But just because nothing is certain, it doesn't mean the things we think we do know are meaningless. Is there a possibility that future discoveries will change our current knowledge? sure... But until then, what we know now, are the best conclusion we have based on the information we have. And as long as we haven't got any reason to doubt our knowledge yet, it is impractical to do so.
So, could we be living in a Matrix like situation, or be just a brain in a jar? Yes, but as long as we have no evidence that this is the case, we have no reason to think this.
For me it is the same with God. Could a God exist? Yes sure. But as long as I have seen no evidence to support this, why should I consider this possibility?
Nobody yet has delivered their god. They remain hidden so that they can always be sinister and threatening. Religion relies on torment and the ever present yet invisible sky frightener. Of course this works best on the very young and fearful. Religion suits cowards and bullies. "christianity" can never prove its god because it made an amoral one, and then stupidly deduced ethics and morals from it. A fatal contradiction.
TLDR... the problem most people have is not that the evidence for God isn't there, its the lens with which each person views the evidence. Your lens is broken.
@@jonathanb9889 So basically: "i'm not going to listen to you, but you are wrong"...
How do you know it is my lens that is broken and not yours?
I like how you quoted Descartes. One of my majors in college was philosophy.
I noticed a pattern when studying the philosophers. One would refute the previous philosopher. Then the next would refute him, etc.
Then we studied Descartes. He cast everything into doubt in order to come to an absolute truth. As you said, he understood that since he has the ability to doubt, he knows he exists.
The original quote from Descartes is, "I doubt, therefore I am." But most today know it as "I think, therefore I am."
Either way is a true statement. I was so excited to study Descartes because finally a philosopher came to an objective truth. Descartes is definitely my favorite philosopher.
His strategy to cast everything into doubt is a great way to keep bias out of discussions and has the best chance at leading one to the truth.
I used to mock Christianity, but philosophical thought led to discover Christ truly is our Lord and Savior.
If you would be willing, I'd love to discuss whatever topic you would like so we can discover truth together.
What evidence is lacking for you?
Would you like to discuss the logical proof that there has to be an entity that exists that has the same qualities as God?
Would you like to discuss science?
Would you like to discuss the Bible?
What is of interest to you?
@@jonathanb9889there is no evidence. He sucks ass at intelligent design.
Here is a random thought: now that we have Chat GPT, imagine how many fake atheists stories AIG can come up with. Their imaginary lives must be infinite permutations of "God is not dead XXXCVIII" where evil atheist PhD are destroyed by the unassailable logic of creationist.
Here is another thought: since we all carry an actual movie studio with us, how come these exchanges are never on video?
being 100 percent certain of anything is a sure sign of Dunning Kruger
Are you sure?😅 Had to ask.
I have been told that people attributing the Dunning Kruger affect to others are 100% experiencing it.
@@JP_21M
I'm gonna guess you're 100% sure that
@@The_lover_of_truth
Only to a high probability but not 100 percent unlike you Which is why it's only a sign And should be approached with caution
@@The_lover_of_truth
I looked it up for you you're welcome
certain
1 of 2
adjective
cer·tain ˈsər-tᵊn
Synonyms of certain
1
: FIXED, SETTLED
2
: of a specific but unspecified character, quantity, or degree
These comments are gold. I love Logicked...
So if a being gives you knowledge, how would you be able to determine if that being is not deceiving you? The only way you would be sure for certain is if yourself was a god. So your argument still gets you to a point of uncertainity.
How could a person know for sure that they clearly know everything. Not even a God would be able to know everything it could know substantial amount more than anyone else, but they have no way of being able to confirm they truly know everything.
The argument is that without the God of the Bible you couldn't know anything for certain, not that if some deceptive being gave you false knowledge you couldn't know anything for certain. So, based on that, how do you know what you wrote to me for certain? .
The thing about circular reasoning and not knowing anything for sure if you're an atheist but having the ability to know of your a Christian. That's has to be some of the greatest logic I've ever heard lol. 😂
Perhaps you didn't understand it? In the battle of worldviews - atheism has no foundation for truth, you're just a "moist robot" as Frank Turek would put it and have no control over your faculties since they are just biological processes. You are unable to find the truth because there is no truth but only laws of physics and biology. On the other hand if God exists ( and He does) then truth itself objectively exists and can be known.
But since God does exist you are standing on the foundation of creation where truth does objectively exist and therefore knowledge can also exist and be gained. Pure naturalistic worldview is limp and truth can never be known.
"You believe you could be proven wrong by information you don't know, but I believe I know of all the information in the world, and that it could not prove me wrong, so I must be right. Checkmate."
@@Maartimer way to butcher logic. Must not know much. It's the fact that by taking the evolutionist position you have to admit you know nothing. That's their claim. You can't know anything for certain because you can't confirm by your own senses. You need something beyond this world to confirm what you know about this world. If God does not exist there's no way to be certain of anything at all. He never said he knows everything. He said God does. So if God does exist there is a way for me to be certain of what is true or not because God DOES know everything. Without God though I can never be certain I know anything at all.
Evolution by natural selection is not a story but a very well-established scientific (!) theory (that is, an established explanation of the diversity of life on Earth based on a foundation of facts that are constantly repeated and confirmed by way of scientific methodology). By way of comparison, the theory of evolution by natural selection represents much more secure information about the facts it is claiming to explain than anything creationism is pretending to.
Nice story...
@@calvinsmith7575 A story with proof. Unlike the Abrahamic fictional book stories
That's categorically false on so many levels. I'm only calling you because others might be misled by you.
cool story bruh
@@fridge3489 And that's just a claim without any merits. Back it up or back off.
Yeah *IF* Your imaginary sky daddy is real... I Highly doubt it.
I know this is a bit off topic, but my first question is what the hell is going on with that shirt and tie?
His fashion sense is as bad as his arguments....
@@Jewonastick Under-rated comment😂🤣
I know this is a bit off topic, but isn't he too old have a Hîtlerjügenđ haircut?
Young earth creationists believe humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time 😂
Yet you can’t explain the human and dinosaur footprints in the same rock layer in Glenn Rose Texas?
@@ThethomasJefferson Glenn rose Texas is that where you studied young earth science with Kent hovind?
@@ThethomasJefferson those footprints are dated to about 110 million years, old modern humans haven't even been around half a million years, but let me guess you don't believe in that stuff.
@@IIrandhandleII but yet you agree that they exist both humans and dinosaurs at the same time now, but not that long ago you made a claim that they didn’t exist at the same time, now you are admitting they did exist.
@@ThethomasJefferson no humans and dinosaurs were never alive at the same time. That is absurd. Humans and dinosaur fossils exist at the same time.
The poor bankrupt enemy.
He is not creative at all.
He is not the Creator.
Glory to our merciful, loving and kind God.
His love never quits.
For god so loved the world that he drowned it.
And you people call that good?
@@Bomtombadi1OBVIOUSLY the world at that time was ‘unlovable’. Genesis 6:5 Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great upon the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was altogether evil all the time.
@@seektruth5074 so the claim that this love never quits isn’t true then. And according to you people, this era is apparently so bad that we’re hitting end times where all the people this god loves get sent to hell because it loves them!
@@Bomtombadi1 What you fail to understand is the REASON people are separated from God. THEY reject HIM. Isn’t that where you’re at btw?
Do you expect God to go against His own Character? (apply megaphone here at point blank range) - *HE CANNOT BE IN THE PRESENCE OF SIN.*
Therefore, there needed to be a REMEDY, a SOLUTION, a WAY:
The Cross of Christ according to Scripture was ‘established’ at the foundation of the earth. That means the plan of God - the sacrifice of Jesus was pre-ordained. Necessary. We prove that every day. Whatever the explanation is for what happened in the Garden of Eden, the outcome was obviously inevitable. People make accusations like “ if God is so perfect, and anything is possible by Him, why couldn’t He make us so we WOULDN’T need to be redeemed?
He created us in His Image. We were given free will, obviously He has no need for automatons.
There’s a lot to consider when you think about it us as CREATED beings. For example: If every person was attractive, there would be no such thing as ‘ugly’. If everyone was ‘ugly’ there would be no such thing as attractive. There would be neither. Think about how THAT would affect us as a species. If everyone was ___________, then ___________. Think about how many of these there are. Or don’t. whatever. I digress…
What I’m trying to say is that Creating humans… with free will, guarantees there will be problems - can you agree with THAT?
So God knew from the beginning infinitely more than we will ever know. He has said that He takes no pleasure in the suffering of people, and He wishes for ALL to come to Him, and receive not only the solution to OUR problem, but on top of that - ETERNAL LIFE.
The snide, venomous ridiculing comments that occupy so many of these YT videos tells you all you need to know.
@@Bomtombadi1 he didn't drown all of it...If God does something, then it is good by definition. If God flooded the world, then He had a good reason for it. You're puny. You have no idea what God has to deal with. You are in no position to 2nd guess what He does.
Atheism inspires nothing in people outside of scorn.
Atheism isn't a worldview, its simply a lack of belief in claims of existence of gods. It doesn't mean if you reject god claims that by default you must believe something else. Its really a very misunderstood position.
What you are describing is exactly a world view. Lack of belief is a belief. If you can describe it you can conceive it.
@@stevemeisternomic That's nonsense, lack of belief is a disbelief. So by your logic, my lack of belief in the tooth fairy is also a worldview?
@@stevemeisternomic
You should learn what these terms mean. Naturalism could be called a world view, but not atheism. World views are WORLD views, big picture understandings about reality, not specific beliefs, or lack of beliefs, like whether any God or gods exist.
@@mathboy8188 You are mistaken. Everyone has a world view at all times even if they don't define it or categorize it. For example I have always had DNA even before I learned what DNA was, it is the same with world views. Some people take the time to consider and scrutinize their world views and are able to categorize them. Just because others have not scrutinized their foundational presuppositions doesn't mean they don't have a world view. Put another way world views are the filter or lens by which each person makes decisions. Because everyone makes decisions everyone has a world view. IMO the reason Atheists attempt to say its not a world view is because their world view is so infantile they must avoid real scrutiny - respectfully.
@@JP_21M
Did you really just conflate the concept of every individual atheist having their own world view, with *_atheism_* itself being a world view?
I suppose since each adult living in Tuscon Arizona has a worldview, therefore Tuscon Arizona itself represents a specific worldview. Or if you want to restrict it to individual beliefs, even beliefs on outlandish positions, you could say that everyone who believes in alien "visitors" has a worldview, therefore there's A SINGLE alien visitor worldview. Likewise, there's a single worldview among all who don't believe in such visitations. I'm sorry, but no, that's not how it works.
Atheism is not a world view. Every competent adult human being, including every atheist, has - whether explicitly or implicitly, whether well-formed or not - some kind world view. Sure, I'll buy that. That is NOT the same thing as *_atheism_* itself being a worldview.
Worldviews include positions and framing/perspectives/understandings about what things are in the world, the fundamental nature of those things, about causes and the nature of change - typically with an emphasis on nature of individuals and societies. They often include moral understandings as well. So a single belief, or lack of belief, about any God or gods existing, does not represent a worldview.
A single position on a single religious question is not a worldview, as although it no doubt follows from an individual's worldview, that position isn't a worldview unto itself. Moreover, radically different worldviews could produce agreement on the same single religious position. Some sects of Buddhism are atheistic, but the karma and reincarnation and anti-realism/radical-nominalism metaphysics of their worldview is extremely different from an atheist whose worldview is Naturalism. Similarly, belief in God isn't a worldview: Pantheists, Deists, and Fundamentalist Christians all believe in God, but definitely don't share the same worldview.
Unlike Atheism, Naturalism (Materialism) IS arguably a worldview (the semantic issue being whether Naturalism's lack of a moral position disqualifies it or not as being a worldview) - and is presumably the worldview you have in mind when you refer to atheists, as that tends to be the dominant worldview among atheists in the West as far as I'm aware. If you add to Naturalism the moral position of valuing humanity, then you get Secular Humanism, which again seems to be the common worldview of most atheists in the West. Those are worldviews, meaning BIG PICTURE understandings about how reality is. Naturalism and Secular Humanism are worldviews... but Atheism is not. Clear?
As for your "humble" opinion, understand that the reason atheists don't call Atheism a worldview is because Atheism isn't a worldview. It ain't any more complicated than that.
And did you just call atheists "infantile" and unwilling to consider things with diligent scrutiny? I'm sorry, but coming from (I presume) a Christian, that's hypocrisy and absurdity on a scale that I can't let pass. The atheists I know are, intellectually, hard people, who look at the world honestly and seek & admit the truth even when it's unpleasant. Christians, by contrast, are so craven that they'll believe any nonsense if it fulfills their wishes and calms their fears - manifesting in believing that an obviously made-up All-Powerful Daddy who loves them will make sure everything is okay, even when they die. Transparently delusional belief in an All-Powerful Daddy - a Daddy who loves and promises to take of them no matter what - is the ultimate in *_infantilism._*
Finally, don't be a coward - don't say "respectfully" when you don't mean it.
This argument is a complete failure, because even if there is a God who could give you the ability know with absolute certainty, you cannot know with absolute certainty that he has actually done that. Your feeling of certainty on any issue could just be an arrogant assumption on your part.
to prop your flawed epistemology how big you must feel inside with your dishonesty
Of all the things that never happened....
Talk about conflating definitions. Absolute confidence is not required to have personal knowledge (justified belief) or certainty (high confidence) that some claim represents reality. Science operates exclusively without absolute knowledge, and has been the source of almost all major technologies we all use daily. A persons individual confidence in some thing has no bearing on whether that thing is an accurate enough reflection of reality. The ability to make novel predictions does. Your faith, or absolute knowledge, has made no testable or confirmed predictions, so there is no correlation between what you claim to “know” for absolutely certain, and what actually exists in reality.
This is what presupps like doing. They play word games and then victim
Your whole comment, is just one whole conflated truth claim, you state in context that things can be true or false, wrong or right. Tell, as an atheist, you hold to logic, numbers, morality, as true, as part of reality, correct? But, no one has ever provided any evidence for numbers or logic, you cant make any testable predictions to confirm numbers, morality, logic, or truth. You as an atheist, hold to the naturalism view, that only material, physical things, are true, and yet you hold to immaterial, non-physical things, such as numbers, logic, morality, and truth, as true, as part of reality. But, you cannot provide any physical evidence four these four concepts that you believe to be true. So you are being an inconsistent hypocrite, like all online atheists are being, when making claims that insinuates and infers there to be a standard to measure against. Can you give physical proof/evidence for numbers, morality, logic, and truth? No, you cant, and neither can you with your naturalism view, call anyone for either right or wrong.
Why are you even here? Because the title has atheism in it, you get offended, because you feel something untrue is said. Wait.. untrue? By that mentality, you think there to be something to be called true, but in your naturalism view, you have no concept for true or false, right or wrong, good or bad, because there simply isn't any basis or foundation for them, as they require a standard to measure against, a standard that is non-existent in the atheistic view, and you steal these concepts from a belief you are opposed to.
A real atheist, have no reason to care or be bothered, much less going out of their way to make a comment. That you and other atheists, go out of your way, seeking out videos, is telling that you have an inner struggle, so you seek out answers to calm the storm in your mind, and fill the void in your heart. Forget about all your claims of being "intellectual" and such, and throw away your "ideas" of God (that all atheists prove by admission they have a wrong concept and impression of). God created the universe, He knows you, and like all humans you are morally accountable for your actions, all that you have done has consequences. Jesus appears before you, shows His Word to be true, and He asks what you choose. What, is your decision going to be?
No, what you personally believe or think is irrelevant, question does not beg for what you think or how high of a nihilistic level you have, but merely asking a simple question. If after God appearing before you, would you still choose to live in sin and frivolity, over following God? Truth is, that denial of God, isn't an evidence issue, it is a heart issue.
Is 1+1=2? How do you know that? You have a game console, I steal it from you, why is that at all wrong, if I want it and cant be bothered to buy one? Because of laws? There's a myriad of laws written by men, but only God's Law is written on our hearts, and it is according to that Law, that you'd feel it's wrong of me to steal your game console, not some arbitrary law about property rights. Guess where concept of rights come from, why you even have free speech. Since you dislike Christianity so much, and Judeo-Christian values that the society you live in is built on, then why don't we just go the full length. You like weekend? Sorry, cant have that, resting days are for believers, you live in a disbelieving society son, nor are men free and equal so you cant say whatever you want.
@@TheClimbingBronyOldColtNumbers don't literally exist. We made them up to describe reality.
The word "tree" doesn't literally exist either. The object which the word "tree" refers to does.
"Truth" is a logical value.
"Morality" is a set of valued behaviors, morality exists insofar humans exist to describe it.
Logic itself is just like numbers made up to describe reality.
To say "you can't show logic exists" is like to say " you can't English language exists".
@@TheClimbingBronyOldColt Morality is based on persons own values on certain behaviors.
It's always subjective, I we disagree we can try to argue about it and convince each other, agree to disagree, compromise or if all else fails fight it out.
Human history in a nutshell.
@@mathiasrryba No, that is false and untrue, numbers exist non-physically. We didn't make numbers, we discovered numbers that already were there, check out the Mandelbrot set, and then try to claim that numbers don't exist at all. You trying to use 'tree' to construct a strawman, is just dishonest.
Truth is what you require, but yet are unable to point to, for truth like logic is immaterial, non-physical, and in your naturalism view nothing that is immaterial, non-physical, exist. When you use 'logic' and 'truth' you are stealing them from a view that you fundamentally are opposed to, in order to "argue" against foundation, basis, and reason, for logic and truth.
Untrue, morality is not a set of behaviors made by humans, what you say and "argue" for, is morality by majority, which nullifies morality. If a group sets a behavior, that in order to prosper, they must exterminate all other ethnicities, since that is the desired valued behavior for them, it is by them moral and right to do, since they are in majority and being more/most they are then by your "logic" the arbiters of what is moral. The moment you claim morality is subjective, or by humans, you lost morality, as morality to be morality, requires and depends on being objective.
"Logic itself is just like numbers made up to describe reality."
Ookay, then why do you hold to made up things as if true, reliable, and existing, then? Since you believe logic to be made up, then why are you even attempting to use logic, you said yourself that you believe it is made up, so stop believing in and using things you don't believe to exist, hypocrite.
Pathetic little strawman at the end there, I did not say what you falsely portrayed and construed me to "say", what I have stated is that logic cant be proven physically and neither can numbers, that the materialistic naturalism view is unable to give physical verifiable testable evidence for them, as they exist immaterially, non-physically.
We did not make or invent numbers or logic, we discovered what was already there, the universe uses and operates on logic and numbers (Mandelbrot set, fractals, numbers). To travel to the moon, we depend on numbers, objective true numbers that aren't invented, to measure distances and values of different factors. To do science, what is true and reliable must be used, if numbers used to do science, is made up, then they are unreliable and so to is science based on made up numbers and made up logic, you by stating such nonsense are by your own words and self admission against and opposed to science.
Wouldn't it be easier to just demonstrate an all-knowing, all-powerful, being who created everything... instead of constantly making up stories about people and events that never happened?
It may be the least popular of views, but it is the most rational and logical. I guess that makes the majority of the worlds population ignorant! Good luck my friend.
In a naturalistic world view why is reason valid, how is free will possible and how can you get ought from is?
I like how you use circular reasoning to strawman circular reasoning. You're good at this grifting thing. 👍🏼
can you provide an example?
@@raygrasso1612 Nope. I just want to run my mouth; so to speak.
@@klumpytheklown3798 That's the dumbest reply I've ever received. Thanks for playing.
@@raygrasso1612 You betcha. 👍🏼
"If you can't lead or follow, just try to get in the way.", is what I always say. Plus, it's something to do while I'm on the toilet.
All ultimate starting points are circular in nature as they cannot be based upon something prior. However, it is a matter of whether they are justifiably circular or not. Atheism, as demonstrated- is obviously not...
The old Big If argument "if god exists blah blah etc"
Leave it to the creationists to lie for Jesus like this. And to hundreds of gullible sheep to lap it up, because blind confirmation bias is easier than thinking for themselves...
You literally cannot be a creationist without being scientifically illiterate, a liar or both.
You're spiritually blind.
@@EPHESIANS_5..11__Lady So are you, because none of the nonsense you BELIEVE in can be seen.
@@razark9 NO. One day you will have to give an account of yourself to the Lord Jesus Christ--our Creator (Whom you deny). You'd better prepare for it. Eternity is TOO LONG TO BE WRONG. 🔥
@@EPHESIANS_5..11__Lady Cool story, bro. Imagine torturing someone forever for simply not believing in something there's zero evidence for. Speaking of zero evidence, what if the muslims are right? You'll burn forever!
@@razark9 NO. They're deceived--just like you. My faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is not blind and not based on feelings. The One True God--Yahweh--is the God of logic. Seek THE REAL TRUTH while you still have time. I'm not going to respond to you any further; the elect of God have been determined anyway. PRAYING FOR YOUR REPENTANCE.
Hey! Where's the pretty girl from the thumbnail?
And everyone clapped......
I have never encountered an honest creationist. This video did not change this.
Lying for Jesus is still bearing false witness and breaking 1 of the 10 commandments you are supposed to uphold and abide by as a Christian.
Ah, the old "militant, arrogant atheist professor gets totally owned by a series of dumb platitudes" trope that we all know didn't actually happen.
This pre-sup "How do you know you know?" word game is truly the weakest apologetic argument.
And you are bearing false witness pretty blatantly. Irony.
could =/= did.
How can Atheistic views be weak? How can anyone with a sane mind expect the whole world to upend everything that clashes with Creationist thinking? It ain't gonna happen. Not ever, never, no how! End of story.
Atheism is not a worldview. why can't theist understand this? Understand simple logic? Atheist just don't believe God. A worldview would be secular humanism. This is easy logic
what on earth ? hang on
your video started with you saying that atheists avoid talking about science and bring in philosophy
but then when that magical professor gave you scientific facts he prepared as you said, you avoided them and started talking about philosophy by asking about epistemology
you didnt proof read your BS script didnt you ? :D
Claiming absolute literal certainty about something is the same as claiming absolute certainty about everything, as you would need to know there is no information in existence that would disprove your knowledge. That is why science never claims to have absolute literal certainty about anything, and why any rational person doesn't delude themselves into thinking they might have that either. In the real world certainty is always a a relative term.
Are you certain that claiming absolute literal certainty about something is the same as claiming absolute certainty about everything?
@@calvinsmith7575 It's the logical conclusion I reach based on a common definition of absolute literal certainty. However, if you can prove me wrong, I'm open to hearing you out, because for all I know there is a hole in my logic I'm not aware of. That's how knowledge works in the real world. What we "know" is merely what we find the most plausible with varying degrees of confidence
No I have in fact not ever said I’m 100% sure of something I was wrong about is that normal?
Are you certain you've never said you are 100% certain of something?
@@calvinsmith7575 something that was right about yes sure, something I was wrong no. That would be impossible, unless your mentally ill. How can you be sure of something that isn’t true?
this is a totally made up story, as the question posed is 101 philosophy and is not likely a story about a philosophy professor. You notice the philosophy professor in the story never uses philosophy... the philosophy professor says things a new student of philosophy might say when first starting. The arguments presented are quite flawed. Seems to be a story to make out he is some kind of "hero" of making rational argument. Later he goes on and says things that actually shows that he doesn't have an understanding of epistemology at all or what knowledge is. Kind of embarrassing for him really. CZcams is filled with basic introductions to epistemology, and I'd encourage people to go search for one. Kind of sad this man decided to put this lie out there. There are plenty of Christian thinkers out there that don't resort to lying.
Calvin Clown is a sad man
Wait! You mean a religious apologist actually lied to promote his cult?!
😱
Certain: I'm certain I not certain. Is no different than everything I say is a lie. Absolutes, and objective are both subjective until they are agreed upon. In our limited comprehension they serve their purpose. Beliefs are what we hold without full knowledge. They serve the purpose of filling that very large gap in our knowledge and should be seen as such. Not truth, or fact.
Do you know that absolutes, and objective are both subjective until they are agreed upon?
@@calvinsmith7575 I'm certain is an abstract, it exists in belief only.
Absolutes and objective is completely independent on agreements.
"I am certain" really just means "I do not know of an explanation I have found more plausible, and I am not interested in seeking one out".
But in everyday life that's a very clunky way to say it.
@@Maartimer Do you know for certain 'I am certain' really just means "I do not know of an explanation I have found more plausible?
Two things, good sir:
1. We atheists do not acknowledge your "biblical absolutes". That why we are atheists. To us the bible is but a book, no different from the countless of other books that have been written throughout history. And by the way, yes using the bible to "prove" that the bible is correct is a classic case of circular reasoning.
2. You creationists find yourself in a philosophical debate instead of a scientific one when discussing evolution because you cannot stay on topic. Even in your own alleged conversation with am atheist, you changed the topic to philosophy yourself. Evolution theory is about one topic only, namely the diversification of species. It has nothing to do with the origin of the universe or of life, or the nature of existence, yet you keep pulling that in. Every. Single. Time.
The reason believers find themselves in a philosphical debate instead of a scientific one is simply because they have no scientific basis to argue from. Just saying "God did it" is not a scientific argument, it is a faith based statement. So fine, keep your faith-based belief, just don't try passing it off as science.
Just saying "Evo did it" is not a scientific argument, it is a faith based statement. So fine, keep your faith-based belief, just don't try passing it off as science.
@@calvinsmith7575 Pardon me, but evolutoin developed out of questions people had about things they had seen. The creation story was the predominant story in the days of Darwin, and for the most part people didn't question it. As things came to light, that creation story became harder and harder to believe. People looked the evidence before them, and said "what could have caused this?" Evolution has already been proposed as an answer to those questions. It wasn't only Darwin who realized the creation story left a lot of questions. Alfred Russel Wallace also proposed a similar theory, but both he and Darwin were influenced by other earlier naturalists. All this to say that evolution was the product of a world view, it was the product of people questioning the existing creationist view, and not getting any answers. Since then there has been a mountain of evidence supporting the theory of evolution from all sciences including physics, geology, chemistry, genetics, as well as further discoveries in biology. As I've said before, creationists have a theory of creation. Present that theory with the supporting evidence. The only qualification is the evidence has to be positive evidence. Just trying to debunk someone else's theory doesn't count as positive evidence. If your positive evidence is correct, eventually it will win out. Meanwhile, perhaps you can answer this question. How do you explain, based on your theory of creation, why the males of many different mammalian species have mammary glands and nipples?
@@calvinsmith7575 And if all anyone said was that Darwin's "Origin of the Species" was a holy book, and could not be questioned, you would be right. But that's not the case. Since the days of Darwin science has accumulated a mountain of evidence to support evolution as a fact of life. All of the sciences are involved: physics, chemistry, geology, genetics, and of course biology. All of these sciences offer support for evolution, and denying evolution isn't just a matter of denying Darwin. Denying evolution demands that you deny all of the sciences.The age of the universe is determined by astronomical physics, the age of the earth by physics and geology, the age of fossils by geology and physics, the method of reproduction of life forms by biology and genetics. Included in the above are many sub-branches of the sciences with their own specialities and areas of study. But I'll allow you have the right to present your argument for supernatural creation. To give you an opportunity to demonstrate it's efficacy, here is a question.
Why do the males of many mammallian species have mammary glands and nipples? I have asked that question of creation science and intellgent design, and never received a coherent answer. I am willing to listen to the explanation you have based on your creation theory.
I'm confused. You said that amidst a conversation of the science of our beginnings, the atheist would make it about philosophy and not science.
Yet by your own admission, he came with only science, and instead of meeting him and his straight questions, you dodged and went to epistemology.
So, not only are you lying about the topic from the start of the episode, but you show that your points can't win on their merits alone and have to dodge away from them.
As well, the Bible being used as evidence for the claim of the Bible, which is the basic definition of circular logic. There is no way to try and falsify the data or test it, making it infallible, which is a fallacy.
Do better.... or change you name to NAAIG. No actual answers in Genesis.
Smith seems to not consider methological naturalism as a way to approximate truth in an atheistic worldview without certainty. It works by making as few assumptions as possible (for it's possible even these basic propositions may also turn out to be wrong). Alternative explanations are then tested against each other by experimentation. If it's demonstrated that the original assumptions are leading to inconsistencies then they are thrown out and replaced with other candidates. This system is not perfect but it does give us a practical way to narrow in on truth and make informed decisions that are likely to enrich our lives without any absolute knowledge. From observing the modern scientific world, it's clear this methodology has been very productive (perhaps not always for the best but we can manipulate nature in incredible ways).
It looks, from your brief summary at least, that you're still assuming that all there is is the material world. i.e. Materialism.
The way I understand it is that methodological naturalism excludes the supernatural, a priori, for scientific considerations. Just be careful not to fall for ontological reductionism.
Do you know methodological naturalism works by making as few assumptions as possible?
@@jorgei.alonso9959 The question then is how can you validate a morality without God to say what is moral? How can there be a law without a lawgiver?
Why would it be wrong to end yourself and others in a blaze of notoriety like some have done and we've seen tragedies on the news?
Methodological naturalism can hardly be called science. The possibility of the human DNA appearing through a random process is figure one against a figure which contains 40 000 zeros. The mathematician Sir Fred Hoyle stated that this relation is enough to bury Darwin's theory of evolution. The real scientific conclusion here is of course that randomness can't produce DNA. That's the only possible choice when we think scientifically.
Atheists however choose the most unlikely choice as long as it fits their atheistic worldview. Is this scientific thinking? Of course not. It is based on prejudice, and prejudice is an anathema in science.
Thank you Mother Nature for the blessing that allows me understand all the bullshit Christianity is.
"If the God of the Bible exists..."
But does it exist tho? Hypothetical situations are Hypothetical. So you're telling people to believe something not because it's true but to believe something because if it's true then it's true. That's just wrong
Spoiler Alert: This never happened, and Calvin's just lying like usual.
You can't deny that this is actually what many atheists believe. This idea that you can never know anything for certain is prevalent, and is obviously a self-destructive argument.
@@deepwaters2334 It's not self-destructive. It's an agreement you have to come to before you can even begin to have a discussion. You can't discuss "knowing" until you've established the definition of the word. Atheists are willing to accept that there is naturally, and universally, at least a small degree of uncertainty in all claims of knowledge because no one is or even can be omniscient. Christians, on the other hand, like to pretend that THEY are omniscient (yes, them, not just their god), and therefore, we can never agree on a definition to even begin having a valid conversation on the subject.
@@Kaylakaze No, atheists believe that they can never know anything for certain. This idea keeps them from God, who has all the answers. It's not a matter of possible corruption in communication with that idea, it is the denial that any view other than Atheism could ever be right because they claim to know the truth. This position should make Atheists accept all possible answers to God, yet instead they reject the possibility of God and remain convinced of whatever they are told because there is no point in trying to find any other truth. Ironically, Atheism creates a lack of understanding, while accepting the existence of God creates abundant understanding.
atheism is boring
@@deepwaters2334 Doubt exists. I know this for certain because there is doubt about doubt.
Atheism is not a worldview. It’s simply a rejection of god claims.
Apparently being thought independent and not blindly following the religious masses is a weak “worldview” to have.
The ability to question difficult topics and admit you don’t have all the answers despite public backlash from the religious community takes a great deal of strength to do so.
Throwing away your ability to reason and think critically is a weak position to hold and one that christains wear with ghoulish pride.
atheism is boring
@@HS-zk5nn True, delusions are usually less boring than reality.
@@HS-zk5nn "atheism is boring" And so is your CZcams account
@@Maartimer false, reality is usually less boring than delusions
@@HS-zk5nn Interesting opinion. Care to elaborate?
MIC DROP
As an agnostic that's a logical fallacy, we can apply everything you said to you, and it you want to present your data of the Bible in a scientific way... It would fall apart... The Bible is a book based on the Christian faith, don't apply science to it... It'll fall apart
But atheism is not a worldview. It is the response to a single question on a single topic. Are you convinced that one of the gods on offer exists. If you are you're a theist, if not, you are an atheist. Simple.
In terms of your claims around not knowing anything for certain. To give two examples, 'I know I exist', and 'I know that I am not you're God'. The rest is just word play and special pleading.
Descartes overstepped and presupposed 'I'. The best you can end up with is 'something is thinking'. And do you know the rest is just word play and special pleading?
It is not possible to truly be an Atheist.
@@statutesofthelord - how come? All that is required to be an atheist is to unconvinced by any of the gods on offer.
@@Faust2Dr Faust, do you know that there is no God?
@@statutesofthelord - of course not, but there is insufficient evidence to convince me that there is one.
Hey kids, Calvin is a liar.
How do you know that?
@@calvinsmith7575because you back lies, throw insults and don't engage your brain. you used unevidenced bs to peddle your lies, it's rather obvious mate.
It's not a world view though.
Whatever people say in the comment section you cannot deny his intelligence to argument comes from the Creator.
Atheism isn’t a worldview….
If atheism is a worldview than not collecting stamps is a hobby
its a world view that there is no God
That’s not a world view. It’s a belief stance
@@Bomtombadi1 prove it
@@HS-zk5nn prove that atheism is is belief stance? Lol. Here:
“Do you believe in a god?”
“No, I don’t.”
You wanna play obstinate? That’s the road you want to go down?
@@Bomtombadi1 that is synonymous with world view.
Here:
“Do you believe in a god?”
“No, I don’t.”
You wanna play obstinate? That’s the road you want to go down?
So, if we atheists are right, your god is just as made up as Zeus, etc. Which means if a man made up a claim and asserts a god gave it as a revelation, can he convince people he teaches this too that they believe it came from a god. So you can't KNOW for certain, because you can be wrong in the exact same way that every other sincere believer in every other god has been for millennia.
Let me ask you something, what would convince you of the existence of Yahweh?
@ThethomasJefferson if there were on god that had revealed itself to multiple people's and languages with the same commands, thst would be convincing. But apparently gods can only use the same methods as con men.
@@TaylorWalston what are you being conned by from Yahweh?
@@ThethomasJefferson I don't believe Yahweh exists. The con was the first person who made up the story. The marks are the people who believed it and continued teaching it. Just like every other group that sincerely believed in thousands of gods. I do not see how your answer responds to my answer to your question.
@@TaylorWalston in a con scam it is someone who is trying to gain something right?
Some in Christianity generally no one is trying to gain anything, so how is it a con scam?
I am
Absolutely sure that absolute truth exists.
And that you can NOT say the opposite without contradiction.
And that statement of truth isnt relative .
Doesnt depend upon.your point of view .
An example
2+2=4 .
Always
Not some of the time
But all the time .
Its not about if absolute truth exists. Its about the philosophical justification for being absolut certain. This is the thing that doesnt exist.
I've never seen as many strawman arguments in one video. Also, the atheist professor completely overlooked the argument from René Descartes. "I think, therefore I am." In general, this video is extremely dull. The atheist in this situation is probably made up as well. People who don't believe in evolution truly confuse me. There are so many proofs for it and you seem to ignore them all for a trick of words, instead of addressing them. If the atheist was real, he probably left because of how annoying it is to argue with someone this stubborn.
Atheism isnt a worldview and it's also the most logical and reasonable position as no god has ever been demonstrated to exist
fun fact, science used to be called "Natural philosophy."
Your point being?
Mr. Smith is on the wrong track. He is using the word "know" incorrectly to describe what he only "believes", or even just feels or wishes to be true. If he can't support his claim that he has or can have absolute knowledge with evidence, then there is no reason to rationally (and provisionally) accept his claim as probably true.
Do you know I'm using the word "know" incorrectly to describe what I "believe"?
@@calvinsmith7575 You said: _"Do you know I'm using the word "know" incorrectly to describe what I "believe"?"_
Funny!
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, isn't it? If you can demonstrate that your claim to have this absolute knowledge is true, or if you can provide sufficient objectively convincing evidence so any impartial observer would have to rationally accept that your claim is probably true, then I think you are using the word "know" correctly.
If you cannot demonstrate that you have this absolute knowledge, or you cannot provide sufficient objectively convincing evidence for your claim, then I think you are using the word "know" incorrectly. In that case, you should switch to a word that expresses a lesser degree of certainty, like "believe", or "wish".
I therefore cordially invite you to provide a demonstration of your "absolute knowledge", or sufficient objectively convincing evidence of your "absolute knowledge". I will wait, but I will not hold my breath.
PS
If you are the real Calvin Smith, I thank you for your reaction to my comment. You are probably a very busy man and I *_know_* you don't have to react. If you are not the real Calvin Smith, but a well-meaning fan or a channel elf, then you *_know_* you are a liar.
@@hansdemos6510 Do you know that if I can provide sufficient objectively convincing evidence so any impartial observer would have to rationally accept that my claim is probably true, then I would be using the word "know" correctly?
@@calvinsmith7575
Then it would be science, not faith.
@@calvinsmith7575 I am trying to post a reply, but it doesn't seem to go through. If you are blocking it, please let me know why. I am not being disrespectful, or use bad language.
How can we as Christians KNOW truths to be absolute? How can we read man's account of the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation and KNOW that it was divinely inspired given mankind's fallibility? How can we KNOW that God possesses infinite wisdom and infinite power and verify this to be true beyond the mere words of man? A giant word salad only to end up on no higher ground than the professor you spoke to.
Do you know it ended up being a giant word salad only to end up on no higher ground than the professor I spoke to?
@@calvinsmith7575 of course not with 100% certainty but how do you know you’re right with absolute certainty (without invoking the authority you’re attempting to prove in the first place)? All you’re doing is taking a possibility over a probability and claiming it as absolute truth.
You see how meaningless this dialogue is? No offense meant btw just engaging out loud here. I would classify myself as a non-resistant non believer. I have not witnessed the supernatural despite earnestly searching for nearly twenty years of my life. Do I therefore say that there is no God? No. I merely say what I can comfortably say and that’s “I don’t know”. If God reveals himself beyond any shadow of doubt then I’d have no choice but to believe.
@@virikemen So, you KNOW that you can't know anything with 100% certainty?
@@calvinsmith7575 answer my proposed questions first and perhaps I’ll respond :)
@@jerrycayo have you ever heard of the Quran? Have you read every single book in existence to make this claim? How do you KNOW? A bit ignorant to make that argument.
God bless you
Which god? or more sensibly, what god? Actually it looks like god has never blessed anyone, ever.
@@rf7477 you know two years ago I was an atheist and I had fallen into state of depression and I decided to take my own life because I felt that nothing is certain and suddenly I watched video of this man talking about creationism in conclusion this man gave me hope and I found God sure I had my ups and downs but now I'm certain that I will go to heven
@@dantealgre5631 Cool, so you fell for a bottom of the barrel apologist. Sounds to me you weren't an atheist for good reasons and became a theist for even worse ones.
But hey, I'm glad you feel better about yourself.
Be hot, be cold, lukewarm gets spit out.
Lukewarm people are those who can't decide whether it's by grace or by works so they settle for something in the middle.
Free grace is the only true gospel.
@@hogansheroes2793 Looks like you're not reading Letter of James nor 1st Corinthians chapter 6, nor Matthew 7:21-23
@@ST-oy3vs James is about having a practical faith that helps others, nothing to do with salvation at all.
The sin lists are pertaining to the lost, who, according to James 2: 10 are guilty of all.
Mathew 7: 21-23 actually describes the fate of the faith plus works equals salvation crowd.
Any questions?
Hot is more likely to get spat out than lukewarm.
I checked the ancient texts on that here is what I read: " And so Goldilocks did sayeth unto her selfeth, "Now I shall take from the porridge as I am hungry and the bears are gone from here. And so she did sip from Papa's bowl, but it was very hot and she spewed the porridge from her mouth. And then she did sip from Mama's bowl, but it had gotten cold - yeah verily it was room temperature and gooey, so she leaned over and spewed if from her mouth onto Mama's family heirloom duvet. And then she did sip from the baby's bowl, and lo she found it to be good. And so she ate it all and left none for the baby bear. And laughed because she was a brat." -Goldilocks 3:22-27
Just another silly Christian trying to convince -himself- that his sky father exists. So sad.
Just another silly evo devo trying to convince himself that matter is all that exists. So sad.
As an atheist
How do you account for:
Laws of Logic
Laws of physics
Morality
Intelligence and information
Mathmatics.
Biologic microscopic design.
If the world was not designed by a Creator. And it's all just random (as many atheists believe), how do we account for all this structure, consistency and design we see upheld in the world? Is it all really just an accident?
What about the law of cause and effect? Can books of information like DNA ultimately write themselves? I've never seen a book written without an author, name or unnamed.
Thank-you everyone for hearing my questions and statments. Happy to be part of the discussion right now.
Thank-you Jesus Christ for your love towards me.
Morality (or lack there of) has nothing to do with being a atheist. Thats a old stereotype.
@@Starfiber1 Thats too broad of a question. It all depends on the person.
@@NickGagnon942
Thanks for sharing some feedback Nick. Good day to ya.
Human-defined ways of effective thinking.
How stuff behaves, as written down by humans.
Average social behaviour that evolved with species survival.
Descriptions of reality and the ability to make sense of it.
Human-made method to quantify aspects of reality.
An emergent property, like 3 and 4. Chemistry producing entropically favourable structures, see "The evolution of universal adaptations of life is driven by universal properties of matter: energy, entropy, and interaction".
All of these questions have answers, and their application is fallacious. This video, made my lying propagandists, has been addressed wonderfully by Logicked.
@@noneofyourbusiness7055
Thanks for sharing! 😊
The great pretender got served.
Did you say something reptilian?
Nobody pretends harder than creationists.
@@razark9 Can you back that up? This video showed how atheism has no evidence.
@@deepwaters2334 Yes, I can. Creationism is 100% pseudoscience. And what do you mean atheism has no evidence? Atheism is only a lack of belief in something there is no evidence for, so what do you mean atheism has no evidence? It's not making a positive claim. AiG is clueless on what science says and on what atheism is and they lie constantly. AiG is a propaganda channel for uneducated, fanatical believers.
@@deepwaters2334 I'm an atheist with regards Jehovah, Jesus, Quetzalcoatl, Zeus and Shiva. So pretty much the same as you, except for the Jehovah/Jesus part. The burden of proof is on the claimant for the existence deity. Think how silly it would sound to you if a Hindu said, "This video showed how atheism has no evidence." when commenting on Hindu apologist's video (not that they have many).
I've been commenting, here and there, on this type of video for 15+ years and it still amazes me that apologists haven't got past the burden of proof issue. I guess it's hard with zero evidence, but you'd think they'd try something different.
Keep up the good work, much needed in this increasingly dark and empty world. Many thanks from your American neighbor to the south :).
Another delusional sad case!
@@gusgibsaints Why is he that, and why do you claim so? Isn't your view that of naturalism, so why is anything wrong or right, correct or incorrect, true or false. You obvioulsy are an atheist mr. narcissist, for who else would be so inconsistently hypocritical, than online atheist going out of their atheism way. You obviously believe it to be wrong to belive in God, but why exactly in your naturalism view, is that wrong mr. narcissist? As an atheist, your view is naturalism, and thus you believe only the material to be true, what is immaterial (like God) you believe to be mere fantasy. Guess what is also immaterial... That's right, 0123456789, numbers! Also, logic, morality, and truth. Can you give physical verifiable testable evidence for numbers? Since you cant, but still hold to numbers as true, as part of reality, despite not being able to prove numbers, I'd suggest calming yourself down, think before commenting, cause you're the delusional fool here.
Hope you get better
Atheism is not a worldview. It's a single position on the god claim, nothing else. Your whole premise fails right from the start.
Lying for Jesus again, huh? Why do you guys NEVER tape those discussions for others to verify? It's because you want to write the statements of your opponent and not get actual arguments.
So this guy made a 9:47 video where he smugly lies and pretends to know more than everyone everywhere?
Brilliantly articulated. Presuppositionalism is the way to go.
It is the truly Biblical approach to apologetics.
Basing your life on the contents of a book is idolatry. You are worshipping stories in a Book and on the words of others who explain those stories.
You may as well worship a Statue and the stories people tell you about a Golden Idol.
Christians worship the Bible. That's what they talk about and what they think about. Of course, that completely understandable... what else is there of substance from them worship.
And who wrote those stories? Mostly their names are not known and worse, even if you knew their names, all you can know about them is just other stories in the same story books. Or stories of other people who have no more access the actual truth than you do... books. Stories, books, stories about stories, sermons about those stories. Dive in and enjoy, that's all there is to it. Your religion will also die.
Unless Jesus comes back... next Tuesday, or the Tuesday after tthal.
@@dimbulb23 "Basing your life on the contents of a book is idolatry."
Who said I'm "basing my life" on the content of a book? Presup entails that the Christian worldview is the correct worldview to start with, as opposed to any non-Christian worldview. It proves this objectively.
Everyone has a worldview and an ultimate standard for truth. This entails everyone has some source (aka a book or body of information) that they trust / have confidence in above anything else.
This cannot be avoided, since affirming any worldview is true is required just to write posts, make assertions, or engage in debate at all.
For most atheists, their ultimate standard for truth is the current consensus of mainstream academia. That's their sacred text that they believe as the ultimate standard. So, in your language that would mean they're "worshipping" mainstream academia & it's idolatry.
Claiming that Christians are engaging in "idolatry" if they believe the Bible as their ultimate standard for truth is self-refuting, since "idolatry" is a Christian concept which you're borrowing from the Christian worldview to try to attack it. Self-refuting arguments are necessarily false.
According to the Christian worldview itself, it's only idolatry if you worship or assign something as the ultimate standard for truth when it actually isn't. In other words, idolatry is when people conflate part of the creation with the creator... in that they worship part of the creation itself as if it WERE the creator / God / the ultimate standard for truth when it objectively isn't.
You ask who wrote the Bible? God wrote it, through people.
If you're not understanding that... I recommend asking yourself how you know your thoughts actually are YOURS? Where do those thoughts come from? What are they, specifically?
Well, people's thoughts either come from the demonic / satanic spiritual realm or the angelic / Godly spiritual realm (to put it as simply as I can, it's a bit more complex than that).
But essentially, it's no coincidence that the only thing people have control over is how they choose to think. If people choose fear, hatred, jealousy, envy, irrationality, morally wrong choices, etc... the demonic realm has more control over their thoughts.
If they choose love, rationality, morally good actions, righteousness, etc... then the angelic / Godly realm has more control over their thoughts.
The writers of the Bible were unique in that God worked directly through them to write the content of the Bible. So, it is the Word of God.
But the Bible is only one way God has revealed His existence. He's done so through General & Special Revelation, which includes creation itself (creation itself reveals God's existence), the existence of the Bible (anyone who investigates deeply enough can infer it's the Word of God because it's the only 100% true source on Earth), the existence of Jesus Christ, and more.
@@lightbeforethetunnel God doesn't do anything, not the Bible or anything else. God is fictional character until there is some reason to believe he exists. Only then would he be a candidate for explaining anything.
Tinkerbell created everything. I've got a book that She had written.
Doesn't that sound silly? Toodles.
@@dimbulb23 When you assert things like "God is fictional character until there is some reason to believe He exists..." That's fallacious for several reasons.
1. Asserting God is fictional is equivalent with asserting God doesn't exist. Can you justify that assertion is true? If not, then it's just a begging-the-question fallacy of assuming precisely what is in contention. And you won't be able to justify it, as there is no possible way to justify the proposition "God does not exist."
2. When you say that should be assumed until there is some reason to believe He exists, that's an appeal to ignorance fallacy.
You're affirming X is true just because you're not subjectively aware of any reason to believe not-X is true.
X = any non-theistic worldview
Not-X = any theistic worldview
If you look up the structure of an appeal to ignorance fallacy, you'll see it fits the structure perfectly.
And beyond that, it's also false when you assume there are not any reasons to believe God exists.
Presup proves it with 100% certainty.
But even if you aren't aware of that or don't understand, & therefore arbitrarily start off assuming any non-theistic worldview is true instead (for no reason), there STILL are:
100+ inductively valid & sound arguments for theism over atheism with none whatsoever for the other way around.
@@lightbeforethetunnel Give me a break. Do you believe that Shiva or Zeus are real or do you live your life as though they were invented by Man? I have no more difficulty believing your God is fictional than I do that all the other Gods are fictional. You worship a character in a book of stories. A God that this no more verifiable than Hannaman the Hindu monkey god. If you were born and raised in India chances are you'd believe in one or more of their Gods. While I would rejected them for the same reasons I reject them both for the same lack of convincing evidence.
We all will die, we will rot and in few years, with rare exceptions, we will be forgotten. We aren't that important. We will all die with unsolved mysteries but some with more delusions that others.
So what's your best argument for the existence of the Christian god? Why would a perfect god need us? Did that make that perfect being more complete? What is our existence for? What would an eternal afterlife be for? What is to be accomplished there? Where did your god come from and if you're a creationist, what explain how the Act of Creation works. I assume you being a Creationist means you believe Creation happened... what is that you believe happened? Imagine it's Day Zero and you god decided to create Everything.... so what do you believe God did? ..... Go !
8:36 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾
If there is not such thing as truth then it can’t be true that there is no such thing as truth
5:13 God "outside time" = never
God is the Creator of all things including time. He isn't bound by time, all due respect. He loves you and it will be so exciting to be saved and see Him face to face when He returns , to spend eternity exploring and learning.
@@TheCuppycakedelight5 The Big Bang created time. The Big Bang is God. No evidence of love from God
@@TheCuppycakedelight5 "God is the Creator of all things including time."
When did he create time, exactly?
And "outside of space" = nowhere
have you considered teaching a sartorial series as well as theology? only half kidding - you have (or someone has) some serious style skill.. completely seriously though I LOVE the way you present information, thank you!
Gotta love the logic of the naturalist commenters. "I didn't see the debate, so it mustn't have happened"
Almost all CZcams apologists have peddled the story of an atheist student/teacher/professor whom they vanquished with arguments (notwithstanding their weakness), not one of them has ever shown tangible evidence of anything like that happening. That makes me think it's just a convenient talking point without merits.
😂😂👍👍
In addition to it being so common it's a cliche at this point, one dead giveaway is when the apologist's story suggests someone's fantasy of how such a debate would go - a fantasy that anyone with actual experience would know isn't right. Modern philosophy begins with Descartes' skeptical attack on _certainty,_ so the notion that a philosophy professor won't have encountered that issue (much less actually taught a class about it), and so would be utterly befuddled by it the way the man-on-the-street might, simply isn't believable. That, times two, if the philosophy professor makes it a habit to debate apologists, as this is one of their standard tricks. So sorry, but what this guy offered up was a joke.
Now in his defense, he might not be actually lying. Many apologists are, ya know, stupid. They don't so much engage in dialog and debate, as begin with their they-already-know-they've-won argument, and so basically ignore whatever the other person is saying, except perhaps to scan their opponent's language for words or phrases that create another opportunity to re-iterate their own pre-scripted arguments. With such folks, they're sure that they "won" each and every time. Even if all onlookers think they got destroyed, they won't believe it. They're sure they always win, because there never is any actual dialog or debate going on, but only a public performance of the apologist's inner fantasies about how such a debate _must_ play out.
_Everyone wins every time on the short bus! Yay!_
@@mathboy8188 tldnr
Everything he says trying to disprove atheist can also be applied to him
Like what?
No, the difference between me and any atheist is I am trusting in God they are trusting man, I’m going to Heaven they are going to Hell, that is the most important difference there can ever be.
@@curtisjones6162
No-no it's not that clear, you just believe or assume that you to go to heaven and others don't.
Don't mix up your beliefs with facts.
@@gennisistokephali7590 Assume? It's up to you if you will accept the invitation of the LORD to be with Him (heaven) or not be with Him (hell). God gave everyone an invitation. Jesus is the only way, the truth, and the life. Period.
Many people don't want to read the Bible because the Bible exposes our sins.
Jeremiah 17:10
“I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”
@@gennisistokephali7590how did the universe come to be?
After speaking to and listening to debates with atheists, I can tell I agree. That's why so many people then try to escape to agnosticism when really pushed.
"That's why so many people then try to escape to agnosticism when really pushed."
I believe you're making stuff up. What is your evidence ?
I find they invoke "aliens did it" theory. Still hilarious though. 😂😂
If you're dealing with rhetorically "prepared" atheists, then they'd explain how agnosticism and atheism are independent descriptions referring to different positions on different questions.
@@technicianbis5250 Ironically we have about the same amount of evidence for alien involvement, as we have for the involvement of God. So why you are laughing at this notion, keep in mind that your "truth" is not based on much more...
Personally my approach towards alien involvement is about the same as that towards the notion of a existing God, as long as I haven't encountered enough evidence to convince me otherwise, I will reject both claims.
@@brabbelbeest
There is tons of evidence for Jesus and the prophets. They used ufos durring ww2, the nazis had them.
Google nazi ufos...
Tell me you don't know what epistemology is without telling me you don't know what epistemology is.
Yes epistemology is the theory of knowledge. But there's a main key factor to epistemology which is justification within reality.
Your story with the professor and asking him how he can know if he was really standing where he was standing can be easily justified with the answers that he gave you.
I also have a very strange feeling that this story that you're telling with the professor, never actually happened.
Do you know for certain that a main key factor to epistemology is justification within reality?
@@calvinsmith7575do you know that presupp Apologetics can be easily refuted with one word: toast?
mac, it is not possible, by definition, to truly be an Atheist.
@@statutesofthelord Atheism is simply the lack of belief in any gods or deities. It does not require belief in any other systems or ideologies. It is possible to lack belief in something without having an alternative belief.
@@mustachemac5229 mac, Do you know that there is no God?
The "certainty argument" is a lot more complicated than "Let me show you up God's nose in his omnipresent bearded face." I do it a lot on my CZcams channel.
God's omnipresent bearded is the best evidence for God that I can think of. Why is this surprising to someone who claims they believe in Jesus? After all Jesus says, John 14:21 "Whoever has my commands and obeys them is the one who loves me. My father will love them, I too will love them and SHOW myself to them."
ἐμφανίσω (emphanisō) is the original Greek word for SHOW which translated means "to make visible "
You don't see his face is everywhere because you follow erred tradition in your misdirected churches, not Jesus.
John 6:40" For it is my father's will that all who SEE his son and believe in him shall have eternal life and I will raise them on the last day."
You are not on the road to eternal life unless you see Jesus's omnipresent bearded face.
Jesus said he'd be omnipresent. Luke 17:24 "For the son of man in his day will be like the light from lightning when it flashes lights up everything under the sky."
He also said "some" would see him coming in his kingdom before they tasted death. Matthew 16:28
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
Don't tell me the transfiguration is him coming in his kingdom. 2 people saw it and only Moses and Elijah were present.
Look at my CZcams channel I scientifically proven we can see God's omnipresent bearded face with thousands of examples.
You seem to have an improbable interest in beards.
Atheism is not world view
Apologists always tell these stories of a lone brave Christian refuting an atheist with their overwhelming evidence and debate skills. Except...it's always stories. Why do we never see these kind of confrontations in real life? It's simple. They know if they actually confronted a real atheist with these arguments, it wouldn't go so well.
Has this Calvin Smith ever actually debated anyone? Have they ever actually talked to an atheist? Has anyone in these comments praising Jesus, ever debated their beliefs?
For example, if they had asked anyone familiar with presuppositional apologetics, and the philosophy of solipsism, they might get some actual answers. Like believing that what we sense is reality, is an assumption that you start with. Not a conclusion that you reach, let alone a conclusion that you reach by circular reasoning. This is not the same as using the Bible to prove the Bible, because that is circular reasoning.
Solipsism isn't solved by theism. You can assume that reality is as we perceive it, and God is a part of that reality. But that is still the assumption that reality is as we see it, just as an atheist would assume the same. And no, God could not make you able to know that reality is real. God could give you senses, he could beem some knowledge into your head that the world isn't a simulation. But you would never know if any of those senses or knowledge are just part of the simulation.
Yes, believing that what you sense is an assumption. But how do you know that? Because of your senses? That is viciously circular.
@@calvinsmith7575 What? No, it's an assumption, not concluded by anything. Sounds like you're just repeating what was said in the video without understanding either the video, or its refutations.
@@dataforge2745 Do you know its an assumption?
@@calvinsmith7575 Yes.
@@dataforge2745 How?
Ok, Calvin, can you tell us what these faculties that allow for certain knowledge would even be? As far as I know, all knowledge we learn comes to us through our unreliable senses and minds, and that would be true for revelation as well. It's all well and good to hypothesise that God could give us these faculties, but if you can't formulate (or even imagine) what they would be, what's the point? If you can, I'd be very interested to hear, but if you can't, then you don't know that God has indeed given us these faculties, and then this is a pointless excercise. Then you can't claim to know anything for certain, including that God exists.
So, I'd challenge you to answer two questions:
1: What would the faculties be that allow for certain knowledge?
2: If you can't answer number 1, how can you know for certain that God exists?
I know you read the comments sometimes, so I hope you'll answer these questions as your argument seems quite lacking without them.
Wish you a good day
Jonas
Do you know for certain that as far as you know, all knowledge we learn comes to us through our unreliable senses and minds? How (without being circular)?
@@calvinsmith7575 Nope, that's why I said "as far as I know". But can you please answer the questions I asked?
@@jonasmlgaard-asmussen9844 So you know for certain that you don't know for certain that as far as you know, all knowledge we learn comes to us through our unreliable senses and minds? How (without being circular)?
@@calvinsmith7575 I don't know anything for certain and have never claimed to, but why are you dodging my questions?
@@jonasmlgaard-asmussen9844 But you keep claiming that you KNOW you don't KNOW anything for certain...
It's time for us to adopt the phrase “divine selection" to replace the mythology of natural selection.
So this was a Professor of Philosophy that appears to have never studied philosophy, and has never heard any philosophical arguments? A philosophy professor that had never even heard of Rene Descartes? This just sounds like a lot of made up nonsense.
Descartes presupposed 'I'. The best that could be said is 'Something is thinking'.
@@calvinsmith7575 Thank you for the reply. Very interesting that you address Rene Descartes, which is incidental to the point I made, but don't deny that the reported depiction of the Philosophy Professor as the cliched "angry atheist" is bogus. Have a good day my friend.
@@93Current Thanks, but you mentioned Descartes and I assumed you were referring to his 'I think therefore I am' argument. I did indeed engage the fellow I mentioned in the video, and as he announced himself as the Professor of Philosophy of UBC at the time- I took him at his word.
Sorry, Atheism is not a world view, its simply not buying the claims that have be made about God.
Thanks for explaining your worldview...
@@calvinsmith7575 Stupidly, the "christians" think their 'world view' is paramount and all others subordinate. Other cults seem to disagree. As always religion remains its own worst enemy. Consensus among the thuggish denominations is almost non existent, just like their various sky frighteners.
Well, technically it is a believe about reality that is part of your worldview...
@@brabbelbeest Yup, circular reasoning, "It isn't a worldview, and here's my view of the world why it isn't a worldview.." smh