@J0urney Art Because he couldn't intelligently tell us what a god is, and on top of that his only 'evidence' for one is because we don't have the real answers for how everything came to be. Frank is just your average theist who has no idea what he's talking about.
@J0urney Art By that logic, if everything had a beginning, then so did this "god" thing. Saying everything had a beginning does NOT offer us any good, scientific evidence to show what a god is and how we know one exists. We don't need to know how everything came to be - this is your problem. You're asking the question, but we don't have to know to know that saying "god did it" is NOT the answer - because it lacks evidence. Until you educate yourself and realize this mistake of yours, you'll always be wrong on this.
@@TedTheAtheist If God had a beginning then He wouldn’t be God. If I make a computer I’m not bound to the established laws that computer follows, that same logic applies.
@@TedTheAtheist The biblical concept of God is God is eternal, uncreated, exists above time and space, He is timeless, spaceless, placeless, without beginning or end, infinite etc... So yes, the biblical God would be an answer for the problem... Whats your answer?
I love how this 20-year-old college student thinks he's introducing Dr. Turek to the "god of the gaps" concept. Maybe next week he can teach Dr. Dawkins about biology!
I love how science is celebrated as making everything possible. It's just the study of God's design and then the manipulation of it for our benefit. The two shouldn't be separate.
Except you cannot demonstrate that your god actually exists or designed anything..nor can you demonstrate that there is anything "outside" the natural world..
@Michael Abbott “ Except you cannot demonstrate that your god actually exists or designed anything..nor can you demonstrate that there is anything "outside" the natural world..” So does that mean you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist? And there’s many great evidence for the existence of God, for example, how did the universe begin? What about the existence, life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ.
@@michaelabbott9080 not using the laws of natural science, no. I also can't demonstrate anything about music by examining water. Scientists, however, seem very eager to look for supernatural explanations for cosmological questions. It's the reason that multiverse hypotheses are becoming more popular, or concepts of how things like quantum tunneling might have "leaked" matter into this universe. Ultimately it's reaching for "science of the gaps" arising from this insistence on a strictly one-dimensional way of observing reality.
What a time to be alive where such important questions like these can be answered and shared to billions worldwide in a single video , the hands of our Lord and his work are beyond pure genius
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 Actually God came down to earth multiple times to witness and speak to man thousands of years ago, preformed many miracles and used many men to spread his message and reach people. If you even heard of than, its in the Bible. Just open it and read it. God has been communicating directly with man since Adam and Eve.
*_"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."_* - Romans 1:20
@Creston Swan He saw Jesus, but that doesn't change the facts he stated, as quoted in the OP. We need not see God to be able to deduce His existence _(just like how we would know there was a painter if we find a painting somewhere even when no one's in sight.)._
Steve jobs is a lot like your god, he took credit for things he never did. Hundreds of people created the iphone while jobs took all the credit and never did anything. In fact the tech was already developed, he bought out the company then stuck an apple logo on it.
@@brianpeterson8908 thats short minded of you. To compare GOD like that would be like me saying you are an animal that eats slop and rolls around in its own feces compared to GOD. If you dont get the reference you prove my point.
@@brianpeterson8908 God made them all. Every person who contributed to the development of the iPhone are in existence because God created man. You see Man & the world as we all know it came from nothing. They were created. The Big bang theory is the secular scientific explanation of the starting point of life. Biblical scripture states God said let there be light! Hence the Big bang was created by God.
@@jusliving7977 your so called god is the creation of bronze age barbarians. The big bang theory is not the scientific explanation of the starting point of life. Go back to school child, you are clueless.
@@brianpeterson8908 Dont lie . Atheist Scientists doesnt know how everything started.Sure they have theories but no evidence really .If you think logically it would make sense if their is a creator for everything. Because saying the universe has a no creator is like saying there is no engineer for a building. Yes im going to use the same example because its actually makes sense
"I didn't make this up" I instantly cringed, I can't believe I was one time that confident. I think Dr. Frank Turek, a known advocate of the argument of intelligent design, is well familiar with a perspective that's been around for 100+ years.
Don’t be so hard on him. We were all young and immature at one time. I know I have said some cringeworthy things when I was younger. My father likes to periodically bring them up and tease about it.
1. He is not intelligent designer advocate, there is difference between intelligent design and creationism 2. When he said "I didn't make this up", means the conclusion is not come without reasoning, if you don't agree with the conclusion, why not argue that you have better reasoning
I was once like that too. He assumed the professor had never heard the argument before because he applied a self mirroring technique: its when the person with little knowledge assumes the other party has gaps as big as they do. After a while you learn some humility and you realize your gaps are always bigger than someone who is older and wiser. But you have to be able to discern wisdom exists and is good to acquire before you can really become humble about how much you don't know. Because you have to take someones advice to get to a place of true humility :)
@@Jewonastick So bitter. You must have had fire and brimstone parents or family members. It’s okay, God will forgive you for being led astray by them (as long as you aren’t a total pos in every other aspect of your life).
@@Jewonastick Of course there is no method to test other than you will find out shortly after you die. Not something I would want to do. This life is but a blink. Choose wisely.
@@Jewonastick You wrote 'to' instead of 'too'. Not trying to attack you or anything, but grammar knowledge is an inteligence factor to compare against something with a mind.
I never understood the thinking that if we can explain things it makes them less incredible or miraculous. The more I have learned the more I have been convinced of a Creator.
What about earthquake's? They were serious things in the past. Acts of divine fury. Now we dont have any respect to them. They're even annoying to some people. We fear them but if its low we find it even a bit entertaining. Because we know what they are and why they exist. If we someday find out why the universe exist and what caused it, and its not a Godly being. Would we still think about God? We'll yes. Im sure of it. "Because what made the thing that made the universe exist? God!" will still be heard.
@@rafaelperez6189 Since you're talking science, tell me what repeatable and observable experiments could be run to "find out why the universe exist and what caused it"?
@@lesliewilliam3777 We can't. That's the sole purpose on sending space probes so far into space. We get info, we build machines, we do tests, we make science. If we cant do repeatable experiments for a Galaxy size test, we make theories. Think what effects a particular celestial object causes. Look out for those effects. If they exist the theory might be in the right. If the evidence is inconclusive we theorize more until the right answer is found. Til this days that process get far more results than anything we have ever known. Thats what made Gallileo famous. Celestial objects can orbit other planets, not just Earth. The Earth and every other planet is revolving around the Sun and not Earth. TLDR: We cant prove what created the universe. But if it is doing something we're gonna find it.
@@lesliewilliam3777 hadron collider replicating events at a much weaker level than the start of the universe. No religion spoke of particles and elements. No religion has any proof for god. No god is omnipotent etc... Could a higher level being that is not a god exist? Maybe. However, to say "must be god" because science and humans haven't explained it is but definition, a god of the gaps fallacy.
@@abel3557 Re the Hadron Collider, how can an event carried out today replicate a putative event that no one witnessed and which occurred so long ago? There is no actual human-witnessed event against which any experiment today could be referenced. It's not the same "science" used in biology, chemistry, engineering, genetics...In fact, most cosmogony is based on maths. So, answer me this: Show me the repeatable and observable experiments demonstrating life coming from non-life by ordinary chemistry, unaided by human beings.
Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality. The assertion that "there is a god" does not correspond with reality. We have no idea what it is, so we surely can't know it exists. All the guy on stage is doing is saying: "Well, stuff had to come from somewhere"... that is not information that will help us know there is a god. Guy is just blowing smoke up people's asses.
@joeturner9219 That's totally absurd. You have no knowledge of my position on the question. What do you believe I am ignorant of? It is a fact that there is no evidence for god. One cannot formulate a logical argument for god because any such argument has to be based on the premise that god exists, which hasn't been proven. So evidence based approaches are out and logic is out. What else do you have?
@@avishevin1976 'One cannot formulate a logical argument for god because any such argument has to be based on the premise that god exists, which hasn't been proven.' - This is possibly the best comment I have ever seen on a god debate because it's true. Every single piece of 'evidence' that I have been presented with all breaks down to the same tired formula of "X exists, thefore god exists". Every single time. It's so lame, sad and pathetic. You know what would be good evidence? If god actually showed his face so we could be convinced of his existence. This goes for all 3000+ gods in religion.
@@avishevin1976You can’t come to God unless you use your faith and the emotions of love, joy and hope. “ But without faith it is impossible to please Him ( God): for he that comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” Hebrews 11:6. You will have to exercise faith in order to seek Him. You have to build on that faith constantly.
This is why it's so important to study philosophy academically. The young man who posed the questions genuinely didn't understand what Frank was saying to him. Philosophy is the underpinning of every field of knowledge, and no one who is uninformed on it can claim to be an educated person.
I think he just had social anxiety. Pretty common to many people. The fact he stood up is in itself appreciable. When in the eye of a lot of people you dont want to mess up so you try to be simple and straight to the point. Preachers however can do speak a lot and jumble anything they think to an audience so the boy was actually being a little pressed and couldn't say as much as he would in a comfortable state. Maybe he would have countered in a way to see if infinite regression is absurd why cant this infinite and out of time property not be natural for the universe itself. Why is God the only one that can have no reason for coming to be?
@@rafaelperez6189 Selohcin was so on the money with his comment that people should study philosophy properly! I don't know if it is because your first language is Spanish, but to say "Why is God the only one that can have no reason for coming to be?" is an elementary ontological error: God does not come to be; He is Being in itself i.e., eternal so has never come into existence. BTW, if you don't posit God as the eternal personal Principle, the cause of all that exists, then atheists still have to have a surrogate. This surrogate will ALWAYS be some form of eternal non-personal matter. Nowadays it takes the form of the multi-verse THEORY (about which there is ZERO evidence, as well as ignoring Ockham's Razor demand), which is just another way of saying matter/energy is eternal.
@@rafaelperez6189 "Maybe he would have countered in a way to see if infinite regression is absurd why cant this infinite and out of time property not be natural for the universe itself." I think you really don't understand the logical consequences of an infinite regress. Furthermore, I can't make sense of the statement that infinitude and atemporal ontological properties be "in" a finite and temporal universe. Care to explain?
@@lesliewilliam3777 Yes. From the alternative to the Creator. Of course i have nothing. We haven't figured out that one. It may be a God? Perhaps. Its zero evidense for the multiverse theory. At this point its only speculative what came before the universe. There is the hypotesis of the Big Crunch. A universe reset. Im not very knowedgeable on philosophy so about inmaterial im in the blind. So to explain my reason its simple: God is above the universe as its creator, ok? So, for a universe wich is finite and temporal to have an origin it would have come from something infinite and eternal, but its also not bound to space and time. Ok, then by this easy definition we get that this "God" have to always have existed to be timeless and space...less? Then, to get to the point. What is this God? Would it be a Being as you say? Or is it another universal phenomenon that have "properties" not bound to universal laws. I always think, when watching this debates that goes on forever between any theist and atheist, even if God is the actual reason for the universe, we're still not sure wich one it is. It may as well not have done anything at all after creating the universe and there we are debating about someone, that did one thing and left, that it is acting upon us each and every day. Surely you get what im talking about or this will only sound like im talking to myself. Im the type of person that usually makes all the sense in my head but its difficult to convey it to someone else. Well, theists also fit that description. But regardless of how i see it, im more in the side of "if we dont know, why would anyone be right?"
You don't need a PhD in philosophy to understand that God is logically contradictory...he loves mankind yet kills every person on earth in a "global" flood..he orders the killing of women and children many times in the OT, he also condones slavery and even legislates the treatment of said slaves as property..how can god, who is supposed to be the standard of all morality and love itself, be the very same one who kills women and children and allows people to own each other as property? How is that not a contradiction?
Sometimes "God of the gaps" is just a justification for "trust the science". The reality is that even when God shows up right in front of them, the first thing coming into their mind is that this must be an illusion. It's a mindset.
In what manner does the position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced - deceive billions?
@@paulthompson9668 What HAS BEEN DEBUNKED is your silly naturalism FAITH. DNA CODE CAN'T ACCIDENTALLY SELF-CREATE AND SELF-ASSEMBLE INTO CELLS...as you silly atheists BELIEVE with all your little hearts!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🙄🙄🙄🙄 By all means....PROVE it can!!!! I'll wait.....😳😳😳😳🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God." -CS Lewis
"How can I trust my own thinking to be true?" Well, that's exactly what the scientific method figured out. You trust your own thinking is true because it leads to predictions that match your experience. You think spilling the milk will make it fall to the floor, and then you spill the milk, and it falls to the floor. You don't need to believe there's something out there watching over you to make things happen the way you expect.
This is precisely God of the Gaps. Not understanding how something happened doesn’t mean we have to slap the God label on it and move on. In science you have to be comfortable with the phrase “I don’t know”
Someone with some common sense. Christians act like god did everything, all without every speaking to him. 2000 years ago the bible was written and there has yet to be any physical proof of god's existence so you're basically talking to a bunch of mental people. I always ask any religious person for physical proof of god's existence without the bible because anyone could have written that and they always sidestep the question or answer the question with a question.
@@shaqyardie8105 Do you want physical proof of history? What about love, joy, peace, or the future. All these things have an outcome, just like the Bible was an outcome of God. It was written over thousands of years by numerous people, it was never intended to be the Bible when written. The fact that there’s matching prophecies is even further proof. Nothing cannot create everything, it’s physically impossible for creation to creat itself. All sinners who need saving, God bless.
@@hwd7 I never said “nothing” created the universe. I said “I don’t know.” We have no clue how everything came to be. It could have been God, or it could have been something completely different that humans today can’t even imagine. Also, who knows what could have been possible before the universe was created. It’s entirely possible that no laws of physics applied before the Big Bang, leaving a whole suite of possibilities. Again, I have no idea how it was created, but that doesn’t mean we should make baseless claims in the meantime.
Muslim here -- but a fellow believer in God. Big fan of Frank. I love how respectful he is. You can tell he has such a high level of security when he answers. So simple when you think about it -- surely at some point going back, there has to be force that is timeless. Randomness for me is just not it.
No sheikh could ever present an argument for God like Christian apologists do. Because Islam is a house built on sand. It's vapid and devoid of depth and substance.
All these religious people talk a lot without saying much. The bottom line is that there is zero evidence for any god man has worshiped. A gut feeling is not evidence. Why can’t humans admit that we just don’t know?
@@bartduynstee1577 I hope that you can find as much fulfillment and merriment in your life as possible, for there is no joy or wisdom or merriment in Sheol, where you are going. But you know that, so don't be angry at me for saying it, I wish the best for you in this life after all. I only wish you would be willing to never leave the presence of God, but God will not force you to dwell in his presence forever (which you so hate), so one day your life will end and He will not only allow you, but will force you to depart from Him forever. Without God there is no life, you will be in the depths of Sheol. But you hate God, so being separated from the giver of all good things is your will. No, you cannot have only a small piece of God and tell the rest of Him to screw off, you barely understand him, what you do understand, you love, but what you don't understand you won't even give Him the benefit of the doubt on. So He will reject you, unless you seek to know and Truly understand Him, then it is written that he will show sinners the way, he will teach the humble His ways.
Would not the young man be employing the same argument for his own position? AKA "The science of the gaps" .... His "gods" the scientists will eventually figure it all out.... The God of the gaps is a fallacious argument..... Just because mankind figures out how something works is not evidence that it was not designed by a mind greater then his own.
Exactly right. It's considered noble to say "I don't know" now but it's quickly followed up by "but science will figure it out eventually". Sounds like faith. And it also seems that not knowing also allows them to know that God didn't do it. That's a neat trick to not know and know at the same time.
He accused Frank of making "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy, then literally 15 seconds later seconds later throws "science of the gaps" at Frank. His ignorance is astounding. Obviously he is regurgitating a talking points from some CZcams atheist channel. In my opinion Frank should've fought back against the very name "god-of-the-gaps" by pointing out its actual name; argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance, and show the young man it is used by BOTH sides of the theism debate. We have let atheists control the narrative & change definitions for too long. Frank is too cordial.
@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 I think that if the one asking questions is simply lost and just looking for direction then being cordial is a good idea.... But if they're an atheist spouting nonsense out of vitriol then they should be treated like Jesus treated the pharisees by telling them exactly what they are and what reality really is.
@@bradleye1964 answering your question: no God does not scare anyone what should scare you is eternity without God which the Bible describes it very well that's what should be scary.
@@jonathandiaz718 If it’s just natural then indeed why should it scare people? People live their lives not even thinking about death, that is until death is staring them in the face. How many people diagnosed with a terminal illnesses say “oh well it’s just the natural way of it, never mind eh” do you know? Why do people grieve at the loss of a loved one, even when their very old, when it’s just the natural way of it?
@@atasmaly There is only one place in the Bible that I know that mentions separation from God, yet there are literally dozens of verses, from OT to NT that talks about the wrath of God. Here is an example: "Then the kings of the earth, the nobles, the commanders, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and free man hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains. And they said to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of Their wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?” Rev 6:16 Here you can clearly see that it won't be just some separation from God, it will be rather God coming after the sinners with His flaming wrath to burn them. Now the question is, what will this wrath accomplish?
Notice how Turek answers the question he wants to answer, rather than the question that was asked. He goes all the way to the outer limits to talk about the cause of the universe itself, because it's still the unknown territory. He never addresses the clear fact that many supernatural explanations which were commonly accepted in past centuries have now fallen by the wayside. The questioner is trying to keep an open mind and suggest it's perfectly reasonable to expect the trend of discovery of natural causes to continue. There's not a single observable phenomenon that we can agree actually has a supernatural explanation. Frank wants to go all the way to the final frontier... because it's safe to speculate about. And based on what is unknown about the origin of the universe, he does indeed inject his god concept into the gaps. And he's making money off it.
"it's perfectly reasonable to expect the trend of discovery of natural causes to continue" Yes. And Turek acknowledges that while it may be useful to identify natural causes, we eventually reach an uncaused cause.
@@drumrnva Because, as he stated: Time, space and nature can't come from time, space and nature... They have to come from something outside those things... Which would be, by definition, a timeless, spaceless, supernatural being.
No-one know what caused the universe. If you claim it was god, then the burden of proof is yours. There is not evidence for the claim any god was involved. We simply do not know much, if anything, about the creation of our universe. Its yet another step to assume it must be something intelligent. Again a claim for which there is no evidence at all.
@@daredlibrary First of all, there is no universal definition of what god means. Even christians themselves struggle to define god. So how on earth do your prove god when you cannot define it? " What makes atheism true?" That question does not make any sense whatsoever. Atheist is defined as either the lack of belief in a god or the rejection to the claim that any god exists. Its a psychological position rathern than a claim.
@@Wmeester1971 Ok, so your not standing in a position thats truthful, rather just a belief. Wouldnt you want to stand in a position thats truthful? Is it possible to obtain that position?
@@daredlibrary "Ok, so your not standing in a position thats truthful, rather just a belief.' Its funny how some theist abuse the word "Truth" meaning just their personal believe without a shred of evidence. Its better to be ignorant about a subject than believe wild guesses without a shred of evidence.
@@Bomtombadi1 , let's assume you're right. Can you show us that argument? P.S. Check whether the argument you're going to present actually involves an infinite regress. It almost always does. Or already exists as a debunk of the debunk.
@@NickyTheLesser No it’s not. You ought to spend more time understanding the implications of your own worldview, and understanding Christ, than you do poking at people in Cross Examined comments. Just a piece of advice from a former atheist. Much love
God of the gaps is a pointless argument when it comes to Christianity. It only makes sense against religious doctrines that associate gods with natural processes in a kind of *direct naturalistic, and/or anthropomorphic sense.* For example, some African folktales believe that thunder is caused by the beating of drums of the gods. this is kind of a direct naturalistic explanation in the form of the concept of god's, but that isn't what the Bible teaches about the nature of God and his relation to the natural world
It had to he "African folktales"? Really? There are no European, Nordic, Scandinavian, Celtic, Gaelic, Asian, North and South American folktales? Why is it that y'all ALWAYS have to use Africa as the ONLY or TYPICAL example when you want to illustrate negative, primitive, idolatrous nonsense? What, was every other continent not idolatrous and primitive before now? It's getting really disgusting and y'all need to STOP it because we are sick and tired of it. And yes, I am a black Nigerian (African) woman saying so. Plus, I believe JESUS is the only WAY, TRUTH and LIFE so don't get it twisted. Thank you.
@@ayolovephat who said it was negative? if you have insecurities about your heritage that is on you. I was simply giving an example of naturalistic explanations through the concept of god's, I'm a little bit more familiar with African folklore because I read more literature about them than Asian or western folklore, so I used that. I for one see it as a pinnacle of philosophical thinking, a creative attempt at understanding how nature works. please if you're embarrassed by it it's only you, and not all Africans. many Africans are proud of this creative and philosophical heritage.
@@ayolovephat be proud of your heritage, if you were offended by me stating that story, I apologise, but there's honestly nothing wrong with it, other people are proud to display their history, the works of their ancestors, they talk about thor, Odin, Zeus, but I don't know why with Africa people are shy or offended to talk about the early philosophies and work. Be proud.
No it isn't. God of the gaps refers to people using the gaps in our scientific knowledge as some kind of evidence for God. Christians do this CONSTANTLY. "You can't get something from nothing - therefore God" "DNA is code that requires a coder - therefore God" "You can't explain how life began - therefore God" Any of these sound familiar? Or are you honestly going to pretend these aren't arguments Christians use a of the time?
The Bible may not claim that thunder is caused by God beating drums. However it does make some claims that are equally outlandish - for example, that God created Adam from dust, and Eve from one of Adam's ribs. Or that the stars are just lights embedded in the 'firmament', which in turn separates the 'waters above' from the 'waters below'.
Scientists don't know what existed before the universe began, and neither does Frank, no matter how often he asserts without evidence that he does. "God-did-it" remains an unproven hypothesis. However, there's plenty of evidence to indicate the human need to create gods.
@@akoskormendi9711 well the thing with people creating gods back then was cause of the fallen angels had mated with humans and animals creating giants and all kinds of creatures like centaurs. And end up worshipping them. Like Greek gods for example. Plus they did human sacrifices to their gods. Aztecs to their sun god and child sacrifice to moloch.
@Billy If you truly don't know about the thousands of gods worshipped throughout human history, starting in ancient Sumer, then you need to read more. Maybe go to a museum. Search CZcams if you don't like reading. There are plenty of documentaries. But I still can't believe you're unaware of at least some of the gods worshipped throughout human history. Even today there are thousands of gods in addition to the Christisn one.
AMEN!!! God bless you and all those involved in your apologetics ministry. Praying for you to reach many many more for the Lord Jesus Christ and also praying an abundance of blessings for you and your loved ones, Frank! Love you in Christ 🙏
I don't like some of the condescending comments here. As Christians we should absolutely appreciate young atheists challenging us with their questions and objections.
Thank you. I agree with what you said. I will also acknowledge the at it needs to go both ways. Seems the art of civilized conversation has been lost on many.
I'm unmoved by the "law giver" argument. Until an apologist demonstrates that the natural laws we observe could have been different, there's no reason to think they're not just brute facts about the universe. Gravity and the speed of light don't seem to be "laws" in the same way speed limits and shoplifting are. It feels like a conflation of definitions.
I want to know what God was up to before he created all of time and space. Like how long did he sit in the dark twiddling his thumbs before he said "Hey, I know what I can do!".
Eternity is the ocean, time is a drop of water. Asking "How long did he sit " is not applicable because time did not exist. He created time, time did not create him. Because we humans are bound by time and space, it is difficult to conceive that it is possible for a sentient being to not be similarly bound.
It seems the main point Frank is making here is that there MUST be an absoloute beginning, or an uncaused cause, and that necessitates God. As far as i can tell, this isnt an argument. Its an assumption, and it wont convince most people.
I once again must disagree. Afterall, he is suggesting a creation that does not contradict the LAWS of science, physics, or nature. That's a creation atheists have yet to offer. All of theirs are based on the idea that some matter already existed and was just blasted in to shape, so you must ask where did the original matter come from. Or they suggest a creation of matter from nothing, which science proves impossible. Frank is proposing a supernatural answer to a question that it's very nature is supernatural. That's why atheists always fail, because their science disproves it. However, if one is to hypothetically assume that there is a god(ignoring the religious argument of which one that is), then that would easily explain this impossible question. Now of course, I've heard atheists say "claiming there is a god is just a cop out for when you don't have an answer." Yet again, I must oppose that by saying that that very statement is a cop-out to refuse admitting one is wrong
Here's a god of the gaps argument: The universe appears to be designed, however we can't observe the designer, therefore highly improbable undirected natural processes must have created it. The god in this case is naturalism. With theism on the other hand the argument is logical: That which appears to be designed, was caused by the designer.
Why doesn't the universe appear to be intelligently designed to people who actually study the universe? There is no objective evidence that necessarily points to a design, therefore the universe most likely is not designed. I don't know anyone who claims that naturalism is a god. There are many scientific theories that shows how it is possible for the existence of the universe without anything supernatural and does not violate any laws of physics. These theories have been peer reviewed and are listed in scientific journals.
@@Generatorman59 none of those theories answer how things came to be and how information exists. Never mind the fact that things clearly start and wind down.
@@Generatorman59 Kindly point us to your reference. Secondly, if your so called theory as been proven it will no longer be called a theory and in scientific terms it would mean we are able observe and test to reproduce it.
@@redrum6316 Right. None of those theories answer how things came to be and how information exists. Science gives us the best explanation based on the most recent data. As our abilities to test and observe improve, science updates the theories. For instance, 50 years ago, it was believed that the age of the universe was about 8 to 9 billions years old. Through the decades, science has updated that figure and the general consensus now is 13.8 billion years old. That's how science works. Science doesn't make absolute claims on anything. Theists, on the other hand say they know the answers. God did it... end of story. I would like to caution you about using the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Things wind down only in a closed system. But, that is another topic.
"The Lord looks down from heaven; he sees all the children of man; from where he sits enthroned he looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth, he who fashions the hearts of them all and observes all their deeds. The king is not saved by his great army; a warrior is not delivered by his great strength. The war horse is a false hope for salvation, and by its great might it cannot rescue." This generation is pitiable. Toddlers that know nothing, seated on the foundations of ancestors who came before them long ago, and built the knowledge and technology that we so ignorantly and obliviously indulge in. "We're so much more advanced now...given enough time we will unlock all the secrets of the universe...we will make ourselves gods and sit on the throne above the great congregation..." But this generation does not see, we will all die like all of man. Oblivious and helpless, but full of hubris and self righteousness. Pray to your god Science, put your hope in "enough time", they will not answer your whimpers when your life comes to an end and you stand before the Living Eternal God.
We're about to go into the darkest time in human history. I think even the skeptics can sense the danger - it's just sad that so many are not prepared at all for what is coming.
@@Jerryman1158 Do you think this is the end of this age? Like Christ is coming back very soon? I honestly think so but there’s a good chance it’ll just be a terrible trial that spits us out into the real Church age. That’s just what I see based on where we’re at, a kind of Babel-like pinnacle that there can be no turning back from. Not asking for you to give a huge justification for your belief or a timeline like 10-100 years (which I would count as soon) but I’m curious about your opinion.
@@D1sc0rd- I don't know how much time there is but I look at what's happening in the middle east with Israel. What's falling into place is fulfilling what is in Ezekiel 38-39. Then world wide I see the first time ever a one world government taking shape with the Klaus Schwab globalists. But I think there will be a major conflict before they get it like WW3 which could include the Ezekiel 38-39 conflict. Then I think we will start seeing the book of Revelation chapter 6 up until the second coming in chapter 19 and beyond. Also, I believe in a pre tribulation rapture that could happen anytime⌛
@@DeconvertedMan Not just do I massively disagree big time. Thats the opposite of life. When you pass from your body, facts wont be there. When you enter Heaven on behalf of trusting in Jesus facts wont be there, but truth will be there. Facts are pathetic and go against truth. Truth always sets you free. Facts can cause deception to appear true yet false. Testimonies go against facts. Faith always triumphs over everything. Just about everyone who focused on facts are in Hell suffering because they chose to believe the worldly system instead of listening to people that preached and shared the gospel of Jesus Christ to them. Those that are in Hell before Christ came are still there because of the similar reason due to facts instead of faith in Christ. Facts get you no where, faith makes the entire universe and world and the spiritual laws happen. Facts are from people who dont trust in Christ. Steven Hawksing trusts in facts, hes not in Heaven. He is suffering for eternity in Hell. Genesis 5:22-24, Hebrews 11, Hebrews 12:1-3 also disagree with you. Well, the entire bible disagrees with you. Faith moves mountains in every way through the tongue, facts are mostly opinions.
@@DeconvertedMan these are the same facts that biden in 2021 says wearing masks and getting the vaccinations and boosters will help you against the covid. biden has what he deserves, covid. I know people who had covid and are still alive. they said its the flu but stronger. i told by faith to covid it can not come near me and my family in Jesus name. we have been fine in faith not having any sickness at all. not through facts, through faith. Faith always wins overs facts.
@@DeconvertedMan myths and fables dont exist. when you attack the bible, be ready to give a reason and not just take a stab at something for no reason at all. the bible speaks of in the end times, people no longer desiring Christ, desiring their own ways. going after things of itchy ears things that please their carnality and not fill them spiritually. mocking, scoffing, and making fun of the bible while deep down full well knowing the truth is powerful and knowing things about the bible truth but your own self gets in the way. if your speaking against the bible for no reason at all, this is fruits of the demonic on to you. the demonic hate Christ, but they have no power of Christ.
It never ceases to amaze why skeptics or atheists continue to make comments on this channel. Are you really looking for truth or are you just a troll? My guess it's the latter.
@@jfast787 right? Its almost like theyre obsessed..... like mentally ill. They cant help themselves lol theyre wasting their SHORT (supposed) one little life they have on fighting, what they claim is, "a fairy tale" 😂
Logical fallacies: - God of the gaps, again: we k ow what the universe looks like an instant after the big bang started, anything before that the honest answer is 'I don't know' - Appeal to authority: Some person once said that something happens somehow based on their opinion, Einstein blundered like that too, and we finally found that he was wrong, maybe we should throw out the cosmological constant based on what Einstein called his greatest blunder. - Begging the question: We don't know what happened before the big bang, and everything seems designed, therefore designer Nothing in this clip is convincing at all
Yet another Turek slam dunk. I appreciate all the time and effort put in by people to not only understand, but are able to articulate in a way that meat heads like myself can begin to understand.
Very weak attempt from turek, as always. He claims a lot of things for which there is no evidence at all. For example, the claim that an infinate regress is impossible. We simply do not know that. We can not even comprehend all the processes in our universe, let alone what lies beyong or before it. The fact that we do not know, is where he exploits his "God of the gaps" argument. But his arguments are based upon ideas and intuitions that might not make any sense beyond our universe.
@@Wmeester1971 the argument that "we simply don't know" would be an appeal to ignorance. A person can point to how something appears or what is likely the case based on the information given which therefore supports a conclusion. Even if a person doesn't know the specifics of how the universe functions, that does not mean that there are no implications of logical problems with an infinite regression. Not every time a jury and a court case makes a judgment against the criminal is the jury correct, because judgments in court cases are not always based on what we know or don't know, but is based on what is likely the case, whether it be circumstantial evidence, or person doesn't have an alibi and there aren't any other candidates that one can think of that would match the crime, and so on. Just because a person doesn't have absolute knowledge does not mean a conclusion cannot be justified, and that's why when we point to the fact that a person does not know and use that as a basis to justify rejecting an argument, this would be an argument from ignorance.
@@Wmeester1971 Sounds to me as if you are in an infinite struggle with more than the subject at hand. I don't know you but you are intelligent and valuable except to those who just want to be better than which corrupt and destroy in the name of righteousness.
@@Bi0Dr01d "We simply do not know" is just the correct answer, because we don't know. Whether you call it an appeal to ignorance or not does not change that. "Even if a person doesn't know the specifics of how the universe functions, that does not mean that there are no implications of logical problems with an infinite regression." There nothing in science or logic that prevents infinate regression. On top of that if you argue god to be timeless and eternal, you have some explaning to do why nature cannot be just that. And why on earth does there need to be an intelligent cause. There is no reason for that to be a requirement Also, if something is timeless, it cannot create anything.
Most of the people who raise these objections might now have an answer on the spot. So when they get home they'll look up a rebuttal from their favorite atheist CZcamsr and continue on with their beliefs (or lack of). It's hard in a time sensitive environment to be truly effective because we need to also be aware of the counter arguments and point out their flaws in advance.
Good thing there is no counter argument to the athiest argument that religion has to provide verifiable evidence for every single one of its claims. Even if you could prove all of science wrong on everything we understand (physics, evolution, etc.) it would do absolute zero to strengthen any argument for a god. Evidence against one proposition does not strengthen the evidence for any other proposition. The only arguments ever presented by apologists are those attempting and failing to find flaws in current scientific understanding. Again that does nothing to strengthen their position.
And i have faith in my facts. Hey, maybe i can be a prophet. I just need to say something vague and call it a divine revelation. Worked 4 millenia ago, why would not now?
I love watching young people talking with absolute confidence in Their tone. After one rebuttal they appear at least to the casual observer like a 10 year old debating their parent.
Young people seem to forget that the “ road” they are trodding their parents have already traveled down and know a thing or two because they’ve seen or experienced a thing or two.
@@inscription8099 To be fair Frank knows a thing or two because Frank has experienced a thing or two. Frank has been studying most of his life. He has run into all kinds of people and has talked with them. So I imagine Frank has heard or read and studied many different religious disciplines and atheistic studies.
Why do we have to get back to a creator with a mind? Maybe there is an aspect of nature, as yet undiscovered, that can create itself. Truth is: We don't know what nature is capable of. Turek is just vomiting the whole "God of the Gaps" crap, again. We don't know everything that nature can do. We don't know what started everything. So what Turek does is say: God started everything! Classic example of God of the Gods!
Maybe something can not exist at one point in time, exist in the next, and go from non-existence to existence by its own power? It can create itself before it exist to create itself? No offense, but that sounds non-nonsensical. I don't mean that in an insulting way (I'm not try to say you're vomiting crap, for example), but merely in a descriptive way. X exists, not because it exists necessarily, but because it caused itself to come into existence before it existed. An appeal to something like reverse causality is going to run into the problem of the existence of time itself. So let's jump to that. If an infinite regress of time is impossible (and that's a philosophical thing that many people haven't considered), then time had a beginning. It is finite. One probably can't say time created itself through backwards causality because there is no such thing as "before" the beginning of time, temporally speaking. So then time would have to be self-existent. It exists when it exists because it exists. It would be ontologically necessary. If space and time are different aspects of one thing, then spacetime would be ontologically necessary. Finite spacetime is the brute fact of reality. It exists because of its own power. If space and time are not different aspects of the same thing, then the question remains of where space came from. Does space have the power to make itself exist before it exists? And then what of matter/energy within the spacetime manifold? Did some non-material aspect of nature (can that be a thing) cause it? Did it reverse cause its existence? If so, why did it make as much of itself as it did, and not more or less? Why are the constants and quantities the way they are? Are they necessary as well, or could they have been different? Why do the constants remain constant? Why is the flow of time what it is? Why does matter curve spacetime to the degree that it does? Are these all necessary as well? Then what of minds? Do they actually exist? Or just an illusion? What are they? "Accidental" byproducts of an arbitrarily existing mindless universe (seems like they'd almost have to be). One can ask these questions, and flesh out the issue a bit. But the simple "God of the Gaps" and "Nature of the Gaps" positions are both guilty of making an assumption that whatever we don't know now can ultimately be explained by the person's cause of choice. Frank didn't say, that I recall, it must be God. He was saying the attributes of what is finite (time, space, matter) suggest attributes of what isn't. It does appear that he rejects the notion that nature can make itself, whereas you appear to be open to that. And if one chooses to look at the issue objectively, then his conclusion and your skepticism of it both make sense. If time, space, matter cannot create themselves, then yeah, whatever created them must be something else. If on the other hand they can create themselves, then we can't rule them out. So can they? Perhaps that's the big question that we can't really know, because inductive conclusions are always to some degree provisional. We certainly don't know that it can. But is it possible to know that it can't? If not, then maybe we're left with abductive reasoning. We can't prove the negative, so what does the preponderance of the evidence suggest, if anything?
I'm wondering where your comment came from, Gari. Why do we have to get back to a writer with a mind? Maybe there is an aspect of nature, as yet undiscovered, that can write itself. Truth is: We don't know what nature is capable of. Gari, you're just vomiting the whole "Naturalism of the Gaps" crap, again. We don't know everything that nature can do. We don't know who or what wrote your comment. So what Gari does is say: I wrote the comment! Classic example of Naturalism of the Gaps!
its called abductive reasoning we know that the universe could not have created itself, and that whatever it is that created it must have certain attributes to do so what we understand as god, possesses those same attributes
@@dmitrydk92 even if the nature of this.. nature beyond our universe was different to the nature of the universe itself, does not change the fact that whatever created the universe must contain certain qualities
@@dmitrydk92 , the problem you face is your misunderstanding of the word "eternal". It is not "infinite amount of time", because there is no such thing, since "time" itself had a beginning, and since we are now here at this moment in time, it is clearly finite. Instead, it is "not in time", where the flow of "time" is a concept limited to only our universe. Which is why the cause of the universe is deduced to be outside/beyond our universe and is therefore "time-less"/eternal.
@@dmitrydk92 How can there be 'laws of nature' without nature? The laws of nature are not supernatural forces that act upon nature itself; they are descriptions of how nature operates. Without nature, there are no natural laws. Also, there is good reason to believe that any timeless cause of nature must therefore also be personal.
Please prove the universe was ever created in the first place. Would you stop believing in God if scientists figured out that the big bang was all wrong and the universe has always been around?
Terrifying thought when you come to revelation and the realization that the ONLY logical conclusion of all origins is that there was that one BEING that did not have a beginning and is still here and will always be here. The awe of His wonder. Let the fear of the Lord be the beginning of all of man’s wisdom.
The fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom. The fear of God is the death of wisdom. Skepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom. Clarence Darrow
@Lucas seattle well that would be because he does college campus tours there's plenty of other videos were he's debating with apparently more learned older people.....
@Lucas seattle What a childish and blatantly dishonest comment, the video is a prefect example of Frank have open dialogue with people with incredible respect and patience.
I wouldn't claim its wrong. It is more like, its messy but we get it. Though that alone isnt good on its own. And this video lacks the whole context so we cant come to conclusions this early.
Yes, Frank makes this mistake. Examples include the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, and it's god of the gaps _specifically_ because Frank is offering these as "evidence of god". (If he didn't treat them as evidence of a god, then well each argument has its own _other_ issues, but at least he'd have avoided god of the gaps.) Argument from ignorance is the name of an error of logic where someone is basically saying, _"we don't know, so that proves we do know."_ God of the gaps is when an argument from ignorance is _specifically_ used to argue for a god (we don't know, so that proves we know [it was god]") And to use one of the examples above, the Cosmological argument ends with "a cause" but absolutely _does not_ provide evidence of what that cause is. That means the cause is unknown. So then Frank is taking an unknown and saying it indicates a god exists (we don't know, so that proves we do know). The questioner suggests "god of the gaps" is some singular argument (or maybe that's just bad wording on his part), and so the question as it's asked isn't actually very well-formed.
So you're more or less trying to suggest that any natural evidence whatsoever cannot ever possibly be used to support the existence of God because it would therefore be a 'god of the gaps' fallacy? You don't understand what a 'god of the gaps' argument is if you think that.
@Big Chungus his arguments are usually something like "this thing exists, I dont know how, therefore god". That could be dna, the universe, physical laws or whatever. He often says that if atheists cant provide an explanation, then god is the answer, but he never provides evidence for that assertion.
@@TheAndnor Plenty of such evidence exists. You subjectively raising your own personal standards for belief so high they can't be met does nothing to discredit evidence. A truly objective and rational person would be swayed by teleological arguments, cosmological arguments, etc.
The Frank Turek Way: "I assert things. When challenged, I ask questions. When the response is, 'I don't know' or 'We don't know', I return to asserting things. I reject 'don't know' as an acceptable response, because I, Frank Turek, KNOW!"
Yet again, something can't come from nothing...except the god I say created something from nothing, the very definition of the god of the gaps argument. Bob the being I say created the universe, was around before your god, prove me wrong!
I'm looking for evidence myself of no God? The main evidence I'm after is it possible for nothing appear out of nothing because if there is no God then there has be way for matter to appear out nothing.
@@logicalatheist1065 Play the Big Bang backwards and you end up with no matter. And now, we have lots of matter. How do you get something from nothing?
@@TedTheAtheist I'm a believer. In terms of knowledge, I don't know God. In terms of experience, I knew God exists based on demonstrated miracle in my Church, but you won't believe me even I elucidate this matter. If you need a miracle from Jesus Wonderful Counselor Mighty God, then when you're alone proceed to shout in secret place "if you're real, then..." and say your reasons, it's something along the lines of why you don't need and/or hate God along with pessimistic reasons you don't believe God, and add "prove to me that you exist" with certainty, with honesty, honesty is essential first to surrender to God, and audacity to put your own little effort of Faith on Jesus on the line, even it's little effort of Faith on believing Jesus died on the Cross so we can boldly approach our God. It's a Prayer you need to do as an Atheist. If you don't do this, then you lack to endure of basic stuff that most believers put their Faith on the line as approaching God with boldness comes after believing Jesus died for our Sins. Do it in secret place, alone, there's nothing to be ashamed of.
@@davidarvingumazon5024 Sorry, but you don't "know" a god exists due to stories from your church, or perceived "miracles", which do not exist. You are brainwashed, just like every other theist, to believe in this "god" thing you cannot define and cannot produce any evidence for. This is something that is a problem for you due to a lack of education. You are brainwashed and delusional, and it isn't until you start learning how to apply logic and reason correctly in your life will you get actual, real answers. I wish you luck.. because "faith" won't get you anywhere.
As is typical, Frank is strawmanning the science, arguing from ignorance, and special pleading. I swear, I'm convinced that he is incapable of arguing honestly.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 that small segment by itself doesn't make sense yeah, but with context of the rest of the video it makes perfect sense, at least to me. and apparently a lot of other people.
@@godloves9163 Honestly I’m not sure I’m remembering correctly I’m not that smart but I think it’s Lead that takes millions of years to form….? For the record- I’m not here to be confrontational and have a negativity charged argument, I’m seriously interested in what you have to say. ETA My mind is NOT made up on this topic. Wanting to learn.
@@reality1958 yep 6,000 years. 1. If there is an Almighty powerful God, then yes its possible its only 6,000 years old. 2. This same powerful God created Adam, Eve and all the plants and animals FULLY GROWN on their first day alive. Adam had the body of a grown man on his first day alive. If God can do this, why cant he also create a planet and a universe thats FULLY grown as well? So the earth, on its day of creation would be fully grown and APPEAR to be billions of years old?? Just because its billions of years old doesn't necessarily mean its EXISTED for billions of years. Adam would've appeared to look 30 years old...but only be 1 day old. He made everything fully grown and told them to go forth and be fruitful and bring forth after their own kind. So once you come to the conclusion that YES there has to be a God...then the rest is 100% completely possible.
I try not to engage in the same condescending mockery that I hear whether from creationists or naturalists. Thus here I am saying this honestly with no double entendre or passive aggressive, hidden meanings. I have never doubted the existence of God. I saw some impressive theories with great special effects but there was almost a mumbling with a cough and hands placed over mouths when it came to the problem of what created (caused) the first creation. Some super singularity of the big bang needed a creation. The universe constantly cycles, contracting and exploding. OK, that just added a time to time. Where and how did that start? Multiverse? Again, same question. When I hear someone mocking those who believe in the resurrection of Christ, but yet believe in nothing creating something or everything (and then from that, organized life) so that we can say, "well, life is a thing, a limited thing, and thus resurrection is not possible" then I don't understand why I am being mocked at that moment. Abstracting away (the infinite recursion) each time a logical roadblock was met never seemed like anything but an excuse. My belief in a God that revealed himself along with probability defying proofs and interconnections is in my view the only thing that *can* explain everything and not rely on rapidly changing philosophies. It isn't 100% provable, but it has merit and proof that the philosophies do not and can not. Intelligence is not the same as wisdom and wisdom is the domain of morality and loyalty or fidelity. It is no wonder so many outspoken naturalists resort to such unclean proposals from eating human flesh to legalizing sexual relations with young boys.
Thank you so much for your comment. I would like to ask you a sincere question. Where did this god of the bible come from? If you say he didn't require a creator, then I would like to ask why the special pleading? If this god doesn't require an explanation, why wouldn't the universe also not require an explanation? There are many scientific theories that explain the possibility of this universe's existence that does not require anything supernatural and they don't break any laws of physics. The problem I see here is that the supernatural has not been shown to be a thing. If and when it is ever shown to be a thing, only then would we be able to move to the next phase, which is trying to determine its capabilities. But, we are not at that stage, at least yet. There is a lot more I can say about this, but you get the point. Look, I admit that I can be a very condescending individual when it comes to these topics. But I would like to set that aside and engage with you in an intellectual and respectful dialogue because you seem to be one of the most sincere folks that I have come across. How 'bout it? Let's engage.
@@Generatorman59 the God of the Bible created time, therefore He was before and after time. I don't think anyone is saying that He or His creation doesn't require an explanation. He created us to have communion and a relationship with Him. Assuming the universe created itself is like seeing a building and denying there was a builder or seeing a car and denying there was a manufacturer or seeing art and deny the artist, it just doesn't make sense. You truly want to know the truth why not just ask God with an honest and humble heart to reveal Himself to you and find out for yourself. I say this respectfully I admire you wanting to engage in conversation.
@@paolafriedrick Ok, so I am having some issues with your comment. You assert that the god of the bible created time. How do you know this? How do you know time was created at all? Even if time was shown to have been created, how do you know it wasn't another religion's deity who created it? When you say this god of the bible was before and after time, I don't know what that even means. If you say, for example, he existed before time, how is that even possible because existence requires occupying a location for a period of time. It is a self-contradicting statement. This is what I mean when I say he requires an explanation. Self-contradicting statements are very unsettling with me. When you say he created us to have communion and a relationship with us, how do you know this is accurate? How do you know he created us? How do you know what he wants from us? If you refer to the bible, then I would caution you because the bible is a book of claims. It is not evidence and it has been shown to be not scientifically accurate. I am not of the opinion that the universe created itself. Actually, I'm not convinced the universe was even created at all. But, if it were created, I believe it came about by natural means that did not violate any laws of physics. There are many peer reviewed theories on the subject that are documented in scientific journals on the subject. Of course a building requires a builder. Of course a watch requires a watchmaker. Of course a painting requires a painter. The problem with intelligent design, though, is that we don't have another universe to compare our universe with. What would an uncreated universe look like? How can we truly tell if this universe was actually designed? Let me be a little more clear on my point. I would like to invite you to Google strange rock formations around the world. Some of those are quite spectacular. One would almost say that they were manmade because they just appear to be designed. But, how can we tell if they really were? Also, do you believe your god intricately designs each and every unique snowflake? They certainly appear to be intelligently designed, too! Sure, we have blueprints on buildings. We know how they are constructed. We have historical records of their constructions. These things are well documented. But, we have no idea how (or if) a universe came to be. Therefore, we can not say it was intelligently designed, no more than we can say a snowflake is intelligently designed. I spent most of my life as a Christian. I used to believe in the bible and I always enjoyed witnessing to people on what Jesus Christ has done for me in my life. I get it. I understand your position because I used to be there. But, I'm at the point right now that asking me to believe in god is like asking me to believe in Santa Clause again. I'm not saying it won't happen, though. I'm am saying that I am keeping my options open and I am trying to learn why people believe in what they believe in. Just saying.
I'm a couple of minutes in and Frank has a couple of things wrong. He doesn't say it but he's referencing the big bang. The big bang model however doesn't say there was nothing before the big bang. It doesn't say that it was the first beginning or that there aren't other universes or that there wasn't some sort of eternal cosmos. Secondly, Frank refers to something being the cause of nature as super nature. It could just be a different type of nature we haven't seen. You can call that super nature if you want but that doesn't in any way mean that a god had to be involved - just nature we haven't seen yet. I'll stop there. I might watch the rest later and see how many more errors Frank makes.
This is pure speculation on Frank's part. He slips a "being" into his explanation and runs with it. The truth is we don't know what caused the universe. We don't know that a mind caused it. Talking about cause and effect without time is incoherent. We don't know if anything can exist outside of time and space. Something existing before time began may not even make sense. Frank saying he has deduced what caused the universe to exist is him stepping way beyond what he could possibly know.
@@jkinze Did I say that the starting point was "nothing"? Have you ever had a "nothing" to experiment on to see if anything can come out of it? Do you think that a spaceless, timeless, disembodied mind is a better explanation? Nothing even vaguely related to that has ever been observed. In fact nothing with even of those three characteristics has been observed, so it is pure speculation. As I said, we don't what caused the universe to come into existence, if such a statement can make sense since cause and effect require time in our experience. It would be far more honest of you and Frank openly admitted that we don't know instead of claiming you/he have cracked it.
@@philb4462 Of course it can’t be observed. Transcendentals can’t be empirically observed via sense data. That’s why you can’t possibly appeal to science when it comes to who God actually is through Special Revelation.
@@TedTheAtheist Yet, in your mind it makes perfect sense that we have conscious humans that evolved from random atoms smacking together? Where did all the different elements come from? How did the big bang, or now it looks like that is also wrong, gather everything in the universe in order to explode outward?
@@teeemm9456 I don't know what "random atoms" is. You can study how we got from non-life to RNA, and how we are learning more after that. Seems like you're going off of your feelings and your ignorance. That's no way to come to a conclusion. Just educate yourself and you don't have to believe in this magic sky daddy. It won't give you answers. You're asking questions - you should seek the answers. They aren't questions which are going to "stump" anyone. It just means we have a lot to learn. Don't give up learning and subscribe to some sky daddy. That will get you nowhere fast. Also, it makes no sense to ask questions that we don't have the answers to yet, and then assume that since they aren't answered, "therefore god did it". That's the argument from ignorance. It's a fallacy. Stop thinking that because mankind doesn't know the answers, that you can just make some up.
@@TedTheAtheist Wow, that's a whole lot of passive aggressive text, with a whole side of condescending ego. Science makes things up all the time, it's called theories, and they continually get proven wrong, over and over again. You can worship some bacteria and prokaryotes all you'd like, I grew up as an atheist and found that science provided very little confidence. Keep fighting though, sounds like you're trying to convince yourself more than anyone else.
@@nemanjacabarkapalordozunu Propaganda? No. Masks save lives. Answer me this: If a surgeon were performing open-heart surgery on you, would you want him to wear a mask while he operates on you?
"The most intelligent question" that average atheists like to ask: "who created God ". Poor guys! They don't realize that even if God had a creator, atheism would still be a delusional position.
@@emanuelavram2513 If your going to claim that God is outside of time then you have to prove it. But there's no way for you to prove it so it's just an assertion.
@@emanuelavram2513 God doesn't bother me, assertions do. Even if I agree with you that our current time and space had a beginning, doesn't mean we get to go to a creator that you choose.
God is timeless? That makes zero sense to me. I need a way to understand this. I don't understand why so many people believe this, if it makes no logical sense. Like how could you /or God accomplish anything without time.
For me, its plain and simple...Everything is made up....our books, phones, tv, internet, chairs, cars! All these relatively simple things require a "creator". While objects like flowers, trees, humans, animals, earth and the universe are more complex...definitely requires a Creator. This creator must be outside space and time, powerful and intelligent....that to me is a pretty good defintion of GOD.
@@reality1958 just because you can’t see God doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Everything is created by Him. God sits outside of time and space. He spoke the entire universe into existence. That’s creating something out of nothing. We can’t see wind, but it exists. Just look at the complex nature of our solar system. The planets are are operating in sync. Look at the complex nature of our DNA. Someone had to have created it. Even all the other living creatures on this planet have complex DNA structures.
@@reality1958 we do not need belief to know that everything created by man...came from his mind. Thus the being that created the universe must be infinitely more intelligent and powerful! That i think does not need belief....it is just logical. Do we need belief to understand that anything created needs a creator? I don't think so.
This is what you are saying "I am a complex being.The only way I can explain me being a complex being is if an infinitely complex being who is responsible for his own existence created me.This complex being has always been complex and did not evolve from a simpler being.Therefore his existence is even more improbable than my existence".The logic behind the answer is flawed
I feel the frustration of the student. Frank has so many built-in responses that he's developed over the years that it's hard to deconstruct them on the spot. Frank's answer is still a God of the Gaps. "Well something can't come from nothing, so someone or something transcendent must've created it". In other words "I don't know how the universe began therefore magic happened"
What he is saying is that if time, space and matter had a beginning that whatever created it has to be timeless, spaceless and immaterial. Which makes sense. I believe that is what Thomas Aquinas referred to as God. Add in extremely powerful, personal (has a will) and intelligent then that would point to a Christian view of God. Seems like a mind would fit the timeless, spaceless and immaterial criteria. Similar to our minds. Since our thoughts are spaceless and immaterial. And time can behave differently ( like in our dreams). Overall very interesting concept and argument.
@@dadjokes5038 >>What he is saying is that if time, space and matter had a beginning that whatever created it has to be timeless, spaceless and immaterial. Which makes sense. "" Does it make sense? How can anything happen without time existing? How did god go from god that had not created time yet to god who has created time, while in a state of no time, no potential for change, in a state of stasis? Does it make sense that there is a mind made out of nothing material? You can back this up somehow, maybe you have other examples? >>I believe that is what Thomas Aquinas referred to as God. Add in extremely powerful, personal (has a will) and intelligent then that would point to a Christian view of God. Seems like a mind would fit the timeless, spaceless and immaterial criteria. Similar to our minds. Since our thoughts are spaceless and immaterial. And time can behave differently ( like in our dreams). Overall very interesting concept and argument."" In what way are our minds similar to spaceless, timeless and immaterial? They occupy the space in our heads, they are not in a state of stasis and can be changed and constantly do, and they are made from matter. We PERCEIVE time differently in our dreams, but this does not mean time has changed while we dream, there is still a normal flow of time for everyone else.
A kid in a line of questioners, with maybe two to three minutes time to have his question answered, is not going to get a wealth of knowledge poured upon him. That is common sense.
@@macmac1022 Throw out time then. It is just a measurement that we assign to moments. We now know (if you agree that we can know things) that the universe was created, so that something came from nothing. That had to have had a cause. Since there was nothing material at that moment of creation, something immaterial did the creating. And since we are part of the material, we cannot study that which is immaterial.
Great, calm and respectful discussion. I've heard of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Even if we don't know something doesn't mean it is God or supernatural. As science advances, we may find answers in the natural world. Now I'm not saying things can be God or supernatural, but I can't say. Also science may never answer everything because with answers come new questions and so on and so forth. We'll never know everything. Also even if we find natural causes for unexplained phenomena doesn't mean that there is no God or supernatural beings and realms.
At this point, it's probably almost pointless to have these conversations between 2 people who are on polar opposites of this belief. Apologists such as Frank and Mike Winger are most likely to only help people on the fence or as an encouragement to the everyday Christian who is steeped in their faith, but like most any human, find that we all struggle. I will say this for Frank, from what I've seen, I'll give him this credit. He doesn't seem to curl up in a ball like Mike Winger who seems to be genuinely hurt and even "attacked" when others express the sentiment that he has no problem expressing to faiths outside of Christianity. Until limbs are restored, people rise from the dead, or "God" truly shows himself to want to know each and everyone of us, people will fall away from this faith. Are not everyone of us worthy of a Damascus Road experience? At least at that point we would have free will. To know and choose to follow or do otherwise.
I wouldn’t say opposites of beliefs, but rather opposites in their abilities to argue a position. Frank, having done these discussions for years, maybe decades, is well versed in his responses while many of these (I assume) college kids can barely form a question and are unprepared for the response they receive.
Young man: "Its called god-of-the-gaps. I'm not making this up." (French accent) "10 seconds later"... "If I took my phone back in time they would think it magic, but we just figured things out by science. Science wil tell us. Why can't we just keep going forward with this reasoning for explanations?" Frank: "what were you saying about making assertions in gaps of knowledge?"
@@inchristalone25 Actually it's YOUR ego that is the problem. People with big egos believe they have answers for questions that they don't really have. I have the humility to admit that I don't know how everything began You have the arrogance to assume that you happened to pick the right religion that does your thinking on this, for you. That's ego. That's arrogance. Nice try tho
@@mattslater2603 if what you said was true, you wouldn’t be trying to insult or proclaim them wrong; you would simply state that they may be right but you do not know for sure.
@@Nijuka87 If you're asserting the claim as a fact without adequate evidence That, in and of itself, is wrong. You have to show that supernatural things actually exist before you posit them as potential candidates for doing anything in the natural world
Most theists have an above average debating capacity/ argumentative but fail at the most basic form of logic and reason based on the scientific method. Now, one can argue that the scientific method is not all there is (to establish reality as we experience it), but in that case, name a better alternative, keeping in mind the contribution both sides (scientists and theists) have made in our evolution and understanding of reality, that rivals what the scientific method has done…
1) It is God of the gaps. I don't have an explanation for X therefor God. Same way ancients didn't understand things thus God's. Without evidence besides "it appears" or "I think" the only honest answer to what was before big bang is I don't know. 2) Frank also loves his special pleading of everything needs a creator or a beginning except for his God. That would be a logical phalacy that nearly every Christian can't help by use.
That absolutely is the god of the gaps. A better question would be to ask, why do you think this is evidence of your god and not one of the hundreds of others? Otherwise you're just left with circular logic of one person saying that isn't evidence, and the other saying it is.
Even if you accept that there had to be some sort of "God" as a first cause (and I don't) then there is absolutely no reason to believe it corresponds in any way to the Christian God or any other of the gods that mankind has come up with. It is pointless to try to ascertain what this "god" thinks, or what (if anything) it wants from us.
Jesus’ miracles were available for thousands to see. This is literary evidence to consider. Your comments “pointless” and “no reason” seem to indicate you won’t believe, not that you couldn’t believe. I used to think this same way but this led to end of life hopelessness. Please read the Scriptures for more reasoned thinking.
@@timm8675 So tell me why you think The Bible is true? Why is it any better than the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Kojiki, or any other religious text? The Wiki entry for the Kojiki describes it as "an early Japanese chronicle of myths, legends, hymns, genealogies, oral traditions, and semi-historical accounts" which (apart from the word 'Japanese') exactly describes The Bible!
@@timm8675 Do you have literary references of these thousands of witnesses other than in the Bible? These cultures were quite good record keepers. Such amazing events would surely have been documented in multiple ways. Yet we don't seem to have any.
I believe you missed where he talked about infinite regress. There is only so much we can explain through naturalism. Somewhere there must be an original cause that was uncaused
@@awesomefacepalm You said: _"I believe you missed where he talked about infinite regress."_ No, I did not miss that. There are any number of "infinite regress" arguments to be made, but could you first tell me what is so bad about an infinite regress? How many decimals does the number pi have, or the decimal representation of 1/3? Is that bad, or impossible, or undesirable? If that is the truth, then that is what it is, right? You said: _"There is only so much we can explain through naturalism."_ Well, that is certainly true regarding our current knowledge, but whether that is true regarding "everything" or "the future" is something we simply don't know. We don't know if there actually are "supernatural" thingies or if the thingies we consider immaterial at the moment can or cannot be explained "through naturalism". What we do know is that we have developed a fairly successful method for expanding our knowledge of our material reality, and that "faith" has little or no role in that method. You said: _"Somewhere there must be an original cause that was uncaused"_ First of all... why (see above)? Secondly, we may observe that in our universe each effect had a cause, but how do we know that this was true at the start or "before" that? We don't know, and it is possible that we can't know that. For example, if, as Dr. Turek said, time had a beginning, then it becomes nonsensical to talk about a "before" that beginning. "Before" is a time-based concept, so you can't have any "before" or "after" without time. Then, because you cannot have "before" and "after", it also becomes doubtful if you can have cause and effect. That would mean that your argument would be moot. Because without causality, the need for an original cause would evaporate.
@@hansdemos6510 Take some time to study the problems with infinite regress. Pi is not an example of infinite regress. Infinite regress is that something is caused by something that is caused by something... ad infinitum. Before and after doesn't need to be dependent on chronology either. But can also be used logically. God is before time, in a logical sense.
@@awesomefacepalm You said: _" Take some time to study the problems with infinite regress."_ Well, I have, but it was you who brought it up, and it was you who said it was a problem, so why don't you explain how this is a problem? You said: _"Pi is not an example of infinite regress."_ But is an example of an infinite series, and we don't consider that in itself problematic, do we? So the fact that some series is infinite, cannot be what you dislike about "infinite regress". You said: _"Infinite regress is that something is caused by something that is caused by something... ad infinitum."_ Right. We have already established that there is no logical problem with infinite series. Do you have a logical problem with causality? I don't think you do; so you have no problem with "regress" either, do you? So please explain what your problem is with "infinite regress". Why is this bad according to you? You said: _"Before and after doesn't need to be dependent on chronology either."_ Yes they do; that is the very definition of the word. You said: _"But can also be used logically."_ That would have to be different words. No time, no "before" and no "after". You said: _"God is before time, in a logical sense."_ It is nonsensical to talk about "before time", and a God postulated to be so would then be nonsensical as well.
I think it's great the kids asking questions. Holy Spirit please touch him. It may be his way of waking up. Forcing people to experience truth. Praise Jesus.
Utterly amazing!! Frank specifically laid out the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle's argument of an Unmoved Mover...an Uncaused First Cause. And the atheist asked:' What caused God?'.... Common sense is not very common.
@@midlander4 Since you study Theology ( you're arguing the subject so you better know what you are talking about), what is the Ontological Nature of Allah?
You mean he did special pleading for his god to not follow the rules of logic he insists everything else does. It's just a huge fail for christianity here.
@@reality1958 so tell me the science of why the masks keep the viruses at bay. And if there is a difference between bacteria and viruses. Because science will prove that bacteria is larger than viruses by a large amount and what keeps bacteria at bay may not work on viruses.
@@reality1958 but is that truly how covid is transmitted? Do you trust the CDC after all their bait and switch and changing their minds under strong social pressure? Yeah I don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths.
@@reality1958 but I thought that the virus was spread by particulates in the air..... not droplets? Have the CDC finally got themselves figured out? And do you really trust them after all the masks, no masks, 2 masks, vaccine, 2 vaccine, protected/not protected dance they've done over the past two years?
@@reality1958 There is no science in a face wrap, unless you can provide the research and studies for it. Just like the science proving the benefits of the *C L O T -- S H O T,* nothing.....
@@GreatBehoover >>Read Steven Meyers. He destroys any hope of naturalism being true."" And how exactly did he do that? Did he provide any empirical evidence for his claims yet?
@@macmac1022 You silly PRETENDERS simply close your little eyes, stomp those little feet, and scream "NOOOOO"!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 What you DON'T do is what you are AFRAID to do...ACTUAL SKEPTICAL RESEARCH. SKEPTICAL OF EVERYONE. I have SKEPTICALLY avoided Meyers in the past because U thought Chritian apologists would be biased. So I spent the last decade and a half studying ONLY EVOLUTIONARY PAPERS AND ARTICLES....every one I could get my hands on. I have an exceptional IQ, I read exceptionally fast, and I have a photographic memory...as well as being highly educated I have an insatiable thirst for scientific knowledge. You have NONE. You want NO GOD. Your willfully ignorant approach is this: I hate God...therefore I believe in naturalism. That approach is BIASED and disallows any contrary evidence to pervade your SILLY FAITH!🙄🙄🙄 If you would do what I did and START READING instead of HOPING that the evidence "exists" for naturalism...you will find what I found....IT DOESN'T. Faith statements about evolution, and abiogenesis, and big bang mythologies abound! What does NOT even occur is UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE backing any of these fantasies. Feel free to save yourself the trouble and read Meyers first. I wasted ALOT of time learning EXACTLY what he said in hos books. In fact, I actually learned a few things I didn't know because of his approach to Darwin. As you can tell...I'm no fan of racist darwin or lyell. I had no idea what FRAUDS both men were in their BIASED APPROACH to science. In any case Meyers is brilliant. I've already addressed why naturalism carries the burden of proof...not people who merely DON'T BELIEVE THAT FAITH. If it was real science...then I would have found ONE PIECE OF OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE DEVOID OF FAITH STATEMENTS AND CIRCULAR REASONING!!! In the HUNDREDS OF POPULAR PAPERS...you would THINK that FAITH-FILLED NONSENSE wouldn't need be used...BUT the entirety of the dogmatic MYTHOLOGY is based upon faith upon faith. I was SHOCKED to see this. The deeper I got, the greater my skepticism grew until DNA CODE. I was BLOWN out of my mind. I've never seen CODE at this level. Magnificent beyond Magnificence!!! It is BRILLIANT and on a level that makes Bill Gates look like a chump comparatively. It doesn't just beat Microsoft and ALL MANMADE CODE COMBINED...it destroys it!!! We STILL DON'T GET ALL OF IT. DNA CODE proves design. GAME OVER. You can't give any LOGICAL or REASONABLE explanation for it's existence outside of a SUPERGENIUS DESIGNER. None! IMPOSSIBLY CREATED and you silly NONTHINKERS Don't even BEGIN to understand WHY. You simply IGNORE all evidence that makes you butt-hurt, and conversely... you readily accept ANY UNTRUE GARBAGE about your FAITH... that it COULDA, WOULDA, SHOULDA have been a result of the accident if the gaps fallacy you people believe!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Read Meyers...then respond!!!
@@macmac1022 Also... Neither Meyers nor myself claimed that: PIGS FLY! You did! Naturalism did. Not that pigs fly, but rather that you BELIEVE the scientific equivalent... namely that: DNA CODE SELF-CREATED and SELF-ASSEMBLED into cells! How utterly ridiculous to have such UNSCIENTIFIC FAITH!! No one writes peer reviewed papers to disprove the silliness of people's asserting that pig's fly! Bexause they DON'T!!! IT'S OBVIOUS! Likewise with DNA CODE. It CAN'T...CAN'T...CAN'T SELF-CREATE AND SELF-ASSEMBLE INTO CELLS silly boy!!!! Can't...never ever ever been observed...not even CLOSE!!! Pig's seriously have a far better chance of sprouting wings and flying!!! WHY on earth would anyone believe pig's fly....the opposite of OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE. Why again do you BELIEVE that DNA CODE SELF-CREATED and SELF-ASSEMBLED into cells....in OPPOSITION TO ALL AVAILABLE OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE!!!?????????🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄
Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl
4 point case? What is the evidence for the Bible story of the resurrection of Christ?
@@cnault3244 you didn't t even listen to this channel
@@emilemil7826 We did, which is why we are still asking. You have yet to provide the evidence.
@@darrylelam256 It's seems to be al lie
@@emilemil7826 What?
I give this fellow a lot of credit. He didn't interrupt, he was polite, and it seemed like he considered what Frank was saying.
The guy on the stage had no idea what he's talking about.
@J0urney Art Because he couldn't intelligently tell us what a god is, and on top of that his only 'evidence' for one is because we don't have the real answers for how everything came to be. Frank is just your average theist who has no idea what he's talking about.
@J0urney Art By that logic, if everything had a beginning, then so did this "god" thing. Saying everything had a beginning does NOT offer us any good, scientific evidence to show what a god is and how we know one exists. We don't need to know how everything came to be - this is your problem. You're asking the question, but we don't have to know to know that saying "god did it" is NOT the answer - because it lacks evidence. Until you educate yourself and realize this mistake of yours, you'll always be wrong on this.
@@TedTheAtheist If God had a beginning then He wouldn’t be God. If I make a computer I’m not bound to the established laws that computer follows, that same logic applies.
@@TedTheAtheist
The biblical concept of God is God is eternal, uncreated, exists above time and space, He is timeless, spaceless, placeless, without beginning or end, infinite etc...
So yes, the biblical God would be an answer for the problem...
Whats your answer?
I love how this 20-year-old college student thinks he's introducing Dr. Turek to the "god of the gaps" concept. Maybe next week he can teach Dr. Dawkins about biology!
@@NickyTheLesser You're obviously not as familiar with Dr. Turek as you think you are.
@@NickyTheLesser Is that so? Please, feel free to explain. This is news to me after all these years.
@@doclee8755I will pit Stephen Meyer's "Return of The God Hypothesis" vs any Atheist debater and watch Meyer's work Dominate.
Someone needs to lol
@@Luke-pc5rb And tell me, what evidence does meyer have to support his conclusions?
I love how science is celebrated as making everything possible. It's just the study of God's design and then the manipulation of it for our benefit. The two shouldn't be separate.
Except you cannot demonstrate that your god actually exists or designed anything..nor can you demonstrate that there is anything "outside" the natural world..
Science is the study of natural world.
@Michael Abbott
“ Except you cannot demonstrate that your god actually exists or designed anything..nor can you demonstrate that there is anything "outside" the natural world..”
So does that mean you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist? And there’s many great evidence for the existence of God, for example, how did the universe begin? What about the existence, life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ.
@@Peter-wl3tm why would anyone show that god doesn't exist? its up to the theist to show that god exists. not the other way around.
@@michaelabbott9080 not using the laws of natural science, no. I also can't demonstrate anything about music by examining water.
Scientists, however, seem very eager to look for supernatural explanations for cosmological questions. It's the reason that multiverse hypotheses are becoming more popular, or concepts of how things like quantum tunneling might have "leaked" matter into this universe. Ultimately it's reaching for "science of the gaps" arising from this insistence on a strictly one-dimensional way of observing reality.
What a time to be alive where such important questions like these can be answered and shared to billions worldwide in a single video , the hands of our Lord and his work are beyond pure genius
As though the founders of CZcams have nothing to do with it!
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 What
@@Bomtombadi1 lol
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 there are only a few in heaven,
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 Actually God came down to earth multiple times to witness and speak to man thousands of years ago, preformed many miracles and used many men to spread his message and reach people. If you even heard of than, its in the Bible. Just open it and read it. God has been communicating directly with man since Adam and Eve.
*_"For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse."_* - Romans 1:20
exactly bro, many on the last day will say “their was no evidence for you existing” but God will say these exact words to them
@Creston Swan He saw Jesus, but that doesn't change the facts he stated, as quoted in the OP. We need not see God to be able to deduce His existence _(just like how we would know there was a painter if we find a painting somewhere even when no one's in sight.)._
@Creston Swan its not blind faith, God clearly says if you seek Him with genuine faith you will find Him.
God's word will always stand 🙏
@@jb8662 That's funny because I did that and found nothing but cultural bias based on b.s
So glad I found this channel. I've always argued that reverse engineering an iPhone doesn't mean Steve Jobs never existed.
Steve jobs is a lot like your god, he took credit for things he never did. Hundreds of people created the iphone while jobs took all the credit and never did anything. In fact the tech was already developed, he bought out the company then stuck an apple logo on it.
@@brianpeterson8908 thats short minded of you. To compare GOD like that would be like me saying you are an animal that eats slop and rolls around in its own feces compared to GOD. If you dont get the reference you prove my point.
@@brianpeterson8908 God made them all. Every person who contributed to the development of the iPhone are in existence because God created man. You see Man & the world as we all know it came from nothing. They were created. The Big bang theory is the secular scientific explanation of the starting point of life. Biblical scripture states God said let there be light! Hence the Big bang was created by God.
@@jusliving7977 your so called god is the creation of bronze age barbarians. The big bang theory is not the scientific explanation of the starting point of life. Go back to school child, you are clueless.
@@brianpeterson8908 Dont lie . Atheist Scientists doesnt know how everything started.Sure they have theories but no evidence really .If you think logically it would make sense if their is a creator for everything.
Because saying the universe has a no creator is like saying there is no engineer for a building.
Yes im going to use the same example because its actually makes sense
"I didn't make this up"
I instantly cringed, I can't believe I was one time that confident.
I think Dr. Frank Turek, a known advocate of the argument of intelligent design, is well familiar with a perspective that's been around for 100+ years.
Don’t be so hard on him. We were all young and immature at one time. I know I have said some cringeworthy things when I was younger. My father likes to periodically bring them up and tease about it.
1. He is not intelligent designer advocate, there is difference between intelligent design and creationism
2. When he said "I didn't make this up", means the conclusion is not come without reasoning, if you don't agree with the conclusion, why not argue that you have better reasoning
@@deczen47 1) Turek isn't a creationist, hence is an I.D proponent.
2) Turek *did* provide better reasoning.
@@Si_Mondo
1. did you read his book?
2. explain
I was once like that too. He assumed the professor had never heard the argument before because he applied a self mirroring technique: its when the person with little knowledge assumes the other party has gaps as big as they do. After a while you learn some humility and you realize your gaps are always bigger than someone who is older and wiser. But you have to be able to discern wisdom exists and is good to acquire before you can really become humble about how much you don't know. Because you have to take someones advice to get to a place of true humility :)
That “yeah” at the end is the beginning of that kids life.
OK....
@@Jewonastick Tell me who could be smarter than the God of creation? If you think you are then good luck trying to go up against your creator.
@@Jewonastick So bitter. You must have had fire and brimstone parents or family members. It’s okay, God will forgive you for being led astray by them (as long as you aren’t a total pos in every other aspect of your life).
@@Jewonastick Of course there is no method to test other than you will find out shortly after you die. Not something I would want to do. This life is but a blink. Choose wisely.
@@Jewonastick You wrote 'to' instead of 'too'. Not trying to attack you or anything, but grammar knowledge is an inteligence factor to compare against something with a mind.
I never understood the thinking that if we can explain things it makes them less incredible or miraculous. The more I have learned the more I have been convinced of a Creator.
What about earthquake's? They were serious things in the past. Acts of divine fury.
Now we dont have any respect to them. They're even annoying to some people. We fear them but if its low we find it even a bit entertaining. Because we know what they are and why they exist.
If we someday find out why the universe exist and what caused it, and its not a Godly being. Would we still think about God?
We'll yes. Im sure of it.
"Because what made the thing that made the universe exist? God!" will still be heard.
@@rafaelperez6189 Since you're talking science, tell me what repeatable and observable experiments could be run to "find out why the universe exist and what caused it"?
@@lesliewilliam3777 We can't. That's the sole purpose on sending space probes so far into space.
We get info, we build machines, we do tests, we make science. If we cant do repeatable experiments for a Galaxy size test, we make theories. Think what effects a particular celestial object causes. Look out for those effects. If they exist the theory might be in the right. If the evidence is inconclusive we theorize more until the right answer is found.
Til this days that process get far more results than anything we have ever known.
Thats what made Gallileo famous. Celestial objects can orbit other planets, not just Earth. The Earth and every other planet is revolving around the Sun and not Earth.
TLDR: We cant prove what created the universe. But if it is doing something we're gonna find it.
@@lesliewilliam3777 hadron collider replicating events at a much weaker level than the start of the universe. No religion spoke of particles and elements. No religion has any proof for god. No god is omnipotent etc... Could a higher level being that is not a god exist? Maybe. However, to say "must be god" because science and humans haven't explained it is but definition, a god of the gaps fallacy.
@@abel3557 Re the Hadron Collider, how can an event carried out today replicate a putative event that no one witnessed and which occurred so long ago? There is no actual human-witnessed event against which any experiment today could be referenced. It's not the same "science" used in biology, chemistry, engineering, genetics...In fact, most cosmogony is based on maths.
So, answer me this: Show me the repeatable and observable experiments demonstrating life coming from non-life by ordinary chemistry, unaided by human beings.
Love this guy!
Highly intelligent but still spiritually in tune to the truth!💖
Hallelujah Thankyou JESUS!🙏🏾
Truth is the degree to which a statement corresponds with reality. The assertion that "there is a god" does not correspond with reality. We have no idea what it is, so we surely can't know it exists. All the guy on stage is doing is saying: "Well, stuff had to come from somewhere"... that is not information that will help us know there is a god. Guy is just blowing smoke up people's asses.
Using logic and not emotions to answer atheist questions is brilliance.
It would indeed be brilliant. Now, when will someone do that?
@joeturner9219
That's totally absurd. You have no knowledge of my position on the question.
What do you believe I am ignorant of? It is a fact that there is no evidence for god. One cannot formulate a logical argument for god because any such argument has to be based on the premise that god exists, which hasn't been proven.
So evidence based approaches are out and logic is out. What else do you have?
@@avishevin1976 'One cannot formulate a logical argument for god because any such argument has to be based on the premise that god exists, which hasn't been proven.' - This is possibly the best comment I have ever seen on a god debate because it's true. Every single piece of 'evidence' that I have been presented with all breaks down to the same tired formula of "X exists, thefore god exists". Every single time. It's so lame, sad and pathetic. You know what would be good evidence? If god actually showed his face so we could be convinced of his existence. This goes for all 3000+ gods in religion.
@@avishevin1976…we will pray for you.
@@avishevin1976You can’t come to God unless you use your faith and the emotions of love, joy and hope. “ But without faith it is impossible to please Him ( God): for he that comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.” Hebrews 11:6. You will have to exercise faith in order to seek Him. You have to build on that faith constantly.
This is why it's so important to study philosophy academically. The young man who posed the questions genuinely didn't understand what Frank was saying to him. Philosophy is the underpinning of every field of knowledge, and no one who is uninformed on it can claim to be an educated person.
I think he just had social anxiety. Pretty common to many people. The fact he stood up is in itself appreciable.
When in the eye of a lot of people you dont want to mess up so you try to be simple and straight to the point. Preachers however can do speak a lot and jumble anything they think to an audience so the boy was actually being a little pressed and couldn't say as much as he would in a comfortable state.
Maybe he would have countered in a way to see if infinite regression is absurd why cant this infinite and out of time property not be natural for the universe itself. Why is God the only one that can have no reason for coming to be?
@@rafaelperez6189 Selohcin was so on the money with his comment that people should study philosophy properly!
I don't know if it is because your first language is Spanish, but to say "Why is God the only one that can have no reason for coming to be?" is an elementary ontological error: God does not come to be; He is Being in itself i.e., eternal so has never come into existence.
BTW, if you don't posit God as the eternal personal Principle, the cause of all that exists, then atheists still have to have a surrogate. This surrogate will ALWAYS be some form of eternal non-personal matter. Nowadays it takes the form of the multi-verse THEORY (about which there is ZERO evidence, as well as ignoring Ockham's Razor demand), which is just another way of saying matter/energy is eternal.
@@rafaelperez6189 "Maybe he would have countered in a way to see if infinite regression is absurd why cant this infinite and out of time property not be natural for the universe itself."
I think you really don't understand the logical consequences of an infinite regress.
Furthermore, I can't make sense of the statement that infinitude and atemporal ontological properties be "in" a finite and temporal universe. Care to explain?
@@lesliewilliam3777 Yes.
From the alternative to the Creator. Of course i have nothing. We haven't figured out that one. It may be a God? Perhaps. Its zero evidense for the multiverse theory. At this point its only speculative what came before the universe. There is the hypotesis of the Big Crunch. A universe reset.
Im not very knowedgeable on philosophy so about inmaterial im in the blind.
So to explain my reason its simple:
God is above the universe as its creator, ok?
So, for a universe wich is finite and temporal to have an origin it would have come from something infinite and eternal, but its also not bound to space and time.
Ok, then by this easy definition we get that this "God" have to always have existed to be timeless and space...less?
Then, to get to the point. What is this God? Would it be a Being as you say? Or is it another universal phenomenon that have "properties" not bound to universal laws.
I always think, when watching this debates that goes on forever between any theist and atheist, even if God is the actual reason for the universe, we're still not sure wich one it is.
It may as well not have done anything at all after creating the universe and there we are debating about someone, that did one thing and left, that it is acting upon us each and every day.
Surely you get what im talking about or this will only sound like im talking to myself. Im the type of person that usually makes all the sense in my head but its difficult to convey it to someone else. Well, theists also fit that description. But regardless of how i see it, im more in the side of "if we dont know, why would anyone be right?"
You don't need a PhD in philosophy to understand that God is logically contradictory...he loves mankind yet kills every person on earth in a "global" flood..he orders the killing of women and children many times in the OT, he also condones slavery and even legislates the treatment of said slaves as property..how can god, who is supposed to be the standard of all morality and love itself, be the very same one who kills women and children and allows people to own each other as property? How is that not a contradiction?
Sometimes "God of the gaps" is just a justification for "trust the science". The reality is that even when God shows up right in front of them, the first thing coming into their mind is that this must be an illusion. It's a mindset.
Cudos to the young man. He did listen. Something his peers could do well to learn.
“I didn’t make this up” 💀
Atheisum: Deciveing billions and Making the world a better place to go to Hell from. Their hard hearts refuse refuse refuse to believe.
Atheism is a HUGE minority. They don’t even reach the billions in number. But it is a sad worldview to follow.
In what manner does the position of atheism - to suspend any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient credible evidence is introduced - deceive billions?
May The Lord have mercy! 🤕
@@theoskeptomai2535 because all those who believe in atheism are on the pathto hell
They thought tbey were wise but in their wisdom they became fools
Thanks Frank, this video is very helpful. It's difficult to find this topic (kalam + infinite regress) in a short video to share.
@@paulthompson9668
No silly...they haven't. You simply bought into atheistic PHILOSOPHY!
By all means...PROVE IT.
@@paulthompson9668
What HAS BEEN DEBUNKED is your silly naturalism FAITH.
DNA CODE CAN'T ACCIDENTALLY SELF-CREATE AND SELF-ASSEMBLE INTO CELLS...as you silly atheists BELIEVE with all your little hearts!!!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🙄🙄🙄🙄
By all means....PROVE it can!!!! I'll wait.....😳😳😳😳🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@paulthompson9668 Tell us how they've been debunked then.
I hope you don't think this would convince any nonbeliever lmao?
@@MrTheclevercat Speak for yourself. A lot of atheists already became christians simply by thinking about these things.
"Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical or chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me, as a by-product, the sensation I call thought. But, if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? It's like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I can't trust my own thinking, of course I can't trust the arguments leading to Atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an Atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in God, I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in God."
-CS Lewis
"How can I trust my own thinking to be true?" Well, that's exactly what the scientific method figured out. You trust your own thinking is true because it leads to predictions that match your experience. You think spilling the milk will make it fall to the floor, and then you spill the milk, and it falls to the floor. You don't need to believe there's something out there watching over you to make things happen the way you expect.
This is precisely God of the Gaps. Not understanding how something happened doesn’t mean we have to slap the God label on it and move on. In science you have to be comfortable with the phrase “I don’t know”
Someone with some common sense. Christians act like god did everything, all without every speaking to him. 2000 years ago the bible was written and there has yet to be any physical proof of god's existence so you're basically talking to a bunch of mental people. I always ask any religious person for physical proof of god's existence without the bible because anyone could have written that and they always sidestep the question or answer the question with a question.
@@shaqyardie8105 Do you want physical proof of history? What about love, joy, peace, or the future. All these things have an outcome, just like the Bible was an outcome of God. It was written over thousands of years by numerous people, it was never intended to be the Bible when written. The fact that there’s matching prophecies is even further proof. Nothing cannot create everything, it’s physically impossible for creation to creat itself. All sinners who need saving, God bless.
God is a better explanation than "nothing", and Frank argues from what we do know from the laws of physics, not from not we don't know.
@@hwd7 I never said “nothing” created the universe. I said “I don’t know.” We have no clue how everything came to be. It could have been God, or it could have been something completely different that humans today can’t even imagine. Also, who knows what could have been possible before the universe was created. It’s entirely possible that no laws of physics applied before the Big Bang, leaving a whole suite of possibilities.
Again, I have no idea how it was created, but that doesn’t mean we should make baseless claims in the meantime.
@@shaqyardie8105 if we have to prove God existence without Bible, then you have to prove Gods nonexistence with Bible. Let's get silly.
Muslim here -- but a fellow believer in God. Big fan of Frank. I love how respectful he is. You can tell he has such a high level of security when he answers.
So simple when you think about it -- surely at some point going back, there has to be force that is timeless. Randomness for me is just not it.
No sheikh could ever present an argument for God like Christian apologists do. Because Islam is a house built on sand. It's vapid and devoid of depth and substance.
All these religious people talk a lot without saying much.
The bottom line is that there is zero evidence for any god man has worshiped.
A gut feeling is not evidence.
Why can’t humans admit that we just don’t know?
do you believe in objective good and evil?
Always love your videos Frank! God bless yall and whoever reads this!
yep.........and Frank is dead wrong............but you would not understand anyway.
@@bartduynstee1577 I hope that you can find as much fulfillment and merriment in your life as possible, for there is no joy or wisdom or merriment in Sheol, where you are going.
But you know that, so don't be angry at me for saying it, I wish the best for you in this life after all. I only wish you would be willing to never leave the presence of God, but God will not force you to dwell in his presence forever (which you so hate), so one day your life will end and He will not only allow you, but will force you to depart from Him forever. Without God there is no life, you will be in the depths of Sheol.
But you hate God, so being separated from the giver of all good things is your will.
No, you cannot have only a small piece of God and tell the rest of Him to screw off, you barely understand him, what you do understand, you love, but what you don't understand you won't even give Him the benefit of the doubt on. So He will reject you, unless you seek to know and Truly understand Him, then it is written that he will show sinners the way, he will teach the humble His ways.
Frank is a fraud.
Would not the young man be employing the same argument for his own position? AKA "The science of the gaps" .... His "gods" the scientists will eventually figure it all out....
The God of the gaps is a fallacious argument..... Just because mankind figures out how something works is not evidence that it was not designed by a mind greater then his own.
Exactly right. It's considered noble to say "I don't know" now but it's quickly followed up by "but science will figure it out eventually". Sounds like faith.
And it also seems that not knowing also allows them to know that God didn't do it. That's a neat trick to not know and know at the same time.
@@festushaggen2563
To know but not know at the same time... Just another example of how atheism contains confusion.
He accused Frank of making "god-of-the-gaps" fallacy, then literally 15 seconds later seconds later throws "science of the gaps" at Frank. His ignorance is astounding. Obviously he is regurgitating a talking points from some CZcams atheist channel. In my opinion Frank should've fought back against the very name "god-of-the-gaps" by pointing out its actual name; argument from ignorance/appeal to ignorance, and show the young man it is used by BOTH sides of the theism debate.
We have let atheists control the narrative & change definitions for too long. Frank is too cordial.
@@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831
I think that if the one asking questions is simply lost and just looking for direction then being cordial is a good idea.... But if they're an atheist spouting nonsense out of vitriol then they should be treated like Jesus treated the pharisees by telling them exactly what they are and what reality really is.
Using logic for those who question. Bless you, Frank!! And bless this young man!
Logic and charlatanery
Everything that has a beginning has an end and that's what should scare people.
Should God scare people? Eternity in the lake of fire?
@@jonathandiaz718 most atheists don't believe our universe had a beginning. They just think always existed.
@@bradleye1964 answering your question: no God does not scare anyone what should scare you is eternity without God which the Bible describes it very well that's what should be scary.
@@jonathandiaz718 If it’s just natural then indeed why should it scare people?
People live their lives not even thinking about death, that is until death is staring them in the face. How many people diagnosed with a terminal illnesses say “oh well it’s just the natural way of it, never mind eh” do you know?
Why do people grieve at the loss of a loved one, even when their very old, when it’s just the natural way of it?
@@atasmaly
There is only one place in the Bible that I know that mentions separation from God, yet there are literally dozens of verses, from OT to NT that talks about the wrath of God.
Here is an example: "Then the kings of the earth, the nobles, the commanders, the rich, the mighty, and every slave and free man hid in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains. And they said to the mountains and the rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of the One seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb. For the great day of Their wrath has come, and who is able to withstand it?” Rev 6:16
Here you can clearly see that it won't be just some separation from God, it will be rather God coming after the sinners with His flaming wrath to burn them.
Now the question is, what will this wrath accomplish?
Thank you sooo much for your work!
Notice how Turek answers the question he wants to answer, rather than the question that was asked. He goes all the way to the outer limits to talk about the cause of the universe itself, because it's still the unknown territory. He never addresses the clear fact that many supernatural explanations which were commonly accepted in past centuries have now fallen by the wayside. The questioner is trying to keep an open mind and suggest it's perfectly reasonable to expect the trend of discovery of natural causes to continue. There's not a single observable phenomenon that we can agree actually has a supernatural explanation. Frank wants to go all the way to the final frontier... because it's safe to speculate about. And based on what is unknown about the origin of the universe, he does indeed inject his god concept into the gaps. And he's making money off it.
Great comment!
"it's perfectly reasonable to expect the trend of discovery of natural causes to continue"
Yes. And Turek acknowledges that while it may be useful to identify natural causes, we eventually reach an uncaused cause.
@@objectivereality1392 How does he know?
@@drumrnva Because, as he stated: Time, space and nature can't come from time, space and nature... They have to come from something outside those things... Which would be, by definition, a timeless, spaceless, supernatural being.
@@objectivereality1392 Says who? If something is timeless, spaceless, and immaterial, how the heck could you possibly identify it?
Great video. Thankful for the ministry of Dr. Frank Turek!
No-one know what caused the universe. If you claim it was god, then the burden of proof is yours. There is not evidence for the claim any god was involved. We simply do not know much, if anything, about the creation of our universe.
Its yet another step to assume it must be something intelligent. Again a claim for which there is no evidence at all.
Well said. Summed it up great.
Why is there no evidence for God? What makes atheism true?
@@daredlibrary First of all, there is no universal definition of what god means. Even christians themselves struggle to define god. So how on earth do your prove god when you cannot define it?
" What makes atheism true?"
That question does not make any sense whatsoever. Atheist is defined as either the lack of belief in a god or the rejection to the claim that any god exists.
Its a psychological position rathern than a claim.
@@Wmeester1971 Ok, so your not standing in a position thats truthful, rather just a belief. Wouldnt you want to stand in a position thats truthful? Is it possible to obtain that position?
@@daredlibrary "Ok, so your not standing in a position thats truthful, rather just a belief.'
Its funny how some theist abuse the word "Truth" meaning just their personal believe without a shred of evidence.
Its better to be ignorant about a subject than believe wild guesses without a shred of evidence.
These 18 year old kids constantly think they can beat the guy with a PhD using arguments that have been beaten for centuries. It's incredible.
You think Frank’s arguments haven’t?
@@Bomtombadi1 I personally haven’t heard an argument against his reasoning that I find more compelling.
@@Bomtombadi1 , let's assume you're right. Can you show us that argument?
P.S. Check whether the argument you're going to present actually involves an infinite regress. It almost always does. Or already exists as a debunk of the debunk.
@@NickyTheLesser No it’s not. You ought to spend more time understanding the implications of your own worldview, and understanding Christ, than you do poking at people in Cross Examined comments. Just a piece of advice from a former atheist. Much love
I know right! Cause a PhD in apologetics makes you an expert in cosmology and biology.... 🤦♂️
God of the gaps is a pointless argument when it comes to Christianity. It only makes sense against religious doctrines that associate gods with natural processes in a kind of *direct naturalistic, and/or anthropomorphic sense.* For example, some African folktales believe that thunder is caused by the beating of drums of the gods. this is kind of a direct naturalistic explanation in the form of the concept of god's, but that isn't what the Bible teaches about the nature of God and his relation to the natural world
It had to he "African folktales"? Really? There are no European, Nordic, Scandinavian, Celtic, Gaelic, Asian, North and South American folktales? Why is it that y'all ALWAYS have to use Africa as the ONLY or TYPICAL example when you want to illustrate negative, primitive, idolatrous nonsense? What, was every other continent not idolatrous and primitive before now? It's getting really disgusting and y'all need to STOP it because we are sick and tired of it. And yes, I am a black Nigerian (African) woman saying so. Plus, I believe JESUS is the only WAY, TRUTH and LIFE so don't get it twisted. Thank you.
@@ayolovephat who said it was negative? if you have insecurities about your heritage that is on you. I was simply giving an example of naturalistic explanations through the concept of god's, I'm a little bit more familiar with African folklore because I read more literature about them than Asian or western folklore, so I used that. I for one see it as a pinnacle of philosophical thinking, a creative attempt at understanding how nature works. please if you're embarrassed by it it's only you, and not all Africans. many Africans are proud of this creative and philosophical heritage.
@@ayolovephat be proud of your heritage, if you were offended by me stating that story, I apologise, but there's honestly nothing wrong with it, other people are proud to display their history, the works of their ancestors, they talk about thor, Odin, Zeus, but I don't know why with Africa people are shy or offended to talk about the early philosophies and work. Be proud.
No it isn't.
God of the gaps refers to people using the gaps in our scientific knowledge as some kind of evidence for God.
Christians do this CONSTANTLY.
"You can't get something from nothing - therefore God"
"DNA is code that requires a coder - therefore God"
"You can't explain how life began - therefore God"
Any of these sound familiar? Or are you honestly going to pretend these aren't arguments Christians use a of the time?
The Bible may not claim that thunder is caused by God beating drums. However it does make some claims that are equally outlandish - for example, that God created Adam from dust, and Eve from one of Adam's ribs. Or that the stars are just lights embedded in the 'firmament', which in turn separates the 'waters above' from the 'waters below'.
Special pleading: "I can have a God which has always been there but you can't have a pre-natural cosmos which has always been there."
Scientists don't know what existed before the universe began, and neither does Frank, no matter how often he asserts without evidence that he does. "God-did-it" remains an unproven hypothesis. However, there's plenty of evidence to indicate the human need to create gods.
@Billy You can't be serious.
@Billy Even your religion acknowledges that people create gods aka idols, that's how other religions exist right?
@Billy You asked for evidence, there is evidence that humans need to create gods for themselves. The rest of the logic is in the original post.
@@akoskormendi9711 well the thing with people creating gods back then was cause of the fallen angels had mated with humans and animals creating giants and all kinds of creatures like centaurs. And end up worshipping them. Like Greek gods for example. Plus they did human sacrifices to their gods. Aztecs to their sun god and child sacrifice to moloch.
@Billy If you truly don't know about the thousands of gods worshipped throughout human history, starting in ancient Sumer, then you need to read more. Maybe go to a museum. Search CZcams if you don't like reading. There are plenty of documentaries. But I still can't believe you're unaware of at least some of the gods worshipped throughout human history. Even today there are thousands of gods in addition to the Christisn one.
AMEN!!!
God bless you and all those involved in your apologetics ministry. Praying for you to reach many many more for the Lord Jesus Christ and also praying an abundance of blessings for you and your loved ones, Frank!
Love you in Christ 🙏
I don't like some of the condescending comments here. As Christians we should absolutely appreciate young atheists challenging us with their questions and objections.
Thank you. I agree with what you said. I will also acknowledge the at it needs to go both ways. Seems the art of civilized conversation has been lost on many.
Kid is right, frank is very fallacious and doesn't understand science to save his life.
Thank you Frank Turek, what a great video!
I'm unmoved by the "law giver" argument. Until an apologist demonstrates that the natural laws we observe could have been different, there's no reason to think they're not just brute facts about the universe. Gravity and the speed of light don't seem to be "laws" in the same way speed limits and shoplifting are. It feels like a conflation of definitions.
I want to know what God was up to before he created all of time and space. Like how long did he sit in the dark twiddling his thumbs before he said "Hey, I know what I can do!".
The answer involves planning to send his son to Earth so the kid can be tortured to death by Rome
Maybe you can ask when you get there. But for now, it's irrelevant.
Great idea to not believe based on what you can't comprehend instead of the mountain of evidence for God that you can. Genius.
Eternity is the ocean, time is a drop of water. Asking "How long did he sit " is not applicable because time did not exist. He created time, time did not create him. Because we humans are bound by time and space, it is difficult to conceive that it is possible for a sentient being to not be similarly bound.
@@akhenatonmarcano3703 Time is an illusion. The issue is mortality and immortality.
Thumbnail creator deserves premium seats in heaven
There are no premium seats in heaven.
@@nikokapanen82 he doesn't mean it like that. He's just complimenting the editor's skills using hyperbole
In catholic heaven it does😊♥️
Mostly cause there is no heaven
It seems the main point Frank is making here is that there MUST be an absoloute beginning, or an uncaused cause, and that necessitates God. As far as i can tell, this isnt an argument. Its an assumption, and it wont convince most people.
I once again must disagree. Afterall, he is suggesting a creation that does not contradict the LAWS of science, physics, or nature. That's a creation atheists have yet to offer. All of theirs are based on the idea that some matter already existed and was just blasted in to shape, so you must ask where did the original matter come from. Or they suggest a creation of matter from nothing, which science proves impossible. Frank is proposing a supernatural answer to a question that it's very nature is supernatural. That's why atheists always fail, because their science disproves it. However, if one is to hypothetically assume that there is a god(ignoring the religious argument of which one that is), then that would easily explain this impossible question. Now of course, I've heard atheists say "claiming there is a god is just a cop out for when you don't have an answer." Yet again, I must oppose that by saying that that very statement is a cop-out to refuse admitting one is wrong
An evolution isn't an assumption🤨?
@@akhenatonmarcano3703 evolution is impossible and there is no true evidence for it apart from "those look alike"
@@akhenatonmarcano3703 It's actually a literally observable fact with overwhelming evidence.
@@meteoric91 I guess we define facts differently but whatever rocks your boat
Here's a god of the gaps argument: The universe appears to be designed, however we can't observe the designer, therefore highly improbable undirected natural processes must have created it. The god in this case is naturalism.
With theism on the other hand the argument is logical: That which appears to be designed, was caused by the designer.
Why doesn't the universe appear to be intelligently designed to people who actually study the universe?
There is no objective evidence that necessarily points to a design, therefore the universe most likely is not designed.
I don't know anyone who claims that naturalism is a god. There are many scientific theories that shows how it is possible for the existence of the universe without anything supernatural and does not violate any laws of physics. These theories have been peer reviewed and are listed in scientific journals.
What is the origin of nature?
@@Generatorman59 none of those theories answer how things came to be and how information exists. Never mind the fact that things clearly start and wind down.
@@Generatorman59
Kindly point us to your reference.
Secondly, if your so called theory as been proven it will no longer be called a theory and in scientific terms it would mean we are able observe and test to reproduce it.
@@redrum6316 Right. None of those theories answer how things came to be and how information exists. Science gives us the best explanation based on the most recent data. As our abilities to test and observe improve, science updates the theories. For instance, 50 years ago, it was believed that the age of the universe was about 8 to 9 billions years old. Through the decades, science has updated that figure and the general consensus now is 13.8 billion years old.
That's how science works. Science doesn't make absolute claims on anything. Theists, on the other hand say they know the answers. God did it... end of story.
I would like to caution you about using the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Things wind down only in a closed system. But, that is another topic.
"The Lord looks down from heaven;
he sees all the children of man;
from where he sits enthroned he looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth,
he who fashions the hearts of them all and observes all their deeds.
The king is not saved by his great army;
a warrior is not delivered by his great strength.
The war horse is a false hope for salvation, and by its great might it cannot rescue."
This generation is pitiable.
Toddlers that know nothing, seated on the foundations of ancestors who came before them long ago, and built the knowledge and technology that we so ignorantly and obliviously indulge in.
"We're so much more advanced now...given enough time we will unlock all the secrets of the universe...we will make ourselves gods and sit on the throne above the great congregation..."
But this generation does not see, we will all die like all of man.
Oblivious and helpless, but full of hubris and self righteousness.
Pray to your god Science, put your hope in "enough time", they will not answer your whimpers when your life comes to an end and you stand before the Living Eternal God.
Well said brother.... their situation is sad really
So correct..
If one is at all doubtful of Gods existence all one needs to do is sit back and wait, death will alleviate all controversy.
We're about to go into the darkest time in human history. I think even the skeptics can sense the danger - it's just sad that so many are not prepared at all for what is coming.
@@Jerryman1158 Do you think this is the end of this age? Like Christ is coming back very soon? I honestly think so but there’s a good chance it’ll just be a terrible trial that spits us out into the real Church age. That’s just what I see based on where we’re at, a kind of Babel-like pinnacle that there can be no turning back from. Not asking for you to give a huge justification for your belief or a timeline like 10-100 years (which I would count as soon) but I’m curious about your opinion.
@@D1sc0rd- I don't know how much time there is but I look at what's happening in the middle east with Israel. What's falling into place is fulfilling what is in Ezekiel 38-39. Then world wide I see the first time ever a one world government taking shape with the Klaus Schwab globalists. But I think there will be a major conflict before they get it like WW3 which could include the Ezekiel 38-39 conflict. Then I think we will start seeing the book of Revelation chapter 6 up until the second coming in chapter 19 and beyond. Also, I believe in a pre tribulation rapture that could happen anytime⌛
I could never be an atheist because I don't understand how people don't see the existence of God in everything.
Simple as faith. People want to learn the hard way. I did and wished I didn't have to.
dont need faith when you have facts.
@@DeconvertedMan
Not just do I massively disagree big time. Thats the opposite of life. When you pass from your body, facts wont be there. When you enter Heaven on behalf of trusting in Jesus facts wont be there, but truth will be there. Facts are pathetic and go against truth. Truth always sets you free. Facts can cause deception to appear true yet false.
Testimonies go against facts. Faith always triumphs over everything. Just about everyone who focused on facts are in Hell suffering because they chose to believe the worldly system instead of listening to people that preached and shared the gospel of Jesus Christ to them. Those that are in Hell before Christ came are still there because of the similar reason due to facts instead of faith in Christ. Facts get you no where, faith makes the entire universe and world and the spiritual laws happen. Facts are from people who dont trust in Christ.
Steven Hawksing trusts in facts, hes not in Heaven. He is suffering for eternity in Hell.
Genesis 5:22-24, Hebrews 11, Hebrews 12:1-3 also disagree with you. Well, the entire bible disagrees with you. Faith moves mountains in every way through the tongue, facts are mostly opinions.
@@DeconvertedMan these are the same facts that biden in 2021 says wearing masks and getting the vaccinations and boosters will help you against the covid. biden has what he deserves, covid. I know people who had covid and are still alive. they said its the flu but stronger. i told by faith to covid it can not come near me and my family in Jesus name. we have been fine in faith not having any sickness at all. not through facts, through faith. Faith always wins overs facts.
@@son_of_hiskingdom5092 your book is a book of myth and fables.
@@DeconvertedMan myths and fables dont exist. when you attack the bible, be ready to give a reason and not just take a stab at something for no reason at all. the bible speaks of in the end times, people no longer desiring Christ, desiring their own ways. going after things of itchy ears things that please their carnality and not fill them spiritually. mocking, scoffing, and making fun of the bible while deep down full well knowing the truth is powerful and knowing things about the bible truth but your own self gets in the way. if your speaking against the bible for no reason at all, this is fruits of the demonic on to you. the demonic hate Christ, but they have no power of Christ.
It never ceases to amaze why skeptics or atheists continue to make comments on this channel. Are you really looking for truth or are you just a troll? My guess it's the latter.
97% of them Definitely trolls w/no lives
It's almost a sort of morbid fascination at this point, that somebody could so fervently believe something for which I cannot see any evidence
@@reality1958 So you watch all the Christian Apologetic channels to keep religion in check? What a miserable life. 😪
@@reality1958 it’s so interesting how atheists are so militant on proving a God that doesn’t exist 😂🤣
@@jfast787 right? Its almost like theyre obsessed..... like mentally ill. They cant help themselves lol theyre wasting their SHORT (supposed) one little life they have on fighting, what they claim is, "a fairy tale" 😂
Logical fallacies:
- God of the gaps, again: we k ow what the universe looks like an instant after the big bang started, anything before that the honest answer is 'I don't know'
- Appeal to authority: Some person once said that something happens somehow based on their opinion, Einstein blundered like that too, and we finally found that he was wrong, maybe we should throw out the cosmological constant based on what Einstein called his greatest blunder.
- Begging the question: We don't know what happened before the big bang, and everything seems designed, therefore designer
Nothing in this clip is convincing at all
@Todor Meaning? There was no emotion behind my comment, simply stating facts.
Yet another Turek slam dunk. I appreciate all the time and effort put in by people to not only understand, but are able to articulate in a way that meat heads like myself can begin to understand.
😂😂😂😂Good one!
Very weak attempt from turek, as always. He claims a lot of things for which there is no evidence at all. For example, the claim that an infinate regress is impossible. We simply do not know that. We can not even comprehend all the processes in our universe, let alone what lies beyong or before it.
The fact that we do not know, is where he exploits his "God of the gaps" argument. But his arguments are based upon ideas and intuitions that might not make any sense beyond our universe.
@@Wmeester1971 the argument that "we simply don't know" would be an appeal to ignorance. A person can point to how something appears or what is likely the case based on the information given which therefore supports a conclusion. Even if a person doesn't know the specifics of how the universe functions, that does not mean that there are no implications of logical problems with an infinite regression.
Not every time a jury and a court case makes a judgment against the criminal is the jury correct, because judgments in court cases are not always based on what we know or don't know, but is based on what is likely the case, whether it be circumstantial evidence, or person doesn't have an alibi and there aren't any other candidates that one can think of that would match the crime, and so on. Just because a person doesn't have absolute knowledge does not mean a conclusion cannot be justified, and that's why when we point to the fact that a person does not know and use that as a basis to justify rejecting an argument, this would be an argument from ignorance.
@@Wmeester1971 Sounds to me as if you are in an infinite struggle with more than the subject at hand. I don't know you but you are intelligent and valuable except to those who just want to be better than which corrupt and destroy in the name of righteousness.
@@Bi0Dr01d "We simply do not know" is just the correct answer, because we don't know. Whether you call it an appeal to ignorance or not does not change that.
"Even if a person doesn't know the specifics of how the universe functions, that does not mean that there are no implications of logical problems with an infinite regression."
There nothing in science or logic that prevents infinate regression. On top of that if you argue god to be timeless and eternal, you have some explaning to do why nature cannot be just that. And why on earth does there need to be an intelligent cause. There is no reason for that to be a requirement
Also, if something is timeless, it cannot create anything.
Most of the people who raise these objections might now have an answer on the spot. So when they get home they'll look up a rebuttal from their favorite atheist CZcamsr and continue on with their beliefs (or lack of). It's hard in a time sensitive environment to be truly effective because we need to also be aware of the counter arguments and point out their flaws in advance.
The atheistic demons have more beliefs than us theists have.
I have facts, not faith.
Good thing there is no counter argument to the athiest argument that religion has to provide verifiable evidence for every single one of its claims. Even if you could prove all of science wrong on everything we understand (physics, evolution, etc.) it would do absolute zero to strengthen any argument for a god. Evidence against one proposition does not strengthen the evidence for any other proposition. The only arguments ever presented by apologists are those attempting and failing to find flaws in current scientific understanding. Again that does nothing to strengthen their position.
And i have faith in my facts.
Hey, maybe i can be a prophet.
I just need to say something vague and call it a divine revelation. Worked 4 millenia ago, why would not now?
@@DeconvertedMan I have facts and faith.
I love watching young people talking with absolute confidence in Their tone. After one rebuttal they appear at least to the casual observer like a 10 year old debating their parent.
I think they're dumfounded at turek's argument from ignorance...
To be fair, Frank is a great debater
Young people seem to forget that the “ road” they are trodding their parents have already traveled down and know a thing or two because they’ve seen or experienced a thing or two.
@@inscription8099 To be fair Frank knows a thing or two because Frank has experienced a thing or two. Frank has been studying most of his life. He has run into all kinds of people and has talked with them. So I imagine Frank has heard or read and studied many different religious disciplines and atheistic studies.
Why do we have to get back to a creator with a mind? Maybe there is an aspect of nature, as yet undiscovered, that can create itself. Truth is: We don't know what nature is capable of. Turek is just vomiting the whole "God of the Gaps" crap, again. We don't know everything that nature can do. We don't know what started everything. So what Turek does is say: God started everything! Classic example of God of the Gods!
Maybe something can not exist at one point in time, exist in the next, and go from non-existence to existence by its own power? It can create itself before it exist to create itself? No offense, but that sounds non-nonsensical. I don't mean that in an insulting way (I'm not try to say you're vomiting crap, for example), but merely in a descriptive way. X exists, not because it exists necessarily, but because it caused itself to come into existence before it existed.
An appeal to something like reverse causality is going to run into the problem of the existence of time itself. So let's jump to that. If an infinite regress of time is impossible (and that's a philosophical thing that many people haven't considered), then time had a beginning. It is finite. One probably can't say time created itself through backwards causality because there is no such thing as "before" the beginning of time, temporally speaking. So then time would have to be self-existent. It exists when it exists because it exists. It would be ontologically necessary. If space and time are different aspects of one thing, then spacetime would be ontologically necessary. Finite spacetime is the brute fact of reality. It exists because of its own power. If space and time are not different aspects of the same thing, then the question remains of where space came from. Does space have the power to make itself exist before it exists? And then what of matter/energy within the spacetime manifold? Did some non-material aspect of nature (can that be a thing) cause it? Did it reverse cause its existence? If so, why did it make as much of itself as it did, and not more or less? Why are the constants and quantities the way they are? Are they necessary as well, or could they have been different? Why do the constants remain constant? Why is the flow of time what it is? Why does matter curve spacetime to the degree that it does? Are these all necessary as well? Then what of minds? Do they actually exist? Or just an illusion? What are they? "Accidental" byproducts of an arbitrarily existing mindless universe (seems like they'd almost have to be).
One can ask these questions, and flesh out the issue a bit. But the simple "God of the Gaps" and "Nature of the Gaps" positions are both guilty of making an assumption that whatever we don't know now can ultimately be explained by the person's cause of choice.
Frank didn't say, that I recall, it must be God. He was saying the attributes of what is finite (time, space, matter) suggest attributes of what isn't. It does appear that he rejects the notion that nature can make itself, whereas you appear to be open to that.
And if one chooses to look at the issue objectively, then his conclusion and your skepticism of it both make sense. If time, space, matter cannot create themselves, then yeah, whatever created them must be something else. If on the other hand they can create themselves, then we can't rule them out.
So can they?
Perhaps that's the big question that we can't really know, because inductive conclusions are always to some degree provisional. We certainly don't know that it can. But is it possible to know that it can't? If not, then maybe we're left with abductive reasoning. We can't prove the negative, so what does the preponderance of the evidence suggest, if anything?
I'm wondering where your comment came from, Gari. Why do we have to get back to a writer with a mind? Maybe there is an aspect of nature, as yet undiscovered, that can write itself. Truth is: We don't know what nature is capable of. Gari, you're just vomiting the whole "Naturalism of the Gaps" crap, again. We don't know everything that nature can do. We don't know who or what wrote your comment. So what Gari does is say: I wrote the comment! Classic example of Naturalism of the Gaps!
its called abductive reasoning
we know that the universe could not have created itself, and that whatever it is that created it must have certain attributes to do so
what we understand as god, possesses those same attributes
The universe might have arose from a more fundamental eternal unchanging laws of nature which requires no mind or intention at all
@@dmitrydk92 even if the nature of this.. nature beyond our universe was different to the nature of the universe itself, does not change the fact that whatever created the universe must contain certain qualities
@@dmitrydk92 , the problem you face is your misunderstanding of the word "eternal". It is not "infinite amount of time", because there is no such thing, since "time" itself had a beginning, and since we are now here at this moment in time, it is clearly finite. Instead, it is "not in time", where the flow of "time" is a concept limited to only our universe. Which is why the cause of the universe is deduced to be outside/beyond our universe and is therefore "time-less"/eternal.
@@dmitrydk92 How can there be 'laws of nature' without nature? The laws of nature are not supernatural forces that act upon nature itself; they are descriptions of how nature operates. Without nature, there are no natural laws. Also, there is good reason to believe that any timeless cause of nature must therefore also be personal.
Please prove the universe was ever created in the first place. Would you stop believing in God if scientists figured out that the big bang was all wrong and the universe has always been around?
Terrifying thought when you come to revelation and the realization that the ONLY logical conclusion of all origins is that there was that one BEING that did not have a beginning and is still here and will always be here.
The awe of His wonder.
Let the fear of the Lord be the beginning of all of man’s wisdom.
The fear of God is not the beginning of wisdom. The fear of God is the death of wisdom. Skepticism and doubt lead to study and investigation, and investigation is the beginning of wisdom. Clarence Darrow
When an atheist thinks they've asked a good question yet we've heard it a thousand times......
When you can't give a good answer they get to keep making the point. Enjoy your god of the gaps that keep vanishing. :)
@@MrTheclevercat I don't have a god of the gaps I'm a Hebrew I know Our Heavenly Father personally. Blessings 🙌🕎
@Lucas seattle well that would be because he does college campus tours there's plenty of other videos were he's debating with apparently more learned older people.....
@Lucas seattle What a childish and blatantly dishonest comment, the video is a prefect example of Frank have open dialogue with people with incredible respect and patience.
@@dodibenabba1378
Can you introduce me to your God?
We need to be careful not to mock these people asking questions. They may be earnest seekers despite our suspicions to the contrary.
You are absolutely right on this.
@@martinchitembo1883 Thank you.
the question was a good one, the answer was an interesting one, though absolutely wrong.
I wouldn't claim its wrong. It is more like, its messy but we get it.
Though that alone isnt good on its own. And this video lacks the whole context so we cant come to conclusions this early.
Telling Christians not to mock and judge someone? Good luck with that! 😂
The aetheist explained it well then the theist shown the actual proof that he is using the god of the gaps arguement.
The guy just felt flat on the “uncaused first cause”.😂
Yup.. we don't even know if there was a first cause, so we surely can't know it was any god.
This kid is right. This Frank guy is 100% using the God of the Gaps logical fallacy.
Yes, Frank makes this mistake.
Examples include the Cosmological and Teleological arguments, and it's god of the gaps _specifically_ because Frank is offering these as "evidence of god". (If he didn't treat them as evidence of a god, then well each argument has its own _other_ issues, but at least he'd have avoided god of the gaps.)
Argument from ignorance is the name of an error of logic where someone is basically saying, _"we don't know, so that proves we do know."_
God of the gaps is when an argument from ignorance is _specifically_ used to argue for a god (we don't know, so that proves we know [it was god]")
And to use one of the examples above, the Cosmological argument ends with "a cause" but absolutely _does not_ provide evidence of what that cause is. That means the cause is unknown. So then Frank is taking an unknown and saying it indicates a god exists (we don't know, so that proves we do know).
The questioner suggests "god of the gaps" is some singular argument (or maybe that's just bad wording on his part), and so the question as it's asked isn't actually very well-formed.
So frank answers a question about god of the gaps by using using god of the gaps...
@Big Chungus yeah, I have read lots of arguments for gods, and listened to apologists like frank quite a bit. Their main evidence is ignorance.
So you're more or less trying to suggest that any natural evidence whatsoever cannot ever possibly be used to support the existence of God because it would therefore be a 'god of the gaps' fallacy? You don't understand what a 'god of the gaps' argument is if you think that.
@@LawlessNate natural evidence could support god if that evidence points to a god. No such evidence has ever been discovered though.
@Big Chungus his arguments are usually something like "this thing exists, I dont know how, therefore god".
That could be dna, the universe, physical laws or whatever.
He often says that if atheists cant provide an explanation, then god is the answer, but he never provides evidence for that assertion.
@@TheAndnor Plenty of such evidence exists. You subjectively raising your own personal standards for belief so high they can't be met does nothing to discredit evidence. A truly objective and rational person would be swayed by teleological arguments, cosmological arguments, etc.
Turek is the master of misleading
apologetics 101
@@logicalatheist1065 you have to really be dumb or willingly suspend your disbelief to listen to this guy for more than 30 seconds
@@TJ-kk5zf ive listened to him a lot, he never make's a good argument... he's misleads and lies like every apologetic.
The Frank Turek Way: "I assert things. When challenged, I ask questions. When the response is, 'I don't know' or 'We don't know', I return to asserting things. I reject 'don't know' as an acceptable response, because I, Frank Turek, KNOW!"
Yet again, something can't come from nothing...except the god I say created something from nothing, the very definition of the god of the gaps argument.
Bob the being I say created the universe, was around before your god, prove me wrong!
Frank: I'm not using God of the gaps, I'm just inserting a god where I really think one should go.
LMAO... yup...
I'm looking for evidence myself of no God? The main evidence I'm after is it possible for nothing appear out of nothing because if there is no God then there has be way for matter to appear out nothing.
It's a logical argument. If nothing material existed, but does now, then something immaterial must have created it.
@@ronaldmorgan7632 no one knows what existed prior to the big bang, that's the thing... Anything anyone says would be a guess... Hypothesis...
@@logicalatheist1065 Play the Big Bang backwards and you end up with no matter. And now, we have lots of matter. How do you get something from nothing?
Any time I hear "God of the gaps"
My response is "See also: Abiogenesis"
Lol, love it when they execute special pleading because they’re uncomfortable with “I don’t know” as an answer or an infinite regress.
Yup... theists hate the "I don't know" line.
"I dont know" is not an answer. Infinite regress is not also an answer.
@@No_BS_policy Yup.. they demand to know the answer, even if they have to make it up.
@@TedTheAtheist I'm a believer. In terms of knowledge, I don't know God. In terms of experience, I knew God exists based on demonstrated miracle in my Church, but you won't believe me even I elucidate this matter. If you need a miracle from Jesus Wonderful Counselor Mighty God, then when you're alone proceed to shout in secret place "if you're real, then..." and say your reasons, it's something along the lines of why you don't need and/or hate God along with pessimistic reasons you don't believe God, and add "prove to me that you exist" with certainty, with honesty, honesty is essential first to surrender to God, and audacity to put your own little effort of Faith on Jesus on the line, even it's little effort of Faith on believing Jesus died on the Cross so we can boldly approach our God. It's a Prayer you need to do as an Atheist. If you don't do this, then you lack to endure of basic stuff that most believers put their Faith on the line as approaching God with boldness comes after believing Jesus died for our Sins. Do it in secret place, alone, there's nothing to be ashamed of.
@@davidarvingumazon5024 Sorry, but you don't "know" a god exists due to stories from your church, or perceived "miracles", which do not exist. You are brainwashed, just like every other theist, to believe in this "god" thing you cannot define and cannot produce any evidence for. This is something that is a problem for you due to a lack of education. You are brainwashed and delusional, and it isn't until you start learning how to apply logic and reason correctly in your life will you get actual, real answers. I wish you luck.. because "faith" won't get you anywhere.
As is typical, Frank is strawmanning the science, arguing from ignorance, and special pleading. I swear, I'm convinced that he is incapable of arguing honestly.
Where is he strawmanning the science?
@@bigcheese7492 From 2:15-2:50 in the video.
@@nonprogrediestregredi1711 that small segment by itself doesn't make sense yeah, but with context of the rest of the video it makes perfect sense, at least to me. and apparently a lot of other people.
There’s no gaps. Universe is approximately 6000 years old. Read the genealogy. Why give all those details for nothing?
Lead. Can you tell me how we have lead?
@@AngelBabyMama why do you have a problem with lead exactly?!
@@godloves9163 It's too heavy of a concept 🤣
@@godloves9163 Honestly I’m not sure I’m remembering correctly I’m not that smart but I think it’s Lead that takes millions of years to form….?
For the record- I’m not here to be confrontational and have a negativity charged argument, I’m seriously interested in what you have to say.
ETA My mind is NOT made up on this topic. Wanting to learn.
@@reality1958 yep 6,000 years.
1. If there is an Almighty powerful God, then yes its possible its only 6,000 years old.
2. This same powerful God created Adam, Eve and all the plants and animals FULLY GROWN on their first day alive.
Adam had the body of a grown man on his first day alive. If God can do this, why cant he also create a planet and a universe thats FULLY grown as well? So the earth, on its day of creation would be fully grown and APPEAR to be billions of years old?? Just because its billions of years old doesn't necessarily mean its EXISTED for billions of years.
Adam would've appeared to look 30 years old...but only be 1 day old.
He made everything fully grown and told them to go forth and be fruitful and bring forth after their own kind.
So once you come to the conclusion that YES there has to be a God...then the rest is 100% completely possible.
I try not to engage in the same condescending mockery that I hear whether from creationists or naturalists. Thus here I am saying this honestly with no double entendre or passive aggressive, hidden meanings. I have never doubted the existence of God. I saw some impressive theories with great special effects but there was almost a mumbling with a cough and hands placed over mouths when it came to the problem of what created (caused) the first creation. Some super singularity of the big bang needed a creation. The universe constantly cycles, contracting and exploding. OK, that just added a time to time. Where and how did that start? Multiverse? Again, same question.
When I hear someone mocking those who believe in the resurrection of Christ, but yet believe in nothing creating something or everything (and then from that, organized life) so that we can say, "well, life is a thing, a limited thing, and thus resurrection is not possible" then I don't understand why I am being mocked at that moment.
Abstracting away (the infinite recursion) each time a logical roadblock was met never seemed like anything but an excuse. My belief in a God that revealed himself along with probability defying proofs and interconnections is in my view the only thing that *can* explain everything and not rely on rapidly changing philosophies. It isn't 100% provable, but it has merit and proof that the philosophies do not and can not. Intelligence is not the same as wisdom and wisdom is the domain of morality and loyalty or fidelity. It is no wonder so many outspoken naturalists resort to such unclean proposals from eating human flesh to legalizing sexual relations with young boys.
Thank you so much for your comment. I would like to ask you a sincere question. Where did this god of the bible come from? If you say he didn't require a creator, then I would like to ask why the special pleading? If this god doesn't require an explanation, why wouldn't the universe also not require an explanation?
There are many scientific theories that explain the possibility of this universe's existence that does not require anything supernatural and they don't break any laws of physics. The problem I see here is that the supernatural has not been shown to be a thing. If and when it is ever shown to be a thing, only then would we be able to move to the next phase, which is trying to determine its capabilities. But, we are not at that stage, at least yet. There is a lot more I can say about this, but you get the point.
Look, I admit that I can be a very condescending individual when it comes to these topics. But I would like to set that aside and engage with you in an intellectual and respectful dialogue because you seem to be one of the most sincere folks that I have come across.
How 'bout it? Let's engage.
i love what you said there in the first paragraph - "that just added time to time". So well said.
You're deranged and in the closet. We get that.
@@Generatorman59 the God of the Bible created time, therefore He was before and after time. I don't think anyone is saying that He or His creation doesn't require an explanation. He created us to have communion and a relationship with Him. Assuming the universe created itself is like seeing a building and denying there was a builder or seeing a car and denying there was a manufacturer or seeing art and deny the artist, it just doesn't make sense. You truly want to know the truth why not just ask God with an honest and humble heart to reveal Himself to you and find out for yourself. I say this respectfully I admire you wanting to engage in conversation.
@@paolafriedrick Ok, so I am having some issues with your comment. You assert that the god of the bible created time. How do you know this? How do you know time was created at all? Even if time was shown to have been created, how do you know it wasn't another religion's deity who created it?
When you say this god of the bible was before and after time, I don't know what that even means. If you say, for example, he existed before time, how is that even possible because existence requires occupying a location for a period of time. It is a self-contradicting statement. This is what I mean when I say he requires an explanation. Self-contradicting statements are very unsettling with me.
When you say he created us to have communion and a relationship with us, how do you know this is accurate? How do you know he created us? How do you know what he wants from us? If you refer to the bible, then I would caution you because the bible is a book of claims. It is not evidence and it has been shown to be not scientifically accurate.
I am not of the opinion that the universe created itself. Actually, I'm not convinced the universe was even created at all. But, if it were created, I believe it came about by natural means that did not violate any laws of physics. There are many peer reviewed theories on the subject that are documented in scientific journals on the subject.
Of course a building requires a builder. Of course a watch requires a watchmaker. Of course a painting requires a painter. The problem with intelligent design, though, is that we don't have another universe to compare our universe with. What would an uncreated universe look like? How can we truly tell if this universe was actually designed?
Let me be a little more clear on my point. I would like to invite you to Google strange rock formations around the world. Some of those are quite spectacular. One would almost say that they were manmade because they just appear to be designed. But, how can we tell if they really were? Also, do you believe your god intricately designs each and every unique snowflake? They certainly appear to be intelligently designed, too!
Sure, we have blueprints on buildings. We know how they are constructed. We have historical records of their constructions. These things are well documented. But, we have no idea how (or if) a universe came to be. Therefore, we can not say it was intelligently designed, no more than we can say a snowflake is intelligently designed.
I spent most of my life as a Christian. I used to believe in the bible and I always enjoyed witnessing to people on what Jesus Christ has done for me in my life. I get it. I understand your position because I used to be there. But, I'm at the point right now that asking me to believe in god is like asking me to believe in Santa Clause again. I'm not saying it won't happen, though. I'm am saying that I am keeping my options open and I am trying to learn why people believe in what they believe in. Just saying.
When someone says “then who created God” it shows they didn’t listen to anything Frank just said.
I'm a couple of minutes in and Frank has a couple of things wrong. He doesn't say it but he's referencing the big bang. The big bang model however doesn't say there was nothing before the big bang. It doesn't say that it was the first beginning or that there aren't other universes or that there wasn't some sort of eternal cosmos.
Secondly, Frank refers to something being the cause of nature as super nature. It could just be a different type of nature we haven't seen. You can call that super nature if you want but that doesn't in any way mean that a god had to be involved - just nature we haven't seen yet.
I'll stop there. I might watch the rest later and see how many more errors Frank makes.
This is pure speculation on Frank's part. He slips a "being" into his explanation and runs with it. The truth is we don't know what caused the universe. We don't know that a mind caused it. Talking about cause and effect without time is incoherent. We don't know if anything can exist outside of time and space. Something existing before time began may not even make sense.
Frank saying he has deduced what caused the universe to exist is him stepping way beyond what he could possibly know.
So you believe in the scientific impossibility of something was created out of nothing?
@@jkinze Did I say that the starting point was "nothing"? Have you ever had a "nothing" to experiment on to see if anything can come out of it? Do you think that a spaceless, timeless, disembodied mind is a better explanation? Nothing even vaguely related to that has ever been observed. In fact nothing with even of those three characteristics has been observed, so it is pure speculation.
As I said, we don't what caused the universe to come into existence, if such a statement can make sense since cause and effect require time in our experience.
It would be far more honest of you and Frank openly admitted that we don't know instead of claiming you/he have cracked it.
The transcendent can exist without the presence of time.
@@philb4462 Of course it can’t be observed. Transcendentals can’t be empirically observed via sense data. That’s why you can’t possibly appeal to science when it comes to who God actually is through Special Revelation.
Exactly. This headline is a joke. He is by definition using God of gaps fallacy.
The answer about who created God made me feel so good i didn't know what to do.. Praise be to God, the creator of all things.
You're like the guy on stage - you can't tell us what a god is. If you can't tell us what it is, how can you say it exists? It makes no sense.
@@TedTheAtheist Yet, in your mind it makes perfect sense that we have conscious humans that evolved from random atoms smacking together? Where did all the different elements come from? How did the big bang, or now it looks like that is also wrong, gather everything in the universe in order to explode outward?
@@teeemm9456 I don't know what "random atoms" is. You can study how we got from non-life to RNA, and how we are learning more after that. Seems like you're going off of your feelings and your ignorance. That's no way to come to a conclusion. Just educate yourself and you don't have to believe in this magic sky daddy. It won't give you answers. You're asking questions - you should seek the answers. They aren't questions which are going to "stump" anyone. It just means we have a lot to learn. Don't give up learning and subscribe to some sky daddy. That will get you nowhere fast. Also, it makes no sense to ask questions that we don't have the answers to yet, and then assume that since they aren't answered, "therefore god did it". That's the argument from ignorance. It's a fallacy. Stop thinking that because mankind doesn't know the answers, that you can just make some up.
@@TedTheAtheist Wow, that's a whole lot of passive aggressive text, with a whole side of condescending ego. Science makes things up all the time, it's called theories, and they continually get proven wrong, over and over again. You can worship some bacteria and prokaryotes all you'd like, I grew up as an atheist and found that science provided very little confidence. Keep fighting though, sounds like you're trying to convince yourself more than anyone else.
people are still wearing slave masks? what the heck
Propaganda did a great job
@@nemanjacabarkapalordozunu Propaganda? No. Masks save lives.
Answer me this: If a surgeon were performing open-heart surgery on you, would you want him to wear a mask while he operates on you?
@@nemanjacabarkapalordozunu Well Said👍
Slave masks? What are those?
@@unsightedmetal6857 they work great against bacteria, not so good against viruses.
Infinite regrets are infinite.. if a person decides to disagree, no matter what evidence Frank gives, the person will disagree..
It's just there are good philosophical reasons to conclude that infinite regress is impossible.
@@nikokapanen82 God isn't infinite?
@@darrennew8211
Correct, God is not infinite, He is eternal. There is a difference.
@@nikokapanen82 The universe is eternal too. So what's your point?
@@darrennew8211
No, it is not. The universe has a beginning about 13.8 billion years ago. Virtually all Astrophysicists agree with this fact.
Humanity needs more than just science as you see in todays society
"The most intelligent question" that average atheists like to ask: "who created God ".
Poor guys! They don't realize that even if God had a creator, atheism would still be a delusional position.
Really? We can't have an infinite regression but we sure can have an infinite God?
Why? Cause Frank's says so?
Man, the double standard is real.
@@mustachemac5229 try to understand the argument.
Something without Time, does not need a beginning/cause
would you agree?
@@emanuelavram2513 If your going to claim that God is outside of time then you have to prove it.
But there's no way for you to prove it so it's just an assertion.
@@mustachemac5229 i think the word God bothers you
If space/time had a beginning, something created it
Does it make sense?
@@emanuelavram2513 God doesn't bother me, assertions do.
Even if I agree with you that our current time and space had a beginning, doesn't mean we get to go to a creator that you choose.
If it takes intelligents to recreate life it doesn't take a leap of faith that intelligents create it it in the first place. why change my worldview
God is timeless?
That makes zero sense to me. I need a way to understand this.
I don't understand why so many people believe this, if it makes no logical sense.
Like how could you /or God accomplish anything without time.
For me, its plain and simple...Everything is made up....our books, phones, tv, internet, chairs, cars! All these relatively simple things require a "creator". While objects like flowers, trees, humans, animals, earth and the universe are more complex...definitely requires a Creator. This creator must be outside space and time, powerful and intelligent....that to me is a pretty good defintion of GOD.
@@reality1958 just because you can’t see God doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist. Everything is created by Him. God sits outside of time and space. He spoke the entire universe into existence. That’s creating something out of nothing. We can’t see wind, but it exists. Just look at the complex nature of our solar system. The planets are are operating in sync. Look at the complex nature of our DNA. Someone had to have created it. Even all the other living creatures on this planet have complex DNA structures.
Any god capable of creating such things would also be complex. So following your logic, it must also need a creator.
We make things, therefore we are also made. This is a non-sequitur.
@@reality1958 we do not need belief to know that everything created by man...came from his mind. Thus the being that created the universe must be infinitely more intelligent and powerful! That i think does not need belief....it is just logical. Do we need belief to understand that anything created needs a creator? I don't think so.
This is what you are saying "I am a complex being.The only way I can explain me being a complex being is if an infinitely complex being who is responsible for his own existence created me.This complex being has always been complex and did not evolve from a simpler being.Therefore his existence is even more improbable than my existence".The logic behind the answer is flawed
I feel the frustration of the student. Frank has so many built-in responses that he's developed over the years that it's hard to deconstruct them on the spot. Frank's answer is still a God of the Gaps. "Well something can't come from nothing, so someone or something transcendent must've created it". In other words "I don't know how the universe began therefore magic happened"
one thing he has always failed to do, provide evidence for his god
What he is saying is that if time, space and matter had a beginning that whatever created it has to be timeless, spaceless and immaterial. Which makes sense. I believe that is what Thomas Aquinas referred to as God. Add in extremely powerful, personal (has a will) and intelligent then that would point to a Christian view of God. Seems like a mind would fit the timeless, spaceless and immaterial criteria. Similar to our minds. Since our thoughts are spaceless and immaterial. And time can behave differently ( like in our dreams). Overall very interesting concept and argument.
@@dadjokes5038 >>What he is saying is that if time, space and matter had a beginning that whatever created it has to be timeless, spaceless and immaterial. Which makes sense. ""
Does it make sense? How can anything happen without time existing? How did god go from god that had not created time yet to god who has created time, while in a state of no time, no potential for change, in a state of stasis? Does it make sense that there is a mind made out of nothing material? You can back this up somehow, maybe you have other examples?
>>I believe that is what Thomas Aquinas referred to as God. Add in extremely powerful, personal (has a will) and intelligent then that would point to a Christian view of God. Seems like a mind would fit the timeless, spaceless and immaterial criteria. Similar to our minds. Since our thoughts are spaceless and immaterial. And time can behave differently ( like in our dreams). Overall very interesting concept and argument.""
In what way are our minds similar to spaceless, timeless and immaterial? They occupy the space in our heads, they are not in a state of stasis and can be changed and constantly do, and they are made from matter. We PERCEIVE time differently in our dreams, but this does not mean time has changed while we dream, there is still a normal flow of time for everyone else.
A kid in a line of questioners, with maybe two to three minutes time to have his question answered, is not going to get a wealth of knowledge poured upon him. That is common sense.
@@macmac1022 Throw out time then. It is just a measurement that we assign to moments. We now know (if you agree that we can know things) that the universe was created, so that something came from nothing. That had to have had a cause. Since there was nothing material at that moment of creation, something immaterial did the creating. And since we are part of the material, we cannot study that which is immaterial.
Great, calm and respectful discussion. I've heard of the "God of the Gaps" fallacy. Even if we don't know something doesn't mean it is God or supernatural. As science advances, we may find answers in the natural world. Now I'm not saying things can be God or supernatural, but I can't say.
Also science may never answer everything because with answers come new questions and so on and so forth. We'll never know everything. Also even if we find natural causes for unexplained phenomena doesn't mean that there is no God or supernatural beings and realms.
At this point, it's probably almost pointless to have these conversations between 2 people who are on polar opposites of this belief. Apologists such as Frank and Mike Winger are most likely to only help people on the fence or as an encouragement to the everyday Christian who is steeped in their faith, but like most any human, find that we all struggle.
I will say this for Frank, from what I've seen, I'll give him this credit. He doesn't seem to curl up in a ball like Mike Winger who seems to be genuinely hurt and even "attacked" when others express the sentiment that he has no problem expressing to faiths outside of Christianity.
Until limbs are restored, people rise from the dead, or "God" truly shows himself to want to know each and everyone of us, people will fall away from this faith. Are not everyone of us worthy of a Damascus Road experience? At least at that point we would have free will. To know and choose to follow or do otherwise.
I wouldn’t say opposites of beliefs, but rather opposites in their abilities to argue a position.
Frank, having done these discussions for years, maybe decades, is well versed in his responses while many of these (I assume) college kids can barely form a question and are unprepared for the response they receive.
No… I’m not using God of the gap… your using science fiction of the gaps!
Yet "science of the gaps" is more prevalent.
"We don't know yet...but we will....eventually."
Until then no one knows. Guessing don’t count
Young man: "Its called god-of-the-gaps. I'm not making this up."
(French accent) "10 seconds later"...
"If I took my phone back in time they would think it magic, but we just figured things out by science. Science wil tell us. Why can't we just keep going forward with this reasoning for explanations?"
Frank: "what were you saying about making assertions in gaps of knowledge?"
Uhhh because natural things can actually very shown to exist to be candidate explanations, in the first place.
@@mattslater2603 Your ego has no place in this conversation. You just drip with ego in every word that comes out of your blasphemous mouth.
@@inchristalone25 Actually it's YOUR ego that is the problem.
People with big egos believe they have answers for questions that they don't really have.
I have the humility to admit that I don't know how everything began
You have the arrogance to assume that you happened to pick the right religion that does your thinking on this, for you.
That's ego. That's arrogance.
Nice try tho
@@mattslater2603 if what you said was true, you wouldn’t be trying to insult or proclaim them wrong; you would simply state that they may be right but you do not know for sure.
@@Nijuka87 If you're asserting the claim as a fact without adequate evidence
That, in and of itself, is wrong.
You have to show that supernatural things actually exist before you posit them as potential candidates for doing anything in the natural world
Very well explained.
Most theists have an above average debating capacity/ argumentative but fail at the most basic form of logic and reason based on the scientific method. Now, one can argue that the scientific method is not all there is (to establish reality as we experience it), but in that case, name a better alternative, keeping in mind the contribution both sides (scientists and theists) have made in our evolution and understanding of reality, that rivals what the scientific method has done…
This guy is the definition of god of the gaps
Next time just say you don’t know what God of the Gaps is. I’m tired of you lames misapplying sh1t you don’t even understand.
The atheist is the definition of science of the Gaps.
@@robinrobyn1714 cool, doesn't change the fallacies this guy in the vid was making
@@supershadow1053 Except that Frank Turek wasn't making a single Fallacy. The guy making the fallacies is the atheist.
@@robinrobyn1714 making a god of the gaps is a fallacy 😅
1) It is God of the gaps. I don't have an explanation for X therefor God. Same way ancients didn't understand things thus God's. Without evidence besides "it appears" or "I think" the only honest answer to what was before big bang is I don't know.
2) Frank also loves his special pleading of everything needs a creator or a beginning except for his God. That would be a logical phalacy that nearly every Christian can't help by use.
That absolutely is the god of the gaps. A better question would be to ask, why do you think this is evidence of your god and not one of the hundreds of others? Otherwise you're just left with circular logic of one person saying that isn't evidence, and the other saying it is.
Even if you accept that there had to be some sort of "God" as a first cause (and I don't) then there is absolutely no reason to believe it corresponds in any way to the Christian God or any other of the gods that mankind has come up with. It is pointless to try to ascertain what this "god" thinks, or what (if anything) it wants from us.
Jesus’ miracles were available for thousands to see. This is literary evidence to consider. Your comments “pointless” and “no reason” seem to indicate you won’t believe, not that you couldn’t believe. I used to think this same way but this led to end of life hopelessness. Please read the Scriptures for more reasoned thinking.
@@timm8675 So tell me why you think The Bible is true? Why is it any better than the Quran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Kojiki, or any other religious text?
The Wiki entry for the Kojiki describes it as "an early Japanese chronicle of myths, legends, hymns, genealogies, oral traditions, and semi-historical accounts" which (apart from the word 'Japanese') exactly describes The Bible!
@@timm8675 Do you have literary references of these thousands of witnesses other than in the Bible? These cultures were quite good record keepers. Such amazing events would surely have been documented in multiple ways. Yet we don't seem to have any.
Dr. Turek answering a "God of the gaps" question with more God in more gaps.
I believe you missed where he talked about infinite regress.
There is only so much we can explain through naturalism.
Somewhere there must be an original cause that was uncaused
@@Jewonastick Dr. Turek has the gift of the gap.
@@awesomefacepalm You said: _"I believe you missed where he talked about infinite regress."_
No, I did not miss that. There are any number of "infinite regress" arguments to be made, but could you first tell me what is so bad about an infinite regress? How many decimals does the number pi have, or the decimal representation of 1/3? Is that bad, or impossible, or undesirable? If that is the truth, then that is what it is, right?
You said: _"There is only so much we can explain through naturalism."_
Well, that is certainly true regarding our current knowledge, but whether that is true regarding "everything" or "the future" is something we simply don't know. We don't know if there actually are "supernatural" thingies or if the thingies we consider immaterial at the moment can or cannot be explained "through naturalism". What we do know is that we have developed a fairly successful method for expanding our knowledge of our material reality, and that "faith" has little or no role in that method.
You said: _"Somewhere there must be an original cause that was uncaused"_
First of all... why (see above)? Secondly, we may observe that in our universe each effect had a cause, but how do we know that this was true at the start or "before" that? We don't know, and it is possible that we can't know that.
For example, if, as Dr. Turek said, time had a beginning, then it becomes nonsensical to talk about a "before" that beginning. "Before" is a time-based concept, so you can't have any "before" or "after" without time. Then, because you cannot have "before" and "after", it also becomes doubtful if you can have cause and effect. That would mean that your argument would be moot. Because without causality, the need for an original cause would evaporate.
@@hansdemos6510 Take some time to study the problems with infinite regress.
Pi is not an example of infinite regress.
Infinite regress is that something is caused by something that is caused by something... ad infinitum.
Before and after doesn't need to be dependent on chronology either. But can also be used logically. God is before time, in a logical sense.
@@awesomefacepalm You said: _" Take some time to study the problems with infinite regress."_
Well, I have, but it was you who brought it up, and it was you who said it was a problem, so why don't you explain how this is a problem?
You said: _"Pi is not an example of infinite regress."_
But is an example of an infinite series, and we don't consider that in itself problematic, do we? So the fact that some series is infinite, cannot be what you dislike about "infinite regress".
You said: _"Infinite regress is that something is caused by something that is caused by something... ad infinitum."_
Right. We have already established that there is no logical problem with infinite series. Do you have a logical problem with causality? I don't think you do; so you have no problem with "regress" either, do you? So please explain what your problem is with "infinite regress". Why is this bad according to you?
You said: _"Before and after doesn't need to be dependent on chronology either."_
Yes they do; that is the very definition of the word.
You said: _"But can also be used logically."_
That would have to be different words. No time, no "before" and no "after".
You said: _"God is before time, in a logical sense."_
It is nonsensical to talk about "before time", and a God postulated to be so would then be nonsensical as well.
I think it's great the kids asking questions. Holy Spirit please touch him. It may be his way of waking up. Forcing people to experience truth. Praise Jesus.
Utterly amazing!! Frank specifically laid out the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle's argument of an Unmoved Mover...an Uncaused First Cause. And the atheist asked:' What caused God?'....
Common sense is not very common.
So Frank has brilliantly proved Allah. Checkmate, atheists!
@@midlander4 What is the Ontological Nature of Allah?
Checkmate, theist!!!!!!!
@@midlander4 Since you study Theology ( you're arguing the subject so you better know what you are talking about), what is the Ontological Nature of Allah?
@@robinrobyn1714 when I've addressed that one, we'll then move onto Thor, Vishnu and 5000 other made-up gods. How long have you got?
You mean he did special pleading for his god to not follow the rules of logic he insists everything else does. It's just a huge fail for christianity here.
Where is this video being filmed? Why is everyone still wearing a cowards mask?
Probably a liberal college.
@@reality1958 so tell me the science of why the masks keep the viruses at bay. And if there is a difference between bacteria and viruses. Because science will prove that bacteria is larger than viruses by a large amount and what keeps bacteria at bay may not work on viruses.
@@reality1958 but is that truly how covid is transmitted? Do you trust the CDC after all their bait and switch and changing their minds under strong social pressure? Yeah I don't believe a word that comes out of their mouths.
@@reality1958 but I thought that the virus was spread by particulates in the air..... not droplets? Have the CDC finally got themselves figured out? And do you really trust them after all the masks, no masks, 2 masks, vaccine, 2 vaccine, protected/not protected dance they've done over the past two years?
@@reality1958
There is no science in a face wrap, unless you can provide the research and studies for it.
Just like the science proving the benefits of the *C L O T -- S H O T,* nothing.....
Why do these natural law exsist then? It had to be God. Another by definition God of gaps
If you can appeal to wizards and magic, you can explain anything
hahahaha!
With God by definition, anything everything is possible.
@@tTtt-ho3tq Yes! Thats exactly what I'm talking about!
Oooooh this is good. 🙏🏼🔥
Read Steven Meyers. He destroys any hope of naturalism being true.
@@GreatBehoover >>Read Steven Meyers. He destroys any hope of naturalism being true.""
And how exactly did he do that? Did he provide any empirical evidence for his claims yet?
@@macmac1022
You silly PRETENDERS simply close your little eyes, stomp those little feet, and scream "NOOOOO"!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
What you DON'T do is what you are AFRAID to do...ACTUAL SKEPTICAL RESEARCH. SKEPTICAL OF EVERYONE. I have SKEPTICALLY avoided Meyers in the past because U thought Chritian apologists would be biased. So I spent the last decade and a half studying ONLY EVOLUTIONARY PAPERS AND ARTICLES....every one I could get my hands on.
I have an exceptional IQ, I read exceptionally fast, and I have a photographic memory...as well as being highly educated
I have an insatiable thirst for scientific knowledge. You have NONE. You want NO GOD.
Your willfully ignorant approach is this:
I hate God...therefore I believe in naturalism.
That approach is BIASED and disallows any contrary evidence to pervade your SILLY FAITH!🙄🙄🙄
If you would do what I did and START READING instead of HOPING that the evidence "exists" for naturalism...you will find what I found....IT DOESN'T.
Faith statements about evolution, and abiogenesis, and big bang mythologies abound! What does NOT even occur is UNASSUMED OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE backing any of these fantasies.
Feel free to save yourself the trouble and read Meyers first. I wasted ALOT of time learning EXACTLY what he said in hos books. In fact, I actually learned a few things I didn't know because of his approach to Darwin. As you can tell...I'm no fan of racist darwin or lyell. I had no idea what FRAUDS both men were in their BIASED APPROACH to science.
In any case Meyers is brilliant.
I've already addressed why naturalism carries the burden of proof...not people who merely DON'T BELIEVE THAT FAITH.
If it was real science...then I would have found ONE PIECE OF OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE DEVOID OF FAITH STATEMENTS AND CIRCULAR REASONING!!! In the HUNDREDS OF POPULAR PAPERS...you would THINK that FAITH-FILLED NONSENSE wouldn't need be used...BUT the entirety of the dogmatic MYTHOLOGY is based upon faith upon faith. I was SHOCKED to see this. The deeper I got, the greater my skepticism grew until DNA CODE. I was BLOWN out of my mind. I've never seen CODE at this level. Magnificent beyond Magnificence!!! It is BRILLIANT and on a level that makes Bill Gates look like a chump comparatively. It doesn't just beat Microsoft and ALL MANMADE CODE COMBINED...it destroys it!!! We STILL DON'T GET ALL OF IT. DNA CODE proves design. GAME OVER. You can't give any LOGICAL or REASONABLE explanation for it's existence outside of a SUPERGENIUS DESIGNER. None! IMPOSSIBLY CREATED and you silly NONTHINKERS Don't even BEGIN to understand WHY. You simply IGNORE all evidence that makes you butt-hurt, and conversely... you readily accept ANY UNTRUE GARBAGE about your FAITH... that it COULDA, WOULDA, SHOULDA have been a result of the accident if the gaps fallacy you people believe!🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Read Meyers...then respond!!!
@@macmac1022
Also...
Neither Meyers nor myself claimed that:
PIGS FLY!
You did! Naturalism did.
Not that pigs fly, but rather that you BELIEVE the scientific equivalent... namely that:
DNA CODE SELF-CREATED and SELF-ASSEMBLED into cells!
How utterly ridiculous to have such UNSCIENTIFIC FAITH!! No one writes peer reviewed papers to disprove the silliness of people's asserting that pig's fly! Bexause they DON'T!!! IT'S OBVIOUS!
Likewise with DNA CODE. It CAN'T...CAN'T...CAN'T SELF-CREATE AND SELF-ASSEMBLE INTO CELLS silly boy!!!! Can't...never ever ever been observed...not even CLOSE!!! Pig's seriously have a far better chance of sprouting wings and flying!!! WHY on earth would anyone believe pig's fly....the opposite of OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE. Why again do you BELIEVE that DNA CODE SELF-CREATED and SELF-ASSEMBLED into cells....in OPPOSITION TO ALL AVAILABLE OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE!!!?????????🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄