David Wood vs. John W. Loftus: Does God Exist? (Part Two)

[TheAmethystScorpion]

It is truly embarrassing how Christians always resort to mocking and sarcasm when put in a tight spot that they can't talk their way out of. It's pathetic and I feel sorry for them.

[thequantumvacuum]

Someone give David a real challenge please.

[morningstomper123]

Woods sounds like he studies Dr. Craigs' debates

[vicachcoup]

John Loftus - no answer to the fine tuning of the universe.

No answer to the first cause.

Just lots of waffle.

For those that like waffles - enjoy

[integralmath]

Chance of the gaps. AHAHAHA.

I was fraught with guffaws.

[48mmwatch]

think of religion as "brakes" on a car, wearing out and very close to being replaced.

[chadwick0091]

this David Wood guy is a complete ass hat. he wouldn't know logic if it came up in smacked him in his face

[paulcorda]

@chadwick0091 - LOL, you are so correct, I love listening to the apologetics try to defend Christianity, the stuff they come up with is very entertaining. Like I good fiction novel.

[DiscipleInstinct]

Yes people use God as an excuse to kill people so has the belief in evolution been used as an excuse to kill people. I think this is a great debate and very cool to watch seeing as they got along and poked jokes at one another lol. Both had very good point, but Wood stayed on topic whereas Loftus did not for a time or point can't remember exactly. BUt one thing I noticed Loftus had said something referring to Christians saying "their God" is true while there's ( muslims and some other belie

[DiscipleInstinct]

@DiscipleInstinct fs) But this has nothing to do with the case of double standards as he claimed. Those debates are strictly based off of documentation, reliable sources and multiples of them, history, contradictions, literalism, contextual reading... scripture. and more. That has nothing to do with the Existence of God nor a double standards in the least. What it seemed to be was an example debate between faiths he thought could be used to support his notion of double standards.

[buktomsin]

Wood got smashed!

[mrstevenjake22]

@buktomsin Yeah he couldn't even articulate his points his points correctly. He couldn't stay on topic either. He also gave weak responses to the questions posed. Oh wait...that was all John Loftus!

[buktomsin]

@mrstevenjake22 Like you can't articulate, your sentences? lol

[mrstevenjake22]

@buktomsin Because i accidently typed something twice in no way means Im not articulate. Looks like your following Loftus logic.

[buktomsin]

@mrstevenjake22 lol uhhhhh... fool.

[mrstevenjake22]

@buktomsin Typical immature atheist. "The fool says in his heart, there is no God" Psalm 14:1

[buktomsin]

@mrstevenjake22 and the adult says ALOUD therere is NO g

ods!!!!!!!!!!!

[mrstevenjake22]

@buktomsin Do you have to say it aloud so its easier to believe? And you might want to check your grammar skills, or lack thereof.

[buktomsin]

@mrstevenjake22 Actually, I think you've utilized the same technique in which jee-zues got converts :D Good job bro. Oh yea srry, forgot the grammar police were on duty D:

[kfk4life]

*sigh* Hawking and Penrose stated explicitly that the singularity wouldn't exist. Hawking uses the no-boundaries model, Penrose uses the cyclic model.

[2nDoppelganger]

When he made his "does John Loftus" exist he pretty much just disproved God lmao

[Xenophile665]

David Wood is a talented speaker. His ambiguity and obfuscation are the best I've heard to date.

[sukruoosten]

jezus raise lazarus of the death

jezus died en returned en stayed for 40 days after resurrection

still they denied him

so why should blind people believe in god en the bible 50% of world DOESNT

en by blind i mean unbelievers-pagans en heidens (athiest)

they have no soul no difference of animals so why try if there so ingnorent

psalm 53 the fool has said there is no god wicked is he

he is already judged upon

jezus olso said dont give holy things en teachings to dogs-unbelievers

yust wait 1 DAY

[qarohc]

@sukruoosten

"ezus olso said dont give holy things en teachings to dogs-unbelievers"

the passage you are referring to describes unbelievers as swine, not dogs. Here is a cool fact for you that should take that smugness right off, "jesus" was using a racial slur. It is a common derogatory term used by jews and muslims against those that eat pigs.

The term dog is used by "jesus" to demean a woman that was begging him for help BECAUSE SHE WAS FROM A DIFFERENT NATIONALITY!!!

[MsRockerMamma]

David Wood is a complete idiot! He's so arrogant, mocking and condescending toward John Loftus. It's too bad he can't see reason. I have to give John Loftus a lot of credit to stand in a church and debate creationism in front of such a bias and brainwashed crowd. He did a remarkable job but unfortunately those Christians are so closed minded that he probably could have said anything and it wouldn't change their minds, especially in such a forum with their minister by their sides.

[IntelligentProbe]

I can't help but think that arguing from the absurd in order to prove the existence of God, is to make God absurd? I mean really? An alien could be highly influencing our thinking this very moment? and this is the argument to help prove God? (shaking my head in disbelief).

[mrstevenjake22]

@IntelligentProbe it wasn't an argument to prove God it was an argument refuting Loftus's claim. Did you even listen?

[anahaevia666]

another christian buffoon that has no idea what he's talking about. let the logical fallacies fly!

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

When it comes to the problem of suffering it can be easily defended by saying that if god is like any kind of loving father than what kind of father would let his children suffer if he knew they would benefit from it somehow later on. He would do whatever he could to prevent or stop suffering right away.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist Really? Thats interesting. So, if your child had cancer and needed to take Chemotherapy treatment, by your reasoning you would not give it to him because it caused suffering? Yeah sounds like a good parent to me.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 Since I last commented here one year ago, I don't really remember what i said exactly. But the cancer is what causes the suffering, not the chemotherapy.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist I understand haha However, I'm afraid youre incorrect. Chemotherapy is like injecting poison into your body. Chemotherapy is designed to kill your cancer cells but it also kills your normal cells as well. Its extremely painful so no cancer is not what causes all the suffering. So, as a father you wouldnt submit your child to go through suffering that might eventually bring about a greater good?

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 I have heard that chemotherapy is NOT painful in the slightest way, but even if it was there is medication for that.

With that in mind, your entire argument collapses into dust.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist Because youve "heard" things doesnt make them correct. But ill use your logic anyway. My grandfather had skin cancer and went through 2 treatments of Chemo. 6 months later they found more cancer and wanted to bring him in for more chemo. However, he declined saying it was too painful. So, if chemo was NOT painful then why would my grandfather forgo treatment that could save his life instead of taking the treatment and living? He died 2 months later.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist Maybe you should do research before you make claims from ignorance. So, im afraid my argument doesnt "collapse into dust". Rather, it shows how you keep trying to go around the original question i posed. So, why dont you just answer it.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 Maybe you might want to present a source that SAYS it's painful. I went to the chemotherapy website, nothing about it being painful, only that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth.

Perhaps your grandfather had it all in his mind, or he was talking about the cancer being painful. But the very people who work in that field, say it isn't painful.

So yeah you have no argument.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist There are different types of chemotherapy. Some dont hurt at all but others cause extreme nauseousness, vomiting, fatigue, diarrhea that are pretty much nonstop. My grandfather was not talking about the cancer. Once again your logic is flawed. If the chemo didnt hurt my grandfather then he would have WANTED to continue it. However, ill try to articulate this one more time so you can properly understand. The argument is not even about chemotherapy. You said "what kind of

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 All those examples that you listed, pain was not among them. And certainly those are preferable to the cancer itself. Your grandfather might have decided that it was his time to go.

But please don't confuse the problem of evil with the problem of suffering.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist will inevitably break down, it cant help it. The car cant choose not to break down. So, extreme vomiting, diarrhea and nauseousness arent painful? Man i wonder why people complain when theyre sick then. Of course its preferable to cancer and so you just proved my point. The chemotherapy would be well worth it in the end. The problem once again(which i already brought forth) is that God transcends us in every way possible. So, its arrogant and shortsighted to demand answers

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 evil, but the problem of suffering. I have a video on this that you might want to watch.

Diarrhea causes discomfort yes, not actual pain. Same with vomiting.

"god transcends us in every way possible, so its arrogant and shortsighted to demand answers"

Translation: Don't question the boss, he will do what he does, just accept it. Sorry but might makes right is NOT something that automatically = a goodness. More often than not it = the complete opposite.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist about his reasoning. If he transcends us then he could have infinite reasons for allowing suffering that we cant comprehend. So, unless youre more intelligent than God than any answer you come up with will fall short.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 That reply fails, because it is like saying "don't question what you don't know"

If people questioned what they didn't know. We would still be in the dark ages. If a god allows suffering, who can just as easily stop it, then he is not a good god.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist have an infinite number of reasons for allowing suffering. We simply cant know what his reasons are and to claim that we have the right to know is arrogant. Also, we dont know how things will end up in the end so once again we cant say that all this suffering isnt for a greater good. For the last time, suffering is a result of free will and without free will God wouldnt be benevolent. Please try to understand the argument before you set up strawmen.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 suffering is NOT the result of free will, evil and good are. Suffering is the result of a negative action, or natural disasters and disease. Get the argument right so that you don't attack strawmen.

Of course I deal with all this in my video, most of your objections, anyhow.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist father would let his children suffer if he knew they would benefit from it somehow later on". So, try to answer the following question without trying to avoid it. If your child had a form of cancer that required a chemotherapy treatment that brought about suffering(and could not be suppressed by medication) but would save his life, would you go through with it?

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 Your comparision here is flawed, the chemo is the ONLY option to get rid of cancer. Now an omnipotent god, who can do anything, can bring about the most good, with zero suffering. If I was an omnipotent father, I could just zap the cancer, no need for chemo.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist How can you possibly know that the best possible world with the most good has no suffering? The problem is with free will. Free will is what makes any sincere love possible, however its also what makes the most evil possible. So, in order to have a world without suffering there would have to be a world without free will, which would not bring about the greatest good. If you were an omnipotent father you could zap the cancer, but you cant zap the evil from peoples hearts.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 ...bullet into a nerf dart. This would keep free will intact, but stop the suffering. Any and all evil, is god's own fault, for putting it there in the first place. He made everyone that way. You don't fault a car for breaking down, you fault the manufactorer.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist many people. Stopping suffering does interfere with free will. If you decided to punch someone in the face and God stopped it then he would be interferring with the other persons free will because the other person wouldnt be able to act on the situation. He wouldnt be able to turn the other cheek or retaliate. Evil is not Gods fault, its mans. Without free will we wouldnt be able to choose anything and God wouldnt be benevolent. Your car analogy is extremely flawed. A car

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 ...right now? I don't think they are enjoying god too much. If god isn't going to provide for everyone, and he doesn't, then there is no reason to enjoy him. Of course god shouldn't stop someone from punching someone else, what he can do though it make it not hurt. God makes people WANT to punch other people, rather than making them NOT want to punch other people, bad design = bad designer. You are still attacking an argument that I am NOT using. I am not using the problem of..

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist who ask for his provision. So, since your an atheist and you dont want anything to do with God, well thats exactly what you get. Oh, so all God has to do is do away with physical pain and everything would be fine? Why not do away with emotional pain as well. In fact, why not simply do away with everything negative in the world! Ah, but then words and feelings like good, love, enjoy, bliss would lose meaning. You cant enjoy the light unless you know what the dark feels like.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 I deal with most, if not all of your objections in my video on suffering:

watch?v=pdeiDF5SYk4

No need to type out comments, when I have already said them before in a video.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist God doesnt make anyone want to punch anyone else, its people's own heart. Thats like if someone made a gun and sold it. Then the person who bought it killed someone else. Then you say, the guy who made it is responsible! When it was obviously the person who put the gun to bad use. This is the same thing with our soul and how we use it in the medium of our bodies. I never said dont question things. Please dont put words in my mouth. I said God is infinite, therefore he could

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 But god put the tendency for people to punch each other into their hearts. He could have just as easily put the tendency for people to want to help each other into their hearts.

You need to offer up some sort of evidence that god exists first of all, before you go saying he is infinite. Then offer up some evidence that he is infinite. I can simply say that non sentient energy is infintie, since it can't be created or destroyed.

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist So, if God created a world without free will, it wouldnt be any kind of a world at all. We'd all be machines. So, since God created us with free will that makes him benevolent. You have to somehow show that all the suffering in the world could not possibly lead to an insurmountable greater good in the future. But since no one can do that you cant say suffering is a problem and God shouldnt allow it.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 Free will doesn't factor into the problem of suffering. You have someone with cancer, and god has the ability to stop any and all cancer on this planet, right this second. Plus he is a good loving god, so he should want to. But he doesn't so either he is not powerful, not good, or doesn't exist. God can make the most good with zero suffering, since stopping suffering doesn't stop free will. A person can still choose to shoot someone, but that doesn't mean god can't turn the...

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist Actually free will is responsible for evil and evil is in turn responsible for a lot of suffering. So, free will does factor into suffering. Youre correct, God could stop all cancer and thats exactly why people pray. Im afraid a big flaw in your reasoning is that youre assuming that Gods main objective is to make us happy. However, the main objective and the main point in life is to accumulate knowledge of God and enjoy him. And actually suffering brings about this in

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 Right, but god MADE humans who lean towards doing mean hateful things to each other. He could have just as easily made humans lean towards doing nice things to each other, either way doesn't affect free will at all. The fault lies in god's sorry design of humans. It's like if you make a car that is designed to fail. It is better to make one designed to function properly. It is still god's fault 100%! If the main reason is to enjoy god, what about the people who are suffering...

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist This is where you really dont understand free will. You cant make someone to lean towards good or evil otherwise you ARE affecting their free will. If He did make us presuppositionally susceptible to good rather than evil then we would act completely different then if we had free will. He didnt make us to fail, he made us and since we had free will we had the chance to reject him. There is no world worth living that doesnt have free will. That would mean when your wife told

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 By make, I mean design, not force. He designs people to WANT to do mean things, rather than nice things. Take the garden of eden story for example, he made Eve gulible enough to believe the snake, he could have easily given her more will power to resist the snake, and this would not have affected her free will at all. Yes he most certianly DID make us to fail, he knew exactly what would happen ahead of time if he made us a certain way, he knew the best design to use, yet he...

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist you she loved you it wouldnt be because she actually loved you, it would because all we were programmed to do is love. Love would lose all sincerity and meaning. The funny thing is that people who are suffering are actually more in touch with God right now than you or me. Suffering actually brings you closer to a divine being. Thats why you see people in third world countries and in poverty a lot more spiritual and closer to God than people in the US. God provides for those

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 ...used a faulty design anyways. I don't have a wife, but you don't make people love you by blaming them for a mistake that YOU did. The wife analogy is a bad one, because people don't make their wives. And you don't condemn anyone to an eternity of punishment if they reject you, that isn't love, that is a dictatorship. And you are wrong, suffering can take just as many people away from god, as is can bring to god. A good god can bring people to him in other ways, like showing...

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

@mrstevenjake22 ...himself, but of course god doesn't SHOW himself, though he sure didn't mind doing major miracles in the past, but not anymore. It isn't that I don't want anything to do with god, this is a strawman, I know that he doesn't exist, one reason being that suffering creates a paradox with his very loving nature. The major suffering in the world is what is the most convincing, every minute children die of hunger, and not one speck of help from a loving god. Also natural disasters.

[HonestTechnoAtheist]

Had David Wood never heard of abiogenesis? Or does he just completely ignore it?

[mrstevenjake22]

@HonestTechnoAtheist Abiogenesis hasnt discovered anything yet. 

[DefPoet100]

"If you apply this reasoning what could you ever believe." Congratulations Mr. Woods you just explained the staple of atheism.

[buktomsin]

@DefPoet100 ... Wow 

[TheAndrewMan1000]

Johns comment about the cro bar and the stroke destroyed the soul argument. Your ability to rationalize and think is permanently destroyed depending on how serious brain injuries are.

[marccallinan]

i like the way he says that god said not to kill each other, not mentioning when god gave a populated city to his followers and told them to go kill everyone that lived there and take it for their own.

[graphixfanatic]

Exactly. Belief in the existence of God has been used to justify the murder of more innocent people than any other cause.

[Mkvine]

This was a very refreshing debate. A lot better than some of the Islam debates where the Muslim would call you "liar" "deceiver" "your argument is garbage" etc. (referring to Osama Abdullah). You can tell both Dr. Wood and John W. Loftus were having a good time and a very friendly discussion.

[kilerspartin]

@Mkvine well if your anything like me, you would find and recent debates on Woods behalf to be refreshing., weather it be osama abdulla or any other knucklehead representing absolute obvious deception.

[vicachcoup]

@Mkvine

Nice - tapping into the current anti-Islamic sentiment - makes you feel cool - right? :-)

[Mkvine]

@vicachcoup

I don't know what your talking about. I actually respect many Islamic beliefs and scholars. However, I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade. Perhaps you are tapping into the current walt disney watered down version of Islam instead of actually reading the sources. It's cool to remain ignorant right? :-)

[vicachcoup]

@Mkvine

Ignorance. A selective view on reality.

Saying that muslims don't have refreshing debates is a very selective take on reality.

I am sure we can both find umpteen posts on youtube to back our opinions.

Put simply - there are idiots and intellects in every camp.

If you want to see the idiots and use that to tar the rest then that is true ignorance and prejudice.

And some people prefer that to the truth.

[Mkvine]

@vicachcoup

Illiteracy. Not being able to read.

Notice what I said in my first post I said "some" Islamic debates, then I even qualified that by stating which specific ones - the debates with Osama Abdullah. So I don't know what you mean by "tar[ring] the rest." In fact, as I already said, I respect many Islamic scholars and debaters, some of which are Shabir Ally, Zaid Shakir, Hamza Yusuf.

[vicachcoup]

@Mkvine

Ignoring the first line, I get your point.

I think what I foundmore interesting than your comment was the number of thumbs up you got for it.

Perhaps you have merely provided a channel for that anti-Islamic sentiment I was talking about.

[Mkvine]

@vicachcoup

Again, if anything, my comment probably provided anti-Osama Abdullah sentiments. If you actually watch those debates, you would know what I'm talking about. David Wood doesn't debate too many atheist, he debates Muslims, some of which include Osama Abdullah. Hence, the contrast I pointed out. People who follow David Wood know what Im talking about. But thanks for making my comment worthy of your attention.