In the former USSR1917-92 atheism/evolution was taught daycare-university. The Bible was banned&it was illegal to teach it to kids. Within months of the fall of the USSR in 92 the Bible&Creationism was reintroduced in Russian schools. The main one behind it was Olga Lutsenko&she was an atheist then. Death threats caused her leave in 96&she lives in Canada&is aChristian now. BTWshe is on youtube&Isupport her work financially.It's amazing to me how fast Christianity came back to Russia&USSR FYI.
See both sides of the argument, try Robert M Price,'The reason driven life', Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Victor J Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, David Mills, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
@zytigon OK... when your done then try Matt Slick, Ken Ham, William lane Craig, John MacArthur, Phil Fernandes, James White, Greg Bahnsen, Shawn McCraney, Jason Lisle, Henry M. Morris, John Warwick Montgomery, G. K. Chesterton, T. S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis, Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, and Clerk Maxwell... Just to name a few.
@cctman Thanks, good idea to read the writings of the best thinkers on all sides rather than spend decades of your life working them out from scratch only to find the ideas were written centuries ago. Save time and grief. Try " Reason driven life " by Robert M. Price for a best start. Richard Dawkins recommends to study all the evidence, read all the Bible. Actually there are many better books to read than the Bible. Bible contains a malware virus. For morality try consequentialism.
I cannot help but to laugh at every argument in favor of the supernatural, none of the mentioned have any connection to anything that can be called supernatural and much less have any connection to anything we could call a god, and moreover, what makes him think its his particular god of the thousands that all religions of the world believe in? Like seriously, its like saying, A B C Z, where's D and the rest?
Ah yes the naturalism leads to determinism argument, apparently this guy has never read the Bible, which teaches predestination in both the Old Testament and the Pauline epistles which actually use the word "predistined"
This Morgan dude was pretty good until i heard healing' and the christian church. But Tabash is correct we are nature. We do not have some transcendent connection with a higher power. Our connection is with the earth as sure as any other fauna that shares this planet. We are only privileged with brains and the evolutionarily advantage that that gave us. People have only started to use them once intellects which i am not, began to doubt the supernatural and test it's claims. Humans Rule.
@corktech interesting comment, for not even the greatest scientist can prove that we are only connected with the earth. So the earth just arbitrarily gave humans an advantage above the thousand of other animals?
Funny how lee strobel gives the holy roller the last word- I'd be curious to see what Tabash would counter with, as he was tearing JP apart! Fail on the supernatural side.
It's hilarious that Moreland immediately starts off by talking about the big bang. Guess what Moreland? If the big bang is true, Genesis is false and therefore the Bible isn't inerrant and your foundation for believing in the supernatural is destroyed.
@ddrummerfreakk True. But as a Christian, Moreland's foundation for believing in the Supernatural is the Bible. Therefore, there is irony in Moreland's claim that the supernatural is proved by an event which discredits the Bible. And if Moreland claims Genesis is metaphoric, how does he know all of the other supernatural events in the Bible aren't also metaphor.
J.P. Moreland is a hot head! He seems like he's about to have a stroke. Easy J.P., you can still believe that there's a sky fairy!
Moreland literally spits out every argument for the existance of god ever formulated in only a few minutes. The thing is, this debate is about the supernatural, not god, so he changes the topic to a way more general one that takes a lot longer to refute in only a few minutes. Nice debate trick J.P.!
Your comparison with God to the "sky fairy" exposes your arrogance. If God is true, then he is in fact essential to every one of our lives; because to live outside of the reality of God would be destructive. If God does not exist, then he is the greatest invention of mankind, ever. Real or not, he is not merely a sky fair, Easter bunny, or Santa Clause. You speak a lot of fallacies. Don't commit the straw man.
@ddrummerfreakk Hey! Don't insult the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause by comparing them to Yahweh, the sky fairy. You are an atheist to these supernatural entities? Prove that they don't exist! BTW How did I commit a straw man? How have I misrepresented your position? Maybe if you defined god for me, I could respond appropriately?
@codyaustinpemberton There is a real problem with saying that god is omnipotent, omnipresent, transcendent, and all that if he is not part of time and also outside of time. William Lane Craig realizes this, so he designates the time where god is outside of as "undifferentiated" time because if god has always existed in out familiar kind of time this would contradict his Kalam argument, as god would have lived through infinite # of hours.
The Kalam argument is about the beginning of the universe, not one aspect of it (time). Craig argues that God my have existed without time before he created us, but is now in time.
My goodness! J.P. Moreland just proved that the supernatural is real! Wow! Tell him to see to it that all those amputees in the U.S. and all around the world for that matter, get healed and grow back their limbs. All Christians need to pray for the amputees to be healed!
Moreland speaks on the resurrection, that it can be historically verified. Not! Check out faith under fire with Richard Carrier vs William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman vs Mike Licona! Great debates!
Moreland spits out a lot of smart sounding words to make his argument sound credible. The fact is, he is saying nothing more than we don't know how it happened, god did it! It's the god of the gaps argument, first cause, and argument from ignorance. He hasn't proven that the supernatural exists and they will never be proven.
Christians that come to a belief for unintellectual reasons love to give reasons for belief based on intellectual reasons. In essence, they love to attempt to find reasons to believe.
Moreland brings up the gamblers fallacy. Everything he brings up has been debunked before. There's nothing new under the sun.
There is no such thing as the supernatural. If there was, it would be impossible to prove.
Also, why isn't there any miracles that aren't things that can be explained by natural means? Why hasn't an amputee come for to say that god healed him causing his limb to grow back?
More mis information coming from the creationist camp. People love to quote the late atheist turned deist, Anthony Flew, who had signs of dementia and Alzheimer's was suckered by the ID movement and didn't even write the article that was attributed to him when he first came out with his deist view.
The fact that Antony Flew who had signs (merely signs, mind you) of Dementia and Alzheimer's is evidence of his sincere conversion. If one has Dementia or Alzheimer's, they are more likely to resort back to their life's work, or thoughts that are more familiar in their brain. Not new thoughts.
People don't understand what Deism is, Deists simply believe in "a higher power" as the "Grand Architect of the Universe." Deists believe that one can conclude of a higher power by looking at the natural world and using reason and logic. I'm a Deist, and I believe the higher power is Nature, which is everything and everywhere, it allows life to exist just as easily as it takes it away and is the reason for Creation. You need not look any further to realize of a higher power. Flew became a Deist.
Moreland is not committing either of these fallacies.
When he mentions Anthony Flew, he is not saying "Anthony did it, so we should do it." He is simply using it as an example of the power of the evidence for the super natural. After which, he enters into his argument.
Moreland also does not make the fallacy of appealing to consequences. He was not making an argument at the attempt to forced Tabash to accept his stance based on a moral that was too valuable for Tabash to give
up (i.e. "you have to accept a God or there will be another Holocaust"). He was using the fact that because we have free will, therefore it follows that we must have thoughts that are beyond simple chemicals in our brain.
Here is his argument:
1) If P then Q: If I am just a natural object subject to the laws of nature, then all of my behavior is completely determined by my genetic structure in my body and by my environmental inputs (this refutes free will).
2) Not Q: We are not simple beings with a nature that is determined by our genetic codes because it is evident that we have free will.
3) Therefore, not P: Because we have free will, then there must be a metaphysical construct of our thoughts, senses, and will. Therefore, it follows that the supernatural exists.
First of all, can you really prove that you have a free will? That all your actions are not results of the structure of your brain and the history of events that took place in it? If you think about that for a while, I hope you will see that you cannot prove that, and the logical argument stops here.
I could also mention that determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive, or that non-determinism is possible without evoking anything supernatural (quantum mechanics).
Yes, we know that we have free will because we can desire for things that are contrary to our initial emotions. Dogs cannot do this however, if a dog is hungry and desires to eat, if given the opportunity, he will eat; but humans can exercise the will to deny their initial desires (desires of the flesh), and choose not to eat.
Actually, determinism and free will are mutually exclusive. By definition determinism means that all events (including human action) are ultimately
Did you even read my answer? According to compatibilism, determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive. Believe what you will, just don't say it's a fact.
Of course read your response, but I find your statement to be incorrect; hence, my response. For compatibilism to be true, it has to change the nature of determinism. They even say this themselves by calling it "soft-determinism." Although compatibilism says that one is free to act how they wish, the nature of the will is determined. So the action is "free," while the will is not. This is still in contradiction with true
determinism. A theory cannot state that all events are ultimately determined by causes external to the will and people have freedom to act as they will, and it not be contradictory. It is a fact.
1. Their appeal to authority; since Flew was the "most influential" atheist defender, then it now seems that Flew's opinion is the "most important" to Moreland.
2. The best theists can do is argue for a deist god, rather than a Christian one. Moreland speaks of a "prime mover" when he says "bangs have bangers."
3. Moreland is COMPLETELY conforming with scientific knowledge that is much argued within theist circles, when he agrees with the big bang.
1. Moreland does not appeal to authority in this debate. He simply uses the example of Anthony Flew as an introduction to his "3 strands of evidence" argument.
2. The debate here is "not does the Christian God exist;" but rather, "is the super natural real?" This is a debate between the nature of metaphysics vs. a strict sensate belief. If Moreland wanted to argue for the Christian God, he could have. I have heard him do it.
@ddrummerfreakk Moreland IS appealing to authority when he describes Flew as the "top defender of atheism for 60 years." Why ELSE would he insert Flew's opinion. Moreland gives ALOT of credit to the opinion of ONE man, one man he would like to point out is VERY special, and we must RESPECT that man's authority. And you can hear Strobel backing him up as if to give extra importance.
In no way does he claim that because of Flew's conversion, therefore the rest of the skeptic world should to. He gives an argument. It is the same argument that Flew give. This is not an appeal to authority.
@ddrummerfreakk Why would you OPEN an argument for the supernatural FOR belief in the supernatural with a case of someone's eventual acceptance of supernaturalism? It is a debate, and your main goal in a debate is to be convincing. So you are in a strange position saying that Moreland's Flew reference is NOT part of his argument. What IS then the purpose of this reference?
And why is the reference to a prior atheist THE ONLY reference given?
You would open with the Flew example because it is a good and honest speaking tactic. In a speech you give stories, quotes, and stats. It brings weight to the argument. Again, he quickly refers to Flew and then immediately enters into his actual argument. His actual argument was what he claimed authoritative. It is what needs to be refuted, not the example. It is not a fallacy to make a reference or an example to something else as long as it is what not what the argument actually is.
@ddrummerfreakk And you say the debate is not about god... Well the first thing Moreland says is that "the evidence for the supernatural is SO STRONG, that Tony Flew has become a believer in the supernatural and in GOD."
So if this debate is NOT about god, then why does Moreland start with an appeal to a man's authority and belief in GOD??? Perhaps this debate IS about god?
You committed the straw man fallacy here. You took my statement, and simplified it to make it easier to destroy. The truth is I never said that this discussion was not about God, I said that it was not about the Christian God. That is why he did not argue for the Christian God. If I had said "this discussion is not about God," then you would be right because it is about the supernatural and that includes God. SO it is about God, but not the Christian God.
@ddrummerfreakk So again you tread a fine line of serious contradiction. Moreland references miracles performed under Christian worship. So again you defend a tough position that is very plain for other viewers to see.
But if Moreland is not referencing the Christian god when her refers to souls and transcendent beings, WHAT god MAY he be referring to? Just a "general" god not proposed by any religion?
It is not hard to refute this claim. He was not attempting to argue for the Christian God, he was arguing for the legitimacy of miracles. In his claim, miracles happen in the Church's and some pertaining to Jesus, but the conclusion is never "therefore, the Christian God exists." He is claiming, "therefore, miracles do happen." Now you are finishing his job for him. It does logically follow that based on his argument you could then build a case for the Christian God, but
@ddrummerfreakk This is why I say you tread a fine line. If Moreland refers to ANY god, we must assume that he is referring to SOME known formal god that is currently worshiped; not an "abstract" unknown god that we know nothing about.
But I know where his argument is headed. Christians try to defend a DEITY, not god, and then continue on their way assuming the personal god as if their audience is not REALLY concerned with reason.
That is where you are wrong, you cannot assume in his case. In this case, he is not arguing for a particular God. He is just arguing for a God in general. He gets this from the Kalam Cosmological Argument which starts at the beginning: 1) was there a beginning to the earth? 2) was there a beginner (creator)? 3) is this creator personal?
He does not go any further. From there, you can then distinguish which god he is talking about, but he leaves this open.
If there is a fallacy in my reasoning, I would gladly have it pointed out; but the truth is, you have mistaken an appeal to authority (as authority for his argument), for a simple reference. If he had not given an argument directly after his reference to Flew, then you would be correct.
@ddrummerfreakk sorry, I had to go back and rewatch this. Moreland makes claims like "It is only if I am a transcendent supernatural being, and only if I have a soul that is different from my body that is invisible and is part of the supernatural world."
So your claim that this is only about the "supernatural," and does not extend to god is simply false..
@ddrummerfreakk Oh man I've just got to keep coming back at ya. Moreland says at the end of the video Moreland says that "there are miracles happening today; thousands of healings are happening in the enterprise of the Christian church." So again, you say this is not a debate about the Christian god; I don't just disagree with you on this comment, I think it is plainly factual that Moreland IS arguing for the Christian god.
He makes these claims because Strobel brings up the topic of miracles. It is then appropriate for him to argue based on the topic of miracles. He is still not arguing for the Christian God.
Actually it is an argument because the laws of epistemology show that knowledge by acquaintance is legitimate as well as propositional knowledge. If miracles do happen, then it follows that there must be something beyond the physical (the supernatural).
3. I don't see how your third point is relevant. The big bang theory was originally rejected by atheists and skeptics because it implied that there was a creator. He is allowed to use evidence of his liking without the approval of those in the "theist circles."
Moreland gave good evidence the supernatural exists. People that don't think it does haven't really understood the claims for it. They have also made up there mind prior to any arguments for it.
An Employee has to have an Employer? A light does not turn on unless someone turns it on! You cannot see the wind -you only feel the effects of it but you know it is real. A design of any kind has to have A designer! If you see A picture on A piece of paper-someone had to draw it. It just does not make any sense at all to say that there is no God -Because our little minds cannot understand Him Does not mean He is not there. Thats what makes Him God And not us!
@lukeism2 -Yes, Anthony Flew became a Deist, and a deist believes that the universe as we know it, everything we know, must have been created by a 'Supernatural' being.Which is the topic of this discussion...By the way Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein both became deists also.Some of the greatest minds that ever existed believed in a 'Supreme being'...go figure!
@Flagrum3 Isn't it a bit more interesting what today's leading scientists say, than what ancient scientists or a 90-year old demented man says? In a quite recent survey among 700 members of the National Academy of Science, only 6 of them said that they believe in God. And they have very much knowledge that neither the ancient guys nor the old guy could have.. : )
@winterstellar _I doubt that statistic is accurate! Remember in todays society any scientist making a claim to God, puts his career in jeopardy.Also we're talking Greatest minds here! Not run of the mill people...More knowledge? Maybe universally but not intrinsically! Your argument would carry more weight if you could name one person with the intellect matching the people I have named that say unequivocally that God does not exist.
Atheists are not honest regarding the implications of their biological materialism.
JP is correct. If we are nothing but biochemical machines, our very thoughts, words and actions are merely the arbitrary end-product of electrochemical activity. There can be free-will, personal responsibility or moral truth if our thoughts and actions are nothing but the byproduct of our biological processes. Further, there would be no point in debating another persons biologically determined outputs.
Eddie Tabash wins this debate default. J.P. Moreland's presentation was just a rant. He did not present any information that proves the existence of the supernatural but instead makes a heap of unsubstantiated unprovable claims.
I love the question begging "but if I have a soul it's suddenly and magically non-deterministic!" Not to mention he didn't establish said determinism whatsoever.
But the tactics here are great. Let's take a well known Christian apologist and put him against an absolutely unknown... lawyer? It's amazing how slimy these evangelicals are to look "correct." Creepy really.
How does free will exist in a universe created and run by a totally omniscient being? Are we saying that God does not know what we will do? If so, how is he omniscient? If he does know, then didn't he in fact predetermine what the "choice" would be? Don't see how supernatural intervention addresses idea of freewill at all.
Also, about Moreland. WHICH GOD DID IT? Certainly not the christian god, Who "banged" light and then THE LIGHT EMITTERS. or the one who made the heaven (which is supposed to be a supernatural location beyond our realm of perception, and the rest of the universe OUT OF EARTH AND WATER.
I could say alot more, but it's pretty clear that this man knows not his own creation story
Evidence for the supernatural overwhelming? Boy, what an idiot. Sorry, people, if the supernatural had so much evidence, it would not be supernatural in the first place, Because it would be backed up by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, while supernatural means "relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"
So, you have an overwhelming amount of evidence for that which can HAVE NO EVIDENCE.
I beleive that God is exactly like the building block of matter: atom. Don't believe me?Well what defines an atom? An Atom always was, always is, can never be created nor destroyed. Well what defines God? God always was, always is, can never be created nor destroyed. XD I know i'm gonna have so many atheist say: YOU PERPOSTROUS DUMBASS!! lol, but who really gives a damn? People have the right to choose what they want to believe, and no one has the should hate them for it.
This entire debate is filled with fuzzy definitions and unstated assumptions/premises on both sides. Very sloppy. I can forgive Tabash, but Moreland is a sharp analytic philosopher. He should know better.
pretty much, all materialist theories can be refuted in one sentence really: EFFECT HAS CAUSE, YOU CAN GET OUT OF THE BAG MORE THAN THERE IS IN IT, no one is talking about "God" in Christian sense existing, but immaterial universal omnipresent and omnipotent self-creating force which primordial substance is already in
The fundamental fallacy that both commit is the false assumption that free will actually exists. Mr. Moreland's entire argument rests on this postulate, and is never even questioned by Mr. Tabash.
I feel that both take free will over determinism as a given fact, which it is NOT.
J.P. Moreland probably would not be able to verify any current miraculous activity apart from appealing to dualism. It would have been nice to see a continuation of this discussion since many points went unfinished.
While it is naive to think that you can describe the realites beyond the tangible with any detail, it is also naive to have an assumption of materialism. In essence both supernaturalism and materialism are unwarrented assumptions.
Here is something to think about. If the existence of extraterrestrial life is not real then the technology from that life is bogus. However, if such is the case it is saying that evolution and scientific advancements ultimately have finite ceiling. Our technological ventures are in vain. Do you believe such a thing?
The Catholic Church has mountains of super natural proof, science has confirmed some, like Lanciano Eucharistic Miracle tested and irrefutable Miracle and beyond know laws of the universe as the blood globules(5) weighs
the same no matter how it's weighed, one weighs the same as 2,3,4,5 anyway you want to weigh them they come up the same, and then you have the documented history of this living flesh and blood that is 1200 years old.
For some reason he has not taken cognizance of the fact that determinism is compatible with making voluntary choices. The broad majority of philosophers who look at the issue of free will and determinism have independently arrived at this conclusion.
JP wants determinism and voluntaristic free will to be contradictory so he thinks they are. It is nothing more then an argument from incredulity.
I'm glad Moreland is stupid enough to believe in god. It's horrifying to hear Christians say "well if there's no god then killing and molesting children is okay". So for all you Christians out there who agree with him, PLEASE go right on believing in whatever it is you believe in if that's what it takes to keep you from thinking that molesting children is okay. I guess religion is for those who aren't able to figure these things out on their own. I've FINALLY found something GOOD about religion!
i trust that you were joking when you act like you were born yesterday, and still think you came from rocks clay and sand. I trust you were joking when you think everyone is still linked to apes when most blood types are different and you're own bible mentions the annunaki but you fell asleep and drooled all over that part. I trust that you MUST be joking since you still watch television evangelists telling u how to think and wipe your self cuz you're too too dumb to think on your own two.
@FriedChkn4Eva Make up your mind! One minute you say the supernatural is real and that its's foolish to believe we're linked to apes The next minute you say it's stupid to listen televangelists who preach those EXACT two thngs. Clarify yourself.
..listen white man, your ancestry has been stealing from every culture for hundreds of years now, so you already know why religion is mixed up. Your just a spy and i'm clarifying anything...fuck you. Your like 50 yrs old, go do something better with your life like dying.
I'm actually a negroid. I just use that white guys picture to get mo respest. You and I needs to stay down foo! I be out on the cut slangin' some work. You feel me? Be real cuz.
...obviously the ideal would be that Children would take this tentative knowledge, and explore it for themselves when they reached a mature age to do so. And I think the same goes for theological beliefs.
At best the argument implies that one's belief may be unjustified. But think it through: all learning is the product of mental conditioning. We wouldn't have a concept of cause and effect if it wasn't for mental conditioning. Plus all historical and scientific education that children receive is through the process of "indoctrination," but no one would therefore say that children were rationally unjustified in believing that George Washington existed or that water consists of molecules. No?
your argument is obviously invalid. Even if all the premises were true (that belief in the supernatural comes from conditioning etc.) it still wouldn't follow logically that "the supernatural" is not real.
lol, I am a Christian, but I find it really funny that at 5:14 Moreland said "I have absolutely no responsibility for my actions of murder or child molestation."
cuz these are geeky white guys. If these were black christians the intros would have been way different. Watch TD Jakes you'll see what i'm talking about.
Indeed anything could happen, but given that miracles are by definition not bound by regular laws but dependent upon a will who chooses when to intervene, I just gave you a possible reason why God doesn't see the need to heal amputees all the time.
"the fact is that it NEVER happened not even once."
How do you know?
"why not reveal that power by having someone grow back a limb?"
Because you'd deny it and say there's a natural explanation yet to be discovered.
"how do you think would the world look like if there was no god?"
God by definition is a necessary being who sustains the contingent universe, so the world would not exist. One can debate God's existence, but you have your definition wrong.
1. because it was never recorded in the history of the world. not even in the bible.
2. so god doesn't perform miracles because i'd deny it?
it's like saying if god reveals himself i'd refuse to belive it so that's why he won't even bother trying.
a true god could easily prove his existence. he could at least make the same miracles he did in the bible to prove his existence. yet he won't even do that.
so how do you expect me to belive in a god when he never shows any signs that he exists?
God gave us free will. Look at it this way, God does not give us concrete proof for his existence. But there are many things that seem to point to his existence. Nobody can prove or disprove Gods existence. We are all able to make our OWN decisions based on the evidence we see. That is part of the free will God gave us. (Continued bellow)
If we saw a random sampling of a few amputees having their missing limbs miraculously growing back, and if other such phenomena were commonplace, would we really have free will to do what God says? If God regularly appeared to people and spoke to us, could you defy him? The entire universe would have no meaning. We would be nothing more than brain numb matter, relying on a puppeteer to fix all our problems and provide for us. Of course, the world would be perfect, but we wouldnt know it.
Well I wouldn't say there are no miricals, only that it is not realistic to expect proof that they happen/ed. (at least not proof for everyone, I say this because if a miracle such as the virgin birth was real, Im sure Mary knew it was)
So yes, if the existance of God was proven then belief in/obedience to/reliance on him would be superficial. Does a rock have any cares? Does it know so? If God was proven we would simply be matter. like rocks. Meaningless. Our free will gives us meaning.
I personally find the story of Adam and Eve to be more allegorical than historical fact. However, I think you are missing my point. I believe that God exists, just like anyone who might have had him talk to them. I do not think my life meaningless because of that. I think that if EVERYONE knew WITHOUT DOUBT that God existed; it would be like him playing with puppets.
As to why I believe in certain miracles (and the existence of God) without concrete proof; I do not need proof to form and opinion. I have formed my opinion based on the evidence. It is the same reason that I believe in evolution, dark matter, force mediating particles, and other improvable, but viable theories.
Evolution, dark matter and force mediating particles are all scientific principals and/or theories which are supported by ENDLESS amounts of research an evidence, not to mention the tools, medicines and technologies we use that are possible ONLY from the knowledge of these principals/theories. In other words, there are DAMN GOOD REASONS to believe in these things. Now how do you make the jump from believing THESE things... to believing in "certain miracles and a god"? Based on WHAT "evidence"?
The Jump: The things mentioned above are not proven to me, neither is the existence of God.
The evidence that I see: Physical constants, matter, the big bang, the quite sudden explosion of human intelligence, morals, the fact that the bible passes the four historical document tests better than any document of similar age, the life of Jesus, the fact that God can be personally experienced, ext.
@XHaroldXI why would we need free will, if that were the case? why does god care if we defy him? why should it bother someone, who made us defiant, if we defy him? we are nothing compared to god's power, right? why does he care?
Adam saw God and he believed in Him. . . your point? Adam sinned, I don't know for sure but I don't think God made him do it. . . You can decide for yourself if it was fixed or not, because I cannot prove it wasn't, and you cannot prove it was. . . God is not making anyone believ in him. . .
Just an observation and response to one of your previous points ("If God regularly appeared to people .. could you defy him? The entire universe would have no meaning."). All you proposed there was a self-defeater.
"I dont .. dont think God made him do it"
If "god" is the omniscient, all-knowing planner/creator, then indeed, he made him do it. There are no ifs and buts.
"God is not .. in him"
How about alleged personal revelation (or so called inner witness)?
@Wrath0fKhan My point was that if God kept us free of any pain, if he forced us to believe in him, if he was present with us and regulararily apeared to people the world would be perfect because it would not matter what we did. . . humanity as a whole would not matter.
And Omniscient means all knowing. . . not all controling.
Have you ever had a personal revelation? Has a person who has never heard of Jesus ever had one? How do you know they exist?
Man this JP guy is a credulous moron
bax2684 2 months ago
@bax2684 Way to give constructive criticism.
xxgg55 1 month ago
@bax2684 How can a moron judge a moron?
cctman 3 weeks ago
;:D:D bull shit
RolandsSmoked 3 months ago
In the former USSR1917-92 atheism/evolution was taught daycare-university. The Bible was banned&it was illegal to teach it to kids. Within months of the fall of the USSR in 92 the Bible&Creationism was reintroduced in Russian schools. The main one behind it was Olga Lutsenko&she was an atheist then. Death threats caused her leave in 96&she lives in Canada&is aChristian now. BTWshe is on youtube&Isupport her work financially.It's amazing to me how fast Christianity came back to Russia&USSR FYI.
RonSafreed 3 months ago
See both sides of the argument, try Robert M Price,'The reason driven life', Dan Barker, John W. Loftus, E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Mark Twain, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Victor J Stenger, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, David Mills, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 4 months ago
@zytigon OK... when your done then try Matt Slick, Ken Ham, William lane Craig, John MacArthur, Phil Fernandes, James White, Greg Bahnsen, Shawn McCraney, Jason Lisle, Henry M. Morris, John Warwick Montgomery, G. K. Chesterton, T. S. Eliot, C.S. Lewis, Isaac Newton, Johann Kepler, Robert Boyle, Lord Kelvin, Louis Pasteur, Michael Faraday, and Clerk Maxwell... Just to name a few.
cctman 3 weeks ago
@cctman Thanks, good idea to read the writings of the best thinkers on all sides rather than spend decades of your life working them out from scratch only to find the ideas were written centuries ago. Save time and grief. Try " Reason driven life " by Robert M. Price for a best start. Richard Dawkins recommends to study all the evidence, read all the Bible. Actually there are many better books to read than the Bible. Bible contains a malware virus. For morality try consequentialism.
zytigon 3 weeks ago
I cannot help but to laugh at every argument in favor of the supernatural, none of the mentioned have any connection to anything that can be called supernatural and much less have any connection to anything we could call a god, and moreover, what makes him think its his particular god of the thousands that all religions of the world believe in? Like seriously, its like saying, A B C Z, where's D and the rest?
ateopuertorico 6 months ago
Eddie Tabash got single handedly annihilated.
RaytownSoClassof2010 6 months ago
JP Moreland got owned in this debate.
KevZen2000 7 months ago
@KevZen2000 Well, there are certainly no presuppositions behind that comment.
mgundy 7 months ago
@KevZen2000 seriously dude, be honest. Moreland clearly won the debate.
camthejock 6 months ago
Ah yes the naturalism leads to determinism argument, apparently this guy has never read the Bible, which teaches predestination in both the Old Testament and the Pauline epistles which actually use the word "predistined"
redcommander27 8 months ago
did JP just say around 5:20 say he molested children lol
Freethinker12341 8 months ago in playlist Religious Debate #2
This Morgan dude was pretty good until i heard healing' and the christian church. But Tabash is correct we are nature. We do not have some transcendent connection with a higher power. Our connection is with the earth as sure as any other fauna that shares this planet. We are only privileged with brains and the evolutionarily advantage that that gave us. People have only started to use them once intellects which i am not, began to doubt the supernatural and test it's claims. Humans Rule.
corktech 8 months ago
@corktech interesting comment, for not even the greatest scientist can prove that we are only connected with the earth. So the earth just arbitrarily gave humans an advantage above the thousand of other animals?
That is a comment of extreme faith!
prn72271 6 months ago
Really? Thousands of healings? doubtful...
Tyj150 9 months ago
Moreland got rammed? Your kidding right? Did you guys even pay attention to the debate? To bad to was cut, wish I could have saw the whole thing...
samuellis 9 months ago
Funny how lee strobel gives the holy roller the last word- I'd be curious to see what Tabash would counter with, as he was tearing JP apart! Fail on the supernatural side.
ReligionPutrifies 9 months ago
what reason is there to believe that ours is the only universe that exists?
BANGBANGBANGBBANG 10 months ago
jp morgan just got rammmmmeddd
Dankydooodle 10 months ago
@Dankydooodle How? He replied and stood his ground and made good points...
samuellis 10 months ago
Is that all there is?
nemirn 11 months ago
Awe....I wanted to see the rest of it
Law19157 1 year ago
It's hilarious that Moreland immediately starts off by talking about the big bang. Guess what Moreland? If the big bang is true, Genesis is false and therefore the Bible isn't inerrant and your foundation for believing in the supernatural is destroyed.
RyuHadokenMaster 1 year ago
@RyuHadokenMaster
The Big Bang theory and Genesis are not mutually exclusive theories of origin.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk True. But as a Christian, Moreland's foundation for believing in the Supernatural is the Bible. Therefore, there is irony in Moreland's claim that the supernatural is proved by an event which discredits the Bible. And if Moreland claims Genesis is metaphoric, how does he know all of the other supernatural events in the Bible aren't also metaphor.
RyuHadokenMaster 9 months ago
6:34 wow.....ownage
infinitemika 1 year ago
J.P. Moreland is a hot head! He seems like he's about to have a stroke. Easy J.P., you can still believe that there's a sky fairy!
Moreland literally spits out every argument for the existance of god ever formulated in only a few minutes. The thing is, this debate is about the supernatural, not god, so he changes the topic to a way more general one that takes a lot longer to refute in only a few minutes. Nice debate trick J.P.!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710
Your comparison with God to the "sky fairy" exposes your arrogance. If God is true, then he is in fact essential to every one of our lives; because to live outside of the reality of God would be destructive. If God does not exist, then he is the greatest invention of mankind, ever. Real or not, he is not merely a sky fair, Easter bunny, or Santa Clause. You speak a lot of fallacies. Don't commit the straw man.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk Hey! Don't insult the Easter Bunny or Santa Clause by comparing them to Yahweh, the sky fairy. You are an atheist to these supernatural entities? Prove that they don't exist! BTW How did I commit a straw man? How have I misrepresented your position? Maybe if you defined god for me, I could respond appropriately?
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710 god is a personal being of unimaginable power who is outside time and space. and if you want me to further explane message me back
codyaustinpemberton 1 year ago
@codyaustinpemberton There is a real problem with saying that god is omnipotent, omnipresent, transcendent, and all that if he is not part of time and also outside of time. William Lane Craig realizes this, so he designates the time where god is outside of as "undifferentiated" time because if god has always existed in out familiar kind of time this would contradict his Kalam argument, as god would have lived through infinite # of hours.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710
The Kalam argument is about the beginning of the universe, not one aspect of it (time). Craig argues that God my have existed without time before he created us, but is now in time.
aveyowyns 11 months ago
My goodness! J.P. Moreland just proved that the supernatural is real! Wow! Tell him to see to it that all those amputees in the U.S. and all around the world for that matter, get healed and grow back their limbs. All Christians need to pray for the amputees to be healed!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Moreland speaks on the resurrection, that it can be historically verified. Not! Check out faith under fire with Richard Carrier vs William Lane Craig and Bart Ehrman vs Mike Licona! Great debates!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Moreland spits out a lot of smart sounding words to make his argument sound credible. The fact is, he is saying nothing more than we don't know how it happened, god did it! It's the god of the gaps argument, first cause, and argument from ignorance. He hasn't proven that the supernatural exists and they will never be proven.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Christians that come to a belief for unintellectual reasons love to give reasons for belief based on intellectual reasons. In essence, they love to attempt to find reasons to believe.
Moreland brings up the gamblers fallacy. Everything he brings up has been debunked before. There's nothing new under the sun.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
There is no such thing as the supernatural. If there was, it would be impossible to prove.
Also, why isn't there any miracles that aren't things that can be explained by natural means? Why hasn't an amputee come for to say that god healed him causing his limb to grow back?
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
More mis information coming from the creationist camp. People love to quote the late atheist turned deist, Anthony Flew, who had signs of dementia and Alzheimer's was suckered by the ID movement and didn't even write the article that was attributed to him when he first came out with his deist view.
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710
The fact that Antony Flew who had signs (merely signs, mind you) of Dementia and Alzheimer's is evidence of his sincere conversion. If one has Dementia or Alzheimer's, they are more likely to resort back to their life's work, or thoughts that are more familiar in their brain. Not new thoughts.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
What? The evidence for the supernatural has been so overwhelming? That's news to me. Why haven't these finding been all over cable news? Wow!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
@Ricardius1710
Once again, an atheist commits a straw man.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
People don't understand what Deism is, Deists simply believe in "a higher power" as the "Grand Architect of the Universe." Deists believe that one can conclude of a higher power by looking at the natural world and using reason and logic. I'm a Deist, and I believe the higher power is Nature, which is everything and everywhere, it allows life to exist just as easily as it takes it away and is the reason for Creation. You need not look any further to realize of a higher power. Flew became a Deist.
DeistCrusader 1 year ago
Anthony Flew turned to deism, and Moreland's arguments are for deism.
Moreland commits at least two logical fallacies:
- Argument from authority (Flew's conversion);
- Appeal to consequences (His morality argument);
djbanizza 1 year ago
@djbanizza
Moreland is not committing either of these fallacies.
When he mentions Anthony Flew, he is not saying "Anthony did it, so we should do it." He is simply using it as an example of the power of the evidence for the super natural. After which, he enters into his argument.
Moreland also does not make the fallacy of appealing to consequences. He was not making an argument at the attempt to forced Tabash to accept his stance based on a moral that was too valuable for Tabash to give
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@djbanizza
(continued)
up (i.e. "you have to accept a God or there will be another Holocaust"). He was using the fact that because we have free will, therefore it follows that we must have thoughts that are beyond simple chemicals in our brain.
Here is his argument:
1) If P then Q: If I am just a natural object subject to the laws of nature, then all of my behavior is completely determined by my genetic structure in my body and by my environmental inputs (this refutes free will).
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk
(continued)
2) Not Q: We are not simple beings with a nature that is determined by our genetic codes because it is evident that we have free will.
3) Therefore, not P: Because we have free will, then there must be a metaphysical construct of our thoughts, senses, and will. Therefore, it follows that the supernatural exists.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk
First of all, can you really prove that you have a free will? That all your actions are not results of the structure of your brain and the history of events that took place in it? If you think about that for a while, I hope you will see that you cannot prove that, and the logical argument stops here.
I could also mention that determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive, or that non-determinism is possible without evoking anything supernatural (quantum mechanics).
djbanizza 1 year ago
@djbanizza
Yes, we know that we have free will because we can desire for things that are contrary to our initial emotions. Dogs cannot do this however, if a dog is hungry and desires to eat, if given the opportunity, he will eat; but humans can exercise the will to deny their initial desires (desires of the flesh), and choose not to eat.
Actually, determinism and free will are mutually exclusive. By definition determinism means that all events (including human action) are ultimately
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk
Did you even read my answer? According to compatibilism, determinism and free will are not mutually exclusive. Believe what you will, just don't say it's a fact.
djbanizza 1 year ago
@djbanizza
Of course read your response, but I find your statement to be incorrect; hence, my response. For compatibilism to be true, it has to change the nature of determinism. They even say this themselves by calling it "soft-determinism." Although compatibilism says that one is free to act how they wish, the nature of the will is determined. So the action is "free," while the will is not. This is still in contradiction with true
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@djbanizza
(continued)
determinism. A theory cannot state that all events are ultimately determined by causes external to the will and people have freedom to act as they will, and it not be contradictory. It is a fact.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@djbanizza
(continued)
determined by causes external to the "will." It therefore follows that we cannot control our actions internally (if determinism is true of course).
It is apparent that we do, in fact, debate facts.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
Anthony Flew got so old he accepted god on the basis of senility. Gimme a break.
MrMZaccone 1 year ago
lol moreland was fuming.
DarkKnightBob1o1 1 year ago
3 funny points coming from the theists here:
1. Their appeal to authority; since Flew was the "most influential" atheist defender, then it now seems that Flew's opinion is the "most important" to Moreland.
2. The best theists can do is argue for a deist god, rather than a Christian one. Moreland speaks of a "prime mover" when he says "bangs have bangers."
3. Moreland is COMPLETELY conforming with scientific knowledge that is much argued within theist circles, when he agrees with the big bang.
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
1. Moreland does not appeal to authority in this debate. He simply uses the example of Anthony Flew as an introduction to his "3 strands of evidence" argument.
2. The debate here is "not does the Christian God exist;" but rather, "is the super natural real?" This is a debate between the nature of metaphysics vs. a strict sensate belief. If Moreland wanted to argue for the Christian God, he could have. I have heard him do it.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk Moreland IS appealing to authority when he describes Flew as the "top defender of atheism for 60 years." Why ELSE would he insert Flew's opinion. Moreland gives ALOT of credit to the opinion of ONE man, one man he would like to point out is VERY special, and we must RESPECT that man's authority. And you can hear Strobel backing him up as if to give extra importance.
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
In no way does he claim that because of Flew's conversion, therefore the rest of the skeptic world should to. He gives an argument. It is the same argument that Flew give. This is not an appeal to authority.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk Why would you OPEN an argument for the supernatural FOR belief in the supernatural with a case of someone's eventual acceptance of supernaturalism? It is a debate, and your main goal in a debate is to be convincing. So you are in a strange position saying that Moreland's Flew reference is NOT part of his argument. What IS then the purpose of this reference?
And why is the reference to a prior atheist THE ONLY reference given?
This is some plain stuff to see.
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
You would open with the Flew example because it is a good and honest speaking tactic. In a speech you give stories, quotes, and stats. It brings weight to the argument. Again, he quickly refers to Flew and then immediately enters into his actual argument. His actual argument was what he claimed authoritative. It is what needs to be refuted, not the example. It is not a fallacy to make a reference or an example to something else as long as it is what not what the argument actually is.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk And you say the debate is not about god... Well the first thing Moreland says is that "the evidence for the supernatural is SO STRONG, that Tony Flew has become a believer in the supernatural and in GOD."
So if this debate is NOT about god, then why does Moreland start with an appeal to a man's authority and belief in GOD??? Perhaps this debate IS about god?
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
You committed the straw man fallacy here. You took my statement, and simplified it to make it easier to destroy. The truth is I never said that this discussion was not about God, I said that it was not about the Christian God. That is why he did not argue for the Christian God. If I had said "this discussion is not about God," then you would be right because it is about the supernatural and that includes God. SO it is about God, but not the Christian God.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk So again you tread a fine line of serious contradiction. Moreland references miracles performed under Christian worship. So again you defend a tough position that is very plain for other viewers to see.
But if Moreland is not referencing the Christian god when her refers to souls and transcendent beings, WHAT god MAY he be referring to? Just a "general" god not proposed by any religion?
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
It is not hard to refute this claim. He was not attempting to argue for the Christian God, he was arguing for the legitimacy of miracles. In his claim, miracles happen in the Church's and some pertaining to Jesus, but the conclusion is never "therefore, the Christian God exists." He is claiming, "therefore, miracles do happen." Now you are finishing his job for him. It does logically follow that based on his argument you could then build a case for the Christian God, but
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@capoman1
(continued)
that is not his purpose here. If you are going to attack one's beliefs, I would humbly encourage you to represent them accurately.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk This is why I say you tread a fine line. If Moreland refers to ANY god, we must assume that he is referring to SOME known formal god that is currently worshiped; not an "abstract" unknown god that we know nothing about.
But I know where his argument is headed. Christians try to defend a DEITY, not god, and then continue on their way assuming the personal god as if their audience is not REALLY concerned with reason.
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
That is where you are wrong, you cannot assume in his case. In this case, he is not arguing for a particular God. He is just arguing for a God in general. He gets this from the Kalam Cosmological Argument which starts at the beginning: 1) was there a beginning to the earth? 2) was there a beginner (creator)? 3) is this creator personal?
He does not go any further. From there, you can then distinguish which god he is talking about, but he leaves this open.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk I think tat you are in the minority in thinking that Moreland is not appealing to authority when referring to Flew's case.
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
If there is a fallacy in my reasoning, I would gladly have it pointed out; but the truth is, you have mistaken an appeal to authority (as authority for his argument), for a simple reference. If he had not given an argument directly after his reference to Flew, then you would be correct.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk sorry, I had to go back and rewatch this. Moreland makes claims like "It is only if I am a transcendent supernatural being, and only if I have a soul that is different from my body that is invisible and is part of the supernatural world."
So your claim that this is only about the "supernatural," and does not extend to god is simply false..
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
Again, I did not say "no god," I said "not about the Christian God."
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk Oh man I've just got to keep coming back at ya. Moreland says at the end of the video Moreland says that "there are miracles happening today; thousands of healings are happening in the enterprise of the Christian church." So again, you say this is not a debate about the Christian god; I don't just disagree with you on this comment, I think it is plainly factual that Moreland IS arguing for the Christian god.
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
He makes these claims because Strobel brings up the topic of miracles. It is then appropriate for him to argue based on the topic of miracles. He is still not arguing for the Christian God.
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@ddrummerfreakk Sure sounds like he is saying "thousands of miracles happen currently under the witness of Christian view." And he references healing.
This is not even an argument! This is plain faced stating of events as if factual.
If the facts were that simple to see, why would there be a need for a debate? We don't DEBATE facts.
I have NO knowledge of proven healings, not one proven case. We have the scientific world of medicine to attest to it.
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
Actually it is an argument because the laws of epistemology show that knowledge by acquaintance is legitimate as well as propositional knowledge. If miracles do happen, then it follows that there must be something beyond the physical (the supernatural).
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
@capoman1
3. I don't see how your third point is relevant. The big bang theory was originally rejected by atheists and skeptics because it implied that there was a creator. He is allowed to use evidence of his liking without the approval of those in the "theist circles."
ddrummerfreakk 1 year ago
Moreland gave good evidence the supernatural exists. People that don't think it does haven't really understood the claims for it. They have also made up there mind prior to any arguments for it.
bzagar1 1 year ago
An Employee has to have an Employer? A light does not turn on unless someone turns it on! You cannot see the wind -you only feel the effects of it but you know it is real. A design of any kind has to have A designer! If you see A picture on A piece of paper-someone had to draw it. It just does not make any sense at all to say that there is no God -Because our little minds cannot understand Him Does not mean He is not there. Thats what makes Him God And not us!
333dawny 1 year ago
oh fuck off - tony flew has had no influence on anyone that i know of.. and he became a deist, not a believer.. that's dishonest..
and all he has is a detailed rant of look at the trees and painter made da paintin'.
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2
Who is the "fuck off" directed toward?
eidos1975 1 year ago
@lukeism2 -Yes, Anthony Flew became a Deist, and a deist believes that the universe as we know it, everything we know, must have been created by a 'Supernatural' being.Which is the topic of this discussion...By the way Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein both became deists also.Some of the greatest minds that ever existed believed in a 'Supreme being'...go figure!
Flagrum3 1 year ago
@Flagrum3 wrong.. einstein was a pantheist
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2 -Your right, I couldn't remember the term.It's belief in an universal entity but not a 'personal god'.
Flagrum3 1 year ago
@Flagrum3 Isn't it a bit more interesting what today's leading scientists say, than what ancient scientists or a 90-year old demented man says? In a quite recent survey among 700 members of the National Academy of Science, only 6 of them said that they believe in God. And they have very much knowledge that neither the ancient guys nor the old guy could have.. : )
winterstellar 1 year ago
@winterstellar _I doubt that statistic is accurate! Remember in todays society any scientist making a claim to God, puts his career in jeopardy.Also we're talking Greatest minds here! Not run of the mill people...More knowledge? Maybe universally but not intrinsically! Your argument would carry more weight if you could name one person with the intellect matching the people I have named that say unequivocally that God does not exist.
Flagrum3 1 year ago
@Flagrum3 Stephen Hawking just said it a few weeks ago. That's one. And the scientists in the National Academy of Science are super-smart: )
winterstellar 1 year ago
@winterstellar -Hawkins said what? and supersmart maybe but not genuises, there's a difference. ;-)
Flagrum3 1 year ago
Atheists are not honest regarding the implications of their biological materialism.
JP is correct. If we are nothing but biochemical machines, our very thoughts, words and actions are merely the arbitrary end-product of electrochemical activity. There can be free-will, personal responsibility or moral truth if our thoughts and actions are nothing but the byproduct of our biological processes. Further, there would be no point in debating another persons biologically determined outputs.
4TruthMatters 1 year ago
top defender of athiesim?
i didnt relise we had a pope!
thats right, there is so much overwhelming evidence we converted 1 guy!
also, i didnt see any evidence for supernatural, he seemed to describe purely natural phenomena.
EvelcyclopS 1 year ago
Eddie Tabash wins this debate default. J.P. Moreland's presentation was just a rant. He did not present any information that proves the existence of the supernatural but instead makes a heap of unsubstantiated unprovable claims.
MrToby9999 1 year ago
Show me something supernatural and then I can say it does exist. Simple as that.
HonestTechnoAtheist 1 year ago
I love the question begging "but if I have a soul it's suddenly and magically non-deterministic!" Not to mention he didn't establish said determinism whatsoever.
But the tactics here are great. Let's take a well known Christian apologist and put him against an absolutely unknown... lawyer? It's amazing how slimy these evangelicals are to look "correct." Creepy really.
yogurtking 1 year ago
How does free will exist in a universe created and run by a totally omniscient being? Are we saying that God does not know what we will do? If so, how is he omniscient? If he does know, then didn't he in fact predetermine what the "choice" would be? Don't see how supernatural intervention addresses idea of freewill at all.
daleshankins 1 year ago
@daleshankins Fore-knowledge of an action does not mean that there was not a free choice in choosing it.
Englishdosser86 1 year ago
@Englishdosser86 How so? Please elaborate.
daleshankins 1 year ago
Also, about Moreland. WHICH GOD DID IT? Certainly not the christian god, Who "banged" light and then THE LIGHT EMITTERS. or the one who made the heaven (which is supposed to be a supernatural location beyond our realm of perception, and the rest of the universe OUT OF EARTH AND WATER.
I could say alot more, but it's pretty clear that this man knows not his own creation story
Who Owned who?
alexandervlad 1 year ago
Evidence for the supernatural overwhelming? Boy, what an idiot. Sorry, people, if the supernatural had so much evidence, it would not be supernatural in the first place, Because it would be backed up by EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, while supernatural means "relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe"
So, you have an overwhelming amount of evidence for that which can HAVE NO EVIDENCE.
alexandervlad 1 year ago
Moreland is scientifically illiterate, he needs to get an education and *stop talking about stuff he doesn't understand*.
Richy15251 1 year ago
I beleive that God is exactly like the building block of matter: atom. Don't believe me?Well what defines an atom? An Atom always was, always is, can never be created nor destroyed. Well what defines God? God always was, always is, can never be created nor destroyed. XD I know i'm gonna have so many atheist say: YOU PERPOSTROUS DUMBASS!! lol, but who really gives a damn? People have the right to choose what they want to believe, and no one has the should hate them for it.
narutobuu321 1 year ago
@narutobuu321 No one should hate you for what you believe. As an atheist, I feel contempt only for people who:
1) Look straight at the evidence and say it doesn't exist
2) Look at the evidence, and say it proves their religion even though they religion claims a whole different deal
Also, dude, Learn about nuclear fusion and fission. they're processes of atoms being created and destroyed.
alexandervlad 1 year ago
This entire debate is filled with fuzzy definitions and unstated assumptions/premises on both sides. Very sloppy. I can forgive Tabash, but Moreland is a sharp analytic philosopher. He should know better.
AbelianGroup 1 year ago
pretty much, all materialist theories can be refuted in one sentence really: EFFECT HAS CAUSE, YOU CAN GET OUT OF THE BAG MORE THAN THERE IS IN IT, no one is talking about "God" in Christian sense existing, but immaterial universal omnipresent and omnipotent self-creating force which primordial substance is already in
Rockstafeller 1 year ago
The fundamental fallacy that both commit is the false assumption that free will actually exists. Mr. Moreland's entire argument rests on this postulate, and is never even questioned by Mr. Tabash.
I feel that both take free will over determinism as a given fact, which it is NOT.
IcedPhoenix666 1 year ago
lol...law also works in a deterministic world. it's a matter of deterrence dummy!
Forkroute 1 year ago
Eddie Tabash got owned, lmao!
YEAH! GO CHRISTIANITY! Apologetics...rules!!!
KevinVang1000 1 year ago
Religions are inherited or accepted emotionally. Both are erroneous paths in the search for truth. Google Doe’s Account.
firefloat22 1 year ago
Thats a good argument against Jesus but what if he actually raised himself or other people from the dead, that can hardly be explained by Science
30760005 1 year ago
Moreland is a fool
darcyhouston 1 year ago
the atheist always wins
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
JP is a doctor of what? He sounds like Ray Confort. Can you christians keep on living if you knew there is no God?
satibablaze 1 year ago
i love this it takes everything has a creator but atheist refuse to believe that time and space have no creator.
cifa2510 1 year ago
what evidence do you have ? "bangs have bangers"
how freaking stupid is that ?
evidence is not some one-liner, what an idiot...
werterr3 1 year ago
J.P. Moreland probably would not be able to verify any current miraculous activity apart from appealing to dualism. It would have been nice to see a continuation of this discussion since many points went unfinished.
Teachthecross 1 year ago
Let the logical falazie flow forth!!
MajorDestruction 1 year ago
God is Great :) Hi Jesus!
Jaitro 1 year ago
While it is naive to think that you can describe the realites beyond the tangible with any detail, it is also naive to have an assumption of materialism. In essence both supernaturalism and materialism are unwarrented assumptions.
Keysteeze 1 year ago
Tabash is a stupid Jew
BJ10pt 1 year ago
Tabash got owned.
moomin468 1 year ago 36
@moomin468 lol not at all
Freethinker12341 1 year ago
@moomin468 not at all
Freethinker12341 1 year ago
atheist scientists pwn all supernatural beliefs........woot FTW, stop believing in fairy tales and belief in yourself.
wb8594 1 year ago
Here is something to think about. If the existence of extraterrestrial life is not real then the technology from that life is bogus. However, if such is the case it is saying that evolution and scientific advancements ultimately have finite ceiling. Our technological ventures are in vain. Do you believe such a thing?
Homie0static 1 year ago
The Catholic Church has mountains of super natural proof, science has confirmed some, like Lanciano Eucharistic Miracle tested and irrefutable Miracle and beyond know laws of the universe as the blood globules(5) weighs
the same no matter how it's weighed, one weighs the same as 2,3,4,5 anyway you want to weigh them they come up the same, and then you have the documented history of this living flesh and blood that is 1200 years old.
Then you can look at the many other proven ones.
TheKorban 1 year ago
Moreland is an idiot.
For some reason he has not taken cognizance of the fact that determinism is compatible with making voluntary choices. The broad majority of philosophers who look at the issue of free will and determinism have independently arrived at this conclusion.
JP wants determinism and voluntaristic free will to be contradictory so he thinks they are. It is nothing more then an argument from incredulity.
mojorhythm 1 year ago
I'm glad Moreland is stupid enough to believe in god. It's horrifying to hear Christians say "well if there's no god then killing and molesting children is okay". So for all you Christians out there who agree with him, PLEASE go right on believing in whatever it is you believe in if that's what it takes to keep you from thinking that molesting children is okay. I guess religion is for those who aren't able to figure these things out on their own. I've FINALLY found something GOOD about religion!
aburling7 1 year ago
where's the rebuttal at the end?
InLucidReverie 1 year ago
this whole debate is dumb. of course the supernatural is real.
FriedChkn4Eva 1 year ago
I trust you were joking when you said you believe the "supernatural" is real.
aburling7 1 year ago
i trust that you were joking when you act like you were born yesterday, and still think you came from rocks clay and sand. I trust you were joking when you think everyone is still linked to apes when most blood types are different and you're own bible mentions the annunaki but you fell asleep and drooled all over that part. I trust that you MUST be joking since you still watch television evangelists telling u how to think and wipe your self cuz you're too too dumb to think on your own two.
FriedChkn4Eva 1 year ago
@FriedChkn4Eva What the fuck are you talking about? Who watches televangelists?
FYI, It's christians who claim man came from dirt and clay you dumbfuck! Read your goddamn book!
aburling7 1 year ago
Uhh no you're the DUMB FUCK cuz that's what i just said. How can u tell me to read a book when you can't even read period!?
FriedChkn4Eva 1 year ago
@FriedChkn4Eva Make up your mind! One minute you say the supernatural is real and that its's foolish to believe we're linked to apes The next minute you say it's stupid to listen televangelists who preach those EXACT two thngs. Clarify yourself.
aburling7 1 year ago
..listen white man, your ancestry has been stealing from every culture for hundreds of years now, so you already know why religion is mixed up. Your just a spy and i'm clarifying anything...fuck you. Your like 50 yrs old, go do something better with your life like dying.
FriedChkn4Eva 1 year ago
I'm actually a negroid. I just use that white guys picture to get mo respest. You and I needs to stay down foo! I be out on the cut slangin' some work. You feel me? Be real cuz.
aburling7 1 year ago
i cannot believe in a god who wants to be praised all the time
VelvetRevolverMother 1 year ago
Why won't god heal amputees :(
Because miracles don't exist?
shirtrippah 2 years ago
that would be true if God didn't exist, but he does so it's all good. :)
craxby 1 year ago
...obviously the ideal would be that Children would take this tentative knowledge, and explore it for themselves when they reached a mature age to do so. And I think the same goes for theological beliefs.
grandampersand 2 years ago
At best the argument implies that one's belief may be unjustified. But think it through: all learning is the product of mental conditioning. We wouldn't have a concept of cause and effect if it wasn't for mental conditioning. Plus all historical and scientific education that children receive is through the process of "indoctrination," but no one would therefore say that children were rationally unjustified in believing that George Washington existed or that water consists of molecules. No?
grandampersand 2 years ago
@thegoochieguy
your argument is obviously invalid. Even if all the premises were true (that belief in the supernatural comes from conditioning etc.) it still wouldn't follow logically that "the supernatural" is not real.
grandampersand 2 years ago
''the supernatural'' is not real, it is the product of indoctrination, mental conditioning, mental manipulation, and brainwashing.
knowledge is power, faith is fantasy.
thegoochieguy 2 years ago
lol, I am a Christian, but I find it really funny that at 5:14 Moreland said "I have absolutely no responsibility for my actions of murder or child molestation."
Jugglable 2 years ago
Why does Christian material often have cheesy 80s keyboard intros to it?
fromthesestones 2 years ago 6
Do you mean the song at the beginning? That song is amazing and I added it lol.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
@fromthesestones They're in more than christian material.
biggpapa226 1 year ago
@fromthesestones
cuz these are geeky white guys. If these were black christians the intros would have been way different. Watch TD Jakes you'll see what i'm talking about.
narutobuu321 1 year ago
Nice video but did it really had to end with the guy lying about the historicity of the resurrection ?
tekhiun 2 years ago
tekhiun. What makes something historical ?
aerycksmusic 2 years ago
lol the other guy just rolled his eyes.
"thousands of healings" yet not one scientifically verified case of a supernatural miracle.
not one amutee has ever grown back a limb in the history of the world
BorgHub 2 years ago
"not one amutee has ever grown back a limb in the history of the world"
If you lose a limb it can be extremely inconvinient, but you're still alive. Disease, on the other hand, can kill you.
Birdieupon 2 years ago
the point is that if there were real miracles, than anything could happen including growing back limbs
BorgHub 2 years ago
Indeed anything could happen, but given that miracles are by definition not bound by regular laws but dependent upon a will who chooses when to intervene, I just gave you a possible reason why God doesn't see the need to heal amputees all the time.
Birdieupon 2 years ago
the fact is that it NEVER happened not even once.
if god is all powerful why not reveal that power by having someone grow back a limb?
the fact is there are no miracles like this and never were.
how do you think would the world look like if there was no god? (say if god commited suicide and disappeared)
wouldn't the world be exactly the same as it is now?
BorgHub 2 years ago
"the fact is that it NEVER happened not even once."
How do you know?
"why not reveal that power by having someone grow back a limb?"
Because you'd deny it and say there's a natural explanation yet to be discovered.
"how do you think would the world look like if there was no god?"
God by definition is a necessary being who sustains the contingent universe, so the world would not exist. One can debate God's existence, but you have your definition wrong.
Birdieupon 2 years ago
1. because it was never recorded in the history of the world. not even in the bible.
2. so god doesn't perform miracles because i'd deny it?
it's like saying if god reveals himself i'd refuse to belive it so that's why he won't even bother trying.
a true god could easily prove his existence. he could at least make the same miracles he did in the bible to prove his existence. yet he won't even do that.
so how do you expect me to belive in a god when he never shows any signs that he exists?
BorgHub 2 years ago
God gave us free will. Look at it this way, God does not give us concrete proof for his existence. But there are many things that seem to point to his existence. Nobody can prove or disprove Gods existence. We are all able to make our OWN decisions based on the evidence we see. That is part of the free will God gave us. (Continued bellow)
XHaroldXI 2 years ago
If we saw a random sampling of a few amputees having their missing limbs miraculously growing back, and if other such phenomena were commonplace, would we really have free will to do what God says? If God regularly appeared to people and spoke to us, could you defy him? The entire universe would have no meaning. We would be nothing more than brain numb matter, relying on a puppeteer to fix all our problems and provide for us. Of course, the world would be perfect, but we wouldnt know it.
XHaroldXI 2 years ago 16
so you admit that there are no miracles.
otherwise the existence of God would be 'proven' and it would be impossible to "belive in him" because everyone would already "know" he exists.
BorgHub 2 years ago
Well I wouldn't say there are no miricals, only that it is not realistic to expect proof that they happen/ed. (at least not proof for everyone, I say this because if a miracle such as the virgin birth was real, Im sure Mary knew it was)
So yes, if the existance of God was proven then belief in/obedience to/reliance on him would be superficial. Does a rock have any cares? Does it know so? If God was proven we would simply be matter. like rocks. Meaningless. Our free will gives us meaning.
XHaroldXI 2 years ago
do you agree that Adam and Eve knew for a fact that God existed? (they talked with him and saw him)
does that mean their life was meaningless?
your arguement makes no sense.
if you are unable to prove that any real miracles accured, than on what basis do you belive that they happened?
just wishful thinking?
BorgHub 2 years ago
I personally find the story of Adam and Eve to be more allegorical than historical fact. However, I think you are missing my point. I believe that God exists, just like anyone who might have had him talk to them. I do not think my life meaningless because of that. I think that if EVERYONE knew WITHOUT DOUBT that God existed; it would be like him playing with puppets.
XHaroldXI 2 years ago
As to why I believe in certain miracles (and the existence of God) without concrete proof; I do not need proof to form and opinion. I have formed my opinion based on the evidence. It is the same reason that I believe in evolution, dark matter, force mediating particles, and other improvable, but viable theories.
XHaroldXI 2 years ago
Evolution, dark matter and force mediating particles are all scientific principals and/or theories which are supported by ENDLESS amounts of research an evidence, not to mention the tools, medicines and technologies we use that are possible ONLY from the knowledge of these principals/theories. In other words, there are DAMN GOOD REASONS to believe in these things. Now how do you make the jump from believing THESE things... to believing in "certain miracles and a god"? Based on WHAT "evidence"?
aburling7 1 year ago
The Jump: The things mentioned above are not proven to me, neither is the existence of God.
The evidence that I see: Physical constants, matter, the big bang, the quite sudden explosion of human intelligence, morals, the fact that the bible passes the four historical document tests better than any document of similar age, the life of Jesus, the fact that God can be personally experienced, ext.
XHaroldXI 1 year ago
@XHaroldXI why would we need free will, if that were the case? why does god care if we defy him? why should it bother someone, who made us defiant, if we defy him? we are nothing compared to god's power, right? why does he care?
crappybass19 2 years ago
@XHaroldXI
Adam saw "god" on "daily basis" and yet he (allegedly) sinned. Sounds like a plan. A very fixed plan.
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
Adam saw God and he believed in Him. . . your point? Adam sinned, I don't know for sure but I don't think God made him do it. . . You can decide for yourself if it was fixed or not, because I cannot prove it wasn't, and you cannot prove it was. . . God is not making anyone believ in him. . .
XHaroldXI 1 year ago
@XHaroldXI
"Adam .. your point?"
Just an observation and response to one of your previous points ("If God regularly appeared to people .. could you defy him? The entire universe would have no meaning."). All you proposed there was a self-defeater.
"I dont .. dont think God made him do it"
If "god" is the omniscient, all-knowing planner/creator, then indeed, he made him do it. There are no ifs and buts.
"God is not .. in him"
How about alleged personal revelation (or so called inner witness)?
Wrath0fKhan 1 year ago
@Wrath0fKhan My point was that if God kept us free of any pain, if he forced us to believe in him, if he was present with us and regulararily apeared to people the world would be perfect because it would not matter what we did. . . humanity as a whole would not matter.
And Omniscient means all knowing. . . not all controling.
Have you ever had a personal revelation? Has a person who has never heard of Jesus ever had one? How do you know they exist?
XHaroldXI 1 year ago