He is particularly familiar with philosophy, that I must appreciate, although he is not being overweening by overly applying the philosophical arguments. He is being both accessible and intelligent. A admirable path to preach.
So, if Craig Venter scans his brain (he already scanned his geneome) and then dies and then people use his dna and brain scan to resurrect him, does that mean that everything he ever said was absolutely true? What is it about surviving execution that has anything to do with truth?
There are millions of eye witnesses (still alive) that say that Sathya Sai Baba died and came back to life, and that he reproduced all the other miracles of Jesus. Eye witness testimony of uneducated credulous people who lived before we knew about germs and atoms and the placebo effect are worthless.
@dlbattle100 haha nice scam :) im sure he came back to life LOL. get your facts right. wiki and sources on the web are free, even for people poor in knowledge like you haha
@dlbattle100 then why havent I met a missionary proselytizing his resurrection? Why did his resurrection not spark a change in the world order? Why havent so many people died to tell others about this person? Sure, eyewitness testimony cant always be trusted. But what you can trust, is the impact the event had on the people that saw it. It would be a greater miracle to say there was no resurrection of Jesus, than to say there was one, simply by the impact it had on the people there.
24) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
People in Hell don't want to get out of hell????!???!?? CONTRADICTING CHRIST. You don't even believe your own religion. Dante? CS Lewis? What about your BIBLE.
People are wired to believe in God because in times past, people who did not believe in God were mercilessly slaughered. They still are in some places. The king of all survival traits.
Holy crap is this guy charming. Whether you agree with his view of the world, truth, reality, afterlife... or if there is one... he was incredibly respectful, considerate and humble. A great listener, did a great job of not cutting people off... Wow! I really learned a lot about how to treat people while watching this. 8>D
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more aggressive claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
I am struck by the omission, in this otherwise cogent exposition, of any mention of Torah and Judaism in the Minister's frequent lists of of texts and "religions". As an ephebe of Martin Luther, I wonder if something of Luther's virulent antisemitism rubbed off on him. Or was the omission of Jesus's own religion intended to distract us from the precursor sources of our recognition of
It is sad to that he mentions 9/11 in the same sentence as Islam when it is so well established by now (to anyone who looks with care) that 9.11 involved the use of explosives (and so, insiders).
That said. Islam is an out of control example of medieval-minded religion in the modern world. But Christianity has it's own history oppression and Constantin's decision was political not religious. despite the myth of the dream and all.
@winston2015 - yes, that's true, but constantinism religion does not define the whole or limits of christian faith or belief,..... some argue that Constantinism was more of a corruption of authentic christian faith and practices.
It is not that 'all religions are equally right ' but that they are One (equally limited)
They are all expression of the the 'Poetic Genius' (or the Imagination of Man). The Kingdom of Heaven (& the Garden of Eden) lie within. It is not that "there is no heaven/hell after death" but that there's no reason to imagine such things.
What difference does it make how many deluded people there are in the world (growth of Islam, Xtianity, etc
Morality comes from reason. If there is some kind of God it sure as heck isnt a Christian or Muslim God (etc).
Those things are man made and rife with contradictions. We dont understand the original author's intentions. (mistranslations, lacking the oral teachings etc) Its not explaining things away, but doing away with outdated texts&admitting we dont know.
I've had atheists dogmatically telling everyone "there is no heaven and no hell' REALLY? HOW DO YOU KNOW? Simply narrow and dogmatic - and so much more evagelistic than the evangelists themselves! Stuffing their opinions down other people's throats.
He has some cogent arguments for religious belief being no worse than the convictions all of us adhere to, but beyond that I run into the usual wall - how can someone who spends so much time reasoning this over think that the religion inhabiting the same time and place as him happens to be the right one, despite the fact that everyone else thinks this as well? I don't know his past, but I doubt he uses the same rational approach to decide that Christianity is the way to go.
this guy is completely lying to himself and lying to the audience at the forum. I just watched some parts of his columbia university talk and he went to rationalizing the existence of a christian, daddy upstairs god (with obvious insecurity) to rambling on delusionally about his specific protestant beliefs on what gets people to heaven or hell and talking about that so definitively whereas when he talks about hte very FUNDAMENTALS of his belief they're in question. IGNORANT, but some truths
@fiercey some people think he did, but in some parts it seems to be written in a different style than is typical 'Paulinic' (i made that word up). But other parts are.
Read the book, guys. Read the book. 45 minutes ain't much time to summarize, and DEFINITELY not enough time to dig that deep. Can't talk mess about his talk until you know what his talk is.
Children are "wired" to believe in fairy tales. It's up to adults to apply rationality and teach that there is no evidence for the truth of fairy tales or gods. The US and many of the other countries Mr. Keller refers to is still infantile in large degree. This is tragic and even dangerous.
That sounds...racist lol. Infantile? Africa is not infantile nor its people. It's white folk from Europe who largely decimated that country (and spread their oppressive version of Christianity). To say that folks from the countries that Keller mentioned are infantile is ridiculous. Korea suffered much at the hands of Japanese colonization. How do you even come to the conclusion that after such an event the people of Korea are infantile?
As an ex-atheist, ex-communist and now Christians, I can not agree more with the idea of "being humble with the exclusive truth". Actually if you look at any traditional and long lasting faith, (atheist to me is just another belief btw), they all have a common point of humble yourself with love. Christianity should have been the most radical way of humbling yourself, but alas a lot of us ignored this part.
Keller is a true "Skeptic" who would like us to believe that we can not know anything for sure, (which is what the Greek Skeptics taught) except what he would like you to believe.
His reference to Nietzsche and Peter Burger is "double speak."
The Amish Community, ( I have known several Amish personally) as a group of "Christians" is probably living the closest to the doctrines of Jesus, though their dogma to remain in the 18th Century would not be beneficial to society as a whole or theirs, since there are no Amish Scientists or Medical Researchers in their group, that I know of.
They would still have small pox, cholera, and other diseases.
Every person who has a "faith" believes their faith to be true.
I guess an athiest doesn't understand how people can develop an emotional relationship with men they have never met like Mohammad and Jesus. It's almost as if this love for these icons is so abstract that thinking about it in a logical manner is almost impossible.
I would highly recommend reading his book, "The Reason for God" whether you are a skeptic or a seeker. Honestly though, I hope you all truly seek God before you reject him and miss out on a world of fulfillment in Him. Philosophical arguments are helpful, but once you fall in love with Jesus, they will only confirm what you already know because you have experienced Him yourself.
I thought it was pretty unclear. I really doubt it was deliberate. I usually listen to Philosophy lectures from profs, but I have no problem wit hthem. But with the questioner, I was just lost.
I'm very suspicious of an organization that makes a big deal about telling their subscribers NOT to share their videos around when they claim to be all about spreading the truth. Yeah spread the truth BUT show us your money first!! The internet is huge, it is massive with potentially worldwide coverage. They will still do fine even if their stuff gets uploaded to a few sites that Veritas hasn't got control over. Greedy bastards.
to quetzalteco77: "I think that he's willing to do anything to make what he believes seem right. Granted it's not as domineering, it's nonetheless no different from a fundie who (generous or not) denies that there is any evidence for evolution."
Tim Keller actually believes in evolution... at least partially.
@quetzalteco77 He clearly is not willing to hide his own inadequacies to make his spiel seem right: his tone and admittance to lack of answers says that. That said, don't all of us have to make what we believe seem right?
Obviously an intelligent person but his silly Christian beliefs totally blind him to the facts. That talk was so full of half truths, logical fallacies, biased opinions, conspiracy theories, circular logic, and other nonsense that it was almost a waste of time. On the other hand, it made a lot more sense than most of the stuff I've heard from real fundies!
Religion is all made up crap. Ok, perhaps it's not all crap, but it's mostly made up. And it's crap that people take something that's made as ultimate truth. Why do they take it as ultimate truth? Because. Someone has good reasons against it, they don't care. Why? Because they're dumb. There is no good reason for it, other than "they're not used to it". Doesn't matter. That's the essence of crap, if you ask me.
Materialism is an unsupported claim just like supernaturalism. There could certainly be a plane of existence that is not material. It is not rediculous to consider such notions. Invoking a God to terminate the infinte regress does not add more problems than it solves. A God would be non-material. There are no moving parts to explain or describe, it is actually the anti-thesis of complication.
I hate to sound rude, but evolution is a few steps beyond theory at this point. especailly in the realm of genetics. It is simpily the best explaination of currently presented facts. It could be untrue, but I think most scientists are willing to take that in stride. I don't see many avid supporters of evolution, just people like me who are like "I don't want to believe this, but it makes sense, so let's give it some creedence."
@lucasdasilvemaria. i would ask, how many evangelical pastors do you know? because i happen to know many, and out of those that i know there are about the same amount of 'level-headed' pastors as there are level headed secularists that i know. maybe you should interact with evangelicals a little more often ;)
I'm glad to know that. I'm a christian, so i would not dispute that. It's just that i live in a country where pastors have their mouths full of crap and empty of answers, and their pockets are very lumpy. I also know lots of secularists who are just the same because both sides are all about the fame. Its refreshing to see preachers like Tim.
@lucasdasilvamaria - actually there are many level-headed ministers and pastors who advocate reason and dialogue. Unfortunately the majority of media exposure of Christianity tends to be the extremists like the people at Westboro Baptist. When the only exposure to Christianity the public gets is the wackos and nutcases, or the greedy televangelist scam-artists, the public then tends to believe that all Christians are like this, which is simply not true at all.
The answer for why believe evolution. Multiple, corroborating, falsifiable sources of this uncertain evidence. each single observation supporting a fact is not really useful, but seeing a pattern in a large sample of these potentially false evidence claims allows us to get a better picture of truth. Religion lacks this systematic approach and bases itself on one or two books. Fundamentally broken.
I would like to ask what "solid" means. I also think that "a few" scholars verifying whatever it is that makes christianity "solid" is a few to little. The scope of evidence is really key to supporting any idea, and again if only "a few' people are using 1 or 2 books to support the Christian hypothesis then it is not a very sound one.
Yes, you're right. Its really wrong what i did: to say that some scholars think christianity is true. It really doesnt matter who thinks it, but if the thinking is straight. But i think christianity is straight thinking as well as evolution and that s not based on "a few" [:)] books.
I would say that some of christianity's core concepts are good. Loving all people, we are all related(EVOLUTION!), casting away materialism, humbeness; all of these are fantastic. I just think it is not true that there is a being watching us at all time, that we will be alive after we die, and that there was a fellow a couple thousand years back who could do miracles and rise from the dead. No matter who says it, there is no reasonable evidence for those.
Yeah... i really can understand how this looks weird for you. But there are some historical facts that cannot be explained, no no no, that are best explained by the fact that there is a God and that he entered the history of mankind in bodily form, performing an overnatural ministry in which he died so that people could have an relationship with him.
@stinny777 there are lots of documented cases of folks,in hospitals, under medical supervision, who have "come back" from death, just recently a woman was pronounced dead, she was grey, and she came back....and for all cases like these,doctors have no explanation, all science can do is observe and record, and figure out some mechanisms, it can only go to the boundary of possible observation, clearly whole realms are possible, string theory posits more than 10 dimensions, entirely reasonable!
@metanosis I agree that other dimension are possible and that some people can be resuscitated after early biological death. I am having trouble with what you are trying to convince me of, but its not just science that can only record, observe and deduce. Its humanity that is limited to these things. We know so little of what is truly within this reality and our knowledge does not include the origin of existence or what happens when we cease to exist. Just enjoy the mystery my friend.
By solid i mean that... God can be immediatelly experienced by a person whe he reveals himself to her. And thats what happened in my life.
I dont claim to believe in Xianity because i followed the evidences. No, i just think that the evidences i see agree with my experience, so that i have no reasons to doubt it.
it's exactly this attitude that totally undermines the assertion that the "grace narrative" makes it so that you "can't feel superior to anyone" (39:55)
once you make the assertion that every rejection of Xianity is due to an immoral impulse, you then are definitely pretending to be morally superior.
furthermore, such assertions are cop-outs designed to make you feel good about your beliefs even if you can't defend them reasonably or evidentially.
just keep searching for truth bro. you're clearly an intelligent person, and I appreciate your reply about grace narrative.
i agree I cannot defend these beliefs with conclusive proof and a Q.E.D. stamped at the end, but fruit can be seen and there is a change of heart.
but For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast. (ephesians 8-9)
faith is crucial. look to the cross and gaze upon Christ.
right. shifts it from moral performance into belief performance, eh?
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29).
According to the "grace narrative", God is more concerned that we be credulous than moral.
That's better how?
(not to mention, it *doesn't* break out of the moral performance narrative. it only shifts the reason people think they're morally superior from actual moral actions to strength of belief)
Answer the door, hes knocking. The answer isnt in science, intellectualism, shrouds or what Darwin thought. Its in your heart, youve come this far. Open the door.
The dude lost me in the opening monologue. How can you be religious and claim to be open-minded? Either you are religious and there's one truth based on revelation, or you are open to alternatives. At least be honest.
Time for me to be honest: I'm not sure I buy your implicit claim to be open-minded. How can you be open-minded if you have closed your mind to those answerswhich actually claim to be truths? Unless it makes no such claim and instead chooses to be arbitrary, the point of your reasoning is not to be reasonable, but instead to be open-minded for the sake of "open-mindedness". Why compromise the prospect of truth for an open-minded attitude you yourself don't even uphold...
we are all closed minded to some extent...i believe in Jesus for my life...therefore I'm relatively closed minded to things I don't believe to be true. Others don't believe Jesus to be more than a teacher..therefore they are relatively closed minded to anything other than what they deem truth. Christians don't have much of choice in truth claims because Jesus said he was the only way..if we believe in him we have to believe what he says.
At exactly 5:50, pretend skepticism opens and religious apologetic begins. Might watch a bit more to see if it goes any further then this..but not a good start.
Funny how gods dont make a peep without their followers around to insist their god does exist. For a faith-head I guess it makes sense to make war on believers of any other faith since thats the only way your 'god' can come out on top. Alternatively forget all that bollox and simply be a good person, safe in the knowledge that its better to be damned for doing good deeds than rewarded for being obedient to some guy who conveniently claims to have access to a higher power who you must obey.
I couldnt watch all 90 mins but saw portions of it to get the gist of his talk. I was interested when he talked about how we distrust beliefs yet allegedly exempt evolution from that same scalpel (ie why not reject 'belief' in evolution if we are supposed to reject "belief" in god.) The difference being of course that scientists DO reject "beliefs" in theories where there is no condition to falsify it. Evolution and science survives exposure to that scalpel, while religious beliefs do not.
"Evolution and science survives exposure to that scalpel, while religious beliefs do not. "
No: The scapal only applies to those areas which fall under the domain of scientific inquiry. "Belief in God" is not even in the same ROOM as the scapal.
The question of God's existence is not even a scientific question. (But just because it is a non-scientific question, it does NOT therefore follow that it is False).
If God does not fall under the domain of scientific investigation then it does not fall under the domain of the real world, which is what science seeks to test. Belief in God is indeed not in the same room as scientific analysis, and shares a room with anything imaginary like fairies and Santa Claus, who are 'exempted' from being proven by the convenient possession of supernatural magical powers. Belief in God being true 'cos science cant touch it' also means a similar default belief in fairies.
Science cannot "touch" a lot of things: Meaning, purpose, value, volition, intention, other minds, the underlying assumption of the rationality, intelligibility of the universe (even our confidence in the success of science itself cannot be demonstrated by a purely scientific framework.) Not to mention, history, mathematics, logic, philosophy
Could you please give me your definition of what it means to be "a good person." And after stating it, could you give reasons why anyone, including you, should follow your definition. Further could you demonstrate what would be the purpose of your goodness if all it gives you is a feeling of "safety" in the knowledge that it is better to be damned for doing so.
I think my definition of what it means to be a good person is something along the lines of 'the golden rule', trying to treat others as you yourself would want to be treated, the purpose being to make a positive contribution to the society in which I live and thus deriving the benefit of living amongst people who generally reciprocate that same 'do no harm' behaviour. Id rather be damned for trying to do good than obediently kow-tow to one man's personal laws in fear of his silent invisible god.
OK! But where did that idea of the golden rule come from? And who decides what is "golden?" Is it fairness? Is it Justice? Who decides what is harmful? To a pedophile "harm" means something a lot different than I suppose your definition would be, right? And whether you realize it or not, you ARE "kow-towing to one man's personal law;" Your own! That may be the major reason why the world is in such a mess. We have 6 billion plus little "personal laws" bumping into one another. Comments please?
The Golden Rule arises from almost universal consensus of most humans to not want to be raped, murdered, stolen from or otherwise mistreated, and to teach their children to see things from other peoples perspective to learn how altruism helps us all. Its a Darwinian survival advantage to be altruistic, as seen in other species which cannot conceive of messiahs and gods yet still derive benefit from the evolutionary trait of mutual altruism just like we do.
Nope, human morality is the coupling of our higher intelligence with learned behaviour, so that children not only instinctively copy their parents behaviour (good or bad), but should eventually understand the reasons why something is good or bad in later years (unless their faculties of reason have been overwritten by uncahangeable ancient religious concepts of morality). Animals with instinctive empathy and altruism do not possess the intelligence to understand why their actions are beneficial.
So what your saying is that our ideas of good and bad are relative since part of it comes from behavior that is learned. Also being altruistic isn't always beneficial. I don't think it's instinctive for any animal to help another animal that is genetically alien to them. Animals that sacrificed their needs for others would not have been selected to survive and natural selection does not work on whole populations.
Altruism does sometimes benefit the 'wrong' species, like when humans want to nurture an injured bird or cute puppy. Misfiring altruism still benefits the same species more often than not to grant it survival value, though natural selection can also favour 'parasites' that live at the expense of other species, eg birds feeding a cuckoo instead their own chicks, or human immune systems being attacked by viruses. Many factors can affect a species' survival, including both altruism and selfishness.
Belief in an age of skepticism? Skepticism must be the default 'play it safe' position until lots of mutually corroborating evidence supports a story one way or the other.
There is no evidence for any of the religions over and above any of the other religions. Since they cant all be right and since choosing one would just be a lucky dip while they all have zero evidence in their favour, the logical intelligent position is to assume they're all fictional until evidence suggests otherwise.
Fucking whack ass charter internet, I want to watch the whole thing but it won't load fast enough, but I do have some disagreements with what they are saying.
Not a single new, logical, or completed thought in Dr. Keller's speech. He can navigate through the biblical text to some extend, but that 's where it stops.
Judging by your profile page: you are a libertarian, atheist who "believes" the moon landing was a hoax. No offense but that "logic" has been disproven by Phil Plait and organizations like CSICOP.
Why do you continue to have "faith" in something that is flawed?
I have no claims about moon landing, as you can see. I'm not affiliated with libertarians, atheist is not a derogarory term in my vocabulary. Do you have any other questions?
I was pointing out was the fact you see nothing logical about Keller's comment; yet you post videos about something that is even more illogical... that being the moon landing was a hoax.
On one of the moon hoax videos, you write "All that tax money they stole." As if it is a big brother conspiracy. But you say you are not a libertarian, so my apology for thinking you were.
There is nothing derogatory about atheism, nor did I say it was. I was pointing out your blind-faith in a myth.
It seems like you're misinterpreting something. I didn't comment on anything of the "moon video" you've mentioned above, it must be the comment written by the person who posted that video. I, personally, have no idea if they went there or not. I don't understand what you're talking about regarding my "blind faith"??? Regarding Keller, I didn't hear anything enlightening in his talk, did you? If you did, please point it out to me, if you can.
"I didn't comment on anything of the "moon video" you've mentioned " In that case, my sincere apology.
"I don't understand what you're talking about regarding my "blind faith"?" Faith doesn't coincide with religion alone; and to be blind in faith is to avoid things that contradict what you choice to believe. In this case I found it amusing you (I thought) believed the NASA moon landing was a hoax when the evidence was against it; hence the phrase "blind faith".
we should look at nature the way it is....we can use theories to get there whether they be scientifical or religious but nature will show itself through physics...the way it is..is the way it is...and to anti science people if one theory of quantum physics is found correct it could back up reliogion its called the higgs
As someone who considers himself to be a very conservative even pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic, I found this to be one of the most engaging thought provocative talks I have ever heard. Thank you, Dr. Keller!
If God reveals himself in the "flesh" to all of us, and gives proof of his existence and is able to prove evolution false, I'll be very disappointed if evolutionary scientists didn't jump ship. Until then, evolutionary scientists will be doing what they have been since the dawn of evolutionary theory: tweaking it. Applying new concepts and evidence for and against, to build a better theory. And what actually remains a theory and not proven is debated as well. That's why I reject its religiosity.
this is a reply to atheismforthewin's comment "If God reveals himself..." (something wrong with YT because it's almost impossible to tell who is talking to who); anyway:
evolution presupposes that there is no God (btw, God DID reveal Himself in the flesh - JESUS - and there were many witnesses to His life, His death, and His resurrection); most evolutionists talk about evolution AS IF IT WERE A FACT, and not a theory (to your credit, you've stated that evolution is a THEORY)
Nope, and don't plan on it. But when you divorce God from the process of creation then you deny His sovereignty over it. And my point still stands: There is a stark contrast between an evolutionary model that contains God and one that does not.
I would not contest that, many Christians believe that and it's not totally inconsistent with Christian thought. It's when evolution is put forward as the guiding force (rather than God) behind creation. Evolution as origin is a philosophical leap of faith i am quite unwilling to take (something coming from nothing is quite preposterous).
Evolution itself is miraculous. New species (especially in the insect world) are always being discovered. The first half of your sentence is false. The second half is a presumption based on the first half.
The easy answer why undeniable proof of God does not exist is that such evidence would destroy free will. If such proof existed - say, if He in His Blinding Magnificence showed up on the streets of New York one day - then we mere humans would have no choice but to believe. It wouldn't even be belief but fact. We would have no free choice in the matter, and our existence in this imperfect universe would be for naught.
Todd Bentley shows little evidence for being a Christian man (biblically) and needs to repent of his incredibly wrong theology on almost every count (he even openly mocks the Word of God). Whether people become Christians as a process of his.... whatever he does... is entirely a testament to God's ability to use evil for His own good.
24:36 - What he begins saying here is true. Obviously, all religions can't BE equally right. However, with our current understanding of the universe as a whole, beyond our measures of logical observation, all religions have an equal CHANCE of being right. Until we find a way to somehow legitimize one over another these probabilities begin to differ. But because of the infinite measures of observation possibly our grasp, this is impossible....
No religion has technically ranked itself more probable than any other religion. And because there are an infinite amount of possible religions, our level of knowledge by the point I provided earlier allows each religion to have a 1/∞ chance of being correct.
"technically ranked itself"? what the heck does that mean? surely any religion which holds has manifestly beliefs such as Mormonism (their view of world history is manifestly false) has a ZERO percent chance of being right, therefore your statement that ALL religions have an EQUAL chance of being right must be false; also, do you apply your "logic" to the religion of evolution?
Excuse me, technically ranked itself=actually proven itself. And I do not know enough about Mormonism to completely reply to that statement. However I understand your point, and will admit fallacy to a degree. I still uphold the equal chance with there being past supernatural experiences, (creation of universe and the unproved) But as I now look upon my previous statement, I see that Christianity's similar historical incomprehensions. But I reject the (if any) religiosity in evolution.
Philip Yancey: "The Jesus I Never Knew" a must-read for anyone searching for purpose and meaning. It addresses the various excuses that people come up with to avoid commitment to Christ.
if there is a god and he is so so powerfull and he just likes communicating through (only books )
why does he just not comes out and show him self, then all discussion will end and our doubt will end and we will know his true religion that we all should follow and stop this fight over true religions
is it not criminal of him not show up
or is it possible that it is so that he is not out there and only he is a delusion of our minds.
God has given us free will and an intellect to believe in Him or decide to not believe in Him. If God were to come and show himself to us, then that would violate our free will.
There is enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that there is a God. Whether we take that evidence and believe on Him, is our choice. As the Bible states, God has revealed Himself through prophecy, Jesus and creation.
If God is not true and just a delusion, why can't we prove 100% that there is no God?
The claim of both omniscience and omnipotence null free will. If it is true that God created all, knows what happened, what is happening, and what will happen, he created his own knowledge. Since this created knowledge includes what will happen, he intelligently designed for all suffering, skepticism, atheism, war, etc. to happen. And since we were apparently made in his image, it is our standard of love that we understand his. With this conflict, omniscience and omnipotence nulls free will.
...the world had an equal CHANCE of being flat or spherical until someone found out you can't fall off the edge. It is all relative to our immediate understanding.
If there is a God, He allows evil and suffering, as all can see, and knows what will happen to us. However, we are still allowed to make choices. If I am hungry and need money for food, I can steal a lady's purse for money (evil), or I can go and get a job and earn money.
God gives us room to be human and lets us make choices, even choices that will ruin us. If there is no evil, all is good. If all is good, nothing is. As Dostoyevsky said, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."
You acknowledge that he "knows what will happen to us." From where did that knowledge come from? If God created all, then he must have created the knowledge he holds as well. Thus if he "knows what will happen to us", that future has been decided. Destiny and free will cannot exist side by side. Then I see Dostoyevsky's quote, and agree. Everything is permitted, however, in a universe of so many possibilities, the better of these possibilities will win out over the lesser.
Let's say I'm hungry and need money. I could (a) rob somebody, or I could (b) go try to get a job. God knows which option I will choose. However, I am still free to choose. If I choose to rob, God will not say, 'No, no, you chose wrong, choose again.' He allows me to make that decision. I can create my future through that decision even though God knows which choice I will make.
I understand that concept. But that did not assess the point I made. If he knew that you would choose to rob someone, he would know that because it was HE that set it up like that. The same goes for the person that goes to get a job. If there was a separate force that he was aware of but could not control, then your point would be completely valid. Due to the lack of such force, omniscience has confirmed determinism.
For the sake of argument, let's assume your stance. If life as it is is not free but determined, I'd rather be a cog in a deterministic wheel than a result of random colliding forces. If this is what it is like with an omniscient God, I can't imagine what life would be like if we were left to our own devices.
The easy answer why undeniable proof of God does not exist is that such evidence would destroy free will. If such proof existed - say, if He in His Blinding Magnificence showed up on the streets of New York one day - then we mere humans would have no choice but to believe. It wouldn't even be belief but fact. We would have no free choice in the matter, and our existence in this imperfect universe would be for naught.
Message to my Christian brothers and sisters:1 Peter 3:15 says "Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope that you have in you, but do it with gentleness and respect"
Shocking, frankly shocking. There are well-educated people who think that belief has value and therefore others need/ought to believe what they believe. Religion is abuse of the highest order.
Shocking, frankly shocking. There are well-educated people who think that atheism has value and therefore others need/ought to believe what they believe. Ahteism is abuse of the highest order.
It can be turned around the other way. Notice how you are saying and doing the same thing that you are blaming Christians for? Anyone that believes they have truth in something, they are going to want others to believe it because they see it as truth.
Science, and the theory of evolution revel in not being correct. When a theory predicts something that does not happen the theory gets changed. The reason for listening to science is that it appears to predict the way world works better than other tools such as philosophy and religion. Science predicted that my kidney cancer would be cured by surgery...and so far I am cured. Religion and philosophy were mute on the subject.
Jesus loved many and healed them because he had compassion on them. He also said that the physical body is not as important as the soul. Jesus states in Matthew 5:29 this importance. Jesus also never comments on science being a wrong way to cure, or heal people. He simply offers us this advice to love one another and to treat others as he has. I would say doctors do treat others well. It is their difficult job to treat and love people they don't even know. May God bless you!
May you be blessed as well. As for the soul...I have no talent for such things. Did you know that when our corpus callosum (connection between right and left hemispheres of the brain) is severed that "we" give different answers to the qeustion, "Do you believe in God?" The left hemisphere typically answers "yes" while the left hemisphere typically answers "no". Leaves me to wonder where the soul resides. Yet another reason why I have no talent for religion and philosophy. :-)
I remain unswayed on the overall issue of God's existence, but damn what a great, hilarious and extremely intelligent guy. I would love to hear more from Dr. Keller.
The very idea of God has given rise, in men, to play God. There you will find pride. Men are not to be feared into believing in God, or oppressed into believing, or rediculed because they don't believe in God. The problem is God. The problem is fear. The problem is oppression. The problem is the illusion until we see for sure.
The solution is teaching the purpose of the morals of why we should be kind. Because if we don't, then we'll have wars on our hands.
Today, people believe in God, but don't hold any of the 10 commandments. Or only hold 9 of them, or only 7, or 2 of them only. The vague teachings, without understanding first hand and actaully seeing what lies cause, or what envy does to people, or what judging someone does, or what cheating does, or what pride does, or belittling someone does to everyone and even to ourselves. Belittling someone means you have put yourself above another purpose. THAT is us playing God. We do it and are unaware
People need to ask themselves, "were they feared into believing in God?" If so,that was not god. That was man. That's not a peaceful God. "Were we condemed into believing?" These are the things that turned me away after I was ripped apart by fear and condemnation. Deep in the pit of my self-worth, which IS a person's soul, and my spirit, which IS my feelings, it never had to be that confusing. But religeon made it that way. I know there's a creator, because I look at the stars, earth, the orbits
But I also have my own heart, mind, self worth, actions, abilities, capacity, focus, learning experiences, energy level. We are all different in this way. We all have this.. and I think its important and most essential that its understanding the commandments, and what the long term affects of not following them will do to us as a people instead of re-reading a book over and over and over that only confuses us more instead of giving us understanding.
11:40. Rubbish. Europe, In particular the Dutch speaking countries has thrown off the yoke of fantasy friends. There have been numerous studies that indicate the higher the education of a group of people and the higher ones own I.Q. the less likely the group or the individual will be deluded.
2. The number of people believing or not believing has an effect on its truth.
Deluded? Fantasy friends. look if you are trying to maintain you have higher logic then use good logic in your arguments please. Lay off ad homenim and bandwagon approaches, they don't help anyone... especially those using them while claiming superior logical faculties.
Ha!I um..never mentioned any kind of belief system, I simply off the cuff quoted solid finding from reputable studies. The question of an intellect behind the universe remains unanswered, and unproven. I would never assume that I know the answer to that question. No one does, and neither does anyone who quantifies it with iconography.
The Dawkin's fans I know are great people but often their responses show a deeply ingrained committment to their worldview as much as Christian's are to theirs. All but one i know will not even consider theistic arguments but this is similarly a sign of dogmatic commitment to the worldview again, and not a sincere desire to know the truth. Keeping matters at arm's length is a convenient way to never confront things we are uncomfortable about.
You are correct, you cannot compare the two! And anyway, the comparison I made was god and the tooth fairy, not gravity. The thing about gravity in my daily life: I was NOT making a quantitative comparison, just an illustrative example. Kind of like when they make those silly illustrations like: we use x number of miles of cable in our widgits. That's enough to run back and forth to the moon three times.
He is particularly familiar with philosophy, that I must appreciate, although he is not being overweening by overly applying the philosophical arguments. He is being both accessible and intelligent. A admirable path to preach.
63302426 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@11:48 that's exactly what's happened & is exactly what is happening.
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
Comment removed
MrLittletomdj 2 months ago
So, if Craig Venter scans his brain (he already scanned his geneome) and then dies and then people use his dna and brain scan to resurrect him, does that mean that everything he ever said was absolutely true? What is it about surviving execution that has anything to do with truth?
dlbattle100 2 months ago
There are millions of eye witnesses (still alive) that say that Sathya Sai Baba died and came back to life, and that he reproduced all the other miracles of Jesus. Eye witness testimony of uneducated credulous people who lived before we knew about germs and atoms and the placebo effect are worthless.
dlbattle100 2 months ago
@dlbattle100 haha nice scam :) im sure he came back to life LOL. get your facts right. wiki and sources on the web are free, even for people poor in knowledge like you haha
blastpotion 2 months ago
@dlbattle100 then why havent I met a missionary proselytizing his resurrection? Why did his resurrection not spark a change in the world order? Why havent so many people died to tell others about this person? Sure, eyewitness testimony cant always be trusted. But what you can trust, is the impact the event had on the people that saw it. It would be a greater miracle to say there was no resurrection of Jesus, than to say there was one, simply by the impact it had on the people there.
KMB47 1 month ago
KJV Luke 16:19-31
24) And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
dlbattle100 2 months ago
People in Hell don't want to get out of hell????!???!?? CONTRADICTING CHRIST. You don't even believe your own religion. Dante? CS Lewis? What about your BIBLE.
dlbattle100 2 months ago
Christianity isn't oppressive to women??? Lol.
dlbattle100 2 months ago
Jesus is the only one who said he's God??? Please. Insane asylums are full of people who say they are God.
dlbattle100 2 months ago
How about all religions are equally wrong.
dlbattle100 2 months ago
People are wired to believe in God because in times past, people who did not believe in God were mercilessly slaughered. They still are in some places. The king of all survival traits.
dlbattle100 2 months ago
Holy crap is this guy charming. Whether you agree with his view of the world, truth, reality, afterlife... or if there is one... he was incredibly respectful, considerate and humble. A great listener, did a great job of not cutting people off... Wow! I really learned a lot about how to treat people while watching this. 8>D
adambobrow 4 months ago
SO interesting. Thanks for posting!
RGconductor 6 months ago
this was informative & helpful discussion;.I think it may also prove helpful to some of the viewers here to try to evaluate many of the more aggressive claims of the anti-theist critique ("brights") from a ideological/ metaphysics perspective. Check out the recent article by Jackson Lears in the May 16, 2011 issue of the The Nation entitled "Same Old New Atheism" .The article offers a compelling analysis of Sam Harris' works. Consideration is given to general atheistic social perspectives
shieldsff 8 months ago
I am struck by the omission, in this otherwise cogent exposition, of any mention of Torah and Judaism in the Minister's frequent lists of of texts and "religions". As an ephebe of Martin Luther, I wonder if something of Luther's virulent antisemitism rubbed off on him. Or was the omission of Jesus's own religion intended to distract us from the precursor sources of our recognition of
G-d's absolute and direct authority.
yhnbu 8 months ago
oh man, these berkeley students are not very good at asking questions. they each spent for around 10 minutes clarifying those questions.
markchanggz 9 months ago
It is sad to that he mentions 9/11 in the same sentence as Islam when it is so well established by now (to anyone who looks with care) that 9.11 involved the use of explosives (and so, insiders).
That said. Islam is an out of control example of medieval-minded religion in the modern world. But Christianity has it's own history oppression and Constantin's decision was political not religious. despite the myth of the dream and all.
winston2015 9 months ago
@winston2015 - yes, that's true, but constantinism religion does not define the whole or limits of christian faith or belief,..... some argue that Constantinism was more of a corruption of authentic christian faith and practices.
shieldsff 8 months ago
It is not that 'all religions are equally right ' but that they are One (equally limited)
They are all expression of the the 'Poetic Genius' (or the Imagination of Man). The Kingdom of Heaven (& the Garden of Eden) lie within. It is not that "there is no heaven/hell after death" but that there's no reason to imagine such things.
winston2015 9 months ago
What difference does it make how many deluded people there are in the world (growth of Islam, Xtianity, etc
Morality comes from reason. If there is some kind of God it sure as heck isnt a Christian or Muslim God (etc).
Those things are man made and rife with contradictions. We dont understand the original author's intentions. (mistranslations, lacking the oral teachings etc) Its not explaining things away, but doing away with outdated texts&admitting we dont know.
Explore your inner self.
winston2015 9 months ago
@winston2015 Just answer this question:
What is your foundation of morality?
Don't just say something as ambiguous as "reason," but tell us WHY your sense of morality is superior to someone else's sense of morality.
CarlosMarti123 9 months ago
we as Christians need to hear this message just as much, if not more, than unbelievers of God!
RodiAgnusDei 9 months ago
I've had atheists dogmatically telling everyone "there is no heaven and no hell' REALLY? HOW DO YOU KNOW? Simply narrow and dogmatic - and so much more evagelistic than the evangelists themselves! Stuffing their opinions down other people's throats.
actstasi 9 months ago 8
He has some cogent arguments for religious belief being no worse than the convictions all of us adhere to, but beyond that I run into the usual wall - how can someone who spends so much time reasoning this over think that the religion inhabiting the same time and place as him happens to be the right one, despite the fact that everyone else thinks this as well? I don't know his past, but I doubt he uses the same rational approach to decide that Christianity is the way to go.
nagopaleen 10 months ago
@nagopaleen
Historical evidence coupled with logic?
ivlfounder 10 months ago
I like Tim Keller...I really do. I just don't think he is very good at answering questions.
luke2thab 11 months ago
this guy is completely lying to himself and lying to the audience at the forum. I just watched some parts of his columbia university talk and he went to rationalizing the existence of a christian, daddy upstairs god (with obvious insecurity) to rambling on delusionally about his specific protestant beliefs on what gets people to heaven or hell and talking about that so definitively whereas when he talks about hte very FUNDAMENTALS of his belief they're in question. IGNORANT, but some truths
jhanov442 11 months ago
@jhanov442 Where did you watch the Columbia University talk that you're talking about?
ajullrich3 10 months ago
54:09 But what about the fact that Paul addresses him in the NT? Where, in Hebrews? Yeah. Paul didn't write Hebrews. HAHAHA
fiercey 1 year ago 3
@fiercey some people think he did, but in some parts it seems to be written in a different style than is typical 'Paulinic' (i made that word up). But other parts are.
jesekisgek 11 months ago
Comment removed
fiercey 1 year ago
Glory to god
rendubot 1 year ago
This is a great guy.
godislove025 1 year ago 2
Read the book, guys. Read the book. 45 minutes ain't much time to summarize, and DEFINITELY not enough time to dig that deep. Can't talk mess about his talk until you know what his talk is.
wcmdanny 1 year ago 2
21:29
MrSdh445 1 year ago
Children are "wired" to believe in fairy tales. It's up to adults to apply rationality and teach that there is no evidence for the truth of fairy tales or gods. The US and many of the other countries Mr. Keller refers to is still infantile in large degree. This is tragic and even dangerous.
Moochie007 1 year ago
@Moochie007
what is tragic is that people say "there is no evidence" like its a prayer without ever bothering to look at it.
niinja2 1 year ago
@Moochie007
That sounds...racist lol. Infantile? Africa is not infantile nor its people. It's white folk from Europe who largely decimated that country (and spread their oppressive version of Christianity). To say that folks from the countries that Keller mentioned are infantile is ridiculous. Korea suffered much at the hands of Japanese colonization. How do you even come to the conclusion that after such an event the people of Korea are infantile?
aloh86 6 months ago
As an ex-atheist, ex-communist and now Christians, I can not agree more with the idea of "being humble with the exclusive truth". Actually if you look at any traditional and long lasting faith, (atheist to me is just another belief btw), they all have a common point of humble yourself with love. Christianity should have been the most radical way of humbling yourself, but alas a lot of us ignored this part.
wormite 1 year ago 3
Keller is a true "Skeptic" who would like us to believe that we can not know anything for sure, (which is what the Greek Skeptics taught) except what he would like you to believe.
His reference to Nietzsche and Peter Burger is "double speak."
gjsterp 1 year ago
The Amish Community, ( I have known several Amish personally) as a group of "Christians" is probably living the closest to the doctrines of Jesus, though their dogma to remain in the 18th Century would not be beneficial to society as a whole or theirs, since there are no Amish Scientists or Medical Researchers in their group, that I know of.
They would still have small pox, cholera, and other diseases.
Every person who has a "faith" believes their faith to be true.
Keller is a person.
gjsterp 1 year ago
I guess an athiest doesn't understand how people can develop an emotional relationship with men they have never met like Mohammad and Jesus. It's almost as if this love for these icons is so abstract that thinking about it in a logical manner is almost impossible.
mammal360 1 year ago
I would highly recommend reading his book, "The Reason for God" whether you are a skeptic or a seeker. Honestly though, I hope you all truly seek God before you reject him and miss out on a world of fulfillment in Him. Philosophical arguments are helpful, but once you fall in love with Jesus, they will only confirm what you already know because you have experienced Him yourself.
eddienewman01 1 year ago
@quetzalteco77
I thought it was pretty unclear. I really doubt it was deliberate. I usually listen to Philosophy lectures from profs, but I have no problem wit hthem. But with the questioner, I was just lost.
ubi2002 1 year ago
I'm very suspicious of an organization that makes a big deal about telling their subscribers NOT to share their videos around when they claim to be all about spreading the truth. Yeah spread the truth BUT show us your money first!! The internet is huge, it is massive with potentially worldwide coverage. They will still do fine even if their stuff gets uploaded to a few sites that Veritas hasn't got control over. Greedy bastards.
felixq78 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
to quetzalteco77: "I think that he's willing to do anything to make what he believes seem right. Granted it's not as domineering, it's nonetheless no different from a fundie who (generous or not) denies that there is any evidence for evolution."
Tim Keller actually believes in evolution... at least partially.
annaboo5 1 year ago
@quetzalteco77 He clearly is not willing to hide his own inadequacies to make his spiel seem right: his tone and admittance to lack of answers says that. That said, don't all of us have to make what we believe seem right?
bobbobal 1 year ago
@quetzalteco77 Do you really think a speaker as generous as he would deliberately avoid an issue unless he actually didn't follow?
bobbobal 1 year ago
Obviously an intelligent person but his silly Christian beliefs totally blind him to the facts. That talk was so full of half truths, logical fallacies, biased opinions, conspiracy theories, circular logic, and other nonsense that it was almost a waste of time. On the other hand, it made a lot more sense than most of the stuff I've heard from real fundies!
OJB42 1 year ago
Religion is all made up crap. Ok, perhaps it's not all crap, but it's mostly made up. And it's crap that people take something that's made as ultimate truth. Why do they take it as ultimate truth? Because. Someone has good reasons against it, they don't care. Why? Because they're dumb. There is no good reason for it, other than "they're not used to it". Doesn't matter. That's the essence of crap, if you ask me.
Dendilyon 1 year ago
@Dendilyon Read Soren Kierkegaard.
Audiofalcon7 1 year ago
Materialism is an unsupported claim just like supernaturalism. There could certainly be a plane of existence that is not material. It is not rediculous to consider such notions. Invoking a God to terminate the infinte regress does not add more problems than it solves. A God would be non-material. There are no moving parts to explain or describe, it is actually the anti-thesis of complication.
Keysteeze 1 year ago
SKEPTICS SUCKS
garciaalvin3 1 year ago
I hate to sound rude, but evolution is a few steps beyond theory at this point. especailly in the realm of genetics. It is simpily the best explaination of currently presented facts. It could be untrue, but I think most scientists are willing to take that in stride. I don't see many avid supporters of evolution, just people like me who are like "I don't want to believe this, but it makes sense, so let's give it some creedence."
TheSiahSargus 1 year ago
That's a rare LEVEL HEADED evangelical pastor!
lucasdasilvamaria 1 year ago 66
@lucasdasilvemaria. i would ask, how many evangelical pastors do you know? because i happen to know many, and out of those that i know there are about the same amount of 'level-headed' pastors as there are level headed secularists that i know. maybe you should interact with evangelicals a little more often ;)
lucretius123 1 year ago
I'm glad to know that. I'm a christian, so i would not dispute that. It's just that i live in a country where pastors have their mouths full of crap and empty of answers, and their pockets are very lumpy. I also know lots of secularists who are just the same because both sides are all about the fame. Its refreshing to see preachers like Tim.
lucasdasilvamaria 1 year ago
@lucasdasilvamaria - actually there are many level-headed ministers and pastors who advocate reason and dialogue. Unfortunately the majority of media exposure of Christianity tends to be the extremists like the people at Westboro Baptist. When the only exposure to Christianity the public gets is the wackos and nutcases, or the greedy televangelist scam-artists, the public then tends to believe that all Christians are like this, which is simply not true at all.
onewayroad238 8 months ago
The answer for why believe evolution. Multiple, corroborating, falsifiable sources of this uncertain evidence. each single observation supporting a fact is not really useful, but seeing a pattern in a large sample of these potentially false evidence claims allows us to get a better picture of truth. Religion lacks this systematic approach and bases itself on one or two books. Fundamentally broken.
stinny777 2 years ago
I agree on your point about evolution. But i have read a few scholars that show christianity to be as solid.
lucasdasilvamaria 1 year ago
I would like to ask what "solid" means. I also think that "a few" scholars verifying whatever it is that makes christianity "solid" is a few to little. The scope of evidence is really key to supporting any idea, and again if only "a few' people are using 1 or 2 books to support the Christian hypothesis then it is not a very sound one.
stinny777 1 year ago
Yes, you're right. Its really wrong what i did: to say that some scholars think christianity is true. It really doesnt matter who thinks it, but if the thinking is straight. But i think christianity is straight thinking as well as evolution and that s not based on "a few" [:)] books.
lucasdasilvamaria 1 year ago
I would say that some of christianity's core concepts are good. Loving all people, we are all related(EVOLUTION!), casting away materialism, humbeness; all of these are fantastic. I just think it is not true that there is a being watching us at all time, that we will be alive after we die, and that there was a fellow a couple thousand years back who could do miracles and rise from the dead. No matter who says it, there is no reasonable evidence for those.
stinny777 1 year ago
Yeah... i really can understand how this looks weird for you. But there are some historical facts that cannot be explained, no no no, that are best explained by the fact that there is a God and that he entered the history of mankind in bodily form, performing an overnatural ministry in which he died so that people could have an relationship with him.
lucasdasilvamaria 1 year ago
@stinny777 there are lots of documented cases of folks,in hospitals, under medical supervision, who have "come back" from death, just recently a woman was pronounced dead, she was grey, and she came back....and for all cases like these,doctors have no explanation, all science can do is observe and record, and figure out some mechanisms, it can only go to the boundary of possible observation, clearly whole realms are possible, string theory posits more than 10 dimensions, entirely reasonable!
metanosis 1 year ago
@metanosis I agree that other dimension are possible and that some people can be resuscitated after early biological death. I am having trouble with what you are trying to convince me of, but its not just science that can only record, observe and deduce. Its humanity that is limited to these things. We know so little of what is truly within this reality and our knowledge does not include the origin of existence or what happens when we cease to exist. Just enjoy the mystery my friend.
stinny777 1 year ago
Oh, i forgot to answer what you asked before.
By solid i mean that... God can be immediatelly experienced by a person whe he reveals himself to her. And thats what happened in my life.
I dont claim to believe in Xianity because i followed the evidences. No, i just think that the evidences i see agree with my experience, so that i have no reasons to doubt it.
Ok, I know that doesnt look very solid for you XD
lucasdasilvamaria 1 year ago
"The root of all rejection of Christ is the desire of self-will to reign supreme." -Alexander Maclaren
deansmithisgreat 2 years ago
it's exactly this attitude that totally undermines the assertion that the "grace narrative" makes it so that you "can't feel superior to anyone" (39:55)
once you make the assertion that every rejection of Xianity is due to an immoral impulse, you then are definitely pretending to be morally superior.
furthermore, such assertions are cop-outs designed to make you feel good about your beliefs even if you can't defend them reasonably or evidentially.
pilby 1 year ago
just keep searching for truth bro. you're clearly an intelligent person, and I appreciate your reply about grace narrative.
i agree I cannot defend these beliefs with conclusive proof and a Q.E.D. stamped at the end, but fruit can be seen and there is a change of heart.
but For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God not by works, so that no one can boast. (ephesians 8-9)
faith is crucial. look to the cross and gaze upon Christ.
deansmithisgreat 1 year ago
True Christianity is about a man dying for his enemies. It breaks away from the moral performance narrative that says, "I'm superior."
suescoggins 2 years ago 63
right. shifts it from moral performance into belief performance, eh?
"Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." (John 20:29).
According to the "grace narrative", God is more concerned that we be credulous than moral.
That's better how?
(not to mention, it *doesn't* break out of the moral performance narrative. it only shifts the reason people think they're morally superior from actual moral actions to strength of belief)
pilby 1 year ago
Answer the door, hes knocking. The answer isnt in science, intellectualism, shrouds or what Darwin thought. Its in your heart, youve come this far. Open the door.
MiloPepper 2 years ago
The dude lost me in the opening monologue. How can you be religious and claim to be open-minded? Either you are religious and there's one truth based on revelation, or you are open to alternatives. At least be honest.
boluke26 2 years ago
Time for me to be honest: I'm not sure I buy your implicit claim to be open-minded. How can you be open-minded if you have closed your mind to those answerswhich actually claim to be truths? Unless it makes no such claim and instead chooses to be arbitrary, the point of your reasoning is not to be reasonable, but instead to be open-minded for the sake of "open-mindedness". Why compromise the prospect of truth for an open-minded attitude you yourself don't even uphold...
thesummonedmuse 2 years ago
in that you choose not to even listen to the "other" side ("The dude lost me in the opening monologue...").
thesummonedmuse 2 years ago
we are all closed minded to some extent...i believe in Jesus for my life...therefore I'm relatively closed minded to things I don't believe to be true. Others don't believe Jesus to be more than a teacher..therefore they are relatively closed minded to anything other than what they deem truth. Christians don't have much of choice in truth claims because Jesus said he was the only way..if we believe in him we have to believe what he says.
ixthustruth 2 years ago
At exactly 5:50, pretend skepticism opens and religious apologetic begins. Might watch a bit more to see if it goes any further then this..but not a good start.
omensign 2 years ago
He's a pastor, not sure exactly what you were expecting...
whoahawesome 2 years ago
Funny how gods dont make a peep without their followers around to insist their god does exist. For a faith-head I guess it makes sense to make war on believers of any other faith since thats the only way your 'god' can come out on top. Alternatively forget all that bollox and simply be a good person, safe in the knowledge that its better to be damned for doing good deeds than rewarded for being obedient to some guy who conveniently claims to have access to a higher power who you must obey.
Andybabez 2 years ago
did you actually WATCH this?
jeditsuyoshi 2 years ago
I couldnt watch all 90 mins but saw portions of it to get the gist of his talk. I was interested when he talked about how we distrust beliefs yet allegedly exempt evolution from that same scalpel (ie why not reject 'belief' in evolution if we are supposed to reject "belief" in god.) The difference being of course that scientists DO reject "beliefs" in theories where there is no condition to falsify it. Evolution and science survives exposure to that scalpel, while religious beliefs do not.
Andybabez 2 years ago
"Evolution and science survives exposure to that scalpel, while religious beliefs do not. "
No: The scapal only applies to those areas which fall under the domain of scientific inquiry. "Belief in God" is not even in the same ROOM as the scapal.
The question of God's existence is not even a scientific question. (But just because it is a non-scientific question, it does NOT therefore follow that it is False).
gromitwallaby 2 years ago
If God does not fall under the domain of scientific investigation then it does not fall under the domain of the real world, which is what science seeks to test. Belief in God is indeed not in the same room as scientific analysis, and shares a room with anything imaginary like fairies and Santa Claus, who are 'exempted' from being proven by the convenient possession of supernatural magical powers. Belief in God being true 'cos science cant touch it' also means a similar default belief in fairies.
Andybabez 2 years ago
Science cannot "touch" a lot of things: Meaning, purpose, value, volition, intention, other minds, the underlying assumption of the rationality, intelligibility of the universe (even our confidence in the success of science itself cannot be demonstrated by a purely scientific framework.) Not to mention, history, mathematics, logic, philosophy
gromitwallaby 2 years ago 5
Could you please give me your definition of what it means to be "a good person." And after stating it, could you give reasons why anyone, including you, should follow your definition. Further could you demonstrate what would be the purpose of your goodness if all it gives you is a feeling of "safety" in the knowledge that it is better to be damned for doing so.
SAOProductions1955 2 years ago
I think my definition of what it means to be a good person is something along the lines of 'the golden rule', trying to treat others as you yourself would want to be treated, the purpose being to make a positive contribution to the society in which I live and thus deriving the benefit of living amongst people who generally reciprocate that same 'do no harm' behaviour. Id rather be damned for trying to do good than obediently kow-tow to one man's personal laws in fear of his silent invisible god.
Andybabez 2 years ago
OK! But where did that idea of the golden rule come from? And who decides what is "golden?" Is it fairness? Is it Justice? Who decides what is harmful? To a pedophile "harm" means something a lot different than I suppose your definition would be, right? And whether you realize it or not, you ARE "kow-towing to one man's personal law;" Your own! That may be the major reason why the world is in such a mess. We have 6 billion plus little "personal laws" bumping into one another. Comments please?
SAOProductions1955 2 years ago
The Golden Rule arises from almost universal consensus of most humans to not want to be raped, murdered, stolen from or otherwise mistreated, and to teach their children to see things from other peoples perspective to learn how altruism helps us all. Its a Darwinian survival advantage to be altruistic, as seen in other species which cannot conceive of messiahs and gods yet still derive benefit from the evolutionary trait of mutual altruism just like we do.
Religions preserve unaltruistic laws.
Andybabez 2 years ago
So are you saying that our morality is just instinct?
sujabals 2 years ago
Nope, human morality is the coupling of our higher intelligence with learned behaviour, so that children not only instinctively copy their parents behaviour (good or bad), but should eventually understand the reasons why something is good or bad in later years (unless their faculties of reason have been overwritten by uncahangeable ancient religious concepts of morality). Animals with instinctive empathy and altruism do not possess the intelligence to understand why their actions are beneficial.
Andybabez 2 years ago
So what your saying is that our ideas of good and bad are relative since part of it comes from behavior that is learned. Also being altruistic isn't always beneficial. I don't think it's instinctive for any animal to help another animal that is genetically alien to them. Animals that sacrificed their needs for others would not have been selected to survive and natural selection does not work on whole populations.
sujabals 2 years ago
Altruism does sometimes benefit the 'wrong' species, like when humans want to nurture an injured bird or cute puppy. Misfiring altruism still benefits the same species more often than not to grant it survival value, though natural selection can also favour 'parasites' that live at the expense of other species, eg birds feeding a cuckoo instead their own chicks, or human immune systems being attacked by viruses. Many factors can affect a species' survival, including both altruism and selfishness.
Andybabez 2 years ago
Belief in an age of skepticism? Skepticism must be the default 'play it safe' position until lots of mutually corroborating evidence supports a story one way or the other.
There is no evidence for any of the religions over and above any of the other religions. Since they cant all be right and since choosing one would just be a lucky dip while they all have zero evidence in their favour, the logical intelligent position is to assume they're all fictional until evidence suggests otherwise.
Andybabez 2 years ago
Fucking whack ass charter internet, I want to watch the whole thing but it won't load fast enough, but I do have some disagreements with what they are saying.
kikrlbs 2 years ago
Not a single new, logical, or completed thought in Dr. Keller's speech. He can navigate through the biblical text to some extend, but that 's where it stops.
didate 2 years ago
Comment removed
zeldaman1ac 2 years ago
Judging by your profile page: you are a libertarian, atheist who "believes" the moon landing was a hoax. No offense but that "logic" has been disproven by Phil Plait and organizations like CSICOP.
Why do you continue to have "faith" in something that is flawed?
zzRider 2 years ago
I have no claims about moon landing, as you can see. I'm not affiliated with libertarians, atheist is not a derogarory term in my vocabulary. Do you have any other questions?
didate 2 years ago
I was pointing out was the fact you see nothing logical about Keller's comment; yet you post videos about something that is even more illogical... that being the moon landing was a hoax.
On one of the moon hoax videos, you write "All that tax money they stole." As if it is a big brother conspiracy. But you say you are not a libertarian, so my apology for thinking you were.
There is nothing derogatory about atheism, nor did I say it was. I was pointing out your blind-faith in a myth.
zzRider 2 years ago
It seems like you're misinterpreting something. I didn't comment on anything of the "moon video" you've mentioned above, it must be the comment written by the person who posted that video. I, personally, have no idea if they went there or not. I don't understand what you're talking about regarding my "blind faith"??? Regarding Keller, I didn't hear anything enlightening in his talk, did you? If you did, please point it out to me, if you can.
didate 2 years ago
"I didn't comment on anything of the "moon video" you've mentioned " In that case, my sincere apology.
"I don't understand what you're talking about regarding my "blind faith"?" Faith doesn't coincide with religion alone; and to be blind in faith is to avoid things that contradict what you choice to believe. In this case I found it amusing you (I thought) believed the NASA moon landing was a hoax when the evidence was against it; hence the phrase "blind faith".
Out of character space...
zzRider 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
what a fuckin dough bag, god is an invisible super hero from outer space, yeah right bro. give it up.
projectid4 2 years ago
LOL .. and that's your intellectual retort?
gothicseed 2 years ago
they only took a section of his talk so I would not call this clip "an intellectual retort"
ajplat 2 years ago
I was referring to projectid4's brief remark (see above) on this thread. I actually dig Tim Keller. He's refreshing.
gothicseed 2 years ago
we should look at nature the way it is....we can use theories to get there whether they be scientifical or religious but nature will show itself through physics...the way it is..is the way it is...and to anti science people if one theory of quantum physics is found correct it could back up reliogion its called the higgs
volumepast10 2 years ago
As someone who considers himself to be a very conservative even pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic, I found this to be one of the most engaging thought provocative talks I have ever heard. Thank you, Dr. Keller!
really2ugly 2 years ago 7
say what? you reject the idea that evolution is religious? you're kidding right? evolution relies on presuppositions which cannot be proven
pjacobo 2 years ago
If God reveals himself in the "flesh" to all of us, and gives proof of his existence and is able to prove evolution false, I'll be very disappointed if evolutionary scientists didn't jump ship. Until then, evolutionary scientists will be doing what they have been since the dawn of evolutionary theory: tweaking it. Applying new concepts and evidence for and against, to build a better theory. And what actually remains a theory and not proven is debated as well. That's why I reject its religiosity.
atheismforthewin 2 years ago 3
Comment removed
pjacobo 2 years ago
this is a reply to atheismforthewin's comment "If God reveals himself..." (something wrong with YT because it's almost impossible to tell who is talking to who); anyway:
evolution presupposes that there is no God (btw, God DID reveal Himself in the flesh - JESUS - and there were many witnesses to His life, His death, and His resurrection); most evolutionists talk about evolution AS IF IT WERE A FACT, and not a theory (to your credit, you've stated that evolution is a THEORY)
pjacobo 2 years ago
As a Christian theist evolutionist, I would not be surprised if Dr. Keller is a proponent of evolution much like Francis Collins is.
gothicseed 2 years ago
Careful to associate what would be a God guided process to Philosophy of Science. They are in stark contrast.
Revinius 2 years ago
Have you read Francis Collins' book?
gothicseed 2 years ago
Nope, and don't plan on it. But when you divorce God from the process of creation then you deny His sovereignty over it. And my point still stands: There is a stark contrast between an evolutionary model that contains God and one that does not.
Revinius 2 years ago
Try reading your opposition. (I do). You are showing yourself to be ignorant and pretentious. And somewhat of an ostrich.
PainterofPaint 2 years ago
try leaving the straw to scare the crows.
Revinius 2 years ago
Why can't evolution be "the process of creation"?
PainterofPaint 2 years ago
I would not contest that, many Christians believe that and it's not totally inconsistent with Christian thought. It's when evolution is put forward as the guiding force (rather than God) behind creation. Evolution as origin is a philosophical leap of faith i am quite unwilling to take (something coming from nothing is quite preposterous).
Revinius 2 years ago
Then we're probably on the same page.. Francis Collins is a Christian.
PainterofPaint 2 years ago
because nothing is being created, the same thing that has always been around is still going on
kmish213 2 years ago
Evolution itself is miraculous. New species (especially in the insect world) are always being discovered. The first half of your sentence is false. The second half is a presumption based on the first half.
PainterofPaint 2 years ago
The easy answer why undeniable proof of God does not exist is that such evidence would destroy free will. If such proof existed - say, if He in His Blinding Magnificence showed up on the streets of New York one day - then we mere humans would have no choice but to believe. It wouldn't even be belief but fact. We would have no free choice in the matter, and our existence in this imperfect universe would be for naught.
xtrashed 2 years ago
Then what about the people who became christians through lakeland?
andyshaw4848 2 years ago
Todd Bentley shows little evidence for being a Christian man (biblically) and needs to repent of his incredibly wrong theology on almost every count (he even openly mocks the Word of God). Whether people become Christians as a process of his.... whatever he does... is entirely a testament to God's ability to use evil for His own good.
Revinius 2 years ago
Tim's Prodigal God is a must-read. Praise God's holy name!
falatessie 2 years ago
24:36 - What he begins saying here is true. Obviously, all religions can't BE equally right. However, with our current understanding of the universe as a whole, beyond our measures of logical observation, all religions have an equal CHANCE of being right. Until we find a way to somehow legitimize one over another these probabilities begin to differ. But because of the infinite measures of observation possibly our grasp, this is impossible....
atheismforthewin 2 years ago
if you had said "all religions have a chanced of being right" that's one thing; but an EQUAL chance? why an EQUAL chance?
pjacobo 2 years ago
No religion has technically ranked itself more probable than any other religion. And because there are an infinite amount of possible religions, our level of knowledge by the point I provided earlier allows each religion to have a 1/∞ chance of being correct.
atheismforthewin 2 years ago
"technically ranked itself"? what the heck does that mean? surely any religion which holds has manifestly beliefs such as Mormonism (their view of world history is manifestly false) has a ZERO percent chance of being right, therefore your statement that ALL religions have an EQUAL chance of being right must be false; also, do you apply your "logic" to the religion of evolution?
pjacobo 2 years ago
Excuse me, technically ranked itself=actually proven itself. And I do not know enough about Mormonism to completely reply to that statement. However I understand your point, and will admit fallacy to a degree. I still uphold the equal chance with there being past supernatural experiences, (creation of universe and the unproved) But as I now look upon my previous statement, I see that Christianity's similar historical incomprehensions. But I reject the (if any) religiosity in evolution.
atheismforthewin 2 years ago
I have difficulty believing that truth is solely a posteriori subjective.
EgoSumAxisMundi 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
please re post
felixayala05 2 years ago
Philip Yancey: "The Jesus I Never Knew" a must-read for anyone searching for purpose and meaning. It addresses the various excuses that people come up with to avoid commitment to Christ.
falatessie 2 years ago
if there is a god and he is so so powerfull and he just likes communicating through (only books )
why does he just not comes out and show him self, then all discussion will end and our doubt will end and we will know his true religion that we all should follow and stop this fight over true religions
is it not criminal of him not show up
or is it possible that it is so that he is not out there and only he is a delusion of our minds.
wilie123 2 years ago 2
God has given us free will and an intellect to believe in Him or decide to not believe in Him. If God were to come and show himself to us, then that would violate our free will.
There is enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to prove that there is a God. Whether we take that evidence and believe on Him, is our choice. As the Bible states, God has revealed Himself through prophecy, Jesus and creation.
If God is not true and just a delusion, why can't we prove 100% that there is no God?
skylarrmoon84 2 years ago
The claim of both omniscience and omnipotence null free will. If it is true that God created all, knows what happened, what is happening, and what will happen, he created his own knowledge. Since this created knowledge includes what will happen, he intelligently designed for all suffering, skepticism, atheism, war, etc. to happen. And since we were apparently made in his image, it is our standard of love that we understand his. With this conflict, omniscience and omnipotence nulls free will.
atheismforthewin 2 years ago
...the world had an equal CHANCE of being flat or spherical until someone found out you can't fall off the edge. It is all relative to our immediate understanding.
atheismforthewin 2 years ago
If there is a God, He allows evil and suffering, as all can see, and knows what will happen to us. However, we are still allowed to make choices. If I am hungry and need money for food, I can steal a lady's purse for money (evil), or I can go and get a job and earn money.
God gives us room to be human and lets us make choices, even choices that will ruin us. If there is no evil, all is good. If all is good, nothing is. As Dostoyevsky said, "If there is no God, everything is permitted."
patalbwil 2 years ago
You acknowledge that he "knows what will happen to us." From where did that knowledge come from? If God created all, then he must have created the knowledge he holds as well. Thus if he "knows what will happen to us", that future has been decided. Destiny and free will cannot exist side by side. Then I see Dostoyevsky's quote, and agree. Everything is permitted, however, in a universe of so many possibilities, the better of these possibilities will win out over the lesser.
atheismforthewin 2 years ago
Let's say I'm hungry and need money. I could (a) rob somebody, or I could (b) go try to get a job. God knows which option I will choose. However, I am still free to choose. If I choose to rob, God will not say, 'No, no, you chose wrong, choose again.' He allows me to make that decision. I can create my future through that decision even though God knows which choice I will make.
patalbwil 2 years ago
I understand that concept. But that did not assess the point I made. If he knew that you would choose to rob someone, he would know that because it was HE that set it up like that. The same goes for the person that goes to get a job. If there was a separate force that he was aware of but could not control, then your point would be completely valid. Due to the lack of such force, omniscience has confirmed determinism.
atheismforthewin 2 years ago
For the sake of argument, let's assume your stance. If life as it is is not free but determined, I'd rather be a cog in a deterministic wheel than a result of random colliding forces. If this is what it is like with an omniscient God, I can't imagine what life would be like if we were left to our own devices.
patalbwil 2 years ago
The easy answer why undeniable proof of God does not exist is that such evidence would destroy free will. If such proof existed - say, if He in His Blinding Magnificence showed up on the streets of New York one day - then we mere humans would have no choice but to believe. It wouldn't even be belief but fact. We would have no free choice in the matter, and our existence in this imperfect universe would be for naught.
xtrashed 2 years ago 2
Message to my Christian brothers and sisters:1 Peter 3:15 says "Be ready at all times to answer anyone who asks you to explain the hope that you have in you, but do it with gentleness and respect"
falatessie 2 years ago
Shocking, frankly shocking. There are well-educated people who think that belief has value and therefore others need/ought to believe what they believe. Religion is abuse of the highest order.
Tokyodreamz 2 years ago
you sound like an atheistic fundamentalist
pjacobo 2 years ago
Not sure what that is - but I'll take it as a compliment :o)
Tokyodreamz 2 years ago
Shocking, frankly shocking. There are well-educated people who think that atheism has value and therefore others need/ought to believe what they believe. Ahteism is abuse of the highest order.
It can be turned around the other way. Notice how you are saying and doing the same thing that you are blaming Christians for? Anyone that believes they have truth in something, they are going to want others to believe it because they see it as truth.
skylarrmoon84 2 years ago
Thanks for posting. Dr. keller is the real deal! I have been to Redeemer Church in NYC.Everyone should go there if possible.
falatessie 2 years ago
Pagans were extremely repressive to women? Gaia?
daleshankins 2 years ago
Jesus is not the only one who claimed to be the son of God...or God.
daleshankins 2 years ago
Science, and the theory of evolution revel in not being correct. When a theory predicts something that does not happen the theory gets changed. The reason for listening to science is that it appears to predict the way world works better than other tools such as philosophy and religion. Science predicted that my kidney cancer would be cured by surgery...and so far I am cured. Religion and philosophy were mute on the subject.
daleshankins 2 years ago
Jesus loved many and healed them because he had compassion on them. He also said that the physical body is not as important as the soul. Jesus states in Matthew 5:29 this importance. Jesus also never comments on science being a wrong way to cure, or heal people. He simply offers us this advice to love one another and to treat others as he has. I would say doctors do treat others well. It is their difficult job to treat and love people they don't even know. May God bless you!
dreadnaugt 2 years ago
May you be blessed as well. As for the soul...I have no talent for such things. Did you know that when our corpus callosum (connection between right and left hemispheres of the brain) is severed that "we" give different answers to the qeustion, "Do you believe in God?" The left hemisphere typically answers "yes" while the left hemisphere typically answers "no". Leaves me to wonder where the soul resides. Yet another reason why I have no talent for religion and philosophy. :-)
daleshankins 2 years ago
I remain unswayed on the overall issue of God's existence, but damn what a great, hilarious and extremely intelligent guy. I would love to hear more from Dr. Keller.
Thanks for posting, UC Berkeley!
AcidRain64 3 years ago
Just finished reading his book, it is WONDERFUL! I recommend it for everyone, of all belief systems.
gabrious 3 years ago
The very idea of God has given rise, in men, to play God. There you will find pride. Men are not to be feared into believing in God, or oppressed into believing, or rediculed because they don't believe in God. The problem is God. The problem is fear. The problem is oppression. The problem is the illusion until we see for sure.
The solution is teaching the purpose of the morals of why we should be kind. Because if we don't, then we'll have wars on our hands.
I believe firmly in the 10 laws.
descryIAm 3 years ago
Today, people believe in God, but don't hold any of the 10 commandments. Or only hold 9 of them, or only 7, or 2 of them only. The vague teachings, without understanding first hand and actaully seeing what lies cause, or what envy does to people, or what judging someone does, or what cheating does, or what pride does, or belittling someone does to everyone and even to ourselves. Belittling someone means you have put yourself above another purpose. THAT is us playing God. We do it and are unaware
descryIAm 3 years ago
People need to ask themselves, "were they feared into believing in God?" If so,that was not god. That was man. That's not a peaceful God. "Were we condemed into believing?" These are the things that turned me away after I was ripped apart by fear and condemnation. Deep in the pit of my self-worth, which IS a person's soul, and my spirit, which IS my feelings, it never had to be that confusing. But religeon made it that way. I know there's a creator, because I look at the stars, earth, the orbits
descryIAm 3 years ago
But I also have my own heart, mind, self worth, actions, abilities, capacity, focus, learning experiences, energy level. We are all different in this way. We all have this.. and I think its important and most essential that its understanding the commandments, and what the long term affects of not following them will do to us as a people instead of re-reading a book over and over and over that only confuses us more instead of giving us understanding.
Sorry for so many words.
Peaae everyone.
descryIAm 3 years ago
11:40. Rubbish. Europe, In particular the Dutch speaking countries has thrown off the yoke of fantasy friends. There have been numerous studies that indicate the higher the education of a group of people and the higher ones own I.Q. the less likely the group or the individual will be deluded.
YogiToad 3 years ago
You operate under two basic assumptions:
1. There is no God, it take faith to doubt too.
2. The number of people believing or not believing has an effect on its truth.
Deluded? Fantasy friends. look if you are trying to maintain you have higher logic then use good logic in your arguments please. Lay off ad homenim and bandwagon approaches, they don't help anyone... especially those using them while claiming superior logical faculties.
pillowstomper 3 years ago 2
Ha!I um..never mentioned any kind of belief system, I simply off the cuff quoted solid finding from reputable studies. The question of an intellect behind the universe remains unanswered, and unproven. I would never assume that I know the answer to that question. No one does, and neither does anyone who quantifies it with iconography.
YogiToad 3 years ago
pillowstomper...well said.
The Dawkin's fans I know are great people but often their responses show a deeply ingrained committment to their worldview as much as Christian's are to theirs. All but one i know will not even consider theistic arguments but this is similarly a sign of dogmatic commitment to the worldview again, and not a sincere desire to know the truth. Keeping matters at arm's length is a convenient way to never confront things we are uncomfortable about.
plakey2001 3 years ago
You are correct, you cannot compare the two! And anyway, the comparison I made was god and the tooth fairy, not gravity. The thing about gravity in my daily life: I was NOT making a quantitative comparison, just an illustrative example. Kind of like when they make those silly illustrations like: we use x number of miles of cable in our widgits. That's enough to run back and forth to the moon three times.
kxnipt 3 years ago