@steviej321 Too bad mother nature isn't here to coddle us or else I would agree. The same water that sustains you needs the ability to kill you as the same parent who could love you could also abort you.
@johhnycarlos "Free will includes the free reign of natural law as well. Mutually exclusive."
Free reign of natural law has nothing to do with human free will unless natural law encroaches on human free will by means of causing misfortune, which in turn limits the human's free will. Such misfortunes caused by natural law that benefit literally no person should not be allowed to occur by an omnibenevolent deity, or else he is not fitting for the attribute.
To approach the context of Christ's sacrafice you need to compare it something else. Imagine a friend comes to stay with you. You come home from work and your friend says a bill collector came by and he covered it for you, no big deal. In order to thank him you would need to know the size of the bil. If it was postage due, no big deal. But if it was the IRS coming to claim 10 years of back taxes, you should probably begin to feel forever grateful and feel a need to repay him back.
@johhnycarlos Your analogy doesn't work. You can't compare it to something else. We're talking about a supernatural, eternal, immortal being doing something that supposedly harmed himself, even though he possesses all those aforementioned traits. Therefore, God/Jesus didn't suffer anything in the longer-run.
I enjoy our debates, and after seeing this comment, I had to answer it myself:
The only aspect I can see is Jesus became sin.. He became the actual compilation of all sin. And God, His Father, could not look upon Him. God had to turn His back on Jesus. This was the sacrifice.
Nevertheless, the knowledge Jesus had that he would rise in 3 days doesn't invalidate his sacrifice. Jesus even asked that he not be burdened with the plan his father had for him: Mark 26:39--"And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” His last words on the cross? Matt 27:46--“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It was this time the Father turned away from Jesus
@MajorDylan "Nevertheless, the knowledge Jesus had that he would rise in 3 days doesn't invalidate his sacrifice."
I completely disagree. If you KNOW you are coming back in three days, and especially if you'll become divine afterwards, then death is not an issue whatsoever. What makes it still a sacrifice? The fact that he was hanged? So what? He wasn't even tortured while on the cross after he was nailed to it. Hanging was pretty common in those times and doesn't make Jesus special or unique.
@steviej321 Well, the Bible tells us that Jesus was tortured and suffered greatly. Death isn't the issue, it was how he died. Luke 22:44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. Jesus was afraid of what was going to happen to him. Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
@steviej321Matthew27:46 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It was here that God's wrath for the sins was placed on Jesus. Immense physical pain came from crucifixion but the spiritual pain of the burden of sin was greater. The crucifixion of Jesus was very unique; Matt. 27:52-53 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
@MajorDylan Your circular reasoning has no place here. The fact still remains that if your god is omnipotent and omniscient then he planned this Jesus thing from the get-go, implying that he's either a bumbling buffoon or incredibly evil.
@steviej321 I'm addressing your question as to why Jesus was sacrificed. He suffered greatly for our sins by enduring the wrath of the Father knowing he would beat death. "a bumbling buffoon"? how so? Is God a buffoon for giving us free will to disobey him? Are you saying we should be programmed to only be able to serve and worship him? "Incredibly evil"? Again God gives us free will to accept him or reject him. Furthermore these are not "facts" but your opinion of God's character.
@MajorDylan Well, you bring up a valid question. One on hand, he can give us free will and not limit it by prevented atrocities committed by man. On the other hand, he could create us as robots that'll never sadden him. This is a paradox for your god, that not even he can avoid. I plan to address this problem in an upcoming video.
@steviej321 How can you have free will, choice for both good and bad, but then turn and limit only the bad? If life was a cherry for everyone, as if God had programmed it that way, then what need is there for God. God does not need us.
@johhnycarlos If God exists, I don't rebuke him for not limiting our free will. There are instances of misfortune that happen to everyone irrelevant to free will. 3rd world children starving to death, cancers, AIDS, homes burning down due to cooking accidents, etc. I could go on infinitely but you get the idea.
Actually, if God wishes to sanction free will he ought to limit such misfortunes completely.
Otherwise, "omnibenevolent" is not a proper attribute of this God.
@steviej321 You shouldn’t attach God with evil, pain and suffering. Where does the Bible contradict itself? Don't you think that if it was written by men wouldn't the church be referred to as a male and not a female? The Bible is the only book that talks about the absence of sex in the after life. If it was written by men then it would be otherwise.I can't dismiss the science in the scripture. The Bible tells the earth is round my friend and not like other religions say.
Google biblical contradictions. For one thing, Genesis 1:25-27 states animals came before mankind, and Genesis 2:18-22 says Adam was the first life, then the animals, then Eve.
"Heavens stretching"... I know. Tell me, how can you accept that and STILL believe the Earth & universe is only 6,000 yrs old. The universe's accelerated expansion wouldn't allow for its size after a measly 6,000 yrs. It's mathematically impossible.
However, Jesus still suffered greatly during his trials. Mark 10:33-- “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
You ask "how was the death of Jesus on the Cross a sacrifice at all if he knew he would rise in 3 days." Well I assume you have heard John 3:16-- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."Jesus was killed on the Cross as a sacrifice to atone for our sins. Jesus may have known that he would rise in 3 days...John 2:19 "Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." .....
As to Objection 3: It is as old as dirt now, but in most of its incarnations, the Ontological Argument does analytically prove that God exists, "A being greater than that which can be thought." Whether it is synthetically true or not is a different matter, but that doesn't invalidate its logic analytically. Which is why,substituting the conceived Deity with a boogeyman when the concepts are not equivocal can't be done. A boogyman is a "thing" that would rely on a being greater than itself.
Pascal's Wager was an ironic comment made in the the margins of his notes meant moreso as a gentle rebuke to those using his work in probability to gamble than as an actual argument. There is humor to it; it's not serious beyond a rhetorical plea and it's silly for any party to take seriously.
completely agree. people definitely tend to overreact to this subject though everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I believe yours is right. great video. ^_^
must of These are not arguments Theists use on YT , or any Philosopher i know,
as for
3. lacking belief requires no proof, but atheism in the dictionary & in every philosophy index is the explicit belief there is no God.
4.You completely misrepresent the fine tuning, it has nothing to do with life or the earth, the universe is balanced on a razors edge of constants it does matter how much life there is ,by chance alone there should be no universe
3. "But atheism in the dictionary..." I don't give a rat's ass what atheism in the dictionary says. Atheism, according to modern-day atheists, is nothing more than a casual disbelief in all gods. NOT a complete utter denial of their existence.
4. The universe being finely tuned for life IS an argument many theists make. By chance there should be no universe? That's a stupid ASSERTION. The constants are unwaverable. And if they were different, we'd simply be in a different universe.
You seem to be unfamiliar with the Bible, given your "inebriated" "shepards" comment. Even a passing familairity should have led you to ridicule them as "inebriated fisherman" and at least acknowledge that at least the NT authors & Jesus closest companions started out as fishermen. Since only the OT was really in the Bronze Age, you still aren't accurate, as it is largely written by either royalty, Moses, David, Solomon or the high court judges of Isreal, or designated prophets. Not shepards.
Most of the New Testament was written by Paul, about as close to a modern academic as you would find at the time, given he studied at the feet of Gamaliel. Gamaliel was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the mid 1st century CE. He was the grandson of the great Jewish teacher Hillel the Elder. Two of the more important books, Luke and Acts, are attributed to Luke a well thought of physician. So your little dig of "inebriated .. shepards" just makes you look uniformed.
Looks like you attach your ego to the Bible, and therefore feel personally offended.
You can't deny that some of the original authors were shepherds. And they certainly weren't against having a drink every now and again. Hence, the "little dig" I made.
And is that an argument from authority fallacy I see? I don't give a damn how scholarly they were. It is all relative to their time period. They were still bronze age men, and so you can't take their "wisdom" too seriously.
"You can't deny that some of the original authors were shepherds."
Who? David? He was also a King and general, that's why his writings were preserved. I really don't see any of the authors, whether the tradional ones or the ones atheists like Gnomefro above will claim wrote them are likely to be shepards. Even the claims of later authorship put the writings in the hands of priests and scribes, not shepards. The traditional authors are judges, prophets, priests, kings, etc, not shepards.
@Matur1n Wow, You think OT was written by Moses?!? You haven't kept up with the last few centuries of biblical scholarship have you? One should be highly suspicious when a book attributed to a man describes the death of the same man. In other news, Israeli archaeology has pretty much destroyed the idea that anything related to Moses in the bible is history at this point. Most likely the character is simply invented, like the authors of OT stole the flood myth from Gilgamesh..
This has been flagged as spam show
@steviej321 Too bad mother nature isn't here to coddle us or else I would agree. The same water that sustains you needs the ability to kill you as the same parent who could love you could also abort you.
johhnycarlos 2 weeks ago
@steviej321 Free will includes the free reign of natural law as well. Mutually exclusive.
johhnycarlos 2 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos "Free will includes the free reign of natural law as well. Mutually exclusive."
Free reign of natural law has nothing to do with human free will unless natural law encroaches on human free will by means of causing misfortune, which in turn limits the human's free will. Such misfortunes caused by natural law that benefit literally no person should not be allowed to occur by an omnibenevolent deity, or else he is not fitting for the attribute.
steviej321 2 weeks ago
@steviej321 all I read is "I don't undersand it, so it's crap."
johhnycarlos 2 weeks ago
To approach the context of Christ's sacrafice you need to compare it something else. Imagine a friend comes to stay with you. You come home from work and your friend says a bill collector came by and he covered it for you, no big deal. In order to thank him you would need to know the size of the bil. If it was postage due, no big deal. But if it was the IRS coming to claim 10 years of back taxes, you should probably begin to feel forever grateful and feel a need to repay him back.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos Your analogy doesn't work. You can't compare it to something else. We're talking about a supernatural, eternal, immortal being doing something that supposedly harmed himself, even though he possesses all those aforementioned traits. Therefore, God/Jesus didn't suffer anything in the longer-run.
steviej321 2 weeks ago
@steviej321
I enjoy our debates, and after seeing this comment, I had to answer it myself:
The only aspect I can see is Jesus became sin.. He became the actual compilation of all sin. And God, His Father, could not look upon Him. God had to turn His back on Jesus. This was the sacrifice.
cnrstn 2 weeks ago
@steviej321 Btw I do enjoy your videos, so I subscribed, peace carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen based bi-pedal life form 8-)
JesusFreakMathGeek6 1 week ago
Nevertheless, the knowledge Jesus had that he would rise in 3 days doesn't invalidate his sacrifice. Jesus even asked that he not be burdened with the plan his father had for him: Mark 26:39--"And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” His last words on the cross? Matt 27:46--“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It was this time the Father turned away from Jesus
MajorDylan 1 month ago
@MajorDylan "Nevertheless, the knowledge Jesus had that he would rise in 3 days doesn't invalidate his sacrifice."
I completely disagree. If you KNOW you are coming back in three days, and especially if you'll become divine afterwards, then death is not an issue whatsoever. What makes it still a sacrifice? The fact that he was hanged? So what? He wasn't even tortured while on the cross after he was nailed to it. Hanging was pretty common in those times and doesn't make Jesus special or unique.
steviej321 1 month ago
@steviej321 Well, the Bible tells us that Jesus was tortured and suffered greatly. Death isn't the issue, it was how he died. Luke 22:44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. Jesus was afraid of what was going to happen to him. Matthew 26:39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will."
MajorDylan 1 month ago
@steviej321Matthew 27:46 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” It was here that God's wrath for the sins was placed on Jesus. Immense physical pain came from crucifixion but the spiritual pain of the burden of sin was greater. The crucifixion of Jesus was very unique; Matt. 27:52-53 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. They came out of the tombs after Jesus’ resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.
MajorDylan 1 month ago
@MajorDylan Your circular reasoning has no place here. The fact still remains that if your god is omnipotent and omniscient then he planned this Jesus thing from the get-go, implying that he's either a bumbling buffoon or incredibly evil.
steviej321 1 month ago
@steviej321 I'm addressing your question as to why Jesus was sacrificed. He suffered greatly for our sins by enduring the wrath of the Father knowing he would beat death. "a bumbling buffoon"? how so? Is God a buffoon for giving us free will to disobey him? Are you saying we should be programmed to only be able to serve and worship him? "Incredibly evil"? Again God gives us free will to accept him or reject him. Furthermore these are not "facts" but your opinion of God's character.
MajorDylan 1 month ago
@MajorDylan Well, you bring up a valid question. One on hand, he can give us free will and not limit it by prevented atrocities committed by man. On the other hand, he could create us as robots that'll never sadden him. This is a paradox for your god, that not even he can avoid. I plan to address this problem in an upcoming video.
steviej321 1 month ago
@steviej321 How can you have free will, choice for both good and bad, but then turn and limit only the bad? If life was a cherry for everyone, as if God had programmed it that way, then what need is there for God. God does not need us.
johhnycarlos 3 weeks ago
@johhnycarlos If God exists, I don't rebuke him for not limiting our free will. There are instances of misfortune that happen to everyone irrelevant to free will. 3rd world children starving to death, cancers, AIDS, homes burning down due to cooking accidents, etc. I could go on infinitely but you get the idea.
Actually, if God wishes to sanction free will he ought to limit such misfortunes completely.
Otherwise, "omnibenevolent" is not a proper attribute of this God.
steviej321 2 weeks ago
@steviej321 You shouldn’t attach God with evil, pain and suffering. Where does the Bible contradict itself? Don't you think that if it was written by men wouldn't the church be referred to as a male and not a female? The Bible is the only book that talks about the absence of sex in the after life. If it was written by men then it would be otherwise.I can't dismiss the science in the scripture. The Bible tells the earth is round my friend and not like other religions say.
JesusFreakMathGeek6 1 week ago
@JesusFreakMathGeek6 Why not? Isn't God the author and foreseer of all?
Google biblical contradictions. For one thing, Genesis 1:25-27 states animals came before mankind, and Genesis 2:18-22 says Adam was the first life, then the animals, then Eve.
"Heavens stretching"... I know. Tell me, how can you accept that and STILL believe the Earth & universe is only 6,000 yrs old. The universe's accelerated expansion wouldn't allow for its size after a measly 6,000 yrs. It's mathematically impossible.
steviej321 5 days ago
@steviej321 I will listen again later though
JesusFreakMathGeek6 1 week ago
However, Jesus still suffered greatly during his trials. Mark 10:33-- “We are going up to Jerusalem,” he said, “and the Son of Man will be delivered over to the chief priests and the teachers of the law. They will condemn him to death and will hand him over to the Gentiles, 34 who will mock him and spit on him, flog him and kill him. Three days later he will rise.”
MajorDylan 1 month ago
You ask "how was the death of Jesus on the Cross a sacrifice at all if he knew he would rise in 3 days." Well I assume you have heard John 3:16-- "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."Jesus was killed on the Cross as a sacrifice to atone for our sins. Jesus may have known that he would rise in 3 days...John 2:19 "Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." .....
MajorDylan 1 month ago
As to Objection 3: It is as old as dirt now, but in most of its incarnations, the Ontological Argument does analytically prove that God exists, "A being greater than that which can be thought." Whether it is synthetically true or not is a different matter, but that doesn't invalidate its logic analytically. Which is why,substituting the conceived Deity with a boogeyman when the concepts are not equivocal can't be done. A boogyman is a "thing" that would rely on a being greater than itself.
likeanelectricamish 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Pascal's Wager was an ironic comment made in the the margins of his notes meant moreso as a gentle rebuke to those using his work in probability to gamble than as an actual argument. There is humor to it; it's not serious beyond a rhetorical plea and it's silly for any party to take seriously.
likeanelectricamish 2 months ago
Comment removed
likeanelectricamish 2 months ago
completely agree. people definitely tend to overreact to this subject though everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I believe yours is right. great video. ^_^
rideXorxdieXchuka 2 months ago
@Matur1n
Do you have any argument more substantial than a dispute about the occupations of the biblical authors?
"They were not shepherds!"
Wow, great job dude. I guess you proved god's existence with that statement, huh?
steviej321 2 months ago
@steviej321
must of These are not arguments Theists use on YT , or any Philosopher i know,
as for
3. lacking belief requires no proof, but atheism in the dictionary & in every philosophy index is the explicit belief there is no God.
4.You completely misrepresent the fine tuning, it has nothing to do with life or the earth, the universe is balanced on a razors edge of constants it does matter how much life there is ,by chance alone there should be no universe
the classical arguments you ignored
lxAgnosticxl 1 month ago
@lxAgnosticxl
3. "But atheism in the dictionary..." I don't give a rat's ass what atheism in the dictionary says. Atheism, according to modern-day atheists, is nothing more than a casual disbelief in all gods. NOT a complete utter denial of their existence.
4. The universe being finely tuned for life IS an argument many theists make. By chance there should be no universe? That's a stupid ASSERTION. The constants are unwaverable. And if they were different, we'd simply be in a different universe.
steviej321 1 month ago
good video dude
Danmill23 2 months ago
"Did God endow those whales with legbones just for kicks?"
Hahaha. Well played.
FiverBeyond 2 months ago
Great stuff, Stevie... I think you hit the nail on the head with most of your counter arguments.
FiverBeyond 2 months ago
You seem to be unfamiliar with the Bible, given your "inebriated" "shepards" comment. Even a passing familairity should have led you to ridicule them as "inebriated fisherman" and at least acknowledge that at least the NT authors & Jesus closest companions started out as fishermen. Since only the OT was really in the Bronze Age, you still aren't accurate, as it is largely written by either royalty, Moses, David, Solomon or the high court judges of Isreal, or designated prophets. Not shepards.
Matur1n 2 months ago
Most of the New Testament was written by Paul, about as close to a modern academic as you would find at the time, given he studied at the feet of Gamaliel. Gamaliel was a leading authority in the Sanhedrin in the mid 1st century CE. He was the grandson of the great Jewish teacher Hillel the Elder. Two of the more important books, Luke and Acts, are attributed to Luke a well thought of physician. So your little dig of "inebriated .. shepards" just makes you look uniformed.
Matur1n 2 months ago
@Matur1n
Looks like you attach your ego to the Bible, and therefore feel personally offended.
You can't deny that some of the original authors were shepherds. And they certainly weren't against having a drink every now and again. Hence, the "little dig" I made.
And is that an argument from authority fallacy I see? I don't give a damn how scholarly they were. It is all relative to their time period. They were still bronze age men, and so you can't take their "wisdom" too seriously.
Troll harder.
steviej321 2 months ago
"You can't deny that some of the original authors were shepherds."
Who? David? He was also a King and general, that's why his writings were preserved. I really don't see any of the authors, whether the tradional ones or the ones atheists like Gnomefro above will claim wrote them are likely to be shepards. Even the claims of later authorship put the writings in the hands of priests and scribes, not shepards. The traditional authors are judges, prophets, priests, kings, etc, not shepards.
ShaundalynChic 2 months ago
@steviej321 "You can't deny that some of the original authors were shepherds."
I can deny it. Other than King David shepherding as a boy, I can't think of any who sound like that.
Matur1n 2 months ago
@Matur1n Wow, You think OT was written by Moses?!? You haven't kept up with the last few centuries of biblical scholarship have you? One should be highly suspicious when a book attributed to a man describes the death of the same man. In other news, Israeli archaeology has pretty much destroyed the idea that anything related to Moses in the bible is history at this point. Most likely the character is simply invented, like the authors of OT stole the flood myth from Gilgamesh..
Gnomefro 2 months ago
@Gnomefro "You haven't kept up with the last few centuries of biblical scholarship have you?"
Tell me what biblical scholars say that the books of the Old Testament were written by inebriated shepards.
Your characterization of what Israeli archeology has shown is incorrect.
ShaundalynChic 2 months ago