I love turek's appeal to science. If science points to god then how come the people best able to judge (members of the national academy, royal society etc) are atheist? 92% of the members of the national academy (in religious america) and 96% of the royal society denied belief in a god,
@1empathy That is simply because many contemporary scientists have adopted a particular philosophical view of the world. It has little to do with science. Historically, the Christian worldview gave birth to modern science because it assumed that if God created, then it must be orderly and intelligible, and therefore able to be studied. No other culture (even the Greeks) took this approach. Belief in God didn't stop Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Francis Collins, Henry Schaeffer...the list is long.
@bereantrb but if the evidence pointed to the supernatura nonsense of revealed religionl are you really suggesting people would reject it and choose to be tortured for eternity? Newton and kepler were pre darwin and faraday was getting on when the origin of species was published, francis collins has a very loose interpretation of the bible and schaeffer is a proponent of ID which isn't science. The list is not long, give me a few more, i can find more atheist scientists ;o)
@1empathy I guess that's the irony: there is a lot of very good evidence, it's just that those who are committed to a naturalist/atheistic worldview simply don't want to follow where the evidence points. Many of them say as much. I'm very comfortable allowing science to proceed--the truth will emerge eventually.
@bereantrb what evidence? i've read the bible,quran,reasonable faith, gunning for god, mere christianity, is religion irrational, foundations of islam, understanding islam, guide to world religions and none provide evidence. They offer arguments for a deist god and then tack on christian/islamic/theistic dogma.
I would like to see Turek debate Craig. I know they are both Christians, but no 2 people share the exact same beliefs on theology. I would like to see Christians sort out their beliefs among themselves, so that there is more consensus on what Christians believe before they debate non-believers. It's frustrating for one Christian to argue against Evolution, Big Bang, ect, because it contradicts Christianity while another says these scientific phenomenon show God's handiwork.
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a women with lust you have committed adultery with here in your heart.
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Does this concern you? The Bible says despise the value of your eye compared to the value of your soul. would u sell your eye for a million dollars? And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. needgod.com
If Jesus was God then what God teaches is true? That makes no sense at all and it is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent, where he claims that if A is true, then B is true and even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises.
0:38 - "Oh, oh, oh. oh! May I answer that one Dr. Turek?! PLEASE??"
?Christianity, like all isms based on faith, and NOTHING but faith, are an assault on genuine morality, integrity, humanity, logic, reason, justice, and a basic sense of fairness."
"Was I close, Dr. Turek?.....................Dr. Turek??.................hello?"
Time to grow up kiddies.
Regarless of how violently you try, this square peg will NEVER fit into a round hole.
Jesus thought so. In fact, he touted outright credulity as superior to reason, as we can see in the case of "Doubting Thomas." Further evidence of God's disdain for intellectual matters can be seen in various parts of the Bible. Here's one: Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. - Proverbs 3:5. I could go on, but I'd rather not.
@TeapotMullah - I agree with your point, but what about the verses where Christians are commanded to "always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you?" (1 Peter 3:15) I don't think turek is saying that we don't need faith - he's saying that "I have faith" is not a very substantial defense for our hope as Christians.
@schurch4444 Your using the Richard Dawkins definition of delusional, which is the most intellectual dishonest definition of any word. Let's assume that faith is a irrational(I feel like Ayn Rand). So does believing in an irrational thing, make a rational person delusional? This is the criteria that Richard Dawkins uses when he places this definition on any religious person, however he doesn't use it for his atheist friends who he gave awards to, like Bill Maher, who doesn't believe in vaccines.
Turek,lol you are very attractive on the scene but you should learn something about religions and history.Christianity ans Islam is based on middle east.Your race or family know nothing about this place 300-500 years ago.You dont sell us our religions.Just write all religions name on the blackboard and meanings under it.And turn the audiences and ask which has best meaning and name for describing a religion.Forget about proof or other things.
on the contrary, faith is the evidence and substance of what you hope for but cannot see. Faith is not blind belief. It is an experience of the Kinmgdom Of heaven which s a kingdom of power not words. we do not come to faith through words. we come to it through persecution and affliction or suffering in humility.suffering is not a feeling but rather being forced to submit that there is something unseen which makes up all things that are seen. The perception of this is faith. that is God's grace.
@franki2424 "we come to it through persecution and affliction or suffering in humility."
Give me a break. While I'm sure you can locate Christians who are persecuted for their faith, for example those living in muslim countries, Christians elsewhere are either the political establishment or happily living in secular societies with religious freedom.
@franki2424 Oh and by the way, unless you can demonstrate some aspect of these magical aspects of faith to the rest of us, we'll still have to regard it as blind faith. To take an analogy:
Person 1: I have an invisible, transcendental dragon. Do you believe me?
Person 2: No. Sounds like you're employing blind faith to even think it's there.
Person 1: Oh no, I have an experience of The Kingdom Of Heaven, which is a kingdom of Power, not words.
I guess this guy hasn't read Hebrews 4 regarding the need for faith in coming to understand the scripture. he speaks puffed up with knowledge from a fleshly heart speaking of things he has not seen....
@franki2424 you sound delusional. I'm not religious by any means, but faith is an excuse to not show evidence. He doesn't nor does any Christian have evidence to support the claims in the bible. A fleshly heart? This type of language is silly however, the last point you made about the speaker speaking of things he has not seen, what about you believing in things you have not seen nor have evidence for? Who's puffed up now?
"atheists are bigoted and closed minded. Enough said!
Free-thinkers, however, follow where the evidence leads."
You made my day sir, made my day. Your statement is hypocritical to the point of stupidity, thank you for proving all of us atheists correct in our assumption that most religious folk claim the high ground without first climbing to it...
Atheists don't understand. We love God because we've accepted Him into our heart through faith. How do you love someone? You can't see it, so how do you know it's there? Because it's a relationship that you feel. It's the same principle for loving God. Drug dealers, sex addicts, porn starts, etc. have all been set free from that because of what God has done in their life. Next time you begin to doubt whether God exists, think about love. Why do you love someone? It's a relationship.
@spacitydrummer4JC Have you read the bible? the ''God'' described in that is one evil bastard, and on't you think it's a little strange that to belief in this God you have to abandon something in your brain? (it's called Faith) I'm sure you are sincere in that you believe in Love, I believe in love too, and I am an athiest.I thought about what you said, I love people because they're real, and I don't need faith to do so.
@spacitydrummer4JC But reason, however, can lead us to understand that He does exist. And that He is the God of Abraham, Moses, and David. And that He sent His Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ down here to die for our sins. And that's the point of this guy's talk. To give some logical backbone to our belief. To show that our belief is not blind, but that it is based on evidence. We're not hallucinating. This is a reality.
@signofthehammer lol, I did, on your suggestion. Not a single thread of proof for the existence for God. The entire reason religion has "Faith" is because they can never have actual proof. Proof would negate the need for faith.
@Torq11 Uh, apparently you weren't paying very close attention. Did you notice the screen transitions? Were you listening to his points? This 4 minute video is obviously just highlights from introductory comments at a conference. Frank Turek is not the one blowing hot air. Relevant comments usually work better.
@bereantrb Well, considering no one in history has ever been able to prove God exists, I would say he is the one blowing hot air. Faith HAS to be enough, because it is all religion has, or will ever have. The Bible even points this out with several tales of peoples faith being tested...can't have God without faith, that's the way Christianity works.
@Torq11 "...I would say he is the one blowing the hot air." As I said before, this video is clearly highlights and not a complete argument. Try dealing with a complete argument some day. "Faith HAS to be enough...that's the way Christianity works." A common misunderstanding of faith. The Bible NEVER condones blind, unquestioning faith. Rather than just rooting for your team or propping up your opinion, first get all the facts straight, then work toward a sound conclusion. I wish you well.
@bereantrb lol, the Bible doesn't condone it, it shows examples. Christianity is based on Faith, and has to be, because there is no proof. I have my facts together just fine. I'd like to see someone show me a fact that God exists. I have nothing against Christians, just against people who outright lie, like the charlatan in this video (and every other "evangelist" out there). He wants to believe in God, more power to him, but don't swindle fellow Christians, and don't push it on others.
@Torq11 (1 of 2) re:examples More than I could type here, but here are a couple:In Acts, the Bereans are considered "more noble" or "fair-minded" because they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true. The Bible commends them for NOT taking Paul at face value, but checking up on him. Acts tells us repeatedly that Paul "reasoned" with people. In one of his letters he states bluntly: "test everything."
@Torq11 (2 of 3) Jesus himself didn't just tell people "I'm the son of God," and let it sit there. He appealed to the Scriptures, appealed to the prophets, he taught & asked questions in a way that made them think carefully about what he was saying. The biblical idea of faith is best understood as "trust". There is nothing blind about it. Naturalist science relies on faith, too: faith that matter came from non-matter; life from non-life; etc. All without a shred of proof.
@bereantrb Science does not have "faith" that matter came from non-matter, they have a theory. They don't have all the answers, but instead of claiming an invisible being created everything, they actually try and find the real answers. Try and prove anything about the Bible without having to use the Bible as evidence itself. If not for the religious section, the Bible would be placed in the Fiction section in libraries.
@bereantrb I wish you well too. Hopefully you don't make incorrect generalizations about everyone you communicate with. I've spent more time studying religion, not just Christianity, then most people I've seen. I plan to keep looking for truth, and to keep questioning those who claim things without it.
@Torq11 No generalizations here. Specifically, you've simply been dealing with an incorrect definition of faith, and how worldviews influence science. Neither I nor anyone I know is operating on a blind faith--from a Christian standpoint that simply isn't the biblical view. Specifically (and ironically) you seem to have completely missed Turek's main point: that uninformed faith is useless. Yet you keep going in circles implying faith is blind. Keep searching--but start listening.
@Torq11 (cont'd) Specifically, your original "hot air" comment completely ignores the fact that this is a highlight video put together by someone else. Of course you don't hear his full argument! It's easy to take potshots at a straw man. I hope your search for truth is genuine--but so far it doesn't appear that way.
Truth = love and I believe that love points to some kind of creator separate from Christianity. But nonetheless, love exists infinitely and our only purpose is to learn to express it, whether you agree with me about God or not. Go and figure out how to let someone know that you love them. Whether or not God exists, that is your duty.
@SeriousSam0378 No, what he said is factually incorrect. The bible says Jesus claimed to be the son of God, not God himself. He believes in the doctrine of the trinity, which is not to be found in the bible.
This a joke. This guy is nothing more than a snake oil salesmen making people buy his crap telling them there is some other evidence besides the written words, that there is a God and that the Bible is "his" word. We all (atheists and religious people) know that all of this boils down to faith, people just believe that this is true and nothing more, just like Muslims believing in Mohammad or Hindus believing in Shiva etc., I hope no one falls for these kinds of shenanigans.
He says that 75% of kids raised in a religious home walk away from their faith and many never go back. Maybe that's because we are finally starting to wake up. Christianity is dying because it is a lie, as all religion is a lie. I'm sorry but if your view of life needs talking snakes, virgin births, infanticide, genocide, miracles, unicorns (yes, the bible talks about unicorns nine times) and people coming back from the dead to make sense to you then you're an idiot. My advice? Read the bible.
So much time wasted on discussing , thinking the book called bible is the ultimate truth !! For those who think so , I would say spend some time thinking a bit before putting your opinions based on the HOLLY book .. Make your homework and check the history for the last 2000 years ... A book more touched and retouched than a prostitute on a cabaret , come on people wake up DO some exrecise and read about the origens of it ... You might get a very unpleasant SURPRISE !!
Yeah, the main reason the kids leave the church is that they wise up and see crap for what it really is. This guy says it all in the first minute of this video; the rest of it is bullshit.
I love how when he asks the questions no one answers,,,hahahhahaha mindless nitwits,,I look at the demographics of the congregation and I see 6th grade dropouts or g.e.d holders,,,the only nice thing I see is that Randy Rhodes flying V Jackson in the background !!
Everyone has faith and everyone has it to some degree. What Turek is saying is that we need to examine the evidence to see if Christianity is reasonable and there IS evidence that it is. For some to rule out God without considering the chance that there is a God is folly. How can they say without a doubt that God does not exist? They cannot KNOW that, so they can only have "faith" that what they believe is true.
'How can they say without a doubt that God does not exist?...'
So, do you believe in the monster of Loch Ness unless it is demonstrated without doubt to not exist?
A baby's default belief-status regarding Loch Ness is null. So why does an adult person need proof without doubt that Nessi does not exist in order to not believe in it?
'if Christianity is reasonable and there IS evidence that it is....'
Everything can be rationalized - the question is, is it true!
@manu191357 Your analogy of the Loch Ness monster is erroneous. The difference being, that MILLIONS of people down through the centuries have encountered God and have had a personal relationship with Him. They KNOW Him to be real. Not true with Nessy, only a few people have made claims that they thought they saw something and none would be willing to die for that belief as Christians have been willing to do down thru history. Christianity IS true.
@manu191357 - There are many things that are accepted as true that are not "testable" -Your analogy is still wrong. There is a major difference in the two. - The suicide bombers reference is ridiculous. I was referring to those who are persecuted and killed for their faith and still hold to their beliefs.
- You are correct in saying that just saying that Christianity is true does not make it true. What makes it true is a true experience with God. You nor anyone else can argue with that.
@manu191357 By your own arguments you cannot believe in things such as love or what determines beauty. Not everyone experiences love and not everyone agrees on whether something is beautiful. Your own statements say that this cannot exist even if a majority of people have experienced love or agree that the Mona Lisa is beautiful. Love and Beauty are not testable, they are only experiences, but they are accepted as real because a "majority" of people have experienced them. How do I know u r real
@manu191357 This statement makes no sense. I made no statement regarding gods of Love, etc. We are not discussing concepts, we are discussing experiences.
Making experiences with someone else always involves some kind of information exchange - so, I wonder with what kind of sense you are making your experiences with God, Jesus, Holy Spirit?
@manu191357 Once again you make a wrong assumption. Information does not have to be exchanged to have an experience with someone. Two people in a room can catch each others eye and exchange a smile and they have had an experience without exchanging info at all. If someone points a gun at you in a store they are robbing but doesn't say a word to you, you would have had an experience, but no exchange of info.
@manu191357 Once again you make a wrong assumption. Information does NOT have to be exchanged. Two people catch each other's eye across a room and exchange a smile, that's not an exchange of information, but it is an experience. If someone puts a gun to your head during the robbery of a store you are in , but doesn't say a word, you have still had an experience with that person and still no info has been exchanged.
You are fabricating your own definition of 'experiencing someone else'.
But anyway - if no information is exchanged when you experience God how do you recognize that God is involved? You must have some means to identify God - otherwise you can not distinguish your experience from an illusion.
I rather act, think and feel in a loving way and I also like beeing treated in a loving way. And all this can be observed and evaluated on a sensual basis.
@manu191357 "observed and evaluated". The effect that God has on peoples' lives is also observable and can be evaluated by the positive effect it has on those lives, just like love. I have no need to worship a concept either and I don't.
its been 4 weeks, so i have to ask... how was it? has it removed any doubts about questions you have wondered about your whole life like certain ones atheists ask?
He and the co-author speak most of scientific facts and such, that our world had to have a creator. It's over 400 pages - too complex to describe. It did remove quite a bit of the doubts I had.
Here's a quote:
"Either someone created something out of nothing (Christian view), or no one created something out of nothing (Atheistic view)." The Christian view is more reasonable and the Atheistic view requires much more faith.
@swtxwishes...STOP !! quoteing atheists for stuff that we've never said !! All that atheists say is " WE DO NOT KNOW!!how it all began " also there is no such thing as " nothing "= there is always something !! even in the so called empty space just like the term "present" is missused. there is no "present"...I suggest you read more and educate yourself PEACE !!
That kind of faith I can relate to, but I find it hard to believe that a grown adult would have faith that a supernatural being is going to give them everlasting life some place in the clouds -- it's just like having faith that Santa Claus is gonna bring you presents. Jesus is Santa for adults.
"...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the Hope that you have. But do this w/ gentleness & respect, keeping a clear conscience ..." ! Peter 3:15-16
Lets be reasonable jbark, Islamic extremists show that people are capable of becoming monsters. Just like the spanish inqusition and Stalins purges. The problem isn't religion, its that we are all capable of doing monstrous things.
Sure miricales are true. They happen every day... You can see it every night on televion (Where media reports all things that happen in the whole world)
It is not possible to prove 'Non-Existence' of any kind!
For example: Try to prove that unicorns or whitches do not exist. It you can't - does it follow that they exist?
It is understandable to desire a proof for 'Non-existence' but it does not lead to knowledge about the entity in question. In addition, the fact that it is not possible to prove that God does not exist does not prove that God exists!
Sure it is. We can show that square circles don't exist because by definition it's impossible.
We also demonstrate negatives in jury rooms every day. If by 'prove' you mean 'no doubt whatsoever,' then there is almost nothing that we can know for certain.
I assume by 'we can show' you mean a mathematical proof. Mathematics (pure reason) alone is not able to derive a single valid statement about real things.
May be, I should narrow down 'to prove none-existence' to the requirement to 'give empirical evidence for none-existence'.
Now give me an example of such a proof!
In addition - what conclusion about the real world could possibly by drawn from a contradiction (square circle)?
I assume by 'we can show' you mean a mathematical proof. Mathematics (pure reason) alone is not able to derive a single valid statement about real things.
May be, I should narrow down 'to prove non-existence' to the requirement to 'give empirical evidence for non-existence'.
Now give me an example of such a proof!
In addition - what conclusion about the real world could possibly by drawn from a contradiction (square circle)?
You can not 'demonstrate negatives' in jury rooms' !
You can report, that you haven't found any evidence yet for a certain entity in question. But this is not a 'demonstration' of negatives' and neither a proof of non-existence!
You missunderstood my point. In jury trials the nature of 'proving' your case doesn't depend on absolute certainty, but a demonstration of facts weighing one position against another. Also, you're incorrect. Take the claim, "Person X killed Person Y in location Z." You can introduce positive evidence against with, say, a video showing person Y in location W during said crime. It may be false, but that is evidence arguing agaisnt a claim. Regarding God, philosophers attempt this frequently.
I get your point, but of what use is it in respect to 'You can NOT give empirical evidence for the non-existence of God' ? I think, your point is a false analogy, or aren't you trying to support the opposite?
Your case is not a proof of non-existence! From the presented evidence can be CONCLUDED that it is unlikely that person X killed person Z. It is a conclusion that something didn't take place.
But - no empirical evidence has been presented for the non-existence of any entity.
You are speaking of 'evidence' for God! Sorry, but you cann't present evidence for supernatural entities. Like you are not able to give evidence for unicorns - you cann't give evidence for God. If you assume that God exists, then of course you can take some physical facts from the natural world and interprete it as 'evidence' for Gods existence - but this however is a circular conclusion.
This kind of 'evidence' is
convincing only for those who presuppose Gods existence.
1. The fact that no empirical evidence so far has been presented. This, however, does not refute evidence in general, because someone might claim being able to present some 'other kind' of evidence but empirical. These other kinds of evidence however can not bear up against ->
That's easy - as long as you can't present evidence for the supernatural, it presents evidence that you can't. So present evidence and you have proven me false!
You've made a burden of proof fallacy. You made a claim that someone CANNOT present evidence for the existence of the supernatural. How are you going to establish this?
Let's see if your approach works at court or with your theft/burglary insurance.
The story goes like:
Frank claims he saw a demon last night stealing his car and now wants the money back from the insurance company. Now, the insurance agent (that's me) says: Do you have evidence for it? No! As long as you can't present evidence for it, you will not get the money!
You see, I observed, that Frank couldn't present evidence so far - thus I stated that what I observed.
All I want is, to be able to evaluate Frank's evidence for the existence of God that he claimed to deliver. I didn't attend Frank's presentation and this video here ends before the supposed evidence is given.
Presenting a video with a claim like Frank's without eventually delivering what was promised seems to me (mildly speaking) like teasing.
If you have the evidence or know where I can find it - please let me know.
Have you read Frank's books? Or done any research, such as the Bible? There is tons of evidence it's so awesome!! Trust me, you will never be the same once you get saved! :)
I was raised as a catholic and became a reborn christian when I was 18. I know the Bible very well!
Now I don't believe in God anymore - I am grown up and know better. I know, that the Bible was made by man and it is not the inspired word of a supernatural deity (there is plenty of scientific evidence and enough arguments that support that) and that faith in a supernatural personal deity is an illusion.
Life and science is awesome to me and I don't need a God - I think in different pictures!
1. Supernatural entities, per definition, can not be subjected to empirical testing.
2. God is a supernatural entity
Conclusion:
It is not possible to present empirical evidence for God.
Furthermore:
It's more beneficial to take those explanations that explain the unknown (universe, life, ...) with the known (empirical and theoretical knowledge) and discard those which try to explain the unknown with the unknown (God).
The conclusion does not follow from those premises. The only thing that could be drawn from this argument, if sound, is that God cannot be subjected to empirical testing. While God himself cannot be tested in the way we can test theories about the natural world it does not mean there cannot be empirical evidence of his existence. If there's a God it's perfectly possible he could leave evidence of himself in the natural world, philosophy, history, etc.
Logic alone (pure reason) leads to infinite regressions and not to true knowledge about the natural world. But combined with critical rational thinking and empirical testing (scientific method) it has brought us to the stars.
How will you be able to link the 'left behind' evidence to a supernatural entity.
The authorship of a product can only be established if the author makes himself known by forgery-proof means. Eventually, this is only possible by sensual and/or technical observation of the process where the author makes the product!
Also - I didn't claim that 'there can't be empirical evidence of God' - that is your straw man. I am claiming - It is not possible to present valid empirical evidence for God!
Not necessarily. Some phenomena and events are best explained by God. Only question begging for naturalism rather than following evidence where it leads prevents such conclusions. Just because we do not personally see him performing these feats does not mean we are unwarranted in concluding he is the best explanation.
On what grounds do you claim it is not possible to present empirical evidence for God? I hope you have something more than question begging.
So then what in your opinion would count as empirical evidence for God?
I repeat myself because you have been avoiding expanding on those premises you posted. What reasons support them? Please do not shift the burden of proof. You made that argument.
Here is my next feed/food for you (I've placed it already 1 hour ago):
Logic alone (pure reason) leads to infinite regressions and not to true knowledge about the natural world. But combined with critical rational thinking and empirical testing (scientific method) it has brought us to the stars.
Establishing the authorship of products works the same way.
Now its your turn to present empirical evidence for the existence of God.
@manu191357 Here is the empirical evidence. You borrow "reason" or rationality from the Christian worldview and then try to deny the source of such rationality. That is philosophically impossible--you are bending over backwards. What is the basis for rationality if the universe itself is a random accident. W/o rationality that comes from a rational source, we could never do science in that random universe. Observing rationality points somewhere. You did not make yourself.
You are presenting a logical argument. Empirical evidence must be observable; so present criteria (e.g. define 'rationality') and a procedure to observe and test for rationality. And then unambiguously link the 'observed' rationality to an observable creator of this rationality. Then you can claim to have empirical evidence for a creator of reationality as defined.
Also, reason and rationality was there long before Christianity!
Explain how you 'observe' rationality. I would agree to say that one can observe rational thinking or rational acting. Rationality is a concept, like love, hate, braveness, ... but they are not real existing things thus can not be observed!
But granted that rationality could be observed - can you come up with some testable properties of this 'somewhere' from you observation?
@manu191357 Here is the empirical evidence. You borrow "reason" or rationality from the Christian worldview and then try to deny the source of such rationality. That is philosophically impossible--you are bending over backwards. What is the basis for rationality if the universe itself is a random accident. W/o rationality that comes from a rational source, we could never do science in that random universe. Observing rationality points somewhere. You did not make yourself.
@manu191357 Use the method stated in your post to find the evidence of God's existence for yourself. It's there if you REALLY want to find it. I understand if you don't though. If I didn't know that the God of the Bible existed, I certainly wouldn't choose to believe in a God that held me accountable to the moral standard given by God in the Bible and live under the threat of going to Hell.
I love turek's appeal to science. If science points to god then how come the people best able to judge (members of the national academy, royal society etc) are atheist? 92% of the members of the national academy (in religious america) and 96% of the royal society denied belief in a god,
1empathy 4 months ago
@1empathy That is simply because many contemporary scientists have adopted a particular philosophical view of the world. It has little to do with science. Historically, the Christian worldview gave birth to modern science because it assumed that if God created, then it must be orderly and intelligible, and therefore able to be studied. No other culture (even the Greeks) took this approach. Belief in God didn't stop Newton, Kepler, Faraday, Francis Collins, Henry Schaeffer...the list is long.
bereantrb 4 months ago
@bereantrb but if the evidence pointed to the supernatura nonsense of revealed religionl are you really suggesting people would reject it and choose to be tortured for eternity? Newton and kepler were pre darwin and faraday was getting on when the origin of species was published, francis collins has a very loose interpretation of the bible and schaeffer is a proponent of ID which isn't science. The list is not long, give me a few more, i can find more atheist scientists ;o)
1empathy 4 months ago
@1empathy I guess that's the irony: there is a lot of very good evidence, it's just that those who are committed to a naturalist/atheistic worldview simply don't want to follow where the evidence points. Many of them say as much. I'm very comfortable allowing science to proceed--the truth will emerge eventually.
bereantrb 4 months ago
@bereantrb what evidence? i've read the bible,quran,reasonable faith, gunning for god, mere christianity, is religion irrational, foundations of islam, understanding islam, guide to world religions and none provide evidence. They offer arguments for a deist god and then tack on christian/islamic/theistic dogma.
1empathy 4 months ago
@1empathy It seems that evidence is not really your obstacle.
bereantrb 4 months ago
I would like to see Turek debate Craig. I know they are both Christians, but no 2 people share the exact same beliefs on theology. I would like to see Christians sort out their beliefs among themselves, so that there is more consensus on what Christians believe before they debate non-believers. It's frustrating for one Christian to argue against Evolution, Big Bang, ect, because it contradicts Christianity while another says these scientific phenomenon show God's handiwork.
stormblast49 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Are you ready?
Have u lied? Have u stolen? Jesus said if you look at a women with lust you have committed adultery with here in your heart.
If God judge’s u by the Ten Commandments will u be innocent or guilty? Does this concern you? The Bible says despise the value of your eye compared to the value of your soul. would u sell your eye for a million dollars? And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. needgod.com
standingontruth1 5 months ago
He still hasn't told us why it's true...
pat5168 7 months ago
He should be selling cars.
tweekyseagull 7 months ago 2
If Jesus was God then what God teaches is true? That makes no sense at all and it is a logical fallacy called affirming the consequent, where he claims that if A is true, then B is true and even if the premises and conclusion are all true, the conclusion is not a necessary consequence of the premises.
direngrey4569 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The main reason is that they have brains.
Kailoa36 7 months ago
0:38 - "Oh, oh, oh. oh! May I answer that one Dr. Turek?! PLEASE??"
?Christianity, like all isms based on faith, and NOTHING but faith, are an assault on genuine morality, integrity, humanity, logic, reason, justice, and a basic sense of fairness."
"Was I close, Dr. Turek?.....................Dr. Turek??.................hello?"
Time to grow up kiddies.
Regarless of how violently you try, this square peg will NEVER fit into a round hole.
mrbarthoss1 7 months ago
"Because you have faith. Is that a good answer?"
Jesus thought so. In fact, he touted outright credulity as superior to reason, as we can see in the case of "Doubting Thomas." Further evidence of God's disdain for intellectual matters can be seen in various parts of the Bible. Here's one: Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. - Proverbs 3:5. I could go on, but I'd rather not.
TeapotMullah 8 months ago
@TeapotMullah - I agree with your point, but what about the verses where Christians are commanded to "always be ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you?" (1 Peter 3:15) I don't think turek is saying that we don't need faith - he's saying that "I have faith" is not a very substantial defense for our hope as Christians.
That was my take, anyways. Thoughts?
fallenarising 8 months ago
@schurch4444 Your using the Richard Dawkins definition of delusional, which is the most intellectual dishonest definition of any word. Let's assume that faith is a irrational(I feel like Ayn Rand). So does believing in an irrational thing, make a rational person delusional? This is the criteria that Richard Dawkins uses when he places this definition on any religious person, however he doesn't use it for his atheist friends who he gave awards to, like Bill Maher, who doesn't believe in vaccines.
acmna 8 months ago
Turek,lol you are very attractive on the scene but you should learn something about religions and history.Christianity ans Islam is based on middle east.Your race or family know nothing about this place 300-500 years ago.You dont sell us our religions.Just write all religions name on the blackboard and meanings under it.And turn the audiences and ask which has best meaning and name for describing a religion.Forget about proof or other things.
yigitinebolulu 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no empirical evidence for the existence of God.
utubenz 10 months ago
on the contrary, faith is the evidence and substance of what you hope for but cannot see. Faith is not blind belief. It is an experience of the Kinmgdom Of heaven which s a kingdom of power not words. we do not come to faith through words. we come to it through persecution and affliction or suffering in humility.suffering is not a feeling but rather being forced to submit that there is something unseen which makes up all things that are seen. The perception of this is faith. that is God's grace.
franki2424 10 months ago
@franki2424 "we come to it through persecution and affliction or suffering in humility."
Give me a break. While I'm sure you can locate Christians who are persecuted for their faith, for example those living in muslim countries, Christians elsewhere are either the political establishment or happily living in secular societies with religious freedom.
Gnomefro 10 months ago
@franki2424 Oh and by the way, unless you can demonstrate some aspect of these magical aspects of faith to the rest of us, we'll still have to regard it as blind faith. To take an analogy:
Person 1: I have an invisible, transcendental dragon. Do you believe me?
Person 2: No. Sounds like you're employing blind faith to even think it's there.
Person 1: Oh no, I have an experience of The Kingdom Of Heaven, which is a kingdom of Power, not words.
Person 2: Whatever...
Gnomefro 10 months ago
I guess this guy hasn't read Hebrews 4 regarding the need for faith in coming to understand the scripture. he speaks puffed up with knowledge from a fleshly heart speaking of things he has not seen....
franki2424 11 months ago
@franki2424 you sound delusional. I'm not religious by any means, but faith is an excuse to not show evidence. He doesn't nor does any Christian have evidence to support the claims in the bible. A fleshly heart? This type of language is silly however, the last point you made about the speaker speaking of things he has not seen, what about you believing in things you have not seen nor have evidence for? Who's puffed up now?
surshot56 11 months ago
@surshot56 I guess are going to find out, aren't we?
rosmia2 11 months ago
@franki2424 Sure the bible says the bible is true and you need faith, but thats a cop-out
surshot56 11 months ago
do you think turek actually believes in what he says? or is he just telling peolpe what they want to hear?
tjhartinger 11 months ago
he sounds no different than any other radical christian preacher.
MGiants82 1 year ago
Faith is enough for me, brother. I use faith to believe there is no God.
Fletch6 1 year ago
Stupid Sexy Flanders!
Aeschylus 1 year ago
atheists are bigoted and closed minded. Enough said!
Free-thinkers, however, follow where the evidence leads.
unprofessionalvids 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@unprofessionalvids
"atheists are bigoted and closed minded. Enough said!
Free-thinkers, however, follow where the evidence leads."
You made my day sir, made my day. Your statement is hypocritical to the point of stupidity, thank you for proving all of us atheists correct in our assumption that most religious folk claim the high ground without first climbing to it...
Wattyb2 1 year ago
Atheists don't understand. We love God because we've accepted Him into our heart through faith. How do you love someone? You can't see it, so how do you know it's there? Because it's a relationship that you feel. It's the same principle for loving God. Drug dealers, sex addicts, porn starts, etc. have all been set free from that because of what God has done in their life. Next time you begin to doubt whether God exists, think about love. Why do you love someone? It's a relationship.
spacitydrummer4JC 1 year ago
@spacitydrummer4JC Have you read the bible? the ''God'' described in that is one evil bastard, and on't you think it's a little strange that to belief in this God you have to abandon something in your brain? (it's called Faith) I'm sure you are sincere in that you believe in Love, I believe in love too, and I am an athiest.I thought about what you said, I love people because they're real, and I don't need faith to do so.
YourJustHuman 1 year ago
@spacitydrummer4JC But reason, however, can lead us to understand that He does exist. And that He is the God of Abraham, Moses, and David. And that He sent His Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ down here to die for our sins. And that's the point of this guy's talk. To give some logical backbone to our belief. To show that our belief is not blind, but that it is based on evidence. We're not hallucinating. This is a reality.
GenghisKhan44 1 year ago
faith alone is lazy and false doctrine.
truthseek99 1 year ago 20
@truthseek99 whats funny is that this video doesnt talk about that...Faith alone is enough for salvation.
MrUrosSrb 6 months ago
All that hot air, yet he never presents any evidence that the Bible is true, or that God exists.
Torq11 1 year ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Torq11 read his book.
divineblobn8 1 year ago
refer to his book
3BALL4 7 months ago
@3BALL4 Lol, Good one.
DJTeaKay 6 months ago
@Torq11 look for william lane craig and try to refute his arguments
signofthehammer 6 months ago
@signofthehammer lol, I did, on your suggestion. Not a single thread of proof for the existence for God. The entire reason religion has "Faith" is because they can never have actual proof. Proof would negate the need for faith.
Torq11 6 months ago
@Torq11 Uh, apparently you weren't paying very close attention. Did you notice the screen transitions? Were you listening to his points? This 4 minute video is obviously just highlights from introductory comments at a conference. Frank Turek is not the one blowing hot air. Relevant comments usually work better.
bereantrb 4 months ago 2
@bereantrb Well, considering no one in history has ever been able to prove God exists, I would say he is the one blowing hot air. Faith HAS to be enough, because it is all religion has, or will ever have. The Bible even points this out with several tales of peoples faith being tested...can't have God without faith, that's the way Christianity works.
Torq11 4 months ago
@Torq11 "...I would say he is the one blowing the hot air." As I said before, this video is clearly highlights and not a complete argument. Try dealing with a complete argument some day. "Faith HAS to be enough...that's the way Christianity works." A common misunderstanding of faith. The Bible NEVER condones blind, unquestioning faith. Rather than just rooting for your team or propping up your opinion, first get all the facts straight, then work toward a sound conclusion. I wish you well.
bereantrb 4 months ago
@bereantrb lol, the Bible doesn't condone it, it shows examples. Christianity is based on Faith, and has to be, because there is no proof. I have my facts together just fine. I'd like to see someone show me a fact that God exists. I have nothing against Christians, just against people who outright lie, like the charlatan in this video (and every other "evangelist" out there). He wants to believe in God, more power to him, but don't swindle fellow Christians, and don't push it on others.
Torq11 4 months ago
@Torq11 (1 of 2) re:examples More than I could type here, but here are a couple:In Acts, the Bereans are considered "more noble" or "fair-minded" because they examined the Scriptures to see if what Paul was saying was true. The Bible commends them for NOT taking Paul at face value, but checking up on him. Acts tells us repeatedly that Paul "reasoned" with people. In one of his letters he states bluntly: "test everything."
bereantrb 4 months ago
@Torq11 (2 of 3) Jesus himself didn't just tell people "I'm the son of God," and let it sit there. He appealed to the Scriptures, appealed to the prophets, he taught & asked questions in a way that made them think carefully about what he was saying. The biblical idea of faith is best understood as "trust". There is nothing blind about it. Naturalist science relies on faith, too: faith that matter came from non-matter; life from non-life; etc. All without a shred of proof.
bereantrb 4 months ago
@bereantrb Science does not have "faith" that matter came from non-matter, they have a theory. They don't have all the answers, but instead of claiming an invisible being created everything, they actually try and find the real answers. Try and prove anything about the Bible without having to use the Bible as evidence itself. If not for the religious section, the Bible would be placed in the Fiction section in libraries.
Torq11 3 months ago
@Torq11 naive: adjective; lacking in experience, judgement, or information.
Hopefully someday you will gain the knowledge necessary to comment on the things of which you speak. I wish you well in your endeavors.
bereantrb 3 months ago
@bereantrb I wish you well too. Hopefully you don't make incorrect generalizations about everyone you communicate with. I've spent more time studying religion, not just Christianity, then most people I've seen. I plan to keep looking for truth, and to keep questioning those who claim things without it.
Torq11 3 months ago
@Torq11 No generalizations here. Specifically, you've simply been dealing with an incorrect definition of faith, and how worldviews influence science. Neither I nor anyone I know is operating on a blind faith--from a Christian standpoint that simply isn't the biblical view. Specifically (and ironically) you seem to have completely missed Turek's main point: that uninformed faith is useless. Yet you keep going in circles implying faith is blind. Keep searching--but start listening.
bereantrb 3 months ago
@Torq11 (cont'd) Specifically, your original "hot air" comment completely ignores the fact that this is a highlight video put together by someone else. Of course you don't hear his full argument! It's easy to take potshots at a straw man. I hope your search for truth is genuine--but so far it doesn't appear that way.
bereantrb 3 months ago 2
i dont have enough faith to be an atheist. didnt think that one through frankie. lol
kram83au 1 year ago
Haha. Listen carefully at 1:19 when he says, "Is the Koran true, then?"
"noooo..."
ebeatworld 1 year ago
The Bible is bullshit.
supersmash43 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@supersmash43 Wow. That was a clever comment.
Then this video clearly does not concern you. So why are you watching it?
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@supersmash43 i disagree, and watch your language please
xHeartGaming 1 year ago
@xHeartGaming lol at your language card.
supersmash43 1 year ago
this man is amazing. he TRULY has a gift for apologetics.
hriggin09 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Faith-Proof-Truth..
The amount of evidence cannot make a person believe.
It is free will.
Just like every person is entitled to his own opinion,
yet every choice leads to consequences.
lexsch 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Faith...Proof...Truth..
The amount of evidence cannot make a person believe.
It is free will.
Just like every person is entitled to his own opinion,
yet every choice leads to consequences.
lexsch 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Faith...Proof...Truth..
The amount of evidence cannot make a person believe.
It is free will.
Just like every person is entitled to his own opinion,
yet every choice leads to consequences.
lexsch 1 year ago
Faith...Proof...Truth..
The amount of evidence cannot make a person believe.
It is free will.
Just like every person is entitled to his own opinion,
yet every choice leads to consequences.
lexsch 1 year ago
Truth = love and I believe that love points to some kind of creator separate from Christianity. But nonetheless, love exists infinitely and our only purpose is to learn to express it, whether you agree with me about God or not. Go and figure out how to let someone know that you love them. Whether or not God exists, that is your duty.
tpstrat14 1 year ago
Did Jesus claimed to be God?
SeriousSam0378 1 year ago
@SeriousSam0378 No, what he said is factually incorrect. The bible says Jesus claimed to be the son of God, not God himself. He believes in the doctrine of the trinity, which is not to be found in the bible.
LondonClarinetist 1 year ago
@LondonClarinetist jesus was god jesus and the holy spirit, the trinity
xHeartGaming 1 year ago
This a joke. This guy is nothing more than a snake oil salesmen making people buy his crap telling them there is some other evidence besides the written words, that there is a God and that the Bible is "his" word. We all (atheists and religious people) know that all of this boils down to faith, people just believe that this is true and nothing more, just like Muslims believing in Mohammad or Hindus believing in Shiva etc., I hope no one falls for these kinds of shenanigans.
mythcontrolpill 1 year ago
He says that 75% of kids raised in a religious home walk away from their faith and many never go back. Maybe that's because we are finally starting to wake up. Christianity is dying because it is a lie, as all religion is a lie. I'm sorry but if your view of life needs talking snakes, virgin births, infanticide, genocide, miracles, unicorns (yes, the bible talks about unicorns nine times) and people coming back from the dead to make sense to you then you're an idiot. My advice? Read the bible.
Hewey1974 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So much time wasted on discussing , thinking the book called bible is the ultimate truth !! For those who think so , I would say spend some time thinking a bit before putting your opinions based on the HOLLY book .. Make your homework and check the history for the last 2000 years ... A book more touched and retouched than a prostitute on a cabaret , come on people wake up DO some exrecise and read about the origens of it ... You might get a very unpleasant SURPRISE !!
mi55eros 1 year ago
his opening statement gives me hope
lukeism2 1 year ago
I am an atheist, but I am somewhat impressed with Turek. I found I could agree with his reasoning and follow it.
ClamCrunchy 1 year ago
Yeah, the main reason the kids leave the church is that they wise up and see crap for what it really is. This guy says it all in the first minute of this video; the rest of it is bullshit.
jerico641 1 year ago 3
im really thankful God is working through this man! HAPPY HAPPY!
righteousREDEEMER 1 year ago
Christianity is true. Your reasons for "why Christianity is true" are not convincing, and have never answered strong objections.
Havenfall 1 year ago
I love how when he asks the questions no one answers,,,hahahhahaha mindless nitwits,,I look at the demographics of the congregation and I see 6th grade dropouts or g.e.d holders,,,the only nice thing I see is that Randy Rhodes flying V Jackson in the background !!
recordingbean 2 years ago
what a load of rubbish ! hey you freaks lets build a big boat and put 2 of every species of animal on it - durrr!!!
peterwetton 2 years ago
@peterwetton Show some proof!. Cynicism is an intellectual cripples substitute for intelligence
brandonlcooper5378 2 years ago
@brandonlcooper5378 show some proof ? of what ? and by the way if your'e religious then don't ask me to show proof, me old fella
peterwetton 2 years ago
AWESOME book!! Every Christian and NON Christian should this book.
zolak16 2 years ago
Everyone has faith and everyone has it to some degree. What Turek is saying is that we need to examine the evidence to see if Christianity is reasonable and there IS evidence that it is. For some to rule out God without considering the chance that there is a God is folly. How can they say without a doubt that God does not exist? They cannot KNOW that, so they can only have "faith" that what they believe is true.
Mulehead54 2 years ago 2
@Mulehead54
'How can they say without a doubt that God does not exist?...'
So, do you believe in the monster of Loch Ness unless it is demonstrated without doubt to not exist?
A baby's default belief-status regarding Loch Ness is null. So why does an adult person need proof without doubt that Nessi does not exist in order to not believe in it?
'if Christianity is reasonable and there IS evidence that it is....'
Everything can be rationalized - the question is, is it true!
manu191357 1 year ago
@manu191357 Your analogy of the Loch Ness monster is erroneous. The difference being, that MILLIONS of people down through the centuries have encountered God and have had a personal relationship with Him. They KNOW Him to be real. Not true with Nessy, only a few people have made claims that they thought they saw something and none would be willing to die for that belief as Christians have been willing to do down thru history. Christianity IS true.
Mulehead54 1 year ago
@Mulehead54
- no testable evidence for Nessi and not for the millions who allegedly encountered God - the analogy is perfect!
- truth can not be decided by majority vote (arbitrary volition)
- your willing-to-die-argument tastes very bad when looking at suicide-bombers!
- just saying that 'Christianity is true' does not make it true
manu191357 1 year ago 4
@manu191357 - There are many things that are accepted as true that are not "testable" -Your analogy is still wrong. There is a major difference in the two. - The suicide bombers reference is ridiculous. I was referring to those who are persecuted and killed for their faith and still hold to their beliefs.
- You are correct in saying that just saying that Christianity is true does not make it true. What makes it true is a true experience with God. You nor anyone else can argue with that.
Mulehead54 1 year ago
@Mulehead54
- just because things are accepted does not bring them into existence (majority vote)!
- no one is questioning your experiences, the point is - do the entities (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, ...) of your experiences truely exist?
- so, if your 'true' experiences with God are non-testable how do you distinguish them from illusion?
manu191357 1 year ago
@manu191357 By your own arguments you cannot believe in things such as love or what determines beauty. Not everyone experiences love and not everyone agrees on whether something is beautiful. Your own statements say that this cannot exist even if a majority of people have experienced love or agree that the Mona Lisa is beautiful. Love and Beauty are not testable, they are only experiences, but they are accepted as real because a "majority" of people have experienced them. How do I know u r real
Mulehead54 1 year ago
@Mulehead54
Looks like you believe in the Gods of the Greeks.
They had distinctive Gods for all sorts of mental concepts like love, beauty, justice, freedom, ... Concepts are not real existing entities (things)!
It is that simple: No brain - no concept!
manu191357 1 year ago
@manu191357 This statement makes no sense. I made no statement regarding gods of Love, etc. We are not discussing concepts, we are discussing experiences.
Mulehead54 1 year ago
@Mulehead54
'we are discussing experiences...'
Making experiences with someone else always involves some kind of information exchange - so, I wonder with what kind of sense you are making your experiences with God, Jesus, Holy Spirit?
manu191357 1 year ago
@manu191357 Once again you make a wrong assumption. Information does not have to be exchanged to have an experience with someone. Two people in a room can catch each others eye and exchange a smile and they have had an experience without exchanging info at all. If someone points a gun at you in a store they are robbing but doesn't say a word to you, you would have had an experience, but no exchange of info.
Mulehead54 1 year ago
@manu191357 Once again you make a wrong assumption. Information does NOT have to be exchanged. Two people catch each other's eye across a room and exchange a smile, that's not an exchange of information, but it is an experience. If someone puts a gun to your head during the robbery of a store you are in , but doesn't say a word, you have still had an experience with that person and still no info has been exchanged.
Mulehead54 1 year ago
@Mulehead54
You are fabricating your own definition of 'experiencing someone else'.
But anyway - if no information is exchanged when you experience God how do you recognize that God is involved? You must have some means to identify God - otherwise you can not distinguish your experience from an illusion.
manu191357 1 year ago
@Mulehead54
'you cannot believe in things such as love...'
I have no need to worship a concept.
I rather act, think and feel in a loving way and I also like beeing treated in a loving way. And all this can be observed and evaluated on a sensual basis.
manu191357 1 year ago
@manu191357 "observed and evaluated". The effect that God has on peoples' lives is also observable and can be evaluated by the positive effect it has on those lives, just like love. I have no need to worship a concept either and I don't.
Mulehead54 1 year ago
@Mulehead54
How do you know that God is the origin/cause of these ovservable effects?
manu191357 1 year ago
@Mulehead54
'Your own statements say that this [love, beauty] cannot exist...'
You are side-tracking on mental concepts.
- I am not questioning your experiences and feelings
- the point is - do the entities (God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, ...) of your experiences truely exist?
manu191357 1 year ago
@manu191357 The comment about mental concepts makes no sense. We are talking about experiences. Yes, God , Jesus, and the Holy Spirit DO exist.
Mulehead54 1 year ago
@Mulehead54
Just saying does not make it true!
Do you know that 'God , Jesus, and the Holy Spirit DO exist' or do you believe it?
manu191357 1 year ago
I bought this book today!
swtxwishes 2 years ago 2
its been 4 weeks, so i have to ask... how was it? has it removed any doubts about questions you have wondered about your whole life like certain ones atheists ask?
wlchambers 2 years ago
@wlchambers
He and the co-author speak most of scientific facts and such, that our world had to have a creator. It's over 400 pages - too complex to describe. It did remove quite a bit of the doubts I had.
Here's a quote:
"Either someone created something out of nothing (Christian view), or no one created something out of nothing (Atheistic view)." The Christian view is more reasonable and the Atheistic view requires much more faith.
swtxwishes 2 years ago
@swtxwishes...STOP !! quoteing atheists for stuff that we've never said !! All that atheists say is " WE DO NOT KNOW!!how it all began " also there is no such thing as " nothing "= there is always something !! even in the so called empty space just like the term "present" is missused. there is no "present"...I suggest you read more and educate yourself PEACE !!
recordingbean 2 years ago
theism by definition says that hter is no creator/God/intelligent designer.
brandonlcooper5378 2 years ago
If this is suggesting that Faith is not enough to prove God, they're right. Faith is the act of lying to oneself, it is the art of self-deceit.
Twain said it best:
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so!"
ColonPal 2 years ago
i think faith is like i have faith that my kid can hit a home run the next game. not faith that my kid can beat up superman
wlchambers 2 years ago
That kind of faith I can relate to, but I find it hard to believe that a grown adult would have faith that a supernatural being is going to give them everlasting life some place in the clouds -- it's just like having faith that Santa Claus is gonna bring you presents. Jesus is Santa for adults.
ColonPal 2 years ago
As an add-on to that statement, "Now, faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1)
4EverLoveAmbassador 2 years ago
"...Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the Hope that you have. But do this w/ gentleness & respect, keeping a clear conscience ..." ! Peter 3:15-16
GodEqualsLove4ever 2 years ago
Islam represents why religion is evil.
jbarks10 2 years ago
Lets be reasonable jbark, Islamic extremists show that people are capable of becoming monsters. Just like the spanish inqusition and Stalins purges. The problem isn't religion, its that we are all capable of doing monstrous things.
jimjamerman 2 years ago
Sure miricales are true. They happen every day... You can see it every night on televion (Where media reports all things that happen in the whole world)
Hahahahaha!!!!!!!
Irony;)
ManOnTheMoon09 2 years ago
Frank Turek. He is such a nice guy but he doesn't get it.... Sad, sad, sad... How deluded
ManOnTheMoon09 2 years ago
Prove to me that Santa Claus or unicorns do not exist. How can you prove the non-existence of something?
jasonstalos 2 years ago
prove to me that God doesn't exist.
greenluver05 2 years ago
It is not possible to prove 'Non-Existence' of any kind!
For example: Try to prove that unicorns or whitches do not exist. It you can't - does it follow that they exist?
It is understandable to desire a proof for 'Non-existence' but it does not lead to knowledge about the entity in question. In addition, the fact that it is not possible to prove that God does not exist does not prove that God exists!
manu191357 2 years ago
Sure it is. We can show that square circles don't exist because by definition it's impossible.
We also demonstrate negatives in jury rooms every day. If by 'prove' you mean 'no doubt whatsoever,' then there is almost nothing that we can know for certain.
TheKundas 2 years ago
I assume by 'we can show' you mean a mathematical proof. Mathematics (pure reason) alone is not able to derive a single valid statement about real things.
May be, I should narrow down 'to prove none-existence' to the requirement to 'give empirical evidence for none-existence'.
Now give me an example of such a proof!
In addition - what conclusion about the real world could possibly by drawn from a contradiction (square circle)?
None!
manu191357 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I assume by 'we can show' you mean a mathematical proof. Mathematics (pure reason) alone is not able to derive a single valid statement about real things.
May be, I should narrow down 'to prove non-existence' to the requirement to 'give empirical evidence for non-existence'.
Now give me an example of such a proof!
In addition - what conclusion about the real world could possibly by drawn from a contradiction (square circle)?
None!
manu191357 2 years ago
Comment removed
curiosityversusfaith 2 years ago
TheKundas,
You can not 'demonstrate negatives' in jury rooms' !
You can report, that you haven't found any evidence yet for a certain entity in question. But this is not a 'demonstration' of negatives' and neither a proof of non-existence!
curiosityversusfaith 2 years ago
You missunderstood my point. In jury trials the nature of 'proving' your case doesn't depend on absolute certainty, but a demonstration of facts weighing one position against another. Also, you're incorrect. Take the claim, "Person X killed Person Y in location Z." You can introduce positive evidence against with, say, a video showing person Y in location W during said crime. It may be false, but that is evidence arguing agaisnt a claim. Regarding God, philosophers attempt this frequently.
TheKundas 2 years ago
I get your point, but of what use is it in respect to 'You can NOT give empirical evidence for the non-existence of God' ? I think, your point is a false analogy, or aren't you trying to support the opposite?
Your case is not a proof of non-existence! From the presented evidence can be CONCLUDED that it is unlikely that person X killed person Z. It is a conclusion that something didn't take place.
But - no empirical evidence has been presented for the non-existence of any entity.
curiosityversusfaith 2 years ago
Appeals to ridicule and personal attack. Brilliant argument.
hawke123 2 years ago
Frank:
You are speaking of 'evidence' for God! Sorry, but you cann't present evidence for supernatural entities. Like you are not able to give evidence for unicorns - you cann't give evidence for God. If you assume that God exists, then of course you can take some physical facts from the natural world and interprete it as 'evidence' for Gods existence - but this however is a circular conclusion.
This kind of 'evidence' is
convincing only for those who presuppose Gods existence.
manu191357 2 years ago 2
On what grounds do you make these claims?
hawke123 2 years ago
'On what grounds do you make these claims? '
My claims are based on:
1. The fact that no empirical evidence so far has been presented. This, however, does not refute evidence in general, because someone might claim being able to present some 'other kind' of evidence but empirical. These other kinds of evidence however can not bear up against ->
2. Critical reasoning.
manu191357 2 years ago
I'm waiting for you to support the bold notion that one CANNOT present empirical evidence for the supernatural. What evidence do you have for this?
hawke123 2 years ago
That's easy - as long as you can't present evidence for the supernatural, it presents evidence that you can't. So present evidence and you have proven me false!
manu191357 2 years ago
You've made a burden of proof fallacy. You made a claim that someone CANNOT present evidence for the existence of the supernatural. How are you going to establish this?
hawke123 2 years ago
Let's see if your approach works at court or with your theft/burglary insurance.
The story goes like:
Frank claims he saw a demon last night stealing his car and now wants the money back from the insurance company. Now, the insurance agent (that's me) says: Do you have evidence for it? No! As long as you can't present evidence for it, you will not get the money!
You see, I observed, that Frank couldn't present evidence so far - thus I stated that what I observed.
manu191357 2 years ago
He doesn't present it in this video because he is introducing the topic. I don't know how you missed this obvious point.
hawke123 2 years ago
There is no need to establish my claim!
It is self-evident - however it has an expiry date.
As I said: As soon as you present empirical evidence for the supernatural, you have proven my claim false.
manu191357 2 years ago
Yes, embrace fallacious reasoning. Make assertions which you refuse to support and shift the burden of proof. What exactly is self-evident?
hawke123 2 years ago
Here is the original story:
Frank claims in his video (at 3:12 min) to present evidence (outside of this book [Bible]) for the existence of God.
Here is my response:
Frank, you haven't presented empirical evidence for God so far. You promised to, but didn't deliver !
As long as you don't present empirical evidence for your 'God' I am putting your assumption into the same category as unicorns, fairies, witches, etc.
manu191357 2 years ago
Again, this video merely showed his opening remarks. He presents the evidence in the rest of his presentation. Your argument is pathetically weak.
hawke123 2 years ago
Well, I havn't seen the evidence yet (not in this video). This is nothing but a prestidigitation out at the anual fair.
But it looks like you know the evidence as well - so present it and proof that God exists!
manu191357 2 years ago
From your posts you seem arrogant and insincere. Convince me otherwise so I don't end up wasting my time.
hawke123 2 years ago
It is not my intention to offend you or Frank.
All I want is, to be able to evaluate Frank's evidence for the existence of God that he claimed to deliver. I didn't attend Frank's presentation and this video here ends before the supposed evidence is given.
Presenting a video with a claim like Frank's without eventually delivering what was promised seems to me (mildly speaking) like teasing.
If you have the evidence or know where I can find it - please let me know.
manu191357 2 years ago
Have you read Frank's books? Or done any research, such as the Bible? There is tons of evidence it's so awesome!! Trust me, you will never be the same once you get saved! :)
zonacat17 2 years ago
I was raised as a catholic and became a reborn christian when I was 18. I know the Bible very well!
Now I don't believe in God anymore - I am grown up and know better. I know, that the Bible was made by man and it is not the inspired word of a supernatural deity (there is plenty of scientific evidence and enough arguments that support that) and that faith in a supernatural personal deity is an illusion.
Life and science is awesome to me and I don't need a God - I think in different pictures!
manu191357 2 years ago
What do you believe otherwise? What is your proof of our existence?
zonacat17 2 years ago
See some of the videos in my favorites!
You just confirmed to yourself that I exist by sending a comment to me. So now you know with a very high probability that I exist.
Otherwise you would have to assume that I am just an illusion of yours or someone else produced an illusion of me in you.
manu191357 2 years ago
Ok. LOL! :) It's all difference of opinion. I mean no hard feelings to anybody. Have a great day!
zonacat17 2 years ago
But opinions don't necessarily correspond to reality!
manu191357 2 years ago
Here is a logical argument that holds true.
Propositions:
1. Supernatural entities, per definition, can not be subjected to empirical testing.
2. God is a supernatural entity
Conclusion:
It is not possible to present empirical evidence for God.
Furthermore:
It's more beneficial to take those explanations that explain the unknown (universe, life, ...) with the known (empirical and theoretical knowledge) and discard those which try to explain the unknown with the unknown (God).
manu191357 2 years ago
The conclusion does not follow from those premises. The only thing that could be drawn from this argument, if sound, is that God cannot be subjected to empirical testing. While God himself cannot be tested in the way we can test theories about the natural world it does not mean there cannot be empirical evidence of his existence. If there's a God it's perfectly possible he could leave evidence of himself in the natural world, philosophy, history, etc.
hawke123 2 years ago
Why not hear out what Christian apologists have to present before making such arguments, hm?
hawke123 2 years ago
I do 'hear out what Christian apologists have to present' .
However, they only teach what to think instead of how to think!
manu191357 2 years ago 13
This is simply not true. There's an apologetics site I regularly visit linking to courses and mp3s teaching logic and biblical history.
hawke123 2 years ago
Logic alone (pure reason) leads to infinite regressions and not to true knowledge about the natural world. But combined with critical rational thinking and empirical testing (scientific method) it has brought us to the stars.
manu191357 2 years ago
How will you be able to link the 'left behind' evidence to a supernatural entity.
The authorship of a product can only be established if the author makes himself known by forgery-proof means. Eventually, this is only possible by sensual and/or technical observation of the process where the author makes the product!
Also - I didn't claim that 'there can't be empirical evidence of God' - that is your straw man. I am claiming - It is not possible to present valid empirical evidence for God!
manu191357 2 years ago
Not necessarily. Some phenomena and events are best explained by God. Only question begging for naturalism rather than following evidence where it leads prevents such conclusions. Just because we do not personally see him performing these feats does not mean we are unwarranted in concluding he is the best explanation.
On what grounds do you claim it is not possible to present empirical evidence for God? I hope you have something more than question begging.
hawke123 2 years ago
Thinking or concluding that something is the best explanation is not presenting empirical evidence!
'On what grounds ...'
You are repeating yourself. I have given you enough 'grounds'. It's your turn.
manu191357 2 years ago
So then what in your opinion would count as empirical evidence for God?
I repeat myself because you have been avoiding expanding on those premises you posted. What reasons support them? Please do not shift the burden of proof. You made that argument.
hawke123 2 years ago
'So then what in your opinion would count as empirical evidence for God?'
Read my last comment - catchword 'fingerprints'
manu191357 2 years ago
Here is my next feed/food for you (I've placed it already 1 hour ago):
Logic alone (pure reason) leads to infinite regressions and not to true knowledge about the natural world. But combined with critical rational thinking and empirical testing (scientific method) it has brought us to the stars.
Establishing the authorship of products works the same way.
Now its your turn to present empirical evidence for the existence of God.
manu191357 2 years ago 25
@manu191357 Here is the empirical evidence. You borrow "reason" or rationality from the Christian worldview and then try to deny the source of such rationality. That is philosophically impossible--you are bending over backwards. What is the basis for rationality if the universe itself is a random accident. W/o rationality that comes from a rational source, we could never do science in that random universe. Observing rationality points somewhere. You did not make yourself.
Habakkuk2v20 1 year ago
@Habakkuk2v20
'Here is the empirical evidence....'
You are presenting a logical argument. Empirical evidence must be observable; so present criteria (e.g. define 'rationality') and a procedure to observe and test for rationality. And then unambiguously link the 'observed' rationality to an observable creator of this rationality. Then you can claim to have empirical evidence for a creator of reationality as defined.
Also, reason and rationality was there long before Christianity!
manu191357 1 year ago
@Habakkuk2v20
'Observing rationality points somewhere...'
Explain how you 'observe' rationality. I would agree to say that one can observe rational thinking or rational acting. Rationality is a concept, like love, hate, braveness, ... but they are not real existing things thus can not be observed!
But granted that rationality could be observed - can you come up with some testable properties of this 'somewhere' from you observation?
manu191357 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@manu191357 Here is the empirical evidence. You borrow "reason" or rationality from the Christian worldview and then try to deny the source of such rationality. That is philosophically impossible--you are bending over backwards. What is the basis for rationality if the universe itself is a random accident. W/o rationality that comes from a rational source, we could never do science in that random universe. Observing rationality points somewhere. You did not make yourself.
Habakkuk2v20 1 year ago
@manu191357 Use the method stated in your post to find the evidence of God's existence for yourself. It's there if you REALLY want to find it. I understand if you don't though. If I didn't know that the God of the Bible existed, I certainly wouldn't choose to believe in a God that held me accountable to the moral standard given by God in the Bible and live under the threat of going to Hell.
bbreon75 10 months ago
Here is another version
Propositions:
1. Supernatural entities, per definition, can not be subjected to empirical testing
2. Empirical testing is oberservation by sensual and/or technical means
3. The authorship of a product can only be established by empirically testing the production process including the producer
4. A product with un-established authorship can not establish the existence of it's author
5. God is a supernatural entity
cont