@mgt247 Yes, when you think about the story of Christ!!!! what happened they accused Jesus and hung him on the cross ...reasd the story ..Yes...Christ was hated and so ate his people !
@a5dr3 Not in the big scheme of things, but thanks anyway. I was able to discern from T2 references in subsequent parts that it dates to approximately July 1991.
Well, note at 5:22, he indicates that biology taught from an evolutionary point of view is an attack on Christianity. This is not true. Evolution has no position on Christianity. It's a scientific theory, formulated using the scientific method. The attack is created in the minds of the believers. He does the same thing with his discussion on artificial intelligence.
@mgt247 He didn't say that the evolutionary worldview is a attack on Christianity- He speaking of the nature of the non believer and the method of deconstructionism of what Christianity is. meaning that everything the Christian offers as proof is molded and fixed to the concept of that worldview that opposes it. This is the strawman of this comment my friend, you have to know the context inwhich he is speaking from.
@mgt247 He didn't say that the evolutionary worldview is a attack on Christianity- He speaking of the nature of the non believer and the method of deconstructionism of what Christianity is. meaning that everything the Christian offers as proof is molded and fixed to the concept of that worldview that opposes it. This is the strawman of this comment my friend, you have to know the context inwhich he is speaking from.
@mgt247 He didn't say that the evolutionary worldview is a attack on Christianity- He speaking of the nature of the non believer and the method of deconstructionism of what Christianity is. meaning that everything the Christian offers as proof is molded and fixed to the concept of that worldview that opposes it. This is the strawman of this comment my friend, you have to know the context inwhich he is speaking from.
Bahnsen was one of Davids Mighty Men , we have no one to take his place that can smash Atheism like Greg , No one could stand against him........Ravi isn't even close
@WHITEHOUSE1600DC I agree. He stood firm and was fearless when debating against atheists. Just compare William Lane Craig & Edward Tabash's debate with Bahnsen and Tabash's debate with each other.
I think it's notable that Atheists keep coming back to listen to apologetics... you'd think if they were really SURE of their beliefs that they would have better things to do.
BUT: The truth is WAY DEEP DOWN they want to believe in God, and to know Him, because that's what they were created for - though they vehemently deny it.
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your arguement incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your arguement incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of non reason for the rest of your life. lol
Ok, so some non-believers mock and oppose believers. So what? There are plenty of atheists who mind their own business and respect people's right in believing, practicing religion, etc. No reason to lump everyone together, just like believers come in different varieties as well.
@tjs11487 Dawson Bethrick has successfully refuted every presuppositional arguement with Objectivist Epistemology. my comments are marked as spam when I try to advertise his blog spot in presup vid comments
Only a contemptible coward or nut case would kick around a Bible, but such nutty individuals do exist. It is not all roses out there and life is full of hostile and miserable anti-God people. Good video.
You can be skeptical til you're blue in the face, and then be skeptical of the color blue; it doesn't work.
You said you would accept something if it were cohesive with logic. Yet you have no ultimate standand of logic to hold anything up to, and are ultimately measuring the facts by the rubber ruler of your own opinion as a standard.
Wow I just read all the crappy posts you wrote. You said a lot but it didn't mean much, or maybe I'm just stupid :). Can you simplify all of that into a cohesive argument? Are you insinuating that non-believers don't believe in God because they are too skeptical and don't give the idea a chance. Why is God the answer for you? It is quite a mystery about how the universe came to be, but wouldn't God creating it just create even bigger questions about how it all began?
Just check out all the videos on this page. Especially the debates. Trying to sum up all the reasons why someone believes in God, especially from the perspective of the TAG argument, is simple but also complex. Tag in order to be appreciated will probably lead an intelligent person who doesn't know much about philosophy through a whole survey of the field.
I am aware that it takes more than just belief in god's existence and the whole Jesus thing to be a Christian. But if you do not believe those two aspects of the faith, you would be foolish to call yourself a Christian. I do not reject all aspects of the Christian faith, I agree with many of Jesus' teachings as they are portrayed in the Bible. However I do not believe that he is the son of any god, that he is alive currently, or that the judeo-christian god even exists. Therefore I have...
This is what Lewis calls the trilema. He is either who he claimed to be, the Messiah, as in understood in the Jewish context, - he is a lunatic or he is a liar. It is just severe intellectual laziness to claim that he was only a good person. - These claims that you make about logic are simply not valid. I believe the past playlist of the video series Bahnsen will explain why.
Alright well then I guess the same applies to all the other messiahs who were crawling around ancient Rome at the time? And yes, they were also crucified for their preachings. The Romans crucified countless messiahs and criminals. And what about Muhammad? He must have either been a lunatic, liar, or telling the truth. And Joseph Smith as well? This is horrible logic because it applies to anyone who dies for their cause. Or even to people who don't die for their cause.
No. If your interested just watch the videos. All those basic objections are also answered on countless websites if you google around, but Bahnsen imo is the best. If you go to the CMF website he has short articles written on all those subjects.
"Alright well then I guess the same applies to all the other messiahs" - No one has ever come close to making the claims that Christ did except for anonymous lunatics. Certainly not Muhammad or Joseph Smith. These smaller issues lead to large ones and to accurately academically assess the truthfulness of the entire Christian worldview takes a lot of personal study. this page is a great starting point. Bahnsen is legendary
I don't believe Jesus was the son of god and am not completely convinced that he ever even existed. Why would I bother trying to understand the rest of Christian theology? I don't believe in Jesus so I don't really care what the rest of it entails...
It's an important part of the culture in which you live, at least historically. It doesn't matter if you personally believe it to be true or false. For that matter, it may help you come to a better understanding of why it is false and why others should regard it in the same way.
Again, no one claimed what Jesus did and if even if they did it would just be an arbitrary unsubstantiated claim. -You come on a Christian page making simpleminded, trite objections that any Sunday school child could refute and then instead of attempting to do some type of research on what you yourself claim to not understand much of, you say your not really interested. So why bother people? You don't know enough to take an informed position, much less debate. Your opinion is not worth critique.
What trite objections have I made that a Sunday school child could refute? To be honest, it's been a while so I don't exactly remember the gist of this conversation, but I am more than certain I have made none such claims. Actually I've done plenty of research regarding the accuracy of the Bible, and the life of Jesus. Researching these two core components of Christianity it is clear that Christianity is all hogwash. No one claimed what Jesus did? Plenty of people have claimed to...
...to be the messiah foretold in the old testament! Now who hasn't done the research? This is a consistently recurring trend historically. Simon of Peraea? Vespasian? Moses of Crete? You must have forgotten about them. Clearly I know plenty more on this topic than you. If you aren't capable or refuting what I'm saying that's fine, I understand. But don't try to spin this as if it is me that lacks information. I'm giving you tons and you're just backing down.
@watermelonygoodness Parallelism has been debunked plenty of times in the past. The problem with your argument is time, place and context. What reason do Jews who rejected tuns of other claims of existing gods have to all of a sudden start accepting pagan beliefs which they despised to begin with? Also how do these said Jews come by such resources to conect them with these false massiahs you claim were there during the time.
@watermelonygoodness You were giving examples of historical parallels to the story of Christ. I gave you a debate on the subject in the youtube link among other things.
@a5dr3 The egyptian and greek gods before jesus came along were suppose to fly in the air, walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. So nothing Jesus supposedly did was new.
Lets assume you are correct, (you absolutely aren't, except in such a general sense that your point is trivial,) what exactly do you think your proving? I'm sure your not proselytizing your views here, because you understand Bahnsen is a professional philosopher and it would be the height of arrogance and foolishness to casually attempt to challenge his lifetime of dedicated study with such a 101 fallacy such as cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
...no desire or need to understand the smaller details of Christianity or Christian life to deny Christianity. For instance, if I denied transubstantiation only, I could still consider myself a Christian and continue learning other aspects of the faith. But if I deny Jesus and god well then I'm just not a Christian by any standard and therefore I will stop learning the aspects of the faith. Why would I live by Christian standards and not be a Chrisitan? I wouldn't. I use my own logic as...
...a standard, yes. But so do you. Christianity seems logical to you, but not to me. This in itself proves that there is no ultimate standard of logic shared by all otherwise we would have the same logic which we clearly do not. Even if there is ultimate logic, that doesn't prove the existence of any god. And even if logic did prove the existence of god, it wouldn't prove Christianity.
You've thrown logic out the window then. If logic is falible it is no longer a reliable.
No we don't use two different logics; rather someone is ultimately in error. We can deduce this from the fact that logic is found through out induction and all of life as we know it.
You have different presuppositions yet you still hold to a standard you've just said is nothing but opinion.
You can't prove anything in your worldview much less christianity. You can't even prove your own existance, so I don't see the burden of proof you claim I need when you don't have one ultimate standard by which to approach this transcendental.
@MRKetter81 I think therefore i am. I don't need to prove my own existance why would anyone? Why write such obsurd statements as you can't prove your own existance?Christianity is a myth but Christians do exist. The Bible is obviously false as it contradicts itself.
@hydrolito why cant God propose the same statement, "i think therefor i am" why would he need to prove himself to you or anyone for that matter? How could he 'prove" himself to you? youve done what this man is talking about. youve already, from the get-go, decided the bible is false and that God does not exist. "proof" only has influential properties in the realm of your current worldview. you presuppose God CANT exist, leaving no room for evidence or what you called proof. hypocrite.
@nosloppyagape I didn't claim to creat the universe or any other such thing, such great claims if they were to be accepted would require evidence. Where is any evidence that the Bible's god created the universe? Hey I grew up going to church and presupposed christian god, but evidence shows otherwise.
@hydrolito the bible is evidence. so is nature so is logic so is the concept of guilt they exist. and the bible tells us how. evidence... Gods word by nature is more than an acceptable proof of his existence and sovereignty. this evidence is here and you see it everyday. yea you even use things like logic which can only be explain through Christ and still say theirs no evidence of him. i don't care if you grew up in the church. its irrelevant and your presuppositions have changed.
@hydrolito "I think therefore I am" has logical context to it that requires a continuity with existance. You haven't proven that continuity without a consistent reason to accept inductive principles that back up such a claim, and your worldview provides no such backing; only mere assumption. As you said "Making the claim doesn't make it so." and all I've heard from you is assertions you can't back.
@MRKetter81 What did I assert that I can't back? I didn't claim to creat universe, I didn't claim to be without sin, I didn't claim to be holy, etc. The things claimed about the Biblical god can't be backed. What is my worldview? It's not based on some book so how do you know it? Obviously I can see with my eyes and hear with ears and read so I can understand that the things claimed in Bible are not as the universe is.
The burden of proof is yours to prove you have an ultimate standard by which to judge christianity true or false. If logic is subjective to a mass of opinions, and the question being asked is transcendental in nature, then your standard is weak and inconsistent.
Telling me I'm guilty of it as well once again doesn't work here. You are the one making judgment calls on a transcendental when you have yet to prove how you're worldview can account for one.
Thus your bias' play havoc concerning a subject you are unable to fully explore. Your epistology is wrong, and that's what leads you to error concerning the evidence in favor of a transcendental.
Inotherwords christopher columbus could sail around the world to fully explore what was once a, and is no longer, a transcendental to the old world but you can't sail around God.
There is no way for you to fully explore His being through your finite comprehention to make any simple judgement call.
As a skeptic-rationalist you claim that you don't assume anything until you're able to comprehend the logic of it. The problem is your comprehention is too limited a scope to approach a transcendental even though you experience them on a daily basis. You experience induction, logic, and the universe yet you can't give any account for their existence other than calling them an axiom with no axis which logic dictates is completely unstable.
In a atomistic worldview there is no neutrality. In a inductive worldview there is no neutrality
Now if your worldview includes the slightest hint of either of these concepts, which is impossible not to, then your approach towards a transcendental which can not by any means be fully explored unless you take on the very same nature thereof is tainted by your presuppositions one way or the other.
Your worldview is defeated by the video above. Neutrality is a Myth, and your worldview assumes otherwise. Yet every single electron you're made up of is in complete submission to the world around you and the sum thereof, but you say otherwise.
You're bias by all the evidence to the contrary and then purport the theist to be wrong on the basis he doesn't approach the evidence using the existential neutrality your worldview can't even account for.
From what you have said I think I'll make the fair assumption you're a skeptical-rationalist which is the usual atheist bandwagon epistemology of choice. Which is why I'm finding inconsistencies all over the place; you're bias and don't bother to account for it concerning transcendentals. You also don't even bother to give explanation of a propper approach to transcendentals other than the usual presupposed undefensible banter, because your epistemology doesn't even bother to touch the subject.
"For the most reliable evidence, we must look to the Bible." For the most reliable evidence? Well, the Bible is not reliable. I presented to you seven falsehoods in the Bible and you gave me a weak rebuttal to only one of them. What about the other six? And all the others in the Bible? And where is that evidence to disprove evolution. You STILL haven't shown me any. You're grasping at straws now (calling me a dense sinner.) As far as intelligence, I can spell and you can't. Sinner?
Those "seven falsehoods" are quite subjective. Again.. I'm not gonna bother to walk you through these things when you obviously haven't.
You make alot of open subjective statements with no backing and then claim your right on the basis of your own statement which is completely, utterly and openly fallacious.
You don't reason; you just make claims and call yourself suported by your own claims = circular.
Are you telling me that my belief that the world is round, and my belief that pi = 3.14 are biased? Please demonstrate to me how these views are biased.
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)
There are more verses like this. I'm not biased I'm quoting the Bible word for word.
I don't need to show you anything. My ability to convince "you" is not the end-all be-all to wother or not you have a valid point. Also considering your incoherent arguments I doubt anyone could.
You ramble on about logical contradictions you haven't proven, and are reaching to prove your right in the subject by diverting to other claims.
So I present to you innumerable amounts of evidence, and you show me none making the argument that you don't need to show me evidence of your position. I don't really see why you are exempt from having to produce one tiny piece of evidence. But that only goes to show that you have no basis for what you believe. Shouldn't you be trying to convert me not just insult me? That's what Christianity is all about. Come on, convert me, prove me wrong. You can't. You would have if you could. Weak.
Well at my church (which was a non-denominational church) we were always told to focus more on praying and getting to know the lord and trying to reach out to others and show them God's love. I don't know what church your from but that was the focus of mine. I guess you missed that part of the Bible. We read scripture and talked about it as well but we mainly would talk about living our lives as good Christians and spreading the love of Jesus to everyone. You can't say I didn't study just...
Part 2: ...because my church doesn't have the exact same interpretation of the Bible (which is quite vague, which explains the various denominations of Christianity), we focused more on saving people then condemning them. But my church and your church are both wrong so it doesn't really matter does it? Do you criticize Catholics and other denominations of Christianity as well as atheists? Do you attend Westboro Baptist Church by any chance? If not, what do you think of their...
I can say you didn't study all avenues befor you decided that you could make an assessment of an entire worldview which would only make sense to do if you're to have a propper justification for insinuated claims of error in the entirety.
It's like saying "because house cats don't like to swim in water there for all cats don't" with out bothering to investigate the rest of each type of cat.
Thus you left a worldview on the basis of one church.. pretty weak.
I left a worldview on the basis of the Bible not on the basis of the teachings of my particular church. I will be the first to admit that my church misrepresented the Bible in some areas. That is why I started looking into things myself.
Part 3: ...interpretation of scripture and the way they use it to justify the things they do? They would speak to you the same way you speak to me of my former faith I am sure.
I'm not giving you alternatives till you admit you haven't looked, because it wouldn't do you any help.
While you have looked, you have bias; everyone does. You are not above having a presupposition.
Now I know I do, but at least my epistemology consists with that notion. You have yet to admit that you're bias, and when I accuse of it act oblivious to what I'm talking about it.
You want to know how I know you're bias in your approach? Everyone is!
I had a Christian presupposition because I was a Christian at the time. I'm not going to say that I haven't looked. While I may be many things, I am not a liar. I looked. You telling me that I haven't had enough time to have researched thoroughly can also be applied to you. The fact that I've actually been able to mention things you can't refute only shows that I have researched while you haven't which would explain why you don't have alternatives to show.
You've put up strawmen then shot them down again and again.
The problem is you are bias.. and there is no way for you around that.
Even if you say you had a christian presupposition at one time did that include doctrine? Your ignorance in the subject has displayed otherwise.
You left a worldview you knew only so much about. You left questions about God and the bible to be begged then when your weakness was exposed left a worldview concerning a transcendental you never fully explored.
I left a worldview on the basis of basic reasoning. The Bible contradicts itself, does not present a clear image of God, and does not present a clear moral code. Therefore there is no reason for me to trust it as a source of information. Outside of the Bible there is no evidence to suggest any god, therefore there is no reason to believe in that god. You have applied that logic to every other religion, what makes Christianity so different? It's a good fit for you? Awesome. That doesn't...
Again with the stating of a universal negative... "There is no evidence"? Prove that statement, because last I checked that's not possible unless you're omniscient; you're entering a universal negative which logic forbids.
@MRKetter81 You claimed universal negative in saying everyone was biased so why criticize him in saying there is no evidence. If there is any real evidence please show it to us. So where is any evidence Bible is true? Where is Noah's ark, tower of babel, pillar of salt, Philistine giants remains, Egyptian record of the 10 plagues, etc.?
@hydrolito Saying everyone is biased is by no means a universal negative whatsoever. Where you draw such a conclusion is beyond any philosophy professor I ever heard of. Saying there "there is no transcendental" would be a universal negative, because you can't validate nonexistence without omniscience.
Now if you said "No one is biased" then you're declaring a universal negative
...make what you believe any more true. The specifics of Christianity are irrelevant. The Bible is completely absurd therefore I don't care about ANYTHING it says. I don't care how someone interpreted a certain passage, because I don't believe any of the passages in the Bible to be demonstrably true. There are only two initial things you need to believe to become a Christian: God exists, Jesus was his son. I don't believe either of those things so why would I look into any other aspects?
Your opinion of the Bible or Christians is no standard by which either are to be judged. You hate what you don't understand nore believe which comes as no suprise.
It takes alot more than believing God exists and Jesus is His son to be a christian which shows how little you knew about the worldview before you left it.
I still have yet to hear on what basis you stand to judge a thing. What's your epistemology? What defines right and wrong, or true and false?
Are you a skeptic? Are you a rationalist? Considering these questions pretty much determine how you look at anything in the world much less the facts I'd say they're quite important.
I haven't pushed the antie thesis with you, as I don't feal the need, because you've displayed contradiction already and you clearly have no intention of explaining it.
Explaining what? My epistemology? Right and wrong are subjective, we're having that discussion elsewhere remember, Ketter? Things that make logical sense I interpret to be true, things that do not make logical sense I interpret to be false. Some things are ultimately unknowable but some things are not. To say that God defines true and false is ridiculous because 1. you had to judge whether or not you would believe in God before you decided to use him as a basis of what's true and what's...
Things that don't make sense? So you're a skeptic? or a Rationalist?
Why do I need to repeat the same point? Cause you're not listening.
Nothing is ultimately knowible without induction, and now we can see the gargantuan inconsistencies in your worldview where you spend your time begging the question.
If right and wrong are subjective. Then I'm right and so are you. (Yea that really makes sense! lol). Then your whole arguing the point is worthless.
I'm aware I'm biased.. in fact I said so when I made that point about you being bias which you clearly read through your bias.
The point was my Epistemology is consistant with that bias, and can clearly point out to you how any other epistemology other than a foundational one won't work, because of the presuppositions you undermind in yours concerning transcendentals.
...false. 2. You had no initial reason to believe this claim that there is a god! You did it based on peer pressure, emotion, a desperate yearning for stability and answers, or something similar.
Also don't ever put "false" in front of me again if you think logic is subjectional.
You have no basis to tell me, or anyone for that matter, that anything is false. If "true and false" are subjective then why even bother stating them. You're begging the question on your own part.
I don't think logic is subjective. I think morals are subjective.
Alright, I'll rephrase, there is no evidence that I have ever seen. I'm still waiting for the evidence you have to support your view. I've given you plenty to support mine.
@MRKetter81 How do you know everyone is biased based on what few people you know have you forgotten you example assuming all of the cats not swimming already?
@hydrolito Everyone is biased via the natural laws of physics. Your brain can't break the laws of physics so I know you're biased as is anyone. You have chemical synapses in your head that work according to their usage. In philosophy it's called a presupposition. You're biased; everyone is.
@MRKetter81 Why do you say his condemnation is just based on what evidence? None is given. I can do that to your an idiot and that is a just assessment you'd know that to if you studied.
@hydrolito "Why do you say his condemnation is just based on what evidence?" All evidence to the contrary. Your worldview has no basis for justice eternal or otherwise.
@MRKetter81 Why is his condemnation just based on what evidence? How do you know he didn't study more than you and therefore conclude you don't know what your going on about. Maybe your the one who didn't study and accepted something as fact without investigating why it could be wrong.
You know nothing about faith, because you lack the understanding and never bothered to actually seek an answer, because you never wanted one in the first place.
When have I sinned? You don't know or understand my life or lifestyle. I do know that the Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So if anyone is sinning here it is you. Don't make assumptions, it's not very becoming. Or intelligent. Your "artical" didn't really prove anything. You said yourself that Herod died in 1 BCE. This is even EARLIER than I had mentioned which only leaves a greater distance between the death of King Herod and the Caesar Augustus' census.
Well it does apply to me, but I base my life around the Bible so I shouldn't be expected to live by it. You do base your life around Biblical claims, so you should live by them.
There are many other answers out there that you clearly never bothered to investigate by your lack of understanding in theology as well.
Yet I conclude.. you never bothered because you don't like the God of the Bible as a matter of opinion. You live a sinful life, or think you don't, as scripture lays out and consider your self-judge and jury of the Bible, God's actions and those who follow accordingly. You are not above OVERLOOKING things in ordor to make your OWN case.
I sought answers for four years, don't assume I didn't look, newsflash: you don't actually know me. I guess it's just your nature to make baseless assumptions, that's why you are so unable to see reason. I can't make you see if you won't open your eyes, Ketter. Give me links. Solid sources to explain the seven problems I mentioned. Find me a circle with a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30. Prove to me that the Earth is flat. If you can't prove these things then you have to admit
The Bible is an unreliable source of knowledge and find me outside sources to prove the existence of the Christian God and Jesus' resurrection. Would you cite a History textbook that claimed the Holocaust never happened? Of course, not. That's absurd. Likewise, it is absurd to claim the world is flat. The Bible makes this claim repeatedly among other aforementioned false claims. Therefore the Bible is an unreliable source. Therefore you must present outside sources to prove your God.
There's alot more behind the history to the bible that I don't have the time nor need to hold your hand and walk you through each point in where I can clearly see your pride will always be your downfall.
Herods fears and suspicions were immediately aroused, and he determined from the chief priests and scribes that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem. Then he called in the astrologers and asce
Counting back 30 years would bring us to the fall of 2 B.C.E. as the time of the human birth of the Son of God. (Compare Lu 3:1, 23 with Daniels prophecy of the seventy weeks at Da 9:24-27.)—See SEVENTY WEEKS.
The astrologers who visited Jesus. The apostle Matthew tells us that after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem in the days of Herod the king, astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem, saying that they saw his star when they were in the east.
John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry (evidently in the spring of the year) ahead of Jesus as Jesus forerunner, preparing the way. (Lu 1:35, 36) Jesus, whom the Bible indicates was born in the fall of the year, was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized. (Lu 3:21-23) Therefore he was baptized, most likely, in the fall, about October of 29 C.E.
The available evidence indicates that Herod died likely in the year 1 B.C.E. The Bible historian Luke tells us that John came baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Lu 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. The Romans did not use the accession-year system; consequently, the 15th year would run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E.
(Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Accordingly, Herods death occurred in 2 or 1 B.C.E. We must bear in mind, however, that Josephus has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and is therefore not the most reliable source. For the most reliable evidence, we must look to the Bible.
@MRKetter81 The Bible is not the most reliable source, what evidence shows it is even a reliable source let alone a most reliable source? Making claims it is reliable does not make its so.
Right, cause thats totally Bahnsens position. Yawn. I'd love to debate a 15 year old that knows everything but I have a life. You should read some apologetics books aimed at young people and you'll get your basic questions answered.
@hydrolito "The Bible is not the most reliable source, what evidence shows it is even a reliable source let alone a most reliable source?"
Look up Lee Strobel for a basic argument, but there are plenty of other scholars as well. When dealing with historical documents it's all about context of the time and authentication of particular events. Chances are you're not asking for proof you're asking to be convinced which is very subjective.
Another line of calculation centers around the age of Herod at the time of his death. Josephus says that he was about 70 years old. He says that at the time Herod received his appointment as governor of Galilee (which is generally dated 47 B.C.E.), he was 15 years old; but this has been understood by scholars to be an error, 25 years evidently being intended.
On the other hand, there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E., about three months before Passover, while the one in 4 B.C.E. was only partial. The total eclipse in 1 B.C.E. was on January 8 (January 10, Julian), 18 days before Shebat 2, the traditional day of Herods death. Another eclipse (partial) occurred on December 27 of 1 B.C.E. (December 29, Julian).—See CHRONOLOGY (Lunar eclipses).
According to Josephus, Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]) Since there was an eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian), some have concluded that this was the eclipse referred to by Josephus.
Presenting an argument to this effect in The Journal of Theological Studies, W. E. Filmer writes that evidence from Jewish tradition indicates that Herods death occurred on Shebat 2 (the month of Shebat falls in January-February of our calendar).—Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284.
his first regnal year could run from Nisan of 39 to Nisan of 38 B.C.E.; similarly, if counted from his capture of Jerusalem in 37 (or 36) B.C.E., his first regnal year could start in Nisan 36 (or 35) B.C.E. So if, as Josephus says Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem, and if those years are counted in each case according to the regnal year, his death could have been in 1 B.C.E.
Now, Josephus says that Herod died 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) This might indicate that the date of his death was 2 or perhaps 1 B.C.E. It may be that the Jewish historian Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession-year method, as had been done with the kings of the line of David. If Herod was appointed king by Rome in 40 B.C.E.,..
but the data of another historian, Appianos, would place the event in 39 B.C.E. By the same method Josephus places Herods capture of Jerusalem in 37 B.C.E., but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey (which was in 63 B.C.E.). (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) His reference to that latter event would make the date of Herods taking the city of Jerusalem 36 B.C.E...
Date of His Death. A problem arises with regard to the time of Herods death. Some chronologers hold that he died in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. Their chronology is based to a large extent on Josephus history. In dating the time that Herod was appointed king by Rome, Josephus uses a consular dating, that is, he locates the event as occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this, Herods appointment as king would be in 40 B.C.E.,...
So then what would you call faith? Believing things that you have every reason not to believe? Believing things that make no sense? This is why I first said "blind faith." You believe in something that you have no real reason to believe in.
"First of all everybody admits that our calendar is mistaken by some 4-6 years or even more. In addition it must be noted that an inscription in Antioch has been discovered showing Cyrenius as being in that city and holding the office of chief magistrate in the year 8 BC. It is not also known that the said census us to take place every 14 years. Apparently Cyrenius was governor of Syria twice: from 4 BC to AD 1, when this census was taken, and again in AD 6."
I'm not talking about Cyrenius, I'm talking about Caesar Augustus an King Herod. The census under Caesar Augustus and did not occur during King Herod's lifetime.
The point was the dating of such things are debatable if not all together over insinuating. You have clear bias that the Bible is wrong in your approach, and I could point you to evidence again and again, and still have you consider them weak by your own weak epistemology,
You're right.. you can't talk to me. You can't reason passed your own opinion about things and are quite dense.
So do you want to look at how logical you are approaching the evidence (which I sincerely doubt, because you seem to have no problem begging such crusual questions concerning the approach to evidence you've taken as a whole.) or shall we continue to argue over moot points of evidence "you" find convincing which are not only subjective as your approach to such evidence is just as moot.
Could you make all your replies to my comments by clicking reply? It's really annoying and difficult to have to read through all the posts here and figure out which one is responding to which. Plus your spelling and grammar are atrocious.
Pointing out simularities in genetics is no different.
We have simularities in genetics to pigs and horses as well. Yet you claim we have fossil records. Do you have any idea how rare the fossils of anything other than a clam, plant or insect are? Yet from such small numbers trying to reach back a billion years is very much reaching to try to add things up to a theory that's not as clear cut as it claims to be. Any debate concerning the location of such evidence is completely moot.
It's not just a similarity. We are more closely related to the chimpanzee than any other animal. And, not only are we related, we have a fused chromosome that is made up of two of theirs. We share more genetic material with a chimpanzee than a mouse shares with a rat. Mice and rats are not the same thing, they have different, but very similar DNA. Our DNA is more closely related to that of a chimpanzee a mouse's DNA is similar to a rat's. Do you deny that they share a common ancestor?
I am sorry to tell you that you are wrong about the number of fossils we have. Sorely wrong. We have found so many fossils that paleontologists spend countless hours debating over which transitional stage a certain fossil takes and trying to place them all. They do however all coincide with the theory of evolution. Which is another reason we should support the theory.
There's nothing "irrefutable" about radiometric dating. No one has ever triangulated the decay rate of any isotope nor could they if they tried. You would need to be able to do so from a span of at least 1000 years. (even that's reaching a bit considering the billions of years you're trying to prove)
Only once we look at our approach to such evidence is it possible to even bother to debate. Where you would say the glass is half full it's still more than half empty in this case.
When it comes to the evidence of evolution I find it generally someone looking at the glass half empty or full ect. The methods used for dating and distancing have no means of triangulating mathematically such distances or time periods.
In all such cases the two points become indistinguishable as the distance or time period are advanced.
Part 1: You listen to Greg Bahnsen and assume that the glass is half empty. I have looked at the glass and it is overflowing with evidence for evolution. I don't have a bias. I was a Christian for four years, I used to have a bias, the same bias you have, but I am open-minded, I looked into both sides of the argument and came to the conclusion that based on the evidence evolution is more likely to be true than untrue. 95% of scientists share my view. That means there are more historians....
So....everything in the big scary world to this guy is an attack on Christianity?
mgt247 9 months ago
@mgt247 Indeed, the world is opposed to Christ.
WorshipInTruth 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WorshipInTruth
"Indeed, the world is opposed to Christ."
Why?
mgt247 5 months ago
@mgt247 Yes, when you think about the story of Christ!!!! what happened they accused Jesus and hung him on the cross ...reasd the story ..Yes...Christ was hated and so ate his people !
thundergrace 3 weeks ago in playlist staying sane
Does anybody know exactly where & when this was recorded?
funhistory 10 months ago
@funhistory yes. but I have to track it down. Is it important?
a5dr3 9 months ago
@a5dr3 Not in the big scheme of things, but thanks anyway. I was able to discern from T2 references in subsequent parts that it dates to approximately July 1991.
funhistory 9 months ago
A classic use of the straw man argument. Greg Bahnsen fails.
vanzanen88 11 months ago
@vanzanen88 name the strawman
your wrong because your wrong doesn't make you wrong... so don't make that kind of statement.
theembracedofgod 11 months ago
@theembracedofgod
"name the strawman" in response to vanzanen88
Well, note at 5:22, he indicates that biology taught from an evolutionary point of view is an attack on Christianity. This is not true. Evolution has no position on Christianity. It's a scientific theory, formulated using the scientific method. The attack is created in the minds of the believers. He does the same thing with his discussion on artificial intelligence.
mgt247 5 months ago
@mgt247 He didn't say that the evolutionary worldview is a attack on Christianity- He speaking of the nature of the non believer and the method of deconstructionism of what Christianity is. meaning that everything the Christian offers as proof is molded and fixed to the concept of that worldview that opposes it. This is the strawman of this comment my friend, you have to know the context inwhich he is speaking from.
theembracedofgod 5 months ago
@mgt247 He didn't say that the evolutionary worldview is a attack on Christianity- He speaking of the nature of the non believer and the method of deconstructionism of what Christianity is. meaning that everything the Christian offers as proof is molded and fixed to the concept of that worldview that opposes it. This is the strawman of this comment my friend, you have to know the context inwhich he is speaking from.
theembracedofgod 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mgt247 He didn't say that the evolutionary worldview is a attack on Christianity- He speaking of the nature of the non believer and the method of deconstructionism of what Christianity is. meaning that everything the Christian offers as proof is molded and fixed to the concept of that worldview that opposes it. This is the strawman of this comment my friend, you have to know the context inwhich he is speaking from.
theembracedofgod 5 months ago
Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made FOOLISH the wisdom of this world?! 1 Corinthians 1:20
klarkratu 11 months ago
Bahnsen was one of Davids Mighty Men , we have no one to take his place that can smash Atheism like Greg , No one could stand against him........Ravi isn't even close
WHITEHOUSE1600DC 1 year ago
@WHITEHOUSE1600DC: Ravi is more of an evidentialist isn't he?
theocratickingdom30 1 year ago
@theocratickingdom30 Yes , very smart cookie , but we have no one like greg now
WHITEHOUSE1600DC 1 year ago
@WHITEHOUSE1600DC I agree. He stood firm and was fearless when debating against atheists. Just compare William Lane Craig & Edward Tabash's debate with Bahnsen and Tabash's debate with each other.
VlaDiDaDiY 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think it's notable that Atheists keep coming back to listen to apologetics... you'd think if they were really SURE of their beliefs that they would have better things to do.
BUT: The truth is WAY DEEP DOWN they want to believe in God, and to know Him, because that's what they were created for - though they vehemently deny it.
Why?
With acknowledgement comes responsibility.
lastdaysguitar 1 year ago
Dawson Bethrick has successfully refuted every presuppositional arguement with Objectivist Epistomology.
actionjackson864 1 year ago
@actionjackson864 Wow I can stipulate universal negatives too.. doesn't mean I'm right. Thanks for the here say.
MRKetter81 1 year ago
@MRKetter81 I dont understand your comment
actionjackson864 1 year ago
@actionjackson864 "refuted every presuppostional argument"?
For one that's a universal negative, as such a claim can't be universally validated and thus "here say" or redirect.
MRKetter81 1 year ago
@MRKetter81 lol ok man I think u knew what I meant...but thanks I'll be more careful with semantics in the future. haha ; ]
actionjackson864 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your arguement incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of fallacies for the rest of your life. lol
actionjackson864 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
any "presupper" of any Abrahamic religion needs to go to
bahnsenburner.blogspot.com
and prepare to have your arguement incinerated. please post on dawson's blog so he can talk some sense into you and keep you from walking around in confused circles of non reason for the rest of your life. lol
actionjackson864 1 year ago
Ok, so some non-believers mock and oppose believers. So what? There are plenty of atheists who mind their own business and respect people's right in believing, practicing religion, etc. No reason to lump everyone together, just like believers come in different varieties as well.
arkadyka 1 year ago
So you spend the first 5 minutes explaining to people the dangers of opposition. I watched a biography on Jim Jones and I can see some parallels.
bumbumlvr 1 year ago
I have MUCH more intellectual respect for Van Til and Bahnsen than I do for the Hitchens/Dawkins crowd.
tjs11487 1 year ago 29
@tjs11487 Dawson Bethrick has successfully refuted every presuppositional arguement with Objectivist Epistemology. my comments are marked as spam when I try to advertise his blog spot in presup vid comments
actionjackson864 1 year ago
@tjs11487 It's not only that Dawkins is an atheist apologist, he's also a philosophical lightweight. Aristotle would have laughed at him.
shyshortazn 11 months ago 2
@shyshortazn
Dawkins is philosophically bankrupt and just ignorant of reasoning.
theembracedofgod 11 months ago 2
@tjs11487 Don't you mean the Dawkins crowd? I think Hitchens is now convinced.
MPaulHolmes 1 week ago
Worldviews are at the very core of all human beings.
tjs11487 1 year ago 19
Actually, I'm quite disgusted with atheists who don't believe in objective, absolute truth.
tjs11487 1 year ago 3
I'm a committed atheist, but I have to admit - Bahnsen and Van Til were absolutely, 100% correct. There is no such thing as neutrality.
tjs11487 1 year ago 4
@tjs11487 They're The Best!!
Please keep gleaning from them.
JohnO318 1 year ago
Only a contemptible coward or nut case would kick around a Bible, but such nutty individuals do exist. It is not all roses out there and life is full of hostile and miserable anti-God people. Good video.
DrStevenz 1 year ago
You can be skeptical til you're blue in the face, and then be skeptical of the color blue; it doesn't work.
You said you would accept something if it were cohesive with logic. Yet you have no ultimate standand of logic to hold anything up to, and are ultimately measuring the facts by the rubber ruler of your own opinion as a standard.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Wow I just read all the crappy posts you wrote. You said a lot but it didn't mean much, or maybe I'm just stupid :). Can you simplify all of that into a cohesive argument? Are you insinuating that non-believers don't believe in God because they are too skeptical and don't give the idea a chance. Why is God the answer for you? It is quite a mystery about how the universe came to be, but wouldn't God creating it just create even bigger questions about how it all began?
schmuckyou 2 years ago
"Can you simplify all of that into a cohesive argument?"
Cohesive with your way of thinking or logic? You would do well to differentiate the two.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Just check out all the videos on this page. Especially the debates. Trying to sum up all the reasons why someone believes in God, especially from the perspective of the TAG argument, is simple but also complex. Tag in order to be appreciated will probably lead an intelligent person who doesn't know much about philosophy through a whole survey of the field.
a5dr3 2 years ago
I am aware that it takes more than just belief in god's existence and the whole Jesus thing to be a Christian. But if you do not believe those two aspects of the faith, you would be foolish to call yourself a Christian. I do not reject all aspects of the Christian faith, I agree with many of Jesus' teachings as they are portrayed in the Bible. However I do not believe that he is the son of any god, that he is alive currently, or that the judeo-christian god even exists. Therefore I have...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
This is what Lewis calls the trilema. He is either who he claimed to be, the Messiah, as in understood in the Jewish context, - he is a lunatic or he is a liar. It is just severe intellectual laziness to claim that he was only a good person. - These claims that you make about logic are simply not valid. I believe the past playlist of the video series Bahnsen will explain why.
a5dr3 2 years ago
Alright well then I guess the same applies to all the other messiahs who were crawling around ancient Rome at the time? And yes, they were also crucified for their preachings. The Romans crucified countless messiahs and criminals. And what about Muhammad? He must have either been a lunatic, liar, or telling the truth. And Joseph Smith as well? This is horrible logic because it applies to anyone who dies for their cause. Or even to people who don't die for their cause.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
No. If your interested just watch the videos. All those basic objections are also answered on countless websites if you google around, but Bahnsen imo is the best. If you go to the CMF website he has short articles written on all those subjects.
a5dr3 2 years ago
I don't even know what you're talking about.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
That''s my point
a5dr3 2 years ago
I meant I don't know what comment of mine you are referring to smart ass.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
"Alright well then I guess the same applies to all the other messiahs" - No one has ever come close to making the claims that Christ did except for anonymous lunatics. Certainly not Muhammad or Joseph Smith. These smaller issues lead to large ones and to accurately academically assess the truthfulness of the entire Christian worldview takes a lot of personal study. this page is a great starting point. Bahnsen is legendary
a5dr3 2 years ago
I don't believe Jesus was the son of god and am not completely convinced that he ever even existed. Why would I bother trying to understand the rest of Christian theology? I don't believe in Jesus so I don't really care what the rest of it entails...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
It's an important part of the culture in which you live, at least historically. It doesn't matter if you personally believe it to be true or false. For that matter, it may help you come to a better understanding of why it is false and why others should regard it in the same way.
Thomistica 2 years ago
Anonymous lunatics? They weren't anonymous in their time, they just didn't stick. Maybe if Constantine had of dreamed of one of them instead. Pity.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Again, no one claimed what Jesus did and if even if they did it would just be an arbitrary unsubstantiated claim. -You come on a Christian page making simpleminded, trite objections that any Sunday school child could refute and then instead of attempting to do some type of research on what you yourself claim to not understand much of, you say your not really interested. So why bother people? You don't know enough to take an informed position, much less debate. Your opinion is not worth critique.
a5dr3 2 years ago
What trite objections have I made that a Sunday school child could refute? To be honest, it's been a while so I don't exactly remember the gist of this conversation, but I am more than certain I have made none such claims. Actually I've done plenty of research regarding the accuracy of the Bible, and the life of Jesus. Researching these two core components of Christianity it is clear that Christianity is all hogwash. No one claimed what Jesus did? Plenty of people have claimed to...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
...to be the messiah foretold in the old testament! Now who hasn't done the research? This is a consistently recurring trend historically. Simon of Peraea? Vespasian? Moses of Crete? You must have forgotten about them. Clearly I know plenty more on this topic than you. If you aren't capable or refuting what I'm saying that's fine, I understand. But don't try to spin this as if it is me that lacks information. I'm giving you tons and you're just backing down.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
@watermelonygoodness Parallelism has been debunked plenty of times in the past. The problem with your argument is time, place and context. What reason do Jews who rejected tuns of other claims of existing gods have to all of a sudden start accepting pagan beliefs which they despised to begin with? Also how do these said Jews come by such resources to conect them with these false massiahs you claim were there during the time.
MRKetter81 1 year ago
@MRKetter81 I don't know what you're taking about. I haven't posted here in like 6 months.
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness You were giving examples of historical parallels to the story of Christ. I gave you a debate on the subject in the youtube link among other things.
MRKetter81 1 year ago
@a5dr3 The egyptian and greek gods before jesus came along were suppose to fly in the air, walk on water, heal the sick, raise the dead, etc. So nothing Jesus supposedly did was new.
hydrolito 1 year ago
Lets assume you are correct, (you absolutely aren't, except in such a general sense that your point is trivial,) what exactly do you think your proving? I'm sure your not proselytizing your views here, because you understand Bahnsen is a professional philosopher and it would be the height of arrogance and foolishness to casually attempt to challenge his lifetime of dedicated study with such a 101 fallacy such as cum hoc ergo propter hoc.
a5dr3 1 year ago
@watermelonygoodness
watch?v=yHd69NLk7nU&feature=related A presentation of on the reliability of the new testament.
watch?v=69DiCin8CL0 A look at the canonical reliability of scripture.
watch?v=00WOGeGcjYo debate between Mr. Dan Barker and Dr. James White.
MRKetter81 1 year ago
...no desire or need to understand the smaller details of Christianity or Christian life to deny Christianity. For instance, if I denied transubstantiation only, I could still consider myself a Christian and continue learning other aspects of the faith. But if I deny Jesus and god well then I'm just not a Christian by any standard and therefore I will stop learning the aspects of the faith. Why would I live by Christian standards and not be a Chrisitan? I wouldn't. I use my own logic as...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
...a standard, yes. But so do you. Christianity seems logical to you, but not to me. This in itself proves that there is no ultimate standard of logic shared by all otherwise we would have the same logic which we clearly do not. Even if there is ultimate logic, that doesn't prove the existence of any god. And even if logic did prove the existence of god, it wouldn't prove Christianity.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
You've thrown logic out the window then. If logic is falible it is no longer a reliable.
No we don't use two different logics; rather someone is ultimately in error. We can deduce this from the fact that logic is found through out induction and all of life as we know it.
You have different presuppositions yet you still hold to a standard you've just said is nothing but opinion.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
You can't prove anything in your worldview much less christianity. You can't even prove your own existance, so I don't see the burden of proof you claim I need when you don't have one ultimate standard by which to approach this transcendental.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
@MRKetter81 I think therefore i am. I don't need to prove my own existance why would anyone? Why write such obsurd statements as you can't prove your own existance?Christianity is a myth but Christians do exist. The Bible is obviously false as it contradicts itself.
hydrolito 1 year ago
@hydrolito why cant God propose the same statement, "i think therefor i am" why would he need to prove himself to you or anyone for that matter? How could he 'prove" himself to you? youve done what this man is talking about. youve already, from the get-go, decided the bible is false and that God does not exist. "proof" only has influential properties in the realm of your current worldview. you presuppose God CANT exist, leaving no room for evidence or what you called proof. hypocrite.
nosloppyagape 1 year ago
@nosloppyagape I didn't claim to creat the universe or any other such thing, such great claims if they were to be accepted would require evidence. Where is any evidence that the Bible's god created the universe? Hey I grew up going to church and presupposed christian god, but evidence shows otherwise.
hydrolito 1 year ago
@hydrolito the bible is evidence. so is nature so is logic so is the concept of guilt they exist. and the bible tells us how. evidence... Gods word by nature is more than an acceptable proof of his existence and sovereignty. this evidence is here and you see it everyday. yea you even use things like logic which can only be explain through Christ and still say theirs no evidence of him. i don't care if you grew up in the church. its irrelevant and your presuppositions have changed.
nosloppyagape 1 year ago
@hydrolito "I didn't claim to creat the universe or any other such thing, such great claims if they were to be accepted would require evidence."
I never claimed you did either so stop beating up strawmen arguments
MRKetter81 1 year ago
@hydrolito "I think therefore I am" has logical context to it that requires a continuity with existance. You haven't proven that continuity without a consistent reason to accept inductive principles that back up such a claim, and your worldview provides no such backing; only mere assumption. As you said "Making the claim doesn't make it so." and all I've heard from you is assertions you can't back.
MRKetter81 1 year ago
@MRKetter81 What did I assert that I can't back? I didn't claim to creat universe, I didn't claim to be without sin, I didn't claim to be holy, etc. The things claimed about the Biblical god can't be backed. What is my worldview? It's not based on some book so how do you know it? Obviously I can see with my eyes and hear with ears and read so I can understand that the things claimed in Bible are not as the universe is.
hydrolito 1 year ago
The burden of proof is yours to prove you have an ultimate standard by which to judge christianity true or false. If logic is subjective to a mass of opinions, and the question being asked is transcendental in nature, then your standard is weak and inconsistent.
Telling me I'm guilty of it as well once again doesn't work here. You are the one making judgment calls on a transcendental when you have yet to prove how you're worldview can account for one.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Thus your bias' play havoc concerning a subject you are unable to fully explore. Your epistology is wrong, and that's what leads you to error concerning the evidence in favor of a transcendental.
Inotherwords christopher columbus could sail around the world to fully explore what was once a, and is no longer, a transcendental to the old world but you can't sail around God.
There is no way for you to fully explore His being through your finite comprehention to make any simple judgement call.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
As a skeptic-rationalist you claim that you don't assume anything until you're able to comprehend the logic of it. The problem is your comprehention is too limited a scope to approach a transcendental even though you experience them on a daily basis. You experience induction, logic, and the universe yet you can't give any account for their existence other than calling them an axiom with no axis which logic dictates is completely unstable.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
In a atomistic worldview there is no neutrality. In a inductive worldview there is no neutrality
Now if your worldview includes the slightest hint of either of these concepts, which is impossible not to, then your approach towards a transcendental which can not by any means be fully explored unless you take on the very same nature thereof is tainted by your presuppositions one way or the other.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Your worldview is defeated by the video above. Neutrality is a Myth, and your worldview assumes otherwise. Yet every single electron you're made up of is in complete submission to the world around you and the sum thereof, but you say otherwise.
You're bias by all the evidence to the contrary and then purport the theist to be wrong on the basis he doesn't approach the evidence using the existential neutrality your worldview can't even account for.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
From what you have said I think I'll make the fair assumption you're a skeptical-rationalist which is the usual atheist bandwagon epistemology of choice. Which is why I'm finding inconsistencies all over the place; you're bias and don't bother to account for it concerning transcendentals. You also don't even bother to give explanation of a propper approach to transcendentals other than the usual presupposed undefensible banter, because your epistemology doesn't even bother to touch the subject.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
"For the most reliable evidence, we must look to the Bible." For the most reliable evidence? Well, the Bible is not reliable. I presented to you seven falsehoods in the Bible and you gave me a weak rebuttal to only one of them. What about the other six? And all the others in the Bible? And where is that evidence to disprove evolution. You STILL haven't shown me any. You're grasping at straws now (calling me a dense sinner.) As far as intelligence, I can spell and you can't. Sinner?
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Those "seven falsehoods" are quite subjective. Again.. I'm not gonna bother to walk you through these things when you obviously haven't.
You make alot of open subjective statements with no backing and then claim your right on the basis of your own statement which is completely, utterly and openly fallacious.
You don't reason; you just make claims and call yourself suported by your own claims = circular.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Are you telling me that my belief that the world is round, and my belief that pi = 3.14 are biased? Please demonstrate to me how these views are biased.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
No I never claimed that your belief that the world is round is biased.
I claimed that your belief that the world being round contradicts the bible is.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Well it isn't.
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)
There are more verses like this. I'm not biased I'm quoting the Bible word for word.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
NIV? Do you know what it says in Hebrew? Otherwise you're once again making claims with no backing.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
@watermelonygoodness The sky isn't like a canopy and the world isn't like a tent, so such ideas are rubbish.
hydrolito 1 year ago
@hydrolito I don't think the sky is like a canopy or that the world is like a tent. What are you talking about?
watermelonygoodness 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@hydrolito "The sky isn't like a canopy and the world isn't like a tent, so such ideas are rubbish."
It's called a figure of speach and you're beating up strawmen arguments once again.
MRKetter81 1 year ago
I don't need to show you anything. My ability to convince "you" is not the end-all be-all to wother or not you have a valid point. Also considering your incoherent arguments I doubt anyone could.
You ramble on about logical contradictions you haven't proven, and are reaching to prove your right in the subject by diverting to other claims.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
So I present to you innumerable amounts of evidence, and you show me none making the argument that you don't need to show me evidence of your position. I don't really see why you are exempt from having to produce one tiny piece of evidence. But that only goes to show that you have no basis for what you believe. Shouldn't you be trying to convert me not just insult me? That's what Christianity is all about. Come on, convert me, prove me wrong. You can't. You would have if you could. Weak.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
You presented innumerable amounts of claims that are as subject as your approach to them is.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
I'm not here to covert you. Your condemnation is just. You would know that if you studied.. guess you didn't.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Well at my church (which was a non-denominational church) we were always told to focus more on praying and getting to know the lord and trying to reach out to others and show them God's love. I don't know what church your from but that was the focus of mine. I guess you missed that part of the Bible. We read scripture and talked about it as well but we mainly would talk about living our lives as good Christians and spreading the love of Jesus to everyone. You can't say I didn't study just...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
God's love or God's wove? Because in ordor to show something you need to know what it is.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Part 2: ...because my church doesn't have the exact same interpretation of the Bible (which is quite vague, which explains the various denominations of Christianity), we focused more on saving people then condemning them. But my church and your church are both wrong so it doesn't really matter does it? Do you criticize Catholics and other denominations of Christianity as well as atheists? Do you attend Westboro Baptist Church by any chance? If not, what do you think of their...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
I can say you didn't study all avenues befor you decided that you could make an assessment of an entire worldview which would only make sense to do if you're to have a propper justification for insinuated claims of error in the entirety.
It's like saying "because house cats don't like to swim in water there for all cats don't" with out bothering to investigate the rest of each type of cat.
Thus you left a worldview on the basis of one church.. pretty weak.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
I left a worldview on the basis of the Bible not on the basis of the teachings of my particular church. I will be the first to admit that my church misrepresented the Bible in some areas. That is why I started looking into things myself.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Part 3: ...interpretation of scripture and the way they use it to justify the things they do? They would speak to you the same way you speak to me of my former faith I am sure.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Comment removed
MRKetter81 2 years ago
I'm not giving you alternatives till you admit you haven't looked, because it wouldn't do you any help.
While you have looked, you have bias; everyone does. You are not above having a presupposition.
Now I know I do, but at least my epistemology consists with that notion. You have yet to admit that you're bias, and when I accuse of it act oblivious to what I'm talking about it.
You want to know how I know you're bias in your approach? Everyone is!
MRKetter81 2 years ago
I had a Christian presupposition because I was a Christian at the time. I'm not going to say that I haven't looked. While I may be many things, I am not a liar. I looked. You telling me that I haven't had enough time to have researched thoroughly can also be applied to you. The fact that I've actually been able to mention things you can't refute only shows that I have researched while you haven't which would explain why you don't have alternatives to show.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Comment removed
MRKetter81 2 years ago
You've put up strawmen then shot them down again and again.
The problem is you are bias.. and there is no way for you around that.
Even if you say you had a christian presupposition at one time did that include doctrine? Your ignorance in the subject has displayed otherwise.
You left a worldview you knew only so much about. You left questions about God and the bible to be begged then when your weakness was exposed left a worldview concerning a transcendental you never fully explored.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
I left a worldview on the basis of basic reasoning. The Bible contradicts itself, does not present a clear image of God, and does not present a clear moral code. Therefore there is no reason for me to trust it as a source of information. Outside of the Bible there is no evidence to suggest any god, therefore there is no reason to believe in that god. You have applied that logic to every other religion, what makes Christianity so different? It's a good fit for you? Awesome. That doesn't...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Again with the stating of a universal negative... "There is no evidence"? Prove that statement, because last I checked that's not possible unless you're omniscient; you're entering a universal negative which logic forbids.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
@MRKetter81 You claimed universal negative in saying everyone was biased so why criticize him in saying there is no evidence. If there is any real evidence please show it to us. So where is any evidence Bible is true? Where is Noah's ark, tower of babel, pillar of salt, Philistine giants remains, Egyptian record of the 10 plagues, etc.?
hydrolito 1 year ago
@hydrolito Saying everyone is biased is by no means a universal negative whatsoever. Where you draw such a conclusion is beyond any philosophy professor I ever heard of. Saying there "there is no transcendental" would be a universal negative, because you can't validate nonexistence without omniscience.
Now if you said "No one is biased" then you're declaring a universal negative
MRKetter81 1 year ago
...make what you believe any more true. The specifics of Christianity are irrelevant. The Bible is completely absurd therefore I don't care about ANYTHING it says. I don't care how someone interpreted a certain passage, because I don't believe any of the passages in the Bible to be demonstrably true. There are only two initial things you need to believe to become a Christian: God exists, Jesus was his son. I don't believe either of those things so why would I look into any other aspects?
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Your opinion of the Bible or Christians is no standard by which either are to be judged. You hate what you don't understand nore believe which comes as no suprise.
It takes alot more than believing God exists and Jesus is His son to be a christian which shows how little you knew about the worldview before you left it.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
I still have yet to hear on what basis you stand to judge a thing. What's your epistemology? What defines right and wrong, or true and false?
Are you a skeptic? Are you a rationalist? Considering these questions pretty much determine how you look at anything in the world much less the facts I'd say they're quite important.
I haven't pushed the antie thesis with you, as I don't feal the need, because you've displayed contradiction already and you clearly have no intention of explaining it.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Explaining what? My epistemology? Right and wrong are subjective, we're having that discussion elsewhere remember, Ketter? Things that make logical sense I interpret to be true, things that do not make logical sense I interpret to be false. Some things are ultimately unknowable but some things are not. To say that God defines true and false is ridiculous because 1. you had to judge whether or not you would believe in God before you decided to use him as a basis of what's true and what's...
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Things that don't make sense? So you're a skeptic? or a Rationalist?
Why do I need to repeat the same point? Cause you're not listening.
Nothing is ultimately knowible without induction, and now we can see the gargantuan inconsistencies in your worldview where you spend your time begging the question.
If right and wrong are subjective. Then I'm right and so are you. (Yea that really makes sense! lol). Then your whole arguing the point is worthless.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
The "you did it too" routine doesn't work here.
I'm aware I'm biased.. in fact I said so when I made that point about you being bias which you clearly read through your bias.
The point was my Epistemology is consistant with that bias, and can clearly point out to you how any other epistemology other than a foundational one won't work, because of the presuppositions you undermind in yours concerning transcendentals.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
...false. 2. You had no initial reason to believe this claim that there is a god! You did it based on peer pressure, emotion, a desperate yearning for stability and answers, or something similar.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Comment removed
MRKetter81 2 years ago
That's the problem in your epistemology, not mine.
When dealing with a transcendental "initial reason" is arbitrary considering the concept vastly outways natural dicernment.
Yet when approaching the question of the existance of God you should have known that by now seeing as you said you studied it.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Also don't ever put "false" in front of me again if you think logic is subjectional.
You have no basis to tell me, or anyone for that matter, that anything is false. If "true and false" are subjective then why even bother stating them. You're begging the question on your own part.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
I don't think logic is subjective. I think morals are subjective.
Alright, I'll rephrase, there is no evidence that I have ever seen. I'm still waiting for the evidence you have to support your view. I've given you plenty to support mine.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
You said true and false are subjective. That would make logic as a whole subjective.
Now if you say true and false are not subjective then what makes them definitive? Your ability to understand a concept does not equal logic.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
@MRKetter81 How do you know everyone is biased based on what few people you know have you forgotten you example assuming all of the cats not swimming already?
hydrolito 1 year ago
@hydrolito Everyone is biased via the natural laws of physics. Your brain can't break the laws of physics so I know you're biased as is anyone. You have chemical synapses in your head that work according to their usage. In philosophy it's called a presupposition. You're biased; everyone is.
MRKetter81 1 year ago
@MRKetter81 Why do you say his condemnation is just based on what evidence? None is given. I can do that to your an idiot and that is a just assessment you'd know that to if you studied.
hydrolito 1 year ago
@hydrolito "Why do you say his condemnation is just based on what evidence?" All evidence to the contrary. Your worldview has no basis for justice eternal or otherwise.
MRKetter81 1 year ago
@MRKetter81 Why is his condemnation just based on what evidence? How do you know he didn't study more than you and therefore conclude you don't know what your going on about. Maybe your the one who didn't study and accepted something as fact without investigating why it could be wrong.
hydrolito 1 year ago
You know nothing about faith, because you lack the understanding and never bothered to actually seek an answer, because you never wanted one in the first place.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
When have I sinned? You don't know or understand my life or lifestyle. I do know that the Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone." So if anyone is sinning here it is you. Don't make assumptions, it's not very becoming. Or intelligent. Your "artical" didn't really prove anything. You said yourself that Herod died in 1 BCE. This is even EARLIER than I had mentioned which only leaves a greater distance between the death of King Herod and the Caesar Augustus' census.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
"So if anyone is sinning here it is you."
Circular
how does this not also apply to you?
I never claimed to be sinless.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Well it does apply to me, but I base my life around the Bible so I shouldn't be expected to live by it. You do base your life around Biblical claims, so you should live by them.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
There are many other answers out there that you clearly never bothered to investigate by your lack of understanding in theology as well.
Yet I conclude.. you never bothered because you don't like the God of the Bible as a matter of opinion. You live a sinful life, or think you don't, as scripture lays out and consider your self-judge and jury of the Bible, God's actions and those who follow accordingly. You are not above OVERLOOKING things in ordor to make your OWN case.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
I sought answers for four years, don't assume I didn't look, newsflash: you don't actually know me. I guess it's just your nature to make baseless assumptions, that's why you are so unable to see reason. I can't make you see if you won't open your eyes, Ketter. Give me links. Solid sources to explain the seven problems I mentioned. Find me a circle with a diameter of 10 and a circumference of 30. Prove to me that the Earth is flat. If you can't prove these things then you have to admit
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Comment removed
MRKetter81 2 years ago
You sought all these answers and still don't know the docrines of Predestination or Election?
Give you links? Buy a book.. why don't you have these links? I thought you researched all this stuff.... I guess not eh?
MRKetter81 2 years ago
::end quote::
MRKetter81 2 years ago
The Bible is an unreliable source of knowledge and find me outside sources to prove the existence of the Christian God and Jesus' resurrection. Would you cite a History textbook that claimed the Holocaust never happened? Of course, not. That's absurd. Likewise, it is absurd to claim the world is flat. The Bible makes this claim repeatedly among other aforementioned false claims. Therefore the Bible is an unreliable source. Therefore you must present outside sources to prove your God.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
There's alot more behind the history to the bible that I don't have the time nor need to hold your hand and walk you through each point in where I can clearly see your pride will always be your downfall.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Herods fears and suspicions were immediately aroused, and he determined from the chief priests and scribes that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem. Then he called in the astrologers and asce
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Counting back 30 years would bring us to the fall of 2 B.C.E. as the time of the human birth of the Son of God. (Compare Lu 3:1, 23 with Daniels prophecy of the seventy weeks at Da 9:24-27.)—See SEVENTY WEEKS.
The astrologers who visited Jesus. The apostle Matthew tells us that after Jesus had been born in Bethlehem in the days of Herod the king, astrologers from eastern parts came to Jerusalem, saying that they saw his star when they were in the east.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
John was six months older than Jesus and began his ministry (evidently in the spring of the year) ahead of Jesus as Jesus forerunner, preparing the way. (Lu 1:35, 36) Jesus, whom the Bible indicates was born in the fall of the year, was about 30 years old when he came to John to be baptized. (Lu 3:21-23) Therefore he was baptized, most likely, in the fall, about October of 29 C.E.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
The available evidence indicates that Herod died likely in the year 1 B.C.E. The Bible historian Luke tells us that John came baptizing in the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar. (Lu 3:1-3) Augustus died on August 17, 14 C.E. On September 15, Tiberius was named emperor by the Roman Senate. The Romans did not use the accession-year system; consequently, the 15th year would run from the latter part of 28 C.E. to the latter part of 29 C.E.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
(Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 148 [vi, 1]; XIV, 158 [ix, 2]) Accordingly, Herods death occurred in 2 or 1 B.C.E. We must bear in mind, however, that Josephus has many inconsistencies in his dating of events and is therefore not the most reliable source. For the most reliable evidence, we must look to the Bible.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
@MRKetter81 The Bible is not the most reliable source, what evidence shows it is even a reliable source let alone a most reliable source? Making claims it is reliable does not make its so.
hydrolito 1 year ago
Right, cause thats totally Bahnsens position. Yawn. I'd love to debate a 15 year old that knows everything but I have a life. You should read some apologetics books aimed at young people and you'll get your basic questions answered.
a5dr3 1 year ago
@hydrolito "The Bible is not the most reliable source, what evidence shows it is even a reliable source let alone a most reliable source?"
Look up Lee Strobel for a basic argument, but there are plenty of other scholars as well. When dealing with historical documents it's all about context of the time and authentication of particular events. Chances are you're not asking for proof you're asking to be convinced which is very subjective.
MRKetter81 1 year ago
Another line of calculation centers around the age of Herod at the time of his death. Josephus says that he was about 70 years old. He says that at the time Herod received his appointment as governor of Galilee (which is generally dated 47 B.C.E.), he was 15 years old; but this has been understood by scholars to be an error, 25 years evidently being intended.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
On the other hand, there was a total eclipse of the moon in 1 B.C.E., about three months before Passover, while the one in 4 B.C.E. was only partial. The total eclipse in 1 B.C.E. was on January 8 (January 10, Julian), 18 days before Shebat 2, the traditional day of Herods death. Another eclipse (partial) occurred on December 27 of 1 B.C.E. (December 29, Julian).—See CHRONOLOGY (Lunar eclipses).
MRKetter81 2 years ago
According to Josephus, Herod died not long after an eclipse of the moon and before a Passover. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 167 [vi, 4]; 213 [ix, 3]) Since there was an eclipse on March 11, 4 B.C.E. (March 13, Julian), some have concluded that this was the eclipse referred to by Josephus.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Presenting an argument to this effect in The Journal of Theological Studies, W. E. Filmer writes that evidence from Jewish tradition indicates that Herods death occurred on Shebat 2 (the month of Shebat falls in January-February of our calendar).—Edited by H. Chadwick and H. Sparks, Oxford, 1966, Vol. XVII, p. 284.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
his first regnal year could run from Nisan of 39 to Nisan of 38 B.C.E.; similarly, if counted from his capture of Jerusalem in 37 (or 36) B.C.E., his first regnal year could start in Nisan 36 (or 35) B.C.E. So if, as Josephus says Herod died 37 years after his appointment by Rome and 34 years after his capture of Jerusalem, and if those years are counted in each case according to the regnal year, his death could have been in 1 B.C.E.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Now, Josephus says that Herod died 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) This might indicate that the date of his death was 2 or perhaps 1 B.C.E. It may be that the Jewish historian Josephus counted the reigns of the kings of Judea by the accession-year method, as had been done with the kings of the line of David. If Herod was appointed king by Rome in 40 B.C.E.,..
MRKetter81 2 years ago
but the data of another historian, Appianos, would place the event in 39 B.C.E. By the same method Josephus places Herods capture of Jerusalem in 37 B.C.E., but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey (which was in 63 B.C.E.). (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) His reference to that latter event would make the date of Herods taking the city of Jerusalem 36 B.C.E...
MRKetter81 2 years ago
*** it-1 pp. 1093-1095 Herod ***
Date of His Death. A problem arises with regard to the time of Herods death. Some chronologers hold that he died in the year 5 or 4 B.C.E. Their chronology is based to a large extent on Josephus history. In dating the time that Herod was appointed king by Rome, Josephus uses a consular dating, that is, he locates the event as occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls. According to this, Herods appointment as king would be in 40 B.C.E.,...
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Thus my point still stands.. you know nothing about faith.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
My point is that you know nothing about the real world.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
You have no point.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
So then what would you call faith? Believing things that you have every reason not to believe? Believing things that make no sense? This is why I first said "blind faith." You believe in something that you have no real reason to believe in.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
No.. researching something a bit more befor you come to the conclusion that something is the case when it's not.
Here's a big fat artical you seemed to miss when "researching".
MRKetter81 2 years ago
"First of all everybody admits that our calendar is mistaken by some 4-6 years or even more. In addition it must be noted that an inscription in Antioch has been discovered showing Cyrenius as being in that city and holding the office of chief magistrate in the year 8 BC. It is not also known that the said census us to take place every 14 years. Apparently Cyrenius was governor of Syria twice: from 4 BC to AD 1, when this census was taken, and again in AD 6."
MRKetter81 2 years ago
I'm not talking about Cyrenius, I'm talking about Caesar Augustus an King Herod. The census under Caesar Augustus and did not occur during King Herod's lifetime.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
The point was the dating of such things are debatable if not all together over insinuating. You have clear bias that the Bible is wrong in your approach, and I could point you to evidence again and again, and still have you consider them weak by your own weak epistemology,
You're right.. you can't talk to me. You can't reason passed your own opinion about things and are quite dense.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
So do you want to look at how logical you are approaching the evidence (which I sincerely doubt, because you seem to have no problem begging such crusual questions concerning the approach to evidence you've taken as a whole.) or shall we continue to argue over moot points of evidence "you" find convincing which are not only subjective as your approach to such evidence is just as moot.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Could you make all your replies to my comments by clicking reply? It's really annoying and difficult to have to read through all the posts here and figure out which one is responding to which. Plus your spelling and grammar are atrocious.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Maybe you should reply in a message or something so we don't have to keep posting new comments every time we run out of characters?
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
If you see fit.. my mailbox on youtube is open to anyone.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Pointing out simularities in genetics is no different.
We have simularities in genetics to pigs and horses as well. Yet you claim we have fossil records. Do you have any idea how rare the fossils of anything other than a clam, plant or insect are? Yet from such small numbers trying to reach back a billion years is very much reaching to try to add things up to a theory that's not as clear cut as it claims to be. Any debate concerning the location of such evidence is completely moot.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
It's not just a similarity. We are more closely related to the chimpanzee than any other animal. And, not only are we related, we have a fused chromosome that is made up of two of theirs. We share more genetic material with a chimpanzee than a mouse shares with a rat. Mice and rats are not the same thing, they have different, but very similar DNA. Our DNA is more closely related to that of a chimpanzee a mouse's DNA is similar to a rat's. Do you deny that they share a common ancestor?
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
I am sorry to tell you that you are wrong about the number of fossils we have. Sorely wrong. We have found so many fossils that paleontologists spend countless hours debating over which transitional stage a certain fossil takes and trying to place them all. They do however all coincide with the theory of evolution. Which is another reason we should support the theory.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
There's nothing "irrefutable" about radiometric dating. No one has ever triangulated the decay rate of any isotope nor could they if they tried. You would need to be able to do so from a span of at least 1000 years. (even that's reaching a bit considering the billions of years you're trying to prove)
Only once we look at our approach to such evidence is it possible to even bother to debate. Where you would say the glass is half full it's still more than half empty in this case.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
When it comes to the evidence of evolution I find it generally someone looking at the glass half empty or full ect. The methods used for dating and distancing have no means of triangulating mathematically such distances or time periods.
In all such cases the two points become indistinguishable as the distance or time period are advanced.
MRKetter81 2 years ago
Part 1: You listen to Greg Bahnsen and assume that the glass is half empty. I have looked at the glass and it is overflowing with evidence for evolution. I don't have a bias. I was a Christian for four years, I used to have a bias, the same bias you have, but I am open-minded, I looked into both sides of the argument and came to the conclusion that based on the evidence evolution is more likely to be true than untrue. 95% of scientists share my view. That means there are more historians....
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago
Part 2: ...who deny the Holocaust than there are scientists who deny evolution. Open your mind. Learn some.
watermelonygoodness 2 years ago