Видео

Lol notice eli darn't even TRY to answer the questions we actually want answered! Why can't you provide logically valid and sound sylogism to show your god exists? Why can't you support P1 eli?

I am not convinced any particular god is a reality, for I have never encountered any credible evidence suggesting such a reality. So, until I do encounter sufficient credible evidence that such a reality exists, I will continue to suspend any acknowledgment concerning the truth of _your_ claim that one does. Do you believe I am _rationally justified_ in my position of atheism?

Great work as usual!

I love this guy … ♥️👌Anyone who thinks this clearly, speaks this articulately, holds scripture in the highest sense, is loving to both the unbeliever AND the Christian brother who opposes his apologetic methodology, is friends with White & Durban, and who can lay out his position this air-tight, is a blessing and encouragement to me 😭😔

If your postulated God is the *necessary* precondition for the intelligibility of experience, then you'll be able to present a non-question-begging, sound, deductive argument that concludes with: "Therefore, the Christian God is the necessary precondition for the intelligibility of experience." This type of argument is the only thing that'll do the job, since you're claiming *necessity* . This has *never* been presented by any presupper, so until it is, you're writing checks you cannot cash. Please support the claim by providing the premises that lead to it, and take care not to merely restate it, as supporting a claim with the same claim (in a different form of words) is the equivalent of a "P, :. P" tautology, and is trivial. Thank you. :)

Ridiculus nonsense.

All knowledge is provisional. This is just a cavalcade of baseless assertions.

I love these little clips ...🙏

Eli, in English, as far as i know, we have first, second and third person only (Are Hebrew and Greek different?). My understanding is that first person refers to the speaker(s) [I/We], second person is the one(s) spoken to [you/youall] and third person refers to the one(s) spoken of [he, she, it/they]. (By the way, you may have already gathered that i not do have a PhD in grammar and or English; thanks for being patient with me. 🙂) So, you, as do i, from time to time, refer to Jesus as the second person of The Holy Trinity. Is English (and or is Greek and Hebrew) an expression of The Trinity? Do you see what i am getting at? Thanks.

Note how eli darn't answer the only pertinant questions! Why do you run like a child when asked for a sylogism using presup to show your god exists.? And why on the only occasion it seems you did why can't you support the very first premise?

It's quite sick to see eli describe how he indoctrinates innocent children

I have numerous questions that have never been answered satisfactory by Christians. Care to answer them?

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My situation is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._* And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality. 1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god. 2. I personally have never observed a god. 3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god. 4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality. 6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true. 7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._ ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

"Pressup works well with atheists".. What a delusion of grandeur.

Always helpful Eli, Ignore the ignorant trolls in the comments, you make great content!

Ywh is a good of War created by people that needed to gain power and land. Nothin more.

Pressup in a nutshell: Beg the question of the truth of the bible in bad faith and expect everyone else to accept the fallacy.

The BIGGEST questions are, 1: Why do apologist just lie and lie and lie? 2: What kind of person takes up lying as a profession and can sleep at night? What's worse is some take presupposition seriously or even relevant. Bullshit on steroids!

Presuppositionalism is a scripted thought process. It is the equivalent of sticking your finders in your ears and repeating "I'm right, you're wrong."

​​How do you distinguish between "X is a successful accounting for the grounds of intelligibility." and "Y is not a successful of the grounds of intelligibility.?

He has "pay for" classes. If this gibberish you are selling can actually, really save souls, why do you keep it behind a pay-wall? Jesus said unto him, “If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell what thou hast and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in Heaven; and come and follow Me.”

Stop talking out of your ASS and explain how to differentiate between any of your "revelations" and schizophrenia or at best lying your ass off?

I❤ all your videos

I know I am three years late! But when's the next PreSup U premium course?

Great video! My one point of feedback is to point out that there are other definitions of “natural law” or “natural theology” that do not exclude scripture. The Reformers along with natural law theorists in the Christian tradition have always made use of mixed syllogisms (natural principles+special revelation) in their arguments. Even John Locke in his treatise on government makes use of special revelation in his arguments in support of his conclusions. “There is a natural theology that is legitimate. It is such a theology as, standing upon the basis of faith and enlightened by Scripture, finds God in nature - Cornelius Van Til Modifying Van Tils, quote, ‘There is a natural law that is legitimate. It is such a law as, standing upon the basis of faith and enlightened by scripture, finds God’s law in nature.’ To add on to your points, I would point out that man has never operated outside of the guidance of special revelation. In the garden, Adam received special revelation from God by way of verbal/oral communication, which is a form of special revelation as you said. "Even in Paradise man had to interpret the general (natural) revelation of God in terms of the covenantal obligations placed upon him by God through special revelation." - Cornelius Van Til Once again, great video and I’m glad to see you chipping in on this conversation.

So Eli, where is this awesome Matt Slick debate you show your class in which he is wearing a tee shirt? Is it available somewhere to view?

By special revelation do you mean the truth revealed to us after we are Born Again?

There is no such thing as a "revelation" and certainly no such thing as "natural law".

Errr nope. It only shapes the approach of you DISHONEST people. Not us DECENT people.

Please present credible evidence that your god revealed ANYTHING or created ANYTHING eli or your whole argument is blown AGAIN!!! I predict eli will run from these questions like a prepubecent school girl.

More gibberish and eli still can't support P1 of his presupp sylogism for his little gawd! SO YOUR WHOLE ARGUMENT IS BLOWN ELI!

Oh dear. Eli got totally destroyed by everyone in the text when he put this out first. Totally destroyed!

It would be so awesome if you were to get more into the debate between presuppositionalists and reformed classical apologetists regarding the whole debate of natural theology. People like Keith Mathison, Fesko, etc make critiques. The most where I've seen bahnsen talk about it was in his first few lectures of Calvin's Institutes, but I don't think he got much into it unless I'm wrong.

Eli, do you have any thoughts on how someone who says they believe can engage in sexual sin while knowing that Jesus is in the room watching? This doesn't make sense to me.

Another day and another apologist ingoring the following truth! There is only one observation that you need to make to know that Christ is a lie. Just look at the inconsistent beliefs among all Christian groups! From Catholics, to Protestants to Calvinists to Mormons...Christian beliefs are all over the map. That is why you had Christian's who supported Hitler and why you have Christians who support Trump now and you had and have Christians who believe both these men are abhorrently evil. You have Christians who vote to force raped little girls to give birth, vote for never ending gun violence, vote for inaction on climate change and health care costs and tax breaks for billionaires and you have Christians who vote exactly the opposite. Because in the end Christians are just flawed human beings who are good, evil and in between just like all other human beings. Now Christian's apologists will attempt to divert these oberservations by claiming it is because of "sin". But why would those who believe in christ do evil things and those who don't believe in him do good works? Why does it take the lie of Christ or Muhammad or Joseph Smith to make good people do evil and support evil things? Why do 99% of people know that Earth is a globe? Because truth leads to consistent belief.

Thank you

Hey Matt, we are justified by faith (Rom. 5:1)....but not by "faith alone" (Jas. 2:24). You need to twist the scriptures to get away from this. Was Peter therefore wrong when he said 'Repent and be baptized in Jesus name for the forgiveness of your sins?' Or was Ananias wrong when he told Paul, who had already believed, to 'Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins calling on the name of the Lord?' Either you have to twist these passages or say that Peter and Ananias were wrong!

The Njkv translates Romans 1 as "eternal power and Godhead" is revealed. Do you believe the Trinity is in view here?

15:00 And therein lies the biggest soteriological scam, where I basically parted ways from Calvin and Van Til's reformed theology, it's basically what you just confessed here: According to Romans 1:18-22 all humanity has a "General Revelation" of God (their ability to see "the good" becomes cloudy through the noetic effect of sin, agreed), but where I completely disagree is that all humanity is dead in sin and guilty of eternal punishment based on General/Natural Revelation alone BUT the ONLY way to emancipate themselves from this is "Special Revelation" through Jesus Christ via the scriptures. So whether the unbeliever DENIES/SUPPRESSERS God or not, it wouldn't even matter.. they could accept God's general revelation but not have faith in Christ, and be damned because you left no other way out outside Special Revelation. Based on this logic, you're telling me the majority of the world, including China, Africa, South America, etc. even back at the time of Christ were just born damned with no chance of salvation since they never had scriptures? Wasn't Abraham declared righteous through his faith (Romans 3, Gal 3) long before Jesus?

The difference is one is logical and the other is my prefered method. Lmfao

Great work Eli, I have a paper comparing and contrasting Aquinas' Summa and Calvin's Institutes on this issue I wrote for seminary. Lot's of footnotes to primary sources. I can send over if you'd like.

Awesome talk Eli, you should deal with the trolls in your channel lol, they get annoying. Also, how do we ask you questions? Is it now comments only or will you still do live streams?

Its not a top down approach, its an illogical approach. Logic starts with premises, not conclusions. That's logic 101. Presup is the most easily debunked and infantile way to think. Its literally if we assume I'm right, then I must be right. That doesn't follow.

When Sye was doing his thing with her, if he really believed what he says, he must have known Jesus was in the room watching. Would he have done this with his mom in the room?

What a joke. Eli still can't support Premise 1 of his pitiful presupp argument! Xhristians arguments for a god are pathetic at the best of times but presupp is not only the absolute WORST, it also shows xhristians to be not only wrong but phenomenally DISHONEST.

Yes Scripture has authority. But when it comes to the correct interpretation of Scripture, which one is authoritative/obligatory for the individual to assent to? On the Protestant view none are. And so it is left up to the individual to play the authoritative ecclesial role superior to the Church, which is not Biblical.

Matt's description of the church of Christ automatically disqualifies anything he says about the church of Christ after that.

The Scriptures that the Bereans searched did NOT Include ANY of the New Testament. ALL Scripture was codified into the corpus we call "the Bible" based on "•••the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle •••" (2 Thessalonians 2:15), as decided in council in the 4th century, based on traditions that the Church had followed for over 300 years. It is important to note that "sola scriptura" is not part of Holy Scripture, and the concept did not exist until the 15th century. Scripture was subjected to the Traditions of the Church to decide which writings of the time would become "Holy Scripture".

The transcendental argument for spoons. Spoons are the best utensil because they hold soup. Soup being held by utensils happens. Therefore spoons are the best utensil.

Presuppositional apologetics doesn't prove anything. Its literally just saying "I'm right because you cant be because I said so." Its an argument that is on the same intillectual level as a toddler. This is what you sound like to an adult, "my toy is the best! Its the best because its my toy! Your toy isnt the best because my toy is the best! You cant even say my toy isnt the best cuz i already said mine is the best! Im the smartest ever!" *fills diaper