Cliffe was unwittingly exhibiting exactly what Stephen was criticising and he didn't even realise it. All Cliffe did was attempt to emotionally blackmail Stephen into submission. A classic move by the religious.
Cliffe comes across a bit upset/angry that someone else doesn't share his beliefs. He says he has always been a Christian, so no surprise he assumes he's right. Can he step outside his indoctrination and take the outsider test of faith?
the problem belivers have is they aren't allowed to contemplate no god. however unbiased they claim to be it's just not possible, and the irony of that is they aren't supposed to be sure of god, you are supposed to be skeptical, you need "faith" - you have to overcome these doubts, but ask anyone of the titheads on this page and they are 110% positive they have a god.
Brilliant discussion. Thank you. Some of Stephen Law's points: (1) Evidential evil is a real problem for Christian and other monotheistic believers. (2) 'The best ever carrot and stick' is Christianity: believe (and gain eternal life) and pass it on - or else (hell). (3) Stuart: There's evidence that people are 'happier' and live longer if they're members of institutional churches. Stephen agrees. But the most civilised countries [more equal, fewer social problems, and with strong welfare systems] have majorities who are humanist, agnostic or atheist (Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Canada, Bhutan and so on). Cliffe: But what about communist Russia and China? [the communist ideology was a form of 'State Religion' and clearly deleterious to free thought and the good life] (4) Stephen points out: 45% of Americans believe the Universe is less than 10,000 years old. Bonkers. They're not interested in the truth. (5) Cliffe: 'Stephen, what is the alternative to the Christian view of life?' We must all make our own moral judgements and that is difficult. [however, you don't make your judgements out of 'fear,' or in fact 'believe', because you don't want to go to 'hell']. (6) Stephen stresses: the belief that there's no objective morality without God is nonsense. (Recommend Stephen's books - especially the superb 'Philosophy', 2007, DK Eyewitness Companions)
Stephen Law has written extensively on this topic. This is how I understand Stephen Law’s argument(s): 1. Law is not making the argument objective moral values do or do not exist. He’s saying that it appears Cliffe Knechtle is arguing objective moral values do exist. From Law’s perspective, Cliffe has not presented any argument for this-including where these claimed values originate. [Essentially, Cliffe is attempting to Switch the Burden of Proof.] 2. Law is saying that even if it could be shown that objective moral values exist, there is no reason to suppose, and certainly no argument has been given by Cliffe, they originate from the Judaeo-Christian God. 3. From studying Law’s other works, he might ask: If, in the end and at the highest and widest level of reality, it’s the case that objective moral values don’t originate from the Judaeo-Christian God, or any other gods or goddesses, where, then, does a Christian such as Cliffe Knechtle get his morals? What, then, explains why Cliffe imagined, in his heart and with faith, that he was adhering to a standard that was non-existent? 4. Law is asking: Whether there is free will or not, how does it follow that an omnipotent (which necessarily includes all the other omnis) God is not ultimately responsible for all-things? 5. Law is asking: How is Cliffe not engaging in the very exercise he’s suggesting Law is-that of choosing for himself what is ultimately moral or not? So, for example: Are not Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Muslims not choosing mutually exclusive morals standards while simultaneously suggesting it’s a God they are following? 6. Law has what he calls the Evil God Challenge (The God of Eth). What this exercise exposes is: How has the Christian determined that their God is not ultimately evil? I.e., how have they determined it is, in fact, good? And if, in the end, this supposed God lives in, and with, an eternal nature, how is this not a subjective standard based upon random happenstance? I.e., how does a Christian such as Cliffe argue that the way things have eternally been are that way and could not have been any other way for an eternity for another God and still be deemed good? [Ref. The Euthyphro dilemma] 7. Law might ask: If, in the end, the Christians were wrong and the right answer was, say, Islam, how has their appeal to faith, their Bible, or any of their standard apologetic arguments for Jesus helped them?
The universe had a definite beginning, it didn't make itself. Life had a beginning, it didn't create itself and chaos couldn't create it. This gets us to the need for an eternal creator. The Hebrew history in the Bible and then culminating in Jesus brings us to an understanding of a personal God. No philosophizing can dismiss these two facts. They are not proof positive for the existence of God, but pillars in a plausible worldview. For Law, he is left at best with agnosticism that just says, "We will never know why the universe exists and I refuse to think God made it."
I don't need a sales pitch I say truth and facts and where there is no fact because not everything 100% know they're proven on anything exist I can stay the strong belief in faith of why Justice atheist noted minute but have faith in something they can't prove.
@@Chamelionroses I think you misunderstood me and that's partially my fault because I was very tired when I spoke the message. I use a recorder because I'm legally blind sometimes these message can be long. I do believe in Christ Church I do believe there is complete truth for the Bible we as humans don't know all the truth we're not supposed you right now but there are some churches that do teach closest to the truth that the light is allowed to be given. That does not mean the Church of perfect meaning the people does not mean that with everything they say it's perfect call me Christ is perfect. But what atheist teach is also quite wrong and imperfect the wrong because they don't even stand by only or real true thought they speak words but then have nothing to back them up.
18:00 isn't it great when people just change the subject. law was talking about the INTERNAL problem and the interuption was a personal anecdote, a sad anecdote, but nothing to do with what law was talking about. now we have to console poor whatsis name and try, try to get back on topic. sheesh. (nice to be able to comment by the way, makes a change from the cowardly way WLC et al disable crits).
I am really disappointed. Stuart is a nice Guy, but Cliffe is really disrespectful. Put yourself in Stephen's shoes. You're invited to a "conversation" and, all of sudden, one the guys gets preachy and start to accuse you. Seriously, what is the point of these discussions? It makes any attentive person to suspect the goal is "to show that the atheist philosopher can not give us satisfying answers" or worse "that atheists are dishonest". It reveals desperation. It's Ray comfort's level kind of stuff. Come on. Advice, Stuart: if you want to be taken seriously, you better talk to your old man or start your own ministry. Shame on you, Cliffe, shame on you.
Stuart and Cliffe assume that they are right because they believe the narrative that they have is correct despite the lack good reasons to share their belief in that narrative. Stephen Law does a good job of exposing the holes in their simplistic, almost child-like narrative. Despite the they just keep saying the same answers over and over. It’s almost as if they are closed minded and incapable of independent thought. Stuart and Cliffe just keep unthinkingly regurgitating the same points. It’s like they just want to win the argument rather than discover what is true. I agree with Richard Feynman when he said “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong”. The apologist can’t do that yet they have more wrong answers than correct ones.
@@josephtoler536 pick a claim about Christianity and let’s explore it together. Let’s see if there are good reasons to believe if it’s true. If you are a Christian , can you share your testimony as to how you came to believe?
@@Mrneina as we can agree #Faith is an unreliable epistemology. I guess the point of my prior question are to check if your beliefs conform to reality. Your challenge is to demonstrate thar they do..... I hope that you have the courage to continue this conversation. In YOUR OWN WORDS can you answer some simple questions for me: 1. How old is the universe? 2. How old is the earth? 3. What best explains the origins of our species? 4. What happens when we die?
24:00 allow me a profanity - accusing me of being atheist because i want apromiscuous lifestyle is insulting, i am NATURALLY promiscuous, i could be christian and be promiscuous, in fact i'd like to see the stats on that one cos the catholics have got promiscuity down to an art. and as hitchens liked to point out a christian can argue the same way, "god told me to do this evil, god made me a mass murderer" this was the backbone of the inquisition, if anything an atheist has a notion of personal responsibility, and there is no one to forgive me my trespasses is there. i've said this before, i have close ties with japan and i belive one reason the japanese are so honest is that they don't have a forgiving god, if you steal you have failed as a person, god isn't going to let you off at the last moment, as an atheist i carry my guilt, i don't in fact want to give it up, if i do something "wrong" it's mine and i really don't want a god to forgive me, i want my peers to forgive me - it's also why japanese bow to EACH OTHER, i have zero respect for a god who DEMANDS things of me. stuff that.
If that God gave you life, he has the right to ask you for whatever. Now you may choose not to respond, you may choose to live ur life separate from him and he'll let you also live eternity separate from him
@J w Really? Is that a rhetorical question? If you really don't see the dodges and word games, the obvious attempts at being, "Outraged", the ridiculous attempts to invoke emotions, and all because he had fuck all in the way of evidence for ant god, then perhaps I'll go through it again, and document it for you.
@J w Dude. You couldn't be any wronger if you where a flat earther. And believe me, I don't spend all my time prowling theists channels. But it is fun, from time to time, just to get a laugh at the bullshit some people believe.
@J w Lol! Project much? Look dude, I'm just a guy looking at the arguments and available evidence and trying to come a conclusion. Just because some people believe fallacious arguments, and buy into presuppositional logic, doesn't mean everyone does. Some of are genuinely curious. Just because there's no evidence, doesn't mean I'm in a cult. It means I'm open to evidence and can tell bull shit when I see/hear it.
@J w OK fellow human, I'm sure we can talk past each other forever, and dig in our heels, and blame the other for being closed minded. So lets just be real here; what do you believe and why?
Rather than in whose image we've been CREATED, what if our collective consciousness has yet to conclude its constructive PROCREATION of a God from whom we'd ultimately all wanna come whom, in turn, retroactively causes the very big bang whence we've seemingly come?
God is a word that replaces "I don't know" for those who want an answer. Cliffe wants an answer from college kids. Unfortunately college kids don't know either.
How does Stuart sit next to his dad watching him engage with people like for extended amounts of time without his head exploding? He looks physically uncomfortable throughout most of these videos.
As I see it, it’s only a problem for theists. So no need to work though it for me. Coping with the harshness of life and reality is a thing though. Working on it.
I think the big one is, what is Jesus doing hanging on a cross? So God is not a God where we can point our finger at Him and ask why are we suffering while He is hanging on a cross. Instead we must ask why is God doing hanging on a cross? Also, when creating, such as in photography, or when casting a mold, you cannot receive what you desire without it first going through a negative. So I believe that God's creation was not "perfect" without the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or in other words, God's creation was not perfect without a chance for man to fall away from Him by his own freewill. So the ultimate negative being Satan, Adam and Eve went through a negative experience when the serpent tempted them in the garden to eat of the fruit, and of course they both did. So what this tree did was not only test humanity, but also the angels in heaven to ultimately bring in a harvest of who are truly wicked and righteous, to see who may dwell with God in eternity forever.
Evil is entirely accounted for by natural mechanisms. There is no reason to invoke a supernatural agent to explain earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, famine etc etc. If you want to explain Human behaviour study psychology.
Call these people out on their faith in the morality of the ones interpreting the fossil record, selling the idea of billions of years. “Do you know 100% for yourself?”
I enjoyed this discussion. I'm an agnostic so I have problems with religion and atheism. The biggest problem I have with religion is the problem of evil - how can a good God allow the awful suffering in life? The biggest problem I have with atheism is its claim that there is no evidence of God. With regard to the latter, the simple fact is that we have no idea how life began beyond scientific speculation (the Big Bang etc). The same applies to the 'hard problem' of consciousness, the origin of DNA, and cosmic 'fine-tuning' . These remain huge issues that materialist metaphysics (the assumptions underpinning mainstream science) appears unable to resolve. Which emphatically doesn't mean we should insert God into the 'gaps'. It just means we have to keep pursuing these questions in a spirit of humility and to be open to civil/critical debate. What worries me is when atheists become almost religious about their worldview (I think Dawkins is often guilty of this) and when religious people - fundamentalists in particular - seek to silence criticism. Einstein and Darwin, two of the greatest minds in human history, were in fact both agnostics because they recognised that the claims of science and religion are fundamentally rooted in belief systems and life remains profoundly puzzling.
I can answer your question about why the evil if you let me have a dialogue with you we can either do it here or by email or messenger but let me know because and I'm very truthful sincere easy way I like that express that to you but I'm legally blind and take awhile to type it in that kind of said he'll hear the site so if you give me that opportunity let me know and I'll be glad to do it okay I hope you have a good day just message me here if you want and then we can go from there and I'll be happy to do however you want thank you.
@@rovert46 I neither believe nor disbelieve. The 'evidence' is conflicting. I see (apparent) evidence of a deep intelligence in nature/the universe that goes beyond evolution and physics (like Einstein). But that's as far as I'm prepared to go. And I can not square suffering with this - no religious arguments, including Buddhism (if we accept that as notionally religious) account for the extreme suffering of humans and animals even with free will factored in.
watch some sean carrol, brian greene and even roger penrose, you haven't grapsed the problem. and while i'm here if you have "nothing" that includes the laws of physics, so, anything can happen.
So far, @Harry Nicholas, "the laws of physics" depend on knowing that 90% of everything is knowably unknowable. Especially the more likely scenario that instead of being created by God, we've yet to procreate a God from whom we'd all wanna come in the first place. That way, since physics NEVER talks about the required application of thermodynamics of a time our observer-dependent reality only renders MOVING FORWARD, its cosmic Michael Phelps-like flip turn at the end of time's "reality pool" -- or our feigned destined singularity -- actually retroactively causes the very big bang whence we've come in what's only an apparition of a "first place" in our current NOW. This way, Santa Claus and an epistemological "sanity clause" don't have to be mutually exclusive. There's MY par-for-the course scorecard. Has Brian Greene even teed-off yet?
I wonder if Stephen Law wonders why evil thoughts arise from his heart at times and where they might come from. It may not be a very important question, I just wonder if he thinks about it our not.
The origin of our sense of morality comes form a long evolutionary process which has allowed us to intelligently manage our responses to basic EMOTIONAL impulses. If a world wide survey was conducted to establish how many people were APPALLED by the idea of microwaving babies and no overwhelming consensus that it's wrong was returned, but rather, we found a whole spectrum of OPINIONS, then Cliffe's rather bizarre and distorted view of morality would make a little more sense.
John Wumsh: It's not so much the faith that put me off as the way that faith was expressed. An oppressive mixture of bullying and emotional blackmail. I thought Stephen displayed the patience of a Job in tackling it. I wish more Christians would behave with that degree of modesty and humility and resignation.
@@Mrneina: You poor fellow! What does Christianity have to do with taking sides? Religion isn't politics. Religion is about love. If I remember rightly somebody once said something about loving your enemies. Ring a bell?
Secularism fosters healthy societies? Curious. Nothing in atheism prescribes any sort of sexual morality? Sexual preference is the only guide. Adultery, divorce, polygamy...what's the problem?
What happened to the evolutionary psychological explanation for why of the development of morality, and that the most evil actions are peputated by the most developmentally traumatised perhaps disadvantaged persons whose origin in childhood.
Evil seems to be abounding, and righteousness seems to be on the retreat. Again, how do we explain all this? What I just read in my morning Scripture reading pretty well tells us exactly what is happening and why. And so important is this passage that it is worth presenting it in full here. I refer to that incredible text, Romans 1:18-32: God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
I hope that you have the courage to continue our conversation. In YOUR OWN WORDS can you answer some simple questions for me: 1. How old is the universe? 2. How old is the earth? 3. What best explains the origins of our species? 4. What happens when we die?
Cliffe and Stuart Look and Sound EVIL to me. They always seem so Proud of how Nasty they are. If Cliffe and Stuart are Examples of Jesus' Love, NO THANK YOU. Cliffe and Stuart DON'T have Common Courtesy to Allow the Guest to Speak without Yelling Over Him, Cutting Him Off, Interrupting Him to put forth their Assinine Reasoning. To ask the question what does it matter if 5 year old Children die is a Clear Sign of Mental Instability, In My Humble Opinoon. Cliffe and Stuart are Angry, Frightened, Scared to Death of their Imaginary God. Seen Cliffe for Many Years, he is always threatening, manipulating, trying to Scare People to God and Jesus. Absolutely Disgusting, Disrespectful, Disgraceful Human Beings.
To be fair to them I think they were asking why it matters to atheists whether 5 year old children die. Apart from that I agree with most of what you said.
@@mastper I understand what you are saying. No Scholar here, just my opinion but only a Depraved, Despicable Imitation of a Human Being would ever think to ask such a question.
@J w From a person who believes in an EVIL God who KILLED EVERY Man, Woman, Child, Mothers in Childbirth, Infants in the Process of Being Born, Old Men and Women who could not Walk, Blind People, Deaf People, Disabled Children, Every Animal, Bird, Insect, Flower, Tree, Bush, etc. on Mother Earth except those on an Imaginary Boat and is Waiting for this God to come back and Kill the Rest of us
@J w I was trying to be nice but I will state FACT, You are Stupid on Top of Evil, a Dangerous Combination and I don't waste time on or with Stupid and/or Evil People. If you respond to this, Talk to Yourself, I will Ignore!!!
No wonder his school went out of business and he is retired, Thank God. Guys you don’t Have to believe in God, but don’t let your self be so hyper skeptical that you become so blind.
@@mastper he said where he worked, so I mean with his line of logic or lack of logic it is understandable why he is unemployed. His argument was conspiracy theory exists therefore no god. While it is important to look at conspiracy and why and how those ideas develop it is not a valid way to make your point anymore than saying “you only believe because of your culture or brainwashing”. The same argument can be made for either side rendering both void. If that is all you have sit this conversation out and rethink the profession of philosophy lol.
@@bumstudios8817 my understanding was that Law was comparing the strategies used by conspiracy theorists to justify there beliefs to the way theists justify theirs.
@@mastper only problem is you can use the same argument against him. I prefer to stick with evidence and facts to make decisions. He comes off as hyper skeptical
Guys, HERE is The Savior YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus, and “HERE IS THE PROOF” From the Ancient Semitic Scroll: "Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3) Ancient Semitic Direct Translation Yad - "Behold The Hand" He - "Behold the Breath" Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. ... But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
When ever I listen to ‘philosophers/intellectuals’ argue against God - I think of Gods words that state “it’s a fool that says in his heart that there is no God”. These so called intellectuals must all be gamblers - because God/Jesus also tells us of a place called ‘HELL’. I certainly don’t what to gamble with that option. Give me Jesus all day thank you. MARANATHA - Amen 🙏 PS: I’m totally convinced of God being real and being my personal God - are philosophers convinced of their beliefs in no God ? I wonder?
Hi! Atheists say that most gods are unfalsifiable - you can't prove or disprove them. So they do not generally feel sure there is no god. However, the rules of critical thinking say that it is irrational to believe in unfalsifiable things. So atheists will not normally say that belief in a God is wrong, just that it is irrational.
"If there is any evil at all...therefore there is no God" That is very ignorant putting aside the most important question, if evil exists, what may be its ultimate purpose, even more, in bringing in an ultimate good?
@@poppypalais3108 Are you saying it is impossible for an all good God to exist, and evil to exist at the same time? Why cannot evil exist separate from an all good God?
@@poppypalais3108 Also, what is the purpose for evil to exists? Here is a post I shared: "I think the big one is, what is Jesus doing hanging on a cross? So God is not a God where we can point our finger at Him and ask why are we suffering while He is hanging on a cross. Instead we must ask why is God doing hanging on a cross? Also, when creating, such as in photography, or when casting a mold, you cannot receive what you desire without it first going through a negative. So I believe that God's creation was not "perfect" without the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or in other words, God's creation was not perfect without a chance for man to fall away from Him by his own freewill. So the ultimate negative being Satan, Adam and Eve went through a negative experience when the serpent tempted them in the garden to eat of the fruit, and of course they both did. So what this tree did was not only test humanity, but also the angels in heaven to ultimately bring in a harvest of who are truly wicked and righteous, to see who may dwell with God in eternity forever."
Aren’t you just spinning a narrative? You imagine god loves us all but he’ll only really show that live after we die when we get to heaven. Where’s the evidence to support any of this narrative?
@@mmmbbb2267 Well, it gets a bit long, but basically if this god is also all powerful and created everything, and is also all good, then evil can't exist. The free will argument fails. There are many things we can't do, live forever, fly, know what's outside the universe and a billion other things. If god hasn't granted us the power to do so many things, then why give us the power to commit evil? Most people don't torture children or watch such acts, they they know that such acts are evil. Knowledge of evil would be sufficient. Then there's the question of free will/evil in heaven, if you believe in it. "Also, when creating, such as in photography, or when casting a mold, you cannot receive what you desire without it first going through a negative." Which might sound clever or deep but actually 3 seconds of thought show it to be meaningless. Most photography these days is digital. No negatives. Thanks.
@@BrendaCreates The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned
@@BrendaCreates “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. that is logic and worthy to believe
@@samsimpson565 no that's my voice recorder I'm legally blind I can always help that I can always catch the mistakes thank you for your graciousness though God bless you.
@@godislove363 : I read your reply about you being legally blind and I thought about this Bible passage. God bless you. Matthew 13:43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
24:00 i didn't DECIDE to be atheist, i've always been atheist, it's not APPEALING i just am, and again to emphasise the point, i don't care one way or the other if there is a god, i'm not rejecting a god, i just don't see one. you can claim till the cows come home that god is in a flower, but i know the physics, chemistry and biology of flowers and there isn't room for god in there. go watcdh some sean carroll videos, eminant cosmologist, i agree with him, there is NO physical way for an afterlife to function. if there is no afterlife, christianity falls down at the first hurdle.
This is what I learn of reality. Why does it matter whom is deemed valuable or to say a god tells a person a thing such as slavery ( human trafficking) is good or others saying does not exist being Christian? Religion verses religion...not christians selling to atheists. So many sects but ok then it is fine to believe any one that agress politically is a true Christian but really?
I have recently watched the debate between him & William Lane Craig. What he pulls at around the 30 minute mark is what is normal for him. That not changing is rather weak for a professional thinker. What did he do? 1) Calls religion a conspiracy theory, because they act on the same logic according to him. 2) When called on it, he then states he isn't saying that, dodging any need to explain his claim. 3) Pins Christian's as punting to mystery when he clearly hasn't backed his viewpoint or intended to. I am not opposed to people being humanists. I don't hate them. That said, you cannot get my respect when your views don't align. If religion is a scam or a conspiracy theory or any other dubious thing you want to say, please tell me how that is true. Otherwise, why am I taking the time to hear you out? I have heard him out before & he has the same moves all these years later. I don't doubt he thinks about these things, but if he had an answer, he wouldn't punt like that to calling it conspiracies & then not backing that up. He doesn't know & that is well enough. He should have left it there. On the other side, I don't think Cliffe's normal line of questioning pushed him anywhere either. I almost think he said that response to push the show forward (give the audience what they want), rather than to challenge Cliffe. I didn't see this going anywhere, so I stopped after this move I cited. Nothing he gave backs his choice, other than he doesn't want to be Christian. His soul, his choice, & he seems disinclined to change that. That is what he had to offer unfortunately.
He didn't say Christianity was a conspiracy theory. He compared the arguments of Stuart and Cliffe to the arguments of conspiracy theorists. A completely valid move. You are the one who is erecting a straw man.
@@johnmartin2813 He did the same thing to William Lane Craig & WLC used philosophically sound arguments then. That was self reported by him. WLC was clearly not giving a conspiracy theory then, but rather a well thought out & philosophically rigorous argument. Again, he directly stated he said the same thing to WLC then & then went into his conspiracy theory bit now. He also retracted it afterwards ij this interview. It isn't just a strawman, as he did what I said he did. Still I want to hear you out. How did he say Cliffe's comments are like a conspiracy theory? Why did he then say he wasn't saying that when Cliffe got offended? Finally, please evidence your strawman by laying out his arguments & then how I strawmaned them. I wouldn't want to mistreat him or his beliefs, but I wouldn't want to let you mistreat my statements either. Please be clear. Vagueness would simply lead to me believing you didn't know what you are talking about & we can't have thst either. If you meant what you said, this should be open & shut. Thank you.
@@mackdmara : As I remember it he was accusing them of constantly using a 'God of the gaps' argument. He didn't actually use those words but I take it that that is what he meant. What he did in a much more long-winded way was to compare their arguments to those of a conspiracy theorist who makes use of whatever is unexplained in the ordinary account of what went on to see some cabal at work. He is not saying that Christianity is caused by a cabal. Indeed so far is he from doing that that he is even denying the machinations of any cabal to ordinary conspiracy theorists. He is merely pointing out a similarity in the shape of the argument. You seem an intelligent person and I'm surprised you didn't see that. It's not an analogy I would have used myself. In his position I would, as I say, merely have referred to the 'God of the gaps'. (Though these days those gaps are getting suspiciously large.) The straw man was introduced by you when you accused him of portraying Christianity as a conspiracy theory. Not even his interlocutors accused him of that. And if he had said that then presumably the only cabal involved would be that of God and his higher angels. Which would have played right into the hands of his interlocutors because that is what Christians actually believe. And he is an atheist
@@johnmartin2813 2 things then & this should empty out. 1) Ya know, the funny thing is I said he didn't give an argument, just a claim. That was my issue with him, he only had a claim without an argument. As such, I didn't talk about his argument, because he didn't have one. Now, how you thought that a strawman, I don't know. I didn't make an argument about his argument. I think you jumped the gun on calling it a strawman. Let me break this down though. First, I gave data. Things he did. He did those things. That isn't an argument, just a list of facts. Questions, facts, & leading assertions aren't arguments. At best they are rhetoric. At this point it wasn't an argument. Philosophers should have arguments for their claims. He has though a lot about this & no argument to give? That is suspect. This is an argument. It isn't a strawman of his argument though. It is a critique of his professional integrity. He should have presented an argument to back his guess. I don't hold you to that though, you aren't a professional philosopher. He on the other hand has no excuse. His claim was about religion & how it forms. My argument was that isn't an argument & isn't acceptable. He needs to evidence his guess is real, otherwise it is rhetoric. It was empty rhetoric. My argument wasn't about what his claim, but rather his method (lack there of really). Given this, do you still think I strawmaned him? 2) He is saying it is a 'god of the gaps', eh? Maybe, but I think you added that. What he was after there is how it is formed like a conspiracy theory. Same as with William Lane Craig in their debate (which he alluded to). You have these things you believe, which might be facts or not, that help you cope with life. You weave a narrative around those facts/believes to deal with the issues at hand. It isn't intentional, it is making a myth. Is that not a, 'god of the gaps' argument? No it isn't. That isn't an attempt to make an argument, it is a cultural narrative to explain facts. Those aren't formal arguments & a, 'god of the gaps' fallacy requires a formal argument. So, we can eliminate that as an option. He is saying it is like why we eat this, not that. This is unclean to eat because of a battle over a feast between the gods. This animal being served caused the fight & offence to one god & now that god has forbidden it to be eaten. Thus we don't eat that animal. This is based off the fact that eating this animal inappropriately cooked has adverse effects on us. This was noted. They then made up a religious reason to pass the knowledge that this animal is not for eating. It caused a fight amongst the gods & is known to be unclean. These savages might believe it, but it is a myth to teach a truth. You eat this, you will suffer. That isn't about Philosophy, it is about a view of theology. He believes this, sure. Evidence it as fact & not just a guess you like. Otherwise, you just made a story to evaluate a reason for a fact. *You made a myth about why myths were made.* Where is the argument that that is fact & not a narrative you made up to explain religions?
@@mackdmara : By and large logic is best for dealing with facts and rhetoric for dealing with values. When we are dealing with religion aren't we dealing with values by and large? When we deal with logic we test it by its fallaciousness. When we deal with rhetoric we test it by its sincerity. Not all rhetoric is empty. It is only empty when it is insincere. However I'm not sure that Dr. Law was being rhetorical. He was surely being logical. Usually the mistake of atheists is to be far too logical and to make no room for rhetoric. As if denying that values have any value. Whereas in fact they set far too high a value on logic, failing to see that logic has its limitations. (Cf. Pascal's 'The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.') It is usually the defenders of religion who use rhetoric. But in this case you seem to be suggesting that their roles have been reversed and it is the defenders of religion who are being logical and the atheist who was being rhetorical. This seems odd to me because rhetoric of it's very nature tends to be accompanied by emotional display whereas logic is not. But here surely Dr. Law was being remarkably unemotional whereas it was the Christian who was getting emotionally worked up. I suspect that if you want to fault Dr. Law and prove him wrong then this is not the way to do it. You must be more subtle than that. And come up with arguments he has never met before.
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God All things were made by him without him nothing made that was made John 1-1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for evidence of things not seen Hebrews What was made was not made of things that do appear it was made from the invisible God Men are without excuse Peter 3:3-4 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'" All you Atheist you are spiritual dead in sin blinded to the truth of Creation you are finite full of foolish wisdom you need Jesus Christ in you then you will know your identity and be able to look through the lens of God in how beautiful God handiwork in all Creation you were made in is likeness his image Jesus Christ the Godman sent by God to save sinners and reconcile us back to himself all creation is in birth pains and passing away God is going to create a new heaven and earth where righteousness shall dwell We in live in a fallen world you are not just a body you have a soul and spirit Sin came into the world through one man Adam sin and that became the fall of all men separated from a loving God Sin is unrighteousness Please consider looking into the bible before thinking you know have all the answers of life
I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.
What do you hope for what you see my hope is a know so hope everlasting life with my maker In Christ you will never see death I have internal peace beyond when l take of this body you have being waned turn To Jesus Christ or perish
Where does mans knowledge come from Eternity is along time God word says his word is health and healing to all your flesh this is not about man made religion legalistic boxes I must do this and that It is religion from above pure coming out of heaven living inside you bringing everything that is truth into reality knowing who I am where I came from and where I am going my with prure peace and joy while the world is in turmoil is it divine and supernatural we are God workmanship created in Christ Jesus
Christianity, a religion that begins and ends with the person and work of Jesus Christ, is the only religion of the world to regard man’s eternal salvation as a pure gift of God, without any human merit, work, or worthiness. As Christians, we believe there is one, true, and living God who made the world and made Himself known to the world. We reject any naturalistic or evolutionary approaches to religion that view religion as a product of man’s imagination. For Christians, a study of religion is the study of the true God who has revealed Himself to men as man. Christianity is exclusive. We are convinced by the testimony of the Bible and the historical claims made in Scripture that the true God exists and desires that all people know Him rightly and worship Him as the only true God. To know God is life and to be without Him is eternal death. Therefore, relativistic views of religion that deny the possibility of one, true God are completely incompatible with Christianity. Christianity is exclusive. Either Christianity is the true religion or it is not. Christianity is grounded in history. Because Christianity is a historical faith, grounded in human history, Christians are not concerned with the inner psyche of man as a source of truth or with studying how he came to be religious, as if the imagination of men satisfactorily answers questions of man’s origin and his purpose in the world. We believe that God has revealed Himself in history and made known His will for mankind. Once religion gets out of the imagination and into reality, one can test the claims of Christianity against reason and history. Hence, Christianity sees itself grounded in real history and not in pious opinion or myth. Christianity isn’t about you. For any who are new to Christianity, who are looking to see how Christianity is different from other world religions, they should see here that Christianity is about Christ who loved us and saved us, without any merit or worthiness in us, without any work that we have done, without any preparation on our part. St. Paul writes, “Though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you by His poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9). Christianity is an uneven exchange. Christianity is about a marvelous and happy exchange, wherein Christ takes our poverty, sin, weakness, foolishness, and sorrow and gives us His riches, righteousness, power, wisdom, and joy. The Christian faith is unlike any other religion. Every other religion says, “Work; pray; do this; do that.” But Jesus says, “Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).
Three times in this section we read about human beings being given up by God. They are given up to their vile passions, the lust of the flesh, and their reprobate minds. When God judges people according to the standard of his righteousness, he is declaring that he will not strive with mankind forever. We hear all the time about God’s infinite grace and mercy. I cringe when I hear it. God’s mercy is infinite insofar as it is mercy bestowed upon us by a Being who is infinite, but when the term infinite is used to describe his mercy rather than his person, I have problems with it because the Bible makes very clear that there is a limit to God’s mercy. There is a limit to his grace, and he is determined not to pour out his mercy on impenitent people forever. There is a time, as the Old Testament repeatedly reports, particularly in the book of the prophet Jeremiah, that God stops being gracious with people, and he gives them over to their sin. The worst thing that can happen to sinners is to be allowed to go on sinning without any divine restraints. At the end of the New Testament, in the book of Revelation when the description of the last judgment is set forth, God says, ‘He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still’ (Rev. 22:11). God gives people over to what they want. He abandons them to their sinful impulses and removes his restraints, saying in essence, ‘If you want to sin, go ahead and sin.’ This is what theologians call ‘judicial abandonment.’ God, in dispensing his just judgment, abandons the impenitent sinner forever.
Cliffe was unwittingly exhibiting exactly what Stephen was criticising and he didn't even realise it. All Cliffe did was attempt to emotionally blackmail Stephen into submission. A classic move by the religious.
When he didn't get the analogy I would have pretended there was an internet connection problem and pulled the plug.
19.28. " _I'm not as intelligent Stephen as you are, I'm not as intelligent as William Lane Craig is_ "
That pretty much sums it up.
Ray Comfort is about his level.
Cliffe comes across a bit upset/angry that someone else doesn't share his beliefs. He says he has always been a Christian, so no surprise he assumes he's right. Can he step outside his indoctrination and take the outsider test of faith?
the problem belivers have is they aren't allowed to contemplate no god. however unbiased they claim to be it's just not possible, and the irony of that is they aren't supposed to be sure of god, you are supposed to be skeptical, you need "faith" - you have to overcome these doubts, but ask anyone of the titheads on this page and they are 110% positive they have a god.
How about you step outside of ur atheistic indoctrination and become a Christian
@@joshuaolutobi3564 I used to be an indoctrinated Christian.
@@tiberiusvetus9113 Okay. Why are you an atheist?
@@joshuaolutobi3564 I realized that Christianity doesn't hold water when properly examined.
Brilliant discussion. Thank you. Some of Stephen Law's points: (1) Evidential evil is a real problem for Christian and other monotheistic believers. (2) 'The best ever carrot and stick' is Christianity: believe (and gain eternal life) and pass it on - or else (hell). (3) Stuart: There's evidence that people are 'happier' and live longer if they're members of institutional churches. Stephen agrees. But the most civilised countries [more equal, fewer social problems, and with strong welfare systems] have majorities who are humanist, agnostic or atheist (Sweden, Denmark, Japan, Canada, Bhutan and so on). Cliffe: But what about communist Russia and China? [the communist ideology was a form of 'State Religion' and clearly deleterious to free thought and the good life] (4) Stephen points out: 45% of Americans believe the Universe is less than 10,000 years old. Bonkers. They're not interested in the truth. (5) Cliffe: 'Stephen, what is the alternative to the Christian view of life?' We must all make our own moral judgements and that is difficult. [however, you don't make your judgements out of 'fear,' or in fact 'believe', because you don't want to go to 'hell']. (6) Stephen stresses: the belief that there's no objective morality without God is nonsense. (Recommend Stephen's books - especially the superb 'Philosophy', 2007, DK Eyewitness Companions)
Stephen Law has written extensively on this topic. This is how I understand Stephen Law’s argument(s):
1. Law is not making the argument objective moral values do or do not exist. He’s saying that it appears Cliffe Knechtle is arguing objective moral values do exist. From Law’s perspective, Cliffe has not presented any argument for this-including where these claimed values originate. [Essentially, Cliffe is attempting to Switch the Burden of Proof.]
2. Law is saying that even if it could be shown that objective moral values exist, there is no reason to suppose, and certainly no argument has been given by Cliffe, they originate from the Judaeo-Christian God.
3. From studying Law’s other works, he might ask: If, in the end and at the highest and widest level of reality, it’s the case that objective moral values don’t originate from the Judaeo-Christian God, or any other gods or goddesses, where, then, does a Christian such as Cliffe Knechtle get his morals? What, then, explains why Cliffe imagined, in his heart and with faith, that he was adhering to a standard that was non-existent?
4. Law is asking: Whether there is free will or not, how does it follow that an omnipotent (which necessarily includes all the other omnis) God is not ultimately responsible for all-things?
5. Law is asking: How is Cliffe not engaging in the very exercise he’s suggesting Law is-that of choosing for himself what is ultimately moral or not? So, for example: Are not Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Muslims not choosing mutually exclusive morals standards while simultaneously suggesting it’s a God they are following?
6. Law has what he calls the Evil God Challenge (The God of Eth). What this exercise exposes is: How has the Christian determined that their God is not ultimately evil? I.e., how have they determined it is, in fact, good? And if, in the end, this supposed God lives in, and with, an eternal nature, how is this not a subjective standard based upon random happenstance? I.e., how does a Christian such as Cliffe argue that the way things have eternally been are that way and could not have been any other way for an eternity for another God and still be deemed good? [Ref. The Euthyphro dilemma]
7. Law might ask: If, in the end, the Christians were wrong and the right answer was, say, Islam, how has their appeal to faith, their Bible, or any of their standard apologetic arguments for Jesus helped them?
The universe had a definite beginning, it didn't make itself. Life had a beginning, it didn't create itself and chaos couldn't create it. This gets us to the need for an eternal creator. The Hebrew history in the Bible and then culminating in Jesus brings us to an understanding of a personal God. No philosophizing can dismiss these two facts. They are not proof positive for the existence of God, but pillars in a plausible worldview. For Law, he is left at best with agnosticism that just says, "We will never know why the universe exists and I refuse to think God made it."
i may have this wrong, but don't the numbers show that more people are bound for hell than not?
🔥⛪📖⛪🔥
😆😆😆😆😆
I love the analysis of Christianity as a powerful sales pitch!
I don't need a sales pitch I say truth and facts and where there is no fact because not everything 100% know they're proven on anything exist I can stay the strong belief in faith of why Justice atheist noted minute but have faith in something they can't prove.
@@godislove363 yes Christian sect verses Christian sect saying no true Scotsman fallacies with towers of Bable. Yes true true
This works of any human made religion including cults it seems.
@@Chamelionroses I think you misunderstood me and that's partially my fault because I was very tired when I spoke the message. I use a recorder because I'm legally blind sometimes these message can be long. I do believe in Christ Church I do believe there is complete truth for the Bible we as humans don't know all the truth we're not supposed you right now but there are some churches that do teach closest to the truth that the light is allowed to be given. That does not mean the Church of perfect meaning the people does not mean that with everything they say it's perfect call me Christ is perfect. But what atheist teach is also quite wrong and imperfect the wrong because they don't even stand by only or real true thought they speak words but then have nothing to back them up.
Even if it was a sales pitch, it doesn't follow that you shouldn't buy the "product".
18:00 isn't it great when people just change the subject. law was talking about the INTERNAL problem and the interuption was a personal anecdote, a sad anecdote, but nothing to do with what law was talking about. now we have to console poor whatsis name and try, try to get back on topic. sheesh. (nice to be able to comment by the way, makes a change from the cowardly way WLC et al disable crits).
I am really disappointed. Stuart is a nice Guy, but Cliffe is really disrespectful. Put yourself in Stephen's shoes. You're invited to a "conversation" and, all of sudden, one the guys gets preachy and start to accuse you.
Seriously, what is the point of these discussions? It makes any attentive person to suspect the goal is "to show that the atheist philosopher can not give us satisfying answers" or worse "that atheists are dishonest". It reveals desperation. It's Ray comfort's level kind of stuff. Come on.
Advice, Stuart: if you want to be taken seriously, you better talk to your old man or start your own ministry.
Shame on you, Cliffe, shame on you.
How was he being disrespectful?
Stuart and Cliffe assume that they are right because they believe the narrative that they have is correct despite the lack good reasons to share their belief in that narrative.
Stephen Law does a good job of exposing the holes in their simplistic, almost child-like narrative. Despite the they just keep saying the same answers over and over. It’s almost as if they are closed minded and incapable of independent thought.
Stuart and Cliffe just keep unthinkingly regurgitating the same points. It’s like they just want to win the argument rather than discover what is true.
I agree with Richard Feynman when he said “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong”.
The apologist can’t do that yet they have more wrong answers than correct ones.
How do you know they are wrong though?
@@josephtoler536 pick a claim about Christianity and let’s explore it together. Let’s see if there are good reasons to believe if it’s true.
If you are a Christian , can you share your testimony as to how you came to believe?
Head knowledge of nothingness
@@Mrneina as we can agree #Faith is an unreliable epistemology.
I guess the point of my prior question are to check if your beliefs conform to reality. Your challenge is to demonstrate thar they do.....
I hope that you have the courage to continue this conversation.
In YOUR OWN WORDS can you answer some simple questions for me:
1. How old is the universe?
2. How old is the earth?
3. What best explains the origins of our species?
4. What happens when we die?
too many theists just do this, all they want is to be right, they aren't aware of a thing called truth.
24:00 allow me a profanity - accusing me of being atheist because i want apromiscuous lifestyle is insulting, i am NATURALLY promiscuous, i could be christian and be promiscuous, in fact i'd like to see the stats on that one cos the catholics have got promiscuity down to an art. and as hitchens liked to point out a christian can argue the same way, "god told me to do this evil, god made me a mass murderer" this was the backbone of the inquisition, if anything an atheist has a notion of personal responsibility, and there is no one to forgive me my trespasses is there. i've said this before, i have close ties with japan and i belive one reason the japanese are so honest is that they don't have a forgiving god, if you steal you have failed as a person, god isn't going to let you off at the last moment, as an atheist i carry my guilt, i don't in fact want to give it up, if i do something "wrong" it's mine and i really don't want a god to forgive me, i want my peers to forgive me - it's also why japanese bow to EACH OTHER, i have zero respect for a god who DEMANDS things of me. stuff that.
This was insanely well worded.
If that God gave you life, he has the right to ask you for whatever. Now you may choose not to respond, you may choose to live ur life separate from him and he'll let you also live eternity separate from him
I wish theists would argue honestly. But that would give up the game, I suppose. And god boy should look up the meaning of "Analogy."
@J w Really? Is that a rhetorical question? If you really don't see the dodges and word games, the obvious attempts at being, "Outraged", the ridiculous attempts to invoke emotions, and all because he had fuck all in the way of evidence for ant god, then perhaps I'll go through it again, and document it for you.
@J w Dude. You couldn't be any wronger if you where a flat earther. And believe me, I don't spend all my time prowling theists channels. But it is fun, from time to time, just to get a laugh at the bullshit some people believe.
@J w Lol! Project much? Look dude, I'm just a guy looking at the arguments and available evidence and trying to come a conclusion. Just because some people believe fallacious arguments, and buy into presuppositional logic, doesn't mean everyone does. Some of are genuinely curious. Just because there's no evidence, doesn't mean I'm in a cult. It means I'm open to evidence and can tell bull shit when I see/hear it.
@J w OK fellow human, I'm sure we can talk past each other forever, and dig in our heels, and blame the other for being closed minded. So lets just be real here; what do you believe and why?
@J w Which one? And why? Have you seen it?
Rather than in whose image we've been CREATED, what if our collective consciousness has yet to conclude its constructive PROCREATION of a God from whom we'd ultimately all wanna come whom, in turn, retroactively causes the very big bang whence we've seemingly come?
God is a word that replaces "I don't know"
for those who want an answer.
Cliffe wants an answer from college kids.
Unfortunately college kids don't know either.
Christians think somebody having to watch you 24/7 is a good thing, not a huge insult to human beings .
How does Stuart sit next to his dad watching him engage with people like for extended amounts of time without his head exploding? He looks physically uncomfortable throughout most of these videos.
How have you worked through the problem of evil?
As I see it, it’s only a problem for theists. So no need to work though it for me. Coping with the harshness of life and reality is a thing though. Working on it.
@@GraftedOliveBranch goodness. Who grades the damned when they get to hell?
@@GraftedOliveBranch Yes, Jesus tells the Pharisees (Matthew 23:14) "you will receive a greater condemnation!"
I think the big one is, what is Jesus doing hanging on a cross? So God is not a God where we can point our finger at Him and ask why are we suffering while He is hanging on a cross. Instead we must ask why is God doing hanging on a cross? Also, when creating, such as in photography, or when casting a mold, you cannot receive what you desire without it first going through a negative.
So I believe that God's creation was not "perfect" without the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or in other words, God's creation was not perfect without a chance for man to fall away from Him by his own freewill. So the ultimate negative being Satan, Adam and Eve went through a negative experience when the serpent tempted them in the garden to eat of the fruit, and of course they both did. So what this tree did was not only test humanity, but also the angels in heaven to ultimately bring in a harvest of who are truly wicked and righteous, to see who may dwell with God in eternity forever.
Evil is entirely accounted for by natural mechanisms.
There is no reason to invoke a supernatural agent to explain earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, famine etc etc.
If you want to explain Human behaviour study psychology.
Call these people out on their faith in the morality of the ones interpreting the fossil record, selling the idea of billions of years.
“Do you know 100% for yourself?”
I enjoyed this discussion. I'm an agnostic so I have problems with religion and atheism. The biggest problem I have with religion is the problem of evil - how can a good God allow the awful suffering in life? The biggest problem I have with atheism is its claim that there is no evidence of God. With regard to the latter, the simple fact is that we have no idea how life began beyond scientific speculation (the Big Bang etc). The same applies to the 'hard problem' of consciousness, the origin of DNA, and cosmic 'fine-tuning' . These remain huge issues that materialist metaphysics (the assumptions underpinning mainstream science) appears unable to resolve. Which emphatically doesn't mean we should insert God into the 'gaps'. It just means we have to keep pursuing these questions in a spirit of humility and to be open to civil/critical debate. What worries me is when atheists become almost religious about their worldview (I think Dawkins is often guilty of this) and when religious people - fundamentalists in particular - seek to silence criticism. Einstein and Darwin, two of the greatest minds in human history, were in fact both agnostics because they recognised that the claims of science and religion are fundamentally rooted in belief systems and life remains profoundly puzzling.
Heaven or Hell
I can answer your question about why the evil if you let me have a dialogue with you we can either do it here or by email or messenger but let me know because and I'm very truthful sincere easy way I like that express that to you but I'm legally blind and take awhile to type it in that kind of said he'll hear the site so if you give me that opportunity let me know and I'll be glad to do it okay I hope you have a good day just message me here if you want and then we can go from there and I'll be happy to do however you want thank you.
Hi Steve.
Do you believe in a god?
@@rovert46 I neither believe nor disbelieve. The 'evidence' is conflicting. I see (apparent) evidence of a deep intelligence in nature/the universe that goes beyond evolution and physics (like Einstein). But that's as far as I'm prepared to go. And I can not square suffering with this - no religious arguments, including Buddhism (if we accept that as notionally religious) account for the extreme suffering of humans and animals even with free will factored in.
@@stevewturnbull isn’t it one or the other? If I don’t believe I therefore lack belief.
~43' But Raskolnikov has a conscience before he becomes a Christian!
Something can no more come from nothing than anything having never to have had to come at all.
watch some sean carrol, brian greene and even roger penrose, you haven't grapsed the problem. and while i'm here if you have "nothing" that includes the laws of physics, so, anything can happen.
So far, @Harry Nicholas, "the laws of physics" depend on knowing that 90% of everything is knowably unknowable. Especially the more likely scenario that instead of being created by God, we've yet to procreate a God from whom we'd all wanna come in the first place. That way, since physics NEVER talks about the required application of thermodynamics of a time our observer-dependent reality only renders MOVING FORWARD, its cosmic Michael Phelps-like flip turn at the end of time's "reality pool" -- or our feigned destined singularity -- actually retroactively causes the very big bang whence we've come in what's only an apparition of a "first place" in our current NOW.
This way, Santa Claus and an epistemological "sanity clause" don't have to be mutually exclusive.
There's MY par-for-the course scorecard. Has Brian Greene even teed-off yet?
@@chrismorris6604 say! Man ticks!
I wonder if Stephen Law wonders why evil thoughts arise from his heart at times and where they might come from. It may not be a very important question, I just wonder if he thinks about it our not.
The origin of our sense of morality comes form a long evolutionary process which has allowed us to intelligently manage our responses to basic EMOTIONAL impulses.
If a world wide survey was conducted to establish how many people were APPALLED by the idea of microwaving babies and no overwhelming consensus that it's wrong was returned, but rather, we found a whole spectrum of OPINIONS, then Cliffe's rather bizarre and distorted view of morality would make a little more sense.
I'm.a Christian but I prefer Stephen's atheism to Stuart's faith, which is the sort of thing that always put me off.
Why does faith put you off?
John Wumsh: It's not so much the faith that put me off as the way that faith was expressed. An oppressive mixture of bullying and emotional blackmail. I thought Stephen displayed the patience of a Job in tackling it. I wish more Christians would behave with that degree of modesty and humility and resignation.
You take sides of unbelievers your not a Christian
@@Mrneina: You poor fellow! What does Christianity have to do with taking sides? Religion isn't politics. Religion is about love. If I remember rightly somebody once said something about loving your enemies. Ring a bell?
@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631 : Hi!
Secularism fosters healthy societies? Curious. Nothing in atheism prescribes any sort of sexual morality? Sexual preference is the only guide. Adultery, divorce, polygamy...what's the problem?
What happened to the evolutionary psychological explanation for why of the development of morality, and that the most evil actions are peputated by the most developmentally traumatised perhaps disadvantaged persons whose origin in childhood.
Good video.
Do these guys think they are going to convert Stephen to believe in Jesus? What are they trying to do?
You can't say "I don't know" about everything and NOT be a Moral Relativist.
Evil seems to be abounding, and righteousness seems to be on the retreat. Again, how do we explain all this? What I just read in my morning Scripture reading pretty well tells us exactly what is happening and why. And so important is this passage that it is worth presenting it in full here. I refer to that incredible text, Romans 1:18-32:
God’s Wrath on Unrighteousness
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.
Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.
And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.
I hope that you have the courage to continue our conversation.
In YOUR OWN WORDS can you answer some simple questions for me:
1. How old is the universe?
2. How old is the earth?
3. What best explains the origins of our species?
4. What happens when we die?
Is GOD the ONLY way to avoid the dangers of Moral relativism ? .....Im not dogmatic one way or the other on that...Just asking for opinions & ideas.
Cliffe is really rude just like he is on college campuses.
Cliffe and Stuart Look and Sound EVIL to me. They always seem so Proud of how Nasty they are. If Cliffe and Stuart are Examples of Jesus' Love, NO THANK YOU. Cliffe and Stuart DON'T have Common Courtesy to Allow the Guest to Speak without Yelling Over Him, Cutting Him Off, Interrupting Him to put forth their Assinine Reasoning. To ask the question what does it matter if 5 year old Children die is a Clear Sign of Mental Instability, In My Humble Opinoon. Cliffe and Stuart are Angry, Frightened, Scared to Death of their Imaginary God. Seen Cliffe for Many Years, he is always threatening, manipulating, trying to Scare People to God and Jesus. Absolutely Disgusting, Disrespectful, Disgraceful Human Beings.
To be fair to them I think they were asking why it matters to atheists whether 5 year old children die. Apart from that I agree with most of what you said.
@@mastper I understand what you are saying. No Scholar here, just my opinion but only a Depraved, Despicable Imitation of a Human Being would ever think to ask such a question.
@J w From a person who believes in an EVIL God who KILLED EVERY Man, Woman, Child, Mothers in Childbirth, Infants in the Process of Being Born, Old Men and Women who could not Walk, Blind People, Deaf People, Disabled Children, Every Animal, Bird, Insect, Flower, Tree, Bush, etc. on Mother Earth except those on an Imaginary Boat and is Waiting for this God to come back and Kill the Rest of us
@J w I was trying to be nice but I will state FACT, You are Stupid on Top of Evil, a Dangerous Combination and I don't waste time on or with Stupid and/or Evil People. If you respond to this, Talk to Yourself, I will Ignore!!!
lol, christians can't help being insecure, they are starting from a really shaky premise.
No wonder his school went out of business and he is retired, Thank God. Guys you don’t Have to believe in God, but don’t let your self be so hyper skeptical that you become so blind.
'His college' was actually a Jesuit foundation so I'm not quite sure what you mean.
@@mastper he said where he worked, so I mean with his line of logic or lack of logic it is understandable why he is unemployed. His argument was conspiracy theory exists therefore no god. While it is important to look at conspiracy and why and how those ideas develop it is not a valid way to make your point anymore than saying “you only believe because of your culture or brainwashing”. The same argument can be made for either side rendering both void. If that is all you have sit this conversation out and rethink the profession of philosophy lol.
@@bumstudios8817 my understanding was that Law was comparing the strategies used by conspiracy theorists to justify there beliefs to the way theists justify theirs.
@@mastper only problem is you can use the same argument against him. I prefer to stick with evidence and facts to make decisions. He comes off as hyper skeptical
Guys, HERE is The Savior
YaH The Heavenly FATHER HIMSELF was Who they Crucified for our sins, NOT jesus, and “HERE IS THE PROOF”
From the Ancient Semitic Scroll:
"Yad He Vav He" is what Moses wrote, when Moses asked YaH His Name (Exodus 3)
Ancient Semitic Direct Translation
Yad - "Behold The Hand"
He - "Behold the Breath"
Vav - "Behold The NAIL"
[I can call your beliefs absurd while dancing around giving non-answers about my own wishful thinking.]
For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength. Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. ... But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
When ever I listen to ‘philosophers/intellectuals’ argue against God - I think of Gods words that state “it’s a fool that says in his heart that there is no God”. These so called intellectuals must all be gamblers - because God/Jesus also tells us of a place called ‘HELL’. I certainly don’t what to gamble with that option. Give me Jesus all day thank you. MARANATHA - Amen 🙏 PS: I’m totally convinced of God being real and being my personal God - are philosophers convinced of their beliefs in no God ? I wonder?
Hi!
Atheists say that most gods are unfalsifiable - you can't prove or disprove them. So they do not generally feel sure there is no god.
However, the rules of critical thinking say that it is irrational to believe in unfalsifiable things.
So atheists will not normally say that belief in a God is wrong, just that it is irrational.
"If there is any evil at all...therefore there is no God" That is very ignorant putting aside the most important question, if evil exists, what may be its ultimate purpose, even more, in bringing in an ultimate good?
Should say "... therefore there is no all good god". Evil acts exist, not sure why you think there's any purpose.
@@poppypalais3108 Are you saying it is impossible for an all good God to exist, and evil to exist at the same time? Why cannot evil exist separate from an all good God?
@@poppypalais3108 Also, what is the purpose for evil to exists? Here is a post I shared:
"I think the big one is, what is Jesus doing hanging on a cross? So God is not a God where we can point our finger at Him and ask why are we suffering while He is hanging on a cross. Instead we must ask why is God doing hanging on a cross? Also, when creating, such as in photography, or when casting a mold, you cannot receive what you desire without it first going through a negative.
So I believe that God's creation was not "perfect" without the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, or in other words, God's creation was not perfect without a chance for man to fall away from Him by his own freewill. So the ultimate negative being Satan, Adam and Eve went through a negative experience when the serpent tempted them in the garden to eat of the fruit, and of course they both did. So what this tree did was not only test humanity, but also the angels in heaven to ultimately bring in a harvest of who are truly wicked and righteous, to see who may dwell with God in eternity forever."
Aren’t you just spinning a narrative?
You imagine god loves us all but he’ll only really show that live after we die when we get to heaven.
Where’s the evidence to support any of this narrative?
@@mmmbbb2267 Well, it gets a bit long, but basically if this god is also all powerful and created everything, and is also all good, then evil can't exist.
The free will argument fails. There are many things we can't do, live forever, fly, know what's outside the universe and a billion other things.
If god hasn't granted us the power to do so many things, then why give us the power to commit evil?
Most people don't torture children or watch such acts, they they know that such acts are evil. Knowledge of evil would be sufficient.
Then there's the question of free will/evil in heaven, if you believe in it.
"Also, when creating, such as in photography, or when casting a mold, you cannot receive what you desire without it first going through a negative." Which might sound clever or deep but actually 3 seconds of thought show it to be meaningless.
Most photography these days is digital. No negatives.
Thanks.
i'll debate you
Are you a true Christian or hater of God
@@Mrneina I'm an atheist
@@BrendaCreates The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned
@@Mrneina So you are saying your faith is irrational.
@@BrendaCreates “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. that is logic and worthy to believe
Steven Law was both ilogical and inconsistent.
And the irony is you spelt his name wrong and the word illogical.
@@samsimpson565 no that's my voice recorder I'm legally blind I can always help that I can always catch the mistakes thank you for your graciousness though God bless you.
@@godislove363 : I read your reply about you being legally blind and I thought about this Bible passage. God bless you.
Matthew 13:43
Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631 I agree, may God bless you as well.
@@godislove363 apologises, no way I could have know. Just assumed you’d misspelt it. Sorry man.
24:00 i didn't DECIDE to be atheist, i've always been atheist, it's not APPEALING i just am, and again to emphasise the point, i don't care one way or the other if there is a god, i'm not rejecting a god, i just don't see one. you can claim till the cows come home that god is in a flower, but i know the physics, chemistry and biology of flowers and there isn't room for god in there. go watcdh some sean carroll videos, eminant cosmologist, i agree with him, there is NO physical way for an afterlife to function. if there is no afterlife, christianity falls down at the first hurdle.
No other person can love because no Christ involved or in Christ. So if not a Christian they love no one. Yes responsibilities agreed.
This is what I learn of reality. Why does it matter whom is deemed valuable or to say a god tells a person a thing such as slavery ( human trafficking) is good or others saying does not exist being Christian? Religion verses religion...not christians selling to atheists. So many sects but ok then it is fine to believe any one that agress politically is a true Christian but really?
Look up pastor Jesse Lee Petterson. Is he wrong or right because love?
I have recently watched the debate between him & William Lane Craig. What he pulls at around the 30 minute mark is what is normal for him. That not changing is rather weak for a professional thinker.
What did he do?
1) Calls religion a conspiracy theory, because they act on the same logic according to him.
2) When called on it, he then states he isn't saying that, dodging any need to explain his claim.
3) Pins Christian's as punting to mystery when he clearly hasn't backed his viewpoint or intended to.
I am not opposed to people being humanists. I don't hate them. That said, you cannot get my respect when your views don't align. If religion is a scam or a conspiracy theory or any other dubious thing you want to say, please tell me how that is true. Otherwise, why am I taking the time to hear you out?
I have heard him out before & he has the same moves all these years later. I don't doubt he thinks about these things, but if he had an answer, he wouldn't punt like that to calling it conspiracies & then not backing that up. He doesn't know & that is well enough. He should have left it there.
On the other side, I don't think Cliffe's normal line of questioning pushed him anywhere either. I almost think he said that response to push the show forward (give the audience what they want), rather than to challenge Cliffe. I didn't see this going anywhere, so I stopped after this move I cited.
Nothing he gave backs his choice, other than he doesn't want to be Christian. His soul, his choice, & he seems disinclined to change that. That is what he had to offer unfortunately.
He didn't say Christianity was a conspiracy theory. He compared the arguments of Stuart and Cliffe to the arguments of conspiracy theorists. A completely valid move. You are the one who is erecting a straw man.
@@johnmartin2813
He did the same thing to William Lane Craig & WLC used philosophically sound arguments then. That was self reported by him. WLC was clearly not giving a conspiracy theory then, but rather a well thought out & philosophically rigorous argument. Again, he directly stated he said the same thing to WLC then & then went into his conspiracy theory bit now. He also retracted it afterwards ij this interview. It isn't just a strawman, as he did what I said he did.
Still I want to hear you out.
How did he say Cliffe's comments are like a conspiracy theory? Why did he then say he wasn't saying that when Cliffe got offended?
Finally, please evidence your strawman by laying out his arguments & then how I strawmaned them. I wouldn't want to mistreat him or his beliefs, but I wouldn't want to let you mistreat my statements either.
Please be clear. Vagueness would simply lead to me believing you didn't know what you are talking about & we can't have thst either. If you meant what you said, this should be open & shut. Thank you.
@@mackdmara : As I remember it he was accusing them of constantly using a 'God of the gaps' argument. He didn't actually use those words but I take it that that is what he meant. What he did in a much more long-winded way was to compare their arguments to those of a conspiracy theorist who makes use of whatever is unexplained in the ordinary account of what went on to see some cabal at work. He is not saying that Christianity is caused by a cabal. Indeed so far is he from doing that that he is even denying the machinations of any cabal to ordinary conspiracy theorists. He is merely pointing out a similarity in the shape of the argument. You seem an intelligent person and I'm surprised you didn't see that. It's not an analogy I would have used myself. In his position I would, as I say, merely have referred to the 'God of the gaps'. (Though these days those gaps are getting suspiciously large.) The straw man was introduced by you when you accused him of portraying Christianity as a conspiracy theory. Not even his interlocutors accused him of that. And if he had said that then presumably the only cabal involved would be that of God and his higher angels. Which would have played right into the hands of his interlocutors because that is what Christians actually believe. And he is an atheist
@@johnmartin2813
2 things then & this should empty out.
1) Ya know, the funny thing is I said he didn't give an argument, just a claim. That was my issue with him, he only had a claim without an argument. As such, I didn't talk about his argument, because he didn't have one.
Now, how you thought that a strawman, I don't know. I didn't make an argument about his argument. I think you jumped the gun on calling it a strawman.
Let me break this down though. First, I gave data. Things he did. He did those things. That isn't an argument, just a list of facts. Questions, facts, & leading assertions aren't arguments. At best they are rhetoric. At this point it wasn't an argument.
Philosophers should have arguments for their claims. He has though a lot about this & no argument to give? That is suspect. This is an argument.
It isn't a strawman of his argument though. It is a critique of his professional integrity. He should have presented an argument to back his guess. I don't hold you to that though, you aren't a professional philosopher. He on the other hand has no excuse.
His claim was about religion & how it forms. My argument was that isn't an argument & isn't acceptable. He needs to evidence his guess is real, otherwise it is rhetoric. It was empty rhetoric. My argument wasn't about what his claim, but rather his method (lack there of really).
Given this, do you still think I strawmaned him?
2) He is saying it is a 'god of the gaps', eh? Maybe, but I think you added that. What he was after there is how it is formed like a conspiracy theory. Same as with William Lane Craig in their debate (which he alluded to).
You have these things you believe, which might be facts or not, that help you cope with life. You weave a narrative around those facts/believes to deal with the issues at hand. It isn't intentional, it is making a myth.
Is that not a, 'god of the gaps' argument? No it isn't. That isn't an attempt to make an argument, it is a cultural narrative to explain facts. Those aren't formal arguments & a, 'god of the gaps' fallacy requires a formal argument. So, we can eliminate that as an option.
He is saying it is like why we eat this, not that. This is unclean to eat because of a battle over a feast between the gods. This animal being served caused the fight & offence to one god & now that god has forbidden it to be eaten. Thus we don't eat that animal.
This is based off the fact that eating this animal inappropriately cooked has adverse effects on us. This was noted. They then made up a religious reason to pass the knowledge that this animal is not for eating. It caused a fight amongst the gods & is known to be unclean. These savages might believe it, but it is a myth to teach a truth. You eat this, you will suffer.
That isn't about Philosophy, it is about a view of theology. He believes this, sure. Evidence it as fact & not just a guess you like. Otherwise, you just made a story to evaluate a reason for a fact. *You made a myth about why myths were made.*
Where is the argument that that is fact & not a narrative you made up to explain religions?
@@mackdmara : By and large logic is best for dealing with facts and rhetoric for dealing with values. When we are dealing with religion aren't we dealing with values by and large? When we deal with logic we test it by its fallaciousness. When we deal with rhetoric we test it by its sincerity. Not all rhetoric is empty. It is only empty when it is insincere. However I'm not sure that Dr. Law was being rhetorical. He was surely being logical. Usually the mistake of atheists is to be far too logical and to make no room for rhetoric. As if denying that values have any value. Whereas in fact they set far too high a value on logic, failing to see that logic has its limitations. (Cf. Pascal's 'The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.') It is usually the defenders of religion who use rhetoric. But in this case you seem to be suggesting that their roles have been reversed and it is the defenders of religion who are being logical and the atheist who was being rhetorical. This seems odd to me because rhetoric of it's very nature tends to be accompanied by emotional display whereas logic is not. But here surely Dr. Law was being remarkably unemotional whereas it was the Christian who was getting emotionally worked up. I suspect that if you want to fault Dr. Law and prove him wrong then this is not the way to do it. You must be more subtle than that. And come up with arguments he has never met before.
FIRST
In the beginning was the word and the word was with God All things were made by him without him nothing made that was made John 1-1 Faith is the substance of things hoped for evidence of things not seen Hebrews What was made was not made of things that do appear it was made from the invisible God Men are without excuse
Peter 3:3-4 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse
God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: 'I AM has sent me to you.'"
All you Atheist you are spiritual dead in sin blinded to the truth of Creation you are finite full of foolish wisdom you need Jesus Christ in you then you will know your identity and be able to look through the lens of God in how beautiful God handiwork in all Creation you were made in is likeness his image Jesus Christ the Godman sent by God to save sinners and reconcile us back to himself all creation is in birth pains and passing away God is going to create a new heaven and earth where righteousness shall dwell We in live in a fallen world you are not just a body you have a soul and spirit Sin came into the world through one man Adam sin and that became the fall of all men separated from a loving God Sin is unrighteousness Please consider looking into the bible before thinking you know have all the answers of life
I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong.
What do you hope for what you see my hope is a know so hope everlasting life with my maker In Christ you will never see death I have internal peace beyond when l take of this body you have being waned turn To Jesus Christ or perish
@@Mrneina ever wonder if your religious obsession might be unhealthy?
Does it ever interfere with other aspects of your life?
My hope is to live a life filled with purpose and meaning, which I do.
Where does mans knowledge come from Eternity is along time God word says his word is health and healing to all your flesh this is not about man made religion legalistic boxes I must do this and that It is religion from above pure coming out of heaven living inside you bringing everything that is truth into reality knowing who I am where I came from and where I am going my with prure peace and joy while the world is in turmoil is it divine and supernatural we are God workmanship created in Christ Jesus
Christianity, a religion that begins and ends with the person and work of Jesus Christ, is the only religion of the world to regard man’s eternal salvation as a pure gift of God, without any human merit, work, or worthiness.
As Christians, we believe there is one, true, and living God who made the world and made Himself known to the world. We reject any naturalistic or evolutionary approaches to religion that view religion as a product of man’s imagination. For Christians, a study of religion is the study of the true God who has revealed Himself to men as man.
Christianity is exclusive.
We are convinced by the testimony of the Bible and the historical claims made in Scripture that the true God exists and desires that all people know Him rightly and worship Him as the only true God. To know God is life and to be without Him is eternal death.
Therefore, relativistic views of religion that deny the possibility of one, true God are completely incompatible with Christianity. Christianity is exclusive. Either Christianity is the true religion or it is not.
Christianity is grounded in history.
Because Christianity is a historical faith, grounded in human history, Christians are not concerned with the inner psyche of man as a source of truth or with studying how he came to be religious, as if the imagination of men satisfactorily answers questions of man’s origin and his purpose in the world.
We believe that God has revealed Himself in history and made known His will for mankind. Once religion gets out of the imagination and into reality, one can test the claims of Christianity against reason and history. Hence, Christianity sees itself grounded in real history and not in pious opinion or myth.
Christianity isn’t about you.
For any who are new to Christianity, who are looking to see how Christianity is different from other world religions, they should see here that Christianity is about Christ who loved us and saved us, without any merit or worthiness in us, without any work that we have done, without any preparation on our part. St. Paul writes, “Though He was rich, yet for your sake He became poor, so that you by His poverty might become rich” (2 Corinthians 8:9).
Christianity is an uneven exchange.
Christianity is about a marvelous and happy exchange, wherein Christ takes our poverty, sin, weakness, foolishness, and sorrow and gives us His riches, righteousness, power, wisdom, and joy. The Christian faith is unlike any other religion. Every other religion says, “Work; pray; do this; do that.” But Jesus says, “Come to Me, all who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you, and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy, and My burden is light” (Matthew 11:28-30).
Three times in this section we read about human beings being given up by God. They are given up to their vile passions, the lust of the flesh, and their reprobate minds. When God judges people according to the standard of his righteousness, he is declaring that he will not strive with mankind forever. We hear all the time about God’s infinite grace and mercy. I cringe when I hear it. God’s mercy is infinite insofar as it is mercy bestowed upon us by a Being who is infinite, but when the term infinite is used to describe his mercy rather than his person, I have problems with it because the Bible makes very clear that there is a limit to God’s mercy. There is a limit to his grace, and he is determined not to pour out his mercy on impenitent people forever. There is a time, as the Old Testament repeatedly reports, particularly in the book of the prophet Jeremiah, that God stops being gracious with people, and he gives them over to their sin.
The worst thing that can happen to sinners is to be allowed to go on sinning without any divine restraints. At the end of the New Testament, in the book of Revelation when the description of the last judgment is set forth, God says, ‘He who is unjust, let him be unjust still; he who is filthy, let him be filthy still’ (Rev. 22:11). God gives people over to what they want. He abandons them to their sinful impulses and removes his restraints, saying in essence, ‘If you want to sin, go ahead and sin.’ This is what theologians call ‘judicial abandonment.’ God, in dispensing his just judgment, abandons the impenitent sinner forever.