The illogical, irrational, and unreasonable position of claiming that there is No Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence (i.e. Atheism): The fallacy is the assumption that something is true (i.e. Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence does not exist) unless proven otherwise. The Claimant making a negative claim (i.e. Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence does not exist) cannot logically, rationally, and reasonably prove nonexistence. Because, for a Claimant to know that X does not exist would require the Claimant to possess 100% knowledge of all things with 100% certainty and 100% accuracy (i.e. omniscience). Even mainstream secular scientists claim that approx. 95% of the Universe is still unknown (i.e. Dark Energy and Dark Matter). Of the remaining 5% of the Universe, only 0.0035% exists within the visible light spectrum which the human eye is capable of observing. Therefore, there is much, much more that humanity does not know about the Universe and Reality than it does know. Based on just this information, the position of claiming to be Atheist is shown to be illogical, irrational and unreasonable. *_“… Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”_* Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner *_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind (i.e. Observer). This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_* Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics) The fact that DNA / genes (biological coded information) exists at all shows that a Consciousness-'Intelligence-Mind' is involved in the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of living systems. Un-directed random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information such as that required for biological systems, even at the most primitive levels of biological life. Laws of the Universe exist Independent of anyone's personal beliefs in the existence of the Laws of the Universe. Just as man-made laws govern society globally, Universal Laws govern the entire Universe. Un-directed random material natural processes have never been observed or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing any form of laws. As scientifically confirmed, non-material laws are the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence.
The question is: why provide divine revelations to some but not others? It's inconsistent and for me, intuitively demonstrates religious experiences as being probably dismissable.
Just because God show himself to a person does not mean that is what's needed to CHANGE!!!!! the devil knows God is real yet he haves no love for him or his ways. Father is all knowing so if he does not show himself to some people perhaps the reason is because that's not going to change their ways and it would prob be worse for the person to KNOW and yet STILL REJECT!!!!!!
@@TheEternalOuroboros well according to the Bible and The Story of Lazarus I would say that's not true when the rich man died and begged Abraham to let him go up and warn his brothers Abraham response was if they do not believe the prophets then they will not believe even when someone rises from the dead the whole point is if people love sin and the things that they do they will not change even if father reveals himself to them at best they will try to rationalize it away or at work they would accuse father of being wrong and unjust
He says it goes both way, but I would beg to differ, in those other stories an encounter happened from an outside force that shifted the paradigm of the individual. In stories of falling from the faith, there tends to be a more meditative critique (that could even be valid in certain context) to solidify a walk away from trying reach the divine. There is a difference. One says “God revealed Himself to me,” (outside source) while the other says “I thought about it and came to the conclusion it’s nonsense.” (Inside source)
Nick so at best you are only referring to two or three examples out of a swath of billions and billions and billions of examples throughout history. The broader point I think you and this young philosopher are missing is that the stories exist throughout history that match your examples in the opposite direction and for the exact inverse and category of reasons that the given examples here poses. And it follows that an individual story of conversion is not a compelling argument. It’s the equivalent of climate science deniers saying “I don’t think the earth is warming, I was really cold last night.” Or better yet saying , the earth is not warming - it was colder in Miami yesterday than it was in Chicago. You cannot make macro arguments by inky recognizing your reality at the microscopic level and then thinking that there couldn’t possibly be an inverse example to the one you just made. Do you understand this ?
@@ThePinsa42 I’m not saying the individual story is compelling. I’m saying the experience they had was deemed as from an outside source by the individual, according to their description of the experience that is. Also I think that an individuals experience can be compelling, depending on other details they speak on. For example most stories people tell of their life we (most healthy minded humans) hold to be true and compelling. If you have a significant other and they told you about a friend they had, your immediate response isn’t to hold suspicion against them. Your view of an individual already holds a presupposed preposition that will allow you to give validation or rejection of the story. Also let’s not act like we look at everything we find to be compelling a science. That my friend would be extremely disingenuous. And yes I do understand what your saying, however I don’t believe you understood me. I’m not talking of an easily objective observation, just the difference in the observation. If you don’t believe in a God you would never say “God showed me there is not a God.” However, many on the other side (not all by any means) say “God revealed Himself to me.” They don’t suppose the information came from meditation on evidence, but a revelation from the divine, like somebody telling you their name, you wouldn’t question whether that is compelling or not, it is a revelation you hold true, or I hope you would at least. But again… im not saying it’s compelling but the experience is observed differently. One believes a outside being of a divine nature revealed Himself, the other comes to a conclusion upon meditation. They are not the same in both directions.
This is the most wholesome conversation of all time. I’ll have to check out Bignon’s work! Delightful presence on the show and Graham is great as always. Thanks Justin :)
Yeah some super hot P*ssy motivated him to look into and accept Christianity. Sounds more like his hornyness and lust. Send me a super hot model/actress and I can convert to Christianity too. 🤦🏻♂️
@@DigitalGnosis One could likewise argue that women have deconverted more men from Christianity than the Devil has. It's common to hear of Christian men abandoning their beliefs once they realise said beliefs restrict their relationships with women (no premarital sex, no dating outside the faith, sometimes even no condoms). So both your theorem and its inverse don't strike me as particularly useful rhetorically
@@holyvegetablejuice I never heard of anyone outright leaving their faith because of such restrictions. What usually happens is that people will simply change their understanding of the faith and scripture to reflect their belief. Do you truly believe that christians don't have premarital sex? Also, if you're a christian, it's okay, you can sin and then just ask for forgiveness and you'll be alright.
@@thedude882 I personally know of someone who stopped being a Christian altogether for this reason. Of course, after the fact, while the girl was clearly the catalyst, he said that he also had started doubting Christian claims for what they were. But this seems no different to Guillaume, who was initially drawn in by a girl, and later came to appreciate arguments for Christianity on their own merit (along with his religious experiences). My specific example aside, I've heard pastors say this is a common phenomenon leading the young astray (and they've given personal anecdotes to substantiate their claims), so it certainly seems to be a thing. When you say people usually mold their understanding of faith to suit their needs.. of course this happens as well, especially among more liberal Christians. I never claimed all Christians took such conservative stances on the pre-marital sex/interfaith dating/condom use. Yes, I truly believe there are many Christians who don't have premarital sex- why do you think so many marry young? Many Christians have more conservative attitudes than you might be used to.
It's not a voice in the sky but, an indercernable undeniable whisper outside your own mind, Improbability works both ways, from a naturalistic/materialistic evolutionary point of view, it has taken a whole series of totally improbable series of random events that have led to us
The probability of a natural universe just existing that happens to have the attributes that we see, is exactly identical to the probability of a god existing that happens to have the attributes that would incline it to create this universe. The only difference in the two ideas is that proposing a finely tuned god adds an unnecessary extra level to reality, which makes it far less parsimonious. Your apologetic argument, like all of them, sounds sort of intuitive on a superficial level but then falls apart under serious scrutiny.
Here's something I've never understood. What is so compelling about the New Testament, or anything Jesus said or did? If you take the Judeo/Gnostic spirituality out of the equation, all you're left with are philosophical platitudes that were already well-known, so not the least bit profound.
Apart from some bits of scripture (for which we do not really have assurance of truth), why do people assume that God cares whether someone is a Christian, atheist, agnostic, skeptic, etc. Doesnt God just love us unconditionally? If 'he' doesn't, is he a God worth believing in?
Of course you came to believe in Christianity: 1) it was the religion of your family and you were raised in the church. 2) you had a deep desire to be in a relationship with a very beautiful woman and the only way to do that was likely to adopt her belief system that she held with such confidence. 3) this new experience of Christianity was exciting and different from that of your childhood and you are an adult now so you can see the ways science in faith could work together. None of this means Christianity is actually true, it’s just biography and confirmation bias.
@@will19125though you would think atheists would be overwhelmed by the compelling nature of Christianity. But they aren’t. For me, as an atheist who went to Catholic schools for years, the mystery is not why people are religious, but why, if God or gods were real, do I and people like me still find all that insufficiently compelling. For this guy, Christianity just got ushered in on the coattails of lust. I tell my kids, when I’m in a good mood, like when my team wins, that’s the time to ask for stuff.
@@will19125 I became a vaughan again atheist when I stopped feeling comfortable with superstitious beliefs and subsequently discovered how much I love my sin; now, I can't get enough.
@@will19125 Atheists generally don't argue from "religious experience" (or "lack or religious experience"). And when we do - say the argument of evil-we are dismissed? So?
After 40 years being atheist I eventually turned to belief. I`ve never had any kind of religious experience, and I still believe without a shred of doubt.
Love it! I was atheist / agnostic for years after leaving Mormonism at 14. Dabbled in Buddhism and got heavily into mysticism and new age. None of it truly satisfied. Then the Lord came knocking and it was undeniable! Praise and glory to God!
Did you really spend 40 years to find the evidence that convinced you or did you decide to believe without convincing evidence? Either way it sounds terrible.
@@turdferguson3400 I did`t think about it at all until in the last two years. In that time I learned a lot and it brought me to my faith. I`m not sure by what measure that would be terrible.
@@JAMESCARNEY273 you spent 40 years not thinking about religion at all or whether or not it is true or not, and despite that you called yourself an atheist. That's the terrible thing.
Yeah some super hot P*ssy motivated him to look into and accept Christianity. Sounds more like his hornyness and lust. Send me a super hot model/actress and I can convert to Christianity too. 🤦🏻♂️pinecreek Theron example 112. Ft Doug
Neither offered demonstrable evidence for anything. They’re pablum puking book knowledge only. Personal experience is subjective at best….at worst…made up b.s. Gives them a sense of hope, meaning, and purpose based on emotional needs.
@@mr.c2485 better than being a hopeless, bitter person which unfortunately is exactly what you sound like! Also it takes intelligence to create or understand information, everything is made up of its own information, so where did info come from? = Intelligence
I have a very similar testimony of how I became a Christian at 19 years old. Strange circumstances and coincidences. Intense guilt and introspection. A powerful encounter with God. Now 20 years later, I’m an atheist. Coincidences happen all the time and are explainable. Feelings are subjective and misleading. Encounters with God are always explainable naturally and are usually exaggerated. Religion scratches the superstitious itch that many of us humans are afflicted with.
Do you know any science, ideally astrophysics? I can give extremely strong evidence we have a Creator God, and then it's up to you to seek Him out of you want to.
I have studied some astrophysics on my own, specifically the Big Bang. I used to believe it confirmed my Christian beliefs, but now if I was being generous, the mysteries/unknowns of the origins of the universe and astrophysics and quantum physics, at best hints at deism as 1 of many possible explanations. But pure deism is light years away from an all-loving, all-powerful god who sent his son Jesus to pay the price for our sins or else we burn for all eternity.
Wow! This question he had of, "Why did Jesus have to die?" is one I always had. I always heard that but no one ever gave a background reasoning behind it. They just stated is but it came with no support or explanation. Like why couldn't just any Joe die for me. In the last year this came to my realization and I've found it a very important subject that is necessary to explain to seekers of Truth. I came about the answer through much study over a 3-4 year period amongst many other topics but I think it's something that Christians have accepted as part of our general understanding of the Gospel but we forget how complex it is. How it began in the Old Testament with God requiring blood sacrifice of for atonement that lead to Jesus, the FINAL sacrifice, once and for all.
The obvious explanation is that The Father wanted it that way, and I'm dissatisfied with the various explanations. One that I have noticed in my own spirit is that I am really intensely grateful and loyal to Jesus specifically because of how He suffered for us. I would say it is also obvious that The Father could forgive ANYone He wants to at ANY time for ANY reason.
@@20july1944 Maybe you didn't comprehend where I was coming from. When you're not Christian, "because the Father wanted it that way" means zilch. Just as Paul had to give the Greeks schooling on the Old Testament, so do we as missionaries to the uneducated (Biblically) lost.
@@reeb9016 I thought you were asking what the truth was, Christian-to-Christian, not looking for an evangelistic argument. If I were ever in a position where an atheist asks why Jesus HAD to die for our salvation, I would be forced back to the same answer -- "because God the Father wanted it that way, He certainly could forgive without Calvary."
I don't get how people are able to credit any "improbable" experiences to one deity or another. It seems one will simply make the connection to whatever preferred deity they are partial to because they wish to have the experience hold a "special" meaning. How is that nothing more than desirability bias?
~27:19… Oppy lays out that, he having considered the arguments for belief in God or disbelief in God, the arguments on either side are not compelling… This is excellent insight and insight that ought to be taken into account when adjudicating how one should live in light of this insight. It reminds me, a bit, of both Pascal’s wager but also of the hiddenness of God. There really is a choice in the matter. There is not much choice in believing 2 +2 = 4 but there is a choice on whether one would believe God exists or not. It seems very much to me that this whole show was built up to, in some large part, support genuine free-will decisions (I know that Bignon disagrees with me on free will but he can’t help it) by persons and that the question is not can you believe but, rather will you believe? You can be rational in either choice… what will you choose?
Ultimately, if the claims are that the christian "God" claims to love us and want us to come to the knowledge of the truth, etc then why does it come down to just making a blind choice? Why not reveal themselves to the world, and make it extremely clear??
@@117-d7r God didn't claim to love us, did He? Do you know any science, ideally basic astrophysics? Clearly God -- IF HE exists -- chooses to conceal Himself. I'd like to focus on the question "does God exist?" and approach it via astrophysics because that's the key question.
@@20july1944 as far as I know he hasn't claimed anything that I can verify. If that's true then either God has been doing really well at hide and seek throughout history, but you have finally outsmarted God through astropsychics! Congratulations!, but I know you haven't because youd be on every news network, and everyone would know your work as being the one who finally found God in his hiding spot.
@@117-d7r OK. My argument has two steps: 1. Inferring God exists, using only science. 2. Inferring Jesus rose from the dead, indicating Jesus was sent by and represents that God. Do you know how a star works?
God delivered me from alcoholism , nicotine & heroin addiction. 16 years ago after receiving the Holy Spirit whilst praying to God at home one evening. No need for rehab. Also, I was telling my story to somebody who thought God could never forgive him for the sins he had commited. throughout his life . I hear myself asking him to take out what he had in his pocket. He emptied his pocket and amongst a number of coins was a crucifix. He said" how did you know I had this in my pocket ?". I was as shocked as he was. He began weeping as I told him how much God loved him. I don't know how to explain this away other than to say God is real and is still working in my life in miraculous ways and His word is true and can be relied upon and trusted.
Which god? Some of the best accounts of delivery from addictions come from Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, etc. They all think that their deities are special and are ultimately the truth. FTA!
Don't think god planted a crucifix in his pocket mate. "God is real and is still working in my life in miraculous ways" but what about people in Ukraine who are literally losing their homes and loved ones? does God just work in mysterious ways.
What’s painful about all this is that Guillaume’s experience is supposed to be more important than the needless suffering that happens outside of Guillaume’s tiny bubble as he claims the god he believes in chose to create these experiences, coincidental experiences, for him because he’s more important to his god than a child’s prayer to have the suffering stop. Christianity seems to appeal to the privileged and the lucky who have an exaggerated sense of self importance
@@Julian-hy7tn and?? Is that your way of not addressing my point? He still doesn’t get to make unwarranted claims his experience is meaningful objectively which is my point you pathetic apologist
Great conversation... Both agreed on the logical understanding can support both sides... Only difference is one has seeked God as an experience and the other choose not to... You can never explain the taste of food logically... Only way is to experience it... When too many coincidences point you in one direction it's most probably God is the creator and we are the creation... Everything created has a purpose... Finding the purpose is the fulfilment...
@@chad969 Many thanks for your question.... There are 2 ways to live.... 1. See the world with your eyes and interpret with your mind 2. Interpret what you see with God's mind, like a child see's the world through the father's mind. If you truly want find the truth you will and the truth will set you free. God bless
Great, thank you telling me god is like another flavor. In that case, you cannot say that this flavor is also the creator of all the other things in the world.
@@turdferguson3400 all I can say is if you truly seek, you will find God. The more you run away the more you get hurt. It's not about what I can say, it's about what you want to hear. God bless
I wonder how many people actually have thought about the elements of faith that are present in a substantial amount of their beliefs. It seems to me, as I consider what I believe to be true, that nearly all of my beliefs are built up in such a way that I must move to belief from skepticism by crossing a bridge of faith. Try it out… think about some non-mathematical belief (maybe even mathematical) and ask yourself if you have rock solid evidence or knowledge that would entail the belief. In may cases, I think, you will find that your evidence is testimony or authority or that your evidence is partial and leaves open the door for error. It may also be the case that the belief you are considering is foundational to many other beliefs, each of which would become less likely were it to be false. What am I saying? I’m saying that it takes faith to believe nearly anything and that often we believe what we want and underestimate the influence of our desire in the formation of our beliefs.
So your second paragraph might be true if you're uneducated about something, but it doesn't HAVE to be true. You could actually for example, study biology and see the inner workings of cells. If let's say you want to measure whether or not prayer works, you will notice that it's extremely random and hard to measure. But if you make a prediction on say how a cell will respond to certain stimulus, and then in fact the cell does respond that way repeatedly, you have good evidence that your prediction is verifiable through testing. While you're correct in that many of us believe something to be true based on authority - skeptics believe based on an emphasis on this controlled study environment that has been peer reviewed and has demonstrable properties.
Well that was quite an excellent debate. Its clear that the theist had no real argument however. Graham really knocked this one out of the park. Very impressed with Oppy. Thank you for further confirming my non-belief @PremierUnbelievable :D
The same with my brother. God hasn't bothered handling me and the other siblings (or Dr Oppy), though. I understand His ways are mysterious or He's quite busy so must only spend his time on the "special people".
It's fairly clear that Guillaume wanted or needed to believe in God, the Christian god in particular. He could do whatever he liked when he broke his arm, but he went to a church. When he felt chills, he could have attributed them to any number of causes. He chose a supernatural explanation - why would an atheist think the experience was a message from God? He then spent hours of his spare time discussing scripture. This considerable effort, along with a bias towards supernatural explanations for random events, can't simply be the result of wanting to understand the religion of a girl he met. Transcendent experiences occur naturally with some people. Myself included. I don't see why they need to be attributed to a supernatural entity. That sounds like humans creating stories in an attempt to explain the inexplicable and give the mind something to hang onto.
He first wanted to show the girl Christianity was rubbish so she would sleep with him. Then he started thinking it could be true and put in effort to see if it was. It’s only good news if it’s true. That’s how I felt as a seeker. Whether it’s true was No. 1 consideration for me and for Guillaume Bignon.
"It's fairly clear that Guillaume wanted or needed to believe in God, the Christian god in particular". Wow: psycho-analysis across cyberspace, and after a single, one-hour discussion. You sure don't lack for confidence, my friend; I'll give you that.
the French guy says he never had a dissatisfaction with life, but anyone whose gotten swerved by a woman you highly desire knows what that can do to a man.
I agree. I think his love for the model from New York explains a lot concerning what motivated his conversion. Women have converted more men to Christianity than the holy spirit.
We are on the same line of thinking. Right from the beginning I thought the beauty of a female has brought this man to faith. Their was a lot subconsciously going on that he didn't even realize.
Good question, but his interlocutor does no better, and he has the higher burden it seems. At one point he even admits that it could all plausibly be explained by coincidence. There's precious little to move the skeptic here.
@@mr.c2485 Ah, the burden of proof. I think some people pull that out to quickly. What if a skeptic can bring out an explanation for what is going on, explain it to everybody, and then people stop being Christians because they realize that Christianity is not true? Wouldn't that be a good outcome instead of only thinking of not losing the argument, but actually it's possible to win the argument? Isn't there a burden of being competent in the issues, arguments and debates going on?
@@mr.c2485 No genuine believer has any burden of proof on them, unless they innocently or foolishly assume the burden that is God’s alone to bear. And God has very broad shoulders, He can bear any burden, and He can persuade anyone, even the most hardened anti-God people that ever existed. Someday He will even persuade you. It’s your choice whether that will be a good experience for you or a truly awful one. That’s the good news, you get to choose.
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability: A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.) Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness. A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
Yamaha Japan, Do you have a coherent response or just "nu-uhh!" "Gibberish!" Any intellectually honest person reading will just recognize you experienced cognitive dissonance which lead to dogmatic hand-wave dismissal of these well-known arguments.
Also, Yamaha Japan, Nobody claimed proof in the first place. Proofs only exist in logic and mathematics, but that does not mean all of science is meaningless does it? The arguments still support God unless you have a COHERENT refutation/invalidation
All attempts to put Christianity on an "intellectual" footing inevitably end up devolving into sophistry (as evidenced in the attempts of Medieval Scholasticism and more recently in the writings of C. S. Lewis), and Bignon's attempt to do so is no exception. As he himself admits in the course of the discussion, everything depends upon the presuppositions with which one begins one's intellectual exercise. Just about anything can be made to look intellectually respectable, given suitable presuppositions. Flat Earth literature abounds with (seemingly) intellectually defensible arguments, and Ptolemy's epicycles were intellectually sound, given the prevailing presupposition regarding geocentrism, a cosmological model that had the endorsement of the great Aristotle (who was wrong about a lot of other things as well), despite the fact that Aristarchus of Samos had earlier proposed, correctly, a heliocentric model (which Aristotle dismissed on "intellectual" grounds). So, to say that Christianity is intellectually defensible is to say nothing about the *truth value* of Christianity: it is merely to say that some sort of intellectual argument can be conjured up to give Christianity the appearance of intellectual respectability. The thrust of Bignon's argument is certainly not intellectual: he appears to put great stock in the series of seemingly unlikely coincidences that decorated a certain period of his life, which he attributes to the intervention of divine providence. There are two major problems with this "Argument from Divine Providence". The first relates specifically to Bignon's case. The series of "unlikely coincidences" began, by his account, when he lusted after an American woman and attempted to seduce her. Had he not found her attractive; or had he not experienced the desire to seduce her and have sex with her, he would never have become a Christian, even if, by "divine providence", some American tourists in a car had stopped to ask for directions. So, if we are to take the Argument from Divine Providence seriously, then we have to admit that it was Divine Providence that generated Bignon's lust for the American woman and his desire to seduce her. This is the very thing over which he says he later felt pangs of guilt-guilt that Christianity promised to erase (a prospect that he says convinced him of the truth of Christianity). Two observations here. First, what shall we say of a "God" who providentially uses "sinful", guilt-inducing impulses to induce people to become Christians? There is something unspeakably revolting, something perversely ironic about a "God" who uses lust (supposedly one of the Seven Deadly Sins) as an instrument of "providential" salvation. Second, the Christian strategy for snaring converts is all too obvious here. The "trick" that Christianity deploys is one of the oldest in the conman's playbook: invent the problem for which you offer the solution. In the case of Christianity, the strategy is to induce a false sense of guilt and then offer to erase that guilt through the supposedly salvific death of Jesus of Nazareth. The second problem with the Argument from Divine Providence is a philosophical one: Divine Providence is extended to only a select few, not the entire human race. Bignon's "God" is not interested in intervening in providential ways in the lives of everyone who is not a Christian-just in Bignon's life and the lives of a few others. Bignon takes refuge from the absurdity of this position by coyly invoking Calvinism-in other words, Predestination (a word he appears to have been careful to avoid). This did not get any attention in the conversation and slipped by unnoticed and uncommented on, and most viewers will probably have missed it as well. What Bignon is saying is that his "God" has already decided beforehand who will be saved and who will be damned-and he is one of the lucky few whom his "God" has chosen-or "predestined"-to be saved. That is certainly a clever way to get out of the corner that he backs himself into with his Argument from Divine Providence-but it is a glittering example of the sophistry that Christians have to resort to in order to defend the indefensible. Notice how he fails to mention that the Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination is rejected by the vast majority of Christians. It is truly remarkable that Christians arrogate to themselves the power to pick and choose whatever suits their immediate purpose-the end always justifies the means. I could go on and on, picking Bignon's position apart piece by piece, but I think I have presented a sufficient sampling of the sophistry of his "intellectual" approach to Christianity to substantiate the statement that I began with.
It seems interesting to me, everytime a non believer states their case against Christianity they say, “surely a good God would never do…” I see the argument but it doesn’t discredit the very existence of God. However these arguments are typically taken as such.
@@bryanhawkins9418 You are right: it does not-but such a being would be unworthy of my worship. I could never respect (or give any credence to) a being who proscribed lust (and punished people for yielding to it) and then used it ("providentially") as a means of bringing about a conversion to belief in his existence. That is despicable by any standard. It is not really a matter of being a *"good* God"-goodness (or lack of it) has nothing to do with the argument against "God". It is the *self-contradictory* nature of this being's alleged dealings with humans (not just in Bignon's' case-the Old Testament is bursting at the seams with instances) that is objectionable. It would be a matter of total indifference to me that such a being existed-if he did.
@@MichaelMendis I think you are absolutely right. If such a god/being exists that you describe, then it/he/she is just as indifferent to us and our thoughts. To trust in something arbitrary would be illogical and destructive for all humanity. However, for Christianity, it isn't enough to have the existence of god or even a "good god", but it is crucial to have Christ. Without Christ we're out.
@@MichaelMendis I see where you're coming from, however, my objection is still that people will express, that because of these very reasons that you stated, they don't believe that God exists. All I'm arguing for is a dispassionate and honest stance on whether you believe he exists or not. All the feelings and opinions are secondary.
@@bryanhawkins9418 I hold the opinion that the Biblical God is an imaginary being conjured up by a group of primitive nomadic tribes in the Middle East out of various earlier notions of supernatural beings, which were themselves products of the imaginings of even more primitive minds. As to the broad notion of "God", divested of any moorings to any particular religious tradition, one has to ask how this "God" is to be defined: Is he a personal being, with a mind and a will? Is "he" an impersonal force (something along the lines of Aristotle's "First Mover")? Is he the "God" of Spinoza and Albert Einstein? Is he the deistic "God" of Thomas Jefferson and other Enlightenment thinkers? How we conceive of "God" ultimately determines how we answer the question of whether "God" exists. Personally, I am agnostic with respect to the existence of supernatural beings of any sort. However, I reject the notion that there is a specific supernatural being to whom I have an obligation to render allegiance, obedience, and worship, and who holds my eternal destiny in his hands. If "God" is defined as that which every human being is bound to acknowledge as the exclusive and ultimate source of morality and as the object of allegiance, obedience, and worship, and failure to make this acknowledgement is a punishable offense, then I am quite willing to declare that such a "God" does *not* exist. If such a being existed, his existence should be self-evident, and every single individual human being must, of necessity, have clear, unambiguous, incontrovertible, personal knowledge not only of his existence, but also of his requirements for that individual with regard to the way he or she is expected to relate to this being. I personally do not have such knowlege, and therefore, for me "God" (as so defined) does not exist. If I am required to stake my eternal destiny on swearing allegiance to some unseen supernatural being, I need to know exactly what that being is and exactly what he expects of me. Any being who does not see the logic of this position and refuses to make himself known to me in this way is not worthy of my allegiance and worship, and therefore, for me it matters not whether he exists or not. However, philosophically, given that there is at least one case (mine) in which the requirement of "God's" self-disclosure is not met, we can say that "God" (as so defined) does *not* exist, across the board.
That assumption doesn’t explain the improbability of his situations - his visa being the only one approved among 15 other applicants in his company after he confessed his faith to his mom, his invitation to debate Oppy 26 minutes after buying his book, and others.
@@synesthete23 The visa story is just a story. One of the people who was rejected left the building in a sad state of mind and was killed by a talking snake carrying an apple. Balaam's donkey tried to warn him to move out of the way. He was a heathen, so now he is in charge of the BBQ in hell.
At the end when it's mentioned the bible is the most attested book in ancient history, yeah but this has a cost. There are over 600,000 variants in our 5600 manuscripts, they were first passed down orally for 40 years until written down. Our first full copy of mark doesn't come until the 3rd century. To say that this is a good thing is to misunderstand the cost of having so many documents and the nature of their construction. This all not to even mention the deemphasizing of apocalyptic messages Jesus expressed in mark and matthew, muted later in Luke and eliminated all together in John...
Guillaume says he found it very confusing why Jesus had to die for out sins. Excellent natural reaction! He should have stuck with it. Did he chose Christianity simply because he was brought up in a Christian country? Now to do his conversion justice he needs to research Islam next with an open mind.
The New Testament is not history. It may contain some historical events and facts. And the experience is just and emotion not a rational experience. Oppy again on the point ✌🏼
@@_wade_morgan yes, having emotions does not make you irrational, but if you based the existance of god in that is wrong; personal experience is the worst evidence you can have, trusting the worst evidence is just naive ✌🏼
@@delbert372 this is continuously a misunderstanding that theists fall into. Atheists do not need to tell us how and when anything began. We are not making the claim that God does not exist. The only thing we are saying is that the evidence for God is either really bad or non-existent. No one is saying God is impossible or known to not-exist. Of course, God is possible. Its just at this point, no one can claim that God really exists and moreover that he has specific commandments for how people should live, among other absurd ideas like not being allowed to wear mixed fabrics or explaining how you should treat your slaves. Atheists are entirely open to the possibility that we just don't know how things got started. And that is the most rational answer at the moment. Not to make up fairy tales about how man was made out of clay from God's magical touch.
The most "interesting" thing: 2000 years have passed and people still have to question the validity of Christian claims. If a set of claims has not succeeded in justifying themselves in such a long time, there is probably not much ground for them. Moreover, claims about the Christian God seem to get further and further away from any even imaginal explanation.
We know chemicals can self assemble. Chemists have been working on chemical evolution for the last decade and none of what’s been found needs a god. It’s just chemistry doing what it does.
Very nice discussion! I wonder why Oppy is not agnostic as he says there is no knock-down argument either way ? What, in the end, convinces him that atheism is the right position?
Many atheists nowdays call themselves atheists even though they take the agnostic position towards the existence of a god. Part of this is definitional. Agnostic means to lack knowledge. It doesn't specifically say anything about god. You can be agnostic about the claim that I'm 6 feet tall. It seems to traditionally have been assumed that without extra context, it was meant to be about the claim that god exists. Some people choose to be pedantic about this though so prefer the term atheist. Many also prefer to specify agnostic atheist or soft atheist vs gnostic atheist or hard atheist. Another part of this is that many people who take this position are agnostic about the claim that a god exists, but that are not agnostic about the claim that an abrahamic god exists. They would claim that an abrahamic god does not exist, but not that a more general, less defined god couldn't exist. And so they present themselves as atheist because most often the theists around them are followers of an abrahamic religion.
You'll have to read the book that Oppy co-authored with Kenneth Pearce. He generally thinks that it's not about arguments but about big pictures, or worldviews. Oppy is not an agnostic in the slightest. To the contrary, his view is as strong as it can get - he thinks that the existence of any gods is not just improbable, but impossible.
Former evangelical, trying to find the grey and less black and white thinking. I appreciate the conversations, but still find even the most reasoned religious arguments to be fallacious (special pleading in this case). What would make me believe? First a mind-externally verifiable appearance (ie, I can ask someone else if they see what I see) and/or some demonstration (think along the lines of Elijah and the prophets of Ba’al). I think I could be convinced of the existence of the biblical god with something that simple. After all, if he desires a relationship, making a proper introduction is the first step. Would I worship this god? No. Not if he is as described in the Bible. There would have to be some serious explanation for the slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46 and many other passages), genocide (Deuteronomy 7-20 (especially chapter 20), 1 Samuel 15, numbers 31…), and other barbarism that an all knowing god should have known better. Experiences of all sorts are had by everyone, it’s the attributions of those experiences that I call into question.
It's odd that Justin mentioned Peter Williams as he got taken to the cleaners by Bart Erhman when they debated. I am a big fan of Graham Oppy but wonder if he has checked out Gabriel Said Reynalds regarding pre Islamic Arabic inscriptions. This debate would have been better if Justin had pushed Bignon even a little bit on his rationality ( not holding out much hope having seen Justin before). The bottom line is that you can be rational in your belief in Christianity but still be wrong. Just don't believe in the resurrection and things get a lot easier to work with. Go the Ebionites.
1. If there is no God, then atheism is true. 2. If there is a God, then atheism is not true. Any particular 'state of mind' must be grounded in reality and a search for truth.
@@EternalVisionToday Everyone knows Zeus is real, and if you don't believe he exists or is god, you are an atheist. Stay inside during lightning storms.
I have a question let's take a scenario ....if you have neighbors you know for let's say a year long. Do you just give him her money($1000) In the belief he/she will pay it back guaranteed? People will usually respond to no I don't even know them just to give them money. (I'm only talking about 1 year ). Now the Bible has been written 1000s of years ago. How can you expect me to believe in a book that has been written by someone me and you don't even know what they look like or what their true attention is, yet must believe it but 95 % of people won't give a dime of money to their neighbors with the expectation of getting it back from him or her? (The physical appearance of the person can't be trusted yet the none physical should be trusted with no question asked)If you simply can't see the delusion im trying to orchestrate then I don't know...
Free will is paramount. God will not swamp our will with compelling evidence. This allows each of us to, as Peter Hitchens insists, live in the type of world we want: one in which God exists or a world in which He doesn’t. The atheist is mistaken who assumes that a God would be obligated (morally or otherwise) to compel belief in His creatures. The is Pascal’s Wager. When the case is epistemically indeterminate, a cost/benefit analysis is appropriate.
synesthete23 0 seconds ago I enjoyed this conversation. Graham swerved to some side issues (Islam vs Christianity, etc.) but Guillame was clear on his position all throughout and explained his arguments well.
Trying to explain Spiritual Truth to an unregenerate person is analogous to attempting to explain a symphony orchestra concert to someone who is deaf and blind.
If you have to already assume something is true before you could believe it, then your belief is unjustified. This is a basic fallacy called begging the question. Not impressive. Maybe your comment is supposed to make you sound wise, with special knowledge, but to anyone outside your indoctrination you only sound like a rube.
I think the argument from revelation is the worst argument for God. Think about it folks! There are children being shot in their classrooms, abused, neglected, starving, and dying from disease, but God is making sure this fellow meets his soulmate. Do y'all not ever think about how petty this makes God look? That God is not worthy of worship!
Very impressed with Guillaume, perhaps a lesser-known (for now) apologist going head to head with Oppy, whom William Lane Craig himself has said is among the most intelligent atheists today. Guillaume really held his own. Bravo.
The elephant in the room that Oppy fails to see: the French guy's account and that many many such accounts can be given answers precisely to the question of the "hidennes" of God. Not that Jesus does not answer it Himself: it will be better for you if I leave you because then I can send the Counsellor (Paraclete). He is in the Eucharist as He was in the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth.
It's funny to me how the early Protestant and Reformed Christians became immediately "atheistic" towards the saints their Catholic neighbors, relatives and ancestors had prayed to for generations, and they discovered that nothing bad happened to them as a result of abandoning belief in these imaginary beings. Becoming atheistic towards Jesus and god just extends this process to its logical conclusion, because nothing bad happens to you when you stop believing in these other, allegedly more powerful imaginary beings.
No, it does not follow. Learning that fewer than 4 people are needed to screw on a lightbulb doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that the lightbulb screwed on by itself or that people don't exist. Respectfully, you're making a logical mistake of not distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative categories.
@@Joel2394 Billions of human lives have come and gone without knowledge of Jesus, and they don't seem to have been disadvantaged by their ignorance of Christianity in any observable way.
@@albionicamerican8806 it seems like you're changing the topic here, my friend. But the claim you're making now seems rather arbitrary, doesn't it. You're assuming naturalism, which you need to prove first in this discussion. I can say that people who rejected Jesus and are now dead might wish they had made a different choice. Now what? I need to present evidence for my belief, just like you do, instead of just laying flat my claim. Regards.
The Christian afterlife fantasy often called "the plan of salvation" doesn't work, even if you accept the religion's own assumptions. What if you go to heaven, and then you rebel against god? This is a *_blatantly obvious problem_* with this belief, but I don't know of any Christian apologist who even acknowledges it.
It’s actually answered by my Christians throughout the ages and the question is not new and the answers are not new. It’s also addressed in the Bible. Having overcome sin and having experienced God the total source and destination, completion and satisfaction of our being, nobody will want to sin. Consider that now you are free to eat human and animal fecal matter but choose not too. You are free to drink gallons of bleach but choose not to do so. Most of us choose not to do these things unless something is wrong with us mentally. In heaven we are free of our defects and in the presence of being itself and the purpose and source of our existence. Sinning would make as much sense as denying ourselves oxygen or drinking toilet water from a stopped up public bathroom after it has been used all day. The good that we pursue is the being of God. We naturally pursue what we think is good for us in some way. That goodness is ultimately the being of God. God is the very being of goodness. There are many more detailed answers you can find not just from Christian apologists but from the church fathers that addressed this question thousands of years ago and even the Bible addresses this question. All the best to you 🙂👍🏿
@@gfujigo Traditional Christian theology makes a *_HUGE DEAL_* out of satan's rebellion against god, so there is an explicit precedent for such rebellions. And theologians can come up with no good explanation for why satan would want to sin, if he experienced god directly as his creator without any intervening barriers like "having faith" in the unseen. Calvin apparently argued that god created satan deliberately to fail, which raises the obvious question of whether it has also set up some of its "redeemed" to draw the short straws in its plan and likewise fail. In other words, the satan story implies some bad things about either god's competence or its trustworthiness.
@@albionicamerican8806 Satan is a created being. You don’t know enough about the state of angels in heaven to make such proclamations. Also, Calvin is not representative of ancient Christian perspectives and the church fathers. Finally, Satan being in heaven doesn’t challenge anything I said. First, I was talking about humans. I said having experienced sin we will not want to experience it again. Second, we don’t know enough about the angels and non human entities to know exactly how they experience reality. Perhaps Satan has other issues going on. Nonetheless he had free will and chose to use it and now Satan and anyone caught up in sin knows the effects. Haven’t you in your life learned from certain experiences? God allowing created creatures free will is not incompetence. You seem to be making a ton of assumptions about the purpose and reason for creation. How do you know theologians have no good reasons for Satan’s sin? Have you read the church fathers and the Bible on the issue? Which church fathers have you read? Have you read to see what Orthodox, Catholic, Ethiopian, Coptic and Protestant theologians have said through the ages? Also, what do you mean by God?
The afterlife as understood by Christians is not absurd at all. The idea of a person (after entering the afterlife) and rebelling is possible (though unlikely.) The Bible describes that Lucifer and a 3rd of Angels rebelled and were given consequences. So Christians have an adequate answer to your objection if you haven't heard any one respond to this, we apologize.
I just started watching but id say that depends on your perception of love like a father if he offs entire villages bashing 👶 heads against rocks SA child brides flooding the first borns of Egypt the SA of a women and if he pays her father silver and forced her to marry him the sacrifices of a human to cure another's bad deeds or sins and the contradictions in the bible its not really rational and definitely isn't love so id then question someones empathy and morality from believing in something so sadistic and id also like to say most religious people say well it was a feeling i got that made me believe well lots of people dont know that you can make someone feel your feelings like if you laugh tell jokes you can make someone else feel that and when you see a preacher yelling the good parts of the bible and then other people start to speak in tounges throwing themselves on the ground it will give you a feeling most rational people would say um thats creepy and these people are high or crazy but other people it will make that fear turn into wow it feels good right but heres the thing a feeling doest mean truth and when you put yourself in a situation like yelling preachers it releases chemicals kinda like schizophrenia they truly believe they hear or see something but its a chemical imbalance its know different from a feeling in a higher power now id like to say what one is most likely
I am curious to know why Mr. Bignon placed so much emphasis and need that the dogma of Christianity be rational. From my standpoint the question is not whether Christian dogma is rational. An argument could seem rational and still be untrue. Further, Saul-Paul, the one individual that did the most to formulate the dogma of Christianity, wrote that the preaching of the "Gospel" was foolishness, and that many philosophically astute men of the world would find the message of the Gospel to be foolish, or irrational. So I think Mr. Bignon desire for the dogma of Christianity be true is misplaced. The important question is whether the dogma of Christianity is true or not. The other thing that comes to mind hearing Mr. Bignon describe hie journey is confirmation bias.
21:28 is an admission that Guillaume didn’t find the answer to his questioning. He just swept his questioning under the rug and his sexual attraction to a woman took over his mental faculties and his thinking. The power a beautiful woman has over a guy who isn’t grounded in his principles isn’t frivolous thing
Guillaume was transparent that a beautiful Christian woman had triggering affect for him to reconsider his view, ultimately with the initial attempt to convince her of the opposing views. But, as he read the New Testament and as he stated, he looked at the arguments for the New Testament accounts and probably found the rational case satisfying. Anyone is welcome to question, critique or criticise this, but it doesn't necessarily mean his process from unbelief is entirely illogical or irrational
@@EternalVisionToday you do realize that your argument marginalizes needless suffering, don’t you? It’s rather atrocious how Christianity appeals to those who are prone to think that their experience was orchestrated by the very same god who ignores the prayers of those who are needlessly suffering
I enjoyed the respectful conversation. I'd like to know what Dr. Oppy thinks of the historical evidence that Jesus' tomb was empty. (Note that I'm not saying that an empty tomb mandates a resurrection, but it does leave us with several possible explanations, all of which are uncomfortable.)
@@alexp8924 Haha...the vast overwhelming majority of people believe in some kind of deity. Just about every society has been formed on these beliefs...human progress like modern science and philosophy have theistic roots. Belief in God is as part of the human experience as human culture. ...seems to me , perhaps it's the unbeliever who needs to have their head examined.
Coincidences? Many years ago (50), in a moment of personal crisis, I asked God for help. Having asked I was helped (immediately) and, just 90 seconds later, conveniently forgot I'd even asked. A week later I had a life changing encounter with a single decker bus! My best friend was killed and I spent 6 months in hospital, 2 years learning to walk and the rest of my life reflecting on this incident - amongst many others not nearly so physically impacting. All these incidents "spoke" something of the things of God. However, one enounter with God does not a pilgrim make - to paraphrase. Christian leaders who lack all experience of God (Ward, Robinson, Spong to my knowledge) are far too influential. Indeed, I think it no exaggeration to suggest they dominate - and always have.
Any confirmatory evidence for the existence of YHWH through religious or spiritual personal experience is, as the word says, personal. Because He is a personal God, seeking and allowing experiences (ordinary or miraculous) in His children's lives to confirm His character, show His love, and teach (as does every good father), each experience then for the believer will carry different intended purposes and effects. It matters little whether the "improbable events" making up a miraculous religious experience are similar or not, the effects are the same in that they shall all conform to the LOGOS, deepen the understanding of Him, and work for the good of the believer. Any committed atheist or agnostic undergoing any such experience of "improbable events" will not make much sense of it, won't see a pattern, and shall dismiss it only as fortuitous. As to the "reverse" miraculous experience that Oppy seems wont to mention, just like what Bignon says, there are very few, if at all, of these cases. In my view, those who turn to atheism from Christianity go by way of "reverse thinking" (aided by negative personal experiences in childhood), not really by miraculous experiences. The logic of "reverse thinking" that disconfirms the existence of God cannot fully be sustained in the long run if we are really searching for the truth because, as C.S Lewis says, there are "loopholes" everywhere.
28:35 Actually, *ALVIN PLANTINGA* has had religious experiences. He wrote in his "Spiritual Autobiography" the following on pages 7-8: //...During my second semester, however, there were two events that resolved these doubts and ambivalences for me. One gloomy evening (in January, perhaps) I was returning from dinner, walking past Widenar Library to my fifth floor room in Thayer Middle (there weren't any elevators, and scholarship boys occupied the cheaper rooms at the top of the building). It was dark, windy, raining, nasty. But suddenly it was as if the heavens opened; I heard, so it seemed, music of overwhelming power and grandeur and sweetness; there was light of unimaginable splendor and beauty; it seemed I could see into heaven itself; and I suddenly saw or perhaps felt with great clarity and persuasion and conviction that the Lord was really there and was all I had thought. The effects of this experience lingered for a long time; I was still caught up in arguments about the existence of God, but they often seemed to me merely academic, of little existential concern, as if one were to argue about whether there has really been a past, for example, or whether there really were other people, as opposed to cleverly constructed robots. Such events have not been common subsequently, and there has been only one other occasion on which I felt the presence of God with as much immediacy and strength. That was when I once foolishly went hiking alone off-trail in really rugged country south of Mt. Shuksan in the North Cascades, getting lost when rain, snow and fog obscured all the peaks and landmarks. That night, while shivering under a stunted tree in a cold mixture of snow and rain, I felt as close to God as I ever have, before or since. I wasn't clear as to his intentions for me, and I wasn't sure I approved of what I thought his intentions might be (the statistics on people lost alone in that area were not at all encouraging), but I felt very close to him; his presence was enormously palpable. On many other occasions I have felt the presence of God, sometimes very powerfully: in the mountains (the overwhelming grandeur of the night sky from a slope at 13,000 feet), at prayer, in church, when reading the Bible, listening to music, seeing the beauty of the sunshine on the leaves of a tree or on a blade of grass, being in the woods on a snowy night, and on other kinds of occasions. In particular I have often been overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude--sometimes for something specific like a glorious morning, but often with no particular focus. What I ought to be most grateful for--the life and death and resurrection of Christ, with the accompanying offer of eternal life--is harder, simply because of its stupendous and incomprehensible magnitude. One can say "Thank you" for a glorious morning, and even for your children's turning out well; what do you say in response to the suffering and death and resurrection of the son of God? to the offer of redemption from sin, and eternal life?// Then later starting at page 17 Plantinga admits,
//...Mountains have been a blessing: for many years anyway, the Sensus Divinitatis seemed to work most strongly, for me, in the mountains. I mentioned above the time I was lost in the mountains; but on dozens of other occasions I have strongly felt the presence of God in the mountains--although on some occasions what I also felt was guilt and divine disapproval. For if mountains were a blessing for me, they were also a bane. The problem was that (particularly during the first couple of decades of our marriage), I was positively obsessed with mountains.//
Well.... when I hear of "atheists" that converted to a religious belief, I have to question how deep their knowledge was of all the arguments for and against a god to start with. It takes a lot of study and thinking to truly digest and understansd the arguments on both sides. One big problem I notice when a person self-proclaims themself as a "prior" atheist is whether they were ever in possession of an understanding of all of arguments for atheism to begin with. So, for example, if someone takes a high school class in biology, does that make them a "biologist" and on the same playing field as someone that has a PhD in biology? Similarly, "atheists" come in all different sizes and with varied intellectual skills and knowledge. Generally speaking it seems very doubtful to me that a "self-proclaimed" atheist that is a teenager or in their early 20s has truly acquired a full understanding of all the arguments for and against atheism and thesm. So, I really have to question if someone that was a self-proclaimed atheist at a very early age truly had acquired a sufficient understanding of all the arguments "before" they made their transition to theism. It takes a lot of time and thought to truly comprehend the arguments. I personally believe that life would be easier if I could believe there is a God out there that is looking after me. But, after studying this for over a decade, I "presently" still can not find any good reason to believe in any deity. I am absolutely open-minded to changing my mind, but the only "evidence" I can ever find is someone else's "personal experience or their personal testimony." That just is unconvincing for "me" to change my belief.
It really isn't particularly to convince you of belief. But, hearing someone's story of what moved them from one position to an opposing position is always healthy. People of faith hear of people moving to Agnosticism and Atheism all the time, it helps us with our own critical thinking and empathizing with someone's story to understand what led up to and caused the change.
There isn't a single coherent argument for Atheism as a philosophical position (God doesn't exist). This is because the position itself is fallacious (universal negative fallacy).
I recommend typing in *100 arguments for God* and you'll see Capturing Christianity has a video covering 100+ logically valid & sound arguments for God.
Hey! This is an interesting response. I am also a former atheist and now a Christian and I am not responding to affirm Christianity nor am I trying to convert you. But I think your argument for this being confirmation bias is itself a confirmation bias. Calling them "incalculable coincidence" is itself a bias because it assumes everything that is happening is confidential and not possibly orchestrated. You are actually doing the same thing many theists do when we argue for God's existence. We start with the assumption that God is true and then attribute anything that happens to God. You are starting with the assumption there is no God and therefore attributing the things happening to coincidence (not God). From an unbiased standpoint, both parties are doing the same confirmation bias. If God is real then we can't assume that everything is just chance (because if God is real He can intervene) or else we are biased, if God is not real then we can't attribute everything to God (because there is no God to intervene, or else we are equally as biased. This is why I personally don't hold to personal experience as concrete proof of God's existence, but in the video, Bignon is not arguing this. Interested in hearing your thoughts!
@@justin.m.drummond Thanks for your interesting and polite reply 1. Incredibly rare things happen everyday and these are often very mundane. I could deal 52 playing cards, the odds of the order I deal coming up 1 in 10 to the power 68 (or 1 followed by 68 zeros). This doesnt make me a miracle worker or require a supernatural explanation. 2. Similarly coincidences happen all the time. Every week someone picks the lottery numbers correctly. If the odds of winning are 10 million to one but they sell 20 million tickets this is not surprising. Its simply a matter of probability. If you accept point one and two, (which i struggle to see how you cant) then accepting a coincidence as just that seems entirely reasonable. Reversely accepting god is responsible is adding a unnecessary element. An element which has no empirical evidence. (Occam's razor) I therefore reject the notion that my postion is equally tainted by confirmation bias, its based on probability and empiricalknowledge. I also find it odd that people defend their position by saying another position is as bad as theirs.
I’m surprised Mr. Oppy didn’t offer to go over the origin story of his own worldview. He needs to tell us how and “when” naturalism began so we can thoughtfully consider what he proposes. I’m sure he just forgot.
WRONG; all of those phenomena can easily be explained by coincidence, it’s not a good argument at all and not compelling at all in regard to his goals.
"The historical evidence for Christianity is much better than for Islam." What a load of rot. And quoting a bunch of Christian [i.e. biased] "scholars" is completely unpersuasive. Anyway, they're both wrong. Obviously it's Judaism that's true and these are just Jewish heresies. See what I did there?
I'm curious to know myself, because that was his real motivation to become a Christian. His actions was moreless sexually motivated than know knowing the truth etc.
When you are having a bad day, then randomly scrolling through youtube, then see a new unbelievable video . :D God works in mysterious ways xD ( see what i did there? ) xD :)
@@panesypeces i think it was a good debate . i like how the french dude explained his experiences . id do the same way bc im also a christian but the ways ppl want God to be explained in a big way is normally explained in a small way most times.
How do you know what God is made of? Which God? This implies that you know what God is made of. This also implies that you know Gods gender, and that you have observed all molecules and particles in the universe... I could go on and on.
@@117-d7r We are told that God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Nothing made of atoms can exist everywhere. It sounds like the word God refers more to a principle that guides the unfolding of all events. So we ask what could that possibly be. My interpretation is that God is that which upholds truth in all things. So there can be no argument or discussion about anything unless truth is relevant to whatever you're talking about, whether it be about physics, or math or intentions or motivations. And it seems clear that truth must be relevant everywhere, all the time, and with the ability to ensure that everything remains consistent. But truth is an axiom, and as such axioms are never proven; they are accepted as obviously truth.
We hope you enjoy the show! For the bonus eBook and an extra "post-show" clip, sign up to our newsletter at: www.thebigconversation.show/
The illogical, irrational, and unreasonable position of claiming that there is No Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence (i.e. Atheism): The fallacy is the assumption that something is true (i.e. Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence does not exist) unless proven otherwise. The Claimant making a negative claim (i.e. Universal Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence does not exist) cannot logically, rationally, and reasonably prove nonexistence. Because, for a Claimant to know that X does not exist would require the Claimant to possess 100% knowledge of all things with 100% certainty and 100% accuracy (i.e. omniscience).
Even mainstream secular scientists claim that approx. 95% of the Universe is still unknown (i.e. Dark Energy and Dark Matter). Of the remaining 5% of the Universe, only 0.0035% exists within the visible light spectrum which the human eye is capable of observing. Therefore, there is much, much more that humanity does not know about the Universe and Reality than it does know. Based on just this information, the position of claiming to be Atheist is shown to be illogical, irrational and unreasonable.
*_“… Every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”_* Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955), founder of modern physics (Theory of Relativity inter alia) and 1921 Nobel prize winner
*_“All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind (i.e. Observer). This mind is the matrix of all matter.”_* Max Plank (the Father of Quantum Physics)
The fact that DNA / genes (biological coded information) exists at all shows that a Consciousness-'Intelligence-Mind' is involved in the initial introduction and subsequent propagation of living systems. Un-directed random material natural processes have never been observed in nature or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing Functional / Coded / Digital information such as that required for biological systems, even at the most primitive levels of biological life.
Laws of the Universe exist Independent of anyone's personal beliefs in the existence of the Laws of the Universe. Just as man-made laws govern society globally, Universal Laws govern the entire Universe. Un-directed random material natural processes have never been observed or experimentally demonstrated to be capable of producing any form of laws. As scientifically confirmed, non-material laws are the product of only Mind / Consciousness / Intelligence.
The Christian Apologist/Theologian had a nice accent and Graham Oppy was very thoughtful and generous.
The question is: why provide divine revelations to some but not others? It's inconsistent and for me, intuitively demonstrates religious experiences as being probably dismissable.
Just because God show himself to a person does not mean that is what's needed to CHANGE!!!!! the devil knows God is real yet he haves no love for him or his ways. Father is all knowing so if he does not show himself to some people perhaps the reason is because that's not going to change their ways and it would prob be worse for the person to KNOW and yet STILL REJECT!!!!!!
@@yahshuasquotation6778 If God revealed himself to everybody in their own individual way, I'm pretty sure that would be hard to reject.
@@TheEternalOuroboros well according to the Bible and The Story of Lazarus I would say that's not true when the rich man died and begged Abraham to let him go up and warn his brothers Abraham response was if they do not believe the prophets then they will not believe even when someone rises from the dead the whole point is if people love sin and the things that they do they will not change even if father reveals himself to them at best they will try to rationalize it away or at work they would accuse father of being wrong and unjust
He says it goes both way, but I would beg to differ, in those other stories an encounter happened from an outside force that shifted the paradigm of the individual. In stories of falling from the faith, there tends to be a more meditative critique (that could even be valid in certain context) to solidify a walk away from trying reach the divine. There is a difference. One says “God revealed Himself to me,” (outside source) while the other says “I thought about it and came to the conclusion it’s nonsense.” (Inside source)
Nick so at best you are only referring to two or three examples out of a swath of billions and billions and billions of examples throughout history. The broader point I think you and this young philosopher are missing is that the stories exist throughout history that match your examples in the opposite direction and for the exact inverse and category of reasons that the given examples here poses. And it follows that an individual story of conversion is not a compelling argument. It’s the equivalent of climate science deniers saying “I don’t think the earth is warming, I was really cold last night.” Or better yet saying , the earth is not warming - it was colder in Miami yesterday than it was in Chicago. You cannot make macro arguments by inky recognizing your reality at the microscopic level and then thinking that there couldn’t possibly be an inverse example to the one you just made. Do you understand this ?
@@ThePinsa42 I’m not saying the individual story is compelling. I’m saying the experience they had was deemed as from an outside source by the individual, according to their description of the experience that is. Also I think that an individuals experience can be compelling, depending on other details they speak on. For example most stories people tell of their life we (most healthy minded humans) hold to be true and compelling. If you have a significant other and they told you about a friend they had, your immediate response isn’t to hold suspicion against them. Your view of an individual already holds a presupposed preposition that will allow you to give validation or rejection of the story. Also let’s not act like we look at everything we find to be compelling a science. That my friend would be extremely disingenuous. And yes I do understand what your saying, however I don’t believe you understood me. I’m not talking of an easily objective observation, just the difference in the observation. If you don’t believe in a God you would never say “God showed me there is not a God.” However, many on the other side (not all by any means) say “God revealed Himself to me.” They don’t suppose the information came from meditation on evidence, but a revelation from the divine, like somebody telling you their name, you wouldn’t question whether that is compelling or not, it is a revelation you hold true, or I hope you would at least. But again… im not saying it’s compelling but the experience is observed differently. One believes a outside being of a divine nature revealed Himself, the other comes to a conclusion upon meditation. They are not the same in both directions.
Oppy is a wonderful conversationalist.
Yes, he really DESTROYED that theist :D
More Oppy please.
This is the most wholesome conversation of all time. I’ll have to check out Bignon’s work! Delightful presence on the show and Graham is great as always. Thanks Justin :)
wholesome...
Yeah some super hot P*ssy motivated him to look into and accept Christianity. Sounds more like his hornyness and lust. Send me a super hot model/actress and I can convert to Christianity too. 🤦🏻♂️
@@northernlight8857
Is wholesome synonymous with bull s#*t?
If you’re diving into Bignon I HIGHLY recommend his book “Excusing Sinners and Blaming God”
@@mr.c2485 Cursing from the outset. Real intelligent and nuanced, that.
SOooo, I have some things to say about that. First what theories we believe rightly determine which argument we're going to think are sound...
Do you know basic astrophysics?
I’m waiting for Pinecreek to use this as evidence of his ‘women convert more people than the Holy Spirit’ theory
Was thinking the same exact thing 😂
@@sentienteudaimonist
I wrote that a moment ago, then read your prophetic comment.
The Pinecreek Theorem states: Women have converted more men to Christianity than the Holy Spirit has. Guillaume seems to be at least an example!
Do you think that at this point it can be acknowledged as a law of physics? Or still needs more testing?
@@omnikevlar2338 Ha! I think it's mostly useful rhetorically!
@@DigitalGnosis One could likewise argue that women have deconverted more men from Christianity than the Devil has. It's common to hear of Christian men abandoning their beliefs once they realise said beliefs restrict their relationships with women (no premarital sex, no dating outside the faith, sometimes even no condoms). So both your theorem and its inverse don't strike me as particularly useful rhetorically
@@holyvegetablejuice I never heard of anyone outright leaving their faith because of such restrictions. What usually happens is that people will simply change their understanding of the faith and scripture to reflect their belief. Do you truly believe that christians don't have premarital sex? Also, if you're a christian, it's okay, you can sin and then just ask for forgiveness and you'll be alright.
@@thedude882 I personally know of someone who stopped being a Christian altogether for this reason. Of course, after the fact, while the girl was clearly the catalyst, he said that he also had started doubting Christian claims for what they were. But this seems no different to Guillaume, who was initially drawn in by a girl, and later came to appreciate arguments for Christianity on their own merit (along with his religious experiences).
My specific example aside, I've heard pastors say this is a common phenomenon leading the young astray (and they've given personal anecdotes to substantiate their claims), so it certainly seems to be a thing.
When you say people usually mold their understanding of faith to suit their needs.. of course this happens as well, especially among more liberal Christians. I never claimed all Christians took such conservative stances on the pre-marital sex/interfaith dating/condom use. Yes, I truly believe there are many Christians who don't have premarital sex- why do you think so many marry young? Many Christians have more conservative attitudes than you might be used to.
It's not a voice in the sky but, an indercernable undeniable whisper outside your own mind, Improbability works both ways, from a naturalistic/materialistic evolutionary point of view, it has taken a whole series of totally improbable series of random events that have led to us
God of the gaps?
The probability of a natural universe just existing that happens to have the attributes that we see, is exactly identical to the probability of a god existing that happens to have the attributes that would incline it to create this universe.
The only difference in the two ideas is that proposing a finely tuned god adds an unnecessary extra level to reality, which makes it far less parsimonious.
Your apologetic argument, like all of them, sounds sort of intuitive on a superficial level but then falls apart under serious scrutiny.
Finaly the full interview i've been waiting for that. Thank you !!!!
Here's something I've never understood. What is so compelling about the New Testament, or anything Jesus said or did? If you take the Judeo/Gnostic spirituality out of the equation, all you're left with are philosophical platitudes that were already well-known, so not the least bit profound.
It’s great to see the civility between these men.
The kind of God envisaged to exist would not rely on arguments to reveal his existence if he existed.
Apart from some bits of scripture (for which we do not really have assurance of truth), why do people assume that God cares whether someone is a Christian, atheist, agnostic, skeptic, etc. Doesnt God just love us unconditionally? If 'he' doesn't, is he a God worth believing in?
Of course you came to believe in Christianity:
1) it was the religion of your family and you were raised in the church.
2) you had a deep desire to be in a relationship with a very beautiful woman and the only way to do that was likely to adopt her belief system that she held with such confidence.
3) this new experience of Christianity was exciting and different from that of your childhood and you are an adult now so you can see the ways science in faith could work together.
None of this means Christianity is actually true, it’s just biography and confirmation bias.
This same argument can be made against almost all athiests, too
@@will19125though you would think atheists would be overwhelmed by the compelling nature of Christianity. But they aren’t. For me, as an atheist who went to Catholic schools for years, the mystery is not why people are religious, but why, if God or gods were real, do I and people like me still find all that insufficiently compelling. For this guy, Christianity just got ushered in on the coattails of lust. I tell my kids, when I’m in a good mood, like when my team wins, that’s the time to ask for stuff.
@@will19125
I became a vaughan again atheist when I stopped feeling comfortable with superstitious beliefs and subsequently discovered how much I love my sin; now, I can't get enough.
@@will19125 Atheists generally don't argue from "religious experience" (or "lack or religious experience"). And when we do - say the argument of evil-we are dismissed? So?
It is a curious sort of atheist (Guillaume, pre conversion) who regards going into a church as "intellectual suicide".
Graham brought up questions to consider that I have not encountered yet.
After 40 years being atheist I eventually turned to belief. I`ve never had any kind of religious experience, and I still believe without a shred of doubt.
Love it! I was atheist / agnostic for years after leaving Mormonism at 14. Dabbled in Buddhism and got heavily into mysticism and new age. None of it truly satisfied. Then the Lord came knocking and it was undeniable! Praise and glory to God!
Did you really spend 40 years to find the evidence that convinced you or did you decide to believe without convincing evidence? Either way it sounds terrible.
@@joshuachaffin1858 was he really knocking on your front door?
@@turdferguson3400 I did`t think about it at all until in the last two years. In that time I learned a lot and it brought me to my faith. I`m not sure by what measure that would be terrible.
@@JAMESCARNEY273 you spent 40 years not thinking about religion at all or whether or not it is true or not, and despite that you called yourself an atheist. That's the terrible thing.
Thanks Justin this was a great conversation. Would have liked to hear a bit more about why they assess the evidence differently and disagree though!
Yeah some super hot P*ssy motivated him to look into and accept Christianity. Sounds more like his hornyness and lust. Send me a super hot model/actress and I can convert to Christianity too. 🤦🏻♂️pinecreek Theron example 112. Ft Doug
Neither offered demonstrable evidence for anything. They’re pablum puking book knowledge only. Personal experience is subjective at best….at worst…made up b.s. Gives them a sense of hope, meaning, and purpose based on emotional needs.
@@mr.c2485 Let's continue our cosmogony chat.
If you can explain the universe without God, that's a huge win for atheism.
@@mr.c2485 better than being a hopeless, bitter person which unfortunately is exactly what you sound like! Also it takes intelligence to create or understand information, everything is made up of its own information, so where did info come from? = Intelligence
@@calebdreeling7921 why do you assume that intelligence is required?
Graham Oppy , nobody else comes close
I have a very similar testimony of how I became a Christian at 19 years old. Strange circumstances and coincidences. Intense guilt and introspection. A powerful encounter with God. Now 20 years later, I’m an atheist. Coincidences happen all the time and are explainable. Feelings are subjective and misleading. Encounters with God are always explainable naturally and are usually exaggerated. Religion scratches the superstitious itch that many of us humans are afflicted with.
Do you know any science, ideally astrophysics?
I can give extremely strong evidence we have a Creator God, and then it's up to you to seek Him out of you want to.
@@20july1944 what is it.
I agree subjectivity is a poor basis for developing faith. You need a lot more than that.
@@jjcm3135 How much science do you know?
Do you know how a star works?
I have studied some astrophysics on my own, specifically the Big Bang. I used to believe it confirmed my Christian beliefs, but now if I was being generous, the mysteries/unknowns of the origins of the universe and astrophysics and quantum physics, at best hints at deism as 1 of many possible explanations. But pure deism is light years away from an all-loving, all-powerful god who sent his son Jesus to pay the price for our sins or else we burn for all eternity.
Wow! This question he had of, "Why did Jesus have to die?" is one I always had. I always heard that but no one ever gave a background reasoning behind it. They just stated is but it came with no support or explanation. Like why couldn't just any Joe die for me. In the last year this came to my realization and I've found it a very important subject that is necessary to explain to seekers of Truth. I came about the answer through much study over a 3-4 year period amongst many other topics but I think it's something that Christians have accepted as part of our general understanding of the Gospel but we forget how complex it is. How it began in the Old Testament with God requiring blood sacrifice of for atonement that lead to Jesus, the FINAL sacrifice, once and for all.
The obvious explanation is that The Father wanted it that way, and I'm dissatisfied with the various explanations.
One that I have noticed in my own spirit is that I am really intensely grateful and loyal to Jesus specifically because of how He suffered for us.
I would say it is also obvious that The Father could forgive ANYone He wants to at ANY time for ANY reason.
@@20july1944 Maybe you didn't comprehend where I was coming from. When you're not Christian, "because the Father wanted it that way" means zilch. Just as Paul had to give the Greeks schooling on the Old Testament, so do we as missionaries to the uneducated (Biblically) lost.
@@reeb9016 I thought you were asking what the truth was, Christian-to-Christian, not looking for an evangelistic argument.
If I were ever in a position where an atheist asks why Jesus HAD to die for our salvation, I would be forced back to the same answer -- "because God the Father wanted it that way, He certainly could forgive without Calvary."
@@20july1944 You're still coming at it like they have a clue what you're talking about.
Many religious belief systems have stories of human sacrifice/ martyrs. Not unique to the Christian Jesus.
I don't get how people are able to credit any "improbable" experiences to one deity or another. It seems one will simply make the connection to whatever preferred deity they are partial to because they wish to have the experience hold a "special" meaning. How is that nothing more than desirability bias?
~27:19… Oppy lays out that, he having considered the arguments for belief in God or disbelief in God, the arguments on either side are not compelling… This is excellent insight and insight that ought to be taken into account when adjudicating how one should live in light of this insight. It reminds me, a bit, of both Pascal’s wager but also of the hiddenness of God.
There really is a choice in the matter. There is not much choice in believing 2 +2 = 4 but there is a choice on whether one would believe God exists or not. It seems very much to me that this whole show was built up to, in some large part, support genuine free-will decisions (I know that Bignon disagrees with me on free will but he can’t help it) by persons and that the question is not can you believe but, rather will you believe?
You can be rational in either choice… what will you choose?
Ultimately, if the claims are that the christian "God" claims to love us and want us to come to the knowledge of the truth, etc then why does it come down to just making a blind choice? Why not reveal themselves to the world, and make it extremely clear??
@@117-d7r God didn't claim to love us, did He?
Do you know any science, ideally basic astrophysics?
Clearly God -- IF HE exists -- chooses to conceal Himself.
I'd like to focus on the question "does God exist?" and approach it via astrophysics because that's the key question.
@@20july1944 as far as I know he hasn't claimed anything that I can verify. If that's true then either God has been doing really well at hide and seek throughout history, but you have finally outsmarted God through astropsychics! Congratulations!, but I know you haven't because youd be on every news network, and everyone would know your work as being the one who finally found God in his hiding spot.
@@117-d7r OK.
My argument has two steps:
1. Inferring God exists, using only science.
2. Inferring Jesus rose from the dead, indicating Jesus was sent by and represents that God.
Do you know how a star works?
God delivered me from alcoholism , nicotine & heroin addiction. 16 years ago after receiving the Holy Spirit whilst praying to God at home one evening. No need for rehab. Also, I was telling my story to somebody who thought God could never forgive him for the sins he had commited. throughout his life . I hear myself asking him to take out what he had in his pocket. He emptied his pocket and amongst a number of coins was a crucifix. He said" how did you know I had this in my pocket ?". I was as shocked as he was. He began weeping as I told him how much God loved him. I don't know how to explain this away other than to say God is real and is still working in my life in miraculous ways and His word is true and can be relied upon and trusted.
Which god? Some of the best accounts of delivery from addictions come from Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, etc. They all think that their deities are special and are ultimately the truth. FTA!
Beautiful..thank you Lord for your Life😍😍😍
Don't think god planted a crucifix in his pocket mate. "God is real and is still working in my life in miraculous ways" but what about people in Ukraine who are literally losing their homes and loved ones? does God just work in mysterious ways.
no you delivered yourself from those addictions... its all in the mind...
What is more likely?
A magic man rose from the dead 200 yrs ago....or a bunch of guys wrote some fancy stories? Which of these is more likely?
That was an interesting discussion.
What’s painful about all this is that Guillaume’s experience is supposed to be more important than the needless suffering that happens outside of Guillaume’s tiny bubble as he claims the god he believes in chose to create these experiences, coincidental experiences, for him because he’s more important to his god than a child’s prayer to have the suffering stop.
Christianity seems to appeal to the privileged and the lucky who have an exaggerated sense of self importance
his experiences are real.
@@Julian-hy7tn and??
Is that your way of not addressing my point?
He still doesn’t get to make unwarranted claims his experience is meaningful objectively which is my point you pathetic apologist
@@Julian-hy7tn is doesn't necessarily follow that his interpretation of said experiences are valid.
Great conversation... Both agreed on the logical understanding can support both sides... Only difference is one has seeked God as an experience and the other choose not to... You can never explain the taste of food logically... Only way is to experience it...
When too many coincidences point you in one direction it's most probably God is the creator and we are the creation...
Everything created has a purpose... Finding the purpose is the fulfilment...
How does one seek god as an experience?
@@chad969 Many thanks for your question.... There are 2 ways to live....
1. See the world with your eyes and interpret with your mind
2. Interpret what you see with God's mind, like a child see's the world through the father's mind.
If you truly want find the truth you will and the truth will set you free.
God bless
Great, thank you telling me god is like another flavor. In that case, you cannot say that this flavor is also the creator of all the other things in the world.
@@turdferguson3400 all I can say is if you truly seek, you will find God. The more you run away the more you get hurt. It's not about what I can say, it's about what you want to hear. God bless
@@sura_lanka you're saying that if you truly are desperate, you will deceive yourself until you think god is real.
Good debate. Thank you to Guillaume and Graham.
I wonder how many people actually have thought about the elements of faith that are present in a substantial amount of their beliefs. It seems to me, as I consider what I believe to be true, that nearly all of my beliefs are built up in such a way that I must move to belief from skepticism by crossing a bridge of faith.
Try it out… think about some non-mathematical belief (maybe even mathematical) and ask yourself if you have rock solid evidence or knowledge that would entail the belief. In may cases, I think, you will find that your evidence is testimony or authority or that your evidence is partial and leaves open the door for error. It may also be the case that the belief you are considering is foundational to many other beliefs, each of which would become less likely were it to be false.
What am I saying? I’m saying that it takes faith to believe nearly anything and that often we believe what we want and underestimate the influence of our desire in the formation of our beliefs.
So your second paragraph might be true if you're uneducated about something, but it doesn't HAVE to be true. You could actually for example, study biology and see the inner workings of cells. If let's say you want to measure whether or not prayer works, you will notice that it's extremely random and hard to measure. But if you make a prediction on say how a cell will respond to certain stimulus, and then in fact the cell does respond that way repeatedly, you have good evidence that your prediction is verifiable through testing. While you're correct in that many of us believe something to be true based on authority - skeptics believe based on an emphasis on this controlled study environment that has been peer reviewed and has demonstrable properties.
I started out christian, then became agnostic by sway of evidence and personal experience.
Well that was quite an excellent debate. Its clear that the theist had no real argument however. Graham really knocked this one out of the park. Very impressed with Oppy. Thank you for further confirming my non-belief @PremierUnbelievable :D
Interesting discussion.
I got very similar experiences as guillaume as i look back i see Gods hand all over my life its crazy
The same with my brother. God hasn't bothered handling me and the other siblings (or Dr Oppy), though. I understand His ways are mysterious or He's quite busy so must only spend his time on the "special people".
@@PaulQuantumWales call on him
@Julian can you help with his phone number?
@@PaulQuantumWales
Finding lost keys is an area of expertise.
@@richmondopoku836
Zeus got rid of his phone as it had too much static on the line.
It's fairly clear that Guillaume wanted or needed to believe in God, the Christian god in particular. He could do whatever he liked when he broke his arm, but he went to a church. When he felt chills, he could have attributed them to any number of causes. He chose a supernatural explanation - why would an atheist think the experience was a message from God? He then spent hours of his spare time discussing scripture. This considerable effort, along with a bias towards supernatural explanations for random events, can't simply be the result of wanting to understand the religion of a girl he met. Transcendent experiences occur naturally with some people. Myself included. I don't see why they need to be attributed to a supernatural entity. That sounds like humans creating stories in an attempt to explain the inexplicable and give the mind something to hang onto.
its actually kind of laughable except when you really dive into it
then it makes me angry and confused the idiots walking this planet
He first wanted to show the girl Christianity was rubbish so she would sleep with him. Then he started thinking it could be true and put in effort to see if it was.
It’s only good news if it’s true. That’s how I felt as a seeker. Whether it’s true was No. 1 consideration for me and for Guillaume Bignon.
"It's fairly clear that Guillaume wanted or needed to believe in God, the Christian god in particular".
Wow: psycho-analysis across cyberspace, and after a single, one-hour discussion. You sure don't lack for confidence, my friend; I'll give you that.
He wanted to bone a christian girl, it's not that hard. First he lied to her, then he believed the lies he told her. Not that hard.
@@Jill-jb1jg I think it was more - "you show me yours and I'll show you mine"
the French guy says he never had a dissatisfaction with life, but anyone whose gotten swerved by a woman you highly desire knows what that can do to a man.
I agree. I think his love for the model from New York explains a lot concerning what motivated his conversion. Women have converted more men to Christianity than the holy spirit.
We are on the same line of thinking. Right from the beginning I thought the beauty of a female has brought this man to faith. Their was a lot subconsciously going on that he didn't even realize.
23:57
Can Graham actually qualify what is “merely coincidental” vs what is not?
✅️ Right!
The burden of proof falls on those who make the claims. Not the skeptic.
Good question, but his interlocutor does no better, and he has the higher burden it seems. At one point he even admits that it could all plausibly be explained by coincidence. There's precious little to move the skeptic here.
@@mr.c2485 Ah, the burden of proof. I think some people pull that out to quickly. What if a skeptic can bring out an explanation for what is going on, explain it to everybody, and then people stop being Christians because they realize that Christianity is not true? Wouldn't that be a good outcome instead of only thinking of not losing the argument, but actually it's possible to win the argument? Isn't there a burden of being competent in the issues, arguments and debates going on?
@@mr.c2485 No genuine believer has any burden of proof on them, unless they innocently or foolishly assume the burden that is God’s alone to bear. And God has very broad shoulders, He can bear any burden, and He can persuade anyone, even the most hardened anti-God people that ever existed.
Someday He will even persuade you. It’s your choice whether that will be a good experience for you or a truly awful one. That’s the good news, you get to choose.
Modern Quantum Physics has shown that reality is based on probability:
A statistical impossibility is defined as “a probability that is so low as to not be worthy of mentioning. Sometimes it is quoted as 1/10^50 although the cutoff is inherently arbitrary. Although not truly impossible the probability is low enough so as to not bear mention in a Rational, Reasonable argument." The probability of finding one particular atom out of all of the atoms in the universe has been estimated to be 1/10^80. The probability of just one (1) functional 150 amino acid protein chain forming by chance is 1/10^164. It has been calculated that the probability of DNA forming by chance is 1/10^119,000. The probability of random chance protein-protein linkages in a cell is 1/10^79,000,000,000. Based on just these three cellular components, it would be far more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the cell was not formed by un-directed random natural processes. Note: Abiogenesis Hypothesis posits that un-directed random natural processes, i.e. random chance formation, of molecules led to living organisms. Natural selection has no effect on individual atoms and molecules on the micro scale in a prebiotic environment. (*For reference, peptides/proteins can vary in size from 3 amino acid chains to 34,000 amino acid chains. Some scientists consider 300-400 amino acid protein chains to be the average size. There are 42,000,000 protein molecules in just one (1) simple cell, each protein requiring precise assembly. There are approx. 30,000,000,000,000 cells in the human body.)
Of all the physical laws and constants, just the Cosmological Constant alone is tuned to a level of 1/10^120; not to mention the fine-tuning of the Mass-Energy distribution of early universe which is 1/10^10^123. Therefore, in the fine-tuning argument, it would be more Rational and Reasonable to conclude that the multi-verse is not the correct answer. On the other hand, it has been scientifically proven numerous times that Consciousness does indeed collapse the wave function to cause information waves of probability/potentiality to become particle/matter with 1/1 probability. A rational and reasonable person could therefore conclude that the answer is consciousness.
A "Miracle" is considered to be an event with a probability of occurrence of 1/10^6. Abiogenesis, RNA World Hypothesis, and Multiverse would all far, far, far exceed any "Miracle". Yet, these extremely irrational and unreasonable hypotheses are what some of the world’s top scientists ‘must’ believe in because of a prior commitment to a strictly arbitrary, subjective, biased, narrow, limiting, materialistic ideology / worldview.
Every idea, number, concept, thought, theory, mathematical equation, abstraction, qualia, etc. existing within and expressed by anyone is "Immaterial" or "Non-material". The very idea or concept of "Materialism" is an immaterial entity and by it's own definition does not exist. Modern science seems to be stuck in archaic, subjective, biased, incomplete ideologies that have inadequately attempted to define the "nature of reality" or the "reality of nature" for millennia. A Paradigm Shift in ‘Science’ is needed for humanity to advance. A major part of this Science Paradigm Shift would be the formal acknowledgment by the scientific community of the existence of "Immaterial" or "Non-material" entities as verified and confirmed by observation of the universe and discoveries in Quantum Physics.)
Stunning!
Quantum Physics is neither “modern” or proof of most of the gibberish you’ve written here…
Yamaha Japan,
Do you have a coherent response or just "nu-uhh!" "Gibberish!"
Any intellectually honest person reading will just recognize you experienced cognitive dissonance which lead to dogmatic hand-wave dismissal of these well-known arguments.
Also, Yamaha Japan,
Nobody claimed proof in the first place. Proofs only exist in logic and mathematics, but that does not mean all of science is meaningless does it? The arguments still support God unless you have a COHERENT refutation/invalidation
@Moses Exodus Thanks for taking the time to put forward the village idiots point of view.
All attempts to put Christianity on an "intellectual" footing inevitably end up devolving into sophistry (as evidenced in the attempts of Medieval Scholasticism and more recently in the writings of C. S. Lewis), and Bignon's attempt to do so is no exception. As he himself admits in the course of the discussion, everything depends upon the presuppositions with which one begins one's intellectual exercise. Just about anything can be made to look intellectually respectable, given suitable presuppositions. Flat Earth literature abounds with (seemingly) intellectually defensible arguments, and Ptolemy's epicycles were intellectually sound, given the prevailing presupposition regarding geocentrism, a cosmological model that had the endorsement of the great Aristotle (who was wrong about a lot of other things as well), despite the fact that Aristarchus of Samos had earlier proposed, correctly, a heliocentric model (which Aristotle dismissed on "intellectual" grounds). So, to say that Christianity is intellectually defensible is to say nothing about the *truth value* of Christianity: it is merely to say that some sort of intellectual argument can be conjured up to give Christianity the appearance of intellectual respectability.
The thrust of Bignon's argument is certainly not intellectual: he appears to put great stock in the series of seemingly unlikely coincidences that decorated a certain period of his life, which he attributes to the intervention of divine providence. There are two major problems with this "Argument from Divine Providence". The first relates specifically to Bignon's case. The series of "unlikely coincidences" began, by his account, when he lusted after an American woman and attempted to seduce her. Had he not found her attractive; or had he not experienced the desire to seduce her and have sex with her, he would never have become a Christian, even if, by "divine providence", some American tourists in a car had stopped to ask for directions. So, if we are to take the Argument from Divine Providence seriously, then we have to admit that it was Divine Providence that generated Bignon's lust for the American woman and his desire to seduce her. This is the very thing over which he says he later felt pangs of guilt-guilt that Christianity promised to erase (a prospect that he says convinced him of the truth of Christianity). Two observations here. First, what shall we say of a "God" who providentially uses "sinful", guilt-inducing impulses to induce people to become Christians? There is something unspeakably revolting, something perversely ironic about a "God" who uses lust (supposedly one of the Seven Deadly Sins) as an instrument of "providential" salvation. Second, the Christian strategy for snaring converts is all too obvious here. The "trick" that Christianity deploys is one of the oldest in the conman's playbook: invent the problem for which you offer the solution. In the case of Christianity, the strategy is to induce a false sense of guilt and then offer to erase that guilt through the supposedly salvific death of Jesus of Nazareth.
The second problem with the Argument from Divine Providence is a philosophical one: Divine Providence is extended to only a select few, not the entire human race. Bignon's "God" is not interested in intervening in providential ways in the lives of everyone who is not a Christian-just in Bignon's life and the lives of a few others. Bignon takes refuge from the absurdity of this position by coyly invoking Calvinism-in other words, Predestination (a word he appears to have been careful to avoid). This did not get any attention in the conversation and slipped by unnoticed and uncommented on, and most viewers will probably have missed it as well. What Bignon is saying is that his "God" has already decided beforehand who will be saved and who will be damned-and he is one of the lucky few whom his "God" has chosen-or "predestined"-to be saved. That is certainly a clever way to get out of the corner that he backs himself into with his Argument from Divine Providence-but it is a glittering example of the sophistry that Christians have to resort to in order to defend the indefensible. Notice how he fails to mention that the Calvinistic Doctrine of Predestination is rejected by the vast majority of Christians. It is truly remarkable that Christians arrogate to themselves the power to pick and choose whatever suits their immediate purpose-the end always justifies the means.
I could go on and on, picking Bignon's position apart piece by piece, but I think I have presented a sufficient sampling of the sophistry of his "intellectual" approach to Christianity to substantiate the statement that I began with.
It seems interesting to me, everytime a non believer states their case against Christianity they say, “surely a good God would never do…”
I see the argument but it doesn’t discredit the very existence of God.
However these arguments are typically taken as such.
@@bryanhawkins9418 You are right: it does not-but such a being would be unworthy of my worship. I could never respect (or give any credence to) a being who proscribed lust (and punished people for yielding to it) and then used it ("providentially") as a means of bringing about a conversion to belief in his existence. That is despicable by any standard. It is not really a matter of being a *"good* God"-goodness (or lack of it) has nothing to do with the argument against "God". It is the *self-contradictory* nature of this being's alleged dealings with humans (not just in Bignon's' case-the Old Testament is bursting at the seams with instances) that is objectionable. It would be a matter of total indifference to me that such a being existed-if he did.
@@MichaelMendis I think you are absolutely right. If such a god/being exists that you describe, then it/he/she is just as indifferent to us and our thoughts. To trust in something arbitrary would be illogical and destructive for all humanity. However, for Christianity, it isn't enough to have the existence of god or even a "good god", but it is crucial to have Christ. Without Christ we're out.
@@MichaelMendis I see where you're coming from, however, my objection is still that people will express, that because of these very reasons that you stated, they don't believe that God exists.
All I'm arguing for is a dispassionate and honest stance on whether you believe he exists or not.
All the feelings and opinions are secondary.
@@bryanhawkins9418 I hold the opinion that the Biblical God is an imaginary being conjured up by a group of primitive nomadic tribes in the Middle East out of various earlier notions of supernatural beings, which were themselves products of the imaginings of even more primitive minds. As to the broad notion of "God", divested of any moorings to any particular religious tradition, one has to ask how this "God" is to be defined: Is he a personal being, with a mind and a will? Is "he" an impersonal force (something along the lines of Aristotle's "First Mover")? Is he the "God" of Spinoza and Albert Einstein? Is he the deistic "God" of Thomas Jefferson and other Enlightenment thinkers?
How we conceive of "God" ultimately determines how we answer the question of whether "God" exists. Personally, I am agnostic with respect to the existence of supernatural beings of any sort. However, I reject the notion that there is a specific supernatural being to whom I have an obligation to render allegiance, obedience, and worship, and who holds my eternal destiny in his hands. If "God" is defined as that which every human being is bound to acknowledge as the exclusive and ultimate source of morality and as the object of allegiance, obedience, and worship, and failure to make this acknowledgement is a punishable offense, then I am quite willing to declare that such a "God" does *not* exist. If such a being existed, his existence should be self-evident, and every single individual human being must, of necessity, have clear, unambiguous, incontrovertible, personal knowledge not only of his existence, but also of his requirements for that individual with regard to the way he or she is expected to relate to this being. I personally do not have such knowlege, and therefore, for me "God" (as so defined) does not exist. If I am required to stake my eternal destiny on swearing allegiance to some unseen supernatural being, I need to know exactly what that being is and exactly what he expects of me. Any being who does not see the logic of this position and refuses to make himself known to me in this way is not worthy of my allegiance and worship, and therefore, for me it matters not whether he exists or not. However, philosophically, given that there is at least one case (mine) in which the requirement of "God's" self-disclosure is not met, we can say that "God" (as so defined) does *not* exist, across the board.
It would appear as though GB became a Christian, in line with the PineCreek Doug theorem; a girl
Guillaume seems to experiencing Apophenia - "unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness"
That assumption doesn’t explain the improbability of his situations - his visa being the only one approved among 15 other applicants in his company after he confessed his faith to his mom, his invitation to debate Oppy 26 minutes after buying his book, and others.
@@synesthete23 Coincidence doesn't equal causation, especially it fails to demonstrate any supernatural intervention.
@@synesthete23
The visa story is just a story. One of the people who was rejected left the building in a sad state of mind and was killed by a talking snake carrying an apple. Balaam's donkey tried to warn him to move out of the way. He was a heathen, so now he is in charge of the BBQ in hell.
At the end when it's mentioned the bible is the most attested book in ancient history, yeah but this has a cost. There are over 600,000 variants in our 5600 manuscripts, they were first passed down orally for 40 years until written down. Our first full copy of mark doesn't come until the 3rd century.
To say that this is a good thing is to misunderstand the cost of having so many documents and the nature of their construction. This all not to even mention the deemphasizing of apocalyptic messages Jesus expressed in mark and matthew, muted later in Luke and eliminated all together in John...
Guillaume says he found it very confusing why Jesus had to die for out sins. Excellent natural reaction! He should have stuck with it. Did he chose Christianity simply because he was brought up in a Christian country? Now to do his conversion justice he needs to research Islam next with an open mind.
"The sun softens butter but it hardens clay" (Greg Koukl). The evidence is not the issue. The issue is the bondage of the will.
If you can only believe something by first having a strong motivational bias, then yeah, the evidence is the issue.
The New Testament is not history. It may contain some historical events and facts. And the experience is just and emotion not a rational experience. Oppy again on the point ✌🏼
But Graham clearly stated that one could rationally be a Christian based on experience.
@@_wade_morgan yes, having emotions does not make you irrational, but if you based the existance of god in that is wrong; personal experience is the worst evidence you can have, trusting the worst evidence is just naive ✌🏼
I missed the part where Oppy explained the origin story for his own worldview. Did he just forget to tell us how and “when” naturalism began?
@@delbert372 this is continuously a misunderstanding that theists fall into. Atheists do not need to tell us how and when anything began. We are not making the claim that God does not exist. The only thing we are saying is that the evidence for God is either really bad or non-existent. No one is saying God is impossible or known to not-exist. Of course, God is possible. Its just at this point, no one can claim that God really exists and moreover that he has specific commandments for how people should live, among other absurd ideas like not being allowed to wear mixed fabrics or explaining how you should treat your slaves. Atheists are entirely open to the possibility that we just don't know how things got started. And that is the most rational answer at the moment. Not to make up fairy tales about how man was made out of clay from God's magical touch.
The most "interesting" thing: 2000 years have passed and people still have to question the validity of Christian claims. If a set of claims has not succeeded in justifying themselves in such a long time, there is probably not much ground for them. Moreover, claims about the Christian God seem to get further and further away from any even imaginal explanation.
Does Graham seem to get shaky about certain questions?
Hes always mildly shaky.
Was very disappointed to only see one boardgame in the background of this Oppy debate.
We know chemicals can self assemble. Chemists have been working on chemical evolution for the last decade and none of what’s been found needs a god. It’s just chemistry doing what it does.
Very nice discussion! I wonder why Oppy is not agnostic as he says there is no knock-down argument either way ? What, in the end, convinces him that atheism is the right position?
Many atheists nowdays call themselves atheists even though they take the agnostic position towards the existence of a god.
Part of this is definitional. Agnostic means to lack knowledge. It doesn't specifically say anything about god. You can be agnostic about the claim that I'm 6 feet tall. It seems to traditionally have been assumed that without extra context, it was meant to be about the claim that god exists. Some people choose to be pedantic about this though so prefer the term atheist. Many also prefer to specify agnostic atheist or soft atheist vs gnostic atheist or hard atheist.
Another part of this is that many people who take this position are agnostic about the claim that a god exists, but that are not agnostic about the claim that an abrahamic god exists. They would claim that an abrahamic god does not exist, but not that a more general, less defined god couldn't exist. And so they present themselves as atheist because most often the theists around them are followers of an abrahamic religion.
@@Elrog3 Thanks for your answer ! Quite helpful :-)
@@quidam3810 You're Welcome. Sorry it came 9 months later haha.
You'll have to read the book that Oppy co-authored with Kenneth Pearce. He generally thinks that it's not about arguments but about big pictures, or worldviews. Oppy is not an agnostic in the slightest. To the contrary, his view is as strong as it can get - he thinks that the existence of any gods is not just improbable, but impossible.
@@Nexus-jg7ev OK ! Thanks a lot for your answer and the reference !!
Former evangelical, trying to find the grey and less black and white thinking. I appreciate the conversations, but still find even the most reasoned religious arguments to be fallacious (special pleading in this case).
What would make me believe? First a mind-externally verifiable appearance (ie, I can ask someone else if they see what I see) and/or some demonstration (think along the lines of Elijah and the prophets of Ba’al). I think I could be convinced of the existence of the biblical god with something that simple. After all, if he desires a relationship, making a proper introduction is the first step.
Would I worship this god? No. Not if he is as described in the Bible. There would have to be some serious explanation for the slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46 and many other passages), genocide (Deuteronomy 7-20 (especially chapter 20), 1 Samuel 15, numbers 31…), and other barbarism that an all knowing god should have known better.
Experiences of all sorts are had by everyone, it’s the attributions of those experiences that I call into question.
I would settle for a beer volcano.
It's odd that Justin mentioned Peter Williams as he got taken to the cleaners by Bart Erhman when they debated. I am a big fan of Graham Oppy but wonder if he has checked out Gabriel Said Reynalds regarding pre Islamic Arabic inscriptions. This debate would have been better if Justin had pushed Bignon even a little bit on his rationality ( not holding out much hope having seen Justin before). The bottom line is that you can be rational in your belief in Christianity but still be wrong. Just don't believe in the resurrection and things get a lot easier to work with. Go the Ebionites.
this feels like an awkward job interview for a new christian apologist to get the OK from a known atheist to take part in the ongoing debate.
Man i wish i could talk to guillaume
1:01:00 religious exclusivism
“Atheism” is not a true or false proposition. Atheism is just a state of mind and is neither true nor false.
1. If there is no God, then atheism is true.
2. If there is a God, then atheism is not true.
Any particular 'state of mind' must be grounded in reality and a search for truth.
@@EternalVisionToday
Everyone knows Zeus is real, and if you don't believe he exists or is god, you are an atheist. Stay inside during lightning storms.
A 12 minute backstory on this random guy does not make for a good show. Get on with the debate.
I have a question let's take a scenario ....if you have neighbors you know for let's say a year long. Do you just give him her money($1000) In the belief he/she will pay it back guaranteed? People will usually respond to no I don't even know them just to give them money. (I'm only talking about 1 year ). Now the Bible has been written 1000s of years ago. How can you expect me to believe in a book that has been written by someone me and you don't even know what they look like or what their true attention is, yet must believe it but 95 % of people won't give a dime of money to their neighbors with the expectation of getting it back from him or her? (The physical appearance of the person can't be trusted yet the none physical should be trusted with no question asked)If you simply can't see the delusion im trying to orchestrate then I don't know...
Free will is paramount. God will not swamp our will with compelling evidence.
This allows each of us to, as Peter Hitchens insists, live in the type of world we want: one in which God exists or a world in which He doesn’t.
The atheist is mistaken who assumes that a God would be obligated (morally or otherwise) to compel belief in His creatures.
The is Pascal’s Wager. When the case is epistemically indeterminate, a cost/benefit analysis is appropriate.
synesthete23
0 seconds ago
I enjoyed this conversation. Graham swerved to some side issues (Islam vs Christianity, etc.) but Guillame was clear on his position all throughout and explained his arguments well.
Trying to explain Spiritual Truth to an unregenerate person is analogous to attempting to explain a symphony orchestra concert to someone who is deaf and blind.
If you have to already assume something is true before you could believe it, then your belief is unjustified. This is a basic fallacy called begging the question. Not impressive.
Maybe your comment is supposed to make you sound wise, with special knowledge, but to anyone outside your indoctrination you only sound like a rube.
Trying to explain spiritual proof isn't as good as tasting a fine whisky.
Gloria in excelsis Deo and Ave Maria. 😍
I think the argument from revelation is the worst argument for God. Think about it folks! There are children being shot in their classrooms, abused, neglected, starving, and dying from disease, but God is making sure this fellow meets his soulmate. Do y'all not ever think about how petty this makes God look? That God is not worthy of worship!
Very impressed with Guillaume, perhaps a lesser-known (for now) apologist going head to head with Oppy, whom William Lane Craig himself has said is among the most intelligent atheists today. Guillaume really held his own. Bravo.
Guiallaume cannot help it but he is very, very bright!
Head to head? This was just a conversation.
I wonder if Graham has heard the argument that at the foundational level of reality there is no such thing as chance or randomness.
Yes, that was darth dawkins main argument in their conversation. Should look it up on RUclips
THerefore GOd exists
The elephant in the room that Oppy fails to see: the French guy's account and that many many such accounts can be given answers precisely to the question of the "hidennes" of God. Not that Jesus does not answer it Himself: it will be better for you if I leave you because then I can send the Counsellor (Paraclete). He is in the Eucharist as He was in the flesh of Jesus of Nazareth.
It's funny to me how the early Protestant and Reformed Christians became immediately "atheistic" towards the saints their Catholic neighbors, relatives and ancestors had prayed to for generations, and they discovered that nothing bad happened to them as a result of abandoning belief in these imaginary beings. Becoming atheistic towards Jesus and god just extends this process to its logical conclusion, because nothing bad happens to you when you stop believing in these other, allegedly more powerful imaginary beings.
No, it does not follow. Learning that fewer than 4 people are needed to screw on a lightbulb doesn't necessarily lead to the conclusion that the lightbulb screwed on by itself or that people don't exist. Respectfully, you're making a logical mistake of not distinguishing between qualitative and quantitative categories.
@@Joel2394 Billions of human lives have come and gone without knowledge of Jesus, and they don't seem to have been disadvantaged by their ignorance of Christianity in any observable way.
@@albionicamerican8806 it seems like you're changing the topic here, my friend. But the claim you're making now seems rather arbitrary, doesn't it. You're assuming naturalism, which you need to prove first in this discussion. I can say that people who rejected Jesus and are now dead might wish they had made a different choice. Now what? I need to present evidence for my belief, just like you do, instead of just laying flat my claim. Regards.
Thumbnail is deceptive. He’s been a Christian for a long time.
The Christian afterlife fantasy often called "the plan of salvation" doesn't work, even if you accept the religion's own assumptions. What if you go to heaven, and then you rebel against god?
This is a *_blatantly obvious problem_* with this belief, but I don't know of any Christian apologist who even acknowledges it.
It’s actually answered by my Christians throughout the ages and the question is not new and the answers are not new. It’s also addressed in the Bible.
Having overcome sin and having experienced God the total source and destination, completion and satisfaction of our being, nobody will want to sin. Consider that now you are free to eat human and animal fecal matter but choose not too. You are free to drink gallons of bleach but choose not to do so. Most of us choose not to do these things unless something is wrong with us mentally. In heaven we are free of our defects and in the presence of being itself and the purpose and source of our existence. Sinning would make as much sense as denying ourselves oxygen or drinking toilet water from a stopped up public bathroom after it has been used all day.
The good that we pursue is the being of God. We naturally pursue what we think is good for us in some way. That goodness is ultimately the being of God. God is the very being of goodness.
There are many more detailed answers you can find not just from Christian apologists but from the church fathers that addressed this question thousands of years ago and even the Bible addresses this question.
All the best to you 🙂👍🏿
@@gfujigo Traditional Christian theology makes a *_HUGE DEAL_* out of satan's rebellion against god, so there is an explicit precedent for such rebellions. And theologians can come up with no good explanation for why satan would want to sin, if he experienced god directly as his creator without any intervening barriers like "having faith" in the unseen. Calvin apparently argued that god created satan deliberately to fail, which raises the obvious question of whether it has also set up some of its "redeemed" to draw the short straws in its plan and likewise fail.
In other words, the satan story implies some bad things about either god's competence or its trustworthiness.
@@albionicamerican8806 Satan is a created being. You don’t know enough about the state of angels in heaven to make such proclamations. Also, Calvin is not representative of ancient Christian perspectives and the church fathers.
Finally, Satan being in heaven doesn’t challenge anything I said. First, I was talking about humans. I said having experienced sin we will not want to experience it again. Second, we don’t know enough about the angels and non human entities to know exactly how they experience reality. Perhaps Satan has other issues going on. Nonetheless he had free will and chose to use it and now Satan and anyone caught up in sin knows the effects.
Haven’t you in your life learned from certain experiences? God allowing created creatures free will is not incompetence. You seem to be making a ton of assumptions about the purpose and reason for creation.
How do you know theologians have no good reasons for Satan’s sin? Have you read the church fathers and the Bible on the issue? Which church fathers have you read? Have you read to see what Orthodox, Catholic, Ethiopian, Coptic and Protestant theologians have said through the ages?
Also, what do you mean by God?
How it doesnt work and exacly and why is it even considered as problem when its pretty obvious?
The afterlife as understood by Christians is not absurd at all.
The idea of a person (after entering the afterlife) and rebelling is possible (though unlikely.)
The Bible describes that Lucifer and a 3rd of Angels rebelled and were given consequences.
So Christians have an adequate answer to your objection if you haven't heard any one respond to this, we apologize.
I just started watching but id say that depends on your perception of love like a father if he offs entire villages bashing 👶 heads against rocks SA child brides flooding the first borns of Egypt the SA of a women and if he pays her father silver and forced her to marry him the sacrifices of a human to cure another's bad deeds or sins and the contradictions in the bible its not really rational and definitely isn't love so id then question someones empathy and morality from believing in something so sadistic and id also like to say most religious people say well it was a feeling i got that made me believe well lots of people dont know that you can make someone feel your feelings like if you laugh tell jokes you can make someone else feel that and when you see a preacher yelling the good parts of the bible and then other people start to speak in tounges throwing themselves on the ground it will give you a feeling most rational people would say um thats creepy and these people are high or crazy but other people it will make that fear turn into wow it feels good right but heres the thing a feeling doest mean truth and when you put yourself in a situation like yelling preachers it releases chemicals kinda like schizophrenia they truly believe they hear or see something but its a chemical imbalance its know different from a feeling in a higher power now id like to say what one is most likely
And if god was real id never ever kneel for any god of any religion hes always a sadistic homicidal god
8:50 pine Creek theory confirmed.
St John Henry Newman has a far better approach to explaining how faith takes hold in a person.
I am curious to know why Mr. Bignon placed so much emphasis and need that the dogma of Christianity be rational. From my standpoint the question is not whether Christian dogma is rational. An argument could seem rational and still be untrue. Further, Saul-Paul, the one individual that did the most to formulate the dogma of Christianity, wrote that the preaching of the "Gospel" was foolishness, and that many philosophically astute men of the world would find the message of the Gospel to be foolish, or irrational. So I think Mr. Bignon desire for the dogma of Christianity be true is misplaced. The important question is whether the dogma of Christianity is true or not. The other thing that comes to mind hearing Mr. Bignon describe hie journey is confirmation bias.
21:28 is an admission that Guillaume didn’t find the answer to his questioning. He just swept his questioning under the rug and his sexual attraction to a woman took over his mental faculties and his thinking. The power a beautiful woman has over a guy who isn’t grounded in his principles isn’t frivolous thing
Guillaume was transparent that a beautiful Christian woman had triggering affect for him to reconsider his view, ultimately with the initial attempt to convince her of the opposing views.
But, as he read the New Testament and as he stated, he looked at the arguments for the New Testament accounts and probably found the rational case satisfying.
Anyone is welcome to question, critique or criticise this, but it doesn't necessarily mean his process from unbelief is entirely illogical or irrational
@@EternalVisionToday you do realize that your argument marginalizes needless suffering, don’t you? It’s rather atrocious how Christianity appeals to those who are prone to think that their experience was orchestrated by the very same god who ignores the prayers of those who are needlessly suffering
I enjoyed the respectful conversation. I'd like to know what Dr. Oppy thinks of the historical evidence that Jesus' tomb was empty. (Note that I'm not saying that an empty tomb mandates a resurrection, but it does leave us with several possible explanations, all of which are uncomfortable.)
I don't know for sure, but I suspect he would say that's outside his area of expertise since he's a philosopher, not an historian.
The easy response would be; what evidence?
This seemed like a waste of Graham's time. "I had an experience so it feels like I am justified in believing it - Ok".
Yep...just like the overwhelming vast majority of people who believes things because they first experience it.
@@davidrigg8678 Except when you think supernatural is talking to you - then you might want to be examined by a medical doctor.
@@alexp8924
Haha...the vast overwhelming majority of people believe in some kind of deity.
Just about every society has been formed on these beliefs...human progress like modern science and philosophy have theistic roots. Belief in God is as part of the human experience as human culture.
...seems to me , perhaps it's the unbeliever who needs to have their head examined.
@@davidrigg8678 talking to your deity is fine, hearing your deity is not.
Coincidences? Many years ago (50), in a moment of personal crisis, I asked God for help. Having asked I was helped (immediately) and, just 90 seconds later, conveniently forgot I'd even asked. A week later I had a life changing encounter with a single decker bus! My best friend was killed and I spent 6 months in hospital, 2 years learning to walk and the rest of my life reflecting on this incident - amongst many others not nearly so physically impacting. All these incidents "spoke" something of the things of God. However, one enounter with God does not a pilgrim make - to paraphrase. Christian leaders who lack all experience of God (Ward, Robinson, Spong to my knowledge) are far too influential. Indeed, I think it no exaggeration to suggest they dominate - and always have.
God killed your friend to convert you? Christ, what an asshole.
Any confirmatory evidence for the existence of YHWH through religious or spiritual personal experience is, as the word says, personal. Because He is a personal God, seeking and allowing experiences (ordinary or miraculous) in His children's lives to confirm His character, show His love, and teach (as does every good father), each experience then for the believer will carry different intended purposes and effects. It matters little whether the "improbable events" making up a miraculous religious experience are similar or not, the effects are the same in that they shall all conform to the LOGOS, deepen the understanding of Him, and work for the good of the believer. Any committed atheist or agnostic undergoing any such experience of "improbable events" will not make much sense of it, won't see a pattern, and shall dismiss it only as fortuitous. As to the "reverse" miraculous experience that Oppy seems wont to mention, just like what Bignon says, there are very few, if at all, of these cases. In my view, those who turn to atheism from Christianity go by way of "reverse thinking" (aided by negative personal experiences in childhood), not really by miraculous experiences. The logic of "reverse thinking" that disconfirms the existence of God cannot fully be sustained in the long run if we are really searching for the truth because, as C.S Lewis says, there are "loopholes" everywhere.
To answer 1:14:20 that's what the 1000 years spoken about mainly in Rev 20 is for ✅
Graham is very respectful and kind. But I have some constructive criticism for Guillaume - "you're taking shit"
28:35 Actually, *ALVIN PLANTINGA* has had religious experiences. He wrote in his "Spiritual Autobiography" the following on pages 7-8:
//...During my second semester, however, there were two events that resolved these doubts and ambivalences for me. One gloomy evening (in January, perhaps) I was returning from dinner, walking past Widenar Library to my fifth floor room in Thayer Middle (there weren't any elevators, and scholarship boys occupied the cheaper rooms at the top of the building). It was dark, windy, raining, nasty. But suddenly it was as if the heavens opened; I heard, so it seemed, music of overwhelming power and grandeur and sweetness; there was light of unimaginable splendor and beauty; it seemed I could see into heaven itself; and I suddenly saw or perhaps felt with great clarity and persuasion and conviction that the Lord was really there and was all I had thought. The effects of this experience lingered for a long time; I was still caught up in arguments about the existence of God, but they often seemed to me merely academic, of little existential concern, as if one were to argue about whether there has really been a past, for example, or whether there really were other people, as opposed to cleverly constructed robots. Such events have not been common subsequently, and there has been only one other occasion on which I felt the presence of God with as much immediacy and strength. That was when I once foolishly went hiking alone off-trail in really rugged country south of Mt. Shuksan in the North Cascades, getting lost when rain, snow and fog obscured all the peaks and landmarks. That night, while shivering under a stunted tree in a cold mixture of snow and rain, I felt as close to God as I ever have, before or since. I wasn't clear as to his intentions for me, and I wasn't sure I approved of what I thought his intentions might be (the statistics on people lost alone in that area were not at all encouraging), but I felt very close to him; his presence was enormously palpable. On many other occasions I have felt the presence of God, sometimes very powerfully: in the mountains (the overwhelming grandeur of the night sky from a slope at 13,000 feet), at prayer, in church, when reading the Bible, listening to music, seeing the beauty of the sunshine on the leaves of a tree or on a blade of grass, being in the woods on a snowy night, and on other kinds of occasions. In particular I have often been overwhelmed with a sense of gratitude--sometimes for something specific like a glorious morning, but often with no particular focus. What I ought to be most grateful for--the life and death and resurrection of Christ, with the accompanying offer of eternal life--is harder, simply because of its stupendous and incomprehensible magnitude. One can say "Thank you" for a glorious morning, and even for your children's turning out well; what do you say in response to the suffering and death and resurrection of the son of God? to the offer of redemption from sin, and eternal life?//
Then later starting at page 17 Plantinga admits,
//...Mountains have been a blessing: for many years anyway, the Sensus Divinitatis seemed to work most strongly, for me, in the mountains. I mentioned above the time I was lost in the mountains; but on dozens of other occasions I have strongly felt the presence of God in the mountains--although on some occasions what I also felt was guilt and divine disapproval. For if mountains were a blessing for me, they were also a bane. The problem was that (particularly during the first couple of decades of our marriage), I was positively obsessed with mountains.//
Too much drink and the rush of cool night air can make people say stupid things.
Yet another evidence of Pinecreek theorem
Literally just commented the same thing.
Well.... when I hear of "atheists" that converted to a religious belief, I have to question how deep their knowledge was of all the arguments for and against a god to start with. It takes a lot of study and thinking to truly digest and understansd the arguments on both sides. One big problem I notice when a person self-proclaims themself as a "prior" atheist is whether they were ever in possession of an understanding of all of arguments for atheism to begin with. So, for example, if someone takes a high school class in biology, does that make them a "biologist" and on the same playing field as someone that has a PhD in biology? Similarly, "atheists" come in all different sizes and with varied intellectual skills and knowledge. Generally speaking it seems very doubtful to me that a "self-proclaimed" atheist that is a teenager or in their early 20s has truly acquired a full understanding of all the arguments for and against atheism and thesm. So, I really have to question if someone that was a self-proclaimed atheist at a very early age truly had acquired a sufficient understanding of all the arguments "before" they made their transition to theism. It takes a lot of time and thought to truly comprehend the arguments. I personally believe that life would be easier if I could believe there is a God out there that is looking after me. But, after studying this for over a decade, I "presently" still can not find any good reason to believe in any deity. I am absolutely open-minded to changing my mind, but the only "evidence" I can ever find is someone else's "personal experience or their personal testimony." That just is unconvincing for "me" to change my belief.
It really isn't particularly to convince you of belief.
But, hearing someone's story of what moved them from one position to an opposing position is always healthy.
People of faith hear of people moving to Agnosticism and Atheism all the time, it helps us with our own critical thinking and empathizing with someone's story to understand what led up to and caused the change.
@@EternalVisionToday Yes....totally agree with you. Good points and thank you for your thoughtful reply.
@@bestinshow1343 I mean but can't this argument be equally applied to deconverts from religion to atheism that they too didn't know enough
There isn't a single coherent argument for Atheism as a philosophical position (God doesn't exist).
This is because the position itself is fallacious (universal negative fallacy).
I recommend typing in *100 arguments for God* and you'll see Capturing Christianity has a video covering 100+ logically valid & sound arguments for God.
An incalculable number of coincidences happen in all ours lives. Attributing these post hoc to god is drowning in confirmation bias.
Hey! This is an interesting response. I am also a former atheist and now a Christian and I am not responding to affirm Christianity nor am I trying to convert you. But I think your argument for this being confirmation bias is itself a confirmation bias. Calling them "incalculable coincidence" is itself a bias because it assumes everything that is happening is confidential and not possibly orchestrated. You are actually doing the same thing many theists do when we argue for God's existence. We start with the assumption that God is true and then attribute anything that happens to God. You are starting with the assumption there is no God and therefore attributing the things happening to coincidence (not God). From an unbiased standpoint, both parties are doing the same confirmation bias. If God is real then we can't assume that everything is just chance (because if God is real He can intervene) or else we are biased, if God is not real then we can't attribute everything to God (because there is no God to intervene, or else we are equally as biased. This is why I personally don't hold to personal experience as concrete proof of God's existence, but in the video, Bignon is not arguing this. Interested in hearing your thoughts!
@@justin.m.drummond Thanks for your interesting and polite reply
1. Incredibly rare things happen everyday and these are often very mundane. I could deal 52 playing cards, the odds of the order I deal coming up 1 in 10 to the power 68 (or 1 followed by 68 zeros). This doesnt make me a miracle worker or require a supernatural explanation.
2. Similarly coincidences happen all the time. Every week someone picks the lottery numbers correctly. If the odds of winning are 10 million to one but they sell 20 million tickets this is not surprising. Its simply a matter of probability.
If you accept point one and two, (which i struggle to see how you cant) then accepting a coincidence as just that seems entirely reasonable.
Reversely accepting god is responsible is adding a unnecessary element. An element which has no empirical evidence. (Occam's razor)
I therefore reject the notion that my postion is equally tainted by confirmation bias, its based on probability and empiricalknowledge. I also find it odd that people defend their position by saying another position is as bad as theirs.
Guillaume the Persian atheist turned Christo-grifter
I’m surprised Mr. Oppy didn’t offer to go over the origin story of his own worldview. He needs to tell us how and “when” naturalism began so we can thoughtfully consider what he proposes. I’m sure he just forgot.
WRONG; all of those phenomena can easily be explained by coincidence, it’s not a good argument at all and not compelling at all in regard to his goals.
Until via the scientific method, it can be demonstrated that mind can come from matter 🤷🏽♂️ mind>matter
And someone could say the same of the opposite. Neither of you could demonstrate it.
@@G_Demolished however there is such a thing as a mind and currently an understanding of time - space and matter coming into existence, not mind.....
Gosh this was weak all around. Templeton-type stuff.
"The historical evidence for Christianity is much better than for Islam."
What a load of rot. And quoting a bunch of Christian [i.e. biased] "scholars" is completely unpersuasive.
Anyway, they're both wrong. Obviously it's Judaism that's true and these are just Jewish heresies.
See what I did there?
He’s obsessed with others swing him as “rational” lol
Did he get the girl?
I'm curious to know myself, because that was his real motivation to become a Christian. His actions was moreless sexually motivated than know knowing the truth etc.
When you are having a bad day, then randomly scrolling through youtube, then see a new unbelievable video . :D God works in mysterious ways xD ( see what i did there? ) xD :)
Yeah. Totally mis-represented what Bignon said.
@@panesypeces i think it was a good debate . i like how the french dude explained his experiences . id do the same way bc im also a christian but the ways ppl want God to be explained in a big way is normally explained in a small way most times.
😃 ｐｒｏｍｏｓｍ
Just lock these guys in a room together and let them work it fucking out.
Why curse in your comment?
He believes. He's suppressing the knowledge.
God is not made of molecules or particles. So what evidence can there be of his existence?
How do you know what God is made of? Which God? This implies that you know what God is made of. This also implies that you know Gods gender, and that you have observed all molecules and particles in the universe... I could go on and on.
The evidence is twofold:
1. How did the matter/energy arise without a cause?
2. How did living things arise without a designer?
@@117-d7r Do you know how a star works?
@@20july1944 1. Why do you assume it arose without a cause? 2. Why do you assume a designer? 3. Please enlighten me.
@@117-d7r We are told that God is omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent. Nothing made of atoms can exist everywhere. It sounds like the word God refers more to a principle that guides the unfolding of all events. So we ask what could that possibly be. My interpretation is that God is that which upholds truth in all things. So there can be no argument or discussion about anything unless truth is relevant to whatever you're talking about, whether it be about physics, or math or intentions or motivations. And it seems clear that truth must be relevant everywhere, all the time, and with the ability to ensure that everything remains consistent. But truth is an axiom, and as such axioms are never proven; they are accepted as obviously truth.
Not stupid, just unintentionally delusional.