Randal Rauser the Atheist vs. Joe Schmid the Theist (Devil's Advocate Debate)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 13 июл 2020
- In this Devil's Advocate Debate, Dr. Randal Rauser (a theist) will be defending God's nonexistence and Joe Schmid (a non-theist) will be defending God's existence. A devil's advocate takes the opposing viewpoint to enrich the debate and develop ideas.
Randal's website: randalrauser.com/
Joe Schmid's RUclips Channel: / @majestyofreason
------------------------------- GIVING -------------------------------
Patreon (monthly giving): / capturingchristianity
Become a CC Member on RUclips: / @capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Special thanks to all of my supporters for your continued support as I transition into full-time ministry with Capturing Christianity! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
--------------------------------- LINKS ---------------------------------
Website: capturingchristianity.com
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchristianity.com/fre...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchristianity.com/ult...
--------------------------------- SOCIAL ---------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
-------------------------------- MY GEAR ---------------------------------
I get a lot of questions about what gear I use, so here's a list of everything I have for streaming and recording. The links below are affiliate (thank you for clicking on them!).
Camera (Nikon Z6): amzn.to/364M1QE
Lens (Nikon 35mm f/1.4G): amzn.to/35WdyDQ
HDMI Adapter (Cam Link 4K): amzn.to/340mUwu
Microphone (Shure SM7B): amzn.to/2VC4rpg
Audio Interface (midiplus Studio 2): amzn.to/33U5u4G
Lights (Neewer 660's with softboxes): amzn.to/2W87tjk
Color Back Lighting (Hue Smart Lights): amzn.to/2MH2L8W
-------------------------------- CONTACT --------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#Apologetics #Debate #DevilsAdvocate
I like to imagine Randal Rauser's mom is a devout christian and watched this without the beginning and was like "Oh my!"
Disappointed in this debate. Not nearly enough insults and references to " your sky daddy" or "bronze age goat herders" to keep my attention.
lol
Majesty of Reason are you a deist or an actual atheist?
@@SpaceDin0 agnostic
So it was too soft on Christian mythology.
Gotcha.
Majesty of Reason huh, have you heard of Inspiring Philosophy or Stephen Meyer?
As a theist, rausers speech on the problem of evil was chilling. Perhaps the best telling of it I've heard.
Why?
Really fun idea to have them argue the other side, Cameron. This has been super interesting to listen to!
I've watched this entire debate on x2 speed and I managed to follow Joe Schmid's talk. I feel like a pro.
I guess I'm the only idiot that listens to these videos at 0.5x. It is the only speed that I can follow the logic. I have been listening to videos so long at half speed, when I do listen at regular speed everyone sounds like chipmunks. I listen to Audible books at. 65x.
@@G8rfan61 Interesting. For me, I can't focus when they speak slowly. I just forget the grammatical structure of a sentence when the sentence is stretched out.
LMAO. I didn't know you could even do that.... that helped me a TON when I put it to .75 speed. .5 works too. Joe is very intelligent... just needs to slow down for those of us whose brain functions in slower speeds.
You masochist lol
Aaron Arhelm hmm interesting maybe I should start doing this, I need to absorb more knowledge faster!
Wow, great debate. Ironically, Joe is one of the best theist apologists I've heard!
I think he definitely pulled his arguments from the best like josh Robert koons etc
It doesn't make a difference how well either debates because the only way of solving this mystery is by dying, can you imagine being on your death bed and taking your last breath, thinking that the end has come, then you die and find yourself still alive, and then notice yourself in front of the God you thought didn't exist, and being sent to Hell forever, anyway it was just a thought
@@abelflores3752 based
@@abelflores3752 imagine dying as a theist and then there's nothing
@@abelflores3752 Or how about you end up as a theist and you find yourself in an afterlife realm, greeted by a god, except it happens to be the god of Islam and you are a Christian (or vice versa), so you get sent to hell anyway for having the wrong belief system.
Great debate! It really shows what it takes to properly understand your opponent's viewpoint, but its completely worth it!
I'm suprised this video has such low views. This debate was very unique. I heard arugments put in different ways than i normally hear. Joe did great with bring conditions and logic to Gods existence; whereas, Randal thoroughly, and chillingly, explained the problem of evil. Great job to both, thanks for the video! 🙏
I’m sad that I missed the chance to send superchats. This was very well done.
This is a great video, and probably the best to tackle issues as well.
This was excellent from start to finish! I’d love to see a part 2!
Ill just do a Dillahunty and say “I’m just not convinced”
I have seen Dillahunty say some pretty silly things when backed into a corner. He was asked by Winger in their debate if a loved one had died, came back from the dead and told him something that only he would know, would he then believe in the supernatural. His answer: "I wouldn't be convinced."
Pretty much the dumbest man on the planet and so many people still think he is so intelligent.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 Um no, you are the dumb one, Matt is right to not be convinced because saying "I don't know how this happened therefore it's supernatural" is a classic example of committing the most common and classic logical fallacy in the book, the Argument From Ignorance fallacy.
If you think rejecting a logical fallacy is dumb, then you are a classic example of Dunning-Kreuger. Dillahunty makes sure to point out and identify logical fallacies, pointing why one must reject them. That is the OPPOSITE of dumb!
@@rockysandman5489 Firstly, you twisted my words into something I did not say. Let me ask you the same question? How could scientists explain the question posed to Dillahunty? And don't go with the "Well a lot of things we thought were supernatural are now science" argument, because that in and of itself is a fallacy.
@@EdgeOfEntropy17 "Well a lot of things we thought were supernatural are now science"
How is that a fallacy? It's a fact. Back in the day hundreds of years ago, people thought lightning is work of the gods. So much so, that they even developed a specific god in charge for lightning. For the Greeks it was Zeus, for Nordics it was Thor, and so on. Same thing happened with rain, the sun, solar eclipses etc. Nowadays we have natural scientific explanations for all these things. The fact is, natural explanations DID supersede explanations alleged to come from beyond nature.
@@rockysandman5489 The fallacy is in the presupposition that just because it is true that SOME previous beliefs once considered as supernatural are now science, that this must be applied to ALL similar beliefs, which is false.
This is super cool and an extremely good exercise for anyone to go through.
Really interesting idea indeed! I need to make something like this as well
Question: Resurrection is a supernatural claim. The resurrection of Dionysus, Osiris, and Attis were all hoaxes. Do you have evidence (not just books or opinions of scholars) to prove hoaxer Christian writers didn't create a Jesus resurrection hoax by making up fake eyewitnesses, fake testimonials on behalf of fake non-Christian historians, a fake empty tomb story, and a fake story that apostles witnessed a risen Jesus?
Cameron, I'm super glad you did this. This might be one of the best debate on theism I have seen, comically
so blame God for mans faults, why not stand up to evils that men do. We as humans do have some power, don't we. We turn a blind eye, then want God to fix everything.
How’s this kid 19
He has continued to be alive after his birth for at least 6939 days.
@@Apanblod I appreciate the acknowledgement of the extra days from leap years lol
Oh, that explains it 👍🏼
Awesome debate. Joe could give Ben Shapiro a run for his money in speaking fast. I'd love for Cosmic Skeptic to do a devils advocate debate.
Dude, weird. I literally posted the exact same sentiment...in nearly the exact words.
More devil's advocate debates please! I would love to see more public figures do devil's advocate debates.
Cosmic Skeptic could be good at a Devil's advocate debate but not everyone can pull it off. Aron Ra for example would probably explode if he tried to defend Christianity in particular lol
Thank you for this interesting debate, I have to say that both played their roles almost too well, I was convinced by each of them on their views! Great stuff!!
I enjoyed this even though I almost didn't watch it because I'm not a fan of such "Devil's Advocate" type debates. Although I understand the reasoning behind them. Especially the example it sets for showing civil discussion toward one's opposing POVs and looking at things from the other side,
That said, I would have liked to have seen Joe pin Randal down a bit more on two things. First, the appeal to Emotions. Second, the definition of "Perfect". The problem with the first should be obvious. The second problem is one I find much more important and that is dealing with the idea of who is God from the POV of Man defining what "Perfect" or even "Moral" is.
The second issue, basically stated as in Job "Who are YOU oh Man?" is the philosophical argument that I'd like to see someone tackle.
"First, the appeal to Emotions. Second, the definition of "Perfect". The problem with the first should be obvious. "
Do you think the problem should be obvious when theists like William Lane Craig appeal to moral intuitions (i.e. emotions) as evidence for objective moral facts?
@@chad969 - I'm not sure I understand what you're asking but on the surface I'd say if it's wrong for one it's wrong for the other. I'm also not sure that "moral intuition" can be characterized/defined as an emotion.
This youngin' might give Ben Shapiro a run for his money in terms of words per minute. I thought I had accidentally sped up the vid at first. lol
He got nothing on Andrew Loke.
Brilliant job, guys. Really enjoyed the debate. Did you convert yourself?? (It was that good). Empathy is the greatest gift we can teach our children.
Empathy is only good if God exists. Apart from God, empathy is just a biological and chemical reaction and has no moral basis
@@Convexhull210 Not true, empathy is putting yourself in the other guy's shoes, considering their situation, thoughts and feelings. Giving a damn about other human beings is a moral attribute - no God needed.
@@donnagodfrey1924 why is it moral in a universe where animals live by law of jungle? It's not obvious on your view why that is moral. That's merely an assumption you've made.
@@donnagodfrey1924 second, why do you favor humans over other species? What about the well being of pigs, rats, elephants, and other sentient forms of life.
@@Convexhull210 Yip, well being of all creatures.
Joe sounds like Vizzini from Princess Bride when he gets excited about the points he's making
😂😂🍷💊🗡
in the 2 slit experiment can the being seeing the phenomon be a not human like a cat?
They should exchange with their real views because we know what the opposition thinks ( that dosent matter because we care about what the Truth thinks) lol! Was still good entertaining and new concept.
Hats of to Joe Schmid
Listen at .75 speed people. Trust me. 😂
cam and randall do sound a bit high at .75 speed, sure... but that's not the point 🤫
Option #3.
GOD isn't a Deity, its a concept that's objectively demonstrated using the word itself.
By word I mean using the three letters that make up what people think refers to a Deity as a tool.
Anyone?
A compass and square make it perfect.
As an atheist, I'm very impressed with Cameron's attitude. Nice channel
Fun debate
Man I'm 21 and I thought I was advanced on my nowledge of theism, then I listened to this 19 year old^^
THE PROVABLE TEST, DEMONSTRATING JESUS IS GOD. TAKE THE CHALLENGE
ruclips.net/video/cMnFY0JGQ8A/видео.html
In this second installment of “The Sabbath Challenge: Jesus is Lord and Saviour, The Proof of His Imminent Return, we will be considering His role as Saviour and how it is directly linked to the Sabbath. Now we can rest assured of His salvation since He has demonstrated He is Lord over all by the means of the Sabbath as I showcased in the last installment. I presented 2 infallible arguments which my case is built upon.
1- The God of the Hebrews makes exclusive claims of the Sabbath, which is directly linked to the 7 day cycle. (Note: all other nations kept a different weekly cycle for the worship of their false gods).
2- The God of the Hebrews prophesies the universal application of the Sabbath, which is directly linked to the 7 day cycle, His sign and the means by which He demonstrates His authority over all affairs, whether earthly or heavenly, ipso facto rendering void the worship of the gods of the nations by the replacement of their weekly cycle.
1- The sunday law. @ 0:03:30
2- Ministries that will keep you updated on this sunday law. @ 0:04:10
3- The Sabbath removes the burdens of sin. @ 0:15:30.
4- The war in heaven concerns satan presenting his case against the saints of YAHWEH. @ 0:17:00
5- The Godhead (Trinity) doctrine demonstrates God’s humility, love and justice, the means by which He saves His children. @ 0:19:45
6- Why has YAHWEH allowed satan to be admitted in His presence? @ 0:29:30
7- By what standard is satan accusing us? @ 0:30:25
8- Who is satan really presenting his case against, God or men? @ 0:32:50
9- Our victory over sin helps establish the throne of YAHWEH. @ 0:48:15
10- The burdens of our sins are also carried by God, as He sanctifies us through the sabbath. @0:48:40
11- The lessons of the 7 days of creation, the practical steps to being victorious over sin.
12- Is Jesus our rest? We analyse the different meanings and applications of the word “rest” by considering Greek and the Hebrew. @ 0:53:15
13- The unbreakable link between righteousness and entering the rest of YAHWEH. @ 57:00
14- The direct link between the place of “rest” and the 7th day Sabbath referred to in the Greek as Sabbatismos. @ 0:58:15
15- Where is the resting place? The answer is: The bosom of The Father. @ 1:02:20
same here
Joe Schmid has a RUclips channel called “Majesty of Reason,” named after the book he published. He is in the acknowledgements for Dr. Rasmussen’s book, “How Reason Can Lead to God.” He is very impressive. If you follow Capturing Christianity’s Facebook page, or the Facebook group, then you will routinely see him at those places. As of late, he has given challenges to Classical Theism which has sparked interesting dialogue. Suan Sonna hosted a discussion with him and Christopher Tomasnewski on his channel, “Intellectual Conservatism.” Like Joe, Suan is also absurdly smart for his age.
@@fujiapple9675 i thought cosmic sceptic was smart for his age but man this boy is way ahead of him😅
@@fujiapple9675 thanks for the info.
Is the God of The Bible a hypocrite? Or, did hypocrites make up the God of The Bible? The same Bible that teaches "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", also teaches how to: buy slaves, sell daughters, enslave children, pass slaves on as inheritance, & beat the slaves so they don't die.
Dang I was hoping to see a chat relay for the comments
I don't get Joe's response to Randal's objection about limits. It seems that Randal's argument is about what would be more likely to be true given the evidence from evil not would be more likely in general. Joe's response that Randal's hypothesis would lack explanatory power would seem to be undercut by the perfect being hypothesis being way more ad hoc or having worse explanatory scope. It also assumes that one must hold all potential limits as equally probable. Joe's Bayesian analysis is no longer valid either because it was made based on the idea of the improbability of complexity arising unintentionally without a mind; a non-supreme mind does not have such problems.
Un viajero temporal: *patea una piedra*
La línea temporal:
Joe Schmid, this guy is a Machine Gun!!!
Maybe I’m just getting older and cranky but the upspeak everywhere these days is maddening.
The from propositions argument is also a restatement of Aquinas. The idea is that you only have the idea of a god because there is a god, just as you have an idea of an orange because there is one. However by this argument there must be unicorns as well because I have the idea of unicorns. Or an animal with 9 lion heads, 4 sheep heads, with hooves and feet, Or all other fantastic animals I can think of must exist, because otherwise I could not have thought of them.
Maybe something exists which is maximally great. But how do you know that the mind that created our universe is maximally great?
Randel Rauser acting like an intellectual Rabble Rouser; cool. The other young fella was depressingly talented and intelligent.
Hi Tom Holland
Lol right
Oh hi Mark! 🏈🥄
What is all that noise in the background?? What a racket
sad that I can't understand it
*Tell me please,*
*-In what context it is moral to turn children into voluntarily working servants?*
*-In what context it is moral to treat voluntarily working servants as property?*
*-In what context it is moral to pass voluntarily working servants on to children as permanent inheritance?*
*-In what context it is moral to treat voluntarily working servants so bad that relatives shouldn’t be treated that way?*
*-If slavery was voluntary, then why it is restricted to only foreigners?*
Leviticus 25:44-46 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to beat voluntarily working servants with many blows?*
Luke 12:47 The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to beat voluntarily working servants as long as they don't die?*
Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to kill non-virgin brides?*
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to kill unruly children?*
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to slaughter infants?*
1 Samuel 15:3
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
1:31:00 externalist argument
How can we tell what events are part of God's plan?
Because in Theism it is supposed to be like that, everything is God's plan.
I left a comment saying Mankind is responsible for the bad things. I didn't get to finish what I wanted to say. If you believe in the devil and try to place all blame on him saying the devil made me do you still wouldn't escape responsibility. The Bible states that the devil is an influencer and you still have to say yes or no. In this instance both are at fault. Demons can take control of people but that person has to give them some kind of entrance to get inside. So once again both are at fault.
Randal asked for an example of a good story where a man is forced to r his own daughter. I can think of one; Twin Peaks. That said I've never fully understood the connection theists make between evil in fiction and evil in real life.
I feel bad for Randal, now that he’s going to hell...but feel good for Joe since he’s going to heaven. Even and fair trade.
only god knows who is going to heaven or not..... i woudn't judge but pray God to open people eyes so they can see and ears so they can hear
By your judgement you are in error, if you judge then both are going to hell, because neither one is a Believer, the one who is arguing for God claims to be an agnostic, then he does not believe, yet there are only two things which exist, you believe or you do not believe there is not anything else, and shall I call you god that you should judge who is going to hell and who is not, are you really that ignorant, it seems to me the only one who is going to hell hear is you, or do you actually think you are going to Heaven.
And I feel doubly bad for people like you who still believe in an invisible man in the sky daddy.
@@TerryUniGeezerPetersonGod exists outside of the universe. Why would God be invisible?
I can’t follow. He’s reading to fast to follow deep things at that pace.
@@TheWorldTeacher What's it to you?
@@TheWorldTeacher Let me rephrase that, madame... why do you care what anybody else believes when your made-up, impersonal, pagan conception of God doesn't care?
Damn this just happened??
Joe argued for theism better than most theists! How is this kid 19?
Randel clearly not even arguing the strongest argument from suffering/evil!... the Natural disasters and kids with cancer. Causes of suffering that are not needed for free will! He didn't argue that Christians have to claim that those natural disasters cause just the perfect amount of suffering. Not to mention how does a perfect thing create something imperfect?
Well the way i define free will it doesnt exist.
1)We cant choose to want what we want to want. This thought can keep going cyclically.
2)all of our brain activity lies on quantum randomness.
@Oners82 we arent substantially free in anyway though.
@Oners82 My position is not hard determinism, its very much a version of compatibilism with a significant part of it involving randomness.
In a world where a person can become a pedophile because of a tumour, I find it extremely fallacious to assert that we are free.
If a tri omni God exists that directly implies we aren't free.
Is there any objection you have to this 'argument'?
@Oners82 'a version of compatibilism'
*if* a tri omni god exists determinism is the only option. I am not convinced about the existence of one.
We are free in as far as we can in most scenarios choose what to do but any layer beoynd that its obvious that we are not at all free.
The reason i siad im not a determinist was because of your statistic.
What is your position on the issue?
@Oners82 okay thank you for correcting me on my definition, after looking into it the label that best describes me is hard incompatibilism.
@Oners82 a specific point of contention, if a tru omni god exists woumd you still say you are free?
The only way of knowing whether God does exist is by dying, has anyone out there died and came back to solve this mystery. If you're a nonbeliever, you'd better not be wrong
Not a philosopher, but it seems that claiming that we don't have to know of morally sufficient reasons for God to create a world with evil to be skeptical about there being no such reasons while claiming that we don't have to know of morally sufficient reasons for God to hide and deceive our senses to not be skeptical about there being no such reasons really is special pleading. Joe also responded that if we have the correct conditions for knowledge than we have reasons to doubt moral skepticism. But the critique given is mirroring Joe's own logic; this must make us consider whether or not we in fact do have such conditions or not. So it is merely begging the question of whether or not we have those conditions to give an example that grants that we have such conditions for justified belief.
Wat
Please Randal, buy a microphone
Peter Parker apologetics hits Hard. If he could just talk a bit faster.
What is the point of this?
1:20:00 bayes explanatory power
Randell needs a youtu.be channel.. Cameron and you should help your friend..
the causal finitism is a sophomoric version of Aquinas' prime mover argument. He is trying to hide Aquinas' contradiction where everything has an origin, but one thing. Which causes the argument to contradict itself since there is one thing that does not have an origin, so it is not true that everything has an origin. If not everything has an origin anything could be an origin, it need not be a god. It it is not true that everything has an origin, there is no reason to then conclude that only one thing had no origin. And - it is possible that the origin goes back infinitely, as another possibility. In other words, the argument is dressed up to sound academic, but the weakness still exists under the clothing.
This really has nothing to do with aquinas' first way.
@@james1098778910 Sure it does; it is basically that every thing has a cause and that there is a god who is the prime mover or the original cause of all things. In his case it is the original paper passer.
@@eniszita7353 that's a grave misunderstanding. There are good videos on aquinas' first way on youtube, i can recommend joe schmid's take. His channel is called majesty of reason.
@@james1098778910 I will look. My information comes from the professors at CUA. Jesuit father Donovan.
@@james1098778910 I have reviewed Aristotle and Aquinas' positions and fail to see any misunderstanding. What is the crux of the grave misunderstanding you think I have?
How could a father be forced to rape his own
Daughter ? In order to do so in SPITE HIS own reluctance and disgust at the prospect of this action
he would have to become sufficiently aroused in order
sexually penetrate his daughter ! Thus the revulsion of such an act under these circumstances would make it impossible for such an act to take place AND COMMITED by the father !
Iron boy jr.
Joe might be the prettiest guy ive ever seen. Im not even being insulting here.
Pretty delusional.
@@TerryUniGeezerPeterson 😆
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds;
Colossians 3:9 KJV
Chad Theist mog virgin atheist
It’s a staged debate. Randel is a theist. Not an atheist. filth.
Yeah he is a Theist and Joe is an Agnostic, they are doing a "devil's advocate" debate (i.e. he is defending the position of the opposing side)
It's literally called devils advocate debate
Joe Schmid - How do you calculate the probability of your arguments, it seems like you assume it?
God is Being itself (I AM). It is logically incoherent to posit the non-being of Being. Being is the logical prerequisite for all else.
Joe you were good to give a sound argument for theism, maybe you should join God's Family. Randall don't do this again 😉. God bless you all
Randal if you can prove Eucharist miracles false then I will accept what u r saying...
Nobody is going anywhere, when u die u just stop existing, it's the same before u are born. Just your energy is going back to Nature. That's all, there's no Heaven and no Hell.
Sure, keep telling yourself that.
@@saycheese6773 Where do u think u will go?
BioToffel believe in heaven or hell or neither but it doesn’t change the fact that they exist.
@@saycheese6773 yeah you keep believing that when you die everything will be great and you will be with your family
BallyNaxx it’s the truth my friend. Look into Jesus. Your life won’t f er be the same.
Atheists do not argue god does not exist, they don’t ask their audience to “allow their raw emotion to inform” them in any way shape or form. I think he intentionally strawmanned atheism there.
Historically speaking, the term “atheist” has always functioned to label someone who is convinced God doesn’t exist. Likewise, “agnosticism” is the term that’s used for someone who chooses ignorance. Twisting the terminology around into obscurity doesn’t help anyone. So let’s stop the antics and just call it what it is. Either you believe in God, or you don’t. Believers vs nonbelievers. I’ll tell you what the real reason is for this game of linguistic twister. It’s because atheists who rationalize logically realize the absurdity of their own position and don’t feel comfortable being labeled something that reduces their ideas to pure incoherence. Nonbelievers are committing intellectual suicide the moment they take that stance because believing in a universe that has no purpose given to it by a creator essentially means that human thoughts are nothing more than a chemical reaction; cause and effect, and if that’s the case then what’s the point of anything, and better yet, why are you arguing about it!?
JT MULL simply because atheism was used in a specific way historically doesn’t mean we have to use it that way now. I don’t hold to linguistic prescriptivism. Agnosticism and Gnosticism have to do with knowledge while atheism and theism have to do with belief. Not knowing something to be true (agnostic) and therefore disbelieving it (atheism) in your opinion leads to absurdity of some sort but that sounds like an argument to the consequence which is a fallacy. Whatever word you prefer to use is irrelevant, as long as you’re contending with your opponents actual position (a lack of belief toward the proposition “god exists”) you can call them whatever you like. But if you try to say “no, you believe god doesn’t exist” then you’ve mad a strawman.
@@tartarus1478 rauser is welcome to define a word however he wants and you are as well. There is no “debating rule” that requires one to use a set definition for a word.
@@WhatYourPastorDidntTellYou that’s essentially what my previous post said. There is, however, a problem if someone says their position is an atheistic position and the opposition attempts to gerrymander the word.
@@tartarus1478 the thing is that atheist philosophers (like Paul Draper, Oppy, Sobel, etc.) defines atheism as Randal does in this video, so it was a fair representation of the current dialectic in the philosophical discourse.
1
Haha😄 Randal says god is immoral for killing immoral people, and then says god is immoral for not stopping immorality😂
So an all powerful and all knowing God could only stop immortality by mass genocide? An all powerful and all knowing god could not figure out a way to stop immortality without genocide?
Benjamin 23 How would you do it?😊
@@Rubzxy I asked you a question first. You answer my question. I will answer yours.
And BTW, I do not claim to be all powerful or all knowing. I do not have know a way to do it. But god who is all powerful and all knowing should.
Benjamin 23 Well😊 God has revealed His reasons😊 Unfortunately I don’t remember them😄 Luckily they are not hard to find, if You go searching for them😊 I’ll try to get back to you on this one😊 I’m getting married this weekend🥳 So I got other things on my mind atm☺️ God bless💛
@@Rubzxy no worries. Congrats on the marriage!!
How can a father rape his own daughter unless he is sexually aroused that is, has an erection, therefore, he is sexually stimulated, this being the case, then you assume that the guard is evil and the father is good, yet, it is clearly seen that the father is evil also, both are evil, evil begets evil, good begets good, the reason why we have evil is because God is good, God can not produce something apart from himself which in and of itself is good, only God is good, otherwise, apart from God, good exists in and of itself,
furthermore, is the father a god Believer or not, for a non-believer will produce that which is different to a Believer, a non-believer cannot produce what a Believer produces, and I believer cannot produce what a non-believer produces, otherwise they remain the same, and there is no difference between the two, so why believe at all,
you cannot have a non-believer debating for the Believer because he is a non-believer, therefore, he knows not of the spirit of god because he possesses it not, then he judge's everything by his flesh so even if his logic appears to be sound it still lacks because he lacks the light.
Atheist is rarely defined as belief that God does not exist
This guy must be the most biased moderator out there lol.
Thank you captain obvious.
@@TerryUniGeezerPetersonIt obviously was not just an observation.
The guy defending atheism did more of a strawman than I think I’ve ever seen of atheism. The kid was the best Christian apologist I’ve ever heard. His arguments were powerful and persuasive.
Peasant Scrublord I’m vaguely familiar with Pruss but never heard of the other. Considering he’s a proponent of van til I’m not impressed. I think there are some problems with the PSR overall. I’d be partial to Schopenhauer’s anti-cosmological argument on the subject.
Peasant Scrublord Only antinatalists think schopenhauers is an antinatalist. It wasn’t really something he professed to be
*Tell me please,*
*-In what context it is moral to turn children into voluntarily working servants?*
*-In what context it is moral to treat voluntarily working servants as property?*
*-In what context it is moral to pass voluntarily working servants on to children as permanent inheritance?*
*-In what context it is moral to treat voluntarily working servants so bad that relatives shouldn’t be treated that way?*
*-If slavery was voluntary, then why it is restricted to only foreigners?*
Leviticus 25:44-46 However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to beat voluntarily working servants with many blows?*
Luke 12:47 The servant who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to beat voluntarily working servants as long as they don't die?*
Exodus 21:20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to kill non-virgin brides?*
Deuteronomy 22:20-21
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done an outrageous thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father’s house. You must purge the evil from among you.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to kill unruly children?*
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
If any man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey his father or his mother, and when they chastise him, he will not even listen to them, then his father and mother shall seize him, and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gateway of his home town. And they shall say to the elders of his city, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey us, he is a glutton and a drunkard." Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death; so you shall remove the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear of it and fear.
*Tell me please, in what context it is moral to slaughter infants?*
1 Samuel 15:3
3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
atam mardes did you reply to the wrong post? I’m not seeing how this relates to the remainder of the convo.
@@tartarus1478Anti-natalism seems to be hard not to argue for if you don't believe in God.
You know you're topic of discussion about reality is probably just personal credulity if your debating experts are not old enough to pay taxes.
Joe: "I presuppose God."
Totally Unbiased™ Host: "Wow! Great arguments, Joe! We're so proud!"
That's not what I saw. Where does he presuposes the existence of God?
There is no god.
@A l p h e u s And what is your misinformed opinion?
@A l p h e u s And all of the comments from Christians that fail to present any evidence for their claim that a god exists? Care to comment on that?
@A l p h e u s And you avoided my question. What is _your_ misinformed opinion? Any thing preventing you from answering it?