@@matsbjur2535 How would you feel if you had a kid and they called another man "dad?" Not only just that, they actively ignore you for this other dad. You'd be happy about that?
Mr. E If my kid didn’t love me I’d look to my own self first and ask whether I did anything to deserve his love. Your god’s creation leaves a lot to be desired don’t you think? There maybe a god in another galaxy who did it better. I wouldn’t be surprised.
@@jefferyperkins4668 You obviously haven't watched any debates to listen or learn, just respond and react. I'm actively searching for the truth. Idk what I am. You should try it
The term “ candidate “ was used jokingly throughout this debate ; But I think the term is very fitting for Dr Shermer. He answers questions like a politician . Avoiding the question asked and answering the question he wished was asked . This was a landslide . GREAT JOB FRANK 👏🏾
I can't just stop listening to Frank. I actually applied some of the things I learnt from his videos and i was able to prove to an atheist that there is God. The person is now a believer.
It is impossible to turn away from Jesus when you come to know who He is. Michael Shermer never knew God. Love you Frank - learning so much from you on how to position myself to win territory for God. You are a bold voice and more Christians need to stand up and speak in this manner. Thank you for equipping us!
That’s false. You most definitely can change your mind. God won’t force you to keep believing. He’s definitely not going to force you to stay saved if you don’t want to
I love how great and simple Frank can explain things. He was one of the first apologists that really strengthened my faith when first coming to Christ.
I learn so much from you Frank, and I KNOW yr blessed by God to do what you do. I hope to do what you do someday because there is no-one here who does what you Apologists do......Keep on doing what you do !!!!!....Love and blessings from Cape Town South Africa
God says He will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you, so may you be blessed exceedingly more than your words have blessed me Robert...
@@colinjava8447 every thing he says is lie.... ummmm lol. Im a Christian, the believes in evolution. If evolution is true than the death of one species for the rise of a new and better one is fact. Without a god u cant say Hitler was wrong because his race could of been the superior and u just put a end to something that was better than the previous. Same with murderers, they are reducing the population so that the fit and healthiest can survive. Rape is just the alpha planting his seed in fertile mothers. Theft is just the strong and smartest acquiring all the wealth to also help reproduce and live better lives. Fact is you cant say im wrong because they are your opinions. You just think its wrong because u are getting scrued over when in reality its survival of the fittest. The strong reproduce and the weak die.
Agreed, it was interesting to see the thought process of both. Clearly Tyrek is a better "debater", even though he couldn't prove any of his points with evidence
In the last 300 year or so, we have seen advances in medicine, technology, engineering, behavioral and social sciences -even in the humanities- that save lives, make life easier, facilitate communications, calculate the age of the Earth, and so on. This makes me wonder, what advances have theology and religious philosophy made about God and what benefits have we received from that new knowledge?
@@estuchedepeluche2212 first of all, religion is not a science. Secondly, Christianity was responsible for many of the best and most iconic things in western culture. anyone who denies this is denying established facts and reality.
@@Xenotypic Dear Disciple of Christ, thanks for answering. But it seems to me that you misunderstood my question. I asked about advances and improvements, not iconic or cultural items. With all due respect and curiosity, can you mention examples? This way, we would both know we are referring to the same things. thanks
While many of the comments on these videos are often cluttered with a pretty clear audience 😉, I'm very thankful that Frank posts his debates unabridged. It's great for thinking, and it's so valuable to have these debates open to the public who couldn't go themselves. Thank you Frank Turek!!
I think Frank did a better job arguing the existence of God as an explanation and grounding for our reality, than Michael did who mainly argued against religion via thought but couldn’t nail the objectivity of reality as clearly as Frank.
the usual arguments(kinda the only ones left for theists, fine tunning and the comsological argument, both which are mostly refused/refuted by physicsist , philosophers and biologists
What was the argument again? Can you explain arguing against anything without thought? How does an unfalsifiable concept explain anything, much less another concept that being the objectivity of reality?
The moderator is NOT a moderator in any sense of the word, and he should not take on this role Again!! He had Absolutely NO Control! He was useless in this situation. He allowed atheist to run rough shod over the entire proceeding!!! Quite disappointing indeed. It is a very tedious, unproductive, and difficult to get through this entire thing.
_3Big,_ how so? He didn't present reasonable evidence of a god, he just made the same old illogical arguments. You know like if Gary tells you leprechauns are the best explanation for objective morality and just says objective morals exist for no reason, do those two non-evidenced claims magically combine and become reasonable evidence of leprechauns? No. It's just Gary saying things without any real grounding in reality. A claim without evidence (baseless assertion) is an error of logic. Well all of Turek's arguments have errors like that, and those errors prevent those arguments from being evidence of a god.
Year late comment but...More and more evil is being accepted since I can remember. Everytime I listen to a debate against God, it only makes me more cemented in my faith as a believer whom trusts Jesus Christ more and more everyday. Love all my brothers and sisters in here.
Are the arguments _against_ atheism - being the basis from which to gain understanding of the existence of what we call reality - all so logical and reasonable and rational that they can't be denied? Are the arguments against theism - being the basis from which we gain understanding of the reality surrounding us - so flawed and incoherent and illogical that they cannot be denied?
I want to thank Dr. Shermer for his presentation. It was so devoid of anything that could be considered a real argument that it served to strengthen my faith in God. Thank you, Dr. Shermer.
@@upturnedblousecollar5811 Even if a person only researched the god of their country, that doesn't make their conclusions false. Beliefs are only false if they are in conflict with reality. A person might believe in the Christian God because they were raised Christian, but that does nothing to falsify their beliefs. Their beliefs might be entirely true. Your argument commits the evolutionary fallacy by assuming that a belief is wrong because of where it came from. This assumption is illogical.
@@Eric-en9hk Whoa, whoa, whoa, I didn't say that anywhere, that's your projection of what you're mistakenly reading into what I said. I didn't say _"Your beliefs are wrong because you only researched the god most-popular in your country"_ so don't correct me on something I didn't say. Thanks.
I became a Christian through facts and reason as an agnostic, by consuming tons of material on the arguments for Atheism and Theism and Christianity, and also watching countless debates, all at an agnostic standpoint. It took a while to make a decision to become a Christian to follow God, but I made that decision because the Christian God has to be the truth and I couldn't hold that conviction. I found it is the most probable by weighing up probabilities of different beliefs vs the probability of Christianity. I realised that people can believe in any viewpoint or religion if they can make assumptions of the things we can't observe, such as how did everything come to be. Therefore even though there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a creator, people can decide what they believe in, on the subject of God. Although this worldview is almost certain to be true because of all the evidence, it is not prove able as are other world views, so there is always space for assumptions and theories to deny the existence of God. One of the biggest or the biggest reason people don't want to believe in God is so they can be the God of their own life, in order to stay in their own rebellion against a moral creator, avoid ultimate moral responsibility for themselves and stay in doing evil that violates their conscience and what they know is wrong. Therefore to understand why an atheist is close minded to the proposition of God ask this: If Christianity was the truth would you believe in it?
_"One of the biggest or the biggest reason people don't want to believe in God is so they can be the God of their own life"_ Do you really believe that? Because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, AND at the same time it is a huge insult. As such, you're not only insulting a billion people here, you are also insulting yourself by making yourself look like a fool. For starters: imagine that I am a Theist believing in God. Now my neighbor has a pretty wife and I want to cheat my own wife by sleeping with the neighbors wife. According to what you say, I'd now tell myself _"Ok, I believe in God right now. But if I pretend not to believe, then God does not exist, and I can cheat on my wife."_ Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense to you to assume that the deity you worship disappears as soon as you pretend to not believe anymore? It just blows my mind that you consider that to make sense. Also, if we look at the prisons, for example in the USA, then the number of Christians there is much higher than the number of Atheists. And I don't mean the absolute numbers, but those in relative to the number of Christians and Atheists in the entire population. In other words: if you are a Christian, you are much more likely to go to prison than if you are an Atheist. Now tell me: how does that match your claim, that people become Atheists in order to live a less moral life? It's absolutely mindboggling how you believe that this insult and ignorant claim of yours makes any sense whatsoever. You must have never thought about it. I assume that you heard somebody else say it, and as it confirms your faith you decided to just repeat it without ever thinking about it. _"a moral creator"_ A moral creator? Are you shitting me? Now, apart from your God not existing, look at those myths and stories regarding your deity: he supposedly knows everything, right? So when he created adam and eve, he knew exactly that if he planted a tree next to them, they'd eat from it, no matter what he said. Yet he did it. Why? Because he needed a lame excuse to throw them out? And he knew exactly how mankind will unfold in general, resulting in that flood where he murdered 99.99% of all life on the planet. If he knew that in advance, why tf didn't he do things differently? What was going on in his mind? _"Well, yes, I know, if I do this, they will become sinners and criminals, but then I can murder each and every one of them. That is fun, so I will do that."_ Oh, and then let's not get started about how the Bible condones slavery. Or how it says that you should murder all enemies in combat but the women, who you should take. Guess why? What would you do with them? Well, no problem: "do not rape" is not one of the ten commandments, and, as the Bible says, forcing the rape victim to marry the rapist makes everything just fine and ok. Moral? You got to be kidding me. It's insanity. _"evil that violates their conscience and what they know is wrong"_ Oh yes, like when the Church told millions of people in Africa not to use condoms, infecting hundreds of millions of people with deadly and crippling diseases. Man, how nice that was. Or when priests methodically rape children, to then get protected by the Church with the money people donate. Isn't that awesome. How moral they are, those good Christians. _"Therefore to understand why an atheist is close minded"_ Oh yes, more insults please. I mean, if the Theist has no rational arguments, then what has he left but infantile insults? Close minded? I listen to every argument people can bring forth that would support the supposed existence of a deity. And in my entire lifetime, not one person was capable of giving me one rational argument or one shred of evidence supporting gods supposed existence. More the opposite. Just look at your own comment: full of arrogance and insults, without any reason or logic. If anything, then comments like yours convince people that there is no god. _"If Christianity was the truth would you believe in it"_ If anybody would have any rational arguments and/or evidence for it, then yes. But nobody does. It's a fest of ignorance and insults, of violence and crime, of corruption and abuse and hatred. _"Therefore even though there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a creator"_ Oh yes, the wise Christian, always quick to state that there is lots and lots of evidence, and even quicker to run away if you ask him to present it. Everybody can pretend that there is evidence if you don't have to present it. Here, let me try: _"There is masses of evidence that the Moon is actually shaped like a banana. What, evidence? Uhmm... uhm... I got to go."_ That is the way of the Theist. _"I found it is the most probable by weighing up probabilities of different beliefs vs the probability of Christianity. "_ Magic is the easy answer for the simple minded folk that doesn't care about the truth. That's why people with a higher education are less likely to be Creationists. If you know the actual answers, you don't have to pretend that something is magic.
See, reality can be proved, Christianity is opinion. No evidence. Your choice to be Christian isn't based on facts, just opinion. You can believe anything you want but if you want reality to guide your life then atheism or agnosticism are your choices. Otherwise, make believe is where you live.
well to be honest frank turek may know a bit about science, but he twists it around to squeeze god in where god isn't, frank, if you looked closely enough, is dihonest, shermer may be faultering and a poor debate choice, but he's not telling lies, frank turek is telling lies, and telling them to YOU.
@@HarryNicNicholas A lie is something that isn't true, or something you don't believe to be true but profess to be true, a lie IS NOT something that you don't know to be true but profess to be true, if in fact you believe it to be true and/or it is actually true. I can say the light at the end of the road is green as I type this, and I don't know that, but it isn't a lie if the light is actually green. In Turek's defense, not only does he believe what he is saying is true, but in all likelihood it is true based on the evidence. So the reality is that YOU are lying Harry Nicholas if Turek is right. That being said, the only thing of what Turek says that I don't agree with is when he says we come to know God based on external evidence and logical deduction, when the Bible says that we come to know God, not just believe in Him, but Know Him, by His Spirit. God sends His Spirit into all those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and through His Spirit He reveals himself to them internally, and once a person has received this then they know for certain that God exists, even if they cannot show you He exist, they don't need to show it in order to know it. Salvation from sin through the will of God in Christ is enough to prove God's existence, but having proof provided to you is not the same thing as having something proven to you, because I can offer you a sugar cube as proof that sugar is sweet, but until you take the leap of faith and taste it for yourself, nothing has been proven to you. 2nd Thessalonians 2:11-12, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." God will decide if Frank is a liar my friend, and He will decide the same for me and for you, that you can be sure of.
I'm currently about 45 minutes in. So far I have heard an atheist who is against the God of the gaps argument use the exact argument to prove atheism, comparing God to off the magic dragon, and coy insults to people who disagree woth him. On The other hand Turek laid out a very well thought out and scientific argument for God.
Welcome to the world of Michael Shermer. Dude has no clue how to discuss any of these topics. None whatsoever, none of the popular atheist speakers do. Ask them a philosophical question and they have no clue what you’re even asking.
@@jacoblee5796 perhaps internet atheists, but any atheist that knows the subject matter would know that simply comparing god to the tooth fairy is not at all a good argument against god.
@@TheMindIlluminated You still don't seem to get it.....the atheist view is that god and tooth fairy are in the same category of imaginary things. I understand the subject matter probably better than you do. My wife says i have an unhealthy obsession with the subject. You say its not a good argument against god, i say there is no good argument for the existence of your god.
I think at this point he's THE guy. Especially because he's able to explain complex concepts and information in such a concise and simplistic fashion, he was tailor made for today's 30 second soundbite culture.
I recently became an athiest. The thiest were more crucial in the switch than the athiest. The thiest arguments are not convincing and actually made me question how they can rationalize the immorality of the bible. The only answers they give are "god" and "the bible says so". I think he should find a different argument, this one does not work. If there is no other argument then quit debating.
I think this was a good debate. One thing I wish was addressed concerning witches, women, race, etc., is that a) skepticism of God/religion is nothing new, and while many political heads used religion as a tool, that doesn't necessarily reflect God; I'm confident that God was equally disgusted - even more so for doing it 'in his name'. b) along the same lines, there have been non-religious/non-christians who would have/still are actively discriminating others; to peg it all on people of faith doesn't do anyone any good.
Frank Turek Addressed this in his book "I dont have enough faith to be an atheist" and "Legislating Morality" He writes, "Another confusion exists between an absolute moral value and the understanding of the facts used in applying that value. For example, a couple of hundred years ago witches used to be sentenced as murders. But now they aren't. A relativist may argue, “See! Our moral values have changed because we no longer seek to kill witches. Morality is relative to time and culture.” But the relativists is claim is incorrect. What has changed is not the moral principle that murder is wrong, but the perception or factual understanding of whether witches can really murder people. People no longer believe they can. Hence, people no longer consider them murders. In other words, the perception of a moral situation is relative, but the moral values involved in the situation are not. Failure to make this distinction also leads to people to believe that cultural differences reflect essential differences in the core moral values. For example, some people believe that since Hindus Revere cows and Americans eat them, there's an essential difference between the moral values of Americans and Hindus. But the reason people in India consider cows sacred has nothing to do with it or moral value - it has to do with their belief in reincarnation. Indians believe that cows May possess The Souls of deceased human being, so they don't eat cows. In the United States, we do not believe that the soul of our deceased relative maybe in a cow, so we freely eat cows. In the final analysis, what appears to be a difference is actually in agreement. The core moral value that it's wrong to eat grandma is considered absolute by people in both cultures. They only disagree on where Grandma's Soul resides. This is a difference that's paste on the perception of the facts pertaining to the moral value. But there is a fundamental agreement that the moral value must be upheld."
That psychological phenomenon that is called religion, is simply any world view, or set of preconceptions based on any set of related *Unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) *Not_Necessarily* adverting to the god fantasy, because there are any numbers of religions which do not advert to the god fantasy, some of them specifically atheistic such as the religion socialism and its many sub-religions such as modernism, wimmininism. homosexualism and climate-change/global-warming_ism, al of which are clearly world views, or sets of preconceptions based on any set of relate*Unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) thus an attachment to the god fantasy is neither sufficient nor necessary for any world view, or set of preconceptions based on any set of relate*Unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) to qualify as a religion, but it is true to say that many and particularly the Elsies-(Lower Classes [L C's] mistakenly suppose that the term religion *necessarily* connotes an attachment to the god fantasy, which demonstrably it need not since a definition must embrace all instances of what will fit the definition of religion[world view, or set of preconceptions based on any set of relate*Unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) ] and self evidently there are many world views, or set of preconceptions based on any set of relate*Unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) that Do_Not* advert to the god fantasy, mostly because the word"god" will and does have as many meanings(associations) as there are men(human beings/dreaming machines). which of the various characteristics of the psychological phenomenon that is religion is essential is moot; some would say it is the element of *Unquestioned_Beliefs* etc., while others will focus on the good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) side or aspect of religion, you pays your money and you makes your choice, but bear in mind that there are plenty of religions that do not advert to the god fantasy and others that specifically reject it, specifically Marxism/socialism(the opium/tedybear/idol/fetish of the intellectuals) while some do not advert to the god fantasy at all for instance homosexualism and climate-change/global-warming_ism, yet both clearly qualify as world views based on any set of related?*Unquestioned*, beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms. More interesting perhaps is of which function religion is a manifestation?
Its more like hes having a hard time trying convey complex scientific ideas , not that he makes it more complicated. It is more complicated. God did it is not an answer , its willful ignorance.
Robo Cop if you listen to the whole thing franks answers aren’t just “god did it”. It has many layers. But Michael didn’t answer any questions to a full understanding. Almost nothing he said made sense. I think he needed more time or someone else to convey his ideas better
@samantha sly I did watch the whole thing. All his answers are basically put down to a god of the gaps argument. Its only assertions no proofs. I agree Michael's answers were not easy to understand and need work to be easier to understand for everyday people in the short time they both had
@Reid Elson Waste your days? It sounds like you’re on a pursuit of happiness than a pursuit of truth. Would you believe something even if it hurt to swallow that pill of truth?
This was such a respectful and productive debate. This is such a wonderful example of how intelligent people can talk about different beliefs in peace. Wonderful work from both of these debaters!
What I would like to see is our smartest people going about the business of solving the world's problems. This hasn't happened yet, or maybe our smartest aren't as smart as we think.
You realize that guy is a Communist. Comrade is the Communist greeting. It's how they identify themselves to one another. There's no such thing as an intelligent Communist. Communists are indoctrinated, not educated. They are vulnerable to indoctrination because they're not smart enough to think for themselves. Frank Turek mops the floor with these guys.
@@assininecomment1630 Turek doesn't make "leaps of logic". He is exposing the illogic of atheism. Atheism is unreasonable. It's just easier for people who don't have the mental capacity to study complex subjects. The search for Truth is a decades long process for intellectuals. It's not for the faint of heart or weak minded people. It requires actual self-discipline.
Turek's case, even in just this video, is absolutely _littered_ with leaps of logic,@@valerieprice1745. It's a logical fallacy known as 'non sequiter', to say that because a question can't be answered with (current) scientific knowledge, it demonstrates / proves an attribute of God - or the existence of said god. Yes, it's an easy line to run with, especially amid the dynamics of a rapid-fire live presentation. Still, it simply falls at the first hurdle of rational consideration. Also, it fails to recognise when this approach has been attempted previously, and been disproven. Scientific consideration, testing, analysis, re-testing, cross-checking, debate, and further investigation - gets answers. For centuries, even millenia, these human considerations have pushed away the barriers and blockages of understanding. What was previously and incorrectly attributed to the supernatural, or divine intervention, or magic, or other earth spirits, or dead relatives, or demons, or pixies, or a pantheon of gods, or a god's mother, or angels, or whatever. Practically everything previously attributed to miracles, has now been correctly attributed to nature. We keep finding more answers. Nothing is learnt if we just say, "Don't know, can't know - so it must have been God." He might be one of those who claim they seek 'Truth', but the stream of rhetorical questions he attempts, demonstrate that Turek isn't actually searching for true things at all.
@MaclynLucille Wow! You're the first non-hostile amicable atheist I've seen in a YT comment. Honestly, I thought at first that's how all atheists would be at first; smile at believers and not yell, name call, and send unprovoked threats. Continue to be a respectable person ❤
It's interesting to see a scientist explain what they believe but then for every question or problem or paradox, have a rule or law that supercedes the problem to explain it.
Just because someone is “Deeply religious” doesn’t mean they are searching for truth and not happiness, so for shermer to argue that religious Jews are on a search for truth by default is false and an overgeneralization. Turek is right, people are not on a truth quest, they are on happiness quests.
@@mattr.1887 Some are. But I’d say millions who are being persecuted for their faith, even up to imprisonment and dying chose the wrong faith then. However if they, just like Christ’s apostles are willing to be ridiculed, persecuted, etc then they must have chosen for a different reason.
@Matt R. Real Christians or "what can God do for me" christians? Because they are both different. A real christian understands that we are not promised a happy and prosperous life in the way an atheist or even secular society might define happiness. We are promised eternal life and forgiveness for our sins regardless of life's up and downs. Our joy is in Jesus, spreading His word, and eternity after death.
@@mattr.1887 I think "happiness" is the wrong word "Fulfillment" is the correct word as long suffering is a fruit of the Spirit. In true worship one is filled with a joy that is indescribable. Even in our suffering we can still experience joy.
Unreal performance as always Frank! Every time I watch you in debates or in your seminars, I truly feel as if God’s love for us is manifested in your incredibly intelligent and thoughtful words. Your closing was AMAZING!
He makes no intelligent or logically coherent statements. Saying god exists because I don't understand how things happen is idiotic. Worse, claiming YOUR religion is right and everyone else is wrong is beyond arrogant.
didn't notice that 2 hours have passed, this is really an entertaining and really informative debate that I have watched, kudos to the organizer and the debaters, all of them are amazing.
solar flare I’ve heard it said that the debate is not to convince the other, but rather, to convince those present and listening. I remember Turek’s debates with Hitchens when they first came out. Atheists present said that Turek was the clear winner and they had things to reconsider. THAT is the point of the debates.
@@solarflare4240 Perhaps it is because you don't understand both of their points and meaning but you focus on their arguing and words. Focus on their understanding and you will find meaning.....
Dr. Shermer seems more interested in refuting a “religion” than God. You can find fault with religions. People are flawed, but that has nothing to do with if there is an intelligent designer or not.
"Which best explains reality, atheism or theism?" Theism is religion. It's not just flawed it's innately irrational, and it targets the most primitive part of our mind. It in no way accurately portrays reality, it is an illusion used to keep the poor and everyone who doesn't rule oppressed. That's it. You do what all religious people do when they realize they have no points and no arguments, they say that you can't disprove the existence of god. It's impossible to prove or disprove, so the best thing to do is to explain how it is illogical and ridiculous, which is what Shermer did.
@blackkman1324 I genuinely feel sorry for you. Your profile pic is a pentagram. That tells me everything I need to know. You don't believe in God because you don't want to. God still loves you and died on the cross for you. God won't force you to believe in him. You need to humble yourself and open your heart and genuinely seek him. Once you do that your life will change. I PROMISE.
@Reid Elson Theism better explains reality! With the known science we have, apologetics in my eyes is the umbrella term for our archealogical, scientific, cause & effect, historical, and many more different kinds of evidence that confirms Theism is intellectual and based off of reason! God bless you on your journey or Do🙏✝️💖💕
Like a single word in his first couple seconds of speaking. Universe Uni = One Verse = A *spoken* sentence Who created this word? Who uses this word to discredit intelligent design and how intelligent are they, really?
much as i love shermer he's not really cut out to debate, he hesitates too much, his apparent lack of confidence undermines his knowledge base. turek on the other hand would be perfect for selling snake oil. or books in this case. turek may be "eloquant" but makes my skin crawl.
You lost common sense"due to indoctrination over time", did you titch? You put that down to bad luck or bad breeding or just carelessness? What do you suppose common sense to be? You have not the faintest idea? That* you are about to demonstrate -if only by default.
@@sladegrey9272 1) Religion told us that man was created by god. 2) That our planet was a divine creation. 3) That all animals and plants were made by the god of the bible. However, without any intention to prove religion wrong, science gave us the real explanation. Now religion is singing the same song, telling us that the universe has been created by god. How sure are we that this time religion is going to get it right ?
Son of the Sun why couldn’t Jacky Cruz think Turek ? Everyone has to believe or think what you think ? People can’t make choices in your world or what ?
As an atheist, I am constantly embarrassed by hearing about dragons and unicorns in debates. An analogy is not an argument. Shermer simply attacked existing religions and the idea of an omnipotent good god. He did not address Tuke's general points about theism vs atheism.
Because Franks generally points are idiotic….How exactly is Shermer suppose to address them? If you are truly an atheist then you should have no problem understanding why he is brining up dragons and unicorns.
@@jacoblee5796 I can assure you that I am an atheist and that I believe that atheism has a good message. It is not advanced by childish arguments that convince only those who are already convinced, I believe this is known as preaching to the choir. Atheists need to be more critical of themselves and each other. Cosmic sceptic has made some progress in addressing this problem.
That's why these debates are great and thanks for Frank for uploading them. Once he mentions diseases and says Bill Gates is trying to help. He just gave away his ignorance and lost the entire debate.
Dr. Shermer struggled heavily in answering questions he internally knows doesn’t come from chemical reaction, but morals he can’t explain through a naturalistic worldview.
I’m a Christian and I first heard of this argument that morality points to the existence of God while reading a book by CS Lewis. But then when I presented this argument to an atheist friend of mine he countered that our morality is something that has naturally developed as the human species has evolved to benefit the species as a whole and to keep us from ultimately going extinct by killing each other. I’ve never heard anyone counter that claim. Can anyone rebuttal this?
What makes that Good? Who said that is Good for humans to exist? (Then God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground." Gensis 1:28 ) if theres no God what makes us procreating good ? Who said Show him the videos of frank talking about morality they ask similar questions like that one.
I guess it’s hard for me to wrap my head around that statement because life without a will to live would quickly cease to exist if such a life-form could even come into existence in the first place. Life without some will, some drive doesn’t exist. Even when something alive loses its will to live it dies shortly thereafter. Something growing and surviving has something driving it to grow and survive otherwise it would just be an inanimate object. The definition of Life is: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change PRECEDING death. So if the argument is that God programmed the will to live in our nature and with it morality to keep us from killing each other than why would he allow us all to die? If it’s to make more room for other people then that to me sounds more like an a generic evolutionary structure in place for all forms of life, not just humans. If God programmed humans and let’s say plants to have the same drive to live and thrive and the same path to age and die do plants also have souls? And if it’s just our body that dies and our souls that are eternal beings existing outside of time then why weren’t we around before our bodies were formed. Why did they come to be at the same time? If God exists outside of time, space and matter and we were created in His image why is our entire existence wrapped up in time, space and matter?
If our morality was the result of evolution that does not prove that it is right. It only proves that it's actually a self-serving thing. God proves that morality is true because he is an immortal being so that means that his morality will last forever and will never change unlike us fickle humans who can't agree that abortion is wrong.
Frank spoke about this in the beginning. If our brain or morality was just a consequence of chemicals and atoms moving around, how are you able to trust the conclusions that come out of it? If we are no greater than animals how can we trust our reason any higher than an animals ability to reason?
Shermer makes the same mistake many atheist do and which he's made his entire career. He conflates the difference between "natural" and "supernatural" thereby making a category error. In his desperation he's not above lying either. Both physicists and cosmologist agree the universe, space-time and matter, had a beginning and the universe is not past infinite, and Shermer's known this for some time. He is contemptuous of arguments for God's existence but sees nothing wrong with introducing the highly speculative, likely indemonstrable multiverse. Figuring out which religion best supports observational experiences you really don't belong on a stage arguing that God does not exist. You've just proven yourself incapable of reason.
Let's assume a God/Deity is the causer of what we call the big bang. In what way can anyone on earth literally show proof that not only was a God/Deity responsible, but that it was the Abrahamic God? It can't be done. Being an atheist I have to openly admit that I can't disprove the existence of a Deity, for all I know there is one. But according to every belief in every deity, the claim has been made that there is evidence and over time, those God's became myths and the evidence was passed along to the next God(s). The bible isn't reliable, claims and beliefs are not reliable, and since we cannot see a God, then why do believers claim that they not only believe in it but they know precisely what God demands but when they can't explain, it suddenly becomes mysterious? But you did make good point about Shermer who I like and have to take in small doses.
@@sammysam2615, You are making nothing but assertions. "YOU" think the Bible is unreliable, claims and beliefs are not reliable, etc.! I have no idea what you mean by, "... then why do believers claim that they not only believe in it but they know precisely what God demands but when they can't explain, it suddenly becomes mysterious?" I have never experienced anyone state God's "demands"(requirements) are mysterious. What does, and according to you, which "god", demand? "IF" there is a 'god" then it would be perfectly within reason to be able to reason which idea of "god" best comports to our observational experiences based on history, philosophy, science and personal attestation. The "Big Bang" is actually a colloquial term used to identify the expansion of the universe. Based on general relativity we are fairly certain that there existed a boundary condition where space, time and matter came into being. Which means that space, time and matter didn't always exist. Any naturalistic explanation results in infinite regress paradoxes and violates Ockham's Razor. Thereby, leaving a supernatural causal impetus as a valid proposition. Since you admit that you cannot disprove God's existence it stands to reason that is based on evidentiary justifications for God's existence. If there wasn't any justifications for God's existence you'd well be able to "prove" God's non-existence solely based on naturalistic mechanisms and processes. Indicating that supernatural phenomenon exist and posit valid justifications for belief. Peace.
As an ex-athiest I have came to a realization. Any serious athiest only views science and ignores philosophy, which is ironic because science is a branch of philosphy. You can study a cake for a thousand years and never figure out why it was made, but if you simily ask aunt sally she will tell you in 5 seconds. Athiests say there is nothing that could convince them because they are subjecting themselves to only a part of the whole picture. When I opened my eyes to the truth everything I have ever learned started to piece together and make sense. The difference between Frank and Michael's arguments is Michael only views science while Frank views all aspects of philosophy and actually puts together a convincing coherent argument. I am open to debate with anyone who disagrees! God bless!
Yeah.. I mean Mike's closing statements sounded like the tower of babel and the whispering serpent.. Let us make a name for ourselves, don't obey The Most High you can be one too..
@@DJRickard2010 where does information come from. There is only one source of information and that is mind. Take note. INFORMATION IS PRIMARY. WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. Jesus was PROPHECISED to come to earth thousands of years before He did and He fulfilled EVERY thing He was supposed to do. Only God knows the future. Jesus said He is coming back when the world is in the state it's in in our generation. So He is coming very soon because He is God.
Gerard Moloney Only god knows the future? What makes you think that is true?. What future does god know? That the universe will implode someday? We all know that. Does god know when and how you will die, whether there will be a republican victory in November, whether it will rain next month? Silly. God could not possibly want to be bothered by such inane trivia. The concept of god’s omniscience is absurd. But more important , why is it so important to you? You really think god gives a f about what happens to you? And Even if he does what difference does it make?
not too sure how people can say nothing exploded......and nothing was the cause of everything, and how something exploding causes creation, all the explosions ive seen dont cause creation but destruction
@@barrackobongo4842 there is much more evidence of people that are much older than 2000 years. Ancient Rome, the Egyptian empire, Chinese emperors and so on. Somehow God decided to not plant evidence for the, in the Christian sense, most important human/living God.
@demigodzilla No vultures have an important place in nature and the circle of life. Christianity is just an evil fairy tale, that is only concerned with scaring people into submission.
@Merlin Hyde ... Why do you feel sorry for him? Why do Christians keep saying things like this.. 'My heart aches for him'? He's just going by the evidence... Dr turek has a completely wrong understanding of the way things work.. Literally every science related thing he says is a misconception... I feel sorry for dr turek.. I really wish someone could explain to him how physics works..
And you only believe you have value because you believe your imaginary friend says so. How absolutely pathetic and sad. I hope one day you’ll learn to find worth in yourself. Your life will be fuller and your relationships much healthier. I also hope you open your mind and actually read a book or take a class. Science is a beautiful thing and the scientific method is the most reliable way we have to discover magnificent truths in the universe. It takes an extraordinary lack of depth and imagination to be satisfied with “God did it”. There a world full of wonders out there if you ever decide to think for yourself.
@@amandamcgovern5744 true... The main problem is that religious people are against science for some reason.. Saying that evolution didn't happen is the modern 'the earth is flat'... The church has always been wrong about how the universe works.. For example they killed scientists who said the earth is round and then 200 years later apologized.. In the next 200 years they will say the same about evolution..
@@rushunnhfernandes lol evolution bro? come one man. I have a pet rock for christmas about 20 years ago that im still waiting to evolve into a real pet so i can feed it and love it. lmao smh
I pray for you Michael Schermer. As an ex-atheist:) I only found out when God actually answered me and saved my life. He then led me to His Son Jesus as The Truth, not knowing which if any religion was He into, asking Him myself. Seek and you will find. Ask and it will be given to you. Your mind, thoughts, dreams, memories and feelings are evidence alone that you are a spirit being, unseen but real without question. I pray that you seek Him again. Peace in Him only.
@@schmetterling4477 Actually, there are "other" gods and spirits, which is where most come from or influenced by. Baal, Molech, Ra. Odin...you are correct. But I wondered about the three major religions, christian, Judaism, muslim...I was only shown One Person, Jesus Christ alone. I suggest reading the four gospels for yourself and decide if He is worth knowing. You need to seek and find for yourself...when you're ready. :)
@@schmetterling4477 It was not by my parents. It was the God who answered me whom I sought for Truth. I get it, and don't expect anyone to believe me. I just hope you seek for yourself.
@@clearascrystal4960 God is talking to you? Oh, my. That's much, much worse than I feared. Tip: we don't listen to the voices inside our heads. They aren't real. :-)
If Jesus is Lord, the Lord is a tyrant. "I would rather be in Hell than praise 'god' who woulda allow Hell to exist.". I was catholic until age 24,, by the way. I am anxious to read your response, Togba. And yes, I've already read Edward Feser, etc's numerous articles on Hell.
Michael Flores It’s okay to be angry at God, he can take it. However, the lord is no tyrant, if he were to remove hell and evil from existence then he would also be removing our free will, and that is ultimately what makes us human
Ah atheists ... You're trying so hard to convice yourself that there is no God by using your rationality, but when you do, you realize he is and therefore because of your pride you end up using irrationality and realize you contradict yourselves. 1 Corinthians 1:27 : But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
Shermer was definitely in critiquing arguments rather than hearing Frank's responses. Shermer did not make any attempt to understand, rather he just kept asserting that Franks's teaching illustrations were fallacious, as a means of dismissal. Love Franks comments about cats
Jarrell Lemos Well, it was a desperate attempt at teaching you critical thinking skills and the basics of a sound epistemology. Tureks entire presentation is just an embarrassing collection of logical fallacies.
Ther is no pure English verb to critique, which is noun like reference or parent, so no pure English critiquing, parenting or referencing they being the bastard offspring of that degenerate dialect of pure English or pidgin, that is kinderlander or American.
I left my atheistic/anti-theistic life because of many years of critical thinking, critical research, and understanding the concepts of God... In the end, I found no logic, no reasoning, no sensible ideas in the absence of a God, or at least an intelligent designer... I'm still learning about God and how He copes with science, even though many atheists like to think that they can't cooperate with each other... I'm now a semi-agnostic Christian, and I'm happy to be one, so I don't need atheism... I left my atheistic/anti-theistic lifestyle for a reason, and I plan on never going back to it...
I’m curious what a semi-agnostic Christian is. Agnosticism is a belief that you can’t possibly know if God exists or not. A true Christian is not concerned with if, but knows that God is real
Ultra D-Rex "....because of many years of critical thinking, critical research, and understanding the concepts of God". Wow! The same reason why most former theists become atheists.
Who will stand up for me against evildoers? Who will take his stand for me against those who do wickedness? Psalm 94:16 Frank Turek does Lord! May Your Spirit rest on him!
Zenon see the problem with you atheists is you quote these bible verses thinking literally. There are many verses such as the one you quoted that have symbolic meanings to them. Just look up the meaning of the verse you quoted, the real meaning behind it IS NOT to kill babies you just misunderstand it.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Except it has no symbolism and is referring to the conquest of Babylon by the Medes which God took credit for. God commanded the people to rape, pillage and kill infants in Babylon's conquest. Zenon is completely in the right to say the Bible is immoral, because it is!
I was an Atheist for over 10 years. Loved Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc... Now I'm an devout Catholic. What I realized is that people will believe whatever they want to believe. If God came down to you and showed you miracles to prove he existed; an Atheist will just believe they're hallucinating. At the limits of science you essentially need MORE faith to believe that Atheism is true. What Atheist fail to realize is Atheism is in itself a religion - they are not being neutral and they aren't on a moral high ground that they think they're in. It's not that they don't have a belief, it's that they believe in nonsense, they believe something can come from nothing and we will eventually have all the answers. The fact is we can never have the answers because we cannot make observations outside our universe, at the limits it's all just theories. Saying we'll fill the gaps is like saying we'll have a 100% accuracy for a test we don't know how many questions there are or what the questions will even be. Intellectual arrogance or ignorance.
Michael contradicted himself again first he said that we're speaking in higher terms, then he goes on to invoke the copernican principle, which means we're not special at all.
How? You're not in time! I got to be in the audience for the debate and this debate helped strengthen my Christian views. I also got to attend Turek's IDHEFTBAA Seminar and it was amazing!
This just serves to prove, that there are atheists who are brilliant mathematicians, brilliant physicists, brilliant engineers, etc... the only thing an atheist can't be, is a brilliant atheist. The smartest atheist has the same argument for atheism the dumbest has: none. Just pretend you can't see the evidence and pretend to be smart.
@@kimbanton4398 at the beginning of time. T=0 is "when" He created time. There is no before that, so that's pretty obvious. The concept of "when" does not make sense in the context of creation of time anyway.
Not as bad as Turek's opening where he just treats the proposition of the debate as "Deism Vs Atheism" which is wrong just by looking at the title of the video
PotatoXGaming exactly when we say their is no need for God because of the way nature works we are essentially saying because the car works without someone inside it no creator is necessary this is why I’m not an atheist and a Christian because I’ve seen the arguments they fail for t atheist don’t respond with I’m a Christian because I’ve not looked because I literally tried to disprove Christianity and I could not because the Cross was my stumbling block
What if you are wrong about which god really exists? If christianity is real, muslims would be in hell. If islam is real, christians would be in hell. If it is indeed a god up there and not an evil entity, he is not going to punish you for simply non belief.
You cannot "choose" to believe. You either do based on how convincing you find the evidence to be, or you don't. The idea that believing is a moral act is nonsensical.
Samuel Hunter-Gatherer from Spelunker Cell yep, I came up with my phrase before I heard Frank’s... I had so much pride when I heard him say it... and it bothers me when some christians deny the big bang when the big bang actually creates a problem for naturalists.
@@kainable8769 first off you have to realize that the Big Bang is the last gap possible for god to be thrown into these days. Imagine all the gaps where god was the answer just 300 years ago. Variety of life, the earth, dinosaurs, and speaking of the earth and science in the beginning god created the heaven and earth and then created light but a generation of stars had to die to create the carbon that then created the planets, I’m not sure why this gets missed by so many, well I should say the few who read it. And the prime mover argument gives you a first cause, a beginning step, not even close to the personal loving knowing watching and judgmental god. That is the dishonest part apart this whole conversation anyone arguing for this from the theists perspective uses this to give us the god of the Bible. But to the point whatever started the universe if it is in fact created, is going to be outside of our intuition, it is going to go against the laws of nature, in order to say nothing to something has to come from something it seems improbable to have nothing pop into existence, but you have no example of nothing existing to compare probability. And what is evidence for god? Loss of faith. Faith requires lack of knowledge, is faith not enough for the believer? It would seem so.
@@guyjosephs5654 it does. The question of life’s creation then is still not answered. You can not like it or not want to accept it but it certainly does cause an issue, what was before it. What made it
@Novak Ingood if you were in a life threating situation i almost guarantee you would say omg or jesus . Its a subliminal cry to the creator .its not a figure of speech its far deeper then that dont tell me u think we came from nothing .i bet you dont even not what truth is
Thank you JESUS for my best friend the HOLY SPIRIT and for talking to me and showing me your glory and for saving me🙃❤️🙏🏼 JESUS has done so many miracles in my life that no one can take from me :).. one being PEACE that i NEVER had until the presence of the LORD entered my room that one sad sad sad night👀❤️..
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public. Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child. You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish that is a matter for you; I only have to see the wretched tings used to dismiss the user as an ass;I immediately know not to bother to read whatever the user of such asinine and infantile symbols writes, so the utility of the vile things is to save me from wasting my time on an imbecile child, which for whatever reason you seem to wish to be taken and clearly are, for no adult with wits and learning would use them.
Keep in up Dr. Turek-- it doesn't matter if they "listen" at the moment they hear it. It's God's seed to grow now. You always win the debate and you do it with dignity and respect to your opponent. Thank you!
I'm really disappointed with this Shermer guy. I was expecting some intelligent, strong evidence and facts for his argument but his whole routine was full of jokes, sarcasm, emotionalism and manipulation. But I now know that atheists share the same playbook. I've heard these same things over and over again and I wasn't impressed any of those times either. I hope this isn't a star player on Team Atheist. If he is, they're in more trouble than I thought. His fatal mistake though was repeatedly saying he used to be a "born again Christian". He shouldn't say that because he trapped himself in his own words. Why? Because it's impossible. Only God can make someone born again. If God had nothing to do with his rebirth, then he wasn't born again and therefore was never a Christian. If God did make him born again then He knows there's a God and can't be a true atheist. He would also still be a Christian today. But it explains why he can be an atheist now. He only changed intellectual beliefs. Nothing more. And there's much more to being a Christian than an intellectual belief.
@JMUDoc That’s not what he said. He said he was a born again Christian. He’s trying to debunk Christianity by saying he was a born again Christian but now he isn’t. He isn’t now because he never was. Simple as that.
@@festushaggen2563 When he says "I was a born-again Christian" he means that he used to believe Jehovah made him born again. He no longer believes in born-againess as you define it, but he used to. Let's say somebody tells you "I used to believe in God X", but you know that one of the _tenets of that religion_ is "nobody that truly believes in God X ever stops." Would you reject his "I used to believe in God X" statement?
@JMUDoc You’re changing what he said. I’m taking his words as he said them because I know what he’s saying and why. I’ve heard it many times before from self professing ex Christians and have debated this issue with those who say it. An atheist can never claim to have been born again. It’s impossible because you can’t be born again without God just as you cannot have ever been a Christian without Jesus Christ. They’re just using that terminology to somehow qualify themselves and make themselves sound more credible but if they actually understood what that meant, they wouldn’t say it. It’s like saying you were married before but got divorced and now you were never married. Or you used to be able to see but now you’re blind not knowing what it is to see. That doesn’t work. Once you’ve met God, you can’t be ignorant later and say He doesn’t exist. I accept that someone says they used to believe but don’t now but they can’t have been born again. That is a spiritual transformation that only God can make. They were religious at best but that’s not Christianity. People who say what this guy is saying don’t understand true Christianity. Just to believe is not enough.
You are imposing your definitions onto his words. He doesn't mean the same by "born again Christian" as you; I am trying to put his words into terms you would understand. *Because it's impossible. Only God can make someone born again.* According to you (or the Bible, same thing). Shermer doesn't think so.
Gabriel Marshall he’s here searching for the truth and HE refuses to open HIS eyes and ears. He doesn’t want god to exist so he keeps agreeing with atheist rambling. Atheist need god to be real in their argument because they steal from his principles to try to prove he’s not real.
Gabriel Marshall how is he angry? I think he simply wishes for other people to think critically for themselves. We have these discussions because we care about the truth. Finding the truth. And we care about people.
"The universe is not perfect so a perfect God could not have made it". The universe is not perfect according to who, You? What makes you an authority on the construction of a universe? Ever make one before?......... No? If you do not know the purpose of a design then your opinion as to its perfection is irreverent. Some designs are in fact made to fall apart within a given period of time.
@NotACapitalist Or perhaps your own poorly formed concept of this world is just as irrelevant as your pointless jumble of words. My "poorly formed concept" as you put it, Is the result of a 45 year careful study of all the data on both sides of the equation. I have come to the conclusion that atheism is a baseless Fantasy. One full of logical fallacies and special pleading. Even evolution itself is based on nothing but massive assumptions built upon even more massive unverified assumptions. In fact it takes more faith in the unseen to be an atheist then a theist.
Purpose comes from a mind that sees a pattern in it. That idiotic example that Frank gave about the "Take out the garbage message" was outright rubbish. To someone who doesn't know any English, that message would also have been gibberish. Messages like HTTHHHHTTTHTHTHT and GGGGGCCCCGCGCGCGCCCCCC might not make any sense to you or to most people, but to a minds that are trained in Math and Biology, respectively, these are coin-tossing events and a part of a DNA, respectively. The conclusion is that there is no message that is absolute, there are minds that make messages out of patterns.
So there is no way to tell what is a design and what is not. When I look at the night sky I see random points of light. No design there. And why does the Cosmos require a Creator? Who decided that?
That dude responding to the little kids question using a lot of biological jargon was so funny to me 😂seriously though. Awesome kid. I hope he keeps questioning things, and searches for truth in an unbiased way.
When i listen to Michael shermer talk and make his case, it sounds like he read many books from other atheïst and has all these fragments of information in his head without ever putting it in a good order, he sounds like he is pulling some parts out of his mind of what he read and uses it to debate, sounds very chaotic and messed up. Doesnt sound like he himself has done a genuine study about anything , and ofcourse at the end of it all, deep inside he knows he cannot explain his worldview because its impossible. He just wants his worldview to be right he doesnt want the truth. Sin is the main issue.
This atheist keeps going for “inward worth and morality” yet in his world view, there is no cause or reason to have inner worth only external worth. He is contradicting himself so much it’s sad. However I do wish both speakers had more time to answer questions. Annoying how the guy always cut both off
@@BlGGESTBROTHER Well, no. The universe doesn't care about your feelings. Molecules dont care about your feelings. They don't have a conscience to do so.
@@t.m.hdebates103 Again, so what? That's a false analogy to say that because molecules don't care about moral systems that means they ard ultimately worthless.
@@SpurnOfHumanity The likes of Atheism tries to disprove *immaterial* God, using the *Materialism* philosophy as a standpoint. This makes no sense. The only thing that would make sense is to use Materialism against a Material matter. A perfectly material matter here being: Jesus. From a *material* standpoint, Christianity proves Jesus, then God, through Jesus. You have to hurdle an argument against Jesus as Son of God before it is possible to logically disprove God from the Atheistic Materialist standpoint. Jesus has already been proven.
@@stevenc8717 Tell that to the Billions of people who believe in Islam and not Jesus as the son of God. If you are religious, the last thing you should be worried about is Athiest. You need to prove that your religion is the Right religion out of all the other religions in the world. Saying that your book just says so isn’t proof. If that where the case then the Quran would also be the one true word of God because it also says so. And soo do many other religions before Christianity even existed. Religion isn’t new. Humans made up all the other religions in the world that you don’t believe in, but somehow you don’t think it’s possible for people to also have made up yours as well? Serious question 🤔
@@Zlist1994 Islam twists and then teaches people lies about Jesus’ life. If a muslim for example comes to understand the original Jesus story and leaves Islam, he is “to be killed” as Mohammed said; these days, the person is fully disowned as a “Murtadd” (a Muslim Apostate). Pretty much the only choice Muslims have is to believe the lies they’ve been told their entire life or else be disowned by the entire family. Today, there have literally been fake **funerals** made for Muslim Apostates for when they leave their faith. It’s that serious, and so they take believing their Imams and Islams re-written Jesus story just as seriously.
"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God". That's the amount of attention God spares for atheists in his Bible. ONE VERSE. God isn't mocked, or swayed or taken by surprise when he looks down upon his creation debating his existence. Infact, I picture him laughing.
@@jmros Julian..I can make comments similar to yours all day long..where does that get us? If you wish to reply to me again..try this first. Pray to your God. Ask it what you might say to me to help me to understand what you believe to be true. Ask it for that one solid piece of evidence that only it can provide that will sway me...if only a little. Can your God do that. In the Bible it says "ask and you shall receive". Your God should know exactly what would change mind..correct?. Then..please...wow me. I don't mean to be flippant...my mind is open.
@@jonsprague9751 I will happily spare time to pray for you, but simultaneously, if you are genuinely interested in seeking and knowing God (Jesus Christ), and allowing Jesus to reveal himself to you, you need to put time aside yourself and honestly pray that prayer.
I was an atheist for a long time and I consider myself a hopeful/open agnostic but I find i have a much deeper respect for classical theology now. Not gonna lie, I think the average atheist is typically more knowledgable and rational in their atheism than the typical religious person in their religiosity, because affirming atheism requires at minimum some level of familiarity with the reasoning and the logic of belief, also because I feel most religious people have pretty lazy/uninspired reasons for their beliefs like family tradition, comfort of belief in an afterlife, etc. Most Christians aren't exactly picking up the Summa Theoligica and reading classical philosophy to reason themselves into becoming Christians. That said, serious theologians and philosophers of religion like Thomas Aquinas and Alvin Plantinga, have significantly better and more sophisticated arguments than most bitter online atheists are willing to admit.
Most Christians or theists in general aren't religious. They don't attend a house of worship, or engage in fellowship with other believers; they have never read or rarely ever read the doctrine of their religion; and they know little to nothing about the history of their religion's origins. Essentially, they're believers in name only, and that makes them more of a detriment to the religion, because they often do a disservice by being poor representatives of their religion.
As a Christian, I agree. I read thousands of pages of theology and philosophy before being baptized. I read all Sam Harris’s books and was fascinated by consciousness research which I pored over from several authors. I also read books on pantheistic spiritualism. I took ayahuasca with hippies and meditated with Monks. I read an Taoism and Dharma and Advaita Vedanta -and then on to St Athanasius, St John of Damascus, Augustine, Aquinas, and apologetics from modern Calvinist and Arminianism apologists, I read About half of what William Lane Craig had ever written - and then dismissed Protestantism but not Christianity. And In the end I wasn’t just convinced God was the only possible reality, I was convinced the Gospel is true, and the Orthodox Church has preserved the faith Jesus delivered to his Apostles.
We have live and believed by faith and through the the Holy Sprite living in us and induring trails that The Lord would said happen to his followers and we sent other people and things and warnings ⚠️ from Jesus Christ to Confirm our faith in God
I’ve never really understood the fascination with Thomas Aquinas. The guy just ripped off Plato and Aristotle, he wasn’t an original thinker and in opinion his work is a bit of a joke. I think he’s been incredibly overrated as a great thinker.
Boom!! TRUTH!! It’s like using a metal detector on a beach in search of plastic bottles and concluding that plastic bottles don’t exist cause you don’t find any! 🤣🤣🤣
The fact that it can't be explained by the physical world is the problem?...Theism falls apart without MAGIC....Also theism is the belief in a higher power...It doesnt clarify what that power is or if it cares about you lol
Both made pretty compelling arguments, but I feel like Frank was better-prepared. Michael made some good points, but he asked questions no one knows the answers to. All-in-all, a good debate.
Frank got his ass handed to him. Shermer pointed out right at the beginning that all Frank had was god of the gaps arguments. Then Frank opened his mouth and inserted god. Frank didn't have an argument.
@Fried Motherboards Nope, my comprehension skills are spot on. Michael mopped the floor with Frank, its not even close. Frank used circular fallacious god of the gap arguments.
Try watching Turek vs Hitchens, and if your comment is similar as it is on here, then I sadly believe you ignore anyone who is on the opposing side of theists, and you just like the one sided stances to help you justify your beliefs.
I saw the Hitchens debate and Frank clearly had the more compelling arguments. Hitchens had the British humor and accent, which scores points with an ADD, sound bite culture.
@@aaronfisher3003- Hitchens was accusing Frank with the wrong doings of the Catholic church when he doesn't have anything to do with it. The way he talked was as if he was trying to win the crowd trying to make fun of God without really trying to find what Frank's ideology was pointing to or if it made sense.
Shermer was consistently shocked that Turek didnt have an explanation beyond God when Turek's whole worldview is that there is no explanation beyond God
"It's ok to be mad at God. He's an infinite being, He can take it."
This hit me hard. Thank you
Unless you die mad I think it's ok
...but he loves you and gets mad if you love another god? 😂
@@matsbjur2535 How would you feel if you had a kid and they called another man "dad?" Not only just that, they actively ignore you for this other dad. You'd be happy about that?
Mr. E
If my kid didn’t love me I’d look to my own self first and ask whether I did anything to deserve his love. Your god’s creation leaves a lot to be desired don’t you think? There maybe a god in another galaxy who did it better. I wouldn’t be surprised.
@@jefferyperkins4668 You obviously haven't watched any debates to listen or learn, just respond and react. I'm actively searching for the truth. Idk what I am. You should try it
The term “ candidate “ was used jokingly throughout this debate ; But I think the term is very fitting for Dr Shermer. He answers questions like a politician . Avoiding the question asked and answering the question he wished was asked . This was a landslide . GREAT JOB FRANK 👏🏾
Wow, perfect comment, and I very much agree
I can't just stop listening to Frank. I actually applied some of the things I learnt from his videos and i was able to prove to an atheist that there is God. The person is now a believer.
Amen brother, me too!
What did you do hypnotise him or her with a swinging chain..
What arguments did you use to do this?
@@stevenhird1837nah just common sense
Small minded gullible man it must've been then
It is impossible to turn away from Jesus when you come to know who He is. Michael Shermer never knew God.
Love you Frank - learning so much from you on how to position myself to win territory for God. You are a bold voice and more Christians need to stand up and speak in this manner. Thank you for equipping us!
That’s false. You most definitely can change your mind. God won’t force you to keep believing. He’s definitely not going to force you to stay saved if you don’t want to
I have never believed, not even as a child, and Christianity is a theological trainwreck.
you answered in a way that took every doubt I ever had!! I asked God to show me truth. He did through you
Amen, All Glory To Jesus Christ ✞🕊❤️
Great apologists do that! God bless Dr Frank!! 😇😇😇
I love how great and simple Frank can explain things. He was one of the first apologists that really strengthened my faith when first coming to Christ.
bob dunson Not a fan?
bob dunson LOL! I inferred what I didn’t know from what I did! 😉
I learn so much from you Frank, and I KNOW yr blessed by God to do what you do. I hope to do what you do someday because there is no-one here who does what you Apologists do......Keep on doing what you do !!!!!....Love and blessings from Cape Town South Africa
Do-do bird
A Convenient Truth
Bless you friend. I hope things in your country stay safe. God bless you from Palm Springs, California USA.
God says He will bless those who bless you, and curse those who curse you, so may you be blessed exceedingly more than your words have blessed me Robert...
Everything frank says is lies pretty much. There's no evidence for a god, not good evidence, don't let him infect you with his nonsense.
@@colinjava8447 every thing he says is lie.... ummmm lol. Im a Christian, the believes in evolution. If evolution is true than the death of one species for the rise of a new and better one is fact. Without a god u cant say Hitler was wrong because his race could of been the superior and u just put a end to something that was better than the previous. Same with murderers, they are reducing the population so that the fit and healthiest can survive. Rape is just the alpha planting his seed in fertile mothers. Theft is just the strong and smartest acquiring all the wealth to also help reproduce and live better lives. Fact is you cant say im wrong because they are your opinions. You just think its wrong because u are getting scrued over when in reality its survival of the fittest. The strong reproduce and the weak die.
This was a fun and respectful discussion. Thoroughly enjoyed it.
Agreed, it was interesting to see the thought process of both. Clearly Tyrek is a better "debater", even though he couldn't prove any of his points with evidence
How the heck is frank tureks son 30, frank looks 40
Josiah Haas well he’s 56 or 57 I think
so true! he looks 40
he is 58
I love you guys
God has kept him 😉
“Professing themselves to be wise they became fools” - That verse couldn’t be more appropriate for Michaels worldview
Or the worldview of many theists.
This gets really boring
In the last 300 year or so, we have seen advances in medicine, technology, engineering, behavioral and social sciences -even in the humanities- that save lives, make life easier, facilitate communications, calculate the age of the Earth, and so on. This makes me wonder, what advances have theology and religious philosophy made about God and what benefits have we received from that new knowledge?
@@estuchedepeluche2212 first of all, religion is not a science. Secondly, Christianity was responsible for many of the best and most iconic things in western culture. anyone who denies this is denying established facts and reality.
@@Xenotypic Dear Disciple of Christ, thanks for answering. But it seems to me that you misunderstood my question. I asked about advances and improvements, not iconic or cultural items. With all due respect and curiosity, can you mention examples? This way, we would both know we are referring to the same things. thanks
Actual debate begins at 4:15
Thank you
Thanks
Frank destroyed him
Thanks
Thanks Shane
1:17:50 I love how Frank can go along with jokes even when they are against him. Respect✊🏾💯
There's no way he could do his job otherwise. He'd be dust and tears! You have to have thick skin to be that full of s*** in public
But he's _intellectually dishonest._
@@assininecomment1630relax
hmm was that supposed to be an argument? or was that an insult?@@assininecomment1630
Well it _would_ be only my "own personal [sic] opinion", if you disagree with the established definition of the term,@joeturner9219.
While many of the comments on these videos are often cluttered with a pretty clear audience 😉, I'm very thankful that Frank posts his debates unabridged. It's great for thinking, and it's so valuable to have these debates open to the public who couldn't go themselves.
Thank you Frank Turek!!
I think Frank did a better job arguing the existence of God as an explanation and grounding for our reality, than Michael did who mainly argued against religion via thought but couldn’t nail the objectivity of reality as clearly as Frank.
the usual arguments(kinda the only ones left for theists, fine tunning and the comsological argument, both which are mostly refused/refuted by physicsist , philosophers and biologists
What was the argument again? Can you explain arguing against anything without thought? How does an unfalsifiable concept explain anything, much less another concept that being the objectivity of reality?
Mr Shermer is rude, interruptive, uncouth, unsophisticated, obnoxious & Full of Himself!
The moderator is NOT a moderator in any sense of the word, and he should not take on this role Again!! He had Absolutely NO Control! He was useless in this situation. He allowed atheist to run rough shod over the entire proceeding!!! Quite disappointing indeed. It is a very tedious, unproductive, and difficult to get through this entire thing.
_3Big,_ how so? He didn't present reasonable evidence of a god, he just made the same old illogical arguments. You know like if Gary tells you leprechauns are the best explanation for objective morality and just says objective morals exist for no reason, do those two non-evidenced claims magically combine and become reasonable evidence of leprechauns? No. It's just Gary saying things without any real grounding in reality. A claim without evidence (baseless assertion) is an error of logic. Well all of Turek's arguments have errors like that, and those errors prevent those arguments from being evidence of a god.
Year late comment but...More and more evil is being accepted since I can remember. Everytime I listen to a debate against God, it only makes me more cemented in my faith as a believer whom trusts Jesus Christ more and more everyday. Love all my brothers and sisters in here.
Are you sure these beings even exist?
Amen
@@vuho2075 100%
Are the arguments _against_ atheism - being the basis from which to gain understanding of the existence of what we call reality - all so logical and reasonable and rational that they can't be denied?
Are the arguments against theism - being the basis from which we gain understanding of the reality surrounding us - so flawed and incoherent and illogical that they cannot be denied?
Lol funny myth man
Hallelujah!! All glory to God!! Well done Frank.
Frank's arguments were absolutely horrible.
Frank lost this debate, what are you talking about lol.
He's a wonderful man.
I want to thank Dr. Shermer for his presentation. It was so devoid of anything that could be considered a real argument that it served to strengthen my faith in God. Thank you, Dr. Shermer.
Which god? There are thousands of them, don't forget, all suspiciously invisible?
@@upturnedblousecollar5811 The Christian God. The One that all the evidence points to.
@@Eric-en9hk You mean _"The only god you researched because he was the most-popular one in your country."_
@@upturnedblousecollar5811 Even if a person only researched the god of their country, that doesn't make their conclusions false. Beliefs are only false if they are in conflict with reality. A person might believe in the Christian God because they were raised Christian, but that does nothing to falsify their beliefs. Their beliefs might be entirely true. Your argument commits the evolutionary fallacy by assuming that a belief is wrong because of where it came from. This assumption is illogical.
@@Eric-en9hk Whoa, whoa, whoa, I didn't say that anywhere, that's your projection of what you're mistakenly reading into what I said. I didn't say _"Your beliefs are wrong because you only researched the god most-popular in your country"_ so don't correct me on something I didn't say. Thanks.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools
God uses the foolish to shame the wise, and Dr Frank to own Apologetics 👊💀
@demigodzilla that was an inside job! Not "Middle Eastern" terrorist.
@@recieve.believe3344 Yeah sure, now do that with all the other atrocities committed in the name of the "right" god.
@@teresamcmud2605 When atrocities like this happen, the "god" of money is more likely than not the motive! Just ask Bush, Cheney and company.
@@recieve.believe3344 Yeah who cares what the facts show and the actual testimony of the people who committed the act. Is ISIS a Bush plant too?
I became a Christian through facts and reason as an agnostic, by consuming tons of material on the arguments for Atheism and Theism and Christianity, and also watching countless debates, all at an agnostic standpoint. It took a while to make a decision to become a Christian to follow God, but I made that decision because the Christian God has to be the truth and I couldn't hold that conviction. I found it is the most probable by weighing up probabilities of different beliefs vs the probability of Christianity.
I realised that people can believe in any viewpoint or religion if they can make assumptions of the things we can't observe, such as how did everything come to be. Therefore even though there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a creator, people can decide what they believe in, on the subject of God.
Although this worldview is almost certain to be true because of all the evidence, it is not prove able as are other world views, so there is always space for assumptions and theories to deny the existence of God.
One of the biggest or the biggest reason people don't want to believe in God is so they can be the God of their own life, in order to stay in their own rebellion against a moral creator, avoid ultimate moral responsibility for themselves and stay in doing evil that violates their conscience and what they know is wrong. Therefore to understand why an atheist is close minded to the proposition of God ask this: If Christianity was the truth would you believe in it?
_"One of the biggest or the biggest reason people don't want to believe in God is so they can be the God of their own life"_
Do you really believe that? Because it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, AND at the same time it is a huge insult. As such, you're not only insulting a billion people here, you are also insulting yourself by making yourself look like a fool.
For starters: imagine that I am a Theist believing in God. Now my neighbor has a pretty wife and I want to cheat my own wife by sleeping with the neighbors wife. According to what you say, I'd now tell myself _"Ok, I believe in God right now. But if I pretend not to believe, then God does not exist, and I can cheat on my wife."_
Does that make sense to you? Does it make sense to you to assume that the deity you worship disappears as soon as you pretend to not believe anymore? It just blows my mind that you consider that to make sense.
Also, if we look at the prisons, for example in the USA, then the number of Christians there is much higher than the number of Atheists. And I don't mean the absolute numbers, but those in relative to the number of Christians and Atheists in the entire population. In other words: if you are a Christian, you are much more likely to go to prison than if you are an Atheist. Now tell me: how does that match your claim, that people become Atheists in order to live a less moral life?
It's absolutely mindboggling how you believe that this insult and ignorant claim of yours makes any sense whatsoever. You must have never thought about it. I assume that you heard somebody else say it, and as it confirms your faith you decided to just repeat it without ever thinking about it.
_"a moral creator"_
A moral creator? Are you shitting me? Now, apart from your God not existing, look at those myths and stories regarding your deity: he supposedly knows everything, right? So when he created adam and eve, he knew exactly that if he planted a tree next to them, they'd eat from it, no matter what he said. Yet he did it. Why? Because he needed a lame excuse to throw them out? And he knew exactly how mankind will unfold in general, resulting in that flood where he murdered 99.99% of all life on the planet. If he knew that in advance, why tf didn't he do things differently? What was going on in his mind? _"Well, yes, I know, if I do this, they will become sinners and criminals, but then I can murder each and every one of them. That is fun, so I will do that."_
Oh, and then let's not get started about how the Bible condones slavery. Or how it says that you should murder all enemies in combat but the women, who you should take. Guess why? What would you do with them? Well, no problem: "do not rape" is not one of the ten commandments, and, as the Bible says, forcing the rape victim to marry the rapist makes everything just fine and ok.
Moral? You got to be kidding me. It's insanity.
_"evil that violates their conscience and what they know is wrong"_
Oh yes, like when the Church told millions of people in Africa not to use condoms, infecting hundreds of millions of people with deadly and crippling diseases. Man, how nice that was. Or when priests methodically rape children, to then get protected by the Church with the money people donate. Isn't that awesome. How moral they are, those good Christians.
_"Therefore to understand why an atheist is close minded"_
Oh yes, more insults please. I mean, if the Theist has no rational arguments, then what has he left but infantile insults?
Close minded? I listen to every argument people can bring forth that would support the supposed existence of a deity. And in my entire lifetime, not one person was capable of giving me one rational argument or one shred of evidence supporting gods supposed existence.
More the opposite. Just look at your own comment: full of arrogance and insults, without any reason or logic. If anything, then comments like yours convince people that there is no god.
_"If Christianity was the truth would you believe in it"_
If anybody would have any rational arguments and/or evidence for it, then yes. But nobody does. It's a fest of ignorance and insults, of violence and crime, of corruption and abuse and hatred.
_"Therefore even though there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there is a creator"_
Oh yes, the wise Christian, always quick to state that there is lots and lots of evidence, and even quicker to run away if you ask him to present it. Everybody can pretend that there is evidence if you don't have to present it. Here, let me try: _"There is masses of evidence that the Moon is actually shaped like a banana. What, evidence? Uhmm... uhm... I got to go."_ That is the way of the Theist.
_"I found it is the most probable by weighing up probabilities of different beliefs vs the probability of Christianity.
"_
Magic is the easy answer for the simple minded folk that doesn't care about the truth. That's why people with a higher education are less likely to be Creationists. If you know the actual answers, you don't have to pretend that something is magic.
Well said 🙏🏼
So what is your evidence that Jesus is the son of God?
See, reality can be proved, Christianity is opinion. No evidence. Your choice to be Christian isn't based on facts, just opinion. You can believe anything you want but if you want reality to guide your life then atheism or agnosticism are your choices. Otherwise, make believe is where you live.
Same 🙏 I was lost but now I’m saved.
Dr. Shermer's go-to is a condescending, "we're at different levels here...quantum this - quantum that...quarks...stars...starving children".
@demigodzilla lol
He’s talking about science and human suffering? In a debate about the existence of a benevolent god? Insane.
I am not sure I understand your disapproval of his argument......
well to be honest frank turek may know a bit about science, but he twists it around to squeeze god in where god isn't, frank, if you looked closely enough, is dihonest, shermer may be faultering and a poor debate choice, but he's not telling lies, frank turek is telling lies, and telling them to YOU.
@@HarryNicNicholas A lie is something that isn't true, or something you don't believe to be true but profess to be true, a lie IS NOT something that you don't know to be true but profess to be true, if in fact you believe it to be true and/or it is actually true. I can say the light at the end of the road is green as I type this, and I don't know that, but it isn't a lie if the light is actually green. In Turek's defense, not only does he believe what he is saying is true, but in all likelihood it is true based on the evidence. So the reality is that YOU are lying Harry Nicholas if Turek is right. That being said, the only thing of what Turek says that I don't agree with is when he says we come to know God based on external evidence and logical deduction, when the Bible says that we come to know God, not just believe in Him, but Know Him, by His Spirit. God sends His Spirit into all those who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and through His Spirit He reveals himself to them internally, and once a person has received this then they know for certain that God exists, even if they cannot show you He exist, they don't need to show it in order to know it. Salvation from sin through the will of God in Christ is enough to prove God's existence, but having proof provided to you is not the same thing as having something proven to you, because I can offer you a sugar cube as proof that sugar is sweet, but until you take the leap of faith and taste it for yourself, nothing has been proven to you.
2nd Thessalonians 2:11-12, "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
God will decide if Frank is a liar my friend, and He will decide the same for me and for you, that you can be sure of.
I'm currently about 45 minutes in. So far I have heard an atheist who is against the God of the gaps argument use the exact argument to prove atheism, comparing God to off the magic dragon, and coy insults to people who disagree woth him. On The other hand Turek laid out a very well thought out and scientific argument for God.
Mate I EXACTLY thought the same thing at 45 minutes into the debate!!
Welcome to the world of Michael Shermer. Dude has no clue how to discuss any of these topics. None whatsoever, none of the popular atheist speakers do. Ask them a philosophical question and they have no clue what you’re even asking.
Atheists don’t see the difference between magic dragons and gods. They are all imaginary things.
I don’t understand how you people don’t get that!?
@@jacoblee5796 perhaps internet atheists, but any atheist that knows the subject matter would know that simply comparing god to the tooth fairy is not at all a good argument against god.
@@TheMindIlluminated You still don't seem to get it.....the atheist view is that god and tooth fairy are in the same category of imaginary things.
I understand the subject matter probably better than you do. My wife says i have an unhealthy obsession with the subject.
You say its not a good argument against god, i say there is no good argument for the existence of your god.
Frank is becoming a front runner in defending Christian Faith .
I think at this point he's THE guy. Especially because he's able to explain complex concepts and information in such a concise and simplistic fashion, he was tailor made for today's 30 second soundbite culture.
@@RobbDepp absolutely right
Robert Bonilla THE guy is David Wood in my opinion but frank up there
I recently became an athiest. The thiest were more crucial in the switch than the athiest. The thiest arguments are not convincing and actually made me question how they can rationalize the immorality of the bible. The only answers they give are "god" and "the bible says so". I think he should find a different argument, this one does not work. If there is no other argument then quit debating.
I prefer those 1980's mullet headed Defenders of the Faith that played Led Zeppelin records backwards to get their apologetic message across.
I think this was a good debate. One thing I wish was addressed concerning witches, women, race, etc., is that a) skepticism of God/religion is nothing new, and while many political heads used religion as a tool, that doesn't necessarily reflect God; I'm confident that God was equally disgusted - even more so for doing it 'in his name'. b) along the same lines, there have been non-religious/non-christians who would have/still are actively discriminating others; to peg it all on people of faith doesn't do anyone any good.
Frank Turek Addressed this in his book "I dont have enough faith to be an atheist" and "Legislating Morality"
He writes, "Another confusion exists between an absolute moral value and the understanding of the facts used in applying that value. For example, a couple of hundred years ago witches used to be sentenced as murders. But now they aren't. A relativist may argue, “See! Our moral values have changed because we no longer seek to kill witches. Morality is relative to time and culture.” But the relativists is claim is incorrect. What has changed is not the moral principle that murder is wrong, but the perception or factual understanding of whether witches can really murder people. People no longer believe they can. Hence, people no longer consider them murders. In other words, the perception of a moral situation is relative, but the moral values involved in the situation are not.
Failure to make this distinction also leads to people to believe that cultural differences reflect essential differences in the core moral values. For example, some people believe that since Hindus Revere cows and Americans eat them, there's an essential difference between the moral values of Americans and Hindus. But the reason people in India consider cows sacred has nothing to do with it or moral value - it has to do with their belief in reincarnation. Indians believe that cows May possess The Souls of deceased human being, so they don't eat cows. In the United States, we do not believe that the soul of our deceased relative maybe in a cow, so we freely eat cows.
In the final analysis, what appears to be a difference is actually in agreement. The core moral value that it's wrong to eat grandma is considered absolute by people in both cultures. They only disagree on where Grandma's Soul resides. This is a difference that's paste on the perception of the facts pertaining to the moral value. But there is a fundamental agreement that the moral value must be upheld."
That psychological phenomenon that is called religion, is simply any world view, or set of preconceptions based on any set of related *Unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) *Not_Necessarily* adverting to the god fantasy, because there are any numbers of religions which do not advert to the god fantasy, some of them specifically atheistic such as the religion socialism and its many sub-religions such as modernism, wimmininism. homosexualism and climate-change/global-warming_ism, al of which are clearly world views, or sets of preconceptions based on any set of relate*Unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) thus an attachment to the god fantasy is neither sufficient nor necessary for any world view, or set of preconceptions based on any set of relate*Unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) to qualify as a religion, but it is true to say that many and particularly the Elsies-(Lower Classes [L C's] mistakenly suppose that the term religion *necessarily* connotes an attachment to the god fantasy, which demonstrably it need not since a definition must embrace all instances of what will fit the definition of religion[world view, or set of preconceptions based on any set of relate*Unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) ] and self evidently there are many world views, or set of preconceptions based on any set of relate*Unquestioned* beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms(all that good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) that Do_Not* advert to the god fantasy, mostly because the word"god" will and does have as many meanings(associations) as there are men(human beings/dreaming machines).
which of the various characteristics of the psychological phenomenon that is religion is essential is moot; some would say it is the element of *Unquestioned_Beliefs* etc., while others will focus on the good/evil, right/wrong, morality/ethics mumbo jumbo) side or aspect of religion, you pays your money and you makes your choice, but bear in mind that there are plenty of religions that do not advert to the god fantasy and others that specifically reject it, specifically Marxism/socialism(the opium/tedybear/idol/fetish of the intellectuals) while some do not advert to the god fantasy at all for instance homosexualism and climate-change/global-warming_ism, yet both clearly qualify as world views based on any set of related?*Unquestioned*, beliefs assumptions presumptions and norms.
More interesting perhaps is of which function religion is a manifestation?
I actually watched the whole thing
Powerful..
Shalom from Johannesburg South Africa
About to do the same myself 🙂
Congrats!! Definitely worth your time
and what a waste of time it is...
@josué González Rivera your opinion is subjective
Frank Turek I thank Jesus for you!!! You too Michael Shermer!!!
i really love how Michael makes things wayyyyy more complicated. it takes more faith to believe what hes saying.
Its more like hes having a hard time trying convey complex scientific ideas , not that he makes it more complicated. It is more complicated. God did it is not an answer , its willful ignorance.
Robo Cop if you listen to the whole thing franks answers aren’t just “god did it”. It has many layers. But Michael didn’t answer any questions to a full understanding. Almost nothing he said made sense. I think he needed more time or someone else to convey his ideas better
@samantha sly
I did watch the whole thing. All his answers are basically put down to a god of the gaps argument. Its only assertions no proofs. I agree Michael's answers were not easy to understand and need work to be easier to understand for everyday people in the short time they both had
@@robocop4345 I understood the whole debate by Michael. And no, it doesn't take any faith to agree with what he's saying. You're confused.
@Reid Elson Waste your days? It sounds like you’re on a pursuit of happiness than a pursuit of truth. Would you believe something even if it hurt to swallow that pill of truth?
I really enjoyed hearing both men's arguments, great video!
Me too! You rock my friend! 👊💀
This was such a respectful and productive debate. This is such a wonderful example of how intelligent people can talk about different beliefs in peace. Wonderful work from both of these debaters!
However, it is necessary to _suspend_ one's intelligence, to make the leaps of logic to accept so many of Turek's assertions. 🤷🏼♂️🙈
What I would like to see is our smartest people going about the business of solving the world's problems. This hasn't happened yet, or maybe our smartest aren't as smart as we think.
You realize that guy is a Communist. Comrade is the Communist greeting. It's how they identify themselves to one another. There's no such thing as an intelligent Communist. Communists are indoctrinated, not educated. They are vulnerable to indoctrination because they're not smart enough to think for themselves. Frank Turek mops the floor with these guys.
@@assininecomment1630 Turek doesn't make "leaps of logic". He is exposing the illogic of atheism. Atheism is unreasonable. It's just easier for people who don't have the mental capacity to study complex subjects. The search for Truth is a decades long process for intellectuals. It's not for the faint of heart or weak minded people. It requires actual self-discipline.
Turek's case, even in just this video, is absolutely _littered_ with leaps of logic,@@valerieprice1745.
It's a logical fallacy known as 'non sequiter', to say that because a question can't be answered with (current) scientific knowledge, it demonstrates / proves an attribute of God - or the existence of said god.
Yes, it's an easy line to run with, especially amid the dynamics of a rapid-fire live presentation. Still, it simply falls at the first hurdle of rational consideration.
Also, it fails to recognise when this approach has been attempted previously, and been disproven. Scientific consideration, testing, analysis, re-testing, cross-checking, debate, and further investigation - gets answers. For centuries, even millenia, these human considerations have pushed away the barriers and blockages of understanding. What was previously and incorrectly attributed to the supernatural, or divine intervention, or magic, or other earth spirits, or dead relatives, or demons, or pixies, or a pantheon of gods, or a god's mother, or angels, or whatever. Practically everything previously attributed to miracles, has now been correctly attributed to nature.
We keep finding more answers. Nothing is learnt if we just say, "Don't know, can't know - so it must have been God."
He might be one of those who claim they seek 'Truth', but the stream of rhetorical questions he attempts, demonstrate that Turek isn't actually searching for true things at all.
This was such a fun and pleasant debate. I smiled a lot throughout listening to both debaters and I’m a staunch atheist. Turek is very charming.
That’s awesome! What are your doubts about God existing?
he doesnt want to believe is all.@@unrelatedkin
@@bryanbulmer6716or make believe,…
@MaclynLucille Wow! You're the first non-hostile amicable atheist I've seen in a YT comment.
Honestly, I thought at first that's how all atheists would be at first; smile at believers and not yell, name call, and send unprovoked threats.
Continue to be a respectable person ❤
@@abigailedwards3843
Who goes to hell for not make believing in a god? Unprovoked threats indeed,…
It's interesting to see a scientist explain what they believe but then for every question or problem or paradox, have a rule or law that supercedes the problem to explain it.
Bingo
I agree, and I find that nearly all Christian apologists are guilty of the same.
@@mattr.1887It's about which makes the most sense.
Just because someone is “Deeply religious” doesn’t mean they are searching for truth and not happiness, so for shermer to argue that religious Jews are on a search for truth by default is false and an overgeneralization.
Turek is right, people are not on a truth quest, they are on happiness quests.
Are Christians on a happiness quest?
@@mattr.1887
Some are.
But I’d say millions who are being persecuted for their faith, even up to imprisonment and dying chose the wrong faith then.
However if they, just like Christ’s apostles are willing to be ridiculed, persecuted, etc then they must have chosen for a different reason.
@Matt R. Real Christians or "what can God do for me" christians? Because they are both different. A real christian understands that we are not promised a happy and prosperous life in the way an atheist or even secular society might define happiness. We are promised eternal life and forgiveness for our sins regardless of life's up and downs. Our joy is in Jesus, spreading His word, and eternity after death.
@@mattr.1887 I think "happiness" is the wrong word "Fulfillment" is the correct word as long suffering is a fruit of the Spirit. In true worship one is filled with a joy that is indescribable. Even in our suffering we can still experience joy.
Unreal performance as always Frank! Every time I watch you in debates or in your seminars, I truly feel as if God’s love for us is manifested in your incredibly intelligent and thoughtful words. Your closing was AMAZING!
He makes no intelligent or logically coherent statements. Saying god exists because I don't understand how things happen is idiotic. Worse, claiming YOUR religion is right and everyone else is wrong is beyond arrogant.
@joeturner9219 science isn't opinion. It's fact
@joeturner9219 reality isn't subjective
didn't notice that 2 hours have passed, this is really an entertaining and really informative debate that I have watched, kudos to the organizer and the debaters, all of them are amazing.
I love hearing these debates!
i hate hearing these debates. they are stale and no conclusion is ever reached. they are just running in circles an listing the same points.
@@solarflare4240 meh, it's alright
solar flare I’ve heard it said that the debate is not to convince the other, but rather, to convince those present and listening.
I remember Turek’s debates with Hitchens when they first came out. Atheists present said that Turek was the clear winner and they had things to reconsider. THAT is the point of the debates.
@@Maikigai nice bro
@@solarflare4240 Perhaps it is because you don't understand both of their points and meaning but you focus on their arguing and words. Focus on their understanding and you will find meaning.....
Dr. Shermer seems more interested in refuting a “religion” than God. You can find fault with religions. People are flawed, but that has nothing to do with if there is an intelligent designer or not.
"Which best explains reality, atheism or theism?" Theism is religion. It's not just flawed it's innately irrational, and it targets the most primitive part of our mind. It in no way accurately portrays reality, it is an illusion used to keep the poor and everyone who doesn't rule oppressed. That's it. You do what all religious people do when they realize they have no points and no arguments, they say that you can't disprove the existence of god. It's impossible to prove or disprove, so the best thing to do is to explain how it is illogical and ridiculous, which is what Shermer did.
@@endistherenown776 and failed
@@ikwuegbufavour1830 Yeah I'll give that to you. I'm an atheist, and he is one of the speakers that I don't like listening to a whole lot.
Nice.
@@endistherenown776 theism is not a religion
Great debate. Even though I’m non religious, I get a big kick out of Dr. Turek. Both men got over their points and keep your attention.
What do you believe ?.
Jesus changed my life seek him bro
@@ZeeeZeee03let them decide that for themselves
That first kid had the best question! Loved it! 😄❤️
I love Frank's humour throughout the debate
TALKING SNAKES AND DONKEYS?
@@blackkman1324 what?
@blackkman1324 I genuinely feel sorry for you. Your profile pic is a pentagram. That tells me everything I need to know. You don't believe in God because you don't want to. God still loves you and died on the cross for you. God won't force you to believe in him. You need to humble yourself and open your heart and genuinely seek him. Once you do that your life will change. I PROMISE.
@@AquaNuttno god didn’t die for him he wasn’t even born.
@@AquaNutt that is not a pentagram, it has six points, a pentagram has 5.
That was an awesome debate. Thank you. I am so thankful for the gift of faith.
Such a great argument, praise God and Jesus💖💕💕🌿✝️✝️✝️ . I knew from the start Frank was going to go off 🤣😂😂
Yo straight facts!
Facts.
@Reid Elson Theism better explains reality! With the known science we have, apologetics in my eyes is the umbrella term for our archealogical, scientific, cause & effect, historical, and many more different kinds of evidence that confirms Theism is intellectual and based off of reason! God bless you on your journey or Do🙏✝️💖💕
@@kloppcredig8460Jesus is God; He’s a part of the Triune God. so it is only God being praised in their comment
This was an amazing debate, especially at the end honestly got me In tears.. beautiful exit
Shermer should talk first. He sounds lost after Turek communicates evidence that he is unequipped to refute.
Like what?
Like a single word in his first couple seconds of speaking.
Universe
Uni = One
Verse = A *spoken* sentence
Who created this word?
Who uses this word to discredit intelligent design and how intelligent are they, really?
Evidence, Turek had none, hard to have evidence for something that doesn’t exist like your god 🤣
@Matt C like “your” oxygen 😂😂😂
@@5va or gravity
Michael Shermer poorly debated on this one.
Its hard to debate against the truth.
Buddy Novander I WANT THE TRUTH!! YOU CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!
much as i love shermer he's not really cut out to debate, he hesitates too much, his apparent lack of confidence undermines his knowledge base. turek on the other hand would be perfect for selling snake oil. or books in this case. turek may be "eloquant" but makes my skin crawl.
@@HarryNicNicholas why would he make your skin crawl? I can get David Wood making someone's skin crawl, but Frank Turek?
And turek turned every serious question into a joke. That how you play tennis without a net as Sam would put it
The kid had the best question! It tells you how we lose common sense due to indoctrination over time.
You lost common sense"due to indoctrination over time", did you titch? You put that down to bad luck or bad breeding or just carelessness?
What do you suppose common sense to be?
You have not the faintest idea?
That* you are about to demonstrate -if only by default.
God has an amazing representative! Frank you were amazing like always. 👍😊
Screamin' mad Turek? He needs to trade up! LOL😂
@@sladegrey9272 1) Religion told us that man was created by god.
2) That our planet was a divine creation.
3) That all animals and plants were made by the god of the bible.
However, without any intention to prove religion wrong, science gave us the real explanation.
Now religion is singing the same song, telling us that the universe has been created by god.
How sure are we that this time religion is going to get it right ?
@@salvadoralvarado8685”A specific religion” not All like hinduism
😂
That message at the end of the video was 🔥🔥🔥🔥
Son of the Sun why couldn’t Jacky Cruz think Turek ? Everyone has to believe or think what you think ? People can’t make choices in your world or what ?
@Son of the Sun i hope you're not talking about shermer
Greg Smith he can’t make choices because he is a robot 🤖 since the molecules in motion in his brain make the decisions 🤷🏻♂️
Frank Turek is a true warrior/teacher for our our Lord and most importantly for Christians
As an atheist, I am constantly embarrassed by hearing about dragons and unicorns in debates. An analogy is not an argument. Shermer simply attacked existing religions and the idea of an omnipotent good god. He did not address Tuke's general points about theism vs atheism.
Because Franks generally points are idiotic….How exactly is Shermer suppose to address them?
If you are truly an atheist then you should have no problem understanding why he is brining up dragons and unicorns.
@@jacoblee5796 what ?😂😂grow up man.
@@cosmin3997 Its cool if you don't get it either.....
@@jacoblee5796 I can assure you that I am an atheist and that I believe that atheism has a good message. It is not advanced by childish arguments that convince only those who are already convinced, I believe this is known as preaching to the choir. Atheists need to be more critical of themselves and each other. Cosmic sceptic has made some progress in addressing this problem.
@@andrewdobson813 What message would that be? Atheism is just the stance on one position.
How is Michael’s point childish?
That's why these debates are great and thanks for Frank for uploading them. Once he mentions diseases and says Bill Gates is trying to help. He just gave away his ignorance and lost the entire debate.
Oh really how about when Michael wasted His first 5 minutes making jokes
Dr. Shermer struggled heavily in answering questions he internally knows doesn’t come from chemical reaction, but morals he can’t explain through a naturalistic worldview.
He lost before they started
I’m a Christian and I first heard of this argument that morality points to the existence of God while reading a book by CS Lewis. But then when I presented this argument to an atheist friend of mine he countered that our morality is something that has naturally developed as the human species has evolved to benefit the species as a whole and to keep us from ultimately going extinct by killing each other. I’ve never heard anyone counter that claim. Can anyone rebuttal this?
What makes that Good? Who said that is Good for humans to exist? (Then God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground." Gensis 1:28 ) if theres no God what makes us procreating good ? Who said
Show him the videos of frank talking about morality they ask similar questions like that one.
I guess it’s hard for me to wrap my head around that statement because life without a will to live would quickly cease to exist if such a life-form could even come into existence in the first place. Life without some will, some drive doesn’t exist. Even when something alive loses its will to live it dies shortly thereafter. Something growing and surviving has something driving it to grow and survive otherwise it would just be an inanimate object. The definition of Life is: the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change PRECEDING death. So if the argument is that God programmed the will to live in our nature and with it morality to keep us from killing each other than why would he allow us all to die? If it’s to make more room for other people then that to me sounds more like an a generic evolutionary structure in place for all forms of life, not just humans. If God programmed humans and let’s say plants to have the same drive to live and thrive and the same path to age and die do plants also have souls? And if it’s just our body that dies and our souls that are eternal beings existing outside of time then why weren’t we around before our bodies were formed. Why did they come to be at the same time? If God exists outside of time, space and matter and we were created in His image why is our entire existence wrapped up in time, space and matter?
Animals still trying to kill the alpha of the pack or tribe to take his spot. No evolution of morals there sadly.
If our morality was the result of evolution that does not prove that it is right. It only proves that it's actually a self-serving thing.
God proves that morality is true because he is an immortal being so that means that his morality will last forever and will never change unlike us fickle humans who can't agree that abortion is wrong.
Frank spoke about this in the beginning. If our brain or morality was just a consequence of chemicals and atoms moving around, how are you able to trust the conclusions that come out of it? If we are no greater than animals how can we trust our reason any higher than an animals ability to reason?
I get the impression that Mr Shermer is trying so hard to not believe what he in his heart does.
how do you know, what is going on in his heart?
@@TgfkaTrichter he gets the impression
@@eliavbenmelech2187 based on what?
@@TgfkaTrichter I don't know maybe he has a feeling or the way he speaks
@@eliavbenmelech2187 or maybe he is just projecting cause of his bias.
Shermer makes the same mistake many atheist do and which he's made his entire career. He conflates the difference between "natural" and "supernatural" thereby making a category error.
In his desperation he's not above lying either. Both physicists and cosmologist agree the universe, space-time and matter, had a beginning and the universe is not past infinite, and Shermer's known this for some time.
He is contemptuous of arguments for God's existence but sees nothing wrong with introducing the highly speculative, likely indemonstrable multiverse.
Figuring out which religion best supports observational experiences you really don't belong on a stage arguing that God does not exist. You've just proven yourself incapable of reason.
Let's assume a God/Deity is the causer of what we call the big bang. In what way can anyone on earth literally show proof that not only was a God/Deity responsible, but that it was the Abrahamic God? It can't be done. Being an atheist I have to openly admit that I can't disprove the existence of a Deity, for all I know there is one. But according to every belief in every deity, the claim has been made that there is evidence and over time, those God's became myths and the evidence was passed along to the next God(s). The bible isn't reliable, claims and beliefs are not reliable, and since we cannot see a God, then why do believers claim that they not only believe in it but they know precisely what God demands but when they can't explain, it suddenly becomes mysterious?
But you did make good point about Shermer who I like and have to take in small doses.
@@sammysam2615,
You are making nothing but assertions. "YOU" think the Bible is unreliable, claims and beliefs are not reliable, etc.!
I have no idea what you mean by, "... then why do believers claim that they not only believe in it but they know precisely what God demands but when they can't explain, it suddenly becomes mysterious?"
I have never experienced anyone state God's "demands"(requirements) are mysterious.
What does, and according to you, which "god", demand?
"IF" there is a 'god" then it would be perfectly within reason to be able to reason which idea of "god" best comports to our observational experiences based on history, philosophy, science and personal attestation.
The "Big Bang" is actually a colloquial term used to identify the expansion of the universe. Based on general relativity we are fairly certain that there existed a boundary condition where space, time and matter came into being. Which means that space, time and matter didn't always exist.
Any naturalistic explanation results in infinite regress paradoxes and violates Ockham's Razor. Thereby, leaving a supernatural causal impetus as a valid proposition.
Since you admit that you cannot disprove God's existence it stands to reason that is based on evidentiary justifications for God's existence. If there wasn't any justifications for God's existence you'd well be able to "prove" God's non-existence solely based on naturalistic mechanisms and processes. Indicating that supernatural phenomenon exist and posit valid justifications for belief.
Peace.
Dude, can we be friends?
I find less speculative a multiverse than a timeless, spaceless, matterless, being.
@@salvadoralvarado8685 ,
Thanks for sharing,
NOT!!
As an ex-athiest I have came to a realization. Any serious athiest only views science and ignores philosophy, which is ironic because science is a branch of philosphy. You can study a cake for a thousand years and never figure out why it was made, but if you simily ask aunt sally she will tell you in 5 seconds. Athiests say there is nothing that could convince them because they are subjecting themselves to only a part of the whole picture. When I opened my eyes to the truth everything I have ever learned started to piece together and make sense.
The difference between Frank and Michael's arguments is Michael only views science while Frank views all aspects of philosophy and actually puts together a convincing coherent argument.
I am open to debate with anyone who disagrees! God bless!
When you have a spiritual lens on life. It makes everything the atheists say sound like rubbish and nonsensical blabbering.💯💯💯
But Turek has a religious lens, or more accurately, blinders
Yeah.. I mean Mike's closing statements sounded like the tower of babel and the whispering serpent..
Let us make a name for ourselves, don't obey The Most High you can be one too..
@@DJRickard2010 Christian lenses are focal lenses, not blinders.
@@DJRickard2010 where does information come from. There is only one source of information and that is mind. Take note. INFORMATION IS PRIMARY. WAKE UP BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE. Jesus was PROPHECISED to come to earth thousands of years before He did and He fulfilled EVERY thing He was supposed to do. Only God knows the future. Jesus said He is coming back when the world is in the state it's in in our generation. So He is coming very soon because He is God.
Gerard Moloney
Only god knows the future? What makes you think that is true?. What future does god know? That the universe will implode someday? We all know that. Does god know when and how you will die, whether there will be a republican victory in November, whether it will rain next month? Silly. God could not possibly want to be bothered by such inane trivia. The concept of god’s omniscience is absurd.
But more important , why is it so important to you? You really think god gives a f about what happens to you? And Even if he does what difference does it make?
“An atheist tries to put out rotten eggs instead of give good ones”
"In the beginning it was nothing...then exploted."
Hahaha
Nothing exploded it expanded rapidly and its still expanding today
@@jriemofficial983 i think you just repeated him, but missed a comma haha
Lol
not too sure how people can say nothing exploded......and nothing was the cause of everything, and how something exploding causes creation, all the explosions ive seen dont cause creation but destruction
Frank it's always a pleasure listening to you. Can't deny the truth and common sense.
Whose* truth,....................... *Whose* common sense?
Incredibly impressive what Turek is doing here! Jesus is coming back!
jesus never existed, it doesn't take a great deal of research to find that one out.
Harry Nicholas than by your standards no one remotely historical exists. Jesus mysticism really doesn’t make atheists such as yourself look rational.
@@barrackobongo4842 there is much more evidence of people that are much older than 2000 years. Ancient Rome, the Egyptian empire, Chinese emperors and so on. Somehow God decided to not plant evidence for the, in the Christian sense, most important human/living God.
How long will it take for you to think that he isn't? 2000 years?
Don't be silly.
If michael keeps going to these debates he ain't gunna be an atheist for much longer😆
@Donald Nadeau C.R.I.M.E.S
He learned to think, you can't undo that. ;) Maybe a lobotomie can bring him back to Christianity...
Yeah he's pretty weak to be honest.
Intellectual pride is so strong in these atheists. They can't stand the thought of not being god themselves.
@demigodzilla No vultures have an important place in nature and the circle of life. Christianity is just an evil fairy tale, that is only concerned with scaring people into submission.
I feel so sorry for Michael, my heart aches that he can't understand or see past the end of his nose. He just loves by "because I said so".
@Merlin Hyde ... Why do you feel sorry for him? Why do Christians keep saying things like this.. 'My heart aches for him'? He's just going by the evidence... Dr turek has a completely wrong understanding of the way things work.. Literally every science related thing he says is a misconception... I feel sorry for dr turek.. I really wish someone could explain to him how physics works..
And you only believe you have value because you believe your imaginary friend says so. How absolutely pathetic and sad. I hope one day you’ll learn to find worth in yourself. Your life will be fuller and your relationships much healthier. I also hope you open your mind and actually read a book or take a class. Science is a beautiful thing and the scientific method is the most reliable way we have to discover magnificent truths in the universe. It takes an extraordinary lack of depth and imagination to be satisfied with “God did it”. There a world full of wonders out there if you ever decide to think for yourself.
@@amandamcgovern5744 true... The main problem is that religious people are against science for some reason.. Saying that evolution didn't happen is the modern 'the earth is flat'... The church has always been wrong about how the universe works.. For example they killed scientists who said the earth is round and then 200 years later apologized.. In the next 200 years they will say the same about evolution..
@@rushunnhfernandes lol evolution bro? come one man. I have a pet rock for christmas about 20 years ago that im still waiting to evolve into a real pet so i can feed it and love it. lmao smh
I pray for you Michael Schermer. As an ex-atheist:) I only found out when God actually answered me and saved my life. He then led me to His Son Jesus as The Truth, not knowing which if any religion was He into, asking Him myself. Seek and you will find. Ask and it will be given to you. Your mind, thoughts, dreams, memories and feelings are evidence alone that you are a spirit being, unseen but real without question. I pray that you seek Him again. Peace in Him only.
Which one? We invented so many of them. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 Actually, there are "other" gods and spirits, which is where most come from or influenced by. Baal, Molech, Ra. Odin...you are correct. But I wondered about the three major religions, christian, Judaism, muslim...I was only shown One Person, Jesus Christ alone. I suggest reading the four gospels for yourself and decide if He is worth knowing. You need to seek and find for yourself...when you're ready. :)
@@clearascrystal4960 Your parents did a really poor job educating you if they only told you about Jesus. So what? So nothing. ;-)
@@schmetterling4477 It was not by my parents. It was the God who answered me whom I sought for Truth. I get it, and don't expect anyone to believe me. I just hope you seek for yourself.
@@clearascrystal4960 God is talking to you? Oh, my. That's much, much worse than I feared. Tip: we don't listen to the voices inside our heads. They aren't real. :-)
This is the most one-sided argument of all time. Jesus is Lord.
You were not convinced by this argument; you already believed before it started.
JMUDoc I think all of us had a preformed opinion before watching this
@@gabrielmarshall9132 You would be surprised how many atheists do not hold to the position that gods DON'T exist.
If Jesus is Lord, the Lord is a tyrant. "I would rather be in Hell than praise 'god' who woulda allow Hell to exist.". I was catholic until age 24,, by the way. I am anxious to read your response, Togba. And yes, I've already read Edward Feser, etc's numerous articles on Hell.
Michael Flores It’s okay to be angry at God, he can take it. However, the lord is no tyrant, if he were to remove hell and evil from existence then he would also be removing our free will, and that is ultimately what makes us human
Ah atheists ... You're trying so hard to convice yourself that there is no God by using your rationality, but when you do, you realize he is and therefore because of your pride you end up using irrationality and realize you contradict yourselves.
1 Corinthians 1:27 : But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
Atheists* but you ended up describing Theist quite well instead.
@Scott Scotty They lowkey are my man
Shermer was definitely in critiquing arguments rather than hearing Frank's responses. Shermer did not make any attempt to understand, rather he just kept asserting that Franks's teaching illustrations were fallacious, as a means of dismissal. Love Franks comments about cats
I can smell the bitterness in his eyes lol
Jarrell Lemos
Well, it was a desperate attempt at teaching you critical thinking skills and the basics of a sound epistemology.
Tureks entire presentation is just an embarrassing collection of logical fallacies.
Ther is no pure English verb to critique, which is noun like reference or parent, so no pure English critiquing, parenting or referencing they being the bastard offspring of that degenerate dialect of pure English or pidgin, that is kinderlander or American.
I left my atheistic/anti-theistic life because of many years of critical thinking, critical research, and understanding the concepts of God... In the end, I found no logic, no reasoning, no sensible ideas in the absence of a God, or at least an intelligent designer... I'm still learning about God and how He copes with science, even though many atheists like to think that they can't cooperate with each other... I'm now a semi-agnostic Christian, and I'm happy to be one, so I don't need atheism... I left my atheistic/anti-theistic lifestyle for a reason, and I plan on never going back to it...
I’m curious what a semi-agnostic Christian is. Agnosticism is a belief that you can’t possibly know if God exists or not. A true Christian is not concerned with if, but knows that God is real
Ultra D-Rex "....because of many years of critical thinking, critical research, and understanding the concepts of God".
Wow! The same reason why most former theists become atheists.
+Ozzy Puller: I guess I'm not like the others...
@@Mr_T. no that's not the reason thiests become athiest because theres no critical thinking involved to become an athiest
@@dangerboy808 Obviously someone doesn't think deep enough.
Awesome work Frank! God bless you and your ministry!
Who will stand up for me against evildoers?
Who will take his stand for me against those who do wickedness? Psalm 94:16
Frank Turek does Lord! May Your Spirit rest on him!
Psalm 137:9 Smash the baby's head on a rock. the Bible is immoral.
Zenon see the problem with you atheists is you quote these bible verses thinking literally. There are many verses such as the one you quoted that have symbolic meanings to them. Just look up the meaning of the verse you quoted, the real meaning behind it IS NOT to kill babies you just misunderstand it.
@@TyrellWellickEcorp Except it has no symbolism and is referring to the conquest of Babylon by the Medes which God took credit for. God commanded the people to rape, pillage and kill infants in Babylon's conquest. Zenon is completely in the right to say the Bible is immoral, because it is!
*breathes heavily and profusely* _Okay_
I was an Atheist for over 10 years. Loved Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, etc... Now I'm an devout Catholic.
What I realized is that people will believe whatever they want to believe. If God came down to you and showed you miracles to prove he existed; an Atheist will just believe they're hallucinating.
At the limits of science you essentially need MORE faith to believe that Atheism is true. What Atheist fail to realize is Atheism is in itself a religion - they are not being neutral and they aren't on a moral high ground that they think they're in. It's not that they don't have a belief, it's that they believe in nonsense, they believe something can come from nothing and we will eventually have all the answers. The fact is we can never have the answers because we cannot make observations outside our universe, at the limits it's all just theories. Saying we'll fill the gaps is like saying we'll have a 100% accuracy for a test we don't know how many questions there are or what the questions will even be. Intellectual arrogance or ignorance.
Michael contradicted himself again first he said that we're speaking in higher terms, then he goes on to invoke the copernican principle, which means we're not special at all.
Turek: if you are a timeless do you have a beginning?
Michael: Yes, you can 😂
How? You're not in time! I got to be in the audience for the debate and this debate helped strengthen my Christian views. I also got to attend Turek's IDHEFTBAA Seminar and it was amazing!
This just serves to prove, that there are atheists who are brilliant mathematicians, brilliant physicists, brilliant engineers, etc... the only thing an atheist can't be, is a brilliant atheist.
The smartest atheist has the same argument for atheism the dumbest has: none. Just pretend you can't see the evidence and pretend to be smart.
*[Turek] If you are a timeless do you have a beginning?*
One question: If God is timeless, then tell me pls, when did God create time?
@@kimbanton4398 at the beginning of time. T=0 is "when" He created time. There is no before that, so that's pretty obvious. The concept of "when" does not make sense in the context of creation of time anyway.
@@kimbanton4398 the idea is that God is beyond time, he is not limited by it
Shermer's opening talk attempts to conflate Science with Atheism...error...
Not as bad as Turek's opening where he just treats the proposition of the debate as "Deism Vs Atheism" which is wrong just by looking at the title of the video
i love the way religious people use science to prove that science is bad.
@@HarryNicNicholas who is saying science is bad?
We use science to analyse GOD's creation. Science is a study method a tool to understand things your statement is not valid
PotatoXGaming exactly when we say their is no need for God because of the way nature works we are essentially saying because the car works without someone inside it no creator is necessary this is why I’m not an atheist and a Christian because I’ve seen the arguments they fail for t atheist don’t respond with I’m a Christian because I’ve not looked because I literally tried to disprove Christianity and I could not because the Cross was my stumbling block
I rather believe in God and not be right than to not believe in God and be wrong. It's not worth the gamble to me 🙏🏽
I 100% agree.
What if you are wrong about which god really exists?
If christianity is real, muslims would be in hell. If islam is real, christians would be in hell.
If it is indeed a god up there and not an evil entity, he is not going to punish you for simply non belief.
You cannot "choose" to believe. You either do based on how convincing you find the evidence to be, or you don't. The idea that believing is a moral act is nonsensical.
What if you chose the wrong god
Healthy fear of the Lord. I like it.
frank dont just argue he wants to save michael also
Saved from what?
@@blueduck5589eternal damnation
😂😂😂😂😂
@@Ballerin1God😂😂😂😂😂 ok.
Whenever someone brings up “no God, big bang”. I say I believe in The Big Bang I just know who lit the match!
"I believe in the big bang, I just know who banged it!"
- Frank Turek
Samuel Hunter-Gatherer from Spelunker Cell yep, I came up with my phrase before I heard Frank’s... I had so much pride when I heard him say it... and it bothers me when some christians deny the big bang when the big bang actually creates a problem for naturalists.
@@kainable8769 first off you have to realize that the Big Bang is the last gap possible for god to be thrown into these days. Imagine all the gaps where god was the answer just 300 years ago. Variety of life, the earth, dinosaurs, and speaking of the earth and science in the beginning god created the heaven and earth and then created light but a generation of stars had to die to create the carbon that then created the planets, I’m not sure why this gets missed by so many, well I should say the few who read it. And the prime mover argument gives you a first cause, a beginning step, not even close to the personal loving knowing watching and judgmental god.
That is the dishonest part apart this whole conversation anyone arguing for this from the theists perspective uses this to give us the god of the Bible. But to the point whatever started the universe if it is in fact created, is going to be outside of our intuition, it is going to go against the laws of nature, in order to say nothing to something has to come from something it seems improbable to have nothing pop into existence, but you have no example of nothing existing to compare probability. And what is evidence for god? Loss of faith. Faith requires lack of knowledge, is faith not enough for the believer? It would seem so.
@@kainable8769 the Big Bang does not create a problem for naturalism. Just because we don’t understand the before the Big Bang doesn’t equal an issue.
@@guyjosephs5654 it does. The question of life’s creation then is still not answered. You can not like it or not want to accept it but it certainly does cause an issue, what was before it. What made it
1:50:15 Shermer says “Oh Lord”. 🤔
Subconscious cry for help
Ive also heard hitchens say for heaven's sake to
He's using sarcasm, like saying: with the nonsense you're talking, l need a Lord to help me.
@@7outofthebox747 that was not sarcasm he even looked like he knew he stuffed up right after he said it
@Novak Ingood if you were in a life threating situation i almost guarantee you would say omg or jesus . Its a subliminal cry to the creator .its not a figure of speech its far deeper then that dont tell me u think we came from nothing .i bet you dont even not what truth is
Thank you JESUS for my best friend the HOLY SPIRIT and for talking to me and showing me your glory and for saving me🙃❤️🙏🏼 JESUS has done so many miracles in my life that no one can take from me :).. one being PEACE that i NEVER had until the presence of the LORD entered my room that one sad sad sad night👀❤️..
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
Did no-one ever warn you against using those asinine infantile symbols used only by imbecile children, lest you be taken for an imbecile child, for no *sane* adult would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile, but if you sincerely*wish* to be taken for an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you. I only need to see them used to know for a certainty that the user is a child with few wits, for no adult with wits and learning would dream of using them for fear of being taken for an imbecile child, that inference being inescapable. The *only* inference that can be drawn from the use of those asinine and infantile symbols is that the user is some kind of imbecile child, for*no* adult with wits or learning would use anything to asinine and infantile, but if you active *wish* to be taken for or supposed to be an imbecile child, that is of course entirely a matter for you.
here really is *no_other* inference to draw but those that use such asinine and infantile symbols *are* imbecile children, for *no* sane adult with wits and learning would dream of using anything so asinine and infantile for fear of being taken for, or supposed to be, an imbecile child.
You seem to *wish* to be supposed to be an imbecile child, but if that is your wish that is a matter for you; I only have to see the wretched tings used to dismiss the user as an ass;I immediately know not to bother to read whatever the user of such asinine and infantile symbols writes, so the utility of the vile things is to save me from wasting my time on an imbecile child, which for whatever reason you seem to wish to be taken and clearly are, for no adult with wits and learning would use them.
Keep in up Dr. Turek-- it doesn't matter if they "listen" at the moment they hear it. It's God's seed to grow now. You always win the debate and you do it with dignity and respect to your opponent. Thank you!
I'm really disappointed with this Shermer guy. I was expecting some intelligent, strong evidence and facts for his argument but his whole routine was full of jokes, sarcasm, emotionalism and manipulation. But I now know that atheists share the same playbook. I've heard these same things over and over again and I wasn't impressed any of those times either. I hope this isn't a star player on Team Atheist. If he is, they're in more trouble than I thought.
His fatal mistake though was repeatedly saying he used to be a "born again Christian". He shouldn't say that because he trapped himself in his own words. Why? Because it's impossible. Only God can make someone born again. If God had nothing to do with his rebirth, then he wasn't born again and therefore was never a Christian. If God did make him born again then He knows there's a God and can't be a true atheist. He would also still be a Christian today.
But it explains why he can be an atheist now. He only changed intellectual beliefs. Nothing more. And there's much more to being a Christian than an intellectual belief.
The idea that only Jehovah can make somebody born again is a Christian belief, not necessarily fact.
Shermer used to *believe* he was born-again.
@JMUDoc That’s not what he said. He said he was a born again Christian. He’s trying to debunk Christianity by saying he was a born again Christian but now he isn’t. He isn’t now because he never was. Simple as that.
@@festushaggen2563 When he says "I was a born-again Christian" he means that he used to believe Jehovah made him born again. He no longer believes in born-againess as you define it, but he used to.
Let's say somebody tells you "I used to believe in God X", but you know that one of the _tenets of that religion_ is "nobody that truly believes in God X ever stops." Would you reject his "I used to believe in God X" statement?
@JMUDoc You’re changing what he said. I’m taking his words as he said them because I know what he’s saying and why. I’ve heard it many times before from self professing ex Christians and have debated this issue with those who say it.
An atheist can never claim to have been born again. It’s impossible because you can’t be born again without God just as you cannot have ever been a Christian without Jesus Christ. They’re just using that terminology to somehow qualify themselves and make themselves sound more credible but if they actually understood what that meant, they wouldn’t say it. It’s like saying you were married before but got divorced and now you were never married. Or you used to be able to see but now you’re blind not knowing what it is to see. That doesn’t work. Once you’ve met God, you can’t be ignorant later and say He doesn’t exist.
I accept that someone says they used to believe but don’t now but they can’t have been born again. That is a spiritual transformation that only God can make. They were religious at best but that’s not Christianity. People who say what this guy is saying don’t understand true Christianity. Just to believe is not enough.
You are imposing your definitions onto his words.
He doesn't mean the same by "born again Christian" as you; I am trying to put his words into terms you would understand.
*Because it's impossible. Only God can make someone born again.*
According to you (or the Bible, same thing). Shermer doesn't think so.
Shermer uses $4 words to explain water. Give me a break. When you can't answer the question you make crap up.
2nd time watching. Very good debate and open discussion
God: If you argue for your limitations, you get to keep them.
God is not limiting humans.
Michael Shermer is jumping around like a frog on a hot plate. I cannot even begin to understand what he is on about. He does not stick to basics.
Try hArder. You’ll get it if you open your ears and your mind.
Just rambled on like all atheists do because none of them want responsibility demanded by almighty god
jeffery perkins why are you so angry? If God simply does not exist, then why are you spending so much time trying to disprove him?
Gabriel Marshall he’s here searching for the truth and HE refuses to open HIS eyes and ears. He doesn’t want god to exist so he keeps agreeing with atheist rambling. Atheist need god to be real in their argument because they steal from his principles to try to prove he’s not real.
Gabriel Marshall how is he angry? I think he simply wishes for other people to think critically for themselves. We have these discussions because we care about the truth. Finding the truth. And we care about people.
"The universe is not perfect so a perfect God could not have made it". The universe is not perfect according to who, You? What makes you an authority on the construction of a universe? Ever make one before?......... No?
If you do not know the purpose of a design then your opinion as to its perfection is irreverent. Some designs are in fact made to fall apart within a given period of time.
@NotACapitalist
Like an artist with words: It may be interesting to look at but it really means nothing.
@NotACapitalist
Or perhaps your own poorly formed concept of this world is just as irrelevant as your pointless jumble of words.
My "poorly formed concept" as you put it, Is the result of a 45 year careful study of all the data on both sides of the equation. I have come to the conclusion that atheism is a baseless Fantasy. One full of logical fallacies and special pleading. Even evolution itself is based on nothing but massive assumptions built upon even more massive unverified assumptions. In fact it takes more faith in the unseen to be an atheist then a theist.
Purpose comes from a mind that sees a pattern in it. That idiotic example that Frank gave about the "Take out the garbage message" was outright rubbish. To someone who doesn't know any English, that message would also have been gibberish. Messages like HTTHHHHTTTHTHTHT and GGGGGCCCCGCGCGCGCCCCCC might not make any sense to you or to most people, but to a minds that are trained in Math and Biology, respectively, these are coin-tossing events and a part of a DNA, respectively. The conclusion is that there is no message that is absolute, there are minds that make messages out of patterns.
So there is no way to tell what is a design and what is not.
When I look at the night sky I see random points of light. No design there.
And why does the Cosmos require a Creator? Who decided that?
James Richard Wiley because it had a beginning and therefore needs a cause
That dude responding to the little kids question using a lot of biological jargon was so funny to me 😂seriously though. Awesome kid. I hope he keeps questioning things, and searches for truth in an unbiased way.
Who's who?
59:45 Best Moment in the debate! Lol God bless Frank men!
When i listen to Michael shermer talk and make his case, it sounds like he read many books from other atheïst and has all these fragments of information in his head without ever putting it in a good order, he sounds like he is pulling some parts out of his mind of what he read and uses it to debate, sounds very chaotic and messed up. Doesnt sound like he himself has done a genuine study about anything , and ofcourse at the end of it all, deep inside he knows he cannot explain his worldview because its impossible. He just wants his worldview to be right he doesnt want the truth. Sin is the main issue.
This atheist keeps going for “inward worth and morality” yet in his world view, there is no cause or reason to have inner worth only external worth. He is contradicting himself so much it’s sad. However I do wish both speakers had more time to answer questions. Annoying how the guy always cut both off
@Nicht von dieser Welt I'd add that most social species have empathy; which is the basis of morality.
@@BlGGESTBROTHER Well, no. The universe doesn't care about your feelings. Molecules dont care about your feelings. They don't have a conscience to do so.
@@t.m.hdebates103 So what? We as social creatures do care about those things.
@@BlGGESTBROTHER Yes, but we came from non-living molecules, they wouldn't care.
@@t.m.hdebates103 Again, so what? That's a false analogy to say that because molecules don't care about moral systems that means they ard ultimately worthless.
Once again, Frank raises great questions and Micheal ovoids them
Michael has God tugging at his heart so hard, he doesnt even believe what he is saying.
Would ya like to substantiate that claim?
@@SpurnOfHumanity The likes of Atheism tries to disprove *immaterial* God, using the *Materialism* philosophy as a standpoint. This makes no sense.
The only thing that would make sense is to use Materialism against a Material matter. A perfectly material matter here being: Jesus.
From a *material* standpoint, Christianity proves Jesus, then God, through Jesus. You have to hurdle an argument against Jesus as Son of God before it is possible to logically disprove God from the Atheistic Materialist standpoint.
Jesus has already been proven.
@@stevenc8717 🤣🤣🤣
@@stevenc8717 Tell that to the Billions of people who believe in Islam and not Jesus as the son of God. If you are religious, the last thing you should be worried about is Athiest. You need to prove that your religion is the Right religion out of all the other religions in the world. Saying that your book just says so isn’t proof. If that where the case then the Quran would also be the one true word of God because it also says so. And soo do many other religions before Christianity even existed. Religion isn’t new. Humans made up all the other religions in the world that you don’t believe in, but somehow you don’t think it’s possible for people to also have made up yours as well? Serious question 🤔
@@Zlist1994 Islam twists and then teaches people lies about Jesus’ life. If a muslim for example comes to understand the original Jesus story and leaves Islam, he is “to be killed” as Mohammed said; these days, the person is fully disowned as a “Murtadd” (a Muslim Apostate). Pretty much the only choice Muslims have is to believe the lies they’ve been told their entire life or else be disowned by the entire family. Today, there have literally been fake **funerals** made for Muslim Apostates for when they leave their faith. It’s that serious, and so they take believing their Imams and Islams re-written Jesus story just as seriously.
"Only a fool says in his heart there is no God". That's the amount of attention God spares for atheists in his Bible. ONE VERSE. God isn't mocked, or swayed or taken by surprise when he looks down upon his creation debating his existence. Infact, I picture him laughing.
your last comment says it all. You "picture" him laughing. Your "God" ...every essence of him, her, or it, is only what you picture in your mind.
@@jonsprague9751 please read the first sentence of my comment again.
@@jmros Julian..I can make comments similar to yours all day long..where does that get us? If you wish to reply to me again..try this first. Pray to your God. Ask it what you might say to me to help me to understand what you believe to be true. Ask it for that one solid piece of evidence that only it can provide that will sway me...if only a little. Can your God do that. In the Bible it says "ask and you shall receive". Your God should know exactly what would change mind..correct?. Then..please...wow me. I don't mean to be flippant...my mind is open.
@@jmros by the way...I am not saying there is no God. I am only saying I see no evidence for one.
@@jonsprague9751 I will happily spare time to pray for you, but simultaneously, if you are genuinely interested in seeking and knowing God (Jesus Christ), and allowing Jesus to reveal himself to you, you need to put time aside yourself and honestly pray that prayer.
I was an atheist for a long time and I consider myself a hopeful/open agnostic but I find i have a much deeper respect for classical theology now. Not gonna lie, I think the average atheist is typically more knowledgable and rational in their atheism than the typical religious person in their religiosity, because affirming atheism requires at minimum some level of familiarity with the reasoning and the logic of belief, also because I feel most religious people have pretty lazy/uninspired reasons for their beliefs like family tradition, comfort of belief in an afterlife, etc. Most Christians aren't exactly picking up the Summa Theoligica and reading classical philosophy to reason themselves into becoming Christians.
That said, serious theologians and philosophers of religion like Thomas Aquinas and Alvin Plantinga, have significantly better and more sophisticated arguments than most bitter online atheists are willing to admit.
Most Christians or theists in general aren't religious. They don't attend a house of worship, or engage in fellowship with other believers; they have never read or rarely ever read the doctrine of their religion; and they know little to nothing about the history of their religion's origins. Essentially, they're believers in name only, and that makes them more of a detriment to the religion, because they often do a disservice by being poor representatives of their religion.
As a Christian, I agree. I read thousands of pages of theology and philosophy before being baptized. I read all Sam Harris’s books and was fascinated by consciousness research which I pored over from several authors. I also read books on pantheistic spiritualism. I took ayahuasca with hippies and meditated with Monks. I read an Taoism and Dharma and Advaita Vedanta -and then on to St Athanasius, St John of Damascus, Augustine, Aquinas, and apologetics from modern Calvinist and Arminianism apologists, I read About half of what William Lane Craig had ever written - and then dismissed Protestantism but not Christianity. And In the end I wasn’t just convinced God was the only possible reality, I was convinced the Gospel is true, and the Orthodox Church has preserved the faith Jesus delivered to his Apostles.
We have live and believed by faith and through the the Holy Sprite living in us and induring trails that The Lord would said happen to his followers and we sent other people and things and warnings ⚠️ from Jesus Christ to Confirm our faith in God
I’ve never really understood the fascination with Thomas Aquinas. The guy just ripped off Plato and Aristotle, he wasn’t an original thinker and in opinion his work is a bit of a joke. I think he’s been incredibly overrated as a great thinker.
Actually atheist doesn't make good, it's your opinion.
Thank you Jesus 😊 💓
You can't try to explain things of the spiritual realm with physical realm logic and philosophy
agreee
Boom!! TRUTH!! It’s like using a metal detector on a beach in search of plastic bottles and concluding that plastic bottles don’t exist cause you don’t find any! 🤣🤣🤣
So you want us to jump into belief without testing for proof.
How do you define what something spiritual is?
The fact that it can't be explained by the physical world is the problem?...Theism falls apart without MAGIC....Also theism is the belief in a higher power...It doesnt clarify what that power is or if it cares about you lol
Both made pretty compelling arguments, but I feel like Frank was better-prepared. Michael made some good points, but he asked questions no one knows the answers to. All-in-all, a good debate.
Finally a no hate, no name calling and zero condescendance comment.
I like it
Frank got his ass handed to him. Shermer pointed out right at the beginning that all Frank had was god of the gaps arguments. Then Frank opened his mouth and inserted god. Frank didn't have an argument.
Jacob Lee I guess your ability to use comprehension skills during a video is of a child
@Fried Motherboards Nope, my comprehension skills are spot on. Michael mopped the floor with Frank, its not even close. Frank used circular fallacious god of the gap arguments.
Did Frank show any solid evidence for a god? No?
So again....the theist loses.
God needs to start helping these poor apologists out.
1:06 Frank got you there Michael.. with this non sense of the meaning of NO THING..
Frank Turek has such a God given gift for apologetics!
May Jesus bless you.
Dr Frank has a lot to give than his counterpart. God bless you Frank.
Try watching Turek vs Hitchens, and if your comment is similar as it is on here, then I sadly believe you ignore anyone who is on the opposing side of theists, and you just like the one sided stances to help you justify your beliefs.
I saw the Hitchens debate and Frank clearly had the more compelling arguments. Hitchens had the British humor and accent, which scores points with an ADD, sound bite culture.
@@aaronfisher3003- Hitchens was accusing Frank with the wrong doings of the Catholic church when he doesn't have anything to do with it. The way he talked was as if he was trying to win the crowd trying to make fun of God without really trying to find what Frank's ideology was pointing to or if it made sense.
Frank ... an amazing job. Thankyou. Videos like this help me help others find Jesus Christ.
AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA , I AM happy as an atheist you found jesus christ .
Now that you have found him ask him to wipe out all viruses.
Jesus Christ committed suicide some time ago and is thus unfindable
Shermer was consistently shocked that Turek didnt have an explanation beyond God when Turek's whole worldview is that there is no explanation beyond God
A beautiful argument from Frank turek but the fact of the matter is we're not in an infinite spaceball universe according to the word of God