Why Don't Atheists Accept The Kalam Cosmological Argument? | The Atheist Experience: Throwback
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- Call the show on Sundays 4:30pm-6:00pm CT: 1-512-686-0279 or use your computer to save on long-distance charges: tiny.cc/callthe...
► LinkTree: linktr.ee/athe...
► Don't like commercials? Become a patron for ad-free content & more: / theatheistexperience
► Find all of our links here: linktr.ee/athe...
► Podcast versions of the show may be found at:
www.spreaker.c...
► Atheist Experience merch can be found at: https:tiny.cc/merchaca
► Become a RUclips member: / @theatheistexperience
► Join our discord:
tiny.cc/acddiscord
Note: We request pronouns as part of the call screening process on our shows, and we display the pronouns our callers provide. If you see a caller with no pronouns indicated, this is because they chose not to provide us with any, and we respect that decision.
-------
WHAT IS THE ATHEIST EXPERIENCE?
The Atheist Experience is a weekly call-in television show in Austin, Texas geared at a non-atheist audience. The Atheist Experience is produced by the Atheist Community of Austin.
The Atheist Community of Austin is a 501(c)(3) educational non-profit organization based in Austin, Texas. The Atheist Community of Austin is dedicated to promoting atheism, critical thinking, secular humanism, and the separation of religion and government.
We define atheism as the lack of belief in gods. This definition also encompasses what most people call agnosticism.
VISIT THE ACA'S OFFICIAL WEB SITES
www.atheist-com... (The Atheist Community of Austin)
NOTES
TheAtheistExperience is the official channel of The Atheist Experience. "The Atheist Experience" is a trademark of the ACA.
The views and opinions expressed by hosts, guests, or callers are their own and not necessarily representative of the Atheist Community of Austin.
Opening Theme:
Shelley Segal "Saved" www.shelleysega...
Limited use license by Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2011 Shelley Segal
Copyright © 2025 Atheist Community of Austin. All rights reserved.
An argument isn't evidence. An argument is an explanation of why the evidence, given as premises, leads to a conclusion. Without evidence an argument can only be a fallacy.
THIS 👏
This is technically not true. It's not fallacious. It's just an unsupported assertion.
Edit: If I say, _"Given the size of the universe, there must be life on other planets."_ That's not fallacious, because it is both logical and sound. However, without evidence, the statement is only reasonable. 'Fallacious' doesn't mean 'not true', it just means the reasoning is flawed.
You are lying as always. Nobody claimed argument is evidence. Arguments are proofs, based upon evidence.
1. The evidence of a finite beginning to the universe is overwhelming. Where is your evidence of a past-infinite universe? Doesn't exist.
2. Arguments provide the proof. The KCA is a proof, argued from the evidence.
You people are incredibly ignorant. Amazingly 33 atheist idiots 'liked' your foolish blunder and lies.
@@Big-Papa-Smurf I agree with your point, but the example you provided is absolutely fallacious. The statement asserts certainty based on a probabilistic argument.
@ "Must be" is not considered an assertion of absolute certainty.
It was so nice and generous for Nick to let the hosts talk as much as they did. What a wonderful guy.
Dear Theists,
How is the argument "Everything needs a creator, except my creator" NOT engaging in the special pleading fallacy?
Because mind and existence are not mutually exclusive. Time is relevant to an observer and so in a timeless state you wouldn't perceive motion and obstacles the same way. People view the god as a bearded man, when God is the existence and the mind that makes it exist. Except there are individual components measurements, spans, places, etc. Everything is interwoven as of now. Matter and energy have always existed but their states can change.
Genesis is the beginning of our universe after the fall of Satan.
As is so offen the case, Apot's comment bears only a passing resemblance to something relevant to what it is ostensibly responding to.
@@amtlpaulHow is the statement that mind and matter are one in the same not relate to his comment?
@Apotheosis-1981 How does it relate?
@amtlpaul Because mind and matter do not exist without both existing at the same time. You can appeal to unlikely unknowns the same way you can say bugs Bunny might have done it, but that ignores what we observe in nature when it comes to self-replicating machines and technology
Because the Kalam is broken in every premise.
Yet, you cannot defeat either premise. You just lie.
@@EdithBromfeld There's not a valid premise to defeat.
They aren't premises, they're unevidenced assertions. They are baseless claims, completely lacking in support.
@@KyouTGD You are blatantly lying to claim the premises in KCA are not premises. Why do you atheist dopes consider lying to be acceptable?
Moral degenerates.
@@Big-Papa-Smurf Prove your claim the premises are invalid. Defeat them. Liar.
Couple FACTS about "Nick." 1. "Nick" isn't his real name. 2. He's a troll who doesn't care about "god" or xtianity. He just likes hearing his voice on the talkin' box. 3. His ignorance is only exceeded by the arrogance with which he embraces it.
Yep, he has called in multiple times under different names, from different places with the same weak ass arguments
Those aren’t facts. Him switching his name doesn’t prove he is a troll, nor that he doesn’t care about god or christianity. It’s not even a rule that callers have to use their real name. He might have questionable motives for switching names, but he can still be a Christian who believes what he presents and wants to have a discussion about these arguments.
@@TypographyGuru number 3 is definitely a fact, 1 and 2 are debatable, maybe the OP knows "Nick" and knows for sure, but the caller definitely changes his name & location when he has called multiple times, perhaps in an attempt to disguise who he is cause he literally says the thing to start everytime, " I wanted to know why don't you believe in god?", or something very close to that, he gets owned every time, I do question the he doesn't care about god or Christianity part, he seems pretty genuine to me, just bad at arguing it
The Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA) relies on special pleading by asserting that the universe had a cause, but exempting god from needing a cause. The design argument compares human-made objects with natural phenomena, *assuming* that because human-made objects are designed, natural phenomena must supposedly also be designed. *No constants or parameters have been definitively shown to be fine-tuned or independent of each other.*
To me this is the biggest problem with it.
You are lying again - as I have demonstrated previously. God (non-contingent) doesn't BEGIN to exist, thus requires no cause. All things contingent (having a beginning) require a cause. Here, we have two separate and necessary categories of being (contingent vs non-contingent). No special pleading is even possible across separate categories.
Will you continue to lie in the future?
@SurgiusMaxĺmus That's really dumb excuse.
Nobody argues the Cosmos is finely tuned to maximize life or only to support the easiest possible trouble-free life.
That's logically equivalent to "why would an intelligently designed car ever require a repair?"
"Why would an intelligently designed sport ever need penalties?"
@@jamesparson Yet, there is no special pleading. You have no problem.
@SurgiusMaxĺmus I understand you are flustered. I get that.
You keep losing on the facts. Throwing another hissy fit won't change the fact that you atheists are losing badly once again! You have no answers. Your lies are exposed and you are floundering around spewing nonsense to avoid dealing with reality
The one person/spirit/deity that could settle this argument could simply prove itself in a satisfactory way to everyone but it can't, won't, and doesn't want to do that.
God is the best hide and seek player in the entire universe.
God's plenty evident to all reasonable people.
But Satan will take you.
@@EdithBromfeldwhat part of "I don't read your posts anymore" do you not understand?
@@EdithBromfeldResonanable people don't use fallacious reasoning to arrive at a conclusion and there is just as much evidence for Satan as there is for God
@EdithBromfeld you mean indoctrinated people.
Nobody knows if the Universe in its entirety had a beginning., We don't even know if it's eternal. Therefore, The Kalam is a giant red herring
You are lying as usual. All evidence points to a finite beginning. Even Mathematical proof. There is no evidence of a past-infinite universe.
@@EdithBromfeldThe record's stuck/the record's stuck/the record's stuck/the record's stuck
Good Saturday morning AXP fans and theists ❤❤❤
Thank God for atheism 🙏
Peace Love Empathy From Australia 🤠
Every premise is broken, and it can be used to reach literally ANY conclusion you want to reach. You can use Kalam to prove The Fairies created all existence, similar to how The Ontological Argument can prove the existence of Santa Claus and Hercules.
If everything must have a beginning, but then you declare something which exists that did not have a beginning, you're trying to have it both ways. So your god either had to also have a beginning, or "did not have a beginning" is an existent property. If I accept "did not have a beginning" as an existent property, I am not left with "Oh, some guy had to exist who didn't have a beginning, so he could create everything from nothing". Instead, I am left with "Maybe existence has no beginning".
You are lying to claim the premises are broken. You cannot demonstrate any such thing.
You are lying to claim the conclusion proves anything other than God (Gods unique and exclusive attributes).
Another atheist liar. You people are ridiculously dense.
No one has ever demonstrated that the premises are valid.
Nor can they justify their special pleading that it doesn't apply to their favourite cause.
It's funny that dumb Christians can't refute your point so just says, "you are lying."
I wonder what it's called when you attack the person instead of the argument...
I hate everything about this caller.
Good to hear from Andrew again... uh, sorry, I mean new caller "Nick"... But amazing that, no matter which name he uses, he always starts from zero.
An extension of the Kalam.
1. Every thing that begins to exist has a cause
2. Every cause we have come to understand has been a result of natural forces.
3. The natural forces are the logical default for the causes that we don’t yet understand until some evidence for a divine cause is found.
Mic drop
I have a problem understanding how premise 1 can be assumed?
What if there was allways energy/matter/something in the universe and the only thing that happens is that this energy/matter/something changes it's form?
@ it is from the Kalam. My point is how the Kalam does not lead where theists want it to.
However,
If there was always energy and matter then they did not begin.
If there was eternal matter and energy that something acted on to change it then whatever it changed into has a beginning, a cause.
@rickdelatour5355 I got your point that the kalam doesn't lead to devine god etc.
I just think that the assumption of the 1 premise is not sound. But Im German and maybe my english is to flawed to understand the nuances of this assumption.
Anyhow thanks for the clarification I have to read it a couple of times more since I still don't understand it fully.
Premise 2 is dead wrong. Thoughts and free-willed agency cannot be established a physically caused. In fact, physical causation is not freely chosen.
Premise 3 fails because there is no justification to believe all causes are physical. In fact, the cause of physical existence cannot be physical (the effect).
You have circular reasoning and an unjustified Naturalism.
You lose again
Because the premises are false and the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.
You are lying to claim the premises are false. Typical atheist liar. Brute force lies to reject logical necessity.
No one has ever demonstrated that the premises are true
Why didn’t Moses or Jesus ever mention the Kalam?
Didn´t they know of them? (ill informed? sorry, a bad joke)
Right - and if Jesus was either "literally god on earth" or even "the most exceptional human to live thus far", he still failed to condemn slavery, sexism, and torture. He did condemn usury which covers all predatory market entities. Abraham also didn't mention the Kalam.
The Kalam is invalid in structure because there is no connecting term:
“Everything that begins to exist” refers to matter changing form or structure.
“The universe begins to exist” refers to matter (and energy) appearing out of nothing.
These are different meanings to “begin to exist”, so it’s dead on arrival.
(why hasn’t this been pointed out?…)
Kalam goes kablam
Because it doesn't answer any questions. Putting "god did it" in the empty spaces is the equivalent of putting "here be dragons" on cruddy 17th century maps.
There are actually evidence supporting some conclusions from the Kalam! We now know that everything that exists, from subatomic particles to Galaxies, are contingent on the laws of Quantum physics and General Relativity! That’s not a conclusive evidence for anything, but a strong pointer for a natural cause as the reason for the existence of the Universe. The Kalam doesn’t “proves” God, it actually moves it further away from the possibilities.
I find it so bizarre the way these kalam-ists expect us to go along with their argument that there's some vague non-denominational god, when I seriously doubt the majority of them believe in such an ill defined and nameless god. Try demonstrating that the god _YOU_ believe in exists, Nick.
You gotta love when they try to talk over the hosts. And by love, I mean hate.
The atheist experience is one of the most awesome channels ever!
Dear Theists,
Tonight is the livestream on QCs channel. Are you totally against presenting your best/strongest evidence that you have that proves your deity exists? Those that are mature adults will be treated as such. If you can't/won't be respectful you will be treated accordingly. Hope to see you there.
In other words, tip toe around your punk bish mouths or listen to you talk like a brave cell phone warrior.
@@Apotheosis-1981 You really are a retread...
@@Apotheosis-1981 You've already admitted you lack the spine needed to come on the livestream. For those that are able to engage with/like a mature adult there is always room. When you're ready to stop hiding behind your keyboard you know where to find me.
@jonclark8252 Why would i want to listen to your punk bish mouth talk shit from the safety of your computer? What kind of "courage does that take? You're a retardeetar with a condescending attitude.
@@jonclark8252 Id prefer to watch a boxing match between you and Apotheosis. Ide put money on him dropping you
_"Everything that begins has a cause"_ - everything that begins comes from something that already existed, and that transformed. We only call it a beginning, because we call the transformed result by a new name.
Indeed. All things are just rearrangements of other things.
Your statement is not a denial of the first premise. It is a denial that anything actually begins to exist, which is a denial of the second premise. Based on your reasoning, you should even agree with the first premise, because it is not talking about your "transformed" beginning. It is talking about an absolute beginning.
@@philosophyforum4668
If things only come from other things then no absolute beginning exists
@
I can agree on that, because it is a hypothetical. But if you cannot argue outside of your preconceived notion, you cannot agree even with a hypothetical. You are basically shutting down the discussion. If you are wrong, you are crippling your ability to learn that you are wrong.
So hypothetically speaking, if something did begin to exist in the absolute sense, would it need a cause?
@@philosophyforum4668 _"Your statement is not a denial of the first premise"_ - I agree it is more an argument against the second premise. But it can be seen as a denial of the whole argument as well. Given that a "beginning" is a human term for a sufficiently large transformation, already implies that all beginnings are transformations. You could use a new term corresponding to "true beginnings" for events where something starts from nothing. But we have no evidence for any "true beginnings", and therefore we cannot say anything sensible about their properties. We don't know whether they have a cause. We don't even know whether they are possible.
it's pretty hard to accept an argument where both premises are baseless assertions and the conclusion isn't even on topic...
I only accept true things.
How do you know? Did the chemicals cause that delusion?
@@EdithBromfeld
How do I know what I believe is true? I don't believe anything. I only accept things that can be proven true by using facts, evidence, reason and logic. It's not that hard. Why would you want to believe something that is not true Edith?
@@suffist How do you know that load of bullshit you just claimed is true?
Prove your claim that you don't believe anything! Do you believe that?
Where is your facts that prove that asinine atheist claim? Liar!
I don't want to believe things not true ya liar. For example, I don't believe you! Nor do I believe that self-defeating pack of atheist lies you mindlessly claimed!
You cannot even answer how you know anything. Does your soulless atheist sack of chemicals produce the correct chemical delusions? Do the soulless chemical delusions validate by other chemical delusions?
You people are dumber than dumb.
And the premises of the KCA haven't been demonstrated to be true. Though plenty try ti claim they are without evidence
@@EdithBromfeld
What’s your weird obsession with chemicals about? You and several other trolls love to rant about it.
Its a fallacial construct. Smoke and mirrors.
No! I don’t follow absurd commands from a thing nobody, including you, has ever demonstrated ever existed in reality!
Will Apos ever reveal the identity of that dastardly bogeyman 'the Atheist'? Will he finally vanquish the strawman with a few short, shatp blows? Who knows?
At least he agrees that he said terrible things about Dave Warnock. And knows that he messed up because he's constantly responding to it and trying to deflect from the fact that he hoped for someone's death.
@@ChallengeYourBeliefsThe context was that they were terrible things for you, autistic, little, angry, atheist boy. But you talk about how worthless people's lives are too, so why are you crying for days about it?
It isn't a strawman because a person's perception and beliefs about gender, morality, and free speech are all based on agreeing with you and if they don't agree with you then they are not logical and justified. Apply that to law and you have collectivism, where a crime can take place for offending your feelings.
Apot thinks that letting people live life true to themselves is collectivism and forcing everyone to fit his narrow views is individualism.
@Apotheosis-1981 agreeing with me that people have individual rights and should have personal autonomy and be treated with respect and dignity rather than bullied is collectivism according to Apot. Also according to Apot:
War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
No Nick...his head took a direct hit.
First, demonstrate the premises to be true, then begin discussing how to insert a god into the conclusion.
We can't confirm that everything that exists had a beginning.
The universe exists.
Therefore we can't confirm that the universe had a beginning.
Nobody can support the premises of the KCA.
Therefore, the KCA is not a sound argument.
Actually, many famous philosophers have expounded these premises used in the Kalam and defended them in their treatises. From Plato- to Aristotle. Aquinas, Leibniz, Kant. Just to name a few.
Efficient, sufficient, necessary causality ect.
"Many philosophers have agreed with the prenises." Others don't.
@@damonkenny3444 You don't establish the soundness of a synthetic syllogism with philosophy. Philosophy will only tell you if the argument is valid.
Soundness requires evidence that adequately justifies the acceptance of the premises. No amount of armchair philosophy will change that.
Oh, and nice appeal to authority.
@@MaidofBoats They’re called a priori concepts, first principles thinking. The great philosophers of history use this method. You’re too uneducated to get it.
@@MaidofBoats You might want to learn what an appeal to authority is. Giving examples of philosophers who expounded arguments about causality, isn’t an appeal to authority. It says nothing of whether what they said is true or false. Lol. Advanced level atheism folks.
This caller has called in multiple times under different names, from different places and it is always the same nonsense, the Kalam is garbage, how many times do you have to be owned before it sinks in
If Craig's Kalam Cosmological Argument works for his Christian gods, does the same argument work for all gods?
For those of you less familiar with the show, this caller calls in quite frequently, under different names and states. He gets his ass handed to him each time.
"Let me use this argument which doesn't mention God anywhere as proof that God exists"
I like how he threw in a little ontological necessary existence Alvin Plantinga modal nonsense into it
Because Kalam is the worst argument for God! It's like something a 5th grader would come up with.
Oh god. This kid again. How many times is he gonna call under fake names???
@@jsuedath at least three, probably more
Damon's post below is garbled, but it is true that the fact that something is not proved doesn't mean it's false. It does, however, mean that It is reasonable to not believe it's true.
Great strawman. I can tell you’ve been practicing lying to derail all logic and reason. Advanced atheist stuff folks
@@damonkenny3444😆 🤣 😂
It's almost impressive how many ways he can argue that it's illogical to not believe in something, just because you don't have any evidence.
🎶 _So they say_
_"Dance for me, dance for me, dance for me, oh-oh_
_I've never seen anybody do the things you do before"_
_They say, "Move for me, move for me, move for me, ay-ay_
_And when you're done, I'll make you do it all again"_ 🎶
"My god is real, but not just any god, only MY own personal god is real.” “So that means YOU have to listen to me, do what I tell you to do, live your life the way I say and give me your money, all in the name of "My god!" Isn't religion and faith a wonderful thing? Gives people power over you and your life and while it costs you plenty it costs them nothing. They talk, you listen, you obey!
Many of the gods are archetypal But the god represents the person's preferences on how to live. So of course a Satanist is going to tell you his supreme being is better than the Christians.
!! RESPECT MY AUTHORITAH !!
Hope Nick has finished middle school by 2025.
Because it is sophomoric?
Have we shown that everything requires a cause? Nope.
I'm a theist and even I can't accept the KCA
This is because its premises are flawed.
You can’t even comprehend the premises.
@@damonkenny3444If that were true, Neal would have no good reason to accept the premises.
@nealjroberts4050 well why are you a theist?, seems to me the other arguments I have heard for god are as weak
@@ARoll925
Because I see gods as an inevitable result of sapient life
@nealjroberts4050 what?
"An argument isn't evidence."
This is no different to the ontological argument. Theists wouldn't need these arguments if they had evidence for their god
The arrogance of the know-it-all to not listen and even to interrupt constantly when someone is trying to explain something very important in the discussion! This is soon evident when he comes up with something called the "Kalam" but hardly knows what it means! He doesn't even realize that there is no reason why anyone should consider the Kalam as a conclusive fact... there is absolutely no proof that even if the universe had a cause (which is not known), it would be of divine origin!
Premise 1 of the kalam argument is an assumption.. we dont know its true so the whole thing is a fallacy.
Never heard of Kalam.
Darn, I was so sure he was about to reveal god to the world. Too bad, now we'll never know.
The Kalam was finally going to work this time..
Even if both premises of the KCA were true, that doesn't get you to a God, but neither of the premises can be proven to be true. They are just baseless assertions.
4:05 Good! Don´t get inerrupted! Finish what You intend to say and then let him respond.
Because otherwise they were theists
I recognise this guy and his whiny voice. He called under lots of different names
@@sXePunkV2 yup, each time asking the same question and having his arguments dismantled
Why??? Because I can add anything in place of god and the fact doesn’t change.
Another silly believer. I assume indoctrination caused severe damage to his brain.
According to the troll Damon Kenny, not guilty verdicts are all question begging. Only juries thst convict avoid committing a fallacy 😆 🤣 😂
I'm sure Apos and NEPy agree with that idiotic viewpoint. That's why they accept their convictions that landed each of them in prison TWICE.
Great strawman. You’ve practiced your lies well. Sources please.
@@ChallengeYourBeliefs Court rules have a presumption of innocence and codified standards of evidence. Thinking is too hard for you vile trolls. Lick a barrel, trash.
@@damonkenny3444yout post next down 🚻 😆
@@damonkenny3444and to acquit means to conclude that the case was NOT PROVED 😅
Apparently I'm triggered by Damon. The fact that I'd just leave if that were true is apparently irrelevant. He _knows_ I'm upset because... ::checks notes:: I used the term "riled up" right after he used it. 🤣
Lol not triggered by what I said at all.
@damonkenny7818 Yep. The only reason I posted that was because I'm so incredibly triggered. I'm definitely not doing it so other people can join me in laughing at you.
@@Beacon80
@@damonkenny7818You got me. I just can't stop crying over your Straw Man arguments. Look at all these tears.
😂🤣😂🤣😂
@@Beacon80 Feigning walls of laughing emojis says it all. Triggered atheist cupcake confirmed
Nick must learn to listen .
John 3 16 invites you to know God's love and promise to you personally. As you draw near to Him, humbly and sincerely, He promises to draw near to you. He, Himself, will provide all the evidence of His existence to those who seek with all their hearts, minds, strength and souls.
It makes the same presupposition mistakes as ANY other word game you all play as "proof"
Give me an example of the word game that is used.
@Apotheosis-1981 adding everything that came into existence at the front to make kalam 2.0
@@stevenswitzer5154 Can you explain how they do that? What they say for example that is a word game
@SurgiusMaxĺmus The question about which god to go with isn't important for you to abolish. Which god is just a personal preference. Personally, I believe they all exist, but that certain ones are what we call fallen angels or demons. What's important for you is people don't think they have any rational basis for their spiritual beliefs at all. People can believe Santa Claus is god for all you care. What concerns you is that the spiritual concept itself may be considered rational for the individual.
If people are rational in their beliefs then we put them in mental hospitals and keep them from participating in society where things matter. So your motivation is a social and political one. Your tactic is to gaslight and discredit the sanity of your political opposition by reducing the god question down to known fiction and delusion.
@SurgiusMaxĺmus Why shouldn't there be anything in contrast to materialism besides delusion and known fiction? Why do you reduce the philosophical question down to collectivism? Either everyone's like you or they're delusional. That's the option you give. So make the positive claim and provide evidence that the universe is completely materialistic.
Quit pretending you represent individualism and freedom of religion and speech when the only option to what you think and feel is insanity and known fiction.
@renedekker9806
"We can use your definition of the word "beginning". Which one is it? Is it the normal beginning that we see in day-to-day life, or is it absolute beginnings?"
@BlarglemanTheSkeptic3
"1. It's not "creative", it's the Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theory."
I notice that you ran away from the thread where this answer hasd context, and moved out to one that you could delete and run away from.
My comment that he's replying to:
1. It's not "creative", it's the Penrose-Hawking Singularity Theory.
2. I made no claim about being "eternal".
3. There is no rule that _requires_ anything to be "eternal", other than a desire to push your "God".
4. Calling something "absurd" doesn't make it so.
5. You demonstrate your desperation here by tossing logic out the window.
5. More desperation. When a rock rolls down a mountain because there was a minor earthquake, the "cause" isn't a disembodied mind.
6. You call yourself "Philosophy Forum" but demonstrate that you don't care about logic when you hang your hat on a non sequitur.
7. Not even WLC thought that he could get to "God" directly from the first 2 premises. Do better.
The comment he made:
Bargleman TheSkeptic
'If time began' with the big bang, then there never existed a moment
when the universe didn't exist - it will have existed for ALL TIME.."
Wtf! 8 year old video...😂
Gee, I wonder if that's why "Throwback" is in the title.
And Yet Another OT Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled by Christ in the NT
David’s house / throne established forever
👉👉 2 Samuel 7:16
NT fulfillment by Christ
👉👉 Revelation 22:16
Who will actually study the above???
Who??
Irrefutable, Undeniable, Unquestionable!
💪💯👍
So Solomon is the Messiah since he fulfilled the prophesy in 2 Samuel 7:16? So you are a Solomonian?
Like I said, you must study in context!
My OP is very clear!
Irrefutable! 👍💯💪
@SurgiusMaxĺmusMany of the gods and goddesses are archetypal. The Greeks had about 12, the Romans had hundreds, the number of gods in Hinduism is often described as "330 million" or "33 Kotis," but the exact number varies. But the main deities tend to be archetypal. The greek and Roman gods loved to sin with orgies, lies, and deception. So the Greeks and Romans didn't believe in the concept of sin. They were wicked societies that legalized kiddie fiddling, murder for entertainment, human sacrifice, drunken, public orgies, beastiality, and all kinds of sick and disgusting behavior. Yet, they were somewhat advanced and educated.
Archetypes= 'fictional tropes'
@@JESUS-NEVER-tAPPEDA few pro tips for trolls:
1) Declaring your claims true by default doesn't make them true, nor does it oblige anyone to disprove them. Hitchens' Razor applies: "What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."
2) Declaring that those who reject your claims do so for nefarious reasons does nothing to establish the truth of said claims
3) Declaring that 'real' science supports your religious ideology when you define 'real' science as that which supports your religious ideology begs the question.
4) 'Trust me bro' isn't going to fly with those who don't trust you, have no reason to trust you, and that in fact you have given good reasons NOT to trust you
5) "Believe me, you will be punished for not believing me" is not a winning argument, but it does tell us the sort of person you are.
LOL, one troll (Jimedith) responded by 'dismissing' the 'assertion' that one can reasonably dismiss claims for lack of evidence because it 'lacks evidence', a self-refuting position. All Jimedith could muster in response to me pointing that was to screech "You're lying!". Hilarious.
How About Another OT Messianic Prophecy Fulfilled by Christ in the NT:
The Son of God 👉👉 2 Samuel 7:14
NT fulfillment by Christ 👉👉 Lk. 1:32, Rom. 1:3-4
Amen! 💪💯👍
So Solomon is the Messiah, according to your text. Got it.
@ChallengeYourBeliefs
What is wrong with you??!
I think you enjoy playing games!
You know good & well what the text says!
I challenged you to a live, recorded debate on the topics of:
1) Did Christ fulfill any OT prophecies?
2) abiogenesis
If you wanna go toe to toe, then you must contact me personally to make arrangements (NOT in the comments section!)
And I’ll say it again:
If you’re wise, you’ll decline! 👈👈
@@JESUS-NEVER-tAPPED you could try going on the podcast like the rest of your brothers and sisters has done
@@JESUS-NEVER-tAPPEDand defend your disgusting religion like they have done
@MagicGod-xr6ke
I left my number with them several times on their answering machine… …and did they call?? Nope!
Do you really think I’m gonna call the show and be interrupted every five seconds or put on mute??
Think again!
Appreciate your concern
What do you get when the following are continually & blatantly refused…??
- clear, observable evidence
- real science (with data, models, & patterns provided)
- verbatim definitions of terms
- the proven track record of Scripture
- sound reasoning & logic
…A T H E I S M !
Atheism’s ONLY hope:
1) Repentance = Acts 17:30
2) Faith = Romans 10:9
Really hope you make the RIGHT decision! 👍
I'll take the bait.
What clear, observable evidence do you have for the fundamental claims of Christianity?
What scientific data, models or patterns support the fundamental claims of Christianity?
How does a "proven track record" of texts demonstrate the truth of the fundamental claims of Christianity?
What sound reasoning/logic can be used to support the fundamental claims of Christianity?
You have a hell of a lot of assertions here mate, I look forward to seeing what you've got.
Get on the podcast and defend your evil god and religion like a man
A few pro tips for trolls:
1) Declaring your claims true by default doesn't make them true, nor does it oblige anyone to disprove them. Hitchens' Razor applies: "What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."
2) Declaring that those who reject your claims do so for nefarious reasons does nothing to establish the truth of said claims
3) Declaring that 'real' science supports your religious ideology when you define 'real' science as that which supports your religious ideology begs the question.
4) 'Trust me bro' isn't going to fly with those who don't trust you, have no reason to trust you, and that in fact you have given good reasons NOT to trust you
5) "Believe me, you will be punished for not believing me" is not a winning argument, but it does tell us the sort of person you are.
@@WintersunExtras No. Don't take the bait. All he has is his ignorance of science and even of the Bible. He has no evidence for anything. Unless you accept, "muh Bible" or "the universe is a creation" claims as evidence.
@@JESUS-NEVER-tAPPED hope you're god make the right decision by never meeting me if you ever prove he existed
Lord Jesus,
Thank You for Your continued work in the hearts of this audience! Stir them, shake them unto repentance that they may be saved!
In Jesus Name, amen! 💪💪💪
The record's stuck/the record's stuck/the record's stuck/the record's stuck
"But when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray... to be seen by others. But then you pray, go into your room, close the door, and pray to your Father, who is unseen."
@@amtlpaulHe's confirming that either his god doesn't exist or is so weak that he can't convince any of us here.
Wasted prayers from a waste of oxygen
For an omnipotent, all knowing God, he's not very good at convincing people, is he?
Are you all ready for some Good News??-Because you surely ain’t gettin’ any from AXP!
Gospel = Good News
Good News = 1 Corinthians 15:1-4
1 Corinthians 15:1-4 = Christ came, died, was buried, & rose again FOR YOU! 👈👍
Want eternal life??
1) Repent (change your mind)
2) Believe (trust)
3) Receive 👍💪
The record's stuck/the record's stuck/the record's stuck/the record's stuck
Has Donnie kicked the bucket?
Because all you've got is fake news.
That's disgusting
Gospel = Fake News
Only an apologist would think innocent people being tortured for eternity is "good news."
If god isn't real then explain how the cast of the passion of christ converted to christians during the filming of the movie? You guys need to watch the passion of christ to understand the suffering that the lord went thru just for us to gain eternal life.
Ed Wood and several cast members were baptized during the filming of "Plan 9 From Outer Space" because the church that funded the film required them to be. You need to watch that film to understand the suffering that Ed Wood went through to make his artistic vision a reality.
@@canderson5098I just saw that film
@@Beacon80Tor Johnson and Jesus both rose from the grave. I know which one I'd rather worship...
I've seen The Passion of Christ. Jim Caviezel really nailed being Jesus...
Wow! The BEST evidence for Christianity. The cast of a movie got baptized after being proselytized by the director. Sure sounds like the power of god.
Just out of curiosity, have you searched for a God of wisdom for the survival of humanity?
Which one? There are so many who were made up by humans.
A wise god wouldn't have made something as flawed and destructive as humanity in the first place.
Shut your hoooooooole!
_Some_ here SAY that one must search for a god. However they dislike when such search brings back a different god to that they believe in, or no god at all.
They dislike a search for truth that doesn't match what they want the truth to be.
They will tell you what to believe.
They will tell you what to think.
They will condemn you for disobeying them.
just out of curiosity, do you think that was a coherent sentence?
Repent of your sins. Believe in Jesus Christ for salvation. Become a new person in this life. John 3:16, Matthew 4:17, 2 Corinthians 5:17 KJV.........
Hoppityhoppityhophophop
Hoppityhoppityhophophop
And now everyone
Hoppityhoppityhophophop
Do you think that slavery is wonderful? *Leviticus 25: 44-45 KJV* Both thy bondmen (archaic for male slaves), and thy bondmaids (archaic for female slaves), which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: *and they shall be your possession.*
This bible verse tells you that it's okay to buy slaves from other nations as well as foreigners who live among you. Do you think that slavery is moral? If no, then why didn't your god simply say "Thou shalt not own humans like property"? Not to forget *Numbers 31: 17-18 KJV*
Oh wow, you cited a book that I've read from cover to cover and has been quoted at me my whole life, congratulations, you cured my atheism LOL
I know your bible and the history of xtianity better than you do and you're wrong. Now feel free post more incorrect comments using your other troll accounts.
Stop beating your slaves. (Exodus 21:20)
Nobody can defeat the KCA.
You can't even present the KCA as an argument. Just like you can't present the contingency argument.
Sit down.
@@ChallengeYourBeliefs You are lying as always. You lost both arguments. You cannot defeat any of the premises.
@@EdithBromfeld Just like they always do, @EdithBromfeld makes a claim and fails to present evidence to prove that claim. They have been caught in so many lies so many times, that it makes one wonder if they have a shame fetish.
Jim Edith forgets they couldn't support their premises the last time they bothered to discuss it instead of just calling every critic a liar.
you're right, because there isn't anything to defeat. It's not sound, and the conclusion is meaningless. There's nothing to defeat, so it can't be defeated anymore than a god that doesn't exist.
Is arguing something is “unproven” begging the question? Yes, if it assumed the conclusion you are trying to argue against, without providing any evidence to support that assumption. Also known as circular reasoning. Advanced atheism stuff, folks.
A few pro tips for trolls:
1) Declaring your claims true by default doesn't make them true, nor does it oblige anyone to disprove them. Hitchens' Razor applies: "What is asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence."
2) Declaring that those who reject your claims do so for nefarious reasons does nothing to establish the truth of said claims
3) Declaring that 'real' science supports your religious ideology when you define 'real' science as that which supports your religious ideology begs the question.
4) 'Trust me bro' isn't going to fly with those who don't trust you, have no reason to trust you, and that in fact you have given good reasons NOT to trust you
5) "Believe me, you will be punished for not believing me" is not a winning argument, but it does tell us the sort of person you are.
LOL, one troll (Jimedith) responded by 'dismissing' the 'assertion' that one can reasonably dismiss claims for lack of evidence because it 'lacks evidence', a self-refuting position. All Jimedith could muster in response to me pointing that was to screech "You're lying!". Hilarious.
@@amtlpaul
@damonkenny3444 The troll bellows, "J'accuse!"
With any old slander they can use
To smear, but their accusations
Distract from the lack of argumentation
Supporting their claims
They just seek to blame
Folks for not believing them
As if that were an obligation!
As long as Da monkey whines about others’ supposed repetition of replies, he’s just going to ignore his “vile troll” comment.
So, you think that when evaluating ALL god claims, everyone should presume that EVERY such being is "guilty" of existing, that way we aren't "begging the question" by not providing evidence AGAINST its existence? Or does such an assumption only apply to a single "God"?
Go on DumKey, "logic" your way out of that! Bet you FAIL! 😂
Is saying something true only if proven true, an argument from ignorance? Yes, “Another way of expressing this (argument from ignorance) is that a proposition is true only if proven true, and a proposition is false only if proven false. If no proof is offered (in either direction), then the proposition can be called unproven, undecided, inconclusive, an open problem or a conjecture”
-Hurley, Patrick J (2012). A Concise Introduction to Logic (11th ed.). Boston, Mass.: Cengage Learning. p. 140
Advanced atheist stuff folks. Trigger warning. Vile atheist skeptard trolls inbound ⚠️ 🚨
The only one that is triggered is you.
Is assuming somebody is saying something isn't true when they haven't a Straw Man? Yes.
@@Beacon80 So you’re frustrated by me citing known fallacies? Imagine my shock lol
@@damonkenny7818 No. Not frustrated. Just amused at you committing fallacies in your desperate attempt to accuse us of using fallacies