This is one of the reason's Craig is such a formidable debater. He sticks to the format, knows his opponent and sticks to the topic while exploiting weaknesses and pinning down the opposition to reveal his position loud and clear to the audience.
If you notice your video viewer count going up by one on each one of your old debate breakdowns: it’s me. After seeing you on capturing Christianity, I’m going through your backlog. It’s truly fantastic stuff.
@@A.Lop17 easily as anyone who watched this debate would know. Dr. Shermer dodged every point of contention. --- To make it easy let's take the first one within the first few minutes. How can we trust our minds if it is the accidental byproduct of a mindless unguided process with no end in mind. This assertion by Dr. Shermer brings not only our capacity to think into question but any concept we think is true as well. Including the assertion that our minds are the accidental byproduct of a mindless unguided process with no end in mind.
Watching the old ones after becoming a fan because of the new videos; I have to say it is cool to see how Nate has changed and improved. Thank you Nate.
Thanks for watching this episode! Who do you think won the debate? Tell us in the comments. Also, if you have a specific debate you'd like Nate to deconstruct, let us know 🙂
This may not be totally clear, but I will ask you since Shermer brought it up. He asked “given that we know the age of the universe (13billion years) and man is recent (100k), what was God doing all that time?” Aside from the fact that those are both assertions which were not being debated, what is it called when someone does that? It seems like he was basically asking “if God created all this, then why didn’t he create all this?” What I mean is, he takes the atheistic presuppositions and then attempts to build a theistic house on that foundation, and then looks shocked that they don’t go together. What is that called?
@@rickbaker261 I'm not sure if there is a name for this. Maybe it's Argument from Incredulity. In other words, this isn't what I would expect to happen, therefore it didn't happen. Certainly, if an atheist or skeptic wants to critique our worldview, they should fully adopt the view (step inside it and look around, so to speak) before critiquing. Or else they'll smuggle in their own presuppositions and then claim our view is incoherent.
The question you just asked has already been answered by a video made 12 years ago: Christianity Debate NonStampCollector ruclips.net/video/bSLkQnCurgs/видео.html
Thanks for watching Ian! And for reaching out and letting us know what you think! You're right, it IS very frustrating to watch people talk around each other instead of to each other! :)
Shermer seems like he is trying to find the "right" analogy to answer Turek's questions. But he continues to go around and around and never quite getting there.
Because there isnt one so his brain couldnt find anything to provide hence hes going in and out circlying in a loop hole its that simple, imagine your flying or entering jupitar trying to land on a surface, well you cant cuz there isnt any surface on jupitar for you to land on therefore instead of landing on it you'd come back out the other side, thatsl is whats happening here
When Shermer mentioned the "what was God doing " for all that time?, He was parroting the pathological ranter against something that doesn't exist according to him ( Christopher Hitchens). Hitchens routinely brought up the ' Bronze Age culture, what was God doing for billions of years prior to the advent of Christianity '? rant.
Responding a long while after but this annoyed me as well. I remember Hitchens saying that but what is more annoying is how this thinking conflicts with Turek's presented view of God anyways. He'll tell you, God is a timeless being. What is a billion years to a being completely unaffected by time?
Shermers moral argument is not logically consistent. Philosophically, there is no objective moral basis, but we can show through evolution and neuroscience why we make certain moral actions and why we all agree. If we lived in a society of all hitlers, maybe they would outcast the person who is like us. It's the way it is and that's how it is
The way it is: most individuals agree on their society's moral framework. How it works: Neuroscience and evolution through many generations Why it works: ????? When it comes to morality, how it is matters far less than *why* it is. We may show how stuff in our brains produces chemicals which manifests as behaviors, but not *why* it is that *those* behaviors are made manifest over, say, Hitler-esque behaviors. If morality is written on our hearts, so to speak, and our free will gives us the ability to ignore our conscience, then it follows that morality has an objective basis which determines our chemical output when we accept or reject the prodding of our conscience.
DNA may not be a computer program, but comparing it to a computer program is not simply a metaphor either as it is code, just not code for a computer as we understand the term computer. The coding is also more complex than any computer coding we have come up with. The biggest difference is that it instructs biological systems rather than electronic systems, and as such it has to take into account the larger variability of the biological system.
I don't know why atheists argue for morality as independent of faith, just accept that morality is a faith based construct and move on. Their perception of humanity and it's decisions are purely natural, survival based rooted in their concept of evolution.
The fridge analogy is not a good one because if Turek finds the fridge in the forest, he’s not just asking where it came from. He’s also proposing he knows where it came from when he has no evidence to make that proposition. If Shermer finds the fridge, he’s not only saying it’s simply a fridge full of food, he’s also asking where it came from. The difference is he’s not making any guesses or propositions. He’s simply saying he doesn’t know where it came from. It’s a bad analogy but it sounds good to people who don’t understand what he’s really saying.
@@richrobledo6561 there's certain features which are characteristic of the action of a mind. One way of defining one of these is the generation of new information. We see natural processes iterating existing information all the time, but the only cause we ever observe generating new information is an intelligent mind. The fine tuning in nature is very much related the this same principle. With fine tuning we can define it was the purposeful arrangement of matter or tuning laws of physics. This screams teleology because for all we know things could have been. Physics models seem to give us strong confidence that our of the possible ways things could have been, a minuscule percentage of them would make life possible. Given that we know the odds being against something is no obstacles for a mind we are justified in inferring a mind as the cause for this arrangement of matter and the fine tuning. Everyday I arrange letters in ways which are statistically implausible by natural processes. The atheist does in fact want to stop the question one level sooner than the theist.
@@TheologyUnleashed You must know that the way evolution works the way it does it is that it generates new information all the time. It’s a slow process which takes place over long periods of time. So your statement about the only cause we ever observe generating new information is an intelligent mind is quite wrong and simple. If evolution doesn’t generate new information, we wouldn’t see the changes we do see , the proof that we have that science has observed. Also, you proved my point when I said Turek is only guessing where the fridge came from. You said you’re justified in “inferring an intelligent mind”. If you want to know truth, you never “infer”. You keep an open mind, you observe so your surroundings, and test what are you observe using the ongoing process we call science to keep you grounded, and most importantly, you never make guesses or infer. Even if you do, it’s one thing to say “we think this is where the fridge came from”, it’s a totally different thing altogether- and quite arrogant- to say “we know where it came from”. Because you don’t. No one does! If if you did, you would be able to provide the evidence but no one has been able to demonstrate this.
37:20 Too bad Frank doesn’t accept the Bible’s teaching of a literal 24 hour 6 day creation where death disease and suffering only entered the world after the fall of man. Such an easy slam dunk rebuttal to Michael’s question.
two very important points that lead many people to disbelieve in the true god. firstly, the number of existing religions that confuses people and secondly, the atrocities that some
So, we have an innate sense of morality? That actually sounds like an argument FOR theism... The rest of Shermer's "cross-exam" was so incredibly simplistic and unsophisticated. Turek's case was not even that strong, but Shermer sounded like an intellectual lightweight. Why do atheists not know how to debate?
I love Shermers's Last Law and how it dismantles his own view. He argues that any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from a deity, but without _religious_ context, such an entity would literally *be* a deity. These aren't mutually exclusive propositions. Case in point: I submit to you that any deity credited for the creation of the Earth, or held to have existed prior to the Earth, would be an extraterrestrial, NY default, because it cannot be terrestrial, if there is no terra.
I don’t think the point in this debates are to convince o win… it’s just to present the arguments from both sides, and it’s more directed at the audience rather than the debaters.
Shermer, in conceding that the universe may not have started infinitely long ago into the past, only posits something along the lines of an infinite series of causes going back infinitely into the past, which has the same problem he seems to be trying to avoid by conceding the universe itself didn't begin infinitely into the past. This is one possibility. Another is that somehow something can come from nothing, which seems to not actually be possible as if there isn't anything then there isn't even a property which exists by which something could come to be. The last possibility is that there is something that has simply always existed, which wasn't, itself created. This last possibility seems the most likely and makes the most sense when you flesh it out. Also, this thing would have to not be composed of parts, because composition implies that it formed rather than having simply always existed. And, having the freewill and intention necessary to choose to create is something only a being/person can have, and that is necessary as without that there must be a cause, a mechanism, by which that thing that just exists creates something, but that would mean there would have to be something external to the thing, which means we're back to the infinite regression. So, the options are, infinite regression, spontaneous something from nothing, or a being who is self-existent as the ultimate explanation for the existence of our universe, and, by extension, us.
I normally appreciate someone's willingness to debate. But this Shermer guy is extremely arrogant and has no answers to anything. He completely lost me when he said there wouldn't be laws of nature/logic without people. He's a fool who's trying to sound intelligent
He’s absolutely right though, these laws are human concepts and inventions, nothing more. I’ve always found it odd how Christians try and put some kind of voodoo magical powers on simple human words and concepts. Things like morals, justice, love and laws. It’s weird…
Looking on the outside of my world view, and even looking in as a Christian, I think Shermer is brilliant. I do think he is fallible, but he does well critically thinking about theology. Where I think he over looks the problems bridging science and God is in dealing with sin. Which is largely vague to state, but his fundamental misunderstanding of the book and God's purpose is where his weakness lies.
Perfect beings create perfect things, solid logic....except not. Part of being perfect is not being created, so anything created can't be perfect, also, part of being perfect is to be infinite, and possessing all the knowledge there is to know, having all the power there is to have, and other things, all of which cannot be true of anything created, regardless of whether or not the being doing the creating is perfect. It's actually easier to argue that a perfect being is necessarily incapable of creating anything perfect as anything created by necessity has some kind of limitation on it.
Title should be "christian reacts" Not sure if you mentioned your bias, but your title implies you go over the structure of the debate without inputting your own biased opinions into it.
That's a fair point (and thanks for watching). However, I do go over the structure of debate and talk about the merits of the arguments themselves. This works in favor of Turek (barely) in this debate but it's also why Dawkins bested Lennox in another video I reacted to. You should check it out as well. :)
I actually think that Wise Disciple does a solid job of judging these debates on the merits. He's more than willing to give credit when an atheist makes a good point or when a Christian does a bad job. He does both of those in this very video.
@@gerededasein1182I’ve watched several of his debate reviews now and something I can say with certainty is this dude is insanely bias. Yes, he will give atheists credit sometimes and be critical of the Christians at times but overall dude strongly favors the Christian side of things.
Shermer's filibustering calls for my two principles: 1. analogies are not explanations, and 2. exceptions do not refute general conditions. With Shermer, it seems an addendum needs to be added to this: 3. molecules do not produce morals. The progress that he implies with morality over the last few hundred years demonstrates an origin outside of natural processes, because natural processes haven't changed during that time; begs the question: what has? :) As far as I can see, there is no point in the moderator sitting between them at all. He should be stepping in to reinforce the format of the debate. Also, you can see Shermer's constant preference stays within his own learning style: "those are just words" i.e., he's not an auditory learner, then Frank points and says, "look up there" and he complies, i.e., visual learner.
As I am not an America and have never been involved in High School debate I had to look it up to see what Seth means when he says "Not a real debate". I now know there is a few formats of Debate in High School and I guess this is what he means it does not follow those rules. 75% of what Seth says is good and interesting when he analyses the questions and responses and points out when they have not answered, missed the point or missed the opportunity. However, how can he say someone it NOT a real debate so often in so many of his video, as if, only a debate done in a High School format is valid all others are not "REAL". I would say these debates he reacts too and more real than some pointless high school debate for points not convincing anyone of anything.
I can’t believe you don’t understand that when Shermer is making the analogy about the individual molecules of water being put together make something much bigger and more wonderful than the individual parts. That’s what he’s saying, that our bodies that are made up of molecules, have the ability to be way more than simply the parts put together like a robot.
no. everyone understands the point he’s trying to make, but even if we were to all grant that point, it wouldn’t explain why all the atoms in his brain culminating in his thoughts can be trusted or presented as the truth. he has no foundation or reason to believe that truth comes from these molecules.
I think that Wise Disciple is unaware of emergentism? I am not sure. I think there are some SERIOUS problems with the view, but Shermer, as are most secular humanists, emergentists when it comes to issues of properties that are immaterial and irreducible, like consciousness.
I tried listening to your evaluation, sorry.... I can see the bias way too clearly. I appreciate the effort but seriously. I would of thought that if anyone wants to evaluate things and give an opinion of that which they evaluate they would at least be well informed regarding the subjects discussed.
Schermer is introducing so many obscure ideas he didn't introduce in his opening statement. DNA very much acts like a computer code. The only thing it does is replicate it self. Other micro machines read the code and follow the 'chemical directions' to create specialized cells and their functionality.
Shermer said “Stars are gonna do what they’re gonna do”. Checkmate. I can’t believe Frank didn’t call him out on that. Shermer accidentally answered the question and Frank let him off the hook. Missed opportunity.
If right and wrong can change then there is no right or wrong, simply consensus. The consensus is Rome was the messing with kids was perfectly fine so does that actually make it morally correct? Because shermer certainly seemed to suggest the HE knows it’s wrong
Theres no right or wrong because its relative. Consensus doesnt mean anything. He knows it's wrong because the way he perceives reality constitutes it as wrong
I’m somewhat confused by your response here. You seem to be implying that morals are objective but at the same time you seem to admit that morals can and do change over time and culture. How do objective morals change?
The mathematical equations we use to describe what is going on with stars are constructed by humans. However, all stars operate in the manner that they do in a specific way that is true of all stars, and that was going on since their existence, which was way before our existence. Because of that, we can express what they do mathematically. So all we did was come up with a way to express what is going on in a way that we can use to predict what will happen in various circumstances regarding suns. This means that what is going on with stars conforms to a law, or set of laws, or rules regardless of how we may state those laws or even if we don't state them. So no, we did not create the laws governing how stars behave, we merely expressed those laws in a particular way that is useful to us.
I’ve never really understood this kind of thinking to honest. Water is wet so does that mean there is some kind of law of wetness? Stars are just doing what stars do, we observe this and measure it. There is no special transcendent law that says follow. Just like water isn’t following so special wetness law.
Shermer seems like his general ignorance on philosophy is really covered by his natural patronizing tone he takes with everyone. He puts off that he's educating everyone he talks to, and I think thats the only reason he has any popularity with the non-believer crowd.
Shermer claims to KNOW of all the other galaxies and planets. Yet has never ever been to a single one of them or seen them with his own two eyes in real life. Yet claims to KNOW of there existence and truth.
Maybe specifically each individual one, no, but he doesnt need to physically see or be at them to know they exist because theres no reason to believe they dont
I talk to a lot of Mormons, in my area there are lots of athiests and a lot of mormons, they both tend to have a developed worldview that's defended rather than justified through data, it's often despite the data rather than a result of this or that thing.
Hello Nate. I'd like to ask you about an Atheistic argument against the existence of God. Atheists say that God can't be the cause of the world's complexity (such as the human body), because that would push the question one level further: God would have to be even more complex than his creations, so what would explain God's existence? I'm sure this argument has some name, could you please point me to some sources where I could read up on Theists' answers to this objection? I'd be also interested to read your opinion on it if you feel like sharing. Have a nice day.
@@manafro2714Is your question not asking for an explanation of gods existence? I’m an atheist but the guy who commented first is kind of right. Christians just define their god in such a way that it doesn’t need an explanation. Which in my opinion is nonsense but and nothing more than word games.
16 mins. In the debate.... all Shermer has been doing is tap dancing around simple questions. It’s so difficult to continue watching. It’s simple rinse and repeat obfuscation.
Okay, around 630 mark We begin talking about justifying morality or not. No, we have it. It's inate within us who cares.... .... But the reason why we should care about something like that. It's because if we don't have a standard. Send, then nothing goes beyond human opinion. Then it turns into just a preference. Think about it this way. If there is a standard, then you do have a right to complain. Once someone does something morally abhorrent to you or. someone that you love. ... You can look back at history and say that certain things were objectively wrong like Southern slavery. You can say that was a wrong thing. Despite the fact that everyone around them in that culture at the time was saying that it's all right to do. ... But you see, if you don't have a standard. You don't have any of that stuff. Because you can't be sure morality on anything to judge anything by.
Turiks unbelief in literal 6 day creation not only discredits himself, but also discredits God with people like this. You now have to argue for 13 billion years of God not acting on humanity when you believe in the big bang.
If you now go see the conversation he had with Sean McDowell last week and compare that to what happened in this debate years ago, it shows that Shermer hasn't appeared to learned anything relevant to philosophy, theology, or even debating. In no way am I claiming that he's operating in bad faith, but simply that his understanding of what Christians believe now, and even through the orthodoxy of our faith's history has not improved in the slightest. Particularly in a debate, you should be debating the views/beliefs that your opponent holds to. I simply do not see that ever from Shermer and I am doubtful that will change outside of God's providence. For example, he is still to this day using the Euthyphro Dilemma when that has time and again been shown, directly to him, to not apply to the historic understanding of the Christian God.
Love these debates, enjoy your channel and commentary. I think you are a tad biased towards the god side. Of course, as a former catholic, and now atheist, I have my own bias. I would like to hear your thoughts on evidence vs arguments for proof of god. These debates wouldn’t be needed if there was a scintilla of evidence.
"These debates wouldn't be needed if there was a scintilla of evidence." What an ignorant assertion! And unless you're making the claim that *_neither_* side has any evidence, it's also plainly illogical.
To be honest my brothers in "atheist church"(joke) try to be more human(many of them are humanists), try to be good person and not harm to anyone... That's wrong. We need to be honest and speak straight what we know now about reality around us(humans). And don't care about fillings..
"If we are controlled by the laws of physics, including our thoughts, why would we expect our thoughts to be true?" Why would we expect them not to be true? Why would we expect them to be anything? What would thoughts being controlled by the laws of physics have anything at all to do with whether or not they are true? What possible connection would there be between the first thing and the second thing? Its like asking "If computers run on electricity, why would we be able to make English sentences with them?" If I was in a debate with somebody and they started the debate with such a hopelessly stupid question, my response would be to leave the debate unless my opponent agrees to ask questions that actually makes sense.
Thoughts being controlled by evolutionary processes means that they are random reactions to nature and not a conscious creation of a human mind using reason and logic. Evolution doesn’t create reason and logic. It’s a very good question, and Shermer had no answer.
There is nothing to debate, only do gods exist or not, all debates involve arguing as if it is a fact god exists, then discussing this god, if one cannot prove their god exists then there is nothing to debate, there is either evidence it does or no evidence to claim it does. There can be no such thing as evidence it does not.
Moral sense can be looked at like our sense of taste. Like how sense of taste changes throughout our lives, simpler as a child and more complex as an adult, so does our moral sense throughout time. In the past our moral sense was more simple and now it is more complex.
In other words, you see "morality" as mere preference & NOT a matter of right & wrong, which would mean that you think enjoying boiling babies alive is no more wrong than liking vanilla more than chocolate. You're effectively just dismissing the entire concept of morality, which is defined as what people ought to do, not what they actually do or want to do.
@@untrillbo That's exactly my point & doesn't help your position. If the idea of morality is the same as taste, then you CAN'T argue that anything is actually wrong, just like there's no basis for telling someone they're wrong for choosing lemon flavor instead of cherry. You're claiming that the idea of rāpe being bad is no different than thinking lemon flavor is bad.
Our US constitution and the Declaration of Independence are both strongly based off of a religious presupposition. “We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that are life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness” That is not a scientific statement. If you believe in that …congrats you believe in a religion and an absolute standard. “Self evident truth” and “certainty ” doesn’t exist in a strict materialistic or naturalistic framework. Atheist can dance all day and try to talk about religion and how it’s false or holds back humanity. But “If you pay attention, when you are seeking something, you will move towards your goal. More importantly, however, you will acquire the information that allows your goal itself to transform. A totalitarian never asks, “What if my current ambition is in error?” He treats it, instead, as the Absolute. It becomes his God, for all intents and purposes. It constitutes his highest value. It regulates his emotions and motivational states, and determines his thoughts. All people serve their ambition. In that matter, there are no atheists. There are only people who know, and don’t know, what God they serve.”
It's not any more religious than scientific. It's simply a denial of government being a high enough of an authority to take away our rights. But regardless, this isnt strongly religious in spite of that because nowhere else is a creator referenced
You have different definitions of what science is and religion Science equals = is Religion / philosophy = awt That is philosophy 101 Everything you just said was appealing to higher standard, even that isn’t empirical. It doesn’t have to mention it multiple times anyways. It’s the disclaimer and the bases for law. You appeal to those standards and people do whether they say they do or don’t and you can call it whatever you want.
This country was built upon Christian principles, I can post as many quotes from our forefathers and towering intellectuals giants as anyone would like. People just deny that now and act as if it’s gone and non existent but will walk right out the door and apply those principles every day. That’s why these college kids right now that are on the streets screaming about “moral rights” but at the same time don’t believe there’s a God it’s just asinine. As Jeff Durbin would say “so what” …. You have no rights , scientifically , a strict biological macro evolutionary process doesn’t have moral awts and duties, they actually have the opposite, death , decay, species rising up over another and wiping them out.
Hitchens was more a rhetorician than philosopher. He was very charming and could wordplay with the best, but he often failed to stay on topic or directly answer questions. He was still a master rhetorician and was quite the challenge for theists.
No, the moral argument only applies to those who dont believe in a supremely good being that's given us revelation. I'm not sure what the Sikh religion posits, and I'd love to learn. But if you believe in a supremely good being I would use different arguments, such as the reliability of scripture, fulfilled prophecies, evidence for Christs resurrection etc.
This channel has a criminally low subscriber number. You are hands down the most unbiased, honest debate teacher in the business
This is one of the reason's Craig is such a formidable debater. He sticks to the format, knows his opponent and sticks to the topic while exploiting weaknesses and pinning down the opposition to reveal his position loud and clear to the audience.
I feel like this has to be sarcastic...
@@christopherneedham9584 Not at all.
Did you mean to say Turek and not Craig?
@@juliogomez9145 No, I meant Craig in contrast to what Turek did. He strayed too much.
If you notice your video viewer count going up by one on each one of your old debate breakdowns: it’s me.
After seeing you on capturing Christianity, I’m going through your backlog.
It’s truly fantastic stuff.
Shermer didn't mind dodging the mind question.
Which one are you referring to?
@@Samuel-qc7kg it's over a year ago I made this post. If I rewatch it I'll let you know.
@@malvokaquila6768did you out ever figure it out?
@@A.Lop17 easily as anyone who watched this debate would know.
Dr. Shermer dodged every point of contention.
---
To make it easy let's take the first one within the first few minutes.
How can we trust our minds if it is the accidental byproduct of a mindless unguided process with no end in mind.
This assertion by Dr. Shermer brings not only our capacity to think into question but any concept we think is true as well. Including the assertion that our minds are the accidental byproduct of a mindless unguided process with no end in mind.
Watching the old ones after becoming a fan because of the new videos; I have to say it is cool to see how Nate has changed and improved. Thank you Nate.
Thanks for watching this episode! Who do you think won the debate? Tell us in the comments. Also, if you have a specific debate you'd like Nate to deconstruct, let us know 🙂
This may not be totally clear, but I will ask you since Shermer brought it up.
He asked “given that we know the age of the universe (13billion years) and man is recent (100k), what was God doing all that time?”
Aside from the fact that those are both assertions which were not being debated, what is it called when someone does that? It seems like he was basically asking “if God created all this, then why didn’t he create all this?”
What I mean is, he takes the atheistic presuppositions and then attempts to build a theistic house on that foundation, and then looks shocked that they don’t go together.
What is that called?
ruclips.net/video/PqHgrUu4ZWg/видео.html
You can review the classical debate of Kent , by the way am hocked on all your videos , Great work.
@@KaraboMasemola6408 Thanks!! I'll take a look! And thanks for the encouragement :)
@@rickbaker261 I'm not sure if there is a name for this. Maybe it's Argument from Incredulity. In other words, this isn't what I would expect to happen, therefore it didn't happen. Certainly, if an atheist or skeptic wants to critique our worldview, they should fully adopt the view (step inside it and look around, so to speak) before critiquing. Or else they'll smuggle in their own presuppositions and then claim our view is incoherent.
The question you just asked has already been answered by a video made 12 years ago:
Christianity Debate
NonStampCollector
ruclips.net/video/bSLkQnCurgs/видео.html
Quality analysis. Thanks! I think it's really frustrating to watch people argue around each other.
Thanks for watching Ian! And for reaching out and letting us know what you think! You're right, it IS very frustrating to watch people talk around each other instead of to each other! :)
This is becoming my favorite channels
Thanks for the evaluation! Very interesting...now onto the Craig/Hitchens debate.
Shermer’s argument collapsed into a black hole.
I hope this channel gets tons more love! I'm addicted and edified.
Great stuff! Though you’re a Christian yourself, you do an amazing job at being objection. Invaluable insight! Thanks!
“Levels Jerry. Levels.” - Kramer
Ha, working on it!
The problem is they were using different definitions of objective for the truth part. That was the only difference
Anything is possible in the mind of these people. Anything but God.
The amount of blind faith and absurdity required to deny the Creator's existence is staggering.
Shermer seems like he is trying to find the "right" analogy to answer Turek's questions. But he continues to go around and around and never quite getting there.
Thanks for watching GERONIMO 😅 He does try to use a lot of analogies, doesn’t he?
Because there isnt one so his brain couldnt find anything to provide hence hes going in and out circlying in a loop hole its that simple, imagine your flying or entering jupitar trying to land on a surface, well you cant cuz there isnt any surface on jupitar for you to land on therefore instead of landing on it you'd come back out the other side, thatsl is whats happening here
When Shermer mentioned the "what was God doing " for all that time?, He was parroting the pathological ranter against something that doesn't exist according to him ( Christopher Hitchens). Hitchens routinely brought up the ' Bronze Age culture, what was God doing for billions of years prior to the advent of Christianity '? rant.
Responding a long while after but this annoyed me as well. I remember Hitchens saying that but what is more annoying is how this thinking conflicts with Turek's presented view of God anyways. He'll tell you, God is a timeless being. What is a billion years to a being completely unaffected by time?
@@BlueVariableGamesnothing because it doesnt exist. That makes no sense
Thanks for videos my guy
I really appreciate your work, brother. James White vs. David Silverman debate please...New sub here.
Shermers moral argument is not logically consistent. Philosophically, there is no objective moral basis, but we can show through evolution and neuroscience why we make certain moral actions and why we all agree. If we lived in a society of all hitlers, maybe they would outcast the person who is like us. It's the way it is and that's how it is
The way it is: most individuals agree on their society's moral framework.
How it works: Neuroscience and evolution through many generations
Why it works: ?????
When it comes to morality, how it is matters far less than *why* it is. We may show how stuff in our brains produces chemicals which manifests as behaviors, but not *why* it is that *those* behaviors are made manifest over, say, Hitler-esque behaviors. If morality is written on our hearts, so to speak, and our free will gives us the ability to ignore our conscience, then it follows that morality has an objective basis which determines our chemical output when we accept or reject the prodding of our conscience.
I looked up "steamroller" in my dictionary and saw Michael Shermers picture!
DNA may not be a computer program, but comparing it to a computer program is not simply a metaphor either as it is code, just not code for a computer as we understand the term computer. The coding is also more complex than any computer coding we have come up with. The biggest difference is that it instructs biological systems rather than electronic systems, and as such it has to take into account the larger variability of the biological system.
Thanks for this!
Wow, Shermer seems befuddled. Frank rocks!
I don't know why atheists argue for morality as independent of faith, just accept that morality is a faith based construct and move on. Their perception of humanity and it's decisions are purely natural, survival based rooted in their concept of evolution.
No, humanity's decisions are not natural. Morality itself isnt natural. Our survival depends on morality being favorable for most people
The fridge analogy is great.
Thank you! And thanks so much for watching 😊
The fridge analogy is not a good one because if Turek finds the fridge in the forest, he’s not just asking where it came from. He’s also proposing he knows where it came from when he has no evidence to make that proposition. If Shermer finds the fridge, he’s not only saying it’s simply a fridge full of food, he’s also asking where it came from. The difference is he’s not making any guesses or propositions. He’s simply saying he doesn’t know where it came from. It’s a bad analogy but it sounds good to people who don’t understand what he’s really saying.
@@richrobledo6561 there's certain features which are characteristic of the action of a mind. One way of defining one of these is the generation of new information. We see natural processes iterating existing information all the time, but the only cause we ever observe generating new information is an intelligent mind. The fine tuning in nature is very much related the this same principle. With fine tuning we can define it was the purposeful arrangement of matter or tuning laws of physics. This screams teleology because for all we know things could have been. Physics models seem to give us strong confidence that our of the possible ways things could have been, a minuscule percentage of them would make life possible. Given that we know the odds being against something is no obstacles for a mind we are justified in inferring a mind as the cause for this arrangement of matter and the fine tuning. Everyday I arrange letters in ways which are statistically implausible by natural processes.
The atheist does in fact want to stop the question one level sooner than the theist.
@@TheologyUnleashed You must know that the way evolution works the way it does it is that it generates new information all the time. It’s a slow process which takes place over long periods of time. So your statement about the only cause we ever observe generating new information is an intelligent mind is quite wrong and simple. If evolution doesn’t generate new information, we wouldn’t see the changes we do see , the proof that we have that science has observed. Also, you proved my point when I said Turek is only guessing where the fridge came from. You said you’re justified in “inferring an intelligent mind”. If you want to know truth, you never “infer”. You keep an open mind, you observe so your surroundings, and test what are you observe using the ongoing process we call science to keep you grounded, and most importantly, you never make guesses or infer. Even if you do, it’s one thing to say “we think this is where the fridge came from”, it’s a totally different thing altogether- and quite arrogant- to say “we know where it came from”. Because you don’t. No one does! If if you did, you would be able to provide the evidence but no one has been able to demonstrate this.
“We’re born with the sense of human value.” “We get our morality from the constitution.” Which is it. Is morality innate or constructed?
both.
How are ya, A Clear Lens. it's a extremely vivid video. thank. :)
I wanna see you break down a rapture debate.. Partial pred vs pretrib..
37:20 Too bad Frank doesn’t accept the Bible’s teaching of a literal 24 hour 6 day creation where death disease and suffering only entered the world after the fall of man. Such an easy slam dunk rebuttal to Michael’s question.
Whaaattttttt
Run shermer run !! Your deceit is being called out mercilessly..
I think we should all be like the moderator and give up the idea that this is still a formal debate and just enjoy the discussion.
I knew you were a calvinist lol love your videos brother
15:00 why didnt you expand on your no. You breezed passed your no when he explained the correlation hahahaha.
22:15 This is why presumption apologetics is the only truly biblical way to give a reason for the hope within you.
two very important points that lead many people to disbelieve in the true god. firstly, the number of existing religions that confuses people and secondly, the atrocities that some
So, we have an innate sense of morality? That actually sounds like an argument FOR theism...
The rest of Shermer's "cross-exam" was so incredibly simplistic and unsophisticated.
Turek's case was not even that strong, but Shermer sounded like an intellectual lightweight.
Why do atheists not know how to debate?
Because they live in a bubble and dismiss different worldviews as stupid nonsense.
I love Shermers's Last Law and how it dismantles his own view. He argues that any sufficiently advanced extraterrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from a deity, but without _religious_ context, such an entity would literally *be* a deity. These aren't mutually exclusive propositions. Case in point: I submit to you that any deity credited for the creation of the Earth, or held to have existed prior to the Earth, would be an extraterrestrial, NY default, because it cannot be terrestrial, if there is no terra.
Shermer doesn't answer the questions because he can't.
I feel like Shermer did his debate prep on Reddit.
This Shermer guy.. is he a politician?
It’s a shame that Schermer concedes old earth. The universe is much younger. Also Lucy was a primate.
This probably would have gotten off track for the debate but I wish we could have heard them discuss biblical cosmology and see where that went.
Don't bring up Hitler, and for the same reason don't bring up slavery. 🤷🏾♀️
I don’t think the point in this debates are to convince o win… it’s just to present the arguments from both sides, and it’s more directed at the audience rather than the debaters.
That comment was, as you say, a zinger: regarding women’s rights, “except for the one in the womb”
Great work, thanks. Could you assess David Wood vs Mohammed Hijab please.
I'll take a look! Thanks for watching, and for the suggestion :)
Shermer, in conceding that the universe may not have started infinitely long ago into the past, only posits something along the lines of an infinite series of causes going back infinitely into the past, which has the same problem he seems to be trying to avoid by conceding the universe itself didn't begin infinitely into the past.
This is one possibility. Another is that somehow something can come from nothing, which seems to not actually be possible as if there isn't anything then there isn't even a property which exists by which something could come to be. The last possibility is that there is something that has simply always existed, which wasn't, itself created. This last possibility seems the most likely and makes the most sense when you flesh it out. Also, this thing would have to not be composed of parts, because composition implies that it formed rather than having simply always existed. And, having the freewill and intention necessary to choose to create is something only a being/person can have, and that is necessary as without that there must be a cause, a mechanism, by which that thing that just exists creates something, but that would mean there would have to be something external to the thing, which means we're back to the infinite regression.
So, the options are, infinite regression, spontaneous something from nothing, or a being who is self-existent as the ultimate explanation for the existence of our universe, and, by extension, us.
I normally appreciate someone's willingness to debate. But this Shermer guy is extremely arrogant and has no answers to anything. He completely lost me when he said there wouldn't be laws of nature/logic without people. He's a fool who's trying to sound intelligent
He’s absolutely right though, these laws are human concepts and inventions, nothing more.
I’ve always found it odd how Christians try and put some kind of voodoo magical powers on simple human words and concepts. Things like morals, justice, love and laws. It’s weird…
Looking on the outside of my world view, and even looking in as a Christian, I think Shermer is brilliant. I do think he is fallible, but he does well critically thinking about theology. Where I think he over looks the problems bridging science and God is in dealing with sin. Which is largely vague to state, but his fundamental misunderstanding of the book and God's purpose is where his weakness lies.
Thx bro just find your channel
Dumb it down is a good way of saying it
Perfect beings create perfect things, solid logic....except not. Part of being perfect is not being created, so anything created can't be perfect, also, part of being perfect is to be infinite, and possessing all the knowledge there is to know, having all the power there is to have, and other things, all of which cannot be true of anything created, regardless of whether or not the being doing the creating is perfect. It's actually easier to argue that a perfect being is necessarily incapable of creating anything perfect as anything created by necessity has some kind of limitation on it.
Lively. Shouldn’t the moderator step in and get things back on track?
Please review some Jay Dyer debates.
Title should be "christian reacts"
Not sure if you mentioned your bias, but your title implies you go over the structure of the debate without inputting your own biased opinions into it.
That's a fair point (and thanks for watching). However, I do go over the structure of debate and talk about the merits of the arguments themselves. This works in favor of Turek (barely) in this debate but it's also why Dawkins bested Lennox in another video I reacted to. You should check it out as well. :)
I actually think that Wise Disciple does a solid job of judging these debates on the merits. He's more than willing to give credit when an atheist makes a good point or when a Christian does a bad job. He does both of those in this very video.
@@gerededasein1182I’ve watched several of his debate reviews now and something I can say with certainty is this dude is insanely bias.
Yes, he will give atheists credit sometimes and be critical of the Christians at times but overall dude strongly favors the Christian side of things.
Shermer's filibustering calls for my two principles: 1. analogies are not explanations, and 2. exceptions do not refute general conditions. With Shermer, it seems an addendum needs to be added to this: 3. molecules do not produce morals. The progress that he implies with morality over the last few hundred years demonstrates an origin outside of natural processes, because natural processes haven't changed during that time; begs the question: what has? :) As far as I can see, there is no point in the moderator sitting between them at all. He should be stepping in to reinforce the format of the debate. Also, you can see Shermer's constant preference stays within his own learning style: "those are just words" i.e., he's not an auditory learner, then Frank points and says, "look up there" and he complies, i.e., visual learner.
As I am not an America and have never been involved in High School debate I had to look it up to see what Seth means when he says "Not a real debate". I now know there is a few formats of Debate in High School and I guess this is what he means it does not follow those rules. 75% of what Seth says is good and interesting when he analyses the questions and responses and points out when they have not answered, missed the point or missed the opportunity. However, how can he say someone it NOT a real debate so often in so many of his video, as if, only a debate done in a High School format is valid all others are not "REAL". I would say these debates he reacts too and more real than some pointless high school debate for points not convincing anyone of anything.
I can’t believe you don’t understand that when Shermer is making the analogy about the individual molecules of water being put together make something much bigger and more wonderful than the individual parts. That’s what he’s saying, that our bodies that are made up of molecules, have the ability to be way more than simply the parts put together like a robot.
no. everyone understands the point he’s trying to make, but even if we were to all grant that point, it wouldn’t explain why all the atoms in his brain culminating in his thoughts can be trusted or presented as the truth. he has no foundation or reason to believe that truth comes from these molecules.
I think that Wise Disciple is unaware of emergentism? I am not sure. I think there are some SERIOUS problems with the view, but Shermer, as are most secular humanists, emergentists when it comes to issues of properties that are immaterial and irreducible, like consciousness.
Doesn't make sense to me.
I tried listening to your evaluation, sorry.... I can see the bias way too clearly. I appreciate the effort but seriously. I would of thought that if anyone wants to evaluate things and give an opinion of that which they evaluate they would at least be well informed regarding the subjects discussed.
Turek nailed it when he started calling Shermer out as a post modernist.
Schermer is introducing so many obscure ideas he didn't introduce in his opening statement. DNA very much acts like a computer code. The only thing it does is replicate it self. Other micro machines read the code and follow the 'chemical directions' to create specialized cells and their functionality.
Euthyphro? Shermer is stuck in the 2004 interwebs.
That Shermer's arguments tho... I remember Dr. Bill Craigs top 10 worst atheist objection to theism(Christianity)...
That was too much I think it hurt head chemicals 😂😭
Shermer said “Stars are gonna do what they’re gonna do”. Checkmate. I can’t believe Frank didn’t call him out on that. Shermer accidentally answered the question and Frank let him off the hook. Missed opportunity.
How is that checkmate exactly?
If right and wrong can change then there is no right or wrong, simply consensus. The consensus is Rome was the messing with kids was perfectly fine so does that actually make it morally correct? Because shermer certainly seemed to suggest the HE knows it’s wrong
Theres no right or wrong because its relative. Consensus doesnt mean anything. He knows it's wrong because the way he perceives reality constitutes it as wrong
I’m somewhat confused by your response here. You seem to be implying that morals are objective but at the same time you seem to admit that morals can and do change over time and culture. How do objective morals change?
The mathematical equations we use to describe what is going on with stars are constructed by humans. However, all stars operate in the manner that they do in a specific way that is true of all stars, and that was going on since their existence, which was way before our existence. Because of that, we can express what they do mathematically. So all we did was come up with a way to express what is going on in a way that we can use to predict what will happen in various circumstances regarding suns. This means that what is going on with stars conforms to a law, or set of laws, or rules regardless of how we may state those laws or even if we don't state them. So no, we did not create the laws governing how stars behave, we merely expressed those laws in a particular way that is useful to us.
So did we invent mathematics, or did we discover it?
@@medleysainvent
@@tonyisnotdead so then mathematics wouldn’t exist if we had never existed?
I’ve never really understood this kind of thinking to honest. Water is wet so does that mean there is some kind of law of wetness?
Stars are just doing what stars do, we observe this and measure it. There is no special transcendent law that says follow. Just like water isn’t following so special wetness law.
Schermer is the Glass Joe of atheism
Where be my comment from earlier today?
Shermer seems like his general ignorance on philosophy is really covered by his natural patronizing tone he takes with everyone. He puts off that he's educating everyone he talks to, and I think thats the only reason he has any popularity with the non-believer crowd.
Sterner is either kinda slow or just running from Frank's questions..
None won.
Shermer claims to KNOW of all the other galaxies and planets. Yet has never ever been to a single one of them or seen them with his own two eyes in real life. Yet claims to KNOW of there existence and truth.
Maybe specifically each individual one, no, but he doesnt need to physically see or be at them to know they exist because theres no reason to believe they dont
I talk to a lot of Mormons, in my area there are lots of athiests and a lot of mormons, they both tend to have a developed worldview that's defended rather than justified through data, it's often despite the data rather than a result of this or that thing.
Devolved, frustrating!!!
In the end, Shermer as no hope !
Morality is the historically social construct. That's it... Don't like answer? Your problem.
Hello Nate. I'd like to ask you about an Atheistic argument against the existence of God. Atheists say that God can't be the cause of the world's complexity (such as the human body), because that would push the question one level further: God would have to be even more complex than his creations, so what would explain God's existence? I'm sure this argument has some name, could you please point me to some sources where I could read up on Theists' answers to this objection? I'd be also interested to read your opinion on it if you feel like sharing. Have a nice day.
God is a supernatural, uncaused, extremely powerful, eternal, supreme, ultimate being. He is the eternal existing being, by definition.
@@sly8926
Thanks, but your comment has nothing to do with what I wrote.
@@manafro2714 I took your question to be mean “who created God”?
Is that not what you’re asking?
@@sly8926 No.
@@manafro2714Is your question not asking for an explanation of gods existence?
I’m an atheist but the guy who commented first is kind of right. Christians just define their god in such a way that it doesn’t need an explanation. Which in my opinion is nonsense but and nothing more than word games.
This guy is a "debate teacher" like Ken Ham is a science teacher.
16 mins. In the debate.... all Shermer has been doing is tap dancing around simple questions. It’s so difficult to continue watching. It’s simple rinse and repeat obfuscation.
Okay, around 630 mark
We begin talking about justifying morality or not.
No, we have it. It's inate within us who cares....
.... But the reason why we should care about something like that. It's because if we don't have a standard.
Send, then nothing goes beyond human opinion. Then it turns into just a preference.
Think about it this way. If there is a standard, then you do have a right to complain. Once someone does something morally abhorrent to you or. someone that you love.
... You can look back at history and say that certain things were objectively wrong like Southern slavery.
You can say that was a wrong thing. Despite the fact that everyone around them in that culture at the time was saying that it's all right to do.
... But you see, if you don't have a standard. You don't have any of that stuff. Because you can't be sure morality on anything to judge anything by.
I love Frank Turek as an apologist but as a debater....needs work lol
I agree. He brings up good points for sure but needs to be better about his approach and tactics
Turiks unbelief in literal 6 day creation not only discredits himself, but also discredits God with people like this. You now have to argue for 13 billion years of God not acting on humanity when you believe in the big bang.
There was no time before the Big Bang.
@@CameronClark-sk7mg I said nothing about the pre "big bang"
If you now go see the conversation he had with Sean McDowell last week and compare that to what happened in this debate years ago, it shows that Shermer hasn't appeared to learned anything relevant to philosophy, theology, or even debating. In no way am I claiming that he's operating in bad faith, but simply that his understanding of what Christians believe now, and even through the orthodoxy of our faith's history has not improved in the slightest. Particularly in a debate, you should be debating the views/beliefs that your opponent holds to. I simply do not see that ever from Shermer and I am doubtful that will change outside of God's providence. For example, he is still to this day using the Euthyphro Dilemma when that has time and again been shown, directly to him, to not apply to the historic understanding of the Christian God.
Love these debates, enjoy your channel and commentary. I think you are a tad biased towards the god side. Of course, as a former catholic, and now atheist, I have my own bias. I would like to hear your thoughts on evidence vs arguments for proof of god. These debates wouldn’t be needed if there was a scintilla of evidence.
The proof that God exists is the historical fact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Well, the fact that abiogenesis has never been shown to even be possible according to laws of nature is certainly evidence for the existence of Deity.
"These debates wouldn't be needed if there was a scintilla of evidence."
What an ignorant assertion!
And unless you're making the claim that *_neither_* side has any evidence, it's also plainly illogical.
I too am a former Christian and completely agree. If there was actual evidence or proof of gods existence there wouldn’t be a debate about it.
To be honest my brothers in "atheist church"(joke) try to be more human(many of them are humanists), try to be good person and not harm to anyone... That's wrong. We need to be honest and speak straight what we know now about reality around us(humans). And don't care about fillings..
do these people take phd's in deflection or what?
21:07
‘You brought it up!’
No he didn’t, goldfish-brain. Think back about ten seconds if you can.
"If we are controlled by the laws of physics, including our thoughts, why would we expect our thoughts to be true?"
Why would we expect them not to be true? Why would we expect them to be anything? What would thoughts being controlled by the laws of physics have anything at all to do with whether or not they are true? What possible connection would there be between the first thing and the second thing?
Its like asking "If computers run on electricity, why would we be able to make English sentences with them?"
If I was in a debate with somebody and they started the debate with such a hopelessly stupid question, my response would be to leave the debate unless my opponent agrees to ask questions that actually makes sense.
Thoughts being controlled by evolutionary processes means that they are random reactions to nature and not a conscious creation of a human mind using reason and logic. Evolution doesn’t create reason and logic. It’s a very good question, and Shermer had no answer.
Does evolution reward truth?
There is nothing to debate, only do gods exist or not, all debates involve arguing as if it is a fact god exists, then discussing this god, if one cannot prove their god exists then there is nothing to debate, there is either evidence it does or no evidence to claim it does. There can be no such thing as evidence it does not.
Moral sense can be looked at like our sense of taste. Like how sense of taste changes throughout our lives, simpler as a child and more complex as an adult, so does our moral sense throughout time. In the past our moral sense was more simple and now it is more complex.
How do you know that?
@@sly8926 I know from observing the beliefs of people though time.
In other words, you see "morality" as mere preference & NOT a matter of right & wrong, which would mean that you think enjoying boiling babies alive is no more wrong than liking vanilla more than chocolate.
You're effectively just dismissing the entire concept of morality, which is defined as what people ought to do, not what they actually do or want to do.
@@JJ-yc2sv People don’t choose their tastebuds.
@@untrillbo
That's exactly my point & doesn't help your position.
If the idea of morality is the same as taste, then you CAN'T argue that anything is actually wrong, just like there's no basis for telling someone they're wrong for choosing lemon flavor instead of cherry.
You're claiming that the idea of rāpe being bad is no different than thinking lemon flavor is bad.
Still the Nobel Prize has been given for proving the existence of the supernatural . So the debate is really mute.
I truly don't understand the hate for cats. I've great cats and great dogs, crummy cats and crummy dogs.
Our US constitution and the Declaration of Independence are both strongly based off of a religious presupposition.
“We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal and that they are endowed by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights, that are life, liberty and the pursuit to happiness”
That is not a scientific statement. If you believe in that …congrats you believe in a religion and an absolute standard. “Self evident truth” and “certainty ” doesn’t exist in a strict materialistic or naturalistic framework. Atheist can dance all day and try to talk about religion and how it’s false or holds back humanity. But
“If you pay attention, when you are seeking something, you will move towards your goal. More importantly, however, you will acquire the information that allows your goal itself to transform. A totalitarian never asks, “What if my current ambition is in error?” He treats it, instead, as the Absolute. It becomes his God, for all intents and purposes. It constitutes his highest value. It regulates his emotions and motivational states, and determines his thoughts. All people serve their ambition. In that matter, there are no atheists. There are only people who know, and don’t know, what God they serve.”
It's not any more religious than scientific. It's simply a denial of government being a high enough of an authority to take away our rights. But regardless, this isnt strongly religious in spite of that because nowhere else is a creator referenced
You have different definitions of what science is and religion
Science equals = is
Religion / philosophy = awt
That is philosophy 101
Everything you just said was appealing to higher standard, even that isn’t empirical. It doesn’t have to mention it multiple times anyways. It’s the disclaimer and the bases for law. You appeal to those standards and people do whether they say they do or don’t and you can call it whatever you want.
This country was built upon Christian principles, I can post as many quotes from our forefathers and towering intellectuals giants as anyone would like. People just deny that now and act as if it’s gone and non existent but will walk right out the door and apply those principles every day. That’s why these college kids right now that are on the streets screaming about “moral rights” but at the same time don’t believe there’s a God it’s just asinine.
As Jeff Durbin would say “so what” …. You have no rights , scientifically , a strict biological macro evolutionary process doesn’t have moral awts and duties, they actually have the opposite, death , decay, species rising up over another and wiping them out.
Man I miss Christopher Hitchens. I like Shermer, but the level of atheist debater really dropped when Hitch passed away.
Hitchens was more a rhetorician than philosopher. He was very charming and could wordplay with the best, but he often failed to stay on topic or directly answer questions.
He was still a master rhetorician and was quite the challenge for theists.
I'm a Sikh, So does that mean I can't know what's good and evil because I don't use the Bible as moral guidance?
No, the moral argument only applies to those who dont believe in a supremely good being that's given us revelation. I'm not sure what the Sikh religion posits, and I'd love to learn. But if you believe in a supremely good being I would use different arguments, such as the reliability of scripture, fulfilled prophecies, evidence for Christs resurrection etc.
This was really hard to listen to.