God condones slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide and the mass killings of people for non-crimes, why do we not follow these laws given by god today if morality must come from god? This is proof we are moral without religion, indeed, our morality trumps religious teachings.
So you want a minority to rule the majority because you think you're morally superior. Flat out, you want tRump cultists to rule over all human beings. And if anyone questions that notion they are called a Satanic Cabalist baby eating Lizard person.
I love this because even with such a disagreement if you pause the last second of the video both are leaving the conversation with a laugh and a smile. Love these civil and thoughtful exchanges!
Me too! I’ve been really working on putting my ego aside to try to have thoughtful and respectful conversations with others who have different viewpoints. It can be challenging for two people to put aside their egos and just try to bounce ideas off of each other without one or both demanding they’re right and insulting the other or being condescending.
@@bigpagla No, he did not want an answer, he wanted to win. His arguments were nonsensical and he constantly contradicted himself throughout the entire discussion. Everytime this was pointed out to him he pivoted and began contradicting himself even more.
This is really unbelievable that this kid cannot see the incoherence of what he is saying in the contradictory statements that he makes himself. Unbelievable. Why can't these kids think critically and accurately
@@brianpeterson8908 Right. There are so many contradictions that it's impossible to follow the bible. Do we stone people to death like the bible tells us to? Or do we not kill people, like the bible also tells us? To kill or not to kill, that is the question.
@@somerandom3247 well, I could argue with you but if you're incapable of listening to reason, there's no point. Ever heard the saying "never play chess with a pigeon"? Well, coo coo for you :)
Frank's patience and listening skills are super fundamental and I dare say, far more valuable than his arguments for the Faith. Thank you Frank for such a display of care for people, and the courage to engage in some of the most difficult debates I've seen you endure. It has taught me a lot.
Exactly! Even through it is true, preaching 'youre going to hell' wont help. It is kindness and showing our actions and speaking just like Frank is here that lets people see the perspective of our side in Christ
@@talitameyer2581 thanks for sharing 😊... I wouldn't say preaching about the impending danger of eternal damnation in hell "won't help"... i believe that defintiely has its place, and is desperately necessary when the card needs to be played. After watching Ray Comfort and Living Waters Evangelism videos, I see that like Frank, they display similar virtues of patience, kindness and courage to engage the culture which would be rather uncomfortable to most. And they preach "you're going to hell", albeit with a key aspect in their message - context. In both cases, I am moved by the resolve to endure as Love does, that is displayed in the efforts of those who care to share the Kingdom of God, and not their personal preference of the Kingdom vs. any other worldview. There isn't an arrogant forcefulness behind it all, but rather I can see the heart of God in their efforts through the virtues displayed. The same information can and has been shared in arrogance, and even though true, even I as a believer tended shy away from the presentation. End of the day, the product they are presenting is Supreme, but many times the salesman is motived by some other means rather than Love, and so it shows. Hopefully that makes sense.
@@WiZdOm17 No I definitely agree. I occasionally watch Ray Comfort myself but what I was referring to was just shouting from the rooftops the consequence of hell, instead of in love. There is definitely a place for preaching the reality of sin. It's what we needed ourselves to follow Jesus! Just had to clarify that, I completely agree with you
Frank listens intently so that he make build the weakest straw man possible. His arguments of faith are non-existent, so he has to resort to that. For example, his arguments against evolution frequently involve the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which just blows my mind with its stupidity.
It’s frustrating how this guy doesn’t see that he’s contradicting himself. This essentially boils down to: Frank: “What is your moral standard?” Atheist: “Whatever society agrees on. There is no objective right or wrong. Morality is dependent on what society believes as a whole.” Frank: “So if society changed their minds and decided that murdering Jews was actually best for humanity, it would become moral?” Atheist: “No, because murdering Jews is wrong (objectively.)”. [proceeds to try and take the discussion down a rabbit trail of confusion.]
@@joshuakohlmann9731 Lol there’s that atheist logic. Concede all grounds to object to anyone else’s behavior. If there’s no objective standard then there’s no such thing as right and wrong. To each their own. It’s not your preference, but who are you to tell them what to do? “I personally don’t like it when you mercilessly beat that puppy in your front yard, but you seem to get a lot of joy out of it and I can’t really say that you’re objectively wrong for doing it…”. Anything to try to dance around the reality of God’s existence I guess…
@@joshuakohlmann9731 I agree even if a morality is accepted by the majority It would still have no more validity than if it was invented and held by only one. But if God made the world and we are part of it then wouldn't any morality built into it apply to us as well? Could this then be considered an objective morality for us here in this place? If you were a programmer and you built your own gameworld could you not Include within the code a moral standard to be followed by all NPC's? Could this then not be considered an objective standard within the game?
Yeah...no. Frank continuously strawmans and doesn't "listen" or answer clearly. He'd rather focus on something that didn't happen (nazis) and ignore what actually happened (slavery)
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 psychological states such as arrogance, selfishness, envy, and resentment thus creating an immoral attitude leading to taboo behaviors and then think themselves superior for doing so.
He did not, Frank either misunderstood him or purposely tried to push him into this hypothetical nazi world. The guy refused to go with Franks nazi story by (basically) saying: “You ask me if I would agree with the rest of this nazi world and my answer is no, because I live in a world were murdering Jews is not permissible according to society. That’s actually pretty clever. I think this is the first atheist, of the clips I have seen, who was actually prepared for Frank.
I also think he did a good job considering Frank constantly brings up this 'what if' Nazi nonsense all the time. What most people don't know is that during the regime, in which Hitler became Chancellor, was brought forward by Christians. Namely the Protestants, who made up about 40% of the population and are the ones that favored Hitler and brought him into power.
@@Alfa-uu7zb I think we watched different videos because he literally contradicts himself saying that an analogy cannot be used because it disproves your argument is guess what not an argument.
Still wrong based on his subjective morality. The standard is his opinion. Same way we all judge every moral issue. Do you have an example of an objective moral, and a basis for it being objective?
@@somerandom3247 As Christians, we put the foundation of objective moral values in God’s very nature, therefore God doesn’t will things because they're good or that things are good because God wills them but because God himself is the “Good”. As the greatest conceivable being, His very nature is where we derive objective moral values and duties from. Therefore his commands are self-inclusive, so when a person asks “Why should we obey God then?” it’s because when God makes the command “Obey me” since he is the standard of Goodness the command to obey him is itself a moral good, therefore, we ought to obey him. I’ll link a video that better explains this concept below👇🏿
@@Peter-Itatiro So, why should we obey god when god says, "Obey me."? Is it because god said so? Why should we obey him when he says so? By the way, this god of the bible is an immoral thug and I have no reason to obey such a vile being.
@@Peter-Itatiro "we put the foundation of objective moral values in God’s very nature" What do you mean by gods nature? Do you mean how he behaves? If so, do you think its morally ok to drown people that dont beheave the way you want them to? or to send bears to maul children? are they morally good things to do?
@@somerandom3247 Yes. Don't get the wrong impression. I have one of the worst mood swing disorders ever. I can lose my mind over nothing. I just cursed my refrigerator out lol.
I base my moral judgement on the standard of "The overall well being of everyone involved with respect to intent and consent". So it's not an opinion or feeling. Where does that standard come from? Humans have more or less thought up rules that work well within morality, and match up with the standard I have described. So basically from us humans collectively. Why should you follow it? I believe it's in your best interest. Yes, it's not an objective standard. But I don't think objective morality exists, and I'd love to see anyone show that it does.
The lost? You sound like someone who is role-playing for a D&D campaign. But then again . . . that is EXACTLY what you're doing. Isn't it? Role-playing.
@@77Zona77 It’s not good to make assertions like this haha I can say you are lost as well but I don’t because I am aware this isn’t a matter of who is lost and who isn’t or who is brain washed and who isn’t people just see the world differently and come to different conclusion based on personal experiences
Why.. why...why is it that at what it seems like at every college there's some kid who thinks they have that one tricky, magical, silver bullet of a question that's goung to trip up and confuse and stump Frank Turek with their carefully and pre-thought out questions? Don't they already know this man can be viewed just here on RUclips alone answering the same questions repeatedly? God bless you Frank and everyone at Cross Examined.
It's astonishing how even an atheist can bring everything down to division among Christians when he thinks about why Bible must be false. When Christ prayed for us to be one so that the world believed, he wasn't kidding. Enormous division among Christians is by far our greatest sin.
@@kylemckinney_22 , I can easily show how the Roman Catholic church is not a doctrinally Christian church. They claim the title, but they teach many falsehoods that find no support in Scripture. . Not to say there won't be people who attended Catholic Mass in heaven, but they will be there in spite of Rome's doctrine, not because of them. . Now this would be a fair statement, "There are many churches who claim to be Christian that aren't really, and they disagree with churches who actually are Christian." . Example: Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, and yes, even some "protestant" sects that have fallen away and embrace the modern progressive movement in replacement of Biblical teaching and authority. Jesus himself was clear on the matter: "Many will come in my name and mislead many. Do not listen to them." . It's fairly simple to determine which churches are Christian and which are not. Read the Bible....the whole thing...in context. Study it diligently, and you'll fine out very fast which groups follow the teachings it contains and which add in the doctrines of men and take out what they don't find personally palatable. The remainder are the true Christian churches, and among them the disagreements are relatively minor.
@@jessebryant9233 how about division between Arminians and Calvinists fighting about whether or not we have anything do say about our own salvation in the first place? Or how about Catholics and Orthodox fighting over who is truly the heir of the apostles and has a right to infalliably determine theology? What about soteriological differences between all the different Churches? Are we saved by faith alone once and for all time? Or perhaps we can fall away from salvation via great sin and need to regularly repent? Is baptism required for salvation? Orperhaps just a matter of obediance? Or maybe completely irrelevant at all? And what about the means through which God gives us grace? We can't even agree on that either. For example, are gifts of the Spirit true and to be encouraged or did they vanish? Or what about the presence of Christ in communion? Is he spiritually present (reformed), is he substantially present (catholics) or perhaps Consubstantiation is true? Or maybe he's not there at all? Oh, and let's not forget - what books even should be included in the Bible? Ya know, Orthodox would say maccabees 3 is canon. Catholic would say nah, but maccabees 2 actually is. Protestants would say none of the maccabees are canon. All this talk about the Bible, but we don't even share the same book! None of this is small, irrelevant stuff. It's literally basics. Christians have been existing for 2 millenia and the only thing we really have a clear consensus on is who God is. We know his a trinity and that Jesus has two natures. 99.9% of Christians agree on that, bingo. Nothing else is really clear. I can't blame atheists for being this discouraged.
The other day I was thinking of praying for strength but I decided to pray for patience. Dr. Frank did a great job dealing with this person. Faith, hope, and love are some things He gave us... but the greatest is LOVE.
Your a brave one praying for patience. You may find that situations will arise where you will need patience 😂. Personally, I would have prayed for wisdom and discernment 😂
There is no contradiction when you stop being so dishonest. There is no objective right and wrong. There is subjective right and wrong. There is nothing contradictory about that at all.
@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631 If all you are going to do is make baseless claims, then i would have no reason to believe you. Can you provide an example of an objective moral, and a basis for its objectivity?
The inability to place oneself in a hypothetical event is a sign of below average IQ. Teacher: let's say you didn't eat dinner, you would wake up the next morning very hungry, right? This kid: but I did eat dinner last night. Teacher: but let's say, for arguments sake, you did not. Would you be extra hungry at breakfast? This kid: but I always eat dinner. I have never skipped dinner. Dinner happens every night in my house. Teacher: but just imagine... This kid: ...?
I think you missed his point. He says that he got his values from society and so asking whether or not he agrees with a different, hypothetical (and sort of absurd) society does not change the view he holds right now. He was not raised in such a society. So Frank is basically asking: “If you would agree with the nazis, would you than think the nazis where right?” That’s not an interesting question and won’t get the conversation going.
@@Alfa-uu7zb I think you missed my point. Kid says he got his values from society. Frank placed the kid in a hypothetical society to see if the kid really believed his own values are in fact from society. If, as the kid says, values were dependent on the majority agreement, then, hypothetically, this kid's values would give a green light to nazi beliefs if he lived in a world where the majority believed nazi beliefs are morally good. But alas, the kid could not imagine the scenario. Because it is a hypothetical society. And hypothetical thought requires just a little bit more IQ. (I agree, your rephrasing of Frank's question is not interesting. I am glad Frank asked better questions)
@@uke7084 But alas, the kid could not imagine the scenario. Because it is a hypothetical society. And hypothetical thought requires just a little bit more IQ. 🤣🤣🤣 The christian always trying to find a way to claim they are superior. No placing yourself in another society does not require more IQ it requires empathy. He can not put himself in that society because his empathy and is lacking, and nothing wrong with that lots of people lack empathy. And franks question is garbage to begin with, but the man is wrong to. Morals are personal, you pick them up from family and friends, by the time you reach 20 they are pretty much set. Morals also rely on empathy. If a thief has no empathy he can not feel the hurt he is causing the other person, thus unless his fear of punishment is great enough his morals will work around his profession as a thief. Morals are subjective to each person, you may not have the morals of your parents. my parents said it was not moral to live with a woman or have sex with her prior to marriage. I said hogwash, I have no such moral objection. They could accept it or get mad, didn't care. Franks question on the other hand is a failure. In Nazi Germany it was moral and not moral to behave as a Nazi. But it was LEGAL to behave like a Nazi. So if you had a moral objection to it, you either found a way to leave the country, which many did or you kept your mouth shut for fear of being hauled off yourself. For the Nazis themselves, they were have a good old moral time. Because morals are subjective and personal.
Loved his logic. He says that things are wrong only because as a society we collectively agree that it is wrong, but if a society collectively agreed that murder of a certain people was right it would still be wrong, because in the society he is in now, it is wrong. In other words, he seems to think regardless of what he says, that some things are wrong regardless of what society at any specific time agrees to, if it is actually morally wrong.
Nothing wrong with his logic. To him, even if the majority of a society agreed murder was right, he would still believe it was wrong. He would have his subjective moral code, others would have theirs
@@kinggenius930 Where I think much of the confusion lies in that the guy kept stating that the Nazis were wrong by todays standards and wouldn’t answer Franks question of what his opinion would be if the Nazis won and he was living in a world with their standards. I’m inclined to believe that he didn’t answer it because if he did then in order to be consistent he would’ve had to acknowledge that he would have agreed with them, and he didn’t want to do that. Ultimately the conversation wasn’t very fruitful because of this.
@@kinggenius930 Because he took the position that morality is determined by society as a whole, and that the reason that the holocaust was wrong was because the majority agreed it was wrong. So then, if his logic is consistent, then if the Nazis won the war and changed the minds of the majority of the populace to believe that Jews are not valuable, then his position that essentially “majority rules” would have him conclude that in that reality Jews are not valuable. To be fair though, he makes the distinction in the video that he doesn’t agree with the Nazis because he lives in todays world with todays general consensus on the issue, that however was not the question posed to him, so he either avoided answering the question because he didn’t believe in his own premise, or he was legitimately confused or misunderstood something in the heat of the conversation. Either way seems possible to me.
@@dunwitdis3705 But he doesn't have to make the distinction that he lives in today's world and therefore disagrees with the Nazis. Just because our subjective morality means it is possible that a world in which the Nazis won would have the majority sharing their views doesn't mean everybody has to go along with the majority and accept that as true
He’s arguing around the question, the question is if society collectively agreed that murder wasn’t wrong, would it still be wrong, and then his response is because we collectively agree it’s wrong it’s wrong. That conversation was a headache and a half.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I don't think thats a fair comparison. BLM doesn't help anyone, they're just grifters who make millions off of racial division and actively make the racial divide worse. They loot and burn down minority owned businesses, assault innocent people in the street, while creating fundraisers that use the names of dead children to raise millions and then the families of the dead children never see a dime (in one case I believe the family sued them over that). There are a lot of problems black people face in this country but BLM isn't interested in fixing any of them, they just want to make money off of them. The main problems we need to address are father absence, failing schools and crime. BLM's leaders said they want to abolish the police and the western prescribed nuclear family. So thats two of the main problems they want to make worse.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 people see BLM as a societal problem because it’s merely a Democrat fundraising and money-laundering operation that takes advantage of black deaths to make emotional appeals for donations without ever using the money to help the black community. Additionally, they encourage the destruction of the black community by encouraging violent riots and dismantling the nuclear family. Yes black lives do in fact matter, but BLM doesn’t really seem to believe that. Besides, you completely just missed Daniel’s point. Atheists will say that morality is subjective, but then turn around and demonstrate that they don’t actually believe that. Just like you seemed to do by bringing up BLM. You seem to be insinuating (correctly) that racism is objectively wrong. Not because society deems it’s wrong, but because it is objectively wrong, regardless of anyone’s opinion about it.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 😂 you realized that you believe in objective morality so instead of addressing my argument, you basically just called me a racist 😂 The irony of you claiming I proved your point is amazing considering you actually just proved my point that you believe racism is objectively wrong. 😂. If your point was that BLM has had to suspend online fundraising because they can’t account for where their money is being spent or that they just got caught buying a $6 million mansion that recently sold for $2.5 million (a red flag for money laundering) then I could see how I proved your point. Thanks for participating.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I’m just still waiting on you to admit that you believe racism is objectively wrong. Since you seem to want to dance around that with character attacks/red herrings (you insinuated once again that I’m racist with your “that’s very telling 😬 “ comment), I won’t take the bait. If morality is subjective, then you are saying that the statement “racism is wrong” is no different than a subjective statement like “vanilla ice cream tastes bad.” You’re simply claiming that morality is grounded in the subject’s personal beliefs and not in the behavior of racism (the object.). By this definition, then the statement only applies to anyone that agrees to it and not to any dissenting opinion. It would be absurd for you to tell tell someone that enjoys ice cream that they’re wrong…because it’s a subjective statement. Similarly, if morality is subjective, then you forfeit any ground to tell someone that they’re immoral for being racist. So again, you seem to be demonstrating that you believe racism is objectively wrong, while also claiming that it’s subjective. So which is it? (Stop deflecting and answer the question.)
I think Frank handled this about as well as can be expected when the other person has such a self-contradictory opinion. The truth of what the gentleman was presenting is a subjective moral standard, he just refuses to be bound by it's subjectivity and holds to his own subjective standard regardless of any contradictory historical standard. Also, I understand why Frank avoided getting out into the weeds of debates Biblical morality, but the guy's argument doesn't really work well. He says that it's impossible to know objective morality here now because people debate the Bible's morality. I'd ask him if he feels that climate change, or coronavirus, or HIV/AIDS are problems which need to be addressed. If he answers yes, I'd note that doctors, scientists, and scholars disagree on the effectiveness of certain measures, and so there's no way to solve those problems in this life. The argument fails by suggesting that disagreements among scholars means that truth cannot be known, and thus we shouldn't bother trying. If you wouldn't stop trying to solve those other problems because of disagreements, then you shouldn't stop trying to honestly determine objective morality because some people disagree about certain passages. (And that's without addressing how completely disingenuous some of those "disagreements" are.)
He doesn't want to participate in a thought experiment... thus contradicting his premises... it's also I, My... how about we forget our opinion and have a thought experiment... which was the Nazi winning the war and convincing that murdering Jews is ok... the questioner, didn't want to participate on the thought experiment without leaving his own opinion behind...
The young guy doesn't understand the bible as well as he claims to, I estimate. If this guy was being interviewed by Ray Comfort and Ray got to his good person test, this guy would fail like we all would. "Do you think you are a good person? Ok, you say you are good person, I'm gonna put that to the test by seeing how well you've kept the commandments." "How many lies have you told in your life?" He'd likely fail the good person test on that question alone. The standard of morality is to be flawless, not to be "good" by man's standards. The whole of his argument fails off of that basis, he likely thinks he is "good" morally, so he's hit the mark that he set for himself. My estimation is that probably most atheist in westernized cultures thrive off of feeling intellectual. When you mix that desire with being young and prideful, this guy in an example of what you get. This mindset combats itself with simplistic truths as foretold by biblical Christianity, Creation bears proof to creator, because nothing cannot produce something into existence. Message leading to salvation (to the unsaved person): you are not "good" your sin puts you in danger of incurring God's eternal wrath as a result of His Judgment, etc. you should know the message yourself. Sometimes as humans we want things to sound complicated so that we feel intelligent. I'm glad Matthew was there talking to Dr. Turek, hopefully one day Jesus will be glad Matthew is with Him in Heaven.
There are Atheists in name only . Your baptism is the vaccine Your commandments are social distancing / wear a face diaper And your messiah is George Floyd
Man, I'm so thankful I've gotten to know God so deeply through His Word. Because this type of atheistic reasoning is so skewed and twisted. They think they are right and are full of wisdom because they've read a bunch of philosophy books and use discourse language. Praise God for guiding me into the light of truth.
@@brianpeterson8908 never claimed to be on the high horse or that I'm better. Only that I once used to think in a similar way until I immersed myself in the Word that I realized how foolish and flawed my rationalization was. And how these atheistic philosophers sell us such garbage that I can't even comprehend the amount of intellectual gibberish they utter that is many times contradictory and self-centered in nature. Maybe next time ask questions before you make an assumption about someone based on a comment you interpreted out of context.
Did this man really just say that in a world where the Nazis won and took over the world, he would still know that the Nazis were wrong because he'd be from the world where they lost?
Yes, that's precisely what he said. He deflects the question by pretending that in a society where everyone accepts something as moral, that he's still from a different society that doesn't accept it and therefore can pass judgment on the society that is (in his and his non-existent society) say it's wrong. It's like asking him which color is this shirt I'm wearing, and his response is, "That's not a shirt because I say it's a hat." . I find discussions like these boring and tiresome quickly. What I'd ask him to do is go live out his life according to his standards, and we'll see how many minutes before he starts to appeal to some higher authority when he gets treats "unfairly" in his opinion. Only in relatively rich, affluent societies do we hear arguments that what "society" think is right is actually moral. Look at any lesser society and you quickly find the many flaws. Heck even our modern, wealthy USA society has some pretty messed up thinking going on, and yet he seems to think we're somehow the pinnacle of moral advancement.
@Some Random but that’s just your personal opinion, why is your opinion right vs nazi personal opinion ? You see, the nazi subjectively believed that they were right, so does that mean they’re right for what they did?
@@Peter-wl3tm Yes, the Nazis would still be wrong according to my subjective moral framework, and they would still be right according the the Nazis framework. That's why the Nazis did what they did, and why everyone else disagreed with them, because we all come to conclusions on moral issues based on our own subjective understanding of morality. Do you have any evidence for objective morality? Perhaps an example of an objective moral, and a basis for its objectivity? Pointing out how subjective morality works now doesn't help your case at all.
when the boy was pleading for moral subjectivity a red flag went up in my brain "oh boy here comes the being gay is neither good or bad" and literally his next sentence was ".... homosexuality"
"Good" and "Bad" are words used to describe movement or points on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared values like human wellbeing, empathy and equality. Whilst "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of this "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
@@acebailey2478 you answered my question with the first sentence. You don't believe that there is any standard that exists besides our own to make the assumption "the Nazis are wrong". Therefore your position holds as much weight as white supremacists who believe the Holocaust was necessary for humanity to Flourish. If you deny this you deny that morality is subjective.
What I’m most impressed about is his ability to avoid convoluting the question. By not engaging in other examples (or rabbit holes as he calls them) it helps the conversation retain its heart
Frank amazes me at his patience and really kindness toward the people who bring questions to him---especially those who have no faith in God. He is very good for his calling in the Lord!!!!
If you contradict yourself and your own… “moral code” all within a 5-minute discussion… what does that say exactly about how strong your moral code is??
He contradicted himself so many times it was hilarious But he ended it with pretty good sportsmanship I hope this conversation with Frank planted a seed in that young man. I have hopes for him I've seen people in WORSE state than him and eventually turned to Christ. God bless this young man.
We don't all collectively agree on much of anything so that's a terrible basis for morality. People can agree to do both good and evil. God places the knowledge of good and evil in the heart and a conscience that's sensitive to His laws. This must be suppressed by the unbeliever as they suppress the knowledge of Him.
You're absolutely right. we can't all collectively come to agreement on everything. What if the Catholics had won the war against the Protestants and controled the entire world by annihilating any other religion? This is very similar to Frank's constant analogy to the Nazis. Unbelievers are not suppressing anything other than the constant hypothetical gibberish that People like Frank bring forward.
I would say this young man has a brilliant mind, however, sometimes when we flood our minds with many so many different things it clouds what is really there. Less is more, and more makes less sense.
@Sterling Falls Productions More like, the world in a nutshell. Anyway, its not that paralyzing. Only people make it so. Christ, His life, teachings & sacrifice is what should be at the center of it all. God be with you towards that truth.
@@deplorableinyogapants I meant to reply to the other person, sorry. Was on the browser version. But if I did thats cool haha! You make a great, eye-opening point aswell. And you too. 🤍
@@oofydoom oh it's no worries! Soon! And very soon I shall meet you in the air! Until then, may the Lord bless you and keep you! Much love from a fellow "Jesus Freak" 🙏🙏🙏
@@nickgagnon3626 depends on when and where you live The truth is... the western world lives on a comfy cushion under a huge rock. Using their lens to judge other worlds they haven't live in.
Morality can be grounded in human well-being and the reduction of unnecessary suffering. We can assess the consequences of our actions and determine their impact on individuals and society as a whole. This approach allows us to evaluate actions based on their outcomes and the well-being they promote. But I like to know where do Christians get their morality from? The Bible? Is sin always a sin yesterday, today and tomorrow? Can God sin? If not, then would he ever command sin? Is killing infants sin if God commands it? If not, then sin is arbitrary and you have no moral objectivity.
Are fallacious arguments, uninformed commentary, irrational inference, baseless assertions, and ill conceived and derogatory assessments of the rational position of atheism the hallmarks of the title "Best Christian Philosopher of Our Time"?
This is what happens when your emotion's get the better of you, you realized you've dun goofed and you're trying to fix what you seconds ago agreed mistakenly
These conversations, while entertaining, show me one inevitable result... No matter how logical you make your argument to a so-called logical thinker and speaker, they will still have a desire or CHOICE to refute what you say out of their own convenience. Being a real Christian is inconvenient AND uncomfortable to many of us. That's why we can agree that we collectively agree that murder is evil but can still disagree that morality necessarily comes from God. Atheist apologists say they want to be convinced, they say they are waiting for the perfect answer to their question but the bottom line is no matter how perfectly great your point may be, they still will choose to NOT believe because that then requires a change and action that they 100% DO NOT want to make. It's not the belief that atheists are really fighting, it's the further actions following that belief that they are fighting. They do NOT want to be accountable to any one or any thing.
The young dude (Matthew) try very hard to win the argument by contradicting his own statement and setting logical fallacies as a "trap" to tackle Frank . This is weaseling on a whole new level. Kudos to Frank for keeping it cool and not falling into Matthew's rabbit hole of "trap" argument.
You didn’t hear how Ravi lived? His actions were not of a true believer. The sexual immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-20 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. Galatians 5:19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
When you're in Nazi Germany, Nazism is Ethically sound under Majority Rules. And the only real way to say otherwise, is to acknowledge/accept a higher objective moral standard, that is detached from mere human popular consensus. This doesn't mean that human culture's & civilizations are not capable of having subjective expressions or conditions that form a different, subjective standard applicable only for precise context of their circumstances. _Things like Manners, Etiquette, things like what constitutes nuditity, & etc..._ Merely that we recognize that we ourselves can get our interpretations wrong, and that any human made morality standards tend to be faulty at best. Edit: if Putin wins his War in Ukraine, does that thence mean that his narrative of it being a just(morally necessary) war, is proven true? Majority Rules morality, would say yes.
"When you're in Nazi Germany, Nazism is Ethically sound under Majority Rules. " Yep. Thats how they got away with it for so long. "And the only real way to say otherwise, is to acknowledge/accept a higher objective moral standard" Thats not true. I can compare it to another subjective standard and see that is is wrong in that standard. If you wanted to use an objective moral standard you would need to prove that such a thing exists. Do you have an example of an objective moral, and a basis for its objectivity?
@@somerandom3247 the basic issue with comparing subjective standards, is what standards are you going to be using to compare them by? _For Example:_ When comparing Celsius, Farenheit, and/or Kelvin... You have an objective standard by which you can measure & compare them by, correct? Question: do the concepts of Good & Evil morality exist? _Put it another way, is there evidence that Good & Evil exist??_ _If yes, then are there be Differences between Good Ethics and Evil Ethics?ý *(And importantly for this discussion, do those differences have to both obvious And irrefutable by all humanity? )* _And if there are differences, how does one prove that without an objective standard for comparison?_ I confess that I Genuinely don't understand how this idea that morality is strictly subjective, would work outside of Conjecture. Not the least which, because by Claiming positively that Morality is strictly subjective... are we not establishing an objective truth about Morality, even if it's just a denial of Standards existence? _(That is to say, it sounds very much like claiming that there is no absolute/objective Truth. Which is a self defeating argument.)_ I get why people might make such arguments about subjective morality. It's a gut reaction towards realizing that they've Sinned, and done what is Evil. If they claim subjective standards for morality, even Stalin/Hitler/etc could be considered as being Morally acceptable... Even when it's objectively false.
"If the Nazis won and convinced the world that murdering Jews is right, I would still know it's wrong because of the societal standards of today" Is he a parallel worlds traveller?
The kid simply is trained on focused on arguing and debating, this is the sad part of debating teams. They are not trained on how to have productive intelligent conversations where a logical solution is arrived at benefiting all who listened. He is simply trained into not listening long enough to know the other person done with a sentence so he can jump on it to counter it, not even hearing it, not considering it, like a 5 year old. So conversations with limited people like this are a waste of time.
No. Hyperbolic war rhetoric. The tribes they drove from the land were boiling infants alive on a heated by fire metal cow-god, Moloch, as a sacrifice. They were not good people. Hebrews had very specific rules on treatment of indentured servants/slaves. I’d look into it more. It’s not the same as chattel slavery like America had with Africans, or even how surrounding ancient nations treated people.
@@kingattila506 if it was really hyperbolic war rhetoric, why did Moses get angry when he learned that not all the midianites were exterminated? How exactly does exterminating the very children you are concerned about solve the problem? Regarding slavery, why is the treatment of people relevant? Are you saying that American slavery would have been okay if the slave owners treated their slaves the same way as the Hebrews treated theirs?
@@Steven-ki9sk yes, so to prevent some children to be sacrificed by the Midianites, all were killed, including babies, boys and people who never harmed another in their lives; with the exception of fckable virgin girls who could be used as sx slaves. Hoorah for morality 🤢🤮
Steven in many of those other people groups back then, they were doing things like offering their babies & children to Molech & Baal in occultic-ritual sacrifices!! That dude Goliath that David killed was 9 feet, 9 inches tall with 6 fingers on each hand & 6 toes on each foot & not the normal 5!! He was not a human with 100% human DNA!!!! He had 'alien DNA" mixed with human DNA!! Ever hear about the 'nephillim'?? They were a half human, half fallen-angel, alien humanoid being who were 100% evil !! The human race at that time was being more & more mixed with this alien DNA & this is a main reason for the Genesis flood!! Noah & his family were a dwindling number of humans with 100% human DNA!!
Yes the cannintes were killed on gods orders. Why do you have an issue with that? They were burning there babies alive to scarafice to gods among other horrific things. They were warned to stop many times. Are you saying they didnt deserve judgment? People like you alwyays say if god is so good why doenst he stop evil people , then the time he does you have a promblem with that too. If someone murdered your family would you want them dead? Probably would, well why do you feel you could kill but god the creator of all can not?
4:15 he’s wrong, we don’t just ‘agree’ on morality arbitrarily, the morals we/they had to disagree with the nazis largely if not mostly derived from judeo-Christian morals I.e. God. This is quite well known to anyone who studied this era in history and how infamous high ranking nazis made such statements, that these morals and ‘concious’ were antithetical to their ideology. The “societal standards” he refers to that he or society ‘accepts’ also derive from that too, if not distantly, or virtually, foundationally. Honestly I don’t think he really thought out this view, he seems convinced on certain premises as if he’s heard them in a vacuum. He also said something about how “God might set morals but society just decides on what they want to follow, therefore the morals are useless”, or “everyone doing what is right in their own eyes” yeah, lol, that’s the whole point. “God overlooked people’s ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him.” Acts 17:30.
Not only does society agree on common moral codes arbitrarily, but as individuals we form them arbitrarily. Each snd ever individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality. Morality is the set of all moral assessments an individual forms. And as with all assessments, moral assessment requires cognitive process, and therfore are _always and neccesarily subjective._
@@theoskeptomai2535 It seems you’ve attempted to define morality without actually defining it. Morality, by definition, is the difference and nature of good and evil, or right and wrong. With this in mind we must then consider the laws of logic (as they are pertinent to morality). You see according to the laws of logic, morality (a transcendent term), must be objective, otherwise it would break the first and third law. Because if what is good is dependent on someone, then you could say that something can simultaneously be good and evil, which breaks the law of contradiction, and the law of identity. Therefore, morality must either be objective, or non-existent. This is the main issue that most have, because if you acknowledge that morality is non-existent then you must also be willing to say that things like the holocaust are not wrong because wrongness isn’t a thing. Most will not do this and instead claim morality as subjective and unconsciously claim the benefits of morality were it to be objective, and therefore be in contradiction. Of course there are very few who are willing to say that morality simply doesn’t exist and acknowledge that any one action or event cannot legitimately be perceived as good or evil, but rather arbitrary preference. And to those I appreciate their consistency, but respectfully disagree.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Unless there is a God. Then you r incorrect as then you have an objective moral standard set by an ultimate authority. It is not meaningless as that authority has the power and will to call people individually to account for their actions. If every person decided to defy God then that would not mean God is outvoted. If there is a creator then He wont have any trouble punishing every person. It is very meaningful to defy such a God.
@@dunwitdis3705 Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating morally appropriate intentions, decisions, and actions from those inappropriate. As with any cognitive process of assessment, moral assessment are always and necessarily SUBJECTIVE. To be objective, this process of differentiating would have to be independent of all human cognition.
@@broncosgjn Wow. Good luck to anyone attempting to comprehend any of that word salad nonsense. If you have an argument, present it as an argument, not a jumbled string of utter tripe. What is the 1st premise of your argument? State it in a simple sentence.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 well maybe you think through it before completely dismissing or maybe actually ask for a deeper meaning to that question.
It’s not though because you can’t have two people enter a room with two other people and end up with five. You can, however, disagree on what constitutes right and wrong in a given situation.
1:00 You will never find a society like that because people who abandon people in battle, double cross those who are kind, or kill everyone they come across can't work together enough to form a society. That's just common sense. If I know this person will kill me, steal from me, or run away when I need him most, I'm going to stay away from him.
@@pJ005-k9i everybody would probably say so, that doesnt make it objectively wrong though there are many thieves in this world who believe that that stealing is just their job like any other job...and there is nothing that you can say, that definitely proves them wrong. So you can believe literally whatever you want, but then there are consiquences to that. So most people stick to what doesnt get them in trouble, then they teach their kids that´s what they should do as well. What parents teach us, and how they behave around us when we are little children, becomes our moral (until we get older and decide on our won)
I don't think people do mental gymnastics. I personally believe that Frank is the king of non-sequiturs. Frank explains a God that does not reflect the God of the Bible. It's called Yahweh smuggling.
It's always funny to me to watch someone ask a question and then end with an expression on their face like, "I'm only asking you to do a 'gotcha' you SOB and I gotcha good here!" I wish more people would ask questions not to be jerks but because they are actually interested in hearing another point of view. I always ask my friends questions out of an inquisitive nature, always very calmly, and always engaged in their response. They typically come back at me violently with a raised voice, increased tempo, and an angry look on their face... the "I'm gonna get you sucka!" type of look when they hit me back with something they read on a poster written in crayon on a college campus that they must go along with for fear of not complying with the left.
This kid should’ve studied on this topic before he started talking with Frank Turek. It’s like a 10-year-old going into a boxing ring with a professional boxer.
I love it !! Frank is the type to take your question and pigeonhole it or change it to fit how he can answer it and this man is not letting frank do that !! Got ‘em
Not having a logical congruent argument is it really getting him. Difference of opinion is fine but it also contradicted itself and made no logical sense. If he really believes what he says then answer the question
Well if you where alive i mean you want a cruel sadistic bastard try someone who no's everything and created everything but couldn't explain in a book how to treat dirty water or how to made an incubator for babies both of which could of prevented a lot of death and suffering.
@@robmorris4056 Hi Rob, thanks for your comment, unfortunately I have no idea what you're on about, maybe spell check it and come back to me? Good luck.
@@ramptonarsecandle Well your comment is completely irrelevant to the topic of the video, and this seems to just be an extremely unfunny cringy joke, so this comment is dismissed.
I have found out that most atheists are both ignorant & non-chelant on issues like the occult & satanism!! We Christians know what goes on in these groups the things dark & evil, dog-eat-dog & rat-eat-rat!!
It almost seems to me, that he’s confusing morality with cultural environment or beliefs. What ever it may be, he is trying to disprove God existence(period)
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I’m sorry, but last I checked, my name ain’t Alice or Dorthy. I don’t live in “The Land of If.” It is not the Christian’s job to bring morality to the world. As far as I’m concerned, “YOU” can do what ever you want, “if” you know what I mean.
@@grantnm1 says a man that believes, “Nothing created everything.” 🤣🤣 Projection the refuge of the liar. Yes tell me why do you believe that everything came from nothing, that all you from nothing god was wave his hand in a void? Also how did your god come from nothing? Nourish go is suppose to be non coporial? How does he even have a mind with which to form thought? And how did he come into existence from nothing? When it comes to ‘nothing’ you believe it in spades. But thanks for your lies about myself it is all cowards such as yourself can do. >Get my name out your mouth! So you now think the bad behavior of will Smith which got him punished badly is a great thing to imitate. So you show how morals are subjective and yours are lacking As you lie and are belligerent, Nathan. Your argument has been shattered by your own lies.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 first of all, how do you know, I don’t know anything? If you are going to be outright mean, please go over to another poster. God sent His Son to earth so that we might be saved through Him. Read the gospel of John. It is preferable that you read the whole Bible. It’s not my responsibility to convince you that God exists, and besides that, I don’t know what will make you believe. I’m no better than you, and all I know is what changes God has done in my life. I don’t know you, but I do care about you and it will be irresponsible of me not to tell you that. God loves you more than you may ever know. He sent Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice, and to take our place, because we can’t save our selves. We have all broken the morale law and Jesus paid the fine. God don’t need any of us, He loves us. No one is looking for God, He is looking for us. It’s my hope that we respect one another, and that you really understand why Jesus came, when He did. If I have said anything to offend you or anyone, “I apologize, and I hope you have a great weekend.”
About every civilization ever found it to be totally morally fine to murder "undesirables". So yeah... it's like morality is a bit more complicated than "a standard above us" Morality rests on us being a social species and "pain" is something we all want to avoid hence "whatever hurts me will probably hurt someone I consider a whole human and that's why I won't do it" simplified. It exists to make sure society keeps working and to ensure self preservation of the individual through ensuring the self preservation of the group
So as a Christian, but also a middle-grounded spectator, both of them were using circular reasoning and didn’t have clarity in their motions. Only difference is the questioner kept veering off and jumping several ways.
I love it when people try to argue that a society could exist where hurting others is a good and positive thing. Societies have attempted to do this and have always failed.
I think his argument is fundamentally flawed. The fact that people have differences of opinion on what is right or wrong does not mean that right or wrong does not exist. People have differences of opinion on lots of things that's not a logical argument for its non-existence. Plus nobody lives their life that way. The fact that he's even having the discussion proves he knows there is a right or wrong otherwise he wouldn't even engage in the discussion. If he really believes that let's see how he feels if somebody stole his car he would say it's wrong no matter what the other person's opinion on it was.
An interesting point here , when the nazis had taken over, many people sided with them in fear , or at least turned a blind eye. However there were some , in spite of societal norms , risked and lost their lives to stop them. I'm not talking about the soldiers necessarily , but germans that hid jews and others. There were foreigners that also risked everything. Then you have to look at slavery , it was accepted by society that you could own slaves for nearly all of human history I'm dominant cultures, but that didn't change the reality of right and wrong , which is why abolishionists stood up to society and pushed for the morally good thing. Today, society tells us that aborting kids is nothing more than removing a tumor , yet there are plenty of people that vehemently disagree with that . Often times taking the moral road is harder than not. This also proves that there are objective morals
Matthew: "We can't know what is right or wrong in our lives." . Me: "Matthew, give me your wallet now or I will kill you and take it." . Matthew: "No, that's wrong." . Me: "How can you be sure?" . Matthew: "Because society agrees it's wrong." . Me: "Am I and my three buddies here with guns a part of society?" . Matthew: "Yes." . Me: "Okay then we as a bigger, more powerful part of society don't agree that what we want is wrong; hand it over or die." . What this boils down to is he's trying to take everything back to the law of the jungle by saying, "Whatever society says is moral is in fact moral." The end of that line of argumentation is "might makes right" because if I have more power than you, then I win the argument. Doesn't matter what is actually moral; all that matters is if I can convince enough people I'm right. . At the end of the day, he cannot live out his definition of morality. He will always appeal to some "higher source", whether that is God or "society." And if the "society" he finds himself in doesn't agree with him, then I guess tough luck.
@May you have peace I'm not following you on the logic here. If enough people stand behind it supposes there is debate on whether or not there is or isn't a Triune God, but anyone who has read the Bible sees the Triune God taught in several places in several different ways. Most clearly we see it during Jesus' baptism when God the Holy Spirit descends on God the Son in the form of a dove, and God the Father speaks from heaven, "This is my beloved son who pleases me; listen to him." All three beings are eternal, powerful, and worshipped; ergo, they are all God, but are not gods because God himself says, "I the Lord your God am one." . It's a little tricky for human logic to accept, which is why I recommend in this area we don't use human logic but take the text at face value. The Trinity works this way because God says it works this way, and because we believe in God we believe what he says about himself even if our finite minds have trouble making full "sense" of it according to our understanding of 3-dimensional physics.
He’s trying to have it both ways. Morality is what society agrees upon? One, society does not agree upon morality. Two, that’s an appeal to the masses. Kid doesn’t know how much conflict and bloodshed occurs in the world due to differences in morality.
@@somerandom3247 I am sure Ted Bundy had would have loved to have people on his jury, who believe morality is subjective. Clearly, his views on morality were superior to all the women he murdered, yes?
I trake is that you avoided my question because you cant provide an example? You not liking subjective morality isnt an argument for objective morality. You would need to prove objective morality exists....
I'll give the answer I am the source for morality I don't care about anyone else's morality I say murder, rape and theft is wrong it doesn't matter to me if my right or wrong is not objective because I will stop murder, rape and theft if I see it happen infront of me not because I follow a God who says it's wrong but because I say it's wrong and I choose to do what I think is right, I'm pretty much doing what Gods doing I'm making my own morality same way the man above does🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 it's as simple as that ask me why am I moral instead of immoral? simple out of pure selfishness
@@hamster4618 if I based my morality off reciprocity I would be basing my morality off mutual benefit between me and others but I don't do it for others I do it for me, see the way I see it is I don't kill other people not for their sake but because my heart doesn't want that my morality like i said is pure selfishness I don't do what I say is wrong and I do what I say is right
I think the kid is more correct on this one. His point is that even if you have a perfect moral code somewhere in the sky spoken by a god you still have fallible people interpreting it and deciding for themselves if it is right. So the objective moral code turns into a subjective moral code anyway. This as well as there is no real evidence that such a moral code or god even exists in the first place. So the kids argument is more sensible even if Frank may be a better speaker and debater.
@@stormy7709 How do I know if stealing is wrong? Atheistic position will go circular as the video shows. Clinging into "all society agree that it's wrong' yet the Nazi example is "that" all society. So if you disassociate with "that" society, you contradicted your own premise.
@@stormy7709 If atheists don’t believe in God, then by default they can only believe in subjective morality, which means morals are only defined by the individual, and not an objective standard. Meaning, they have no grounds to say if something is morally right or wrong, because they have no standard.
This guy was actually a thoughtful person, deeply misguided though he is, he was at least engaging in good faith by his own lights. Maybe I'm too used to the sneering atheist types but I think there's hope for that fellow (I would not like to publicly argue with Frank!)
Avoiding the best philosophers, and ambushing street people, instead, only demonstrates Mr. Turek's preference for "Straw Men," and why he can't challenge the best arguments.
Don't know why we need to argue about where morality comes from and stuff when its so obvious. Guys, ITS FROM BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION and cultural norms. Its so obvious i don't know how you Christians keep sticking your heads in the sand and keep denying the science.
We aren't sticking our heads in the sand, nor are we denying science. Science is a decent way at trying to understand things, but its only that. A human's attempt to understand God's world, and that is why it will never be perfect. You seem to think science can know everything, it is your God. My god however does actually know everything, including whatever is in your heart. You should repent of your words and actions and find jesus. It was not too late for me, and so it can't be too late for you.
@@scruffmcgruffthecrimedawg5661 _"God cannot be immoral"_ The guy who created people... didn't do a very good job...and decided the best way to fix it with infinite power was to drown them... babies and all? If that being existed, he is immoral. _"If people set morals, they would be subjective and you couldn't tell others they are wrong."_ People have set morals. ...and people can tell others they are wrong. If you think you need a god in the sky for ..lets say ..drowning babies ..to be wrong then I worry about your values.
De Impact Apologetics: FREE Download of sermon I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist!: 👉📱cutt.ly/cInI1eo
I love how everyone in that room is like:Austria painter bad because tv tell me so
God condones slavery, rape, genocide, infanticide and the mass killings of people for non-crimes, why do we not follow these laws given by god today if morality must come from god? This is proof we are moral without religion, indeed, our morality trumps religious teachings.
So you want a minority to rule the majority because you think you're morally superior. Flat out, you want tRump cultists to rule over all human beings. And if anyone questions that notion they are called a Satanic Cabalist baby eating Lizard person.
It doesn’t take faith to be an atheist
@@therick363 🤣 lmao exactly 😂
I love this because even with such a disagreement if you pause the last second of the video both are leaving the conversation with a laugh and a smile. Love these civil and thoughtful exchanges!
Me too! I’ve been really working on putting my ego aside to try to have thoughtful and respectful conversations with others who have different viewpoints. It can be challenging for two people to put aside their egos and just try to bounce ideas off of each other without one or both demanding they’re right and insulting the other or being condescending.
Agreed! He had valid concerns and genuinely wanted an answer verses a debate.
@@bigpagla No, he did not want an answer, he wanted to win. His arguments were nonsensical and he constantly contradicted himself throughout the entire discussion. Everytime this was pointed out to him he pivoted and began contradicting himself even more.
This is really unbelievable that this kid cannot see the incoherence of what he is saying in the contradictory statements that he makes himself. Unbelievable. Why can't these kids think critically and accurately
@@patticarey9016 Because the school system is actually teaching them NOT to think, but to just accept what they are told.
I'm always amazed at how they are able to contradict themselves so many times and don't realize it
frank is a master of it, that and the straw man distraction argument.
I know right. You can't be a Christian without being a walking contradiction.
@@somerandom3247 well the holy book is a headache inducing contradiction.
@@brianpeterson8908
Right. There are so many contradictions that it's impossible to follow the bible.
Do we stone people to death like the bible tells us to? Or do we not kill people, like the bible also tells us? To kill or not to kill, that is the question.
@@somerandom3247 well, I could argue with you but if you're incapable of listening to reason, there's no point. Ever heard the saying "never play chess with a pigeon"? Well, coo coo for you :)
Frank's patience and listening skills are super fundamental and I dare say, far more valuable than his arguments for the Faith. Thank you Frank for such a display of care for people, and the courage to engage in some of the most difficult debates I've seen you endure. It has taught me a lot.
Exactly! Even through it is true, preaching 'youre going to hell' wont help. It is kindness and showing our actions and speaking just like Frank is here that lets people see the perspective of our side in Christ
@@talitameyer2581 Exactly!
@@talitameyer2581 thanks for sharing 😊... I wouldn't say preaching about the impending danger of eternal damnation in hell "won't help"... i believe that defintiely has its place, and is desperately necessary when the card needs to be played. After watching Ray Comfort and Living Waters Evangelism videos, I see that like Frank, they display similar virtues of patience, kindness and courage to engage the culture which would be rather uncomfortable to most. And they preach "you're going to hell", albeit with a key aspect in their message - context.
In both cases, I am moved by the resolve to endure as Love does, that is displayed in the efforts of those who care to share the Kingdom of God, and not their personal preference of the Kingdom vs. any other worldview. There isn't an arrogant forcefulness behind it all, but rather I can see the heart of God in their efforts through the virtues displayed. The same information can and has been shared in arrogance, and even though true, even I as a believer tended shy away from the presentation.
End of the day, the product they are presenting is Supreme, but many times the salesman is motived by some other means rather than Love, and so it shows.
Hopefully that makes sense.
@@WiZdOm17 No I definitely agree. I occasionally watch Ray Comfort myself but what I was referring to was just shouting from the rooftops the consequence of hell, instead of in love. There is definitely a place for preaching the reality of sin. It's what we needed ourselves to follow Jesus! Just had to clarify that, I completely agree with you
Frank listens intently so that he make build the weakest straw man possible. His arguments of faith are non-existent, so he has to resort to that. For example, his arguments against evolution frequently involve the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which just blows my mind with its stupidity.
It’s frustrating how this guy doesn’t see that he’s contradicting himself. This essentially boils down to:
Frank: “What is your moral standard?”
Atheist: “Whatever society agrees on. There is no objective right or wrong. Morality is dependent on what society believes as a whole.”
Frank: “So if society changed their minds and decided that murdering Jews was actually best for humanity, it would become moral?”
Atheist: “No, because murdering Jews is wrong (objectively.)”. [proceeds to try and take the discussion down a rabbit trail of confusion.]
He did seem confused on that point. I guess the bottom line is that there simply _is_ no objective standard for morality.
It was hilarious and sad at the same time, atheists have no answer to this but they try so hard
@@joshuakohlmann9731
Bottom line then is that nothing is ever wrong. But you don't' believe that, do you?
@@joshuakohlmann9731 Lol there’s that atheist logic. Concede all grounds to object to anyone else’s behavior. If there’s no objective standard then there’s no such thing as right and wrong. To each their own. It’s not your preference, but who are you to tell them what to do?
“I personally don’t like it when you mercilessly beat that puppy in your front yard, but you seem to get a lot of joy out of it and I can’t really say that you’re objectively wrong for doing it…”.
Anything to try to dance around the reality of God’s existence I guess…
@@joshuakohlmann9731
I agree even if a morality is accepted by the majority It would still have no more validity than if it was invented and held by only one.
But if God made the world and we are part of it then wouldn't any morality built into it apply to us as well? Could this then be considered an objective morality for us here in this place?
If you were a programmer and you built your own gameworld could you not Include within the code a moral standard to be followed by all NPC's? Could this then not be considered an objective standard within the game?
Frank’s patience is a good example of trying to carefully listen to another party in discussion/conversation.
Yeah...no. Frank continuously strawmans and doesn't "listen" or answer clearly. He'd rather focus on something that didn't happen (nazis) and ignore what actually happened (slavery)
@@extremelyvetted8083I’ll take “Things That Didn’t Happen” for 500, Alex.
You’re so intellectually dishonest.
"Yeah but the Nazis are considered wrong because they didn't win."
This is Might Makes Right.
Or also in his argument: majority equals right.
Or the winners write history.
So what's the problem? Violence is the answer to some things.
Hence why God's standard is unchangeable. Even if the entire world said the opposite the standard is his.
Crime and punishment does a great job of showing what happens to people when we suppress morality.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 yup the book by dostoevsky
Reading it right now ! I'm halfway through
Dorian Gray is also a good representation on what happens with the soul when it acts immorally.
...huh?!
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 psychological states such as arrogance, selfishness, envy, and resentment thus creating an immoral attitude leading to taboo behaviors and then think themselves superior for doing so.
I dont think I've ever seen someone openly contradict themselves as this young guy did lol.
He did not, Frank either misunderstood him or purposely tried to push him into this hypothetical nazi world. The guy refused to go with Franks nazi story by (basically) saying: “You ask me if I would agree with the rest of this nazi world and my answer is no, because I live in a world were murdering Jews is not permissible according to society.
That’s actually pretty clever.
I think this is the first atheist, of the clips I have seen, who was actually prepared for Frank.
I also think he did a good job considering Frank constantly brings up this 'what if' Nazi nonsense all the time.
What most people don't know is that during the regime, in which Hitler became Chancellor, was brought forward by Christians.
Namely the Protestants, who made up about 40% of the population and are the ones that favored Hitler and brought him into power.
@@Alfa-uu7zb I think we watched different videos because he literally contradicts himself saying that an analogy cannot be used because it disproves your argument is guess what not an argument.
@@Alfa-uu7zb but who determines right and wrong?
@@ruthadiscipleofjesuschrist1788 As far is I can tell society does, influenced by human nature.
Frank:Hypothetically,if the Nazi's won...
Matt: Then they're still wrong.
Frank:Then we have a standard.
Matt: But in talking about the real world...
Still wrong based on his subjective morality. The standard is his opinion. Same way we all judge every moral issue.
Do you have an example of an objective moral, and a basis for it being objective?
@@somerandom3247 The bible and the fact that it's writers have no reason to lie about it since they don't profit in any way from it.
@@somerandom3247 As Christians, we put the foundation of objective moral values in God’s very nature, therefore God doesn’t will things because they're good or that things are good because God wills them but because God himself is the “Good”. As the greatest conceivable being, His very nature is where we derive objective moral values and duties from. Therefore his commands are self-inclusive, so when a person asks “Why should we obey God then?” it’s because when God makes the command “Obey me” since he is the standard of Goodness the command to obey him is itself a moral good, therefore, we ought to obey him. I’ll link a video that better explains this concept below👇🏿
@@Peter-Itatiro So, why should we obey god when god says, "Obey me."? Is it because god said so? Why should we obey him when he says so?
By the way, this god of the bible is an immoral thug and I have no reason to obey such a vile being.
@@Peter-Itatiro
"we put the foundation of objective moral values in God’s very nature"
What do you mean by gods nature?
Do you mean how he behaves?
If so, do you think its morally ok to drown people that dont beheave the way you want them to? or to send bears to maul children? are they morally good things to do?
I'm constantly in awe of how Turek maintains his cool!
If that were me we'd be outside throwing hands lol.
You would have thrown hands for that?
@@somerandom3247 Yes. Don't get the wrong impression. I have one of the worst mood swing disorders ever. I can lose my mind over nothing. I just cursed my refrigerator out lol.
@@johnlewisbrooks
Fair enough
🤣🤣🤣🤣
@@chrysanthemums4963 I told that freezer I'm gonna SNATCH him UP!
When an atheist makes a moral judgement it's based on their feeling and/or opinion
Theist do the same, but deny it harder.
I base my moral judgement on the standard of "The overall well being of everyone involved with respect to intent and consent".
So it's not an opinion or feeling.
Where does that standard come from? Humans have more or less thought up rules that work well within morality, and match up with the standard I have described. So basically from us humans collectively. Why should you follow it? I believe it's in your best interest. Yes, it's not an objective standard. But I don't think objective morality exists, and I'd love to see anyone show that it does.
@@akoskormendi9711 so did the Nazis
@@jeffphelps1355 Huh?
@@akoskormendi9711 He means that Hitler was doing the overall well being of his people. Was he wrong for thinking that it was morally right?
Frank's patience with the lost is astounding.
Lots of practice
The lost? You sound like someone who is role-playing for a D&D campaign. But then again . . . that is EXACTLY what you're doing. Isn't it? Role-playing.
You don't even know you're lost which makes it worse.
@@godless1014 you're on the losing side my friend, seek after Jesus Christ he's still here waiting for you in open arms 💕
@@77Zona77 It’s not good to make assertions like this haha I can say you are lost as well but I don’t because I am aware this isn’t a matter of who is lost and who isn’t or who is brain washed and who isn’t people just see the world differently and come to different conclusion based on personal experiences
Why.. why...why is it that at what it seems like at every college there's some kid who thinks they have that one tricky, magical, silver bullet of a question that's goung to trip up and confuse and stump Frank Turek with their carefully and pre-thought out questions? Don't they already know this man can be viewed just here on RUclips alone answering the same questions repeatedly? God bless you Frank and everyone at Cross Examined.
I think he went to the mic, just hoping he could drop the name of some author who says what he wants to agree with. That's all.
It's astonishing how even an atheist can bring everything down to division among Christians when he thinks about why Bible must be false. When Christ prayed for us to be one so that the world believed, he wasn't kidding. Enormous division among Christians is by far our greatest sin.
Enormous? What would be a couple of examples and who makes those arguments?
@@jessebryant9233 Orthodox and Catholic churches, and some protestant groups
@@kylemckinney_22
You'll need to be more specific as pertains to the topic of discussion here...
@@kylemckinney_22 , I can easily show how the Roman Catholic church is not a doctrinally Christian church. They claim the title, but they teach many falsehoods that find no support in Scripture.
.
Not to say there won't be people who attended Catholic Mass in heaven, but they will be there in spite of Rome's doctrine, not because of them.
.
Now this would be a fair statement, "There are many churches who claim to be Christian that aren't really, and they disagree with churches who actually are Christian."
.
Example: Mormons, Jehovah's Witness, and yes, even some "protestant" sects that have fallen away and embrace the modern progressive movement in replacement of Biblical teaching and authority. Jesus himself was clear on the matter: "Many will come in my name and mislead many. Do not listen to them."
.
It's fairly simple to determine which churches are Christian and which are not. Read the Bible....the whole thing...in context. Study it diligently, and you'll fine out very fast which groups follow the teachings it contains and which add in the doctrines of men and take out what they don't find personally palatable. The remainder are the true Christian churches, and among them the disagreements are relatively minor.
@@jessebryant9233 how about division between Arminians and Calvinists fighting about whether or not we have anything do say about our own salvation in the first place? Or how about Catholics and Orthodox fighting over who is truly the heir of the apostles and has a right to infalliably determine theology? What about soteriological differences between all the different Churches? Are we saved by faith alone once and for all time? Or perhaps we can fall away from salvation via great sin and need to regularly repent? Is baptism required for salvation? Orperhaps just a matter of obediance? Or maybe completely irrelevant at all? And what about the means through which God gives us grace? We can't even agree on that either. For example, are gifts of the Spirit true and to be encouraged or did they vanish? Or what about the presence of Christ in communion? Is he spiritually present (reformed), is he substantially present (catholics) or perhaps Consubstantiation is true? Or maybe he's not there at all? Oh, and let's not forget - what books even should be included in the Bible? Ya know, Orthodox would say maccabees 3 is canon. Catholic would say nah, but maccabees 2 actually is. Protestants would say none of the maccabees are canon. All this talk about the Bible, but we don't even share the same book! None of this is small, irrelevant stuff. It's literally basics. Christians have been existing for 2 millenia and the only thing we really have a clear consensus on is who God is. We know his a trinity and that Jesus has two natures. 99.9% of Christians agree on that, bingo. Nothing else is really clear. I can't blame atheists for being this discouraged.
I’m glad to see a longer video! Please keep them coming!
The other day I was thinking of praying for strength but I decided to pray for patience. Dr. Frank did a great job dealing with this person. Faith, hope, and love are some things He gave us... but the greatest is LOVE.
Your a brave one praying for patience. You may find that situations will arise where you will need patience 😂.
Personally, I would have prayed for wisdom and discernment 😂
Imagine thinking you are truly helpless and aquire no positive traits without praying to be deity. Kinda sad
He's a walking contradiction in every argument. Says we can't know right from wrong but he knows what's right and wrong in the "real world". Silliness
he ate the contradictions 🥵
There is no contradiction when you stop being so dishonest.
There is no objective right and wrong. There is subjective right and wrong.
There is nothing contradictory about that at all.
@@somerandom3247 if I claim that there are things that are objectively right, would I be wrong?
@@himynameisjohnwumsh7631
If all you are going to do is make baseless claims, then i would have no reason to believe you.
Can you provide an example of an objective moral, and a basis for its objectivity?
@@somerandom3247 I didn’t make any claim. You made a claim. I asked a question about your claim and you didn’t answer it.
The inability to place oneself in a hypothetical event is a sign of below average IQ.
Teacher: let's say you didn't eat dinner, you would wake up the next morning very hungry, right?
This kid: but I did eat dinner last night.
Teacher: but let's say, for arguments sake, you did not. Would you be extra hungry at breakfast?
This kid: but I always eat dinner. I have never skipped dinner. Dinner happens every night in my house.
Teacher: but just imagine...
This kid: ...?
Bullseye 😂😂😂
🤣🤣😅‼️
I think you missed his point.
He says that he got his values from society and so asking whether or not he agrees with a different, hypothetical (and sort of absurd) society does not change the view he holds right now.
He was not raised in such a society.
So Frank is basically asking: “If you would agree with the nazis, would you than think the nazis where right?”
That’s not an interesting question and won’t get the conversation going.
@@Alfa-uu7zb I think you missed my point.
Kid says he got his values from society.
Frank placed the kid in a hypothetical society to see if the kid really believed his own values are in fact from society.
If, as the kid says, values were dependent on the majority agreement, then, hypothetically, this kid's values would give a green light to nazi beliefs if he lived in a world where the majority believed nazi beliefs are morally good.
But alas, the kid could not imagine the scenario. Because it is a hypothetical society. And hypothetical thought requires just a little bit more IQ.
(I agree, your rephrasing of Frank's question is not interesting. I am glad Frank asked better questions)
@@uke7084 But alas, the kid could not imagine the scenario. Because it is a hypothetical society. And hypothetical thought requires just a little bit more IQ.
🤣🤣🤣 The christian always trying to find a way to claim they are superior. No placing yourself in another society does not require more IQ it requires empathy. He can not put himself in that society because his empathy and is lacking, and nothing wrong with that lots of people lack empathy.
And franks question is garbage to begin with, but the man is wrong to. Morals are personal, you pick them up from family and friends, by the time you reach 20 they are pretty much set. Morals also rely on empathy. If a thief has no empathy he can not feel the hurt he is causing the other person, thus unless his fear of punishment is great enough his morals will work around his profession as a thief. Morals are subjective to each person, you may not have the morals of your parents. my parents said it was not moral to live with a woman or have sex with her prior to marriage. I said hogwash, I have no such moral objection. They could accept it or get mad, didn't care.
Franks question on the other hand is a failure. In Nazi Germany it was moral and not moral to behave as a Nazi. But it was LEGAL to behave like a Nazi. So if you had a moral objection to it, you either found a way to leave the country, which many did or you kept your mouth shut for fear of being hauled off yourself. For the Nazis themselves, they were have a good old moral time. Because morals are subjective and personal.
Loved his logic. He says that things are wrong only because as a society we collectively agree that it is wrong, but if a society collectively agreed that murder of a certain people was right it would still be wrong, because in the society he is in now, it is wrong. In other words, he seems to think regardless of what he says, that some things are wrong regardless of what society at any specific time agrees to, if it is actually morally wrong.
Nothing wrong with his logic. To him, even if the majority of a society agreed murder was right, he would still believe it was wrong. He would have his subjective moral code, others would have theirs
@@kinggenius930 Where I think much of the confusion lies in that the guy kept stating that the Nazis were wrong by todays standards and wouldn’t answer Franks question of what his opinion would be if the Nazis won and he was living in a world with their standards. I’m inclined to believe that he didn’t answer it because if he did then in order to be consistent he would’ve had to acknowledge that he would have agreed with them, and he didn’t want to do that. Ultimately the conversation wasn’t very fruitful because of this.
@@dunwitdis3705 Why would he have to admit he would have agreed them in order to be consistent?
@@kinggenius930 Because he took the position that morality is determined by society as a whole, and that the reason that the holocaust was wrong was because the majority agreed it was wrong. So then, if his logic is consistent, then if the Nazis won the war and changed the minds of the majority of the populace to believe that Jews are not valuable, then his position that essentially “majority rules” would have him conclude that in that reality Jews are not valuable. To be fair though, he makes the distinction in the video that he doesn’t agree with the Nazis because he lives in todays world with todays general consensus on the issue, that however was not the question posed to him, so he either avoided answering the question because he didn’t believe in his own premise, or he was legitimately confused or misunderstood something in the heat of the conversation. Either way seems possible to me.
@@dunwitdis3705 But he doesn't have to make the distinction that he lives in today's world and therefore disagrees with the Nazis. Just because our subjective morality means it is possible that a world in which the Nazis won would have the majority sharing their views doesn't mean everybody has to go along with the majority and accept that as true
He’s arguing around the question, the question is if society collectively agreed that murder wasn’t wrong, would it still be wrong, and then his response is because we collectively agree it’s wrong it’s wrong. That conversation was a headache and a half.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I don't think thats a fair comparison. BLM doesn't help anyone, they're just grifters who make millions off of racial division and actively make the racial divide worse. They loot and burn down minority owned businesses, assault innocent people in the street, while creating fundraisers that use the names of dead children to raise millions and then the families of the dead children never see a dime (in one case I believe the family sued them over that).
There are a lot of problems black people face in this country but BLM isn't interested in fixing any of them, they just want to make money off of them.
The main problems we need to address are father absence, failing schools and crime. BLM's leaders said they want to abolish the police and the western prescribed nuclear family. So thats two of the main problems they want to make worse.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 BLM is nothing but a scam
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 people see BLM as a societal problem because it’s merely a Democrat fundraising and money-laundering operation that takes advantage of black deaths to make emotional appeals for donations without ever using the money to help the black community. Additionally, they encourage the destruction of the black community by encouraging violent riots and dismantling the nuclear family. Yes black lives do in fact matter, but BLM doesn’t really seem to believe that.
Besides, you completely just missed Daniel’s point. Atheists will say that morality is subjective, but then turn around and demonstrate that they don’t actually believe that. Just like you seemed to do by bringing up BLM. You seem to be insinuating (correctly) that racism is objectively wrong. Not because society deems it’s wrong, but because it is objectively wrong, regardless of anyone’s opinion about it.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 😂 you realized that you believe in objective morality so instead of addressing my argument, you basically just called me a racist 😂
The irony of you claiming I proved your point is amazing considering you actually just proved my point that you believe racism is objectively wrong. 😂.
If your point was that BLM has had to suspend online fundraising because they can’t account for where their money is being spent or that they just got caught buying a $6 million mansion that recently sold for $2.5 million (a red flag for money laundering) then I could see how I proved your point.
Thanks for participating.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I’m just still waiting on you to admit that you believe racism is objectively wrong. Since you seem to want to dance around that with character attacks/red herrings (you insinuated once again that I’m racist with your “that’s very telling 😬 “ comment), I won’t take the bait.
If morality is subjective, then you are saying that the statement “racism is wrong” is no different than a subjective statement like “vanilla ice cream tastes bad.” You’re simply claiming that morality is grounded in the subject’s personal beliefs and not in the behavior of racism (the object.). By this definition, then the statement only applies to anyone that agrees to it and not to any dissenting opinion. It would be absurd for you to tell tell someone that enjoys ice cream that they’re wrong…because it’s a subjective statement. Similarly, if morality is subjective, then you forfeit any ground to tell someone that they’re immoral for being racist.
So again, you seem to be demonstrating that you believe racism is objectively wrong, while also claiming that it’s subjective. So which is it? (Stop deflecting and answer the question.)
I think Frank handled this about as well as can be expected when the other person has such a self-contradictory opinion. The truth of what the gentleman was presenting is a subjective moral standard, he just refuses to be bound by it's subjectivity and holds to his own subjective standard regardless of any contradictory historical standard.
Also, I understand why Frank avoided getting out into the weeds of debates Biblical morality, but the guy's argument doesn't really work well. He says that it's impossible to know objective morality here now because people debate the Bible's morality. I'd ask him if he feels that climate change, or coronavirus, or HIV/AIDS are problems which need to be addressed. If he answers yes, I'd note that doctors, scientists, and scholars disagree on the effectiveness of certain measures, and so there's no way to solve those problems in this life. The argument fails by suggesting that disagreements among scholars means that truth cannot be known, and thus we shouldn't bother trying. If you wouldn't stop trying to solve those other problems because of disagreements, then you shouldn't stop trying to honestly determine objective morality because some people disagree about certain passages.
(And that's without addressing how completely disingenuous some of those "disagreements" are.)
He doesn't want to participate in a thought experiment... thus contradicting his premises... it's also I, My... how about we forget our opinion and have a thought experiment... which was the Nazi winning the war and convincing that murdering Jews is ok... the questioner, didn't want to participate on the thought experiment without leaving his own opinion behind...
Excellent point.
The young guy doesn't understand the bible as well as he claims to, I estimate. If this guy was being interviewed by Ray Comfort and Ray got to his good person test, this guy would fail like we all would. "Do you think you are a good person? Ok, you say you are good person, I'm gonna put that to the test by seeing how well you've kept the commandments." "How many lies have you told in your life?" He'd likely fail the good person test on that question alone. The standard of morality is to be flawless, not to be "good" by man's standards.
The whole of his argument fails off of that basis, he likely thinks he is "good" morally, so he's hit the mark that he set for himself.
My estimation is that probably most atheist in westernized cultures thrive off of feeling intellectual. When you mix that desire with being young and prideful, this guy in an example of what you get. This mindset combats itself with simplistic truths as foretold by biblical Christianity,
Creation bears proof to creator, because nothing cannot produce something into existence. Message leading to salvation (to the unsaved person): you are not "good" your sin puts you in danger of incurring God's eternal wrath as a result of His Judgment, etc. you should know the message yourself.
Sometimes as humans we want things to sound complicated so that we feel intelligent. I'm glad Matthew was there talking to Dr. Turek, hopefully one day Jesus will be glad Matthew is with Him in Heaven.
Yeah, Frank does a great job with these actors he's hired, uh?
There are Atheists in name only .
Your baptism is the vaccine
Your commandments are social distancing / wear a face diaper
And your messiah is George Floyd
Man, I'm so thankful I've gotten to know God so deeply through His Word. Because this type of atheistic reasoning is so skewed and twisted. They think they are right and are full of wisdom because they've read a bunch of philosophy books and use discourse language. Praise God for guiding me into the light of truth.
There is that christian high horse. Sorry you aren't better you're just more constipated.
@@brianpeterson8908 never claimed to be on the high horse or that I'm better. Only that I once used to think in a similar way until I immersed myself in the Word that I realized how foolish and flawed my rationalization was. And how these atheistic philosophers sell us such garbage that I can't even comprehend the amount of intellectual gibberish they utter that is many times contradictory and self-centered in nature.
Maybe next time ask questions before you make an assumption about someone based on a comment you interpreted out of context.
@@brianpeterson8908 unless you're the one on the high horse by leaving sarcastic comments to try to prove a point.
Yes yes yes !!! God has been such a father to me and the blood of Jesus has saved me many times!
God bless you Frank, you’re the man!
I love this conversation from whatever position anybody takes I respect and love
Me too I feel the same way thank you
It’s interesting how the more a person speaks you find the truth that’s really bothering them.
I love how patience Frank is
Agree
Tough conversation about a tough topic. Enjoyed watching
Did this man really just say that in a world where the Nazis won and took over the world, he would still know that the Nazis were wrong because he'd be from the world where they lost?
Yes, that's precisely what he said. He deflects the question by pretending that in a society where everyone accepts something as moral, that he's still from a different society that doesn't accept it and therefore can pass judgment on the society that is (in his and his non-existent society) say it's wrong. It's like asking him which color is this shirt I'm wearing, and his response is, "That's not a shirt because I say it's a hat."
.
I find discussions like these boring and tiresome quickly. What I'd ask him to do is go live out his life according to his standards, and we'll see how many minutes before he starts to appeal to some higher authority when he gets treats "unfairly" in his opinion. Only in relatively rich, affluent societies do we hear arguments that what "society" think is right is actually moral. Look at any lesser society and you quickly find the many flaws. Heck even our modern, wealthy USA society has some pretty messed up thinking going on, and yet he seems to think we're somehow the pinnacle of moral advancement.
I think this kid watch too many Dr Strange Multiverse of Madness trailer
Yer, bad responce for sure.
I would have said something closer to "the nazis would still be wrong based on my subjective moral standard."
@Some Random
but that’s just your personal opinion, why is your opinion right vs nazi personal opinion ? You see, the nazi subjectively believed that they were right, so does that mean they’re right for what they did?
@@Peter-wl3tm
Yes, the Nazis would still be wrong according to my subjective moral framework, and they would still be right according the the Nazis framework.
That's why the Nazis did what they did, and why everyone else disagreed with them, because we all come to conclusions on moral issues based on our own subjective understanding of morality.
Do you have any evidence for objective morality? Perhaps an example of an objective moral, and a basis for its objectivity?
Pointing out how subjective morality works now doesn't help your case at all.
Geesh how we struggle to defeat our own moral compass. “My instinct says it’s wrong but that can’t be right because it contradicts what I want”
Narcissists...I want what I want and I want it now!
@@tbone1015 sometimes I think narcissism is so infused in a rich culture that it’s happening all the time and we only call out the very worst cases.
@@nunya3399 The inevitability of success and comfort.
when the boy was pleading for moral subjectivity a red flag went up in my brain "oh boy here comes the being gay is neither good or bad" and literally his next sentence was ".... homosexuality"
"Good" and "Bad" are words used to describe movement or points on a reference standard or scale conceptualised by man that is based upon our shared values like human wellbeing, empathy and equality. Whilst "God" is also a man made concept, the percieved whims of this "God" do not reflect these shared values and thus are irrelevant in any discussion of morality.
Man if I had Frank's patience, I'd be able to conquer the world.
Poor kid, it’s so obvious, watching from the outside, that he is contradicting himself. It’s like real life doublethink
@@acebailey2478 strange thing to say. I would challenge you to point out one logical inconsistency in Frank’s argument
@@acebailey2478 morality is as objective as the multiplication tables
@@acebailey2478so, in your view the Nazis are not objectively wrong? Them being wrong is only your opinion?
@@acebailey2478 you answered my question with the first sentence. You don't believe that there is any standard that exists besides our own to make the assumption "the Nazis are wrong". Therefore your position holds as much weight as white supremacists who believe the Holocaust was necessary for humanity to Flourish. If you deny this you deny that morality is subjective.
What I’m most impressed about is his ability to avoid convoluting the question. By not engaging in other examples (or rabbit holes as he calls them) it helps the conversation retain its heart
Frank amazes me at his patience and really kindness toward the people who bring questions to him---especially those who have no faith in God. He is very good for his calling in the Lord!!!!
If you contradict yourself and your own… “moral code” all within a 5-minute discussion… what does that say exactly about how strong your moral code is??
He contradicted himself so many times it was hilarious
But he ended it with pretty good sportsmanship
I hope this conversation with Frank planted a seed in that young man. I have hopes for him
I've seen people in WORSE state than him and eventually turned to Christ. God bless this young man.
The kid doesn't want to understand he just wants to argue
We don't all collectively agree on much of anything so that's a terrible basis for morality. People can agree to do both good and evil.
God places the knowledge of good and evil in the heart and a conscience that's sensitive to His laws. This must be suppressed by the unbeliever as they suppress the knowledge of Him.
You're absolutely right. we can't all collectively come to agreement on everything.
What if the Catholics had won the war against the Protestants and controled the entire world by annihilating any other religion? This is very similar to Frank's constant analogy to the Nazis.
Unbelievers are not suppressing anything other than the constant hypothetical gibberish that People like Frank bring forward.
You can't claim Buddhism is better the Nazism they are just different
For sure, the collective agreement thing is absurd... yet so common. Their brains are busted. Logical and consistent is not on their radar.
How do you know god exists?
@@stormy7709 Because we exist, this world exists and this universe exists.
Thanks from Chile🇨🇱
I would say this young man has a brilliant mind, however, sometimes when we flood our minds with many so many different things it clouds what is really there. Less is more, and more makes less sense.
Specifically?
@Sterling Falls Productions
More like, the world in a nutshell.
Anyway, its not that paralyzing. Only people make it so. Christ, His life, teachings & sacrifice is what should be at the center of it all. God be with you towards that truth.
@@oofydoom this is actually the point I was making! Bless you and I hope to see you in the air 🙌🙌🙌🙌
@@deplorableinyogapants I meant to reply to the other person, sorry. Was on the browser version. But if I did thats cool haha! You make a great, eye-opening point aswell. And you too. 🤍
@@oofydoom oh it's no worries! Soon! And very soon I shall meet you in the air! Until then, may the Lord bless you and keep you! Much love from a fellow "Jesus Freak" 🙏🙏🙏
Great job staying focused Frank!
8:36 Frank says scouts honor while doing the Vulcan hand sign. Gotta love him!
Just scary our "educated" students has this kind of thought track. They can then just justify anything that really want and think they are correct.
Morality is not that hard. Just be a good person.
Well being a “good” person could mean anything depending on who you’re asking, if morality is subjective
@@Peter-wl3tm True. But I think most of us would know what good means.
@@nickgagnon3626 depends on when and where you live
The truth is... the western world lives on a comfy cushion under a huge rock.
Using their lens to judge other worlds they haven't live in.
@ 5:08 5:12
"Look at how much I know."
This is the same thing as praying out load for men to hear you, you have your reward!
Denying an objective moral standard is the basis of denying morality
When someone online says “ I’m an atheist, the Bible isnt rEaL” I immediately picture they look like the kid in the thumbnail
I workout and I'm pretty slim and now toned, so get nae'naed
It’s not often people are honest enough to admit they are highly and baselessly prejudicial. 👏 I applaud you for your honesty!
Morality can be grounded in human well-being and the reduction of unnecessary suffering. We can assess the consequences of our actions and determine their impact on individuals and society as a whole. This approach allows us to evaluate actions based on their outcomes and the well-being they promote. But I like to know where do Christians get their morality from? The Bible? Is sin always a sin yesterday, today and tomorrow? Can God sin? If not, then would he ever command sin? Is killing infants sin if God commands it? If not, then sin is arbitrary and you have no moral objectivity.
Frank Turek is one of the best Christian thinkers and/or philosophers of our time. This was so good.
No he’s not. He lacks basic understanding of many topics:atheism and science.
Are fallacious arguments, uninformed commentary, irrational inference, baseless assertions, and ill conceived and derogatory assessments of the rational position of atheism the hallmarks of the title "Best Christian Philosopher of Our Time"?
@@therick363 feel free to edify him by interacting with him in his sessions.... I am quite sure it will be worth it....
@@theoskeptomai2535 well a Christian philosopher need not be an expert on atheism....
@@Luvallo But such Frank ought to have a understanding of the position of atheism.
This is what happens when your emotion's get the better of you, you realized you've dun goofed and you're trying to fix what you seconds ago agreed mistakenly
Yeah, apologists are in the habit of doing that
These conversations, while entertaining, show me one inevitable result... No matter how logical you make your argument to a so-called logical thinker and speaker, they will still have a desire or CHOICE to refute what you say out of their own convenience. Being a real Christian is inconvenient AND uncomfortable to many of us. That's why we can agree that we collectively agree that murder is evil but can still disagree that morality necessarily comes from God. Atheist apologists say they want to be convinced, they say they are waiting for the perfect answer to their question but the bottom line is no matter how perfectly great your point may be, they still will choose to NOT believe because that then requires a change and action that they 100% DO NOT want to make. It's not the belief that atheists are really fighting, it's the further actions following that belief that they are fighting. They do NOT want to be accountable to any one or any thing.
The young dude (Matthew) try very hard to win the argument by contradicting his own statement and setting logical fallacies as a "trap" to tackle Frank . This is weaseling on a whole new level. Kudos to Frank for keeping it cool and not falling into Matthew's rabbit hole of "trap" argument.
As the once was great , Ravi used to say " in some cultures they greet their neighbors, in others they eat them."
You didn’t hear how Ravi lived? His actions were not of a true believer.
The sexual immoral will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6:9-20
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19
The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.
When you're in Nazi Germany, Nazism is Ethically sound under Majority Rules.
And the only real way to say otherwise, is to acknowledge/accept a higher objective moral standard, that is detached from mere human popular consensus.
This doesn't mean that human culture's & civilizations are not capable of having subjective expressions or conditions that form a different, subjective standard applicable only for precise context of their circumstances.
_Things like Manners, Etiquette, things like what constitutes nuditity, & etc..._
Merely that we recognize that we ourselves can get our interpretations wrong, and that any human made morality standards tend to be faulty at best.
Edit: if Putin wins his War in Ukraine, does that thence mean that his narrative of it being a just(morally necessary) war, is proven true? Majority Rules morality, would say yes.
"When you're in Nazi Germany, Nazism is Ethically sound under Majority Rules. "
Yep. Thats how they got away with it for so long.
"And the only real way to say otherwise, is to acknowledge/accept a higher objective moral standard"
Thats not true. I can compare it to another subjective standard and see that is is wrong in that standard.
If you wanted to use an objective moral standard you would need to prove that such a thing exists.
Do you have an example of an objective moral, and a basis for its objectivity?
@@somerandom3247 the basic issue with comparing subjective standards, is what standards are you going to be using to compare them by?
_For Example:_ When comparing Celsius, Farenheit, and/or Kelvin...
You have an objective standard by which you can measure & compare them by, correct?
Question: do the concepts of Good & Evil morality exist?
_Put it another way, is there evidence that Good & Evil exist??_
_If yes, then are there be Differences between Good Ethics and Evil Ethics?ý *(And importantly for this discussion, do those differences have to both obvious And irrefutable by all humanity? )*
_And if there are differences, how does one prove that without an objective standard for comparison?_
I confess that I Genuinely don't understand how this idea that morality is strictly subjective, would work outside of Conjecture.
Not the least which, because by Claiming positively that Morality is strictly subjective... are we not establishing an objective truth about Morality, even if it's just a denial of Standards existence?
_(That is to say, it sounds very much like claiming that there is no absolute/objective Truth. Which is a self defeating argument.)_
I get why people might make such arguments about subjective morality.
It's a gut reaction towards realizing that they've Sinned, and done what is Evil.
If they claim subjective standards for morality, even Stalin/Hitler/etc could be considered as being Morally acceptable...
Even when it's objectively false.
"If the Nazis won and convinced the world that murdering Jews is right, I would still know it's wrong because of the societal standards of today"
Is he a parallel worlds traveller?
It's not just wrong today it was wrong then too
The kid simply is trained on focused on arguing and debating, this is the sad part of debating teams. They are not trained on how to have productive intelligent conversations where a logical solution is arrived at benefiting all who listened. He is simply trained into not listening long enough to know the other person done with a sentence so he can jump on it to counter it, not even hearing it, not considering it, like a 5 year old. So conversations with limited people like this are a waste of time.
Didn’t the Hebrews commit genocide on gods orders? And owning non Hebrews as permanent property? Does Frank think these were evil too ?
No. Hyperbolic war rhetoric. The tribes they drove from the land were boiling infants alive on a heated by fire metal cow-god, Moloch, as a sacrifice. They were not good people. Hebrews had very specific rules on treatment of indentured servants/slaves. I’d look into it more. It’s not the same as chattel slavery like America had with Africans, or even how surrounding ancient nations treated people.
@@kingattila506 if it was really hyperbolic war rhetoric, why did Moses get angry when he learned that not all the midianites were exterminated? How exactly does exterminating the very children you are concerned about solve the problem?
Regarding slavery, why is the treatment of people relevant? Are you saying that American slavery would have been okay if the slave owners treated their slaves the same way as the Hebrews treated theirs?
@@Steven-ki9sk yes, so to prevent some children to be sacrificed by the Midianites, all were killed, including babies, boys and people who never harmed another in their lives; with the exception of fckable virgin girls who could be used as sx slaves.
Hoorah for morality 🤢🤮
Steven in many of those other people groups back then, they were doing things like offering their babies & children to Molech & Baal in occultic-ritual sacrifices!! That dude Goliath that David killed was 9 feet, 9 inches tall with 6 fingers on each hand & 6 toes on each foot & not the normal 5!! He was not a human with 100% human DNA!!!! He had 'alien DNA" mixed with human DNA!! Ever hear about the 'nephillim'?? They were a half human, half fallen-angel, alien humanoid being who were 100% evil !! The human race at that time was being more & more mixed with this alien DNA & this is a main reason for the Genesis flood!! Noah & his family were a dwindling number of humans with 100% human DNA!!
Yes the cannintes were killed on gods orders. Why do you have an issue with that? They were burning there babies alive to scarafice to gods among other horrific things. They were warned to stop many times. Are you saying they didnt deserve judgment? People like you alwyays say if god is so good why doenst he stop evil people , then the time he does you have a promblem with that too. If someone murdered your family would you want them dead? Probably would, well why do you feel you could kill but god the creator of all can not?
4:15 he’s wrong, we don’t just ‘agree’ on morality arbitrarily, the morals we/they had to disagree with the nazis largely if not mostly derived from judeo-Christian morals I.e. God. This is quite well known to anyone who studied this era in history and how infamous high ranking nazis made such statements, that these morals and ‘concious’ were antithetical to their ideology. The “societal standards” he refers to that he or society ‘accepts’ also derive from that too, if not distantly, or virtually, foundationally. Honestly I don’t think he really thought out this view, he seems convinced on certain premises as if he’s heard them in a vacuum. He also said something about how “God might set morals but society just decides on what they want to follow, therefore the morals are useless”, or “everyone doing what is right in their own eyes” yeah, lol, that’s the whole point. “God overlooked people’s ignorance about these things in earlier times, but now he commands everyone everywhere to repent of their sins and turn to him.” Acts 17:30.
Not only does society agree on common moral codes arbitrarily, but as individuals we form them arbitrarily. Each snd ever individual is the sole arbiter of his or her own morality.
Morality is the set of all moral assessments an individual forms. And as with all assessments, moral assessment requires cognitive process, and therfore are _always and neccesarily subjective._
@@theoskeptomai2535 It seems you’ve attempted to define morality without actually defining it. Morality, by definition, is the difference and nature of good and evil, or right and wrong. With this in mind we must then consider the laws of logic (as they are pertinent to morality). You see according to the laws of logic, morality (a transcendent term), must be objective, otherwise it would break the first and third law. Because if what is good is dependent on someone, then you could say that something can simultaneously be good and evil, which breaks the law of contradiction, and the law of identity. Therefore, morality must either be objective, or non-existent. This is the main issue that most have, because if you acknowledge that morality is non-existent then you must also be willing to say that things like the holocaust are not wrong because wrongness isn’t a thing. Most will not do this and instead claim morality as subjective and unconsciously claim the benefits of morality were it to be objective, and therefore be in contradiction. Of course there are very few who are willing to say that morality simply doesn’t exist and acknowledge that any one action or event cannot legitimately be perceived as good or evil, but rather arbitrary preference. And to those I appreciate their consistency, but respectfully disagree.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Unless there is a God. Then you r incorrect as then you have an objective moral standard set by an ultimate authority. It is not meaningless as that authority has the power and will to call people individually to account for their actions. If every person decided to defy God then that would not mean God is outvoted. If there is a creator then He wont have any trouble punishing every person. It is very meaningful to defy such a God.
@@dunwitdis3705 Morality is the cognitive process of differentiating morally appropriate intentions, decisions, and actions from those inappropriate. As with any cognitive process of assessment, moral assessment are always and necessarily SUBJECTIVE. To be objective, this process of differentiating would have to be independent of all human cognition.
@@broncosgjn Wow. Good luck to anyone attempting to comprehend any of that word salad nonsense. If you have an argument, present it as an argument, not a jumbled string of utter tripe.
What is the 1st premise of your argument? State it in a simple sentence.
"Scouts honor?"
*brings up the sign of "live long and prosper"*
The initial question is like asking “if math is objective how come when I do 2+2 I get 5?”
It’s a simple answer really, you’re wrong.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 well maybe you think through it before completely dismissing or maybe actually ask for a deeper meaning to that question.
I LOVE THIS
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 dude stop lying. You never asked about this comparison on the other thread.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 lol bro I can’t delete comments. Just stop lying 🤥
It’s not though because you can’t have two people enter a room with two other people and end up with five. You can, however, disagree on what constitutes right and wrong in a given situation.
1:00 You will never find a society like that because people who abandon people in battle, double cross those who are kind, or kill everyone they come across can't work together enough to form a society. That's just common sense. If I know this person will kill me, steal from me, or run away when I need him most, I'm going to stay away from him.
If the person did any of these things to you anyway, did he do anything wrong?
@@pJ005-k9i everybody would probably say so, that doesnt make it objectively wrong though
there are many thieves in this world who believe that that stealing is just their job like any other job...and there is nothing that you can say, that definitely proves them wrong.
So you can believe literally whatever you want, but then there are consiquences to that. So most people stick to what doesnt get them in trouble, then they teach their kids that´s what they should do as well. What parents teach us, and how they behave around us when we are little children, becomes our moral (until we get older and decide on our won)
If morality was only what we agreed it was, why do we agree more on certain things than others? Just because?
The hardest thing about Frank’s job is trying to understand people’s mental gymnastics in order to avoid God.
Nah, Mental gymnastics are usually done by apologists, they are professional acrobats mentally.
I don't think people do mental gymnastics. I personally believe that Frank is the king of non-sequiturs. Frank explains a God that does not reflect the God of the Bible. It's called Yahweh smuggling.
He hardest thing about franks job is doing the mental gymnastics to avoid showing he lacks the knowledge on topics or cherry picks things.
Mental gymnastics?
There isn't any evidence for the existence of any gods. That alone is more than enough to justify atheism.
@@joetaylor1976 Why do you say that?
It's always funny to me to watch someone ask a question and then end with an expression on their face like, "I'm only asking you to do a 'gotcha' you SOB and I gotcha good here!" I wish more people would ask questions not to be jerks but because they are actually interested in hearing another point of view. I always ask my friends questions out of an inquisitive nature, always very calmly, and always engaged in their response. They typically come back at me violently with a raised voice, increased tempo, and an angry look on their face... the "I'm gonna get you sucka!" type of look when they hit me back with something they read on a poster written in crayon on a college campus that they must go along with for fear of not complying with the left.
Clean cut argument, excellent Frank. 👍😎💪
This kid should’ve studied on this topic before he started talking with Frank Turek. It’s like a 10-year-old going into a boxing ring with a professional boxer.
Perhaps on a very few topics and subjects.
For the most part Frank doesn’t study much at all first.
Naah
Good video
This content is incredible!
So agree:)
I love it !! Frank is the type to take your question and pigeonhole it or change it to fit how he can answer it and this man is not letting frank do that !! Got ‘em
Not having a logical congruent argument is it really getting him. Difference of opinion is fine but it also contradicted itself and made no logical sense. If he really believes what he says then answer the question
Truth sounds like hate to those who hate truth
All praise, glory and worship to you ABBA Father Amen
That is why you are so obsessed with an imaginary sky fairy you hate the truth, there is no god.
As a cradle Catholic, Frank Turek is one of my favorite Apologist.
There once was a time when all people believed in God and the church ruled. This time was called the Dark Ages.
Well if you where alive i mean you want a cruel sadistic bastard try someone who no's everything and created everything but couldn't explain in a book how to treat dirty water or how to made an incubator for babies both of which could of prevented a lot of death and suffering.
@@robmorris4056 Hi Rob, thanks for your comment, unfortunately I have no idea what you're on about, maybe spell check it and come back to me? Good luck.
@@ramptonarsecandle
Well your comment is completely irrelevant to the topic of the video, and this seems to just be an extremely unfunny cringy joke, so this comment is dismissed.
@@Mike00513 And you are completely irrelevant to the real world so you are dismissed. Good luck with the rest of your life.
I have found out that most atheists are both ignorant & non-chelant on issues like the occult & satanism!! We Christians know what goes on in these groups the things dark & evil, dog-eat-dog & rat-eat-rat!!
It almost seems to me, that he’s confusing morality with cultural environment or beliefs. What ever it may be, he is trying to disprove God existence(period)
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I’m sorry, but last I checked, my name ain’t Alice or Dorthy. I don’t live in “The Land of If.” It is not the Christian’s job to bring morality to the world. As far as I’m concerned, “YOU” can do what ever you want, “if” you know what I mean.
@@grantnm1 you don’t live in a land of if, yet you are promoting an imaginary god as if it is real? 🤣🤣 Yes you are very much a variation ofAlice.
@@brianpeterson3884 so says a man that believes, “Nothing created everything.” Get my name out your mouth! And, have a wonderful day. 😂😂😂
@@grantnm1 says a man that believes, “Nothing created everything.”
🤣🤣 Projection the refuge of the liar. Yes tell me why do you believe that everything came from nothing, that all you from nothing god was wave his hand in a void? Also how did your god come from nothing? Nourish go is suppose to be non coporial? How does he even have a mind with which to form thought? And how did he come into existence from nothing? When it comes to ‘nothing’ you believe it in spades. But thanks for your lies about myself it is all cowards such as yourself can do.
>Get my name out your mouth!
So you now think the bad behavior of will Smith which got him punished badly is a great thing to imitate. So you show how morals are subjective and yours are lacking As you lie and are belligerent, Nathan.
Your argument has been shattered by your own lies.
@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 first of all, how do you know, I don’t know anything? If you are going to be outright mean, please go over to another poster. God sent His Son to earth so that we might be saved through Him. Read the gospel of John. It is preferable that you read the whole Bible. It’s not my responsibility to convince you that God exists, and besides that, I don’t know what will make you believe. I’m no better than you, and all I know is what changes God has done in my life. I don’t know you, but I do care about you and it will be irresponsible of me not to tell you that. God loves you more than you may ever know. He sent Jesus to be a perfect sacrifice, and to take our place, because we can’t save our selves. We have all broken the morale law and Jesus paid the fine. God don’t need any of us, He loves us. No one is looking for God, He is looking for us. It’s my hope that we respect one another, and that you really understand why Jesus came, when He did. If I have said anything to offend you or anyone, “I apologize, and I hope you have a great weekend.”
THANK YOU FOR SHARING 👀 🤔
Legend has it, hes still contradicting himself 😂😂
Morality is based on empathy. "The golden rules" Objective morality sounds nice, but it has no truth.
And the ability to empathize and make a moral based decision comes from????
@@ttownsupreme2183
The brain.
@@somerandom3247 Which is an organ...Flesh.
@@ttownsupreme2183 Empathy
@@joetaylor1976 The ability to empathize comes from empathy...changing the word tense isn't a satisfactory answer
About every civilization ever found it to be totally morally fine to murder "undesirables". So yeah... it's like morality is a bit more complicated than "a standard above us"
Morality rests on us being a social species and "pain" is something we all want to avoid hence "whatever hurts me will probably hurt someone I consider a whole human and that's why I won't do it" simplified.
It exists to make sure society keeps working and to ensure self preservation of the individual through ensuring the self preservation of the group
So as a Christian, but also a middle-grounded spectator, both of them were using circular reasoning and didn’t have clarity in their motions. Only difference is the questioner kept veering off and jumping several ways.
“Everyone agrees murder is bad” except the countless murderers lmfao. Such weak arguments.
I love it when people try to argue that a society could exist where hurting others is a good and positive thing. Societies have attempted to do this and have always failed.
Did that happen here?
Yet they still do it
Poor kid...he has a lot to learn about life.
@@nickjones5435 Why?
I'm Christian and never force or intimidate others.
I think his argument is fundamentally flawed. The fact that people have differences of opinion on what is right or wrong does not mean that right or wrong does not exist. People have differences of opinion on lots of things that's not a logical argument for its non-existence. Plus nobody lives their life that way. The fact that he's even having the discussion proves he knows there is a right or wrong otherwise he wouldn't even engage in the discussion. If he really believes that let's see how he feels if somebody stole his car he would say it's wrong no matter what the other person's opinion on it was.
An interesting point here , when the nazis had taken over, many people sided with them in fear , or at least turned a blind eye. However there were some , in spite of societal norms , risked and lost their lives to stop them. I'm not talking about the soldiers necessarily , but germans that hid jews and others. There were foreigners that also risked everything.
Then you have to look at slavery , it was accepted by society that you could own slaves for nearly all of human history I'm dominant cultures, but that didn't change the reality of right and wrong , which is why abolishionists stood up to society and pushed for the morally good thing.
Today, society tells us that aborting kids is nothing more than removing a tumor , yet there are plenty of people that vehemently disagree with that . Often times taking the moral road is harder than not. This also proves that there are objective morals
Please define the words "MORALITY" and "GOOD" and tell us the "objective" standard that grounds it ?? I'll wait 🥱😴
Matthew: "We can't know what is right or wrong in our lives."
.
Me: "Matthew, give me your wallet now or I will kill you and take it."
.
Matthew: "No, that's wrong."
.
Me: "How can you be sure?"
.
Matthew: "Because society agrees it's wrong."
.
Me: "Am I and my three buddies here with guns a part of society?"
.
Matthew: "Yes."
.
Me: "Okay then we as a bigger, more powerful part of society don't agree that what we want is wrong; hand it over or die."
.
What this boils down to is he's trying to take everything back to the law of the jungle by saying, "Whatever society says is moral is in fact moral." The end of that line of argumentation is "might makes right" because if I have more power than you, then I win the argument. Doesn't matter what is actually moral; all that matters is if I can convince enough people I'm right.
.
At the end of the day, he cannot live out his definition of morality. He will always appeal to some "higher source", whether that is God or "society." And if the "society" he finds himself in doesn't agree with him, then I guess tough luck.
@May you have peace I'm not following you on the logic here. If enough people stand behind it supposes there is debate on whether or not there is or isn't a Triune God, but anyone who has read the Bible sees the Triune God taught in several places in several different ways. Most clearly we see it during Jesus' baptism when God the Holy Spirit descends on God the Son in the form of a dove, and God the Father speaks from heaven, "This is my beloved son who pleases me; listen to him." All three beings are eternal, powerful, and worshipped; ergo, they are all God, but are not gods because God himself says, "I the Lord your God am one."
.
It's a little tricky for human logic to accept, which is why I recommend in this area we don't use human logic but take the text at face value. The Trinity works this way because God says it works this way, and because we believe in God we believe what he says about himself even if our finite minds have trouble making full "sense" of it according to our understanding of 3-dimensional physics.
He’s trying to have it both ways. Morality is what society agrees upon? One, society does not agree upon morality. Two, that’s an appeal to the masses. Kid doesn’t know how much conflict and bloodshed occurs in the world due to differences in morality.
Do you have an example of an objective moral, and a basis for its objectivity?
If not, subjective morality is all we have to work with.
@@somerandom3247 I am sure Ted Bundy had would have loved to have people on his jury, who believe morality is subjective. Clearly, his views on morality were superior to all the women he murdered, yes?
I trake is that you avoided my question because you cant provide an example?
You not liking subjective morality isnt an argument for objective morality. You would need to prove objective morality exists....
Frank's scout hobor hand sign is actually a Vulcan salute from Star Trek. Frank is a trekkie!
I'll give the answer I am the source for morality I don't care about anyone else's morality I say murder, rape and theft is wrong it doesn't matter to me if my right or wrong is not objective because I will stop murder, rape and theft if I see it happen infront of me not because I follow a God who says it's wrong but because I say it's wrong and I choose to do what I think is right, I'm pretty much doing what Gods doing I'm making my own morality same way the man above does🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 it's as simple as that ask me why am I moral instead of immoral? simple out of pure selfishness
haha spot on.
It sounds like you base your morality on empathy and reciprocity.
@@hamster4618 no i base my morality on who I am as a human being
@@youssefsmith382 indeed, an evolved group mammal who has empathy and reciprocity ingrained in his biology as it advances our species.
@@hamster4618 if I based my morality off reciprocity I would be basing my morality off mutual benefit between me and others but I don't do it for others I do it for me, see the way I see it is I don't kill other people not for their sake but because my heart doesn't want that my morality like i said is pure selfishness I don't do what I say is wrong and I do what I say is right
✝️❤️🔥🙏🏽
Morality is in built in one’s nature.
I think the kid is more correct on this one. His point is that even if you have a perfect moral code somewhere in the sky spoken by a god you still have fallible people interpreting it and deciding for themselves if it is right. So the objective moral code turns into a subjective moral code anyway. This as well as there is no real evidence that such a moral code or god even exists in the first place. So the kids argument is more sensible even if Frank may be a better speaker and debater.
Nicely stated.
As being said many times, atheistic position is full of contradictory concepts.
How is someone not being convinced that god exists full of contradictory concepts?
@@stormy7709 We're talking about fundamental concepts. Doctrinal issues and inconsistencies in Biblical Christianity is another thing.
@@stormy7709 How do I know if stealing is wrong? Atheistic position will go circular as the video shows. Clinging into "all society agree that it's wrong' yet the Nazi example is "that" all society. So if you disassociate with "that" society, you contradicted your own premise.
@@akogepayo Atheism says nothing about morality. It is just not being convinced that god exists.
@@stormy7709 If atheists don’t believe in God, then by default they can only believe in subjective morality, which means morals are only defined by the individual, and not an objective standard. Meaning, they have no grounds to say if something is morally right or wrong, because they have no standard.
This guy was actually a thoughtful person, deeply misguided though he is, he was at least engaging in good faith by his own lights. Maybe I'm too used to the sneering atheist types but I think there's hope for that fellow (I would not like to publicly argue with Frank!)
Misguided in what way, exactly?
Avoiding the best philosophers, and ambushing street people, instead, only demonstrates Mr. Turek's preference for "Straw Men," and why he can't challenge the best arguments.
Don't know why we need to argue about where morality comes from and stuff when its so obvious. Guys, ITS FROM BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION and cultural norms. Its so obvious i don't know how you Christians keep sticking your heads in the sand and keep denying the science.
It really amazes me.
@@christiano5306 For real 🤣
We aren't sticking our heads in the sand, nor are we denying science. Science is a decent way at trying to understand things, but its only that. A human's attempt to understand God's world, and that is why it will never be perfect. You seem to think science can know everything, it is your God.
My god however does actually know everything, including whatever is in your heart. You should repent of your words and actions and find jesus. It was not too late for me, and so it can't be too late for you.
Biological evolution is the source of morality? How could biology account for that? Doesn’t self-sacrifice contradict self-preservation?
@@TheMrSONIC4 pack hunting
As a cradle Catholic Frank Turek is my favorite Protestant Apologist.
This kid is confused
At best
Regardless of god, people set morals.
If there is a god, it is the most immoral thing around.
God cannot be immoral, he is the most moral being. If people set morals, they would be subjective and you couldn't tell others they are wrong.
@@scruffmcgruffthecrimedawg5661
_"God cannot be immoral"_
The guy who created people... didn't do a very good job...and decided the best way to fix it with infinite power was to drown them... babies and all?
If that being existed, he is immoral.
_"If people set morals, they would be subjective and you couldn't tell others they are wrong."_
People have set morals. ...and people can tell others they are wrong. If you think you need a god in the sky for ..lets say ..drowning babies ..to be wrong then I worry about your values.
@Abyssal because murder is immoral. Society doesn't decide morals. God does
@Abyssal
_"How is He immoral?"_
My post gave an answer to that. Anyone who drowns babies is immoral.
@Abyssal the first commandment. Thou shall not kill.
Objective Morality exists regardless of our agreement on it. Our agreement acts out the moral principles.
The problem is we do know. We do know what is right from wrong, we know it in our heart.
It's still taught/learned. It's why what "is right from wrong" in another country doesn't look the same as in another country.