@@rotten-saved-wretch5048 yea I will hopefully tomorrow. I have to do a quick verification with YT before being able to add links. I can ping you here when I do. Thanks
Sorry, but your arguments are rather unconvincing. 1:Using the Bible to prove the Bible is rather illogical because you can prove anything using this method. 2:Secondly, the fact that people say they witnessed something does not mean that they saw it, and even more so does not mean that what they saw was actually reality. And using these five hundred witnesses, provided that you only have claims about their existence, is rather illogical. 3:The claim that the Bible fulfills prophecies is rather unconvincing given that we have no independent sources from which we could emphasize the veracity of the events described in the Bible, and those sources that we have are biased and could easily adjust events in such a way that they fit into the prediction. 4:The fact that someone changed their behavior because of something does not mean that this something is true, plus I have no reason to believe that such a change took place. 5:The cosmological argument, in my opinion, is one of the weakest arguments in all of theology. Simply because, according to this logic, someone created your god and in order to avoid this, you have to use "special pleading." And the teleological argument, in my opinion, is complete nonsense. First, the complexity of something is not an indicator of design, but quite the opposite, and second, we constantly see how complex systems "ecosystems" appear in nature on their own. 6:I hope that you understand that not all denominations agree with the view that only faith is needed for salvation, and in my opinion this puts your view of Christianity in a bad light. 7:I do not agree that the Bible is something special as a text, in my opinion it is a very standard collection of myths and legends that have sacred meaning for a specific religious group of people. The same thing is done by absolutely all religious texts of all religions of the world and the only difference is that you decided to believe in the Bible and not as an example in the Koran. 8:Morality is not objective and each person makes his own conclusions about what is moral and what is not and even if I accept that this morality is given to us by God, it still remains subjective because it is subject to the subject. As for me, a more effective method of judgment will be increasing prosperity and reducing the harm used. 9:The fact that life has an end is what gives meaning to life. Think about it this way, in a market economy, what is in limited quantity has a higher price than what is unlimited. 10:Please open a biology textbook and find out what evolution is, evolution is the transfer of useful genetic traits to the next generation and answers the question of where the biodiversity of life on earth came from and has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which was proven in 1953 by the experiment of Yuri Miller. 11: The fact that your God is not falsifiable does not really help you. In the Bible, God constantly intervenes in events and interacts with people, so we could easily verify his existence. 12: The Big Bang is the beginning of space-time, so asking what was before the concept of before at all is very illogical. And inserting God as an answer to this question is simply a god of the gaps fallacy. As a conclusion, I can say that all your arguments are completely unconvincing and rather primitive in nature. All that you presented are the most superficial arguments that a person can emphasize from any preacher on RUclips, and if your book is at a similar level, then I doubt that there was any point in writing it. Sorry if u was to rude.
Interesting... Especially the 12th point. Not that I disagree with many of your earlier ones. However, the big bang is an event. You are left with the hole to explain how an uncountable number of processes that were organized and beyond the comprehensible understanding of the word complex, resulted in the known universe today that functions as a system comprising of again an uncountable number of systems each having its own intrinsic properties and functional behaviours, most of which we have barely scratched the surface after hundreds of thousands of years of cumulative human exploration and theories while the universe has continued and existed independently of our biases and knowledge. Best part.. We aren't the originators of the aforementioned, merely it's insignificant inhabitants.
Thanks for the detailed comment, I'll try to respond to each point since I think I may have not made myself too clear in the video. I believe I addressed many of your counters in the video, so I think maybe you didn't follow the precise points I was making. I acknowledge the biblical evidentiary lines of reasoning are probably less persuasive to an atheist, probably more so for a theist who doesn't know exactly which religion to go to. Evidence does not have to be convincing for it to constitute evidence, as persuasiveness is largely subjective. I am just putting forth some of the reasons why people believe in God. Also, we don't only have claims of these witnesses, some of them wrote entire books recording their testimony, all of which align remarkably closely. If it was just one guy writing a story about seeing Jesus, I'd be less persuaded. However, if multiple guys at different times and geographical locations wrote the same account of Jesus (pre and post-cross). that is decent evidence to me. That would be strong courtroom evidence. It isn't the reason I came to the faith per se, but it is a decent piece of evidence. 3. Fair points I've acknowledged, but again, most reputable historians will note that at least a man named Jesus died by cruxifixiion in the first century. So I suppose you can believe that the writers of the NT fabricated their story to align with these "prophecies", but I would personally believe otherwise. Again, that isn't really a reason I came to belief in God--it is more persuasive I think to converting people from other religions. 5. Not sure about this one, there is no special pleading, as the very definition of God requires he be unoriginated. You have to recursively go back anyway until you reach an unoriginated thing, even in your view. That is, unless you appeal to some kind of quantum mechanics theory we don't know enough about. 6. Yes, I know this. This is one of the largest reasons I came to the faith was because of every religion (including Christian sects like Catholicism and Mormonism) teaching a deed based salvation. Many won't outright state that (and many will), but that is what they believe if you probe them with questions. 7. Have you read the bible, or rather studied it in depth? It is a compilation of 66 books, an anthology compiled over thousands of years by dozens of different authors. I don't think it is even remotely comparable to the Koran, but again, this is a very weak proof in terms of deductive reasoning. It is just a cool piece of evidence in my eyes that the bible was God-inspired. 8. Not quite, "subjective morality" is defined in a very particular way. It does not just mean subject to anything--you are defining the term based on its constituting words, which can sometimes lead to errors in understanding. "Subjective morality" as it is typically described is firstly localized in understanding to humankind, since we are the only moral beings as far as we can observe. Secondly, subjective morality is generally not fixed, and subject to variation. It operates on the basis of multiple individuals and multiple cultural, political, and societal perspectives. God is fixed, his moral standard does that change--he will never consider committing adultery right like some people do. What is good and bad is fixed on this standard, which is the universal standard for right and wrong. God is "to be" itself so it makes sense why he could be appealed to as a fixed universal standard. So I'd say you are using the term "subject" in the word subjective and fallaciously ignoring the meaning of the phrase "subjective morality" in its philosophical context. It is similar to how people fallaciously use the word "free will", when that doesn't mean free to do whatever you so desire. It has a specific philosophical connotation, despite the word "free". Same applies to "all powerful". Also, your moral grounding is very weak and can easily be taken to absurdity. It is actually circular if you understanding the nature of deontological ethical theory. You are first assuming reducing harm and increasing prosperity are "good" things or things one ought to do. Why? What basis do you have for that beyond just throwing your arms up in the air? You have some justification deep down, perhaps grounded in some other layer of moral intuition. " Increasing prosperity and reducing the harm used" first assumes the definition of the word prosperity and harm, which are in and of themselves morally contingent terms. Harm is doing bad to a group, which "bad" is a moral term describing what one ought not do. The opposite is true for prosperity, that is increasing the state of good or well-being of a group. You are using the words good and bad to describe how you decide what is good and bad. Circular. Also, what is prosperous or harmful for one group may be the opposite for another, and that can easily be taken to absurdity (i.e., Nazi Germany if they took over the world). What is the scope of this moral standard? Can you condemn African Warlords who like raping and pillaging? 9. Fallacious analogy. The only reason things of scarcity are more meaningful or valuable is because they CAN be of meaning or value to a mind. However, if there is no mind to grasp its value (say no creatures existed), then Gold or oil would have no value (you also may be conflating value with meaning, although there may be some overlap). So I agree, the brevity of human life does make it valuable SO LONG as there is human life to recollect their loved ones, or so long as you are alive to grasp the brevity of your life. However, once the universe dies a heat death, your life has no meaning at all. I am referencing grand meaning, not whether we have meaning during our lives on this earth. Of course we do because we comprehend that meaning, but on a grand scale, our lives mean nothing in an atheistic worldview. Also, time is a valuable commodity, but are you saying if humans could live for 10k years, they would be less valuable? I think you are conflating human value with the value of time, which there is overlap now, but I would say that is not necessarily the case --- assuming humans could live forever, their lives would still have meaning. 10. Your definition of evolution is not correct. Evolution is the change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations, Evolution encompasses all genetic changes, not just those that are beneficial. I also never said abiogenesis is related to evolution, excuse me if I did not make that clear. It is kind of in the backdrop of the discussion, but evolution only describes the processes that occur once life exists. The Miller Urey experiment showed how basic organic molecules (e.g., amino acids) could form spontaneously under the conditions thought to exist in earth's early stages This provided evidence that the raw materials for life could arise naturally, but it didn't demonstrate how life itself originated from non-living matter. That is still being researched and a simple google search would make it clear abiogenesis has never been repeated or observed in an experimental setting, ever. Thus, it does not yet constitute science and cannot be invoked as an explanation for life. Once it is tested and repeatable, I'll be on board for that being a plausible explanation for the origination of life. Otherwise, you are seeking to prove too much with that experiment (if that is indeed what you are trying to do). 11.Even when God intervenes it is usually not in a way that would be exclusively attributable to God. For example, he can cause natural disasters, but how would you differentiate that from him actionably causing fire to rain down from heaven or an earthquake occurring? Also, I agree God HAS proven his existence through the resurrection of Christ, since such an event transcends the bounds of death, which we can assume to be exclusive to God. However, I am saying currently, we can't really prove or falsify God's existence on a purely observable basis. I see nothing in the bible to support God telling us to perform miracles like that in our modern day. Miracles were meant to initially propagate the faith, or else it likely would not have spread how it did in the 1st century. 12. It is not illogical to ask. If the big bang BEGAN space time, anything that has a beginning must have a cause (principle of causality), unless you want to invoke an explanation that breaches a basic logical principle. We have never observed such a breach, but you are entitled to that explanation. I personally like to reason from principles we know to be true, as it provides the soundest framework for understanding reality. Otherwise, things get very confusing very quickly, and you are left with "I dunna" as your explanation. Finally, this video was not about HOW persuasive religion is. It was simply to show that religion is grounded in reason (at least it can be). You can disagree whether that reasoning is strong and try to disprove the premises (which I believe you failed to do in this short little RUclips comment section), but nonetheless religion can be evidence-based. I think the atheistic worldview is also grounded in reason, despite it being wrong. I can disprove many atheistic arguments, but their logical and science-based arguments serve as evidence for their position nonetheless. I wouldn't say they are stupid arguments made by
@@DitmarHoxha I Dunno how you consider thousands of variations of biographies of a person of which no complete original records even exists today as proof for the trinitarian narrative. At best you can only say some aspects may be true, and others not.. But you have no way to figure out which. And this has been already acknowledged by critics, apologetics, historians etc. And your grounds for a "remarkable similarity" across all variants.. I guess either you are blissfully ignorant or are straight up lying.
@@DitmarHoxha buddy, are you seriously unaware that the gospels are historically theological documents I. E biographies largely by authors with unknown identities. And said works were documented centuries after the lifetime of the person called jesus? Furthermore, no original manuscripts of that time exist. And content was added, subtracted, updated either willfully or in error by scribes.
from looksmaxing to Lifemaxing. Im proud of you bro.
Can you post a link to buy your book you wrote on Free Grace please?
Thanks
@@rotten-saved-wretch5048 yea I will hopefully tomorrow. I have to do a quick verification with YT before being able to add links. I can ping you here when I do. Thanks
Here until I do that sorry: www.amazon.com/Power-Unto-Salvation-Ditmar-Hoxha/dp/B0CSBFCDP3/ref=sr_1_1?sr=8-1
Bro your voice was going in and out lol
Handsome
I apologize for the thumping noise, I think I may have been messing with my mic by accident.
read bronze age mindset and selective breeding and the birth of philosophy
Sorry, but your arguments are rather unconvincing.
1:Using the Bible to prove the Bible is rather illogical because you can prove anything using this method.
2:Secondly, the fact that people say they witnessed something does not mean that they saw it, and even more so does not mean that what they saw was actually reality. And using these five hundred witnesses, provided that you only have claims about their existence, is rather illogical.
3:The claim that the Bible fulfills prophecies is rather unconvincing given that we have no independent sources from which we could emphasize the veracity of the events described in the Bible, and those sources that we have are biased and could easily adjust events in such a way that they fit into the prediction.
4:The fact that someone changed their behavior because of something does not mean that this something is true, plus I have no reason to believe that such a change took place.
5:The cosmological argument, in my opinion, is one of the weakest arguments in all of theology. Simply because, according to this logic, someone created your god and in order to avoid this, you have to use "special pleading." And the teleological argument, in my opinion, is complete nonsense. First, the complexity of something is not an indicator of design, but quite the opposite, and second, we constantly see how complex systems "ecosystems" appear in nature on their own.
6:I hope that you understand that not all denominations agree with the view that only faith is needed for salvation, and in my opinion this puts your view of Christianity in a bad light.
7:I do not agree that the Bible is something special as a text, in my opinion it is a very standard collection of myths and legends that have sacred meaning for a specific religious group of people. The same thing is done by absolutely all religious texts of all religions of the world and the only difference is that you decided to believe in the Bible and not as an example in the Koran.
8:Morality is not objective and each person makes his own conclusions about what is moral and what is not and even if I accept that this morality is given to us by God, it still remains subjective because it is subject to the subject. As for me, a more effective method of judgment will be increasing prosperity and reducing the harm used.
9:The fact that life has an end is what gives meaning to life. Think about it this way, in a market economy, what is in limited quantity has a higher price than what is unlimited.
10:Please open a biology textbook and find out what evolution is, evolution is the transfer of useful genetic traits to the next generation and answers the question of where the biodiversity of life on earth came from and has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which was proven in 1953 by the experiment of Yuri Miller.
11: The fact that your God is not falsifiable does not really help you. In the Bible, God constantly intervenes in events and interacts with people, so we could easily verify his existence.
12: The Big Bang is the beginning of space-time, so asking what was before the concept of before at all is very illogical. And inserting God as an answer to this question is simply a god of the gaps fallacy.
As a conclusion, I can say that all your arguments are completely unconvincing and rather primitive in nature. All that you presented are the most superficial arguments that a person can emphasize from any preacher on RUclips, and if your book is at a similar level, then I doubt that there was any point in writing it. Sorry if u was to rude.
Interesting... Especially the 12th point. Not that I disagree with many of your earlier ones.
However, the big bang is an event. You are left with the hole to explain how an uncountable number of processes that were organized and beyond the comprehensible understanding of the word complex, resulted in the known universe today that functions as a system comprising of again an uncountable number of systems each having its own intrinsic properties and functional behaviours, most of which we have barely scratched the surface after hundreds of thousands of years of cumulative human exploration and theories while the universe has continued and existed independently of our biases and knowledge.
Best part.. We aren't the originators of the aforementioned, merely it's insignificant inhabitants.
Thanks for the detailed comment, I'll try to respond to each point since I think I may have not made myself too clear in the video.
I believe I addressed many of your counters in the video, so I think maybe you didn't follow the precise points I was making. I acknowledge the biblical evidentiary lines of reasoning are probably less persuasive to an atheist, probably more so for a theist who doesn't know exactly which religion to go to. Evidence does not have to be convincing for it to constitute evidence, as persuasiveness is largely subjective. I am just putting forth some of the reasons why people believe in God.
Also, we don't only have claims of these witnesses, some of them wrote entire books recording their testimony, all of which align remarkably closely. If it was just one guy writing a story about seeing Jesus, I'd be less persuaded. However, if multiple guys at different times and geographical locations wrote the same account of Jesus (pre and post-cross). that is decent evidence to me. That would be strong courtroom evidence. It isn't the reason I came to the faith per se, but it is a decent piece of evidence.
3. Fair points I've acknowledged, but again, most reputable historians will note that at least a man named Jesus died by cruxifixiion in the first century. So I suppose you can believe that the writers of the NT fabricated their story to align with these "prophecies", but I would personally believe otherwise. Again, that isn't really a reason I came to belief in God--it is more persuasive I think to converting people from other religions.
5. Not sure about this one, there is no special pleading, as the very definition of God requires he be unoriginated. You have to recursively go back anyway until you reach an unoriginated thing, even in your view. That is, unless you appeal to some kind of quantum mechanics theory we don't know enough about.
6. Yes, I know this. This is one of the largest reasons I came to the faith was because of every religion (including Christian sects like Catholicism and Mormonism) teaching a deed based salvation. Many won't outright state that (and many will), but that is what they believe if you probe them with questions.
7. Have you read the bible, or rather studied it in depth? It is a compilation of 66 books, an anthology compiled over thousands of years by dozens of different authors. I don't think it is even remotely comparable to the Koran, but again, this is a very weak proof in terms of deductive reasoning. It is just a cool piece of evidence in my eyes that the bible was God-inspired.
8. Not quite, "subjective morality" is defined in a very particular way. It does not just mean subject to anything--you are defining the term based on its constituting words, which can sometimes lead to errors in understanding. "Subjective morality" as it is typically described is firstly localized in understanding to humankind, since we are the only moral beings as far as we can observe. Secondly, subjective morality is generally not fixed, and subject to variation. It operates on the basis of multiple individuals and multiple cultural, political, and societal perspectives. God is fixed, his moral standard does that change--he will never consider committing adultery right like some people do. What is good and bad is fixed on this standard, which is the universal standard for right and wrong. God is "to be" itself so it makes sense why he could be appealed to as a fixed universal standard. So I'd say you are using the term "subject" in the word subjective and fallaciously ignoring the meaning of the phrase "subjective morality" in its philosophical context. It is similar to how people fallaciously use the word "free will", when that doesn't mean free to do whatever you so desire. It has a specific philosophical connotation, despite the word "free". Same applies to "all powerful". Also, your moral grounding is very weak and can easily be taken to absurdity. It is actually circular if you understanding the nature of deontological ethical theory. You are first assuming reducing harm and increasing prosperity are "good" things or things one ought to do. Why? What basis do you have for that beyond just throwing your arms up in the air? You have some justification deep down, perhaps grounded in some other layer of moral intuition.
" Increasing prosperity and reducing the harm used" first assumes the definition of the word prosperity and harm, which are in and of themselves morally contingent terms. Harm is doing bad to a group, which "bad" is a moral term describing what one ought not do. The opposite is true for prosperity, that is increasing the state of good or well-being of a group. You are using the words good and bad to describe how you decide what is good and bad. Circular. Also, what is prosperous or harmful for one group may be the opposite for another, and that can easily be taken to absurdity (i.e., Nazi Germany if they took over the world). What is the scope of this moral standard? Can you condemn African Warlords who like raping and pillaging?
9. Fallacious analogy. The only reason things of scarcity are more meaningful or valuable is because they CAN be of meaning or value to a mind. However, if there is no mind to grasp its value (say no creatures existed), then Gold or oil would have no value (you also may be conflating value with meaning, although there may be some overlap). So I agree, the brevity of human life does make it valuable SO LONG as there is human life to recollect their loved ones, or so long as you are alive to grasp the brevity of your life. However, once the universe dies a heat death, your life has no meaning at all. I am referencing grand meaning, not whether we have meaning during our lives on this earth. Of course we do because we comprehend that meaning, but on a grand scale, our lives mean nothing in an atheistic worldview. Also, time is a valuable commodity, but are you saying if humans could live for 10k years, they would be less valuable? I think you are conflating human value with the value of time, which there is overlap now, but I would say that is not necessarily the case --- assuming humans could live forever, their lives would still have meaning.
10. Your definition of evolution is not correct. Evolution is the change in the genetic composition of a population over successive generations, Evolution encompasses all genetic changes, not just those that are beneficial. I also never said abiogenesis is related to evolution, excuse me if I did not make that clear. It is kind of in the backdrop of the discussion, but evolution only describes the processes that occur once life exists.
The Miller Urey experiment showed how basic organic molecules (e.g., amino acids) could form spontaneously under the conditions thought to exist in earth's early stages This provided evidence that the raw materials for life could arise naturally, but it didn't demonstrate how life itself originated from non-living matter. That is still being researched and a simple google search would make it clear abiogenesis has never been repeated or observed in an experimental setting, ever. Thus, it does not yet constitute science and cannot be invoked as an explanation for life. Once it is tested and repeatable, I'll be on board for that being a plausible explanation for the origination of life. Otherwise, you are seeking to prove too much with that experiment (if that is indeed what you are trying to do).
11.Even when God intervenes it is usually not in a way that would be exclusively attributable to God. For example, he can cause natural disasters, but how would you differentiate that from him actionably causing fire to rain down from heaven or an earthquake occurring? Also, I agree God HAS proven his existence through the resurrection of Christ, since such an event transcends the bounds of death, which we can assume to be exclusive to God. However, I am saying currently, we can't really prove or falsify God's existence on a purely observable basis. I see nothing in the bible to support God telling us to perform miracles like that in our modern day. Miracles were meant to initially propagate the faith, or else it likely would not have spread how it did in the 1st century.
12. It is not illogical to ask. If the big bang BEGAN space time, anything that has a beginning must have a cause (principle of causality), unless you want to invoke an explanation that breaches a basic logical principle. We have never observed such a breach, but you are entitled to that explanation. I personally like to reason from principles we know to be true, as it provides the soundest framework for understanding reality. Otherwise, things get very confusing very quickly, and you are left with "I dunna" as your explanation.
Finally, this video was not about HOW persuasive religion is. It was simply to show that religion is grounded in reason (at least it can be). You can disagree whether that reasoning is strong and try to disprove the premises (which I believe you failed to do in this short little RUclips comment section), but nonetheless religion can be evidence-based. I think the atheistic worldview is also grounded in reason, despite it being wrong. I can disprove many atheistic arguments, but their logical and science-based arguments serve as evidence for their position nonetheless. I wouldn't say they are stupid arguments made by
@@DitmarHoxha I Dunno how you consider thousands of variations of biographies of a person of which no complete original records even exists today as proof for the trinitarian narrative.
At best you can only say some aspects may be true, and others not.. But you have no way to figure out which.
And this has been already acknowledged by critics, apologetics, historians etc.
And your grounds for a "remarkable similarity" across all variants.. I guess either you are blissfully ignorant or are straight up lying.
@@splittingvoid7923 Not sure what you are talking about. Maybe you could rephrase or be more specific.
@@DitmarHoxha buddy, are you seriously unaware that the gospels are historically theological documents I. E biographies largely by authors with unknown identities. And said works were documented centuries after the lifetime of the person called jesus? Furthermore, no original manuscripts of that time exist.
And content was added, subtracted, updated either willfully or in error by scribes.