Are Apologists Making Christianity Toxic?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 окт 2024
- From Episode #107 of Deep Drinks Podcast www.youtube.co...
🌱LINKTREE: linktr.ee/deep...
👉PATREON: / deepdrinks
🎧PODCAST: podfollow.com/...
🐦TWITTER: / deepdrinkspod
📷INSTAGRAM: / deepdrinkspodcast
😃FB GROUP: / deepdrinks
💬DISCORD: / discord
📺DAVID'S CHANNEL: / @postfaith
👉 Email (business enquiries): david@deepdrinks.com
📚Recommended Reading (affiliate links):
amzn.to/45LJxFT
🎥Equipment I Use (affiliate links):
amzn.to/42vM2cy
👋 Shoutout to all the Christian commentators who are perfectly exemplifying exactly what we were talking about.
Indeed. I just deleted my response to one because I didn’t want to play pigeon chess.
Thank you for talking about this stuff man.
Who is going to convince you to believe Romans 1:20 is true?
@@thevulture5750 shouldn’t the Holy Spirit?
@@thevulture5750 Quoting a scientifically illiterate document doesn't make it true.
Christian social media dishonesty, drove me away from Christianity
Christian answers generally did the same for me. Honest/dishonest/well-meaning/internally-consistent or not .., eventually, the baggage was too much. Critical mass was reached and the whole thing fell apart under its own weight 🤷♂️
@@81caspen Do you remember any specific posts/topics that were the turning point for you?
@@ILootStandingStill, if I sat still and concentrated for a time, I might piece it together.
I think it might have been a kind of looking glass effect. At some point, it occurred to me that goodness has to be prior, if not to God themselves, then to what it means for God to be good. God can either be good or arbitrary, but not both. I didn’t put it in that formal sounding language, but I intuitively elected the former case.
That meant there were some things, however, described by the “word” as evil which either aren’t anymore or which never were. The one horn gives lie to the doctrine of immutability, while the other horn destroys the infallibility of the word.
I might have wrestled with most of the Bible’s proscriptions - believing one way, then another - but queerness was the rock against which it all broke. There is nothing wrong in my being queer and everything right with my loving someone with whom I share a healthy relationship.
God is either on board with that or God is not good. The latter, if true, is true either because God is actually evil, in which case we’d do better to ignore them, or because they don’t exist. Then, if God is good with it, they’re in conflict with their word, which makes the whole notion of “Christian doctrine”, as it is usually promulgated, utterly absurd.
That’s a rough sketch of how I remember its going. I hope that answers your question, but I can answer some more if not.
@@81caspen That was perfect, thank you for the detailed answer. Conversion/deconversion stories have always interested me, I like knowing the specific line of reasoning or logical arguments that people were convinced by, especially in cases like yours where you said you were aware of, and confronted with said reasoning well before coming to those conclusions yourself. Thanks again.
I always found apologists to come off a bit arrogant, twist little grains of info for leverage in arguments, play word spaghetti games through the use of analogies and philosophy, and at times utilize insults or slander a scholars reputation example how evangelicals treat Bart Ehrman
YES! Apologetics never convinces non-believers. It just turns Christianity in to, "You have to think this way" mindset.
You must hate church councils too.
“Apologetics never convinces nonbelievers.” Is this a true statement?
There are ways we think because they are true. For example: 1 * 1 = 1 is true. 1 * 1 = 2 is false.
Can you think atheism is true? Yes you can. Is atheism true. No.
@@goodshortsWhat a bunch of nothing lol.
@@goodshorts And of course Atheists don’t believe evil is real because you can’t see evil influences either but they rage against people that DARE to believe in God by Faith.
@@goodshorts Oh! I like what you say! Help me out. Give me a reason to understand my non-belief in God is false.
Please help me out with logic and reason.
Thank you.
Apologists want status in this world. What happened to the wisdom of this world is nothing and entering the kingdom as a child. And even Paul who was rather hubristic admitted if there is no resurrection how wretched his claims are...the modern apologists are corrupt and dishonest and far from the kingdom of the god they claim to defend
What verse did he admit that in, again?
@@lucyferos205 1 Corinthians 15:13-15
1 Corinthians 13:12
1 Corinthians 3:19
@@lucyferos205 modern apologists resemble more ancient sophists than they do the jewish faith in messiah
Brandon eats apologists for breakfast, his Tuesday takedowns are awesome.
All he says is he doesn't like God or "my science book says..."
@@thevulture5750 you've never engaged seriously with what he says is what I gather.
@@thevulture5750 Your statement is factually untrue. It's funny how Christians never seem to have a problem with making untrue statements. I just watched this video. You can't BS me about what was said in it. A lot more was said in it that what you laid out. In fact, the statement about not liking God was never made at all, and neither was anything about what a science book says. So, your comment was a provable lie. You don't have any issues with that, though, do you? That's typical of "religious" people.
@@thevulture5750 Brandon doesn't need a science book to figure out if murder is wrong, however a theist needs their holy book to tell them otherwise.
@@Grayraven777 Why does Brandon believe in morality? From the naturalist point of view, isn't that just the patriarchy?
David and Brandon provide the goods. 2 great content creators.
Thankyou
I’d say the religion is so toxic as to warrant such terrible apologists to begin with.
Absolutely.
People isn't toxic despise Christianity or Jesus. People become toxic precisely *BECAUSE* Christianity and Jesus
@definitivamenteno-malo7919 this sounds like a baseless claim
@@masterjose8483 Your accusation is the baseless one
This was excellent. Thank you for a terrific discussion.
Subscribed.
At the end of the day, apologists exist only as an exercise for philosophy 101 classes. They play word games to convince others - and often, themselves - of their religion's statements.
“I’m sorry, but you are not going to be able to philosophize me into believing your unfalsifiable proposition.” Let the ad homs begin!
Are you a logical positivist? That is, do you think the principle of falsifiability (Which, to be honest, is questionable even in a scientific context) is the only measure for knowledge?
I agree with what one commenter said in that apologist come off as arrogant to me and more than a little bit condescending as if we are stupid and we just can't understand the things that the super intelligent apologists understand. I am so glad to see Brandon here. His channel is one of my favorites!
Apologetics and a deeper study of what historians and actual scholars have produced is practically shoving me out of the door of Christianity.
Learning how the OT isn't just mythical, but largely based on early pagan myths, then realizing the NT depends heavily on it and is itself largely pseudohistorical is a rough combo.
@@lucyferos205 extremely tough combo. Growing up a science nerd and wondering why people kept dodging my questions about dinosaurs or genesis creation story then finding out in your late teens early 20’s that they’re just covering up because they don’t know and can’t answer is rough
@@apimpnamedslickback5936 totally depends on the lottery of what you were born into, plays a huge role in the amount of trauma and indoctrination you’ve been subjected to.
I was deeper than some, not as cultish as most seem to be. I don’t know how to make peace with these concepts, like many, many before us. I find myself in a constant state of processing.
@@lucyferos205 Absolutely whar drove me away from any religion. To the point that this shit is repeated in every other religion out there, not just abrahamist.
Before even watching the video: No, christianity has always been toxic. Apologetics is merely enhancing the toxicity.
Where Christians toxic while they were gathering babies Romans had thrown out on the street? Or when they were boycotting gladiator fights? Or when they got crucifixion outlawed=
No because it was already toxic. They perpetuate the toxicity though
Apologists are sheppards, not dog breeders. They are just there to keep the flock together and protect them from the wolves. And they do that by lieing and deceiving the sheep. But they never once turn a wolf into a sheppards dog or even a sheep.
Yes, and what are the sheep there for in the first place? I'll give you a clue: they aren't beloved pets. They are livestock, same as cows and pigs. The biggest threat to a flock of sheep isn't the wolves, it's the flock's owner.
@@theresemalmberg955 EXACTLY!!!! RELIGION IS EXPLOITATION, AND IT'S WORK IN EXCHANGE OF FAITH
As Christianity is examined in detail like never before it's defenders are feeling threatened at the prospect of having to examine it themselves.
for the first time in hundreds of years, their worldview is being examined and assessed. And they don't like the outcome.
That's hilarious. How can you just arbitrarily claim something you find intuitive to be necessary and inarguable. Are there not dozens of living secular philosophers who deny the Principle of Sufficient Reason, let alone its more restricted forms used in Kalam's argument?? Ugh...how irritating
It's ABSURD the horrible things Christians say that are allowed, but if you question God, your comment gets deleted immediately.
Theism IS valid so it could be sound. Plantigas not the only one .among philosophers who R, I believe , also of a secular frame of mind, believe this.The philosopher of science they called him, Gil Reils? Sorry, claimed theism was a catagory error.THAT was a catagory error.Majority Phil opinion I believe.
Not apologetics itself. But the people doing it on the web dont have:
1 - A humble spirit (they want to attack other christian and/or be praised/perceived and reconized as intelligent people over others) -- noticed mostly by their sardonic , sarcastic and mockery posture
2 - christian pratical life - They repeat what stabilished pastors says, because they lack definition of their own. They are not praticizing habits in their private life
3 - Knowledge and recognition of evidences of manifestation of God spirit validating God doctrine outside of their own denomination/theological system
PS: sorry for bad english, not my native tongue
Thank you for having Brandon on. He is awesome to listen to.
If a claim is reasonable to believe, it won’t need apologetics. It won’t need its own special body of ad hoc reasoning, nor will its detractors need to have their motives and character called into question rather than addressing their criticism.
Truth doesn’t need to be protected from too many doubts or questions.
I agree, truth does not need to be protected, it can be discovered. If a claim does not need apologetics, why is there debate? A claim like abiogenesis must be accepted on blind faith.
@@goodshorts I agree faith is a bad reason to believe anything. Fortunately, abiogenesis is supported by thousands of research papers, in which scientists used the theory to make new testable predictions, did the test, and confirmed their predictions. That is very strong evidence which justifies a very strong confidence in the truth of the theory. No faith. There was even peer review, where other scientists with no vested interest in the experiments did their best to poke holes in the testing method or the analysis, before the paper was allowed to be published.
This is the scientific method. The same reason people accept abiogenesis is the same reason we accept the underlying basis of medicine and computers and airplanes.
Creationism, on the other hand, has confirmed zero testable predictions. It can only use post hoc rationalization, where it looks at past discoveries and makes up new theology or details in order to make their conclusion still fit the data. Anyone else can do this too, with any imaginary theory. This is why creationism is not science and is not accepted by anyone who understands good standards of evidence.
I challenge you to explore outside the bubble of your indoctrination. I know you’ve been repeatedly threatened with t*rture if you think outside of that box, but you’d be amazed at the reality that exists outside your emotional abuse.
@@goodshorts abiogenesis can be postulated. Based on evidence obtained from other scientific fields, experiments can be constructed to test some of the hypotheses. In some cases, this has been done. Assuming that there were several chemical environments on the primordial Earth, which is borne out by empirical findings, any number of models could have been simultaneously occurring. That would guarantee that life would arise.
So if people make stupid arguments against something we aren’t supposed to push back against them?
@@LatterDayPup That is literally the opposite of what I said?
With a lot of these apologists their videos may be fine enough but the comments they post and like tend to be toxic. I see some of them and it's clear these Christians don't care about Jesus.
I have nothing but contempt for the field of apologetics. If it's accomplishing anything, it's only alienating people and destroying the church by holding it away from growing past tribalism.
I now find more of Christ in Odinists than Christian apologists. At best, you can make ten different refutations for apologetics. At worst, the apologist is just making threats and doing the intellectual equivalence of snapping, "I'm rubber, you're glue!"
Well said
The kalam is based on creating a rule based on observation (causality) and then inventing special exceptions for things which have never been observed (causality without materials, that something may be uncaused, that something may have specific attributes of timelessness, spacelessness, immaterialism)
The issue of infinite regress warrants some thought, though. We observe causality, and try to postulate backwards ad infinitum, and our brains go all screwy.
But the concept of a finite beginning also makes my brain go screwy, so the special pleading doesn’t accomplish much lol
@@lifefindsaway7875 there is no unanimous conclusion reached by physicists on the subject, so I don’t know if an infinite regress is something we can decisively rule out
@@MrMattSax The world is either infinite, which I don’t understand, or it is finite, which I don’t understand.
@@lifefindsaway7875Bullseye!
And when you change the cosmological argument to "begins to exist", you reduce the domain to either nothing or only the universe.
Nothing in this universe "begins to exist", all that happened is that matter and/or energy changed arrangement or states.
So, "anything that begins to exist has a cause" translates either as "every entry in the null set has a cause" or "the universe has a cause". The first translation is a null premise. The second translation is he fallacy of begging the question (stating the conclusion as a premise).
If you include "changes arrangement or state" as "begins to exist", then infinite regress is required, because then every change in God is "God begins to exist" (and if God doesn't change, then God can't create the universe)
I really enjoy the way you approach arguments. I was raised a fundy Christian and had so much cognitive dissonance I did a lot of this on my own before converting to Judaism. I am much happier “not knowing” everything and I enjoy knowing a hell of a lot more of what we can know (because that was forbidden fruit before ie evolution etc).
Me or Brandon? Either way I agree with you
I also think apologists are doing Christianity more harm than good. At least part of the reason, is that they’re being forced to respond to a growing community of well-informed, educated ex-Christian/atheist creators. Their problem is, that the atheist creators present detailed, thorough, reasoned, and well-evidenced information and arguments, while apologists have nothing on which to rely except the same tired arguments as 2000 years ago.
Sure, the die-hard Christians may not be affected, but there is an ever-growing group of silent doubters. They watch both sides and slowly conclude, “Those apologetic arguments are just BS!”
Apologists invented hell in the interval. One of the main benefits promoted of being in heaven was looking over the side to see one's enemies being tortured.
@@sciptick I think that was St. Clement. One of the early church fathers actually said that one of the pleasures of heaven would be getting to watch the sufferings of the damned. You can see that same impulse in the comments of many Christians to YT atheist videos.
Gloating comments to atheists about how they're going to choke on their words in hell are one of the most frequent memes you'll see from Christian commenters. There couldn't be a more naked exposure of how little the religious mind-set is founded on anything resembling love.
Of course, that's what you might expect from persons who worship any deity as vicious as the one described in the Bible-- a god who creates a hell and then tells people that if they don't worship him that they'll be at fault for their own eternal torture. That's just like a gunman saying, "Give me your money. If you don't, then I'll shoot you and it will be your fault. After all, I'm giving you a choice, and you've got free will."
The whole mind-set of thinking that the most fulfilling conception of life is one consisting of self-abasing adoration of a superior thing is just sick from the point of view of healthy human psychology. It's an attitude appropriate for slaves who must find a way to reconcile themselves to their inescapable servitude. The fundamental paradigm of Abrahamic religion is that of the relationship of a master to slaves.
But that's not surprising coming from an ancient culture in which slavery was the fundamental form of economics and society. So, the holy book of that society endorses slavery, describes the means by which slaves are to be acquired, sets the rules for the practice of slavery, and instructs its devotees that they are to regard themselves as the slaves of God, keeping his every small rule, giving up their time and wealth to his promotion, and bowing down in self-abnegation and fulsome praise of him every day. How much more sick could a religion be? There are many religions around the world. The vast majority of them, even if they are just as primitively superstitious, are far healthier than the Abrahamic pathology.
The scriptures dont really help.
Contradictory commandments, easily adaptable for any purpose, reeking of obvious compilation and translation errors as well purposeful additions. So on.
The christian can find a verse that says god isnt to be tested. The atheist or scholar can find another that says the opposite. The Christian likes to say the bible is divinely inspired or divinely written. I only have one thing to say to that. If true, it makes sense that it is so contradictory, unhelpful, and backwards if and only if the lord of lies wrote or inspired it.
Nothing else makes it work.
And before someone asks "why would the bad guy write himself as the bad guy?", the bad guy paints himself as the underdog and the good guy as monstrous. I dont know about you, but that just seems like something a liar would do.
Pauline Christianity has always been toxic by definition.
If we believe in a King, we obey the King’s commands. If we say we believe, but disobey the King, we are liars.
The Jewish Messiah/King commanded His followers (Hebrew and Gentile) to learn and obey Torah. [Matthew 5:17-20] To do otherwise is an apostasy.
According to the Jewish Messiah (Matthew 7:22-29), there will be many (millions?) apostate “believers” in Him, who are sentenced to the Lake of Fire for rejecting an obedient Torah lifestyle (apostasy).
Do not be fooled by that eater and promoter of idol-sacrificed food (Paul). The New Covenant is defined in scripture as the Torah written on our hearts (not abolished, only obeyed more). [Jeremiah 31]
There’s too much to say here. Please look into it. A test has been placed before us.
Shalom.
Do you keep the Law?
Yes. As I learn it, more and more, like the first gentile believers in the book of Acts.
@@CMBCanfield do you believe the Gospel of John?
The post from Capturing Christianity seems, at best, like engagement farming to me. It doesn't look insidiously motivated whatsoever. It's clearly aimed at people who already know the context. The livestream clip also doesn't seem particularly hostile whatsoever to me, it just makes me feel somewhat bad for the lady being confronted by someone with far more rhetorical training.
Like, if there are really so many nasty comments, I'd expect to see a few better examples. Christians probably are supposed to be nicer, but it's a bit disingenuous to think there aren't scriptural arguments for speaking somewhat harshly when the situation actually calls for it. Justin Martyr addressed the Roman senate very politely, but he didn't pull his punches either. Nor did Paul, for that matter. In any case, the letters from Paul and Peter clearly suggest that Christians in their time weren't living perfectly either. If anything, you're just reopening the debate about how many people are truly Christians in the first place.
Focusing on rough RUclips comments while ignoring Christians who are devoting huge parts of their life to charity work isn't a particularly fair way of justifying the meager moral fruits argument. And, of course, while atheism cannot be refuted by the behavior of atheists, the efficacy of secular humanism sure can. If progressive secular humanists behave below expected standards, they are very poor witnesses to the proposition that removing religion will make the world better. So if you want to argue that your public counter-ministry (For lack of a better term) is actually a good thing, then you do suddenly have to engage with much of the same argument.
"Outside space and time is the same as nothing" is begging the question as an argument in favor of physicalism (Caveats about the time part, but not all theists believe God is outside time anyway). If you can prove physicalism is true, then you can rule out God. This is kind of obvious. The really, really hard part is proving that physicalism is true.
PS: I was convinced by philosophy that physicalism is untrue before I became a theist, because all the responses to the hard problem of consciousness are so thoroughly unconvincing.
If you've concluded that a whole bunch of highly intelligent, highly educated philosophers are committing basic fallacies, then you should probably think twice. Another relevant question might be: Why haven't any of their equally intelligent and educated atheist colleagues who debate them in actual academic journals, pointed out this basic flaw?
Of course, adding "everything *that begins to exist* has a cause" isn't special pleading. It's not ad hoc (Which would be a better criticism). It's observing a particular feature that you think requires a cause. That's the point of the argument. Most of these arguments are *precisely* the opposite of "everything must have a cause" at their very essence, because a core contention is that the chain of causation must have a particular beginning, from which we can try to figure out what features such a cause you had.
30 000 denominations has long since been debunked. Like this one isn't even arguable. That's counting lots and lots and lots of different branches that are in full communion and believe the same things. There are only a handful of remotely major Christian denominations (Though some are hard to count because some types of protestants are very disorganized).
"Our God is outside of reality." So... It's not real?
If you've proven that reality is confined to the physical, then congrats, you've proven atheism. If you haven't, then "Space-time = reality" is just begging the question.
The next question is prove your god is outside space and time.... they're just claims
Hard to be reminded Brandon had to get a corporate beard trim....lol...ah, that beautiful beard gone....I'm going to go cry.
"If He is there, He has to stay there" is a complete contrivance around 1:10; I don't see any reason to believe the Christian God is bound in this way. When the speaker talks about God "becoming" measurable when He intervenes in the Biblical story, yeah, the bible records the "measurements" in plagues, in miracles, and yes, in some cases, in lives ended.
If you think Capturing Christianity is bad, Testify! is even closer to the bottom of the barrel
When it works: see! the bible is true, and god is doing stuff.
when it does not work: see, god cannot intervene with their free will.
religions are the pinicle of unfalsifiable claims and post hoc rationalizations.
There are no "metaphysical truths" because there is nothing metaphysical.
Just because you don't understand it doesn't men it doesn't exist.
@@arnoldvezbon6131 Correct. There is no evidence for anything metaphysical. I studied metaphysics as part of philosophy so while I do understand that is irrelevant to there being no such thing.
@@arnoldvezbon6131doesn't mean it does either
This is a metaphysical claim that only the physical exists.
@@tzakman8697 No, it isn't and "only the physical exists" is lame... do you even know about quantum reality and space-time?? The very statement is Cartesian. Try actually going to college and taking a philosophy class or two in metaphysics. It is only in the history of thought...
Apologists? Nah, apologists just make it more clear that Christianity is toxic by nature, not because of interpretation
I wonder if verses like Hebrews 6:4-6 were written to kind of address the people back then who believed, but then started to realize all the issues and became unbelievers.
What do you mean 'making'?
I rather thought they were a key expression of the toxicity of Christianity.
To be clear, if God exists, God transcends space and time. To transcend something means you’re just as much in it as you are outside of it.
Bro you sound like Ray Comfort and I love it so much 😂 it hit me when you were talking to the discord christian lady
Stand To Reason s Greg Koukle is calvinist reformed. A reformed apologist is absurd at best and using eason i their name when there’s nothing to be reasoned with at its logical conclusions.
STR must kowtow to significant gatekeepers.
Without God what does it even matter? If there is no God or afterlife then I will never know and it won't matter what I believed but if others are wrong and there is a God and an afterlife then it will matter. It's kind of a punic victory if you learn the truth but in doing so you lose the only reason it even matters.
The definition of "exist" means either an emotion, an idea, or something composed of molecules and atoms. To exist outside of time and space means that one is not complsed of atoms and molecules. Did God exist before time? The definition of infinity means absolutely has no beginning or no end. So "exist" before atoms and molecues existed means that it never existed. It's just a human construct and an excuse to be uncivil in behavior towards others.
Yes
I don’t believe the following- but it could be an argument the apologists could use.
Instead of god being “outside of space and time”, they could say “not bound by space or time”, such that they can warp time or space to be at any point in space or time they choose.
Like I said, I don’t believe it, but saying “god isn’t limited by space or time” sounds better than “god is outside space & time”.
It’s still special pleading, but it is more precise.
it's what I use 😉
Brandito is one of my favoritos.
Yep. Next question?
There is a lot discussed in this video, but in general I agree with the main point of video (and title) that some apologists are making Christianity "toxic". As a Christian, this often saddens me or upsets me. Randal Rauser is one Christian I see that is confronting it head on without reservation, but I doubt it is ultimately changing things.
One technical point I would make is at 1:48 when you suggest our lack of information about the hypothesis that an existing universe may have beget our universe. The late Stephen Hawking was an expert on cosmology and general relativity and considered himself an atheist. In 2004, he published a paper titled "Information Loss in Black Holes" (you can find it in arxiv's archive for free) where he concluded "There is no baby universe branching off, as I once thought. The information remains firmly in our universe.", concluding the infamous Thorne-Hawking-Preskill bet. On a similar note, considering the "standard model", I don't think there can technically be a "before" the universe since the singularity represents the beginning of space-time (and thus all matter and energy as well). Therefore, if God exists, it's more likely that God entered into time when he created the universe. I'd have to think more about space though....
I just read your response to a friend because you are one of the few Christians who I find having honest discourse on here. I wanted to respond to you because I love real conversation and inquiry and I appreciate your honesty and openness.
Apologetics is useful if it stays within the confines of scientific thought for sure. It seems totally pointless to attack the study of evolution, but when you see children with severe psychological problems due to the neglect caused by their parents sleeping around, heavily drinking, and breaking many other Biblical laws, you realize that the scientific psychological community ends up supporting a lot of what the Bible said all along about what's healthy behavior and what isn't.
Sleeping around indiscriminately is not healthy. The scientific community says so, and most moral and religious communities say so. The only ones that don't say so are those in open rebellion to rationality and stability - like those whacked out TV series on Netflix.
Sorry but I’m curious, what scientific community says that sleeping around indiscriminately is healthy?
@@DeepDrinks None, but TV shows sure seem to say it is. Ever watch the Bachelor? It's horrendous, and it acts like it isn't. The media promotes things both science and religion correctly identify as unhealthy. Show after show after show promotes promiscuity. And it warps the minds of the young.
Yes. They're AH's.
I think the outside space and time can be analogous with us compared to a computer game character. We are technically outside the space and time of the characters inside of the game. We can pause the game, rewrite the code, go back to a save point etc. The analogy isn't perfect but I can see a possible way that a being could be outside space and time.
That being would still have to exist spatially and temporally, just as the programmer does.
@@lucyferos205 I agree, it's definitely an imperfect analogy, but I was trying to get at that we could effectively be outside the space and time of the characters in a game/ virtual world. I would agree that us and the computer running the game are in the same space time but to the characters within the game we would be effectively outside of their reference of space time.
.
@@TM2086It seems like you're trying to steelman their position, but you're changing it drastically. It's not that God is outside of our spacetime. It's that he's outside of any and all spacetime.
@@lucyferos205 I agree, if a God is outside all frameworks of space and time it can not exist. I also think Christian's tend to move the goal post when trapped by the fact that it doesn't make sense, but I guess my argument in some way does a similar goal post move.
Strange how everything else seems more important than your eternal afterlife.
Maybe because there is no eternal afterlife. So yes, our finite and only life is infinitely more important than the make belief of an "eternal afterlife".
@@Finckelstein And it's logical to waste it on attacking/religion deities you claim don't exist? If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't waste my time on the topic.
Throughout human history every famous prophet, priest, theologian and apologist has relied on faith, not facts, to build a god belief.
If you examine all the written arguments, they all offer the same proof - endless streams of words, but no god.
Belief is a personal phenomenon. Attempts to make it concrete or academic will necessarily fail and appear to exist only as a salve for the wounds one’s faith bears when bludgeoned by reality. The aim of apologetics is most certainly not conversion or an honest stab at reconciling belief with experience. It’s a bandaid over a bullet hole attempt to retain whoever may be teetering away from adherence and nothing more. It is toxic by its very nature this way.
Apologetics seems to be the only thing I see on RUclips about my faith.
How can anyone know that everything that begun to exist has a cause? Have you seen everything?
I've never seen anything begin to exist, because matter can neither be created nor destroyed.
@@lucyferos205 how do you know that matter can't be created or destroyed?
@@hamobu Because In every observation we've made in out universe energy is conserved, it can be converted or spread out but can't be destroyed. Since E=mc2 this applies to matter since it's another form of energy. If you can demonstrate matter and energy being destroyed, you would win a Nobel Prize.
Nice tempo, interactive conversational style, and good exemplification.
2:10- Answer- because nothing would exist.
"because nothing would exist."
Why?
@Metaljacket420 If we conjure up an infinite chain of temporal beings, the current temporal being would not exist. Imagine you're a sniper and you had to seek permission from the person to your left to shoot, and he has to also seek permission to grant you permission ad infinitum, you would not get the order to shoot.
In addition, an actual infinity of discrete parts is a logical impossibility. You can not have an infinite number of moments spreading into the distant past because the very existence of our current moment means we've reached the end of infinity, which is a contradictory claim.
Therefore, an infinite regress of temporal beings is a logical impossibility, thereby requiring a necessary being to account for the existence of the current temporal being.
Mock away. Good luck with that.
It's worthy of mockery
Brandon’s beard game is on point in this one 🧡
It's magnificent!
This is why I have a subscription to Mindshift, brilliant!!
I don't talk about cosmogony very much because it is a very complex field that requires a specialized vocabulary and conceptual framework that I am too lazy and too stupid to master. However, regarding the Kalam cosmological argument, a quote from Galaxy Quest (1999), covers it, "It doesn't take a great actor to recognize a bad one. You're sweating."
Do you think the findings of the James web telescope is changing the conversation? Aquanis seemed to anticipate GR you could say. If Mr.T was a quasi double predestinationist, he found his cosmology. The irony is lost on apologists who Asume theory B of time when discussing the Kalum. Then they graft molinism over the top of it which purports to demonstrate Gods pre knowledge of free beings. Open theism is by far the most morally rational one. Unfortunately it my not be biblical though.just some thoughts.
@@chriswest8389 Not with me anyway. Since I believe that presupposing that human consciousness has a supernatural source is absurd, the idea that the entire universe is animated by a supernatural anthropomorphic consciousness by analogy is doubly absurd. It is piling silliness on top of nonsense.
This is a pretty lowbrow, myopic conversation.
You guys (Christians) that think apologetics is horrible must hate Jude's epistle.
3 Beloved, although I was very eager to write to you about our common salvation, I found it necessary to write appealing to you to *contend* for the faith
Imagine if they just let the Arians be and not condemn them as heretics.
And what was wrong with letting the Arians be? Who were they hurting? What about freedom of religion? Oh, I forgot, that's not Biblical, right?
Christians have been accusing each other of heresy from the very beginning of the faith. Read Paul's letters. I have the truth, he says, and you shouldn't listen to anyone else, unless I say it's ok. No, he didn't use the word heresy, but it's there. Same with the other writers of the New Testament. When Jude tells his audience to contend for the faith, who are they contending with? And why? What is going on here? Seems these early Christians were not as united in the faith as I was taught in catechism class. According to the Roman Catholic Church, all Protestants are heretics and I don't think I need to tell you anything about how the Catholic Church dealt with heretics. There was even a Pope who said "Error has no rights." Would you agree with him? Why? Or why not? In his eyes, if you're a Protestant, you're a heretic and have no rights. But you say, I'm not Catholic, it's the Catholics who are the heretics, they are in error! Should the Catholics then be dealt with as were the Arians? Be careful there, you are opening the doors to renewed bloodshed in the name of Christ and truth. Meanwhile the Orthodox Christians and the Coptic Christians say everyone else is a heretic. Mormons are heretics, Jehovah's Witnesses are heretics--is there ANYONE that EVERYONE agrees is a heretic? I don't think so! I recall the words of a Nez Perce leader who told would-be missionaries that he did not want them around his people because they would teach them to fight about God. That man knew what he was talking about. I visited a town once in Georgia which prided itself on running Catholic railroad workers out of town after the railroad was finished, "and to this day no Catholic church has been established here" said the sign in the city park telling the town's history. I'm reading it and I'm going WOW, guess I'd better be moving on here, this isn't a place for Catholic me to be hanging around. I'm sure if I talked to someone there they'd say no, no, no, that was a long time ago and it doesn't mean you as a visitor passing through--but it was there and I have a picture of the sign to prove it. Now, that was 30 years ago and maybe things have changed there, and maybe they haven't, but . . . When you start throwing the word heretic around you are opening the door to some pretty ugly things that can have lasting negative consequences. Just be careful that YOU don't end up getting the "Arian treatment" that you seem to approve of.
@@theresemalmberg955 There is only one truth. Your argument falls apart with that.
@@John_Six Please explain what that truth is and how it makes my argument fall apart. But I don't expect that you will. Because you did not answer any of the questions I asked, which are very important questions. It is clear that you think you are in possession of that one truth. Fine. But what about those who don't agree with you? According to you they don't have the truth. Ok. We won't go into who appointed you Infallible Pope of Your One True Church(tm). You are right and everyone who does not agree with you is wrong.
So now I have to ask, how should people who don't agree with you be treated? Historically the Christian answer has been to persecute groups like the Arians, not just speak out against them and their teachings, but to actually do physical violence to them. I mentioned the Inquisition, but the Protestants did the same thing to the Catholics. Look at the history of England, of France, of Europe in general during the first centuries of the Reformation. Each side was 100% convinced it had the "only one truth." And they did unto the other side not what they wished the other side would do to them, they did not turn the other cheek, they did not love their enemies and pray for them--no. They burned them, they tortured them, they killed them, they hunted them down. This is the legacy you and I have inherited. This is the reason why the Founding Fathers, when they wrote the Constitution, explicitly said that there was not be no federal establishment of a state religion. If you want to know why so many Christians are resented by non-Christians, this is why. We are not fools, we know our history. We know what Christians have done in the name of that one truth to those they consider heretics. And so many of us are convinced we are dealing with people who have a very dangerous mindset.
If you are truly convinced that there is only one truth and you have it, then you are duty bound to stop someone like me who does not agree with you. It seems that you are ok with this, that you do agree with what was done to the Arians and others, that you do not believe in live and let live, that you do not believe in freedom of religion. Because your answer, that my argument falls apart, really doesn't make any sense otherwise. You aren't denying that these things happened, and you are not saying that they are wrong. Only that my argument that they are wrong, that these things did happen, that this is a dangerous road to go down, is an argument that falls apart. But how and where does it fall apart? Do you even know? Are you even able to answer that? Or is that the only defense you can come up with?
@@theresemalmberg955 You are implying that there are many truths.
@@John_Six I am not implying anything of the sort. I am not claiming to have truth. YOU are. So what truth is it and where can I find it among the 30-40,000 recognized Christian denominations? Seems you should have no trouble coming out and saying it rather than hinting around. If there is only one truth and that is the Roman Catholic Church, say so! Don't be shy! If it is not to be found there, then again, tell me where I can find it. Furthermore, you are not answering my questions regarding how those who have the truth should behave on a personal, legal and civic level towards those they feel don't have that truth. I was raised Catholic and one of the things that this Church most definitely did NOT teach was its abysmal record towards human rights and religious freedom. So I am asking you POINT-BLANK whether you feel this Church was justified in ALL its deeds towards those it considered heretics. Because it sure sounds like you are. If so, I am thankful, very thankful that I live in a time and place where someone like you has no power over me, whether financial, legal, civic, or otherwise. All you have are words, and again, I am very thankful for that, because in past centuries this was not always the case. I have ancestors who were lucky that the worst thing that happened to them is that they were forced to leave their homes and businesses behind because they did not agree on what was the one truth. Maybe you think that was totally justified and that they deserved even worse. I don't know. But I will leave you with what one of my ancestors said when the Puritan leaders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony asked him why he wasn't in church on Sundays like the rest of the people in town. He said, "I have better things to do with my time on Sundays than to listen to lies." You may talk truth, truth, truth all you want and assume what you want, but I stand with this man: "I have better things to do with my time than to listen to lies." In other words, NONE of it is true. And yes, he paid the price, he was exiled from the MBC and if I recall correctly, he ended up in much more tolerant Maryland or Pennsylvania. Now, I ask you, would YOU be willing to pay that kind of price for your convictions if the shoe was on the other foot? Somehow I doubt it.
Mike Winger is hilarious, and his dads 80s hair metal band sucked too 🤣
God being outside of space and time is not the same thing as nothing. God is. “I AM” as described in the Bible. Atheism is the only philosophy that truly believes in nothing.
How so? Atheism makes no positive claims, true, since it’s not a worldview or a philosophy. But any given atheist believes in all sorts of things, just not gods.
I don’t know if “nothing” is even possible and I’m an atheist. When someone says that something is outside of space and time, that would mean that they are not IN space and time, and because we only know, can measure, see, test and verify things that are within space and time, I think it’s dubious and unwarranted to conclude that there is something outside of space and time. Especially because there is absolutely no way to test that claim
@@DeepDrinks I do not see any logical way to support cause and effect in atheism. If matter, space and time are eternal (just assuming one may support that idea to try and answer a cause/God argument), that goes against the observation that the universe cools down as it expands. If one claims the universe began, they must argue that it came into existence from nothing, or from something else. If the argument is nothing, like you said, how is that possible? If the argument is something, then what? And how that particular "something" not a religious belief?
Infromation, order, DNA, beauty, purpose, function seem to always come from intelligence. We have over 70 trillion cells in our body, each one of them more complex than the space shuttle, and they are all different and work together. If someone wants to remain atheist, how can they do so rationally?
@@weirdwilliam8500 I know atheism technically makes no positive claims; however, it does lead to irrational conclusions like abiogenesis.
@@goodshorts how does not believing in a god mean one "believes in nothing"?
God created space and time, so He was obviously outside of space and time before space and time was created.
And regarding "Christ like behaviour", there are also times when things need to be called out for what they are, as per the example set by Jesus when He was dealing with the Pharisees in Matthew.
Special pleading alert
Time can't be created. Causes precede their effects in time. For time itself to be caused, there would have to be a time before time, which is a contradiction.
So now all you need to do is provide evidence for your ridiculous claims
@@lucyferos205 "Time can't be created."
Without being able to physically measure time, the concept of 'time' would not exist. If a new, self contained physical universe is created, then it has its own time frame. Anything in that universe exists within that universe's time frame. Time within that universe is understood and measured by physical movement -- atoms, light, planetary movements.
Then there is also the existence of eternity, which the finite physical universe was placed into. Any amount of time, no matter how vast, is still swallowed up by eternity.
@@henryschmit3340 How does any entity manage to create anything, or commit any act whatsoever (which actually amounts to the same thing) “outside of time,” when the very concept of “and then this happened” by definition requires it?
This is redit level nonsense. Why don't you guys debate instead? If apologetics didn't work you would not be making this lame video lol
I know Brandon makes videos to express his thoughts, and to help other people going through the same process find community and support. Debating some theist wouldn’t particularly advance any of those goals. Still, he has also cohosted a call in show to talk with Christian callers.
Are you just unaware of all this?
I’ve interviewed many Christians. Take a deep breath, chill
The irony of this reddit level comment.
@@jaclo3112 The irony of the christian commentors
@@DeepDrinks Hahah triggered much?
I have a question for all Ex-Christians: Why did you lose your salvation?
Because said salvation doesn't exist 🤷♂️
@@hanzohasashi607 Salvation doesn't exist in non Christians.
I started studying the bible in depth. Before that, I, like 99% Christians, believed what my pastor says and how he explained away any question or contradictions.
@@pinky9440 Did you say like 99% of Christians? Do you know how many Christians there are in this world?
@@pinky9440 So you're rejecting the message and the messenger in the Bible.