When I first came to Christ, this explanation totally made sense. I finally felt like i had an understanding of reality because it was backed by a real God instead of a false one, prideful humans.
Taksman I think you’d get more from watching dr Craig’s videos on morality. His are what I agree with most, so since he’s a PHD in philosophy, you’d glean more info and cogent thoughts from him.
Taksman I mean, our thoughts are shaped by who we read and where the logic follows. My thoughts tend to align with his, as it seems most logical to me in what I’ve experienced so far in life. Maybe as new information is gathered that will change, but for now I agree with him. Good day
Well, since there's no evidence of any objective morality, and even within the Christian worldview there isn't any either, I don't get why you think there's a creator.
Morality is a fluid system changing with the zeitgeist of the time. The Ten Commandments start with thou shalt not kill and right off the bat the supposed author of this is guilty of genocide
“The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophesies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.” -Voddie Baucham
This question deserved a way better answer than the one Jeff gave. "We could dive into the history and the prophecy and the archeology and all that, and trust me it would all be great and answer the question you actually asked! But instead I'm going to skirt around the subject for 9 minutes and conclude with 'im right because it wouldn't be possible for me to be wrong.'"
Translation: "I've been so deeply indoctrinated that my god glasses have now fused to the lens of my eyes and I have to say stupid stuff like 'if you don't start with god as your reference point, you can't know anything' ". Also, Viced Rhino says hi: ruclips.net/video/B6XXiPC5ajY/видео.html&ab_channel=VicedRhino
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@tw2800 Personal incredulity and god of the gaps. Just because we don't understand every aspect of it, does not mean that your god did it. The same thing happened with the rain cycle and lightning, and neurological diseases. If your god created life, the scientific method will point to that fact. But until it does, or, some other explanation is discovered through research, we will use the intellectually honest answer of "we don't know". But if you have a better hypothesis of how abiogenesis happened, do the experiments, write the papers, and pass peer-review. At that point you can go claim your Nobel prize. I won't be holding my breath, though.
Translation of what you've just said: "I love my sin so much that I can't even begin to admin that even some of the points he made were valid, and I'm scared that they might be, so I'll just call him unintelligent and indoctrinated without any supportive reasoning..."
@@brycescreen113 Oh, look, another theist that pretends to know what is in my mind better than myself. If you can read my mind, could you please tell me what sins I like to commit, hmm? "I can't even begin to admin that even some of the points he made were valid" - No points made were valid. If they were, they would have been convincing enough for me to point out, or even convince me that your god exists. Alas, they didn't. And also, there's no need for me to bring any supportive reasoning. Viced Rhino covered this in his video well enough. But I have to ask, do you really think that this "they refuse to believe because they love sin" argument is in anyway convincing to non-believers? Or are you just trying to convince yourself that this is the case, just to continue pretending that your faith is in any way reasonable?
I'm completely on board with everything Jeff said in his response. But the person asking the question likely wanted to know what reason we as Christians believe the Bible to be true. Based on where he was when speaking and answering questions, most everyone there were Christians. So why go into the presuppositional apologetic when all he had to do was give out the evidential and theological reasons we as believers have to see the Bible as true and as our final authority from God?
Good question. I think he would say because the evidential and theological reasons include presup. And presup (impossibility of the contrary) is the best reason there is. Jason Lisle argued in his books, presup is "the ultimate proof" of creation, etc. Also, presup is still the minority position among apologists. So think Jeff is advocating the presup is the way to go with our unbelieving friends.
I think the problem with the argument is it focused mostly on replying to the atheist. But most non believers are not atheists. So there are books written to apply presup to RC, and nominal believers, and cults etc.
@@JMUDoc bro go back and watch the video again you missed the whole point the dude was making. Basically if you think we have come from nothing but rocks and everything is just matter and energy then laws of non contradiction don’t matter or are even real since this universe is only the physical. Maybe I put that bad but just watch the vid he says it way better than me
@@AlejandroHernandez-wk9xe "bro go back and watch the video again you missed the whole point the dude was making. Basically if you think we have come from nothing but rocks and everything is just matter and energy then laws of non contradiction don’t matter or are even real since this universe is only the physical." I believe that everything is matter in motion _acting in accordance with the laws of logic and physics._
Only God can give value to human life or anything, because humans we cannot only for a moment, but God‘s value for us and appreciation for ourselves is forever. I swear he is God and his love is endless.
So basically, the argument is "I presuppose I'm right, so that makes you wrong, which makes me right". What worries me is that they let you lot sit on a jury in a murder case.
crisofer954 the witness was an atheist so cannot know if the suspected committed the crime or cause can't have truth without God, case dismissed pending rear naked choke
Well, judging by the comments people at least seem to agree on one thing: those were all awful, just _awful_ arguments for the truthfulness of the bible.
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@tw2800 So if I understand your argument correctly, it is as such: "If we don't currently know the answer to how life first developed, that means that the answer is by default the specific god that I happen to believe in". Sigh. It was a flaccid argument back when people who didn't understand weather systems argued that the weather, good or bad, was due to the gods direct action and their moods. It was a flaccid argument back when people who didn't understand the existence of germs argued that illnesses had to be caused by evil spirits, devils and curses. It was a flaccid argument back when people who didn't understand sexual reproduction argued that the gods were the ones 'blessing' them by magically inserting children into the bodies of women. Yet, here we are, going around that same old tired track, the same story told over and over, of someone pointing to a gap in human knowledge and trying to flaccidly shoe-horn their god into that space. But that's fine. I'm sure as we learn yet more about abiogenesis and fill in those gaps, those determined to believe will find another of the ever-shrinking gaps in human knowledge to try to cram their god in next with empty, puerile notions, based on vaguely gesturing to things around them and shouting 'it's god!'. Much like apocalyptic preachers who keep 'getting the day of judgement wrong' and trying for yet another date going _'This_ time it's for real!' you are yet another person jumping on the latest gap of knowledge going 'Ah hah, _this_ time, this is the one! _This_ is the question that can _only_ be answered with supernatural intervention! _This_ time we've got it!' I wonder what gap you'll jump to next once we fill this one, or if you'll ever get over this silly game.
@@that39warguy6 They are not logical. He presupposes that beings being the result of evolution can't think rationally. And he completely pretends that there are just to possibilities: either the Christian god exists or no god exists at all. But maybe the Christian god doesn't exist, but a different god or different gods.
For the people saying he didn't answer the question...he literally said "I know the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary". He then went on to explain that position.
So, what he just said for 9 minutes is the Bible is true because it's absurd to not believe in the Bible... I guess for simple minded people that's all the proof you need.
Here is some practical evidence that points to the Bible being true and trustworthy. There have been over one thousand Bible prophecies literally fulfilled, 258 concerning the birth, life, ministry and death of Jesus Christ alone, and over 100 scientific facts in the Bible most of which were found in the book of Genesis (first book of the Bible) written over three thousand years ago, which weren't "discovered" by the scientists of the world until the last 500 years. If you made one of these scientific discoveries, you'd be in textbooks all around the world, and if you made four or five, you'd be in the scientist's hall of fame, along with Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Albert Einstein. But whoever wrote the Bible made over 100 of these scientific declarations, to go along with the 1,000 fulfilled prophecies. So, since the Bible in literally hundreds of place claims to be written by God, you must come to this conclusion; either God DID write the Bible, or some liar did. What makes more sense; some liar is by far, the greatest prophet ever and by far the greatest scientist ever, or God is indeed the author of the Bible? Just one of these scientific declarations in scripture is found in the very first verse of the Bible; "In the beginning, God created the heavens, and the earth... said 'let there be light.'" Einstein back in about 1920 said, that matter, space, energy, and time itself all had a beginning. That is precisely what God says in Genesis chapter one; "In the beginning (reference to time having a beginning) God created the heavens, (space) and the earth (matter) and said, "Let there be light." (energy)
@@Dragumix Because if God were not real and the Bible untrue, then there would be no reason to morally or ethically oppose anything. Moral indignation is only possible if one believes that there is a standard of what is right, which no other worldview can account for.
@@thebird483 "Moral indignation is only possible if one believes that there is a standard of what is right, which no other worldview can account for." - I don't think so. First of all, why couldn't any other god or godess, should they exist, create a moral standard like allegedly the Christian god does? In all of these cases (including the Christian standard) it's still questionable if these moral standards would be objective or subjective. I tend to say that they would be subjective. Furthermore, also people who don't believe in a god have certain moral standards that they follow. Also these moral standards are probably subjective and not objective. But you don't need deities to explain that they have certain moral standards. It could have been good for survival that societies had certain moral standards and not moral standards where it's totally permissible to kill your neighbor. Those societies would have probably died out very quickly.
rather than always explaining why their worldview is inconsistent you should explain why yours is consistent then show how theirs doesn't line up. "because the Bible says so and you don't believe the Bible" is all I got out of this
Actually, ATheism is the LACK of a world view. All that you identify with "ATheism, a world view" is the possible aftermath !!!OF!!! ATheism. For a very likely example, Saecular-Humanism. Babees are born with a brain, which is yet to develop the capability of fabricating Theism let alone any other world view - they are the purest thinkable example of ATheists. I have experienced a lot of anger from Theists, by JUST stating the obvious. Did you know, that some of them tried to ridicule me by saying "if babees are ATheist, then so are stones and dogs" but they are actually totally ignorant about the greek root of the word: A Theist is a ***person*** and an ATheist is a ***person*** too, and the "A" is on this occasion just an alpha privativum, which indicates "without". Kindest regards from GERMANY!
I sincerely sought out if Christianity is true. And this is a summary of the best arguments I have ever hard. And this is why I'm an atheist when it comes to Christianity.
He said that if you don't start with God you have no basis for logic, science, nature, or ethics, but I think what he actually argued is that if you don't start with a dualistic anthropology you don't have those things.
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@tw2800 There is only one group that's delusuonal: christians and other religious people. You're talking about abiogenesis. Although just a hypothesis, it has more validity than "god did it." There is no evidence your god actually exists.
I’m a Christian and have seen multiple great answers to the question in the video but his answer which is your comment is horrendously ridiculous and make no sense. Sorry you had to endure that answer.
@@alaskayoung3413 Hit me with a couple, because, other than " I conversed with him myself" which is fine for the experiencing person to then believe( well, if someone talks with someone that they cannot prove is there, we usually call them insane, but if the second someone is supposed to be a god, we call them blessed???) , but really doesn't, and shouldn't, do anything for any other human being, I haven't heard anything that didn't boil down to very poor logic, wishful thinking, or some combination of both.
@@PilgrimNinja That's tough. Considering all of the internal contradictions, and obvious contradictions of the real world, I would say you can't. It is wrong about so much, I can't see it being shown to be true without the destruction of masses of rock solid scientific information that just isn't going to happen. Now, if you just mean " What would prove that there is a supreme being like the one in the bible" but not that everything in the book is accurate, I would say said being letting itself be known out and out in the public, and showing some miracle worthy abilities on demand, and repeatedly.
It seems to me that Jeff's argument only counters atheistic claims. What about the Muslim who is starting with his own version of God's revelation? He is also starting with his god.
Takeaway: If an unbeliever asks you how do you know if the Bible is true, then you could just respond by saying, "Why does it matter to you, if you know if the Bible is true or not? If what got you to ask that question is just a bunch of atoms in your brain making connections, what would the benefit of you knowing the answer to your question be?" Without God there is no purpose for our lives. Praise you Jesus.
Of course it matters..we all live in this world together don't we? Your beliefs have consequences for your behavior, our not seeing eye to eye can cause huge conflicts. Of course it matters. Or beliefs & thoughts etc. manifest themselves into the world we all share, so if you belief that other people can't have certain rights because the bible says so, while other people do belief they should have those rights (because they can place themselves in their shoes/don't see anything that should not allow them their rights based on what/who they are) then we have a conflict based on differing beliefs/values. I'm not really good at explaining these things, but it's just ridiculous to say that it wouldn't matter to an atheist, as the atheist still lives on the same earth and has a heart and values etc. The values are just not handed down to them by the bible necessarily but informed through other means.
+Michael Ramos what do you mean? If I'm speaking for myself I'd say that I care about others & myself and that I'd want to help (/not do harm) because I'm a fellow human being and I can feel your pain, so why would I do the opposite? What standard are you talking about?
+ISABELLEISMEE I don't think you understood what I meant. Of course I wouldn't actually mean that if I said that to a person. It would be a rhetorical question that would get them thinking. Then I would go on to explain to them what I meant.
That’s hilarious bc there’s been tons of books written and tons of historical and scientific studies done that add to the proof of the Bible being accurate and historically correct. And Everytime they find relics and historical artifacts that line up with what the Bible says. Like the Dead Sea scrolls etc. the only questions have been did the miraculous happen bc you really can’t prove that. But that have proven that the Bible has not been changed during translations. That Jesus and many others were real people and records of their lives have backed it up. Have you ever looked into it bc it’s not that hard to find the large amount of evidence that supports the Bible? There’s also the list of things the Bible stated as true about the world and space etc that was in contradiction to science but ended up being true. Such as: the Bible said the world was round and people thought it was flat until proven round thousands of years after the Bible was written. The Bible talks about how the sea floor looks and functions like and science said otherwise until it was proven to be as the Bible said when tech caught up. Same with the stars and other things. The sure fact that something that people believe as man made fairy tale from over two thousand years ago is still relevant to today’s culture and transforms lives. Like the countless stories of addicts who couldn’t ever get clean but then did after years through the message of the gospel. Or people that have struggled with mental health issues and needed medication etc who utilized the Bible and it’s message to be freed feom depression and anxiety and never need psych medication again etc. You can question the validity of the miraculous claims but historically it has been far proven accurate. And although the message has been hijacked and used in evil ways it has healed and transformed millions of lives for the better. Which makes no sense if it is fake and made up fairy tale ya know.
@@alaskayoung3413 Can you give me links to these historic and scientific studies? I would like to read them but they cannot be from christian sites, they must be neutral or non-bias sites. Why are there so many different versions of the bible? There is the KJV, NKJV, NASB and the RDV to name a few, there are more. Surely there should only be one version. What records of jesus are there, external to the bible? When I younger, I was doing a bible study on the flood story. I went to the science section at the library to find books about it but couldn't find anything there. So I asked the librarian why I couldn't find the books in that section. She told me that I wouldn't find anything about the flood story in that section and that I should look in the religion section. The point I am trying to make here is that science does not support the flood story and that is one of the important stories in the bible. The Greeks had established that the Earth was a globe around 3bc, not thousands of years after the bible was written, as you claim. Also just think how you worded your statement. I think you meant to say hundreds of years. I agree that the bible says the world round, it doesn't say it's a globe. It is open to speculation what it says about the shape of the Earth. There are people who believe the Earth is flat because of bible scripture. Science esimates the age of our universe to be around 13.8 billion years old and not 6 thiousands as it would be, if the bible is true. People are slowly realising that the bible is not the be all and end all, that is why, in western society, religion, especially christianity, is in decline.
Studies done by people that already believe it is infallible amd don't have contradictions can simply be ignored. When a regular person like me can see that killing an innocent child specifically in place of his father while also saying that a child won't be punished for the sin of the father and that only the sinner will be put to death for the sin committed is contradictory, it's pretty freaking obvious. It would take heavy indoctrination to think there are no contradictions.
@@user-hp1uj8nz5s what specifically are you referencing when you say a fathers son being killed etc? Are you talking about Abraham and stuff or something else. Lots of the Old Testament stuff appears to be real odd and hard to understand but when you study it in depth and add the context of the time and the references it’s speaking about it paints a better picture. The studies are not all done by people who think it’s infallible. There’s plenty some by people who went into studying it to disprove it and changed their minds once they studied all the evidence. There’s world leaders scientist and people with multiple phds that argue for their belief in the Bible etc. it’s not just uneducated southern people…
Ok, you try to apologize this away ... Joshua asked the loving gawd to keep the sun in the sky so he can have a little more time to slay and kill and murder ... and gawd did - and as it is written in that same chapter, first and ONLY time gawd ever reacted to a prayer. Because it was for his favorite past time? Watching people get killed in his name? Anyhow, to do that, gawd would need to stop the rotation of the planet, like instantly. How did anything survive being thrown into brick wals or mountains with several hundred miles per hour? How did that which did survive live through the instant reacceleration? And if your answer is "gawd protectet all of the earth" ... really? The same guy that wanted some particular people dead? The same gawd who couldn't deal with how much he messed up, so his only sollution was to drown everybody and tell a guy to build a bronze age Titanic that by definition wouldn't work? So no, the buybull is not true, never was, never will be.
It’s absolutely true because it’s contrary to you and calls you out on and out from your sins. But you deny God’s authority, so you can suppress your responsibility for moral accountability, to continue living a immoral life.
@@Jesus_Saves_66 The Quran is absolutely true because it’s contrary to you and calls you out on and out from your sins. But you deny Allah’s authority, so you can suppress your responsibility for moral accountability, to continue living a life contrary to Quran.
@@mattandkim17 really? Show me the commandments of Allah? Show me where Allah tells you to repent of your sins and call upon him for salvation? Show me where the quran states clearly that he is the god we’ve sinned against and the god who holds us accountable? Also, I would love to see what solution he has for sins and how he can help us overcome them 😊
@@mattandkim17 please answer my questions - I’m waiting :) You brought the Quran into the conversation by trying to claim it as a truth source. So I’m waiting to see where it states what you have stated in your previous comment…
@@johnsims3708 I would question you on that, but I can't! Because without the Quran there would be no logic and reason to begin with! I guess I am a Muslim now! Thanks mate!
"The Bible is true because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses (in other words, it passed peer review). They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies (which can be researched in history), and claimed that their writings are divine rather than human in origin." > Voddie Baucham Those writings were proven true at that time by the performing of many signs and miracles in the presence of many witnesses which served as confirmation that what these men spoke came from God. These writings were then faithfully passed down through succeeding generations whose accuracy is well demonstrated in existing manuscripts through the science of textual criticism.
Except everything you just said about the origins of the Bible is completely, demonstrably, false. No actual Biblical scholar would claim that the bible was written by eye witnesses. The individual books are all 2nd, 3rd, 4th or worse hand retellings of stories... many, written by people who were not even alive when the events took place. No actual Biblical scholar would claim that the writings were "faithfully passed down," either. The Bible, as we know it today, was cobbled together, from multiple partial manuscripts... many of which contradicted each other, all of which had errors (think typos) and missing segments. Even which books are canon has not been consistent. The Bible you read today does not have the same books and verses as the Bible 300, 500 or 1,000 years ago. (thus making a complete mockery of biblical numerology)
I should add, even right now in 2016, different sects have different versions of the bible. Catholics have _7 more books_ in their New Testament than Protestants do. And lets not even get into the myriad translations...
+Alexander Williams why should we believe your assertions over the multitude of biblical scholarship that exists in academia that attests to the accuracy of the biblical text we have today?
+coachmarc2002 I am sorry but I am not sure exactly which part of my statement you are refuting. First of all, _I am_ a Biblical scholar. I hope you are not refuting the part about the "myriad translations." If that's it just search out how many English translations there are of the Bible. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations If you are refuting the absolutely verifiable claim that different sects of Christianity even have different Bibles _today_... some with books added, some with books removed, well start with just the Catholics: www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PCBIB.htm As an added bonus, that previous link also begins to lay out the undeniable story of how the Bible was cobbled together. If you are refuting the fact that the individual books are also cobbled together from various ancient manuscripts, all with errors or missing portions and all which contradict each other in parts... well then you need to research the actual source manuscripts. You can start with the link below, but no actual Biblical scholar would deny this truth. www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/the-original-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/
The church father Papias (70-163 AD) identifies by name both Matthew and Mark as the authors of the books that carry their name, and the casual way in which he does so suggests that these authors were well known at the time. Irenaeus was born about 120AD near Smyrna, and as a young man, he would frequent the house of Polycarp (70-160AD) who was a disciple of the Apostle John, and he identifies all four gospel authors by name. So one must ask then, if the Apostles did not author the books that carry their name, did the Apostle John lie to Polycarp about the authorship, or did Polycarp lie for him? And if either lied, why did they do so? Answer this while keeping in mind the manner in which Polycarp died, and the fact that the Apostle John was boiled in oil for what he taught... F.F. Bruce, in his book "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" has this to say: "The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not later than c. AD 60; some of them may even be traced back to notes taken of our Lord's teaching while His words were actually being uttered… We have then in the Synoptic Gospels, the latest of which was complete between 40-50 years after the death of Christ, material which took shape at a still earlier time, some of it even before His death, and which, besides being for the most part 1st hand evidence, was transmitted along independent and trustworthy lines." No scholar in his right mind, after any serious research would attribute the gospels to anyone other than the eye-witness Apostles of Jesus.
God spoke the universe in to existence and the evidence to that is that the word "universe" means "one spoken word". Atheists cannot dispute that. The bible is true because no one could fulfill over 300 prophecies written prior to their birth except Jesus Christ. Jesus is the life, the truth and the way.
the proof he exist is because you can make a claim that what the person said is wrong. You have no basis for right and wrong as an atheist. your just spewing forth anything that pops up in your brain (with an atheistic world)
I don't know that that is sufficient proof to an unbeliever (victor R for example), but that's a cool observation. I never ever thought to break down the word universe like that.
This presuppositional approach to apologetics won't convince someone who doesn't already accept that a god exists, and it can't work against other religions because it's not specific about the nature of gods.
Here's the reformed answer from the Westminster Larger Catechism. Q. 4. How doth it appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God? A. The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God. Hos. 8:12; 1 Cor. 2:6-7, 13; Ps. 119:18, 129; Ps. 12:6; Ps. 119:140; Acts 10:43; Acts 26:22; Rom. 3:19, 27; Acts 18:28; Heb. 4:12; Jas. 1:18; Ps. 19:7-9; Rom. 15:4; Acts 20:32; John 16:13-14; 1 John 2:20, 27; John 20:31.
@@TurrettiniPizza Ok. The second part is it's ability to convince people. But that's also a thin reed since you can convince people into all sorts of foolishness.
@@Korandon Here’s a breakdown of the argument in basic form. P. 1. That book which displays divine attributes exceeding human capacity is of divine origin. P. 2. The Bible displays divine attributes exceeding human capacities. C. The Bible is of divine origin. This is a linear argument, not a circular one.
The question I’ve always had is if the translation is as true as the original text. And if the Hebrew translation is easier to get the truth out of the text. Because the english language is the hardest language. And so many different words means so many different things.
Koine Greek original documents are the most accurate documents we have. I'd start there and then translate from there. Honestly, I just use NIV, ESV, and NKJV for studying different interpretation. I sincerely hope this helps you and God bless you!!
in other words.. this video should really be titled "How you know atheism is inconsistent" because I heard nothing about why the Bible is true in this video
+Kason Kedersha I think Jeff's argument presents more of an argument for generic theism than biblical authority. This is just a starting point, which he states. The historical accuracy of the new testament documents present, at least to me, the most compelling physical evidence of the truth of the bible. Is that what you're asking? If you look at biblical scholars and historians such as Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, NT Wright, and Paul Maier, all will point to the historical accuracy of the NT documents and the truth of the resurrection. Even most secular scholars will agree of the historical accuracy of the gospels being ancient biographies, rather than legend. If the NT is true, you get the OT as Jesus references it as authoritative. This is, of course, arguing from an evodentialist perspective. Jeff is a presuppositionalist.
+zymbo The question of if you can know the Bible is true was not answered in this video. I know the Bible is true. But I was interested in hearing Jeff's perspective of this question and was unimpressed. I'm fine that he is a pre suppositionalist but he didn't answer the question from his worldview. He only explained the need for some kind of standard for truth, which he calls "God". All this does is show gaps in the atheistic worldview. This doesn't answer the question of if the Bible is true at all.
"If you don't start with god then whether or not something is true is meaningless." Okay. Now he's trying to come up with an even more stupid statement.
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
Pardon? I'm going to work on the assumption that you're an unbeliever, because from Durbin's point of view, the main thing in view here is salvation. If God doesn't exist, and our soul is not eternal, then everything ultimately doesn't matter. You can believe whatever you want, because you die, decompose, that's it. If (and it's not an 'if' in reality) God exists, then the conversation matters infinitely. And creation is all the proof of God you need to know He exists. "Seek the LORD while He may be found" Repent and believe the gospel. Proof that the Bible is real would be more like. Creation is proof that God exists. What the Muslims teach contradicts itself and actually points to the Bible as credible (and the Bible teaches that Jesus is the only way to the Father). Jesus is the fulfillment of Judaism. Everything contradicts itself but Christianity. Also, if you ever experience conversion, you'll have no doubt that it's true.
@@joev2223 "If God doesn't exist, and our soul is not eternal, then everything ultimately doesn't matter." You are begging the question here. You are assuming that " if god does not exist" then " everything ulitimately doesn't matter" because " our soul is not eternal". You offer nothing to prove that God not existing means that the soul is not eternal, nor that, if the soul is not eternal, that, everything doesn't matter. You just state it and hope people think that you are right. Because??????? "You can believe whatever you want," Oh. Thank you very much, but, I don't really need your permission. " And creation is all the proof of God you need to know He exists." The United States of America was created by a 127 foot tall, orange mouse, named Clumbo. All you need to know that Clumbo is real is to know that the United States exists. See how just making claims without any actual evidence is really, really useless? "Proof that the Bible is real would be more like. Creation is proof that God exists." This, once again, is not " proof". Not in the least. It is, in fact, just another claim that you failed to support in any way, shape, or form. Have you ever actually convinced anyone of anything important by just making claims and offering the claims themselves, or, other unsupported claims, as evidence for the claim??? i.e. " My car was made by martians with magic wands. See. there is my car. The existence of my car proves that it was made by martians with magic wands. " Everything contradicts itself but Christianity. " So, unsupported claim number, what, six? Seven? "Also, if you ever experience conversion, you'll have no doubt that it's true." Yeah. The " truly converted" of every religion, extinct or extant, as well as every cult, guru, and MLM on the planet will tell you the exact same thing about their chosen " mythology".
3:55 Aaaaarrgh! How many times does it need to be said? Theists, please. Say it with me: Evolution is *NOT* about origins. The question of origins is something we're trying to discover, but there's not conclusive evidence about how life originated. Evolution is about the spread of life on planet earth, so stop referring to evolution as if it's an origin theory. Regarding the general reference to presupposition argument in this clip, let's just consider this. I ask a question which seems relevant. You respond "You can't even ask that." What has been advanced? Who has learned? What has been illuminated? Here's what should happen when one is asked a question. One either : 1) Provides a hypothetical response with facts/observations/data which supports the hypothesis, or 2) one says "I don't know". Presup is only useful for ending discussion. The revelation which theists claim to understand as truth *still* enters their consciousness by the same media as any other sensation. If theists are as fallible as the Bible claims them to be, how could they have such assurance that they have understood God's revelation? Not to mention the revelation itself is not subject to meaningful standards of affirmation or falsification.....
drumrnva Thanks for pointing out a nit picky factoid irrelevant to the argument! It shows me how magnificent your intelligence is and how masterfully you dance....around central issues.
Thanks for pointing out the important fact that evolution =/= abiogenesis. Though it is excellent when religious apologists conflate the two as it clearly exposes they are stupid and ignorant of science...or deliberatly lying for jesus. Either way they debunk their own argument and expose the fact that their mythology is devoid of truth, facts and logic.
"How do we know that the Bible is true?" Simple. Gullibility. You just read it and aren't allowed to question it, thus being succumbed to the dogmatic character of the Biblical deity of how he's "loving" while being a tyrant. Slavery, genocide, rape, even trying to murder your kin in a "test of faith", should be those reasons to question, not believe. If you want to still believe that it's permissible or a genocidal deity is "worth worshipping", you do you. (Also, I'm not an atheist. I'm a spiritualist.)
For the beginner who read the bible for the first time..thats how it appears..Its not slavery its indentured servitude and everyother thing who have said is still not correct. You should look from the God's point of view not your point of view.If there is only one true God and people have created many gods and worshipping them and after repeated warnings through God's people and a tonne of patience from God's side, not only they are destroying themselves but also destroying Israelites and God's character of justice demands punishment and eradication of evilness before it is too late..What God did is perfectly perfect. I am telling you brother don't risk your life when you have much historicity and archealogical evidence and the eyewitness accounts of Gospels when other religions don't have any such things.Dont harden your heart today please. The regret that produces when you come to realisation Jesus is the True God and Why did not I believe when people told me this much about Jesus's sacrifce and love will pain you a lot. So don't risk for eternity of joy in heaven with several decades of life. May you understand the Love and grace of Jesus Christ towards you..Amen
@@entity5678 Yeah, you can believe all you want. I ain't no puppet nor a servant to a tyrant. I choose to live for my own dreams and ambitions for my friends, family and this universe, not for some man made mythology. Also, your Bible is just a compilation of stolen documents and texts from many other ancient books, from the Sumerian Book of the Dead to the Emerald Tablets. And it's also written by the followers of the Egyptian God, Hermes Thoth.
of course atheist have ethics. we experience pain, sadness, hunger, thirst.... all biological consequences as we use up our resources, pain as a reaction to physical harm, sadness as emotional harm. so we agree on rules to avoid harming one another. it is as easy as that mr durbin. and again. no gods necessary here either.
The question that Jeff is raising is WHERE do your ethics come from? You say that it's just biological fact, and that we all agree on rules to avoid harming one another. Wouldn't that be nice, if that was the consistent human experience. You and I both could talk for days about certain societies that all got together and agreed on a "code of conduct" that hurt a lot of people. So absolute standards of ethics don't actually come from us "agreeing on rules" together, because there has never been a consistent set of rules that people have just naturally employed. It's just people's own inner moral compasses arguing against another. And why should anybody care about somebody else's moral compass, more than their own? The Christian worldview can account for an absolute code of ethics - God says this, and not that. God commands this, and not that. You can actually have ABSOLUTE right and wrongs in the Christian worldview because we are under the Sovereign - God tells us what is right and wrong as His creations and how we ought to act. So when we see rape, murder, and all forms of abuse we can say that is OBJECTIVELY wrong. The consistent atheist not only can't say that, but won't - go ask a studied atheist if their is objective good and evil. The atheistic worldview has no ultimate argument for anything to be right or wrong. The universe, human experience, everything - to them, is just the result of pure entropy. Chaos. Matter and motion. If everything is matter and motion, then them appealing to immaterial constructs like logic, ethics, rationality, etc. is them BORROWING from the Christian worldview, because in their worldview those concepts are just subjective ways that humans experience the world.
Oh dear, oh dear. I do hope the reluctance of the audience to join in with Jeff's "Altogether, now" moment was because they were too busy face-palming with embarrassment at how flawed these arguments were.
A lot of the time when an athiest asks you these questions, they don't genuinely want an answer, they aren't genuinely going to listen and take in what you say, they just want to try to trip you up and condemn you in your own talk, kinda like what the Pharisees did to Jesus.
And sometimes atheists do genuinely want compelling and coherent answers. Sometimes, when atheists seem impatient, snarky, or dismissive of what you say, it's because you're repeating inane catchphrases and simplistic explanations that have been offered and debunked many times before.
@@scotte4765 no bud, an athiest has no want for God, it has nothing to do with a lack of intellectual evidence for God, its a logical fallacy to deny the existence of God, an athiest is someone whos heart is far from what is right, and they like it that way, it means they can sin and do things that they know God would disapprove of and by denying the existence of God, it softens the guilt they feel for doing sin, because if there is no God, there is no good nor evil, right nor wrong, truth nor lie, and thats exactly how the athiest wants it to be, because then everything is neutral and then they feel that they aren't so bad at all, and you can be an athiest all you want but everyone knows God exists, everyone, you can tell by looking up at the sky and seeing the beauty of creation, you can tell by the design within creation that their must be a designer, "debunked" i think not, you got a bunch of hellbound fools trying to use logic that they don't like being used against themselves to reject God but everytime it fails. There is a day when God is going to judge the world it may be a year from now, a hundred years from or a million years from now, but he will judge the world, and if your spending your life being a fool, your going to pay the consequence by the hand of God, but it doesn't have to be that way: come to christ, who alone can forgive sin and grant everlasting life.
@@charliewebb4330 Nope. We just want the evidence. Don't pretend to know what other people mean when they say, "Show me the evidence." Don't gloss over your supposed proof of God by saying, "all the evidence(s) prove God, but we don't have to talk about them because you just want to be a sinner." That's a copout. You don't have ANY evidence that God exists or the Bible is true. SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This reminds me of boarding school in Germany in the 60’s. We were taught that we started out as amoebae’s crawling out of puddles. Nice! I’d rather have God’s version thank you. God bless you guys.
Why would you rather have God's version? I'm curious. I'd rather just know the truth. The amoeba issue doesn't bother me. In fact, it's even more awesome than a god doing anything.
@@HuxtableK if your "consciousness" is just some chemicals fizzing, then "you" don't even exist. even if you are something like a soul and not just your body, if you cease to exist at any point, you might as well never have existed in the first place (from your own perspective). and if everyone in existence will eventually cease to exist, then nothing exists. nothing can exist without eternity. the original is God and has no beginning and no end. if God has a beginning, then where did he come from? if God has an end, then he needs a beginning. God is eternal, God created us. we have a beginning, but God can take away our end and grant us eternal life.
@@supersilverhazeroker Our consciousness appears to just be a product of the brain. Damage the brain, or change the chemical makeup of the brain, and you change your personality pretty heavily. Take away the brain, no more You. No soul. Sure, once I am gone, I'm gone forever. Just like with literally everyone else, just like with every individual life to have ever lived on the planet, human or otherwise. Everyone who ever lives will eventually cease to exist. Yes. Life is temporal. But no, it's not that nothing exists. Not sure where you got that from. "Nothing can exist without eternity" - Where did you get that? Your god has no beginning and no end because he isn't real. Imaginary beings have no actual traits in reality.
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@tw2800 You are putting forth the good ol' "god of the gaps," which does not provide evidence of the existence a sentient, devine being. When we just don't know, it's OK to say we just don't know. My not knowing how Easter eggs ended up in the Easter basket is not proof of the existence of the Easter Bunny. 🐇
They're tautologies. How do you know that accurate statements about the actual state of affairs are accurate statements about the actual state of affairs? Because inaccurate statements about the actual state of affairs are not accurate statements about the actual state of affairs. I don't agree with the answer though.
Does absolute truth exist? If time + matter + chance has produced your brain, then truth as an absolute category no longer exists, because truth by nature is absolute. Time is changing, matter is changing, chance is changing. You never have them staying the same, so truth as an absolute category no longer exists, and if this is correct, then how do you know it is true that time + matter + chance has produced your brain? How do you know anything is true? What's your basis for ethics, the universal laws of logic, induction, and the uniformity in nature? I'll wait...
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ.
In what way? I am interested to hear your argument for how his argument is foolish. Just saying, “Well that’s dumb because it is and it helps prove my unstated stance.” doesn’t really work for intelligent conversation haha :)
I have the necronomicon here in hand. It says it's true. And so it must be true. I have the christian bible here in hand. It says it's true. And so it must be true. I have the hindu veda's here in hand. It says it's true. And so it must be true. I have every holy spiritual book here in hand. Each one says it is true. And so it must be true.
But the necronomicon, vedas, and your supposed holy spiritual book do not meet the necessary preconditions for the reality that we see today, now, do they? Only the God of the Scriptures sufficiently meets these preconditions. I'm not sure you understand the argument that's being made here. You can't replace "Christian Bible" with a carrot, since a carrot is not necessary for good and evil to be, for without a carrot, good and evil will still be. Neither can you replace "Christian Bible" with Godzilla, since Godzilla is a creature that [even if Godzilla were real] that is itself contingent upon the existence of God. What presuppositional apologetics is saying is that no other worldview sufficiently accounts for why logic, reason, morality, and truth are actual things, let alone why reality is reality, except that of the Christian worldview.
@@juilianbautista4067 Nither Christianity or the Bible account in any way for morality, truth, or life. The God of the Bible is evil in its purest form. None of it can be proven or even rationally argued for. Stop presupposing the existence of God to prove the existence of God.
@@juilianbautista4067 "But the necronomicon, vedas, and your supposed holy spiritual book do not meet the necessary preconditions for the reality that we see today, now, do they? Only the God of the Scriptures" and literally the rest of your entire statement is precluded by the fact that other religions, for example Islam, say the exact same thing except about Allah or whatever god that specific religion worships rather than Yahweh, so no. I would suggest trying a different argument luv.
@@juilianbautista4067 But we Chinese can replace God with Confucius and Laozi. Why? We Chinese have faith in their teachings, and our past experiences with Christians is why we support a particular translation of the Bible
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
I love the presuppositional approach with unbelief. But when it comes to false beliefs, I love that The Truth can be examined & substantiated because lies cannot. Psalm 12:6
How Do you know The Bible is true? Well the bible says everyone believes, so atheists in reality are not atheists because they believe but just want to rebel, according to the bible. Me... Ok thank you for confirming the bible is not true. Because I know myself, I know I do not believe. No matter how much you say I believe, I know my thoughts better than anything, and my thoughts are the one thing I can be fully certain. And I know I do not believe. In fact, all my life I have really wanted to beleive, because my family and everyone I grew up with, was a believer. I tried really really hard to believe but couldn't. I have always been told, even today, by believers how nice of a person I usually am. I always try and be the best version of myself and help others. So I am not disbelieving because I want to rebel or sin. I simply just can't believe. I have no problem with you believing, in fact I am not here to tell you what to believe. But I do have a problem when people assume I disbelief simply because I want to rebel, be my own God, or sin. None of them are true, and if you knew me you would know that. It is like if I were to say, " All believers do not actually believe, they all know there is no God, they are just afraid of their own mortality". Now I would never say such a thing unwarranted, nor I believe it. But I am simply saying what apologists are saying about atheist but if it what flipped.
You're right. But, of course, he has no interest in convincing atheists. This whole video is clearly just designed to make existing Christians feel good. To anyone who's an atheist, this is so stupid - and so _obviously_ wrong - that, if anything, it would make me _less_ likely to believe in his god than I was already. But I suppose that his audience loves stuff like this. At least, _some_ of them. And I suppose that's all that matters to him.
G’day mate, you should read Romans. The Apostle Paul says: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20 ESV).” I believe you when you proclaim you don’t believe in God, I was there with you just over a year ago. But that’s because you suppress the truth you know in unrighteousness, in other words… your sinful heart deceives itself in rebellion against God. We are all without excuse because we know God, such truth is demonstrated in the way the unbeliever lives. Apart from God’s revelation. You cannot justify ethics, logical reasoning and much more. Neither can you tell me why you live the way you do, with the bottom line of your world view being we are objectively purposeless and evolved from bacteria that formed on a rock in space that came from nothing. We all suffer from the deception of our hearts in rebellion to God, but your conscience testifies to His law. You are without excuse, and I want you to repent and believe in Christ so that your sins are covered by God. I wouldn’t spend the time engaging you if I didn’t 💛.
@@josephkusabs46 I actively looked for God for more than twenty years tho. My whole life revolved around it. Yet I never truly believed no matter how hard I tried to. I was 100% convinced it was the life I wanted to live. My whole life I felt guilt, like actual crippling guilt, because no matter how hard I tried I couldn't really experience God nor be free of doubt. I have never, in my entire 29 years of life experienced even for a day, what that bible quote says. I talked with every person I could on every topic I had doubt, I asked for everyone to pray for me so I could have faith. I felt broken the entire time. But when I finally decided to face my natural skepticism and look at it critically, I realized I simply couldn't. And when i decided to accept I simply didn't believe it, it was the most liberating feeling I have ever felt. It was like taking a huge weight off my shoulders. Now I have never been happier, and I am even a way better person that i was when i was a Christian. I do not sin, and try to help everyone as much as I can. I decided to be the best person I can be, because if there is no heaven, then it is our responsibility to bring heaven down to Earth. To help as many people we can, not because of sellfish desires such as going to heaven, but because it is the right thing to do. I simply do not believe, and there is absolutely nothing unrighteous about it. Believe is in no shape, way or form a moral act. Now I have no problem with people believing, I just simply can't live with cognitive dissonance. I just want people to be the best version of themselves, and to be honest with themselves. If you look into it and decide it is the truth, all the power to you. I simply couldn't, after more than twenty years. I will try and be the best person I can be, and if I die and turns out there is a God and said God decides I shall go to heaven or hell based on moral judgement, I will accept said judgement. But if said God instead of judging my morality, decides I shall go to hell for not worshipping him, then that is no God worthy of any worship.
@@farrex0 , when you claim it is our responsibility to bring heaven down to Earth and to not give in to our naturally selfish impulses because it is the right thing to do - I can’t help but think… by what standard? How do you know? According to your worldview, their is no ultimate, we are just the random products of a pitiless and indifferent universe that couldn’t keep us in mind. In John 1 the apostle says: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:8-9).” You are deceiving yourself, the cognitive dissonance is rampant. But you have hope because Jesus can cleanse us from sin which we all harbour. The knowledge of God in you is clear to see. It’s not about experiencing God, you have a trust problem my friend. What can you tell me about the Old Testament 🙂?
This is amazingly foolish. Pastor Jeff presented a completely circular argument, "the Bible is true because without the Bible we can not know truth." What??? Only someone completely uneducated in the field of logic would find that argument even slightly compelling. Ask yourself, if a Muslim used the same argument except substituted the word Bible with the word Quran would any Christian think the argument were valid and that the Quran must therefore definitely be true? Furthermore, it is the epitome of egocentric belief to actually think that logic and truth only exist in human brains. A = A was true long before the first homo sapien took its first breath.
All epistemologies are circular at their foundation. They have to be self validating. If you reject this argument as circular, you must reject all others. You end up in skepticism. A presuppositionalist like Jeff will then point out the inconsistency with how you live as if you were in a Biblical worldview. You end up proving his argument by disproving yours. Circular doesn't mean invalid either. It just means it may not be as convincing if the circle is small. He mentioned the uniformity of nature for instance. A materialistic worldview can only say the future will be like the past because it always has been. That is a far worse circular argument than Jeff's and science depends on the uniformity of nature. Do you reject science? As for Islam, it does have a similar worldview because it accepts the Bible as scripture. I imagine many presuppositionalists would go to scripture when discussing Islam. Your objection doesn't save materialism either.
+Benjamin White some say you can't proof the existence of God, therefor it's called faith..that's a major underlying difference between science and faith (& why you can also adhere to both; science may be better at addressing certain issues & faith may be better suited for other aspects of the human experience). Now he's using rational thinking, logic, to try and prove why we should believe in the ideas of the Bible, by making that argument about how we can know what is real, what is true. But the reasoning he provides is flawed, it doesn't prove anything, unless you already believe the Bible is true, because you trust it/have faith in it. The argument doesn't however convince me as an outsider by merit of the validity of its logic (& I'm not saying I don't have faith, but it would certainly not be because of this argument).
+ISABELLEISMEE then by your logic science is flawed and can't prove anything. You have to have faith in the uniformity of nature. you seem to claim that faith in God is blind and that your faith in science isn't. That is wrong on both counts.
Benjamin White you claim Isabelle was "wrong on both counts." So you are saying that faith in God is not blind but "faith" in Science is? That is preposterous. Even by your own (flawed) reasoning either neither of them require blind faith or both do.
I like many of Pastor Jeff's videos...HOWEVER... NO atheist would be convinced by any of what he just said as an answer to "How do you know the Bible is true." I'm a Christian and I don't even think those were good answers.
Yes, all he's doing is moving the goalposts. "God is the source of all truth and logic" is just an assertion. It has no more validity than asserting _the complete opposite_ - 'What we call truth and logic are simply the most reliable methods our somewhat evolved brains deploy to deal with reality.' But what CAN be said with absolute confidence is that God will not intervene in any meaningful today, tomorrow, or the next day. I can make that prediction based on reality, they can only respond with _"Well, God did all the impressive stuff thousands of years ago.."_ when there was no scientific means to analyze, record or preserve these supernatural interventions. How convenient.
@@BScott7220 well friend you seem to be forgetting one thing. In Christ all things hold together, the whole universe including you is held by Him. Colossians 1:17. You are dust. Why because God made Adam out of dust and God breathed the breath of life in his nostrils and Adam became a living soul. And you came from the loins of Adam like the rest of human race. Genesis 2:7. Don't you know the only reason you are able to take your next breath is only because God allows you to. He holds our soul in life the Scripture says. Psalms 66:9. In Him we live we move we have our being. Read that few times let it sink in. Acts 17:28. People that do not believe in God are without excuse, because they suppress the truth in wickedness, and because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:18-21. You should read V22-32also. Sinners do not want to believe in God, because they love their sins. And by the way, if God would set His heart on it, If He would gather to Himself His Spirit and His breath, All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust. Job. 34:14-15. FYI, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. You want evidence that He is active today. Well He is judging America and many other western nations, just read Romans 1:18-32, and you will know He is not just the God of the past, and His judgment is just going to intensify day by day until He makes all His enemies which are all unbelievers as His footstool put under His foot. Hebrews 10:13. I hope you have bowed your knee to Him as your Lord and Savior, if not I encourage you do it now, otherwise you are going to die and after that judgment. Hebrews 9:27.
@@Jeremiah17910 so you combat the assertion thing by listing a paragraph of more assertions and outright lies - good job. i have NEVER beleived in a god so"Sinners do not want to believe in God, because they love their sins" is MEANINGLESS - sin doesnt exist - it is a method to control you. I dont love sin - because sin DOESNT EXIST
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@tw2800 Thanks for your examples of dishonesty for god. _"The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology"_ - *Obvious lie* _"In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms."_ - *Amazing oversimplification and misrepresentation.* _"The evidence for God is all around us."_ - *And yet, when asked no one who makes this claim is able to properly support it.* _"You're not really atheists you're delusional"_ - *The irony of this statement is astounding. Claiming that other people are delusional by using a delusional claim... classic* The command not to lie again seems to not be taken seriously by another believer. How sad.
He did, the Bible is true, because it's impossible to know if anything is true without God, it's the impossibility of the contrary argument, so you wouldn't know if it's true as an atheist. Revelational epistemology.
@@palerity6320 Are you presupposing there is a god to make that argument? And, are you also assuming this god would be _your_ god? Also, it's likely, an honest _athiest_ (athiesm isn't about anything other than the lack of belief in a god or gods) would say they don't have absolute certainty that it's false, but they are not convinced it's true.
@@slivyo Right, agnostic athiest; I just say atheist as short hand because I don't assume most are gnostic when it comes to atheism. I assume by, "To athiest, there's no reason for anything," that you are suggesting an atheist lacks an absolute reason for anything such as knowing something good from bad because it is predetermined and not up for debate. In the thiest case, this is because a god decides what's good and bad, and they are eternal (in most cases... all cases... I don't really know). I would say you are not far off, and if you add the belief in evolution, we only care because it aided in survival and being unaware of the origin makes it seem like a common decency sort of thing, though if you believe in a god, chances are you have disagreements or fully disagree with the theory of evolution. I can only work with what I have (assumptions, I know) , which seems to start with my mind, and I say that knowing it is a debated subject. It is not intuitive that it is connected to my body, though I at least feel in control of my body except for when I'm tired (never got drunk or did drugs). Now, due to my limited perspective and with the unforgettable thought that my _life_ will end and my senses as well as my mind will be destroyed or fall apart, I happen to care what happens to me, even if it equals zero or less in the end. And, whether it is from my brain or because of how species evolved, I have something humans call empathy. Whether I like it or not, I feel an urge to understand a person and relate to them, happy, sad, angry, etc. You don't have to honor anything that lead equaled the peow who are _alive_ being here today, but for good reason or not, there are people who may try to stop you from behaving or acting in certain ways. I only question something if it feels wrong, I may copy what my friends do, but if it comes to jumping off a bridge, my fear of heights may overcome any peer pressure to do as they do in that instance. I'd say that if you developed feelings that created division, and people who wanted to bring us together still existed, you would look for ways to challenge them, whether through debate, activism, or maybe even violence. It seems that when you can treat other people as different, you don't see yourself in them and it makes their feelings irrelevant to a small or high degree. Me saying good or bad is relative to what my goals are, again, whether they are for a _real_ reason or not. Of course they seem man-made, I don't know where else they would've come from, but that's another assumption. I don't think we have rights, just the feeling that we should have them, and in the past and even today, people fight in all sorts of ways to maintain and gain even more rights while other try to strip those rights away as well and create more restrictions on rights. They likely serve some purpose, though, it may just be to achieve your goal no matter how vague or specific. Again, I can't for you are right or wrong for certain, as I appear limited in my knowledge if I have any, and if we disagreed, I would have to decide whether I was wrong, you were wrong, or that we had different goals in mind. You appear right, in the end, if we do what you want or we do what I want, it may not really matter (in the end). You appear to be right again, reason appears to give meaning, even if it is something like working just to feed yourself, what kind of life might that be... I ask the same question, "Why, and how?" "Can I say I know anything if I do not know everything?" It is a big question, and as much as I'd like to know, I may never find out. As much as that seems meaningless, I enjoy doing things that feel meaningful to me. I like to watch and read about things I'm interested in, politics and religion being two things I am interested in, and... at this moment in time I do not believe in a god; it doesn't appear to match with what I think I know about everything.
@@slivyo I understand, and I would hope I did not come off as rude. Disagree or not, I am not here seeking enemies, only conversation on what I understand and the person replying understands. I wanted to fully express how I operate philosophically when dealing with the idea of meaning in life as well as how I act regardless of whether or not I have absolute truth. Anything I said was in reply to your questions sprinkled throughout what you wrote in your comment. Now, regardless of how everything came to be, I am atheistic in my beliefs on god as the idea of a god does not appear to match with the reality that I understand. I am not ruling a god out, but I won't accept just anything, though I figure anything that would convince me would be out of my control as I do not choose what makes sense, but I do seek answers to questions I have that are unanswered or that I forgot the answer to. Even if I believed a being created everything, in the deistic or theistic sense, I would not be able to consider the Bible as a reliable source of information. Assuming that's the god that most people I go back and forth with believe in either agnostically or gnostically, it appears in our observation of the planet, using the remnants of the past, there are stories in the Bible that do not all line up. I imagine if the new testament authors had written the old testament, they would have changed the character of God to be less war-like, and possibly more just and/or merciful as well as untempted.
I mean, if we're going to use presuppositional apologetics, then I suppose it would be fair to turn it around on the believer. Something like - Truth is founded in correspondence to reality. Theists, however, believe that truth is grounded in a deity or deities. Since no deity or deities exist the theist is incapable of grounding truth. The theist really knows deep down that no deity or deities exist, but rejects this so they can avoid dealing with their existential dread and fear of death.
"Since no deity or deities exis" Go ahead, PROVE that. Oh THIS guy's god does not exist, its testable. But no one has ever disproved a Deist god. That there is no rational reason to believe to believe in any god does not disprove all gods. There may be a god but all testable gods fail testing. Stick to the truth. Leave the unjustifiable claims to the theists. They assume there is a god, you assume there isn't. Neither of you can support your claims. Join the few, the rational, the Agnostic. That way the false claims are from the theists.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 Hey, I never said that it was a completely sound argument. I'm just surprised that I never thought about turning this particular argument against them, since it's completely possible.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 _"Because its unsupported assertion."_ - *I think that was the point. He was presenting it as a counter to the standard Christian presuppositional stance... Its an unsupported assertion as a counter to other unsupported assertions.*
Yet again a pastor with a background in theology tries to explain scientific findings. Why wonder off your area of expertise and try to speak with authority? A little humility is a good thing dear pastor Durbin.
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
This is essentially the ontological argument for the existence of a book that is the word of God. This argument could point you to the Bible, the Koran, or some other sacred book. You need more than this to get to the truth of the Bible specifically. I understand and agree that there are many inconsistencies with the atheist’s search for truth and feel that God is the only way to have a basis of objective truth, but again this only gets you to a god and a sacred text not the God of the Bible.
The canon of the Bible was not finalized until the 6th century. Meaning the “bible” did not exist for 500+ years after Christ’s crucifixion. And the Bible Jeff uses wasn’t created until the 17th century (Protestants removed several books). Christianity was never intended to be based off the Bible, it was to be based off the CHURCH (1 Timothy 3:15) that Jesus created (Matthew 16:18). Early Protestant denominations understood this & argued that their particular denomination was the “one true church.” Think about it: most people were illiterate until around 1750. How could the Bible be the final authority and the only thing you need for salvation if you can’t read it? When you base a religion off of a book, you open it up to textual criticism. Meaning different people think the same words mean different things (this is the same problem we have with the constitution). Or people wonder how you can know the translation is correct. This is why there are 20,000+ Protestant denominations. It leads to atheism because you cannot provide satisfactory answers to questions. Christianity is not about the WORDS on the page, it is about the EVENTS of Christian history. This is why pictures, drawings, architecture, and icons were used in early Christianity to spread the gospel (and people couldn’t read). I like Jeff, but I wish he would dig a little deeper. I wish he would ask himself just a few more questions. Why does Jeff trust that the people who assembled the Bible did so correctly, but Jeff does not trust anything else they practiced or said about Christianity? It is not about theology, it is about history. I hope one day James White or Jeff Durbin will talk with Jay Dyer or an orthodox theologian.
I understand the argument and I agree. But an unbeliever can respond: well why do you immediately jump towards the God of the Bible and not the gods of other religions. This seems to me to be a great argument for intelligent design. How could I maintain the fact that only the Bible can account for knowledge and intelligence vs the multitude of religions out there?
As a Christian, I believe that what Jeff said is true, but it's an incomplete answer. Like you, I don't think his answer will satisfy anyone BUT believers. Atheists will likely accuse him of circular reasoning and though, like you said, his answer may argue for intelligent design, they'll want to know which "intelligence" we're talking about here. It's a good start, but it needs to go MUCH further. It's not a question that can be answered in a nine-minute video. Perhaps there's more.
+ThingsAreToughAllOver This was a Q and A session. Hours could be spent a have been spent on a fuller explication. We have hours of Jeff's talks on this channel as well as days worth of discussion on Apologiaradio.com. ;)
You might start by comparing the religions. It doesn't necessarily require an exhaustive study, just the basic foundations. For example, some of the things that you will find in religions are pantheistic beliefs which say that God inhabits every object in the world and thus everything is equally valuable. I once heard a Christian challenge a pantheist on this belief by asking if a piece of grass was just as valuable as her own child? The pantheist began to stutter and stumble over her own words at this point. Another thing that you will find in some religions is the claim that truth is relative - that people have their own individual truths. You might ask a person of such religious belief if child rape could ever be okay according to personal truth. If the answer is no, they are appealing to an objective moral truth that must come from an objective moral source. In Islam, you may ask the Muslim who their Koran says Jesus is. They will say a prophet. You may ask them why Jesus in the Koran is so much greater and more miraculous than prophet Muhammad, yet Muhammad gets worshipped. Then tell them what the bible says of Jesus. Basically, compare the religious claims against that of the bible and see which is more logical. Then you can point to things like fulfilled prophecy in the bible that has been verified historically. God doesn't require we know ALL of that stuff to be good Christian witnesses, but those are good places to go. At the end of it all, you'd point to the logical difference separating the Christian God from all others: All other religions require good works to outweigh past sins - to work one's way to paradise. But in a manmade court of law, can you be let go from your murder or rape charge if you feed enough poor people? If yes, that wouldn't be justice. Other religions think you can just work the sin off. God, knowing that such a thing wouldn't be fair justice took the fair punishment for everybody as our substitute on the cross. The Christian God is the only one that offers such an objective and impartial standard of crime, punishment and pardon.
+Apologia Studios Shabbat Shalom and thanks for doing the work of the ministry. There is so much evidence of scripture. Such as giants and the enclosed non globe earth. Also, historical information matches scripture. Yes, the Scripture is self authoritative because absolute truth is self authoritative. Otherwise, we can't know anything. Colossians 1:16-17, John 14:6, 8:32. Deuteronomy 13:1-5.
My feeling exactly. This guy Durbin is dis-ingenuous . He just jumps from a great pre-sup point to the God of the Bible. The answer to the whole conundrum is an Open Panentheistic Cosmic Mind-God. Not a god that suggests that everything in the KJV is absolutely correct.
@@BidenSUCKSS Of course not, a Hindu would see through you right away, and see it as duplicitous. If you want to give Christianity a bad name you could try it because everyone could see how manipulative you were trying to be.
Some people don’t grow up with a God. So no one can’t argue with the logic of people who make false assumptions. None of what you said is even accurate with what the video is. But typical atheist with their strawmans.
Atheist always talk about logic,reasoning morality ,ethics etc. Which has no base in the magical theory of evolution. Because the chemical reactions in the brain cannot define what is good or bad.
You're on the right track. I, like you, questioned many things about God and the Bible. You're on the first step and that is "Seek and you shall find." If you didn't find the answer here, continue seeking.
@@MrHPT3 Don't give up. Privately ask God to reveal Himself to you, earnestly. Request with persistence. There you will find, and He will draw near to you. Tell Him you don't believe in Him. Ask Him to help you in your unbelief. I think He will give you bizarre experiences that will have you begin to believe in Him upon petition and prayer.
Jeff is a liar! If you ask him if there is a perfect Bible, he will lie and say yes. But if you ask him which Bible is God's word that is perfect and without error, he will tell you that it does not exist. My friends, God promised to preserve his word. He did so in the King James Bible, which is perfect, infallible, and all other Modern English translations are of corrupted manuscripts.
and as said before, you have to understand that the atheist isn't really looking for truth. You could give them all the evidences of Christ, and they will still oppose and hate Him. SO yes, you do apologetics, but while understanding outside of the Holy Spirit, they will reject truth, no matter what.
That's simply a wad of nonsense, my friend. You have to remember, that many atheists were once Christians, and many of them quite devout. They were searching for truth. Then they realized that the bible doesn't make any sense, and is not historical. One does not just stop at Christianity when searching for truth. One has to question everything from all sides, and the bible doesn't always win out.
pwoods100 I can see you do t understand much about Jesus and the claims He made. Jesus said the only people that would be saved are those He wants to save based upon His own grace over wicked people. Romans 1 teaches people hate the Creator and worship the created things. The problem with atheism is it just 'tries' on world views until it finds one that 'fits'. Ultimately the atheist worldview is one of insanity, meaninglessness, vanity, and self temporary pleasure.
Okay, your first mistake: You assume I'm an atheist. You're wrong there. I am by definition agnostic/deist. So I believe in a higher power but.......there could be a million possibilities as to what that is, and I'm totally okay not knowing. And you cannot prove that your particular deity is the right one out of thousands of them. Your second mistake: You assume that atheists and people like myself hate your god. We can't hate something that we don't believe in. We can however hate a culture for indoctrinating children on an epic scale, and giving people pre-decided answers before they ask the questions. Your third mistake: That you think the atheist worldview is insanity and meaningless. Atheist are no different than you. They raise families, they travel, have hobbies and enjoy life. Their lives are not meaningless, and they have their purposes for living, apart from a God. That is not insanity. Worshiping a god who will put people in hell for eternity just for not believing is insanity.
1. so many mistakes, but its a good thing you come from a not-knowing worldview because you saying im making mistakes is relative...their is no knowable truth according to you, so your entire argument is invalid and based totally upon a guessing game in a universe of an infinite number of guesses. 2. You believe in a 'higher power' but that the 'higher power' merely created something and left it on it's own, apparently so powerful that it left it's creation in the dark, with no way of knowing said 'higher power'. In a 'not-knowing' worldview you have no definition of good or evil, and what is good for you, may not be good for me, etc. 3. The fact that you don't believe in something that has given you ample evidence is a mere fact of your depravity, so lost in ignorance and pride thinking you know something when you don't, summing it all up to the worship of mankind and mankinds 3 pound brain in an impossible quest or non-quest of never knowing anything for certain. The issue with mankind is it is full of people who live in denial of reality, and make excuses for why they can't believe the truth. Wicked man always comes up with false religions that appease the wickedness in them.... atheism and agnosticism appease the sinful nature because you can live in immorality to whatever degree you choose and still claim to be a decent person who if their was a heaven, would go there one day based upon your actions, or non-actions... convenient you think for your short 100 years or so, but inconvenient for the rest of eternity. 4. You make an error in saying God puts people in hell for not believing.... God puts people in hell for breaking His law. Their absentee faith is merely a by-product of their depravity. See, people are ok witih a 'god' as long as 'god' isn't Holy. The reason people hate God, is because His defining attribute is Holy, which is what mankind is vehemently opposed to. The only way not to be opposed to God, is by the grace of Jesus. 5. Atheist are people just like me, but they do not have a consistent worldview....they live in a world and have to borrow from the Christian worldview.... because if an atheist was truly living in consistency with his worldview he couldn't punish the rapist, murderer, pedophile, or even tell the thief it is wrong to steal his tv. The criminals are only 'dancing to their DNA', were born that way, and mankind, no matter how moral or immoral, has no intrinsic value, merely breeds to keep the gene pool existing, and for nothing more, as years after death you are forgotten in the stream of time.
Okay, here's a question. Let's suppose there is a divine source of morality. How do we know that source is YHWH? And not some other god. Or perhaps the laws of ethics are self sufficient in and of themselves. You still haven't proved the Bible true, at best you've shown the need for a divine origin of morality but you haven't shown that the christian God is that origin point.
There is no 'non believer world view' and I have never heared of 'chemicals fizzing in the brain'. This is a big con where it only makes sense to people who are already taken in by this nonsense. Actually think about what that guy was talking about and tell me where, at any point, he proves or gives a valid argument that the Bible is true.
If there is no nonbeliever worldview, then nonbelievers thoughts don't exist. . .which obviously isn't true. He said he could have gone into the evidences for the Bible, but he took a different approach in showing how without the Bible (and God) truth wouldn't matter and there would be no basis for truth of any sort. Also he mentioned how there is data or language written or coursing through everyone and everything which confirms the account of God speaking creation into existence. So to me it seems that if nonsense means not giving a valid argument then your comment is nonsense, because you aren't giving a valid argument for the reason that you didn't listen to what was actually said.
What I meant was that there is no one shared worldview. In the same way that everyone who doesn't believe in unicorns doesn't necessary share the same beliefs in everything else. The language in DNA, brain gas, fizzing brain, God speaking stuff into existence hypothesis is still nonsense and you need to provide more evidence than just 'Bible said' or 'prove how it did happen then'.
crisofer954 And there is plenty for you to look up and discover on your own! The point of this video is to show the inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty of the athiest arguer. If you need evidence plenty exists. Google magic friend! Why should anyone spoon feed you when asking the question in such a way as this just shows you're not really interested in the answer. You know " ....pearls before swine" and all. If sincerely looking you wouldn't be looking for the proofs of the Bible in a RUclips comment section.
Er no. I'm commenting about the dishonest way this guy is deliberately using fallacious arguments to cover up the fact that there is no proof that the Bible is true. You can't say that we believe our thoughts are a 'result of brain gas' so we can't know what truth is, so that proves that you're right about everything. Do your own research from other books; if all your so called knowledge comes from one book, you will only ever know what's in that book. The whole theological argument seems to be that athiest are stupid, so you are right by default. I've heard what this guy says about agnostics, by definition, not knowing anything etc and his argument proves nothing. Don't post insulting videos and complain when someone doesn't agree with you. 'Google Magic Friend' are you serious? If you actually came out with a convincing argument, I might listen but you can't prove anything by baffling people with semantics.
I 100% understand and love the presuppositional argument. I just hate having to explain it especially to an opponent with absolutely no intellectual integrity.
+brok if you are a presupp idiot, you already don't have any intellectual integrity. why do you think we hate to explain things to you? other than you are also one of the dumbest shits around.
To be clear, Jeff is using the transcendental argument here, which he often uses. It's the most fundamentally correct given the Biblical worldview - God is the Creator of everything, and so everything finds its meaning and purpose in God. However, those who prefer the classical arguments criticize this argument for using circular reasoning, since it starts from hypothesis that God is real in order to conclude that God is real. Then again, those in favor of it argue that it does not contain circular reasoning (I forget exactly why), and that it is also not possible to conclusively prove anything, but if you can conclusively prove anything, it begins with the transcendental argument. I believe the best starting points are in the classical arguments, which show that God is the *most likely* explanation for why things exist, and then moving from there into the transcendental argument as a follow-up to that conclusion. It does negate the fallacy of circular reasoning, but it does reinforce the premise to a degree that atheists are unable to match using that same logic (beginning with the hypothesis that God does not exist in order to reach that same conclusion). Without transcendent metaphysics, the materialist atheist must either rely on circular reasoning to justify logic, or else they are forced to surrender the concept of logic entirely, which is not ideal but there are many who are willing to make that sacrifice. That kinda sounds like a joke, but I'm being serious - "post modernism" is an umbrella term, but it typically does include the denial of absolute truth and other metaphysical ideas. (In case anyone wanted to know what the classical arguments are, they are the cosmological, ontological, teleological, and moral arguments for the existence of God.)
To all my brothers and sisters who feel that his response didn't and doesn't relate specifically to the triune christian God YHWH of scripture... Please read the book ALWAYS READY by Dr. Greg Bahnsen. The reasons Mr. Durbin didn't go into all the specific evidences of christianity (like the resurrection, archeology, manuscripts, and so on) is two fold. 1) It would make the non-christian/unbeliever judge over the evidences, and consequently judge over God. 2) Christianity is the only system of thought/Worldview that makes anything rationally intelligible, or the basis for proving anything. If your going to cut down a tree in an open field, don't cut one branch at a time. Saw it off at the base.
Brother, it's not a sin to present the very tangible, physical evidence that our glorious Lord has left for us. (all the historical data you cite and I concur with) Ultimately, it takes the miraculous intervention of the Spirit to change a man's heart. I think, sometimes starting on a practical, evidential level can be helpful when presenting the gospels to a naturalist. God Bless.
Yup. But it's even worse than that, because that's not how books work - _any_ books, let alone a collection of stuff from countless anonymous authors, countless anonymous editors, and countless anonymous - and variable - copyists. There really _is_ a London, but that doesn't make the Harry Potter books true in every other respect, too. There really _is_ a New York City - and Barack Obama really _was_ President of the United States - but that doesn't make Spiderman real, even those true things were written in Spiderman comics.
That’s hilarious bc there’s been tons of books written and tons of historical and scientific studies done that add to the proof of the Bible being accurate and historically correct. And Everytime they find relics and historical artifacts that line up with what the Bible says. Like the Dead Sea scrolls etc. the only questions have been did the miraculous happen bc you really can’t prove that. But that have proven that the Bible has not been changed during translations. That Jesus and many others were real people and records of their lives have backed it up. Have you ever looked into it bc it’s not that hard to find the large amount of evidence that supports the Bible? There’s also the list of things the Bible stated as true about the world and space etc that was in contradiction to science but ended up being true. Such as: the Bible said the world was round and people thought it was flat until proven round thousands of years after the Bible was written. The Bible talks about how the sea floor looks and functions like and science said otherwise until it was proven to be as the Bible said when tech caught up. Same with the stars and other things. The sure fact that something that people believe as man made fairy tale from over two thousand years ago is still relevant to today’s culture and transforms lives. Like the countless stories of addicts who couldn’t ever get clean but then did after years through the message of the gospel. Or people that have struggled with mental health issues and needed medication etc who utilized the Bible and it’s message to be freed feom depression and anxiety and never need psych medication again etc. You can question the validity of the miraculous claims but historically it has been far proven accurate. And although the message has been hijacked and used in evil ways it has healed and transformed millions of lives for the better. Which makes no sense if it is fake and made up fairy tale ya know.
@@alaskayoung3413 We've known the Earth is round since Eratosthenes proved it in the 200s BCE, you ignorant child. Go read a book and stop spouting laymen's misconceptions.
@@alaskayoung3413 _"Have you ever looked into it bc it’s not that hard to find the large amount of evidence that supports the Bible?"_ Yes, I have. You? _"You can question the validity of the miraculous claims but historically it has been far proven accurate."_ The former point is the crux. The bible is a story about miraculous events and people. And none of that is verifiable. And the latter point? None of that matters. It is nothing more than a background in which the story takes place. _"But that have proven that the Bible has not been changed during translations."_ Unimportant. No one knows who wrote the bible. We have no, or only small segments, originals. _"That Jesus and many others were real people and records of their lives have backed it up."_ There are no extra biblical records showing Jesus' life. Yes, there is consensus that a guy called Jesus lived and was crucified. But not that he was certainly not the biblical Jesus. _"Such as: the Bible said the world was round and people thought it was flat until proven round thousands of years after the Bible was written."_ The bible says that the world is unmovable. It also says that pi equals to 3. And that we live in a snow globe. But again, none of this is relevant. _"The sure fact that something that people believe as man made fairy tale from over two thousand years ago is still relevant to today’s culture and transforms lives."_ Again, unimportant as it doesn't add anything to the validity of the bible.
@@alaskayoung3413 This isn't my thread, so I hope I'm not butting in here. But,... :) _there’s been tons of books written_ But most of those books are written for _Christians,_ not for atheists. That's because it's easy to convince people of something they _already_ believe. _it’s not that hard to find the large amount of evidence that supports the Bible_ OK. So how about *one piece of good evidence?* You claim that there's a "large amount," so asking for *one* example shouldn't be a problem, right? *One* example, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself? I'd accept *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary, or *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Your choice. (I don't care about the mundane stuff. Indeed, I'll _give_ you a guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans, but there's nothing magical about that. The Romans crucified _thousands_ of people.) _There’s also the list of things the Bible stated as true about the world and space etc that was in contradiction to science but ended up being true._ Do you ever talk to Muslims on RUclips? That's one of their favorite claims about the Quran, too. And just as with the Bible, they simply pour over their 'holy book' looking for _something_ they can interpret to maybe agree with something science has discovered. I doubt if _you'd_ be convinced by that. I haven't been - not by the claims I've heard from Muslims _or_ the claims I've heard from Christians, not so far, at least. But if you wish to use that argument, that's fine by me. You'll have to be specific, though. I can't really respond to vague claims except... vaguely. :) _Like the countless stories of addicts who couldn’t ever get clean_ Muslims say that, too. So if "countless stories of addicts" demonstrates that Christianity is true, it must also demonstrate that Islam is true. And probably lots of other religions, as well. PS. Again, this isn't my thread. So if you prefer to take this to email, just go to my RUclips channel. Under the "About" tab is a link to a contact page where you can get my email address. It's up to you. Thanks!
Demonstrating the logical necessity of God is one thing. Proving that God is correctly identified in the writings of the Bible is quite another. Arguments like this are disingenuous, demonstrably false, and make apologists for the Bible seem like snake-oil salesmen.
Im an atheist. Im here to tear down the christian world view so christians will one day stop destroying families, politics, and minds in general. I know im right rhat the christian mythos is BS. im here to convince everyone else.
Religion causes friction in families and politics all the time, this is just undeniable parents disowning atheist and gay children, christian politicians forcing arbitrary standards of morality into law etc. Ive also seen studies that even show children raised without religious indoctrination think more critically and behave more ethically. This should be obvious anyway. As far as knowing that christianity is wrong, i can cite the numerous logical paradoxes in the supposed nature of god and the many contradictions and ignorant passages in the bible. Or i could just say nature has revealed itself to me and told me god doesnt exist, and if you truly search with an open heart you will realize that, deep down, you know this truth.
If what you read does not make sense, then it is not true. If what you read does not reflect the idea of unconditional love, then it is not true. Even the Bible says: "The Knowledge of the Kingdom of God is Within You. " Use your intuition and conscience. If an idea in the Bible brings up fear, then it is not true. If an event in the Bible is against your morals, it is not true. Question authority. Authority can want to control you. Fear is the best way to control you. Trust yourself. You are a child of God.
This is to -Nick Jones -SNORKYMEDIA -Rand Om -snarepaul What _specifically_ do you disagree with? I'm sure you disagree with it all. But if you truly believe he is wrong and isn't genuine in his motives as to what he claims they are, then please articulate what he is wrong about and lets test your claim.
I spelt it out in my comment. His discussions are intellectually dishonest. He uses manipulative tactics when talking to others or preaching, and leads conversations in specific ways so as to catch his victims out. If he wants to convert people or make his points, he should do so in an honest and sincere manner, rather than a dishonest and underhanded one.
Those are all generalities. What _specifically_ are some examples of him being "intellectually dishonest? What _specifically_ are some examples of these "manipulative tactics" he is using? What _specifically_ are some examples of how he is leading the conversation so as to "catch his victims out"?
Sorry but that made very little sense. Wow. In terms of the actual question, which was "how do you know the Bible is true" your answer was quite lacking... you seemed to be trying to answer a different question entirely. The point I think you're trying to make is more in line with establishing axioms in the theism vs atheism debate... and even then its very weak in my view. This is super easy, how do I know the Bible Is true, because God told me it was. Its that simple. One must remember, that for an argument to be logically cogent, it must be valid at ANY time in history (e.g., 1 minute after the resurrection of Christ and 10 min from now) and at ANY place (e.g., the Garden tomb or modern North Korea). Because God is no respecter of persons, the methodology to identify truth in God’s word must be the SAME for all people, in all times, and in all places. For instance, you hinted at the notion that we might be able to know the Bible is true because we can “stack up” evidences that make the existence of God more likely, which is a very common argument by christian theologians. The problem with this is, the validity of the Bible in a person’s life is dependent upon how well they can access outside information about the Bible. Does it make sense that my salvation should be dependent upon how well I can gather data about the validity of bible, which in this case favors folks who are both smart and have access to really good data. But what about the North Koreans or some other controlled state? Let's say they got a Bible somehow, read it, wondered if it was true… do you think they could do any other research to even validate if Jerusalem is even a place on earth?! The answer is no. Researching outside the sacred text itself to validate the Bible is so full of logical holes, I could write for hours on the subject. But since you glossed over it, I won’t beat you up on it too badly and I’ll just move on. You said, “the Bible comes with its own self-attesting authority.” I agree that you don’t need anything other physical thing to attest its authority but this notion that you and James White attest to which is, that the Bible is self-validating is so ridiculous and logically cyclical that no trained thinker with a modicum of wit will allow such an oddity... no offense, but come now, you won't win hearts and minds with type of thinking... that appeals to no one I know. Its just ridiculous. The answer to this question is very simple. How do I know the Bible is true…. Because God told me it was. Simple. Its the only methodology that makes any sense at all. Nothing outside of God will ever prove the Bible 100% true… and thats OK, because God wants us to have Faith. Its the Holy Ghost that witnesses the truth. Ask God, he will tell you. But here is the bigger point. What you said in this video and what you preach on this subject is just not, from what I can tell, backed up by any scripture. Its purely Jeff’s mental musings. What does the Bible say about learning truth: Cor 2:10-12 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me “God hath REVEALED them unto us by his Spirit”…. Why do you have to over complicate it Jeff? Revelation. I think you dislike this idea apparently because the Mormons hold so firmly to these ideas and if you concede then you know by the same token a person can have the Book of Mormon revealed to them by the Spirit… and you just can’t have that. Jeff, how does the Spirit testify of Christ in your view… HOW? Let me tell everyone what I think. I believe God is all merciful and all powerful and he is as intimate with us as a father is with their child. He is begging us to come unto him and ask for revelation. He will enlighten us, change us, empower us and we will have pure intelligence run through us - to such a degree that we will know that God spoke to us... me and you. This is how I know the Bible is true... its also how I know the Book of Mormon is true and its also how I know that Jesus is the Christ the Eternal God (“… Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 16:16-17.). the Bible teaches me specifics, as does the Book of Mormon, but its Spirit that confirms all truth and reveals the deeper things of the Kingdom. The Lord is LOGICAL, and he doesn't just put a book on Earth and demand you JUST know it to be true just because ... The Spirit will witness to you ... that is why The Spirit is here (And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.) I you're not sure... ask God (James 1:5... if you lack wisdom, ask God.) This is another one, that folks like Jeff will tell you it means something else besides going to the lord and just asking him for knowledge. You know what, don't believe me, don't believe Jeff, go read James 1:5&6 and do what you think it says. I'm willing to bet that most folks left up to their own, will read that verse and say God will give to the honest seeker of wisdom. But of course at this point Jeff likes to point out that if people can pray and ask God then essentially theological chaos will ensue because everyone can get all different kinds of answers and the only way to correct such behavior is to point them to the text. Jeff, you're not totally wrong for doing this. Homosexuals who "feel" God allows them to live that lifestyle and remain christian should be given the Bible to demonstrate their error. Of course. But your ideology that the Bible is the end all source of God's knowledge is also flawed. You see if Christianity could actually agree on the meaning of the text you might have a compelling argument, but we know that isn't the case.... Not by a long shot. And this is where I say, there are 50K+ churches and you say its really not that many and you don't disagree with other faiths on the vital theological issues. But my response is, if there were just 2 opposing faiths in your bunch, then that is still too much division, and I don't care if the doctrines are vital or not, the point is you have zero consensus, which means whatever methodology you are using to define truth, IT ISN'T WORKING (its laughable to me how you just gloss over this issue like its nothing... if you don't have consensus then your overall view or someones else for that matter view is FLAWED... and if one point is flawed, how can anyone with any level of cognition, trust that ANY view you hold is the correct one... you can't). But lets not kid ourselves, these issues are vital, only 40% of christianity believe in Grace only salvation... you carry the minority view Jeff. The point is, doctrines vary at least into a 100 different general sects and everyone has their own view, which means your ideology of going to the text as the end-all of authority is flawed and illogical. We need more than the Bible, we need the Bible and the Holy Spirit, else the interpretation is flawed. (well we need Prophets as well, but that is another post. ha.) In any event, Im sure no one will read this and this is a rant of sorts, but I felt compelled so I punched it out. I'll just finally note, that I never said I had a burning in my bosom, or warm "feelings." Anti-Mormons hit this point very hard. The Spirit touched me, enlightened me, and I know its true. We use the word "feel" because we are limited by our language to express and describe some experiences, but in my view, the term "feeling" is inadequate to describe the free flowing divine intelligence that surges through me, testifying to me that Jesus is the Christ and His words are true and faithful. Its much more than a mere "feeling." Lastly, why is it, especially preachers, dont like this idea of talking with God? One idea... When Jesus Christ Appeared to the young boy Joseph, he said speaking of professors of religion, "...having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” That's how I feel here. Christianity at large denies the real power of the Holy Spirit... to touch and inspire the children of God. I hear a lot about going to the scriptures for answers, which is great, but receiving revelation from God that Jesus is the christ and his word can be trusted, is largely lost in todays world. Believe in the power of God. Believe that he speaks today. Believe that he can reveal truth to you. This is long... sorry. But its not like anyone is going to read it. Haha. ah well... it was fun to type it out for my own benefit.
I like Jeff and his sermons, but this was a little cringe worthy. I would hesitate to use this reasoning with someone. even if the atheist is "acting like it even matters", the issue of the truth of something still exists, regardless of how they feel about the issue or whether their thoughts or opinion actually do matter. it is true that I am typing this comment. I can say that as a Christian. the atheist can also type their reply say that and be completely correct, even though the atheist does not have God as the ultimate standard. so I don't think that is a strong argument and is easily refutable to someone who can think critically. if I have missed something or misspoken, someone please let me know.
Daniel Root You miss the point. The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate their inconsistency. It is pointless to continue a discussion with someone who is inconsistent, moving the goal post as it were. You need to get them to be more intellectually honest in order to continue. Arguing with a simple contrarian is a waste of time.
If someone can't prove logic under their worldview, then what is the point in having a logical debate with said person? Most non-Christians I have debated end up appealing to morality, consciousness, reason, logic, ethics and metaphysical properties in general. From a worldview where our existence came from a chaotic series of evolutionary events, and we exist for no reason but because we do, in a material world that you can't get metaphysical properties out of, our thoughts are simply chaotic formulaic processes that exist for no reason, but because they do. So everything becomes meaningless, relative, subjective, as there is no objective morality, ethics, or reason to do anything the way society has told us to do it, besides fear for our lives from a government that would punish us for not abiding by the law. If someone is arguing that something is illogical, you first have to have a worldview that derives logic from an absolute, or it is an subjective opinion that derived from a meaningless brain, and existence. You can use this in other senses aswell. If Science uses logic, and logic is metaphysical, then Science saying that God does not exist because we can't see him under the laws of empiricism is using logic, a metaphysical property, to prove the nonexistence of a metaphysical being. In other words, using a transcendental to refute a transcendental is contradicting, and due to the laws of non contradiction, cannot be used as an argument. If you don't abide to the laws of non contradiction, you don't abide to the laws of logic, therefore there is no point having an argument with someone who makes that claim, as you aren't having a logical debate at that point, and every point that uses logic is meaningless. Once you understand the basics of philosophy, then you will understand that with every point made, you presuppose that you believe in certain things, by using a logical argument, you presuppose that you believe in logic, but if your worldview does not support that, then you are inconsistent, and shouldn't be taken seriously.
Why are there so many apologists? When I feel hungry, I don't need to be convinced of it. I also can't recall a time when I've grabbed some water and sat and pondered "Will this water quench my thirst?"
Because sinners suppress the truth in unrighteousness. People know God exists, but they love their sins more so that they come up with all these crazy theories just to suppress their conscience and deceive themselves into thinking that God will not hold them accountable for their sins against Him and against His creation. So God in His mercy has raised up these apologists and people who speak the truth so that unbelievers will be called to repentance and believe in Jesus Christ as the One who died for the sin of the world so that mankind may be reconciled to God.
I am writing a college essay for my atheist professor about why God exists can anyone help me with some academic reliable resources to help prove this. God bless.
It looks like nobody was able to help you with that project because of course, there are no such sources. Most everything in the bible is pure fantasy and pure rubbish, self-contradictory and illogical.
@@Lightylight Sir, I was just commenting (5 years ago..) that it was funny how it cant just be an atheist, but a "hostile atheist". You are allowed to make comments about particular parts of a lecture without mentioning the whole damn thing.
Jeff said that God SPOKE mankind into being, but in fact, God FORMED Adam with His hands from the ground & breathed life into him (his nostrils) only after speaking much of the rest of creation into existence. I'm not a Calvinist (or any other "ist" or "ism"). No offense. I'm a born again Christian & I appreciate Jeff's efforts to minister & giving me ideas when talking to unbelievers or lukewarm believers (or when I talk to anyone not born again, for that matter; the Holy Spirit leads me, regardless). Sometimes I wish I could be there with Jeff while he's talking with these people. God knows I make errors, but they should've caught & corrected that one (at least noted it below the video title). Maybe someone should edit? Thank you for your ministry & for sharing, Jeff. Blessings to all in Jesus! 😃
Can anyone link me anything saying that gas or "fizz" is involved in neurochemistry? That sounds really interesting! I can't believe I never learned that in any of my biology classes up to the 300 level
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@MisterItchy The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
What sets biblical Christianity apart from all other religions is that Christianity is Judaism fulfilled, the Old Testament God promised he would destroy death and the New Testament tells us how he did it. Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, so that we can be saved from hell. Islam teaches that Jesus never died just because their Quran was written 600 years after Jesus was on earth, we already had the New Testament at this time but the Quran says the opposite of the Bible. Every religion tries to be saved by good works or being a good person but this doesn’t work because we are all sinners and our works that we think are “good” isn’t good enough. Only the grace of God that comes through Christ alone can save us.
@@SunnyLaraJr. Yes so you are providing reasons and arguments as to why Christianity superior to Islam, which I would agree but what I'm saying is he did not. His argument just points towards a God existing but doesn't give any reason why it's the Christian God and not some other, see what I'm saying?
Prove "a religion" how exactly? Why not other religions? Because they don't provide the rational basis for knowing anything at all for absolute certain like the Bible does. Do you embrace the Darwinian view? If so, why? I mean, how do you know that is true? Why not some other notion of reality?
This was not the right questions an atheist would ask, they would ask how do you know that you're holy book is true and that all the others aren't. Also he didn't explain how they know that what happened in the bilbe actually happened in reality
Another ignorant prepositional argument. Logic is a too devised by humans to make better sense of the world around us. It is not given to us by some magic man in the sky.
Well if everybody has their own logic, then we cant have utimative universal logic wich means we dont have logic. Makes sense? Well, if everybody have their own common sense then there is no ultimative universal common sense. You see where this is going, straight to craziness.
You're presupposing logic to make the argument that the world would devolve into craziness if everyone had their own logic. Why not just start with logic? Starting with the bible is just any arbitrary staring point. We can't help but start with logic, why not just admit that?
@@adamandracheloconnor2920 You can't start with logic in a naturalistic worldview. How does non-living matter "understand"? or "know"? How can stardust "invent" or "discover"? Logic is NOT a natural/physical object. It is conceptual. So how does a rock, or a molecule of some sort, or a chemical, create anything other than something physical? It's logically absurd. If we started with non-living physical stuff, how did that non-living physical stuff comprehend anything that transcends it? A particle of dust, doesn't even "know" it exists, let alone that other particles of dust exist. Non-living matter has no capacity to "know" anything. It cannot think, invent, question, decipher, understand, wonder, believe, hope, love, value, decide, etc. And it definitely has no awareness of concepts, such as, laws, logic, principles, math etc. How do chemicals "think". Chemicals are non-living matter, so where does the capacity to "think" come from for chemicals? Your whole body is made up of non-living matter at it's base. Just bags of arranged dust and other non-living elements. So which part is "alive" with the capacity to make "decisions" that are "good" for itself and others? Are the amino acids that make up proteins "alive"? Of course not. So what makes us "alive"? Also, when you are happy, is your brain happy, or are YOU happy? When you take naturalism out to it's logical conclusion, it just falls apart and doesn't work. I can prove that more exists in the natural/physical universe then just matter and space (and time). And I can do that by pointing to things like logic, laws, knowledge, mathematics, information, emotions, etc. Non of those are physical matter, but we know they exist. Information, for example, is not matter or space. You can't weigh it or touch it. If I bought a brand new USB Thumb Drive that was blank, I could put all kinds of files that contained information on how to build a combustion engine, yet, the weight of the Thumb Drive would not go up. Why? So you see, right away we KNOW for certain that naturalism is false. The idea that all that exists is what we can see and touch is easily proven to be false. The question is, where do these non-physical concepts come from. I already showed they can't come from our minds because our minds are just more non-living matter. Your worldview is just not logical, and you have to borrow from my theistic worldview to even write the reply this post. Otherwise you're going to have to explain how the chemicals in your brain observed and understood, the concepts I put forth, and then crafted a thoughtful, logical response to the chemicals in my brain. I'm sorry, but no chemical can do any of that. And that is why you cannot "start with logic" in the way you described. You have to start with something objective, otherwise, logic could be defined as anything. And we have to start with where logic comes from to know how to apply it. You also presupposed logic in your reply. But as a bag of meat, stardust, an arrangement of molecules, where do you get off telling anyone how logic "ought" to be used? Non-living matter knows what it "ought" to do? How?
So, in your worldview, Logic, which is not matter but a concept, was created by chemicals in your brain? How did the chemicals in a bag of meat, "know" it "ought" to develop a tool to make "better" sense of the world? Why would any non-living matter "care" about making sense? Explain how chemicals have the capacity to "think" of such things in the first place. Or more simply, how do chemicals "think"? Are chemicals alive? How does a chemical "know" if something is "better? How do chemicals in our brains make value judgements? You can't just say "humans did it", because you are presupposing that humans have the capacity to do it. But, in your worldview, if we are just an arrangement of matter, HOW does that matter do such such things? If you believe we came from star dust, you have to explain how star dust has the ability to "think", understand, reason, invent, decide, wonder, etc. Chemicals and non-living matter cannot do any of that. Again, how do chemicals "think"?? How do they take in information, "understand" it, then "develop" a thoughtful response to their "understanding" of the information. It's patently absurd. How do chemicals "believe" something? Because if you "believe" that humans created logic, which is not part of the natural/physical world, you have to explain how that happened given you "believe" only matter and space exist. On a side note, sorry for all the quotation marks, but I wanted you to really focus on those words in order to really understand the point.
I agree. It was really good. But I hope he will post/make another one where he delves more into why we can trust the actual texts of the Bible. That would be edifying.
We need Jeff and Joe Rogan to have a debate
brianpaxtonPT YES!
I’m pretty sure that joe Rogan only gets guests that his corporate sponsors desire him to have .
for sure
Jeff would smash joe easily
Still waiting on it
When I first came to Christ, this explanation totally made sense. I finally felt like i had an understanding of reality because it was backed by a real God instead of a false one, prideful humans.
I believe the Bible true the word of God because I read it and God open my understanding , thanks God 🙏🙏🙏🙏
I read Harry Potter and that opened my understanding. Praise be to the wizards
He makes a good point when he touched on subjective and objective morality. It’s probably the biggest factor in my belief of a creator.
Taksman I think you’d get more from watching dr Craig’s videos on morality. His are what I agree with most, so since he’s a PHD in philosophy, you’d glean more info and cogent thoughts from him.
Taksman I mean, our thoughts are shaped by who we read and where the logic follows. My thoughts tend to align with his, as it seems most logical to me in what I’ve experienced so far in life. Maybe as new information is gathered that will change, but for now I agree with him. Good day
so when did you prove gods existance to then use that to follow his morality rules?
Well, since there's no evidence of any objective morality, and even within the Christian worldview there isn't any either, I don't get why you think there's a creator.
Morality is a fluid system changing with the zeitgeist of the time. The Ten Commandments start with thou shalt not kill and right off the bat the supposed author of this is guilty of genocide
“The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophesies and claim that their writings are divine rather than human in origin.” -Voddie Baucham
Lol sounds good 2 me lol
This is a MUCH better argument than Jeff’s.
Love Voddie’s teachings
I loved that video by Voddie!!
Yeeeeaaahhhh♥️♥️
As was once said in a debate with Jeff Durbin, the presupper argument is a house of cards.
I felt like his answer deserved a way better response than the one it got...
This question deserved a way better answer than the one Jeff gave. "We could dive into the history and the prophecy and the archeology and all that, and trust me it would all be great and answer the question you actually asked! But instead I'm going to skirt around the subject for 9 minutes and conclude with 'im right because it wouldn't be possible for me to be wrong.'"
@@acebailey2478I think once you understand the real place of God in it all he makes perfect sense, that without the Father nothing makes sense.
@@elijahgoodrich8523 I'm not quite sure what that means. How does one find the "real place of God in it all?"
the truth.. the bible ♥️
Translation: "I've been so deeply indoctrinated that my god glasses have now fused to the lens of my eyes and I have to say stupid stuff like 'if you don't start with god as your reference point, you can't know anything' ".
Also, Viced Rhino says hi: ruclips.net/video/B6XXiPC5ajY/видео.html&ab_channel=VicedRhino
Exactly
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@tw2800 Personal incredulity and god of the gaps. Just because we don't understand every aspect of it, does not mean that your god did it. The same thing happened with the rain cycle and lightning, and neurological diseases. If your god created life, the scientific method will point to that fact. But until it does, or, some other explanation is discovered through research, we will use the intellectually honest answer of "we don't know".
But if you have a better hypothesis of how abiogenesis happened, do the experiments, write the papers, and pass peer-review. At that point you can go claim your Nobel prize. I won't be holding my breath, though.
Translation of what you've just said: "I love my sin so much that I can't even begin to admin that even some of the points he made were valid, and I'm scared that they might be, so I'll just call him unintelligent and indoctrinated without any supportive reasoning..."
@@brycescreen113 Oh, look, another theist that pretends to know what is in my mind better than myself. If you can read my mind, could you please tell me what sins I like to commit, hmm?
"I can't even begin to admin that even some of the points he made were valid" - No points made were valid. If they were, they would have been convincing enough for me to point out, or even convince me that your god exists. Alas, they didn't.
And also, there's no need for me to bring any supportive reasoning. Viced Rhino covered this in his video well enough.
But I have to ask, do you really think that this "they refuse to believe because they love sin" argument is in anyway convincing to non-believers? Or are you just trying to convince yourself that this is the case, just to continue pretending that your faith is in any way reasonable?
Really irreducible complexity? This has long been debunked and no language is in DNA or RNA. This is a fools approach to the subject.
Is your profile pic the Parisian Catacombs? Mine is and it's similar
@@nathanielgrey4091 Nope, mine is from a classical painting by Rephael, Not sure wich one now...
@@mr.pontifex7595 Pyramid of Skulls by Cezanne.
What do you mean by this?
I'm completely on board with everything Jeff said in his response.
But the person asking the question likely wanted to know what reason we as Christians believe the Bible
to be true. Based on where he was when speaking and answering questions, most everyone there were
Christians. So why go into the presuppositional apologetic when all he had to do was give out the
evidential and theological reasons we as believers have to see the Bible as true and as our
final authority from God?
Good question. I think he would say because the evidential and theological reasons include presup. And presup (impossibility of the contrary) is the best reason there is.
Jason Lisle argued in his books, presup is "the ultimate proof" of creation, etc.
Also, presup is still the minority position among apologists. So think Jeff is advocating the presup is the way to go with our unbelieving friends.
I think the problem with the argument is it focused mostly on replying to the atheist. But most non believers are not atheists. So there are books written to apply presup to RC, and nominal believers, and cults etc.
"How do you know the Bible is true?"
"Because if it wasn't, you wouldn't be able to argue the point."
"And how do you know _that_ is true?"
*crickets.
What?
@@AlejandroHernandez-wk9xe Can presups prove that, if the Bible weren't true, it would not be possible to reason?
@@JMUDoc bro go back and watch the video again you missed the whole point the dude was making. Basically if you think we have come from nothing but rocks and everything is just matter and energy then laws of non contradiction don’t matter or are even real since this universe is only the physical. Maybe I put that bad but just watch the vid he says it way better than me
Also quantum mechanics dismantles materialism and points to a god
@@AlejandroHernandez-wk9xe "bro go back and watch the video again you missed the whole point the dude was making. Basically if you think we have come from nothing but rocks and everything is just matter and energy then laws of non contradiction don’t matter or are even real since this universe is only the physical."
I believe that everything is matter in motion _acting in accordance with the laws of logic and physics._
Only God can give value to human life or anything, because humans we cannot only for a moment, but God‘s value for us and appreciation for ourselves is forever. I swear he is God and his love is endless.
So basically, the argument is "I presuppose I'm right, so that makes you wrong, which makes me right". What worries me is that they let you lot sit on a jury in a murder case.
crisofer954 the witness was an atheist so cannot know if the suspected committed the crime or cause can't have truth without God, case dismissed pending rear naked choke
@@dallassmith8854 Why can't we have truth without God?
Well, judging by the comments people at least seem to agree on one thing: those were all awful, just _awful_ arguments for the truthfulness of the bible.
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@tw2800 So if I understand your argument correctly, it is as such:
"If we don't currently know the answer to how life first developed, that means that the answer is by default the specific god that I happen to believe in".
Sigh.
It was a flaccid argument back when people who didn't understand weather systems argued that the weather, good or bad, was due to the gods direct action and their moods.
It was a flaccid argument back when people who didn't understand the existence of germs argued that illnesses had to be caused by evil spirits, devils and curses.
It was a flaccid argument back when people who didn't understand sexual reproduction argued that the gods were the ones 'blessing' them by magically inserting children into the bodies of women.
Yet, here we are, going around that same old tired track, the same story told over and over, of someone pointing to a gap in human knowledge and trying to flaccidly shoe-horn their god into that space.
But that's fine.
I'm sure as we learn yet more about abiogenesis and fill in those gaps, those determined to believe will find another of the ever-shrinking gaps in human knowledge to try to cram their god in next with empty, puerile notions, based on vaguely gesturing to things around them and shouting 'it's god!'.
Much like apocalyptic preachers who keep 'getting the day of judgement wrong' and trying for yet another date going _'This_ time it's for real!' you are yet another person jumping on the latest gap of knowledge going 'Ah hah, _this_ time, this is the one! _This_ is the question that can _only_ be answered with supernatural intervention! _This_ time we've got it!'
I wonder what gap you'll jump to next once we fill this one, or if you'll ever get over this silly game.
Explain how they are awful.
How do you know that George Washington was our first president?
@@that39warguy6 They are not logical. He presupposes that beings being the result of evolution can't think rationally. And he completely pretends that there are just to possibilities: either the Christian god exists or no god exists at all. But maybe the Christian god doesn't exist, but a different god or different gods.
For the people saying he didn't answer the question...he literally said "I know the Bible is true because of the impossibility of the contrary". He then went on to explain that position.
So, what he just said for 9 minutes is the Bible is true because it's absurd to not believe in the Bible... I guess for simple minded people that's all the proof you need.
If God does not exist, is Jeff wrong for doing that?
Here is some practical evidence that points to the Bible being true and trustworthy. There have been over one thousand Bible prophecies literally fulfilled, 258 concerning the birth, life, ministry and death of Jesus Christ alone, and over 100 scientific facts in the Bible most of which were found in the book of Genesis (first book of the Bible) written over three thousand years ago, which weren't "discovered" by the scientists of the world until the last 500 years. If you made one of these scientific discoveries, you'd be in textbooks all around the world, and if you made four or five, you'd be in the scientist's hall of fame, along with Isaac Newton, Leonardo Da Vinci, and Albert Einstein. But whoever wrote the Bible made over 100 of these scientific declarations, to go along with the 1,000 fulfilled prophecies. So, since the Bible in literally hundreds of place claims to be written by God, you must come to this conclusion; either God DID write the Bible, or some liar did. What makes more sense; some liar is by far, the greatest prophet ever and by far the greatest scientist ever, or God is indeed the author of the Bible? Just one of these scientific declarations in scripture is found in the very first verse of the Bible; "In the beginning, God created the heavens, and the earth... said 'let there be light.'" Einstein back in about 1920 said, that matter, space, energy, and time itself all had a beginning. That is precisely what God says in Genesis chapter one; "In the beginning (reference to time having a beginning) God created the heavens, (space) and the earth (matter) and said, "Let there be light." (energy)
@@bartycrouch312 Why should he not be wrong for doing that?
@@Dragumix Because if God were not real and the Bible untrue, then there would be no reason to morally or ethically oppose anything. Moral indignation is only possible if one believes that there is a standard of what is right, which no other worldview can account for.
@@thebird483
"Moral indignation is only possible if one believes that there is a standard of what is right, which no other worldview can account for." -
I don't think so. First of all, why couldn't any other god or godess, should they exist, create a moral standard like allegedly the Christian god does? In all of these cases (including the Christian standard) it's still questionable if these moral standards would be objective or subjective. I tend to say that they would be subjective.
Furthermore, also people who don't believe in a god have certain moral standards that they follow. Also these moral standards are probably subjective and not objective. But you don't need deities to explain that they have certain moral standards. It could have been good for survival that societies had certain moral standards and not moral standards where it's totally permissible to kill your neighbor. Those societies would have probably died out very quickly.
rather than always explaining why their worldview is inconsistent you should explain why yours is consistent then show how theirs doesn't line up. "because the Bible says so and you don't believe the Bible" is all I got out of this
Actually, ATheism is the LACK of a world view. All that you identify with "ATheism, a world view" is the possible aftermath !!!OF!!! ATheism. For a very likely example, Saecular-Humanism. Babees are born with a brain, which is yet to develop the capability of fabricating Theism let alone any other world view - they are the purest thinkable example of ATheists. I have experienced a lot of anger from Theists, by JUST stating the obvious. Did you know, that some of them tried to ridicule me by saying "if babees are ATheist, then so are stones and dogs" but they are actually totally ignorant about the greek root of the word: A Theist is a ***person*** and an ATheist is a ***person*** too, and the "A" is on this occasion just an alpha privativum, which indicates "without". Kindest regards from GERMANY!
Kason Kedersha what’s wrong with inconsistencies in your worldview?
Looks like you weren’t paying attention.
I sincerely sought out if Christianity is true. And this is a summary of the best arguments I have ever hard. And this is why I'm an atheist when it comes to Christianity.
I pray that God would reveal himself to you then
How do I distinguish between God revealing himself to me and just some random emotional experience?
@@emileshlemon4550 Ground it upon revelation. That's how.
Pitiful. Thank you for the new atheists.
Ikr
He said that if you don't start with God you have no basis for logic, science, nature, or ethics, but I think what he actually argued is that if you don't start with a dualistic anthropology you don't have those things.
2:11 _"Jesus did rise from the dead that's an historical fact"_ Nope, that's your assumption.
Based upon the definition of a historical fact, then Yes, Jeff is correct.
@@PilgrimNinja No, because it hasn't happened.
@@PilgrimNinja please provide the evidence to back this BS up
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@tw2800 There is only one group that's delusuonal: christians and other religious people. You're talking about abiogenesis. Although just a hypothesis, it has more validity than "god did it." There is no evidence your god actually exists.
" If you don't start with God as your foundation, you can't know anything."
One of the very stupidest claims in the history of language.
I’m a Christian and have seen multiple great answers to the question in the video but his answer which is your comment is horrendously ridiculous and make no sense.
Sorry you had to endure that answer.
@@alaskayoung3413
Hit me with a couple, because, other than " I conversed with him myself" which is fine for the experiencing person to then believe( well, if someone talks with someone that they cannot prove is there, we usually call them insane, but if the second someone is supposed to be a god, we call them blessed???) , but really doesn't, and shouldn't, do anything for any other human being, I haven't heard anything that didn't boil down to very poor logic, wishful thinking, or some combination of both.
How would *you* prove the Bible is true? What would convince *you*?
@@PilgrimNinja
That's tough. Considering all of the internal contradictions, and obvious contradictions of the real world, I would say you can't. It is wrong about so much, I can't see it being shown to be true without the destruction of masses of rock solid scientific information that just isn't going to happen.
Now, if you just mean " What would prove that there is a supreme being like the one in the bible" but not that everything in the book is accurate, I would say said being letting itself be known out and out in the public, and showing some miracle worthy abilities on demand, and repeatedly.
If that's the case, then explain this: why is your claim true?
It seems to me that Jeff's argument only counters atheistic claims. What about the Muslim who is starting with his own version of God's revelation? He is also starting with his god.
But you see, this is where the "true" God comes in
His arguments only work vs true atheists and Mormons and Jehovah's witness. He wouldn't debate anyone else cause there isn't anything to debate.
Takeaway: If an unbeliever asks you how do you know if the Bible is true, then you could just respond by saying, "Why does it matter to you, if you know if the Bible is true or not? If what got you to ask that question is just a bunch of atoms in your brain making connections, what would the benefit of you knowing the answer to your question be?" Without God there is no purpose for our lives. Praise you Jesus.
Of course it matters..we all live in this world together don't we? Your beliefs have consequences for your behavior, our not seeing eye to eye can cause huge conflicts. Of course it matters. Or beliefs & thoughts etc. manifest themselves into the world we all share, so if you belief that other people can't have certain rights because the bible says so, while other people do belief they should have those rights (because they can place themselves in their shoes/don't see anything that should not allow them their rights based on what/who they are) then we have a conflict based on differing beliefs/values. I'm not really good at explaining these things, but it's just ridiculous to say that it wouldn't matter to an atheist, as the atheist still lives on the same earth and has a heart and values etc. The values are just not handed down to them by the bible necessarily but informed through other means.
+Michael Ramos what do you mean? If I'm speaking for myself I'd say that I care about others & myself and that I'd want to help (/not do harm) because I'm a fellow human being and I can feel your pain, so why would I do the opposite? What standard are you talking about?
+ISABELLEISMEE I don't think you understood what I meant. Of course I wouldn't actually mean that if I said that to a person. It would be a rhetorical question that would get them thinking. Then I would go on to explain to them what I meant.
+Michael Ramos Just to clarify, is that what you believe Michael?
+Michael Ramos oh okay, God bless!
The bible has so many contradictions, there is no reason to believe it is true.
That’s hilarious bc there’s been tons of books written and tons of historical and scientific studies done that add to the proof of the Bible being accurate and historically correct. And Everytime they find relics and historical artifacts that line up with what the Bible says. Like the Dead Sea scrolls etc. the only questions have been did the miraculous happen bc you really can’t prove that. But that have proven that the Bible has not been changed during translations. That Jesus and many others were real people and records of their lives have backed it up.
Have you ever looked into it bc it’s not that hard to find the large amount of evidence that supports the Bible?
There’s also the list of things the Bible stated as true about the world and space etc that was in contradiction to science but ended up being true. Such as: the Bible said the world was round and people thought it was flat until proven round thousands of years after the Bible was written. The Bible talks about how the sea floor looks and functions like and science said otherwise until it was proven to be as the Bible said when tech caught up. Same with the stars and other things.
The sure fact that something that people believe as man made fairy tale from over two thousand years ago is still relevant to today’s culture and transforms lives. Like the countless stories of addicts who couldn’t ever get clean but then did after years through the message of the gospel. Or people that have struggled with mental health issues and needed medication etc who utilized the Bible and it’s message to be freed feom depression and anxiety and never need psych medication again etc.
You can question the validity of the miraculous claims but historically it has been far proven accurate. And although the message has been hijacked and used in evil ways it has healed and transformed millions of lives for the better. Which makes no sense if it is fake and made up fairy tale ya know.
@@alaskayoung3413 Can you give me links to these historic and scientific studies? I would like to read them but they cannot be from christian sites, they must be neutral or non-bias sites.
Why are there so many different versions of the bible? There is the KJV, NKJV, NASB and the RDV to name a few, there are more. Surely there should only be one version.
What records of jesus are there, external to the bible?
When I younger, I was doing a bible study on the flood story. I went to the science section at the library to find books about it but couldn't find anything there. So I asked the librarian why I couldn't find the books in that section. She told me that I wouldn't find anything about the flood story in that section and that I should look in the religion section. The point I am trying to make here is that science does not support the flood story and that is one of the important stories in the bible.
The Greeks had established that the Earth was a globe around 3bc, not thousands of years after the bible was written, as you claim. Also just think how you worded your statement. I think you meant to say hundreds of years. I agree that the bible says the world round, it doesn't say it's a globe. It is open to speculation what it says about the shape of the Earth. There are people who believe the Earth is flat because of bible scripture.
Science esimates the age of our universe to be around 13.8 billion years old and not 6 thiousands as it would be, if the bible is true.
People are slowly realising that the bible is not the be all and end all, that is why, in western society, religion, especially christianity, is in decline.
Studies done by people that already believe it is infallible amd don't have contradictions can simply be ignored.
When a regular person like me can see that killing an innocent child specifically in place of his father while also saying that a child won't be punished for the sin of the father and that only the sinner will be put to death for the sin committed is contradictory, it's pretty freaking obvious.
It would take heavy indoctrination to think there are no contradictions.
@@user-hp1uj8nz5s what specifically are you referencing when you say a fathers son being killed etc? Are you talking about Abraham and stuff or something else.
Lots of the Old Testament stuff appears to be real odd and hard to understand but when you study it in depth and add the context of the time and the references it’s speaking about it paints a better picture.
The studies are not all done by people who think it’s infallible. There’s plenty some by people who went into studying it to disprove it and changed their minds once they studied all the evidence. There’s world leaders scientist and people with multiple phds that argue for their belief in the Bible etc.
it’s not just uneducated southern people…
Nope. not one.
Two problems with this: circular reasoning and the fact that any other religion can say the same thing about their own 'bible'.
Ok, you try to apologize this away ...
Joshua asked the loving gawd to keep the sun in the sky so he can have a little more time to slay and kill and murder ... and gawd did - and as it is written in that same chapter, first and ONLY time gawd ever reacted to a prayer. Because it was for his favorite past time? Watching people get killed in his name?
Anyhow, to do that, gawd would need to stop the rotation of the planet, like instantly.
How did anything survive being thrown into brick wals or mountains with several hundred miles per hour?
How did that which did survive live through the instant reacceleration?
And if your answer is "gawd protectet all of the earth" ... really? The same guy that wanted some particular people dead? The same gawd who couldn't deal with how much he messed up, so his only sollution was to drown everybody and tell a guy to build a bronze age Titanic that by definition wouldn't work?
So no, the buybull is not true, never was, never will be.
you seem to know much. are you a god?
I’m still waiting to hear how to know the Bible is true.
It’s absolutely true because it’s contrary to you and calls you out on and out from your sins. But you deny God’s authority, so you can suppress your responsibility for moral accountability, to continue living a immoral life.
@@Jesus_Saves_66 The Quran is absolutely true because it’s contrary to you and calls you out on and out from your sins. But you deny Allah’s authority, so you can suppress your responsibility for moral accountability, to continue living a life contrary to Quran.
@@mattandkim17 really? Show me the commandments of Allah? Show me where Allah tells you to repent of your sins and call upon him for salvation? Show me where the quran states clearly that he is the god we’ve sinned against and the god who holds us accountable? Also, I would love to see what solution he has for sins and how he can help us overcome them 😊
@@Jesus_Saves_66 show me how it makes the Bible true by refuting Quran.
@@mattandkim17 please answer my questions - I’m waiting :) You brought the Quran into the conversation by trying to claim it as a truth source. So I’m waiting to see where it states what you have stated in your previous comment…
Great Video. You convinced me that the Book of Mormonism is true.
And I realized that without the Quran, there is no basis for knowing anything. This was really helpful.
@@johnsims3708
I would question you on that, but I can't!
Because without the Quran there would be no logic and reason to begin with!
I guess I am a Muslim now! Thanks mate!
@@ndjarnag
And without the writings of Confucius, where would we be?
@@Demopans5990 Confused as hell.
"The Bible is true because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written by eye witnesses during the lifetime of other eye witnesses (in other words, it passed peer review). They report supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies (which can be researched in history), and claimed that their writings are divine rather than human in origin."
> Voddie Baucham
Those writings were proven true at that time by the performing of many signs and miracles in the presence of many witnesses which served as confirmation that what these men spoke came from God. These writings were then faithfully passed down through succeeding generations whose accuracy is well demonstrated in existing manuscripts through the science of textual criticism.
Except everything you just said about the origins of the Bible is completely, demonstrably, false.
No actual Biblical scholar would claim that the bible was written by eye witnesses. The individual books are all 2nd, 3rd, 4th or worse hand retellings of stories... many, written by people who were not even alive when the events took place.
No actual Biblical scholar would claim that the writings were "faithfully passed down," either. The Bible, as we know it today, was cobbled together, from multiple partial manuscripts... many of which contradicted each other, all of which had errors (think typos) and missing segments. Even which books are canon has not been consistent. The Bible you read today does not have the same books and verses as the Bible 300, 500 or 1,000 years ago. (thus making a complete mockery of biblical numerology)
I should add, even right now in 2016, different sects have different versions of the bible. Catholics have _7 more books_ in their New Testament than Protestants do. And lets not even get into the myriad translations...
+Alexander Williams why should we believe your assertions over the multitude of biblical scholarship that exists in academia that attests to the accuracy of the biblical text we have today?
+coachmarc2002 I am sorry but I am not sure exactly which part of my statement you are refuting. First of all, _I am_ a Biblical scholar.
I hope you are not refuting the part about the "myriad translations." If that's it just search out how many English translations there are of the Bible.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations
If you are refuting the absolutely verifiable claim that different sects of Christianity even have different Bibles _today_... some with books added, some with books removed, well start with just the Catholics:
www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PCBIB.htm
As an added bonus, that previous link also begins to lay out the undeniable story of how the Bible was cobbled together.
If you are refuting the fact that the individual books are also cobbled together from various ancient manuscripts, all with errors or missing portions and all which contradict each other in parts... well then you need to research the actual source manuscripts. You can start with the link below, but no actual Biblical scholar would deny this truth.
www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/bible-versions-and-translations/the-original-bible-and-the-dead-sea-scrolls/
The church father Papias (70-163 AD) identifies by name both Matthew and Mark as the authors of the books that carry their name, and the casual way in which he does so suggests that these authors were well known at the time. Irenaeus was born about 120AD near Smyrna, and as a young man, he would frequent the house of Polycarp (70-160AD) who was a disciple of the Apostle John, and he identifies all four gospel authors by name.
So one must ask then, if the Apostles did not author the books that carry their name, did the Apostle John lie to Polycarp about the authorship, or did Polycarp lie for him?
And if either lied, why did they do so? Answer this while keeping in mind the manner in which Polycarp died, and the fact that the Apostle John was boiled in oil for what he taught...
F.F. Bruce, in his book "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" has this to say:
"The evidence indicates that the written sources of our Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) are not later than c. AD 60; some of them may even be traced back to notes taken of our Lord's teaching while His words were actually being uttered… We have then in the Synoptic Gospels, the latest of which was complete between 40-50 years after the death of Christ, material which took shape at a still earlier time, some of it even before His death, and which, besides being for the most part 1st hand evidence, was transmitted along independent and trustworthy lines."
No scholar in his right mind, after any serious research would attribute the gospels to anyone other than the eye-witness Apostles of Jesus.
God spoke the universe in to existence and the evidence to that is that the word "universe" means "one spoken word". Atheists cannot dispute that.
The bible is true because no one could fulfill over 300 prophecies written prior to their birth except Jesus Christ. Jesus is the life, the truth and the way.
Walkwithtruth so just because a word means something it proves your god exists? Thats completely rubish logic mate
the proof he exist is because you can make a claim that what the person said is wrong. You have no basis for right and wrong as an atheist. your just spewing forth anything that pops up in your brain (with an atheistic world)
victor R I'm with you on that one. But... what *would* be sufficient proof/logic for you?
I don't know that that is sufficient proof to an unbeliever (victor R for example), but that's a cool observation. I never ever thought to break down the word universe like that.
Grace, Peace, and LOVE be multiplied to you in The HOLY KING YESHUA.
This presuppositional approach to apologetics won't convince someone who doesn't already accept that a god exists, and it can't work against other religions because it's not specific about the nature of gods.
Here's the reformed answer from the Westminster Larger Catechism.
Q. 4. How doth it appear that the Scriptures are the Word of God?
A. The Scriptures manifest themselves to be the Word of God, by their majesty and purity; by the consent of all the parts, and the scope of the whole, which is to give all glory to God; by their light and power to convince and convert sinners, to comfort and build up believers unto salvation: but the Spirit of God bearing witness by and with the Scriptures in the heart of man, is alone able fully to persuade it that they are the very Word of God.
Hos. 8:12; 1 Cor. 2:6-7, 13; Ps. 119:18, 129; Ps. 12:6; Ps. 119:140; Acts 10:43; Acts 26:22; Rom. 3:19, 27; Acts 18:28; Heb. 4:12; Jas. 1:18; Ps. 19:7-9; Rom. 15:4; Acts 20:32; John 16:13-14; 1 John 2:20, 27; John 20:31.
Purely Presbyterian Nice.
Translation. The bible is true because the bible says so.
@@Korandon That’s actually not it at all.
@@TurrettiniPizza Ok. The second part is it's ability to convince people. But that's also a thin reed since you can convince people into all sorts of foolishness.
@@Korandon Here’s a breakdown of the argument in basic form.
P. 1. That book which displays divine attributes exceeding human capacity is of divine origin.
P. 2. The Bible displays divine attributes exceeding human capacities.
C. The Bible is of divine origin.
This is a linear argument, not a circular one.
The question I’ve always had is if the translation is as true as the original text. And if the Hebrew translation is easier to get the truth out of the text. Because the english language is the hardest language. And so many different words means so many different things.
Koine Greek original documents are the most accurate documents we have. I'd start there and then translate from there. Honestly, I just use NIV, ESV, and NKJV for studying different interpretation. I sincerely hope this helps you and God bless you!!
in other words.. this video should really be titled "How you know atheism is inconsistent" because I heard nothing about why the Bible is true in this video
The volume button can generally be found on the keyboard or the side of your phone. :)
+Apologia Studios you can take my evaluation seriously or you can mock me
+Kason Kedersha I think Jeff's argument presents more of an argument for generic theism than biblical authority. This is just a starting point, which he states. The historical accuracy of the new testament documents present, at least to me, the most compelling physical evidence of the truth of the bible. Is that what you're asking? If you look at biblical scholars and historians such as Gary Habermas, Michael Licona, NT Wright, and Paul Maier, all will point to the historical accuracy of the NT documents and the truth of the resurrection. Even most secular scholars will agree of the historical accuracy of the gospels being ancient biographies, rather than legend.
If the NT is true, you get the OT as Jesus references it as authoritative. This is, of course, arguing from an evodentialist perspective. Jeff is a presuppositionalist.
+zymbo The question of if you can know the Bible is true was not answered in this video. I know the Bible is true. But I was interested in hearing Jeff's perspective of this question and was unimpressed. I'm fine that he is a pre suppositionalist but he didn't answer the question from his worldview. He only explained the need for some kind of standard for truth, which he calls "God". All this does is show gaps in the atheistic worldview. This doesn't answer the question of if the Bible is true at all.
What is the "ATheistic world view"?
“For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”
Romans 1:17
"If you don't start with god then whether or not something is true is meaningless."
Okay. Now he's trying to come up with an even more stupid statement.
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
Circular reasoning that is called 😂😂
Pardon? I'm going to work on the assumption that you're an unbeliever, because from Durbin's point of view, the main thing in view here is salvation. If God doesn't exist, and our soul is not eternal, then everything ultimately doesn't matter. You can believe whatever you want, because you die, decompose, that's it. If (and it's not an 'if' in reality) God exists, then the conversation matters infinitely. And creation is all the proof of God you need to know He exists. "Seek the LORD while He may be found" Repent and believe the gospel. Proof that the Bible is real would be more like. Creation is proof that God exists. What the Muslims teach contradicts itself and actually points to the Bible as credible (and the Bible teaches that Jesus is the only way to the Father). Jesus is the fulfillment of Judaism. Everything contradicts itself but Christianity. Also, if you ever experience conversion, you'll have no doubt that it's true.
@@joev2223
"If God doesn't exist, and our soul is not eternal, then everything ultimately doesn't matter."
You are begging the question here.
You are assuming that " if god does not exist" then " everything ulitimately doesn't matter" because " our soul is not eternal".
You offer nothing to prove that God not existing means that the soul is not eternal, nor that, if the soul is not eternal, that, everything doesn't matter.
You just state it and hope people think that you are right. Because???????
"You can believe whatever you want,"
Oh. Thank you very much, but, I don't really need your permission.
"
And creation is all the proof of God you need to know He exists."
The United States of America was created by a 127 foot tall, orange mouse, named Clumbo. All you need to know that Clumbo is real is to know that the United States exists.
See how just making claims without any actual evidence is really, really useless?
"Proof that the Bible is real would be more like. Creation is proof that God exists."
This, once again, is not " proof". Not in the least. It is, in fact, just another claim that you failed to support in any way, shape, or form.
Have you ever actually convinced anyone of anything important by just making claims and offering the claims themselves, or, other unsupported claims, as evidence for the claim???
i.e. " My car was made by martians with magic wands. See. there is my car. The existence of my car proves that it was made by martians with magic wands.
"
Everything contradicts itself but Christianity. "
So, unsupported claim number, what, six? Seven?
"Also, if you ever experience conversion, you'll have no doubt that it's true."
Yeah. The " truly converted" of every religion, extinct or extant, as well as every cult, guru, and MLM on the planet will tell you the exact same thing about their chosen " mythology".
Keep appealing to the ego...youll never lose.
3:55 Aaaaarrgh! How many times does it need to be said? Theists, please. Say it with me: Evolution is *NOT* about origins. The question of origins is something we're trying to discover, but there's not conclusive evidence about how life originated. Evolution is about the spread of life on planet earth, so stop referring to evolution as if it's an origin theory. Regarding the general reference to presupposition argument in this clip, let's just consider this. I ask a question which seems relevant. You respond "You can't even ask that." What has been advanced? Who has learned? What has been illuminated? Here's what should happen when one is asked a question. One either : 1) Provides a hypothetical response with facts/observations/data which supports the hypothesis, or 2) one says "I don't know". Presup is only useful for ending discussion. The revelation which theists claim to understand as truth *still* enters their consciousness by the same media as any other sensation. If theists are as fallible as the Bible claims them to be, how could they have such assurance that they have understood God's revelation? Not to mention the revelation itself is not subject to meaningful standards of affirmation or falsification.....
drumrnva Thanks for pointing out a nit picky factoid irrelevant to the argument! It shows me how magnificent your intelligence is and how masterfully you dance....around central issues.
Thanks for pointing out the important fact that evolution =/= abiogenesis. Though it is excellent when religious apologists conflate the two as it clearly exposes they are stupid and ignorant of science...or deliberatly lying for jesus. Either way they debunk their own argument and expose the fact that their mythology is devoid of truth, facts and logic.
"How do we know that the Bible is true?"
Simple. Gullibility. You just read it and aren't allowed to question it, thus being succumbed to the dogmatic character of the Biblical deity of how he's "loving" while being a tyrant. Slavery, genocide, rape, even trying to murder your kin in a "test of faith", should be those reasons to question, not believe. If you want to still believe that it's permissible or a genocidal deity is "worth worshipping", you do you.
(Also, I'm not an atheist. I'm a spiritualist.)
For the beginner who read the bible for the first time..thats how it appears..Its not slavery its indentured servitude and everyother thing who have said is still not correct. You should look from the God's point of view not your point of view.If there is only one true God and people have created many gods and worshipping them and after repeated warnings through God's people and a tonne of patience from God's side, not only they are destroying themselves but also destroying Israelites and God's character of justice demands punishment and eradication of evilness before it is too late..What God did is perfectly perfect.
I am telling you brother don't risk your life when you have much historicity and archealogical evidence and the eyewitness accounts of Gospels when other religions don't have any such things.Dont harden your heart today please. The regret that produces when you come to realisation Jesus is the True God and Why did not I believe when people told me this much about Jesus's sacrifce and love will pain you a lot. So don't risk for eternity of joy in heaven with several decades of life. May you understand the Love and grace of Jesus Christ towards you..Amen
@@entity5678 Yeah, you can believe all you want. I ain't no puppet nor a servant to a tyrant. I choose to live for my own dreams and ambitions for my friends, family and this universe, not for some man made mythology.
Also, your Bible is just a compilation of stolen documents and texts from many other ancient books, from the Sumerian Book of the Dead to the Emerald Tablets. And it's also written by the followers of the Egyptian God, Hermes Thoth.
of course atheist have ethics. we experience pain, sadness, hunger, thirst.... all biological consequences as we use up our resources, pain as a reaction to physical harm, sadness as emotional harm.
so we agree on rules to avoid harming one another. it is as easy as that mr durbin. and again. no gods necessary here either.
The question that Jeff is raising is WHERE do your ethics come from? You say that it's just biological fact, and that we all agree on rules to avoid harming one another. Wouldn't that be nice, if that was the consistent human experience. You and I both could talk for days about certain societies that all got together and agreed on a "code of conduct" that hurt a lot of people. So absolute standards of ethics don't actually come from us "agreeing on rules" together, because there has never been a consistent set of rules that people have just naturally employed. It's just people's own inner moral compasses arguing against another. And why should anybody care about somebody else's moral compass, more than their own?
The Christian worldview can account for an absolute code of ethics - God says this, and not that. God commands this, and not that. You can actually have ABSOLUTE right and wrongs in the Christian worldview because we are under the Sovereign - God tells us what is right and wrong as His creations and how we ought to act. So when we see rape, murder, and all forms of abuse we can say that is OBJECTIVELY wrong. The consistent atheist not only can't say that, but won't - go ask a studied atheist if their is objective good and evil. The atheistic worldview has no ultimate argument for anything to be right or wrong. The universe, human experience, everything - to them, is just the result of pure entropy. Chaos. Matter and motion. If everything is matter and motion, then them appealing to immaterial constructs like logic, ethics, rationality, etc. is them BORROWING from the Christian worldview, because in their worldview those concepts are just subjective ways that humans experience the world.
@@IcyJuggernog ah so that explains why prisons are full of about 95% believers then.....
Good sir, where ever did your evidence for ‘prisons being full of about 95% believers’ come from? Just curious.
Oh dear, oh dear.
I do hope the reluctance of the audience to join in with Jeff's "Altogether, now" moment was because they were too busy face-palming with embarrassment at how flawed these arguments were.
A lot of the time when an athiest asks you these questions, they don't genuinely want an answer, they aren't genuinely going to listen and take in what you say, they just want to try to trip you up and condemn you in your own talk, kinda like what the Pharisees did to Jesus.
And sometimes atheists do genuinely want compelling and coherent answers. Sometimes, when atheists seem impatient, snarky, or dismissive of what you say, it's because you're repeating inane catchphrases and simplistic explanations that have been offered and debunked many times before.
@@scotte4765 no bud, an athiest has no want for God, it has nothing to do with a lack of intellectual evidence for God, its a logical fallacy to deny the existence of God, an athiest is someone whos heart is far from what is right, and they like it that way, it means they can sin and do things that they know God would disapprove of and by denying the existence of God, it softens the guilt they feel for doing sin, because if there is no God, there is no good nor evil, right nor wrong, truth nor lie, and thats exactly how the athiest wants it to be, because then everything is neutral and then they feel that they aren't so bad at all, and you can be an athiest all you want but everyone knows God exists, everyone, you can tell by looking up at the sky and seeing the beauty of creation, you can tell by the design within creation that their must be a designer, "debunked" i think not, you got a bunch of hellbound fools trying to use logic that they don't like being used against themselves to reject God but everytime it fails.
There is a day when God is going to judge the world it may be a year from now, a hundred years from or a million years from now, but he will judge the world, and if your spending your life being a fool, your going to pay the consequence by the hand of God, but it doesn't have to be that way: come to christ, who alone can forgive sin and grant everlasting life.
@@charliewebb4330 absolutely 💯
@@charliewebb4330 Nope. We just want the evidence. Don't pretend to know what other people mean when they say, "Show me the evidence." Don't gloss over your supposed proof of God by saying, "all the evidence(s) prove God, but we don't have to talk about them because you just want to be a sinner." That's a copout. You don't have ANY evidence that God exists or the Bible is true.
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This reminds me of boarding school in Germany in the 60’s. We were taught that we started out as amoebae’s crawling out of puddles. Nice! I’d rather have God’s version thank you. God bless you guys.
Why would you rather have God's version? I'm curious.
I'd rather just know the truth. The amoeba issue doesn't bother me. In fact, it's even more awesome than a god doing anything.
So let’s go with the more romanticized story.
That sounds logical.
Wouldn't you just rather know the truth instead of living in blissful ignorance?
@@HuxtableK if your "consciousness" is just some chemicals fizzing, then "you" don't even exist. even if you are something like a soul and not just your body, if you cease to exist at any point, you might as well never have existed in the first place (from your own perspective). and if everyone in existence will eventually cease to exist, then nothing exists.
nothing can exist without eternity.
the original is God and has no beginning and no end.
if God has a beginning, then where did he come from? if God has an end, then he needs a beginning.
God is eternal, God created us. we have a beginning, but God can take away our end and grant us eternal life.
@@supersilverhazeroker Our consciousness appears to just be a product of the brain. Damage the brain, or change the chemical makeup of the brain, and you change your personality pretty heavily. Take away the brain, no more You. No soul.
Sure, once I am gone, I'm gone forever. Just like with literally everyone else, just like with every individual life to have ever lived on the planet, human or otherwise.
Everyone who ever lives will eventually cease to exist. Yes. Life is temporal. But no, it's not that nothing exists. Not sure where you got that from.
"Nothing can exist without eternity" - Where did you get that?
Your god has no beginning and no end because he isn't real. Imaginary beings have no actual traits in reality.
Evidence is an uncounted noun. Every time you say "evidences" you make yourself look ignorant (at best).
The only thing this video proves is there is still one person on Earth who still speaks Babel.
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@tw2800 You are putting forth the good ol' "god of the gaps," which does not provide evidence of the existence a sentient, devine being. When we just don't know, it's OK to say we just don't know. My not knowing how Easter eggs ended up in the Easter basket is not proof of the existence of the Easter Bunny. 🐇
Then why watch it
Question: How do you know that Truth is True?
Answer: Because False is False.
I'm confused
Jaylor 116
3:04
exactly.
They're tautologies.
How do you know that accurate statements about the actual state of affairs are accurate statements about the actual state of affairs?
Because inaccurate statements about the actual state of affairs are not accurate statements about the actual state of affairs.
I don't agree with the answer though.
Does absolute truth exist? If time + matter + chance has produced your brain, then truth as an absolute category no longer exists, because truth by nature is absolute. Time is changing, matter is changing, chance is changing. You never have them staying the same, so truth as an absolute category no longer exists, and if this is correct, then how do you know it is true that time + matter + chance has produced your brain? How do you know anything is true? What's your basis for ethics, the universal laws of logic, induction, and the uniformity in nature? I'll wait...
This guy reminds me of a Seth Andrews quote. "Christianity made me talk like an idiot".
It was listening to stuff like this that makes me bold enough to state that I'm an atheist.
You're not an atheist You're delusional.
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
God does not force us to believe in him, though he could. Instead, he has provided sufficient proof of his existence for us to willingly respond to him. The earth's perfect distance from the sun, the unique properties of water, the human brain, DNA, the number of people who attest to knowing God, the gnawing in our hearts and minds to determine if God is there, the willingness for God to be known through Jesus Christ.
In what way? I am interested to hear your argument for how his argument is foolish. Just saying, “Well that’s dumb because it is and it helps prove my unstated stance.” doesn’t really work for intelligent conversation haha :)
Same how can some people gobble down this garbage "logic?"
I have the necronomicon here in hand. It says it's true. And so it must be true.
I have the christian bible here in hand. It says it's true. And so it must be true.
I have the hindu veda's here in hand. It says it's true. And so it must be true.
I have every holy spiritual book here in hand. Each one says it is true. And so it must be true.
But the necronomicon, vedas, and your supposed holy spiritual book do not meet the necessary preconditions for the reality that we see today, now, do they? Only the God of the Scriptures sufficiently meets these preconditions. I'm not sure you understand the argument that's being made here.
You can't replace "Christian Bible" with a carrot, since a carrot is not necessary for good and evil to be, for without a carrot, good and evil will still be. Neither can you replace "Christian Bible" with Godzilla, since Godzilla is a creature that [even if Godzilla were real] that is itself contingent upon the existence of God.
What presuppositional apologetics is saying is that no other worldview sufficiently accounts for why logic, reason, morality, and truth are actual things, let alone why reality is reality, except that of the Christian worldview.
@@juilianbautista4067 Nither Christianity or the Bible account in any way for morality, truth, or life. The God of the Bible is evil in its purest form. None of it can be proven or even rationally argued for. Stop presupposing the existence of God to prove the existence of God.
@@juilianbautista4067 "But the necronomicon, vedas, and your supposed holy spiritual book do not meet the necessary preconditions for the reality that we see today, now, do they? Only the God of the Scriptures" and literally the rest of your entire statement is precluded by the fact that other religions, for example Islam, say the exact same thing except about Allah or whatever god that specific religion worships rather than Yahweh, so no. I would suggest trying a different argument luv.
@@juilianbautista4067
But we Chinese can replace God with Confucius and Laozi. Why? We Chinese have faith in their teachings, and our past experiences with Christians is why we support a particular translation of the Bible
@@juilianbautista4067
ruclips.net/video/N-uJu4Cw7qo/видео.html
This is circular, awkward, new, and unbiblical
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
I love the presuppositional approach with unbelief. But when it comes to false beliefs, I love that The Truth can be examined & substantiated because lies cannot. Psalm 12:6
How Do you know The Bible is true?
Well the bible says everyone believes, so atheists in reality are not atheists because they believe but just want to rebel, according to the bible.
Me... Ok thank you for confirming the bible is not true. Because I know myself, I know I do not believe. No matter how much you say I believe, I know my thoughts better than anything, and my thoughts are the one thing I can be fully certain. And I know I do not believe. In fact, all my life I have really wanted to beleive, because my family and everyone I grew up with, was a believer. I tried really really hard to believe but couldn't. I have always been told, even today, by believers how nice of a person I usually am. I always try and be the best version of myself and help others. So I am not disbelieving because I want to rebel or sin. I simply just can't believe.
I have no problem with you believing, in fact I am not here to tell you what to believe. But I do have a problem when people assume I disbelief simply because I want to rebel, be my own God, or sin. None of them are true, and if you knew me you would know that.
It is like if I were to say, " All believers do not actually believe, they all know there is no God, they are just afraid of their own mortality". Now I would never say such a thing unwarranted, nor I believe it. But I am simply saying what apologists are saying about atheist but if it what flipped.
You're right. But, of course, he has no interest in convincing atheists. This whole video is clearly just designed to make existing Christians feel good. To anyone who's an atheist, this is so stupid - and so _obviously_ wrong - that, if anything, it would make me _less_ likely to believe in his god than I was already.
But I suppose that his audience loves stuff like this. At least, _some_ of them. And I suppose that's all that matters to him.
@farrex0 I’m curious. What do you mean by wanting to believe?
G’day mate, you should read Romans. The Apostle Paul says:
“For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse (Romans 1:18-20 ESV).”
I believe you when you proclaim you don’t believe in God, I was there with you just over a year ago. But that’s because you suppress the truth you know in unrighteousness, in other words… your sinful heart deceives itself in rebellion against God.
We are all without excuse because we know God, such truth is demonstrated in the way the unbeliever lives. Apart from God’s revelation. You cannot justify ethics, logical reasoning and much more. Neither can you tell me why you live the way you do, with the bottom line of your world view being we are objectively purposeless and evolved from bacteria that formed on a rock in space that came from nothing.
We all suffer from the deception of our hearts in rebellion to God, but your conscience testifies to His law. You are without excuse, and I want you to repent and believe in Christ so that your sins are covered by God.
I wouldn’t spend the time engaging you if I didn’t 💛.
@@josephkusabs46 I actively looked for God for more than twenty years tho. My whole life revolved around it. Yet I never truly believed no matter how hard I tried to. I was 100% convinced it was the life I wanted to live. My whole life I felt guilt, like actual crippling guilt, because no matter how hard I tried I couldn't really experience God nor be free of doubt. I have never, in my entire 29 years of life experienced even for a day, what that bible quote says. I talked with every person I could on every topic I had doubt, I asked for everyone to pray for me so I could have faith. I felt broken the entire time.
But when I finally decided to face my natural skepticism and look at it critically, I realized I simply couldn't. And when i decided to accept I simply didn't believe it, it was the most liberating feeling I have ever felt. It was like taking a huge weight off my shoulders.
Now I have never been happier, and I am even a way better person that i was when i was a Christian.
I do not sin, and try to help everyone as much as I can. I decided to be the best person I can be, because if there is no heaven, then it is our responsibility to bring heaven down to Earth. To help as many people we can, not because of sellfish desires such as going to heaven, but because it is the right thing to do.
I simply do not believe, and there is absolutely nothing unrighteous about it. Believe is in no shape, way or form a moral act.
Now I have no problem with people believing, I just simply can't live with cognitive dissonance. I just want people to be the best version of themselves, and to be honest with themselves. If you look into it and decide it is the truth, all the power to you. I simply couldn't, after more than twenty years.
I will try and be the best person I can be, and if I die and turns out there is a God and said God decides I shall go to heaven or hell based on moral judgement, I will accept said judgement. But if said God instead of judging my morality, decides I shall go to hell for not worshipping him, then that is no God worthy of any worship.
@@farrex0 , when you claim it is our responsibility to bring heaven down to Earth and to not give in to our naturally selfish impulses because it is the right thing to do - I can’t help but think… by what standard? How do you know?
According to your worldview, their is no ultimate, we are just the random products of a pitiless and indifferent universe that couldn’t keep us in mind.
In John 1 the apostle says:
“If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:8-9).”
You are deceiving yourself, the cognitive dissonance is rampant. But you have hope because Jesus can cleanse us from sin which we all harbour. The knowledge of God in you is clear to see. It’s not about experiencing God, you have a trust problem my friend.
What can you tell me about the Old Testament 🙂?
This is amazingly foolish. Pastor Jeff presented a completely circular argument, "the Bible is true because without the Bible we can not know truth." What???
Only someone completely uneducated in the field of logic would find that argument even slightly compelling. Ask yourself, if a Muslim used the same argument except substituted the word Bible with the word Quran would any Christian think the argument were valid and that the Quran must therefore definitely be true?
Furthermore, it is the epitome of egocentric belief to actually think that logic and truth only exist in human brains. A = A was true long before the first homo sapien took its first breath.
Thank you.
All epistemologies are circular at their foundation. They have to be self validating. If you reject this argument as circular, you must reject all others. You end up in skepticism. A presuppositionalist like Jeff will then point out the inconsistency with how you live as if you were in a Biblical worldview. You end up proving his argument by disproving yours. Circular doesn't mean invalid either. It just means it may not be as convincing if the circle is small. He mentioned the uniformity of nature for instance. A materialistic worldview can only say the future will be like the past because it always has been. That is a far worse circular argument than Jeff's and science depends on the uniformity of nature. Do you reject science?
As for Islam, it does have a similar worldview because it accepts the Bible as scripture. I imagine many presuppositionalists would go to scripture when discussing Islam. Your objection doesn't save materialism either.
+Benjamin White some say you can't proof the existence of God, therefor it's called faith..that's a major underlying difference between science and faith (& why you can also adhere to both; science may be better at addressing certain issues & faith may be better suited for other aspects of the human experience). Now he's using rational thinking, logic, to try and prove why we should believe in the ideas of the Bible, by making that argument about how we can know what is real, what is true. But the reasoning he provides is flawed, it doesn't prove anything, unless you already believe the Bible is true, because you trust it/have faith in it. The argument doesn't however convince me as an outsider by merit of the validity of its logic (& I'm not saying I don't have faith, but it would certainly not be because of this argument).
+ISABELLEISMEE then by your logic science is flawed and can't prove anything. You have to have faith in the uniformity of nature.
you seem to claim that faith in God is blind and that your faith in science isn't. That is wrong on both counts.
Benjamin White you claim Isabelle was "wrong on both counts." So you are saying that faith in God is not blind but "faith" in Science is? That is preposterous. Even by your own (flawed) reasoning either neither of them require blind faith or both do.
I like many of Pastor Jeff's videos...HOWEVER... NO atheist would be convinced by any of what he just said as an answer to "How do you know the Bible is true." I'm a Christian and I don't even think those were good answers.
Yes, all he's doing is moving the goalposts. "God is the source of all truth and logic" is just an assertion. It has no more validity than asserting _the complete opposite_ - 'What we call truth and logic are simply the most reliable methods our somewhat evolved brains deploy to deal with reality.'
But what CAN be said with absolute confidence is that God will not intervene in any meaningful today, tomorrow, or the next day. I can make that prediction based on reality, they can only respond with _"Well, God did all the impressive stuff thousands of years ago.."_ when there was no scientific means to analyze, record or preserve these supernatural interventions. How convenient.
@@BScott7220 well friend you seem to be forgetting one thing. In Christ all things hold together, the whole universe including you is held by Him. Colossians 1:17. You are dust. Why because God made Adam out of dust and God breathed the breath of life in his nostrils and Adam became a living soul. And you came from the loins of Adam like the rest of human race. Genesis 2:7. Don't you know the only reason you are able to take your next breath is only because God allows you to. He holds our soul in life the Scripture says. Psalms 66:9. In Him we live we move we have our being. Read that few times let it sink in. Acts 17:28. People that do not believe in God are without excuse, because they suppress the truth in wickedness, and because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Romans 1:18-21. You should read V22-32also. Sinners do not want to believe in God, because they love their sins. And by the way, if God would set His heart on it, If He would gather to Himself His Spirit and His breath, All flesh would perish together, And man would return to dust. Job. 34:14-15. FYI, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. You want evidence that He is active today. Well He is judging America and many other western nations, just read Romans 1:18-32, and you will know He is not just the God of the past, and His judgment is just going to intensify day by day until He makes all His enemies which are all unbelievers as His footstool put under His foot. Hebrews 10:13. I hope you have bowed your knee to Him as your Lord and Savior, if not I encourage you do it now, otherwise you are going to die and after that judgment. Hebrews 9:27.
@@Jeremiah17910 so you combat the assertion thing by listing a paragraph of more assertions and outright lies - good job. i have NEVER beleived in a god so"Sinners do not want to believe in God, because they love their sins" is MEANINGLESS - sin doesnt exist - it is a method to control you. I dont love sin - because sin DOESNT EXIST
apparently, that command not to lie isn't taken very seriously by this believer...
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@tw2800 Thanks for your examples of dishonesty for god.
_"The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology"_
- *Obvious lie*
_"In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms."_
- *Amazing oversimplification and misrepresentation.*
_"The evidence for God is all around us."_
- *And yet, when asked no one who makes this claim is able to properly support it.*
_"You're not really atheists you're delusional"_
- *The irony of this statement is astounding. Claiming that other people are delusional by using a delusional claim... classic*
The command not to lie again seems to not be taken seriously by another believer. How sad.
Did he even answer the question? He pretty much taught an entire audience how to dodge a question.
He did, the Bible is true, because it's impossible to know if anything is true without God, it's the impossibility of the contrary argument, so you wouldn't know if it's true as an atheist. Revelational epistemology.
@@palerity6320
Are you presupposing there is a god to make that argument? And, are you also assuming this god would be _your_ god?
Also, it's likely, an honest _athiest_ (athiesm isn't about anything other than the lack of belief in a god or gods) would say they don't have absolute certainty that it's false, but they are not convinced it's true.
@@slivyo
Right, agnostic athiest; I just say atheist as short hand because I don't assume most are gnostic when it comes to atheism.
I assume by, "To athiest, there's no reason for anything," that you are suggesting an atheist lacks an absolute reason for anything such as knowing something good from bad because it is predetermined and not up for debate. In the thiest case, this is because a god decides what's good and bad, and they are eternal (in most cases... all cases... I don't really know).
I would say you are not far off, and if you add the belief in evolution, we only care because it aided in survival and being unaware of the origin makes it seem like a common decency sort of thing, though if you believe in a god, chances are you have disagreements or fully disagree with the theory of evolution.
I can only work with what I have (assumptions, I know) , which seems to start with my mind, and I say that knowing it is a debated subject. It is not intuitive that it is connected to my body, though I at least feel in control of my body except for when I'm tired (never got drunk or did drugs).
Now, due to my limited perspective and with the unforgettable thought that my _life_ will end and my senses as well as my mind will be destroyed or fall apart, I happen to care what happens to me, even if it equals zero or less in the end.
And, whether it is from my brain or because of how species evolved, I have something humans call empathy. Whether I like it or not, I feel an urge to understand a person and relate to them, happy, sad, angry, etc.
You don't have to honor anything that lead equaled the peow who are _alive_ being here today, but for good reason or not, there are people who may try to stop you from behaving or acting in certain ways. I only question something if it feels wrong, I may copy what my friends do, but if it comes to jumping off a bridge, my fear of heights may overcome any peer pressure to do as they do in that instance.
I'd say that if you developed feelings that created division, and people who wanted to bring us together still existed, you would look for ways to challenge them, whether through debate, activism, or maybe even violence.
It seems that when you can treat other people as different, you don't see yourself in them and it makes their feelings irrelevant to a small or high degree.
Me saying good or bad is relative to what my goals are, again, whether they are for a _real_ reason or not.
Of course they seem man-made, I don't know where else they would've come from, but that's another assumption.
I don't think we have rights, just the feeling that we should have them, and in the past and even today, people fight in all sorts of ways to maintain and gain even more rights while other try to strip those rights away as well and create more restrictions on rights.
They likely serve some purpose, though, it may just be to achieve your goal no matter how vague or specific.
Again, I can't for you are right or wrong for certain, as I appear limited in my knowledge if I have any, and if we disagreed, I would have to decide whether I was wrong, you were wrong, or that we had different goals in mind.
You appear right, in the end, if we do what you want or we do what I want, it may not really matter (in the end).
You appear to be right again, reason appears to give meaning, even if it is something like working just to feed yourself, what kind of life might that be...
I ask the same question, "Why, and how?"
"Can I say I know anything if I do not know everything?"
It is a big question, and as much as I'd like to know, I may never find out.
As much as that seems meaningless, I enjoy doing things that feel meaningful to me.
I like to watch and read about things I'm interested in, politics and religion being two things I am interested in, and... at this moment in time I do not believe in a god; it doesn't appear to match with what I think I know about everything.
@@slivyo
I understand, and I would hope I did not come off as rude.
Disagree or not, I am not here seeking enemies, only conversation on what I understand and the person replying understands.
I wanted to fully express how I operate philosophically when dealing with the idea of meaning in life as well as how I act regardless of whether or not I have absolute truth.
Anything I said was in reply to your questions sprinkled throughout what you wrote in your comment.
Now, regardless of how everything came to be, I am atheistic in my beliefs on god as the idea of a god does not appear to match with the reality that I understand.
I am not ruling a god out, but I won't accept just anything, though I figure anything that would convince me would be out of my control as I do not choose what makes sense, but I do seek answers to questions I have that are unanswered or that I forgot the answer to.
Even if I believed a being created everything, in the deistic or theistic sense, I would not be able to consider the Bible as a reliable source of information.
Assuming that's the god that most people I go back and forth with believe in either agnostically or gnostically, it appears in our observation of the planet, using the remnants of the past, there are stories in the Bible that do not all line up.
I imagine if the new testament authors had written the old testament, they would have changed the character of God to be less war-like, and possibly more just and/or merciful as well as untempted.
@@slivyo
Are you even trying to meet me where I am at?
This video is rich with logical fallacies.
tglu87 name one
tglu87 actually what Jeff is saying is 100% spot on we are too stupid to understand what truth is
@@YTTraveler777 funny how people hurl general comments around like that and have no actual example.
I mean, if we're going to use presuppositional apologetics, then I suppose it would be fair to turn it around on the believer. Something like - Truth is founded in correspondence to reality. Theists, however, believe that truth is grounded in a deity or deities. Since no deity or deities exist the theist is incapable of grounding truth. The theist really knows deep down that no deity or deities exist, but rejects this so they can avoid dealing with their existential dread and fear of death.
...Damn, why did I never think of this?
"Since no deity or deities exis"
Go ahead, PROVE that. Oh THIS guy's god does not exist, its testable. But no one has ever disproved a Deist god. That there is no rational reason to believe to believe in any god does not disprove all gods.
There may be a god but all testable gods fail testing. Stick to the truth. Leave the unjustifiable claims to the theists. They assume there is a god, you assume there isn't. Neither of you can support your claims.
Join the few, the rational, the Agnostic.
That way the false claims are from the theists.
@@palladin1337
"why did I never think of this?"
Because its unsupported assertion.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 Hey, I never said that it was a completely sound argument. I'm just surprised that I never thought about turning this particular argument against them, since it's completely possible.
@@ethelredhardrede1838 _"Because its unsupported assertion."_
- *I think that was the point. He was presenting it as a counter to the standard Christian presuppositional stance... Its an unsupported assertion as a counter to other unsupported assertions.*
Yet again a pastor with a background in theology tries to explain scientific findings. Why wonder off your area of expertise and try to speak with authority? A little humility is a good thing dear pastor Durbin.
Peter Carlson his background is hollywood, he was Johnny Cage
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
This is essentially the
ontological argument for the existence of a book that is the word of God. This argument could point you to the Bible, the Koran, or some other sacred book. You need more than this to get to the truth of the Bible specifically.
I understand and agree that there are many inconsistencies with the atheist’s search for truth and feel that God is the only way to have a basis of objective truth, but again this only gets you to a god and a sacred text not the God of the Bible.
Exactly
The canon of the Bible was not finalized until the 6th century. Meaning the “bible” did not exist for 500+ years after Christ’s crucifixion.
And the Bible Jeff uses wasn’t created until the 17th century (Protestants removed several books).
Christianity was never intended to be based off the Bible, it was to be based off the CHURCH (1 Timothy 3:15) that Jesus created (Matthew 16:18). Early Protestant denominations understood this & argued that their particular denomination was the “one true church.”
Think about it: most people were illiterate until around 1750. How could the Bible be the final authority and the only thing you need for salvation if you can’t read it?
When you base a religion off of a book, you open it up to textual criticism. Meaning different people think the same words mean different things (this is the same problem we have with the constitution). Or people wonder how you can know the translation is correct. This is why there are 20,000+ Protestant denominations.
It leads to atheism because you cannot provide satisfactory answers to questions.
Christianity is not about the WORDS on the page, it is about the EVENTS of Christian history. This is why pictures, drawings, architecture, and icons were used in early Christianity to spread the gospel (and people couldn’t read).
I like Jeff, but I wish he would dig a little deeper. I wish he would ask himself just a few more questions.
Why does Jeff trust that the people who assembled the Bible did so correctly, but Jeff does not trust anything else they practiced or said about Christianity?
It is not about theology, it is about history.
I hope one day James White or Jeff Durbin will talk with Jay Dyer or an orthodox theologian.
I understand the argument and I agree. But an unbeliever can respond: well why do you immediately jump towards the God of the Bible and not the gods of other religions. This seems to me to be a great argument for intelligent design. How could I maintain the fact that only the Bible can account for knowledge and intelligence vs the multitude of religions out there?
As a Christian, I believe that what Jeff said is true, but it's an incomplete answer. Like you, I don't think his answer will satisfy anyone BUT believers. Atheists will likely accuse him of circular reasoning and though, like you said, his answer may argue for intelligent design, they'll want to know which "intelligence" we're talking about here.
It's a good start, but it needs to go MUCH further. It's not a question that can be answered in a nine-minute video. Perhaps there's more.
+ThingsAreToughAllOver This was a Q and A session. Hours could be spent a have been spent on a fuller explication. We have hours of Jeff's talks on this channel as well as days worth of discussion on Apologiaradio.com. ;)
You might start by comparing the religions. It doesn't necessarily require an exhaustive study, just the basic foundations. For example, some of the things that you will find in religions are pantheistic beliefs which say that God inhabits every object in the world and thus everything is equally valuable. I once heard a Christian challenge a pantheist on this belief by asking if a piece of grass was just as valuable as her own child? The pantheist began to stutter and stumble over her own words at this point. Another thing that you will find in some religions is the claim that truth is relative - that people have their own individual truths. You might ask a person of such religious belief if child rape could ever be okay according to personal truth. If the answer is no, they are appealing to an objective moral truth that must come from an objective moral source. In Islam, you may ask the Muslim who their Koran says Jesus is. They will say a prophet. You may ask them why Jesus in the Koran is so much greater and more miraculous than prophet Muhammad, yet Muhammad gets worshipped. Then tell them what the bible says of Jesus. Basically, compare the religious claims against that of the bible and see which is more logical.
Then you can point to things like fulfilled prophecy in the bible that has been verified historically.
God doesn't require we know ALL of that stuff to be good Christian witnesses, but those are good places to go.
At the end of it all, you'd point to the logical difference separating the Christian God from all others: All other religions require good works to outweigh past sins - to work one's way to paradise. But in a manmade court of law, can you be let go from your murder or rape charge if you feed enough poor people? If yes, that wouldn't be justice. Other religions think you can just work the sin off. God, knowing that such a thing wouldn't be fair justice took the fair punishment for everybody as our substitute on the cross. The Christian God is the only one that offers such an objective and impartial standard of crime, punishment and pardon.
+Apologia Studios Shabbat Shalom and thanks for doing the work of the ministry. There is so much evidence of scripture. Such as giants and the enclosed non globe earth. Also, historical information matches scripture. Yes, the Scripture is self authoritative because absolute truth is self authoritative. Otherwise, we can't know anything. Colossians 1:16-17, John 14:6, 8:32. Deuteronomy 13:1-5.
My feeling exactly.
This guy Durbin is dis-ingenuous . He just jumps from a great
pre-sup point to the God of the Bible.
The answer to the whole conundrum is an Open Panentheistic Cosmic Mind-God. Not a god that suggests that everything in the KJV is absolutely correct.
That is a fine argument for Hinduism. If you start with Hinduism you could come to the same conclusion.
sorry but Hinduism doesn't have Christ as our savior, so hinduism is invalid.
@@BidenSUCKSS But the argument is as useful for the Hindu as it is for the Christian.
Noel Pucarua you mean to witness to Hindi about Christ? I agree then
@@BidenSUCKSS Of course not, a Hindu would see through you right away, and see it as duplicitous. If you want to give Christianity a bad name you could try it because everyone could see how manipulative you were trying to be.
Noel Pucarua witnessing is not manipulating.
great skit. Should probably be on SNL.
The question already proves the answer
Stuff exists and it's too complex for me to understand therefore the God I happen to grow up with exists. QED.
Can't argue with that logic.
Some people don’t grow up with a God.
So no one can’t argue with the logic of people who make false assumptions.
None of what you said is even accurate with what the video is.
But typical atheist with their strawmans.
Atheist always talk about logic,reasoning morality ,ethics etc. Which has no base in the magical theory of evolution. Because the chemical reactions in the brain cannot define what is good or bad.
Read The case for Christ by
Lee Stroble.
Great read it talks about all this.
I'm reading through it right now.
@@ThePaulKM is it good/worth reading??
It lies about all this. Lee Strobel is a charlatan. All the arguments in his books are deceitful and misleading on purpose. It's all a sham.
It’s true because JC said so
I expected to find something good here, and all I got was meaningless words that adds up to nothing.
You're on the right track. I, like you, questioned many things about God and the Bible. You're on the first step and that is "Seek and you shall find." If you didn't find the answer here, continue seeking.
@@MrHPT3 Don't give up. Privately ask God to reveal Himself to you, earnestly. Request with persistence. There you will find, and He will draw near to you. Tell Him you don't believe in Him. Ask Him to help you in your unbelief. I think He will give you bizarre experiences that will have you begin to believe in Him upon petition and prayer.
Jeff is a liar! If you ask him if there is a perfect Bible, he will lie and say yes. But if you ask him which Bible is God's word that is perfect and without error, he will tell you that it does not exist. My friends, God promised to preserve his word. He did so in the King James Bible, which is perfect, infallible, and all other Modern English translations are of corrupted manuscripts.
and as said before, you have to understand that the atheist isn't really looking for truth. You could give them all the evidences of Christ, and they will still oppose and hate Him. SO yes, you do apologetics, but while understanding outside of the Holy Spirit, they will reject truth, no matter what.
Marc m Exactly being played out in this very comment section.
That's simply a wad of nonsense, my friend. You have to remember, that many atheists were once Christians, and many of them quite devout. They were searching for truth. Then they realized that the bible doesn't make any sense, and is not historical. One does not just stop at Christianity when searching for truth. One has to question everything from all sides, and the bible doesn't always win out.
pwoods100 I can see you do t understand much about Jesus and the claims He made. Jesus said the only people that would be saved are those He wants to save based upon His own grace over wicked people. Romans 1 teaches people hate the Creator and worship the created things. The problem with atheism is it just 'tries' on world views until it finds one that 'fits'. Ultimately the atheist worldview is one of insanity, meaninglessness, vanity, and self temporary pleasure.
Okay, your first mistake: You assume I'm an atheist. You're wrong there. I am by definition agnostic/deist. So I believe in a higher power but.......there could be a million possibilities as to what that is, and I'm totally okay not knowing. And you cannot prove that your particular deity is the right one out of thousands of them.
Your second mistake: You assume that atheists and people like myself hate your god. We can't hate something that we don't believe in. We can however hate a culture for indoctrinating children on an epic scale, and giving people pre-decided answers before they ask the questions.
Your third mistake: That you think the atheist worldview is insanity and meaningless. Atheist are no different than you. They raise families, they travel, have hobbies and enjoy life. Their lives are not meaningless, and they have their purposes for living, apart from a God. That is not insanity. Worshiping a god who will put people in hell for eternity just for not believing is insanity.
1. so many mistakes, but its a good thing you come from a not-knowing worldview because you saying im making mistakes is relative...their is no knowable truth according to you, so your entire argument is invalid and based totally upon a guessing game in a universe of an infinite number of guesses. 2. You believe in a 'higher power' but that the 'higher power' merely created something and left it on it's own, apparently so powerful that it left it's creation in the dark, with no way of knowing said 'higher power'. In a 'not-knowing' worldview you have no definition of good or evil, and what is good for you, may not be good for me, etc. 3. The fact that you don't believe in something that has given you ample evidence is a mere fact of your depravity, so lost in ignorance and pride thinking you know something when you don't, summing it all up to the worship of mankind and mankinds 3 pound brain in an impossible quest or non-quest of never knowing anything for certain. The issue with mankind is it is full of people who live in denial of reality, and make excuses for why they can't believe the truth. Wicked man always comes up with false religions that appease the wickedness in them.... atheism and agnosticism appease the sinful nature because you can live in immorality to whatever degree you choose and still claim to be a decent person who if their was a heaven, would go there one day based upon your actions, or non-actions... convenient you think for your short 100 years or so, but inconvenient for the rest of eternity. 4. You make an error in saying God puts people in hell for not believing.... God puts people in hell for breaking His law. Their absentee faith is merely a by-product of their depravity. See, people are ok witih a 'god' as long as 'god' isn't Holy. The reason people hate God, is because His defining attribute is Holy, which is what mankind is vehemently opposed to. The only way not to be opposed to God, is by the grace of Jesus. 5. Atheist are people just like me, but they do not have a consistent worldview....they live in a world and have to borrow from the Christian worldview.... because if an atheist was truly living in consistency with his worldview he couldn't punish the rapist, murderer, pedophile, or even tell the thief it is wrong to steal his tv. The criminals are only 'dancing to their DNA', were born that way, and mankind, no matter how moral or immoral, has no intrinsic value, merely breeds to keep the gene pool existing, and for nothing more, as years after death you are forgotten in the stream of time.
Okay, here's a question. Let's suppose there is a divine source of morality. How do we know that source is YHWH? And not some other god. Or perhaps the laws of ethics are self sufficient in and of themselves. You still haven't proved the Bible true, at best you've shown the need for a divine origin of morality but you haven't shown that the christian God is that origin point.
There is no 'non believer world view' and I have never heared of 'chemicals fizzing in the brain'. This is a big con where it only makes sense to people who are already taken in by this nonsense. Actually think about what that guy was talking about and tell me where, at any point, he proves or gives a valid argument that the Bible is true.
If there is no nonbeliever worldview, then nonbelievers thoughts don't exist. . .which obviously isn't true. He said he could have gone into the evidences for the Bible, but he took a different approach in showing how without the Bible (and God) truth wouldn't matter and there would be no basis for truth of any sort. Also he mentioned how there is data or language written or coursing through everyone and everything which confirms the account of God speaking creation into existence. So to me it seems that if nonsense means not giving a valid argument then your comment is nonsense, because you aren't giving a valid argument for the reason that you didn't listen to what was actually said.
What I meant was that there is no one shared worldview. In the same way that everyone who doesn't believe in unicorns doesn't necessary share the same beliefs in everything else. The language in DNA, brain gas, fizzing brain, God speaking stuff into existence hypothesis is still nonsense and you need to provide more evidence than just 'Bible said' or 'prove how it did happen then'.
crisofer954 And there is plenty for you to look up and discover on your own! The point of this video is to show the inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty of the athiest arguer.
If you need evidence plenty exists. Google magic friend! Why should anyone spoon feed you when asking the question in such a way as this just shows you're not really interested in the answer.
You know " ....pearls before swine" and all. If sincerely looking you wouldn't be looking for the proofs of the Bible in a RUclips comment section.
Er no. I'm commenting about the dishonest way this guy is deliberately using fallacious arguments to cover up the fact that there is no proof that the Bible is true. You can't say that we believe our thoughts are a 'result of brain gas' so we can't know what truth is, so that proves that you're right about everything. Do your own research from other books; if all your so called knowledge comes from one book, you will only ever know what's in that book. The whole theological argument seems to be that athiest are stupid, so you are right by default. I've heard what this guy says about agnostics, by definition, not knowing anything etc and his argument proves nothing. Don't post insulting videos and complain when someone doesn't agree with you. 'Google Magic Friend' are you serious? If you actually came out with a convincing argument, I might listen but you can't prove anything by baffling people with semantics.
crisofer954 it’s nothing more than a philosophical word game.
THE HOLY SPIRIT IS OUR GUIDE! JOHN 16:13
I 100% understand and love the presuppositional argument.
I just hate having to explain it especially to an opponent with absolutely no intellectual integrity.
Brok Homz you hate having to explain it because you can't. The whole argument is a dishonest fallacy.
+brok if you are a presupp idiot, you already don't have any intellectual integrity. why do you think we hate to explain things to you? other than you are also one of the dumbest shits around.
crisofer954 "fallacy". How so?
louis cyfer you don't need to explain anything. I told you, I already know.
+brok you are a presupp idiot. you don't understand shit, you are just making a circular argument.
To be clear, Jeff is using the transcendental argument here, which he often uses. It's the most fundamentally correct given the Biblical worldview - God is the Creator of everything, and so everything finds its meaning and purpose in God. However, those who prefer the classical arguments criticize this argument for using circular reasoning, since it starts from hypothesis that God is real in order to conclude that God is real. Then again, those in favor of it argue that it does not contain circular reasoning (I forget exactly why), and that it is also not possible to conclusively prove anything, but if you can conclusively prove anything, it begins with the transcendental argument.
I believe the best starting points are in the classical arguments, which show that God is the *most likely* explanation for why things exist, and then moving from there into the transcendental argument as a follow-up to that conclusion. It does negate the fallacy of circular reasoning, but it does reinforce the premise to a degree that atheists are unable to match using that same logic (beginning with the hypothesis that God does not exist in order to reach that same conclusion). Without transcendent metaphysics, the materialist atheist must either rely on circular reasoning to justify logic, or else they are forced to surrender the concept of logic entirely, which is not ideal but there are many who are willing to make that sacrifice. That kinda sounds like a joke, but I'm being serious - "post modernism" is an umbrella term, but it typically does include the denial of absolute truth and other metaphysical ideas.
(In case anyone wanted to know what the classical arguments are, they are the cosmological, ontological, teleological, and moral arguments for the existence of God.)
To all my brothers and sisters who feel that his response didn't and doesn't relate specifically to the triune christian God YHWH of scripture...
Please read the book ALWAYS READY by Dr. Greg Bahnsen.
The reasons Mr. Durbin didn't go into all the specific evidences of christianity (like the resurrection, archeology, manuscripts, and so on) is two fold.
1) It would make the non-christian/unbeliever judge over the evidences, and consequently judge over God.
2) Christianity is the only system of thought/Worldview that makes anything rationally intelligible, or the basis for proving anything.
If your going to cut down a tree in an open field, don't cut one branch at a time. Saw it off at the base.
Brother, it's not a sin to present the very tangible, physical evidence that our glorious Lord has left for us. (all the historical data you cite and I concur with)
Ultimately, it takes the miraculous intervention of the Spirit to change a man's heart. I think, sometimes starting on a practical, evidential level can be helpful when presenting the gospels to a naturalist. God Bless.
I agree with your # 1 and 2, but it's hard for me to explain and defend #2. I need some help in that.
"Christianity is the only system of thought/Worldview that makes anything rationally intelligible, or the basis for proving anything" -
Please prove.
I came here to see why Christians believe in the bible and i found this....honestly i thought I'll get better than that
_"How do you know the Bible is true?"_ You don't. Period. There is no logic or evidence that shows the bible is true.
Yup. But it's even worse than that, because that's not how books work - _any_ books, let alone a collection of stuff from countless anonymous authors, countless anonymous editors, and countless anonymous - and variable - copyists.
There really _is_ a London, but that doesn't make the Harry Potter books true in every other respect, too. There really _is_ a New York City - and Barack Obama really _was_ President of the United States - but that doesn't make Spiderman real, even those true things were written in Spiderman comics.
That’s hilarious bc there’s been tons of books written and tons of historical and scientific studies done that add to the proof of the Bible being accurate and historically correct. And Everytime they find relics and historical artifacts that line up with what the Bible says. Like the Dead Sea scrolls etc. the only questions have been did the miraculous happen bc you really can’t prove that. But that have proven that the Bible has not been changed during translations. That Jesus and many others were real people and records of their lives have backed it up.
Have you ever looked into it bc it’s not that hard to find the large amount of evidence that supports the Bible?
There’s also the list of things the Bible stated as true about the world and space etc that was in contradiction to science but ended up being true. Such as: the Bible said the world was round and people thought it was flat until proven round thousands of years after the Bible was written. The Bible talks about how the sea floor looks and functions like and science said otherwise until it was proven to be as the Bible said when tech caught up. Same with the stars and other things.
The sure fact that something that people believe as man made fairy tale from over two thousand years ago is still relevant to today’s culture and transforms lives. Like the countless stories of addicts who couldn’t ever get clean but then did after years through the message of the gospel. Or people that have struggled with mental health issues and needed medication etc who utilized the Bible and it’s message to be freed feom depression and anxiety and never need psych medication again etc.
You can question the validity of the miraculous claims but historically it has been far proven accurate. And although the message has been hijacked and used in evil ways it has healed and transformed millions of lives for the better. Which makes no sense if it is fake and made up fairy tale ya know.
@@alaskayoung3413 We've known the Earth is round since Eratosthenes proved it in the 200s BCE, you ignorant child. Go read a book and stop spouting laymen's misconceptions.
@@alaskayoung3413 _"Have you ever looked into it bc it’s not that hard to find the large amount of evidence that supports the Bible?"_ Yes, I have. You?
_"You can question the validity of the miraculous claims but historically it has been far proven accurate."_ The former point is the crux. The bible is a story about miraculous events and people. And none of that is verifiable. And the latter point? None of that matters. It is nothing more than a background in which the story takes place.
_"But that have proven that the Bible has not been changed during translations."_ Unimportant. No one knows who wrote the bible. We have no, or only small segments, originals. _"That Jesus and many others were real people and records of their lives have backed it up."_ There are no extra biblical records showing Jesus' life. Yes, there is consensus that a guy called Jesus lived and was crucified. But not that he was certainly not the biblical Jesus.
_"Such as: the Bible said the world was round and people thought it was flat until proven round thousands of years after the Bible was written."_ The bible says that the world is unmovable. It also says that pi equals to 3. And that we live in a snow globe. But again, none of this is relevant.
_"The sure fact that something that people believe as man made fairy tale from over two thousand years ago is still relevant to today’s culture and transforms lives."_ Again, unimportant as it doesn't add anything to the validity of the bible.
@@alaskayoung3413
This isn't my thread, so I hope I'm not butting in here. But,... :)
_there’s been tons of books written_
But most of those books are written for _Christians,_ not for atheists. That's because it's easy to convince people of something they _already_ believe.
_it’s not that hard to find the large amount of evidence that supports the Bible_
OK. So how about *one piece of good evidence?* You claim that there's a "large amount," so asking for *one* example shouldn't be a problem, right? *One* example, specific enough and in enough detail that I can judge it for myself?
I'd accept *one piece of good evidence* that your god is real, rather than just imaginary, or *one piece of good evidence* that _any_ of the magical/supernatural stories in the Bible actually happened. Your choice.
(I don't care about the mundane stuff. Indeed, I'll _give_ you a guy named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans, but there's nothing magical about that. The Romans crucified _thousands_ of people.)
_There’s also the list of things the Bible stated as true about the world and space etc that was in contradiction to science but ended up being true._
Do you ever talk to Muslims on RUclips? That's one of their favorite claims about the Quran, too. And just as with the Bible, they simply pour over their 'holy book' looking for _something_ they can interpret to maybe agree with something science has discovered.
I doubt if _you'd_ be convinced by that. I haven't been - not by the claims I've heard from Muslims _or_ the claims I've heard from Christians, not so far, at least. But if you wish to use that argument, that's fine by me. You'll have to be specific, though. I can't really respond to vague claims except... vaguely. :)
_Like the countless stories of addicts who couldn’t ever get clean_
Muslims say that, too. So if "countless stories of addicts" demonstrates that Christianity is true, it must also demonstrate that Islam is true. And probably lots of other religions, as well.
PS. Again, this isn't my thread. So if you prefer to take this to email, just go to my RUclips channel. Under the "About" tab is a link to a contact page where you can get my email address. It's up to you. Thanks!
Demonstrating the logical necessity of God is one thing. Proving that God is correctly identified in the writings of the Bible is quite another. Arguments like this are disingenuous, demonstrably false, and make apologists for the Bible seem like snake-oil salesmen.
It's funny cuz I see A LOT OF ATHEIST here and I wonder y? Maybe to reassure them that science is true? Hmmm....
LOKI SAMA
Why even bother though? Sounds like a waste of time for something you don't believe in.
Samuel Brown well most atheist actually would like to know if the Bible is true, with evidence of course. And I got non of that
Im an atheist. Im here to tear down the christian world view so christians will one day stop destroying families, politics, and minds in general. I know im right rhat the christian mythos is BS. im here to convince everyone else.
FreethoughtGreg any facts to support your thesis, or just wild, unfounded assertions?
Religion causes friction in families and politics all the time, this is just undeniable parents disowning atheist and gay children, christian politicians forcing arbitrary standards of morality into law etc. Ive also seen studies that even show children raised without religious indoctrination think more critically and behave more ethically. This should be obvious anyway.
As far as knowing that christianity is wrong, i can cite the numerous logical paradoxes in the supposed nature of god and the many contradictions and ignorant passages in the bible.
Or i could just say nature has revealed itself to me and told me god doesnt exist, and if you truly search with an open heart you will realize that, deep down, you know this truth.
If what you read does not make sense, then it is not true. If what you read does not reflect the idea of unconditional love, then it is not true. Even the Bible says: "The Knowledge of the Kingdom of God is Within You. "
Use your intuition and conscience.
If an idea in the Bible brings up fear, then it is not true. If an event in the Bible is against your morals, it is not true.
Question authority. Authority can want to control you. Fear is the best way to control you.
Trust yourself. You are a child of God.
Jeff Durbin is freaking awesome!
only to simpletons
he sucks
This is to
-Nick Jones
-SNORKYMEDIA
-Rand Om
-snarepaul
What _specifically_ do you disagree with? I'm sure you disagree with it all. But if you truly believe he is wrong and isn't genuine in his motives as to what he claims they are, then please articulate what he is wrong about and lets test your claim.
I spelt it out in my comment. His discussions are intellectually dishonest. He uses manipulative tactics when talking to others or preaching, and leads conversations in specific ways so as to catch his victims out. If he wants to convert people or make his points, he should do so in an honest and sincere manner, rather than a dishonest and underhanded one.
Those are all generalities.
What _specifically_ are some examples of him being "intellectually dishonest?
What _specifically_ are some examples of these "manipulative tactics" he is using?
What _specifically_ are some examples of how he is leading the conversation so as to "catch his victims out"?
Sorry but that made very little sense. Wow. In terms of the actual question, which was "how do you know the Bible is true" your answer was quite lacking... you seemed to be trying to answer a different question entirely. The point I think you're trying to make is more in line with establishing axioms in the theism vs atheism debate... and even then its very weak in my view.
This is super easy, how do I know the Bible Is true, because God told me it was. Its that simple. One must remember, that for an argument to be logically cogent, it must be valid at ANY time in history (e.g., 1 minute after the resurrection of Christ and 10 min from now) and at ANY place (e.g., the Garden tomb or modern North Korea). Because God is no respecter of persons, the methodology to identify truth in God’s word must be the SAME for all people, in all times, and in all places. For instance, you hinted at the notion that we might be able to know the Bible is true because we can “stack up” evidences that make the existence of God more likely, which is a very common argument by christian theologians. The problem with this is, the validity of the Bible in a person’s life is dependent upon how well they can access outside information about the Bible. Does it make sense that my salvation should be dependent upon how well I can gather data about the validity of bible, which in this case favors folks who are both smart and have access to really good data. But what about the North Koreans or some other controlled state? Let's say they got a Bible somehow, read it, wondered if it was true… do you think they could do any other research to even validate if Jerusalem is even a place on earth?! The answer is no. Researching outside the sacred text itself to validate the Bible is so full of logical holes, I could write for hours on the subject. But since you glossed over it, I won’t beat you up on it too badly and I’ll just move on.
You said, “the Bible comes with its own self-attesting authority.” I agree that you don’t need anything other physical thing to attest its authority but this notion that you and James White attest to which is, that the Bible is self-validating is so ridiculous and logically cyclical that no trained thinker with a modicum of wit will allow such an oddity... no offense, but come now, you won't win hearts and minds with type of thinking... that appeals to no one I know. Its just ridiculous.
The answer to this question is very simple. How do I know the Bible is true…. Because God told me it was. Simple. Its the only methodology that makes any sense at all. Nothing outside of God will ever prove the Bible 100% true… and thats OK, because God wants us to have Faith.
Its the Holy Ghost that witnesses the truth. Ask God, he will tell you.
But here is the bigger point. What you said in this video and what you preach on this subject is just not, from what I can tell, backed up by any scripture. Its purely Jeff’s mental musings.
What does the Bible say about learning truth:
Cor 2:10-12
But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
Cor 12:3
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
John 15:26
But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me
“God hath REVEALED them unto us by his Spirit”…. Why do you have to over complicate it Jeff? Revelation. I think you dislike this idea apparently because the Mormons hold so firmly to these ideas and if you concede then you know by the same token a person can have the Book of Mormon revealed to them by the Spirit… and you just can’t have that. Jeff, how does the Spirit testify of Christ in your view… HOW? Let me tell everyone what I think. I believe God is all merciful and all powerful and he is as intimate with us as a father is with their child. He is begging us to come unto him and ask for revelation. He will enlighten us, change us, empower us and we will have pure intelligence run through us - to such a degree that we will know that God spoke to us... me and you. This is how I know the Bible is true... its also how I know the Book of Mormon is true and its also how I know that Jesus is the Christ the Eternal God (“… Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” (Matt. 16:16-17.). the Bible teaches me specifics, as does the Book of Mormon, but its Spirit that confirms all truth and reveals the deeper things of the Kingdom. The Lord is LOGICAL, and he doesn't just put a book on Earth and demand you JUST know it to be true just because ... The Spirit will witness to you ... that is why The Spirit is here (And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him.) I you're not sure... ask God (James 1:5... if you lack wisdom, ask God.) This is another one, that folks like Jeff will tell you it means something else besides going to the lord and just asking him for knowledge. You know what, don't believe me, don't believe Jeff, go read James 1:5&6 and do what you think it says. I'm willing to bet that most folks left up to their own, will read that verse and say God will give to the honest seeker of wisdom.
But of course at this point Jeff likes to point out that if people can pray and ask God then essentially theological chaos will ensue because everyone can get all different kinds of answers and the only way to correct such behavior is to point them to the text. Jeff, you're not totally wrong for doing this. Homosexuals who "feel" God allows them to live that lifestyle and remain christian should be given the Bible to demonstrate their error. Of course. But your ideology that the Bible is the end all source of God's knowledge is also flawed. You see if Christianity could actually agree on the meaning of the text you might have a compelling argument, but we know that isn't the case.... Not by a long shot. And this is where I say, there are 50K+ churches and you say its really not that many and you don't disagree with other faiths on the vital theological issues. But my response is, if there were just 2 opposing faiths in your bunch, then that is still too much division, and I don't care if the doctrines are vital or not, the point is you have zero consensus, which means whatever methodology you are using to define truth, IT ISN'T WORKING (its laughable to me how you just gloss over this issue like its nothing... if you don't have consensus then your overall view or someones else for that matter view is FLAWED... and if one point is flawed, how can anyone with any level of cognition, trust that ANY view you hold is the correct one... you can't). But lets not kid ourselves, these issues are vital, only 40% of christianity believe in Grace only salvation... you carry the minority view Jeff. The point is, doctrines vary at least into a 100 different general sects and everyone has their own view, which means your ideology of going to the text as the end-all of authority is flawed and illogical. We need more than the Bible, we need the Bible and the Holy Spirit, else the interpretation is flawed. (well we need Prophets as well, but that is another post. ha.)
In any event, Im sure no one will read this and this is a rant of sorts, but I felt compelled so I punched it out. I'll just finally note, that I never said I had a burning in my bosom, or warm "feelings." Anti-Mormons hit this point very hard. The Spirit touched me, enlightened me, and I know its true. We use the word "feel" because we are limited by our language to express and describe some experiences, but in my view, the term "feeling" is inadequate to describe the free flowing divine intelligence that surges through me, testifying to me that Jesus is the Christ and His words are true and faithful. Its much more than a mere "feeling."
Lastly, why is it, especially preachers, dont like this idea of talking with God? One idea... When Jesus Christ Appeared to the young boy Joseph, he said speaking of professors of religion, "...having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” That's how I feel here. Christianity at large denies the real power of the Holy Spirit... to touch and inspire the children of God. I hear a lot about going to the scriptures for answers, which is great, but receiving revelation from God that Jesus is the christ and his word can be trusted, is largely lost in todays world. Believe in the power of God. Believe that he speaks today. Believe that he can reveal truth to you.
This is long... sorry. But its not like anyone is going to read it. Haha. ah well... it was fun to type it out for my own benefit.
I like Jeff and his sermons, but this was a little cringe worthy. I would hesitate to use this reasoning with someone. even if the atheist is "acting like it even matters", the issue of the truth of something still exists, regardless of how they feel about the issue or whether their thoughts or opinion actually do matter. it is true that I am typing this comment. I can say that as a Christian. the atheist can also type their reply say that and be completely correct, even though the atheist does not have God as the ultimate standard. so I don't think that is a strong argument and is easily refutable to someone who can think critically. if I have missed something or misspoken, someone please let me know.
Daniel Root You miss the point. The purpose of this exercise is to demonstrate their inconsistency. It is pointless to continue a discussion with someone who is inconsistent, moving the goal post as it were. You need to get them to be more intellectually honest in order to continue. Arguing with a simple contrarian is a waste of time.
If someone can't prove logic under their worldview, then what is the point in having a logical debate with said person?
Most non-Christians I have debated end up appealing to morality, consciousness, reason, logic, ethics and metaphysical properties in general. From a worldview where our existence came from a chaotic series of evolutionary events, and we exist for no reason but because we do, in a material world that you can't get metaphysical properties out of, our thoughts are simply chaotic formulaic processes that exist for no reason, but because they do. So everything becomes meaningless, relative, subjective, as there is no objective morality, ethics, or reason to do anything the way society has told us to do it, besides fear for our lives from a government that would punish us for not abiding by the law. If someone is arguing that something is illogical, you first have to have a worldview that derives logic from an absolute, or it is an subjective opinion that derived from a meaningless brain, and existence.
You can use this in other senses aswell. If Science uses logic, and logic is metaphysical, then Science saying that God does not exist because we can't see him under the laws of empiricism is using logic, a metaphysical property, to prove the nonexistence of a metaphysical being. In other words, using a transcendental to refute a transcendental is contradicting, and due to the laws of non contradiction, cannot be used as an argument. If you don't abide to the laws of non contradiction, you don't abide to the laws of logic, therefore there is no point having an argument with someone who makes that claim, as you aren't having a logical debate at that point, and every point that uses logic is meaningless.
Once you understand the basics of philosophy, then you will understand that with every point made, you presuppose that you believe in certain things, by using a logical argument, you presuppose that you believe in logic, but if your worldview does not support that, then you are inconsistent, and shouldn't be taken seriously.
@@readifdumb Such a well thought out comment, this is exactly the point!
Why are there so many apologists? When I feel hungry, I don't need to be convinced of it. I also can't recall a time when I've grabbed some water and sat and pondered "Will this water quench my thirst?"
Because sinners suppress the truth in unrighteousness. People know God exists, but they love their sins more so that they come up with all these crazy theories just to suppress their conscience and deceive themselves into thinking that God will not hold them accountable for their sins against Him and against His creation. So God in His mercy has raised up these apologists and people who speak the truth so that unbelievers will be called to repentance and believe in Jesus Christ as the One who died for the sin of the world so that mankind may be reconciled to God.
He never answered the question.
Yes he did.
You just couldn't comprehend his answer
I am writing a college essay for my atheist professor about why God exists can anyone help me with some academic reliable resources to help prove this. God bless.
It looks like nobody was able to help you with that project because of course, there are no such sources. Most everything in the bible is pure fantasy and pure rubbish, self-contradictory and illogical.
I like how he first said athiest and then changed it to hostile atheist. *rolls eyes dramatically.
I love how you ignored everything except for that little side note *rolls eyes so hard they fly out of my head and smack the wall
@@Lightylight Sir, I was just commenting (5 years ago..) that it was funny how it cant just be an atheist, but a "hostile atheist". You are allowed to make comments about particular parts of a lecture without mentioning the whole damn thing.
Jeff said that God SPOKE mankind into being, but in fact, God FORMED Adam with His hands from the ground & breathed life into him (his nostrils) only after speaking much of the rest of creation into existence. I'm not a Calvinist (or any other "ist" or "ism"). No offense. I'm a born again Christian & I appreciate Jeff's efforts to minister & giving me ideas when talking to unbelievers or lukewarm believers (or when I talk to anyone not born again, for that matter; the Holy Spirit leads me, regardless). Sometimes I wish I could be there with Jeff while he's talking with these people. God knows I make errors, but they should've caught & corrected that one (at least noted it below the video title). Maybe someone should edit? Thank you for your ministry & for sharing, Jeff. Blessings to all in Jesus! 😃
Can anyone link me anything saying that gas or "fizz" is involved in neurochemistry? That sounds really interesting! I can't believe I never learned that in any of my biology classes up to the 300 level
I guess you weren't paying attention the day they did the "brain fizz" lecture!
You know he doesn't mean literal fizzing like a soda. Why not come up with an actual substantive argument instead?
The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
@@MisterItchy The cell theory of Biology is considered to be the backbone of Biology it states that the cell is the smallest fundamental unit of life and that all cells came from pre existing cells. This is most certainly a fact. Nowhere in the natural world has a scientist ever documented the spontaneous generation of one single cell from non living material. It doesn't happen ANYWHERE!!! In spite of this fact there are many highly educated people who have gone to great lengths trying to convince us that all of life on this planet is the result of chemicals spontaneously generating into cells which over the course of billions of years developed into male and female species of extremely complex living organisms...THAT IS ABSURD!!! The evidence for God is all around us. You're not really atheists you're delusional
It's a good argument but doesn't prove Christianity, just proves a religion, why not Islam or one of the other religions?
What sets biblical Christianity apart from all other religions is that Christianity is Judaism fulfilled, the Old Testament God promised he would destroy death and the New Testament tells us how he did it. Jesus Christ died for the sins of the world, so that we can be saved from hell. Islam teaches that Jesus never died just because their Quran was written 600 years after Jesus was on earth, we already had the New Testament at this time but the Quran says the opposite of the Bible. Every religion tries to be saved by good works or being a good person but this doesn’t work because we are all sinners and our works that we think are “good” isn’t good enough. Only the grace of God that comes through Christ alone can save us.
@@SunnyLaraJr. Yes so you are providing reasons and arguments as to why Christianity superior to Islam, which I would agree but what I'm saying is he did not. His argument just points towards a God existing but doesn't give any reason why it's the Christian God and not some other, see what I'm saying?
Prove "a religion" how exactly? Why not other religions? Because they don't provide the rational basis for knowing anything at all for absolute certain like the Bible does. Do you embrace the Darwinian view? If so, why? I mean, how do you know that is true? Why not some other notion of reality?
The fool says in his own heart there is no God.
The fool says in his there’s no god but The wise man says it
This was not the right questions an atheist would ask, they would ask how do you know that you're holy book is true and that all the others aren't. Also he didn't explain how they know that what happened in the bilbe actually happened in reality
Another ignorant prepositional argument. Logic is a too devised by humans to make better sense of the world around us. It is not given to us by some magic man in the sky.
Well if everybody has their own logic, then we cant have utimative universal logic wich means we dont have logic. Makes sense? Well, if everybody have their own common sense then there is no ultimative universal common sense. You see where this is going, straight to craziness.
You're presupposing logic to make the argument that the world would devolve into craziness if everyone had their own logic. Why not just start with logic? Starting with the bible is just any arbitrary staring point. We can't help but start with logic, why not just admit that?
@@adamandracheloconnor2920 You can't start with logic in a naturalistic worldview. How does non-living matter "understand"? or "know"? How can stardust "invent" or "discover"? Logic is NOT a natural/physical object. It is conceptual. So how does a rock, or a molecule of some sort, or a chemical, create anything other than something physical? It's logically absurd. If we started with non-living physical stuff, how did that non-living physical stuff comprehend anything that transcends it? A particle of dust, doesn't even "know" it exists, let alone that other particles of dust exist. Non-living matter has no capacity to "know" anything. It cannot think, invent, question, decipher, understand, wonder, believe, hope, love, value, decide, etc. And it definitely has no awareness of concepts, such as, laws, logic, principles, math etc.
How do chemicals "think". Chemicals are non-living matter, so where does the capacity to "think" come from for chemicals? Your whole body is made up of non-living matter at it's base. Just bags of arranged dust and other non-living elements. So which part is "alive" with the capacity to make "decisions" that are "good" for itself and others? Are the amino acids that make up proteins "alive"? Of course not. So what makes us "alive"?
Also, when you are happy, is your brain happy, or are YOU happy?
When you take naturalism out to it's logical conclusion, it just falls apart and doesn't work. I can prove that more exists in the natural/physical universe then just matter and space (and time). And I can do that by pointing to things like logic, laws, knowledge, mathematics, information, emotions, etc. Non of those are physical matter, but we know they exist. Information, for example, is not matter or space. You can't weigh it or touch it. If I bought a brand new USB Thumb Drive that was blank, I could put all kinds of files that contained information on how to build a combustion engine, yet, the weight of the Thumb Drive would not go up. Why?
So you see, right away we KNOW for certain that naturalism is false. The idea that all that exists is what we can see and touch is easily proven to be false. The question is, where do these non-physical concepts come from. I already showed they can't come from our minds because our minds are just more non-living matter.
Your worldview is just not logical, and you have to borrow from my theistic worldview to even write the reply this post. Otherwise you're going to have to explain how the chemicals in your brain observed and understood, the concepts I put forth, and then crafted a thoughtful, logical response to the chemicals in my brain.
I'm sorry, but no chemical can do any of that. And that is why you cannot "start with logic" in the way you described. You have to start with something objective, otherwise, logic could be defined as anything. And we have to start with where logic comes from to know how to apply it. You also presupposed logic in your reply. But as a bag of meat, stardust, an arrangement of molecules, where do you get off telling anyone how logic "ought" to be used? Non-living matter knows what it "ought" to do? How?
So, in your worldview, Logic, which is not matter but a concept, was created by chemicals in your brain? How did the chemicals in a bag of meat, "know" it "ought" to develop a tool to make "better" sense of the world? Why would any non-living matter "care" about making sense? Explain how chemicals have the capacity to "think" of such things in the first place. Or more simply, how do chemicals "think"? Are chemicals alive?
How does a chemical "know" if something is "better? How do chemicals in our brains make value judgements?
You can't just say "humans did it", because you are presupposing that humans have the capacity to do it. But, in your worldview, if we are just an arrangement of matter, HOW does that matter do such such things? If you believe we came from star dust, you have to explain how star dust has the ability to "think", understand, reason, invent, decide, wonder, etc. Chemicals and non-living matter cannot do any of that. Again, how do chemicals "think"?? How do they take in information, "understand" it, then "develop" a thoughtful response to their "understanding" of the information.
It's patently absurd. How do chemicals "believe" something? Because if you "believe" that humans created logic, which is not part of the natural/physical world, you have to explain how that happened given you "believe" only matter and space exist.
On a side note, sorry for all the quotation marks, but I wanted you to really focus on those words in order to really understand the point.
@@JoshDub78 Excellent posts!!
Truth comes from facts and science,not a magic book
Good video, though he didn't completely address the question. He only gave an answer to point to theism.
I agree. It was really good. But I hope he will post/make another one where he delves more into why we can trust the actual texts of the Bible. That would be edifying.
20july1944 I see you poping up everywhere!
Baby steps
It's a pretty deep topic though, many have written multiple books compiling the evidence for it.
Go watch Voddie Bauchman. He also gives an explanation and it's good.
If my teacher gave me a math book with as many contradictions and as the bible, I would laugh and say "Ha ha nice joke!"