I've been wondering about that statement... whether it's a paradoxical truth. (Because it's an objective OBSERVATION made by subjective creatures - that quite often seems to be true because it points back to the issuer of that statement who DO use absolute truths in mathematics for example - but even mathematics uses variables.) even though we're subjective creatures. Personally I believe we're operating on a fundamental metaphysical equation. Equations come from minds. We mortals THINK we invent equations, but the more likely reality is that we DISCOVER equations. 1+1 =2 eternally. We're discovering something about God when we discover ourselves. (That's why scripture says we're created in the image of God)
@@kennorthunder2428 Truth and falsehood are by definition mutually exclusive. It's a false statement since absolute truth exists. Denial of absolute truth presupposes absolute truth. Thus, absolute truth exists and the statement 'all truth is relative' is false.
@@andrewconnor9782 That's good in and of itself so far. But we Christians are dealing ALREADY with a truth that is paradoxical - while pointing to ourselves AND God. - namely: God sovereignty in mankind's salvation while treating mankind as if they actually could "flee from the wrath to come". In other words God saying to us: You must, but you can't. There's something deeper going on: accountability because we're created in the image of God, but dependent upon him not only for our existence but to motivate our passions - but also encouraging us to pray to Him that our passions would be modified to his will. At the risk of being crass, A God ordained spiritual hack.
@Excuse me but I believe in the resurrection because God was the cause of it. If the Bible taught that God used evolution to create life, as some Christians do, then I would believe it too. However, after studying Genesis 1-11, I don't believe God used evolution to create life on Earth. Atheists believe that evolution is a natural mechanism and doesn't require a supernatural agent , they have yet to provide any evidence that this is true, that makes evolution a competing religious belief about the past held to with the same fervent faith as any religious believer, after all, there is no empirical evidence that life arose from a Last Universal Common Ancestor. The similarities in design point to a common Creator and Designer, not common descent.
@Excuse me but ,Christian apologists like William Lane Craig, Dr. Sean McDowell, Dr. Frank Turek, J. Warner Wallace, Gary Habermas, all have videos proving the historicity of the Gospel accounts, so, they're not avoiding the burden of proof, the information is readily available. Edit, how does one empirically prove a past historical event?
One thing I've found in my little apologetics journey is that the atheists (except one) that I've had conversations with often lack any standard whatsoever. They're simply there to poop on anything you present. If you ask for a "better alternative" to something they find faulty or unappealing, they retort the same thing: "give me your best answer" without providing any whatsoever. So it's no surprise (to me) that a lot of them have no tangible reason to back up the mantras they hold.
I have a dove tattoo on my hand, so it’s showing 24/7. I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with people tellling me why Noah’s flood story is false and Holy Spirit isn’t real lol
1 Peter 3:15 “But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you. But respond with gentleness and respect,”
There is an element of the "burden of proof" song and dance that I never hear mentioned, but in practical terms really must be - the potential consequence and/or reward of the result of the claim in question. It really makes a difference to whether one is really willing to push for proper proof of a thing if the thing has immediate or massive implications. On paper is one thing, but when it's reality has tremendous impact on the individual, the insistence for this formulaic proof to be just so is compromised, common sensibly speaking.
I have no use for debate. It's antagonistic and pits people at odds with each other. The only way to find truth is to come to find out that we have hit bottom and ask God for the answer like the prodigal son did. That's how I realized that neither Jesus' sacrifice nor mine is the way to salvation; forgiveness is. And then I found that Jesus concurred. Matt 12.7 If you had known what these words mean, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent. You have to apply it to your own life. Winning at debate will not convince anyone.
Greg doesn’t seem to understand propositional logic but perhaps he does because the point of his tactic is to induce what he calls “reversing the burden of proof”...which is not how propositions work.
Hi, thank you Alisa for standing up for the truth, I just discovered your channel, and fully appreciate it! Sorry for the separate question: Do you have a Hymn Cd? Thank you
The Socratic method works very well for me in general. A lot of people repeat what the media, teachers, family, friends, celebrities say without questioning or researching. With humility and respect I ask targeted questions and he’s right - silence! 😳 I know they’ll never give me the satisfaction of saying I’ve made them doubt their conclusions, but their silence speaks volumes.
@@kyleisaacson4852 I’ve read some of your other comments here and I know you’re trying to bait me into an argument. I’m not interested, sorry. Just look up the Socratic method and tailor it to the discussion at hand. Have a great day! 😀
@@kyleisaacson4852 PS Personally, my aim is never to merely win an argument. It’s to bring truth, light, balance to a subject. I don’t claim to have a monopoly on these things, but when I see gaps, it’s rewarding to help fill them in - if they’re open to that. Along the way, my gaps are filled too. Just wanted to clarify ✌️
… Hi-ALISA; Thank you so much for sharing you own interview and answers,as you genuinely hosted in asking others,in the inquisition and search for truth of the Heart of God. The radiance of your sincerity easily cuts through the shadows of rhetorical obfuscation. Please accept this as a rhetorical reply commentary to three of your recent postings;‘Christianity-Captured’,August-3,2021;’Clay-Jones’,August-9,2021,reposted from August30,2020;&,’Greg-Koukl’,August10,2021. I love - ‘philia‘’agapé’ - your hosting this continual forum for clarity of conscience. It appears you have not allowed the English language and its linguistical vocabulary limitations to subvert your meaning and message. You seem to provide the right amount of qualifiers in the terms you used,and the framing of answers,to not allow the audience to assume triggered meaning. In your citation of the GOSPEL,First letter by PAUL/ Saul-of-Tarsus,to the Corinthians,chapter-No.15,you provide a very sound biblical rationale for the current common misunderstanding of the GOSPEL to mean ‘that CHRIST ‘died’ for our ‘sins’ in accordance with the ‘scriptures’; that He was ‘buried’; that He was ‘raised’ on the third day in accordance with the ‘scriptures’; and that He ‘appeared’. As we know from the GOSPEL Works and Words of the Life,Morals,Teachings,and Philosophy of JESUS-of-Nazareth,He taught the ‘GOSPEL’ to be preached by sending out - MISSION - His Apostles and followers long before His;’GOSPEL-to-mean-‘that-CHRIST-‘died’-for-our-‘sins’-in-accordance-with-the-‘scriptures’;-that-He-was-‘buried’;-that-He-was-‘raised’-on-the-third-day-in-accordance-with-the-‘scriptures’;-and-that-He-‘appeared’. If I’m not mistaken,in your interview,you cited this passage as the First stated Christian creed identifying it as the ‘ATONEMENT’ and ‘RESURRECTION’,as ‘according-to-the-scriptures’; And,therefore;correct biblical canon. And, therefore; it may be very helpful to untangle the sequence and overlapping suppositions of the narrative. To answer questions for clarifications,I know what to say and show; making the case,that the common westernized American ‘historical’ Christian understanding of the GOSPEL as described by PAUL,Saul-of-Tarsus in chapter-No.15 in his First-letter to the Corinthians does not equate to the GOSPEL as taught and promulgated by JESUS-of-Nazareth,as follows: The GOSPEL of JESUS-of-Nazareth is; the ‘forgiveness-of-sins’ preached to the poor; the ‘Kingdom-of-Heaven-and-of-God-is-within-and-among-us’; the ‘Kingdom-of-God-is-at-hand’ by living life by following the ‘New’ and Personal - ‘My’ - Commandment to love one-another,God,your neighbour,yourself,and your enemy;as JESUS loved those things - even to the point of giving our lives as He gave His Life. This is the ‘proof’ that everyone will know that we are His ‘Disciples’ - CHRISTIANS - not as ‘servants’,but rather as ‘friends’,because servants do not know what the Master does. The GOSPEL according to the ‘scriptures’ as PAUL states twice refers, is; ‘that CHRIST died for our sins’; and, ‘that He was raised on the third day’. Although we know this to be the ATONEMENT and RESURRECTION. The only actual reference in the Old-Testament ‘scriptures’ to these two defining citations of ‘first importance’,if I’m not mistaken,correct me if I’m wrong, is; ISAIAH,chapter-53:verses-five-to-12; and, PSALM,chapter-16:verses-eight-&-nine. In ISAIAH; the ‘he’ referred to is ZION, ZION is used figuratively as the ‘city-on-the-hill’, church-&-polity of the Hebrews, or, ‘Heaven’,in general; similarly to the way western civilizations refer to the ‘city-on-the-hill’, temple-&-polity of the Greeks’ ‘Acropolis’, or, ‘Democracy’,in general. In PSALMS; the ‘he’ referred to is King DAVID himself, in a statement of self reassurance of his inheritance and legacy,while lamenting in a dirge, ‘not’ JESUS. This can be seen as a come-back ‘rise’ and ‘restoration’ of the official ‘anointed’ king,regardless of appearance of defeat. There may be other referential passages in the Old-Testament ‘scriptures’ to the implied ‘death-for-sins’, or, even; ‘restoration’, these are all vague rhetorical poetics of literature,and not specific citations that PAUL provides evidence for the ‘burden-of-proof’. As we know,references to ‘Scriptures’ in the First-century text was usually used in reference to the Old-Testament text,not the New Testament,or GOSPEL text. Since,PAUL was an expert in Old-Testament text and meaning,he carefully proceeded the term of use ‘scriptures’ in chapter-15,I-Corinthians, commenting by citing that he was reminding them of the ‘terms’ preached as the ‘good-news’ - GOSPEL. The case to be made for GOSPEL,ATONEMENT,and RESURRECTION,is as follows: … Attachment ~
Attachment, ... GOSPEL The use of the term 'Christian' in this context seems misleading and used rather loosely. To explain need not be lengthy: Jesus of Nazareth taught the ‘Gospel’ of the ‘Kingdom-of-Heaven’ as being within and among humankind. He sent His Apostles and followers to preach the ‘Gospel’ multiple times long before His Crucifixion and Resurrection. The ‘Gospel’ as so often cited by ‘historical’ and ‘traditional’ Christianity as being; ‘the-Crucifixion-Death-and-Resurrection’ as a ‘Sin-offering’ to God as a ‘penal-substitutionary-atonement’ for humanity’s Sin of ‘freewill’ is obviously false and bogus theology. The Gospel is the forgiveness of sins by following the Commandment of Jesus. That is to love one another as He loved others,even to the point of giving up one’s life,this would be ‘proof’ that ‘all-will-know’ one is a Disciple of Jesus,not as a ‘servant’,but as ‘friends’,because a ‘servant’ does not know what a ‘master’ does. The RESURRECTION of Jesus as a Divine Act of God raising by restoration to Life was, the ‘ANOINTMENT’; [English-a ceremonial confirmation of sovereignty by divine right], or ‘CHRISTOS’; [Greek], of ‘CHRIST’; [Latin], as ‘MESSIAH’; [Hebrew]. This was proof and validation that the ‘Gospel’ of the ‘Kingdom-of-God’ is within and among us,by ‘loving one-another to the point of giving our lives to others as the Christ’ had Commanded. To be clear, it ain’t complicated, only thinking of false-doctrine makes it so. ... ATONEMENT Since, we are familiar with the Parable of the Tenant Farmers of the Vineyard,note; as they kill the ‘heir’ outside the vineyard, Jesus asks the audience ‘what do you suppose the owner of the vineyard will do’? This is an allegory of the Crucifixion outside the jurisdiction of the Hebrew Law. ‘Sin’ offerings were to be made by ‘lot’ at the tabernacle; ’scapegoats’ were to be released alive into the wilderness - ‘shunned’. Before actually dying,Jesus said two things directly attributed to the Hebrew Law. As a ‘scapegoat’ He was cast out into the ‘wilderness’; there, outside the ‘vineyard’, as He was dying having been put to death after He was sent by the Father,as Owner of the vineyard to reconcile the debt accounts of the Tenant Farmers, the debtors instead, had the ‘Son’ killed. Upon His death He asked His ‘Father - forgive them...’, and, stated, ‘It is finished’ - giving up His Soul. The ‘It is finished’ part is that ‘not one jot and tittle’ of the Law that required the rendering onto God which is His shall be left undone. God was to have made ‘atonement’ with a living ‘scapegoat’,in the ‘wilderness’, ‘not’; a human sacrifice as a ‘sin offering’ at the Tabernacle. The ATONEMENT was made by the Son asking the Father to ‘forgive’ the debts of all those whom rejected and killed Him for merely asking for the Tenant-farmers to render onto God which is His. Big difference. Again, feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Love, in His Name. ... FULLSTOP . ~
@Rumble Bee nope! It won't be what they expect and will be so wrong from their opinion! They'll see "woke" people making more positive impact on the homeless and downtrodden they'll have to pull their head out of their b- no wait, they'll still complain, lol!
The reason I am no longer a Christian is because of the Bible. The basic tenet of Christianity is that you have to believe in Jesus death and resurrection in order to be forgiven of your sins. But people will ask, "Why can't God just forgive instead of requiring atonement for sins?" and Christians will say that God can't just forgive because God is just and therefore God must punish sins. But Psalms 65:3 says "though we are overwhelmed by our sins, you forgive them all" and 2 Chronicles 7:14 which says "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." Both of these verses were written long before the New Testament ever came into existence. So God is both capable and willing to just forgive people, meaning the death of Jesus wasn't necessary. Also the doctrine of the trinity, specifically Jesus being God. If it is the case that Jesus is God, then anyone who believes in God believes in Jesus because they are one and the same. And if anyone who believes in God believes in Jesus by default, then anyone who believes in God is saved. Or if Jesus isn't God, but is different/separate from God, then Christians who are worshipping Jesus are actually committing idolatry.
Worshipping Jesus is idolatry? Christianity 101: Jesus is God in the flesh. Also, atheists don't believe in sins, and often believe they are good people, therefore, there is nothing to be forgiven for. Sometimes, they believe that nonbelievers are kinder than Christians. Some of them even believe that all the suffering in the world is because of religion. Dawkins and Hitchens hold strongly to those beliefs. 2 Chronicles 7:14 which says "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." This means nothing to a non-believer, by the way. To them, it is utter nonsense. Believing in Jesus isn't a "get out jail" free card. One can say that he or she believes in Jesus but I can also refuse to turn from his or her wicked ways. Matthew 25 The Sheep and the Goats 31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. 34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’ 37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’ 40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’ 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ 44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ 45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’ 46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Or in John 21 15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
But wouldn't the Christian need to make their proof too? It goes both ways. And just like the non believer, the Christian would need actual proof and not just an idea.
True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers.
People tend to become infuriated if you calmly challenge their basic assumptions. I’m not saying this is fair on their part, it is simply my observation.
3 IMPORTANT THINGS WE ALL NEED TO EXPOSE:: 1. Georgia Guidestones plan is to disappear more than 93% of us. That includes blacks, whites, Mexicans, Christians, and other groups. 2. Most billionaires are old-world pagans/Satanists, says former elite banker Ronald Bernard. Their Freemason Washington Monument true width is 666 inches wide on all 4 sides. 3. For about 2 years now, even whilst Trump was president, our military has been recruiting specially from Democrat cities. Guess why. If they get control of our military, they can CONTROL US ALL. Princeton graduate Kay Griggs says Skull and Bones has made it so all U.S. military generals are home-oh-septuals. They're against us. Pray, learn of their Satanism in the Old Testament and even the New, & keep telling others.
If somebody makes a claim especially a claim about the truth than the burden of proof lies on the claimant. Plain and simple. Is it up to the person who doesn't believe in unicorns, bigfoot, Zeus and every other mythology to prove the non-existence of those beings or the person who makes that claim. Exactly. You claim a God exist it is your job to prove the existence of that being. It's about people taking responsibility for their claims and their words!! That was easy and it didn't take 6:32😂
According to Alisa historical Christianity primary claim is that Jesus died for our sins. What evidence she claims to have for making such a conclusion?
@@splittingwaves3966 now the claim that Jesus died for our sins first of all it does not make a whole lot of sense . For my normal conclusion based on this evidence would not be that Jesus was God but he was just insanely depress.
@@chardo24 My primary evidence is the words spoken by Jesus of Himself as to His identity and His purpose, as recorded by firsthand eyewitness testimony in the Gospels. These eyewitnesses also state that He authenticated His claims by performing miracles and raising from the dead. I find their testimony to be incredibly compelling. So, who do you say Jesus was, and what is your evidence?
@@splittingwaves3966 what you are claiming as primary evidence has nothing to do with matter of fact but just opinions. Forget whether or not they knew Jesus. We do not know whether anybody said what they said in here exactly, you know.
@@chardo24 I provided my position as to who I believe Jesus to be and why I believe it. I am still waiting for you to tell me who you think Jesus was (a man who was a homeless bum people made stuff up about? A con artist? Not real at all) and what your evidence for that is. Maybe you partially did this by calling Him "insanely depress", but I honestly don't know what you meant by that--no offense intended.
Someone asked me at the church the other day, why I haven't still taken the Jab for the virus yet.n he said he has successfully taken both doses and he feels good about it as he could attend church with no fear ..🤔 I said to him God is my immunity. I need no jab. Besides this is the perfect time to practice your faith!!! Right? 😌
I’ve seen so many Christians claim, you have to get the vaccine if your christian, because it would better your community(what Jesus did). And so many others saying they’re are covered by the blood of Christ. Do what makes you feel christian and comfortable:)
Is a person only an approved historian if they've been processed through an recognized institution? If that's true, how far back through history do we have to go where we think it's a safe bet to trust an institution - because the previous generation didn't have the current creds? Why is legitimate to write off a person who did all the hard work to equip themselves while not being approved of by an accredited institution?
@@kennorthunder2428 That's a great question, Ken. I've wondered the same thing myself. I mean it had to start SOMEWHERE? Who was the first person qualified to award a PhD? Did THAT person have a PhD? I guess if that person can award a PhD without having one himself, then surely Spiderman is a legitimate historical authority.
@@introvertedchristian5219 Only if you keep your view on reality narrow. Seems to me the broader our views and the greater our ability to connect the dots, the more legitimacy we might have - and therefor be able to categorize Spiderman as a mythical story who had real life creators with actual birthdates etc. If Spiderman was observed making observations about our reality and our history, maybe you'd have a point? Or maybe simply have more doubt about his veracity.
Unfortunately in real life it is more complicated. Sceptics can say that they are not claiming that there is no objective truth but rather disputing our claim that there is objective truth and we know what it is.
He is quite wrong about the burden of proof. It is not on the claimant. He is confusing a legal doctrine with a principle of intellectual inquiry. The idea that it is the one making a claim who has the burden of proof is a legal one for application in legal contexts alone. The notion of a claim in that context is a legal claim, and 'burden of proof' in that context merely means they have to make a case. it's not - absolutely not - a principle of intellectual inquiry. If it were, it'd undermine all intellectual inquiry. When it comes to intellectual inquiry - when it comes to figuring out whether a claim about reality is true or not - it is NOT the person who makes a claim who has the burden of proof. That is clearly self-undermining, as it itself is a claim! Any any defense of any claim will consist of further claims. So one is now off on a regress in which nothing can ever be proved. If someone says 'the burden of proof is on the one making a claim' ask them to prove that claim. Then no matter what they say, ask them to prove what they said. And again. And again. Thus revealing the absurdity of their claim and the fact they clearly haven't thought about it. The claim that the burden of proof is on the claimant generates an infinite regress. The burden of proof is on the person who says something is not as it appears. And 'appearance' here includes rational representations - that is, impressions generated by our reason. So, that 2 + 2 = 4 is a rational impression. Thus, it is not the person who claims that 2 + 2 = 4 who has the burden of proof, but the person who denies it. It is the denier of appearances who has the burden of proof (which can only be discharged by appealing to other, more numerous or stronger appearances with which the supposedly false one conflicts). Consider the claim that 'something cannot come from nothing'. That claim is self-evidently true. That is, our reason represents it to be true. Therefore there is no burden of proof on the person who makes such a claim. The burden of proof is on the person who denies it. Therein lies the strength of first cause arguments. Consider the claim that our minds are immaterial souls. Well, that appears to be true - my mind does not appear to have any sensible features (my 'body' does, but not my mind). Therefore the burden of proof is not on the person who believes their mind is a soul, but on the person who believes their mind is their brain. Consider the claim that some acts are right and others wrong. Well, that appears to be true - we appear to have moral obligations. Therefore, the burden of proof is not on the moral realist, but the moral nihilist. However, if you confusedly think that the burden of proof is on the claimant - regardless of whether their claim appears true or not - then you place the burden on both sides above, and you have also ensured that neither can discharge it. Which means all you've done is undermine the credibility of theism and render it as indefensible as atheism!
The burden of proof is the one who makes the claim has the burden of showing it is true if someone questions it. If they refuse, then there is no reason to believe what they claim. Theists do hate this idea since they make fantastic claims but cannot show that any of them are true. It's even more amusing when they are offended they are required to provide evidence for their nonsense but don't see a problem when they require it from other theists.
@Rumble Bee then I will be the first I guess. I think these debates are rediculous. JESUS told us to go forth and preach the gospel, if you don't believe it then that should be ok , christians should not be offended and attack you they should just say I love you and leave it at that
@Rumble Bee oh ok I listen and if it's biblical I'm good with it if it's not it's entertainment. I appreciate the honesty. There's a bunch of gospel I think I understand then found out later it meant something else. For me it's food for my soul and keeps me away from swearing and other things secular. I think that is the right word
PLEASE STOP USING ALLEN PARS PICTURES AS A WAY TO INSINUATE THAT YOU TWO ARE TOGETHER IN YOUR THUMBNAILS. HE IS HAPPILY MARRIED TO A NIGERIAN WOMAN AND HE DOES NOT LIKE YOU. THAT IS CALLED DECEPTION. A LIE. IT IS ALSO DISRESPECTFUL TO HIM AND HIS WIFE. THE UNION HE HAS BEFORE GOD. YOU HAVE DONE THIS REPEATEDLY. YOU REPRESENT YOURSELF AND PLATFORM WITH A LIE FOR MONEY (STRUGGLE VIEWS).
I have no use for debate. It's antagonistic and pits people at odds with each other. The only way to find truth is to come to find out that we have hit bottom and ask God for the answer like the prodigal son did. That's how I realized that neither Jesus' sacrifice nor mine is the way to salvation; forgiveness is. And then I found that Jesus concurred. Matt 12.7 If you had known what these words mean, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent. You have to apply it to your own life. Winning at debate will not convince anyone.
Technically, 'all truth is relative' is an absolute statement, defeating itself.
It is self defeating but it is also kind of smug sounding when it is used, which at the end of the day can also be self-defeating.
One man's truth is another man's lie.
I've been wondering about that statement... whether it's a paradoxical truth. (Because it's an objective OBSERVATION made by subjective creatures - that quite often seems to be true because it points back to the issuer of that statement who DO use absolute truths in mathematics for example - but even mathematics uses variables.) even though we're subjective creatures. Personally I believe we're operating on a fundamental metaphysical equation. Equations come from minds. We mortals THINK we invent equations, but the more likely reality is that we DISCOVER equations. 1+1 =2 eternally. We're discovering something about God when we discover ourselves. (That's why scripture says we're created in the image of God)
@@kennorthunder2428 Truth and falsehood are by definition mutually exclusive. It's a false statement since absolute truth exists. Denial of absolute truth presupposes absolute truth. Thus, absolute truth exists and the statement 'all truth is relative' is false.
@@andrewconnor9782
That's good in and of itself so far. But we Christians are dealing ALREADY with a truth that is paradoxical - while pointing to ourselves AND God. - namely: God sovereignty in mankind's salvation while treating mankind as if they actually could "flee from the wrath to come". In other words God saying to us: You must, but you can't. There's something deeper going on: accountability because we're created in the image of God, but dependent upon him not only for our existence but to motivate our passions - but also encouraging us to pray to Him that our passions would be modified to his will.
At the risk of being crass, A God ordained spiritual hack.
Reversing the burden of proof is a great tactic.
@Excuse me but How did you arrive at the conclusion that reversing the burden of proof destroys Christianity?
@Excuse me but Same is true that life evolved from a primordial ooze, so that puts molecules to man evolution in the religion category not science.
@Excuse me but I believe in the resurrection because God was the cause of it. If the Bible taught that God used evolution to create life, as some Christians do, then I would believe it too. However, after studying Genesis 1-11, I don't believe God used evolution to create life on Earth.
Atheists believe that evolution is a natural mechanism and doesn't require a supernatural agent , they have yet to provide any evidence that this is true, that makes evolution a competing religious belief about the past held to with the same fervent faith as any religious believer, after all, there is no empirical evidence that life arose from a Last Universal Common Ancestor. The similarities in design point to a common Creator and Designer, not common descent.
@Excuse me but ,Christian apologists like William Lane Craig, Dr. Sean McDowell, Dr. Frank Turek, J. Warner Wallace, Gary Habermas, all have videos proving the historicity of the Gospel accounts, so, they're not avoiding the burden of proof, the information is readily available.
Edit, how does one empirically prove a past historical event?
@Excuse me but Do you believe that Julius Caesar existed?
I watched that Holland vs Grayling podcast, Alisa hit the nail right on the head.
Why do I think that Grayling sounds so very patronizing. Alisa Childers is not a child.
One thing I've found in my little apologetics journey is that the atheists (except one) that I've had conversations with often lack any standard whatsoever. They're simply there to poop on anything you present. If you ask for a "better alternative" to something they find faulty or unappealing, they retort the same thing: "give me your best answer" without providing any whatsoever. So it's no surprise (to me) that a lot of them have no tangible reason to back up the mantras they hold.
I have a dove tattoo on my hand, so it’s showing 24/7. I can’t tell you how many conversations I’ve had with people tellling me why Noah’s flood story is false and Holy Spirit isn’t real lol
@@Jhart44 😂😂 at a point you might have to print out slips with their usual questions and your answers to them
@@joszsz yooooo that’s hilarious🤣
Simple wisdom! I am going to apply this in my life.
praise the Lord and God bless you all glory be to the HOLY TRINITY amen
1 Peter 3:15
“But in your hearts sanctify Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give a defense to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that is in you. But respond with gentleness and respect,”
There is an element of the "burden of proof" song and dance that I never hear mentioned, but in practical terms really must be - the potential consequence and/or reward of the result of the claim in question. It really makes a difference to whether one is really willing to push for proper proof of a thing if the thing has immediate or massive implications. On paper is one thing, but when it's reality has tremendous impact on the individual, the insistence for this formulaic proof to be just so is compromised, common sensibly speaking.
I have no use for debate. It's antagonistic and pits people at odds with each other. The only way to find truth is to come to find out that we have hit bottom and ask God for the answer like the prodigal son did. That's how I realized that neither Jesus' sacrifice nor mine is the way to salvation; forgiveness is. And then I found that Jesus concurred.
Matt 12.7 If you had known what these words mean, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent.
You have to apply it to your own life. Winning at debate will not convince anyone.
Greg doesn’t seem to understand propositional logic but perhaps he does because the point of his tactic is to induce what he calls “reversing the burden of proof”...which is not how propositions work.
Yes, his whole position is, more people believe in my truth so it must be true.
A great way to defend a lie.
@@areuaware6842 then the other person is gonna say , prove it's a lie
@@larzman651 , These apologists are terrible!
@@areuaware6842 I just read the bible and try to obey what it says. I don't get into the apologetic stuff
@@larzman651 , So do you kill when it says to kill?
Hi, thank you Alisa for standing up for the truth, I just discovered your channel, and fully appreciate it! Sorry for the separate question: Do you have a Hymn Cd? Thank you
The Socratic method works very well for me in general. A lot of people repeat what the media, teachers, family, friends, celebrities say without questioning or researching. With humility and respect I ask targeted questions and he’s right - silence! 😳 I know they’ll never give me the satisfaction of saying I’ve made them doubt their conclusions, but their silence speaks volumes.
I'd love to hear one of your targeted questions. I usually don't tend to say silent 😃
Hi Kyle, it depends on the subject. 🙂
@@Teal_Seal well why don't you give me one of those so-called targeted questions that people are so silent about.
@@kyleisaacson4852 I’ve read some of your other comments here and I know you’re trying to bait me into an argument. I’m not interested, sorry. Just look up the Socratic method and tailor it to the discussion at hand.
Have a great day! 😀
@@kyleisaacson4852 PS Personally, my aim is never to merely win an argument. It’s to bring truth, light, balance to a subject.
I don’t claim to have a monopoly on these things, but when I see gaps, it’s rewarding to help fill them in - if they’re open to that.
Along the way, my gaps are filled too.
Just wanted to clarify ✌️
…
Hi-ALISA;
Thank you so much for sharing you own interview and answers,as you genuinely hosted in asking others,in the inquisition and search for truth of the Heart of God.
The radiance of your sincerity easily cuts through the shadows of rhetorical obfuscation. Please accept this as a rhetorical reply commentary to three of your recent postings;‘Christianity-Captured’,August-3,2021;’Clay-Jones’,August-9,2021,reposted from August30,2020;&,’Greg-Koukl’,August10,2021.
I love - ‘philia‘’agapé’ - your hosting this continual forum for clarity of conscience. It appears you have not allowed the English language and its linguistical vocabulary limitations to subvert your meaning and message. You seem to provide the right amount of qualifiers in the terms you used,and the framing of answers,to not allow the audience to assume triggered meaning.
In your citation of the GOSPEL,First letter by PAUL/ Saul-of-Tarsus,to the Corinthians,chapter-No.15,you provide a very sound biblical rationale for the current common misunderstanding of the GOSPEL to mean ‘that CHRIST ‘died’ for our ‘sins’ in accordance with the ‘scriptures’; that He was ‘buried’; that He was ‘raised’ on the third day in accordance with the ‘scriptures’; and that He ‘appeared’.
As we know from the GOSPEL Works and Words of the Life,Morals,Teachings,and Philosophy of JESUS-of-Nazareth,He taught the ‘GOSPEL’ to be preached by sending out - MISSION - His Apostles and followers long before His;’GOSPEL-to-mean-‘that-CHRIST-‘died’-for-our-‘sins’-in-accordance-with-the-‘scriptures’;-that-He-was-‘buried’;-that-He-was-‘raised’-on-the-third-day-in-accordance-with-the-‘scriptures’;-and-that-He-‘appeared’.
If I’m not mistaken,in your interview,you cited this passage as the First stated Christian creed identifying it as the ‘ATONEMENT’ and ‘RESURRECTION’,as ‘according-to-the-scriptures’; And,therefore;correct biblical canon.
And,
therefore;
it may be very helpful to untangle the sequence and overlapping suppositions of the narrative.
To answer questions for clarifications,I know what to say and show; making the case,that the common westernized American ‘historical’ Christian understanding of the GOSPEL as described by PAUL,Saul-of-Tarsus in chapter-No.15 in his First-letter to the Corinthians does not equate to the GOSPEL as taught and promulgated by JESUS-of-Nazareth,as follows:
The GOSPEL of JESUS-of-Nazareth is;
the ‘forgiveness-of-sins’ preached to the poor;
the ‘Kingdom-of-Heaven-and-of-God-is-within-and-among-us’;
the ‘Kingdom-of-God-is-at-hand’ by living life by following the ‘New’ and Personal - ‘My’ - Commandment to
love one-another,God,your neighbour,yourself,and your enemy;as JESUS loved those things - even to the point of giving our lives as He gave His Life. This is the ‘proof’ that everyone will know that we are His ‘Disciples’ - CHRISTIANS - not as ‘servants’,but rather as ‘friends’,because servants do not know what the Master does.
The GOSPEL according to the ‘scriptures’ as PAUL states twice refers,
is;
‘that CHRIST died for our sins’;
and,
‘that He was raised on the third day’.
Although we know this to be the ATONEMENT and RESURRECTION.
The only actual reference in the Old-Testament ‘scriptures’ to these two defining citations of ‘first importance’,if I’m not mistaken,correct me if I’m wrong,
is;
ISAIAH,chapter-53:verses-five-to-12;
and,
PSALM,chapter-16:verses-eight-&-nine.
In ISAIAH;
the ‘he’ referred to is ZION,
ZION is used figuratively as the ‘city-on-the-hill’,
church-&-polity of the Hebrews,
or,
‘Heaven’,in general;
similarly to the way western civilizations refer to the
‘city-on-the-hill’,
temple-&-polity of the Greeks’ ‘Acropolis’,
or,
‘Democracy’,in general.
In PSALMS;
the ‘he’ referred to is King DAVID
himself,
in a statement of self reassurance of his inheritance and legacy,while lamenting in a dirge,
‘not’ JESUS.
This can be seen as a come-back ‘rise’ and ‘restoration’ of the official ‘anointed’ king,regardless of appearance of defeat.
There may be other referential passages in the Old-Testament ‘scriptures’ to the implied ‘death-for-sins’,
or,
even;
‘restoration’,
these are all vague rhetorical poetics of literature,and not specific citations that PAUL provides evidence for the ‘burden-of-proof’.
As we know,references to ‘Scriptures’ in the First-century text was usually used in reference to the Old-Testament text,not the New Testament,or GOSPEL text.
Since,PAUL was an expert in Old-Testament text and meaning,he carefully proceeded the term of use ‘scriptures’ in chapter-15,I-Corinthians, commenting by citing that he was reminding them of the ‘terms’ preached as the ‘good-news’ - GOSPEL.
The case to be made for GOSPEL,ATONEMENT,and RESURRECTION,is as follows:
…
Attachment
~
Attachment,
...
GOSPEL
The use of the term 'Christian' in this context seems misleading and used rather loosely.
To explain need not be lengthy:
Jesus of Nazareth taught the ‘Gospel’ of the ‘Kingdom-of-Heaven’ as being within and among humankind. He sent His Apostles and followers to preach the ‘Gospel’ multiple times long before His Crucifixion and Resurrection. The ‘Gospel’ as so often cited by ‘historical’ and ‘traditional’ Christianity as being; ‘the-Crucifixion-Death-and-Resurrection’ as a ‘Sin-offering’ to God as a ‘penal-substitutionary-atonement’ for humanity’s Sin of ‘freewill’ is obviously false and bogus theology.
The Gospel is the forgiveness of sins by following the Commandment of Jesus. That is to love one another as He loved others,even to the point of giving up one’s life,this would be ‘proof’ that ‘all-will-know’ one is a Disciple of Jesus,not as a ‘servant’,but as ‘friends’,because a ‘servant’ does not know what a ‘master’ does.
The
RESURRECTION
of Jesus as a Divine Act of God
raising by restoration to Life was,
the ‘ANOINTMENT’;
[English-a ceremonial confirmation of sovereignty
by divine right],
or ‘CHRISTOS’;
[Greek],
of ‘CHRIST’;
[Latin],
as ‘MESSIAH’;
[Hebrew].
This was proof and validation that the ‘Gospel’ of the ‘Kingdom-of-God’ is within and among us,by ‘loving one-another to the point of giving our lives to others as the Christ’ had Commanded.
To be clear,
it ain’t complicated,
only thinking of false-doctrine
makes it so.
...
ATONEMENT
Since,
we are familiar with the Parable of the Tenant Farmers of the Vineyard,note;
as they kill the ‘heir’ outside the vineyard, Jesus asks the audience ‘what do you suppose the owner of the vineyard will do’?
This is an allegory of the Crucifixion outside the jurisdiction of the Hebrew Law. ‘Sin’ offerings were to be made by ‘lot’ at the tabernacle; ’scapegoats’ were to be released alive into the wilderness - ‘shunned’.
Before actually dying,Jesus said two things directly attributed to the Hebrew Law.
As a ‘scapegoat’ He was cast out into the ‘wilderness’;
there,
outside the ‘vineyard’,
as He was dying having been put to death after He was sent by the Father,as Owner of the vineyard to reconcile the debt accounts of the Tenant Farmers, the debtors instead,
had the ‘Son’ killed.
Upon His death He asked His ‘Father - forgive them...’,
and,
stated,
‘It is finished’ - giving up His Soul.
The ‘It is finished’ part is that ‘not one jot and tittle’ of the Law that required the rendering onto God which is His shall be left undone.
God was to have made ‘atonement’ with a living ‘scapegoat’,in the ‘wilderness’,
‘not’;
a human sacrifice as a ‘sin offering’ at the Tabernacle.
The ATONEMENT was made by the Son asking the Father to ‘forgive’ the debts of all those whom rejected and killed Him for merely asking for the Tenant-farmers to render onto God which is His.
Big difference.
Again,
feel free to correct
me if I am wrong.
Love,
in His Name.
...
FULLSTOP
.
~
"We don't have to prove our god exists! You have to prove he doesn't exist!"
Real original.
@Rumble Bee nope! It won't be what they expect and will be so wrong from their opinion! They'll see "woke" people making more positive impact on the homeless and downtrodden they'll have to pull their head out of their b- no wait, they'll still complain, lol!
The reason I am no longer a Christian is because of the Bible. The basic tenet of Christianity is that you have to believe in Jesus death and resurrection in order to be forgiven of your sins. But people will ask, "Why can't God just forgive instead of requiring atonement for sins?" and Christians will say that God can't just forgive because God is just and therefore God must punish sins. But Psalms 65:3 says "though we are overwhelmed by our sins, you forgive them all" and 2 Chronicles 7:14 which says "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." Both of these verses were written long before the New Testament ever came into existence. So God is both capable and willing to just forgive people, meaning the death of Jesus wasn't necessary. Also the doctrine of the trinity, specifically Jesus being God. If it is the case that Jesus is God, then anyone who believes in God believes in Jesus because they are one and the same. And if anyone who believes in God believes in Jesus by default, then anyone who believes in God is saved. Or if Jesus isn't God, but is different/separate from God, then Christians who are worshipping Jesus are actually committing idolatry.
Worshipping Jesus is idolatry? Christianity 101: Jesus is God in the flesh.
Also, atheists don't believe in sins, and often believe they are good people, therefore, there is nothing to be forgiven for. Sometimes, they believe that nonbelievers are kinder than Christians. Some of them even believe that all the suffering in the world is because of religion. Dawkins and Hitchens hold strongly to those beliefs.
2 Chronicles 7:14 which says "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then I will hear from Heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." This means nothing to a non-believer, by the way. To them, it is utter nonsense.
Believing in Jesus isn't a "get out jail" free card. One can say that he or she believes in Jesus but I can also refuse to turn from his or her wicked ways.
Matthew 25
The Sheep and the Goats
31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”
Or in John 21
15 When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
16 Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. 18 Very truly I tell you, when you were younger you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” 19 Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
@@deeanderson4164 I'm not an atheist so I'm not sure how to respond, but thank you
@@thefactoryratgenius4659 You said you were no longer a Christian. I assumed that meant you were an atheist.
@@deeanderson4164 There are also other religions, genius.
@@blackinpublic4193 Really? Wow! Thanks for letting me know.....genius.
Dr. Heiser has pancreatic cancer.. Please pray the Father/Jesus\Holy Spirit dissolve his cancer.. In the name of Jesus
But wouldn't the Christian need to make their proof too? It goes both ways. And just like the non believer, the Christian would need actual proof and not just an idea.
True religion is not about possessing the truth. No religion does that. It is rather an invitation into a journey that leads one toward the mystery of God. Idolatry is religion pretending that it has all the answers.
People tend to become infuriated if you calmly challenge their basic assumptions. I’m not saying this is fair on their part, it is simply my observation.
3 IMPORTANT THINGS WE ALL NEED TO EXPOSE::
1. Georgia Guidestones plan is to disappear more than 93% of us. That includes blacks, whites, Mexicans, Christians, and other groups.
2. Most billionaires are old-world pagans/Satanists, says former elite banker Ronald Bernard. Their Freemason Washington Monument true width is 666 inches wide on all 4 sides.
3. For about 2 years now, even whilst Trump was president, our military has been recruiting specially from Democrat cities. Guess why. If they get control of our military, they can CONTROL US ALL. Princeton graduate Kay Griggs says Skull and Bones has made it so all U.S. military generals are home-oh-septuals. They're against us.
Pray, learn of their Satanism in the Old Testament and even the New, & keep telling others.
If somebody makes a claim especially a claim about the truth than the burden of proof lies on the claimant. Plain and simple. Is it up to the person who doesn't believe in unicorns, bigfoot, Zeus and every other mythology to prove the non-existence of those beings or the person who makes that claim. Exactly. You claim a God exist it is your job to prove the existence of that being. It's about people taking responsibility for their claims and their words!! That was easy and it didn't take 6:32😂
According to Alisa historical Christianity primary claim is that Jesus died for our sins. What evidence she claims to have for making such a conclusion?
Who do you think Jesus was, and what is your evidence?
@@splittingwaves3966 now the claim that Jesus died for our sins first of all it does not make a whole lot of sense . For my normal conclusion based on this evidence would not be that Jesus was God but he was just insanely depress.
@@chardo24 My primary evidence is the words spoken by Jesus of Himself as to His identity and His purpose, as recorded by firsthand eyewitness testimony in the Gospels. These eyewitnesses also state that He authenticated His claims by performing miracles and raising from the dead. I find their testimony to be incredibly compelling.
So, who do you say Jesus was, and what is your evidence?
@@splittingwaves3966 what you are claiming as primary evidence has nothing to do with matter of fact but just opinions. Forget whether or not they knew Jesus. We do not know whether anybody said what they said in here exactly, you know.
@@chardo24 I provided my position as to who I believe Jesus to be and why I believe it. I am still waiting for you to tell me who you think Jesus was (a man who was a homeless bum people made stuff up about? A con artist? Not real at all) and what your evidence for that is. Maybe you partially did this by calling Him "insanely depress", but I honestly don't know what you meant by that--no offense intended.
But if a non-controversial claim is made you have to accept it, accept it without question.
LOL
"Controversial" is always the result of absorbed/entrenched notions deeply settled in our minds.
A non-controversial claim like what?
Shouldn't we always question every claim? Should we blindly believe things?
@@kyleisaacson4852 , That's exactly what the Abrahamists want, for you to blindly believe.
@@areuaware6842 who are abramormist What do I believe again?
@@kyleisaacson4852 , Abrahamists = Abrahamic religions; Judaism, Christianity and Islam and their thousands of sects.
Someone asked me at the church the other day, why I haven't still taken the Jab for the virus yet.n he said he has successfully taken both doses and he feels good about it as he could attend church with no fear ..🤔
I said to him God is my immunity.
I need no jab.
Besides this is the perfect time to practice your faith!!!
Right?
😌
I’ve seen so many Christians claim, you have to get the vaccine if your christian, because it would better your community(what Jesus did). And so many others saying they’re are covered by the blood of Christ.
Do what makes you feel christian and comfortable:)
@@Jhart44
Thank you 🙏
Tom Holland is an historian? When did Spiderman change his major?
Is a person only an approved historian if they've been processed through an recognized institution?
If that's true, how far back through history do we have to go where we think it's a safe bet to trust an institution - because the previous generation didn't have the current creds?
Why is legitimate to write off a person who did all the hard work to equip themselves while not being approved of by an accredited institution?
@@kennorthunder2428 That's a great question, Ken. I've wondered the same thing myself. I mean it had to start SOMEWHERE? Who was the first person qualified to award a PhD? Did THAT person have a PhD? I guess if that person can award a PhD without having one himself, then surely Spiderman is a legitimate historical authority.
@@introvertedchristian5219 Only if you keep your view on reality narrow. Seems to me the broader our views and the greater our ability to connect the dots, the more legitimacy we might have - and therefor be able to categorize Spiderman as a mythical story who had real life creators with actual birthdates etc.
If Spiderman was observed making observations about our reality and our history, maybe you'd have a point? Or maybe simply have more doubt about his veracity.
@@kennorthunder2428 Far be it from me to doubt Spiderman.
Unfortunately in real life it is more complicated. Sceptics can say that they are not claiming that there is no objective truth but rather disputing our claim that there is objective truth and we know what it is.
Dear Sister, put me on the grill if you want... Much love!
He is quite wrong about the burden of proof. It is not on the claimant.
He is confusing a legal doctrine with a principle of intellectual inquiry. The idea that it is the one making a claim who has the burden of proof is a legal one for application in legal contexts alone. The notion of a claim in that context is a legal claim, and 'burden of proof' in that context merely means they have to make a case. it's not - absolutely not - a principle of intellectual inquiry. If it were, it'd undermine all intellectual inquiry.
When it comes to intellectual inquiry - when it comes to figuring out whether a claim about reality is true or not - it is NOT the person who makes a claim who has the burden of proof. That is clearly self-undermining, as it itself is a claim! Any any defense of any claim will consist of further claims. So one is now off on a regress in which nothing can ever be proved.
If someone says 'the burden of proof is on the one making a claim' ask them to prove that claim. Then no matter what they say, ask them to prove what they said. And again. And again. Thus revealing the absurdity of their claim and the fact they clearly haven't thought about it. The claim that the burden of proof is on the claimant generates an infinite regress.
The burden of proof is on the person who says something is not as it appears. And 'appearance' here includes rational representations - that is, impressions generated by our reason. So, that 2 + 2 = 4 is a rational impression. Thus, it is not the person who claims that 2 + 2 = 4 who has the burden of proof, but the person who denies it. It is the denier of appearances who has the burden of proof (which can only be discharged by appealing to other, more numerous or stronger appearances with which the supposedly false one conflicts).
Consider the claim that 'something cannot come from nothing'. That claim is self-evidently true. That is, our reason represents it to be true. Therefore there is no burden of proof on the person who makes such a claim. The burden of proof is on the person who denies it. Therein lies the strength of first cause arguments.
Consider the claim that our minds are immaterial souls. Well, that appears to be true - my mind does not appear to have any sensible features (my 'body' does, but not my mind). Therefore the burden of proof is not on the person who believes their mind is a soul, but on the person who believes their mind is their brain.
Consider the claim that some acts are right and others wrong. Well, that appears to be true - we appear to have moral obligations. Therefore, the burden of proof is not on the moral realist, but the moral nihilist.
However, if you confusedly think that the burden of proof is on the claimant - regardless of whether their claim appears true or not - then you place the burden on both sides above, and you have also ensured that neither can discharge it. Which means all you've done is undermine the credibility of theism and render it as indefensible as atheism!
The burden of proof is the one who makes the claim has the burden of showing it is true if someone questions it. If they refuse, then there is no reason to believe what they claim.
Theists do hate this idea since they make fantastic claims but cannot show that any of them are true. It's even more amusing when they are offended they are required to provide evidence for their nonsense but don't see a problem when they require it from other theists.
@Rumble Bee don't throw all of us in the same boat , I would reply with we have differences in beliefs and that's ok.
@Rumble Bee then I will be the first I guess. I think these debates are rediculous. JESUS told us to go forth and preach the gospel, if you don't believe it then that should be ok , christians should not be offended and attack you they should just say I love you and leave it at that
@Rumble Bee oh ok I listen and if it's biblical I'm good with it if it's not it's entertainment. I appreciate the honesty. There's a bunch of gospel I think I understand then found out later it meant something else. For me it's food for my soul and keeps me away from swearing and other things secular. I think that is the right word
@Rumble Bee I have not read anything by CS Luis
@Rumble Bee I just read the KJV bible
Like these short bites.
So poor…..reverse the tactics on most conservative Christians and get the same results
Hows this for a shocker: the lack of proof that earth is a ball spinning and going around the sun!
I think the burden of proof is on them for dinosaurs ever existing.
PLEASE STOP USING ALLEN PARS PICTURES AS A WAY TO INSINUATE THAT YOU TWO ARE TOGETHER IN YOUR THUMBNAILS. HE IS HAPPILY MARRIED TO A NIGERIAN WOMAN AND HE DOES NOT LIKE YOU. THAT IS CALLED DECEPTION. A LIE. IT IS ALSO DISRESPECTFUL TO HIM AND HIS WIFE. THE UNION HE HAS BEFORE GOD. YOU HAVE DONE THIS REPEATEDLY. YOU REPRESENT YOURSELF AND PLATFORM WITH A LIE FOR MONEY (STRUGGLE VIEWS).
I have no use for debate. It's antagonistic and pits people at odds with each other. The only way to find truth is to come to find out that we have hit bottom and ask God for the answer like the prodigal son did. That's how I realized that neither Jesus' sacrifice nor mine is the way to salvation; forgiveness is. And then I found that Jesus concurred.
Matt 12.7 If you had known what these words mean, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent.
You have to apply it to your own life. Winning at debate will not convince anyone.
Why does Greg Koukl sound so patronizing? Alisa Childers is not a child, and even children dislike that tone of voice.
Hi a bit off topic but what do people think of the Pope's latest encyclical ?