How can we know truth? Watch this!
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 19 май 2020
- This young man, who may be a presuppositionalist, suggests that we must start with the Bible to know anything, including the laws of logic. Frank shows why that would be impossible. In fact, you need to know the laws of logic, and many other things, before you can even know what the Bible means.
⬇⬇⬇𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔⬇⬇⬇
●Facebook: / crossexamined.org
●Twitter: / frank_turek
●Instagram: / drfrankturek
⬇⬇⬇𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦⬇⬇⬇
Website: crossexamined.org
Store: impactapologetics.com/
Online Courses: reasonu.thinkific.com/collect...
⬇⬇⬇𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧⬇⬇⬇
iTunes: bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast
Google Play: bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Spotify: bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_P...
Stitcher: bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
#FrankTurek #Presuppositionalism #Epistemology
The more I watch these videos, the more I am understanding one thing: intellect is different from wisdom. One can be very intelligent and yet not be wise at all. This makes sense because the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. Proverbs 9:10
Fear of which god?
@@mickqQ It depends on which one you want to attribute it too.
Agreed! I noticed it too
@@Paradox4152 Absolutely!
The fear of God isn't the beginning of wisdom.
Wisdom is experience and understanding over time.
Truth lives within us.
Most people just hide it and search for a truth that allows them to believe in lies.
That's a true. I went to church. People there repeating obvious nonsense and lies were shocking to me.
@@johnmakovec5698 That’s funny, I have the same experience when I watch atheists and read books by atheists. Loads of nonsense and things that are clearly untrue, incoherent and without rational foundations. It’s really weird to see. There is no basis for atheism but I guess people just have weird beliefs.
@@gfujigo Ok. Let's speak about naturalism + materialism. Those are worldvies available to atheists.
The basis for atheism is absence of need for a god.
A god is possible, yet not proven necessary. God is IMHO an idea. Powerful idea created by people. God of the Bible is created in image of earthly kings. It gives laws, keep moral in battles, requires allegiance and loves to be praised.
@@johnmakovec5698 exactly backwards. Kings have tried to imitate God. From the start, all the way to the end. That's the exact lie Lucifer told Eve
@@Proverbs10-19 That actually doesn't work. You can create fictional character with super powers based on humans (Superman), but you can't became Superman.
Human societies have leaders, because it makes human groups more effective in general.
God is just "more powerful" king in the sky.
We know how can be gods use to make order in society. How priests can give to superstitious people what they need. It can be done with one god or plenty of them. Both works.
But sure, maybe I am wrong and I am going to be visit by an angel in few minutes.
What do you think? Is some angel going to visit me?
Man Mr. Frank Turek I say sir as a brother in christ I admire your knowledge. Seriuosly look up to GOD 1ST MOST & you sir. Man GOD would be proud. Also love when people have these questions with different religions man I LOVE THESE CONVERSATIONS. May God bless you more abundantly & keep doing what your doing & Jesus Loves You. ✌👋😃
"...all our righteous acts are like filthy rags..." Isaiah 64:6
People think the questioner is an atheist. I don't think so, I think he is a Christian.
He seemed to struggle with the answer unfortunately. Obviously knowledge predates the bible but he couldn't answer that simple question.
He argued that logic comes from the Bible - he's a Christian
Presuppositional.
J w
Other gods do .
Oh he's definitely a Christian. But he still seemed to have come ready to "defeat" Dr. Turek.
Great explanation from Frank. It also explains very well the fallacy of Sola Scriptura theology. The Bible isn't some magical book that will reveal all truths about the Universe to the reader. We need to first understand logic, reason, and the historical, social and cultural context of the biblical texts in order to actually understand them. It is only then that the divine genious, the immeasurable depth and the incredible complexity in the Bible is revealed.
I got the impression the man asking the question was a Calvinist.
Sitting alone I removed the lie I was told against myself, no longer persecuting myself as a born sinner birthing in sin. Mama is Wawa's name and this is who I am.
I think Frank gave a good answer here, but it could've been better explained in a longer format.
I love this ministry. Great video, keep up the good work.
Thank you for your videos.
praise the Lord and God bless you
Wow! It's cool that Serj Tankian showed up to ask questions!
I would love to get into that course, if it's still open.
Yea I love this dude
Man, this was a good short.
Thank you for returning to a classier thumbnail design.
You’re fun at parties
Fun while it lasted
Nostalgia LOL
It's called common sense, people. Use it.
Thank you for being honest, Frank. The guy claiming the bible states the laws of logic by using very vague, irrelevant bible quotes was embarrassing 🤦♂️.
You wanna know what’s embarrassing Alex?
I seem to know a lot of people who don't have a logical bone in their body.
I gave birth to one
@@patticarey9016 😳
Great answer, Frank.
Wow
﴿وَمِنَ الَّذينَ قالوا إِنّا نَصارى أَخَذنا ميثاقَهُم فَنَسوا حَظًّا مِمّا ذُكِّروا بِهِ فَأَغرَينا بَينَهُمُ العَداوَةَ وَالبَغضاءَ إِلى يَومِ القِيامَةِ وَسَوفَ يُنَبِّئُهُمُ اللَّهُ بِما كانوا يَصنَعونَ﴾ [المائدة: ١٤]
And from those who say, "We are Christians" We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allāh is going to inform them about what they used to do.
Saheeh International
0:24 - Why can we depend on laws of logic? (paraphrasing)
Yes... It is something we can prove empirically, but
what if we insist for a theoretical proof (which is how we can so strongly depend on math) ?
To answer that question, find the answer to this sometime => Math is built on certain fundamental AXIOMS... Axioms cannot be proven but are asserted and used cuz it makes sense empirically.
So, is MATH built on "theoretically" unproved statements????
But still, math works like a charm always...
Find out why math works though based on AXIOMS.... then we can be absolutely certain on depending on laws of logic without doubting ;)
God is and therefore he is. Because he has made it so that we can know him and He is sovereign!
(FACTS OVA FEELINGS). Wee have a Conditional Relationship with the Truth. Wee onlt want Truth if it makes us feel moor Stable. Wee only want Truth if it makes us feel moor in Control. Wee only want Truth if it makes ur feel Good and this conditional relationship tha wee have with the truth will bee hOUR DOWNFALL
It was at this moment... 2:47... that the questioner realized... "I messed up".
Edit: Yes, I know that the questioner is a Christian. Christians can mess up too if they operate with pride.
Brian(unfortunately): auto correct....
@Ryan Iz Christian
I think the questioner is a Christian.
Sadly, both the brothers talking in the video seem to misunderstand presuppositionalism. The question and the answer at 2:47 were both missing the point, as presuppositionalism affirms that people do know things... but deny that they can justify their knowledge claims apart from the God of the Bible.
@@brando3342 Oh he's definitely a Christian. But he seemed to come ready to "defeat" Dr. Turek.
2:03 the questioner is making some very interesting points here actually. I wish Frank didn't just talk over that.
Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.
If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
(John 7, 16-17 / KJV)
Bible is messed up.
You can argue both for Jesus as god and for Jesus as zealous believer.
John Makovec : How does one mean that Jesus can be shown to be God? How?
John Makovec nah it’s ur understanding that’s messed up the Bible is perfect in every way
What is the said is the thing you do before theology?
2:44 Prolegomena
Yay evidentialist
What are the laws of logic?
For once, I almost completely agree with Frank. But... this seems to undermine many of his "meat-robot" and "without God, we can't know anything" -style arguments. Did Frank recently change his stance on epistemology?
Turek is a really smart guy
Only a sinner can commit suicide. A Christian can never commit suicide.
Are you saying Christians are not sinners ?
Logic is like music, if music is the composition of sounds, then logic is the composition of words. If there is harmony in sounds, then you have music. If there is harmony of words, then you have logic...
In some way yes. You people with low IQ can't "feel" illogical claims. Same way people without musical hearing can't hear something disharmonical.
I think you mean "grammar", not "logic".
@@hansdemos6510
I think he meant logic. Grammar is another issue.
An example: "On out there, isnt was about not to go" - Grammar was fine, the logic is missing.
@@johnmakovec5698
Actually it is the atheists who are completely deaf to the music of the Spirit of God.
@@nikokapanen82 Sure. The Spirit of God (or the ability to hear it) is a God's gift.
If God has chosen me to not hear it, than he can't blame me, that I can't hear it.
It is like to blame someone with music deaf, for his deafness.
Circular debate: "there are none so blind as those who WON'T believe..."
Good question. 4 reasons why truth is absolute and certain. 1 It is true that persons wrote comments on this video, isn't it? 2. 4 + 5=9 then all other answers are wrong. 3. We can see our loved ones literally, therefore we truthfully exist. 3rd If there is no absolute truth, it means that nothing in life really exists or is what we believe them to be. Examples: Do some of us have jobs, homes, children, parents? Are some of us females, males or human beings? It is absolutely true that is the case. Don't you agree?
Answer for the title: Observation and testing.
Logic says use pate to hunt the deciever
The laws of logic are descriptive, not prescriptive. And there is no reason we would need a god for the universe to operate in a logical way, or for us to be able to utilise logic.
So where would the laws of logic, order, intelligence and emotions come from then? From random chaos?
Why wouldn't we need God for this universe to operate?
Yeah, i don't get how people can't see through this kind of BS. Frank is giving words like logic, mystical powers. Its foolish, logic is a word we use to describe reasoning. This thing theists try to do with certain words like truth, logic, love, justice, ext....is asinine.
hello
@@maow9240
Why would it?
You can not find truth with logic, until you have found truth without it. Geometry is a prime example. Without basic axioms there are no proofs.
Did you find truth without that logic?
In the beginning (time) God created the heaven (space) and the earth (matter). Heaven is singular not plural, that's one reason you should be using the KJV. And the earth was without form, and void (matter was there but formless).
@Butwhy I see that you’ve learned something from Dr Turek.
The laws of logic & non-contradiction are not the foundation for knowledge. Knowledge is “revelational” in nature. It is given to man by God, written in man innately. Without God, man cannot know anything about his world or about himself. God, whose knowledge and wisdom is infinite, created human beings in His image, like him. Human knowledge has its source in God. God created human beings with the ability to know, and understand their world as well as their creator. Christians do NOT come to know God through rational arguments and empirical evidence as a result of “autonomous” human inquiries and examination. This is a method of reasoning that is toxic to the Christian faith. It is a product of enlightenment philosophies, not biblical theology. Christians come to true knowledge by the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, Who, in the process, grants to believers the gift of faith. It is a result of God’s amazing grace! The only reason the facts of the laws of noncontradiction and logic exist is because they operate according to God’s norms, as he has revealed them to us.
We can describe logic as material based. Basic logical circuits are necessery for neural networks to work.
If we need God given revelation and/or the Holy Spirit to have faith, you cannot blame atheists for not believing, can you?
You know the word Logic comes from The Greek Word Logos which speaks of The Mind of God right? Logic is indeed the foundation because Logic is The Mind of God.
Hans De Mos are you saying one does not need the Holy Spirit to have faith? That is utterly false. God’s revelation is all around us so we are without excuse for denying His existence. “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.”
Romans 1:18-19 - atheists are guilty because God has revealed Himself, but they suppress the truth in unrighteousness. It is because of man’s deadness in sin that he hates God and suppresses the truth, and until the Holy Spirit supernaturally acts to change that person’s heart, they will continue to be God-haters. The Holy Spirit is the source and agent of Christians being born again
BrooklynVlogs exactly - you’re not saying that the “law of logic” in isolation from God is the final reference point. Only if one presupposes God as the one in whom rationality and being are coterminous and coextensive can he use the laws of logic at all. There are no laws of logic above him according to which he must measure his own internal consistency. This God of the Bible is, therefore, the final reference point for predication of his rational creatures. God’s supernatural revelation is presupposed in all successful rational inquiry on the part of man.
﴿وَلَقَد خَلَقنَا الإِنسانَ وَنَعلَمُ ما تُوَسوِسُ بِهِ نَفسُهُ وَنَحنُ أَقرَبُ إِلَيهِ مِن حَبلِ الوَريدِ﴾ [ق: ١٦]
And We have already created man and know what his soul whispers to him, and We are closer to him than [his] jugular vein.
- Saheeh International
﴿إِذ يَتَلَقَّى المُتَلَقِّيانِ عَنِ اليَمينِ وَعَنِ الشِّمالِ قَعيدٌ﴾ [ق: ١٧]
When the two receivers [i.e., recording angels] receive, seated on the right and on the left.
- Saheeh International
﴿ما يَلفِظُ مِن قَولٍ إِلّا لَدَيهِ رَقيبٌ عَتيدٌ﴾ [ق: ١٨]
He [i.e., man] utters no word except that with him is an observer prepared [to record].
- Saheeh International
﴿وَجاءَت سَكرَةُ المَوتِ بِالحَقِّ ذلِكَ ما كُنتَ مِنهُ تَحيدُ﴾ [ق: ١٩]
And the intoxication of death will bring the truth; that is what you were trying to avoid.
- Saheeh International
﴿وَنُفِخَ فِي الصّورِ ذلِكَ يَومُ الوَعيدِ﴾ [ق: ٢٠]
And the Horn will be blown. That is the Day of [carrying out] the threat.
- Saheeh International
﴿وَجاءَت كُلُّ نَفسٍ مَعَها سائِقٌ وَشَهيدٌ﴾ [ق: ٢١]
And every soul will come, with it a driver and a witness.
- Saheeh International
﴿لَقَد كُنتَ في غَفلَةٍ مِن هذا فَكَشَفنا عَنكَ غِطاءَكَ فَبَصَرُكَ اليَومَ حَديدٌ﴾ [ق: ٢٢]
[It will be said], "You were certainly in unmindfulness of this, and We have removed from you your cover, so your sight, this Day, is sharp."
- Saheeh International
﴿وَقالَ قَرينُهُ هذا ما لَدَيَّ عَتيدٌ﴾ [ق: ٢٣]
And his companion, [the angel], will say, "This [record] is what is with me, prepared."
- Saheeh International
﴿أَلقِيا في جَهَنَّمَ كُلَّ كَفّارٍ عَنيدٍ﴾ [ق: ٢٤]
[Allāh will say], "Throw into Hell every obstinate disbeliever,
- Saheeh International
﴿مَنّاعٍ لِلخَيرِ مُعتَدٍ مُريبٍ﴾ [ق: ٢٥]
Preventer of good, aggressor, and doubter,
- Saheeh International
﴿الَّذي جَعَلَ مَعَ اللَّهِ إِلهًا آخَرَ فَأَلقِياهُ فِي العَذابِ الشَّديدِ﴾ [ق: ٢٦]
Who made [as equal] with Allāh another deity; then throw him into the severe punishment."
- Saheeh International
﴿قالَ قَرينُهُ رَبَّنا ما أَطغَيتُهُ وَلكِن كانَ في ضَلالٍ بَعيدٍ﴾ [ق: ٢٧]
His [devil] companion will say, "Our Lord, I did not make him transgress, but he [himself] was in extreme error."
- Saheeh International
﴿قالَ لا تَختَصِموا لَدَيَّ وَقَد قَدَّمتُ إِلَيكُم بِالوَعيدِ﴾ [ق: ٢٨]
[Allāh] will say, "Do not dispute before Me, while I had already presented to you the threat [i.e., warning].
- Saheeh International
﴿ما يُبَدَّلُ القَولُ لَدَيَّ وَما أَنا بِظَلّامٍ لِلعَبيدِ﴾ [ق: ٢٩]
The word [i.e., decree] will not be changed with Me, and never will I be unjust to the servants."
- Saheeh International
﴿يَومَ نَقولُ لِجَهَنَّمَ هَلِ امتَلَأتِ وَتَقولُ هَل مِن مَزيدٍ﴾ [ق: ٣٠]
On the Day We will say to Hell, "Have you been filled?" and it will say, "Are there some more,"
- Saheeh International
﴿وَأُزلِفَتِ الجَنَّةُ لِلمُتَّقينَ غَيرَ بَعيدٍ﴾ [ق: ٣١]
And Paradise will be brought near to the righteous, not far,
- Saheeh International
﴿هذا ما توعَدونَ لِكُلِّ أَوّابٍ حَفيظٍ﴾ [ق: ٣٢]
[It will be said], "This is what you were promised - for every returner [to Allāh] and keeper [of His covenant].
- Saheeh International
﴿مَن خَشِيَ الرَّحمنَ بِالغَيبِ وَجاءَ بِقَلبٍ مُنيبٍ﴾ [ق: ٣٣]
Who feared the Most Merciful in the unseen and came with a heart returning [in repentance].
- Saheeh International
﴿ادخُلوها بِسَلامٍ ذلِكَ يَومُ الخُلودِ﴾ [ق: ٣٤]
Enter it in peace. This is the Day of Eternity."
- Saheeh International
﴿لَهُم ما يَشاءونَ فيها وَلَدَينا مَزيدٌ﴾ [ق: ٣٥]
They will have whatever they wish therein, and with Us is more.
- Saheeh International
﴿اقتَرَبَتِ السّاعَةُ وَانشَقَّ القَمَرُ﴾ [القمر: ١]
The Hour has come near, and the moon has split [in two].
- Saheeh International
﴿وَإِن يَرَوا آيَةً يُعرِضوا وَيَقولوا سِحرٌ مُستَمِرٌّ﴾ [القمر: ٢]
And if they see a sign [i.e., miracle], they turn away and say, "Passing magic."
- Saheeh International
﴿وَكَذَّبوا وَاتَّبَعوا أَهواءَهُم وَكُلُّ أَمرٍ مُستَقِرٌّ﴾ [القمر: ٣]
And they denied and followed their inclinations. But for every matter is a [time of] settlement.
- Saheeh International
﴿وَلَقَد جاءَهُم مِنَ الأَنباءِ ما فيهِ مُزدَجَرٌ﴾ [القمر: ٤]
And there has already come to them of information that in which there is deterrence.
- Saheeh International
﴿حِكمَةٌ بالِغَةٌ فَما تُغنِ النُّذُرُ﴾ [القمر: ٥]
Extensive wisdom - but warning does not avail [them].
- Saheeh International
﴿فَتَوَلَّ عَنهُم يَومَ يَدعُ الدّاعِ إِلى شَيءٍ نُكُرٍ﴾ [القمر: ٦]
So leave them, [O Muḥammad]. The Day the Caller calls to something forbidding,
- Saheeh International
﴿خُشَّعًا أَبصارُهُم يَخرُجونَ مِنَ الأَجداثِ كَأَنَّهُم جَرادٌ مُنتَشِرٌ﴾ [القمر: ٧]
Their eyes humbled, they will emerge from the graves as if they were locusts spreading,
- Saheeh International
﴿مُهطِعينَ إِلَى الدّاعِ يَقولُ الكافِرونَ هذا يَومٌ عَسِرٌ﴾ [القمر: ٨]
Racing ahead toward the Caller. The disbelievers will say, "This is a difficult Day."
- Saheeh International
Quran is the most obvious fals book ever... as muhamMAD is the most obvious fals prophet ever...
God is out of logic but *Having* God is logic. He's not supposed to be comprehended or contain within logic since he is above the Law of physics by being the Creator. He can change what is logical anyways probably in the next patch after he patch out Sin.
I agree, gods are highly illogical.
@@somerandom3247 perhaps the term "translogical" would be better than "illogical" when we're trying to describe God. Since "illogical" is the opposite of "logical" or we can perceive it as "not logical". While our God, he is logical but cannot be completely understood by human's limited logic. And "translogical" means He is beyond logic but NOT against logic.
I believe God if fully logical in everything. It is just our limited comprehension of things makes us reason that God defies logic.
@@nicotanlestjhin4362 no, he is definitely illogical.
@@nikokapanen82 God doesn't make sense, but for some reason we will call it "out of our ability to understand"...
This way you have created unfalsifiable claim. Even with totally nonsensical behavior you can still use it. You can't disprove it.
here is a logical and pertinent question:
Why didn’t/doesn’t/wouldn’t satan read scripture the way the world does and NOT do what is prophesied of him and make God and his word unreliable?
@warrcc c No, Satan knows his fate, and that there is no salvation for him at all. There would be no point in trying to do other than what was prophesied to begin with. It wouldn't change anything, since what Satan will do has already been written, which means it will happen and has indeed happened in the future. What Satan is doing all he can, with the little authority he currently has, to steer as many people as he can away from the LORD through temptation, deceit and the exploitation of our hearts, which is, currently, naturally deceitful prior to becoming a new creation in Christ, to accuse us of our sin. He does not want us to be fruitful for the LORD.
Good is outside of time. He knows the end, from the beginning
@@Proverbs10-19 Existence requires spacetime location. Its self-contradictory to say that something exists outside time or space. Its like saying "it exists without existing". Its not that God is so powerful to deny logic. Its that you create a phrase that defeats itself.
How would you used the bible, if the person don't considered the bible.
I like him, he basically saying everything comes from God. 🍼As adults it’s not that deep.
John 14:6 Romans 10:9
Science history mathematics inventions
Towards the end you can see his struggle to accept an opposing viewpoint. Why wouldn’t they have known the sun rose. He should’ve agreed immediately!
no, he reasons from God as the beginning of reason and knowledge. Frank starts with reason, and works his way to God. The fear of the Lord is the BEGINNING of knowledge.
How would they know the sun rose? because they used their eyes to see it. Why do you think your eyes are telling you the truth? How do you know "A", because of "b", how do you know "b", because of "c". this goes on for infinity, it's an infinite regress. The only way out of if it to posses infinite knowledge (God) or receive revelation from the one who posses infinite knowledge.
@@will95515 I totally agree. Good job picking up on that. I think Frank should have agreed with the man. I'm pretty sure he was saying we can only know logic and rationality is true, by the fact that a super intellect set it up that way. I think Frank took a worldly direction, where as the man was thinking more faithfully.
@@brando3342 Frank is a classical apologist, the man is more of a presuppositional. I cant really decide which one is better. Greg Bahnsen was a beast.
@@will95515 Yes, that's true. I would like to know how Frank would explain where the laws of logic came from though. You'd think he'd say they are God given, right? Or would he just say "brute fact"?
"I am who I am" does not describe the law of identity. This is actually vice verse - the law of identity can describe this sentence. Lets not fall into such mistakes. Its normal that ancient people used language to express thoughts and that their communication can be described by the laws of logic but it does not mean that those people knew and understood these laws. Its like playing football - you clearly don't need to know what are laws of physics and biomechanics to score. Nobody watching a game thinks that players know and applies precisely laws of kinematics, gravity or friction.
What if you were a Mayan living in Cuello, Northern Belize, around the year 1200 BC and you worshiped Itzamna. You never heard anything about Jesus or Yahweh... Would you be excluded from going to the Judeo-Christian heaven or hell? Or would you be destined to go to hell because you weren't exposed to Jesus or Yahweh? Would Christianity be considered "true" if you lived in this time and place?
*Ricky* I'd be interested 1st of all with what you believe. I poked around on your channel and you've got some very "unusual" shall we say(?) videos in your playlists, including much from Bart Ehrman. So I'm sure you've got some thoughts on the matter & I'm sure your reply will be more than, "I don't know", so please go ahead and let us know just what you believe. Regards.
@@Kman. Well, I believe that one should be wary of any belief or ideology that promotes division between you and your fellow human beings. I don't label myself, therefore I won't limit myself to any higher understanding.
So back to my original question?... What do you think? Would Christianity be considered the "truth" if you were living at that time and place?
Ricky Marquez Take a look at Romans 2: 12-16
@@ncollins88 What's your interpretation? What's your answer? They didn't have the law, so no judgment under the law? And where would they end up after death?
@@ncollins88 (2:13) "The doers of the law shall be justified." Is Salvation by faith alone? Must Christians obey Old Testament Laws?
Does righteousness come from following the Law?
(2:16) "According to my gospel" God will judge the secrets of men using Paul's gospel?
The guy asking the question is presuppositional. He has the right apologetic method.
Presuppositionalism is vacuous. Any philosophical view can be defended using presuppositionalism. All you do is suppose that your view is the truth and the only legitimate vehicle for knowledge and then insist that because your view is true any hypothetical alternative must inherently contain a flaw, be it seen or unseen. Anybody can do that for literally any belief or belief system. Whether or not this is the right "apologetic" method I don't know but it's certainly epistemically vacuous. The only right epistemology method are empiricism (when discussing the acquisition of knowledge about the world around us) and reasoning (when discussing acquisition of what humans would agree to be legitimate abstract knowledge).
I think the Bible has some good stories. But I don't see it as inerrant.
Logic cannot give rise to truth. Truth exists whether or not you use logic. Logic can only let you say "if this is true then it follows that that is also true" or "if this is true, then that is not also true". Truth revealed by logic is therefore limited by what you accept to be true in the first place. If what you accept to be true is in fact not true, then application of logic will give rise to more non-truths.
I think that this video confuses logic with axioms. It is right to question our system of logic because there have been many systems of logic that don't work, but even more, we should question our axioms - those things we accept to be self-evidently true.
To my mind this is the exact point where faith meets logic - those things that we believe to be true without evidence and without the necessity to test with logic. Needless to say, if the things I believe to be axiomatically true are different to those that you believe then even if we use the same "laws of logic" we will nevertheless come to different conclusions.
I wonder if you realize your 1st sentence, "logic cannot give rise to truth" contradicts your second sentence. "Truth exists whether or not you use logic"
Truth does exist and the only way to know truth, is to use logic. So logic does give rise to truth.
@@davidross5593 Yes good pickup. This is hard to put into words but I will try.
Truth exists regardless of beliefs or human logic. Faulty beliefs, faulty axioms or faulty logic can lead us to incorrect conclusions.
Things that are true are true regardless of whether or not we say they are.
Logic is a formalised system of extracting true statements from axioms (supposed self-evident truths) and from previously "proved" true statements uncovered by logic.
Logic cannot create any new truth that did not already exist, although it could help us uncover a truth we didn't already know.
Logic can allow us to build on our knowledge of what is true but ONLY if our axioms are actually truths and ONLY if our logical system works properly.
So to answer your penetrating statement "Logic does give rise to truth", I would say "Logic allows us to uncover existing truth, but logic cannot create any new truth."
A bit nit-picky I guess, but you started it :)
Laws of logic are human-made tools. They works, because we defined them to work. They are usefull tools, because we made them usefull tools.
If you re-define laws of logic to be useless, then they would be useless. But useless they have no value to us. So we used them defined usefully.
The laws of nature govern whether or not they have been discovered. If that wasn’t the case, reality would be like a Wile E Coyote cartoon - he runs off the cliff and hangs in mid air, not falling until he looks down and discovers there’s nothing underneath him.
@@ncollins88 I wrote about laws of logic. Not natural laws. Natural laws are defined by our observation. Because we can't find ANY exception of different behavior.
That's why Bible story is not consider to be accurate.
@Saint Michael Pray for Us abstract concept....
An abstract concept is an idea that people can understand that has no physical form. The ability to identify, understand and communicate abstract concepts is a foundational element of human intelligence.
Abstract concepts are mostly about definition. Without mind with ability to process those abstract concepts they doesn't exist. And we can't prove any mind except the biological based around us.
John Makovec The same thing you said applies to the laws of logic. They are a natural law, because we can’t find ANY exception of different behavior.
@@ncollins88 Actually not. Natural laws, Logical laws. Sure, both can be created based on observation.
Actually I have problem with god character in the Bible, because he behaves both illogically and violates nature's laws. That's why it seems to me improbable.
But if we can demonstrate, that something is able to violates nature's laws and this is only entity with this ability, than in that moment we could consider possibility, that Bible is based on real history more, than a legend.
﴿ضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا لِلَّذينَ كَفَرُوا امرَأَتَ نوحٍ وَامرَأَتَ لوطٍ كانَتا تَحتَ عَبدَينِ مِن عِبادِنا صالِحَينِ فَخانَتاهُما فَلَم يُغنِيا عَنهُما مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيئًا وَقيلَ ادخُلَا النّارَ مَعَ الدّاخِلينَ﴾ [التحريم: ١٠]
Allāh presents an example of those who disbelieved: the wife of Noah and the wife of Lot. They were under two of Our righteous servants but betrayed them, so they [i.e., those prophets] did not avail them from Allāh at all, and it was said, "Enter the Fire with those who enter."
- Saheeh International
﴿وَضَرَبَ اللَّهُ مَثَلًا لِلَّذينَ آمَنُوا امرَأَتَ فِرعَونَ إِذ قالَت رَبِّ ابنِ لي عِندَكَ بَيتًا فِي الجَنَّةِ وَنَجِّني مِن فِرعَونَ وَعَمَلِهِ وَنَجِّني مِنَ القَومِ الظّالِمينَ﴾ [التحريم: ١١]
And Allāh presents an example of those who believed: the wife of Pharaoh, when she said, "My Lord, build for me near You a house in Paradise and save me from Pharaoh and his deeds and save me from the wrongdoing people."
- Saheeh International
﴿وَمَريَمَ ابنَتَ عِمرانَ الَّتي أَحصَنَت فَرجَها فَنَفَخنا فيهِ مِن روحِنا وَصَدَّقَت بِكَلِماتِ رَبِّها وَكُتُبِهِ وَكانَت مِنَ القانِتينَ﴾ [التحريم: ١٢]
And [the example of] Mary, the daughter of ʿImrān, who guarded her chastity, so We blew into [her garment] through Our angel [i.e., Gabriel], and she believed in the words of her Lord and His scriptures and was of the devoutly obedient.
- Saheeh International
Truth Cannot Be Known... Truth Can Only Be Witnessed, For Truth Is From Forever To Forever!
Just A Heads Up, Religion Is Conclusion
@GENUINE KING
But when you witness something, then you can claim to know it, no?
"Truth cannot be known" - how do you know that?
Matteus Lucas exactly, apply the claim to itself
@@matteuslucas4223 now how is he gonna sound smart?
"And ye shall _KNOW_ the *TRUTH* and the *TRUTH* shall make you free" *John **8:32*
God gave us the ability to use logic and rationality in the first place.
No he didn't. Our brains have the ability to rationalise all on their own
No need for a god for this to work.
@@somerandom3247 So.... "just cause" is your explanation?
@@brando3342 can you demonstrate your god to exist?
@@reecem367 can you show your god exists or verify your bible is true?
No, Dr. Turek. The reason you know the laws of logic are true is because the triune Creator God has revealed his existence and moral and rational nature to you by infallible divine natural self-revelation as he claimed he did by the Apostle Paul in Romans 1:18-20. Now if you object that revelation of God by God THROUGH nature (i.e., Natural Revelation) is not direct revelation and therefore requires human reason (using the laws of logic) to understand it, I would agree - for that portion of Natural Revelation which is external to Man. You see, if revelation comes to me through a medium then I must think about it and that requires the use of the as yet unproven laws of logic, but if "revelation comes from God through nature to me", and if I am part of nature, then that equation can be reduced to "revelation comes from God through me to me". But that equation may itself be reduced to, "revelation comes from God to me". That is immediate revelation. No rational thought required to know it. I know the laws of logic are true because I know their Ground and Source. Everyone know the laws of logic are true because everyone knows the triune God exists, even if most suppress that knowledge in unrighteousness.
G > N > M
N=M
G > M > M
G > M
G=God, N=Nature, M=Me
1) Mankind cannot prove the laws of logic are true and sense-perception corresponds to reality. (Because we would have to use each of these to prove themselves, and that is circular.)
2) But mankind does know the laws of logic are true and sense-perception corresponds to reality.
3) Therefore, mankind knows the laws of logic are true and sense-perception corresponds to reality by non-human means and through non-human agency.
Because you are not honoring God with your evidential apologetic (i.e., you are not using presuppositional apologetics), Dr. Turek, you have granted knowledge to God's ungrateful enemies which they could not otherwise possess unless God exists and has revealed his existence and nature to them infallibly. My argument takes the knowledge which you have unwisely granted them away from them - unless and until they confess along with Christians that they know the triune Creator God exists and his rational and moral nature.
WHAT!? Every time Frank says "laws of logic", take a shot.
Does truth exist? 2+2=4 right? Well that’s TRUE.... dang. 🤣
Careful examination of evidence.
Religion should not be confused with reality.
Nothing should be confused with anything.
A careful consideration of the evidence.
Faith, is not a reliable path to truth
Hebrew 11:1 NowFaith is the substance of things hoped for, the EVIDENCE of things NOT SEEN
ben j
You think hoping for things unseen is a reliable path to truth?
The main purpose of the Holy Bible is to tell you who Jesus is and that he Loves everyone, and even you! Even the worst people in history.
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
To the Believer Reading Theo's Post... *THE GUY POSTS THE IDENTICAL THING ON NUMEROUS BOARDS* and has no intention on learning a/thing. In fact, I _think_ he's even posted this same thing on another of *Frank's* videos(?). Either way, you can pray for him, but replyling to him, you will find to be an exercise in futitility.
@@Kman. "has no intention on learning a/thing"
How do you know?
What a demonstration of the fallen state of men. Every sentence, every word seems to me optimized to show how smart you are. All of your points can be summarized in a single one: "I have not seen sufficient evidence for God". There is one simple reason why your post is 30 times this long and filled with redundant synonyms and pointless trivia: Pride.
@@Kman. I have indeed posted this very comment on many other videos. Is there a problem with my doing so? Would you care to discuss the points of my comment? And how have you come to the conclusion that I have no intention of learning a thing?
@@siegfriedk.6276 My comment has nothing to do with intelligence. My comment expresses my position as an atheist. I have presented 10 facts as to why I have no reason currently to acknowledge the existence of a god. And I have invited anyone that wants to understand my position to discuss such in a cordial manner. Is that a threat to you?
From 3:12 Frank Turek says: "People knew right from wrong before the Bible, people knew logic before the Bible, people knew basic cause and effect before the Bible... " Cool! So apparently we don't actually need the Bible all that much, do we?
People also needed Jesus before the bible, what's your point?
Yeh we don't need the bible if people actually don't mess up so much. But because things happened God has to give some guiding book.
@@arcguardian Different Christian denominations have different views on the salvation of people who lived before Jesus. In any case, if we can live good, happy, productive lives without the Bible, then what need do we have of it?
@@uncledolan9271 What happened that was so bad that God decided "some guiding book" was needed?
@@hansdemos6510 the more important question is, if the bible is truth, why throw it away. It's a tool. Ppl have been cooking before cook books it doesn't mean cook books are to be discarded. The denominations are irrelevant to the truth, if u take something out of context u can make any cult you'd like. The bible is clear we are saved by grace through faith, even before the bible God was clear about that. Good works wont save anyone from judgement, only the blood of Christ can save ^_^.
Was that a rhetorical question cemented in skepticism regarding how to validate using the laws of logic as valid to reason that God is reasonable ?
It's only not reasonable if "A" and non "A" are true in the same way at the same time...
Was this dude trolling ?
Kids don't do hyper skepticism and especially solipsism as an epistemology.
Sigh...
I commented right after hearing the first bit of his question, so to fast.
I think he's Christian and arguing presuppositionals, but seems to assert that one needs to believe the Word of God to know the laws of logic as true. If that's indeed what he's articulating, it's erroneous. But to justify where universal transcendentals eminate from is a whole other issue for the non believer.
"Kids don't do hyper skepticism"
I think what you meant to say is don't do christian presuppositionalism
Nah, the laws of logic are not conventions, but yet evidently are universal. When unbelievers engage in using the laws of logic they are leaking and hemorrhaging their _Imago Dei._
*:-)*
Soli Deogloria What do you think the laws of logic are?
Chad
Somthing eating yellow and listening to Monday night while enjoying the opposite.
Thanks for not asking.
*:-)*
The bible
The New Testament
Are the stories converts to a new religious movement were telling each other .... and we all know we can trust the people that join new religions
Like Islam
Like Mormonism
Like Scientology
ridiculous argument
Daniel Boone
Really
How much stock do you put in the writings of people who have converted to new religions?
Logic is logical because it’s logical.
We use the laws of logic because them seem to work ....that’s it
No god required ,
Logic makes sense to us
Do you really believe that laws of logic simply just exist out of thin air? That fundamentally in their being and essence, there is nothing that grounds the laws of logic? No unconditioned reality in which we recognize and appeal to their universal value? If the answer to these questions are affirming that nothing is, then why would you or I, or anyone else for that matter, believe what anyone has to say?
Logic has evolved as humans have. We learn a lot from our own experiences in life which gives us our sense of morality and logic. Back in Old Testament days, you have men logically believing it’s okay to rape the virgins of the parents they just murdered because their God told them to. Now a days we should logically see how much is wrong with what this God has said and taught to these men. We also logically should identify how immoral this God was back then and why we shouldn’t worship someone who endorsed this sort of behavior even tho it came at a time where that was allowed. I’m not saying no God exists because there’s no evidence for or against that claim, I am saying there’s no evidence of any to say, “this God is for sure real and here’s why...”
@@blakeh6306 So if logic is evolving, does that mean that logic is relative? Does this mean that things that were logical 1000 years ago could be illogical now?
@@First1it1Giveth Do you believe the laws of logic are contingent?
@@derrickcarson Logic is the same. Just logical conslusions are different, because we have other arguments to weight.
Logic is a tool. If you defined it other way, it will be useless. So conslucion, that "usefull tool is usefull, because it is usefull".... duh!
People doesn't use just logic, they use it with combination of other brain-parts. Many of our decisions are made by emotions and post-rationalized.
Raping virgins were OK, because their God told them to do so. So from common warrior perspective, it was logical think to do. They wanted sex. God told them it is OK. So why not?
Today, we value human life more. We value happiness of people more. We love ourselves more then Yehowah did in the Old Testament. So we consider it to be evil.
He's talking about the laws of logic? How about talking snakes, living to 900 Years Old, living in a whale's stomach, slavery, and parting of an entire sea? If he wants to take it on faith that's one thing, but you can't back it up with logic.
Actually a lot of this can be backed up by logic, but only with correct interpretations. For instance the talking snake in Genesis. The older manuscripts lead us to believe its a creature with snake or serpent like qualities. Does this mean its a snake? No. But the later translations say serpent or snake since it was the best way to go about translating it. Originally the author seems to be trying to get across the idea of this creature and its qualities. Maybe it had features like a snake (scales, long body, etc). Maybe it was cunning and deceitful (it certain was based on what it said). We aren't really sure. But its silly to just jump to the conclusion of a talking snake. I will admit other Christians can do this by reading it at face value, but its not really an accurate representation. You can also say the same for other sweeping claims Christians can make that don't really have good interpretations behind them like the earth being 6000 years old, the flood being global, the idea that God condones slavery, etc etc.
The bible is a book with many different authors and many different writing styles. Frank is saying we apply the laws of logic to the bible to help us understand and discern when the bible is using metaphor, being poetic, hyperbolic, literal or something else. Without using logic, we can think its all literal and get some pretty weird interpretations like you are mentioning.
There's evidence of you wish to see it. Ancient skulls have huge eyebrow bones(they never stop growing). But mainly: for Red Sea crossing, Mt. Sinai, look up Ron Wyatt for physical evidence you can go see personally
I've never heard anyone utter the phrase "there is no truth" outside of an apologist's script.
Is what you said true? Subjective truth, yes...objective truth, no. If you follow the thought to it's natural conclusion, you would find that to be (dare I say?), true. Doesn't *TRUTH* have to be transcendent? Isn't it s/thing we discover as opposed to establishing it ourselves? If the latter, we all come to our own conclusion what *TRUTH* is, and that then brings us full circle in which there really is no truth.
@Cross Examined,
Frank Turek, there you go again. The Laws of Logic are *Descriptive* NOT Prescriptive, it's that too complicated? Consequently, you believe in a being, a "God"; that violates all Laws of Logic and Laws Physics using something also known as Miracles, how is that for Logical Contradiction?
If God created the universe and everything inside it (including the laws of gravity/nature etc) couldn't this God temporarily overpower/alter one of these laws of nature and perform a miracle? (Since he was the one to create the laws in the first place)
@@Josiahministries if a god existed, shouldn't there be some evidence of it?
@@Josiahministries
First, as I wrote before, the Laws of Physics and the Laws of Logic are Descriptive and Not Prescriptive.
Second, assuming for this argument you're presenting let me ask the following. Can this "God" you describe create a Married-Bachelor?
@@somerandom3247 there is evidence, are you looking for some evidence? or just trying to troll
@@somerandom3247 There is plenty of evidence, you've just chosen to look past it to pursue your own desires
God judged the generation of Noah, but God found Noah and his family righteous.
The flood destroyed the rest of mankind.
Logic dictates you should find out what was happening in the rest of the world before the flood.
Logic dictates you should find out what happened right after the flood.
And logic dictates why was Noah deemed righteous by God.
Jesus said , " Just as in the days of Noah....."
You need more people flooding into this because time is short.
To many are sidetracked.
you can know a lot en still do good without THE BIBLE EN GOD
BUT in the end you then will perish FOREVER
THE BIBLE EXPLAINS SCIENCE but even that with a limit since we cant en dont have to know EVERYTHING !!!
@Saint Michael Pray for Us That's true. A Bible is created with stories of few cult members.
A proof of God would be infinitely complicated and infinitely simple. It would be an indisputable truth standing outside and inside the normal understanding of logic and reasoning.
To put it a little more succinct. The wise and the fool would know of Gods exsistance. No appeal or denial of logic could dispute the claim.
I'll stick to Atheism
Proof of a Round Earth would be infinitely complicated and infinitely simple. It would be an indisputable truth standing outside and inside the normal understanding of logic and reasoning.
To put it a little more succinctly. The wise and the fool would know of the Round Earth's existence. No appeal or denial of logic could dispute the claim.
I'll stick to the Flat Earth.
Do you see the flaw in your argument? There are some things that, by their very nature, are not readily apparent to our senses and minds. With sufficient motivation, anyone can delude themselves about the existence/nonexistence of anything that supports/contradicts their worldview. Even if you could reasonably prove something to be true, there will always be someone who will reject any proof you lay before them.
@@nicrosilmind the fact you think that the evidence for God and the evidence for a round earth are on the same plane or equivalent is a demonstration of the poison of religious belief . Faith , which by definition is believe without evidence is the foundation of the ignorant, which your analogy is a clear demonstration of
@@nicrosilmind Of course we have pictures of earth from space that serve this purpose quite well...
Madness Proxy the problem with your argument is that you’ve made a false comparison by including the adjective “round”.
The OP isn’t using any adjectives, he is saying proof of the phenomenon itself, not the primary qualities which supports it. Let me elaborate:
The earth is a discovered phenomenon which means that its primary qualities MUST exist: size, weight, shape, mass, surface, etc...
We don’t have a god phenomenon to describe his/her primary qualities. You couldn’t possibly theorise god’s shape, mass, weight, size, because god is not falsifiable, but the earths qualities are
So even if we had issues about a round earth, we could still fall back on the fact that an earth exists... what do we fall back on if we have issues about a god existing in comparison?
The laws of logic are contingent upon nothing. God is in fact necessarily contingent on the laws of logic, the recognition of which is a sublime refutation of the claims that God is the non-contingent being, and other similar claims theologians of various stripes have made throughout the centuries. It's actually quite a thorn in the side of theistic philosophers, the Christian evangelical types today who typically try to take refuge when confronted with this self-evident and necessarily true fact with attempts to obscure the reasoning involved with sophistic but vacuous wordplay. "The laws of logic are a reflection of God's nature" is the typical retort they issue, which is meaningless nonsense. Unable to give a simple refutation, they resort, without even realizing it, to metaphor and analogy, asserting that the "laws of logic" are a "reflection" of the nature of God. Reflection? What like in a mirror? What does that mean? What they WANT to say is that the laws of logic do not precede God because they WANT it to be the case that God is a necessary being that is contingent upon nothing _even in the abstract realm_ because if that were not so all their reasoning chains that attempt to conclude that God came first before anything would be vacuous. But because it's so clearly self-evident that you can't have the existence of ANYTHING - including God - at any time or place, natural or supernatural, abstract or concrete or otherwise, without the laws of logic being there in the first place, then God cannot be the sustainer or the contingent ground of the laws of logic. These laws must be unto themselves brute facts in a fundamental sense, and to say that "they are a reflection of God's nature" is a total denial of that obvious fact, but it is done so with the objective of rhetorically challenging the opponent without actually offering anything of substance. In a word it is pure sophistry, and worthless intellectually.
While you're using basic logic to get to god, there is no observable logic evidence that there is a god.
Basically, God is perfect truth, perfect morality, perfect logic, etc and exists unto Himself. The problem atheists have is that they need to prove, somehow, that those things don’t exist independently from us while also relying on them to make their case. It’s pure absurdity.
“Professing to be wise they became fools.”
I don’t think that’s the case with all atheists. Most of us don’t see a valid reason to believe in any God because they are all the same. It’s literally, “Have Faith because this is the one true God.” And when we ask people what’s the difference between their God and others they don’t know
Blake H That speaks to the topic of which religion, if any, is correct. It’s a different category. When simply pitting deism vs atheism, the atheist has to prove that there is no truth, at all, outside of our universe. Even Einstein believed there was a god. He just never found the right one.
Blake H I can simply argue that God is the objective truth that exists regardless of any material existence. By definition, if you believe in objective truth of any kind, you have to at least be a deist. As far as Christianity, check out Cold Case Christianity by J Warner Wallace.
When it comes to truth, I believe that there is perfect truth but there is no way we can know if we found perfect truth. We can only understand it subjectivity.
What evidence out there proves there is perfect morality?
How do you prove you logic to be perfect? With logic, well no because according to logic that would be circular reasoning.
And why need God for any of them of any of these conditions exist?
@@tedidk8639 How do you *KNOW* there's "perfect truth" (Truth), when you in the same sentence say there's no way to *KNOW* if we've found it? People make the matter all too complicated. Jesus said He is the way, *THE TRUTH* and the light and ye shall *KNOW* the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.
There is nothing like laws of logic laws in the Bible. Come on dude...
The laws of logic are based upon a branch of mathematics called set theory. It is the math that proves them to be true.
Certainly not god.
We understand the Bible through the holy spirit not logic..
We reject the Bible through logic and reason.
@@cygnusustus looking for God through logic and reason is like looking for a house cat in a zoo.. You cannot find a spiritual being that is way beyond time and space with logic.
@@hustlerzNcake Thanks for conceding that belief in your God is irrational.
@@cygnusustus No Sir, i said he is beyond. Meaning surpassed your ability to comprehend without his spirit to guide you through the word. Parables were placed for that exact reason..
Human rationale is insufficient and biased. Logic also has a material limit to it's comprehension.
Because you don't see something does not mean it isn't there.
@@hustlerzNcake
If that is the case, then he has surpassed your ability to comprehend as well, and you cannot say anything about him with any sort of confidence.
So shut up, check your arrogance, and stop pretending that you know anything about a being which you fully admit is beyond your ability to understand.
You can't get to God through logic, as in logic one's claim must be supported by two or more pieces of evidence that are testable, verifiable, and thus known to be true. When it comes down to it, religion comes down to faith and belief, so all this guy's arguments about using logic are simply a distraction away from this. The speaker isn't the first person who has said, logic, reason, and or science can prove God, but when you take the argument down to it's fundamental parts and force such people as the speaker to prove that Logic can prove God, they then will fall back and say you simply have to have faith. So, it's a waste of time and energy to create this huge discussion about using logic and reason, when in the end it"s abandoned for faith.
Smart
We all have faith in something(s), unless ur the only person alive that checks their breaks before they drive every time. It's only logical to drive after you've checked them, but here we are putting faith in many things that we haven't inspected ourselves. U can lean on probabilities but ur still using faith to that degree, with the consequences potentially being your own life. Logically speaking.
Logic and reasoning are like windows...they allow the light/truth to shine in.
arcguardian we have faith in something reasonable and tangible. We have faith in our car brakes because we certainly know they exist.
@@arcguardian the difference is that some people realise that faith isn't a reliable method of determining truth. When I use a pedestrian crossing, I have faith that the cars will wait for me, and not run me down. But that isn't evidence, or a good reason to believe that the cars will wait.
Imagine thinking you can come to the logical conclusion that Mount Everest was covered by the water of a global flood. 😂
Imagine you can come to the logical conclusion that we are all meaningless dust floating senselessly through a randomly appearing universe.
I hope for your sake that you have exhausted every means of making sure that God does not exist. Instead of mocking us with your prideful attempts at scoring a "gotcha" and your arbitrary scepticism, why don't you go to your knees and pray to God that 'if he does exist, he show yourself to you'? You're not looking for truth, you're looking to intellectually dominate, mock, laugh and fuel your insatiable pride. If you see nothing wrong with that then go on to hell. If you do, then repent and follow Jesus.
Um what? Where the heck did you get that idea.
I think that proponents of the worldwide flood believe that most mountain ranges (including the Himalayas) were formed during or after the flood.
@@siegfriedk.6276 read Jean Paul Sartre and study a little existentialism.
Imagine Mount everest came from nothing, because nothing exploded...RIP logic🤭🤣
You can not understand the bible, without the Holy Spirit.. it is dead letter, without the Spirit of Life
You're suggesting an unredeemed person cannot u/stand that he's a sinner? (Rom 3:10, 23), The gospel, in and of itself is alive and has power, *Rom **1:16* "...it is the power of God unto salvation".
Are you a Calvinist and just wanted to weigh in? Just askin' for a friend.
If I cannot understand the Bible without the Holy Spirit, then how can a just and loving God condemn me for not believing the Bible if the Holy Spirit has been withheld from me?
@@hansdemos6510 Did He withhold the HG from you, or do you reject God.....😉
@@Kman. you can understand you are a sinner... thats why most people reject God and His word.. they love darkness rather then light...
Are you a christian, do you want to be?🧐
You can absolutely confirm theological claims with logic. For example, throughout all history, all people have sinned and cannot stop them themselves from sinning. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that people have a sin nature as the Bible says. We're also guilty of that sin by how God defines sin. The good news is that Jesus Christ payed for that sin on the cross so that we may be saved by grace through faith in Him and avoid Hell as the judgement and punishment for sin. It's the logical choice. 👍🏻
Trucker_Pete
Define sin .
That depends on what you call sin.
If I say thinking about sex or thinking about getting up in the morning is a sin then we’re all sinners and hey presto.
My god logically exists.
Very very poor Pete.
@@MartTLS A please would be nice. Here's what the Bible says. "Whoever commits sin also commits lawlessness, and sin is lawlessness." I John 3:4
In other words, breaking the law of God.
Trucker_Pete The logical conclusion of the observation that "throughout all history, all people have sinned and cannot stop them themselves from sinning" is not that "people have a sin nature as the Bible says", but that we have invented the word "sin" to categorize a certain class of actions as transgressions against a deity. Only after you have defined the word like that can you start using it in the sense that you are using it. In other words, we define sin, not God.
Hans De Mos We cannot define sin without God as sin is against God. It’s in the nature and definition of the word. What you’re alluding to is the only thing that’s left without God, which is subjective morality. But that cannot allow anything to be inherently good or evil and we know that’s not true either as it would then be objective morality. Even people who say they subscribe to that still say that certain actions for all people are good or evil. No one truly believes in or lives by subjective morality.
Laws of logic make the Bible look silly. Talking snakes?
Nothing logically impossible about talking snakes.
The 1+1+1 = 1 bit though? Completely illogical.
So according to you Frank the laws of logic are reliable because they are self evident. In other words your right just because. What is and isn't right is subjective. Some Christians would say it's wrong to be gay. While other Christians would say it's ok to be gay. And they would come to those opposite conclusions using the same bible and the same religion. So this whole laws of logic stance you have doesn't comport with reality. If there was some universal standard everyone has and adheres to you would think we would all arrive at the same conclusions on all issues. Yet that's not what we see. There are thousands of denominations of Christianity alone. They didn't form those denominations because they agree on everything. They did it because they disagree.
You say that correct & incorrect are subjective, then go on to say that Frank is incorrect. Do you see the problem here?
"Depends on how you define knowledge..." 😂 Is this kid just trying to sound intelligent?
What a load of twaddle. The sun didn’t or doesn’t rise.
Trolltician
Dumbass creationist who probably still believes the sun rotates round the earth . Go and learn some science .
Mart TL1000S
Kent Hovind debated some guy a few years back and the guy asked the small audience for a show of hands of people who believed the sun went around the earth.
He counted around 6-7 hands.
These were all creationists.
@@frankfleming9558 Hilarious story bro....
Frank Fleming the sun going around the earth means there be no choice but creation. Which is why it’s been kept hidden for so long.
@@MartTLS I prefer learning about the philosophy of science.