What an encouraging testimony & conversation. Love it & his honesty about the truth & how the Lord began to convict him. That's the what the Lord does, He changes people from the inside out.
This is an inspiring testimony, because it shows us what God can do with a man when He changes his heart-and how God uses a man’s personality for His glory. When we become Christians, many things about us change, but many attributes stay they same (though redeemed) and are used by the Lord for good in the world.
This is pretty cool. Cause I’ve conversed with Daniel and he seemingly went from an outspoken, aggressive, condescending atheist to an outspoken, aggressive, condescending theist.
Note to Creation Today: "argent" in opening text at 0:07 narrated as "arrogant", but probably meant to be "ardent". Also a redundant "just just" typo earlier in the text. Suggestion: Make a video administering shock-therapy to the editorial staff responsible for this. 😂
After tracking down the David’s twitter, he cites objective morality, the existence of logic, and knowledge as his reason for leaving atheism. “My reasons for rejecting god should have also lead to the rejection of a belief in logic, truth, my ability to reason, free will.” Logically disconnected. God can be fake whilst logic, truth, reason, and free will can exist. God is not logically required, otherwise god would be required to create truth and logic which would then imply that he was without truth and logic originally. That’s an anachronism. Either way, truth and logic must be default. Ultimately I think he made the mistake of thinking of god as the null hypothesis. If we can’t prove something works naturally it must be god. He goes on to say in thread 8/12 that “an all knowing mind is actually required as a precondition for the possibility of knowledge and atheists reject that.” Hold on, how did he come to this conclusion? And what does he actually mean by “knowledge?” Is he talking about the knowledge we have which is inherently based in probabilities as fudge factors for what we don’t know? Or is he talking about absolute knowledge? Which, if you’re a human you know you don’t have this. So what could he possibly mean? Once again he makes the mistake of thinking in terms of black or whites, he thinks that because we don’t have true knowledge that we don’t know anything at all, and therefore atheism inconsistent because you can’t claim to know there’s no god without knowledge. But he ignores the fact that it’s also possible for us to be right by coincidence, or that our probability based knowledge is sufficient to reach a reasonable conclusion. (Like what is done in science) And even worse, this argument actually backfires. We don’t actually have knowledge in the true sense, so this “prediction of atheism” as he might call it is fulfilled in our day to day experience. And another major problem is that this is ultimately a question of if we can claim to know anything AT ALL! Because we all understand our knowledge is inherently probability based, meaning that if we follow this argument’s logic we can NEVER overcome the null hypothesis. What does that mean? He can’t say there’s a god, I can’t say there’s no god, he cannot say for sure if he’s just a brain in a jar on some alien planet or something. knowledge is impossible at all under this idea. Again, the null hypothesis in this case is that you don’t know. God is an alternative hypothesis that must overcome the null hypothesis. So his conclusion that atheism cannot literally be true, ignores the null hypothesis. “Zero evidence for the existence of logic.” Because he can’t see, taste, or feel it. Math begs to differ, you write equations on paper that can then be used to translate to external reality. The value of pi is always 3.14 now, and for all eternity and eternity past. Logic is absolute, anyone saying anything else is selling something. Next I’ll tackle morality. “What objectively gives us more dignity than a dogs, ants, or bacteria?” Well first we need to define what morality even means. No, it doesn’t mean “god says so, therefore it’s ok.” Because if you follow that logic to its conclusion that would mean that god could rape someone and be moral in the process. Forgive me of course for using such a vulgar example. But every other heinous crime in the book already has premade excuses for god. So I am forced to make my point my utilizing one where it’s unquestionably evil. So wait a second, did you notice what just happened? YOU THE READER just said it’s possible for god to do something wrong. So his word isn’t exactly what really defines morality. Interesting. So what does? Well think about it, it really isn’t that difficult. Morality is actually defined by what “minimizes suffering and maximizes well being relative to the experience of the individual.” The first half describes an optimization curve relationship between suffering and well being, sometimes in order to enact the most optimal outcome some suffering is required. As long as suffering does not outweigh well being, and it the most optimal solution it is moral. The second half describes what subjects are relevant to morality. Specifically, subjects that have their own conscious experience. So we don’t feel bad when we kill a tree, or germs. They do not have any conscious experience, but ALL OF US understand that killing or hurting a dog is bad because that dog is experiencing the pain and you are minimizing well being by killing it. So notice what this definition is noticeably missing. God. That’s because the fact of the matter is that even if god existed, he would NOT be making up the logic behind what makes something moral or immoral. He would just be parroting that logic to us from a more informed perspective. That’s it. Morality is not theistic or atheistic necessarily in nature. It is entirely a social construct that social animals use to maintain groups. Now you can say “well nobody ought to follow this.” And guess what, that’s true! People do that all the time. But guess what, they’re immoral people by definition in the processes as they do not operate in a moral framework. By default, they are immoral people. That is, to be NOT moral. But yeah, that’s my essay on the matter. Any time I come across stuff like this I feel compelled to read it and consider it or else I feel like I’m being dishonest. But time and time again I just feel completely unchallenged. Y’all are making this too easy.
Most atheist don’t care about who gets to decide what’s right or wrong. Daniel has maybe the biggest ego I’ve ever seen. Seems like he’s projecting his issues onto a group of people
The problem with your argument in a nutshell. You assume a speed up of time verses instant progression in which there would be no proof to show. The second problem: You forgo proofs that are in fact in line with the young earth theories to self select what you believe proves your points. You go blind to scientific facts that don't go with your belief. So here's a fact for you : Arguing with each other online rarely changes anybody's mind. All it does in most cases is make somebody feel if others are not arguing back they must have won some important argument and made a difference in the world. When in truth they just got tired or bored of you or feel you're a lost cause. Just keep in mind. A true follower of Christ (not just some religious zealot) has actually observed something you have not. Once you observe the miracle of rebirth there is NO changing their mind. I only ever respond once as I just now did. So don't expect arguing back and forth from me. Or even to look at a response as I have done hundreds of times in the past and found it waste of my time. I change more hearts and minds living what I believe out in the real world. Not as Keyboard Warrior. God Bless.
What an encouraging testimony & conversation. Love it & his honesty about the truth & how the Lord began to convict him. That's the what the Lord does, He changes people from the inside out.
This is an inspiring testimony, because it shows us what God can do with a man when He changes his heart-and how God uses a man’s personality for His glory. When we become Christians, many things about us change, but many attributes stay they same (though redeemed) and are used by the Lord for good in the world.
This is pretty cool. Cause I’ve conversed with Daniel and he seemingly went from an outspoken, aggressive, condescending atheist to an outspoken, aggressive, condescending theist.
Note to Creation Today: "argent" in opening text at 0:07 narrated as "arrogant", but probably meant to be "ardent". Also a redundant "just just" typo earlier in the text. Suggestion: Make a video administering shock-therapy to the editorial staff responsible for this. 😂
Daniel is a legend.
To whom?
After tracking down the David’s twitter, he cites objective morality, the existence of logic, and knowledge as his reason for leaving atheism.
“My reasons for rejecting god should have also lead to the rejection of a belief in logic, truth, my ability to reason, free will.”
Logically disconnected.
God can be fake whilst logic, truth, reason, and free will can exist. God is not logically required, otherwise god would be required to create truth and logic which would then imply that he was without truth and logic originally. That’s an anachronism.
Either way, truth and logic must be default.
Ultimately I think he made the mistake of thinking of god as the null hypothesis. If we can’t prove something works naturally it must be god.
He goes on to say in thread 8/12 that “an all knowing mind is actually required as a precondition for the possibility of knowledge and atheists reject that.”
Hold on, how did he come to this conclusion? And what does he actually mean by “knowledge?”
Is he talking about the knowledge we have which is inherently based in probabilities as fudge factors for what we don’t know?
Or is he talking about absolute knowledge? Which, if you’re a human you know you don’t have this.
So what could he possibly mean?
Once again he makes the mistake of thinking in terms of black or whites, he thinks that because we don’t have true knowledge that we don’t know anything at all, and therefore atheism inconsistent because you can’t claim to know there’s no god without knowledge.
But he ignores the fact that it’s also possible for us to be right by coincidence, or that our probability based knowledge is sufficient to reach a reasonable conclusion. (Like what is done in science)
And even worse, this argument actually backfires. We don’t actually have knowledge in the true sense, so this “prediction of atheism” as he might call it is fulfilled in our day to day experience.
And another major problem is that this is ultimately a question of if we can claim to know anything AT ALL! Because we all understand our knowledge is inherently probability based, meaning that if we follow this argument’s logic we can NEVER overcome the null hypothesis.
What does that mean?
He can’t say there’s a god, I can’t say there’s no god, he cannot say for sure if he’s just a brain in a jar on some alien planet or something.
knowledge is impossible at all under this idea.
Again, the null hypothesis in this case is that you don’t know. God is an alternative hypothesis that must overcome the null hypothesis.
So his conclusion that atheism cannot literally be true, ignores the null hypothesis.
“Zero evidence for the existence of logic.”
Because he can’t see, taste, or feel it.
Math begs to differ, you write equations on paper that can then be used to translate to external reality.
The value of pi is always 3.14 now, and for all eternity and eternity past.
Logic is absolute, anyone saying anything else is selling something.
Next I’ll tackle morality.
“What objectively gives us more dignity than a dogs, ants, or bacteria?”
Well first we need to define what morality even means. No, it doesn’t mean “god says so, therefore it’s ok.” Because if you follow that logic to its conclusion that would mean that god could rape someone and be moral in the process.
Forgive me of course for using such a vulgar example. But every other heinous crime in the book already has premade excuses for god. So I am forced to make my point my utilizing one where it’s unquestionably evil.
So wait a second, did you notice what just happened? YOU THE READER just said it’s possible for god to do something wrong.
So his word isn’t exactly what really defines morality.
Interesting.
So what does?
Well think about it, it really isn’t that difficult.
Morality is actually defined by what “minimizes suffering and maximizes well being relative to the experience of the individual.”
The first half describes an optimization curve relationship between suffering and well being, sometimes in order to enact the most optimal outcome some suffering is required.
As long as suffering does not outweigh well being, and it the most optimal solution it is moral.
The second half describes what subjects are relevant to morality. Specifically, subjects that have their own conscious experience.
So we don’t feel bad when we kill a tree, or germs.
They do not have any conscious experience, but ALL OF US understand that killing or hurting a dog is bad because that dog is experiencing the pain and you are minimizing well being by killing it.
So notice what this definition is noticeably missing.
God. That’s because the fact of the matter is that even if god existed, he would NOT be making up the logic behind what makes something moral or immoral.
He would just be parroting that logic to us from a more informed perspective.
That’s it.
Morality is not theistic or atheistic necessarily in nature. It is entirely a social construct that social animals use to maintain groups.
Now you can say “well nobody ought to follow this.”
And guess what, that’s true! People do that all the time. But guess what, they’re immoral people by definition in the processes as they do not operate in a moral framework. By default, they are immoral people. That is, to be NOT moral.
But yeah, that’s my essay on the matter.
Any time I come across stuff like this I feel compelled to read it and consider it or else I feel like I’m being dishonest. But time and time again I just feel completely unchallenged. Y’all are making this too easy.
Most atheist don’t care about who gets to decide what’s right or wrong. Daniel has maybe the biggest ego I’ve ever seen. Seems like he’s projecting his issues onto a group of people
Read it!!!
Read it pleassee!
The problem with your argument in a nutshell. You assume a speed up of time verses instant progression in which there would be no proof to show. The second problem: You forgo proofs that are in fact in line with the young earth theories to self select what you believe proves your points. You go blind to scientific facts that don't go with your belief. So here's a fact for you : Arguing with each other online rarely changes anybody's mind. All it does in most cases is make somebody feel if others are not arguing back they must have won some important argument and made a difference in the world. When in truth they just got tired or bored of you or feel you're a lost cause. Just keep in mind. A true follower of Christ (not just some religious zealot) has actually observed something you have not. Once you observe the miracle of rebirth there is NO changing their mind. I only ever respond once as I just now did. So don't expect arguing back and forth from me. Or even to look at a response as I have done hundreds of times in the past and found it waste of my time. I change more hearts and minds living what I believe out in the real world. Not as Keyboard Warrior. God Bless.
Why is he pixelated?
did you watch the first 3 seconds of the video lmao
I’m on mobile and it defaults to mute.
Due to the sensitive nature of Daniel's job, he let us know that he would prefer for his identity to remain private.
K so read this
Is this comedy, or are you guys actually serious?