Bart is an expert debater and he will use dirty tactics to his advantage ( I.E. joking, misinterpreting, question begging, pretending to be offended, self righteousness, etc) much like Matt Dillahunty
What absolute slander. Bart did absolutely fine in this debate -- in fact, it was one of the most peaceful debates I've seen between a believer and an unbeliever.
I have no familiarity with debates, but thank you for doing this series to help show potential intellectual questions agnostics or controversial people in general may bring up, sharpening me in my apologetic for God's glory. God bless you Clear Lens team!
"to help show potential intellectual questions agnostics or controversial people in general may bring up, sharpening me in my apologetic for God's glory" - how about; define your god and substantiate it exists ?
@@michaelanderson7715 Respectfully, if you're on this channel you can deduce it's the Triune God of the Bible:Old Testament & New Testament. Are you agnostic?
@@robmc120 "Respectfully, if you're on this channel you can deduce it's the Triune God of the Bible:Old Testament & New Testament." - That's not defining it, that's stating what religion it is. A definition is describing what it is, how it looks etc. - And, the other part was; substantiate it exists ----- Now, despite you not having started to address my questions, I'll answer yours; I'm atheist on the claim of the existence of your god. That is, I'm unconvinced by your claim and don't accept it as true. Now please, my questions...
@@michaelanderson7715 Respectfully, I don't know how much more plain i can define God than His own Word he describes Himself in the Bible, have you had time to read it? I know you don't believe the Bible bc you said you're atheist (impossible, bc agnostic= "not knowing" means you don't know, atheist= "no god" would mean you're sure you know He doesn't exist, but then why would you be asking me to prove it then if you're sure?). Religion is not the Bible, religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" or "a particular system of faith & worship" (oxford dictionary), i'm specifying it to state i trust in the triune God of the Bible specifically. Apparently, to answer your question to your satisfaction, could you clarify some more what definition you're looking for? To make sure i don't make the same "mistake" as defining God in your first question, what would you accept as substantiation? Are you of the mindset of Matt Dillahunty who says, "idk what it would take to convince me" or can you reason there are things that aren't all physical proofs such as the Law of Logic or Non-contradiction which exist but not in the physical realm? Please grant me these few more questions so i can answer intelligently & precisely. Thank you for your time with clarification. God bless!
Dinesh killed him in the last point because his opponent was appealing to emotional angst over losses based on himself not being able to be comforted because he didn’t believe in an afterlife. That was not a sound argument
And using an afterlife is just an excuse for God to sit back and do nothing. If heaven exists, murder isn't wrong because it's a "better place" and therefore every murderer has done their victim a favor.
@@redpillfreedom6692 Your life on Earth determines the riches you earn in heaven. Once you believe you haven't "made it and you're done" per se. You still have work to do otherwise there wouldn't be a meaning to this life. Also, what if the person who was murdered went to hell? Wouldnt they have done something even WORSE for the victim!?
@@redpillfreedom6692 yeah no this is completely ridiculous. Murder is still a terrible thing even if there is heaven, the point is pain and suffering won’t last forever, and the pain that you feel when your family members or close ones die will not last forever either because he will get to see them again. This doesn’t mean that murder or any of these earthly things aren’t bad whatsoever of course not, so it does not logically follow that if there’s heaven then there’s nothing wrong with murder.
I made a comment on that debate video concerning D’Sousa asserting that nothing is something being that the unknown is something no matter the context. (Especially as it relates to Ehrman calling himself an agnostic) That comment is an important idea that I would like to see debated such as proof of eternity. It is not material like Ehrman wants but it is immaterial and can only be appreciated in that moment and time yet it is a real entity that we will all experience. D’Souza was definitely on point the whole debate. I consider Ehrman to be one of the foremost antagonists of truth because his. Arguments can be very compelling but often so wrong and has extreme eternal consequences.
and i actually like ehrman's approach...being able to distinguish between the theology and faith/belief...vs the historical things that can be gleaned from his perspective. you can believe whatever you want. what is and how would a historian look at these things? that's what i prefer/like.
Im not a religious person but i love watching D'Sousa videos. Even if I Knew I was arguing the correct side of a debate.(like the sun is hot and he is arguing not hot) I would not want to debate him.
1:36 Instead of merely counting questions, let's try to understand them: A) "I want to know if you believe God answers prayer." B) "And if you do think so, do you think God sometimes intervenes in our world". C) "The more involved part of that is: if you think God does not answer prayer, I'd like to know in what sense you consider yourself a Christian" D) "If you think God answers prayers and intervenes, then I would like to know whether it bothers you that God doesn't answer people who are starving to death and being tortured and are being murdered and so forth". That's a decision tree. B) should only be answered if the answer for A) is "yes". C) should only be answered if the answer for A) is "no". D) should only be answered if the answers for A) and B) are "yes". It's essentially this: "Does it bother you that God doesn't answer to most prayers to stop evils and intervene accordingly, though you believe he answers prayers and intervenes in our world?" That assumes Dinesh believes God answers prayers (A) and intervenes in our world (B). A) and B) is to make the assumptions clear and make Dinesh explain himself if they're wrong (C). Dinesh said: E) "I think God can and does answer prayer." (That answers A) F) "I think God can and does intervene in our world" (That answers B) G) "I see this intervention (...) as an expression of God's gratuitous love (...) if it did (occur regularly), we could no longer speak of the lawfulness of nature (...)" (That suggests he agrees God does not answer "people who are starving to death and being tortured and are being murdered and so forth" and is not bothered by that) It shows Dinesh tracked the questions. They're a decision tree and the important one is the last one. The other questions are about assumptions for the last one. You don't understand them if you're just counting them.
I'm a Christian and I like these videos a lot. I love learning about what the judge would be thinking, the framework for debates, etc. My one complaint is that sometimes I don't think you engage very fairly with the side that holds an opinion different than yours. You bring in things unknown to the audience and unmentioned in the debate as evidence supporting why the Christian won. If you're objectively evaluating the debate I don't think it's fair to assume that your prior knowledge trumps the (e.g.) atheist's case unless that matter of prior knowledge was brought up by the Christian. You seem to do that a lot and, even though I usually take the same side as you, it shows your Christian or Protestant bias. To use an extreme example, it'd be unfair for me to say "this atheist makes a good point about divine hiddenness, but if he'd done his research he'd see that there are great responses to that, and therefore he loses this one." If the Christian himself doesn't raise those points he can still lose the debate. Anyway, that's my only gripe. I still enjoy the videos a lot!
Nate! Come on man! When Bart says he’s agnostic, he’s referring to God. Agnosticism says he doesn’t know if there’s a god. When Bart says there’s no other side, he’s referring to a supernatural state or a place where our consciousness goes after death. It’s not a god question, so it doesn’t make any sense when you say his statement is not agnostic- like.
It would be great if Wise Discciple could review the debate between William Lane Craig and Torbjörn Tännsjö. Torbjörn Tännsjö is Swedish open marxist and communist philosopher (no joke).
I think D'Souza's POE for atheists challenge could have been easily answered by pointing out that our intellectual capacities allow us to act out our animal instincts on a much grander scale than other animals in general. Like some other animals we have a need for shelter, but we build vast cities that cover much of the earth instead of tiny nests. We have a need food and instead of picking a few berries and hunting only what we need, we create vast agricultural projects that far surpass anything in the animal kingdom. So, why wouldn't we expect humans to able to put their intellectual tools to the task of satisfying the darker impulses commonly found in the animal kingdom (e.g. killing off perceived competitors, taking territory and resources by force, using others as a disposable means to some end, etc...) as well? Given the massive difference in our intellectual and technological capacities from all other animals on the earth, I don't think D'Souza did a good enough job establishing why one wouldn't expect intelligent evolved primates to be capable of doing evil on a much grander scale than other animals if atheism is true.
I was able to track the questions at the beginning. I also understood that some of the questions were conditional on the answer of a previous question. Dinesh was able to keep track of that and answered appropriately. What are you talking about?
That first one is one question, as all parts are related. it's a pretty basic flowchart. 1. Does god intervene to answer prayers (yes/no). -> if yes, does it frustrate you when god doesn't answer prayers, -> if no, in what sense do you consider yourself a Christian. the question does god answer prayers is a simple yes/no question, so directing the response is not only reasonable it's good argumentative form. From that I'll take it your expertise is apologetics, not debate, and I'll see myself out.
You look kinda similar to Eric metaxes, you should talk to him somehow, I'm glad I found your content, I'm impressed so far and obviously subscribed, your logic is impressive and I'd love to see you with people that assume some things and tease out their reasoning, like metaxes. I'm troubled by the idea that we cherrypick data that helps our case and ignore things that don't, how would you combat this selective study habit, I grew up Mormon and have been widening my own herminutical approach on scripture as well as science and logic. (Not currently a believing Mormon btw)
No one chooses hell. They use their reasoning to determine that evidence is lacking for existence of any God. If an agnostic/atheist is, in fact, wrong about christianity that still does not mean they should suffer for eternity. Any God of infinite mercy would be offended by Christians thinking it is okay to allow religious dissent to be rewarded with eternal torment. You people should be ashamed.
They don't even get eternal torment. In the bible, a person who has died is acquitted from their sins, meaning that they no longer bear a nessecary need for punishment. In the Greek, Hell is actually more of a place of silence; a void where only you can think. It's more psycological if anything. A world without God is empty, and by rejecting God, you go to a place without him. Also, "infinite mercy" may be true, but you completely -forgor- forgot about the "infinitely just" part that indicates God will punish people fairly and not acquit those who have done wrong.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT that’s a unique perspective on the hell. I think Alvin Plantinga said it best when he most people including Christians think about health from an emotional standpoint, and not an intellectual standpoint, how is basically If you’re going to prison for the rest your life and you are given a get out of jail free card but you refuse it, now as a direct result from your actions you’re going to suffer for the rest of your life, it’s not a perfect analogy but I think it works pretty well, another example is it see if you’re dangling from a balcony and somebody tries to help you and you refuse their help.
"as if it's the Christian's fault" That wasn't the position Ehrman was taking, moron. However, if God has unlimited power and does nothing to stop suffering, he makes himself an accomplice through his inaction. THAT is the position Bart was taking. Try not to use strawmen next time
@@redpillfreedom6692 that wasn’t the answer you gave whatsoever,The answer that he gave to the susan’s answer about suffering, was that it was offensive, and it doesn’t do any good, that’s pretty much what he said he didn’t really get that much of an answer, which is a little surprising because you get a good answer from most of the questions.
I really enjoy your style, goal, and overall layout, but man is it ever frustrating when you say "where is the evidence" for any claim made by an atheist and never do so for a claim made by a theist. I understand you agree with the claim, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need just as much substantiation. You want evidence of the damage religious beliefs can do, talk to some ex Christians who have dealt with loss from both sides. Viced Rhino lost his wife not long ago and later layed out exactly why he felt these "consolations" are harmful. And if you want larger scale data, talk with any of the numerous charities and mental health resources directed at this demographic, I'm sure they can provide some real numbers. I'd start with Grief Beyond Belief.
I guess the problem here is that you fail to realize that just because the studies say the opposite doesn't mean that there aren't people who occassionally don't feel satisfied with the "they are in Heaven now" idea. As previously mentioned, the burden of proof is on the atheist here, not the Christian, so there's no reason why the Christian should have to answer as if they are the one that needs to prove their statement.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT you are correct, exceptions are possible, and somewhat frequent. Though the idea we have a burden here seems silly to me, it is one we can undertake to a certain degree. At the end of the day, no one can truely say they know what comes after, since you'd have to be dead to do so. But if we accept that an absolute answer can only be obtained absolutely, then we can look at the aspects of the claim which intersect with the reality we inhabit. For instance; The lack of room for a soul in the biochemistry of the brain. The lack of clear definition for the soul/spirit. (We can't study a vague appeal to intuition, we need to know the properties of the soul, which all seem to really be properties of the brain.) The lack of consistency amongst those with NDEs, pointing strongly to them being a series of hallucinations close to ones up-bringing in iconography, if there is any experience or memory at all. I can go on, but this is getting long winded. We can't be certain there is nothing after death, but we certainly don't have any signs pointing to there being something.
This is straight up not True if you watch his video that he did with Sye and Jeff Durbin he criticize them for not justifying their position over and over again, also watch the debate with Ken ham and Bill Nye. And the reason he doesn’t see it as much just because a lot of the time the atheist doesn’t think they have a burden of proof whatsoever, theists on the other hand will acknowledge they do.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 this was largely a comment made in reference to the way he asked for evidence on the damage of religious beliefs, as I said. I happened to have a recent example to show such a scenario is not only possible, but happening right now. I felt this was a strange thing to ask for evidence for, given how often it occurs. In contrast the claims about god and his nature are freely accepted (within this video). Though I haven't seen his video with Sye, I've seen much of Sye and he hasn't done well to represent himself as an honest interlocker. As for the Ken/Nye debate, I very much hope you are referencing that for how poorly it was done, on both parts. Ken said "I have a book you should read" for 3 hours and Nye doesn't know anything about theology or biblical history. They should never have had the debate.
@@filchhoff I think I understand your point that even if the evidence that supports the idea that Heavin can relieve stress or pain, not everyone’s gonna be satisfied with it. Also I do think the burden is on the atheist in this case since he’s the one asking the question. I get what you’re saying but I disagree. I would agree with that he comes after me is very arrogant and more interested in winning an argument, he trying to shut up his opponents than actually having an actual discussion, I think he did really well in his debate with Matt Dillahunty though. And I think it’s unfortunate that he’s pretty much the spokesperson for presuppositionism or was for many years and he’s a perception people have a bit I’m not a presuppositionist, but there are more sophisticated people within the movement such as Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Frances Schaeffer, John frame, Gordon Clark and Scott Oliphant. Yeah I think the debate was just not well constructed there wasn’t even cross-examination which in my opinion is one of the best parts of a debate, I don’t think Ken Ham did absolutely horrible, he was basically all over the place stumbling and bumbling, and it was honestly kind of painful to watch at times, because they’re a point where I think he really could’ve got the upper hand overnight but he just completely failed, like when Bill nice of the creationism fails as an explanation since we don’t have sufficient scientific evidence to point to his existence, an Ham could’ve given given a good answer but instead you just said something along the lines of oh well you may think that but I trust the Bible not the word of man that’s what gives me answers. And as for Bill Nye I think performance he probably did a better job than Ken Ham but he constantly strawman his position, and came off as very arrogant and showed that he really doesn’t understand the Christian world view or Ham’s position at all, but he ended up getting the upper hand For most of the debate just because of how terrible and insufficient Ken Ham’s answers were. Yeah that’s pretty much what happened, and he does christians a huge disservice because he makes then look really stupid. I would probably agree it should’ve been someone besides Bill Nye and Ken ham, if they were gonna have somebody defend the Young earth perspective and represent the Christian worldview it would probably be Jason Lisle, and for evolution probably someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson, despite the fact he knows little to nothing about Christianity.
Ehrman is begging the question when he says that belief that your lost loved one is in heaven is essentially trite and small consolation. That's only the case if you assume that the person suffering doesn't believe it. If they do believe it, it is a good consolation, at least compared to the atheist alternative (being nothing at all).
Bart brought up a son who committed suicide as a scenario. Wouldn't a Christian say that it's okay, you're son is now in hell based on Christian belief?
If heaven included people who commit suicide, wouldnt we all just kill ourselves to get there? I doubt you think killers shouldnt go to hell. Why? Because life is sacred and God given. Whether killing yourself or someone else it's a terrible violation of the sanctity of life.
I think this notion of people committing suicide and going to hell comes from a lack of understanding of mental health in many churches. People don’t say someone is going to hell for having cancer and dying because it’s a disease. Mental illness can hit some people in a variety of ways and lead to ending one’s life. It’s essentially the same idea as another organ in the body killing you. I, as a Christian, highly doubt God would condemn that person for eternity because they couldn’t survive their own mind. The Bible says that God will have mercy on who He has mercy on. For us, as mere humans, we cannot make such an assertion of someone going to hell for something that isn’t written in the Bible.
ok...just stumbled on your account. i'm willing to give it a few listens. i THINK i saw this debate...but it would have been years ago...and no clue. seen way to many to remember which ones i have. i like ehrman. i cannot stand d'souza. sure..ehrman threw multiple questions at once. i've seen william lane craig debates before...among other...so i'm used to...and guess that falls under the gish gallop approach? i wish i would have taken debate in high school, but wasn't something i got interested in until probably my mid twenties. i didn't know what debate was in high school...how i could apply it...why it would be good etc. that was something the smart guys did. anyway....i'm just trying to feel you at as a youtuber...if i like your stuff or not...if i agree or not etc. so...i guess this is the first video of yours i'm checking out.
They made experiment placing tigers with antelopes. 2 tigers killed entire herd. Their instict lead them to kill them all. But lions would not do that. Interesting.
Theologically, I think that Ehrman is easy to debunk. Historically, he can be a bit of a bother, but his claims don’t always work well, particularly with what he considers to be contradictions.
Yeah I completely agree he’s obviously a very smart guy, I think he’s a good debater and I think he’s done great work on the historical Jesus, but when it comes to Christian theology I think he shoots himself in the foot.
Just my observation but you really lose a debate when you announce to the audience that you are not responsible for providing any evidence of what you’re saying is true. Mr. Desousa stated that the agreement to do the debate was that he would not have to be the one meeting the burden of proof.
“But you really lose a debate when you announce to the audience that you are not responsible for providing any evidence” Totally agree with you!! so please practice what you preach and provide evidence and citations that materialism, philosophical naturalism or atheism is true!! Evidence for all three of these metaphysical presuppositions please!! I’ll wait!! Because that’s got to be one of the most ironic and hilarious claims I’ve come across when reading Internet atheists comments. That comment was comedy gold!! Furthermore, the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism/deism/panentheism are just default positions and they are just a (lack of belief) in atheism until materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists can demonstrate that “matter” is all there is to reality and existence not mind and consciousness. The fact is that reality and existence isn’t made of “matter” it’s made of (what matters). Theist: Why were you born ? Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced! Theist: Why are you living ? Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced! Theist: Is consciousness real and does life have value and meaning ? Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced! Theist: Does life have meaning and purpose ? Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced! Theist: Does language have meaning? Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced! Theist: Does what you just said have meaning ? Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced! Theist: Are morals and ethics real ? Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced! Theist: Is moral subjectivism true ? Atheist: I don’t need evidence I’m convinced. Theist: Is your previous claim that you don’t need evidence because your convinced mean that moral subjectivism is objectively true ? Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced! Theist: Is your previous answer an objective claim to truth ? Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced Theist: Does every answer you gave so far have meaning ? Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced! Theist: Is atheism true ? Atheist: Yes!!! Theist: Does the answer “yes” have meaning ? Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced! Theist: Makes perfect sense!! And you mock our beliefs!!
@@georgedoyle7971 I think you’ve gotten way ahead of yourself I made a statement about my observation my observation is personal to me I wasn’t making a positive claim about anything If you think my observation was in error I suppose we could have a discussion about that. What I think of the rest of your assertions I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about ? And if you really want to go deep into the weeds ? The brain seems to be made of matter and consciousness seems to be an emergent property of a brain. And even though I cannot demonstrate that it is even real I seem to be able to know my own thoughts and I’m going to make an assumption that is real because I have no choice. It’s just a matter of practicality.
Actually, debates are typically framed in such a way that the burden of proof rests with the side that takes the "pro" position (the side making a truth claim). It seems like, in the video, DeSousa talks about this and that he wasn't the one taking the "pro" position. So, it is not up to him to provide any proof, unless, he makes a truth claim.
I'm afraid I'm appalled by this notion some of my fellow Christians have that in order to defend man's unique status of God's imagers we need to think of animals as "meat robots" devoid of emotions. If emotions are what made us "in God's image" then an unborn baby is not human and can be aborted. Have you ever seen a dog realize he's going to the vet? He anticipates his suffering alright. Instead we need to acknowledge that God cares for animals and that their suffering will presumably be eased when the earth is fully redeemed, and that man's sin is the ultimate source for both human and nonhuman suffering.
Bart Ehrman does not understand the free will argument, When people are talking about free will they’re talking about Adam and Eve free will which caused all sin, i’m not really surprised because Bart Ehrman’s expertise are really in the field of textual criticism when it comes to Christian theology he completely fails, even though I’m pretty sure he has a degree in systematic theology I’m pretty sure he even has a masters.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus dude I explained how he doesn’t understand it. Oh and don’t even get me started you want me to list all the things that you strawman like oh my gosh you are not the one to be criticizing somebody for strawmans.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Can you tell me the exact method you used to accurately determine what Bart understands and doesn’t understand? I predict that you will you squeal and squirm from answering that question. Feel free to prove me wrong 😂
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus why should I if it’s OK for you just to assert things and never have to actually explain anything, and you can just accuse people things, why can’t I do it as well. Which that’s not what I’m doing, i’m basing it off of what Christians say that’s the argument of free will, what do you mean what method it’s an argument.And Bible, the Bible makes it pretty clear that sin entered the world because of Adam, if you don’t know about this or you don’t understand this you don’t understand Christian theology very well it’s not that hard to understand. This is just peak projection dude all you do is reframe arguments so you can weasel out of actually having to do your homework or proving anything, you did it with the definition of faith, why am I even engaging with somebody who is obvious troll, you’re not just a troll you’re like an Internet sociopath.
It’s a very specifically philosophical thing for non-philosophers to debate. Dinesh’s ‘expertise’ is in politics and Bart’s in History. Turned out interesting nevertheless. Seen far more qualified people debate horribly.
I would have asked Bart after talking about his cat why he continues to take care of his cat if he thinks his cat is just like Hitler. But the debate set up would not allow it I guess.
Imagine coming away from his really thinking Dinesh won. He was all over the map and contradictory, like when he insisted that we can't possibly know God and then proceeds to list traits that God apparently has. He also failed to address the major plot hole in the Biblical narrative on the issue of free will and suffering, which Ehrman mentioned at the very beginning; if God can't prevent suffering due to interference with free will, how does that explain the lack of suffering of entities living in heaven? Either A) Those in heave don't have free will or B) It's possible to have free will without suffering in one place, so why is it impossible in another place? Of course, it makes more sense when you conclude that the Bible is not the work of an all wise deity, but of fallible men. Because the words of a perfect God wouldn't have such blatant inconsistencies. Indeed, God is an invention of man not the other way around.
People in Heaven have free will but are driven away from the capability of sin. "If it's possible to have free will without suffering in one place, so why is it impossible in another place?" It's not impossible for suffering not to exist in a place with free will, however our sin is what caused there to be suffering. I think atheists completely miss this point that the Earth was *indeed* perfect (no earthquakes, tsunamis, death, or anything of the sort) before Adam and Eve sinned. The fact that atheists can't understand this shows how braindead skeptical men typically are, which is why most people don't go to the problem of evil as some sort of gotcha unless they are truly prepared for this decimating refutation. Considering that all of our suffering was caused after the first sin, it indicates that sin is the reason people who most of us would even consider "good" end up suffering. It is the reason suffering exists in the first place, so it is not our free will that causes us to suffer, but sin. Sin is absent in Heaven, which is the entire reason why there _is_ no suffering in Heaven. Sin erupted our world into chaos overtime, and the _free will_ of human beings _allow_ them to commit sin by victimizing others. In other words, free will is the vessel that sin comes through, but it is not the root of the cause. Sin is. This is why I truly feel as if atheists can't grasp simple concepts. It's literally the following in a nutshell: Earth was perfect. Adam and Eve sinned (disobeyed God). Chaos erupted. Due to this chaos, many people suffer. There you go. It's not even a debate anymore. It's a complete decimation of whatever argument you thought you had.
D’Souza said some despicable and untrue things. The whole mouse analogy was simply absurd and never answered the question. Just deflected to baseless Theological aspects that have evolved over time to fit the present context
“D’Souza said some despicable and untrue things” Sorry but this is just rhetoric and the (Appeal to Outrage Fallacy). Furthermore, I can’t believe that Bart actually compared the misfortune of a mouse to the men, women and children who suffered in the Nazis gas chambers. Equally, you’re claim that “D”Souza said things that were “despicable” is just the (Appeal to Stone Fallacy). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!! Furthermore, the only thing that was “despicable” was Barts virtue signalling in response to the question of how best to comfort bereaved families and his appeal to “love” and “altruism” and realism and “love”, and being rational and “loving” but so realistic when he doesn’t really believe that “love” and “altruism” is even real. It’s a double standard and was cringe worthy to be honest because according to most atheists “love” and “altruism” isn’t even real and is nothing more substantial than the herd instinct and a by product of survival and selfish genes and the random motion of atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities. Theists get this nihilistic and fatalistic approach rammed down their throats all the time by Internet atheists. It was cringe worthy to be honest to see Bart trying to act out being empathetic and genuine after being so obtuse earlier in the debate!! If D’Souza had pointed to love, empathy, altruism and morals and ethics earlier as evidence of the reality of the sacred and transcendent then Bart would have predictably ridiculed his beliefs by appealing to the herd instinct, survival of the fittest, the determinism fallacy and the (Appeal to Nature/Naturalism Fallacy) including evolution psychology to undermine the evidence of real love and real altruism and empathy. It’s beyond cringe worthy and completely absurd. The fact is that any nurse will tell you that you don’t presume to treat bereaved people in any way without finding out what their metaphysical beliefs are first. And you certainly don’t assume that they want you to comfort them by imposing your world view by acting all rational and realistic about how great your loss is, and how its ho so terrible. Bereaved families may want a family priest, vicar, imam or senior family members. The last thing someone who has faith needs is someone telling them it’s much worse than you think, it’s so bad, because you’re never going to see your loved one ever ever again, I so empathise with you. So Bart got it completely wrong which is why nurses get to know patients families and encourage patients to express their own individual preferences and beliefs during illness to ensure continuity of care especially during palliative care and care of the dying pathways. So if you were caring for an atheist you would keep the so called “God squad” or the “Skydaddy” believers at bay. Equally, if you were caring for a person of faith you would keep them as far away as possible from people who callously use (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacies) such as “Skydaddy” and “invisible friend” and then later pretend to be your friend and all loving and altruistic when in reality they believe that love and altruism isn’t really real and is nothing more than brain chemicals and herd instinct and compliance theory. Bart isn’t even an historian or a therapist he’s a textualist and I wouldn’t let him anywhere near the bereaved families of a dying patient. In contrast clergy in hospital settings are trained in bereavement counselling. Barts response and virtue signalling was unbelievably cringe worthy because… “I wouldn't have the arrogance to lecture some mother who hopes to see her dying child in Heaven - that's none of my business, ultimately. I won't lecture her on the philosophy of science.” (Noam Chomsky). I rest my case!!
I would like to see mr. Wise in a debate...how does he empirically defend his position...these debates boil down to I believe in god because of faith...no evidence
@@michaelanderson7715 I would expect.in such important debates that strategy is not at the forefront...but actual honesty...ironically...the atheists have shown more sincerity as seen in their responses and questions...but I guess to an apologist it is about winning without leaving the audience with something deeper...
@@truesoundboy1 Yep, Craig for example is good at gish-galloping through lots of material, that on the surface appears sophisticated and solid. To his fawning ignorant audience, he appears all-compelling and knowing. When in fact once you have a certain level of knowledge of the material and arguments he presents, you realise it's unsubstantiated fluff, like all the rest.
“What is your evidence for this God of yours” No offence intended but isn’t this what’s commonly known as the (Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy). The assumption that any question in life even the question of a supreme ontological ground of reality, existence and experience, that is a supreme ontological ground for mind and consciousness can be answered in the same way as knowing if there are crackers in the pantry!! Equally, are you claiming that the “natural sciences” should be able to “prove” that a supreme ontological ground of reality exists otherwise it does not exist. ? Also, do you believe that the only things that exist and are “true” are those things that the “natural sciences” can “prove” ? Because it’s common knowledge in the philosophy of science that the natural sciences can’t “prove” anything as they are provisional and can only infer. It’s a constantly changing landscape about what (is) not what (ought) to be. Nevertheless, what do you actually mean by “God” because according to Baruch Spinoza…. “the mind of God is all the mentality that is scattered over space and time, the diffused consciousness that animates the world” (Baruch Spinoza). Do you believe that mind and consciousness is real and that it animates the world in a purely dualistic state. ? Or do you subscribe to non dualism or eliminative materialism ? Also do you believe that minds/mind can exist independently of “matter”. ? if you don’t think this is possible what is “matter” and how do the qualities of experience and metaphysical realities such as beauty, empathy, meaning, purpose, morals, ethics, epistemology and teleology, emerge using a purely bottom up explanation from blind, mindless, meaningless matter ? These are very nuanced questions because where does this sudden power of emergence come from if “matter” is nothing more than well, just (matter). Equally, how much “matter” does it take before something as metaphysical as the qualities of conscious experience emerge especially when quantum mechanics has demonstrated that “matter” isn’t even solid as it is non local, bi locational, and inevitably unmeasurable, invisible and timeless ? Furthermore, is consciousness already a potential in every property of “matter”. Because if the potential for consciousness is already present and is immaterial well what this points to is pretty obvious!! Obviously materialists/atheists will scream question begging and argument from ignorance but the whole of science is based on a metaphysical presupposition that can not be empirically proven and there’s nothing wrong with saying we “just don’t know” and inferring to the hypothesis that has the greatest explanatory power and is the most coherent and parsimonious hypothesis. This is the scientific and pragmatic approach after all. Nevertheless, I thought it was common knowledge that no one even knows what “matter” is hence the common term among experts on mind and consciousness “The hard problem of consciousness”. The irony is that it’s only an “hard problem” if you assume materialism. Again I’m just illustrating how nuanced the evidence for a supreme ontological ground of reality is. Because isn’t “matter” just that which is immediately seen and felt, that is it is only a combination of sensible qualities or ideas contained in mind and consciousness: According to contemporary idealists…“we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.” So according to idealists “matter” is just an explanatory abstraction, that is a theoretical abstraction of mind and consciousness. No offence intended but it’s common knowledge in academia that since the advent of modern science, materialism (matter) hasn’t been sustainable, except by people who are extraordinarily stubborn and ignorant of quantum mechanics. Fields and Forces, Gravity, quantum probability waves, realities that reside in the what Emanuel Kant describes as the (Noumena) can not be directly perceived by sensory data (Empiricism). Not to mention that (the thing in itself (matter) is inaccessible to experience. Is it not question begging of the highest degree to view “matter” as the supreme ground of reality, existence and experience when it’s just blind, mindless and meaningless and no one even really knows what it is because the only thing we can really know and infer is mind and consciousness! ? Furthermore what about the reality of metaphysics such as the belief that the external world is providing an accurate picture of reality ? Because this is a a metaphysical presupposition that can not be proven or justified using a strictly reductive materialistic paradigm that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Again this is very nuanced and it’s only a problem for most atheists as most atheists subscribe to materialism. And if your an atheist who subscribes to the immaterial (metaphysics) it’s a bit rich to mock the beliefs of those who believe in an ontological ground of reality because they recognise like you do that reality is saturated with evidence of metaphysical realities. Even empiricism is grounded on things we can’t prove using a strictly reductive materialistic paradigm and yet it is a metaphysical presupposition that is constantly appealed to by people who deny metaphysical realities such as atheists who subscribe to materialism and mock moderate religious expression. Because you can’t prove empiricism using empiricism as it’s a metaphysical presupposition that can not be justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialistic/atheistic paradigm that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Obviously, some atheists claim that they don’t subscribe to materialism but this means that their atheism is immaterial (metaphysical) so it seems a bit inconsistent to say the least to mock other people who believe in immaterial realities that is transcendental categories. Are you a materialist/atheist or are you an atheist who subscribes to the immaterial (metaphysics) such as an idealist who believes that mind and consciousness exist independently of “matter” etc ? Einstein often came across as ambiguous with regards to his metaphysical beliefs but when atheists started appealing to Einstein’s authority to brow beat theists, deists, idealists and panentheists into submission he said it made him angry and Einstein stated that this… “question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist.” “I believe in the God of Spinoza” Most atheists who used this (Appeal to Authority Fallacy) would cherry pick Einstein’s quotes out of context where he says the word “God” is childish and that the Bible contained a collection of honourable but primitive legends. However, when Einstein was asked about the possibility of a supreme ontological ground of reality he thought that the word “God” was an insufficient description and that it was “childish” because this is such a complex and nuanced concept. Many theologians would agree with Einstein that language and words such as “God” that we’re originally developed by primitive people to grasp something right on the very edge of human understanding during this period of ancient history have been mocked and straw manned so much by sceptics that the word “God” has lost meaning and has become littered with stereotypes and negative connotations of Bronze Age superstition. The fact is that religion, that is religious ritual is not the originator of morality so much as it is the codifier of morality, including ethics, values and the qualities of experience such as meaning, purpose, beauty, empathy, altruism etc. Similarly, Anselmo d’Aosta codifies and defines this ultimate reality/essence and actuality as “that of which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselmo d’Aosta). Equally, the assumption of the burden of empirical “proof” from the “natural sciences” for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism. That is the assumption that “physical” evidence is required to justify belief in the necessity of a supreme ontological ground of reality, existence and in particular the qualities of experience is viewed as a classical category error by scholars and experts on modal logic. Because the fact is that theists don’t believe that “God” is just another “physical” being or just another mind and consciousness that exists in the universe but is being and existence itself, including mind and consciousness itself.
20:48 seriously?? You're not stressing the debate here, you're bringing your own data into the debate. Erhnan's answer about simple answers is on of the most powerful takeaways from this debate. It's one of the top comments on the actual debate and touched the audience. Maybe in a scored debate you'd be right... I don't know, but you definitely just brought your own bias to this review
I get what you’re saying. But I got the opposite vibe. Ehrman seemed to be saying something like “christian hope for suffering/mourning is offensive because I don’t like it”. He didn’t support his claim, he just didn’t like it. He also offered no answer to the question at first, although he did eventually. I thought Ehrman did really well at first, even better than his opponent, but on this question I dont think he did well
Neither party in this debate supported their position with data. This was an emotional debate, like it or not. I don't think this debate represents Bart's current position, and one of these parties was convincted of fraud and the other raised 500k for charity last year so the overall results of the debate don't matter to me, but as a "debate review" this was clearly bias which was my point
@@Trinket430 yeah. I mean everything is biased because we all come in with presuppositions. But I agree there were a few points Nate (the host) overlooked or misunderstood due probably to his beliefs and presuppositions
@@Trinket430 "one of these parties was convincted [sic] of fraud and the other raised 500k for charity last year" Completely irrelevant in a debate and is a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well."
@@wintersresurrection9841 if you and I were having the same debate as the title of the video you might be right, but I'm debating the quality of the two debaters so it's actually relevant and not poisoning the well. You condescendingly "teaching" me something in a discussion you weren't a part of is a fallacy called " being an asshole"
Essentially, he believes there is no way to know if there exists some sort of supernatural force out there, but that the God of the Bible is most certainly not real. It's not that he's trying to dishonestly avoid Christian critiques (like, good grief people).
Salvation is a ,,, Gift of God ,,,, God Is the Gift 🎉 Like David's Tabernacle 🎉 YOU are the tent 🎪 The WORD is written on your hearts 🥰 The Spirit of God is in YOU ❤ sABBAth with Daddy 24-7 🎉 YOU are a LIVING ARK OF THE COVENANT 🔥 A TEMPLE MADE WITHOUT HANDS ❤️ Must be Born Again 😮
Um, off to a bad start... Did you really teach debate? Bart didn't ask 4 questions he asked 1 question four times and then explained why one of the binary answers nullified the debate
16:10 the bible says clearly that jesus is the only way to salvation. and i believe that. Uh... 2 things...A)Does the bible clearly say that...more so...does jesus say...or allegedly say that. B)Why should i believe the bible...why should i believe that jesus actually said it...if jesus actually said it, does that make it true? you believe that...why should i believe that? C)why, dinesh, do you believe that. i have no idea if he explains...if bart pushes back here...or if wise disciple is going to point that out. this is usually how i take in debates. i put myself in that position. what would i have said...what would i have pushed back on...what raised my ears. that little thing definitely did for me.
eh. towards the end, i disgaree with WD. I guess...if you are scoring this debate from...what can i get past...or wrap hte other guy up in a pickle... sure. ehrman is not that good a debater. he does not have the wit...the quickness...or the viciousness that is needed IMO to push back on d'souza. the suffering point was wide open for ehrman to rip into dsouza hard. so...if scoring...yeah...dsouza gets points for getting something past ehrman...that if he had tried that on someone more skilled and adept, would have been able to counter the point and push back hard. this is not ehrman's expertise imo...debating things like this. what do the books say...what do the writings say that the people who wrote them...or that they are atributed to, what's their POV. so...it's almost like a qb throwing an awful pass...but the defender falling down...therefore the QB gets the pass. yes. sure. was it a good pass. no. should it have been knocked down? yes. was it, No. that still doesn't make it a good pass. IF someone has to be awarded the points, i guess dsouza does. so this scoring debates...points HAVE to be assigned...so then the goal is not just to win...but to not lose????? try to get something past the other guy...and if THEY can't knock it down, you get the points? ok. not how i think. i think that's a cheap way to win. it's not a winning formula. it essentially says...have bad points...but debate someone who can't knock em down, and you win. try that against someone who will defend it, and you don't have a shot. was dsouza taking a calculated 'risk' and trying to get this past ehrman and succeeded bc he did??? i guess.
But clearly it shows in the Bible that we will be judged on our knowledge of God as in do we believe there's a God and if we've heard the gospel did we follow what Jesus said. God will always draw those who love because that is what he is and all those who belong to him or drawn to him. Just like Jesus said he is a shepherd and his sheep know his voice and come to him he's not a cattle rancher who has to drive the cows where they want them to be.
I can’t believe atheists think Bart is anything but a bitter and emotionally charged goal shifter. I thought atheists were smarter. Guess not. Making a mass generalization because a percentage of a group doesn’t meet your criteria works both ways and is intellectually immature.
I would have said this life is short. I believe in eternity. Yes we grieve the loss of a child but our hope is not inthis world but the next. You on the otherhand only have this world. You are the most miserable for you are without hope. D'zouza won
If he were an atheist you wouldn’t think he were biased, he never claims to be unbiased, and his bias is not blinding, I do think he does give a fair critique.
I thought where you cut and interjected was biased on your part. It would be better if you had let them complete there thoughts before giving your opinion. The term theist literally means a belief. Atheist means no belief you can go to the reasons why after you’ve established the definition. Agnostic it’s about knowledge what you know. And most of all the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. I am an atheist because I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a God. I am an agnostic because it’s not possible to prove the nonexistence of a thing..
Honestly. The biggest knockout blow I’ve ever ... read ever- seen in a debate is when D’Souza says “yes that’s why we’re having a debate.” 🥊 Honestly I was offended you said the debate was close. I’ve watched this debate in it’s entirety about 6 or so times and D’Souza killed him.
Just admit that you are not a debate coach or debate instructor or debate analyst. You are a Christian apologist who employs Special Pleading to have expectations on atheists you don't apply to theists. You also try to shift the burden of proof in order to ignore the logical fallacies of theists in these debates. For a supposed Christian you are very dishonest.
So says the troll who intentionally aggravates Christians into acting unchristian for his own entertainment. And yet ironically you'll claim that atheists are more moral than Christians. What narcissism! Just goes to prove the point that people like you give the good atheists a really bad name. 😏
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Hahaha oh took took that long to respond huh? Still doubling down on strawmen. Obviously the little man is still tired. You need your nap, buddy boy. 🤣
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus Yawns, I guess since you didn't want to defend yourself and the other video you decided to try your luck here instead. The fact that Anthony keeps dodging the question where I asked him to prove that I'm a presuppositionalist and kept saying it over and over again on the common board of another video without giving any evidence is sufficient reason to conclude that as well as not denying the accusation of being a troll just like you're not denying that either. 😏 You and Anthony are just here to troll people for your own entertainment. You're not serious about having your questions answered you just want to trap people for the fun of it. Unless of course you want to deny that and the proof in Anthony's actions that he doesn't want to answer any of my or any of the Christians questions in another video on this same channel, just like you don't. If you want to deny those things also like you denied the fact that I didn't straw man your definition of faith, then that's not my problem. 😂😂😂 Keep denying little man.
I find you very biased...Christianity says the only way to salvation is through belief in Jesus Christ but in the same breath says even if you never heard of Jesus you can still be saved because god is the judge...it is contradictory
Well, that’s not what Christians say. Truth be told, we don’t know if someone in some distant part of the world has heard of God or not and if they’ll try to seek Him or not. God knows their hearts and He will be 100% fair when He judges them.
2nd time I've seen your video involving an Ehrman debate, Sala. If you are a debate coach, you're not very good. You show confirmation bias. Your critique re: Ehrman is skewed by your personal belief in a god whose existence is unfounded. You're obviously biased against Ehrman. Your opening criticism of Ehrman (too many questions asked of D'Souza) apparently didn't faze D'Souza. D'Souza is a big boy - he could have said, too many questions; clarify your questions; let me take your questions one at a time; please repeat your questions.
Bart is an expert debater and he will use dirty tactics to his advantage ( I.E. joking, misinterpreting, question begging, pretending to be offended, self righteousness, etc) much like Matt Dillahunty
He’s a much better debater than Dillahunty though.
Can you give any examples of those accusations with timestamps?
What absolute slander. Bart did absolutely fine in this debate -- in fact, it was one of the most peaceful debates I've seen between a believer and an unbeliever.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesusHis answer at 20:00 is one example, 23:35 is another
@@Samuel-qc7kg Meh that just sounds like that they didn’t like his answer and the way he answered it
I love your content man! I hope your stuff blows up!
This series inspires me to debate! Thanks so much for this
That’s awesome! 👊🏼
I have no familiarity with debates, but thank you for doing this series to help show potential intellectual questions agnostics or controversial people in general may bring up, sharpening me in my apologetic for God's glory. God bless you Clear Lens team!
Robert McNally Our pleasure, Robert! Appreciate your feedback! God bless 😊
"to help show potential intellectual questions agnostics or controversial people in general may bring up, sharpening me in my apologetic for God's glory"
- how about; define your god and substantiate it exists ?
@@michaelanderson7715 Respectfully, if you're on this channel you can deduce it's the Triune God of the Bible:Old Testament & New Testament. Are you agnostic?
@@robmc120 "Respectfully, if you're on this channel you can deduce it's the Triune God of the Bible:Old Testament & New Testament."
- That's not defining it, that's stating what religion it is. A definition is describing what it is, how it looks etc.
- And, the other part was; substantiate it exists
-----
Now, despite you not having started to address my questions, I'll answer yours; I'm atheist on the claim of the existence of your god. That is, I'm unconvinced by your claim and don't accept it as true. Now please, my questions...
@@michaelanderson7715 Respectfully, I don't know how much more plain i can define God than His own Word he describes Himself in the Bible, have you had time to read it? I know you don't believe the Bible bc you said you're atheist (impossible, bc agnostic= "not knowing" means you don't know, atheist= "no god" would mean you're sure you know He doesn't exist, but then why would you be asking me to prove it then if you're sure?). Religion is not the Bible, religion is "a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance" or "a particular system of faith & worship" (oxford dictionary), i'm specifying it to state i trust in the triune God of the Bible specifically. Apparently, to answer your question to your satisfaction, could you clarify some more what definition you're looking for?
To make sure i don't make the same "mistake" as defining God in your first question, what would you accept as substantiation? Are you of the mindset of Matt Dillahunty who says, "idk what it would take to convince me" or can you reason there are things that aren't all physical proofs such as the Law of Logic or Non-contradiction which exist but not in the physical realm? Please grant me these few more questions so i can answer intelligently & precisely. Thank you for your time with clarification. God bless!
I've been watching all of these debates in the 2023 and you are bringing some new ones to my attention. Thanks
I just found this channel I can't believe it exists this is so awesome I love this I will be watching everything on here and subscribing thankyou!
Excellent Job As A Debate Commentator
Dinesh killed him in the last point because his opponent was appealing to emotional angst over losses based on himself not being able to be comforted because he didn’t believe in an afterlife.
That was not a sound argument
And using an afterlife is just an excuse for God to sit back and do nothing. If heaven exists, murder isn't wrong because it's a "better place" and therefore every murderer has done their victim a favor.
@@redpillfreedom6692 Your life on Earth determines the riches you earn in heaven. Once you believe you haven't "made it and you're done" per se. You still have work to do otherwise there wouldn't be a meaning to this life. Also, what if the person who was murdered went to hell? Wouldnt they have done something even WORSE for the victim!?
@@redpillfreedom6692 yeah no this is completely ridiculous. Murder is still a terrible thing even if there is heaven, the point is pain and suffering won’t last forever, and the pain that you feel when your family members or close ones die will not last forever either because he will get to see them again. This doesn’t mean that murder or any of these earthly things aren’t bad whatsoever of course not, so it does not logically follow that if there’s heaven then there’s nothing wrong with murder.
I made a comment on that debate video concerning D’Sousa asserting that nothing is something being that the unknown is something no matter the context. (Especially as it relates to Ehrman calling himself an agnostic) That comment is an important idea that I would like to see debated such as proof of eternity. It is not material like Ehrman wants but it is immaterial and can only be appreciated in that moment and time yet it is a real entity that we will all experience. D’Souza was definitely on point the whole debate. I consider Ehrman to be one of the foremost antagonists of truth because his. Arguments can be very compelling but often so wrong and has extreme eternal consequences.
Great breakdown, I feel like D'Souza mopped the floor with Erhman.
and i actually like ehrman's approach...being able to distinguish between the theology and faith/belief...vs the historical things that can be gleaned from his perspective.
you can believe whatever you want. what is and how would a historian look at these things? that's what i prefer/like.
Video ended too soon. This was really good. D’Souza did quite well
Im not a religious person but i love watching D'Sousa videos. Even if I Knew I was arguing the correct side of a debate.(like the sun is hot and he is arguing not hot) I would not want to debate him.
1:36 Instead of merely counting questions, let's try to understand them:
A) "I want to know if you believe God answers prayer."
B) "And if you do think so, do you think God sometimes intervenes in our world".
C) "The more involved part of that is: if you think God does not answer prayer, I'd like to know in what sense you consider yourself a Christian"
D) "If you think God answers prayers and intervenes, then I would like to know whether it bothers you that God doesn't answer people who are starving to death and being tortured and are being murdered and so forth".
That's a decision tree.
B) should only be answered if the answer for A) is "yes".
C) should only be answered if the answer for A) is "no".
D) should only be answered if the answers for A) and B) are "yes".
It's essentially this: "Does it bother you that God doesn't answer to most prayers to stop evils and intervene accordingly, though you believe he answers prayers and intervenes in our world?"
That assumes Dinesh believes God answers prayers (A) and intervenes in our world (B).
A) and B) is to make the assumptions clear and make Dinesh explain himself if they're wrong (C).
Dinesh said:
E) "I think God can and does answer prayer." (That answers A)
F) "I think God can and does intervene in our world" (That answers B)
G) "I see this intervention (...) as an expression of God's gratuitous love (...) if it did (occur regularly), we could no longer speak of the lawfulness of nature (...)"
(That suggests he agrees God does not answer "people who are starving to death and being tortured and are being murdered and so forth" and is not bothered by that)
It shows Dinesh tracked the questions. They're a decision tree and the important one is the last one. The other questions are about assumptions for the last one.
You don't understand them if you're just counting them.
It's easier to complain about the number than address the question.
@@hazeshi6779 Except the interlocator answered the question, so Wise Disciple has no reason to reanswer.
I'm a Christian and I like these videos a lot. I love learning about what the judge would be thinking, the framework for debates, etc. My one complaint is that sometimes I don't think you engage very fairly with the side that holds an opinion different than yours. You bring in things unknown to the audience and unmentioned in the debate as evidence supporting why the Christian won. If you're objectively evaluating the debate I don't think it's fair to assume that your prior knowledge trumps the (e.g.) atheist's case unless that matter of prior knowledge was brought up by the Christian. You seem to do that a lot and, even though I usually take the same side as you, it shows your Christian or Protestant bias. To use an extreme example, it'd be unfair for me to say "this atheist makes a good point about divine hiddenness, but if he'd done his research he'd see that there are great responses to that, and therefore he loses this one." If the Christian himself doesn't raise those points he can still lose the debate. Anyway, that's my only gripe. I still enjoy the videos a lot!
Nate! Come on man! When Bart says he’s agnostic, he’s referring to God. Agnosticism says he doesn’t know if there’s a god. When Bart says there’s no other side, he’s referring to a supernatural state or a place where our consciousness goes after death. It’s not a god question, so it doesn’t make any sense when you say his statement is not agnostic- like.
It would be great if Wise Discciple could review the debate between William Lane Craig and Torbjörn Tännsjö.
Torbjörn Tännsjö is Swedish open marxist and communist philosopher (no joke).
7:21 - "Cats are evil." - Ha! = Jerome Danner
I think D'Souza's POE for atheists challenge could have been easily answered by pointing out that our intellectual capacities allow us to act out our animal instincts on a much grander scale than other animals in general. Like some other animals we have a need for shelter, but we build vast cities that cover much of the earth instead of tiny nests. We have a need food and instead of picking a few berries and hunting only what we need, we create vast agricultural projects that far surpass anything in the animal kingdom. So, why wouldn't we expect humans to able to put their intellectual tools to the task of satisfying the darker impulses commonly found in the animal kingdom (e.g. killing off perceived competitors, taking territory and resources by force, using others as a disposable means to some end, etc...) as well? Given the massive difference in our intellectual and technological capacities from all other animals on the earth, I don't think D'Souza did a good enough job establishing why one wouldn't expect intelligent evolved primates to be capable of doing evil on a much grander scale than other animals if atheism is true.
I was able to track the questions at the beginning. I also understood that some of the questions were conditional on the answer of a previous question. Dinesh was able to keep track of that and answered appropriately. What are you talking about?
I like Dinesh, but... Come on, he just misunderstood the Theory of Evolution! Come on man!
That first one is one question, as all parts are related. it's a pretty basic flowchart. 1. Does god intervene to answer prayers (yes/no).
-> if yes, does it frustrate you when god doesn't answer prayers,
-> if no, in what sense do you consider yourself a Christian.
the question does god answer prayers is a simple yes/no question, so directing the response is not only reasonable it's good argumentative form.
From that I'll take it your expertise is apologetics, not debate, and I'll see myself out.
You should do the White vs Horn eternal security debate
You look kinda similar to Eric metaxes, you should talk to him somehow, I'm glad I found your content, I'm impressed so far and obviously subscribed, your logic is impressive and I'd love to see you with people that assume some things and tease out their reasoning, like metaxes.
I'm troubled by the idea that we cherrypick data that helps our case and ignore things that don't, how would you combat this selective study habit, I grew up Mormon and have been widening my own herminutical approach on scripture as well as science and logic. (Not currently a believing Mormon btw)
First time I saw Nate, I thought to myself, "he looks a little bit like Eric Metaxas."
Glad I wasn't the only one😂
Great video!
I love you insight. it clears up a lot.
No one chooses hell. They use their reasoning to determine that evidence is lacking for existence of any God. If an agnostic/atheist is, in fact, wrong about christianity that still does not mean they should suffer for eternity. Any God of infinite mercy would be offended by Christians thinking it is okay to allow religious dissent to be rewarded with eternal torment.
You people should be ashamed.
They don't even get eternal torment. In the bible, a person who has died is acquitted from their sins, meaning that they no longer bear a nessecary need for punishment. In the Greek, Hell is actually more of a place of silence; a void where only you can think. It's more psycological if anything. A world without God is empty, and by rejecting God, you go to a place without him. Also, "infinite mercy" may be true, but you completely -forgor- forgot about the "infinitely just" part that indicates God will punish people fairly and not acquit those who have done wrong.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT that’s a unique perspective on the hell. I think Alvin Plantinga said it best when he most people including Christians think about health from an emotional standpoint, and not an intellectual standpoint, how is basically If you’re going to prison for the rest your life and you are given a get out of jail free card but you refuse it, now as a direct result from your actions you’re going to suffer for the rest of your life, it’s not a perfect analogy but I think it works pretty well, another example is it see if you’re dangling from a balcony and somebody tries to help you and you refuse their help.
It almost seems like Bart tactic was to act indignant at suffering as if it’s the Christian’s fault.
"as if it's the Christian's fault"
That wasn't the position Ehrman was taking, moron. However, if God has unlimited power and does nothing to stop suffering, he makes himself an accomplice through his inaction. THAT is the position Bart was taking.
Try not to use strawmen next time
@@redpillfreedom6692 that wasn’t the answer you gave whatsoever,The answer that he gave to the susan’s answer about suffering, was that it was offensive, and it doesn’t do any good, that’s pretty much what he said he didn’t really get that much of an answer, which is a little surprising because you get a good answer from most of the questions.
I really enjoy your style, goal, and overall layout, but man is it ever frustrating when you say "where is the evidence" for any claim made by an atheist and never do so for a claim made by a theist. I understand you agree with the claim, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need just as much substantiation.
You want evidence of the damage religious beliefs can do, talk to some ex Christians who have dealt with loss from both sides. Viced Rhino lost his wife not long ago and later layed out exactly why he felt these "consolations" are harmful. And if you want larger scale data, talk with any of the numerous charities and mental health resources directed at this demographic, I'm sure they can provide some real numbers. I'd start with Grief Beyond Belief.
I guess the problem here is that you fail to realize that just because the studies say the opposite doesn't mean that there aren't people who occassionally don't feel satisfied with the "they are in Heaven now" idea. As previously mentioned, the burden of proof is on the atheist here, not the Christian, so there's no reason why the Christian should have to answer as if they are the one that needs to prove their statement.
@@TheSpacePlaceYT you are correct, exceptions are possible, and somewhat frequent. Though the idea we have a burden here seems silly to me, it is one we can undertake to a certain degree. At the end of the day, no one can truely say they know what comes after, since you'd have to be dead to do so. But if we accept that an absolute answer can only be obtained absolutely, then we can look at the aspects of the claim which intersect with the reality we inhabit.
For instance;
The lack of room for a soul in the biochemistry of the brain.
The lack of clear definition for the soul/spirit. (We can't study a vague appeal to intuition, we need to know the properties of the soul, which all seem to really be properties of the brain.)
The lack of consistency amongst those with NDEs, pointing strongly to them being a series of hallucinations close to ones up-bringing in iconography, if there is any experience or memory at all.
I can go on, but this is getting long winded.
We can't be certain there is nothing after death, but we certainly don't have any signs pointing to there being something.
This is straight up not True if you watch his video that he did with Sye and Jeff Durbin he criticize them for not justifying their position over and over again, also watch the debate with Ken ham and Bill Nye. And the reason he doesn’t see it as much just because a lot of the time the atheist doesn’t think they have a burden of proof whatsoever, theists on the other hand will acknowledge they do.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 this was largely a comment made in reference to the way he asked for evidence on the damage of religious beliefs, as I said. I happened to have a recent example to show such a scenario is not only possible, but happening right now. I felt this was a strange thing to ask for evidence for, given how often it occurs.
In contrast the claims about god and his nature are freely accepted (within this video). Though I haven't seen his video with Sye, I've seen much of Sye and he hasn't done well to represent himself as an honest interlocker. As for the Ken/Nye debate, I very much hope you are referencing that for how poorly it was done, on both parts. Ken said "I have a book you should read" for 3 hours and Nye doesn't know anything about theology or biblical history. They should never have had the debate.
@@filchhoff I think I understand your point that even if the evidence that supports the idea that Heavin can relieve stress or pain, not everyone’s gonna be satisfied with it. Also I do think the burden is on the atheist in this case since he’s the one asking the question. I get what you’re saying but I disagree.
I would agree with that he comes after me is very arrogant and more interested in winning an argument, he trying to shut up his opponents than actually having an actual discussion, I think he did really well in his debate with Matt Dillahunty though. And I think it’s unfortunate that he’s pretty much the spokesperson for presuppositionism or was for many years and he’s a perception people have a bit I’m not a presuppositionist, but there are more sophisticated people within the movement such as Cornelius Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, Frances Schaeffer, John frame, Gordon Clark and Scott Oliphant. Yeah I think the debate was just not well constructed there wasn’t even cross-examination which in my opinion is one of the best parts of a debate, I don’t think Ken Ham did absolutely horrible, he was basically all over the place stumbling and bumbling, and it was honestly kind of painful to watch at times, because they’re a point where I think he really could’ve got the upper hand overnight but he just completely failed, like when Bill nice of the creationism fails as an explanation since we don’t have sufficient scientific evidence to point to his existence, an Ham could’ve given given a good answer but instead you just said something along the lines of oh well you may think that but I trust the Bible not the word of man that’s what gives me answers. And as for Bill Nye I think performance he probably did a better job than Ken Ham but he constantly strawman his position, and came off as very arrogant and showed that he really doesn’t understand the Christian world view or Ham’s position at all, but he ended up getting the upper hand For most of the debate just because of how terrible and insufficient Ken Ham’s answers were. Yeah that’s pretty much what happened, and he does christians a huge disservice because he makes then look really stupid. I would probably agree it should’ve been someone besides Bill Nye and Ken ham, if they were gonna have somebody defend the Young earth perspective and represent the Christian worldview it would probably be Jason Lisle, and for evolution probably someone like Neil deGrasse Tyson, despite the fact he knows little to nothing about Christianity.
Ehrman is begging the question when he says that belief that your lost loved one is in heaven is essentially trite and small consolation. That's only the case if you assume that the person suffering doesn't believe it. If they do believe it, it is a good consolation, at least compared to the atheist alternative (being nothing at all).
Bart brought up a son who committed suicide as a scenario. Wouldn't a Christian say that it's okay, you're son is now in hell based on Christian belief?
If heaven included people who commit suicide, wouldnt we all just kill ourselves to get there? I doubt you think killers shouldnt go to hell. Why? Because life is sacred and God given. Whether killing yourself or someone else it's a terrible violation of the sanctity of life.
@@fletcher373 Don't
I think this notion of people committing suicide and going to hell comes from a lack of understanding of mental health in many churches. People don’t say someone is going to hell for having cancer and dying because it’s a disease. Mental illness can hit some people in a variety of ways and lead to ending one’s life. It’s essentially the same idea as another organ in the body killing you. I, as a Christian, highly doubt God would condemn that person for eternity because they couldn’t survive their own mind. The Bible says that God will have mercy on who He has mercy on. For us, as mere humans, we cannot make such an assertion of someone going to hell for something that isn’t written in the Bible.
@@c2s2942 Unfortunately that's the majority of Christian's position.
I believe it was a close debate, but the Indian nerd with glasses definitely beat Barter Man.
Dnesh is nasty smart
ok...just stumbled on your account. i'm willing to give it a few listens. i THINK i saw this debate...but it would have been years ago...and no clue. seen way to many to remember which ones i have.
i like ehrman. i cannot stand d'souza.
sure..ehrman threw multiple questions at once. i've seen william lane craig debates before...among other...so i'm used to...and guess that falls under the gish gallop approach?
i wish i would have taken debate in high school, but wasn't something i got interested in until probably my mid twenties. i didn't know what debate was in high school...how i could apply it...why it would be good etc. that was something the smart guys did.
anyway....i'm just trying to feel you at as a youtuber...if i like your stuff or not...if i agree or not etc. so...i guess this is the first video of yours i'm checking out.
To meet God ,
sing Helleluyah softly until desired results are achieved🎉
Eternal punishment is revenge.
I would like your analysis of debate Shabil Ally vs James White on Oneness of God ,Twauhid
They made experiment placing tigers with antelopes. 2 tigers killed entire herd. Their instict lead them to kill them all. But lions would not do that. Interesting.
Do you have a video on Calvinist, Armenian, etc? I don’t find myself being any of them as I accept and reject portions of each
Theologically, I think that Ehrman is easy to debunk. Historically, he can be a bit of a bother, but his claims don’t always work well, particularly with what he considers to be contradictions.
Yeah I completely agree he’s obviously a very smart guy, I think he’s a good debater and I think he’s done great work on the historical Jesus, but when it comes to Christian theology I think he shoots himself in the foot.
Just my observation but you really lose a debate when you announce to the audience that you are not responsible for providing any evidence of what you’re saying is true. Mr. Desousa stated that the agreement to do the debate was that he would not have to be the one meeting the burden of proof.
“But you really lose a debate when you announce to the audience that you are not responsible for providing any evidence”
Totally agree with you!! so please practice what you preach and provide evidence and citations that materialism, philosophical naturalism or atheism is true!! Evidence for all three of these metaphysical presuppositions please!! I’ll wait!!
Because that’s got to be one of the most ironic and hilarious claims I’ve come across when reading Internet atheists comments. That comment was comedy gold!!
Furthermore, the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism/deism/panentheism are just default positions and they are just a (lack of belief) in atheism until materialists, atheists or philosophical naturalists can demonstrate that “matter” is all there is to reality and existence not mind and consciousness.
The fact is that reality and existence isn’t made of “matter” it’s made of (what matters).
Theist: Why were you born ?
Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced!
Theist: Why are you living ?
Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced!
Theist: Is consciousness real and does life have value and meaning ?
Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced!
Theist: Does life have meaning and purpose ?
Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced!
Theist: Does language have meaning?
Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced!
Theist: Does what you just said have meaning ?
Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced!
Theist: Are morals and ethics real ?
Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced!
Theist: Is moral subjectivism true ?
Atheist: I don’t need evidence I’m convinced.
Theist: Is your previous claim that you don’t need evidence because your convinced mean that moral subjectivism is objectively true ?
Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced!
Theist: Is your previous answer an objective claim to truth ?
Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced
Theist: Does every answer you gave so far have meaning ?
Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced!
Theist: Is atheism true ?
Atheist: Yes!!!
Theist: Does the answer “yes” have meaning ?
Atheist: I need evidence I’m not convinced!
Theist: Makes perfect sense!! And you mock our beliefs!!
@@georgedoyle7971 I think you’ve gotten way ahead of yourself I made a statement about my observation my observation is personal to me I wasn’t making a positive claim about anything If you think my observation was in error I suppose we could have a discussion about that. What I think of the rest of your assertions I haven’t a clue what you’re talking about ? And if you really want to go deep into the weeds ? The brain seems to be made of matter and consciousness seems to be an emergent property of a brain. And even though I cannot demonstrate that it is even real I seem to be able to know my own thoughts and I’m going to make an assumption that is real because I have no choice. It’s just a matter of practicality.
@@georgedoyle7971''cHeckMate aThEist''. Lol
Actually, debates are typically framed in such a way that the burden of proof rests with the side that takes the "pro" position (the side making a truth claim).
It seems like, in the video, DeSousa talks about this and that he wasn't the one taking the "pro" position.
So, it is not up to him to provide any proof, unless, he makes a truth claim.
I'm afraid I'm appalled by this notion some of my fellow Christians have that in order to defend man's unique status of God's imagers we need to think of animals as "meat robots" devoid of emotions. If emotions are what made us "in God's image" then an unborn baby is not human and can be aborted. Have you ever seen a dog realize he's going to the vet? He anticipates his suffering alright.
Instead we need to acknowledge that God cares for animals and that their suffering will presumably be eased when the earth is fully redeemed, and that man's sin is the ultimate source for both human and nonhuman suffering.
Bart Ehrman does not understand the free will argument, When people are talking about free will they’re talking about Adam and Eve free will which caused all sin, i’m not really surprised because Bart Ehrman’s expertise are really in the field of textual criticism when it comes to Christian theology he completely fails, even though I’m pretty sure he has a degree in systematic theology I’m pretty sure he even has a masters.
*I don’t like what Bart said, so therefore he doesn’t understand bla bla*
What a shitty straw man
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus dude I explained how he doesn’t understand it. Oh and don’t even get me started you want me to list all the things that you strawman like oh my gosh you are not the one to be criticizing somebody for strawmans.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 So what?
My point still stands.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 Can you tell me the exact method you used to accurately determine what Bart understands and doesn’t understand?
I predict that you will you squeal and squirm from answering that question.
Feel free to prove me wrong 😂
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus why should I if it’s OK for you just to assert things and never have to actually explain anything, and you can just accuse people things, why can’t I do it as well. Which that’s not what I’m doing, i’m basing it off of what Christians say that’s the argument of free will, what do you mean what method it’s an argument.And Bible, the Bible makes it pretty clear that sin entered the world because of Adam, if you don’t know about this or you don’t understand this you don’t understand Christian theology very well it’s not that hard to understand. This is just peak projection dude all you do is reframe arguments so you can weasel out of actually having to do your homework or proving anything, you did it with the definition of faith, why am I even engaging with somebody who is obvious troll, you’re not just a troll you’re like an Internet sociopath.
I don't know about some of D'Souza's political stuff. But he, like Ehrman, is quite the debater.
Geronimo Buford Agreed! Thanks for watching!
@@WiseDisciple Glad to support great content! - Jerome Danner
It’s a very specifically philosophical thing for non-philosophers to debate. Dinesh’s ‘expertise’ is in politics and Bart’s in History. Turned out interesting nevertheless. Seen far more qualified people debate horribly.
I would have asked Bart after talking about his cat why he continues to take care of his cat if he thinks his cat is just like Hitler. But the debate set up would not allow it I guess.
That is an amazing response haha I applaud that
Imagine coming away from his really thinking Dinesh won. He was all over the map and contradictory, like when he insisted that we can't possibly know God and then proceeds to list traits that God apparently has.
He also failed to address the major plot hole in the Biblical narrative on the issue of free will and suffering, which Ehrman mentioned at the very beginning; if God can't prevent suffering due to interference with free will, how does that explain the lack of suffering of entities living in heaven? Either A) Those in heave don't have free will or B) It's possible to have free will without suffering in one place, so why is it impossible in another place?
Of course, it makes more sense when you conclude that the Bible is not the work of an all wise deity, but of fallible men. Because the words of a perfect God wouldn't have such blatant inconsistencies.
Indeed, God is an invention of man not the other way around.
People in Heaven have free will but are driven away from the capability of sin.
"If it's possible to have free will without suffering in one place, so why is it impossible in another place?"
It's not impossible for suffering not to exist in a place with free will, however our sin is what caused there to be suffering. I think atheists completely miss this point that the Earth was *indeed* perfect (no earthquakes, tsunamis, death, or anything of the sort) before Adam and Eve sinned. The fact that atheists can't understand this shows how braindead skeptical men typically are, which is why most people don't go to the problem of evil as some sort of gotcha unless they are truly prepared for this decimating refutation.
Considering that all of our suffering was caused after the first sin, it indicates that sin is the reason people who most of us would even consider "good" end up suffering. It is the reason suffering exists in the first place, so it is not our free will that causes us to suffer, but sin. Sin is absent in Heaven, which is the entire reason why there _is_ no suffering in Heaven. Sin erupted our world into chaos overtime, and the _free will_ of human beings _allow_ them to commit sin by victimizing others. In other words, free will is the vessel that sin comes through, but it is not the root of the cause. Sin is.
This is why I truly feel as if atheists can't grasp simple concepts. It's literally the following in a nutshell:
Earth was perfect.
Adam and Eve sinned (disobeyed God).
Chaos erupted.
Due to this chaos, many people suffer.
There you go. It's not even a debate anymore. It's a complete decimation of whatever argument you thought you had.
D’Souza said some despicable and untrue things. The whole mouse analogy was simply absurd and never answered the question. Just deflected to baseless Theological aspects that have evolved over time to fit the present context
“D’Souza said some despicable and untrue things”
Sorry but this is just rhetoric and the (Appeal to Outrage Fallacy). Furthermore, I can’t believe that Bart actually compared the misfortune of a mouse to the men, women and children who suffered in the Nazis gas chambers. Equally, you’re claim that “D”Souza said things that were “despicable” is just the (Appeal to Stone Fallacy). Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence!!
Furthermore, the only thing that was “despicable” was Barts virtue signalling in response to the question of how best to comfort bereaved families and his appeal to “love” and “altruism” and realism and “love”, and being rational and “loving” but so realistic when he doesn’t really believe that “love” and “altruism” is even real. It’s a double standard and was cringe worthy to be honest because according to most atheists “love” and “altruism” isn’t even real and is nothing more substantial than the herd instinct and a by product of survival and selfish genes and the random motion of atoms and brain chemicals creating the illusion of stable patterns and regularities. Theists get this nihilistic and fatalistic approach rammed down their throats all the time by Internet atheists. It was cringe worthy to be honest to see Bart trying to act out being empathetic and genuine after being so obtuse earlier in the debate!! If D’Souza had pointed to love, empathy, altruism and morals and ethics earlier as evidence of the reality of the sacred and transcendent then Bart would have predictably ridiculed his beliefs by appealing to the herd instinct, survival of the fittest, the determinism fallacy and the (Appeal to Nature/Naturalism Fallacy) including evolution psychology to undermine the evidence of real love and real altruism and empathy. It’s beyond cringe worthy and completely absurd.
The fact is that any nurse will tell you that you don’t presume to treat bereaved people in any way without finding out what their metaphysical beliefs are first. And you certainly don’t assume that they want you to comfort them by imposing your world view by acting all rational and realistic about how great your loss is, and how its ho so terrible. Bereaved families may want a family priest, vicar, imam or senior family members. The last thing someone who has faith needs is someone telling them it’s much worse than you think, it’s so bad, because you’re never going to see your loved one ever ever again, I so empathise with you. So Bart got it completely wrong which is why nurses get to know patients families and encourage patients to express their own individual preferences and beliefs during illness to ensure continuity of care especially during palliative care and care of the dying pathways. So if you were caring for an atheist you would keep the so called “God squad” or the “Skydaddy” believers at bay. Equally, if you were caring for a person of faith you would keep them as far away as possible from people who callously use (Appeal to Ridicule Fallacies) such as “Skydaddy” and “invisible friend” and then later pretend to be your friend and all loving and altruistic when in reality they believe that love and altruism isn’t really real and is nothing more than brain chemicals and herd instinct and compliance theory. Bart isn’t even an historian or a therapist he’s a textualist and I wouldn’t let him anywhere near the bereaved families of a dying patient. In contrast clergy in hospital settings are trained in bereavement counselling. Barts response and virtue signalling was unbelievably cringe worthy because…
“I wouldn't have the arrogance to lecture some mother who hopes to see her dying child in Heaven - that's none of my business, ultimately. I won't lecture her on the philosophy of science.” (Noam Chomsky).
I rest my case!!
D’Souza or Bart?
That analogy was given by Bart Ehrman, I believe.
Bart is not an agnostic. He's too convinced of his atheistic assumptions
Mr. Wise (not backhanded, just a label as I don't know you), forget about debate point scoring. What is your evidence for this god of yours ?
I would like to see mr. Wise in a debate...how does he empirically defend his position...these debates boil down to I believe in god because of faith...no evidence
@@truesoundboy1 Indeed. I'll grant him knowledge in and around debating, but that isn't evidence for his god claim.
@@michaelanderson7715 I would expect.in such important debates that strategy is not at the forefront...but actual honesty...ironically...the atheists have shown more sincerity as seen in their responses and questions...but I guess to an apologist it is about winning without leaving the audience with something deeper...
@@truesoundboy1 Yep, Craig for example is good at gish-galloping through lots of material, that on the surface appears sophisticated and solid. To his fawning ignorant audience, he appears all-compelling and knowing. When in fact once you have a certain level of knowledge of the material and arguments he presents, you realise it's unsubstantiated fluff, like all the rest.
“What is your evidence for this God of yours”
No offence intended but isn’t this what’s commonly known as the (Crackers in the Pantry Fallacy). The assumption that any question in life even the question of a supreme ontological ground of reality, existence and experience, that is a supreme ontological ground for mind and consciousness can be answered in the same way as knowing if there are crackers in the pantry!!
Equally, are you claiming that the “natural sciences” should be able to “prove” that a supreme ontological ground of reality exists otherwise it does not exist. ? Also, do you believe that the only things that exist and are “true” are those things that the “natural sciences” can “prove” ? Because it’s common knowledge in the philosophy of science that the natural sciences can’t “prove” anything as they are provisional and can only infer. It’s a constantly changing landscape about what (is) not what (ought) to be.
Nevertheless, what do you actually mean by “God” because according to Baruch Spinoza….
“the mind of God is all the mentality that is scattered over space and time, the diffused consciousness that animates the world” (Baruch Spinoza). Do you believe that mind and consciousness is real and that it animates the world in a purely dualistic state. ? Or do you subscribe to non dualism or eliminative materialism ? Also do you believe that minds/mind can exist independently of “matter”. ? if you don’t think this is possible what is “matter” and how do the qualities of experience and metaphysical realities such as beauty, empathy, meaning, purpose, morals, ethics, epistemology and teleology, emerge using a purely bottom up explanation from blind, mindless, meaningless matter ? These are very nuanced questions because where does this sudden power of emergence come from if “matter” is nothing more than well, just (matter). Equally, how much “matter” does it take before something as metaphysical as the qualities of conscious experience emerge especially when quantum mechanics has demonstrated that “matter” isn’t even solid as it is non local, bi locational, and inevitably unmeasurable, invisible and timeless ? Furthermore, is consciousness already a potential in every property of “matter”. Because if the potential for consciousness is already present and is immaterial well what this points to is pretty obvious!! Obviously materialists/atheists will scream question begging and argument from ignorance but the whole of science is based on a metaphysical presupposition that can not be empirically proven and there’s nothing wrong with saying we “just don’t know” and inferring to the hypothesis that has the greatest explanatory power and is the most coherent and parsimonious hypothesis. This is the scientific and pragmatic approach after all. Nevertheless, I thought it was common knowledge that no one even knows what “matter” is hence the common term among experts on mind and consciousness “The hard problem of consciousness”. The irony is that it’s only an “hard problem” if you assume materialism. Again I’m just illustrating how nuanced the evidence for a supreme ontological ground of reality is.
Because isn’t “matter” just that which is immediately seen and felt, that is it is only a combination of sensible qualities or ideas contained in mind and consciousness: According to contemporary idealists…“we cannot empirically observe matter outside and independent of mind, for we are forever locked in mind. All we can observe are the contents of perception, which are inherently mental. Even the output of measurement instruments is only accessible to us insofar as it is mentally perceived.”
So according to idealists “matter” is just an explanatory abstraction, that is a theoretical abstraction of mind and consciousness.
No offence intended but it’s common knowledge in academia that since the advent of modern science, materialism (matter) hasn’t been sustainable, except by people who are extraordinarily stubborn and ignorant of quantum mechanics. Fields and Forces, Gravity, quantum probability waves, realities that reside in the what Emanuel Kant describes as the (Noumena) can not be directly perceived by sensory data (Empiricism). Not to mention that (the thing in itself (matter) is inaccessible to experience. Is it not question begging of the highest degree to view “matter” as the supreme ground of reality, existence and experience when it’s just blind, mindless and meaningless and no one even really knows what it is because the only thing we can really know and infer is mind and consciousness! ? Furthermore what about the reality of metaphysics such as the belief that the external world is providing an accurate picture of reality ? Because this is a a metaphysical presupposition that can not be proven or justified using a strictly reductive materialistic paradigm that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Again this is very nuanced and it’s only a problem for most atheists as most atheists subscribe to materialism. And if your an atheist who subscribes to the immaterial (metaphysics) it’s a bit rich to mock the beliefs of those who believe in an ontological ground of reality because they recognise like you do that reality is saturated with evidence of metaphysical realities. Even empiricism is grounded on things we can’t prove using a strictly reductive materialistic paradigm and yet it is a metaphysical presupposition that is constantly appealed to by people who deny metaphysical realities such as atheists who subscribe to materialism and mock moderate religious expression. Because you can’t prove empiricism using empiricism as it’s a metaphysical presupposition that can not be justified or grounded in a strictly reductive materialistic/atheistic paradigm that clearly excludes metaphysical realities. Obviously, some atheists claim that they don’t subscribe to materialism but this means that their atheism is immaterial (metaphysical) so it seems a bit inconsistent to say the least to mock other people who believe in immaterial realities that is transcendental categories.
Are you a materialist/atheist or are you an atheist who subscribes to the immaterial (metaphysics) such as an idealist who believes that mind and consciousness exist independently of “matter” etc ?
Einstein often came across as ambiguous with regards to his metaphysical beliefs but when atheists started appealing to Einstein’s authority to brow beat theists, deists, idealists and panentheists into submission he said it made him angry and Einstein stated that this…
“question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist.” “I believe in the God of Spinoza”
Most atheists who used this (Appeal to Authority Fallacy) would cherry pick Einstein’s quotes out of context where he says the word “God” is childish and that the Bible contained a collection of honourable but primitive legends. However, when Einstein was asked about the possibility of a supreme ontological ground of reality he thought that the word “God” was an insufficient description and that it was “childish” because this is such a complex and nuanced concept.
Many theologians would agree with Einstein that language and words such as “God” that we’re originally developed by primitive people to grasp something right on the very edge of human understanding during this period of ancient history have been mocked and straw manned so much by sceptics that the word “God” has lost meaning and has become littered with stereotypes and negative connotations of Bronze Age superstition. The fact is that religion, that is religious ritual is not the originator of morality so much as it is the codifier of morality, including ethics, values and the qualities of experience such as meaning, purpose, beauty, empathy, altruism etc.
Similarly, Anselmo d’Aosta codifies and defines this ultimate reality/essence and actuality as “that of which nothing greater can be conceived” (Anselmo d’Aosta). Equally, the assumption of the burden of empirical “proof” from the “natural sciences” for the belief in the fundamental nature of mind and consciousness/theism. That is the assumption that “physical” evidence is required to justify belief in the necessity of a supreme ontological ground of reality, existence and in particular the qualities of experience is viewed as a classical category error by scholars and experts on modal logic. Because the fact is that theists don’t believe that “God” is just another “physical” being or just another mind and consciousness that exists in the universe but is being and existence itself, including mind and consciousness itself.
20:48 seriously?? You're not stressing the debate here, you're bringing your own data into the debate. Erhnan's answer about simple answers is on of the most powerful takeaways from this debate. It's one of the top comments on the actual debate and touched the audience. Maybe in a scored debate you'd be right... I don't know, but you definitely just brought your own bias to this review
I get what you’re saying. But I got the opposite vibe. Ehrman seemed to be saying something like “christian hope for suffering/mourning is offensive because I don’t like it”. He didn’t support his claim, he just didn’t like it. He also offered no answer to the question at first, although he did eventually. I thought Ehrman did really well at first, even better than his opponent, but on this question I dont think he did well
Neither party in this debate supported their position with data. This was an emotional debate, like it or not. I don't think this debate represents Bart's current position, and one of these parties was convincted of fraud and the other raised 500k for charity last year so the overall results of the debate don't matter to me, but as a "debate review" this was clearly bias which was my point
@@Trinket430 yeah. I mean everything is biased because we all come in with presuppositions. But I agree there were a few points Nate (the host) overlooked or misunderstood due probably to his beliefs and presuppositions
@@Trinket430 "one of these parties was convincted [sic] of fraud and the other raised 500k for charity last year"
Completely irrelevant in a debate and is a logical fallacy known as "poisoning the well."
@@wintersresurrection9841 if you and I were having the same debate as the title of the video you might be right, but I'm debating the quality of the two debaters so it's actually relevant and not poisoning the well. You condescendingly "teaching" me something in a discussion you weren't a part of is a fallacy called " being an asshole"
I’ve watched numerous debates involving Ehrman, and it seems that he’s an atheist, who only claims ti be agnostic so he can claim “I don’t know”
But that's just it, We all don't know, unless ofc you have a selfie with God or Jesus then please share
Essentially, he believes there is no way to know if there exists some sort of supernatural force out there, but that the God of the Bible is most certainly not real. It's not that he's trying to dishonestly avoid Christian critiques (like, good grief people).
Salvation is a ,,,
Gift of God ,,,, God Is the Gift 🎉
Like David's Tabernacle 🎉
YOU are the tent 🎪
The WORD is written on your hearts 🥰
The Spirit of God is in YOU ❤
sABBAth with Daddy 24-7 🎉
YOU are a LIVING ARK OF THE COVENANT 🔥
A TEMPLE MADE WITHOUT HANDS ❤️
Must be Born Again 😮
Um, off to a bad start... Did you really teach debate? Bart didn't ask 4 questions he asked 1 question four times and then explained why one of the binary answers nullified the debate
16:10 the bible says clearly that jesus is the only way to salvation. and i believe that.
Uh...
2 things...A)Does the bible clearly say that...more so...does jesus say...or allegedly say that.
B)Why should i believe the bible...why should i believe that jesus actually said it...if jesus actually said it, does that make it true? you believe that...why should i believe that?
C)why, dinesh, do you believe that.
i have no idea if he explains...if bart pushes back here...or if wise disciple is going to point that out.
this is usually how i take in debates. i put myself in that position. what would i have said...what would i have pushed back on...what raised my ears.
that little thing definitely did for me.
I want to debate anybody who believes that nothing exploded and became kangaroos and all the things they see today including them.
Ehrman fanboys found this lol
"Semantic obtuseness": atheism in a nutshell!
The cat analogy is stupid.
eh. towards the end, i disgaree with WD. I guess...if you are scoring this debate from...what can i get past...or wrap hte other guy up in a pickle...
sure.
ehrman is not that good a debater. he does not have the wit...the quickness...or the viciousness that is needed IMO to push back on d'souza.
the suffering point was wide open for ehrman to rip into dsouza hard.
so...if scoring...yeah...dsouza gets points for getting something past ehrman...that if he had tried that on someone more skilled and adept, would have been able to counter the point and push back hard.
this is not ehrman's expertise imo...debating things like this. what do the books say...what do the writings say that the people who wrote them...or that they are atributed to, what's their POV.
so...it's almost like a qb throwing an awful pass...but the defender falling down...therefore the QB gets the pass. yes. sure.
was it a good pass. no. should it have been knocked down? yes. was it, No. that still doesn't make it a good pass.
IF someone has to be awarded the points, i guess dsouza does.
so this scoring debates...points HAVE to be assigned...so then the goal is not just to win...but to not lose?????
try to get something past the other guy...and if THEY can't knock it down, you get the points? ok. not how i think. i think that's a cheap way to win. it's not a winning formula.
it essentially says...have bad points...but debate someone who can't knock em down, and you win.
try that against someone who will defend it, and you don't have a shot.
was dsouza taking a calculated 'risk' and trying to get this past ehrman and succeeded bc he did??? i guess.
God passes laws to change things. They take time to take effect. He can do a martial law [bad analagy but best atm] but those lead to less freedoms.
But clearly it shows in the Bible that we will be judged on our knowledge of God as in do we believe there's a God and if we've heard the gospel did we follow what Jesus said. God will always draw those who love because that is what he is and all those who belong to him or drawn to him. Just like Jesus said he is a shepherd and his sheep know his voice and come to him he's not a cattle rancher who has to drive the cows where they want them to be.
I can't believe Christians think dinesh is anything but a woo woo spiritualist. I thought Christians were smarter. Guess not.
I can’t believe atheists think Bart is anything but a bitter and emotionally charged goal shifter. I thought atheists were smarter. Guess not.
Making a mass generalization because a percentage of a group doesn’t meet your criteria works both ways and is intellectually immature.
I would have said this life is short. I believe in eternity. Yes we grieve the loss of a child but our hope is not inthis world but the next. You on the otherhand only have this world. You are the most miserable for you are without hope. D'zouza won
Yet again, your bias is blinding.
If he were an atheist you wouldn’t think he were biased, he never claims to be unbiased, and his bias is not blinding, I do think he does give a fair critique.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 English is the better option.
@@Dr.IanPlect OK sorry my calendar so badly auto corrected.
@@Dr.IanPlect Theist tend to ignore the parts of reality that disagree and/or refute their presuppositions.
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus indeed
I thought where you cut and interjected was biased on your part. It would be better if you had let them complete there thoughts before giving your opinion. The term theist literally means a belief. Atheist means no belief you can go to the reasons why after you’ve established the definition. Agnostic it’s about knowledge what you know. And most of all the one who makes the claim has the burden of proof. I am an atheist because I haven’t seen sufficient evidence to demonstrate the existence of a God. I am an agnostic because it’s not possible to prove the nonexistence of a thing..
Exactly. The term agnostic as far as I'm concerned is redundant. Knowledge of the invisible and magic is unknowable. Therefore agnostic
Ehrman is an angry atheist that consistently lashes out and belittles his opponents. He is a nasty piece of work.
In what way was he wrong in any of the points he made?
I disagree I think he speaks very confidently.
Is Erhman a Atheist Or Agnostic ??
Agnostic
@@HipHopTV_Official yeah agnostic, former fundamentalist
He identifies as an agnostic humanist.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I can identify as a horse, but that doesn't make me a horse does it?
@@TheSpacePlaceYT I don’t know what you mean you don’t think he’s an agnostic?
basicallyidowrk
Honestly. The biggest knockout blow I’ve ever ... read ever- seen in a debate is when D’Souza says “yes that’s why we’re having a debate.” 🥊 Honestly I was offended you said the debate was close. I’ve watched this debate in it’s entirety about 6 or so times and D’Souza killed him.
Just admit that you are not a debate coach or debate instructor or debate analyst. You are a Christian apologist who employs Special Pleading to have expectations on atheists you don't apply to theists. You also try to shift the burden of proof in order to ignore the logical fallacies of theists in these debates.
For a supposed Christian you are very dishonest.
So says the troll who intentionally aggravates Christians into acting unchristian for his own entertainment. And yet ironically you'll claim that atheists are more moral than Christians. What narcissism!
Just goes to prove the point that people like you give the good atheists a really bad name. 😏
Bet JTstrawman can’t point out where Anthony said that he’s morally superior than Christians.
Looks like he just made that up 😂
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus
Hahaha oh took took that long to respond huh? Still doubling down on strawmen. Obviously the little man is still tired. You need your nap, buddy boy.
🤣
Can you point out where Anthony said he’s morally superior than Christians as you claimed?
I predict that you can’t and won’t 😂
@@FlyingSpaghettiJesus
Yawns, I guess since you didn't want to defend yourself and the other video you decided to try your luck here instead.
The fact that Anthony keeps dodging the question where I asked him to prove that I'm a presuppositionalist and kept saying it over and over again on the common board of another video without giving any evidence is sufficient reason to conclude that as well as not denying the accusation of being a troll just like you're not denying that either. 😏 You and Anthony are just here to troll people for your own entertainment. You're not serious about having your questions answered you just want to trap people for the fun of it.
Unless of course you want to deny that and the proof in Anthony's actions that he doesn't want to answer any of my or any of the Christians questions in another video on this same channel, just like you don't. If you want to deny those things also like you denied the fact that I didn't straw man your definition of faith, then that's not my problem. 😂😂😂
Keep denying little man.
I find you very biased...Christianity says the only way to salvation is through belief in Jesus Christ but in the same breath says even if you never heard of Jesus you can still be saved because god is the judge...it is contradictory
Well, that’s not what Christians say. Truth be told, we don’t know if someone in some distant part of the world has heard of God or not and if they’ll try to seek Him or not. God knows their hearts and He will be 100% fair when He judges them.
@@Nameless-pt6oj I am talking about being saved without belief in jesus christ...who is seen as the way to everlasting life.
@Tomas Krukas That is beside the point ...if christianity is to be fair...then everyone should have unequivocal proof...
@Tomas Krukas Never claimed to know everything...christianity, like all religions is demonstrably false
@Tomas Krukas how is christianity false? Jesus said he would return within the generation of his disciples...didnt.
I think Ehrman won.
2nd time I've seen your video involving an Ehrman debate, Sala. If you are a debate coach, you're not very good. You show confirmation bias. Your critique re: Ehrman is skewed by your personal belief in a god whose existence is unfounded. You're obviously biased against Ehrman. Your opening criticism of Ehrman (too many questions asked of D'Souza) apparently didn't faze D'Souza. D'Souza is a big boy - he could have said, too many questions; clarify your questions; let me take your questions one at a time; please repeat your questions.