The PA suffers from an ambiguity: Everybody can insert their favorite G-D. All "Proofs" of G-D like the K-CLA (WLC's favorite) suffer from this ambiguity.The "LORD" (J[the]C=Yeshua=Bacchus) is actually the personification of the properties of SONNE (which is walking on all sea waters for everybody to be seen)

@@kleenex3000 It shows the absurdity of a naturalist worldview. And just because there are false religions doesn't mean there is no true one.

+DanielGardner Thank you so much for your love and encouragement, brother!

+DanielGardner This is so weird. I used to watch your videos some 6-7 years ago. I had no clue you were a Christian! :) Pleasant surprise!!

+regelemihai That's awesome. :D Thanks for watching those years ago! :)

DanielGardner It was my pleasure! God bless :)

You don't get how pathetic what you wrote is.

The PA Suffes from an ambiguity: Everybody can insert their favorite G-D, in other words PA is null and void - WELL, except for the believer subscribed to PA.

Christ = title = property = *TRUTH* = EFFECT = information = THOUGHT = *subjective opinion* S☼NNE = *object[IVE* template] = matter = *FACT* = CAUSE = source-OF-information

@Kuffar Legion Indeed, all collections of Scriptures = proclamations = SECONDARY sources of *{information} = {property = TRUTH = opinion}* evolved. The most relevant compilations of proclamation are: Law-TEXTS, Science-BOOKS, Holy-SCRIPTURES. Kindest regards, from GERMANY.

@Kuffar Legion >>>A separatist sect of ***Canaanites***

Nick Jones What evidence would you accept that would not destroy your free will, nor cause your friends to think you "delusional and brainwashed"?

Deciding that somebody will not be convinced is a very easy - and lazy - way of getting out of having to convince them.

Nick Jones Because deep down you've already REJECTED IT.

Nick Jones Jesus loves you it is demonstrable He did it on the cross, think about the worst thing you've ever done............ He died for you in that moment. He substituted Himself for you. His death givee pur life value and if we hold His death for us as true and God's will for us us to know Him, we have to Repent (metanoia) and put our faith in Him. You can actually know Gpd and know fpr certain where you go when you die and be healed amd have your sins forgiven. He actually cares about you and your life.

Nick Jones If your a Christian this is a fairly decent lecture sourced to scripture. This speaker clearly makes his points to a believing crowd, the choir. As an atheist, I find as you clearly posited the whole thing is convoluted and not credible whatsoever. Nice job at that ! We both know some Christians, mostly fundamentalists, using presumption as their argument just have nothing, which is clearly aimed at those who confuse gullibility with fact and confirm their faith on immeasurable metrics. So we completely reject the supposition the God exists based on the, what they call truth, but cannot really explain. “Truth” in their view just does not to need to be factual, you accept what your told and plod on as a unthinking sheep. Question is, if God made you, then he made your brain, your reasoning and then the Christian tells you not to think to much. Like lambs to the slaughter.

From MacArthur "2 Sam 21:19 Elhanan . . . struck down Goliath. The minor scribal omission of “the brother of ” (in the Hebrew) belongs in this verse, based on 1 Chron. 20:5 which includes them, and because clearly the Scripture says that David killed Goliath as recorded in 1 Sam. 17:50. There has probably been a scribal error in the text which should read, “Elhanan . . . killed the brother of Goliath.” A second possible solution is that Elhanan and David may be different names for the same person, just as Solomon had another name (cf. 2 Sam. 12:24-25). A third solution is perhaps that there were two giants named Goliath." Longer ending of Mark and The woman caught in adultry are commonly brought up. These issues are known and have been addressed many times over for anyone willing to make an honest effort to learn.

@@pr073u569 Regarding solution 1- Is the Bible not inerrant then due to this scribal omission? Does there exist known Torah that does not have this omission?

TW F you know there’s a christian worldview day too? it’s called 1500 years of dark ages

So when's National Christian Day? Oh, that's right - there isn't one.

Yeah that was the age Christians were persecuted by pagans pretending to be Christians. But the hundreds of millions killed by atheist in one century alone, they weren't pretending, they were real atheist, just like you. Nice try tho (not really, it was pretty lame actually).

>>>national Atheist Day? You know when? April 1.

@zzpfft Do you know how many gods were born on Dec 25th? Do you know how many of them came before Jesus?

If you tell me "you need (my) god as an underpinning for any reasoning whatsoever" and I don't agree, there's no point continuing. I presuppose induction and they presuppose a thing that accounts for induction. I see no need to account for mine, they see no need to account for theirs.

@Systematic Theology "Well, just because you see no need to account for induction, doesn’t mean there is no necessity and ability to account for it." Correct. And just because you think you have an account for it doesn't mean there is one, or that yours is correct. Also, is it possible that Yahweh's existence needs an underpinning the way induction does? "What is true is that you don’t have the ability to account for the existence of induction according to the worldview that is opposite of biblical Christianity." Already agreed. "but all creation testifies to God" This claim is from the Bible. Prove it. "Romans 1:18-21, 2:15-16" Citing the Bible does not prove the Bible.

@Systematic Theology "Citing the Bible does prove the Bible." So citing X proves X for all X? If not, you're engaging in special pleading - a fallacy. "Rejecting the citing of the Bible doesn’t erase the truthfulness of the Bible [...]" IF the Bible were true, my rejection would not alter that. And IF it's false, your acceptance wouldn't alter THAT. "[...] but by your life you prove the Bible is authoritative over you and you willingly submit to t every single day ;)" How so? "Want to know what that means? ❤️ When you demand justice for injustice, you prove that your conscience bears the moral law of God." Or, the Bible took common morals and ascribed them TO Yahweh. If you can prove the Bible's claim that they came FROM Yahweh, I'm all ears. "The worldview you choose to believe in doesn’t have the ability to account for the existence of the moral law inside you that parallels the moral law you have seen in the Bible." Or, the Bible's moral law parallel's humanity's. And I can account - naturalistically - for humanity's (mostly) common morals. Again, if you can prove it's the other way around, I'm all ears. Because it seems to me that the Bible writers merely gave Yahweh the credit for our shared morals. "God chose to create you without the inability to be aware of His existence." Prove it. "And you’ll never be able to convince your own conscience that He doesn’t exist." Prove it. Bearing in mind that you haven't yet proven Yahweh is the source of my morals. "When you contemplate trauma or medical algorithms and determine pounds to kilograms for weight based emergency medicine dosages, you’re functioning as God designed you according to mathematics that He has given mankind to calculate the appropriate and safe doses for medicine to mitigate the effects of sin that cause illness and death." Prove it. "100% of your life, God is orchestrating everything you do and say.. and you will never prevent Him." Prove it.

@Systematic Theology Hmm - a reasoned and thought-provoking rebuttal...

@Systematic Theology "Citing the Bible does prove the Bible." So citing X proves X for all X? If not, you are engaged in special pleading - a fallacy. The Bible may authenticate itself to YOU, but you're not the one you're trying to convince. "Rejecting the citing of the Bible doesn’t erase the truthfulness of the Bible [...]" Even if the Bible were true, using it to prove itself would STILL be fallacious. "When you demand justice for injustice, you prove that your conscience bears the moral law of God." You think our morals come FROM Yahweh; I think (credit for) our morals was given TO Yahweh. I can account for morals without invoking a god. "[...] the moral law inside you that parallels the moral law you have seen in the Bible." Again, I think the Bible's law follows ours, not the other way around. "God chose to create you without the inability to be aware of His existence." "And you’ll never be able to convince your own conscience that He doesn’t exist." "When you contemplate trauma or medical algorithms and determine pounds to kilograms for weight based emergency medicine dosages, you’re functioning as God designed you according to mathematics that He has given mankind to calculate the appropriate and safe doses for medicine to mitigate the effects of sin that cause illness and death." "100% of your life, God is orchestrating everything you do and say.. and you will never prevent Him." These are mere assertions - prove them.

The behavior of anyone has no bearing on the fact, that Theists are telling a known inside brain effect for outside brain causal agency.

@zzpfft A thought DOES exist, visibly that is... BUT on the paper, as a readable proclamation, manifesto, symbol. Your G-D is a THOUGHT, visibly proclaimed as a venerable IDOL, on the paper aka Holey Scripture!. All Theists are Idolators. Other than that, kindest CIGARS, from GERMANY.

@zzpfft You believe in the outside-brain existence of a phaenomenon aka "thought" made up inside your brain. Your heavenly father is an EFFECT aka "thought" or imagination, that you are making up in your brain - *to-, on-, of-, obtained/acquired FROM-, about-* the CAUSE, the cosmos. FYI: I am a scientist, who is totally subscribed to CAUSALITY. Do you know the cohaerence-, the causal connection between *mass* and *matter* ?

@zzpfft Unfortunately your proclamation can be exploited, in order to prove ANY G-D. This ambiguity annihilates the power of your proclamation. The same consideration applies to Praesuppositonal Apologetics and to any "XXX argument for G-D" for an example the cosmo-Logical argument. All that we can say about "G-D per se'" is, that it is defined as "at the possible origin of the cosmos" the entirety of matter that is. In other words, you and me are totally AGnostic about G-D per se. 2) Mass is an inside-brain effect aka thought = information = REFERENCE = opinion *TO-, ON-, OF-, obtained/acquired FROM-, ABOUT-* REFERENT, information-SOURCE, fact, cause, object[IVE template outside the brain], matter, the cosmos. Mass and any other property !OF! the cosmos DOES exist visibly BUT as a proclamtion on the paper.

@zzpfft >>>effect of your ***imagination***

The only other thing I would say is that there is controversy around something to do with faked miscarriages and such.... I do not know for sure as I do not follow them.... but from what I can gather they seem slightly sketchy.

***** Alright I didn't know, it is very sad that it is almost impossible to be a Christian family in the public eye without scandal.

Christians were told to change the channel and we did. Christians were told to be nice and remain silent about the government. No more. No more. No more. I am bold from here out. Christians weren’t told to go into all the world and make a bunch of friends, so I don’t care if people lump all Christians into a negative category. I’m hear you share the Gospel and I don’t care if they like me. Jesus died for your sins. Repent and be Baptized in the name of Jesus. He is the only game in town when it comes to Grace and a personal relationship with the Creator of the Universe. God bless you.

Nick Jones dont worry, sooner or later you'll have to Face the true God

Nick Jones yes i do, actually, i really wont go into full detail here, just mention some, because i know you probably wont read a full on essay on Genetics and Evolutionary biology (my major btw) nor trust a single word, plus, i'm studying for an exam (my Doctorate in case you're wondering). Anyways, i've got: genetics: impossibility of Coded information to appear from nothing, DNA requiring proteins for its formation, but proteins are formed by RNA which needs proteins to code it from DNA, so all has to happen at the same time from random particles, again, statistically impossible. Third, now moving to physics: the universe is proposed to have started with an uncaused event, in which matter and energy were created (big bang) that violates almost all of physical laws. An event in the "real world" needs a cause, nothing changes state simply because; energy and matter cannot be created simply transformed from one to another. And so on. Regarding why christianity is true: the absence of the body, the almost certain impossibility of a conspiracy due to large number of almost incomunicated people with all to loose and almost nothing to gain (hey, i dont know about you, but from well respected and well off religious leader to being jailed, and tortured constantly and killed for a hoax, is not my idea of good motivation for a lie) plus, 21st century sceptic's Have used Forensic statement analysis to determine that the gospels, are according to this expert analysts, as trustworthy and truthful as it gets (aka: they find no reason to believe that there's any lie in the gospels.) plus, a mirriad of facts. Anyways, have a good day, i'm going to keep studying, my break's up. You might want to look up "cold case christianity for a good introduction to some of this facts

Nick Jones i dont think you are understanding me, we are talking about improbability of the scale of 10 to the power of hundreds. Its mot "its pretty hard" its "it'd be easier for me to brab a rifle and nail a bull's eye located at the other side lf the visible universe. Sure, its theoretically possible, but extremely unlikely. Furtheremore, you are making the claim that a universe apeared from nothing breaking almost every rule in the book, i'd say that the burden of proof is at least shared there. i'm not basing my belief on "i was raised as a child like this" but rather on my knowledge of the working of DNA, biology, physics, etc. Which even my professors agreed it was pretty unlikely. One even noted that "its like if someone had planed it and made it hapen" this is an atheist proffesor of Biochemistry in a pretty atheist country. Look, if i told you that i found a biology textbook in the jungle, would it be more logic to assume: A: Wind, rain and other natural causes created it B: someone left it there. What you are asking of any atheist, if for them to accept that a code, extremely complex, extremely efficient, extremely well designed, jampacked with the exact combination of chemichals to produce a protein, that somehow, its the same protein that it would code for, but this protein appeared from nothing too, and magically, it had also the other proteins and enzymes needed for coding, as well as RNA.... Sorry, but the only people i know that went on my course and are still atheists, are the anti-theists. Unwilling to ever consider that they are not the higher concience. Also, just give me one reason why Doctors, wealthy tax collectors, respected religious leaders, would become poor people, hated by all, being driven out by other jews everywhere, loosing it all, no family, being tortured to death, in order that maybe someone, 200 years from then, might profit. Give me one credible reason. They gained neither women, money nor power, they got tortured, they lost whatever status they might have had, sure they became "apostles" but seriously, i'm pretty sure "Doctor" or "Pharisee" was better. Also, never said PhD. I Said Doctorate. (Medical Doctor)

Nick Jones either the universe came from nothing or you are relying on an infinitely old universe, which is ilogical. Here you have evolutionnews.org/2015/01/problem_3_rando/ an article ON A SCIENTIFIC website, citing textbooks, scientits, papers and univeristies. Explaining how unguided evolution is each day proving to be more of a fantasy, as each day more cellular machined that are irreducibly complex are found, and evolution is discarded by more and more field leading scientsts. If unguided evolution is unreasonable, what is the reasonable alternate....

God is for a Christian theocracy over the entire earth.

Anonymouslives A Theocracy that God will come and personally establish or one established by men ?

Jeff is an anti-Mormon Christian (the easy Jesus mentality, no works required).

Richard Holmes Do you believe you need works to be saved? Then you don't follow Romans 3:21 - 5:1, Ephesians 2:1-10. Salvation is a gift of grace from God and not something we work for. If we have to do something to earn it, even if it's just a tiny thing, it's no longer a gift, but a wage, i.e. payment for the work we do. That's Paul's whole argument in Romans. If you add anything to the gospel of salvation in Christ alone by grace alone through faith alone, you're cursed. The epistle to the Galatians was because all they wanted to add to the gospel was circumcision. But Paul said the gospel was to no effect for them if they did this and they needed to keep the whole law. Works are important but they don't save us. They come after being saved. They are the fruit of being saved. The fruit of works comes after the tree is planted and grows, not before.

thenowchurch putting christ first means that if the government says "pray in the name of xxxx president instead of Jesus", you'll spit in their face and pray in the name of jesus even louder, not putting a christian theocracy

Kyle Brock go to apologia church website, Jeff wrote a few tracts you can buy. Also onemilliontracts.com has nice little business card sized ones that are inexpensive.

+Steven Starr , oh ok, I found the link, thanks.

Someone steal your dictionary, Nick? You're highlighting your ignorance to everyone on the internet, meanwhile. Maybe you should turn on Auto-correct. You're telling everyone that your opinion is that of someone who can't even spell 'charlatan'. Nice......

This website is a joke. No where in the entire text does it mention what apologia is teaching incorrectly. It shows no proof or evidence. It doesn’t refute anything it just makes statements. Pathetic

Romans 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. So Jan, Yes - If the Bible is indeed the Word of God, regardless of what you feel you have known, God, whom cannot lie, has already stated that an atheist is without excuse because He has already provided the evidence for His existence to them.

Anonymouslives I can only know what I know. I can conceive of no way to acquire the concept of a specific divinity except by fantasizing or being told. I neither confabulated nor received the information. May I suggest to you that: 1) Therefore, God lies, or 2) Those who claim to write the word of God are lying or self-deluded. Peace.

I would suggest to you, that if you're not actively seeking God, you're actively suppressing God. If God is perfectly righteous, He cannot lie. Those who wrote 'The Word of God, didn't have foreknowledge (as far as I am aware) that their writings would ever be scripture. Seems illogical that the Jews who wrote the NT, would devote their lives and change their positions towards Judaism, based on the things that they had witnessed, and ultimately give their lives for a lie, or self delusion throughout the early church.

Anonymouslives People upend their lives on the basis of a mistaken belief all the time. Men and women have died for Islam, Buddhism, and the divinity of emperors; did those acts of heroism make their gods real?

You can go deep into the jungles where peoples have had no contact with the "outside" world and they know that there is a god. They may not worship the God but they still have knowledge of god. It is innate and as is mentioned by Anonymouslives if you are not actively seeking God you are actively suppressing God

JMUDoc since God is the foundation of all knowledge, it’s now incumbent on you then, since you have rejected God, come up with the source of your knowledge. Then, get this, justify it. You are now in a circular argument. The Christian isn’t because, if you were paying attention, our epistemology if revelational, your argument would be circular because you haven’t a) provided a foundation. Or b) you are the basis of your knowledge...

@@jeff3putt "since God is the foundation of all knowledge [...]" Prove it. "it’s now incumbent on you then, since you have rejected God, come up with the source of your knowledge." Knowledge = justified true belief, and true = that which comports with reality. No need for a Yahweh in any of that. "You are now in a circular argument. The Christian isn’t because, if you were paying attention, our epistemology if revelational" And how do you CONFIRM that something IS, in fact, revealed?

JMUDoc easy, it’s confirmed to me the same way it’s confirmed to you, by and through the revelation from God. The difference between us is that I am the one obeying, you are suppressing the knowledge of God in unrighteous ways. Proof is and isn’t a problem for you. It isn’t a problem because God has revealed himself to you that you are without excuse. You have all the proof you need. -or- It is a problem because proof presupposes truth and logic and uniformity in nature. What’s true today is true tomorrow. Since you are suppressing the knowledge of God, you are reduced to absurdity. You have denied truth logic and reason. Proof makes sense in a Christian worldview. Not to much in atheism, it doesn’t make sense to you. Happy Thanksgiving, although being happy and thankful don’t make sense either in your worldview, why thankful? To who? For what? You are stardust, matter in motion.

@@jeff3putt "JMUDoc easy, it’s confirmed to me the same way it’s confirmed to you, by and through the revelation from God." Can it be DEMONSTRATED that Yahweh has revealed... well, anything, or do you just presuppose that he has? If the latter, there's no point continuing the discussion. Demonstrate - don't just assert - that Yahweh has revealed things OR demonstrate - don't just assert - that I am suppressing it. Either would do. "You have all the proof you need." I decide how much proof I need. Nobody else. And until it can be demonstrated - not asserted - that I do believe, the very fact that I don't believe means that, by definition, I don't have enough proof.

JMUDoc its demonstrable by the fact that you can not account for laws of logic, reason and morality. Romans 1 says that you are suppressing the truth in unrighteous ways. The very fact we are having this conversation PROVES you know God exists. How else do YOU then account for laws of logic, that are immaterial,abstract,invariant and universal? Your worldview doesn’t comport to any of this....the onus is actually on YOU to prove that your worldview can support this...

Belief in a consistent being is the foundation for belief in consistent laws. Information (especially the particular governance of things) necessitates a mind. Unless, that is, one believes mathematic properties of the universe and laws of physics were invented by men (rather than being natural relationships that were discovered). In which case, they still believe it requires a mind. They’re simply substituting theirs in place of God. While the terms and units we use are arbitrary, they describe true and real phenomena that take place. There is no basis for this without a preceding mind. As I’m sure you’ve heard: “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.” ‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭1:7‬ ‭ESV‬‬ Unless you have a transcendent standard, there is no basis for objective reality. Welcome to postmodernism lol. But now we have a different question... Which transcendent standard is correct? May I submit: the historical figure Jesus Christ, claiming to be the *begotten* Son of God (read: God) and raising from the dead? Haha none of this is meant to be inflammatory, and I’d love to hear your response

@@HP-jz9jd "Belief in a consistent being is the foundation for belief in consistent laws. " "THE" foundation? Prove it. In fact, prove that there IS a foundation for them. I just assume the consistent laws and don't seek their foundation. "Information (especially the particular governance of things) necessitates a mind." Correct. But I don't see that the universe is being "governed". "Unless you have a transcendent standard, there is no basis for objective reality. Welcome to postmodernism lol." Prove you are not in the Matrix. I reject the idea of "absolute" reality because I know I can never tell the difference between a) reality, and b) reality as I perceive it. You claim to be able to, so please do so - without invoking your perceptions, show that there is a reality above and beyond them.

JMUDoc “Prove that there IS a foundation. I just assume the consistent laws and don’t seek their foundation” Science *fundamentally* relies on three assumptions: 1. The universe can be understood 2. We can understand it 3. It is good for us to understand it If you reject the idea that there is a foundation for understanding, science literally becomes impossible. It’s like if I said “I just assume my car will drive if I put gas in it. There is no foundation for this belief, but it’s consistently worked”. In this scenario, it would become impossible for me to understand laws of combustion because I’m denying that they exist in the first place. I’m presupposing that there is no foundation. (I hope that analogy made sense lol) “Correct, but I don’t see that the universe is ‘governed’” That’s literally what the laws of physics are. Matter is governed by gravity, electrons are governed by magnetism, everything is governed by thermodynamics. If you reject the physical governances of the universe, you are literally rejecting all of physics. “Prove you are not in the matrix” If you reject God, there is no way to do this. Only when you accept God does it become possible for him to reveal things to us such that we can *know* them. Still, we can be wrong about things, but unless you begin with God it is impossible to know *anything* Obviously, there are things that we do know, whether we do philosophical gymnastics to avoid that or not... “I reject the idea of ‘absolute’ reality... above and beyond them.” One’s acceptance or rejection of their ability to detect ultimate reality has no bearing on whether or not that reality exists. In fact, if any reality at all exists, then there *must* be some sort of ultimate reality (regardless of our ability to perceive it). But you’re right, one can never know truth in any sense of the word as long as he rejects God. Or rather, he can’t live consistently with the worldview he professes. But doesn’t that bother you?

@@HP-jz9jd "Science fundamentally relies on three assumptions: 1. The universe can be understood 2. We can understand it 3. It is good for us to understand it If you reject the idea that there is a foundation for understanding, science literally becomes impossible." Whether or not I agree with your rendition of science's assumptions, they cannot have a foundation by defintion because that foundation would itself be the assumption. You assume things because you can't prove them; if you could, you wouldn't NEED to assume them. "That’s literally what the laws of physics are. Matter is governed by gravity, electrons are governed by magnetism, everything is governed by thermodynamics. If you reject the physical governances of the universe, you are literally rejecting all of physics." You call it governance, but that word carries baggage associated with intent, so I don't phrase it that way. "“Prove you are not in the matrix” If you reject God, there is no way to do this. " I don't see how you can do it even if you accept (the idea of) a god. How can you prove that the very idea of your god isn't a Matrix-illusion? Because the Matrix-piercing god revealed it to you? Of course that's what the Matrix would have you believe! "One’s acceptance or rejection of their ability to detect ultimate reality has no bearing on whether or not that reality exists." Agreed. But as soon as you content that such a reality exists the onus is on you to prove it. "But you’re right, one can never know truth in any sense of the word as long as he rejects God. Or rather, he can’t live consistently with the worldview he professes. But doesn’t that bother you?" No. Not in the least. I neither accept nor require the presup's overtly abstract concepts of knowledge and reality in order to live a satisfactory life. COULD there be a reality beyond my perceptions? I don't care - why would I?

JMUDoc I don’t deny that one can live a satisfactory life without acknowledging God (though the standard for such a life is completely subjective). My point is that you behave as if you knew things, yet you claim not to. You eat because you *expect* to get nutrients and to become full. You sleep because you *expect* to be rested when you wake up. You respond to me because you *expect* that I am a real, sentient being. On what basis is this reasonable? Well it’s not, and you seem to readily admit that. But don’t you see the problem with it? It defies the way that every human being actually lives their life. Why ought I not expect to wake up in a completely different universe tomorrow? In this worldview, there is absolutely nothing telling you that it is reasonable to expect these things. Yet you do anyway. The a-theist has no solution to solipsism, but the evidence of your life says that you’re committed to some sort of truth. Don’t you see the hypocrisy in this? When I said “doesn’t that bother you”, I meant “doesn’t it bother you that you can not possibly live consistently with what you claim to believe?” Finally, admitting you don’t care about ultimate reality is literally equivalent to admitting you don’t care about truth. At that point, I’m not sure any meaningful discussion can take place EDIT: you agreed that information necessitates a mind, so do you hold that humans invented physics and math? I think I already explained how our arbitrary terms describe real relationships, so that can’t be true. But what mind besides preceded humanity to create these laws and information that we can study? You either believe that reality is all in your perception or there truly is external reality that can be known. One makes yourself God and the other acknowledges God as a transcendent being. Call it a false dichotomy, but I don’t think there exists a model of reality that isn’t described in terms of either solipsism or knowable objective reality. Between the two, they seem to cover everything... either we’re god or He is EDIT 2: I may have covered this already, but if you admit that you don’t care about truth (or that it doesn’t exist, or we have no way of identifying it), you are saying that it is impossible to know anything at all. Everything is a guess. But it’s not even a guess, because a guess is a an attempt to get the “right” answer. I’m sure you know if you’ve ever guessed on a test lol. But “right” presupposes truth. If you give that up, you are giving up all knowledge gained by science, mathematics, literature, archaeology, etc. In this worldview, it logically follows that “there is no truth and everything is arbitrary”. Do you see how this is not consistent with virtually anything in existence? It seems that people must go to pretty lengthy extremes to avoid what is plainly seen. “For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been *clearly perceived* , ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” ‭‭Romans‬ ‭1:20‬ ‭ESV‬‬ (emphasis added)

IF "existence" means "knowability" then only the "physical" exists. A causality of the cosmos can "apply" but if it does apply then it either is not physical or infinite regress ensues.. All KNOWN G-Ds however, are a mere brainmade opinion, a brain-created IMAGE on the cosmos and its "possibly applying" causality, which we are AGnostic about due to obligate non physicalty. It logically follows that Theists are LIARS in that they tell known inside-brain made effect for unknowable outside-brain-possible causality, and they are idolators, in that they VENERATE a brain-created Image.This Pastor is clueless, well at least does he not censor the commentary. I am sad to say that ATheists are mostly uneducated and do not even understand that they are BOTH namely Gnostic in respect to knowable effects like J(the)C = Yeshua = BACCHUS = personification of the properties of- = Knowledge about- SONNE, and AGnostic in respect to a possible causality of the cosmos.

M. Hall are you sure about that?

M. Hall “only the material reality humans experience exists” Uses immaterial thoughts to express his immaterial ideas😂

"Everyone knows god." Yes - I get that you believe this, but can it be proven? Or are you just presuming it? If the latter, there's no point engaging, as I said earlier. Your audience might as well be a pot plant.

@Systematic Theology "You will tell Him on that day that He didn’t reveal Himself to you and it’s not your fault, but He will tell you you’re without excuse because you both know you knew Him in this life." Why would I believe him telling me when I don't believe you telling me?

@Systematic Theology a) That's circular b) So anything that attests to itself should be believed? If I found a book whose first sentence was "everything in this book is true", I should believe it?

@Systematic Theology Can the spirit convert somebody who's never heard of the Bible? If so, isn't the Bible unnecessary?

+Deconverted Man Ad hominem fallacy. Arbitrary claim. Unsubstantiated, too. Of course lies presuppose a standard of absolute truth which you account for...how exactly? Plus, there are no deconversions (1 John 2:19).

Vincenzo Russo Wrong. Ad hominem would be if I said that he is (X) therefor his argument is wrong. I did not say that. I said everything he said is wrong. I could say, everything he said - at least to the 10 min mark is a fractal error. He gets history wrong, science wrong, and logic wrong. At no time does he say anything that aligns with reality. This is a claim that I could go into more detail with in a video - but in text I'll say that my claim is backed up by real history, real science and actual logic. If you personalty want to debate me on the issue the person in the video is , you are welcome to do so we can do a video to video debate or a live debate - your choice. Let me know. I could care less what the bible says in regards to deconversion as the bible is not relevant to me or anyone else until it has shown to be a trustable souse - quoting from it is a circular argument - plus we have counter-facts in that any other religion person can in fact deconvert. Are suggesting is perhaps that your bible has a built in no true Scotsman in it? If so more the reason to doubt its claims.

+Deconverted Man You 're right on one thing: it wasn't an ad hominem. However, you are in no position to account for your being in right. Apart from God's revelation, your words are just random noise.

Vincenzo Russo So I take it you do not need to debate to claim a win. Meanwhile in the real world - you do. Let me know if you ever want to debate in that world.

***** heh WLC is not any better - never heard of Alvin, does he offer anything new? :D

Where does logic/rules come from? Do men just make them up or are they existent without men? Logic is separate to man and not mans convention. Like numbers. Morals. Beauty. Can contradictory rules work? I don't think so. Just inventing it won't work.

@@billhesford6098 "Where does logic/rules come from? Do men just make them up or are they existent without men? Logic is separate to man and not mans convention." Logical absolutes are to logic as stones are to walls. Logic is not separate to minds, but the logical absolutes (or, rather the things to which they refer) are. "Like numbers." Numbers are separate to minds - removing every mind from the universe doesn't change facts about quantity. "Morals. Beauty." Morals and beauty *do* require minds - for they are opinions, appraisals, not intrinsic properties. Again, IMO.

@@JMUDoc I used to think like that. Just coincidence and luck. Yet we all seem to agree with perhaps a little variation on things like morals and beauty. Line up some pretty girls or tulips and few disagree to a central theme of beauty. Is she pretty without someone telling her? I think she is. Human convention does not account for number or logic and I suspect if we could get there, things like morals and beauty as well. Their very existence in a particular worldview is where I see the issue. Chemical reactions with a bit of electrical activity in evolving flesh cannot account for this separate existence. The foundational belief one holds determines how one chooses to see this. Or faith in ones chosen worldview. IMO

@@billhesford6098 "Yet we all seem to agree with perhaps a little variation on things like morals and beauty." Easily explained by the fact that we evolved as a social species. "Is she pretty without someone telling her? I think she is." Is she pretty in a universe with no minds? No, because there's nobody to *consider* her pretty. "Human convention does not account for number or logic" I don't see that numbers or logic can or need to be accounted for. These are as brute as facts get, IMO - the laws of logic "just are", and all else proceeds from there. "Chemical reactions with a bit of electrical activity in evolving flesh cannot account for this separate existence." a) What separate existence? b) When you say "cannot account", do you mean "cannot *currently* account", or "can *never* account"? If the latter, how could you possibly know this?

The problem is that you are at chess with all the rules and the table and you are saying that the Almighty Nothing create all things in the game. Repent, man, and believe in Jesus.