If there is no such thing as objective truth, how can relative truth be objectively true? Or; How can relative truth exist without objective truth existing? If someone says there is no objective truth then what they said cannot be true.

@peter: As would I. Gods Grace and Comfort stay with you and yours.

Please elaborate.

😀 he's just acting like if he's an Atheist. He's imitating the Atheist in a debate on the existence of God and presents the objections they present.

He's just playing the role of "Devil's advocate"

I like the way R C Sproul plays the atheist. This is the way atheists think and challenge Christians in a real debate. THIS is a great sketch rehearsal. Although he is no longer here, Christians need to do these types of debates and illustrations to prepare us for the world of humanism and logic.

This is very impressive

I really wish he had brought up the problem of pain in the debate. Like the amount of incomprehensible needless suffering that happens in the world, and how that is reconciled with an all-good and omnipotent God.

Hi Micah. Thank you for the feedback. Please follow the playlist link in the description of any of the videos. The series is organized in its correct order there.

Which religion(s) specifically?

Ally your comment👍 is so sensible and i agree,but hi did believe in God,read about his early childhood life.the more hi Lern, about the Cosmos, and it was difficult to explain, about the planet's the galaxy and all that is in the sky above the earth,hi denial the existence of God. because hi fell that his discovers about the sky were so incredible amazing that hi has to acepte that yes it is a powerful espirt that hi don't see it in any way that hi denial his EXISTENCE. his wife said that hi believe in God,but hi got angry 😠 and stared to denial his powerful and beautiful imagination to make all this thing that float in the firmament with no visible strings,i have studied about the galaxy of ORION and i Lerner all at about the way its moved and every night I take a picture and realize that is miraculously the fact that every night is there with no delay,and i been thinking about it the pandemic 2020 give me the time to research and learn about the Cosmos,and you face with some inexplicable Questions,and same whit him,so hi said is no God,but hi knew that it was,only hi perpetually him self above the intelligence of the same God who give him this knowledge. and if it wasn't for the machine hi will not be able to speak. silent hi will be like hi was for all the marvelous things hi saw like me from my mini mini understanding of the Orion constellation image whit the powerful telescopes 🔭 that hi have access to 😅

Ally your comment👍 is so sensible and i agree,but hi did believe in God,read about his early childhood life.the more hi Lern, about the Cosmos, and it was difficult to explain, about the planet's the galaxy and all that is in the sky above the earth,hi denial the existence of God. because hi fell that his discovers about the sky were so incredible amazing that hi has to acepte that yes it is a powerful espirt that hi don't see it in any way that hi denial his EXISTENCE. his wife said that before the accident hi believe in God,but hi got angry 😠 and stared to denial his powerful and beautiful imagination to make all this thing that float in the firmament with no visible strings,i have studied about the galaxy of ORION and i Lerner all at about the way its moved and every night I take a picture and realize that is miraculously the fact that every night is there with no delay,and i been thinking about it the pandemic 2020 give me the time to research and learn about the Cosmos,and you face with some inexplicable Awnser,and same whit him,so hi said is no God,but hi knew that it was,only hi perpetually him self above the intelligence of the same God who give him this knowledge. and if it wasn't for the machine hi will not be able to speak. silent hi will be like hi was for all the marvelous things hi saw like me from my mini mini understanding of the Orion constellation image whit the powerful telescopes 🔭 that hi have access to 😅

On second thought, maybe the 'common ground" is the physical world. Both sides believe in it (since the negative side does not believe in the metaphysical world). If we regressed everything that is physical as far back as it can, we will arrive at the causality argument or the "cosmological argument". The positive side's is clear on this matter (it can be found in Romans 1:20 and the cosmos' "anthropic principle" [Isaiah 45:18]). And for the devil's advocate (the negative side's), the one that got the most attention is Steven Hawking's "because there is gravity, the universe will create itself from nothing". NOW, WHICH OF THESE ARGUMENTS IS A BETTER EXPLANATION TO CONCLUDE WHETHER GOD EXIST OR NOT ?

The positive and negative sides of this issue (of whether God exists or not) can never be reconciled - full stop. Theism and atheism represent two irreconcilable positions. In terms of the law of the excluded middle, either the one or the other is right - both cannot be right.

Actually, Bertrand Russell, in his book, "Why I am not a Christian" demonstrated a whole lot of negative feeling about his experiences with the Roman Catholic Church (understandable in many contexts) and his book was far more "personal" than logical, although he did include some logical and rational arguments in his text. Mostly, he was angry and resentful; thus the book. Not much substance in reality, yet a classic for many atheists. It "soothes" their unbelief. Even Christopher Hutchins acknowledged that he has feelings (in his case, somewhat positive ones) toward his church upbringing (in his case Anglican).

Frankly Frank Perhaps, like the two charlatans in this Video, atheist put to much Trust in a Book or books that agree with their predispositions. It is my conclusion that Christians who claim to have the moral high ground, wether Protestant or Catholic, very often by virtue of their own version of moral superiority become the worst representatives of Christianity. What I have also found, is that atheist who claim to be secular humanists and be superior to other versions of atheists, have their own faults equal to if not greater than their self righteous protagonists.

@@marclecours2718 I knew one of these men and met the other. Your charge of "charlatans" is both unfounded and slanderous. But, I guess that gives you comfort in the midst of your own uncertainty. If you don't like them, their arguments, style, methods, or conclusions, say so. But please, stop with the slander. It only exposes you.

@@RocketRodCub I'm sorry, my intention was not to slander the men, Truly. My point is simply this, that this is an act which is meant to comfort their fallowers who do not have real valid arguments. I don't particularly like confronting Men who have gone on to be with the Lord (hopefully) because they cannot defend themselves. In his case however, they have left a video legacy an in this video legacy they speak as if they are alive and speak doctrines not received from the past. If and when these men represent the faith with accuracy and precision I will give them a thumbs up, But this, this nonsense, driven by the Constitution and the force of especially RC's personality and popularity. Is disgusting. If that exposes me, so be it.

@@marclecours2718 I cannot tell what you are saying and since you wonder whether or not these two men who lived until they died defending the one article upon which the church stands or falls - justification by faith alone - are in heaven, I assume that you are non-Protestant. Gerstner was a theological genius and this mock debate - carried on for the sake of the "common man" (which seems to be your criticism) - does not begin to explore the philosophical and theological depths of his brilliancy. Both men had deep, deep character, love for Christ and love for the gospel.