Yes. This is definitely the elephant in the room. Atheists will NEVER be able to argue that Christianity is “unreasonable”. However, they have a very hard time explaining how atheism is reasonable.

@@Piercetheveilnow There's a ton of reasons as to why Christianity is unreasonable. Its why defensive religious apologetics exists. It's down to whether you're prepared to be bothered about that or have overriding priorities.

@@Piercetheveilnow So, if we don't believe in your god claim due to the lack of evidence. That's not reasonable? Therefore, are you inferring the god a claim must be accepted without evidence but by faith alone or you go to hell... is reasonable to you?

@whyaskwhybuddry The problem with Trent outburst, he doesn't even have a reasonable position to support his god claim. So, why accept his god claim? All we get is word salads & PRATTs arguments. And now & then, followed with threats that god will be cast us all to hell if we don't believe by faith alone, no questions ask. But god loves you.

@@OverlordShamala there is plenty of objective and subjective evidence. You denying that means NOTHING. This game is over. Atheism is dead. Obviously

That's so cool, thanks for sharing that! These kinds of comments make it all worth while. God is good and glorious and drawing all people to Himself!

@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom You all believe in a perfect Creator, but NONE of your brains are actually working.

Pick one thing about Matt's logic that doesnt make sense?

@@brianbridges8124 Stop being a bootlicker. Matt ignores well proven historical evidence written by Roman historians Tacitus and Josephus about Jesus and his cruxifixion. He claims it is unreliable information but fails to explain why. Both historians were Pagans and criticized Jesus just like the Jews did. So Matt can't even claim that they were biased in favor of Christianity. There is also archaeological evidence proving the existence of Pilate the man who sanctioned the cruxifixion of Jesus as described in the bible. For centuries skeptics mocked Christians saying there is no written record of a Roman named Pilate governing Judea. That was until the Pilate stone was discovered in the 1960s.

@elchamo14 you sharing this really brought me encouragement. That others can see the truth and that I need to pray for others eyes to be opened like yours were. Thank you

The followers of this channel just keep getting dumber and dumber!

Amen

Amen

More religious bullshit.@@Venomenal91

Another delusional religious idiot.@@musamanhique6601

Transgender ideology follows perfectly from the atheist religion. The last thing Matt wants is to face reality on its own terms.

Watch the Dillahunty T squad show up here and spew their tolerance. Anticipating such an eventuality, let me say Christians are not meant to be tolerant of everything. We are called to be intolerant of evils such as abortion, and coercion of the youth to mutilate healthy and functioning body parts.

It’s funny how an atheist like Matt finds the transgender ideology sound. Wouldn’t a reasonable man understand science and know based on biology that there are factually only two sexes. Why is it that he’s fine with a biological man “feeling” that he’s a women when no scientific data backs up this claim. Doesn’t he say that facts don’t care about feelings when it comes to religion 🤔. Furthermore, by transgenders stating they have been born into the wrong body, they are admitting a soul. That’s the only thing it can mean why they say what they think. Isn’t Matt dillihunty a materialist. Materialism excludes a soul. We are just wet machines. The sex that biological random forces assigns you, just is what is. There’s no feeling, it’s just pitiless indifference. There’s dissonance in his view.

He left the debate because the other debater couldn’t remain on topic. Plus he’s a piece of shit fascist that doesn’t deserve any time in a debate.

So… to win against Matt you first grant him that his worldview is correct… then you ignore the actual debate topic and instead attack Matt personally until he decides that you aren’t worth debating and leaves? Strange tactic… but I guess that Christians have to take every little victory they can get in these hard times for Christianity.😂

God defined as a personal creator of the Universe is incoherent because it is metaphysically impossible. 1. Substances cannot be created. Justification: creation can be defined two ways. 1. The change in form or arrangement of a preexisting substance. This type of creation is all we have ever witnessed. It is empirically verifiable and is compatible with the 1st law of thermodynamics. 2. Creation as the emergence of a distinct substance. This type of creation is only logically conceivable. It either contradicts ex nihilo nihil fit or encounters the interaction problem. Furthermore, hume dictum proves that there cannot be a necessary connection between distinct substances, otherwise it would be the same substance and therefore, the substance would have always existed merely in a different form. We also know logical possibilites do not entail metaphysical possibilities. 2. Minds are not substances. Minds are labels or nominal concepts that reference the totality of a brain's cognitive events. Claiming the mind exists is a category error that conflates what a substance is with what a substance does. Conflating becoming with being. Thus, enaging in an existential fallacy and special pleading. Thus, the concept of God is only a concept and does not correspond to any objective existent. Proof!

@@CMVMic what are you replying to?

@@pajamaninja2157 im replying to what they call a "theist"

@@CMVMic so why did you reply to halleylujah's comment? why didnt you just comment?

@@pajamaninja2157 could be a case of mistaken identity but i believe ive interacted with her before

Well… the only difference is that Trent is convinced by the unverifiable claims of the Bible and Matt isn’t. Trent being convinced by the evidence doesn’t somehow make it reasonable.😂

@mr.bo-iring9197 So… millions of Christians believe in God with zero verifiable evidence but if Atheists had verifiable evidence then they still wouldn’t believe? Does that really make sense to you?

@@ramigilneas9274what does verifiable evidence even mean to you? You’re brandishing it around but what does that mean?

@@aboyisebukeevidrnce that you can verify. is that so hard to understand.

​@mr.bo-iring9197 Yeah, and it's reasonable to think that. Is it not? Why do you think there is the saying "Pinch me so I know I'm not dreaming"? Instead of revealing Itself to individuals, I think it would be far better if God (assuming it exists) revealed Itself to the entire world at the same time. Some miracle global in scope, perhaps that we could participate in in some way.

@@Roman-Labrador I’m embarrassed for you. I don’t want to validate your stupid comment with a response but I’m going to help you not look like an idiot in the future with a piece of important advice: READ. Consult the histories of people from around the world. We’re not talking about dragon in just the Bible, though the Bible talks about dinosaurs too. It calls them behemoth and leviathan. Also read the story of Bel and the Dragon in the Catholic Apocrypha. That should get you started on your journey out of ignorance. It’s not a great pair with the arrogance you exhibit, and since I can’t help that.. well, here I am wasting 5 minutes.

Wait really!? There's evidence for dragons? Are there dragons in the bible?

Because science is subject to constant surveillance to avoid fraud, incompetence, negligence, etc. Because if you don't do it, people can die. But surely you think that science is a joke, no problem. I think Christianity is a fucking joke.

@@raulhernannavarro1903 How did Jesus of Christianity and God of Christianity know, just know, that the Roman Empire military would be there to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine and then also be there to torture, kill and murder Jesus. So when Jesus was born on planet Earth, Jesus knew, just knew that the Roman Empire would be there to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine 33 years after his birth. 30 years to adulthood, 3 years ministry. Did the Roman Empire military have Free Will? Could the Roman Empire military just left Judea/Palestine and left the God of the Universe with no military to torture, kill and murder him? Then there would be no Christianity. Also, how did the Roman Empire military know just the exact way to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine in the way that Christianity needs Jesus to be tortured, killed and murdered? What if the Roman Empire military only stabbed people in the heart to kill them, but not torture them? Then Christianity would not be fulfilled. What if the Roman Empire military only hanged the people of Judea/Palestine or burned them to death. Then Christianity would not be fulfilled because blood would not have been spilled. The torture, killing and murder of the people of Judea/Palestine by the Roman Empire military and the way the Roman Empire military did it, is the most important thing to Christianity. Jesus must have trained the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea/Palestine in just the right way, to complete Christianity. Can something like that be left to chance? Did Jesus pay the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea so Jesus of Christianity would have the Roman Empire military available for that Gods torture quest? Jesus is not some hippie, that he thinks he can get the Roman Empire military for free, is he? --------------------------------------------------------------- Whatever Christianity is it is no joke if the God has to use the Roman Empire military to torture, kill and murder the people of Judea for that Gods Torture Quest. That would be true even if Christianity was just an accident of history and ancient stories.

So where's your testable, irrefutable evidence that a hippie carpenter rose to the sky three days after dying?

@redpillfreedom6692 where's your testable, irrefutable evidence that any event in history happened? We can't even test what you had for breakfast yesterday. Ergo you don't exist. Congrats, you played yourself.

​@user-kb4dv1ud3f

sadly, he has built up a huge following which is not good whatsoever…..

@@bigtxsdudeHe has a vested interest in maintaining his delusion.

@@Earthad23 $$$$$$ !!!!

Apologetics aren’t taken seriously in academic circles. But I agree that it’s getting boring… you can only debunk each argument for Christianity once… and new arguments are pretty rare. Hearing Apologists like Trent make the same debunked arguments over and over again is just sad.

@@ramigilneas9274 I beg to differ. People like Alvin Plantinga, Gary Habermas, and Richard Swinburne are taken very seriously.

I don’t believe that was his logic

@@DM-dk7js How isn't it?

Do you think Star Trek is true? Why not, you have stories of Warp Drive Star Ships that can travel all over the galaxy, you've seen James. T. Kirk, Jean-luc Picard, Benjamin Sisko, Kathryn Janeway, Jonathan Archer, all Captains of Star Ships. It has to be true, it is a story and all stories are true.

@@ronaldlindeman6136 None of these involve historical figures

@@tomasrocha6139 Jesus of Christianity is not a historical figure. Jesus of Christianity is a character in a story in history. Just as Ebenezer Scrooge is a character in a story 'A Christmas Carol.' George Washington is a historical figure because of the interaction between other historical people. Jesus of Christianity has interaction with other historical people in stories.

It was on Pints with Aquinas.

The Matt versus Trent debate was on Modern-day Debate channel.

The first step would be acknowledging the existence of sin of which, he engages in a substantial way. Unless he recognises the presence of disorder (his sins), he will not be open to salvation. I pray he recognises that the Church is a hospital full of sinners and that he too, like us, needs Jesus as our healer.

​@@alisterrebelo9013 "Sin" doesn't exist, except as a vague term for less than ideal thoughts or behavior, or things that aren't problematic at all.

@@wet-read Science would disagree with you. Most people just don't know about those things for example homosexuality. It does not seem that bad until you look into how much money drug companies earn just from HIV medicine now. Its millions because of how normalized it is. You can take out God and nearly all of the sins are bad for us scientifically. No sex before marriage makes you build a relationship on you liking each other and liking being around each other. That is why during covid so many people broke up. They had built relationships on sex and when they were forced to spend time together they could not stand each other. Marriage also gives you incentive to fix problems , not just break up.

@@wet-read Do "problems" exist? Surely the word merely expresses a personal desire for the world to be otherwise than it already is?

@@wet-read You just granted that 'sin' exists even if we don't agree on the exact words in the definition. I'm using the words you chose: how do you know what "ideal thoughts or behaviour" are?

I’ll bring it back 🙌❤️

@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom excellent!

@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom I'm glad you putting up Trent Horn he's always KILLING IT 🔥👊❤️. Well this was funny 🤣. Andrew didn't have to go low with his comments but Matt Dillahunty insulted him first calling him a jackass. Matt Dillahunty's dishonesty dodging tactics got himself OWNED by Andrew as he got a taste of his own medicine. IDK what Matt Dillahunty was talking about in the first 10 minutes about Christian nationalism and potential house speaker Johnson not agreeing with homosexuals but whatever. Evolutionary biology from common ancestry has nothing to do with believing in a Creator we call God but it's a tool used by Atheists, agnostics and secular people to promote their own godless community and agenda against Christianity. Atheists and secular humanists are guilty of promoting a nihilistic reality where everyone and everything is objectively meaningless because of and in spite of religion and Atheism. This has nothing and everything to do with the video but please listen if you want to otherwise leave it alone and ignore it. Hello my name is Justin and I'm a fellow Christian and Apologist but I'm also a college student. I'm not a closed minded Theist as I have nothing against Atheists or unbelievers as I speak to them often to understand their reasons for unbelief but we as Christians are convinced of God's Existence due to many real factors). I'm not trying to convert anyone or convince anyone to become Christians as that's The Holy Spirit's job to help people believe but only explain why I believe in Jesus Christ. There's actually evidence of God's Existence in Christianity. First of all there's proof that Jesus of Nazareth existed in history since the writings of Tacitus, Josephus Flavius, Pliny the younger and other historical documents prove that He was living two thousand years ago that even scholars both religious and Atheists agree with historically speaking but not that He's The Divine Son of God because obviously they don't. I'm going to give you historical and archeological evidence for God's Existence as The Scriptures have prophecies that predate the events recorded in them by several millennia including Matthew, Hosea and Zechariah which prophesy accurately of the people of Israel becoming a nation again after over 1900 years of being scattered around the nations since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. spoken of by Christ in Matthew 23:29-24:3 and returning to their homeland after The Holocaust with Jerusalem as their capital in 1948 exactly as Jesus The Christ said. The prophets including Daniel spoke of the time where several world empires would arise and fall including the Babylonian kingdom, Medes and Persians, Roman Empire, and Saladin and the Muslims which went in consecutive order for the past few millennia. The people of Israel becoming a nation after The Holocaust in 1948 (ironically the melting point of gold as God compares Israel to gold that's tested in fire in Zechariah 13:8 and Jeremiah 16:15) exactly how Jesus The Christ said would happen since God us everything to come in The Scriptures and not just because people were working towards as Atheists claim which are impossible for any regular man to predict. Just before anyone says Christianity is a white man's religion made to oppress blacks during slavery you obviously aren't aware that the first Christians were Jews in The Middle East and that Christianity just like any religion can be used by evil and corrupt people to oppress others but you forget that the first Abolitionists/Civil Rights activists were Christians who sought to abolish slavery, racism, segregation, injustice and prejudice throughout American history. Jesus The Christ loves you enough not to give you what we all deserve which is God's Wrath by His Own Blood. Charles Darwin didn't originally come up with The Theory of Evolution over 200 years ago as it is mentioned in the writings of Ancient Greeks who believed in Demons that gave knowledge to philosophers. Evolution makes no sense when nothing has evolved after thousands of years of human history and supposedly the first creature came from primordial sludge several millions of years ago funny how they won't believe that God an Eternal Almighty Spirit Being created us from the Earth) which came from a supermassive expansion of matter at high temperature that inexplicably created everything in the known universe that supposedly came from nothing billions of years ago. How did the organs evolve before there were bones, skin, substance and how did any creatures see before eyes evolved? I've studied evolution and abiogenesis in the past and read Darwin's " Origin of The Species" and I'm not convinced of macro Evolutionary biology whereas I accept micro Evolution like speciation and adaptation but not macro Evolution because there's no evidence of it nor clear observable examples of it where living creatures evolve into other kinds of species plus the fact that fossils don't show evidence of evolution and genetic entropy rules out evolution. The question begs how did two genders evolve from a common ancestor with a perfectly hospitable and sustainable environment with breathable oxygen and resources to survive on inexplicably? Atheists have the burden of proof to explain how everything came to be and why our existence is possible without the Existence of God from an godless perspective just as Christians have to provide evidence of God's Existence and the validity of His Word. Evolution requires life to already exist in order to take any effect in living organisms so it doesn't account for the existence of Life and reality. Also evolution is impossible because it goes against The Law of entropy and the second Law of thermodynamics because evolution makes things better whereas nothing continues to get better but decays and turns to absolute destruction in the end. Mark Ridley an Evolutionist said "No evolutionist whether gradualist or punctuationist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of The Theory of Darwinian Evolution as opposed to special Creation". God's Existence is made perfectly known and observable in the universe as demonstrated in His Handiwork in the intelligently designed manner that Creation was made, human consciences and consciousness historical and archaeological evidence of God's Word being valid history, fulfillment of Bible Prophecies God in His Holiness and Righteousness could give us what we deserve in Hell for our since but He's merciful to give us free will to choose to accept or reject His gift of salvation by grace through faith in His Son Jesus. I don't mean this is any condescending manner but if you'd like to discuss The Scriptures with me or have me listen to your view on anything my instagram account is Savage Christian Kombatant.

Thanks for subbing!

Fake.

@@nitsujism Sure! It shows your ignorance

@@andrebeauchamp6160 They've dated it to a medieval time line. It's a fake relic.

@@bethmcmullan7686 Yes, there's some controversy regarding it, especially from Christians. For....reasons. Wiki has this to say: "Philip Ball, a former editor of the science journal Nature, wrote in 2019 that "Nothing published so far on the shroud, including this paper, offers compelling reason to think that the 1989 study was substantially wrong - but apparently it was not definitive either.""

@@DeusExMachina50 Do your own homework

Historians don't take into account miracles or the supernatural on the very basis that they're unverifiable. Hannibal crossing the alps is remarkable, but plausible. If the claim was that he flew across the alps on magic flying elephants then that's a different matter altogether.

@@nitsujism if we way the evidence by the unlikeliness or even beyond natural we have to discount all quantum physics. The very nature of which violates the laws of nature at a subatomic level. But we don’t throw out that evidence because it is overwhelmingly evident that it is happening. Now history is different than physics of course but the idea that we change what counts as evidence based on if we believe the claim is possible or plausible is antithetical to the scientific method. Things always SEEM impossible until we figure out how.

@@nitsujism also I dismiss the idea of Hannibal getting elephants over the alps as being merely remarkable. It is near impossible feat. Just think about it. How did he get the elephants to cooperate enough? I actually don’t know if I believe it happened. Seems more like it was propaganda.

@@patrickthomas2119 We take into account what is verifiable, and if it's not directly verifiable then we taken into account verified precedence. QM redefined what we know about the small scale universe because its verifiable. It doesn't even matter how difficult or crazy it seems (entanglement, wave particle duality etc), point is, it was verifiable. If you told me you went to the shop this morning in your car, I'd have no reason to disbelieve you. I may not be able to directly verify it, but I know about cars and travelling to a shop by car. There's precedence. If however you told me you went to the shop by flying magic carpet...well, not only could I have difficulty verifying that, but there's also no precedence for flying carpets. This would be enough for me to be sceptical of your claim.

@@patrickthomas2119 Yes, it could well be implausible. Elephants can be trained very well. But how to feed them, temperatures, the size of them etc. Maybe it was propaganda. Thing is, just on the basis of elephants crossing the alps we have to carefully consider the plausibility. If the claim was that the elephants could fly....different proposition.

Coming soon!

@@Daily_Dose_Of_Wisdom Woohoo!

What if you have dismissed evidence of Allah? What if you unfairly dismissed evidence of Thor? What if you unfairly dismissed evidence of a naturalistic world that doesn't have a god? Just because you don't recognize it doesn't mean you didn't see it.

⁠@@JP-je6jgyou're mistaken, he's talking about 'evidence', not fiction.

@@Loading....99.99 🤣🤣 evidence? Go on, what evidence is he presenting? (Partly asking because ita been 5 months since I commented and I can't remember what the video says) Id love to hear your thoughts.

"They simply don't like the idea of God and they will always dismiss everything for the sake of it." We don't dislike fictual characters, we dislike the real world implcation when people with the delusion that they have God on their side and that this is just a rehersal for Heaven, make decitions impacting the rest of us.... I also feel embarrassed when I whitness Christians justifying their belief with fallacies, wishful thinking and faith. "There is nothing intelectual about them or about their words" It is intelectual sound to have biu one standard to seperate fact from fiction....Christians don't practice that. It is intellectually honest not to agree with claims that have no compelling evidence backing them up.....Other than religouse folk, who use gullibility and double standards. What else, besides the God you happen to believe in are you labeling as "real" that too, has as no demonstrable correaltion with reality? "They are pressed by the immorality of their choices and exactly like an animal backed into a corner" Adorable but but predominantly utter nonsense! "in this case will be to go against logic, science and everything that they value." Science does not point to a deity, there is no logical sound argument for any God, let alone the one you happento believe in and everything I value has nothing to do with any ancient mythology.

They cannot accept God because then they would have to acknowledge their sin (as we all have to). They have to denigh God to justify their sinful behavior.

@@ninamoore7084 We don't accept any God proposals because there is no good reason to do so...and unlike religouse people, not everyone used double standards for what to deem real and what not. The Concept of Sin is Really stup**. Your God is basically saying," You hurt my feelings and I won't forgive you until you apologize." How afraid do you think Atheists are to hurt the feelings of a fictional character?

💯%!!

@@derhafi you make some valid points about science. Hopefully you can provide your insight of the following: 1. Science doesn't prove emotions such as love or anger. Does that mean emotions don't exist? 2. Science states that something can not come out of nothing and yet some claim that's how the Big Bang occurred. 3. How does science explain the evil that people do?

@mindlevitation1018 atheists have lots of videos which are mere echo chambers of THEIR silly, toddler-tantrumish beliefs. So what? Logical fallacy much?

@@justin10292000lol exactly what I said, learn somthing break down your reply, your presumptions are just that

@@justin10292000throwing out buzz words without content or understand

@@mindlevitation1018 Pot, kettle......

1 and 3 are established and well studied. The others are hypotheses.

@@nitsujism I beg to differ. When someone says "emergent property" he cannot explain it how it emerges. It is used to mean "that is too complicated for me to understand, but I BELIEVE that all those complicated interactions give rise to this." That is a God of the gaps argument. It is faith, not science. If you ask Elon Musk how he builds a Tesla, he can tell you from A to Z in excruciating detail, he will never say "I don't understand how this happens at this point, it's an emergent property." The exact same happens for evolution. No evolutionist can tell you how you go from species A to species B. They just make up a story and pass it off as science.

Atheists assume that reality is perfectly rational and it’s only a matter of time before science explains everything, what they refuse to see is that science is a tool, you can’t reduce the subject out of the equation. They don’t ask themselves “who is asking these questions”?

@@PeteOutdoors1They love to asset consciousness is an emergent property of matter, they clearly haven’t thought about that very hard. It’s called the hard problem for a reason, it might be impossible to explain using reductionism as a model.

@@PeteOutdoors1evolution is a powerful theory, I think the problem evolution has is explaining origins, how does a physical system become self aware, or how does a rock know itself? It’s the impossible problem.

That's entirely misrepresentative. Talk to any atheist (such as myself) and they're most likely to tell you that they don't believe because there isn't a single piece of conclusive evidence that leads to the conclusion that a god exists. If you've got any Id love to hear it. Faced with a logically sound argument I'd have no choice but to believe.

@@idealmodernsystems God is your highest principle, what’s your highest principle? That’s acts as your god, it’s the root of all your actions in the world and what you prioritize. Nobody gets to not have beliefs.

@@idealmodernsystemsThe problem atheists refuse to acknowledge is that fiction isn’t fake, there’s a truth in fiction that can’t be ignored, it’s why we enjoy the story. Humans are not fact finding machines and they are not rational.

@@idealmodernsystems Believing a god or even _the_ God exists will not save you.

@@idealmodernsystems In your opinion, what evidence would convince you? Please give me an illustration.

Why? Evidence should be relative to the claim.

⁠@@DM-dk7jsthe point was that once one is pressed to define what they mean by “extraordinary evidence” they end up holding untenable positions (Trent gives examples in the video). But Trent is also fair by saying certain claims require “more” evidence than mere testimony of one person.. but testimony itself is not “extraordinary”. It is better to realize extraordinary claims require sufficient evidence just like every other claim.. but what qualifies as sufficient is just more quantity of evidence fulfilling criteria of reliability.

​@@toughbiblepassages9082 What possible evidence would be sufficient to prove a resurrection happened over 2000 years ago? I would be slightly different from Matt and say that evidence for that could never exist

@@toughbiblepassages9082…. Extraordinary evidence means evidence proportionate to the claim. This is logical. The god claim is a massive claim and thus requires massive evidence.

@@DM-dk7js extraordinary - the word itself suggests an other, surprising, an unusual. Why must the explanation be any of these things? It could actually be mundane. That’s why it’s questionable, In terms of a resurrection… the explanation is extra ordinary… science is ordinary, but the claim is beyond our current understanding of science and probably, the scientific method at all.

Hey! I know you probably weren’t asking me but I want to encourage you to crack open that Bible and read it! Reading the Bible has changed my life, one example is I love people more than I ever have now. Don’t be afraid to read it but just read a chapter a day. I hope this can encourage you to read the Bible, have a great day! 😄

@@user-kb4dv1ud3f Point of accuracy. I wrote "Roman" Catholic.

I'll save you a lot of work. What works about religion is not superstition, it is community activities. Nothing else. You feel empty because you are not fulfilling all the functions of a social species. So, you must live as a social species, look for a community of dancing, or reading, or sports, etc.

I think you misunderstood - if anything he was saying the opposite in this video.

In the time of Christ could a persons death be affirmed confidently? Yes. Was it easy to tell if a person was alive? Yes . That’s sufficient.

​@@kirbydrake4417- Sorry are you replying to me? I can't be sure.

@@kirbydrake4417 In the time of Christ it was not easy to tell if someone was dead. We live in the modern age now so our definition of death is different.

@@kos-mos1127 What do you mean when you say that people back then couldn't easily determine if someone was dead?

He gives me a headache how talks in circles. He thinks he’s intelligent using big words.

All world views and religions outside of biblical Christianity have this problem.

@@zyxwfish Christianity has the same problem. It's no different at all from the other religions.

@@OverlordShamala like what

It relies on faith alone, no questions ask.And Christian apologist love using big words & making conclusion that god does exist or god will punish you. Most of the time, all they got are threats. That is all.

It’s a human of the gaps argument

Atheists have to realize there’s no way around believing a miracle. If the blind universe ordered itself to be hospitable enough for life to form that’s miraculous.

@@jamesjones11301994 I’ve watched a decent amount of debates with Matt and when asked if the universe was created or an accident he always says “I don’t like being asked this question” and some how always worms his way out of it. It seems to me he wants a third option. What would be the third option? It could only be a contradiction. What an accident but ordered universe? That doesn’t make sense.

Perhaps he sees enough evidence to know it cannot be by chance, but refuses to point to a Creator. Because then he is answerable to SomeOne. @@zyxwfish

​@@zyxwfish I'd love it if someone with the capability to distill the Origin Of Life chemistry and present that argument to Dilahunty. Once he sees the impossibility of OOL chemistry creating life in a PREBIOTIC earth, that should help him further along. Hopefully further towards God and not towards his denial of God.

"Supernatural explanation" is an oxymoron. The Oxford definition of "spernatural" is precisely that which exists yet science can't explain (yet? ever?), so it's trivial and obvious that supernatural things exist. Still, the a priori denial of the supernatural hinders the very possibility of strange things happening. Precisely the sort of strange things which require a scientific investigation in the first place! If nothing strange or surprising ever happens in reality we wouldn't need to investigate or explain anything. The denial of the supernatural simply kills human curiosity and the drive for understanding anything.

How can a fool intake logic and good argument? Wisdom for a fool? Instead of using apologetics, just give them scripture. Or, why use a a wet noodle, when you bear a sword?

Well for me supernatural means something that breaks the laws of physics for example. But to argue it's impossible we need to answer the question "where did the laws come from"

Scripture is for people who want to know God not for people who want to belive he exists

@@bartekabuz855 Violations of the laws of physics are common throughout history. It's simply an indication that our understanding at any given point in history is wrong. The most recent example of this is the quantum violation of classical locality. When such events do happen it's simply an indicator that physics is about to evolve/progress.

Well, then, are all cars safe? Does not every car need to be tested for what works and what doesn't work? The same things has to happen with stories. Are all stories true? Are all stories not true? How do we figure out what stories are true and what stories are not true? It has to do with making an analogy with stories that we can believe happened, and an analogy with stories that we believe did not happen. And use the thousands, hundreds of thousands and millions of stories that humans have created, both true and not true. Do we think the stories of the moon landings are true? Do we think the stories of Star Trek are true? Why do we think the moon landings and coming back to the Earth actually happened? Because Neil Armstrong was a great pilot of jets, Buzz Aldrin had a PhD from MIT in orbital mechanics. The Scientists and Engineers knew how to build rocket ships. Why might we think that the stories of Star Trek are not true? Aside from the timeline problems. Because the stories don't contain knowledge on how to make Warp Drive Star Ships, Photon Torpedoes, Transporters. In order for us to think the stories of Star Trek are true, we would have to be able to build a Warp Drive Star Ship and fly to Vulcan and look and see if there is anybody there that looks like Spock. Then we might think that Star Trek is true. It is all about knowledge vs story claims. In order for someone to turn a 3 day old stinky body to new again, that being would have to know a lot about the human body, about blood, skin, bones, eye balls, liver, heart, etc.. Did Jesus tell us anything about the human body? Anything about first aid that we humans can use? Anything about CPR? Anything that would start Science to research into starting Medical Science so humans can build hospitals, medical research facilities and ways to prevent diseases naturally? Jesus of Christianity, if a God, would know about valuable inventions for humans that we could benefit from. So was Jesus walking around Judea and saw all the people that could not read or write and not think maybe there should be printing presses to make books and newspapers? Or about eyeglasses so more people could read? Why would real God do Supernatural healings of humans, but not tell humans about the ways to prevent disease naturally? Look up where Jesus and Disciples did not wash hands before meals. The reason given in the Christian Bible was something Religious, but this would have been a great time to give a lecture on microbiology and the importance of cleanliness before meals. Does your God watch from heaven and not care about how many people would not die to diseases that could be prevented if only your God spoke up? Could Jesus of Christianity pass a High School Science test? All Jesus of Christianity gives us is Story Magic. Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero. Jesus of Christianity is not a Nature's God. Did Jesus tell us about Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Geology, Geography, etc.. If Jesus was a God, Jesus should have been able to fill entire books on economics, much more than Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, 1776. Instead of just telling people to give to the poor. If Jesus cared about humans, Jesus would have talked about how to build more wealth with good economic practices to build businesses and on how to make things. Then lets understand Thomas Jefferson and his phrase in the Declaration of Independence of the United States, "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." Thomas Jefferson did not think that Christianity is true. Jefferson knew that the stories of Christianity only gets to a human created story God, stories created by humans. Jesus is a Supernatural Superhero, who only knows Story Magic. Jefferson thought that a Nature's God would have knowledge of Nature. That is what the Philosophers of the Age of Enlightenment gave us, is to not believe in Supernatural Superhero Story Magic, but to build on knowledge of Nature and Reason. A phrase used to describe the Age of Enlightenment was 'Dare to Know.' It is the Age of Enlightenment Philosophies that gave us the advances of Nature, like electricity, electronics and machine created power, medical care and medical hospitals. Not the Story Magic thinking from the ancient world.

Lol because he won't believe the unprovable fairy story? 😂 Sure.

So if I quote the Holy Quran that says Allah is god and jesus is just a prophet it's real too correct?

​@@peaceandfood7952No, only Jesus claimed to be the Truth. 😂

@@Carbivore67 All the gods claim to be the truth Zeus too...

@@peaceandfood7952 Nope. They all claimed to be 'A way', or just one of the many ways.

@@Bro_Mike_Phil117 that's not true my friend Allah claim he is the only god that's it. You guys as christians are little more weird/complicated because you have 3 entities that are one and one entity sent himself in earth to sacrificed himself because he created an other bad entity...etc...im not gonna teach you your doctrine.

But god hasn’t been established to begin with, let alone overridden.

There are 2 major categories of God. 1. Nature's God, 2. Human created Story God or Supernatural God. Jesus of Christianity is a human created Story God. A God that walks on water or turns water into wine is a Supernatural God. A God that knows that water is made up of 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen is a Nature's God. Look up where Jesus and Disciples do not have to wash before meals. Here would have been a great time to explain microbiology and the need for cleanliness. Jesus should not get credit for healing people with stories and the Supernatural if Jesus could have saved many more lives by telling humans how to prevent diseases with sanitation, cleanliness, sterilization, inoculations and distancing.

It's simple dragons are dinosaurs, plenty of fossil evidence.

😂😂😂 I hope this is trolling 😂

astounding might be a better word. That Vaush guy is another example

Yeah. Like Trent Horn and this hipster guy on the left.

@@acebailey2478 the same people i was referencing then.

@@va941 OH! Sorry I assumed incorrectly my friend

The Creator KNOWS that all Atheists, Evolutionists, and Satanists are claiming that he is unworthy and undeserving to be honored and respected as the True and Sovereign God but Atheists, Evolutionists, and Satanists DON'T BELIEVE that their willful mockeries, opposition, DISOBEDIENCE and DEFIANCE of the Creator's Sovereignty, will, and instructions will just bring them dishonor, disgrace, shame, and cause their own downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts. Jesus Christ KNOWS that Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions in the world rejected his Biblical authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" and believe instead the lies, falsehoods and Unbiblical teachings of his enemies about "Armageddon", "Trinity", "heaven and hellfire", "rapture", and "reincarnation" but Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions in the world DON'T BELIEVE that their willful mockeries, opposition, DISOBEDIENCE and DEFIANCE of Jesus Christ's Biblical authority and teachings will just bring and cause their own dishonor, disgrace, shame, downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts on earth forever. Atheists, Evolutionists, Satanists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions DON'T BELIEVE that the SUBMISSIVENESS and OBEDIENCE of lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons to Jesus Christ's authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" as written in Matthew 28: 18, Luke 4: 43, and John 11: 25, 26 will definitely bring them honor and the loving, kind, and merciful Creator's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe, secure, and peaceful earth without liars, perverts, cowards, slanderers, traitors, and murderers as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4, 8. All human beings will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals as written in Ecclesiastes 3: 19, 20 ; 9: 5, 6 but Atheists, Evolutionists, Satanists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions in the world DON'T BELIEVE that the Creator will not let his loving, kind, and respectful worshippers who died recently and thousands of years ago like Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Moses, Ruth, Naomi, King David, Daniel, Jesus Christ followers, and many others to remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, instead, in the right and proper time and as written in John 11: 25, 26, he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or His Kingdom and fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.

I think what Trent was saying is that when the historical evidence for the Resurrection was weighted in the same standard as other historical figures, the evidence were compelling and reasonable to believe that it happened. Now, others will require extraordinary evidence about that, but the question is what is an extraordinary evidence in the first place? Doesn't making it extraordinary already making unbelievable for other people that it will also require it's own extraordinary explanation? And that extraordinary explanation will also demand an extraordinary causation. You see my point? It gets circular until we stop and just make do with ordinary evidences, in which here it's the historical evidences and the eyewitnesses accounts. Even then, it's still up to people to accept if it's reasonable or not to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Extraordinary evidence is a dumb meaningless statement, to say I will throw out all evidence if it doesn’t fit my liking. Evidence is all that’s required.

@@danhallett4952 You know that Muhammad split the moon, right. Now to be clear, there is people know Muhammad was real, and people said that he did this. This is evidence, right? You don't need extraordinary evidence that Muhammad split the moon, right?

Oh PLEASE do you know what ad hominem fallacy is?

@Rocky-ur9mn do you take everything anyone says seriously? Also, do you think some people are just not able to grasp certain concepts?

@@SOX-9what are your credentials which prove your capability in navigating this conversation?

beliefs are not involuntary mental states

We (Catholics) do not believe they're involuntary. If you have doubts and feel unsure. You can still choose to believe against your feelings. Feelings can be manipulated and wrong. Our limited knowledge can be wrong, Choosing to believe is definitely a choice that can be hard but is not unheard of.

@@thomasbrodrecht6137 Certainly, beliefs are involuntary mental states. We do not choose our beliefs; rather, we are convinced by propositions, leading to belief. This concept can be easily tested. For instance, try to believe, just for one minute, that Satan is your Lord and Savior. You might be able to say the words or think them, but genuinely instilling that belief in yourself is a different matter. Despite your efforts, you'll likely find that you can't truly convince yourself of this belief. The reason for this is that our beliefs are not under our direct control. They are shaped by our prior experiences and various phenomena we encounter.

@@halleylujah247 You can put your theory to a simple test to see if beliefs are within our control. Look outside your window. If it's not raining, try to convince yourself that it is. Conversely, if it is raining, try to believe that it's not. While you might be able to say or even think these statements, you'll likely notice that your actual belief doesn't change. This exercise demonstrates the involuntary nature of belief, highlighting that despite our efforts, we cannot simply choose to believe something that contradicts our current understanding or perception of reality.

​@@displacegamer1379I don't think that's a good example because there are different levels of belief as there are beliefs that are more obvious, and there are also beliefs that are not as obvious. Beliefs that are obvious are ones that we do not question, based on the things that happened right in front of us that we are witnessing directly. But when it comes to things that we don't want this directly, we have to make an act of choice as to whether or not to believe them. For example, nobody is ever witnessed the crossing of the Delaware by George Washington let alone ever experienced George Washington, so therefore when I see the evidence it is up to me to choose whether or not I believe that George Washington actually existed and therefore the event occurred. Also if I'm not within my right mind I could choose to deny certain things that are obvious within reality, there about making my belief state voluntary. So I think you're making a grave mistake and extrapolating all types of beliefs and all levels of beliefs to be one and the same when they are not.

Naturalisticaly, abigenes and evolution are aligned with the laws of thermodynamics, entropy of cause & effect, a continuous chain or chains of cause & effect that lead back all the way to the beginning of the matters, space and time. Or if you're saying life came to be spontaneous out of thin air, out of nowhere in fully formed, fully grown and fully matured by God, the un-caused cause? I'm not saying it's impossible because nothing is impossible by God by definition. But it would violate the entropy of the universe or the laws of thermodynamics.

@@tTtt-ho3tq At this point all I'm really saying is that perhaps a little humility is in order, and perhaps there are horizons beyond what we know right now. All I did here was tease those oh-so-certain people who feel entitled to lecture everyone on the absolute truth of their evolutionary theory 😉 If you think about it everyone has faith. It's the pathological *certainty* that's bugging me. It easily turns into "The Science". Which is Scientism. Sure, if you ask them they'll tell you that scientific truth isn't set in stone. But have you ever watched and listened to people like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens? I have. Read many of they're books, watched many debates. And here later in life I'm just not sure that I can be that certain. I've literally watched Dawkins admit in an interview with Peter Boghossian that there is no evidence that would ever convince him of God's existence. So I suppose he's a bona fide religious scientist holding non-falsifiable beliefs. Dawkins also looked a bit broken when Unheard had him on the spot for what he said and did during the VERY scientific Covid years. Although Neil Degrasse Tyson and Sam Harris are arguably worse. They buried themselves totally on Triggernometry. I'm very disillusioned with science. The Covid years cemented years of diffuse dissatisfaction with me. Like Peterson said: so you think Catholicism is crazy? You just wait to see what they were protecting you from." And truly religion is dead, and now I live in a world where men can be women, supreme court justices can't define what a woman is, and we cut off the healthy breasts of young women and stuff sliced up penises into meat cavities we call "neo vaginas". Tyson thinks it's wonderful. And the president of Harvard couldn't for the death of her say that calling for the genocide of the Jews was against any rules. Nope, it would just cross a line of they actually did it. She said that. And now we also know that she plagiarized her entire career. It just made me think. And feel sick to my stomach. And don't get me started on the grooming in schools, or the pedophile shit that seems the norm. We literally live in a world now that, for lack of a better phrase is ... Satanic. How else would anyone describe it? I don't care one bit about a lot of things in Christianity, but I firmly believe that this was what they were warning us about. So for now that's good enough for me, and I'll keep looking, listening and learning.

Matt Dillahunty - "You're evidence for God isn't compatible with my ontology, Methodological Naturalism." Christian - "What are you're arguments that Methodological Naturalism is true? Matt Dillahunty - "THAT'S NOT THE TOPIC OF THE DEBATE!!!!"

Is that unreasonable? If I called my mother today and she told me that it was snowing back home, I'd believe her without questioning it, it wouldn't be an extraordinary claim and her telling me would be enough for me to believe it. If I called her in July and she told me it was snowing back home, I would require more evidence to believe it, i would look it up online to confirm what my mother said. If someone told me that a man was the son of God and he was killed for 3 days, then came back to life, then there is nothing that could possibly prove that. Any testimony would be too weak. Something more is required

​@@ironheade22so over 500 witness testimonies claiming to have seen the risen Jesus would still be insufficient. Sounds like you're epistemology doesn't allow for that type of evidence to be considered. You said elsewhere that such evidence can never be met. Are you there for saying that because resurrections don't occur therefore such evidence can never be fulfilled?

@josephthomasmusic Someone claiming that 500 people saw it isn't the same as 500 testimonies. As for your question, yes, since resurrections do not occur, the claim that one happened 2000 years ago can not be believed, and there is no sufficient evidence available. Other explanations such as someone made it up to control people, or he was still alive when he was taken from the cross and recovered 3 days later, are much more likely than something impossible like a resurrection

@@ironheade22 very few scholars actually dispute the amount of people who claim to have seen the resurrected Jesus. So therefore they treat them the same as I witnesses of any other type of historical event. If you have a problem with that, talk to the scholars themselves. I honestly think a little bit of reading on the academic work being done to study this would prove beneficial. So it's pretty clear that you have a personal bias towards naturalistic explanations. You're using a lot of language very loosely. First you say that these naturalistic explanations are more, then you turn around and say that resurrections are impossible. Which one is it? To say that resurrections are impossible is to assume that they don't happen, period, and there is no possibility under which they could ever happen. That's an incredibly strong bias which requires a very strong burden of proof that you are putting on yourself. Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that any type of supernatural event cannot ever possibly happen?

Your salvation doesn’t come from just believing in God or being good. “There is none who does good,not one”,”for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God and the wages of sin is death” Jesus said “I am the way,the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through me”. You are saved by calling on the name of Lord Jesus. Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that he died for your sins and God raised him on the third day. God Bless 🙏

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8 "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23 "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." Ephesians 2:8-9 “Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Romans 3:19-20 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16 "That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." Romans 10:9-10

Please allow me to enlighten you. There have been preaching misinformation. The narrow road is for everyone who has received the Holy Spirit. They have already received their salvation. The wide road is for the majority of people who don't believe that Jesus was who he said he was. And who he is what he said he is. So they haven't received the Holy Spirit. When you receive the Holy Spirit you have received eternity. Because the Holy Spirit is eternal. Have you got any other questions?

Salvation is by grace, through faith. No one can ever be good enough to earn salvation or heaven. Man wants to earn his way to heaven. God says what man earns is death. Romans 6:23 speaks of wages. Earnings. And it is death. But salvation is free! Because Christ did it all. So Ephesisans 2:8-9 AND John 3:16 says it is a gift.

Please feel free to ask any questions.

Exactly 💯

Lol Atheism is neither "new" nor "dying" dear. Theist have never been able to present sufficient evidence for their specific subjective imaginary friend nor it appears will they ever 🤫

For all your eloquence, you ignore the argument presented. Try addressing the argument. But thank you for admitting right off the bat that the existence of the Gospel itself meets your standard of "the most potent evidence" by your criteria of "a multiplicity of outside sources corroborating the original claim". You only have ad hoc "reasons" for rejection of Christianity. You cannot even provide an epistemological justification for reason or logic being a standard within your atheist paradigm. Maybe go ahead and start there to provide the justification that your position is capable of criticizing other positions at all.

@@seraphimdunn I wasn't trying to address the argument, I was trying to address what seems to me a common sticking point in these religious vs atheist arguments. Claiming the gospel confirms itself is actually a great place to start with an examination of this idea. For the gospel to be proven with evidence, the evidence has to come from outside of the gospel. This is corroboration. That outside evidence also needs to be verified by eliminating alternative possibilities. Again, this would be extraordinary evidence. Frankly the amount of work to get that evidence would be extraordinary. Also if there are any argument you specifically wanted me to address I'd be happy to.

No, Jesus is different than most any other historical figure. Jesus is claimed to be a God. Then does Jesus of Christianity have the knowledge of the natural world that a God would have? If Jesus created the world, it would be expected that Jesus knows something about Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics, Geology, etc.. Or that Jesus knows how to prevent diseases naturally. Look up where Jesus and Disciples do not have to wash their hands before meals. The reason given is a Religious one, but wouldn't this be a time to discuss microbiology? Did Jesus know anything about economics instead of just giving to the poor? What about economics so there can be an increase in wealth. Why is the only way that the Christian God can be good to humans and have to die a horrible death in a torture device. A God would have a lot of knowledge that is useful to humans. A God that walks on water and turns water into wine is a Supernatural God. A Nature's God would know a lot more about nature, such as 2 atoms of hydrogen and 1 atom of oxygen would make 1 molecule of water. A Supernatural God is superficial knowledge of nature and easily made up in human story.

Or how about inventions like the printing press. A God of the Universe would know about printing press. How could Jesus walk among crowds of people and not think to himself, these people should learn how to read and write. Jesus would teach inventions such as eyeglasses so people could read.

The problem is that Jesus is not considered a historical figure.

The Creator KNOWS that all Atheists, Evolutionists, and Satanists are claiming that he is unworthy and undeserving to be honored and respected as the True and Sovereign God but Atheists, Evolutionists, and Satanists DON'T BELIEVE that their willful mockeries, opposition, DISOBEDIENCE and DEFIANCE of the Creator's Sovereignty, will, and instructions will just bring them dishonor, disgrace, shame, and cause their own downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts. Jesus Christ KNOWS that Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions in the world rejected his Biblical authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" and believe instead the lies, falsehoods and Unbiblical teachings of his enemies about "Armageddon", "Trinity", "heaven and hellfire", "rapture", and "reincarnation" but Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions in the world DON'T BELIEVE that their willful mockeries, opposition, DISOBEDIENCE and DEFIANCE of Jesus Christ's Biblical authority and teachings will just bring and cause their own dishonor, disgrace, shame, downfall and ETERNAL DEATHS, just worthless and useless dusts on earth forever. Atheists, Evolutionists, Satanists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions DON'T BELIEVE that the SUBMISSIVENESS and OBEDIENCE of lowly, ordinary, kind, and respectful persons to Jesus Christ's authority and teachings about the "Kingdom of God" and "Resurrection of the Dead" as written in Matthew 28: 18, Luke 4: 43, and John 11: 25, 26 will definitely bring them honor and the loving, kind, and merciful Creator's favor and reward of ETERNAL LIFE and existence without sufferings, pains, griefs, sickness, and death on a safe, secure, and peaceful earth without liars, perverts, cowards, slanderers, traitors, and murderers as written in Revelation 21: 3, 4, 8. All human beings will just become worthless and useless dusts on earth after their deaths just like the animals as written in Ecclesiastes 3: 19, 20 ; 9: 5, 6 but Atheists, Evolutionists, Satanists, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, and fanatics of all kinds of Religions in the world DON'T BELIEVE that the Creator will not let his loving, kind, and respectful worshippers who died recently and thousands of years ago like Noah, Abraham, Sarah, Isaac, Jacob, Job, Moses, Ruth, Naomi, King David, Daniel, Jesus Christ followers, and many others to remain as worthless and useless dusts on earth forever, instead, in the right and proper time and as written in John 11: 25, 26, he will let Jesus Christ RESURRECT them back to life so they can all happily and abundantly live and exist on earth forever as submissive and obedient subjects of the "KINGDOM of GOD" or His Kingdom and fully enjoy his and his Christ's eternal love, kindness, goodness, generosities, compassions, favors, and blessings for eternity under the loving and kind rulership, guidance, and protection of Jesus Christ as his Chosen King and Ruler of the heavens and the earth as written in Revelation 11: 15.

Yes. He rejects Genesis, which means Christ lied, if he is correct. Dinosaurs are dragons. Not until 1875 were they called dinos. If you look at the ancient paintings and descriptions, they are obviously reptiles/dinos.

Great points! I am currently wondering about the eye witnesses who spent years following a man (jesus) who taught them about honesty being of the utmost importance... and I am wondering why they would suddenly start lying about that guy...

@@ianhansen6840 Thank you. It was a great point.

Atheism isn’t an ideology

@@DM-dk7jsOk. The non-ideology/non-belief/non-religion/not-anything you call atheism murdered millions of people in the Soviet Union. See Marxist-Leninist atheism. Attempting to keep atheism free from negative connotation and mischaracterization doesn’t change the reality of people acting on making atheism a social norm. Activism in the name of a non-ideology can still be harmful.

Big Bang or Multiverse, either one disproves the fundamental claim that the universe "doesn't have the potential to move or change".

@@alisterrebelo9013 How so? Did the universe cease to exist prior to the big bang? Is universe the wrong word do convey my position? What if I used the word multiverse instead of universe?

@@mesplin3 Great questions. I'll steel man your position for you. From your POV, the Big Bang Theory doesn't help. At best it is merely a description of events that occured in an earlier moment in time. The scientific consensus until very recently, at least publicly, was that the Big Bang Theory gives credence to the idea that our observable universe _begins to exist_. However, the rise of the Kalaam Cosmological Argument as advanced by William Lane Craig and amended by Trent Horn uses the observance of something 'beginning to exist' to put forth an argument that, I believe, is unassailable for the existence of a Creator/Divine Mind/God. That leaves you with the unfortunate position of taking up the Multiverse Theory as your possibly only way to rebut the thiest. I don't envy the person who does this because now the skeptic has their own illogical challenges to deal with: 1) Who created the other universes or other worlds? 2) What kind of empirical, material experiment could you devise to prove the claims of the Theory? FYI, you can fact check this: scientists have no idea how to prove Multiverse. Not even a thought experiment. So now the skeptic is left to defend an idea that is equally unprovable as God using material tools. The skeptic has become biased if they propose the Multiverse theory and have to explain why a naturalistic and materialistically unprovable theory should be believed. Quote from Geraint Lewis Professor of Astrophysics at the University of Sydney, Australia and author of “Where Did the Universe Come From? And Other Cosmic Questions.”, There is zero evidence for other universes. So the biggest misconception about the multiverse is that it’s a bone fide theory that’s been proven. “It isn’t-it doesn’t really have a mathematical basis-it is a collection of ideas,” said Lewis. *“We have no idea if it is testable or not,” said Lewis.*

...lol such a nothing statement 🤣🤣

@@JP-je6jg true, all self-refuting philosophies are empty. Well spotted! :P

@@Gouka07 do you not think scepticism is...valuable?

@@JP-je6jg is that what I said I believe? I’m talking about skepticism as a philosophy. Either a skeptic is skeptical of his own skepticism, or it’s just more selectively applied silly nonsense he thinks makes him look smart. Almost always the latter in my experience.

@@Gouka07 no, but it sounds like you are dismissive of Dillahunty's scepticism. Do you not think his scepticism in this scenario is justified? Or do you think he is just applying it to "look smart"? If so, I think that's incredibly ignorant.

The evidence isn't extraordinary at all. All you have is an old book that claimed some stuff happened. There is more solid evidence for Count Dracula being a real vampire than for Jesus coming back from the dead.

Try this. Jesus was an apocalyptic Rabbi who upset powerful people. The Romans put him to death and disposed of the body. His cult followers are beside themselves with grief and confusion because this wasn't supposed to happen. They're not told what happened to the body but there's a rumour it was placed in a tomb. Unable to locate the tomb, the narrative morphs into the tomb was empty. Some followers in their grief experience bereavement hallucinations (BHs), a well studied phenomena. So now, with rumours of an empty tomb and sightings, the stories get oraly transmitted and start to take a life on of their own with exaggerations. The culmination of this can be seen in the gospels with clear plagerisation and adding of fabricated details (500 people saw him, the saints rose from the grave and wandered Jerusalem etc). At each step of the way, people believed the rumours/stories. The narrative finally becomes one of sacrifice in order to make sense of his premature death. The reason why the messiah died becomes 'to absolve sinners of death'. The gospels are the result of this process. And this is why no source outside of the bible talks about resurrection or miracles. They just mention, at best, the existence of the Christian cult. Now, all of the above is how we know that stories change and get embellished. We know about grieving and (BHs). We know about Chinese whispers, rumours, wishful thinking, self delusion. So, tell me, what's more plausible? These possible type of events or a person being truly killed so that they are a brain-dead corpse but are brought back to life after three days?

No, that's not it. It's when supernatural claims are made that cannot be historically verified. This is why historically, historians can only say that there was a man called Jesus and he got crucified by the Romans. Nothing else can be verified.

Humans are inescapably social animals and there is strength in numbers. All this post-hoc justificatory wordplay is merely a salve for their egos, dressing up the mindlessness of taking the easiest path to conformism.