"And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil." John 3:19 "But God demonstrates His own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8

I found him from Frank Turik, now I subscribed. I'm fascinated by the platform of respectfully inviting atheists. It's not about having a fight, it's about searching out the truth ❤

yawn..same old god of the gaps crap..plus the usual childish superstitious zombie nonsense...

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as the practice of suspending the acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently take such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed rationally sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that gods exist. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Dozens of proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of gods through intercession of angels, revelation, fulfillment of prophecy, the miraculous act of divinity, or any observation of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has emerged from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance or being) that was created instantly by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of gods. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Skepticism (atheism) is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

Is it rational to believe snakes and donkeys talk? That a man can live in a big fish? That zombies can rise from their tombs and chat with their families? Or is more rational to think it's all BS?

Reminder!! God is not a Christian, a Muslim, a Buddhist, a Hindu or a Jew. Humans need to stop putting him/ her / it in a box !!!

Not sure about some of the conclusions the speaker draws here. That reason, logic, morality, human rights, the universe fine tuning, *_only_* make objective sense, if Yahweh underpins it all...Ancient civilizations like Eygpt, Sumer, India, Babylon, Greece, all had highly advanced mathematics, logic & philosophical systems, way before anyone had heard of Yahweh...The first charter for humans rights came from Cyrus the great of Persia. The Cyrus cylinder. Then we have the code of Hummarbi, which entailed one of the earliest legal right of presumption of innocence recorded.

Christianity more rational because I believe in a fairy tale that I can not prove , WTF !!!!!!

There is zero evidence presented for an abrahamic god. You are finding things that are interesting and fitting them to your believe vs. actually supporting evidence for your belief. There is an enormous difference in those approaches. I can make up anything false and then make it seem true with some philosophical and demi logical arguments does that mean that my falsehood is true? Nope.

Great video. Thank you for posting.

Well the easiest way to win a debate, is to silence the opposition. I guess that's a christian thing. The argument for a fine tuned universe is complete nonsense, and has been debunked repeatedly. What would the universe look like if there was no god / creator? Exactly as it does today. What indication do we have that a creator was necessary for any one component of the known universe? none. You state that the universe is an extraordinary phenomenon, yet state no extraordinary evidence. We don't know that if the constant of gravity was different, if the weight of atomic structures would have changed to make the balance of the universe equalize and make everything possible. You have no way of proving or disproving your claim, it is a false assertion.

Thank you god for allowing me a life free of religion.

Where was the evidence?

This either or debate is so juvenile. The reality is that you are persuaded by the argument for and atheists aren’t. The fact that we have so many different religions and so many atheists goes to show if anything the truth of diversity. It just isn’t this simple because if it was then we would all accept Christianity in the way we accept the laws of gravity.

Same old embarrassing theist word salad of meaningless personal assertions with zero proof for a god...truly mind-blowing that anyone believes this nonsense.

Hey Justin - been watching your "Unbelievable" channel for a while now. I've loved the premise of bringing in two different sides to have a discussion featuring differing viewpoints. Most of them have been really good (though some have left a lot to be desired - but that's more about the caliber of the speakers and not a criticism of what you're doing). That being said, I've been increasingly disappointed in the content that is being posted to this channel. Unbelievable, as I mentioned before, was touted as a place where you would explore questions from differing viewpoints. But lately, I find videos like this one - One single viewpoint explaining to viewers the reasons to believe in that viewpoint. No conflicting argument, no debate - just an expository video from one side. This is the same with the recent Bret Weinstein videos, and even with the discussion between Dave Rubin and John Lennox. That video in particular was incredibly disappointing because the two speakers generally just sat there agreeing with each other the whole time. And generally the same thing with the McGrath/Weinstein "debate" - yes they were from two differing faiths, but generally had the same ideas about most things. From my point of view, this is boring, uninteresting, and antithetical to what you've defined as your purpose for this channel. And to be fair, I do know that this particular clip is from the debate with Stephen Woodford (Rationality Rules) which was a good video, and follows in the format that you've described - two differing viewpoints on the same topic. I don't know that I would say there was a clear winner in the debate, but (even as an Agnostic Atheist myself), I would say that you had the stronger arguments, Justin. I think Stephen went a bit too on the defensive with some of his statements. But beyond who won the argument, I have to wonder why you posted a clip of your own arguments, but didn't post a clip of Stephen's? I'm of course not trying to tell you how to run your channel, but I just hope that this isn't turning into another channel that is trying to tell me I should believe in God rather than being channel that openly explores the concept from different sides. I really enjoy the debates from differing sides and think that it's a lot more effective at getting to the truth than preaching ever could be.

Video starts at 3:27

Remember that the Abrahamic God already has an account for its creation, written in the Genesis. Allegedly created Water first, earth and Air, and then light (fire). The ancient Four Elements... which are composed substances, and not elements. Arguing fine-tuning and stars to make heavier elements, like this universe has, IS NOT an OBJECTIVE argument for Christianity, nor for the Abrahamic God nor the universe described in Genesis. That is a leap of faith and thus, unreasonable.

CAN ANY CHRISTIAN SHOW ME WHERE JESUS HIMSELF SAID “ I AM A CHRISTIAN “ IN THE BIBLE ???

Brilliant, Justin! You put it in simple terms, what I often have heard in many debates between theists and atheists.

So Christians have been reduced to probabilities now? Where is the absolute assurance of faith? The insistence on faith? Oh you still have it? You're just speaking in rationalistic and probabilistic terms in an attempt to satisfy your desire to come across as having rational beliefs and to evangelize? Gotchya.

Thanks brother, after hearing your interview/ Q and A with Bart ehrman I needed your counterpoint

Wow. I did not know that Quentin Tarantino was a Christian.

Translate your videos to spanish. It would be great.

Let's begin at the beginning. Atheism and Christianity make the same mistake and you can call it presuppositionalism. Both make presuppositions of G-D's existence which makes them both flawed. We do not presuppose anyone's existence or nonexistence until we meet them. Therefore G-Ds existence is not in question by rather whether you've met Him or not or whether you know Him or not. This makes this argument irrelevant and insane. Debate about His existence are then insane.

Reason 1 Fine Tuning The key to the fine tuning argument is that the range that is life permitting is extremely narrow Therefore an intelligence/God had to create a universe within that range? However, if the FTA is correct, then it just identified a limitation of this intelligence/God ( the universe needing to be within a specific range to create life). which means we can eliminate any God/s claiming to have unlimited power such as the Christian, Jewish, and Muslim God. Reason 2. Math works Really that's it. That's the entire reason. Reason 3. Objecy Morality Until someone can demonstrate who to identify an objective moral. This argument is irrelevant. Reason 4. Atheistic Material Determinists can't be right This argument is for an extremely specific and very small sub group of Atheism.So I'll let *either* of Atheistic, Material, Determinist in the world answer.

The title of this video is quite funny. "Justin Brierley: 4 reasons Christianity is more rational than atheism" Being rational is about aligning your belief on all the reliable proofs available, should those proof be sufficient to draw a strong conclusion in favor of one hypothesis above the others, or to say "i don't know" if you don't have enough justified proof to come to a strong conclusion. Not being rational would be coming up with a conclusion that differ from the justified conclusion supported by the proofs available. To hold a knowledge based on leap in logic, or faith, or by prioritizing our emotional comfort over our research of truth. one person CANNOT be MORE rational. The idea of being more rational would be that you could be justified to come to at least two different conclusions and find both being the best plausible hypothesis, outclassing the others in reliability and credibility, and then saying that one of the two is more best than the other. What. the. fuck. Being rational is to be able to acknowledge the hypothesis strongly pointed to by the proofs. You either do it or you don't. You can't do it MORE. But the title of this video still say "more rational" which mean more best and justified. clearly Justin doesn't define being rational the same way as i do. And yes, in this video he simply define rational as having good reasons to believe. And that's it. That's a typical preacher take on rationality. Preacher just want to overwhelm their audience with "good points" without diving too far into the logic, without challenging the conclusion they are looking for. So of course they don't need rationality, they disguise it, pretend that it's the quickly raising pile of good reasons they gish gallop and cement the cheap monument with personal feelings. But are their good reasons all that good? There are good reasons to believe that Harry Potter is real. The city of London exist in Harry Potter and we do have a London in England in our reality. there are trees in Harry Potter, and cars, and brooms, and trains, and castles. And we do have all that in our reality. Those are solid evidence that what is described in the series of books Harry Potter work well to describe our reality to some extent. Yet those good evidences are NOT SUFFICIENT to believe Harry Potter is real. Being rational is not just having good proofs FOR an hypothesis. just no! You also need to take a good look at the proof AGAINST the hypothesis. And, just like any apologists, after having totally failed to properly define what it is to be rational, which was the question of the debate more than any other, Justin derail to the classic preaching as apologist always do. 1:19 "And of course what is really at stake is not is it rational but is it true" Sorry but no. You can end up being wrong and still have been rational. You consider various hypothesis, challenge them and make a bet if the bet is highly likely to be the truth with the proofs available. And you might be wrong. That's the nature of knowledge. it's a guess. a very good one. Being rational is to achieve a strong belief that we can call knowledge, should the proofs be enough to achieve such strong belief, and to not let personal emotional reason or faith pull our conclusion astray from what the justified proofs are pointing to. A knowledge is a justified belief that we evaluate as highly likely to be a correct description of the reality we experience. Sometimes that knowledge is proven wrong later. To establish how we achieve a knowledge we need to dive into epistemology and the art of dealing with information and the art of reasoning. A knowledge is a guess that is very reliable with the information currently hold. Reliability is about likelihood. It's about probabilities. Dealing with information is to deal with statistics which is a math issue. Dealing with probability is the way to use logic to establish the plausibility and likelihood and is also a mathematical field. If you are debating rationality and truth but fail to delve deep into epistemology, the reliability and variability of the information and the probabilities, you have failed. And if you don't even mention epistemology and probability (probability with a math perspective and not just "Oh isn't that very unlikely?" then doesn't follow up with math analysis) in the entire debate, you are a buffoon. Or a preacher. The apologists are always preachers. They don't care too much about probability and rationality. When asked about rationality they will preach, as usual, and in their preaching they will replace "God exist" by "it's rational to believe in God" but the two sentences in their mouth are both a claim that god is real and nothing else. The word rational is voided of its meaning. it becomes a simple tool to increase the legitimacy of the preaching. A word voided of its muscles that is used to flex unsubstantiated claims. In the same way this preacher here talk about math. 4:25 But doesn't delve in it, of course. It's just to leech more legitimacy free of any demonstration that the conclusion he draws make sense. He is leveraging human intuition, which is often biased, to pretend that his conclusion is worthy. He vaguely wave math around as well as probability but the math on probability for this point is never developed properly. 8:08 "if we never choose our belief"... At what point does anyone choose his belief? Can i just right now decide to choose to believe that God is real? A belief FOLLOWS the observation of information and reasoning. There is no step where you pick one or the other. There is no choice in coming to a rational conclusion. You analyze the information and either an hypothesis stand out and become a knowledge or not. If you can choose your belief that mean you are not going for a rational belief but a faith based belief where you allow yourself to pick an insufficiently substantiated hypothesis and make it your "knowledge", your belief. In that case your choice is to not delve deeper than what is necessary to make the belief in question possibly true and then you choose to stop the reasoning there, deliberately ignoring relevant questions. Deliberately avoiding to challenge the conclusion because you are pleased with it or because it would be costly to challenge it. Preaching is accumulating proof FOR a claim while dodging all the proof against. It is not rational since part of the available information are ignored, misused or distorted for the sake of reaching a conclusion in particular. Yes a preacher will conclude that the existence of his god is the more probable and more logic conclusion. But only after having purposefully dodged what it entails to deal with probability when we are serious about it. A Preacher is a butterfly. Flying from one argument to the next in search of cheap points to gain for his cause, never staying too long at the same place since their faith-based argument are frail under scrutiny. A Preacher lean on emotional response and personal feeling and discard the hard mathematical process of how to establish probabilities. A preacher pretend to do science but only as a run-up for the subsequent leap in logic. They don't commit to the science to the bitter end. Instead they just wiggle enough room to shove an unfalsifiable hypothesis and then build on that loose ground using human biases and fears as leverage. And when they have established that Domain of Lies they start raining down incentives to not question further, to not inquire, to discredit any opposite ideas. It's a dangerous mindset. The believer that dare asked unwanted relevant questions to its community is shunned, punished. Something has to be wrong with that person. That person never truly believed even if their full commitment had been witnessed prior. Internal violence that are normal to find in communities build around lies. At that point, and because a framework that prevent people from seeing through the cheap excuses and lies is needed, the faith-based belief has become the seed for authoritarianism. And the violence can start for real.

Christianity is not rational according to the NT, where Atheism is, Christianity in the NT claims to be counter-intuitive, but the OT is rational and a better claim than Atheism.

Amazing. He doesn't even know what an atheist is. I lasted 1 minute before I realised this is a complete waste of time.

Nothing new here, moving on..

It is curious Justin that the term atheist means (without God). But not necessarily a person is an atheist for not believing in the existence of only one God, people who even believing in only one God do not have God are also atheists. I explain Mr. Justin: The unclean spirits, and some impious human beings believe in the existence of only one God but they do not have God, because they do not do his will. So atheists are also those who believe in one God but do not do his will. Greetings and God bless you. Postscript: Doesn't the mystery of iniquity come to mind?.

Justin ignores that under the Christian world view you can not have free will either. It’s surprising how many Christian’s ignore the logical contradictions they must hold to believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, all powerful being that has a divine plan already determined since eternity and human free will. If that kind of god exists, you can not make any decisions that aren’t already predetermined and fit neatly into this god’s divine plan. At best all Justin can assert is that you, under the Christian worldview, have the illusion of free will. I’m just baffled how he couldn’t see that as he spouts off about “fizzing” , an image he stole from even worse apologists than him.

I May have requested this video!! How awesome

WHAT I FIND UNBELIEVEABLE IS THAT A SEEMINGLY INTELLIGENT MAN LIKE YOU, JUSTIN..CONTINUES TO BE A RELIGIOUS APOLOGIST, WHEN BY NOW YOU OUGHT TO KNOW BETTER !

6Wherewith shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves of a year old? 7Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? 10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour. 12I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when there was no strange god among you: therefore ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I am God. 13Yea, before the day was I am he; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?

Fine tuning. How do you know what other values would have produced a universe even MORE compatible to life? And how many universes are there? This claim does not sound terribly rational to me. There are too many unknowns to hang any claims on this one. And just how fine tuned would a creator have to be to be able to create such a fine-tuned universe? He says the universe is mathematically understandable because god made it so. This from a religion whose very essence requires the most mathematically irrational argument imaginable - dead people coming back to life, god moving atoms around the place etc would be decidedly unmathematically consistent! Human value arises from our evolutionary history. We are social animals who prosper best when we co-operate. No need for gods here. Appeals to human free-will are far too human-centric to have any relevance to the universe at large, which would continue on its merry way quite happily without us. It just goes to show that you can believe fervently in something, but belief and assertion is not a substitute for evidence.

Where is Mercy Of God, if God only can forgive sins with condition ??? Can God forgive without shedding blood of Jesus ????

Christianity is more rational because God did it duh

"Obviously one of them must be false", that's a false dichotomy. They could possibly both be false. Also the "fine tuning" is about life to exist as we know it in this form to exist. It doesnt mean that if things happened a different way, life itself would never exist.

Justin Brierley is inteligent and very nice man. He is also a fine example of how religion can shut down the critical thinking skills of anyone.

@ unbelievable.... Hi Justin, you claim to be the place where you invite people of all faiths onto your platform to engage in a religious discussion. Well, when are you going to invite a Muslim onto the show to discuss their belief, and pit those beliefs against Christianity?

Muslim can prove Allah is the God . Why Christians cant prove Jesus pbuh is the God ???

jeez ...there is just so much wrong with the whole line of 'proofs'.as presented. .

can you do a 4 reasons why Christianity is more rational than agnosticism?

I always have to question the claim that stars can in fact form and produce all the necessary elements for human existence. Who has seen a star form or demonstrated the possibility of such a thing occurring in a vacuum? And form from what? Anyone got any good resources for those queries?

Giving all the glory to mindless unguided matter is indeed irrational.

Wrong premise right from the start: either materialism or God. NO, NO, NO!!! Basically I stopped watching after that was presented as the basis for the argument. Sure to go nowhere and just repeat the same old, tired stuff from the past, oh, 2,500 years? Let's move on, shall we?

The Bible predicts that this stuff would sound like babble to an Unbeliever, and as thus is correct on at least one matter. Once you've had a personal experience with Jesus, it all makes sense (apparently). I had therefore definitely not had one, though my dreams do get a little barmy.

1. I’m an atheist and I don’t think science confirms atheism. You appeal to a mystery with a bigger mystery. 2, Humans are social and value other humans. One youtuber doesn’t speak for everyone, I don’t believe in determinism. 3. A man riding to the moon on a winged horse is as rational as a man being raised from the dead. And that is a big if you are beginning with, followed by claims not facts. Pretty convenient to say even if the bible isn’t the inspired word of god then it is a history book. A history book that contains a man being swallowed by a giant fish, a world wide flood and men living to be 500-900 years old. Inspired, allegory, history; pick one and stick with it.

Theism can be arrived at logically. Christianity, it seems to me, cannot. It hinges on the resurrection which is a debatable historical fact requiring extreme hard evidence, whereas all I ever heard is either trust towards biased eye witnesses or stories of skeptic conversions present in all religions. I yearn for a convincing philosophical/logical argument for Christianity (Jesus dying for us giving human life value is redundant if you already accept the personal God argument).

This list is BOGUS and subject to so many fallacies. Justin, I'm disappointed

Fine tuning blah blah blah.............

There should be absolutely no doubt about the question of rationality with regards to Christianity. Consider these 3 assertion ascribed to Christianity, and any indeed all the Abrahamic religions: 1) There is one god 2) God is the intelligent design that is behind all creation. 3) god is all good, and caring and benevolent and ultimately loves us all (or his followers at least) The problem is that there is no way can these 3 things exist together. ...Any being that created the conditions for famine. war, disease, pain and suffering is clearly not the same being as the one that is caring and compassionate etc. There could be one god, responsible for all creation, but he doesn't really care too much about us (the deist view) or it's possible that there is one god who is nice, and good and benevolent, but someone/something else was responsible for the creating. so he does his best in the situation made for him. or perhaps there is more than one god, at least 2. One that did the creating and the other one that does the caring. What is obvious is that it is totally IRRATIONAL to consider that the 3 aspects can co-exist. Thus any organization that considers it rational to accept these are compatible must be IRRATIONAL.

You guys don’t even know who wrote the gospels but Christianity is more “rational”. 🤦🏻‍♂️ good joke bro.

With so much of the Cosmos being a mystery, it is unreasonable to claim knowledge of its origins.

Can any Christian show me the real picture of Jesus Christ as God Almighty ??? 😎😎😎

Just as perplexing as the notion of something out of nothing is the idea that an all-perfect God could have any unfulfilled desires. This concept of desire in an all-perfect, self-contained godhead has always puzzled me. On the one hand, you have God enjoying his blissful perfection, in need of nothing and, on the other hand, that same blissfully perfect God suddenly gets a creative urge, knowing that if he acts on that urge he will be opening Pandora's Box, a box filled with so much horror and suffering any sane entity would recoil at the thought. And yet, we are asked to believe this omniscient, all-loving godhead opens Pandora's Box anyway when nothing is compelling him to do so. When absolutely nothing is forcing him to abandon his state of bliss, in which there is no evil, no suffering, and no eternal torment, nothing compelling him to end that blisful state to create a nightmare. Is it possible for a godhead to become bored with his perfection? That is a question easily overlooked in the stampede of drama that pours out of the bible from the very first chapter. Again, I ask, what could compel a blissfully perfect, loving god to disturb his eternal bliss to create a place of eternal torment for creatures who never needed to exist? This idea is a hole in the creation story big enough to drive a Mack truck through, and yet Christian drama addicts pretend they don't see it.

4 brand new reasons why we should believe.....Oh no wait !!!!!

Trying to fit a god into reason doesn't make a god real. When you can say that a god is this and that, you can construct a god that fits all the answers.

Nice job Justin. Now comes the predictable KZfaq expert atheists frothing like Pavlog's dogs :(

Going over the same old stuff.....how about you start talking about what the real church is, the sacraments, the fallacy of sola scriptura and protestantism!

Meh, personally the most important reason for theism is that "why something instead of nothing" can get an answer, atheists can't offer one and usually try to dismiss the question.

I like Justine Hes good

Christians: I Can’t imagine that Christians believe that Mary was holding God in her hands as a Baby 👶 !!!

All atheists,Try James Tour on the origin of life, a real authority on the subject if there is one on the planet and see if your lack of understanding like mine can poke holes in his arguments. I have no doubt there are many of ye capable of a more elegant explanation than his and therefor guilty of being without excuse.

It seems like a small probability from our point of view, but in the context of a seemingly infinite universe it is nothing.

This is a joke, right? Judging by the title and thumbnail, It has to be a joke... If not... oh boy. 😬

Great arguments!!

Justin won this debate. Great arguments

First

1 reason christianity hs no rational. Ths reason enuf to debunk christianity. Tt is hw cn god become man? Hw cn the infinite becomes finite? Tt god cn hv 2 natures. No! God cant do everythng. If he can do ething then god cn also be satan, can also be yr shit etc etc. Christians must think rationally. If they do ths then they wll become muslims

Last

Watched the full debate. Justin gave a more cohesive and coherent-and therefore compelling- argument. His antagonist took the typical anti-theist stance ala Hitchens. Full of strawman arguments and non sequitur. Good job Justin!

You have no evidence, hence you are irrational. Just because you had an "experience" doesn't mean it was god or supernatural

Atheist, Not Evil.....Just Wrong.

Atheist, Not Evil.....Just Wrong.