Israel is doing nothing but preaching because that is all he is interested in doing , just like most Church of Christ preachers ... If Christians all have the same Holy Spirit then why is there so much diversity in belief and doctrine ... 1 Cor 14:33 says God is not the author of confusion ... Then why are so many confused ?

@@tonyturek4596 the coc answer would be that satan has caused confusion through lies and unsound doctrine. I always wondered why people didnt follow what Paul said in the nt if he was doing miracles and showing he had the holy spirit when preaching or writing to correct people.

I grew up going to a C of C and that is exactly what they did ... we were sheep and we were preached to like we couldn't think for ourselves ... My Mom was the church goer at our house and she told me when I was 8 years old that I would be going to Hell unless I accepted Christ as my savior ... child abuse

Wot...? =]

i think your getting closer to truth with that statement. now ask yourself how to see if god and santa clause are real.and why when you die its going to somehow be different from the way it was before you where born.

It seems like your first steps toward critical sceptical thinking, congrats 😀

Bulls eye!!

@atheism delusion piss off. Shouldnt you be at church

It is his job to ignore reason after all...

Vickie Lautrec Standard apologetics, Vickie.

Matt rarely makes sense nor cares to have an intelligent conversation

​@@SM-hn7sh The argument that claims need to be backed up by evidence makes sense to me. I mean, the court system works the same way. In order to win a case, you would need evidence.

They claim that it’s not fair to “trap” God in the context of a court of law, but this preacher literally uses an example of being pulled over (almost entirely misrepresenting Matt’s point in the process) and can’t even momentarily resist the urge to make up stories as he goes. He could’ve ended simply making the example, but you can literally hear the theist in him force out the fact that he actually tried the “ridiculous silly irrational” thing he just finished mocking once. Did he, really? He really told a cop that? He just happened to try that exact thing? It’s hilarious.

I _want_ to think he is a nice person. And maybe most of the time he is. But I've tried to have conversations with him in the past online, and it was always a wee bit surprising how righteous and insulting he was...most of the time. It was almost nothing but ad-hominem and straw-men. And he often reverts to shitty insults...just read his comments. He might be nice...to people who placate him, who revert to sycophantic behavior. And I'm sure he's cool and charming....in those settings. But what I've seen of him...he seems rather insecure and takes that out quite a bit on others....as a defense against actually engaging in the IDEAS that are challenging his beliefs. Still...I'd have a beer with him. Of course I would. But I'm not that convinced he would feel the same.

avedic Some people lose their niceness when it comes to religion, especially wingnuts.

...a toddler with attention deficit disorder

... and to make matters worse, he did it wearing a bow tie.

or it's just a parent for an adult, which is affirmed when you're a parent, as then YOU are the god to the child, i'm with you, this guy placed a hell of a lot of weight on statement that we (humans) could not make up a god without a god! insane!

naughteedesign Indeed. It's hard to put forward any kind of argument when it's based on such a flimsy premise.

That’s the first thing that stuck out to me. So man can’t comprehend the existence of a god without god giving them the idea…but when did god become a “he” in that scenario? They give him form and feature unless it’s more convenient to make him ethereal and outside the realm of shape and color. How can theists not realize the inherent problem in that their arguments vary so differently not just between denominations but from one single believer to the next? One says it’s an actual male, one says it’s a female, of course many say it can take any form whenever it wants to escape any possible argument, one says it’s the trees and the skies, one says it’s all of us…For such a defined, exact, factual existence, there sure is a lot of wiggle room.

Something something something then GAWWWWWWD something something something when GAWWWWWD. It’s exhausting when theists think debates where they’re supposed to be supporting their argument with facts and evidence are just opportunities to practice their story telling or “preaching.” This isn’t church.

very nice observation

hahah word salad, I like it

He does not sound impressive at all

Trump is proof the word comes before thought

That's the sort of thing theists do though. They will confound the discussion with constant distraction, gish gallop, and alternative talking points in order to attempt to confuse you.

And it's all said so very s I o w l y...... Ughhhh

Tossed word salad.

Israel sounds better (more comfortable to listen to) if you change speed to 1.25

And then that we can only imagine Superman because we know god. 😂

Because it wasn't generally relative to the topic.

Israel talks only because he has mouth but makes no sense

land1sea1lions a cartoon to talk about a fantasy.

Did he/she/it/they though?

actually there was a lot of sex going on before that n marriage.

Hi. When it comes to the questions of life, are you THE final authority? What about life's origin, purpose, morality, and destiny? You have all the answers? I wish I would have met you years ago! I can finally know the truth of the ages - all from a person who goes by 'M =13'. Son of a gun! Pardon my sardonic wit. You are not God, but Jesus Christ is. I hope you will repent of pretending to be the Almighty. Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

Ken Shiloh You’ve said nothing except, “You’re wrong, because my VERSION of god is right!”

@@notimmortal9738 Hi Elijah. I think that, in order to find truth, it is important to take stock of the instruments and methods for finding it. For example, would you go up in an airplane when you know that the instruments are exceedingly inaccurate? Yet, your brain is wrong about things all day long! And you will trust your own 'rationale' to find life's ultimate truths? It is crazy making. When I was 14, I realized that I did not have all knowledge and wisdom. Instead of trying to play God, rendering judgments on life's deep secrets, I followed my conscience. It led me to Christ. Pride comes before a fall. Atheists try to sound so intelligent, never admitting - in over a thousand posts - that they could be wrong. They exalt themselves to the level of God, making moral and scientific decrees. They are fools. Yet, Jesus Christ is the light of the world.

well, i can understand how you would have that view. however you need to keep in mind that if you accept something on "faith" you essentially already closed your mind and decided " This is the truth, im certain therefor i dont need to look for another answer."

Andreas Johansson Not really. I used to have faith. So did most atheists. We all were open enough to change our minds. It happens all the time. :) Don't be so quick to give up on people. Hell...Matt himself was once going to be a pastor....

avedic That is true. Matt did attend Seminary. And he does admit that he was wrong. We all are only human. But religion makes all efforts to make us defiant to the possibility of us being wrong. Blind Faith is all that Matt is against.

Ogopogo Man Yep. Though, Matt isn't just against "blind" faith....because *_all_* faith is blind. If faith was based on sufficient evidence, it ceases to be faith entirely. Faith is the excuse people give when they want to believe something that they have no valid reason to believe. Faith is what people "use" to justify believing things they do not know to be true. It's pretty strange/absurd how people consider faith a virtue.

I cannot imagine how a Christian could watch all 4 of these debates...and _still_ come out believing in their god/religion at the end of it all. Unless they're just flat-out unintelligent and/or immoral. Interestingly...Matt said recently at Skepticon 7 that many people *_from this church_* have contacted him to say he convinced them over these 4 nights.

(Hahaha, I wrote that before I heard Matt used the example).

Jerry Siegel? I knew there was a creator so I did some research before spouting off....

I was kidding. Chronology is important, though. Please disregard the fact that neither Judaism or Christianity were the first religions. So if god inspired man to realize there was a god, he had trouble getting the message clear for a good long while.

Start making fun of them in real life. They need a dose of common sense to wake them up. A good verbal thrashing. After all, didn't you stop believing in Santa and the Tooth fairy because you didn't want to be humiliated?

@Mohamed ThePedophile - I have to disagree. You shouldn't mock people, or make fun of them. While I would say that it's beneficial to point out the absurdities of a belief, or belief system (such as Christianity), I am completely opposed to mocking someone as a person! Nothing good can come from making fun of someone. It's just senseless bullying!

​@@BackyardAstronomy2018But why?

True. ;)

I only listen these days to figure out what path the general ideas being banded around in religion are talking. Just need to listen enough to refute it. So like 5-10 seconds lol

The biggest problem when listening to theists is that they haven't had an original idea in the last 150 years. They're just regurgitating the same verbal gruel over and over again and not a single one is capable of bringing anything new to the table.

Here you really missed nothing. Here is a short overview of Rodriguez arguments: - Without god we can not understand anything - You have to trust the apostels - Read bible verses A, B and C - You can not explain where consciousness comes from - There is some kind of hidden code in the bible, you just have to understand it 😂

I think his hardcore southern baptist background is what really helps him adjust his vocal tenor into a friendly tone. He knows the way to convey sincerity and knows how to avoid talking above someone.

id have to agree. but 'venue' and 'attention' is irrelevant in this youtube generation. a larger auditorium or larger turnout at the actual event, takes a backseat to Matt's indisputable debate skills

Matt is the best!

Very true!! Matt is a disteoyer when it comes to participate in logical arguments!!

Not at all is Dilladumpty an effective debater. In a formal debate, you have the resolution, and the opposing argument against the resolution. Dilladumpty just denies the resolution with no opposing arguments. That is not how debates work. Both sides must present their arguments - not simply sitting their all smug and denying everything. But that is just what atheists do - nothing but denying everything with no supporting evidence to their position. This characteristic is a good reason why it is said of an atheist - "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."

Ian G...the answer to your observation, and what you seem to believe is a clever retort, is nothing more than an antiquated philosophical position that some hold as a moral dilemma for God. However, your position assumes that suffering (of which sickness and death are a part) is bad. Your attempt at an appeal to emotion by invoking children in your scenario is nothing more than a ploy (whether you did so intentionally or not) to distract people from the real issue-whether or not suffering is bad. The short answer is, according to the Bible mankind not God is responsible for the suffering of the world. When mankind consciously disobeyed God the consequences of their actions would result in human suffering (Genesis 3.1-24; Romans 8.18-39). Too, from the Bible we learn that suffering is not bad, but good when responded to properly (cf. Psalms 94.12-13; 119.71; 1 Corinthians 11.32; Hebrews 12.10-11). Therefore, the Bible teaches us that suffering is the teacher of perfection (cf. Psalms 107.20; Romans 5.3-5; James 1.2-4). Here is the point, when people suffer (whether it be children, adolescents or adults) we benefit from those experiences as the human race to understand some very powerful and profound things about ourselves and life. This is why God allows suffering.

irkerux333 suffering is the fault of humans? When god created the universe did he know it would eventually have suffering? (Assuming for the moment of course that the Christian god exists, this is just a hypothetical I'm giving)

Ian G...Yes, God knew the universe He created would eventually have suffering. This did not deter Him, however, from creating, because suffering as a natural consequence to disobedience provides the opportunity for God to train our will. As I said in my last post, suffering is not disadvantageous to the human race, but beneficial to help us understand what is most important in life. Mankind was created with free-will, but only through self-discipline can we achieve our full potential and enjoy a flourishing life.

irkerux333 you say suffering is our fault but then you admit that when the choice to create a universe with suffering was made the choice was made by God alone. Which is it?

Ian G...It's both. If you disagree, please explain why it must be one or the other? God creating a universe "with suffering" is much different than saying God created a universe "where suffering occurred." Suffering is the natural result of disobedience (cf. Jeremiah 2.19). According to the Bible, God is eternal (Psalms 90.1-2), and He is absolutely good (Psalms 92.15; 1 John 1.5). Therefore, when God created the universe everything He created was described as "very good" (Genesis 1.31). Evil (which is the source of suffering) did not become a part of human existence until mankind exercised his and her free-will and disobeyed God. From that time forth the human race would have to endure the consequences of their disobedience, which includes suffering. The reason God continued to create, though He knew mankind would sin and suffering would naturally result, is because suffering is advantageous to human existence. In fact, human suffering is necessary for spiritual growth. In summary, God alone created a universe where suffering existed only as a possibility, due to the fact that He created free moral agents. If and when human beings exercised their free moral agency to disobey God evil would be initiated and suffering would occurred. Why did God allow this to happen? Because suffering is advantageous not harmful to the growth of free moral agents who exist within a system of morality.

Especially when he argues God is logical, not empiricle

I saw what you did there! I like it!

Yeah, he was pretty much the ONLY one who had a chance to talk. I mean, Matt *was* able to talk at times. But, the vast majority of the time, the other guy was the one who was allowed to talk. I guess what I am saying is that this whole thing was set up to favor this other guy (and NOT Matt). I don't think it should favor ANYBODY and that the moderator should be just that - the moderator. And, he should NOT take sides. Or, let one person have more time than the other. BOTH people should have equal time to answer the questions.

He owes me a new pair of glasses.

I had to fast forward

@@resablue i do that too lol. Just to hear matt talk. I don't need to hear the other dude, i was raised as a church going god fearer

CreationTribe so your the expert on your god? Can you prove your god is not created by humans?

I am, indeed, an expert on god. My expert conclusion is that god is made up out of fairy dust and pixy giggles. My reference to "he who wrestles with god" is in reference to the name, "Israel" ... which translates into, "He who wrestles with God". And, because I like the idea of wrestling a deity, I do shame this foolish man for not wresting his god to the ground in reverence of the meaning of his name.

If a man who preaches his points to others is worthy of shame, then how about a man who judges others without making a single point himself? For that man is either Jesus in the flesh or satan in spirit & worthy of what's "in hell". Matthew 7:1-3 KJV - Judge not, that ye be not judged. Proverbs 16:18 KJV - Pride goeth before destruction

jared fargo why do you preach and judge others without making a point yourself?

first: "if a man who preaches his points to others is worthy of shame" is an incorrect blanket assumption. It would depend on what he preached, and how he preached it. Some men who preach give such amazing and obviously superior information, that anybody who attempted to shame them would - themselves - be shamed, their original attempt to shame would be nothing more than waste to be ignored. second: "then how about a man who judges others without making a single point himself?" It is impossible not to judge. We are all constantly assessing and judging everything we lay focus on. In fact, we now know that every piece of information our senses receive is immediately filtered, analyzed, categorized, and judged. This is the very basis for all hypothesis, conclusions, physical actions, etc. So the man who judges others without making a single point himself - is exactly human. So - not Jesus and not Satan - and definitely doesn't deserve what is purported to be in hell. Is it requisite that a point is made after every judgement in order to not be Jesus or Satan, and not be worthy of "what's in hell"? third: Why are you siting scriptures to people you can be sure believe that the bible is nothing but myths and fairy tales meant to scare little children into being good? If this statement and following scriptures were truly unwavering truths, then you can be sure, it would be fairly difficult for anyone to contend with them using logic. and last: A man who's preaching is false and damaging is worthy of being redirected and lead to truth. If that man rejects the extended help, then he is worthy of shame as well as responsible for everybody he deceives. A man who judges others is surely, by the very nature of judgement, making points. The point being the very subject of the judgement. For instance - you have judged me by insinuating that I am Satan and worthy of all the pains and horrors of hell. Your point is to threaten me with your fallacious biblical equation that equals infinite pain in the fires of eternity.

Stephen McKerracher...the true pity is people who fail to carefully consider the argument I made. Due to your preconceived ideas about my position you have committed a serious blunder. First, I did not take the position that human imagination is incapable of any invention whatsoever. I only stated that human imagination does not have the power to invent the God of the Bible. Only after the God of the Bible revealed Himself to mankind could he and she corrupt this idea to invent other gods. Thus, only after certain elements of existence appeared could mankind begin to imagine other things. For the millionth time, human imagination can not create a wholly new idea. Let that sink in! Human imagination begins with ideas and concepts already supplied by the material universe (this is the naturalist's position), accessed by our senses, which can then be manipulated to "create" or "invent" "new" things. Time travel is not a wholly new invention of the human mind. It combines ideas already supplied to the mind (i.e., time and traveling). "Oh judgement! Thou hast fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason!"

Right. Like I said, if you need to try and appeal to the limits of imagination in order to make your case, that should tell you how weak your case is. You are presupposing your own conclusion, and engaged in circular reasoning. Your argument is that we could not imagine God, if it didn't exist. Your answer to the God's we did imagine, and we know we imagined, is that we couldn't have done that, if we didn't have God's concept first. This is special pleading, and it's fallacious. It's also entirely philosophical, and ignoring the actual evidence, we actually have. The oldest God's, were precisely like Matt was saying... they did something we knew of from nature.... but better. And there was an obvious historical progression, of more and more powerful God's asserted, until you finally come to what is called Monotheism. You are ignoring what we know of how the mind learns and evolves. There are answers to all your questions. For instance, you asked "what comes first, thoughts or words". Obviously thoughts. Because animals think, and they don't have words.... And social animals, need to be able to build a mental concept, of the other minds in their social group, so they can guess what they will do in different situations. This is what is called theory of mind. You need to build a mental concept of people's mind, as something apart from merely their body. It is a small step from there, to imagining a mind with no body.... Even though we have no reason to believe any mind, or any form of information whatsoever, has ever existed apart from anything physical. Just because we can imagine something, is in no way evidence. And you are engaged in special pleading if you think God is any less imaginable then time travel. You have no evidence, nor reason to assert that.

Stephen McKerracher...Please explain how my argument is weak, solely on the basis that it has to do with the limits of human imagination. You couldn't prove that if you tried, because that's just your opinion. Moreover, I don't know where you studied logic, because my argument has nothing to do with circular reasoning or special pleading. It's a deductive argument based on the naturalist's position. You're way too funny to be taken seriously, and that's because you really believe what you're saying.

You seem to be claiming to be Israel, the guy Matt debates in this video. From your perspective, you would assume I am a random youtuber. But I am a very active anti-theist, with hundreds of thousands of views on my content on Quora.com (under Steve McKerracher). I'll give you the same offer I give everyone. If you can provide so much as a single defensible reason to believe in God, that I can't completely debunk and demonstrate cannot be a reason, I will retract all my writing online to that effect. If you care about your position, I would think that would be worth you time to be serious. Because your last comment, is not serious. You reverted to rhetoric in a dismissive way, instead of even trying to counter my counters. Unless you take it seriously and counter my counter argument, anyone reading will consider you to have forfeited the argument... because dismissive rhetoric is not a logical counter. I demonstrated how your argument is circular in presupposing the conclusion. So it fails on the philosophical level. Because first you assert we can't imagine God, and then you assert that the people who clearly DID imagine God, were perverting the concept of God given to us... but that argument requires you to accept your argument to begin with. I also demonstrated how your argument, even if it were to succeed on the philosophical level, fails on the evidential level, because it does not align with, and explain the actual evidence we have through archaeology and the study of ancient history. We don't see the oldest religions starting with an ultimate, infinite, creator God in the monotheistic tradition, and then humans perverting that into various lesser forms. No, the evidence shows the reverse... the oldest religions start with, pretty much what Matt describes. A person... who can fly. Or is extra strong, or is part animal. And then these God concepts become more and more powerful until only a few hundreds years BC we finally have the predecessors to the current concept of the ultimate, infinite, creator God.

Stephen McKerracher What are you implying by your opening remark in your last post: Are you suggesting that random youtubers don't know what they're talking about? Or, that since you're an "anti-theist" with hundreds of thousands of views on your content on Quora.com that means you must know what you're talking about? Or, were you just boasting? If you saw the videos, then you know that my argument for belief in God is based upon the Bible (commonly referred to as the English Bible). The Bible is an empirical fact that enjoys a rich history and is the only book (i.e., historical artifact) that can boast nearly 6,000 manuscripts all over the world that testify to its authenticity. It's either a product of man or it is what it claims to be-the revealed will of God for mankind. The Bible is a collection of 66 books (39 in the old and 27 in the new) that work in-conjunction with each other. It has been said, “The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed, and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed.” Both testaments are inspired and rely upon each other to be complete. The biblical writers were of different occupations. Joshua was a military leader for Israel (Joshua 1:1-11). Nehemiah was a cupbearer for king Artaxerxes (Nehemiah 1:11). Daniel was an advisor for the king of Babylon (Daniel 1:19-21). Peter was a fisherman (Matthew 4:18). Matthew was a tax collector (Luke 5:27). Paul was a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5). The biblical writers wrote from different locations as well. Moses wrote in the wilderness (Exodus 24:3-4). Ezekiel wrote in Chaldea under bondage (Ezekiel 1:1-3). Paul wrote while imprisoned in Rome (2 Timothy 4:6; Acts 28:17). John wrote in exile on the Isle of Patmos (Revelation 1:9). These are just a few examples of the many men (approximately 40 men) who were guided to write the revelations of God by inspiration. Paul did not know Moses, nor was he a contemporary of his time. John did not know Ezekiel, nor did he live in Chaldea. Peter did not know Nehemiah, nor was he ever in exile under the Persians. Yet, these men wrote the Bible in complete harmony. Without the help of someone guiding them to write without contradiction, these men could not have written from different eras of history (approximately 1600 years), different continents (Africa, Asia, Europe), different frames of reference (unlearned & educated), different languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek), and different testaments (ethical codes). This is equivalent to believing that a farmer from India in 1000 BC, a fisherman from China in 400 BC, and a solider from Russia in AD 70, who never met each other, all began to write in complete harmony about historical characters, future predictions, geographical locations and ethical codes. Without the help of divinity, it would be impossible for this to occur. Consider the scientific foreknowledge of the Bible. The Bible was not written as a scientific journal nor as a science textbook, yet every statement relative to science is accurate. Historically, man has held to beliefs that have been inconsistent with science. Therefore, if men were responsible for writing the Bible scientific errors would abound. Notwithstanding, there are many scientific facts alluded to in the Bible, which the people of the ancient world could not have known with primitive instruments of technology and yet the biblical writers wrote with complete accuracy. Before modern medical research discovered vitamin levels in the blood, God gave instructions to the Israelites regarding circumcision and blood clotting. According to Genesis 17:12 all male children from the nation of Israel were to be circumcised on the 8th day. Science has determined that between the 5th and 7th days of birth Vitamin K (an essential vitamin for the blood clotting process) and prothrombin (a protein in blood plasma during coagulation) begin production in the male child, and on the 8th day the percentage of prothrombin climbs above 100%. The insightful procedure for circumcision demonstrated scientific knowledge that preceded man. Another small but interesting scientific fact found in the Bible is the concept that air has weight. In 1643 a philosopher and mathematician named Evangelista Torricelli correctly reasoned that air exerts weight or pressure. In order to demonstrate his hypothesis he created an apparatus known today as the Barometer, an instrument that measures atmospheric pressure. From the earliest biblical writers it was already known that air had weight as mentioned in Job 28:25, “To establish a weight for the wind, and apportion the waters by measure.” Incidentally, the context is about the wisdom of God and His ability to do things man could not. By their own admission, scientists have acknowledged the inability to know the size of the universe. Wikipedia reports, “The size of the Universe is unknown; it may be infinite.”5 In addition, it is impossible to penetrate the Earth’s core, let alone Earth’s mantle. HowStuffWorks.com featured an article entitled, Could You Dig A Hole All The Way to The Earth’s Mantle, which explained, “Unlike your childhood fantasy, the scientists don't have any ambitions of boring a tunnel all the way through the planet. That probably isn't even possible, since the enormous heat and pressure inside the Earth would make crawling down such a passageway impossible, even if it somehow didn't collapse. But just reaching the mantle, a layer about which we know relatively little, and retrieving a sample would be a scientific achievement of such a magnitude that some have called it geology's version of the moon landing.”6 Regardless of how often scientists may attempt to “measure” the heavens or “penetrate” the earth beneath, God’s word has rendered it impossible (Jeremiah 31:37). The Lord uses this illustration to demonstrate the impossibility of His goodness, love, and faithfulness being moved from fulfilling the promise of the eternal kingdom-His church! Among the ancients the hydrologic cycle or water cycle was not fully understood. Approximately 500 BC, Greek philosophers began to speculate about rain and its origin. In 1580, Bernard Palissy first published his thoughts about the water cycle and was later confirmed scientifically in 1674. But before the ancient and renaissance philosophers, it was written in Job, “For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man” (Job 36:27-28). In correlation, the psalmist wrote concerning the power of God, “He causes the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; He makes lightning for the rain; He brings the wind out of His treasuries” (Psalm 135:7; Jeremiah 10:13). The atmospheric system is also linked to the hydrologic system and both are responsible for the Earth’s weather and climate. In Ecclesiastes 1:6- 7, by the wisdom of God, Solomon explained, “The wind goes toward the south, and turns around to the north; the wind whirls about continually, and comes again on its circuit. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; to the place from which the rivers come, there they return again.” Consider the archeological and historical evidence of the Bible. The stories and cultural references of the Bible can be verified through archeological evidence. Since the Bible makes reference to hundreds of places, nations and kings history would either confirm or deny the Bible’s claims. If archeologists did not find evidence that supported the statements of the Bible, then the contents of the Bible would come under suspicion. However, not one historical or archeological contradiction has been brought forward to discredit the Bible. Because so many cities and historical references have been uncovered through archeology, the Bible is considered to be the single most important historical document in existence. The Amarna Letters. One of the greatest archeological and historical discoveries of the Bible is the Amarna Letters, named after the site where they were found in Tell El-Amarna of Middle Egypt. The majority of the Amarna Letters are tablets written to Pharaohs of the 14th century BC. The Amarna Letters have proven to be the most important source for the study of the Canaanite dialects, history, and chronology of the period of pre- Israelite history. Of the 382 tablets found, over 58 tablets are letters sent from several Canaanite kings to the Pharaoh of Egypt asking for military help against Near Eastern invaders known as “the Habiru.” The similarity of the words “Habiru” and “Hebrew” as well as geographical locations according to the Bible show the secular record of the Canaanite conquest in the book of Joshua. Due to the chronology, cities mentioned, and severity of the invasion there is no doubt that these letters prove the authenticity of the Old Testament narrative regarding the Canaanites. Those who seek a different translation of the letters are not true to the records and must find an alternative historical nation who fit the description of the “Habiru” people. Please compare the Conquest of Canaan found in the book of Joshua with the cities and kings mentioned in the Amarna Letters. The Moabite Stone or Mesha Stele. In 1868 Frederick Augustus Klein discovered a stele now known as “The Moabite Stone.” It is a Moabite record of Mesha, a Moabite king, who was overtaken by Israel (2 Kings 3:4- 8). In addition, it references Omri, an Israelite king, who oppressed Moab because of Chemosh’s (Moabite deity) anger (1 Kings 16:16-28). Furthermore, the stele tells of Moab overtaking Omri’s son (who is not named in the stele) and plundering the vessels of Jehovah. The Moabite Stone is the most extensive inscription ever recorded that refers to the kingdom of Israel, and it bears one of the earliest extra-biblical references to Yahweh. Sumerians & Ur of Chaldees. Although the Bible never mentions the Sumerians by name, Ur of the Chaldees is one of the first civilizations mentioned in the Bible after the flood (Gen. 11:28-31). Archeological excavations have yielded a source of information regarding the culture, history, literature, and religion of Sumer and Akkad. Ur was a commercial post located in the Kaldu district according to clay tablets discovered at the ancient city. The Kaldu district is Chaldee in the Bible. In Genesis 10:10, Shinar is the area of Sumer and the cities of Babel, Erech, and Accad have been located and excavated (cf. Dan. 1:1-2). Before any archeological or historical references to Accad, the Bible was the only text that referred to the city’s existence. The Bubastite Portal or Shishak Inscription. The Bubastite Portal is a gate on the southeast side of the Temple of Ramesses III in Karnak located in Upper Egypt. The façade shows king Shishak of Egypt making offerings to gods and goddesses, conquering his foes, and the names of cities he overthrew. A few cities referenced on the inscription of biblical significance are Rafah, Megiddo, and Aijalon. 2 Chronicles 12:1-9 records king Shishak of Egypt coming against Jerusalem and taking the “fenced cities” of Judah, Aijalon being one of them (2 Chonrinicles 12:4; 2 Chronicles 11:5-10). The historical reference of Aijalon found on the inscription demonstrates the subtle and precise accuracy of the biblical text. Sennacherib’s Annals & The Siloam Inscription. King Sennacherib’s Annals (The Taylor Prism, The Oriental Institute Prism, and The Jerusalem Prism) are three prism inscriptions that record the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem during King Hezekiah’s reign. They were written within sixteen months of each other and are nearly identical with the exception of a few variants. They tell of king Shalmaneser’s overthrow of Samaria in Israel, and king Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah subjugating king Hezekiah as a tributary ruler, which are recorded in 2 Kings 18:9-16. During the Assyrian invasion of Judah, king Hezekiah made a pool and conduit bringing water into the city from the Gihon River (2 Kings 20:20; 2 Chronicles 32:3-4). Later it was discovered that king Hezekiah left an inscription in the water tunnel recording its construction. The inscription is now known as The Siloam Inscription. These two archeological discoveries demonstrate the veracity of the biblical narrative. Consider the prophetic evidence of the Bible. A Higher Power must guide anyone who has the ability to predict the events of the distant future. Even the false prophets of the Bible claimed to speak in the name of the Lord as an appeal to authority or inspiration. However, God gave the people a method of determining false prophets from true prophets. “And if you say in your heart, ‘How shall we know the word which the Lord has not spoken?’ when a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing does not happen or come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken...” (Deuteronomy 18:21-22). Only God, who is omniscient, can reveal the future to man (Isaiah 46:9-10). Prophecy of World Empire & Its Destruction. In 703 B.C. a prophecy was declared concerning the fall of Jerusalem, which would be carried out by the Babylonians (Isaiah 39:5-7). The prophet Isaiah foretold of this event to king Hezekiah over 120 years before it was accomplished in 582 BC. (2 Chronicles 36:17-20). The approximate date of the prophecy can be determined based upon the reference to Merodach-Baladan, a king of Babylon in Isaiah 39:1 where the prophecy is made, and the date of Jerusalem’s destruction by the Babylonian Chronicles. Isaiah’s prophecy may have seemed unlikely at the time because Assyria was a threat to Jerusalem and neo-Babylon was not yet organized. However, the prophecies of Jeremiah began to call on Nebuchadnezzar in 606 BC, as the Lord’s “servant,” who would punish the people of God and surrounding nations for their rebellion (Jeremiah 25:8- 11). God did not intervene to save Israel or the surrounding nations against Nebuchadnezzar, but allowed Babylon to be a world power for 70 years. Yet after 70 years, Jeremiah prophesied that Babylon would be destroyed (Jeremiah 25:12-14). During his reign, Nebuchadnezzar received a dream from the Lord of a great image made up of different metals and clay, which represented four successive kingdoms (Daniel 2:31-45, 37-40). By the inspiration of God, Daniel interpreted Babylon as the first kingdom (Daniel 2:37-38). The later prophecies of Daniel foretell of the second and third kingdoms, which were Media Persia and Greece (Daniel 8:20-21). The prophecies of Jeremiah and Daniel concerning the fall of Babylon were approximately made in 606 BC, and fulfilled in 536 BC. The prophecies of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream and future kingdoms, which were recorded in the book of Daniel, were made from 70 to 430 years in advance. Prophecy of World Leader. The prophet Isaiah foretold that a conqueror named Cyrus would destroy seemingly impregnable Babylon and subdue Egypt along with most of the rest of the known world. This same man, said Isaiah, would decide to let the Jewish exiles in his territory go free without any payment of ransom (Isaiah 41:2-5, 25; 43:14; 44:28 and 45:1, 13). Isaiah made this prophecy 150 years before Cyrus was born, 180 years before Cyrus performed any of these feats (and he did, eventually, perform them all), and 80 years before the Jews were taken into exile. Prophecy of Ancient City-State. Mighty Babylon, 196 miles square, was enclosed not only by a moat, but also by a double wall 330 feet high, each part 90 feet thick. It was said by unanimous popular opinion to be indestructible, yet two Bible prophets declared its doom. These prophets further claimed that travelers would avoid the ruins, that the city would never again be inhabited, and that its stones would not even be moved for use as building material (Isaiah 13:17-22 and Jeremiah 51:26, 43). Their description is, in fact, the well-documented history of the famous citadel. Prophecy of Christ’s Birthplace. In approximately 700 B.C. the prophet Micah named the tiny village of Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel's Messiah (Micah 5:2). The fulfillment of this prophecy in the birth of Christ is one of the most widely known and widely celebrated facts in history. Prophecy of Christ’s Betrayal. In the fifth century B.C. a prophet named Zechariah declared that the Messiah would be betrayed for the price of a slave-thirty pieces of silver, according to Jewish law-and also that this money would be used to buy a burial ground for Jerusalem's poor foreigners (Zechariah 11:12-13). Bible writers and secular historians both record thirty pieces of silver as the sum paid to Judas Iscariot for betraying Jesus, and they indicate that the money went to purchase a "potter's field," used-just as predicted-for the burial of poor aliens (Matthew 27:3-10). Prophecy of Christ’s Crucifixion. Some 400 years before crucifixion was invented, both Israel's King David and the prophet Zechariah described the Messiah's death in words that perfectly depict that mode of execution. Further, they said that the body would be pierced and that none of the bones would be broken, contrary to customary procedure in cases of crucifixion (Psalm 22 and 34:20; Zechariah 12:10). Again, historians and New Testament writers confirm the fulfillment: Jesus of Nazareth died on a Roman cross, and his extraordinarily quick death eliminated the need for the usual breaking of bones. A spear was thrust into his side to verify that he was, indeed, dead. I'll await your "complete debunking" and "demonstration" that my evidence is not a defensible reason for belief in the God of the Bible. If you cannot do so, I'll expect a full retraction of everything you've written online concerning the existence of God. Making assertions about what you think I did does not prove your case. How am I guilty of rhetoric in a dismissive way? Because I said you were too funny? That wasn't rhetoric. And how was I being dismissive? Because I chose not to counter your counters. I was responding to you on my iPhone as I was preparing for my CrossFit class. When I have the time to respond I will. Again, my argument is not circular reasoning, because my argument does not presuppose my conclusion. My argument is a summary of what we learn from the Bible: 1. God created the universe and all things therein (Acts 17.24-28). 2. God is the "Existing One" (i.e., "I AM") (Exodus 3.14) who is eternal (Psalm 90.2). God has always been here and it is He who gave rise to everything else. 3. God created mankind (Genesis 1.26-27 and 2.7, 21-22). 4. Mankind, familiar with the concept of God from the beginning, eventually corrupted themselves along with the concept of God (Genesis 3 and 4). If there were answers to all my questions why did Matt spend all his time claiming he didn't know and didn't care? Perhaps you can tell me what was before the Big Bang? What is truth and is there such a thing as absolute truth? What is consciousness and where did it come from? Where did the information in DNA and RNA come from? What is the origin of human language? Granted, none of these things gives us the right to suppose God was behind it, but the God concept is the best solution that answers all of our questions, not to mention the fact that the Bible confirms that indeed God was the one behind all these things. Regarding your attempted explanation of your theory of mind you assume the evolutionary model as the basis of your justification. The theory of evolution is a system founded upon specious arguments based on bad science. Tell me, do animals think in the same way humans think? Also, how do you know how animals think? What is your source of evidence that provides you with this information? What animals do or do not do has no bearing on the human race regarding their nature and purpose. The Bible teaches us that there is a distinct difference between the animal kingdom and the human race (Genesis 2.18-25).

Soren G Men have worshipped thousands of gods throughout history. They and all their attributes were all were imagined and conceived by men.

Great art, music, inventions etc. are all creations. Einstein created his theories. Rodriguez should not pretend he has any real understand of physics.

James Walker Indeed. If there was some sort of requirement of seeing something in nature to conceptualize it, we would not have computers, or rockets, or cars, since Nature has nothing of the sort. Even books, such as the Bible did not exist in nature. So since God gave us the Bible, does that also mean the God gave us phones, toothbrushes, refrigerators, toilets, and even the Great Pyramids ?

In Exodus God states he will 'punish the people of Egypt and their gods." Sooo, he acknowledges other deities?

Sparten7F4 And don't forget the Second Commandment "Thou shalt have no other gods before me". By including that Commandment in the Decalogue it is obvious that the Christian god acknowledges the existence of other gods.

comingatchu There are many verses that do. In fact "WE have made man in OUR image" also does as well as "I shall punish the people of Egypt AND THEIR GODS." Multiple times god also alludes to a wife figure.

Syrinx69...What a ridiculously arrogant and anserine statement! If people at the Shenandoah church of Christ, and visiting sister congregations, could not understand Matt it was not due to his undeniable intelligence and cogent arguments, but rather his circumlocutory language and circuitous reasoning. Believe that!

irkerux333( it was not due to his undeniable intelligence and cogent arguments, but rather his circumlocutory language and circuitous reasoning. Believe that!) After you've met Christians in a mass its hard to believe they survive, if they followed their group think regularly.

irkerux333 What is this crap you're spewing here? And what complete waste of time this debate was. Matt was too patient with all this BULLSHIT.

I don't think that I'd put it quite that way but I suspect that if Matt gave this presentation in almost any venue most of what he said would go over people's heads.

Syrinx69 This automatic generalization and denigration of theists doesn't help anyone here. One of the things I have learned from Matt through watching him answer calls on Atheist Experience is that no one learns anything and no progress is made if we can't at least start the conversation where theist and atheist alike are treated as equal human beings in all other matters. The difference between us is simply that we have different views and beliefs on the god/supernatural subject.

I don't know why you (and others in this comment section) make it seem like no one can understand physics unless they are "non-theists" (that don't believe in fairytales and such), which is the direct implication of your statement within the overall discussion of this video post and comment section. I did not mention which aspect of relativity I was making reference to, but since I did mention E=MC2 (those who know) would know that I was making reference to Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity from which E=MC2 arose. I understand that E=MC2 is not the "Theory of Relativity," mia culpa for not making that as clear as possible. However, it was not necessary from me to explain every detail about Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and E=MC2 at the moment I was correcting Matt. Moreover, I only made reference to E=MC2 to demonstrate that nothing at this moment can travel faster than the speed of light that is directly associated with time dilation (see second article posted in this comment). Here is an article from HowStuffWorks.com where a scientist explains why traveling faster than the speed of light is impossible, because of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity and E=MC2: "In the early 1900s, scientists held firm to the Newtonian view of the world. Then a German-born mathematician and physicist by the name of Albert Einstein came along and changed everything. In 1905, Einstein published his theory of special relativity, which put forth a startling idea: There is no preferred frame of reference. Everything, even time, is relative. Two important principles underpinned his theory. The first stated that the same laws of physics apply equally in all constantly moving frames of reference. The second said that the speed of light -- about 186,000 miles per second (300,000 kilometers per second) -- is constant and independent of the observer's motion or the source of light. According to Einstein, if Superman were to chase a light beam at half the speed of light, the beam would continue to move away from him at exactly the same speed. These concepts seem deceptively simple, but they have some mind-bending implications. One of the biggest is represented by Einstein's famous equation, E = mc², where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light. According to this equation, mass and energy are the same physical entity and can be changed into each other. Because of this equivalence, the energy an object has due to its motion will increase its mass. In other words, the faster an object moves, the greater its mass. This only becomes noticeable when an object moves really quickly. If it moves at 10 percent the speed of light, for example, its mass will only be 0.5 percent more than normal. But if it moves at 90 percent the speed of light, its mass will double. As an object approaches the speed of light, its mass rises precipitously. If an object tries to travel 186,000 miles per second, its mass becomes infinite, and so does the energy required to move it. For this reason, no normal object can travel as fast or faster than the speed of light." Furthermore, I was only making reference to traveling into the past, which is what I gathered from Matt, as he confirmed when he came back up after my question and made reference to wormholes and such. Here is another reference taken from Wikipedia for those who want to check my explanation (note how they also reference special relativity and E=MC2): "Time travel to the past in physics Time travel to the past is theoretically allowed using the following methods: Travelling faster than the speed of light The use of cosmic strings and black holes Wormholes and Alcubierre drive Via faster-than-light (FTL) travel: If one were able to move information or matter from one point to another faster than light, then according to the theory of relativity, there would be some inertial frame of reference in which the signal or object was moving backward in time. This is a consequence of the relativity of simultaneity in special relativity, which says that in some cases different reference frames will disagree on whether two events at different locations happened "at the same time" or not, and they can also disagree on the order of the two events (technically, these disagreements occur when the spacetime interval between the events is 'space-like', meaning that neither event lies in the future light cone of the other). If one of the two events represents the sending of a signal from one location and the second event represents the reception of the same signal at another location, then as long as the signal is moving at the speed of light or slower, the mathematics of simultaneity ensures that all reference frames agree that the transmission-event happened before the reception-event. However, in the case of a hypothetical signal moving faster than light, there would always be some frames in which the signal was received before it was sent, so that the signal could be said to have moved backwards in time. And since one of the two fundamental postulates of special relativity says that the laws of physics should work the same way in every inertial frame, then if it is possible for signals to move backwards in time in any one frame, it must be possible in all frames. This means that if observer A sends a signal to observer B which moves FTL (faster than light) in A's frame but backwards in time in B's frame, and then B sends a reply which moves FTL in B's frame but backwards in time in A's frame, it could work out that A receives the reply before sending the original signal, a clear violation of causality in every frame. An illustration of such a scenario using spacetime diagrams can be found here. The scenario is sometimes referred to as a tachyonic antitelephone. According to special relativity, it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate a slower-than-light object to the speed of light. Although relativity does not forbid the theoretical possibility of tachyons which move faster than light at all times, when analyzed using quantum field theory, it seems that it would not actually be possible to use them to transmit information faster than light. There is also no widely agreed-upon evidence for the existence of tachyons; the faster-than-light neutrino anomaly had suggested that neutrinos were possibly tachyons, but the results of the experiment were found to be invalid upon further analysis. Another group of experimenters state that a lack of radiation posited by a theory indicates the neutrinos cannot have really been traveling faster than light. The OPERA team leader, Dario Autiero, and CERN's research director, Sergio Bertolucci, note that other explanations are possible for the lack of neutrino energy loss via radiation." I appreciate your attempt to help me out, but I did and do know what I am talking about, even if perspicuity escaped me in aspects of my presentation. You might want to comment on Matt's presentations, because he was the one that clearly did not know what he was talking about.

irkerux333 -"I don't know why you (and others in this comment section) make it seem like no one can understand physics unless they are "non-theists"" NO! We're just saying that YOU fail. As Guitcad1 points out, and as has been pointed out before E=MC2 has nothing to do with time travel. And you are failing on more than one level. Maybe qoting yourself will help: "Time travel is not possible because in order for time travel to be possible we would need to travel faster than the speed of light." So you present ONE idea that you can conceive of, and ONE argument against that idea (If we grant you, that you were trying to explain that we cannot simply accelerate a conventional spacecraft beyond c). Are you seriously not seeing a problem with that? The idea of time travel like we see in the movies has paradoxical problems that might not be solvable. What you were trying to do was one of the most sorry excuses for a straw man I have seen in a while. I'm glad that you try to educate yourself on the subject but maybe you shouldn't try to relay your lacking understanding of the subject instead of waiting for a Nobel prize for cracking the possibility of time travel. So what did Matt say that was anywhere nearly as flawed?

irkerux333" I don't know why you ... make it seem like no one can understand physics unless they are 'non-theists'" I never said any such thing. I know perfectly well that there are plenty of theists out there who are scientifically literate and do understand relativity. You are not one of them.

Guitcad1 You don't read very well do you. I didn't say you said that. What I said was you implied that. Maybe that's why you're having problems understanding what I said in the video and what I'm writing in response to your silly posts. It's interesting how you failed to comment on the articles I sent you that clearly substantiates my claims both in the video and in my responses. Niels Kloster is obviously still upset from our last conversation (which was similar to this one) and has been following my responses closely trying to pinup and patch up his position, but it won't stand. Better luck next time guys!

irkerux333 Yes, I get upset when people are being deliberately uneducated and dishonest. Duck, cover and ad hominem seems to remain the only defense to be expected from this idiot.

Kamizushi Akinari I view the presup argument more as: "I'm not willing to have an intellectually honest conversation, therefore I'm going to declare victory right off of the bat, and not bother to back up my claims with actual evidence because then you may make me think."

Michael Coen Well said.

LOL!!!

+Diosa Allen This guy is the George W Bush of religious debate... He babbles words in circles and says like every fifth word with emphasis like he's building a point. I swear one of his turns was 2 minutes of him coming up with different ways to explain what word context means.

Well let me extend my condolences since u r now left with zero neural cells.

+Chrissy Margo if you say so i guess. I thought i was expressing a dislike for his style of debate, but I'm no expert.

I like how Matt spent so much time talking about how "humans created gods to explain things they don't understand" and one of the first thing the religious dude says is "Without god we can not explain consciousness"... I mean, does he not realize he just proves Matts point? The dude makes no sense, why can't we make up gods, we've obviously been doing it for longer than Jesus has been talked about..

I miss him because he was a peaceful fighter. The thinking womans man, l am sad the legal nicotine took him from the world. I'm happy to have his videos and the world has lost another free thinker.

Apparently, you've never heard of sye ten bruggencate

Never heard of Ray Comfort?

Oh I have. And while he's bad Sye is much worse. I'd put him on the same level of Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.

Jillin Surgunt...Lol! Thank you for your baseless opinion. I might remind you that I'm not the one who said "I don't know" to every question I asked throughout these debates. Furthermore, on this night of our debate Matt did not affirm that God was a human invention, the best he could do is to say, "I don't know, but I think He was?" Honing one's skill to oppugn necessary inferences is not critical thinking. Matt never denied my point that human imagination is incapable of inventing new ideas "out of whole cloth" (as he put it). Simply put, human imagination cannot create the idea of God (the God of the Bible), just as matter cannot spawn from utter nothingness!

irkerux333 First off, what's the problem with "I don't know?" I'm pretty sure that Dillahunty has refuted the point: "that human imagination is incapable of inventing new ideas "out of whole cloth" (as he put it). Simply put, human imagination cannot create the idea of God (the God of the Bible), just as matter cannot spawn from utter nothingness!" but if he hasn't, here's a refutation. Yes we can. We do it all the time. Example: Super + Man. Now you are asserting that you do know that god is not just a product of human id. How do you know this? What is your evidence that a god exists wholly separate from humanity? And how do you know you are right? Because "I don't know" is better than knowing the WRONG answer. Only knowledge that is true has any practical application and is thus of any use. (One could even argue that untrue knowledge is not even knowledge at all. So if you claim to know without actually knowing, then you don't know at all.)

Not a single coherent thought did you express in this debate. Just awful, pathetic and non intellectual.

+DoorknobHead I am going to reply to myself, because I came across some information that may help explain why the religions seem to use their child mind instead of their adult mind -- it happens that they ARE using their child mind! (plus vernonclassic brought me back here by replying to irkerux333) One of the fascinating things about people listening to religious people and those who oppose science, is trying to understand why they believe what I would consider obvious nonsense. I came across an article: P. Bloom & D.S. Weisberg, "Childhood origins of adult resistance to science", published in Science, May 18, 2007. It basically related that the mind of a child comes bundled with some boot-strap, hard-coded software (child-mind instincts) that help them to survive, but are not rooted in what is real. Their concept is called "Promiscuous Teleology" and helps explain why so many distinct cultures create god myths. Promiscuous Teleology -- documented erroneous thinking in young children. Seven and eight-year olds, for example, agree with teleological statements such as "Rocks are jagged so animals scan scratch themselves" , "Birds exist to make nice music" and mountains exist so that mountain goats have something to climb. These mistakes diminish, normally, as kids take more science classes and learn causal explanations for natural events. But Bloom and Weisberg note: "...developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with emerging, intuitive expectations. The resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy. [such as parents, preachers, and their local public surroundings]" RELIGIOUS PEOPLE DO THINK WITH A CHILD'S MIND! They have not been taught to outgrown their animalistic instincts, and do not have educated minds that get them past bootstrap thinking routines and the ability to understand the nature of reality. The religious remain to have the minds of an animal -- my words, not there's.

But if you ask him about Zeus or Odin or Krishna or any of the thousands of gods Israel will tell you that they were created by men...lol

+ShowMe Yep. Arguments depend on the truth of their premises. And Premises need to be supported by empirical evidence. If you have no empirical evidence... then what on earth is your argument possibly based on? Metaphysical assumptions? Big whoop! I can "prove" everything with that kind of game!

The reason everybody loves Matt so much is because he makes ……. Theist r u ready…… SENCE

What arguments?

+Joshua Smith Exactly. My dad is a good hunter, welder, and mechanic. Me, horrid hunter, never welded in my life, and while I can do very basic repairs (alternator replacement is about as far as I go), I certainly wasn't born knowing this.