If someone can follow a holy book with even a single contradiction, he's already deluded.

What's even worse is that this is pretty much an admission that the bible is irrelevant...and yet his entire opening is bible-centric. WTF?

People ironically set the lowest bar possible for the ultimate truth and the book that decides whether you go to hell for eternity. Such a book cannot have a punctuation error much less glaring plot holes.

Yes, of course. That has to be the only reason. Step right up, ladies and gentlemen! Life's greatest questions answered right here in one simple sentence! No reading, no researching, not even any thinking! You heard it here first!

howard _talking donkey, nuff said_ That's probably your primary, though likely not your first, mistake. You wouldn't settle for the first surface impression in anything else (I hope). You shouldn't with the Bible, either, if yo're going to understand it well enough to criticize it. The story of Balaam isn't about the donkey, it's a narrative story, not a history, and it's about stubborn, unlistening Israel. Even a donkey can see what Israel does not. 'nuff said'? Not hardly.

brothers, what have we done. look at us. look at what we've become. This isn't right. we're wasting time going on about girls and sus drawings that don't give a f*ck about us. What is the point of lust? Why do we do this? This doesn't fix our problems, doesn't make the stress and pain go away. repent to God, friends. We must stay focused, brothers, on what really matters. I'm only 17, but I'm telling you, in the words of johnny cash, "sooner or later God will cut you down." you will lose almost everything important to you. please, for your sakes, repent and turn to Jesus. He is, in the words of Skillet, "better than drugs." He is also better than lust. love > lust. You'll find out that this is true. love may hurt, and same for lust, but lust will keep you chained down, eventually killing you. Ayo I don’t mean to force anything on anyone, but we have various types of evidence for biblical events, if anyone is interested (read on) hell was never meant for us, my fellow youtube user. it was for the devil and his squad, and God gave us the Way out of there since we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. God knew we were wack, but He decided He was still come down and help us, despite our unfaithfulness. most relationships (like friendships, romantic relationships) aren't like this. Very few, but not a whole lot. religion (Christianity) is just a relationship with God along with loving others (see james 1:27) also, we have various types of evidence that backs up tthe Bible. Here's one example: Scientists have discovered that the earth "skipped" a day. The Bible explains how that happened. In the book of Joshua, Joshua asked the sun to stop so he and the Israelites could defeat their enemies. Then in 2 Kings, King Hezekiah learned he was dying, and pleaded to God to not let him die. God sent a prophet to king hezekiah who said hezekiah would live. Hezekiah wanted a sign, and that would be for the sun to defy the law of inertia and go back 10 degrees. NASA confirmed it and did the math (look it up for more info). We also found Noah’s Ark hanging out in turkey, along with anchor stones marked with crosses signifying that it’s a revered place, along with altars and many other things. Look it up, it’s good stuff The Holy Spirit exists. I was a slave to s3xual sin for 7-ish d@mn years. Finally at 16, God freed me. Also, look up John Gabbana's (boonk gang) testimony. Dude did a lot of wacky stuff. He's changed now. also, the soul exists. someone i know (i won't say who- privacy reasons) saw their soul leaving their body. like pulling off a band-aid, except it doesn't hurt. I was suicidal for 9-ish months, but then I read John 3:16, and poof- the big sad went away in one night. There are also non-Christian sources who have confirmed the existence and divinity of Jesus, some of which were hostile towards Christianity, such as: Thallus (52 AD), who said Jesus lived, was crucified, and confirmed the darkness and earthquake that followed Christ’s crucifixion; Tacitus (56-120 AD), who called the followers of Christ Christians, confirmed that Jesus was crucified under Pontus Pilate’s command Talmud (400-700 AD), confirmed that the disciples were martyred for their faith, and confirmed Jesus was executed the day before the Passover, and said Jesus had “magical” powers Pliny the Younger (61-113 AD), who said that the Christians thought Jesus was/is God in the Flesh (God the Son) Phlegon (80-140 AD), who said Jesus had the ability to predict the future, and confirmed that Jesus was crucified during Caesar’s reign, confirmed Jesus rose from the dead, and confirmed He showed His wounds to confirm He was crucified. Celcus (175 AD), who said Jesus was born of a virgin, said His father is a carpenter, and confirmed Jesus had miraculous powers (See cold-case Christianity for more details) Here’s the physical evidence of Jesus and His Resurrection: 1) No persecution would have started if He hadn’t come back (the disciples thought Jesus would never resurrect) 2) The Roman soldiers would have paid with their lives if they failed at their jobs 3) there was a 2-4 ton rock that 11-12 guys would have to move (they didn’t have any help. Everyone said “crucify Him”) major L to those opposed to Jesus 4) there was a Roman seal which was a metal pin that sealed the tomb stone 5) Stealing the Jesus’s body isn’t something the disciples would do (besides Judas. Although he hung himself after feeling remorse for betraying Jesus). 6) the disciples wouldn’t die for what they knew would be a lie. (The lie being Jesus never made the ultimate comeback) faith, science, and reason, people hit me up to learn more about how science proves the Bible or just about God in general

My dad believes that exact same argument.

Therefore all religions are true because all religions have similar stories. That's something I always tell a X whenever they give me weak reasoning like that. And theres plenty of them "We have a book", "Our people were careful to copy our gods words", "our holy men speak to spirits, gods, ancestors", "I feel it in my heart" et al.

+NicosMind Well, it is a slightly better argument than that. Namely he works off how Luke-Acts is likely (fairly) historical and thus has more credence. Doesn't make the argument much better, but still better than holy texts that can't make that claim.

Actually, many ancient "holy" texts and writings contain historically accurate information. For example, the Mesha Stele gives an account of a war between the country of Moab and the Hebrew king Omri. However, the author of the stele attributes the Moabite victory to the god Chemosh. So, because the people and cities were historical, and the battle took place, does that also mean Chemosh is real? Or because Greece, Mt. Olympus, and Athens exist, therefore Zeus and the pantheon? This is the problem. Ancient authors often blended history and fiction, making it hard to differentiate.

there is no actual history there he is using the bible to prove the bible.

Lol true. As if people need a reason to lie.

@@guitargodthor2 This was before George Santos but absolutely.

Exactly. There is no telling what a person’s reasons for lying might be. In some cases, the person themselves may not be entirely sure either, especially is lying is a habit. In this case, I can also very easily see why people would lie. Being privy to this amazing truth, about God, the meaning of life, all that, is bound to give you some kind of status in your community.

Yea that’s a really bizarre assumption to make

People don’t go to torturous death to protect a lie. Why go to agonized death just to tell BS?! Nobody is that dumb. Wake up and think outside of the box you cower in

Of the two hypothesis, only one has been known to occur. That makes it far more likely if the two (Matt’s).

A Skeptical Human - He is good at distracting with unimportant details.

At (46:15) Mr Dillahunty said "It's hot up here" .... Tragically Mr. Dillahunty has NO idea of "hot" but if he does not repent and believe.....sadly he will.

Logic was never any fairy-tale believer's strong point... ;)

@@sandiegodavid622 Crikey! A THIRD orgasm from the sadistic burning-atheist-watcher! Are you trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records, or something?

@@sandiegodavid622Cute claim, got any evidence?

AronRa had Blake backed in a

Yeah, that's what I took from that bit. Currently 24 minutes in and fully expecting Matt to pull out the Spiderman analogy.

So Luke knew someone who had done this journey, or had done this journey himself? Big deal.... it's a long leap to go from "a 1st century bibliographer had been on a boat" to "Jesus rose from the dead".

I just started watching this video. No recollection of having seen it before but I saw your comment and ‘liked’ it. Though I didn’t ‘like’ it. I ‘unliked’ it because I’d already liked it 3 years ago 😂

I would disagree.

Politely or violently?

I think he is a lot more rational than Dilahunty

@@timothyliebbe274 No. He's not. He can't even do simple math. And hilariously, he doesn't know how to use Bayes' theorem that he so heavily and incorrectly relies on. He can't even understand how basic 50/50 probability work in isolation vs in sets. His logic only works on people who don't have the appropriate bs detector. It's just slight of hand. Obvious to some, magical to others.

@@timothyliebbe274 Blake is no dummy. When they start debating Matt defeats every argument with simple analogies and Blake can only deflect, change subject, backtrack ever so slightly to change the goal post, etc etc. He knows what he's doing is disingenuous. 250,000 years of human evolution - not a single demonstration of any super powerful beings, let alone jesus, let alone a god. But there will always be people who, for one reason or another, will fall for it.

And then his response is an appeal to the authority of biblical scholarly institutions. Worked out perfectly for Matt there.

More justified, since the Mormons have written testimony by 8+ people that they saw Smith’s golden plates. My guess is that they lied.

I would posit that what the people saw was a deception. This is the same I believe about Mohammed. Read about Mohammed's multiple encounters with the angel. Crazy stuff. If what the Bible talks about the devil is true, there is no doubt that deception is one of his tools. Why do I know it is deception? Because in both religious instances it makes alterations to the doctrines that were already in place from the Old Testament.

@ 1:16:39 he says he needs evidence for claims about Jesus if it’s from the Book of Mormon. and you can hear people laugh in the background

That's right because you can rule out lying with the claims of the Resurrection but not with claims made in the book of mormons. lol duuu

It’s clear Blake misunderstood his own citations. No way every scholar believes Christ appeared to the apostles.

​@@Nick-Nastior even that they would say "the disciples definitely all had one singular shared experience which led them all to believe that Jesus rose from the dead."

@@just-bnji if you can have a shared experience at different decades, perhaps but that is unlikely. It’s almost certainly that they plagiarized from the one before. I use the term “they” because each gospel had multiple authors and they we all anonymous (multiple people wrote Matthew, etc). Biblical scholars are almost unanimous on this.

@@Nick-Nasti it certainly does not mean what he uses it to mean. Ots almost sad to see the way he's clinging to such a weak argument. Would have liked to see Matt dig deeper into that and to see him cite any sources. Kinda brought the discussion to a halt. I was glad Blake was respectful and at least had thought out most parts of his argument, instead of spouting ridiculous dogma the WHOLE time.

What do you mean

@@milkbone8245 I have no idea anymore. I would guess what I was saying is that I found that line by Matt to be really funny, though I no longer know why.

@@Raz.C I love this reply

I have a more probable answer to Saul’s letters and the Gospels: they made it up!!

Or believed what others made up.

ALL Religious Apologists are bottom feeding scum bags, scammers, crooks, insane, delusional and Fast talking LIARS!! They are pure dog shit!!!

@@gazzarover why tho

It’s crazy how dishonest blake was this entire debate. He intentionally added and changed words to people’s questions. It’s painfully easy to hear when he knows he needs to obfuscate. All the excuses for a make believe fuckhead in the sky. Sad as shit imo

At (46:15) Mr Dillahunty said "It's hot up here" .... Tragically Mr. Dillahunty has NO idea of "hot" but if he does not repent and believe.....sadly he will.

@@sandiegodavid622 L comment

@Gabe Norman your make believe sky daddy is the only thing that's stupid, dipshit. We're the anti-stupid

@Gabe Norman Did the unicorn tell you that or the fairy?

@Gabe Norman show me on the doll where atheism touched you...

A story about anonymous witnesses, whose tesimony was never actually recorded and can be found nowhere else but in an account written decades later intended to prove to people Christianity was true.

Mate, you can't expect logic from a fairy-tale believer! ;)

god is this sentence that i am writing right now. the sentence i just wrote clearly exists, therefore god exists.

nice one.hehe

Anybody can write tales in a book.with names and places. Doesn't mean there's any proof .

Yeah... This was ugly.

That's one of those questions that can easily be -dodged- answered by appealing to God magic. "Oh, you'll have free will, but being in Heaven in God's perfect presence will make your existence so blissful that you aren't even tempted to sin!" Of course, something like that flies in the face of the "God doesn't want mindless automatons" idea...but inconsistencies are nothing new in apologetics.

Hey Ian. Good Q. I don't think we have free will to sin in heaven. We've already made the free decision to hate our sin and submit our will in that area to God, to make us sinners no more.

Blake Giunta do you think babies who die go to heaven automatically? Or are they given a choice between heaven and hell?

That decision is presumably made by people prior to death, yet all people by Christian doctrinal definition are sinners. Simply making the decision does not result in the state of "sinner no more".

Of course there'll be free will in heaven, thus assuring that there will be another celestial civil war and once again proving that God can't keep his shit together.

If you're that lazy, just skip to the end.

Don't spoil me the 2 hours and a half of debate! I miss the first 3 minutes of the video!

Matt rekt you lol

Please Lord Dillahunty, forgive my sins. I accept your comment as truth and reject my false believe that some people want to hear a debate and not an introduction that they heard time and time again about Giunta.

I actually appreciated the comment and clicked on the time stamp. I rolled the pointer over the first 3 mins to double check but in this fast pace world where theres hours worth of content to watch, and limited time to watch it, any time saved is good in my eyes.

There are hundreds of men named jesus. Does that mean he was acually the" son of god?)

Every single historian? False.

Also, this isn't an obscure piece of trivia based on hundreds of arcane pieces of data, there's actually very VERY few pieces of evidence which are argued over adnausiem. Christians love to comment on 'tje consensus' because it distracts from the pausity of evidence and the abundance of contracts stipulating beliefs before publishing.

Agreed. He can use all the mundane things in the world to show that it is possible that the mundane things happened. And the burden of proof for something mundane tends to be much lower than something extraordinary. And the extraordinary (supernatural) claims are nowhere close to being met.

@@shanewilson7994 im 5 years late but i agree also. It like the "prophecy" claims. I always say "if i say i will stub my toe in the next 5 years and it happens am I prophet"?

@@marty4760 I hall prophet Marty. I used to do a thing where I'd predict that there would be at least x amount of earthquakes over the next week. And every single time I was in the ballpark (I think only 1 time I overpredicted, the rest I slightly under). Of course this was also me looking at a website that tracks all of the earthquakes and just taking an average, and undercutting that every week. I miss my days of being a prophet, but I shall now boost you up Marty, as the prophet of toe stubbing, and I hope you haven't had any visions of me stubbing mine in the near future.

it's supposed to be evidence that the author was at the events, else he couldn't have known those details

Chris Collins like religion

Chris Collins Right: now all we have to do is come up with a logical and historically valid explanation for why the disciples truly believed that Christ died and rose from the dead.

Dying and Rose from the death is not just Jesus alone, Chinese mythology has it all the time. In fact the very concept of become Fairies is to "SHRED OFF the Mortal's Body and Ascend". Basically unlike Jesus, Chinese Mythology didn't just have physical body, then die, then physical body come back and then become higher being. That's redundancy. However, from the discussion in video earlier, after Jesus died, then came back, everyone didn't recognize Jesus until Jesus revealed himself. That statement alone show Jesus didn't come back as mortal body, but higher beings and his disciple mistaken think Jesus still in Mortal's body. So that is the same as every Chinese mythology, died and ascend to higher being. Therefore, Jesus didn't die and come back to life, Jesus died and have a metamorphosis to become something higher than humans, the same as every mythology out there. Like Buddah died and transcend should work the same as Jesus, not the usual excuse of "Jesus is the only one who died and came back to life". Anyway, that aside, all these talk only work if there are evident that Jesus actually died and TRANSCEND. The problem is there is NO EVIDENT for that, the same as there are NO EVIDENT for any fairies or Buddah or whatever God to died and TRANSCEND mankind. Because if it does work, every religions will have their God, Buddah, Fairies and such to have same standards as Jesus.

Chris Collins as g oq

@@thomasthellamas9886 People believe false things en mass all the time. Why do Muslims believe what they do? Why do Hindus. Christianity isn't special. It isn't unique.

Everyone who claims to be abducted by aliens should tell their stories and have the people they tell, tell others and have them tell others and so on. Then at some point in the future have the people of the people of the peoples people write down the story. Then in 2k years the stories will be reliable, completely true and unchanged.

They wrote down their beliefs 15-50 years after the supposed events. It was urgent, after all. 🤣

Hey guys, if I die, I know the meaning to life. Don't ask me about it now though.

@@scienceexplains302 More like 40 - 120 years after the supposed events... ;)

@@theseustoo The latest date I have heard for Jesus’ execution is 36. Paul’s earliest epistle is probably from 51. That’s how I got 15. I guess I was forgetting about John on the other end of the range

It`s kind of sad to see that he gets the false points in other religions but when he applies it to christianity he get stuck. 1 minute later(@1:17:00) they talk about the book of mormon and he gets the flaws instantly, but It seems impossible for him to think that way about jesus. I guess that`s what religious indoctrination does to you.

Your so right. He so fails and just says but there's people that have reasons for this at some schools so it's true

@@kingcool6 But you have to admit there is a difference. Jesus is the central figure in Christianity. If it were true I would think the people who lived amongst him and claimed to have seen him resurrected are more trustworthy than some guy thousands of years later claiming God told him in private. Not saying it's TRUE either way but they are different and one seems more believable by virtue that a group of people claim to have witnessed the actual events vs some random guy asking you to believe his private experience thousands of years after the events.

@@j2mfp78 You don't know that "a group of people claimed to have witnessed..." You only know that 1 guy wrote that "a group of people claimed to have witnessed" which is the exact same thing joseph smith did. 1 guy wrote that a group of people blah... And the christian accounts are equally preposterous, not least of which because the earliest of them were written a generation after jeebus had died, making the written accounts nothing more than rumours or hearsay.

@@j2mfp78 I mean, if I wrote a book that said that the entire population of Australia had witnessed me flying through the air, walking on water and moving the moon with my hands, that doesn't mean that these witnesses actually exist, nor that these events happened. You'd have to take my word for all the things AND witnesses I'm claiming. I'm genuinely surprised that you bungled this the way you did (claiming a group of people witnessed blah), as this is the kind of thinking that convinces christians and NOT the kind of better thinking representative of a skeptic.

Underrated comment

Nice wrestling analogy!

Awww... where would be the fun in that? It would be like playing Cyberpunk and NOT shooting anyone! ;) (Just kidding... I believe in being civil and polite to people just as long as they're civil and polite to me. But if they abuse me, I reserve the right to pay them back... with interest!)

Well, Blake isn't a piece of shit like Matt Slick, or any number of other religious guys that Matt debates...

Lacking even a name for the alleged author immediately defeats the entire argument. It's the equivalent of saying "you don't know her, she goes to another school".

I couldn't help but think of Julia Sweeney's Letting Go of God monologue.

He is suspiciously calculated in his attempts to use rhetorical tools. This does away with the mental image of an unknown author. That's a downer to his arguments about being able to know things. Having his audience associate the author with a name makes it seem less speculative.

Yea I think I was lost before that cause I don't remember Fred.

Why? he was merely admitting the universally understood (among scholars) that the 4 Gospels were not written by the names appended to them 400 years later. Rather than continually stating " The author of Mark (or Luke, Mathew or John) he avoided confusion and was intellectually honest by avoiding the normal use of those names, thus avoiding confusion among the large percentage of Christians who are not aware of the facts. Kudos to him, it's the first time I've seen the Christian side of such debates being so honest on that issue.

That episode was rather shameful.

TheZooCrew yep, not that it matters to me as a Brit but I was really hoping to hear a rational case for voting Trump, safe to say that didn't happen.

I don't think that's even possible.

ShinRaPresident You're claiming that people can't change their minds. Just like before, I can't fix your hate boner for Clinton, but I can object to this silliness. I have zero patience for this "Clinton = Trump" bullshit. It's stupidly far from the truth.

ShinRaPresident *Would you like all the videos from HRC openly being against equal rights for LGBT?* Yes. *The only reason HRC says she does not support TTP or Keystone Pipeline is because Bernie Sanders forced her to the left* Good. This is the political process in action. Stop whining. *She denies history as if we don't have video evidence of her comments* Prove it. I've asked people to do this before and I haven't seen anything damning. And it doesn't matter anyway...I'm not about to get butthurt over people changing their minds for the better. You can bitch and moan all you want; I don't fucking care.

Yes, I agree.

Justin Perea he is annoying as fuck.

I never ever fast forward through a debate but here was different

Good question. Note that this is not the the skeptic's problem to solve.

Also note that it is a bullshit defense by the theists because they want to make a case for their religion by making an argument for an event that hasn't happened and can't physically happen as far as we know. make claim that x religion is real --> because impossible event that hasn't happened would show that it is real or that because we can't explain x thing through natural causes at this moment so it MUST Be supernatural --> therefore their x religion is real.

That's not saying much.

TheZooCrew I know, damning with feint praise. ;)

I like him in general - seems like a good guy - plus, compared to the odious Sye - he sounds like an actual "Saint" ;-)

Are you serious? He's amongst the best out there? What does that mean how weak and labored the arguments of truly BAD apologists must be?

Urs F Just watch someone like William Lane Craig for comparison.

This is why Matt calls Giunta out for making a category error. This is the kind of shit that Sye ten Bruggencate does...avoid the question by lighting the entire discussion on fire.

That was pretty dumb. I was surprised that Matt didn't do a better job of shutting that down. He was being too nice.

At least Matt did call it out for being the misdirection that it was. He should've been leaned into a bit more than that but they ran out of time. I think on the whole Blake didn't do too bad a job as far as being relatively fair with what he said, but that was one thing he did I thought was slimy.

I know that's not really the point of your comment, but I would like to point out that the scientific method is not really used in mathematics. Mathematics uses deduction, rather than induction, which is what the scientific method is mainly about. It relies on logically sound statements that create a chain from the known to the claimed. Empirical data and repeatability isn't really relevant, except perhaps for inspiration.

+Alex Larsen good point.

I am similarly inclined. It's a great way to avoid a question. Maybe instead of spending his entire opening talking about things other than the resurrection, he could have instead talked about this "equation." That would have been much more on topic.

TheZooCrew I agree 100%. He keeps holding out that he has an equation.... but never tells it... it's just too complex for right now. Ok... well what is it!? If he is reading these comments (The possibility exists) I hope he links us to the equation. I really want to see how someone is going to mathematically prove God... because I don't think this is possible. Matt often times made sense of this by asking how he knew the possibility of things. He seemed to avoid the question even more when presented with this.

Right? I've been fed up but I wanna give credence to the entire thing. In his first ability to speak he's lost almost *all* credibility from me with his saying "Other things exist and happened therefore jesus" for 80% of the time, then acting as if it's proven jesus existed and he's *only* got to say "Hey it couldn't have been a look-a-like" and _everyone_ dies on the cross so jesus did too, and the rock was super heavy so therefore miracle. Then goes completely off the deep end with "They would *know* they were hallucinating" and "There are no mass hallucinations". Like, he literally has no idea what he's talking about. Not figurative, literally. Apparently schizophrenic people don't exist and then since it was a bunch of people who said so they *must've* seen the sun dance around in the sky ( www.wikiwand.com/en/Miracle_of_the_Sun ) And his whole "I've got *sooo much* I have to leave out" he repeats _at least_ half a dozen times so far. Just like you said, it's always "There's a mountain of evidence that proves I'm right! I just can't show you right now" Just like you I'm *more than welcome* to look at any sources anyone could provide. I'm *sincerely* willing to give up my position and confess I'm wrong, _given_ there's evidence that proves so. I WANT to know where I'm wrong. I would be *happy* to find I'm wrong so that I don't believe it anymore and can move on to the correct answer. But the people who attempt to step up to this (mainly christians) just get livid that I'm _still_ going to be skeptical and expect *actual evidence* and just because it was "evidence" to _them_ that doesn't mean it's honestly rational evidence. (Like Hitchens liked to point out with the man [idk his name] who came across a waterfall frozen in 3 sections and took that to represent the trinity and therefore became christian on the spot)

Troy Roebuck I emailed him hoping for the equation. Keep your fingers crossed....

Brian Stevens Really?! That's awesome! I think you can send private messages with the G+ account, right? Would you be willing to send me his email?

It's the same place you excrete food waste

"for no reason".... I'm pretty sure I have trained and good ones. Nothing I conceded establishes the case. Which was the point. And denying or arguing over mundane points that ate well accepted and don't help make the case is a waste of time and makes one look as obtuse as some mythicists.

what examples?

Yep! We even have video footage of David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear! And thousands of people who witnessed the event live! LOL! Doesn't mean it ever really happened, though, does it?! :D

1:16:42

which fool

+Matt Dillahunty He is referring to your opponent.

Yes, SHE is referring to your opponent;)

Who's more foolish, the fool, or the fool who follows? - Obi Wan Kenobi

What does that quote have to do with anything here?

At (46:15) Mr Dillahunty said "It's hot up here" .... Tragically Mr. Dillahunty has NO idea of "hot" but if he does not repent and believe.....sadly he will.

@@sandiegodavid622 Creaming your jeans while imagining atheists burning AGAIN?! I suppose that's what's known as the 'second coming'! :P

@@theseustoo vile. He expressed genuine concern for the man's soul and that it would be sad if he did nor come to Christ, but all you have to say is a joke about cum. Amazing. If you and I are the descendants of fish in a purposeless unguided universe, you have nothing to worry about. But if Christ is risen, you should rethink everything.

@@sandiegodavid622 "Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church, we're just making him madder and madder". Homer Simpson.

It seems Occam's razor solves this.

It's perhaps the worst argument I've ever heard. It's defining a god into existence in the exact same way as the most primitive forms of the ontological argument. Alvin Plantinga is an embarrassment to my alma mater.

TheZooCrew I'll give it credit that at first it seems difficult to take on. But once you have a bit of time to sit back and think about it (or maybe it is easy and it just took me a bit to catch the flaws) then it falls apart.

ReiperX Yes, it's difficult to address directly...but that's deliberate. Obfuscation is not the strength of a good argument.

TheZooCrew Oh I agree. Honestly, it is one of the reasons I really like Matt, he doesn't attempt to obfuscate. He doesn't try to talk over people's heads, and he defines his terms if there is confusion. This is something I rarely see from apologists.

Indeed, it would be a far greater being that can create everything and not exist. ;)

Found it! kzfaq.info/get/bejne/abhkd7yZ1dyyqpc.htmlh22s

Most verifiable piece of evidence? Why would it need to satisfy that criteria. Just being verifiable is enough and Blake explains this beautifully during the debate.

People had ears in the Bible. We have ears. "WAHHH!!! THEY WERE REAL GOD IS REAL!!!!!"

Pretty much

At (46:15) Mr Dillahunty said "It's hot up here" .... Tragically Mr. Dillahunty has NO idea of "hot" but if he does not repent and believe.....sadly he will.

@@sandiegodavid622 HAHAHA! It's because hot weather and hot environments exist.....Unlike your god! You should get laid, pal. Stop worrying about where other people are NOT going. Keep this in mind, there is more proof for aliens than there are for your god. When was the last time the military acknowledged the existence of your god? Or, anyone produced a photo, even a grainy or blurry photo! Sadly for you, you'll be on death's doorstep when you finally realize you wasted your time! To be honest, I don't really care what you waste your time believing!

@@sandiegodavid622 FOUR orgasms for the sadistic burning-atheist watcher! Ye gods and little fishes! Do you really think that joke is THAT good? :/ I certainly don't!

LMFAO you mad bro?

The horrific capital punishment of crucifixion was as much a message to society as it was a punishment of the individual. Bodies remained on the cross for months and years, long after they became sun bleached skeletons and until the joints of the skeletons deteriorated and they fell from the cross.

Strange as it may seem, there is actually a case of ONE single person (well... only one that I know of, anyway!) being removed from a cross: This was a friend of Josephus, who, coincidentally, was crucified in a group of three... And Josephus, who was a personal favorite of the Flavian Emperor Vespasian (after he'd somehow managed to survive the mass suicide at Massada and turned traitor to his own people), asked the Roman guard to take the man from down from the cross... Well, of course the guard could only obey Caesar's favorite, couln't he? But I don't think this man survived... so he may have been buried. And I'm pretty sure he wasn't resurrected! Now I have my own pet hypothesis that Paul was the alter-ego of Josephus (who played a role in the Court of the Flavian dynasty similar to that played by Francis Bacon in the court of Queen Elizabeth I: i.e. as chief historian/propagandist as well as 'spymaster'...) and that the latter, using 'Paul' as a pseudonym, wrote most of, if not the entire New Testament... (and at least supervised the writing of those parts he didn't personally pen!) for reasons best explained by another 'Joseph'! I.e. Joseph Atwill, in his book 'Caesar's Messiah'! Surely the 'crucifixion story' about Jesus was based on this event...? If not, it's a fabulous coincidence! Well... I think it's an intriguing possibility, anyway!