Every time I add a source to an arguement people stop arguing, it's kinda magical.

>brown person

😎🤘👍

@@Frederick1483 who you? or are you claiming to be a racist?

Why dont you like Christianity or people arguing for it?

yep. fraudulent passion = strong faith...or so he is trying to sell.

You will find this formula Is used in politics as well.

I remember this from summer school well XD Also the "don't doubt it, even if it looks like there are discrepancies in the bible, it all works out." sigh... I just wanted friends...

@@ravnjokr “I JUST WANTED FRIENDS” JUST PUNCHED ME IN THE CHEST

Good one, this made ME laugh.

right? listening to Norwegian black/progressive metal right now and feel no need to turn the volume down. that preacher however...

Lol thanks for the heads up - girl who loves Ocean for his chill demeanor

That's what these dudes are trained to do: project, shock n awe.

Bro I’m dead 😂😂

Dude acts like he's possessed by some dark dark things 😂

It's true the word of teaches that God is a God whose greatness we cannot fathom or comprehend. But it's also true that He gives us a spirit of understanding.

Either Yahweh revealed himself/communicated his message to humanity, or he didn't. If he didn't, then we're done here. If he did, then if his omniscient, he would know how to communicate his message in order to be understood. If he is omnipotent, he would have the power to do so successfully. It would be logically impossible for him to fail. So who are _you_ (person who's using this "duck-out argument") to say that god failed?

Yep. "God can do whatever he wants. Who am I or you to question God!" It's as effective as the old, "I know what you are, but what am I?" argument.

Or "Who are we to question or challenge God?!"

@@jaxthewolf4572 If we can't question Yahweh, then we can't come up with positive answers either. IOW, we can't claim that Yahweh is perfectly good/just/merciful/etc., because that presupposes that we're in a position to evaluate him. If not, then the most we can say is that he's an inexplicable force that acts according to alien logic we mere humans cannot comprehend. A positive evaluation of Yahweh ("Praise him!") is every bit as much a human judgment as a negative evaluation ("If the actions and attitudes attributed to Yahweh in the Bible were attributed to any other character in any other work, that character would be immediately recognized as a classic supervillain or Dark Lord").

Allah: allow me to introduce myself, infidel

Oh? Is there no present tense “to be” in Greek? Guess god can’t preserve his text at all

@mineben256 He's omnibenevolent. He DOESN'T want to segregate people by understanding because HE made them able or not able to understand them. If he WANTS to be understood (omniBenevolent), is ABLE to be understood (omniPotent), and KNOWS how to be understood (omniscient), then if he exists he IS understood. You MUST sacrifice one of the omnis. That's the only way to square God's existence with reality. Otherwise, this construction is a solid argument that God doesn't exist as described. So does he not exist, or is he not as described?

What does it say in Greek?

@mineben256 Does God want to segregate and punish people by understanding? If God doesn't want to punish people for things they had no choice in, he MUST want to be understood.

I'm so sorry this happened. This is part of how Christianity can cause serious harm simply with the entailments that come from its doctrines.

I'm sorry and I also understand, on New years day 1981 my mother lost her struggle against bone cancer. I was 9 and was presented the same argument,I became very angry up well into my twenties with a God that where anything good that happens it's explained as a miracle but whenever there's a struggle or strife that it is God's will. I'm 49 now and still struggle between rage and being cordial, politely ending a conversation that ends up being an assault about "our Lord and savior".

So many sad stories... I was becoming rather skeptic while growing up, but the true clinch for me was when my best friend died, before he became 15, in his bed, for a cardiac disease no one ever noticed, and I was told that god needed him as an angel...there are no ways this can justify a death. If there is a place where "angels" (as in "people who stand at your side and support you") are sorely needed, is here... A huge hug to everyone who had to endure the loss and the christian lies...

Dying *is* part of God’s plan. Why are you so afraid of death? “b-but God lets b-bad things happen!” We are here for God, not the other way around. So arrogant and entitled. As if you’re the only one who’s Mom ever died. smh

@@Frederick1483 more importantly death is also a part of living. I wasn't still blubbering about it. I am not afraid of dying, I was merely stating that I wasted my time being angry. If you have nothing better to do than "throw stones" just to make yourself feel superior, feel free to keep chuckin. This is where I stop because you are of no consequence to me. At least not to justify myself. F. O.

@Nobody Important and sounds like you would benefit from a english class focusing on context

@Nobody Important I got more logic than you ever will now go find someone else to troll if all you came to do is talk shit

@Nobody Important imma tell you once child I am no kid and we are not here to discuss your God damned opinion my state and its relevance were perfectly timed as a response to ocean's statement you don't like insa

@@Seamusyt1396 what did he say?

@Seamus YT1396 I loved how You shutdown that persons Bollocks straight away👏🏾, well done n' said. P.s. My favorite part was the end, "Insa"...🤣 I don't know many people that use that term or understand it. Bloody brilliant. May the God's Love n' Keep n' May You Always be in the God's Favor...

Nimrod: "What if I want to use mud-bricks?" 🤣

@@kevincrady2831 Even better! The whole lesson was just absurd. It was a scare tactic to try and scare people into what they were teaching. The verbiage used was what you would hear from an abuser. I can't say word for word now since it's been 20 years.

when i was in the church’s youth group, one of their teachings was the “umbrella” of the “protection” of jesus. the youth pastor said when you’re under the umbrella you are safe from the storm. whoever isn’t under it has to option to be, they just are deciding not to. when you’re out in the storm there’s all the wind and leaves and flying debris. i said well when you get under the umbrella, you’re still soaked, you’re still wet it’s not helping anything. he said that the metaphor wasn’t the best and we should just get the gist of it. idk it felt kinda sketch to me.

@@thechosengamer6212 "That's a nice little soul you got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

Explaining God to you like you're 3 year old

Its that , forbills for sonething or a charity.

Following multiple pretend gods is better than following one pretend god?

@@eddielopez2373 You say "pretend gods" yet this video is by a guy who believes in the old Gods which you clicked to watch. Something's not adding up friend, Gods be with you Skål 🍺👍

@@RedC-px2rb nope, I clicked on a KZfaq recommended video called “the interpretation argument,” with a thumbnail that said “this destroys Christianity.” I clicked on it to hear a critique of Christianity and subsequently discovered his beliefs in mythology.

@@eddielopez2373 So basically the first time you ever watched him. Peace and and Gods go with you friend

When the volume is high, so is their devotion to Jesus.

and they honestly think jesus would approve

You call it “passionate”; I call it “hectoring”. I guess they are not mutually exclusive. Whatever the label, one needs paracetamol and a good lie down afterwards.

@@rodywithers3536 Hectoring?

@@missZoey5387 Dictionary definition: “Talking in a bullying and brusque manner”.

It's very poorly thought-out logic unfortunately. Listen carefully to the line of reasoning and you'll see the conclusions do not follow.

@@brandonw.peebles4225 Then argue against it.

@@josephwilson-doan4163 I've been considering doing a reaction video and laying out my counter-argument so if I go through with that, I'll let you know. I have to write the script first.

@@josephwilson-doan4163 Somewhere in this youtube comment section is my initial counter-argument typed out if that interests you to read. It's somewhere here.

I've run around and around this bush a few times and here's where I land: Do I exist? - I think, therefore I am Was I created? - Intelligence begets intelligence, so yes Who IS this creator? (oh boy, here we go) This part would take A LOT of typing, so I'll nut shell it :-) FOR ME, there is one thing I believe, one thing that feels innately known/perceived, that I've never needed a book, a pastor, a priest, or otherwise to confirm.....And that is that "whoever" our creator is, that creator IS Love. I also believe that the one thing every single person who has ever existed desires, is Love. Now, we may not know how to give or receive it very well, but in our heart of hearts, we desire it. I believe that even the most morally wayward person among us desires love. Everyone wants to love and to be loved. Again, most of us probably completely muck up the pursuit, obtaining, retaining, and reciprocation of love, but it is what we most deeply desire and love is what makes the world go around. So, God is love, and there is plenty of mystery there......and we all possess the common denominator of desiring love.... so ultimately, I believe we all desire God, who is love. Now, for a number of reasons that I won't take the bandwidth to express here in pixel, I do believe that the heart and mind of God were presented in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. There are many reasons why I believe Jesus existed. There are many reasons why I believe He was crucified by the Romans....AND there are a number of reasons why I believe that a resurrected Jesus was witnessed by a large number of people. From this position forward I have many issues with "Christianity" as it has been developed and in my opinion manipulated. I take issue with how the Bible has been weaponized, often by well meaning people, but never the less, inappropriately so.....as I see it. In my opinion anyone who tries to take a "straight" reading of Scripture and form their beliefs based on that reading...well, they will more than likely arrive at some at odds with reality beliefs, in my opinion. At the end of the day I believe: ALL of life is a mystery. We should embrace the mystery, while endeavoring to live in the flow of Love. There is more truth out there than we'll ever know or could possibly know. I don't believe any one religion has cornered the market on truth. And ultimately I believe that all shall be well and all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well.

The first problem is that many of those arguing over the texts believe that their texts are original (English, Spanish, etc) and that it was translated is usually a revelation in itself (some may accept translation from Latin but that is rare in my experience). The second problem is that there are no originals, at least for the New Testament, where the first known biblical documents are dated at least 40 years after the time of Jesus. Given that there are specific fields in biblical studies just for examining the scribe errors for the various bibles and manuscripts that exist today, the errors due to the verbal “telephone game” of Christian preaching for the first forty years are a complete mystery.

@@darrenhemingway7121 try doing history using that standard. The manuscript evidence is overwhelmingly in support that what we have today in the protestant new and old testament is correct from the original greek and hebrew. Besides that, what you are saying is based upon logic. Why should anyone be logical? Are there universal unchanging laws of logic? If so, where do they come from if not God? If you say they are merely conventions of the human mind, then why are your conventions any better or worse than mine? We dont share the same brain. Also, how can you know that you are even standing here? If logical laws are merely conventions then how do you kniw that your brain isnt telling you something false? And if you cant detect whether or not you are insane, why do you believe anything? therefore logical laws of thought demonstrate that God has ordered the universe in a uniform way. And that true and false are real concepts, although abstract.

@@jessewalters8617 Translations with bias playing in happen in every, and that adds up over the big numberof translation. Try argue in anime communities sub vs dup, and even subtitles have to choose what meanings they adapt, and thats one translation. Historically the evidence is, that translations have to choose and ofren with bias, what to adapt. The bible is no different. And any historian worth their money will admitvto be sceptic of personal bias of records, and that we cant never know for 100% like science, we cqn br certain but always room for error.

@@marocat4749 so you dont believe the new testament manuscripts teach and are translated consistently? Can you read greek? Im not sure if your aware of this but the fundamentals of christianity are translated consistently through the kjv, nkjv, niv, esv, nasb versions of the bible. Greek is a very specific language. And most translations are so similar that they do not change any major doctrine of the christian faith. Do the homework man, check out and examine different translations from accepted christian scholars and textual critics like bruce metzger and bill mounce. The overwhelming amount of greek manuscripts testify that what we have today is what apostles wrote. And if you reject that, your standard of determing authenticity of ancient works is too high and you would not be able to do history at all. Let alone decipher the authors of ancient texts. But you dont treat those works like that because of your bias against the text of the bible.

@@jessewalters8617 But i can point that simple translations now, where we can ask authors for input can being prette devisive, th whole sub vs dub debtes in circles, what meaning is lost, how translate a word from languige,in meaning or literally?. That goes with booka and even more other media, prominently anime where i kno sub v dub, in an ever ongoing debate. What i mean is translation is really hard, and never does have the ect same meaning traslated, because languages can e vastly diferent in proverb and quotes and sayings. Like see anime translations. I dont habe to able to read old greek to know that a book thats translated by various people with bias certain wrds will be interpreted not a intended by the author, and that adds up when you edit it within councon that decides on meanigs, which different interpretations led to a huge diversity of interpretations, and thats why ther are so many different christian churches. Retranlated, translated different, and small changes can change entre context of sentences, like the one quoted against homoseuality, it was against male incest. The bile and probably no old work is a perfect translation. Because that sources are lost and cant be checked. The bible is no different, we cat ask tha authors what they meant , which is the best souce to get te original meaning.

And thus the universe imploded lol. Guess that christian deity doesn't exist, because the ball you speak of is the lovely goddess Serene, Prematerra.

He can make a lever to lift it

This is my interpretation now too

Loki? I wouldn't be at all surprised! I never thought of it that way, but it makes sense to me. I'll remember that.

Lol that would make sense

​@@marcusgreek3460Ο Θεός είναι ένας.

@@Unknown00432 φίλε μου οι θεοί μαζί σου

Yes, indeed, the chosen Bibles VERY HUMANLY and purposefully contains any answer you might need... And on which ever major side of an issue you may need them on.

Same as you, I understand your side, actually more like I just left Christianity for months, yet I'm going through what you went through years ago too as of the present

@@mako9579 which one?

If it happens to me, I'm just pulling up this channel lol

That pastor holds a lot of the same dangerous views, which is part of why it's so wild. It's strange that he's this impassioned about something so comparatively small.

It was like that for me too. The religion was actually making me mentally unstable because every decision I made; I felt that I was being judged for it. It constantly felt like no matter how good of a person I was or tried to be, that I was never going to be good enough. Thankfully though, I ended up leaving Christianity and it feels like I've gotten a new lease on life. I'm so glad I worked up the courage to do it.

@@OceanKeltoi Anderson was a big part of my livin Yahweh behind.

@@KyL6067 umm… it’s actually a really common feeling for people who leave. I know you’re a bit miffed, but as an atheist ex Christian who was actually really attached to the faith, to that idea that I had the holy spirit with me day to day, I felt the same way. Actually, to point out a parallel I haven’t heard brought up before, if you’ve ever been or known anyone who was thoroughly under the influence of a manipulative person, they tend to have this idea that the person who manipulates them has almost never been wrong, and they’ll bend over backwards to mentally justify them. Like it’s impossible to consider. In a religion where you suffer hell for not believing, and only for not believing, on the basis of the idea that you’re fundamentally unworthy of anything good, don’t you think you can end up with the same result? And note that I’m not saying this proves you wrong, I’m just trying to get you to see the other person’s point of view

@Daren Fliflet I don’t think the Calvinism is relevant. I’m gonna try to explain what people mean when they compare the Christian god to an abusive boyfriend, and I’m going to call it as I see it. I’m not asking you to agree, I’m asking you, for the sake of the people you interact with, to understand why they feel and think how they do, by giving a relatively common example. Edit: some of this will read as a tad repetitive, but I consider it worth keeping upon review The perception, from the outside, in my experience and from my point of view, isn’t that “God arbitrarily choosing who he saves and who he doesn’t is tyrannical,” it’s the premise of the salvation. Salvation from being a damn human. Christianity teaches, at its premise, that I, regardless of how much I strive to be honorable, am evil. That as I instinctively and emotionally commiserate with those in pain or need, I am fundamentally fucked up. That as I do the things that the Bible says a righteous man does, I am fundamentally deserving of eternal torture. After I left, I had self destructive habits start to go away. I recall feeling totally worthy for the first time. That’s similar to my experiences rejecting abusive personal relationships. The church teaches people that life is worthless without someone else, that has a record of wiping civilizations off the map, saying so. Like, to further the metaphor, a husband that beats his wife and says he loves her is a liar. He’s motivated to have her like him, sure, but he’s not motivated to look after her, otherwise he’ll work on the problem or end the relationship. A god who loves the world also has a kill count, in the Bible, higher than the First World War. He loves me, he says, as he threatens me. That’s how it feels and quite frankly I can draw no other conclusion now that I’ve seen it. And it’s not even why I left. You’ll draw your own conclusions about how you feel about what I said, but I hope that it read as blunt and not malicious. Feel free to provide your own perspective. I’m a fan of siphoning the lessons from other people’s experiences.

I know the feeling. Trust me, he'd kill anyone who isn't waving a bible in somebody else's face.

Old comment but yeah, that's EXACTLY how monotheism spread in the first place. To quote someone else's comment on another ocean keltoi video "monotheism always loses without violence".

@remingron The Bipolarity of Neo-pagan argument: 1) Christianity is either docile or violent 2) Christianity surely didn't spread from the mountains of Armenia to the rolling hills of Ethiopia while is constant persecution

He probably would. They used to & there is a sudden push for the stripping of womens freedoms in the last 5 years here and pagans, druids, witches have been being targetted & harmed at least in non physical ways in the last few years. Those of us who tried to be open about our beliefs anyways. I had my business attacked, my car egged & my life threatened. So deffinitely connect with a pagan community for support & stay safe. They are nuts.

I'm actually scared of pastors like this. Because of our current situation in our country, I'm afraid we may end up with "A handmaidens' Tail" scenario. We need to pray to our gods for salvation from the Christians.

That is incredibly frustrating. Unfortunately in those situations, its time to set personal boundaries and get people to back off. Doesnt always work though unfortunately. But it can work with time.

Yeah, people always assume I've never read the Bible just because I'm an atheist.

Yeah, they just dismiss what you say because it is in opposition.

As a Catholic, I am really, really sorry man. I realize you may hate us for our misled brother’s actions and there’s nothing I can say to change that, I at least pray you will stop being mistreated and receive a fair view of how good the Catholic Church can be. Do well, friend. Maybe at least I can be someone who will give you guys hope that I think you all have great intelligence even though you may not be part of my church.

@chase thetford. I'm so sorry you have to put up with that. I was raised LDS, so I understand completely.

@Logan Post I think you may slightly misunderstand the ontological argument. This video gives an example like your saying about using the same logic to say the ultimate perfect pizza might exist using the ontological argument, therefore it must exist. The video explains why that actually wouldn't work given the logic of the ontological argument. Would be interested to see if this changes your mind on the whole deathstar thing. I know I thought the exact same kind of thing when I first heard about the ontological argument, but I watched this video and it seemed to make a good explanation for why something like that wouldn't fit into the ontological argument.

You forgot the most important premise of the ontological argument for the existence of God... Which is "this argument can only be applied to what it is trying to prove as long as you accept that perfection is one of it's qualities, which of course would those require you to sneak in it's assumed existence as a subtly implied premise." The ontological argument for the perfect pizza is a whole 'nother argument all together. Pay no heed to the man behind the curtain.

Let alone the Onto-AFTEO the FSM or IPU.

@@r3aperrising984 The ontological argument is just an attempt to define God into existence. The key issue is this: none of its premises are supported. "God is maximally great"? Says who? It's not supported. It's a claim. It also presumes that it's possible for it to be possible that God exists. This is a claim on the meta-physics (the physics that determine what possible states exist for *our* physics) of the multiverse. We do not know that it *is* possible for a God to be a God. To be real. The ontological argument is just presuppositionalist apologetics pretending not to be.

I am is the English translation of the Hebrew name for God - Yahweh : Thus the Church is named "Church of Yahweh" or "Church of God".

Even when I was a Christian televangelists and “fire and brimstone” preachers freaked me out. It probably has a lot to do with how I was raised as a Christian, but they’ve never “seemed Christian” to me.

There's a problem with this though. You left out an option that God doesn't communicate with His creation because of His omnibenevolence. And if you're going to try to show why Christianity is false you require a burden of proof as to show why God needs to communicate with His creation and it's necessary.

@@huskydragon2000 P1) god is omnibenevilent. P2) god is onmipotent. P3) anyone who does not follow god correctly will go to hell, or go through some analagous punishment. From P1, god does not want anyone to go to hell. From P2, he has the ability to effectively communicate with his creation in such a way that nobody would go to hell. Therefore God must communicate clearly with his creation. It is evident that God does not communicate clearly with his creation, therefore one of the 3 premises must be false. Either hell, or anything analagous to it, does not exist and therefore there is no longer a carrot and stick to convert people, or you give up one of god's omni-traits.

Yea, me too :)

Welcome!

So am I.

Me too!

same brooo

TBH this argument doesn't really hold much water if you think about it.

Joys of logic? This argument is logically invalid

I had some coffee, I cannot be held responsible

@@OceanKeltoi likely story...

@@OceanKeltoi coffee is an essential substance

"If your God is all powerful and all knowing, then the Bible would convince me because he would know how to write it in such a way that it would convince me. But it doesn't so he's not. Thanks, though."

@@OceanKeltoi Maybe God doesn’t know you

He doesn’t owe you an explanation 😂

@@Frederick1483 that's honestly a good point. Just because he KNOWs how to convince you to be christian and has the CAPABILITY to convince you to be christian, that doesn't mean he wants you to convert. If he wanted to communicate the message perfectly, he could have, but maybe he didn't want to. The argument doesn't assume omni-benevolence, and even if it did, that still doesn't mean that he would want you to convert. Unfortunately that just means that there's NO true path for a believer to follow. Maybe God doesn't care if people worship him on the planet. Because if the bible was the word of god, and God intended to use it to communicate that he is our god, then it would have happened. But it doesn't, so it wasn't his plan to use the bible to convert everyone to christianity... Mind trippy...

I had one who said there were chariots in the Dead Sea therefore Moses saved them from Egypt, when I told them there wasn’t evidence for chariots in the Dead Sea, they cited the Bible as a source for that claim to be true

But God maintains love based relationship.

@@martinsoukup562 🤣🤣🤣🤣

@@weirdmath119 what's so funny?

@Aphorism V who said it was literal? I called it "the metaphor of Eden" - so what argument went out the window?

@Aphorism V no, when I wrote about the metaphor I was rambling. I had already made the point I was aiming in the first paragraph, unrelated to the metaphor itself. Reading comprehension can be challenging sometimes.

My fellow ancient way polytheist, I have Celtic in my family, and you are great to explain this

The morrigan or morrigu is actually 3 goddesses a tripple goddess & daughters of the Tuatha De Dannan who later accept at least 2 others to their number: Macha, Badb, Nemain, Morgana le Fey, Morgaise. Rhiannon & Raven are also sometimes among their number. They are weavers and washer women at the fjord, but they are not the same as the Fata or Fates who are Clotho, Lachesis & Atropos. The Norns, Arachne, Hecate, Rosanitsy, Moira, Akka & many other weavers exist. They are never said to be omnipotent. They are powerful & can effect the strands of fate. They can not alter destiny however. Unchangeable fate in celtic mythology was called a Guise. Free choice effects fate that is not destined. Some gods and goddesses can change mortals fate, but destiny is even hard to impossible for even a Weaver to alter.

​No, The Morrigan is ONE figure. It is deeply erroneous to say she is a triple goddess because that is not reflected in the source material. Now, you can say your UPG identifies them as a triple goddess, that's fine. But you cannot say that is what The Morrigan is, because again, that is not reflected in the mythic material. The Morrigan and her sisters only occasionally appear in threes in the source material, sometimes its four goddess, sometimes two. And sometimes its three, but not the same three. Now you can say there are many great queens, but there is already a term for that in the material, Na Morrigna. But insofar as The Morrigan herself, she is a solo figure, she is not three people. Badb and Macha are their own individuals, who are stated to be sisters, with their own agendas who work alone or with other figures. For example, during the Tain, Badb appears with two other figures who are not The Morrigan or Macha, but rather with Fea and Nemain, or sometimes Nemain and Be Nuit. If you would like to argue with me, please provided a credible source. Also, NO, there is no such thing as "Celtic myth," the gods in Ireland were not the same as the gods in Gaul or Britain. Also, I think you misspelled that word, "GUISE" is like a disguise. Unless there is something in either Welsh or Gaulish myth about a guise as such, I assume we're talking about Irish myth and you meant the word GEIS. But a geis is literally changed fate within the source material. A geis is a taboo which a person takes on themselves, and the wording when they do so is extremely specific. "I destiny a destiny." It is chosen density, under the condition they keep their oath when they make it, and if they do they receive great boons. Irish myth a least has no direct equivalent to the Norns or the Fates of Greek myth, the closest are the goddess of prophecy, who are the Na Morrigna. AND likewise I did not say The Morrigan changes fate, I said she has an agenda, sees several future outcomes through prophecy, and pushes events forward to facilitate the future she wants. Which she regularly does, successfully. The Tain literally only happens because The Morrigan facilitates it to happen.

@@wolfgirl535 You are wrong, but I don't have the time or inclination to argue with you. When you come on social media with that attitude putting others down for autocorrect and asking for "sources" for a belief path that existed prior to written language you show how much of an ignorant child you are. Read more. In between the lines. The little known folk tales that have survived christian corruption and mass rewrites paired with the adjusted mabinogion book of conquests and tale of the dun cow all explicitely say that the Morrigan is both a title and a name. They are daughters of the original. Idiot. Expand your mind or don't, its up to you. Its not my job to do your research for you. I offered legitimate information and if you don't want to accept it then that is your perview to remain ignorant, but don't attack others online because you feel embarassed when someone knows more than you.

Mostly it's about money and power.

They are toxic & spread toxicity to their zealot followers.

good for you man no matter what you end up finding its always good to question, as I've seen it skepticism is never a bad thing. you either come away with a new path and more knowledge or strengthened faith. if your looking for a place to stand this channels a great one no matter the religion. good luck in your search.

Hey m8. Personally I preferred the Douay-Rheims bible. It's a closer word for wprd translation of the original Latin. But I do have to look into more modern versions for some passages because the grammar and words can be funky. I do enjoy looking into it though and parsing all the stuff together even if I don't understand it all atm (and maybe never will).

And what kind of genuinely good deity burns a good person simply because they won't conform and do as commanded?

Possibly Enoch too.

@@cfletcher1030 came here to add Enoch. You beat me too it!

A solid example of mis-quotation and lack of contexual evidence. Also a misunderstanding of the doctrine of heaven or the usage of the word ascended.

@@witchdoctorgames5011 Christians always want to claim their book is " tooken out of context" when they do it them damn selves

THE SON OF MAN IS IN HEAVEN PRESENT TENSE

Wonder why someone needs to worship at all ? Is it fear of something ? Or maybe not wanting to believe we're not spcial just apes with delusions of importance,and are only here to breed the next generation ,nothing more ?

Its good you dropped christianiy,but why do you feel the need to worship anyone/thing,its just the same addiction with a different flavour ? To me anyway,im not trying to be nasty i genuinely

@@andreworr9128 truly

​@@andreworr9128well the gods and goddesses offer knowledge, inspiration and wisdom . Fate and luck are also something people believe in that ,plus the gods and goddesses are pretty logical to explain ,atleast the polytheistic pantheons are

Hail Hermes of the swift feet, messenger of the gods. Sweet mercury of swift thought & stollen moments ☺️

By interesting you mean scary?

Lol🤣🤣

Yes he looked scary to me

I did have an English teacher like that. He was extremely annoyed that non native Brits were doing better than native Brits. To be fair to him, he wanted Brits to make an effort as they were over confident. After 12 years, he still asks to read my stories.

@@otherssingpuree1779 cool that he still asks to read your storys 👍😊

True. The church thrives off the power of ignorant followers. And encourages them to not think for themselves.

@MexTaco710 I appreciate the gesture but verses hold no argumental weight to me.

Hell is scary, but Hel is kind of hot, if you are into necrophilia and godesses.

@MexTaco710 This is one of those most well-articulated defenses of the Bible's validity I've seen, I'm impressed, though I still disagree :)

@@oliverfoldager291 they are the same entity in origin :)

@MexTaco710 Yes, there is plenty of evidence that (some) events described in the Bible are factual, and I would never deny this, and I do in fact believe that man who is called Jesus did exist. My seperation from the Bible isn't from the historical narrative, but the mystical and moral one, and this doesn't come from 'not wanting to believe', or 'wanting to not believe', rather from personal reason, I would be quite happy to know of a God empirically, and there is an extent to which I believe in a god, just not so nearly to how the bible describes it. and I quite respect your ability to argue for the historical accuracy of the Bible, that's just not where my argument lies.

Same here! I was watching him for a few months, but had no idea what else was going on until I saw his videos.

ill second that i had just watched alot of woo stuff then found ocean

yup same. it was a nice introduction I guess but Ocean is so much more scholarly and intelligent in his videos. woo barely uses sources which was what led me originally to feel off about him.

Millions upon millions and millions more will die for the causes of the 3 Desert Religions. Claiming the SAME God to worship and claiming their omnipotent God is on their side.

And what better purpose is there than to murder & die for the glory of your imaginary friend? How did we ever become so bored & lonely? 🤣😭

Are religious wars really about religion? Take a look at the Thirty Years War. It clearly started as a religious war, or at least that's what they said. But half-way through the war a treaty made all the religious reasons for fighting moot, so they picked sides again and got back to fighting, but this time for their Nations. Religion is just another form of tribalism.

Religion (gold, land, & oil) is used as a reason/means to fuel war. War is used to eliminate competition. If you're told your cause is more just in comparison to another, you're then excused from judgment no matter what atrocities you inact.

@@LesHaskell - False, institutional, religion is used as a means of political control. Monopolise a religion and you have a monopoly of power. You go to war on the pretext of religion because another religion threatens your monopoly. True religion is Peace.

Do you get along with christians? If not, why? On what basis do you think pagan's are easier to get along with than christians? Do you think that you yourself have an open or a closed mind? If you had to judge. And why are you an atheist, and how do you think your worldview explains reality?

@@jessewalters8617 hello, I am not the OP but atheists hold a wide variety of positions as all they have in common is not being convinced of a god or gods existence. I just wanted to tackle why I personally am an atheist. To me, atheism is the null hypothesis. If someone says something is a certain way, we should ask them why and then see if they have a convincing argument. Arguments for a deity seem to fall short in my opinion and without any good evidence, I just cannot honestly believe in any deity. In terms of explaining the world around us, we have not had the supernatural proven to exist and no natural explanation has been switched out for a supernatural one. To me, it adds to the likelihood of everything else having a natural explanation but obviously not proof.

@@sebaquesadilla hi. Thanks for getting involved in the conversation. So i believe the christian worldview explains reality better than atheism because it accounts for laws of nature, absolute morality, and universal laws of logic. In your worldview, why would you expect the universe to operate consistently and why would being logical be necessary to determine truth? Also, how do you account for morality? I know some atheists claim that there is no absolute morality, just nature.

I guess to simplify, why do i need to be logical to prove my point if there are no laws of logic? If there are laws of logic where do they come from? If they were merely conventions, i could make up my own and those would be just as valid as yours and debate would be impossible.

@@jessewalters8617 i can get along with Christians but in my experience when the topic of religion comes up and they find out i do not hold their views, they tend to be very judgemental and try to convert me. Pagans usually are far more accepting of my views. I was once told about something called the Wiccan Rede. "An it harm none, do ad ye will." I love that sentiment. I try to have an open mind but i recognize every human has his or her own biases. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a diety, not a worldview itself. As far as my own worldview, i try to simply observe, trust my senses as much as i can. And i trust the scientific method.

pretty much explaining that the Hadith is false. And the Quran is all we need, the Hadith just helps mankind understand more details regarding our salvation. Please just don’t listen to BS pick up a Quran and read it before you die, surely you have the time for it.

@@bugginoutw2243 Do you believe the Bible is the word of god?

Thanks a ton!

Well, that is a good point im many cases, but thouse that take a littral interpretation should almost always be given the benifit of the doubt. This meassage im writing could be a wird code for something hidden, but it’s more resonable to asume im just makeing a counter point to you, becurse that is the litteral interpretation of my comment.

@@oliverfoldager291 I wonder what the "Biblical literalist" pastor featured in this video would say if I pointed him to the verse where Jesus said it was unnecessary to wash your hands because "it's what comes out of the mouth that defiles it." "Germs are a lie; a conspiracy invented by the Liberal media to control us!" Well, not likely. He's more likely to say that Jesus was speaking metaphorically. How do we know that? Because what Jesus said was wrong, and God can't be wrong! Therefor the inaccurate statement was actually not saying the thing that it's saying!

@@TheZeroNeonix I dont know what he would say, and I dont really care, as an athiest I have no problem saying, that the bible has a lot of deeply imoral and factually wrong statements in it. And although the pastor might dissagree, that is still his headach. Takeing a littaral interpretation as the first is still a good way to interorate any kind of text, holy or not.

This all seems misguided if they are not reading the text in the original Greek and have a solid knowledge of the language in that historical context. Interesting video BTW!

In this argument the concept of free will is not an issue. God only makes you understand his communication. You still have a free will to follow it or not. Satan knows god exist, he knows God's communication and yet he chooses to disobey. No matter how stubborn someone is, omnipotent and omniscient god should be able to create a communication that is understandable.

@@MrQbee87 I'm not a Christian but I do think free will is integral to this argument. If god's will was explicitly known (ie. you must do X, Y, and Z or you will go to hell for eternity), then why would you choose to disobey him? Wouldn't that create a constant fear and incentivize doing the right thing only to avoid punishment? On the other hand, if Christians believe that God used the Bible only as a guide, then they still have to decide for themselves on a code of ethics. They have to choose to be a good person (and what constitutes that) based on their own principles (which may be inspired by the teachings of scripture) rather than based on the knowledge of the absolute right or wrong thing to do in every situation.

@@Bmlscipio why would you choose to disobey him? Because his moral code is barbaric and I don't agree with it.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree. I think as human beings WE are infallible and we are going to get things wrong, or misinterpret things. Yes, I believe the Bible is God's word, but I also know that I don't understand parts of it as well. So maybe different religions read and interpret it in different ways. I also believe that every religion has Fanatics that pick and choose the parts of the Bible that suit them and go crazy with those beliefs. Those are the ones I worry about more than the whether the person writing God's word got the wording correct. If you're looking for inconsistencies only, you're going to find them in every situation if you look hard enough

@@jenmen76 If we get things wrong, how can we be infallible?

Let us know how that goes and good luck. Also bring her sone bacon, that might smooth things over.

As if she’ll understand it

Don't be surprised if that's like pouring gasoline all over the car hoping that some gets into the tank.

I would never argue about the bible with my grandparents. Better to let them believe at this point. They get peace from the prospect of heaven, putting doubts into their head this late in life seems cruel.

You are right, why ruin someone’s dream?

1980's Florida, same thing, but the church I went to for a couple of years had a couple .. hundred .. members.

I was thinking the same thing. The phrase "they aren't real Christians" was the common term I heard for anyone who disagreed.

@@otterheart3844 "No True Scotsman..."

Me too.

The condescension & pomposity of that. There are billions in the world, but they had all the answers. This kind of attitude always astounds me with the prideful ignorance of it.

Daniel and the Lions den, he saved Daniel because he had faith, then women and children were thrown into the lion's pit... INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN, and they were eaten, because who cares about them right?

@@wulver810 Ah yes, such fairness, and a loving just god worthy of worship 🙃

It would make pretty a pretty damning statement against omnibenevolence, though, which is also wrapped up into these beliefs. Especially if you assume both individuals are Christians and have differing sectarian interpretations-- why would a good, loving, fatherly God who can choose to make things clear and defined for his children, choose not to do that-- especially when those muddy waters cause fights? If both are right, God is made a liar. If one or both is wrong, and God chooses not to clarify.... why would He deliberately choose a muddying of His own word so as to create chaos and damaging schisms in His Church?

@@siriuspope3552 The thing I don't see demonstrated is this being a logically possible thing to do. As is usually stated, an all-powerful god is defined by being able to do all that is logically possible. I don't see how a correctly interpreted message fits into a logically possible scenario. Being interpreted correctly is not a property of the message, it's a property of the person doing the interpreting. For a message to be interpreted the same way by everyone, that requires for everyone to have exactly the same brain, same preferences and way of thinking. It requires identical people being in identical situations while interpeting the message. So the only logically possible options is he either makes a different message for every single person, or he makes one message, but everyone who is interpeting it is identical to one another.

Well not really. The argument still shows that God must lie

@@mgtowmonkapprenticegang8426 It's just not logically possible to create a message that everyone interprets the same when we are all different. It would be like creating an ice cream flavour that everyone likes. The way to do that is not by making a specific ice cream, but by making people be identical to each other such that they interpret the flavour in the exact same way. So not only does the conclusion not follow, but the premises are also not warranted to be true. It would be like saying that god knows and is capable of creating a rock so heavy he can't lift it. It's just not within the logically possible, he cannot know and be capable of that.

@@MarkoMood I wasn't really debating that point. Nor was I debating against his omniscience or omnipotence. What the video exposes is that the Christian God is supposed to be omnibenevolent and not a liar. So you would expect him to want to communicate the message with us so that it is interpreted correctly. But he obviously doesn't. I think that's the main point of his argument. God probably has the capability to do so but chooses not too. For a Christian God that's quite problematic

And you would be very welcome among us my friend!

You know that there are responses to the Interpretation Argument right?

Sikhism

@@mako9579 it’s one of those things that’s probably best explained over a voice call or in person but it centers around LFW second order desires and decrees for God. So if a Christian can have a coherent view that negates LFW and affirms second order desires then the criticism fails. Ocean kind of mentioned this in the video.

Christianity is only scary after death but Islam is scary while alive !! Trying to reach heaven through killing people!!

Fingers crossed.

Good luck! 🍀

Hopefully they'll be like my parents and just accept it ("as long as you have a reason" lol)! Though I had the advantage of them being atheist... Best of luck.

Good news. It went well :) 😀 they were very respectful and it feel a huge burden off my shoulders

@@DarknessnekoProduct that's great to hear!

Exactly! If God wanted us all in heaven, than we all are going to heaven, because he intended it to be that way since he knew where all of us with end up before we were even born.

The bible actually doesn't speak on free will, it just says man has "will"

People keep talking about the "problem of evil", but if you really look at the Bible, it seems we have more of a "problem of good". How could such an evil being allow good to exist?

@@Nerobyrne Easy, apathy. This is the world of an apathetic singular god if It is to be the work of a single god. If the god is nearly apathetic it would allow all good and all evil. An omnipotent omniscience will have its will fulfilled with more ease than you expend every day you eat lunch. Its will would just happen but it clearly doesn't less the god be an apathetic god of chaos. That stated if there is more than one god exists and they all have their own will and none is omnipotent this world makes perfect sense, this does look like a world where a clash of ideas exist simply because it is plainly obvious that it does. You do none the less make a good point if the default is Hell and worship and devotion and the basic manner of salvation is how the vast majority of Christians say it is then absolutely I do not see how that is a god that demands kindness, the God described in the Bible is evil simply by allowing the majority of us to be tormented in Hell.

As another athiest, I find that the concept of a god or gods is too vague. We have written gods in books, talked about them in stories, and used them as explanations for the state of the world. Some gods are all powerful, and are one, other gods have greater and lesser roles. Even in fiction, gods generally are hidden or beyond our world. Reaching them might be considered a challenge few could conquer, while others remain locked away by mortals. Hell, some gods even reproduce and grow old. I don't find it convincing that someone believes, but I do find it interesting. Too often people use common sense to navigate life, and generally find a role to play. I am quite happy that I, despite working a job that is quite frustrating due to a lack of effective communication, have an interest in philosophy. I find theology more of a challenge because a story can be told many ways, like a metaphor, losing the details to make way for a message. I like the exploration of myths and legends, especially when they come in the form of webcomics and video games. I personally play D&D but have not found a group ready to explore the lore during game time. Christians are hard to argue with as they at times will consider you a troll or be unwilling to think of a world without their god as they fear doing so would have them _fall out of grace, into the clutches of the devil below, to burn for eternity._ I still ask them questions as you never know what kind of conversation you might get.

Would you mind mentioning a source or explaining some of the arguments you talked about? I can't find much online on "arguments for polytheism that work against monotheism." Most of them start and end at "less fighting, any argument for a God works better for multiple Gods, and they are more fun to be around and be with." So I would appreciate a starting area to go through.

@@haruhirogrimgar6047 here's an easy one: The problem of evil. If there is only one god, why doesn't it do something about all the evil? If there are many competing gods, then it's easy to explain. They are in competition with each other and nobody ever truly wins.

How so?

@@aldrichthedevourer8172 The issue proposed; which is that if a deity exists, if the deity was omniscient/omnipresent etc; then it would stand to reason that they would in fact make their will clear, and not subject to interpretation; but in fact leave absolutely no ambiguity. Said deity would in fact make themselves subject to human understanding in order to facilitate concise "orders". Thus if so many denominations/variations exist; it stands to reason "God" does not because if the deity existed they would make themselves clear and leave no wiggle room for interpretation. That is the gist of it correct? * The issue I see with this interpretation is that if said deity were to create a "singularity of understanding" of that deities will; and throw out interpretation that would in a way bereave humanity of their own will; as interpretation is heavily tied with will. Interpretation itself is the human-factor rather than having anything to do with said deity; because I would argue even if said deity were to do such a thing; short of turning humanity into drones; people would still find a way to twist said deities will in order to suit their agenda. Additionally in order for people to understand the will of said deity with no ambiguity and with perfect clarity to begin with; then said people would have to be deities themselves or as I mentioned "drones" of said deity. Humans would have to be omniscient or have access to omniscience in order to see the truth of what any deity would truly "want". Many religious beliefs see a "back and forth" between the divine and humanity where one influences the other as well; and that seeking an "answer" is the "point" of life. If a deity were to make their will and the answers not subject to interpretation, then those who are subject to said deity would not be playing a game; they would just be robots or extensions of the deity. You should also consider that one of the primary aspects of religion is "mystery" and without that mystery there is no need for faith; and if there is no faith; then its just knowledge. In other words if said deity were to just impose an "iron-word" so to speak; then it would be at the expense of individuality. I would also say that the more concise you make something; the less agency a person has in acting. We essentially would be "Angels" rather than people according to the Xtian understanding. (Since that's what this video is primarily engaging with.) The deity proposed would be playing an entirely different game than the Xtian one or any proposed deity for that matter. In such a paradigm where there would be no actual humans/individuals as we understand the concept.

@@Gnostic88 i see. Thank you for explaining it so thoroughly, i appreciate it.

@@aldrichthedevourer8172 Np. glad you weren't just begging the question.

There are in fact, many gods. I suggest you get to the bottom of your glass, trust me.

This reminds of The Clergyman’s Daughter by George Orwell.

interesting. i just left the Catholic church and I'm scheduled for a long talk with my pastor in a couple weeks. i distinctly remember attending easter vigil mass, seeing the new converts get water poured on their head from a dollar store jug filled with 'holy water' and thinking "shit. im in a cult, aren't i?". i hope i find a way to tell this to him in a more agreeable way.

@@MrAdamo Easter Vigil used to be my favorite as well...until at 14 my body told me not to be around hyacinths...

@@mako9579 lol allergies

Many Christians spend their whole lives basically gossiping about how this or that person or group isn't really a Christian. I overheard 3 of my uncles who were clergymen all confide to my mum at different times how the others weren't actually christians and probably werent really saved at all. This is how christians cope with the dilemma described in the video. And that's why there are 35k different denominations, each believing that only THEY have the truth and the others have been deceived by Satan.

From a biblical standpoint, that makes no sense either

From a biblical standpoint, all have sinned and fall short of "going to heaven", so God provided a way thru grace by giving his only begotten son as substitute to die the death that we deserve so that we could believe in him and be saved. No one is good enough but God is good enough to save you

@@davidhaimoto6339 Makes no sense at all.

@@davidhaimoto6339 And that is one of the worst parts of christianity. Every other religion that has ever existed with a salvation narrative has affirmed that paradise is earned by doing good and improving the lives of others, not by just believing the right thing and doing nothing else. Believing that good works don’t matter and only “accepting” a messiah gives one passage to heaven, and that nothing else is required, is why fundamentalist christianity is so full of hateful, selfish, hypocritical, bigoted monsters. No matter how much evil these people bring into the world, no matter how much they hurt others, no matter how much they make the world a worse place, they still get to go to heaven because jesus. It’s ridiculous and detestable.

@@christianmock7068 justification is separate from sanctification. I agree with you 100%. There is no amount of works that can you can do that will get you to heaven. Keeping of the law is not required. Understanding the law is important in understanding what Christ did on Earth because His work is what saves. The law doesnt save but condemns, no one could keep it or even does but Christ did. So when He died, it was on account of our sin, not His. Because He kept the law perfectly. So to define the law and understand it, is important. Salvation is not keeping the law but a fruit that gives you assurance of your salvation that came through Christ. Many outside observers and fundamentalists do think that works means you have faith, therefore you must exhibit works. Then those type of preachers will tell you how to work. You'll get quick tips on how to not sin. But every writer of the epistles paints a different type of preaching that says you will be made a new creature in Christ. Your desires will change, your eyes will see, your ears will hear. If you believe He died and rose again. In romans 5 or 6 paul describes the law saying, that "when the law was given, sin increased. But where sin increased, grace abounded more. So then shall we sin so that grace may abound? May it never be..." Because the Law points out your need for Christ and belief in His works. So that you will turn from your dead works in sin and live. So to say that just believing in Christ is separate from changing your actions is equally unbiblical. Thats is what repentance is about. Seeing your dead actions and turning from them to Christ. This is the nature of sactification that happens gradually over time. Is this required? Technically no. All are judged on account of their works but those in Christ are not condemned by theirs.

(As a non-demonination Christian) 1. The issue with God not interfering in free will is that we have examples of him doing exactly that, such as when Jonah refused to go to Ninevah because he feared what they would do to him, as well as striking down Onan for refusing to get his sister in law pregnant, though the counter argument for those two situations is that they disobeyed direct orders given to them by God. 2. This argument is based purely in the idea of God as the Father, a parental figure who wants us to learn not only more about Him, but also more about ourselves and the world around us. It would obviously be too easy to give us every answer, but then where would that put us? On the same level because then we would know all the things that God knows. This is where the concept of free will comes into play. We are free to gain the knowledge he has placed in front of us, but in order to do so we need to take action since while He could just give it to us, there is no value in gaining that knowledge. 3. Because I do believe that God doesn't interfere in free will, I do think that many interpretations of passages from the Bible are false in that they do not have the whole truth from the passage. I think, though this is only personal opinion, that this is a result of cherry picking verses that has become very prevalent in the last century or so. We miss important parts of interpreting a verse if we leave out verses that occur before and after a verse (some times many verses before and after). Sorry for the ramble Im pretty sure none of that makes sense

1. as the other xtian pointed out, your god overrules free will and human agency in the Bible. 2. if your god was omniscient it would have chosen middle men who wouldn't corrupt its word, unless your god gets pleasure out of leading people astray and, consequently, to damnation within its rules. So either your god lacks knowledge to choose an appropriate messenger to pass along the message, in which case they aren't omniscient; or they are deliberately leading people into an eternity of torture, in which case not only is its omnibenevolence obviously compromised but so is xtianity itself since Jesus could have just been another one of its "pranks" to lead people astray. 3. again, if your god was omnipotent and omniscient it would be able to formulate the text in such a way that, even after translation, every possible "true" message would be conveyed without any false or misleading messages.

1.) If God is omnipotent, he is capable of all things, is he not? If he's limited by "logically possible" he isn't omnipotent and is thus not God. In any case as other point out, God overrides free will constantly in the Bible. He did it dozens of times during the Israelite onvasion of Canaan to allow His Chosen People to slaughter, rape and genocide their enemies with impunity, and did it prior to the king of Egypt himself so they wouldn't be released early so he could perform his "Wonders" and show off. That's actually explicit in the text. 2.) Well the issue here is that if you child fails their science project, it's not that big a deal. If you fail to follow the right religion you are tortured forever and ever and ever until the last stars burn out trillions of years hence and are STILL being horrifically tortured. Because you know... Hell. 3.) This opens the door to Islam, Judaism, Baha'i and other monotheist faiths *also* being perfectly legitimate in addition to the thousands of Christian denominations, including the ones with such an alien theology to the mainline church they're practically different religions entirely, like Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons. Doesn't that kind of... break Christianity entirely?

No, you got entire college campuses thinking the exact same as you

Does Catholicism come out any better? Has every Pope had exactly the same theological beliefs? Has there never been a papal bull that changed a previous one?

It doesn't seem like you did that. Probably because catholicism doesn't fare much better.

@@fluffysheap That is why I am Orthodox. God revealed his scripture through the unity of the church in councils and through the writings of the Church Fathers. No one man can interpret scripture, neither pope or laymen. It is the work of the spirit through the Bishops.

I think that Orthodoxy and early Church history prior to the papacy have the best theological and philosophical arguments for Christianity compared to Protestantism or Catholicism

I'm disappointed that this comment never got a response. I identify loosely as an atheist, so my concern here is not to score points for monotheism but rather to engage respectfully with what I perceive to be an interesting but ultimately faulty argument.

@@ryanthomasjones hi! Christian browsing through a few videos here, also checking the comments a bit. I also wanted to rely with something similar to address his points, namely that in scripture there are several examples of where God is stated to want a certain state but the people refused, such as the potter and clay analogy in Jeremiah - God will still shape the clay into something, but the clay's response determines the eventual shape. I'd love to talk more on this topic myself, though I do hold some unorthodox views, including that of the existence of the Divine Council and the assigning of gods to the nation's at Babel. Nevertheless, I agree with your assessment here. The way I understand this is that human response and freedom is a fundamental element of what God is seeking with humanity, a painter who wants others to work with Him on a work of art, but no matter how much the fellow painters screw up God can still make the final image beautiful. I'd love to continue this sort of discussion with you. I don't know what time of day it is where and when you read this, but I hope you have a good one!

I'd say this argument is an extension of the problem of evil. The main idea of the problem of Evil is that "If God is real, omnipotent, omniscient, and good, why does he allow bad things to happen"? I'd say that negative misinterpretations count as something bad, so I'd say this is an extension of the problem of evil.

@@petery6432 indeed. I agree, and it also has the same issue where it pits a small subset of God's attributes against each other while ignoring the others. I often think of L'Hopitals law and the different sizes of infinity when this topic comes up, and how it can apply, as well as issues with defining terms such as what loves entails to someone who interacts with more facets of us and reality than we typically think of.

@@petery6432I would agree

That is along the lines of the "god works in mysterious ways"-stuff. It may be an escape hatch for this argument, if we want to accept it. But it leads into a rabbit hole in which the Theodicy is the smallest problem.

Christians often say that God has nothing against your conclusions and choices. But if they are wrong (I.e. you choose not to believe in him) you go to hell. So much for free choice :)

@@verdammdeaggsd7736 But that is a problem with Christians, not their theology, right? The argument is meant to address the belief system Christians hold and it fails to do so since it assumes that God wants his work to be understood by everyone easily.

@@Bmlscipio but why wouldn't God want everyone to understand his word? Since he wants us to believe, isn't it counterproductive to make your own words confusing?

@@verdammdeaggsd7736 That question is probably better suited for a theologian cause I don't have the background to answer. If I had to guess, I think people would answer that it's tied to free will (if there is concrete evidence of god's will and negative consequences, you would be stupid not to obey) or god's unknown plan (if he is an almighty being, we can't easily understand why he makes the choices he does). Either way, the central argument made by Ocean is still flawed.

Also, just going include a longer comment I wrote elsewhere: I'm not a Christian, but I do think this is a flawed argument. At 6:00, the two premises don't validate the conclusion. The only conclusion that can be reached based on the stated premises is the following: C: If God chooses to communicate a message AND chooses to have it be interpreted correctly by every person, it must be interpreted correctly. For instance, the Christian god may have chosen to communicate a message through the Bible but left it open to interpretation. It is more meant to be a guide than the end-all-be-all but is still a holy guide. This isn't invalid or illogical at all. Indeed, every filmmaker or author who has created a work with a cliffhanger ending isn't "lying". They just think it is more helpful for their audience to find an answer themselves than be shown the "correct" answer. Or the Christian god may have chosen to communicate a message through the Bible and have it be interpreted correctly only by some people (ie. those who put in the time/work to understand it) while still being omnipotent and omniscient. Teachers in the modern US education system, for example, give students tests which have questions with correct answers and yet there are still disagreements as not every student takes the time to study properly. A interesting side note: people who practice Judaism and therefore also believe in an omniscient and omnipresent god (to my understanding) have centered a lot of their practice around reviewing, discussing and debating their central texts.