7 ай бұрын
Пікірлер
@RalphHumphries-th1ym 14 сағат бұрын
God is father God is Son and Trinity is lie made to destroy the Father and Son into another man made God and misunderstood and wired new one lier shut your mouth fool
@agrume2007 5 күн бұрын
There's no god.
@jaynijackson 5 күн бұрын
I believe King Solomon has heard that before…
@yinyang2385 6 күн бұрын
Why didn't God just become a man? Why does he also need to be the father and the holy spirit? God is more than capable of just turning into a human without the need for the other parts. It sure wouldn't have comprimised Christianity or made it any less beliavable. If God is all knowing and omnipotent he would have known that the trinity would have caused further confusion, rejection and been associated with polytheism. Ditching the father and the holy spirit would have resolved all those issues. I don't buy it and I continue to believe that trinity was an invention of the church and not a part of Gods will.
@jaynijackson 6 күн бұрын
I appreciate your comment, but I believe it demonstrates a lack of knowing who God is. All three persons of the Trinity are eternal which means that they have always existed. Asking “why does God also need to be the father and the Holy Spirit” insinuates that he had a choice not to exist as the Triune God (which not only denies the divinity of the Son [the Arian heresy] but also the Spirit [the Macedonian heresy]). This is why I prefaced the video by stating that we ought not to try to understand the Trinity based off of what seems reasonable or logical to our own standards because to do would not be reasonable or logical. Think about what you are doing in this very comment. You deny the Trinity because you don’t believe an omniscient God would be triune in nature as that would make it confusing for us. Well, being that God did reveal himself to us as being triune, what are you essentially saying about yourself and more importantly about God? You are saying that you are smarter than an omniscient God (which is logically incoherent because you’re not omniscient). I believe you need to come at this doctrine with a different perspective. Instead of following trying to lead with what seems right or reasonable in your own mind, as yourself “where does the evidence of the Scriptures lead me to believe? Hopefully this helps.
@yinyang2385 6 күн бұрын
@@jaynijackson How can all parts have always existed if man hasn't always existed, Mary who gave birth to Jesus hasn't always existed and the earth that Jesus resided on hasn't always existed. And if the trinity had always existed it would have been a theme presented to Moses. Something as significant as the trinity would have received centre discussion if it was in fact the true essence of God. On the contrary God repratedly emphasised oneness as his characteristic in the old testament and that's exactly why I don't believe in the trinity. Also the fact that God would have not remained ambiguous on such an important factor had the trinity been part of his form EDIT: To say God has always existed in the form of a trinity put limitation on his omnipotence because it implies God is restricted to exist within a certain structure. Does God not have the power to unify himself into being one? Verses such as this would indicate so: "Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord; - Mark 12:29"
@jaynijackson 6 күн бұрын
The Trinity (the Triune God - Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit) has always existed because the trinity is God. Being eternal is kind of what makes God... well... God. Also, I believe you are misunderstanding the nature of Jesus. Jesus did not begin to exist when he departed from Mary's womb. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God." - John 1:1. The Apostle John tells us that Jesus is the Word of God who was in the beginning along with the Father. Jesus tells us in Revelation that he is the Alpha and Omega, meaning the beginning and the end (yes, that means he pre-existed Mary). The Holy Spirit is literally the Spirit of God; so, I think it is a given that he was always in the beginning. He was also seen hovering over the waters in Genesis 1:2 at the beginning along with Jesus and the Father, I believe that you should probably give this video a closer listen again because a lot of the objections that you are raising has already been answered in the video. I don't mind interacting with you in the comment section, but I can't do it if you are going to rehash the same points that I already addressed. You have to add something new, or at least address one if the points I made and offered a rebuttal to it.
@lbfather 5 күн бұрын
@@yinyang2385 Can God create a stone he can’t lift? the answer is no, because he’s so omnipotent he can’t do something that involves him being incapable of doing something. Omnipotence doesn’t mean he can do EVERYTHING, in its most literal sense, it means he’s capable of doing everything metaphysically possible. you’re argument rests on the fact that it would be ultimately better for God to be unitarian as opposed to trinitarian. they’re are two problems with this: firstly, it presumes your assumption is true in the first place (which you cannot prove because your mind is limited, unlike God’s and you’ll never be in his shoes so to speak) and secondly that it doesn’t have to be the case. The reason why we believe trinitarian theology is logically sound is that, by nature, God is a loving God. Love is at the very center of his being, and the role that he plays is much like a father to his son: providing for him but ultimately doing what is best for him to grow and thrive. This nature is made manifest in the Trinity, eternally. For in order to be eternally loving and virtuous :one must have a subject of that love (unless it’s only subject is the love of nothing, which goes against the creative order of God, or the love of his own aspect of love with nothing else, which means nothing) Since God is eternally Virtuous and Loving, multiple subjects are manifest in essence of his being. notice how i did not say parts. All of the persons in the trinity share a will and an essence. However, God’s eternal love is manifest as his spirit, and his eternal love directed to someone is manifest as the Son. A perfect trinity of eternal love, as the Father, with the Spirit of his love, eternally begets the Son. Without the trinity, it implies that God isn’t all-loving before creation, which is a deficit in virtue and would mean that God isn’t all-virtuous either. God can’t have moral deficits, and must therefore be all-loving and virtuous. the Trinity manifests as this reason, and it reflects on us as humans because God plays much the same role with us, and expects us to do much the same to others.
@yinyang2385 5 күн бұрын
@@lbfather well I would argue that God being unitarian as opposed to trinitarian is in fact better in terms of God being able to perform efficiently and at the flawless and omnipotent level that God presents himself to be. Because if I were to consider that God is infact a trinity and if look at the way God functions within that form we begin to see a less than perfect display of abilities. Such as the inability to effectively communicate between it's parts. Example of this is seen when Jesus expresses that he has no knowledge of the hour and that only the Father does. Or when Jesus calls out to the Father asking why he is unable to communicate with him and why he has been abondened. Clearly an indication that God as a trinitarian does not have the same level of cohesive functioning and performing as efficiently as a unitarian God.
@EclecticOmnivore 8 күн бұрын
@jaynijackson The focus on debates is to win. While that's fun, having a debate doesn't teach us much. Debates are adversarial. They are threatening. Egos get involved, and the debaters (as well as the viewers) usually harden their original views. With that in mind, instead of a debate, I would like to discuss the following open-ended question; * *_What should your target audience do with what they learn here?_*
@marionoliver6004 8 күн бұрын
Make more videos
@marionoliver6004 8 күн бұрын
Wow well said!❤
@keason754 10 күн бұрын
Excellent 😊
@TTTristan1 11 күн бұрын
The problem comes with what you're presupposing vs what we're presupposing. At least when it comes to atheists, we're presupposing that we can understand logic and observe reality to some extent, as we (and you) have no choice but to. That's pretty much it. If you presuppose Christianity out the gate, you're presupposing what we are presupposing, AND a metric ton of other supposed happenings and rules of the universe as they are constitutes by god. Our way builds up with theory, your way starts at a hypothetical top.
@Redx3257 12 күн бұрын
Every single one of these presumptive arguments by apologists in general are fallacious. If you have any intellectual honesty you wont go down this path. Remember this type of argumentation only works on people that hold the same presumption as you, or for a lack of a better term have already been brainwashed.
@MrMattSax 12 күн бұрын
Let’s discover the most dishonest way to argue your position.
@jaynijackson 12 күн бұрын
Which part was dishonest?
@MrMattSax 12 күн бұрын
@@jaynijackson arguing in a circle and assuming what you are attempting to prove is true and refusing to demonstrate it. I just figured you all knew it was dishonest and just didn’t care. Presup a word game that doesn’t even seek to convince, the goal is to out-talk your interlocutor. As Bonsen said, the goal is to shut the mouth of the atheist. It’s an admission that evidentialism fails, there’s no way to prove any of the wacko magic claims made by the faith, so you take on a tactical approach where you assert (as is common in apologetics) that since you have AN answer (usually some nonsense about foundations for intelligibility or predication) and the atheist admits that they aren’t certain that they do, that you win by default. It’s “you don’t claim to know but I do so I win”. The trouble is, one can imagine to have such a foundation but that doesn’t actually demonstrate it.
@incomingincoming1133 12 күн бұрын
'Dishonest' doesnt mean direct lies in this case. It means that the speaker, if confronted with the same objections, but with a subject matter that is not God, will see the merit of the objections and even agree. However when the subject matter is God, they react with confusion and outrage that is very hard to accept as genuine, because you know their capacity to comprehend, when arguing other topics.@@jaynijackson
@kimbirch1202 12 күн бұрын
Jesus teaches that our current beliefs about our reality are insane. It is impossible that we could be ever - changing lumps of flesh and bone, that contain no qualities, purpose or autonomy. He teaches that time is unreal, as it can obviously never not be the present moment. He teaches that this world is only an illusion , or dream , in our own minds, and that ONLY the Kingdom of God cam be real, because it is eternal and unchanging. He teaches that no life can be separate from God, whatever we choose to believe. Only our illusions about reality cause any suffering, and the only purpose of religion is to overcome all suffering, in order to know the Kingdom of Heaven. OBVIOUSLY !!
@kimbirch1202 12 күн бұрын
Stupid folk think that religion is about adopting some second hand belief system laid down by some organisation. No, true religion is about remembering our God given nature, as eternal spirit, because this realisation cuts the root of all suffering, and brings profound peace, joy and love aka " the Kingdom of Heaven ".
@gayesthusky2177 12 күн бұрын
“I presuppose that I’m right and you’re wrong and you know it deep down because you have to resort to apologetics and you also know that your father is a failure and a liar and if you deny it then you are also a liar and a fool.” I win. See, we both can make pressup arguments and give ourselves attendance awards 🏆.
@jaynijackson 12 күн бұрын
I'm not a presuppositional apologists, but I believe that you still have not fully understood this position. The presuppositional apologist does not believe that Christianity is true because he presupposes that it is true. That would be stupid. He is presupposing the truth of Christianity when engaging in argumentation with other atheists or even theists to demonstrate how our worldview corresponds the best with the truth and makes the most sense of this world. Hopefully, that helps your understanding.
@gayesthusky2177 12 күн бұрын
@@jaynijackson Thanks for proving my point that they presuppose Christianity without investigation. And god that doesn’t exist can’t explain, cause, design, or be the foundation of anything. So until you or the pressup have demonstrated that a god exists, neither you nor any apologist can explain anything. I could replace “God” with “Mantoy” in every presupp argument and it would still work the same.
@jaynijackson 12 күн бұрын
@@gayesthusky2177 again, It’s one thing to not comprehend a video, but it’s another thing to not comprehend a paragraph clarifying the video. If you honestly believe that presuppositionalist, or Christians for that matter, only believe in Christianity because we presuppose Christianity is true, then I honestly do not understand how to explain it to you in a way in which you can understand. Let me recommend a book for you if that helps. Please read if you are honestly interested in understanding how Christian’s come to believe in Christianity “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. There are other books who do a great job of going through the evidences for Christianity but I think Lee Strobel does so in such a way that anyone can understand.
@EclecticOmnivore 10 күн бұрын
@@jaynijackson [butting in; I'm not the OP...] A few comments; > If you honestly believe that presuppositionalist, or Christians for that matter, only believe in Christianity because we presuppose Christianity is true, I agree, and I'll push it one further. * I don't think I've ever heard anyone who uses presuppositionalism *to reach* any personal conclusion about gods existing. That's why -- personally -- I don't deal with abstract arguments like TAG/... that nobody actually cares about for their own conclusions. That saves a bunch of time, and focuses on what actually matters to people. -------- > Please read if you are honestly interested in understanding how Christian’s come to believe in Christianity “The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel. There are other books who do a great job of going through the evidences for Christianity but I think Lee Strobel does so in such a way that anyone can understand. Specifically on Strobel: His books aren't serious. His personal stories are often fabrications, while he poses 'hard questions ... as an investigator' and then uses sources that complement his conclusions. This has been known for decades, yet has not changed in updated revisions of The Case for Christ. -------- Related to the above... * Why are there so many books about the Bible, while most Christians haven't even read any variation of the *whole thing* on their own? Isn't the Bible good enough on it's own, to speak for God? Is it optional -- and books about it can take it's place entirely? * If the Bible is good enough as-is, why are there Bible study groups that *tend to* take the place of a complete reading -- while other books about the Bible don't *tend to* be read in groups? ------- (Note: Yes, I know that the Bible is constructed from different books.)
@kimbirch1202 12 күн бұрын
Christianity got off to a very poor start It made some fundamental errors in trying to reconcile the radically new teachings of Jesus , with Old testament nonsense and fairytales. And also trying to fit his teachings in with our existing world view , and beliefs about reality. Jesus teaches that none of our current beliefs about reality are correct.
@jaynijackson 12 күн бұрын
Where are you getting this from? I'm honestly confused as to which Bible your reading or which Jesus you are listening to...
@kimbirch1202 12 күн бұрын
@@jaynijackson The full teachings of Jesus are contained in a book called A Course In Miracles. This wonderful book explains and expands upon his Biblical teachings, which are nowhere near his full teachings, as many contemporary accounts and gospels were omitted. These include 3 from his own disciples . Are you familiar with his Biblical teachings?
@kimbirch1202 12 күн бұрын
@@jaynijackson You clearly are not familiar with the teachings of Jesus. Do you just blindly accept what some church tells you to believe ???
@kimbirch1202 12 күн бұрын
@jaynijackson Here are some quotes of Jesus from the gospels, with a little explanation. " you shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free " This would be a meaningless statement if we already knew what was true and real. " you will realise that I am in the Father, and you are in me, and I am in you " Here he clearly states that life is one whole , in Christ, and God. " it is the Spirit that gives life; the flesh counts for nothing ". Here he states that contrary to popular belief, there is no life in bodies, but life comes only from God as Spirit. Obviously, God would be a sadist , if He created bodies to suffer pain, disease and death. " the Kingdom of God is within you ". If the Kingdom of God is within our own minds, then this is the only place it can be found. " God judges no one " Obviously this means that God never judged anyone as guilty of sin ,in the first place. Which means that the crucifixion cannot have been a sacrificial atonement for sin.
@kimbirch1202 12 күн бұрын
@jaynijackson Stupid Christians ignore the wisdom teachings of Jesus, and merely believe whatever some church tells them to believe, like zombies. Why would Jesus bother to spend 3 years teaching the Truth, if folk just ignore those teachings??? His teachings point out HOW we can awaken to the truth ourselves, which is the only purpose of religion, as only knowing the truth can set us free. Merely having beliefs in some dogma is absolutely useless. Can you really not understand this ??
@user-nj4gn4rl7h 12 күн бұрын
You're actually an atheist - you just deny it.
@user-nj4gn4rl7h 12 күн бұрын
You just suppressing it
@kimbirch1202 12 күн бұрын
I can assure anyone that 99% of Christians have no, or very little , understanding of the teachings of Jesus Christ. Most just blindly accept made - up church dogma instead, without questioning whether it either conforms to Christ's teachings, or whether it makes logical sense . The Bible has over a hundred very obvious contradictions within it, and so cannot all be God - inspired. Moreover, Christian dogma doesn't explain exactly what the Kingdom of Heaven is, or how it can be attained, and is therefore useless.
@EclecticOmnivore 13 күн бұрын
I'm wrapping up on listening to your video. You clearly have learned quite a bit; well past enough to understand both the history and the structure of this (and likely other) apologetics. It would take me hours to cover all of the points where there are mistakes of one sort or another. This is unfortunate because people who take in what you've posted won't know where the mistakes end and the well reasoned parts start. This will not suit them when talking *with* (not at) other people. If that seems like I am being harsh about that, I'll be glad to go over any 20 second part of your video and say where I agree, disagree, and have knowledge you *may* (may!) not have (yet).
@jaynijackson 13 күн бұрын
If you want to do a response video to my video, letting me know your thoughts, that would be cool. I would certainly watch it. I could certainly be wrong on some points when describing the presuppositional apologetic method; it certainly is not due to a lack of researching. Let me know if you posted something, I would love to check it out.
@EclecticOmnivore 12 күн бұрын
@@jaynijackson "If you want to do a response video to my video," Not interested. My original offer stands; * I'll be glad to go over any 20 second part of your video and say where I agree, disagree, and have knowledge you may (may!) not have (yet). Please note the other reply that you did not comment on. It still applies, and starts with... > Please, don't promote TAG and other Christian/Muslim/... presup arguments to promote religious ideas. Religious use of presuppositional arguments like TAG and others are not good methods to promote anything and can work against any apologetic goals. Read the rest of that other comment for some general points on why that is the case.
@EclecticOmnivore 11 күн бұрын
@@jaynijackson Here's a follow-on question: Between the two following options, what would you recommend to other people -- both experienced and those just starting out? * A first list that has a few small mistakes, but is otherwise insightful and has correct -- verifiable -- conclusions. * A second list that covers the same insights and correct -- verifiable -- conclusions as the first, *plus* has additional good insights and correct conclusions. Unfortunately, the second list also contains a high percentage of what look like good insights and correct conclusions -- but are not. There are other options, of course; * Review the second list and cut out the parts that are in error, then share the results of that. * Stick to the first list. * Sort the second list into two lists, a correct list and an incorrect list. ...and so on. Sharing the second list without any modifications, though, will encourage other people to take in both the correct and incorrect parts. When they find that there are errors, they will have to un-learn those incorrect parts -- while likely treating some of the incorrect parts as if they are correct.
@EclecticOmnivore 13 күн бұрын
Please, don't promote TAG and other Christian/Muslim/... presup arguments to promote religious ideas. If you don't know why they are critically flawed and seen as generally dishonest, please please please ... check with someone you trust who doesn't use it and then run it by them. ------ Besides that, let's make this practical... In the end, the only *benefit* using presupposationalism is to reach a goal by being dishonest; * When used on people who don't know the problems with it, they find it difficult to untangle presup arguments. A cynical person might think that's a good thing, as the means justifies the end they are seeking. There's a problem with even that, though. People who are unaware of what presup arguments are will pause and think "This doesn't sound right, though I can't put my finger on why it sounds wrong." It's an obvious sales pitch; just swap out car undercoating with whatever the presup promoter is specifically pushing. This is not a way to engender trust. If the targeted person finds out just how bad the presup arguments are, they will shift from "Something's up with that." to "They're lying/stupid/both. ... why do they think it's OK to insult me with this nonsense?"
@ryan27229 13 күн бұрын
Okay, big problem around the 9:20 mark. Atheists aren't presupposing that materialism is true, we're refraining from accepting that the supernatural is true until the proponents of it supply their burden of truth. That's why presuppositions apologetics are viewed as inherently dishonest: because first off, you're strawmanning our worldview by bootstrapping materialism onto us in a broad generalization and second off, even when Atheists admit to presupposing that the laws of logic are true, and presupposing that our senses are working correctly, we accept that we COULD be wrong, but presuppositionalist Christians don't. They assert that they CAN'T be wrong because their presuppositions come from an infallible god, the only thing that can provide absolute truth. This is special pleading, and is fallacious, and is the reason why presuppositional apologetics should be abandoned, because you're teaching other Christiants that it's perfectly acceptable to be fallacious. Unless you think that's a true statement in which case, more power to you. You'll make more atheists than Christians that way.
@jaynijackson 13 күн бұрын
I’m not saying that all atheists presuppose that materialism or naturalism is true. I’m saying that if they do, then they have to admit or at least realize that’s the same thing that the presuppositional apologists is doing. And so now, it is a battle of the presuppositions. If that’s not you, then that’s not you. Hopefully that provided some clarity for you.
@gayesthusky2177 12 күн бұрын
@@jaynijackson Um, no it’s not. We presuppose the same reality as you and nothing more. Apologists go on to presuppose that a magic man exists and this supernatural world exists and then they go on to pretend to know everything about everything while showing that they know nothing about anything. They have no demonstrable evidence of this god. Period.
@jaynijackson 12 күн бұрын
@@gayesthusky2177 We do not claim to know everything. Ironically, you resorted to straw-manning the theistic position after you started by claiming that I strawmanned the atheist position. If you keep doing that, you'll make more atheist Christians that way. Placing the "magic man" comment aside, how do you suppose that there is something rather than nothing? How do you suppose that there are intellectual human beings on this planet floating through space? I'm assuming that you are not a materialistic naturalist; so, how do you account for this? I'm honestly asking.
@gayesthusky2177 12 күн бұрын
@@jaynijackson Actually you guys do claim to know more about the origins of the universe and how life began than scientists who study it, without being able to demonstrate anything about this god. Rather, you say that God had special thoughts and intents and poof life and the universe. That is magic. And I will do you one better; I will assume that I know nothing at all and that I, along with all atheists can’t explain anything and that we don’t know anything. The lack of knowledge in my empty head has no power to cause your god to exist or not to exist. So what I can and can’t explain or know is irrelevant to whether or not your god exists. Nice try though but reading from a script gets you know where with me.
@jaynijackson 12 күн бұрын
@@gayesthusky2177 again, I’m not claiming you know nothing lol I honestly asked you how do you account for there being something rather than nothing? You think this is a script which is hilarious but it is a simple question that, if you are so smart, should be able to answer without feeling like you are being trapped of some sort lol if the best you have is mocking Christianity because you think it’s foolish, then I guess that’s cool. I don’t think that’s the best your have to offer though. I know there is an intelligent argument waiting to come out..
@donnyh3497 13 күн бұрын
Well christianity is dying at an ever increasing rate. These ridiculous apologetics are actually opening people's eyes as fast as all of the information disproving christianity is opening people's eyes. Keep up the embarrassing work! 😊
@jaynijackson 13 күн бұрын
Christianity has never been about a popularity contest, and apologetics has never been about trying to get you on our “team”. If you want to place your faith in naturalism or whatever philosophical worldview that you believe in, then so be it. Have fun!
@donnyh3497 12 күн бұрын
@jaynijackson Yeah, apologetics is about trying to keep christians from feeling embarrassed and stupid about their ridiculous beliefs. In another 50 years people will be embarrassed that their ancestors actually believed in those ancient superstitions
@Redx3257 12 күн бұрын
@@donnyh3497 Damn lol you showed no mercy here lol
@MrMattSax 12 күн бұрын
Agreed. Presup is a result of the last gasps of a dying mythology.
@jaynijackson 12 күн бұрын
@@donnyh3497 Right, right right... I assume they will take more comfort in thinking that they are nothing more than primordial apes who have just become hairless and smarter over time? Or they may take comfort in the logical fallacy that something came out of nothing. We all know that is intelligent. Apologetics is not about keeping Christians from feeling embarrassed. I know I could care less. The funny thing is that the atheist back in the 1800's said the same thing. In another 50 to 100 years, things will be different. It's interesting to see how that has aged.
@MyContext 14 күн бұрын
One of the reasons some people take the idea of a God to be reasonable is due to the issue of complexity which tends to beg the question as to how such occurred. However, the idea of a God also begs the question of complexity, which I took seriously. P1: God is denoted as at least a non-contingent intelligence/mind. P2: Cognitive capacities are processes and thus contingent. C1: God is denoted as at least non-contingent contingent. C2: God is incoherent, thus impossible, thus non-existent. This argument serves to point out that the claim of a God is an assertion that is in conflict with what we actually know such that it is at best a fiction and at worse a falsehood. I grant that one can claim that "there could be an intelligence/mind that is non-contingent" , but I could never grant such a notion given what is known such that such a claim REQUIRES substantiation. We know intelligence/minds are extremely complex things. I will grant that this type of an argument may not have been made in the far distant past, but now, given our development of artificial minds, brain organelles, understanding of the brain, and more - it is not something that should escape anyone's notice. I will also grant that my argument will not rescue some from a belief in fiction, since, there is no end to the parade of fiction that one can make up in an attempt to save an idea from being fictional. The Monty Python's Dead Parrot Skit made this abundantly clear decades ago.
@MyContext 15 күн бұрын
Problem: IF apologetics is about defending a faith and the defenders are giving contradictory responses to the various challenges against the faith, then one should be examining WHY there are contradictory responses to the challenges; even as the challenges remain the same. Answer: A careful reading of the Bible will show that the material ITSELF is contradictory; and thus depending upon the relatively coherent construction that one has created by one's selection of considerations, is what determines your response to whatever challenge against the faith. --- The fatal flaw with God claims - there is no God shown; people ascribe the idea to reality. Why is this fatal? There is no basis by which to consider the claim to be anything other than imaginary (product of psychological/sociological construction). I find presuppositional apologetics to be as absurd as assuming Last Thursdayism is true. Sure, one can argue that the idea is coherent and the world fits what Last Thursdayism claims, but there is nothing supporting the idea. The whole of presuppositional apologetics is seen as garbage in philosophical circles (and more). Why? The point of putting forth an argument is to SHOW that one's position is correct. Presuppositional apologetics is thus an immediately failure, since it does not show that it is correct. It instead assumes what needs to be shown. --- There are many people who are accused of naturalism or accept the label naturalism when that is not actually what and how the individuals think. The basic reasoning that most people use is simply a reference to what is shown to be the case in order to make other claims. Thus, IF something hasn't been shown, then there is no basis to make a claim about what has not been shown or to even claim what has not been shown. --- I will agree that for most people the acceptance or rejection of God claims is in part intellectual and in part emotional. I rejected the God claim I was presented as a kid the moment I found the idea to be in conflict with reality; and immediately wondered why were the adults lying to me. What was the issue? The claim that God is all-powerful and all-good has the demand of action such that the claim was an immediate failure given the scale of action expected on the claim. The scale of the issues with God claims only got worse as an adult. However, I will not talk about the mountain of issues, I will simply reference a basic problem that unravels God claims for most non-believers and often results in believers becoming non-believers. When we are evaluating a claim about reality, we need information about reality that allows a review of the claim being made. So, what information in the context of reality SHOWS that there is a God (omnipotent omnipresent omniscient omnibenevolent entity) and the actual capabilities of this supposed entity? Nothing. We only have stories which are then used by believers as IF that is evidence. Believers often argue: 1) that reality HAD to come from a God 2) how else could it have come about 3) other ideas don't work 4) how else do you think prayers are answered 5) the universe can't come from nothing 6) the universe had to have a creator 7) God is the foundation/ground of all existence 8) God did X according to <insert scriptural reference> 9) I experienced God and thus know that God is real However, none of these notions (and more) substantiate the idea of a God. They are instead appeals to the idea that needs to be shown to be the case. This is what the Agnostics understand as well as Kierkegaard (which is why he acknowledged that belief in God is a matter of faith). The atheists generally understand the issue of there being no evidence, but go at least one step further in some fashion to do a review on one of the following or something else that allows for a more definite determination as opposed to the more inconclusive statement of unsubstantiated. 1. Conceptual integrity with regard to the narratives being put forth 2. Conceptual integrity with regard to what is known/understood of reality. 3, Philosophical implication of our overall knowledge of such claims and their sociological interplay. There are other points of review, but the net result is the idea that God claims are in fact falsehoods as opposed to such being unsubstantiated.
@jeffreyjdesir 14 күн бұрын
Thank you for your thoughtful and informed response. Just seeing the title made me die a little inside but honestly this approach is such an afront to truth I don't know how they are not called out as mere liars and charlatans more. I'm not even atheist and I find this kind of arrogance and medevial response to God and the human condition and the universe awful .
@EclecticOmnivore 12 күн бұрын
Good post! I tend to phrase it this way; * The Bible [, ...] is a Rorschach test using words; ------------ To make this explicit, as with the ink blot test, the answers given say more about the person than they do the text. For example with the Genesis flood, some religious people will talk about a literal global flood, while others a regional one, and still others as more like a metaphor for some set of ideas. Regardless of how literal the event is taken, the extra layers of meaning are applied and added to the story either by tightly referencing specifics or more loosely discussing a theme -- often both. Note that there tends to be a break between the story and the person's non-religious perspectives; when only dealing with reality they will use one type of reasoning while dealing with religious topics they will use a different one. This shows that the main meaning of the texts is group cohesion and not as a guide to any actual 'higher' truth.
@MissAnnaDominique 15 күн бұрын
very good
@guitarizard 15 күн бұрын
TAG is special pleading
@siddislikesgoogle 16 күн бұрын
Hear o Israel, the Lord is ONE.... Even Jesus recognized the primacy of this as the greatest commandment.
@DNB7227 28 күн бұрын
Beautiful, well explained.
@SaMya-lf2zp Ай бұрын
I was over complicating this scripture at first and thought it meant something else but you simplified it with scripture! Thanks 🙏🏽
@jaynijackson Ай бұрын
Don’t beat yourself up lol it happens to the best of us
@ChrisMusante Ай бұрын
I would add the fact that how can anything be 'begotten' as the context of the sentence is that something has to 'not exist' in order to be 'begotten'. One who is 'led by the spirit' is 'begotten... as Paul says plainly. We are already 'like' Him - but only as a 'choice' of which 'father' to serve.
@ChrisMusante Ай бұрын
The son IS NOT 'created' by the Father, He was MADE by the Father. Peace is made, and evil is 'created'. See Isaiah 45:7 in the King James Version). I can explain what the trinity is... but it is a 'lost' teaching that explains with good reasons what the Apostles were teaching, and why Jesus should NOT have been crucified - as the Apostle Paul professes in 1st Corinthians 2:8. Because of this revelation, I actually hold the keys of peace between all of the Abrahamic faiths and only wait to have this information recognized. In a nutshell, the 'son of man' is not a person - but a door or gateway to a relationship with God. There are many passages that mention 'the' "son of man", but not all are complimentary to God in their context - see Job 25:6, and Numbers 23:19 - the later which reads... "Is God a man, that He should lie? Or a 'son of man' that He should repent?" This strictly implies that the 'son of man' can have (2) different relationships one with Gid the Father, and the other with the devil - the Father of Lies. Jesus ALWAYS and without exception refers to this 'son of man' in the 3rd person - ALWAYS. So then, if we look at Ezekiel 2, we can see how this works. In the first 2 chapters of Ezekiel 2 (and know that I am strongly opposed to these fragmentations of scripture as they have turned bread into bread crumbs) we find that Ezekiel is called by the Lord, and is told to "stand' and THEN the Lord would speak to him. Then Ezekiel points out that the spirit 'enters' him - which causes him to be set on his feet, and THEN he could hear. Again, we see the concepts of blameless and 'upright' all throughout scripture. So then, this 'son of man' in being a 'door'or 'gate' is for 'sheep' - who are strictly obedient to God - vs. goats who are sacrificed for 'sin'. Grace then is associated with the 'rod' (vs. the 'staff') and should be understood as a way in which evil is used for 'good' as it it certainly evil to disobey God. So the phrase 'salvation by grace' is then the role of a 'suffering servant' vs. an obedient one. Notice what is said about the 'suffering servant'... numbered amongst the transgressors (sinner), nobody to be esteemed (sinner), and so on. By this understanding one can see that ALL are ALREADY 'serving' God from either of these (2) perspectives - and is simply 'Sovereignty of God '. As such, the only way to 'win' against evil, is to not DO 'evil'. It is the fight that cannot be won by fighting and why the Lord of Glory (Jesus the Christ) taught as He did. To always ow forward, to love each other as we are ALL 'brothers', and as such, allowing the dead to bury the dead. I know that I am a prophet as I have called these times like a football game that I wish I never would have been born to witness with my eyes. And I also know 'how' Isaiah 52:15 is to be fulfilled... while I humbly admit that I - as a simple man - do not feel that I am worthy to do it. But again, the truths are in the writings and they do say... "Elijah was just a man, like you and I." Shalom.
@rebeccahughes7766 Ай бұрын
Nah... self control and self disapline. Which is the highest level of love for self and everyone around you.
@melvinross6056 Ай бұрын
Luv this. It's biblical and is true. Note the book of Acts at 28:25 thru to 31. ❤😊❤
@paulamartin9649 Ай бұрын
Amen 🙏 ❤❤❤
@paulamartin9649 Ай бұрын
Amen 🙏 ❤thank you so very much Jesus ❤️ ❤️ ❤️ ❤️
@paulamartin9649 Ай бұрын
All we have is our testimony❤❤
@user-dn4dp4xi2v Ай бұрын
Amein & Amein
@johnlee8885 Ай бұрын
He died for our sin and rose from the dead to seal the deal
@aeriellebelk9941 Ай бұрын
Amen 🙏🏾
@edithchinyere7387 Ай бұрын
Love your answer may jesus be with you ❤😊
@donnamoore7858 Ай бұрын
Amen
@sonofgod031 Ай бұрын
Wrong, your job is only to do Father's will.. Jesus came to this earth only to do the Father's will. We need to have relationship with the Father in order to hear him.
@sonofgod031 Ай бұрын
Mat 7:21-23
@jaynijackson Ай бұрын
I don’t believe your comment make much sense. You are saying that preaching, teaching, defending and living out the gospel is not the will of the Father. Maybe you didn’t hear what I said in the video.
@imdilyn Ай бұрын
@@sonofgod031my question is how do you have a relationship with the father?
@donnamoore7858 Ай бұрын
He is exactly right in the Book of Mark it says we are to preach the Word to all nations. That is the will of the Father! Can’t force anyone but we can teach and preach in love! How shall they hear without a preacher and how shall they preach unless they be sent! It’s in the Word!
@lamontgreen9667 Ай бұрын
Amen
@Nava9380 Ай бұрын
Please, stop saying "evidences".
@jaynijackson Ай бұрын
Why? There are evidences for God and for the truth of Christianity.
@kidslovesatan34 Ай бұрын
@@jaynijackson the word is definitely evidence, not evidences.
@kidslovesatan34 Ай бұрын
@@jaynijackson What's your single best evidence for your god existing?
@Nava9380 Ай бұрын
@@jaynijackson Evidence is an uncountable noun and is not used in the plural. You say: The judge listened to all the evidence. ✗Don't say: The judge listened to all the evidences. Evidence is always followed by a singular verb: The evidence is very clear.
@downenout8705 Ай бұрын
@@jaynijackson Why? Because when you don't even understand what an uncountable noun is, you lose all credibility.
@kidslovesatan34 Ай бұрын
The biggest problem for you guys is not hostile objections but calm, informed, fact-based, opinion free science, evidence and reason.
@jaynijackson Ай бұрын
Not exactly. We believe that Christianity is informed, fact-based, etc. The problem is that not everyone is able to articulate this truth the same in the same way that not every student will be able to articulate math, science, or history the same in a classroom.
@kidslovesatan34 Ай бұрын
@@jaynijackson I would not say informed, and very little in the way of facts, reason and evidence.
@kidslovesatan34 Ай бұрын
Would you accept the cumulative case method of apologetics for Islam, Hinduism or any other variety of faith?
@jaynijackson Ай бұрын
The cumulative case method is not specific to any religion. It’s a method of engaging in apologetics. It’s like a brief that a lawyer gives; whichever apologists presents the best case wins so to speak.
@kidslovesatan34 Ай бұрын
@@jaynijackson 0+0+0 equals zero.
@kidslovesatan34 Ай бұрын
@@jaynijackson a bunch of unsubstantiated claims will never rise to the level of good evidence. That's not particular to any religion either, it's true of all of them.
@kidslovesatan34 Ай бұрын
@@jaynijacksonAs in a court of law where evidence is presented and testimony heard, both for and against, I find god guilty of not existing.
@kidslovesatan34 Ай бұрын
@@jaynijackson I just realised you didn't answer my original question. I'm going to assume that the cumulative case for Islam, Hinduism or any other faith wouldn't move you one iota.
@sabin1166 Ай бұрын
So the tools of Apologetics are: 1. Distortion 2. deception 3. word salad 4. tap dancing 5. obfuscation 6. lying 7. making shit up So after applying all the tools of their trade, they still can't provide any concrete evidence of a God!
@jaynijackson Ай бұрын
I believe you may not know what the definition of evidence is. Evidence is the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. This is a broad definition. Essentially it is anything that supports the conclusion that a proposition is true. This could be done through rational arguments or through empirical testing. I believe you may be thinking about empirical evidence which if that’s the case, then Christians would say that you cannot prove that God exists like you can prove that a tree exists because God is immaterial and a tree is material. Simple as that. But is the concept of God illogical or far fetched. I think not.
@kidslovesatan34 Ай бұрын
@@jaynijackson What is the difference between an indetectable, immaterial being and one that doesn't exist at all?
@kidslovesatan34 Ай бұрын
@@jaynijackson If you cannot prove that it exists, and that goes for every god that's ever been proposed, why on earth would you even give tentative support for the notion let alone full support? In my opinion, that is not rationally justified. Religion encourages one to embrace beliefs with insufficient or no good evidence.
@gideonopyotuadebo2304 2 ай бұрын
THE APOSTATE CHURCH THAT IS HERETIC AGAINST GOD YEHOVAH IRONICALLY CALL THE GODLY COVENANT LAWKEPPERS HERETICS A CHURCH THAT HAS BECOME APOSTATE AND HERETIC TO LORD GOD YEHOVAH THE MOST HIGH BY REBELLING, TRANSGRESSING AND FORSAKING THE WORDS OF THE LAW OF THE COVENANT OF GOD YEHOVAH IN THE TESTIMONY OF YEHOVAH WILL CALL A KEEPER OF THE WORD OF THE LAW OF THE COVENANT OF GOD YEHOVAH IN THE TESTIMONY OF YEHOVAH A HERETIC AGAINST ITSELF AND PERSECUTE SUCH PERSONS Proverbs 29:27 ASV An unjust man is an abomination to the righteous; And he that is upright in the way is an abomination to the wicked. Isaiah 59:12-15 ASV For our transgressions are multiplied before thee, and our sins testify against us; for our transgressions are with us, and as for our iniquities, we know them: [13] transgressing and denying Jehovah, and turning away from following our God, speaking oppression and revolt, conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood. [14] And justice is turned away backward, and righteousness standeth afar off; for truth is fallen in the street, and uprightness cannot enter. [15] Yea, truth is lacking; and he that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey. And Jehovah saw it, and it displeased him that there was no justice. Isaiah 66:5 ASV Hear the word of Jehovah, ye that tremble at his word: Your brethren that hate you, that cast you out for my name's sake, have said, Let Jehovah be glorified, that we may see your joy; but it is they that shall be put to shame. Deuteronomy 29:9,29 ASV Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do. [29] The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law. Psalm 4:3-5 ASV But know that Jehovah hath set apart for himself him that is godly: Jehovah will hear when I call unto him. [4] Stand in awe, and sin not: Commune with your own heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah [5] Offer the sacrifices of righteousness, And put your trust in Jehovah. Isaiah 33:5,22 ASV Jehovah is exalted; for he dwelleth on high: he hath filled Zion with justice and righteousness. [22] For Jehovah is our judge, Jehovah is our lawgiver, Jehovah is our king; he will save us. Isaiah 8:13,16,20 ASV Jehovah of hosts, him shall ye sanctify; and let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. [16] Bind thou up the testimony, seal the law among my disciples. [20] To the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely there is no morning for them. Isaiah 42:8,21 ASV I am Jehovah, that is my name; and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise unto graven images. [21] It pleased Jehovah, for his righteousness' sake, to magnify the law, and make it honorable.
@Gr8FullyDead420 2 ай бұрын
Yeah we know how the earth formed and we know how it will end. Neither process requires a deity, just natural forces. The Big Bang doesn’t teach that everything came out of nothing. The only people I ever hear claim there was ever a state of nothingness is religious people. The Big Bang states that literally everything we see around us was condensed into a singularity and that singularity expanded, forming the universe we see now. While we don’t know what was before the Big Bang, or if there could have even been a before the Big Bang, we do know that it happened and that there doesn’t seem to be any evidence or need for a god. You’ve described your god as being timeless, spaceless, and immaterial which is actually pretty close to the definition of something that doesn’t exist. Why would you assume that for something to come out of nothing, again a claim we’re making, that a deity has to exist to do it? Why not just natural forces since we actually know those exist?
@missnicholson 2 ай бұрын
Great breakdown Sir. Truly enjoyed this.
@josephshipman4656 2 ай бұрын
I've asked myself some of these questions myself I think alot of believers do I've asked myself am I praying out of love or am I praying out of fear of going to hell and when we do ask ourselves these questions some often worry that our faith is wavering but its not it's bringing you closer to god it's making your faith stronger so don't lose heart pray on it ask for guidance don't be afraid our father will not be disappointed or angry he wants you to ask for guidance he wants to help bring you closer to him don't ever forget god loves you each and everyone of us
@jhonnyhareton9135 2 ай бұрын
Thank you bro, very important message!