Are Atheists Stealing From God? (Frank Turek vs David Smalley)

Frank Turek is a Christian apologist, author and host of the US radio call in show Cross Examined. His book ‘Stealing From God: Why atheists need God to make their case’ argues that skeptics steal from a Christian worldview to make their case for atheism.
David Smalley is an activist for secular humanism and the host of the atheist talk show Dogma Debate. He engages Frank on whether atheists can ground logic and reason without God.
For Unbelievable? the Conference 2017: www.premier.org.uk/whychrist
For Frank Turek: crossexamined.org/
For Justin’s appearance on the Cross Examined radio show: player.subsplash.com/6jpcdgc
For David Smalley: dogmadebate.com/
Order Unbelievable? The Conference 2016 DVD/MP3CD & Digital Download www.premier.org.uk/Shop
For more faith debates visit www.premierchristianradio.com/...
#FrankTurek #DavidSmalley #Debates

[@lilacDaisy111]

Debate starts at 18:00 after intros.

[@joelrodriguez1232]

Lilac Milkshake thank you.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@GBF freeloader, Kindly repeat that in ENGLISH, Miss.☝️

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@GBF freeloader, I’m afraid that I am unfamiliar with PIDGIN. 🤔 Therefore, Slave, if you would care to repeat your inane comment in a tongue in which I may comprehend (such as ENGLISH), it would be appreciated. 🤓

[@aurik9726]

Chalk-up another sin that Frank has committed, by murdering David Smalley on live Radio.

[@blastinkaps8826]

😭😭

[@seawolf7649]

LOL ---- Frank sounds like an insincere interlocutor attempting to sell a used car manufactured by Smurfs, to smart kids who don't believe in tiny blue beings.

[@Adam-mj5hl]

Lol, pray tell, how exactly did Turek “murder” DS?

[@DHFrank]

👍🏾

[@BaBcs]

You must be deaf and watching with subtitles in another language

[@Coach_JP_123]

I listened to this debate in a room full of 8 people 2 Christians and 6 atheist everyone agreed that Frank won the debate

[@metaiv9527]

God is good. Now your 8 Christians and 0 athiest if your smart, after hearing frank here.

[@DJRickard2010]

When you say “God is good,” are you referring to a particular conception of a god?

[@droptheballasmr5668]

@@DJRickard2010 Are you pretending not to know which God he/she is referring to?

[@Adam-mj5hl]

Apparently all 8 people in the room have very poor logical reasoning skills and were unable to recognize fallacious arguments.

[@Coach_JP_123]

@@Adam-mj5hl Apparently you don't have the skills to point out one of those fallacious arguments and how it's fallacious nice try though I'll give you 1 point for ...pity I guess honestly do better .

[@lilacDaisy111]

David said he'd read Frank's book. This debate seems otherwise, like David assumed he could just talk about how unreasonable Christianity is, and thus befuddle Frank. I wanted to scream, "Just answer the question, David."

[@dwellerbythemeadow2283]

Lilac Milkshake, same here. I just wanted him to answer any question that Frank asked him.

[@TomAnderson_81]

Lilac Milkshake What was the question?

[@TomAnderson_81]

Marion Lee What was the question?

[@DJRickard2010]

What was the question?

[@DJRickard2010]

Frank Turek is a world class straw-manner, and he makes one unsubstantiated claim after another. He isn’t even honest about the definition of atheism.

[@sigmar_heldenhammer1776]

David "umm, I think that's a trap." smalley

[@TruIDApologetics]

This is the second time that I've heard Smalley debate. My first time hearing him was when he debated Eric Hernandez. In both cases David clearly did not grasp the arguments being put forward by the apologist. His mini rant at the end about "does this or that (ie talking animals) line up with the laws of logic?" made it clear to me that smalley doesn't understand what the laws of logic are and how they fit into conversations like these. Great job Frank Turek. You were clear, concise, and avoided Smalleys red herrings. Definitely enjoyed listening to this. -Adam Coleman Www.truidpodcast.com

[@TomAnderson_81]

Scott Lane How do you know that Yahweh is real and true and not that you are wrong and that the idea of god is someone else?

[@TruIDApologetics]

1981andybt That's a fair question. When you ask "how do you know..." Then what we're dealing with is epistemology. For clarity sake one could ask, what does it mean to "know" something? In epistemology, what it means "to know" something can be a bit slippery but generally philosophers will agree that to say you know something is to say that you have, at very least, a justified true belief about this or that. So for me as far as Christianity is concerned i would say that I have justification by which I can rationally affirm Christianity is true. Obviously if Christianity then YHWH is the true and living God. Broadly speaking I would say the justification for that falls in 3 categories. Evidence, worldview, and experience. A. There is plenty of evidence that suggests that the God of the Bible is real. In short one could appeal to something like the Kalam Cosmological Argument 1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause. Through a separate follow to the Kalam we can infer that the universe is a transcendent personal being. If the universe (time, space, matter, energy) had a beginning then it's cause must be timeless, spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful. To account for the co-existence of an eternal cause and temporally finite effect we can reasonably infer that the Cause of the universe is personal. To narrow down who this cause might be we can look to the historical evidence for the resurrection via what's called the minimal facts argument. That approach takes certain known data related to the resurrection like: 1. Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. 2. Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his female followers. 3. The disciples had experiences which they believer were interactions with the bodily resurrected Jesus. 4. James the brother of Jesus converted to Christianity. 5. A persecutor of the Church named Saul aka apostle Paul converted to Christianity. These facts are well attested to by evidential support and agreed upon by a strong majority of new testament scholars. Yet, no naturalistic hypothesis has been put forth that accounts for these facts. The hypothesis that does account for them is that God raised Jesus from the dead. B. The Biblical worldview can account for what we see in the human experience in a coherent way whereas other worldviews cannot. For example, our moral experience. 1. If God does not exist then objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2. Objective moral values and duties do exist. 3. Therefore, God exists. I would argue that the Biblical worldview affirms the existence of the type of God that can account for why there is objective morality. One reason for that would be that God is a trinity and is love itself. Those two factors lay the groundwork for an objective and comprehensive foundation for morality that other belief systems can't. I wrote an article on how our moral claims can't be established on atheism a while back. It basically explains why if there is no God then no lives matter. freethinkingministries.com/blacklivesdontmatter/ C. Lastly personal experience comes into play. I believe that God makes Himself known through a direct witness that He exists and is who the Bible says He is. Anyone can experience God directly if they are willing and seeking to do so. In that direct experience of God I find ample support for holding fast to the Christian worldview above all others. My prayer is that you would be open to God's truth so you can know Him personally as well. God bless

[@TomAnderson_81]

Scott Lane _cause must be timeless,_ Explain how something can be in no time, as in 0.000to infinity? If god is timeless, how can he create? Before creation and after IMPLIES time. _spaceless, immaterial, and enormously powerful._ Explain how can you rule out that this universe wasn't made by an alien from another universe? After all, if what you need is a cause of this universe, how could you rule this out? _Cause of the universe is personal._ Define personal? _Jesus died by Roman crucifixion._ Is Jesus god? If no then why do Christians say he is. If yes, can a god die? If no then he did not die. If yes then you've debunked gods because gods are "usually" by definition, as IMMORTAL. _Jesus' tomb was found empty by a group of his female followers._ Yes, that is the CLAIM but outside of this book, what evidence do you have? We seemingly don't have any woman saying this, we have WRITERS CLAIMING this. _The disciples had experiences which they believer were interactions with the bodily resurrected Jesus._ How do you know that? We only have the writers CLAIM this. But, even if we concede this, how do you know if they were not hallucinating? People have claimed they saw Elvis or some claim they have seen dead relatives, so does that mean those came alive also? You have a Special Pleading logical fallacy. _James the brother of Jesus converted to Christianity._ The writers CLAIM this but do we have James writing? But, even if we concede this, maybe he hallucinated also. _A persecutor of the Church named Saul aka apostle Paul converted to Christianity._ Millions of Muslims converted to Islam, does that mean Islam is true? Special Pleading logical fallacy. _These facts are well attested to by evidential support and agreed upon by a strong majority of new testament scholars._ Show extra biblical evidence of any of this? _Yet, no naturalistic hypothesis has been put forth that accounts for these facts. The hypothesis that does account for them is that God raised Jesus from the dead._ There is no need whatsoever to give any hypothesis at all because the burden of proof is on the claimant so it is up to you to prove this. _The Biblical worldview can account for what we see in the human experience in a coherent way whereas other worldviews cannot. For example, our moral experience._ Worldviews are personal views about the world and DO NOT BRING EVIDENCE INTO EXISTENCE. Anyone can "account" for these, by your concession, just insert the argument from ignorance "god did it" and voila 🎯it all is accounted. Think of it more as assertions. _I would argue that the Biblical worldview affirms the existence of the type of God that can account for why there is objective morality._ I guess you don't google much because all these points have been scrutinized. Is morality about right and wrong or about obedience to gods laws? _One reason for that would be that God is a trinity and is love itself._ Good luck proving it is a trinity. _I wrote an article on how our moral claims can't be established on atheism a while back. It basically explains why if there is no God then no lives matter._ That is a Strawman fallacy. You can throw away that article because atheism doesn't deal with morality. Atheism deals with one thing only, the god claim. Morality is dealt with by ethics. Is god good? _I believe that God makes Himself known through a direct witness that He exists and is who the Bible says He is._ Why believe? It is or it isn't. How do you know he even spoke? The Bible? Do you believe what you read blindly or do you fact check? Have you gone outside space time in order to verify?

[@TruIDApologetics]

1981andybt Were you asking these questions rhetorically for effect or do you actually want to dialogue? I'm open to having these kinds of conversations but i think we should focus in on one point at a time rather than shotgun blasts of responses back and forth. Speaking of time I think that's one of the areas where you made an error. We can do thought experiments to illustrate that a duration of time is not necessary for causation. Consider a bowling ball sitting on a pillow from eternity past. If such were the case the bowling ball would be causing an indentation in the pillow but it wouldn't be the case that a duration of time had anything to do with the cause and effect relationship between the bowling ball and pillow (indentation). From this we can see that a cause can be simultaneous with an effect thus the passage of time is not necessary for cause and effect relationships. Now, all one has to do in regard to God and the universe is posit that God existed timelessly, His initial act of creation was was the first moment of time, and God enters into time along with that act of creation.

[@TruIDApologetics]

1981andybt among the questions you asked would you mind singling out one or two to give us a solid starting point? If you'd like we can begin with the ones you believe to be the most difficult or interesting. It's your call

[@fieroboom]

Frank: *defeats David's argument* David: "That's just muddying the waters..." 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣

[@jwfixit7494]

Smalley was all over the place and couldn’t grasp the difference between epistemology and ontology. Even after Frank explained it 3 times. Smalley resorted to attacks in the end, which typically happens when one is outclassed.

[@Detson404]

If something is ontologically true but the truth can’t be known epistemically, its pretty useless.

[@Detson404]

But yes I agree with you.

[@vernonknapp7165]

In debate: Are we desiring the winning of the person, or the decimation of the person? John Lennox

[@mikaelium192]

decimation

[@VengefulPolititron]

some will never be won. and atheist lost so hard. huge fail. but he can't see it

[@VengefulPolititron]

I liked to decimate. but after a Theophany type situation, and severe chastisement, winning souls is better than winning arguments. "and they will know you by your love" God softened my brutality.

[@DJRickard2010]

@@VengefulPolititron neither, in the modern use of scholarly debate, the goal is to provide evidence for one’s argument and to challenge the opponent’s claims and evidence for his arguments. Theists, however, can’t do that, because of the paucity of evidence for their claims. Therefor, they do what Turek does-spill a myriad of claims with froth “evidence,” e.g. “otherwise we’re just moist robots.”

[@DJRickard2010]

@@VengefulPolititron What do you mean by winning souls? Like what Christians did in the crusades?

[@STREEEEEET]

So he claims that the laws of logic are human construction so i wish Frank asked him what is his evidence of that.

[@benitaalmond3991]

He also claims that you don't have to believe in God to know the laws of logic which is true - but the laws of logic can only exist if God is exists whether you believe in God or not is immaterial.

[@benpearson9739]

@@benitaalmond3991 No, that is a mischaracterization and demonstrates how imperfect god was at giving us this ability of language that always seems to get in the way of understanding...lol. Laws of logic are a human label for predictability in our universe. It is a result of observation. I would like to point out that it is not necessary to be human to use logic. For example you can train a dog to pick a yellow ball when you say yellow, and a blue ball when you say blue. Thanks to evolution, both dogs and humans have eyes that can discern those colors. If you train your dog what you know those colors by, then so he will know. No god was necessary for the dog and you to come to the same logic that blue goes with blue ball and yellow goes with yellow ball. All that was necessary was enough time for both species to develop eyes and brains that can process colors and verbal communication. It is silly to talk about logic, a non-material thing, as "existing" prior to humans, because it is an abstraction of how we observe the predictability of the universe and the things in it, so logic absent a mind, is meaningless.

[@GrammeStudio]

@@benpearson9739 lol don't bother with these uneducated folks who think just because it's "human construct", it's willy-nilly or unreliable. guess what, nimrods? SCIENCE (as in the scientific method) is a human construct as well

[@BerishaFatian]

David had no idea why he was on the debate.

[@tr889]

I really wish David would have answered some of Frank's questions. Not really a point in "debating" if your going to dodge every question.

[@justin10292000]

I have watched scores of Christian-"atheist" debates over the years. The "atheists" Never REALLY answer the questions or present a systematic framework which supports their "atheism."

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@justin10292000, are you a THEIST? 🤔 If so, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓

[@Detson404]

In some sense there’s no need if you understand where the burden of proof lies. I realize that’s unsatisfactory. What exactly are you looking for that you’re not getting?

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

The disconnect comes when Frank Tureck tries to narrow down on what David believes as an atheist. David responds as being an agnostic atheist. Frank's arguments don't necessarily apply to those who don't know, and/or don't want to know. It didn't seem Mr. Smalley was open to certain of Frank's arguments, though he said he was open, especially to the ones which would deconstruct David's worldview

[@ryley113]

Frank is so much smarter than Smalley. Frank is like a dad trying to explain to his child why it’s not good to run in the street. Hahah

[@Adam-mj5hl]

If by smarter you mean someone who accepts fallacious arguments, then yes, you are correct.

[@paulawad9585]

Dr. Turek, i thought we Christians are not supposed to murder. Seems like u went against that commandment for this debate. RIP Atheism.

[@joelrodriguez1232]

Paul Awad Atheism is the stupidest thing ever.

[@Jet.Single]

I lost a couple brain cells listening to David smalley 😹

[@danieltulloch5556]

@What is TRUTH? Podcast, FOLLOW IT! I read it didnt get any dumber. Im guessing you're trying to say they raped the women. They didnt if you're wondering.

[@number1rko]

Frank thank you God is using you to reveal himself you've contributed a lot for my faith in God , God bless you brother.

[@stelladavis7832]

Why? Frank is terrible he just makes claims

[@jpapan1]

@@stelladavis7832 i heard frank is selling oil from snakes too

[@LiberatedMind1]

Why doesn't he reveal himself directly? Coward!

[@kennym3492]

What’s wrong with you? Frank is sickening

[@flecksrandomstuff4593]

39:20 David says that is not nonsensical/LOGICAL question, don't care etc... Well duh, it is really important, you see, if it's LOGICAL to ask such question, Davids worldview goes out the window! That's why he doesn't want it to be logical/valid question!

[@steadfastneasy26]

I could only get to 32:30 before I had to relieve myself of the pain to common sense that is David Smalley.

[@Adam-mj5hl]

47:18 The host and FT were trying to get Dave to make a knowledge statement to say that the physical laws of the universe are all that exists, and there is no such thing as the supernatural. The trap is that if Dave falls for this and says yes, then it shifts the burden of proof on him to prove there’s no such thing as the supernatural. Dave should have taken a page out of Matt Dillahunty’s book by responding that he’s a methodological naturalist…that so far as we know, we are stuck here in Earth and live every second of our lives governed only by the physical laws of the universe…no one has been able to demonstrate the supernatural, and if and until the supernatural has been confirmed, one should never appeal to it as a possibility.

[@jayjonah83]

Yes they were trying to trap him but it's a really easy sidestep as you described. Maybe I'm missing something or I'm just amazingly arrogant but I don't see that trap as all that trapping especially if you are comfortable with saying IDK. we barely know and understand our universe so it's not even rational to believe there is something that exists outside of known existence let alone have all of the properties and characteristics theists attribute to their deity

[@mycebu3172]

wow, I feel little sorry for David, he was very unprepared for this debate.

[@rayjr96]

My Cebu I think he won, Frank makes ridiculous analogies and asks nonsensical questions. He’s a used car salesmen for Jesus

[@timtheenchanter2062]

@@rayjr96 I think frank tends to push the boundaries of philosophy and David was not prepared for that. He wasn't the atheist for this debate, he doesn't seem to be good at picking up arguments he hasn't heard before. Even I could've answered that rock question

[@danmanduka]

@@rayjr96 Do you have an example of a nonsensical question Frank asked?

[@seawolf7649]

@@danmanduka any of them... if he assumes that some undetectable universe creator is the answer.

[@tedgreen8576]

My question is - if David essentially doesn't believe in anything then why is he debating. Everything is a question mark for him. How can you debate someone without a firm position. btw. when he got caught in the Objectivity trap near min 45, I completely marked out - got em.

[@TomAnderson_81]

Ted Green How do you know that Yahweh is real and true and not that you are wrong and that the idea of god is someone else?

[@josiahtejeros4896]

He's an atheist because he is not a theist. As simple as that 😂😂

[@blastinkaps8826]

@@TomAnderson_81 that’s a different debate tho u still look at the evidence for each world religion

[@Liquidian]

David is an athiest, which means he is not convinced that there is a god. It does not mean that he essentially believes in nothing. Im sure there are many things he does believe in.

[@DJRickard2010]

You’re following Frank Turek in straw-manning the statements of David-and probably atheists in general. David never said he “essentially” doesn’t believe in anything.

[@letscarryit]

I had some good convos with David Smalley on his show years ago .cool dude .

[@erikrohr4396]

I don't know why David enters into these types of debates. David doesn't seem to be understanding what Frank is saying at all.

[@jpapan1]

44:00 excellent Mr. Smalley

[@ministryoftruth1451]

Why was it so hard for David to understand that reason and logic exists outside human minds? If a rock exists, it exists whether you can reason or logic its existence. Truth is not dependent on or derived from anything.

[@jpapan1]

Whatever "reason" and "logic" "are", would they "exist" before humans and their brains came up with those ideas...or words to describe reality... And what if every human disappears from the planet. Do reason and logic exist if there is one around to...say it, think it, label it etc. They seem to just be descriptions we humans use to describe how things work...or should work etc. Take away the humans and their brains...the ideas and concepts...and i guess the "laws" or reason and logic, like gravity etc...continue to be...yet no one is around to point it out So...when did logic and reason "come into existence"? With the big bang? Or...what day did gawd create logic? Photosynthesis happened however long ago. Photosynthesis happened WAAAY before we came up with an understanding of it...and a language to communicate that understanding

[@ministryoftruth1451]

@@jpapan1 reason and logic are attributes of God and therefore exist eternally as God does, and regardless of human existence. We share this attribute as we are created in God's image. That is why animals, no matter how hard scientists try, can never have this ability.

[@seawolf7649]

​@@ministryoftruth1451 This, what you just wrote, is actually and completely fantasy. This type of statement is one of the reasons we can't have nice things. Demonstrate that "logic" is an attribute of "God". (Allah? Or Vishnu?) If logic is an attribute of god, how come so much incoherence and nonsense comes from gods? I have a feeling you are someone that is posing as a person possessing some sort of understanding that you really do not. (That's why you call yourself Ministry of Truth... LOL... usually people who know truth need not label themselves as such).

[@ministryoftruth1451]

@@seawolf7649 Your opinion is noted. Care to actually make an argument other than "you are wrong"? Based on your meaningless three paragraphs I have doubts about your ability to reason.

[@seawolf7649]

@@ministryoftruth1451 Based on what you have attempted to pawn off as anything more than your ill-written personal opinion... I am gathering you are quite confident in and convicted to the story and demands of your specially preferred, undetectable, celibate, desert real estate mogul in space. I am a nobody. Merely a fallible human being. Emotional, and thinking. However, you are a rational individual. You know the truth and have Jesus in your corner. Just go on with your wise proclamations... You definitely are helping the world. Your efforts to keep kids away from Christianity are not unnoticed. Thank you.

[@samuelpark3451]

I think that we as believers of a higher power often associate said higher power with our own form of morality. Things in our life don't add up, certain situations and circumstances persuade us to be more objective toward our standards. Something doesn't make sense, and then we have to justify our resolutions towards the things that don't make sense. That's when our moral case dictates our narrative towards the higher power.

[@jayjonah83]

Are you aware you are essentially "solving" mysteries by appealing to another mystery?

[@godsson1039]

David just answer a damn question 🙄

[@kurtgundy]

David's answer seems to amount to a shoulder shrug. And then he's surprised when Frank says....that's not good enough. You must have some theory for where immaterial realities come from. Don't be surprised when I point out your inconsistency.

[@jayjonah83]

First, what immaterial realities and how do we as material creatures reach the immaterial? Secondly, that fact that someone is willing to say that they don't know something is far more intellectually honest than giving answer as a truth that you don't know to be true. The idea of a god is a big "maybe" and not the certainty theism sells. Idk doesn't equal god

[@weirdwilliam8500]

What immaterial reality? Do you mean thoughts? If we accept the overwhelming evidence that thoughts are a material process, then we don’t need a theory to explain immaterial thoughts, do we?

[@MrChickenLegss]

David Smalley started off saying "All these denominations", and then later said "Even atheists disagree on these issues"...it's like he didn't really get anywhere when he spent the 10+ years exploring the issues.

[@blastinkaps8826]

@What is TRUTH? Podcast, FOLLOW IT! u can say that al u want but unless u have some idea on what the truth is u can’t say u know what a lie is

[@Programm4r]

I love GIR. ^_^

[@Detson404]

We’re not claiming divine revelation. You have a god that supposedly gives you knowledge of objective truth and morality. We acknowledge that we’re just people and people can disagree.

[@jpapan1]

Basically...just skip to 1:00:40 for Smalleys premise.

[@taylorneill8674]

That... Was a beat down. Kind of hard to listen to. David just wasn't grasping the argument.

[@daniellus4549]

Frank is clearly smarter. David spends the entire time saying "oh I don't necessarily believe this and that" without saying what he DOES believe in while presenting naturalistic arguments without realizing it.

[@DJRickard2010]

There is no association between the confidence in one’s beliefs and the veracity of them. Like most religious apologists, Frank constantly straw-mans others points.

[@DJRickard2010]

Franxx opening arguments starts off with the God of the gaps argument. He describes emergent properties, which abound in the universe, then he says if they don’t come from God we are just moist robots, Another one of Frank’s Christian, preacher catchy phrases. This is exactly the argument that people gave for thunder and lightning not so long ago. - another one of his classic premises is that atheism is a world belief. These are exactly the kinds of premises an argument that turned me away from Christianity. Because people to feel good when they hear them, but there’s no evidence to support them

[@dperkins01]

I have a question for Frank. When you say "I think", what do you use to do that, a moist brain? What action can you take without that moist matter enclosed within your skull? Nice word games and misdirection, but Frank has no tangible evidence for a beyond-spacetime deity existing. No one else either.

[@sheamarana6150]

This guy isn’t even close to the same caliber as Frank. I can’t even tell what his view point is... just a whiny babbler.

[@andreaslevario3248]

Shea Marana his view point - on the existence of a god - is that there has not been sufficient evidence to support the claim that a god exists. Does that clarify the misunderstanding?

[@chrishand9324]

David dosent even try to answer these Questions. Smh . hes just switching up everything frank says

[@Adam-mj5hl]

Dave should have responded that the laws of logic and reason are concepts that humans recognized as they developed. They saw that they logic and reason produced better results and continued to use them.

[@Adam-mj5hl]

@C L I don’t think you read my comment carefully. That was my entire point - the laws of logic existed before humans roamed the earth. As our brains developed, humans came to recognize intuitively the laws of logic. They saw it’s just how this universe worked. But the thing is, yes, the laws of logic would still exist without human minds to perceive them, but they would be irrelevant. That gets into philosophical questions of existence like does an object exits if there is no mind to perceive it.

[@pguetan]

35:45 What was the philosophical term Frank said about presupposing reason and morality in understanding the Bible?

[@joelrodriguez1232]

Paulo Guetan prolegomena These are things that you know without the Bible.

[@DJB3NNYB]

While I agree with David on the substance, I think Frank won the debate as he constantly had David on the defense in this exchange. The subject also kept getting changed by David to morality and the possibility of deriving reason from other gods when he should have addressed the broader point made by Turek on how a deity is necessary for deriving reason. It is also worth noting that Turek, while using this line or argumentation is at the very least flirting with presuppositional apologetics which at best fails to establish why the apologist's presupposition is superior to anyone else's and at worst focuses on using semantical tricks to win an argument rather than investigating reality in any meaningful way. Smalley should have stayed more on subject and kept hammering Turek on why a deity specifically is necessary for deriving reason as opposed to a non-god explanation.

[@senorbb2150]

I can sum the problems with Frank's argument quite simply, and it is unfortunate Smalley couldn't do this because it's not difficult: #1- God of the Gaps i.e. Science can't fully explain abstract concepts that humans have developed like consciousness and logic, therefore it all must come from God. #2 After years and years of debate, Frank's ignorance regarding the theory of evolution is remarkable because evolution actually does go a long way in explaining these phenomenon. While it's true that Frank continually (and intentionally at this point) misrepresents atheism by insisting that atheists "have a position", I think it took Smalley way too long to meet him halfway and argue against the idea that logic and reason must come from God.

[@therefugees2694]

All David did was talk about what kind of athiest he is

[@TheUnapologeticApologists]

I’m surprised, since when does unbelievable have modern-day-debate-quality-atheists on ? lol

[@vernonknapp7165]

Nobody has it together. 14:20

[@GraceAlone614]

David I'll tell you what, none of us are worthy. But through God's grace, he made it possible for us to achieve salvation through Jesus Christ. 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 states clearly the gospel by which we are saved. That Jesus bled and died on the cross to pay for all of our sins. Jesus Christ is the propitiation for our sins. Stated in Romans 3:25 1John 2:2 and 1John 4:10. Propitiation means "satisfactory payment"

[@vernonknapp7165]

Dr. Turek, you talk too fast! I’m sorry, the “hunoprilic oneden theology”? 36:04

[@jpapan1]

“Vanessa, let's talk about class for a minute, alright? Here's you and Giorgio in the guestroom. A little classy, isn't it? Here's you and Giorgio in the rumpus room. Another classy one, huh? Oh, this one, I can't figure out. There's you, there's Giorgio... what's with the midget over here?”

[@truthovertea]

David was not prepared. Frank knows more about atheism that David! But even the most seasoned atheists struggle with this question. You can’t justify logic and reasoning as objective in atheism because nothing transcends humans in atheism and human opinion is not objective

[@jayjonah83]

Frank does what most every Christian apologetic debater does and that's set up this strawman of Atheism to argue against, and while that may garner some hand claps from christian listeners, it's incredibly dishonest. Every atheist debater has to spend half the debate explaining and then reexplaining that an Atheist lacks a belief in the claim of a god. You're saying that in order to have logic and reasoning there must be a god. My question is why? Since we don't have any good, credible, non-heresay evidence of a god why are you attributing logic and reason to a god? Is there a god of Logic? A separate god for Reason? Everything that we know of happens within what we call the universe, why is it unreasonable to believe that logic and reasoning is based and rooted in the way the universe works. The fact that people like Frank are willing to say with absolute certainty what the origins of everything comes from yet we know so little about our universe. We are literally one lifetime away from our first space flight, how can we be SOOO sure of creation based on mysterious musings of ancients? I can think of literally four better explanations for the universe than simply a singular (by the bible description) needy, jealous, manipulative and narcissistic god. They make great sense, yet have zero explanatory value

[@truthovertea]

@@jayjonah83 what is the objective standard for morality in atheism? Also, how can you explain reason and logic in a spontaneously started universe with no guidance? Physicalism leaves you with matter, how can you reason when your brain states are a series of random material processes that you cannot control? How can you explain the origin of the laws of logic if there is no intelligent design to the universe? The best answer you have is that it’s just a coincidence. You typed a long response without addressing the issue, sidestepping doesn’t solve the problem. Saying we don’t have good, non-heresay evidence of God is subject to whatever your opinion is. God could appear to you physically and you could still say that doesn’t meet your standard of evidence. So ultimately your statement is just begging the question. All of your statements regarding the universe and the laws of logic presuppose they can exist without God but you don’t explain how. Again begging the question

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@@truthoverteaYou do realize the Christian “objective standard” of god’s morality is different for every Christian you ask? That’s because it’s subjective; each Christian goes with what feels right to them “in their heart,” based on their own conscience and upbringing. You’re in the same boat as the rest of us. We see this clearly.

[@truthovertea]

@@weirdwilliam8500 the objective standard is God’s Nature. If Christians differ on their opinion of the objective standard that doesn’t affect the standard because being objective means it’s independent of the mind. It’s unaffected by opinions, it can be discovered by minds but not determined by minds.

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@@truthovertea Ok, then I can assert some other standard as objective, and assert that my particular subjective preferences are the actual reflection of this true standard. Because I thought about it a bunch, and it really really feels true to me, and it's what my family believed growing up and I love my family? Am I doing it right? Professional philosophers, by a huge margin, recognize that theism cannot be the grounds of objective morality because it is subjective by definition. It's is based on god's opinion, preferences, commands, and desires. That's subjective. If it were truly objective, then every moral restriction would apply equally to the conduct of the god as to humans. Yet it never does in theism, and the only rationale for this is special pleading or word games. (If you want to say it's dependent on god's nature, not his will, then we have no need for a personal god with a mind, because morality can by your admission be grounded in any inanimate object with a nature that grounds morality by definition.) Do you understand? If it's objectively wrong to kill, then that means it's also wrong for a god to kill, and god would be the biggest sinner in the bible. If that's not the case, then morality depends on who the subject is, their status in relation to others, where and when they are situated, and the particular circumstances. Might makes right. That is moral relativism and is subjective.

[@ninclow5421]

What does it even mean for "atheism to be true?"

[@metaiv9527]

Athiesm is an impossible absurdity. There is actually no such thing as Athiesm.

[@ninclow5421]

@@metaiv9527 Sarcasm?

[@metaiv9527]

@@ninclow5421 No I have explained it before. Of all the things that can be known, you only know tiny pertentage of it. So it's foolish for a person to say there is no God. The truth is you don't know, which means your agnostic. Athiesm is just a mask that liars and arrogant asses wear.

[@MarkH-cu9zi]

@@metaiv9527 _" Athiesm is just a mask that liars and arrogant asses wear."_ ?? You sound rather confused.

[@user-el3rk6os3p]

Does Frank Turek believe that his God is bound by the laws of logic?

[@WerdnaFPV]

I believe Frank’s position is that God is the source of logic as well as morality. He has used this position as a rebuttal to the Euthyphro dilemma. So it would be like asking if God is bound by Himself.

[@ByronRadstyle]

Satan blinds the minds of the unbeliever. This is my conclusion to fact atheist do not answer hard questions that simply prove them all. They ramble hoping thier words may seem legit. Just answer the question. The guys already said he was a false convert. He was never q Christian. He already made up his mind and stuck with it.

[@paulawad9585]

HOLD UP ATHEISTS... "a dead guy did not come back to life" dont u believe that life comes from non-life though?

[@bensdg1164]

great observation! lol

[@ProdByClockwerk]

But the non life was never, even for a moment, previously that same exact life before it was a non life for 72 whole hours.

[@kimbanton4398]

@@ProdByClockwerk So nothing turning randomly to rocks turning randomly to humans makes more sense to you than resurrection?!

[@GrammeStudio]

@@kimbanton4398 I suppose you're a non-Christian who believes that "rocks turning randomly into living things" is as non-sensical as a zombie rising from the dead and floating to the sky, then. wow, so intellectually honest and consistent.

[@briendoyle4680]

Only those un-educated say that... hahaha

[@abhi__fitnesspbx]

David was owned by frank

[@aragon8708]

David doesn't get the argument

[@pure2060]

Yeah david didnt really answer anything, he kept changing the subject.

[@jpapan1]

1:02:30 "...we can know the laws of logic and deny there's a source for the laws of logic, but there would be no laws of logic to know unless that source existed. And its my contention is that source is an immaterial mind we know as god. These laws are rational...and our minds are built in the image of the great mind...and the reason we can know reality and know what the universe does is because these laws exist and our minds are built to know what the universe is through these laws and through our senses." "Blah blah blah mind. Blah blah blah logic. Blah blah blah"

[@mikeramos91]

Flat earth will end all debates

[@ThomB50]

Michael Ramos It would appear to be more ovoid than flat.

[@dylanbiggs3997]

Michael Ramos The Bible teaches a round earth. Go see Creation Ministries International work on this. The Church never taught the earth was flat.

[@mikeramos91]

Dylan Biggs we have been deceived. Round earth makes no sense with the Genesis creation account. The earth described in the Bible does NOT match the earth taught in school. There are so many lies in this world, God has been pushed out of the picture. The reality that has been presented has lead many to not believe in God!

[@ThomB50]

Michael Ramos I don't disagree with the fact that there has been a concerted effort on many different platforms to remove God from our life. But flat earth?

[@IronFire116]

It will end all debate about who has studied science, math, and engineering, and who hasn't. Friend, flat earth is a scam. It simply does not have the explanatory power of the spherical earth proposition, which is massive.

[@jpapan1]

58:30... IF he said human conventions... Thats probably wrong. Human description of something.

[@sunnyhomze4288]

Frank wrecked David. Praise Jesus!!!

[@mkely9032]

Praise Jesus?? The myth continues. Jesus is a man made myth, like hercules and king arthur the bible is fan fiction.

[@bladeanthony]

Mk Ely just watch frank lol. Come one now. Jesus is no doubt real, that’s not even what most atheist debate about. The main thing they debate about is, the resurrection of Jesus. It’s evidence that Jesus was real, but some people don’t believe he was the Messiah or the son of God. But he was definitely real, and definitely died on the cross.

[@kimbanton4398]

@@mkely9032 Pleasy read the peer-review _The Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus_ for the historicity of Jesus Christ

[@jackdaniels5489]

@@mkely9032 YOU BELIEVE IN ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND JULIUS CESAR PROBABLY. BUT WHEN YOU PUT DOCUMENTATIONS ABOUT BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER,STILL, IT'S ABOUT 500 LESS TIME'S DOCUMENTS THEN ABOUT JESUS CHRIST. AND JESUS TEACH US TO BELIEVE AND LOVE,AND YOUR MATERIALISTIC WORLDVIEW JUST TEACH PEOPLE ABOUT HATE AND NO PURPOSE OF EXISTENCE. YOU BELIEVE IN WHATEVER YOU WANT BUT THAT CANNOT TO AFFECT ON GOD'S EXISTENCE. CHECK WHAT IS THE AXIS OF EVIL AND TOU GONNA SE HOW MUCH YOU ARE WRONG. GOD'S NOT DEAD HE'S SURELY ALIVE LIVING IN OUR INSIDE AND ROARING LIKE LION ♥️♥️

[@briendoyle4680]

hahaha..

[@vernonknapp7165]

YEAH! North Carolinians got it right! I knew it all the long!

[@VocabMalone]

Vernon Knapp lol nice call back

[@Kyle72396]

Amazing work Frank

[@fieroboom]

OMG the British guy LOVES to hear himself talk... 😂🤣

[@weirdwilliam8500]

Frank constantly lies about the atheist position, even after he’s been corrected over and over. He is perpetuating false stereotypes that cause real harm, to make money. It’s really despicable.

[@Timmy-jr4lm]

Jesus loves you.

[@benjy288]

Its at this point you realize that atheism falls apart.

[@johnlove2954]

It is funny, how he says that an atheist believes that he can control rainbows. Kinda' destroy atheist claims of intellectual superiority and ability to identify woo-woo:)

[@benjy288]

Atheists say a lot of funny things, just one for example is when they claim there's not enough evidence for God, then you say well what about DNA? our genetic information, how did that get here? and they respond with we don't know yet how it got here but just because we don't know doesn't mean it must of been God, then you say but everything we know tells us that information comes from intelligence, then they say well it could of been aliens who planted it here for all we know, then you say well where did the aliens come from then? then they basically run out of ideas. They realize that their world view can't explain anything, like when David Smalley dodged the question on the laws of logic when he realized his explanation that we create it in our minds didn't make any sense, they refuse to believe that someone rose from the dead because they say they don't believe in the supernatural, yet they believe in a theory that essentially says everything came from nothing! like that sort of thing happens naturally or something? the evidence is right there in plain sight... they just don't want to believe it because of the implications.

[@dwellerbythemeadow2283]

Gizmo, well said.

[@benjy288]

Why wouldn't we "want to believe?" Because that would mean there are rules, and that you have to answer for you choices and actions on judgement day, if there are no rules then you can do whatever you want in this life, and as long as you don't get caught then you get away with it, its much much easier to live your life based on how you want to live it, and being saved by grace doesn't mean you can just go around doing what you want in life, being saved by grace changes your heart so you actually want to try and live your life based on Jesus's teachings and actions. Who'd purchase finite and fleeting satisfaction if the price were infinite and endless suffering? No one, if they knew it to be true, but the problem is they don't know it to be true, they have to have faith that its true, but sadly too many people get swayed from that belief. Christians believe that God is eternal and that he created everything from nothing, Atheists have no logical answer for how everything got here, and they have no logical answer for how genetic information got here either, probably because it would be illogical, like trying to explain where computer code came from without referring to intelligence.

[@RonSwanson_]

Gizmo don't you see how you are begging the question when you said consciousness is just the working observations and pattern seeking of a conscious creature? That doesn't explain anything.

[@anbuchudarchristie8098]

It is really difficult when an atheist cannot defend his logic to be an atheist. A born Christian who have not found his logic why he is a Christian, will not understand why Jesus is important for him and why Christianity is true.

[@tedgreen8576]

the statement "the laws of logic exist and were developed in the brains of human beings' is possibly the most ridiculous thing ever uttered by a human. 1+1=2 no matter if humans exist or not. If something always existed - that's true - if nothing was the first cause\or nothing exists - than that is true...either way TRUTH IS FIRST - before rational (my position is that TRUTH is Rationality - God is Truth).

[@Kyle72396]

Exactly

[@krishnadasa108]

If his idea were true then a square circle could exist if humans did not exist. And the shape of the Earth could be both flat and spherical at the same time and in the same sense.

[@tieskedh]

I'm a Christian, but I'm not certain the laws of logic is a true reason. I do believe it's a way of perceiving the things around us and simplifying the world. The reason being that there are ways to perceive it otherwise: fuzzy-logic. If logic would come from God, fuzzy-logic would come from the devil? The laws of logic can't be simply changed and are a way of perceiving things. Same is for maths. It's like using the fine-tuning argument for the number Pi. We cannot say: see how specific the number Pi is, as it simply cannot be changed. If we would have a circle, it would have the number Pi. Using it for things like gravity, however, can be used, as we can create computer models where this is changed. I also do think it's beautiful that the laws of Nature are designed this way. This could also be a lot different: look at Quantum physics where we do need to use randomness etc. I do think God could created a world where we could not come up with maths and logic, however. If everything around us would be random, then coming up with maths and logic would be very hard and would probably not achieve anything. Also, we are created with the ability to reason. That being said, logic could still exist, but it wouldn't make any sense ;-) So in short, I believe the laws of logic don't "exist", but is simply a way of thinking. But that it is great that the world (for a big part) adheres to this laws.

[@TheWorldTeacher]

@@tieskedh, what are the reasons for your BELIEF in God? 🤓

[@DJRickard2010]

“The laws of logic” Is another commonly used Christian apologetics phrase. All of our “laws“ are just things that we’ve created to describe the reality that we live in. 1+1 = 2 is only true in base 10 mathematics. Just like 500 years ago we had to different “laws” to describe thunder and lightning, diseases, and many other things, 500 years from now, we will have new laws to describe things that we don’t yet understand

[@josephtimmerriman3884]

Very good job Frank

[@Jet.Single]

Dude why is the radio host talking so damn much. Shut up we came here to listen to the debaters You introduced them like 5 times throughout this thing.

[@jpapan1]

Can turek please stop saying moist robots. Gross

[@metaiv9527]

Lol yea molecular machines are much better.

[@gurunelo]

Yeah! If we are bodies created by a god and programed with his thought system then we are indeed just moist robots.

[@briendoyle4680]

The Bible 'book' = a compendium of fire side tales and fables, recounted orally , for generations by goat herders and primitive tribes from the stone age, until writing was invented, and then, many different sources, transliterations, and versions were copied and written down.. ''The Bible was created during a time where stories were verbally passed down over hundreds of years. Stories constantly morphed and changed over time, and the Bible is a collection of these. This is why it has the nearly identical flood story from Gilgamesh, and why Jesus has the same characteristics as Dionysus, Osiris, Horus, Mithra, and Krishna. The contradictions and immorality in the stories are not evidence that God is flawed or evil, but rather that humans invented him, just like the thousands of other gods that we used to, but no longer believe in.'' ..and to answer the questions of the many fears and mysteries of our universe, like 'thunder' and earthquakes, since there was no science yet. That was the old Testament.... The new Testes is also hearsay since these letters, 'gospels' and stories were written by the loyal faithful, the camp followers, not by objective historians at that particular time, or by any contemporary writers, and these tales were written many years after the supposed events of this mythical Jesus. There is essentially very little evidence of a Jesus in real documented history. A couple of spurious Roman reports, and all the rest anecdotal. ...but more importantly ...a jesus' existence is not an issue! A jesus is irrelevant without a god ! Then, many of these stories, but not all, as many were not chosen, [ There are more than just four Gospels but only these four were agreed on ], were compiled for one self-absorbed converted Roman Emperor in his Nicean Council, for his expressed purpose of conquest and control of the people of Europe for his Holy Roman Empire. He recognised that this was the perfect religion/mythology for the future domination of the populaces. Half of the stories were ignored by the Nicean Bishops and none have been proven to be based on fact. This 'Bable' book is backed up by absolutely no facts and no evidence. It is not proof for any god(s) ....(or of any jesus as a god...) The fables are intertwined within historical places and people... eg Egypt and the Pharaohs existed, whereas Moses and the Exodus did not happen...! It is a historical novel .... ie A book of fiction.. Only! The Bible book is proof of a book ... ONLY (certainly not evidence of any gods...) PROVE a god!

[@briendoyle4680]

@Arby 1611 That was what you emphasised?? not the idea that the claims of gods are lies..? and that the book proves nothing ..

[@DJRickard2010]

Frank Turek seems to be incapable of even considering that someone might not believe in a god or his god. His first argument-that even using the word “evil” requires belief in “God” is one of his classic fallacious arguments.

[@frankmahusay660]

We can compare God to a parent disciplining their children with the intent to make them a better person.

[@jpapan1]

Dont be gay. Dont eat shrimp. Dont mix fabrics. Buy your slaves from the heathens around you. Yep...thats exactly howy dad raised me. Trump 2024!

[@metaiv9527]

@@jpapan1 Your Daddy was smart. Shrimp are bad for your body.

[@Programm4r]

@@jpapan1 Shrimp eat fish waste, algae, decaying organisms, etc. It'd be wiser to eat something that ate grass.

[@javierhernandez8938]

Is he a new kind of atheist?

[@roanly1380]

I hope David realised how impolite he was

[@IAMFISH92]

This was so embarrassing for David. What a baby.

[@carlosibarra4041]

THE FOOL HATH SAID IN HIS HEART THERE IS NO GOD. PSALMS 51:1, 14:1

[@weirdwilliam8500]

“My book says that people who don’t believe the book are super dumb! Yeah!”

[@carlosibarra4041]

@@weirdwilliam8500 IF ANY MAN THINK HIMSELF TO BE SOMETHING, WHEN HE IS NOTHING, HE DECEIVETH HIMSELF. GALATIANS 6:3 MY BOOK IS BETTER 😊

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@@carlosibarra4041 I'm sorry your religion requires you to degrade your worth, your character, and your very thoughts. I'm sorry you were taught to feel nothing but shame unless you obey a designated authority, and taught that you deserve to be punished just for being who you truly are. This is exactly how abusive husbands emotionally condition their battered wives. You're a victim of this poisonous ideology, in an abusive relationship with your own imaginary friend. The rest of us are trying to break the cycle of abuse with reason, compassion, and demonstrable facts of reality.

[@carlosibarra4041]

@@weirdwilliam8500 YOU'RE HEART AND THOUGHTS ARE WICKED. NEED TO CHANGE ! I LIVED A SINFUL LIFE FOR 28 YEARS. I GOT SAVED, GOT WASHED IN THE BLOOD , I'M SAVED BY GRACE OF GOD, AND BE BORN-AGAIN. I'VE BE WALKING AND TALKING WITH THE LORD JESUS CHRIST FOR 24 YEARS. I HAVE PEACE, JOY AND LOVE THROUGH THE LORD JESUS. YOU MUST DO THE SAME.LET NOT YOUR HEART BE TROUBLE, BELIEVE ON GOD. GOD BLESS! NO GOD, NO PEACE, KNOW GOD!, KNOW PEACE!

[@weirdwilliam8500]

@@carlosibarra4041 Ok. Well, I don't live a "sinful" life. I don't hate myself. I don't feel any emotional instability or desperation. So, why would I need to engage in some sort of metaphysical blood magic ritual to get "better"? I mean, congrats for you if you're happy and feel like you're living your best life. Based on Christians I've talked with, they mostly sound full of shame, fear, and thoughts they have to constantly suppress. But if that's better than what you had before...congrats I guess? In any case, I don't need what you're selling, and it would be a big downgrade for me. The intellectual dishonesty alone would be too big a step for me. My only request is that you don't vote for legislators who will force your moral restrictions onto people who don't share your beliefs or values. That's wrong. Otherwise, enjoy bathing in blood and talking to invisible friends!

[@GrammeStudio]

how can someone who thinks it's immoral to drown innocent children possibly be stealing his morality from someone who thinks it's justified to drown innocent children? LOL?

[@tacotuesdays9009]

Damn I lost a few brain cells listening to frank

[@Hanako-San100]

Damn, I lost a few brain cells reading your comment.

[@Xnerdz1]

I have yet to see a single rational argument for the existence of a god.

[@ProdByClockwerk]

Xnerdz exactly but everyone still thinks David got smoked here.

[@metaiv9527]

Because it's right and good. That is my argument .

[@Detson404]

@@metaiv9527 So yeah, still no rational arguments for god.

[@andreaslevario3248]

Asking “Is Atheism true” is like asking “Is veganism true?” or, “Is conservatism true?” or, “Is capitalism true?”... its the wrong question to ask. Atheism is not a claim - therefore it cannot be true or false. Atheism is the rejection of a claim. The difference between “I believe there are no gods” and “I do not believe that there are gods” is a subtle but critical difference to understand.

[@metaiv9527]

Yea it can still be either true or false.

[@MJWife07]

So why debate? The atheists position makes zero sense. They say atheism is NOT a claim yet at the same time try to debate against theism. Might as well keep quiet. Makes no sense

[@Detson404]

@@MJWife07 Well, maybe if Christians didn’t try to convert people we would. You’re selling something, we aren’t buying what you’re selling. Seems like we have grounds to debate.

[@aragon8708]

I think David doesn't get the argument, I think he was not prepared. God exists

[@seawolf7649]

Great job, David. Dealing with Frank Turek and his shallowly formed and insincerely presented positions must be frustrating. These guys and their followers are showing their true colors more and more... thanks to the internet. Frank is pretending. David is the rational one.

[@josiahtejeros4896]

Seems like David doesn't want to carry any explanation for his atheism. All intelligent atheist is not like that. The reason why he, David, is atheist is because Christianity can't be true.

[@Detson404]

Ok how about this: we start from a foundation of preconceptions we can all agree on, like: The real world exists, causality and induction are reasonable, etc. Building up from there, there is no good evidence for the Christian god. It’s exactly as sensible to say “god doesn’t exist” as “Santa Claus doesn’t exist.” You can get different answers if you play around with the starting preconceptions but you can justify anything that way. What answers were you hoping for that you didn’t get?

[@jesserichards729]

40:40 it was at this moment david knew... he fucked up

[@Matt-cj5us]

A easy believism Baptist who turned from the faith. He most likely never had a correct view of God. God is Holy. Apologetics cannot help this guy. Jesus said unless you are born again you cannot see the kingdom of God. This guy thought he knew about God, but he was never born again, so he views Christianity through a worldview of "I've been there". But most likely he was never there, never repented (like alot of easy believism Baptist), he never tasted the holiness of God. Notice how he describes his baptism event. He tried to believe in his mind. But he was empty and dead in sin. Therefore, God was never real to him. Living holy is not works, it's a product of repentance, and cooperation with the Holy Spirit.

[@TomAnderson_81]

Are unbelievers stealing from god? Define god?

[@johnlove2954]

+1981andybt 1. Yes 2. Irrelevant

[@TomAnderson_81]

John Love How do you know they are stealing?

[@TomAnderson_81]

John Love So by your logic, I can say that you are stealing from Lengomdusio and if you ask what or who is that, I can just say it is irrelevant?

[@jpapan1]

59:40 "...then why should we think your thoughts are true, including your thoughts that atheism are true" Well frank... It could be argued that alethiology is synonymous with epistemology, the study of knowledge, and that dividing the two is mere semantics, but sometimes a distinction is made between the two. Epistemology is the study of knowledge and its acquisition. Alethiology is specifically concerned with the nature of truth, which is only one of the areas studied by epistemologists(wiki). Because in asmuch as there are ways to win the game of chess or football or baseball...the same can be said of...how does someone figure out what ia true ans what isn't. There are rules that must be abided by and followed in order for something to be considered the truth...if the truth cam be ascertained.

[@jasonr6342]

To save you time no they aren't stealing there problem solved

[@VengefulPolititron]

he says atheism doesn't make a positive claim and then suddenly says your God isn't real. bruh.

[@timtheenchanter2062]

I don't think david was the right guy for this debate. He was clearly unprepared. But I don't see why Frank's rock argument seemed to stump him. If there was a rock before anyone was there to know, of course it existed. We know the earth existed before us. There's just no way to prove the existence of a rock that has long since disintegrated

[@JM-ot8ux]

Look at all the Christers trying to convince themselves that the Christer "won" the argument. Typical falseness, typical Christer narcissism. The BIGGEST narcissists on the planet are Christians, by a country mile.

[@andreaslevario3248]

Frank says he wants to stay on the topic of reason... and then calls David to task on naturalism, evolution, biology, materialism, etc... until David starts schooling Frank on whatever he’s talking about - and then Frank says he came here to talk about reason.

[@stevekap8]

Richard Carrier has some good lectures about Jesus.

[@joelrodriguez1232]

stevekap8 Carrier is a flat earth society atheist who thinks that Jesus never existed.

[@stevekap8]

+Joel Rodriguez Ues, and he gives sound reasoning and evidence for that position. He is in the minority. Maybe he's wrong. Still, he's spent years researching, what harm would it do to hear him.

[@VengefulPolititron]

HELLO the fact that there even are LAWS of logic proves there is absolute truth, and an ordered intelligent function. it can't be accidental. just wow.

[@biologicalengineoflove6851]

Frank dodged the critical question of how he knows _why_ something is wrong. Until he can provide some demonstration that a god exists, he has no basis to assert that brains can't reason. We KNOW brains exist, as much as we know anything. A god is an extra, unnecessary, and unsubstantiated assumption.

[@mkely9032]

I love how myth believers seem to think god created everything but seem to unable to explain where did god come from, where did his knowledge come from. God or gods are gap fillers.

[@josiahcruz9678]

Mk Ely well we don't know. But you don't know how the big bang came into being, or how the planet itself is the way it is. You see there is simply going to be I don't knows and what not. And you shouldn't say myth, I could say evolution is a myth, but that would sinply not be true. even as I myself am a christian that would not say evolution is a myth. You guys have your evidence for your beliefs, and we have our evidence for our beliefs.

[@ceceroxy2227]

If God came from anywhere, that would lead to an infinite regression.

[@christiancorner4915]

David Smalley, "Fake it till you make it " does not work for Biblical Christianity.I kind of feel sorry for all the effort that you've wasted so far...and continue to waste! Furthermore, I hope David is actually intelligent and is just being evasive.I really hope he is not just unable to understand what his position is, and what its short-comings are.Otherwise, we now have to consider the sad possibility that (his) atheism results from stupidity and a slow mind.

[@mkely9032]

How can you steal from an imaginary man in the sky? Which god by the way?

[@benitaalmond3991]

How can you hate an imaginary man in the sky? Which god by the way? Frank Turek is a Christian Apologist - So take a wild guess.

[@andreaslevario3248]

Every time the Atheist guest drops the hammer - Justin wraps up the debate...🤔

[@andreaslevario3248]

Déjà Siku 1:02:00 The hammer (at least one of them) is David pointing out that Turek’s claims to logic fly in the face of many of the critical claims of christianity that are completely illogical and unreasonable.

[@sigmar_heldenhammer1776]

@@andreaslevario3248 totally agree. Everytime the atheist drops the hammer on himself, Justin stepped in to save him. This debate was rigged from the start.

[@jamesbruce4595]

The placid editor nomenclaturally improve because hubcap preliminarily interrupt sans a condemned probation. delicious, guiltless viola