Atheist vs. Christian Dialogue (Tom Jump and Gavin Ortlund)

[@TruthUnites]

Hey friends! While I am on sabbath from making youtube videos during the month of May I am uploading a few older dialogues. Hope you enjoy! :)

[@BigYehudah]

Gavin you need to repent of your woke bigotry before you talk to atheist apologists. I can no longer trust you because you have demonstrated yourself a pawn of the left. You need to repent and stop your nonsense. You only left twitter because you were tired of being criticized by actual Christians who aren't pretending. Please repent.

[@cornchipforchrist3311]

Peace and blessings to you in Christ Gavin, your videos are such a blessing to the call for unity everywhere, I am very moved by your demeanor and honest approach, it sets such a good example for us all (: I hope the time away is good for both you and your family! On that note though, I have been reconstructing hard (moving away from fundamentalism to a real understanding) and because of that I get a little worried that some of my other core understandings may be wrong. You've helped a ton in the debate of Catholic / Orthodox / Protestant, and to me as the third it seems like if you are following Jesus to the best of your ability and are not teaching heretically (in the actual sense, not the incredibly overblown way it's thrown around) you are not in some kind of danger, I was just curious what you thought as someone with a very similar background what a good approach to that kind of worry is? Since I agree the truth unites and want to follow it to the best of my ability but having to remove so many bad ideas about what the Bible is has left me in a sort of worried state on that, but then when it comes to the supposed super-authority and the doctrines thereafter I've always found your points lining up exactly with mine. Sorry for the super long text, feel free to wait until your break is over if you do want to respond, and thank you so much for having these real and compelling conversations and helping those nervous but excited people who are really getting alive in Christ push onward with confidence in the truth with love!

[@easyhandle347]

Dr Ortlund facial expressions are the best 😂 great convo!

[@halleylujah247]

TJump, huh? You are a patient and charitable man. Good for you for talking with him.

[@immanuel829]

Gavin's patience is supernatural 😀 in the end everybody believes something, some people like TJump even believe their intelligence is the product of non-intelligent particles... 😉

[@tonynoduskie5645]

@@immanuel829 I love how you say it like a diss, but believing everything is here because of a mind is a bigger leap of logic. This is like flat earth all over again, and you’re on the flat earth side. Hilarious!

[@immanuel829]

@@tonynoduskie5645 Your free will alone shows: the self that is looking through your marvellous eyes cannot be reduced to physics and chemistry. "This... strongly reinforces our belief in the human soul and in its miraculous origin in a divine creation.” John Eccles, neuroscientist and Nobel laureate You are not an accident but a masterpiece. And loved, more than you can imagine ❤

[@Reno_Slim]

It's Tjump who was the patient one.

[@glof2553]

@@tonynoduskie5645 atheists be like "you disagree with me? Haha! Hilarious!" It's not that funny G

[@LetsTalkChristMinistries]

I tip my hat to Gavin. In just about every video of his I watch where he’s expressing different view points from someone, he always comes with a posture of humility. He’s firm, but is always charitable and the posture he takes is something believers should take note of, as this is what it should look like when believers disagree with others, even those who have a history of being somewhat difficult. Not only can people learn a lot from Gavin when it comes to different theological issues, but those intangibles really shine through. Being able to see Christ past the dialogue, debates, etc. is priceless. You can tell he walks with Christ in his personal life. God bless this ministry.

[@joebeloved2878]

This is so true.

[@rembrandt972ify]

Gavin seems so clueless. He claims that God is the best explanation. Claiming God did something doesn't explain anything. Can he demonstrate how God did something? Can he make predictions based on the God hypothesis? How is a God explanation useful in any way?

[@LetsTalkChristMinistries]

@@rembrandt972ify Respectfully, It seems you have an axe to grind. Nothing you said is accurate, and you don’t appear to have one objective bone in your body.

[@rembrandt972ify]

@@LetsTalkChristMinistries Your personal projection is legendary. Could you describe what saying that God did something explains? How is this useful? Please don't pretend that you respect me and then insult my skeleton.

[@joebeloved2878]

​@@rembrandt972ify Would you please elaborate how Gavin should demonstrate the divinity of God? The same difficulty might be faced by any theorist who suggests that there is a single necessary cause for the whole universe. In my opinion, the highest claim of Christ's divinity lays on the fact that He is risen from death. You can only prove that Christianity is wrong if you can prove this claim wrong. The other great miracles are nothing compared to this.

[@Athabrose]

Standing slow clap for Dr. Ortlund. Somebody please contact the Vatican and request him for Sainthood. The whole dialogue would have been too insufferable for me but I’m an ass. Mad respect for the charity shown.

[@vtaylor21]

I am surprised people are still discussing with him. It was embarrassing to listen to him when he debated InspiringPhilosophy. The moderator made it worse when he hyped up Tjump. I tried again to listen to him when discussed with Trent Horn. I three my hands in the air because I couldn't take it anymore. Trinity Radio did a critique on Tjump. Tjump asked him to take the video down. Trinity Radio took it down initially, but I am glad he reupload it.

[@Athabrose]

@@vtaylor21 yea I barely made it through his dialogue with Trent. debating with atheist is needed for those on the fence maybe but for me it’s all just rehashed skepticism that resolves ultimately in what they think. They can throw out nonsense objections to anything and ultimately just say they don’t agree. It’s kinda boring and goes nowhere. If you listen to them long enough what we tend to find is not a lack of belief in God but what their god actually is. Often it is whatever source they are reading that week, their own mind, and scientism. Ultimately, they are believing in something they cannot fully prove. Atheism may look great to some on paper but once you walk out your door and engage life it’s just silly. Never understood the hype with Tjump, seems like a nice guy but he brings nothing new to the table. It’s all just rehashed opinion.

[@Repentee]

Yeah his discussion with James Anderson didn't go anywhere either.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@Athabrose lol, you must be expert at not listening. trent horn is one of the most dishonest apologists on youtube, ditto braxton, bertuzzi, all that bunch, and they run out of answers for guys like tjump and pinecreek, weird how distorted you view is. the good thing about bad apologists is, they make more atheists than i could, you seem to not be able to see where tjump is coming from, everything you've said indicates either you have no idea of what he's talking about, or no understanding of what he's talking about, or you just can't listen, but, the audience does, and thankfully the trent horns and ortlands of this world are the ones driving people away from religion, they talk nonsense, they have to bend over backwards to squeeze god in where he doesn't fit, and ultimately they lie to cover up god's immorality (he kills people if you hadn't noticed) people don't want to associate with liars or killers, they either quit religion or find a religion that's less repulsive and barbaric. nice little echo chamber you have going on there by the way.

[@TheBlinkyImp]

This guy is exactly why Wittgenstein said all philosophical disagreements are issues of language. Tom goes ahead and redefines the concept of 'god' to equivocate between God and gods, and then defines away the word 'lunacy' by saying that believing you are God is a 'psychological phenomenon' but not 'lunacy', and then pretends that solves the argument.

[@Iverath]

Did the concept of god exist before Christianity? If so, then Christianity is the one that redefined god. When non-believers speak of "gods" we speak of supernatural beings with intelligence. Zeus looks just as real as Yahweh to us. Likewise. We don't really use the term "Lunacy" in psychology these days, I think.

[@TheBlinkyImp]

​@@Iverath Firstly, your definition is ridiculous on its face. "Supernatural beings with intelligence" includes, say, leprechauns, or Santa Claus. You're obviously not using the word 'god' the way it is typically used, never mind the concept 'God'. It has a meaning in English, and it has a more specific meaning in the context of this discussion, and saying 'oh I define it this other way' completely dodges the question. It is intellectual suicide. In the same way, the term 'lunacy' has a clear meaning in the context it was used, that is CS Lewis' argument. Saying 'oh we don't use it that way anymore' is avoiding the issue, not answering it.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

@@Iverath gods are created by YHWH : the Jews redefined the Creator God long before Christianity continued this Jewish theology concept of the Two Powers in Heaven concepts that Jesus and the Apostles including Paul taught. Obviously there's no comparison between Zeus and YHWH.

[@Iverath]

@@davidjanbaz7728 Those are just claims. Do you have anything to back those assertions up?

[@Iverath]

@@TheBlinkyImp "You're obviously not using the word 'god' the way it is typically used" You're entitled to your opinion. I get that you think your god is special and others can't compare. I'm not interested in your personal definitions, however. Heard of "Greek gods"? "Hindu gods"? Norse gods? If you have, then my point is proven. "'oh I define it this other way' completely dodges the question." I think this is what you're doing. You can disagree, of course. "In the same way, the term 'lunacy' has a clear meaning in the context it was used, that is CS Lewis' argument. Saying 'oh we don't use it that way anymore' is avoiding the issue, not answering it." Most people just dismiss the trilemma as incomplete, or that all the other options are inherently more believable than "lord". We know liars exist. We know "lunatics" exist. We don't know "lords" (one very specific god that can only be Yahweh/Jesus and no other gods like Zeus) exist.

[@bany512]

you won't learn much if you are constantly replying to chat while your opponent is explaining his position.

[@bany512]

@@stephenmcdonaldjr couldn't agree more.

[@Ethernet480]

Not sure how you were aware of what he was doing. Before his first rebuttal, he fully comprehended and summarized his key points, so he couldn’t have not been listening. Also, when they dive into individual points, Tom takes notes to track arguments.

[@moonshoes11]

What if he understands the positions already? And understand them better?

[@moonshoes11]

The real problem is you’re convinced of magic, without warrant.

[@moonshoes11]

@@stephenmcdonaldjr Of course I don’t. But science NEVER makes such a claim. Why do you assume science claims everything came from nothing? Why do you ask such a question? Do you not understand the Big Bang model holds that all the matter and energy expanded from a singularity? A singularity isn’t nothing. So, let’s clear up your confusion, and then move on to better questions.

[@lyterman]

The divine simplicity interaction was difficult to watch. Mr. Jump, if you're reading this, it gives you credibility to admit when you don't know something or have made a mistake. Doubling down and especially then changing your position and acting like the new position is what you initially intended really hurts your credibility.

[@Iverath]

Do you think non-Christians agree with Christians about what "simplicity" means? I don't. Who should the two groups of Christians and atheists go to to determine who is right about what simplicity is? Also, can you define how to measure simplicity outside of the god concept, please?

[@lyterman]

@@Iverath "Divine simplicity" is a specific doctrine in Christian (and Jewish and Muslim, for that matter) theology. Atheists and Christians don't need to agree on some abstract idea of "simplicity" to discuss the specific doctrine of Divine simplicity as defined by the people who believe it. And it is, as opposed to how Mr. Jump thought prior to this conversation, a very ancient belief in Christianity.

[@Iverath]

@@lyterman But if you add in the "divine" in front of "simplicity" it sounds like special pleading. So it's not "simplicity" it's another special kind of simplicity that nobody in any other context think is simple. It kind of diminishes the force of the argument.

[@lyterman]

@@Iverath This is semantics. Divine simplicity is the idea that God is not composed of proper parts. Whether or not you think that idea is intuitively "simple" has nothing to do with the doctrine. Call it Divine lack of composition or Divine unity if you'd like. The word doesn't matter. Your objection is like if I had just learned about Brownian motion of particles and said, "The particles aren't even brown! I simply don't agree to your definition of Brownian, so the fact that you put "motion" after it and think that makes a difference makes it special pleading, and it loses all of its force as an argument!"

[@Iverath]

@@lyterman "This is semantics." I couldn't agree more. If you argue that god is simple, and if by "simple" you mean something that is the opposite of simple, then it's pure semantics. "Whether or not you think that idea is intuitively "simple" has nothing to do with the doctrine." The problem here is that Christians use the argument that god is simple as evidence of god (EDIT: it's a part of an argument, rather). If only Christians buy the definitions, then, you surely must realize, that the argument is not convincing to non-Christians - the target demographic for the argument in the first place. "Call it Divine lack of composition or Divine unity if you'd like" Using more special Christian words is not helping here. "Your objection is like if I had (...)" Okay. So let's assume I don't understand anything here. How would you define "simplicity" in a way that does not just apply to your god (as that would be special pleading)?

[@TheRoark]

Gavins right: it is far easier to be in error about experience than about identity.

[@Ashantia35]

I have no clue why anyone will disagree with that

[@Ethernet480]

How do you distinguish yourself from the rest of the world without sense experience?

[@MrLeadman12]

The beginning of this convo is baffling to me. Tom claims that the belief that “I am God/a god” is a relatively “normal” human claim strikes me as outlandish. Relative to what other claim? I’ve literally never met anyone who claims they are equal with God or even Zeus/Thor/Apollo, etc. I’d be stunned if he could produce one stable adult who claims such a thing. Also, Gavin’s point about there being a thicker distinction between Creator and creature in Jewish/Christian context compared to a Hindu context is very relevant. In some forms, Hinduism verges on pantheism, in which everyone and everything is participating in the divine oneness. Hinduism is obviously not univocal on this point but it blurs the line between creator and creation way more than Jewish and Christian theology, sometimes collapsing them into one another altogether. Thus, the claim to be a reincarnation of a God (also something not generally found in a Jewish/Christian context) is much less astounding in Hindu context than in Jesus’. Also Tom’s claim that all claims to experience/be identified with the divine being the result of a stimulation of a certain part of the brain is testable to some extent right? It seems like it would be falsified by looking at the predominance of that belief throughout different cultures in the history of humanity. If you find those beliefs much more prominent in certain times and places (which I think you do) then that would certainly hurt the validity of such a point of view, correct?

[@AnotherViewer]

Oddly enough, it is the theist who typically says that the atheist considers themselves to be a god, and the atheist who looks on as if that person is crazy for saying it. Then there are the various theists who think the universe is god, and we are part of the universe therefor we are god. So, it is not a claim they are like the God or Gods of various prior religions, they just change the definition of "god" to fit the claim they are making at the time. " Also Tom’s claim that all claims to experience/be identified with the divine being the result of a stimulation of a certain part of the brain is testable to some extent right?" Yes, they literally made a device than can be placed on a human head (called "The God Helmet" and, yes, it is named that way for the laughs) that produces concentrated magnetic fields that they can aim at certain parts of the brain which will cause the person wearing the helmet to see shadow people or other things that are not actually there. Scientists have also used fMRI machines to study people who have frequent "Jesus" sightings and were able to see that during the sighting, the same area that produces dreams is triggered, thus we can say, for at least that those people, they are not having a "real" experience, but an "imaginary" one instead.

[@joetaylor1976]

It's pretty normal.

[@MrLeadman12]

@@joetaylor1976 so you know people that seriously believe they are God?

[@joetaylor1976]

@@MrLeadman12 2000 years ago it was very normal.

[@MrLeadman12]

@@joetaylor1976 since we’re just making assertions here, I’ll have a go: 2000 years ago, it wasn’t very normal. If you like, you can have the last counter assertion. 😉

[@nelidascott6917]

Hope there’s a round 2 or please do more debates about this . I’m saving this post so I can rewatch. The argument for God is so compelling the way you presented it

[@willb5548]

I had to skip his filibuster to try to avoid getting caught out on his claims about divine simplicity. It’s great you are chatting with these folks Gavin, your very gracious and that is an example to us all in how we conduct ourselves with people with views different to ours.

[@felixiusbaqi]

TJump's views are all based on "the consensus" in history, physics and philosophy... I salute you for not just walking away.

[@Iverath]

Do you understand that the consensus is one of the strongest indications of being right in science? Do you disregard the consensus of biblical scholars? Do you disregard what a majority of car mechanics would say is wrong with your car to go with what one lone car mechanic that the other car mechanics thinks is wrong? If so, why?

[@ceceroxy2227]

Everyone should walk away from Tom once they start to listen to Toms arguments.

[@Iverath]

@@ceceroxy2227 If you want to remain a Christian you DEFINITELY should not listen to opposing views. It could send you to hell, after all. Better base your decisions on fear than to explore philosophy.

[@felixiusbaqi]

@@Iverath I was being sarcastic. My point was more that I highly doubt TJUMPs positions were really "the consensus". He kept saying XYZ was the consensus and then not backing it up other than with what he seemed to be finding via a quick Google search. At one point he even tried to claim he had a better understanding of divine simplicity then Gavin, who has a doctorate in this stuff. If his positions on history physics and philosophy were really "the consensus" then William Lane Craig's debates with atheists would all be a lot shorter.

[@ThatisnotHair]

​​@@felixiusbaqiMost Philosophers are non religious

[@AlexADalton]

We don't have 10,000 references to people claiming they were "god", Tom. LOL....But I like his argument, even as a Christian. Jesus being honestly mistaken based on religious experience, is a reasonable stance for an atheist. Much mystical experience is unitary - giving the mystic the sense that they are merging into a oneness with the divinity. Even modern Near Death Experiencers often come back with views around the divinity of human beings. The desert monastics had these kinds of unitary experiences and this gave steam to the Orthodox views around deification of the saints. Jesus would have been fasting, in the desert, spending long hours in prayer/meditation, and part of a society where altered states of consciousness are very common, and accepted as objective. He's basically primed for such mystical experience. Drawing in the Jewish background won't help much, because we do have Jewish figures where the line between humanity/divinity was blurred. Philo deifies Moses, there are some Psalms that indicate the quasi-divinity of the Davidic King, verses like Daniel 7 predicting a quasi-divine "Son of Man", etc. I don't really think the Trilemma or Quatrilemma works. I think these arguments surrounding Jesus can have personal import, provide justification for belief, and even be a means of evangelization, but they aren't publicly persuasive in and of themselves. The biblical model is that the Word itself, and the Spirit in particular, are types of internal testimony that bring people to belief in Christ. In fact, this is so much the case that I'd venture to say just in theory (not that such a circumstance is probable or even possible) that someone who believes that Jesus rose from the dead and even was the Son of God, just on the basis of an objective look at the evidence, without the internal prompting of the Spirit, is not any closer to a salvific faith than an atheist. I think there's value to having these arguments for that reason - that they can provide a platform for the witness of the Spirit - but I think any model of justification for resurrection belief would be woefully incomplete without factoring in some kind of externalism wrt the Spirit/Word as divine testimony. I haven't read his books yet but I think this is what Peter Carnley argues.

[@docmatt6954]

It was very annoying seeing TJ lose attention and type on his chat during this dialogue. I think as a result he couldn't grasp Gavin's explanations. I would strongly disagree with TJ's attempt to say that Jesus could have been simply human without being a lunatic. Clearly there's a difference between having an experience or memory of the Divine compared to claiming you're the ultimate Divine Being or the Messiah. He seems to think they're psychologically comparable. Psychologists would disagree as well. I do like Gavin's wrap up towards the end: TJ believes in some vague fundamental necessary force as causation of the Universe, and he believes that there is an objective moral law that comes from this "thing." He's just set that this is some impersonal "force" and 'most' philosophers and physicists agree with him.

[@ThatisnotHair]

What is the difference?

[@tomasrocha6139]

A number of scholars such as Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman argue that the historical Jesus did not claim to be God

[@darrenplies9034]

Listening to someone try to down play/normalize the claims of Jesus in debate is cringe. Debate tactics versus the real world. It’s lunacy to normalize lunacy in the real world.

[@jayakare]

Tom Jump is absolutely wrong about "Hindu claiming to be god is same as a Jew claiming to be God" I am an Indian and lived all my life surrounded by Hinduism (religion and culture) and so i can say that he got it wrong here. Hindu context: Many people claim to be god since any one can be god, all are potential gods. Minor/ major does not matter. Jewish context: No one can be God, since God is spiritual, everlasting, all powerful, no one is even good enough to even directly stand in front of God, leave alone be God. Hindu context: If a person says i am god, most will shrug and say ok, it may be true. Some might be moved to even venerate that person. And if that person gathers enough followers, they will definitely build some temples for that person. Also there will be a few who don't think it's a true claim, but as a matter of respect for other's feelings (and/or "keep the peace"), they will keep that opinion to themselves. Jewish context: If a person says i am God, they will be put to death since it's not just impossible, but it is also blasphemy. Hindu context: Many have claimed to be god for not even having any strong reasons. Many people even to this day say things like. "That Doctor who treated me is a god" People like teachers, medical professionals, any one who protects others....basically all types of heros are actually called and believed to be like gods. Hero worship is very common in this culture. Jewish context: No one ever (BC/AD) has ever claimed to be God. And no Jew ever said "This man is God". This ONLY happened in the case of Jesus Christ. All Jews know that King David was a hero, but he is still considered to be a flawed human being, and not a god.

[@rjay5603]

Thank you for the clarification.

[@ThatisnotHair]

So basically Jesus is God because he said so. Nice

[@tomasrocha6139]

A number of scholars such as Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman argue that the historical Jesus did not claim to be God

[@TheRoark]

Atheists try to understand divine simplicity and necessity challenge: Impossible.

[@tonynoduskie5645]

Because those things don’t exist. It would be impossible for anyone. Hilarious!

[@Iverath]

Can you define what "simplicity" means and how you determine if something is simple? Please don't use the context of god to make it easier for me to understand.

[@ThatisnotHair]

Yeah let's try to understand madeup nonsense 😂. Do you try to understand Flat earth too before dismissing it.

[@TheRoark]

@@ThatisnotHair anytime you critique someone’s ideas you should critique what they actually believe, even if you think they are crazy

[@Testimony_Of_JTF]

​@@IverathSomething that is not made up of parts. A lego made of a simple piece is "simple" is the sense it's not made up of several pieces but just one. If we were talking about absolute simplicity however then only God is that.

[@RyanOlander]

Gavin, God bless you and your patience. Not only in this discussion, but in many of your videos with opposing views you demonstrate far more patience than I would grant those people.

[@TheRoark]

This man really said "who designed the designer" like it was a serious objection 😂

[@tonynoduskie5645]

It is a serious objection…. Which is why no one takes the argument seriously in any scientific and philosophical fields. That fact YOU DO take it seriously is the funny bit here. Hilarious! 😂

[@AnotherViewer]

@@elvisisacs3955 The question forces you to support that the god you are arguing for can actually be an uncaused cause and how you avoid the support becoming a Special Pleading fallacy.

[@whylie1555]

@@elvisisacs3955 oh, I see. U have defined god a certain way. Very interesting

[@elvisisacs3955]

@@AnotherViewer “special pleading” isn’t a fallacy if the subject itself is special or unique. Ex. It’s not special pleading to argue that US President has veto power even though no lay citizen does. From a Judaic-Christian standpoint, God is special, unique and transcendent in every way. He is THE necessary being; the uncaused cause.

[@rembrandt972ify]

@@elvisisacs3955 Is there any way that you could demonstrate that your opinion of God's character is correct or somehow special or unique? According to the Mustelid religious standpoint, Bubba the Incandescent Weasel is special, unique and transcendent in every way. He is THE necessary being; the uncaused cause.

[@TheRoark]

"I'm very very familiar with the history on this" the man says to a doctor in the field of church history 😂

[@tonynoduskie5645]

I’m sure that made sense in your smooth brain.

[@TheRoark]

@@tonynoduskie5645 what part did you not understand? I’d be happy to explain

[@vtaylor21]

I heard him say that similar about being familiar with Thomas Aquinas when he talked to Michael Lofton. The first thing he said showed he didn't know Thomas Aquinas, lol.

[@joebeloved2878]

@@tonynoduskie5645 What a great way to discuss. Your surety of his brain structure and his sanity seems to me really requires a big leap of faith, considering that you seem to only spam anyone's comment without proposing any meaningful idea.

[@whylie1555]

Please please please. I’m begging you! I’m begging any believer, of any God! Please, share with atheist the objective methodology that you used to demonstrate ur God exists.

[@jrhemmerich]

Thanks Gavin! What stood out to me was his tendency to assume possibility stands behind God. But Christian classical theists (even Christian neo-classical theists) believe that necessary actuality is more basic than possibility/contingency. This isn’t merely a happy stipulated definition offered by the theist, it’s based upon the rational belief that things which come into existence must have a reason and a cause (saying things can just pop into existence without a cause is basically abandoning rational science and philosophy). --------------- Now, he seemed willing to grant that there was something necessary, in his case, some principle of physics that stands behind all the events in the creation. The problem, as Gavin gestured toward, is twofold. First, if the physics principle is impersonal and has no will, then it is a principle of pure necessity, and it’s hard to see how one can reconcile that with the belief that the universe is contingent and comes into being at a finite point in time. One would expect that the universe always existed because the physics principle behind it has always existed and is necessarily unchanging. But the best science says that the universe had a beginning, and therefore a necessity principle of physics is not sufficient. Second, it is hard to see how a principle of physics is the sort of thing that could be necessary. If it is part of the universe then it seems it would be contingent. If it’s not, in what sense is it a physics principle? Are not physics principles just contingent human mental representations of how physical stuff works? If the physical stuff is contingent and constantly in flux, then how is the physical principle not in flux? But if it is in flux, and there is no necessity, because it’s just a whole lot of possibility, well, what gets the actuality of the world started? What grounds change? The principle of sufficient reason says that the contingent events of the world are rooted in a necessary uncaused being who exists actually. The contingency of the world tells us that that this necessary being also has a will. Our experience as willful rational beings requires no less a cause than a necessary rational and willful being. But that is the exact being that the scriptures (with there own points of predictive historical verification) describe. To object that God’s actuality is not necessary because we can imagine God doing different things, and there being different gods, and therefore God is no better off than any possible world we might imagine, is like saying a person doesn’t exist actually because they could possibly do multiple things. But this puts possibility before actuality, and that is just a non-starter. Persons ground their actions. There are no possible thoughts without an actual mind.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for this thoughtful comment!

[@jrhemmerich]

@@TruthUnites it’s a work in progress, like most of our sanctification. Plenty yet to tinker with. But our confidence is in him, not our particular way of putting it together. Yet, he is worth knowing and we know enough to know that, so we keep on. Further up and further in. Love your way of doing what you do. Be encouraged! I’m sure it gets draining from time to time. But it’s great.

[@TruthUnites]

@@jrhemmerich Thank you so much!

[@joebeloved2878]

Dr. Gavin, thank you so much for sharing this discussion. There are a bunch of things which can be assessed in various expertise, and I would argue that both sides might not have all the answers unpacked on the table. There are always more to every argument, and I think this is where we can always acknowledge how small we can really comprehend of God's fulness, and thus makes it logical to believe that unless He reveals Himself to us, this life and the whole universe are just an impossibility and vanity in essence.

[@AdamLloydJohnson]

I had a similar conversation with Tom Jump last week; you can watch it on his KZbin channel. It seems like we (you and I, Christians) and Tom agree there is an ultimate thing/being. Otherwise we'd be faced with an infinite regress of causes, which doesn't seem plausible. Tom proposes the ultimate thing is a field of some sort whereas we propose the ultimate thing is a personal, intelligent being. However, I think Tom makes a mistake when he claims our proposed infinite thing can't have necessary attributes. Putting aside divine simplicity for a moment, it seems whatever is the ultimate thing would HAVE to have certain necessary attributes or it wouldn't be the ultimate thing. For example, if the universe is the ultimate thing, as some people used to think (...the cosmos is all there is, ever was, or ever will be...) then there's nothing behind or beyond the universe that causes it to have the attributes/properties it has, it just has them and that's it. That's part and parcel of what it means to be the ultimate thing. Now we know from science that the universe isn't the ultimate thing because it had a beginning. My point is that we're proposing the same thing about the ultimate thing that atheists used to say about the universe when they thought the universe was the ultimate thing, that it just is what it is. I'm not sure why Tom won't grant this point. It almost seems like he does for a minute in your conversation with him today though because at one point he seemed to indicate his proposed ultimate field was necessary.

[@kosgoth]

//Now we know from science that the universe isn't the ultimate thing because it had a beginning.// Technically the current spacetime form of the universe had a beginning, this isn't to say the universe itself had a beginning. Pedantic as it is, it's an important distinction.

[@radscorpion8]

@@kosgoth that's not pedantic at all that's a critical point. It obviates the need for a creator at all!

[@kosgoth]

@@radscorpion8 It wouldn't if you weren't inventing a creator definition as an omniscient omni bolevelonet god nonsense.

[@sami5to6]

Great job, Gavin! Every time you made him explain the alternative to your position, it became obvious which position sounded more logical.

[@mikemcmike6427]

Which wasn’t Gavin’s position

[@cooperthatguy1271]

@@mikemcmike6427I’m sorry but you can see tjump actively walking back on his statements and getting less and less confident in his positions. Even if ortlund was “wrong” he still was clearly rhetorically prepared and well studied, (much more than tjump) and you can tell what kind of atheist tjump is from his audience in the chat.

[@ThatisnotHair]

Yeah logical but doesn't exist in reality only in imagination

[@Rusty_Shakleford]

Saw the thumbnail and had to click. No way im going to miss a debate with screech from saved by the bell.

[@patrickdtx3638]

I cannot believe that that man sat there and tried to claim that having an experience of God and claiming to be God were essentially the same thing; he is literally the only atheist I've ever heard make such a statement, and I've read a fair number of atheists. While insanity (or lunacy if you want to use an older, more loaded term) does have a list of diagnostic criteria, you can be pretty sure that anybody who is seriously making the claim to be god and who isn't a liar (or fraud) would be classified as insane. Jesus did claim to be God, and his claim wasn't based on a finite experience or memory; it was an ongoing reality of his ministry up until the moment he expired on the cross, quoting scripture and declaring his work completed. I have known a great many people who have claimed to have a variety of experiences with God and, because my life has been interesting, I have known a person who claimed to be a supernatural being masquerading as a human. I can tell you there's a vast difference between the people who experienced God and the other guy. Those two types of claims are in no way interchangeable or even similar. (Gavin, if you read this, I found your channel a few days ago and have been enjoying & devouring your content.)

[@TruthUnites]

glad to be connected Patrick, thanks for the comment!

[@tomasrocha6139]

A number of scholars such as Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman argue that the historical Jesus did not claim to be God

[@patrickdtx3638]

@@tomasrocha6139 I haven't read into that viewpoint, but considering the way the bible has always been translated and understood, he did make that claim.

[@tomasrocha6139]

@@patrickdtx3638 There are a number of divine claims in the NT the argument the aforementioned scholars make is that later Christians who believed Jesus was God put such claims in his mouth but that he is unlikely to have made them as the claims are not multiply attested among other things.

[@elvisisacs3955]

Tom ignorantly argued that Aquinas and Anselm were the first people to claim God is simple. Then argues that it doesn't come from the apostles. Seems like he only listens to open theists.

[@Chicken_of_Bristol]

re: psychological experiences claiming to be God Gavin, I think the idea that you're getting at here, but were unable to articulate is that your belief system would inform how you would interpret particular experiences, and that is relevant because with the case of Hinduism, the idea of being a God is on the table, but that's not the case for a monotheistic religion like Judaism. Reincarnation is something that hinduism teaches is a possibility, so it's not unexpected for a hindu to have an experience with something that seems like past live memories as indicative of actual past memories. Hinduism is pantheistic, so it's not outlandish, given that worldview, for someone to claim to be a god, either major or minor. To take a different kind of example, if you take an atheist and a christian and both of them have the same near-death-experience where they get a vision of a loved one or something, I would expect the atheist to interpret that experience as "well, it's misfiring neurons as your brain is shutting down" or whatever, the fact that they had the same experience doesn't mean they would necessarily believe that the experience had the same significance.

[@donmower]

This is TJumps MO, I am familiar with his style from the Unbelievable Facebook forum. He equivocates on word meaning, over stresses the semantics, misapplies concepts, and fails to participate in the actual arguments. It is blatantly obvious with the Lewisian trilemma, his placing quantum fields in the realm of necessary beings, and so much more. He simply isn’t even having a conversation with Gavin. He’s arguing against an unidentified, phantom interlocutor.

[@ThatisnotHair]

Necessary being? 😂

[@michaelbarnes5765]

Gavin, thanks for sharing this. It would be great to hear more about what Tom thinks Jesus would have needed to do to become a lunatic. He said something about a lunatic consistently doing things contrary to reality (don’t remember the exact quote). I wonder how he would explain Jesus’ consistent teaching of divinity to the point of death as not fitting into that definition.

[@timfoster5043]

Indeed. That segment of the discussion was insufferable! Straining to get a narrow, clinical definition of 'lunacy' just so you can deny an argument you don't believe.

[@MMAD-Rob]

I was thinking the same thing. Jesus claimed he is God up to his death and even after his ressurection. I'd say that was a pretty consistent claim. Lol

[@tomasrocha6139]

A number of scholars such as Dale Martin and Bart Ehrman argue that the historical Jesus did not claim to be God

[@SotS1689]

TBH he lost all credibility for me when he claimed that Aquinas and Anselm introduced the idea of simplicity. I'm no patristics scholar, but just a cursory reading of Augustine and the Cappadocians totally refutes that claim.

[@JerryPenna]

Wow congratulations Gavin you have claims good job!

[@alpha4IV]

Gavin, going by your expressions and reactions in you dialogues/conversations, you have the worst pokerface.

[@ProfYaffle]

Compared with the faces I was pulling while listening to TJump, Gavin was remarkably controlled

[@zacharyberridge7239]

@@ProfYaffle well, of course. You're getting upset that your ridiculous God beliefs are being challenged.

[@St.MosestheBlack]

He says so much, yet in the end it’s completely meaningless. And who decides what is moral? History has shown morality has not been a standard held by humanity. So what may be immoral today can be moral tomorrow. Evolution of morality?

[@ThatisnotHair]

This what thiest don't about moral philosophy. It's not about who decides, it's about why. Answering God is not enough. I can say l did it.

[@colinbrown9476]

Interesting conversation... I do wonder whether introducing some of the Aristotelian language of potentiality, actuality, etc. could help clarify the places you two spoke past each other. Most average people probably don't know the terminology well enough for it to be effective (and it sounds like Tom Jump may object to even introducing them as valid categories), but I can't think of a clearer set of terms to define what we mean when we refer to God as simple and necessary.

[@MMAD-Rob]

Here is a perfect example of someone who is super smart but lacks wisdom. As the bible says in proverbs 1:7 the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge but fools despise wisdom and instruction. We will continue to pray for this man in humility, and be thankful our eyes have been opened as children of God.

[@Iverath]

Imagine a religion that says that non-religious people are fools. It's funny how that appears in pretty much all religions. Have you ever wondered why that is?

[@thomasrutledge5941]

Matt Dillahunty on the Quran Vs Muslim Kenny Bomer kzbin.infoyWGKRus4hfM?feature=share

[@mrfabulous4640]

There seems a disconnect between the many different universes VS many different different types of God (as a defeater). I can think of two examples to highlight this disconnect, I will give one of them. Imagine I was on a island in which I know for a fact it only contains me and some other person I have never met on the island. As I am walking through the jungle I see a brick house. I have three options how that brick building got there: 1. Necessity. 2. Chance. 3. Design. It seems a designer is far more likely, thus the other man on the island did it, and that is what I conclude. Then I hear TJump in my head state: “well, how do you know this other man on the island is not a person who only wants to make wood houses or tin houses, etc. there are a thousand other ways he could be and thus him making this house is a lot less likely or equally as likely as the chance hypothesis.” This makes no sense. There is some kind of disconnect happening in Tjumps mind, it seems to me.

[@TheCrossingBall]

Also, I found the poll TJump referenced at 41:00 about philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists staying that a quantum field is the best explanation for a foundation of quantum mechanics. For one, the terms used like everything are in the context of quantum mechanics. This was a poll taken at a conference on quantum mechanics. It would be like me asking is there a ball here when we are standing in a room. If the person says no then this doesn't mean there aren't any balls. This was not a philosophical question of everything but one related to the field of quantum mechanics, taken by a small group of less han half of 100 people at a conference.

[@danie-v2o]

Wow, I felt embarrassed for Tom, this could have been a great conversation. Gavins question at the end, “sorry I did not get to ask more about your view”. lol 😂 yeah that was pretty humble, I don’t think Tom understands how educated Gavin is 😅, like I feel embarrassed for him! I’m an atheist..

[@SimonWartanian]

44:34 telling a historical theologian what is historical or not is not a good move.

[@kosgoth]

A historical theologian studies the history of theology, not history. It's not even that complex to realise the difference. You can get a phd in crypto zoology, it doesn't make cryptids real.

[@moonshoes11]

Does historical theology accept supernatural claims?

[@cooperthatguy1271]

@@kosgoththat’s not what he’s saying bruh. He’s saying acting like an authority on theological history when talking to an actual educated historian of theology. No claim of the theologies truth was made just the fact of who believed it when.

[@kosgoth]

@@cooperthatguy1271 "Fuller is broadly evangelical among faculty and student body. Some hold conservative evangelical views such as unlimited inerrancy while others hold liberal evangelical sentiments such as limited inerrancy which views the Bible as true on matters of salvation but contains error in its recording of history and science." He has a PHD from a place where most of the graduates are YEC's that's a breeding ground for idiots as YEC is demonstrably wrong.

[@user-tb2vc3gd5w]

Tom's argument about neuroscience is a category mistake; it's the perennial category mistake of naturalists who think reducing claims to biophysical/psychological descriptions provides explanation.

[@Athabrose]

There is an assumed certainty of the biophysical and psychological descriptors which is odd. There is more uncertainty in those sciences than certainty. Kinda takes a little faith to use those as an explanation and one better stay up on the current literature because these are ever changing fields.

[@ThatisnotHair]

So what else should our explanation be based upon?

[@riverduck3]

I know of no non-believer who would want to become a Christian with the example of Gavin Ortlund.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😆

[@eastbay_bay]

Thank you for this post. I would love it if for these discussions the so-called atheist would state their fully fleshed out claims upfront, so us ham and egg Christians would be able to understand what their clear position is. Also, It always seems like the burden of proof is placed on the Christian, which is strange because our position is faith based. How about the burden of proof is put back on a finite being that claims they know without doubt that there is no God? It's absurd.

[@rach9466]

It is absurd.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

atheist don't generally have a claim, the claim usually is "there is a god". "i don't believe you" is a statement, not a claim. tjump is happy say "i don't believe there is a god and here is why" but generally it's up to you to demonstrate your god, doesn't matter what i believe.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i can say "there is no god" cos you can't , in any way, demonstrate there is. the burdwn of proof is on you, i make no claim, i just think you are lying about god, you can prove me wrong if you want.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@rach9466 not really. and no one is going to say "without doubt" it IS possible there is a god, but why a god would be christian is even more absurd than the idea of god in the first place. demonstrate god, then we can see if he's muslim, hindu or whatever....you aren't the only religion claiming there is a god.

[@rach9466]

@@HarryNicNicholas The absurdity is the “rational” “scientific” stance cannot provide proof that there isn’t a God, so it also requires belief that He doesn’t exist. Pick your faith. As to which God exists; the question is whether any other religion presents a God that creates all things, becomes a human being, rises again to conquer death, offers salvation and redemption as an open invitation to humans. All-in-one. If you do go about choosing a deity, why bother with a second rate one?

[@unapologeticapologetics6953]

God doesn't have "variables." He is philosophically simple.

[@blake4590]

I am doubting the faith and I spoke to a devout Christian and he told me he would not believe in a simple God. He believes in God because he is complex

[@unapologeticapologetics6953]

@@blake4590 ah, I see you misunderstood me. When I say God is "Philosophically simple," I am saying that God is not COMPOSITE. Every aspect of God is fully God. The opposite of "simple" is complex. And God IS complex. But the opposite of "philosophically simple" is "composite." And God is NOT composite.

[@RobSed55]

T Jump speak about psychological phenomena. From what university did he get his degree? What statistics does he have, to show the percentage of "normal" human beings, as apposed to "lunatics", that claim to be God? Aside from his baseless assessment, that Jesus thought he was "the God" due to some "psychological" experience, doesn't explain the resurrection. We do know, because it is written, that Jesus did have an experience for 40 days and nights in the wilderness, but it was for a reason related to his temptation. It happened so that the adversary could try to get Jesus to "prove" he was the son of God, and not the other way around. So, according to T Jump, Jesus had a psychological experience and suddenly the wind and the sea obey him? Even if we grant T Jumps assessment, how does he explain the power (the miraculous)? The only plausible option is NOT what T Jump thinks from his excessively comfortable looking couch, about what Jesus "thought" due to some, imagined "psychological" experience, but rather what Jesus did and knew to be true. Jesus changed western civilization, for the better. Jesus is a man that needs to be listened to and obeyed. Many a true, thinking intelligent man (person) has done just that. T Jump? What has he done that I should consider what he thinks? The gospel is not going away because the historical claim, as Dr Ortlund explains, is very compelling. And, there will away be intelligent people on the planet, who will investigate the historicity and be persuaded. Just like we know there was an Alexander the great, a Julius Caesar, an Aristotle, a Plato etc etc. They leave a foot print on the stage of history. Jesus, the Son of God, is the biggest foot print throughout the ages. The notion of some, that think they are god, is the sin of the adversary. But according to scripture, even the adversary did not say, "I am the Most High!" But rather, "I will be like the Most High!" I would bet that every person, that has been induced by some chemical drug to think he is god, has thought he is "a god" but not, "The God". Jesus actually knew eternity because he was there. Jesus knew The God and his rationshop to Him. Jesus spoke about knowing The Father because he was there. That is the NT witness of Jesus. It is the Resurrection that proves the claims of Jesus. And his life death and resurrection is all according to the scriptures.

[@SaltyApologist]

Think The reason why atheist philosophers don’t usually hold to the idea that the universe is necessary or this naturalistic pantheism is because if all of life and this universe were simply just mechanical cause and effect and there was not a divine creator that chose to create this universe in the past, then all of these necessary causes and effects from the necessary material thing would have necessarily already happened in eternity past. Kinda hard to deal with a finite timeline and an eternal necessary material first cause.

[@adamredwine774]

I find it interesting how many people who have functionally no education in physics will talk with awe about "the astonishing precision" of the universe. I have studied a great deal of physics and I don't see that at all. For a long time I couldn't understand why so many people who knew so much less than me saw something I didn't. I think I've worked it out now though.

[@matthewbartko5255]

I like a line from a song that goes to the effect that God isn't a base to test in a beaker. I enjoy these thought provoking conversations but it seems like they all come down to empiricism. God by definition cannot be controlled by something else therefore you will never be able to manipulate him in a lab or get perfectly predictable results from him in some kind of empirical model. At the end of the day you can ask me how I know he lives and it's because he lives with my heart.

[@wessbess]

It’s amazing how people think they’re experts

[@elvisisacs3955]

TJump going off about how a simple thing cannot bring forth/create a more complex thing reveal how little he knows about divine simplicity. The opposite of simple (in divine simplicity) isn't complex lol, it's composite (made of parts). You can hold to God being simple and complex as they aren't mutually exclusive.

[@jesuscorona3562]

Yo pastor Gavin, you should include in your apologetic arsenal some transcendental argumentation. Check out the Greg Bahnsen debates. God bless you.

[@JAWesquire373]

TJump needs a course in metaphysics

[@ThatisnotHair]

You need to come back to reality

[@robertwhite1810]

There is no such thing as "objective" morality. Morality is a human construct...what is or isn't moral is entirely decided by groups of people and therefore entirely subjective

[@magicw7338]

Why do you think that?

[@AlexADalton]

TJump's response to fine-tuning is among the worst I've heard though lol.

[@ceceroxy2227]

thats pretty bad, because most of his arguments are laughable

[@ThatisnotHair]

So what made your God fine tune in first place? Haha you won't. Because it would entail that there is superGod that made him fine tune. Or else we would have God choosing it out of random which is same as athiest claim it was random chance. You are just adding extra parameter named God. This is what Tom was objecting to. Unfortunately your pea-brain can't comprehend it. Problem with thiest is that they simply stop with God as filler. They don't seem to understand that every problem that athiest faces would apply to God as well. Because God himself is an atheist.

[@TomPlantagenet]

Gavin Ortlund: FLAWLESS VICTORY!

[@MattSingh1]

**citation needed*

[@TomPlantagenet]

@@MattSingh1 mortal combat

[@ThatisnotHair]

He said it guys it must be true

[@glof2553]

Beloved,

[@AndrewEtmus]

44:55 bold to argue essentially that you’re more familiar with the historical theology of divine simplicity than a man who has a PhD in Historical Theology.

[@legomegaman101]

the live chat is so insufferable lololol. Gavin for the win

[@ThatisnotHair]

Yeah now go on praying to your ineffective God

[@legomegaman101]

@@ThatisnotHair lolol

[@shuai83]

Johnny Appleseed is a legend just like Jesus. Both really existed and both were spun into really tale tales in a relatively short time. Not sure if Gavin understands what a legend is.

[@jonahschooh7443]

Tom 'Jump' is an accurate representation, Tom jumps all over the place, tripping himself up by his verbosity, making so many scattered claims within a single response that it often defeats itself by committing a fallacy of argumentum verbosium. Less words, narrower claims would be beneficial for the benefit of both opponents.

[@Iverath]

Can you be more specific?

[@ThatisnotHair]

​@@Iverath They won't. They like this general criticism because they don't understand what opponent says

[@Solideogloria00]

This man needs our prayers. He’s very confused. Claiming to have an experience with God and claiming to be God is the same thing? That’s very illogical.

[@whylie1555]

Actions are better then words…. Especially words…..to, “yourself .”

[@ThatisnotHair]

How is it illogical?😂 You self percieve what you experience. It's common sense. Oh wait you thiests don't have it.

[@Iverath]

I appreciate the conversation. As an atheist I didn't find your arguments to be that strong (as in that they didn't indicate a god over a non-god) but I like that you're cordial.

[@TruthUnites]

Thanks for watching I’m glad you enjoyed!

[@TheCrossingBall]

At 33:30 I think Gavin should have made a distinction between what God desires and What God is. TJump conflates God's desires with the identity of God. For instance, God wants universe to have x properties therefore God is a different God from the one that wants or desires a universe with y properties. This forces determinism on God as a slave to His own desires which by definition He is not. So, Gavin should have pushed back on this notion which has a simple answer.

[@johncassles7481]

Christ believed He was God, and then raises a man from the dead, turns water into wine, makes blind people see, makes cripples walk, walks on water, makes storms calm down, turns three loaves of bread into two thousand fish. On top of that, a loud audible voice from the heavens says that Christ is his son and then the Holy Spirit visibly comes down onto his head in the form of a dove. Finally He rises from the dead and then comes back to visit his loyal disciples. And then he finally rises up again not to be seen again. And this is just a brief summary of the full account.

[@AnthonyBruns]

Reading TJump’s live chat gave me an ulcer.

[@mausperson5854]

The confusion is teleological necessity as opposed the necessity of fundamental physics. If you want to appeal to physics then you need to be adopting the usage of language within physics. It's the theologian who equivocates when using terms like nothing or necessity. It's a bait and switch tactic. This notion of the anthropic cause of the universe is done serious violence to it's soundness given the vast amounts of waste and destruction in order to arrive at conscious creatures who bear all the hallmarks of unintelligent design, riddled as they are with physiological and psychological flaws. The one thing that a god may have imbued humans with was an ability to clearly prove Its existence.

[@JH_Phillips]

It’s crazy to me how someone can look that much into a topic and fundamentally misunderstand it.

[@michaelstanet7453]

Putting aside the notion that Tom brings up that Jesus made the claims of being God, how much justified confidence do we have that we have a good record of anything he said or did. The undisputed letters of Paul written about 20 years after the events are pretty vague on this account (as to what Jesus did and said prior to the crucifixation). Mark was written about 40 years after the events by an author that did not identify themselves, state what sources were used, how they had access to those sources, what methods they utilized to determine the accuracy of the sources, and what creative license they took (if any) in creating the narrative. It is pretty hard to conclude anything from this except that there appears to have been a iterant rabbi named Jesus, who had a following, who ran afoul of the Jewish authorities, was crucified by the romans and then at least some of followers preached that he had been resurected. This more or less is the current consensus of historians utilizing the best most reliable methods of that field.

[@_IT_Jason]

Sam Shamoun commented something on what u told.Would you have a dialogue with him?

[@joshmuehlendorf8153]

At 22 minutes the atheists argument is flawed. For one, he’s importing a modern definition of lunacy back onto CS Luis‘s text. He is also assuming that Jesus only had a memory of being God. Based on the gospel accounts, Jesus was operating in a world where he made assumptions about reality based on his spiritual powers. they were not just a memory. This is his definition of lunacy.

[@kylemckinney_22]

I still just don't understand how one could genuinely be a non-theist. As the position of non-theism does not and cannot provide an alternative for God and your left with an endless deep black pit called Nihilism.

[@immanuel829]

Consciousness, free will + abiogenesis are the most compelling evidence for an immaterial intelligence behind the universe, imho. DNA is a digital code, like software. Former atheist and director of the human genome groject Francis Collins calls DNA "the language of God". The striking harmony between math + nature is very interesting, too. "All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force... we must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind." Max Planck

[@ceceroxy2227]

Because there are lots of goods that come along when you get rid of God, no ultimate authority, no moral accountability, people want to be autonomous, they dont want an authority above them, You can indulge in whatever hedonistic desires you want. Lots of reasons to not want God to exist.

[@markfullbrighton5070]

With all due respect, that simply doesn't follow. You have made the same error that many theists make. You have confused the distinction between consistency and entailment. While you certainly can be an atheist and nihilist because they are consistent with each other, it doesn't follow that atheism entails nihilism. In other words, you can be an atheist without being a nihilist.

[@ceceroxy2227]

@@markfullbrighton5070 whether you are a nihilist, doesnt mean nihilism isnt the most reasonable positiion to hold.

[@markfullbrighton5070]

@@ceceroxy2227 I don't personally think nihilism is the most reasonable position to hold and I simply haven't been given any evidence to the contrary.

[@Ethernet480]

If you grant that fallibilism is a valid philosophical principal, seems like it would be easy to see the possibility of someone’s entire “I am god” experience residing completely within the category of error

[@Iverath]

I am god. Now what?

[@everythingisvanityneverthe1834]

16:00 - I wrestle with the definitions. Tom says these people with grandiose ideas about their identities are not necessary lunatics. Then he goes on to describe a person who is clearly delusional. Jesus' claim is so much different than that of the Dalai Lama's - even if one allows for the fact that a first century Jew would rationally come up with such an idea.

[@chuckhough]

Jump, you don't believe in God but believe in a "physical field of morality"? I thought you were the one arguing against faith based systems? If you have a talk or could link me to something on this please do. And you still jumped past the ought. You said morality is the best possible universe/world. But according to who? Best implies a value system. Who determines the value in this system? Does best possible world even include sentient life? Why? And by who or what standard? I grant you that these are at least novel arguments.

[@mkprr]

I don’t know why he thinks a creator has to be complex. He thinks quantum fields created the universe, aren’t quantum fields less complex than the universe?

[@jessec4443]

The argument is that Quantum Fields are less complex than a God. Quantum Field Theory was created using parts of Physics that have already been proven, therefore, it is a way better theory that just asserted God and defining him as the answer to everything.

[@elvisisacs3955]

Tom insisted that a simple phenomena cannot bring forth more complex phenomena as an argument against divine simplicity. Does he realize he has undermined evolution by that same logic?

[@SThrillz]

One of the flaws of these discussions is talking about God in the general term. God in the general term as "creator of the universe" has nothing to do with you being a Christian therefore the scope of the discussion has to be limited within the Christian scope of God and there's this usual broad discussion that these discussions derail into where that is not the focus. What does the universe being created have to do with a Jew being crucified for claiming to be God, each is a separate claim.

[@repentantrevenant9776]

If Jesus’s claim to divinity arises from the same “psychological phenomenon“ as the millions of Hindus who claimed divinity, then surely there should be equally as many Jews claiming divinity as well? It should be a completely normal thing in that culture, if it’s simply a common human psychological phenomenon?

[@shuai83]

Gavin seems completely ignorant of the fact that Jewish religion does indeed have a divine council motif at its earliest roots which have not been completely redacted from the Old Testament. There were MANY “Sons of God” and it would certainly not have been unusual for an Essene Jew to have claimed to be a Son of God.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

The Sons of God in Psalm 82 are in heaven but will die like men: they are created Elohim by YHWH the only Creator.

[@shuai83]

@@davidjanbaz7728 The Sons of Elohim are not simply in heaven. They are thought to be physical entities known as the powers and principalities of the world and are thought to be currently ruling of the 70 nations.

[@cooperthatguy1271]

The Elohim and sons of Elohim are not on the same level of Yahweh when it comes to being ultimate. God (yhwh) is clearly shown to be the fundamental existing being. The divine counsel (as you understand it) is also not an infallible belief in Christianity or more orthodox Jewish traditions. Ortlund did not claim there was a universal understanding of divine simplicity, he said that it was a beleif in Christianity and many first century and earlier jewish traditions.

[@cooperthatguy1271]

@@shuai83that does not mean anything concerning the fundemrntal being of Yahweh He is not shown to be one amongst equals. God is proclaimed as the highest power and the necessary creator of the universe.

[@CourtesyPhone]

Everytime I watch a tjump debate, he always appeals to something like " 99.9% of physicists think this therefore that's my argument." 54:10 LOL, some sort of metaphysical claim without using the word metaphysics. Checkmate thiest.

[@Repentee]

The irony of course is that Jumps moral system is irrelevant. Whether it is "cruel" to torture toddlers for fun is not really a concern if there are no oughts to tell us we should or shouldn't do that. Kindness might be more valuable then cruelty given his system but considering there is no command to be kind vs. cruel it doesn't seem to matter ultimately.

[@Repentee]

Now I wonder would he argue similarly when it comes to epistemic ethics or norms? If there are no oughts in regard to our thinking it seems to undermine the very discussion and his justification for his atheism.

[@Iverath]

As far as I can tell, Christianity doesn't have any oughts either. In any case, oughts are not a required thing in philosophy when in comes to morality, or there would be no morality at all. We don't really speak of things "ultimately" as we cannot access that domain, or examine it. Ultimately it doesn't matter that I steal your car. Do you then not care about me stealing your car? Do you think it's wrong for me to steal your car even though you cannot prove to me that it's ultimately wrong?

[@Repentee]

@@Iverath Christianity doesn't have any oughts???? I think you might be ignorant. Oughts are not required? Well given there are no oughts (perhaps moral and epistemic) then nothing is required right? Requirements are "ought" language. That said, *given **_your_** worldview* all that you've said is true *nothing is ultimately wrong,* and yes we dont have access as things like revelation are excluded. But that's begging the question as it relates to the debate. If you are asking as a matter of a Christianity then certainly it is wrong and one ought not to do it. BUT *given atheism* I do not disagree. Hence why if we are living in atheistic world laws against car stealing seem peculiar. Why should one care whether a human is bothered with car stealing makes no difference, right?

[@Repentee]

Perhaps it'd be tasteless or too fresh but why not give examples of holocausts or school shootings, those things aren't ultimately wrong either right? ((It should also be noted the point was changed a bit, that is an action being 'ultimately wrong' is different from saying that an action is ultimately meaningless. In the former case we are talking about the existence of moral truths in later case we have moral truths, they exist but with subjective prescriptions, basically a descriptive moral view (Tjumps case). In the end analysis it doesn't matter whether or not an action is moral or immoral.))

[@Iverath]

@@Repentee "hristianity doesn't have any oughts???? I think you might be ignorant." So show me. Tell me how Christianity solves the is-ought problem, a problem that's pretty big in philosophy. Tell me why I should do what your god wants. "That said, given your worldview all that you've said is true nothing is ultimately wrong, and yes we dont have access as things like revelation are excluded. But that's begging the question as it relates to the debate." Is drowning babies ULTIMATELY wrong? Revelations are a dime a dozen, all religions that you dismiss have them. So we can't use them in *your* case, for fairness' sake. What can you tell me about my worldview? Since you seem to know it already. "If you are asking as a matter of a Christianity then certainly it is wrong and one ought not to do it." This is just stating your view, this is not showing why anyone "ought" to do it. To paraphrase Christians arguing this. What if a psychopath said "I don't care what god says I ought to do"? Then what? "UT given atheism I do not disagree. Hence why if we are living in atheistic world laws against car stealing seem peculiar. Why should one care whether a human is bothered with car stealing makes no difference, right?" Why should one care whether a Christian/a book *claims* that a god is against stealing? That's right, you have the same problem. Now solve it.

[@brando3342]

It seems as though Tom would do better if he didn’t just make an appeal to authority in his argumentation. “This is what I believe and the majority in the field do too, therefore it’s true” < appeal to authority.

[@donaldmartinez1764]

It’s only a fallacy if they’re not actually authority’s.. he’s very careful with fallacies like those..

[@moonshoes11]

Actual authorities don’t make for a fallacy.

[@brando3342]

@@donaldmartinez1764 Not true. It’s a fallacy if the justification is “because they say this, therefore it’s true”. A thing stated by an authority doesn’t MAKE that thing true.

[@donaldmartinez1764]

@@brando3342 you need to take it up with philosophers then to get that Changed if you don’t agree then.. the scientific experts in a field should have some weight.. they deserve that for all there hard work..

[@brando3342]

@@donaldmartinez1764 I didn’t say they don’t have any weight, I’m just saying that isn’t justification in and of itself. That’s what makes it a fallacy.

[@CourtesyPhone]

14:55 This area is obviously not Tjumps expertise. In the Jewish context there are many god's which would be equivalent to the pagan gods of Rome, greece etc but one creater that's above everything else which is the one that should be worshiped.

[@cooperthatguy1271]

The Jewish beleif at the time of Jesus was exclusively monotheistic.

[@cooperthatguy1271]

Tjumps claim to sufficient knowlege in church history and philosophy over a guy with a doctorate in it is absolutely a tell of his attitude towards the whole topic of this.

[@cooperthatguy1271]

Also I’m convinced it takes a thousand times more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a theist when it comes to his views on morality. He’ll believe anything BUT God

[@matthewjlollz]

The level of arrogance on Tom's part in almost looking down at someone who is far more educated on church history and acting as if he knows better is just disgusting to me, hats off to you Gavin, I would have lost my cool in that moment if I were you

[@scooterboy3676]

Wow that's an arrogant response there fanboy. Turn the other cheek?

[@palisadessilver2258]

He literally does this to everybody!!! He talks to people with phds from top universities who have though deeply about these issues and completely talks down to them. Anyone who is an educated theist or disagrees with any internet atheist party line is just talked over and condescended. I watch him just for comedy honestly.

[@Iverath]

Church history doesn't get you to truth, or understanding of philosophy. The feelings of anger you're getting now is probably because your brain feels like your worldview (and your eternal life) is being threatened. Try to separate the person from the argument, and you will see that atheists have the stronger position.

[@wild7goose]

FYI, TJump lied when he said that he holds to "Naturalistic Pantheism". That is in fact not his Worldview. He has repeatedly said that he merely uses Naturalistic Pantheism to argue against Theism because it provides more reasonable explanations for our reality thereby canceling out Theism. Granted I just paraphrased him, but in essence that is what he does/says. Since he doesn't explicitly make clear that's how he's using Naturalistic Pantheism, he is deceptively playing fast and loose....arguing in bad faith/insincerely. It's playing devil's advocate without saying you're playing in such a fashion, which is underhanded.

[@jessec4443]

Literally everyone that has ever watched a couple TJump videos knows that not what he believes. He literally says he’s an atheist? Not a naturalistic pantheist? You’re kind of stupid if you think he does that to deceive people. It’s blatantly clear it’s just used as an exampleHowever, I think you’re just being dishonest.

[@gleon1602]

I think TJump is misunderstanding what "simple" means in the context of God. Divine simplicity simply means God has no proper parts and that he is numerically identical to his properties.

[@Iverath]

Does this definition of simple only apply to your god? If so, how is that not special pleading? Would a god that can create 2 universes be simpler than a god that could only create 1?

[@gleon1602]

@@Iverath I don't think you understand what special pleading is

[@Iverath]

@@gleon1602 I take special pleading to mean that there's an unjustified exception to a general rule. Like when Christians say "everything needs a cause, EXCEPT my god". What do you take special pleading to mean?

[@gleon1602]

@@Iverath Christians don't say "everything needs a cause except God" They say "everything that is contingent has a cause" or "everything that begins to exist has a cause". God by definition isn't included in these statements

[@Iverath]

@@gleon1602 So: everything that has a cause has a cause. Everything has a cause except my god. Why? Because god is special for reasons that I can't prove. Nothing else has this specialness because church fathers, definitions, and separate logical arguments that aren't taken seriously by anyone except theists accepting that kind of god. Oh, and the god is also Jesus which is required also. I think I stand by my original point.

[@joetaylor1976]

Gavin explains a God that does not reflect Yahweh in anyway.

[@davidjanbaz7728]

LOL 😆

[@cooperthatguy1271]

That’s just blatantly untrue 😂 divine simplicity is clearly shown in the biblical God. He is the uncaused cause, created all matter and order of the universe, is outside of our realm of physical reality. There are nuances within divine simplicity that show how God is present in the universe while being outside of it necessarily.

[@gabrieluranda6078]

Are we going to skip over the fact that Tom claimed there is a "Moral Field"?

[@ThatisnotHair]

Yeah just like you thiests skip over burden of proof

[@gabrieluranda6078]

Dont even start bro both sides do the same thing.

[@ProfYaffle]

I'm guessing you are still on holiday but just making sure we don't completely forget you?

[@nelidascott6917]

All I can say is no matter how much you try to make an intelligent argument against the existence of God, it just sounds hollow and unconvincing because of the suppression of truth that is already within us..

[@evanbiter2138]

The argument that is being presented of "not crazy but it's probably an odd human experience" to me is completely negated by prophecy and Jesus's word. I don't think you get someone acting consistent to how the Messiah should act. Especially not when giving insight. The Jews of the time expected the Messiah to bring further understanding and the One claiming to be the Messiah, did just that, fulfilled prophecy, and then there's a pretty good amount of evidence for the resurrection. Also I don't believe that explains the disciples going on to be martyred for their faith. Even those who doubted prior. Also for Him to say things like "expect my return." Or "I have been given authority to take up my life and lay it down again." Which is consistent in regards to scripture.

[@billmartin3561]

Atheists who demand absolute proof for God won’t find it. Just like they can’t prove that God doesn’t exist. God remains hidden so we can seek him, and allows us free will to choose or reject him.

[@Iverath]

We don't believe things until they're disproved. We should believe things after they've been proven to exist. Or we'd be irrational.

[@نورالدين-ذ3و]

My brother in humanity, I am sending you this message... God is waiting for you to follow the path of guidance and He loves goodness for you... What do you think about sailing on a journey of searching for God, the Great Creator who created this beautiful universe... If you want to know God, read about the Islamic religion God commanded us to follow him

[@dylanschweitzer18]

33:03 Thump seems to be conflating the idea of God desiring something different = God would have to be different

[@jesuscorona3562]

Wow, Tom's attitude seems to be more charitable and less @$$holeish than usual. Thank God for that.

[@rej4166]

Tom Jumps take on ethics is doesn't work prima facia. When you violate the laws of nature, there are consequences. Walk off a tall building and we can know this. However, how are violating the laws of ethics enforced by physics? Seems irrational at face value to me but this debate is the first I've ever heard of it.

[@cooperthatguy1271]

“I’m very very familiar with the history on this” says an internet atheist to a literal scholar in the field of historical theology. Absolutely hilarious and loses his credibility.

[@smidlee7747]

Does T.Jump even know the difference between God and a god? He doesn't seem to know the difference here. (even the ancient Greeks knew the difference) Atheist always wants to act as judge of other beliefs trying to explain something through naturalism (the brain). Thus atheist love to act as a god. The human brain is not dealing with that which is most fundamental as being, change, reason,etc. I've seen a lot of debates with atheist "is there a God?" "Is the resurrection happen?" "Is Christianity true?" "Is Islam true" but not "Is atheism true?" "Did nothing happened?" "Can atheism answer the infinite regress?" "Can atheist really "know" anything is true?" I think this is another example of two men talking pass each other and not referring to the same thing.