What Best Explains Reality: Theism or Atheism? (Frank Turek vs. Christopher Hitchens)

Filmed at The College of New Jersey, Frank Turek and Christopher Hitchens meet again in their second debate to give their arguments for what best explains reality. The title is "What Best Explains Reality: Atheism or Theism?" Recorded at the College of New Jersey! Read comments in the CrossExamined blog here www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=117. If you'd like to order a DVD of this debate, click bit.ly/ihYBZa).
#FrankTurek #ChristopherHitchens #Debates

[@bigzee2587]

This comment section is absolutely ridiculous. All I can see is Theists completely, deliberately misunderstanding the arguments of Hitch, and also Atheists who seem to have not even bothered to listen to Turek's points, and just wanted to listen to Christopher. When you're watching a debate, you should try to watch it without any predisposed biases, of course you will have some, but if you have any sort of intellectual integrity, and are completely open to having your opinions swayed, or at least entertaining opposing ideas, you should temporarily put them aside while watching a debate.

[@John_May.]

"I'm not looking for consensus, baby, I'm just not in the mood"

[@igorsemaniv8924]

Big Zee I think the problem is - too much erogance on both sides. ill admit im guilty of it too but i only get errogant in response to arrogance..

[@john_ron]

they're predetermined to think this way

[@DefenderOfLogic]

About time someone pointed this out. If you go on any YT video on these subject matters you will find that the comment section is full of slander and verbal assaults from both sides. Name calling and slandering is simply a way of revealing the lack of competence one has on an argument.

[@calebalvarez1234]

Big Zee Exactly. All I ever see is name calling, foul language and insults from both sides. I'm A Christian myself and try my best to be completely open to the evidence put forth by both sides. Most google scholars in the youtube comments come off extremely immature and seem to lack intellectual integrity as you pointed out. We all need to tak Thumpers advise from Bambi, "If you can't nothin nice, don't say nothin at all." lol

[@williamwallace3257]

What really annoys me about these debates is the audience. They are told to ask questions and not to make statements.. then idiots stand up and make a statement. I feel that some of them only do it to try and make themselves sound intelligent. Just ask a question!

[@macysondheim]

They are rhetorical questions so technically they are a form of question. It doesn’t break the rules…

[@SooperFlye]

@@macysondheim No, the audience was asked to ask questions, not make a point!

[@sjsulews1]

@@SooperFlye it is difficult having all your beliefs challenged so strongly by the likes of Hitchens! Maybe they want to be heard not answered, and/or realize they don’t have a question they’d want an answer to

[@notsocrates9529]

@@sjsulews1 [eye roll]

[@timsans1170]

​@macysondheim7260 Technically, a rhetorical question isn't actually a question

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

1:34 Turek’s opening statement 25:45 Hitchens’s opening statement 44:07 Turek’s rebuttal 54:45 Hitchens’s rebuttal 1:06:18 QnA 1:52:21 Hitchens’s closing statement 1:57:40 Turek’s closing statement

[@fuelgasscrubber]

To know what rocks dream about, first you must be stoned.

[@daylightdemon]

I want this on a bumper sticker

[@georgecrompton8663]

Amen to that

[@grimloki3107]

To know what a rock believes, you must be arrogantly knowledgeable about the sentient beliefs of said rock.

[@asorlokirunarsson9864]

Woah dude

[@obnoxious.]

That's witty AF.

[@nickcorbett9612]

Chris and Frank were walking down the road until they passed a movie poster. As they were both cinema loving individuals, they stopped and contemplated it for a moment. Frank broke the silence and asked rather smugly "Well Chris, I'm sure you've put in a LOT of thought on it by now, what do you think?". Chris paused for a moment. "Well... by taking into account the past projects and performances by the main cast, the director and producers, and also by the genre, setting and characters that the title and layout of the poster indicate... I can only guess. Only when I see the film will I be able to tell you what I think". Frank laughed mockingly, and said "So misguided are you. It's gonna be an action-packed, adrenaline fueled thriller and the greatest movie coming this summer". "Well you can certainly hypothesize that Frank, but you how can you be so sure?", Chris asked, surprised. Frank, pointing to the poster, said incredulously, "It says it right there under the title".

[@broncosgjn]

Chris Chris Chris. Nope, nothing happened to me.

[@davecirlclux]

Nice metaphor. Now translate that into reality please

[@erinbecker4057]

An apt analogy.

[@hoop21itup]

16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. 17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith. 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[@junelledembroski9183]

Alan Blythe He didn’t screw up and give us sin. Humans created sin by rebelling against God.

[@jonbartolo8067]

Lol. When Turek speaks, I have to turn my volume down cause he's so loud. But when Hitchens speaks, I have to turn my volume up, because I can't hear him. Very interesting.

[@drunkcatphil9911]

I think Hitchens has a very clever way of talking, by talking softly he makes everyone have to try and listen and that way commanding their attention. Turek is so shouty he puts people off

[@geoffstemen3652]

probably because Turek is sober and Hitchens pregamed

[@Ajinzem]

Preachers gonna preach and most of the time they do it loud so people are overwhelmed, not by the content, but by the dynamic.

[@jonathonrobinson7236]

You're very shallow

[@salvadorramirez4114]

@@geoffstemen3652 honestly very sure he did since he died from it

[@JulioGomesKeys]

Watching this video from 9 years ago and watching Turek's videos from nowadays shows me that he learned that speak loud is bad for the public perception of the arguments.

[@clonetrooperichflo]

it is bad. and he learned nothing. Presenting no arguments since then

[@dbarker7794]

I had a very hard time listening to him. He sounds like an athletic director or football coach. Very arrogant and unappealing.

[@wolfthequarrelsome504]

@@dbarker7794 great arguments but badly presented.

[@bentnob]

@@wolfthequarrelsome504 they are terrible arguments. Eg the opening point of his rebuttal. ‘Hitchens mentioned Hume. Hume said something that I think is weak. I’ll spend the first few minutes of my rebuttal attacking that thing that Hume said, thus making Hume look weak, thus making Hitchens look weak’. Absolute time wasting inanity

[@GaryCrant]

Very telling that you don’t criticise the argument, but the style in which it was brought forth

[@CartoonrBOY]

On the stage, there unfolds a striking contrast between two figures. The first man stands as a beacon of enduring wisdom, intelligence, and moral integrity, destined to be celebrated and remembered throughout history. In sharp contrast, the second man represents the direct opposite of such esteem; he is either tainted by deceit and profound dishonesty, or he might simply be an unfortunate victim, a fool misled by the malignant influence of religious dogma.

[@shiffterCL]

Did anyone watch debate one and then debate two and realize Turek literally has the exact same arguments, almost word for word?

[@tittletotute6444]

+shiffterCL Yes I noticed this too, I wish I would skip what I had already heard yesterday not only because he is saying the same things but because I also don't like being shouted at.

[@miguelangelpazponce]

Even the same jokes..

[@jaewaitwhat4412]

watch ANY of his debates. They're the same time and again. I just like watching him set it up for his opponents to knock down. lol

[@kurtgrace9412]

Yes isn't it amazing? Despite knowing whats coming Hitchens still couldn't answer.

[@kurtgrace9412]

Jarred, This is a debate, yes? One makes a statement trying to make his case for what he believes. The other, if they are able, tries to reply and show why the first person is wrong. Thats the purpose of a debate. "The first to plead his case seems right, Until another comes and examines him." Proverbs !8:17. Hitch was just promoting his book. So he could do nothing else in those two hours? Turek was promoting his also, but he somehow found the time to show Hitchens failed to make his case. Turek commits several logical fallacies...Dont just make assertions. Give specifics please.

[@cubensis01]

Having watched and read many theist vs atheist debates go through the familiar motions, followed by inevitable outcome that I totally believe my outlook is correct as you do yours. I'm starting to think a better question is, what makes otherwise very intelligent people reach such wildly different conclusions and feel so passionate about it?

[@john_ron]

Great point! I always think about it

[@louiscyfer6944]

which very intelligent person came to a different conclusion?

[@tdubfpv3380]

GOD😁

[@krissmork]

The Bible has some answers for that, but I'm assuming you wouldn't accept them. Hint: Pride is very, very hard to swallow. A life full of experiences of superiority (by being more gifted than the average person), a life driven by a desire to obtain knowledge/power/skills, definitely does much for a puffing chest.

[@truthprevails6251]

cubensis01 some men are proud and some are humble. And Christ said it is not those who are healthy that need a physician, but those who know they are sick with sin that will humble them selves and ask Jesus Christ to heal them of their sin disease!!

[@tehspamgozehere]

Turek is a preacher, so he projects his voice very firmly. This works well in some situations, but it makes it difficult to listen to him when a microphone is involved. I find it interesting that the first time I heard to him referred to as "Doctor Turek" my instant reaction was one of disbelief. This is more a reflection on the number of frauds using the title 'Doctor' when they have no right to it than a reflection on Turek himself. His doctorate may be entirely well deserved, but quite a few people claiming to be speaking from the same camp have tarnished that. Another thought on the voices.. When defensive, people will often sit back and fold arms or otherwise indicate distance desired. When trying to involve themselves or connect they'll sit forward. Especially if they're a person who likes to think about the thing being said. Speaking softly will often coax people closer to pay attention and listen, which sets us up as receptive. Speaking loudly or projecting will often make them withdraw if only to preserve their eardrums, which sets up a defensive reaction. Firm projection works well in a church, but doesn't work well in more intimate or thoughtful environments. I propose that watching a debate is a more thoughtful environment. Hitchens' habit of talking quietly serves him quite well here. Turek might benefit from toning things down a little to reach his audience better.

[@NWard1210]

Decided to give Turek the benefit of the doubt and actually listen to him, but doesn't make any sense in his arguments at all. He hasn't provided any evidence that theism explains reality better. Theism likes to think it can fill the gaps in our knowledge, but eventually it will be squeezed out as our understanding of reality grows. And there certainly doesn't need to be a designer for humans as a species to make sense of the world around us.

[@jogabenito8291]

"God did it" the perfect excuse for a person that doesn t have any idea on what s happening around us.

[@NWard1210]

@Karat Kravat I’m assuming you’re religious and that’s why Turek’s arguments make sense to you. Hitchens relied on our own sense of self without the use of an external deity having a hand in our affairs and I stand by my point that we don’t need a deity to give us our sense of reason, morality or free will. I have free will because I have no choice but to have it and I don’t need a deity to tell me what’s morally right or wrong. And I can make sense of the world around me without a deity. In regards to the cosmos, the god of the gaps feels a bit like giving up on understanding the universe as we grow and I’m happy to say that I don’t know everything. I’m also happy to say that humanity as a whole doesn’t understand everything and that’s where science comes in. To say that god did it is a cop out and and it’s not true.

[@AsiaDanceScene]

1:13:47 CH 'My sail is coming from the same place as your wind.' FT 'You don't want any of my wind.' CH 'I politely decline.' Absolutely hilarious exchange. Hitchens was great here, just so calm and collected no matter what happened.

[@yomilalgro]

Always is, lol Turick is no match for Hitch...he raised his voice every time he was Hitch slapped!

[@user-iu8ho4gf4m]

@@yomilalgro ?

[@mr16325]

@@user-iu8ho4gf4m he’s right tbh

[@notnoone6609]

If you're wandering down here in the comment section during or before you've watched the video and you have seen the first debate between Hitchens and Turek-- don't bother continuing: it's the same debate with the same results, but with a few very minor rhetorical differences.

[@duderyandude9515]

That is literally me. Well, thanks.

[@bricehabekott5604]

So I’m just gonna guess that hitchens didn’t answer anything about why morality or how Big Bang? Cause he passed bo the those categories last time

[@Benny-sw8xs]

@gg ddfccc I don't think that it's relevant whether or not anyone knows turek if he has good arguments. It's only relevant WHAT they talk about and not WHO they are. The content is relevant and Hitchens only goes to say "Religious people are bad and i don't think god would let bad things happen in the world if he existed". It's sad that he really stands behind atheism as he doesn't have good arguments.

[@Benny-sw8xs]

@gg ddfccc And it wasn't a debate about how many gods there are or about christianity. It was just about whether or not god exists. Turek won.

[@guyjosephs5654]

@@bricehabekott5604 so hitchens admiring he’s not qualified to talk on physics equals a fail on his part?

[@julianherrero9056]

To Christopher Hitchens "in memoriam": If Frank Turek believes in the existence of an immaterial, intangible reality, which is not subject to the laws of physics and biology, and is therefore "supernatural"... why all this effort to prove that his belief has a scientific basis? About the moral competence of religion ... I was educated in a religious college during the Franco dictatorship in Spain. 99% of everything those priests preached was coercive, punitive, intimidating, threatening. Christopher Hitchens sums it up nicely: blackmail and bribery.

[@ransomweslock2007]

@@michaelwalk9861 bruh he explicitly goes back to the topic several times and the guy your replying to made a comment about the topic AND one about moral competence so don’t pretend they didn’t you dolt

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

So you take the actions of one college and say that they’re ALL like that?

[@ransomweslock2007]

@@Nameless-pt6oj not necessarily just providing an example of how religion doesn’t automatically make one moral

[@thomasgonn3437]

Why not ?

[@ransomweslock2007]

@@thomasgonn3437 because If, and I stress if, a supernatural being exists he cannot be explained with the natural

[@DiustheZ]

This Turek guy doesn't talk as fast as he thinks he does he just talks louder every time he says he's going to talk faster and faster.....

[@lizgichora6472]

Thank you very much, quite Stimulating.

[@JMUDoc]

Why is Paley's Watch found on a beach, or in a forest? Because the beach/forest provides a *non-designed* point of contrast. But they hold that beaches and forests ARE designed. You can't have it both ways - is the beach/forest designed, or not?

[@Gumpmachine1]

I use a random tree in a forest as an example, it’s possible it’s was intentionally placed there by someone but it also could of got there by itself.

[@JMUDoc]

@@Gumpmachine1 A tree in a field - good idea, the contrast with nature no longer applies. "Did somebody plant it, or not? How do you tell?"

[@Gumpmachine1]

@JMUDoc exactly, it’s a much better comparison to the universe.

[@vikkidonn]

@@Gumpmachine1 not really because either way you assume what’s opposite of reality. To see a tree in the field doesn’t lead to someone planting it or it did it itself. Reason being is because in that example we are talking open environment. Meaning any number of things could have happened do to the natural of the environment. The rate of rain, wind, weather, timing and age of tree, etc. the only thing that would lead to the possibility that someone put it there is if there is something specific to the tree that isn’t on its own natural. Like a bow entangled in the roots and vines and branches. Carvings on it. Obvious signs of up human upkeep, such as shaping.

[@Gumpmachine1]

@@vikkidonn you might but I don’t I would say I’m not sure how the tree got there. I’d have to compare it to other trees that have been planted intentionally and naturally occurring to try and figure it out

[@cameronunks6439]

1:06:50 Hitch: "I suppose if I cant be erect, I can at least be upright." Delayed laughter once people understand what he said hahahaha

[@russianaloha4576]

🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@wolfthequarrelsome504]

Not everyone thinks like him...or you.

[@macysondheim]

I personally didn’t find it the least bit funny. It was rather disgusting… & completely inappropriate. Whether you agree with Hitchens or not, his alcoholism & crudeness may be charming at first, but wear off after about, hmmm… around 1 second. Then it’s back to foul-smelling, snarky alcoholic who not only eats but burps on stage like a pig 🐖🤮🌬

[@michaelarojas]

Laughter and sarcasm doesn't refute theology

[@RS54321]

Shows his perversion.

[@josemiguelbaez8112]

Can spiritual beings reside in the Quantum Field, and define the laws, physics and the biologies of a spiritual being according to Nature?

[@thomasgonn3437]

GOD SPOKE THE WORLD INTO EXISTENCE.

[@johncassles7481]

My name's James Taylor and after our debate I will be singing "Fire and Rain".

[@jw_3d838]

The mediator of this debate is so irritating, consistently blockading the notion of flowing conversation and thus impeding the presentation of the ideas and philosophies that these two men have come here to discuss.

[@juniorsir9521]

Not many ideas nor philosophies came from Christopher though. He simply bashed religion throughout the debate. He claims there is no God nor that a God was needed for the formation of the universe, yet when asked how the universe came to exist, He says we don’t know. Keep in mind that he generalized it here. He said he doesn’t know but then said frank doesn’t know. Frank knows. He claims God did it. Christopher knows, he claims nothing did it. But he chooses to change the topic forgetting he contradicted himself and the entire atheist community who claim God didn’t do it. when asked about it. Even if he didn’t know. That be a point to frank. Because how then can you trust a person who claims a supernatural entity did not intervene but yet anything outside of this he doesn’t know? it’s either An intelligent designer did it or nothing did it. In fact there are more options to think about when it comes to intelligent design and one to random chance. this shows that there’s more probability that someone created everything over nothing. Even if he doesn’t know, surely he can know so much about how life started on this earth. So then my question to him would be: if evolution is true as in macro, what came first the baby or it’s mother?

[@jw_3d838]

@@juniorsir9521 some form of micro organic bacteria came first, which then eventually became the mother with the capability of giving birth to the baby. I'm not sure why that question would ever propose a challenge to accepted science

[@juniorsir9521]

@@jw_3d838 that wasn’t the question I asked now was it? But let me ask an even better question. What came first the male or the female?

[@jw_3d838]

@@juniorsir9521 Neither. I'm not a scientist but I'd assume that at some point the organism that would eventually become known as a "human being" evolved into a species with two different types of sexual organ configurations, again, I don't see how asking this question really proves or disproves anything

[@ruthadiscipleofjesuschrist1788]

@@jw_3d838 where did the "micro organic bacteria" come from?

[@logicalatheist1065]

Atheism, no magic needed

[@ethanstroup7394]

Hitchens obliterated this guy, I feel bad the for the schitzo

[@Pit.Gutzmann]

*_"Explosion in a printing shop"?_* A drop of water has 1.5 sextillion molecules. Each molecule has a certain energy, a certain position, a certain motion, a certain angle. Each molecule has three atoms which in their nuclei have loads of quarks. They all, too, have a position, energy, motion and so on. If I was interested in them I could call all this information and it would surely be more information than printed in any book ever written, more information than the library of congress, than all libraries together have. Does that mean it takes a conscious mind (all-loving, omniscient, omnipotent and so on...) to put together that droplet of water in exactly the way it is? Furthermore, isn't it incredibly *_fine-tuned_* to turn out exactly the way it is?

[@jorgerodriguez3392]

Reminds me of a certain someone residing at 1600 Philadelphia ave washington dc

[@Pit.Gutzmann]

@@jorgerodriguez3392 You mean that guy in the bunker? What does he have to do with this?

[@Pit.Gutzmann]

@Aphrodite's Child Sarcasm is new to you, isn't it? I do not know how you come to that flerf conclusion. If you want to know, here is my channel. No flerf.

[@jorgerodriguez3392]

@@Pit.Gutzmann ohhh how eloquently he articulates his thoughts and how much knowledge his brain has ....

[@theophilengangmeni8788]

@Pit Gutzmann yes indeed that shows that a conscious mind was behind it. All of that implies purposeful design & order, which science claims is fleeting. The DNA argument serves to supplement life in particular, but rest assured it can also be applied to practically all matter.

[@robertdennis3892]

The principal objection to the fine tuning argument is that we (life) were adapted to the conditions we found ourselves in. If the constants were different, then life would have been different, but still adapted perfectly. However if fine tuning was necessary for any conceivable life, or indeed any physical existence at all, then the fine tuning argument still has weight.

[@BFizzi719]

That would require knowledge that we, for the moment, are unable to gather. We cannot know if the constants in this universe can be different, or if these constants are governed by some external phenomena. The fine tuning argument relies pretty heavily on anecdotal evidence. Someone arguing for a God will see the constants of our universe and tend toward the idea that they could be different and the reason they aren't is because of intelligent intervention. The opposing side will see the same constants and conclude that inductively we have no reason to presume they can or have changed.

[@gregfakerson6998]

here’s a tip that helped me with principle vs principal. principal, with a pal, is the leader of a school, because he’s your “pal”. principle, has no pal, and is not a person, it’s an idea. hope that helps 😁

[@vikkidonn]

@@BFizzi719 random and intentional are different. Law isn’t random. All scientific law is constant and unchanging. Never has for as long as it’s been recorded. That’s not random then. That’s intention. So you’d have to explain fine tuning.

[@lukereiling3279]

Ok but the universe itself which as he said if anything in it was off my an infidecimal amount there would be no universe

[@eliassandoval9530]

@@lukereiling3279 and that's false, if the constants were different, the universe sure would be different, but it doesn't mean that any kind of life couldn't emerge, we don't know that.

[@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy]

01:14:04, “Is it not the case that the spread of Christianity-about which you spoke so warmly and affectingly in your opening remarks, attributing it to the innate truth of the Bible story-was spread by that means, or because the Emperor Constantine decided to make Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire? Which in your view contributed more to the spread of the faith?” Hitch mispoke.

[@JohnDoe-gy3yy]

"THE UNIVERSE IS NOT A TURTLE" - Frank Turek. 47:00 I don't think anyone can disagree with Frank here, he really caught them atheists

[@doyoufeel...thatyoulackcri6760]

The problem is that atheism cannot defend morality because it has no moral codec. This is exactly the reason for Stalins attrocities and it is the reason why all these atheists find no probem with incest. The morality problem cannot be solved for atheists. Therefore atheism is evil.

[@eloka4510]

@@doyoufeel...thatyoulackcri6760 I guess u r also evil because u do not have the Elvian moral code. U a-lordoftherrings, therefore u r evil

[@doyoufeel...thatyoulackcri6760]

@@eloka4510 Go look up laurence krauss on incest

[@4um360]

@@doyoufeel...thatyoulackcri6760 atheism is the assertion that theists haven’t proven there is a god or gods. That’s it! But you can, if you wish to, hold on to the “objective morality” of the Bible that regulates slavery, command the slaughter of entire tribes, including their “evil” babies, commands the stoning of disrespectful children and women who are not virgins on their wedding night. Stalin’s actions sound as if he was following Yahweh’s commands.

[@brandonsmith2172]

@@4um360 Actually the civilization were sacrificing their own babies. God gave them 400 years to change their ways and repent and they didn’t so he wiped them out.

[@martinathom5167]

6 years ago a great brilliant man died. I salue you hitch. Your legacy will give you in a sense immortality

[@Christ_died_for_your_sins_777.]

Hahahah. I know where he is

[@ecokanjukuoh4772]

@@Christ_died_for_your_sins_777. haha me too (gnashing of teeth) 🤭

[@cringeboyy739]

@@ecokanjukuoh4772 what a lovely God,he created us with free will and throw in hell for using the free will...

[@kurtkrienke2956]

Turek: "Everybody does evil things, I do evil things" Yea, like misrepresenting your opponents position at the end of the debate.

[@geoffstemen3652]

Kurt Krienke - just because he phrases it differently than Hitch would doesn’t make it a misrepresentation. He’s casting Hitchens’ argument in his (Turek’s) terms, which is part of debate

[@PittsburghSonido]

@@geoffstemen3652 And his casting is in itself a representation of his misunderstanding. Frank tries to say "Just because religious folk are immoral does not mean God isn't real". That's not the point. Those are rebuttals to "Without God people cannot be moral". He is directly conflating the two to attack Hitch as using fallacy. Thus, Frank is being dishonest on purpose. And if not on purpose then he does not understand the argument.

[@geoffstemen3652]

Tony H - My original opinion stands

[@kratino]

@@geoffstemen3652 He straw mans all over the place.

[@BFrydell]

@@PittsburghSonidocan’t be worse than Hitchens’s incessant misinterpretation of the moral argument as “atheists can’t do good things.” In each of his debates, he says it. And in each of them, the theist corrects him. And then he goes to the next debate and just says it again.

[@offline34]

1:45:50... A DEEP question from a sharp mind that gets glossed over... It was brilliant. The supernatural is faith based. Why then use the material to attempt to prove the immaterial? Why not use the supernatural to prove the natural without involving ANY natural method?

[@con.troller4183]

These days I don't engage theists on Doctrine, history, morality and such. I just point out that their authority claim is based on supernatural claims and to provide credible evidence that supernatural events actually occur, can be objectively observed and tested. No Theist slam dunks so far.

[@kaibavelarde]

@@con.troller4183 why would they? Supernatural by definition is something beyond scientific understanding.🤷‍♂️

[@con.troller4183]

@@kaibavelarde The supernatural is not "beyond scientific understanding". It is understood perfectly as unscientific, unfalsifiable data. But Theists claim that supernatural events happen and that they prove their case. They cite the supernatural as scientific proof of their claims. As if the supernatural was science, when it isn't.

[@kaibavelarde]

@@con.troller4183 I'm just saying by definition thats what supernatural is. Would it really be observable though? I wouldn't think so because they seem to occur at the most personal of times. Which theists claim that supernatural evidence is scientific?

[@con.troller4183]

@@kaibavelarde "Which theists claim that supernatural evidence is scientific?" All of them. Ask them what evidence they have for the existence of god and they ultimately cite miracles. Miracles break the laws of nature. Miracles are supernatural. But they never provide credible, testable evidence for the existence of ANY miracles or any supernatural events. The fundamental basis if their faith is false.

[@user-bl2ek6jg2x]

RIP Christopher, even though we had/have different beliefs

[@jivanbhusal7690]

Christopher would have laughed at the first word of your comment

[@5va]

@@jivanbhusal7690 what’s so funny about REST?

[@amiramduby]

@@5va Christopher didn't believe there is anything after death, he found the idea of you living in eternal north korea after you're gone is absurd, not to mention, incredibly vile

[@user-bl2ek6jg2x]

@@jivanbhusal7690 wdym

[@joipatriot2762]

@@user-bl2ek6jg2x chris doesnt believe in rip.... well in other wrds eternal life..

[@dimaglaz0v]

29:50. Hitchens:" We are looking for patterns. We ARE DESIGNED to look for them."

[@patrick9501]

Caught that and many others too.Great catch dmitry

[@JosephNordenbrockartistraction]

Don't blame the English language for being screwed up. Doesn't it feel good to trick the great hitch into being a closet believer ?? Your are as clever as a snail crawling in a puddle of beer just because it's wet.

[@teardrop-in-a-fishbowl]

@@JosephNordenbrockartistraction lmao 👍

[@javiermartinez4294]

He means that we are designed by the unguided force of natural selection. Yeah he used a word that carries baggage but I cant find a word that exactly explains it.-Lack of a better word

[@ckyung1312]

47:00 - every time Frank says, "The universe is not eternal", I hear, "The universe is not a turtle!"

[@TonyEnglandUK]

Speaking as a Turtlist, your logic is flawed.

[@graypokedri1024]

Tony England Bruh 😂😂

[@FakingANerve]

Funny, both statements have about as much credibility.

[@almostafa4725]

@@FakingANerve The universe had a beginning

[@peli_candude554]

@@almostafa4725 The universe is not a turtle...ooops...wrong person...:)

[@krisaaron5771]

Why does Turek keep insisting the universe couldn't possibly come from "something out of nothing"? What makes him (alonng with the carefully chosen opinions of others) think there was "nothing" simply because we don't yet have an identifier or description for that "nothing"? One more question: Does the degree of volume used to answer a question (even a question you yourself asked) imply the rhetoric's veracity? Turek's insistence on shouting every sentence indicates he was trained to speak with the intent of waking the sleeping... or the deceased. It's difficult to find meaning in words delivered at the sound level of a military fighter jet readying for take-off!

[@kratino]

BECAUSE JULIE ANDREWS SANG IT! WEREN'T YOU LISTENING?

[@krisaaron5771]

@@kratino I listened to the entire episode -- including Frank's melodious trilling -- but never heard Julie sing a note. Sigh. Of course, I've never heard *anyone's* "god" speak, either. OR a choir of angels bellowing hallelujahs... must not have been listening.

[@kayshaun3871]

He was in the navy, so it might be hearing damage will increase volume of which you speak naturally…. Something coming from nothing is truly the dumbest thing anyone could say. Over 1000 PhD physicists agree with this, one of them being my dad. Nothing is in the ether, there is literally nothing in the void of space. The Big Bang plays off of this, which has been disproven incredibly quick. If you aren’t following Jesus Christ you probably should.

[@delanod4156]

The ending is so incredibly powerful…

[@omnipitous4648]

And contrived.

[@Nameless-pt6oj]

It’s beautiful.

[@undercoverbrother67]

Dangerous ramblings that glorify war.

[@bryanreidsands6854]

No, it’s not. Turken knew he failed and had to whip out his bleeding heart. It’s an appeal to emotion and you got hooked.

[@DonkasaurusNZ]

"....there is no god and I hate him....." could be the example that gets shown when someone looks up the definition for a non-sequitur.

[@harrybeau1712]

Ha Ha! I love the question at 1:42, 'since you wrote the intro to Kingsley Amis's Guide to Everyday Drinking' - What's your favourite drink?' Hitchens comes across as some cool guy at your house party, who keeps getting interrupted by your dad blundering into the room trying to be hip.

[@kratino]

Exactly.

[@qigung]

Any fans of The Office? Frank Turek is the Michael Scott of Christian Apologetics!

[@larrycrabs5995]

Yes!!! Totally!

[@jasonTL]

@The Naked Skeptic or twirl lol

[@calmdown5559]

That would imply he's lovable though

[@qigung]

Calm Down: Well, you do have a point. Yet all the people who did love Michael Scott also knew how annoying he was and often cringed before, during and after he made a statement. Lol.

[@murakawa-san2279]

I’d prefer a David Brent of christian apologists.

[@BannerOfBlasfemy]

there is a college in New Jersey???

[@danteilbello]

People like Dr Turek stregthens my Atheism

[@hangarud]

in church specialy born again, speaking in front of many people start at very young age. they are all good in story telling.

[@wolfthequarrelsome504]

Agreed

[@Jbarack98]

Some people like yourself will never understand, scientific materialism has seeped into every aspect of society.

[@ecokanjukuoh4772]

Yes, a Real Stories. 😂

[@GCAJr]

You think Turk is a story teller and not Hitchens? My my I wonder if you were listening at all? Answer- doubtful

[@vincemcmahonreadskoran3120]

@@Jbarack98 That may be the case but millennia of telling stories around the campfire has given talking bs a headstart over science.

[@nikkihernandez981]

I want to know what the guy in the middle thinks

[@TonyEnglandUK]

He thinks _"Hurry up, chaps, there's a cold beer waiting for me."_

[@gracemanus3955]

@@TonyEnglandUK absolutely lol

[@paulfreeman4900]

Atheism doesn't need to explain anything. The burden of truth lies with the faithful.

[@assininecomment1630]

Turek's point - that with a tiny difference in one of the variables of the Big Bang, the result would be we would not exist - is a fundamental misrepresentation. Such a tiny difference does _not_ mean only nothing would be the result. It means that existence _as we know it_ - our experience of the cosmological order, our version of existence - would not be the result. Other versions of existence, another cosmological order or orders, would be the result. Speculating on the nature of those other potential results might be interesting, but is not material to the debate at hand, of course. It's just that Turek misrepresented, unsurprisingly, the substance of the initial observation.

[@candiigerrl]

I was on the debate team in highschool I always (along with all of my other teammates) used the same case with some tweaks until the topic changed so y’all need to chill

[@pedohunter5117]

OK Y,ALL

[@mastone3609]

Shifting of the burden of proof, a gish gallop with arguments from incredulity, quote mining, strawmanning, bald assertions, god of the gaps, begging the question, and just disingenuous debating. Great opening statement Turek.

[@infinitenature703]

Do you believe what you just wrote?

[@Sir-Chancelot]

I agree, Hitchens could do much better. All joking aside, Hitchens was full of anecdotes and arguments against Christian fundamentalism - not true Christianity

[@mastone3609]

@@infinitenature703 which part? All the different errors made just in the opening statement? Or the sarcastic remark about it being great?

[@ichigo449]

@@Sir-Chancelot No true Scotsman indeed sir.

[@boringname3657]

@@Sir-Chancelot Right, not TRUE Christianity.

[@patrickrutherford5553]

This is a very fun debate

[@Anduril1974]

Only one winner here and it ain't 'shouty' Frank.

[@Vanzie1988]

Frank...Why must you shout?

[@rijden-nu]

+Norman Bates Because that makes what he is saying more true. Duh.

[@seivaDsugnA]

+SadBunny It's also more true if you talk quickly and wave your hands about.

[@rijden-nu]

Angus Davies Italians have known this for centuries.

[@rijden-nu]

Angus Davies Although speaking quickly could also be just a way to say more true things.

[@seivaDsugnA]

SadBunny If time is limited, yes.

[@cruelsuit1]

5:48 The Second Law of Thermodynamics according to Frank Turek: "The universe is running out of energy. If it was eternal it would have run out of energy a long time ago."

[@lewis72]

Yeah, that's some stupid comment.

[@Chrischi7777]

Haha, it's so funny when they don't even understand high school science, but call themselves "Dr."

[@LordSpacey]

Chrischi7777 I think Turdek is a Doctor of Apologetics; IMO, failing an apologetics class is actually a sign of intelligence. As I’ve read on Urban Dictionary: Apologetics = the art of searching for a black cat down a black hole… and finding it !! :P

[@JSzitas]

And that guy, supposedly, knows what he is talking about... (*SIGH*)

[@ryanvandermerwe5587]

1:14:26 Hitchslap one million 🔥🔥🔥😭😭😭😭😭

[@G00N3YC4NG]

I often come back just to watch this moment. It's one of the most hilarious things I've ever seen in a religious debate.

[@delinquentdave5272]

Why does the atheist always look so upset and unhappy?

[@Jim-Mc]

30:18 all you need to know to understand.

[@jameslaver9545]

My thoughts exactly

[@DiannaRose66]

Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able, and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able not willing? Then why call him a god?

[@zowiewowie4458]

God has given humans freewill, so he will let them commit evil or good...this statement is really a series of dumb questions trying to sound wise...

[@Pwwh0711]

@@zowiewowie4458 That's convenient.

[@kratino]

@@zowiewowie4458That would be able, but not willing. Malevolent.

[@theverylovelychannel4498]

The speaker interaction Q&A starts at 106:00

[@estebangutierrez9941]

Turek speaks about things as Hitchens said humanity is not 100% sure yet

[@BringJoyNow]

Well, in nuclear field we talk about things that are 99% correct and account (not forget or uncare) the 1%, but we have no fear to back-up behind that 99% as it is greater than that the 1%

[@dianeaustin6706]

Dude confuses shrieking with righteousness.

[@aldrinkinny]

Other Dude confuses not shrieking with righteousness

[@KrwiomoczBogurodzicy]

@@aldrinkinny, Theists confuse objective morality with the divine-command.

[@taylorking460]

When you take the path of intellect than you'll never get the answers you want. You end up just debating morality endlessly until you die.

[@trials6502]

Interesting.

[@BabyUn0]

Good point

[@calebhobbs9539]

Facts!!

[@electrondynamics9721]

That's the reason I prefer evidence based debates for existence of god rather than stucking in between the morality debate .... About which we can have different opinions and different debates....

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

It's easier just to learn from animals, that's what we did in the first place anyway.

[@dudead2729]

“The absence of knowledge doesn’t prove the existence of a higher power”

[@matesus6007]

The presence of your stupidity doesn't disprove the absence of a brain

[@thirst4wisdom]

Neither does it disprove it

[@electrondynamics9721]

​@@thirst4wisdom shifting the burden of proof/evidence

[@roems6396]

@@thirst4wisdom Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but it means that one cannot accept the claim that a good exists, and be rational and logical in that belief.

[@knightspygaming1287]

​@@thirst4wisdomfirst prove it so we could disprove it. If not then prove me you are not a murderer

[@jimcrosby3944]

Since this debate is 10 years old I would love to hear from anyone who attended as to their thoughts.

[@aiweeable]

Sadly Cristopher died not too long ago

[@nimashariatian2884]

@@aiweeable This was indeed sad, he was loved by many, including his opponents during the debate. "He would often go out to dinner with them after and discuss philosophy and politics over pizza and wine" a quote from D'Souza was one of his great admirers.

[@kaufmanat1]

@@aiweeable I wonder if his opinions have changed since then. I'd imagine probably not.

[@cdogthehedgehog6923]

@@kaufmanat1 Dead people can't change their opinions 🤦‍♀️

[@leonardoherreraornelas4667]

@@kaufmanat1 I don't think he changed his mind. He even asked people not to pray for him when he was sick. It's quite sad bc at this time serious academic atheists are changing their thoughts on some of the classical grounding problems. Even the same Dawkins said he would be open to deism if the fine tuning argument could convince him, he says he consider it a good argument. Definitely he would not be open to religion at all, these people have serious prejudices against religion, but philosophywise, contemporary atheist are aware that their worldview has serious grounding issues.

[@riselikethephoenix1]

Frank: im going to talk fast now! Also frank: proceeds to talk talk at the same rate but louder.

[@candeffect]

Frank has positive energy. Hitchens had stupified alcoholism.

[@riselikethephoenix1]

@@candeffect Does "positive energy" validate ones point? ... No

[@doh247]

@@candeffect sounds like you'd be an easy victim for con-men who displays "positive energy". let me guess you voted for trump. and you're religious lmao smi

[@ericfolsom4495]

Unfortunately things that can convince people: 1. Talking with confidence 2. Talking quickly 3. Using large vocabulary Things that do not prove your point at all, see above. NOTE: This isn't against Frank or Christopher, just an observation I notice with various talkers.

[@joeallgood5317]

@@candeffect Um, no. He made no apologies for his fondness of Johnny Walker Black, but even if he'd consumed that much prior to this debate, he handily harpooned every single one of Frank Turek's points as he cared to. He would have destroyed a seemingly narrow-minded person as you come across to be had he been given the opportunity.

[@salvadorhpo2030]

Hitchens never answered the main point and title of this video.

[@ronmc4554]

Atheist does not explain reality, atheist is lack of belief in god or gods.

[@ronmc4554]

Also frank statement that the universe definitely had a begging is wrong.

[@salvadorhpo2030]

@@ronmc4554 ?? Please explain

[@ronmc4554]

@@salvadorhpo2030 which one

[@ronmc4554]

@@salvadorhpo2030 How the universe got here, no one knows for sure but they are alot of different models and they are no consensus of which one the scientist all agree on but one model which some scientist talk about is that the universe was just a transformation from one state to another which started after a rapid expansion of the cosmo's 13.8 billion years ago which this model could have other universes within the cosmo's so if you ever heard of multiverses then it probably came from this model and also this model states the cosmo might be eternal and time always existed so no need of a creator has it was always existed but no one says this model is true. Also all scientist says that the laws of thermodynamics apply only in this universe and they dont know if they would apply outside the universe as we dont know whats is outside our universe so he was wrong on that to.

[@jennklein1917]

Turek orates like an evangelist!!

[@jeanettesteed3326]

The way the mediator looks at Hitchens, he, to me, looks like he is in awe.

[@MrDaiseymay]

we all are really, even if you can't grasp everything he says ,he has such 'authority.

[@electricmanist]

@@MrDaiseymay I'm rather surprised that some people haven't actually bowed down as he walks past. But on second thoughts, maybe not, as he is only a man putting forward his views-- which are really no more valid than those of other people who see things differently.

[@yourfbiagent7997]

@@electricmanistbro is doing spins on it 💀

[@electricmanist]

@@yourfbiagent7997 The essence of all that is, is God. Of course many religions put (or add) their slant/own agenda to this fact--- not forgetting also, that some scientists come up with all sorts of theories as to the source/origin of all that is. The essential thing is, we together with the entire universe exists for an intelligent purpose. -(For example, consider the essence of all that is, which is the infinite power within each and every atom (particle) of matter).

[@android4754]

Comment sections are a strange place. And this is far out of time, but I have to agree with Turek overall. Hitchens never gave a case for atheism as a worldview, or how it explains reality. Granted Turek did not sufficiently argue the point of how Theism is separated from Deism and why it explains the universe better, but at least he made a case. Hitchens also constantly begged a question that Turek pointed out multiple times which is on the origin and justification of morality. Basically he argued Christians are not moral, which I always thought was kind of the point of the system it upholds. I also am curious what that proves anyway. Why does morality matter in an atheistic worldview? I think his idea was to prove God is evil using the Christian sense of morality, but he never really went that far in his statements. However, I never found a definition for morality in his case, so even calling God evil would be an undefined concept if he attempts to do so. All in all, Frank gave a flawed argument by trying to encompass too much information into his case without defining some fundamentals, and Hitchens whined about evil, said Turek is taking illogical leaps (which in some cases I agree), and never really had a base case. I noticed a lot that whenever Turek would ask a question of atheism the habit of Hitchens was to take the question and then ask a counter question about how Christianity or the Church publicly deals with said subject. But that does not answer the question. You can ask the Christian view to be explained after, but when your worldview is questioned just saying the opposite view is not satisfactory, while not stating why yours does satisfy the question is not debating. It is just avoiding the question by hiding it.

[@Scyllax]

This is a big false equivalency. Atheism is not a worldview. The world will go on if we were all dead. Gods will all cease to exist with the death of every human, so you must think about magic to keep it real in your minds because, without your minds, your gods never existed.

[@thekwjiboo]

@@Based-Anarcho-Syndicalist-Chad let me try. There's no such thing as an atheistic world view. The statement in itself doesn't make sense. How can you form your world view based upon what you don't believe? Even if no atheist on the planet can give you a satisfactory explanation of morality without needing to reference a diety, that doesn't make a belief in a diety true. It's like asking what I enjoy about not stamp collecting. Assuming you're a Christian, that would mean you aren't Jewish, you aren't Muslim, or Hindu, ect. How does not being those things shape your worldview? Your worldview is shaped by what you DO believe, not what you don't.

[@justanothernick3984]

@@Based-Anarcho-Syndicalist-Chad Going to butt in on the moral aspect of the argument. There are only subjective morals and these are usually dictated by the peers you live with. The culture you live in holds a standard of what is permissable and if you do not abide by these sets of standards, you will be sanctioned by the people in this group, not by supernatural entities or bad luck. So if you commit atrocities and don't get caught, you will not be punished by your group but if you have a conscience, it might not let you forget what you have done and devour you from within. Those "demons" are real but there is nothing supernatural behind them. It's your view about yourself and how your in-group sees you. No God required. Only psychology.

[@grimloki3107]

I like your form of questioning and I enjoy that you are honest and humble enough to concede some points. That shows an intelligence and a willing open mind to listening to the other side without just claiming you are right and the other side is wrong. So, cheers to ya mate. While I do disagree with you on the morality arguement...at least you left room for discussion. Unlike many other believers. As someone that believes in values more often associated with aethiests, I can say this with clarity. Religion had no innate or ground building effort in my morality. I do truly....as Hutchinson mentioned..it is a naturally occurring/intrinsic value of many social creatures that d ont require a religion or a god to exist. Period.

[@justanothernick3984]

@@Based-Anarcho-Syndicalist-Chad You are right. But if I subjectively value the wellbeing of my peers, family or friends, I can selfishly deem others morally in the wrong for hurting them. You will probably do the same. Because you prefer the people you know over strangers to you. Best of regards to you.

[@Ender1337otron]

Turek opened exactly the same way he did last time, like some kind of comedian and this is his standup routine...

[@brandonevans9252]

In a twist of the irony he so much loved, Hitchens has the patience of a saint here.

[@richardbeckmann6720]

How about Frank vs Matt Dillahunty next.

[@erinbecker4057]

Wow, it really is annoying hearing frank turek misrepresent science this way. Among the many objections i could make, the one that absolutely needs to be made is to point out that DNA is NOT coded information, it is just a chemical structure that we impose the analogy of code upon to make it easier to teach. Leave it to the religious to always find absurd correlations where none exist.

[@kjgardnerjr6614]

Erin Becker you’re wrong.

[@unforgettablerandomtv6446]

You are such a lost soul

[@ablewilling2778]

@@unforgettablerandomtv6446 what evidence do you have for the soul?

[@hughjanis7057]

"absurd correlations" ? it would suck finding out hell exists buddy

[@MrLaughingcorpse]

Maybe try to google DNA or genetic information and you will find scientists explain it as information or code. It is stored, read and translated. It is referred to as instructions. DNA contains code for how to build a creature. Where limbs are placed, eye color, ear design, etc. It is much more, as a whole, than a chemical structure.

[@NomadUniverse]

Far out this "doctor" is doing my head in. How is he so blindly mistaken about the atheist view of the big bang? The fact the universe has a beginning does not at all imply a beginner and we dont at all claim it came from nothing or was eternal.

[@kathyd456]

What is the atheist view of the Big Bang?

[@NomadUniverse]

@@kathyd456 What do you mean? It's a scientific theory backed up by evidence and experiment. It has nothing to do with atheism.

[@razer0072073]

29:36 55:24 1:02:05 1:07:14 1:14:05 1:17:47 1:19:23 1:28:43 1:35:27 1:44:05 1:52:44

[@AlexKB01]

The comment from Turek attempting to rebutt Hitchen's use of Hume's argument misses the point entirely - it wasn't that the common should be believed and the rare denounced; some totally natural events are rare - it's that the repeatable and measurable physical laws of nature should be taken as more likely true/accurate/ representative of truth and reality than events that deviate from the physical laws of nature i.e. the supernatural.

[@thebadgeclanfilms8002]

I didn't see a lot of arguments from Hitchens that related to the beginning of the universe. He talked about religious fallacies but he didn't talk a lot about the origin of the universe.

[@thebadgeclanfilms8002]

Tim H if science has then seth didn’t Hitchens bring it up in response to Frank. It sound to me like HE was using science...

[@krispybacon9285]

and? he never claimed to know the answer he only claims to know god ISNT the answer.. and i and MANY people world wide see the truth of that. if every time we dont know something we just default to "cuz gawd" how far will we ever get? its intellectually lazy for anyone to assume because they have no answer or dont understand the answer NO OTHER HUMAN could possibly know it or understand it. its hubris of the highest order..

[@thebadgeclanfilms8002]

Krispy Bacon i see what your getting at, but at the same time you’ve got to consider that order always comes from intelligence and our planet is extremely intricate and orderly. The question at hand was what best explains the start of the universe and seeing as how humans haven’t observed something coming from nothing, and clearly know that the universe is finite, I’ve chosen to side with this Frank guy.

[@peytonsingh6258]

@@krispybacon9285 It's pretty logical to come to the conclusion that the universe we live in had a designer using science. I can go on about it if you'd like. God bless.

[@boogiman14]

because he cant none of them can soo they go to the emotional arguments like look at suicide bombers thats because of religious

[@othnielwakili9740]

Isn't it amazing that Hitchens qouted Rabbi Hillel the teacher of Apostle Paul but denied the fact that Apostle Paul existed?

[@fleur_bleue9703]

How does the teacher existing prove the existence of apostle Paul? Its like saying because a couple exist their child must exist, even if they dont have any children.

[@Mr.Goodkat]

@@fleur_bleue9703 True but it's missing the thought process behind the person making that statement, it's more that when dealing with a figure of ancient history which supports the other persons argument you say it's too far back and the evidence is shoddy because of it but then when dealing with someone just as far back and with as little (or even less) evidence (but now it supports YOUR point) existence can now be granted, shows it was never the shoddy evidence that was the issue in the first place.

[@2l84me8]

I can quote Harry Potter. It doesn’t mean I believe in Harry Potter. See how that works?

[@kratino]

He denied Paul existed? Where?

[@user-vv2pf1sy4m]

@@2l84me8 he doesn't see he is a religious simp lol

[@marktuckett411]

Some of Turek's arguments around the insane level of precision needed or we wouldn't be here, only leads me to ask how does he or anyone know?? Maybe we'd be here but slightly different? Or we would have adapted and still be here, etc...

[@izaruburs9389]

Not to mention that we don't even know if these constants could change. If they are always exactly what they are and were now then it's not really fine tuned, it just is the way it always has been and always will be. The premise that these constants could be any different is pure speculation and not really an argument.

[@Xgya2000]

47:50 "You can't go from a state of non-existence to a state of existence without making a choice" Choices and their results are timely events. Before and after the choice. There can't be timely events without time. If the Universe beginning to exist also made time, then it cannot have come by choice.

[@double0seven856]

Time is not an entity.

[@Xgya2000]

​@@double0seven856 ? What does that have to do with my comment? Spacetime had a beginning. Following that, spacetime went from a state of non-existence to existence. Which, according to the argument, would require a choice. Which can't be true, because a choice would require time.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@@Xgya2000 technically a 'symmetry break' as we currently understand the concept. Which may, or may not, count as a choice.

[@BringJoyNow]

Choice is a change of status, but that can involve time or not. Why? Because in our reality, choice is time linked in our mind, we live in time. If space could only go forward in 1 dimension it will be the same (like choosing to go left or right on a road). Now, a timeless creator lives outside time, so power of choice is not a pre/post scenario but a command (Christians by Genesis say that God's word are action, so while we cannot make a flame burst by giving order to the wood but have to require time to rub its pecies to allow it, God can order it and nature will instantaneously follow). Now, we are living in a universe where causality is one of its property. Why can we dare to say all is casual except its birth or the birth of the multiverse that made our universe rose? We can't, and being its cause beyond nature its by definition supernatural, and if it is supernatural then it is something that has the power to create out of nothing dimensions. But how? By ordering it. But to give order in a timeless scale you need choice, as no other action can cause the order to be sent. Hope I said everything correctly and logically ✌🏻

[@Xgya2000]

@@BringJoyNow "God can order it and nature will instantaneously follow" "Nature will do something and God will instantaneously follow by ordering" If you can't differentiate a "before" and "after" a choice, you can't say one precedes the other. Timeless events are by definition all simultaneous. Another way to spell it is all simultaneous events have "always" happened (there was no moment in time at which they had not) Default states of existence (the sum of all things that have always been) do not need a cause. That IS how you get to God himself being causeless after all.

[@ct4134]

What's your evidence of God? Look at the that moon and this mountain. What more do you want? Who do you think made them? "I don't know." See you don't know anything, it's God. Perfect, PhD for you and now you can have blessings.

[@raystephens1142]

I love these debates but…none of us, however fast talking or eloquent the arguments made may be, know why we’re here. May come apparent when the lights go out but I’m happy to wait a while and just wonder…

[@zepekit]

Do we need a reason is more the point. Thinking there needs to be a reason is why we have this nonsense in the first place.

[@firstblessings8777]

That is not true. Each person has a purpose and it up to the individual to find that purpose which is already implanted by God. For the bible clearly states that before we were born we were assigned tasks to accomplish. So saying that we don't know why we are here is a purely secular and uninformed view.

[@hamedhinston9148]

@@zepekit you do need a reason ..that’s like saying why do I need to go to work..ummmmm the reason is because you have bills to pay and family to take care off..everything in the physical world as reasons..why walk like in a blind state and be ok with it ..reasons make you look at things in a deeper light

[@thekwjiboo]

That question can go two different ways. Do you mean "why" from a perspective of intent, or do you mean "why" from a purely natural causation perspective?

[@raystephens1142]

@@firstblessings8777 if that suits you, no worries.

[@andreipastushuk362]

It's amazing how psychotic they get every time they feel their piece of bread is being questioned.

[@davidsmith7653]

What sad news today. That great friend of Christopher Hitchens, the man who he protected at risk of his own life, Mr Salman Rushdie has lost the sight in one eye and the use of one hand as a result of the horrific attack by a religious nutter some weeks ago. Hitch would be heartbroken and in some small way I'm glad he doesn't have to find out about this. I will weep on his behalf.

[@frankjackal]

Can't wait to read his next book... The barbarism of religion is always knocking on our doors. We can't rest until it's Dogma is eliminated.

[@GaryCrant]

@@frankjackal Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind (Albert Einstein)

[@nickwood8203]

@@GaryCrant a known atheist

[@GaryCrant]

@@nickwood8203 exactly

[@roems6396]

@@GaryCrant Einstein wasn’t religious. I have no idea why theists quote him to support their position. It does nothing to help their case.

[@josephharley9448]

CH is missed so badly, by so many. Yet many people are delighted he is no longer with us. I belong to the former group.

[@kathybj]

Well, Christopher isn’t an atheist anymore now , is he?!

[@billmiller3425]

Interesting that it's the "religious" people who are glad he died. Interesting isn't it? Hypocrisy at it's finest.

[@muhammad_likes_dancing]

R u dumb ? Didnt you see how he didnt adress the issues and his way of talking is not looking like he cared

[@kathyd456]

Why do you miss him so badly? Is there something lacking because he has died? I am genuinely curious. Thanks for your time.

[@melonusk6120]

@@kathyd456 he is very entertaining in his speech.

[@jasperbigdeli2434]

I love Turek's deconstruction of Hitchens' arguments at the end. Starts at 1:57:49.

[@dr.zoidberg5096]

Can you put in a time stamp?

[@dr.zoidberg5096]

Odel Schwanck Well, he stated “at the end” so it does exist. Honestly if he didn’t put the word end I would have assumed he was talking about the whole argument.

[@jhoncadalin5887]

Odel Schwanck are you even listening boi?

[@dr.zoidberg5096]

Odel Schwanck He won the argument in his introduction. Did hitchens debunk a single thing Turek said or did turek debunk hitchens entire argument in the first 30 minutes of this video? I’m pretty sure hitchens just ranted about his opinions without and scientific or logical reasoning behind it. Watch their first debate, it’s just like this one. I’m guessing you believe that something comes from nothing? Hitchens is literally sweating beads when he walks up. His first words are so ironic because he says he doesn’t argue about Santa and things that don’t exist but he’s arguing about something he thinks doesn’t exist. He just goes on about things that he doesn’t like about the God he believes doesn’t exist lol he doesn’t want proof, he just wants to do what he wants. He contracts himself constantly, he’s a very angry man.

[@shaolinshowdown1123]

@Odel Schwanck God would have to exsist for you to say that.

[@mazklassa9338]

Is this their first debate or their second one?

[@ahimsa6791]

Why does Turek always sound like he's preaching? IF I PROJECT LOUDLY, I'LL BE MORE BELIEVABLE!

[@sabin97]

the title of the video is an ill-formed question. atheism is not a philosophy, or an explanation or even a claim. it's a position on a claim, that claim being "gods(or a god) exist", and that position being "i dont believe you". that's it. there's nothing more to it. it's kinda boring to propose a debate about atheism.

[@connorjohn9256]

Couldn't agree more.

[@imthebossthere]

very well said

[@TimBurton1087]

So, then, I would argue that the question is... backwards? If a form of theism is reality, then surely by pursuing that theistic view would find reality. But if reality is void of any gods whatsoever, then atheism would find that reality more easily. I rephrase the title as such: Which is better aligned with reality? Theism or atheism? I agree 100% that atheism does not try to explain reality, and simply is a statement of 'I don't find evidence in any existence of any god, therefore I live my life as such.' However, if atheism is better aligned with reality than theism, then it would be a better lifestyle and belief system (lack thereof, rather) to have when pursuing reality and answering questions regarding it. Anything else would just be obstacles and blindfolds.

[@sabin97]

Tim Burton "it would be a better lifestyle and belief system" except atheism is not a lifestyle or a belief system. it's one position about one claim, nothing more. the claim being "one or more gods exist" and the position being "you havent shown me any evidence for accepting that claim, so i will reject it until you do". but most importantly, are you banging that blonde?

[@LFC-Star]

sabin97 Religion is an invention of people's imagination. They want a god to exist so those who believe, then convince themselves that a god exists.

[@tpstrat14]

When a Christian asks me if I believe in god, I don't give them the satisfaction of pretending it's something I ever spend time thinking about. "Well of course not" is my answer. And it's not that I don't accept the self-evidently real force of nature that clearly must exist for me to be here enunciating thoughts through a computer, but because "God" so often means the murderous, psychopathic character in the Bible. So because I ponder such a deistic-style force of nature, I do not define myself with one word. If I was going to define myself with one word, it would probably be the name given to me at birth. Two words, and it would be my first and last name. 10 words and it might get a little interesting. 100 words, more interesting still. The point being that I'm me. I will never define myself into a box. Being a non-Christian is no more important to my identity as being a non-stamp collector or a non-scuba diver.

[@erikgrundstrom4197]

Well put. Bravo.

[@igorsemaniv8924]

how self centered are you to think that it brings Christians some sort of satisfaction knowing that you believe in God? It is in your and your only interest to believe in God. Christians know they will be saved or at least hope they will be saved, so what benefit do they Get from knowing whether you believe in God or not? the only reason they ask is because they care about others, they care about your sole that's why they want you to believe. Also, that, as you said, "murderous" God loved as so much that he let his son die for us. God is not evil, evil is only possible when God steps away, bad things don't happen to you or others because God wants to, they happen because God decides to stop protecting you.

[@jamesrobbins2947]

Ouch! That's a whole lot of stupid in one comment there igor. Every sentence was either totally generalizing or totally incorrect. Grow up already. Believing in a god who is so petulant as to "step away" and "stop protecting you" says more about you than anything else. You need a big imaginary bodyguard, a bully. Anyone says anything against your god, they are punished, with rape, robbery, death, whatever, it's their own fault, right? That's why bad things happen to people, right? God "decides" to stop protecting you. You see how stupid you sound?And you weird believers wonder why us intelligent people think religion is nonsense. And to the guy above, I am also a fellow non-scuba diver!

[@igorsemaniv8924]

James Robbins you call yourself intelligent yet you believe that over time your car could assamble itself, yea my five year old niece believes in auch things too, well I guess that does make you intelligent but puts you on the same level as a 5 year old.

[@jamesrobbins2947]

Do you know what a "straw man" is?

[@thesaxonstandard2936]

Frank Turek's proposition of saying that Zeus was 'in the world' is totally false, that is not what the Hellenes believed. Zeus was the Demiurge (Craftsman) he was the creator of the heavens, cosmos and the world. Zeus was separated from the world but also in it, in that he was present in peoples lives, a persona god.

[@SupremeSquiggly]

Frank’s nonsensical gish gallop sprinkled with mined quotes is just further evidence that he doesn’t have sufficient evidence for his God.

[@marovahauhulh7054]

We have no choice but to have free will.... that's gonna resonate for a while.

[@crackory1853]

Such a profound statement

[@Vaioplayer88]

If you are forced to make a specific choice, is it still free will?

[@elliotcasson2808]

You would have to have free will in order to make the choice to have free will. God Bless🙏 Jesus Loves You❤️

[@2l84me8]

@@elliotcasson2808 That makes no sense.

[@elliotcasson2808]

@@2l84me8 exactly that’s the paradox, there is no way to choose free will

[@billyryland]

Atheism relies on material science to defend their stance against Gods reality, and they haven't succeeded yet and never will. Theism has relied on faith, belief, and emotional zealousness for their spiritual embraces, but dogma and lack of direct God contact still plagues their representation. Yogananda was once asked for his opinion regarding all claims of truth and without judgement he simply replied; "How can I give you what I have not" My understanding is How can we give what we claim we can, when we don't have what we claim we have. You cannot give TRUTH to others if you don't have TRUTH to give. Only those who live and breath TRUTH every moment of their lives can justify claiming TRUTH is. Man does not have the power to create TRUTH only to perceive It.

[@2004appjoe]

Billy Ryland ah...atheism is the disbelief of a claim....not a positive stance against god. That would create a burden of proof for the atheist. It’s simply, the theist says there’s a god, the atheist says, i don’t believe you. Atheism has no world view or anything else to say outside of a god claim. That’s like saying your disbelief in Santa creates your world view

[@spectre8533]

@@2004appjoe This is skepticism.

[@knxcholx]

28:11 “…….observable creation…..” What? I thought he believed the universe just happened to start existing at one point, after it hadn’t existed

[@PHOENIXDude57]

1:14:32- Classical Hitch

[@TruthbetoldJ146]

youtube scholars, you got to love them. There's just something about a screen that makes people think they got the answers. .

[@02jail]

mike murfree and most of them would never speak how they write here in person, cause it would show how classless they actually are.

[@kobepmusic]

Is the derisiveness really necessary though? Some, if not all, of these people are genuinely attempting to expand their thought processes. What does dismissing that based on the accessibility of the content actually accomplish? Idk bud idk

[@daemonzap1481]

@@kobepmusic Most people aren't, and for the few that are genuinely trying to expand they ask more questions than give answers.

[@lrvogt1257]

It's good to see people engaged in a serious subject regardless of their opinion.

[@francesco6757]

When u appeal to emotional your arguments are an empty box, fantastic final statement frank

[@dbarker7794]

Turek is appealing to emotion.

[@thetannernation]

@@dbarker7794 literally not even close. Did you even listen to the COSMOS acronym

[@reesehinton9544]

@@thetannernationwhich appeals to emotion but even worse, grossly misrepresents science and especially the Big Bang theory, no scientist will tell you everything exploded from nothing

[@Jeremy-of7bx]

Oh Frank- you have all the warmth and charisma of a sleazy car salesman.

[@hiimspee828]

Frank: "David Hume said that the evidence for the regular is always greater than that for the rare, so you oughtta always believe in the regular" NOT EVEN CLOSE he said that the evidence for the rare must be proportionally greater than the evidence for the regular. Very uncontroversial statement. Here's an example. I tell you I that I enjoy plays. The evidence for this does not need to be extraordinary to have the person with whom I am speaking believe me. Why? Because the claim that I enjoy plays is mundane, and I gain little by fabricating it. Now let's say that I tell you that I sleep with many A list celebrities. It could well be true but this is something that people would be MUCH more reticent to believe than the first claim. Crucially, as the importance of evidence required as the stakes of claims made increases, so does the standard to which those claims are held. And finally, let's say that I tell you that I AM THE SON OF GOD, AND AM BORN OF A VIRGIN, AND I HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO TELL YOU HOW TO LIVE THE MORAL LIFE AND THEN , BY MY DEATH, REDEEM ALL OF HUMANITY, FOR ALL TIME. The standard of evidence for such an IMMENSE claim must be such that It would be MORE difficult to believe that evidence is false. Which is obviously not a standard that the bible meets, let alone surpasses as suggested it must, by Hume.

[@rebekahy.3425]

Simon-Pierre Dupuis however there is an immense amount of evidence that God is real.

[@hiimspee828]

@@rebekahy.3425 hahaha, good one. ;)

[@rebekahy.3425]

Josh Odell I want to challenge you to go and research the other side. Many of the arguments atheists give can easily be debunked. God bless you✝️❤️

[@hiimspee828]

@@rebekahy.3425 okay, but I'm not talking about many arguments used by atheists, I'm talking about one of my own. Moreover, it is one that I think holds some weight. I'd point out, as well, that you in no way respond to my argument. You are basically interjecting with a non sequitur. I'd end with a a few words of Christopher Hitchens: "you give me the terrible impression of someone who has never heard the arguments against their position."

[@peli_candude554]

Simon-Pierre Dupuis Simon Peter. The evidence for the rare is much greater than the evidence for the normal (regular) in the case of Jesus declaring himself the Son of God according to what I've read. The witnesses alone and the volumes of testimonies that followed would be enough for most people but the number of people who died for Jesus after Jesus left the earthly plane would be considered "enormous" evidence. Would you die for enjoying a play? Abe Lincoln did but that wasn't necessarily the plan he had that evening. He probably envisioned an quiet evening reflecting on the future of his country and making things better in the coming months or years. The people who died for Jesus did so because they were convinced he was the Son of God. If belief in God was not the experience that is is for many then why would they not follow it? If the experience of belief in God is a sort of placebo effect then why haven't we found anything quite like that feeling in anything else in all of time? I can attest to seeking out other methods of feeling that sense of overwhelming peace and contentment that I never found in anything other than my belief that Jesus is who he said he is and I've been seeking that for most of my life. Maybe it all is a facade but, heck, if this isn't real then nothing else is either.

[@jerryburd3284]

Christopher Hitchens is a intellectual juggernaut and once again lays waste to another victim in the form of Frank Turek. After seeing the shellacking of Turek at the VCU debate...... at the hands of the intellectually superior wordsmith Hitchens. I was disappointed that Turek was unable to rise to the occasion and be a more formidable challenger. I however was entertained and captivated by the thrashing that Hitchens laid upon Turek. I am sure Turek is a nice man but was in way over his head.

[@unforgettablerandomtv6446]

You are just a lost soul, just like Christopher

[@Jbarack98]

@@unforgettablerandomtv6446 so many lost souls, it’s very sad, people have bought into scientific materialism.

[@firstlast5630]

Christopher Hitchens an intellectual juggernaut lmao... how much pot do you have to smoke to think that?

[@jerryburd3284]

@@firstlast5630 No pot necessary, just half a brain.

[@firstlast5630]

@@jerryburd3284 You're 100 % correct. Having half a brain is required for thinking Hitch is an intellectual juggernaut.

[@Nick_LIFF]

Hitchens doesnt actually make points, but only addresses lack of evidence and/or insults the other point. Hes gotten away with a lot of fake intellectualism for a long time, but most people are too concerned with hearing something that confirms their biases than listening to the argument itself.

[@schmetterling4477]

And there is it, again... the total lack of evidence. ;-)

[@LuciferAlmighty]

Turek never made an argument

[@metronome4670]

What a closing statement from Mr Turek. Wow!!!

[@dja-bomb6397]

Appeals to emotion can be very compelling, but that's all they are.

[@dja-bomb6397]

@Karat Kravat you don't think the atrocious things Christians have done, and are still doing today such as conversion therapy have any scriptural basis?

[@jaskoe1]

@Karat Kravat You should be embarrassed to be a Christian.

[@chrissonofpear1384]

@Karat Kravat I see it more as a chaotic mess, at times, with all kinds of loose ends, abuses, mix ups and vague verses, allowing all kinds of things. As 1 Corinthians 10 and Matthew 5:18 did. Also, we don't really have a single Christianity to attribute things to. It's not the people, so much as the system, maybe that is bad - or erratic.

[@roshanjf]

It is not fair to compare the two sacrifices .. Michael A. Monsoor actually saved lived ..

[@gerhitchman]

Jesus Christ, Frank is hard to listen to without laughing.

[@jwu1950]

Bitchens did not laugh because he knew he was losing on all the arguments. He thought conceding to a transcending moral standard and of the soul would let him get away from being humiliated by Turek but of course that only add to how pointless his arguments were. As usual, Bitchens only know how to bitch. Good that we don't have to listen to his bullshit anymore.

[@sirm0nster]

Jackie Wu you are a terrible Christian. its really laughable how nasty Christians really are all while they go around acting like they have the high moral ground.

[@jwu1950]

sirm0nster Sour loser ?

[@sirm0nster]

more christian behavior. you fill me with joy that i cannot count myself among your ranks. thank you very much for reminding me why i find theists so repulsive.

[@gerhitchman]

I wonder if Turek realizes how much of a spin doctor he is. It's so hard to tell with these preacher-types...