Debate Teacher Reacts: Frank Turek vs. David Silverman

[@AK-qc8ix]

You have to do White vs Silverman next because Silverman asked the SAME question but was given a completely different answer. It’s a great contrast.

[@AarmOZ84]

I saw James White's response to this debate and then showing his own debate with Silverman. Silverman's wind left his sails in about 3 minutes flat and he sometimes repeat questions hoping to get a rise only to get stomped on again by simple and concise answers.

[@GabrielMartinez-su8di]

I was about to say the same thing. Silverman had a completely different experience in that debate.

[@jaywright4331]

God’s sovereignty in election of people for His own glory stumped the man’s whole question.

[@cesarvigil-ruiz5324]

James White also debated Silverman on the same issue, which was a very different interaction than this one. Definitely worth checking out.

[@byronbesherse3703]

It was a really good debate but not the same issue. This debate was to be on the question "Which better explains reality" the debate with Dr. White was "Is the New Testament evil?" It was much better because both of them stayed on point much better.

[@cesarvigil-ruiz5324]

Granted, but most of what Nate looked at was their interaction on the fall and how it’s just for God to allow that to happen. Since Turek and White come at it from different perspectives, that’s where the differences appear, and I thought White handled it better overall. White himself pointed out how they answered Silverman very differently (this clip points it out: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nYayo3mAlMqphaM).

[@josemuniz_]

@@cesarvigil-ruiz5324 I was going to link this same clip😂

[@heartofalegend]

@@josemuniz_ We're all such nerds. I love it!

[@benjaminisales5386]

James White definitely did a much better job on the problem of evil

[@oldmovieman7550]

As a Christian, the moment Turek begins pulling up the video is when I facepalm and begin muttering under my breath.

[@DaysofElijah317]

I think he loves the LORD and knows how to present information, but he does not debate well and it seems he is not able to discern the crux of the issue. Using a PowerPoint and Video was very disrespectful of Silberman’s time.

[@mitromney]

​@@DaysofElijah317 what are you guys talking about? The video was under two minutes, most debaters wouldn't even finish one sentence in that time. I thought it was very smart. Silberman was interrupting him constantly it was a great way to force him to listen for a moment. Also how is it out of bounds?? Who made up that rule? People use visual presentation dyring debates all the time, they bring their own powerpoints, videos, physical books and papers they wave around, all kinds of stuff. How is this soooo bad? It made a good point about origin of evil that Silberman couldn't refute at all! What are you guys Calvinists or something? I know Nate is so I was expecting him to roll his eyes, but come on!

[@DaysofElijah317]

⁠​⁠@@mitromneyI’ve watched a lot of his other stuff and really appreciate his apologetics but we were talking about this debate which we watched at length. Also wise disciple will continually remind people they are allowed in debate to interrupt to stay on topic during cross examination the fact that Turek didn’t answer his question but launched into a power point was rude and the moderator should have stepped in and he was very condescending acting as if Silverman couldn’t follow his presentation and should y old his time to Turek. I stand by my earlier comment I know he knows the LORD and am grateful for his apologetics work but his debating isn’t strong.

[@davidryan8547]

I agree though I still disagree with Nate that Silverman made any truly good points. He contradicts himself constantly, Turek's biggest problem is he didn't properly explain how.

[@oldmovieman7550]

@@davidryan8547 yeah Silverman didn’t make any good points, but Turek could have made the best points and still lost because of this stunt

[@Mark-cd2wf]

Regarding the whole “babies with cancer” objection: The burden of proof is on the atheist (Silverman) to demonstrate that God could achieve His purposes better by allowing less suffering in the world, either natural evil (earthquakes, disease, etc.) or moral evil (murder, rape, etc.). And as an aside, how do we know how much evil and suffering God _is_ preventing in the world? Answer: we don’t. Why? _Because He’s preventing it, that’s why!_

[@nickdriscoll6131]

Why is the burden of proof on atheists to prove these things? Isn’t it the Christian who is arguing that God is good and just? What possible good does baby cancer provide? Simply saying that God prevented lots of other evil doesn’t demonstrate anything-can you show that God prevented any evil? Can you demonstrate it? Why on earth would atheists need to demonstrate any of this when they don’t even believe in God? How does this make any sense? God is making the world and He can’t achieve His good ends unless he allows baby cancer??? This makes God seem so weak to me.

[@Olott3179]

The simple answer to Silberman’s argument: if man does not have the ability to sin, then God is lying about free choice, which makes him not God. If I take someone and put them in an arena with an objective to get out of it and say these things are against the rules and give them no ability to break the rules, you cannot then break the rules. Example: you are not allowed to use a grappling hook to leave the arena but then inside the arena I don’t place the grappling hook or any of the items to create one.

[@sarastephens5832]

This was extremely difficult to watch. When I took debate in high school I struggled with not allowing my emotion to overpower my rhetoric. This video aptly portrays why learning that skill is so important.

[@areweourselves]

Yay!!! I've been eagerly waiting for your next debate reaction video lol. This is my favorite content from you. I love your informed analysis of these interactions !

[@davidryan8547]

Within about 10 seconds Silverman went from saying "we have free will" to "i don't know" in response to Turek asking how can we have free will if we are just molecules in motion.

[@hurrikanehavok7313]

That Silverman was a total interruption machine. See Frank didn’t answer because I cut him off before he can finish a sentence.

[@arcguardian]

Hard to call a winner in a debate where the subject strays so* hard and fast. If misscharacterizing Christianity was the goal Silverman won, if not directly answering questions was the goal Turek won.

[@knutolavbjrgaas1069]

Yeah, that was a mess, lol

[@legendary5733]

The problem with Silverman's question about why God didn't put the tree here instead of there. Can be the same question of why God created satan instead of not creating him that he wouldn't convince Eve to eat the fruit. I would have awnsered. It's because of free will, evil only exist because of the choices they make. If God created all beings with no choices except living with God and thinking like God. It would mean we were created to be slaves with no rights or thoughts of our own that in that context is bad. However if a living person gives up their free will because they want to reach the truth that good does exist. It's not bad, because God allowed us to think for ourselves to know where is the standard of good that we should live by. And that's God, but that requires faith in him which Adam failed because he didn't have faith.

[@drawingdragon]

With that argument, Silverman is also assuming God's omniscience is linear like our perception of time. Basically, his argument is "God could do A and nothing bad would happen, or He could do B and people go to hell. He is bad for choosing B." But why assume those are the options? Why assume Adam wouldn't have ALSO sinned at B, or assume there's no timeline in which Adam WOULD choose good at A? To say God knows Adam will sin and is therefore causing suffering by presenting the choice anyway is to assume that God is looking at a predetermined outcome in linear time; God is a timeless being as as such wouldn't share our linear perception. God doesn't just know "if A, then B will happen" - God knows every single individual possibility that COULD happen, every single split in the timeline, every flap of a butterfly's wing, all simultaneously as He exists outside of linear time itself. Why assume God's omniscience works like a man peering forward towards a predetermined end and choosing for it to happen anyway? It's a category error

[@ss-lz4me]

So in another way christians are fighting for a life without free will because free will cant exist in a place like heaven where everything is good

[@spiritandtruth4716]

*upon what basis* do you declare such and such thing to be immoral. Exactly right

[@euanthompson]

When you said you might need to start another channel to do with literature and poetic language, all I can do is quote Aron Ra. BRING IT!

[@WiseDisciple]

Lol! I'm afraid that might be too niche for KZbin. Or maybe not... hmm....

[@williamflummer3240]

I’m an English teacher and I would love that!

[@GraceAlone614]

It's rather funny and ironic that you would quote Aron Ra, in context to literature and poetic language, considering his main argument is consistently redefining words and definitions.

[@euanthompson]

@@GraceAlone614 It was less Aron himself and more the way he said "Bring it!" That were important for the comment

[@GraceAlone614]

@@euanthompson I understand that. I'm just saying it's ironic you would choose to quote Aron, out of all people.

[@Bandy1036]

Watched my first Wise Disciple video about a week ago, and I've been stuck. Thank you Nate!

[@spiritandtruth4716]

This exchange demonstrates why the reformed position on the problem of evil is the best position in my humble opinion

[@robertoesquivel4447]

Exactly!

[@timetravlin4450]

Couldn’t agree more!

[@jesuschristsaves9067]

The Bible is the best reason why the reformed position regarding evil is pure nonsense.

[@sean_fisher]

Not reformed, but I completely agree.

[@timffoster]

@@jesuschristsaves9067 Probably not. Lots of people interpret the exact same Bible in different ways. They are not all right. For this conversation to move forward, it would be beneficial if you gave specific reasons as to why the reformed interpretation of the Bible is inferior to your interpretation of the Bible. (Pro tip: expect to not get very far. Most Reformed folks are ahead of the pack when it comes to Bible knowledge and comprehension. Watch any decent debate between a reborn person and a non-reformed person, and look at Who quotes more scripture, in context. Almost without exception, it is always the reformed folks.)

[@cra231]

Turek was slapped and I'm a Christian... sorry but turek did a horrible job. James White did much better like million times better.

[@timothyAreeves]

Fascinating discussion! I need to see the entire thing.

[@jonathanthompson1761]

Could you do James White vs David Silverman? I thought White did a great job in the cross examination in that debate.

[@WiseDisciple]

I think I got that on the list! Any others you think of, let me know 😊

[@corbinyoung925]

@@WiseDisciple I think from a teaching perspective, the link that was provided above by Cesar would be interesting. In it, James White compares this debate to his own with Silverman. He basically puts just the parts of cross examination that deal with the problem of evil side by side so you can see the differences in how their theology is brought to bear on apologetics, specifically related to this topic. You could basically compare the two of them and show strengths/weaknesses, things they did right, things they did wrong, points they focused on vs points they ignored, etc.

[@chris20874]

There is no way Adam could ever prove he loves God if God did not give Adam a restriction (do not eat of the fruit). And God just made one restriction. You would never know your wife loves you if any thing she could possibly do means she loves you. Period.

[@Christian-ut2sp]

I will follow what many people are saying in the comments and recommend that you react to the debate between James White and David Silverman

[@MichaelSmith420fu]

I'm not trying to attack or offend when I point out that discussions like these technically aren't even debates. They're arguments. A debate requires a fundamentally agreed upon foundation. So discussing the nature of everything is not considered a proper debate.

[@MichaelSmith420fu]

But this kind of thing has been going on for so long that I guess it's useless for me to point out.

[@MichaelSmith420fu]

@28:55 if that's the way Frank turek actually thinks then there's nothing left to discuss because he has devised for himself a universal answer for any contention. And I'm a believer in God and not against Christians so I feel like I'm being pretty objective here.

[@MichaelSmith420fu]

It's actually funny for me because I formed similar talking points that Tuerk is using here. I didn't use them for very long tho...lol

[@matthewmanucci]

Authority and standard can and should be understood as interchangable terms in this context. Not a huge Turek fan, but he is right on the money here during the first part at least.

[@thebookofeli2543]

Woohoo! Another one. I've been waiting for this

[@brando3342]

I was right. This was a disaster. They spoke past each other the whole time lol

[@arcguardian]

When is that not the case?

[@AslanRising]

When the video Turek played said without choice there can be no freedom, does he mean eternal choice, that is the ability to choose one or the other, or does he mean the offer of more than one option? Furthermore, if choice is essential to freed will does not it follow that infinite choice is necessary? And yet it is clear not only do we not have infinite choices (offers), but we have often two; the broad road or the narrow road.

[@Bvoorhis03]

This has been a great channel to find recently, thanks for the content

[@songoku3046]

Please react also to James White and David Silverman debate. You would see the difference how James White answered the same question that David asked Turek.

[@timffoster]

I "liked" the video before I started watching. I wasn't disappointed. Keep up the good work, guys!

[@WiseDisciple]

Thanks so much for continuing to watch, Tim! 😊

[@chaching4809]

Awesome video, Nate. Would recommend you do a video of D’Souza vs Hitchens, great debate. D’Souza sure is good on his feet.

[@WiseDisciple]

Excellent, I'll add it to the list! Thank you, and thanks for watching 😊

[@SimpleCivil]

Turek and Silverman are meant for each other. They both come across as pretty annoying.

[@robinrobyn1714]

Silverman is pretty annoying!!

[@WiseDisciple]

👀

[@SimpleCivil]

@@robinrobyn1714 you’re right Silverman is annoying. Turek comes across as an arrogant prick

[@dperkins01]

@@robinrobyn1714 according to you

[@robinrobyn1714]

@@dperkins01 According to you. Exactly.

[@DanielApologetics]

My goodness, this was a mess!

[@ericmnr]

The problem with most of the debates between theists and atheist is that every single one of them both of them they are talking about a different God. One with orange and the other one talking about apples.

[@euanthompson]

This debate perfectly sums up why I don't like Frank Turek that much. He didn't answer the question of natural evil. There are good defenses, but the free will argument only works if the cancer is man made, which most are not and especially not in babies. Silverman won the debate on that alone, even with the blatant worldview smuggling. Really neither of them won the debate. Just Silverman didn't do as badly.

[@drawingdragon]

He did answer the question actually, just very unclearly to anyone who doesn't already understand Christian beliefs about sin nature. Yes, cancer IS a result of man's free will - but not a 1 to 1 "I choose to have cancer" like Silverman is framing his response. God gave Adam free will, and Adam chose sin. "By one man sin entered into the world." Adam made a bad decision that led to not only sin entering the earth, but death entering the world, as "the wages of sin is death." Part of this curse of sin takes the form of disease and mutation - such as cancer. The universe is in a constant state of decay and entropy, and every generation is born with more mutation than the one before. Cancer is just one form that the constant state of decay and disease takes, one that we (rightfully) recognize to be extremely tragic. So man's choice DID lead to babies being born with cancer. That doesn't mean it was 1 to 1 direct action with obvious consequence; just like choosing to drive a car might inadvertently lead to an accident, the possibility of evil outcomes were present, but that doesn't mean you intentionally agreed to them. And even that allegory is flawed because it already ASSUMES the existence of evil (death, suffering, violence, etc.)

[@emmanuelginikanwa283]

The question was answered very clearly...CLEARLY babies having cancer is a consequence of man's sin reflected in heredity. Silverman is blowing hot air going round the same talking point. That's a sign he's not a Christian

[@euanthompson]

@@emmanuelginikanwa283 can you and drawingdragon knock heads and work out whether he was clear or unclear and then come back to me on it?

[@TheHcjfctc]

I recently got my masters and in one of my last classes I was presented with a study that was done that found that the choices of our ancestors affected their dna which then affected the dna of their descendants. I found this fascinating because it could show that such things like childhood cancer actually could be the consequence of the choices of our ancestors that made the child susceptible to cancer.

[@oldmovieman7550]

You really should react to Silverman vs White. Shows a vastly different approach and I think demonstrates the superiority of the presuppositional approach.

[@daves.d.6326]

The fundamental reason for that mess is because Turek is a molinist, which is not a biblical position. And that's why things have gone so differently when James White debated Silverman.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

How would you then defend Silvermans charge that God did make everyone do evil stuff?

[@daves.d.6326]

God has eternally decreed to glorify Himself by extending grace to some through Christ and exercising justice over others. Therefore, He has decided to glorify Himself through the demonstration of His mercy and His justice. God wanted to demonstrate all of His attributes and to do that, He had to create in such a way where evil would exist so that we could even be acquainted with and experience His attributes that act as a remedy to evil. Our flesh may not like that answer, but that's the biblical answer. The Bible says that our God is in the heavens & He does whatever He pleases, there is nothing that He's decided to do that violates His eternal holy, holy, holy nature, period.

[@robertoesquivel4447]

@@daves.d.6326 Amen

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

@@daves.d.6326 I think Silverman would agree with that and declare victory.

[@daves.d.6326]

@@WhatsTheTakeaway He can do all the theatrics and declare whatever he wants, but the truth shall always prevail in the end. Watch his debate with James White, he got cooked. Turek makes us Christians look bad, coming across aa scared or ashamed to proclaim what Scripture teaches. He's leaning on his own wisdom and is left looking like a fool for it.

[@gregariousguru]

The main point is, however, if you believe that morality is relative, then your moral condemnation of God or the bible carries no weight.

[@Christendom88]

Christian here. It's cringey when Turek treats these debates like one of this lectures and Q&A sessions of his book tours. Debates are not lectures. Bring your statements and ideas to the debate, not your PowerPoint presentation.

[@Horaciojonesjr]

Frank says “god couldn’t create a place where sin couldn’t happen…” what’s heaven?

[@drawingdragon]

Heaven is the state where God and His angels, spiritual beings who arent made in His image, reside. I believe you're probably referring to the New Earth, but even then it doesn't necessarily follow that the New Earth will be sinless and therefore the current earth should have been. If the purpose of free will was to create beings in His image with the capacity to choose good and love Him freely, and the New Earth is the promised home for believers who DID make that decision to love Him with their own free will, already the New Earth is starting with a different premise entirely; it doesn't exist in a vacuum, but instead as a "reward" for the humans who DID use their free will to choose to love God.

[@FoneyBone1]

I would very much like to see you react to a Tovia Singer debate. I don't know which would be best, the only one I've seen is with R L Solberg, but any would be appreciated.

[@WiseDisciple]

Thank you for the suggestion! I'll add it to the list 😊

[@jamesn7711]

I am surprised Turek did not have a better answer to the question of evil. This is the most expected question and is reasonably answerable in the Christian worldview.

[@JRey-re9rl]

He’s not unique. Non-Calvinist usually answer the same way. They don’t want to bit the bullet if their position.

[@uview1]

Turek using a video to say what he could verbalize himself? Stupid stupid stupid. Not to mention the freewill idea fails when it comes against God's will. God gets His way regardless of what one thinks they can choose. Turek was a weak defender of Truth in this discussion.

[@StraitCleaning]

I’d like to see a reaction to the debate between Patrick Madrid and James White on Sola Scriptura (Pints with Aquinas hosts the video; it’s audio only but really good, and gets heated).

[@AslanRising]

Again, if Turek is right that God cannot make a world where no one sinned, then God cannot put an end to suffering because He'd always be at the mercy of mans free will.

[@lawrence1318]

The answer to the dilemma you pose is that anyone who is not God is a sinner by definition. So Adam was a sinner before he ate from the tree. That is in fact why he ate.

[@AslanRising]

@@lawrence1318 wrong. Adam was created with the ability to sin, and the ability not to sin. In glory we shall be able to not sin, and unable to sin.

[@lawrence1318]

@@AslanRising No. Adam sinned because he was a sinner.

[@AslanRising]

@@lawrence1318 no sir, you are wrong. Ecclesiastes 7:29, Genesis 1:31,...

[@lawrence1318]

@@AslanRising Adam proved he was a sinner by sinning. That's how it works.

[@Beth-eb7nu]

Arminians can't defend the soveriegnty of God because of their wrong conception of Biblical human free will.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

Just because I know that my daughter will eat a cookie if I leave it on the counter, does not mean I CAUSED her to eat the cookie.

[@sebaquesadilla]

I do have two things to add to this thought. I personally would argue that you were responsible if you chose exactly what your daughter's life would before causing her to begin existing. But let's stick with your current comment. What if it wasn't some one-off sweet treat no one cares about? What if it were rat poison? Certainly I didn't cause her to eat the rat poison, but I would be held responsible for helping create a dangerous situation for those in my care. Personally, I think responsibility is important in this scenario.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

@@sebaquesadilla But I didn't choose it and neither did God. If I leave my safety deposit box open and turn my back, am I responsible for my stuff getting stolen, considering I know that things can get stolen from my open safety deposit box? Do I get arrested as an accomplice? Or does the thief go to jail? Ok, I inadvertantly poison my daughter. Yes, I would be help responsible because my child is not at the age of accountability. If she were 25, I wouldn't be, because she was old enough to know better. God is not responsible for our decisions, just as I am not responsible for anyone else's decisions.

[@arcguardian]

@@WhatsTheTakeaway why is this so hard for ppl to grasp?

[@spiritandtruth4716]

@@arcguardian it doesn’t deal with the scriptural teaching or the philosophical problem of the nature of God’s knowledge. Silverman was correct in asking the question. Another way to think about it is “if God knows with certainty what are you going to do, are you free to do otherwise?”

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

@@spiritandtruth4716 Foreknowledge is not causal. Trying to rope molinism into calvinism is not going to work

[@AslanRising]

I think on the question of evil, specifically suffering of humans, Christians (of which I am one), need to own a crucial truth; we are quite literally the property of Another, namely God. God may do with us what He pleases. He gives life and He taks life. He uses, from the same lump, some for the glory of His grace and others the glory of His wrath. The reason we do not like this is because we will to be masters of our own life, we wish to be autonomous, in other words we wish to be God. When we as Christians fail to reason from these truths, we cut the limb we sit on, and aid and abett satan and his children. We cannot escape that if there is a God, He may do what pleases Him with us, and since a stream can't rise above its source, we can't say we are more good then Him.

[@nem2gz]

Need that Dyer vs Dillahunty

[@NessaNZ]

If someone asked you 'If there is an all powerful, good God then why does my baby have cancer?' what would you say?

[@sidequestingwithtimberfox1263]

Turek is hit or miss, but this was like watching some lost episode of The Office where Michael Scott insists he can debate and challenges a rival company. Michael Scott would totally cut to videos and slides for no reason and declare “we are just getting started” at the end. 🤦‍♂️

[@kaylachristian238]

I would love and hate to watch an episode where Michael and Dwight are on the same debate team

[@jeremyparker5660]

I'm not a debate pro or anything, but it seemed like Turek was on his back foot the entire time. "I don't want to watch a video, I want you to answer the question" was exactly right. I like Turek as a person, I think he's smart, I think he's right mostly, but in a debate I think he's good for a few one-liners and not a substantive, focused conversation. I would guess he's probably a better writer, where he has time to organize and structure his arguments.

[@JRey-re9rl]

He’s not a good apologist, then. If he makes his living by training people to defend their faith, but he can’t do it himself, he needs another line of work.

[@ekynosky192]

I'm a Christian, but I think Silverman won this argument logically, even though I don't agree with him on a deeper note.

[@6.0hhh]

Could you please do James White and David Silverman?

[@wmcelwee]

Turek needed to point out that in order for love to exist, Adam and Eve had to have the opportunity to eat the fruit. If the tree was inaccessible then we would need the robots from Turek's admittedly regrettable video.

[@JRey-re9rl]

I have heard this argument over and over again. Where did you get it from? And, why do you think it’s true and convincing?

[@raybo632]

When it comes to asking the question of why God allowed evil in the first place, you Have to embrace Reformed Theology. You have to understand the Sovereignty of God, Frank Turek is not from Reformed in his Theology. James White vs Silverman was different because James White is Reformed in theology. Notice the difference between Reformed and not Reformed. James White understands the Sovereignty of God revealed in Holy Scripture.

[@ladillalegos]

How is Silverman going to have the “upper hand” when all he is saying are “Straw man” nobody is saying that God “needs” babies with cancer, And if he knew a little bit about what we believe he would know that God doesn’t send you to hell (unless you are a fatalist Calvinist) but the reason people go to hell is because they sin and rejected God’s Grace

[@WorldviewWarriors]

James White did SOO much better of a job against Silverman.

[@realmichaelteo]

The irony is that Turek's KZbin channel is called "Cross Examined"

[@mloney9772]

How did God resolve sin? He sent His Son essentially Himself to live the perfect human experience and the die a brutal death and then conquer death through the resurrection. The real question is why did God create what He loved knowing they would reject Him and He what have to suffer and die for them. Love is the answer and perfect love is something I am looking forward to seeing.

[@JustifiedNonetheless]

It's so weird to me to see people who do not believe in moral objectivity attempting to make a moral argument. If there is no objective morality, then under what basis is any objection made? It would seem that the only grounds are essentially, "I don't like it," or "we, as a group, don't like it," to which the dissenter can simply respond, "so what?" If one begins with the premise that there is no objective morality, then one's argument against slavery, for example, has no teeth because someone else can disagree with you; and you have no means by which to demonstrate the flaw in the opposing party's logic. You've already conceded that morality is subjective; and from that individual's perspective, their actions _are_ moral. However, that doesn't stop people from making moral arguments anyway. "Slavery is evil!" "Bigotry is evil!" "This is evil!" "That is evil!" Evil according _to whom?_ Based on what _metric_ Who determined that metric? On what _basis?_ On whose _authority?_ How do we know that is the "right" view? It all becomes meaningless, which makes these moral high ground fallacies all the more laughable. It's not that these individuals aren't _able_ to act morally. It's not that I _disagree_ with their assessments as to which actions are moral, which are immoral, and which are amoral and cannot be judged on a moral basis. Rather, it's that if there is no objective morality, they cannot cannot *justify* their moral assessments beyond, "I don't like it," which isn't a compelling argument because it sounds like petulant child's argument. Even if we agree that certain acts are immoral, if one is to convince a dissenter of this, one needs a better argument than a toddler's "I don' 'wike' it!," and, as best as I can tell, you can't get to a better argument without an objective standard.

[@ss-lz4me]

How do you decide if something is morally right or wrong? It will always just be an opinion. That is why countries are often at war, because we do not share the same values and morals. If everything were objective, there would be peace on earth because there would be nothing to argue about

[@tonyisnotdead]

@@ss-lz4me countries are not often at war, and countries go to war for resources, not because they think another country is being very immoral

[@ss-lz4me]

@@tonyisnotdead They justify it under the name of god....

[@JustifiedNonetheless]

@ss-lz4me Your argument demonstrates only that there is disagreement as to what is (im)moral--not that a moral objectivity doesn't *exist.* I would like to think that we can agree that an objective _truth_ exists. That which is objectively true (ie, conforms to reality) is true regardless of anyone's desire to the contrary, attempts to prove otherwise, or motives for doing so; what is, *_IS._* Yet, this doesn't prevent or even dissuade people from making such attempts to prove otherwise. Why would morality be any different? It would seem to me that a moral objectivity can *exist,* and that this would neither prevent nor dissuade people from attempting to argue otherwise.

[@ss-lz4me]

@@JustifiedNonetheless How are 7 billion people supposed to figure out what is morally objective. everything about morality in the bible can be interpreted however you want it to be. I can personally have all 10 commandments justified in all my actions. If morality were objective then we would not be able to abuse it. So if it's true what you say that there is a moral "truth" then we act based on some moral principles we don't actually know about before we die. Which means that everyone's chances in the world of going to heaven or hell are 50/50.

[@reedhendges2094]

The argument of “why did God put the tree here instead of over there” that’s just not relevant at all. If humans were given free will then there had to be at least rule they had the free will to choose not to break so either it was a tree here or a tree they had to invent a ladder to reach, it doesn’t matter one bit the rule was gonna be broken eventually it was just a matter of when

[@MinisterRoy205]

In other debates, silverman lies about the psalms. It made it extremely difficult to watch him anywhere else.

[@maleanewborn9073]

Every debate I’ve seen, it always comes back to the atheist showing the anger they obviously hold towards God. They always wanna know why bad things happen and why kids die etc and the truth is because His will be done. He can do as He pleases. And also because he’ll is so so awful, God uses anything and everything to bring people to repentance! And we do not know why some things happen exactly, we trust that God does though! And they never give credit to man’s free will and satans influence. God gets blamed for the sin of others. We do not and never will have all the answers to this question besides for His glory, and for our repentance

[@timothyvenable3336]

Can you do inspiring philosophy and Marcus Ross debate on evolution and creation??

[@WiseDisciple]

Thank you for the suggestion! I'll add it to the list 😊

[@MichaelSmith420fu]

The fact is that everything foundationally gets filtered through our subjectivity. Frank Turek, just like anyone else, believes in God because he subjectively believes that it is good.

[@chris20874]

Silverman is saying why didn't God keep us in the garden after the fall. All the disasters is because ALL of creation is under a curse. Also the devil is the god of this world and he comes only to steal, kill and destroy.

[@nickdriscoll6131]

I don't imagine anyone will respond to this, but I just wanted to write a little bit about the free will problem and some other aspects of this debate and discussion that I found frustrating. One thing I found a bit frustrating was the criticism of the atheist for mischaracterizing Christianity. I think it's frustrating just because Christians have a lot of different teachings, and so I think it can be easy to just say that the atheist got it wrong for whatever teaching they are critiquing because they didn't use the particular understanding that you hold to, or they don't accept the idea that in the end God is good in all His decisions (which of course is going to be a Christian teaching) or something like that. Of course an atheist is not going to fully buy in to all the Christian teachings when they go into these things--that's why they are an atheist--but they also can't operate on and know about every Christian understanding of scripture either. There are a lot of different explanations, and a lot of those explanations come down to "God is bigger than us so He could have a good reason", which can feel really insubstantial. About free will, I find one of the biggest frustrations with this discussion is just... if God made everything, He basically decided everything in advance. I don't mean just because He knows everything that will happen. He MADE everything. He made every part of me. My likes. My desires. My strengths. My weaknesses. He made the parts of me that give me patience or make me mad. He made my stamina, my level of intelligence. He made my ability to feel pain. All the DNA of my being. And not just me, but everyone else--everyTHING else. Silverman has a point here, in that God put that tree there--but also EVERY OTHER THING, both physical and mental and spiritual, and knew exactly how they would work amongst each other, and also He made the time itself. AND He put SATAN THERE. How could anyone get through that gauntlet? How much can we even understand of what we are doing, even in the best of circumstances? But God understands every little piece, planned every little piece. How can He blame us when He knows us to that degree and planned things out to that degree? It seems so bizarre to me, and I am a Christian. I just struggle to believe and trust these things. We live in a world where everyone chooses evil now. It seems pretty obvious that God could've made a world where everyone chooses good with just as much freedom. Heaven is such a place, is it not? Most of the angels choose good, do they not? Is Heaven not as good as earth? I don't know, this discussion is so frustrating.

[@krystallos81]

These kind of debates are hard for me because they’re yelling constantly. I get the passion, but they really need to relax.

[@austinapologetics2023]

This was one of the first debates I watched and looking back it's one of the least intellectually stimulating. But on the bright side, what it lacks in intellectual depth it makes up for in entertainment value.

[@onejotter]

Turek was on autopilot. He has the answer, he was not communicating it clearly.

[@faithandfailures]

24:31 God desires for us to not send. But he leaves that decision up to us.

[@matswessling6600]

interesting. The wise guy obviously doesnt understand what "taking responsibility" (4:40) means. It does not require any god or governement. It means that the bucks stands with you.

[@MrAgonizomai]

“If God is omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, why does he need babies to be born with cancer?” The correct response should include, “Wait, what? Do you seriously believe those are the sole relevant factors? And do you seriously expect to understand God’s good, pleasing and perfect will in all situations? The problem is not mine (it may be yours, or it may just be a red herring you’ve decided to lay across the trail). If you want an answer to that question, take it up with the one who IS the answer. He hasn’t told me the answer, because it’s not in the Bible. I don’t have that answer. It’s beyond my pay grade until I get to heaven.”

[@DJB3NNYB]

On the substance I agree more with Silverman, on rhetoric I think Turek won because it was easier for Turek to preach to the choir since this debate took place in a church and Silverman kept walking into Turek’s trap on objective morality. It’s the same problem as the Turek vs. Hitchens debate, the moment you speak in moral terms against Turek’s “By what standard” argument, Turek wins. What Silverman (and Hitchens) should have done is challenge the notion that God is necessary for believing objective morality with something like Euthyphro dilemma rather than going on a tangent on biblical stories and nazi’s. Overall this debate was particularly a mess as both sides wound up going way off topic from the original debate prompt.

[@fredkison6400]

I would suggest that people like Silverman fall into a new moral and ethics category, Govermentalism. Government dictates what Silverman believes at any given time, whatever government states to be true, then that view is the one he uses an anytime based on their authority. Which is wholly human and secular! Subjectively moralism is objective morality to those that believe the government is their source!!!

[@tonyisnotdead]

that's legalism and legalism is something independent of non-religious morality

[@jamesjoseph4373]

At the end of the day, God put the tree there because if there was nothing to temp them, there would only be an illusion of free will. In order to test free will there has to be a choice of both good and bad.

[@ss7cindersh]

If we are going to have free will, the ability to make choices and in particular to choose God. Unfortunately that requires something be set in place for that choice to be made.

[@georgecintron9329]

Is this what it comes down to in life. Who won the debate 🤔

[@zzzzppppooooo]

Can you react to Jay Dyer vs Trent Horn? 🔥 🔥

[@WiseDisciple]

It's on the list, for sure!

[@AslanRising]

I hate the free will argument for evil; taken to its logical conclusion, it means sin is possible in heaven, it means that when God created mans "free will", He created it not knowing exactly what He created, because like code, like a program, things don't just happen. And of course free will in the this sense denies the clear teaching if Scripture that our wills are enslaved to sin, and thus cannot choose good unto salvation. All sound Christians believe in federal headship of Adam, and yet on this issue, many seem to deny it. Adam was mankinds representative, and because he failed, we are all born with wills enslaved to sin. This theme is throughout all of Scripture. And so, free will in the sense of the ability to choose good (purely) does not exist, period. Otherwise we'd have a humanity capable of what Adam failed at, and yet Scripture says Jesus is the 2nd Adam, not Adams posterity.

[@AslanRising]

If people are the cause of suffering, and free will demands the choice of good or evil, how CAN God put an end to suffering without violating mans so called free will? If man free will demands choice, as just stated, then this new world of an end to suffering cannot be insured for eternity is a long time and certainly someone will eventually make a choice to sin thus causing suffering. It seems to me this definition of free will results in an a God who bows to man and can never truly put an end to suffering.

[@marchess286]

actually, Silverman shows he doesn't understand the term, "objective morality" when he says morality is "relative", not "objective". Morality can be both objective and relative.

[@chiamtateng1973]

The tree must be there in the Garden of Eden for Adam to be able to truly free. Ant are free animal, it can walk in any direction it so chooses. Birds are free animals, it can choose to eat strawberry or apple when these two fruits are there for it. But their choice does not make much impact in their life and thus, they cannot love God. If Adam could only makes choices like animals then he could not love God. The Tree makes Adam choices great because the consequences of obedient or disobedient is unthinkable. If Adam succeeded in the Garden we will all born without sin. But He failed. We all are born with his sin in us. It took this must for Adam to be able to love God according to God's desire.

[@epxroot76]

Wouldnt a proper response to the whole tree discussion is to point out silverman is assuming God doesnt have a plan from the beginning, which would give reason to why God placed the tree where he did?

[@Epyrian04]

If the Satanist hadn't interrupted Turek continuously, he would have heard the answer which would have caused him to lose--which is why he spoke over the answer.

[@ekynosky192]

Lucifer sinned even where there was no tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

[@jdees4]

Turek is such a goofball, I love him

[@smitty73739]

In response to Silverman's question about why God allows babies to suffer from cancer, despite being all-powerful and all-good, Christians believe that God's omnipotence and benevolence mean that any suffering a baby experiences in this life will be ultimately healed and redeemed in the afterlife. The assumption that God directly causes cancer is not necessarily accurate within the Christian perspective. Instead, Christians attribute all imperfections and brokenness to sin and view God as the sole path to restoration and wholeness. While some atheists view this belief as a coping mechanism, it raises the question of why atheists would choose a worldview devoid of hope and justice if Christianity offers the possibility of both. Even if atheists don't believe in God, the idea that a benevolent deity might exist and could make things right in the end remains a possibility. So, why not consider that idea rather than rejecting it outright? In reality, many people do adopt a belief in some form of higher power or gods. However, Christianity stands apart because of its central figure, Jesus Christ. His historical existence, death, and resurrection are unique. The claim that Jesus not only existed but also rose from the dead and is very much alive today is extraordinary. If this claim were false, it would likely have been disproven by now, especially by Jewish scholars and other historians. This unique aspect of the Christian faith provides believers with a certain hope of eternal life through faith in Jesus as their Savior and the forgiver of their sins.

[@timsabo4153]

I watched this debate a while ago and really didn't care for Turek's performance. He doesn't seem to be able to think on his feet and respond to tough questions he hasn't faced before. He spends a lot of time fielding the same set of questions from college students who are regurgitating the same old talking points. Silverman comes off as bitter, not making any real points other than God is mean. I remember finding Christopher Hitchens to be a good debater until I realized he was just expressing his disappointment with the job God was doing.🙄

[@martinharrison7536]

What is this guy talking about being confused with you need to take responsibility for your actions ! Who else is supposed to as a human being . If you have a gambling addiction, drug addiction , don’t test you family right , anything that needs to improve. How can anything that needs to be improved be improved if you’re not taking responsibility for your actions. I mean it’s a common sense human fundamental lol. Whether you use God for this or common sense is just semantics.

[@euanthompson]

I have seen people bring up videos in debates on Modern Day Debate. I hate it.

[@5crownsoutreach]

This mess that you mentioned their interaction turned into really should have been directed better by the moderator.

[@user-ih6sj9ck4g]

God put the tree there but in order to have a human worship God freely upon his own will, He has to allow man to exercise that free will in order to produce the genuine worship God designed to take place; worship that glorifies God but also for the good of man (..an added blessing that God didn't have to tac on). God knew man would fall due to the temptation of the enemy, but that doesn't stop God to follow through fixing what man messed up so that genuine worship (that also benefits man) can still be fulfilled. God made the tree, God made man, God made free will for willful worship, God sacrificially fixes what man breaks, God continues the production of willful worship. Because of the fall, sin enters every area of life, including babies with life threatening problems. He knows about them, He allows some to perish, but if God has showed us the length He will go to redeem man to continue willful worship, how can we think for a moment He does not have a plan for that baby that didn't make it? Sin is what we allowed, it's our fault even though He knew it was going to happen prior to it happening. It's a sober reminder of what we allowed, but so is God's power to make something good come out of such horrors we ushered in. Just because you can't "figure-it-all-out" doesn't mean God is absent in said horrors. If He is powerful enough to keep our solar system precisely in tact just as it is so that we can sustain life on earth while maintaining ur constant breathing as you happily rest at night, He is more than powerful enough to make something good come from what we perceive as a hopeless and futile horror. Are not His mercies new every morning? Great is thy faithfulness, whether we face sunshine or the darkness.

[@chi3knees]

Oh my.. thank you Dr. James White for righting this wrong lol

[@whitebeardInn]

Turek didn't do so well; neither did Silverman, but he did do better. Debates (of which I've only seen a few) seem like a waste of time. Nothing is ever settled and no mind is ever changed. When I tell people about the gospel, I present it and answer questions, until they start asking the far out crazy questions, because I don't dance in circle nor argue with anyone. If the unbeliever wants to "win" and prove their point, then it's okay, buddy, you won, see you on judgement day! Jesus nor the apostles ever forced anyone to listen to the gospel.

[@tinfacesful]

But there is no Freedom without choice, God gave Adam & Eve choice to be truly free. I think God can still be surprised & delighted by our actions even if he knows the ultimate outcome

[@johnwilliamson8327]

So at some point are you going to address White vs Van Kleek?

[@WiseDisciple]

I'll add that to the list! Thank you, John 😊

[@aaronpearson2168]

“Long Island?!” Frank might be insulted, as he is from Jersey.

[@JRey-re9rl]

Stinky Jersey!

[@aaronpearson2168]

@@JRey-re9rl 😂

[@maleanewborn9073]

Btw, i dont know if a hitler used Fods name to do these things or not, but he was a pretty open occultist who followed psychics and numerology and black magic and did all manner of dark rituals and satanism. Why do people NOT talk about this? But try so hard to attach Gods name to it.

[@TheHcjfctc]

Hitler did not use the name of God. In fact, he was quite fascinated with Darwin and survival of the fittest hence the push for a master race. I haven’t heard much about occult stuff though. I’m not sure many people know of that in order to bring it up.

[@jerichosharman470]

I really liked this debate. Both of them were informed and playful. Frank often got the points however is missing the fundamentals which is common for believers

[@martinharrison7536]

Another point Christians don’t get is the claim atheists don’t have a moral foundation because you need to believe in god to have one . Which magically makes a Christian moral . Christians do this because they believe that what their god wants and want to please him and get an eternity in heaven . But an atheist who is a good person believes in being a moral human just for the sake of being good with or without a reward. So looking at that , who is really the moral person ?

[@drawingdragon]

What is morality? Assuming you're a materialist (which is an assumption admittedly, but I think it's the only logically consistent way to be a true atheist) and don't believe in the supernatural, then morality must be founded in nature. But since morality is a concept and not physical, it cannot be materialistic. Therefore it must not exist objectively, and therefore can only exist subjectively. If morality is defined by human beings, then it is both subjective and arbitrary, as human beings tend to disagree and change their opinions. If tomorrow every human being woke up and decided murder was morally good, would it become morally good? I've never heard a Christian argue that atheists are inherently more immoral than Christians, or that they are incapable of knowing morality. If anyone HAS made those arguments, they're not very smart. What I believe you're referring to is the argument that atheists do not have an explanation FOR morality, as their worldview must assume it's subjective. Theists believe God is the standard of morality, the Cosmic "Judge" of sorts by which we are held accountable, as He is supernatural and unchanging. God isn't just the giver of morality, He IS morality personified, the reason we live in a moral reality. To say Christians "only" do moral good because they believe in God, why assume this is somehow morally evil in comparison to someone who does it in the absence of God? Let's say you're presented with the question, "Why didn't you steal that money when you wanted to?" Both the atheist and the Christian would answer that stealing is wrong. But if presented with a second question "How do you know it is wrong?" Or "Where did you learn that stealing is wrong?" the Christian would answer that it is wrong according to God's standard of morality. What would the atheist answer? If morality is subjective, determined by social contract among humans, then the morality would be learned by social contract - taught to you by your parents, your society, the law, and so on. You still learned it from somewhere. How you found out about stealing being wrong doesn't change whether stealing is wrong or not. As easily as you can say "You're just doing right because God told you to", Christians could say "you're just doing right because society taught you to" or "your parents taught you to" or "the law conditioned you to" or even just "your own personal emotional state encouraged you to." Why are any of those things more valid as reason, especially if morality is subjective?

[@TheHcjfctc]

It’s not that atheists can’t be moral and do good things, but there is nothing to provide them with objective morality. Christians are not the only ones with a source that can provide objective morality, but atheists are not one of the groups that can claim that.