Eli Ayala Presuppositionalist, Is there reason to believe in God

[@8044868]

"Presuppositional apologetics doesn't engage a tit for tat argument over evidence." What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. Christopher Hitchens A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. David Hume

[@snaptrap5558]

6:20 The fact that he doesn't define slavery as immoral yet the majority of the civilized world does is excellent evidence that the Bible is not true. Genesis states that God made man in His own image, and that humanity inherently has knowledge of good and evil. Thus, humans should innately have the same standard of good and evil. Eli does not share this knowledge, thus the Bible is false.

[@scottbroadfoot3530]

Presups argument is. I don't have any arguments or reasons so I presuppose because I am dumb.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it;s basically putting their fingers in their ears and going "nya nya nya"

[@Brynbraughton]

That's an ad hominem with no substance whatsoever to it. I think it's better to treat ideas with at least enough respect to actually critique it rather than mock.

[@scottbroadfoot3530]

@@Brynbraughton unless that idea leads to child abuse, endorses slavery and encourages misogynistic attitudes. Your religion is evil by its very merits.

[@richardb7495]

Agreed. I will make fun of beliefs and ideas all day long it’s not an ad hominem 😂

[@Brynbraughton]

@@richardb7495 I'm absolutely positive you are not capable of explaining what presuppositionalists believe about worldviews..

[@aparz617]

“Killing babies is always wrong.” “That’s not my moral intuition.” “No shit. That’s why you’re a Christian.”

[@julierunnells7564]

I think it’s the Christian psychological manipulating technique which distort their moral intuititions. I think they probably start out with the ability to perceive moral reasoning but the religion beats it out of them with repetition and gaslighting.

[@MarkLeBay]

14:40 Even if you presuppose that God is the standard for morality, we’re still stuck. What standard for morality can we use to recognize God? Without an independent moral standard, how do we know a commandment is from God and not a super powerful mischief-maker?

[@TremendousSax]

Excellent point. This is one of the fundamental drawbacks of the presup approach. It all relies on the ability to accurately determine when revelation occurs assuming that such a thing ever does occur. It's also unknowable for a presupper to argue against similar claims by competing religions. For instance, a Jewish or Hindu apologist could make the same claims as the Christian and there's no method for adjudicating their theological disputes.

[@sysstemlord]

Tjump's logic and fast thinking is unbeatable as always, but I honestly like this Eli, he's very good for a presup. Also he seems nice and I wouldn't mind hearing him talk some more.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

he'd still be one of those "nice" christians who would bring back the inquisition if he could get away with it, look at his face, he delights in telling tjump god can do whatever he please and it will be "moral". anyone who makes excuses for anyone else's immorality, even god, is not "nice", they are camp guards.

[@sysstemlord]

@@HarryNicNicholas I agree this seems dickish but I highly doubt he actually believes this, I think he said it because there is no logical response to it, only an emotional one, and therefore he saved his ass. I honestly didn't think much about that when I wrote my comment but I liked his response in the end regarding the inability to prove the Christian worldview to someone who doesn't accept omni properties. The dude is definitely smart, and even though he uses low blows in his arguments he still seems nice overall.

[@BertRussell4711]

@@sysstemlord Do you think your admiration for Eli says more about him, or about you? "Very good for a presup" is like saying "very good for a -used car salesman- bullshit artist." Not exactly high praise.

[@sysstemlord]

@@BertRussell4711 Why what's wrong with being good for a used car salesmen?

[@BertRussell4711]

@@sysstemlord Good deflection. I can see why you like Eli so much.

[@philharris5848]

As with virtually all believers in God, the entire time is spent with TJ having to answer one obscured theoretical question after another. In doing so they neatly avoid providing any supportive evidence for the existence of God. When they are asked a direct question they never give a clear answer. They always go off on a tangent, "How do we know we exist?" If people refuse to answer straight forward questions like "What evidence do you have for God?" The whole conversation becomes a total waste of time. At the end he has the cheek so he says he can't give any coherent answers because he doesn't fully understand TJ's position.

[@sicmetal]

What evidence do you have that reason exists? By answering the question, you have already demonstrated it existence. It’s a transcendental necessity. But you need to understand something very important about the Christian worldview. Evidence is not the basis for faith in God. God isn’t a science experiment that can be concluded with evidence. You’re holding to a worldview of scientism, and it’s a silly and incoherent worldview.

[@TremendousSax]

​@@sicmetal still waiting for you to establish the ontology of your chosen flavor of God. Except you won't be able to do so convincingly because it comes down to "ancient humans said so" and "trust me, bro".

[@mikeekim242]

If this guy had any evidence that his, or any god existed he wouldn't need to BS like this, he could just demonstrate his claim.

[@rabbitpirate]

Presups like to insist that worldviews need to do thing like account for intelligibility, but that is part of their worldview. If I do not share their worldview then I am under no obligation to play by the rules of their worldview. If they say my worldview doesn’t account for these things and therefore it is false, they are using their worldview to make that claim, not performing an internal critique of mine.

[@justincapable]

"The Christian God is necessary for knowledge and intelligibility." ... debunked. "You cannot separate epistemology and ontology." ... debunked. "I need to know more about your world view to show the inconsistencies." ... Demonstrating my TV doesn't work in no way demonstrates your TV works.

[@LindeeLove]

Thanks!

[@descartergosum]

Hey Tom the 1 and 2 parts of the conversation with rob koons is not up. I beg you to upload them again .

[@RichardZZ1]

Eli Ayala could not argue without his script and Tom denied him the use of the script.

[@sanjeevgig8918]

12:45 Xtian : In OUR super duper world view OUR super duper god KILLING BABIES is super duper OK. LOL

[@unduloid]

It's indeed amazing how presuppositionalists don't realize the absolute bankruptcy of their ideas based on that alone.

[@sicmetal]

@@unduloidThe fact that God bothers you is irrelevant to His existence.

[@unduloid]

@@sicmetal The fact that you want your god to be real doesn't make it so.

[@sicmetal]

Agreed. I thank Him everyday that He is good regardless of my own feelings!

[@unduloid]

@@sicmetal I reserve my thanks to people who can be shown to exist.

[@seoigh]

word salad + smugness = presuppositionalism

[@dutchchatham1]

Let's start with me being right. -Presuppositionalism

[@guyjoseph5113]

You left out intellectual dishonesty. That is a key ingedient.

[@seoigh]

@@guyjoseph5113 not unique to presuppositionalism, though. that is a trait common to all apologists

[@toofargonemcoc]

strawman

[@adamruuth5562]

Are presuppers the way they are because they cant do hypothetical questions?

[@dutchchatham1]

they refuse to do hypotheticals, because they refuse to even consider they might be wrong.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

only philosophers could talk for twenty minutes about holding a cup. or not.

[@thequantumshade1556]

And he runs like a coward after getting his ass beat. I really don’t understand why these people can admit they were mistaken. Is it really that big of a deal to have been wrong?

[@dutchchatham1]

Presuppositionalism and emotionally stunted people go hand in hand. They literally can't accept that they're wrong about their religious beliefs, that's why they're presupps; it's the one apologetic that refuses criticism.

[@Macluny]

Oh this is one of my favorites just because of one specific gotcha! (12:45)

[@BertRussell4711]

Yes, it was a great moment of the debate. The fact that fundamentalist Christians need God to know that killing babies is immoral is scary. It's not all that different from the amorality of sociopaths.

[@scottwills8539]

Yup, killing babies is moral if god does it or commands it. Poor Eli has to choke that one down hard..... "Let's move on!".

[@erikrohr4396]

Good point, although Tjump also said at 38:53 that he has no idea what the nature of reality is. There must be some sensible answer out there!

[@MarkLeBay]

32:19 Re: How do you know the future will be like the last? ( the problem of induction ) In the theist worldview, there exists a being outside Nature who can arbitrarily change Nature ( the Christian god performs miracles ) Therefore, if the Christian worldview is true - we cannot know that the future will be like the past. If the Naturalist worldview is true, there is nothing outside of Nature to change Nature, and so we _can_ know that the future will be like the past.

[@magicw7338]

I agree about theism just shifting the problem of induction in nature and logic to a problem about the nature of god without solving it. However, if it is nature that is assumed to follow rules of consistency then saying that there is only nature to change is circular. I think just saying the problem of induction is a feature not a bug of inductive reasoning and that's why we use deduction as well is a better response. You could also take a Bayesian epistemology where you are judging the probability of future events given assumptions that have there own probabilities is another approach.v

[@MarkLeBay]

@@magicw7338 I don’t think theism simply shifts the problem of induction without solving it, I think it causes it. If we can presuppose that Nature is all that exists and that Nature has no agency, the “problem of induction” goes away. Without agency or external forces, we can know that the laws of nature in the future will be like the past - in principle at least. In practice of course, our knowledge is limited and we need to use tools like deduction and Bayesian probability.

[@richardb7495]

Wonder if he’s a DD acolyte or just parrots what most presups say ?? “Killing babies is always wrong every time no matter what” Except your Deity gets a pass. What a horrible way to justify evil

[@skagenpige88]

Killing babies would be correct if it makes the race survive (overpopulation)

[@julierunnells7564]

And proves Christian’s do not have objective morality.

[@Mash333]

I like how the camera anglles.are.such that the presupp is looking down on the mighty croissant dweller

[@MarkLeBay]

49:56 When he says “I don’t agree with that”, he needs to back that up. If he disagrees, how then does he do it? Specifically.

[@sequituranimus7145]

"My worldview" or "Christian worldview" can not be applied in claims of reality. There is only one reality and truth is singular. You dont get your own view of reality. You dont get your own truth in reality.

[@SleptOnHomage]

Presup argument is my dunning Kruger is stronger than your logic

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

Comments like this make atheists look very poor in an intellectual sense. You'd be much better off at least trying to raise an objection to the actual argumentation of Presup.

[@toofargonemcoc]

strawman

[@SleptOnHomage]

@@toofargonemcoc Christians always trying to deflect from the subject at hand you guys have no evidence your Bible is 100% fiction your God is imaginary

[@MarkLeBay]

13:44 The problem is the arbitrariness of asserting that God is the moral standard. It’s just a stipulation.

[@dutchchatham1]

It's the biggest glaring issue in presuppositionalism that somehow gets glossed over.

[@erikrohr4396]

Who does God think he is?!

[@MarkLeBay]

@@erikrohr4396 if only God could explain how it works.

[@erikrohr4396]

@@MarkLeBay Do you have a background in Christianity?

[@MarkLeBay]

@@erikrohr4396 I do

[@nelidascott6917]

Eli is on fire! Thanks for presenting your valid and logical argument 💥

[@chethanburre6016]

Yeah, burning with his stupidity and illogical statements.

[@TurkBaykal]

21:06 the entire debate summed up.

[@cindygrape]

I love it when they say "hmm I don't know if I agree but let's move on" when they realise Tom said something irrefutably logical that would crumble their world view if they agree

[@dubbelkastrull]

Read Hegel's first Chapter of Phenomenology of Spirit. Then you might see how silly Trump's position is

[@EmmanuelTomes]

Eli is a sophist. He has demonstrated that time and time again.

[@gerhardgiedrojc991]

No matter how many times the presup presuppose that his god exists, he can never (has never) show that this is the case. It is just, I define this exists is therefore it exists. Loop brains in a spin.

[@johnroemeeks]

I guess you missed the whole point about if God doesn't exist, then you wouldn't be able to prove anything or make sense out of the world. You would be reduced to just chemical reactions in your brain. No absolute truth, no objective morality, no absolute rights, etc.

[@dutchchatham1]

It's 100% circular. By design, presuppositionalism refuses to support its own claims. It exists only to denigrate the non-believer. It's apologetics for as*holes. *holes

[@MarkLeBay]

46:01 I wish you had responded “How does your epistemology determine whether or not you are in the Matrix?” If _you_ can presuppose that you are not in the Matrix, then so can I.

[@m0usju1c3]

This debate was done as soon as Tom uttered "I think, therefore I am".

[@captainzappbrannagan]

Eli endorses moral monster, but its ok because he created the beings he tortures. Does he ever evaluate his own position? What a coward for each point he is rebuffed then says well hahaha i don't know if I agree with that. TJ should have pressed him on each issue if he didn't agree with some premise to specify exactly what he doesn't agree with. It comes down to Ellie doesn't agree with logic.

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

One of the problems I see is that presupps only strike the physicalists. There are different types of naturalist where these arguments wouldn't work.

[@MarkLeBay]

56:05 The “triune god” concept was an ad hoc idea created to deal with the theological problem of insisting that Jesus was God while at the same time not violating a commitment to monotheism … and now “presup theologians” are using that incoherent “triune god” as a solution to the problem of “the one and the many”. It’s insane.

[@julierunnells7564]

Exactly. Christian’s are polytheist who believe in god who is an idolized human being. And satan. The evil god they believe has ACTUAL power to rule over this world and intervene in human affairs.

[@MarkLeBay]

4:11 The problem of suffering isn’t I think the best reason. The problem of hiddenness is more straightforward: According to the Christian world-view, God has given us a set of commandments that He wants us to follow. But the commandments are written by men in a form susceptible to mimicry and human mischief. As such, it lacks authority. We can know that any commandment in a form susceptible to human mischief could not possibly be from God. It is like claiming that you own a $100 bill, but the $100 bill is printed on Xerox paper - a form susceptible to mimicry and human mischief. Such a bill would lack authority. We can know that a $100 bill printed on Xerox paper could not possibly be from the U.S. Treasury.

[@julierunnells7564]

Yep. If you claim to have paid me $100 dollars it better be on a mix of cotton and linen paper.

[@nialv22]

TJump swaps out the challenge of explaining how the world is intelligible, meaning how we can know about mind-external reality, with the challenge of explaining how we can know anything at all. From his solipsistic perspective he can know about his appearances, but not about the world outside of his mind. The presup doesn't understand his own view well enough to press him on that.

[@m0usju1c3]

Precisely, as soon as he said "I think, therefore I am", that should have been the queue to then press for how he can then rely on universal concepts outside his mind?

[@rationalhuman2149]

Killing babies is always wrong. - Eli. 1 Samuel 15:2-3 "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'" - Eli’s god.

[@cocobee1313]

Hey Tom can you also link the videos here that you are sending him . Ty

[@SaltyApologist]

Tom: I think therefore I am. I have no idea what the actual ontology of reality is, could be anything. All I know is I exist and how something “appears” to me Also Tom: I’m gonna tell you what objective morality is. Eli should have picked up on this foolish game much quicker. Eli is just too nice.

[@m0usju1c3]

Exactly. I believe he contradicts himself @ 8:21. "Totally possible" that someone could reject his standard...now what? What foundation do you have to assert you're reasoning/morality as correct for all then?

[@logikylearguments6852]

This was a beautiful debate

[@BertRussell4711]

I don't know how new to presup Tom was here, but he handled Ayala brilliantly. In particular, I enjoyed how, on the question of intelligibility, he took ontology completely off the table, leaving Ayala nowhere to go with his script.

[@josiahnicholas1139]

This was a pretty interesting one, really like the level of mutual respect

[@unduloid]

Actually, Eli consistently insults TJump's intelligence, which is not all that respectful.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

13:00 "i think this is part of presupposition, so i'd like to explore this more"" "so killing babies is always immoral, god killed babies, he is immoral" "well i'd like to move on from this" "i think we'd just disagree at this point" well of course, i say god is immoral, god commits immoral acts, god gets judged by the same standard as everyone else, god is immoral, you lose, let's indeed move on to something else you can lose at.

[@LindeeLove]

That was a nice conversation.

[@descartergosum]

GOLD!!!!!!!!!

[@JoeHinojosa-bd9hu]

Thank you. You made a rational case Quantum Jumper

[@vladyakubets]

Seems like the host doesn’t even believe what he’s saying, but he’s just saying whatever he thinks will stack the deck to supposedly demonstrate the invalidity of presuppositionalism while the guest is just trying to have a genuine discussion using the apologetic methodology believes is correct. Seems like a bad faith dialogue from what I can tell

[@thejabberwocky2819]

Well that seems pulled directly from your rear end

[@Iverath]

I'd like to see this guy on again. Let's see if he dodges less this time around. @Tjump You should totally do a "call out" video where you challenge some apologists by making a short that attacks their main argument.

[@MrDonking1967]

If what appears to be real to me also appears to be real to others then that is a foundation for reality. If there is consistency in its utility then predictions will be possibly. I can then fashion use and conceive advance purposes. All this If shared understood and accepted becomes reality even if abstract and then more so when presented as material. In all this no God was necessary. You can however create the rules and principles of a God and also accept it to be real, however the difficulty now is getting others to help make this God accepted as being real by shared imaginations. Evidence of this is in the 1000s of denominations of Christianity. If it was true there would only be one denomination one belief one understanding there could exist no variation. There's no debate about whether the sea is salty or fresh because it's obvious. If simple water can hold this factual obvious Evidence how could the creator of the universe be a debate?

[@ajhieb]

In the comments section for Eli's recent video "Presup for Dummies" (or something along those lines) I asked Eli how he can reconcile two different things that he teaches are necessary for presup 1) Never ever ever, give up the Christian worldview and presuppositions. (This traces back to Bahnsehn's "myth of neutrality") 2) Show your interlocutor that their worldview is incoherent via an internal critique (which requires you to temporarily suspend your own presuppositions, in order to adopt your interlocutors) I asked how one would go about providing an internal critique of a non-Christian worldview, if one can't ever drop their own presuppositions. His response was to basically ignore the obvious contradiction and to suggest, I just look past that problem and do the impossible anyway.

[@rationalhuman2149]

It always comes down to an unfalsifyable and unproveable claim - for presupps it’s “revelation”. They know because it was revealed to them. No further evidence of how that happened, how do we know the source, etc. is required because they have none to provide.

[@vladyakubets]

It’s easy to appear to have the upper hand when you argue for a concocted, truncated and functionally nonexistent worldview rather than your own.

[@IgnacioAtenas]

TJump's moral stance is totally arbitrary. Idk why Eli didn't push it further. Arguing from moral consensus/intuition doesn't constitute absolute standards for morality. There have been horrible moral consensus in the past and in some countries and tribes right now, and people with terrible moral intuitions. Why TJump would discriminate between them?

[@MarkLeBay]

39:42 What does it mean to say God exists?

[@northernbrother1258]

Notice that when TJump demonstrated that you can have intelligibility without a supernatural mind, rather than rebut or concede, Ayala immediately began asking TJump to explain his ontology, even though it's irrelevant. Presups flounder around for a lifeline because they're drowning. They all do this! 🤣

[@milenahoffman1870]

From the first response, Eli jumps into the dumb interrogation tactic making the entire conversation boring.

[@dubbelkastrull]

24:07 bookmark

[@HarryNicNicholas]

presup atheist: the source of all intelligibility is actually the quantum field, i cannot be wrong about this as the quantum field doesn't have a mind and therefore cannot deceive me, it beams information direct to my brain and everyone's brain via the wave function of the universe, and you are misinterpreting this as god as you are an irrational theist, you know i'm right, you are suppressing the truth cos all you want is the comfort of heaven. what you are saying makes no sense as you have no intelligibility

[@guyjoseph5113]

Presup relies on being able to be intellectually dishonest while the atheist will be intellectually honest. If your match their dishonesty, it reaches a stalemate. It is an absolute waste of time talking to them.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

@@guyjoseph5113 in order to know that it's actually god giving you revelation, you need revelation. presup falls flat in the first sentence.

[@xz0938]

when was this debate?

[@erikrohr4396]

TJump is defending the idea that things seem a certain way to him around 35:00. This is where the presuppositional movement has moved the discussion. It has put atheists on the defensive, which is interesting.

[@erikrohr4396]

38:53

[@thejabberwocky2819]

There is no offense in presupp, so there needs to be no and is no defense. Presupp is garbage apologetics

[@erikrohr4396]

​@@thejabberwocky2819Isn't it interesting that Tjump said that he has no idea what the nature of reality is? Why would he say that?

[@peterwyetzner5276]

When you think about it, does it make sense at all to talk about morality in terms of God? Is morality not something that concerns the actions of human beings? Certainly both the Israelites and the Greeks, as we can see from their literature, thought that God was wholly removed from the concerns and perceptions of human beings, as in Isaiah, Job, and the Homeric epics. It doesn't make God good or bad, just different.

[@dutchchatham1]

Presuppositionalism. Never. Defends. It's. Own. Claims.

[@rabiddog75]

Eli was totally straw manning Tom’s argument and then the ass lied about it again and again. The last 10 minutes or so Eli pretended to be deaf and dumb and kept trying to correct Tom when he was giving his worldview.

[@petejackson6681]

ask him if HE exists

[@guyjoseph5113]

The claim of revelation doesn't get him out of the phenomenal unless he has access to the revelation outside of his phenomenology. Of course, we all know how intellectually dishonest presup is.

[@jonathanpark7245]

I can't be wrong. If you disagree it's because you are being incoherent.

[@zach2980]

Is this an old one?

[@SoulGrind81]

Simple.. if god exists and is all knowing. It would know what evidence id need to know he exists.

[@drumrnva]

How does the "knowledge" of God get into the human brain? And if you're a Calvinist and you believe total depravity, how are you gonna make the case that a flawed mind can correctly identify and interpret divine revelation?

[@MichaelJohnson-composer]

If you’re familiar with talking to oresulpositionalists blah blah blah. In other words: we make shit up. What we make up is right, what you make up is wrong. Nah nah nah.

[@skagenpige88]

Accurate

[@toofargonemcoc]

strawman

[@anthonyharty1732]

And STILL!!!!! No evidence for a sky fairy ‘God’ 🤔

[@nialv22]

Does TJump think that he needs to do science to determine whether it appears to him that he is holding a cup? Does he think that science is in the business of describing subjective appearances? Silly.

[@thejabberwocky2819]

Science is the process of testing reality. Holding a cup and feeling it is a form of extremely basic science. Can I pick up an object that appears to exist in front of me? Does that object have repeatedly describable characteristics? Compare this to presupp, for which the answer is: I know the cup exists because my imaginary friend told me so

[@nialv22]

@@thejabberwocky2819 Holding a cup is not a form of science. The presup would not say that.

[@SaltyPalamite]

TJump establishes a firm foundation for solipsism. Lol!

[@daviddivad777]

if killing babies is wrong i assume Tjump is against abortion?

[@m0usju1c3]

Yes, when I heard that followed by "that is the general consensus among people" (paraphrased) I wondered what reality he really is in.

[@justafishingdude]

Revelation 20:11-15 "Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." It is because we as humans have sinned, breaking God's laws as it were, that we go to hell if we are judged on our own merit. To confirm this, let's take a look and see if we are guilty of breaking God's laws by examining just a few of the ten commandments. Have you ever lied? Ever taken anything, no matter how small? Ever lusted in your heart after someone? Jesus says that is adultery in your heart. Ever hated someone? The Bible says if you hate your brother you are a murderer. If we are lying, fornicating, murderous thieves by God's standards (these are just a few of the commands), are we truly good? If we are judged by the 10 commandments, will that be good enough? According to these few commandments, we are all breakers of God's laws and therefore under condemnation based on that law. Hell (and ultimately the lake of fire) is the punishment that was set out for sin, just as jail is the punishment if you or I break our country's laws. A just judge in this world would not let a murderer go free without punishment. That murderer could go and live an upstanding life for the rest of his life, but he is still guilty and will pay the penalty if caught. He could say He's sorry a hundred times, but that won't take away what he's done or remove his punishment. How then could a God who is perfectly just let the punishment for breaking the law (our sins/crimes) go unpunished? That is why we need a Savior. Someone who was not guilty in order to pay for the guilty. If Jesus would have been guilty, it wouldn't have paid the price, but He lived a perfect life as God and man, making the perfect sacrifice for us through His death on the cross and resurrection - taking God's wrath upon Himself. God can legally let us have eternal life because of what Jesus did - not because of our goodness. If you accept His free gift, Jesus' righteousness can be credited to you. Suppose you have a stack of speeding tickets and absolutely no money and no way to pay them. Then the judge says "these are very serious, but I can legally let you go because someone has paid for the tickets". Your goodness is not going to get you out of those tickets, but someone else paying for them did. In the same way, we can't pay for the laws we have broken (Isaiah 64:6 says our works are as filthy rags) against God, but Jesus can. This then is how we can be saved, 1 Corinthians 15:2-4, "By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain. For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures," The fact is not one of us is good enough to make it on our own. Each one of us has broken God's laws and are therefore under judgment. Romans 6:23 tells us all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. John 3:14-18, "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." Additionally, here is a fabulous message illustrating salvation through the account of the thief on the cross - appropriately titled "Simply What Must I Do To Be Saved". It's only a about a half hour and for something with eternal consequences, it makes sense to at least hear it out right? :) kzbin.info/www/bejne/lYiun4Ocn75lorM

[@sequituranimus7145]

Nice sermon, too bad it's fantasy.

[@justafishingdude]

@@sequituranimus7145 Thanks for the reply! I would point out the Bible is able to offer testable, verifiable evidence in the form of specific, fulfilled prophecies - in fact, the Bible is about 1/4 prophecy! In addition to the many, many historical examples of fulfilled prophecy, here are just a few that have happened in the past 100ish years. Israel Scattered and returning to her land: Deuteronomy 28:64 says, "And the LORD shall scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other...". Additionally, Ezekiel 36:19-24 says, "I dispersed them among the nations, and they were scattered through the countries; I judged them according to their conduct and their actions. And wherever they went among the nations they profaned my holy name, for it was said of them, ‘These are the Lord’s people, and yet they had to leave his land.’ I had concern for my holy name, which the people of Israel profaned among the nations where they had gone. “Therefore say to the Israelites, ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: It is not for your sake, people of Israel, that I am going to do these things, but for the sake of my holy name, which you have profaned among the nations where you have gone. I will show the holiness of my great name, which has been profaned among the nations, the name you have profaned among them. Then the nations will know that I am the Lord, declares the Sovereign Lord, when I am proved holy through you before their eyes. “‘For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land." This is quite amazing. God said He would scatter Israel throughout the world for their disbelief and return them back to their land. What other people in the history of mankind has been scattered across the world for hundreds/thousands of years and then returned to their homeland (the very same geographic land) as an identifiable people? This isn't just being moved from one place to another place after being conquered - it is being literally scattered throughout the world. This is unprecedented throughout the history of humankind and yet the Bible said it would happen way before 1948 when Israel was reborn as a nation. In fact, Jews have been returning to Israel from all over the world such as: China, The US, Japan, Russia, India, France, Argentina, Sweden, Spain, Poland, Canada, the UK, South Africa, etc. The land divided: We are also told the land will be divided in Joel 3:1-2, which says, "In those days and at that time, when I restore the fortunes of Judah and Jerusalem, I will gather all nations and bring them down to the Valley of Jehoshaphat. There I will put them on trial for what they did to my inheritance, my people Israel, because they scattered my people among the nations and divided up my land". Notice that last part "...and divided up My land". It was foretold that the land would be divided! Logically, if it weren't divided then God couldn't put the nations on trial for dividing it. Yes, Israel is back in a part of the very same land they used to have just as foretold, but the land has been divided as well (and nations continue dividing and/or trying to divide it to this day). The land was in fact divided by Britain, who was in charge of making this land a place for the Jewish people. Instead much of the land was given to the Arabs/"Palestinians". This was formalized in the United Nations Partition Plan which was adopted by the UN General Assembly On 29 November 1947 Resolution 181. This was written WAY before 1947/1948, yet we now see that the land has been divided by the nations and they keep dividing/trying to divide it. Although this did not actually create the nation of Israel, it divided the ancestral land of the Jews. The country reborn in 1 day: What's more, the Bible said Israel would be reborn as a nation in 1 day. Isaiah 66:7-8 says, "Before she goes into labor, she gives birth; before the pains come upon her, she delivers a son. Who has ever heard of such things? Who has ever seen things like this? Can a country be born in a day or a nation be brought forth in a moment? Yet no sooner is Zion in labor than she gives birth to her children." This happened May 14, 1948 when Israel declared itself to be a nation and President Truman (the US being a superpower of the time) formally acknowledged them as such. Contrast this with the founding of the US - they declared themselves to be a nation with the declaration of independence in 1776, but no countries acknowledged them as a nation at that time. In fact, the first country to declare them a nation was Morocco in 1777 and the first major world power of the time to acknowledge them was France in 1778. Yet, in the case of Israel, Britain's mandate over the land ended at midnight on May 14, 1948 and Israel declared themselves to be a nation and were recognized as a nation in this one day - fulfilling the prophecy with stunning precision! Let's step back now and think about these prophecies. The Bible makes the claim that the Jewish people would be scattered throughout the entire world and return to the very land they were in as an identifiable people. To put into perspective just how bold this prophecy is, this feat has never happened to any other people throughout the history of humankind. In essence, the Bible predicted something that has never happened throughout human history would happen to a specific people long before it happened, and it came to pass exactly as foretold! As if that wasn't enough, it foretold that this very land would be divided among the nations, which we know also happened in 1947/1948 and beyond. Even more, it foretold that the nation of Israel would be "born" in 1 day - which happened with stunning accuracy on May 14, 1948! There isn't any other religion out there that offers these kinds of specific prophecies that we know with 100% certainty were written well before they happened. We don't need to simply have blind faith in something - we should have a good reason for what we believe and the Bible provides it! Why not accept the gift of salvation today? John 3:14-18, "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him. For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son." Additionally, here is a fabulous, short message on what must we do to be saved (only about ten mins). For something with eternal consequences, it makes sense to at least hear it out right? :) kzbin.info/www/bejne/pIiofoxjiNplZs0

[@Detson404]

Does your god reward shouting into the void? You’re a digital street preacher.

[@Matt-qr9uk]

There is TJump, still misusing the word ‘reason’.

[@drewbac]

Yikes. Hitchens was right when he called it a celestial North Korea

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

When your counter-argument to Presup is "I think, therefore I am" it's ultimately a subjectivist fallacy. Here's why: Presups are providing argumentation (with justification, transcendentally) that the Christian God is the necessary pre-condition for the self / consciousness. Tjump is then attempting to counter that by arguing that he subjectively believes his consciousness exists *without the Christian God as a necessary pre-condition* In other words, he's essentially just countering it with "well, I subjectively believe otherwise." Okay, but that's not a counter-argument. You can subjectively believe whatever you want, even that 2+2=5 if you want to. But that won't mean it's actually justified as true, in an objective sense.

[@sanjeevgig8918]

AND when that Christian God says KILLING BABIES IS OK, you say Thank You Jesus = Yahweh. lol

[@davethebrahman9870]

That’s false. They don’t provide argument, they assert axioms. Any fool can do this, it isn’t rational.

[@stuartolive3600]

The presup argument is a subjectivist fallacy as it uses revelation to attempt to prove its case. Revelation is circular reasoning and thus presup fails to provide justification for knowledge under munchausen's trilemma. Simply claiming that circularity doesn't apply to presup is a great example of the subjectivist fallacy.

[@Steve0272.]

It's not just his subjective opinion as you claim it also corresponds to reality , you can't think if you don't exist , wether he knows this or not its true about reality , he also states he does not need to presuppose a god to know this which is seperate to wether a god exists or not

[@lightbeforethetunnel]

@Steve0272. Neither side disputes that he exists. What's disputed is which worldview has justification for that. The Christian worldview does (Christian God justifies the presupposition of the self / consciousness) while his non-theistic worldview doesn't, so he's engaging in contradiction when he claims to know he exists, since his non-theistic worldview also entails knowledge is not possible (as Munchhausen's Trilemma is a descriptor for)

[@bugbear4574]

All Christians got white angels, where is the black Angels Asian Angels Latino Angels Middle East Angels