Frank explains to an atheist that he can't reason in atheism!

During a recent college visit, an atheist asks Frank what’s wrong with trusting a mind made from matter. There’s just one problem: if our minds are just molecules, then we have no grounds to believe anything is reliable since every thought would be at the mercy of our chemistry and not reason. However, it seems that this student is open to what Frank has to say, leading to a very cordial and insightful discussion!
📚 𝗥𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗱 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲𝘀
▶️ I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback👉📱cutt.ly/vIET6Y2), and (Sermon 👉📱cutt.ly/MIEYBGM) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
▶️ Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek: Book👉📱cutt.ly/II4j464, 10 part DVD Set👉📱cutt.ly/FI4krhS, STUDENT Study Guide👉📱cutt.ly/jI4kp03, TEACHER Study Guide👉📱cutt.ly/5I4kjdA
🤝 𝗦𝗨𝗣𝗣𝗢𝗥𝗧 𝗖𝗥𝗢𝗦𝗦𝗘𝗫𝗔𝗠𝗜𝗡𝗘𝗗 (𝗧𝗔𝗫-𝗗𝗘𝗗𝗨𝗖𝗧𝗜𝗕𝗟𝗘) 🤝
● Website: crossexamined.org/donate/
● PayPal: bit.ly/Support_CrossExamined_...
👥 𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔 👥
● Facebook: / crossexamined.org
● Twitter: / frank_turek
● Instagram: / drfrankturek
● Pinterest: pin.it/JF9h0nA
🗄️ 𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦 🗄️
● Website: crossexamined.org
● Store: impactapologetics.com/
● Online Courses: www.onlinechristiancourses.com/
🎙️ 𝗦𝗨𝗕𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧 🎙️
● iTunes: bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast
● Google Play: cutt.ly/0E2eua9
● Spotify: bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_P...
● Stitcher: bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
#Apologetics #Jesus #Christianity #Theology #Doctrine #Bible #QuestionsAboutFaith #Answers #Skeptics #ChristianityIsTrue #True #CrossExamined #FrankTurek

[@CrossExamined]

FREE Download of sermon I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist!: 👉📱cutt.ly/cInI1eo

[@fidenful]

What a ridiculous frase, to be an Atheist you don't need an ounce of faith.

[@frankcardano4142]

Seems like using faith must be an insecure reason to believe something.

[@justingary5322]

@@frankcardano4142 NAH 😂

[@teddyrascal6305]

@@fidenful sure you do... you believe in the laws of physics? How about induction? How about something came from nothing? Pssssh, silly atheists.

[@teddyrascal6305]

@@frankcardano4142 well theres reasonable faith, and there is blind faith. Did you ever fly in a plane? Did you know the pilot wasnt going to wreck? Or did you have reasonable faith that he wouldnt.

[@jamesemerson4102]

This guy asking the questions comes across as sensible and humble not ruled by emotion or anger. Good on him.

[@IsraelCountryCube]

Yeah hes a great young man like myself! He asked the correct questions. Very nice 👍

[@chrisbera7952]

The student is humble. He's way ahead of most people already

[@chrisbera7952]

@@nickjones5435 Name a point fact or argument. Or are you a 13 year old?

[@Scotty-Z70]

Amen. True atheists are humble. God-haters just pretend to be atheists.

[@Scotty-Z70]

@@nickjones5435 LOL! You'll find out. In a Hundred years from now you won't be an atheist. Why not humble yourself and open your mind? no? that is why you are damned. Humble people have open minds and find the truth.

[@michaelsiler7732]

@@Scotty-Z70 I don't "gate god." I just don't believe in any.

[@Scotty-Z70]

@@michaelsiler7732 What is "gate god"? is that in Stargate SG-1?

[@Chuby_ubesie]

You gotta love the kid. A true scientist, just wants to find the truth.

[@logicalatheist1065]

The atheist?

[@daekwonrose3160]

He doesn’t want the truth he clearly wants to desperately go against the truth.

[@daekwonrose3160]

Even stumbled when being asked if Christianity was true would he be a Christian..

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@daekwonrose3160 truth can be demonstrated, that's where Christianity fails

[@lazeralternative2740]

@@logicalatheist1065 can you demonstrate the big bang theory?

[@bigkahuna8823]

What an awesome kid. Willing to listen, and when he doesn’t know, he simply says, “I don’t know”. Great convo

[@upturnedblousecollar5811]

If you took money out of this entire equation, Frank Turek and Cross Examined would quit in a heartbeat. These aren't real Christians - they're charlatans that saw a financial opportunity through religion and seized upon it.

[@bigkahuna8823]

@@upturnedblousecollar5811 I don't think you're quite making the point that you wanted to. As with most businesses, without money they cease to function. Many travelling evangelists such as Dr. Turek rely heavily on donations that they re-invest into the ministry. Traveling thousands of miles per week to host FREE speeches is not cheap by any means. I'm not sure what money had to do with my first comment, but I wish you the best!

[@monkeyman193]

Unlike Frank

[@upturnedblousecollar5811]

@@bigkahuna8823 I think you're typing drivel and presenting it as if it were fact. Like your religion, you didn't show one ounce of proof to prove your claims to be true. And we both know WHY you didn't.

[@Bugsy0333]

To bad Christains can not do the same.When they do not kow the answer is "Well it must be God " !

[@mikearciszewski9348]

I learn so much from these dialogues each time I watch them. Thanks for posting these, Frank & CE team!

[@evasccl7846]

me too!!! 😊

[@lilchristuten7568]

The only thing I learn is how dumb atheist arguments are because I hear ones I haven't heard before.

[@therick363]

@@lilchristuten7568 and learn how dumb apologists arguments are

[@incredulouspasta3304]

Please slow down and consider what Frank is saying carefully. There is a TON of bad reasoning in this conversation, mostly by Frank.

[@larzman651]

@@incredulouspasta3304 is there bad reasoning or your opinion that it's bad?

[@kingofthemultiverse4148]

Usually it's the calm and respectful skeptic that makes the best arguments.

[@JLTrj00913]

True, that. The calm ones actually think it through instead of basing it off their emotions and are more likely to accept logical answers even if it goes against their original beliefs

[@IsraelCountryCube]

Wow damn it! I have to admit this atheist is respectful and calm with his emotions in checking mate!

[@JiraiyaSama86]

I've heard some atheists argue that things such as reason and purpose are just man made constructs. Forgot what else they said along those lines. Essentially, these things just happened by chance. I'm like - "That's a whole lot of coincidences."

[@briankelly1240]

Do you remember how they addressed the the concept in this video of complex coincidences like going to be beach and seeing a full sentence written out? (Like 'John loves Mary's)?

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@@briankelly1240 I don't recall. Honestly, it seems like they're somehow fine with some things just being explained away as just coincidences. Not sure how they would argue this one.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 I believe that part of the argument they made was the series of coincidences that led to them. Essentially starting from the moment of the Big Bang. That's the condensed summary of what I recall.

[@JiraiyaSama86]

@@sterlingfallsproductions3930 ask them. If you happen upon them that is.

[@VindensSaga]

No reason then to understand their reasoning!

[@rainegoldberg9376]

The more I watch and listen to Frank the more I understand…..and I’m already a Christian! Thank you for so much!!

[@vuho2075]

I don't bother listening to him at all. I don't do superstitious gibberish

[@neargrog685]

I enjoy the superstitious gibberish

[@dallaskinard3143]

I learn more from Frank's channel than I have in 20 years of church.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Can you identify one _evidentiary fact_ that Frank has stated that can be _demonstrated_ to be true? Yes or no.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Then you’ve wasted your time in both areas, I guess?

[@dallaskinard3143]

@@Bomtombadi1 Why are you here wasting your time?

[@dallaskinard3143]

@@Theo_Skeptomai Can you identify one evidentiary fact that Frank has stated that can be demonstrated to be false? Yes or no

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@@dallaskinard3143 Do you always avoid straightforward questions by asking irrelevant questions of your own?

[@passionfly1]

What a wonderful conversation! ❤

[@bishopheahmund3032]

Sweet destruction of an ape wonnabe :)

[@gangsterg1936]

@@bishopheahmund3032 bro, be more respectful. Nobody can help how they were indoctrinated from birth, whether from theism or atheism.

[@bishopheahmund3032]

@@gangsterg1936 ape is not a rude word for the time worshippers , they proudly claim that they are apes

[@ZippyDChimp-mr1tf]

“Is every star the same?” Can any star decide which way it is going or what direction it may spin?

[@danr.7982]

I appreciate the guy's attitude and desire to seek answers.

[@KeyofGtutorials]

To Franks sound engineer: please raise the threshold of the noise gate a little and the attack time on the mics. It'll help the sound not chop off so quick and sound more natural.

[@alexyandell.]

Lol you must be a sound engineer

[@KeyofGtutorials]

@@alexyandell. How'd you guess? 😄 It's been driving me crazy.

[@evasccl7846]

@@KeyofGtutorials that drove me nuts but deterred me not from what was being said 😂

[@sherlockhomeless7138]

Oh, I thought it was just me who hated that. I thought sound enigeers loved this sound more.

[@KeyofGtutorials]

@@sherlockhomeless7138 Not one's who know what they're doing lol

[@daddada2984]

To God be the glory.

[@brianpeterson8908]

Be a man take responsibility for yourself.

[@justin10292000]

@@brianpeterson8908 We do take responsibility for ourselves, and give God the Glory :)

[@brianpeterson8908]

@@justin10292000 Lies are a penny a dozen dude, none of you take any responsibility for anything, you just lie that you do.

[@daysnottime999]

​@Brian Peterson we do, but not for ourselves, but for a better relationship with the Heavenly Father.

[@thomasb4467]

If a computer weren’t designed would it even be a computer?

[@CaptainFantastic222]

Yes

[@thomasb4467]

@@CaptainFantastic222 How’s that?

[@macmac1022]

@@thomasb4467 By definition, you said its a computer so its a computer.

[@1Corinthians13.4_7]

@@macmac1022 that is honestly silly

[@tonn333]

@@1Corinthians13.4_7 That's because it's a silly question... Much better question would be: Can there be an undesigned computer? And how would it become to be a computer in the first place?

[@itsyaboidaniel2919]

We trust our reasoning based on its ability to give reliable results. I would trust an undesigned computer based on its ability to give reliable results. Our origins are secondary to trusting our reasoning, because what matters is that our reasoning is rational, and reliable. Also notice that the computers we design are entirely physical, so reliable results can be achieved through physical means. Then apply that to us. Recognizing writing in the sand, and a skull in the rocks are both pattern recognition, but the writing is a human construct, and we have past experiences with writing. The distinction between specified complexity and unspecified complexity is arbitrary, and up the the interpreter without further information. If you believe a God created everything, then there is also no distinction, as everything is designed.

[@dfurda18]

How blessed are the ignorants that trust computers... Especially if they have Windows as their OS lol I agree with what you put in there. Trust is something so subjective and relative. It should not be used as an argument to find truth. What I trust isn't necessary is what others trust. Each of us have different standards when it comes to deciding who or what we trust.

[@itsyaboidaniel2919]

@@dfurda18 Understandable.

[@0shaade0]

@@dfurda18 without mind you cannot do anything, like having faith or believe in a god so if you can´t trust your mind, you can´t even trust faith so the whole argument of this man fails from it´s very core.

[@sean_diddy3262]

@@0shaade0 Your actually making his case. Frank is saying we were created by an intelligent designer who gave us minds. The atheist is saying we don’t have to be designed to be able to find truth and Frank is saying would you trust a computer that wasn’t designed? And the atheist is saying no here and admitting something needs to be designed in order to be reliable. The fact we can reason all this out with our minds and come to the conclusion God exists is more proof there is a God.

[@sids5002]

​@@sean_diddy3262Trusting a computer that was not designed would be poor judgement, as there are computers that are designed, and their designers are known, factually. The difference between that, and trusting a god as a designer, is that there is no evidence of the designer, only the imagined appearance that one might have been there. One is factual, the other mere faith.

[@BringJoyNow]

5:45 I plaid his honesty, I was on his position when I posed myself this question, not immediately I could say yes, but thinking of what truth means, so to be honest with my own self I would accept the truth if truth is true.

[@TryingtoTellYou]

Did you plaid your shirt too?

[@somerandom3247]

Its more a problem of what is ment by "become a christian" for me. If it means "Wopuld you believe it it were true" then yes, of course. But if it m,eans "WOuld you follow the rules and bow down to god" then absolutely not. That god is an evil sob. By my standard, by the bibles standard, and likely by your standard aswell. I dont believe because its clearly not true. I wouldn't follow because your god is evil. These are 2 separate issues and its very dishonest of Frank to try and conflate them.

[@DrSauce]

@@somerandom3247 In what way is God evil? Whose moral standards are you using as a metric?

[@somerandom3247]

@@DrSauce If the bible is to be believed, than your god has commited atrocious evils. and continues to do so. My my standar, by the bibles standard, by most other religious books' standards, and likely by your standard aswell.

[@DrSauce]

@@somerandom3247 Atrocious evils like...?

[@evasccl7846]

So happy that there is people who can articulate so well the complexities and simplicity for God's glory!

[@harveywabbit9541]

Praise Jupiter.

[@junbiok7188]

@@harveywabbit9541 huh?

[@wm1958]

@Harvey Wabbit praise those rocks 😄

[@chrispatterson8210]

I agree completely, but the sad thing is that for every one Christian that hears this, there are thousands more who don't. The leaders in the modern church are 50 to 100 years behind the times as for how to craft a message of truth that resonates in the 21st Century.

[@evasccl7846]

@@chrispatterson8210 it is our job to learn from this man and do it too, that is how we have domino effect!

[@Pglarsen]

Keep up the good work over there brother, love from Europe. We need more guys like you here.

[@IsraelCountryCube]

Yes!!!! Too bad there's no major apologetics majorly league over there in Europe!

[@neargrog685]

Please no

[@normabreazile5500]

Praise the Lord!! 🙏 Frank, thank you for all you do!! 🙏

[@TonyEnglandUK]

How many times has Frank Turek given a speech about Jesus teaching _"Sell all your possessions and give to the poor."_ I'd wager the sum total to be none. (I'm more than willing to be shown evidence where this multi-millionaire has.) All of these American apologists for Christianity are really just trying to sell Jesus to make themselves rich. They don't worship Jesus, they worship the bank balance it brings from selling Jesus. Even this "CrossExamined" fraud is doing it, look at their video description. Money is their real god.

[@thadatkins9792]

It takes courage amd humility to learn and recognize that you may have been mistaken. That kid seems to have both.

[@enki354]

I must say I have to agree with you on that one.

[@martinkuliza]

Yes, good on him UNFORTUNATE THAT FRANK DOESN'T HAVE THAT QUALITY THOUGH

[@martinkuliza]

@@mash9809 Agree

[@bradleywelch9290]

That ending was pure joy hahahahaha.

[@sandina2cents779]

I find that pause after the end question interesting…… It’s like he’s bombarded with so many questions instantly (and he is). What is the right answer? What would this mean for my life? How would this change my life? Should I be honest with my answer? What would I have to give up in order to do this? Would I honestly even consider doing this? What would my friends think of me? What would society think of me? Is this a trick question? Do I really want to know if it’s true? Can I get out of answering this question?

[@shinywarm6906]

I suggest the main question he's asking himself is, "How come this guy gets away with asserting, "It's magic" but *I'm* required to provide a description of the whole of the evolutionary history of consciousness, reasoning, and the functioning of the brain?"

[@sandina2cents779]

@@shinywarm6906 Even if it was his question, he still has no clue.

[@sandina2cents779]

@@shinywarm6906 Even if it was his question, he still has no clue.

[@shinywarm6906]

@@sandina2cents779 I too would have been left befuddled if I'd asked a question, and got 20 in return. Even worse, if my question isn't answered. Turek's assertions that "this computer is designed - that's why we can trust it" and that "DNA is a software programme" are patently absurd. But he gets away with it by distracting the audience and suggesting the questioner is naive because *he* can't answer questions like how does brain chemistry generate thought, how physical laws lead to language and where the genetic code "comes from". Turek has no idea himself, of course. But that doesn't matter. What matters is that his audience thinks he's "beaten" the "enemy".

[@sandina2cents779]

@@shinywarm6906 I understand Everything Frank Turek said just fine. I don’t understand the confusion.

[@babbisp1]

Where can i find the full speech/presentation?

[@Jezus-Wybawia]

Which presentation is it from? Is it available somewhere online?

[@michaelfredgren1342]

Can I trust something that is not designed? Sure, as long as it has repeatable results. But why are we shoehorning in the concept of "trust"?

[@logicalatheist1065]

Man made things were absolutely designed, however the religious unscientific religious belief has absolutely no evidence

[@martinkuliza]

and.... a computer program has a PROGRAMMER........... that's why we trust it CLEARLY.. FRANK DOES NOT KNOW PROGRAMMERS LOL he believes we can trust computer programmers, just because a program was written by a programmer :P that's funny

[@ChristopherDolby]

If I already believe, could Frank still give me a free Book? I promise I’d read and reread it!!

[@frankcardano4142]

I could never read a book that had a misleading title of “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”. He needs to learn what an atheist is first.

[@Bomtombadi1]

I would read his book if it were free. It means Frank doesn’t get any of my money

[@frankcardano4142]

@@giodroid27 Would I have to believe on faith? Could I own slaves? And can I rape a girl if she’s on her own in a field?

[@kevincarter6576]

@@frankcardano4142 Good news!!! Frank DOES know what an atheist is and the title of that book is spot on.

[@frankcardano4142]

@@kevincarter6576 No he doesn’t. Carry on talking to a brick wall.

[@Jadd90]

A humble and genuine truth-seeking student.

[@alext3437]

He has an open mind. I pray he gets the wisdom to see clearly. He' s a wonderful and humble person.

[@Bugsy0333]

He lives in reality unlike Frank !

[@zgobermn6895]

Good conversation. The dude raised real questions and not just atheistic attack points.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Do you believe atheism to be a rationally justified position?

[@zgobermn6895]

@@Theo_Skeptomai on assuming certain axioms, yes, it can be a rational position.

[@sids5002]

​@@Theo_SkeptomaiIt's probably the only reasonable position when it comes to the supernatural. Other positions all rely on faith, or assumptions, to differing degrees. Atheism just simply says, no evidence no belief. Nothing else implied or wished for. Seems entirely reasonable.

[@iphang-ishordavid2954]

3:09 that lady at the back felt it😄 This is Good work frank👍

[@paulbogle8161]

Like she was watching a boxing match!

[@freeyourmind7538]

What's this book that Frank offers?

[@MARIOHAKAI]

Very respectful young man, Trying to seek for answers, may God lead Him to the truth, which is found in the Lord Jesus Christ alone!

[@martinkuliza]

so.... Truth is not found with god it is found in jesus christ alone ? WOW.. CLEARLY PEOPLE SHOULD LISTEN TO YOU also why is your comment not "Very respectful young man, Trying to seek for answers, May he find the answers he's looking for" why did god have to be part of this ? but i suppose since you don't have a solid understanding of how the religion works, anything you say is going to be acceptable right and others have to listen to it Tell me this WHEN DO CHRISTIANS START TAKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEIR WORDS ?

[@gamefreak23788]

So, 10k people were just convinced by a man begging the question. Very nice.

[@Golfinthefamily]

what is logic to a pile of fizzing chemicals...

[@ntkmw8058]

Stop searing your conscience. God exists, we could all be nonbelievers and God would still be. and you don’t even realize ur being used by evil to make urself and others stumble because your flesh isn’t satisfied by the things of the spirit. To the point where it’s shifted to “should I follow God and his law or not” to “does God exist”. I don’t say this to bash you.

[@gamefreak23788]

@@Golfinthefamily Chemicals use logic.

[@gamefreak23788]

@@ntkmw8058 My concern is that we have don't have reason to believe this was true. If we tried to find what is most likely to be true in the world, we'd have no reason to believe in Christianity.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@gamefreak23788 oh really? Nice.... so, the other question is... if you are floating bag of goo that is just chemically reacting, why can you trust your conclusions?

[@rangi0072]

So well explained ! I hope that guy found some answers

[@roberts5539]

it's not the answers that are important, it's the willingness to ask questions.

[@justin10292000]

@@roberts5539 Why ask questions if you don't want answers?

[@roberts5539]

@@justin10292000 i never said i didn't want answers, but that the questions were more important than the answers. Some answers we can not know definitively. Some answers are designed to stifle questions. They are based on an unquestionable authority. "It says in the Bible..." is not a good answer. From a question should come a testable hypothesis. Faith relies on the authority of ancient texts, not on provable data. Sure, there may well be a creator God who requires blind faith, but there is absolutely no evidence for such a being. There is no evidence for an afterlife. Why should we have an afterlife? But why should humans get an eternity with their ancestors? why not cows? Or insects? "it says in the bible..." so what?

[@barnythepreacher4559]

Well done!

[@svchok]

Супер! Как-то не думал об этом! "Почему мы можем доверять .."

[@festushaggen2563]

Atheism can’t answer the questions of how and why. When pressed, it’s “we don’t know”. God answers those questions and He’s the only one who can. “We don’t know” must also mean God is just as likely possible but that’s rarely agreed to.

[@AnotherViewer]

The trouble is that magical pixies also answer the question just as well as any god. Just replace "magical pixies did it" for all of your "god did it" answers and you will see how silly it is.

[@festushaggen2563]

@@AnotherViewer Silly is having an emotional reaction like yours and pretending that this is a science based rejection of God.

[@olaolu_lxg]

It's not shameful to admit you don't know something. God is just as likely a possible answer as the flying spaghetti monster. You have no evidence

[@AnotherViewer]

@@festushaggen2563 So, based on your non-answer reply you agree that magical pixies can be a valid substitute for god.

[@selderane]

Respectfully, and I'm a Christian, you just made a "God of the gaps" argument. The problem with this is that those gaps are smaller now than they were 100 years ago. And we have every reason to believe will be smaller 100 years from today.

[@MegaMerdeux]

I was an atheist for most of my life, many things happened that made me believe that there is a creator. Now I have the challenge to search for the truth

[@KenMasters.]

@@reality1958 What ever happened to *Trust in the Lord with all thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding?*

[@KenMasters.]

@@reality1958 That's the trick of the Devil. The Bible being evil also has been exposed as manipulation lot of times, all it takes is to cherry-pick each scripture without context and parables.

[@KenMasters.]

@@reality1958 Butchering children was what the Canaanites were notorious for. The Hebrews demanded them to stop, but they refused, God's orders: "End their whole population from spreading the Earth, even the animals they had sex with, but spare the untouched women."

[@dfurda18]

I found many contradictions in the Catholic teachings since I was 7 years old. I decided that if God exists, and God is just, I will find God regardless of accessibility to a book, places I lived, people I hung out with. I decided not to follow any religion, but I was going to stay open to what arrives into my life. Life took me to the point of finding God. First, within myself, and later in everything God has created. Some aspects match Christian faith, some don't. I've met Catholics turning into atheists and atheists into believers of God. And none of those situations contradict the God I found. Whichever path you choose to follow, keep going with it. As long as you are true to yourself, you will arrive at a place you will feel proud of. I found personal proofs that are hard to replicate in others, they were very circumstantial and if you don't live something similar, it will not help at all. And why would you believe what I say I experienced? One thing I can say, when I talked to a friend who was raised Atheist telling me that he went to the UK and practiced yoga and meditation, I told him, but you are atheist right? And he said: yes, but there was no religious background, as if he were justifying his actions. I replied, but regardless of the religious background, that path will take you out of atheism, especially to someone honest like you. A week later while having coffee, he told me that I was right, that he doesn't know details, but now he knows there's something out there, he feels ashamed to confess it, especially to his family. This was a very hard, yet gratifying transition to him. As a mathematician, he finds it hard to reach these conclusions without hard facts. But he could not deny what he experienced. My message to atheists is: God might not be what you think, you don't have to believe in God to be happy or to be close to God. You don't have to acknowledge God, or abide your life by a set of rules someone tells you describe God. Just keep your eyes open, you might see God there. And never stop questioning because sometimes our eyes deceive us. Stay true to yourself. And try to be the best version of yourself (whatever that means to you). My message to Christians-based person (Catholics, etc...). When discussing with atheists, remember they don't accept the Bible like you do. So anything you quote from it will mean nothing to them. Instead, abstract the teachings, and find the core of your beliefs, be prepared to be challenged and seek inspiration when answering. You might be surprised of what comes out of your mouth. Just keep questioning everything you see and hear, because we might be deceived easily. And stay true to yourself.

[@dfurda18]

Btw I love every comment in this thread, all questions are very good and we should all try to find our own answers to them.

[@tanyagarcia2666]

Get 'em Frank!!! You are the best!!

[@arr0991]

What’s the title of the book that he always offers at the end?

[@joegame4576]

i could be wrong but i think it's "Stealing from God: Why Atheists Need God to Make Their Case" by Frank Turek

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@joegame4576 so basically fire starter, tureks just trying to peddle his garbage books

[@stephk5255]

Thought provoking

[@AjkMusicOficial]

Love Frank he doesn't know how much I Have learnt

[@somerandom3247]

same. Ive learn how little christianity has to offer.

[@ChristopherDolby]

One of the best around - he, Bill Craig and Whaddo You Meme are the three I credit most with breaking down my barriers to faith and letting the Spirit do His thing and bring me to the faith 😊

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@ChristopherDolbyyes! The three who all lower the epistemological bar!

[@ChristopherDolby]

@@Bomtombadi1 bahahahahahahahaaa!

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@ChristopherDolby Billy Craig smugly admitted as such

[@josiahselectricgaming1566]

Where did information came from, what does it mean to be councious? These give us the ability to preceive what’s around us.

[@davinjohnson1110]

I love frank bey! God bless brother, thank you for this amazing work you’re doing 🙏

[@danieldenhollander3449]

Problems with the argument is that trust is a relationship between us and what we are working with. We actually trust through experience not design. And we trust through probability rather than absolutes. That was Hawkings great contribution. Secondly explaining and understanding are traits necessary for the mind not for the world around us. We need to understand to make sense of our world and our understandings don't even need proof to be useful to us (case in point watts which is not a scientific concept of actual electricity measurement yet we use it as if it is). If we need trust in order to prove design then we are restricted to the limits of our own minds to prove any point. Is that a safe place to reason from?

[@Kayak51]

What's the book?

[@82raptor]

Mr. Turek DOMINATES this kid and then says "If I gave you a book...". Love it!!

[@cmar6461]

Really? Turek is an ignorant hack. You should really educate yourself with something outside of your echo chamber.

[@scottgodlewski306]

“Dominates”?

[@enki354]

I would have responded and if I gave you a book...Love it!!

[@rinzler9171]

I do like Dr. Turek's two questions at the end that he poses to each person struggling with his talking points. They are logical.

[@kelleybrooks6281]

Absolutely beautiful.

[@trevornmartinmartin2756]

thankyou

[@Brickzot]

Why does religion get to hold a monopoly on reason?

[@sidwhiting665]

Good question. . The answer lies is what is the "self?" If the thing we perceive as "self" is just a response to the chance collection of chemicals in our skulls, then our thoughts are not independent and are just manifestations of our chemical makeup. However, if there is "something more" to the self than physical reality, then it is possible that we are not solely responding to our chemical makeup and can have thoughts that are independent of physical reality. . Example, I could ask if you freely asked your question, or if your chemical make up forced you to ask it.

[@Brickzot]

@@sidwhiting665 Our subconscious mind makes decisions for us before our conscious mind is even aware of it. This has been tested. Either way, it’s not really the ‘self’ or ‘I’ making these decisions but something ‘outside’ of it, out of my conscious control-regardless of whether the thing doing the actual deciding is my ‘soul’/‘spirit’, or if it comes from the neuro-chemical matrix of my brain. We can’t ’measure’ a soul empirically. We can, however, measure brain activity. This is a problem neuroscience can investigate. What religion attempts to do, however, is to just put a band-aid on the problem as a quick solution, to make us feel better.

[@somerandom3247]

It doesn't. Religion is the suspention of reason. not the answer for it.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@somerandom3247 did you watch the video?

[@littlebitofhope1489]

It doesn't. It's all about feels.

[@amac9044]

Textbook argument from ignorance. "I can't understand how a brain works; therefore, it must be magic..." it amazes me that Turek has been an apologist this long and still doesn't understand that nor what atheism is...

[@logicalatheist1065]

Apologetics is based off lying

[@stephenking4170]

Since when was God magic? It is completely logical to postulate, test , validate or believe in God if the evidence fits. And yes it does if you don't have a philosophical barrier applied to science and reasoning.

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@stephenking4170 what evidence? No evidence supports any of the 3000 + claims of gods.

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@stephenking4170 science has absolutely nothing to do with any religion

[@Golfinthefamily]

ironically that is exactly what the theory of evolution is.... macroevolution is unverifiable and unfalsifiable.

[@asgaiyawaya3973]

He really doesn’t know he just doesn’t want to say that. So he is dancing in any direction he can. So Frank keeps returning to the same point because he is doing that.

[@tedidk8639]

If Frank's question is how can we know what we know, there is a field of philosophy that is dedicated to this answer called epistemological. Religion is not the only answer that is out there.

[@mantabsekali920]

Preach that

[@jesusisgod2953]

The reason we know things is grounded on the reality of God. Atheists have no basis to trust brains let alone anything else. Talking about epistemology when you can't trust your brain is empty.

[@tedidk8639]

@@jesusisgod2953 But how can you know that a God is real if you can't trust your brain

[@enki354]

Why can't you trust your brain?@@tedidk8639

[@enki354]

OOps sorry I texted the wrong person.

[@seankiernan7327]

My eye is a camera. Cameras are made by Kodak. Therefore, my eye was made by Kodak. If we use word X to describe Y, and Y is made by humans, then everything else we describe with word X must have also been made by an intelligent being. Makes perfect sense. This guy should get the Nobel prize for proving God's existence.

[@Praying_Mantis3]

The question that the quote provokes is; if structure came out of chaos can we trust chaos? There are some outliers but generally the answer is no. So if chaos cannot be trusted then there had to something that was structured that created structure.

[@Mannwhich]

@@Praying_Mantis3 Well said! As only an intelligence can make another intelligence.

[@alexwilliams4264]

That's as ridiculous as what he said your eye is not a camera it performs similar functions that's all. There is no proof that god exists even the devoutest christian will tell you it's a matter of faith!

[@WhiteScorpio2]

@@Praying_Mantis3 "if structure came out of chaos" There is no "chaos", technically, just different kinds of structure. "can we trust chaos" You can trust chaos to be chaos, you can trust structure to be structure, you can trust stones to be stones, you can trust humans to be humans, you can trust minds to be minds, you can trust senses to be senses. What other kind of "trust" would you expect?

[@WhiteScorpio2]

@@Mannwhich "only an intelligence can make another intelligence" Is that conclusion actually based on anything? Because we can make a thing from another thing, that's demonstrable. More than that, things become other things all the time without our help, too, that's also demonstrable. Even more than that, there doesn't seem to be anything that DOESN'T change into another thing, given enough time. So why do you say that intelligence can only come from intelligence?

[@RustyWalker]

Toast. Either toast or not-toast accounts for reason. Not-toast does not account for reason. Therefore toast accounts for reason.

[@edwardelliott5756]

That was absolutely wonderful.

[@johncassani6780]

This is great. I remember the professor in a theology class I took saying that a dog can be really “smart,” and well trained, but if a dog is flying to China, he doesn’t spend the flight wondering if Chinese fire hydrants are just like the ones at home. This is because he has no immaterial aspect to his being.

[@bengreen171]

Flying a plane is a really complicated process that requires a lot of concentration - the dog doesn't have time to think about fire hydrants. In all seriousness though, No, it's because the dog's brain is not as complex as the human brain, and so cannot operate at a high enough cognitive level to comprehend such things. The term 'immaterial aspect to his being' is something that doesn't really mean anything, though promises a lot. We know the material exists. The idea of the immaterial is something you need to demonstrate to be taken seriously.

[@cmar6461]

That argument is so stupendously dumb that it depresses me that anyone ever bought it, ever.

[@RighteousnessWillPrevail]

Your wrong to say such a thing because you are not a dog or that doesufic dog so you don't know what he thinks about. An inescapable truth. Humans are always so arrogant that they think they know what animals think. It's so rediculous.

[@KingAries85]

I feel like between Christians and atheist atheist seem to have more reason. Some not all approach with an idk attitude while Christins approach with I know all the answers but they really don’t know either cause the truth is no one really does.

[@TheREbelAlliance324]

If no one knows the truth, how can you know that no one’s knows the truth? You are making a truth claim that no one knows the truth.

[@cameronclark447]

If Christian’s say they know the right answer and Atheist are saying they don’t know the right answer you couldn’t know the wrong answer unless you knew the right answer. When someone says 2 + 2 is 9 you know they don’t know what they are talking about becuase you know the right answer is 2.

[@KingAries85]

@@TheREbelAlliance324 because you can’t you can claim but no one knows the truth .. can you prove someone knows the truth ? No no one can so the only truth to it is no one knows the truth

[@JCMcGee]

Where did the laws come from? From us....they are simply our descriptions of our observations. next.

[@monkeyman193]

You don't need something to be designed to trust it.

[@wavemaker2077]

Arguing with a non-woke person is totally different. This conversation is very satisfying. There is respect in the conversation. The guy is an atheist but he is respectful.

[@jerrystreed4981]

Can any theist just admit that maybe they just don’t know stuff?

[@bradmorris5797]

Let's be real - I've seen arrogance run both ways in worldview conversations. Even though I don't think I would consider Dr. Turek to be at the forefront of philosophy, I don't think the _real_ arrogance is coming from guys like him. He is a seasoned scholar who has had a lot of practice working through the fundamental, generalized questions that he gets asked over and over again in public. There isn't a question that he is being asked in these Q&A sessions that he hasn't already wrestled with himself dozens (if not hundreds) of times from different perspectives in order to answer the more nuanced and contextual questions that run even deeper. There are plenty of questions that these men and women would admit they can't directly answer - if you asked the question the right way with the right pretext. Otherwise, they are general questions that they are not particularly challenged to answer. You would see the same air of confidence from an atheist philosopher who has defended his ideas for years and I don't think it's fair to suggest that there's anything specially arrogant about that. The demonstrable arrogance that I see is routinely from those who _profess_ to understand but do not (and, more to the point - _will_ not). In short - laypeople trying to be apologists. Believers and non-believers alike, unfortunately.

[@bradmorris5797]

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that laypeople (like me) cannot have conversations - they just need to be willing to admit when they've reached the limit of their understanding. Usually, it's right around the same time that you've felt yourself dig your heels in. ;)

[@KenMasters.]

We do, but the only solution to that is to find that answer. If only most Atheist like him can do that more often.

[@RichardsGaySon]

Because people want there to be purpose to their lives. A lot of people simply need to believe that there is someone out there looking out for them

[@enki354]

I can accept that.@@RichardsGaySon

[@logicalatheist1065]

Atheism is the most logical and reasonable position as no god has ever been demonstrated to exist.

[@JLTrj00913]

You can't prove God, but you can't disprove God either. A deity is just within the realm of possibility

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@JLTrj00913 so there's no reason to believe in gods then .. 😂 lol

[@JamesBrodski]

Amazing response

[@jhaeliferrua]

If the computer provided consistent results over and over again, and I could potentially contrast it with another computer and it results, why I would not trust it? That's how we do science, by using metodological naturalism.

[@raymondcarter1137]

Desperately in need of answers so if I pretend hard enough it’s true. Atheist doesn’t answer any questions because they simply don’t believe your claim of a magical deity. Religion holds zero answers because it’s not supposed to ask anything it just requires you to believe period. That’s not the reason religion exists and frank lost his way because he needs to earn money for himself and his family. I know why religion is what it is but it’s kind of a secret.

[@blockalock]

I think the key take away from this is "I don't know". Our limited perception of reality doesn't allow us to know and there's nothing wrong with that. The consciousness realm of reality doesn't abide by the physical realm that we live in, and to me it's disingenuous to use the Bible and faith as a matter of fact when the underlying truth is that, we don't know. Atheist can't claim to know just as much as Christians can't claim to know.

[@trustthetruth2779]

But we can know a lot about God. There is evidence, but many disregard it

[@enki354]

And that's why I'm an agnostic.

[@enki354]

What are they pray tell?@@trustthetruth2779

[@NanosoftRussia]

I would really love to debate this guy on this subject. There is a lot of things to say

[@billmaster1157]

Well, I'm not an atheist, but the "I don't know" answer is a valid response. Ignorance does not mean there is no answer. That is just a personal statement of one's own extent of knowledge. I will be the first to admit that the human mind is a brilliant thing and that not everything can be understood from an empirical perspective, there is a mystical element to human existence. However, even if there was a mystical force that propelled human life, we have not established that this is even the same force written in theology and the various religious books throughout history. We don't know if, for example, God just created earth and humanity and left it there. No commandments, no authority, no afterlife, no prophets, no messiahs, etc. Just as equally, we cannot trust our mind to be the product of accidents without proof, we cannot trust the idea that there was a design in mind either. We can trust that we just are. I do believe atheism is a form of neuroticism, don't get me wrong, but there are many beliefs out there that can facilitate the mind or brains abstract need for meaning and purpose.

[@jaxisplayingtoday]

I encourage you to look into the evidence for Jesus Christ for your answer

[@fidenful]

All we have is a mind, which is the manifestacion of a physical, material brain, and we do just fine, no need for an imaginary friend. In the known Universe, we know of only 2 designers: Nature and men. "Joe loves Mary" was designed by a person, and the beach the message is on was designed by Nature.

[@openmindedskeptic9014]

Doesn't answer the question, if thought is the byproduct of unintelligent forces then how can you trust them? Let alone how can reason and logic come about from said forces.

[@fidenful]

@@openmindedskeptic9014 You trust them, because is all you got; and the wonderful thing is that works, it tooks us to the moon and back, didn't it? The religious fanatics, like this guy Turek, want to tell you that there has to be something else, because they want to smugle in their God. The human mind will, thousands of years in the future, take humanity to the stars, their technology will be like magic, to less develop beings they will look like Gods, but they will be only our evolved descendants, his Jesus story will, if anyone remember it, be even more ridiculous and provincial than today.

[@openmindedskeptic9014]

@@fidenfulwell sure I don't believe in this "something else" cause I'm an atheist, however I'm not a materialist since i believe the mind is independent of the body

[@fidenful]

@@openmindedskeptic9014 Would you care to explain that?

[@dancochrane617]

I admire Frank He is brilliant and patient. A joy to listen to.

[@brookefoster4]

What a cool kid great video

[@forman6485]

I love Dr. Turek and the graceful soldier in Christ he is truly.

[@darkeen42]

And his weapons are lies ignorance and gullibility

[@loginlost_horizon6327]

@@darkeen42 and a title of Dr. he for some reason f....g got in a first place.

[@darkeen42]

@@loginlost_horizon6327 he got a doctorate in apologetics. That's getting an education in convincing people fairy tales are real.

[@juniorkabana7776]

Impressive!!

[@akoskormendi9711]

3:12 Not random, but Turek will never admit that. Mutations are random, the traits that are most likely to survive are not. A brain that can derive conclusions accurate to reality reliably are more likely to survive. Period, no need to go further. Evolution explains the reliability of the human brain perfectly. Mind you, it still fails a lot of time. It just works reliably most of the time. Which begs the question, why did a perfect God create humans with faulty reasoning?

[@Golfinthefamily]

macroevolution cannot be empirically verified. And piles of fizzing chemicals can't be trusted either on their own merit.

[@littlebitofhope1489]

@@Golfinthefamily But a sky daddy can be? Ok, do it.

[@akoskormendi9711]

@@Golfinthefamily Macroevolution is change at or above the specie level. We have verified speciation events before. You don't seem to understand that our minds are no different than your idea of a disembodied mind if it is a product of our brain. It still functions practically the same.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@akoskormendi9711 You defined macroevolution... but nothing has changed kind observationally. In fact, we have evidence of the opposite...after 30 years ecoli was still ecoli.... after generations and generations...fruit flies were still fruit flies... macroevolution is a false conflation. You literally cannot prove it to be true. You have a faith position.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@littlebitofhope1489 I don't believe that a pond of sludge got struck by lightning and became intelligent beings who could go to space... Your caricature of God is quite telling. You should really read some better atheists at least.

[@alexlewis8468]

I'm not sure what I gained from this video... So if we can trust our mind because it designed, who designed the designer? Can we then trust that designer's mind who in turn had no designer? I'm not sure that a computer analogy helps. Computers and their software are full of bugs and sometimes cannot be always be trusted (If we could, I'd still be running my Windows 95 PC! 😁 ) I honestly don't feel that you can convince people of something that they already have some sort of sense of or have accepted evidence of... I find these sorts of discussions fascinating, but ultimately the vast majority of people go home and continue the way they were... One thing I have always wondered - would I have a concept of God, if nobody had ever mentioned it? Obviously, I'll never know...

[@Thyalwaysseek]

The Designer is self created.

[@alexlewis8468]

@@Thyalwaysseek Hmmm... not sure how that works. Can one really create itself?

[@knowone11111]

@@Thyalwaysseek do you really believe that statement as you wrote it? My understanding is that God has simply always been. The 'law of conservation energy' says that energy can neither be created or destroyed. Energy just is, like God.

[@Thyalwaysseek]

@@knowone11111 Yes the Creator thought itself into existence, the Universe is mental, held in the Mind of the The All.

[@Thyalwaysseek]

@@knowone11111 Mind is not energy.

[@FilmDoctor42]

Some physics exerts are now saying the "laws of physics" don't really exist; they're just ad hoc constructs created by people based on their observation.

[@TimonRamstein]

The main point is that we dont know many things as humans. We know that we dont know most things for certain. Everyone lives in faith actually, the question is what or who do we put our trust and faith in.

[@CaptainFantastic222]

I disagree. I hold no faith based beliefs

[@brianpeterson8908]

No not at all.

[@trustthetruth2779]

If agnostics are admitting they don’t know, why are they so committed and passionate about dissuading others?

[@gregariousguru]

In other words, regardless if every star is totally different, a super nova explosion does not give us prescriptive information....no matter how many heavy elements we possess.

[@chuckiloialburo2032]

Religion has an ending of thier story about our origin or reality, but science is like catching up through the intire universe.. Thats why its always behind, but more realistic than the mystical powers of Gods...

[@robbiecleighmarks3088]

I hope this young man goes in deep! I love seeing a young person on a journey to find the real truth!! Hint: IT"S JESUS!

[@SideSwipeGTA]

No it's not.

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Have you ever _observed_ this Jesus?

[@jcd5979]

I wish I have the patience of Frank

[@logicalatheist1065]

Atheism is the most logical and reasonable position

[@JLTrj00913]

Says the guy who's opinions are biased towards atheism

[@logicalatheist1065]

@@JLTrj00913 which is what? Atheism only means one thing

[@dankfarrik8376]

Some of you might not have noticed but Frank went into the watchmaker analogy here which states that every complex design needs a creator. But he uses a PC in this example. But if that's true then also God who is complex has a creator. So who created God?

[@justin10292000]

God by definition is the uncaused, uncreated First Cause/Creator. Noone created God.

[@dankfarrik8376]

@@justin10292000 yes which isn't possible isn't it? You can't say one thing and then not be consistent.

[@Mannwhich]

The nature of spirit is eternal, so time is irrelevant. Only temporal creation has a set beginning and end, stars, worlds, people, etc.. Essentially, no intelligence formed in and of its own making. And only an intelligence can form or propagate more intelligences. So some sentient being had to have always existed. If this wasn't the case, would there have been any creation at all?

[@dankfarrik8376]

@@Mannwhich where is the proof my dude? Just saying this does not make it true. You have some big claims but nothing to back it up with.

[@Mannwhich]

@@dankfarrik8376 Just like there is no proof for you to say what isn't possible either, RIGHT? So you tell me then, what came first... chicken or egg?

[@desmondbishop5808]

Im hardly a math guy but physics can prove things and theoretical physics can prove anything if I have that correct. Trial & Error speaks for itself. We still use it. A Rumba uses it. Yes, programs come from programmers Us we are the first Programmers. Everybody else works in a circle, birds bee's and seasons all as one, we deviated off the path. Hence all the programming. No one else is out of sync. I wouldn't say that something comes from nothing 🤔 mostly because acknowledged Nothing exists and that's a Thing, but I wouldn't say a canoe grows out of the ground either.

[@asgaiyawaya3973]

I love Lewis he is still the most influential writer of our day.

[@shinywarm6906]

Turek demands his questioner provide a full account of the evolution and functioning of the brain, whilst he need only assert, "It's magic"

[@justin10292000]

The universe suddenly banged into existence out of absolutely nothing >>> THAT is magic: absurd, nonsensical, anti-scientific magical nonsense.

[@JAA949]

​@@justin10292000 Sure that sounds magical but it's only a theory and we really don't know for sure. Would Frank agree that the bible is a theory on how we got here? I don't think he would.

[@oscargr_]

​@@justin10292000 Nobody in science believes the universe "banged into existence out of nothing" But it's exactly what the bible says god did. Create the world out of nothing by just speaking it into existence.

[@JLTrj00913]

@@oscargr_ The Big Bang theory

[@petemiller2920]

@@JLTrj00913 The Big Bang theory doesn't say the universe banged out of nothing.

[@jezreelmontes587]

"But why?" Ad infinitum replaced by "but where does that come from?" Ad infinitum

[@rodantegutierrez4027]

If survival is only reason why we here. Being a politician is the right thing to live just rob people to have a wealthy life. Why? because it doesnt matter when you do good or bad to this life. The most important thing is to live to the fullest and to prosper. I can pretend to be good like politician just to get what my agenda was.

[@logicalatheist1065]

Well said!

[@mattvmani]

It makes me happy to see those at least skeptical or open enough to see some of the light. There are so many "scientific" assumptions that get made when saying something like "this evolved from this". Unfortunately most don't even bother to think of the implications accepting things at face value. Just because someone went to school and studied the origin of the universe and say got a degree in it, doesn't mean it warrants their opinion to the "right" or "correct". At least on the bases of age the earth and evolution talking billions of years, many cannot come to admitting that it's false or is unknown. Despite being able to to say "I don't know" to many other subjects they don't actually know about. Well why is it so hard to question "science" on a timeframe that no one alive today was present for (if millions of years existed). No one has ever seen a universe form, been alive long enough to see a star form, seen chemicals make the building blocks of life, then assemble them into life. We do not have a rational reason to say anything came from nothing. Which is why we know this is a spiritual battle. Logic and reason completely go out the window with the billions of years and evolution claims that absent a textbook that "says so", no one would say it makes sense.

[@johnharrison6745]

"Yeah"; I'd recommend MORE William Lane Craig and Hugh Ross, and LESS Kent Hovind and Bill Nye.....

[@paulcooper1223]

@@johnharrison6745 I'd recommend less WLC and more actual science. "At least on the bases of age the earth and evolution talking billions of years, many cannot come to admitting that it's false or is unknown" That will be because of the preponderance of evidence supporting the age of the Earth to a high degree of accuracy as well as the likes of genetics to support evolutionary theory. You know who does have a hard time saying "I don't know"? Apologists like Frank Turek. He pretends to know. His career depends on pretending he does know.

[@johnharrison6745]

@@paulcooper1223 In spite of the fact that your post was so poorly written that it was almost incoherent, I'm pretty sure that I DID get the gist of it. 😏 "I'd recommend more real science": Sweet 'Em's, I've probably FORGOTTEN more about science than YOU'LL EVER know. The guy who "mentored" me out of my own real, actual atheism [as opposed-to the "atheism" of Dawkins fan-club types] holds a doctorate in applied-physics from Stanford; and, his wife holds a doctorate in astrophysics from Rice. Both have had *STELLAR* careers; both are the kind of scientist that the VAST majority of other scientists would give their right-arm AND left-leg to be. And, they're both CONVINCED, DEDICATED Christians. [so you can just "ROUND-FILE" your POSTURING and POSING regarding "science" when it comes-to me; you might as well be fighting a tank with a stick 😏] "less W.L.C.": You say that because he positively HUMILIATES your "champions". 🤪 "age of the Earth": Did I strike you as being a Young Earth creationist? I have as much contempt for that silliness as anyone. Young Earth creationism and anti-theism/New-Atheism are just the obverse and reverse of the same COUNTERFEIT coin. 😉 "evolutionary theory": I'm happy to tell you or anyone else that it's essentially indisputable that biological-life has existed on this planet for billions of years [what's the best-estimate now; 3.7 billion years?], and, that it's been changing a lot during that time. 🤷 "admitting that it's false or unknown": It would, indeed, be improper to admit that it's false, because it hasn't been demonstrated to be false; but, unknown? There's A LOT of circumstantial evidence for biological-life having been going-through 'evolution' through various forms of mutation and selection, since it first came-to-be on this planet; but, the fact is, it wasn't observed and recorded over all of those 'eons', and, it hasn't been tested, repeated, verified, and reproduced in the lab; so, it wouldn't be so improper to say that it's unknown. [because that's what real, actual science is 😉] Your calumnies about "Frank": He makes you people look like the damaged pseudo-intellectuals that you are, all the time; and, you're backside-burned about it. 🤪

[@paulcooper1223]

@@johnharrison6745 There was nothing incoherent about my reply. It says a lot when you have to resort to petty insults. The old "I used to be an atheist" routine doesn't impress me. How did science make you believe in a god? Where is any god mentioned in science? They're dedicated Christians and scientists. What's your point? Frank Turek isn't a scientist. He also denies science like the theory of evolution. Do you also deny evolutionary theory? Is that the part of science you forgot? Apart from making you look arrogant, I'm not sure why you'd claim to have forgotten more about science than what I know when you don't know what I know about science... WLC is also not a scientist but loves to opine on subjects he knows nothing about. Which of my "champions" does he humiliate? He didn't humiliate Sean Carroll who had to school him on theoretical physics and cosmology. WLC has made a few comments as of late which has made him a laughing stock on some skeptic KZbin channels, particularly the statement about how he would still believe even if there was evidence which contradicts his belief because of his personal witness of the Holy spirit while dismissing the personal experiences of other theists who don't share his beliefs. A nice example of special pleading there. Then there's also the time he said Christians should be lowering their standards of evidence rather than raising them, and how if there was just a one-in-a-million chance it was sufficient for him to believe. He's just another apologist who preaches to the choir and his arguments are merely designed to convince him his belief is correct. Your arguments are no better than that of a young earth creationist. No such thing as "new atheism" when atheism is just a non-belief in a god. Comparing it to young earth creationism is a false equivalence. You don't have to reproduce something in a lab for it to be accurate. We don't reproduce black holes in a lab. Does that mean they don't exist? Of course not. Science is about producing accurate models of reality with predictive power. In regards to evolutionary theory, it works in harmony with genetics which has gathered a preponderance of evidence to support it, from examining Chromosome number 2 in chimps and humans to conclude we share a common ancestor with them and the other great apes along with the presence of ERVs in the same places in chimps and humans to further support common ancestry. That and the fossil record, geology, palaeontology, astronomy... Is this also the science you forgot? Frank isn't taken seriously by anyone but his fanboys who parrot his arguments and end up looking foolish. A science denying apologist. Probably your hero.

[@johnharrison6745]

@@paulcooper1223 Your initial post was QUITE incoherent; it WAS poorly written. I didn't employ the 'I used-to-be an atheist routine'; I gave you a LITTLE HINT about how much I know. I didn't say that science MADE me believe-in god; what I IMPLIED was that a couple of the creme' "day" la creme' of scientists think that you and yours are "we Todd's". 🤪 I've NEVER heard Dr. T 'deny the theory of evolution'; and, I couldn't care less either way about his positions/beliefs regarding it. I don't deny "evolutionary theory". In fact, I regard it as being one of the best-supported scientific theories in existence. The probability that you know no more about science than the typical anti-theist/New-Atheist whom I've chatted-with [ *LOTS* ] is VERY HIGH. 99.9999% of the time, the "atheist" I'm talking-with is some pretentious, pompous, posing little smart-person-wannabe, who thinks that he's well-informed about biology, cosmology/cosmogony, and theoretical/quantum physics, because he's spent an inordinate amount of time 'rubbing one out' while watching Nat. Geo., Discovery, Professor Dave Explains, Physics Girl, Dawkins/Sam-Harris/Lawrence-Crass, etc. 'Which of your "champions" did W.L.C. humiliate?' TAKE YOUR PICK. 'Sean Carroll'? Did you ever watch the FOLLOW-UP videos on that? Gimme break..... Seeing-as I have UTTER CONTEMPT for the so-called "skeptics" on KZbin, their laughter is of about as much consequence to me as the noise mosquitoes' wings. 🤪 Yeah; I know Dr. Craig 'recommended' persistence in belief-in-Christ in-the-face-of 'evidence that contradicted it'. WHAT ABOUT IT? Yeah; I heard-about Dr. Craig saying what he said about 'standards of evidence'. WHY SHOULD 'Christians raise their standards of evidence'? No; Dr. Craig is, as Dr. Sam Harris said, 'the one apologist who puts the fear-of-god into his [Sam's] colleagues'. I haven't made any arguments; I've just stated relevant facts. No; the assertion that 'atheism is just a lack of belief in god' is a LIE that was pushed by Antony Flew and some of his contemporaries/colleagues back in the Day, to make atheists seem more harmless and innocuous than they actually are. The reality is, atheism is the position that deity/divinity probably doesn't exist; and, anti-theism/New-Atheism is a bunch of damaged misfits who engage-in a constant "war" of baloney-propaganda and frivolous litigation against every vestige/reminder of Christianity/belief-in-god. I didn't say that 'you have to reproduce something in a lab for it to be accurate'; I said that for something to be really, actually scientifically-proven, it has to testable, repeatable, reproducible, and verifiable.That's what separates real, actual science from disciplines that just employ some of the methods/aspects/products of real, actual science... science-RELATED disciplines like "geology, paleontology, and astronomy". No; what "science is about" is investigation of physical reality through the use of the most accurate and reliable methods, rules, and tools available. Yes; humans share *A LOT* of genetic material with 'the other great apes'. And,the science-RELATED disciplines that you listed CAN be APPEALED-TO to support common ancestry there. Now, PROVE (through a process that's testable, repeatable/reproducible, verifiable, and that produces HARD results [i.e., REAL ,ACTUAL SCIENCE]) that "evolution did it". [go on; I "promise", I'll wait 😉] Dr. T is taken-seriously enough that the comment-section under his videos, and his campus events, are always FULL-of anti-theists/New-Atheists, absolutely FOAMING and FLAILING (and FAILING utterly) to "defeat" him. 😉 Now; got any more fistfuls of you-know-what to fling-at me, "Science" Man? 🤪

[@onsenguy]

The flaw in Frank's reasoning here, and in most of his videos, is he assumes the Creator is the one depicted in the Christian Gospels. There's no reason at all why we should assume this to be the case, if there is a creator at all.

[@tkaygamehead4062]

Actually no that’s no flaw , bc what he dipicted is what The Gospels describe as GOD . No other religion

[@onsenguy]

@@tkaygamehead4062 but there's no reason to believe the Christian dogmas are true.

[@therick363]

@@tkaygamehead4062 how he do that?

[@coreykirby1632]

@@onsenguy the apostles and the early Christian sure found good reasons to

[@onsenguy]

@@coreykirby1632 when the Hindu holy book was written, and accounts of the Greek Gods of Olympus, people had good reason to believe that too. Now we know it's all myth and man-made.

[@adolfoajuz]

I think a good answer would have been to mention that our material brains can know something about the world just by using the principle of non contradiction. If you are listening to Frank right now, it is impossible not to be listening to him right now.

[@paulhaynes3688]

Does theism allow for reasoning

[@T.One_way]

We atheist subscribe to nature and the universe while believers subscribe to their imagination which makes them overpowered like for example using the God of the gaps. There might be a God or not for all we know but I'm 90% sure there isn't the real question is even if there is a God who is it? The universe doesn't need a why answer to it because it only needs a how why answers are for our satisfaction or to suit ourselves but realizing that all you need to know is how the universe came into existence or how it function. And save the why for your kids when they come back late at home.

[@Golfinthefamily]

the theory of evolution (macroevolution) is the greatest creation myth known to man.

[@T.One_way]

@@Golfinthefamily Go and study it an understand before you talk about it.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@T.One_way Dude, I have studied it. You haven't studied the historicity of Jesus. You made that clear. You then audaciously claim that Jesus is NOT Lord-- without evidence at all to the contrary. You have put forth no good evidence for your claim other than you think resurrection is a fantastic claim and hard to believe (which I would agree). So... it is a miracle for a reason... people don't go to death for something they KNOW is a lie. -- I think your projection is telling. It seems you have a hardened heart and want to come off as astute or thoughtful but really you aren't open to looking or searching it out.

[@T.One_way]

@@Golfinthefamily Bro when did I say all of this why straw man me. And also I was a Christian before becoming an atheist after seeing how the new testament forces itself into the old testament.

[@Golfinthefamily]

@@T.One_way whoops on regards to the red herrings...I'm commenting back on several threads... seriously...sorry for that. I have studied evolution... it says that the main creating force is random mutation via natural selection... genetic variation leads to changes in traits with a vast majority of them being detrimental or degrading. Darwinists believe that somehow through all of these cosmic accidents...somehow we got a genetic code with millions of character, we got the eye, etc... The Cambrian explosion demonstrates there isn't enough time specific complexity shows us there is no gradual process to the complexity we see Observation and testing has always demonstrated an organism remaining the same kind of organism (ecoli remains ecoli, fruit flies remain fruit flies... etc.) Macroevolution is an unsubstantiated conflation of genetic change. It cannot be proven. Christianity is true. Jesus rose from the dead. I'd be curious to know how you feel like the New Testament forces itself into the New Testament.. that is quite a claim that I'd like to have evidence for. Grace and peace to you.

[@adityagupta9073]

Praise the lord

[@harveywabbit9541]

= praise Jupiter.

[@junbiok7188]

@@harveywabbit9541 what?

[@oreally8605]

@@harveywabbit9541 Praise God that atheists will believe one day. On earth 🌎 or in Hell sadly... ( Your choice)

[@aidanya1336]

@@oreally8605 You mean gods choice, he made me. I am his responsibility. He already knows what i am gonna choose, he knew before he created me and did it anyway. If i go to hell i blame god.

[@paulcooper1223]

@@oreally8605 "On earth 🌎 or in Hell sadly... ( Your choice)" Okay, I've made the conscious decision not to go to Hell. Now what? Just as an FYI, petty threats unsupported by evidence don't work.

[@larrywilliams5490]

MIC 🎤 DROP!! Turek,Lewis,Lennox nails it. So this is a perfect example to negate atheists argument for God of the Gaps. Read the book,I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Be honest,no Quantum Theory crap either.

[@veridicusmaximus6010]

[@devonfuginowskinstien7500]

We trust our thought from previous experience. That’s why your level of confidence in what you are thinking on varies depending on subject. This man would not trust his thoughts on something like how to instal an hvac system in his house. He speaks confidently when talking about his focus points on god because he studies it. He studies religion just like a science. And trusting your thoughts doesn’t make you right. Remember when Christmas burned women for being witches, denied the existence of dinosaurs, or thought the sun revolves around the earth?

[@tomdevol6035]

Common question among Christians: if there are laws of nature, then who wrote them? It's their way of trying to prove the existence of God, but it really doesn't hold up. We think of them as "laws" in human terms because that is the best human way to come to terms with the way the world works.