Is Belief in the Christian God Rational ?

[@hereticaljake740]

I enjoy how badly Atheists misinterpret the word of God. Cliff, you are such a gem. I am so grateful for your content and approach.

[@adriancarreno4123]

sure? not even the evidence presented in this debate is evidence, just assertions... "the universe had a begining, so it had a cause" how do you jump from there to a god and even worse... your god... whats the evidence for that? "the first cause was god but I have no evidence that points to a god" lol believe me because bananas

[@MagnusMarcellus]

Most atheists right now you see were probably Christians for many years. Matt was a Christian for 20+ years. There is no misinterpreting happening mate. It’s just that you guys haven’t thought about this way. And when we point out the flaws in your beliefs it’s hard for you to accept that.

[@MrAkeats]

You mean misinterpret the word of a bunch of people from 2400 years ago

[@MikeLocke]

Of all the Atheists I see/hear, Matt's one of the nicest or at least tries to be as respectful as possible and tries to be as honest as possible. That said, he's terrible at debating.

[@MikeLocke]

***** In this debate, he seemed scared, not confident, very hesitant etc. whereas Cliff was more precise with his statements and position, he was stronger as a speaker, more convincing with his comments and answers. Compare Matt on stage here with his internet radio show, big difference.

[@talover403]

***** The theistic arguments stand on their own merits, it doesn't matter WHO argues what. Theists have the burden of proof because they are the ones who are making the positive claim that a god exists. Matt's position is one of skepticism toward the theist and questions the theist about their claims because he like many atheists are not convinced that a god exists.

[@JosephNordenbrockartistraction]

The wild hand jesters of the mysterious god salesman looked so common among repeatedly rehearsed preacher speeches. Matt had to appeal to the basic reason we humans use (even as children) to decide on our own what is believable without conclusive testable evidence. Along with confusing contradictory scriptures designed with fear, lust for power over others and suppressed curiosity at it's core.

[@FuckFascistYouTube]

Mike Locke Lmao ok buddy. Why don't you debate him then..

[@darin1701]

Yes but the arrogant look on his Face is a hazard to tolerance

[@randomthoughtstoday]

Great Debate!!! 👍

[@dravendubz8731]

The Question section go crazy 🔥🔥

[@rudolfsgills]

Ballz

[@unionjackjohn]

Wow Cliffe, God has gifted you with such a wonderful mind and ability to explain his knowledge. And thank God you're on our side, that is the Christian side.

[@devontolly1596]

Christianity is made up by man and not based on any real facts or reality for that matter. God may be real but Christianity is a made up cult by man. The bible is full of made up stories. Please educate yourself, your stupidity is painful to read.

[@joeharris9426]

It is only possible to say what you just said if you don't understand the nature of evidence or logic.

[@therealdio314]

​@@joeharris9426 Incorrect. Both Cliffe and Matt understand philosophy and evidence. Thats why Matt fumbled the question "what are you living for and whats the evidence that what you're living for is true?". He completely understands what his answer should be but he doesnt have evidence for it. Yes, eyewitness testimony is the BEST historical evidence for any historical event. Its called a primary source.

[@punnet2]

@@therealdio314 According to scripture, Thomas the apostle wasn't convinced by the eyewitness testimony of the other apostles.

[@therealdio314]

@@punnet2 You're right. He was convinced by witnessing Jesus himself. So when Jesus says "You believe because you've seen. Blessed are those who believe but havent seen" its talking about you compared to us. You need to see it for yourself to believe it. We dont. The evidence all lines up perfectly with the Bible. There isnt a historical fact we know of, that doesn't line up with the scriptures.

[@enockjamesmwansa6071]

Cliffe came more than prepared for this 😂😂😂😂

[@tnmusicman1]

First time I've seen Cliff debate. Very good debate. I like Cliffs style .

[@theheinzification]

matt did talk about it. he took alien-believers as an example for testimonial evidence and how we should trust their experiences even more since they are still here to be questioned directly.

[@wawangunawan9355]

can you give me sources for this? would love to read all of it

[@Bak3dB3an]

Well God doesn't need us. We need God.

[@goingwithpurposeministries3372]

Thank you Cliffe for your obedience to the faith and being consistent for Christ.

[@Kinglovesyoutodeath]

God often works in the non-intuitive way. The world says, "Signs and wonders, then believe." Jesus says, "Believe. Then the signs and wonders" (John 14:21)

[@matic117]

Hi, 11 years ago your comment was written dayumn that is long lol

[@IAteTheCannoli]

Believing something before being presented with the evidence is an excellent method for self-deception

[@adamturner8732]

Cliffe is really good here. Matt is a good debater in general and did well but I think cliff really showed well

[@AustinDelstar]

how, quote one argument of his

[@resistnzisfutl]

Presenting evidence is only the first step in the process. Evidence must then be critically evaluated for its validity before being accepted. That's how skepticism works. Simply presenting evidence and argumentation isn't enough, it's only the first step in the process. I wish Matt had addressed that as he got cornered at that point. Secondly, there must be standards of evidence that are agreed upon, standards that are reasonable and relevant enough to achieve relative certainty.

[@1godonlyone119]

Yes, people always have free will, no matter where we are, because we are like God in quality (not in quantity), and God has free will.

[@punnet2]

So god can commit sin?

[@1godonlyone119]

@@punnet2 How do you mean?

[@elnogga]

29:00 Ya buggered that one up Matt. logic and reason is Philosophical. Experimentation and repeatability is science

[@JosephNordenbrockartistraction]

I don't believe in other people's ideas that there is a god. I don't agree with you that there is a god that I'm not believing in. Religious people play word games to keep themselves believing that unshakable faith is a virtue to be admired. A child is not born religious or guilty of original sin.

[@98nfsmw98]

Sin is missing the mark of God's law. So whether you believe in God or not, everyone are innate sinners.

[@TheJiminiflix]

+Macrya Thank God for His love and grace demonstrated in His Son Jesus! Through His atonement, we can be saved If we believe on Him.

[@israelvalenzuela8643]

+whiteflag But we must also repent, Jesus taught that one must repent in order to be saved.(Luke 13:3,5) He also taught that we must believe in order to be saved as John 3:16 states. Over sixty times in the New Testament salvation is presented with baptism being mentioned. The apostle Paul said it best in (Acts 20:18-21) "And when they were come to him, he said unto them, Ye know, from the first day that I came into Asia, after what manner I have been with you at all seasons, Serving the Lord with all humility of mind, and with many years, and temptations, which befell me by the lying in wait of the Jews: And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publicly, and from house to house, Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance toward God, and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ

[@TheJiminiflix]

Israel Valenzuela 1. The Word of God must be heard. 2, A person must confess or declare with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe that He rose form the dead .( To be saved.) Romans 10:9 "If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved." How does a non Christian understand repentance? Many "Christians" don't.They need to first confess Jesus is Lord and believe he rose from the dead to be spiritually saved. Repentance is the next step but is ongoing for the rest our lives in the flesh. The Holy Spirit convicts the unsaved to come to God and believe on Jesus and the Holy Spirit convicts the saved believer to live holy, set apart to live repentant ( with a broken spirit, humble, teachable, with a heart to be more like Christ, daily in the Word and aware with eyes open of the seriousness of keeping ourselves pure.)

[@israelvalenzuela8643]

My friend, the meaning of the word repentance has been twisted in recent years to the point that its biblical meaning is now obscured in the minds of many. The idea that genuine repentance could result in anything but a change of life is completely foreign to Scripture. The Bible teaches about the relationship between salvation and repentance? First, it teaches that repentance is essential to salvation. One cannot truly believe unless he repents, and one cannot truly repent unless he believes. Repentance and faith are two sides of the same coin (but they are not synonymous terms). Acts 11:18 and 2 Peter 3:9 are two of the many verses that teach that repentance is necessary for salvation. Perhaps 2 Timothy 2:25 best sums up the relationship between repentance and saving faith when it speaks of "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" (see also Acts 20:21). Second, the Greek word for repentance (metanoia) means "to have another mind," but it cannot properly be defined to exclude a sense of hatred of and penitence for sin. The biblical concept of repentance involves far more than merely a casual change of thinking. Biblically, a person who repents does not continue willfully in sin. Repentance is a turning from sin, and it always results in changed behavior (Luke 3:8). While sorrow from sin is not equivalent to repentance, it is certainly an element of scriptural repentance (2 Corinthians 7:10). Finally, despite what is being widely taught today, affirming that repentance and acknowledgement of Jesus' lordship are necessary to salvation does not "add" anything to the requirement of faith for salvation. It is not "faith plus repentance" that saves, but rather a repentant faith. The notion that salvation is possible apart from a genuine, heartfelt repentance, which includes a deep hatred of sin, is a relatively new one, neither believed nor taught by the people of God until the twentieth century.

[@KingKaymor]

The energy that your body expends to make your hands move.

[@NaNa-nu9sf]

21:44 to 27:55 Cliffe once again clearly indicated genuine honesty toward logic and reason for the existence of God : )

[@ericsonbernabe7987]

on point!

[@walterdaems57]

If god existed there would be no need to prove his existence. Therefore it stands to logic and reason that someone who claims to be the son of god, the only son of god, is a self deluded conman.

[@curse900]

@@walterdaems57 Well you clearly haven’t read the Bible. Without Christ we would all go to hell. He died for our sins… Jesus lived and he rose from the dead. Over 500 people witnessed him rise from the dead and were willing to die for their claims, and they did get murdered. If Jesus was some conman why is our timeline based off of him? Why was his death so important to human history, In fact, the most important event in human history. B.C stands for before Christ. A.D stands for Anno Domini (“in the year of the Lord”) I recommend you repent and seek him. He’s real, you will kneel before him someday. God bless you.

[@walterdaems57]

@@curse900 I could easily say: ‘well you clearly haven’t read the Koran. Or: ‘well, you clearly haven’t read the book of Morons’ or… you get my drift. Jesus lived and rose from the dead. No he didn’t. You and a lot of others wish to believe this preposterous zombie story. Over 500 people witnessed him rise from the dead. No they didn’t. First off, jump into your local police station and ask the first detective you meet about the value of ‘eye witnesses’. The 500 (and where do you get this number from???) are the same who are sure that they saw a UFO yesterday or Elvis being alive and kicking the day before yesterday. It all comes down to what someone wishes to believe. The story of the eternal sin is to crazy for words, if you think about it. So is a son of god dying for our sins if you think about it. But see, that’s the thing with believing. Once you believe, thinking comes second and all logic and rationality fly’s out of the window. I get it. It’s nice to have instant answers on all the big questions of life thanks to one or another fairytale amongst the, at present, approximately 4.300 choices of religions. And yes, it must be very comforting to believe that after death you can eat rice pudding with golden spoons to your hearts content or enjoy the greatest of times with 42 virgins, or whatever you prefer to choose out of the basket of religions, Bibles, scriptures, ‘holy books’, Koran, the complete volume of Grimm’s are all story’s. None of them are any proof of the existence of a god entity. The universe doesn’t need a god to come into existence, Nature works through abundance not with redundancy. Again, whatever you throw on the table to prove a god, son of god, it all comes down to what you haven chosen to wish to believe next to someone else who has chosen to wish to believe something different. And here is the thing. If someone presents me one real shred of evidence with regard to the existence of god I will change my mind on the matter with the speed of a blink from my eye. If I would give you a tsunami of proof about the non existence of god (impossible by the way since you can’t prove the non existence of non existing entities) you still would continue to believe and probably even harder, deeper and stronger than ever before. Sad, immensely sad but true.

[@curse900]

@@walterdaems57 Wow you are quite the intellectual. First off before I go on, I would like to let you know, Jesus is very real. I’ve seen him, and he’s changed my life from taking me away from being a drug addict, alcoholic, and a sex addict. I’ve healed people in the name of Jesus, I’ve also delivered people in the name of Jesus. I’m very in touch with the spirit realm and I’m sorry that you haven’t been able to experience that, you need to soften your heart. Now, I understand your not going to take some random advice from a guy over the internet. So let’s talk about religion, I really am not religious. I think religion has divided our country and caused a lot of people to die. I believe in Jesus, he is the way and the truth and the life. He is your father and he brought you to this earth. I don’t know what evidence you want that God exist, it’s all around us. If you still believe that nothing created everything I mean cmon bro, you need to wake up. Every compound complex design has a designer. It’s logical to think there’s a God actually, way more logical than thinking theres no God 😂 Since your talking like there’s for sure no God, which breaks my heart because on day you will kneel before the Lord and you remember how stupid you sounded. #1 - What do you believe in #2 - What evidence do you have and why is It more logical then their being a God I just want you to know I’m trying to help you out. I care about you and I hope the best for you bro, no hard feelings at all. If you saw Jesus, you would probably be trying to save people too. I don’t do this for my ego, I genuinely hope I can plant a seed with people online.

[@Lili-Benovent]

Question : "Is belief in the Christian God rational?" Answer : NO ! !

[@DanieruShidebuteru]

There is no broken premises here: Premise 1: anything that begins to exist has a cause. Premise 2: the universe begins to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause. God is ETERNAL. He never BEGINS TO EXIST. By necessity of logic, He doesn't fit in those premises. This is where the stupidity of questions like "who created God" is readily apparent.

[@NoExitLoveNow]

Cliffe Knechtle seems to think that to win a debate you talk loudly and emphatically.

[@punnet2]

We managed to clarify one point, so about the remaining two, is this correct: 2. So if you pray to your god for something he knows you DON'T need, god might answer your prayer, or he might not. 3. If you pray to your god for something your god knows you DO need, god will definitely answer your prayer (i.e., 100% of the time?), or god might provide what he knows you need, even if you don't pray for it.

[@kamustang769]

praying has an influence and strengthens relationship with God, but God also knows what to do for you and what not to

[@punnet2]

@@kamustang769So you strengthen your relationship with god by praying for something you may or may not get.

[@profedelasmontanas9023]

God isn’t Uber eats where you place an order. You pray to understand and follow his will. Prayer as a shopping list is an incomplete understanding your relationship with him.

[@punnet2]

@@profedelasmontanas9023 So you _"understand and follow his will"_ by praying for something you may or may not get.

[@profedelasmontanas9023]

@@punnet2 I try to pray for guidance. Not things that I need/want.

[@fernandoautoshow77]

Great job pastor 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉

[@Bak3dB3an]

ok well if you discount God, then discount builders, painters and others because you can't see them so they never created the building or painted the painting. lol I hope in a time of need, God will fill your heart with love. God Bless you man :)

[@jasonroelle5261]

It does not matter what area of study the question, and the conclusion came from. If you have a conclusion, and you have no method that confirms a conclusion matches reality to a high degree of certainty, then it's just a speculative statement.

[@DanieruShidebuteru]

Meaning of life: this is not about who (ie. God) gives who (you and me) meaning. It's about the nature of meaning. A rational God creating a rational world (that can be understood) filled with rational beings (who have the capacity to understand) makes the reality of meaning a no-brainer in Theistic worldview but not in an Atheistic one of random chance. This is acknowledged by Darwin himself, who basically said: IF our mind develops from a lower animal, how can we even trust what it says?

[@oldschool1107]

We don't trust what our minds say but what the research and evidence show. Honestly the quote you stated will seem more useful to theists, since they usually claim they have personal experiences with their god

[@MoralDecay]

Finally found something Cliffe and I disagree on! Genesis and the 6 days of creation... But we are both still on a strong alignment with the ultimate issue!

[@EddieSchultz62]

So many denominations of Christianity just shows how screwed up it is. One believes this, but doesn't believe that. So silly! So glad I took the time to question my faith back in 2003, now I enjoy learning about the universe instead of just saying, "god did it", when I didn't understand something.

[@ToyotaNutjob]

​@@EddieSchultz62 thats such a shitty argument lol

[@JohnjOcampo]

​@@EddieSchultz62 the study of the universe can't answer the question if God exists or not, i understand you have struggled with your faith but don't think science will be the answer for you.

[@EddieSchultz62]

@@JohnjOcampo I didn't say studying the universe could answer whether a god exists or not. I haven't struggled with faith, all it took was research and I found that ALL gods are man made. If anyone who believes in a god does the same research they'll find the same thing. If believing in a god on faith is good enough for you, cool! It wasn't for me, and now I'm not delusional any longer thinking that a personal god created everything in the universe.

[@ltlsWhatltIs]

​@@EddieSchultz62 You can't prove God was man made, but whatever.

[@remieres]

So Matt's only argument against the existence of God is "I don't see him" So this means that Jesus needs to return to die and resurrect for every generation.

[@1timby]

That's the fallacy of atheism. If they can't see it then it doesn't exist. They use empirical evidence as a test for their reality. Yet claim that they don't know so many of the important points. If I don't know how humans got here then it's simple minded to make such grandiose statements of how life had to evolve. Science was mostly created by Christians. Many who stated that scince was there to help us understand God. So it doesn't stop anyone from looking farther into creation or how things work. So the typical statement that religions stop folks from greater understanding is false. Abiogensiss is another theory that simply cant be proven. Just like theory that the universe simply wanted to exist. So it did. Yet atheists rely on that they didn't see it so then it can't be God. There is so much out there that speaks to this fallacy of chaos creating order. As the fallacy that nature could create itself. But that's all that atheists have. Their universe centers around self. So they have no real justification for their actions being good or bad. AS their morality is based on their relative ideals. Not to mention that without a creator then there is no real justice or hope for those that have been wronged.

[@candicearlebemus9278]

Wow, you really really want delusional religious beliefs to be true. I feel sorry for you because underneath what you say, I know you realize religion and the concept of God are purely man made.

[@remieres]

Candice Arlebemus pushing what you believe doesn't mean you speak for others. Thanks though for divulging and disclosing what you believe and your safe space of reality. the more you speak for others or declare what others believe, the more you expose what you believe only.

[@candicearlebemus9278]

Remmy Canadian Your only hope is that some company makes a virtual reality game that simulates the rapture and your arrival in heaven. My point is that deep down, you know that you are no more justified in your belief of the Christian supernatural world as you are in the belief in fairies and leprechauns. Maybe fairies, leprechauns, and Jesus exist. But there is no evidence for them, and you know this.

[@1timby]

Candice Arlebemus Well, let's examine facts & truth. There are ton's of biblical scholars, including nonbelievers, that belive that Christ not only existed. But died & that the grave was empty. There is a ton of proof that Christians existed because of the historical evidence from other sources besides the bible. So if that isn't proof enough then you will have to not belive that Cesar existed and the rest throughout history up till now. Simply because there is no empirical proof, eye witnesses, to prove they existed. So your argument has no merit as the proof exists, from a historical proven facts, that Christ did exist. So please prove a single bit of empirical proof that Washington, Lincoln, Grant, etc ever existed. AS there are none alive today that saw them. As for supernatural, it seems you don't understand the term. The very creation of the universe is proof that supernatural events exists. As nature didn't come into existence until a supernatural event occurred. As for the other claims you made. there is no proof what so ever they did exit. Unlike Jesus. So what I know is that you make claims based on your subjective opinions and not based on any real research. Maybe you're going to tell me that science doesn't states that the universe had a beginning and that it could simply create itself. Even though science states that nothing can create itself. And that all things that have a beginning had something to cause it to be. It always amazes me of how much you folks claim to know when in fact you don't.

[@DanieruShidebuteru]

In what way am I trying to get away? I don't think I have attempted to prove my God at all, let alone getting away. Cliffe, the Christian guy in the video did a great job and I have no reason to add to that. You made an ad hominem on him and I simply teased you for passing judgement on someone without any evidence of sound judgement. That's all.

[@Wilfixz]

Bro it was so funny when he said as "we learn more about the universe and it's beginning it disproves even more that there is a God" what? Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life

[@lonematrix48]

Thanks a lot for this

[@NaNa-nu9sf]

0:01 through 13:30: Cliffe flawlessly introduces God!

[@johnnybickle4116]

Ha ha ha ,,, and he walked in and introduced himself to the audience

[@BattleshipAgincourt]

You are absolutely right. In fact this was the key thing that made me reject William Lane Craig's assertions out of hand, because he assumed something which controverts what we already established as true. However that doesn't mean WLC couldn't still prove his points, provided that he also provides the foundation of evidence to support the assertion that a nonphysical mind even CAN exist. However Craig seems to do everything to avoid this altogether and simply assume it to be true.

[@jebotokelly2884]

Au contraire Delusio. The self-evidential reality of the order and complexity of the universe, life's arrival, and sentience is the objective EVIDENCE in and of itself, of a purposefully, reasoned, and intentionality instilled creation, hence an immeasurably powerful physically transcending mind in God (s). Now for the umpteenth time,... (Cont'd

[@robertgold2378]

This women by Jesus grave ran and told everyone that Jesus resurected. 1:21:03 And the man where like: "See thats why you dont trust a womans testimony".

[@stonebrownalien]

Eventhough I disagree with Cliffe's view of Genesis, I have to say that he did a good job in explaining why he believes that there is a God. It seems that Matt really dosent want to know if there is a God or not, so thats what his explanations indicate.

[@justinhatch1326]

So I am guessing you are YEC? How do you explain Neanderthals, Homoerectus, Australopithicus and on and on....the millions of real tangible artifacts ?

[@drunkduck8073]

I'm a Christian but I understand Matt's arguments. I don't agree with all of them but it seems he's just not convinced enough. Some people would maybe believe evidence in which he does not. He can't push himself to believe if he can't accpet it as truth

[@ernienegrete5702]

...which means he's agnostic, not atheist. ​@@drunkduck8073

[@MegaSleep1]

Matt is not that good outside the atheist experience. I kind of feel bad for him in this one. Its kind of like watching a street fighter against a professional boxer.

[@mrtadreamer]

Is belief in God rational? Yes.

[@matswessling6600]

hell no.

[@Seanw115]

@@matswessling6600more like hell….. yes for you mate 😂

[@matswessling6600]

@@Seanw115 there is no evidence for christianity.

[@darrellwhitney789]

For an individual maybe.

[@matswessling6600]

@@darrellwhitney789 no. not for any individual.

[@fallout941]

I understand that, and to a large extent, i agree. I am simply not starting there, as Jeboto seems dead set on simply calling fallacy to any attempt at an argument. I often find that starting and the bottom and working up will sometimes allow these people to see more clearly, and pointing out at a fundamental level where there problems are allows for a strong foundation to build a case that is easier for them to accept.

[@RichLunaMusic]

They both look so different! They were babies!

[@punnet2]

Excellent. As you've just acknowledged, "no one is born believing in anything". Which is to say, no one is born holding beliefs, but rather everyone is born lacking beliefs. You've thus acknowledged that lack of belief is the default position. Well done.

[@punnet2]

@@BorneoIs And why shouldn't we apply that default position to all concepts?

[@punnet2]

@@BorneoIs I'm having trouble tracing the entire original thread due to the change in format, but I'm pretty sure someone was shifting the burden of proving that god does exist, and instead challenging me to prove god doesn't exist. My point was that the default position for any proposition is _lack of belief in X,_ which is not semantically equivalent to _believing X does not exist._ It only makes sense to withhold belief in a proposition until there is adequate evidence for its existence; and does not make sense to assume X exists and demand proof that it doesn't -- whether _X_ refers to god, unicorns, or anything else.

[@kevinw1711]

​@punnet2 there is plenty of evidence. The question is how much evidence suffices. You will never have enough "evidence" to suffice, hence faith. So good luck thinking you deserve all the answers and knowledge of the creator of the universe. Imagine thinking with our little 3lb brains we are going to "figure God out." If that was the case he wouldn't be a God worth worshipping anyway. There is faith in everything we do regardless of the odds being higher or lower. There is still faith. So weigh your odds with belief in God. If eternity in sin and suffering isn't that important to you then by all means live for your humanity and good luck.

[@punnet2]

@@kevinw1711 *_"there is plenty of evidence."_* Then let's have it. *_"So good luck thinking you deserve all the answers and knowledge of the creator of the universe."_* You haven't yet proven there even is a creator of the universe. You're saying I don't deserve answers as an excuse for your lack of proof. *_"Imagine thinking with our little 3lb brains we are going to 'figure God out.'"_* You're assuming there's even a god to figure out; borrowing from your conclusion. *_"If eternity in sin and suffering isn't that important to you then by all means live for your humanity and good luck."_* Pascal's Wager. Another fallacy instead of proof.

[@joeharris9426]

Everytime I hear Cliffe speak, I am shocked by how many people fail to see how logically unsound his arguments are. Assertions with no backing, logical fallacies. He likes yo say he is going to explain the evidence that supports his beliefs just to basically say "these things are complications and I don't understand how something so complicated could not have a designer. Therefore God. Specifically, therefor his religions god." You could use Cliffe in a class meant to teach you how to spot logical fallacies.

[@lucasalfonso3546]

Someone could use your comments to spot how to write a terrible argument

[@sweetsweatyfeet]

Key point by Matt. Theists start with a conclusion then proceed to construct arguments to support it. This is all theists have ever done anytime, anywhere. Start with god as a premise then twist reality and construct weasely, contrived arguments to support their unwarranted premise. This is derived purely from bias and is the very opposite of the scientific method.

[@tylerswank3498]

It's simple, because God cannot be tested or experimented on. Because if he could, then there would be no faith aspect. And also his power wouldn't be limitless if we could measure it. So you can't put God under a microscope. God is supernatural, which means we cannot use natural devices or systems to prove him. I could also argue that you have a bias, as do most Atheists. In that they will (I kid you not) make up anything and everything just to get further away from a transcendent, immortal being. I have great respect for the effort, but intelligent design literally points to an intelligent creator. You can't prove the Big Bang, you can't prove macro evolution, and you can't prove the notion that there are an infinite amount of universes. But you still believe them, so you aren't using solid natural evidence for these things. And if there was solid evidence, then they wouldn't be called theories because they've been proven.

[@noblewolfwriting7526]

If your mind was simply evolved from a lower creature over time, why do you trust it? Why would anyone? Free will does not exists without God. Everything falls down to cause and effect in an infinite regress back to the Big Bang. Without God, the words I’m saying here and any you might respond with are meaningless. And if existence is truly meaningless, why choose to continue to exist at all?

[@JREClipMaster]

Atheists can talk all day about why God doesn't exist. But I with my rational mind will never be able to deny that Isaiah chapter 53 (which is included in the dead sea scrolls written 150 B.C.) is talking about Jesus coming...

[@pilgrimpater]

So many gods to choose from. There are 3 positions a) You believe in them all - absurd b) you believe in one as only one can be right but are left with being an Atheist to all the others. Using the Theistic argument it's the job to disprove all those other gods c) You can believe in one less than those in b). This is the most logical scenario until someone in b) actually provides positive prioof of why they believe in something with absolutely no evidence, otherwise anyone can make any claim.

[@saintpine]

"Good job Cliff ! it makes absolute sense in my life when God is real." It sounds absolutely nonsense to me.

[@christiananswers6570]

Thanks for depositing God to challenge God. A+ for Jesus!

[@anthonyharty1732]

Cliffe got annihilated on here, he talked deluded nonsense.

[@Mikeyspgo]

And you're a great example on why people like you aren't capable of having these conversations, you insult the other side while both sides gave great points. I can already tell someone like you is closed minded about Christianity because of what you said about Cliff's arguments. Which is funny because Matt (who seems to be someone you support obviously by your comment) condemns close minded people like yourself. Maybe do some research on the side you're on before throwing insults on the side you believe lost. Both sides had great arguments.

[@anthonyharty1732]

@@Mikeyspgo 😂🤣😂🤣😂 You know NOTHING about me. You do NOT know I have read the BIBLE from the first page to the last, page by page, it took me about 12 months to read. I have also read the Quaran from the first page to the last, page by page. I’ve forgotten how long that took me it’s been that long ago. This Cliffe guy truly believes that ‘Jesus’ existed and rose from the dead. He also believes that ‘Jesus’ walked on water, made the blind see, the crippled walk, healed Leper’s by touching them, fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and fish and had loads left after doing that. 😂🤣😂🤣😂 He believes this ‘God’ talked everything into existence, said let there be light, let there be dark and it was good and it happened. 😂🤣😂🤣😂 He believes in the Adam and Eve fairytale, the Noah’s Ark fairytale, a talking serpent and a talking donkey. 😂🤣😂🤣😂I don’t believe in any of it, it’s ALL ridiculous fairytale supernatural NONSENSE!!!!!! With no EVIDENCE to back it up, just CLAIMS!!!!!! ALL ‘God’s’ and Religions are made up by MAN!!!!!! That is why there are so many different ‘God’s’ and Religions ALL thought up by MAN!!!!! There has been no EVIDENCE of any kind of ‘God’ in the thousands of years since the Religious books were written, NONE!!!!! Give me the EVIDENCE of any kind of ‘God’ I know you can’t. You will be the first person in history to ever do it. Religious books are full of BRAINWASHING, CONTROL, THREATS, LIES and SUPERNATURAL NONSENSE!!!!!

[@AustinDelstar]

@@Mikeyspgo you poor fool

[@NaNa-nu9sf]

13:34 through 21:40 : A bunch of words came out of his atheist mouth but no evidence or common sense or critical thinking I could latch onto : (

[@jameseayres6798]

Sounds like a problem on your end more than his

[@Tenno-Frame]

Funny when I hear the words critical thinking and evidence from theists. Staggering that people can actually believe in these antiquated beliefs.

[@joshuaolutobi3564]

@@Tenno-Frame how exactly is it antiquated?

[@Tenno-Frame]

@@joshuaolutobi3564 because the book is over 2000 years old. I believe that qualifies as antique sir. Would you agree, or not?

[@joshuaolutobi3564]

@@Tenno-Frame I disagree. Just a book is old doesn't make it invalid. How old does the book containing the inauguration of George Washington has to be to become invalid?

[@annoyingdude76]

1.correct 2.false,he knows what we don't need but if we pray and show gratitude He may give it to us.Main point,it's not important to Him. 3.partially correct,and here is why.God will give you what you need,even if you yourself don't know you need it.But we need to show that we want God's help,and in return He will interact with us.If we don't want Him,He will respect our decision.That's why prayer is here,to let God ''know'' we are interested in His help

[@ParkerLad88]

If only political debates were this organized. 😮‍💨

[@dolam]

Is this a debate? I feel like I am toggling between a college class on logic and reason and a tent revival.

[@joshuaolutobi3564]

This comment makes no meaning

[@maxwellcatlett3752]

In order of his evidence god: god of the gaps (and mild special pleading), argument of ignorance , evolution, not evidence to argue that we are special and must have meaning, no evidence for resurrection except for a book that has historical flaws so cherry picking what's true and what's figurative,

[@JohnjOcampo]

Which is why it's called faith, you also have faith thay God doesn't exist and if you disagree then you are being intellectually dishonest.

[@sly33]

Atheism is just a bunch of assumptions and arrogance.

[@Kamingo170]

That's the most rich, and purely ironic statement I think I've ever read on KZbin. Congratulations 😂

[@sly33]

@@Kamingo170 Thank you and you're welcome!

[@Kamingo170]

@@sly33 right over your head

[@sly33]

@@Kamingo170 And you believed it!

[@Kamingo170]

@@sly33 cognitive dissonance at its finest right here

[@MsFeatherFalls]

Science and religion should be approached as interconnected but some humans are too arrogant to accept the idea of a higher being.

[@dolam]

I don't understand the difference between evolution as a process versus evolution as an origin? Can someone explain Cliff's perspective to me. It sounds like he is conflating evolution and abiogenesis.

[@joshuaolutobi3564]

Can life come from non life?

[@dolam]

@@joshuaolutobi3564 I believe yes. Even though we have no explanation or evidence of abiogenesis, it is the most satisfactory explanation for the origin of life.

[@joshuaolutobi3564]

@@dolam That is the definition of blind, gullible faith. Believe without evidence. Have a great life mate

[@dolam]

@@joshuaolutobi3564 Ok, I will. You still never answered my question.

[@CokeSupply1]

When I got to about 10 minutes in, I was thinking "Matt is going to turn this guy into confetti" lol

[@dv1220]

Well he ultimately didn’t did he?🤣

[@gytiskontrimas4399]

Cliffe - a salesman, trying to desperately sell you an invisible product. Matt - a guy giving you free advice on how to save some cash.

[@dfaulk95]

Matt is not making any claim at all. He takes no stance except that Cliffe is wrong, hard to debate someone who isn’t making a specific claim.

[@tommyheron464]

Matt's claim is that the god proposition has not met it's burden of proof.

[@JohnjOcampo]

​@@dfaulk95 this is why most people don't respect atheists, they refuse to live their atheistic faith which makes them intellectually dishonest and hypocrites. Science was started by theists looking for answers just so you known.

[@pupukb2161]

You’re a person who worship money,who try to change the world the ways you want.who do you think you are?

[@punnet2]

False. The default position is lack of belief. Formally, this is known as the Null Hypothesis. Your mention of "earliest recorded history" does not vindicate your presumption; that simply indicates early humans shifted from the default position (again: lack of belief), to a position of belief. If this remains beyond your comprehension, consider whether the flat-earth model or geocentricity are default positions since such beliefs were held from "earliest recorded history".

[@ronbolden9678]

continue to use. This is just meant as encouragment because i know i have many faults much worse even then you but i know if you truly love God, you will do His will, and not your own.

[@Matthew-Clark1980]

Matt is arrogant and purposely closed minded and likes to make noise out of his face hole. Cliffe won handedly.

[@ChrisR395]

Thank. And they can't be, because one assumes a conclusion and the other doesn't. The only way you can interconnect religion and science is if you don't take the religion literally and you assume the creation accounts, among other things, are metaphor. It's nothing to do with arrogance, it's about not accepting baseless claims without evidence.

[@annoyingdude76]

also,flipping a coin can't cause anything,how can it?But asking an omnipotent personal Being for guidance,if he exists(by your standard),can cause logically an intervention.So logically if it's true that He exists,then that's why prayer is logically sound

[@Ober_O]

I hate the question of "What are you living for and what's your evidence?" Are we required to live for something? Can we not live for something that has no evidence? The question is also not that complicated unless you're demanding that the answer is way more complex than is needs to be. My answer could be "I'm living for eating chocolate chip cookies and my evidence for that is that I enjoy chocolate chip cookies and eating them makes me happy"

[@dolam]

I agree. I thought it was a weird way of shifting the burden of proof. However a person lives their life, it is not a truth statement that they need to provide evidence for, unlike asserting the existence of a supernatural being. I fail to see the connection that made that question relevant.

[@carl3545]

@@dolam tbh it’s not a hard question to answer unless your self centered. A doctor lives to save lives because they need saving, a CPS agent lives to help and save children because there put it bad situations, and A philosopher thinks because without thinking you can’t function in life. This question is only directed towards people who are self centered and who are entitled. God gives a reason to this question along with devoting your life to help people.

[@dolam]

@@carl3545 Ok, I am going to challenge you and lets see if you are up to it. Turn your response to my comment into a hypothesis and then falsify that hypothesis, because quite frankly I still fail to see the relevancy of the question.

[@timmaiste6304]

Cliff’s point went totally over your head. You can live for choc chip cookies if you want. The connection Cliffe is making is if you say you can believe in Christ because of lack of evidence. You can’t live for him because of lack of evidence. Yet then you turn around and live for choc chip cookies but are comfortable with this decision despite having no evidence whatsoever that living for CCC is what you should be living for. It’s really a challenge for consistency in your reasoning.

[@ToyotaNutjob]

​@@dolam "derrr da burden of proof derrrr" lol can't prove God first off, second off, no one cares to prove it to you crossarmed cringelord atheist, your the one upcreek without paddle

[@fallout941]

Matthew 5:42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you. I beg of you, give me the knowledge that you have. show me how my view is wrong, and explain to me how god is self evident, for I am blind to it.

[@ninjaheaven23]

Genesis 6 days of creation is not a 24 hour earth period but a billion years .. Bro Eli Soriano explained that in his videos...

[@Kinglovesyoutodeath]

Given that the idea of prayer was not from science, and from certain books, it's quite logical to go to them for suggestions and tips, rather than trying to PRESUME very arbitrarily that a specific God who would answer to scientific experimental prayers. Plus, If God is a person, He would have a personality--likes and dislikes. Ignoring all these factors and not taking account these possibilities is very specific and arbitrary.

[@Christo-ortho]

I recently left my atheism and got back to Christianity. Now what surprised me was the amount of evedence I didnt know about before i left Christianity i didnt even read the bible and i had the gall to call it false. But what also became evident to me was for most atheists, no matter of evedence would convince them. Unless God himself came down and showed himself to them, even then they would probably dismiss it as a hallucination. You cant convince them they would dimiss every evidence as coincidence, or some such.

[@jasperberfong]

God bless you brother ❤ thanku for your testimony

[@punnet2]

What was the evidence that convinced you?

[@AbelRomo4]

@@punnet2just let him be. If he wants to go back to Christianity, so what?

[@punnet2]

@@AbelRomo4 He took it upon himself to come tell us, so might as well follow through.

[@annoyingdude76]

''about someone getting better'' yeah that was just my personal example.Go talk to people who claim to have their prayer answered. ''you're saying it works'' for the last time,I'm saying that some times it works sometimes it doesn't.I had several other examples of it working(a example where something happened who's chances of happening were really small just in the right time),and other examples of it not working.And that's because it's,NOT a machine,and God isn't a genie

[@DanieruShidebuteru]

Dude, I said "only Judeo-Christian God claimed to intersect time and reveal Himself to mankind". Many events in the Old and the New Testaments hence, are verifiable up to an extent in history and archaeology. The gods you claim to have interacted with humans (whomever they might be, doesn't matter. They all fit in this category) DO NOT intersect with time. Their interactions are communicated as mythologies; fictional stories intended to explain certain concepts.

[@van-michaelgraves1456]

Hi Cliffe, I've noticed Matt made a contradiction when talking about the truth of evidence and evolution. He follows the group majority of what is true and not true based on what the group tells us, but he claims Christians have a problem with believing the resurrection because of the group majority (eyewitness testimony specifically) says so.

[@AustinDelstar]

no , you made a mistake. he follows the evidence on evolution.

[@StopmotionStudios13]

Scientific evidence means eye witness testimony that can be recreated.

[@bornagainbasics]

Talk about dancing around the issue. Apparently history isn't a rational form of learning and we cannot trust anyone. What a wild belief system.

[@AustinDelstar]

i know right, thats why Christianity is doomed

[@punnet2]

@Jeboto Kelly That is defining god into existence, which is simply circular reasoning. Furthermore, if you find it acceptable to say "god just is", you ought find it acceptable to say "the universe just is", which is more parsimonious an explanation.

[@WienArtist]

False logic! It is quite easy to know that God just is, because as early intelligent-minded people have expressed, God must be the "first mover" or the first causal agent of everything that begins to exist, while God himself is eternal and has no beginning. If you attempt to claim that God must have a beginning, than you fall into the trap of an eternal regress, trying and failing to show who or what created God, and then who created that creator, and the one before that, etc, ad infinitum. But the universe, as well as everything in it has been caused. And everything that begins to exist MUST have a cause because due to our own empirical knowledge, we know this as fact - nothing just pops into being uncaused, so to claim that the universe just is - well that is definitely not at all a parsimonious explanation, but indeed a totally wrong conclusion.

[@punnet2]

@@WienArtist *_" God must be the 'first mover' or the first causal agent of everything that begins to exist, while God himself is eternal and has no beginning"_* Defining god into existence...again. *_"But the universe, as well as everything in it has been caused."_* Unproven. *_"And everything that begins to exist MUST have a cause because due to our own empirical knowledge..."_* Composition fallacy. That everything within time and space must have a cause does not imply that time and space itself has a cause. *_"...nothing just pops into being uncaused..."_* False. This is in fact observed at the quantum level.

[@WienArtist]

@@punnet2 You just easily demonstrated that you have no clue concerning what you think you are trying to argue - none at all...LOL :-D :-D :-D

[@punnet2]

@@WienArtist More like...you can't defend your position, so you beat a hasty retreat. As the other comment threads indicate, this wouldn't be the first time ("LOL").

[@WienArtist]

@@punnet2 What is more accurate to say is that when someone like yourself makes ridiculous claims, there is no need to make a defense, since the silliness of your claim has already revealed your lack of intelligence, especially when making false statements that certainly cannot be justified or validated with truth. Just as one erudite person once stated, "nonsense, even when spoken by the most brilliant minds, is still nonsense!"

[@fallout941]

Of course, hence my skepticism. im simply wanting him to explain to me how his god is self evident, so that we too can understand as he does. He OBVIOUSLY has information that we dont. I am asking that he share that knowledge. I have laid out some questions below, and would be happy if he could answer them, instead of trying to point out fallacy, as there is no fallacy if one is not making a statement, and is only asking a question.

[@MsFeatherFalls]

I see your approach. But I’m actually referencing Christianity, specifically Protestant sects which is separate from Catholicism so I can’t speak on other religions. Anyway the beliefs of a God in my religion are based on physical & historical evidence supported by ancient literature (Bible). Not to mention personal experience. Your experience differs from mine of course but that doesn’t make mine any less real. I can't speak for others but I believe because I have all the evidence I need.

[@joannquaid6037]

Amen

[@mauricios.5943]

54:40 the unbearable pain to see Cliff being interrupted while doing his "I'm cooking something here" pose 😭😭

[@virginiaoutdoors4488]

Love how Matt gives 0 evidence of his point of view and is only voicing his opinion, cliff gives rational reasoning and evidence…

[@saintpine]

Leaving an open and free mind in the person that does not have critical thinking skills can produce unpredictable effects. That is the main reason why religious indoctrination starts at a young age, it's the easiest method to bypass the critical mind and allow garbage to be accepted. It is important that the young mind be guided to maturity.

[@joannquaid6037]

Prayer is not just asking God for things. We don't just ask our friends for things. god is my friend. God wants me to talk with Him. God gives me the opportunity to live for Him. Ge is so much above me that i do not understand all about Him, but i know He is. How? Personal experience. The universe which had to be made by a superior being. Could not come from nothing.

[@punnet2]

*_"...i know He is. How? Personal experience. "_* People who believe in a different god than yours also claim to "know" due to personal experience. *_"The universe which had to be made by a superior being. Could not come from nothing."_* Then what made the "superior being"? (If you say it didn't need to be made one can just as easily postulate that the universe didn't need to be made.)

[@milesregalado7504]

Id rather have faith in God than just depend on the knowledge of my small brain

[@pup1008]

Your "small brain" has got you through 250000 years of human existence & the ability to write things on computers which can be read around the world. Faith is the excuse we give for something we have no actual evidence for.

[@JohnjOcampo]

​@@pup1008 what does being tough and the best at survival have anything to do with the existence of God?

[@pup1008]

@@JohnjOcampo Ask the Dodos.

[@punnet2]

god is most likely nothing more than a product of our small brains, and faith is the small-brained excuse to hold that belief without evidence.

[@theronnightstar]

Objective argument vs. Subjective argument - What do I SEE (evidence) vs What do I BELIEVE (faith). Rationality requires objective answers (evidence). Apples and Oranges if you ask me. Yes, both have the general characteristics of all fruit, but they are still very different things. Yes, in the end though, belief in God IS a matter of faith. But the question was is it RATIONAL. And that is where I think Matt clearly won.

[@JohnjOcampo]

It's irrational to think life comes from non-life, the hypocrisy of atheism is nauseating and cowardice.

[@auralstream]

Quick answer to the question: Is Belief in the Christian God Understandable? Yes Is Belief in the Christian God Rational? No

[@kriswillems5661]

Matt sounded the most reasonable to me.

[@ThotArod]

U can barely even hear him ? Probably all the Diet Coke he’s swallowing

[@punnet2]

That is incorrect. "I don't know" is not semantically equivalent to "I believe [on faith] that 'existence credits itself, to itself, for bupkis'". Neither is "I reject your [unevidenced, and hence faith-based] explanation of an 'immeasurably powerful mind'".

[@fallout941]

Besides, if you believe in a god that manifests in reality (ie grants prayers, heals the sick, etc.) then that god's presence would be detectable. Why is it when people test things like intercessory prayer, they fail? Is it because your god is hiding? or is he like loki, and is intentionally confounding the tests?

[@Ottomastiff]

if there is not the if of evolution then when is the how of what where none existence therefore there is the stuff that was not before the thing was ahead of the things that were not before. so how can we know if the before is after the before or the after is before the after with which we can prove that the things that have been have not been before the things that will? Is that not proof of the things that cannot be proven?

[@fallout941]

Proverbs 11:30 The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is wise. explain how your view is self evident. share your wisdom, and become wiser in the process.

[@monkeywage]

That's like saying I made a car but not feel responsible when it's polluting the air. I'm the one who made the car the way it is, didn't I? Either I'm a bad designer and made a thing that would produce something bad, or I'm a liar who claimed my creation is fine and anything bad is not my fault. So, the big question is: did God know mankind would end up creating sin and suffering when he made us?

[@prasyce]

Where did these self-evident laws of logic come from in a world or random chance and chaos? And how do you know that they are self-evident?

[@AzimuthTao]

I can't believe Matt got sucked into that ridiculous question "what are you living for and what is the evidence that proves it's worth living for"? The question is meant to associate a belief as a reason for living. That in itself is nonsense. I'm not even sure most believers will say they are living just for their belief in god. Knechtle might be one of the silliest religious apologists I've ever heard.

[@punnet2]

If you don't know how prayer works, how can you be sure it works at all -- if you can't distinguish it from random chance? One can use this selective rationale of "they work when they work, and don't when they don't" for any farfetched claim like psychic power, astrology or lucky charms. If you're not willing to demonstrate prayer's efficacy under testing, then it can be rejected as unproven. When you're ready to actually prove it (and not rattle off anecdote), let me know.

[@annoyingdude76]

oh and btw,a prayer isn't a wish like asking God for something you want,it's asking God for something He knows you need and to strengthen your bond with Him.There are certain obligations you need,not just to ask for it and expect God to just run and get it for you.We serve Him not the other way around. Man,you need theology classes real bad.If you have no more objections feel free to test it out yourself(but know the obligations before you do)

[@BattleshipAgincourt]

Do you want to know what your ultimate failure is? Your failure isn't merely that you've failed to back any of your claims, lie about what people believe in, deliberately misrepresent yourself, misrepresent your opponents, dump insult after insult, and piss on everything you proclaim to believe in... your ultimate failure is alienating both your opponents and your natural allies. Seriously when even your friends refuse to back you, that's when you should know you're wrong about everything.

[@DanieruShidebuteru]

I never said that. The sentence simply referred to the following statement of Dawkins I quoted in a previous comment I made: "DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." Those were comments made to rscape311. Maybe if you stick to your own thread, and not just read someone else's in a mealpiece manner you may save yourself a lot of minsunderstanding. Believe me, your thread needs plenty of work. No need to look over someone else's and think you can solve those too.

[@fallout941]

i find that those types dont have a shred of integrity, at least when it comes to this subject, as the ends justify the means. And it all boils down to one simple problem: Who they are and what religion they hold are two things that are nearly indistinguishable from each other. If you attack their beliefs, you are attacking THEM. There is no real separation. And his reactions are pretty much the norm for 90+ % of the christians I run into. OH, and Jeboto, 1 Peter 3:15.

[@blueakgirl23]

Im an atheist and I don't think love is the most important thing...I think its the search for truth, but I would like to state that it is a personal belief.

[@punnet2]

The contest between Elijah and the priests of Baal serves as an empirical test. In the story, each side was given a chance to demonstrate their god answered prayer. By the conditions agreed upon by both sides, the priests of Baal failed the test, and Elijah passed. I never demanded one show it works every time; only that it works better than what would be expected by chance. If you can't demonstrate prayer works any better than wishing on a star or flipping a coin, why believe in it at all?

[@YourIndoctrination]

Matt thinks laws of logic are human inventions but he is wrong you cant bend the laws of logic to your whim cuz then that could make contradictions OK :P

[@Gnomefro]

And here we come back to why naturalism is the only rational worldview. i can tell you what I mean when I say "reason"(A material information processing system evaluating options while adhering to the laws of logic and probability theory), but chances are you have no clue what you mean by it. That's the difference between a rationally held belief and making shit up and this aspect(Being sure you talk about something real) is more important than being able to prove every aspect of your worldview.

[@ronbolden9678]

Theres a difference between a man and a car isn't there though. We were created with free will to choose. if this wasn't apart of us God could have made us just to be machines and do whatever we want Him to do. But how would that ever be love? When God created us he created us for love. to love eachother and to love Him. When we choose not to love Him or one another that is when suffering comes in. We choose to abandon the one who made us or we choose to disrespect other people. That is what

[@ugochukwuohanaga522]

He said that he tried to live like jesus and he failed, but jesus tried and lived out. But then again if he actually believed in Jesus and since Jesus didn't fail he wasnt suppose to fail. Do you know that jesus actually said in the bible if you believe, you will do greater works than I have done. So the question actually is why did he fail despite believing in Jesus? Let me remind you that even though Jesus didn't fail he was also human, and human are subjected to flaws.