LIVE from the University of Vermont (Burlington, VT) - IDHEFTBAA

[@1Ethiopia_Getahun.]

Thank you JESUS for the blessing of (GodLogic Apologetics) channel and (crossexamined) channel that helped me streingthen my faith ❤!

[@Generatorman59]

Frank completely missed the point in Leviticus about slavery. In Leviticus 25:44-46, God actually permits his people to purchase other people from the nations around them. How is that not immoral? But he also permits his people to BUY CHILDREN of the strangers around them. Wow! And it specifically stated that they will be their property. It doesn't end there. You can pass your slaves on to your children as an inheritance and they will be your PERMANENT SLAVES! These children will never have an opportunity to be free. So much for the indentured servitude argument. How could Frank have missed this?

[@billmurray3264]

Man if only Dr. Turek could come to Lebanon, I'll be the first to attend... Unfortunately, apologetics teachings and lectures isn't even considered a thing in my country

[@sidwhiting665]

Around the 2 hour point, when discussing whether it matters or not if the universe was created thousands or billions of year ago. I've thought about that a lot, and the part that I don't understand with an old universe would be how and when the curse came on creation. According to the Bible, all creation has been groaning under the curse since the time of Adam. Therefore, the curse was not in effect before Adam, and if we subscribe to old-Earth creationism, then this raises many questions: * 1) Was there no death of animals or plants prior to the Fall? 2) When did humans become morally culpable agents who could sin against God? 3) Are Adam and Eve the first humans, or are they the first humans with moral culpability? 4) Were there other humans and/or proto humans before Adam and Eve, who did not have moral culpability? 5) Did creatures such as homo erectus and Neanderthals exist, and if yes, did they have a soul, or were they human-looking animals with high intelligence? Kind of a more specific version of #4. * Man was created out of the dust of the ground, and God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. It makes me wonder if there were indeed highly evolved creatures that resembled humans in almost every way, but because they didn't receive the breath of life, they were not made in the image of God with an immortal soul as humans are.

[@mattg6262]

C.S. Lewis basically believed in your numbers 3-5 I think. If it makes you feel any better.

[@knxcholx]

Well, I believe the Bible says after the fall of man, that’s when death to men came. The original fall was with satan. I think that’s when death came to nature on earth

[@memastarful]

Here to help the algorithms 🙂

[@Amor_Fati_]

I got saved by the Holy Spirit 6 years ago ! ITS ALL REAL! Repent! ✝️

[@NewCreationInChrist896]

Read the Bible. Allah, the Best Deceiver (Qur'an 3:54) (Revelation 12:9) "This great dragon the ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, the one deceiving the whole world was thrown down to the earth with all his angels"

[@anthonyhudson2265]

Allah is literally the same god as Yahweh. Allah is just a shortening of the old Arabic phrase Al-Ilah, where Al means "the" and Ilah derives from the same semitic word as the Hebrew word Elohim, which means "god" and is what the Jews started referring to the storm god, and the national god of Israel, *Yahweh,* as in the 6th century BC, which was when they got rid of all of the other gods in their pantheon due to the rise of Jewish nationalism in the Babylonian Captivity. So Allah, or Al-Ilah, just means "The God" and refers to Yahweh.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

(Jeremiah 20:7) "O Lord, you have deceived me, and I was deceived."

[@jeffh2125]

​@@anthonyhudson2265 Yahweh is the God of Love. Allah is not. Yahwey is a Trinity, and the Quran attacks the idea of the Trinity, Muhammad is said to be Allah's messenger, and not so with Yahweh, among other differences. My opinion. You're welcome to yours of course. But, no, no, and a thousand times no, they are not the same.

[@frankcardano4142]

@@jeffh2125 Yahweh was the god of war. That’s why he’s so bloodthirsty in the Old Testament.

[@jeffh2125]

@@frankcardano4142 Nonsense. Anti-Christians spew that all the time. God is sovereign. Those whom God destroyed sinned unspeakable sins like child sacrifice and were destroyed by God, their maker. Remember; you don't believe in God anyway and I'm not going to cast any more perls your way.

[@AcousticFatality]

I enjoyed where he was going with the conception example. Why was that cut out?

[@howardwoods342]

Noticed that too. They don't want us hearing the truth about abortion that's why

[@nattybumppo4151]

The trinity is from gnostic ideas and ancient greek philosophy.

[@SeattlePreachers]

love franks explanation on slavery. Very concise and to the point.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Yes, he’s very athletic in his mental gymnastics.

[@NewtonVieira]

Amen 🙏

[@SeattlePreachers]

also regarding Calvinism. they re define so many terms. For example they believe that when the bible says that God wants "all" to be saved or that Jesus "tasted death for everyone" that it means only all the Elect. Its damnable heresy.

[@nataliocampos5156]

Amen 😊😊😊

[@therick363]

Doesn’t take faith to be an atheist. Same old lectures that don’t prove a god and misrepresent atheism and science.

[@myinternetname5911]

We’re you watching it because you hoped it would prove the God exists, or were you watching to assure yourself He doesn’t? I don’t follow KZbin atheists in hopes of finding out it’s true. Once you find the truth, there’s no need to keep looking. It seems something is going on in your spirit which you don’t like but are unable to ignore.

[@therick363]

@@myinternetname5911 I was watching it with an open mind and hoping Frank wouldnt pull his usual misrepresentation of atheism and science. Alas I was disappointed again becoming that’s what I saw. _once you find the truth_ Which is….. I find it interesting you didn’t actually address what I said. Why?

[@myinternetname5911]

@@therick363 I replied to you because I didn’t understand why you watched and commented on the video. You stated your conclusions about it, but not why you were watching it in the first place.

[@therick363]

@@myinternetname5911 my second reply expired why I watched it. I was hoping Frank wouldn’t be doing the same lecture he’s been doing for ages. But he did. And the simple fact is many like myself come here to correct what he gets wrong about atheism/atheists and science and whatnot. The title alone shows he doesn’t understand or thinks it’s okay to misrepresent things.

[@myinternetname5911]

@@therick363 What did he get wrong about science and atheism? Just an example of each. I’m not asking you to say everything you think he was wrong about, unless you want to.

[@alg11297]

At 35:59 he says the Pharasees were the political sect. Actually it was the Saducees who bought their positions of the Romans, didn't believe in an afterlife, were in charge of the Sanhedrin and basically disappeared. Orthodox Jews are identified with the Pharasees who are around to this day. Please don't make factual mistakes like that.

[@frankcardano4142]

What’s the difference between the Pharisees and the Sadducee’s?

[@alg11297]

@@frankcardano4142 The spelling. The New Testament hardly ever mentions the Sadducees even though they ran the Temple, were allies of Rome, and possibly told Paul (Saul) to go on his mission.

[@frankcardano4142]

@@alg11297 So they were the same as the Pharisees ?

[@harryfaber]

@@frankcardano4142 I was taught that Pharisees believed in an afterlife, Sadducees didn't. It is easy to remember by way of a joke, 'Pharisees believed in life after death, Sadducees didn't so they were sad, you see?'

[@frankcardano4142]

@@harryfaber Ha ha. I like it. Although it reminds me of the JW’s who told me I was just like the Pharisees

[@SpectacularWebHead]

Nice

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgement as to the existence of a god until sufficient evidence is introduced. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 10 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by theists that a god exists. To be clear, these are not premises for an argument concluding there to be no gods. These are simply facts I take into account when evaluating the claim. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain either fallacies or false or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[@TheGuy..]

5 of your 10 points use the word "observe". If we never existed with sight or knew of the concept of sight, we would never look to visual observation for confirmation. Also, no blind person would be expected to believe any God existed if this was a reasonable criterion for concluding the existence of God. If a God existed and created all creatures without sight, it seems reasonable to consider that God may have designed us to rationally conclude his existence without observing Him...maybe through reasoning or reflection of our spiritual nature or a forensics approach. On item #4, have you been presented with premises that have a conclusion that "points" to the possibility of a cause of the universe that pre-exists the universe being God? In item #5, I have found several syllogisms where the conclusion of a Creator God is "the best explanation" for various causes. The accumulation of these "best explanations" compels me to find it reasonable and rational, natural and prudent to embrace the "belief" of the existence of God, and the God of Christianity in particular, and, to be skeptical of claims of unsubstantiated claims for the origin of life, macro-evolution by natural processes, the universe and our spiritual attributes. On item #6, what would you consider to be a "necessary antecedent" or cause for the universe, life or our spiritual nature? On item #8, I find my spiritual nature to be a self-evident evidence of the supernatural. The supernatural is not possible if a "material only" universe exists. On item #10, how would you suggest falsifying anything that is non-material, that is, something that is not made-up of "the stuff" of the universe? For example, it seems that we have falsified through mathematics (a non-material concept) that the universe cannot be eternal in the past, yet some would consider that since mathematics isn't science, a true falsification was not presented. Plus, the origin of the universe cannot be observed or reconstituted. On a side, how would you define agnosticism? For the decades that I grew up, being agnostic on the existence of any God meant lacking any knowledge of the existence of any God. It seems that in the last couple of decades the definition of atheism is being seen differently than as traditionally held...a positive claim that no God exists. Cordially, peace back to you.

[@marty5822]

@@TheGuy.. Yes, there is a technical difference between atheism and agnosticism. But, at the end of the day, they both go through their lives without a belief in a god. Denial is a poor defense for either systems. But the choice to not believe based on evidential criteria is reasonable.

[@amandacrotty3727]

Have you found sufficient evidence that this reality and everything in it would be possible by materialism alone? if there's nothing outside of the laws of nature than how did the laws of nature commence? something/everything came from nothing? but ever since then every effect has a cause... Have you observed sufficient evidence to explain logic, mathematics, DNA, the mind, consciousness, free will, morality & evil ... by coincidence and materialism alone? I used to be an atheist and it was a humbling journey for a few years but, i think maybe back then i was more swayed by popular opinion. and avoidance of discomfort... i currently believe in wifi even though i cannot see it. However if i did not BELIEVE in wifi... it stands to reason that wifi would still EXIST. *as a side note there are countless testimonies out there of personal experiences that might alter your experience of never having been presented with them if you wanted to search it. And testimonies of personal transformations that would seem utterly impossible within the limitations of the materialistic worldview.* If God exists, then what we believe and how we live matters. That could be an uncomfortable truth at first but ultimately the most comfortable enriching and sensical worldview a person who used to be an atheist had never even imagined possible. If God doesn't exist then does that mean nothing ultimately matters.... So these are important issues to search out yes, Peace!

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@@marty5822 I would like to discuss two issues you introduced. Are you willing to answer a few questions concerning your comment?

[@Theo_Skeptomai]

@@TheGuy.. Thanks for you cordial reply and the time and effort you spent doing so. It is greatly appreciated. Are you willing to answer some questions concerning your response?

[@RoyalBelieve]

i agree with Caritina💪💪

[@chloemartel9927]

Really good!

[@frankcardano4142]

Mr Turek is a great orator.

[@Bomtombadi1]

He really knows how to erect those strawmen because to Frank they are easier to attack.

[@therick363]

How is it really good? Honest question.

[@frankcardano4142]

@@therick363 He’s so charming and such a good talker. He speaks with such confidence and assurance. What he says must be true

[@frankcardano4142]

Do fulfilled prophecies prove a holy book is true?

[@Gatorbeaux]

it sure gives it credibility right? how else would the author know these things if its not both true and given by God?

[@frankcardano4142]

@@Gatorbeaux So is the Koran true because there are fulfilled prophecies in that too? Thanks for your input.

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@Gatorbeaux so how does that work? How do you know that these aren’t simply believers trying to make the prophecy happen by exaggerating events, or just being prophets after the fact?

[@autisticphaglosophy7128]

@@frankcardano4142 The Quran is from lower IQ brown people the prophecies aren't nearly as good educate yourself.

[@Generatorman59]

@@autisticphaglosophy7128 Educate yourself by explaining why there are literally no Orthodox Jews who believe any of the prophecies about the coming messiah has been fulfilled. After all, it was their holy book before it was yours.

[@dperkins01]

Frank is being dishonest by minimizing slavery at that time. They were no bond servants, and they even had a way to make the slave permanent. If you trick the slave into having a family, then when he is free, the wife and kids are the property of the slave owner. The slave can keep his family if he remains a slave for life. Frank is a slick talker and sounds like a used car salesman.

[@jeffphelps1355]

The Isrealites emancipating the servants would of been cruel. They would of been captured by pagan nations and made slaves. They would of lost thier means of providing for thier family. Being a servant in Israel would be equivalent to being free

[@Generatorman59]

You just made that up, didn't you? Do you realize that God allowed his people to buy children and keep them as permanent slaves? These children will never have an opportunity to ever be free and they can be passed down to the master's children as an inheritance. And all you have to say is that they are better off? What's wrong with you?

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@Generatorman59 Jeff makes up a lot of things.

[@autisticphaglosophy7128]

@@Generatorman59 What’s the complaint here apart from the social liberalism you’ve been ingrained with?

[@Generatorman59]

@@autisticphaglosophy7128 What’s my complaint? I find the God of the Bible vile and disgusting to promote slavery. Are you ok with owning children and keeping them as permanent slaves?

[@ericdumont610]

He looks good when nobody can question him, put a few atheists with questions in the room and he's totally screwed like all these worshippers, there world crumbles when posed with questions 😂

[@harryfaber]

No it doesn't.

[@Bomtombadi1]

Sure does. Turek either goes in a long-winded side step, completely dodging the question, or when his back is to the wall, he says, “I’m not here for a debate.” Plenty of times where this has happened, and Frank tries to change the subject or end the convo.

[@sk8rkid1016]

Plenty of opposition during the questioning part (not this specific one) not to mention the formal debates that he’s done

[@Bomtombadi1]

@@sk8rkid1016 and he never answers the questions directly.

[@sk8rkid1016]

Definitely does, go and check them out

[@bobcat1933]

I like Frank but to lead everting off with a story that Fox News or any other news organization can pick up and report for whatever political gain is abstract failure. If you use this approach with the political climate we are in, when you bring emotion of a death and the response of a president into the conversation from the onset, you narrow the audience and you are susceptible to being seen as playing and preying on the emotions of your audience. That was tactical and thought out, albeit poorly, and plays on not only emotions but allegiance to a flag before you get to God. Not well played brother in my opinion.

[@jeffh2125]

Mmmm, I respect that thought. I think I would have skipped Bush too, but his main message was that the man gave his life for his brothers; comparing to Jesus and referring to scripture.

[@autisticphaglosophy7128]

Franks talks build a narrative for his layman conservative boomer tier audience hence its important frame it this way and its a good thing.

[@mattg6262]

I mean, maybe those are realistic by products, but it could also JUST be that it's a powerful story about self sacrifice to save others, which has very impactful as a demonstration of love, and is a core element of the gospel message. He could have used other vehicles for this truths, but he's going after the last segment where the seals "press their identity into the one who gave himself for them". Which is a great application. That's why he picked that story I think.

[@lynnef9330]

This is such amazing information. 🩸✝️🩸

[@frankcardano4142]

Which bit?