An Atheist and an Academic discuss the Resurrection of Jesus.

[@tomramsey660]

Well done Dr. Licona. That was a very enjoyable discussion because both of you demonstrated respect for the other. I appreciate the way you handled the discussion with grace and integrity. I have your book Why Are There Differences In The Gospels and have found it to be very helpful.

[@temmaxtemma9570]

I watched the debate Mike Licona vs Matt Dillahunty. It was excellent, and i loved it. Mike's a cool guy. As an ex-muslim atheist, i found that muslim apologists are way long behind Christian apologists.

[@chrisazure1624]

Muslims have far less to work with. They only have their Dawah script, but Islam lacks the background to solidify their faith. Keep watching. I hope you find Christ.

[@malirk]

1) What is an ex-muslim atheist? 2) If you're a Christian now, what convinced you?

[@temmaxtemma9570]

@@malirk 1) I was a Muslim, now an Atheist.

[@malirk]

@@temmaxtemma9570 Oh! What changed your mind?

[@temmaxtemma9570]

@@malirk I realized i have no evidence for Allah. Meanwhile, the actual evidence i collected by the years are very much against Islam. Also, Muhammad sucks. Even if Muhammad is truly a prophet of a real god, I wouldn't worship that god. They both think so similarly.

[@VioletWonders]

Would love to see more of this kind of content. Thank you! :)

[@michaelsbeverly]

*Me too!* I had a 5 hour live stream with insanely knowledgeable and very friendly Christian apologist last night, @SentinelApologeticsArchive and one of the things we talked about was our mutual desire to build bridges.

[@2Snakes]

An Atheist and a CHRISTIAN Academic discuss the Resurrection of Jesus.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

If one is an X type of Y, then they are still a Y. Are you implying that Christians aren't true academics?

[@utopiabuster]

​@@Real_LiamOBryan , Reading comprehension problems?

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@utopiabuster Nope. You? Why correct the title of the video, which says "academic", to "Christian academic" if you see Christian academics as true academics? I see no reason to. Do you?

[@utopiabuster]

@@Real_LiamOBryan, Do you know what "acedemic" means? I don't think so. Thanks for playing.

[@utopiabuster]

@Real_LiamOBryan , Before you get ahead of yourself, Licona has a doctorate and is an accomplished author, the other guy, squat!

[@michaelsbeverly]

Hello Mike! Thank you again for a great discussion.

[@MikeLiconaOfficial]

My pleasure, Michael!

[@HatWares]

I hope you guys talk some more, I could have listened for at least 2 more hours!

[@brianw.5230]

Michael, I'm an ex-atheist. Ask Jesus if He is real. You will know!

[@michaelsbeverly]

@@brianw.5230 You missed the part where I was a Christian for 38 years. Asking Jesus if he's real only gets an answer if you already believe something, that's why Calvinist kids ask Jesus if he's real and the Calvinist Jesus says, "YES, I'm real!" and the Mormon boys ask Jesus if he's real and he says, "Yes, boys, I'm real." I'd be convinced if every Christian next week announced that they'd been talking to Jesus and he explained to them that Orthodox or Catholic or Mormonism versions were the true ones and EVERYONE joined one church and had a unified message. Wouldn't matter the church, if Christians lived out John 17, I'd be forced to admit I was wrong. As it stands, let's say I thought you might be right, what version of Jesus should I embrace? The Calvinist one? The Jesus of Open Theism? The Pentecostal Jesus? The Mormon Jesus? The non-trinitarian Jesus? And why? Why that Jesus over the 100s (or 1000s) of other Jesus' that I've been told (by faithful kind loving people) is the REAL JESUS? Personal testimony is obviously the worst epistemology as everyone has a different story, a different feeling, a different experience. Which is why the actual words and history matter so much, if there was a unified belief in the words, acts, and history of Jesus, it would be very compelling. But there's not, so I trust Jesus on one thing, that is John 17's High Priestly Prayer, in which God ignored Jesus' prayer and thus gave me the right (and I say the obligation) to believe Jesus wasn't sent by God the Father. Read the text yourself. It seems if this God Jesus worshipped is real then we ought to be Jews because Jesus gave us a standard, a litmus test if you will. Unified Church (one as we are one, Jesus prayed) = Jesus was sent by God. Not unified = Jesus wasn't sent by God, by his own testimony (unless you say John was making up the prayer and Jesus never prayed that, but of course, that introduces an entirely different issue and problem).

[@brianw.5230]

@michaelsbeverly The Jesus of the Gospels is the real one. If you're looking for the original Church historically, it's the Catholic Church. I'm an ex-atheist. I became convinced Christianity is true based on spiritual warfare. Atheism is an existential dead end. It only leads to misery. You can trust ex-atheists. Professor Howard Storm is one. He has 200 interviews on KZbin. Take care. God Bless.

[@gjjk84]

Amoeba, “Hark! I exist!” 🤣 I want to put that on a shirt.

[@greggpj]

Gret conversation. Most of Beverly's "problems" stem from an individualist, western, modern reading of the text. If he made an effort to look at the texts with ancient, first-century, Eastern, collectivist eyes, he would find the passages more understandable. It's not hard, there are plenty of resources available to read scripture that way.

[@michaelsbeverly]

When I do as you say, friend, I come to the conclusion that if God exists, I should be a Jew. Looking through the lens of all the first followers of Christ, I see Jews. Looking at Paul, I see changes because he got a vision from God, and to me, it's no different than the claim of Joseph Smith (or Mohammed for that matter). _It's not hard, there are plenty of resources available to read scripture that way._ Sure, and there are plenty of resources to learn and read Hebrew. There are lots of teachers who will explain how the Tanakh proves Jesus cannot be the Messiah. At the end of the day I'm gonna say, "If God wanted to be known to me he sure picked an odd way to communicate. I have to go to experts....and when I do that, I get a dozen opinions for every 12 of them." I like Mike's heart. I also listen to Rabbi Tovia Singer. Last night I did a 5 hour live stream with a different kind of Christian apologist, who also has a great heart. All friendly, well-meaning, kind, loving men. At least two of them are wrong, obviously.... How does one pick? Feelings? Emotions? Appeal to the "best" expert? Should I take 12 years and get a Phd in Ancient History, as well as degrees in Hebrew and Greek and then decided for myself? At the end of the day, even if I got the right God and the right way to worship Him, I'd still feel like I was betraying 98% of the human race. I'm not willing to do that.

[@HatWares]

​@@michaelsbeverlyMessiah must be descended from David, right? If he came today, we would not be able to verify the lineage since genealogies have not been kept in the same way that they had in the time of Jesus. I started out an Athiest, then became a deist, and it took me so long to accept Christ because it would mean denying everything else. But scholars changed my mind and assuaged my fears.

[@michaelsbeverly]

@@HatWares You're assuming a lot here, there is no way to know Joseph was a descent of David, and besides, he wasn't Jesus' dad anyway, according to the virgin birth narrative, so I'm not sure why a step dad imparts the lineage you need. Btw, this presented a big issue for early church fathers, who debated the issue. There are some old beliefs that God actually kept some of David's literal "seed" in heaven in which to pregnant Mary, which is probably a fringe belief, but...well, there's all kinds of beliefs held back in the old days about this stuff...like "how could Mary remain a virgin if she gave birth, so Jesus must have magically exited her body," and other such things. _But scholars changed my mind and assuaged my fears._ Why does Christ and God belief bring fear? Don't understand that one...or maybe put another way, what made you afraid that you needed Christ? Put aside the "knowledge" and ask why you were afraid of any of this...are you afraid of the Islamic idea of the afterlife? The Hindu one? Etc.

[@HatWares]

@@michaelsbeverly Joseph was Jesus's father by adoption, just as my stepfather was my father. There are many examples in the Torah of this happening. In fact, we need to accept the concept of adoption if we want to be sons and daughters of God. And if we don't accept Joseph's geneology, we are given Mary's as well. And as for the fear, I feared that I would be making Jesus an idol if he weren't who he said he is. As I grew more familiar with the historical arguments, I grew more confident in Jesus but I was also afraid for a different reason, that if I accepted Him as my King maybe he would change my life in ways I didn't like. But love conquers fear my friend ❤️ btw I'm glad you talked with someone like Mike Licona instead if me, I would have a hard time keeping up with your objections. I'm sorry for you that you lost your faith, it sounds like a truly painful event for you. My question for you is: why are you so quick to offer a reply or debunk this stuff?

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

I don't experience strong positive emotions, and I'm a skeptical person by nature. I was an atheist for most of my life. Through "cold, emotionless, analytical", search for truth, I came to--slowly, over time--become a Christian about 10-15 years ago. I'm 40 now. I became convinced of the truth of the arguments. I haven't had any experiences of God, that I know of, that would make me more open to Christianity, and I would leave Christianity tomorrow if Christianity were less likely true than false. I was brought to Christ through God's working through C.S. Lewis, you (Dr. Licona), Dr. Habermas, Dr. Craig, and a few other apologists. I looked at all the evidence I could get my hands on, became a deist on that basis, but didn't believe in the Bible being the word of God. Mere Christianity made me look at the resurrection carefully and, upon deciding that the evidence was better for it than against, I became a "Mere Christian". Over the years I have grown into believing in a full-orbed, some might say Evangelical (but not Fundamentalist)--believing much the same as you, Dr. Licona, and Dr. Craig do, Christianity, including now seeing the Bible as the inerrant, word of God. It's just not true that all Christians hold Christianity to be true because of emotions and blind faith, as Mr. Beverly seems to be implying. *Edit:* When one was buried in a rock-cut tomb in ancient Israel, most of the time they had a primary burial of their body and a secondary burial where the body was transferred into an ossuary which was then placed on the same bench in the tomb. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock-cut_tombs_in_ancient_Israel *Edit 2:* People didn't seem to just believe it. The famous Berean passage says that they were searching the scriptures to see if this stuff was true. I think that there is very little evidence that people just accepted Christianity, at least in general, on blind faith. Mr. Beverly says it's possible; however, what is possible doesn't determine what we ought to believe. It's possible that the world I see is an illusion, and that I'm a mind in a vat, yet I wouldn't be justified in believing that on the basis of its possibility.

[@ProfYaffle]

Thanks for sharing. There's a couple of people I know who accept the evidence for Jesus' resurrection but aren't Christian because they are waiting for a feeling or a personal miracle. Yet I think that they have no right to expect that

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@ProfYaffle *"Thanks for sharing. "* No problem. I just always think statements like that are funny. I always hear Christians say to people like William Lane Craig that nobody becomes a Christian because they are convinced by the arguments. I then wonder, am I really the only one? *"Yet I think that they have no right to expect that."* Yeah. I don't see any way that would be appropriate. Also, what other beliefs do they have that sort of standard for, I wonder? I, for one, have never expected any miracles before I will follow the evidence where it leads, no matter what the belief is about. I don't really understand why anyone would arbitrarily add on that requirement, except--perhaps--they think that believing in the Christian truth claims is so important that such a decision must not be made lightly, so they elevate the requirement for belief. I don't get it. Still, I agree with you. It's a bit like the people who claim the Jesus needs to appear to everyone today, and be video recorded. Why would He owe that to anyone, especially to ones He created? Yikes!

[@CMVMic]

Give me your most convincing argument for Christianity. If you do not hold Christianity is true for emotional or blind faith reasons, then you should go wherever the argument leads, correct? I will give you two reasons why Christianity is metaphysically impossible and thus, false. 1. The initial state of existence is static and personhood being dynamic cannot be attributed to such a state 2. Substances cannot be emergent without contradicting ex nihilo nihil fit or encountering the interaction problem or presupposing space.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

You were more likely convinced be appeals to emotion and uncertainty. You later found "evidence" to support your newfound belief.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@vladtheemailer3223 No. I didn't want Christianity to be true. Also, what evidence is there that what you say is "more likely"? It sounds more like you are operating on what you want to be the case and your emotions, calling unevidenced opinions "more likely", than I am. Also, appeals to emotion don't work on me. I'm not the least bit swayed by emotions. Finally, if anything, it's the other way around. I was staunchly anti-theist (think along the lines of Christopher Hitchens). It wasn't until I started encountering evidence that I began to soften my stance. I gradually became less and less resistant as I encountered more and more evidence. First, I became what some would call an agnostic and others would call a soft atheist. Then, I became a deist. Then, I became a panentheist. Then, I became a "Mere Christian". And, after several years as a "Mere Christian", I became an Evangelical Christian. I would find evidence, then my stance would shift. It's not that my stance shifted, then I found evidence. Still, some hold beliefs just because they are what they prefer to believe, so I don't expect you to take my word for it.

[@TimothyFish]

"I prayed in tongues and asked for healing." I think that statement tells us a lot about Michael Beverly and his "love for Jesus." There are a lot of people in that tradition who are looking more for personal revelation rather than the evidence presented in the Bible. I don't know what the triggering point was for him to walk away from that, but it makes me even less convinced that he was a believer. I think it is more likely that he was following after some stuff that doesn't hold up and he never had a relationship with Jesus Christ.

[@The-F.R.E.E.-J.]

I suspect you are correct and, coming from a background in that tradition of men, I can confirm that many people do "tongues" to get closer to God, but it's really just an emotional exercise of desperation which evolves into a mob activity.

[@malirk]

I think the biggest problem for believer is the logical problem of evil. Even if we think of evil as the absence of good, why would evil exist with an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God? It doesn't make logical sense for evil to even exist.

[@The-F.R.E.E.-J.]

That would be true, if you believe that you are the standard for all that is good & right. However, the Christian knows that he is not the standard for good & evil rather, he is the one good & evil is battling over​ to win, @@malirk

[@NightShade671]

The ancient Jews didn't have a concept of religious propaganda, Mike. Harris discusses this in his Old Testament survey; but I understand the point you were making. The main things is the resurrection of Christ.

[@markrutledge5855]

Michael Beverly at 27:58 says that he doesn't exercise faith in the laws of physics when he flies. But I think he does. Beverly has to make an inference that the laws of physics that applied yesterday will be the same laws of physics that apply tomorrow. But how can he know that? How does he know that we live in a universe where the laws of physics are consistent into the future? He would probably say that he makes a reasonable inference on the future laws of physics based on past experience. Fair enough. But David Hume made it clear that past experience does not provide a guarantee for the future. Inferences always have a degree of conditionality about them. We could live in universe where the prospective laws change on a moments notice. That means that trusting in the laws of physics in the future requires a degree of faith. When I get on that plane I have to hope and trust (even believe) that the laws of physics are the same as the were just a few moments earlier and I will only know if that were true retrospectively.

[@TimothyFish]

I think he's taking the term "faith" to mean "belief in uncertainty."

[@markrutledge5855]

@@TimothyFish My initial comment would still apply if that were the case. Beverly would still have to make an inference that the laws of physics in the future would operate the same as in the past. As an inference there is a degree of contingency (or uncertainty) that requires something approximating faith or belief.

[@the_guitarcade]

What I want to know is how you could have a 38 year personal relationship with someone, then be convinced they don't exist. Mr. Beverly says that he had a 38 year personal relationship with God, which I take at face value, but I've had a 35 year personal relationship with my parents, and to convince me they don't exist would be about as difficult as convincing me that I don't exist. I started reading the Bible about 7 years ago as an agnostic. It took me about a year and a half to make it all the way through. By the time I was to the new testament, I believed it was true. It took me another 3 or 4 years of study to not hate God, and I'm only recently getting to the point where I can say I genuinely like the dude. In that time I've had some things happen where I believe God reached into creation to nudge things to help me on the way, but I wouldn't say I've got a personal relationship with him. I think it would be easier to convince me that I don't exist than that God doesn't exist, even only knowing him through a glass dimly. What evidence could possibly be presented that convinced Mr. Beverly that God doesn't exist?

[@The-F.R.E.E.-J.]

Thank you for sharing, your candor is appreciated and your question a very good one.

[@TimothyFish]

I'm not convinced that he ever had a personal relationship with Jesus. He mentions some views that are held by charismatics. A lot of people in that camp base their relationship with Jesus on speaking in tongues and prophesying, even though, literally, anyone can do what they call speaking in tongues and prophesying. I can see where someone might get fed up with the ridiculousness of some of that stuff and in the process of rejecting that stuff they might throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[@The-F.R.E.E.-J.]

​@@TimothyFish God is The One who, once you have Him, you cannot lose. I believe many have had different forms of religion, then discarded them for rational reasons. The mistake is when we equate religion with God, it's virtually inevitable we will be disillusioned when we find out what religion really represents. That's why Jesus is our all in all, He never said He came to start a new religion rather, He came to expose the religious for their pernicious evil.

[@jlj547]

I will believe the Athiest gentelman was sincerely a believer for 38 years, given that how come some of the most basic things like eating pork he seems to not understand. Its like he never tried to understand Christian theology. And also to say how come so and so doesnt believe or why dont the Jews believe again there is both naevete and a lack of theological understanding. There very basic answers to this. Which makes me beleive he never truly commited his life but was rather half way in and it was so ingrained since his childhood and so he went along.

[@jimamberg9467]

I watched a political ad by a candidate you likely disagree with on this video (maybe it was your last one) so go spend that fraction of a penny he had to pay you with a smile. Also I enjoyed this interview and really liked Mr. Beverly's demeanor but I did find it a little strange when he asked questions (made comments) but didn't really want answers to them or, as pointed out, didn't allow for a response to all that he said. Regardless though I really appreciated the tone of both people in this discussion. ***EDIT*** 39:50 ...why have Dr. Licona on, tell him things you disagree with but not allow him to respond. It just seems odd

[@TimothyFish]

I have a, slightly, different perspective. I don't think it was so much that Michael Beverly didn't want answers but that he was struggling to support his own position, given the answers that he was getting. I thought it was interesting that he used his own experience of going to a funeral to support his idea that the ancient writers had made up a story about the burial of a body. It didn't occur to him that Mike would not just accept his account of going to a funeral, because we all have some idea of what funerals are like, but the same situation would've existed for the ancient writer. Even if they made up a story about a funeral, an ancient writer would've written it in such a way that was consistent with the customs of the time, because their readers would've spotted inconsistencies. And if there were inconsistencies with the custom of the time, those inconsistencies would be purposeful and important.

[@mjt532]

03:07 85% convinced of what? His faith? The Resurrection?

[@utopiabuster]

Questioning biblical text isn't a problem at all since we all have questions, even us Christians. The Bible is the most studied and researched book in the entire history of Man. Jesus is the most written about historical figure in all of history. The amount of written works on the Bible alone could overfill the world's largest libraries. Every word, every phrase, and every account in the Bible has been scrutinized, re-scrutinized, and re-re-scrutinized beyond measure by both secular and theologian acedemics of nearly every acedemic discipline. It's safe to say virtually no stone has been left unturned. When I have a question concerning the Bible or Christianity, I turn to the experts. Granted, not all agree on many things, so it's hard, at times, to get a completely diffinitive answer, which is fine and likely a good thing. Just like it's a scientist job to prove the other guy wrong. Or right. So, when atheist ask questions, it seems that they haven't done their due diligence, all things considered. I certainly don't have all the answers. But, I know the answers are out there. And, with just a little bit of time and effort, I can get a better understanding. Peace.

[@The-F.R.E.E.-J.]

Are "experts" what the Lord said we should consult regarding truth? Or was it Himself, who is the Truth?

[@utopiabuster]

@@The-F.R.E.E.-J. , Sure! With Holy Spirit guidance, of course.

[@davidmcbrine4527]

Mike, I was shocked and disappointed to see your ignorance of the Jewish burial practices of the time of Jesus' burial. And you, the foremost Scholar and historian on the death, burial and resurrection of our Lord. I hope you see here the need for you to dig in to the Jewish historical practices of the first century and fill in this obvious gap in your knowledge, which I would say is fundamental.

[@bradmyers7109]

@davidmcbrine4527 Do you believe historically that a man named Jesus was crucified by the Romans ?

[@davidmcbrine4527]

@@bradmyers7109 Yes, I do.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@bradmyers7109 Yeah, I took him to be saying that, as a Christian academic, this is the sort of thing Dr. Licona should know, not that the burial of Jesus is spurious or anything like that.

[@MrSeedi76]

Interesting side note - in the gospel of John this doesn't happen. Here the body is prepared by Joseph of Arimathia and Nicodemus. Mary Magdalena only wanted to visit the grave, no other reason is given. A handful of scholars (namely the German scholar Klaus Berger and Anglican John A. T. Robinson) suggest that the gospel of John is the oldest. I'd think (as a theologian myself) that it's not but that it tried to correct some things the synoptics got wrong (for whatever reason - I'm no fundamentalist nor literalists, I studied in Germany after all, where the often misunderstood and maligned higher criticism evolved).

[@davidmcbrine4527]

@@MrSeedi76 Yes, John doesn't include many details that others do, but it doesn't mean those details aren't true, or that John has it wrong.

[@Gruuvin1]

His objection at 42:00. It wasn't three days later; it was 1.5 days later after he died on the cross, and we don't know at what time between Friday night and Sunday morning he was placed into the tomb. Also, it was being guarded by Roman soldiers. So it's not unreasonable to imagine these women took a bit of time between the death and when they were willing, ready, and ABLE to get to the tomb. Also, it's highly unlikely that women would have been chosen to discover the empty tomb, if the story was fabricated, because women's testimony was not credible like men's testimony.

[@TimothyFish]

Given that Passover was also involved and we have things like the Feast of the Firstborn that occurs on Thursday, I think the argument that the crucifixion may have taken place on Thursday or earlier may have merit. If so, Jesus may have been in the tomb for, literally, "three days and three nights." His objection based on when it was requested that a guard be placed is interesting, but there may have been other reasons why no one would have stolen the body before then and they knew of his claim that he would be in the tomb for three days and three nights, like Jonah. And it may have been that it just took them that long to talk about it and decide that there was a risk. And maybe they were watching the tomb but they wanted a more official watch.

[@The-F.R.E.E.-J.]

Only religion can give you a "monotheism" that's three different people, "eternal forgiveness", *by the blood of God Himself,* you "get" by human effort and 3 days & three nights, as prophesied by God Himself, is _really_ 1.5 days.

[@Gruuvin1]

@@The-F.R.E.E.-J. WUT?

[@The-F.R.E.E.-J.]

​@@Gruuvin1 Religion is a carnal system that requires one to believe, repeat & teach double-minded doctrines - like the examples I gave. One is not three, Eternal forgiveness is not something one can lose & then get again, and 3 days cannot be one & a half days.

[@Gruuvin1]

@@The-F.R.E.E.-J. 1.5 days (36 hours) can span across three calendar days. It's not that difficult.

[@bradmyers7109]

I find it interesting that Michael was able to fire NUMEROUS hard questions at Mike and Mike choose to not ask even one hard question to Michael. Did Mike find it unfriendly to ask Michael some hard questions ? Is Mike even capable of mustering some hard questions to Michael that would expose the weakness of his views?

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

Yeah. Dr. Licona probably would see that as stepping on the toes of the interviewer and being overly confrontational. After all, when someone invites you on for an interview, the questions are usually for them to ask and you to answer.

[@bradmyers7109]

@@Real_LiamOBryan So it now is confrontational to ask questions ?

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@bradmyers7109 I'm not saying that it is truly confrontational, just that both parties might view it that way. In certain social contexts, there are often unspoken rules that we deeply intuit. It seems to me that you likely put your finger on one of those unspoken rules. It does seem kind of rude when people try flipping the script on interviewers. Not saying it actually is. I'm just speculating that Dr. Licona probably did feel that way. It's the same way you can often see Dr. William Lane Craig sitting there, shaking his head, and biting his tongue.

[@bradmyers7109]

@@Real_LiamOBryan You are seeing Craig not saying anything because he is in a debate and it is not his turn to respond while his opponent is speaking.

[@Real_LiamOBryan]

@@bradmyers7109 No. It happens even in interviews.

[@chrisazure1624]

Come home to Jesus Michael. Your savior awaits.

[@magepunk2376]

You may mean well, you may not. Either way, this is some patronizing drivel. The man was a Christian for decades, he’s been there and done that.

[@chrisazure1624]

@@magepunk2376 He left his savior and has some of the most inane objections. His gish-galloping showed a lack of sincere wrestling with the text. He is seeking to NOT be a Christian. I don't know the reason for his deconversion, but the roadblocks he uses to continue his position should be embarrassing. Are you a former Christian as well? What was your issue that caused you to leave? I almost left, but stayed, studied and solidified my faith.

[@CMVMic]

Everyone is dogmatic unless you are a pyrrhonian. People can be certain of things and to say ppl cannot be certain of things requires certainty in that claim. I am 100% certain that the Christian god concept is logically and metaphysically impossible.

[@CMVMic]

@30:46 1. Why does the Universe have the appearance of design? For many reasons. Apophenia and patternicity is the result of brain's behaviour that adapted for survivability. It has been evolutionarily advantageous such as enhancing cognitive processes related to learning, problem-solving, and survival. Also, anthropomorphism also contributes to the reduction of anxiety, it fosters empathy towards nature, to familiarize oneself more with nature. 2. Why something rather than nothing? No thing cannot be a thing that could be a state of existence. Existence is eternal, substances cannot come into or go out of being. 3. What is consciousness? The totality of a brain's cognitive events. 4. Do persons exist? No, personhood is a dynamic event. It is what a substance does. 5. What is the mind? A label for the totality of a substance's cognitive events.

[@markrutledge5855]

You've articulated well the naturalist perspective on existence. In fact, I would call it a kind of creed. It is highly reductionist to my understanding and misses critical points of analysis. For instance you assume that conscious is an emergent quality of brain function. That is a supposition, not a fact. I disagree with your conclusion. I don't think the evidence is in anyway conclusive on your belief about consciousness.

[@michaelsbeverly]

I do have many ideas/thoughts/knowledge on the subject, but it was so off-topic and I didn't want to go down that rabbit hole, thus my decision to grant a god.

[@CMVMic]

@@markrutledge5855 No, I dont assume any form of emergence. I am a nominalist, I simply hold an mind brain identity theory combined with functionalism i.e. mental states are simply physical events (the mind isnt a physical substance but rather the activity of the brain) because we experience these internal changes and they are dynamic in nature. Its not an assumption. Anyone who assumes thoughts are substances assumea platonism and engages in existential fallacies and category mistakes.

[@CMVMic]

@@michaelsbeverly Im game. Pls present your arguments.

[@michaelsbeverly]

@@CMVMic I'd just likely be copying and pasting you. I think we agree, for the most part, the brain is a natural cognitive machine that evolved to perceive consciousness either because it was an evolutionary advantage or it was a side effect (perhaps an "unintended" feature). Perhaps both are true. Early humans developed thought: i.e. if I use this tool, it'll help me do X. The moment the "I" part of that thought is perceived, one has the seed of consciousness (or perhaps the whole entirety of it). Obviously stone tools, sticks, fire, etc., were evolutionary advantages, so who ever also developed the thought process to plan tool use later, in ten minutes, in the next day, or the next season, well, there you go, that person is now a person. I think the argument that we don't know the exact cause of all this is just a god of the gaps. That said, we could be NPCs in some kid's computer game in the real world, our thoughts being illusions and our perceived consciousness just part of the matrix. As George Hotz said at a conference, the one feature we're sure about with NPCs is that they don't know they're NPCs. If we were the first person shooter, we'd know it. Maybe some of us are and the rest of us are just in the dark.

[@cget]

It's clear that he's not an atheist because of any intellectual reasons.

[@islanderws]

The arguments from this atheist are so amateur it's embarrassing. It goes to show that he really didn't know the scripture when he was a Christian before he became an atheist. 😮