Modern-Day Debate: Atheist Matt Dillahunty vs. Stuart Knechtle

[@jamesmarvel7000]

Matt: I'm not coercing God. Also Matt: God is a coward if He doesn't show up. Me: 🙄🤦🏿‍♂️

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

That's called narcissism. A creature on one planet of trillions thinks he can condition what evidence of his God is. What's a DB he is like all other atheists. I cants stand atheism. Evidence of God asking for evidence of God.

[@HJKampe]

Is Matt stronger than God? How could he coerce God if God is stronger?

[@danielsmithiv1279]

@@HJKampe I like Matt. I think I would be a major skeptic like Matt if I happen to live during the time of the Dark Messiah to come. Matt has been showing me some solid techniques to employ to avoid the Great Deception of the entire world and to not fall the Dark Messiah's tricks. But man, is Matt rejecting the wrong God. When death comes, and surely, it will come, death will reveal everything to Matt. But by then, it would be too late.

[@amacuro]

God doesn't exist. You can't coerce something that doesn't exist. Even if it's your imaginary friend with magical powers.

[@CelestialVenerableValinor]

So, according to you, an infinite being is coerced by that statement? Coercion involves compelling a party to act in an involuntary manner by the use of threats, including threats to use force against that party. Are you not bright?

[@destinfarr]

Great job, Stuart. For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And the understanding of those who have understanding, I will confound.” 1 Corinthians 1:18‭-‬19 NASB

[@Cheryl_Lynn1]

Amen

[@RubixB0y]

An amazing display of the Dunning-Kruger effect, confirmation bias, and sunk cost fallacy all in one.

[@33Cigarettes]

@@RubixB0y The other two, possibly, but could you elaborate on how that is that a sunk cost fallacy?

[@RubixB0y]

@@33Cigarettes I was coming at it from the perspective that it sounds like it would undermine their view of reality if they understood God to be irrational. Like "I've spend X years believing this thing, now you're saying my reasons aren't good?" I guess it's really more on confirmation bias since that was my assumption and not explicit in their comment, thanks for calling me out on that.

[@protagonist1358]

That scripture is the perfect answer to Matt's irrational argument.

[@mikeyh5059]

Great stuff stuart, keep up the good work, you Cliffe and Robert. All praise to Jesus

[@nullCyborgNinja]

21:40 Stuart claims John was mentally ill when he wrote the book of Revelation. This is a LIE and malicious false accusation. Stuart needs to be rebuked and exposed for such an attack on the Word of God.

[@lokieleven2694]

Let’s not call it the word of god either, inspired? For sure but the Bible is not “the word of god” it was written by people

[@EverythingNT]

It's easier to make statements than it is to quickly explain why statements are not true. People can make quick statements that presupposes something as if the only case is the case stated when instead it's not the case at all and now a person has to explain why which takes more time and cognitively exercise to get a better understanding. To do no work, which is typically what happens in these kinds of discussions, is easier to do extra work. Most people will choose the easy way over the right way.

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

All that is unnecessary. We all have a God we are creatures. It's not optional

[@xXUnrulyXx]

the fact that Matt dismisses everything frank turek has said as being wrong speaks volumes. while im sure frank may be wrong about some things here or there (nobody is perfect), to speak in such hyperbolic terms proves matt wont ever be convinced of anything other than his own world view. was it rational thought and behavior that led to jesus being nailed to a cross and crucified? absolutely not, but i can bet more than one person who approved, thought the same as matt does.

[@Sbock86]

Very respectful discussion and never seen Matt this challenged.

[@timmyflipz]

When was Matt ever challenged by Stuart?

[@screachingmobster1774]

The only challenge he’s having is being polite… other than that nope.

[@whyaskwhybuddry]

@Sbock86, Then you need to pull up the nov 2023 debate between Dillahunty and Andrew Wilson where Dillahunty Rage Quit when Wilson challenged him on "Human Flourishing". It was brutal for Matt. It's the same Andrew Wilson from the "Whatever " Podcast.

[@jacobtorma2490]

​@whyaskwhybuddry when andrew conceded Matt's worldview then tried to change the topic like the dishonest individual he is. Matt was right to leave.

[@whyaskwhybuddry]

@jacobtorma2490 What Andrew "conceded" was that is what Dillahunty believed, not that the belief was correct. Dillahunty started off with all the LGBTQ stuff and attacks on political figures who weren't in the room to defend themselves. This was setting the tone of dishonesty for the debate. So can you answer Andrew's basic question about who gets to define "Human Flourishing"? Hitler defined it as killing 6 million Jews. Why was he objectively wrong? As Andrew Wilson pointed out, LGBT...are Genetic Dead Ends and thus cannot be counted on to maintain or grow the Human Population, which is the DEFINITION of "Human Flourishing" that is agreed to Worldwide.

[@bonnie43uk]

Matt actually posted a review of this debate a few days ago giving his views on how well it went for both him and Stuart, I think he did pretty well overall. Clearly, most of the comments on here are pro Stuart, and you'd expect that in a mainly Christian forum. However, if you read the comments under Matt's review, you get a totally different viewpoint. kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4S7iWiDesZ-opY

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

Find a new hero.

[@bonnie43uk]

@@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature ? Matt isn't a hero of mine, i just happen to agree with a lot of his views. My hero is Robert Green Ingersoll. Who is your hero?

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

@@bonnie43uk you have a God regardless creature. You're an actual creature of God claiming you have none. You need to grow up. You are old enough to distinguish you're a creature and God is not optional for you. Do you understand?

[@lokieleven2694]

Obviously it’s his channel with his followers? If I tell my friends how I did on something from my perspective they will agree with me. This review is on a channel where both parties come together to agree or disagree. Smh honestly

[@Veritas231]

Yeah it's called biases. Works both ways

[@sadiqsuleiman1480]

The core of it all is really...what amount of evidence is sufficient? So long as sufficiency is determined by the individual then there will never be agreement on the "God debate" One thing is clear though is that all humans and all philosophies WITHOUT EXCEPTION have Faith firmly wired into it. Let no one deceive you...not even the brilliance of Matt's position...faith is embedded therein!

[@Veritas231]

@Theo Skeptomai Basically nobody really knows 100% truths. Everyone just has faith that everything they believe is totally true. That's my guess at what he means by it.

[@Veritas231]

@Theo Skeptomai Ah, I've read your other comment on this video. I see you are an atheist now. But you grew up in the church and didn't question your beliefs until you got older. As you should. But questioning works BOTH ways. Look at the evidence against God Jesus, and look at the evidence for Him. You'll find that it's actually close to even. I believe God made it this way so we would still have a choice between faith in Jesus or not in this age of "enlightenment." Don't ask me, "What evidence?" You literally have all the knowledge at your fingertips. If you really want to know, you can have highly intelligent/educated doctors in their fields. Explain to you why they believe or don't believe. Isn't KZbin awesome??

[@shockofGod]

Atheism cannot ground reason.

[@josephjohnson8212]

But That doesn’t equalise all propositions or philosophies. Some are superior

[@Sbock86]

He doesn't want to believe, hence, no evidence is sufficient according to him. That's the game he plays.

[@MrFranky1968]

2000 years ago made sense because it was carried out according to the medium, which were set in motion in gen 1:14

[@coldh8terade737]

I don't think this debate went well in either direction. Dillahunty's problem has always been this narrow-minded reliance on the scientific method to prove events from centuries ago had actually occured. Why would anyone need to prove Jesus forgave sins? What purpose would it serve? That's like me asking someone to prove that Thomas Edison really invented the light bulb. Very selective reasoning there. Second, why can't he accept that God reveals himself through the miracles Jesus performed, and still performs in answer to prayer? God built reality as we know it on rules. He can break those rules anytime he wants. That's what a miracle is by its very definition. God does not work within the boundaries he set for humans. He makes everything possible. We can't. People in recent years have had life-threatening health problems that no doctor could operate on, such as deep-rooted brain tumors, literally vanish overnight in response to prayers. Yet Dillahunty wants me to believe that because you're not able to test these miracles in a lab, they couldn't have been caused by God? He's not only being disingenuous. He's taking scientism to such an absurd degree that it's become an idol for him. Now as a believer, I'm with Stuart all the way. But a consistent problem he has is neglecting the direct evidence for God's existence that many atheists demand. You can't rely on scripture to prove anything to these people. All you need is the physical proof for Jesus' resurrection; that being the apostles' refusal to deny that it happened, and their willingness to die in his name. Their executions are well-documented. Not just in the church, but Rome's government libraries. You don't allow yourself to drown in boiling hot oil, or get your flesh filleted over something you know is a lie. It is psychologically impossible. Granted, Dillahunty has addressed that argument before, but it amounted to nothing more than cowardice. "Just because they died for what they believed in doesn't make it true!" I guess he thinks we need to use the scientific method to back that up too? Still, that's all Stuart needed to win. He could have done without trying to rationalize the Bible so much to a person who refuses to be rational about anything you can't bring to a lab.

[@danielsmithiv1279]

I discovered the scientific method for Jesus Christ. His resurrection is a part of it. But it's also ahout getting people to experience the resurrection for themselves. Matt wants physical proof? I discovered that through God's Holy Spirit. However, as a result, a sad and terrifying truth struck me like the sword of Dante's Rebellion piercing through my flesh or Kratos's hammer cracking against my skull. And that dark truth is: the proof is not enough. It never was. Never will be. Even by having the power through the Gospel to get the "proof fingers" to experience Jesus and witness the proof firsthand, they still won't believe because their heart is so hard. I had an intelligent physicist tell me, "You may have the proof, but I'm fine with where I am, and I don't care about following God right now!" saying this RIGHT AFTER HE TOLD ME TO SHOW HIM THE PROOF! There is no burden of proof because the proof was never a burden to show. But it doesn't even matter. It really doesn't. People have to make to the choice to worship the Lord, and most people made up their minds from the get-go not to believe, using "burden of proof" as an excuse to justify their sins and live in their constant state of fleshly gratifications. And then when someone has the proof, they no longer care to see it. I used to believe that if people saw the proof, surely, they would worship God. If an angel came down, if God's fist fell towards the Earth, if Lucifer broke through the atmospheres, if the gates of hell appeared in the sky -- of anything supernaturally great transpired, that surely, they would see that Jesus was God who came down to sacrifice Himself for our sins and give us eternal life. But even if (or when some of) these things happen, it just wouldn't matter because the people would go, "Ok. God exists. And? And why should I care that You exist? Why should I worship You?" The proof was never enough Cold. It took God giving me the ability to reveal Him to get me to learn that. And the funny part was, God had already addressed "the burden of proof" or "showing the evidence" situation in His word the entire time. It was in the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus! I've always read it, but never understood it fully until God taught me this lesson that proof was not enough! The Lord declared, “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’” Even if people rose from the dead to worn the living, the living still wouldn't care and would not believe. How sick and depraved we are as a species. So, what proof is this that I speak of? What would I show Matt to prove God's existence -- even though the proof doesn't matter? Here it is: "If you hold to My teachings, you are really My Disciples. Then you will know the truth and the truth will set you free." If someone seeks the Face of Jesus and holds to the true teachings of Jesus in all their fullness without the processes of salvation being cut off, they will see the Face of God and they would surely die, resurrecting to a new life in God and becoming a Disciple of Jesus Christ -- a child of God. If one did not hold to His teachings, they simply weren't His disciples. And they would never know the truth and the truth won't set them free. The proof has been here all along, but it has always been meaningless. And that's because most people don't care. If Matt's a true seeker, he would want to test Jesus and see if Jesus is a liar. Matt would have to make the effort to become not a Christain, but a true Disciple of Jesus to see if Jesus is telling the truth. As C.S. Lewis said, "Jesus is either liar, a lunatic, or Lord." And we know that Jesus is Lord. Is Matt a true seeker? Does Matt really want to become a Disciple? Or is he using the burden of proof as an excuse, just like all the others before me have done? Does even he care to see the proof of God the Son? Afterall, the Lord already established a condition to prove His existence in this day and age. If Matt holds to the teachings of Jesus Christ, he will know the truth and be set free. But until then, no matter how hard Matt tries, he will never see his own version of the proof and won't be set free.

[@josephjohnson8212]

Well, the thing about light bulbs is that I use one everyday and it works. I’ve genuinely tried the same thing with belief and prayer and it does not work. God remains hidden from me. But I suppose I didn’t pray hard enough? Like what’s the deal.

[@jacobtorma2490]

I used to think just like you, the thing is we use science to observe the world around us. If you make a claim a out something you need to be able to show that the claim is true. You need to be able to prove it, not just to everyone else but to yourself too. If I tell you there's an invisible leprechaun standing on your head right now I damn well better be able to back that claim up otherwise it's just a lie.

[@Becca_Lynn]

I'd be interested to hear Matt's take on Keener's book Miracles and the included documentation for supernatural activity.

[@Jewonastick]

Without having to read the book; what method did the author use to determine anything was supernatural?

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

@@Jewonastick you have a God regardless sweetheart. Your a creature of your God df.

[@Jewonastick]

@@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature why not answer my question instead of telling me something that I don't believe in?

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

@@Jewonastick sweetheart beliefs are irrelevant you df. You have a God because you are an actual real life creature. Do you understand? I can care less what you believe you have a God regardless.

[@Jewonastick]

@@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature I agree... Beliefs are irrelevant. The fuqing irony.

[@mikejurney9102]

At most Matt is only coming up with a rebuttal, not a refutation... that Stuart has not come up with enough evidence to convince Matt, in his opinion. But the trouble with that is that you can't form a conclusion (that Christianity is not rational) based on a rebuttal. You need to actually refute an argument (prove it wrong) before you can form a conclusion that it's wrong.

[@Thedoctorjosh]

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Provide evidence of rationality. Stuart never answered the question of why doesn't god just come down during the debate and settle it.

[@mikejurney9102]

@@Thedoctorjosh asks, "why doesn't god just come down during the debate and settle it." He will; that's precisely what is predicted, that God will reveal himself at the second coming of Christ when he will appear in great power and glory before all the world. And this is an observable event. We will just have to wait for it and prepare. But what exactly do you think will happen when (or if) that should happen? Such an appearing will certainly vindicate those who believed it would happen. But it will put to shame those who rejected the possibility. They will be caught in their unbelief and realize just how wrong they are. After all, we would not know it was God who was appearing unless dire and everlasting consequences occurred at his appearing.

[@Thedoctorjosh]

@@mikejurney9102 and until that happens, there is insufficient evidence or reason to pretend he's real

[@mikejurney9102]

@@Thedoctorjosh ALL evidence proves there's a God. And there's EVERY reason to believe he exists. For God is the very Truth itself that enables reason to even exist. You can't even have an argument or debate without acknowledging his existence. You can't even ask for evidence unless we exist in a universe where logical consistency is being upheld so that all the facts form a consistent set. There is no evidence unless there is reason, and there is no reason unless there is truth being upheld everywhere, at all times, and determines all facts.

[@mikejurney9102]

@@Theo_Skeptomai Since you are asking the same question over again, I will play the same game and refer you to my previous answer.

[@JesusChristisKing94]

Stewart killed it!! Glory to God! I pray that Matt would lay down his pride and come to Christ to see what genuine love is all about, it takes greater faith to be an atheist.

[@JesusChristisKing94]

@@Theo_Skeptomai the whole thing actually

[@JesusChristisKing94]

@@Theo_Skeptomai 100%. For him to say he was a Christian before tells me he was never one at all. His pride got in the way of him seeing God in full truth.

[@JesusChristisKing94]

@@Theo_Skeptomai why did you fall away is my real question?

[@JesusChristisKing94]

@@Theo_Skeptomai I have no questions about your atheism. The only thing I truly question is how strong was your faith? We’re you lukewarm or we’re you all in? Because that’s what matters here. I know anyone can explain an experience they’ve had and I know experience isn’t necessarily evidence to atheists…but I know that God is real because of those said experiences. And in knowing that I have the Holy Spirit as well.

[@JesusChristisKing94]

@@robertmitchell-tv5yf I love how you only used Old Testament examples not realizing we are in a new covenant because of Christ. And the New Testament still condemns homosexuality. The levitical moral laws are still transferred over to the new covenant. But clothing laws, dietary laws and ceremonial laws do not apply to me because I’m not Jewish. Because I’m a gentile, but wages of sin is still death. And I don’t see how it’s hard to not just obey to Gods commandments. It only gets easier once you have the Holy Spirit.

[@shockofGod]

Matt once again failed to prove that atheism is accurate or correct.

[@HJKampe]

It's been years and yet you still ask that nonsensical question?

[@WhiteWolf126]

@@HJKampe He believes in a jewish fairy tale story made up for the gentiles, so what do you expect? Not exactly the brightest.

[@noneofyourbusiness7965]

As a devout Christian I would just like to say that this performance from Stuart was abysmal. What bad argumentation, and he came off snarky quite often. You misquoted Matt, or just put words in his mouth often. You constantly went off on tangents that had absolutely nothing to do with the topic. This was terrible. I'm no Matt fan, I'm no atheist, but wow this was bad.

[@mnight207]

I agree. He really needs to hone his skills to be a more effective Christian apologist. Him and Robert are awful debaters. I wish Cliffe would go on Joe Rogan.

[@reqasf]

Ideologues that egotistically defend their semantic fortresses and reject love at every turn are so, so exhausting. You may be consistent, but you're about as enjoyable to spend time with as the emotionless automaton that you aspire to be.

[@Atlas79115]

Well done Stuart. Especially speaking about where Matt gets his value from. He was terrified of speaking to that and was quick to skirt the topic claiming it was getting too far off course. Of course you were too nice to oblige him lol😇

[@jimmygee6314]

Terrified? The guy has debated far for intelligence. Stuart does not scare him I can guarantee you.

[@HJKampe]

The topic was about whether Christianity is rational. What does where Matt's values come from have to do anything with that topic? Matt wanted to skirt that topic? Well no duh, since that wasn't even the topic of this debate.

[@WhiteWolf126]

His values comes from his mind, just like yours do. Stuart is an intellectual midget, I can guarantee Dillahunty wasn't scared of anything he said. Even among christians, Stuart is a low tier debater.

[@Morcol_Naston]

​@Justin Gary the bible has polluted your mind and it's clear to see based on that illogical statement you just made. Matt doesn't want people to stop believing in sillyness because he's scared of it.... That's dumb, very dumb. He wants people to stop believing sillyness because it's a stepping stone to believing all other sorts of silly 💩 Just like all of the manipulated minds who decided to go church during covid because the one they trust, their preacher, told them that blood of christ will protect them from it. Unfortunately a lot of people have died because of this silly belief. It's sad af. And that's just a very very small example. Get your facts straight and stop stating sillyness 🤦

[@antoneriksson5746]

Stuart is a fraud! He don’t believe anything that he says he does this because of indoctrination! His daddy has punched him every time he says he didn’t believe!

[@a_atheist]

The difference in comments are following a pattern, if the same believer who post in this room would post in a atheist forum, they would not say the same things.....wonder why.

[@ethanmonteroza3981]

This debate is so hard. Because Christianity being rational… well let’s be honest, splitting Red Sea, burning bush, multiplied bread, rising again. I mean the entire debate could be summed up simply. No. It’s not rational. But you could change it to “zig’s not rational to a atheist worldview” i find the second you believe in a god, that level of rationality becomes highly plausible. So i think Stuart was trying to set up this debate to prove God, SO THAT it can be rational, but Matt kept pulling it back to only focus on the rationality alone which is incredibly hard to do without first believing in a god

[@josephjohnson8212]

Yeah, Christians should just own that their beliefs are faith-based, not rationality based. That’s ok.

[@Cheryl_Lynn1]

Matt is old news and boring at this point. Shake the dust off and move on. A fool says in their heart there is no God.

[@colbypyles3831]

We were all fools at one point, be respectful and love one another

[@Cheryl_Lynn1]

@@colbypyles3831 The truth is not disrespectful.

[@Cheryl_Lynn1]

@@Theo_Skeptomai The Bible says... A fool says in his heart there is no God. I didn't write the Bible, I'm just quoting it. Besides the evidence is all around you, go outside and look.

[@bonnie43uk]

@@Cheryl_Lynn1 bone cancer in children, malaria, incurable diseases. Did God create all these?

[@Cheryl_Lynn1]

@@bonnie43uk Sin created a fallen world, disease, we die, evil. Etc. Man has free will. Look at it this way. When we die and your right and there's no Jesus, no nothing, I still die in peace and you with no expectation. If I'm right then I spend eternity with Jesus in heaven. You on the other hand do not if you don't believe. I'm not willing to take that chance. There is plenty of archeological evidence out there so I'm not believing blindly. You also need faith. I have questions too but I'll wait until I meet God to ask them. Good luck on your walk.

[@thenewnationpodcast]

Imagine being an atheist and then devoting your whole life to religion 😂😂😂

[@jasonnoble7302]

Imagine being a Christian and devoting your entire life to making arguments for your beliefs 😂

[@Fluffykeith]

We live in a world where religion is prevalent and impacts our lives in a multitude of ways. So whether or not religion is true, matters.

[@derrickcarson]

@jasonnoble7302 As a Christian this is what Stuart is instructed to do so. Lol. If Matt believes this is fairytale then he's not called to devote his life to talk about God. Obviously Matt can do what he wants but the joke clearly went over your head.

[@jasonnoble7302]

@@derrickcarson Obviously you’re triggered by my comment 😂

[@derrickcarson]

@jasonnoble7302 If by triggered you mean I am helping you understand that your were triggered by the Op, you are correct.

[@33Cigarettes]

Stuart is definitely more of a discussion style debater than an adversarial stye one, so I understand why he’s willing to debate someone as cynical as Matt who he knows almost certainly won’t be persuaded. At least for me I was first convinced of classical theism/deism and then Christianity afterwards, I don’t really understand ppl who go from atheist/agnostic straight to Christianity but I’m happy they do nonetheless. With someone like Matt though, I think he also would have to be convinced of theism first before he even considered considering the Christian faith lol.

[@33Cigarettes]

@@Theo_Skeptomai Yeah, but I would guess that he was more extrinsically religious than intrinsically. Those types of people aren’t usually very evidentialist in regard to their given religion, i’d bet he took on that mindset more so after he deconstructed.

[@33Cigarettes]

@@Theo_Skeptomai Hahahah

[@juliancarreon5569]

Thats why Cliffe often brings up the whole how do you know your good, and the idea that love is more than a chemical reaction within us, Cliffe argues for both the idea that there is a God and that God is the God of the Bible

[@danielsmithiv1279]

I have a friend who was a hardcore atheist and became a Disciple of Jesus Christ. The thing that did it for him was the full unveiling of God the Son, Christ Jesus. Christopher Hitchens -- one of the Four Horsemen of Modern-Day Atheism -- made an excellent point: Why don't Christians emphasis Jesus more often during the debates? Hitchens would've been very impressed by that as Hitchens was so curious about Jesus's statement, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life." To be honest, perhaps Hitchens really wanted to know Jesus in all his fullness.

[@Game2Test]

Too bad Stuart is not able to provide answers based on biblical Contax. God can come anytime He wants. But He has a promise that needs to be fulfilled before He can show Himself. And no one can see the Physical God and live. all of this is written inside the Bible. Plus, even though He already comes down to earth and yet nobody believes Him that He is God.

[@scottm4042]

From the question of whether Christianity is rational, in my class at school, the definition of logic, or rational were did it have premises and a conclusion. If it did it was rational. If the premises were untrue, the conclusion would be untrue, but it would still be rational. So, under this view, of course Christianity has premises, and a conclusion. So, it is rational.

[@Jewonastick]

In that context believing in rainbow pissing unicorns is rational....

[@scottm4042]

@@Jewonastick Exactly, which makes the debate pointless. The real question is, Is it True? And both side can present their evidence to see who gives the best explanation. And whoever lines up with absolute Truth, has the best view. Neither side can "prove" it 100%, where it could not possibly be anything else. But, they can present the best evidence. And saying you won't believe unless God comes down to present Himself, is not a good test, as Jesus Himself opposed this view in Matthew 4, when Satan tried it on Him. Jesus said, It is written, thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to the test.

[@RubixB0y]

It sounds like you're talking about and misunderstanding the distinction between a "valid" and "sound" argument. A argument is valid if the conclusion is always true when you assume the premises to be true. An argument is only sound when you actually prove the premises to be true. Example: 1. I can summon objects with my mind 2. Gold bars are objects Conclusion: I can summon gold bars with my mind. While technically valid, this argument is still useless because I've failed to prove my premises... just like Christianity

[@Jewonastick]

@@scottm4042 sorry, but did you just say that believing in rainbow pissing unicorns is rational?

[@scottm4042]

@@RubixB0y So, if God created everything, and God creates evidence, then everything is evidence. There are many ways to frame it. But, I don't take faith out of the equation. Both sides have faith about the Origin of life. Both sides can not prove where life came from. This discussion of rational depends on your definition of rational. And you have not proven that Christianity is untrue. It's your belief of faith.

[@dentonhahn2907]

Matt's problem is he thinks God is a human, and somehow God is held to the same standards as man. No one believes in the god that Matt is taking about.

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

No his problem is he is an actual creature of God and the moment he opens his mouth he has one and there is nothing he can do about it.

[@derrickcarson]

Well said! This is an issue for many nonbelievers

[@masbro1368]

I want to ask, please answer me. When God created the universe, did God use raw materials? If God did not use raw materials in creating the universe, then what was it that became the universe, was it God's Word that became the universe or what was it that became the universe?

[@sflan305]

loved it!

[@profmo]

Based on Matt's definition of rational, Christianity is irrational. But according to his definition everything that matters to people is irrational. So what's the value of being rational?

[@roscowbrown3937]

If you don’t find any value in being rational, then you wouldn’t ask this question

[@iffymarashi7700]

Jesus’ divinity aside. I’d still be a Christian - a follower of Christ. 👣

[@Kramer-tt32]

Are there any sins that are not forgivable after Jesus died on the cross for our sins? I accidently think about attractive women on a daily basis, and always ask for forgiveness before I go to bed. Just want to make sure I know which sin to never accidently/knowingly commit. DO NOT WANT TO GO TO HELL.

[@dogelife7901]

Jesus only died for your sins if you accept him as the savior. If you do that(between you and him) then your sins are covered under his blood. True repentance. Many will do miracles in his name and say they are Christian, but on that day he will say away from me, I never knew you.

[@Kramer-tt32]

Thank you. Now, for any myslims in the audience, will I go to Muslim HELL if I believe jesus dies for my sins and believe he is the son if God? I am trying to live my life in a way that best improves my probability to NOT go to any religions HELL.

[@dogelife7901]

"He can only save us from what he is going to do to us" Translated "he can only save us from what we have chosen for ourselves" It's really great wordplay though I'll give him that. Just change the goal posts so it's difficult to debate when context isn't applied.

[@dogelife7901]

The choice to accept forgiveness or continue on to destruction, aka free will.

[@RubixB0y]

I believe the line is "Only he can save us, from what he'll do to us if we don't believe in him." Sounds like a manipulative stalker if you ask me. Honestly, free will is unfalsifiable in itself since you can't show you could have chosen any other way.

[@arronparker5427]

@@Theo_Skeptomai is skeptic ok

[@lokieleven2694]

@@RubixB0y god respects your choice if you live separate from him, you can choose to accept forgiveness or you can cast god aside, he won’t force you into heaven like he won’t force you into a relationship with him now

[@lokieleven2694]

@@Theo_Skeptomai explain clearly how it is a false dichotomy rather than stating it is one please

[@Dino_LIVE_]

Matt said “Prove Jesus forgave sin” Simple. 1. He rose from the dead 2. He was God

[@Jewonastick]

@drunky Your reply doesn't include any evidence... Just claims

[@RubixB0y]

@GetsaucedOn Honestly it looks more like you might have to learn a few new ones if you think "substatiate" is a show-off word, it's just an appropriate word to use. In makes sense that word would be so triggering since substatiating claims seems to be a... weak point in the argument, to say the least. Notice how instead of just doing it, you choose to evade with a bully's response about word choice, like a child.

[@RubixB0y]

"Prove Santa lives in the north pole" Simple. 1. He has to hide a community of Elves to make the toys 2. It's Reindeer that fly his sleigh all around the world in one night 3. Of course, his big winter coat, boots, and hat as well.

[@AGR091]

@@Theo_Skeptomai was Gorge Washington the first president of the United States?

[@Dino_LIVE_]

@@RubixB0y that does not follow. Your 3 point are completely unrelated with Santa living at the North Pole. My point is the only way someone can forgive sins is if they are God.

[@LettersAndNumbers300]

Thanks to this channel for letting the voice of reason enter their echo chamber.

[@lenoralee9553]

I just want to know if Stuart thinks the Jesus spirit board would work. He didn't answer the question.

[@lisalawwill4843]

Stuart using Freud as a valid and worthwhile expert in 2024 speaks volumes

[@Kirbypiles777]

I live in texas now i wanna go out with y’all to college sometime to witness where y’all be at? I love witnessing ,

[@rosealexander9007]

It’s easier witnessing in Texas. Try Vermont or NY state. It’s extremely difficult.

[@Hscaper]

Lying*

[@MrJoeystockdale]

You lost the debate when you conceded the legitimacy of the Old Testament

[@CJBlake-ym6ky]

When did Stuart concede the legitimacy of the Old Testament?

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

You lost the debate when you were born an actual creature of your God.

[@sharonknechtle1515]

Yes Stuart !

[@roastkingjesus]

His comment in the beginning about relationships and how if it was someone crazy ha, well define crazy back then... Everyone believed some wild shit to explain things. And not just that it's pretty simple to be a influencing person, look today how many we have? Celebrities people worship, football stars, it's not unimaginable that someone convinced and could relate and bring a bunch of people behind a cause, that is no miracle, has happened threw out history

[@connor_mcentire]

What a great opening Stuart!

[@mr.retrohale6673]

Just thinking out loud but if God were to provide absolute proof to everyone wouldn't that ruin our freewill?

[@dagghui]

It would and will happen if you don't put your trust in Jesus Christ before you die or before he comes back

[@JoshuaStranger]

"John was probably schizophrenic when he wrote it (Revelation)" uh, what?

[@rob-890]

Haha lol, thought it'd be Matt saying that 😂

[@YetTheory]

You should debate streamer “Destiny”. I consider him agnostic/atheist. It would be a very entertaining and intellectual debate

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

No one can debate themselves out of having a God.

[@thenewnationpodcast]

Destiny wouldn’t stand a chance

[@triplea6174]

Ruslan kd(Christian youtuber) had a brief encounter with him on jumpers podcast. kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZouQmYaua9-nqrM

[@NyikoFranke-e1b]

Im a christian and i actully mostly agree with the idea that the bible is rational however in my opinon Matt won this one

[@arizonagrower4202]

When matt said faith is a vice I'd say it's the opposite Needing to know for certain is more of a vice.! If you can't prove it then I don't have to think about it😂

[@cooperlee1853]

A good rule of thumb is when someone says "all the evidence we have now isn't good enough. I want more but I don't know what would convince me." They aren't looking for evidence, they're looking to argue and they just want to be right. No amount of evidence would be good enough for Matt. Even if God came down and gave Matt a handshake, he'd probably just say he's hallucinating from old age. Entertaining fools and giving them a platform is not smart for anyone involved.

[@jkm9332]

So true.

[@4llemand]

Matt literally said during the debate that a good piece of evidence would be if God came down and showed himself. I can tell you didn't watch the debate.

[@cooperlee1853]

@@4llemand and I responded to that exact claim. He would just move the goal post again as he has done for years until he's reached the point where the only way he would believe is if God became subject to him and came down when we have more than enough evidence to say there is a deity that exists. Matt doesn't want to change his mind or he would have. He's too skeptical for his own good

[@WhiteWolf126]

@@cooperlee1853 You are the one moving the goal post here. The issue isn't whether or not the evidence is "good enough" but rather that there is no evidence at all.

[@cooperlee1853]

@@WhiteWolf126 with all due respect, a denial of the evidence or you personally not being convinced by it does not mean there is no evidence. That is a very bold and incorrect claim that does not make you look good even in the eyes of many atheists. And it STILL does not address what evidence would be good enough. It's just a way to ignore answering the original question of what would be good enough and to instead shut down any further engagement because you've already made up your mind. That is not a responsible or logical way to go about any discussion especially if the truth of that discussion could lead to eternal salvation and a relationship with God who is goodness and who is love or eternal separation from God and that love and goodness but given up to your own desires that eat at you even in this life.

[@clearmist1]

Is rational based on evidence or proof? He keeps switching

[@hablaf12]

I wanna hear Cliffe’s thoughts on this great job by Stuart!

[@PDG1956]

Stuart speaks well but just winds his way through the tired and boring assertions about Christianity that are either questionable or have been debunked. Just asserting that other views 'have no merit' is unhelpful and arrogant. Christians believe their fairy story through faith, which explicitly denies the need for actual evidence (Hebrews 11:1) - a sort of blind leading the blind.

[@mikhailyaremkiv]

Good job Stuart. The patience you have is admirable, I'd be calling the man out on every conjecture, petty ad hominum and arbitrary claim but you knew that's going to get nowhere. God Bless you.

[@a_atheist]

Perhaps you could debate Matt? perhaps you could demonstrate a god is real? the problem of evil is a good place to start. If you cant demonstrate a god, then continued belief in that thing is irrational and illogical. Reality sucks, but living in it while lying to yourself is shameful

[@jippedgamer9723]

You should know that I've spoken with Matt before and pointed out that a lot of his counter arguments were simply false, but Matt literally blocked me in return and continued to repeat the claims he knew for a fact were false. Matt is literally a liar!

[@katieowen4676]

This is the same moderator (James) from Professor Dave's (KZbin) channels debate! I would love to see Stuart and Dave debate! Please. I am a Christian and Dave has a great channel and would love to see him come to faith!

[@robinrobyn1714]

No, Stuart. Jesus is not always controlled. He lost his temper,.at the Holy Temple, and resorted to physical violence. He fashioned a whip out of chords, he beat the money changers, overturned their tables.

[@johnnygallardo76]

I wanna see Matt debate William Lane Craig.

[@lorenzocampos6454]

William lane craig would win that debate

[@alexmassie7070]

What convinces the Christian is our personal evidence (experience) of God forgiving us from our sins. The peace and love and complete change of thinking and acting that occurs. But He doesn't want that either because its not something that he can see or is reliable . Its something he has to experience himself. Something that he does not want to do. All he has to do is get on his knees and with a humble heart and ask God to reveal himself to him. Then and only then will he get the evidence that he's looking for. Pray for this man. The devil has his mind and only God can open his eyes

[@jasonnoble7302]

If there is a creator God as you say then it is the case that there are those of us who have been created by this God in such a way as to deny that a God exists. We simply could care less about what this God you believe in has to say or do based upon the way we have been created. There is no evidence for God. PEROID The God hypothesis makes no predictions.

[@Fluffykeith]

The problem is that other believers from other religions also make similar claims. So for an outsider it looks like, in the end, it’s the person who did the work in changing their life, and there’s no reason to attribute it to an external intervention by some God. It looks like the result of the person acting on their belief, and doesn’t tell is whether or not their belief is true.

[@kristijanpavlovic8605]

@@Fluffykeith This is evidence that God gives His love to anyone who has a sincere desire for it, no matter what their religious beliefs. The only thing that is important to experience God's Love is to have a sincere, passionate longing to receive it. The problem with religions is that almost in every case people do have a sincere desire for God and they feel God's love and presence which changes them, but then they think and believe that this happened because of their beliefs, when in fact it happened because their heart was in the right place, a place of honest and pure longing. A seeking and longing heart is needed to connect to God initially, and for that connection to continue, deepen and expand, eventually we have to come to accept truth from God directly and not from anything humans come up with, which includes religious texts.

[@Fluffykeith]

@@kristijanpavlovic8605 Thats a cute rationalisation, but the refutation of that is all the people who sincerely and genuinely sought God, openly and honestly...and yet did not have this experience you claim. I'm one such person. Of course, the absolutely rancid and dishonest respond to that refutation is for you to claim that I wasn't sincere, or genuine or honest or whatever....as if you could possibly know that. Which you cannot.

[@kristijanpavlovic8605]

@@Fluffykeith The important thing to note is that I do not measure sincerity, God does. So I cannot comment on your sincerity in this matter. This is between you and God and it needs to be resolved in that relationship. We often believe we are being sincere when we are not and are simply fooling ourselves. God knows when we are sincere. From my experience, whenever I've been sincere I have received love from God. There are times when I think I am sincere but do not receive anything so God obviously thinks I'm not sincere. And one very important thing we need to understand. Relationship with God cannot be established through the mind. Thoughts cannot connect us with God. What connects us with God is our feelings and emotions. Often the thing we hold in our mind is very different to our feelings about the thing. We may believe, in our mind, that we want love. But at the same time we can have a feeling in our heart that love will hurt us so we reject it. God is going to respect and act in accord with what is in our heart, not in our mind.

[@bonnie43uk]

As a non believer, I could actually argue that Christianity IS reasonable, insofar as human beings have a propensity to believe in the supernatural, I've not actually seen ANY evidence of such things, but, yes, we as a species do tend to fill gaps in our knowledge by using Gods to explain the unexplainable, .. so, in that respect, it is reasonable to that extent.

[@giauscaesar8047]

O Bonnie not gone to work still finding time to post with your busy schedule I see have you had time to look up pts 4 to 8 on Hitlers 25 point plan ?

[@JohnCashin]

Very true, yes, Tom. In fact, there is a live example of this tendency to fill gaps in our knowledge going on right now. I'm sure you've heard about the mother of two, Nicola Bulley who, for all intense and purposes, seems to have 'vanished into thin air' whilst out walking her dog and on a conference call on her mobile in St Michael's on Wyre, Lancashire, on 27 January?? Well, everyone's baffled and people on social media (including myself) are coming up with all sorts of hypotheses, although the police are convinced she must have fallen in the river, and yet, so far, her body has not been found near the part of the river that they would normally expect her to be found. Now the police are extending the search to a wider part of it, based on the presumption that maybe she has been washed far out but many, including her family and friends, are very sceptical about the police's hypothesis and they think there is a third party involved in it and frankly, I can't say I blame them because it just doesn't add up. The police seem determined to prove their idea though, perhaps to save face, because if they turn out to be wrong, it's going to be a huge embarrassment. I tell you what though, whilst I am sure there will be some secular explanation for her apparently vanishing, if this Nicola turns up again, alive and well (I sure hope she does) and she told everyone that she had some sort of a supernatural type experience, seeing Jesus in Heaven etc, wouldn't that be something? It would rock the foundations of my scepticism for sure, especially if there was no other way to account for her disappearance. This is why I have been following this with huge interest. If there is any chance of something we could label 'supernatural' going on here then I definitely want to know about it.

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

As a non believer you have the same God as any other creature. Sweetheart... Your belief is irrelevant to having a God and being your God's actual creature. Sit the 👇

[@bonnie43uk]

@@JohnCashin I have been following that story John, my initial thought was that she'd been abducted, by some guy, but the police seem to favour the 'she fell into the river' theory, they will have looked at all the evidence and that theory would have appeared more likely than other theories, it must be hell for the family and loved ones as each day goes by. I will be very surprised if she turns up alive, though it's possible. If they do eventually find a body in the river at the very least, the family will have closure of sorts, and maybe find some solace in the fact that perhaps it was quick and hopefully she didn't suffer. The thought of not knowing where she is must only increase their turmoil. Lets suppose something like this happened a few thousand years ago, and someone dearly loved disappears off the face of the earth .. ( any number of actual rational reasons are possible), but, someone close to this person has a vivid dream about them, and claims to others that this person came down from the heavens, and visited him, and had supernatural powers.. if you tell a story with enough conviction and belief, .. others will believe it, and spread the story, even embellishing it to make it sound even more fantastic.. before you know it, .. you have a cult. This is how legends begin. A tiny seed can grow into a massive oak tree.

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

@@bonnie43uk your God is the author of all life including your very own creatureness. All of it. That includes supernatural happenings. Do you understand? Now get rid of your atheism nonsense.

[@Morcol_Naston]

So sad to see all of the manipulated minds who think Stuart's arguments are good. Indoctrination is effective, and it's sad. I hope you all can break free of the sillyness and stop believing in sillyness.

[@ajhansen6879]

Change this to Matt’s* and I feel the exact same way.

[@ryanvandyke9684]

Is it just me, or was Matt asking for undeniable PROOF and calling it evidence?

[@HJKampe]

That would be evidence...

[@larzman651]

That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the LORD JESUS and shalt believe in thy heart that GOD raised him from the dead thou shalt be Saved 🙌

[@jessebryant9233]

If you were to rank popular atheists from dumb to dumber, what would be your top 5?

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

That would be hard all of them believe they were conjured up as talking creatures by a dumb unaware magically existing universe forming chemical daddy. The ultimate magical ignorant God a creature can think of.

[@saintpaulofyoutube4416]

Ooh... interesting. I think tons of them are smart. I think they should be ranked by order of effectiveness. I'd say at the top level you'd have guys like Graham Oppy and Peter Boghossian. Those guys are really sharp and interesting to listen to. They also make some decent points. At the very bottom level you'd have guys like Richard Dawkins and Ricky Gervais. Also really smart but are ultimately just emotionally wringing their hands. This makes them boring and ineffective. In the middle are guys like Matt and Sam Harris. They rely on ambiguity and often leave really big things unexplained. BUT, they do try to make a strong case for their beliefs and not just demand that others have some kind of obligation to overpower their skepticism. All in all even the lowest level popular atheists are head and shoulders above the comment section warriors we see.

[@jessebryant9233]

@@saintpaulofyoutube4416 Oh for sure, I'm not saying they aren't intelligent, it's just the stuff they say that is often asinine. I mean, when it comes to morality, Harris is right there with... Bonnie! Dawkins says WHY questions are stupid-but that's what science is all about. Shermer kind of takes the cake in my book and the Dill ain't must better.

[@jessebryant9233]

@@saintpaulofyoutube4416 Cant argue with that.

[@dogelife7901]

I'd put smokinggrass tyson up near the top

[@raijin4722]

22:34

[@cajohnson130]

Stuart did not engage and was off point most of this debate.

[@michaeloud6044]

He was so meek while he was whipping people and throwing tables 😂

[@sintagarden]

Matt said even if you cut finger off and grew it back right in front of him in a lab, he couldn’t connect it with God. That’s crazy.

[@RubixB0y]

Sufficiently advanced technology can appear to be magic, if you don't agree with that you might be the crazy one...

[@sintagarden]

There was zero mention of technology.

[@RubixB0y]

@@sintagarden Okay. So, finger grows back, how do you show what did it? Animal grow back limbs, it's not magic. Biology has better answers than magic.

[@sintagarden]

You don’t. You have faith that when you prayed, and your limb grew back, our Father in heaven heard, and answered your prayer. Fingers don’t grow back, so if it happened, it couldn’t be rational to think biology. We never biologically grew back limbs.

[@RubixB0y]

@@sintagarden So your position boils down to, if you assume what did it, then you know what did it. I'm glad medicine has other ways of verifying things now.

[@MrFranky1968]

Sheep genetics. He built a type breeding stockade. Place the ewe in it and brought the ram. He was a Shepard folks, he knew what to do

[@metasameta236]

Wow 🤩

[@raijin4722]

25:24

[@raijin4722]

35:37

[@raijin4722]

16:38

[@raijin4722]

45:18

[@raijin4722]

29:28

[@BRivera24]

Stuart needs to learn a little more from his dad.

[@christinedoe8192]

Love these discussions, I pray non believers come to know the truth, you have sooooo much peace knowing, satan celebrates in non belief, people easily believe in aliens and contacting the dead😳....... excellent discussion 😇🙌🙌🙌❤️❤️❤️🙏🙏🏻🙏🏿🙏🏽🙏🏾

[@dogelife7901]

Thankful Jesus gave us all the evidence we need 🙏

[@speedstackingmaniac]

@@Theo_Skeptomai Believers don't think rationally?

[@dogelife7901]

People sin. There is evil. Rationally these things are bad and if there is no God there is no bad, it's just accidental. Rationally there has to be a reason.

[@RubixB0y]

@@speedstackingmaniac "Faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen." Aka, "faith is the reason we give when we don't have any rational ones."

[@AGR091]

@@Theo_Skeptomai you haven’t sinned? I find that impressive. You haven’t lied ones in your life, been jealous, selfish, You’ve never been angry with anyone or fought them, you haven’t think of yourself better than others or gossip, etc. That’s amazing.

[@dodo1opps]

Opinion...opinion...opinion...

[@Game2Test]

You better not debate Stuart. You know nothing about the Bible. You don't have Boldness in your heart to speak the truth! What an insult to the Holy Spirit for not reveling the Truth!

[@savedwretch]

I Lost all respect for Stuart...claiming "I am not a creationist" and believe in evolution which there are no evidence of,....he is denying God said He made everything in 6 days. Also saying John had Schizophrenia ?!...come on man, why don't you just write your own "bible" full of lies!

[@savedwretch]

@@Theo_Skeptomai There is no evidence, Having some ingredients in you that a mouse also has doesn't make you family, It proves you come from the same Creator.

[@savedwretch]

@@Theo_Skeptomai lol the point is is just that she takes me to theory theory ies. 5his by the by the way are not evidence. air how people think pn a matter...no facts or at least evidence. read the Bible and start fearing the only true God, and for yuor information ,that will be the start of wisdom.

[@nomadfire6000]

The whole point of trying to test out the faith defeats the ability already, for Faith is required first, for God to move, If you believe as small as a mustard seed, with your heart, without doubt, you will get your evidence, but to stand on disbelief and expect something you dont believe is going to happen to happen, then your dont understand God knows your heart, and is giving you exactly what you desire, unbelief. We choose.

[@nomadfire6000]

Christianity is not rational to the world. For He is not of this world

[@chriscosby2459]

I was never a very good Christian, mainly because I didn't believe all the nonsense in the Bible.

[@martinportales8626]

If cliffe can make you a fool, then you should probably rethink being in debates lol Dude could be stumped by a rock

[@a_atheist]

Cliif could be the second professional stump chaser, my brother is the first!,

[@kristianthompson3714]

light come into the world but men love darkness because their deeds were evil. Amen

[@dentonhahn2907]

Darkness is a reference to evil, or rejection of God who is light.

[@dentonhahn2907]

@@Theo_Skeptomai men love themselves and want their own desires over God.

[@dentonhahn2907]

@Theo Skeptomai yes, since the rebellion all men are born with a ready to sin factor.

[@dentonhahn2907]

@Theo Skeptomai absolutely, i am a human so yes i have experienced it first hand, man's tendency is to place himself in the place of God.

[@dentonhahn2907]

@Theo Skeptomai did you not get the part I said God is spirit? But yes, if you say have I observed evidence of God, absolutely, but no man has ever seen God the father.

[@johnvanasperen6853]

I'm from Sweden. I'm a atheist. I bet you. Sweden is fonctiuning way better than the US. Swedes are over all secular in mindset. The ones in our society that are religious are most part immigrants or second or third generation immigrants. Growing up, nobody ever forced religious beliefs on my. Which I'm very happy about. Why? Because we Swedes have our fate in logic and innovation. God was never in our minds. But humanism was a big deal. And for our small country (population) wise. We leade the league of innovations by far to other countries our size. I think this is because we have a secular society. We have grown out of the "God" problem. Of course we have problems in our society. But that's nearly always when it comes to our immigration politics. And it's funny, because those groups are always the ones with a strong religious background. So I think this God and religious bs is very bad for society. Rational thinking is the key. And religious beliefs are not Rational. But obviously out of date. ✌

[@cyruz2005]

Atheist only question the reality of the world and seek answer from Man. You want godly answers to godly questions then ask God?

[@jasonnoble7302]

It’s kinda hard for something that doesn’t exist to give answers 😂

[@Fluffykeith]

I did ask God. I never got a response. Almost like there wasn’t a God there in the first place.

[@Robeebert]

If only there were more evidence, then maybe the truth would be truth. ):

[@casparuskruger4807]

Dillahunty mopped, sanitized and polished Knecthle's floor.

[@bonnie43uk]

heh, I'm guessing you mean Matt came out on top.

[@billyholly]

@@bonnie43uk Cognitive bias by Caspuras? It would be difficult for nonbelievers to actually change their minds when their hearts are not ready for change. Have a great weekend! I haven't seen you in a while.

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

...you have a God and remain a creature of your God regardless of what another creature does sweetheart.

[@bonnie43uk]

@@billyholly Hey billy, hope you are well. I'm always about my friend. I just typed into a google search "cognitive bias by Caspuras".. nothing came up, who is Caspuras? Certainly cognitive bias is something human beings easily buy into.

[@billyholly]

@@bonnie43uk Sorry for the confusion but the guy who posted above had "Caspuras" in his name so I was referring to his comment, as well. Yes, the bias messes up our ability to evaluate new evidence that is contrary to an opinion we hold that is based on our earlier thoughts. Take care!

[@gascraiccraic3857]

Stuart said he was a qualified psychotherapist. Does anyone know where he got this qualification? feeling it might be bogus

[@richardcastillo2640]

I believe he holds a degree in psychotherapy. He's mentioned that he does counseling for couples and individuals.

[@gascraiccraic3857]

@@richardcastillo2640 In the US anyone can call themselves a counsellor however a Physiotherapist has to be registered. I cant find his qualifications?

[@richardcastillo2640]

@@gascraiccraic3857 Hmm, you may be right. However, I can only recall in previous videos he's mentioned he has a degree in Psychotherapy.

[@thenewnationpodcast]

@@gascraiccraic3857 you may be confusing “qualified” and “licensed”

[@taramckinley7585]

Sruart Knechtle: Gordon Conwell Seminary 2015, Masters Degree in Counseling.

[@mikejurney9102]

Matt is relying on pure scientism. But scientific theories are not unique. There could be other theories that predict the same thing. And empirical evidence is not proof. Proof is only accomplished in logic and math, not science. It would be better for Matt to say, "the evidence so far suggests..." For scientific theories are always provisional, and you never know if some evidence in the future may falsify your theory, and have you scrambling for a better theory. Science is based on observation, and Matt is arbitrarily choosing to ignore the testimony of the gospels. So Matt's use of science only "proves" that he has a biased agenda. Matt is a presuppositionalist. And how do you suggest that we test the hypothesis that people don't come back to life? Are you going to dig up every grave to see if they are still there? Are you going to kill all the believers and see if they come back to life? Or do you have mathematical proof that there is no resurrection?

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

God uses science to creature atheists they are arguing for God just too dense

[@youhaveaGodregardlesscreature]

@@Theo_Skeptomai look here u df. Your Gods science creatured you. Sit the 👇

[@coreykeplinger3391]

The Gospel is not about I'm right and you're wrong as I used to think it was but it's about life or death.😘

[@coreykeplinger3391]

@@Theo_Skeptomai What do you mean how so?

[@coreykeplinger3391]

@@Theo_Skeptomai The thief does not come except to steal kill and destroy but I have come that they may have life in abundance. John 10:10

[@MicahMarshall4Truth]

Matt Dillamonkey up in dah tree

[@caebrionsmith414-]

Matt lost. Stuart won😂

[@roscowbrown3937]

by not making any valid argument for the Bible

[@johnnygallardo76]

Matt denies the mountain of evidence that he knows that has been established from not just Cliff and Stuart but by hundreds of philosophers, scientist, and even agnostics and atheist. He is like a alcoholic in denial of the truth, I can only assume because he might have been somewhat traumatized by a past event or he just doesn't like to be wrong when in fact he clearly is.

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

Mountain of evidence? Stuart didn't even have a pebble.

[@johnnygallardo76]

@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 Because you obviously are emotionally wrapped in a atheistic ideology somewhat like Matt. One only needs to give evidence of the existence of God that outweighs any other argument and the rest follows.

[@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763]

@@johnnygallardo76 Cite the best evidence Stuart has given in this video.

[@johnnygallardo76]

@@hmgrraarrpffrzz9763 What is clear to me is him reiterating evidence of Jesus moral teaching and resurrection and listing by number the evidence that surround Jesus. As I said in my earlier comment one only needs to give evidence of God's existence and the rest follows automatically for obvious reasons such as If there is a God he is obviously smarter then his creation therefore it is senseless to not take what he says as truth. So it's obviously reasonable to follow Jesus because no one can even be as good or sinless as he was so we will always be striving for true moral perfection.

[@livelifegrow420]

​@@johnnygallardo76still waiting on the evidence..😅😅😅

[@lokieleven2694]

Matt knows rationally his worldview crumbles, which is what Stu was going for. Matt refuses to see evidence in the Bible itself so this entire debate was a waste of time in my opinion, we have tons of evidence for Jesus being god in the Bible for it to be a rational belief but if you want to disregard that then there is no point in speaking.

[@HJKampe]

So the Bible proves itself?

[@a_atheist]

The Hindus have tons of evidence in the Vedas, so their beliefs are correct as well? No? then you are special pleading. a fallacy, you can not convince a thinker that you are correct with those

[@finishstrongcycling2355]

The more I watch these debates and encounters, the more I believe it wise to leave scoffers and mockers alone. Why attempt to scatter seed on a path? The day of the Lord will come for them like a thief, unexpectedly. We have too much work to do to waste on debates over historicity and evidence. People far wiser back in the days of Jesus did the hard work of defending the faith and proving Jesus was the Christ. The gospel has survived, despite all comers who have opposed it, and it will survive this godless generation.

[@WhiteWolf126]

God is dead, and that's a wonderful thing.

[@rhettC5]

Matt’s whole argument is relying on that Christianity can be proven through the scientific method. Which is taking Christianity and trying to prove it through his faith in science. But he also disregards the issue of the Christian faith which Jesus consistently speaks about in the Bible. Jesus wants our faith, if He presented factual evidence at our will, how would we in turn be faithful to Him with absolute certainty that He exists? They’re seems to be a misunderstanding about faith. Obviously Matt has faith in science, but he would probably reject faith if it came up as a means of rationality for Christianity and believing in Christ. Faith is one of Christs core doctrines that cannot be ignored, and if we had 100% proof that He is God we have no faith so then why would He give us any type of absolute certainty for His existence.

[@a_atheist]

Unless you are challenged, you will continue to think you are correct. there is no faith in science as it is a method to discover truths. Does jesus get what it wants? if he does not, then he is not perfect therefor failing.

[@AnotherViewer]

Matt did his debate review here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4S7iWiDesZ-opY

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

OMG! This debate was crazy. Stuart could not stay in topic.

[@Crafty.Veteran.Survival]

It was uploaded 25mins ago, and is over 2 hours long, how can you so quickly come to that conclusion, or am I missing something?

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

@@Crafty.Veteran.Survival It was aired on the host’s channel a few days ago.

[@deanmccrorie3461]

GOT EMMM

[@Crafty.Veteran.Survival]

@@BigIdeaSeeker That would make sense. ✌️

[@BigIdeaSeeker]

@@Crafty.Veteran.Survival I was just surprised. Cliffe and Stuart spend so much time on campuses in dialogue that it would seem the topic of the debate would be easy to keep track of.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Stuart operates on faith - Matt prefers evidence. My favorite teacher right now is Ken Humphries who wrote a 500 page book and has a channel called "Jesus Never Existed". It's not for everyone.

[@lokieleven2694]

Matt refuses certain types of evidence though. He doesn’t believe in historical evidence which is the main factor of what makes Christianity rational, which is why he is perceived as the loser in this debate by so many

[@Revivalism23]

Jesus Christ existed historically it's a established fact.

[@paulwilfridhunt]

The trick is to ensure that our critical thinking isn’t being influenced by our preferences. And this is important because there’s many intelligent people who claim to be critical thinkers but because they are unwittingly letting their preferences play a part in their thinking, they are not thinking clearly. The classic example is atheists. The atheists don’t realise that it’s their preference for God to not exist that’s influencing their thinking. They actually by preference don’t want God to exist. Do they know this? Nope they don’t realise it. But it’s logical. Hear me out. The God that they don’t want to believe in is all powerful. Always existed. Created everything including billions of Galaxies. The Milky Way is 100,000 light years across and a 1000 light years thick. But there’s bigger galaxies than this. They reckon that if you could count every grain of sand, that’s all the beaches, all the deserts, you name it, you’d begin to get some idea how many stars there are out there. Because apparently there’s more stars than grains of sand. Mind blowing isn’t it. So how do we compare with such a God. Well actually we don’t compare at all. If we can be really real with ourselves we have to conclude that by comparison we are nothing. But we aren’t in to being nothing. So therefore that’s a downer. And if we had the choice of not being nothing it would certainly be our preference. So when an atheist says he’s ok with the idea of God’s existence if it could be proved to him, he genuinely thinks what he is saying is true. But it can’t be true. Because it’ll mean he’d be nothing. So in actuality he would prefer if God didn’t exist so he didn’t have to be nothing. That’s logic or critical thought. And this is even hard for some Christians to swallow because they too don’t want to be nothing. And that’s another story which I’ll deal with momentarily. And this is when it gets a bit complicated. But the realisation of the existence of God has a natural quenching effect upon the appraisal we have on our own self worth. However because the atheists are not being effected by this effect, their sense of self worth has grown, more than those who believe in God, because they aren’t being diminished by the greatness of God, because they say He doesn’t exist. Therefore for them to consider that God exists, they’d simultaneously have to jettison the extra worth they have acquired from believing in His non existence. And invariably they can’t do this. It’s too humbling. Hence they don’t believe or want to believe in the existence of the creator. But they don’t see this. Because they don’t want to see it, and understandably so. Hence they fight it all the way and cry out for proof. But they’ll never be satisfied with any proof. But God sees this too and He gives a way around the problem of our infinite inferiority by commanding us to love Him. God doesn’t actually need our love. The purpose of this commandment is to join forces with God. To synergise and amalgamate with Him. The tremendous admiration of God and His achievements is actually worship. And this love of God cancels out the effects of the inferiority. Hence the reason for His command. We are still inferior but the effects of our inferiority are removed. But the atheists solve the inferiority problem by saying God doesn’t exist. And it works for them. But it’s a pretence. Coming to terms with the greatness of God isn’t easy because it results in the realisation of our nothingness compared to him. But it’s the truth and we have to accept it although there will be some Christians who will kick against it in their efforts to be something. And those who have been humbled by this realisation will have the natural disposition of humility, because of their propensity to admire God which naturally results in admiring themselves less and less. 😊

[@RubixB0y]

"But they'll never be satisfied with any proof" God knows exactly what would convince me and has chosen not to show me, I await for him to punish me for eternity for my most reasonable and sincere beliefs, for that is truly evil.

[@paulwilfridhunt]

@@RubixB0y Do you ever pause and consider why it is, that what is more than sufficient proof for us is insufficient for you ? Do you not see the oddness in this? Don’t dismiss this. Think about it because it substantiates my claim that there is something within your mental make up thats preventing you realising what we realise. And this is manifesting itself in unbelief. This blockage is a refusal within yourself to be one that’s fully prepared to be obedient to God. You talk about hell. Let’s be clear. The Bible says that some who call themselves Christians are going there for electing to be ones that don’t want to be fully obedient to God. Believing in God isn’t an automatic passport into everlasting life. 500 years ago the entire western world believed in the existence of God. But the Bible says that many will perish and few will be saved. God would choose all but all will not pay the price of salvation which is obedience to God to the Nth degree. And whilst at this point in time you don’t realise that you’re in rebellion to God, nevertheless if you die in this state you’ll realise you were deceiving yourself. No one goes to hell without deserving to go there. It’s a place where souls are to be destroyed. But before this final destruction God will see to it that they realise they are there because of their refusal to completely obey Him. And as they are unfit with their disobedience that’s made them unholy to be with the holy, God destroys as does a potter destroy a faulty pot. You have only one destination available to you. And that’s to be with a holy God in heaven. There is no plan B. We must pay for our sins. However Jesus Christ has paid for them with His sacrifice on the cross, provided we become obedient to Him. But for those who reject Him they’ll have to pay for their sins in hell before they are finally destroyed. But before destruction they will agree that it’s necessary to be destroyed and acknowledge that they were wrong for fighting against God. If you had the attitude of a true survivor you’ll be able to say that if you knew that God existed you would be willing to love serve and obey Him to the Nth degree. But that’s not where you are at, is it.

[@azaz1634]

This Matt guy is so annoying , he’s so much more interested in the intricacies of what Stuart is or isn’t doing instead of accepting the reasons as to why Stuart is going there. Also Stuart wish you had of touched on the need for faith in the decision making , just like with any other decision you make. And maybe used scientific affects on the body that prayer or speaking in tongues has on people. Nice though.

[@Ra-db1iz]

Help, hope, cooperation are not dictated by Christianity... hi? it is serious? I mean, anyone who studied the early church or Rome knows very well that the empathy and fellowship we have today was because of Christians, that's not debatable.

[@airgo24dlamini37]

Stuart should take his L on this one, Matt was a Beast Definate W

[@lokieleven2694]

Matt thinks the Bible is all a lie and refuses to even acknowledge it as history, If I was in Stuart’s shoes I wouldn’t know how to debate a person who cannot accept history even when there is plethora of evidence for it