This is what happens when you fake expertise for 20 years...

[@rationalityrules]

Go to ground.news/rationality to stay fully informed on breaking news, compare coverage and avoid media bias. Subscribe through my link for 50% off unlimited access this month.

[@ViralChristology]

Great job projecting! An appeal to authority is your strongest argument, atheist. 👍🏻

[@EdithBromfeld]

You have no answer atheist. I will obliterate you on the rational merits of morality on theism vs atheism. Atheism is FATAL to any coherent morality, unable to establish any coherent basis in reality (moral ontology) for those objective moral values and duties to justify ANY moral right or wrong. Lying about Frank, posturing and feigning indignance that some phantom experts somewhere can make sense of your atheist moral bankruptcy won't help you. You will lose this argument all day long. Bring it on.

[@CMA418]

Dude says the diameter of the earth.🤯

[@GrammeStudio]

​@@ViralChristology says the one who relies on what he deems as authority as his fundamental. 😏you fellas dont even trust your senses and must rely on external revelation. why should we trust anything you say?

[@GrammeStudio]

@@ViralChristology ironic! dont christians rely on external authority as the fundamental of their beliefs? why do they bother convincing others if they're not even convinced enough to put their own senses & logic above the words of what they assume to be a deity?

[@KilroyR]

Frank came to a philosophy class I took back in 2007. He told a story about a biologist professor friend of his who admitted he had to believe in evolution, because if he didn't, it would mean he had to face that he owed an explanation of his atheism to Jesus. I was close enough to the front row that he heard my murmur of disbelief-- he asked me to speak up, I laughed and shyly repeated that I didn't think it was a true story. The professor of the class then chastised me for calling his guest a liar and I felt bad about it for months-- I was young. What a silly man.

[@flanderg123]

Lol, Frank hasn't changed

[@aubreyleonae4108]

Proud of you ! Now you can feel the pride you earned, with a smile.

[@stauffap]

So school and even worse philosophy class punished you for not being gullible. Wow. Something was seriously wrong with your school. Christian school? This sounds more like indoctrination then school. In an actual school your thoughts would have been encouraged and refined (maybe by adding that it's indeed just a story and we have no way of verifying it and so we shouldn't believe it or reject it and just see it as unreliable information).

[@rbaxter286]

Yeah, that's what I'd expect from a Philosophy professor. Science & Engineering professors would have been proud when their class laughed a Perpetual Motion Machine Huckster out of the classroom, and given them extra credit for their Thermodynamics course.

[@BorisNoiseChannel]

and yet that's exactly what Turek is; Someone who is knowingly trying to sell falsehoods as -tha truth- is 'a liar'.

[@waerlogauk]

I think you have found a variation on the dunning-kruger effect where the speaker's confidence increases as the audience knows less about the subject

[@nagranoth_]

Turek isn't confident he's right. He knows he's wrong. He's been corrected thousands of times. He's simply lying, and his lies won't help him grift his victims if he doesn't fake confidence.

[@macmac1022]

@@nagranoth_ Then you have no idea how unconscious denial works.

[@pansepot1490]

@@macmac1022 you mean you can mind read?

[@NathanBTQ]

A related effect is the "Doctor Fox Effect": when a completely ignorant and hapless fella is able to masquerade as a professional through charisma, confidence and rapport with the audience. 😮

[@macmac1022]

@@pansepot1490 No, you are the one who says they know a person really does not believe what they say they do that requires mind reading. Its EXACT like theists who say atheists really believe in god, they just want to not have any accountability.

[@LongDefiant]

The purpose of apologetics is to reassure the believers, not to convince unbelievers.

[@DreamMonster7X]

Exactly. I see right through this smoke screen of tricks.

[@sammylong3704]

Yea because people who don’t believe in God usually don’t want to believe in God. Thus trying to convince them otherwise feels like an attack on their personal preference.

[@LongDefiant]

@@sammylong3704 I really dislike arguing with everyday Christians. As a former pastor I almost always know the Bible better than they do. They are easy targets for me. But I also know that religion provides a great social support system for many people. It's not right for me to throw them into profound doubt which could end up cutting them off from their community. I know the pain of losing a church 'family'. So I really try to avoid those conversations unless I can provide something equivalent, which I can't right now.

[@joeylineberry4404]

@@sammylong3704 And to tell a believer in God that their belief system is verifiably illogical and not supported by facts is also taken as a personal attack. I don't know about you, but I don't think telling someone provable facts is the same as saying someone is evil if they don't believe in their personal version of God. It's more that you can't really talk a rational mind into believing the irrational. Once you start noticing the smoke and mirrors behind the pastor, it becomes kind of hard to believe that he really is performing a miracle.

[@jonatasberberian2698]

If that were true, why would all the Atheists and Agnostics in this group be reassuring each other Turek is wrong?

[@Deconstruction_Zone]

Apologists pretend to be experts in all fields while having no expertise or training in any field they discuss.

[@steved5960]

That’s Matt dillahunty and his crowd 😅

[@faelheavymetal]

@@steved5960 Why do you feel the need to lie about other people, when the video you're commenting on has evidence of the contrary?

[@McLovin_2007]

HA HA HA...........you just don't want to hear it.

[@johnlile7562]

Bertrand Russell observed this in his day, and expressed it in many various ways, with this one being one: “The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."

[@jonatasberberian2698]

The atheists in this video seem to be full of certainties...

[@Finckelstein]

@@jonatasberberian2698 Name one thing he showed certainty of. Other than Turek being a hack, which is a fact.

[@bingjayjemi2819]

Y'all haven't been able to explore 80% of the ocean to know what is there, talkeless of the entire universe and you think you know everything including d fact taht God doesn't exist....This is d arrogance of atheism. I don't have an arrogance about my faith... but that's why it's called faith...faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen....the little evidence we have of teh resurrection is sufficient for me to cling to d hope that there is a God....not blind faith, but faith.. I just wanted to say that Incase no one told you, Christianity is all about doubt and it is also about hope. This two combined is what I call faith.... Atheists are most arrogant about not knowing much and believing the little they know if the universe is all there is to know.... If the early pioneers of modern science had that mindset, they wouldn't have brought about modern science. Majority of them were christians, who simply wanted to marvel at God's handwork. It's very easy to be an atheist... It takes a humble person to admit they know little and be open minded to even the impossible. Wisdom is chasing the atheists but they are faster.

[@bingjayjemi2819]

Y'all haven't been able to explore 80% of the ocean to know what is there, talkeless of the entire universe and you think you know everything including d fact taht God doesn't exist....This is d arrogance of atheism. I don't have an arrogance about my faith... but that's why it's called faith...faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen....the little evidence we have of teh resurrection is sufficient for me to cling to d hope that there is a God....not blind faith, but faith.. I just wanted to say that Incase no one told you, Christianity is all about doubt and it is also about hope. This two combined is what I call faith.... Atheists are most arrogant about not knowing much and believing the little they know if the universe is all there is to know.... If the early pioneers of modern science had that mindset, they wouldn't have brought about modern science. Majority of them were christians, who simply wanted to marvel at God's handwork. It's very easy to be an atheist... It takes a humble person to admit they know little and be open minded to even the impossible. Wisdom is chasing the atheists but they are faster.

[@bingjayjemi2819]

​@@FinckelsteinY'all haven't been able to explore 80% of the ocean to know what is there, talkeless of the entire universe and you think you know everything including d fact taht God doesn't exist....This is d arrogance of atheism. I don't have an arrogance about my faith... but that's why it's called faith...faith is the substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen....the little evidence we have of teh resurrection is sufficient for me to cling to d hope that there is a God....not blind faith, but faith.. I just wanted to say that Incase no one told you, Christianity is all about doubt and it is also about hope. This two combined is what I call faith.... Atheists are most arrogant about not knowing much and believing the little they know if the universe is all there is to know.... If the early pioneers of modern science had that mindset, they wouldn't have brought about modern science. Majority of them were christians, who simply wanted to marvel at God's handwork. It's very easy to be an atheist... It takes a humble person to admit they know little and be open minded to even the impossible. Wisdom is chasing the atheists but they are faster.

[@johnalexir7634]

I marvel at the breadth of expertise Turek and other apologists display. On any topic, they know more than the experts who devote their entire careers to that field. And the answers all lead to the same place: "my religion is the true one!" Impressive.

[@rembrandt972ify]

It is almost like they had an answer and then tried to come up with a way to reach that answer.

[@kappasphere]

I honestly think it's a good idea to look for support in a variety of fields. The point where it becomes a problem is when you have to misrepresent those fields to make them appear to agree with you.

[@vlatkosurlan545]

That's because it is a logical necessity. For your worldview to have any explanatory power, it has to be correct. If you make silly mistakes like assuming God can not exist you can then prove whatever you want because you have a logical contradiction in your model. It's like assuming 0 = 1 as the first step in your mathematical model and letting it fly, you can then "prove" whatever you want.

[@mariantarchynets3454]

@@rembrandt972ify yep, I guess that's pretty much the way it works

[@johnalexir7634]

@@vlatkosurlan545 It is NOT a logical necessity for God to exist. I know this belief is common in apologist circles, but every "proof" for it is fallacious. You can easily look up, on YT or elsewhere, a careful examination of the proofs, and each one commits at least one logical fallacy that makes it not an actual proof. Edit: Even if some kind of creative agent did "have to" exist, there's no reason whatsoever that it's the god of any one individual's particular religion (Christianity in your case I'm guessing). It could just as easily be the muslim god, or Thor, Zeus, Ashera, Vishnu, etc. Adding any God concept to the world is a bigger metaphysical complication than people realize, especially when applying Occam's razor: now you have an extra entity to try to explain that has zero empirical evidence specific to it (nothing that can't be better explained in other ways). All religion has is a bunch of claims in an old book and institutions based on it, and a massive amount of confirmation bias that has to do the heavy lifting in the absence of REAL evidence or proofs. None of this is to say that some kind of creative intelligence CANNOT possibly exist, it's not conclusively DISproven and probably won't or can't be, but it's theists who have the burden of proof with the assertions they make. (I'm actually not atheist but more 'agnostic') but I've had my fill of religion.

[@88mphDrBrown]

The "infinite" Turek quote really illustrates my biggest problem with apologetics. It isn't just ignorance, but the combination with laziness and arrogance. So many apologists will give lectures and record videos without even being willing to do one 30 second google search.

[@terrencelockett4072]

Then the smug confidence they have about their ignorance and technically their laziness. They'll be extremely confident about being wrong about something a Google search can help with.

[@EdithBromfeld]

Rather than lying about some supposed laziness and arrogance, demonstrate specifically how Frank is wrong. You wont. You will be obliterated if you try. Silly atheist clown.

[@pansepot1490]

'It is -difficult- impossible to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

[@bloodgrss]

Their ignorance and arrogance is a cover for protecting their ability to make their livings...

[@aubreyleonae4108]

pretty sure frank talking is an infinite loop of some kind. ... make him stop !

[@theherk]

I love that he says “we’re at the end” as though tomorrow will never come.

[@merdufer]

Scientists: We don't know for sure. Religion: So you don't know. That means I'm right.

[@futatorius]

The fact that I don't know everything doesn't imply that you know anything.

[@PeterPotnoodle]

How naive. Scientists are sure if you pay them enough, science under capitalism is totally corrupt

[@carloscruz1285]

This comment doesn't make sense. Atheist: evolution is real Christian: really? Are there any fossils to prove one species transitioning into another? Atheist: no. Christian: so no, but you believe it anyway...thats a religion or a cult Atheist: just because we dont have evidence doesn't mean it's not real That's what it's like. Same thing when it came to covid and gender. Atheists do not believe real science. You guys believe in pseudo science. Masks didn't work and men cannot become women and vice versa, yet, atheists repeated a lie. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to all the superstitious things atheists believe or just lie about. So, can't exactly say atheists are even close to a gold standard, more like aluminum.

[@DerAptrgangr]

Exactly. If you don't know, and I do know - it's pretty clear which one of us must be right! 😂🤦‍♂️

[@abdulazizhawsah9884]

No. Both don't know, that's why it called faith.

[@tobias4411]

"Nothing proves evolution more than the survival of religious belief. It shows we are still fearful, partially formed animals with a terror of death and the dark." ~ Christopher Hitchens

[@wipo3654]

Nothing disproves evolution more than DNA. Below the wishful story: "DNA is information coded with proteins. Those proteins originated from an primordinal soup and they suddenly strived to organise themselves to form a code that is a construction plan for the simple first organism, with the aim of constantly developing further, creating new DNA sequences/information. This could and can be easily replicated in laboratory." To believe that you need a least the same faith as to believe in a creation by God.

[@tobias4411]

​@@wipo3654Your claim misrepresents the science of abiogenesis and the evolution of DNA. "DNA is information coded with proteins." Wrong. DNA is not coded with proteins; rather, DNA contains genetic information that encodes for proteins. It uses sequences of nucleotide bases (adenine, thymine, cytosine, and guanine) as a template to produce proteins through transcription (into RNA) and translation (into amino acid chains that fold into proteins). "...suddenly strived to organise themselves to form a code that is a constitution plan for the simple first organisms..." No, proteins did not "suddenly strive to organize themselves" into DNA. The process was likely incremental, involving precursors such as RNA (as proposed by the RNA world hypothesis) that could both store information and catalyze reactions. DNA likely evolved from simpler molecules, with RNA being a more plausible candidate as the first information-storing molecule. RNA can act both as a template and as a catalyst (ribozymes), which might have been critical in early life forms.Proteins and DNA are part of a complex, interdependent system, and their evolution involved a series of gradual and highly contingent processes. Evolution drives the development of new DNA sequences through processes such as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. This process is not "aimed" at creating new information - it is the result of random changes in DNA that are subject to selective pressures. "This could and can be easily replicated in laboratory." I don't know who told you that, it's false. Aspects of early molecular evolution can be explored in the lab, but the processes leading to life’s origin were far more gradual, contingent, and complex. Laboratory experiments have not yet fully replicated the transition from simple organic molecules to self-replicating systems like DNA-based life. Recreating the entire process of life's origin remains an unresolved challenge.

@@wipo3654 lol wut? dna confirms evolution. way to flunk grade school biology. How could someone be alive today and not know that lol.

[@wipo3654]

​@@tobias4411 You are right, I was mistaken regarding nucleotids. Thanks for correction. But the problem is the same: INFORMATION "The process was LIKELY ..." "DNA LIKELY evolved from simpler molecules ..." "ASPECTS of early molecular evolution can be explored on the lab ..." "Laboratory experiments have not yet FULLY replicated ..." Fully? How many percent respectively what? So, evolution is still a hypothesis but it is published/taught as a scientifically proven fact. You have to BELIEVE the evolution.

[@wipo3654]

The problem is INFORMATION. Nucleotids must have organised themselves to create a DNA code as plan for an organism. "The process was LIKELY ..." "DNA LIKELY evolved from simpler molecules ..." "ASPECTS of early molecular evolution can be explored on the lab ..." "Laboratory experiments have not yet FULLY replicated ..." Fully? How many percent respectively what? So, evolution is still a hypothesis but it is published/taught as a scientifically proven fact. You have to BELIEVE the evolution.

[@bradwhelan4466]

What I find most disconcerting is that all these prominent apologists have had it repeatedly explained to them that what they are espousing is false. Yet still they continue to dupe their audiences with blatant lies. They should be arrested and prosecuted for fraud, given that they are all making significant sums of money from this scam.

[@mervynsoo8353]

The problem though is the audience mind is already made up .They are not interested in facts.

[@adolfoajuz]

It would be nice if you can give an example of that. I am still having a hard time understand the problem with infinity and the past. I would to view more videos about this. Thanks.

[@lystermyke8787]

​@@adolfoajuzYeah, don't assume something base of your emotion use logic. He/she commented that they should be arrested and prosecuted that's enough to know what their personal belief about Christianity or I could be wrong.

[@AlexanderShamov]

​@@adolfoajuz Mathematically, there's absolutely no problem with past infinity. Literally any invertible dynamical system would be an example of that. Physically, the problem is that we're using an inadequate language. Classical spacetime as we know it begins at the Big Bang singularity. Since we don't have a theory that describes its microscopic structure, we simply don't know how spacetime (and therefore, also causality) works in that regime. In particular, we don't know whether the phrase "before the Big Bang" can even be assigned any reasonable meaning. But again, I have to stress that it's entirely possible that it can, and that the universe is actually eternal, there would be absolutely nothing paradoxical about that.

[@jonatasberberian2698]

Just think about the atheist in this video claiming that infinity is a real thing...

[@rafaelallenblock]

One correction: The apologist doesn't 'misunderstand' the apologist KNOWINGLY LIES. For example, Kent Hovind claims to show a photograph of 'unopened clams' on top of a mountain, is told that the photo is of scallops, then the next week repeats the lie. Rinse, repeat.

yep Frank understands infinity just fine, but there's no money in that.

[@grahvis]

There is very little difference in the behaviour of Christian apologists and that of flat earthers.

[@bariumselenided5152]

Tbf in that scenario he could just not believe the person telling him they were scallops. Not that I disagree with your conclusion. Just not sure this example is really demonstrative of it

[@rafaelallenblock]

@@bariumselenided5152 Well, clams and scallops have entirely opposite growth patterns for one thing, anyone with two eyes and google could figure it out.

[@jonatasberberian2698]

@@grahvis One could say the same about Atheists...

[@DonCarnage42]

You could argue that Turek's ignorance truly has no bounds

[@aubreyleonae4108]

You could but why bother, Frankie does it quite well all by himself. 😁

[@solacedagony1234]

I would call it infinite.

[@MrRezillo]

"You could argue that Turek's ignorance truly has no bounds". You could, and I wouldn't argue. I do think a lot of his ignorance is willful, though. But I also think he's a devious manipulator. These two traits are not mutually exclusiv,e.

[@GrammeStudio]

‮‮norom a si eh ‮‮

[@AdamHedley82]

@@solacedagony1234 nuh uh.....infinity plus 1!

[@protarget1]

Matt Dillahunty, from the YT channel "The Line" and "The Atheist Experience" A professional debater for over 20yrs, and was training to become a pastor, before becoming an Atheist, has been trying to for ages, to get Frank Turek to debate him. Refusal every time

[@Pmrace1960]

frank is worth $7 million....so he doesnt need the money..........i think he is just a conman.

[@rubennigaglioni6118]

Frank knows better than to face him…

[@Bellatrix-q4m]

Your point being... ? Perhaps Mr. Turek has other priorities, more important ones. Alternatively he may have come to the early realisation that Matt Dillahunty isn't truly interested in having an informative and challenging conversation with someone with whom he disagrees, and just prefers to revel in "gotcha" moments with theists.

[@scottymeffz5025]

@@Bellatrix-q4m To think that shows you do not understand Matt

[@philosophyforum4668]

That's probably because Dillahunty is beneath him. He is an intellectual dwarf. He tends to favor insulting people that are lacking in knowledge and intellect to make himself look smart.

[@jacktingey7886]

"If the Torah had forbidden slavery, it would have been ignored." Then why did the Israelites follow ANY of the commandments? Why didn't they ignore all of them? What did Prager even think that point proved?

[@MsLemon42]

Exactly. And since when does YHWH prescribe laws based on what the people like or want to follow? Many sins in the Bible are merely human nature or different personalities. Tattoos and "intent" behind makeup is considered sinful. Not slicing foreskin is sinful. Having desire is sinful. Wanting to succeed is sinful. How many of these are well-received? It doesn't matter, as the Bible says few can walk the narrow path. It's supposed to be difficult, that's the whole point...

[@onedaya_martian1238]

The commandments said not to kill, the Israelites killed. The commandments said not to lust, the Israelites keep female slaves. The commandments DON"T say not to hate, and the beatitudes show how to love...which do christians want to post in schools ???

[@VanHalenIsolated]

“…exploits our tendency to equate confidence with credibility.” Love that. It sums up why my parents switched churches a few times when I was young and still do every few years. Each pastor seemed to get more loud and eccentric and the crowd bigger and bigger with each church.

[@michaelccozens]

I suppose that's one of the troubles with chasing the fallacy of appeal to popularity as a substitute for "truth"; there's always a "more-popular" fish (that, itself, gets into questions of infinity). It's especially odd in a religion whose entire foundation is the idea that truth will often be popularly-rejected. Jesus was crucified, not elected Prom King.

[@AynRKey]

I tried to explain this to a creationist once. The set of all even numbers is an infinite set. The set of all odd numbers is an infinite set. They are both infinite and have zero overlap. Add them together you get the set of all whole numbers, another infinite set. It is surprisingly easy to complain.

[@agimasoschandir]

Complain or explain? BTW, the set of odd numbers, even numbers and whole numbers are the same size. Technically the sets of odd and even put together are unions

[@michaelenquist3728]

Which infinity is greater: The infinite set of whole numbers, or the infinite set of fractions between zero and one?

[@JamesCBlackmon]

​@@michaelenquist3728They have the same cardinality, so neither is considered greater.

[@joshuakohlmann9731]

​@michaelenquist3728 Presumably the former, since there's also an infinite set of fractions between 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4 and so on. Though I will stress I'm not a mathematician.

[@AynRKey]

@@joshuakohlmann9731 Unfortunately he said "whole numbers" which leaves out the set of fractions between 2-3 and 3-4 and so on. The biggest infinite set of numbers that we know of is the set of all Trigintaduonions.

[@doctorlove3119]

Turek: "by definition an infinite is the sum of all possible numbers". This is priceless, even by Frank's standards

[@drsatan9617]

It's basically a tautology. Its technically not wrong, since there are infinite possible numbers

[@hansj5846]

​@@drsatan9617he's technically very wrong because infinity isn't a number

[@doctorlove3119]

@@drsatan9617 "the sum of all possible numbers" is an example (badly worded) of an infinite, it is not a definition. And I don't see how it's a tautology.

[@FoursWithin]

Sure, as long as it doesn't include minus one.

[@datomosiashvili3215]

by definition ten is the sum of all numbers which are less than ten, sounds reasonable

[@WitchidWitchid]

As a Mathematician for 50 years I can tell you straight away that his definition of infinity is wrong. At best it is the most simplistic definition you might give to a young child. His further descritions on the operations of or on infinity are totally dead wrong and not even suitable for a very young child. But he yells it to his audience anyway because he knows they have at best an extremely superficial conception of infinity or no conception of it whatsoever. If Gorge Cantor would be laughing at this charlatan.

[@MsLemon42]

I remember an example introduced to me in childhood about infinity not being able to exist because Aristotle could take a step. What I took from that example, however, was that there's the stuff we can look at for intellectual fun but we can't ignore what we have to work with. A different example is when we get to a certain chapter in our AP Psychology book and the question of free will inevitably comes up. I tell my students that it may be a weird question to ponder at three in the morning, but ultimately it doesn't matter whether we *truly* have free will or not because tomorrow they're going to wake up to their alarm, get ready for school, and sit in class all the same.

[@gonesnake2337]

"You can't add to an infinity". Turek, the whole point of infinity is that YOU CAN ALWAYS ADD ONE. Just asserted nonsense.

[@schnitzelfilmmaker1130]

That’s not entirely relevant. You can always theoretically say “+1”, but whatever you already added is already included in infinite - you’ve never added anything new to it. If you did add something new, then that wouldn’t be infinite, that would be a set number that is finite. That opens up a whole other can of worms though.

[@chriswilliamson9993]

@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 That's rubbish. For example, consider the set of all positive whole numbers. There's an infinite number of them. No matter how many you write down, there will always be more. But I can still add things to it that weren't there before. For example, I could add the number zero to make "the set of all positive whole numbers and also zero". The old set was infinite in size, and so is the new set. Adding something didn't change that.

[@mattm8870]

Actaully it depends on what infinity you are talking about. I mean the number Pi is an infinity and you can clearly add 1 to that.

[@chriswilliamson9993]

@@mattm8870 Your comment is the sort of thing that makes real mathematicians scream inside. The number Pi is no more "an infinity" than the number one is. It is simply a number - merely one that can't be written down using a finite number of digits.

[@futatorius]

ꝏ + 1 = ꝏ. ꝏ + ꝏ = ꝏ. ꝏ/2 = ꝏ. Looks like Turkeyhead didn't do high-school math.

[@ionlyemergeafterdark]

I am a maths PhD and Turek's claims about infinity are off. You can add infinite sets together. For example, the set of rational numbers is infinite and the set of irrational numbers is also infinite. You can add the two sets to get all numbers. It is best to avoid infinity because it is a concept poorly understood. Infinity is not a number is one of the first lessons I was taught.

Of course Frank has no problem saying that his god is infinite. So he recognizes that something can be infinite, and special pleads his favorite delusion.

[@jonatasberberian2698]

We can be certain the natural world cannot be infinite. But, we cannot make the same claim about a supernatural reality. If a supernatural reality exists, infinity might be possible in it. But, there is no way to know this, or to make claims about it.

[@scottwills8539]

@@jonatasberberian2698 We can be certain that the natural world is infinite. There is no "supernatural reality".

[@samo4003]

By Frank's own definition of something infinite as having no end but a beginning, that means that his god who is infinite too must have a beginning. 😆

[@jonatasberberian2698]

@ what? Infinity is a mathematical concept, not a real thing.

@@jonatasberberian2698 lol he asserted with no basis. In fact, most modern cosmologists think that the universe is infinite in space, time and matter. Logic also supports that conclusion, since otherwise you can always ask "where did that come from" in response to any proposed beginning.

[@Z-one1000]

Maybe I'll write a book and title it "I Don't Have Enough Self-Hatred to be a Christian."

[@bomberbob7]

It's not just 'self'-hatred

[@martinconnelly1473]

@@bomberbob7 Add self delusion and hubris. If the god they claim existed how could any simple human possibly understand its needs and wants and yet, here they are telling us all about it. Imagine an ant trying to understand the concept of writing a book. I think my goldfish have formed a religion. They have learnt that if they gather at the same point in the tank at the same time of day as every other day then food magically appears. Must be a god doing it as they have no other explanation. Their understanding of the world outside of their tank is really limited.

[@stylesrj]

"I don't have enough whiskey to be sober!"

[@JoeyP946]

@@bomberbob7 like christianity is the problem in this day and age

[@CarpetShark2010]

"I don't believe in square circles enough to be a Christian."

[@OniNaito]

It must be nice to have a captive audience who only waits for you to tell them what to believe and never pushes back. Frank has it so easy.

[@kamikeserpentail3778]

"You can't have a present if there's infinite past behind you." Guy has never heard of negative numbers, but 0 still exists.

[@jonatasberberian2698]

That is not what he is saying. What he is saying is that if you start at infinity past, you will never arrive at the present, since you would have to take an infinit number of steps, which would take infinit time. What Turek is saying is not as dumb as you think it is.

[@Tnargav]

@@jonatasberberian2698 You will arrive at your present.

[@dolby8334]

@@jonatasberberian2698 No, it's actually more dumb than you think. The "present" can still exist within an infinity. You can't start infinitely in the past, because there is no beginning. He isn't proving anything, he is just misunderstanding infinity, math, and time. It's like saying a triangle has 4 sides before it has 3... It's stupid on the most basic and fundamental level. You can't start infinitely in the past just like how a triangle can't have more or less than 3 sides. It's like a song that has been playing on a loop for an infinite amount of time. Even though the song is 3 mins, those 3 mins are playing in an infinite loop. Meaning, there isn't actual beginning or ending to the song other than where you arbitrarily decide the starting and ending point of the 3 minute song is.

[@jonatasberberian2698]

@ a song playing on a loop for an infinite amount of time? Do you realize that an infinite loop is just a figure of speech? An infinite loop will never be infinite, since all “infinite” loops have starting point, and you will always be able to count the number of times the “infinite” loop has gone around. You need to be careful using words such as dumb and stupid. People who use them, sound so…

[@dolby8334]

@jonatasberberian2698 yes, an infinite loop is a figure of speech. That is the point. Trying to dictate time, using an infinite is the same level of stupidity.

[@avi8r66]

Frank's 'expertise' is in the argument style I like to call 'greased pig'. He dynamically changes definitions, rewords good questions into questions he has prepared answers for, and speaks out his ass with extreme confidence. He has no basis of any real merit for anything he says.

[@MsLemon42]

Maybe "Greased Donkey" is more fitting!

[@KimbaIsHere]

In every Evangelical church there is someone smarter than all of the scientists who have ever lived, who will ever live, and who are living today. The fact that the church do not see them as ignorant is all one needs to know about the church's quest for the truth.

[@GoldenCup888]

Corporate funded quack science doesn't qualify as real science buddy...

[@nathanieltoh9917]

Huh? Who is that?

[@futatorius]

Yeah, as my dad said about them, it'd be nice to buy them for what they're worth, then sell them for what they think they're worth. He stopped being an Evangelical because of their pig-headed ignorance.

[@KateBlackford]

Religion creates their own expertise in order to gain authority. It's a scam.

[@MaLong-s4q]

What is a woman? Culture is in the quest for truth on that one :)

[@thomasschodt7691]

"... if atheism is true..." "if atheism is true?" /mocking atheism is merely a statement on my own personal belief, or lack of same, if it is not true, I am merely lying to myself...

[@solacedagony1234]

Yep, he either doesn't understand the definition of atheism or doesn't understand the English language.

[@edenfeledrum1540]

I think he’s purposely making atheism seem like a belief instead of a lack thereof. It’s much easier to convince your followers that the “enemy” is someone from an opposing system of beliefs instead of someone who tries to purely perceive things as they are.

[@ultrainstinctgoku2509]

Atheism isn't only about you buddy, there are other atheists that exist and you're all ignorant and unaccepting of and to our reality. 😇

[@Keigan-it3yq]

​@@edenfeledrum1540it's the belief that your nonbelief in God is true.

[@JoeyP946]

I'll gladly claim there is no God objectively. Of course there is no way I could ever prove there is no God but that hardly matters. I also claim Zeus isn't real and nobody asks me to prove that either

[@orendungan3455]

It is important to remember that apologists are not talking to us. Their mouth noise is technically English, but they do not speak our language. They are talking only to their own people. They do not defend their faith from the world at large, but we are meant to react as if that is what is the case. The actual audience is their own believers, and the aim is to keep the fences in place and help their people fend off the evidence of their own senses. It was a grift, it is a grift, it will never be anything but a grift. They understand the assignment and reality need not trouble them. Keep debunking, but tomorrow Turek the clown will be back with exactly the same talk as if nothing ever happened. He and those of his kind are indifferent to the words of thinking mammals.

[@calebjore3295]

How do you account for the "apologists" who are credentialed philosophers with positions at mainstream universities who spend their lifetime in the non-lucrative profession of publishing books and papers that "defend their faith from the world at large?" Isn't that a bit of a problem for your theory?

[@tedferkin]

@@calebjore3295 It's part of the grift. They can be believed because they have a philosophy degree, it gives them credentials. The problem is they are not properly espousing the science. They are using their qualification to give them credence to those that know nothing. A appeal to authority in effect

[@calebjore3295]

@@tedferkin No, I'm thinking about the Christian philosophers who don't really engage at the popular level, at least not to the extent that Turek does-think people like Richard Swinburne, Peter van Inwagen, Trent Dougherty, etc. Mainstream Christian philosophers who publish in peer-reviewed journals. Why do you think these philosophers are grifters?

[@jonatasberberian2698]

If that were true, the Atheist would not waste their time with theist apologists. The fact is, many Atheist are converthing to Christianism or out of Atheism. That is why there are Atheist apologists, to try to counteract this movement. But, it is ridiculous, since Atheist apologists need to resort to the mathematical concept of infinity as applicable to the natural world to explain our existence. Lets call them "Infinitists", the worshipers of the mathematical infinity god...

[@kellydalstok8900]

@@calebjore3295 Does philosophy have as much value as scientific knowledge though? Many philosophers seem to be mostly in love with the sound of their own voice.

[@ffc1a28c7]

Speaking as a mathematician (I work in Model theory, a subfield of logic), this is just embarrassing.

[@AlexanderShamov]

I second that.

[@GoldenCup888]

bs

[@taflo1981]

Oh yes, it was really painful to watch, mostly due to frequently facepalming.

[@jonatasberberian2698]

Frank Turek trying to explain infinity in lay terms to a lay audience or the Atheist claiming that infinity is a real thing in the natural world?

[@bryanreed742]

@@ffc1a28c7 even as a non-mathematician, I'm embarrassed for humanity when he says these things

[@TorstenPihl]

"Apologetics doesn't have to be good, just good enough to keep believers believing." -Phil Ferguson

[@bchristian85]

Most Americans trust Frank Turek more than any scientist. How can we fix that problem?

[@juanausensi499]

Education and wait for 30 years

[@mmerri9780]

Not going to happen. Republican media has spent decades brainwashing Americans to distrust the "academic elite"

[@pansepot1490]

Trump wants to dismantle the department of education. Finishing the work republicans and Christian nationalists have been doing for decades. There’s no way of fixing the problem: the US have crossed the point of non return.

[@simplylethul]

"Most" how many people is that? I sure as he'll don't trust religious fanatics.

[@rockets4kids]

@@juanausensi499 The US didn't get serious about education until Sputnik. It only took a decade to watch the educated people revolt. Education has been going downhill ever since.

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

Einstein said he believed in two infinites, the existence of the universe and human stupidity, but the only one he was most certain was human stupidity.

[@weatheranddarkness]

Right in the opening I think there's a complimentary aspect here. A lot of these oratorios are done in person, at least in terms of proselytizing, and there just is neither the means for the audience to in fact do the research, nor be heard. The sort of captive obedient audience situation.

[@dimitrosskrippka2154]

Infinite meaning no end is just a linguistic trick. It’s like claiming that blind spot is a spot in space that is blind

[@ryanfristik5683]

If this book were true there would be no need for these clown apologists

[@thebelligerentbostonian7524]

“Clown apologist” is redundant.

[@TheCabIe]

That's what always amuses me. The fact that in order to justify the insane amount of inconsistencies and absurdities/immoralities of the Bible through a modern day prism, you have to have people whose entire lives are dedicated to making excuses for things said in that book. At the same time they pretend that it's an "obvious truth" that it was divinely inspired. The ultimate oxymoron.

[@aubreyleonae4108]

But we'd still get clowns now and again ... right ? 🙄

[@Wertbag99]

Who else is going to spend their lives justifying genocide, misogyny, slavery, sex slaves, capital punishment for victimless crimes, child abuse and hell doctrine?

[@QueenBoadicea]

Religion is a clown car with infinite jesters inside it.

[@bananaslug.1951]

Thanks! The no beginning excuse seems to be the go to point for Christians right now so thanks for pointing it out that it is not!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

i left school at 16 back in 1970 and even then kids were going "infinity plus one"

[@ultrainstinctgoku2509]

So what's infinity plus one?... 😇

[@ZER0--]

@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 It's one more than infinity ennit...

[@chriswilliamson9993]

@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 Infinity. Adding a finite quantity to an infinity always gives an infinity as a result. Let me give you a simple example. Consider the set of all positive numbers - there are an infinite number of them, right. You can write down positive numbers as much as you like, but there will always be another you haven't written down. Now let's add another number to this set - for example, the number 0. How many do we have now? The answer is - exactly the same number as we started with, since we can easily write an equation that maps numbers from our new set onto numbers from our old set with a 1 for 1 correspondence i.e. y = x - 1. Since there is a one-to-one mapping, there can't be more of one than the other. So we've added one to infinity and gotten - infinity.

[@geofdownton782]

...and we all thought we were as clever as Frank thinks he is...

[@anuragdas2741]

​@@ultrainstinctgoku2509If you think of infinity as the largest number possible then you can always add one to it and get a bigger number. You can square it and get an even bigger number. You can do infinity to the power infinity to the power infinity and so on and you can still add one to that and get a greater number. The point is that you will never reach the biggest number because if the biggest number exists then the biggest number+1 also exists.

[@danimationmi]

Has no end? Really? All the real numbers between 1 and 2 is an infinite number. And yet, it has two ends. To this infinity, you can add all the real numbers between 2 and 3. You will be adding two infinities, and they will be different. Frank has not taken math.

[@jenna2431]

Apologists are entertainers. Nothing more, nothing less.

[@adamgates1142]

Very bad entertainers

[@DreamMonster7X]

For a pay check. $$$

[@WS-dd8ow]

They’re carnival barkers

[@chocolatestraw3971]

It's really easy to find an infinity between a starting and stopping point. Pick any two integers. Infinity is in the real numbers in between them. Not only can you add to an infinity, you can add two infinities - rational and irrational numbers - and get a bigger infinity, the real numbers.

[@TXLogic]

The set of irrational numbers is the same size as the set of all the real numbers.

[@michaelsommers2356]

If you add the set of rationals to the set of irrationals, the cardinality of the result is the same as the cardinality of the irrationals, which is the same as the cardinality of the reals.

[@chocolatestraw3971]

I think TXLogic is wrong. The set of rational numbers is countably infinite. Irrational are uncountably infinite, and that is "larger." But the cardinality of irrational and real are the same, so I was mistaken, and Michael was right. My bad.

[@cd2320]

@@michaelsommers2356No. rationals are countably infinite, reals aren’t. Ie its size aleph zero, whereas reals are 2^{aleph zero} which is (by Cantor) strictly greater. Though going into more details depends on your view of the continuum hypothesis.

[@dawnmcauley6411]

I learned how to mathematically work with infinities in *high school*. (It was an elective calculus course. The area under a curve uses a infinite number of 'slices' added together; so not only can you add to infinity, you can infinity to infinity and get a finite number. Math is weird y'all.)

[@aubreyleonae4108]

Well, after all, you can't expect Frank to understand anything beyond elementary school. Special school. Short bus.

[@TXLogic]

No, when you are calculating the area under a curve, your are summing infinitely many FINITE quantities. Your are not summing infinities.

[@dawnmcauley6411]

@@TXLogic I was simplifying. The actual math is the sum of many finite quantities, yes but the size of those quantities approaches infinity small and thus the number of them approaches an infinite amount. Hence the need for integral, to calculate the number of those quantities (which isn't exactly infinite but approaches infinite; math is weird.) The point being Turek's definitions of infinity and his applications are so wrong, it's literally refuted by high school math.

[@solacedagony1234]

In calc 2, you would have gotten to summing infinite series :)

[@SabeerAbdulla]

​@@dawnmcauley6411you simplified it to be wrong. Approaching infinity isn't the same as infinity. That's literally the argument. Turek's definition of infinity is also "simplified" but it works.

[@mihaimilan9598]

There is a particular affectation that the proselytising 'faithful believers' almost unanimously have in the tone of their voice and it drives me up the wall! It's so strident and off putting that I usually can barely maintain a normal level of politeness. Does that trick work on anyone? I'd think that anything with a backbone would find it absolutely insufferable. Craig, Lennox, Peterson, Brand, all have that unnecessary and grating element to the way they speak, and I'd venture to say it is a good litmus test for dangerous and manipulative (genital expletive).

[@PhilHalper1]

Hey, thanks so much for referencing our video; it is really appreciated, and you did an excellent job in summing it up. Frank's treatment of the science is of course, just as bad

[@philstephes]

I'm a programmer, I add to infinity all the time, it's called floating point values. Granted that's a *very* limited form of infinity, but in theory there is an infinite number of values between 0...1

[@Senuna-Asiyn]

And that infinity is larger than the magnitude of the infinity defined by the set of all integers.

[@martinconnelly1473]

My mathematical thought on this as well. Ask the further question, if there are an infinite number of numbers between 0 and 1 what is the first number after zero and the last one before one. So we have a mindboggling infinity of numbers bounded by zero and one and we know neither the first one or the last one and this apologist thinks he can explain infinity to an audience as a way of proving god exists.

[@futatorius]

There's a large but finite number of floating point values represented on any real-life processor architecture, so I would be reluctant to use that as an example. Talking about real numbers, or even rational numbers and integers, is more to the point.

[@futatorius]

@@Senuna-Asiyn There's an infinitude of rational numbers on the interval [0,1]. There's also an infinitude of real numbers on that interval. And yes, the cardinality of the rational numbers can be proven to be the same as the cardinality of the integers. But the cardinality of real numbers can be proven to be greater than that.

[@philstephes]

@@futatorius you're absolutely correct, hence why I said it was a limited version of infinite. Not because it's actually limited but simply due to how processors and IEEE754 work.

[@Salty_Tiger]

One of my favorite paradoxes when someone complains about infinite regress, "if time goes backwards infinitely then we can never reach the present", is Zeno's Dichotomy paradox. Imagine a runner and a finish line, first the runner must travel half way to the finish. Then they must travel half of the remaining distance. Then half that remaining distance. And there are an infinite number of half distances the runner must travel so they can never reach the finish. But they do, because trying to apply though experiments about infinity to real life don't work unless you truly understand the concept of infinity, which I don't, and neither do most people

[@edenfeledrum1540]

The example with the runner is really well worded. Our perception of “infinite” is inherently flawed because of how limited we are in our perception of time.

[@craigjones9372]

@@edenfeledrum1540 And the fundamental flaw apologists make trying to use the big bang in their arguments is a failure to understand space-time. You cannot make simultaneous claims about existence from within space-time and outside it. Time can both extend backward infinitely AND have a starting point. There are such things as asymptotes, an asymptote can have both an infinite length AND point it cannot extend beyond.

[@moestietabarnak]

the thing is that each time the runner half the distance, it cover it in half the time ! until ultimately it reach the limit, then the run is done, time doesn't stop when you reach the end of the track

[@SabeerAbdulla]

"imagine a runner and a finish line" - 😂😂😂 that literally says there's a finish, which is the opposite of infinite. Besides, Zeno's paradox is limited by physical reality of the runner's size where it's illogical to think of taking a step that's smaller than the size of his foot. The only thing you're right about is that _you_ don't understand the concept of infinity.

[@craigsj]

@@moestietabarnak "...until ultimately it reach the limit". What limit? It reaches WHAT limit? "when you reach the end of the track". In the example, you NEVER reach the end of the track

[@helburr]

When God made Frank Turek he accidentally bumped the insufferableness jar.

[@Colddirector]

Why did God invent snakes before Frank Turek? He needed the practice. *badum tsh*

[@ultrainstinctgoku2509]

You know I understand if you wanna diss a nice old white guy, seems a little evil to me, but eh different folks. JUST DON'T EVER DOUBT OUR CREATOR, YOU WILL REGRET IT!!! 😇

[@john_doe1st]

​@@ultrainstinctgoku2509and this is why it sounds more like a cult

[@haitaelpastor976]

@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 Oh, come on... as if there were not the same or even worse charlatans in all races. The woke hurts atheism much more than it does with theism.

[@helburr]

@ultrainstinctgoku2509 I'm shaking in my boots

[@michaelnewsham1412]

I remember him talking about Liar, Lord, Lunatic- he briefly mentioned Legend, but then dismissed it by pretending to believe people who said that meant mythicism.

[@zebpettyninja]

If infinity had a starting point, we are not talking about infinity anymore

[@johnroth4302]

Thanks!

[@debunkosaurus8228]

This infinity "problem" is easy to explain. The number number line goes from negative infinity to positive infinity. Yet the number four (for example) exists.

[@SabeerAbdulla]

Logically or rather theoretically, maybe. But empirically it cannot be traversed to the number 4 from either end.

[@AquaPeet]

@@SabeerAbdulla Your "but" isn't a but. You can't start counting at 'the beginning" of an infiinite because it has no beginning OR an end, for that matter. You can only start at an arbitrary number to reach 4.

[@AlexanderShamov]

​@@SabeerAbdulla Empirically, you can never determine whether the world had a beginning or is past-eternal. For all we know, it could have begun exactly 5 minutes ago - we just popped into existence with all the memories and stuff.

[@SabeerAbdulla]

@AquaPeet Exactly, you have to start at an _arbitrary_ number to reach 4. Which is why the claim is that you cannot have an infinite regress and therefore you need a beginning, or in your words an _arbitrary_ number.

[@SabeerAbdulla]

@@AlexanderShamov 5 minutes ago is still a beginning in any case. You can say it's not past eternal precisely because of that, independent of whether that started 5 minutes ago or 13+ billion years ago. It exists, and in a paradigm where cause-effect is still in play, it has to have a casual chain which needs an initial cause, since the initial cause cannot be at infinite because then we wouldn't be able to traverse the infinite cause effect chain to get here since it's impossible to traverse infinity.

[@liberalinoklahoma1888]

Like a police department, or just a person, 'investigating' themselves and finding they have done nothing wrong so has religion been 'investigated' by those that work for religion or make a living from it, you do not want to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

[@conniestone6251]

Obviously, the man had NO experience with middle level mathematics, either at the college level or even high school advanced classes .

[@FECtetra1918]

His arguments about morality INFURIATE me! ‘What’s wrong with genocide in a world where atheism is true?’ It boils my blood.

[@markanstrom2981]

What he's saying is, human beings are such utter garbage that nothing short of a command from God can give him enough incentive to give a damn about them. A garbage God created garbage people in His own image.

[@steved5960]

So what is the answer?

[@FECtetra1918]

Atheism is neither true nor false. Should I educate you more?

[@steved5960]

@@FECtetra1918 so theism is neither true nor false ?

[@FECtetra1918]

@@steved5960 Exactly. Theism: belief in deities. Atheism: not that.

[@julioulloa5403]

I'm no mathematician, but the concept of infinity plus one is a high school level idea

[@haitaelpastor976]

It depends if we're talking about cardinals or ordinals. If the latter, it makes sense, and in fact goes indefinitely beyond that.

[@GrammeStudio]

even their own expert the Belgian physicist priest George Lemaitre who proposed big bang did not claim that the universe was CREATED: ""We may speak of the expansion as a beginning, not a creation.....something starting from nothing, is a philosophical question which cannot be settled by physical or astronomical considerations" the Christian physicist did not think his discovery proved creation ex nihilo (out of nothingness)

[@GrammeStudio]

and how could it have begun with nothingness? Lemaitre reasoned that an expansion forward in time when rewind backwards would reach a point of 'singularity' of a superatom. that primodal atom is not nothing. if you chop something infinitely small, there would still be something. you cannot chop it to the point that it disappear into nothingness.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

Lemaître would strongly object being called "their own expert". "As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being."

Right but the pope disagreed with him and so has every religious apologist since then.

[@GrammeStudio]

​@@marknieuweboer8099 i used the phrase to mean a trained physicist who share their religious beliefs. he is an expert on their side of religious belief. he is 'their own expert'. the vatican has many scientists. if they disagree with a vatican perspective, they still remain 'their expert', especially when George Lemaitre was under the employment of vatican and yes im well aware he didnt see his theory of singularity as absolute proof of creationism. that was my whole point

[@GrammeStudio]

it doesn't matter. he's the authority on physics here. their disagreement bears no more weight than if they were to disagree with atheistic physicists. in fact it bears even less weight when they disagree with one of their own [physicist] dont lose perspective. i mention a correct christian not because i wanted to defend christians. i do it to shine a light on the real expert and what happens when intellectual honesty is exercised.

[@mdod0]

8:49 Earth circumference is NOT "precisely" 40,075 km. It depends on the resolution used. Because of its fractal nature it is not possible to get a single number without making assumptions to smooth out the Earth. Yes I'm being pedantic, and yes I'm actually fun at parties why do you ask?

[@milansvancara]

Are you really fun at parties tho?:P Btw shushhhhhh because Frank Turek might become a flat earther too: "Earth's circumference is a fractal and I can't comprehend concept of atoms therefore it's infinite and earth can't be a globe then" :D

[@pshehan1]

Another point. Just because something is mathematically true does not mean it applies to the physical universe we inhabit. Mathematics is a construct which follows a set of rules. It is a tool of science, but it is not science which is a method of understanding the universe we inhabit through empirical data - observation and experiment.

[@MsLemon42]

That's a great point. A different example is when we get to a certain chapter in our AP Psychology textbook and the question of free will inevitably comes up. After prompting with some of the information from the text, I ask them, "Do we have free will? How much of your personality is YOU versus your brain simply responding to stimuli?" and they ponder this for 20 seconds and their eyes go wide with concern. Then I tell my students that it may be a weird question to ponder at three in the morning, but ultimately it doesn't matter whether we truly have free will or not because tomorrow they're going to wake up to their alarm, get ready for school, and sit in class all the same. They laugh. We move on.

[@pshehan1]

@@MsLemon42 I think David Hume came to the same conclusion regarding induction. There is no logical reason to assume that just because something has always occurred, like the sun rising in the east in the morning, it will continue to do so. But having demolished that idea, he says, but we will continue to live our lives as if it is true.

[@mikklecash6046]

@@pshehan1 David Hume also said he would never believe in a miracle regardless of the evidence. But if the Sun doesn't rise in the East tomorrow, he would be quick to tell us we had insufficient reason to expect this regularity. An irregularity of that scale would appear as a miracle. What Hume means is that he will reject any and all evidence which might point to God.

[@Mewse1203]

"It's as if they agree that faith is a bad thing." YES! THANK YOU! I have been saying for years that saying atheists have faith or that they don't have enough Faith to be an atheist is nothing but a self own on their part. If atheists have faith and they think faith is a virtue, then they must acknowledge that we are just as justified as they are in our position, if not more, if you believe Frank Turek. But on the other hand, if it's bad that we have faith in atheism then they must acknowledge that faith is unreliable and therefore they are unjustified in their position as well since it is ONLY based on faith. Either Faith Works or it doesn't (it doesn't, obviously), and they can't have it both ways.

[@dannil9878]

Same with MAGA -people. Ignorance is strong with those folks.

[@paulthompson9668]

Ignorance is strong with radicals on both ends of the political spectrum.

[@imheretochewbubblegum]

There is no doubt that Turek is'n a believer. He knows very well that his audience is very gullible.

[@ultrainstinctgoku2509]

Prove it then buddy.... That's alot of "hot air" you're blowin. 😂😇

[@DreamMonster7X]

Turek: The con man's con artist.

[@Pmrace1960]

frank is worth $7 million ....so i just think he is a conman...........

[@Pmrace1960]

@@ultrainstinctgoku2509 Matthew 19 23-26...

[@ricoseb]

well the first counter example - if you walk in a straight line you’ll never come to an end … how far will you travel though? an infinite distance. irrelevant the diameter of earth being finite. not saying the christian guy is right, just the reasoning as to him being wrong, is wrong.

[@RamadaDiver-w9o]

It's not an infinite distance because there's a finite starting point .

[@marknieuweboer8099]

@ Rama: congratulations, you perfectly repeated FrankieT's falsehood. In math a line segment is finite (limited by two points), a half line is infinite at one side (limited by one point) and a line is not limited at either side. Brush up your understanding of number lines for starters.

[@marknieuweboer8099]

@ Rico: RR talks about walking along the perimeter of a circle, not along a straight line. You're attacking a strawman. As Sean Carroll said in the video we simply don't know whether time is linear or circular, because we have very little understanding of "before the Big Bang". We don't even know if it makes sense.

[@RamadaDiver-w9o]

@@marknieuweboer8099 What is a line.?

[@RamadaDiver-w9o]

@@marknieuweboer8099 A half line is half a line . Its a line with a starting point

[@jmaniak1]

Turek the result when you abandon integrity for ideology.

[@embryophytelove]

And wealth.

[@craigsj]

Turek is also a bully, his lack of ethics does not explain all his flaws, there is also hatefulness and disrespect for others.

[@ASB-b1x]

A different way to cast doubt on the genuineness of this argument ("the universe must have had a beginning, so there must be a (that is, my) god") is to note that for ages the Church argued the opposite: "the universe can't have had a beginning, because that would disprove the existence of a god." The Church objected to the big bang theory the same way it objected to the idea of non-geocentric universe. Then, once confronted with overwhelming evidence, they changed their tune to "of course it had a beginning, which proves we were right all along."

[@schnitzelfilmmaker1130]

As a Christian this is one of the key points, probably the only remark both in the comments section and the video itself (aside from maybe one of Carroll’s points) that actually points out one of the real problems. Your example is a wider problem which is true of both theists and atheists alike: everyone simply takes whatever new information they find out and then say, “oh, but this actually supports my side even though beforehand I said that my beliefs predict the opposite”. Everyone’s simply adapting their arguments - at some point, will we ever acknowledge we’re not really arguing honestly? Look at the discourse around the Fine Tuning Argument: both sides have endlessly been saying that somehow all possible reasons for the “fine tuning of the universe” would actually argue for their beliefs. All we can do is learn about reality. To that point I’d say the Contingency Argument and some very convoluted variations of the Ontological Argument would be far stronger but that’s not too relevant right now.

[@theslay66]

@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 What you're missing is that atheists don't argue for or against the existence of God. They just observe that they don't actually need the concept of God to explain what they observe, and that the concept of God itself is counterproductive to the search for Truth, because as soon as you claim that "God did it" you stop searching for answers. I'm not an atheist because I think God doesn't exists. I'm an atheist because I think the idea of God is just useless, when it comes to understanding the world I live in. Believers conflate that into the affirmation that it doesn't exists but that's wrong. We just follow where the observations lead us to, based on the principle that whatever we observe is the result of natural laws. Claiming the existence of God is claiming that something can't be explained as the result of some natural process, or in other words : magic. It's a hard stop for critical thinking that we can't afford in our search for Truth. I can't claim that God doesn't exist, that would be impossible to prove. But just like I can't claim that unicorns or dragons don't exist. However, if I can't design an experiment that would prove the existence of something, then it means that this thing doesn't have any measurable, objective influence on our world, and doesn't change the expected result in any meaningfull way. If on top of that I don't have any real reason to think it exists in the first place, any observation that may lead me to suspect the existence of something i can't see, then in practice, it's just exactely the same as if this thing doesn't exist at all. So it is simply logical to go with the assertion that it doesn't exist... until proven otherwise. And that means we're dealing widely differently with new informations. Religions have "indisputable Truths" that can't be thrown away (like : "God exists"). And they try to fit new datas to fit these. While the Standard model and General relativity could be thrown away tomorrow, if it happens we have evidence they're wrong -in fact we know very well already there is something wrong with them, as we can't manage to combine them successfully. We know we're missing part of the Truth. When was the last time you've seen any religion admitting they don't have the whole picture figured out ? The whole point of any religion is to claim to have "the Truth", and that is specifically what makes them so detrimental to this search.

[@lurch666]

@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 'everyone simply takes whatever new information they find out and then say, “oh, but this actually supports my side' Or simply deny,ignore or assert inconsistency in the information. Take evolution and it's evidence-it's simply denied by some theists. When can you name some new information that atheists have said supported their side when before they said the opposite?

[@adalbertred]

Did you notice that slowing down Turek's voice sounds like Prager's ?

[@alessioandreoli2145]

Frank Turek still need to recover after being brutally Hitchslapped 😂. On the infinite topic I couldn't believe how wrong he was in so few words 😂😂😂😂

[@Pmrace1960]

hitch battered him

[@Pmrace1960]

Hitch battered him..

[@robyost6079]

Those who assert with complete confidence are everywhere and often rewarded for their combination of ignorance and arrogance. Some of the most popular professors fit into this category.

[@kevinmarriott8698]

Who are you referring to?

[@weirdwilliam8500]

Really? All the professors I’ve interacted with have always included the disclaimer that the information is provisional and only based on all the evidence currently available. This is especially true for my science professors. I think theists are so used to their authority figures making confident, absolute, baseless claims that you just assume everyone else does that. But no, science is way above that level because it’s actually based on good standards of evidence, reasonable inferences, and actually testing its claims against demonstrable reality.

[@josephcooter5763]

One of the reasons that Apologetics is successful here in the States is due to education cuts. WE don't don't teach about infinity here in the States. We don't teach about science, at least all that well. You have to look this stuff up on Wikipedia.

[@konroh2]

Turek's arguments make perfect sense. When mathematicians talk about infinity they aren't making metaphysical points, that's the difference.

[@futatorius]

Even with a perfect education system, there would still be rubes.

[@jloiben12]

I feel like a really easy response to this infinity bit of his is to ask him why he believes there was time before time existed

[@SecularLori]

I’ve started reading more about philosophy and it’s amazing to me that many of the great philosophers of history were also expert mathematicians. I’ve been an atheist for quite some time, but the discussions here and on Alex O’Conner’s channel have really sparked my interest in philosophy. Great job. Thank you.

[@TheDash35]

The universe can't have been infinite because we wouldn't have got to now. Therefore the universe had to have a beginning and it was created by an infinite creator that had no begining... The irony.😅

[@Magnusfication]

"If atheism is true" atheism is not accepting a claim. It cannot be true or false. It just means someone is not convinced about a single issue. Theists never seem to get that or dont want to get it.

[@lurch666]

They assert atheism is believing there are no deities. They have to play with words and meanings or they wouldn't have an argument.

[@growtocycle6992]

I think you are taking about agnosticism. Atheism is a belief of no god .. a-theism. You can't prove it either way, so you have to believe it Most are, in fact, agnostic

[@Magnusfication]

@@growtocycle6992 no its just the difference between agnostic atheism and hard atheism. If you are not convinced any god exists, you are an atheist. If you are convinced no god exists, you are an anti theist. Atheism is not a belief, it makes no positive claim. It is the lack of belief.

[@hairymcnipples]

​@@growtocycle6992nope. "A" means lack of. "Theism" is a belief in god/s. Atheism simply means lacking a belief in god/s, it in no way further implies a specific belief that there is no god. This is 101 stuff. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not belief. Agnostic people can believe or not believe there is a god, they simply further take the position that they can't know for sure.

[@steved5960]

Then theism cannot be true or false either?

[@jreberanlc]

Transfinite arithetic certainly works in the philosophical world of maths, but there is nothing to suggest any correspondence with reality. It’s like the on/off light switch problem and the continual halving of distance between a flying dart and board, theoretically you can keep halving the distance ininiteky, but that entails the dart never actually arrives at the board - but it does - proving there is in fact a smallest / fundamental unit of distance after all.

[@maylingng4107]

The problem of the arrow never reaching the target was solved by differential calculus. As the number of positions approaches infinity, the time to occupy each position approaches zero. The product of the number of positions X the time to occupy therefore becomes a finite number.

[@paulthompson9668]

@@maylingng4107 And the reason why there is an infinite number of positions is because of God.

[@TheIObook2024]

Turek hasn’t had an original thought in over 40 years.

[@DeepDrinks]

Frank will unironically have infinite excuses for whatever holes you find in his 'logic'.

[@west2smojo]

12:18 - I think we need to be more careful with our comparisons here. Claiming you can't add to infinity is NOT like claiming triangles can't have three sides... That would be like claiming infinity must be finite (i.e. contradicting the definition itself). Claiming you can't add to infinity is like saying you can't change the angles of a triangle (i.e. it must always be an equilateral acute or something).

[@macmac1022]

I have actually been getting a couple christians to stop saying morals are objective by starting off with these questions. #1 Are morals objective? #2 Are there objective moral duties? #3 Is it immoral not to do an objective moral duty? #4 Does god do the objective moral duties? #5 Is it an objective moral duty to save a drowning person if you are of sound mind and can do it with no risk to yourself? #6 Would it be objectively immoral to punish someone for a crime they did not commit? #7 Would you consider a parent who put their kids in a room with a poison fruit and told the kids not to eat it but then also put the best con artist in the room with the children knowing the con artist will get the kids to eat the fruit and the parent does nothing to stop it an objectively moral parent?

[@Reno_Slim]

Then blame the children for eating the fruit, punish them for it AND all their descendants who didn't even exist when the "crime" was committed. How is that story not an OBVIOUS fairytale?

[@macmac1022]

@@Reno_Slim And that is not the only time this all loving, all just god punished people for crimes they did not commit. The first born in egypt for the crimes of the pharaoh. The babies during the flood for the crimes of their parents and jesus who is said to be completely innocent for any crime being punished for everyones crimes, even in the future. I made those questions in response to WILCs moral argument. Now this does not give evidence god does not exist, just evidence moral are not objective and from that god. They can get rid of the problem I show just by saying its divine command theory.

[@EdithBromfeld]

The atheists fatal problem is objective moral values and duties don't exist without God. Thus no moral right or wrong exists, unless God exists. Moral ontology. Moral epistemology can be subjective, but is irrelevant to the argument. Atheism is fatal to morality, unable to establish moral ontology without God. If you want to debate whether OMVD exist, be prepared to lose on the merits.

[@macmac1022]

@@EdithBromfeldCan you answer the questions or you going to avoid them like a dishonest politician?

[@stephenzaccardelli5863]

​@@EdithBromfeldwould that mean it is immoral or moral to submit to it?

[@TheButcherHicks]

I love watching Christian apologists and their audiences. It really is comical if you can just get past how potentially dangerous these people are. It is very entertaining watching and listening to the crazy talk and absurd logic they use.

[@haitaelpastor976]

It pisses me off, I can't even laugh at this nonsense.

[@TheButcherHicks]

@@haitaelpastor976 Try praying about it

[@Dan-ud8hz]

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe." - Albert Einstein

[@joe94c]

He doesn't just 'not have training in maths', he doesn't even have A level (high-school for americans) maths. Yes, you can add up with infinity in maths. I learned this at 17 years old

[@BNugget69]

12:50 Fortunately for him, his audience is home schooled, and they dont really understand the fundamentals of math.

[@joelhenderson3723]

Can we please not use 'home schooled' as a synonym for 'uneducated'? They aren't identical, or even generally interchangeable. For one thing, most parents of people who were home schooled were themselves products of public education.

[@RoninTF2011]

@@joelhenderson3723 but the correlate in many cases

[@BNugget69]

@joelhenderson3723 Sure, I'll be more specific, religious people who are also home schooled... yes, it's still somewhat general, but more to my point.

[@douglaszare1215]

About half of home-schooled kids are home-schooled for secular reasons, e.g., their teacher is a bully, they are on the autistic spectrum and the school can't follow an IEP, public schools want them to teach the other students instead of learning, etc. Please don't disparage the people who are home-schooled so they can learn more than in regular schools.

[@AlexanderShamov]

Unfortunately, most people educated in public schools don't understand the fundamentals of math either. They don't even understand what it is about, they think mathematicians are human calculators or something.

[@KeithCooper-Albuquerque]

Great video, Stephen!

[@ultrainstinctgoku2509]

Buddy you win comment of the day, that was hilarious. Good job! Astounding sense of humor. 😂😇

[@truthovertea]

What’s wild is you have actually described the new atheists for the last 23 years since 9/11.

[@ViktorEngelmann]

Did you know that the "university" that gave Frank Turek his "doctorate", the "Southern Evangelical Seminary", is located in a STRIP MALL? Also, it was founded and is presided by a friend of Turek.

[@ViktorEngelmann]

Turek seems to argue that infinity was logically impossible - at least in the "negative direction" (which he doesn't properly define btw). But integral numbers ℤ go to negative infinity. You learn about integral numbers in elementary school. Turek is failing elementary school mathematics. Are you still surprised that he got his "doctorate" from a "university" that is located in a STRIP MALL and that was founded and presided by a friend of his?

[@kayanneyoung9788]

Even if any one of these iterations of the Kalam were true, it still does not get us to the specific Christian god.

[@elainejohnson6955]

How do I get my morals from a character in a book that I believe is utterly immoral?

[@ultrainstinctgoku2509]

If you do the opposite of an objective moral person, that actually means you're immoral by definition and by well known facts. 😂😇

[@elainejohnson6955]

@ultrainstinctgoku2509 I don't know of any objectively moral person.

[@schnitzelfilmmaker1130]

I’m not on board with Turek’s argument, but this response doesn’t seem to have critiqued itself at all before being posted on the internet. 1. The diameter of the earth and the length of the walk are totally distinct from each other. The point being made isn’t relevant. If you wanted to be that technical then you can speak to the various finitude of this: you’re not going to be able to walk the entire earth infinitely, you’re not going to even be able to walk at certain points. I know those points are irrelevant, they’re simply as irrelevant as the point being made in response to Turek are. Besides if “infinite comes in different sizes” - if infinite has a size at all, it’s not infinite, it’s measured, defined and finite. 2. The point that people speaking of an infinite past aren’t saying that there’s a starting point in “negative infinite” but that there’s no starting point at all are kind of just missing the point, because what they’re saying is precisely the problem. Let’s just use days for this example. Are we speaking about days in the past that actually existed, or hypothetical days? Because if you go with this “no starting point” stance you begin to speak about hypothetical days. Let me explain: if we speak of yesterday, there’ll be a day before that, and a day before that, and so on and so on. But if there was no actual first day, then at some point we will reach a day that actually never had a day before that. Think about the Grim Reaper Paradox. If there was no “first day”, then we run into this problem: say that if x is not the first day, then the day before that is the first day. If there is no day before x, then the day before x obviously does not actually exist and is merely a hypothetical day. Assuming time does work completely linearly, and progressively adds “one day” each time a day passes, then the fact we’re at today does indicate we are counting up from negatively counted days that either actually exist or become hypothetical. If there is ever a hypothetical day, then the day after the hypothetical day becomes the first day by default. If there are never hypothetical days, then (again, with the assumptions of positively increasing and linear time) we do run into the problem of a negative infinite. If ever we run into “hypothetical days”, then there was no “day before”, and so we no longer have a “negative infinite”. The problem isn’t being diagnosed correctly in this video. I don’t know if Malpass made other more relevant arguments but they certainly weren’t present in this video. Again I have no stake in this argument by Turek, I just think that everyone should be deciding whether they have found flaws for themselves. My problem isn’t really with the concept of an eternal past, I just don’t think these responses are really it.

[@Zarnagel]

"But if there was no actual first day, then at some point we will reach a day that actually never had a day before that." The opposite of that is true. If there was no first day there's also no day that didn't have another day before it, because that's the definition of a first day. What your entire argument boils down to is essentially "if there was no first day, there had to be a first day"

[@schnitzelfilmmaker1130]

@ let me try to explain this better - any *actual* “day” will have a finite record assigned to it. But infinite is not an actual number, there is never a day assigned as infinite. So as long as you have a set that is theoretically infinite, but you observe from a finite measurement, the infinite ones become hypothetical and not numbered, rather than actual. And if you aren’t observing from an actual day (today, or yesterday, for example) - a finite measurement, then you’re observing from a day that doesn’t actually exist but only hypothetically does. There then are actual days preceding the recorded day, but also hypothetical days preceding the recorded day. You can neither count up to infinite nor down from infinite. You only have determined finite counts and hypothetical counts after it. Those hypothetical days are days that don’t actually exist, but the day you count is always within a finite amount. You can continue counting, but those will also be finite, while hypothetical days would lie beyond it. And you cannot say there are infinite finitely measured days, as infinite is not an actual number, it describes essentially a possibility. There is never an amount of things that is infinite - if it is infinite it is unmeasured (say, an infinitely heavy rock is a contradiction as that then has no weight measurement - there is never a rock that weighs infinite kilograms or something like that, otherwise if it doesn’t have a measured weight it has no weight at all). That creates a problem for whether it actually exists or not. If there are an infinite amount of days that have passed, then you don’t know how many days there actually are except for hypothetical days.

[@Zarnagel]

@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 Replace days with natural numbers: they start at 1 and everyone has a definite value assigned to it, yet there are infinitely many of them. The issues you mention simply aren't a problem for infinities.

[@Zarnagel]

@@schnitzelfilmmaker1130 (It seems my previous reply got lost, apologies if this shows up duplicate) The things you mention simply aren't problems for infinities. Let's replace days with the Natural Numbers: they start at 1 and every single one has a definite value assigned to it, but there are still infinitely many of them.

[@schnitzelfilmmaker1130]

@@Zarnagel no worries, I only see one comment 👍🏻. Okay there’s a couple angles we can look at that from, but I think that idea only really works if we believe essentially that the future already happened - whether infinitely or not. And again my problem isn’t really with the idea of time extending infinitely, that would simply be far beyond the realm of our comprehension. But if the future hasn’t already come into existence in a sense, and each new day that takes place is genuinely new information to the universe and to time (and so time is positively progressing forward in a linear way - add +1 to each new day in the set of days), then I think you’d be able to see how that does genuinely mean that an infinite past would be counting up from negative infinite - in which case, the question of how we can arrive at the present if we’re counting from a number that doesn’t actually have a defined value. But if all of time “exists” already (and that would be a separate issue from what’s already been brought up which is no longer what I was initially addressing), then perhaps we can consider this infinite set of numbers. The question then is if there can be an *actualized* infinite rather than infinite merely being potential. How many numbers are in the “infinite set”? You can’t actually give a set amount, you can only say that hypothetically it is a set with no defined boundaries. But, the way I see it, if it has no defined boundaries, if we can’t actually determine what it is and what it isn’t, it doesn’t exist in the concrete world the way you and I do. Sure, you can say that hypothetically a set can have infinite numbers but if we’re talking about moments in time infinitely that are already in actual existence, can an *actual* infinite exist, or is infinite merely a possibility? Can it exist if we can’t define what it is or isn’t? Because that infinite set of time would really be comparable to an “infinitely heavy rock”. Imagine that - the rock itself doesn’t actually have a weight, its weight value is essentially a hypothetical number. Can we even determine how that rock interacts with other objects if it doesn’t have a defined force? Not actually being a number, would mean that the rock’s weight is not actually a value. And i would think that it must have an actual value rather than hypothetical value for it to be actual. This is all to say in a few different ways to say that the question would be whether we can have an *actual* infinite or not, or whether infinite would be more of an idea and possibility. But then again, between 1 and 2 there’s an infinite amount of decimal numbers too. It would be like each moment in time within a day - a moment isn’t even graspable as a measurement, we can divide infinitely. Still, it exists. The length of a 12-inch ruler can be divided infinitely, still, it exists. But also, because we can infinitely divide, the 12-inch ruler is not actually 12 inches, its own value is not measured if we use the logic I was just using. There’s an example of a kind of infinite set. Even 1-12 as a set implies infinite subdivisions. But I guess the difference between 1-12 and negative infinite (or 0, you can’t actually define which one you’d go from in an infinite set extending boundlessly) is kind of an idealist resolution. You determine “12” as an idea, where as for infinite there is nothing determined as the bounds in the first place. I don’t know, there’s probably not a comprehensible answer to this, but again, can an actual infinite exist? Something like that. It’s not a problem for infinite as a concept, but the question is whether it’s a problem for infinite being an actuality.

[@tiburd7]

Frank speaks the truth when he says HE doesn't know how to add to infinity. Also, "walking in a straight line" only works as a counterexample to "infinity is anything that has no end" if the earth is not flat. 😃 So Frank's narrative is internally consistent!

[@mikefoster6018]

When I read the Bible 31 years ago, it was the cheery 'God tells Moses to do genocide and he does it' etc stuff that disgusted me even more than the other weird stuff. A big book of shocking behaviour and silly lies.

[@futatorius]

In the Old Testament, the only consistent messages are "You lot are special and nobody else is really human," and "because you lot are special, God likes to abuse you more."

[@spacesciencelab]

7:38 "The diameter of the Earth isn't infinite" Then you're not talking about infinity. Plus, clearly, Frank is talking about the theological context of infinity. Hence, a category error. And...an ad hom.

[@RoninTF2011]

So why does Frank apply this definition to cosmology? Is he also making a category error?

[@spacesciencelab]

@RoninTF2011 He would be if theology did not have it's own definition of infinity.

[@RoninTF2011]

@@spacesciencelabBut he applies it outside of theology....so?

[@spacesciencelab]

@RoninTF2011 He's not??

[@hurrikanehavok7313]

I caught that bait and switch too

[@saintmalaclypse3217]

It is no coincidence that the format of preaching never includes a Q&A. My wife used to cringe when I raised my hand in her church.

[@chrisose]

The depth of Frank Turek's ignorance and arrogance is an infinite.

[@martinzarzarmusic5338]

Happy to see Phil featured here. He’s an old friend and all around great guy as well as being dedicated to searching for clarity in an ever murkier world. He has helped me more than once in cutting through the muck.

[@alpardal]

The funny thing is that when he argues that you "can't add anything to something infinite" he is pretty much conceding that time has no end: you are constantly adding to it, 'now' is always passing, with more time always being "added at the end" - meaning it _doesn't actually end_

[@ianbabineau5340]

So god isn’t infinite if he will be here tomorrow. Thanks Turek, that clears a bunch up.

[@whatwasisaying]

They have a problem with infinity until it comes to their god. Then it's all copasetic.

[@Wolfeur]

"You can't add something to an infinity" Like, bro, you can add _infinity_ to an infinity… Dude's never heard of Hilbert's Infinite Hotel

[@lucarossi-brown7532]

I mean simply countering his definition of infinity, the amount of numbers between 1 and 2 is infinite with no beginning or end. You could infinitely add 0s before adding 01 which would merely start the count… even if you pick a starting point, which would be impossible, you would face the same issue trying to select the next number. Any two given numbers have an infinite list of numbers between them.

[@lucarossi-brown7532]

Also the list of numbers between 1-2 exist separately from the list of numbers between 2-3 meaning that these two infinite lists don’t include each other and their actual data could be combined.