Turek Tries to Explain Dualism, Fails

[@Foojaleeckalikeelamaka]

Questioner: "How would you describe a cat to a blind person?" Turek: "Well I'd say it's on the blind person to explain how things can exist if they can't see them. What colour is justice? How bright is love? It's not something they want to admit that we have a visual reality. It's up to them to see the cat, not for you to justify that cat." - Essentially what happens every time he's asked a question.

[@VaughanMcCue]

Well put. I was trying to shuffle FTurkey's words to see where he did the switch. Your name sounds familiar. I think a few thousand of your relatives are in the telephone directory, but some of them finish with "i." They are probably imposters.

[@George-zj9rr]

One-Trick Turek dodges yet again! "Well, i would turn the question around and back onto the atheist." He does that for everything now!

[@Kevin_Williamson]

Typical Turek ploy. "I can't explain it so let's just try to turn this around so the burden of proof is on the person who didn't make the claim." Turek: "Theism can explain this stuff. God did it." Me: "But 'God did it' isn't an explanation. It is simply a claim that, itself, needs to be demonstrated."

[@n0etic_f0x]

I had a student of Frank ask me to get a bucket of sound or admit it was a nonmaterial reality. Yes they are that dense.

[@soyevquirsefron990]

@@n0etic_f0xisn’t every bucket full of sound? As long as it’s not in a vacuum.

[@n0etic_f0x]

@@soyevquirsefron990 Yes. In fact I howled at the bucket and was like “that’s it. There you go.” With a shrug. He didn’t get it though. Remember Frank is not bright but he is the teacher in this class, he is by far the smartest person in the room unless there is an atheist to challenge him.

[@duncanbryson1167]

​@@n0etic_f0x How many decibels does it take to fill a bucket? 😂

[@louisisson7946]

@@duncanbryson1167If there is bucket that has air in it, and you or something makes sound around it, then it is “filled” with sound. At least for a moment.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

only god would think burning something immaterial is a punishment.

[@n0etic_f0x]

Your immaterial screams will go through the immaterial air from the immaterial heat that atheists cannot explain! Damn the clouds that sounds like something a student of Frank would actually say.

[@skepticusmaximus184]

Yes that's interesting isn't it? Almost makes you wonder if those bible writers never thought that souls, hell, or their god were actually in some immaterial realm or state of being. It's almost like the immaterial stuff was an ad hoc afterthought to asage doubts aa it became easier look for God/heaven/hell/souls and harder to find those things. If you're going to play hide and seek an immaterial realm would be quite handy.

[@suiinditorimpudens2460]

@@skepticusmaximus184 To be fair not all Christians believe that. Some, like Jehovah Witnesses, believe in the same material death as atheists do, but believe that God is going to resurrect "correct" people on the Judgement Day by physically restoring them.

[@skepticusmaximus184]

@suiinditorimpudens2460 Yes I've heard about that. It's also interesting as the kind of exception that proves the rule. JWs hold very tight reigns over the avenues of communication with the outside world. The excruciating detail they hold over micromanagement of their members, provides a fertile exception to some aspects of what can be found from worldly society that might contradict the materialistic assumptions. But it's not actually much of a problem anyway, since the mainstay of immaterial aspects remain; the god the immaterial afterlife and soul still provide the same aspect of unfalsifiability the parts not shrouded by unfalsifiable Immaterialism are shrouded by death itself. The reason that regions made some things immaterial is the same motive they moved their promises and punishments beyond the grave. The unfalsifiable advantages are in both strategies.

[@iwilldi]

Only men would think that. But these men need their string puppets to say such things.

[@heiyuall]

Turek’s entire grift is using aggressive gish salad to say, “How dare you ask questions of me, now look at that distraction over there, and now give me money.”

[@n0etic_f0x]

Frank could try to explain how to boil water and I would not trust him.

[@briley2177]

That’s because Frank would likely say: “how do YOU boil water without my imaginary friend?”

[@KaiHenningsen]

Well, Frank would point to the _immaterial_ heat that needs an _immaterial_ got to explain it. He'd take at least ten paragraphs to do that, at least a third of which he spends asking you how you would explain it, and never explain the role of heating elements and the like.

[@n0etic_f0x]

@@briley2177 students of his do believe that we should reject energy because it is not physical or something like that. I wish I was joking but I have heard that and worse.

[@WintersunExtras]

"If you go to boil some water, you're borrowing from the Christian worldview because you're expecting consistency in a world that you think came about through random chance!" 🙄

[@finestPlugins]

Boiling water is a problem for the atheist.

[@Ikonicre_Moonshield]

Name: Frank Turek. Occupation: Stand-up Bullshitter.

[@TMMx]

Did you bullshit today, Frank?

[@fredriksundberg4624]

Exactly. Selling immaterial cars that being invisible also.

[@TheBarelyBearableAtheist]

QUESTION: How can free will exist in the context of pre-existent infallible omniscience? TUREK: Let me answer that by using a football analogy from which I've removed the context of pre-existent infallible omniscience, and football players are merely exercising free will before anyone knows the outcome. Brilliant.

[@n0etic_f0x]

@@TheBarelyBearableAtheist You tell god the score of the football game and he didn’t want to know so he sent the person who told him to Hell. But then you informed him that the game is four days away and he realized just who informed him of the score.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

A "spirit man" is my friend on a fishing trip after he's drunk enough Bourbon to kill a horse. Frank - A thing that can't be investigated exists.

[@n0etic_f0x]

_”How do you explain it? Well don’t even try be underhanded and turn it around then throw a tantrum if they say their mind is physical because their brain is physical.”_ Good job Frank! That explains a lot!

[@briley2177]

“How would we explain nonsense, in layman’s terms, so that rational skeptics believe our nonsense.”

[@mcarp555]

Usually you see Frank arguing with nonbelievers. This time he's preaching to the choir (literally). It's astonishing how much more crap he spews when he feels safe in front of a crowd. Good gosh.

[@MrCanis4]

I would like to see how he tries to sell his crap in Northern Europe. 😂😂

[@jursamaj]

I dunno about that. I've never seen him spew anything *but* crap, no matter what audience. Because ultimately, his real audience is believers anyway. Do a debate in front of non-believers? Who cares what those people think. We'll clip out Frank's bits and present those to believers later. Most of *them* will never hear the rebuttals.

[@mcarp555]

@@jursamaj Yes, but when he gets a nonbeliever on the mic, he focuses on trying to overwhelm his questioner with gish-gallop and BS. Talking with the guy in this clip, it's "Well, of course, as we both know, it's the soul and the spirit, blah blah blah." He's clearly more relaxed and can spit out unsubstantiated claims without having to defend it with double-talk. But I agree, he'll edit the clips to make sure he looks good. And the Q&A format is not good for trying to hold his feet to the fire anyway.

[@dannyslag]

Frank, "don't try to explain or prove your positon, instead just tell the atheists that your position is right."

[@PeteysPonderings1220]

i like how frank dodged the actual question in his chosen football scenario. He is on the stage like "checkmate atheist", meanwhile his entire speech is only reinforcing the impossible existence of free will in a predestined world that a tri-omni being created before they were born.

[@utubepunk]

I wish the people asking the questions would get as fed up as we do. Frank is bamboozling & patronizing them.

[@davidarbogast37]

Indeed. I attempt to point this out to theists as often as I am able to. The idea that if "God" already knew everything that would occur prior to events that led to these occurrences, then clearly it's all determined because "God" having known all information ahead of time would already know that if "he" created the universe where this or that were to happen then obviously "he" would need to create the universe for this or that to actually occur in and because of this we don't have free will as they claim under the biblical narrative. In my opinion, the best that we could describe our will is a term I've coined as 'contextual will', where we're able to make decisions when possible as there are many factors that cause us to make decisions beyond our control such as instinct and reflexes.

[@ritawing1064]

​@@utubepunkhe is mansplaining on two legs.

[@Anglomachian]

As practise, you have to start out by believing the little lies. So that we can believe the big ones? Yes. Justice, mercy, duty, that sort of thing. They’re not the same at all! You think so? Then take the universe and grind it down to the finest powder, sieve it through the finest sieve, and then show me one atom of justice, one molecule of mercy. And yet, you act as if there is some ideal order in the world, as if there were some rightness by which it may be judged. Yes, well people have got to believe that, or what’s the point- My point exactly. - Terry Pratchett

[@DarkAdonisVyers]

I don't. My morality is purely a contract for mutual benefit, protection, etc. I don't do things for a "rightness". In fact, while I like facts, I hate "Truth" with a capital T.

[@brotherben4357]

@@DarkAdonisVyersThe point is that wanting to believe in something doesn’t necessarily make it true.

[@DarkAdonisVyers]

@@brotherben4357 I agree.

[@jtothep4234]

Glad I'm not the only one who thought about that!

[@jcpmac1]

I wish TMM would invite well-known apologists such as Turek to a debate, and confront them with the contradictions and inconsistencies of their beliefs that he so eloquently points out on his channel.

[@jezah8142]

Id pay to watch that!

[@Diviance]

Every well-known apologist has had it pointed out to them over and over again. They don't care because their audience isn't listening to that.

[@graphicmaths7677]

If there is one thing well-known apologists are very, very good at it is shouting other people down and spewing so much nonsense into the conversation that reasoned discussion becomes impossible. Ok that's two things. But it would be unlikely to be a meaningful debate. We would all know TMM had won, but the apologist's followers would all be convinced their side had won.

[@klodius8588]

Yeah Turek! Theists pretend to know because it's comforting and they don't feel to be ignorant.

[@xmillion1704]

That stupid football game “analogy” is the most vacuously specious argument! Great commentary here. Very thoughtful and thought-provoking.

[@Apollorion]

That s.f.g pseudo-analogy's only rational worth is as an explanation of why the will with which we make our choices seem free to us, even though it isn't.

[@hian]

It always baffles me that we live in an age where nearly everyone has a computer or smartphone and yet many think the mind is immaterial. If you cut open a computer you won't find the OS, your image or music files floating around inside, yet we don't conclude they're immaterial, so why would anyone conclude the same for the mind? The mind is just the OS of your brain.

[@cobalt4045]

3:15 Just reminds me of Death from the Discworld anthology: "Then, take the entire universe, grind it into the finest powder and filter it through the finest sieve. Show me one atom of justice - one molecule of mercy." (That may not be the exact quote but should be reasonably paraphrased.) I suspect Turek knows nothing about it.

[@Roxor128]

Death is falling for the Fallacy of Division, there. Theists fall for it depressingly frequently, along with its inverse, the Fallacy of Composition, too.

[@troperhghar9898]

Question, can you explain to me what a god is without using fantasy logic? And if not, why not

[@EdwardHowton]

Typical response: "I'll pray for you" followed by running away.

[@iluvtacos1231]

I'm always amazed at just how bad Franks NFL DVR analogy is. The game has already happened. The person in the analogy had no ability to affect the games outcome before, during, or after. And didn't already know the results of the game before the game was played.

[@AussieNaturalist]

The sad thing is, most Christians listen to Frank and think... "wow, he really made sense there" 🤔🤨😵‍💫

[@EdwardHowton]

"The sad thing is, most Christians listen to Frank and think." Don't lie, no they don't. Think, I mean.

[@ACallToReason]

Shortened video title: Frank Turek tries; fails.

[@finestPlugins]

Turek fails.

[@Diviance]

The title Frank's autobiography, that.

[@soyevquirsefron990]

If god was outside time (if that was possible) then yes maybe we can imagine that he sees everything as already passed, but he’s also creating it in that same moment so he’s creating every event exactly the way he wants it, regardless of how we perceive the progression of moments. HE still creates each moment knowing what every other moment is

[@skepticusmaximus184]

"We are immaterial beings." Even Madonna is smarter than Turek.

[@HarryNicNicholas]

apparently frank knows everything about everything, why bother asking roger penrose how the universe works when you can get the answer from frank? (it's "god did it" by the way).

[@TheLithp]

Everything about everything also apparently doesn't include anything that isn't baryonic matter.

[@cthellis]

Turek ______: fails

[@Griexxt]

If free will is just the ability to make choices, as Turek explicitly said in this video, we definitely have it. But then so does a computer or robot, since they can be programmed to make choices. The question is what is free about it. What is it our ability to make choices is "free" from?

[@jezah8142]

💯

[@stunningkruger]

if the Universe is deterministic then humans are determined to be free

[@bradypustridactylus488]

Listening to Turek rant on about the intersection of body and spirit leads me to the conclusion that Turek uses the spiritual realm as an inexhaustible reservoir of self given authority, undemonstrable knowledge, and self-fulfilling prophecy.

[@KaiHenningsen]

Exactly what the non-theists believing in oversimplified answers are proposing as to why religion was invented.

[@princegobi5992]

@@KaiHenningsenlol, what? Explain instead of just saying it’s so.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@princegobi5992 "A is exactly like B!" - "Explain instead of saying it's so." Explain what?

[@princegobi5992]

@@KaiHenningsen why don’t you try to explain how atheist answers are “oversimplified”? Instead of just stating they are.

[@KaiHenningsen]

@@princegobi5992 Uh, I did? What do you think the word "exactly" means? To put it in small words, some atheists believe in too simple answers (some people of every group do), in this case, that religion was invented solely as a source of authority to control the people. And it's oversimplified because (at least in many cases) the people creating the religion already believed in the stuff it was based on. (And probably even more motives I'm not thinking of.) Things are rarely *that* simple.

[@mikebruzenak1525]

Lets pretend that mind is something over and above what there actually is

[@chrisr3592]

I love the simplicity of this channel

[@WintersunExtras]

Ah, I love that football analogy so much. It does everything in its power to evade the point. Seriously, Frank. Now imagine that you KNOW for an incontrovertible fact, exactly how the game will play out. You don't just know the final result. You know who will score, you know when they score you know the precise coordinates of the ball at any given moment, and every other possible detail. Still think the players are making choices freely and independently?

[@davidvilla9581]

I wish you would just attend one of Frank's lectures and make these points directly to him. If you do, be sure to upload the video.

[@pansepot1490]

What would be the point of going through the effort exactly? Turek had those points made to him by Hitchens but that did nothing to make him change his shtick. I believe the Hitchens Turek debates are still on KZbin if you want to check them out.

[@blahblingo7605]

Because turek wouldnt upload a video of someone handing him his ass if he can help it.

[@davidvilla2909]

@@pansepot1490 Because Hitchens - much as I liked him - did not have such cogent and succinct responses to apologetic nonsense as TMM.

[@jtothep4234]

Spirit Man, Spirit Man Does whatever a spirit can

[@EdwardHowton]

Doesn't do Much at all Whines, goes home and takes back his ball LOOK OUT! Religion is a scam

[@SmallGreenPlanetoid]

Just when you thought that Turek's explanations couldn't get any stupider.

[@MrCanis4]

“Turek Tries ti Explain Dualism, Fails “. What a surprise. 😂😂

[@gergelymagyarosi9285]

Spirit-man is like Spiderman. Does whatever a spirit can.

[@markhackett2302]

The problem with that football "analogy" is that it isn't analogous, you can't record the match and the players still have the free will to do other than people who were watching it live saw. Those fooballers didn't have any free will, that recording only shows and can only ever show what it had recorded, and nothing else.

[@OfTheGaps]

Not only does god already know the score of the football game, but he perfectly crafted the players, stadium, audience and everything else, and set them in motion knowing exactly how every play would turn out. Where in that scenario does free will come in?

[@Uryvichk]

Shhhh, you're not supposed to point out that the omniscient person is ALSO the omnipotent eternal creator of everything! That would ruin the analogy!

[@Oblivion-VigasFirst]

It's called substance dualism cause he's trying to duel the fact that the concept of a soul has no substance.

[@roofuscat2]

The justice molecule has exactly 1..... Now what?

[@elainejohnson6955]

I sometimes wonder if Turek plants these people there to ask these questions.

[@KaiHenningsen]

Doing a Turek: building an elaborate construct of logic so you don't notice the connections strategically left open.

[@ilmt]

Religion claims that "non-physical" things exist and then also supports that position. No shit.

[@finestPlugins]

Turek tries to explain ... - fails. Insert any word.

[@drumrnva]

That football thing he does is utter shit. I've been watching and reading Ture's content for so long, and I still just don't understand how people are convinced by him.

[@FredHarvey779]

Free will is impossible, every choice made depends on what has gone before, every action depends on previous activity, even random quarks are just another activity that has happened.

[@duncanbryson1167]

I'm part spirit when I've consumed 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 malt whisky.

[@Kickiusz]

"God is outside of time" No, they aren't. Well, not according to Frank Turek at least. If they were, the answer to the question "does god exist right now?" would be no, regardless of at what "right now" it is asked. So a god outside of time did not, does not and will not exist. Frank believes in a god that homogenously exists in _all_ of time. To that god, every time is equally the past. So it follows that every moment they exist in - which is every moment - is also the past. And free will, if such a thing even exists, can't change the past.

[@Uryvichk]

If all of time exists simultaneously, then it sure seems like free will cannot exist. If my future exists already -- from the perspective of God at least, who can see it -- then whatever I was going to do isn't just guaranteed to happen, it "already has" from God's POV; or more accurately, it "already is" happening simultaneous to the moment I think is the "present." I can't possibly do anything to influence it, because it's already occurring (or has occurred, or whatever). It makes no sense to say I will freely choose to do a thing that's already happening, particularly a future decision I am not presently even aware I will have to make. Sure, if we're Presentists we can be Open Theists and then God can not know the future, but if we believe in eternal time then there's nowhere left for free will to operate.

[@almightygod2144]

Energy is immaterial? Thats just wrong. Energy is a property of the physical. Energy is entirely physical.

[@Apollorion]

But if something is physical does that imply that it is also material? E.g. consider photons: they consist of energy, have spin, momentum, angular momentum but no rest mass. They're particles moving with the speed of light. Are they material?

[@almightygod2144]

@@Apollorion yes. Light is material. It's fucking matter.

[@Roxor128]

I think he's drawing a distinction between "physical" and "material", with the latter being a subset of the former. Everything material is physical, but not everything physical is material. Or, at least, that's my understanding of his position.

[@almightygod2144]

@@Roxor128 Your explanation expounds on nothing. If a thing isn't matter, what is it?

[@Roxor128]

@@almightygod2144 Time, space, energy, fundamental forces. Physical, but not matter.

[@ChipArgyle]

If a soul exists, its purpose is to be an accountable, sensate, back-up hard drive for our memories and consciousness. If its existence is real, why doesn't it takeover mind, consciousness, and memory functions when brains are seriously injured?

[@Specialeffecks]

Brains think like car engines run. There is no immaterial "run" in a car.

[@darwinskeeper421]

Is the spirit man related to the bat man?

[@THATGuy5654]

The whole "stealing from God's world" thing, where they claim that logic and reason and compassion all come from God, so you can't use those to argue against God, has to be one of the most immature arguments in existence. Here's an idea: try stealing from the secular world and provide me some pilfered evidence that supports the claim that those things can't exist without God.

[@rhysbarker50]

Substance dualism is bad, but distinct from a scientifically informed property dualism, though both fall under the ‘dualist’ banner

[@ftg3183]

Spirit man is something I hear a lot... especially amongst a lot of pastor's

[@soyevquirsefron990]

3:53 Frank: “But from your perspective, not you but the atheist perspective …” Questioner: “Yeah, how about you answer my question about how to explain OUR position instead of making up atheist answers.” I hope the questioner, and the rest of the audience, walked away from this wondering why the only explanation of the theist position is imagining how an atheist might explain their position. The typical atheist position is actually, we don’t know either but we’re studying to figure it out. Theists claim to already know the answer to everything but can’t explain it, even when talking among themselves they pretend they’re pwning imaginary atheists so that they can say “god did it” is the best answer to everything cause look how dumb that imaginary atheist was.

[@ChokeArtist411]

The Turek two-step

[@HansZarkovPhD]

Turek fails at most of his arguements, falling back on...believe or be punished.

[@firefly4f4]

Not quite sure what you mean by energy, space, and time being immaterial. If you mean in the sense that they're not mater, then i would point to E=MC² showing the relationship between all three (time and space being part of C) that treating them as separate from mater doesn't make much sense to me. Instead, things that are material are things that can be expressed in terms of mater, space, time, or energy.

[@thomasridley8675]

40,000 versions doesn't sound like they have created a coherent theology. In fact it shows that just the opposite is happening. Christianity is the most diverse and the most fought over religious theology ever created.

[@mikebruzenak1525]

What is justice under a strawman?

[@graladue]

The players you are *watching* have no free will because they have already done what they will do. Frank is utterly full of shit on this one. If you know the scores of all the games throughout all time, then there is no free will sufficient to produce different outcomes. Frank's conceit here is in inserting limited humans when the question is about unlimited god. It's a classic bait and switch, and it is bullshit.

[@inquisitive_stranger]

Is Frank just making stuff up at this point?

[@midlander4]

He's made a career out of it

[@onlylettersand0to9]

Always has been.

[@Griexxt]

Are you implying there was a point when he wasn't just making stuff up?

[@fredriksundberg4624]

Most likely? And he's also selling immaterial invisible cars to people.

[@ckmfunk]

"Free will"... free from what? From the laws of physics?

[@denverarnold6210]

The analogy falls apart, because it's not a matter of knowing the result before you watch the game. It's knowing the results before the game is even played.

[@matthewgagnon9426]

This is him literally just poorly explaining how souls work in the D&D setting of The Forgotten Realms.

[@davexmit]

What happens if I ask god what time I get up tomorrow?

[@clukinvar]

Next time a theist tells me that God is outside of time I won't ask them what that means, because I've never been given nor heard an answer that makes any kind of sense. Instead I will ask them if we can do anything to surprise God. If the answer is "no" than we cannot possibly have free will, only the illusion thereof. If the answer is "yes" than God cannot possibly be all knowing.

[@Arosukir6]

Is "unchurched" some kind of evangelical-speak? Like they use it the way most folks use "uneducated?" If so, that feels like a creepy equivocation. When someone asks "how do I explain ____ to an uneducated person?" it's meant to get help with providing factual information to someone who not only doesn't have it but also may not have the educational backing to easily understand it. But while it feels like that man meant it to mean something similar--explaining to someone who isn't in the church important info about its philosophy--I get the feeling that what it really means is "how do I explain our nonsensical beliefs to someone who hasn't been properly indoctrinated, in a way that prevents their questions/answers from making me question my faith?"

[@Evolution.1859]

That’s a hard question and we have no good answers at all, so don’t answer it and make the atheist explain all the other things we don’t understand. And no, the concept of libertarian free will violates too many physical laws to exist. Why do people ask Frank questions he’s failed to answer time and time again? It’s not like he’s learned anything new.🤷🏻‍♀

[@Z4r4sz]

Turd could say water is wet and you can bet he doesnt mean that. Thats how wrong he is constantly.

[@jursamaj]

Turek knows his analogies are crap. He doesn't care. That questioner will go away unsatisfied, but most believers will just nod along. As long as Turek makes bank from believers, he has no reason to care how bad his arguments are.

[@peterbyykkonen8901]

I believe consciousness is non-material; the stuff that composes a brain is different than an experience, but I still think consciousness is physical. Certain material arrangements happen to be associated with certain conscious states. However, these material states seem to be able to predict reliably the associated conscious state, so I see no need to invoke any other explanation for their existence, and I certainly see no need to invoke a non-explanation to explain their existence.

[@EdwardHowton]

A computer program is non-material too. Try running youtube.exe on a nonexistent computer. Oh the software needs hardware to run on I guess computer programs are also material if you think about it, _and we literally have machines that can show you what _*_materials_*_ are doing the thinking-about-it thing._ So the same goes for "consciousness". It's software running on wetware. Mind/body dualism was brutally murdered when Phineas Gage got his brain spiked at work. But I understand a lot of people didn't get the memo; it happened very recently in *_1848_* after all, news can't have spread far. Also, did you know thunder isn't Odin bowling in the clouds? Wild right?

[@Nexus-jg7ev]

Why does Turel even think that defending substance dualism is enough? He also needs to defend a theistic version of it because, however odd it may seem to some people, an atheist can be a substance-dualist too. For example, an atheist can hold that souls are eternal, uncreated substances that reincarnate in bodies. There you go, substance-dualism without gods. And that's a more parsimonious dualist theory. Now, whether substance-dualism is correct as a theory if the mind is another question, but even it were true, this does not pose a challenge to atheists at all.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Frank has developed his own vocabulary (a word language) and uses that to argue against his opponents. This is called straw manning and makes the debate one sided. The only way to debate Frank successfully is to define his vocabulary first before you even begin the debate.

[@mentalkitty789]

The analogy at the end is so frustrating. God knowing everything isn't the entirety of that problem in terms of people's 'free will' (which I don't believe in myself) it is that god also created everything and set it into motion. It isn't like watching a recording, it is like writing a script! That doesn't even touch on how god actively interacts with and influences reality whenever it feels like! Well at least all of that would be true if this god was real. Apologists just all come off as idiots or deliberately dishonest. x.x

[@corringhamdepot4434]

I imagine God throwing his remote at the TV screen, because he is watching a recording of Apologists destroying Christianity, but knows He can't do anything about it. 🤣

[@bujinkanatori]

why no theist has ever agreed to this view that YES, you have a free will to do as you like, but once you made up your mind, it is set in stone and you cannot change the past. And as God is a time traveller, he can SEE what you have desided freely in a period of time that for him is past, as all of time is his past.

[@duncanbryson1167]

10.27: SERIOUSLY? 🙄

[@bujinkanatori]

God is Kang the conqueror, he who sits in the ends of time.

[@xipheonj]

"Turek tries to explain..." well there's your problem, this guy couldn't explain elementary school math to an accountant. In fact, we should never let him try, we might end up breaking a few accountants and render then unable to perform their jobs.

[@fredriksundberg4624]

Whatever in trying to fleece people of their money.

[@TheMNbassHunter]

The football analogy from Turek was stunningly stupid. Turek, your knowledge of events (as the guy who recorded the game) is AFTER the events took place, not BEFORE. God has knowledge BEFORE the events took place, so those events had to take place the way god knew them to turn out. No one on that football field had any option to make the game turn out any other way other than how god already knew it would turn out... predetermined. I suppose you could say the players had free will, but god already knew what they were going to do with that free will. As if it matters anyway... it's all silly.

[@Phylaetra]

Wait - wait... "They believe that there is some kind of injustice in the world"? Well yes, because there _is_ by pretty much any definition of injustice you care to use. It's not just atheists that believe there is injustice in the world either - Christians believe there is also (as do adherents of pretty much any religion). Is he arguing that there is no injustice in the world?

[@milenahoffman1870]

"Turek tries......., fails" is really enough Pfff, what a clown, don't tell me anyone takes this joker seriously.

[@dannyslag]

Every "immaterial" thing Frank mentions is simply an event. This is why I can't take him seriously. He's too stupid to grasp that events aren't made of molecules, they're things molecules do, that doesn't make them magical.

[@aubreyleonae4108]

the spirit man is about $150 for 30 minutes and worth every penny. Play safe.

[@brotherben4357]

No domestic violence jokes in the comment section today? That’s disappointing.

[@michaelthesiren]

Hi, i would like to understanf your claim that we dont have free will. Because i'm not sure that i understand. I'm an agnostic myslef, i dont inherently belive in a god. But for the purpose of the question lets asume there isnt one. So if there isnt anyone overseing and dictating the rules, how could we not have free will? A man who is free can go wherever he wants in the world , but a slave can't beace the slave is the property of another person. But if there isnt anyone or anything that is my master how could i not be free to do wahtever i fancy doing?

[@The1SuperAtheist]

Sorry but that man just asked a dumb question. That was also poorly worded.

[@EdwardHowton]

"We humans are part body" sure if by 'part' you mean 'the entire thing' "part soul" sure if by 'part' here you mean 'zero percent because that's made up' "and part spirit" didn't we just go over this, my ignorant duderino? Soul and spirit are the same thing, Cletus. Frank: "uh-huh" well at least they're intellectual equals. Zero equals zero. Amazing the things you learn when you graduate to _object permanence._

[@oscargr_]

Frank's BS makes my soul hurt and my spirit angry.

[@modernatheism]

The laws of logic are neccesary truths, these would be true even if we had not invented them. And it feels more correct to say that we discovered laws of math rather than invented them.

[@TMMx]

They would not be true if we had not invented them. They wouldn't be false either. They just wouldn't be.

[@modernatheism]

@@TMMx Yes they would. Math laws are truths inherent to numbers. That the order of factors does not afffect the product is true regardless of wether humans exist or not. Do you take paid promos btw?

[@TMMx]

@@modernatheism Yeah, but numbers are also inventions, not discoveries. Look at it like this: the vernal equinox of the year 4000 BCE, according to the Gregorian calendar was a Monday. This is “true” despite the fact that neither the Gregorian calendar, nor Mondays, would have been invented yet. The laws of logic and numbers are like that.

[@modernatheism]

@@TMMx Thats because monday is an abritrary thing. But look at it like this: in the time it takes the earth to move around the sun, it has rotated on its axis 365 times. This is true regardless of wether numbers (abstract concepts that represent amounts) have been discovered or not. And what about that paid promo bro?

[@TMMx]

@@modernatheism That's just as arbitrary. Calling the last day of the year the 365th day is as arbitrary as calling the last day of the week Saturday. The number 365 is as much an invention as Saturday is.

[@George-zj9rr]

I nominate Turek for worst christian evangelist. He's so cowardly the way he dodges all the time. To which he would surely say "well, by what standard are you judging me as dodging???"

[@andydee1304]

Again, theists are having difficulty grasping what abstractions are.

[@veganpundit1]

💯👍🎯

[@coolumesque]

God has always taken me to see the multi-levelled nature of the energy the universe is made from & how each level is a parallel universe. God has taken me to see Heavens & Hells, Angels & Demons. And I am not a Christian or anything. And I thought maybe I was imagining it all or it was a natural phenomenon the brain creates. But God kept showing me the future all the time & it all came true within a day. I didn't understand why God was always showing me the future because it wasn't information I could use to help the world or anything. But then I realised that out of all the experiences God was giving to me the Only thing I could not attribute to material causes was how God was showing me the future all the time & it was coming true. God has shown me the future thousands of times & everything God shows me comes true. So when people say that the brain creates God I know that is not true. God frequently appears & lifts me out of my body as well. I could write a library or two on the experiences God has given me & I've met countless people who are given experiences by God also, & shown the future '& it all comes true. So your scientific explanations do not adequately explain what spirituality or spiritual experiences are. Even scientists & doctors etc are visited by God & make many videos & write books, & give lectures about it. So no I do not believe your materialistic explanations at all. Have a nice day or night everybody

[@drsatan9617]

Statistically speaking, it's more likely that you are delusional

[@Diviance]

When I did contract IT work back years ago, I did IT for a mental hospital at one point. One of the guys in there talked just like you... except he was convinced he was Satan. Nice guy and all but, uh... yeah.

[@pansepot1490]

Don’t do drugs, kids. You might end up frying your brain like our friend here .

[@MichaelAronson]

"Even scientists & doctors etc are visited by God & make many videos & write books, & give lectures about it." Do they do any experiments to test and measure these visitations, or nah?

[@blahblingo7605]

Stay off drugs. Or start taking them.