Why creation and design are not "God of the Gaps" arguments

⬇⬇⬇𝗦𝗢𝗖𝗜𝗔𝗟 𝗠𝗘𝗗𝗜𝗔⬇⬇⬇
●Facebook: / crossexamined.org
●Twitter: / frank_turek
●Instagram: / drfrankturek
●Pinterest: www.pinterest.com.mx/crossexa...
⬇⬇⬇𝗥𝗘𝗦𝗢𝗨𝗥𝗖𝗘𝗦⬇⬇⬇
Website: crossexamined.org
Store: impactapologetics.com/
Online Courses: reasonu.thinkific.com/collect...
⬇⬇⬇𝗦𝗨𝗦𝗖𝗥𝗜𝗕𝗘 𝗧𝗢 𝗢𝗨𝗥 𝗣𝗢𝗗𝗖𝗔𝗦𝗧⬇⬇⬇
iTunes: bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast
Google Play: bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Google
Spotify: bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_P...
Stitcher: bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
#FineTuning #IntelligentDesign #Evolution

[@1smallstep]

"If you give science enough time..." Sounds like John was using the future scientists in the gap argument.

[@davidw.4524]

😂😂

[@theespionageact5249]

Well...everything we have ever understood with science has been a natural explanation...

[@ohiobuckeye5828]

@Colby Yet science can’t explain nature.

[@davidw.4524]

@@ohiobuckeye5828 They know everything about space and Mars.. Lol what are you talking about.

[@theespionageact5249]

@@ohiobuckeye5828 i dont even know what that means....cant explain nature. Weird comment. Science is the study of the natural world.

[@enthorir1203]

I all I can say is I'm blessed to have had Frank Turek pop up in my youtube feed!

[@japexican007]

Nick Thurman he’s great but also many other good ones like Ravi zacharias, James Tour, John Lennox, Vince vitale, David Wood, William lane Craig,

[@enthorir1203]

Thank you@@japexican007! I'll check them out!

[@japexican007]

Nick Thurman no problem, God bless

[@tabulusrasa9118]

@@enthorir1203 Yea totally! Frank Turek completly didnt answer the guys question really, yay for blessings right? Oh by the way there are childs dying in Africa and little girls being raped right now.

[@japexican007]

Tabulus Rasa you forgot millions of Christians around the world being persecuted and murdered for their beliefs, as it is written so shall it be, even so Lord come quickly!

[@juanpedro5255]

Glory to God. God bless you Frank Turek. Thanks for allowing God to teach you. Thanks for educating us.

[@ThomB50]

It was theists who first accused others of God of the Gaps arguments. During the Enlightenment there were theists who rightly believed that if there was a Creator then the universe would be knowable and understandable. Certain theists feared this sentiment and tried to maintain the status quo. This isn’t a fallacy that only theists are guilty of. Atheists and others who are materialists and shut down challenging their believes are just as guilty of the God of the Gaps fallacy, only, their God is science.

[@EndTimesHarvest]

Truth be told, the human mind is the perfect tool for understanding the universe - the human mind being made in the image of the mind of God and the mind of God having produced all of creation. The ancient Greeks may have been closer to understanding the true nature of reality (spiritual and metaphysical) than we are simply because they truly used their minds to explore the universe, rather than relying only on physical, material observations made with physical tools.

[@Eddieshred]

I think you meant 'deists' where you said 'theists'. It's funny that in your last sentence, the way you phrased it, you are actually implied conceding that God can be an impersonal force.

[@dan4992]

@@williamsmith9948 that's just what religious people say when science people start making good points. Describe it as a religion all you want. That's fine. We just want to know where we are wrong and move forward. If you can tell me where evolution is wrong, I'll consider God.

[@gfujigo]

The atheist equivalent of God-of-the-gaps is the brute facts argument. Wherever physicalism and scientism fails, just attribute it to brute facts. No need for an explanation if you have brute facts. This puts us theists in the ironic position of responding: with enough time, we will find the explanation for something we observe. The fact is, nothing is even close to God as an explanation of reality. God is the best explanation for reality, period. This holds whether evolution, the Big Bang, multiverse, string theory, eternal universe, etc are all true or not.

[@dan4992]

@@gfujigo give me an example of a brute fact argument

[@FrancescoScinico]

I like the guy at 0:24 "they (scientists) want to find a naturalistic or a more "rational" answer to the question." So, the answer that a rational universe (i.e. a universe that makes rational sense) is the creation of a rational being (God) is not rational, but the idea that a rational universe is the end product of non-rational causes is more rational?

[@danielmatarazzo3678]

Is it rational to think that something you can't show to exist could create anything?

[@FrancescoScinico]

@@danielmatarazzo3678 Like the multiverse? Can you show it? Yet atheists like Carroll, Carr, Dawkins, deGrasse Tyson, Guth and many, many others believe it exists. Are they irrational?

[@danielmatarazzo3678]

@@FrancescoScinico lol I never stated what I believe, what did I say to make you think I believe in the multi verse? What makes you think the universe is rational? If is created then the creator is a massive screw up or he hates us since the vast majority of it is "designed" to kill us.

[@FrancescoScinico]

@@danielmatarazzo3678 I mentioned the multiverse to make a point. We can't show it exist but atheist scientists believe it exists. According to your logic, their conclusion is as irrational as God. According to their logic, your objection is ridiculous. How can you "show" the cause of the universe if you are inside the universe? You can infer it, but not show it since the cause is, by definition, outside the universe; thus asking to "show" it is a category error (a logical fallacy).

[@johnbrinsmead3316]

@@danielmatarazzo3678 you're only saying that because the probably of randomly arriving at a portion of our universe that isn't cold empty void is less than 1 over 10 to the 50th

[@ivorkovac303]

Excellent, very good, and well put.

[@raymondvasquez2545]

I love this Channel and I am also a Christian. I have an issue with the Cosmological and Kalam argument however. If we regress and do find God created all there is because he is the first cause, then there are two implications. (1) God created matter from nothing, (2) God as an immaterial being created matter. It seems impossible to understand. (Parmenides has challenged the way in which I consider nothingness because it is some non-being which can not be thought or made into a subject. His claims is All there is to think about is what-is. Consequently only what is can be rearranged but what-is-not can not be used to generate matter.) I believe Jesus is Lord and God is intelligible but the bible does not provide systematic theology to coincide with metaphysical or empirical observation. Those conversations are strictly philosophical. All I have found in the bible is Hebrews 11 on faith that he exists, and Ecclesiastes where the origin of all things is not meant to be understood. Nevertheless I want to persist because I am in the pursuit of truth. I am confident that all truth returns to Jesus Christ the one and only Messiah. I pray I can have clarification from the community or an extensive conversation.

[@PockASqueeno]

raymond vasquez God didn’t create matter (and energy) from nothing. Nothingness never existed because God has always been there, and He certainly isn’t nothing. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” He created matter and energy from HIMSELF.

[@spacecoastdogtrainer3778]

If you view God as Immaterial, Timeless, and Spaceless (Yes, This is difficult) it helps you (at least it helps me) understand that that the universe (at least what mankind knows of the universe) came into existence from something that is immaterial, timeless and spaceless because He, God, is outside of material, time, and space.

[@festushaggen2563]

On your #2 point, how much of God can we really understand? There's a lot we can't understand but that has no bearing on whether something is true or not. Infinity for example. We get the concept but good luck trying to picture infinity with a finite mind. No matter how much we can learn of God, we'll never fully understand an eternal, omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent being with the power to create all things and be fully aware of all things past, present and future at the same time. That is completely foreign to us. For some things, it's OK for us to admit our limitations and say, I don't fully understand it but I believe it. That's where faith comes in.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@Ruby Badilla another manifestation of suffering...pain

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@________________________________________________ who says there was ever a nothing

[@shawnchristophermalig4339]

This is the argument also known as the null Hypothesis argument. Thankful to have this. This is the argument where dr Shermer should have done in which I commented on the other vids as it makes the show more interestimg

[@KaeFwam]

He literally said this is not a god of the gaps argument and then instantly proved that it was exactly that.

[@LittleMAC78]

Pretty much, yea. "This is too complex to have happened by chance so it must have been intentional" - teleological argument. It's a very narrow minded argument that completely ignores all of the observable 'trial and error' in the history of nature. The observable trial and error alone undermines the infallibility of the 'designer' which is surely not a position that a person of faith would hold?

[@KaeFwam]

@@LittleMAC78 if you think about in an unbiased way I would definitely agree that the observable trial and error in nature is evidence at the very least that if there IS a creator it isn’t all powerful.

[@WiseManByrd]

Exactly Frank. Someone beyond the physical universe. This is what I say all the time.

[@WiseManByrd]

@elabed sidou it’s not an hypothesis. It’s simple logic. The Big Bang or the universe didn’t create itself. A higher being had to do this. Everything in the physical universe has a source. So where do you think the source of all creation would be, beyond this universe, beyond time and space to even be able to create it. Science can’t prove anything, there is your empty conclusion right there. Science can explain stuff and comes with an analysis all the time and it constantly changes, science is based on theory according to science nothing can be proven. I know about science and I know that Science doesn’t have an answer for everything.

[@kczleon735]

@@WiseManByrd what if the universe doesn't have a source and we're just to dumb to imagine. I mean we still don't really understand what zero is however we use it in maths and science all the time and make sense out of it altough nobody can tell me what nothung really means.

[@WiseManByrd]

@@kczleon735 everything in the physical realm has a source, just look around you and think on it.?

[@casematecardinal]

@@WiseManByrd this is literally an example of god of the gap. You say because we don't understand what caused the big bang, that it had to have been god

[@WiseManByrd]

@@casematecardinal yes it is God. Do you have an idea of what caused the universe to begin than? Everything has a source of creation in the physical realm. Think about it. Look at the world around you and tell me it’s not the work of a grand designer far beyond what we can comprehend or understand.

[@christosardjono6016]

But it is .. no proof given on creation .. thus god. So still god of the gap

[@lemiless]

It always gets me how theists can "explain" the unexplainable by just saying "God". If I come across "John loves Mary" written in sand, of course I don't believe it happened randomly. I am familiar with language. I can fill in the gaps from things that I have actually observed in the past. I know that human beings write out sentences because I've experienced it before. To say God was the first mover, or that God created anything, is leaking from a place of ignorance. Now, I don't mean unintelligence. I simply mean that we have never seen a deity create anything, therefore we are ignorant to any such knowledge. If I see a new model of car on the road, I have a frame of reference to surmise that that model was certainly designed, and created by a human being. But there is no prior evidence, nor any relatable observed reference point to simply claim that something beyond nature is the cause of existence. As Frank pointed out, when we don't yet know the actual cause of something, we are inclined to make something up to appease the fear of the unknown that humans are prone to exhibit. But, once again, how can we say God if we have no prior experience in that area? We may as well say everything was created by an army of fairy winged robots that have just always existed.

[@FrancescoScinico]

We haven't closed a single gap. I don't think atheists understand what it means to close a gap. When you replace the direct intervention of a god (Thor, Maui, Zeus) with the indirect intervention of God (a master mathematician who runs nature through natural algorithms), you haven't closed a gap; you've replaced an errand boy with a software programmer. You only close a gap when you can explain how unintelligence could come up with the mathematical and chemical algorithms that run nature without a mind, without intention, without space and time and logic.

[@1MDA]

And without evidence for it.

[@jmonroe6125]

I see nothing wrong with believing that God can "fill in the blanks" on a lot of things. Evolutionists are "humanism in the gaps" and "naturalism in the gaps." They are so certain it isn't God is they are always quick to say its impossible that God could have anything to do with it.

[@robertdunn1800]

Amen, brother. That is absolutely true.

[@jmonroe6125]

Amen

[@DonJuan-lg8vk]

No one says it is impossible, just highly unlikely.

[@jmonroe6125]

@@DonJuan-lg8vk no one says its impossible- that's not true. It's just highly improbable- that's a subjective statement based on opinion

[@jmonroe6125]

@@DonJuan-lg8vk we look at the likelihood of naturalism as highly unlikely. There you go. You say, I say.... he said, she said...

[@lxvelyheav3n132]

Can someone please explain to me what the God of the gaps argument is? I’m still learning this stuff and want to understand it fully. 😁

[@nacholauro3400]

Something happen, ¿what is the cause? We don't know, well it was God. That is the God of the gaps argument. Check more info in the app "Crossexamined"

[@kinkypoly]

I'll make you a video in the next couple weeks.

[@teamatfort444]

When we have observed something or there is a question and we have no answer, someone goes “we don’t know how this thing works, therefore god did it” People used to attribute lightning to Thor until they learned how lightning worked

[@jaonatohinirina565]

For those who doesn't understand: -The existence of laws in nature doesn't disprove a creator but in fact proves it because basic human experience over history has shown that laws comes from intelligence which christian bring into the natural conclusion of God's existence. -"God of the gap fallacy" is therefore NOT an argument agaisnt God's existence.

[@icandoallthings5326]

Good answer

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

Yes, it reveals the logical error in the God of the gaps accusation.

[@icandoallthings5326]

LoveYourNeighbour Amen

[@goldenalt3166]

@@LoveYourNeighbour. One atheist, one time, gave a science of the gaps answer, so we feel justified to not only use god of the gaps, but also use that assumption to limit god to fit those assumptions.

[@GoldenWolf248]

Just because we can explain HOW lightning happens, doesn't prove that God isn't behind it. God created lightning and everything we see around us.

[@1MDA]

You are the first I see wih the same thinking as I

[@threeofive9401]

@GoldernWolf248 There is no evidence that anything worked behind the scenes to concoct the conditions that create lightning, but you are right, it doesn't prove a god isn't behind it. Your second sentence is textbook example of a god of the gaps reply.

[@GoldenWolf248]

@Ruby Badilla Sorry. All the evidence we are given is from the Bible. God chose to do it that way for a reason. Only the people humble enough to repent from their sins and have faith in Jesus will know the truth.

[@GoldenWolf248]

@Ruby Badilla Ever heard of internal evidence? You can apply the things in the Bible to your life and see the results.

[@GoldenWolf248]

@Ruby Badilla We're not in a courtroom and God is not on trial. We are the ones who are figuratively on trial and we all deserve to go to jail (or hell in this case). Jesus paid my fine on that cross and I accepted it. How about you?

[@chrisway7113]

Brilliant answer!

[@MaxCarroll]

Great video

[@midnighthymn]

Great answer

[@alanbaraka9800]

hardly

[@datboi42]

@@alanbaraka9800 salty?

[@bevigilant1p589]

Wow. That was such a great answer.

[@theespionageact5249]

Too bad creation is debunked.

[@TyrellWellickEcorp]

Colby Jensen haha no it isn’t. The case for intelligent design is growing and prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled, are being fulfilled currently, and still have yet to be fulfilled.

[@theespionageact5249]

@@TyrellWellickEcorp i can prove to you evolution is true. And intelligent design was debunked by scientists (some Christian) years ago in court. Same with irreducible complexity. Find me any peer reviewed science supporting your claim. Ill wait

[@theespionageact5249]

@@drew2fast489 its been proven if something exists, someone must have brought it into existence... What?! Youve gotta be kidding me. So many problems with your argument. Do you agree that evolution has been confirmed through mountains of evidence? Or have you not done any research?

[@jesussaves1566]

Colby Jensen creation can’t be “debunked” until it’s shown scientifically how anything came to exist in the first place. And the mountains of evidence you claim is just a few fossils so what are you talking about?

[@kevinbarbe5059]

Again with the cause and effect... there are multiples models of a begining of the universe without a cause... is’nt that interresting?

[@casematecardinal]

Yes because we don't yet have the available information to make a sure conclusion or at least a likely hypothesis. That doesn't mean God exists. Literally God of the gaps fallacy.

[@MaeljinRajah]

@@casematecardinal yes, but those theories have more evidence backing them up, than your God (which has none) also, most of us tend to look at those theories as what they are "possible maybes"while further research is done and further evidence is found, as we learn more. meanwhile, you have a 2000 year old book of fairytales. how archaic....shouldnt you have learned more since then?

[@casematecardinal]

@@MaeljinRajah you do realize that is the exact point I am making right? that just because we don't have a sure conclusion it doesn't mean its because of God, and thus God of the gaps.

[@AnonymousC-lm6tc]

There really isn’t solid evidence for those theories, in fact some have been refuted by recent scientific studies, such as the primordial soup theory.

[@charlo90952]

So who created the supernatural being? The universe was not created. Its components...atoms...have existed for eternity. There's no beginning and no end.

[@Jg-ep7ol]

Mind blown...

[@SOULSafeProductionZ]

Me too

[@philb4462]

We don't know the cause of the universe. We really don't. Frank has plugged this gap in our knowledge with God. If you think that a genetic code is anything like a message written in the sand then you are very much mistaken. It's a false analogy.

[@YourMom-kp2xh]

Fairly compelling

[@fr.hughmackenzie5900]

What if we find a cause of the DNA letter order within nature?

[@ameribeaner]

Science: the art of getting it wrong and thinking you’re right until you’re proven wrong. Yesterday’s science fiction is Today’s science fact and Tomorrow’s science myth.

[@sudhirmurmu503]

You are absolutely correct 😂😂😂 How did you notice that...

[@angelaf1305]

Well said

[@ameribeaner]

I read a lot of history books written by different people with different backgrounds and expertise

[@sudhirmurmu503]

@@ameribeaner Well done You pointed out the truth of the science...

[@STREEEEEET]

Os as i like to say: " Science is right whether you believe it or not, until it's wrong, and then it fix itself and guess what!? It's right again ! ".

[@Scorpion-my3dv]

Good points.

[@alanbaraka9800]

Hardly

[@Scorpion-my3dv]

@@alanbaraka9800 meh

[@alanbaraka9800]

@Scorpion 1771 ok then. Can you demonstrate any god to exist?

[@Scorpion-my3dv]

@@alanbaraka9800 I love it when atheists say stuff like this. You've never known anyone in your life who wasn't a Christian who then became one? You've never seen the change God can make in a person's life?

[@alanbaraka9800]

@Scorpion 1771 "You've never known anyone in your life who wasn't a Christian who then became one?" Oh I do. So what? I also know people that weren't Muslim but converted. Does that make Allah real?

[@hugopolito4879]

Very well explained. Yet people still don't understand. May GOD have mercy on ALL humanity. Repent and trust in JESUS. 🙏🦁🐑🕊🙏

[@piijay14]

Hallelujah!

[@radioboys8986]

if everything is so complex that god had to make it how did he make everything, there have to be processes other than god/magic made everything creationists never question how did god made anything and if god made everything that would make him more complex than anything else so who or what made god, a more complex god made by a even more complex god on and on and on

[@daveross7731]

Creationists don't question how God made anything because it is a moot point. Creationists also know God is not deceptive in any way. So there is no need to question how. Questioning why however, may be more considerable and fair. To extend Frank's analogy of writing in the sand, does it matter how it is written in the sand for it to exist? Does it really matter it is by finger, by rock, by stick, by shovel or some other tool/instrument?

[@WhtetstoneFlunky]

It is a "god of the gaps" argument to assume god did anything that has not be shown to be the work of a god. So since we do not know how the universe was created, to assume it was a god is a "god of the gaps" answer.

[@1MDA]

He already answeref that thinking, and ( and I think you missed the point) , we know everything has an cause outside of it self, like the pen falls because there is an force caled gravity outside of that pen that is greter than the gravity of the pen. So the universe needed an input, an inissial cause, even if all the laws of nature were in the "nothing" there would be needed some kind of push , to start the reaction, but how? Well that "push" had to be outside of the universe to creae the universe, outside of time to get time started. Is not an God of the gaps , is "from efect to cause" factor.

[@WhtetstoneFlunky]

@Alexadre Daniel There are a number of hypotheses on what immediately preceded the big bang, the inception of the universe that we know. To declare that what preceded the big bang could be nothing other than a god is what is called a "god of the gaps" answer.

[@samuelstephens6904]

-“we know everything has an cause outside of it self“ No, we don’t know that. Philosophers throughout history have have gone as far as to argue about whether or not causality is even a real thing and not just our internal sense of things. At the very least causality has a temporal aspect to it. So what does it mean to say that the universe itself must have a cause if we are going by Frank’s definition of “all space, time, and matter?” That’s a fallacy of composition.

[@1MDA]

@@samuelstephens6904 Well as you sed they argues aboit it, if my assumption is wright you are sayng thouse philosophers didn't get to an actual conclusion. As an amateur I didn't understand what would be wrong about my theisis, yes I made an assuption that everything has an cause, but you didn't refuted it, I would want to hear the counter argument , instead of knowing I'm wrong but not knowing how. I belive in free will so that that would be against my statment that everything needs an cause? Maybe.

[@samuelstephens6904]

@@1MDA "I made an assuption that everything has an cause, but you didn't refuted it" I don't need to refute a bald assertion. That's what a "god of the gaps" is after all. It's saying "prove me wrong" when one is not demonstrably right. I don't need to prove your wrong. I only need to point out that your assumptions are without foundation and thus should not be accepted. The physics and metaphysics of causality are very complicated. To assume anything about it is already a losing move.

[@garywalker447]

Actually Frankie, this video is a perfect example of the failure of the God of the Gaps argument.

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

why?

[@garywalker447]

@@ExNihiloNihilFit319 If you do not understand that, you do not understand what a "god of the gaps" argument is.

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

@@garywalker447 but it's reaching to that assumption with actual knowledge and logic so it's a good assumption. I don't get where "god of the gaps" is in that argument.

[@garywalker447]

@@ExNihiloNihilFit319 Creationism/Intelligent Design have NO evidence. They only point to gaps in what science has discovered or they lie about what science has discovered. Creationism/ID has NO basis in reality, no evidence and no credibility.

[@ExNihiloNihilFit319]

@@garywalker447 no evidence? How did complex features in the evolution theory come into existence? It has no basis and it wasn't proven but evolutionists still believe in it which is some form of faith. You say that creationism points to the gaps in what science has discovered, but since science won't cover God existence ever because God is not natural he's beyond nature , science by definition looks into the physical world and nature and they'll never find him there, it's out of range, they'll only find some tracks.

[@Whitewing89]

As for the cause and effect argument, my issue here is that type of thing only tends to apply to the univers as we know it and once you go beyond that to say the quantum relm or the first few seconds of the univers relms where physics and even space and time don't exist as we know them, that kind of stuff breakes down and stops working the way you think it should. Also, if the quantum fluctuation theory is right you don't break causality because space-time is always spitting out little bits of stuff in +/- pairings and it all works out as long as on average the net energy of the univers is zero. We just happen to be in a positive blip that on a universal scail, although rare and large, isn't really significant and just vanishes into the quantum field after some time. Much like a fractal patern or other emergent complexity the univers doesn't need a creator. Just some starting rules and parameters.

[@sarahst.lawrencemusic3918]

I think most science is based on faith. This all depends on how you define nature. Are we defining quantum physics as natural.. IF we define it as nature, then it will be nature; I think often once we find out something new, we incorporate it as nature, and keep on looking for ulterior solutions (that are likely invisible at that moment) to keep the system always striving to find the reason for the invisible, until we find out we can see it. We seem to need something to be supernatural so we can ignore our own divinity and keep looking up and out, certainly not in.

[@Bugsy0333]

If there was evidence for the supernatural, it wouldn’t be by definition supernatural but natural. It’s a fictional concept.

[@somdattamaiti8941]

Nope , science is not faith based .Religion is

[@Ally_jams]

Wow...that was the best answer ever concerning the existence of God, creation & nature

[@somerandom3247]

Yer, if you assume that God created the universe, it's pretty easy to conclude that God created the universe.

[@alanbaraka9800]

@Alan Gyamera actually that was a horrible answer. He didn't provide testable evidence to show his god exists he only replaced one question with a more difficult question.

[@Ally_jams]

@@alanbaraka9800 Well..that's your opinion bruh. That for *Me* was an excellent answer

[@lawrenceeason8007]

I continue to wait for a sufficient level of evidence for a god

[@alanbaraka9800]

@Alan Gyamera and why may I ask was it an excellent answer? Did Frank provide testable conclusive evidence that demonstrates his god exists or did he just answer one question with another question?

[@fishyc150]

God of the gaps AND the watchmaker in one answer. Well done.

[@shamarwashington5574]

What’s “the watchmaker?”

[@fishyc150]

"The watchmaker analogy or watchmaker argument is a teleological argument which states, by way of an analogy, that a design implies a designer, especially intelligent design an intelligent designer, i.e. a creator deity"

[@TheAmartej]

So, according to watchmaker arguement, who is the creator of that creator and creator of that creator... And so on..... This argument goes forever. Did somebody specified where to stop?

[@fishyc150]

@@TheAmartej yes and no. Religion says there must be a creator for there to be a "creation" as "something cant come from nothing". If that creator is a god, then another god created him. That goes back as far as you wish to postulate for either infinity, or to "the unmoved mover". God. Religion says there is only one step... everything needs a creator and to avoid the infinite regress of creation god is the prime mover. But logic says if everything needs a creator without exception (which is why a god/ prime mover etc is needed) then the prime mover that is more complex than the universe just popped into existence without a creator. "Proving" not everything needs a creator, meaning theres no reason for the god in the first place. The argument actually destroys itself.

[@AnonymousC-lm6tc]

Your argument makes no sense. What’s the difference between a creator and prime mover? Besides, I think it is more absurd to believe that something came from nothing than to believe something had a cause.

[@yeshualifeorg918]

The fact that we have millions of finely-tuned systems that work integratively with one another in our own bodies, and in nature, definitely points to an intelligence, but, I think of it as a Master Engineer. Not just an Intelligent designer.

[@trithos7308]

There are so many inefficiencies and issues observable in the human body, to believe it has to have been "intelligently designed" also includes the believe that the designer is very bad at it.

[@IBenZik]

Amen!

[@LoveYourNeighbour.]

As Frank put it, we argue for the existence of God as creator, NOT BASED ON A KNOWLEDGE GAP, but based on what we DO know (eg. the cause of the universe must be space-less, timeless, personal, etc, etc, and the biology of life displays clear signs of intelligence as its cause. He goes into further detail in his book.) The world's foremost academic Atheist (Antony Flew) was convinced by this evidence, and wrote the book: There IS A God - How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind.

[@frankfontaine5604]

LoveYourNeighbour You don’t know anything about what caused the universe. There’s where you go wrong.

[@frankfontaine5604]

Raymond Palmer Sounds like something out of a 2000AD Annual.

[@frankfontaine5604]

Raymond Palmer Great. Please stay here.

[@theespionageact5249]

@Raymond Palmer you are crazy...even for this page. Can you provide any evidence that the science community accepts and agrees with your claim

[@kostasz7z]

@@frankfontaine5604 You so biased and in denial you re not even trying to understand. By definition what caused the Universe (which for the record i dont agree it is the way you and your scientists believe it is) is beyond space time and matter. Space matter and time begun. What was before them was by defitiuon not space not time not matter ie spaceless , timeless , imaterial. You cant say its nature because nature is space time and matter. Get your low iq BS out of here cretine.

[@Vandalia1998]

Why read any other books 📚 When the Bible obviously explains everything. In fact we don’t even need. To read the whole Bible is the first Chapter if the First book explains all we need to know about Science and History and all other information BTW if you haven’t joined the Skeptic MAffia yet you totally should and you too can get free publicity for your channel as GE attempts to say your Channel name too 😝

[@garywalker447]

I hope this is sarcasm.

[@dani6194]

I gotta watch it like 5 times to fully get it

[@dwightdhansen]

It's REALLY simple. He is using a logical fallacy (Watchmaker) to disprove this fallacy. In effect not proving anything.

[@Whitewing89]

2:24 So yeah you are just assuming the supernatural. It's god of the gaps. You have no basese for assuming their isn't a natural exsplain, and you haven't demonstrated the existence of the supernatural.

[@dwightdhansen]

It is not logical to use one logical fallacy (Watchmaker) to disprove another logical fallacy.

[@alanbaraka9800]

That was a ridiculous attempt to validate your god. So something beyond nature had to create nature that being supernatural? One, you have yet to demonstrate anything supernatural exists. Two, you have yet to show the link that your god is why this supernatural aspect exists. Three, by your own standard if nature was caused by supernatural then what caused the supernatural? The super supernatural? Then the super super supernatural? If goes on forever. In which case you haven't provided testable evidence to show your god exists or made our universe have you? You've only replaced one question with a more difficult question. Which is the god of the gaps argument you are failing to avoid.

[@alanbaraka9800]

@kenneth anderson "If the universe was created, it can't be natural occurrences in nature." To say created implies it was an intentional result by a mind. Demonstrate that was the case. "That's basically saying the universe created itself. It's impossible." We don't know what if anything caused the universe due to lack of evidence. Demonstrate the universe didn't create itself. "Whatever created us is indeed the God of the universe. Whether intelligent or not." Again, you have yet to demonstrate a god exists. And now your pointlessly adding the god label to natural events. If I made you a burger to eat is that burger a god? "However if its an unintelligent God (some sort of physics outside of our physical universe) then those need a cause, which need a cause, which need a cause, and so on." Again, pointlessly applying the god label. Is dump I took this morning a god? If so it was a big god. "However if its intelligent, the all powerful God CHOSE to create, that means the universe can have a beginning without an endless backloop of "what created that"". You mean the god that somehow didn't have a beginning and yet that standard can't be applied to our universe for some reason? In any event you would still need to provide testable conclusive evidence to show your or any god to exist.

[@boterlettersukkel]

@kenneth anderson Then why don't you give me objective EVIDENCE of your god?? Till now no christian has managed that. All I get is silly argument that are flawed. So make your mark and get a nobel prize. with evidence for a god.

[@somdattamaiti8941]

So who created god ?? No one ?? He always existed ???

[@alpharl6347]

and its funny that the faith frank refers to that scientists have compared to something you need to force yourself to believe

[@texasdude7355]

That's a good response.

[@alanbaraka9800]

No it wasn't. It was horrible. He still didn't provide demonstrable evidence to show his god even exists he only resorts to replacing one question with another.

[@texasdude7355]

@@alanbaraka9800 I think you may be mistaking me for someone who actually cares what you think. I don't really care if you like it or not. So piss off.

[@PInk77W1]

I think u missed his point. Looking for God in a materialistic formula might be a waste of time. God is not a Chevy or a Ford God is not a Catholic or a Protestant. God is all in all thru all above all. DNA doesn’t prove God It points to God Love doesn’t prove God It points to God. A rainbow doesn’t prove God It points to God. You can’t put God in a box You can’t say here is your God and say checkmate. If there are human beings on this earth 10,000yrs from now the same argument will be here.

[@alanbaraka9800]

@Texas Dude "I think you may be mistaking me for someone who actually cares what you think." Let me get this straight. Your enough of a so called man to offer an opinion on a subject but not enough of an intellectual to debate with someone to determine if your views on said subject are correct via testable evidence? Well, you sure showed me didn't you? "So piss off." Ah, such manners. And a pleasant day to you too sun shine.

[@alanbaraka9800]

@Him Bike "I think u missed his point." Not at all. Frank is trying to say that there is no god of the gaps argument with his perceived designed universe. Except he hasn't demonstrated the universe is designed, who designed it, or that his god exists. He does replace one question with another and acts like that solves the issue. Which of course it doesn't. That is a god of the gaps argument. "Looking for God in a materialistic formula might be a waste of time." Perhaps. But then why bother believing in something if there is insufficient evidence to support it? "God is all in all thru all above all. DNA doesn’t prove God It points to God" And how may I ask does DNA point to any god? I presume you are religious. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

[@think7406]

“Wait it out”? You know people die right? So if you’re wrong and didn’t seek righteousness and die in sin, then what? In a true logical mind, you have to ask that question. You, as a finite being do not have the luxury of just waiting it out. Stop suppressing that thing that you’ve been trying to run from. I watch people live in denial, hurting, trying o fill that unexplainable emptiness with relationships, activities, accomplishments, money, etc. and never finding peace or happiness once things are silent. If you’re reading this and this sounds familiar, it’s time to turn to Christ. Trust me when I say I’m not some square who has no idea what it’s like, because I do, and it’s a constant battle but it’s worth it.

[@theespionageact5249]

What if you got the wrong god tho?

[@almondwater9583]

Colby Jensen Jesus is the only Truth and he says anything else is of Satan.

[@theespionageact5249]

@@almondwater9583 what about God? Is he correct when he says you may own and beat slaves as property?

[@1MDA]

@@theespionageact5249 I bet you dont find any line were Jesus says that. We are not under the old covenant anymore. Its weard, when atheists arfue they seem never hearing about the new testement. You can point the finger to the old testement as you wish, it will not prove nor disprove nothing about the deity of Jesus What god do you belive in then (sory for assuming you were an atheist)

[@theespionageact5249]

@@1MDA what does jesus say about the old law? Read your book then come talk to me.

[@LittleMAC78]

3:52 "You don't know whether it's God, right? It coulda been some 'Super Alien'." Technically, God is not 'from Earth' so would, in the literal sense from our perspective as 'Earthlings', be an alien, regardless of his/its alleged divinity.

[@JBCAST0610]

You don’t have to wait for scientists to figure it out, if you think that God did it you can demonstrate it.

[@joewright9879]

Reminds me of John Lennox.

[@takoja507]

I hope you have learned something over the years Turek. At least basic logic and lot of honesty would be good.

[@davidkrcil9326]

His answer does not even address design being God of the Gaps arguments... there is NO gap, we already have a well tested answer for DNA being so complicated. Remember evolution? He is inserting God where science already reigns...

[@lawrenceeason8007]

1. God created human beings with free will 2. Free will enables/allows sin and bad behavior 3. God not only does it anyway but KNOWS his design will result in sin and bad behavior 4. Knowing his flawed design/plan, he doesn't improve or change it and follows through. His decision. His plan. His fault

[@ethanm.2411]

"1. God created human beings with free will " You're right. In order for God to be all-loving, there would need to be the possibility for humans to reject Him. By nature, love cannot be forcefully given. If He created robots, then He would not be omnibenevolent; He would be a totalitarian. "2. Free will enables/allows sin and bad behavior " Correct. God is responsible for the *fact* of free will. This means we must have options. This also means we must and will have access to both good and bad options/choices and the ability to choose either. However, even though God knows the outcome, it does not mean He created the outcome. If I gave you a plate of sewage to eat or a plate of your favorite food to eat, I know what you will choose, yet I do not force you to make the choice. "3. God not only does it anyway but KNOWS his design will result in sin and bad behavior " True, but that is no fault of His. As I said, God is responsible for the *fact* of free will, not the *outcome* of it. Remember, in order for God to be omnibenevolent, He cannot force us to obey His will. "4. Knowing his flawed design/plan, he doesn't improve or change it and follows through. " Where is the flaw? How would you have done it differently? "His decision. His plan. His fault" Your deliberate mistakes. Your self-inflicted consequences. Your own fault. To blame our bad behavior on God would be like someone blaming the police for giving them a speeding ticket because the police allowed him to break the law. The police knew that there would be some who would break the law; that is why there are police in the first place. Yet he did not force the driver to speed, and so the due punishment must be delivered. There was the option of abiding by the law, and the option of breaking it. By his own choice, the driver chose to break it. Merely because the driver made the wrong choice does not mean having the law was a "bad plan." It is by no means a perfect analogy, but I think you get the point. To blame God for making you free is absurd because if He did not, He would not be omnibenevolent.

[@somerandom3247]

Why creation and design are 'god of the gaps' arguments: There is a GAP in our knowledge(how the universe got here). and you slip GOD into it. I.e. god of the gaps.

[@captanblue]

That's assuming that God isn't not a reasonable or correct answer, right?

[@170221dn]

@@captanblue "That's assuming that God isn't not a reasonable or correct answer, right?" Maybe if theists produced some evidence that showed a god exists it might help?

[@NEPtune-fy1ug]

@@captanblue its not a reasonable answer if theres no evidence for the christian god. if it was a reasonable answer, the universe being a simulation is an equally reasonable answer too.

[@captanblue]

@@170221dn I think you're missing the point. In order to to say that God is not the answer you're making the assumption that there is a better answer. For instance, if I said that God is how I believe the universe was started and you said "well that's God of the gaps", is that not makimg the assumption that you know a better solution?

[@captanblue]

@@NEPtune-fy1ug I never said anything about which God or what God actually is. That still remains to be defined. It might be that we actually agree on some things.

[@icandoallthings5326]

It does sound like faith

[@theespionageact5249]

Nope. Its evidence.

[@icandoallthings5326]

colby j Faith and evidence aren’t the same.

[@theespionageact5249]

@@icandoallthings5326 correct. Faith is belief without good evidence. Evolution has evidence. Creationism has faith.

[@icandoallthings5326]

colby j Not even what I meant, but ok😂

[@MegaAce54]

What is the purpose of all the pain and anguish for 60 to 80 years of our lives?

[@radioboys8986]

none don't know about you but most of our lives are not filled with pain and anguish

[@jasonanderson1272]

@@radioboys8986 Nobody is jolly happy 24 hours of the day. Hard work for example is a struggle for most people. Everyone knows life isn’t dandy.

[@datboi42]

Read the Bible

[@MegaAce54]

@@datboi42 I have, haven't found the purpose. please enlighten me if you can.

[@MegaAce54]

@@radioboys8986 true, but still looking for the purpose, do you know the purpose?

[@WaveFunctionCollapsed]

Simple answer for god of the gaps is You can't explore infinite thing

[@kennycouch6135]

You're never going to find a natural cause for the creation of the universe.

[@theespionageact5249]

People probably used to say that about lightning and rain and diversity of life...

[@1MDA]

Well, easier to say is never going to be explained naturaly the MIND. Since machines would never be truly self conscius, but giving an ilusion of that, and we know we are real because of our perspective as MIND

[@johnbrinsmead3316]

indeed it's entirely possible that we will never know how the universe came into being. that being the case, the correct answer is we don't know.

[@multihull40]

@@johnbrinsmead3316 ...except we do know the cause of the universe, and how life came to be, in the same way we do know that clever design demands an intelligent designer = fact = no blind faith in sight...unlike the blind faith that is macro evolution.

[@johnbrinsmead3316]

@@multihull40 and your assertion is based on what?

[@Phourc]

Apologetics so bad I think it would legitimately take me a bit to formulate a rebuttal beyond "Amazing. Every word of what you just said was wrong."

[@waelbakhurji2986]

I believe in something else,, the uncertainty,, which means,, nothing is for sure,, every thing is possible

[@IrfanAli-so5hh]

Nice video brother, May ALLAH Guide You❤

[@ewankerr3011]

Science is the new religion with Darwin as the High Priest. Darwin Saves! Academia is the new Inquisition. Dare not question the new one true faith.

[@PInk77W1]

Science is great but limited Science can tell us nothing about Love or morality.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@PInk77W1 the bible doesn't appear to give us much in the way of morality either

[@PInk77W1]

Lawrence Eason oh but it does. The problem is if u read by yourself? The Bible was written by a community for a community, namely the church. The Bible was never intended to be read alone for individuals. America is very “Individualistic” in the extreme and Therefore misses the Bible and its morality totally.

[@MaeljinRajah]

nope. science comes with evidence to back up its claims, I have yet to see any evidence from any religion. to site an old saying, you are comparing apples and oranges my boy...

[@ewankerr3011]

@@MaeljinRajah : As one Chinese scientist remarked: " In China, you can criticize Darwin but not the Government, but in America, you can criticize the Government, not Darwin."

[@samuelhunter4631]

Fun fact: the God-of-the-Gaps term was coined by a Christian philosopher who wanted other Christians to stop using irrational arguments when defending Biblical truths

[@robertdunn1800]

Thanks for sharing, I never knew that.

[@samuelhunter4631]

@________________________________________________ I believe his name is Henry Drummond. He was also an evangelist

[@robertdunn1800]

@________________________________________________ By the way, and please don't think I'm ridiculing you - I'm not - but where did your inspiration come from regarding your non-existent user-name? The first thought that came to mind was Harry Potter about "he who shall not be named" lol

[@robertdunn1800]

@________________________________________________ Thank you for that Samuel and I commend you on your originality. I myself will tell you up front if you haven't figured it out by my own comments when you see them that though I was once an atheist, I now side and consider myself a Christian (a Messianic Jew better describes me and my current beliefs) and don't worry what people think of me for I know my identity very well. Anyways, like I said, I really do commend you on your originality and wish you the best in life, Samuel. Take care.

[@robertdunn1800]

@@evangelistkimpatrik Don't tell them that, they'll bite your head off lol. But yes, it's true, and regrettably, they're so blind to it they can't even fathom it.

[@sarahst.lawrencemusic3918]

Intelligent being = someone like us; I love Mary, is hardly an outpouring of intelligence...but anyways... Thanks for the talk...

[@tabulusrasa9118]

Frankie, my dude, you didnt answer the guys question. Ah boy.

[@johnnyappleseed5029]

No, he didn't spell out the answer in minute detail, but he answered it, nonetheless

[@tabulusrasa9118]

@@johnnyappleseed5029 i don't think so. The young man said scientist would say christians are plugging God into areas without giving a rational answer. He also asked how would you approach these statment. Frank never answered the young man's question.

[@mikeramos91]

Atheists claim Christians make a God of the gaps argument, but fail to see they make one as well. Atheists - “we don’t know what created the universe”. So you have great faith it wasn’t God. “But one day we’ll figure it out” Nice leap you’re taking there, natural law of the gaps!

[@camilobriceno8212]

"So you have great faith it wasn't god" No. "I don't know" is not equal to "god didn't do it". I'm an atheist and i don't claim the answer will be a "natural" one (whatever that means). So please stop the generalizations.

[@dja-bomb6397]

You creationists love punching this particular straw man, don't you? The best illustration I've found to describe the singularity is if you were to pack everything that exists inside the universe into something the size of a small brief case, and it's about to fly open. This includes all matter, space, time, physics, causality... everything our human brains have knowledge of resides inside of this brief case. We then ask the question, "what was outside the brief case?" You come to me claiming that you know the answer as if our realm of understanding inside the briefcase also applies on the outside. This is not only something we don't know, but CAN'T know. Yet you theists scoff as if this is such an easy problem to solve. It's a vast argument from ignorance.

[@derekallen4568]

@inrealtime23 "a supernatural being has always been understood as an explaination". Which one? Vishnu or Brahma, Shiva, Zeus Osiris or maybe the gods that hide from us? Yahweh, Allah, Jesus?

[@dja-bomb6397]

I don't understand why this is so hard for theists to grasp. The law of causality is predicated on what we observe through the physical laws within our universe. It is sloppy to assume that the laws observed within our universe applied before the Big Bang. Even the phrase "before the Big Bang" is incoherent from a logical perspective as well as from a scientific perspective.

[@dja-bomb6397]

Okay, Mr. *Troll*tician 👌

[@stephenadonis3953]

Saying Scientist wait is not true. They come up with a bunch of theories How about we say we have multiverse That's how we are here

[@TheEpicTricycle]

This writing in the sand argument you keep repeating is a worse blind watchmaker argument and totally ignores evolution by natural selection.

[@SK-bw2cv]

Good video 👍🏻

[@Smitywerban]

Just saying you are not using the god ofv the gaps does not mean you are not in face using the god of the gaps. That's petty much all frank can do.

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

Nature is the effect, not the cause. Way to go, Frank!

[@alanbaraka9800]

can you demonstrate your god to exist?

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Can you demonstrate anything beyond nature?

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

Lawrence Eason We know the universe is an effect of something. Scientists are working on it...

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@evangelistkimpatrik right, I am sure scientists will know the answer someday

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

Lawrence Eason It’s like atheist John in this video that claimed scientists will find out a natural cause for the universe given enough time...I thought that was quite funny...

[@tabulusrasa9118]

I'm dumb, but if something as complex as how ever many genoms there are in our body deserves a creationalist explanation, then ultimately something as complex as a thing creating complex genoms, by your logical must be created. By you're logic, if your genoms are so complex they had to have been created, then by your logic, God with all his complexities had to be created.

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

Tabulus Rasa That is dumb reasoning 😂

[@tabulusrasa9118]

@@evangelistkimpatrik Ok well tell me what is he was saying then. The analogy about seeing "john loves marry" writen in the sand, its hard to think that that just came about by chance, he says "it's not the waves", it must be a higher power, God. He then ties that in with our genome. The lettering of our genome is so complex to just come about by chance. It had to be created, it had to be God. Now follow the logic kim, with God and all his complexity, and his argument is that, things that are complex don't come around by chance. That then means God didn't come around by chance, he had to have been made.

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

Tabulus Rasa We need an initial cause to our universe. Otherwise we fall into an infinite regress, which is what you propose. For instance, we know time has a beginning. If time was eternal we would never have reached this point of time that I am writing this to you.

[@evangelistkimpatrik]

The initial cause would then be what we call God.

[@G8rfan61]

@@evangelistkimpatrik Eternal is _a temporal,_ not an infinite 'amount' of time. Infinite regress is a fallacy. This can be demonstrated in everday reality. If infinite regress were an actuality, you would never read the end of the sentence you are reading.

[@donchristianmusic9353]

Multiverse is the God of the gap explanation. Lol

[@petemiller2920]

Unlike the religious with their idea of God, I never hear scientists say, “We don’t know how else this could happen, therefore the multiverse is real.” The multiverse is an idea that we don’t know how to confirm or falsify. I practically never hear anyone say they believe it.

[@Sealedservant]

Why is everything a god of gaps argument? Sounds like an egotistic thing just to not believe

[@marcusmuse4787]

atheists have to figure out some way to defend their worldview.

[@andrewgraham7659]

We'll find out that we created ourselves, given enough time. Great circular argument. Give God enough time - the attribute of patience (which we do know many people don't have). Give God enough time and He will be found. But be careful what you are doing - because the world is watching and waiting for the slip up of the Christian specifically. And when the so called mighty are falling, its a dangerous slope. And we know, as Christians we will fall. Be careful whose standards we use when we judge outside our area of expertise.

[@1godonlyone119]

Without God, there could be no science.

[@casematecardinal]

Why?

[@cm-jr9vt]

Word don’t mater

[@lawrenceeason8007]

Knock knock "Who's there?" "It's Jesus let me in" "Why do you want in?" "I want to save you" "Save me from what?" "From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in"

[@JaminatoRRR]

That is exactly what it is mate. We are talking about a sovereign being. He made us (free will beings) and we went against the rules, now to be saved from his anger you have to use a plan that he has provided. Let me explain it by an analogy. You Lawrence made a game called PUBG, And made all the rules in the game. If there is death in the game for a character, let's call him John, then the program that Lawrence wrote will execute itself and kill John. Lawrence is a righteous person he just cannot change his rules, once said is said. Now Lawrence loved John so much that he made an availability in the game to escape the code. You may say why an extra code why not just let John live instead. Because Lawrence is a sovereign righteous person he cannot just break his own rules. Lawrence is also a loving person. He uses one of his own rules of the game which says if some one else pays the price for the death of John only then John can be saved. This way the game rules are intact and John is saved too. But now John is very stubborn he says nah I will die I don't want to open the door. And surely John will die by the creators principles in action by rejecting the creators provision for escape. This way Lawrence keeps his righteousness and Love intact. But John looses his life because he thought he was smarter than Lawrence who made him.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@JaminatoRRR not if the rules are cruel and unjust. If you knew that those that you love were going to suffer and die if you go ahead with YOUR PLANS/design would you do it? Would you go ahead with YOUR PLANS if you knew that they would suffer and die for YOUR design? Is that love? Would you give your daughter the keys to the car if you knew for a fact she was going to die in a car accident? No you wouldn't. Because you love your daughter. That's what true love does. But it doesn't stop there. So this god that people believe exists doesn't just design people his way that results in ubiquitous death and pain...knowing it is going to happen...but this god adds to his design of pain and suffering by instituting eternal torment as punishment for the results of his design. Yes, free will, but if you exercise that free will then you will go to hell. If you sin, which you inherited by god from one person's mistake, you go to hell. The bible says no one can come to the father but by him. It says ALL have sinned. It says whosoever believes in him shall not perish. It says: Romans 5:12 12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[a] because all sinned- So sin came into THE WORLD because of one man. All the terrible things that come with sin...death, pain and suffering, starvation, disease is cruel and barbaric. Adam and Eve were destined to never die. Not the case for everybody else! So people suffer for something they had nothing to do with. Not righteous. Why did this god murder all people in the flood? Babies are not wicked. They're babies. Young children are not wicked either. And the idea that every person on earth could ever be wicked...not one good person, everyone is an a**hole and nobody helps others or takes care of their families, all are selfish and malevolent is just not realistic. It amazes me that if you take the many abominations condoned by this god in the bible, if it was Satan who was committing them Christians would scream out EVIL! But if those same atrocities are committed by a god and then it's okay. This is the poison of religion. It can get people to get behind the most horrific and barbaric acts as long as it is done in the name of God. Christians burned women alive because of an ancient book that told them to do so. This book said that there was such a thing as witches and to kill them. The bible preaches fear and guilt. The fear that if you don't do what this religion says you will go to hell. The day of judgement you go to one of 2 places. The guilt that you are a sinner. You are wicked and unworthy. There is nothing about you that is redeeming, you are like rags and your only hope is Christ. Otherwise...damnation. And the idea of free will. Is it free will? I don't think it is free if there is a price for exercising it. So there is a gun (hell) to your head, and the mob boss says that if you don't do what I say I will pull the trigger. But if you do what I tell you then you will be rewarded. Christians say god doesn't kill with malice. What do you call murdering all of Egypt's firstborn just because one man, the pharaoh, was stubborn? This god seems to have a pattern of killing people who don't have anything to do with what someone else does. I believe humanism is far superior. With humanism those innocent people would be alive. With humanism no one would be a slave. With humanism a girl who is raped would not have to marry her rapist. With humanism gay people wouldn't be killed. With humanism people who have sex outside of marriage are not executed. I could go on and on.

[@JaminatoRRR]

@@lawrenceeason8007 Lot of questions :-). You have a problem with the Christian God or God in general. There are lot of other good sounding and more forgiving Gods out there than the one of the Bible. If I could know your point of view then we can have a tangible and fruitful debate. We can take it offline on chat...am by the same name on FB James Manasseh . from India.

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@JaminatoRRR well, I don't have a problem with any god(s) as I am an atheist and don't believe that a god exists. Shout out to India though! But we can have a conversation. I don't have chat capability however so we can do it here

[@PInk77W1]

Classic straw man

[@katkit4281]

Congrats you lack such logic you switched from God of the gaps fallacy to a logical fallacy. You are basically claiming there is no natural cause for the universe without giving any evidence supporting such a claim. Plus you still have zero evidence for God. Great logic there.

[@alittax]

This is not a good response. Science can figure out a mechanism whereby an infinite number of universes generates each other over an infinite period of time. If you think there are philosophical objections to this, then the scientist might counter by saying that future philosophers might figure out why the current philosophical objections aren't actually objections. So the point is that our current ignorance doesn't guarantee our future ignorance, or that the only possible answer is "God did it."

[@plopmomentum7935]

These are still god of the gaps arguments though you didn't really address that you just used the god of the gaps argument.

[@alpharl6347]

ok. but they’re still god in the gaps argument

[@DV87777]

Turek has really given me the explanations and knowledge that I seek. I hate cookie cutter messages. Give me the juice!

[@garywalker447]

Turek is a liar. He trots out all the same old creationist garbage that has been refuted long ago.

[@DV87777]

@@garywalker447 Your opinion is yours. Have a great day :)

[@garywalker447]

@@DV87777 The difference is I do not have to lie to support MY opinions.

[@DV87777]

@@garywalker447 Good for you. I hope your day is great. If you are looking for an argument. I'm not your guy.

[@arunmoses2197]

@@garywalker447 "Turek is a liar. He trots out all the same old creationist garbage that has been refuted long ago". So your argument is that because it had been said before, it is ridiculous. No, it is just common sense.

[@lancedooley7558]

Intelligent people are fooled when it comes to the most obvious.

[@guyjosephs5654]

....not sure which way you’re going with that

[@user-vi2rz2gl9x]

This is one of the worst arguments i've heard on this topic

[@mzkhan93]

Then refute the points he made.

[@ds19771]

No. It’s still god of the gaps.

[@NEPtune-fy1ug]

the correct answer is we dont know and we cant know, because the universe could be entirely a simulation, and you cant disprove that. the same way i cant disprove that a god created the universe, both equally unfalsifiable

[@jeffphelps1355]

"God of the gap" is a phrase ignorant people hide behind

[@guyjosephs5654]

Like those that don’t believe use it?

[@theriveroffaith852]

If we don’t know, therefore it evolved. Evolution of the gaps. But the difference, is we have a historical record in which reflects what we find in the rocks. They don’t.

[@danielmatarazzo3678]

A historical record huh? Right that book that says god created the universe TWICE. In two different ways, creating things in different orders, because why not?

[@theriveroffaith852]

Daniel Matarazzo The Bible parallels with what we find in the rocks. Do you agree?

[@todbeard8118]

@@theriveroffaith852 You're kidding.

[@theriveroffaith852]

Daniel Matarazzo Where does the Bible say 2 different orders of creation?

[@theriveroffaith852]

tod beard What do you mean?

[@justincameron9661]

Extremely informative

[@takoja507]

How? This video was full of misinformation and misunderstanding of science and pure lies. Turek can't logically say anything correctly. Ask him where did god come from, he will special plead and say god has always been there, yet he is saying that if something exists it needs a creator...so even the creator need to have a beginning but he is dishonest enough to special plead that. All of his examples were totally crap and didn't do anything to strengthen his word.

[@CEOofSleep]

what if it's because humans adapted to something? 2:50

[@lawrenceeason8007]

That people will believe an old book which is clearly, to the rational mind, full of myths and fables. That the bible written by rather primitive people who believed that Moses threw some sticks down and they turned into living snakes. That a man lived inside a big fish for 3 days. That people lived to be over 900 years old. That one man, Samson, killed a 1,000 man army armed with swords with a bone. That mankind began with 2 people in a garden somewhere talking to a talking snake in a tree about fruit. Myths and legends have a purpose for the imagination. It is when people believe they are actually real....

[@Wdym41]

Science is a myth how does natural selection happen when at one point no organism exist LMAOOO

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@Wdym41 natural selection is simple. That which succeeds moves on. That which doesn't doesn't. Every living thing is different from every other living thing. That means that your offspring are carrying on different genes than you. As changes occur from one living thing to another, that which is better suited to survive is going to do better in succeeding generations. So those characteristics will move on. Small changes over enough time become big changes

[@Wdym41]

@@lawrenceeason8007 congratulations on not answering how life came to exist or why they need to have success in the 1st place and what is driving the adaption to happen and are you saying some where down the line my future kids might be flying horse to adapt for survival? Science says human = humans not random mutations but ok

[@lawrenceeason8007]

@@Wdym41 4 FORCES OF EVOLUTION The four forces of evolution are: mutation, gene flow, genetic drift, and natural selection. Mutation is a random heritable change in a gene or chromosome, resulting from additions, deletions, or substitutions of nitrogen bases in the DNA sequence. Mutations may create advantageous, deleterious, or neutral traits for the organism. Gene flow is the exchange of genetic material between two populations. Also known as admixture, gene flow works to decrease the variation between the two populations. Genetic drift is the random change in allele frequency from one generation to the next. Genetic drift has much more effect in small populations, which may have an allele drift to fixation, in which all members have that allele. Natural selection is the process by which some organisms have a greater chance of surviving and reproducing than others due to features that are better adapted to the environment. As a result, those advantageous features are passed on at a higher frequency than less advantageous traits.

[@Wdym41]

@@lawrenceeason8007 what causes these forces to happen lmao all these atheist think there getting somewhere by just using big words but in reality uve explained nothing how did life came about?😂

[@asadbhatti4506]

Second

[@jaybirdjetwings7516]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the only evidence for creation the universe itself? How would that justify any God? The possibilities seems unlimited than just 1 particular God out of the millions overtime

[@jaybirdjetwings7516]

@Trolltician I don't understand, could explain please?

[@jaybirdjetwings7516]

@WORST CHANNEL EVER Yeah thats what I'm more inclined to believe, the Spinoza God since it more inline with realism

[@festushaggen2563]

Because we know that nothing cannot create itself and something does not come from nothing, your own reasoning should lead you to the conclusion that the creation has a creator.

[@jaybirdjetwings7516]

@@festushaggen2563 So does God have a creator?

[@jaybirdjetwings7516]

@Trolltician But what makes you think your God is formal understanding? Is it because of the gospel?

[@maximusatlas9377]

Im not a christian but I admit that when atheist just dismiss arguments by labeling it as "god of the gaps" I just lose all respect for them. Science is meant to lead us to truth. We don't have to like where it leads, just accept it and go where it flows. If it leads to a god then ok fine. If not then where to. The best way to argue ones point of view is by using equal scales and building a world view from the best bricks of ones Philosophy and opinions.

[@alanbaraka9800]

and why is calling their arguments god of the gaps wrong? Have they provided testable evidence to show their god exists? Or have they merely made philosophical arguments and act like that shows something?

[@maximusatlas9377]

@@alanbaraka9800 I think you misunderstand my point. The god of the gaps can be abused in many ways but in this case its not being used since the theist is simply saying what they expect to see if a god existed based on its characteristics. Negative and positive evidence are both evidence and both require a criteria to be met. Both sides of the argument must present a valid argument that validates a belief, doubt or unbelief. Im not a Christian because I was raised agnostic but I don't dismiss a god as a possibility because I must first know the claims of what that deity does or did in order to trace back forensically​ certain deeds. I don't ask for a sky daddy to appear before me to in order for me to believe (which is what most atheist with no legal training ask for without providing the same criteria to their philosophy). To be fair I am not siding here with the theist as it may sound. I have my own doubts but they are not moral ones or the tired old sayings of not believing in miracles or a sky daddy. My doubts are based on forensic and philosophical views, I want to know what I can trace back or act upon with a view and build like a puzzle. Since atheism is just a lack of belief, that means that one must replace the disbelief in a deity with that of morality based on philosophy, politics and culture, but not all cultures are equal, politics can be abused far more than religion and not all philosophies work. So in the end if neither the theist or atheist provided a complete frame work or valid pieces I simply remain agnostic. If a god exist I want to know how he or she or they work. If he doesn't exist then I want to know definitively without the excuse of dismissing the claim with "you want me to prove a negative". You don't have to agree with me. My opinion is subjective but I quite frankly in this video I am more incline to give credit to the theist than the atheist for the simple fact that invalid labels without equal scales is merely intellectual laziness. "I am not afraid to confess I am ignorant of the things I do not know" - Marcus Cicero -

[@alanbaraka9800]

@Chris Atlantic "but in this case its not being used since the theist is simply saying what they expect to see if a god existed based on its characteristics". While I could be mistaken Frank has a long history of saying what ever made space, matter, and time couldn't have been made of those things and attaches his god as the cause. He doesn't say that is a hypothesis he asserts it as fact. Yet he can't demonstrate that to be the case. Nor can he demonstrate the universe is designed because his so called method is it looks designed therefore it is. And yet when applied to other gods of other religions that magically doesn't apply. He asserts without testable conclusive evidence. In this case he answers one question with another more difficult question which in turn answers nothing. What caused nature? We don't know so he asserts it was above nature in that it is supernatural. But then what caused the super natural? The super super natural? So he asserts his god exists but can't demonstrate it. That is a god of the gaps argument. Which is why it was ironic.

[@maximusatlas9377]

@@alanbaraka9800 Frank asserts that because its a doctrine in his religion. While I hate to admit it (and I really do) His assertion of this is not ironic nor bad in his case because all he does is state it in a manner from which negative evidence allows the same way Richard Dawkins state gods don't and yet provides nothing to prove it and even tries to describe "Nothing" in rather...Well lets just say Carl Sagan would be terribly disappointed. So I apply legal viewings of each claim. Frank believes in a god and so he declares that. In legal terms he has to its part of what must the done. Its part of the trial. Forgive me for using legal terms on this but its the most neutral I can be in a real life case. In truth no one can truly make a factual case. He cant prove a god the same way we cant prove the Big bang happened objectively. We cant replicate the big bang, merely we use assumptions and models based on what we expect or what we believe . We also can't prove mind over matter nor abstract physics in values or even a that a criminal killed a person without a video tape or a lot of negative evidence. Its just how the world is and how our limited mind works in evolutionary Neuropsychology. So Frank's assumptions are well founded assuming I was a Judge or lawyer or even a cop on in a crime scene. Since all I want are his pieces in a puzzle and not a random verse. At the end of the day saying "God did it" requires a balance of how, when and why?. I do not believe the Bible is proof of a god but its the only place you can see what his god does or claim he did. Once again I repeat this: Do not assume I am taking his side. My main comment was simply to state that dismissing anything a theist says as a "god of the gaps" arguments without proper reason is simply intellectually dishonest. It leads to a dumb down generation of terrible philosophy and even worse societal​ standards from which we have already evolved passed. If Frank says "God did it" I merely hear him out and ponder about what he says (assuming he explains first). My objections are my own, I simply choose to hear both sides of the arguments because I am not a theologian or Philosopher of Science to declare one thing over another.

[@jt9300]

All it is is just a play of words. Nature. Cause. Effect. The argument in this video "sounds" philosophical and rational but is in fact logically fallacious and filled with misleading use of words

[@SongWhisperer]

The Grand Design - Where the many smaller parts makes up the greater whole. This formula is present within the confines of everything in existence (without exception), from the smallest molecule to the entirety of the universe and our known reality. Maybe a scientist could explain how evolution is a part of that, when without that there would be no evolution.