In Defense of CHRISTIANITY - Cosmology and Arguments Against Other Religions
About | Information | History | Online | Facts | Discovery
"And so it began..." This video is part of a project where I attempt to defend worldviews counter to my own. This week is Christianity. The book that screamed, "GIVE US THE BOY!" Is Jeff's (azrienoch) first book. We take polar opposite positions on the subject matter. The mediation with the banana is a spoof on a very dim-witted Christian argument from design, where they marvel over how perfectly a banana has been engineered to human preference. It ignores the fact that bananas have been domesticated for thousands of years and are the result of human selection through farming. Most Christians have denounced the banana argument. With the banana in my mouth I said, "Martin Luther!" as in the founder of Lutheranism, what I hope to defend in this week of the project. This video established a lot of preliminaries that you might have heard before from me, when I have defended my actual theology. I felt it was necessary, at any rate. The next video will be much more specific to Christianity, as I hope to demonstrate the meaning of "God is Love," and respond to "The Problem of Evil" and "Divine Hiddenness," all while describing the function of the Trinity.
Comments
-
The problem I see with you whole position, appears to rely on arbitrary & subjective presumptions -- and for the record, I refute all of your unsubstantiated presumptions.
First, you need to provide agreed upon factual evidence to prove your God exists, before you can presume what attributes he has or actions he is capable of performing -- such as existing outside of time. Because you have stated (5:55) your God has manifested himself within physical form, if this is the case, then your God is testable/falsifiable.
Forget the fancy use of language, and use the Laws of Nature, explained through the use of the scientific method.
The Big Bang Theory explains that the singularity of energy, rapidly expanded, constructing space/time & matter. As minds are the produce of brains and there has been no record of minds existing without a physical brain, your God cannot be the explanation of the first cause. Nature, as in the forces of nature caused the Big Bang expansion event, through the use of thermodynamics, things go from hot to cold, the singularity of extremely heated energy, expanded towards the 'nothing' or more specifically, zero heat, as outlined in the Theory of Absolute Zero, at this temperature, the electrons stop vibrating and matter falls apart. -
and at the end of time all the matter in the universe goes back to the beginning, thus the very reason why the big bang occurred in the first place. I doubt you are a true Christian jeri, however I would like to win your allegiance to the Jewish God of Israel Jesus of Nazareth. Do you believe that Jesus of Nazareth is God Jeri?
-
The only part that stuck out to me was the view given about prophets, because Judaism is the foundation of Christianity, and Christianity even has prophesies of prophets still to come. My point is merely the a prophet is not necessarily inaccurate, although it is clear that they can be (false prophets) Other than that, I really enjoyed this, it looks like it will and has reached many sceptic agnostics with a logical debate they can relate to. I'd love to have some theological debates with you s
-
fantastic video, real brain food, thank you
-
Watch this (watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o) Also what about evangelicals acting as profits as well???
-
WARCRAFT MUSIC?!?!?!? niceeeeeeee
-
This does not follow.
-
When we talk about the universe, on the other hand, we’re talking about it coming into EXISTENCE, not it merely changing form. The fact is that we have no way of knowing what is necessary for something to come into existence, whether it needs a cause or not, because we’ve never seen it happen. Ever. You’re saying, “Things IN existence have to have a cause in order to change form, therefore the Universe (defined here as all that exists) must have had a cause in order to come into existence.”
-
something to exist and causing something to change form. In our world, we can ask what caused that car, and we might say the car factory. What caused that? The car company. And that? The people in the car company. But the reality is that the people in the car company caused the car to come into the form it’s in today, but they didn’t cause it to come into EXISTENCE. The matter that made up the car existed before that. It was merely arranged into a particular formation.
-
First and foremost, since this is my first time posting on one of your videos, i have to say that I like your style. In addition, seeing someone who is interested in the PHILOSOPHY of these positions rather than the positions themselves is refreshing. Now to the meat of the issue: Maybe I’m not understanding something here, but it seems to me that the so-called Problem of Infinite Regression isn't a problem at all. The reason is that there is a fundamental difference between causing…
-
PS: what is your worldview btw, I had assumed during the 'rational dawn' thing that you were a Christian. Are you a deist or what?
-
@jericomovie It certainly causes science problems and means that in some ways of viewing them science seems not to have the answers (and may never have, who know?) but that doesn't mean that philosophy has the answers nor does it mean they lie entirely outside the remit of science (though i grant you it gives philosophy a very legitimiate role)
-
@jericomovie Where in Judaism is it said that they are? Where in Islam does it say that they are?
-
@jericomovie But even granting you that, how then do you get God from a state that doesn't produce creation to a state that produces creation? Do you say that God's non-essential characteristics changed (Ignoring how that could happen), and brought about the creation, independent of God's essential characteristics?
-
@jericomovie I wasn't accusing you I was asking a question. Can you measure gravity or energy any more directly? What even is mass? What the fuck causes inertia? If these kinds of questions render science irrelevant to the concepts involved then this really isn't about time alone but about placing the whole universe outside of science.
-
@jericomovie "....They are. Science is a subset of philosophy." We don't need to get into this, you are changing the goalposts here not me. Let us assume that science IS a subset of philosophy (I prefer to think of both science and philosophy as codified ways of doing things that are entirely natural and evolved) - the point remains that you are placing time outside the realm of sciencewhich places everything that is time-dependant (such as gravity, space, matter and energy) outside that realm
-
@jericomovie Changes/events I agree. So how did god think to create the universe because even thinking is a measurable event. And how does an all knowing being know anything without thinking?
-
@jericomovie Well then why'd you include Judaism in your list of religions that had prophets as primary communicators, unless I heard wrong.
-
@jericomovie Do you accept that that makes matter inescapably philosophical (not scientific) and energy inescapably philosophical (not scientific) because they are intrinsically linked to time in the relativistic framework? So what does that leave us outside the relam of 'inescapable philosophy'? Nothing. PS: let's not lose sight of your original position before you answer, which was that time was 'philosophical, not scientific' - you didn't say time was 'philosophical AND scientific'
-
@jericomovie That doesn't address him having prophets before. If he didn't think prophets were appropriate primary routes then why did he use them as such before Jesus? Unless you're saying that wasn't his intention, and that the prophets weren't supposed to be primary. Well if that's the cause God would have forseen the problem and announced it first hand. Him not announcing it first hand would seem to indicate he did intent them to be primary routes.
9m 10sLenght
40Rating