Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@CrossExamined says : Download FREE Cheat Sheet “The 4-Point Case For Christianity” 👉📱https://cutt.ly/ZYMC4nl>> <<@juancarlosv5136 says : God exists because God exists 😅>> <<@Matthew_Holton says : Surely this tired, totally refuted argument can be laid to rest now. It does not even mention any god or argue for one.>> <<@andrewstidham7950 says : The statement in the beginning God created the heaven and the earth yeah where else is it gonna point..>> <<@jasonlucas559 says : I’m just not convinced 😂>> <<@andrewf2741 says : Do you really believe that only human beings make choices? For example, in the addiction experiments involving rats, where rats are provided with a water bottle filled with drug-saturated water and a bottle with clean water, is not the purpose of these experiments to determine which bottle the rats will choose when facing various stressors?>> <<@janicegolembiewski4127 says : Nice Anton LeVay beard.>> <<@caesarius2004 says : The hypothesis of Sir Dr. Roger Penrose and Dr. Stephen Hawking sounds quite interesting to go on. Hawking explained it in his book "A brief history of time" and Penrose explains it in the eternal cycle Universe model. That hypothesis would eliminate the god hypothesis. I'm not here to argue if it's true or not but to say that there are explanations that work without a deity. I say we can't know. We can know much things but something like that... I think not. I remain Agnostic.>> <<@steveprofiler says : Are all life that have ever lived a burden to the world more than a benefit cause of "butterfly effect" If so, all people that believe in free will should support terminating all life by their simple choice. Right?>> <<@dragontalontsiawd says : I don't understand the "apologist" this guy keeps on harping on about... Someone care to explain?>> <<@jdrein9511 says : The speaker asserts that his premises are non-controversial. This is false. He denies the possibility that something other than God could be eternal without demonstrating why that would be.>> <<@chaisclements6701 says : Causality relies on a temporal series of events. You also assert that “apart from time, things don’t happen” 2:46. Both of these make the case that time itself is eternal, not that there is something outside of time. If this were the case, nothing could happen, by your own admission. Using your own logic, it’s nonsensical to assert that a causal event could happen external to the known universe aka time & space. That’s like saying “it had to be further west than west”.>> <<@170221dn says : Could a Christian name one thing that began to exist?>> <<@agnesgwaze7756 says : It can only be the devil who can harden people's heart to not believe in God's creative supremacy and believe in the opposite - that a chaotic event like the Big Bang could have brought order in the universe.>> <<@steveprofiler says : Use some socratic method on what Turek says and you will soon find out that he disagree with himself.>> <<@steveprofiler says : Maby it is immoral to live if everyone is a liability to eachother.>> <<@davidm.857 says : So God created all of this... billions and billions of stars billions of years ago. So that a particular planet could grow a particular form of life that is of his concern. And amongst his greatest concerns with this life form is property, and thought crime, also loyalty to his brand. He is so concerned about this that he has destroyed the world at least once with the intention of doing it yet again but also he has created a separate dimension to punish those who defy him for eternity. I mean he sounds like a great guy.>> <<@FMDY77 says : Love it>> <<@user-ym5is9zy4b says : Is there any evidence that the universe hasn’t always existed?>> <<@mahashahala8191 says : GOD=Beginningless Endless Formless Single Being Knowledge Bliss>> <<@user-fy8rv4hg8v says : I want to know the provability of God's eternality. Is there really eternity? Or only longevity? Is the universe God? Or are we simply in a simulation - where there's salvation from outside our simulation. Would God truly save us? Or is it just a false assurance - so we don't travel higher dimensions and exercise our freedom. Are we rejectees after all? Nah. Just as cats are uncomfortable with space, we shouldn't travel higher.>> <<@mickqQ says : The origin of the universe? Can someone explain how they discovered the universe has an origin ?>> <<@royhiggins7270 says : From my understanding of what Christianity teaches...all babies go to heaven? So which is worse...abortion or eternal torture? So while billions of people will burn in eternal torture including the babies you want to force to be born...the question is why? Your beliefs are so much worse than abortion...the fetuses who die by abortion will go straight to heaven....yet you want them to be born so they have a chance to grow up like me and burn eternally in hell??? Again I ask why!!!!??? There are 2.3 billion Christians on the planet out of 7.7 billion people...how many buring in hell is ok with you? Do you understand what eternal torture means? There are literally dozens of rational and humane reasons not to force birth but it would seem the most important according to your beliefs would be to stop babies from the chance of burning eternally in hell...your beliefs make abortion the ultimate in human morality!!>> <<@IAMhassentyou-h5w says : Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and what he did on the cross for you. Make him the Lord of your life and you will spend eternity in heaven with him and escape eternal judgement in hell.>> <<@johnbugnoii says : Great explanation and God bless you all!!>> <<@williecooper8591 says : You still just kicking the can down the road.>> <<@BoulderBlockBrick says : Actually Time is God. Alpha and Omega. Time is different between Earth and other planets. Now if we are using the word “before time” the word “before” relates to time. So what is before time? Time, there’s no such thing outside of time because outside of time is sin, Time is God, God is the Alpha and Omega meaning that the beginning of beginnings before the beginning became the beginning is the beginning which is Alpha. Alpha is God so He’s before the before could become before which is before. He is THE time beyond the cosmos because that is a creation of his infinite power.>> <<@MrFossil367ab45gfyth says : We don't know what caused the Big Bang. Maybe one day we'll find out, or maybe we'll never. But if we found out that the Big Bang had a material cause, that doesn't debunk God. You can't really scientifically prove or disprove God.>> <<@MrBears25 says : Why is there evidence of anything I can follow that up by saying why presuppose nothing before something; it’s intuition not science necessarily there are Christians that don’t necessarily hold too the contingency argument here is example of 1 Search Us crazy Christians Am I a creator like God? For video>> <<@noneofyourbusiness7055 says : The strongest argument for god, an argument stolen from a muslim, and defended by christians who don't like to talk about the fact that even its biggest proponent had no choice but to "forget" that we was told to his face that its premises are unestablished or even contradict physics as we know it. Yeah, seems about right...>> <<@lizzygold8301 says : $32,000 weekly profit Our lord Jesus have lifted up my Life!!!>> <<@frankcardano4142 says : If the cause was without time, when did it cause the Big Bang?>> <<@TheTruthKiwi says : All hail the great spaghetti monster!>> <<@CaptainFantastic222 says : The god of the gaps argument>> <<@pazuzil says : The majority of professional philosophers are atheists so they don't find the Kalam convincing evidence that god exists. Before all you conspiracy theorists jump in and tell me its because they hate god or something, establishing that a god exists doesn't prove that any of the world's religions are true. In fact god might think humans are no more important than insects. So there is no reason for them not to be theists if they thought that the Kalam was a sound argument>> <<@hansdemos6510 says : Dr. Stratton starts off with saying that _"Whatever caused the effect of the physical universe must a non-physical kind of thing."_ To which I would say: Why? Most of the other "effects" we observe have, or can be explained by "physical" causes, so why not the universe? Just because we don't know or understand the causes of the universe does not mean they don't exist, and just sticking the label "supernatural" on whatever we don't know or don't understand doesn't mean that they are actually what we mean by the term "supernatural". It could be "meta-natural" for all we know, or "sub-natural" or "hyper-natural". Dr. Stratton takes this speculative equivocation even further when he calls whatever gave rise to the universe a _"spiritual substance,"_ which is silly on the face of it, because "substance" is a kind of material, and we can only define "spiritual" in terms or relationships within our universe. Also, how do we know or determine that the universe, or the thingy that gave rise to it, is an "effect"? Or how do we know that "cause and effect" work the same way, or at all, without the universe that we have observed these relationships in? The Kalam Cosmological Argument is fraught with these kinds of uncertainties and speculations. So much so, that for practical purposes, it is dead in the water as an argument for God.>> <<@Lilskies12 says : Is their any possibility the universe is eternal?>> <<@NEMES1-S says : A very good logical and linear argument. However, I think some terms might be quite provocative in the first instance. For example. To use an argument with a person whose basis comes from an atheistic standpoint, using words like ‘spiritual’ and ‘eternal’, may provoke an instant ‘switching off’. As soon as you shoot an ostensibly ‘religious’ point of view, you run the risk of triggering ‘self preservation’ response. Not a criticism though.>> <<@Steven-ki9sk says : The Kalam is a spectacular failure. For one thing, we have absolutely no idea whether the universe began to exist or not. Classical physics predicts a past-finite universe... but we know that classical physics is incomplete: it doesn't include quantum mechanics. And in the very early stages of the Big Bang, quantum effects would have been significant, and so classical theories cease to be a good description of reality: we need a quantum theory of gravity. Which we do not presently have. But candidate theories of quantum gravity like string theory and loop quantum gravity predict a past-eternal universe. As do many forms of inflationary theory, an extension to the Big Bang model accepted by most cosmologists. So not only do we not know that the universe ever began to exist, recent developments in cosmology point the opposite direction, towards a past-eternal universe. At worst, the question remains wide open, with both past-eternal and past-finite models remaining on the table. And even if the universe did begin to exist (we have no idea either way), we don't know whether it would have required a cause, in the relevant sense. We know from experience that most things in the universe do have causes, but we have no experience with universes as a whole, and so we have no idea whether that prior experience applies to universes. And there are scientific proposals where the universe did begin to exist, but without any external cause. And there is also the fact that the universe could have began to exist, but as a result of a natural rather than divine or supernatural cause. So the Kalam fails in just about every way possible: it cannot establish either of its premises as true, and the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow even if the premises are true. So the Kalam, like every other extant theistic argument, fails to establish its conclusion and can safely be disregarded.>> <<@Davichoo says : I never use this argument for two reasons: First, it doesn't glorify God because it refers to a generic god. Second, it's fallacious because it goes from the beginning of a part to conclude that the bigger picture has the same explanation. In conclusion this is a bad argument if not already assumed that the existence of God is presupposed in the first place as the Bible teaches.>> <<@MrTheclevercat says : Trying to reason "things happen" into "god is proven to exist and creates stuff by thinking" is low IQ christian nonsense.>> <<@Godlimate says : “The 2 premises are non-controversial and supported philosophically, and scientifically” Umm not really. “Philosophically”, anything goes. Spinoza was a philosopher. He would have disagreed with you, “philosophically”. Making a point and saying “it’s philosophical” is a bit pretentious. “Scientifically”, no. The universe is matter and energy. Laws of Conservation of matter and energy states that the universe did not “begin” to exist. Sorry, I disagree with the first 2 premises. Something cannot dematerialise, inasmuch as nothing cannot materialise. We are discussing a true dichotomy in which there is no connection between the two. Think about it.>> <<@brantgentry1463 says : Well I see some people saying the universe didn't have a beginning. Well if didn't how do u account for entropy through out the universe? As well as the fact that time isn't infinite?>> <<@Dhorpatan says : Good lord, are Theists ever going to stop promoting this debunked argument. Give it a rest already.👎>> <<@The-F.R.E.E.-J. says : This is a very good explanation for our one Lord, God & Savior, Jesus Christ. How you get from there to the Trinity is something that will NEVER make sense.>> <<@ProphetofZod says : What we have here is nothing more than a thought experiment that uses laypeople's eyeball-level intuition about cause and effect to evaluate a situation that probably defies our intuition, all the while ignoring the fact that God operating in a timeless state violates that same intuition as much as any natural explanation. Basically, he's just reading a common apologetics script almost word-for-word. The only thing that makes it stick out was how abruptly the audio cut out every time he stopped talking. If you're a Christian who wants to feel comforted by shallow wordplay designed to make your religion feel smart as long as you don't think too hard, there are plenty of people saying the exact same thing he is but without audio that's quite as painful to listen to.>> <<@cygnusustus says : Nope. Not supported philosophically. Refuted by science. Next!?>> <<@gr8god4u says : Origin of name Kalam?>> <<@bhamdj8848 says : If all person in the comments knew the creator name means he exists this wouldn't be debatable shalom>> <<@helpmaboabb says : His assertion is seriously missing an indefinite article...>>