Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@roberthoyle1971 says : Miracles do not happen. Ive been a surgveon for 36 years ove never seen a single miracle ever. They were supposedly so common 2000 years ago but none now? I dont think so.>> <<@johnalexir7634 says : Ah Frank, everyone's favorite modern day sophist>> <<@fazerianducati says : Reasonable expectation based on evidence, that’s why we trust that the chair will support us. What evidence is there that a miracle is possible?What evidence is there that a resurrection is possible?>> <<@markgallemore8856 says : Faith is the excuse that is giving because if you had sufficient evidence to support your claims and assertions that would mean that you could demonstrate your claims with proof that is sufficient so that there would be no non believers and everyone would know so there would be no reason to use the word “Faith” and then maybe Frank would stop uttering un needed nonsense. It’s just that simple !>> <<@markgallemore8856 says : The universe has properties that as far as we can tell can’t be changed we call them constants. They are not laws of nature because that implies a law giver and that would require proof of agency and that has never been demonstrated. So the universe lacks agency. While the property’s of the universe can do things it can’t want to do things. That means that the only things that can happen are the things that the properties of the universe allow for. No need to label the things that you can’t figure out and don’t understand as a miracle. It’s a gap in knowledge fallacy.>> <<@DavidWalker1 says : Ehrman's view on why historians cannot use miracles as historical explanation has been on the record for many years, and it's _not_ what Turek claims (that Ehrman is assuming atheism). Ehrman's view is that a miracle is – virtually by definition – the least likely explanation; that's why we call such events miracles. Ehrman doesn't rule them out; he simply makes the case that they cannot be read from the historical record. Turek is free to disagree with that view, but he might do better to explain Ehrman's actual view to his audience.>> <<@biedl86 says : "Faith is trusting in what you have good reasons to believe in" is also quite the circular definition of faith. Faith is good reason is defining faith to be complementary with reason, rather than opposed to it. Yet, the normative philosophical use of the term "faith" is "believing despite a lack of good reason". And this is certainly how Ehrman is using it too. Even Hebrews 11:1 speaks that language.>> <<@wocufot says : The problem is that religion provides bad reasons as good evidence.>> <<@newcomer201 says : This seems like a silly thing to post. Understandably this is a clip of a larger recording, but on its own, it has no point other than to display Frank Turek disagrees with Bart, but he doesn't 'do' anything with this disagreement other than redefine some words.>> <<@HeikkiJuntunen-dq9nk says : Frank Turek distorts what Dr. Bart Ehrman says. He does it fully consciously. Turek is a liar who uses religion to make money.>> <<@AffectionateComputerChip-re4iq says : Bruh, Dr. Dale Allison(one the best scholar regarding the resurrection)said that he can't historically prove Jesus that rose. Historically you can't, because you need extraordinary evidence. And we don't have that. Dr. Dale said that if someone is a Christian, and he sees the data for the resurrection, he can feel safe. And, if you are the atheist, it's the same.>> <<@zeendaniels5809 says : Not even Frank knows what he means by faith... He changes the meaning as he sees fit. Goalpost moving, much?>> <<@ThePipemiker says : Yes, Bart is biased against god. Anyone with intellectual integrity would take into account that their intuitions may be motivated reasoning.>> <<@toreoft says : (1) It is people like the atheists who spread this absolutely insane idea of an attitude of life built on nothing (or randomness), which leads to desperation, suicide, murder, crime, destruction, human degradation, moral destruction, cannibalism etc. Only when man lacks a basic spiritual perspective in life, these options become relevant. (2) What the general public believes to be scientific evidence rides the same humanity like a demon. (3) The whole concept of proof has its origins in the mathematical method: An example of a mathematical proof: An odd number^2 can always be written as 4n+1. PROOF: (4m+1)^2= (4m+1)*(4m+1)=16m^2+8m+1=4(4m^2+2m)+1 = 4n+1. AND (4m+3)^2= (4m+3)*(4m+3)=16m^2+24m+9=8(2m^2+3m)+9 = 4(4m^2+6m)+8 +1= 4n+1. (4) Now how is this method to be transferred to all phenomena in the World or the Universe? So far there is NO possibility to generally use this method in the world, only in special cases, and Kurt Gödel prooved logically in 1931 that there are true statements in any logical system, that can not be proven. (5) Undecidable questions have even arisen in physics, suggesting that incompleteness afflicts not just math, but in some little understood way, The Reality. (6) In the World, observation is the method of proof. And observations do not always give the whole picture, so theories must constantly be adjusted in line with new observations. What is created never makes the creator directly visible, as a carpenter is not directly visible in the chair he made. But the existense of a chair indirectly indicates a carpenter. Observable evidence for a Creator in the Universe cannot ever exist, because if we got such a thing, it would disprove what i tried to prove. It would be similar as saying that the carpener IS the chair that he made. The demand for such kind of evidence is a self-reference problem, and can therefore never be resolved. So evidence based on direct observation can never be found. (7) Many people claim that a spiritual world exists, which atheists usually object to, because for them everything is physical. I think and feel; these are not physical things. Thoughts and feelings do indeed generate electrical activity in the nerves and brain, BUT the thoughts and feelings are not generated by them! (8)Thoughts are patterns, system and order, the 2nd law of thermodynamics says that if the brain is a closed system (in other words; generating its own consciousness) then the brain will only increase in disorder and electrical chaos with time, and never be able to converge to systematic and orderly thoughts and ideas: (9) So therefore the brain is NOT a closed system and consciousness with ordered structures in the form of thoughts and ideas must come from outside, and from the outside thoughts and ideas induce the ordered electrical impulses that take place in the brain (not the same as sensory impressions). This even applies to a misconception, because it is after all a structure, but a structure that is attacked by the chaos in the physical (term.2.nd. law) and will in time, only have 2 ways to go; to its own destruction or to correction and modification over to that which corresponds to reality. (10) That the 2nd law of thermodynamics in this way hints at a spiritual dimension must be considered no less than a miracle. Thus our mentality is the closest we come into contact with a spiritual reality, and with our consciousness we arrange our physical surroundings through work, according to the degree of consciousness that each individual has developped. (11) When we see the structure in nature and the Universe, we can only sense via an induction process that this continues, EXACTLY because we see order and structure and order and structure do not arise randomly from chaos. (12) So for this reason a consciousness is induced where there is structure and the structures in the Universe completely surpass human concepts, and when these are assigned to a consciousness that stands behind this arrangement, similar to we arranging our private physical surroundings, this consciousness must accordingly stand above our comprehension in terrifying height, depth and power and effectiveness. (13) But you can close yourself off from all this and live in your disghusting little atheist world without any meaning, purpose, direction, hope and inspiration what so ever, and for that reason only have one remaining option; All the desperation and evil acts that humans in this condition fall in to. (14) OR you can open your eyes and get a glimpse into the Universe behind the Universe.>> <<@chilufyajosh2220 says : The problem with Christian apologetics is to bend or change words, so that the bible seem to be true, ragardless of what's true or real...>> <<@samdahl9 says : Denial of the supernatural is denial of God. He is super-nature, above, beyond nature.>> <<@johnoleary4647 says : There is no data just the bible>> <<@freethinker424 says : You can link faith with any historical data. It can be historically proven that a lot of people thought (or had “faith”) that Roman Emperors were gods. That doesn’t make it true.>> <<@ajgibson1307 says : God bless>> <<@franciscogutierrez3095 says : That was not a good definition of faith!>> <<@HellRehab7732 says : I've never seen evidence of a miracle. Show me a leg from a stump and we'll talk.>> <<@Amor-Sine-Timor says : Blind faith: To believe in something, one has no basis of reason or evidence to trust in. 'I have faith Jim Jones will not lead us astray.' 'Only by his word in Gods name, I will trust in him.' Faith in the chairs will hold, is not faith, it's reason. I have reason from other chairs I have personally experienced/used will support me. Mathew 14:31 Peter supposedly walked on water then sank into the sea. "Oh thou of little faith, why do you doubt?" I do NOT have any faith this ever existed, because I have never found anyone of faith to replicate walking on water. Either 'faith' is fallible, or the story is false. If this story is fallible, then I lose my faith in the rest of the stories! Just one of many 'reasons' why I no longer believe the story.>> <<@doubledee4267 says : who is this bart ehrman anyway?>> <<@SpotterVideo says : New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. Watch the YouTube videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.>> <<@albertfralinger2711 says : What’s the different “a miracle” and “magic”? You would never assume magic would cause anything in history, so why is a miracle acceptable in this example?>> <<@the_homie_alfred says : “You are saying that was an act of God in history.” Another question to ask this person would be: what is history? At its most basic it’s simply: what happened in the past. Just a record of affairs. By definition that does not rule out supernatural intervention. If God chooses to intervene in what happened (history) or not is a separate discussion. But if He does intervene that just impacts the record and then becomes history. If we reword what he says to see his bias plainly he is saying: you are not allowed to consider supernatural intervention in your evaluation of what happened in the historical record. And this guy simply has no way to prove that’s the case, therefore he is biased. How does a person then arrive at the conclusion that something supernatural happened in history? By considering the evidence/options and realizing that the event is impossible by natural means. Then that discussion obviously involves figuring out what’s possible naturally and what’s not but here’s an example: Jesus’ death was already prophesied about hundreds of years prior - not natural. Another would be simply: the disciples didn’t believe at first and then they did when they saw him resurrected and that had a huge impact on the rest of their life - not natural.>> <<@Micah_St_Columba says : That bastard, William of Ockham had to pose the very idea that Faith and Reason are separated… Like the scientific revolution bringing the very idea that science and religion could be separated. They cannot.>> <<@thebrainwashedbeliever1inislam says : You don't want the truth the bible was a currupted book, you will have to blame yourself jesus will not be held responsible in front of the lord, u will have no objection on judgment day.>> <<@alexwilliams4264 says : Frank you use the most ridiculous reasoning to try to prove your fictional beliefs. I've asked many times to any of christian tell me where god came from. Frank is famous for saying that you can't make something out of nothing.>> <<@leahannewoods6170 says : This is Dr. Jordan Peterson’s View on faith too. He doesn’t claim to be Christian either. But like Frank he knows the truth of Christ better than most who claim personal faith.>> <<@Makai77 says : Now faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1>> <<@spencergsmith says : “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”>> <<@ta3p-theannex3project84 says : Faith dont need fact, science need facts. A historical scolar is searching for facts, so doesnot base his conclusions on Faith and religion.>> <<@isaiahreed1626 says : The mistake Turek is making here, is that to assume something has a non-miraculous explanation is not to “assume atheism”. It is to assume that that which is not possible, did not happen. The burden of proof is on the one who claims the miracle. Not the one is remains unconvinced. If someone claims a tree stump turned into a turtle, we assume they are out of their mind unless some really good evidence is presented. But we would be justified in starting with the position that tree stumps do not become turtles.>> <<@FloofyMinari says : Ok, but Erhman said nothing about reason... so how is your opinion, that Faith and Reason are complementary, relevant?>> <<@aceclash says : Maybe that person pretended to be blind and let Jesus ‘heals’ his eyes. Who really knows? Also how is Jesus raising from dead unique when allegedly, Lazarus and many others also raised up back to life?>> <<@randypuckett9622 says : Great video>> <<@justincapable says : Everyone has a bias. Which explanation has the greater assumptions? To claim a miracle, one must assume forces outside of our understanding of nature. If one thinks the miracle has intent, one must assume a cause, possibly personal, outside of nature. An atheist would not gravitate to such assumptions. Right from the start, the theist has made assumptions, outside our understanding of nature, sociology and psychology, to explain an event in the past.>> <<@jhn146A says : The ruler of this world has placed veils over their eyes so they cannot see the truth. Pray for the the lost so that they will come to know the truth that is Jesus Christ.>> <<@GreatBehoover says : The obvious HILARIOUS and HYPOCRITICAL part... Ehrman has FAITH that miracles are impossible...despite the OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE to te contrary. The number of DOCUMENTED MIRACLES now on file is astonishing. Ehrman I'd a BIASED BELIEVER in the impossibility of naturalism...which is pure MYTHOLOGY. DNA CODE CAN'T SELF-CREATE and SELF-ASSEMBLE into cells...CAN'T!>> <<@stephendavidcavuoti6548 says : Well I know things happen to me in my life and I know that GOD are a Guardian angel was there to see me thur it and I’ve got some miracles in my lifetime that I know I wouldn’t of made it without God or my Guardian angel .>> <<@Bomtombadi1 says : No one is “assuming atheism,” Frank, you dishonest nitwit. The best explanation for this is an actual miracle? All we ask is “HOW?” Pretty simple question for all your blustering and rhetoric. But that’s all you are is anti-atheist rhetoric. And you do so by poisoning the well.>> <<@NewCreationInChrist896 says : Hebrews 11:6 "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him">> <<@InfoArtistJKatTheGoodInfoCafe says : Bart Ehrman was hurt by fake Christianity when he was younger, and this hurt gets in the way of him being accurate. Those who are determined to misunderstand, will.>> <<@thepilgrim1581 says : Bart Erhman is garbage.>> <<@PizzaDisguise says : How now, Bart! You’ve left out the best part. Not only do I believe that Jesus was raised from the dead, but I’m sure that we’re all going to be raised from the dead when he returns and we will all give an accounting. 1 Peter 4:5-6 [5] but they will give account to him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. [6] For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.>> <<@joshuagraham2940 says : dux>> <<@mrkiky says : Yea so basically he should have said "blind faith" instead of just "faith". You definitely don't have "good reason" to think an actual miracle happened. All you have are accounts of people claiming it happened. They could simply be lying or they could have been tricked, which is much more plausible. So let's say I don't immediately dismiss that a miracle happened, but I definitely don't jump on the conclusion that it definitely did happen. That would be blind faith. And I'm not in the middle either, I'll lean towards what's more plausible, and that is that those people were simply mistaken. Imagine someone claims they saw a huge fiery dragon swim across the sky 30 seconds ago. You didn't pay attention so you have no idea if it was there or not. Are you gonna believe him or are you gonna think he's lying/hallucinating/pranking you/etc? There is no good reason to believe him because it's unheard of and we have no explanation to what might have caused a huge fiery dragon across the sky. There is a slight possibility that something unheard of actually happen, yes, but am I gonna lean towards it? Absolutely not. In lack of further evidence, I'm gonna lean towards the much simpler and more plausible explanation and call it a day. I'm gonna leave that tiny little backdoor of reconsideration open in the case where further evidence presents itself but otherwise gonna assume that it didn't actually happen. That's rational. And sure as heck if that person starts talking to me about how the dragon wants me to live my life, I'm definitely not gonna follow that.>> <<@regstoy says : Hilarious how frank compares faith in a man rising from the dead, faith being "trusting in what you had 'good reason' to be true", with trust in a plane getting you from A to B. Thing is, the "good reason" for believing jesus rose from the dead, is what exactly, whereas the "good reason" in a plane getting you to where you need to go, is literally millions of flight hours, searchable evidence of proper maintenance being done, the qualifications of the pilots, so proof of their training. There is literally no evidence (provable, court testimony worthy, actual proof) of jesus's rising from the dead, hence "faith" in it. In saying that, you could show proper "trust/faith" in your god, by flying in a never maintained, 50 year old plane.>> <<@Sunflower-fh1nw says : ❤>>