Transcription
Christians like to think that because atheists lack a belief in God, they're left without answers to certain questions about the metaphysical aspect of the universe. And I think Christians are in the exact same boat. This is part one of questions Christians cannot answer. First up, who created God?
>> We're doing this again, huh? Yeah. So, uh, nobody created God.
Yep. Christians say everything needs a creator except >> no we don't. If there's a Christian out there saying such a stupid thing, they need to grow up and God's smart. No, not everything needs a creator because obviously God is creator and no one created him. So >> when it comes to God, they'll say that God is the first uncaused cause.
>> Yes. Because we believe, you know, in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. No one was there before him. Uh he's going to be there for all eternity. He's the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. Yeah. So, God created the heavens and the earth in six days and everything that is in them. All things have been created through Jesus and for Jesus. That's what the Bible teaches. And I know all this is true by revelation. I didn't make any of this stuff up. Let's see what she says.
>> But that's just special pleading. How come the biblical God gets to be the first uncaused cause? What evidence do we have to support that?
>> The evidence is that all the other worldviews are reduced to absurdity. On atheism, for example, we're all descended from fish. There is no objective morality. Therefore, I am allowed to say Christianity is true anyways, even if it's not. And of course, murder is completely okay on atheism because I say so. Take Islam for example, since they deny the Trinity and the fact that God has entered into creation. They say that the Quran is the eternal word of God, but then they say that the God that they worship is the only eternal thing. They say he's so transcendent and yet his own thoughts are recorded for us in the Quran. The Quran which says that we should believe the Bible. By the way, how is it that a finite creature can't understand the infinite creator's thoughts that are eternal and so far beyond us? Doesn't make any sense cuz on Christianity we believe that we're made in the image of God and it is by revelation that we can understand his thoughts and all of us live and exist through God. Islam denies this. Muslims deny that we're made in the image of God and that we can be even called sons of God. So if we take Islamic presuppositions then it turns out that we can't even know anything at all for sure. Now we can do this with every other religion on the planet and the only one that stands is Christianity. God has revealed himself for us to know things in nature in general revelation in our own consciousness as well as in special revelation in his word. He sent the prophets. He sent the apostles and of course he sent his son to die on the cross for all the sins of those who would believe in him. Right?
>> Why can't the universe itself be the first uncaused cause?
>> I would just like for you to attempt to prove that the universe is the uncaused first cause. So anybody can just say what if a pink unicorn is the uncaused first cause. Yeah. Yeah. Prove that please. Where's your evidence for that? And that's where a lot of atheists would go. The universe just spontaneously caused itself. you know, popped into existence for no reason whatsoever. That's the way that I say it most of the time. And they typically get mad, but then they will say stuff like this, like it it's possible that the universe was the uncaused first cause. There's a lot more problems with this, but I always just go back to, well, if the universe is the uncaused first cause, then you should repent and believe the good news because again, if there is no God, I'm still allowed to believe that there is a God and that he loves me and that he sent his son to die for me. Because something that needed to be intelligent enough to create theoretically the entire universe must have also had a creator. As a believer, you can't claim that this rule that everything needs a creator applies to >> Yeah. So, who's saying that?
>> Everything and then exempt your favorite deity. Atheists say the exact same thing, but we make absolutely no exceptions. We're comfortable in the realm of we don't know or we don't know yet. For some reason, Christians cling to this God of the gaps fallacy.
>> Yeah. So, I'm constantly encouraging Christians to not use the God of the gaps fallacy. And if you want to be technical here, the God of the gaps fallacy is simply thinking that your inductive arguments for God's existence are deductive arguments. Basically, this just means usually with more scientific sounding arguments for God's existence or whatever. We've observed this in nature. Here's this thing over here. Here's that thing. Therefore, God exists. And you can't actually do that. This is why in the realm of science, everything is called a theory even though all the math works out just fine when it comes to the theory of relativity, right? There's so much evidence backing it up. So many different scientists who agree on this. But because science is based on our personal observations and we don't have omniscience, we can't come to any certain conclusions. So this is why science is based on the principle of induction making generalizations. Okay? So it really would be a god of the gaps argument to say, "Oh, I've examined, you know, everything has a cause, and so if we go back to all the causes and then, oh, there must be a a first cause." You can't actually do that in inductive reasoning. The best you have is there most likely is an uncaused first cause. And the problem with that is that the scriptures don't argue in that way at all. That's not the apostolic witness. We don't argue for the God who is likely the way, the truth, and the life. No, we argue for the Christian God who most certainly has revealed himself to everyone and Jesus most certainly rose from the dead and they're going to be judged for not believing in them. And again, it's just kind of absurd when you think about it. Christians will want to argue with me on this. No, I don't believe that atheists know God. Well, Romans 1 says that atheists do know God deep down and they're suppressing that truth and unrighteousness. And there's Christians out there who think that arguing in this way like, "Oh, yes, God like most likely exists. That's the way to go about arguing with the atheist." And it just makes no sense. Try to apply that reasoning anywhere else in life. If the government merely dropped hints that you're not supposed to be going 70 mph on this road, rather than having these giant signs on the side of the road so that everyone can see what the speed limit is, it wouldn't be just at all for the police to pull you over and give you a ticket, right? And it's the same thing with God. If God wants to punish the unbeliever for not believing in him or for committing murder or stealing or being greedy, the only way for this to make sense is if he makes known his law to them somehow some way. And the Bible explains how he does that. He made them in his image. They can't escape knowing that God exists and he has laws that we live under and we should obey him. So again, I'm not in the business of coming up with reason, reason, reason, observation, observation, observation. Therefore, there most likely is a God. No. The biblical God is not like that. He certainly exists and she certainly knows it just as much as I do. The only difference between me and her is that I have submitted to that truth and she is suppressing that truth in unrighteousness. This is why I tell people like her to repent and believe the good news. That's the solution here. The solution is not coming up with the greatest argument for God's existence. She already knows. The goal of the Christian should be to give the word of God, correct the unbelievers errors and then just let the Holy Spirit do his work because he only does his work with the word of God, the washing of the word, right? I mean, find me in the scriptures where, you know, Paul preached to the people, you see, everything that begins to exist must have a cause. And then all the people listened and were like, "Oh, wow. Yeah, I'll repent and believe the good news." Doesn't happen like that. No, good things happen like in Acts chapter 2 when people are called out for their sin and they're told to repent and believe the good news. And on the flip side, sometimes people don't believe and Christians might get stoned for that. Either way, the job is done. Let's continue though.
>> Insisting that they know the answer to the question and that it was in fact God. But that is just deciding an answer with absolutely zero evidence. So the question remains, who created God? And what evidence do you have to support this claim that an atheist camp also used to support their claim that it was the universe?
>> So my evidence would be Genesis 1:1. In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Yep, that's evidence that the Christian can use and the atheist cannot use this to support atheism. Okay. I love the Bible. Now, I know circular argument. You're trying to use the Bible to prove the Bible. Well, prove that I'm trying to use the Bible by using the Bible. I never really get the chance to do this exercise with them to point out that they don't know what they're talking about. They should say something like, "Oh, you see, you're trying to prove the Bible because in your videos you're doing X, Y, and Z." All right. Well, prove to me that you've watched my videos. Oh, well, you see, if I go to my YouTube watch history, it shows there that I watched your video. All right. Well, prove to me that it was you who watched the video. It could have been someone else who watched that on your account. Oh, well, you see, I remember that I was the one who clicked on the video and then watched it. Oh, well, prove to me that you actually remembered that correctly. Oh, well, you see, I remember it correctly. Oh, and I love to point this out because it all rests on a circular argument. Everything that they want to come at me with, I remembered I watch your video because, you know, in my memory, I watched your video. And how do you know that you remembered it correctly? Oh, well, I remember. You know, it's a circular argument. And so, you're going to have to end up using your memories to prove what you have remembered in your memories, right? So when it comes to the foundational level of what humans know, there is circularity to it. Point is is that if you're an atheist and you don't have the scripture that could actually be fooled because you know sometimes you remember things incorrectly and again on atheism we're descended from fish. Why would we expect our memories to have evolved towards truth rather than just survival? So the point is I don't make any circular arguments. I simply recognize that all knowledge is ultimately circular. How does God himself know that he's God? It's founded in him. He is the source of knowledge. God didn't need to go to this peer-reviewed study by all these atheists to find out that he's God. Right? That's not how knowledge works. So, if you start theologically, how does God's knowledge work? We can understand how any knowledge works because that's where knowledge comes from. I have no shame in admitting that I get all my knowledge and wisdom from God as a gift. But what is absurd is to admit that you don't even know if you're immortal right now. In the case of Joe Bartaloti that I responded to recently, what's absurd is saying, you know, women can be men. You know, men can get pregnant. That's what atheism leads to. You don't ultimately know anything at all. You can't justify anything. So that's the argument. Unless you start with the scriptures, you can't possibly know anything. It's not a circular argument. It is a transcendental argument. I'm not saying the Bible's true because the Bible says it's true. that you can prove Spider-Man with that as they tell me so often. I'm saying unless we use the scriptures as our ultimate foundation, we can't possibly know anything. That's a different kind of argument. Let's continue. That was part one apparently, but let's continue to her part two.
>> Next up, we're talking about where is the line between metaphor and literal in the Bible? And if Christianity is the one true religion, then why can't Christians agree on where that line is? Throughout different theological discussions I've had with Christians, they'll say things like, "Well, that's prescriptive and that's descriptive," or, "That's metaphorical and that's literal." But the pro
>> So, you determine it by the context. You know, human language is sufficient to communicate truth. If you deny that, then you should repent and believe the good news. Again, you can't get out of this. There's this presupposition that, you know, Dan Mlelen says it a lot. The Bible doesn't say anything. You generate the meaning of the text by your own subjective presuppositions. Blah blah blah blah blah. Hey, if that's true, you should repent and believe the good news. Nothing I say to you is going to get through to you because communication is impossible. So, repent and believe the good news.
>> Problem is that it changes based on the Christian that you're talking to and they never or they rarely agree.
>> Yeah. So again, you test things by scripture as your ultimate standard. This works every time. Here's a Christian who says homosexuality is okay. Oh, the Bible says, you know, Leviticus, therefore, this guy is not a real Christian. He's a liar. He's a hypocrite. Done deal. Now, if you're an atheist and you don't test by scripture, of course, everything's relative. Here's a real Christian and there's a real Christian and they're both disagreeing with each other and they're both valid and there's nothing we can do in this situation. We can't know anything. And that's the point. If you can't know anything, then maybe your worldview sucks. Some examples of this may include the entire chapter of Genesis 1. Um, in Matthew when Jesus says,
>> is she referring to the fact that some people say that, you know, God created the heavens and the earth in billions of years rather than 6 days? Again, you just read the scriptures. Exodus 20, a literal passage about the ten commandments. You know, you shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery. We can easily determine that it's talking about a literal six days based on the context. We just have to ask who's being consistent here in interpreting Genesis and Exodus and all these other passages.
>> Need to hate your mother, father, brother, even yourself in order to become his disciple. Homosexuality, women preaching, modesty.
>> Now, the one about hating your own family and everything. Again, when God commands you over and over again to love your neighbor as yourself, honor your father and mother, all these plain literal passages. And then here Jesus's where it says that he spoke in parables. Oh, maybe I'm going to take this one literally. It's like, help me please understand why you think that reading the Bible is so hard. Yeah. So, I do actually hate all of my family. I hate my brothers and I hate myself. All right, deal with it, miss atheist. Again, if atheism is true, there is no God. There's no objective morality. She should still repent and believe the good news. It's it's fun.
>> The end times, the list goes on and on. Christians will never have a consistent take on any of these issues. Hence why we need solos scripura. Okay, don't listen to the Christians. Listen to Christ who is always consistent. The God who can never deny himself. She's presupposing atheism to just argue against Christianity here. Everything's relative. It's like we don't believe that. We have God who has revealed himself. And just because there's a bunch of sinful people and their minds are corrupted, even the Christians, they're undergoing sanctification. They are not the ultimate standard. The scriptures are. So, if anything, this proves Christianity even further. We need God to reveal to us truth and we can't go off of our feelings or any people, right?
>> Why there are so many different denominations within Christianity. But here's what I've noticed. If something unwaveringly contradicts with science, reason, or morality, then it's metaphorical. But if it supports their theology, then it's completely literal. Once I noticed this, I realized, oh my gosh, everything is just interpretation based on how people already feel whether they were born with those weird thoughts.
>> I'm just waiting for an example here. I don't have much to say about this. So,
>> taught them and that's just very conveniently subjective when reading the text gets a bit uncomfortable. And here's the other thing
>> again, if you just affirm this about the Bible, why not affirm it to her own words? I'm just going to reinterpret what she's saying. based on what makes me comfortable. I don't like that she's saying that God doesn't exist. Therefore, I'm going to believe that she believes that God exists because it makes me feel better. Therefore, she believes that God exists. That's the kind of argumentation that some people have. And again, on atheism, that's perfectly valid argumentation. So,
>> if the Holy Spirit supposedly guides people into truth, then how come Christians differ on whether or not Jesus was being literal with the end time prophecies? So this argument would first have to substantiate that what Jesus meant by that Holy Spirit guiding the disciples into all truth necessitates every Christian throughout all time agreeing on Jesus's end times prophecies and not just that but agreeing on literally every interpretation of the Bible ever and I don't find that in the passage. So you know it's interesting once you actually learn biblical discernment to be able to find out who the real Christians are because there's a lot of fake ones out there. you will notice a great deal of unity. It's fascinating. I I love it. All these claims about Christians are divided. They're just not true.
>> Or whether Adam and Eve were literal people in a garden or if it's allegory.
>> Jesus descended from Adam. He was a literal person who literally died for our sins. You can't have a metaphorical Adam who gave birth to literal people who, you know, gave birth to Jesus.
>> Or as another example, if the flood actually happened and if it was actually worldwide. Again, you just read in context who's been consistent when they're reading that passage. Who can simply walk through Genesis 6 through9 without going on a monologue about how actually the ancient Neareastern cultures believe this about blah blah blah. It's like it doesn't matter. The context determines the meaning of words.
>> So funny is that they'll actually point the finger at other Christians and say, "Ah, they're not real Christians. If they were, they would believe what I believe."
>> They would believe what Jesus taught in his word. If Jesus says, "Don't do this thing." And then a Christian over here says it's actually okay to do this. Even the atheists should be able to see like, yeah, you're not lined up with what Jesus said here. They constantly do this to me. You're being so mean in your videos. Christ taught love and peace and blah blah blah. It's like, okay, look, if you're right and I'm just this terrible Christian and you believe that Jesus taught good things, then you should repent and believe the good news and correct me. This makes absolutely no sense because if the Bible is God's clear revelation to humanity, then where's the clear
>> revelation to his sheep specifically? This is a very very common presupposition that God inspired the scriptures for all of humanity. Like he sent his word for everybody. No, he sent the word specifically to save the sheep. And the word also judges the non-believers. All right? So if you read the scriptures, you should expect there to be people who disagree about what the Bible says. So
>> objective line between metaphorical and literal. Again, Christians cannot answer this question, at least not consistently.
>> It's fascinating how this works. You know, if the Bible said, "Here, here's how you tell what's literal and what's metaphorical." You know how useless that would be? How would we tell if those instructions were literal or metaphorical? Right? Again, it's the necessary presupposition that human language is sufficient to communicate truth. We can read when it says that Jesus died on the cross, am I supposed to believe that he jumped up onto the cross and bled a whole bunch, but he didn't really die and he was only faking it and then he got down and then he appeared to the disciples later on. It's like if you want to allegorize obviously literal texts, you can do it, but you're still going to be judged for that. And if you want to hold on to this idea that we can't really know what the Bible says or what anybody says and everything's relative, repent and believe the good news. God help us all.