Відео

All the comments of "on the ground experience" with people who don't believe in the real presence is proof that Protestantism is on a bad trajectory.

I understand the necessity for free will in God's plan but hearing about all of the absolutely horrendous, evil things humans do to each other really leaves me scratching my head. Brutal rapes? Torture?? Sexual mutilation??? What an absolute f*cking nightmare of epic proportions. I'm having one hell of a time wrapping my little pea brain around this.

What is their faith? In some denominations, their faith is Jesus. They do not halfhearted to believe that Jesus is God, their Lord Saviour!

The problem I have with multiverse theory is the abuse of mathematics, statistics, and the human psyche. Inflationary theory required a wave function to explain how you can have a "random" universe generator. However, the actual mathematicians and physicists working on that realized the ultimate problem with this. If the boundary of that wave function was unlimited, meaning ANY universe could exist, the number of universes would actually be infinite. This is a problem, because it makes something highly improbable literally and mathematically impossible rather than possible. This is because any finite set of acceptable numbers washed in a sea of infinity becomes infinitely impossible, because to find the probability we divide the number of acceptable number ranges by the total set, which in this case would be infinite. Once you realize you'll have to divide by infinity(which you can't, infinity isn't a number meaning you can't perform mathematical functions on it) having inifinite possible universes becomes a bane rather than a boon. They knew this, which is why they actually constricted(albeit artifically) their wave function to a range of "acceptable" possibilities. This allows you to have a finite number, albeit still a very large number of them. However, this step actually increases the complexity of the explanation and puts it behind the God hypothesis and it can only win out if it has greater explanatory power, which it doesn't(in my opinion of course). Even then, you still have to deal with the fine-tuning argument because then you have to compare the magnificently improbable numbers to the number of possible universes in the constricted model. No matter how you do it you either have to constrict the range to make comparison possible, thus making the theory open to scrutiny, which is uncomfortable, or you have something infinite that becomes not much different from the God hypothesis and/or dissolving itself in a sea of infinity. This is where the abuse of the human psyche comes in. The official theories use one tactic, while the colloquial arguments(this even includes high level discourse in debates) rely on the other even if by inference. You see, they'll switch back and forth if you point this out to them, saying its not infinite, but their actual arguments presume infinite possibilities which is the only way they can convince people to intuit that the gargantuan(and understatement) improbabilities can be overcome. This is by abusing people's misunderstanding about infinity, namely that it is a number. Since infinity is not something we can actually understand in its entirety, we usually think of it as the number line continuing on without ending. However, if you look at infinity, you can't even see the number line, all of it drowns in the infinite sea.

Concerning the increase or otherwise of complexity in an explanation, the normal accusation that positing a God increases the complexity, is actually no more and no less than positing a universal wave function that is the basis for the most popular form of big bang theory/inflation/multiverse theory. God is one cause for which all other causes are derived, much like the wave function would be a single cause with all other causes derived from that one cause. In the window analogy, positing the window broke itself(self-referential) is no more or less complex than the soccer ball broke it, or that the boy next door kicked the ball which caused the ball to hit the window, which caused the window to break. The only difference is the explanatory power, which is far greater in the second situation, but is no more complex. Besides equivocation, this is also using a misapplication of Occam's razor. Namely that simplicity is king. However, Occam's razor only applies in situations where you have two explanations that have equal explanatory power. Meaning, they are able to explain the same evidence(all available evidence) to the greatest degree possible, and if you have a tie, choose the simpler answer. The universal wave function only has equal explanatory power IF and ONLY IF you are very selective about what evidence is allowed, which is exactly what they do. The vast majority of human experience is thrown out as "un-scientific" at the outset. They also love to throw out evidence as "anecdotal" not realizing that all statistically relevant data is comprised of granular and singular anecdotes. Each individual that is surveyed whether they support Trump or Biden is anecdotal. And yet, when we collate all the anecdotes together, we actually get a corpus of data. Yet the atheist goes one by one throwing out each point of data as if it doesn't comprise a whole, thus gradually discounting a humongous dataset that is statistically significant, and must be accounted for without ever addressing it.

The number at 13:32 is wrong. The number on screen has 1230 zeros. The number that Collins refers to has 10^123 zeros. The number is 10^(10^123), not (10^10)^123.

Gavin- I am so glad I watched your video. I’ve read books about this topic and heard both sides, and I just have so much trouble with grasping a young earth in the face of so much evidence against… Very encouraging

This is the same argument for not going to church

Okay, we can approach the High Priest. Others can too for our behalf though. This is the teaching of the intercession. It isn't the denial that we cannot go Christ, but that others can go to him with us and for us, especially when we are lacking. We ask the Saints particularly because they lack nothing, for "nothing imperfect may enter heaven" as Revelations teaches. The notion that we shouldn't violates the communal nature of the Christian faith. The notion that we cannot mutilated the one Body of Christ. If, as Hebrews itself teaches, we are "surrounded by a Great cloud of witnesses" that went before us, why can they *not* hear us, and if they can, why can they not help us no different than the "prayer of the righteous" can? Gavin. This is a terrible argument, and deconstructs earthly intercession.

I Actually believe your response to the multiverse argument to be quite strong. In epistemic philosophy there is a well held belief by many that for one to have knowledge, one cannot have epistemic luck involved in their justification. This is demonstrated in the Gettier problem of the Many that states: You stand in front of a field containing 100 cows, 99 cows in this field are fake, they look smell and sound identical to a real cow and are indistinguishable from a real cow. There is however one real cow in the field and it just so happens to be the cow standing closest to you. From this information you make the following inference; Claim A: This field contains many creatures that appear to be cows, Claim B: This creature in front of me must be a cow. Under the normal tripartite definition of knowledge as a justified true belief (JTB) one would say that you do in fact know B. However it seems irresponsible to say that you know B as it is only by chance that it is true. If you had been standing in a different position with a fake cow in front of you B would be false. Thus most would agree that it is irresponsible to say that you know B as your claim is built upon epistemic luck. In the same vain I believe the multiverse argument relies heavily on epistemic luck. Of course not in the same manner as the Gettier problem of The Many but in a similar way it relies on certain probabilistic factors for it to be true and certain theories in physics that have yet to proved true. Meanwhile the Theistic argument as you suggest revolves around a simple answer to the data. While from a purely logical point of view it is still probabilistic I hold it to be less so than the multiverse theory as it does not require additional probabilistic factors such as string theory or even the inifite probability of this universe coming to be in a multiverse scenario. In my experience there is no way to fully eliminate epistemic luck, (Decartes certainly tried) one can however minimise it and as such I think it prudent to rely on an explanation with minimised epistemic luck. Love your work, praying for your ministry.

Catholics do not believe the other Christians are damned, especially if you mean "going to hell."

You don’t understand what Christianity is. You have pieces but not the whole thing. :/

Ask an Orthodox person what the process to create icons is. They create these "Windows into Heaven" (so, portals) by reciting specific prayers (incantations) and focusing on a specific intention as they create the icon. Sounds a lot like witchcraft to me.

Sam Shamoun had a lot of nasty things to say about you Gavin, be cool to see you two debate in a civilized manner.

Re your request as ‘do we want more of this?’, I vote yes. My faith is holistic, not specifically centred on one field, eg, apologetics. So yes, please.

Who gets to decide which doctrines is the problem. If you decide I need to be complementarian, then I’m not as Christian as you? Nope. The only doctrine we truly need is Theology Proper. We need to be able to prove who we are (followers of Jesus) and why (apologetic).

The evolution thing has always been weird to me, the more involved I've been looking into science the more I've realized everything presented is current science is theory. All of it is best guesses with data trends and theorized models, none of it is objective and subject to change. Man's understanding is powerful but limited, even without my faith there are valid reasons to doubt darwinism as the current theory of life on earth. Edit: This isnt to say that I haven't wrestled with things, debated and wondered. However alot of people fall into the mental trap that its their faith vs. whatever flavor of scientific insight that is presented in the current day. The reality is that mainline theory is thinner than people give credit and spans timelines longer than our lives. Of course I belive the bible is true and not for no reason.

This "Orthodox" theologian is clearly an ecumenist, because he considers Gavin a Christian. That is not the Orthodox view. Orthodoxy considers him heterodox/a heretic. Ecumenism is sweeping Greece, and its disgraceful.

Women are half of the body of Christ, saying a woman cannot pastor or teacher or become an apostle, etc is saying "hey I don't need you pinky toe, elbow, chin, etc." The first apostle was Mary. She was the apostle to the apostles. If the Holy Spirit calls someone and provides spiritual covering, they ought to obey, despite all of man's traditions arguing for the contrary. The pharisees did this all day and night and called Jesus a demon because he disobeyed the bible. They made a doctrine out of a few bible verses, and got it horribly wrong. It is just as wrong to make an entire doctrine, silencing half of the body, over one or two verses. There is nowhere in the Torah where it says a woman cannot teach a man. However, there are many examples of women leading (Deborah is one example, she was a judge and a prophet.) Please go study this again. I pray your eyes would be opened according to Ephesians 1:16-18 in the Mighty and Precious name of Jesus Amen

God's Word to Women by Kate Bushnell

Have you ever considered doing a library/book tour? That would be amazing, I’m always looking for new resources

Ecumenism is the greatest H E R E S Y of all times.

Just found your video! Great advice. The realization depression isn’t in Heaven, obviously I knew that but hearing it out loud really brings so much joy and anticipation!

Throughout human history, the search for God has presented itself as a journey with two main paths: mystical experience and intellectual reasoning. Eastern Orthodoxy, rooted in the early Church, leans towards mystical experience, valuing prayer and contemplation as pathways to feeling the divine presence. Conversely, Western Christianity, influenced by figures like Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin, focuses on reason and academic study, seeking an intellectual understanding of God. This divergence has resulted in a rich theological diversity, where Eastern Orthodoxy considers true theology to emerge from the lived experience of God, while Western Christianity views it as an intellectual exercise. The phrase 'The theologian is the one who prays' encapsulates the Orthodox belief that theology is a spiritual journey that leads to the divine mystery. This distinction highlights the core difference in understanding the nature of God and the relationship between faith and reason, shaping the development of theological thought and practice within each tradition. While both paths seek to comprehend the divine, the Eastern emphasis on mystical experience underscores the importance of personal encounter with the divine, while the Western focus on intellectual reasoning prioritizes a rational understanding of God's nature and attributes.

As a woman, thank you for this. There is a great danger from a woman's perspective, one that I think a lot of people miss when they are not careful with these discussions. These days many women are told from leftists that the church does not respect women, and beyond that, that the Bible does not affirm our humanity. These people promise us that if we hold a more leftist or secular view, we will no longer have to fear being regarded as less than men. Although I would consider myself a complementarian, the reality is that some complementarians, particularly the more fundamentalist ones, truly do paint women in a way that reduces them to being less than a man, and it's incredibly discouraging. They often see women as a monolith, disallowing for women the diversity in talents and personality that is considered acceptable for men. Worse than that, they closely associate their beliefs with a high view of Scripture, creating this false dilemma that many women feel they face - either they have to submit themselves to this incredible narrow view of femininity, or they must begin to deny the authority of Scripture altogether. Videos like this are really important to push back against such ideals.

Thank you for your commentary! My oldest two daughters 7 and 4 were watching the first one while I was completing chores so I wasn’t too attentive to it. But next time they watch it, I’ll have some talking/teaching points.

It’s super hard to hear them FYI

About 1--15 years ago I was really into apologetics, and that got me into the philosophy of science and questions of epistemology. Initially I liked the fine-tuning argument, but I grew to dislike it. My practice was always to see if I could think of questions and would negate it, and I came to feel like there were some assumptions inherent in the argument that it could not address. I could be completely wrong, so please tell me if I am, but it seems to me that the argument begins with human conscious life as we know it now. Then takes that, assuming it to be the only kind of life conscious life that is possible. Therefore, the conditions that make this particular kind of life possible must be the only conditions that would produce any consciousness whatsoever. But, what bothered me about this is the assumption that evolution would or could not produce life/conscious life adapted to other conditions. That is, the conditions we need as conscious beings of our kind are very specific, but why assume that we are the only possible iteration of conscious life possible? But, as you said, this isn't about evolution, but about the conditions for a habitable universe of any kind. But, then, God himself could make any universe he wanted and it would not have to be this one with these particularly exacting conditions. From that vantage point, too, it seems to me that, unless God made it so fragile on purpose so as to be evidence for design, I have a hard time seeing how or why just the mathematical unlikelihood of the conditions we have here is any more evidence for God than if it was extremely likely that life would obtain in our universe? Why, that is, is the very minute likelihood of life in our universe evidence of a designer? A Lot of accidents are very unlikely, but they still happen. But, why should we think that God was bound by such exacting constraints? Does that make sense? I mean, why wouldn't God create a universe that was less fragile than ours? Maybe these are silly thoughts, but I never found an answer to them. I don't see how unlikelihood equals 'strong' evidence in this case. I might be evidence, but I don't see it as strong or powerful. I find that Lewis/Plantinga's argument from reason/consciousness as presenting the best evidence for God, and, though I am not a presup guy, the Transcendental argument is a very powerful argument. Arguments for the impossibility of the contrary work the best and are most persuasive if they are articulated clearly. C.S. Lewis's argument is better than Planinga's for that reason.

A well presented and comprehensive overview of the issue. Thank you so much for this. To expand upon the later point of the uniqueness of the Canaanite conquest, folks should become familiar with Meredith Kline's writing on what he calls "Intrusion Ethics". I think Beale's work draws partially from this if I'm not mistaken. Essentially, Kline's Intrusion Ethics posits that the typological and eschatological role of Israel's tenure in the land necessarily included a foretaste and monumental sign of the comprehensive Final Judgment upon the wicked, who would be devoted to destruction upon the return of Christ and resurrection of the dead. The "Day of the Lord" itself first occurred in the theocratic garden, where God in his judicial inquiry found out Adam and Eve in their sin. This Day was again visited upon the Canaanites, in an imperfect but legible type, and it was characterized by a suspension (as in hit the Pause button) of common grace and Natural Law by which the nations and epochs are generally governed since the Fall until the end of history. The intrusion was clearly restricted to a time and place. The ethics of Israel's tenure in the land were to reflect the heavenly principle that righteousness and blessing must go together; the corollary being that sin and evil must be addressed via banishment and curse. Because the Holy presence of the Lord Himself was taking up theophanic residence in their midst, in practically a physical way with focal point in the Temple, such that many times the calls to holiness and to engage in holy war was to remove defiling elements from the *land* itself, and to restore the land's holiness. Why? Because the land insofar as it was designated a reflection of God's holy realm on earth, was to be kept a legible type of the heavenly geography. This of course ultimately failed, but many places in the NT including the epistle to the Hebrews addresses the reasons we ought not despair at the loss of the types. It should also be noted that the "Day of the Lord" was visited upon God's people vicariously via Christ Jesus crucified, where the Final Judgment once again burst into history before its time, upon Him who "became sin for us". That's why some details mentioned surrounding the crucifixion have the characteristics of the day of divine judgment (Jesus' cry of being forsaken unto judgment and wrath, darkness over the land, the earth shaking, some of the dead coming out of local tombs, etc). So with that in mind, we can rejoice in Paul's encouraging words in Philippians 3: "For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be *FOUND* in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith- that I may know him and the power of his resurrection, and may share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that by any means possible I may attain the resurrection from the dead." Note Paul's use of the word "found" is in the vein of the judicial inquiry motif in the Day of the Lord events. God "found out" Adam and Eve in their sin in the garden, he found out the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah through angelic agents, he found out the fullness of the sins of the Canaanites, all resulting in decisive judgment. But on the last day, God's people will be found in Christ, not with our own righteousness but covered in the fire proof shielding of Christ's righteousness that alone can withstand the fiery inquiries of the ultimate Day of the Lord.

This is sad. Evangelicals have no right to dictate how Christian love is to be ladled out in our world. Humans are in the world as carnal living beings. Christ asks us to be humble with ourselves not selective. Wake up or get out of the way of human development.

Took my girls to see the movie opening weekend and they loved it. Wife and I really enjoyed it as well. Lots to ponder and think about. Pixar did an excellent job presenting the story in a way that was compelling to both young and old.

Objections: 1. This is a God of the gaps argument. According to big bang cosmology, our instantiation of space time “started”expanding from a hot dense state. We know THAT the universe is expanding and we know HOW the universe formed (including our galaxy, solar system and planet). What we don’t know (the gap in our knowledge), is WHY the laws of physics (in our universe) are conducive to life. 2. Why would an all powerful God need to fine tune anything? 3. The “Fine-tuning” argument for God is limited in its explanatory power. Multiverse theories (and there are many) on the other hand, attempt to explain WHY the laws of physics are so exact through testable measurement and observation. Also, what’s stopping the theist from moving the goal post once theoretical physical cosmology has an answer? For example, theists could simply argue that God created the multiverse. Or that the parameters are fixed because God wanted them to be. This, in turn would place the “fine-tuning” argument for God’s existence on the shelf together with virtually all of the other teleological explanations.

was hoping you would mention Thomas Nagel, his treatment by his fellow atheists said a lot about their herd mentality

i strongly disagree with dawkins...i am an atheist and wouldnt want in any way associated with an horrible religion like christianity

Being a Christian who isn’t in the Orthodox Church is rather much like being a 1st Century Christian who didn’t want to worship with the Apostles. Sure, you can affirm Christ (“if they aren’t against Me, they are for Me.”) and you can love God and think you’re in the Church, but you can’t count yourself a part of the Body of Christ unless you join yourself to the Body of Christ. The Church has always been visibly One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That wasn’t invented at Nicea. Imagine not joining the Apostles at Pentecost. Imagine affirming Nicea, but not being under any of the bishops present. It’s very important for Protestants and Catholics to realize the singularity of the Church, and that the only non-schismatic body is Holy Orthodoxy. Protestants and even Roman Catholics do indeed get rebaptized upon entering the true Faith, as a matter of ensuring proper reception.

Great job

Theology of beauty… God-talk of beauty …grateful this came up, and a deep well to be plumbed, especially in and through Christ

Did you ever get around to writing that article?

Your well thought out answers are excellent. One event in the Bible that reveals God is real took place in Exodus 14. The Hebrews see the power of God revealed to them by destroying the Egyptians and they believed. Exodus 14:31 31 When Israel saw the great power which the LORD had used against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD, and they believed in the LORD and in His servant Moses. But if you continue to read you will see them fall away from the Lord and TRUE belief and faith has not been realized.

No. It’s simply a bad argument. Atheists saying “this argument is the best argument for theism” is similar in supportive strength to an astronaut saying that looking out the window of your house is the best argument for a flat earth. If you actually want to understand their position, the best next step is to ask them why they are unconvinced by the argument they are quote-mined into endorsing. To claim that physics parameters are precise is to claim that they could have been different, and it is also to claim there is agency behind the parameters. What is your evidence they could have been different, and what is your evidence that there is agency behind them? Your argument has elements of circularity - you are smuggling your conclusion into your premises. As presented at 5:10 there are inconsistencies in your argument. The word “appears” in item 1, the universe appears fine tuned, is not carried to item 2, which should say “The best explanation for the Appearance of fine tuning is theism.” But you may have subconsciously rejected this version, as the appearance of fine tuning does have better explanations than theism. (See “Pareidolia” and the book “Thinking Fast and Slow”) 1). “The universe appears fine-tuned for life.” Does it? How could we tell the difference? Do we have any observable examples of universes that are not fine-tuned for life to which we could compare ours? Any examples of any other universe with different parameters, at all, or any other reason to think the parameters could be different? …can you provide one example of something that, according to you, is not designed? Attempting to calculate the chances of our particular set of laws existing is worthless unless you can show how many other potential options are even possible, let alone probable. Extrapolating from humans detecting machinery as designed to humans detecting the universe as designed is incongruous. Humans distinguishing purposeful machinery from purposeless moon dust has no parallel comparison on the universe scale. 1) We already know physical entities with agency that can leave artifacts behind can exist inside the universe, but we do not know whether any entity with agency can, let alone does, exist outside the universe. 2) Do we have a purposeful universe and a purposeless universe to compare with each other? Inability to detect or observe other universes is similar to the inability to detect or observe any deities. Although, we can observe the existence of at least one universe, which is more than can be said for any deities. TL;DR: Anthropocentric bias; insufficient evidence; pareidolia; circularity; unconsidered alternative hypotheses; incongruous extrapolation.

12:12 Hallelujah! It's right there, brothers. Believe the truth, receive the Lord by faith :)

The irony of this guy telling us about self selecting religion 😂😂😂😂😂😂

Great video! Keep doing content like this!

I appreciate that you have diversity in your channel. Limiting your self to solely a defense of Protestant theology would be a disservice to your gifts and your passion for knowledge at all intersections with faith. Interacting with atheists, Catholics, Orthodox, I'd even be interested you doing some light branching into religions outside of Christendom.

I am Catholic. I think that we should all be able to understand that the conception of the new birth happens with prevenient grace. This is when Christ through the Spirit grabs us by the hand and pulls us to His bossom. Baptism then is the new life coming to full birth where we then leave the bossom of Christ and enter into Christ. Our initial union with Christ and being brought to his bossom is through prevenient grace, and our new life IN Christ is through baptism. This is why the doorway into Christ was opened in his side, where blood and water flowed out

I think Boltzmann Brains is a very strong tool for making someone with a world view/cosmology susceptible to it stop and go, "Oh, maybe I should rethink my cosmology..." Unfortunately, I think it's too hard for most people to grasp to be very useful. But if you are talking to someone who will get it, it's useful to know about and might help shake someone up epistemically.

Mad respect to this man. I was gonna go to Eastern Orthodoxy but now this guy has helped me realise I’m fine where I am in the church I attend. I just need to come closer to God. Pray for me my brothers and sisters in Christ🙏✝️

What is the difference between a modern fine-tuning argument (focused on watches) and the Patristic argument we see in several places, which seems to me to emphasize the beauty of the universe's order? I'm so glad you brought this up. You mentioned Nazianzen, but it also comes up Athanasius or even as early as Athenagoras. On the one hand, I'm glad to learn more about the strongest versions of the modern argument from fine-tuning, with their focus on the physical constants and so on. But the argument made by several Church Fathers seems to be something else; it seems to carry a clearer sense that the universe's beauty and orderliness is a manifestation of a transcendent Beauty and Wisdom, almost like a theophany. It seems that the modern versions could be enriched by such an outlook, and maybe by specifically facilitating a certain perception of the world we encounter. (I think this is where David Hart is so effective in his book The Experience of God.) In other words, the argument could be stated in a "too much math" kind of way. If that's a problem, the reason the argument has too much math is that it is addressed to--and so reflective of--the sterility of a Scientistic outlook. However, the same observations about our physical universe could be rhetorically set forth in a way that invites awe and humility. The point about naive formulations of this argument is helpful, too. The advantage, then, is not just that the argument is accessible because it requires less technical knowledge. The strength of the argument should be to usher us into a second naivete. The best outcome of such an argument, it seems to me, is not a computed probability that something must be behind all this. But a certain perception of the world in which we find ourselves, that the universe is seen to bear witness to its Creator. We can accept its testimony or not. But the sincerity and earnestness of the universe's testimony to the grandeur of its Maker is compelling, and whether or not one trusts what one is told has little to do with math. (Cue the Psalm 19 reference.) This is something the Lord himself is clearly interested in, which makes a strong rejoinder to Alex O'Connor's critique about the technicality of the argument as often presented. "To whom, then, will you compare me, or who is my equal? says the Holy One. Lift up your eyes on high and see: Who created these? He who brings out their host and numbers them, calling them all by name; because he is great in strength, mighty in power, not one is missing" (Isaiah 40:25-26). Or “Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up your loins like a man; I will question you, and you shall declare to me.Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurements-surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the heavenly beings shouted for joy?" (Job 38:2-7). Even Dave Matthews gets it. "Look here are we, on this starry night staring into space, and I must say--I feel as small as dust lying down here."