Pastor vs Atheists at Capitol (Epic)

[Music] did you say that you don't accept faith that's brick how do you how do you know the future is going to be like the past all science so you so you so you believe that well I thought you said you believed in science so all science is based upon the principle of induction that the future will be like the past but you just said you don't know the future be like the past so you just did away with all science if somebody wants to to operate as it has in the past I will accept them as a premise observation will show us within its tune so do you have confidence the future will be like the past well for example right now you're standing here you don't believe right now that you're gonna float away to the ceiling do you so you believe gravity is going to hold you down next five seconds like it always has [Applause] do you have confidence expected gravity will continue to operate so you okay that's fine so they a better word myth than you have confidence that gravity will hold you down so you have some confidence right so con confidence is from the Latin it means confit de with faith so you are with faith with regard to gravity it's a word game it's it's it's that's how the word gets out of the word works its etymology of the word expectation to apply so so you live by faith that the future will be like the past but you don't know you do live by faith okay so you mentioned reason and logic a moment ago correct while all evidence is based upon induction and logic correct induction and logic all evidence requires induction and logic that the future be like the past and the laws of logic are immaterial Universal that they are invariant they're unchanging so I take it a year an atheist okay there's some change so you don't so you so you've done away with all science science then because science is dependent upon induction so you didn't so you don't know the future be like the past fantastic so you've done away with all science according to your worldview science is dependent upon induction you could talk to Bertrand Russell obviously is dead now you could read his books problems in philosophy David Hume Scottish skeptic all science is based upon induction you just did away with us what's the science sure I can I can explain to you how the science well I uh I'll explain sir sir you don't have any problem with with lepers being healed or with people rising from the dead you just said you don't know the future will be like the past so in your universe anything is possible you have no basis to complain about the Christian worldview and people rising from the dead because in your worldview anything's possible in my worldview people rising from the dead is a strange thing because God is a sovereign God who imposes uniformity upon creation science makes sense in my worldview not in yours so back to logic on what basis as an atheist I imagine you're a materialist you believe all that exists is the material universe on what basis are you appealing to immaterial universal laws like laws of logic according to your worldview on what basis so so your answer as an atheist is just cuz what if I did that to you why do you believe in God just cuz would you accept that you said in words they would they just work just cuz what's observable laws of logic where where have you seen a law of logic sir it's observable that hallway gravity work we're talking not about you we're not talking about in the physical laws like like gravity we were talking about the laws of logic where there can switch our conceptual in nature so no sir it's not sophistry you invoked reason sir that's a you that's a physical law we're talking about not sophistry you invoked reason yes you invoked it so I'm asking you according to your a theistic perspective how do you justify an appeal to immaterial universal unchanging laws like the laws of logic I have an answer for my worldview and I'm asking an atheist to invoke treason sir sir in order to believe evidence is meaningful laws of logic have to be meaningful and they must exist so help me to understand from an atheistic perspective how you justify appeals to universal laws like laws of logic wait you gotta help me there did you just say that you don't believe that logic is universal I want you to define Universal meat would be true at all times everywhere so as a law of non-contradiction necessary and Iceland and here in Oklahoma right now sir you invoke treason and the very basis of reason would be the law of non-contradiction as a start right the law of non-contradiction would be the very foundation of the laws of logic or reason it cannot be a something cannot be a and not a at the same time and in the same way right so law of non-contradiction forms the very basis of reason so I'm asking you if that law of non-contradiction is true in Iceland and in Oklahoma City that sounds reasonable Phyllis open according to an atheistic perspective where you believe you evolved from your perspective is that human beings evolved from fish to ultimately down the line philosophers so your ancestors were bacteria sir sir in order to have evidence you have to have science you've thrown that away in order to have evidence you have to have reason you've thrown that away so so I'm asking you on what basis aunts the descendant of fish me and you appeal to universal laws like the law of non-contradiction if what's happening in your brain right now is simple not neurological responses and chemical reactions why is that necessary for me to to hold to what's happening in your brain you and I don't share the same brain sir and what you have are chemical response is happening right now as an atheist that's not my worldview that's not that's all that's fundamentally going on so I'm asking an atheist who believes he's a descendant of bacteria why he believes that laws of logic are necessary I accept some laws of are pragmatic they're empirical you understand you just said you just said something that contradicted pragmatic and empirical so is it merely conventional and that it works or is it objective is the laws of logic you're appealing to now are they objective are they true outside of your own experience or is it just something human beings created okay so let's say that you have a tribe somewhere in the world they have a different convention of laws of logic and they say you can go ahead and contradict yourself all right is it okay to do that give me an example well so you're the descendant of bacteria I'm the descendant of bacteria right but let's say that there's a different tribe of descendants of bacteria somewhere in the world and they create their own system of laws of logic where they say go ahead and contradict yourself that's perfectly acceptable is that okay is it reasonable for that tribe to say that I don't so laws of logic are objective it's not merely conventional we don't just make it up so my question you is this according to an atheistic materialist worldview where are the laws of logic where can I find them so human beings just make them up okay so why are you criticizing other bags of biological stuff for what they chemically fizz if human beings just make it up as you say then your world view is now this human beings invent logic and just get creative there is no basis to believe in the uniformity in nature so there's no more science and so you have no basis for reason or or for science and according to an atheistic perspective so on what basis then are you here complaining about anything ethically at all as a bag of biological stuff so I'm the descendant of bacteria and you're telling me what I ought not do in this purposeless universe no I don't believe that I don't share your worldview I believe in a transcendent God whose character whose character is the very basis of justice and morality you guys believe that your descendants of fish in a purposeless universe so on what basis are you complaining about anything ethically at all is it insert that we have right is it absolutely wrong [Music] who says your your your the descendant sir sir no the Constitution does not say that the Constitution makes makes no claim that there should be no God in States no it does not know what was the Establishment Clause about what was the context of it no that is absolutely not the context that the colonies know you guys don't know your history the colonies when that was established had all established in their own States their own denominations they invoked the name of the triune God of Scripture what they were saying when they talked about no establishment of religion is that Congress shall not make an establishment of religion like the Church of England the Church of Scotland but it had nothing to do with keeping God out of States you don't know your history back to my question why are you complaining about anything ethically at all you're the bat you're the result of evolutionary processes that didn't have you in minds and here you are decrying things ethically when you believe there's no absolutes you don't believe there's any absolute sir I accept it because is the absolute law so in the Constitution as interpreted so the Supreme Court once interpreted once interpreted that blacks were not persons they were property you agree with them why because on what basis oboe so human beings have inherent value and rights so all human beings are some human beings for example do heylia national no we're not asking about particular rights in the state I'm asking you about human beings do they by Allah if you accept science less you said you did then you'd have to accept that biologically speaking from the moment of conception has all the biological components of human being the only difference is the difference of degree size level of development environment and degree of dependence so I'm asking you what would what would your argument be with those people a long time ago that said such wicked things like black people are not persons their property what would your argument be with them persons biologically thank you did you hear what you just said thank you for that pro-life argument you just said they are persons because they're biologically the same as all of us at the moment of conception that is precisely what happens sir I mean this with all the love and respect to you I can your worldview has collapsed you need Christ criticize another bag of biological stuff for contradictions when you gave up reason so then produce so then produce there's nothing wrong with strong man arguments in his worldview in my worldview their problem in an atheistic perspective you said that human beings create logic they just invents it so right now I can invent my own version of logic that contradicts yours and you have no basis to argue is it true so so so your position is that the Constitution is absolutes but is it objectively true in absolutes objective is it objective is it true outside of my experience your experience is it true anyways it's so fantastic what's the Constitution teaches about life every person having the right to what life liberty and what very good so does the human being in the womb have the right to life your standard is the Constitution whether to carry your work work okay so there's a lot of women examples and this is I know you and I would agree this is evil together we would be unified in this there's a lot of women who have drowned their children in the bathtub at two years old one woman drove her children into the lake when they were five and six years old right she made a choice with her own body and her own property I don't want to support these kids anymore what why is it wrong to murder their children in that way rights as defined by the Constitution they have a right to life because they're human thank you for that pro-life arguments sir so step over to this side you realize you're in the image of God you know that God that I'm talking about the problem here the problem here is sin it's not a problem of pro-choice versus pro-life so you've given up but you sir youyou gave up objective reality 30 minutes ago you're talking you're borrowing from my worldview to make sense of yours yes I will the shirt sir you're at the man you're the rain no sir you gave up evidence you gave up appeals to evidence and you gave up science sir you don't even know the future will be like the past you don't even know the future be like the past you said you don't know all evidence is dependent upon uniformity which you said you don't even know if it's uniforms sure if and I'll point you to some stuff so you can read about this Bertrand Russell famous atheists I'm sure maybe you heard about him Bertrand Russell he wrote a book called problems in philosophy and in his chapter of problems and philosophy talks about the problem of induction which is a long-standing known problem from your perspective how do you actually appeal to the future being like the past house because all science all human experience is dependent upon the future being like the past Bertrand Russell who's an atheist says essentially this if you say well the future will be like the past because hey it always has been you're begging the question on what basis can we do science at all and when David Hume asked that and pondered that question he said when I pondered this question I like to sit back into my easy chair and just drink scotch and smoke a cigar because I don't have an answer because from your worldview sir there is no basis for the future being like the past but you appeal to evidence because you're in the image of God you know the world that you live in you are sir that's what that's that's what God says the fact that he is arguing against juice evidence the fact images of God you believe that murders and that that shows that you're needing to God we can just and things making no sense is okay in your worldview you've already abandoned reason that are you an atheist fantastic so what's wrong with what's wrong with straw men according to your worldview you're an atheist you borrowed once again from the Christian worldview ma'am you were talking to me you did respond so again to atheists here humanists who believe I imagine or trust in or accept the idea of evolutionary processes that got us here you believe in a materialist view of reality you can appeal to Reason which is immaterial in nature because you don't have in material realities in your worldview but here's the thing and I want to here I want you here this was love I respect you both you will appeal to evidence you will appeal to ethics you will appeal the reason because you're in the image of God and you can't help but being what God made you you're gonna have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to make sense of your reality if your worldview is true what you're doing here today makes no sense it is useless essentially David I want you to hear the message Jesus is God he lived perfectly died for sinners and rose from the dead here you're well you didn't you weren't a Christian ma'am you couldn't have been saved you couldn't have been saved ma'am according to the Christian worldview they went out from us in order to show they were never really of us so your appeal to the Christian worldview for your experience is what you did the Bible says that you never truly knew God so my call to you as it turn to Christ to be saved now and it will not only give you salvation in the gift of eternal life but it'll give you a basis for all the things you're arguing for science laws of logic and ethics thank you for showing the full collapse of your worldview I don't here's what you just said as an atheist I don't need a basis for reason I don't need a basis for science I don't need a basis for Ethics ladies and gentlemen that is atheism there you go praise God revivals breaking out do you hear what she just said we're all meat bags after all here are two meat bags arguing that things matter thank you there's the full collapse of your atheism the full collapse turn to Christ and live you turn to Christ and live you just argued that you're a meat bag man you're in the image of God and you have meaning and purpose that you don't even understand you are not you are not merely a bag of meat and watch this you will walk away from here ma'am I mean this with so much respect to you you're gonna walk away from here and you're gonna demonstrate that you do not believe what you just said you're gonna live like there is meaning and purpose and human value and dignity but you according to your atheism shouldn't be acting like that every moment every breath is going to show you know the God that I'm talking about turn to Christ and live turn to Christ and live all right guys god bless you guys

Channel: Apologia Studios

Views: 100,931

Rating: 4.8411622 out of 5

Keywords: jeff durbin, apologia church, apologia studios, atheist debate, christian vs atheist, pastor vs atheist, jeff durbin debate, jeff durbin atheist, jeff durbin james white debate, atheist experience, richard dawkins debate, william lane craig debate, christopher hitchens debate, christopher hitchens owns, richard dawkins lecture, lawrence krauss debate, evolution debate, creation debate, creation documentary, atheist documentary, greg bahnsen debate, greg bahnsen lecture

Id: nYm_Qm1_uhc

Length: 21min 20sec (1280 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 17 2020

Reddit Comments

[u/Agent-c1983]

Yeah, I hate it when they work on the presumption that the definition of words don't change. In any case, to deconstruct "Confidence" into "With faith" and declare it equivalent to a faith in God is a categorisation error.

Thats as far as I got.

[u/ddollarsign]

I only managed about 30-45 seconds, but it sounds like presuppositionalism. I've heard it's based on the Transcendental Argument for God (TAG). I've found both of them hard to get my head around in the past.

Presuppositionalists do often strike me as dishonest (some more and some less so).

[u/Illicithugtrade]

This is quite a brilliant learning experience. While we're not mandated to be philosophers or I guess "anti-sophistry" apologists, to protest something. It's important to know these kinds of argument styles are out there and can be thrown at you. We may see them occasionally on the ACA shows but it's a strange thing to behold in the wild.

This kind of word-play/word salad/gish-galloping/straw-manning seems simple to deal with because we usually see it in a controlled environment but it's insanely hard to keep your cool against it when it's thrown at you at the speed of sound.

While there usually aren't any new arguments for faith, The style of delivering the age-old arguments is constantly evolving. Looking at some of the videos from London speaker's corner is good way to identify how newer generations of preachers are presenting these arguments. (beware the cringe factor can be really high on those).

[u/Resoto10]

Man, that was too cringey to watch....had to stop halfway.

Pastor is well prepared to argue sophistry and anyone not prepared will find itself in a gotcha.

[u/NewbombTurk]

Clever? No. I would have called him on the equivocation immediately.

[u/Lemunde]

The future will be like the past? I need some context for that because that makes no sense to me.