Christianity and YouTube

[iambiguous]

Below is a collection of 17 YouTube videos that Immanual Can claimed were able to convince him that the Christian God does in fact exist. In other words, beyond a leap of faith or a wager or quoting from The New Testament, just watch these videos and be convinced yourself.

Then get back to us.


=============================================================

First video: So you've just become a Christian.
https://youtu.be/idDoRftSuRU?si=1ja6bXn-I4McVTvY

My reaction:

The entirely of this video revolves around the assumption that someone has chosen to become a Christian. The point of the video is not to offer demonstrable evidence that one ought to reject all of these paths...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...because they don't have demonstrable evidence and Christians do. No, it's that for whatever personal reason [which I root existentially in dasein] you have become a Christian.

Then the part where the distinction is made between the "productive Christian" and the "unproductive Christian". Reminding me of your own distinction between the true Protestant Christians and...Catholics?

And, as expected, the part about "evidence" revolving basically around this: "read the Christian Bible". Then find other productive Christians in order to study the Bible.

Then the video closes with a verse from the Bible:

"Do not fear for I am with you. Do not be dismayed, for I am your God. I will strengthen you and help you. I will uphold you by My righteous hand."

Isaiah 41:10

[iambiguous]

Second video: Is there meaning to life?

https://youtu.be/NKGnXgH_CzE?si=eLFYGwIlFSgEGmz-

My reaction:

Basically, what is being argued here is that, as the Christian woman says, in the absence of God, all things are permitted. That as philosophers like Camus noted, No God and human existence is essentially meaningless and absurd.

In other words [and I agree with this] if there is no God than there is no basis for objective morality. It is all merely the result of the evolution of life on Earth and "human conventions".

So, the atheist suggests that "human flourishing" ought to be the criteria. And the Christian woman then points out [rightly in my view] that if there is no God than who is to say what flourishing means? She points out how Hitler thought that his Nazi policies were what would accomplish this. And, she notes, certain philosophers have argued that using the tools of philosophy will not lead us to objective morality. And I agree with this in turn.

Then she gets to the bottom line for most Christians: "What happens after you die"?

No God, no afterlife.

She sums it all up: "If Christianity is true then each one of us is here for a reason. And life does not end at the grave. And God is the absolute standard of goodness. He knows you. He loves you. He intentionally created you. So, your life ultimately does have meaning and value and purpose."

But then the Atheist makes the point, "Well, that doesn't prove that Christianity is true".

And she agrees. She merely points out again how comforted and consoled you can be if you do believe in Christianity.

[iambiguous]

The third video: Leibniz’ Contingency Argument

https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I

My reaction:

The important point here in my view is that this is an argument for the existence of a God, the God. And it does not provide any evidence at all that this God, if He does exist, is the Christian God.

Also, unlike some atheists who religiously insist "God does not exist!" [as though they could possibly know this ontologically], I readily acknowledge that God is in fact one possible [if not plausible] explanation for the existence of existence itself.

Basically, the narrator takes all of us up into the intellectual/metaphysical clouds. He asks, "why does anything at all exist?" Yes, I agree, that is a very good question. Then he notes that Gottfried Leibniz concludes that the "logical explanation" is God. Whereas others argue that existence just is what it is...no need for an explanation. Also, the part where a child could ask for an explanation for the existence of God Himself.

But then the discussion shifts way, way, way up into the philosophical/spiritual clouds. Points pertaining to speculations revolving around the distinction between "things that exist necessarily" and "things that exist contingently". And [of course] the part where since the universe does exist that must be contingent upon a non-contingent God creating it.

But: is this reasonable, we are asked?

Of course it is: "It follows that if the universe has a cause of its existence, that cause cannot be part of the universe -- it must be non-physical and immaterial-- beyond space and time".

God of course. And, as luck would have it for mere mortals, merely being able to think this up is all that apparently is necessary to make it true.

Thus, if someone taps IC on the shoulder and asks him for actual demonstrable proof that it is the Christian path to immortality and Salvation here and not one of these paths -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- well, that must be on another video.

Again, in my opinion, this argument is all just "thought up" in someone's head. There is absolutely no substantive proof of it.

[iambiguous]

The fourth video: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 1: Scientific

https://youtu.be/6CulBuMCLg0

My reaction:

What we have here is basically God being "deduced" into existence. Only, we are assured, there's science behind it.

Though, again, the argument in no way comes around to demonstrating that even if a God, the God is "thought up" into existence "scientifically", it is the Christian God. Why not one of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...instead?

Okay, we are told, the universe exists. And it simply makes more sense that something caused it to exist. Then the narrator points to the second law of thermodynamics which [we're told] tells us that the universe is "slowly running out of usable energy". And if the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of energy by now. On the other hand...

"It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe." nasa

So, who is to say how that is factored in here.

Then the claim that this second law "proves" that the universe had to have had a beginning. And scientists have discovered that the universe is expanding so it must be expanding from whenever that beginning was. And yet others argue that the Big Bang itself is just one of an infinite number of prior Big Bangs. And depending on whether dark matter or dark energy wins out it will continue to expand forever or will begin to contract again.

So, how on Earth does any of this demonstrate that a God, the God is behind it all? And [of course] it is just assumed that God Himself is an uncased cause.

Oh, and all of this, we are assured, is applicable in turn to the multiverse "if there is one".

Finally, "since the universe cannot cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe."

Then this particular "leap of faith":

"It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused and unimaginably powerful. Much like...God. The cosmological argument shows that in fact it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist."

Again, this is simply asserted to be true as though in asserting it that makes it true.

Though, again, which God?

[iambiguous]

The fifth video: The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Part 2: Philosophical

https://youtu.be/vybNvc6mxMo

My reaction:

Now, here we take leave of science and explore the existence of a God, the God philosophically. Which of course is all that more problematic. Why? Because at least with science we go beyond words to the actual world itself. With things like the "cosmological argument", however, God is basically just defined and then deduced into existence.

So, the narrator starts out way, way out on the metaphysical limb:

Did the universe have a beginning, or has it always existed? So, beyond the science, let's just deduce that it did have a beginning. That way we can speculate about a Creator. Then Western and Eastern philosophers provide various philosophical conjectures about it. Then yet another flagrantly presumptuous "leap of logic"...

"The existence of an actually infinite number of past events leads to absurdity. It's metaphysically impossible."

Right, like the narrator then actually demonstrates that beyond simply asserting it to be true!

Then [what to me] is the simply ridiculous Hilbert Hotel hypothetical. The profound mystery that is the universe and the existence of existence itself gets reduced down to occupancy in this make-believe dwelling! Infinity is treated as something that is fully understood here. And "debunked".

I challenge -- dare -- anyone here to connect the dots between this entirely "thought up" hotel and the existence of a God, the God.

No, really, this hypothetical completely escapes me. Please explain it to me given the real world that we live in. Given, say, occupancy in an actual hotel instead?

Of course: when you go all the way out on the metaphysical limb philosophically in a world of words, any conclusions might be reached. And rationalized.

Then [to me] this equally ridiculous hypothetical regarding Jupiter and Saturn orbiting the Sun. What does it have to do with the actual reality of their orbits? Same with the domino example. A conclusion is reach based on a philosophical assumption regarding infinity itself.

Then of course this flagrant assumption:

"So, if al-Ghazali's two arguments are right, then the universe is not eternal in the past. It must have a beginning. And we know intuitively that whatever begins to exist requires a cause of its existence. Thus, we are led to conclude that the universe has a cause of its existence.

"SO, WHAT CAUSED ITS EXISTENCE?"

Now, Daniel Dennet, we are told, argues that the universe caused itself. But this we are assured is "incoherent".

Why?

"Because to cause itself to come into existence, the universe would have to exist before it existed."

Huh? How is this too not an entirely flagrant leap of "logic" based on assumptions "thought up" "philosophically"?

Then of course: "the cause must be outside of the universe."

You guessed it: it must be "spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused and enormously powerful."

"Much like...God".

And just to make sure you know which God it must be:

"Whoever world draw near to God must believe He exists and that He rewards those who seek him." Hebrews 11:6

Yep, IC's God.

Although, again, that is not argued at all by the narrator. The focus is only on the existence of a God, the God. Nothing is noted to indicate that it is the Christian God other than by way of yet another flagrant assumption.

[iambiguous]

The sixth video: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe

https://youtu.be/EE76nwimuT0

My reaction:

This video basically revolves around what some call the "Goldilocks Universe".

It starts out noting that "the very structure of the universe is determined by these numbers". Numbers depicting the various physical factors that must all come together in order that human beings could exist at all: "the fundamental constants and quantities of the universe".

This part: "Scientists have come to the shocking realization that each of these numbers has been carefully dialed to an astonishingly precise value, a value that falls within an exceedingly narrow life-permitting range."

None of the numbers could be other than what they must be, in other words. Even a "hairsbreadth" difference and we are not here. There would be "no stars, no life, no planets, no chemistry".

Then in regard to things like "gravitational constant", the result of just the teeniest, tiniest of shifts would make life impossible.

But then this part again...

It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy. Dark matter makes up about 27%. The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments, all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

In other words, there's what science itself still does not understand about the physical universe. But how many of them conclude "therefore it can only be explained by a God, the God, the Christian God."

The narrator throws out things like this...

"Or another example of fine-tuning. If the mass and energy of the early universe were not evenly distributed to an incomprehensible precision of one part in 10 to the 10 to 123rd, the universe would be hostile to life of any kind."

Is this true? Or as with the two videos above pertaining to the second law of thermodynamics, would some in the scientific community beg to differ?

Still, it makes you wonder if God himself had no choice but to create life in accordance with laws of matter beyond His control. Maybe there is a hierarchy of Gods and the Christian God is just somewhere in the middle of them.

Also, this part: why was it necessary for an omnipotent God to create these extraordinary numbers in the first place? To make the chance of human life so staggeringly remote?

Then quotes from those like Stephen Hawkings and David Deutsch backing the narrator up.

Then [of course] this part: "What is the best explanation"?

Three options:

1] physical necessity
2] chance
3] design

Narrator: "How about chance? Did we really, really, really get lucky? No, the probabilities involved are so ridiculously remote as to put fine-tuning well beyond the reach of chance..."

Or maybe it's the multiverse spitting out so many different universes a life-permitting one was bound to happen. Nope, "there's no scientific evidence for the existence of this multiverse. It cannot be detected, observed, measured or proved..."

Now let's think about that...

What else cannot be "detected, observed, measured or proved..."

How about this: the Christian God.

Only with God there's this option: a leap of faith.

Then quotes from Paul Davis and Fred Hoyle that seem to confirm this. And yet these quotes in and of themselves are just intellectual contraptions that in no way are connected to any actual God.

And, again, which God is it?

Back to simply quoting the Christian Bible to "prove" it must be the Christian God:

"The heavens declare the glories of God; The skies proclaim the work of his hands..." King David Psalm 19:1=2

Though, again, as with the previous 5 videos, there is still no proof offered that even if a God, the God does exist and was involved in creating a life-permitting planet Earth, it must be the Christian God and not one of these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

Then the part I always come back to...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Okay, only the Christian God could pull off the creation of a universe that permits the existence of human life on planet Earth. But why Did his creation have to include all of the above.

How about we ask the folks in Lahaina on the island of Maui.

[iambiguous]

The seventh video: God and Mathematics

https://youtu.be/QJBOiZXkKu8

My reaction:

Here however some of us will be more sophisticated in responding to this than others. In other words, those with a more comprehensive understanding of mathematics and of how the dots are connected between math and the physical world around us.

And, admittedly, I'm not one of them.

Instead, I am more likely to probe the extent to which there is a mathematical equivalent of morality. Though, of course, for Christians that will be God.

Anyway, the video starts out by noting that mathematics is a fundamental reflection of the universe. Which immediately brings some around to this: Did God invent mathematics as well? Or is mathematics just something that God had to take into account Himself pertaining to Creation in the Book of Genesis?

In the beginning, God, wholly in sync with mathematical absolutes, created the heavens and the Earth?

As for scientists, we are told, "scientists do not use mathematics merely as a convenient way of organizing the data. They believe that mathematical relationships reflect real aspects of the physical world."

On the other hand, the preponderance of scientists do not make the same claim for morality and ethics. And that's where Christianity comes in.

Also, the narrator leaves out the part where for centuries, Christian ecclesiastics made the lives of certain scientists living Hells for daring to note things that ran counter to church dogma.

Enter the philosophers...

"Why is mathematics so effective? Philosophers who address this question fall into two camps...naturalists who believe all that exists is space-time and its physical contents. They exclude supernatural causes. And theists who believe in a God who created the universe."

Then of course this part:

"Naturalists cannot provide a reasonable explanation for the physical world."

Okay, but compare what we do know now and what, say, those around the time of Aristotle knew. A staggering amount of new knowledge. Next up: compare what we know now to what we will know given the equivalent amount of time in the future.

At the same time compare what evidence we have today that the Christian God does in fact exist with the evidence that was around back when Jesus Christ was around. The "leaps and bounds" there.

And, we are told, while scientists are unable to provide us with a definitive ontological explanation for physical and mathematical reality, the theists are!

How? Presto!

"God has chosen to create the world according to the plan he had in mind."

The proof? Genesis!

And then this circular logic:

"All of this adds up to an argument for the existence of God that goes like this:

1] if God does not exist, the applicability of mathematics is just a happy coincidence.
2] But the applicability of mathematics is not just a happy coincidence.
3] Therefore God exists."

See, didn't I tell you: Presto!!!

And, once again, a crucial reminder: it's one thing to connect the dots between a God, the God and mathematics. It's another thing altogether to connect the dots [mathematically or otherwise] between a God, the God and the Christian God.

Which the narrator makes no attempt to do. Not only that but this video doesn't even end with a verse from the Christian Bible.

[iambiguous]

The eighth video: The Moral Argument

https://youtu.be/OxiAikEk2vU

My reaction:

God and morality. This is always the bottom line for both me and for any number of Christians: is objective morality possible without God?

We both say no. No God and no omniscient, omnipotent point of view. Unless, of course, sans God, a philosopher or a scientist can convince me how, given a particular context, objective morality in a No God world is possible.

Christians, of course, merely assume that it it is the Christian God. In a leap of faith, say.

Or, perhaps, will this be the video that convinces me, along with IC, that the Christian God does in fact exist?

It starts out...

"Can you be good without God?"

Then a cartoon character rescues a cat from tree. He might have been an atheist. So, you can do good and not believe in Him?

But wait...

"The questions isn't can you be good without believing in God. The question is, can you be good without God? If there is no God, what basis remains for objective good or bad, right or wrong? If God does not extst, objective moral values do not exist, and here's why. Without some objective reference point, we have no way of saying that something is really up or down. God's nature provides an objective reference point for moral values."

No God, and all we have are the conflicting personal opinions of mere mortals.

Exactly! In fact that was precisely my point to those arguing with IC on another thread:

All I can do here is once again remind you that Immanual Cant really does have the Subjectivists and the Atheists by the balls. If, in fact, the Christian God does exist.

Like he said, note one issue that morally the Subjectivists and the Atheists can all agree on in regard to Good and Evil. You can't. Not without God. Instead, you get one or another hopelessly conflicted One True Path rendition from these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

...folks.

Also, with No Christian God around to catch and punish them, the sociopaths are able to justify any and all behaviors. No God and, philosophically or otherwise, all things really are permitted.

That's not just bullshit.

Here's the thing though. The thing I bring up to him. Where's the beef?

Where is the substantive and substantial evidence that the Christian God does exist?

On those YouTube videos? Well, I just posted my reaction to the 7th one here: viewtopic.php?t=33261&start=16710

Nothing even remotely substantive [let alone substantial] so far. On the other hand, there are still 10 more to go. So, for those like me and henry, our souls on the line, there is still hope.

As the narrator points out, subjective morality "applies only to the subject. It's not valid of binding for anyone else, So, in a world without God, there can be no evil and no good..."

Bingo! My point too. I merely suggest further that this subjective frame of mind is rooted existentially in dasein.

God, on the other hand, "has expressed His moral nature to us in commands. These provide the basis for our moral duties..."

Then all you have to do is to make absolutely sure that among all these paths...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

...you choose the right one. Though I'm sure that by the time we have reached the 17th video, we will know for sure that it is the Christian God.

For example, the narrator points out, "God's essential attribute of love is expressed in the command to love your neighbor as yourself".

So, how's that going for you? Hopefully, not how it went for these folks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear_Thy_Neighbor

On the other hand...

"This raises a problem...is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good?"

Neither one.

Instead, "God wills somethings because He is Good."

Then the part where Christians square that with this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

Anyway, if you don't believe that God Himself is Good, well, it says that he is in the Christian Bible. Just in case these videos don't convince you.

Then back to IC's point...

"Remember, for the atheist, humans are just accidents of nature, highly evolved animals. But animals have no moral obligations to one another."

To wit, the spider kills the fly, the cat kills the mouse, the lion kills the zebra.

Same for the animal species homo sapiens: "no action should be considered morally right or wrong."

To wit: "In the absensce of God, all things are permitted".

And how is that not true? Cite, as IC reminds us, just one example where the Subjectivists and the Atheists can provide us with the equivalent of a moral Commandment. Just one. In regard to abortion perhaps?

Then another leap of faith: that our physical senses and our moral senses are interchangeable. We see someone abusng a child or we don't. We know that abusing a child is right or wrong.

On the other hand...

"Each day, 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes." UN

Cue God's mysterious ways.

And then around and around the narrator goes...

"If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. But objective moral values and duties do exist. Therefore, God exists."

And, of course, this video, as well, merely assumes that in "proving" the existence of God, that "proves" it is the Christian God.

[iambiguous]

The ninth video: The Ontological Argument

https://youtu.be/xBmAKCvWl74

My reaction:

Again, as with the cosmological argument above, that is basically all it is...an argument.

A world of words in which the words are used to define other words in order to deduce something said to be true because the definitions themselves are said to be true by those other words.

In no way shape or form are those words actually connected to a God, the God. Let alone the Christian God.

Here's how the narrator encompasses it:

"In the year 1078 a monk named Anselm of Canterbury astonished the world by arguing that if it is even possible that God exists then it follows logically that God does exist. Anselm's argument came to be called the ontological argument..."

my emphasis

Okay, connect these words to demonstrable evidence that the Christian God does exist.

It divided philosophers we are told.

For example, Arthur Schopenhauer called it a "charming joke". But other philosophers "think that it's sound".

Sound?

"God can be defined as a maximally great being. If something were greater than God, then that being would be God. And in order to be maximally great, a maximally great being would have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and morally perfect in every possible world."

Okay, let's take our world.

The all-knowing Christian God is fully aware of this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...and, being omnipotent, He has the power to put it all to an end.

But He doesn't. Yet He is still said to be "morally perfect in every possible world".

Then the narrator brings logic into it...

"A married bachelor does not exist in any possible world because the idea of a married bachelor is logically incoherent."

Spot the discrepancy here?

This: a bachelor is defined as an unmarred man because out in the world that we actually live in there are in fact men who are married and men who are not, Bachelor is just a word in the English language invented to describe a man who is not married.

But if someone defines God as a "morally perfect being in every possible world" who or what exactly is being described here? Nothing other than a God that is being defined [and argued] into existence instead.

Next up: the atheists.

"Thus, the atheist has to maintain not simply that God does not exist, but that it is impossible for God to exist."

Sure, there may well be atheists who insist that it is not possible for God to exist. On the other hand, going back to all that they themselves do not grasp about the existence of existence itself, how exactly would they go about demonstrating this?

Me, I do believe that a God, the God is one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself. I'm also willing to concede that it is the Christian God. And once, in a "leap of faith", I believed it. But Immanuel Cant notes that after watching all 17 of these videos, I will have all the evidence I need to move beyond a mere leap of faith. Or, in the end, a wager.

But, in the interim, ontological arguments are not deemed to be evidence by me.

Then [in my view] this preposterous analogy...

"The notion of the all-powerful, all-knowing, morally perfect being that exists in every possible world seems to be a perfectly coherent idea/."

But let's "parody" this argument, he says, and make it applicable to anything:

"Why not say it's logically possible that a maximally great pizza exists, therefore a maximally great pizza does exist? However, the idea of a maximally great pizza is not like the idea of a maximally great being."

No shit?

To the best of my knowledge, a pizza does not provide one with the basis for objective morality. Nor does it provide one with immortality and salvation.

Instead, everyone has their own idea of what makes a pizza great. Different ingredients, more or less crust, Dominoes or Pizza Huts.

Whereas with God, even if one does believe that He does exist...which one? What makes the Christian God the greatest of them all?

The narrator even agrees that because, beyond an idea, a pizza is something that you eat, it cannot be construed as existing in every possible world. Okay, how is it any different then to argue that this ontologically defined and deduced God is the Christian God? The pizza at least is there. The Christian God is derived only from an argument. Some flesh and blood human beings worship and adore Him while other flesh and blood human beings worship and adore other Gods.

[iambiguous]

The tenth video: Suffering and Evil: The Logical Problem

https://youtu.be/k64YJYBUFLM?si=_rb4BBVMWcc3nXEw

My reaction:

As I note from time to time, it's not the existence of the Christian God that most intrigues me. I was once a Christian myself and who really knows for certain if He either does or does not exist? No, instead, what always intrigued me more was how a God I was told was "loving, just and merciful" could be responsible for all of these utterly ghastly things:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

The only explanation that ever really made sense to me was Harold Kushner's: a loving, just and merciful God created existence, Earth, human beings etc., and then found out he was not omnipotent.

The video begins...

"We are all aware of the suffering in the world, horrific suffering, unspeakable evil...how then can anyone believe in the existence of an all-loving, all-powerful God? And if God does exist, why would anyone want to worship Him?"

Yep, that about sums it up for those like me.

Cue Epicurus...

"If God is willing to prevent evil but not able, then He is not all-powerful. If He is able to prevent evil but not willing, then He is not good. But if He is both willing and able, how can evil exist? And if He is neither able or willing, why call Him God?

Cue logic:

"P1 It's logically impossible for God and suffering to both exist
P2 We know full well that suffering exists
Conclusion: Therefore, God does not"

Then [to me] this bizarre comparison...

"Are these two statement logically inconsistent...

1] An all-powerful, all-loving God exists
2] Suffering exists

No.

Here is an example of 2 logically inconsistent statements...

1] David is married
2[ David is a bachelor"

Look, if you are actually able to believe that this let's God off the hook for these things...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...what can I say. Whatever works?

Cue the "hidden assumptions" of the atheists

"If God is all-powerful, He can create ANY WORLD HE WANTS. If God is all-loving he PREFERS a world without suffering...Since suffering does exist, the atheist concludes, then God does not exist."

Now for the a God, the God rebuttal.

[Again, however, as with all of the other videos so far, it's not the Christian God Himself that is named. It's always just God this and God that.]

The narrator notes the atheists first assumption and suggests...

"...what if God wants a world where people have free will? It's logically impossible for God to force someone to freely choose to do good. Forcing free choices is like making a square circle."

Though, sure, in order to sustain your comforting and consoling belief in immortality and salvation, you accept this as perfectly logical.

On the other hand, how exactly does one reconcile an all-knowing God with men and women having free will?

Then [to me] this incredible conclusion...

"It's not that God lacks the power to perform the task [ridding the world of evil] it's that the task itself is just NONSENSE."

And, again, the focus here is on evil brought into existence by mere mortals. We are not to refer to the suffering brought about through natural disasters that grimly unfold as a result of how God created Earth itself as evil.

Next atheist assumption...

"Is it necessarily true that God would PREFER a world without suffering? How could we possibly know this?"

The narrator then suggests that God permits human suffering brought about by human beings themselves, as opposed to the suffering brought about by "acts of God", for the "greater good". And, of course, what can we possibly know about the "greater good" from the perspective of God.

Bingo: cue His mysterious ways.

Then back to us...philosophers.

"...even atheist philosophers have given up on the logical problem of evil"

Indeed, in a No God world, philosophers like me suggest that good and evil themselves are rooted historically and culturally in a "human all too human" existence that is essentially meaningless and purposeless. Though any number of secular philosophers here are convinced we need not go that far.

[iambiguous]

The eleventh video: Suffering and Evil: The Probability Version

https://youtu.be/cxj8ag8Ntd4?si=c7iQYZyY__5EWUP8

My reaction:

This is the longest video. And it's part two. Thirteen minutes devoted to that which almost certainly pops into the head of those who suffer mightily: Why?

"I'm a Good Christian, Lord. I'm a practicing Christian. Why must I suffer like this?"

Or:

"I'm a Good Christian, Lord. I'm a practicing Christian. Why must my beautiful child suffer so terribly?"

This from the Christian Relief Fund website:

Every day 25,000 people, including more than 10,000 children, die from hunger and related causes. That’s three times the death toll of AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined!

Ten thousand sets of parents around the globe watching their children die in agony from starvation. Every single day. Or is that mitigated by the fact the most of them are in some Third World hellhole...and worship the wrong God?

Or, if not from starvation, one or another of these afflictions: https://www.unicef.org/health/childhood ... berculosis.

https://raisingchildren.net.au/babies/h ... -illnesses

The narrator begins...

"But wait, while it's logically possible that God and suffering both exist, it's far from likely. There's just so much pointless suffering, it seems improbable that God could have good reasons for permitting it."

This he calls, "the probability version" of suffering and evil.

He notes that some make the argument that, "suffering provides empirical evidence that God's existence is not impossible, just highly unlikely".

Is this a good argument?

No.

For three reasons:

"1. We're not in a position to say with any confidence that 'God probably lacks reason for allowing suffering in the world.'

Here [to me] he expresses just another rendition of "God works in mysterious ways":

To wit:

"The problem is we're limited in space and time and in intelligence and insight."

God, however, sees "every detail" of history...of reality itself. So, as mere mortals, we just have to figure that all of this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...is factored into His Divine Plan.

Thus...

"In order to achieve His purposes, God may have to allow a great deal of suffering along the way."

We see it as pointless, but we're not called "mere mortals" for nothing.

"2. "Relative to the full scope of the evidence, God's existence may well be probable"

Here -- starting at 1:45 -- you'll have to help me out. Something about probabilities and background information and weight and sumo wrestlers.

I think the point is this: that we might think what looks like a really fat man in the video could not be an athlete. But then we find out he's a sumo wrestler and the weight makes sense. The same thing with God? We don't have all the facts about him, so we don't really and truly understand Him?

So, if we talk about God in terms of probability, but do not possess all of the "background information" about Him, then, of course, if we only consider all of the suffering, it might seem improbable that He exists?

Then the narrator basically tells us that if we are willing to accept everything we've been told about God in the first ten videos, then we have all the background information we need to grasp this suffering.

"3] Christianity entails doctrines that increase the probability of the co-existence of God and suffering".

Here God is finally named. He the Christian God.

Then the 4 "Christian Doctrines""

"1] the chief purpose of life is not happiness"

God's role in our life, we are told, is not to give us a snug and comfortable existence. We're not His "pets". No, our purpose is to know God."

Got that? Okay, once that is understood, you become aware that, "suffering can bring about a deeper, more intimate knowledge of God, either on the part of the one who is suffering or those around him."

Suffering is actually a good thing because it brings you closer to God? So, take advantage of it?

Then this [to me] unbelievable assertion:

"...suffering is one way that God can draw people freely to Himself. In fact, countries that have endured the most hardships -- the worst natural disasters -- often show the highest growth rates for Christianity".

I'm sorry if I'm offending some Christians here, but how fucking hideous is that?!!

Then this quote from C. S. Lewis, not only explaining the pain but again practically reveling in it...

"God whispers to us in our pleasure, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is his megaphone to rouse A DEAF WORLD."

So, anyone here not roused by the terrible pain and suffering that comes from these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events

...acts of God?

"2] Mankind is in a state of rebellion against God and His purpose."

Thus the "depravities" that occur around the globe is something that the Christians expect. And if approximately 3,650,000 children have to starve to death each year, well, what do you expect given all of that depravity?

The adults do the depraved things so that justifies all the agonizing deaths of the truly innocent?

"3] God's purpose is not restricted to this life but spills over beyond the grave into eternal life"

So, those 36,500,000 children who have died in agony from starvation over the past decade are experiencing that now?

On the other hand...

"Paul, who wrote much of the New Testament, underwent afflictions, hardships, calamities, beatings imprisonments, hunger...yet he wrote, 'we do not lose heart, for this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison, because we do not look to the things that are seen, but to the things that are unseen; for the things that are seen are transient, but the things that are unseen are eternal.'"

So, let's pass this on to those 10,000 innocent children who will die in agony from starvation over the next 24 hours. Not to mention the pain and suffering of their loved ones.

Earthly pain is temporary. Our pain will give way to eternal salvation. In other words, after watching all 17 videos and grasping that beyond a leap of faith, the Christian God does in fact exist, your own pain will all be put into Divine perspective.

"4] The knowledge of God is an incomparable good."

So, however much excruciating pain and suffering you or someone you love experiences, you will know that "God is good to you".

Yes, if you can believe that, sure, more power to you. But most who do believe it also believe that, in the end, immortality and salvation await them.

Indeed, the narrator seems to recognize this himself...

"If [my emphasis] Christianity is true, it is not at all improbable that SUFFERING AND EVIL should exist."

Then this part:

"But even if the intellectual arguments fail, the emotional problem of suffering and evil remains very powerful."

In other words, you just feel the absence of God in your life.

Not to worry:

"You are not alone. God knows your name. He knows who you are and what you are going through. God promises to be with you through your suffering."

Then the part where Jesus Christ also suffered: "He was tortured and sentenced to death."

Okay, but He was God, wasn't He? No leap of faith for Him. It's not quite the same for us mere mortals.

And this is when I bring up these points...

1] a demonstrable proof of the existence of the Christian God
2] addressing the fact that down through the ages hundreds of other Gods were/are championed. So why the Christian God?
3] addressing the profoundly problematic role that dasein plays in any particular individual's belief in the Christian God.

[iambiguous]

The twelfth video: Who Did Jesus Think He Was?:

https://youtu.be/sSQDov6NNp0?si=i-QKALLe2j5F95xT

My reaction:

Before getting to Jesus on Jesus, the video also addresses the part about how to understand Him.

In other words, the part where the dots are connected between the Son of God and God Himself. And, according to wiki, the majority of Christians also believe in the Holy Spirit or the Holy Ghost.

First, however, it's crucial to establish that Jesus Christ is the real deal.

The Jesus Christ, the historical figure! And it's crucial to establish that of course because if He was not around then, well, so much for the Second Coming? And for the Christian God existing at all?

There are those who say the evidence does exist...

https://www.npr.org/2012/04/01/14946237 ... s-his-case
https://bigthink.com/thinking/was-jesus-real/
https://foundationworldview.com/blog/hi ... us-existed

...and those that say it doesn't...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/postever ... t-hold-up/
https://ffrf.org/component/k2/item/1841 ... ical-jesus
https://www.atheists.org/activism/resou ... sus-exist/
https://www.salon.com/2014/09/01/5_reas ... r_existed/

The narrator notes that over the years, Jesus was described in many different ways, but...

...but, "WHO DID JESUS THINK HE WAS?"

Then he notes that, today, modern historians have "the tools" to come up with the information that allows us to grasp that.

So, where should those modern historians go first for the evidence?

Here:

"So, let's examine the New Testament not as inspired scripture, but as any ordinary collection of ancient documents."

So, back to "the Christian God exists because it says so in the Bible, and the Christian Bible is true because it's the word of the Christian God?"

So, anyway, when the modern historians -- using only the New Testament? -- investigate the historical Jesus, what do they find?

1] "First, Jesus claimed to be the Messiah."

Then stories and verses from the Bible discussing this. And, sure, of course, if you are a devout Christian -- a leap of faith? beyond any doubt? -- you will believe what the Bible tells you because around and around you and the Bible go.

The narrator tells us that, basically, from Jesus riding into Jerusalem on the back of a donkey to the last week of His life, "it's attested to in independent sources..."

What independent sources? The video merely shows two parchments on a wall. Look close and you'll see they are New Testament Bible verses Mark and John.

Then more and more Christian Bible stories.

Note to any historians and Bible scholars here:

You tell me if the stories the narrator notes here bring us to a definitive conclusion regarding Jesus the Messiah.

2] "Jesus also claimed to be the Son of God."

Then he adds, "in a unique sense".

Back to the Christian Bible: "The Parable of the Vineyard" is noted.

Let's just say that servants and then more servants and then a son are "beaten and/or killed" in it.

Then, again, using the Christian Bible, the narrator notes all of the things that Jesus Christ did think He was back then.

3] "Jesus claimed to be the Son of Man"

He preferred this designation most of all we are told. A true man of the people.

[but then back, historically, to all of those horrific "acts of God" above? Go back a couple of videos]

Then this assertion:

The fact that Jesus notes that He is the Son of Man over eighty times in the Bible.

The narrator: "this has convinced the vast majority of New Testament historians that Jesus did, in fact, think of Himself as the Son of Man."

None are named. Just a collage of portraits.

Note to Christians:

Please note some names. And what actual evidence do they propose that does not come from reading the New Testament itself. And are they in fact the vast majority of New Testament historians

From my own reading, the narrator seems to be saying that these historians came to that conclusion because they noted Jesus saying it in the New Testament. Unless I'm understanding the narrator incorrectly.

Jesus, we are then told, did not think of Himself as just a Son of Man, but as the Son of Man.

But then straight back to the Bible: Daniel 7:13-14.

Then [also straight from the Bible?], this:

"At Jesus' trial, the Jewish high priest accused Jesus. 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of God?'"

Jesus' answers left no room for doubt. "I Am."

So, does this "evidence" just come straight from the Bible? Or is there other substantial evidence that does not come from the Bible?

One conundrum is resolved:

"By applying all three of these titles to Himself, Jesus was claiming He was the very God his accusers worshipped."

Also...

"New Testament historians [the vast majority of them I assume] are agreed that the historical Jesus also claimed to have Divine power and the authority to perform miracles, cast out demons, revise all testament law and forgive sins."

Then this part, for IC:

"He even went so far as to claim that everyone's eternal destiny is determined solely by whether we believe in Him."

Of course, I'm running out of videos here. So far, none have provided me with any hard evidence that a God, the God exists, let alone that it is the Christian God.

Others, however, may have found enough substantive evidence to convince them. So, sure, pass it on to us.

Finally...

"So the questions Jesus asked His disciples, confronts each of us as well: who do you say that I am?"

Of course, that's when I suggest this: that who you think Jesus Christ is revolves around the life that you have lived, revolving existentially around your own personal experiences, relationships and access to particular information and knowledge.

After all, what of those who existed before Jesus Christ? Who or what determined if they were saved? And what about all those who have never heard of Him today? Or those indoctrinated to actually despise Christianity? And all those millions upon millions of children around the globe who have been indoctrinated by parents, family and community to worship another God. Or No God at all.

Something I once posted at ILP:

Imagine hypothetically three Christian missionaries set out to save the souls of three different native tribes. The first one is successful. The folks in the first tribe accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior and are baptized into the faith. The second is not successful. The folks in the second tribe refuse to accept Christ as their personal savior and instead continue to embrace their own god[s]...their own religion. The third missionary is not even able to find the tribe he was sent out to save.

Now imagine one member of each tribe dying on the same day a week later. What will be the fate of their souls? Will the man from the first tribe ascend to Heaven having embraced the Christian faith? Will the man from the second tribe burn in Hell for having rejected the Christian faith? And what of the man from the third tribe---he will have died never having even been made aware of the Christian faith. Where does his soul end up?

Also, think about it...

The missionary at the second tribe made them all aware of Jesus Christ. But they rejected Him. So, are the missionaries themselves actually responsible for damning these native souls to Hell? After all, even accounting for God's mysterious ways, damning those who have never, ever even heard of Him?

[iambiguous]

The thirteenth video: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part One: The Facts

https://youtu.be/4qhQRMhUK1o?si=2EAj70emhJpz0ZbU

My reaction:

Again, now that the discussion revolves increasingly around Jesus Christ, doesn't it come back basically to those dueling New Testament scholars above? And, perhaps, the archeologists. After all, a new dig might provide brand new evidence...of something.

And, for me, the evidence would have to come from a source other than the New Testament itself.

The video begins by asserting three FACTS regarding the resurrection:

"Fact 1: The Discovery of Jesus' Empty Tomb
Fact 2: The Appearances of Jesus Alive after His Death
Fact 3: The Disciples' Belief that Jesus Rose from the Dead."

Okay, but what makes them facts? Is there an overwhelming consensus among historians regarding the actual evidence said to make them facts?

For example...

Fact 1: the empty tomb

The narrator tells us that there are 6 Independent Sources to confirm that it was empty.

How independent? In the background of the video, the sources are noted at 1:15.

They are six verses from The New Testament.

Then on and on the narrator goes and, as in the other videos, merely asserts particular things are as he says they are. Mostly by referencing, over and again, the New Testament itself.

Google it: is there evidence of Jesus rising from the dead?

https://www.google.com/search?q=is+ther ... s-wiz-serp

Then [all but inevitably] all of the many, many conflicting accounts.

Unless, of course, you click on the "sponsored" links.

Again, the narrator simply asserts that, "most scholars, by far, hold firmly to the reliability of the Biblical statements about the empty tomb."

So, for those here with a more sophisticated understanding of the historical Jesus -- or no Jesus -- by all means weigh in.

On the other hand, let's face it, if Jesus does come back and embodies the Second Coming there will be 666 zillion devices "out there" to record every single instant of it.

But back then...

"Every time I look at you I don't understand
Why you let the things you did get so out of hand
You'd have managed better if you'd had it planned
Why'd you choose such a backward time and such a strange land?
If you'd come today you would have reached a whole nation
Israel 4 B.C. had no mass communication"

But don't get him wrong.

Fact Two: The Appearances of Jesus Alive after His death

Straight to the Bible...

"In one of the earliest letters in the New Testament, Paul provides a list of witnesses to Jesus' resurrection appearance. He appeared to Peter then to the twelve, then He appeared to more than 500 Brothers. Then He appeared to James and to all of the Apostles."

Because it says so in the Bible? On the contrary, the narrator insists. Then he is back to noting that the vast majority pf historians and Biblical scholars all back up the stuff he just spoke about...the stuff from the Bible.

Fact 3: The Disciples Belief in the Resurrection

Here, again, the stories come directly from the New Testament. Or so it seems to me. And then the part that still boggles my mind:

1] Jesus was a Jew.
2] Jews don't believe in Jesus Christ
3] many Christians hate Jews
4] and we still haven't heard from Muhammad

"As Jews, they had no concept of a Messiah who would be executed by his enemies, much less come back to life. The only resurrection the Jews believed in was a universal event on Judgment Day after the end of the world, not an individual event within history."

Same God...but choose wisely?

As for "The Disciples Belief in the Resurrection", it seems that this is all it was...a belief. They never actually confirmed it?

The rest is just more of the same...quoting one or another favorable historian and then going back to the New Testament itself over and over and over again.

[iambiguous]

The fourteenth video: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? Part Two: The Explanation:

https://youtu.be/6SbJ4p6WiZE?si=xt5EMECK_7gKd5sx

My reaction:

First of all, the explanation given here is entirely predicated on one believing that all of the arguments made in part one above...and in all of the previous videos...reflect "the facts".

Instead, given my own personal reaction to the narrators' arguments thus far, they often flagrantly assume that the conclusions they have come to reflect the most rational assessment of a God, the God, the Christian God. Even though the assessments themselves are taken almost entirely from the Bible.

Did Jesus rise from the dead? Well, in the previous video, I responded to the narrator's own factual claims.

And now, in merely assuming that the previous videos did establish irrefutable accounts -- historical facts -- "proving" the Resurrection of Christ, we are to be given an "explanation" for it all.

Christian Explanations to counter "Naturalistic Explanations".

The "four most popular" being...

"1] The conspiracy theory...
The disciples faked the resurrection, stole Jesus' body from the tomb and then lied about seein Him alive".

The greatest hoax on Earth. But then back to this from part one above...

"As Jews, they had no concept of a Messiah who would be executed by his enemies, much less come back to life. The only resurrection the Jews believed in was a universal event on Judgment Day after the end of the world, not an individual event within history."

Again, the narrator notes that, "an honest reading of the New Testament makes it clear" that "the disciples were truly sincere".

What about honest readings from sources other than the Bible that confirm the Biblical Accounts of the Resurrection of Christ? Accounts in which there is substantial evidence that almost everyone agrees is conclusive. The sort of evidence that when shown to someone like me will cause me to be intrigued, to pull back, to want to know more.

2] "A second Naturalistic Explanation is 'the apparent death theory'".

Start at 2:09. Then explain it to me. Again, it's been many years since I last read the Bible. And I am by no means another Dan Brown or those obsessed with the time of Christ. Jesus Christ as just another historical figure...or much more?

I'll let the "experts" here -- pro and con -- go back and forth on the "apparent death theory".

Same with 3]... the"Displaced Body Theory" starting at 3:10.

It's not like they had the equivalent of CSI back then...an advanced forensic team. Again, is there a gap between the narrator's account of it and actual evidence gathered from reputable sources other than the New Testament?

What is the most powerful non-Biblical evidence that Jesus did in fact resurrect from the dead? Provide the links please.

Instead, here all we have are speculations by the narrator regarding what could or might have happened. Lots of that. But mostly [to me] just another rendition of "it says so in the Bible." And a return to speculations about how Christians and Jews simply understood certain things differently back then.

In part, the narrator comes off [to me] like those narrators from one of those prime-time soap operas...Peyton Place or Dallas.

What if this happened? Or what if that happened?

Finally, 4... "The Hallucination Theory".

Flat out, I have no idea whatsoever whether or not the disciples saw Jesus after he had resurrected from the dead. Perhaps they really were just all hallucinating it?

No YouTube. No Facebook. No Tik-Tok. No X. Not back then. So, what is the final and the irrefutable conclusion to be reached regarding the disciples...hallucinations or not?

Thus, the narrator ends with this...

"Another possibility are the explanations given by the original eyewitnesses that God raised Jesus from the dead."

And since what they witnessed totally corresponds to what the narrator claims the historical facts are? Well, that clinches it. It's all true. Choose Jesus Christ or burn in Hell.

The narrator...

"But is this explanation plausible? After all it requires a miracle, a supernatural act of God. Think about it. If it's even possible that God exists, then miracles are possible."

Think about this too...

You want to believe it's the Christian God that does in fact exist. You have to believe it. You have to believe it because No God means no objective morality, no immortality, no salvation. Iambiguous would be right...an essentially meaningless and purposeless existence in which moral and political values are rooted existentially in Benjamin Button. Mere subjective prejudices...!

[iambiguous]

The fifteenth video: How Can Jesus Be the Only Way?:

https://youtu.be/RRyq6RwzlEM?si=lPsa56bBnvCiEf26

My reaction:

First up, an historical fact?

"In AD 203, the Roman government arrested a 22-year-old woman, a Christian named Perpetua. The problem wasn't so much that she worshipped Jesus. Her crime was that she worshipped only Jesus. She refused to worship any other God/s. As a result, she was found guilty of treason and sentenced to death."

On the other hand, there have been, are now and probably always will be any number of such historical anecdotes within any number of religious denominations. One denomination's martyrs, another denomination's infidels.

Freedom fighters or terrorists? Then back to why one would embrace the Christian narrative/Scripture and not one of the others?

Narrator: "This dangerous idea that only Christ alone provides the way to God is called 'Christian particularism' and is as scandalous today as it was 2000 years ago."

Then all of the other denominations around the globe with their own scandalous particularism ingredients.

But by now -- the 15th of 17 videos -- victory has actually already been declared. The various narrators have unequivocally established that their own assessment of the universe and of a God, the God lead us all logically to conclude what the "vast majority" of Biblical Scholars have about Jesus Christ. He's the One. The Real Deal Neo. You can take Him all the way to the bank.

Others, however, argue for "religious pluralism". The view that "all of the world's religious are equally valid and that Christ is just one of many ways."

"All religions are basically teaching the same thing so they are all true."

Which of course is ridiculous. The narrator then notes just how conflicting religious beliefs can be. And about really important things. Buddhism for example is shown to embrace none of the main beliefs that Muslims adhere to.

Enter those other "religious pluralists" then who will say that "all the world's religions are equally false." They are just ever evolving historical and cultural expressions of humankind's search for some ultimate meaning.

Then the Christian epistemologists and logicians who wrote the scripts for the videos so far continue to merely assert that all of the previous conclusions propounded in this series are rock solid facts that the "vast majority" of Biblical Scholars agree with.

Next up: Cue the ubiquitous "my way or the highway" mentality common among those who believe that human morality -- philosophy itself -- is just another manifestation of human psychological defense mechanisms. And that seems rather obvious to some of us.

Finally, we are told, there is another pluralist argument that "religions are culturally relative. If you had been born in Pakistan, you'd be a Muslim. And if you were born in Ireland, you'd be Catholic."

Cue the "genetic fallacy" argument. Trying to invalidate a view by showing how a person came to hold the view.

Yeah, if you were born and raised in Pakistan, chances are you'd be a Muslim. In Ireland, probably a Catholic. And that has to be taken into account come Judgment Day, right? But how on Earth can the Christian God damn the souls of most in Pakistan who were never really able to think through something that he or she never would have thought to do so.

Then the part where the narrator notes points that I would note myself here...

"If the religious pluralists been born in Pakistan or Ireland, he'd likely have been a religious particularist, so his belief in religious pluralism is just the result of his being born in contemporary Western society, and therefore, is not objectively true."

Yep, that's my point alright. Our moral and political and spiritual values are derived existentially out in particular worlds understood in particular ways as historical and cultural and personal prejudices. That's precisely why it is so important to determine whether a God, the God does in fact exist. The stakes on both sides of the grave could not possibly be higher. So, if there are those Christians here who argue that there is substantive proof that God does in fact exist, and that beyond a "leap of faith" this can be grasped by watching these videos...?