Comments by "WaterspoutsOfTheDeep" (@WaterspoutsOfTheDeep) on "Jordan B Peterson"
channel.
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@peznino1 Truth is exclusive not all inclusive. Truth is not relative, we don't all have our own truth. That's why testing everything is important.
Christianity is evidenced based. Faith is the product of truth, and truth is ultimately a person Jesus Christ who said I am the truth. Faith not from truth is blind faith, an aberration of the fundamental concept of faith which unfortunately has been popularized as the standard definition which is absurd and clearly not the type of faith presented in the bible and used to do science.
Paul wrote test everything and hold fast to that which is true (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Being a Christian isn't about blind faith. Hebrews 11:1 Paul wrote the Greek "hupostasis." It means an internal unseen tangible substance of assurance, of the person of Jesus he gives as an "elegchos" which essentially means a clinical evidence like given in a court of law. It is the most important evidence one can have to give ones life to Jesus. Ultimately nothing else is or can be sufficient. Jesus, God could appear infront of you right now and do miracles and that wouldn't be enough for you or anyone to give their lives truly to him. It wasn't enough for the disciples. All the disciples denied Jesus on the cross. All the miracles and evidence Jesus was God like walking on water raising the dead, hearing God from heaven speak and say this is my Son was not enough. So why would it be enough for you? It wouldn't. Christianity should have died on the cross with Jesus. But Pentecost happened. God the Holy Spirit came and his promise is to reveal Jesus and make him real to you. That is when all the disciples would rather give their lives for Jesus than deny him, hundreds of thousands would die as martyrs in the Colosseum than deny Jesus who was then made real to them more real than walking on water or raising the dead infront of them in person.
Just a reminder the apologetic case of the resurrection is based on the historical evidence and it uses the same method of reasoning mainly inference to the best explanation that Darwin uses in the Origin of Species.
The New Testament shows with the physician Luke telling that they knew and understood and had the same objections we do today that a miracle goes against the laws of nature and addressed it with the story of Zechariah that a God that created it all with those laws of nature can intervene into them. To assume miracles can't happen is to wrongly assume this universe is a closed system, science does not tell us that.
You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist
Having no belief in God undermines the very rational mind you require to do science and argue with.
So there is nothing in genuine science to stop the belief in God, there is everything in genuine science to support the belief in God and the belief in God is what encourages the very enterprise of science which is why it birthed modern science. Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver. There is only one ultimate type of truth that you or anyone can accept to not just believe a God exists but accept and give your life to him and know him, and that's from him giving that evidence personally as Jesus promises and does for all those that seek him.
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Thisismyflightsongbaby Wrong. Christianity is evidenced based. Faith is the product of truth, and truth is ultimately a person Jesus Christ who said I am the truth. Faith not from truth is blind faith, an aberration of the fundamental concept of faith which unfortunately has been popularized as the standard definition which is absurd and clearly not the type of faith presented in the bible and used to do science.
Paul wrote test everything and hold fast to that which is true (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Being a Christian isn't about blind faith. Hebrews 11:1 Paul wrote the Greek "hupostasis." It means an internal unseen tangible substance of assurance, of the person of Jesus he gives as an "elegchos" which essentially means a clinical evidence like given in a court of law. It is the most important evidence one can have to give ones life to Jesus. Ultimately nothing else is or can be sufficient. Jesus, God could appear infront of you right now and do miracles and that wouldn't be enough for you or anyone to give their lives truly to him. It wasn't enough for the disciples. All the disciples denied Jesus on the cross. All the miracles and evidence Jesus was God like walking on water raising the dead, hearing God from heaven speak and say this is my Son was not enough. So why would it be enough for you? It wouldn't. Christianity should have died on the cross with Jesus. But Pentecost happened. God the Holy Spirit came and his promise is to reveal Jesus and make him real to you. That is when all the disciples would rather give their lives for Jesus than deny him, hundreds of thousands would die as martyrs in the Colosseum than deny Jesus who was then made real to them more real than walking on water or raising the dead infront of them in person.
Just a reminder the apologetic case of the resurrection is based on the historical evidence and it uses the same method of reasoning mainly inference to the best explanation that Darwin uses in the Origin of Species.
The New Testament shows with the physician Luke telling that they knew and understood and had the same objections we do today that a miracle goes against the laws of nature and addressed it with the story of Zechariah that a God that created it all with those laws of nature can intervene into them. To assume miracles can't happen is to wrongly assume this universe is a closed system, science does not tell us that.
You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks, that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist
Having no belief in God undermines the very rational mind you require to do science and argue with.
So there is nothing in genuine science to stop the belief in God, there is everything in genuine science to support the belief in God and the belief in God is what encourages the very enterprise of science which is why it birthed modern science. Men became scientific because they expected law in nature, and they expected law in nature because they believed in a law giver. There is only one ultimate type of truth that you or anyone can accept to not just believe a God exists but accept and give your life to him and know him, and that's from him giving that evidence personally as Jesus promises and does for all those that seek him.
1
-
1
-
@tylerdurden4396 Sure, without God as the basis for reality, good evil and truth loses all meaning for it's all relative. Everyone has their own truth and idea of good and evil it becomes without meaning. The thing is truth is exclusive, it's not all inclusive, we don't have our own truth.
If naturalism is true then our cognitive faculties have been selected for survival value not for truth, as in it's ultimately irrelevant whether or not our beliefs are true to something produced under naturalistic process. What matters is only if they are beneficial in the struggle for survival. So if naturalism is true we can have no confidence in the reliability of our cognitive faculties. But if that's the case then we can have no confidence in the truth of naturalism, because the belief in naturalism was formed from those very cognitive faculties which are shown to be unreliable if naturalism is true. So there is a kind of vicious circularity a kind of self referential incoherence that is inescapable in a naturalistic worldview because naturalism will undermined the reliability of the very cognitive faculties that were used to establish naturalism. Therefore naturalism cannot be rationally affirmed.
Atheism undermines rationality. To think naturalism is the only answer and thus ones brain/mind is the end product of unguided processes is an absurdity far less to trust that to do science with! Ridiculous! No one would ever trust a computer made in such a way. Atheism can't survive the advancement of science. Atheism is dead. Atheism removes science, it doesn't give any basis for thinking human rationality will reveal anything. Whereas believing how the fathers of modern science thought that this universe is the product of an intelligent God, that gives you justification for doing science.
You are hindered by a philosophical presupposition that thinks that is the way it must have happened. That is a big issue for a scientist, am I going to stick with what the science is saying or with my philosophical presupposition? Richard Lewontin a geneticist was very honest in stating; "The methods of science do not compel us to accept a materialistic explanation. What does? Our apriori conviction." Atheists aren't following where the evidence leads, because they are self limiting the extent of their own rationality. It's irrational in the strictest sense. Atheism and science do not mix.
If the mental is purely physical, then we have no reason to have any confidence in anything our brain produces. -Thomas Nagel Atheist
Atheism blinds the mind so you can't see logic. Many times those who argue for it can't see they are failing to the very thing they accuse of Theists, blind faith like Richard Dawkins.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1