Christianity and YouTube

[iambiguous]

The sixteenth video: The Problem of Those Who Have Never Heard of Christ:

https://youtu.be/HORwhXSgelQ?si=IOHuKsHTFm9JcsXW

My reaction:

At the end of the last video, this is noted:

"That there is a more serious objection to Christian particularism: 'the problem of those who have never heard of Christ. If Jesus is the only way to God, then what is the fate of those who never hear of Jesus?'"

Back again then to these guys...

"Imagine hypothetically three Christian missionaries set out to save the souls of three different native tribes..."

...noted above.

Thus...

"Early Christians proclaimed that Jesus was the only way to salvation, the only way to forgiveness, and eternal life, the only way to God."

Nowadays however others object and find this "deeply offensive".

"Why? Isn't it possible that Jesus is THE ONLY WAY?", asks the narrator.

But the objectors note that if Jesus is the only way, what of those who go from the cradle to the grave and never heard of Him? Or those who as children are indoctrinated to believe in an entirely different God?

"They don't have a chance to be saved...but they do. The Bible says that God wants all persons to be saved. Those who never heard of Christ will not be judged by what they DON'T know, they'll be judged on the basis of what they DO know."

And, in fact, there are two truths that everyone knows because the Christian God revealed them to everyone:

1] "He exists. And we all know this by observing the natural world around us".

In other words, the beastly, savage survival of the fittest slaughterhouse that nature itself is? Or the existence of 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"?

Besides, many of these folks...

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

...agree that God does exist. But if it's morality, immortality and salvation you're after, it's not Christianity that will save your soul. It's their God. And, no doubt, they have similar arguments regarding those who have never heard of their God.

2] "And, second, there is a moral law. We all know this by experiencing our conscience within us. Everyone one of us has a moral sense of right and wrong."

Again, and again and again: Okay, but how is this not rooted existentially -- historically, culturally, personally -- in the individual lives that we live. Thus explaining all of these...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

...One True Paths to Enlightenment. And then for each religious denomination, their own spirituality, their own God, their own moral Commandments and Judgment Day.

No problem. "Somehow" the Christian God will "just know" who is to be saved and who is to be damned.

But what about those from the second tribe above? The Christian missionaries tried to convert them but failed. So, were their souls safe as long as their belief in a God/the God excluded contact with the Christians? But once Christ was revealed to them and they "freely" rejected Him, they are Hell bound? Even the babies and the infants and the children?

Do some folks just experience the "bad luck" of having been born at the wrong time and place before Christ Himself was even around?

Then [of course] back to the Bible:

"According to the Bible, the times and the places that people are born is not the result of an accident...rather GOD DECIDES where and when each person will live. So, it's possible that God has so ordered the world that anyone who would believe in Christ if he heard about Him is created at a time and place in history where he DOES hear about Him?"

Sure, if you can convince yourself that this actually makes sense given, say, the real world that we actually live in, fine, whatever works to sustain your spiritual comfort and consolation.

In other words, it's "possible" that the Christian God so ordered the world this way, but how on Earth is that the same as actually demonstrating that it is in fact true. Especially with all the others out there making the same claims for their God, Gods and/or religious paths?

The narrator then notes that, "our eternal destiny truly lies in our own hands. How about you?"

Yeah, how about you? In particular, those among us who, even though the Christian God gave them all they needed in order to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, they chose another God or No God instead?

Instead [of course] back to the Christian Bible...

"God made every nation of men that they should inhabit the whole Earth and He marked out their APPOINTED TIMES IN HISTORY and the boundaries of their lands. God did this so that they would SEEK Him and perhaps REACH OUT for Him and FIND Him, though He is not far from any of us". Acts 17: 26-27

And that's proof enough, right?

[iambiguous]

The seventeenth [and final] video: Is it possible to know God?

https://youtu.be/qjbeqL_qBl8?si=fLzgAk4NwjsA41Gi

My reaction:

Again, back to the narrator merely asserting alleged "facts" about the Christian God. And facts they are, he explains, because it says so in the Christian Bible:

"Is it possible to know God? Well, who or what is God? The ultimate reality of Hinduism or Buddhism is infinite but not personal. And the Gods of the Greeks and Romans were personal but not infinite. But the Bible describes God as both infinite and personal."

Again, the irony here being that IC claims by watching all of these videos one can move beyond a leap of faith...a subjective existential leap rooted in dasein that comes from accepting that the Bible must be true because it is the word of the Christian God. And that this is confirmed in turn because it says so in the Christian Bible.

This is the last video. By now some might have accumulated enough evidence to convince them that the Christian God does in fact exist. They must be eager to share it with us.

Anyway, on and on and on the narrator goes claiming all of the extraordinary things that the Christian God must be because it says so in the Bible.

"He is an infinite, uncreated Mind with unlimited power."

On the other hand...

"...God is also personal. He has mind and emotions and will and moral agency. All of the qualities essential to personhood AND He has them to an infinite degree."

I challenge anyone here who has watched all of the videos to note, beyond what it says in the Bible, how the videos themselves convinced you that this is in particular is in fact the case..

Then four more flagrant assertions about "God and you".

"1] GOD LOVES YOU AND CREATED YOU TO KNOW HIM PERSONALLY."

Again, beyond a more or less blind leap of faith and because it says so in the Bible, how would you go about demonstrating this? To others. Or even to yourself.

But there's a problem...

"2] MAN IS SINFUL AND SEPARATED FROM GOD."

And this is beyond all doubt true, and easily grasped because, well, because the narrator immediately takes us straight back to the Bible...

"The Bible described our predicament like this...

'Ever since the world was created, people have seen the Earth and the sky. Through everything God has made, they can clearly see His invisible qualities, His eternal power and Divine nature so they have no excuse for not knowing God...'

Indeed, human communities down through the ages are confronted with the profound mysteries embedded in that ever-evolving relationship between human beings and all that is down here on Earth for them. Then that encompassed in turn in all that is "up there" or "out there" in the sky.

And, as a result of this, human communities down through the ages [and still today] have come to many, many different conclusions -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- regarding what it means to know God.

And, of course, regarding their capacity to demonstrate that their God is in fact the only God. And does in fact exist.

It's really only a question then of whether those who worship and adore a God other than the Christian God have or do not have their own collection of YouTube videos like this one.

Then this "general description spiritual contraption"...

"We've all done things we know are wrong. It's not just that we feel guilty...we ARE guilty. But since God is morally perfect sinful beings cannot draw near to Him..."

Again, who is deciding when something that is being done is being done right or wrong? Is this conclusion derived from the right God or the right religious path?

After all, many of the other denominations in the link above have similar Creation stories. Similar scriptures "proving" that only their own God is the real deal.

"Thus, God is faced with a dilemma. Because He is just the demands of His Justice must be satisfied. In our case that means death. But because He is love He has compassion on us. He wants each of us to be reconciled with Him."

Again, if you yourself are able to believe this is an example of how these YouTube videos prove that beyond the Bible and a leap of faith the Christian God does exist...?

3] "GOD'S SOLUTION IS JESUS CHRIST"

And then all the narrator does after noting this, is to take us through the New Testament itself. Jesus Christ: Birth. School. Work. Death. Just like all the rest of us. Only He is both God and the Son of God.

Then [from my frame of mind] your typical religious homily...

"What happened at the cross was the greatest transaction in human history. My sin was placed on Christ. He suffered the death penalty in my place. In return Christ' righteousness, His moral perfection was placed on us. Then when Jesus rose from the dead He broke the power of SIN DEATH HELL once and for all."

What can I say? Where is the substantive evidence that the events from the Crucifixion to the Resurrection and afterwards actually took place...beyond accounts in the New Testament.

Now it is our turn...

4] "WE MUST PERSONALLY RECEIVE CHRIST AS OUR SAVIOR AND LORD."

On the other hand, if you are from a community that never heard of Christianity, or if you were brainwashed as a child to worship an entirely different God, or, if, in all introspective honesty and sincerity, you chose to become a Buddhist...let's just hope that the Christian God accepts mitigating and extenuating factors as warranting from time to time a Get Out Of Hell Free card.

Finally, more homilies...

"It is possible to know God as a personal reality in your life. Why let anything stand in the way? Right now, He is ready and willing to give you the gift of forgiveness and new life in Jesus Christ. Are you willing to receive it? If so, pray with me now..

'God, please forgive me for all the things I've gone wrong. I turn away from my sin and I turn to You, my only hope. I invite you into my life as my Savior and my Lord. I am yours. Fill me with your spirit and empower me to live a new life in Jesus Christ. Amen.'"



Back to business...

It's time to come forward. One by one, I linked you to and then reacted to the 17 YouTube videos that Immanual Can claimed provided the evidence he needed to in fact know that the Christian God does in fact exist.

I missed it.

How about others though? What amounted to the most powerful evidence in the videos that convinced you the Christian God does exist? Or even convinced you to give the arguments a serious assessment.

[Harbal]

As you go through life, you tend to accumulate a set of principles that come in very useful when faced with various situations that could otherwise end up being troublesome. One such principle that I became aware of many years ago was that the more time and effort that is put into trying to convince you that something is true, the less likely it is to be true. I always refer to this principle when dealing with IC.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Correction: the subject of our debate was not whether or not God exists, but whether good evidence of an independent or scientific nature exists for that hypothesis.

You now know the answer: yes.

That you refuse the evidence, that you don't like the evidence, that you complain about the evidence, that you deny the implications of the evidence...are all irrelevant to the point. The evidence exists, that there "are empirical facts that are available."

Here's the clip from the conversation that caused me to send you the videos. The words are your own:

Come on, IC, in order to speak of Christianity in terms of morality, one must first be convinced that the Christian God does in fact exist. You claim there are empirical facts. But when I ask you to provide them on par with a ton of empirical facts available to confirm the existence of the Pope, you have nothing tangible to offer.

Or do you? Let's hear it.

Nobody can force you to accept it. But that it exists, you now do have to accept. You've seen quite a bit of it. And like I said, you've decided not to listen to any of the evidence.

Point made.

[iambiguous]

Kristi Burke video: 5 Bible Passages That Caused Me To Lose My Faith

https://youtu.be/gDCCzzwy_Nk?si=Sa2qy_F-BSttOX45

Here is a woman who was raised in a "evangelical, fundamentalist" Christian community. She was a Christian until her "early twenties" when she "deconstructed" all that she had been indoctrinated as a child to believe. And then came to disbelieve it.

So, unlike with me, there doesn't seem to be any truly dramatic experience itself that came between her and the Christian God. Instead, it was more internal, introspective, intellectual.

In fact, she notes, it was actually 5 Bible passages that prompted her to lose her own faith...

"These were verses I could not justify...I could not find a good reason they'd be in the Bible...and it made me realize it's just a man-made book used as a tool of oppression".

The first passage is Romans 9. This was "the starting point of my deconstruction journey."

"Up until the point when I read and studied and chewed on the words in Romans 9, I believed in a God who created all people, gave them free will and He wanted all people to be saved but He couldn't violate their free will."

He gave them freedom and they could "either choose Him and go to Heaven or they could reject Him and go to Hell".

Their free choice.

Then at 17, she was introduced to Calvinism...

Her reaction? "No way. There's no way God us going to create people just to go to Hell".

Then she read Romans 9, starting at verse 16:

"It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raise you up for this very purpose, that i may display my power in you and that my name be proclaimed in all the Earth'. Therefore, God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy and He harden whom He wants to harden..."

So, here is her take on this...

"It says [in the Bible] that [being saved] does not depend on human desire or effort but on God's mercy. Meaning there's nothing about you that can come to God and choose, God has to choose you...."

"It says in verse 18...God has mercy on whom He wants to...When Christians talk about having a hardened heart against God, the Bible says God is the one who hardened it...and then the Bible even goes on to ask why does God still blame us? If He created us this way how come He blames us...And Paul is saying who are you to question God. How can the clay question the potter and ask why have you made me like this?"

Her bottom line...

"...if God has decided that He wants to create you just to destroy you then He's going to do that. And that's His right. You don't get to question it."

"Realizing this" she concluded, "changed everything about my perspective...it made me see a God who did not desire people to be saved. But instead, creates people as puppets, does what He wants with them and tells them you're not allowed to question it."

The exact opposite she concludes of what a loving, just and merciful God would be.

The second passage, "was Psalm 137, 9...and it says this..."

'Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks...'

"Now it's important to understand the context of this verse. This is what is known as an "imprecatory prayer"...it is praying evil against your enemies, a lamentation...basically the psalmist is writing is about how they were treated so badly by their enemies and so they want to repay them for what they've done."

But...

"...this is [just] how Christians expressed themselves...they weren't really bashing babies into rocks."

But...

"This is supposed to be the inspired word of God...and God never condemned them for saying this prayer, He never said 'don't think that way, don't be so vengeful...don't wish for the harm of innocent babies." No, this is perfectly fine in God's eyes and in the eyes of Christians today who defend it...

"...but Jesus came, and He said turn the other cheek love those who hate you be good to your enemies."

The third passage is from Deuteronomy 22, starting in verse 28...

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father 50 shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lived."

She then takes this to an old pastor of hers. She must be misunderstanding the verse. No, apparently, she's not.

"It would be one thing if these were just rules that men made up but God did not approve of but this is a direct law from God in the Bible...a kind of loophole for men to find a wife. If they assaulted her, then they could marry her if they just paid her father some money."

"I can't think of a single woman who would want to spend her life being married to...the man that assaulted her."

The 4th verse...

Deuteronomy 20: 10 thru 18

"When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to the city. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand. put to the sword all men in it. As for the women. the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourself. And you make use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies. This is how you are to treat all the cries that are at a distance from you to the nations nearby."

She concludes...

"So God is commanding His people to go around to all of the neighboring cities, to offer them peace...And if the city agrees to peace with you, you are to capture them and enslave them...and then the Bible says if they are not peaceful then kill them all...every single man. And then take the women and the children as plunder and do whatever with the plunder that you want to do."

The fifth and final verse that contributed to her deconstructing Christianity..."is probably the most famous verse in the Bible":

John 3:16: "For God so loved the world that he gave His on and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

She points out that many will then confront her with, "how could you find fault in that"?

So...

"Let's break it down...deconstruct...John 3:16. For God so loved the world...first of all considering those other verses I've talked about I don't believe that is accurate."

Then again she notes all of the instances from the Bible where God clearly does not love any number of men, women and children.

Then the part I often bring up: the suffering of Christ:

"God so loved the world that He gave up His only Son. Now this is loaded because He's the Son but He's also God depending on what you believe or which denomination you are as part of and which timeframe [historically] you were a part of."

Thus, as I noted elsewhere...

Here is Christ on the cross. Is he the son of God? Is he the embodiment of God on Earth? Just what the hell is the actual relationship here?

One thing for sure [assuming these events are literally true]: either way he knows for a fact that he will soon be in Heaven. That Salvation for him is absolutely assured. No need to fall back on "faith" is there. So whatever mere mortals wish to call it there is no way in hell that our own relationship with God can even approach that of Christ on the cross.

And thus any suffering he may have endured will always have to be put in this perspective: he knows that Heaven is the next stop. He knows that Salvation is his for eternity.

Never quite works that way for us though, does it?

Finally...

"Modern Christians believe that Jesus was God...is God...so, if He gave up His only Son, well, He is God. He gave up Himself. But why did He have to do that? What was the point?"

Then a "theological" assessment of the Crucifixion straight out of the Bible.

"But that's not even the worst part...the worst part for me is the end of the verse...'who shall ever believe will have eternal life and not perish'.

"Who shall ever believe. So right here the Bible is telling us the measure for determining whether someone deserves to be punished forever or rewarded forever is just belief. It's what you believe."

Thus...

"How is that fair? How is that a just system? It has nothing to do with how good a person you are, it has nothing to do with your intentions. It's just about what you believe."

That's always my point, of course. God or No God, there is what you think, what you believe, what you claim to know about God and religion. But what are you actually able to demonstrate is in fact true?

Then she basically becomes me...

"People believe all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. People that are raised in other cultures, under other religions, they believe in their religion because that's how they were raised, like many Christians todays are Christians because the were raised in a Christian culture, in the Christian Church by Christian parents. They don't question it because that's how they were raised."

Then the part revolving around personal experiences and Scripture and Judgment Day.

[Iwannaplato]

As you go through life, you tend to accumulate a set of principles that come in very useful when faced with various situations that could otherwise end up being troublesome. One such principle that I became aware of many years ago was that the more time and effort that is put into trying to convince you that something is true, the less likely it is to be true. I always refer to this principle when dealing with IC.

The problem, I think, with this heuristic, is that all sorts of things that I think almost anyone thinks are true, fall under this criticism.

Hm, that was poorly worded. I mean, that whatever one's beliefs are, some of them are going to fail with this heuristic.

Ideas about the existence of racism, or that there isn't systemic racism, global warming exists, or it doesn't exist, that Putin is a bad guy, that Trump is a bad guy, that Biden is a bad guy, that one or more of them is a good guy or the better choice, that we should recycle, that voting is important, that we should have gone to war in Iraq, that we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq, that smoking is bad for you, that genetically modified products are good for us, that they are bad for us, that men and women are different, that men and women are not different and all that is made up, that capitalism is the only rational economic system, that capitalism is bad or could be vaslty improved...
and so on. Lots of effort is being put in to get us to believe opposing positions where it is likely one of them is the case.

And since many things that are promoted are done in a banal fashion without hoo ha, we may not even notice them or consider them being promoted at all.
Like the idea that it's generally good for learning to sit at desks facing in one direction without much interaction with peers, in primarily a passive mode, that emotions should only be expressed with significant noise in extreme situations, that choosing between products is how one forms an identity. We don't notice the effort being put in to convince of these things.

So much can be sold by implication, without passion, if you've got the power to make it mundane and seemingly part of the fabric of the universe.

[iambiguous]

Let's face it, nothing would establish the possibility that Jesus Christ was the Real Deal more so than substantive and substantial historical, empirical, material, etc., proof that Jesus Christ really had been crucified, died and was resurrected. After all, it's always possible that a mere mortal existed back then who thought He was the Son of God/God, whom others thought was the Son of God/God, who was crucified by the authorities and did die.

But to then come back from beyond the grave and live again?

So, sure, Google it: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... e+or+false

Lots of arguments pro and con. But is there hard evidence establishing that in fact it is true?

Note the evidence that convinced you it was true.

[promethean75]

C'mon man don't be silly. What are the real options regarding what happened with that crucifixion story.

A) it never happened and was totally made up and inserted into the books of the bible.

B) it did happen - political agitator named Jesus was executed by the Romans and buried or creamated or whatever.

C) it did happen - political agitator named Jesus was executed by the Romans and was placed dead in a tomb. Conspirators snuck into the tomb, stole the corpse and planted the myth that he had been resurrected, adding to the mystique of his character, etc.

[Iwannaplato]

C'mon man don't be silly. What are the real options regarding what happened with that crucifixion story.

A) it never happened and was totally made up and inserted into the books of the bible.

B) it did happen - political agitator named Jesus was executed by the Romans and buried or creamated or whatever.

C) it did happen - political agitator named Jesus was executed by the Romans and was placed dead in a tomb. Conspirators snuck into the tomb, stole the corpse and planted the myth that he had been resurrected, adding to the mystique of his character, etc.

I'm not sure why the possibilities only include him as a political agitator. He certainly seems to have been a religious agitator, given his retake on the OT and contant focus on spiritual/religious matters.

Some other possibilities: he wasn't fatally wounded, but seemed to be. He did manage to pull of some of what gets called miracles. (which wouldn't necessarily entail that he is the only son of God or God in human form in the way much of Christianity thinks of it. Or perhaps that is the case also)

[iambiguous]

Stunning Proof of Christ's Resurrection:
https://youtu.be/Dr-SQJVgXSc?si=5Sloq3Tv7teWad8P

Here is a video from the 700 Club. I watched it curious to note what this "stunning evidence" was. I missed it.

How about you? If you had to rely on what these apologists are claiming about this stunning evidence that Jesus Christ was in fact resurrected from the dead what would be the most convincing proof from your frame of mind?

Compare that evidence to the evidence that would be pouring in if Christ were to come back again. Fifty zillion cameras documenting every single thing that He did!

[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.

Correction: the subject of our debate was not whether or not God exists, but whether good evidence of an independent or scientific nature exists for that hypothesis.

You now know the answer: yes.

That you refuse the evidence, that you don't like the evidence, that you complain about the evidence, that you deny the implications of the evidence...are all irrelevant to the point. The evidence exists, that there "are empirical facts that are available."

That hypothesis?

Hypothesis: "a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation."

Note the most powerful "good evidence" in those videos above that, beyond definitions, deductions, theological "arguments" and endless references to the Christian Bible, indicates to you that a God, the God does in fact exist?

Hard, indisputable evidence able to convince all rational men and women that it is the Christian God that does in fact exist and not one of these "my way or the highway" ecclesiastical dogmas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

Finally, evidence that establishes the existence of the Christian God such that that His existence is entirely reconcilable with these "acts of the Christian God":

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

Here's the clip from the conversation that caused me to send you the videos. The words are your own:

Come on, IC, in order to speak of Christianity in terms of morality, one must first be convinced that the Christian God does in fact exist. You claim there are empirical facts. But when I ask you to provide them on par with a ton of empirical facts available to confirm the existence of the Pope, you have nothing tangible to offer.

Or do you? Let's hear it.

Nobody can force you to accept it. But that it exists, you now do have to accept. You've seen quite a bit of it. And like I said, you've decided not to listen to any of the evidence.

Force me to accept it?! I want to accept it!! There's not much I wouldn't give to bump into someone able to convince me that my own existence is not essentially meaningless and purposeless, that oblivion is not my fate when I die, that there actually is hard evidence that, beyond a leap of faith or "it says so in the Bible", the Christian God is the real deal.

In other words, someone I can actually take seriously about these things and not just someone I can entertain myself with here.

Look, I don't know how existentially, re dasein, you came to be a Christian. But you did. And no doubt Christianity will comfort and console you all the way to the grave. Heads you win, tails I lose in that regard.

Or perhaps one day you will actually respond substantively to all of the points I made above in regard to the "evidence" provided in those videos.

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Correction: the subject of our debate was not whether or not God exists, but whether good evidence of an independent or scientific nature exists for that hypothesis.

You now know the answer: yes.

That you refuse the evidence, that you don't like the evidence, that you complain about the evidence, that you deny the implications of the evidence...are all irrelevant to the point. The evidence exists, that there "are empirical facts that are available."

That hypothesis?

Yep.

And that's all, folks. You got what you asked for.

[Dontaskme]

Yep.

And that's all, folks. You got what you asked for.

You got a story book. A book that eventually rots and withers and decays, and can turn to a pile of dust at the strike of a match.

All You got is dust, that resembles a book, a book unwritten, as dust leaves no trace of any author.

That's all folks.

Reality doesn't ask for evidence, 'asking' for evidence, is a need to know, in a reality that does not need to know it is, it is completely and wholly evident.

Knowledge can only point to the illusory nature of the knower. Reality, is unknowing. Ultimately you know nothing IC, except in this conception, in the story nothing is writing. Nothing knows itself as a dream character knows itself.

[iambiguous]

Correction: the subject of our debate was not whether or not God exists, but whether good evidence of an independent or scientific nature exists for that hypothesis.

You now know the answer: yes.

That you refuse the evidence, that you don't like the evidence, that you complain about the evidence, that you deny the implications of the evidence...are all irrelevant to the point. The evidence exists, that there "are empirical facts that are available."

That hypothesis?

Yep.

And that's all, folks. You got what you asked for.

Absolutely shameless!!!

Anyway, all I can ask of him is that we reconfigure our exchange here from "entertainment mode" to the far, far, far more serious "saving souls" mode.

He claims that there is a path to the Christian God that goes beyond a leap of faith, a wager, a verse from the Bible.

He claims that science itself proves the existence of a God, the God. It's all in the videos. And historians have proven that Jesus Christ really had been resurrected [by Himself] from the grave.

Okay, above, I responded in depth to that "evidence".

Let IC bring our exchange around to a serious examination of the points I made above. One video at a time. No more Mr. Wiggle!

Also, at the very least -- with the souls of those like his BFF henry quirk on the line -- he will note the segments in the videos that he felt most powerfully demonstrates that a God/the God does exist and that of all the Gods that are followed [and that's just on this planet] the Christian God is clearly the only God there is.

[promethean75]

IC has done as much as he can to bring the truth of the gospels to Henry Quirk. If Henry chooses not to have truck with Jesus, that's on him.