This is what happens when you fake expertise for 20 years...

What baffles me is that apparently no one is utterly shaken by Turek's opening remark "if there's no god then the Nazis weren't wrong. What a horrific way of reasoning 😮! Let me rephrase this: "despite that a god exists, the Nazis could just execute their evil plans". I already had no high regards for his level of reasoning but now I very much dislike this creature 🤮

Sorry, but the abbreviation for miles is "mi." and not "m" - that's meters/metres.

Religion: Ignorant men, "making shit up" attempting to control the gullible based on an immoral, divisive, hypocritical, horseshit theology, ripping-off billions of tax-free dollars from the clueless w/o having to be accountable for one shred of verifiable, data or empirical, evidence of “magical sky fairies.

It clearly demonstrates how easily the simple-minded can be scammed if you market the bullshit early enough!

Some really troubling ideas with their strong appeal to rules of logic. I understand you can add to an infinite set as per the hotel example, but that is because I happen to have learned about it. If not it would seem logical that adding 30 to an infinite number is meaningless, it already had more than any number plus 30. Like 2 different infinite sets of different sizes is unintuitive and seems meaningless. The idea of an infinite past being a logical contradiction because no matter how much time elapsed we would not have reached the present isn't easily overcome either. The philosopher's discussion and RRs thought experiment helped - I think I need to watch that part again. Interesting stuff nice one Stephen

As long as we have our limited monkey brains, we will continue to fall for these swindlers and scammers.
"Yeah, but look at it - it looks flat to me! Now give me money to help spread the good word!"
And our average monkey brain goes "duhhhhhhhhh yeah, looks flat to me too, thank you my friend, here is 3 bucks for a cup of coffee".
Then with a lack of education, some peer pressure another flat earther is born, or a Religious person, or a college student who thinks there are 72 genders.

They're just exposing themselves for what they are - monsters !!! Only a monster will say that "there's nothing wrong with genocide if God doesn't exist"...yikes

Always enjoyable having folks who actually know what they're talking about dismantle Frank's false assertion. Cheers Steve! 😄🐱

Religion is an asylum of ignorance in which you are your own jailer.

Existence, life requires origin. Evolution is ruled out because it simply is not possible for complex molecules to spawn via random natural events much less increase in complexity to anything even similar to DNA. Evolution is 100% speculation, abiogenesis is ultimate speculation. There are no alternate theories of origins. Therefore incredible complexity of life requires design, engineering,, creation by intelligence.....no options, no choices. Dont bash those who expose the farce of evolution, they should. Regarding creation, science can only analyze the creation, reality. And that analysis proves supernatural origins.....

I know I'm being petty but your hair looks ridiculous. You change styles so much it's distracting and unprofessional.

holy shit that infinity argument is so bad...

And it is your contention that atheists don't do this? Because they do. Nothing says 'unqualified' like 'science communicator'.

it's all a grift ... a FRAUD, designed to trick and rob low-information people

And atheists who attempt to sound like intellectuals but also decide to sport emo skateboarder haircuts.

Wanna see how to add something to infinity?
There are infinitely many integers, denoted by Z. But 1.5 is not an integer. So, we can form the set: Z union {1.5} . And just like that, we added a new element to an already infinite set. It's not that hard.

Hi, this is my first visit to your channel. You have touched on what I consider to be a very important subject. I am often confounded as to why I come across people who claim to know something about a matter and then discover that they know little, or at least significantly less, than they would have me/us believe. I do prefer to view debates between those carrying opposing views rather than listen to an unopposed monologue. So, I would like to ask if you have considered posting something on the topic of what an atheist should strive toward, goals, expectations, duties, responsibilities, etc. I would be interested in seeing whether this would promote unity or division within adherents of the collective world view! Particularly interested to see a debate on the matter. Many thanks and very best wishes, AJ225

Dont like the Earth analogy. You will come to an end, you just need to remember where you started. Just because there is nothing preventing you from continuing beyond that end doesnt mean there isnt one if the goal was to walk around the Earth.

It’s always a laugh hearing John Lennox claim he has a reason to trust his own mind, as he says, in part because he believes his god is responsible for it. This from a man who has spent his working life in a collegial environment, checking everything his mind comes up with against what other human minds think. He doesn’t trust it.

Hilbert's hotel is simple as F! It's what is used to explain how one can use infinity in math in it's most basic form, and to give a better understanding to what it is in the first place, and where using it begins! Infinity is a concept more than we have anything we can claim to be infinite, other than human stupidity!😁

Frank is just a nasty dishonest prick! Watch how he treats very young collage kids if they ask a challenging question, or point out a flaw in his logic! He uses intimidation tactics, what a grand A-hole! I'd love to see some kid who is way ahead of an expectable understanding of philosophy, and the fortitude to just not let FrankTurass intimidate them, and rip into and shred him, and expose him for the con he is, right in front of his fans!!

a line wrapped around earth is infinite. time in the forwards direction is what craig (correctly) calls a potential infinite not an actual infinite because you never actually reach infinity

craig and malpass had a good discussion on this. the error malpass makes is pretending that time can go backwards forever. just like you can't count to infinity, this is nonsense too

also Stephen makes an egregious blunder by saying that the universe doesn't have a beginning from nothing. ok 👍. that's his opinion. but almost every scientist now agrees that it does have a beginning. so he is being pedantic about words

really the funny thing is that both atheists and Christians mince their eyes. Christians say it came from nothing but they actually think it came from god. atheists say it didn't come from nothing but their best knowledge actually does have it all from nothing how funny neither side can express their view

The guy you opened with, I forgot his name and I dont want to be reminded, but I remember him getting destroyed by Hitchens a few times when i discovered Hitchens about 10 years go.

Oh, that''s right, Frank. I hate him so...goddamned much. Obnoxious toolbag.

I like to ask religious types what skin color Adam and Eve had ... generally upsets them

Dude, you're hard to look at, worse hair ever.

The definition of "Infinite" is ' not defined '. That IS the definition.
Simple maths. X<3, Y=5, X>3, Y=6... What is Y when X=3? It has not been defined, it is infinite. It may be very, very big ( in any direction ) or very, very small ( again ) or it could equal 2, we don't know as it was not defined.

While you are attempting to pull religion to bits, your masters are busy worshipping Moloch in Bohemian Grove every year....but as Bill Clinton said "That's just for fun!"

Lying for Jesus, where the end justifies any means.

Rational Rules doesn't even know that he himself made countless mistakes in this video.

I’ve started reading more about philosophy and it’s amazing to me that many of the great philosophers of history were also expert mathematicians. I’ve been an atheist for quite some time, but the discussions here and on Alex O’Conner’s channel have really sparked my interest in philosophy. Great job. Thank you.

"Here we are at the end. Can the line be infinite? No because infinites have no end" - So Frank Turek doesn't believe in tomorrow? He thinks we're at the end of time?

What's with the hair? 😭😭

Always suggesting that without god Nazi's did nothing wrong. But with god what did they do wrong? Genocide is not wrong according to the bible in fact god orders it many times. However Humanity as a whole (or a powerful alliance) can decide that there exists things called crimes against humanity that must never be allowed and anyone who did these things requires punishment. No guidance from god needed to decide this especially as god would be guilty for the things listed in the bible. Just humans judging other humans. The prosecution at Nuremberg did not use religious texts as the source for crimes needing prosecution. They never seem to understand human justice systems can exist without religious guidance.
Always thought hey also had problems with infinity seems I was right.

Here is your like and comment. I'll try another one of your videos out, but after the very first sentence of this video (dumbfuck pastor's), I simply cannot allow anymore of my brain cells to die.

"You can't add something to an infinity"
Like, bro, you can add infinity to an infinity… Dude's never heard of Hilbert's Infinite Hotel

I will believe frankie when he can tell me what the last 4 digits of pi are.

Real smart people don’t usually have any need to preach to the masses. On the other hand these not so smart ideologists have an agenda and they speak charismaticly and people believe. Regular people love simple answers. No matter that it’s not true.

I love that he says “we’re at the end” as though tomorrow will never come.

What scares me is how casually he says, "If atheism is true, then hitler was not wrong." I'm actually afraid of what might happen if he de-converted, it's almost as if he is giving us a warning - "Back off atheism, you won't like us if we don't have our fantasy."

A philosopher, a philosopher and a science communicator? How about a philosopher, a physicist and a science communicator to be the audience proxy.

One other thing he does that drives me nuts is uses “infinite” as a noun. It’s an adjective. Infinity is a noun. The exception is to discuss The Infinite which is usually a term for the Universe or a deity, but even then it’s more common to follow it with those nouns rendering it an adjective

I’m not on board with Turek’s argument, but this response doesn’t seem to have critiqued itself at all before being posted on the internet.

1. The diameter of the earth and the length of the walk are totally distinct from each other. The point being made isn’t relevant. If you wanted to be that technical then you can speak to the various finitude of this: you’re not going to be able to walk the entire earth infinitely, you’re not going to even be able to walk at certain points. I know those points are irrelevant, they’re simply as irrelevant as the point being made in response to Turek are. Besides if “infinite comes in different sizes” - if infinite has a size at all, it’s not infinite, it’s measured, defined and finite.
2. The point that people speaking of an infinite past aren’t saying that there’s a starting point in “negative infinite” but that there’s no starting point at all are kind of just missing the point, because what they’re saying is precisely the problem. Let’s just use days for this example. Are we speaking about days in the past that actually existed, or hypothetical days? Because if you go with this “no starting point” stance you begin to speak about hypothetical days. Let me explain: if we speak of yesterday, there’ll be a day before that, and a day before that, and so on and so on. But if there was no actual first day, then at some point we will reach a day that actually never had a day before that. Think about the Grim Reaper Paradox. If there was no “first day”, then we run into this problem: say that if x is not the first day, then the day before that is the first day. If there is no day before x, then the day before x obviously does not actually exist and is merely a hypothetical day. Assuming time does work completely linearly, and progressively adds “one day” each time a day passes, then the fact we’re at today does indicate we are counting up from negatively counted days that either actually exist or become hypothetical. If there is ever a hypothetical day, then the day after the hypothetical day becomes the first day by default. If there are never hypothetical days, then (again, with the assumptions of positively increasing and linear time) we do run into the problem of a negative infinite. If ever we run into “hypothetical days”, then there was no “day before”, and so we no longer have a “negative infinite”.

The problem isn’t being diagnosed correctly in this video. I don’t know if Malpass made other more relevant arguments but they certainly weren’t present in this video. Again I have no stake in this argument by Turek, I just think that everyone should be deciding whether they have found flaws for themselves. My problem isn’t really with the concept of an eternal past, I just don’t think these responses are really it.

Killer comb over.

Same with MAGA -people. Ignorance is strong with those folks.

I agree with you but same can be said about gender ideology.

steven i think he's using an islamic arabic argument called "the occurrence of what cannot be occurred" it's a stupid argument with alot of assumptions in it, apologists usually use it as an argument against infinite regress

It's crazy to me how I as an atheist hear "Nazis did nothing wrong if there is no god" and immediately recoil in disgust, but from the perspective of a Christian apologetic, it's a completely logical and normal statement to make.

I love your channel mate. Thank you