Answering an Atheist's Four Weird Questions | Response to Genetically Modified Skeptic

To engage some, to equip some. PORA is an apologetics-based show that reaches out to believers and unbelievers to discuss and debate the big questions. We exist to engage not only, unbelievers but believers of various faiths and worldviews. We also aim to equip believers with sound arguments that demonstrate the truth of Christianity.

At the end of the day, you choose!

Dr. Stephen Boyce joins Dave and Dave to answer Genetically Modified Skeptic's four questions that he says might make you an atheist.

Original video:

Recommended resources answering objections to Christianity:

#Geneticallymodifiedskeptic #apologetics #theism

[BraxtonHunter]

This was awesome! So clear, and direct.

[username]

1:27 I'm going to save your statement about questions and play it to every Theist who thinks the fact that I don't know how the universe came into existence, is somehow prove of God.

[kaodi]

Regarding first question, genetically modified answers is the most sensible, an almighty should talk to us directly (as per Person) gave his orders, the Medium who interpreted are a big problem, anyone sin is inherently their sin

[dhill]

r u really sayin yr omnipotent god cant devise an unambiguous mode of comm? yr claim that 'all forms of comm r open to interpretation seems tosay ths. id hammer that such a crobar would infringe on frewill.

[NotCapitalist]

- 6:24 All *human* communication is subject to interpretation which can be flawed, because we don't have perfect knowledge of how our words will be interpreted. A tri-omni God, however, is not so limited. A tri-omni God could communicate directly to each and every person in such a way that they would understand the exact message. God knows the exact way to communicate it to you, and has the power to communicate it to you in that way. The only way out of this is if you assert that there was, in fact, NO way possible for the message to be communicated to you...in which case it seems pretty awful that you'll be held accountable for not understanding a message that it was never possible for you to understand in the first place.
- 11:03 Verbal teaching will die out...unless the teacher is an immortal all powerful all knowing being. Too bad you don't have any of those!
Seriously, you keep talking about how God needed the books so his words would last after the prophets, like God is running some cosmic Twitter account and can only speak a set # of words per epoch or something.
He's god, man, he can keep talking if he wants to!
- 28:00 *eye roll* YoU hAvE tO sTeAl FrOm My WoRlD vIeW tO hAvE MoRaLiTy lol
- 31:45 I said the same thing about Jesus' sacrifice wiping away the whole evil problem when I was a Christian, but this is how it sounds like from the other side:
God: "Let me in, I need to protect you!"
Us: "From what?"
God: "FROM WHAT I'LL DO TO YOU IF YOU DON'T LET ME IN!"
Or, if you prefer mobsters: "Nice soul you have there. Sure would be a shame if something...happened to it."

[DrWolf]

27:55
Assuming that your worldview and god is the only way to reach morality discredits the whole argument. There is plenty of literature out there about this topic where no god is needed. I would recommend Kant and especially the "Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten" where he displays the Kategorischer Imperativ (not sure about the english names). However, my point is that a loot of your arguments get discredited in my opinon, because this claim for the origin of morality shows, that you do not considering that your wrong.
When I find a Philosophical or political topic, that interrests me, i always try to understand both sides (thats why i am watching this video), because in my opinion you shold always assume, that the other person has information, that you dont. And i just cant find you doing that with the video that you talk about.

About Morality....
You propose following argumentation:
1. Premise: Morality exists
2. Premise: Someone must have created Morals
3. Conclusion: God crested morals

Here it becomes obvious, that your 2. Premise ist designed to lead to a spezific conclusion (I would recommend Pfister "Werkzeuge des Philosophierens"). But if you change the Premise you can create Conclusions thar are direktly contradictory to yours. Therefor your argument is valid, but not sound/cogent (Stichhaltig).

[JeffreyBoser]

The whole 'logically possible' is very modern, and NOT biblical. It also places logic above god in the power heirarchy.