LIVE from Arizona State University (Tempe, AZ) - IDHEFTBAA

The TRUTH RISING CrossExamined Fall 2024 College Tour is on a mission to save college campuses across the country from the woke mob mentality. Does TRUTH exist? Does GOD exist? Are MIRACLES possible? Is the NEW TESTAMENT True? Find out how the scientific, archeological, and historical evidence points to YES with Dr. Frank Turek streaming LIVE from Arizona State University.

0:00 - Welcome Screen
11:08 - Intro
20:20 - Does Truth Exist?
40:20 - Does God exist?
54:54 - Are miracles possible?
1:05:43 - Is the New Testament true?
1:39:06 - Just because God exists, does that mean that Christianity is truer than other religions?
1:42:26 - How do you maintain your faith when it's hard?
1:48:38 - Is the battle for evangelical Christianity over since research shows most professing Christians don't have a biblical worldview?
1:50:13 - Should Christians keep the Sabbath?
1:52:40 - Does Frank affirm Sola Scriptura?
2:03:14 - Can Christians be demon possessed?
2:05:43 - Is Bart Ehrman right about textual criticism? Are the NT documents trustworthy?
2:10:48 - How do you convince a deist that God is relational?
2:15:35 - Why does God create peace and evil? Isn't that a contradiction?
2:18:05 - Why didn't we receive immediate restoration when Jesus was crucified?
2:20:35 - If God has a plan for all, would things like abortion be in His plan? And why does God create people who will suffer?

[brosebrose]

May Jesus Christ the God guide all Muslims, Buddhist, Hindu, Agnostic and Atheist to Christianity.

[neo-dy]

The Truth is out there...now, go find it for the Truth shall set you FREE!!!

[thegreatnated]

Thanks for coming out to ASU Frank, it was a privilege to hear you speak.

[ZukileSanqela-qkfx]

That's a true martyrdom sacrifice for the truth God is love

[brettwilson]

Makes me wish i still lived in south Phoenix, this would have been 15 minutes from my house

[cedarpoplar]

Pastor Voddie does take the subject much deeper as far as theology. These guys are just guys speaking 🔊. Sooner or later someone speaking truth will alwzys come. Listen and pay very close attention. It is worth it

[FatPuppyPublishing]

I was so bummed I missed this. Couldn't make the schedule work.

[neo-dy]

Christianity Rocks and Rolls....just like the stone that the Angels rolled away from Christs tomb...

[Simple.BibleTruth]

To show that Jesus is alive, we only need to look at 5 historical facts:
• #1 - A Death By Crucifixion
• #2 - Ladies find the tomb empty
• #3 - Independent appearances of Jesus alive after death.
• #4 - Violence endured by the apostles
• #5 - Enemies of Christ converted
• These 5 facts are NOT controversial.
Historians agree!

Jesus is alive! (A.L.I.V.E.)

[David-nxvm]

I find it amusing (and Ironic) that the LDS gentlemen challenged the infallibility of the Bible, while there is absolutely no historical or archeological evidence for any of the events described in the Book of Mormon. Kudos to Dr. Turek for showing so much patience and grace during these Q&A sessions.

[JadDragon]

BTW Christianity is true.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑

[Disciple]

Around 1:55 The argument from the Mormon is "what makes the scriptures infallible?" Jesus gives an explanation in John 16:13 "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things are to come." It is the Spirit that empowered the authors to write the 66 books of the bible as the word of God. But his same argument applies to the book of Mormon. In other words, he is contradicting his own argument.

[neo-dy]

And then there's Judas who saw the resurrected Christ and then hung himself...

[RBoas]

1. Are you suggesting that throughout history, the definitions posited by the greatest philosophical minds are not good enough?
2. Is observation the only method reliable enough to affirm a doxastic attitude towards a proposition?
3. This argument is common amongst atheists. Sorry, but this is dismissive and disingenuous. The reason is if someone were to say “I have observed God” you would just respond “prove it.” I’ll prove my point, just like gravity, I have observed the effects of God. Since you undoubtably believe in gravity by its effects, you can take my word that I have equal evidence for God.
4. You should combine 3 & 4
5. Instead of taking the passive approach of just declaring that you hold some sort of standard that has yet to be met. Tell us what arguments you reject and why. Again, this is a common atheist approach. You are taking a pious stance that says “I have researched and rejected all evidence. Please provide more.” Well, sorry but you don’t get off the hook that easy. Please validate YOU have done your homework and explain what you reject and why.
6. Again, just combine this with #5 – see my answer to #5
7. This is just fancy talk for “I like my explanation better than yours” – why should anyone have to meet your standard when you don’t even give the criteria for what would be acceptable? This statement is just a bloviated rewording of your previous statements which can be summed up, “I don’t like the evidence.” Which you are asking your audience to presuppose you have exhaustively researched all the evidence. So, go back to my answer to #5.
8. Science does the same thing. Plus, deductive arguments are not “God of the gaps”. You’re conflating them.
9. Are you a naturalist?
10. I’ve never lived in a world without cars. Are you actually suggesting that your belief in God hinges on you seeing something created ex nihilo?
11. All claims that there is no God have ample evidence to satisfy me. There, now we both have shared an opinion.
You state these are 11 “facts” when in fact they are 11 dismissive statements that in no way show you are seriously considering the evidence for God. I find them boring, pious, and uninteresting. This is the type of attitude that allows you to sleep at night but does nothing to advance dialog. You are in fact intellectually lazy individual who has only built for yourself a epistemic criteria that allows you to dismiss everything. I call you out as a grifter who is just trying to show off to theists in the comment section. I’m not impressed. Do better.

[Theo_Skeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My position is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*

And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.

1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._

ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.

I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*

I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[gi]

To my brothers and sister @Chloe Martel @John @O Really? @FestushlHagen @Larzman @JadDragon
I don't wanna be a Sadducee, I don't wanna be a Sadducee cuz there so sad 😭 you see. I just want to be a Sheep. I don't wanna be a Pharisee, I don't wanna be a Pharisee, I just wanna be a sheep. I don't want to be a hypocrite I don't want to be a hypocrite cuz there not hip with it, I just want to be a sheep...😂🤣😅