Dr. Gavin Ortlund Vs Michael Granado: Is Life Meaningful From A Naturalistic Perspective? EP 221

#Debate #Christianity #Atheism #Apologetics
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPPORT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SOCIAL
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MERCHANDISE
_________________________________________________
GET IN TOUCH

[MichaelGranado]

Thanks again for having me on Marlon. It was a wonderful conversation! More than happy to join you all again in the future.

[coachmarc]

Great show. I enjoyed this discussion immensely. Both speakers were articulate and respectful. Thanks to both of them.

[Psychoveliatonet]

This was a wonderful debate done in good faith by both speakers. It was great to watch! Thank you kindly for doing this, all!

[northernlight]

Awesome debate and civil conduct. That is a win for all.

[marianhreads]

Thoughtful and civil discussion, really appreciated this. 👍

[TheFierySwordofEngland]

Without objective meaning, the concept of meaning means nothing.

[maximiusvernandi]

This debate got too Less clicks. Very enjoyable! Gavin had awesome Arguments!!! May God bless Him!🙏🏻✝️❤️

[Particularly_John_Gill]

Kind of disappointed that they did not have the same idea of “objective”. I assumed that the atheist would be arguing for an objective meaning in the way that Dr. Ortlund described. They were arguing different things unfortunately.

[georgemoncayo]

It takes a lot of faith to be an atheist. Stephen Hawking said "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." So, he thinks the law of gravity is nothing but actually that is something. Dr. John Lennox points out that that is self contradictory. Lennox says "If I say x creates y this presupposes the existence of x in the first place in order to bring y into existence. If I say x creates x, I presuppose the existence of x in order to account for the existence of x. To presuppose the existence of the universe, to account for it's existence is logically incoherent." It's much more easier to believe Genesis 1:1 than to believe that sci fi nonsense. So, some Atheists have to redefine nothing to make it something so something can come from nothing. Also the complexity of DNA is proof for intelligent design. "DNA is so compact that a one square inch chip of DNA could encode the information in over seven billion Bible's." - The new answers book 2 p. 70. Bill Gates said "DNA is more advanced than any software ever created." Here, the following are just some out of many scientists who are Biblical creationists, Dr. Jason Lisle has a PhD in astrophysics from the University of Colorado, Dr. Georgia Purdom holds a PhD in molecular genetics from The Ohio State University, Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson holds a PhD in cell and developmental biology from Harvard University, Bodie Hodge has a master’s degree in mechanical engineering from Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, Dr. Danny Faulkner holds an MS in Physics from Clemson University and an MA and PhD in Astronomy from Indiana University, Dr. Terry Mortenson holds a masters of divinity and a PhD in the history of geology. It's not that science is against the the Bible, the darkened mind interprets the evidences for it through a naturalistic presupposition that doesn't allow anything spiritual because God's word says it's because people love their sin and wanna suppress the truth Romans 1:18-32. Note, archaeology confirms the Bible, the Popular handbook of archaeology and the Bible" Page 181 says "Today nearly 100 Biblical figures, dozens of Biblical cities, over 60 historical details in the Gospel of John and 80 historical details in the book of Acts, among other things, have been confirmed as historical through archaeological and historical research. Moreover, the Israeli Antiquities Authority has over 100, 000 artifacts [discovered in Israel since 1948] available on their data base." Also it's strange when Christians bring up the fine tuning argument which there is evidence, atheists have to make up the multi verse theory which there is no evidence, so they make up a theory with no evidence to try and refute a scientific fact of fine tuning, so at that point its the atheist who's going by blind faith. Some atheists say they don't believe in anything immaterial but the laws of logic are immaterial and it exists.

[KenAmmi-Shalom]

From a naturalistic perspective life is only "meaningful" if by that word we mean that accidentally existing apes subjectively emote that life is so: on the level of a "My Dear Diary, today I feel..." entry or telling us which ice-cream flavor they say is best.