Logan Paul and Cliff: Discussing Evidence for Christianity

Cliff challenges Logan to recognize the historical evidence supporting Christianity amidst their deep conversation on faith and morality.

### The Debate on Christianity: Evidence, Free Will, and Moral Responsibility
* 🤔 In a rare conversation, Logan Paul engages Cliff on the evidence for Christianity, leading to a deep discussion about the **nature of the soul and free will**, questioning whether one's life path is **predetermined**.
* 🆓 Cliff emphasizes that **free will is essential**, arguing that humans are not bound by a predetermined script, but rather make choices that **hold them accountable for their actions**.
* ⚖ The discussion shifts to the concept of justice, where Cliff asserts that Christ's death on the cross was a **necessary act of justice**, not merely an expression of love, highlighting that "**the penalty for human evil must be paid**."
* 💔 Logan expresses discomfort with the **exclusivity of salvation** in Christianity, questioning the fate of those with **sincere faith in other religions** and the **moral implications** of certain Christian doctrines.
* 📜 Cliff counters by discussing the **importance of the object of faith** and the **reliability of historical evidence for Jesus**, referencing the **numerous manuscripts** that support the New Testament's **authenticity**.
* 🔍 He acknowledges the existence of scribal errors but asserts that they do not compromise **core Christian doctrines**, emphasizing that the Bible's **historical reliability is well-supported**.
* 💡 The conversation also touches on the relationship between science and faith, with Cliff arguing that while science can explain processes, it cannot address **moral and ethical questions**, which are essential to **understanding human experience**.
* 📖 Finally, Cliff encourages further exploration of the evidence for Christianity, including historical sources that affirm the **reality of Jesus and the claims of his resurrection**, suggesting that **genuine investigation can lead to a deeper understanding of faith**.

you're about to witness a rare instance where Logan Paul and Cliff nect are in the same room, and Logan Paul takes this opportunity to really press Cliff on the evidence for Christianity, which leads to a rather interesting conversation about the evidence for Jesus. I'm going to let that video play out, and then I'm going to give my thoughts in the back end. Let's get into it. Okay, so the soul is the person that can be shaped by human experience. So, like, if you had, if you were to run a simulation of, like, Cliff, 100 simulations of the life of Cliff in some future distant world, do you become a pastor in all of those simulations? Is every one of those simulations, is Cliff a good guy, especially if the human experience that each Cliff experiences or goes through is different? Um, and then does your soul become a different thing? I don't think so because that smacks of determinism. It's in the stars. It's written in the stars. You have to do this. You have to go

down this path. No, no. When I fall down a set of stairs, I don't pick myself up at the bottom and say, Phew, glad that's over. No, I pick myself up at the bottom and say, Idiot, pick up your feet. Don't stumble down the stairs. It's really painful. In words, it's not been predetermined. That's this whole issue of Free Will. That's why I hold you responsible, and you hold me responsible for what I do, for what I say, because you know I don't have to do it. It's not a script exactly. It's not a script. This whole idea that God writes on a piece of paper which you and I are going to do tomorrow, locks in in a bank vault, and then you and I have to do what's written on the paper. That's determinism. That's fatalism. No, no, no, no, no. We're human beings created in the image of God, which means God partially limits His power by giving us a free will, and then we choose what we do. But God does hold us.

responsible, and that's why I love what you pointed out about the importance of responsibility. But you know, Logan, you and Jesus are, I think, a little closer than you might realize when you talk about justice. That's G to get clipped up, man. Okay, that was justice. It's going everywhere. The reason is, the reason is, why did Christ die on a cross? He didn't die on a cross because God is lovey-dovey. He died on a cross because God is just. And because God is just, the penalty for evil is death and hell. And Christ went to the cross, paid that penalty. Why? 'Cause God's lovey-dovey? No, because God is just. The penalty for human evil must be paid. Oh, that's not cool. That's not cool. Oh, that's very cool. I understand your inexpectant father, little baby coming into the world, baby. Your mom was bragging to me about it, baby girl. Sounds good. All right, Logan, now let's talk theoretically, okay? Let's say somebody murders that little baby. God damn it.

cliff a chance to anything make one video good response horrific I wasn't expecting this resp that's the hook sorry Grandma you're sorry ma Grandma she didn't make it damn dude okay I love your response why because you know very well that if the police or the judge lets that dud off scott free your baby does not matter now what's f fasinating is the way so many secular people will say well God's just love so there's going to be no judgment really so God doesn't judge the guy who murders my child that's a clear statement on God's part your child Cliff does not matter to me therefore I will not judge the guy who murdered your kid well let's get one thing straight God doesn't care about your kid your kid does not matter to God and that's a lie Jesus said no God does care about every single one of us which is why when we hurt each other when we each other when we cut each other off at the knees God will judge us for that because he loves

us because we matter to him. Does that make any sense? It totally makes sense. I think I guess what I am looking for, what I have always struggled with, is like the proof per se. Why Christianity? There's so many denominations out there, and to be able to like put your foot down on one, especially when they all have such positive teachings for the most part, it's just so hard for me. I just don't know if I'm willing to make that assertion just yet. First of all, you're right. I can't prove God. But Logan, I think you've got God bearing down hard on you through your mom. I think it's real clear that your mom loves you. That trauma, she holding a cross. Can you at least get a thumbs up or something? She holds up the cross. She like can't me, can't discuss the love of Logan. Here's AOSS. I do love Jesus. I don't think that your mom's love for you is simply a chemical reaction. I think your mom has made a decision over your entire life to

care for you to provide for you to protect you to sacrifice for you. That is far beyond an animal instinct. That is a free decision your precious mother has made to really love you, to really care for you. Love, the experience of love, points us to reality, including some type of God. Okay, then the next question is, Yeah, but who is this God? And that's where Jesus Christ, Muhammad, Confucius, Buddha, all the avatars of Hinduism come in, all claiming to be revealing God accurately. But the historical evidence is Jesus lived a sinless life. He never sinned once. In John chapter 8, he could look into the faces of his enemies and say, Which one of you can prove me guilty of sin? And his enemies were silent. Secondly, he taught amazing ethical teachings that I think all of us respect highly. The Sermon on the Mount is obviously ethical genius, all right, profound ethical genius. The Sermon on the Mount, Matthew chapters 5, 6, and 7. So his lifestyle, his ethical teachings demand respect. Thirdly, you

watch him die at the moment of his most excruciating pain and agony, nailed to a wooden cross beam. Instead of cursing his enemies the way I would have, he prays, Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do. Well, my respect for him skyrockets. But fourthly and most importantly, three days after he dies, he physically, bodily rises from the dead. And over a period of 40 days, he appears to over 500 people who see him at different times, different places, risen from the dead. Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15, I have a question. M, how do you know that you know that in the same way that you know that George Washington was the first president of the United States, that you know that Adolf Hitler really committed the atrocities he did? It's called historical knowledge. But those recent events, those events you just cited, happened much more recently and are much more well documented than potentially 2,000 years of lost history. Bingo, correct. But the great news is in the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and

John, we have a very, very reliable historical record based on over 5,800 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 manuscripts in the Latin Vulgate, and about 9,800 in Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Gothic, and Slavic. Cliff is right; we have an abundance of manuscript evidence. Scholars describe it as an embarrassment of riches of the evidence for the New Testament. But there are a lot of manuscript copies that have scribal errors, and it makes some people question the Bible's reliability. For example, there are scribal errors where there's missing punctuation, misspellings, maybe even whole sentences that are removed. And now, some people believe that the Bible's been corrupted through being translated and translated and translated, going from English to Chinese to Italian to Mandarin. But that's not quite how it works. You go from the original Greek to Chinese, the original Greek to English. So, that's not how it happens. As for the scribal errors, scholars have identified and corrected nearly all of them, and none of them affect any core Christian

doctrines like Jesus dying on the cross for our sins. Even atheist New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman admits this fact. So that means that the doubts about the Bible's historical reliability are unfounded if you've done your research. And now this doesn't necessarily prove that the eyewitness accounts laid out in the Bible are true, but it does mean that they are historically reliable in the same way that we trust a history textbook. Now in light of the evidence that Cliff just presented here, Logan Paul is going to respond with some of his own emotional objections to Christianity, and let's see how Cliff responds to that. Let's get back into it. I'm just I'll be honest here. I don't love the sort of like exclusive club feeling. Oh, you can get into heaven if you believe in Jesus, but everyone else is doomed. I don't I don't I don't love that, right? Because there are people who have the same amount of faith in their religion as you guys do in yours, who are putting their time

effort, energy, investing their whole lives into believing in a deity, and like according to you guys, you know they won't end up in a place uh that is Paradise even though they're leading a great life and have a great moral compass. Um, even, even just like even like you know the whole like gay marriage thing like like correct me if I'm wrong right but according to Christianity like gay marriage marage isn't allowed to be a thing. And I I know there's a lot of circumstances of um like a a gay child being uh resented and even alienated from their family because they have super religious parents. And I and I hear those stories and like I hurt I hurt for those people because a decision is being made based on um a a set of beliefs that that people are so bound to but then they throw the love aside for someone in their family and and and that that kind of bothers me. Sure, remember Logan, the legitimacy of faith is not determined by Passion if you're passionate about thin.

ice on a lake. I really believe this thin ice is going to hold me up. That doesn't matter. Yeah, you walk out on that thin ice, you're going through. Sir, y. So, the legitimacy of faith is determined by the trustworthiness of the object of your faith. If it's thick ice and you believe just a little and you step out on that ice, it's going to hold you up, and you know that. If you trust a criminal, he's going to rip you off. If you trust a reliable person, that's good. Now, here's where it really gets tricky. Let's be a skeptic, right? Let's doubt, okay? Let's start writing here in this room. I doubt you, and I doubt you. I doubt me too, all right? I think I doubt him. Now, there's nothing wrong with doubt. I doubt myself enough for all of us, exactly, okay? But, but, but I can push that too far. I can get to the point where I say, in spite of the evidence that you two guys are reliable, I'm not going to

trust you. I'm going to be a hyper-skeptic. Skepticism is good, but when it turns into hyper-skepticism, watch out. Why is it so dangerous? Yeah, why? Because I'll never have the privilege of being your friend if I'm always skeptical about you. If I'm always doubting you, I will miss my friendship with both you and you and him. That's but that's an extreme, you know. You like hyper-hyper skepticism. I don't think I don't know if it's as extreme as you think. This is the person I was describing before. This I'm so smart because I question everything. The issue with these people is you provide absolute proof that their questioning is leading them down the wrong path, and they're still unwilling to accept that as a proof point. Hyper-skepticism, sure, but like coming more prevalent just to question and doubt and and and not accept everything you see at face value as truth. I don't think I don't think Jesus said you better do that. Oh, he did. He said, Beware.

of false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing; inwardly, they are ferocious wolves, and they will eat your life. Okay, how can I subscribe to a faith when there are such obvious contradictions within the Codex itself that make it really, really hard for me to say that makes sense? Because if you live a life based purely on logic, I to Cliff's Point earlier. How Could You Believe in Friendship, love, any of these things that have no natural explanation, there's no logical explanation as to why you feel they are love. Okay, then why does an animal feel love? Why when a I don't know, you tell me what's the logical explanation for the feeling of love. Wait, so next time you see your wife, are you just going to say, Hey, this is my oxytocin going off right now? We really don't have that. Is what he no, that is what no, no, no. I love her. I love her. But what is love then if it's, you know, from an atheist, if there's no God?

then it's just the oxytocin neurochemicals, clutch chemicals. At this point in humanity, I am unable to give you a scientific explanation. Question: if in 50 years the brain could be mapped out and you can say exactly why you feel what you feel, does the belief or the faith in Jesus go down? Because I think what's happening right now is people are getting turned on to the possible idea of more explanations for stuff and thus aren't turning to faith as frequently. I think, all right, but I think you've raised an issue consistently now, Logan, that I'd like to address, which is science and faith in God, science and ethics, science and morality. All right, science can prove that if I put strychnine in Grandma's tea, she will die. Science could never answer the question, in light of the fact that Grandma's loaded big stock portfolio, why should I not put strychnine in her tea, killer, in order to get the inheritance? Science can't answer that. That's an ethical question. Science is concerned with the process, the

physical process, and that's wonderful; it's beautiful, but it cannot address the question: should I put strict n in Grandma's tea to get the inheritance? That's an ethical moral question; it has nothing to do with science, see? So, that's why you've got to realize there is truth scientifically, very important, but there's also truth ethically, and there's also truth regarding God. And your good buddy has just talked about his experience, which is not a scientific thing, but it's his personal experience that took him out of drug addiction, right? So, but it's a different type of knowledge, totally makes sense, sense because I can't explain why I feel certain things in the way I feel good. And if I were to seek explanation like I do with some things that maybe can be described with science, perhaps faith is a good answer to that. It's crazy to see that at one point Logan Paul was mocking God in the past, but it seems like he's kind of turning over a new leaf, and he's

genuinely investigating the claims of Christianity, and in this investigation, I feel like Cliff could have done a better job at explaining to Logan why hyper-skepticism is problematic. Because he touched on that he could miss out on good experiences with Logan, maybe friendship, but he didn't address that this hyper-skepticism is also illogical and self-defeating. Overly skeptical individuals will often claim that there is no objective truth or that all truth is relative, but both of these statements are self-defeating. The first statement claims to be true while denying the existence of truth, and the second one claims to be objective while denying objectivity, so they both result in contradictions. If the skeptics acknowledge this, then they'd likely admit that truth does exist but that it's just impossible for us to find out what it is. But again, this is another self-defeating statement because it asserts that it's true that we cannot know the truth, which is again contradictory. And if the skeptic is intellectually honest, then they'd have

to accept that just because they don't know something doesn't mean that we can't know something is true. And so, that raises the question: what can we know to be true about religious truth claims? Well, to start, I think a great place to look at is the extra-biblical sources that come supporting the Bible. There are 11 that we know of that are pretty prominent. There's the historian Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, Seutonius, the Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Lucian, Celsus, Phallus, The Dead Sea Scrolls, and James the Just. And they all testify to the fact that Jesus was a real historical person and that he really did die on the cross and suffered under Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, in either 30 or 33 AD. And his disciples believed that Jesus did rise from the dead and appeared to them postmortem. And most of them went on to suffer and die for what they claimed to have saw. And human psychology says that people aren't willing to die for something that they

know to be a lie, and we can historically verify the disciples' martyrdom and dying for this fact from the writings of the early church fathers like Tertullian, Polycarp, and Origen of Alexandria, and other ancient historians like I mentioned, Josephus and Eusebius. And now, if we want to investigate this further, I recommend checking out the video on screen right about here. It's Dr. Gary Habermas giving his minimal facts argument for the resurrection of Jesus that historians are not able to deny and led a generation of scholars to come to Christ from critically acclaimed academia. So, if you want to see more evidence, I highly recommend checking out that video. That being said, have a great day, y'all. Bye-bye.

Logan Paul Challenges Cliffe About God (Brilliant Answer!)

Jaiden Forrest

Logan Paul and Cliff's Conversation on Christianity

Logan Paul and Cliff engage in a discussion about the evidence for Christianity and the concept of free will.

Cliff argues against determinism, emphasizing that human experiences shape the soul and that individuals are responsible for their actions.

The conversation also touches on the justice of God and the purpose of Jesus' death on the cross, highlighting the importance of paying the penalty for human evil.

The Importance of God's Judgment and Jesus' Role

God's love is often questioned in the face of injustice, but His judgment is a reflection of His care for each individual.

The speaker emphasizes the significance of a mother's love as a powerful example of God's presence and decision to care for us.

Jesus' sinless life, ethical teachings, and historical evidence provide a strong foundation for His claim to reveal God accurately.

The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

The speaker is moved by Jesus' response to his crucifixion and is impressed by his resurrection, which is documented by over 500 witnesses.

The New Testament has a vast amount of manuscript evidence, with scholars describing it as an "embarrassment of riches.

" While there are scribal errors in the manuscripts, scholars have corrected nearly all of them, and these errors do not affect core Christian doctrines.

Many people invest their lives in faith, yet struggle with the consequences of strict beliefs, such as alienation in the case of LGBTQ+ individuals.

The legitimacy of faith is determined by the trustworthiness of its object, not by passion alone.

While skepticism is healthy, hyper-skepticism can hinder meaningful relationships and prevent acceptance of evidence.

The speaker struggles with the contradictions in religious texts and the logical explanations for emotions like love.

They question whether a scientific understanding of emotions would diminish faith in God.

The discussion highlights the difference between scientific truth and ethical/moral truth, suggesting that faith may provide answers to questions that science cannot.

The Problem with Hyper-Skepticism and the Evidence for Christianity

Hyper-skepticism is illogical and self-defeating, as it contradicts the existence of objective truth.

The extra-biblical sources provide strong evidence for the historical existence of Jesus, his crucifixion, and the belief of his disciples in his resurrection.

The martyrdom of the disciples, along with the writings of early church fathers and historians, supports the claim that they were willing to die for their belief in Jesus' resurrection.