Alex O'Connor ranks up there as one of my favorite interviewers. He asks excellent questions; he gives ample time to respond; he listens carefully to the responses an asks insightful follow-up questions. And then his willingness to acknowledge and appreciate a good argument even when he disagrees--that's just profoundly rare. Thanks again, Dr. Craig, for an encouraging and rigorous defense of the faith. And thanks Alex for being a facilitator and exemplar of good dialogue.
@@derekstallwood3673 And you likely care more about self-affirmation than you do your lord, and that's what enabled you to colonize the world, with your lord being silent and worse when it mattered
@derekstallwood3673 And you likely care more about self-affirmation than you do your lord, and that's what enabled you to colonize the world, with your lord being silent and worse when it mattered.
As a Christian, I always appreciate listening to Mr. O'Connor. He is open, fair, honest, firm, insightful, and respectful. I know a lot of Christians that could learn Christian conduct from him. Thank you, Alex.
But relgious conduct is already exists which is narcisstic 😂. If you want other conduct such as O'Connor's then you have to become an atheist or agnostic once again. Just the way you were born 😅
I 've listened to these two men on different occasions and are truly civil in their approach,even is opposing views. This conversation started with Dr. Craig giving condolences to the passing of the Queen,, without knowing of Alex's critique on the Monarchy he had done. In humility, Alex admitted his position and both men carried on. Wonderful to see and hear!!!
@@todds.6028how do you know? You don't. You know nothing (quite literally) of God. Although you oncé did but chose not to). We, the Christians, do. Most of us have been as ignorant as you before the penny dropped... You know nothing about this experience and yet still you pontificate and claim 'knowledge' and superiority (falsely) in your complete denial of your predicament. One day you will see.
@matthewstokes1608 That's the difference. I'm humble enough to admit that I don't know. You condescending arrogant Christians are just SO certain that your way is the right and true way, and anybody who believes anything different from you is wrong. In fact, you're SOOOOO astoundingly arrogant that you would presume to know what I, a complete stranger on the internet, know or don't know and choose or don't choose. Arrogant arrogant arrogant. So fucking arrogant.
Alex is a great interviewer. I wonder if any of his views have shifted or developed further either toward or away from theism in the two years since this interview.
I’m a believer in the living Lord am I tell you what , Alex is a very intellectual person, I pray he finds the lord in he’s journey of truth etc. God is very real people Happy thanksgiving to all.
I don't think God's love for the world equals Him "desperately" wanting anything from us at all. He magnificently accomplished something infinitely priceless on our behalf by an inexpressibly precious sacrifice. If we don't want to enjoy that benefit, His joy is not decreased even one iota. No desperation there. Desperation is your condition, not His.
Yes, also why don’t people take into account the results? The likelihood that some lie from 2000 years ago would be so pervasive in the world today is ridiculous. Even a true fact from antiquity would basically require God in order to accomplish what it has.
@@Izamen What has it accomplished? People believe stuff that is not true. Nothing new there. The bus your waiting to catch is over 2000 years late....
It’s interesting listening to O’Connor converse with someone like Dawkins, because it’s clear how much stronger of a grasp on the fundamental beliefs Christians hold that Alex has compared to Dawkins. He really tries to steel man the Christian argument as much as possible so it fosters good conversation because he appears as if he’s at least having the discussion in good faith. Something you don’t get from many popular atheists.
If only William Lane Craig argued with equally good faith.... Which he doesn't. The number of times it has been pointed out to him that Pascal's Wager is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED because it isn't a dichotomy to choose between the christian god or no god, and in fact you would have to take the SAME wager equally against ALL god claims.... But of course, he IGNORES this flaw and continues to base his entire foundation on the fallacy instead SO FUCKING DISHONEST
@enigmaticaljedi6808 he often argues the case for the existence of god, generally. Not even the Christian God, and this is where I see him use Pascal’s wager most. Even then, there are differences in the afterlife claims of different religions, and Pascal’s wager may be more appropriate to some than others. Either way, using an argument you believe is flawed isn’t the same as straw manning your opponents argument and simply calling them dumb or morally bankrupt. Alex doesn’t do that, Dawkins does.
Alex probably does have more specific theological knoweldge than does Dawkins, because of his field of study, but the way alex talks to theists is not the result of him finding their positions worthwhile, but rather being civil for the sake of geting to keep interviewing them and getting subs and views off of it, instead of burning bridges. Dawkins doesn't seem to cafre as much about that, since hes in the tail end of his career/life, and as such, doesn't mince words,. He doesn't get chrisitan beliefs wrong, he just doesn't ptu time into twisting them into somethingsomewhat palatable, when they aren't.
@@enigmaticaljedi6808 okay, for Pascal's wager, we've got to start somewhere, so should we begin with the mythological gods? How about we start with Zeus?
If he did, where is he? Why can’t we see him? He makes sure people know he resurrected with a physical body to then have a spiritual body. “Bruh , I saw him for real.” “Ok, show me!” “Well now he’s in a spiritual world we can’t see.” “Ok, thanks for nothing.”
Asking where he is presupposes that he is currently within the spatial dimension. However, if he has transcended the spatial dimension, then the question makes as much sense as asking what the number 3 tastes like. Likewise, vision of objects requires the emission of light. If he has transcended the physical universe, then, again, the question of why we can't see him makes no sense. So, why think that Jesus has not transcended the physical universe? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg I think airforex raised a legitimate question. So 2000 years ago Jesus rose and no one has seen him since. An honest court of law even if it was pro Christian could not rule in favor of a risen Jesus. The empty tomb testimonies have no consistency. And it was all written after non witness Paul decided the risen Christ was the cornerstone stone of the new religion. So there is just not enough fact for me to believe. The extra dimensional Jesus is a stretch for sure.
@@Austinite333plenty of people have seen him through the ages. I wouldn't be a Christian if God hadn't appeared to me, and subsequently, appeared a few other times after that, and I'm not alone on this. But I can't prove an experience, even if I can accurately recall it. But his appearances are MY proof, you'll have to get your own proof and starting with doubt isn't going to get you there. Guaranteed.
@ I have seen a few unexplainable things in my 70 years here so I will not ever criticize such an experience. Having said that are we sure what we see is what we think it is? In a sense this would be an inter dimensional experience and can we trust the source? Despite my statements I am not opposed someone’s personal beliefs but I have a problem with organized religion. I won’t go deeper. Thanks for the reply.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Jesus is supposed to be BODILY resurrected so where is his body gone? In space? The whole myth is absurd but of course in fiction EVERYTHING is possible!
@tcuisix Now, before praying the prayer of salvation, you must recognize that you are a sinner and that your sins have separated you from your maker. But, it isn't just that you have committed sins against a holy and righteous God, but that you were born into a body that craves sin. A nature which you have inherited from your first parents, who rebelled against God and wanted to go their own way. In doing so, a separation between God and man was established. But God who is rich in mercy entered into flesh like a hand filling a glove, lived a morally perfect life in thought word and deed, then went to be hanged on a rugged roman cross in your place as your representative, as your substitute, as your savior. God has given His stamp of approval (your receipt) by raising Jesus from the dead. Jesus then showed himself to around 500 people who later died proclaiming this gospel message. Now, if you believe this, then the next step is to confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, Roman's 10:9 and 10:10 in your Bible. Let me give you a short prayer. You may pray: Dear God, forgive my sins. I repent for going my own way. I believe you have provided a bridge back to yourself, the Lord Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus, I thank you for dying on account of all my sins, and I ask of you to come into my heart. Please be my Lord and personal Savior. Thank you for saving me today. Then say whatever else you want to say. I hope this helps. God bless you, brother. There is no need for elaborate articulation when talking to God. Speak to Him from your heart.
The Pharisee Paul was a relentless persecutor of the Jesus-Jews because they proclaimed the crucified Jesus to be the resurrected Jewish Messiah. Then Paul had a miraculous encounter with the Christ deity on the road to Damascus. Sometimes it takes a miraculous encounter to become a believer.
What if it was a 50/50 split between Christianity and Islam? Remember, Islam has Hell and Heaven too. Does the severity of a threat/carrot on a stick impact how true a claim is?
@seanpierce9386 2 religions can never reach a 50/50 because they contradict way too much. For everything to come down to 1 fact where both religions struggle to answer you need to have at least thought everything else can be true. Now I don't believe any 2 religions can have such a situation. But if it does happen then you will have to gamble. Now, when it comes to Islam and Christianity before I even consider heaven of Islam, the Qur'an says things that are just false, and denies the crucifixion of all things. The heaven of Islam is basically a place for six with many women designed for that and drunkeness I mean that's a bit different. No the severity of the opposite doesn't mean that the option you pick is true. However, we live as if lots of things are true especially in our relationships even if its not always true. In your relationship with anyone close, when they do something really hurtful, you assume that they were "well-meaning or didn't mean to hurt you" but this is sometimes not true. But even knowing that those we love are capable of hurting us like that, we still always assume the best. Therefore, adding a religion is just one more thing but with a great possibility. Provided that you do come to a 50/50 you need to read what they teach more and more what they teach, eventually 1 religion will drop. Christianity is Christ himself, study him. Islam is the whole Qur'an, study it greatly. Hope this helps 🙏
@@Masowe. Let’s say that there are two gods, Alice and Bob, and I asked them to tell me which one is real by flipping a coin. If it’s heads, Alice exists, but if it’s tails, Bob exists. I do not reveal the result to you. If you accept my claims, then there’s a precise 50/50 split between the positions, despite being mutually exclusive. As your primary objection to Islam, you use an argument from incredulity. See, if you were a Muslim and understood things in context, you would believe. And unless you are an inerrantist, the Bible itself contains false claims that conflict with scientific consensus. I don’t see the asymmetry here. But that’s not the point. My question is a hypothetical intended to point out a flaw in your earlier reasoning. And from above, you can’t claim that it’s an impossible predicament. You should study what Muslims actually believe, not just what the Qur’an says. From my understanding, there are many teachings passed down orally as part of the tradition. Also, you should know that I’m an ex-Christian who studied the Bible with the explicit purpose of reassuring my belief. As you can tell, that didn’t work out.
@seanpierce9386 1) what muslims believe is irrelevant because Islam can be true without Muslims believing it. And what do you mean by Muslims? They believe lots of different things that are more often than not mutually exclusive, the same is for all religions. When you take the shahada (Islamic way of converting) you agree that Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his messenger but definition you agree Muhammad's teachings came from God. This has nothing to do with what Muslims believe but what You believe. It's the equivalent of Jesus is my Lord and Saviour who died for me. Why would you pledge your life to something that someone believes? 2) Christianity is not the bible, as a matter of fact, you can be a Christian and reject some books in the Bible. This is why I said the Qur'an is Islam, Christ Jesus is Christianity. The same is not true for Islam, you can't reject the Qur'an and be a muslim but you can reject the bible or some things in the Bible and be a Christian. I believe in the Bible because i believe in Christ not the other way round and I have met new testament Christians. I have a high view of the bible and reading it daily gets me better and better not just intellectual but also practical in the 1timothy way of thoroughly equips me for ALL good works. For me, reading the bible does make me believe it more and more but I also have more questions than ever before. I have the classic experience by Professor Jonn Lennox as he put it, "Christianity for me was mind expanding ". Your coin flip didn't quite get me the point that you were making, I guess because coin flipping isn't my thing, I often go back to look for more ways to reach a specific conclusion.
@@Masowe.Jesus believed the old testament did he not? I suppose he didn't quote every bit of of it, but I'd say it could be safe to say that. So it may not be a good idea to 'reject' books in the bible and be a christian. Perhaps a better way to put it is 'having doubts' or 'don't understand it'. All of that is just fine by the way. Trust in someone, namely Jesus, doesn't require us to disassemble all of ancient biblical/cosmic history in order to be with him.
The original version of the oldest gospel of Mark did not originally include any appearances of Jesus after the women visited the tomb on Easter morning. Mark originally ended at verse 16:8, with no appearances of the risen Jesus - merely a statement that the young man told the women that Jesus' body was gone and they fled in terror, telling no one. The later Gospels made up the resurrection fiction and that was then also added to Mark from the Luke version 1,500 years later during the King James project to harmonize the Gospels.
39:00 Dr. Craig always brings up the probability of an event A given the prior probability of the existence of God. The problem is that since God can by definition do anything that is logically possible, the probability of event A is almost identically 100%. This "prior probability of God's existence" bit is just a reverse Uno card for any difficulty the apologist may encounter.
If God exists and has a choice whether event A takes place, then we still need to investigate the historical data and testimonies. Just because the possibility becomes 100%, that doesn’t do anything to the probability of the event, except to make it non-zero. Any of the other explanations could still be the correct one, it just no longer rules out a resurrection outright
Dr. Craig is no wide-eyed newbie. In 1973, entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler. In 1975, Craig began doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham in England, writing on the cosmological argument under the direction of John Hick. He was awarded a doctorate in 1977. Source: Wikipedia.
@@patrickwoods2213 I do not have a degree in philosophy but I know a lot about it. Attending university courses for credit is not necessary when books are readily available for self-study in many fields.
I don’t understand your comment? It’s a ridiculous question so there’s no answer that would be crushed. It’s a RHETORICAL QUESTION! Like asking: Is the earth really flat? Does the Sun really orbit Pluto? Did Van Halen really sound better with Sammy Hagar? So, now, you get it.
My cousin once told me who is an agnostic- with all the chaos, suffering of this world why not God appears in our time 20th century where most are develop and literate. In the bible its the same plead that rich man ask Abraham to bring back lazarus to death so his unbelieving brothers might believe. Alex here is something you must think about God as being God His character, and His ways…it also reflects the very first day when God entered our world as a baby in that manger- it didn’t happen in the form of a shout, parade, or any type of extravagant announcement but in a silent night through a very low and simple type of people in the society like Mary and Joseph. What im trying to point out here is that if God has to be God let Him do His own ways own term…truth is from that event down to our time people in all walks of life are becoming a believer in Christ. God knew He endowed each one of us faculties which we can use in finding Him as He promised in His words Hebrews 11:6. He rewards those who diligently seek Him. And all things points out to Jesus Christ His Hebrews 1:1 and John 5:39-44…lastly, if God will gave up to our terms theologically He will no longer be God so let God be God Alex. Im praying for you…
As Christians, we need to be honest about this. We cannot scientifically prove the resurrection or any of the miracles in the Scripture. It's entirely a matter of faith. We do have a very tight relation to secular history in the New Testament. But we cannot put miracles under a microscope and test them with scientific methodology.
We can not scientifically prove that Julius Caesar existed then. Because all we have is an evidence from his contemporaries and the culture influence they produced. That stands for a lot of people in history. Not even miracles, mere existence. As a Christian, do you agree to that?
We should insist that historical methodology can and does strongly show that the resurrection was a historical event. This is not a "matter of faith." It's a matter of fact. Moreover, science itself is permeated with philosophical assumptions which themselves cannot be scientifically proven: the reality of the external world, the reality of the past, the reliability of our senses, mathematical truths, moral truths, etc. Those who deny the strength of the historical evidence of the resurrection because of certain methodological presuppositions are often blind to the presuppositions of scientific methodology. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrgyou have zero chance of proving it took place. You could make an argument that it's a historical record that people "claimed" to have seen something but we know eye witness testimony is very flawed. Irrespective that it was recorded decades after the "fact" there are miracles today which absolutely are claimed to be seen by thousands which we accept are not miracles at all. It simply becomes a case of wishful thinking and it strikes me as odd that white Europeans, absolutely struck cold by immigration from the Middle East, could so easily seek to retain a religion that quite literally is rooted in one of those countries. Blame the Roman Empire if you will, but it would not have found a home in the UK without the lash and whip. 17:04
@@ReasonableFaithOrg There is certainly NOT a strong historical/scientific support for the notion of the resurrection. In fact, all of our historical and scientific evidence suggests that human beings cannot rise from the dead after multiple days. Also, the "philosophical assumptions which themselves cannot be scientifically proven" in science, are also required of EVERY kind of communicable and useful conceptualization of reality. That is such a different level of "faith" than believing in miracles, and it's a dishonest or at least poor move by apologists, to draw a false equivalence, here.
I don’t fear death, in fact I look forward to it, I do however, not crave pain or suffering, but having been lonely and losing my wife 10 years ago, I have little to look forward to except of course the wonderful presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, heaven and everything that awaits me including what would be my ex-wife. There was a time perhaps when I did fear death but since I have become a Christian have a peace. I’ve had a heart attack and probably secretly expecting to have another one that would be ideal, especially if I was asleep but hey, we are in God hands.
My Almighty God extend His protecting and healing hand over you, , give you comfort on the loss of your beloved wife, and bring full, complete and lasting health to you. Amen 🙏🙏🛐🛐✝✝❤❤
A true witness of Jesus Resurrection came all the way to South India, spread the Gospel, did miracles, healed the people, built churches and he gave his life for Jesus and that was none other than the doubting Thomas the disciple. No point in debating it!!!!
If he ends up believing in a god it will very likely be a deist version of god - not the biblical god. Alex seems too rational to believe in any religion.
The point Craig made about 1st century Jews being confronted with something that their own worldview was against is very apt. There is lots of historical evidence of the Jews projecting a Messiah figure and when it doesnt work , they later go at it again. That didnt happen with the Apostles or those early believers who were vastly Jewish. At least in the first 50-100 years.
Many atheists come across as angry and vindictive. Alex is remarkably calm in disposition, which alludes to good faith inquiry. May the Holy Spirit enlighten his heart with the gospel truth
Glad Doctor Craig shot down Sagan's 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' principle. Not only is it unsubstantiated it's utterly untrue. If you're assessing a claim with abductive reasoning (and since the Resurrection is a purported historical event abduction is really the only show in town) how extraordinary the evidence is or isn't is irrelevant. The only thing that maters is whether the Resurrection is a plausible explanation for the evidence and, if we want to be thorough, whether the Resurrection is the MOST plausible explanation for the evidence. It SORT OF applies to inductive reasoning. If you get a crazy result then you should repeat your experiment or observation and ideally get OTHER people to try to replicate the result or observation. If they can't, then something was probably wonky with your situation. But that's just how the Sir Bacon's methodology works normally. Extraordinary really doesn't factor into things.
It was almost unheard of ,that ,a person would be taken away within hours of their death ,the norm was ,when a person was dead on a cross ,the body was left for many weeks , 1 as a deterrent to others , 2 till a relative decided to claim the body ,which again was unusual ,as Roman’s would see that person as a possible sympathiser to the criminal ! The owner of the crypt ,must have been a very wealthy person to own such a crypt ! And also be under the close examination of Rome ,for their act ,so many non traditional or normal acts took place ,
@@patrickgelder-ph5ydIn the context of a bunch of men whom at the time thought the gods were responsible for all natural phenomena and wrote “Genesis” and all other “bibles” yes, it’s an impossibility. It’s Iron Age myth with a bit of philosophy and zero math, physics or chemistry…because society had not yet figured those things out. If you think that the 3 “bibles” were written or “inspired” by anything other than men then I can’t help you.
No. He's saying that we should not hold the evidence to a higher standard than we do for other events in history. Given the evidence and the tremendous import of the resurrection, one should be practically motivated to accept the resurrection as a historical event. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg No, completely wrong. Craig’s arguments have been long debunked. He only thinks of the resurrection as historical because of his faith. That’s all fine and well if you are a believer, but it doesn’t work for actual history.
He’s basically wanting people to accept the evidence that works for him. But can’t back up his claims without resorting to his faith, and that’s problematic.
@patrickwoods2213 That's how I interpreted it too, but thought there may be a deeper intellectual rationale that escaped my limited understanding. Thanks for the response.
@@christopheespic Sure, at 12:35 he asks "how many popsicles do you think Jesus would have eaten if he were alive" really, that question has no place in a formal interview
@@DartNoobo Jesus is on the throne of all those hearts which are consciously His and is reigning in and through us. All others He is overruling for His purposes. Solomon says the king's heart is in the hands of the LORD as rivers of water, and He turns it whithersoever He will.
Great conversation. Most atheist make it more difficult than how simple God made it. The evidence is clear but those that don’t want to accept it will continue to FIND a reason not to believe but will accept all other history as history with less historical evidence.
Not true at ALL. Completely false and complete nonsense. Any historian who’s honest accepts evidence on a case by case basis. The difference between the gospels, and regular history is that history books don’t make supernatural claims or divine interventions from gods. As an atheist, I look at all history the same - we should seek evidence through historical corroboration, archeology, and studying writings. While the Bible certainly has some of these things - the majority of the Bible is not backed by historical methods. There is no way one can prove supernatural claims. This is completely consistent when critiquing the Bible.
You just literally proved my point. There’s more concrete evidence for the Bible and the gospels than all the rest of history combined. God made it very simple for us but YOU are the one making it harder by finding any reason to reject God ignoring the historical evidence.
@@uno23437 You’re only making blanket assertions. Where is all of this awesome evidence for the Bible? You are up against many historians disagreeing with you.
Is Alex, listening, learning, and thinking though he may disagree or is he compiling arguments and seeking to formulate miss leading miss phrased questions or attempting to formulate rebuttals. Or is he like Peterson originally seeking truth we shall see in time..
I wonder what religions will exist in 5000 years, 10000, a million? Are we , as many think, towards the end of the human existence or, as I believe, right near the beginning? Will our beliefs be laughed at and dismissed as people laugh at Egyptian gods now? I am sure all of our ancestors thought they were advanced and had all the answers. Humility is key. We don't know anything. Nothing more than we ever did.
It is unlikely this world and its people will exist in 5000 years, if not from consequences of the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ, then as a result of mutual slaughter involving WMD's
Just another version of extraordinary things demand extraordinary proofs. It is like a board needing more information to make a decision and then not knowing what precisely they require when asked. A big shout out to AO'C for his promotion of civility!
Hi there. Extraordinary evidence to believe in the supernatural would be something that cannot be achieved in the natural world, like stopping time for everything except me. Or turning a slice of cake into flour, milk, sugar and eggs (reversing enthropy).
Regarding the list of resurrection-related facts: 2/3. The empty tomb is not as widely attested as the other facts. 4. The appearances were not necessarily group appearances. Just because 500 people are mentioned doesn’t mean we have a shred of evidence to back up that claim. 5. The disciples certainly had good reason to think Jesus had resurrected. They would not have initially seen this as an isolated incident. See Matthew 27:50-53. Dr. Craig is really overstating his case here.
@@SilverRaysBeauty44 In what way am I twisting his points? Please, correct me. Note that I am not trying to overstate my case and will concede that we do have overwhelming evidence for what I did not caveat.
If the Holy Spirit of God reveals the light to Alex, he will just instantly believe in Jesus because saving faith is a gift of God. God is spirit and He communicates with our spirit not our intellect. The bible says the natural man cannot receive the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them for they are spiritually discerned. The gospel is so simple that a 6 year old can grasp it yet the atheistic intellectuals of this world cannot grasp it. When someone believes sincerely in Jesus it is the simplest thing and there is a deep sense of knowing such that you could not disbelieve if you tried. Christianity begins with a revelation from God, a revelation that you are a hell deserving sinner and that Jesus Christ alone is the ONLY way to God. Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone and in Christ alone.
We can all talk and debate until the cows come home but the same three questions stand unanswered as they did in antiquity. “ Who are we, why are we here and how should we conduct ourselves “.
Dr Craig's reference to Pascal's Wager is unfortunate, in as much as the wager seems to imply perdition for those who in good faith cannot come to Christian belief. Most contemporary Christians, outside of certain old school Protestant and ultra-conservative Catholic traditions, would hold that an informed conscience and moral integrity are paramount. To such Christians Pascal's Wager seems an inadequate basis for argumentation. In my view, Karl Rahner formulates the matter somewhat better when he claims (I paraphrase) that "If I come to the end of my life and I find I was wrong, I would have lost nothing."
According to the Declaration of Independence, we are "Endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..." So a Creator, not a State, is the originator of most of our rights. Thus "In God We Trust" on our currency. Man is not to be trusted.
Talking animals ,seas parting ,people living for many hundreds of years,the universe stopping in its spot while a war is won ! In the name of god ,several people coming back from the dead,are all believed to have happened in the Christian faith , if I were to say I have experienced any one of these ,would put me in the funny farm !
He talks about a lot of things. Including things he believes at the moment of speaking. Imagine the irony of being told not to judge and yet judging thoughtlessly.
There are several myths and religious stories predating Christianity that feature figures who were said to have been born of a virgin and, in some cases, experienced some form of resurrection. Here are a few notable examples: 1. Horus (Egyptian Mythology): Horus, the falcon-headed god of ancient Egypt, is sometimes said to have been born of the goddess Isis, who conceived him through divine means after the death of her husband, Osiris. Osiris himself was resurrected by Isis after being killed and dismembered by his brother Set. 2. Attis (Phrygian Mythology): Attis was a deity associated with vegetation and was worshipped in Phrygia (modern-day Turkey). He was born to the virgin Nana, who conceived him by placing an almond or pomegranate in her bosom. Attis died and was resurrected by the goddess Cybele. 3. Dionysus (Greek Mythology): Dionysus, the god of wine and ecstasy, was born to the mortal Semele and Zeus. In one version of the myth, Semele was a virgin when impregnated by Zeus. Dionysus is often associated with death and rebirth themes, though not a straightforward resurrection. 4. Mithras (Mithraic Mysteries): Mithras, a god worshipped in the Roman Empire, particularly by soldiers, was believed to have been born from a rock, which can be interpreted as a form of virgin birth. Mithraic rituals included themes of death and rebirth, although the details are less clear than other myths. 5. Zoroaster/Zarathustra (Zoroastrianism): While not a resurrection myth, Zoroaster, the prophet of Zoroastrianism, was said to have been born of a virgin. Some later traditions attribute miraculous events and divine protection to him. These myths often share common themes of divine birth and resurrection or rebirth, reflecting widespread motifs in ancient religious narratives.
Scholars have shown these supposed parallels to be completely spurious. For example, Horus was conceived through sex, so to call this "divine means" is silly. And, according to most traditions, Osiris was only temporarily revived, not resurrected to glory and immortality. In the birth of Attis, the gods cut off the genitals of Agdistis, which fell to the earth and formed an almond tree, the fruit of which was lain on Attis' mother's chest and she conceived. This is no parallel to the virgin birth of Christ. There are zero ancient versions of Dionysus' conception in which he is not conceived by intercourse. And the Mithras and Zoroastrian "parallels" come *after* the death of Christ, not before. This Zeitgeist sensationalism has no basis in actual scholarship and has been universally rejected in academia. - RF Admin
But ritual matters. Investigate any kind of high magic and ritual is central to the thing getting done. The ritual is the recipe...for success. Leviticus shows us the importance of ritual in right worship to God. Just a thought.
I get it that Craig is taking advantage of Alex's popularity right now, but he really should think twice about re-posting videos in which he is annihilated.
For Craig to say we should almost demand less in regards to evidentiary value for the resurrection due to practical implications is just patently absurd. That’s his inability to accept reality on its terms not mine.
It appears you may have mistaken his point here. It's not that we should demand less in regard to evidentiary value, but that we shouldn't treat the evidence differently than we would for other events. Rather, given the evidence, we would normally accept other events with a particular level of confidence. Given the tremendous import of the resurrection, the practical value of accepting the resurrection in conjunction with that normal confidence level should drive one to treat the resurrection as a historical event. That's not an inability to accept reality. It's making a practical decision based on the available evidence and the magnitude of the event. - RF Admin
Jesus existing to not does not for or against god. However, human writing and inspiration of early social behavioral sciences on the idiocy of sex war and well sex and war and exploitation is all to real even in a modern sense.
I am not at all convinced by WLC's reasoning. How come not even "GOD" makes any attempt to prove the resurrection of Jesus, despite many "prayers" to this effect. As for Christians, it's all just circular reasoning that is used by them to "prove" the resurrection.
WPC seems to be a decent person, but must clearly be deluding himself as to a resurrected Jesus. I think many of us would WANT Jesus to have physically risen from being dead, as this would definitely mean that "God" exists.
The argument is that because the benefit is high , we should lower the standard of evidence. Very absurd, then the religion that promises the greater benefit gets to lower the evidence threshold. What about Islam ? It offers similar benefits. Should we believe that?
Someone comes running around the corner and yells "OH **** THERE'S A TIGER ON THE LOOSE RUN!". A tiger being on the loose is pretty improbable, but it's within the realm of possibility. You also hear a tiger roar nearby, but that might just be a recording. You could try debating evidentiary standards with Rando or you could book it because otherwise you might get mauled to death by a tiger. It isn't a bad idea to be a bit less skeptical when death is on the line. Arguably the same is true when eternal death is on the line. I don't think this is an argument against doing historical due diligence, but it IS an argument against blind skepticism. That's completely beside the point, though, since the Resurrection is still the most plausible explanation for the evidence we have on hand. That doesn't PROVE it of course, but abduction never proves anything. And for the record, the evidence put forward by Mo to substantiate his claims were that his book of poetry is the most amazing poetry ever (it isn't) and also that he had a big mole on his back. Comparatively speaking, I feel like rising from the dead adds a bit more plausibility to Jesus' claims.
This actually wasn't his argument. He didn't say we should lower the standard of evidence. Rather, what he said was that we shouldn't expect a higher standard of evidence. This is because normal evidence can serve to rationally justify quite rare and surprising events. People tend to hold biblical claims to a higher standard of evidence than is warranted simply because of their miraculous nature, especially the resurrection of Jesus. But if one looks at the evidence in the same way one looks at the evidence for other putative historical events, the evidence for the resurrection turns out to be quite strong. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg It's handy to note that in abductive reasoning there are three main evidentiary standards that an explanation of the evidence be: 1) A plausible explanation 2) The MOST plausible explanation 3) The ONLY plausible explanation With historical matters 2) is usually what's used, which the Resurrection passes easily. Arguably, it passes 3) as well due the Conspiracy model being largely rejected and the Hallucination model having significant trouble harmonizing the empty tomb. There is no 4th tier of evidentiary standard in abductive reasoning, so when a materialist demands a standard above 3) they're being irrationally skeptical.
I shall tell you the truth: Once upon a time lived a mighty king 🤴 👑. His kingdom was great and he had many servants. One day this king decided to look for a bride. A great multitude of woman came to present themselves before the king hoping to be his bride 👰♀ but the King was looking for something else. So the King decided to go to a far away country where nobody knew him to look for this bride. He left all his servants behind, all his Majesty, his money 💰 too, dressed himself in beggars clothing and sandals to look for a bride 👰♀ that would love him like that, not because they know he is a big King. However has wisdom may he understand and never again ask why God doesn't show himself as truly I tell you: this King above would be stupid to show himself once he finds a girl before the marriage. He wants his bride not to love him knowing he is a mighty king but to love him seeing him as a poor men. So is the son of God not interested in anyone asking him to show himself as the king and refusing him as the poor man with sandals. Amen. So whosoever is looking for evidence know this: no evidence shall be given you.
There’s the Islamic explanation for this event. Jesus came to this world in a miraculous manner and he left it in the same manner. He was not killed, nor resurrected. God listened to his sincere prayers and saved him.
@@ReasonableFaithOrgI have to ask if you're being serious? You're disputing the accuracy of a book written hundreds of years after alleged events? 😅😅😅
Honestly, I didn’t expect you to respond the way you did. If you stopped after the first part of your answer, I would understand even accept it. But to justify it by saying that the biblical account is based on eyewitnesses testimonies was unexpected from an atheist to say the least!!!! Can you prove your claim? The Bible itself belies it because it says all his disciples fled the scene and did not see the crucifixion. The best testimonies you got is heresies; a third party’s account. The authenticity of the whole story is questionable to start with as the identities of the authors of the gospels cannot be verified. The differences snd discrepancies of those writers’s accounts about the event particularly those of John and Mark prove my point.
@ A conjuncture becomes a fact when you add to it faith particularly blind faith. How can it be “fact” if those who Supposedly eye-witnessed it and wrote about it fled according to the your holy book. Because they ALL fled their accounts of the event is full of differences and discrepancies. Crucifixion occurred, which was normal In those times, but it’s not Jesus who wad crucified. Jesus cried to God to saved him and God did.
Dr. Craig is putting the cart before the horse. He accepts Christianity as an emotional appeal first and foremost. Only then does he look for arguments to support the position to which he is already committed. Dr. Craig sincerely believes that his position is intellectually defensible despite it being unconvincing. At least he’s honest about it.
To call his initial reason for accepting Christianity merely an "emotional appeal" is to claim that he did not have a real encounter with the Holy Spirit. Can you support that claim? - RF Admin
@ Let’s consider two possibilities: Suppose that Dr. Craig’s encounter was supernatural in nature. How does he know that his encounter was of the Holy Spirit of the very God he happens to believe in? People of most religions claim to have encounters with the supernatural entities they believe in. So can we tell which of them actually exist? On the other hand, if Dr. Craig’s encounter was not supernatural, then it must have been his own mind feeding him ideas. But that would just be more confirmation bias. We could devise tests to determine the nature of encounters with the Holy Spirit. But we might find that it’s impossible to distinguish an ordinary person from a Christian in this regard. Moreover, Christian doctrine is inconsistent about whether we’re even allowed to test God, which raises some questions about openness to being proven wrong. I should note that as an ex-Christian, I know perfectly well what “having the Holy Spirit” is like, and in my experience, it’s a self-constructed narrative.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg We don’t even need to support that claim. The Christian side claims that the Holy Spirit exists, which has never been demonstrated to be true. As an atheist, I don’t need to make any claims about the universe, but religion often does. That’s the difference.
Alex O'Connor ranks up there as one of my favorite interviewers. He asks excellent questions; he gives ample time to respond; he listens carefully to the responses an asks insightful follow-up questions. And then his willingness to acknowledge and appreciate a good argument even when he disagrees--that's just profoundly rare. Thanks again, Dr. Craig, for an encouraging and rigorous defense of the faith. And thanks Alex for being a facilitator and exemplar of good dialogue.
Your definition of rigorous is a bit, let's say, too charitable for yourself
I pray Alex comes to the lord. I feel like he would want nothing more than to believe.
@@derekstallwood3673 And you likely care more about self-affirmation than you do your lord, and that's what enabled you to colonize the world, with your lord being silent and worse when it mattered
@derekstallwood3673 And you likely care more about self-affirmation than you do your lord, and that's what enabled you to colonize the world, with your lord being silent and worse when it mattered.
He said that he is tired of fighting, he wants discussions, and that's what he does
As a Christian, I always appreciate listening to Mr. O'Connor. He is open, fair, honest, firm, insightful, and respectful. I know a lot of Christians that could learn Christian conduct from him. Thank you, Alex.
But relgious conduct is already exists which is narcisstic 😂. If you want other conduct such as O'Connor's then you have to become an atheist or agnostic once again. Just the way you were born 😅
Thank you for this beautiful conversation!
Much love mr. Craig, I look up to you! Great questions by Alex O'Connor.
Always a good conversation.
I'm appreciating Alex more and more every day.
I 've listened to these two men on different occasions and are truly civil in their approach,even is opposing views. This conversation started with Dr. Craig giving condolences to the passing of the Queen,, without knowing of Alex's critique on the Monarchy he had done. In humility, Alex admitted his position and both men carried on. Wonderful to see and hear!!!
How about instead of years worth of the same conversations over and over Alex read the New Testament to find God?
ALWAYS THE BEST VIBES FROM THESE TWO ❤
Sublime interview! Even though there is disagreement at times, there is so much respect between them. I pray that Alex sees the Truth.
Another condescending Christian. You don't know "the truth" any more than he does.
@@todds.6028how do you know?
You don't.
You know nothing (quite literally) of God. Although you oncé did but chose not to).
We, the Christians, do.
Most of us have been as ignorant as you before the penny dropped...
You know nothing about this experience and yet still you pontificate and claim 'knowledge' and superiority (falsely) in your complete denial of your predicament.
One day you will see.
@matthewstokes1608 That's the difference. I'm humble enough to admit that I don't know. You condescending arrogant Christians are just SO certain that your way is the right and true way, and anybody who believes anything different from you is wrong. In fact, you're SOOOOO astoundingly arrogant that you would presume to know what I, a complete stranger on the internet, know or don't know and choose or don't choose. Arrogant arrogant arrogant. So fucking arrogant.
He has!
Maybe you'll see that one day and stop being self-righteous.
You mean you hope he lowers his epistemic bar to your level 🙄
I honestly love Alex. Very intelligent and tries to be fair. I do think he is fooling himself when he describes himself as open to belief.
I feel the opposite. He’s closer than ever. If he can get over the ego hump of “letting his followers down”, he’ll get there. God willing.
Awesome!!
Mr Craig, and Alex 🫶🙌✝️🇮🇱🌍🪐
WLC is always a wonderful speaker.
Alex is a great interviewer. I wonder if any of his views have shifted or developed further either toward or away from theism in the two years since this interview.
My thoughts exactly. I could see him becoming a Christian and a great apologist for the faith. I'm hoping.
Hearing Bill provide condolences to anti-royalist Alex was dramatic irony at its best.
I’m a believer in the living Lord am I tell you what , Alex is a very intellectual person, I pray he finds the lord in he’s journey of truth etc.
God is very real people
Happy thanksgiving to all.
Yeah which god?
@@oldtimepowerliftingym The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and Jesus Christ Our Lord and Savior as foretold by the Old Testament prophets.
I don't think God's love for the world equals Him "desperately" wanting anything from us at all. He magnificently accomplished something infinitely priceless on our behalf by an inexpressibly precious sacrifice. If we don't want to enjoy that benefit, His joy is not decreased even one iota. No desperation there. Desperation is your condition, not His.
Yes, also why don’t people take into account the results? The likelihood that some lie from 2000 years ago would be so pervasive in the world today is ridiculous. Even a true fact from antiquity would basically require God in order to accomplish what it has.
@Izamen how in any way does that mean the claims are true at all?
@@Izamen What has it accomplished? People believe stuff that is not true. Nothing new there.
The bus your waiting to catch is over 2000 years late....
@@williammceuen8831Never was there more perfect an inversion of a truism
Jesus is risen!
It’s interesting listening to O’Connor converse with someone like Dawkins, because it’s clear how much stronger of a grasp on the fundamental beliefs Christians hold that Alex has compared to Dawkins. He really tries to steel man the Christian argument as much as possible so it fosters good conversation because he appears as if he’s at least having the discussion in good faith. Something you don’t get from many popular atheists.
If only William Lane Craig argued with equally good faith....
Which he doesn't.
The number of times it has been pointed out to him that Pascal's Wager is FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED because it isn't a dichotomy to choose between the christian god or no god, and in fact you would have to take the SAME wager equally against ALL god claims....
But of course, he IGNORES this flaw and continues to base his entire foundation on the fallacy instead
SO FUCKING DISHONEST
@enigmaticaljedi6808 he often argues the case for the existence of god, generally. Not even the Christian God, and this is where I see him use Pascal’s wager most. Even then, there are differences in the afterlife claims of different religions, and Pascal’s wager may be more appropriate to some than others. Either way, using an argument you believe is flawed isn’t the same as straw manning your opponents argument and simply calling them dumb or morally bankrupt. Alex doesn’t do that, Dawkins does.
Alex probably does have more specific theological knoweldge than does Dawkins, because of his field of study, but the way alex talks to theists is not the result of him finding their positions worthwhile, but rather being civil for the sake of geting to keep interviewing them and getting subs and views off of it, instead of burning bridges. Dawkins doesn't seem to cafre as much about that, since hes in the tail end of his career/life, and as such, doesn't mince words,. He doesn't get chrisitan beliefs wrong, he just doesn't ptu time into twisting them into somethingsomewhat palatable, when they aren't.
@@enigmaticaljedi6808 okay, for Pascal's wager, we've got to start somewhere, so should we begin with the mythological gods?
How about we start with Zeus?
The Comforter will bring to remembrance and comes with comfort!
Alex and my pop Craig= "i" Am. Shared "i" Am come forth!
I wish you could only extract the most important parts of the discussion.
Yes, bring all with great physical strength in front!
wow❤❤❤
Likewise unto many professing!
If he did, where is he? Why can’t we see him? He makes sure people know he resurrected with a physical body to then have a spiritual body. “Bruh , I saw him for real.” “Ok, show me!” “Well now he’s in a spiritual world we can’t see.” “Ok, thanks for nothing.”
Asking where he is presupposes that he is currently within the spatial dimension. However, if he has transcended the spatial dimension, then the question makes as much sense as asking what the number 3 tastes like. Likewise, vision of objects requires the emission of light. If he has transcended the physical universe, then, again, the question of why we can't see him makes no sense.
So, why think that Jesus has not transcended the physical universe? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg I think airforex raised a legitimate question. So 2000 years ago Jesus rose and no one has seen him since. An honest court of law even if it was pro Christian could not rule in favor of a risen Jesus. The empty tomb testimonies have no consistency. And it was all written after non witness Paul decided the risen Christ was the cornerstone stone of the new religion. So there is just not enough fact for me to believe. The extra dimensional Jesus is a stretch for sure.
@@Austinite333plenty of people have seen him through the ages. I wouldn't be a Christian if God hadn't appeared to me, and subsequently, appeared a few other times after that, and I'm not alone on this.
But I can't prove an experience, even if I can accurately recall it.
But his appearances are MY proof, you'll have to get your own proof and starting with doubt isn't going to get you there. Guaranteed.
@ I have seen a few unexplainable things in my 70 years here so I will not ever criticize such an experience. Having said that are we sure what we see is what we think it is? In a sense this would be an inter dimensional experience and can we trust the source? Despite my statements I am not opposed someone’s personal beliefs but I have a problem with organized religion. I won’t go deeper. Thanks for the reply.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Jesus is supposed to be BODILY resurrected so where is his body gone? In space? The whole myth is absurd but of course in fiction EVERYTHING is possible!
I continue to pray that Alex will one day come to Christ.
How do you do that?
@@tcuisixyou believe Jesus is god, died for you and rose again.
@@Bvoorhis03 i mean pray
@tcuisix Now, before praying the prayer of salvation, you must recognize that you are a sinner and that your sins have separated you from your maker. But, it isn't just that you have committed sins against a holy and righteous God, but that you were born into a body that craves sin. A nature which you have inherited from your first parents, who rebelled against God and wanted to go their own way. In doing so, a separation between God and man was established. But God who is rich in mercy entered into flesh like a hand filling a glove, lived a morally perfect life in thought word and deed, then went to be hanged on a rugged roman cross in your place as your representative, as your substitute, as your savior. God has given His stamp of approval (your receipt) by raising Jesus from the dead. Jesus then showed himself to around 500 people who later died proclaiming this gospel message. Now, if you believe this, then the next step is to confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord, Roman's 10:9 and 10:10 in your Bible. Let me give you a short prayer. You may pray: Dear God, forgive my sins. I repent for going my own way. I believe you have provided a bridge back to yourself, the Lord Jesus Christ. Lord Jesus, I thank you for dying on account of all my sins, and I ask of you to come into my heart. Please be my Lord and personal Savior. Thank you for saving me today. Then say whatever else you want to say. I hope this helps. God bless you, brother. There is no need for elaborate articulation when talking to God. Speak to Him from your heart.
@@Bvoorhis03do you really literally believe that?
The Pharisee Paul was a relentless persecutor of the Jesus-Jews because they proclaimed the crucified Jesus to be the resurrected Jewish Messiah. Then Paul had a miraculous encounter with the Christ deity on the road to Damascus. Sometimes it takes a miraculous encounter to become a believer.
35:45 indeed!!! If i got to a 50/50 i would choose Christ
What if it was a 50/50 split between Christianity and Islam? Remember, Islam has Hell and Heaven too. Does the severity of a threat/carrot on a stick impact how true a claim is?
@seanpierce9386 2 religions can never reach a 50/50 because they contradict way too much. For everything to come down to 1 fact where both religions struggle to answer you need to have at least thought everything else can be true. Now I don't believe any 2 religions can have such a situation. But if it does happen then you will have to gamble. Now, when it comes to Islam and Christianity before I even consider heaven of Islam, the Qur'an says things that are just false, and denies the crucifixion of all things. The heaven of Islam is basically a place for six with many women designed for that and drunkeness I mean that's a bit different.
No the severity of the opposite doesn't mean that the option you pick is true. However, we live as if lots of things are true especially in our relationships even if its not always true. In your relationship with anyone close, when they do something really hurtful, you assume that they were "well-meaning or didn't mean to hurt you" but this is sometimes not true. But even knowing that those we love are capable of hurting us like that, we still always assume the best. Therefore, adding a religion is just one more thing but with a great possibility. Provided that you do come to a 50/50 you need to read what they teach more and more what they teach, eventually 1 religion will drop. Christianity is Christ himself, study him. Islam is the whole Qur'an, study it greatly.
Hope this helps 🙏
@@Masowe. Let’s say that there are two gods, Alice and Bob, and I asked them to tell me which one is real by flipping a coin. If it’s heads, Alice exists, but if it’s tails, Bob exists. I do not reveal the result to you. If you accept my claims, then there’s a precise 50/50 split between the positions, despite being mutually exclusive.
As your primary objection to Islam, you use an argument from incredulity. See, if you were a Muslim and understood things in context, you would believe. And unless you are an inerrantist, the Bible itself contains false claims that conflict with scientific consensus. I don’t see the asymmetry here. But that’s not the point. My question is a hypothetical intended to point out a flaw in your earlier reasoning. And from above, you can’t claim that it’s an impossible predicament.
You should study what Muslims actually believe, not just what the Qur’an says. From my understanding, there are many teachings passed down orally as part of the tradition. Also, you should know that I’m an ex-Christian who studied the Bible with the explicit purpose of reassuring my belief. As you can tell, that didn’t work out.
@seanpierce9386 1) what muslims believe is irrelevant because Islam can be true without Muslims believing it. And what do you mean by Muslims? They believe lots of different things that are more often than not mutually exclusive, the same is for all religions. When you take the shahada (Islamic way of converting) you agree that Allah is the only God and Muhammad is his messenger but definition you agree Muhammad's teachings came from God. This has nothing to do with what Muslims believe but what You believe. It's the equivalent of Jesus is my Lord and Saviour who died for me. Why would you pledge your life to something that someone believes?
2) Christianity is not the bible, as a matter of fact, you can be a Christian and reject some books in the Bible. This is why I said the Qur'an is Islam, Christ Jesus is Christianity. The same is not true for Islam, you can't reject the Qur'an and be a muslim but you can reject the bible or some things in the Bible and be a Christian. I believe in the Bible because i believe in Christ not the other way round and I have met new testament Christians. I have a high view of the bible and reading it daily gets me better and better not just intellectual but also practical in the 1timothy way of thoroughly equips me for ALL good works. For me, reading the bible does make me believe it more and more but I also have more questions than ever before. I have the classic experience by Professor Jonn Lennox as he put it, "Christianity for me was mind expanding ".
Your coin flip didn't quite get me the point that you were making, I guess because coin flipping isn't my thing, I often go back to look for more ways to reach a specific conclusion.
@@Masowe.Jesus believed the old testament did he not? I suppose he didn't quote every bit of of it, but I'd say it could be safe to say that. So it may not be a good idea to 'reject' books in the bible and be a christian. Perhaps a better way to put it is 'having doubts' or 'don't understand it'. All of that is just fine by the way. Trust in someone, namely Jesus, doesn't require us to disassemble all of ancient biblical/cosmic history in order to be with him.
Praise Jesus Christ our resurrected King ❤
The original version of the oldest gospel of Mark did not originally include any appearances of Jesus after the women visited the tomb on Easter morning. Mark originally ended at verse 16:8, with no appearances of the risen Jesus - merely a statement that the young man told the women that Jesus' body was gone and they fled in terror, telling no one. The later Gospels made up the resurrection fiction and that was then also added to Mark from the Luke version 1,500 years later during the King James project to harmonize the Gospels.
No thanks ✋🏽
Creation will say, so precise!
39:00
Dr. Craig always brings up the probability of an event A given the prior probability of the existence of God. The problem is that since God can by definition do anything that is logically possible, the probability of event A is almost identically 100%. This "prior probability of God's existence" bit is just a reverse Uno card for any difficulty the apologist may encounter.
If God exists and has a choice whether event A takes place, then we still need to investigate the historical data and testimonies. Just because the possibility becomes 100%, that doesn’t do anything to the probability of the event, except to make it non-zero. Any of the other explanations could still be the correct one, it just no longer rules out a resurrection outright
Dr. Craig is no wide-eyed newbie. In 1973, entered the program in philosophy of religion at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School north of Chicago, where he studied under Norman Geisler. In 1975, Craig began doctoral studies in philosophy at the University of Birmingham in England, writing on the cosmological argument under the direction of John Hick. He was awarded a doctorate in 1977. Source: Wikipedia.
Just because he has a PhD in philosophy does not make him a historian. Far from it. That’s why many of his arguments fail.
@@patrickwoods2213 I do not have a degree in philosophy but I know a lot about it. Attending university courses for credit is not necessary when books are readily available for self-study in many fields.
Alex thy Friend kind of love. Even my "AM" Yeshua Jesus Christ said, for many have NOT KNOWN HIM?
Thank you for attending!
Alex and Craig none ABLE to hold! Why? Will be crushed nor consumed in front!
Nice
Why in the world would you post a video of Craig getting crushed?
I don’t understand your comment? It’s a ridiculous question so there’s no answer that would be crushed. It’s a RHETORICAL QUESTION! Like asking: Is the earth really flat? Does the Sun really orbit Pluto? Did Van Halen really sound better with Sammy Hagar? So, now, you get it.
@ Craig’a attempts to support his answer to the question were ridiculous.
@ Oh yeah, no, “Did Jesus rise from the dead?” is NOT RHETORICAL. Lol
My cousin once told me who is an agnostic- with all the chaos, suffering of this world why not God appears in our time 20th century where most are develop and literate. In the bible its the same plead that rich man ask Abraham to bring back lazarus to death so his unbelieving brothers might believe. Alex here is something you must think about God as being God His character, and His ways…it also reflects the very first day when God entered our world as a baby in that manger- it didn’t happen in the form of a shout, parade, or any type of extravagant announcement but in a silent night through a very low and simple type of people in the society like Mary and Joseph. What im trying to point out here is that if God has to be God let Him do His own ways own term…truth is from that event down to our time people in all walks of life are becoming a believer in Christ. God knew He endowed each one of us faculties which we can use in finding Him as He promised in His words Hebrews 11:6. He rewards those who diligently seek Him. And all things points out to Jesus Christ His Hebrews 1:1 and John 5:39-44…lastly, if God will gave up to our terms theologically He will no longer be God so let God be God Alex. Im praying for you…
As Christians, we need to be honest about this. We cannot scientifically prove the resurrection or any of the miracles in the Scripture. It's entirely a matter of faith. We do have a very tight relation to secular history in the New Testament. But we cannot put miracles under a microscope and test them with scientific methodology.
We can not scientifically prove that Julius Caesar existed then. Because all we have is an evidence from his contemporaries and the culture influence they produced. That stands for a lot of people in history. Not even miracles, mere existence.
As a Christian, do you agree to that?
We should insist that historical methodology can and does strongly show that the resurrection was a historical event. This is not a "matter of faith." It's a matter of fact. Moreover, science itself is permeated with philosophical assumptions which themselves cannot be scientifically proven: the reality of the external world, the reality of the past, the reliability of our senses, mathematical truths, moral truths, etc. Those who deny the strength of the historical evidence of the resurrection because of certain methodological presuppositions are often blind to the presuppositions of scientific methodology. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrgyou have zero chance of proving it took place. You could make an argument that it's a historical record that people "claimed" to have seen something but we know eye witness testimony is very flawed. Irrespective that it was recorded decades after the "fact" there are miracles today which absolutely are claimed to be seen by thousands which we accept are not miracles at all. It simply becomes a case of wishful thinking and it strikes me as odd that white Europeans, absolutely struck cold by immigration from the Middle East, could so easily seek to retain a religion that quite literally is rooted in one of those countries. Blame the Roman Empire if you will, but it would not have found a home in the UK without the lash and whip. 17:04
@@ReasonableFaithOrg There is certainly NOT a strong historical/scientific support for the notion of the resurrection. In fact, all of our historical and scientific evidence suggests that human beings cannot rise from the dead after multiple days.
Also, the "philosophical assumptions which themselves cannot be scientifically proven" in science, are also required of EVERY kind of communicable and useful conceptualization of reality. That is such a different level of "faith" than believing in miracles, and it's a dishonest or at least poor move by apologists, to draw a false equivalence, here.
I don’t fear death, in fact I look forward to it, I do however, not crave pain or suffering, but having been lonely and losing my wife 10 years ago, I have little to look forward to except of course the wonderful presence of the Lord Jesus Christ, heaven and everything that awaits me including what would be my ex-wife.
There was a time perhaps when I did fear death but since I have become a Christian have a peace. I’ve had a heart attack and probably secretly expecting to have another one that would be ideal, especially if I was asleep but hey, we are in God hands.
Praying for you, brother. I can’t imagine your hardship, but you are never truly alone, for you are in-dwelt by the Spirit of God. May He bless you.
My Almighty God extend His protecting and healing hand over you, , give you comfort on the loss of your beloved wife, and bring full, complete and lasting health to you. Amen 🙏🙏🛐🛐✝✝❤❤
A true witness of Jesus Resurrection came all the way to South India, spread the Gospel, did miracles, healed the people, built churches and he gave his life for Jesus and that was none other than the doubting Thomas the disciple. No point in debating it!!!!
Alex once he converts will be a huge Evangelist.
Highly doubtful that happens considering philosophy and physics (even less so) are the last rabbit holes for your god to scurry down
If he ends up believing in a god it will very likely be a deist version of god - not the biblical god.
Alex seems too rational to believe in any religion.
@patrickwoods2213 they all say that until they convert and dig into them.
@alanndrake2619 incredibly innacurate. Seems like you havent a clue. Hmm...
@@imabeast7560and what is your religion?
As far from the EAST and from the West. Shared eyes
So, what was the question?
And what was the answer again ?
Pop Craig even my pop Saul to Paul knows HIM? Many have not known HIM?
Why some will say, depart from me? I never knew you?
I have grave doubts about some of the stories in the Bible
(Acts 1:9)
The point Craig made about 1st century Jews being confronted with something that their own worldview was against is very apt. There is lots of historical evidence of the Jews projecting a Messiah figure and when it doesnt work , they later go at it again. That didnt happen with the Apostles or those early believers who were vastly Jewish. At least in the first 50-100 years.
Some will say, HE is a roaring LION looking for someone to devour? Yet, offsprings preserve came running towards HIM!
Forgiveness will say, what can't ye be Forgiven?
Many atheists come across as angry and vindictive. Alex is remarkably calm in disposition, which alludes to good faith inquiry. May the Holy Spirit enlighten his heart with the gospel truth
There are many more atheists like Alex I can assure you.
Glad Doctor Craig shot down Sagan's 'extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence' principle. Not only is it unsubstantiated it's utterly untrue. If you're assessing a claim with abductive reasoning (and since the Resurrection is a purported historical event abduction is really the only show in town) how extraordinary the evidence is or isn't is irrelevant. The only thing that maters is whether the Resurrection is a plausible explanation for the evidence and, if we want to be thorough, whether the Resurrection is the MOST plausible explanation for the evidence.
It SORT OF applies to inductive reasoning. If you get a crazy result then you should repeat your experiment or observation and ideally get OTHER people to try to replicate the result or observation. If they can't, then something was probably wonky with your situation. But that's just how the Sir Bacon's methodology works normally. Extraordinary really doesn't factor into things.
Pop Craig ye know? For the Son only have 1"Am" FATHER the I AM GOD ALMIGHTY!
It was almost unheard of ,that ,a person would be taken away within hours of their death ,the norm was ,when a person was dead on a cross ,the body was left for many weeks , 1 as a deterrent to others , 2 till a relative decided to claim the body ,which again was unusual ,as Roman’s would see that person as a possible sympathiser to the criminal ! The owner of the crypt ,must have been a very wealthy person to own such a crypt ! And also be under the close examination of Rome ,for their act ,so many non traditional or normal acts took place ,
Professors bring all showering thee with riches in front? Come carry this BOOK!
Like Dr. Graig said.
If a person does not accept Genesis 1:1 to be possible, all other questions originate from a deminished scope.
Also known as a rational, sane point of view.
@bestself2438 Note how I did not write 'Genesis 1:1 to be true'.
I do not see the rationale or the sanity in the claim that it is an impossibility.
@@patrickgelder-ph5ydIn the context of a bunch of men whom at the time thought the gods were responsible for all natural phenomena and wrote “Genesis” and all other “bibles” yes, it’s an impossibility. It’s Iron Age myth with a bit of philosophy and zero math, physics or chemistry…because society had not yet figured those things out. If you think that the 3 “bibles” were written or “inspired” by anything other than men then I can’t help you.
Apologies, as I'm not an intellectual. But is Mr Craig saying that people should just accept the reserection claim and not pursue evidence?
No
No. He's saying that we should not hold the evidence to a higher standard than we do for other events in history. Given the evidence and the tremendous import of the resurrection, one should be practically motivated to accept the resurrection as a historical event. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg No, completely wrong. Craig’s arguments have been long debunked.
He only thinks of the resurrection as historical because of his faith. That’s all fine and well if you are a believer, but it doesn’t work for actual history.
He’s basically wanting people to accept the evidence that works for him. But can’t back up his claims without resorting to his faith, and that’s problematic.
@patrickwoods2213 That's how I interpreted it too, but thought there may be a deeper intellectual rationale that escaped my limited understanding. Thanks for the response.
Alex is making a u turn and im here for it...
Many will say, have we profess?
Alex can ask some dumb questions some times but its good exposure for WLC and other christians to more secular audiences and the gospel
Can you please provide some examples of dumb questions he asked? Thanks.
@@christopheespic Sure, at 12:35 he asks "how many popsicles do you think Jesus would have eaten if he were alive" really, that question has no place in a formal interview
@@radscorpion8 what? Please, get your timestamp right 🙄.
Alex will say, ye may know the TREE BY ITS FRUITS! Same with the roaring LION!
Separation of Church and State is not separation of God and government. Government that is disconnected from God is illicit and tyranny.
Is there any government on earth that is with God?
@@DartNoobo Jesus is on the throne of all those hearts which are consciously His and is reigning in and through us. All others He is overruling for His purposes. Solomon says the king's heart is in the hands of the LORD as rivers of water, and He turns it whithersoever He will.
@@medicalmisinformation care to answer my question though? Name one government that is with Jesus
@DartNoobo I think they all are all, but the story is IN MEDIAS RES.
@@medicalmisinformation so Russian and Ukrainian, Israeli and Palestine all with Christ. Some Christ you believe in
Students shared "i" Am will say, why shared HIS EYES TO SEE?
Hosts Meeks will say, even all will wailed because of HIM? HIS HOSTS MEEKS will say, as our LORD have wiped our SINCERE TEARS FROM OUR EYES!
Yes He did...
WHO can go through the "EYE OF THE NEEDLE"?
Great conversation. Most atheist make it more difficult than how simple God made it. The evidence is clear but those that don’t want to accept it will continue to FIND a reason not to believe but will accept all other history as history with less historical evidence.
Not true at ALL. Completely false and complete nonsense. Any historian who’s honest accepts evidence on a case by case basis.
The difference between the gospels, and regular history is that history books don’t make supernatural claims or divine interventions from gods.
As an atheist, I look at all history the same - we should seek evidence through historical corroboration, archeology, and studying writings. While the Bible certainly has some of these things - the majority of the Bible is not backed by historical methods.
There is no way one can prove supernatural claims. This is completely consistent when critiquing the Bible.
You just literally proved my point. There’s more concrete evidence for the Bible and the gospels than all the rest of history combined. God made it very simple for us but YOU are the one making it harder by finding any reason to reject God ignoring the historical evidence.
@@uno23437 You’re only making blanket assertions. Where is all of this awesome evidence for the Bible? You are up against many historians disagreeing with you.
@@patrickwoods2213 youtube.com/@diggingfortruth?si=Cw2C5iT49qwqewbL
@@patrickwoods2213 This channel is a great starting foundation of archeological findings authenticating the Bible.
Is Alex, listening, learning, and thinking though he may disagree or is he compiling arguments and seeking to formulate miss leading miss phrased questions or attempting to formulate rebuttals. Or is he like Peterson originally seeking truth we shall see in time..
Why?
I wonder what religions will exist in 5000 years, 10000, a million? Are we , as many think, towards the end of the human existence or, as I believe, right near the beginning?
Will our beliefs be laughed at and dismissed as people laugh at Egyptian gods now? I am sure all of our ancestors thought they were advanced and had all the answers. Humility is key. We don't know anything. Nothing more than we ever did.
It is unlikely this world and its people will exist in 5000 years, if not from consequences of the Rapture and the Second Coming of Christ, then as a result of mutual slaughter involving WMD's
Just another version of extraordinary things demand extraordinary proofs. It is like a board needing more information to make a decision and then not knowing what precisely they require when asked. A big shout out to AO'C for his promotion of civility!
Hi there. Extraordinary evidence to believe in the supernatural would be something that cannot be achieved in the natural world, like stopping time for everything except me. Or turning a slice of cake into flour, milk, sugar and eggs (reversing enthropy).
Hold on, the apostles were not willing to die for christ. Peter denied knowing him an hour after he was arrested ffs!
Regarding the list of resurrection-related facts:
2/3. The empty tomb is not as widely attested as the other facts.
4. The appearances were not necessarily group appearances. Just because 500 people are mentioned doesn’t mean we have a shred of evidence to back up that claim.
5. The disciples certainly had good reason to think Jesus had resurrected. They would not have initially seen this as an isolated incident. See Matthew 27:50-53.
Dr. Craig is really overstating his case here.
All your points are false. You're literally misrepresenting what was actually said. You twisted Williams points lol
@@SilverRaysBeauty44 In what way am I twisting his points? Please, correct me. Note that I am not trying to overstate my case and will concede that we do have overwhelming evidence for what I did not caveat.
Why say creation? Lord anything is possible unto Thee! Gratitude and Honor
Death come here in front and remind! Lord ALIVE forever more amen!
If the Holy Spirit of God reveals the light to Alex, he will just instantly believe in Jesus because saving faith is a gift of God.
God is spirit and He communicates with our spirit not our intellect.
The bible says the natural man cannot receive the things of the spirit of God for they are foolishness to him, neither can he know them for they are spiritually discerned.
The gospel is so simple that a 6 year old can grasp it yet the atheistic intellectuals of this world cannot grasp it.
When someone believes sincerely in Jesus it is the simplest thing and there is a deep sense of knowing such that you could not disbelieve if you tried.
Christianity begins with a revelation from God, a revelation that you are a hell deserving sinner and that Jesus Christ alone is the ONLY way to God.
Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone and in Christ alone.
We can all talk and debate until the cows come home but the same three questions stand unanswered as they did in antiquity. “ Who are we, why are we here and how should we conduct ourselves “.
I like Alex and the name cosmic sceptic christian though I am.
Dr Craig's reference to Pascal's Wager is unfortunate, in as much as the wager seems to imply perdition for those who in good faith cannot come to Christian belief. Most contemporary Christians, outside of certain old school Protestant and ultra-conservative Catholic traditions, would hold that an informed conscience and moral integrity are paramount. To such Christians Pascal's Wager seems an inadequate basis for argumentation. In my view, Karl Rahner formulates the matter somewhat better when he claims (I paraphrase) that "If I come to the end of my life and I find I was wrong, I would have lost nothing."
According to the Declaration of Independence, we are "Endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights..." So a Creator, not a State, is the originator of most of our rights. Thus "In God We Trust" on our currency. Man is not to be trusted.
Talking animals ,seas parting ,people living for many hundreds of years,the universe stopping in its spot while a war is won ! In the name of god ,several people coming back from the dead,are all believed to have happened in the Christian faith , if I were to say I have experienced any one of these ,would put me in the funny farm !
HIS prophets and Angels who persevere and heard the WORD will say, our LORD is not a prophet nor an Angel!
I don't see the problem. Compared to the giant miracle that is the universe, resurrecting a single body would be nothing.
Imagine the irony, this guy’s entire purpose for being is to talk about what he doesn’t believe. He should thank God.
He talks about a lot of things. Including things he believes at the moment of speaking.
Imagine the irony of being told not to judge and yet judging thoughtlessly.
Do you even understand the purpose of atheist you tube channels?
There are several myths and religious stories predating Christianity that feature figures who were said to have been born of a virgin and, in some cases, experienced some form of resurrection. Here are a few notable examples:
1. Horus (Egyptian Mythology): Horus, the falcon-headed god of ancient Egypt, is sometimes said to have been born of the goddess Isis, who conceived him through divine means after the death of her husband, Osiris. Osiris himself was resurrected by Isis after being killed and dismembered by his brother Set.
2. Attis (Phrygian Mythology): Attis was a deity associated with vegetation and was worshipped in Phrygia (modern-day Turkey). He was born to the virgin Nana, who conceived him by placing an almond or pomegranate in her bosom. Attis died and was resurrected by the goddess Cybele.
3. Dionysus (Greek Mythology): Dionysus, the god of wine and ecstasy, was born to the mortal Semele and Zeus. In one version of the myth, Semele was a virgin when impregnated by Zeus. Dionysus is often associated with death and rebirth themes, though not a straightforward resurrection.
4. Mithras (Mithraic Mysteries): Mithras, a god worshipped in the Roman Empire, particularly by soldiers, was believed to have been born from a rock, which can be interpreted as a form of virgin birth. Mithraic rituals included themes of death and rebirth, although the details are less clear than other myths.
5. Zoroaster/Zarathustra (Zoroastrianism): While not a resurrection myth, Zoroaster, the prophet of Zoroastrianism, was said to have been born of a virgin. Some later traditions attribute miraculous events and divine protection to him.
These myths often share common themes of divine birth and resurrection or rebirth, reflecting widespread motifs in ancient religious narratives.
Scholars have shown these supposed parallels to be completely spurious. For example, Horus was conceived through sex, so to call this "divine means" is silly. And, according to most traditions, Osiris was only temporarily revived, not resurrected to glory and immortality. In the birth of Attis, the gods cut off the genitals of Agdistis, which fell to the earth and formed an almond tree, the fruit of which was lain on Attis' mother's chest and she conceived. This is no parallel to the virgin birth of Christ. There are zero ancient versions of Dionysus' conception in which he is not conceived by intercourse. And the Mithras and Zoroastrian "parallels" come *after* the death of Christ, not before. This Zeitgeist sensationalism has no basis in actual scholarship and has been universally rejected in academia. - RF Admin
@ReasonableFaithOrg no need to go full on pedantic, it's obvious that theme has been recycled, even if not in a 100 percent identical manner.
But ritual matters. Investigate any kind of high magic and ritual is central to the thing getting done. The ritual is the recipe...for success. Leviticus shows us the importance of ritual in right worship to God. Just a thought.
I get it that Craig is taking advantage of Alex's popularity right now, but he really should think twice about re-posting videos in which he is annihilated.
Why do you think he was "annihilated?" - RF Admin
For Craig to say we should almost demand less in regards to evidentiary value for the resurrection due to practical implications is just patently absurd. That’s his inability to accept reality on its terms not mine.
It appears you may have mistaken his point here. It's not that we should demand less in regard to evidentiary value, but that we shouldn't treat the evidence differently than we would for other events. Rather, given the evidence, we would normally accept other events with a particular level of confidence. Given the tremendous import of the resurrection, the practical value of accepting the resurrection in conjunction with that normal confidence level should drive one to treat the resurrection as a historical event. That's not an inability to accept reality. It's making a practical decision based on the available evidence and the magnitude of the event. - RF Admin
Jesus existing to not does not for or against god. However, human writing and inspiration of early social behavioral sciences on the idiocy of sex war and well sex and war and exploitation is all to real even in a modern sense.
I am not at all convinced by WLC's reasoning. How come not even "GOD" makes any attempt to prove the resurrection of Jesus, despite many "prayers" to this effect. As for Christians, it's all just circular reasoning that is used by them to "prove" the resurrection.
There is a reason it's called "Faith".
Oh! Wait! I know the answer to this one!!! It’s…It’s…It’s……NO!
Is like....where will ye begin?
WPC seems to be a decent person, but must clearly be deluding himself as to a resurrected Jesus. I think many of us would WANT Jesus to have physically risen from being dead, as this would definitely mean that "God" exists.
The argument is that because the benefit is high , we should lower the standard of evidence. Very absurd, then the religion that promises the greater benefit gets to lower the evidence threshold. What about Islam ? It offers similar benefits. Should we believe that?
Someone comes running around the corner and yells "OH **** THERE'S A TIGER ON THE LOOSE RUN!". A tiger being on the loose is pretty improbable, but it's within the realm of possibility. You also hear a tiger roar nearby, but that might just be a recording. You could try debating evidentiary standards with Rando or you could book it because otherwise you might get mauled to death by a tiger. It isn't a bad idea to be a bit less skeptical when death is on the line. Arguably the same is true when eternal death is on the line. I don't think this is an argument against doing historical due diligence, but it IS an argument against blind skepticism.
That's completely beside the point, though, since the Resurrection is still the most plausible explanation for the evidence we have on hand. That doesn't PROVE it of course, but abduction never proves anything.
And for the record, the evidence put forward by Mo to substantiate his claims were that his book of poetry is the most amazing poetry ever (it isn't) and also that he had a big mole on his back. Comparatively speaking, I feel like rising from the dead adds a bit more plausibility to Jesus' claims.
This actually wasn't his argument. He didn't say we should lower the standard of evidence. Rather, what he said was that we shouldn't expect a higher standard of evidence. This is because normal evidence can serve to rationally justify quite rare and surprising events. People tend to hold biblical claims to a higher standard of evidence than is warranted simply because of their miraculous nature, especially the resurrection of Jesus. But if one looks at the evidence in the same way one looks at the evidence for other putative historical events, the evidence for the resurrection turns out to be quite strong. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg
It's handy to note that in abductive reasoning there are three main evidentiary standards that an explanation of the evidence be:
1) A plausible explanation
2) The MOST plausible explanation
3) The ONLY plausible explanation
With historical matters 2) is usually what's used, which the Resurrection passes easily. Arguably, it passes 3) as well due the Conspiracy model being largely rejected and the Hallucination model having significant trouble harmonizing the empty tomb.
There is no 4th tier of evidentiary standard in abductive reasoning, so when a materialist demands a standard above 3) they're being irrationally skeptical.
I shall tell you the truth: Once upon a time lived a mighty king 🤴 👑. His kingdom was great and he had many servants. One day this king decided to look for a bride. A great multitude of woman came to present themselves before the king hoping to be his bride 👰♀ but the King was looking for something else. So the King decided to go to a far away country where nobody knew him to look for this bride. He left all his servants behind, all his Majesty, his money 💰 too, dressed himself in beggars clothing and sandals to look for a bride 👰♀ that would love him like that, not because they know he is a big King. However has wisdom may he understand and never again ask why God doesn't show himself as truly I tell you: this King above would be stupid to show himself once he finds a girl before the marriage. He wants his bride not to love him knowing he is a mighty king but to love him seeing him as a poor men. So is the son of God not interested in anyone asking him to show himself as the king and refusing him as the poor man with sandals. Amen. So whosoever is looking for evidence know this: no evidence shall be given you.
There’s the Islamic explanation for this event. Jesus came to this world in a miraculous manner and he left it in the same manner. He was not killed, nor resurrected. God listened to his sincere prayers and saved him.
Why believe the Qur'an's account, which is hundreds of years removed from the event and is directly contradicted by eyewitness accounts? - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrgI have to ask if you're being serious? You're disputing the accuracy of a book written hundreds of years after alleged events? 😅😅😅
The Islamic explanation? More like the Islamic denial of well established facts!
Honestly, I didn’t expect you to respond the way you did. If you stopped after the first part of your answer, I would understand even accept it. But to justify it by saying that the biblical account is based on eyewitnesses testimonies was unexpected from an atheist to say the least!!!! Can you prove your claim? The Bible itself belies it because it says all his disciples fled the scene and did not see the crucifixion. The best testimonies you got is heresies; a third party’s account. The authenticity of the whole story is questionable to start with as the identities of the authors of the gospels cannot be verified. The differences snd discrepancies of those writers’s accounts about the event particularly those of John and Mark prove my point.
@
A conjuncture becomes a fact when you add to it faith particularly blind faith. How can it be “fact” if those who Supposedly eye-witnessed it and wrote about it fled according to the your holy book. Because they ALL fled their accounts of the event is full of differences and discrepancies. Crucifixion occurred, which was normal In those times, but it’s not Jesus who wad crucified. Jesus cried to God to saved him and God did.
Even the very 1st step ye can be consumed!
Dr. Craig is putting the cart before the horse. He accepts Christianity as an emotional appeal first and foremost. Only then does he look for arguments to support the position to which he is already committed. Dr. Craig sincerely believes that his position is intellectually defensible despite it being unconvincing. At least he’s honest about it.
To call his initial reason for accepting Christianity merely an "emotional appeal" is to claim that he did not have a real encounter with the Holy Spirit. Can you support that claim? - RF Admin
@ Let’s consider two possibilities:
Suppose that Dr. Craig’s encounter was supernatural in nature. How does he know that his encounter was of the Holy Spirit of the very God he happens to believe in? People of most religions claim to have encounters with the supernatural entities they believe in. So can we tell which of them actually exist?
On the other hand, if Dr. Craig’s encounter was not supernatural, then it must have been his own mind feeding him ideas. But that would just be more confirmation bias.
We could devise tests to determine the nature of encounters with the Holy Spirit. But we might find that it’s impossible to distinguish an ordinary person from a Christian in this regard. Moreover, Christian doctrine is inconsistent about whether we’re even allowed to test God, which raises some questions about openness to being proven wrong.
I should note that as an ex-Christian, I know perfectly well what “having the Holy Spirit” is like, and in my experience, it’s a self-constructed narrative.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg We don’t even need to support that claim. The Christian side claims that the Holy Spirit exists, which has never been demonstrated to be true.
As an atheist, I don’t need to make any claims about the universe, but religion often does. That’s the difference.
Of course he rose from the dead, some anonymous ancient bros said so.