Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Christian Philosopher Fails to Fix the Internet he Broke! (William Lane Craig response)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2022
- When Paulogia put the spotlight on Dr. William Lane Craig's answer to a recent question, it blew up the internet from both atheist and Christian circles alike... and put the apologist into sharp damage control including direct responses to Paulogia. But did he manage to put Pandora back in the one-in-a-million Reasonable Faith box?
Featuring @OceanKeltoi , as well as appearances from @rationalityrules , @MythVisionPodcast , @DigitalGnosis , @InspiringPhilosophy , @christianidealism7868 , @OzymandiasRamsesII , @TMMx , @misterdeity , @TestifyApologetics and others.
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Videos featured...
1. • Questions on Quantum M...
2. • Apologist's Shocking A...
3. www.reasonablefaith.org/media...
4. www.reasonablefaith.org/media...
5. • Dr. Craig Responds to ...
6. • Should Christians Lowe...
7. • Evidence For Christian...
8. • 1 In A Million Chance ...
9. • The Perfection of Narc...
10. • Interview with Dr. Wil...
11. • Questions on Intrinsic...
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
Send me cool mail!
Paulogia
PO Box 1350
Lantz Stn Main, NS
B2S 1A0
Canada
It's so sad seeing a grown man say that his life is meaningless if magic is not real.
That's exactly what I was thinking the entire time. What a waste of a mind. He's like a child clutching his favorite blanket except that in his case, he has to convince himself that his blanket exists.
People are free to waste their lives and minds if they choose to. There's no reason why one ought be rational, we just hope people are.
Well, he made a very lucrative and successful career out of his delusion.
@@TheMahayanist the problem becomes when someone's choice to waste their life then becomes a calling to force everyone else to live their lives in accordance with what you believe and enact laws forcing people to listen to you
the craigs, and the breads of life, and a lot of these people really believe christ is alive and loves them, bread of life would be devastated to find out she's been tied to a unicorn. "christ actually loved me" has got to be about the most insecure a person can be, "that my sins would be forgiven" is psychotic and desperate. to believe you're that bad that you need a sky daddy.
I love that WLC is having to spend his time defending himself against YT non-theists, when his whole schtick is that he is above formally debating anyone without a PhD. Logic and rationality don't care what your credentials are.
Or how long the words you use are. What’s all this pragmatic epistemic bullshit? Craig said something bad. No amount of flowery language is going to dig him out of the hole.
His official position says no debating with commoners... but his pride says "wait, someone said I'm wrong?! This cannot stand!"
@@williamdowling7718 Of course he is not wrong, is everyone else who is wrong, specially those pesky popular atheist youtubers.
Now wait while i watch craig's popular video responses on youtube.
@@Julian0101 how could he be wrong when God says he's right (or so says craig, anyway.. but we can take his word for it. If you're skeptical of this claim and need evidence, please refer back to the beginning of this comment).
The thing with these reactionary PhDs is that their politics are shit (because they're reactionaries) but they're very arrogant because they have a PhD. So, they end up inevitably putting their professional credentials on the line to defend their indefensible politics. Just look at the much more famous example of Jordan B. Peterson.
Paul, the fact that you continue to stir up the Christian community in this way is really a massive compliment to you. They can't simply ignore you, they feel compelled to do these response videos because your points make them look pretty silly much of the time.
What makes Paul so effective is his tempered demeanor. I love "internet athiest" content, but Paul is able to sit down with big apologists and have conversations with them away from the debate. He's seen (and rightly so) as a legitimate and honest actor by theists and atheists. This makes him impossible to ignore.
@@kumaflamewar6524 I fully concur. His attitude and delivery are so straight-laced and honest that it's really hard to just dismiss him and that's to his credit.
Craig sounds more and more frantic to argue with Paul, which just makes himself sound very unsure of his own position.
@@AegixDrakan It also kinda kills that notion that all atheists are unhappy people who just hate god. This is mainly defendable by people in the faith as picking on them for not believing is obviously going to piss them off. It's basically the boy running around the playground running from the girls as "they have cooties!" But coming off as the more professional person really kills that denial of the arguments.
The fact that he keeps pursuing Christian podcasts is great testament to their popularity with atheists.
Paul, you have helped me more than you know with my transition to becoming an atheist over the last 3-4 years. I feel like you are me in another body as another person. The entire fiasco exemplifies so heavily why I left Christianity after being in ministry for almost 30 years. Also, as a hobbyist video editor, just the amount of work you had to do both on the research end and on the editing end blows my mind. So here is my thanks both for being a "visibly invisible friend" in my walk and for being a monster researcher and editor. With much thanks! -- Doug
That’s so kind to say, Doug. I’m so pleased to have been a small part of your journey.
Virtual immense hugs through the internet.
May all the folks who reach this enlightenment, intellectually spread the process of intellectual honesty, with the same beauty and awesomeness that is done with fire, like the ceremony of lighting candles in church at Christmas and Easter. That is, passing the flame of reason to each person around us, so that we may brighten the world, and push away the darkness of dogma and cognative dissonance.
There is too much work to be done during our brief time on earth to not be engaged with collaborating, enjoying, healing and improving each other ! And not wasting it divisively listening to people claiming authority when we should be learning and helping the best way possible.
Best Regards.
The understanding of Christianity, specifically, is based on the person of Jesus Christ. Who do we think he was. Maybe a swindler, maybe a crazy guy, maybe a hippie who just wanted everyone to chill, or he was who he said he was: the Son of the living God, who proved this with countless miracles.
William Lane Craig's fiasco has zero to do with this whatsoever.
Ooooóoóóóoóóoóoooooooooooóooooooóó9ooooooooooóoooóooooooooóooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"I may not be the *best* Christian apologist in the world, but I can pronounce 'Paulogia'."
Best quote!
I'm convinced that many deliberately mispronounce it as a subtle insult.
Oh, they for SURE mispronounce it on purpose.
i've been watching his channel for i don't know hpw man years, but i got it the first time out, how people miss the obvious is beyond me, but then again we're dealing with religists i suppose
Those other guys are apologhists. A few may be a-po-LO-gists.
I'm certain that at least some of them do it on purpose. Some may have just learned it from the ones who do.
What they don't seem to realise is that Paul isn't the one who it reflects badly on.
They end up looking like they're either too thick to catch an obvious pun, or (as seems to be the case) incredibly petty and mean on the level of a schoolyard bully.
It's not often we get to see an academic's legacy written so clearly, all at once, in real time. It's fitting and fascinating to see his legacy now cemented as, "far from raising the bar, I lower it."
It should be his epitaph: "He didn't raise the bar, he lowered it"
@@sniperwolf50 "We buried him 6ft down and still couldn't find his bar"
@@MrBoredinthedorm 😂
I don't usually advocate for listening to apologists of any kind. When they say the quiet part at the top of their voice it's worth remembering what they have to say. That's where you find the best arguments
This feels like when Ray Comfort became the Banana Man. I wonder if Bill's gonna try to embrace this in the future.
As a research psych Dr Craig is a beautiful example of the old neuropsych adage of "our brains aren't computers, they're lawyers". We will find a way to intellectually justify what we emotionally want.
That's an analogy I give when describing what IQ tends to indicate actually. It doesn't necessarily mean you'll have sound beliefs.
@dodgy9676 @KapethiaMonan And rather than believe the arguments and evidence we are supposed to side, against reason and logic, on the side which admits it has none? That's certainly counter-intuitive.
Veda will tell me what to do!
"I think there are defeaters for religions I don't believe in but I don't think there are defeaters for the religion I believe in."
Sure thing Dr Craig, sure thing.
Yeah I wish he could have gone into that in more detail. Why isn't he a Mormon? They not only use the same witness of the Holy Spirit, they lean into it *hard.* The Mormon epistemology is _all about_ personal revelation. It's like their _whole thing._ Also, they've arguably got a better suite of afterlife arrangements.
And, while I'm not sure Joseph Smith has a more than 1/1000000 chance of having gotten it right, probably we can at least say it's not _zero._
@@ps.2 I about _guarantee_ that if he was to give his “defeaters” of Mormonism, they would be based on the presupposition Christianity was true regardless. I was having a similar conversation with a friend recently, asking him how he knew Islam wasn’t true. “Well, according to the Bible…”
It’s so circular it gives me a headache thinking about it.
My guess: His defeater for other religions is usually just that the Bible says that other religions are wrong.
He might have some specific ones for things like Mormonism, though, since there's so much evidence that Smith was just a conman.
But his waffle about the "holy spirit" basically means that he discounts any defeater that might apply to Christianity, because he feels like Christianity is true.
@@pandora8610
I think that's probably the most likely way he does it.
@@bass-tones That is his problem. If a Mormon heard God, then that Mormon has an inherent defeat defeater: his hearing God. *SURE,* WLC doesn't believe God DID talk to the Mormon, but the Mormon knows God talked to them.
The problem is that WLC is just as valid as the Mormon.
A Christian philosopher walks into a bar.
"Ouch! I stubbed my toe!" he exclaims.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Lmao 😂
Gold Dad Joke
The best joke I’ve heard in a while!!
😂😂😂
What would a solipsist exclaim? "Why did I imagine the pain"?
My brain hurts at thinking about the sheer amount of effort Paul has made to charitably and coherently edit this whole video together.
Paul deserves infinite respect even if there is just a 1 in a million chance he actually deserves it
my brain hurts when I think about the responses he will likely get from apologistsd and how many of them will edit this video in a maximal dishonest way to slander Paul (and of course those guys will not link the original video).
There nothing charitable about this editing especially his responses to Caleb Jackson and Than. He clearly didn't understand what they were getting at and unfortunately misinterprets nearly everything they said
@@daniellowry660Thanks for the vapid assertions with no argument to back them up.
@@donnievance1942 here's one example. Paul misrepresents Caleb's theodicy as basically God needs Paul to doubt his existence so that he and his friends won't get bored. That's fundamentally not what Caleb is arguing. Rather he is arguing that creatures that are able to develop their own beliefs virtues and desires on their own are more valuable than creatures who are given those values directly from God. But inorder for such creatures to exist they must be epistemically distant from God in order to freely develop those beliefs desires and virtues making it possible for some of those creatures to be separated for atleast a time from the ultimate source of all goodness namely God. Now 2 points are also important to consider on Caleb's model namely that this epistemic gap and the evils that I can generate all can be overcome and defeated and 2 Caleb is a universalist meaning that all persons including Paul will eventually be reconciled. This is just 1 out of numerous examples where Paul simply doesn't represent his interlocutors position accurately. This is probably because paul doesnt either engage with the primary scholarship on these issues or misunderstands it and this has been pointed out to him numerous times. See Lokes recent interaction with him.
m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1362583174151705&id=220750908334943
One thing you said in this video that I hadn’t really thought of before; if someone’s goal really was to lead a sinful life, then they would actually WANT to be a Christian because that’s the only way to get away with it. What a great retort to that assertion from Christians about former Christians
You can literally get away with murder. 😇
Thanks for pointing this out, I somehow missed it. I’ll have to borrow this one. 🙂
"Unbelievers don't know what it's like to live as Christians" "Love, joy, peace, and understanding"
I was Christian from 4-18 or 21. My experience as a Christian was the polar opposite of love, joy, peace, and understanding. I only experienced fear and confusion as far as my own emotions are concerned. As for what I got from other Christians, that was nothing but hatred, strife, anger, and refusal to say anything in a manner an autistic can make logical sense of. Not being in pain was simply forbidden in my Christian experience.
I'm moderately autistic, and one affect I had was flapping my hands and staring at the painted cinderblock wall looking at all the fantastic shapes that I picked out of the rough texture. Several times I was taken into a room where the preacher and some of the congregation chanted and shouted and waved their arm trying to exorcise the demon in me. I was 8yrs old. I believed I was evil, and it kept me from making friend or relating to other people. It has had a negative impact on my whole life, even though I became an atheist at 22yrs old.
These apologist never address all the negative aspects of Christianity, and there is quite a bit of psychological abuse for many people. NEVER have I seen them try to either justify or refute those accusations. They know they can't.
@@derreckwalls7508 you can heal your austim for free🤷🏻♂
Believers don’t know what it’s like to live as rational adults.😂
_"Love, joy, peace, and understanding."_
Christians literally worship ritual human sacrifice.
Same. I was absolutely miserable and constantly wracked with fear and guilt. I was severely anxious and depressed for most of my life. After I deconverted, I needed a bit more time and therapy to get over it, but I've been generally happy and high-functioning ever since.
Atheists: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Theists: LET THE EVIDENTIARY BAR HIT THE FLOOR
WOOOOAAAAHHHHH!
@@LDrosophila LOL on the Gen(i)us name.
Haven't heard that since my genetics class a million years ago. Going to pore myself a glass of "melanogaster" now 🍸 Cheers and thanks for a good chuckle.
You mock what you completely misstate and evidently misunderstand.
@@mr.johncharlescharlie3502 what evidence that I misunderstand something is there in my joke?
😂😂😂
Biggest apologist admits that apologistic are pointless. This is priceless.
Nothing matter beyond the warm feeling he gets from it.
Right? But the warm feelings the Mormons get, aren't the the same and can be defeated by some defeater that he didn't even mention, so I guess we're just supposed to agree with him out of hand? I think the Mormons would disagree with him there. Their faith and feelings are likely just as strong and real to them as any other Christian would say from any one of the other 3-4,000 denominations.
seems to me if something has apologetics in the first place, it can't be true nor good. there's no such thing as "science apologetics." if something needs to be apologized for, it's trash.
@@ridespirals You are probably right. Like, there are sciene communicator, but they only explain things better to the average person. Never saw one of them trying to distract him from facts that are inncovient for them, meanwhile that appears to be the entire job of an apologist.
@@Szadek23 yeah, and obviously not including things like unethical medical experimentation done "in the name of science," and stuff like that.
What irks me is that "the communion of the holy spirit" happened, and ONLY THAT worked, but christians won't STFU and let that communion happen, THEY want to say what God is ALLOWED to say and won't let God get a word in edgeways, despite saying that arguments from other humans didn't work on THEM.
What strikes me most about Craig’s position, which really epitomizes all Christians, is its selfish narcissism. Put simply, Craig is attracted to Christianity because of the advantage he believes it gives him, essentially making him the whole point of existence, not because it empirically makes him a better person. He’ll certainly claim his belief makes him a better person (it’s questionable whether it in fact does so). But in the end he’s admitted he believes for selfish reasons.
Not only that, but he justifies truth according to perceived benefits ('pragmatic encroachment'), and low standards for people who doubt, when they doubt (which is akin to both faith as special knowledge, and special pleading - or plain arbitrariness).
So true, so much ego
Well, Christianity (and, to be fair, most religions) is inherently selfish. It all boils to things you do or believe in order to save yourself. If your loved ones don't make it and go to hell, you are still supposed to be perfectly happy in heaven.
Christianity is basically a form of narcissism combined with split personality disorder: it's adherents think that THEY aren't narcissists because THEY aren't the ones who are perfect in every way, shape, and form: their other personality is.
Agree. That's what they're in it for.
Craig has actually let his reasons slip a few times in the past. This is just the first time he's done it in such great detail. I've heard countless christians admit that they believe because they want eternal life.
You were very civil and gentle with Kyle when you spoke to him even when he was spouting basically drivel. It is sad to see that he felt none of the same compassion towards you Paul in return. As always thanks for the honest video and I am grateful that you chose truth and honesty over comforting lie. I can only imagine the pain it cost you and what you gave up for it. You are a good man
I might be a bit petty, but I can’t help it, I find joy in hearing WLC panicking over this .
And here he thinks that non-Christians have no joy.
@@Paulogia Worse, he claims to know multiple languages, distinctly pronouncing German names with appropriate accents and then shows his christian love by mispronouncing Paul oh gea ah.
These folks are as authentic as the "wine" they drink with their "lord's table" shtick.
Schadenfreude to the max!
The best thing to come out of this is WLC is now (rightfully) completely discredited. And Christians can no longer expect to use him as a legimate authority without expecting ridicule in response. He's basically a walking meme now (Low Bar Bill).
As a long time follower, it amazes me how far your influence has spread, and that Craig is still insisting on the super petty mispronouncing of your name.
As an atheist, this is the nail in the coffin of Craig. He essentially said "I went in on Pascal's Wager in high school and never looked back and that should be enough for everyone." That he doesn't see how that could be seen as a bias that could impact the validity of his epistemological work is mind boggling to me.
It really is an entirely different mindset than that of a non-beleiver.
What it's more impressive is how everyone that admires and follows Craig does so because he is viewed as an intellectual believer that is able to defend christianity with scientific argument but at the end of the day the true reason for his belief is a self-center pascal wager.
It's amazing, not christian is calling him out on that.
@@elcangridelanime Totally agree. It's like his "thing."
This video highlights to me the fundamentally different way Christians and atheists view "proof." I'll admit that if I'd had the personal, intense kind of experience so many Christians say they have, I'd probably be a Christian! But it would be because of a profound personal experience, not logic or reason.
@@yerocb I used to think I was having those experiences but it was really just a motivated and highly directed form of wishful thinking.
I was surrounded at the time by people who made much more external show of their intense emotions, to the point that many less demonstrative people, including myself, would feel guilty about the lack of intensity, thus feeding back into individual and group behaviour.
I just keep thinking how sad it is. If someone had told high school Bill Craig that he was loved by actual human beings, maybe he wouldn't have needed to have invented someone to love him unconditionally. Hearing that story from him, and the other things he's said, it's clear his theology never truly left that juvenile mindset, and all the intellectual effort has gone into essentially convincing himself (probably not very well) that it must be true if he can make other people believe it. He's developmentally stunted and immature in a deep way, and now that I see it I can't unsee it.
Doubling down on Pascals and Kalam both horrible arguments
The more I listen to William Lane Craig, the more vapid his message becomes to me. I find nothing he says can inspire me to return to a belief in a supernatural being running this universe. Although I had come to the conclusion that I wasn't a Christian years ago when reading the Gospel of John and seeing Jesus quoted as saying that only through Him could one reach the Father. It just seemed too human a thing for some supposedly divine being to say. Why would a loving God, who was supposed to have created the whole, incredibly vast universe insist on being so tribal? It made no more sense to me than when I was told as child that only Catholics can go to Heaven. Why would an omniscient, omnipotent and all loving being put all the billions of people on this Earth just to say no to the overwhelming majority of them, that they cannot come to His Paradise?
Of course, the more I became familiar with what is actually said in the Bible, the less I became convinced that this book was even inspired by some Supreme Being, let alone been written by Him through human hands. Mostly it's the sheer pettiness of Yahweh as portrayed in the Bible which rings false to me. And even though I read it as a piece of literature about the human perception of, and relationship with, the divine, it still came off as being more the product of wishful thinking than any revealed truth.
The apologetics of Craig et al. has done nothing to change that conclusion for me. If anything, the apologists, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, have shown me the depths of dishonesty they are willing to stoop to in the name of their religion. If someone has to lie to defend their perception of what is true, it leads me to question whether there is any truth at all in what that person is saying, or whether that person even knows what is true. Like many of the atheists shown in this video, I have a strong desire to know what is true; what is the reality in which I exist. Believers can call it hubris if they want, but the truth seems more important to me than than finding some comfort in what may be only a delusion. I'm reminded of a friend I had in University who said he'd rather be the happy ignorant savage than the miserable person who knew the truth. Even then, though I was in the midst of my drugging and drinking chaos, I could see that the ignorant savage was always at risk of having his happy bubble burst with some revelation of the harsh reality of life. Better to be aware and figure out a way to be content in that knowledge. That way, one could be prepared to deal with each new revelation (or discovery if you wish).
Good comment. I had a similar experience, but different an many ways. I was raised as an evangelical. For me personally, the problem of evil, the problem of divine hiddeness, or the problem of extreme exclusivity didn't bother me. Not because I had a lot of rational defeaters form them (me defeaters would just have been pointing out that Christian theology tells us to expect those things), but because at an intuitive and emotional level, they just didn't bother me. However, I was raised to believe in biblical inerrancy and divine inspiration (and as far as I'm concerned, if a perfect being creates a book, then it's going to be absolutely perfect). My unknowingly helped lay the foundation of my rejection of Christianity by often reminding us that Paul said that we shouldn't just try to avoid sinning, but we must avoid even the appearance of sin (1 Thessalonians 5:22 [KJV- modern translations don't say "appearance"]). As far as I was concerned, if an all powerful, perfect, all knowing God wrote a book, then you can expect that book to be absolutely perfect and to even look perfect (or at least not look contradictory). Every Easter, I would read one or more of the crucifixion accounts. On Easter Sunday 2013 I read The account in the book of John and when I read John 19:14 where Pilat sits in the Judgment seat at about noon, I instantly felt chills. I was sure I remembered one of the other gospels said Jesus was on the cross from noon till 3:00. I looked and found it: Mark 15:25 says they crucified him at nine in the morning, then ahead it says darkness came over the whole land from noon till three, then at three he said his last words and died. That was too much for me. I immediately researched alleged biblical contradictions and found a list of 100 supposed contradictions. I was able to explain away about 97 of them, but there were at least three genuine contradictions that I couldn't explain away without either being dishonest, or appealing to such bad writing that I as an imperfect mortal could have written it better. I couldn't have faith in a book that I could personally improve on. This of course didn't mean that Christianity was false or that God didn't exist, or even that the parts of the Bible that didn't contain contradictions weren't inspired. I started reading and researching then the new testament and started eliminating every book that I found problems in. After a week or so I had crossed off at least a third of the new testament as probably not inspired. I then moved on to the old testament and crossed off my list every book that contained contradictions, failed prophecies, or evil divine dictates. Eventually I found 2nd Chronicles 25:5-12. In it, God supposedly sends a prophet to warn king Amaziah not to take men from Ephraim on his raid, but didn't warn him not to throw 10,000 POWs off a cliff! I am a believer in the idea of a just war. But in war, when the enemy throws down their weapons and give up, then it is no longer ok to kill them. To make an agreement with them "if you stop fighting us, we will spare your lives" then to violate that and mass murder your prisoners is wrong and not what I would expect someone who is guided by messengers of God to do. When I read it I stopped and said allowed "Those people didn't know God!" But then I realized, I got my idea of God from them. Christianity can't exist without the old testament. If the people who wrote the old testament didn't know God, then I don't either. I instantly crossed the entire Bible off my list of possible inspired books and became a deist-for a few weeks till I realized I didn't have any good reason for that either was just making the minimum possible changes. When I really looked at all the available evidence, and reasons to think any kind of deity exists, I became an atheist.
I'm not very familiar with WLC arguments, but when he talks what i hear is 'Be Christian to be happy! Look how happy am I!'
yep , its like with the ''magic is real zee god just hides all evidence for anyone that arent its chosen indoctrinator'' ..like , if such a being existed and cared about ALL humans as its dogma tryess to spin its abusive partner persona in its books into..
the last thing it do be to hide magic from being possible for science to stumble on ,and it sure as hel has tea with nidhoog every tor's day wouldet limit the sole 'salvation' card dispenser options to a single human/testimony message ,dooming countless that lived before him and countless more afterwards so i say.. mhee indeed the more its scrutinized the more positions like that william dudes falls apart into ''tooth fairy'' mentallity
Yhwh has more in common with Ba'al the Canaanite/Phoenician Chief Cook and Bottle Washer, then the God of the New Testament/Revelation.
@@grumblesa10 mhe.. the new testament divinity is more or lees just the worst things of the abrahamic dogma dressed up in more silky words and with a lot of 'chose your flavor aslong you help subdue and oppress all that thinks of leaving the club' is it not ? :/
Thank you for holding them accountable for every word
“You misunderstood.” The go to excuse for all liars, formerly known as apologists.
It’s much worse than than… "you are unfamiliar with my published work“ and similar nonsense that only means that everyone who disagrees with Billy simply isn’t educated enough while in reality the vast majority of experts disagree with his infantile views.
Sam Harris says that a lot, is he a liar, formerly know as apologist?
@@lapis_lazuli578 Allow me to clarify my position. When I say liars formerly known as apologists I mean that we should start calling apologists liars because I have yet to find an apologist who did not deliberately lie about something important.
The “You misunderstood” line can be used in order to point out flaws in the opposition’s arguments or to dismiss them without justification. Harris tries to do the former and Craig typically does the later.
As to whether Harris is a liar formerly known as an apologist, I would say no because he was never an apologist to begin.
@@letefte I knew what you meant, that was sarcasm!!
I just think it's strange that when the other team does it it's bad but when my team does it there's a perfectly good reason for it.
You should (try to) extend the same amount of charity to both sides. Maybe they aren't lying and they genuinely believe what they're saying?
@@lapis_lazuli578 I honestly didn’t catch that fact that it was sarcasm. I apologize.
I try to give the benefit of the doubt to everyone, believers and non-believers alike, just as you suggest. I just feel that apologists, whether they believe what they say or not, tend to lie about what their atheist opponents say. And I have yet to find an apologist who didn’t.
26:15 I'm so glad you brought this up. I've been saying the same thing in the comment section of various theist videos/community posts: that what you (and Rationality Rules) are doing isn't "poisoning the well," it's bringing up WLC's own admitted "low epistemic bar" as a reason to not take anything he says with uncritical confidence, as the word of an unbiased expert. If a so-called expert in any scientific field said they set their epistemic bar at "one in a million," then everybody would be 100% justified in being extremely skeptical of any arguments or propositions they endorse because they were so unskeptical of them.
Further, this gets at a fundamental idea of why skepticism is, in general, epistemically justified. I use the "mystery box" hypothesis: if you're presented with a mystery box and told to guess what's inside you should instinctively realize that the probability you will be wrong is far greater than the probability you will be right. The same applies to all of reality. The probability that we're right in any of our hypotheses is incredibly low a priori. This is borne out by history being a graveyard of falsified hypotheses, most of which were "intuitive" to the people who endorsed them (a reason why intuition is not a reliable guide to truth; that and the entire field of cognitive science and biases). The reason science works is in part because its epistemic standards are both high and very rigorous in order to correct for these intuitive "feels/seems right to me" biases.
You're using skepticism in this sentence to refer to scientific skepticism, but I'd say the same thing for philosophical skepticism.
@@TheMahayanist Actually I was just referring to skepticism in general. I think skepticism is baked into the scientific method due to its requirement of hypothesis testing, peer-review, and the reproducibility of experimental results. Basically, setting the epistemic bar high, like science does, IS a form skepticism. It's learning not to believe things for which there is little/bad evidence on the basis of bad reasoning.
If there is just a one in a million chance that 9/11 was an inside job then it’s worth believing.
It’s funny that Billy Craig only wants to apply this one in a million nonsense to lower the epistemic bar for Christianity but then immediately wants to see actual evidence for other religions and all other conspiracy theories.
@@TheMahayanist ah yes, philosophers. Still arguing about magic while scientists use electrons to see inside of cells.
That is also where ""there is no God" is a claim" is entirely the result of NEVER ONCE THINKING. Open up your hand. See no God in it? That would be evidence of "No God Exists". The failure is a double standard, therefore a prior wrong, to demand that you HAVE to search all of reality for all time and outside both to "prove your claim that there is No God" rather than hold up your hand containing what you say exists (No God), but those who claim "there IS a God" only have to present one thing and then STOP, not then continue their search for all space and time and outside both.
"There is no God" is the null position, the negative claim. If the claim WERE to be true, then there is "no evidence of it existing", IOW what we have without evidence of a God existing, it doesn't require PROOFof being true. But if the claim WERE false, then providing one God is proof of that. We didn't provide proof "All Swans Are White" by providing all the swans for all time and all space, we proved that the black swan was both naturally black AND it was a swan, we proved the claim WRONG, not right. We prove the claim "there is no God" WRONG by providing a God, we prove "there is a God" RIGHT by providing a God. But we don't prove "there is a god" WRONG by presenting an empty hand. So why would we prove "there is no God" RIGHT by doing it either? THAT is a double standard.
We decide "I don't know what is in the box" a priori but we don't demand that after opening the box and seeing something that we have to prove it WAS in the box BEFORE we opened it and when we were ASKED, do we. But when it comes to God claims....
It's worth noting that at this point in his life, Craig has a financial and social incentive to continue being a Christian. His entire career has been as a Christian apologist. The average Christian hasn't had that experience. They work normal jobs. I'm not saying that Craig's never struggled to make ends meet in his career, but his entire career has been based around his Christianity - so naturally that career has been very good to him. And when he's not acting as an apologist, he's a philosopher and a professor at a university - something that is again a very niche occupation.
And in that way, his personal experiences are going to be vastly different from the average Christian - even among those Christians who work all their lives in Christian ministries or as pastors. He's a public figure in some ways, but he also isn't tied to a specific community/congregation like most pastors. He can give the same speeches and presentations every week to different audiences. Pastors only preach to the same audience every week (often several times a week) - their sermons have to be different each time in order to keep their congregation's attention.
That doesn't mean Craig doesn't work for his income, but it's a different kind of work and frankly most of his work is likely focused on his teaching job. The apologetics stuff is basically a side gig that probably pays a lot more than his actual 9-5 job.
On top of that, he is the group that the religion privileges: the straight male man.
Is Christianity full of these happy fuzzies he mentions to the average trans person who is told routinely, that they are not even real? Is this “peace” he speaks of, felt by the gay teen whose Christian parents have thrown out on the streets to fend for their own?
Is Christianity such a haven of wonders to the underage girl who gets denied an abortion after being r@ped by her father?
These are all real life experiences that actual people go through, in fact, are experiencing as I type this.
Too bad, because I bet he would make much more money if he published a book of how he became an atheist. Plus, he would be welcomed by the community.... after he admits his mistakes, of course.
I think the parts where he says christians have a great life’s with peace and joy are BS also. As a former christian I know that many christians live with fear and anxiety because they feel that they don’t live up to this god’s expectations and fear that they will be eternally condemned.
@@santicruz4012 I seriously doubt that. You think he would make more money from atheists who have seen him strawman and condescend to them over many years than he makes from releasing material to a much larger Christian audience who regard him with so much reverence they won’t even be honest with him for fear of hurting his feelings?
@@mattf5935 That's why I said after he admits his wrong doings... but now that you put it like that, I'm not sure lol
Dr. Craig longs for the days when an apologist could just use his sword to make his point.
Your grace and decorum in responding to this is to be applauded, Paul. WLC frequently asserts that people who disagree with him just don't understand what he's saying, even when they obviously do. it's lazy, dishonest and frankly if it were leveled at me it would probably get my hackles up.
Exactly. Hovind in a mortar board.
It's wlc's way of saying 'you're too stupid to understand'.
He's always been a dishonest individual. I still remember Scott Clifton painstakingly explaining the same point to him several times to try and get Craig to actually address it, only for WLC to keep dodging past it.
Exactly, he says this every time he responds to anyone, "you don't understand that I'm right," "you don't appreciate the correctitude of my position," "I'm surprised you would even ask me something like that," over and over
"My sins could be forgiven." Sin is a theological concept. Sin is an offense against god. Craig is saying he already accepted the assertion that a god exists at that time.
it never ceases to amaze me that christians somehow don't seem able to grasp that sin can't mean anything to an atheist...
I really want to know what skeletons were in young *Bill Craig's* closet that he went all in on Pascal's Wager to seek forgiveness from Christ.
I'm picturing him mowing down a corn maze full of people with a thresher, him covered in more blood than Carrie, and only stopping because the tractor ran out of fuel.
Just sitting there panting, *my god what have I done*
100%
@@johnnyrepine937 I bet he just masturbated a lot to porn magazines, which is a deadly sin for someone raised in fear of god. You view things from an atheistic perspective. As the OP points out Craig was obviously a believer even before “converting” to Christianity. As other Christians do, he very probably equated non practicing Christian with atheist and felt guilty for innocuous activity he knew were deemed offensive to god.
Many people do not seem to pinpoint what people say about the narcissistic nature of christianity. You first have to be convinced that your own GUILT feelings are not utterly meaningless. If you blow them out of any proportions as they would be the center of the universe larger than any sun or galaxy and ESPECIALLY relevant for the imagined lord of the universe - you just can polish them away with a catchphrase. Just throw the guilt at the catchphrase Jesus and VOILA you & your emotions STILL remain the center of the universe, but with a new eternal bliss award as medal around your neck and you can also feel all smart and smug about to have figured all this out yourself so to say. Just some Jesus throwing and any meaningfullness feelings (minus the guilt and anxiety feelings) to be on the top of the world. This is what is the perfectionized narcissism. Not at any moment was your own Self in any danger to be downsized to the real mortal proportions in reality.
This is epic, exactly the clear down to earth unpicking that has made Paul so respected.
Your deliberate calm honesty and whilst packing in the punches is a huge testiment in itself. You never compromise your integrity to score a point, please carry this on even when your stature grows more unshakeable as Dr Craig's did.
Thanks, Matthew.
Paul, it was a terribly hard task to weave together all these videos. Putting the large, numbered, color-coded identifiers in the corner of each with links to each video in the description was a genius move. It really helped tremendously to maintain context.
Great job, my friend! I have possibly three more videos I'm working on myself (much shorter, of course). I've always found Craig to be a goldmine of disingenuous pomposity, but this is the goldmine of goldmines!!! RUclips atheists need to get everything they can out of it. Craig has given away the store - which is why all the other apologists are throwing him a line. CRAIG (not you) poisons the well for all of Christian apologetics. And they KNOW IT!!! Damage control indeed!
Great. Now I've got your theme song in my head watching Paul's video. This is all a hot mess!
@@mattjohnston2 Hahahahaha!!!
@misterdeity You are quite silly.
@@CCCBeaumont He's freaking hilarious
@@HangrySaturn Although I have a sense of humor, I am largely interested in arguments, logic, and reason.
So weird that WLC continues to be the most "misunderstood" theistic philosopher of the modern era. #eyeroll
Maybe we'd understand him better if he made an argument.
Even as a joke, I think this makes a pretty important point: If your entire job is the generation and communication of ideas, and you're bad at doing that to the point people "misunderstand" you all the time, perhaps you are not very good at your job?
My god, Paul, the amount of work put into this is incredible! I’ve been following this drama since the beginning and it’s so satisfying to see someone as pretentious as Craig come off his high horse to respond to laypeople making RUclips videos. May the holy algorithm of RUclips bless your channel.
Who says infinite life is attractive at all or to everyone? Certainly, I don't want to live eternally. I am proud of my accomplishments, but when I'm done, I'm done. I had a near death experience a couple of years ago and it was a strangely peaceful experience. I only regretted a few things I had not yet completed, but I never experienced any fear or hoped that I'd be moving on to a better place.
A decades long "academic" career... based on Pascal's wager. Just wow.
Thank you for being such a positive influence in the athiest space, bringing positive and constructive discussions and showing a great deal of generosity to those with differing views.
Plus, the lack of anger or sarcasm (or dumb mean jokes directed at a wide community as a whole) really allows seekers to stay away from excuses to ignore.
@@letsomethingshine yeah, must be why WLC has denounced Christianity... Oh no wait.
It is astounding how WLC compartmentalized thought processes and seemingly invents new concepts to maintain a facade of truth, dignity and confidence in his faith. The pragmatic justification bit seemed to be a game of cups to hide his blatant reliance on Pascal's wager.
Absolutely. Pragmatic encroachment allows people who are upset about their churches and Christianity in general to make claims about the general veracity of Christianity, or particular theological claims. WLC just wants his own little pragmatic concerns to work in the little ways that help his failing little theological system.
I'm so tempted to phone up William Lane Craig and tell him that if he wires me a thousand dollars that there's a chance that the next day someone else will send him a billion dollars. He won't be able to pass that one up. I'm generally not impressed by degrees, titles, or even people being philosophers ---- but if asked, I would say that Paulogia is fifty times the philosopher that Craig is. He undertook an honest quest for understanding and wisdom. Craig just wants to snatch it from the store without doing any work to earn it.
That is how Nigerian Princes still exist: lots of people want to believe that their route to getting millions is to hock themselves for thousands to someone who PROMISES Great Rewards Later.
William Lane Craig: "I'm a respected, highly educated Christian apologist who only uses the highest, most rigorous academic and philosophical standards to prove my case."
WLC's brain: ...and I took that personally.
"I'm a respected, highly educated Christian apologist who only uses the highest, most rigorous academic and philosophical standards to prove my case."
Merely another claim for which WLC cannot adduce any evidence.
I'll never believe a word Craig says until he stops intentionally mispronouncing Paulogia. That behavior is characteristic of an unserious, cynical manipulator--not a respected scholar and subject-matter-expert. He's basically Kent Hovind but with better credentials.
Hate the guy
Agreed. I expect it from Hovind.
Speaking of which, I can't wait for him to unravel like WLC...
I'd have certainly preferred if it *were* Kent's downward spiral we were witnessing, instead. William Lane Craig may be lying to himself, but he's never seemed malicious, aside from that discordant note that I hear whenever he mispronounces Paulogia.
We all have words that we inadvertently mispronounce.
For Viced Rhino, Logicked, and one of my old army roommates, it's *vague*
They tend to say vog like Prague,
not vayge like plague.
But that's not malicious.
Craig just seems to be petty. It's like he thinks that since it's not a *real* word, that it's a silly portmanteau, that it doesn't matter how he says it.
#PortmanteauAreWordsToo
#NamesMatter
Lots of people get it wrong, I don't think it can really be taken as a cynical act of manipulation. They're just pronouncing it like "apologia" which is not entirely shocking
@@MrSpleenface I would agree, if it werent because of:
- It is not craig's first time (nor second or third) responding to a reponse/point made by paulogia, and
- It is not the first time craig hears how the name paulogia is pronounced.
At this point is pretty clear he does it out of spite.
@@Julian0101 I think Craig's staff cut the clips for him. I've seen people who I don't think disrespect Paul make the same error (e.g. James Fodor)
this is honestly the most honest moment i have ever heard from a preacher or apologist. it truly amazed me.
Let the standards hit the floor.
Let the standards hit the floor.
Let the standards hit the floor.
Let the standards hit the... (ting ting) FLOOOOORRR!
The song that came to my mind:
ruclips.net/video/sf_Yh33zNXs/видео.html
The guy has heard the name of your channel countless times, sometimes even in direct conversation with you, and yet he still pretends that he doesn’t know the correct pronunciation.
It's just him being petty.
It's what the big apologists do to try to discredit him without having to answer his questions.
Here is what I said to Craig.
Religion Emerged When The First Scoundral Met The First Fool .
No one knows who penned this line, but it surely applies to Mr. Craig. After listening to hundreds of hours of his arguments, there is no doubt in my mind that he is an extraordinary creative manipulator of words and propagator of confusion. He appears to claim that he knows what he doesn't know.
William Lane Craig can best be described as a Wordsmith. In one sense, it's a person who manipulates language for their own personal gains. He lives in a world of a philosophical no man's land were he takes advantage of the average person, which has no real understanding of philosophical pitfalls and how you can manipulate logic to your advantage. He appeals to one's emotions by this manipulation of language; these people are better referred to as scholarly bullshit artists.
I call it 'con man' not 'Scoundrel'. But otherwise I agree.
Shakespeare was a wordsmith; WLC is a sophist, which is someone who uses specious rhetoric to convince and manipulate rather than to get to truth. The sad thing is that I don't think people like Craig are intentionally dishonest, I just think they've drank their own kool-aid as much as other people have, and this quote of his betrays the reason why; WLC (and most theists) want their religion to be true so much that they lower the bar for believing in it and then make it their life's mission to rationalize that belief in a very elaborate form of confirmation bias. They've built these elaborate gothic castles on quicksand, and now theists are in scramble mode since WLC had accidentally revealed the blueprints of the foundation of their belief.
@@jonathanhenderson9422 Having watched Craig's dishonest interactions with Theoretical Bullshit, I tend to believe he's quite intentionally dishonest.
@@jursamaj I think maybe sometimes there is intentional dishonesty, but I think that's far less common than people think. The human brain is amazing in its capacity to fool itself, especially when it perceives that valuable beliefs are under threat from contradictory facts and logic. It's very easy for brains to simply ignore facts/reasoning that threaten such beliefs, and go to great lengths to seek justification for them, and then ignore the resulting nonsense and epistemic abyss that such specious rationalization leads to.
Basically WLC is just repackaging refuted old philosophy to stupid people who aren't critically or skeptically inclined enough to question it.
I desperately wanted to be a Christian, but like Paul found myself unable to retain the belief. I haven’t actually changed much from when I was a Christian, I just find myself being more accepting of others having different opinions.
Me too. Deconversion was the hardest and craziest thing that happened to me. I cried and cried for God to stop the doubt and allow me to find answers. It was painful and it took years.
Congratulations on the 100k! Truly deserved by the quality and pertinence of your work.
Thanks, Timothy
He said the thing they all think, but are too afraid to say. Now they are all trying to unsay it. Its never going to work, mainly because they seem completely unable to address what critics actually say, preferring instead to address quotemines and strawmen.
That one sentence will forever cast a shadow over all the work Craig's ever done... and its absolutely glorious. (not that Craig's work was worth much to begin with)
Seriously, they completely skirt around the issue brought up. If you say you're so confident in god existing, why is any evidence with only one in million chance of being right justifiable to you? With that kind of bar of skepticism we'd all believe in tarot cards and our astrology signs literally revolving our lives. Really a major blow to any argument he's ever had that they could be so incredibly unlikely to be right, but he accepts it anyways as the holy spirit makes it feel right. Ouch...
After watching other people arguments between apologists and atheists most of the points apologists and theists come down to either outright lies and nitpicking defitnitions instead of actually having any evidence. Its an uphill battle to show the magic you believe in is real when you cant show off any magic.
You don't need evidence when you have the self-authenticating witness of the Holey Spirit...
Awesome responses. At this point, I feel like WLC is purposefully not listening to your words and strawmaning it.
It's frustrating, for sure. Thank you, John!!
I put this on Rationality Rules channel, and will put it here, too:
Why in the hell does Craig make a distinction between pragmatic justification and epistemic justification? In William James' 1907 lectures on pragmatism, James says pragmatism IS an epistemology. Pragmatism, as James would say, is a means of settling metaphysical disputes by looking at the expected consequences of each position, seeing which consequences come into our experience when we act on those positions, and comparing the actual results to the expected results. If someone believed they can fly like Superman, then the truth of that belief will be demonstrated when they go up a highrise and try to fly. If the person falls instead of flying it can be concluded that the belief "I can fly like Superman" is a false proposition. The belief didn't work, and truth is what works. I get annoyed when people describe pragmatism is a cost/benefit analysis. The costs and benefits of a belief are not relevant to the belief's truth value. If one argues that the benefits of flying like Superman to their jobsite outweighs the cost of falling 10 stories. However, the outcome of trying to fly like Superman does not change, regardless of the benefits outweighing the costs. Such analyses will not change how one is affected by gravity. What you want the outcome to be does not change the actual outcome experienced. We can even relate this to the problem of evil. The belief that there exists an omnipotent and benevolent god entails that one will never experience evil when observing the world. We do experience evil when observed the world. Therefore, the belief that there exists an omnipotent and benevolent God is false.
He does it to try to confuse Christians into ignoring or excusing the stupidity of what he said.
Confusing the terms is part of the obfuscation needed for WLC's sophistries to work on the less guarded minds.
Idk, it seems to me that the distinction between pragmatic and epistemic justification is the very thing being pointed out when we rightly say that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”
Maybe it’s not the exact same thing, but the concepts seem incredibly similar nonetheless.
Now, as for why WLC vehemently disagrees with the line about extraordinary evidence while vehemently advocating for this epistemic/pragmatic distinction, I’ll leave that up for others to figure out. But I find it hard to disagree that the distinction exists, as it’s one I and many other atheists often argue for.
@@coruscanta
The whole epistemic/pragmatic justification is junk. Reading William James lectures on pragmatism shows that pragmatism is an empirical justification process. James says that pragmatism is a method of solving metaphysical disputes by looking at the practical consequences of each metaphysical position and seeing which appears in our sense experience. Basically, metaphysics is theory that one can make hypotheses with, and test those hypotheses. WLC is a hack that miss represents pragmatism
@@UriahChristensen look I completely agree that WLC is a hack and is often dishonest and a whole bunch of other things. But I’m concerned you’re trying to apply a philosophical jargon definition to a usage of “pragmatic” that wasn’t intended to be used as such.
If we look at the attempt to distinguish a pragmatic justification from a more rigorous epistemic justification, and we do so with a more common usage of “pragmatic,” (meaning in a more day-to-day practical sense in opposition to big picture ontological or epistemological sense) then the distinction seems to have no issues.
I’m definitely gonna see if I can find those lectures as they sound fascinating, but I’m just worried that the point of issue you’re identifying is really one of mixing up technical usage with more common usage. Is WLC, as a vaunted intellectual and philosopher, being irresponsible for not clearly denoting which sense he means the words in? Sure. But still, if I’m even the tiniest bit charitable, it just looks like he’s trying to express the difference between claims that need extraordinary evidence and those that need ordinary evidence. (Note: not that he’s correctly identified which is which, but the distinction seems undeniably valid in all but the most technical definitions of any included words)
WLC has as much evidence for god as a flat earther have for flat earth.
I actually misheard 'the moral argument for god' as 'the moron argument for god'
That's how evangenitals roll...
I'd call that a false analogy, though.
Flat Earthers at least have the Earth existing (barring simulationist or similar arguments) as a starting point. I'd say that they are closer to someone wandering the desert 🏜️ and being convinced that a mirage is an oasis 🏝️
The desert is real. The heat shimmer from the sands is real. Their thirst and need for hydration is very real.
-----------------
WLC's position is much closer to the comment above where he's like Linus clinging to his security blanket, except there's not even a blanket.
Linus Clutching His Blanket
WLC when the walls fell
I'm not good with all the jargon but did Craig just say that if the claim is really good, he would pragmatically lower the bar of evidence? So if I invent another religion that has even better promises of what happens when you die, Craig would lower the evidence bar even more? I guess that is the implication of Pascal's Wager I guess.
Yeah the "Super God" argument for Pascal's Wager pretty much makes a mockery of it. Super God will reward you with infinite pleasure +1, and if not believed in, will punish you with infinite torment -1! So he's mathematically superior to God in this wager, better get to believing! The wager's dumb for many other reasons, that just happens to be one of them.
The problem is that your invented religion coincidentally has “defeaters” that are suspiciously absent (or have “defeater defeaters”) in Bill’s religion.
Convenient, isn’t it?
@@bass-tones No, my new religion has no defeaters. It has the best afterlife of all religions. That is the criteria that Bill used to lower the bar enough to accept Christianity so if my new religion is even better, Bill should switch over to my religion. Just pointing out how ridiculous his thought process is. Of course, he thought this when he was a child but I wonder why his thought process hasn't improved or changed over the years. Mine certainly has changed since I was a child.
@@jollyandwaylo Mormonism is that "Christianity+" thing. Not only do you get forgiven your sins, not only do you get loved by God, but YOU GET TO BE YOUR OWN GOD!!!!! Approved by God.
@@markhackett2302 Yes, I wonder why Craig hasn't switched to mormonism. He only cares that the potential reward is great. Maybe he would lower the bar even lower (if he could).
I liked hearing Occam's razor described as something like "you should try to explain an observation in terms of what you know, before you suggest a new phenomenon to explain the observation" . That really made it click in my head
Believing in things just with no "defeaters" simply amounts to believing in unfalsifiable claims, and I have no idea why Craig thinks this is in any way rational.
Yes... I did have feelings of peace and well-being... after I left Christianity.
Me too. I always felt the opposite of how Craig says he feels as a Christian. I was always worried and fearful for the nonbelievers out there. It was such an unhealthy way to live.
It's funny how desperately WLC tries to deflect the blame and responsibility to defend themselves to others after he basically admitted that his position doesn't have to be very well intellectually defensible for him to hold it. Ironic... and sad that he's still an authority figure for uncountable people.
The fact that they continue to pretend that they don't know how to pronounce your name speaks volumes about their honesty.
Less about their honesty and more about their pettiness and their sneering spitefulness at anyone who doesn't believe like they do.
Three Qs. 1) If Christians have the witness of the HS what’s the point of apologetics? 2) Why doesn’t the HS give this witness to every believer? 3) How do believers distinguish this witness from imagination, wish fulfillment, or motivated reasoning? I was a pastor for 23 years and frequently reassured doubting Christians.
WTF is HS
Holy Spirit @@ossiedunstan4419
@GaderineInsomniac Friend, are you living for Jesus?
No, sorry, my Christian faith fizzled out years ago. @@CCCBeaumont
I can testify that the Christian faith did not enhance my sense of purpose, belonging, well-being, or serenity for many years. It caused me no small amount of anxiety, guilt, fear, feelings of isolation, hopelessness, and confusion.
Same.
YES absolutely. Only after I left did I realise how miserable it actually made me and I have never felt more free and like myself
I wonder what SuperGod gave God his purpose, or is God's existence purposeless like is supposed to happen if we weren't given a purpose by a God....
I love the irony of Craig coming to Christianity for the 1 in a million chance of having his sins forgiven and to be loved... So basically, he's lonely and just wants to sin without consequence.
But I thought it was atheists who just want to sin?
Honestly sounds either like a kid from an abusive household or a kid with a secret.
Most likely a bad secret.
I love how you keep staying calm and collective, while WLC is just talking down on you. I do sense more and more snarkyness coming from you when it comes to him, but I like that to be fair. After a while people like him need to be taken down a peg. And for an ADD person like me, watching something as long as this is normally quite difficult, but you really kept my focus. Keep doing what you're doing, you're a good one!
I am sure someone has mentioned this below somewhere, but a would like to thank Kyle for (unintentionally) finally toppling WLC off his epistemic high horse.
And for Paul and all the other non magic thinkers for tearing him a new one in the most polite way possible. If anyone's thinking/life is 'brain dead' it's WLC.
I am pretty sure that WLC always thought this way but that he was very careful not to say stuff that is too stupid.
Or maybe he is getting senile and sometimes forgets that even the stuff that he says in a small circle of people who constantly kiss his butt might be used against him.
@@ramigilneas9274 WLC has said similar things in the past I believe like how no evidence would shake his faith.
Referring to WLC as a “magic thinker” (indirectly) made me laugh. I might borrow that from you. 😄
It's a good thing WLC was kicked of his high horse... It makes it much easier to pass underneath the low epistemic bar.
This was most likely the largest mis step we'll ever see of a leading apologist like WLC.
WLC also admitted that believing Genesis is ridiculous according to Science.
What about rapist Ravi?
@@elainejohnson6955 Just because if he did say that, it would destroy his credibility as the Rational Christian.
If you think I'm wrong, look at what evangelicals tell people in the third world when they think they can get away with it.
It would be interesting to find out what was causing teenage Bill to hate himself so much before he found Christianity.
Yep. Strange for him to admit that it was only after there was a one in a million chance that he "found love" from something made up, that he was all in on this religion surrounding him.
He may have been poor and tragically abused, but now is rich and famous with this holy spirit gimmick.
It would be interesting to find out.
Maybe he had an ‘accident’ years ago kind of like Ted Kennedy did.
@@Lobsterwithinternet I don't think it was anything that serious. I suspect he experienced certain feelings that scared him and he had no mature adult to explain to him that they were normal.
@@JuanMoreOnce But it would have to be bad enough to make him want to try his luck at that ‘one-in-a-million’ lottery. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been as desperate to take it.
An abusive household? Would explain the sin part. But it would have to be a situation where he always ‘sinned’ in the eyes of his parents.
I just finished this video, among a plethora of yours and others. I've driven around to all the churches I pastored/preached at in my community.
But the doubt wins out today... I'm pulled over in a church parking lot, have been begging God to show himself.. but after I heard Craig reduce it to pascals Wager and that it's all just blind faith.... I'm no longer a Christian. Thank you Paulogia, keep doing the work you do.
This is a masterful work! Your contribution here in this back and forth will be written in history. I'm proud to support you and your work, and I hope many more join in support as well.
It is interesting to see the amount of effect you have when a prominent apologist happens to be honest. Such a rare event. Obviously, among first reactions, there is him backpedaling.
fantastic.
It is crazy watching the apologists desperately trying to find any morsel of fault in your examination.
And what shines through is their lack of intellectual integrity, the toadying for Craig, and their unwitting doubling down on the fallacious reasoning that got Craig into this predicament in the first place. And it's no surprise that the usual suspects made the most gaffes.
There's a moment in the beginning of the film "A Bridge too far" where someone hears retreating German troops straggling through the town, and asks what that noise is - her son replies...."Panic!".
This video was like witnessing the Allies breakout from Normandy in 1944. Will Kyle escape through the Falaise Gap, belief intact?
WLC's comment reveals what is the heart of Christian belief, if not for nearly all religions - it feels SO good to believe there is someone out there who cares about me, my hopes and my worries in life, and to know that death is not the end and I can see my loved ones again. "I didn't raise the epistemic bar, I LOWERED it" says it all.
Yes I agree except that Christianity (at least in most denominations) would seem to have the odd consequence that you could go to heaven for eternal bliss while your loved ones potentially burn in hell forever.
@@martifingers yeh, that is a problem. But I think very few Christians worry about hell. Otherwise they would be evangelizing like crazy!
Gotta say, your editing is above and beyond for this video! You definitely raised the bar!
So what I hear Craig say is “I believe because I want it to be true, and that is enough.” Fear, joy, relief, disgust, wonder-- Emotional appeal and justification is always at the bottom of Christian beliefs.
Worse, what Craig is really saying is "I believe because I want it to be true and has brought ME money and fame, and that should be enough for you Kyle."
Perhaps the same could be said of all religions? 🧛♂️
@@autobotstarscream765 “…all religions….” I could not say since I do not know all religions.
@@LouieLouie505 Is meme, hence vampire emoji.
ruclips.net/video/T2IhsPxJPdk/видео.html
@@autobotstarscream765 Captain America: I understood that reference.
Ironically, when I was a Christian, I probably would have called Craig a "nominal Christian" precisely because it doesn't lead him to hardship and persecution. I'm pretty sure the Apostle Paul would be turning in his grave at this cozy Christian attitude.
Its funny how often someone who says something stupid claims that they are just misunderstood.
Well said!
This was a fascinating one. Having never been a theist, or lived "the Christian life," there was stuff in here that was somewhat surprising. For example, it never occured to me that someone would cling to a worldview like that in suffering. I'm not talking about remaining in that lifestyle because of peer/family pressure, for example, but truly believing and it not make your life any better. You'd think at some point that would raise some flags.
They're looking for painkillers, not panaceas.
It's one of the most primal, emotional, human, ultimately understandable gut reactions possible. 😢
Yup. I mean that’s the one thing that (most) preachers today try to not have. Avoid the prosperity gospel, etc.
Obviously there are many prosperity gospel people but not your average church.
But of course a big red flag is that prayer just doesn’t statistically work (past placebo etc.) I get the apologetics for that … but still a issue lol.
But yeah sometimes just looking back at the slavery/genocide in the Bible is like … why tf did I ever believe this in the first place ?
As if Craig’s existing commitment to feelings - sorry - “self-authenticating inner witness of the holy spirit” - wasn’t enough of an indictment of his philosophy, we also had this chapter play out across the intertubes. Fascinating.
WLC should feel content to lower his epistemic bar to sub-limbo heights if that’s how highly he values his feelings, but I hope he’ll forgive this lowly non-PhD the use of less personal, less subjective standards, which are geared more toward results than comfort.
Oh my gods, when WLC is going "they don't understand the JoY and the tHrIlL of the cHrIsTiAn LiFe!1", I flash back to my complete and dark despair when I was a believer and I thought I was worthless, weak-willed and destined for hell, despite being an absolute goody two shoes.
Seriously, no teen should be brought so low, and filled with such despair that they ever seriously think "I'm so unsave-able that maybe I should (to use a euphemism here) throw myself on his mercy and maybe I'll get eternal purgatory instead of hell". :(
And like I said, I was an absolute goody two shoes who REALLY took my then-religion seriously, probably more serious than most people at the private catholic high school I went to. I just had ONE weird thing (And the usual occaisional rebellious teenage thoughts), and that was enough to make me go "omg nooo, I might be possessed, how do I save myself noooo". I'm unbelievably lucky I was in a VERY mild branch of the religion and not a fundamentalist one, or I might literally not be here today. :(
“If they do that to us, we should accuse them of just wanting to sin”
But…you already do that. Its literally in your book! That’s like me threatening to beat someone up, after I’ve beaten them up before
The inclusion of numbers to highlight which level of this inception was currently taking place was GENIUS. A simple solution that cleared up an otherwise brain numbing muddle of reactions within reactions and enabled Paulogia to jump forward and backward between multiple conversations effortlessly. The amount of effort put into these videos keeps the bar of atheism rising unlike... well, you know the rest
Oh that's what the numbers are for? I didn't understand.
@@csarmii yea took me awhile to figure it out
Whenever these apologists start talking about the historicity of Jesus it's an acknowledgment from them that they have lost, an acknowledgment that they can't prove that Jesus is *currently* alive and that's all that matters.
Exactly.
Been fascinating watching your evolution Paul. The same one so many of us went through after leaving of giving apolgists way more credit than they deserve to treating them on a level commensurate with their views. Watching your video today, I just can't help but come back to the thought that, "How is he doing anything other than glamorously defending blind faith". But then I think that anytime I hear reformed epistemology mentioned.
Thanks for all you do Paul. Love your content.
Thank you, as always, Joe!
Am I wrong in thinking that this is a total admission of the phrase, "You can't reason someone out of an argument they didn't reason themselves into?"
Not really.
But I think it's more akin to trying to reason with someone who's in love.
@@Lobsterwithinternet It isn't love, it is BLIND love, infatuation.
A million-to-one chance, eh? That sounds familiar.
I can't find the exact quote immediately, but one of Terry Pratchett's Discworld characters says "Million-to-one chances happen nine times out of ten." And that's true in context, because Discworld runs on common sense, not physics. Things happen there as imagination expects them to happen, the way they do in stories. Pratchett calls it 'Narrative Causation.'
And then there are last desperate chances, which is what Craig is actually grasping at. Not the remote chance that he'll win the celestial lottery, but the chance that he'll somehow continue after death. And those work infallibly in Discworld, because "The gods wouldn't let it be any other way." (Lance corporal Carrot, Guards! Guards!)
But the gods of Discworld were demonstrably real, again in context. Craig's god demonstrably exists only in his imagination. His apologetics consist of him sharing his personal fantasies with his audience. And he's just openly admitted it.
"Low Bar Bill" - That's fantastic!
My issues with what Craig said have little to do with pragmatic vs epistemic justification. To me, it was an admission of why Craig found his arguments so compelling while I found them to be pretty bad (judging by their actual merits, stripping them of the impressive language). Craig believes because he wants Christianity to be true, and he thinks the Kalam and such are compelling because they affirm the position he wants to believe.
Just couple Craig's statement with others who have said "I didn't get the arguments until I believed" or something to that effect. (Has Craig ever said anything like that... IDK)
Having said that, I think that arguments and evidence stand on their own. We should be extra cautious because of Craig's admission of bias here, but him having said that has precisely zero effect on the soundness of the arguments he's made. Unfortunately for him, I find all of his arguments to be unsound, and many invalid - really, little more than fancy sounding gibberish.
I wish that I could forget this video ever existed so that I could watch it all over again for the first time.
William Lane Craig's level of intellectual rigor, is best demonstrated by where he teaches, Houston Baptist University. Not only is HBU not a top university in Texas, it's not even considered one of Houston's better universities. For that matter, HBU isn't even the best Christian university in Houston. That distinction would go to St. Thomas University.
The idea that William Lane Craig is considered a top Christian apologist, shows me how low the bar has been set.
And their football stadium is literally abutted by a CVS
You know that saying christians sometimes use to dismiss churchgoers as 'real' christians? "Standing in a garage doesn't make you a car…" Well, I apply the same standard to WLC. Having a PhD doesn't make you a philosopher. Instead, he's a sophist. He uses his philosophical training to flim-flam his audience (which is believers, not non-believers).
One has to wonder how long it took the young Bill Craig to realise he could make a good living selling that one in a million chance of "forever" to other people.
I'm more curious who touched him or where he's stashed the body.
Thanks for this compilation and the responses Paul. Really interesting and enjoyable combination!
Funny how Craig's well publicized philosophical objection about the existence of "actual infinities" leading to "absurdities" suddenly vanishes when it comes to Pascal's Wager and the "infinite gain" of going to Heaven...
Which isn't infinite. LIFE is infinite, but that doesn't make "infinite life" the same as *infinite gain,* at all. Hence the different letters. Infinite life means infinite boredom too, and infinite bad times. That is why infinite is so tricky. Infinite life includes everything.
Sadly, Craig’s statements would not be so serious for him if only he had the humility to admit that he made a mistake. Hey, mistakes happen to the best of us! But no, he buckles down and accuses the very people who his work is meant to reach of being too stupid to know what he was “really saying”
Craig doesn't think he made a mistake. He beLIEves this, cause it brought him fame and fortune, and "love" that he seems to have been lacking.
I wonder what Craig's answer would be to me- someone who didn't experience the "witness of the Holy Spirit". I would spend hours at night, kneeling on my bed, forehead to my knees, rocking and sobbing and begging for God to reveal himself to me in my heart-not literally, not with a miracle or a vision or objective proof-just with the internal feelings of love and his presence that the people around me claimed to experience. How long should I have waited? How much more earnestly could I have begged? Surely there is some point at which it was justified for me to move on with my life.
I’ve always admired your academic humility and honesty Paul, and it continues here. The measured discussions you share and ways you actively strong-arm your interlocutors is an example to others.
Mother Teresa was an advocate of human suffering. For others, not herself.
Paul understands WLC's arguments and position better than the whole YT apologetic Empire put together and explains it perfectly at 1:07:12
I honestly think there is nothing else to add after that.
Well done as usual 👍I always enjoy your "response inception" style videos 😁
You're not kidding about William Lane Craig being surrounded with yes men. This whole bar lowering discussion has revealed that as clearly as it gets. The people he keeps talking to about this are basically watching him wet his pants and congratulating him for it.
Everytime you mention your diligent Christian faith, I can’t help but be reminded of Rachael Slick, the daughter of the Christian apologist and inerrantist Matt Slick. She was extremely well versed in Christian apologetics, but eventually became an atheist (see Holy Koolaid’s video about 5 years back). I’d be really curious what a conversation with you and her might be like.
I’d like to see that too❤
Negative "costs" of living a Christian life if it is false (depends on what you feel is required of a Christian and specific experiences): tithing your money to the church to use as they see fit when it could be better spent elsewhere, devotion of a considerable amount of your life toward going to church and studying, closing off certain common activities and experiences that are either "sin" or not acceptable, rejection of scientific truths and procedures that can be life-saving, recklessness due to reliance on a higher power to make things right (this includes praying for issues instead of taking direct action). I'm sure there are plenty more but these are the ones that stand out for me.
All Christians have to spend their one life being Christian. That is a cost. Even if any specific Christian is Name Only, never once going to Church, etc. That may make it a low cost, but it IS a cost nonetheless.
Thanks for putting it all together like this
When I heard WLC speak in this video, in my mind I saw a drowning man flailing his arms, desperately trying to grab onto something.