YES!!! that's exactly her name (Mrs Elizabeth Regina Nelsen) so many people have recommended highly about her and I'm just starting with her from Brisbane Australia🇦🇺
Same here, I believe the Bitcoin ETFs approval will be life changing opportunity for us, with my current portfolio of $108,000 from my investments with my personal financial advisor i totally agree with you..
I don’t think it’s wise to declare ideas to be of any lesser reality than physical objects since we risk ending in nominslism and ultimately nihilism. After all without real ideas, there is no possibility of a belief in God. All such ideas would merely be the imaginations of the persons in question, perhaps inspired by experiences but ultimately having the individual as their source. God therefore becomes an interpretation created by the real deity which is the self in this paradigm. Rather we ought to understand ideas as forming in some way a bridge between man and the divine, as formed from the interactions between matter and spirit or divine energies. The necessity of these ideas poses no issue however as they are or at least have thier origin ultimately in God’s energies. That is to say that insofar as they really are necessary it is only because they are part of God’s nature. On this basis we should also presume there are innumerable other ideas which necessarily are exist in God but which find no expression in matter. God rather expresses His ideas in the world, choosing which to manifest and in what way. That is a rather crude way of putting it as with God these would all have a complete unity, but we may find an example in light, which comes down as pure white and forms colors through its interactions with matter. This too is somewhat crude as in God’s case it is the light itself which chooses how to color things and even which things ought to receive color, but the example is there.
I always think about abstract objects such as numbers or "price", such as the examples in the video, as merely DESCRIPTIVE tools. That, for example, if there are 3 apples in front of me, the "3" is describing a reality that is linked to the apples, not making the number 3 itself exist in some idealist plane. The fact that such descriptive tools are available for us to work with them, for me, is more evidence that our minds are in some way a reflection that we humans share in a small way the divine spark, made in the image of God, for we are able to think in those abstract terms, among other things, not that we are "borrowing" those abstract objects from an idealist plane.
I think that anything which is self-existent will be necessary. This is because of the principle of sufficient reason. Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature (it is a self-existent thing) or in an external cause (it is a dependent thing). Since everything requires an explanation for its existence, and since contingent things are not self-explained, their explanation MUST be found in some external cause. So all contingent things are dependent things. And if all contingent things are dependent things, then all independent things are necessary things.
@@therick363 " the external cause is?" - I have no idea what you mean by "external cause". I never said anything about an external cause. External to what? "Are there a few options and possibilities or is there only one explanation for everything?" - If you are asking what serves as the explanation for why anything at all exists, then the answer is that there must be an independent, self-existent, necessary foundation of reality. And if you are asking if there are multiple possible options of what that could be, I am only aware of one possibility, and that would be a perfect being.
Great videos: what I find interesting is that things that exist that God creates in the physical world can be incrementalized with numbers and understood with the language of mathematics. The imperfect things that humans create, we humans are the scalers that determine whether theses things should exist in a philosophical realm of good and evil and we mediate it’s existence with linear language.
First, this wouldn't make sense of putative abstract objects which are not part of God's attributes. For example, Satan has the attribute of being evil. But this is certainly not an attribute of God. Second, it also depends on whether one is taking "attributes" to be existing things. If they are not existing things, then one can affirm the anti-realist, neutralist position that Dr. Craig describes in the video. There is a realist position that posits that putative abstract objects are concepts in the mind of God. This is called "conceptualism." Dr. Craig has written on some issues with the view, but considers it a fall-back position if all anti-realist options fail. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos What do you make of this: God consists of three persons by His very nature, yes? But that would imply that God is contingent upon the integers-a mathematical concept. The alternative is to say that God is three persons from our perspective, but then the Trinity would not be part of God’s inherent nature. A similar argument applies for God’s oneness.
@@seanpierce9386 Except being omniscient is part of the definition of God, so there's no problem there, since his being three persons is a matter of self-identity (falls within knowledge). His needing to have his definition doesn't mean he's "contingent" - that's not what contingent means.
@@seanpierce9386 Being omniscient is part of the definition of God, and being a Trinity is a matter of self-identity, so falls without knowledge. His needing to fit his definition doesn't make him contingent; that's not what the word means. He has these things intrinsically in himself.
@ All Christians do not have the same understanding concerning who God is, there are many that say God is Three and others say God is the Father of Jesus, which is the correct interpretation. The confusion lies not on the Bible but on our understanding and lack of knowledge added with tradition which does not agree with scripture.
@@ji8044 Christians believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, that is why we are called Christians. But more than him being the Jewish Messiah, Jesus is the sacrificial lamb who took away the sins or the world and reconciled us with the Father.
"God" is a meaningless word. Everyone invents their own meaning of the word, including Dr. Craig. Saying that "God is self existent" is not saying anything. Quoting the Gospel of John does not give meaning to "God". Saying "In the beginning was God" makes as much sense as saying, "In the beginning was the Easter Bunny" Both God and the Easter Bunny are not defined and are not real, and Dr. Craig's talking about them as if they were real does not make them real. But most importantly, the connection between "God" and Christianity is so far-fetched as to be ludicrous.
🔥Mathematical truth exists. Timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Objective. Logical. Infinitely beautiful. Moral truth exists. Timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Objective. Logical. Infinitely beautiful. Athiesm is immoral. Jesus came to bring light to this dark world. Amen. 🔥🔥✝✝👼🏼👼🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼😇😇🙏🏼🙏🏼✝✝🔥🔥
@@horridhenry9920 You're uneducated about the ontology of mathematics to suggest that it's man-made. Mathematics wasn't invented; it was discovered. It's an intrinsic part of nature; that's to say even if humanity didn't exist then the underlying principals of mathematics would still exist.
Saying something is timeless spaces in a immaterial, is the definition of nonexistence, if you’re saying God lives outside of time and space, God would have to live in another universe or Multiverse, otherwise you’re saying God exists nowhere.
@ we don’t know that for sure , we know this current expansion possibility had a beginning doesn’t mean the universe had a beginning, we can only see far back as 13. 8 billion years.
@@Obeytheroadrules There two problems with your argument 1st: Heat Death: If the universe didn’t have a beginning, it would have always existed, right?. But according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy increases over time, meaning all usable energy in the universe would have been used up by now. Stars and galaxies would have burned out leading to "heat death." This means the universe must have had a starting point. Without a beginning, the universe would contradict the observable order we see today. 2nd: Today: If the universe didn’t have a beginning, that would imply it’s infinite, right? If time stretches endlessly backward without a starting point, how could we pinpoint 'now,' this exact moment? The very concept of 'today' relies on a specific starting point from which it emerged. If the universe has existed infinitely, it would be impossible for the present moment to exist, as there would be no defined starting point to lead us to it.
@ No, it doesn’t , the BGV , theorem, says that this current expansion possibly had a beginning. Allan Guth , co-author of the BGV theorem and pioneer of cosmic inflation says ……quote : The Big Bang was most likely not the first expansion our universe has experienced, the cosmos most likely goes through an ever expansion and contraction, and we are simply living in one of those phases. . Allan Guth : phD, professor of physics and Astro physics, Massachusetts Institute of technology .
Nothing but endless assertions without evidence or reason. BUT! It does eatablish that theists believe something can exist without a creator, which means one can just as easily assert the entire universe has always existed and doesn't require a creator. And the difference there is the universe is observable and has continously testable existence amd properties. No god needed.
That would just redefine the universe as God (or as including God), so does nothing. To exist without a creator, it needs to have no limits at all, but the universe does. Believe it not, we thought of that objection long ago LOL.
@@therick363 Do you think the universe is omniscient and entirely alive in an indivisible way? If not, you think it has a limit (or at least you don't know).
It is a logical certainty that there must exist an uncaused first cause which is self-existent. Even philosophers from thousands of years ago realized this. Your attitude is thousands of years behind the times.
@@therick363 There are things that can be known about this uncaused first cause via deductive logic. As one example, the uncaused first cause must be some kind of personal agent rather than some kind of unguided force. The uncaused first cause must have many of the properties that monotheists mean by the concept of "god", so you denying that it's God you'd simply be calling a rose by any other name.
“God is self existent’, and you know this how? Aseity is nothing but philosophical jargon. The “word”was made up by man. Yep, theism is an adult game of make believe.
Even philosophers from thousands of years ago realized the logical necessity of an uncaused first cause. It's a 100% true fact of reality which you'd have to deny the validity of logic itself to suggest otherwise. You're simply ignorant of the topic and your attitude is thousands of years behind the times.
@@LawlessNate While I don’t fully agree with the OP, what you’re saying is a common misconception. It’s possible to get around the first cause argument by positing that time extends infinitely far into the past. And no, entropy is not a problem since an infinite sum can be finite. (Plus, it’s a statistical “law” anyway.) Even if the first cause was necessary, it isn’t necessarily God, let alone the Christian one. That’s why I don’t find the Kalam convincing at all. You have to make assumptions to force it to work the way you need it to.
So what you are suggesting is that God, before creating his very first creation existed for an eternity past being the only thing in existence. That seems very strange to me. It must have been that he, God, really got board after eons and eons of time being all by himself with absolutely nothing else in existence to finally decide to pop something else into existence out of nothing. I don't see how the words, "In the beginning" actually suggest this concept. Also the words, "3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." seems to say that only the things that were made were made by him. This leads me to ask if there are other things that weren't made that are also self-existent. Thus he might have made things from things that are self-existent like unorganized matter maybe. What evidence is there that nothing else existed?
Your first arguments there are close to the Loneliness Problem with Unipersonal ideas of God, so actually argues for the Trinity. But boredom isn't really a problem, since God isn't subject to emotions. In the (absolute) beginning, God did something, means God pre-existed it. Pretty simple. To the last bit, see Colossians 1, especially verse 16. Jesus wasn't made, and made all things, and all other things than God have been made, basically. (Also if there were two such things, one or the other isn't ultimate, so is contingent on the other, so doesn't really solve the problem. See other threads for more details.)
@@logicianbones So are you suggesting that God was not all alone because he had Jesus as part of his same being and the Holy Ghost? But being the same being although separate persons (very incomprehensible) wouldn't they all have the same thoughts and ideas being they are the same being? The three in one being the only thing that existed for an eternity past still seems quite lonely or boring or without much purpose for an eternity past. We are talking about an unlimited never ending past with nothing else in existence until that first creation came about. Seems very, very strange concept to me. How is God not subject to emotions and is considered a God of love? Isn't love an emotion? I understand that Jesus was the same being as the Father but a separate person (very incomprehensible) and that he created all things, but my issue is that before the very first creation they existed for an eternity past with nothing else existing. Isn't that a very strange concept? Seems like a long, long, time to not have much purpose.
@JohnDoe-po8ei No. I'm just saying that time came to exist along with the universe, it is a property of it. So that scenario of God sitting there for eons and eons until he decided to create the universe isn't accurate. God doesn't experience the flow of time as we do, He is timeless
@@logicianbones: "It belongs to the very concept of 'God' to exist." (8:08) This is the only argument for the existence of a god that I noticed in the video. But concepts are the kind of thing that it was pointed out, elsewhere in the video, don't actually exist: "We are merely pretending, or imagining, that mathematical objects like numbers exist..." (5:49) Concepts, like numbers, are merely the product of our imagination. So, yes, the argument of the video is that a god exists because he is imagined to exist.
Oh, you were brave for leaving the comments open, but I suspect that won't last long. "The only reason that any of us exists is that we were caused to exist. We're dependent on something other than ourselves. Our existence is contingent" -And you determined this, how? "But that's not the case with god. He exists independently of anything else." -Unless you're going to demonstrate that a god exists and is not contingent, this is just one big special pleading cake with the icing of an assertion on top. "God exists from himself" -This makes absolutely no sense. "God is the sole ultimate reality" -What? This makes absolutely no sense. "God is not just self-existent but is necessarily existent" -And you determined this, how? "Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence" -'Greater' meaning what? More impressive? Bigger? Higher in number? And 'contingent existence' would have to be demonstrated in the first place, and at this point, nobody has demonstrated that anything that exists, did not exist at some point. "If god is the greatest possible being... he exists in every possible world" -And you determined this, how? You can't just define things into existence to try and get away with a narrative. You would have to demonstrate knowledge of 'every possible world', and then demonstrate that god would necessarily be present in all of them, without simply restating the claim that he is. "It's meaningless to ask, 'who made god?'" -No it isn't. It's a reasonable reply to the assertion that god does not need a creator, or that god created everything. I'm sure it's a frustrating question to believers because you don't have a legitimate answer to it, but can only restate that that's how you simply define what a god is, but it is a reasonable response. Just like it isn't 'meaningless' to ask why all bachelors are unmarried. Though the context of these two questions is fantastically different, as someone may just... not know what a bachelor is when they are described. "It belongs to the very concept of god, to exist. He cannot, not exist" -Thaaaaaaat's not how this works. Nice try, though. I think this presentation would have been more convincing if it were from the big man himself, though.
"nobody has demonstrated that anything that exists, did not exist at some point" Is this a typo? Did you always exist? The rest is answered in more detailed videos. I keep getting the impression a lot of you think a good argument is to just object that this one video doesn't answer all questions... All this really does it tell us you're, well, new to this, to put it politely. (Some of it answers itself. You need it explained to you why a being that exists in all possible worlds is greater than one who doesn't, for example?? Also, is it meaningful to ask "What caused all existence?"?)
Sure. Let's take it from the top. //Our existence is contingent" -And you determined this, how?// Unless you have a very strange and implausible concept of yourself, you will admit that you haven't always existed. You came into existence a finite time ago as a result of prior causal factors. This makes you contingent. So it is with all humans. Human beings as a species have not always existed, so there's another point of contingency. //Unless you're going to demonstrate that a god exists and is not contingent, this is just one big special pleading cake with the icing of an assertion on top.// This channel and the Reasonable Faith ministry as a whole has provided mountains of evidence that God exists and is not contingent. Two such arguments are the Leibnizian argument and the Ontological argument. Here are the links to those: Leibnizian argument: ruclips.net/video/FPCzEP0oD7I/видео.htmlsi=GN0LxBYDX3GddJ0Q Ontological argument: ruclips.net/video/xBmAKCvWl74/видео.htmlsi=oP6EKRdOhKWZpj6E //"God exists from himself"... "God is the sole ultimate reality" -This makes absolutely no sense... What? This makes absolutely no sense.// What about these statements doesn't make sense to you? //"God is not just self-existent but is necessarily existent" -And you determined this, how?// Again, see the arguments linked above. //"Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence" -'Greater' meaning what? More impressive? Bigger? Higher in number? And 'contingent existence' would have to be demonstrated in the first place, and at this point, nobody has demonstrated that anything that exists, did not exist at some point.// Greater is meant here in a qualitative sense. A maximally great being would have all and only the attributes of a qualitatively perfect being. Granted, there's subjectivity involved in our *discerning* what those great making properties are and whether there's a being that has them, but this is very different from whether such a being possibly exists. Unless you can show some type of internal incoherence, it seems clear to Dr. Craig and other philosophers (even many atheist philosophers) that the concept is coherent. //"If god is the greatest possible being... he exists in every possible world" -And you determined this, how? You can't just define things into existence to try and get away with a narrative. You would have to demonstrate knowledge of 'every possible world', and then demonstrate that god would necessarily be present in all of them, without simply restating the claim that he is.// This is not defining things into existence. Note the conditional "if" at the beginning. Again, even atheist philosophers admit that if God exists, then he exists in every possible world. The idea of God is one of a being which is self-existent and cannot not exist. So, if such a being exists, then it exists in every possible world. //"It's meaningless to ask, 'who made god?'" -No it isn't. It's a reasonable reply to the assertion that god does not need a creator, or that god created everything. I'm sure it's a frustrating question to believers because you don't have a legitimate answer to it, but can only restate that that's how you simply define what a god is, but it is a reasonable response. Just like it isn't 'meaningless' to ask why all bachelors are unmarried. Though the context of these two questions is fantastically different, as someone may just... not know what a bachelor is when they are described.// The concept of God is that of an uncreated being. So, by asking who created God, one is essentially asking who created an uncreated being, which is logically incoherent. Such a being may not exist, but that doesn't mean the question itself is meaningful. And, yes, it's meaningless to ask why all bachelors are unmarried if you're looking for more than a definitional reply. Likewise, it's meaningless to ask who created God if you're looking for more than a definitional reply. - RF Admin
@@Logician-Bones "Did you always exist?" That is what all the evidence points to, whereas zero evidence points to a creator or creation event of any sort, but unlike some demographics of people, I don't make baseless assertions. As for the question about being "greater", you just... restated my question and asked me if I needed to ask it. Not sure what to do with that.
@@rampagingswine9475 You're seriously arguing that the evidence says that you always existed? That's pretty bold, I'll give you that! But I think virtually everybody else will leave you there as lacking any credibility... And such an argument would only argue for God in another way anyway. Next: The old "zero evidence". Way off, my friend.
@@rampagingswine9475 A few more points, so switching back to this account for them (we'll see how this goes; YT is autoghosting a lot lately). Can you answer the question about if something caused "all existence"? Also did something cause "all causes"? (Something outside of them?) Are those coherent questions? Also, are you omniscient? If not, you have distinct limits. Even if you had always existed, having a beginning is only ONE type of distinct limit. You aren't infinitely sized, you have a weight limit, etc. Even a beginningless yet contingent you would have external causes to your current nature. Even I have now become one, since I caused you to reply to me.
"...you might not have existed." False. If we are supposing that circumstances were different than what they actually were, then we are talking about fiction not fact.
You're having to presume the truth of determinism to suggest such a thing. If libertarian free will is a real thing then we actively make real choices in real-time that shape what happens next, and if that's the case then if our past-decisions were different it follows rationally that the present would have been different as well.
@LawlessNate I presume that things are as they are rather than not. If libertarian free will is a thing that exists, then it is not possible for it not to exist.
Hello, that whose essence - what it is - is identical to its existence - that it is - is necessary to concurrently impart existence for everything whose essence is distinct from its existence. This has nothing to do with the past or whether or not the universe has a beginning, but with the here and now. The requirement of that whose essence is not distinct from its existence follows logically from the distinction between them in other things. There are 3 main arguments for the reality of this distinction which I could describe in another comment if wanted. As those things in which they are distinct require a concurrent cause for their continual existence as obviously they cannot impart their own existence to themselves as that would require them to be logically prior to themselves in existence which is utterly nonsensical; in other words they would have to exist to cause themselves before -- either temporally or logically -- they actually exist which is logically impossible. Therefore, it requires a concurrent cause either by something where there is, again, such a distinction or in the unique thing -- there could only possibly be one as for there to be multiple would require a distinguishing feature, but then the essence would not be identical to its existence, but be existence plus whatever the distinguishing feature-- in which there is no such distinction.
Could there be an infinite regress of things with such a distinction? No. That is because this is a hierarchical causal series in which concurrently powerless-by-themselves effects must terminate in a first member -- not temporally -- who is the power source. As it is obvious that at least one thing exists with such a distinction it necessitates this first member in which the essence is identical to its existence otherwise none of the effects, namely everything with such a distinction, would exist, e.g, you, a dog, or a tree. Upon fleshing out all the details of the subsistent existence one arrives at that who is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and much else that could not be predicated of the universe. However, this is what we mean by God. And it should be noted that these attributes are analogous and that God is identical to them. His existence equals His omnipotence and so forth. Therefore, God exists. Jesus loves you. God bless
if you are happy to accept that self-existent things can exist, why posit a god that we have no evidence for, instead of pointing to the universe, which as far as we can tell cant be created or destroyed?
I see the existence of a higher creation power through all the things that surround me in life/nature, including my own consciousness and the consciousness of others. And greater evidence I have for God is a personal relationship that is every bit as real as my relationship with any other human on this planet, except deeper and more meaningful. I, like others, have seen/heard things that are not of this world in pursuit of my relationship with God over 47+ years. Things I never imagined were possible, when I grew up as an agnostic. But I like everyone else can't give evidence of personal experiences, except for my totally changed life, desire and direction.
@@SpaceCadet4JesusAnd I don't see such. My personal relationships 1) involve REAL entities (persons); 2) occur at a REAL and particular location and time; 3) with REAL interactions that are observable; 4) are experienced within a REAL medium of communication (voice, body language, gesture, touch, affection); with a REAL initiation (phone call, invitation, visitation); 5) and REAL response (affirmation, disagreement, correction, encouragement). Does a Christian's personal relationship with this Christ exhibit ANY of these characteristic features? Yes or no.
@@Logician-Boneswhy wouldn't it be omniscient and your god would? It's just your projection because you believe that we as humans are the highest for of existence in the universe, which is infinite with infinite number of galaxies, and you think that god therefore has to be similar to us, so you invited a god in our image and said that he made us in his image. That's just so silly and childish.
@@VeljaPopov It's not that the universe wouldn't be omniscient and God would, but that if the universe was omniscient, it simply would BE God. You would just be redefining "universe" to have the same definition as what we label "God." The rest of your comment seems to be imagining something about me I never said or implied, and isn't true. I'm not projecting anything about human nature onto God.
@@Logician-Bones sorry then if I misinterpreted your statement. I'm just saying that religions view of some personal god being somewhere that somehow created the universe is irrelevant. We have what we have that is our reality and it's governed by the natural laws. What is that we can't ever know, we can just use common sense, critical thinking, logic and science to make sense of the world around us, so that we can adapt better, for the purpose of our survival. I don't know about you personally and your ide of god, but religions ideas of god and literal interpretations of the Bible are pure nonsense and totally irrelevant.
@@VeljaPopov Why would they be irrelevant? And how are they nonsense? Every actual attempted argument to those ends that I've seen - having been looking in-depth and in conversations like this with skeptics, for over 20 years now, has been logically debunked where testable. So with respect, I don't think so.
Hi Larry, God is constantly making himself known - and to ALL people. You have more than your intellect by which to receive knowledge. I presume that you believe that there is a thing called love - and that you and others exist. You did not reach these conclusions with your mind - your mind cannot prove either of these things. Instead you reached these conclusions using your relational channel. They are relational knowledge. The bible says that God - who is Spirit - relates with our spirit - the Spirit TESTIFIES to us (Romans 8:16) - a word which implies both truth and relational experience at the same time. We can relate with God as we can relate with people - via our spirit. A person who says that they don't believe in God is not dishonest if by that statement they mean that their mind has not concluded that there is a God. But we are more than our minds. It is because we are more than our minds that the bible says that every person is without excuse when it comes to awareness of God (note in the verse below that God's divine qualities are PERCEIVED - which is a different thing to deduced - our minds can only think - they aren't capable of RELATING with God): Romans 1:21 ESV For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. Spiritual truth is the consequence of relationship - relationship is not the consequence of intellectual conclusions.
@@iankerlin He also happened to appear to Paul as a special occasion, according to the Bible. But for whatever reason, He’s never bothered to do so again, even for those who are actively searching. As someone who fits that description, I have to conclude that if God does exist, then He doesn’t care enough to prove it. I know your rebuttal will be about free will. But God showing Himself will only enlighten those searching and expose those too stubborn to listen. Ultimately, it’s God’s call, so He’ll know if people are faking it.
@@seanpierce9386 Non sequitur; he's already proven it. Why need to keep on doing so over and over, when sufficient proof exists of types that stand for all time?
Since we know the universe is somewhere over 13 billion years old, that means God just hung around for 99.99997% of that time bored until he decided to create humans for the sole purpose of worshipping him. It's an idiotic assertion that God always existed.
I think it's a very narrow and unenlightened viewpoint you present that God created such a huge Universe with such large distances between stars, planets and galaxies only so he can sit around bored until he creates a single very small Earth with teeny tiny people on it for the sole purpose of worshiping him. Although I cannot give you direct evidence, I think God created a huge variety of civilizations throughout the Universe, and I take the example of extreme variety of all the living species that lives on Earth as a tip off of his desire for variety elsewhere and his desire for creation of life through the Universe that can enjoy consciousness, progress and independent growth, besides worshipping him.
A being that is called God cannot be contingent. By definition, God is the greatest conceivable being. Observational science is contrary to long ages for the universe. At any rate, it doesn't matter. Even if the universe were a trillion trillion years old, God would still be waiting around for an eternity to create (according to your view). Actually, God wasn't "waiting" if time hadn't been created yet.
@@ji8044 I think it's a very narrow and unenlightened viewpoint that God created such a huge Universe with such large distances between stars, planets and galaxies only so he can sit around bored until he creates a single very small Earth with teeny tiny people on it for the sole purpose of worshiping him. Although I cannot give you direct evidence, I think God created a huge variety of civilizations throughout the Universe, and I take the example of extreme variety of all the living species that lives on Earth as a tip off of his desire for variety elsewhere and his desire for creation of life through the Universe that can enjoy consciousness, progress and independent growth, besides worshipping him.
@@jonathanteoh5759 An argument is a set of true premises leading to one and only inevitable conclusion based on the laws of logic and the rules of proper inference. Do you agree? Yes or no.
@@jonathanteoh5759 The verity of any premise can be established to be true if and only if one of following is demonstrated: the premise is 1) axiomatic; 2) deduced logically from two other and independent veritable statements presented within the same argument (prior premises) by means of the rules proper inference; 3) can be _demonstrated_ to be true (eg, water begins to boil as its temperature reaches 100⁰ C; 4) are generally accepted to be true by the vast majority of accredited experts (eg, Scientific Theories), or 5) can be considered factual by other verified means ensuring validity, authenticity, and accuracy. Do you agree?
@@Theo_Skeptomai You offered no counter and threw up smoke and mirrors because you have nothing. well done. Happy to see you are tuning desperate to TRY and HOPE that the videos coming out from here don't shatter your view any further. You are grasping at straws and need to humble yourself. Or continue to honor yourself and worship your own intellect, because that is your god.
Is belief in Christ used to justify political beliefs or does belief in Christ actually change your politics? For example when Christian's vote for never ending gun violence or tax breaks for billionaires...or unsustainable health care costs or inaction on climate change do they use theirr belief in Christ to justify this support? Or when the words of the bible don't align with their political ideology do they just throw those words away? 1 Peter 3:10 NLT If you want to enjoy life and see many happy days, keep your tongue from speaking evil and your lips from telling lies. James 3:3-6 NLT "The tongue is a small thing that makes grand speeches. But a tiny spark can set a great forest on fire. And among all the parts of the body, the tongue is a flame of fire. It is a whole world of wickedness, corrupting your entire body. It can set your whole life on fire, for it is set on fire by hell itself." Most Christian leaders in Germany welcomed the rise of Nazism in 1933. They did not speak out against hateful speech or violence. After 1933, most did not speak out against legal measures that progressively stripped Jews of their rights. Do you think the Christians who lived in Germany and who voted for and supported Hitler used their belief in Christ to justify this support? Do you think the words of Hitler mattered to them or did they love his words? Do you think they ever regretted their actions or just regretted that Hitler lost? Do you think the priests that preached from the pulpits that Hilter was chosen by God for Germany are burning in hell now? Hitler - "The ultimate goal must definitely be the removal of the foreigners altogether." Trump -"You wouldn’t believe how bad these foreigners are. These aren’t people. These are animals." Trump -" If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole. That’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country." Hitler -" We must care for the purity of [our] own blood by eliminating foreigners." Trump-" Foreigners are poisoning the blood of our country." Trump - "I don’t know if you call foreigners people… In some cases they’re not people." Hitler -" I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: By defending myself against the foreigner, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." HItler - "With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired foreigner lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people." Trump -"These foreigners are rapists and criminals." Hitler -"Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice."
POPCORN TIME! Neutralism: Hardly an answer to Platonism - unless you can show that god is more than an abstract concept. Pretense Theory: Ditto for imaginary concept. Awww why'd we stop there? Okay so where exactly is the "necessity" for god? Why the need to deify a synonym for "dunno"? Why do I feel the need to keep saying "God of the gaps chaps"?
That's not the argument. Strawman fallacy. Our ability to conceive of this maximally great being is PART of the argument. Don't conflate one part with the whole argument. (That's also composition fallacy.)
Christianity or our Lord Jesus Christ is not about materialism or things of the flesh. He is all about the divine moral intelligence and truth of God, as he tells us in his gospels: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" John 4:24 There is more to this life than just the materialistic world, there is the spiritual/emotional world of morality, and what we consider to be sacred and divine. What do we perceive as sacred? Ourselves? Our family? Other people? Do we consider the moral actions of particular individuals as divine or mundane? Only our Lord Jesus Christ can answer these questions ✝️
I think Rainn Wilson had it right when he said "God is an experience, not a dude". For those already committed to the aseity of God Dr. Craig's comments make perfect sense.
@@drcraigvideos By "dude" I mean a being, one substantially like us since we are reported made in His image. While seen as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, He has thoughts, feelings, emotions, desires as we do. He desires relationships and can forgive us when we stray. While not an old man with a long beard, this makes Him a "dude". However the omni-business is inconsistent with this "dudeness". He has to be outside of time to have created time, but he has to be within time to have this "like us-ness". Postulating some sort of "cosmic time" to resolve this paradox is a slight-of-hand trick. A more honest conception of Him is that he is not really like us at all (what "made in His image" means is a mystery). Without being like us, the only way we can be known to us is indirectly -- by experience. So, it is not rational to see God as any sort of person, superior or not. Doing so just doesn't work. On the other hand, I have experiences that have had some sort of divine nature. I can't explain them, they just happened. Thus I think Mr. Wilson is on to something.
Lest anyone think that the word is Jesus and not the Almighty’s powerful speech which creates and it is also personified as a he, the word is what the Almighty used to create in Genesis 1 as we read “And God said:” it is not a person as many think of the word, as I said it is personified in John just as wisdom is personified as a woman in the Proverbs.
@@ji8044 /Jhn 8:28 - So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that [fn Lit I AM]I am [He], and I do nothing from Myself, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me./ Jesus claimed to be the I AM of Exodus and Isaiah, the divine name, and to be the same entity as the Father, as if he was a separate entity, he would necessarily do things from himself.
@@ji8044 /Jhn 8:28 - So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that [fn Lit I AM]I am [He], and I do nothing from Myself, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me./
@@ji8044 /Jhn 8:28 - So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that [fn Lit I AM]I am [He], and I do nothing from Myself, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me./
why god exist is he obligated by existence if yes then its tragedic for us and him because he will create universe infinite times our soul will get exhausted by creating again and again 😢 we are trápped and god himself trápped in existence
Yes he's "obligated" to exist (necessary), and no, he need not make infinite universes. Even if he did, why is that itself tragic? Tragedies do happen in our universe, though. But God outsmarts evil in the end.
@logicianbones oh ok what will actually change after that isnt one life is and 1 time universe is enough to entertain and satisfy and wipe out gods aloneness
@@WaveFunctionCollapsed No, because a limited life doesn't fulfill the need for one unlimited pattern of all patterns to exist (having unlimited life in every self-consistent sense).
@@logicianbones ok next question can i go outside of god i just hate him i know he exist but i dont want to be part of him i wanna break my soul from him exist seperately forever in non existence
Excellent work Dr Craig
You are gifted brother. God bless you with the ability to think and explain things logically and clearly.
Fantastic video! Keep up the great work, Dr. Craig!
God is wonderful!
I love these videos so much! God bless you Dr. Craig and the entire team working on these videos! ✝️
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am"
I'm glad you made this video it reminds me of my transformation from a nobody to good home, $34k weekly and a good daughter full of love
$175k monthly changed my mindset and behavior, my goals, my family and I've to say this video has inspired me a lot!!!!
wow this awesome I'm 47 and have been looking for ways to be successful, please how??
It's Elizabeth Regina Nelsen doing she's changed my life. A BROKER-like her is what you need.
YES!!! that's exactly her name (Mrs Elizabeth Regina Nelsen) so many people have recommended highly about her and I'm just starting with her from Brisbane Australia🇦🇺
Same here, I believe the Bitcoin ETFs approval will be life changing opportunity for us, with my current portfolio of $108,000 from my investments with my personal financial advisor i totally agree with you..
I don’t think it’s wise to declare ideas to be of any lesser reality than physical objects since we risk ending in nominslism and ultimately nihilism. After all without real ideas, there is no possibility of a belief in God. All such ideas would merely be the imaginations of the persons in question, perhaps inspired by experiences but ultimately having the individual as their source. God therefore becomes an interpretation created by the real deity which is the self in this paradigm. Rather we ought to understand ideas as forming in some way a bridge between man and the divine, as formed from the interactions between matter and spirit or divine energies. The necessity of these ideas poses no issue however as they are or at least have thier origin ultimately in God’s energies. That is to say that insofar as they really are necessary it is only because they are part of God’s nature. On this basis we should also presume there are innumerable other ideas which necessarily are exist in God but which find no expression in matter. God rather expresses His ideas in the world, choosing which to manifest and in what way. That is a rather crude way of putting it as with God these would all have a complete unity, but we may find an example in light, which comes down as pure white and forms colors through its interactions with matter. This too is somewhat crude as in God’s case it is the light itself which chooses how to color things and even which things ought to receive color, but the example is there.
Very nice Dr Craig
Wow! What do you know!
I always think about abstract objects such as numbers or "price", such as the examples in the video, as merely DESCRIPTIVE tools. That, for example, if there are 3 apples in front of me, the "3" is describing a reality that is linked to the apples, not making the number 3 itself exist in some idealist plane. The fact that such descriptive tools are available for us to work with them, for me, is more evidence that our minds are in some way a reflection that we humans share in a small way the divine spark, made in the image of God, for we are able to think in those abstract terms, among other things, not that we are "borrowing" those abstract objects from an idealist plane.
Abstract terms are all man made.
I have an alternative to platonism... common sense...
I think that anything which is self-existent will be necessary. This is because of the principle of sufficient reason.
Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature (it is a self-existent thing) or in an external cause (it is a dependent thing).
Since everything requires an explanation for its existence, and since contingent things are not self-explained, their explanation MUST be found in some external cause. So all contingent things are dependent things. And if all contingent things are dependent things, then all independent things are necessary things.
So the answer for things is?
@@therick363 You might need to rephrase; it's not clear if you had a point to make.
@@therick363 I'm not sure what you are asking.
@@Jack-z1z the external cause is?
Are there a few options and possibilities or is there only one explanation for everything?
@@therick363 " the external cause is?" - I have no idea what you mean by "external cause". I never said anything about an external cause. External to what?
"Are there a few options and possibilities or is there only one explanation for everything?" - If you are asking what serves as the explanation for why anything at all exists, then the answer is that there must be an independent, self-existent, necessary foundation of reality.
And if you are asking if there are multiple possible options of what that could be, I am only aware of one possibility, and that would be a perfect being.
Technically God does not exist... God subsists
Great videos: what I find interesting is that things that exist that God creates in the physical world can be incrementalized with numbers and understood with the language of mathematics. The imperfect things that humans create, we humans are the scalers that determine whether theses things should exist in a philosophical realm of good and evil and we mediate it’s existence with linear language.
So which category would "abstract objects are merely attributes of God's mind/nature" be in?
Conceptualism www.reasonablefaith.org/images/uploads/GodAndPlatonicHost2018.png
First, this wouldn't make sense of putative abstract objects which are not part of God's attributes. For example, Satan has the attribute of being evil. But this is certainly not an attribute of God.
Second, it also depends on whether one is taking "attributes" to be existing things. If they are not existing things, then one can affirm the anti-realist, neutralist position that Dr. Craig describes in the video.
There is a realist position that posits that putative abstract objects are concepts in the mind of God. This is called "conceptualism." Dr. Craig has written on some issues with the view, but considers it a fall-back position if all anti-realist options fail. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos What do you make of this: God consists of three persons by His very nature, yes? But that would imply that God is contingent upon the integers-a mathematical concept. The alternative is to say that God is three persons from our perspective, but then the Trinity would not be part of God’s inherent nature. A similar argument applies for God’s oneness.
@@seanpierce9386 Except being omniscient is part of the definition of God, so there's no problem there, since his being three persons is a matter of self-identity (falls within knowledge). His needing to have his definition doesn't mean he's "contingent" - that's not what contingent means.
@@seanpierce9386 Being omniscient is part of the definition of God, and being a Trinity is a matter of self-identity, so falls without knowledge. His needing to fit his definition doesn't make him contingent; that's not what the word means. He has these things intrinsically in himself.
God is clearly the ultimate abstract concept. Vagueness is his greatest attribute
@@vladtheemailer3223 there is no vagueness, the vagueness resides on our misunderstanding of Scripture.
@fcastellanos57 I'm talking about how God is described by christians.
@ All Christians do not have the same understanding concerning who God is, there are many that say God is Three and others say God is the Father of Jesus, which is the correct interpretation. The confusion lies not on the Bible but on our understanding and lack of knowledge added with tradition which does not agree with scripture.
@@fcastellanos57 The confusion lies with trying to create a Christian religion from a Jewish messiah.
@@ji8044 Christians believe Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, that is why we are called Christians. But more than him being the Jewish Messiah, Jesus is the sacrificial lamb who took away the sins or the world and reconciled us with the Father.
"God" is a meaningless word. Everyone invents their own meaning of the word, including Dr. Craig. Saying that "God is self existent" is not saying anything. Quoting the Gospel of John does not give meaning to "God". Saying "In the beginning was God" makes as much sense as saying, "In the beginning was the Easter Bunny" Both God and the Easter Bunny are not defined and are not real, and Dr. Craig's talking about them as if they were real does not make them real. But most importantly, the connection between "God" and Christianity is so far-fetched as to be ludicrous.
Nine minutes of psychotic word salad.
🔥Mathematical truth exists. Timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Objective. Logical. Infinitely beautiful. Moral truth exists. Timeless, spaceless, and immaterial. Objective. Logical. Infinitely beautiful. Athiesm is immoral. Jesus came to bring light to this dark world. Amen. 🔥🔥✝✝👼🏼👼🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼😇😇🙏🏼🙏🏼✝✝🔥🔥
Yep, all man made, just like every god you care to mention.
@@horridhenry9920 You're uneducated about the ontology of mathematics to suggest that it's man-made. Mathematics wasn't invented; it was discovered. It's an intrinsic part of nature; that's to say even if humanity didn't exist then the underlying principals of mathematics would still exist.
Saying something is timeless spaces in a immaterial, is the definition of nonexistence, if you’re saying God lives outside of time and space, God would have to live in another universe or Multiverse, otherwise you’re saying God exists nowhere.
@@Obeytheroadrules did you not read the original message?
@@ryngrd1
message ?
An incoherent rant ,
AGAIN !
if you think a God you can’t prove exists , is self existent then so can the universe be ?
Thank you, Dr. Craig, for explaining some deep concepts in a way that makes ghem easy to understand!
Saying God is self existing, but the universe can’t be self existing, is double standards
The universe had a beginning though
@
we don’t know that for sure , we know this current expansion possibility had a beginning doesn’t mean the universe had a beginning, we can only see far back as 13. 8 billion years.
All the scientific evidence we have is that it began to exist
@@Obeytheroadrules
There two problems with your argument
1st: Heat Death: If the universe didn’t have a beginning, it would have always existed, right?. But according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics, entropy increases over time, meaning all usable energy in the universe would have been used up by now. Stars and galaxies would have burned out leading to "heat death." This means the universe must have had a starting point. Without a beginning, the universe would contradict the observable order we see today.
2nd: Today: If the universe didn’t have a beginning, that would imply it’s infinite, right? If time stretches endlessly backward without a starting point, how could we pinpoint 'now,' this exact moment? The very concept of 'today' relies on a specific starting point from which it emerged. If the universe has existed infinitely, it would be impossible for the present moment to exist, as there would be no defined starting point to lead us to it.
@
No, it doesn’t , the BGV , theorem, says that this current expansion possibly had a beginning. Allan Guth , co-author of the BGV theorem and pioneer of cosmic inflation says ……quote :
The Big Bang was most likely not the first expansion our universe has experienced, the cosmos most likely goes through an ever expansion and contraction, and we are simply living in one of those phases.
.
Allan Guth : phD, professor of physics and Astro physics, Massachusetts Institute of technology .
Nothing but endless assertions without evidence or reason.
BUT! It does eatablish that theists believe something can exist without a creator, which means one can just as easily assert the entire universe has always existed and doesn't require a creator.
And the difference there is the universe is observable and has continously testable existence amd properties. No god needed.
That would just redefine the universe as God (or as including God), so does nothing. To exist without a creator, it needs to have no limits at all, but the universe does. Believe it not, we thought of that objection long ago LOL.
@@logicianboneswhat are the limits of the universe?
@@therick363 Do you think the universe is omniscient and entirely alive in an indivisible way? If not, you think it has a limit (or at least you don't know).
@ before asking me a question please answer mine first then ask yours.
@@therick363 ... That is the answer. Can you read?
"God Is Self-Existent"
The Pure Definition of Begging the Question and Circular Argument.
It is a logical certainty that there must exist an uncaused first cause which is self-existent. Even philosophers from thousands of years ago realized this. Your attitude is thousands of years behind the times.
Keep defending that your intelligence ultimately comes from nonintelligence.
@@LawlessNate On the contrary, it is thousands of years ahead of the gullible minds.
@@LawlessNateso then I can offer an alternative option for this uncaused first cause other than this god right?
@@therick363 There are things that can be known about this uncaused first cause via deductive logic. As one example, the uncaused first cause must be some kind of personal agent rather than some kind of unguided force. The uncaused first cause must have many of the properties that monotheists mean by the concept of "god", so you denying that it's God you'd simply be calling a rose by any other name.
“God is self existent’, and you know this how? Aseity is nothing but philosophical jargon.
The “word”was made up by man. Yep, theism is an adult game of make believe.
Even philosophers from thousands of years ago realized the logical necessity of an uncaused first cause. It's a 100% true fact of reality which you'd have to deny the validity of logic itself to suggest otherwise. You're simply ignorant of the topic and your attitude is thousands of years behind the times.
@@LawlessNate No basis for that answer at all.
@@ji8044 No basis for your objection at all.
You do know "jargon" doesn't mean "nonsense" right?
@@LawlessNate While I don’t fully agree with the OP, what you’re saying is a common misconception. It’s possible to get around the first cause argument by positing that time extends infinitely far into the past. And no, entropy is not a problem since an infinite sum can be finite. (Plus, it’s a statistical “law” anyway.) Even if the first cause was necessary, it isn’t necessarily God, let alone the Christian one. That’s why I don’t find the Kalam convincing at all. You have to make assumptions to force it to work the way you need it to.
Fatal flaw: the speaker assumes the existence of God, which assumption is wholly unjustified.
No. Craig's talking about sound deduction of God's existence, not assumption.
@@logicianbones "No. Craig's talking " Nobody has ever produced any sound deduction for the existence claim of any god.
@@philhart4849 Then show an actual reason why it isn't sound. Bald assertion isn't an argument.
@@philhart4849 Yes we have.
@@logicianbones "Yes we have." When and where have you produced any sound deduction for the existence claim of any god?
So what you are suggesting is that God, before creating his very first creation existed for an eternity past being the only thing in existence. That seems very strange to me. It must have been that he, God, really got board after eons and eons of time being all by himself with absolutely nothing else in existence to finally decide to pop something else into existence out of nothing. I don't see how the words, "In the beginning" actually suggest this concept. Also the words, "3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." seems to say that only the things that were made were made by him. This leads me to ask if there are other things that weren't made that are also self-existent. Thus he might have made things from things that are self-existent like unorganized matter maybe. What evidence is there that nothing else existed?
Your first arguments there are close to the Loneliness Problem with Unipersonal ideas of God, so actually argues for the Trinity. But boredom isn't really a problem, since God isn't subject to emotions. In the (absolute) beginning, God did something, means God pre-existed it. Pretty simple. To the last bit, see Colossians 1, especially verse 16. Jesus wasn't made, and made all things, and all other things than God have been made, basically. (Also if there were two such things, one or the other isn't ultimate, so is contingent on the other, so doesn't really solve the problem. See other threads for more details.)
There was no "before" God created the universe
@@logicianbones So are you suggesting that God was not all alone because he had Jesus as part of his same being and the Holy Ghost? But being the same being although separate persons (very incomprehensible) wouldn't they all have the same thoughts and ideas being they are the same being? The three in one being the only thing that existed for an eternity past still seems quite lonely or boring or without much purpose for an eternity past. We are talking about an unlimited never ending past with nothing else in existence until that first creation came about. Seems very, very strange concept to me. How is God not subject to emotions and is considered a God of love? Isn't love an emotion? I understand that Jesus was the same being as the Father but a separate person (very incomprehensible) and that he created all things, but my issue is that before the very first creation they existed for an eternity past with nothing else existing. Isn't that a very strange concept? Seems like a long, long, time to not have much purpose.
@PinkKeeby So are you suggesting that the universe is as self-existent as God himself?
@JohnDoe-po8ei No. I'm just saying that time came to exist along with the universe, it is a property of it. So that scenario of God sitting there for eons and eons until he decided to create the universe isn't accurate. God doesn't experience the flow of time as we do, He is timeless
These videos are just so ridiculous.
God exists. Why? Because I say he HAS to exist.
Slice up that strawman. Hack away at it. Good job! (Pats on head.)
@@logicianbones: "It belongs to the very concept of 'God' to exist." (8:08)
This is the only argument for the existence of a god that I noticed in the video. But concepts are the kind of thing that it was pointed out, elsewhere in the video, don't actually exist:
"We are merely pretending, or imagining, that mathematical objects like numbers exist..." (5:49)
Concepts, like numbers, are merely the product of our imagination. So, yes, the argument of the video is that a god exists because he is imagined to exist.
@@jamesc3505 You think this one video is all Craig's said on it??
@@jamesc3505 And that's saying the thing the concept describes is what exists, not the abstract description of the thing. You're missing the point.
@@jamesc3505 He has longer vids on this; please watch them before leaping to assumptions.
Oh, you were brave for leaving the comments open, but I suspect that won't last long.
"The only reason that any of us exists is that we were caused to exist. We're dependent on something other than ourselves. Our existence is contingent"
-And you determined this, how?
"But that's not the case with god. He exists independently of anything else."
-Unless you're going to demonstrate that a god exists and is not contingent, this is just one big special pleading cake with the icing of an assertion on top.
"God exists from himself"
-This makes absolutely no sense.
"God is the sole ultimate reality"
-What? This makes absolutely no sense.
"God is not just self-existent but is necessarily existent"
-And you determined this, how?
"Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence"
-'Greater' meaning what? More impressive? Bigger? Higher in number? And 'contingent existence' would have to be demonstrated in the first place, and at this point, nobody has demonstrated that anything that exists, did not exist at some point.
"If god is the greatest possible being... he exists in every possible world"
-And you determined this, how? You can't just define things into existence to try and get away with a narrative. You would have to demonstrate knowledge of 'every possible world', and then demonstrate that god would necessarily be present in all of them, without simply restating the claim that he is.
"It's meaningless to ask, 'who made god?'"
-No it isn't. It's a reasonable reply to the assertion that god does not need a creator, or that god created everything. I'm sure it's a frustrating question to believers because you don't have a legitimate answer to it, but can only restate that that's how you simply define what a god is, but it is a reasonable response. Just like it isn't 'meaningless' to ask why all bachelors are unmarried. Though the context of these two questions is fantastically different, as someone may just... not know what a bachelor is when they are described.
"It belongs to the very concept of god, to exist. He cannot, not exist"
-Thaaaaaaat's not how this works. Nice try, though.
I think this presentation would have been more convincing if it were from the big man himself, though.
"nobody has demonstrated that anything that exists, did not exist at some point" Is this a typo? Did you always exist?
The rest is answered in more detailed videos. I keep getting the impression a lot of you think a good argument is to just object that this one video doesn't answer all questions... All this really does it tell us you're, well, new to this, to put it politely. (Some of it answers itself. You need it explained to you why a being that exists in all possible worlds is greater than one who doesn't, for example?? Also, is it meaningful to ask "What caused all existence?"?)
Sure. Let's take it from the top.
//Our existence is contingent"
-And you determined this, how?//
Unless you have a very strange and implausible concept of yourself, you will admit that you haven't always existed. You came into existence a finite time ago as a result of prior causal factors. This makes you contingent. So it is with all humans. Human beings as a species have not always existed, so there's another point of contingency.
//Unless you're going to demonstrate that a god exists and is not contingent, this is just one big special pleading cake with the icing of an assertion on top.//
This channel and the Reasonable Faith ministry as a whole has provided mountains of evidence that God exists and is not contingent. Two such arguments are the Leibnizian argument and the Ontological argument. Here are the links to those:
Leibnizian argument: ruclips.net/video/FPCzEP0oD7I/видео.htmlsi=GN0LxBYDX3GddJ0Q
Ontological argument: ruclips.net/video/xBmAKCvWl74/видео.htmlsi=oP6EKRdOhKWZpj6E
//"God exists from himself"... "God is the sole ultimate reality"
-This makes absolutely no sense... What? This makes absolutely no sense.//
What about these statements doesn't make sense to you?
//"God is not just self-existent but is necessarily existent"
-And you determined this, how?//
Again, see the arguments linked above.
//"Necessary existence is greater than contingent existence"
-'Greater' meaning what? More impressive? Bigger? Higher in number? And 'contingent existence' would have to be demonstrated in the first place, and at this point, nobody has demonstrated that anything that exists, did not exist at some point.//
Greater is meant here in a qualitative sense. A maximally great being would have all and only the attributes of a qualitatively perfect being. Granted, there's subjectivity involved in our *discerning* what those great making properties are and whether there's a being that has them, but this is very different from whether such a being possibly exists. Unless you can show some type of internal incoherence, it seems clear to Dr. Craig and other philosophers (even many atheist philosophers) that the concept is coherent.
//"If god is the greatest possible being... he exists in every possible world"
-And you determined this, how? You can't just define things into existence to try and get away with a narrative. You would have to demonstrate knowledge of 'every possible world', and then demonstrate that god would necessarily be present in all of them, without simply restating the claim that he is.//
This is not defining things into existence. Note the conditional "if" at the beginning. Again, even atheist philosophers admit that if God exists, then he exists in every possible world. The idea of God is one of a being which is self-existent and cannot not exist. So, if such a being exists, then it exists in every possible world.
//"It's meaningless to ask, 'who made god?'"
-No it isn't. It's a reasonable reply to the assertion that god does not need a creator, or that god created everything. I'm sure it's a frustrating question to believers because you don't have a legitimate answer to it, but can only restate that that's how you simply define what a god is, but it is a reasonable response. Just like it isn't 'meaningless' to ask why all bachelors are unmarried. Though the context of these two questions is fantastically different, as someone may just... not know what a bachelor is when they are described.//
The concept of God is that of an uncreated being. So, by asking who created God, one is essentially asking who created an uncreated being, which is logically incoherent. Such a being may not exist, but that doesn't mean the question itself is meaningful.
And, yes, it's meaningless to ask why all bachelors are unmarried if you're looking for more than a definitional reply. Likewise, it's meaningless to ask who created God if you're looking for more than a definitional reply.
- RF Admin
@@Logician-Bones "Did you always exist?" That is what all the evidence points to, whereas zero evidence points to a creator or creation event of any sort, but unlike some demographics of people, I don't make baseless assertions.
As for the question about being "greater", you just... restated my question and asked me if I needed to ask it. Not sure what to do with that.
@@rampagingswine9475 You're seriously arguing that the evidence says that you always existed? That's pretty bold, I'll give you that! But I think virtually everybody else will leave you there as lacking any credibility... And such an argument would only argue for God in another way anyway. Next: The old "zero evidence". Way off, my friend.
@@rampagingswine9475 A few more points, so switching back to this account for them (we'll see how this goes; YT is autoghosting a lot lately). Can you answer the question about if something caused "all existence"? Also did something cause "all causes"? (Something outside of them?) Are those coherent questions? Also, are you omniscient? If not, you have distinct limits. Even if you had always existed, having a beginning is only ONE type of distinct limit. You aren't infinitely sized, you have a weight limit, etc. Even a beginningless yet contingent you would have external causes to your current nature. Even I have now become one, since I caused you to reply to me.
"...you might not have existed."
False. If we are supposing that circumstances were different than what they actually were, then we are talking about fiction not fact.
You're having to presume the truth of determinism to suggest such a thing. If libertarian free will is a real thing then we actively make real choices in real-time that shape what happens next, and if that's the case then if our past-decisions were different it follows rationally that the present would have been different as well.
@LawlessNate I presume that things are as they are rather than not. If libertarian free will is a thing that exists, then it is not possible for it not to exist.
good answer.
This coming from the same secularists who posit the existence of a multiverse to rationalize the fine tuning of the universe LOL 😂
@@Hola-ro6yvthe multiverse comes from mathematics and deep physics concepts
God is self existent.
Why?
Because we don't have any OTHER way to prove his existence.
God is merely the essence of sophistry.
Hello, that whose essence - what it is - is identical to its existence - that it is - is necessary to concurrently impart existence for everything whose essence is distinct from its existence. This has nothing to do with the past or whether or not the universe has a beginning, but with the here and now. The requirement of that whose essence is not distinct from its existence follows logically from the distinction between them in other things. There are 3 main arguments for the reality of this distinction which I could describe in another comment if wanted. As those things in which they are distinct require a concurrent cause for their continual existence as obviously they cannot impart their own existence to themselves as that would require them to be logically prior to themselves in existence which is utterly nonsensical; in other words they would have to exist to cause themselves before -- either temporally or logically -- they actually exist which is logically impossible. Therefore, it requires a concurrent cause either by something where there is, again, such a distinction or in the unique thing -- there could only possibly be one as for there to be multiple would require a distinguishing feature, but then the essence would not be identical to its existence, but be existence plus whatever the distinguishing feature-- in which there is no such distinction.
Could there be an infinite regress of things with such a distinction? No. That is because this is a hierarchical causal series in which concurrently powerless-by-themselves effects must terminate in a first member -- not temporally -- who is the power source. As it is obvious that at least one thing exists with such a distinction it necessitates this first member in which the essence is identical to its existence otherwise none of the effects, namely everything with such a distinction, would exist, e.g, you, a dog, or a tree. Upon fleshing out all the details of the subsistent existence one arrives at that who is perfect, omnipotent, omniscient and much else that could not be predicated of the universe. However, this is what we mean by God. And it should be noted that these attributes are analogous and that God is identical to them. His existence equals His omnipotence and so forth. Therefore, God exists. Jesus loves you. God bless
if you are happy to accept that self-existent things can exist, why posit a god that we have no evidence for, instead of pointing to the universe, which as far as we can tell cant be created or destroyed?
Because we do have good evidence of Him =)
I see the existence of a higher creation power through all the things that surround me in life/nature, including my own consciousness and the consciousness of others. And greater evidence I have for God is a personal relationship that is every bit as real as my relationship with any other human on this planet, except deeper and more meaningful.
I, like others, have seen/heard things that are not of this world in pursuit of my relationship with God over 47+ years. Things I never imagined were possible, when I grew up as an agnostic.
But I like everyone else can't give evidence of personal experiences, except for my totally changed life, desire and direction.
The universe is one of those platonic concepts and not really a "thing". The things in the universe are contingent and temporary.
@tritt78 Please provide one _evidentiary fact_ that goes toward demonstrating this 'God' is a reality.
@@SpaceCadet4JesusAnd I don't see such.
My personal relationships 1) involve REAL entities (persons); 2) occur at a REAL and particular location and time; 3) with REAL interactions that are observable; 4) are experienced within a REAL medium of communication (voice, body language, gesture, touch, affection); with a REAL initiation (phone call, invitation, visitation); 5) and REAL response (affirmation, disagreement, correction, encouragement).
Does a Christian's personal relationship with this Christ exhibit ANY of these characteristic features? Yes or no.
Great, now try and use that same logic and apply it to the eternal infinite universe.
We already did; it would have distinct limits like not being omniscient so doesn't qualify as the ultimate cause.
@@Logician-Boneswhy wouldn't it be omniscient and your god would? It's just your projection because you believe that we as humans are the highest for of existence in the universe, which is infinite with infinite number of galaxies, and you think that god therefore has to be similar to us, so you invited a god in our image and said that he made us in his image. That's just so silly and childish.
@@VeljaPopov It's not that the universe wouldn't be omniscient and God would, but that if the universe was omniscient, it simply would BE God. You would just be redefining "universe" to have the same definition as what we label "God." The rest of your comment seems to be imagining something about me I never said or implied, and isn't true. I'm not projecting anything about human nature onto God.
@@Logician-Bones sorry then if I misinterpreted your statement. I'm just saying that religions view of some personal god being somewhere that somehow created the universe is irrelevant. We have what we have that is our reality and it's governed by the natural laws. What is that we can't ever know, we can just use common sense, critical thinking, logic and science to make sense of the world around us, so that we can adapt better, for the purpose of our survival. I don't know about you personally and your ide of god, but religions ideas of god and literal interpretations of the Bible are pure nonsense and totally irrelevant.
@@VeljaPopov Why would they be irrelevant? And how are they nonsense? Every actual attempted argument to those ends that I've seen - having been looking in-depth and in conversations like this with skeptics, for over 20 years now, has been logically debunked where testable. So with respect, I don't think so.
Well produce this Self-Existent guy then. Have him on national television.!
Hi Larry,
God is constantly making himself known - and to ALL people.
You have more than your intellect by which to receive knowledge. I presume that you believe that there is a thing called love - and that you and others exist. You did not reach these conclusions with your mind - your mind cannot prove either of these things. Instead you reached these conclusions using your relational channel. They are relational knowledge.
The bible says that God - who is Spirit - relates with our spirit - the Spirit TESTIFIES to us (Romans 8:16) - a word which implies both truth and relational experience at the same time. We can relate with God as we can relate with people - via our spirit.
A person who says that they don't believe in God is not dishonest if by that statement they mean that their mind has not concluded that there is a God. But we are more than our minds. It is because we are more than our minds that the bible says that every person is without excuse when it comes to awareness of God (note in the verse below that God's divine qualities are PERCEIVED - which is a different thing to deduced - our minds can only think - they aren't capable of RELATING with God):
Romans 1:21 ESV
For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.
Spiritual truth is the consequence of relationship - relationship is not the consequence of intellectual conclusions.
@larrycarter3765 He did make an appearance on earth, His name is Jesus, there's a book about him. You should give it a read. It'll change your life.
He did make an appearance on earth, His name is Jesus, there's a book about him. You should give it a read. It'll change your life.
@@iankerlin He also happened to appear to Paul as a special occasion, according to the Bible. But for whatever reason, He’s never bothered to do so again, even for those who are actively searching. As someone who fits that description, I have to conclude that if God does exist, then He doesn’t care enough to prove it.
I know your rebuttal will be about free will. But God showing Himself will only enlighten those searching and expose those too stubborn to listen. Ultimately, it’s God’s call, so He’ll know if people are faking it.
@@seanpierce9386 Non sequitur; he's already proven it. Why need to keep on doing so over and over, when sufficient proof exists of types that stand for all time?
Since we know the universe is somewhere over 13 billion years old, that means God just hung around for 99.99997% of that time bored until he decided to create humans for the sole purpose of worshipping him. It's an idiotic assertion that God always existed.
I think it's a very narrow and unenlightened viewpoint you present that God created such a huge Universe with such large distances between stars, planets and galaxies only so he can sit around bored until he creates a single very small Earth with teeny tiny people on it for the sole purpose of worshiping him.
Although I cannot give you direct evidence, I think God created a huge variety of civilizations throughout the Universe, and I take the example of extreme variety of all the living species that lives on Earth as a tip off of his desire for variety elsewhere and his desire for creation of life through the Universe that can enjoy consciousness, progress and independent growth, besides worshipping him.
Wait, so your comeback is "God couldn't have always existed because he would've been bored"? C'mon, you can do better.
Who are you to say what God was or wasn’t doing during the time prior to humans? What evidence do you have that He was bored and actionless?
A being that is called God cannot be contingent. By definition, God is the greatest conceivable being.
Observational science is contrary to long ages for the universe. At any rate, it doesn't matter. Even if the universe were a trillion trillion years old, God would still be waiting around for an eternity to create (according to your view). Actually, God wasn't "waiting" if time hadn't been created yet.
@@ji8044 I think it's a very narrow and unenlightened viewpoint that God created such a huge Universe with such large distances between stars, planets and galaxies only so he can sit around bored until he creates a single very small Earth with teeny tiny people on it for the sole purpose of worshiping him.
Although I cannot give you direct evidence, I think God created a huge variety of civilizations throughout the Universe, and I take the example of extreme variety of all the living species that lives on Earth as a tip off of his desire for variety elsewhere and his desire for creation of life through the Universe that can enjoy consciousness, progress and independent growth, besides worshipping him.
Wow. Another baseless claim that can't be falsified. Color me surprised!
You can falsify his argument through logic. If you think his premises are logically faulty, point it out. Not every truth is through the senses
@@jonathanteoh5759 An argument is a set of true premises leading to one and only inevitable conclusion based on the laws of logic and the rules of proper inference.
Do you agree? Yes or no.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Yes, I agree
@@jonathanteoh5759 The verity of any premise can be established to be true if and only if one of following is demonstrated: the premise is 1) axiomatic; 2) deduced logically from two other and independent veritable statements presented within the same argument (prior premises) by means of the rules proper inference; 3) can be _demonstrated_ to be true (eg, water begins to boil as its temperature reaches 100⁰ C; 4) are generally accepted to be true by the vast majority of accredited experts (eg, Scientific Theories), or 5) can be considered factual by other verified means ensuring validity, authenticity, and accuracy.
Do you agree?
@@Theo_Skeptomai You offered no counter and threw up smoke and mirrors because you have nothing. well done. Happy to see you are tuning desperate to TRY and HOPE that the videos coming out from here don't shatter your view any further. You are grasping at straws and need to humble yourself. Or continue to honor yourself and worship your own intellect, because that is your god.
Just a way to control and exploit gullible people, with no basis in fact.
What's your objection? - RF Admin
I love this new series❤❤❤pls bring us more and more!!!
Is belief in Christ used to justify political beliefs or does belief in Christ actually change your politics?
For example when Christian's vote for never ending gun violence or tax breaks for billionaires...or unsustainable health care costs or inaction on climate change do they use theirr belief in Christ to justify this support?
Or when the words of the bible don't align with their political ideology do they just throw those words away?
1 Peter 3:10 NLT
If you want to enjoy life and see many happy days, keep your tongue from speaking evil and your lips from telling lies.
James 3:3-6 NLT
"The tongue is a small thing that makes grand speeches. But a tiny spark can set a great forest on fire. And among all the parts of the body, the tongue is a flame of fire. It is a whole world of wickedness, corrupting your entire body. It can set your whole life on fire, for it is set on fire by hell itself."
Most Christian leaders in Germany welcomed the rise of Nazism in 1933. They did not speak out against hateful speech or violence. After 1933, most did not speak out against legal measures that progressively stripped Jews of their rights.
Do you think the Christians who lived in Germany and who voted for and supported Hitler used their belief in Christ to justify this support? Do you think the words of Hitler mattered to them or did they love his words? Do you think they ever regretted their actions or just regretted that Hitler lost? Do you think the priests that preached from the pulpits that Hilter was chosen by God for Germany are burning in hell now?
Hitler - "The ultimate goal must definitely be the removal of the foreigners altogether."
Trump -"You wouldn’t believe how bad these foreigners are. These aren’t people. These are animals."
Trump -" If I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole. That’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country."
Hitler -" We must care for the purity of [our] own blood by eliminating foreigners."
Trump-" Foreigners are poisoning the blood of our country."
Trump - "I don’t know if you call foreigners people… In some cases they’re not people."
Hitler -" I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: By defending myself against the foreigner, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."
HItler - "With satanic joy in his face, the black-haired foreigner lurks in wait for the unsuspecting girl whom he defiles with his blood, thus stealing her from her people."
Trump -"These foreigners are rapists and criminals."
Hitler -"Humanitarianism is the expression of stupidity and cowardice."
Another great video! Very nice animations and of course excellent teaching content
Oh dear
POPCORN TIME!
Neutralism: Hardly an answer to Platonism - unless you can show that god is more than an abstract concept. Pretense Theory: Ditto for imaginary concept. Awww why'd we stop there? Okay so where exactly is the "necessity" for god? Why the need to deify a synonym for "dunno"? Why do I feel the need to keep saying "God of the gaps chaps"?
It does not follow that god must exist because we are able to concieve of a god......
We cant imagine things into existence like that...
God.
Bro you are hopelessly confused
Precisly, that was my point too. These religious charlatans use philosophy to make stuff up and put a bow on top to make it look intelligent.
That's not the argument. Strawman fallacy. Our ability to conceive of this maximally great being is PART of the argument. Don't conflate one part with the whole argument. (That's also composition fallacy.)
@@logicianbones
Where is the part of the argument that shows this being actually exists?
Christianity or our Lord Jesus Christ is not about materialism or things of the flesh. He is all about the divine moral intelligence and truth of God, as he tells us in his gospels: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" John 4:24
There is more to this life than just the materialistic world, there is the spiritual/emotional world of morality, and what we consider to be sacred and divine.
What do we perceive as sacred? Ourselves? Our family? Other people?
Do we consider the moral actions of particular individuals as divine or mundane?
Only our Lord Jesus Christ can answer these questions ✝️
Then why do yall mention something that's not created ? That means God doesn't exist. Nothingness ( void ) is the definition yall should study more.
Because he's always been (ie never created). Got it?
What I want to know is: How long DID God wait before creating the universe?
That's not how it works; he created time in the first place. (Alternatively you can describe it as eternity past.)
I think Rainn Wilson had it right when he said "God is an experience, not a dude". For those already committed to the aseity of God Dr. Craig's comments make perfect sense.
Why think that Rainn is correct? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos By "dude" I mean a being, one substantially like us since we are reported made in His image. While seen as omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, He has thoughts, feelings, emotions, desires as we do. He desires relationships and can forgive us when we stray. While not an old man with a long beard, this makes Him a "dude". However the omni-business is inconsistent with this "dudeness". He has to be outside of time to have created time, but he has to be within time to have this "like us-ness". Postulating some sort of "cosmic time" to resolve this paradox is a slight-of-hand trick. A more honest conception of Him is that he is not really like us at all (what "made in His image" means is a mystery). Without being like us, the only way we can be known to us is indirectly -- by experience. So, it is not rational to see God as any sort of person, superior or not. Doing so just doesn't work. On the other hand, I have experiences that have had some sort of divine nature. I can't explain them, they just happened. Thus I think Mr. Wilson is on to something.
Lest anyone think that the word is Jesus and not the Almighty’s powerful speech which creates and it is also personified as a he, the word is what the Almighty used to create in Genesis 1 as we read “And God said:” it is not a person as many think of the word, as I said it is personified in John just as wisdom is personified as a woman in the Proverbs.
Jesus never said he was God and in every gospel portrays himself as subordinate to gospel, as does Paul in all his epistles.
It's Jesus. Jesus is the Word literally personified. See JP Holding on this. These aren't opposing ideas LOL.
@@ji8044 /Jhn 8:28 - So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that [fn Lit I AM]I am [He], and I do nothing from Myself, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me./ Jesus claimed to be the I AM of Exodus and Isaiah, the divine name, and to be the same entity as the Father, as if he was a separate entity, he would necessarily do things from himself.
@@ji8044 /Jhn 8:28 - So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that [fn Lit I AM]I am [He], and I do nothing from Myself, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me./
@@ji8044 /Jhn 8:28 - So Jesus said, “When you lift up the Son of Man, then you will know that [fn Lit I AM]I am [He], and I do nothing from Myself, but I speak these things as the Father taught Me./
I love these!!! Great job!
Y'all think god is real but think this whole thing being a simulation is unreal 😂 its the dame crap
Well done!
the greater mind generated the stories, Jesus was part of the giant hoodwink, I know this as I told God I want the truth
why god exist
is he obligated by existence
if yes then its tragedic for us and him
because he will create universe infinite times
our soul will get exhausted by creating again and again 😢 we are trápped and god himself trápped in existence
Yes he's "obligated" to exist (necessary), and no, he need not make infinite universes. Even if he did, why is that itself tragic? Tragedies do happen in our universe, though. But God outsmarts evil in the end.
@logicianbones oh ok what will actually change after that isnt one life is and 1 time universe is enough to entertain and satisfy and wipe out gods aloneness
@@WaveFunctionCollapsed No, because a limited life doesn't fulfill the need for one unlimited pattern of all patterns to exist (having unlimited life in every self-consistent sense).
@@logicianbones ok next question can i go outside of god i just hate him i know he exist but i dont want to be part of him i wanna break my soul from him exist seperately forever in non existence
This guy would have been selling used cars if he were not selling religion
God bless you
Perfect! Thank you again. Bring more video's please.