WLC Reacts! to Why I'm an Atheist
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 4 окт 2024
- Dr. William Lane Craig watches and responds to a video of an atheist giving 3 reasons why she's an atheist.
For more information visit: www.reasonable...
#williamlanecraig #reasonablefaith #philosophy #theology #atheist
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablef...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains many full-length videos, debates, and lectures: / reasonablefaithorg
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Page: / reasonablefaithorg
![BabyChiefDoit - Too Slow (feat. STAR BANDZ) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zayaxws7RPg/mqdefault.jpg)
William Lane Craig reacting to TikTok atheist videos is like bringing your level 100 pokemon back to the tall grass in the first village
😂😂😂😂 this comment! I was trying to find the perfect way to express it and you’ve nailed it.
Bless WLC. He certainly played a role in my reversion.
You are correct, because pokemons don't exist.
The cards represent the imagination of humans, just like the stories in the Bible do.
@@ji8044 This is the funniest one I’ve seen in a while
Lol right, wlc is a lvl 2 ratatat in comparison.
@@VeritasVivet Would you like me to break it down further for you?
Have you ever noticed that people tend to eat what their parents eat? That's why I don't believe in food.
Have you ever noticed people tend to look like what their parents look like? That's why I don't believe in evolution 🙄🙄
@@ThroughTheKJVBibleInOneYear LoL good one! This should be top comment! 😂👍
Would be a good argument, if there was one chef who was meant to be controlling it all.
Nice try though.
A better one is if somone is an atheist because their parents are atheists, it must mean that Atheism is wrong, right?
A better one is if someone is an atheist because their parents are atheists, it must mean that it's wrong, Atheism is, right?
She offers the most simplistic and easily refuted points with such pride and confidence - and I fear she is typical of her generation.
And the generations before her. Hitchens made these same arguments when he was alive. Their objections never change.
@@SojiRo23 According to atheists like Alex O'Connor, all you need to do is put "problem of" before a non-sequitur and it automatically becomes an irrefutable argument against God.
The first one is a fact and has been demonstrated.
And winning an argument in your head from a tiktok makes you better than her somehow?
@@DylanLucynski Where have you seen that claim being made?
Not that she's not informed, she willingly doesn't want to engage with the arguments. God bless you immensely ❤✝️
nice lies about someone else, dear. It's a shame your cult depends on lies so much.
@@velkyn1 State one lie. I'm waiting 😅
@@velkyn1 lol mad?
Yeah, basically the avoiding the question all together by saying theism is false because where you're born determines what you believe as an adult, the problem of evil(which has countless videos answering...she may not like the answer but she doesn't even seem to engage in it, just says 'evil exists and therefore a good God doesn't', and the patently absurd claim there is no evidence for a logical, personal, immaterial and powerful first cause.
@@mattm7798 Exactly! I'm amazed how Atheists wants to just poke holes without even engaging with the arguments.
Yes but her gloating arrogance says she is right and that’s all that matters.
God bless her.
This young woman is a former Mormon who discovered the fraud behind her LDS beliefs and has been speaking out. Good for her! However, like many coming out of cults who realize they were deceived, she now believes that there is no truth, having abandoned her once firmly held belief system. As one other former LDS remarked on another youtube video who eventually became a believing Christian, “If Mormonism isn’t true, that doesn’t mean that nothing is true.” I pray for this young woman that she will come to know that there is real truth. That she will come to Jesus, the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
Indeed, "The existence of hypocrites (& cults) doesn't prove the non-existence of true believers (& God's church)" -R Sproul. In fact, hypocrites are like forgeries; they can only exist because something real and true exists in the first place.
Ah ok, that makes more sense. Yeah, if she was raised a Mormon and dug into their practices and beliefs and found them lacking, good on her, but she threw the baby out with the bathwater. If I leave communism because it's a terrible government system, I shouldn't embrace anarchy because one form of government was severely lacking.
Blood sacrifice worship is the way out of her cult? Hmm.. interesting concept.
What’s ironic is all of the arguments that Craig just said that she does not understand have been debunked.
@@freethinkman7678No, she hasn't been debunked.
Her arguments (with respect) are exceedingly shallow and seem like she spent a hot 30s on them.
The first one is demonstrable. The problem of evil isn't going anywhere.
@@vladtheemailer3223 The first one is as weak as the others. The idea of "everyone converting to that by now" is LADEN with pre-suppositions about not only human nature, but about the Divine will and any soteriological order or plan.
@@vladtheemailer3223obvious troll is obvious
@rosamorales729 So, are you going to demonstrate that I am wrong? Name-calling isn't very Christian like.
@@vladtheemailer3223 RUclips is an absolutely useless medium for conversation of this nature. A few hours ago I replied to you and now it's gone; censored I presume because it sensed (gasp) disagreement?!?!?
0:16 "you'd think that if there were one super obvious religion that everyone would have converted to that by now." Hahaha its funny how she doesn't seem to realize or care that the same could easily be said of atheism
If atheism was so obviously the best choice, then everyone would be atheist by now! 😂😂😂
So, christianity isn't the obvious choice? I don't think you thought through what you said very carefully.
@@vladtheemailer3223 LOL when did I say the choice has to be obvious? 😂
I don't think you thought through what you said very carefully! 😅😅😅😅😅
atheism is not a religion.
@@elgatofelix8917 I'm referring to her statement. Sure, it could be said about atheism. The problem is she is talking about christianity. You aren't bothered by christianity not being super obvious?
BTW, lol and a bunch of laughing emojis makes you look ignorant and immature.
? Atheism is the absence of a belief in god. It’s not a religion as it is only defined by what it is not.
Her husband was using the "influenced by other religions" argument against Jesus, and she was in agreement. She is simply not informed. She was hurt by the LDS organization, and has now abandoned the search for truth.
Good to check in on WLC once in a while
Yep
Why..I find his arguments silly and outdated.....his Kalam cosmological argument is just a rehashing of St. Anselms first cause argument....disproved over and over in philosophy.....
If children have the same religion as their parents. If she has children, then her children have the same worldview as her!
I think that is the point she is making. If God was so awesome, then he would make his plan clearly understood by all. Instead people just wind up believing what their parents tell them.
@@senorbb2150 That is against free will and some people would still not believe it
@@jopeteus God making sure people understand his plan for their salvation would not take away their free will, it would equip them to make better decisions.
Great words Dr. Craig! Appreciate your ministry!
These videos are great. Dr Craig always breaks down objections calmly and with respect.
With respect? Craig is many things when interacting with skeptics or atheists but respectful is not a word I would use. His condescension is palpable with many of his interactions.
@@arcticpangolin3090 In what way is he disrespectful and condescending? Confident, yes.
@@Dane2177
Like in the way he insists she has no understanding of the arguments for god’s existence based on nothing. She didn’t touch on them here, probably because these aren’t particularly useful for convincing people anyway.
He often presents it as if the possibility of someone just genuinely disagreeing with his ideas is off the table.
@@arcticpangolin3090 Well, Craig did say here that she doesn't _seem_ to have understanding of the arguments. He didn't state it conclusively like some on either side of this issue might.
He just has confidence in his arguments and is a skilled debater.
@@Dane2177
The word seem doesn’t detract much from anything. If someone was to say someone seemed like an idiot this would stop this being disrespectful.
Another atheist “know-it-all”
Did this atheiest state that she knows everything? Yes or no.
@@Theo_SkeptomaiNice try genius but actions speak louder than words.
Better luck next time, Einstein.
@@Hola-ro6yv Was that a "yes" or a "no"?
@@Hola-ro6yv test5
@@Hola-ro6yv Well that was a fatuous comeback Hola
Wow, I'm honestly aghast at how poor her arguments actually were! I was truly expecting something a little more sophisticated, but this is even bad as compared to the 'online' village atheist. Perhaps this was the very reason this video was selected for analysis, but I'm actually embarrassed for her.
Her arguments are just as poorly thought out as the average internet atheistroll
What did she get wrong?
@@vladtheemailer3223 While we could go back and forth on this, the troubling thing about your question is that this video is literally dedicated to precisely what was wrong with what she said!
@@clintgreive Kindly ignore vladtheemailer3223 -- he is just here to troll and be a nuisance.
Even more embarrassing was WLC's pathetic reply! Only an argument from appeal, no actual evidence at all.
I like how he answers basic objections in the same way that he would answer philosophical objections, I also like how we explains it in a way that’s easy to understand.
Aside from being a genetic fallacy, the first one doesn’t make much sense to me. There are many true things that are not blatantly obvious.
“If atoms exist, then why did it take humanity so long to come up with a theory for them? You’d think that if they existed, it’d be clearly obvious.”
I think the argument almost assumes that religion, (Christianity in this instance), is obligated to be a part of a priori knowledge. While other truths, (gravity, evolution, iambic pentameter, etc) are not obligated to be the same.
Because we are talking about an all loving and powerful God who doesn't want us to burn eternity in hell, and yet loves to play hide and seek with us?
@@edisonchin2463 God has to be pretty damn bad at hide and seek if the majority of the world population believe he exists.
This is the issue with divine hiddenness. If God exists, and if the majority of the world population believes he exists, then God has provided sufficient reason to believe in his existence.
If we follow the Christian tradition, God literally revealed himself as a human man about 2,000 years ago. I don’t know how coming to earth and starting the world’s largest religion is playing hide and seek. That seems absolutely counterintuitive to me.
Why are you comparing scientific theories to religious doctrines?
She’s an ex-Mormon and I think she has been burned pretty badly by her former religion and now is overreacting or the atheists got at her during a vulnerable time. Or all theism was too psychologically uncomfortable because it was too reminiscent of her old head space. I think sometimes theists become atheists because they need a change, like moving away from an old house haunted by memories they want to forget. And the other way around.
whats her social media handle?
Usually it works the exact opposite way around.
Someone will say I was a ___________ (fill in your choice of personal problem) but then I found God.
@@snake1625b Alyssa Grenfell
@@ji8044 Only about 10% of people that leave the Church of Jesus Christ of later day saints (aka Mormon) Stay Christian.
You have to fight God tooth and nail once you've read the book of Mormon not to believe in him.
@@clearstonewindows I am ok with you believing that.
You may not like the way he plays the game, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t exist.
Real Talk: 3 reasons why I'm a(RUclips)Atheist: 1. Attention. 2. Subscribers. 3. Google Adsense $$$.
Maybe you can respond like an adult?
@@vladtheemailer3223 maybe.
@@vladtheemailer3223 You just can't stop projecting can you?
Upside down and backwards, there are probably 10,000 Christian RUclips channels for that reason.
@@mugsofmirth8101 You are filled with personal attacks on many people here.
You apparently don't realize that says much more about you than it does anyone else.
William, you dissect these question elegantly.
It is impossible to prove gods exist or don't exist.
What we can prove or disprove are arguments put forward about the belief in God. For instance Noah's Flood, the global inundation, can be proved to have been false a dozen different ways. The beginning of all life on earth however is an unknown and if believers want to say God started it; there is no way to prove them wrong.
You're wrong.
@@mugsofmirth8101 About what?
"It is impossible to prove gods exist or don't exist. ."
I totally agree. I think there are lots of good philosophic arguments for the existents for God. but few empirical evidence. If any (by design)
Here are some "empirical evidence" ish...
-The lack of proof that our brains are just chemical reactions
-The fact that the combined writings and translations of Joseph Smith contain hundreds of things he should not have known at the time, which have later been proven
-The 18 witnesses of the plates that the book of Mormon came from.
- and #1. When I hear the words of Christ I am moved.
Good luck!
@@clearstonewindows I am neither in favor or against LDS. I am only against bad historical or scientific arguments.
@@ji8044 Sorry it's hard to follow because someone is hiding my comments
That’s one of my favorite ex-LDS RUclipsrs. I am a Oneness Pentecostal, but I have had a lot of good conversations with LDS missionaries and have LDS friends. I like to understand the differences and similarities between various groups. She has been on Mormon Stories before- which I enjoy listening to occasionally to understand why people are leaving the LDS church & even religion more generally.
It is never about the evidence. It is about the heart.
She’s a former Mormon who realized (correctly) that Joseph smith was a fraud, but she threw the baby out with the bath water
The weird part is William never brought forth any evidence in this video.
He only mentioned arguments for the existence of God but didn't bring forth any evidence.
Arguments are not evidence.
@@mustachemac5229 What evidence do you have to justify your assertion that "arguments aren't evidence"?
@@jackplumbridge2704 Because that is how we use words.
If you are a judge and somebody is bringing forth a claim that person needs to present an argument and then back it up with evidence.
Sometimes there is no evidence but that doesn't mean that one can't make an argument.
Does that make sense?
aka we have no evidence so we have to claim our imaginary friend touches an imaginary heart, since the real one is just a pump that moves blood around.
It’s not that she isn’t informed about the arguments, it’s more that arguments aren’t really the same thing as evidence. When most people talk about evidence they are talking more about observations or events which indicate or imply a certain conclusion. For example a blood stained knife being evidence of a stabbing. Arguments can be classified as evidence but don’t usually fall into what we mean when we use the term in this sense.
Craig just assumes she doesn’t know about these arguments or that she hasn’t engaged with these types of discussions. As someone who has, I can say Craig’s arguments are not very compelling on these subject and (like most apologetics) is more aimed at the believers in the audience than the skeptics. They are not useful tools for convincing others but rather a kind of vindication for those who already accept the propositions.
And no, the argument about adopting the same religion as your parents is about how religion is a social tool not an objective fact. She also explicitly talks about this in the context of a lack of a religion which is obviously true. This is an observation we wouldn’t expect if there was a god out there like the Christian god but it is something we would expect from a world without such a god. This is a point to say atheism (or at least the lack of a personal god) better explains observations. Craig is trying to rebuke this by lumping it together with assuming that there is good evidence for god. He’s not treating the topic in the respect it’s presented and this is a very disingenuous and bad faith approach to the topic. To illustrate, let’s play the inverse. Let’s say Craig made a serious of propositions about why he is a theist and one of these was that there is good evidence for the existence of god. Would it be a good faith approach for me to try and minimise his other points by talking about how he is misinformed and that there is no good evidence for god? No. You approach each case based on what it presents. Something Craig often doesn’t do.
And Craig misses the point about the selectiveness of miracles. The point isn’t about being ungrateful to god, this is a ridiculous misrepresentation and I don’t know how Craig got here. I don’t even think this is done with malice because if he intentionally misrepresented her I would expect Craig to come up with a better view. No, the point is that the supposed granting of miracles seems arbitrary and, if caused by god, highly discriminatory.
Craig talks about the burden of proof for the argument from suffering or problem of evil being too heavy for any atheist to bear. This is just fluster. The problem of evil is an internal critique of traditional theism challenging the omni traits against suffering. This argument proposes that the type of suffering we see in our world is contrary to what we would expect if there was an all loving, all powerful and all knowing god. Because if god was all loving or all good, they would not wish for the gratuitous suffering we see. If god was all powerful, he could have done things differently and achieved the same ends. If god was all knowing, he’d know how to do these things. Yet we observe this type of suffering. Thus, at least one of these omni traits need be discarded. Either god doesn’t care, god is unable or god doesn’t know how.
He finishes by misunderstanding the entire point of the video. She isn’t trying to make a positive case for atheism, she’s explaining why she is an atheist and what has been compelling to her. In the same way that when you said you lower the epistemic bar for Christianity you didn’t intend this as a positive case for theism.
About arguments not being evidence, I'll repost this here...
the fine tuning argument is based upon the copious evidence of constants and quantities that are operating in such a way as to produce life, as opposed to all of the other ways they could operate that would preclude life.
Presenting the fine tuning argument only gets done because people have the volumes of evidence behind the argument. For most people this doesn't need explaining.
And once again, biographies about the life of God are evidence for God.
Dr. Craig subscribes to everything above.
@@tea-he8ei
Arguments try to use evidence but themselves are not evidence. At least not in the same sense as we often use the term, as I said in my first paragraph.
Additionally, with your first point about fine tuning, the observations we see aren’t even evidence in the first place. At least not evidence for your conclusion. Because unless you can first demonstrate that these values could have been different, this entire case is dead in the water. Additionally assuming life as an end goal makes the argument circular, because you’re assuming the very intent you’re aiming to prove. A good counter example is to point out that while a royal flush is a rare and significant hand in poker, it is exactly as likely as literally any other specific hand. So even if you could demonstrate that these values could be different you don’t get away from the issues with this argument.
And no, fine tuning gets presented for the same reason every other apologetic argument is put forth, apologetics. It’s starting with an end point of your version of theism and working backwards. Fine tuning in the sense meant by this argument is not something seriously considered outside of the apologetics context.
I would agree the statement “no evidence” isn’t apt and I only responded to Craig’s points because this is what he presented and this wasn’t a good response. But equally it’s an uncharitable way of framing it by presenting this as if the proponent literally means no evidence whatsoever of any sort. Rather it’s referring to what we would all consider to be clear or good evidence. To make this point is just an attempt to get a technical win while not really addressing the root issue or topic. Because really when people say this they are saying “no evidence which convinces me” but shorten it pragmatically as we generally understand what is meant. That’s why I didn’t feel the need to address this particular thing in my comment originally as even Craig gets what they mean. And when Craig accurately understands what is being implied here but you don’t, that’s not a good look.
@@arcticpangolin3090 the answer for fine tuning is either physical necessity, chance or design. As Dr. Craig himself argues. You have chosen physical necessity, but there's no reason to think that the fine tuning needs to be that way. We experiment with some of these things and see the destructive impact on life from changing these quantities one way or another, so now the burden of proof is on the unbeliever to show that the constants and quantities are the way they are and couldn't possibly be different. It doesn't sound very scientific.
A royal flush is rare, how about 2 royal hands in a row, 10, 30, at some point we'd be sensible gamblers and cotton on to the fact that the game is rigged. That's the cosmic constants.
An atheist gambling at the table though is broke, because he denied everything but chance.
I also noticed how you aren't so interested in writing about how the biographies of God are in fact evidence for God.
Lots of evidence for God.
@@tea-he8ei
Once again, demonstrate that they could be different or your argument is dead in the water. You’re the one proposing this argument and thus are the one who needs to prove it. So do so or you don’t have a case. You try to fallaciously shift the burden of proof when the main objection is your failure to demonstrate your most important premise.
I see you’ve missed the point of the poker analogy entirely. It’s not about the specific probability but rather the arbitrary nature of applying significance to a particular outcome. Seriously man, the point was (as I explicitly stated) you are assuming the very intent you need to demonstrate. Thus making this case circular.
And yeah, I didn’t argue about the fact that the biblical texts (if that’s what you are referring to as biographies) are technically evidence. In the same way that the Quran is evidence that Muhammad split the moon and rode a flying horse. The reason why I didn’t put much emphasis on this is because of its insignificance and irrelevance to the topic in general.
@@arcticpangolin3090 it's been demonstrated in laboratory conditions multiple times. You don't believe people can change some states and see how the controlled environment responds differently?
See the only person who failed to shoulder any burden was you by not being able to show the necessity of the value ranges of these contacts and quantities. You've drawn a pair here, no flush.
Comparing the Qur'an to the biographies of Jesus shows you are way out to lunch on arguments from historicity and how people judge the value of historical documents.
The Qur'an has no context, no chronology and gets those things from materials coming hundreds of years later in the form of hadith literature.
The gospels on the other hand conform to multiple historic criteria, contain context, chronology and are specifically about Jesus. The gospels were even composed within the lifetime of eyewitnesses.
So dismissing the Gospel evidence as somehow being like the Qur'an shows you have misunderstood both.
Evidence for God mounting up here. 👍🏻
Except the very existence of so many homespun religions lessens the credibility of any one of those religions being true....doesnt it?
"why I am an atheist"
My response?
"Why I don't care"
And;
"Why it doesn't matter"
She doesn't understand the cosmological argument or the theological argument. Seems Craig is the one that does not understand them the flaws have been pointed out on numerous occasions even taken on face value they have a big fault you are inserting god as the prime mover or the designer god of the gaps yet again.
Craig doesn't appear to understand that's she's an exmormon. None of these arguments would be news to her.
That doesn’t matter because he is addressing her arguments for the benefit of a wider audience, not in attempts to change her mind. I’m sure he knows she will probably never pay attention to this video or even become aware that it exists.
@@rosamorales729 Thats fair but my issue with Craig is his imperceptiveness. Knowing things matters. Have you heard the phrase "he doesn't know what he doesn't know?"
The arguments for the existence of a god can't go much further. They can't tell which god and religion is true.
At that point, we let the holy books hang themselves with their own statements.
Well, for me, it was not too difficult. I followed the one which best explained the world I live in. It just happened to be the most beautiful and sublime.
@@rdrift1879 I used to believe in the bible, but realized all religions were man made attempts to explain everything. Now, people are becoming less religious. Even pastors and bible scholars don't believe the bible anymore!
@@physnoct Some pastors and Bible scholars, yes. But that has been the case for centuries. Globally, Christianity is exploding.
@@rdrift1879
"Globally, Christianity is exploding."
Not sure about that, pretty much the contrary.
Google this: "are people becoming less religious worldwide"
@@rdrift1879 I hope it wasn't the one where a serpent and a donkey had conversations with people, that would be just too stupid!
Christopher Hitchens is the one reason I could believe in Intelligent Design. He’s so perfect he wins every debate he enters
And he's quite dead actually.
@@ji8044 and when he was still breathing he was braindead.
@@rosamorales729 You are extraordinarily more than wrong.
@@ji8044 As we will all be relatively soon.
@@bisbeekid Nope. Communists like Hitchens are extraordinarily wrong.
Have you ever been to an Eastern Orthodox Church, Dr Craig?
Good question. He doesn't seem to talk about the Orthodox Church much or it's doctrines. Not sure why...
@@mugsofmirth8101 The Eastern Church is quite different from the Western tradition. The Eastern Orthodox reject the filioque clause in the Nicaean Creed and practically all of the doctrines of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. Instead, the Eastern Church has doctrines and practices like theosis and hesychasm and the energies-essence distinction of St. Gregory Palamas.
Craig is very much steeped in the Western Christian theological tradition and much of what he believes originates with St. Augustine, whose ideas and doctrines the Eastern Church utterly rejects.
@@mugsofmirth8101 Because he is a fundagelical and a USA fundagelical at that....they never learn about the ancient churches....some of them scarcely even know that the Orthodox churches exist......I have encountered some of these low church types that dont even know what the Episcopal church is!!!
He's adressed this before. I believe he has visited one before but doesn't find EO compelling. Generally WLC focuses on apologetics targeting arguments against Christianity more broadly and doesn't involve himself much in intermural matters.
She got hit by the Lane train 🚂
Brilliant!
Brilliant how a tik tok short makes better points than WLC.
@@void_ling A critique is meaningless without a well-founded argument
@@luisr5577 Exactly my point.
@@void_ling You have nothing.🤣🤣
@@luisr5577Do you need me to repeat the same debunking of WLC’s arguments that get repeated over and over again because he can’t be bothered to change his worldview? It’s honestly so tiring. Yet it astounds me that so many people buy these arguments so they can sleep soundly at night believing there is a god.
I've seen this woman's videos and I feel for her and can't help but pray for her. She's an apostate Mormon, and as such, has taken a reflexive hostile position against all religion.
I believe, But @1:58 (I see this all the time) Believers conflate arguments/rational with Evidence. We have lots of rational arguments about God, and many witnesses. But no Evidence. It's clear that those that don't believe can easily poke a hole in that.
We don’t have evidence? According to the Cambridge dictionary, the definition of “evidence” is: “one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true.”
We have plenty of reasons to believe that God exists.
Yeah, literally mountains upon mountains of evidence. J. Warner Wallace gives the best definition of evidence I've heard, based on his experience as a cold case detective. What atheists usually mean when they say there's no evidence is, "I'm going to reject any evidence offered and demand absolute empirical proof."
At any rate, I'm a presuppositionalist for a reason. Scripture says the fool has said in his heart there is no God and that "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom." Paul said that the evidence of natural revelation was such that nobody has an excuse for denying God.
Without God there is no logical basis or justification for any of the realities we all take for granted. No objective truth, no morality, no basis for scientific principles like induction. Without God, we are reduced to absurdity.
The person in the video talks about a lack of *_evidence_* for God, and then dr. Craig starts talking about philosophical *_arguments_* for God. Is this a tacit admission that he has no actual evidence for his God?
Read comments womp womp 😂❤
@@tea-he8ei You said: _"Read comments womp womp"_
I read some of the comments, but I don't know which ones you mean.
@@forplaylistsetc No they are never considered evidence, except by theologians.
@@forplaylistsetc Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
You said: _" Philosophical ‘proofs’, so called, if you’re willing to entertain the vocabulary of the field, are considered to be “evidence” under certain frameworks..."_
I'm sure they would add to the convincing power of a claim they supported, but from the examples the person in the TikTok clip gives it is clear that she is not talking from within such a framework.
You said: _"Craig is a philosopher who, like most philosophers, isn’t a logical positivist, so… voila."_
But if the young woman clearly is talking about that kind of "evidence", isn't Dr. Craig just evading the issue by twisting what she means so that it complies to his "framework"? That is why I was wondering if switching to the philosophical argument track is not simply an admission that he doesn't have the kind of evidence she is talking about (irrespective of whether or not she would accept such arguments as convincing).
You said: _"If by “actual evidence” you just mean some empirically demonstrable object or another, then there’s by definition nothing like that for God."_
In that case, if I am correct in thinking that is what the young woman in the video means, she is right though, isn't she? She is right and Dr. Craig is trying to sidestep the issue by twisting the meaning of the word "evidence" from what she means by it to what he would like it to mean.
You said: _"Remember that the failure of a method to reveal some thing X gives you reason to think that X does not exist only if you already have independent grounds for thinking that the method would have revealed X if X did exist."_
I think that is basically what the young woman is referring to when she is talking about the reactions she gets from believers when she asks them about this. The believers she asks about this seem convinced that they do have "actual evidence" or "empirical evidence" of the God they believe in, but when they provide her with this evidence, it consists of subjective, non-verifiable experiences and miracle claims, which she can find sufficient non-supernatural reasons for.
If the believers themselves claim they do have the kind of evidence that you claim is by definition impossible, what is the young woman supposed to think when she finds that the evidence the believers themselves provided does not stand up to scrutiny?
You said: _"If abstract objects (such as numbers) really exist, for example, then one wouldn’t expect for there to be any sort of empirical evidence for them, being that they are not empirical entities the way discrete objects (such as rocks or trees) are."_
I am sorry, but I don't understand what that means. Numbers are human constructs; they are abstractions in the sense that we abstracted them from our observations of our material reality.
You said: _"So to with God."_
If you want to argue that God too is a human construct, I'm with you, but as I suspect that's not what you mean, I am afraid I don't really understand what you probably mean to say.
You said: _"If God exists, then there simply wouldn’t be some “empirically demonstrable object” that in itself would prove Gods existence, being that God is not an empirical entity."_
I don't see why God could not create such an object or provide the effects that undoubtedly proved his existence. I point out once more that the believers the woman in the video asked did provide what they considered to be such evidence.
You said: _"If you disagree, then I really would from the bottom of my heart like to know what sort of thing would qualify as an example of “evidence” in your eyes. If God exists, then what “thing” could someone hypothetically just show to you that would convince you of that fact?"_
I honestly don't know what empirical evidence would convince me of the existence of Dr. Craig's God. But the funny thing about Dr. Craig's religion is that I don't need to know what would convince me, because his God supposedly already knows. In fact, being the creator and all that, he could just have given us the certain knowledge of his existence right in our genes, like an appendix.
You said: _"And if such a thing can be at least tentatively thought of, then why would such a thing not simply be hand-waved away in accordance with your presumably naturalistic commitments?"_
Actually, the fact that such reactions always seem possible no matter what the evidence provided consists of, is an indication that this God or type of deity cannot exist. It is always possible that a sufficiently powerful deity exists that is determined to hide from us, but a sufficiently powerful deity that supposedly wants us to find it but that is incapable of providing us with the empirical evidence that it really exists, is internally inconsistent.
You said: _"And why would such a thing dissolve your presumable assumption that “physics explains everything, which we know because anything physics cannot explain does not exist, which we know because whatever exists must be explicable by physics, which we know because physics explains everything”?"_
Please note that this is not a quote from me and does not reflect my views.
💯. If they had ACTUAL EVIDENCE for their beliefs, you know that they would present it at every opportunity. Instead, you get sad, worn out arguments like these...
Great video Dr. Craig! :)
ehhh...not that good...
The arguments that Craig mentioned that she should consider have all been well disposed of. They do not constitute evidence. The best is Kate Cohen's "Do you think a supernatural being runs the universe? If not, you're an atheist."
Let me guess, you are an Atheist
Sure they do,sure..these arguments are not necessarily made to convert people but it can be used to show that faith in God is rational
The arguments make up a cumulative case for theism. A strong one, as Dr. Craig says. I think that's an understatement. You saying the arguments are "well disposed of" tells me that you are not taking this seriously. I sincerely urge you to leave atheistic sloganism behind and take the step up to scholarly inquiry. If you want to find God, you will.
You misspelled Karen Cohen
@@ErinyHany-ve9lp Faith in any god is irrational. "I am against all religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world." Richard Dawkins
If our salvation, generally speaking, is contingent on us having the correct theological beliefs, then the geographical distribution of beliefs is very surprising. On the other hand, on the hypothesis of indifference, where fundamental reality is indifferent to our doxastic commitments, this pattern is not at all remarkable. If the various religions of the world were products of social evolution, we would expect to find ourselves in this much religious ambiguity.
@@forplaylistsetc What if you're aware of the Christian message but you just don't find it convincing? People have different intuitions; some body of data that convinces one person might not convince another. In this day and age, nobody can feign ignorance of a phenomenon as global as Christianity.
@@forplaylistsetc I find it hard to believe that there truly exist people who know Christianity to be the truth, and know the price of rejecting it is eternal damnation, and yet still oppose it. To me, a person like this would be mentally unfit - he's willing to resign himself to eternal hellfire just because of his own ego. And so mentally unfit people should be excluded from judgment.
@@forplaylistsetc It would seem to be in the interest of any church to claim that choosing the wrong church is not automatically damnation, since the statistical probability of choosing the wrong church is very close to 100%.
1:24 - I'm afraid I have to disagree, she makes arguments like a 6-year-old.
Agreed. The thinking/logic is trivial.
Haha agreed 100
She said most people just take on the religion of their parents.
2000yrs ago worlds population
Was 170M. 0 Christians.
Today Worlds population
8B 2 billion Christians
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion." Robert M. Pirsig
@@bisbeekid
Catholic priests have made over 1000 scientific discoveries.
“Whenever someone attacks the church
Never listen to what they say, always listen to why they say it.”
Bishop Sheen
@@PInk77W1 "Christianity is the most ridiculous, the most absurd and bloody religion that has ever infected the world." Voltaire said it, I wonder why? In order to understand "why" something might have been said, one has to listen to what was said. Bishop Sheen's quote makes no sense. I seriously doubt that over 1,000 scientific discoveries have specifically been made by Catholic Priests. Can you name two, when, and by who?
@@bisbeekid
One.
The Big Bang theory
By Father George LeMatre
Even Einstein had to apologize to him.
@@bisbeekid
You doubt ?
“Ten thousand doubts don’t make one difficulty”
St John Henry Newman
There is no such thing as fine tuning. The famous Douglas Adams analogy refutes it perfectly.
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!' This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
Remember, home sapiens have only been around less than 300,000 years. For 60 million years the earth was perfectly fine tuned for the dinosaurs, until one day . . .
Well-known atheist and agnostic scientists and philosophers disagree with you. Richard Dawkins, Martin Rees, Paul Davies, Gerraint Lewis and many, many others agree that the universe is fine-tuned for life. The question is then how the fine-tuning can be explained.
@@nickhightWhy are you lying? Richard Dawkins has never said that universe is fine tuned for life. Paul Davies is a deeply believing theist.
@@nickhight Homo sapiens come along after 99.9997% of the history of the universe has passed. That's the actual number. So believing that the universe was designed for them/us is like believing the Grand Canyon was created solely for the purpose of giving the guy who does helicopter flights over it a way to make his mortgage payment.
@@matswessling6600 "deeply believing atheist" and yet every atheist I've encountered claims that atheism is not a belief.
@@mugsofmirth8101 I take the agnostic atheist position. Although I cannot prove all kinds of Gods don't exist, I can take the atheist position against Christianity, because I don't think a guy came back to life 2000 years ago on the written say so of 5 people. I think it is far more likely that was a legend similar to the moon breaking in 2 and coming back together. Did you know there are 22 named people who supposed said this happened?
For something that's not supposed to be a religion atheism sure has a lot of evangelists.
She is an example of the dunning-kruger effect
Craig? How?
@@Jimmy-iy9pl I meant to type “here is an example…” and I must have misspelled “here” and autocorrect changed it to “his” - my bad, I edited my comment to make it more clear
Great analogy😂😂
Since it is impossible to know the mind of God (any god), all theologians are examples of the DK Effect. That's why they constantly fight with one another.
If you went to google and searched for the Dunning-Kruger effect, you would see a 300ppi image of William Lane Craig with his smug little smile as he makes a fool of himself at a public event again. He probably should stick to speaking at christian schools.
Doctor William Lane Craig is the most BRUTAL (in the best sense possible, like "savage" for example) - LOGICIAN I have ever seen and listened to ( not live , through videos) .
His explanations are :
Sharp in the sense of he has a very high precision using logic into words
Clear
Not malicious
His explanation power is very serious and very clear and respectful.
He's very entertaining, whether or not you agree with him.
If a graduate towards God for saving your baby is deserved then cursing God for letting your baby die is also deserved.
I do not think that that follows. For example, in sports, a player may make an amazing play for which he is praised (Odell Beckham's one-handed catch, for example). The players who attempt such plays and fail are not then cursed for failing - we recognize that it would have been extraordinary if they had succeeded. So just because we can be grateful for divine intervention does not mean that cursing is appropriate when God does not intervene.
The Bible addresses this in various places (like with David and his first child with Bathsheba). However, the clearest is in Job 1-2:
9 His wife said to him, “Are you still maintaining your integrity? Curse God and die!”
10 He replied, “You are talking like a foolish woman. Shall we accept good from God, and not trouble?”
We see Job question God throughout the book, but he does not curse God.
@@GatekeeperDatuck we're not talking about football, we're talking about children's lives and how God COULD save a baby's life using less than a thought. I'm sure if wide receivers could catch the ball using less than a thought they'd do so every time right? But God chooses not to save babies sometimes then chooses to other times without any rhyme or reason. We just want to know why that is.
@@GatekeeperDatuck P.S God killed David's baby to serve as a punishment towards David. God killed an innocent baby to teach a king a lesson. Are you saying God kills people's babies today and they should just except the "trouble"?
@@Ordained-dudeistpriest "Without any ryhme or reason"
I think there is a difference between us not knowing a reason and there being no reason at all.
You end by saying that you just want to know why, but we don't always get reasons why things happen, even among humans.
The book of Job seems to have been created as an answer to your question. Your question is the same as Job's. If you have not read the book of Job, I highly recommend it.
cursing God is never deserved, as we cannot judge an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-present being. like the other commenter pointed out, Job had the same issues you bring up. but God showed him the grandiose nature of the universe and Job realized to judge God is futile. we cannot possibly put ourselves in His position. that is where faith comes in. we trust God has our best interest at heart, and that trust is based in the Lord Jesus Christ. before you begin to try and tackle moral quandaries, first try and tackle the overwhelming evidence for the life, death, and resurrection of the Lord
I agree with the young lady, which disappeared just when she spoke about important views and got along.
The argument that people believe religions that they are raised to believe is not an argument for atheism or against theism. It does not really get at any argument for theism at all. People can believe things for a variety of reasons. Some bad. But what are the real arguments for theism. That is what the atheist have to give an answer to or show that they are faulty.
Why do people tend to follow the local religion?
Oh man, these arguments have been refuted for what, decades? Centuries? 🤣
You know, it's curious that she claims that the biggest number of people would convert to x religion if it was true, when Christianity has the biggest number of adherents in the world, more specifically Catholicism (not just “Roman” Catholicism because there are other varieties). But even if this wasn't the case, a religion's validity couldn't be measured by its number of adherents since that would be incorrecr thinking, an ad populum fallacy. And who is she to judge God, and speak like that about dying babies? God is the owner of human life and He created it, He can do whatever He wants with it, and His ways are not our ways that are much, much more inferior and ignorant. She's appealing to the problem of evil, basically, but that doesn't disprove God, it just shows her theological ignorance and misunderstanding while appealing to what is essentially a subjective, relative form of morality.
Unsurprisngly, there is no one Christianity, and thus it doesn't have the largest number of adherents in the world. You all hate each other and attack each other's version of this Christianity.
trying a argument from popularity fallacy is always amusing, since when Islam becomes the largest religion, their lies will all fail miserably.
anyone can judge your imaginary friend dear. It's lovely to see a christain whine "who is she to judge god" when you poor dears can't even agree on what this imaginary friend wants. Your argumetns for your god being able to do what it wants are what any sycophant of a tyrant would say e.g. Hitler can do wahtever he wants, he must have a good reason!"
oh and dear, morality isn't from your imaginary friend. We can know that since christians can't agree on what morals their imaginary friend wants. Christian morality is demosntrably subjective, with each inventing a list of morals they claim their god wants, and yet the poor dears can't show that their god merely exists, much less agrees with them. They also have the problem that they must insist that their god doesn't have to follow these supposedly "objective" morals since they have to invent excuses why it is okay for this god to commit genocide, to kill people for the actions of others, etc. This makes their morality subjective to who someone is. it also shows their morality is little moreo than might equals right
"And who is she to judge God, and speak like that about dying babies?"
It seems sometimes our moral is higher than this god.
@@physnoct You say that as a hypocrite. No one can have objective moral values without belief in God's factual existence. What kind of “morality” are you referring to, if not God's? Because He is the creator and owner of life, and we live in a world which has been corrupted by sin and rebellion against God. The wages of sin is death, that is why it exists, and evil exists because God gives us a free will which we can use for good (obedience) or bad (disobedience).
Who are you to judge God? No one, and neither am I.
@@arvaneret_329 "Who are you to judge God?"
What would you say to a muslim who say "Who are you to judge allah?"
Or Odin, Thor etc.
@@physnoct There's no proof or evidence for the existence of those pagan gods that you mentioned, and if there was, they wouldn't be gods but demons posing as deities, which has been registered for example during exorcisms.
Muslims' conceptualization of God is different than that of Christians and Jews. Supposedly there is a theological coincidence between Christians and Jews to the extent that both faiths are based on the Old Testament, what modern so-called “Jews” (which is a debatable topic, because the New Testament teaches about being spiritually Jewish for instance) call the Tanakh.
I know the biblical God exists for various reasons: The first verse of the first chapter of the first book in the Bible says God created the heavens and the earth. The Kalam cosmological argument says our universe had a beginning, that requires a cause and that cause must not be bound by the natural laws of space-time, which fits God. There are mathematical patterns in nature and other details implying intelligent design. The spiritual experiences of millions of believers throughout the centuries are evidence of God. Our DNA points to God because it works as a sort of programming language... There are more philosophical arguments proving God's existence.
There is also historical evidence confirming biblical stories, such as archaelogical findings in Jerusalem and other places in the country we now call Israel. The biggest historical proof is Jesus of Nazareth's crucifixion and subsequent resurrection on the third day. No one else comes close to what Jesus did to prove He is the Messiah. If you don't know what the biblical Messiah figure is about, look it up.
Not to mention Christian conversions in countries where Christianity is not only rare, such as Japan, but persecuted, such as Afghanistan.
What proof and evidence can you provide that would finally, at last prove atheism is accurate and correct?
So if, based on what she said about the most obvious belief, how many people believe something legitimizes something because of indicating it is the most obvious belief, then due to the very small people who believe in Atheism, as opposed to the very large numbers who believe in a supernatural being or state, would indicate Atheism is less legitimate since it's the less obvious belief by far. She is undermining Atheism, not bolstering it. She actually gave a reason not to believe in Atheism.
Those arguments aren't evidence for the existence of the creator of the universe
Although I know this is not the topic, it's always interesting to know that there are many people who believe in God but not in aliens, and vice versa, even though the proof for each is about the same.
Dr craig we love you from Ethiopia ❤
Jesus is coming back 🙏
curious how you cultists have been claiming that same lie for the last 2000+ years and have failed miserably.
This "no evidence" claim is nothing but a talking point to which I often reply that there is no evidence there is no evidence. Since I said no evidence just like they say, it must be false there is no evicence and so there is evidence.
Dr. Craig dismantled this arrogant Karen’s arguments with ease! ❤
He did no such thing.
@@vladtheemailer3223 Only in your mind.
In your limited mind.
She’s an ex Mormon
Yeah he's wasting his time. Exmormons go hard into atheism
Every human knows God exists. The alternative is foolishness.
That’s a lot of arrogance and condescending there. Want to try again?
@@therick363 I was merely stating a fact.
She was discussing the problem of evil, and it is still a problem.
Did she actually claim the christianity is wrong because of its origin?
Arguments are not evidence. Try to really let that sink in.
Indeed, what evidence for Reality is there?
Let's "Really let that sink in".
@@Ordinal_YodaSo you’re saying there is no evidence of the world you live in? WWWWWWWOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!
👆For Real!!! If...☝️ Only...👆 There..... 👆Was some evidence! Cough Cough!
God you have such a wonderful sense of humor!!!
I'll repost this here too... Just for you ❤
the fine tuning argument is based upon the copious evidence of constants and quantities that are operating in such a way as to produce life, as opposed to all of the other ways they could operate that would preclude life.
Presenting the fine tuning argument only gets done because people have the volumes of evidence behind the argument. For most people this doesn't need explaining.
And once again, biographies about the life of God are evidence for God.
Dr. Craig subscribes to everything above.
@@tea-he8ei So biographies about a thing is evidence for that thing? I’d like to point out that there is no biography of the life of a god because that would require a detailed account of the life of a being from start to finish. Since the Judeo/Christian god has no beginning, and Jesus has over 30 years missing from that character’s story, there is no biography of either.
If what you say is true about partial biographies, then Hercules, King Arthur, Achilles, Beowulf, Gilgamesh, Odysseus, Thor, Rama, Cu Chulainn, and Perseus is all evidence of existence.
She's beautiful
I've listened to WLC over and over. I've listened to more than a dozen debates.
Not once have I been persuaded in the slightest to change my mind.
The only people who are ever convinced by his arguments are those who already believe.
Or we could say that the only people who are unconvinced by his arguments are those who don't want to believe.
Most people don't believe because of evidence, the believe because of desire, and they desire a certain outcome because they think that outcome is good. Why do you think the non-existence of God is good?
@@blusheep2WLC is not taken seriously outside of christian circles. There are theologians who are.
@@vladtheemailer3223 That isn't remotely true at all. He may not be taken seriously by your atheist buddies but to say that he isn't respected in the philosophy of religion community is just a lie.
@@blusheep2 You can look up for yourself what members if academia have to say. His arguments only work on believers. Philosophers in academia have torn apart his arguments. Look at the Kalam for example. It fails from the start and you can go out and learn why it does.
@@vladtheemailer3223 I love these kind of arguments you make because it demonstrates how little you understand how the system works. Just because you have another philosopher(A) that tries to challenge another philosopher's(B) argument, doesn't mean that the first philosopher(A) isn't respected in the community. Those same philosophers(B) that are doing the challenging are being challenged back by the very same philosopher's(A) they've challenged.
And the Kalaam fails from the start. Don't give me a stomach ache laughing please. Its to early in the morning for that kind of energy use.
So tell me how this happens....
Premise 1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
Show me 1 example, anywhere, where this premise isn't true.
Before you say... "well we haven't seen universes begin before..." demonstrate rationally how a universe could begin without a cause and evidence that it DID begin
without a cause, because if all you can say is "Well, maybe its possible that.... x" Then all you will be doing is offering an argument from ignorance.
Don't just deny the premise using your imagination. Give me a reason to believe the premise is false based on experience, experiment, observation, or reason.
It's genuinely impressive how Dr. Craig is able to give a truly Christian response to some of these "arguments" without resorting to any sort of condescension or bitterness.
Truly christian means nonsense.
He has a lot more patience than I do, that's for sure! Alas, annoying bratty know-nothing little twerps like this are dime a dozen these days on social media, in popular culture, and especially on college campuses.
Agreed. It He's a lot better than many Christian commenting here.
@@senorbb2150 He's certainly a lot better than her.
No, most people are their parent's religion...until they learn to think for themselves. These arguments are incredibly weak logically. The baby dying one is powerfully emotionally, but not philosophically.
If I were answering this young lady, I would say I'd be happy to answer once she's able to posit a coherent view of how nothing created everything. That would at least show me she is serious about her beliefs and not just putting up stock and weak arguments against theism as a shield to avoid having to really interact with good Christian arguments.
No, they aren't weak. Claiming that doesn't make it so.
my parents were new agers that believed in the power of the universe and zodiac signs and shit, I was not raised to accept jesus as my lord and savior
i always try to bring these issues of the heart back to Jesus. before we try to tackle moral issues, we first must discuss the obvious resurrection of Jesus. that one point is where our faith lies
@@brotherpax1353 That is true, that's where the conversation should ultimately lead, but for some, they won't even discuss Jesus until the validity of theism is dealt with.
@@InitialPC I always was amazed how many people truly believed the moon, planets and stars had any impact on us whatsoever beyond gravitationally.
Even before becoming a Christian, I thought it was silly.
" Dacă Dumnezeu nu există , de ce urechile sunt așezate exact în locul în care să-ți agăți ochelarii " 😉😊
TLDR: WLC's first answer is that Alyssa is clearly too uninformed to be an atheist because she doesn't know about his amazingballs polysyllabic defenses that he's made elsewhere, so he'll just dismiss presenting an answer for this video and pretend like that counts.
What a disappointment.
But isn't it reasonable that Alyssa should at least learn about and ponder the various arguments that Dr. Craig is talking about?
What's so remarkable about this comment is that it's patently not true to assert that Dr. Craig dismisses anything. To the extent that the content creator in the original video has even said anything substantive that's worth responding to, Craig did exactly that. He spent three or so minutes talking about the other two issues she brought up in her short video.
You don't even have to agree with any of that Dr. Craig said to know what you're saying is false. And, in my mind, there's nothing wrong with his first response either. What was the original creator's point? It sure sounded like they were making a basic evidentialist objection against theism based on the supposed lack of evidence for it. How else is a theist like Craig supposed to respond? They could either go the fideist route, argue that theistic belief is justified without appeal to evidence, or just deny the premise that theism is evidentially unjustified.
Please do explain how you think a theist should respond to that type of objection.
@@Jimmy-iy9pl WLC might have tried actually providing one of those counter-arguments or evidence.
Clearly, WLC wasn't interested in a thoughtful response. He just wanted to draft off of Alyssa's popularity, summarily dismiss her, and then run an ad for his other content.
@TroyLeavitt
It's a response video! What were you expecting? This girl made a short video describing her reasons for affirming atheism, and Craig responded in kind by gesturing at fuller answers elsewhere. You know Craig has literally spent decades defending his theistic proofs on both an academic and popular level for decades, right? If you want to see his substantive arguments, that's where you need to look.
@@Jimmy-iy9plClearly Troy had to give his 2 cents worth… it’s worth 2 cents.
"[22] He who sits on the [CIRCLE, (ISAIAH knew by God's revelation BEFORE ANY MODERN-DAY SCIENTISTS THAT THE EARTH WAS ROUND OR SPHERICAL IN A GEOMETRICAL FIGURE, and that contrary to ignorant lay people, the earth is NOT FLAT ON ANY PORTION OF)] of the earth, .... "[26] Lift up your eyes on high and look: Who has created these? Who brings out their host by number? By greatness of vigor, and mighty of power, He calls them all by name - not one is lacking]." (Isaiah Chapter 40: Verses 22 and 26. The Interlinear Bible HEBREW/ENGLISH Jay P. Green, Sr. General Editor and Translator)
Oh how the mighty have fallen.
Can't even overcome Tik Tok anymore
I don’t think he ever could lmao.
Sometimes people's faith in people was actually in play instead of their faith in God. This is the result.
WLC, the expert at saying something while conveying nothing!
Your comment says more about you than WLC, 😂😂😂.
@@gottschalk4662 cope harder
@@mirandahotspring4019 lol, typical response.
@@gottschalk4662 Really? More typical than writing "typical response"? 🤣🤣🤣
@@mirandahotspring4019 you’re just an emotional woman, lol 😂
Graig can't even properly "react" to low hanging fruit, or actually address what the lady in the video says., but just spews the usual arguments he uses, all of them debunked... and really, even if we accept those arguments, you still cannot prove YOUR particular god is the real god.
Yeah, "spewing" the same arguments because atheists keep trotting out the same discredited thing time after time, including the it can't be proven that the God of Christianity is the real God, when it was already proved He is the real God. You just have to accept the facts no matter how much you don't like them, as that's the problem, not that Christianity hasn't been proven.
It hasn't been proved. There hasn't even been any credible evidence put forward to support such an assertion
I used to be an atheist. Then I lost my faith that nothing created everything and that minds and morals evolved from molecules through monkeys. 😂 Pretty good video. I'd ask her why suffering is objectively bad or wrong on atheism.
I used to be a theist. “Objective moral values” is a contradiction.
Also tell me you don’t understand the big bang a little more discretely next time.
@@void_ling The Big Bang theory is not incompatible with a finite past, as proven by the BGV Theorem. Quite the contrary. Lawrence Krauss tried to proving "A Universe from Nothing," but unfortunately he smuggled something into his "nothing," namely relativistic quantum fields. And you would need to prove that "objective moral values" is inherently contradictory. Do you believe that it's always wrong to torture babies or animals for fun, or do you think that's subjective?
@@void_ling Not sure why my comment was deleted, but you would need to prove an inherent contradiction in the term "objective moral values." I'm sure we could both agree that there certain things that are always objectively wrong. And the BGV Theorem proving a finite past is fully consistent with Big Bang and other cosmological. Neither explains how nothing created everything however. Even Lawrence Krauss smuggled something into his "nothing" when he tried to prove "A Universe from Nothing."
@@robertmog4336 Values, are by definition, subject to the object. If I tell you that it is good that it is raining, the question you need to ask is, “good for whom?” If you make a value judgement it will always be subject to your opinion, for what is a value judgement in a universe without people to be making that judgement? It’s different from a truth claim because truth is separate from the observer, while this is not the case for values.
BGV says that the inflation had a beginning(under the assumption that inflation is constant), not that the universe had a beginning. It’s not a very novel concept. Just basic mathematics. In other words, your premise does not entail your conclusion.
@@void_ling That's not true about BGV. It says that every universe with a positive expansion rate (Hubble constant) cannot be past eternal. You and I both agree that t0r1uring babies or animals for fun is always objectively evil. Don't we?
Her argument about why God saves some babies but not others is the fallacy of the Argument from Outrage. It's why you don't like God, not that He doesn't exist.
Her argument about people believing only because their parants/environment believe the same thing, commits the genetic fallacy: explaining the origin of a belief as if that means that it is wrong, when it doesn't mean that. It may be true that the only reason why I believe in calculus is because I was born in the Anglo-American world, and even if true, that does nothing to show that it is indeed wrong.
Her other arguments about Christians and Christianity are ad-hominem attacks. Now just a word on Ad-hominem attack; the Ad-hominem attack is not just a fancy phrase for making fun of soneone (though most seem to believe this, unfortunately). One can make fun of another and, although rude, still not be guilty of an Ad-hominem attack. Rather, an Ad-hominem attack is specifically a logical fallacy where you do indeed attack another's character, but you do so as if that by doing so that you have refuted their argument along with it. If I said "Hitler is an evil Nazi", that is not an Ad-hominem attack. If though, Hitler said "2+2=4", and I responded, "yeah, but Hitler was an evil Nazi" therefore implying that 2+2 cannot possibly =4, then that is indeed committing the logical fallacy of the Ad-hominem attack. With that said, many of her arguments, and those of others, commit this fallacy.
Now as for evidence, the evidence for God's existence is used in analytical philosophy to be in support of a premise that leads to a conclusion that God exists in a philosophical deductive argument. The evidence will be used to support the second premise in the Kalam Cosmological argument, the second premise in the Teleological argument, etc.
The traditional philosophical arguments for God's existence (being much more indepth than laymen often believe) are bigger than the arguments that exists concerning evidence, as those evidence-based arguments themselves are used to support one of the premises in a philosophical argument, as it should, since arguments for or against God is a philosophical issue.
I believe one of Craig's greatest lectures can be found at this link:
ruclips.net/video/KbbE8ZLzcRk/видео.html
She said no evidence, not no arguments.
You can argue for anything.
Logical arguments are evidence.
@@B.S._Lewis what is a hypothesis then if not the best argument you have for something?
@michaelcolthart4006 No. Then counter-arguments are also evidence. They cancel each other out and you're still left with no evidence.
@@Spike2175 a hypothesis is a claim that you'd like to test. You test the hypothesis with... evidence.
I'll repost this here too... ❤
the fine tuning argument is based upon the copious evidence of constants and quantities that are operating in such a way as to produce life, as opposed to all of the other ways they could operate that would preclude life.
Presenting the fine tuning argument only gets done because people have the volumes of evidence behind the argument. For most people this doesn't need explaining.
And once again, biographies about the life of God are evidence for God.
Dr. Craig subscribes to everything above.
The Teleological argument from fine tuning.....I just witnessed some Hubble phots of the (cateclismic) collision of two galaxies and a giant black hole devouring a whole solar system....YOU CALL THAT FINE TUNING???????
He keeps using the same debunked arguments and refuses to adapt. It amazes me that people still take him seriously😑.
You’ve made absolutely no point whatsoever.
So what if they did collide ?
For every additional year of education, belief in an invisible magic sky fairy DROPS 4%. Gee, I wonder why?
How can you say that it is truly an invisible magic sky fairy?
Education in what? Gender studies? CRT? In those cases i wouldnt wonder why 😂
@@dole-brentbayalas854science can’t prove the lack of existence of something, but there can be a ton of evidence proving wrong claims that are made by the same people/books that claim that god exists, showing that they are full of shit.
Can you prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn’t exist? No more than one can disprove god. That doesn’t make it ridiculous to believe.
@@mirekzawada7586 some good biology and logic education will do it to ya, as well. Thankfully.
Because "men love darkness rather than Light." - John 3
I'll never understand why some folks believe they need to be polite in the face of dumb arguments. There was very little that she said that was thoughtful at all. She comes off as just regurgitation of some garbage she heard someplace. Garbage in, garbage out. Like an NPC.
Same can be said from theists too right?
I thought she was very polite in the face of dumb arguments.
The arguments you list against her point that there is no evidence for God are arguments, not evidence. None of them show God exists. Then you reference about six arguments you make that present a powerful cumulative case for God, but again none of them actually show God exists, and the more arguments you make that don't actually show God exists can be used as a argument against His existence.
I'll just repost this here too...
the fine tuning argument is based upon the copious evidence of constants and quantities that are operating in such a way as to produce life, as opposed to all of the other ways they could operate that would preclude life.
Presenting the fine tuning argument only gets done because people have the volumes of evidence behind the argument. For most people this doesn't need explaining.
And once again, biographies about the life of God are evidence for God.
Dr. Craig subscribes to everything above.
@@tea-he8ei There is no evidence that the reason the constants are as they are is because of a God. There is an interpretation or argument of the constants pointing to God, but no evidence God was responsible.
The "biographies" as you call them are poor evidence.
@@Whatsisface4 maybe you don't know how many finely tuned constants and quantities there are. It's a lot. The more that scientists find the harder it gets to write off the theistic argument.
Your view is kind of like saying you see a small aircraft, and behind it are the words "Jennifer will you marry me?!" To which you respond "well, there's no evidence that those words were written by an intelligence, there's no evidence for a Jennifer either, this is all your theory. The clouds could have arranged themselves into those shapes randomly."
Okay, whatever you say, friend. Later you get a whole novella written in clouds in the sky, that's the kind of thing that fine tuning looks like. We'd have to dismiss that too. It's starting to look like the opening to Star wars in the sky now 😂 but you can still say it's just by chance, no evidence for God here....
So the Gospels are evidence, just poor evidence in your view. Fine, I don't agree, I think by the use of historic criteria those documents come out really strong. Still, you admit they're evidence and I'm happy to agree, they are evidence.
@@Whatsisface4well I think it would. I think it depends on what you called. Evidence. Philosophical arguments are type of evidence. Empiricism is not the only acceptable evidence, especially when it comes to philosophical questions. Fundamentally the existence are non-existence of God is a question of philosophy. Looking for empirical evidence that is direct empirical evidence it's looking in the wrong place. By the same token, we have no empirical evidence that the Universe was not created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. But that's fine, that's just where science fails and philosophy has to take over
@@Whatsisface4 You are new at this, aren't you? If you think that the arguments don't 1) act as evidence for God and 2) Don't demonstrate God exists or at least likely exists then you haven't spent any real time with the arguments, logical reasoning, or learning how to critically think.
You don't have to believe in God to admit there are some pretty good indications that God exists. You may not be convinced because you think the gaps are to big for you to commit yet. I could respect that, but acting like there isn't any evidence for God is either invincibly ignorant, or you lack any credibility to judge such things.
The fine tuning argument is an inferential argument and not a deductive argument. What we have learned about the constants is that they are arbitrary. They could be any value and still produce a universe. The fact that, among a near infinite amount of possible arrangements the universe happened to have all the dials in the right place doesn't work well under naturalism. It works very well under theism. Therefore, fine tuning is evidence for theism over naturalism.
I have a reason to believe God does not exist, He told me that I am the best person on the planet, gave me a greater mind, talent and made me a humble human
Come on Dr. Craig. Quit tackling low hanging atheist fruit. Why don't you go and have a debate with Jeffery Jay Lowder? You have been ducking a debate with Lowder since the late 1990s. But that's not at all surprising considering that Lowder is the best atheist debater there is. He already intellectually destroyed Phil Fernandes and Frank Turek in debates. Given how good Lowder is, I can see why you are still hiding under your desk from Lowder.
of the 3 positions 1. atheist 2. agnostic 3. religious. Atheism is the weakest position. The hardest to defend. It relies on there being nothing else out there.
The cosmological argument does just prove an abstract God, i.e. some supernatural force without any personal character or care for people that suffices some ontological property of being a first mover without being moved himself (to simplify it). An atheist can grant those „proofs“. But how do you come from the cosmological argument to Jesus or the God of OT?
what part of the issue is created, by humans....
In the bible there are several examples of people witnessing miracles and still wanting to live without God. There're also people who hasnt seen sobrenatural miracles and yet they abide to the word of God. Ultimately miracles are not the reason for believing or not believing
Dear God- Thanks so much for sparing my child and taking all those other kids lives instead!
She is an ex-Mormon.
I've watched her videos on Mormonism. I didn't think she was an atheist though until I saw the title of the thumbnail. I think she should have stuck to those videos and have branched out into ill-informed philosophical musings. She's now going to lose a lot of viewers such as myself. I sense she's a very angry person transposing her sour experience in Mormonism onto God. I would say that in light of the historical and present day horrors perpetuated by atheism, let's conclude that a good God must exist
Most exmormons become atheists.
can someone please elaborate on Craig's arguments for God's exsistance?
"can someone please elaborate on Craig's arguments for God's existence?"
Wiki is a good starting point
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_argument
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontological_argument
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleological_argument
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_tuning_argument
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_argument
Even all these arguments can't point to a specific god and religion.
Best to get it from him directly I think. Check out his debates - he often starts by laying out his main arguments.
Don’t bother with all that hard thinking, just say “my particular deity did it” and voila solved. Lol😂
The ignoracy of these two is actually crazy. "No evidence for God"? Bruh imagine attacking a religion without actually studying it and studying the resurrection, these two haven’t even read any theological books confirming the legimicy of the gospels and the resurrection.
The "ignoracy" I am NoT? You need a lesson in at least middle school grammar in order to post intelligently here...
There are no books confirmed the "legitimacy" of the Resurrection. It's a matter of faith/theology.
@@ji8044 Trust yourself or trust many scholars which studied the case of resurrection fairly and proved it at the same time.
@@daviddavenport9350 Dude. I just made one mistake. So the whole point of your comment was to point out that one mistake? That’s pretty stupid.
Thankfully, I did not go with the religion of my parents or grandparents. They had either Atheism or Agnosticism to honor. I took a personal dive into the Bible, not Christianity, just to solve the God issue once and for all. Guess who I found, while not looking for him?
Exactly
Here is an argument. The Quantum Field (QF) is a better hypothesis for the foundation of reality than a conscious God. At the very least we have scientific evidence for the QF existing than any deity. If we look at reality, we see many many orders of magnitude of not conscious stuff than conscious stuff, so inductively, the foundation of reality is probably not conscious. QF would be a better fit. If you want a syllogism:
FOR: Foundation of Reality Necessary: Could not be otherwise Nature: Essence, to be what it is, a description of what it is
P1 The necessary FOR is conscious or not conscious (true dichotomy)
P2 It is logically possible the nature of both a conscious or not conscious necessary FOR explain this universe and there is no further explanation
P3 The property of consciousness when added to the FOR adds no explanatory power to the FOR
P4 It is more a simple/parsimonious hypothesis, the FOR is not conscious without giving up any explanatory power
P5 God is normally considered a conscious foundation of reality
C1 God is a worse hypothesis of the FOR than a not conscious FOR
P6 Most Abrahamic God hypothesis rely on the reliability of the testimony from ancient people as evidence
P7 Quantum fields don't appear to be conscious and appear to be eternal, manifesting all matter/energy/space/time
P8 Quantum fields have been scientifically/experimentally demonstrated to exist to a staggering degree of predictive success
P9 Scientific/experimental success is much better evidence than the reliability of testimony from ancient people for an Abrahamic God
C2 Quantum fields is a much better evidenced and simple/parsimonious candidate for the FOR than an Abrahamic God
Very impressive! However, the Achilles heel in your argument is the fact that quantum fields cannot account for why consciousness exists.
@@lysanderofsparta3708 "Very impressive! However, the Achilles heel in your argument is the fact that quantum fields cannot account for why consciousness exists."
Sure they can. Our consciousness are a direct and necessary manifestation of the quantum field. We could not fail to exist and have consciousness. If you say we could, then you are saying a necessary foundation could be otherwise, which is impossible. It's like saying G o d could be otherwise. It's like asking why does G o d have consciousness? It's a nonsensical question.
How does she know that God isn't saving any babies elsewhere? So she makes up this straw man that God isn't saving babies anywhere else just so she can come up with reasons to hate God. And by the way, why isn't atheism saving those babies if it's so great?
Because local and global infant mortality rates are empirical evidence and globally researched. You can in fact look at the data and understand that first world countries with access to clean water and health care have a much lower infant mortality rate than a poor rural country struggling with water, food and adequate health care. This is incredibly well understood.....
Athiesm doesn't save babies because athiesm isn't a fairy tale miracle. Athiests save people, Muslims save people, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists save people. People with specialized skills save people people who have developed incredible medicines save people. Their faith doesn't impact the outcome at all.
Love when people say there's no proof of God. Let's talk science. The Aurochs (modern cow) which is the most depicted animal from Europe to China, through hieroglyphs, was created by God in Genesis Chapter 1. Domestication, through bones, can be dated. Historically people conquering people can be dated. Astrological. When did they think the sun rotated around the earth? Geometrically everything is a circle.
No, a god could be an evil god and allow suffering, that is true
What are you using to determine "evil"?
@@smidlee7747 unnecessary harm and suffering , are you going to go on that a god has to exist for us to know about evil or goodness, is this where you were going to go?
@@jeromemccollom936 Who determines if harm and suffering is necessary?
The reason why I'm atheist is because God doesn't exist.
Prove it!
You see NO evidence the brain you are using to think with has a Creator?
She eludes to other reasons as well but I find each of her 3 reasons a cause for skepticism. Her point is that if God was obvious, we would all be on the same page and I think there is some validity to that observation. Her second valid observation is God seems to randomly act saving babies over here while letting babies over there suffer and die. Her last observation, which is at least often correct, is that we have a history of supernatural explanations being replaced by natural explanations as we learn them. In terms of no evidence, certainly there is evidence of something, where it is our reasoning of the evidence we have that leads us to different conclusions. Realizing why theistic arguments fail is dependent on what you know and understand and even sometimes what you can imagine as other plausible solutions. Based on what we can know, intellectually skepticism has the superior case. There are better intellectual reasons to be skeptical of God's existence should one actually exist. Emotionally, there are better reasons to believe a God exists and it is better to follow a structured religion concerning that belief rather than just believing a non-personal deistic God exists. I suspect that because it is for emotional reasons people can believe, it makes sense that they can also lose that faith/belief when reality doesn't align with their expectations. Sort of like someone telling you they love you, but their actions don't align with their words, you become skeptical of that love because reality isn't aligning with the expectations of love.
_Her second valid observation is God seems to randomly act saving babies over here while letting babies over there suffer and die._
Babies suffer and die everywhere though. It's a straw man that God is saving babies only here but not there. False dichotomy.
_Her point is that if God was obvious, we would all be on the same page and I think there is some validity to that observation._
No there is not reasonable validity to it, unless she also says the same could be said for Atheism. If Atheism were obvoius, everyone would believe there is no God. So then that undermines her point because then you could say, since far more people believe in a supernatural being or state rather than what she believes, then that would show that believing in a supernatural being/state must be right and what she believes is wrong, since that would show that's the most obvious thing to believe.
It isn''t that God is saving anyone, that is the point. When you have a parent pray and their child recovers and the parent gives credit to God, who should we give credit to when the parent prays that the child dies? This is how superstitions work, not Gods. That is her point.
Her point is that if God was obvious, there would be no atheists, no agnostics and if the God was obvious with instructions, we would all be on the same page with that God. If God was obvious enough, but without instructions, we would all be on the same page of theism. Atheism is not about knowing a God doesn't exist, it is about not believing the claim made by theists that one or more Gods/Goddesses do exist. I am certainly open to a God existing and would form a belief if I could find good reasons to form that belief. Meaning it would have to be the lack of good reasons to believe would have to be obvious for theists to drop the belief and become agnostic or atheist. Because Gods are not obvious, it comes down to what the individual knows and the reasoning used to either be able to form the belief or not. You might also expect it to be a one way road to either theism or atheism but I have seen atheists become theists and theists become atheists because it is not obvious.
@@scottguitar8168 _It isn''t that God is saving anyone, that is the point. When you have a parent pray and their child recovers and the parent gives credit to God, who should we give credit to when the parent prays that the child dies? This is how superstitions work, not Gods._
That is a false premise that there has to be credit given in both scenarios, and then you use that to claim "superstition". The default condition is actually credited to such as yourself and all of us, because of sin. It's every human being's fault if your really want to know who to credit for that. So when a child is saved from the default condition, prevailing conditions, God, who the only one that can override the default condition should be thanked and that isn't superstition. So her claim and your claim is based on a false premise.
She is ex-mormon. Her idea of faith is distorted. Hopefully she will come around in time.
Distorted how? What do you you mean?
@HaleStorm49 The Mormon influence.
She brings her bad experience forward to any form of God.
@@chrisazure1624 "She brings her bad experience forward to any form of God."
Funny, plenty of of ex-evangelicals, catholics, etc. seem to do the same thing.
@@senorbb2150 The human heart has a way to distort anything. No group is immune. The best we can do is have a heart that seeks Jesus.
Titled - Without a Clue With Another Depraved-Degenerated-''Mind'' Rendered Senseless and Useless - ROMANS 1:18-32 > > > NO THANK YOU > > > FROM HEAVEN - JOHN 3:3