Faith & Science: Friends or Foes?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 10 сен 2024
- Dr. Craig explains four ways in which science and Christian faith are allies in the quest for truth: (1) the origin of the universe, (2) the fine-tuning of the universe for life, (3) the origin of life, and (4) the evolution of complex life forms.
Special thanks to John Craig and Austin Ridge Bible Church for this event and footage.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg
It's very refreshing to see a father and his son working together
Neat to get to hear from Dr. Craig’s son. Must make him proud to see his son helping in ministry as well.
Thank you, Dr. Craig, for your work in Christian apologetics. You have bolstered the faith of many, including myself!
Dr. Craig's list of responses for why the YE model is not iron-clad was potent. Good issues worth serious consideration.
of course Craig's son is a chad
Great to see Dr. Craig’s son! How fortunate to have Dr. Craig as a father!
This was an amazing and outstanding performance, Dr. Craig! Keep it up! I’m glad God's is using you to impact my life and faith. Thank you 🙏🏼 All glory to God! God deserves our everything from us. In our bad days, He’s still good and deserving of glory 👍🏼 And I’m sure God is pleased with your service, Dr. Craig! As I said, keep giving your all for Him! 🙌🏼
Amazing. This must be the first time we got to see Dr. Craig's son.
Dr. Craig's texan accent was fire! 🤣🔥
Even Dr. Craig's son has similar voice. I feel younger again.
I wouldn't confuse their voices for a second. He even looks completely different.
@@protestssopeacefulweneedad2017You’re right
Hopefully WLC isn't "finishing" -- well or otherwise -- anytime soon!
He looks quite good compared to some recent appearances -- I hope this is very recent.
I don’t think dr. Craig will ever “finish” his work. He recently wrote about how it’s inconceivable for a Christian in ministry to retire. He plans on working as long as possible.
I love the drama! Keep it up Dr Craig!!!!
This is heartwarming 😊
The only true God and science are NOT in conflict.
The only true God and pseudoscience ARE in conflict.
you can tell that's his son by the way he moves his hands when he talks lololol
I would like to know why, when addressing the theory of evolution, we just assume certain parts as bedrock fact? Why is it that when a theory is proposed, and we find out it doesn't work, we don't scrap the theory? Isn't it just as likely that you will ALWAYS run into dead ends with the viability of certain models, if the foundation you are building on is fundamentally flawed? Why, even when the theory is shown to be flawed, do we simply go back to building on the same theory that already lead to flaws? Why isn't the whole thing scraped, as all it generates are dead end models?
I've never understood that. How many times does the foundation have to fail as a support structure, before we actually focus on the foundation as the problem? 🤔
I thought that too. Some are unwilling to understand there is more than one way to know! There are different kinds of knowledge. Them some the limit of naturalism is the the only exclusive way. We show them other ways of knowing all things even God.
Another thought is some satisfied with flawed logic because in time one may discover the science or biology or, or ,or to happen for our new illumination.
Well that's what I have concluded so far.
It's going to take a well learned and willing Christian to share the evidence. May the Holy Spirit help us and them.
We don't assume anything as being bedrock, however observationally certain things are so well documented and established that we would need significant counter evidence to demonstrate that it is unsound. The theory has been refined and augmented over time, that doesn't mean its foundational principles were invalid. Just because our understanding of gravity is flawed, and was more flawed in the past, doesn't mean we just abandon it altogether does it? What specific components of evolution do you find to be so flawed such that we must completely abandon the entire theory itself? Most of the time you see a cherry picked example of some organism not following the theory exactly or some fossil being found out of sequence, but that doesn't mean the entire theory is wrong, anymore than black holes don't disprove gravity or time (even though they pose seemingly broken rules to the associated theories)
@@jonathanw1106 I’ll ask again. At what point does one conclude that the foundation must be faulty, if absolutely nothing can be built on it that proves true? I don’t understand the logic there.
It doesn’t seem the same as the theory of gravity. Gravity shows itself evidently to us at every moment.
Species variation reportedly requires millions and millions of years. Decisively not plainly evident.
@@brando3342 ok then to answer your question again, you question the foundation when the foundation is in question... which has not occurred for evolution. Just like you wouldn't throw out Christianity because Luke's gospel doesn't seem to line up the governors and Caesars in the correct order or that some of the resurrection accounts differ in terms of events
@@jonathanw1106 Okay. How is it possible to question the foundation such that it undermines it’s reliability, when all that ends up happening is certain questionable aspects get shifted around such that we get “oh, it’s fine now, see?”, and then everything just continues on?
It just seems like the theory is purposely impenetrable to criticism, because it simply MUST be the answer, and they’ll do anything to make sure it stays that way.
why would a perfect, all-powerful God need to intervene in his own creation to create and develop life?
lol why jon is so tall
It seems like it might need to be said that it is possible that one day we could discover how it's likely that the origin of biological life can be grounded in chemistry/physics and this would not in anyway take away from the compatibility between science and faith since Genesis can be (and many would say should be) read non-literalistically when describing God creating all living things - as pointed out in the section on biological complexity. Therefore, it's possible God created life via the fundamental particles and did not bridge the "gap" by what we might call a "miraculous" intervention. It seems to me that at this point both views are compatible with science, but it may be that the "miraculous" intervention view may not be compatible with modern science in the future - although it does seem like it may be a hopeless endeavor at this point considering the technological ability, time, and money already spent toward this cause with little ROI. I believe Craig has said elsewhere that he would essentially agree with my comments, but investigate for yourself!
That seems to be the tactic amongst Christians these days.
Everything in the bible is literally, untill we can prove that it's wrong, then it's just an allegory or poem.
Chat GPT ranked him in 5th place? Shows you how much AI knows 😂
Foe.
Science shows that your faith in Christianity is unfounded,
And your faith goes against reality, as we can scientifically evaluate.
Science is the best process we have for evaluating the world around us. Faith is just believing what you want regardless of what the evidence shows.
you have a horrible mindset my friend. Man looked for laws in nature because man believed in a Law giver. Ever heard that little quote? Science was formed from men like this, creationist scientists was the most common until the 1900's. Math, reason, science, and many inventions all came from Creationist scientists... so if your process came from someone believing in a God, why not understand that we don't know everything, and God very possibly could be the reason for constant unnatural laws such as math 2+2 always equals 4 even with no people. Why does it equal 4 if no one can know it? Because God created it and without humans, God and all other creation is still viable. so how is faith in a historical event, the death and resurrection of Jesus unfounded? what about the numerous other authors who wrote about Jesus and His resurrection? do you not believe because you don't think the supernatural exists? or you just don't like what the Bible teaches and therefore you don't like God? please explain a little...
All laws of physics, laws of nature and all quantum states are natural not supernatural.
To prove anything beyond reason, you need a mechanism, Craig and all other apologists have no mechanism for anything god has created.
I would the very ashamed to be the son of the worst philosopher I have ever listened to.
God of the gaps in action. This is what separates theists from atheists: For atheists, gaps are not Gods.
Nobody arrives at belief in a god by evidence. So foes. (Nobody brings up their "faith" in gravity, because they have evidence.)
Even if true, the same can be said of atheism.
@@protestssopeacefulweneedad2017 Are you saying that because you agree we shouldn't believe in gods?
Ideas start unknown. Well if our goal is truth, then we must be honest: when an idea is unknown, we shouldn't believe it's true (because we're sure we don't know it).
So that lack of evidence of a god is what justifies the non-belief position.
And that non-belief is atheism.
@@protestssopeacefulweneedad2017
No it can't.
The reason I am an atheist is because there is insufficient evidence to justify believing that any gods exist.
I don't have faith in anything.
Not even close.
Science and faith are not in conflict (as long as you reinterpret the bible to no longer mean what it says)
Science seeks truth through proof.
Faith is what you have when you have no proof.
Religion is faith.
Craig is a debunked and discredited laughingstock.
Please cite legitimate evidence for the "debunking" you refer to.
The terms Reasonable and Faith cannot logically exist together.
You speaking with evidence and you are the laughing stock😂😂