William Lane Craig on Philosophy, Adam & Eve, Jesus, Suffering, and Bad Arguments for God
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 мар 2023
- Renowned Christian thinker William Lane Craig answered listener questions on a live edition of the show (Ask William Lane Craig Anything). He responded to questions on philosophy, Adam & Eve, suffering, the worst argument for God and more.
For the Equip course from Reasonable Faith knowwhyyoubelieve.org/
Support Premier Unbelievable? and receive your free, exclusive ebook of William Lane Craig vs Roger Penrose: premierunbelievable.com/craig
• Subscribe to the Unbelievable? podcast: pod.link/267142101
• More shows, free eBook & newsletter: premierunbelievable.com
• For live events: www.unbelievable.live
• For online learning: www.premierunbelievable.com/t...
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Support us in the rest of the world: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
Craig should definitely have a conversation with Gary Habermas, one of the experts on NDEs. My great-grandmother had an NDE under surgery at 88. After this, she had a complete personality transformation, from a grumpy old lady to a kind-hearted, caring person who would pray every day for the salvation of certain family members. I remember, when asking her about it, her face gleamed as she recollected what she had experienced during her NDE. I cannot tell her whole story, but the most interesting part was that she heard God telling her that it wasn’t her time yet. Often times she would cry to my dad, who was a pastor, unable to accept that she had come back to life. Well, five years later, at her funeral, one of our family members that she had prayed for, told dad that he had committed his life to Christ. It came out later that all the people she had prayed for during the last 5 years of her life, had come to a saving knowledge of Christ. So, why did she come back? Its clear that she still had task on Earth, which was to intercede for certain souls.
So the same god that allows billions of children to suffer and die personally told your 88 year old great-grandmother that it wasn't her time?
It is not uncommon for personalities to change after vivid hallucinations. There is no good evidence that NDEs point to an afterlife. People are not dead during NDEs.
But NDEs are so different, I dont know which ones to believe.
@@iamwtl What does it mean to "believe an NDE"? I believe that maybe up to15% of people in medical crises have these unusual experiences later called NDEs. But I don't believe most of their interpretations of these experiences. The most common interpretation, which I don't believe is true or rational, is that during the experience the person is gaining a glimpse of some afterlife. The experience may be some kind of built-in comfort or defense mechanism for people who believe that they are dying. However, the weight of the evidence points to the conclusion that when the brain dies, then personal existence, subjective experience, memory, and identity come to an end. We wish it were otherwise, but wishing doesn't make it so.
Agree, although Habermas wouldn't be the guy to go to. He should look at the NDE research itself -- people like Dr. Jeff Long, Dr. Pim von Lommel, Dr. Kenneth Ring, Dr. Raymond Moody, Dr. Bruce Greyson, etc. 200+ peer-reviewed articles in the literature. Many of them were skeptics prior to investigation, and all of them were convinced by their own research that consciousness survives death of the body. You will often hear skeptics toss out lame "explanations" (e.g., hypoxia, 'hallucinations of a dying brain,' wishful thinking, etc.) that have long been refuted in the literature, but these skeptics are never actually familiar with the literature, they just hand-wave the area away based on their own ignorance (see Dunning-Kruger effect). The data is there for anyone who is not one of these "dismiss before investigation" skeptics. I put Craig in the latter camp. I think some of this (on Craig's part) is because some NDE reports contradict evangelical Christian doctrine (e.g., people in NDEs often report that no one religion is privileged, or that there is no hell in the traditional sense). I think that contributes to some evangelical Christians' skepticism toward NDEs. They feel like the information might contradict their fundamental beliefs, and so they dismiss it.
Loved listening to this SO much. Justin and Ruth, you're such excellent hosts -every time- and such a pleasure to learn from, as to how to ask questions and listen thoughtfully. Just so helpful and inspiring! Justin, your question to WCL about Ben Shapiro had been on my mind as well, and it delighted me to hear you ask it! The response from WCL was a delight as well. MANY thanks for what you do!
When he said broken hill Rhodesia, that's In my country 🇿🇲Zambia the town is now called Kabwe, less than 200Km from the capital Lusaka. God bless you Dr Craig 🙏
I am in no way, shape, or form religious or faith-based. But listening to William A Craig's arguments in defence of Christianity is always worth the time.
As a Christian, thank you for this comment. I get so tired of seeing people who don’t actually engage seriously with the content and just mock, this is a very refreshing attitude to see. Whether you believe in Him, I hope that God will be with you and bless you, friend.
Lane Craig is amazing
Dan Mohler - I recommend all Christians to listen to his sermons. It’s a must!
I would like it to have Spanish subtitles, there are many Spanish-speaking Christians who would like to be able to understand these good interviews that you do. I liked the interview with Mr. Craig, a person with a lot of wisdom.
How can anyone not love Dr. Craig?🙏🏻
By using even the slightest bit of critical thinking..
@@Jewonastick oh, I hadn’t considered that. Thank you for showing me the light… what a joke
@@thetannernation Dr Graig; "So my attitude is that... far from raising the bar, the epistemic bar for Christianity to be believed, I lower it. I think this is a message so fantastic that if there is any evidence that it's true then it's worth believing in."
What a fantastic argument! Believing something cause you like what it says.....
Or;
" I thought if there is just one chance in a million this is true, it's worth believing"...
Fuqing hilarious!
"
I do not love him because he purveys what is false, probably false, unproven, useless, and/or sometimes harmful.
1. Because he claims to believe in sola scriptura but make Scripture subject to science.
2. Because he places too much emphasis on broken human reason.
Looking forward to him being on Rogan.
Sending ❤ from Northern Ontario Canada
My daughter has encountered severe trauma in her short life, surprisingly, she says no thank you to heaven, she wants only silence in death; nothingness. I’d never heard anyone say this before, I am very sad and pray God’s mercy for her🙏🥲
God isn't real.
@@alexnorth3393Really I never would have thought?
Do you have any arguments or just that insultingly timed pointless sentence.
They are talking about their daughter who suffered trauma and all you care about is a 3 word sentence to “prove” god isn’t real.
I pray that she will find the joy that comes from having a relationship with Jesus. This is the only way to make sense of suffering.
I will pray your daughter's salvation.
Amazing!!! Fantástico!! 🇧🇷🇧🇷
Awesome
Really good questions and who is better to answer than knowledgeable Lane Craig. I have a few comments that will come later. A proposal. What could be more exciting and interesting than to hear Richard Dawkins and Hugh Ross debate evolution, including Darwin's theories?
Fulfilled prophesy is the best for me
Do not forget that more important than the apologetics of Faith, is to set an example, and mercy with the other. Whether or not, the other is a believer or not . Exemple comes first.
As a catholic I unite my suffering with the cross of Christ I place different intentions : eg I pray for God's Kingdom to come on earth & outpouring of the Holy Spirit. I heard a nun say ' don't waste your suffering. No cross no crown .
Reassuring now as 70 this years aches & pains easier to accept most 😢of the time
God bless to all.
I listened to this gentleman before great teacher
You fail to realize that if God did exist, humans would not experience horrible harms, such as the Holocaust or the Turkish-Syrian earthquakes. He would prevent these things. Thus, he does not exist.
@@whittfamily1 If you bothered to read the Bible you would see that your view is erroneous. The reason for suffering is Man's rebellion against his maker, the inevitable result of our failure to do what He commands.
@@martinploughboy988 I've bothered to read the entire Bible twice and parts of it many more times. My view is correct. If you think otherwise, then find and present an error in it. There is no good evidence that man had a maker. In fact, we now know that God does not exist. This has been proven.
@@whittfamily1 Since you know God exists, your last last two sentences are simply the denial of what you know to be true. A very silly position.
The previous sentence is also silly, since there is no means by which life could exist except by means of a supernatural Creator.
I gave you the error in my previous post, suffering exists because of the evil rebellion of Man. God did not originally make a world with suffering, mankind is responsible for that.
I put myself in a "Spiritual" mindset. Has your "Spirit" existed for a very long time? Yes. Is what happens in this Physical realm just a blink of an eye in eternity? Yes. Do you dwell on the worst pain you ever had daily? No, eventually you forgive, move on.
I'm a big fan of Dr. Craig and have learned allot over the years. The question that I have is how do we view how that Jesus and the Pharisees viewed Genesis in their interactions on marriage and divorce in Matthew 19?
Great question. I wonder how Craig views Jesus. Does he view Him as God who knows the hearts of men, or as a mere man of His time?
@@martinploughboy988 Of course Craig views Jesus as God, I'm pretty sure he has defended the trinity on a video called Trinitarianism vs Unitarianism.
@@nzesway538 I'm more concerned whether he accepts Jesus statements relating to the Creation. I have no doubt he accepts the Trinity.
Hello Dr. craig! Firstly I must thank you for all the material you have available from various sources and I thank you for the time that you have spent defending and promoting the Gospel , lord bless you , I do have a question .. of all the distinct doctrines and views of the Bible that we hear about from Calvinism , molinism etc etc.. how do we reconcile and grow spiritually and theologically with sound doctrine when so many disagree on these matters . thanks again!
You fail to realize that if God did exist, all this disagreement and conflict over doctrine would not exist. Why? Because God would not only reveal himself, he would also reveal his rules for living the the consequences of compliance and noncompliance. There would be no doubt about the correct position. Thus, God does not exist.
@@whittfamily1 He did reveal all that, and we have the freedom to reject his revelation, hence Protestantism and Atheism.
@@hglundahl False. There is no good evidence that God communicated with any humans ever! If you disagree, present your evidence. Besides, God does not exist, and this has been proven.
We read the Bible, compare Scripture with Scripture, then examine what men have said & compare it with all Scripture. It is a lifetime's study.
@@whittfamily1 God has revealed Himself & His rules, but mankind is in rebellion, refusing to acknowledge its Creator. Romans lays this out very clearly.
Great interview!! I love William Lane Craig! When was the interview with Ben Shapiro?
It was a few years ago on Ben's Daily Wire show. It's on youtube!
@@brando3342 thank you!
When I listen to Willy with a lens of ‘this guy is a comedian’ then what he says makes a lot more sense.
Wonderful, then you agree with Paul’s premise in 1 Corinthians 1:18ff.
@@fbcpraise
Which of these bible verses is your favourite?
1. Deuteronomy 23:1 ESV
No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
2. Deuteronomy 25:11-12 NASB
If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
3. Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Such evil must be purged from Israel. (Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
4. As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.
5. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT) If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
6. The ark of God was placed on a new cart and taken away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab guided the cart, with Ahio walking before it, while David and all the Israelites made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals. When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God. (2 Samuel 6:3-7 NAB)
7. Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
8. Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
9. However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
10. When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
11. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ. (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
12. Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
One more for the road:
Midianite Massacre - Kill everyone except for the virgins, ‘keep alive for yourselves’
Numbers 31
31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.God said to Moses,Take revenge on the Midianites. Then you will die.
31:3 And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the LORD of Midian.
31:4 Of every tribe a thousand, throughout all the tribes of Israel, shall ye send to the war.
Moses said to the people, Go to war against the Midianites. This will be God's revenge on the them.
One thousand men from each tribe will go to war.
31:5 So there were delivered out of the thousands of Israel, a thousand of every tribe, twelve thousand armed for war.
31:6 And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe, them and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the priest, to the war, with the holy instruments, and the trumpets to blow in his hand.
12,000 soldiers were armed for war, 1000 from each tribe.
Phinehas had the trumpets and holy instruments.
31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.The Israelites attacked the Midianites, as God commanded, and killed all the males.
31:8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword.
31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.
31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire.
31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts.
They killed Balaam and the Midianite kings, took the women and children as captives, burned their cities, and took all their possessions, animals, and slaves.
31:12 And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and unto the congregation of the children of Israel, unto the camp at the plains of Moab, which are by Jordan near Jericho.
31:13 And Moses, and Eleazar the priest, and all the princes of the congregation, went forth to meet them without the camp.
They brought all the captives, prey, and spoil to Moses and Eleazar.
31:14 And Moses was wroth with the officers of the host, with the captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, which came from the battle.
31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? And Moses was angry with the officers, and said to them, Have your saved all the women alive?
31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. These are the women that caused the Israelites, through the counsel of Balaam [4], to trespass against God in the matter of Peor [5], and there was a plague on the congregation.
31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. Now go and kill all the young males and every non-virgin woman.
31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
---------
I’ll leave it to your imagination of what your god is meaning by ‘keep alive for yourselves’. Maybe they just mean to play Jenga with the virgins?
----------------------
The bible has also been edited many times just quietly.
If you take your morals from the same book that these texts come from, I’m not sure your moral compass can be trusted. Or perhaps the way you gather information to form your opinions and beliefs on, can be questioned.
Do you teach your children to believe things without evidence, or from a text like this?
Would you read your children these bible stories?
What’s your favourite verse from the ones I shared?
Why don’t you think preachers avoid these verses also?
I’ll leave to to get back to your cherry picking 🍒
I attended this Q&A live. I asked the following question, but it was never answered. Here it is: when debating Calvinists, like in the “Calvinism vs Molinism” debate with James White last year, Craig claimed that his middle knowledge counterfactuals truths don’t need further grounding or any deeper explanation. But when debating atheists about objective morality, Craig charges that their moral realism is ungrounded because it lacks a “deeper explanation.” But what principled reason can Craig give to require such grounding from atheists for objective moral truths (e.g., “We should avoid unnecessary suffering.”) but then not require such grounding for himself for his counterfactuals that (allegedly) constitute God’s middle knowledge? Atheists treating some moral facts as metaphysical primitives is no less mysterious (and thus no less philosophically problematic) than Craig treating counterfactuals of freedom truths as metaphysical primitives. It appears to just be opportunistic, advantageous, to pick and choose when to play the “need deeper explanation” card and when to play the “no deeper explanation needed” card.
I'm not a philosopher, but as Christians we're often expected to take certain things at face value, merely because "God said it", and so that would be my guess as to why the standard applies to Christians and not atheists.
@@christianthames2302 thank you for the reply, Christian Thames. So there’s a couples worries to consider about your suggestion. First, there’s a fallacy called “begging the question” that could be relevant here. It’s a kind of circular reasoning where someone attempts to use their conclusion in defense of their conclusion. So in the context of discussing whether God is necessary for objective moral truth, if Craig were to say “but God says I’m right,” this would seem to be obviously question-begging. Craig needs to give theory-independent reason to think he is correct (i.e., reasons that even non-theists could accept).
But second, even if your reply isn’t fallacious reasoning, notice that it is available to those opposing Craig too! There are Christians that disagree with Craig on both issues (and atheists that agree with Craig too, for that matter). Neither dispute requires atheists and Christians to oppose each other, so it’s unclear who exactly this “God says so” move helps. Christians who oppose Craig on both issues could simply claim that God is on their side!
@@stevewatersofficial thank you for your reply. So I’m afraid I don’t have time to give you alternative metaethical groundings for moral prescriptions-but no, objective moral obligations need not be grounded in anyone’s intentionality, God or man (in fact, I doubt this is even possible, since it’s strictly a form of subjectivity about ethics, either the human subject or the God subject). Please go to either the internet encyclopedia of philosophy or the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy and search “metaethics.”
As for your point about the logical consistency of Craig’s favored views-that’s a non sequitur. As far as I know, all positions on the table for both disputes can be made to be logically consistent with biblical texts! What Craig owes us is a principled reason for playing the “deeper explanation” card in one area of metaphysics, but rebuffing its use in another area of metaphysics, despite BOTH concerning alleged metaphysical primitives. Until he does, I see no good reason to think those who take some moral truths to be unexplained facts are making any more dubious of a move than Craig taking the counterfactuals of freedom to be unexplained facts.
I agree with you. Craig should know that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. He is sometimes inconsistent.
@@christianthames2302 But those things we take at face value we find in Scripture. we don't find middle knowledge in Scripture & it is also something that God is subject to, which raises the question, "is middle knowledge the real god?".
I listened to the question by the THEIST MEDICAL DOCTOR about miracles. I gave my heart to Jesus at a young 12 to 13 year old, and as a high school graduate in the summer after graduation, I was driving to the Mall with my friend. We drove on a 4 lane, two way lane separated by a large guardrail and large guardrails protected each side of the road from a steep Clift about 75 to 80 degrees steep and 30 to 40 feet down to the floor of the river below. After a fast lane change my friend accelerated to 90 mph and we had another lane change in front of us on the passing lane and we had to hit the breaks and we spun out of control and we FLEW off the embankment at 80 mph at a perpendicular angle. As a PHYSICIST I reasoned the probability of us flying off the road at exactly the right angle to jump the embankment and land safely was miraculous! I calculated a 1 in 10000 chance to jump the guardrail at a perpendicular angle that allow the car to fly over and land on the bottom of hill at just the correct orientation that we stopped instantly without injury and without rolling the vehicle! This was beyond "lucky " in my estimation and I now teach high school students at a Christian high school after retiring from a 34 year career in Science!!
God Bless everyone!!
Craig es un tesoro, el Señor le dé muchos años más de vida
evolution is a lie sold to children and pseudo-scientists. Craig is a heretic.
I have a question regarding Reformed Epistemology, or rather, the language used when discussing the topic. As a non-native speaker , I find it very difficult to translate words such as "warrant" or phrases like "warranted belief" or "proper basicality". In English, I seem to grasp these concepts, although when I think of the word "warrant", the first thing that comes to mind is a judge's warrant. When I want to explain what Reformed Epistemology means in my native tongue, Estonian, I find it hard to describe justified belief or warranted belief for example with different words. In general, there seems to be a lot of extra terminology when it comes to this topic, that simply does not exist in my language. It seems to me I should pick up some book by Plantinga and try to translate that. But surely there is some easier way to communicate the ideas of Reformed Epistemology with less complex language. If Dr Craig can suggest some layman's material, that is easier to translate, or just comment on the topic, that would be great!
Thank you!
Who do You have to talk about this stuff? Or is it for yourself in your mind mostly?
There are plenty of other writers on Reformed topics, try to find one that writes simply. For a start, have a look at James White, listening to his podcast might help, although he sometimes goes very deep.
When is his work of systematic theology coming out?
the important point is to differentiate between bible-believing and God-&-therefore-the-teachings-believing styles and what it means to proactively think about Christianity and in fact any religion
You are a treasure Dr Craig, and two great hosts, great channel, I just want to ask some questions is Luke 3:23-38 literal? If it is then Genesis 1-11 are not myths. The genealogy of the bible is its spine in my opinion. Jesus referring(in detail) to Noah Luke 17: 26-27, the flood didn't happen. Jesus thought it did. That's where you and I part ways, but love the other 99% of your work!
Based on your discussion in "Time and Eternity", it seems that a Lorentzian interpretation of STR is metaphysically more sound (at least when it relates to time) than a space-time interpretation. Should the christian scientist, who is committed to metaphysical truth in addition to science, somehow prefer the interpretation that is more metaphysically plausible in his scientific work, even though scientifically, both may be empirically equivalent?
I guess you should because it'll sooner or later lead to scientific breakthroughs. That's how I view it.
When we say God exists, we're saying that a being far more complex and advanced than a human being exists. Another metaphysical truth.
So the Genesis account of creation is a myth/allegory? I don't see anything in the Bible that says there were people before Adam and Eve.
In the begining was the word.There could be primates that did not use words to define reality.Original sin can be when humans became self conscious.Thus they separated themselves from there surrounding when they ate the fruit
26:46 all those humanoids are the gentic tampering described in enoch 1
A woman's response to a final question to Craig? AMEN!!! Fathers...you are essential to pointing the way to Christ and living out the truth of Christ in marriage and parenting. I am so grateful for my husband. His love. His guidance for our children. His companionship through our many years of marriage.
It’s evident that the suffering of Jesus “for us” isn’t substitutionary in the sense that we don’t then suffer. We do. In fact, a believer suffers more the more like Christ they become, since love suffers most profoundly. So, bearing our “punishment” doesn’t really work. Something else is going on, I’d argue, more profound.
I believe we share the suffering of Christ because we are united to him. Christ said to Saul: why are you persecuting me (Saul was persecuting Christians). Paul said he was making up in his own body what is still to be undergone by Christ.
We suffer the terrible consequences of sin done against us it says in bible we don't have to suffer cause jesus did but that isn't true we also suffer the deep pain of Consequences of sin done against us
Yes, something more profound is here: God doesn't exist!
Can you furnish us with an actual example of your suffering to validate your argument? 🤔
@@davidlenett8808 What are you talking about? My argument, specifically my Holocaust argument, is not about my suffering.
William A Craig is the Einstein of biblical defense!
“Einschtein”
- William Lane Craig
So will every Christian depiction of Adam now have to be altered to give him thick brow ridges, a rear projected skull and no chin? :)
In atheist circles his known as low bar Bill.
He said if there's any chance of god existing, we should lower our standard of evidence. 😂
That doesn’t say much for the defense of the Bible’s truthfulness. Watch his debate with Bible historian Dr. Bart Ehrman on the historicity of the Bible for example.
If he's the best in his field I genuinely feel sorry for Christians....
1. What was the function of the protein that was first coded by RNA or DNA from which a selection could be made?
2. If the fewest genes that a cell can have to sustain life is around 400 but it has to have additional DNA to have reproductive function how can RNA or DNA have primacy ?
3. If a flatworm can be multiploidy and maintain function and morphology how does DNA have primacy?
4. How is it that a cockroach and rats can reproduce, after nuclear radiation,with mutations such that they become multi ploidy in order to maintain morphology and function and RNA or DNA have primacy or a selective function?
5. Why are a dog and a dingo or completely different genetic plants nearly identical? To what are they “converging “?
6. There can be any number of ways that a thing in nature can be the shape of a sphere but how many possible ways are there that a thing in nature can be the shape of a Mandelbrot set?
Why is the brain a Mandelbrot set?
How is a Mandelbrot set selected for from an infinite number of fractal patterns?
//
The Mandelbrot set is a mapping of Julia sets.
2. Mandelbrot and Julia sets gave the same equation of iteration but the Mandelbrot start point of all iteration is zero for z; whereas the Julia sets do not start with z=0.
3. The coronal cross Section Of the brain is the shape of a Mandelbrot set with the outer bubbles turned inward which match the fissures and sulci of the brain. The most notable are the large side bulbs and their tendrils matching a folded inward pattern.
4. The caudal cross Section Of the brain match a 4 lobed Julia set exactly where such a Julia set would be mapped onto a Mandelbrot set on the coronal Mandelbrot brain image.
5. The Mandelbrot set and Julia sets both feature period matching which would correspond to neurons crossover pathways. Some pathways of neurons are ipsilateral and some contralateral which corresponds to ipsilateral and contralateral point correspondences in both Mandelbrot and Julius sets
6. There are an infinite number of ways in which a thing can be a circle or a sphere. But there is only one way in which anything can be shaped in the shape of a Mandelbrot set. It is very specific. It is a special and specific non random fractal pattern. There are an infinite number of fractal patterns but this is the one pattern of the brain .
Irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Dear we wait for the eposid with BART EHRMAN
One of the problems we have about fee choice is the common held belief what the church teaches about hell. It doesn’t appear to be a free choice if one is threatened with burning in hell for all eternity of one does not choose Christ. People rightfully object to this because if it was true it would make god a monster, an unrighteousness judge who punished people disproportionately to their sin. However scripture doesn’t teach hell as it is commonly understood but a righteous judgement at the resurrection. Eventually all people who are not written in the book of life will be destroyed permanently, never to exist again forever and ever.
Doesn't eternal Hell rest on bad exegesis? For instance, if aion (Gk) means "pertaining to the next age" and Hell is really Gehenna, Tarturus, Sheol and Hades, shouldn't we be inclined to trust the Greek literate ancients who were conditionalists and universalists pre-Augustine? It seems the texts pro-Hell are dubious, whereas the texts for universalism, not to mention the general tenor of the Bible as a God of love, are much more clear. Thank you!
Lake of fire is a real place where sinners and satan will end up
If God, heaven, and hell did exist (they don't), then stays in heaven and hell would be temporary or limited. Finite acts do not warrant infinite rewards or punishments.
Dr Craig: how do you understand this statement of Jesus (Mark 4:11-12):
“To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that
“ ‘they may indeed see but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand,
lest they should turn and be forgiven.’ ” Greetings from Poland
I’ve often wondered about this too. Would love to hear his explanation
Sometimes Jesus talked in parables so evade the hard questions he was asked. Confound the people. Bedazzle the people.
Jesus spoke in parables to relate the things in Heaven to the things on Earth. Since no one on Earth has seen Heaven or how God looks at things, we have no basis for comparison, so we have no way to relate.
Jesus, being both God and man, has a basis for comparison. He told stories in a way that we could relate to.
They seem confusing at first glance because they are made that way. The first and greatest commandment is Love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, and mind.
Those that love God want to know about him, and actively seek him. Those that actively seek him will learn what those parables mean. The apostle Paul said to study to show thyself approved.
In Matthew 6:33 Seek ye first the kingdom of God and HIS righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you.
The kingdom of God is the relationship with the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. By accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and that he is the Son of God, his blood covered your sins, and the Father raised him up on the 3rd day, you get credit for Jesus's performance. Which means we get Jesus's righteousness. It's added to us so that when the God judges us, we are sinless. That's why the Father's gift of Jesus's atoning work on the cross is a gift of Grace.
Grace means = the Unmerited Love and Favor of God. It's unmerited, we did not earn it, it's given freely for those who have Faith in who Jesus was, what he did, and what the Father did. That's John 3:16-17.
Once you have Faith in those promises, you get the Holy Spirit, the Great Comforter.
When we pray to the Father, by way of Jesus, through the power of the Holy Spirit, we are able to speak to God where as before, you were cut off from God. It's because of our Faith, which is trust/confidence, we now have a title deed for our hopes, which are unseen future events or things. You, I and everyone else who has Faith in these known promises and are in this relationship with the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are in the Kingdom of Heaven.
This is different than when Jesus comes back to get his Church and the Saints, reigns for 1000 years and then takes us to Heaven
@@TheSaiyanRace ME1: Jesus spoke in parables to relate the things in Heaven to the things on Earth.
GW1: He was often a poor communicator.
ME1: Since no one on Earth has seen Heaven or how God looks at things, we have no basis for comparison, so we have no way to relate.
GW1: Parables were not necessary. There is no good evidence for an afterlife, heaven, or hell, but the situation is far worse. We now know that God does not exist. This has been proven.
ME1: Jesus, being both God and man, has a basis for comparison.
GW1: False. Jesus was a separate person from God. He even says so in the Gospels. Jesus actually existed, but God has never existed.
ME1: He told stories in a way that we could relate to. They seem confusing at first glance because they are made that way.
GW1: Yes, Jesus wanted to confuse some people. He was a poor communicator in some ways.
ME1: The first and greatest commandment is Love the Lord thy God with all your souls, strength and mind. Those that love God want to know about him, and actively seek him. Those that actively seek him will learn what those parables mean. The apostle Paul said to study to show thyself approved.
GW1: The problem is that God does not exist. We now know this. It has been proven.
ME1: In Matthew 6:33 Seek ye first the kingdom of God and HIS righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you. The kingdom of God is the relationship with the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
GW1: Jesus was a real person who is dead. God was a hypothetical person who never existed. It has been proven that God does not exist. There is no good evidence for the existence of the Holy Spirit, or for any kind of spirit.
ME1: By accepting Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and that he is the Son of God, his blood covered your sins, and the Father raised him up on the 3rd day, you get credit for Jesus's performance. Which means we get Jesus's righteousness. It's added to us so that when the God judges us, we are sinless. That's why the Father's gift of Jesus's atoning work on the cross is a gift of Grace. Grace means = the Unmerited Love and Favor of God.
GW1: If God did exist (he doesn’t), he would never implement a system of atonement. That would be immoral and God would never commit any immoral act.
ME1: It's unmerited, we did not earn it, it's given freely for those who have Faith in who Jesus was, what he did, and what the Father did.
GW1: Yes, it would be unmerited! And that is why God would never give it, if he did exist. He would only give people what was merited, what was just and fair.
ME1: That's John 3:16-17. Once you have Faith in those promises, you get the Holy Spirit, the Great Comforter.
GW1: Nonsense. Faith is a vice, not a virtue. There is no good evidence for the existence of the Holy Spirit, as I mentioned before.
@@whittfamily1 On the contrary, He spoke in parables because salvation is ony for those whom God has chosen.
At dinner, Paul (objectively brilliant ) would disagree with WLC, and say the arguments, for Jesus being the prophetic fundamental Christ/Messiah of the Hebrew Scriptures is strong.
I would argue it’s Christ incarnate walking in the Garden as he showed up to many of the patriarchs in the OT
When you say "evolved" what do you mean? Do you combine evolution with Biblical teachings?
William "Lame" Craig is what the triumph of form over content looks like. The ultimate sophist.
Or in layman's terms, he's the ultimate fake.
I always say that he is what a dumb person thinks a smart person sounds like.😂
Extremely generous confirmation bias disguised as hard evidence.
QUESTION: Are quantum vacuums forms of heat energy and if so how can they be from eternal past?
That's the kind of question I love asking! Good on you!
They are not heat energy. They are composed of vacuum energy, which is zero point energy and consequently cannot have a heat differential.
@@davethebrahman9870 So how do these vacuum energy bubbles form, and in what medium?
Energy-matter can be neither created nor destroyed. That is the critical point.
@@whittfamily1 Can matter be created from energy? Stars create energy from matter all the time, but how about the reverse?
God blessed him with the most beautiful warm humble voice.
Q. Why on earth does William believe that when righteousness is IMPUTED, that he believes it is IMPARTED to believers? IMPUTED means it is inherent.
If Adam lived 750,000 years ago that means there are hundreds of thousands of years between Adam and Abraham and millions of years of suffering and death leading to Adam. That is hard for me to understand.
"the entity most readers refer to when they speak of “God” is actually an upgraded, mysteriously anonymous version of what actually used to be a relatively young, quite particular, and oddly hybrid middle-Eastern tribal deity called Yahweh"
- Dr. Jaco Gericke
No wonder Craig refused to debate Gericke.
Q. Why was Lot considered to be righteous in the eyes of the Lord and saved from the destruction of Sodom? This same question could be applied to Noah and other OT men who seem to have been chosen to be saved for no apparent reason other than God choosing them. It seems almost like a lottery of mercy system. I'm really struggling with this.
‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness… to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.’
~ Romans 4
(Maybe this is a possible explanation?)
Your struggle is common. Consider this: If God did exist, then no horrible harms would occur (e.g. the Holocaust). They do occur. Therefore, God does not exist.
lot and noah are righteous base on the standard of morality in the time the bible was written.
@@erickompad8257 I don't care about the standard morality of that time. I agree with Craig on the idea of an objective morality, which is universal and correct across time and place. By that standard, there are a great many of immoral acts described in the Bible.
@@esmeralda8199 To apply the New Testament to Abraham, Christ took Abraham's sin & in return gave Abraham His righteousness.
THE TEMPEST - Lili
It gives you comfort just to think that God is by your side
To help you with your petty wants, you only have to pray
Everything given or denied, it’s part of his great plan
But what of when your world falls down, loss of home and pride
Nature is a cruel beast, she arrives to ruin and flay
She doesn’t care, she doesn’t think, of Gods, of love or man. -
The cruel sea, the skies and wind all dark with careless hate
Your home picked up and flung aside, the air fulfilled with death
Is this the plan he had for you? You still think he is great
Perhaps you think that he is kind for sparing most his flock
A score of reasons to excuse, indifference, sin or fate
It’s still the same, your world is gone, your hopes and prayers a mock. -
And as you stare into the sky and bend your knees in thanks
Your neighbor’s dead, your town a wreck, what thanks is due to him?
Who’s made your life a misery, no future left for you
You’re leaving now, your fate unknown a victim of his whim
You’ll join the mass of those he’s scorned, the lost the faithful too
Perhaps this trial will make you think, this God cannot be true. -
If he is love then what’s this hate, inflicted on mankind
It’s not just here, it’s everywhere, Infidel and faithful alike
He doesn’t care, he strikes us all, and we’re supposed to find
The meaning of the tragedy, the reason of the plan
Be grateful for the mercy, mercy no one sees, mercy undefined
The game he’s played with human pawns, the game he’s played with man. -
The great Khayyam wrote of the game, a checkerboard of lies
He knows the fate of everyone and watches from above
And you may lift your hands to him, expectant of his love
He only cares about the game, the players live or die
And if you die that is the cost of being in the game
A player faithful might be spared, the wanting to the flames.
Blessed be.
However, we now know that God does not exist. This has been proven.
@@whittfamily1I think my poem reveals the futility of praying to any SkyGod, yet they continue to prostrate themselves before statues and beg the invisible guy in the sky to make their lives better and provide an ongoing wonderful life after death in their pearl encrusted mansions in a fantasy land to be.
@@Lili-Benovent There is no good evidence to show that prayer to any god works in the way it is intended.
@@whittfamily1 I agree, but try telling that to the masses of indoctrinated, The absolute worst type of abuse that can be inflicted upon children is that of psychological abuse, far more damaging than even physical abuse.
Christians seem to believe they have a right to terrorize the young pliable minds of children with stories of people being burned alive and continually tortured for eternity if they don`t fall into line and worship a mysterious entity that nobody has ever seen.
Would you subject your children to hours of the most realistic horror movies such as the Evil Dead series or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and then expect your kids minds to not be affected? well the equivalent of that scenario is to give them hours and hours of horror stories about what will happen to them if they don`t love an invisible man who lives in the sky and dedicate their whole lives to the promotion of that belief.
The sanity of whole generations is being put at risk by the vivid imaginations of religious fanatics all over the world, take the case of a young 11 year old child in Iran who suffered from Downs Syndrome, she was found absentmindedly tearing pages out of the Qur`an, the howling mob were intent on lynching her on the spot and she was only saved by a Police Officer who barricaded her inside a police station to protect her, later she would be convicted and sentenced to death for Blasphemy (since commuted)
This is a prime example of what happens when generations of children are brainwashed from birth and grow up to follow any religious doctrine, The whole world is suffering from severe mental breakdown and religion plays a large part as a cause of this malady.
@@whittfamily1 No it hasn't. Everyone knows that God exists.
What role does archeology play in arguments to the resurrection of Jesus? Is archeology simply supportive of the Gospel accounts - for instance archeological evidence for the book of Acts and Luke? Or can we use archeology to provide support for premises in arguments for the resurrection?
I know your question was probably for Dr. Craig, but I'm not aware of any archeological evidence that supports the gospel accounts (the substantive claims anyway) outside of basic geography.
There's journals and laws and records that address the crucifixion, the empty tomb and the Christians. Hard to deny the claims of rhe Gospel tbh
@@christatum3045 I don’t disagree that Romans crucified lots of people and that Christianity grew out of the radical Judaism that Jesus taught, but that’s about the extent of it. There’s no evidence for a resurrection. (Not to mention it’s impossible) :)
There is no evidence from archeology which could support the claim that Jesus came back to life. If you disagree, then tell me what that evidence would look like.
Luke gets his facts right, the geography & political details are correct. How would archaeology, which relies on interpretation, help?
Q. Dr Craig, what is your proudest achievement so far?
Q - Isaiah 43:7, how are we to understand "created for my glory" without attributing an ego to God which is counter to His aseity. Why did He create us creatures if there is nothing he requires?
I’ve always wondered this myself. Clearly he deserves the recognition so maybe it’s just a matter of properly placed worship.
GW1: I can’t find this person’s post, but in an email Ro wrote this: “Porque todos los ateistas ponen siempre la excusa del sufrimiento para no creer en Dios ? Habemos personas en este mundo que han sufrido muchas veces aún así fueron los que más creyeron. Los que más miraron al cielo en señal de alguna esperanza en los momentos difíciles.”
GW1: Sorry, I do not speak Spanish. I used the Google translator to convert your Spanish to English. So, I will reply to the translation.
R1: Why do all atheists always make the excuse of suffering to not believe in God?
GW1: First, all atheists do not believe in God, but they don’t all refer to suffering in doing so. Secondly, suffering is not an excuse. Suffering is a fact. Thirdly, if God did exist, although he might allow minor harm, he would not allow moderate, major, or horrible harm, like the Holocaust. If you believe he would, then present your case.
R1: We have people in this world who have suffered many times, yet they were the ones who believed the most.
GW1: A proper scientific study has not been done on this topic. (I checked with a sociologist of religion about it.) You would need to survey a large sample of people, both before and after they experienced a major harm to see how their beliefs in God changed or remained the same. This has not been done. It has been reported that many Jews who survived the Holocaust became atheists. Also, I had uncles who fought in WWII who became atheists. But these are anecdotes, not the results of a scientific study.
R1: Those who looked at the sky the most as a sign of some hope in difficult times.
GW1: After a horrible harm, it is irrational to look at the sky for a sign of hope. If God did exist, he would not have allowed the horrible harm to occur in the first place.
Q: Can you please better explain how your work on the historical Adam fits within a 'proper', context of Genesis and the corresponding genealogies? I am struggling to see how, if Adam is literally the first human, and is dated to be 100,000 years ago, how that fits within the genealogies of Genesis.
Good point. I dealt a bit with that above. He’s great with a lot of Subjects but when he strays too much from Biblical and God Inspired words, he falters, especially in early Genesis. Grand guy though, with many extraordinary efforts in his life, with mostly Logical Arguments.
If the members listed are representative of clans rather than a linear genealogy that would eliminate the problem.
@@axderka there are many more points wrong than this he has for Genesis. But their literal ages in years are given, just as we know Cain was the Firstborn and then Abel. Two individual sons. One of them commits murder and only him as an individual was marked for safety and sent away. Then Seth another individual came to satisfy Eve’s loss of both single sons, one dead, one sent away. Then also Seth was also treated as an individual with an individual genealogical age. Problems only happen in Genesis when people want to bend it so severely to fit their individual theory or agenda.
The answer is actually quite simple. Adam in the Hebrew creation myth wasn’t the first human. Cheers!
@@ezzaezza-ux1sb there is obviously more going on in Genesis than your understanding from a 21st century viewpoint.
Dr.Michael S.Heiser videos on RUclips can help you see what you R missing.
As an atheist, WLC displaying with Joy his belief in human evolution gives me great hopes for the future of the intellectual side of Christianity.
"the intellectual side" of Christianity is like the dry side of water or the classy side of trailer parks...
@@Jewonastick Intelligence is the cornerstone of craftiness
@@fourleaf7570 What does that have to do with this
@@Jewonastick William Lane Craig is the most crafty of Apologists
@@fourleaf7570 As in making up bad arguments? Yeah, he and Turek are absolute champs in that.
Appreciate the show. I’m a big big fan of Dr Craig and I’ve read many of his books.
However when it came to the question of miracles I think he makes a disservice to the faith by giving Peter May as an example of “you can be a Christian and not believe in modern miracles. Look at Peter May”
Peter May is a person with an unhealthy skepticism that threw temper tantrums to Craig Keener and made preposterous statements to avoid accepting clear evidence for miracles. Therefore offer him as an example is not the best thing. I could also say: “hey I’m advocating mere Christianity and you can be a fool and not open to evidence and to say stupid things, look at that Person “x”. See? You are not required to be a smart person for being a Christian!”
I expected more from Dr Craig and not only refer me to Peter May in that question. He is the maybe the worst person to make the point
The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Failing to prove god for close to a thousand years.
.
LOL
Since everyone knows God exists, it isn't needed.
@@martinploughboy988 THANKS for crapping on Billy Lane Craigs life work. Poor dude spent his entire life just shouting The Kalam.
LOL
@@sanjeevgig8918 He should have read the Bible more carefully.
@@martinploughboy988 The bible is the CLAIM. You have no evidence of what Jesus ever said or did. You only read a book - which is a copy of a copy of a copy of translations of fragments from the 1st century written decades after the fact by anonymous authors of stories passed around like a telephone game.
LOL
@@martinploughboy988
One of the easiest ways to prove that the Bible is false.
Damn! I miss it. I wanted to ask ol' Lowbar Bill what it's like being the greatest limbo dancer at the epistemic high jump event.
😅😅😅
Spot on! 👈
I like see William lane Craig fix Aron Ra
Why is the name of this show “unbelievable”? Just curious why
You wouldn’t believe me if I told you.
Let me get this straight...Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo rudolfensis, Australopithecus afarensis, etc. etc., were just doing their things, evolving, and then suddenly a Hebrew deity decided to step in to evolution at Homo heideldergensis and "create" the common ancestor of Homo sapiens?
Well the idea is more god was guiding the evolution towards our level of intelligence and bipedalism.
God waited and guided the evolution because talking to early would have been pointless since they didn’t have the brain power to understand.
You can’t teach a great ape about religion, their level of intelligence doesn’t understand that other creatures can know things they don’t know. You’ll never see a animal ask a question about something, they will only ask for food and toys, ect because they don’t understand the words they just understand “when I make this sound or symbol I get this”
William Lane Craig didn't explain why he isn't persuaded by NDEs but I suspect that its simply because those who have had NDEs do not describe an afterlife that is compatible with Evangelicalism. The fact is that serious scientists who have studied NDEs, such as Dr Pim Van Lommel, have come to the conclusion that consciousness must be non-local and therefore not a by-product of brain function.
@@stevewatersofficial God allows most people to be deceived (by whom?) at death? People who have had an NDE lose the fear of death and become more compassionate, loving people. "You will know them by their fruits". According to you, God, who is all-powerful and all-knowing, allows us to be deceived even at the point of death. Where is the mercy in that? It sounds to me like you're trying to negate NDEs in order make room for Evangelical nonsense.
@@stevewatersofficial I have an MA in Christian Theology and I’ve studied with some of the finest theologians in the world. You are simply projecting what you want onto me as it’s convenient for you. I have studied the Christian faith in-depth and I am certain that Calvinism in particular is the most absurd nonsense I have ever come across. William Lane Craig is not highly respected amongst leading theologians such as David B Hart and Rowan Williams. Craig tends to read later doctrinal traditions back into scripture, especially Evangelical. You accused me of not studying: I read the NT in Greek with commentaries ancient, modern and contemporary and have written essays and dissertations on scripture and theology that have been awarded the highest grades by well known NT scholars and theologians. So it looks like you’re talking complete nonsense. Moreover, looking at your comment, you clearly don’t understand what im saying at all. God, according to scripture, is love (agape) and love is the willing of the good as other. Now, the question is: can love (agape) be reconciled with eternal hell? Many of the greatest theologians, including St Gregory of Nyssa and St Maximus the Confessor, have said “no”. You and Craig are simply projecting much later doctrinal assertions about hell onto scripture. But you don’t recognise your projection because you don’t read Koine Greek and you don’t consult scholarly commentaries. So, im afraid it’s you who needs to study
There is no good evidence that consciousness is not local, regardless of Van Lommel's belief. If you disagree, then present the evidence.
If God cannot accomplish his goal without allowing evil, how is he still omnipotent?
Because He can use the evil that others do for good
Because that entity does not exist.
@@martinploughboy988 Are you suggesting he couldn’t get the same results without the evil?
@@kimmyswan No, I'm saying He can use that which opposes Him to achieve His end.
@@martinploughboy988 so, God uses our evil deeds to accomplish his goals? But, he COULD achieve these same goals without us? Then, why didn’t he? If, however God cannot achieve these same goals without us and our evil deeds, then how is he omnipotent?
The Kalam argument, promoted but not invented by Craig, has been soundly refuted by many people. The two premises don’t hold up under scrutiny and the conclusion, even if true, does not necessarily point to God. A cause of the beginning of the universe (if it had a beginning, which is doubtful) might be a physical force, a god besides God, or an alien.
The Ontological argument has also been soundly refuted by many people. You can compare greatness on many qualities of things within two domains - the hypothetical and the real, but you can’t do this across domains. For example, the greatest person in the hypothetical domain may not even exist.
Craig is correct that the argument from fulfilled prophesy is probably the worst argument offered in support of Christianity.
Naturalistic Explanations of Supposedly Accurate Prophesies:
1. Later authors knew earlier prophesies and fabricated stories to match those prophesies.
2. Some persons knew earlier prophesies and acted in such a way to match them. (Self-fulfilling prophesy)
3. Most prophesies are vague, ambiguous, or imprecise. Rarely do they predict who, what, when, where, why, and how.
4. Some prophets may have just been good historians or sociologists who are correct in their predictions at a higher rate than lay persons.
5. Lucky guesses.
6. True positives are cherry-picked and false positives are ignored.
7. Metaphorical, figurative, or other non-literal writing is mistakenly interpreted as a prediction of the future.
Craig has a very odd and probably mistaken interpretation of Genesis. He thinks Adam and Eve were mortal rather than immortal before they ate the apple, disobeyed God, and were punished. He believes that bodily death was not a punishment for their sin. Craig thinks spiritual death was the punishment. But the Jews who wrote Genesis had no beliefs in souls or spirits. That idea came later from Plato. By the time of Paul, Plato’s ideas had spread in the world, being picked up even by some Jews like Paul. Most other Christians do not agree with Craig on these points.
Craig believes not only in the existence of the soul, but also in the independence of the soul from the brain and in downward causation, i.e. soul or mind affecting the brain. The newest neuroscientific and psychological research do not support his views on this.
Craig mistakenly assumes that determined brain states would not be morally significant. But it is behavior that is morally significant, regardless of its generation by the brain or the soul. The person still needs to be held accountable in some way for his immoral behavior.
When Craig draws the distinction between the intellectual and emotional problems of suffering it is just a distraction from the intellectual problem. He even goes on to discount the intellectual problem by saying that most people don’t even consider it as a real thing.
Craig says that the atheist has the burden of proof to show that it is impossible or highly improbable for God to have morally sufficient reasons to allow suffering and evil. And Craig thinks that this burden has not been met. He doesn’t believe that there is a good intellectual objection to the existence of an all-powerful and all-good God based on evil and suffering in the world. Craig is just mistaken. Some atheists have met the burden of proof to which Craig here refers. If God did exist, because he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral he would prevent all horrible harms. It would be contrary to God’s nature for him to allow horrible harms. The burden of proof is now shifted to Craig and other theists. They must not only cite an error in the atheist position, but they must also specify a morally justified reason for God to allow horrible harms to occur. They have not met this burden.
Craig claims that God loves us so much that he took upon himself the suffering of the cross. What a bunch of baloney! If God did exist and he loved us so much, then he would prevent all the suffering which we experience from horrible harms. God would not create suffering for himself and continue to allow horrible harms for humans, given that he would be all-powerful and perfectly moral, if he did exist. Craig is out in left field on this one.
Craig implies that humans choose to go to heaven or hell by their own free will. No, they don’t choose these destinations; they have no control over where God chooses to send them by his own free will, if he existed. At most, humans merely choose their behaviors. If he exists, God sets up contingencies, rewards, punishments, and even “salvation mechanisms” through which he might control human choices and behaviors. God does not give humans the free will to choose to steal and then to travel to heaven!
Craig says God could not send everybody to heaven because it would violate human free will. This is simply false. If God did exist, he would be all-powerful and he could do anything he wished, consistent with his nature. He could create many types of free will, outcomes, and contingencies. Don’t tie God’s hands! The model most consistent with the nature of God, if he did exist, would look something like this: After life on Earth, humans would first spend some time in hell, proportional to the number and severity of their sins, and then they would spend some time in heaven, proportional to the number and significance of their virtuous acts. Craig’s ideas about free will, heaven, and hell are not consistent with the nature of God, if he did exist.
Craig doesn’t seem to understand that God could easily present himself to human beings without “overwhelming them with his glory.” Carl Sagan knew how aliens could do this, and surely God would know as much.
Craig claims that probably only in a world suffused with evil and suffering would the maximum people come to accept God’s offer of salvation. This is pure nonsense! This maximum would be achieved if and only if God presented himself and his rules for living to humans in a special way - revelations which are frequent or regular, clear, unequivocal, universal, and objective. He would reveal himself to theists, atheists, agnostics, all persons at the same time, if he did exist! None of the horrible harms we suffer are necessary. This is how we know that God does not and cannot exist.
A world without horrible harms far outweighs a world with horrible harms plus the actual crucifixion of Jesus and the alleged atonement for sins. The best of all possible worlds might be one in which there are no horrible harms occurring to humans, God allows minor sins and immediately punishes them fairly and justly, and people live forever. Under these conditions people would learn quickly to behave properly. Unlimited free will, big sins, crucifixion, atonement, and forgiveness are all totally unnecessary. God would make a better world than ours actually is and better than what Craig imagines via Christian doctrine.
Craig believes Jesus and God came to an agreement that Jesus would be crucified and provide atonement for the sins of humanity. This is total nonsense. God would never do this. Atonement, forgiveness, salvation, and horrible harms are not only unnecessary, they are counterproductive and irrational. Instead, God would prevent horrible harms, allow minor sins, and punish the latter in a manner which is immediate, reliable, fair, and just.
Of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Deism, Craig believes that only Christianity “gets Jesus right.” But he is mistaken. Only Deism “gets Jesus right.” For Deism, Jesus was only a man, an itinerant minister.
Peter May has not said that God can’t do modern medical miracles. He just says that God hasn’t done them.
Towards the end Craig advised that training in Christianity should be done by fathers, not by mothers or Sunday schools. Here Craig demeans women, which is what is taught also by the Bible authors.
Although Craig is a good communicator, he is mostly wrong on the nature of reality and morality.
Awesome response
@@Jewonastick Thank you.
So.... the first question asked was about me, specifically about me, asked my my parent. Billy C misrepresents the question and my experience thoroughly. My peer group included degreed theologions, priests, professors,... He says I should have sought out truth instead. Through what avenues? Prayer? I cried on my knees, praying. Through church leaders? They failed me consistently. My dad is buying this book, so we'll see, but I disagree that it was a helpful suggestion.
Yeah, that wasn't a very good answer from WLC.
Basically said that the son wasn't looking for truth in the correct way and then follows up with this book.
As if WLC's information is better and more truthful.
The source of all truth is the Bible.
@@martinploughboy988 You don't think Patrick reads the Bible? We all do and usually come with different interpretations.
WLC is being ridiculous because he's claiming that this guy's peer group isn't going to give him the truth but Billy's book is going to.
@Martin Ploughboy I was in Seminary. I was reading the Bible plenty. Thanks, though. And, btw, no, the Bible is absolutely NOT the source for all truth. The Bible endorses slavery, rape, genocide, stoning of children, and many of the books within were political propoganda.
@@mustachemac5229 I'm not supporting WLC's comments, I'm saying the place to get the answers is the Bible. Let the Bible interpret itself, don't force your opinions on the text.
Fascinating, thank you! A few thoughts on the tree of life in the garden of Eden. My understanding is that Adam and Eve " need " not have died. (before the fall)
This is in comparison to the the second Adam Yeshua who also "need" not have died because he had no sin. "The reason he could lay down his life." Otherwise he would have died a natural death like the rest of us. But we know he did lay down his life and was killed and resurrected to "eternal" life and has become the "tree of life" for us humans in being the sinless second Adam. I hope this makes sense.
If God did exist, then would he invent death for human beings? If so, why?
@@whittfamily1 Good question!
I too thought about this and have come to the following conclusion..
I see the garden of Eden more of a metaphor for us to understand the who and the why of things.
Right from get go God let's us know that his actual plan for mankind is to inherit eternal life, pictured by the tree of life.
The real question is: Why has God allowed the other tree to be there ?
The eating of it has inflicted the death penalty for humans.
Animals never had the offer to partake of the tree 🌴 of life. One of the reasons Adam had not been deceived. He experienced the reality of death by observation.
We know that the culprit of the story is the talking serpent. Now a serpent doesn't have a voice box. This to me indicates that the serpent influences through the thought process. Eve looked at the tree and saw that the fruit was beautiful, why should it not be good for eating?
She cannot have understood the reality of death like Adam did.
Back to the question why death in the physical creation? My conclusion:
God has only' one only begotten son.
1) Satan wasn't always an adversary of God. I connect the two. No details are revealed to us.
2) the physical is a testing ground. (for comprehension through free will)
Free will is essential for creativity and everything beautiful. But it also means that it can go wrong in the sense of wrong thoughts and actions.
3) Humans have been put on a learning curve ...
One could compare it with hardware and software. Consciousness in form of the brain and the mind?
(A bit long and windy I know) I hope it is thought provoking? ..
@@Katharina643 K2: Good question! I too thought about this and have come to the following conclusion.. I see the garden of Eden more of a metaphor for us to understand the who and the why of things. Right from get go God let's us know that his actual plan for mankind is to inherit eternal life, pictured by the tree of life.
GW2: I think the opposite is just as likely: It was not God’s plan for mankind to inherit eternal life since he did not share the fruit of that tree with Adam and Eve.
K2: The real question is: Why has God allowed the other tree to be there ? The eating of it has inflicted the death penalty for humans.
GW2: If you are going to speak of trees and “other” trees, then you need to clearly identify them. The eating did not inflict a penalty. God inflicted a penalty, the death penalty. William Lane Craig believes this penalty was not the death of the body but the death of the soul.
K2: Animals never had the offer to partake of the tree of life. One of the reasons Adam had not been deceived. He experienced the reality of death by observation.
GW2: What’s your evidence for any of this?
K2: We know that the culprit of the story is the talking serpent. Now a serpent doesn't have a voice box. This to me indicates that the serpent influences through the thought process. Eve looked at the tree and saw that the fruit was beautiful, why should it not be good for eating? She cannot have understood the reality of death like Adam did.
GW2: Who or what is the serpent? Yes, serpents don’t talk, so who is talking? I disagree with you that Adam understood the reality of death. Where is your evidence for that? It seems like a bit of male chauvanism to think that the first man had more understanding than the first woman. Aren’t you a woman?
K2: Back to the question why death in the physical creation? My conclusion: God has only' one only begotten son. 1) Satan wasn't always an adversary of God. I connect the two. No details are revealed to us.
GW2: If God did exist, he would not have a son and would not have created Satan.
K2: 2) the physical is a testing ground. (for comprehension through free will) Free will is essential for creativity and everything beautiful.
GW2: False. God could create beautiful things without giving humans free will.
K2: But it also means that it can go wrong in the sense of wrong thoughts and actions.
GW2: If God did exist, he could and would have given humans some types of free will, but not others. For example, he would have given them the free will to choose watermelon or pineapple in the grocery. And the free will to choose to love or hate God. But he would not have given humans the free will to do violence to other humans or not.
K2: 3) Humans have been put on a learning curve ... One could compare it with hardware and software.
GW2: Humans do learn, whether they were created by God or not. We now know that God does not exist.
K2: Consciousness in form of the brain and the mind?
GW2: The mind and consciousness arise from and are dependent on the brain.
@@whittfamily1 GW - I think the opposite is just as likely .. >>>
K - God did withhold access to the tree of life after Adam and Eve had eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Before that they need not have died because they had not sinned against God. But we know that they had "not" eaten of the tree of life, because God had guarded the tree of life after they had to leave the garden of Eden. The tree of life pictures Eternal life and we humans die.
There is a difference between " need" not die and "cannot" die.
However the Son of God had already been in the foreknowledge, even in the garden of Eden. Yeshua pictures the second Adam before the fall and " need " not have died, but he put down his life and has become the tree of life (eternal life)
GW- the eating did not inflict a penalty .. >>>
It was the disobedience which inflicted the death penalty, you are right. But if one considers that their body had changed, it stands to reason that something they had eaten might have changed their DNA?
Also their mind had changed, because they became aware that they were naked. They became conscious.
There are three parts to the consciousness.
1) Awareness - Conscious
2) Subliminal and Sleep - Subconscious
3) Bodily Function - Unconsciousness
Brain: physical part
Mind: metaphysical part
This implies that brain/mind is an essential tool for the expression of the spirit. (Job 32:8, Eccl 3:21)
What happens when we die?
The bodily functions stop - the unconscious part of the mind stops. Both man and beast die.
Why does consciousness and the spirit in man differ from the spirit of animals?
Who knows if the spirit of a human being goes "upward" and the spirit of an animal goes "downward" into the earth?"
the dust returns to earth, as it was, and the "spirit (in man) returns to God", who gave it! Ecc 3:21 12:7
GW - What's the evidence for any of this .. >>>
Gen 2:15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. Adam also named all the animals and I assume that he also saw some of them die? Maybe Eve had been in the kitchen :)
But it says that Eve was deceived by the serpent. Also (2Cor 11:3).
Once Eve had taken of the fruit, she then gave some to Adam..
GW - who or what is the serpent? .. >>>
The serpent is the deceiver.
Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world-he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.
GW - if God did exist .. >>>
Would God have a son ? >
Psa 2:11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
Psa 2:12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and you perish in the way, for his wrath is quickly kindled. Blessed are all who take refuge in him.
Psa 45:6 Your throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness;
Psa 45:7 you have loved righteousness and hated wickedness. "Therefore God", your God," has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions;
Heb 1:5 For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son, today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son”?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God's angels worship him.”
Did God create Satan? >
He has a plan to judge his adversary the fallen Lucifer, Rev 12:9 Rev 20:2 Mat 4:10 Mat 12:26 Mark 3:23-26
Has he always been an adversary?
No
At the same time God brings into his kingdom children through his "only begotten" son Yeshua.
Psalm 45:6
John 16:33
Daniel 2:44
Mat 12:28
Mark 1:15
........ 👇
GW - If God did exist he would have given them some types of free will, but not others >>>
We go back to the garden :
Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden,
Gen 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.”
We know what happened!
From then on they had the choice of good and evil. Satan is the influencer of evil. God through his Torah is the influencer of good.
GW- humans do learn whether they were created by God or not.>>>
What comes first: language or thoughts?
Pain and suffering in the world is your g plan? I give it a lower case g for many reasons.
We need to have a conversation of what constitutes a species. The most accepted definition involves the ability of members of a species to interbreed and produce progeny that can also breed productively. Using this definition it is questionable about the so-called different “species” of Genus Homo! Many use the term Homo sapiens heidlebergensis rather than Homo heidlebergensis. This most certainly be true if heidlebergensis were the historic Adam.
Justin, what happens when Jesus fulfills (Daniel 12:1) and awakens a sword before he returns as written in (Matthew 10:34)? For if we are being taught to watch for Jesus' descent from above while Michael ascends from below (1 Thessalonians 5:2), are you certain the Messiah spoken of in (Matthew 23) is Jesus speaking about himself and not Michael instead?
Biblical seals are an interesting subject, especially the fourth seal (Rev. 6:7~8). For I met a pale horse with claim that Death is an effect and not a cause. So when does an effect ever lead or proceed the causes unless in its Heart can only be found the Will to Live? Is the figure of Death in this seal a reference to the Archangel Michael?
Thanks,
~Rick
But surely Daniel 12:1 doesn't claim Michael ascends from below. It's just stating Michael shall appear or take action.
@@stephenglasse9756 Okay, whatever you say.
Thank you for reaching out, sincerely.
~Rick
Rick, Jesus is dead. Get over it. He's not coming back. His skeleton has not even been located.
@@whittfamily1 It is said that Jesus fashioned a whip and destroyed a temple courtyard in a fit of rage. So are we now justified in following his example and doing the same? No. For the Bible makes no claim that exoneration grants immunity from liability to anyone, including Jesus.
Gary, if you are over it then why do you follow his lead? And what makes you assume that Christian's agree with anything I have to say? I am a Christian, yet in my experience they do not; it is quite the opposite as I am one who stands with God in defense of atheists, for they often ask valid questions quite deserving of valid answers which they rarely receive. Equally, some things are just too hard to believe until they come upon us.
Believe what you will, and thank you for reaching out.
Sincerely,
~Rick
@@thealchemist7131 A1: It is said that Jesus fashioned a whip and destroyed a temple courtyard in a fit of rage. So are we now justified in following his example and doing the same? No.
GW1: I agree.
A1: The Bible makes no claim that exoneration grants immunity from liability to anyone, including Jesus.
GW1: Exonerated means “found not guilty.” So, if you are found not guilty, you aren’t going to be punished, are you?
A1: Gary, if you are over it, then why follow his lead?
GW1: Over what? Whose lead? You are being too vague here.
A1: And what makes you assume that Christian's agree with anything I have to say? I am a Christian, yet in my experience they do not; it is quite the opposite,...
GW1: To be a Christian a person must agree with a core set of beliefs. So, you have these beliefs in common with other Christians, but disagree on peripheral or accessory beliefs.
A1: as I am one who stands with God in defense of atheists, for they often ask valid questions quite deserving of valid answers, which they rarely receive.
GW1: No. You don’t stand with God because God does not exist. This has been proven. But if you defend atheists, that is a good thing.
A1: Equally, some things are just too hard to believe until they come upon us.
GW1: Yes, some hypotheses are just too hard to believe because there is insufficient evidence supporting them.
A1: Believe what you will, and thank you again for reaching out. Sincerely, ~Rick
GW1: I will and you are welcome. But God doesn’t exist anyway. This has been proven.
I can not say enough about how much WLC has impacted my own Christian philosophy but as with all things, I cannot agree with everything in particular his interpretation of the old earth view he expressed in the beginning. I believe Darwinists have miscategorized variation within a Species what the Bible calls a Kind which is somewhere in-between Genus and Family depending on what Darwinists call species. I am not a young earth Creationist only because I trust the Bible, but also because even the rocks are crying out of a massive world wide cataclysmic event.
Total nonsense. The rocks are not crying out.
@@whittfamily1 Uniformitarianism was debunked by the Mt Saint Helens eruption showing just how quickly stratification takes place when you add lots of various sized particles with seismic activity. When you add lots of water and tidal forces Liquefaction naturally separates particles by density, size and shape. Also, we have soft tissues, Osteocytes, collagen, blood cells, Hemoglobin proteins and even segments of blood vessels from Dinosaur fossils. Lastly the fossil record doesn't show gradual evolution, it shows fully formed creatures perfectly suited for their environment being trapped and encased by silt and mud caused by advancing waters covering shallow seas, beaches, low lying areas with the exception of the creatures smart enough, strong enough and fast enough to escape by moving up to higher elevations. There are fossil graveyard beds containing thousands of individuals broken and obliterated by water, giant fossilized sea shells on top of Mt Everest. These are just a few of things off the top of my head, but yeah the rocks are crying out.
In Mark 2 , Matthew 9 . Luke 5 in the Miraculas healing of the Paralytic man, Jesus stated that the Son of Man has Authority on Earth to forgive Sins. So why associate his death by Crucification with atonement?
If God did exist and did forgive sins (neither is true), then he would not delegate the forgiving role to anyone. He would retain that for himself.
No matter what you did Jesus loved and in that respect you are forgiven
@@whittfamily1 So as a primate have the faculty to know nothing exists outside of 3D and if it did you know how it would behave.😂😂
@@daviddeida False. If God did exist (we know he doesn't), then he would not forgive anyone for doing wrong. He would implement perfect justice in every instance. Besides even in the story, Jesus was not God.
@@daviddeida Your comment is incomprehensible. Try to restate it.
Ask him about the Ascension. Ask him about Revelation being in the Bible
Q. Why does William believe atonement is a direct act? It is not, as it is indirect by his death he changed thr covenant to allow forgiveness of past sins.
If God did exist, he would never set up any system of atonement. That would violate the rule of individual accountability and would be immoral. If he did exist, God would be perfectly moral and so he would reject all systems of atonement.
@@whittfamily1 Atonement is dependant on becoming a believer, that is all, before God learned to forgive all were condemned.
There was no system just total accountability. Atonement is very difficult to achieve, and the system is infallible. Forgiveness is by grace which is wrongly portrayed in Christianity as unmerited, but a believer must merit grace and the standard set is sin.
I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity' which finds the truth by exposing false teaching.
@@whittfamily1 Atonement is dependant on becoming a believer, that is all, before God learned to forgive all were condemned.
There was no system just total accountability. Atonement is very difficult to achieve, and the system is infallible. Forgiveness is by grace which is wrongly portrayed in Christianity as unmerited, but a believer must merit grace and the standard set is sin.
I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity' which finds the truth by exposing false teaching.
@@simonskinner1450 SS1: Atonement is dependant on becoming a believer,...
GW1: Atonement does not occur and so it is not dependent on anything, but especially not on some silly beliefs.
SS1: that is all, before God learned to forgive all were condemned.
GW1: “God learned”? You’ve got to be kidding! If God did exist, he would not learn correct morality. He would implement correct morality from the start.
SS1: There was no system just total accountability.
GW1: If God did exist, there would be total accountability for all persons forever, even for Donald Trump.
SS1: Atonement is very difficult to achieve, and the system is infallible.
GW1: Atonement is inherently fallible, whereas justice is inherently infallible. Everyone should get exactly what they deserve. And that is the way God would manage things, if he did exist, but he doesn’t.
SS1: Forgiveness is by grace which is wrongly portrayed in Christianity as unmerited, but a believer must merit grace and the standard set is sin.
GW1: But if God did exist, he would not set up any system of forgiveness, mercy, grace, or atonement. Instead, he would be the champion of justice and fairness.
SS1: I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity' which finds the truth by exposing false teaching.
GW1: There is very little in Christianity which is true since even its most basic idea, that God exists, is false! This has been proven.
@@whittfamily1 On the contrary, God in mercy takes upon Himself the penalty for the sin & gives the sinner His righteousness.
I still think that Adam and Eve would have been forgiven had they instantly repented and asked for forgiveness instead of playing the blame game.
Option 1: God knew they would play the blame game. Therefore, God plotted the whole “Fall”, gaslighting Adam and Eve, and made suffering an essential part of life. Therefore God is not all loving.
Option 2: God did not know they would play the blame game. This God is no longer all knowing and therefore not all powerful. Also, assuming the “Fall” does not happen. Jesus, an essential part of God will no longer be essential. Making God the trinity imperfect.
Take your pick.
@@KeanuReevesIsMyJesus You forgot about free will regarding Adam and Eve.If you think you are a meat puppet with no free will then there is suffering.
@@daviddeida the fact that multiple scenarios are given, depicting different actions Adam and Eve could have taken already implies free will. But nonetheless, I’ll spell it out for you…
Option 1: God knew free will led them to play the blame game. Using this foreknowledge…(continue as before)…
Option 2: open theist approach, where free will still applies, but God does not have the foreknowledge of the outcome…(continue as before)…
@@daviddeida
You can not have free will if an omnipotent being created you and everything around you specifically to freely make a specific choice.
God already knew the choice that Adam and Eve would make before he created anything… and he could have created a world where they freely choose to obey him.
But he didn’t want that world.😉
Those excuses for God only work if he doesn’t know the future or if he is very limited in his abilities and knowledge.
Craig's response to the problem of evil is wholly inadequate. He claims that suffering and evil are not incompatible with an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful 'god' since 'he' might have a 'morally sufficient reason' for permitting such evil, and that the non-theist would have to show that such a 'god' is impossible or highly improbable. I regard this as a weak response because its what I term a "it's logically possible" argument, i.e., we have no idea whatsoever why God would permit the rape and murder of children, for example, but it's logically possible that there is such an explanation. That's not very persuasive! I think that the theist has to be able to come up with some reason as to why God would permit radical forms of evil. And then, to make things worse, Craig also believes in an eternal hell: his all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful 'god' created creatures that he foreknew would end up suffering for eternity; that's certainly not all-loving. If you disagree then read David B. Hart, a much better theist philosopher, on the impossibility of reconciling an eternal hell with an all-loving god.
Although I am not a theist, I have to applaud you. The mainstream Christianity is fundamentally incoherent.
I agree. The burden of proof is now on the theist to actually tell us what would God's morally sufficient reason would be for allowing the Holocaust and other horrible harms, if he did exist. They haven't been able to come up with any rational response.
Q: Since God created creation, because nothing can't create something, why do you define God down effectively by believing the universe is old and you mock young universe/Earth believers like me?
Mocking is never appropriate, but why would believing in an old universe impugn the classic/Christian concept of God?
Young earth is definitely false. We have trees older than your young earth.
Because God does not exist, and this has been proven.
@@whittfamily1 “Proven”? Provide said proof, Gary.
How does your belief in God impact on your views on gun control in the US?
If we are completely saved at the moment of salvation also entered in Union with Christ and many other things at the moment we believe how can anything the believer doesWhether good or bad have any effect on salvation which was complete at that moment they followed Eph,16:31
Good question. It is just a bizarre and false conclusion.
What does Jesus say:
No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. (John 6:44)
I see no chance that anyone the Father draws & the Son saves can ever be lost.
@@martinploughboy988 We don't know that this verbiage comes from Jesus. There are no eye-witness reports of Jesus. Also, we know that God does not exist, and this has been proven. Also, Jesus is dead.
@@whittfamily1 disagree, the only way to disprove God ,the only way for definitive proof that would satisfy both sides is if someone died and came back to end the debate. Guess what that happened ,his name Is Jesus Christ.
@@djaconetta DJ1: disagree, the only way to disprove God ,the only way for definitive proof that would satisfy both sides is if someone died and came back to end the debate.
GW1: You are very confused. I have provided one of many definitive proofs that God does not exist. If you think not, then find and present what you believe to be an error in my Holocaust argument and we can debate that.
GW1: Also, there is no proof that will satisfy both sides. What are you talking about? If somebody died and came back to life, that would not prove that God exists or that he does not. There is no good evidence that this has ever happened.
DJ1: Guess what that happened ,his name Is Jesus Christ.
GW1: First, you are using the wrong name. His name was Jesus of Nazareth. To call him “Christ” you assume too much. Secondly, Jesus was not God. Even Jesus said so. Thirdly, there is no good evidence that Jesus came back to life. There is not one single first-person author-identified low-bias prompt eye-witness report about the crucifixion of Jesus and its aftermath or about any event in the life of Jesus. ZERO! So what you claim to be a fact is not a fact.
Dr Craig embraces the principle of sola scriptura, but this principle is not only not taught by the Bible but is inconsistent with explicit teaching in the bible.
No it isn't.
With a television you don't have to be supernatural. God prefer that because it's more social but we have to use it correctly. Right now we have anarchy blindness. Despite the anarchy blindness I figured it out. That proves we can be God like. Only a person getting crucified would suspect something greater. They crucified me with exact same disease that in pink Floyd the wall. Victor said it's all good. It should be possible to make everything all good.8-)
William Lane Craig as openly stated that the only reason he is a Christian is the idea that 'at the end of days' he will be forgiven of his sins. Further stating that if science demonstrated that there was only 1 in a million change that there is a God, he would still want to believe because of that idea, that no mater what he did he will be forgiven of his sin and reach 'everlasting life'. Claiming that all is academic theosophical discussion is just conjecture.
Based on that admission why is he still promoted as a premier expert.
The reasoning that at the end of days one will be forgiven and not have to pay for their sins is why all churches have people in them. They have all bought a phony insurance policy. They all think that they can do whatever they want and believe whatever they want as long as they have this insurance policy they bought to show God in the end, everything is going to be ok.
What the world (atheists) fails to understand is, all churches are filled with atheists, just atheists with a phony insurance policy they bought. WLC is not a Christian, he is an atheist pretending to be a Christian, same as all the others who fill all the 100% apostate churches.
There are some actual Christians, however, they have nothing to do with anything called the church. What the world knows as the church is nothing more than an atheist indoctrination center where the lost can buy and sell the churches false manmade freewill gospel, (insurance policy). They go in atheists and come out atheists with a phony insurance policy.
Because of his skillful communication and high confidence. On most issues, he is just mistaken.
@@whittfamily1 agreed
Dr. Craig, why can’t mom teach apologetics?…
According to W L Craig we _deserve_ to suffer forever for the [finite] sins that we have committed in this life. But, if we ask Craig, could I have avoided sinning altogether? His response would be: no. We were born into a fallen world and as a consequence could not have avoided sinning. But if I could not avoid x, then why am I to blame for x? And, moreover, how is it loving for god to punish Christ for _our_ sins? The innocent suffer for the guilty? So, according to Craig, the cross is a kind of legal transaction: Christ has suffered in your place in order to get you off the proverbial hook. This whole narrative is kind of ridiculous, if not wholly fatuous.
I agree. It is false, ridiculous, fatuous, and bizarre. Craig and the Christians have no clear, coherent, or consistent concept of God.
Our sins are against an infinite God & therefore infinite. Our nature, inherited from Adam, gives us a bias to sin, bu the choice is ours.
@@martinploughboy988 If God did exist, then he would not be infinite in all ways. For example, he would not be infinitely evil or infinitely tall. However, you are begging the question of God's existence. It has never been proven that God exists. On the other hand, it has now been proven that God does not exist. Haven't you read and studied my Holocaust argument? The story of Adam and Eve is just a fabrication of an ancient man who knew nothing about science. Even the free will hypothesis has not been confirmed. So, you post here is full of flaws.
Ask William Lane Craig Anything?
Who won the FA cup in 1942?
Jesus, obviously
Penal substitution claims that a just God lacks the ability to forgive, and so requires punishment for sin, where the innocent Jesus was substituted for us sinners and brutally bore the punishment for our sins, wiping our sin debt clean. If this isn't irrational nonsense I do not know what is.
If God did exist, he would have the ability to forgive, but he would never forgive. That would be contrary to his nature -- all powerful, perfectly rational and moral. Likewise, he would never implement any system of atonement.
God's justice requires restitution, God's mercy finds the way.
@@martinploughboy988 Where was the justice in the prodigal son story?
@@bayreuth79 The prodigal son is about love, not justice.
@@martinploughboy988 Exactly!
I've attempted to put four of Dr. Craig's points to music by borrowing the tune from the great song "If Ever I Would Leave You:"
If Ever I'd Believe You,
It wouldn't be Existence,
'Cause of my insistence
Existence just is.
It came out of nothing,
Or something--who's sure?
It wasn't created,
And that fact is pure!
If Ever I'd Believe You,
It wouldn't be the Big Bang,
'Cause I know the Big Bang
Just happened by chance.
That multiverse system
Kept poppin' 'em out.
Ours happened to make it,
And I have no doubt.
I don't believe
In Objective Morality.
It would be wrong
To think wrongness could ever be!
If Ever I'd Believe You,
It wouldn't be Fine Tuning,
'Cause I know fine tuners
Do not make house calls.
Oh no, not Existence,
Big Bang, Morals or Tuning.
I never will believe
In y'all!"
This caught the attention of an atheist fellow songwriter and has led to an interesting conversation.
I like it. Get with Dan Barker. He will probably help you with it.
Comment for the sake of getting rid of the 666.
Since William Lane Craig recently decided that Christianity has almost no bar to pass in terms of evidence or reality, William Lane Craig has become irrelevant. The one thing that you can get from him is now "believe if you want to, I will not work hard to find evidence or solid argumentation for my position".
🤣😂🤣
Here's the problem I have, and by the way he unknowingly turns himself into God. But first this part: and by the way I spent 25 yrs as a preacher, missionary, and jail ministry before I began deconstructing. . So he makes the claim I use to make and many other preachers make. "Don't go by man go by the Bible. Only the Bible can give answers." So why does he now accept those two arguments? Because the Bible taught him otherwise? No, because two men's books did. Don't go by man, study the Bible. Only go by it's teachings. Ok Genesis teaches us how sin...,"No, the first 12 chapters aren't literal, but mythology (not in the way you think) metaphorically. Symbolically" Oh. Can you show me where the Bible says that? Actually a few places take it literally. But, hey a man says it. Then if we aren't to take it literally, even though other parts do, how do learn how to interpret it? The Bible? "No you must read these books by men and take (pay) for my courses, a man. This is where he turns himself into God. "You must study the Bible this way and interpret it using this theology." Oh, why? Because God said, because the Bible says? No because I said and I put the fear into atheist. Ummm I don't see where Jesus, Peter, or Paul showed this much arrogance and the way he puffs himself up. Humbleness?
"You can smile and smile and yet be deceitful."
"The Kalam is the most studied argument for the existence of God in contemporary western philosophy.“
That’s like being the most famous WNBA player.
It seems reasonable to me to give a special name to the forces that drive our entire universe: God. But that such a God would speak to us and should impart morals to us, on the other hand, seems very unfounded and above all unreasonable. People who believe this stuff seem like brainwashed zombies to the educated people of today.
Thinking you know reality from a limited 3d perspective is the brain washing
If you ever needed the perfect example of a charlatan.
Come on Willy, great intellectual but.....the explanation of Genesis is way off. There is many things God can’t do, like sinning or dethroning himself. This is not a limitation of weakness but strength. God also cannot create anything mortal as that is a failure of Creation. God cannot fail, it’s mankind that does this. No answer for how sin entered the world bedsides a literal disobedience. 700,000 yo men don’t cut it. Both Paul and Christ quoted the literalism of Creation and Christ came to redeem us from sin because of our literal sin that leads to literal death, not spiritual death. We need to remember Gods Inspiration wrote the bible not man. Also Adam lived a literal 930 real years before death. End times we also have prophecies which for some reason you don’t put much weight in. The covenants given to Adam, Abraham, David, Messiah and Paul’s and Christ’s words and many others speak of the Kingdom on earth in Jerusalem and Christ reigning on its throne for a Millenia, after which he returns this Throne to God who is the eternal owner. Love u Willy but you are so smart on some things but so unbiblical on others. Godbless yours and all of our pilgrimages.
William Lane Craig also supports _sola scriptura_ as a Protestant but of course most of the doctrines he upholds are not found in scripture in anything but a tenuous manner. It took 3 centuries to forge the doctrine of the Trinity and the two natures of Christ; but Craig seems to think that it's just obviously in scripture in a clear and unequivocal manner. Nonsense! Craig believes in the doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ primarily because that's what was taught by the [Catholic] Church. His other Protestant doctrines, such as the appalling penal substitution theory, is not found in scripture; its projected onto scripture by already committed Evangelicals.
Q. Why does William believe he is saved by Jesus' death without us keeping our oath not to sin? Christianity does not get Jesus right, as atonement is a promise if our promise not to sin is kept, if not the promise is not legal.
You are trying to make sense out of nonsense. If God did exist, he would never implement any system of atonement. That's crazy.
@@whittfamily1 Yes.
It does make sense that people that have never heard the biblical truth, cannot make up for iniquities in a law they are not aware of, as they are a law unto themselves. So I make people aware of God's law as given to Abraham, so that they might reason hope in eternal life, at yhe expense of the obedience of faith.
However none of the so-called Abrahamic Religions actually obey the law given to Abraham, and all fail as they also rely on a future 'coming' ruler.
My friend this is not simple.
@@simonskinner1450 SS1: Yes. It does make sense that people that have never heard the biblical truth, cannot make up for iniquities in a law they are not aware of, as they are a law unto themselves.
GW1: Most of the Bible is false, probably false, unproven, and/or irrational, not true.
SS1: So I make people aware of God's law as given to Abraham, so that they might reason hope in eternal life, at yhe expense of the obedience of faith.
GW1: Abraham is probably just a fictional character. There is no good evidence for eternal life. Faith is a vice, not a virtue. And finally, I am sorry to inform you, but God does not exist. This has finally been proven.
SS1: However none of the so-called Abrahamic Religions actually obey the law given to Abraham, and all fail as they also rely on a future 'coming' ruler. My friend this is not simple.
GW1: I am not your friend. Please don’t call me your friend. It is all pretty simple once you realize that God does not exist.
Legally we are condemned, but mercy steps in & takes the punishment for us, giving us righteousness. Salvation is not a legal but mercy act.
@@martinploughboy988 You will not like the truth, salvation is a legal act, by the law of faith.
Forgiveness is by the grace of mercy, but grace has to be merited by faith, and faith is complete trust and the duty to fulfil that trust. Another way of putting it is your conviction in action, as Hebrews 11:1.
"Giving us righteousness" is very wrong, imputation is not imparting something to another, but recognising that you already have it and Jesus is Judge.
I have a Ytube video series called 'Myths in so-called Christianity', there are now 28 videos, and #1 is grace being unmerited and you should watch it and the others. I am on your side.
.god is real
Why does Craig make such a big deal about an empty tomb? IF Jesus' body was placed in a tomb on Friday, and IF the women found the tomb empty on Sunday, it means someone moved the body in the meantime. End of story. And it would have been illegal to dump a body in someone's random tomb without notice, as it says they did in John, Mark, and Luke. They would have been required to move it asap after passover. So they moved it on Saturday night, or Sunday morning before the women arrived. What is the mystery?
It was sealed with a large stone and guards, secondly Joseph the owner allowed Jesus to be put in the tomb
@@rubenlopez1518 Matthew made up those stories--they only exist in Matthew. There is no sealed tomb, no guards, and no indication that Joseph owned the tomb in Mark, Luke, and John. Mathew was lying to cover up what really happened.
Did he really published 50 books? .. but he would have to average 2 books a year at least.
It’s not that hard if you only write about apologetics with old recycled arguments.
Easy when you write the same nonsense.