God is required because you can't explain the universe without him... unless, of course, the universe is metaphysically impossible to not exist. I don't understand the need to move the argument back to a god. Even multi-verse theory is more rational than a god hypothesis. It is a simpler answer to multiply current entities to explain the fine tuning than to assume the existence of something more complex that tuned it. Why does god NEED to exist rather than the universe NEED to exist?
Stephen Hawking is nothing but a God hater posing as an intellectual...he's pissed off that God made him disease/disabled throughout his life and is taking out his anger on God/hating God as revenge by attacking God and turning away people from God through books, false science etc.
@devilslayer2011 'Posing as an intellectual', do you know anything about him whatsoever? And please, prove to me how 'his science' is false. I'm very interested in how his views on science, shared by the vast majority of scholars, is completely untrue.
The lectures in this tour were somewhat humorous in this sense: the British people sounded smart because of their accents, while Dr. Craig sounded smart because he knew what he was talking about. If the latter had a British accent, he'd be unstoppable.
Hawking has been proven wrong on other theories...science has along way to go from the quantum world to the Singularity event in a Blackhole explanation. Will see the hands of intelligent design clearly in the near future. Like in Dr. Gisins' work in Geneva of photons = entanglement theory of invisible connections. Photons can "think"!
@danny3571 Something tells me some of those questioners didn't really care at all what was being said. They were just venting their frustrations. It's annoying really.
@drcraigvideos I'm not sure if your aware of this yet, but I'm pretty sure the questioner at 47.00 is the guy who asks the exact same question in the Cambridge debate. Check it out here /watch?v=oq8nL4Evhk0&feature=related. He even frames the question in the same way. Do atheists pay these people or something?
Indeed, he's a complete cretin. How can people keep a straight face when they say "I want evidence instead of an argument"? Evidence is always presented within the context of an argument... otherwise there'd be no rationality behind treating it as evidence!
The first question = stoopid...stoooooopiiiidddd. That guy was such a buffoon. You have William Lane Craig right in front of you and you go all freshman philosophy on him.
@TheEvaAngelina Because the material world(universe) needs an immaterial cause. Material objects can't create matter. You need something that transcends space/time/matter.
@TheEvaAngelina Philosophical theism is motivated by the search for the meta-ethical and metaphysical ultimate. The metaphysical ultimate is the terminator to all chains of contingency- it is the foundation of contingent reality, and so cannot itself be contingent. Some of the effects of such a being, like a metaphysically necessary moral law and all of physical reality, indicate that it is personal metaphysically necessary being. Now if there were such a being, what could we call it, but God?
@TheisticThinker It's a good question. Not all people, not even most believers in God, do understand that he is a necessary being, so it's important to be able to say why one's definition of God should include necessary existence. Plantinga does it through conceiving of God as the maximally great being, the Thomists do it by conceiving of Him as the Un-actualized Actuality that actualizes everything else. A Divine Command theorist would infer it from the metaphysical necessity of morality.
@TheEvaAngelina To ask why something the way that it is to assume that something gave rise to the nature of God, God's nature is the way that it is because it is eternal (it's always been that way, always will be that way) necessarily (it couldn't be otherwise) so to ask why God's nature is the way that it is just an empty question.
There are a couple people in that audience that really made laugh, and with laughing i mean at them for being so stupid. Especially that moron at 55:00, although Craig should have just asked him to stop talking to avoid further embarrassment. Also his answer to him should have been in baby talk, because he really missed everything that Craig said. And that Chinese looking guy at 1:06:52, what a joke oh my gosh.. But entertaining indeed. Oh and i forgot the comedian with the thick glasses ROFL!
If god can only create the universe in one way does that not limit how powerful god could actually be? Because that would mean god would be limited in creating the universe to those specifics if he wished to create life. Would this not also bound god to specific laws that even god would have to follow. Not trying to be hostile but this just makes me question how you could use fine tuning as an argument for god when it could be used against as well.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence not really, a counter argument could just be "the universe the way that it is was the best design possible of all designs and therefore God made it this way".
@Falcondick69 No but by using fine tuning you are saying the universe could only be made a certain way, then craig proceeds to say god can make anything possible but obviously this is false if the universe could only come out one specific way. So yes fine tuning could be used against god's existence. He isn't being consistent with his views.
@Requiemxtoxinnocence you missing the argument, what craig i saying is that the universe jas ti be fine tuned a certain way to allow life as we have it to come into being. God could create different kinds of life but this one is est suited for the kind of life we do have
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Actually, the teleological arguement states that the universe can exist in many ways (string theory gives a number currently as a power of 10), but only a minute fraction of those ways allow life to exist. For example, gravity. If gravity were 1% greater, the big bang would have collapsed back into a singularity shortly after it started. 1% less and stars wouldn't form due to the weak attraction.
His first question is how it comes that life is created in such a way that it can only exist on certain places of our planet, given the whole huge universe.
The second part is if it is part of the design of the universe that we are on collision course with the Arcturus system, what according to the questioner in some million years will result in a lot of "nothingness".
You didn't actually -watch- the whole debate without sound?^^
@JesusMostHigh You mean the comedian? His "act" was incredibly stupid, he obviously tried to be funny or something. Anyways nothing worth mentioning really, it would be a waste of time to describe his lame questions.
@giorgiv18 You know, you don't have to buy it, but can you at least tell us why it's not worth the cost? Or are you only here to make cowardly drive-by comments?
@drcraigvideos Cowardly? I just don't understand his need to have God everywhere in the universe, where he looks. The universe could be eternal, it may not. What's so big about it? And if universe did have a tangible evidence pointing towards God, than people would only ask, why doesn't he talk to us then. Why is it, that the resurrection of Christ, which is supposed to be his biggest argument,only dims in the shadow of the cosmological? Besides, how can anyone start to believe in your angry God
@giorgiv18 Yes, cowardly. I fail to see how your shallow one-liner first comment adds up to all the stuff you said in your second comment. However, thank you for being more substantive this time. It's helpful.
@drcraigvideos shallow one-liner comment? Hey, I just expressed my position toward this necessity level notion of creator. Or is expressing one's position not an option anymore? Besides, craig's arguments in general are quite shallow. What's with this objective-morality nonsencse? Why should there be objective morality at all? That is a very weak argument.
@giorgiv18 LOL! Uh, yeah, morality is supposed to be subjective then, right? Yet you are morally outraged at Craig as if that REALLY matters in any real meaningful sense. Nope, you're not shallow at all.
@drcraigvideos where do I show signs of being outraged?And well, of course. Morality and ethics are just forms of relationship with other humans. There was morality before Christ and after, they were just different. Now if Craig said, that there was too big of a shift in human morality, so dramatic, that just human conciousness couldn't have achieved, then that would be a better argument.
@giorgiv18 Oh, I'm sorry, you're not morally outraged about the fact that Craig believes that morality is objective. All you're doing is saying it's wrong... even though you think morality is subjective. You are incredibly consistent. Keep up the good work.
@drcraigvideos I don't think giorgiv18 ever used the word "wrong" nor did he imply moral wrongness.I assume he means wrong as in not correct. So only that Craig is incorrect in his views that an objective morality exists . I don't see any kind of morality attached to his comment. You seem to be creating it to attack it....
I thought the lectures was good, but then both Craig and Holder blew the roof off during the Q&A! The level of discussion (including within the audience) was just sky-high. Thanks so much for the upload!
I hope the last guy who spoke opened the minds of those atheist who are so quick to judge, just like young ignorant children who make a scene when they parents don't buy them their favorite toy but forget that all else they have given them.
I have been listening, and reading on Dr. William Lane Craig's philosophy, apologetics, and strong argument for the existence of a benevolent Creator for some time now.. Jesus Christ being God Himself, came into this world, to take upon Himself the sins of mankind, in order to restore humanity back unto Himself, for all who place personal trust in Him, and accept Him as Savior and Lord. God gives us free will to do so, and His awesomeness amazes me. His creation alone is breath taking...
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. ( John 1:1-4 )
For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. ( Colossians 1:16-17 )
For crying out loud. Why do people make Statements instead of post Questions?! It would be nice if the Organisers had filtered people out by seeing whether the first Line of their Question was: „It seems to me that…”. The only People who posed good questions were the young British and (Spanish-accented?) Antagonists. On a postitive Note, one can really enjoy Hölder’s speech! Been waiting for a long Time for someone to give a serious Exposition of Causal Chains. Reasonably well execute.
The Asian guy was also asking questions that were not relevant to the discussion. In a nut shell he was asking 'if you can't prove gods existence within 10 minutes through examples involving physics or chemistry then he doesn't exist.' Its got me thinking this; God existence is not reliant on anything that he has created. God reveals himself through the logic of humanity through our observation, as we are made in Gods image. God has not placed himself in a position where he can be manipulated.
@That0neGuy223 I don't know. Q&A can be very disappointing (like the first question presented here as oneandonlyrisenangel and drcraigvideos said), but I must say that this one was one of the better ones.
@drcraigvideos And the thing most funny to me about it is that the questioner probably thought they were making some grand, irrefutable point with the question.
It's brilliant! If you look beyond the questioner, you can see Peter May mouthing the question in full prediction of what it would be (I was doing that too)!
How can he say that God does not know what people will do ("free will"), that means he thinks God is NOT all knowing, does NOT know His OWN creation, and is NOT in COMPLETE control of EVERYTHING.
@altforfit All knowing is the knowledge of all that is knowing. God made it "unknown" to know your choices in order for you to have free will. That's not saying God doesn't know all possible choices you're capable of. If God knew the choices you made before you made them then you wouldn't have free will. You would be like a puppet, doing exactly what He knows you will do. That's equivalent to me creating a robot that does exacly what I program it to do, then I use a remote control to control it.
Take the statement "Evan ran on December 19, 2011" (I did). This statement was true when, say dinosaurs exists. In other words, it was true before I did it. Does this mean I didn't have free-will? No. So, was my action the result of this statement's veracity, or was this statement true because this is the action I performed? Obviously, the latter. It's the same with God: God knowledge is correct because we perform those actions, not the other way around.
@oneandonlyrisenangel Yeah, these questions made me facepalm too. "What caused God?", is there any "physical evidence for God"... God is a non-physical being. It's Romans 1:18 all over again.
Atheism is just some word Religions seem to require to label all science.
WorkoutModerator 2 weeks ago
God is required because you can't explain the universe without him... unless, of course, the universe is metaphysically impossible to not exist. I don't understand the need to move the argument back to a god. Even multi-verse theory is more rational than a god hypothesis. It is a simpler answer to multiply current entities to explain the fine tuning than to assume the existence of something more complex that tuned it. Why does god NEED to exist rather than the universe NEED to exist?
vaguevocalist17 2 weeks ago
The mind of God is music resonating through 10-dimensional hyperspace :)
NicolaMacLeod 3 weeks ago
I had to facepalm several times while listening some of the questions... I mean really?
They should only let those people ask the questions who first of all understand what a deductive argument is..
It seems that Craig ought to have kept an one hour lecture on logic101 before speaking to this audience.
AhoSenpai 3 weeks ago
@AhoSenpai Try using a facewall next time, because sometimes a facepalm is not enough ^^
nbir1 2 weeks ago
omg, this is all kalam! I studied all this years ago in arabic!
AdmiralPrice 3 weeks ago
At 1:16:03 we find the new Christopher Hitchens!
Birdieupon 1 month ago
Stephen Hawking is nothing but a God hater posing as an intellectual...he's pissed off that God made him disease/disabled throughout his life and is taking out his anger on God/hating God as revenge by attacking God and turning away people from God through books, false science etc.
devilslayer2011 2 months ago
@devilslayer2011 'Posing as an intellectual', do you know anything about him whatsoever? And please, prove to me how 'his science' is false. I'm very interested in how his views on science, shared by the vast majority of scholars, is completely untrue.
bennyboy6761 1 month ago
The lectures in this tour were somewhat humorous in this sense: the British people sounded smart because of their accents, while Dr. Craig sounded smart because he knew what he was talking about. If the latter had a British accent, he'd be unstoppable.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
Hawking has been proven wrong on other theories...science has along way to go from the quantum world to the Singularity event in a Blackhole explanation. Will see the hands of intelligent design clearly in the near future. Like in Dr. Gisins' work in Geneva of photons = entanglement theory of invisible connections. Photons can "think"!
GoodyBob 2 months ago
In a high profile intellectual lecture such as this, too bad the questions poised were so amateurist....what a waste
danny3571 2 months ago
@danny3571 Something tells me some of those questioners didn't really care at all what was being said. They were just venting their frustrations. It's annoying really.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago 4
@drcraigvideos I'm not sure if your aware of this yet, but I'm pretty sure the questioner at 47.00 is the guy who asks the exact same question in the Cambridge debate. Check it out here /watch?v=oq8nL4Evhk0&feature=related. He even frames the question in the same way. Do atheists pay these people or something?
elitegumby 1 month ago
@elitegumby LOL! Interesting. Maybe the fellow has ADD!
drcraigvideos 1 month ago
@drcraigvideos Or he's been employed by the British Humanist Association to stalk Craig. One or the other lol.
elitegumby 1 month ago
@elitegumby I send the cadbury chocolate bars. But I won't tell them the cadbury secret.
psb1964 1 week ago
The guy at 53:20 is so obnoxious.
empreme 2 months ago
@empreme I would say the same.
0thereaper0 2 months ago
@empreme
Indeed, he's a complete cretin. How can people keep a straight face when they say "I want evidence instead of an argument"? Evidence is always presented within the context of an argument... otherwise there'd be no rationality behind treating it as evidence!
Birdieupon 1 month ago
Gotta love WLC's patience when addressing those..."interesting" questions and remarks. :P
ubermechazillatron 2 months ago
The first question = stoopid...stoooooopiiiidddd. That guy was such a buffoon. You have William Lane Craig right in front of you and you go all freshman philosophy on him.
lexidart 2 months ago
That first question.....*sigh*
ApologeticsArsenal 2 months ago
This days victor: Logic.
ApologeticsArsenal 2 months ago
This is Craig at his best. And he makes Hawking look like he has the theologica/philosophicali nsight of the average village atheist: = zero.
GospelHouseKat 2 months ago
The questioner at 1:16:04 is doing a copy cat on Christopher Hitchens! He's quoting him verbatim right down to the smallest quip and detail!
Was he not aware that Craig had already debated Hitchens and "spanked him like a foolish child" (commonsenseatheism website)?
Birdieupon 2 months ago
Craig is the best!! God bless Rodney
KingDcome11 2 months ago
I can not take Stephen Hawking seriously. He thinks it is more likely aliens will invade any minute than a Creator God existing.
xtrashed 2 months ago 4
How or why is God a metaphysically necessary being?
TheEvaAngelina 2 months ago
@TheEvaAngelina Because the material world(universe) needs an immaterial cause. Material objects can't create matter. You need something that transcends space/time/matter.
joel230182 2 months ago
@TheEvaAngelina Philosophical theism is motivated by the search for the meta-ethical and metaphysical ultimate. The metaphysical ultimate is the terminator to all chains of contingency- it is the foundation of contingent reality, and so cannot itself be contingent. Some of the effects of such a being, like a metaphysically necessary moral law and all of physical reality, indicate that it is personal metaphysically necessary being. Now if there were such a being, what could we call it, but God?
mhssu 2 months ago
@TheEvaAngelina That's like asking 'why is a square not round?'. It's meaningless.
TheisticThinker 2 months ago
@TheisticThinker It's a good question. Not all people, not even most believers in God, do understand that he is a necessary being, so it's important to be able to say why one's definition of God should include necessary existence. Plantinga does it through conceiving of God as the maximally great being, the Thomists do it by conceiving of Him as the Un-actualized Actuality that actualizes everything else. A Divine Command theorist would infer it from the metaphysical necessity of morality.
mhssu 2 months ago
@TheEvaAngelina To ask why something the way that it is to assume that something gave rise to the nature of God, God's nature is the way that it is because it is eternal (it's always been that way, always will be that way) necessarily (it couldn't be otherwise) so to ask why God's nature is the way that it is just an empty question.
Bigjon145 2 months ago
There are a couple people in that audience that really made laugh, and with laughing i mean at them for being so stupid. Especially that moron at 55:00, although Craig should have just asked him to stop talking to avoid further embarrassment. Also his answer to him should have been in baby talk, because he really missed everything that Craig said. And that Chinese looking guy at 1:06:52, what a joke oh my gosh.. But entertaining indeed. Oh and i forgot the comedian with the thick glasses ROFL!
KuriapXia 2 months ago
If god can only create the universe in one way does that not limit how powerful god could actually be? Because that would mean god would be limited in creating the universe to those specifics if he wished to create life. Would this not also bound god to specific laws that even god would have to follow. Not trying to be hostile but this just makes me question how you could use fine tuning as an argument for god when it could be used against as well.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence not really, a counter argument could just be "the universe the way that it is was the best design possible of all designs and therefore God made it this way".
Falcondick69 2 months ago
@Falcondick69 No but by using fine tuning you are saying the universe could only be made a certain way, then craig proceeds to say god can make anything possible but obviously this is false if the universe could only come out one specific way. So yes fine tuning could be used against god's existence. He isn't being consistent with his views.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 2 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence you missing the argument, what craig i saying is that the universe jas ti be fine tuned a certain way to allow life as we have it to come into being. God could create different kinds of life but this one is est suited for the kind of life we do have
Falcondick69 2 months ago
@Requiemxtoxinnocence Actually, the teleological arguement states that the universe can exist in many ways (string theory gives a number currently as a power of 10), but only a minute fraction of those ways allow life to exist. For example, gravity. If gravity were 1% greater, the big bang would have collapsed back into a singularity shortly after it started. 1% less and stars wouldn't form due to the weak attraction.
AMWOODco 2 months ago
the guy at 55:00 doesnt seem to understand anything craig has said.
Falcondick69 2 months ago 3
What did the dude in the black shirt and frames at 1:16:30 ask (I don't have working speakers at the moment, lol.).
Let me know what the question was in a nutshell, thanks!
JesusMostHigh 2 months ago
@JesusMostHigh
I'm no natural speaker but I'll have a try.
His first question is how it comes that life is created in such a way that it can only exist on certain places of our planet, given the whole huge universe.
The second part is if it is part of the design of the universe that we are on collision course with the Arcturus system, what according to the questioner in some million years will result in a lot of "nothingness".
You didn't actually -watch- the whole debate without sound?^^
mawa89g 2 months ago
@JesusMostHigh You mean the comedian? His "act" was incredibly stupid, he obviously tried to be funny or something. Anyways nothing worth mentioning really, it would be a waste of time to describe his lame questions.
KuriapXia 2 months ago
Comment removed
JesusMostHigh 2 months ago
You know, I don't buy his fine tuning argument.
giorgiv18 2 months ago
@giorgiv18 You know, you don't have to buy it, but can you at least tell us why it's not worth the cost? Or are you only here to make cowardly drive-by comments?
drcraigvideos 2 months ago 13
@drcraigvideos Cowardly? I just don't understand his need to have God everywhere in the universe, where he looks. The universe could be eternal, it may not. What's so big about it? And if universe did have a tangible evidence pointing towards God, than people would only ask, why doesn't he talk to us then. Why is it, that the resurrection of Christ, which is supposed to be his biggest argument,only dims in the shadow of the cosmological? Besides, how can anyone start to believe in your angry God
giorgiv18 2 months ago
@giorgiv18 Yes, cowardly. I fail to see how your shallow one-liner first comment adds up to all the stuff you said in your second comment. However, thank you for being more substantive this time. It's helpful.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
@drcraigvideos shallow one-liner comment? Hey, I just expressed my position toward this necessity level notion of creator. Or is expressing one's position not an option anymore? Besides, craig's arguments in general are quite shallow. What's with this objective-morality nonsencse? Why should there be objective morality at all? That is a very weak argument.
giorgiv18 2 months ago
@giorgiv18 LOL! Uh, yeah, morality is supposed to be subjective then, right? Yet you are morally outraged at Craig as if that REALLY matters in any real meaningful sense. Nope, you're not shallow at all.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago 3
@drcraigvideos where do I show signs of being outraged?And well, of course. Morality and ethics are just forms of relationship with other humans. There was morality before Christ and after, they were just different. Now if Craig said, that there was too big of a shift in human morality, so dramatic, that just human conciousness couldn't have achieved, then that would be a better argument.
giorgiv18 2 months ago
@giorgiv18 Oh, I'm sorry, you're not morally outraged about the fact that Craig believes that morality is objective. All you're doing is saying it's wrong... even though you think morality is subjective. You are incredibly consistent. Keep up the good work.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
@drcraigvideos I don't think giorgiv18 ever used the word "wrong" nor did he imply moral wrongness.I assume he means wrong as in not correct. So only that Craig is incorrect in his views that an objective morality exists . I don't see any kind of morality attached to his comment. You seem to be creating it to attack it....
Houston810 2 months ago
@Houston810 Uh, yeah, he has no MORAL problem with MORAL objectivity, he just thinks it's wrong is all. You're smarter than he is, apparently.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago
Rodney stammers too much! He must be quite intimidated by the questions
unprofessionalvids 2 months ago
you are easily one of my favorite subscriptions. thanks so much for doing what you do. to God be all the glory.
xRisingForcex 2 months ago
I thought the lectures was good, but then both Craig and Holder blew the roof off during the Q&A! The level of discussion (including within the audience) was just sky-high. Thanks so much for the upload!
JWHurwitz 2 months ago
I hope the last guy who spoke opened the minds of those atheist who are so quick to judge, just like young ignorant children who make a scene when they parents don't buy them their favorite toy but forget that all else they have given them.
Bolorogo 2 months ago
why was that guy even talking about survival of the fittest, this is...kind of embarrassing?
DazedSpy2 2 months ago
I have been listening, and reading on Dr. William Lane Craig's philosophy, apologetics, and strong argument for the existence of a benevolent Creator for some time now.. Jesus Christ being God Himself, came into this world, to take upon Himself the sins of mankind, in order to restore humanity back unto Himself, for all who place personal trust in Him, and accept Him as Savior and Lord. God gives us free will to do so, and His awesomeness amazes me. His creation alone is breath taking...
ChildoftheKing23 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not any thing made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the light of men. ( John 1:1-4 )
ChildoftheKing23 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
For by Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him: And He is before all things, and by Him all things consist. ( Colossians 1:16-17 )
ChildoftheKing23 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos
Great speech, but judging from the shots of the audience, I think they got a little more than they were expecting... lol.
stallion4life 2 months ago
really i bed the atheists wish William Lane Craig go to the moon and stay there lol.he have a brilliant mind.
jesusLostChildren777 2 months ago
great video. thanks for posting.
mihirini1 2 months ago
Outstanding job Dr. Craig!
ChildoftheKing23 2 months ago
For crying out loud. Why do people make Statements instead of post Questions?! It would be nice if the Organisers had filtered people out by seeing whether the first Line of their Question was: „It seems to me that…”. The only People who posed good questions were the young British and (Spanish-accented?) Antagonists. On a postitive Note, one can really enjoy Hölder’s speech! Been waiting for a long Time for someone to give a serious Exposition of Causal Chains. Reasonably well execute.
rajlogik 2 months ago
The Asian guy was also asking questions that were not relevant to the discussion. In a nut shell he was asking 'if you can't prove gods existence within 10 minutes through examples involving physics or chemistry then he doesn't exist.' Its got me thinking this; God existence is not reliant on anything that he has created. God reveals himself through the logic of humanity through our observation, as we are made in Gods image. God has not placed himself in a position where he can be manipulated.
H0tkebab 2 months ago
Lol, whats up with the hipster at the beginning of the Q&A?
He was asking questions that weren't relevant to the lecture.
H0tkebab 2 months ago
@H0tkebab
UK, especially london, is hipster central, sadly. More so than NYC
JCrownwell 2 months ago
Q&A is always the best part
That0neGuy223 2 months ago
@That0neGuy223 I don't know. Q&A can be very disappointing (like the first question presented here as oneandonlyrisenangel and drcraigvideos said), but I must say that this one was one of the better ones.
AMWOODco 2 months ago
''The universe would collapse in on itself without a god''--Augustine
I could not agree more with Saint. Augustine.
07Aristotle 2 months ago 3
I love this presentation, is too well organized!
IloveYOUviruses 2 months ago
That first questioner got real defensive with that awesome answer from WLC.
CloverfieldMonster95 2 months ago
lol the first question from the audience made me facepalm
oneandonlyrisenangel 2 months ago 26
@oneandonlyrisenangel Me too. It also made me roll my eyes.
drcraigvideos 2 months ago 20
@drcraigvideos Dr craig dealt with it respectfully though
unprofessionalvids 2 months ago in playlist Liked videos 7
@drcraigvideos And the thing most funny to me about it is that the questioner probably thought they were making some grand, irrefutable point with the question.
imkluu 2 months ago
@drcraigvideos It was that second guy that really got to me.
AlphaGainForce 2 months ago
@AlphaGainForce same.
xRisingForcex 2 months ago
@AlphaGainForce
The second guy argument was if I can't physically see it then you have no evidence.Sad thing is that's not how every science experiment works.
ninetailschris 2 months ago
@drcraigvideos I gave a long sigh.
YahwehtheLORD 2 months ago
@oneandonlyrisenangel
It's brilliant! If you look beyond the questioner, you can see Peter May mouthing the question in full prediction of what it would be (I was doing that too)!
Birdieupon 2 months ago
How can he say that God does not know what people will do ("free will"), that means he thinks God is NOT all knowing, does NOT know His OWN creation, and is NOT in COMPLETE control of EVERYTHING.
altforfit 2 months ago
@altforfit All knowing is the knowledge of all that is knowing. God made it "unknown" to know your choices in order for you to have free will. That's not saying God doesn't know all possible choices you're capable of. If God knew the choices you made before you made them then you wouldn't have free will. You would be like a puppet, doing exactly what He knows you will do. That's equivalent to me creating a robot that does exacly what I program it to do, then I use a remote control to control it.
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@ThisMemory
Take the statement "Evan ran on December 19, 2011" (I did). This statement was true when, say dinosaurs exists. In other words, it was true before I did it. Does this mean I didn't have free-will? No. So, was my action the result of this statement's veracity, or was this statement true because this is the action I performed? Obviously, the latter. It's the same with God: God knowledge is correct because we perform those actions, not the other way around.
THEEVANTHETOON 2 months ago
@oneandonlyrisenangel Yeah, these questions made me facepalm too. "What caused God?", is there any "physical evidence for God"... God is a non-physical being. It's Romans 1:18 all over again.
Bigjon145 2 months ago
I literally was drinking a glass of wine when I read this--I caught myself from laughing too hard before I got choked on it.
Small blessings...
Christlovesanimals 2 months ago
@Christlovesanimals are you drunk?! :\
unprofessionalvids 2 months ago
@unprofessionalvids I didn't understand it either.
oneandonlyrisenangel 2 months ago
@Christlovesanimals Are you stupid?
Christlovesanimals 2 months ago
Comment removed
CloverfieldMonster95 2 months ago
I hope you can put subtitles, is that I speak Spanish
D:
traduccioneshispanas 2 months ago