all religions are false,evolution proves there was no first man or woman,therefore no adam no eve,therefore no first humans to commit the original sin,therefore no fall of man and no need for god to send his only begotten son to redeem the world end of christianity...........
@chinopisces Yeah. I've said that many times. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. I just include christianity on that list unlike Craig.
Dr. Craig lost me at the superior theonomy assertion, “There are good reasons to believe that there is a personal creator and designer of the universe, who is the locus of moral values…” Popular branches of Christianity hold that Yahweh cares about doctrinal agreement, not morality, for salvation. Hence, serial killer Ted Bundy went to heaven, because he accepted Jesus shortly before execution. Most of his young victims went to hell. That doesn’t harmonize with " locus of moral values.”
Terrible. Responsible morality is based on appealing to reason and to the simulation of experience through thought experiment - both of which can be accessed and analysed for motive and consequence within the realm of human experience. Performing a trick that alludes to superhuman powers or abilities simply invites an acceptance due to bullying by a display of power or special knowledge. It would be akin to Penn and Teller demanding your obedience due to having wowed you with a trick. Pure evil.
Ok, so I watched and waited and in the end the reason given was just Craig asserting it to be so. This is not a reason. There was no argument, no reasoning, just assertions. Then, what was I expecting? I am sure that if there was a single decent argument for his position we would all be well aware of it. You would think that if it was true then there would be at least one piece of evidence or one sound argument.
@MrMonkeyInk Just assertions? You are probably not familiar with Craig's arguments, are you? He just summarizes his arguments in less than a minute, and there's no way he can show all of his premises underlying his arguments in one minute. If you want a full version of that, you can watch any of his debates on existence of God. Now, could please kindly tell me which part of his arguments that do not have any shred of evidence or not sound? Peace
I wonder if Craig was raised in Pakistan whether he would still believe Christianity has the most 'evidence'. I mean it's funny how you hear Muslims say the same thing. As if all of them have unbiasedly studied every religion and conveniently discovered that the religion they were raised in is the one true religion.
Dr. William Lane Craig Is making a claim base on what Christianity was founded on.
Can one have a personal relationship with God? NO,only with the laws of God and nature. Such thinking is an illusion which carry consequential actions. And human history is proof of that !
Buddhists do infact believ in heaven and hell, but they sub-catagorize ech of the both, and don't infact use the terms heaven and hell. And no the world is not eternal. It will be destroyed after a certain time, and the world will reborn again and another Buddha will be present in this life. And so the process will go on for eternity, unless you attain Nibbana (aftr whichu will not be born again). They also believe in different types of sins and tht u will suffer the consequences respectively.
@sonuEEE No, he didn't you already believed it, but just didn't know what it was called. Most postmodern people in our society believe in Buddhism - like principles they just haven't thought through the similarities.
You guys are ALL wrong! Richard Dawkins is the one true God, He is our Lord and Savior for through Him, I might have never released myself from the clutches of these religions. His words are wise and backed with evidence, so He must be our Creator!
@MrFollowingjesus One day you will find out theres no god , and guess what , you are already dead to rectify your beliefs , and discovered your all life was a lie.
@EdyMar77 There is a God who created you and me .I can assure that as i have experienced his presence in my own life.Dont be fooled into thinking that u are here by chance .Someone brought you here.Now ,you must ask who / ONLY IF YOU SEEK AN ANSWER truly ,then your eyes will open to the truth.GOD ,JESUS IS REAL.
@ih8makinusernames Brillianta Brilliant refutation, definately making fun and caricaturizing christianity is trulky the best way to refute it, truly "bright"
This video should be titled “why all religions cannot be true”....towards the end of the video he gives a very brief summary of why he believes that Christianity is the one true faith. There is not enough time for him to go into detail in this one video but if you actually look up what he says about it you will find plenty of in depth detailed video’s with Dr. Craig in them explaining his view.....
he didn't actually offer any reasons why Christianity makes the best claim to be the one true religion, he was just like "god vindicated jesus's claims by bringing him back from the dead". that's all in the bible, both the claims of jesus and the claims that god resurrected him. Circular to the max
@MrWildbill20056 Well, I assume you are a Devout Christian based on your words here. But prove to me that Jesus is the one true light over Zeus or Thor or Michael Jackson or etc or etc or etc, WITHOUT quoting a fucking holy book for once......Still waiting............still waiting..................................................... You need to go back to grade school and learn what evidence is. Nice try smart ass. It's called sarcasm and it points out the stupidity in your argument for Jesus.
@torontoBluejays87 The above is not an argument. It may make you feel better, but please do not mistake it as anything other than textual 'noise.' That you even raise such comparisons exposes your own limited knowledge (I give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to powers of understanding) of Christian philosophy and theology. You clearly don't know what evidence is further, I suspect you confuse it with absolute proof. Your statements are irrelevant, whether you know it or not.
@MrWildbill20056 Honestly having a well written philosophy doesn't make anything true. The Jain Religion has, arguably, a more beautifully and well written philosophy than that of your faith but it is still just a philosophy. When we are talking about our universe what kind of proof is not absolute? Either we evolved from natural selection or we didn't. Either our solar system was born from the remnants of a supernova or it wasn't. You have not made a very convincing case here.
@torontoBluejays87 You are misunderstanding how philosophy is being employed here as the bedrock of logical inquiry. There is a reason we talk of natural philosophy etc. Philosophy is the study of knowledge. Philosophical arguments for 'God' are not just 'just so' stories, they are logical, rational approaches to a subject which possibly cannot be investigated any other way. Can Hawking 'prove' imaginary time? Can we confidently explain the singularity? No. Can it be researched? Definitely.
@MrWildbill20056 These questions that you claim science can't touch is a pitiful argument and proves that you don't know the first thing about evidence or about truth. People used to think that the only way to explain Volcanic eruptions were because of God's anger. People used to think that the earth was the center of all creation. People in 2300 will be smiling at our argument here because of our mutual ignorance for what science hasn't explained yet.
@torontoBluejays87 I think between my BSc in Zoology, MRes in Statistical ecology and my PhD in marine immunobiology qualifies me pretty well with evidence :P Further you miss my point. I did not say science 'can't touch them, I said they can be researched, evidence found, but lack absolute proof. Your assumptions with regards to what we will or won't know in future are unsafe further. However I, at no point, will have asserted there certainly is an 'unanswerable' question in science.
@MrWildbill20056 Philosophy doesn't prove anything with evidence. The only way for there to be truths is substantial evidence being put forward. If Jesus Resurrected from the dead, then surely there would be more evidence than just "Oh it says here that these people saw this happen at some point". That is not evidence, that does not prove anything that the Christian philosophy puts forward as true. Evidence! Give me Evidence for the love of God (no pun intended).
@torontoBluejays87 Again, you are not understanding how philosophy is being employed. Philosophy is a tool as well as a thing. Philosophy as the discipline which encompasses logic, and by extent deduction has spectacular 'proving' power.
Next, to take your actual points 1) Why would there be more evidence? You say 'surely' but then again do you know specifically what's going in rural Afghanistan just now? Do you think there are many sources recording the lives of 'ordinary' people there?
@MrWildbill20056 Again, stop filling the page with meaningless words and show me the evidence for your particular belief or theology as the true belief or theology.
@torontoBluejays87 Given the evidence of your comments on this video, what would be the point? You are thoroughly convinced you are correct. IF you think the above is meaningless that would further highlight the futility of trying to engage you in a worthwhile dialogue. Happy Zeus day :) That you cannot see any fundamental differences between Christ and Thor, is either deliberate ignorance or just woeful inadequacy of comprehension.
@MrWildbill20056 I fully understand the differences between Jesus Christ and Thor, but their differences (despite what you think) don't make them any more true. I accept Jesus existed, despite some of the disputes on the matter. I am well versed in all his miracles that he was said to have performed. Problem is, there is absolutely no evidence for any of these claims. Instead of trying to find of clever ways to insult me, why don't you give me your evidence for why Jesus is the one true light?
@torontoBluejays87 You don't see a huge difference between a historical figure and a blatantly mythological product of ancient story tellers? The fact that one is a historically real person places 'him' on a totally different footing when it comes to credibility. Thus making the comparison nonsensical.
@MrWildbill20056 Yes that is a striking difference between the two. All you have said is Jesus was a person (Which I agree) and Thor was made up by people (Again, I agree). You know what else was made up by people? Every miracle or supernatural event associated with Jesus. Steven Weinberg said it best I think Science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes disbelief in God possible. Ask people in 2300 what they think of singularity and imaginary time.
@torontoBluejays87 Ok we make progress. Thus we cannot, sensibly, cast aspersions at Christianity via Zeus, Thor etc.
However your development is just assertion. Based only on the texts, you have absolutely no idea, at best, whether these events were made up by people; or whether they were tricked, or whether they honestly recorded what hey saw. It's the context that makes it compelling.
Lastly my point re: imaginary time is that there can be evidence without absolute proof.
@MrWildbill20056 Listen, I know that those events didn't take place with Jesus because people don't wake up from the dead or walk on water. You should know that too with your PhD education in science, and the fact that you assert that these things happened dismisses your argument as being serious. Do I know Napoleon, Vasilli Zaitsev, or any other historical figure actually existed? Not conclusively, but I trust the historical data because there is no supernatural claim pertaining to those people
@torontoBluejays87 No, that simply won't do. You know that, in your experience, and in those of most others you have access to the thoughts of, that such things have not been witnessed. However that is absolutely no sure guide to what could or what has, or what does happen outside of those witness sources. Contextually these events are entirely possible on the premise that Christ is God. If you have no access to 'God' witnesses you can may no assertions as to what they can or cannot do.
@MrWildbill20056 No, again I must implore, that people don't wake up from the dead and walk around, therefore Jesus never did that. Remember I agree Jesus existed as a person, but thats where it stops. Anything further and you are putting Jesus into the same category as Zeus, or Thor, or any other supernatural entity that the human mind has created. "proofs" don't matter, evidence does, and there is none in your favor.
@torontoBluejays87 1) Sorry, only in your experience. 2) Assertion 3) The gospels and acts of the earliest believers are evidence. 4) Evidence is not absolute proof. 5) Decide for the right reasons ie you do not find the evidence compelling.
@MrWildbill20056 You know what would be overwhelming evidence of Jesus being able to walk from the dead? If he appeared before me in this room, took my computer from me, and wrote you a message saying "haha, we proved this prick wrong". Saying "well oh, in this book someone said they saw this thousands of years ago" is not evidence. Never was, and never will be.
@torontoBluejays87 Ah now you begin to qualify 'evidence' this is heartwarming.
It is evidence. People walk into court every day to testify to things that happened decades ago, and on the basis of their saying ' I saw this' decisions are reached.
This form of historical record is how we know at least 50% of all we do of civilisations lost in antiquity. Historians didn't see everything personally but they hunted witnesses/testimonies and went from there.
@MrWildbill20056 Yes, evidence in court is very different from scientific evidence. One explains how the universe exists and works, while the other gives rather vague explanations of events that happened in the past. Do you have any idea how many people have been sent to jail or executed for wrongful witness accounts over time? Again, I can see how desperate you are, to even compare the two types of evidence in that way. Your PhD did wonders for you.
@MrWildbill20056 Historical inquiry shows that around 6 million jews were executed in the second world war. Historical testimonies and records show that Frederic Chopin was a brilliant pianist/composer who very rarely played his works in live forums during his life. Has any of what I just said here translated into the supernatural?Supernatural claims require extraordinary amounts of evidence. Eye witness accounts just simply are not enough to prove your point about Jesus's miracles.
@torontoBluejays87 I see, so suddenly eye witness testimony has value, excellent.
Ah now we move to the evidence not convincing you, much better.
Next The extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim is that people who knew Christ, were intimate friends and eye witnesses to all he did believed him and showed this by dying for their belief.
If your best friend told you he was 'God' and that you would have to die for proclaiming belief in him, would you?
@MrWildbill20056 It wasn't just eye witness accounts that proved that Chopin was a brilliant pianist. It wasn't just eye witness accounts that proved 6 millions jews were brutally murdered in WW2. It wasn't just eye witness accounts that proved the Ancient Greek people believed in Zeus. Why no more super natural events? Why is it only thousands of years ago these events took place?
@torontoBluejays87 Ah in these cases, true, however in the case of social histories the world over that cannot be said for the majority of people.
If your position is that you can't ever rely on an eye witness and their natural skepticism, then fine. However it is evidence :)
Further many people do believe in continuing extra ordinary events. However why would we expect any phenomena to occur to match that associated with 'God' personally? If Christ was/is as claimed then he is unique.
@MrWildbill20056 Nope Christ was at best a very ahead of his time, moral philosopher despite his whole, believe in me or burn in hell attitude. He was not a supernatural entity that just happened to be alive on this earth. There is more striking possibilities (I hold back on the word evidence here) for there to be Aliens that resemble the knowledge of our species in the year 2300 or more. I wonder, if they exist, what they would think about Christ?
Further, extra terrestrial rock material aside, which is a hot topic of discourse, we have no evidence for the existence of aliens. That doesn't mean we have evidence they do not exist. Just we have a paucity of evidence.
IF they exist, I would imagine they would be very interested. Who's to say Christianity only works for homo sapiens sapiens? :)
@MrWildbill20056 Trust me, if Aliens had the technology to travel from star to star, let alone galaxy to galaxy, they probably wouldn't give the slightest care into what either you or I think. They would look at our scientific developments as petty and weak, and your idea of Christ proving the existence of God as petty and weak. Do Muslims not have "historical proof" that Muhammad rose to heaven? If so, how is your supernatural claim any more valid than theirs? Christianity is human invention.
@torontoBluejays87 Erm Muslims believe Muhammad died and was buried. You can visit his tomb if you like.
As to aliens, I don't need to trust you on that at all! So much supposition it's unbelievable. Any sentient race would have its own history and if they were equipped with enquiring minds would no doubt have ancient historical records of their own which they would take seriously.
I would expect scholars, species aside, to be fascinated by each other's work :)
@MrWildbill20056 7-9 hours compared with 3 days that Jesus apparently took to wake up. I still don't believe you that those people made full recoveries but you can show me your sources and prove me wrong. Still I repeat there is a colossal difference in being dead for 7 hours and coming back and being dead for 72 hours and coming back. You still have not put forth any evidence to support Jesus was truly the word of God or that he ever came back from the dead.
@torontoBluejays87 Ah, we move on again. Just look up world record resuscitations, there was a small boy after 7 hours, and another man after 9 previously. I am not arguing that resuscitation is directly relevant to the 'Jesus' case. I am simply point out that any assertion of 'natural laws' prohibiting 'coming back from the dead' is in error. If human agencies can effect this, how much more would a divine agency be capable of?
The gospels, the belief of people at the time. It is evidence :)
@MrWildbill20056 Please give me evidence and stop dancing around the request. I will believe you and Craig if you would only give me the evidence to do so. I cannot take you people seriously, no matter what education you have, if you put forward the idea that people rise from the dead and defy natural laws.
I see, so your position is refuted and you just barrel on through.
The gospel accounts simply are evidence whether you reject it or not, which is your perogative. You can decide it is not compelling. However we believe it to be historically reliable for several reasons not least because contemporaneous eye witnesses were prepared to die for their beliefs.
Further rising from the dead violates which natural law? When frozen 'people' are resuscitated, are they in violation?
@MrWildbill20056 My position of, I doubt anything that is supernatural until evidence arises, is refuted? Let me tell you something, frozen people are dead. You cannot be frozen for an extended period of time (days and days), and suddenly be brought back to life. But if you disagree with me, by all means, please go sit in your freezer in your underwear and prove me wrong. I can't believe you actually said that!
@torontoBluejays87 Your position of not accepting the distinction between evidence and absolute proof, yep. Your position of claiming to 'know' things cannot happen because you have not witnessed them, yep.
Furthe my point was, if I develop it, that people can be 'brought back from clinical death' under several scenarios. This violates no law apparently. The world record for resuscitation is 9 hours for example. That's a long time for your body to be out of action!
@MrWildbill20056 Yes you are right, you are leaving out a very very very important point that that person's brain would not be working. They couldn't get up out of the bed and start walking around and talking to people. Depletion of oxygen to the brain takes way less time than 9 hours. But nice try though, I can see you are getting desperate in trying to make some sort of an argument.
@torontoBluejays87 Congratulations for establishing that a dead person can't do anything.
We are dealing with people 'back from the dea.'
What we have established is that agencies exist whereby, even in human experience, the clinically dead can be brought back to life, without violating any 'natural laws :)
@MrWildbill20056 Please, try this experiment yourself if you have so much confidence in it. Drown yourself in your bathtub, until you have no pulse anymore. Make sure you have a friend there to take you to the hospital. Make sure the doctors wait for 9 hours before they try and bring you back to life, then see how your brain is doing if they actually succeed. I encourage you to take your own challenge on.
@MrWildbill20056 Anything (mainly in physics these days), that has no conclusive explanation, is not resorting to God or the supernatural. It just hasn't been explained yet, which is why I tell you (if it were possible), to talk with a physicist in the year 2300 to see how well your philosophical arguments are holding up. I personally don't believe your list of "degree's" based on your words you have sent me, but who cares.
@torontoBluejays87 Ha I could always give you a detailed description of the evolution of the Elasmobranch immune system, it's efficacy due to small size anti bodies despite limited recombination, and wide array of non specific immune related chemical production e.g. Squalamine. Then would you believe? :P
My point about 'science' had nothing to do with 'proving' God, only the nature of evidence as opposed to absolute proof. Please keep on track.
@MrWildbill20056 I will repeat, when we ask these profound questions of our universe what kind of evidence is there other than absolute evidence? Morals are a product of a natural process by way of evolution by natural selection which may or may not (probably may not) have been a product of a God(s). Give me your evidence, EVIDENCE, not meaningless words for why Jesus's philosophy is the true spoking word of the Creator of the universe. You and Craig twist your way around these conversations.
@torontoBluejays87 'What kind of evidence is there other than absolute evidence?' Yes you confuse evidence with absolute proof. There exist, presently, a super abundance of scientific 'questions' which remain unanswered but are subject to continued research efforts. Evidence exists which supports multiple possible interpretations. Conclusive proof is a further step. To say there is 'no evidence' for Christ in this light is thus an absurd statement.
Buddism has no heaven or hell??? yes it does...hell is being brought back as a lesser form and heaven is Nirvana or spirtual enlightenment...so there for everything else dude says from that point forward is total bullshit...oh and from he said...Islam is Christianity minus Jesus...and Islam would say that besides God in the flesh everything else was right
atheist alert! Atheist not engaging the argument and talking about zeus and fairies for some reason....really dont see why they cant actually tackle the argument instead of talking about their favorite bed time stories......
@jamaicanification What argument? I have told you that Zeus has revealed himself to me, and those daft Christians have said the exact same thing about Jesus. Don't you see I have all the evidence in my favor? :D So therefore I win the argument because Zeus is the only one true God. :D (You see how easy that was?)
@billyboy630 I don't get the problem with my analogy. If a dead guy named Jesus can reveal himself to people nowadays, why couldn't a made up guy named Zeus reveal himself to me? It isn't even really that conclusive that Jesus actually existed in the first place, but that is irrelevant to this point. He is dead, dead people don't talk to living people case closed.
@Adamillionaire123 Ya, well Zeus has been around A LOT longer than that Jesus asshole, so you'd do yourself a favor by not denigrating his almighty power. Hades will enjoy torturing you when you die.
@Adamillionaire123 i hope that was sarcasm cuz if i did read the bible cover to cover id dispise it even more cuz it caries as much weight as evidance as a comic book. thats a fact not an opinion. the bible proves one thing: that pepole will belive anything when its out of fear
@NoisySheep7 Excuse me, but if you want to make fun of the one true God that created everything, you would do yourself justice by spelling his name right! ZEUS! NOT ZUES! Hades will enjoy torturing you when you die for your blasphemy. Christ is just another lie that is trying to remove you from the one true God Zeus. See Zeus reveals himself to me every day and that proves he is really there!
this is bullshit, there is no one true religion, people shouldn't be separated because of religious boundaries, if i meet someone and they tell me that they're a jew, christian, or muslim i wouldn't care but i would still be friends with them, i'm not an atheist or an avid christian (or satanist because of my youtube name lol), i'm just a guy who doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks of me, i just think religion is bullshit
So because of clams made by the bible (Jesus being God incarnate, the resurrection, etc.), the bible must be true? For somebody who insults alteists' intelligence /watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY that's a pretty blatant circular argument.
All religions can be false, but no more than one world religion can be true because they have contradictory beliefs. Tick.
Just curious, does anyone think any of the world religions have a stronger historical claim and greater probability of being the one true world religion - assuming the existence of God - than Christianity? And if so, how?
@JordanRossMackenzie I think christianity has nothing to do with jesus, therefore with God Himself. no where sin the gospels jesus said his religion is chriastianity, jesus did not establish christianity. Christianity is a work of Paul, he started it in Antioch acts 11:26. but paul was not really preaching the religion of jesus but of the Romans Romans 1:8. christianity has three gods, father, son, holly ghost....jesus had one God Mark 12:29, Mark 12:30, 1 Corinthians 8:4, Ephesians 4:6
@rarething007 Yeah that's some new age conspiracy andi Pauline belief. Christianity is the following of Christ. Christ didn't coin the term Christianity but that doesnt mean that Christianity is wrong. Chritianity is a belief in the teachings of Jessu Christ - not just the moral teachings - the spiritual as well.
The Bible teaches the the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God, the Jesus the Son of God is God, and that there is one God. Not understanding it doesn't make it a contradiction.
@JordanRossMackenzie okay will agree with u in the first part of ur statement. but wen it comes to trinity, i guess there are more questions thn answers. the verse you refered to was 1 John 5:7 but many modern bibles have omitted this verse as an interpolation, therefore the concept of three gods but one it does not add up it never did. if you can prove to me that once there was one God but he was three in one i will be more thn happy
@rarething007 I didn't make a reference to 1 John 5:7, it was just a summation of the New Testament teaching on the nature of God, in context, according to my understanding. How can I prove it to you? You mean with Bible verses?
@JordanRossMackenzie u need to prove the logic of what u call the nature of god, how can god be three but one or be one in three or three in one, if u can justify plz?
he knows he full of ish... the bible is a copy of the evil summerian tablets not 2000 yrs ago but 6000 yrs ago way before the bible and christianity ever was thought up yet the same stpries as the bible. also in genesis there are 2 gods with 2 creation stories they r all fake
@eevil123 Why is consideration for others morally correct? Who are you to tell me what's moral and what isn't? You're just some random guy who's trying to build a house of morals with no foundation.
@eevil123 Then you have no basis for morality. What makes your morals superior to mine? Nothing. Cooperating with others doesn't require morals. Look at Nazi Germany, a society that promoted the extinction of anyone the Nazis declared inferior. This is the kind of society that forms in an atheistic world.
@eevil123 It's obvious that's why it's written. The Bible explains how to get right with God, it doesn't FORCE you to get right with God, it explains what to do and gives you the choice to listen or to ignore.
@TheCydivor So there is no thruth behind it, its just an emotional attachment to a particular belief system because it makes them feel good. Thats basically what you insinuated.
@TheCydivor So basically you're saying there is no correct belief system. But at the same time you claim that your claim is true. So basically you're saying that the viewpoint that says that no viewpoint is true, is true. That's contradictory and illogical which gives any rational person absolutely no reason to believe it.
@MakingSandwich1 According to the Bible you could beat your slaves, as Exodus 21:20-21 dictates. That is precisely the same "type" of slavery as in the Americas with Native Americans and Africans. According to the Bible slaves must also be released on the 7th year, but they can choose to stay and remain a slave for the rest of their lives if they marry another slave. Regardless, why does it matter what "type" of slavery it is? Slavery is immoral, and your rationalization fails.
@buttface112211 You obviously don't understand the slavery that occurred during biblical times. Slavery was not based on nationality or race. It was based on social status. People sold themselves into slavery when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, doctors, lawyers and even politicians were sometimes slaves to someone else. The Bible makes it clear that God condemns slavery based on race or nationality and condemns man-stealing.
@MakingSandwich1 I didn't say slavery in biblical times was based on race and nationality (however, it was in some areas). The basic underlying principle is that your God condones the act enslaving others and owning them as property. Whether it is voluntary or temporary, what makes it morally correct to beat those slaves? If someone does beat their slave and they die one or two days later, they are no longer held responsible and subject to disciplinary action. Why one or two days?
@buttface112211 The Bible was written to point people to the way of salvation, not to reform society. If you're so concerned with Old Testament ethics, read the book: Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan.
@MakingSandwich1 So, are you willing to concede that alteast the God of the Old Testament is immoral based on our modern standard of morality that has evolved since the Bible was written and now focuses on equality. It may not have been implemented into society for reformation, but does it accurately reflect the moral/immoral standards of Yahweh? Are you suggesting that the Bible isn't a book of morals, but a book that establishes a pathway to salvation, and you must do immoral acts to reach it.
@buttface112211 Again, if you're so concerned with Old Testament ethics read: Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Your questions will then be answered. It seems to me you have no interest in finding answers to your questions, you simply enjoy attacking the Bible. It makes no sense to argue with someone who's simply being hostile for no good reason.
@MakingSandwich1 Evidently you do not wish to engage in rational discourse about the text, you haven't answered any of my questions. I have no interest in reading that book because it is just a rationalization of the immorality of that God, and it is impractical to read it, because it doesn't have any relevance to our discussion.. I assume you have read it, why not just articulate a condensed response from that book and paraphrase some passages to get your point across and answer my questions?
@MakingSandwich1 Why is the time period in which the victim dies a factor? Regardless of how long it takes them to die, the slave owner is still directly responsible.
@SINghful1 How can you not come to that conclusion. This guy is just promoting Christianity.. Were is the proof for one omnipotent creator? The proof this creator manifested himself inJesus Christ? He cites nothing convincing for any of his claims.
There are literally dozens of clips on YouTube of Dr. Craig carefully arguing in detail for Christianity as the One True Religion. Scoffing at his remarks in this clip as though he had nothing more to offer in defense of his view is the tactic of the ignorant and dishonest thinker.
Most of the remarks here that are antagonistic toward Dr. Craig are nothing more than schoolyard rhetoric born of insecurity and an inability to think beyond the superficial.
"This creator has revealed himself decisively in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and has vindicated the radical personal claims of Jesus to stand in god's place to inaugurate the kingdom of god in human history.."
LOL...where is the evidence for this?
I'm ok with his assertion that a supernatural power is responsible for our existence. But where is the evidence proving Christianity has ties to a supernatural power? You're just a salesman Craig. And the product your peddling....Christianity
@JuneauGold Thats a great excuse to end the conversation, I never said I made any decisions at that age, but that I saw problems with the religon that young. But you obviously realize you are out of your league in this conversation, best of luck to you.
@JuneauGold Yes I was raised Christian, but from the age of 7 or so, I had problems with what I was told. So you understand that not having concrete answers about the origin of our universe does not leave us with only two options, and yet you think an idiot like Craig has the answers??
@JuneauGold Wow, talk about a narrow perspective, those are the only two options you can contemplate? God or 'something from nothing'. I guess you have to make it into a dichotomy so it sounds like your preferred option is more likely. To make a point, assuming A God is the creator, I don't see how Christianity is any more likely the ONE TRUE religon than any other. In fact I can think of a lot of reasons it sounds like a bunch of crap to me. Sorry, spelled it wrong **purveyor** google it--
LOL Craig is funny in the sense, he just cannot construct one argument to how God can exist in the universe, but he exists only because Christianly he thinks is a better religion then the others. Each human has preferences based on their local values and own logic. Where in his argument does he cover the dark side of religion. Religion divides and creates hate, if religion didn't exist people would have one less excuse or reason to kill each other. Craig is like a religious Fred Flintstone
@JuneauGold Actually...NO. You might believe in things that are not proven, but if something is not proven or at least well established as being the best explanation, I consider it undecided. You can continue to be gulliable if you wish.
pathetic- No doubt the proveyors of any other religon could make just as if not stronger argument for why their religon is the ONE TRUE religon. He says, Jesus is the reason Christianity is true, a muslim could say the same for Mohammed. Neither can PROVE their religon's icon is what they claim it to be.
@JuneauGold - Then please explain where he proves that Christianity is the one true religion?
I hear him claim that there is good reason to believe that there was a god who created the universe.. I hear him say that since god revealed himself through Jesus and revived him, then we can say that christianity is the one true religion?
That is like saying that since we hear thunder and can see lightning, there is reason to believe in the nordic god of thunder, THOR! come on....!
As i hear it, Mr. Craig argues that christianity is the only one true religion, based on the good and solid evidence in the bible?? Wow.. that's very persuasive!
So, on the basis that Craig can make good arguments for a personal God and that this Creator has revealed himself decisively through Jesus, Christianity is the One True Religion? Christianity isn't even One religion! He also never gives his arguments, just says he has some good ones. That doesn't prove ANYTHING.
This guy bases his belief on the bible, and the "proof" of that belief is written only and ONLY in the bible. But watch out kids he is right! because the muslim belief is based on the quran, and the "proof" of that is only in the quran... Do you see now why the bible is right? PRAISE THE LORD!! grtz from an atheist
@amendolara69 Only in the Bible? Incorrect, there are plenty of other historical documents that tell that Jesus was a real person and was really crucified.
"How Can Christianity Be The One True Religion?"
Very simple: It can't.
TomFynn 3 weeks ago
all religions are false,evolution proves there was no first man or woman,therefore no adam no eve,therefore no first humans to commit the original sin,therefore no fall of man and no need for god to send his only begotten son to redeem the world end of christianity...........
thescorpionking2020 1 month ago
@thescorpionking2020 There was no first man or woman? Did we just skip over them to the second?
nluzwick1 6 days ago
He's right. All religions could be false. Including his.
chinopisces 2 months ago 7
@chinopisces Yeah. I've said that many times. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. I just include christianity on that list unlike Craig.
TempleOfInanna2 4 weeks ago
i think hes forgetting pastafariansim...
LONG LIVE THE GIANT SPAGHETTY MONSTER :P
ProDegiaque 2 months ago
Craig
You really think that the majority of people have the time, expertise, resources, intelligence, ability to compare the world's religions? You fool.
derek24hudson 3 months ago
what is the point this guy is making. very long winded!
samosapowis 3 months ago
I would like to see Craig debate the dalai lama, that would be awesome
Itsokdontpanic 3 months ago 4
Dr. Craig lost me at the superior theonomy assertion, “There are good reasons to believe that there is a personal creator and designer of the universe, who is the locus of moral values…” Popular branches of Christianity hold that Yahweh cares about doctrinal agreement, not morality, for salvation. Hence, serial killer Ted Bundy went to heaven, because he accepted Jesus shortly before execution. Most of his young victims went to hell. That doesn’t harmonize with " locus of moral values.”
Cathmoytura 3 months ago 2
Terrible. Responsible morality is based on appealing to reason and to the simulation of experience through thought experiment - both of which can be accessed and analysed for motive and consequence within the realm of human experience. Performing a trick that alludes to superhuman powers or abilities simply invites an acceptance due to bullying by a display of power or special knowledge. It would be akin to Penn and Teller demanding your obedience due to having wowed you with a trick. Pure evil.
LeySun 4 months ago
Ok, so I watched and waited and in the end the reason given was just Craig asserting it to be so. This is not a reason. There was no argument, no reasoning, just assertions. Then, what was I expecting? I am sure that if there was a single decent argument for his position we would all be well aware of it. You would think that if it was true then there would be at least one piece of evidence or one sound argument.
MrMonkeyInk 4 months ago
@MrMonkeyInk Just assertions? You are probably not familiar with Craig's arguments, are you? He just summarizes his arguments in less than a minute, and there's no way he can show all of his premises underlying his arguments in one minute. If you want a full version of that, you can watch any of his debates on existence of God. Now, could please kindly tell me which part of his arguments that do not have any shred of evidence or not sound? Peace
kapooktu 4 months ago
i converted to sikhism
brentwhitehead 4 months ago
I wonder if Craig was raised in Pakistan whether he would still believe Christianity has the most 'evidence'. I mean it's funny how you hear Muslims say the same thing. As if all of them have unbiasedly studied every religion and conveniently discovered that the religion they were raised in is the one true religion.
flackz16 5 months ago 2
@flackz16 Genetic Fallacy!!
fncfan123 3 months ago
So did WLC answer the question at the top of the video?
jerrygreg2 5 months ago
Dr. William Lane Craig Is making a claim base on what Christianity was founded on.
Can one have a personal relationship with God? NO,only with the laws of God and nature. Such thinking is an illusion which carry consequential actions. And human history is proof of that !
humberlick 5 months ago
Buddhists do infact believ in heaven and hell, but they sub-catagorize ech of the both, and don't infact use the terms heaven and hell. And no the world is not eternal. It will be destroyed after a certain time, and the world will reborn again and another Buddha will be present in this life. And so the process will go on for eternity, unless you attain Nibbana (aftr whichu will not be born again). They also believe in different types of sins and tht u will suffer the consequences respectively.
AnthemOfTheDevils 5 months ago
Dr. William Lane Craig just sold Buddhism to me :)
sonuEEE 5 months ago 36
@sonuEEE LOL to me too.
Buddhism sounds great the way he describes it.
CyrusJV 5 months ago
@sonuEEE No, he didn't you already believed it, but just didn't know what it was called. Most postmodern people in our society believe in Buddhism - like principles they just haven't thought through the similarities.
sethdbeebe 4 months ago
any religion that requires supernatural explanations is false.... pretty straight forward.
GawdOfThunder 5 months ago 4
You guys are ALL wrong! Richard Dawkins is the one true God, He is our Lord and Savior for through Him, I might have never released myself from the clutches of these religions. His words are wise and backed with evidence, so He must be our Creator!
SmervinMervin24 6 months ago
you atheists think your so smart, well believe me one day you will find out what a fool you have been when your crying infront of the lord
MrFollowingjesus 6 months ago
@MrFollowingjesus One day you will find out theres no god , and guess what , you are already dead to rectify your beliefs , and discovered your all life was a lie.
EdyMar77 3 months ago
@EdyMar77 There is a God who created you and me .I can assure that as i have experienced his presence in my own life.Dont be fooled into thinking that u are here by chance .Someone brought you here.Now ,you must ask who / ONLY IF YOU SEEK AN ANSWER truly ,then your eyes will open to the truth.GOD ,JESUS IS REAL.
lancerlot7 1 month ago
Love the video.
ray7685 6 months ago
Megami Tensei tells the true story.
Hec7orGunzal 6 months ago
All you blasphemers must accpet the holy word of the Pink Unicorn or forever be impaled upon his mighty, throbbing, stallion horn!
ih8makinusernames 6 months ago 43
@ih8makinusernames Exhibit 1 of the general irrational fundamental atheist.
YourNumberOneSource 4 months ago
@ih8makinusernames Brillianta Brilliant refutation, definately making fun and caricaturizing christianity is trulky the best way to refute it, truly "bright"
Redfield92 1 month ago
Jesus is God.
doobersmanster 6 months ago
You fool. FSM lives!
euzebiogb 6 months ago 4
This video should be titled “why all religions cannot be true”....towards the end of the video he gives a very brief summary of why he believes that Christianity is the one true faith. There is not enough time for him to go into detail in this one video but if you actually look up what he says about it you will find plenty of in depth detailed video’s with Dr. Craig in them explaining his view.....
jwmarco21 6 months ago
I agree... Hail Zeus! King of the gods and ruler of Mount Olympus and stuff!
ThePictodude 6 months ago
he didn't actually offer any reasons why Christianity makes the best claim to be the one true religion, he was just like "god vindicated jesus's claims by bringing him back from the dead". that's all in the bible, both the claims of jesus and the claims that god resurrected him. Circular to the max
HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke 6 months ago 3
@torontoBluejays87 Nice sound-bite, now back to class and if you are a good boy you might graduate primary school sometime this decade.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Well, I assume you are a Devout Christian based on your words here. But prove to me that Jesus is the one true light over Zeus or Thor or Michael Jackson or etc or etc or etc, WITHOUT quoting a fucking holy book for once......Still waiting............still waiting..................................................... You need to go back to grade school and learn what evidence is. Nice try smart ass. It's called sarcasm and it points out the stupidity in your argument for Jesus.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 The above is not an argument. It may make you feel better, but please do not mistake it as anything other than textual 'noise.' That you even raise such comparisons exposes your own limited knowledge (I give you the benefit of the doubt when it comes to powers of understanding) of Christian philosophy and theology. You clearly don't know what evidence is further, I suspect you confuse it with absolute proof. Your statements are irrelevant, whether you know it or not.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Honestly having a well written philosophy doesn't make anything true. The Jain Religion has, arguably, a more beautifully and well written philosophy than that of your faith but it is still just a philosophy. When we are talking about our universe what kind of proof is not absolute? Either we evolved from natural selection or we didn't. Either our solar system was born from the remnants of a supernova or it wasn't. You have not made a very convincing case here.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 You are misunderstanding how philosophy is being employed here as the bedrock of logical inquiry. There is a reason we talk of natural philosophy etc. Philosophy is the study of knowledge. Philosophical arguments for 'God' are not just 'just so' stories, they are logical, rational approaches to a subject which possibly cannot be investigated any other way. Can Hawking 'prove' imaginary time? Can we confidently explain the singularity? No. Can it be researched? Definitely.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 These questions that you claim science can't touch is a pitiful argument and proves that you don't know the first thing about evidence or about truth. People used to think that the only way to explain Volcanic eruptions were because of God's anger. People used to think that the earth was the center of all creation. People in 2300 will be smiling at our argument here because of our mutual ignorance for what science hasn't explained yet.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 I think between my BSc in Zoology, MRes in Statistical ecology and my PhD in marine immunobiology qualifies me pretty well with evidence :P Further you miss my point. I did not say science 'can't touch them, I said they can be researched, evidence found, but lack absolute proof. Your assumptions with regards to what we will or won't know in future are unsafe further. However I, at no point, will have asserted there certainly is an 'unanswerable' question in science.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Philosophy doesn't prove anything with evidence. The only way for there to be truths is substantial evidence being put forward. If Jesus Resurrected from the dead, then surely there would be more evidence than just "Oh it says here that these people saw this happen at some point". That is not evidence, that does not prove anything that the Christian philosophy puts forward as true. Evidence! Give me Evidence for the love of God (no pun intended).
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Again, you are not understanding how philosophy is being employed. Philosophy is a tool as well as a thing. Philosophy as the discipline which encompasses logic, and by extent deduction has spectacular 'proving' power.
Next, to take your actual points 1) Why would there be more evidence? You say 'surely' but then again do you know specifically what's going in rural Afghanistan just now? Do you think there are many sources recording the lives of 'ordinary' people there?
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Again, stop filling the page with meaningless words and show me the evidence for your particular belief or theology as the true belief or theology.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Given the evidence of your comments on this video, what would be the point? You are thoroughly convinced you are correct. IF you think the above is meaningless that would further highlight the futility of trying to engage you in a worthwhile dialogue. Happy Zeus day :) That you cannot see any fundamental differences between Christ and Thor, is either deliberate ignorance or just woeful inadequacy of comprehension.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 I fully understand the differences between Jesus Christ and Thor, but their differences (despite what you think) don't make them any more true. I accept Jesus existed, despite some of the disputes on the matter. I am well versed in all his miracles that he was said to have performed. Problem is, there is absolutely no evidence for any of these claims. Instead of trying to find of clever ways to insult me, why don't you give me your evidence for why Jesus is the one true light?
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 You don't see a huge difference between a historical figure and a blatantly mythological product of ancient story tellers? The fact that one is a historically real person places 'him' on a totally different footing when it comes to credibility. Thus making the comparison nonsensical.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Yes that is a striking difference between the two. All you have said is Jesus was a person (Which I agree) and Thor was made up by people (Again, I agree). You know what else was made up by people? Every miracle or supernatural event associated with Jesus. Steven Weinberg said it best I think Science doesn't make it impossible to believe in God, it just makes disbelief in God possible. Ask people in 2300 what they think of singularity and imaginary time.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Ok we make progress. Thus we cannot, sensibly, cast aspersions at Christianity via Zeus, Thor etc.
However your development is just assertion. Based only on the texts, you have absolutely no idea, at best, whether these events were made up by people; or whether they were tricked, or whether they honestly recorded what hey saw. It's the context that makes it compelling.
Lastly my point re: imaginary time is that there can be evidence without absolute proof.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Listen, I know that those events didn't take place with Jesus because people don't wake up from the dead or walk on water. You should know that too with your PhD education in science, and the fact that you assert that these things happened dismisses your argument as being serious. Do I know Napoleon, Vasilli Zaitsev, or any other historical figure actually existed? Not conclusively, but I trust the historical data because there is no supernatural claim pertaining to those people
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 No, that simply won't do. You know that, in your experience, and in those of most others you have access to the thoughts of, that such things have not been witnessed. However that is absolutely no sure guide to what could or what has, or what does happen outside of those witness sources. Contextually these events are entirely possible on the premise that Christ is God. If you have no access to 'God' witnesses you can may no assertions as to what they can or cannot do.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 No, again I must implore, that people don't wake up from the dead and walk around, therefore Jesus never did that. Remember I agree Jesus existed as a person, but thats where it stops. Anything further and you are putting Jesus into the same category as Zeus, or Thor, or any other supernatural entity that the human mind has created. "proofs" don't matter, evidence does, and there is none in your favor.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 1) Sorry, only in your experience. 2) Assertion 3) The gospels and acts of the earliest believers are evidence. 4) Evidence is not absolute proof. 5) Decide for the right reasons ie you do not find the evidence compelling.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 You know what would be overwhelming evidence of Jesus being able to walk from the dead? If he appeared before me in this room, took my computer from me, and wrote you a message saying "haha, we proved this prick wrong". Saying "well oh, in this book someone said they saw this thousands of years ago" is not evidence. Never was, and never will be.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Ah now you begin to qualify 'evidence' this is heartwarming.
It is evidence. People walk into court every day to testify to things that happened decades ago, and on the basis of their saying ' I saw this' decisions are reached.
This form of historical record is how we know at least 50% of all we do of civilisations lost in antiquity. Historians didn't see everything personally but they hunted witnesses/testimonies and went from there.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Yes, evidence in court is very different from scientific evidence. One explains how the universe exists and works, while the other gives rather vague explanations of events that happened in the past. Do you have any idea how many people have been sent to jail or executed for wrongful witness accounts over time? Again, I can see how desperate you are, to even compare the two types of evidence in that way. Your PhD did wonders for you.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Are you suggesting that events in ancient history should be assessed via scientific enquiry? You realise that is absurd?
You call me desperate, I call you on a woefully wrong track when it comes to dealing with historical enquiry.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Historical inquiry shows that around 6 million jews were executed in the second world war. Historical testimonies and records show that Frederic Chopin was a brilliant pianist/composer who very rarely played his works in live forums during his life. Has any of what I just said here translated into the supernatural?Supernatural claims require extraordinary amounts of evidence. Eye witness accounts just simply are not enough to prove your point about Jesus's miracles.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 I see, so suddenly eye witness testimony has value, excellent.
Ah now we move to the evidence not convincing you, much better.
Next The extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claim is that people who knew Christ, were intimate friends and eye witnesses to all he did believed him and showed this by dying for their belief.
If your best friend told you he was 'God' and that you would have to die for proclaiming belief in him, would you?
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 It wasn't just eye witness accounts that proved that Chopin was a brilliant pianist. It wasn't just eye witness accounts that proved 6 millions jews were brutally murdered in WW2. It wasn't just eye witness accounts that proved the Ancient Greek people believed in Zeus. Why no more super natural events? Why is it only thousands of years ago these events took place?
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Ah in these cases, true, however in the case of social histories the world over that cannot be said for the majority of people.
If your position is that you can't ever rely on an eye witness and their natural skepticism, then fine. However it is evidence :)
Further many people do believe in continuing extra ordinary events. However why would we expect any phenomena to occur to match that associated with 'God' personally? If Christ was/is as claimed then he is unique.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Nope Christ was at best a very ahead of his time, moral philosopher despite his whole, believe in me or burn in hell attitude. He was not a supernatural entity that just happened to be alive on this earth. There is more striking possibilities (I hold back on the word evidence here) for there to be Aliens that resemble the knowledge of our species in the year 2300 or more. I wonder, if they exist, what they would think about Christ?
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Argument by assertion is not an argument.
Further, extra terrestrial rock material aside, which is a hot topic of discourse, we have no evidence for the existence of aliens. That doesn't mean we have evidence they do not exist. Just we have a paucity of evidence.
IF they exist, I would imagine they would be very interested. Who's to say Christianity only works for homo sapiens sapiens? :)
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Trust me, if Aliens had the technology to travel from star to star, let alone galaxy to galaxy, they probably wouldn't give the slightest care into what either you or I think. They would look at our scientific developments as petty and weak, and your idea of Christ proving the existence of God as petty and weak. Do Muslims not have "historical proof" that Muhammad rose to heaven? If so, how is your supernatural claim any more valid than theirs? Christianity is human invention.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Erm Muslims believe Muhammad died and was buried. You can visit his tomb if you like.
As to aliens, I don't need to trust you on that at all! So much supposition it's unbelievable. Any sentient race would have its own history and if they were equipped with enquiring minds would no doubt have ancient historical records of their own which they would take seriously.
I would expect scholars, species aside, to be fascinated by each other's work :)
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 7-9 hours compared with 3 days that Jesus apparently took to wake up. I still don't believe you that those people made full recoveries but you can show me your sources and prove me wrong. Still I repeat there is a colossal difference in being dead for 7 hours and coming back and being dead for 72 hours and coming back. You still have not put forth any evidence to support Jesus was truly the word of God or that he ever came back from the dead.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Ah, we move on again. Just look up world record resuscitations, there was a small boy after 7 hours, and another man after 9 previously. I am not arguing that resuscitation is directly relevant to the 'Jesus' case. I am simply point out that any assertion of 'natural laws' prohibiting 'coming back from the dead' is in error. If human agencies can effect this, how much more would a divine agency be capable of?
The gospels, the belief of people at the time. It is evidence :)
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Please give me evidence and stop dancing around the request. I will believe you and Craig if you would only give me the evidence to do so. I cannot take you people seriously, no matter what education you have, if you put forward the idea that people rise from the dead and defy natural laws.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87
I see, so your position is refuted and you just barrel on through.
The gospel accounts simply are evidence whether you reject it or not, which is your perogative. You can decide it is not compelling. However we believe it to be historically reliable for several reasons not least because contemporaneous eye witnesses were prepared to die for their beliefs.
Further rising from the dead violates which natural law? When frozen 'people' are resuscitated, are they in violation?
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 My position of, I doubt anything that is supernatural until evidence arises, is refuted? Let me tell you something, frozen people are dead. You cannot be frozen for an extended period of time (days and days), and suddenly be brought back to life. But if you disagree with me, by all means, please go sit in your freezer in your underwear and prove me wrong. I can't believe you actually said that!
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Your position of not accepting the distinction between evidence and absolute proof, yep. Your position of claiming to 'know' things cannot happen because you have not witnessed them, yep.
Furthe my point was, if I develop it, that people can be 'brought back from clinical death' under several scenarios. This violates no law apparently. The world record for resuscitation is 9 hours for example. That's a long time for your body to be out of action!
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Yes you are right, you are leaving out a very very very important point that that person's brain would not be working. They couldn't get up out of the bed and start walking around and talking to people. Depletion of oxygen to the brain takes way less time than 9 hours. But nice try though, I can see you are getting desperate in trying to make some sort of an argument.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Congratulations for establishing that a dead person can't do anything.
We are dealing with people 'back from the dea.'
What we have established is that agencies exist whereby, even in human experience, the clinically dead can be brought back to life, without violating any 'natural laws :)
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Please, try this experiment yourself if you have so much confidence in it. Drown yourself in your bathtub, until you have no pulse anymore. Make sure you have a friend there to take you to the hospital. Make sure the doctors wait for 9 hours before they try and bring you back to life, then see how your brain is doing if they actually succeed. I encourage you to take your own challenge on.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Why should I? The evidence is on record for people to be successfully resuscitated 7-9 hours later and to make full recoveries.
I ask you again, what natural laws have been violated?
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Anything (mainly in physics these days), that has no conclusive explanation, is not resorting to God or the supernatural. It just hasn't been explained yet, which is why I tell you (if it were possible), to talk with a physicist in the year 2300 to see how well your philosophical arguments are holding up. I personally don't believe your list of "degree's" based on your words you have sent me, but who cares.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Ha I could always give you a detailed description of the evolution of the Elasmobranch immune system, it's efficacy due to small size anti bodies despite limited recombination, and wide array of non specific immune related chemical production e.g. Squalamine. Then would you believe? :P
My point about 'science' had nothing to do with 'proving' God, only the nature of evidence as opposed to absolute proof. Please keep on track.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 I will repeat, when we ask these profound questions of our universe what kind of evidence is there other than absolute evidence? Morals are a product of a natural process by way of evolution by natural selection which may or may not (probably may not) have been a product of a God(s). Give me your evidence, EVIDENCE, not meaningless words for why Jesus's philosophy is the true spoking word of the Creator of the universe. You and Craig twist your way around these conversations.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 'What kind of evidence is there other than absolute evidence?' Yes you confuse evidence with absolute proof. There exist, presently, a super abundance of scientific 'questions' which remain unanswered but are subject to continued research efforts. Evidence exists which supports multiple possible interpretations. Conclusive proof is a further step. To say there is 'no evidence' for Christ in this light is thus an absurd statement.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
1:15 "They could all be false, but they can not all be true."
This is the first intelligent thing I have ever heard Dr. Craig say.
callinshumen 7 months ago
God bless Dr. Craig, thanks for another great video!
JWHurwitz 7 months ago
Buddism has no heaven or hell??? yes it does...hell is being brought back as a lesser form and heaven is Nirvana or spirtual enlightenment...so there for everything else dude says from that point forward is total bullshit...oh and from he said...Islam is Christianity minus Jesus...and Islam would say that besides God in the flesh everything else was right
BigDJuggalo420 7 months ago
atheist alert! Atheist not engaging the argument and talking about zeus and fairies for some reason....really dont see why they cant actually tackle the argument instead of talking about their favorite bed time stories......
jamaicanification 7 months ago
@jamaicanification What argument? I have told you that Zeus has revealed himself to me, and those daft Christians have said the exact same thing about Jesus. Don't you see I have all the evidence in my favor? :D So therefore I win the argument because Zeus is the only one true God. :D (You see how easy that was?)
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago 2
@torontoBluejays87 Only problem with your analogy is Zeus revealed himself to you.....But if thats what you beleive I would respect that
billyboy630 6 months ago
@billyboy630 I don't get the problem with my analogy. If a dead guy named Jesus can reveal himself to people nowadays, why couldn't a made up guy named Zeus reveal himself to me? It isn't even really that conclusive that Jesus actually existed in the first place, but that is irrelevant to this point. He is dead, dead people don't talk to living people case closed.
torontoBluejays87 6 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 except that the existence of Zeus is dependent on the existence many other gods, therefore Zeus cannot be the ONE true god.
animaster9 6 months ago
@Adamillionaire123 yep.... lots of suckers around to believe until something new and shiny crawls out of the woodwork
nowhereusa 7 months ago
@Adamillionaire123 Ya, well Zeus has been around A LOT longer than that Jesus asshole, so you'd do yourself a favor by not denigrating his almighty power. Hades will enjoy torturing you when you die.
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
@Adamillionaire123 i hope that was sarcasm cuz if i did read the bible cover to cover id dispise it even more cuz it caries as much weight as evidance as a comic book. thats a fact not an opinion. the bible proves one thing: that pepole will belive anything when its out of fear
platnuim86 7 months ago
Comment removed
platnuim86 7 months ago
Comment removed
platnuim86 7 months ago
GOD is an invisible spirit to mans eyes, supernatural like Angels, Demons are. God made a Human body to use so that us Humans can see Him physically
(think of spinter in the ninja turtles, he made a body to use and get around)
see? the Body that God Uses and speaks through, is non other then the Jesus of nazareth!!
its safe to say that Jesus and God the Creator HAS THE SAME VOICE!
NoisySheep7 7 months ago
@torontoBluejays87 Zues? lmaoooo. Zues is jus another satan created person to make ppl look away from Christ.
Christ is Him, Christ is the Creator God!
NoisySheep7 7 months ago
@NoisySheep7 Excuse me, but if you want to make fun of the one true God that created everything, you would do yourself justice by spelling his name right! ZEUS! NOT ZUES! Hades will enjoy torturing you when you die for your blasphemy. Christ is just another lie that is trying to remove you from the one true God Zeus. See Zeus reveals himself to me every day and that proves he is really there!
torontoBluejays87 7 months ago
this is bullshit, there is no one true religion, people shouldn't be separated because of religious boundaries, if i meet someone and they tell me that they're a jew, christian, or muslim i wouldn't care but i would still be friends with them, i'm not an atheist or an avid christian (or satanist because of my youtube name lol), i'm just a guy who doesn't give a shit what anyone thinks of me, i just think religion is bullshit
666THeShAd0w 7 months ago
Comment removed
666THeShAd0w 7 months ago
Lol christanity is ture cuz the bible says it is . that never gets old
platnuim86 7 months ago
is anyone else freaked out by the shape of this man's hands? lol. they look like monkey hands
chuckwagon1645 7 months ago
I've never head ANYONE say that all religions are true.
IseeRightThrough2you 7 months ago
So because of clams made by the bible (Jesus being God incarnate, the resurrection, etc.), the bible must be true? For somebody who insults alteists' intelligence /watch?v=14YM7MP6HzY that's a pretty blatant circular argument.
IseeRightThrough2you 7 months ago
As Craig puts it, Buddhism makes a whole lot more sense than either Islam or Christianity.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
Why are there so many dislikes?
All religions can be false, but no more than one world religion can be true because they have contradictory beliefs. Tick.
Just curious, does anyone think any of the world religions have a stronger historical claim and greater probability of being the one true world religion - assuming the existence of God - than Christianity? And if so, how?
JordanRossMackenzie 7 months ago
@JordanRossMackenzie I think christianity has nothing to do with jesus, therefore with God Himself. no where sin the gospels jesus said his religion is chriastianity, jesus did not establish christianity. Christianity is a work of Paul, he started it in Antioch acts 11:26. but paul was not really preaching the religion of jesus but of the Romans Romans 1:8. christianity has three gods, father, son, holly ghost....jesus had one God Mark 12:29, Mark 12:30, 1 Corinthians 8:4, Ephesians 4:6
rarething007 7 months ago
@rarething007 Yeah that's some new age conspiracy andi Pauline belief. Christianity is the following of Christ. Christ didn't coin the term Christianity but that doesnt mean that Christianity is wrong. Chritianity is a belief in the teachings of Jessu Christ - not just the moral teachings - the spiritual as well.
The Bible teaches the the Father is God, the Holy Spirit is God, the Jesus the Son of God is God, and that there is one God. Not understanding it doesn't make it a contradiction.
JordanRossMackenzie 7 months ago
@JordanRossMackenzie okay will agree with u in the first part of ur statement. but wen it comes to trinity, i guess there are more questions thn answers. the verse you refered to was 1 John 5:7 but many modern bibles have omitted this verse as an interpolation, therefore the concept of three gods but one it does not add up it never did. if you can prove to me that once there was one God but he was three in one i will be more thn happy
rarething007 7 months ago
@rarething007 I didn't make a reference to 1 John 5:7, it was just a summation of the New Testament teaching on the nature of God, in context, according to my understanding. How can I prove it to you? You mean with Bible verses?
JordanRossMackenzie 7 months ago
@JordanRossMackenzie u need to prove the logic of what u call the nature of god, how can god be three but one or be one in three or three in one, if u can justify plz?
rarething007 7 months ago
oh look up cesare borgias while youre at it
imcrazy85 7 months ago
he knows he full of ish... the bible is a copy of the evil summerian tablets not 2000 yrs ago but 6000 yrs ago way before the bible and christianity ever was thought up yet the same stpries as the bible. also in genesis there are 2 gods with 2 creation stories they r all fake
imcrazy85 7 months ago
And anyone who's looked at Christianity will see it's not true because it makes contradictory claims.
JasonBensleyDrain 7 months ago
@eevil123 Why is consideration for others morally correct? Who are you to tell me what's moral and what isn't? You're just some random guy who's trying to build a house of morals with no foundation.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@eevil123 So, basically, you just formed your whole sense of morality on nothing more than your own opinion.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@eevil123 Then you have no basis for morality. What makes your morals superior to mine? Nothing. Cooperating with others doesn't require morals. Look at Nazi Germany, a society that promoted the extinction of anyone the Nazis declared inferior. This is the kind of society that forms in an atheistic world.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@eevil123 The Bible approaches the problem from the inside out. Which solves the problem, changing the person or changing the law?
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@eevil123 It's obvious that's why it's written. The Bible explains how to get right with God, it doesn't FORCE you to get right with God, it explains what to do and gives you the choice to listen or to ignore.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@JuneauGold "Clearly tho you have considered all the "options" that are available before deciding on Atheism being the answer."
What is atheism the answer to?
"I was an Atheist before so I know both positions - were you a Christian before or had any type of faith belief?"
Are you suggesting that to reach a valid and justified conclusion you must transition through all positions?
buttface112211 7 months ago
@TheCydivor So there is no thruth behind it, its just an emotional attachment to a particular belief system because it makes them feel good. Thats basically what you insinuated.
buttface112211 7 months ago
He didn't even answer the question, he just preached the story of Jesus Christ, he dodged the question.
buttface112211 7 months ago
It would be nice if he did say what evidence and arguments he has for Christianity over all of the other religions.
ConradW 7 months ago
@TheCydivor So basically you're saying there is no correct belief system. But at the same time you claim that your claim is true. So basically you're saying that the viewpoint that says that no viewpoint is true, is true. That's contradictory and illogical which gives any rational person absolutely no reason to believe it.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@TheCydivor Do you even have an understanding of the type of slavery that occurred during biblical times?
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 According to the Bible you could beat your slaves, as Exodus 21:20-21 dictates. That is precisely the same "type" of slavery as in the Americas with Native Americans and Africans. According to the Bible slaves must also be released on the 7th year, but they can choose to stay and remain a slave for the rest of their lives if they marry another slave. Regardless, why does it matter what "type" of slavery it is? Slavery is immoral, and your rationalization fails.
buttface112211 7 months ago
@buttface112211 You obviously don't understand the slavery that occurred during biblical times. Slavery was not based on nationality or race. It was based on social status. People sold themselves into slavery when they could not pay their debts or provide for their families. In New Testament times, doctors, lawyers and even politicians were sometimes slaves to someone else. The Bible makes it clear that God condemns slavery based on race or nationality and condemns man-stealing.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 I didn't say slavery in biblical times was based on race and nationality (however, it was in some areas). The basic underlying principle is that your God condones the act enslaving others and owning them as property. Whether it is voluntary or temporary, what makes it morally correct to beat those slaves? If someone does beat their slave and they die one or two days later, they are no longer held responsible and subject to disciplinary action. Why one or two days?
buttface112211 7 months ago
@buttface112211 The Bible was written to point people to the way of salvation, not to reform society. If you're so concerned with Old Testament ethics, read the book: Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God by Paul Copan.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 So, are you willing to concede that alteast the God of the Old Testament is immoral based on our modern standard of morality that has evolved since the Bible was written and now focuses on equality. It may not have been implemented into society for reformation, but does it accurately reflect the moral/immoral standards of Yahweh? Are you suggesting that the Bible isn't a book of morals, but a book that establishes a pathway to salvation, and you must do immoral acts to reach it.
buttface112211 7 months ago
@buttface112211 Again, if you're so concerned with Old Testament ethics read: Is God a Moral Monster?: Making Sense of the Old Testament God. Your questions will then be answered. It seems to me you have no interest in finding answers to your questions, you simply enjoy attacking the Bible. It makes no sense to argue with someone who's simply being hostile for no good reason.
MakingSandwich1 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 Evidently you do not wish to engage in rational discourse about the text, you haven't answered any of my questions. I have no interest in reading that book because it is just a rationalization of the immorality of that God, and it is impractical to read it, because it doesn't have any relevance to our discussion.. I assume you have read it, why not just articulate a condensed response from that book and paraphrase some passages to get your point across and answer my questions?
buttface112211 7 months ago
@MakingSandwich1 Why is the time period in which the victim dies a factor? Regardless of how long it takes them to die, the slave owner is still directly responsible.
buttface112211 7 months ago
lolz...
The only thing he said that makes is that not all religions can be true, but they can ALL be wrong.
Zentz29 7 months ago
When see Craig I think "anti-Christ". ironic, no ?
StarSpawn06 7 months ago
Wow, that was a surprisingly lengthy amount of absolutely nothing.
Kabitu1 7 months ago
As my own personal findings of the world is that polytheism seems to be true. Clearly spirituality is subjective.
SteampunkPagan 7 months ago
@SINghful1 How can you not come to that conclusion. This guy is just promoting Christianity.. Were is the proof for one omnipotent creator? The proof this creator manifested himself inJesus Christ? He cites nothing convincing for any of his claims.
Apollodorosh 7 months ago
There are literally dozens of clips on YouTube of Dr. Craig carefully arguing in detail for Christianity as the One True Religion. Scoffing at his remarks in this clip as though he had nothing more to offer in defense of his view is the tactic of the ignorant and dishonest thinker.
Most of the remarks here that are antagonistic toward Dr. Craig are nothing more than schoolyard rhetoric born of insecurity and an inability to think beyond the superficial.
nwaikikai 8 months ago
"This creator has revealed himself decisively in the person of Jesus of Nazareth and has vindicated the radical personal claims of Jesus to stand in god's place to inaugurate the kingdom of god in human history.."
LOL...where is the evidence for this?
I'm ok with his assertion that a supernatural power is responsible for our existence. But where is the evidence proving Christianity has ties to a supernatural power? You're just a salesman Craig. And the product your peddling....Christianity
nosajj12345 8 months ago
Ha ha! In other words Bill here is saying: It's MY religion, and I believe it, so it's true!"
Tobytrim 8 months ago
I just heard "Christianity is true, because it is"
His argument was, "Christianity has ultimate moral values and Jesus revealed himself"
He jumps so smoothly into it, it's almost hard to notice.
Phaze252 8 months ago 7
@JuneauGold Thats a great excuse to end the conversation, I never said I made any decisions at that age, but that I saw problems with the religon that young. But you obviously realize you are out of your league in this conversation, best of luck to you.
jmdnarri 8 months ago
@JuneauGold Yes I was raised Christian, but from the age of 7 or so, I had problems with what I was told. So you understand that not having concrete answers about the origin of our universe does not leave us with only two options, and yet you think an idiot like Craig has the answers??
jmdnarri 8 months ago
@JuneauGold Wow, talk about a narrow perspective, those are the only two options you can contemplate? God or 'something from nothing'. I guess you have to make it into a dichotomy so it sounds like your preferred option is more likely. To make a point, assuming A God is the creator, I don't see how Christianity is any more likely the ONE TRUE religon than any other. In fact I can think of a lot of reasons it sounds like a bunch of crap to me. Sorry, spelled it wrong **purveyor** google it--
jmdnarri 8 months ago
LOL Craig is funny in the sense, he just cannot construct one argument to how God can exist in the universe, but he exists only because Christianly he thinks is a better religion then the others. Each human has preferences based on their local values and own logic. Where in his argument does he cover the dark side of religion. Religion divides and creates hate, if religion didn't exist people would have one less excuse or reason to kill each other. Craig is like a religious Fred Flintstone
theapeman10 8 months ago
Comment removed
theapeman10 8 months ago
@JuneauGold Actually...NO. You might believe in things that are not proven, but if something is not proven or at least well established as being the best explanation, I consider it undecided. You can continue to be gulliable if you wish.
jmdnarri 8 months ago
pathetic- No doubt the proveyors of any other religon could make just as if not stronger argument for why their religon is the ONE TRUE religon. He says, Jesus is the reason Christianity is true, a muslim could say the same for Mohammed. Neither can PROVE their religon's icon is what they claim it to be.
jmdnarri 8 months ago
@JuneauGold - Then please explain where he proves that Christianity is the one true religion?
I hear him claim that there is good reason to believe that there was a god who created the universe.. I hear him say that since god revealed himself through Jesus and revived him, then we can say that christianity is the one true religion?
That is like saying that since we hear thunder and can see lightning, there is reason to believe in the nordic god of thunder, THOR! come on....!
SovsoenDK 8 months ago
As i hear it, Mr. Craig argues that christianity is the only one true religion, based on the good and solid evidence in the bible?? Wow.. that's very persuasive!
SovsoenDK 8 months ago
So, on the basis that Craig can make good arguments for a personal God and that this Creator has revealed himself decisively through Jesus, Christianity is the One True Religion? Christianity isn't even One religion! He also never gives his arguments, just says he has some good ones. That doesn't prove ANYTHING.
GayTempest 8 months ago
falacious as aways...
bite me dr. willian!
TheNameless900 8 months ago
I'm sorry, I missed the part where you show us the testable evidence for Christianity.
Highlyskeptical 8 months ago
@Highlyskeptical we all did.
doaftheloaf 8 months ago
Christianity is the only true religion.
TheMeteorStrike 9 months ago
christianity is as false as you can get
InfidelsUniverse 9 months ago
by pointing out the differences between buda and Islam, this proves Christianity, how?
ccma4rt 9 months ago
IT BURNS AHHHHRRRGGGGG!!!!
teerav707 9 months ago
This has multiplied my faith by 10000. 0 * 10000 = 0. Feel more religious already.... not.
jceiras 9 months ago
Christianity is obviously myth.
newfagscanttrif0rce 9 months ago
This guy bases his belief on the bible, and the "proof" of that belief is written only and ONLY in the bible. But watch out kids he is right! because the muslim belief is based on the quran, and the "proof" of that is only in the quran... Do you see now why the bible is right? PRAISE THE LORD!! grtz from an atheist
amendolara69 9 months ago
@amendolara69 Only in the Bible? Incorrect, there are plenty of other historical documents that tell that Jesus was a real person and was really crucified.
Halfturretslicer 9 months ago