William Lane Craig and the problem with religious apologetics.

[kalebparham]

1. Ok, now what if you are like me. I have experienced several things that no amount of logic can explain accept with the existence of God.

2. This video was meant for Christians, not Atheist. It has no purpose in convincing anyone to follow Christ, but to convince those who have faith, but don't want to leave the faith.

[Sage80]

Calling someone a fundamentalist doesn't make you a genius all of the sudden. Craig has his Phd. You're on youtube.... you understand.

[Xigano1]

@Sage80

A Ph.D. in Philosophy does not make one the arbiter of trouth.

[SlykRyk666]

love your video. I despise WLC. He is the slimiest of the slimey IMO. But what motivates him and others like him to deliberately deceive people. He is an obvious Sociopath. Jim Jones comes to mind every time I watch one of these guys in action.

[gatogreensleeves]

"drcraigvideos" literally blocked my commenting on the Krauss debate, which was completely congenial with no ad hominem or insults and was all perfectly pointed philosophically. Guess I'm just venting. No one has EVER made an argument from deism to ancient anecdotal theistic miracles more plausible than the mountain of empirical evidence for mistake, delusion, and agenda.

[Jnest55]

It is also important to note that the video the blogger refers to is meant, not to be evidence for the Bible or Christianity to a skeptic, but an encouragement and strengthener of a Christian believer's faith.

In the context of debate, what Craig said would not be a valid arguement, but what he said was never meant to be...

[Jnest55]

cicular reasoning is not seeking confirmation through evidence of a predetermined belief--as the blogger here cited as a "textbook case of circular reasoning"-- rather, circular reasoning is confirming the belief with the belief itself.(ie: we date the fossils by the rocks, and the rocks by the fossils).

[Jnest55]

@Jnest55 seeking confirmation for a belief through evidence is in fact quite logical and reasonable. For instance, scientists propose a hypothesis(something they believe could explain phenomina) and then test and look for evidence that would confirm the hypothesis: this is called the scientific method, which Im sure no one would say is circular reasoning.

circular reasoning comes when you use your belief, either directly or indirectly, to prove your belief.

[Heretikus]

who had to go against accepted beliefs & indeed against the teachings of the church. When was the last scientific discovery made BECAUSE of religious teachings? Religion is about spirituality and science is about nature. God is supernatural & therefore when people say "goddidit" that doesn't contribute to our understanding of our world. People used to think that demons were responsible for sickness now we know that it's germs, disease, and chemicals. When has religion made a scientific advance?

[philosophyman76]

check out my vids on this stuff. you might like them

[Heretikus]

@klwjdw hmmm, you've found no other adequate theory? & you say you're attending classes full time? Perhaps you'll encounter a couple little known, yet widely embraced and accepted theories by the scientific community called "Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution" Because believing we were invented by an all powerful magic man that we call "GOD" makes so much more sense! lol. & creationists wonder why people laugh at them.

[TheExtremeGrace]

@Heretikus I’m certainly familiar with the said theories, but in my opinion design (although I assuredly do not understand all aspects) is much more believable than the universe essentially exploding into existence. Best to you!

[Heretikus]

@TheExtremeGrace of course you don't understand and that's why we'll all wait a billion years for a scientist to present proof of creation. Meanwhile there is plenty of evidence for evolution. Perhaps that's how your god wanted to create us? Check out pubmed.com & you can find plenty of articles about evolution and how understanding the theory benefits everyone. I'm still waiting for a creation paper with evidence to appear. Well, since you don't know the answer, well then god must've done it

[TheExtremeGrace]

@Heretikus I’ve read numerous articles about evolution, as well as entire textbooks. I did not find the “evidence” convincing…to say the least. In all honesty, I have had doubts about my faith before, but I assure you this; it has never been because I thought “science” proved that God didn’t exist. BTW, if you are wanting to read about Creationism…look up the Answers in Genesis article database. Well, since you don’t want to believe in a higher power, everything must’ve just happened. lol

[Heretikus]

@TheExtremeGrace science is not about proving the existence of God. It's about building knowledge about explaining the world & making predictions & testing them. I have read the Answers in Genesis. I'm not meaning to attack your faith in God but I have a hard time accepting people who claim to have studied evolution and when they can't understand it they throw their hands in the air and go "well, I don't understand so God must've done it" that leads to no scientific advances & is useless.

[TheExtremeGrace]

@Heretikus It’s not that they/I don’t understand the theory of Evolution, it’s that we don’t find it convincing. I tend to look evolutionists just as you look at Creationists. Evolutions are essentially saying, “Even though the world (specifically life) is bewilderingly complex--beyond our imagination, which would seem to indicate some type of design, we do not accept the idea of a higher power, thus everything must’ve spontaneously happened.”

[Heretikus]

@TheExtremeGrace I don't know of a single evolutionary biologist who says that they don't accept the complexity of the world as proof that a designer does or does not exist. Evolution is a testable & predictable science that allows advances to be made in medicine & many other fields. Carl Linnaeus (a Christian creationist) who is credited with our system of classification said, "God created, Linnaeus ordered." Why is it that whales used to have feet, and some humans still grow tails? EVOLUTION

[TheExtremeGrace]

@Heretikus I do agree that certain types of evolution are testable and repeatable, however, certain types are not…Namely the morphing creatures into others kinds of creatures (which is typically what people are referencing when they speak of the theory of evolution). Not testable. Not repeatable. BTW, your human tails don’t meet the criteria for an actual tail…just a caudal appendage. What specific “find” are you referring to concerning the whale feet?

[Heretikus]

@TheExtremeGrace this illustrates perfectly how many creationists do not or choose not to understand evolution. No scientist claims that creatures morph into other kinds of creatures, That would actually go against the theory of evolution. Populations change over time. As far as the article simply google: whales, feet, evolution. Now why would God (the perfect designer) have us humans with "just a caudal appendage"? Why does God make it seem like we evolved? All this evidence just to confuse us?

[TheExtremeGrace]

@Heretikus I wasn’t “actually” meaning that creatures suddenly pop or morph into other creatures. I do understand the evolutionists’ magic ingredient--time. “Long ago and far away in the land of…” God did create a perfect world, but we now live in a degenerative world. Which brings me to another point--Mutations are bad, not good. BTW: It doesn’t seem like we evolved at all. What evidence?

[Heretikus]

@TheExtremeGrace as opposed to the magic ingredient of god which is ... hmmm well, no other word for it but "magic" this God just "pops" things into existence with a nod or a thought or a word. hmmm, sounds like casting a spell to me. & not all mutations are bad. just go to pub med for proof. There is no "magic" ingredient in science, just evidence, & in the case of evolution, mountains of it. I'm still waiting on your proof of god & creation. where are the scientific articles about it?

[TheExtremeGrace]

@Heretikus “This God just "pops" things into existence with a nod or a thought or a word. hmmm, sounds like casting a spell to me.”

Sounds like evolution to me.

The complexity of our world is proof of a designer for starters. Nothing this complicated has ever happened by accident.

Sorry so long…been completely tied up with school projects/work.

[Heretikus]

@TheExtremeGrace please explain your reply "Sounds like evolution to me." I'm not sure how a magical being called god who makes things happen and that when people ask, "How does ____ work?" and your response of "Goddidit" contributes to any advance in science. It is the search for the answer that brings us to an understanding of how our world works while the "goddidit" response contributes nothing! You are also reasoning on a logical fallacy that nothing complex can arise without a designer.

[TheExtremeGrace]

@Heretikus Do you support the idea that a worldview with a God (or gods/supernatural intervention) limits individuals? People desire to find answers whether they believe in God or not.

“You are also reasoning on a logical fallacy that nothing complex can arise without a designer.” When has something complex arisen without a designer?

[Heretikus]

@TheExtremeGrace of course you won't accept this but our universe and our world is a perfect example of complexity having arisen without a designer. I know that you believe that everything was designed so you will not accept this. (I wish the comment limits were longer.) I do not support the idea that people who believe in gods are limited but certainly the science is limited. Galileo & Copernicus had to go against the church to contribute to science. Most advances in science were done by people

[TheExtremeGrace]

@Heretikus I understand that the Church (Catholic) opposed Galileo’s Copernican science, but that was because Aristotelian science was considered fact--not because they believed in God (Galileo did). When mainstream ideas (even when unproven) are opposed, major controversy ensues. BTW, many advances have been made by religious people.

Anyway, I’m going to respectfully bow out. Just too busy (full time work/school). I’d like to thank you for your excellent attitude, though. Best!

[Heretikus]

@TheExtremeGrace again, if you'll reread what I replied was not that Galileo did not believe in god but that he and other scientists like him had to go against what was taught & believed in order to understand how the world works. Take Darwin, he also believed in god & went against the creation myth because he saw how creatures seemed to share similar charicteristics. Many other scientists have had to ask the "WHY" to understand how things work. Hope your studies go well ExtremeGrace.

[theabiotictheory]

@Skepticktok The phillistines and the hittites are but two examples of the Bible correcting erroneous secular assumptions. Scripture and archaeology has been used to correctly identify the last king of Babylon, demonstrate that King David was a real figure, declare that the universe had a beginning and had not always existed (scientists believed this prior to the formulation of the big bang, even though that theory's wrong too) and that pathogens cause illness.

[theabiotictheory]

@Skepticktok The Bible demonstrates a firm grasp of the earth's scientific characteristics by communicating that the earth rotates on its axis as well as pointing out the fact that the earth is suspended in space and supported by nothing. This is in sharp contrast as to what other ancient cultures believed. As far as the Bible espousing geocentricism, that was a Catholic Church doctrine built on a metaphorical reading of scripture and not a literal one.

[theabiotictheory]

@Skepticktok Regarding the Phillistines and the Hittites. Now you are aware there was no mention of either of these civilizations outside of the Bible, prompting secular science to erroneously conclude they were fictional. That was until archaeology demonstrated otherwise. The Bible was proven right and secular science was shown to be wrong yet again. Isaiah 40:22 clearly says circle and not square or that the earth is flat. Circles are round so I don't understand the controversy.

[Skepticktok]

@theabiotictheory

Yes I am aware that Archeologist discovered these civilizations much later than the completion of the Bible, and that some weren't sure they existed until we actually found them. But then I can say the same thing about Troy, but that doesn't mean that the writings of Homer were 100% true.

I meant that the Flat Earth society interprets the Earth as a round disk (like a CD) because of a literal interpretation of the Bible.

[theabiotictheory]

@Skepticktok Here is a list of the scientific fields the Bible accurately describes key principles from: Paleontology, Astronomy, Meteorology, Biology, Anthropology, Hydrology, Geology, and Physics. Many of these principles appeared in the pages of the Bible hundreds if not thousands of years before being recorded elsewhere.

[Skepticktok]

@theabiotictheory The Bible has helped our understanding of ancient Near Eastern cultures like the Phillistines and the Hittites. However it has been very wrong in other areas. The idea that God sits "above the circle of the Earth (Isaiah 40:22) may sound like a reference to a spherical globe, but as I understand it this is a refrence to an ancient Middle Eastern belief that the world is disk shaped. There are also verses that imply geocentricism...and of course snakes can't talk.

[theabiotictheory]

@Skepticktok Judeo-Christianity (with the exception of the cults) is the only religion in the world with a plethora of scientific, historical, archaeological, prophetic, and manuscript evidence to support it. The Bible was written and compiled thousands of years ago but yet its non supernatural claims can stand up to the harshest of criticism as long as it is fair. For instance there's never been a single piece of archaeological discovered that has contradicted the Bible.

[Skepticktok]

@theabiotictheory Most religions have apologests who will swear that science backs up their claims. Muslims do the same thing with the Qu'ran, some Eastern faiths do the same thing with their concepts (like saying there are documented cases of past life regression or "chi" fields) and I have personally heard Mormans tell me that their is "evidence" of a Hebrew colony in the Americas. That being said the Bible contains many scientific flaws. For example Snakes can't talk.

[Skepticktok]

@ Lukyo1984

I haven't heard of Alister McGrath. I'll try to remember to look him up.

[Lukyo1984]

I don't suppose you have heard Alister McGrath yet? I'm sure you have.

[Heretikus]

very much enjoyed your video. you are are clear, concise and your points are well made. I wish that Christians would be able to see their circular logic but from their perspective I'm an "agent of Beelzebub" and I'm trying to use fancy words to cloud their minds & pervert their faith so they don't listen. I grew up in a Pentecostal home also & the one thing they refuse to consider is that the infallible word of god is ... fallible...

[TheExtremeGrace]

That’s funny, man. Only a dishonest person would boast no presuppositions. With that said…the world is full of dishonest people. Yes, Christianity assumes a God, but atheists assume no God. Each starts from their own presupposition.

[Skepticktok]

@TheExtremeGrace

Actually Athiesm assumes the view that we don't know, and it would be hard to prove emperically that a God exists. For that reason many Atheist consider themselves agnostic atheist.

The burden of proof is on theist.

[TheExtremeGrace]

@Skepticktok The burden of proof would lie on anyone who makes an assertion. e.g. If I state that there is NO Santa Clause, I do so for several compelling reasons. If you state that there is no God, I assume that you do the same. However, with the latter claim, I personally believe there are many reasons to believe that God does exist (don’t have time to get into…I assume you know the talking points). Anyway, this forum is not really long enough for debate. Best!

[Skepticktok]

@TheExtremeGrace

An Agnostic-Atheist wouldn't make the statement "There is no God" we would say that there is insufficent evidence to verify the existance of any deity (in this case Yahweh,) so we don't believe. Theist are the ones who have made the claim. They say for example "There is no God but Allah and Muhammed is his prophet." Which is an extraordinary claim that demands extraordinary proof that doesn't rely on "you have to have faith."

Youtube's text limits do make debates hard.

[TheExtremeGrace]

@Skepticktok Sorry, I guess that would be an atheist instead of an agnostic that would make such a claim... Anyway, I would argue that God/supernatural force is the best explanation for a complex universe and so on and so forth. I’ve watched/read several of Dr. Craig’s debates (along with several other ID/creationist) so my talking points would be similar to his. I find it difficult to believe that something so complex (universe) could happen by accident. Best!

[Skepticktok]

@TheExtremeGrace

Okay but just so you know Atheist and Agnostic are not mutually exclusive.

[Heretikus]

@TheExtremeGrace I don't recall boasting no presuppostions. Perhaps you have me confused with someone else? Agreed we all start with a basic assumption of what is true, which is what I'm guessing you are defining as a presupposition. And the world is indeed full of dishonest people. I am not assuming no God, I will completely accept that a God exists, IF that being can be proven to exist but, wait, God is supernatural and therefore, can't be proven (how convenient).

[klwjdw]

@Heretikus As you stated, God cannot be proven... or disproven btw. Personally, though, I find no other adequate theory for the universe’s existence…which is one of the reasons’ for my belief in God. I’ve watched a good many debates and read transcripts so I’m familiar with the back and forth arguments. However, I don’t really have the time to do this as I’m working full time and taking a full time class load. Anyway, thanks for your response.

[baryonyx550]

Personally, I feel that it's impossible to have absolute knowledge, but we should follow our best guess, and the method that lends itself best to objectivity (or at least has the best check against subjective bias), and whose predictions are most observable and testable is science.  It's not absolute, but it's the best thing we've got.

[Skepticktok]

@baryonyx550

Very well put the reliability of reason over faith is basically the issue.