The "Holy Ghost" proposition put forth by Craig is a clever 'catch-all' clause that compartmentalizes issues of faith into an emotional safe haven where no amount of skeptical and rational inquiry can get. This premise would not be necessary if Christian faith, at root, was compatible with legitimate and honest skeptical inquiry; the same holds for Thor, Zeus and Bhagavan.
....Or.... maybe it's actually what Craig, in his Christian worldview, actually believes and is trying to explain to others who hold to this Christian worldview? ... And perhaps this video was NOT MEANT TO BE A CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC AGAINST ATHEISM, but I video meant for those who already hold to a Christian worldview, as I've explained in probably over ten previous comments?....
I agree with everything you've said, I have no reason to suspect Craig's true beliefs or his sincerity towards his audience. My point with the aforementioned was to show the logical and philosophical disconnect that leads to this kind of apologetic gymnastics, and also to have a stab at an explanation of why people, upon getting to intellectual maturity (i.e. university), have crises of faith... The man is a philosopher after all, and many who view these videos are philosophically inclined.
Fundamentalist, as in the bible is the inherent and infallible word of god and it should taken literally word for word. ID Proponent as in he supports the "opposing theory" to darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
Due to the persistent whining of many fundamentalist atheists in this comment section, I have decided to unblock MarkuswithanM. I have invited him to comment, as long as it benefits to the discussion rather than name calls. I have also challenged him to a video debate. Either we'll see whose arguments can stand up to scrutiny, or we will see who it truly is that is afraid to debate the other side.
you can't find very many atheists who are completely in agreement.
i don't call myself an atheist since it is a very well educated position based on research and the utter lack of evidence and no empirical evidence of any personal gods. i only know that no christian/muslim can reconcile their belief in yahweh/allah. until i know that all personal gods can't be proven- i'll continue to call myself a rational skeptic.
So Omaha, because theists have disagreements amongst themselves over the nature of God and His revelation, all theists are wrong? Is that really what you're saying?
By the way, just out of curiousity, when you talk about there being a lack of evidencefor God's existence, what would you consider to be sufficient evidence for God's existence?
show me in my post where i said "theists have disagreements amongst themselves over the nature of God and His revelation, therefore all theists are wrong"
You didn't say that exactly, but that's what I seemed to be getting. I could very well be wrong; if I am, please explain what your point was that you were trying to get across.
By the way, do you mind answering my question regarding what you would consider to be sufficient evidence for God's existence?
Plimbuff, you're the one that's confused, because you don't even know what a genetic fallacy is and yet you are trying to take part in intellectual debate.
"because theists have disagreements amongst themselves over the nature of God and His revelation, all theists are wrong? Is that really what you're saying?"
I think he is saying that when none of them can agree, and none of them have any proof, it's hard to take the case for them seriously.
Sufficient evidence?
Proof of the supernatural is a good start. Further, any verifiable proof that there is a diety, much less your specific diety as per your particular denomination.
I get that that's what he was saying (at least I think that's his point). I admit, I probably exaggerated my paraphrase of his argument, but seriously, why does disagreement among theists make it hard to take any theists seriously? Is this a joke?
What would you consider to be sufficient proof/evidence/reason to believe rationally in the existence of God?
Lets get one thing straight. We aren't talking about theists in general here, we're talking about christians. You're not in the same boat as anyone who doesn't believe in your specific god.
It says alot when you all refer to the same material, don't agree on much, then all claim to hold the 'ultimate truth'.
As for proof, it is as I said. Any verifiable, credible proof of the supernatural to begin with is where you need to start.
Plimbuff, even if what you said was true (which I'm only granting for the sake of the argument), you are commiting the genetic fallacy. Funny isn't it?
Err....that's not a genetic fallacy. There is a strong correlation between established religions and their countries of origin - particularly in the sense of rigid childhood indoctrination.
There are...entire documentaries behind that sort of thing.
It's almost willfully ignorant to insist that a hostile, imperialistic religion has no bearing upon the indoctrination of children in it's community, when it is seen, documented, and criticized.
Well, when it comes to science it doesn't matter where you are born does it? There's no such thing as 'Christian physics' 'Hindu chemistry' or 'Islamic biology'. Funny, isn't it?
Christianity is a less intelligent persons way of explaining life and everything surrounding it. It is not a coincidence that there are more religious people in the poorer parts of the world where people cant afford an education.
I don't mind dialogue and debate between theists and atheists on here, but idiots like you just waste time and take up space in the comment section. You're not interesting in having a discussion and learning about these issues; you just want to insult the other side and spread this pathetic "elitist" mentality.
lol thats pathetic RAIDERJO76 :) Thats what most christians do when you write something they dont have an answer for: blablablabla excuses excuses _youre blocked_ blabla excuses.
What don't I have an answer for, ULTRA? All the material in Mark's comment was ad hominem.
If you can show any true substance in his comment that actually provides an argument rather than "Christian are unintelligent and we are so haha", I will gladly unblock him and challenge him to a video debate.
If you think I have no answers to objections against Christianity, I encourage you to read the rest of the comment section.
NeverendingJohn, how can you say that Mark demonstrated in any way that he can "destroy my arguments"? Did his comment contain any actual intellectual debate? From what I read, it was all typical atheistic elitist ad hominem crap. Who knows, maybe I missed something though? Can you point me to the place in his comment where he "destroyed my arguments"?
By the way, if you think I'm scared to debate atheists, I challenge you to read the rest of the comment section.
wehn did he say hes not interested in making a debate? he just wrote what he thinks maybe you should come with a counter argument instead of just blocking you coward
Wow, makaopoaka, is that all you atheists know how to do? Insult?
Mark demonstrated that he's not interested in having a debate by typing a comment full of NOTHING but ad hominem attacks and insults. What counter argument do you want? And counter argument to WHAT? There's no REAL argument to even respond to! All it is is "Christians aren't as smart as I am." Is that what you want me to respond to? Are you serious?
If you think I'm scared to debate, please read the rest of the comments.
Is there any Christian who can read Ezekiel chapter 23 in the meeting hall? I will book the hall for you and you can invite your people and I will invite my people in the hall. I dare you come in the meeting hall and read Ezekiel chapter 23 in front of all the people. Send me message
I would if I were rich enough to travel around the world and had nothing better to do. But actually I wouldn't because it's kind of stupid. There is nothing wrong with the chapter- it explains that you should be sexually pure. Is that evil?
8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
"okay we can clear everything up right now. please produce any contemporaneous extrabiblical evidence for the existence of jesus."
How about NO! I like the feeling of knowing that NT scholars overwhelmingly accept the existence of Jesus. If you choose to live in the dark ages concerning this then it's of no significance to me, so long as you realize that all the experts disagree with you, of which you ironically aren't.
you have no clue who i am. i've forgotten more about the bible than you will ever know.
i notice you changed your tune because i was going to slap you down for being wrong, but you correctly pointed out what the opinion of NEW TESTAMENT scholars and not non-christian scholars. non-christian scholars will go as far as saying jesus probably existed, but do not accept the biblical mythos.
hitchens rulz dr. bill droolz
btw: i told you where you can find the insult and juvenile power play.
"i've forgotten more about the bible than you will ever know."
So perhaps that's a good reason why you aren't qualified to talk about it, don't you think?
"but you correctly pointed out what the opinion of NEW TESTAMENT scholars and not non-christian scholars."
New Testament scholars come in all stripes, including Atheists, Christians, Agnostics, Jewish etc. The point remains, New Testament scholars, (non-Christians included) overwhelmingly accept Jesus' existence.
Yes, child, I'm looking forward to the debate as well.
"btw: i told you where you can find the insult and juvenile power play."
Where and what was it specifically? You never explained before what and where the insult was. Even if he did insult (which he didn't) don't you think you're pulling a double standard by not applying that to your hero Hitchens?
there's a reason that biblical stories aren't taught in history class. they are seen only as stories.
please help me out here- where do we find the virgin birth, walking on water, spontaneous healings, resurrection, etc as factual historical events reported by a reputable historian? we don't!
the only things we have are a few scraps reported several decades after jesus's supposed death and then all we can confirm is that there were believers of a religion. big whoop!!!
Omaha, sorry I've taken so long to get back to you. There are several points I would like to make:
1) I deleted your most recent comment because of foul language. Personally, I don't mind the swearing, but the majority of viewers will be Christians, and I do not want them to be offended by your comment. Please do not think, as my blocked friend Cima did recently, that I am trying to stop you from voicing your opinion; if I were, I assure you I would have blocked you and deleted all your
comments. In the future, please try to limit the foul language and immature insults, since this is meant to be a place for intellectual discussion.
2) In the specific comment I am responding to, you basically said that many of the things Christians believe did happen weren't reported by any reputable historians. What would you consider to be a reputable historian?
Thanks for the input Omaha, and I look forward to further discussion. Once again, please watch the language. Peace.
i asked for historical reports (which there are none) of virgin birth, walking on water, spontaneous healings, resurrection, etc by a reputable historian (in contrast to ambiguous unauthenticated myth stories in a religious book).
any reputable historian will due. justus of tiberius, philo, pliny the elder, seneca, etc.
btw: it is just as offensive, if not more, to call a person's post spam for no reason other than shock value than to say a particular word that some consider "offensive."
Roman historians weren't exactly unbiased, and any history if it goes far enough back may seem like a myth. A couple thousand years from now, people might not even remember George Bush, or they'll say that America was a myth. Just because some history has miracles or supernatural events does not make it untrue. Perhaps you would prefer someone instead someone turning into a star? reputable historian is a subjective term, reputable to you only means someone who you agree with.
If your response to proof from a reputable source is to question the meaning of the word 'reputable', it doesn't speak strongly for the argument you aren't defending.
This is usually a ploy to sneak an insistence that the bible is, somehow, reputable and that claims of supernatural events are perfectly valid, so long as they are christian.
The irony? You'd reject the claims of other religions on the same grounds that yours are rejected.
Hey, Omaha, sorry I took so long to get back to you; I just got back in town...
Okay, le'ts get the whole "spam" issue out of the way: what does "shock value" have to do with anything? Have you seen how many comments you've left, each saying the same fundamentalist crap? My point was, it's no wonder you didn't notice that one of your comments were deleted.
Okay, so anyways, in order to be "reputable historian," an ancient writer had to be in that list of writers you provided?
your "few scraps" are actually thousands of scraps, and by historical standards, the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming. If you want to reinvent the standards that historians have used all this time, you're free to do so, but denying the existence of a man named Jesus is "pseudoscience".
raiderjo- if this is not intended to be apologetics video- then don't upload it to a verrrrrrrry public site where others besides fundamental apologists like yourself are bound to come across it.
Omahavinnie2, so in order for me to post a video on Youtube, it has to be an apologetics video? I'm not allowed to post Christian videos that aren't on the issue of apologetics?
what craigy does is philosophically unsound. not only does he want people to refute the bible, but present evidence against it. first, it is never on one to disprove the bible. it is on the believer to prove it.
craigy assumes the bible to be correct without providing evidence. then craigy asks you to find god through emotional and experience. why? because he knows the gospel story is written from hearsay??? craigy, you wouldn't be tryin to pull the wool over our eyes, would you?
Craig is an apologist and an evangelist who employs pseudophilosophy and sophistry to justify his childlike belief in "God." He's just silly no matter what he says.
nearenough, put your pathetic bias aside for once. Your so full of emotional baggage on this which I think blinds you from thinking critically about the issues.
If Craig had put his pathetic religious bias aside (personal revelation of Jesus) he probably would have never become a Christian, since it declared by him one of the pillars of his belief. As time goes on we will discover any critical thinking, both on my part and yours.
The one who is less emotional and less angry is the one more likely to think critically about the issues. Ask yourself, is Craig like that? Am I like that? Are you like that? From your other comments you've shown precisely the opposite.
God is full of wrath quite frequently. And the Bible says, "Let not the sun go down on your wrath." So what exactly does emotion and anger have to do with the accuracy of any observation or any argument given? (You can search for my other comments on Craig's sites, which I will increasingly participate in. shortly.)
There's a big difference between humans getting angry and God getting angry wouldn't you think?? Obviously!! Anyways I think it's undeniable that the more emotional baggage you have on a subject, the less you will be able to think critically about it. You seem to have a vested interest in disproving Theism and anything related altogether.
i personally would never try to disprove theism since it's impossible to prove a negative. therefore, it is on the believer to provide proof for their presupposition. in your case, your presupposition is that theism is real, you must prove it.
as far as mr. craig is concerned- first, i will give him credit for being one of the most articulate mother fuckers on the planet, however, his debating tactics are wrought with logical fallacy and personal insults and claiming facts without evidence.
"i personally would never try to disprove theism since it's impossible to prove a negative."
But of course it's not actually true that it's impossible to prove a negative. In fact you can. 2+2 does not = 5. There, you just proved a negative.
As for Craig's debating tactics, I just don't see anywhere where he uses personal insults, logical fallacies, or uses facts without evidence. Craig's a gifted speaker, but he isn't an arrogant, disrespectful one like Hitchens for example.
simply stating 2+2 does not = 5 does not make it so. anyway, i was talking from a critical reasoning perspective and not a mathematical perspective. can you show me -2 inches? aha- now you are getting it!!!
of course you dont see dr. bills shortfalls because you are biased. in one debate, against a dr. avalos, the very first thing he did was insult and pulled a playground power play move to try to put himself on a righteous pedestal.
Oh, so what, you deny 2+2=5. And yes, stating this mathematical proof does make it so. You can't get any simpler in reasoning to justify the fact that it does not =5. Anyways, regardless, the fact remains that you can prove a negative. That is recognized universally by everyone today that know something about logic.
Perhaps you don't see Dr. Craig's merits because you are biased. Not really helpful to bring up bias since we all have it, obviously.
"against a dr. avalos, the very first thing he did was insult and pulled a playground power play move to try to put himself on a righteous pedestal."
No, he didn't insult. Name one personal insult he called him. What he did was call attention to an unprofessional conduct he committed before in a debate. If you have a problem with that, that's understandable, but it was in no way an insult calling attention to it.
i usually stop after 20 while counting his logical fallacies. plus, he keeps referring to the bible stories as fact when there are indeed hearsay stories with no evidence to back it up.
again- as far as bullshit goes- dr. bill is a very very articulate bullshiter.
christopher hitchens has actually studied objectively and has a respect for critical reasoning. he does have an intellectual arrogance, but one can't deny he actually follows the facts.
"he keeps referring to the bible stories as fact when there are indeed hearsay stories with no evidence to back it up."
Those Bible stories you refer to are agreed upon by the majority of scholars. That must be a real disappointment for you that educated people who have studied it could believe in those stories (empty tomb, appearances etc)
"christopher hitchens has actually studied objectively and has a respect for critical reasoning. he does have an intellectual arrogance, but one can't deny he actually follows the facts."
Regardless, he's insulting often in his debates, and is quite arrogant. So don't pull this "Craig's insulting" nonsense here.
You'll be happy to know I'm sure that Christopher Hitchens will be taking on the "very very articulate bullshitter" come April 4. He doesn't stand a chance in my opinion.
taking on??? since christopher hitchens will be using facts and reason and dr. bill will continue his articulate bullshit- i'm sure you will think he will be the winner.
let me tell you what that majority of non-christian scholars think- they don't regard the bible as history. plus, most scholars will say a man that the jesus bible myths are beaed probably existed. if his name was or wasn't jesus, who he was, where he was from, etc is unknown.
"since christopher hitchens will be using facts and reason and dr. bill will continue his articulate bullshit- i'm sure you will think he will be the winner."
Actually I think for precisely the opposite reasons Craig will win. Craig will bring up facts and evidence while Hitchens will not and instead avoid the issues (like he did in his debate with Dr. Turek)
And sorry to disappoint, but non-Christian scholars don't agree with the things you attributed of them on the Bible and historical Jesus
Bringing up the point that "non-Christian" scholars regard the Bible as stories is irrevelant. They aren't Christians BECAUSE they think it's just stories.
You need to mention all scholars for an unbiased opinion, not just non-Christian scholars.
The "self-authenticaing" ruse of WLC is simply and embarrassingly lame; it totally begs the question of the existence of "God" or any of the paraphernalia (heaven, hell, etc.) that goes with it. He naively
says "God" exists since you "feel" "God" exists. How silly is that? What does WLC say about Allah, for example?
I am responding to comments you made that I assume were removed because of your incessant name calling.
You said,
"If they don't become agnostics, they all end up dumb apologists (like Kierkegaard, one of the biggest bull**** philosophers ever). Funny that you picked that loser."
So you think that the man who is considered to be the father of existentialism is just a dumb, loser, full of bull? That's your evaluation of him?
Well, that's two words actually and in any event circular logic is not simply repeating yourself. It's to do with a series of premises that can only be validated by reference to each other.
Regarding the linguistics - after reading YouTube postings for a while you stop expecting to see any nuance or sublety in the language used. It's mainly basic, lowest common denominator type stuff, usually misspelled and/or used in the wrong context with a few profanities thrown in. Perhaps I've become jaded and now always expect only to see the most basic or simplistic usage.
SparkasseBerlin, because I'm having to repeat myself I'm committing circular reasoning? URGH! Why can't the atheists on here at least TRY to think?! Repeating yourself is not the same thing as circular reasoning if the reason you're repeating yourself is that the other person just IGNORES what you have to say, which thus far has usually been the case with fundamentalist atheists who comment on this video.
Cima, grow up. If I was trying to limit your voice, I would have delted all your comments, but coincidentally, ALL of your comments, however ignorant and irrational they may be, that didn't contain offensive language remain posted on this video.
Anyways, for some reason Youtube wouldn't let me finish what I wanted to say in my next comment, so I just sent you a message, so please refer to that.
And hold on; "censorship"?! So deleting your comments with language that would be offensive to most of the viewers of this video, personal attacks, and inappropriate references to crippled people is "censorship" to you? Give me a break! I left EVERY SINGLE ONCE of your comments, even if I disagreed with them, that did not contain what I just listed.
If you can't survive without acting as you have thus far acted, please stop watching, or at least commenting on, my videos.
QUOTE:"I understand Craig's position very well. He is a complete idiot with distorted logic."
This is a great example of a "refutation" that is not a refutation, but that instead relies upon name calling rather than substance. That's why the ad hominem is called a fallacy.
I'd take you more seriously if you would drop the profanity and show at least a modicum of respectfulness in dialog. Until then I see no reason to dialog w/ angry people that call names.
Thank you for clarifying. Refer to my earlier posts.
I said that if Jesus rose from the dead then his claim that the Holy Spirit is real is vindicated. There is evidence for the resurrection (even if you don't think it convincing). Therefore, indirectly, there are reasons to believe the Holy Spirit exists.
First, when you say "that's no evidence for nothing.", it becomes very hard to take you seriously in an intellectual discussion.
Second, please explain how you know that there is no evidence for Christianity.
Third, OF COURSE Craig is presupposing the existence of the Holy Spirit, because he's assuming that his audience is Christian! Why can't atheists get it through there heads that this is not an apologetics video, but Christian teaching FOR CHRISTIANS?
The more I think about this, the more clear it becomes that this answer is completely circular.
His point seems to be that, when in doubt, look inside yourself. If you feel like Christianity is true, it is the witness of the holy spirit speaking to you. If you think it is false, it is satan. So no matter what you actually think, you should conclude that Christianity is true, even though there is no evidence for the existence of the holy spirit or satan to begin with.
I don't think you understand Craig's position. And, I don't think you should judge his ability as a philosopher. You ought to read some of his more scholarly material. You can't expect him to fully justify his position in the brief time that he has here. Moreover, he is sharing for the lay audience.
Alvin Plantinga holds a similar if not the same position on this point & he is one of the greatest philosophers of religion in the 21st century.
danjoeblue-I realize that WLC is a very prolific and articulate theologian, but I don't see how he can claim this argument to be philosophical. And yes, I've read "Reasonable Faith" and it's clearly a work of apologetics rather than philosophy.
Of course, that's the whole point of apologetics: to defend Christianity. But I don't see how what he did in his book (or certainly in this video) to be philosophically sound.
"there is no evidence for either of those entities"
You said in this comment, "no evidence". I find it hard to understand how you could have fully understood and absorbed Craig's argument for the resurrection (which would constitute evidence for the veracity of Jesus' claims) when you say "no evidence". Perhaps you think the evidence is poor or unconvincing but you can't say there is no evidence if you are really familiar with defenses of the resurrection.
No, you have not, or at least not very in depth. Otherwise you would say that you think the evidence is not pursuasive or inadequate. No one could look at N.T. Wright's book on the resurrection and say, "Wright has no evidence." Rather they would say they don't find the evidence compelling.
You say that it was through a study of mythology that you came to agnosticism/atheism. How does the study of mythology diprove God's existence? This does not make sense.
Because religion is based on mythology. The patterns are the same everywhere. Mythological patterns. The resurrection is just one of them. You'll find it in many other cultures, throughout all eras of mankind. Monotheistic religions are based on an error of interpretation. But that's something you cannot understand. You're trapped in your apologetics shit.
So you think that because religion is based on mythology God does not exist?
This is the genetic fallacy. If you think God does not exist because the idea arose from mythology, this is a logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy. This is why I can't understand it. Not because I am trapped, but because it's impossible to understand something that does not make rational sense.
QUOTE"Because religion is based on mythology. The patterns are the same everywhere. Mythological patterns. The resurrection is just one of them."
This is absurd. N.T. Wright has shown that there is NO ancient account of a resurrection comarable to that of Jesus' predating Christianity. The Gospel records present a PHYSICAL resurrection with a body unlike what you will find in any mythology predating Christianity. Christianity certainly breaks away from all the other patterns on this point.
There's no way I'm going to rebut an entire book on a YouTube posting, but I'll say this-then back to work for a few hours! The "resurrection" as described in the oldest copies of Mark, records no eyewitnesses of a resurrected Jesus. The final passage of Mark was added long after the original writing. Only in the altered version are there eyewitnesses.
So of all the things for the author to omit in the oldest copies of the oldest gospel, why omit eyewitnesses to a resurrection?
First, thank you for the respectful tone with which you dialog.
Second, I agree, it's difficult to discuss these issues in depth on youtube.
W/ respect to Mark, I would point you to N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God". Chapter 14 is devoted to the question of Mark. He argues there that there very well may have been an older ending that was lost.
I will make another important point in my next post.
It seems virtually impossible that the account of Jesus appearing to the women after resurrection is a later development. It seems rather that it is based on a very early tradition. This is because if the early Christians were going to add a resurrection narrative to convince people of the resurrection they NEVER would have used women since no one would have believed their testimony. Their testimony was not even eccepted in a court of law in this patriarchal society.
I'm not saying that there weren't two women, or that that portion was made up. I can certainly believe that two women visited a tomb that turned out to be empty. I'm just pointing out that the earliest version of the oldest gospel has no record of anyone seeing a resurrected Jesus. That a portion may have been lost is possible, but there's still no concrete proof of it.
And yes, I can't believe there's an intelligent Christian vs. Secular Humanist discussion on YouTube!
More could be said about Mark, but if you want to discuss early sources let's go even earlier than Mark. Let's go to Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth. In chapter 15 he discusses the resurrection appearances. The oral creed he quotes from is very early.
True, 1 Corinthians is earlier than Mark, and it indicates that Paul and James saw (or had visions of) Jesus. But first of all, this was 20 years after the resurrection took place. Why take so long to write about it something like a resurrection? And second, we are relying on one person's (Paul) claim. The problem with relying on one person's claim is that there are many singular people who have been able to start a religion (Muhammad, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, etc.)
Reply Part 2: So if this one particular person's testimony of a religious vision is to be accepted as valid, you are therefore choosing NOT to accept the testimonies of Muhammad, L. Ron Hubbard, or Joseph Smith (unless you are Mormon).
So that's why I think that such a belief is purely an act of faith, because you are choosing to believe in one person's supernatural claims while rejecting those of others. And that's why I think that WLC's arguments are faith-based rather than philosophical.
N.T. Wright argues that since the later Gospels do air-brush out the women witnessing the resurrected Jesus (especially Mary Magdalene) this is very good reason to believe that the accounts are based on a very early oral tradition. Otherwise they would have left this part out to make their case stronger since the pagans criticized this claim later on.
Paul does not mention the women. This suggests that the oral tradition of the Gospels is earlier than Paul's letter.
I see what you are saying when you say that WLC's argument in this clip is faith-based rather than philosophical. Although I don't think I fully agree with you, I think I see where you are coming from. However, I hope you are not referring to all of his work in general.
This what I mean about WLC and his arguments being philophical; in this video, he is not making a philosophical argument. That's what I mean when I say I think I might understand you. However, the point he is making can be argued, and IS argued in philosophy of religion textbooks. Others like Planinga make arguments along these lines as well.
Craig argues philosophically often. His version of Kalam is one of the most discussed arguments for God's existence in philosophy.
Reply Part 1: OK, neither raider nor danjoe think WLC is making a philosophical argument, and I agree, so case closed. But the point I thought danjoe was making was that evidence for the resurrection gave credence to the existence of the holy spirit and satan. I agree that evidence for the resurrection would lend support for the notion that, say, satan exists (though that really does sound weird when you think about it.)
Reply Part 2: In his writings, WLC is known for making an explicitly historical claim about the resurrection, and I am explaining why I dont think that there is good historical evidence for it (see previous posts). So basically, I think that believing in the resurrection claims of Paul is purely a matter of faith and not one of historicity or reason. The same goes for believing in satan. Believing in satan is purely a leap of faith.
Reply part 3: Finally, if you want to see an example of lots of people making claims of the same miracle, check out what happened in the "Three and Eight Witnesses" to the book of Mormon. You presumably don't believe in that, and neither does WLC, but once again, choosing not to believe in that miracle while choosing to believe in others what I think constitutes an act of faith.
QUOTE"And yes, I've read "Reasonable Faith" and it's clearly a work of apologetics rather than philosophy."
I don't dispute that the book is an apologetic work. But, you cannot deny the philosophical arguments involved in the book. He deals with many philosopher's and their arguments on philosophical grounds. If you have read the book closely you will not dispute this point.
Oh yeah, he preaches to accept that questions rest "unanswered". But what he does is the complete opposite, the very moment he believes in a personal god. He doesn't understand the symbolic meaning of it and thinks that there is a creator who is in control of the world. What a terrible misunderstanding. Wanna-be philosopher. Philosophy and faith are exclusive. It's against logic of philosophy, because faith closes every case.
QUOTE:"Christian and philosopher are exclusive to each other."
You have obviously not taken a good philosophy class and paid attention or you would not utter such things.
Augustine, Aquinus, Descartes, Kierkegaard, and many others are regarded as some of the greatest philosophers. You will find them in any history of Western philosophy textbook. AND they were Christians. You should not pontificate about matters that you know nothing about.
Spinoza, you would have a valid point if it weren't for the fact that Craig's video is directed toward CHRISTIANS. I don't understand why so many atheists who are commenting on this video seem to think that Craig is somehow talking to them and giving them an argument for God's existence. This video is addressed toward people who DO believe in the existence of Satan and the Holy Spirit, so the assumption is that they do exist.
It would be like an atheist scholar giving a lecture to atheists on ethics in light of a naturalistic worldview. Would he have to demonstrate that atheism is true first? No, because the lecture is being delivered to ATHEISTS, so the assumption is that his audience already holds to atheistic worldview.
If you'd like to see Craig's actual arguments, get your hands on two of his books: "Reasonable Faith" and "The Kalam Cosmological Argument."
I realize that the video is directed towards Christians who believe in the holy spirit and satan. My point is that there is no evidence for either of those entities. If WLC is going to be basing his arguments on their existence, he needs to provide evidence for their existence, otherwise there is no reason to take his arguments seriously.
Simply believing in something doesn't make it true, but do I really have to say that?
If Jesus rose from the dead, that vindicates His claim to be the Son of God. If He is the Son of God, that vindicates His claim that the Holy Spirit and satan are real. Therefore, if you want evidence, then go pick up "Reasonable Faith" or "Jesus Under Fire" and study Craig's defense of the resurrection, because if Jesus really rose, then we can believe what He says.
Don't assume that Craig offers no evidence just because you don't see it on a 5 1/2 minute video.
Spinoza, how do you know that there is no evidence for the existence of the Holy Spirit or Satan?
Second of all, once again, CRAIG WAS NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. Did you get that? CRAIG WAS NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. THIS IS NOT AN APOLOGETICS VIDEO. Again, Spinoza, the existence of the Holy Spirit and Satan is being presupposed in this video because the assumption is that you already believe in them. CRAIG WAS NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. I don't know how many times I have to say this...
"how do you allow unanswered questions not to become destructive doubts"...said the protestant, the catholic, the mormon, the muslem, the hindu, the branch dividian...ect....doubt, not faith, is a virtue my friend
It is not a perfect book containing perfect words nor is it a guide on how to live. Think of it as a mirror read it and whichever message you chose to take from it is simply a reflection of the person that you are.
You can't absolve yourself of responsibility for the decisions that you make or expect a book to provide easy answers or act as a conscience soother. If the Bible has a message, it is that there is a choice. Ultimately though that choice is yours and yours alone.
AKAKArnott, the reason Christians like myself would reject your story is because it contradicts Scripture. Now I realize you don't hold to the belief that the Bible is God-breathed, but that's a different issue, and not my point right now. My point is, what we believe is derived from the Bible. I don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity for example, because I "look at the stars and just know"; rather, I believe in it because I believe it is clearly not in the Bible. Period.
I assume the last 'not' in your reply was an error and that you do believe in the Trinity.
But I have one question for you; just supposing the church had suported the idea of God and Jesus being seperate entities for the last 1700 yrs instead of the Trinity. Do you honestly think that if you were to pick up your Bible today and read it you would be thinking to yourself ' hang on - the Church has got this all wrong, clearly God and Jesus are just parts of a single entity !'.
The Bible contains some wonderful things; the wisdom of Proverbs, the sublime poetry of Ecclesiastes and Psalms, heroic and tragic stories of a people and much more.
But it was written by men and so stories supporting brutal acts of violence, social injustice, barbarism & cruelty that would disgust us today are set against tales of self sacrifice, peace, compassion and charity. You have two contradictory positions laid out before you and both seemingly represent Gods will...
Satan created the universe, the earth and humans. God was his eldest son and Jesus his youngest. God grows jealous of Satans position and plots with Jesus to kick Satan out of heaven. When this is done God thinks Jesus may become a threat and kicks him down to earth to die on the cross. God doesn't have the power to take us to heaven, only Satan does which he will do in 1000 years from now. Satan, God & Jesus have all told me this directly.
TwistedKitKats- He is saying that. Prove me wrong by quoting him.
Blind faith and Insanity aren't the same, but they are similar.
Insanity can be defined as extreme foolishness, or derangement of the mind. Faith can be defined as belief without corresponding evidence. It is likely that someone who makes an argument based off a LACK of evidence have "faith", and if they have blind faith, it is by definition foolish.
PolarBear is 100 percent correct in his interpretation. The question the interviewer asks is how Christian students deal with doubt that comes about at universities. Craig's response is essentially to separate reason from faith, and when you learn something at the university that seemingly contradicts the faith, then you should ignore the contradiction and assume it will end up proving your faith. I couldn't define blind faith more clearly than by this solution that Craig offers.
As far as the similarity between blind faith and insanity are concerned, they are not synonyms by any stretch of the imagination. But I would say that willfully subjecting myself to such blind faith, to adhere to such a self-deceptive process as Craig describes is NOT sane. = insane.
Craig admits defeat to Christianity. His argument is... when evidence is found that contradicts or goes against Christianity, it should be disregarded as true immediately, then we should form a logical approach to confront the evidence, with implications that God will be found within the evidence.
Basically,
He believes the evidence FOR God can be found in evidence that DISPROVES or DISCREDITS the existence of God.
In other words blind faith or insanity by definition.
Wow, out of all the people I've talked to on here, very rarely have I seen such a twist of someone else's words. I don't even know where to start... Well, first of all, if you'd paid attention to the video, you'd know that Craig was not making an argument. This video was directed to Christians. Please pay attention before you comment on my video next time, please. Thanks.
I'm aware that this video is speaking to Christians, but Craig is still making an argument on how to deal with doubt from a Christian perspective. And he uses the approach I outlined in the previous comment.
Where specifically did you twist his words? Well, basically, almost your entire comment. But let's start with the first example: can you give me the quote from the video in which you assert that Dr. Craig "admits defeat to Christianity"?
How is Craig making an argument? This is not an apologetics video, TAPB (can I call you that?). He's simply talking to Christians in a more sermon-like type of way. This is in NO way an apologetic, and if you think it is, and that this is the best apologetic
Craig admits defeat to Christianity indirectly by saying that the Holy Spirit gives knowledge of God that is INDEPENDENT of the "shifting sands" of reason and evidence. If a Christian is going to make arguments that are independent of reason and logic, then it is an absolute waste of time to argue with one in the first place. This is blind faith. This is disgusting and repulsive.
Raider, most of these sorts of youtube video's contain arguments regardless of whether or not they are apologetic. Apologetics only involves defense. Arguments contain positive assertions, such as...
"The key to victory in the Christian life is not to have all your questions answered." 3:22
TAPB, I mean no offense or disrespect, but not unlike the majority of other fundamentalist atheists commenting on this video, you simply cannot be reasoned with because you refuse to hear what the other side has to say. A part of me would like to go on and argue with you more, but I know that it wouldn't do any good because I will just be repeating myself over and over again, as I usually do when I try to have intellectual discussion with atheists on Youtube.
Anytime anyone speaks of unknowable things likes invisible beings they are spewing nonsense. And to garys comment as to what's the point of life without a god all I can say is it is up to each individual to determine that. My life is far more interesting and meaningful since abandoning christianity as a myth,
The existence of black holes, fundamental particles, dark matter, string theories and the like is testable. The existence of an invisible, all powerful, personal deity is untestable - so anybody who claims to have absolute knowledge about this (not belief in it...absolute knowledge) imaginary being is selling something or is an absolute crackpot. This man is spewing B.S. as he claims to have personal, absolute knowledge about an imaginary, man-made creation.
woah ho! I don't think so, didn't you listen to the part about the question bag? No one (not even Dr. Craig) has absolute knowledge about anything, in fact one of the hardest parts of being a christian is to have unanwsered questions and still have faith.
As for being testable: it is written in the bible, do not put the Lord your God to the test. Further, if he was 'testable' it would nullify the christian faith "By grace we have been saved through FAITH". WIthout faith, God can't save
Being written in the Bible is not proof - any more than the Harry Potter series proves witchcraft or Voldemort.
If you claim that this god of yours is anything beyond a faith-based entity, then it will be put to the test. If it can't stand up to that, then it is not much of a god...or maybe it is exactly what a god is...your invisible friend in the sky!
Faith, by definition is not testable as it is a belief in something in the absence of proof.
Who ever said anything about proof? thats the point I was making, you cannot prove that God exists, and doing so would actually nullify the New Testament.
As for being a faith-based entity: you're absolutly right, you will only EVER know God through faith, but he is NOT a product of faith. As for testing God, without pure faith you will get nothing, and the nature of a 'test' is itself a result of doubt.
"Trust in the Lord with ALL your heart and lean not on your own understanding"
you're the man dr. william craig...
high1cloud 2 years ago
The "Holy Ghost" proposition put forth by Craig is a clever 'catch-all' clause that compartmentalizes issues of faith into an emotional safe haven where no amount of skeptical and rational inquiry can get. This premise would not be necessary if Christian faith, at root, was compatible with legitimate and honest skeptical inquiry; the same holds for Thor, Zeus and Bhagavan.
Jayban123 2 years ago
....Or.... maybe it's actually what Craig, in his Christian worldview, actually believes and is trying to explain to others who hold to this Christian worldview? ... And perhaps this video was NOT MEANT TO BE A CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC AGAINST ATHEISM, but I video meant for those who already hold to a Christian worldview, as I've explained in probably over ten previous comments?....
RAIDERJO76 2 years ago
I agree with everything you've said, I have no reason to suspect Craig's true beliefs or his sincerity towards his audience. My point with the aforementioned was to show the logical and philosophical disconnect that leads to this kind of apologetic gymnastics, and also to have a stab at an explanation of why people, upon getting to intellectual maturity (i.e. university), have crises of faith... The man is a philosopher after all, and many who view these videos are philosophically inclined.
Jayban123 2 years ago
Is Dr. Craig a fundamentalist and ID proponent? I honestly want to know because people keep telling me different things.
whoisfettel 2 years ago
How are you defining "fundamentalist" and "ID proponent"?
RAIDERJO76 2 years ago
Fundamentalist, as in the bible is the inherent and infallible word of god and it should taken literally word for word. ID Proponent as in he supports the "opposing theory" to darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection.
whoisfettel 2 years ago
Then, yes he is both, although he claims to reject Darwinian evolution not necessarily on a biblical basis but on a scientific basis.
RAIDERJO76 2 years ago
Wouldn't call him a typical fundie, per-say. Though, he definitely is an ID proponent (even uses the same tired, dead arguments)
Mathenaut 2 years ago
Due to the persistent whining of many fundamentalist atheists in this comment section, I have decided to unblock MarkuswithanM. I have invited him to comment, as long as it benefits to the discussion rather than name calls. I have also challenged him to a video debate. Either we'll see whose arguments can stand up to scrutiny, or we will see who it truly is that is afraid to debate the other side.
Joe
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
how can one be fundamental in the UN-belief?
you can't find very many atheists who are completely in agreement.
i don't call myself an atheist since it is a very well educated position based on research and the utter lack of evidence and no empirical evidence of any personal gods. i only know that no christian/muslim can reconcile their belief in yahweh/allah. until i know that all personal gods can't be proven- i'll continue to call myself a rational skeptic.
omahavinnie2 3 years ago
So Omaha, because theists have disagreements amongst themselves over the nature of God and His revelation, all theists are wrong? Is that really what you're saying?
By the way, just out of curiousity, when you talk about there being a lack of evidencefor God's existence, what would you consider to be sufficient evidence for God's existence?
Peace
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
show me in my post where i said "theists have disagreements amongst themselves over the nature of God and His revelation, therefore all theists are wrong"
do strawmen much?
omahavinnie2 3 years ago
Omaha,
You didn't say that exactly, but that's what I seemed to be getting. I could very well be wrong; if I am, please explain what your point was that you were trying to get across.
By the way, do you mind answering my question regarding what you would consider to be sufficient evidence for God's existence?
RAIDERJO76 2 years ago
Genetic Fallicy? That has nothing to to with anything I said. I think you're confused.
I said,
You're only a christian because you were raised in a christian society.
If you were born in an Isolated tribe in the Amazon rain forrest, you would live your whole life without ever knowing Christ existed.
If you were born in a poor isolated town in Iran, you would believe with all your heart that "Allah" is the one true God.
Your beliefs depend on the situation you were raised in. Funny eh?
plimbuff 2 years ago
Plimbuff, you're the one that's confused, because you don't even know what a genetic fallacy is and yet you are trying to take part in intellectual debate.
RAIDERJO76 2 years ago
why don't you try to be a little more prompt in your responses and then maybe i may remember the conversation we had.
omahavinnie2 2 years ago
"because theists have disagreements amongst themselves over the nature of God and His revelation, all theists are wrong? Is that really what you're saying?"
I think he is saying that when none of them can agree, and none of them have any proof, it's hard to take the case for them seriously.
Sufficient evidence?
Proof of the supernatural is a good start. Further, any verifiable proof that there is a diety, much less your specific diety as per your particular denomination.
Good luck.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
I get that that's what he was saying (at least I think that's his point). I admit, I probably exaggerated my paraphrase of his argument, but seriously, why does disagreement among theists make it hard to take any theists seriously? Is this a joke?
What would you consider to be sufficient proof/evidence/reason to believe rationally in the existence of God?
RAIDERJO76 2 years ago
Lets get one thing straight. We aren't talking about theists in general here, we're talking about christians. You're not in the same boat as anyone who doesn't believe in your specific god.
It says alot when you all refer to the same material, don't agree on much, then all claim to hold the 'ultimate truth'.
As for proof, it is as I said. Any verifiable, credible proof of the supernatural to begin with is where you need to start.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
The funny thing is, you're only a christian because you were raised in a christian society.
If you were born in an Isolated tribe in the Amazon rain forrest, you would live your whole life without ever knowing Christ existed.
If you were born in a poor isolated town in Iran, you would believe with all your heart that "Allah" is the one true God.
Your beliefs depend on the situation you were raised in. Funny isn't it.
plimbuff 3 years ago
Plimbuff, even if what you said was true (which I'm only granting for the sake of the argument), you are commiting the genetic fallacy. Funny isn't it?
RAIDERJO76 2 years ago
Err....that's not a genetic fallacy. There is a strong correlation between established religions and their countries of origin - particularly in the sense of rigid childhood indoctrination.
There are...entire documentaries behind that sort of thing.
It's almost willfully ignorant to insist that a hostile, imperialistic religion has no bearing upon the indoctrination of children in it's community, when it is seen, documented, and criticized.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
Hey, Mathenaut, do you have an im?
RAIDERJO76 2 years ago
Feel free to send me a message. We'll start from there.
Mathenaut 2 years ago
Well, when it comes to science it doesn't matter where you are born does it? There's no such thing as 'Christian physics' 'Hindu chemistry' or 'Islamic biology'. Funny, isn't it?
markjeppo 2 years ago
Markjeppo, what's your point?
RAIDERJO76 2 years ago
MarkuswithanM
lol, that is one of the most ignorant things i think i have ever read
IBrushWithGrenades 3 years ago
Christianity is a less intelligent persons way of explaining life and everything surrounding it. It is not a coincidence that there are more religious people in the poorer parts of the world where people cant afford an education.
MarkuswithanM 3 years ago
lol, thats one of the most ignorant things i think i have ever read
IBrushWithGrenades 3 years ago
Welcome to my blocked list, MarkuswithanM.
I don't mind dialogue and debate between theists and atheists on here, but idiots like you just waste time and take up space in the comment section. You're not interesting in having a discussion and learning about these issues; you just want to insult the other side and spread this pathetic "elitist" mentality.
Thanks.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
*interested*
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
lol thats pathetic RAIDERJO76 :) Thats what most christians do when you write something they dont have an answer for: blablablabla excuses excuses _youre blocked_ blabla excuses.
ULTRATHUNDERGOD 3 years ago 2
What don't I have an answer for, ULTRA? All the material in Mark's comment was ad hominem.
If you can show any true substance in his comment that actually provides an argument rather than "Christian are unintelligent and we are so haha", I will gladly unblock him and challenge him to a video debate.
If you think I have no answers to objections against Christianity, I encourage you to read the rest of the comment section.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
I think you just dont want a debate with people who you are afraid will destroy your arguments THANKS
neverendingjohn 3 years ago
NeverendingJohn, how can you say that Mark demonstrated in any way that he can "destroy my arguments"? Did his comment contain any actual intellectual debate? From what I read, it was all typical atheistic elitist ad hominem crap. Who knows, maybe I missed something though? Can you point me to the place in his comment where he "destroyed my arguments"?
By the way, if you think I'm scared to debate atheists, I challenge you to read the rest of the comment section.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
wehn did he say hes not interested in making a debate? he just wrote what he thinks maybe you should come with a counter argument instead of just blocking you coward
makaopoaka 3 years ago
Wow, makaopoaka, is that all you atheists know how to do? Insult?
Mark demonstrated that he's not interested in having a debate by typing a comment full of NOTHING but ad hominem attacks and insults. What counter argument do you want? And counter argument to WHAT? There's no REAL argument to even respond to! All it is is "Christians aren't as smart as I am." Is that what you want me to respond to? Are you serious?
If you think I'm scared to debate, please read the rest of the comments.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
Is there any Christian who can read Ezekiel chapter 23 in the meeting hall? I will book the hall for you and you can invite your people and I will invite my people in the hall. I dare you come in the meeting hall and read Ezekiel chapter 23 in front of all the people. Send me message
ayuzma 3 years ago
Ayuzma, is there something wrong with Ezekiel 23?
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
I would if I were rich enough to travel around the world and had nothing better to do. But actually I wouldn't because it's kind of stupid. There is nothing wrong with the chapter- it explains that you should be sexually pure. Is that evil?
bluago 3 years ago
Phil 4:8
8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.
KJV
JimQualls 3 years ago
Amen!
Rom 8:16
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
KJV
1 Peter 5:8-9
8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:
9 Whom resist stedfast in the faith,
KJV
JimQualls 3 years ago
okay we can clear everything up right now. please produce any contemporaneous extrabiblical evidence for the existence of jesus.
before you go back to apologists 101 mode- notice i didn't say that jesus didn't exist, nor did i claim he was not god.
again i ask and please stay on topic: please produce any contemporaneous extrabiblical evidence for the existence of jesus.
omahavinnie2 3 years ago
"okay we can clear everything up right now. please produce any contemporaneous extrabiblical evidence for the existence of jesus."
How about NO! I like the feeling of knowing that NT scholars overwhelmingly accept the existence of Jesus. If you choose to live in the dark ages concerning this then it's of no significance to me, so long as you realize that all the experts disagree with you, of which you ironically aren't.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
you have no clue who i am. i've forgotten more about the bible than you will ever know.
i notice you changed your tune because i was going to slap you down for being wrong, but you correctly pointed out what the opinion of NEW TESTAMENT scholars and not non-christian scholars. non-christian scholars will go as far as saying jesus probably existed, but do not accept the biblical mythos.
hitchens rulz dr. bill droolz
btw: i told you where you can find the insult and juvenile power play.
omahavinnie2 3 years ago 5
"i've forgotten more about the bible than you will ever know."
So perhaps that's a good reason why you aren't qualified to talk about it, don't you think?
"but you correctly pointed out what the opinion of NEW TESTAMENT scholars and not non-christian scholars."
New Testament scholars come in all stripes, including Atheists, Christians, Agnostics, Jewish etc. The point remains, New Testament scholars, (non-Christians included) overwhelmingly accept Jesus' existence.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"hitchens rulz dr. bill droolz"
Yes, child, I'm looking forward to the debate as well.
"btw: i told you where you can find the insult and juvenile power play."
Where and what was it specifically? You never explained before what and where the insult was. Even if he did insult (which he didn't) don't you think you're pulling a double standard by not applying that to your hero Hitchens?
Christianjr4 3 years ago
btw: dr. bill did insult dr. avalos and the power play can only be described as juvenile.
omahavinnie2 3 years ago
"btw: dr. bill did insult dr. avalos and the power play can only be described as juvenile."
Again, please answer the question and point out the insult.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
there's a reason that biblical stories aren't taught in history class. they are seen only as stories.
please help me out here- where do we find the virgin birth, walking on water, spontaneous healings, resurrection, etc as factual historical events reported by a reputable historian? we don't!
the only things we have are a few scraps reported several decades after jesus's supposed death and then all we can confirm is that there were believers of a religion. big whoop!!!
omahavinnie2 3 years ago
Omaha, sorry I've taken so long to get back to you. There are several points I would like to make:
1) I deleted your most recent comment because of foul language. Personally, I don't mind the swearing, but the majority of viewers will be Christians, and I do not want them to be offended by your comment. Please do not think, as my blocked friend Cima did recently, that I am trying to stop you from voicing your opinion; if I were, I assure you I would have blocked you and deleted all your
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
comments. In the future, please try to limit the foul language and immature insults, since this is meant to be a place for intellectual discussion.
2) In the specific comment I am responding to, you basically said that many of the things Christians believe did happen weren't reported by any reputable historians. What would you consider to be a reputable historian?
Thanks for the input Omaha, and I look forward to further discussion. Once again, please watch the language. Peace.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
if you deleted one of my posts, i sure as hell didn't notice.
omahavinnie2 3 years ago 4
Yeah, I guess it must be difficult when someone like yourself leaves so many comments on one video it's on the verge of being spam.
Could you please answer my question? What would you consider to be a reputable historian?
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
i asked for historical reports (which there are none) of virgin birth, walking on water, spontaneous healings, resurrection, etc by a reputable historian (in contrast to ambiguous unauthenticated myth stories in a religious book).
any reputable historian will due. justus of tiberius, philo, pliny the elder, seneca, etc.
btw: it is just as offensive, if not more, to call a person's post spam for no reason other than shock value than to say a particular word that some consider "offensive."
omahavinnie2 3 years ago 4
Roman historians weren't exactly unbiased, and any history if it goes far enough back may seem like a myth. A couple thousand years from now, people might not even remember George Bush, or they'll say that America was a myth. Just because some history has miracles or supernatural events does not make it untrue. Perhaps you would prefer someone instead someone turning into a star? reputable historian is a subjective term, reputable to you only means someone who you agree with.
espunde 3 years ago
If your response to proof from a reputable source is to question the meaning of the word 'reputable', it doesn't speak strongly for the argument you aren't defending.
This is usually a ploy to sneak an insistence that the bible is, somehow, reputable and that claims of supernatural events are perfectly valid, so long as they are christian.
The irony? You'd reject the claims of other religions on the same grounds that yours are rejected.
Mathenaut 3 years ago
Hey, Omaha, sorry I took so long to get back to you; I just got back in town...
Okay, le'ts get the whole "spam" issue out of the way: what does "shock value" have to do with anything? Have you seen how many comments you've left, each saying the same fundamentalist crap? My point was, it's no wonder you didn't notice that one of your comments were deleted.
Okay, so anyways, in order to be "reputable historian," an ancient writer had to be in that list of writers you provided?
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
Grrrrrrrr. You're really sexy when you're having a tantrum!!
huskers12303 3 years ago 2
your "few scraps" are actually thousands of scraps, and by historical standards, the evidence for Jesus is overwhelming. If you want to reinvent the standards that historians have used all this time, you're free to do so, but denying the existence of a man named Jesus is "pseudoscience".
bluago 3 years ago
raiderjo- if this is not intended to be apologetics video- then don't upload it to a verrrrrrrry public site where others besides fundamental apologists like yourself are bound to come across it.
yes yes yes!!!! checkmate!!!!!!!!
omahavinnie2 3 years ago
Omahavinnie2, so in order for me to post a video on Youtube, it has to be an apologetics video? I'm not allowed to post Christian videos that aren't on the issue of apologetics?
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
what craigy does is philosophically unsound. not only does he want people to refute the bible, but present evidence against it. first, it is never on one to disprove the bible. it is on the believer to prove it.
craigy assumes the bible to be correct without providing evidence. then craigy asks you to find god through emotional and experience. why? because he knows the gospel story is written from hearsay??? craigy, you wouldn't be tryin to pull the wool over our eyes, would you?
omahavinnie2 3 years ago
Craig is an apologist and an evangelist who employs pseudophilosophy and sophistry to justify his childlike belief in "God." He's just silly no matter what he says.
nearenough3 3 years ago
nearenough, put your pathetic bias aside for once. Your so full of emotional baggage on this which I think blinds you from thinking critically about the issues.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
If Craig had put his pathetic religious bias aside (personal revelation of Jesus) he probably would have never become a Christian, since it declared by him one of the pillars of his belief. As time goes on we will discover any critical thinking, both on my part and yours.
nearenough3 3 years ago
The one who is less emotional and less angry is the one more likely to think critically about the issues. Ask yourself, is Craig like that? Am I like that? Are you like that? From your other comments you've shown precisely the opposite.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
God is full of wrath quite frequently. And the Bible says, "Let not the sun go down on your wrath." So what exactly does emotion and anger have to do with the accuracy of any observation or any argument given? (You can search for my other comments on Craig's sites, which I will increasingly participate in. shortly.)
nearenough3 3 years ago
There's a big difference between humans getting angry and God getting angry wouldn't you think?? Obviously!! Anyways I think it's undeniable that the more emotional baggage you have on a subject, the less you will be able to think critically about it. You seem to have a vested interest in disproving Theism and anything related altogether.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
i personally would never try to disprove theism since it's impossible to prove a negative. therefore, it is on the believer to provide proof for their presupposition. in your case, your presupposition is that theism is real, you must prove it.
as far as mr. craig is concerned- first, i will give him credit for being one of the most articulate mother fuckers on the planet, however, his debating tactics are wrought with logical fallacy and personal insults and claiming facts without evidence.
omahavinnie2 3 years ago
"i personally would never try to disprove theism since it's impossible to prove a negative."
But of course it's not actually true that it's impossible to prove a negative. In fact you can. 2+2 does not = 5. There, you just proved a negative.
As for Craig's debating tactics, I just don't see anywhere where he uses personal insults, logical fallacies, or uses facts without evidence. Craig's a gifted speaker, but he isn't an arrogant, disrespectful one like Hitchens for example.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
simply stating 2+2 does not = 5 does not make it so. anyway, i was talking from a critical reasoning perspective and not a mathematical perspective. can you show me -2 inches? aha- now you are getting it!!!
of course you dont see dr. bills shortfalls because you are biased. in one debate, against a dr. avalos, the very first thing he did was insult and pulled a playground power play move to try to put himself on a righteous pedestal.
omahavinnie2 3 years ago
Oh, so what, you deny 2+2=5. And yes, stating this mathematical proof does make it so. You can't get any simpler in reasoning to justify the fact that it does not =5. Anyways, regardless, the fact remains that you can prove a negative. That is recognized universally by everyone today that know something about logic.
Perhaps you don't see Dr. Craig's merits because you are biased. Not really helpful to bring up bias since we all have it, obviously.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"against a dr. avalos, the very first thing he did was insult and pulled a playground power play move to try to put himself on a righteous pedestal."
No, he didn't insult. Name one personal insult he called him. What he did was call attention to an unprofessional conduct he committed before in a debate. If you have a problem with that, that's understandable, but it was in no way an insult calling attention to it.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
i usually stop after 20 while counting his logical fallacies. plus, he keeps referring to the bible stories as fact when there are indeed hearsay stories with no evidence to back it up.
again- as far as bullshit goes- dr. bill is a very very articulate bullshiter.
christopher hitchens has actually studied objectively and has a respect for critical reasoning. he does have an intellectual arrogance, but one can't deny he actually follows the facts.
omahavinnie2 3 years ago
"he keeps referring to the bible stories as fact when there are indeed hearsay stories with no evidence to back it up."
Those Bible stories you refer to are agreed upon by the majority of scholars. That must be a real disappointment for you that educated people who have studied it could believe in those stories (empty tomb, appearances etc)
Christianjr4 3 years ago
"christopher hitchens has actually studied objectively and has a respect for critical reasoning. he does have an intellectual arrogance, but one can't deny he actually follows the facts."
Regardless, he's insulting often in his debates, and is quite arrogant. So don't pull this "Craig's insulting" nonsense here.
You'll be happy to know I'm sure that Christopher Hitchens will be taking on the "very very articulate bullshitter" come April 4. He doesn't stand a chance in my opinion.
Christianjr4 3 years ago
taking on??? since christopher hitchens will be using facts and reason and dr. bill will continue his articulate bullshit- i'm sure you will think he will be the winner.
let me tell you what that majority of non-christian scholars think- they don't regard the bible as history. plus, most scholars will say a man that the jesus bible myths are beaed probably existed. if his name was or wasn't jesus, who he was, where he was from, etc is unknown.
omahavinnie2 3 years ago
"since christopher hitchens will be using facts and reason and dr. bill will continue his articulate bullshit- i'm sure you will think he will be the winner."
Actually I think for precisely the opposite reasons Craig will win. Craig will bring up facts and evidence while Hitchens will not and instead avoid the issues (like he did in his debate with Dr. Turek)
And sorry to disappoint, but non-Christian scholars don't agree with the things you attributed of them on the Bible and historical Jesus
Christianjr4 3 years ago
Bringing up the point that "non-Christian" scholars regard the Bible as stories is irrevelant. They aren't Christians BECAUSE they think it's just stories.
You need to mention all scholars for an unbiased opinion, not just non-Christian scholars.
bluago 3 years ago
The "self-authenticaing" ruse of WLC is simply and embarrassingly lame; it totally begs the question of the existence of "God" or any of the paraphernalia (heaven, hell, etc.) that goes with it. He naively
says "God" exists since you "feel" "God" exists. How silly is that? What does WLC say about Allah, for example?
nearenough3 3 years ago
How "silly" is the fact that you don't understand that this is not an apologetics video?
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
No god, no war.
ezyroller 3 years ago
Well, first of all, that's not true, but just because belief of gods in other religions cause some wars, the same is true for every belief in God?
By the way, what does this have to do with the content of the video?
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
Welcome to my blocked list, Cima.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
cimajokexukuridy-
I am responding to comments you made that I assume were removed because of your incessant name calling.
You said,
"If they don't become agnostics, they all end up dumb apologists (like Kierkegaard, one of the biggest bull**** philosophers ever). Funny that you picked that loser."
So you think that the man who is considered to be the father of existentialism is just a dumb, loser, full of bull? That's your evaluation of him?
You just embarrassed yourself.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
"but I know that it wouldn't do any good because I will just be repeating myself over and over again"
We atheists have a word for that: circular logic.
SparkasseBerlin 3 years ago
Well, that's two words actually and in any event circular logic is not simply repeating yourself. It's to do with a series of premises that can only be validated by reference to each other.
AKAKArnott 3 years ago
1. Obviously you have no clue about linguistics. Look up the definition of 'word'.
2. You didn't get my allusion to your sense of logic - which is circular.
SparkasseBerlin 3 years ago
Oh, not your logic. Thought it was RAIDERJO76 who replied.
SparkasseBerlin 3 years ago
No problem.
Regarding the linguistics - after reading YouTube postings for a while you stop expecting to see any nuance or sublety in the language used. It's mainly basic, lowest common denominator type stuff, usually misspelled and/or used in the wrong context with a few profanities thrown in. Perhaps I've become jaded and now always expect only to see the most basic or simplistic usage.
AKAKArnott 3 years ago
SparkasseBerlin, because I'm having to repeat myself I'm committing circular reasoning? URGH! Why can't the atheists on here at least TRY to think?! Repeating yourself is not the same thing as circular reasoning if the reason you're repeating yourself is that the other person just IGNORES what you have to say, which thus far has usually been the case with fundamentalist atheists who comment on this video.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
"I am not trying to limit your voice"
You already did. But that's Christian hypocrisy and censorship as we are used to it from Christians.
cimajokexukuridy 3 years ago
Cima, grow up. If I was trying to limit your voice, I would have delted all your comments, but coincidentally, ALL of your comments, however ignorant and irrational they may be, that didn't contain offensive language remain posted on this video.
Anyways, for some reason Youtube wouldn't let me finish what I wanted to say in my next comment, so I just sent you a message, so please refer to that.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
And hold on; "censorship"?! So deleting your comments with language that would be offensive to most of the viewers of this video, personal attacks, and inappropriate references to crippled people is "censorship" to you? Give me a break! I left EVERY SINGLE ONCE of your comments, even if I disagreed with them, that did not contain what I just listed.
If you can't survive without acting as you have thus far acted, please stop watching, or at least commenting on, my videos.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
cimajokexukuridy-
QUOTE:"I understand Craig's position very well. He is a complete idiot with distorted logic."
This is a great example of a "refutation" that is not a refutation, but that instead relies upon name calling rather than substance. That's why the ad hominem is called a fallacy.
I'd take you more seriously if you would drop the profanity and show at least a modicum of respectfulness in dialog. Until then I see no reason to dialog w/ angry people that call names.
Peace-
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Dude, the guy is right. Craig's arguments are illogic, based on false premises.
xeduby 3 years ago
Greeting xeduby-
I hope you are well.
QUOTE:"Craig's arguments are illogic, based on false premises"
I hear people say this kind of thing all the time. Rarely do they attempt to back it up.
Peace-
danjoeblue 3 years ago
He makes the presumption that there's a 'holy spirit' and that Christanity is 'true'. That's what he believes, but that's no evidence for nothing.
xeduby 3 years ago
xeduby-
Thank you for clarifying. Refer to my earlier posts.
I said that if Jesus rose from the dead then his claim that the Holy Spirit is real is vindicated. There is evidence for the resurrection (even if you don't think it convincing). Therefore, indirectly, there are reasons to believe the Holy Spirit exists.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Xuduby, three things:
First, when you say "that's no evidence for nothing.", it becomes very hard to take you seriously in an intellectual discussion.
Second, please explain how you know that there is no evidence for Christianity.
Third, OF COURSE Craig is presupposing the existence of the Holy Spirit, because he's assuming that his audience is Christian! Why can't atheists get it through there heads that this is not an apologetics video, but Christian teaching FOR CHRISTIANS?
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
Greetings cimajokexukuridy-
QUOTE:"Craig is a complete idiot"
QUOTE:"Craig is too dumb..."
You seen like a very mean person. That's too bad.
You should not put someone down like this. Especially when you don't understand his position.
Peace
danjoeblue 3 years ago
The more I think about this, the more clear it becomes that this answer is completely circular.
His point seems to be that, when in doubt, look inside yourself. If you feel like Christianity is true, it is the witness of the holy spirit speaking to you. If you think it is false, it is satan. So no matter what you actually think, you should conclude that Christianity is true, even though there is no evidence for the existence of the holy spirit or satan to begin with.
Some philosopher!
SpinozasEthics 3 years ago
Greetings SpinozasEthics-
I don't think you understand Craig's position. And, I don't think you should judge his ability as a philosopher. You ought to read some of his more scholarly material. You can't expect him to fully justify his position in the brief time that he has here. Moreover, he is sharing for the lay audience.
Alvin Plantinga holds a similar if not the same position on this point & he is one of the greatest philosophers of religion in the 21st century.
Peace.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
danjoeblue-I realize that WLC is a very prolific and articulate theologian, but I don't see how he can claim this argument to be philosophical. And yes, I've read "Reasonable Faith" and it's clearly a work of apologetics rather than philosophy.
Of course, that's the whole point of apologetics: to defend Christianity. But I don't see how what he did in his book (or certainly in this video) to be philosophically sound.
SpinozasEthics 3 years ago
Greetings SpinozasEthics
"there is no evidence for either of those entities"
You said in this comment, "no evidence". I find it hard to understand how you could have fully understood and absorbed Craig's argument for the resurrection (which would constitute evidence for the veracity of Jesus' claims) when you say "no evidence". Perhaps you think the evidence is poor or unconvincing but you can't say there is no evidence if you are really familiar with defenses of the resurrection.
Peace
danjoeblue 3 years ago
There is no evidence. I study this shit.
cimajokexukuridy 3 years ago
cimajokexukuridy-
No, you have not, or at least not very in depth. Otherwise you would say that you think the evidence is not pursuasive or inadequate. No one could look at N.T. Wright's book on the resurrection and say, "Wright has no evidence." Rather they would say they don't find the evidence compelling.
You say that it was through a study of mythology that you came to agnosticism/atheism. How does the study of mythology diprove God's existence? This does not make sense.
Peace-
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Because religion is based on mythology. The patterns are the same everywhere. Mythological patterns. The resurrection is just one of them. You'll find it in many other cultures, throughout all eras of mankind. Monotheistic religions are based on an error of interpretation. But that's something you cannot understand. You're trapped in your apologetics shit.
cimajokexukuridy 3 years ago
cimajokexukuridy-
QUOTE:"religion is based on mythology"
So you think that because religion is based on mythology God does not exist?
This is the genetic fallacy. If you think God does not exist because the idea arose from mythology, this is a logical fallacy called the genetic fallacy. This is why I can't understand it. Not because I am trapped, but because it's impossible to understand something that does not make rational sense.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
QUOTE"Because religion is based on mythology. The patterns are the same everywhere. Mythological patterns. The resurrection is just one of them."
This is absurd. N.T. Wright has shown that there is NO ancient account of a resurrection comarable to that of Jesus' predating Christianity. The Gospel records present a PHYSICAL resurrection with a body unlike what you will find in any mythology predating Christianity. Christianity certainly breaks away from all the other patterns on this point.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
There's no way I'm going to rebut an entire book on a YouTube posting, but I'll say this-then back to work for a few hours! The "resurrection" as described in the oldest copies of Mark, records no eyewitnesses of a resurrected Jesus. The final passage of Mark was added long after the original writing. Only in the altered version are there eyewitnesses.
So of all the things for the author to omit in the oldest copies of the oldest gospel, why omit eyewitnesses to a resurrection?
SpinozasEthics 3 years ago
Greetings SpinozasEthics-
First, thank you for the respectful tone with which you dialog.
Second, I agree, it's difficult to discuss these issues in depth on youtube.
W/ respect to Mark, I would point you to N.T. Wright's "The Resurrection of the Son of God". Chapter 14 is devoted to the question of Mark. He argues there that there very well may have been an older ending that was lost.
I will make another important point in my next post.
Peace-
danjoeblue 3 years ago
SpinozasEthics
It seems virtually impossible that the account of Jesus appearing to the women after resurrection is a later development. It seems rather that it is based on a very early tradition. This is because if the early Christians were going to add a resurrection narrative to convince people of the resurrection they NEVER would have used women since no one would have believed their testimony. Their testimony was not even eccepted in a court of law in this patriarchal society.
Peace-
danjoeblue 3 years ago
I'm not saying that there weren't two women, or that that portion was made up. I can certainly believe that two women visited a tomb that turned out to be empty. I'm just pointing out that the earliest version of the oldest gospel has no record of anyone seeing a resurrected Jesus. That a portion may have been lost is possible, but there's still no concrete proof of it.
And yes, I can't believe there's an intelligent Christian vs. Secular Humanist discussion on YouTube!
SpinozasEthics 3 years ago
Greetings SpinozasEthics
More could be said about Mark, but if you want to discuss early sources let's go even earlier than Mark. Let's go to Paul's first letter to the church in Corinth. In chapter 15 he discusses the resurrection appearances. The oral creed he quotes from is very early.
Peace-
danjoeblue 3 years ago
True, 1 Corinthians is earlier than Mark, and it indicates that Paul and James saw (or had visions of) Jesus. But first of all, this was 20 years after the resurrection took place. Why take so long to write about it something like a resurrection? And second, we are relying on one person's (Paul) claim. The problem with relying on one person's claim is that there are many singular people who have been able to start a religion (Muhammad, Joseph Smith, L. Ron Hubbard, etc.)
see next post..
SpinozasEthics 3 years ago
Greetings SpinozasEthics!
QUOTE:"this was 20 years after the resurrection."
But, the creed that Paul quotes from in chap. 15 is dated to within 3 to 5 years after the event.
QUOTE"Why take so long to write about it something like a resurrection?"
I understand this concern, but I'm not sure that it works as an argument when we just don't know what else may have been written that was lost.
As far as "one person's claim", Paul is relying upon the creed so it's more that one person.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Reply Part 2: So if this one particular person's testimony of a religious vision is to be accepted as valid, you are therefore choosing NOT to accept the testimonies of Muhammad, L. Ron Hubbard, or Joseph Smith (unless you are Mormon).
So that's why I think that such a belief is purely an act of faith, because you are choosing to believe in one person's supernatural claims while rejecting those of others. And that's why I think that WLC's arguments are faith-based rather than philosophical.
SpinozasEthics 3 years ago
N.T. Wright argues that since the later Gospels do air-brush out the women witnessing the resurrected Jesus (especially Mary Magdalene) this is very good reason to believe that the accounts are based on a very early oral tradition. Otherwise they would have left this part out to make their case stronger since the pagans criticized this claim later on.
Paul does not mention the women. This suggests that the oral tradition of the Gospels is earlier than Paul's letter.
Peace-
danjoeblue 3 years ago
I see what you are saying when you say that WLC's argument in this clip is faith-based rather than philosophical. Although I don't think I fully agree with you, I think I see where you are coming from. However, I hope you are not referring to all of his work in general.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
SpinozasEthics-
This what I mean about WLC and his arguments being philophical; in this video, he is not making a philosophical argument. That's what I mean when I say I think I might understand you. However, the point he is making can be argued, and IS argued in philosophy of religion textbooks. Others like Planinga make arguments along these lines as well.
Craig argues philosophically often. His version of Kalam is one of the most discussed arguments for God's existence in philosophy.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Reply Part 1: OK, neither raider nor danjoe think WLC is making a philosophical argument, and I agree, so case closed. But the point I thought danjoe was making was that evidence for the resurrection gave credence to the existence of the holy spirit and satan. I agree that evidence for the resurrection would lend support for the notion that, say, satan exists (though that really does sound weird when you think about it.)
SpinozasEthics 3 years ago
Reply Part 2: In his writings, WLC is known for making an explicitly historical claim about the resurrection, and I am explaining why I dont think that there is good historical evidence for it (see previous posts). So basically, I think that believing in the resurrection claims of Paul is purely a matter of faith and not one of historicity or reason. The same goes for believing in satan. Believing in satan is purely a leap of faith.
SpinozasEthics 3 years ago
Reply part 3: Finally, if you want to see an example of lots of people making claims of the same miracle, check out what happened in the "Three and Eight Witnesses" to the book of Mormon. You presumably don't believe in that, and neither does WLC, but once again, choosing not to believe in that miracle while choosing to believe in others what I think constitutes an act of faith.
SpinozasEthics 3 years ago
SpinozasEthics-
QUOTE"And yes, I've read "Reasonable Faith" and it's clearly a work of apologetics rather than philosophy."
I don't dispute that the book is an apologetic work. But, you cannot deny the philosophical arguments involved in the book. He deals with many philosopher's and their arguments on philosophical grounds. If you have read the book closely you will not dispute this point.
Do you own a copy?
Peace-
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Oh yeah, he preaches to accept that questions rest "unanswered". But what he does is the complete opposite, the very moment he believes in a personal god. He doesn't understand the symbolic meaning of it and thinks that there is a creator who is in control of the world. What a terrible misunderstanding. Wanna-be philosopher. Philosophy and faith are exclusive. It's against logic of philosophy, because faith closes every case.
cimajokexukuridy 3 years ago
cimajokexukuridy-
QUOTE"Philosophy and faith are exclusive. It's against logic of philosophy"
Wrong. Some of the greatest philosophers of all time were people of faith. Descartes and Kierkegaard were Christians.
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Christian and philosopher are exclusive to each other.
cimajokexukuridy 3 years ago
Wrong.
holymolydude 3 years ago
cimajokexukuridy-
QUOTE:"Christian and philosopher are exclusive to each other."
You have obviously not taken a good philosophy class and paid attention or you would not utter such things.
Augustine, Aquinus, Descartes, Kierkegaard, and many others are regarded as some of the greatest philosophers. You will find them in any history of Western philosophy textbook. AND they were Christians. You should not pontificate about matters that you know nothing about.
Peace-
danjoeblue 3 years ago
PWND
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
Dr. Craig needs to prove the following:
1.) The existence of the holy spirit
2.) The existence of satan
Without proving that both of these things exist, his points are comlpetely invalid.
SpinozasEthics 3 years ago
Spinoza, you would have a valid point if it weren't for the fact that Craig's video is directed toward CHRISTIANS. I don't understand why so many atheists who are commenting on this video seem to think that Craig is somehow talking to them and giving them an argument for God's existence. This video is addressed toward people who DO believe in the existence of Satan and the Holy Spirit, so the assumption is that they do exist.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
(cont. to Spinoza)
It would be like an atheist scholar giving a lecture to atheists on ethics in light of a naturalistic worldview. Would he have to demonstrate that atheism is true first? No, because the lecture is being delivered to ATHEISTS, so the assumption is that his audience already holds to atheistic worldview.
If you'd like to see Craig's actual arguments, get your hands on two of his books: "Reasonable Faith" and "The Kalam Cosmological Argument."
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
I realize that the video is directed towards Christians who believe in the holy spirit and satan. My point is that there is no evidence for either of those entities. If WLC is going to be basing his arguments on their existence, he needs to provide evidence for their existence, otherwise there is no reason to take his arguments seriously.
Simply believing in something doesn't make it true, but do I really have to say that?
SpinozasEthics 3 years ago
SpinozasEthics
If Jesus rose from the dead, that vindicates His claim to be the Son of God. If He is the Son of God, that vindicates His claim that the Holy Spirit and satan are real. Therefore, if you want evidence, then go pick up "Reasonable Faith" or "Jesus Under Fire" and study Craig's defense of the resurrection, because if Jesus really rose, then we can believe what He says.
Don't assume that Craig offers no evidence just because you don't see it on a 5 1/2 minute video.
Peace-
danjoeblue 3 years ago
Spinoza, how do you know that there is no evidence for the existence of the Holy Spirit or Satan?
Second of all, once again, CRAIG WAS NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. Did you get that? CRAIG WAS NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. THIS IS NOT AN APOLOGETICS VIDEO. Again, Spinoza, the existence of the Holy Spirit and Satan is being presupposed in this video because the assumption is that you already believe in them. CRAIG WAS NOT MAKING AN ARGUMENT. I don't know how many times I have to say this...
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
"how do you allow unanswered questions not to become destructive doubts"...said the protestant, the catholic, the mormon, the muslem, the hindu, the branch dividian...ect....doubt, not faith, is a virtue my friend
adstanra 3 years ago
NikosTH4I 2/2
It is not a perfect book containing perfect words nor is it a guide on how to live. Think of it as a mirror read it and whichever message you chose to take from it is simply a reflection of the person that you are.
You can't absolve yourself of responsibility for the decisions that you make or expect a book to provide easy answers or act as a conscience soother. If the Bible has a message, it is that there is a choice. Ultimately though that choice is yours and yours alone.
AKAKArnott 3 years ago
AKAKArnott, the reason Christians like myself would reject your story is because it contradicts Scripture. Now I realize you don't hold to the belief that the Bible is God-breathed, but that's a different issue, and not my point right now. My point is, what we believe is derived from the Bible. I don't believe in the doctrine of the Trinity for example, because I "look at the stars and just know"; rather, I believe in it because I believe it is clearly not in the Bible. Period.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
I assume the last 'not' in your reply was an error and that you do believe in the Trinity.
But I have one question for you; just supposing the church had suported the idea of God and Jesus being seperate entities for the last 1700 yrs instead of the Trinity. Do you honestly think that if you were to pick up your Bible today and read it you would be thinking to yourself ' hang on - the Church has got this all wrong, clearly God and Jesus are just parts of a single entity !'.
AKAKArnott 3 years ago
NikosTH4I 1/2
The Bible contains some wonderful things; the wisdom of Proverbs, the sublime poetry of Ecclesiastes and Psalms, heroic and tragic stories of a people and much more.
But it was written by men and so stories supporting brutal acts of violence, social injustice, barbarism & cruelty that would disgust us today are set against tales of self sacrifice, peace, compassion and charity. You have two contradictory positions laid out before you and both seemingly represent Gods will...
AKAKArnott 3 years ago
If I told you the following;
Satan created the universe, the earth and humans. God was his eldest son and Jesus his youngest. God grows jealous of Satans position and plots with Jesus to kick Satan out of heaven. When this is done God thinks Jesus may become a threat and kicks him down to earth to die on the cross. God doesn't have the power to take us to heaven, only Satan does which he will do in 1000 years from now. Satan, God & Jesus have all told me this directly.
Would you believe me ?
AKAKArnott 3 years ago
Polar bear. ummm... No he isn't saying that. Plus, blind faith and insanity aren't at all similar.
twistedkitkats 3 years ago 2
TwistedKitKats- He is saying that. Prove me wrong by quoting him.
Blind faith and Insanity aren't the same, but they are similar.
Insanity can be defined as extreme foolishness, or derangement of the mind. Faith can be defined as belief without corresponding evidence. It is likely that someone who makes an argument based off a LACK of evidence have "faith", and if they have blind faith, it is by definition foolish.
TheAveragePolarBear 3 years ago
PolarBear is 100 percent correct in his interpretation. The question the interviewer asks is how Christian students deal with doubt that comes about at universities. Craig's response is essentially to separate reason from faith, and when you learn something at the university that seemingly contradicts the faith, then you should ignore the contradiction and assume it will end up proving your faith. I couldn't define blind faith more clearly than by this solution that Craig offers.
237b 3 years ago
As far as the similarity between blind faith and insanity are concerned, they are not synonyms by any stretch of the imagination. But I would say that willfully subjecting myself to such blind faith, to adhere to such a self-deceptive process as Craig describes is NOT sane. = insane.
237b 3 years ago
He is soo true!!!
jobby67 3 years ago
Wow.
Craig admits defeat to Christianity. His argument is... when evidence is found that contradicts or goes against Christianity, it should be disregarded as true immediately, then we should form a logical approach to confront the evidence, with implications that God will be found within the evidence.
Basically,
He believes the evidence FOR God can be found in evidence that DISPROVES or DISCREDITS the existence of God.
In other words blind faith or insanity by definition.
TheAveragePolarBear 3 years ago
Wow, out of all the people I've talked to on here, very rarely have I seen such a twist of someone else's words. I don't even know where to start... Well, first of all, if you'd paid attention to the video, you'd know that Craig was not making an argument. This video was directed to Christians. Please pay attention before you comment on my video next time, please. Thanks.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
Where specifically have I twisted his words?
I'm aware that this video is speaking to Christians, but Craig is still making an argument on how to deal with doubt from a Christian perspective. And he uses the approach I outlined in the previous comment.
TheAveragePolarBear 3 years ago
Where specifically did you twist his words? Well, basically, almost your entire comment. But let's start with the first example: can you give me the quote from the video in which you assert that Dr. Craig "admits defeat to Christianity"?
How is Craig making an argument? This is not an apologetics video, TAPB (can I call you that?). He's simply talking to Christians in a more sermon-like type of way. This is in NO way an apologetic, and if you think it is, and that this is the best apologetic
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
Craig has to offer, I'd encourage you to get your hands on his book "Reasonable Faith" and look up some of his debates.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
Craig admits defeat to Christianity indirectly by saying that the Holy Spirit gives knowledge of God that is INDEPENDENT of the "shifting sands" of reason and evidence. If a Christian is going to make arguments that are independent of reason and logic, then it is an absolute waste of time to argue with one in the first place. This is blind faith. This is disgusting and repulsive.
TheAveragePolarBear 3 years ago
Raider, most of these sorts of youtube video's contain arguments regardless of whether or not they are apologetic. Apologetics only involves defense. Arguments contain positive assertions, such as...
"The key to victory in the Christian life is not to have all your questions answered." 3:22
TheAveragePolarBear 3 years ago
TAPB, I mean no offense or disrespect, but not unlike the majority of other fundamentalist atheists commenting on this video, you simply cannot be reasoned with because you refuse to hear what the other side has to say. A part of me would like to go on and argue with you more, but I know that it wouldn't do any good because I will just be repeating myself over and over again, as I usually do when I try to have intellectual discussion with atheists on Youtube.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
Dr.Craig is the bomb!
christo815 3 years ago 5
ROFL @ 2:24+
AmazingTheism 3 years ago
an amazing spewing of B.S.
atomicrobotman7 3 years ago
Can you elaborate?
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
Anytime anyone speaks of unknowable things likes invisible beings they are spewing nonsense. And to garys comment as to what's the point of life without a god all I can say is it is up to each individual to determine that. My life is far more interesting and meaningful since abandoning christianity as a myth,
atomicrobotman7 3 years ago
Can you elaborate on and defend your assertion that any any invisible being has to be unknowable?
Can you also explain how you have found purpose and meaning in atheism?
Thanks very much.
RAIDERJO76 3 years ago
a lot of invisible beings that we accept by faith:
- black hole was first accepted by faith in theoretical physics before proven experimentally
- fundamental particles
- dark matters
- "String theories"
My point is 'invisible beings" we cannot see but we accept as a matter of theory or logic or calculations and then find experimental proof.
Supernatural being like "God" applies similarly, assume there is a God by theory or logic , then proceed to see if one can experience God personally.
mindchange90 3 years ago 3
The existence of black holes, fundamental particles, dark matter, string theories and the like is testable. The existence of an invisible, all powerful, personal deity is untestable - so anybody who claims to have absolute knowledge about this (not belief in it...absolute knowledge) imaginary being is selling something or is an absolute crackpot. This man is spewing B.S. as he claims to have personal, absolute knowledge about an imaginary, man-made creation.
1n354a 3 years ago
woah ho! I don't think so, didn't you listen to the part about the question bag? No one (not even Dr. Craig) has absolute knowledge about anything, in fact one of the hardest parts of being a christian is to have unanwsered questions and still have faith.
As for being testable: it is written in the bible, do not put the Lord your God to the test. Further, if he was 'testable' it would nullify the christian faith "By grace we have been saved through FAITH". WIthout faith, God can't save
Thief13x 3 years ago
Being written in the Bible is not proof - any more than the Harry Potter series proves witchcraft or Voldemort.
If you claim that this god of yours is anything beyond a faith-based entity, then it will be put to the test. If it can't stand up to that, then it is not much of a god...or maybe it is exactly what a god is...your invisible friend in the sky!
Faith, by definition is not testable as it is a belief in something in the absence of proof.
1n354a 3 years ago
Who ever said anything about proof? thats the point I was making, you cannot prove that God exists, and doing so would actually nullify the New Testament.
As for being a faith-based entity: you're absolutly right, you will only EVER know God through faith, but he is NOT a product of faith. As for testing God, without pure faith you will get nothing, and the nature of a 'test' is itself a result of doubt.
"Trust in the Lord with ALL your heart and lean not on your own understanding"
Thief13x 3 years ago