For all of his degrees, the numerous books he's written and the knowledge he possesses, William Lane Craig believes in demons. Not just believes they might exist, believes that Jesus himself exorcised them and put them into pigs.
How can anyone take this man seriously? He's a mental midget. It's very sad.
Hi fellow Canadian, just wondering, how do you expect a Christian apologist not to believe in demons? Either Craig is right and God raised Jesus who defeated the power of darkness, or Hitchens is right and there is no supernatural realm. So why would he not defend his beliefs?
Craig's belief in demons could be correct or there is no supernatural at all, those are the only two choices? There are numerous problems with this. Craig's god could be real but there are no demons, demons could be real and Craig's god could be imaginary, the supernatural could exist but neither Craig's god nor demons exist, or there could be a different god altogether. It's silly for Craig to argue this because there is absolutely no way to know ANY of it is true.
Well, Craig is arguing for the Christian faith, and that includes belief in demons, but you're right, there's no way to confirm it. I've heard some stories that make me wonder if they exist, but until I experience something personally, I will always doubt. I'm more or less agnostic in belief, but I don't reject the idea of the supernatural possibly existing and we won't know until we die, will we? Unless there is nothing... which suits me just fine also.
Graig "So what is historically undeniable is that jesus did exorcism"
Graig "cant prove jesus was born of a immaculate conception"......so jesus is not divine, so did not do the above, its not even historical anyway or in reality
such immense nature that could indeed have conciousness and power so great that to the physically linited human being woulod appear to be god like and have the properties needed to create universes generated it from its own limiitless universe. So ebvn if you dont believe a god exists in this universe then it must by the logic of this arguement(which is sciences own) must exist somewhere
there is regularity in that the conditions of the earth are such and so precise that the mathematical probability of all the variables coming together tosustain life..ie the warmth of the sun its distannce..from the earth ..ect ect..are so unlikekly that you can only assert that there is a divine architect either that or you subscribe to the multiple dimensional theory where every possible permutation of life is in existence ..but beleieving that would also include beings of
@jaspurr77 How are the distance from the sun and the natural conditions for life proof of a divine being or even unlikely in this universe? It's just a case of evolution of life. If it hadn't been that way, we wouldn't be here right now thinking about it, now would we? That being said, life isn't theorized to be uncommon on other planets, at least on a microbiotic perspective. I don't see where you get your proof of God from either.
not that i'm a creationist or anything but in answer to your question the act of free will contradicts any intervention..plus the destruction of the earth would be agood thing as according to the gospel of judas the earth was created by the fallen angels..the lower gods and belongs to the devil..jesus trys to show the way of love so that the soul is awake before we die and can travel there when the world of matter is at an end
Why do we need to prove the existence of God? We don't debate the existence of the sun, the value of money, or the pleasure that love gives us, even if they are intangibles we don't have to resort to magical thinking to know they are there.
@estuchedepeluche lol, great point, there should be no debate about anything, everybody is free to believe in whatever, who cares about truth? everybody has their own reality and jesus exists in my reality and does in lots of others so there's no need for a debate, right?
@Diosukekun I don't know if you're being satirical or not, but healthy debate does promote knowledge and the spread of new ideas/information, along with other positive effects as well.
Questions: If Jesus has such divine authority that he can command the forces of darkness, what is the need for an armageddon? Why doesn't Jesus just command the dark forces to stand down? Christian apologists can't even understand their own bullshit, can they?
@AtheistRex Also aaaaassss iiiiiiiiiifffff santa can deliver all the presents in one night!
I mean come on how can he eat all the milk and cookies we leave him. And another thing why do poor people get less presents?! (I rekon our parents do it all.)
This is what it is like trying to argue with a creationist. In sociological terms they are about 5 years old.
I meant to say William lang Craig leans towards his understanding of science to prove God, and thus, why he can not accurately answer the questions from hitchens, and why he does not understand that Jesus said a demon is not divided against himself, and said, that the devil can not cast out himself. Jesus address that issue, and yet, Craig does not know that. That miracle did testify that Jesus was who he said he was, Jesus said so. Read Matthew 12:24. Jesus said the reason and craig is wrong.
Christopher hitchens leans more towards his own understanding and does not accurately answer htichens questions, The only way you would be able to cast out demons is by the power of God, no other sorcery can do this, but Craig uses science to support the bible, which is why he's there debating in the first place, and thats a flawed way of understanding God. God seek him in spirit, Not through mens philosophy. Which is what craig does, and does not understand the power of GOD.
Craig is the absolute best ever at taking what should be a 2 second response and turning it into a 30 second nonsensical rambling so he doesn't have to take a definitive stand on a particular topic.
When someone says "as a christian..." they're really saying "as a human being I can't say I believe it, but as a christian I must say I believe it". Well, they should say "as a hypocrite..."!!!
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
Hitch always did a masterful job of surgically exposing the logical inconsistencies and absurdities of the Christian belief system. Where he failed was that he persistently argued against the existence of god when he should have agreed that a supernatural presence is at the heart of creation. This would have left guys like Craig with the unenviable task of having to justify how their absurd belief system has ANYTHING at all to do with this transcendence. Something Craig has always failed at
The passage about the saints resurrecting is in Matthew 27:45-56. If you asked Craig about any other detail of that passage (Jesus dying, the temple curtain ripping, the earthquake, the guards saying Jesus was the son of God, etc), he would say it was to be taken as a historical account, but once it comes to the saints rising he retreats so he won't have to defend what he knows is a ridiculous position. If you can't see the problem with this religious mentality then your mind is lost.
@WorkOverTime Yeah. Matthew's context was that the saints rose AT THE TIME of the event. It doesn't say it "will happen" but that it DID happen. It's listed alongside every other event that Craig takes as a historical account of what happened during the crucifixtion. More apologetic wankery of cherry picking.
AMAZING.. When Craig is asked if he believed ONE of the MOST STUNNING MIRACLES in the bible, i.e. The raising of the dead of Jerusalem in Matthew, suddenly it appears Craig has done little study of the bible. He suddenly feigns ignorance as to whether it was literal or allegorical!! Sure Craig, you never even considered ZOMBIES on the streets of Jerusalem, I believe ya... BAT SHIT CRAZY MAN!!!
@Dgoosh1000 Bullshit, Hitch wasn't nearly as dogmatic an atheist as Richard Dawkins is, yet Dawkins - the self appointed grand master of atheism in the world today - is metaphorically cowering in a corner somewhere afraid to debate this guy, even other high profile atheists are traducing him for his epistemological cowardice, try explaining that bizarre state of affairs away...
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. It's a waste of time.
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. It's a waste of time.
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
@Kenmorfdublin Debating Craig is like fingerbanging your mum, a thouroghly unenjoyable state of affairs. I'm not surprised Dawkins wont debate him. He's a scientist for christ sake! He has got some work to do and will debate other scientists on the merits of punctuated evolution not Craig who presuposes a 6000 year old earth.
@Kenmorfdublin Debating Craig is like fingerbanging your mum, a thouroghly unenjoyable state of affairs. I'm not surprised Dawkins wont debate him. He's a scientist for christ sake! He has got some work to do and will debate other scientists on the merits of punctuated evolution not Craig who presuposes a 6000 year old earth.
@Dgoosh1000 Watch the whole debate. It's funny how you so desperately want Hitchens to win that you would cling to 4 minutes of a 1.5hour debate. A weak 4 minutes at that. "OMG THIS IS WHY Hitchens owns Craig!!!!!!!!!!!" lol get real.
@jwtrevor Oh, there's more of course from the debate, like when Hitchens points out that Craig holds the position that no scientifical or historical evidence (discovered or in the present) can challenge the subjective ('inner') witness of the holy spirit.
I wonder how Craig can square that with calling himself an intellectual and his debate partners unintellectual.
@Stipoon For Craig, his personal experience is very real to him(an experience not so different from love). All he is saying is that if one of his arguments is knocked down entirely, it would not necessarily change his belief in God because of his personal experience. Arguments are often knocked down over time. This is why he states that he can not absolutely prove the existence of God, but that currently, the evidence for a God right now is much stronger than evidence against.
@Stipoon You should examine Craig's "evidence" with an unbiased opinion. For Hitchens, that meant evading the questions and arguments, mumbling a lot of nonsense, and asking Craig a lot "what if" questions that led to nothing. You can attack Craig as a person and call him "unintellectual", but what can you say about his arguments. How well does Hitchens respond to them? In fact I believe he says 2 of the 5 are quite interesting and may hold some weight. Particularly the fine tuning.
@jwtrevor I have whatched the whole debate before. And yes Craig was the more Confident speaker. He still did not bring to the table arguments that didnt require huge leaps of faith or a facile presupposition. Hitchens was not feeling too good either. (yknow stage 4 cancer can be a bitch). And besides if Hitch did lose this one that would make it 20:1 in favour of Hitchens. Soooo does that proove the argument? According to Christians yes. Well BELIEVE THAT TOO!
@Dgoosh1000 Unless you can be specific, it does no good to claim Craig's arguments make "facile presuppositions". Craig is a serious philosopher and publishes new stuff in academic journals regularly. If you watched the debate, you should have been surprised on how little evidence Hitchens bases his beliefs on. About your last point, Craig does not claim to prove anything except that he finds it more rational to believe in God than not. What do your petty statistics have to do with anything?
@jwtrevor I have whatched the debate before. The excessive throat clearing that Craig undergoes before making his point is something that Hitchens avoids whilst conducting the debate on a substantially higher level. Just as Plato does in 'The Republic' Hitchens starts with the logical work of his arguments already laid down whilst Craig does very little in the way of grounding himself before he starts arguing his point. Too call Craig a philosopher well.... you would have work to do.
@Dgoosh1000 Lol!! Okay. If you can convince yourself of that, you can convince yourself of anything. A fellow atheist blogs "Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child."
But, believe whatever will get you through the night.
"A fellow atheist blogs "Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child."
This is my favorite bit. Craig's proponents have found a single atheist bloger who thought that Craig actually won this debate and so they quote him repeatedly.
Of course they don't quote the parts where the same atheist blogger explains why Craig's arguments are terrible.
I'd encourage folks to watch for themselves and see who makes sense and who is talking in circules & playing word games.
@FALCO64125 Well I was just making the point that if athiesm were true then we could never actually know anything for certain given we are not omniscient. It doesn't make any sense to assert anything with absolute certainty if you are an athiest. There's actually more than one way that engaging in debate proves that the athiest isn't consistent with his athiesm but that's just one. Do you sort of understand what I'm trying to get at?
@Hoogz20 Atheism is just the not believing there is a god, nothing more. Just because atheists don't agree completely in other fields doesn't mean a thing. As for never knowing anything for certain because we're not omniscient, that's nonsense. We know the earth will continue spinning bringing the sun back into view tomorrow. We know exactly how to shape an airplane wing and make it fly. We know many things based evidence, trial and error, and observation.
@FALCO64125 I'm not saying athiests can't know anything for certain. They indeed do know things for certain and that's exactly what I'm getting at. They know and even rely upon things with absolute certainty such as the uniformity we see in nature , the basic reliability of their senses, etc. However, if athiesm were true then the consistent athiest has no basis for making a knowledge claim of any sort. This idea of certainty simply doesn't make sense in athiestic worldviews.
@Hoogz20 "Do you sort of understand what I'm trying to get at?"
No. It makes no sense.
"if athiesm were true then we could never actually know anything for certain"
Bullshit. The opposite is true. If there was a "supernatural variable", what good would any test result be? If an unseen being could influence anything at a whim, nothing, no experiment, no theory, would be reliable. The world would be subject to haphazard findings and dark ages. All information would be suspect and useless.
@AtheistRex It makes perfect sense but maybe I didn't explain it well enough. Youtube is a little limiting lol. Quick question: If you believe the universe and everything contained within it came about by a random chance process then why is there a certain degree of regularity in nature in the first place? Did everything just cease to be random? Why do we have laws that govern nature and make science possible in the first place?
@Hoogz20 There is no degree of regularity in nature. On earth we have temperature extremes of well below freezing to many thousands of degrees. It gets even worse in space and on other planets.
We don't yet understand everything about the beginnings of the universe and The Big Bang, but we do know that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Hydrogen condenses into gas clouds which form into new stars. Heavier elements are formed throughout a star's life.
@Dgoosh1000 Yeah? Atheists have never wage war on the religious? Atheism is one of the pillars of communism and we know that communist rule in the USSR and China have done awful things to religious people. However none of this relevant has to do with arguments in video. I do however pity your children because they not likely to get any sort of balance perspective on life for you. Just the irrational rantings of a jaded person. Just the way you roll though.
@jwtrevor The first half of your comment is stretching common sense to the limit in ways I wont go into now. (you'll have to take my word for it that I can counter such remarks)
And the second half. I am of the opinion that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth based on the evidence. Now! I cant then go and say to my children "Hey guys just so you know the bible says he did exsist and unbelief means hell" That isnt balance.
@Dgoosh1000 What's a stretch? The fact that the USSR had a militant atheist state and oppressed and killed people of every religion to establish a ideologically secular state? It's well documented. But whatever you win...congrats.
@jwtrevor" Atheism is one of the pillars of communism and we know that..." You are so full of shit. Atheism is one of the pillars of communism?!?!? What utter bullshit. Also, Russia, nor China, were ever communist. They are/were dictatorships. My country of Canada has many communist ideals inherent in it, such as welfare, health care, food banks, free education,OSAP, etc. You should understand the concepts you use, before you use them.
@jwtrevor what journals does Craig publish regularly in? What new stuff does he have to offer? He certainly seems a presuppositionalist to me and a joke of a person. He's admitted, in many areas, that his belief in Christianity comes before his rational thinking..
@SHIBBYiPANDA Hes published hundreds of peer reviewed articles including articles in the following journals :
The Journal of Philosophy (the most prestigious philosophy journal), American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Modern Theology and Religious Studies
@jwtrevor I looked at his website and, from my quick count, in the past ten year, Craig has published one article that's not about God or Christianity. He's a theologian, thru and thru. He's admitted in his testimony that he was an extremely bitter, sour, dark, person before he became a Christian, with few friends and a great amount of animosity towards people. He's admitted that he thinks life without God would be unlivable. He seems the very definition of someone with an axe to grind
@SHIBBYiPANDA LOL! How is God not a philosophic topic?! Its one of the oldest and most important topics in philosophy. In the preview for this debate, Hitchens said that Craig is a force to be reckoned with and a goliath. The reason why Hitchens didn't speak as free as he normal does is because he knows Craig will call him out on anything he says that is incorrect. But i see your happy to attack the person rather than the arguments, and thats fine. It must help you sleep better at night.
@jwtrevor I'm fine to call out a coward when I see one & that's what Craig seems to me. He seems afraid to me. He has basically said, both, that life wouldn't be worth living if God didn't exist and that he was darkly miserable before he accepted Christ. God is a phil topic, but it's Craig's ONLY phil claim to fame.. I think these reasons cause him to be extremely close minded and intellectually stunted..
I'm sorry I'm being rude, btw, the internet temps it out of me.
Just like in Nazi Germany, there were those that could not contemplate a world without Hitler and when remindered of life prior, say, 1933 can recolect the great depression and inflation and the great war. Craig is the same. Whether he had a tough childhood is none of my concern the fact remains, only evil totalitarian systems ask you to hand over your life for the great leader.
@Dgoosh1000 Haha no I get you, fine point. The facts certainly do remain. But I think it's very worth pointing out to Craig fans that Craig has SOOO terribly much motivation to pursue reasoning to support his beliefs, so much more than anyone he's ever debated. Watch his speech about "the absurdity of life without god" where he blatantly says that suicide become a viable option if God didn't exist. Who the Hell says that? He seems like a huge looser to me.
And since not everyone is suicidally depressed that proves my point that there is a god.
This is the sort of circular reasoning one has to train in in order to fool people into saying foolish a wiked things. Wait actually it's called doublethink.
@SHIBBYiPANDA He is also a prominent philosopher of time. But you don't see my point. You are close-minded, not Craig. You keep talking about the him life as if it is relevant. You've already closed your mind completely to scholarly discussion, therefore, the arguments are irrelevant to you. There are many (not the majority by any means), but there are many religious/Christian scientists and philosophers today. if it helps you to think that they are all jaded individuals thats your prerogative
@jwtrevor I have his book on time and God. & you couldn't possibly know if I'm close minded or not, so your claim is dumb. I'm merely pointing out good evidence that Craig is mentally and emotionally unable to examine his own or others arguments. He's indicated that his very well being depends on Christianity being true, and by extension, his own arguments.
I'm friends with the head of philosophy at DBU who himself told me he thought Craig was over enthusiastic about his arguments.
@SHIBBYiPANDA LOL i made the same claim you did about Craig. Only im sure my claim is much truer. Cry more! You can't keep saying that Craig is mentally unable to respond to problems that are raised against his arguments without giving specific examples. He spends his life answer to these objects in a public forum and on papers! He studies his opponents more rigorously than anyone else. You're intellectually dishonest because you can't examine evidence. you prefer ad hominem attacks.
@jwtrevor I've given specific examples. Examine his "absurdity of life without God" speech. Its ridiculous. He approvingly quotes philosophers who have stated that suicide becomes a viable option if God doesn't exist, then he goes on to say that "man cannot live happily or consistently with atheism" & otherwise has also admitted that he was very depressed and angry at people before becoming a Christian, you do the math. I'm sure others will attack his arguments, I'm attacking his brain
So burn anyone who practices sorcery, because they are evil. And yet, Jesus is the messiah because he commands the forces of evil.
How many people who claimed to be sorcerers also claimed to be the child of some higher power? More than just Jesus. And yet when he does the exact same thing it is proof of him being a genuine messiah.
Well if you aren't convinced by that then what will convince you? Erm, well if that's the best you've got then nothing because I think... with my brain...
Dr Craig is a well educated and persuasive debater who is very good at giving reasons for a broad belief in God. However, when it comes down to it, he is a fundamentalist and he starts to look shifty and and uncomfortable when it comes to the details such as exorcism which sound absurd to many of us today.
@gextvedde yes, good point. I think he is stuck with an argument like the resurrection of Jesus which he needs the gospels to be valid, but has to explain the uncomfortable parts...which is embarrassing to a modern person....terrible position to be in...it appears his faith can overcome this dissonance.....so far.
@BigBallaShotCalla15 Yes it could be sorcery but according to the bible(sorry for saying that, but this is important and what its about) Jesus was predicted in the old testament in the book of Daniel so therefore sorcery is a weak basis.
@BigBallaShotCalla15 No, because there's a difference between commanding dark forces out of a persons body, using sorcery, and doing it NOT using sorcery. Jesus did the latter.
It should be clear to anyone understanding the difference.
Not using sorcery while performing miracles, means no sorcery was involved, while by using sorcery, you involve sorcery as a tool of accomplishing your goals, i.e., driving out dark forces of a persons body. BIG difference...
@ChaaruziK How comfortable Craig looks, seems to make Hitchens annoyed, because Craig is a philosopher and Hitchens is just a journalist, Dawkins is just Biologist!! U cant beat philosophy!!!
He was often drunk, and though I don't know if he is here, the ruddy complexion is likely a marker of his time spent boozing. Whether one considers it foolish of him to have ever debated while drunk, impressive that he was able to possess enough lucidity while under the influence to stand his ground with other intellectuals, or whether it would be considered entirely unremarkable is at the discretion of the viewer. I myself was certainly proud of him, regardless.
@phezla No sir, it's atheists such as yourself that their brain are switched off, im not even going to bring the faith card up again, because just the thing that u didnt get what was this debate about, is enough for anyone to see how mind limited atheists are!!
@shoussam yeah, right. I pity you, sincerely. What a sad, sad thing, living in the 21st century with the superstitious and scared mind and world view of medieval times.
@phezla A christian would do the right thing and good deeds and what God commands him to because he loves God and the people. Not because he is afraid of hell or because he expects golden streets and in heaven.
@chris241289 a christian feels compelled to do so because that's what he is taught, not what he is conviced of. define "good" without recurring to "god". well, there you have one dilemma called "moral relativism". or, like stepehn fry calls it: "thought". who knows maybe it'd be your first step towards reason and common sense - also called atheism.
@phezla I don't agree. You mean that a theist has no common sense or good reasoning? I cannot imagine how this rationally intelligent universe can exist without God (a Creator). But you are free to believe what you want. But what can you gain by atheism? By faith you have nothing to lose even if you are wrong about what you believe, but by atheism you're completely screwed if it turns out to be wrong.
@chris241289 It depends on what your faith requires you to do. Remember that Muslims think that Christians are going to hell and vice versa. You cannot be both a Muslim and a Christian for example. Either way a lot of equally vehemently believers are going to hell according to their chief proponents.
@gwangjuboy1 Hey I wasn't talking about being a christian or about being a muslim. I admit I am a christian but I do not tell other people that if they are not going to believe what I believe they will go to hell. I was just talking about believing in God and have some respect for Him as an Authority you arrogant asshole. Just be decent and admit that there must be a Creator for the universe you arrogant asshole.
@chris241289 Is the acceptance of Jesus not a precondition to entering heaven according Chrsitian doctrine? Is there a third place for people to go outside heaven or hell? With respect to the arguments about creationism, the evidence for intelligent design is not strong enough but the absence of evidence does not preclude the possibility. Even if you could prove it, you cannot go beyond deism without impinging on science.
@gwangjuboy1 Well accepting Jesus is a condition to entering heaven but ONLY for people like you who heard of Him, not for people who never heard of Him. If a muslim never heard of Jesus like He is presented in the New Testament as God he can enter in heaven if he had a good heart and if he worked according to the light he could ever know.
@chris241289 So with respect to muslims (and others) who have heard of Jesus but still refuse to accept him where are they going? I would guess that a huge number of muslims have at least heard of him. Indeed they regard him as a prophet themselves, but not as the son of god.
@gwangjuboy1 It is not my business to say where they go after they die or if they will be saved. The only thing I can say is that if someone refuses to accept the truth then he is doomed, completely screwed. All depends on how willing is someone to accept the truth. I can't say I know the heart and thoughts of everyone to say whether they will be or not be saved.
@chris241289 If they are 'doomed' what do you mean? That sounds like a euphemism for 'hell bound' but you just can't say it because it would make you look foolish in light of your earlier claims. Also, why do I do voluntary work for the poor? Why have I literally donated 100s of hours to helping people suffering social injustice? Now I don't want a medal, but clearly my desire to help the less fortunate exists irrespective of my position on religion.
@gwangjuboy1 If it would be true what you said I would be very glad to hear that. If you really are that willing to fight agianst unjusticeness and to help the poor people then I can easy name you a good person. I don't know why you don't want to accept that God exists but I do not really care. Maybe one day you will become a believer. Keep going on doing so. I can't tell whether you will be or not in heaven. It depends on you.
@chris241289 Well, it is genuinely nice that you acknowledge the good I do. I don't usually play the 'I do voluntary work' card in my normal life, but in debates about the existence of god I think it's relevant. I help my fellow (and downtrodden) man because I believe that my happiness is at least partly contingent on the happiness of my neighbour.
@gwangjuboy1 Well why wouldn't I admit what's good? It is good, very good that you help other people and that you are concerned about unjusticeness, but it is also a very bad thing of you if you know that the stories about Jesus are real, and you do not want to admit them because they will make you look silly. It's so sad to do all those good things and yet still refuse to believe in God. End of discussion.
@chris241289 Well I have spoken to religious people who argue that nothing can be considered good unless it is inspired by faith in god. At least you don't go that far. Also, I don't believe in something unless there is very strong evidence for doing so. Noone of religious belief (Christian or otherwise) has ever presented persuasive evidence. Also, if you had been born in Saudi Arabia you would almost certainly not be Chrisitian, and every Saudi knows who Jesus was.
"... god and have some respect for Him as an Authority you arrogant asshole. Just be decent and admit that there must be a Creator for the universe you arrogant asshole"
- just like the "good" christian that you obviously are.
@chris241289 the reason itself someone is a theist is kind of a big hint towards irrational thinking and blind brainlessness. the fact you "can't imgine something" could also give you the other, a bit more humble option, of admitting you don't know, or don't understand, instead of saying "the guy who did all this is my buddy." You are not free to believe or not believe reality,unless you don't care about beiong dillusional. So faith is about "gain". there we go again. selfish fear.
@phezla I am not that selfish as you say I am. The fact that I want what's best for me does not make me selfish. What would make me selfish is if I would want the best ONLY for me. But I want the best for anybody. And this selfishness, as you name it, it is spiritual desire for something better than this world full of corrupt and desensitised people like evolutionists who claim they are better than the religious people. I do not want what's best ONLY for me. You are a hypocrite.
Craig is being disingenuous by referring to 'historians' supporting the christian story, etc. Matthew and John are the only two who could attest to any of it, and they are hardly unbiased sources. It wouldn't be the only time people were sucked in by a guru type figure either. For example Sathya Sai Baba is a recent Indian guru who was reported to be have produced many miracles.
The fact that WLC resorts to such lies about the historicity of Jesus pretty much says it all about his arguments.
"Craig is being disingenuous by referring to 'historians' supporting the christian story"
He's not saying that. Rather, he is saying that historians agree with those 3 facts that he gives. Even skeptical scholars such as Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman agree with them. They just disagree that the best explanation is the Resurrection.
"Matthew and John are the only two who could attest to any of it"
Who's saying that only primary sources can be accurate? I guess you did.
Furthermore, historians try to figure out what actually happened by relying on agreements between Mark (the earliest Gospel, based off of an ever earlier source), and both Matthew and Luke (as these are based off of something known as the "Q" Gospel, which is also very early). These sources are independent, meaning whatever they agree upon probably happened.
@THEEVANTHETOON Most sources are verifiable regardless of bias. Nothing of Jesus' story is. Furthermore the role of Matthew John as evangelists or apostles means their story is the definition of biased, rather than simply somewhat biased.
the Q gospel is hypothetical. The agreements you're speaking of rely largely on the gospels borrowing from "Mark". Far from independent. Despite their shared ancestry there are plenty of contradictions between them.
"Most sources are verifiable regardless of bias. Nothing of Jesus' story is"
Please explain to me the difference between, say, Herodotus' histories and the Gospels, and why we can regard the former as accurate, despite the overwhelming bias, and not the latter.
You appear to be saying that we can't trust the evangelists because they had an agenda. Richard Dawkins specifically said in his book "The God Delusion" that his goal is to turn Theists into Atheists by the time they...
@THEEVANTHETOON Of course Dawkins has his own agenda, I'm not arguing that at all. And if Dawkins wrote the gospel, it would be an atheist one. But I'm not getting my version of history from Dawkins.
Herodotus studied and canvassed materials and societies, his research is seen as flawed in part but based on ideas/perceptions not merely his own. The gospels did not do this since most others at the time saw jesus a fraud. Therefore it's not so much history as just their story.
...put it down. Does that mean we can't trust anything he says? If not, please explain to me how this is different than the Gospels. You can't make special exceptions for your beliefs.
"the Q gospel is hypothetical"
Most historians support its existence.
"there are plenty of contradictions between them"
Such as?
"unfalsifiable doesn't mean good"
Two things:
1) The existence of God is not unfalsifiable.
2) If it is unfalsifiable, then Atheists should not assert that...
Do I really need to list the contradictions? They are numerous and uncontested.
The existence of God is unfalsifiable by humans, which is the important distinction, since the argument for God is made by humans.
The Q gospel is theorized and would only explain why some of the gospels are practically word for word. It basically deletes the argument that the stories ring true since because the evangelists never met.
"please explain to me how this [Dawkins agenda] is different than the Gospels"
Simple. Dawkins isn't bearing witness to anything. He's simply making an argument. Whether the argument is good or bad, every factual represention me makes can be checked out.
No scientist or fan of Dawkins,has ever said "this is true because Dawkins says it's true."
And he would agree. He just points out that Atheists have a burden of proof as well. If both sides fail, we have to confess ignorance; it does not follow that God does not exist.
"even though that isn't necessarily hitchens' stance"
It was; Hitchens was on the negating side for the question Does God exist?
"so reason hasn't been shown as a way to 'know god'"
You still don't get it. I am inferring that we can know that God..
@THEEVANTHETOON It depends on the atheist. Positive Atheists need to prove God's non-existence, other atheists do not.
Was Hitchens ever introduced as being 'for the negative'. Not all debates are structured that way. Hitchens makes his beliefs quite clear, and he's not changing them for the sake of the debate.
@THEEVANTHETOON Atheists don't have a burden of proof regarding the existence of God. That's absurd. Atheism is the rejection of God because there is no evidence for one. The only Atheists that would have a burden of proof placed on them would be gnostic atheists (positive atheists).However, I don't know of any true gnostic atheists.
@THEEVANTHETOON Who said empirical data was the only way? Even in science it's not, and there are ways besides science. We're talking one such way now: history.
So the historians believe ONLY that the disciples believed in Jesus. Good, but what of the initial dispute that Jesus' actual miracles are not historically proven? That was my comment. So the resurrection isn't a historical fact at all. What of Craig mentioning the demon pigs as historically correct? Where's the history on that?
@THEEVANTHETOON Reason and logic alone cannot substantiate existence, it is an ontological proposition; it asserts proof by logic and reason alone of something that reason alone cannot prove. Rationalism is only good for purporting ideas and concepts; it is Empiricism which substantiates said ideas and concepts. No contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus or the disciples are known to exist; Craig assumes the historical legitimacy of the Bible, without external validation.
...arguments are wrong, therefore all of them are? Wow.
Besides, you haven't refuted the argument from the Resurrection, contrary to your claim. All you did was show that you are unaware of the methods of inquiry in New Testament scholarship.
I might also care to mention that historians rely on pre-New Testament creeds, such as the one found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, as these are extremely early too.
This clip should be named, "Hitchens quietly slips Christian Apologist enough rope to hang himself with".
jq747 1 day ago
For all of his degrees, the numerous books he's written and the knowledge he possesses, William Lane Craig believes in demons. Not just believes they might exist, believes that Jesus himself exorcised them and put them into pigs.
How can anyone take this man seriously? He's a mental midget. It's very sad.
TheTexanCanadian 1 day ago
@TheTexanCanadian
Hi fellow Canadian, just wondering, how do you expect a Christian apologist not to believe in demons? Either Craig is right and God raised Jesus who defeated the power of darkness, or Hitchens is right and there is no supernatural realm. So why would he not defend his beliefs?
meangreen4321 1 day ago
@meangreen4321
Craig's belief in demons could be correct or there is no supernatural at all, those are the only two choices? There are numerous problems with this. Craig's god could be real but there are no demons, demons could be real and Craig's god could be imaginary, the supernatural could exist but neither Craig's god nor demons exist, or there could be a different god altogether. It's silly for Craig to argue this because there is absolutely no way to know ANY of it is true.
TheTexanCanadian 1 day ago
@TheTexanCanadian
Well, Craig is arguing for the Christian faith, and that includes belief in demons, but you're right, there's no way to confirm it. I've heard some stories that make me wonder if they exist, but until I experience something personally, I will always doubt. I'm more or less agnostic in belief, but I don't reject the idea of the supernatural possibly existing and we won't know until we die, will we? Unless there is nothing... which suits me just fine also.
meangreen4321 12 hours ago
Doesn't this show that you can be both intelligent and utterly stupid at the same time! Clearly the guy is bright. Clearly he is also stupid.
Remarkable.
FranklyLate 3 days ago 3
Don't you just love the constant, flustered, nervous wobble in Craigs voice and the cool, deep, easy going eloquence of Hitchens.
oscar11972 4 days ago in playlist Panel 1 8
Craig is good, but Hitchens is much better, shame he had to go...
austinjames666 6 days ago
Hitch would have made a BRILLIANT lawyer!
sitemountain 1 week ago 8
Graig "So what is historically undeniable is that jesus did exorcism"
Graig "cant prove jesus was born of a immaculate conception"......so jesus is not divine, so did not do the above, its not even historical anyway or in reality
devante11 1 week ago
such immense nature that could indeed have conciousness and power so great that to the physically linited human being woulod appear to be god like and have the properties needed to create universes generated it from its own limiitless universe. So ebvn if you dont believe a god exists in this universe then it must by the logic of this arguement(which is sciences own) must exist somewhere
jaspurr77 1 week ago
there is regularity in that the conditions of the earth are such and so precise that the mathematical probability of all the variables coming together tosustain life..ie the warmth of the sun its distannce..from the earth ..ect ect..are so unlikekly that you can only assert that there is a divine architect either that or you subscribe to the multiple dimensional theory where every possible permutation of life is in existence ..but beleieving that would also include beings of
jaspurr77 1 week ago
@jaspurr77 How are the distance from the sun and the natural conditions for life proof of a divine being or even unlikely in this universe? It's just a case of evolution of life. If it hadn't been that way, we wouldn't be here right now thinking about it, now would we? That being said, life isn't theorized to be uncommon on other planets, at least on a microbiotic perspective. I don't see where you get your proof of God from either.
zthomasack 6 days ago
not that i'm a creationist or anything but in answer to your question the act of free will contradicts any intervention..plus the destruction of the earth would be agood thing as according to the gospel of judas the earth was created by the fallen angels..the lower gods and belongs to the devil..jesus trys to show the way of love so that the soul is awake before we die and can travel there when the world of matter is at an end
jaspurr77 1 week ago
Why do we need to prove the existence of God? We don't debate the existence of the sun, the value of money, or the pleasure that love gives us, even if they are intangibles we don't have to resort to magical thinking to know they are there.
estuchedepeluche 1 week ago
@estuchedepeluche lol, great point, there should be no debate about anything, everybody is free to believe in whatever, who cares about truth? everybody has their own reality and jesus exists in my reality and does in lots of others so there's no need for a debate, right?
Diosukekun 1 week ago
@Diosukekun I don't know if you're being satirical or not, but healthy debate does promote knowledge and the spread of new ideas/information, along with other positive effects as well.
zthomasack 6 days ago
"historically undeniable"? Really?
Ilicium 1 week ago
Craig could argue that butter is not butter. The man is straight up retarded and wears a suit to appear sane.
HumaneAnon 1 week ago
I see so many atheists attacking Dr.Craig with reason and logic. Do you really think that's fair?
On a positive note, his little hands don't seem so scary!?!
theDuctapeUnion 1 week ago
William Lane Craig is certifiably insane.
22Lansdowne 1 week ago
Questions: If Jesus has such divine authority that he can command the forces of darkness, what is the need for an armageddon? Why doesn't Jesus just command the dark forces to stand down? Christian apologists can't even understand their own bullshit, can they?
AtheistRex 1 week ago 22
@AtheistRex Also aaaaassss iiiiiiiiiifffff santa can deliver all the presents in one night!
I mean come on how can he eat all the milk and cookies we leave him. And another thing why do poor people get less presents?! (I rekon our parents do it all.)
This is what it is like trying to argue with a creationist. In sociological terms they are about 5 years old.
Dgoosh1000 1 week ago
@AtheistRex I can't even understand YOUR bullshit.
uranatheisttwit 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
uranatheisttwit "I can't even understand YOUR bullshit."
Get someone with a grade school education to explain it to you.
AtheistRex 4 days ago
I meant to say William lang Craig leans towards his understanding of science to prove God, and thus, why he can not accurately answer the questions from hitchens, and why he does not understand that Jesus said a demon is not divided against himself, and said, that the devil can not cast out himself. Jesus address that issue, and yet, Craig does not know that. That miracle did testify that Jesus was who he said he was, Jesus said so. Read Matthew 12:24. Jesus said the reason and craig is wrong.
stevelovesgod 2 weeks ago
Christopher hitchens leans more towards his own understanding and does not accurately answer htichens questions, The only way you would be able to cast out demons is by the power of God, no other sorcery can do this, but Craig uses science to support the bible, which is why he's there debating in the first place, and thats a flawed way of understanding God. God seek him in spirit, Not through mens philosophy. Which is what craig does, and does not understand the power of GOD.
stevelovesgod 2 weeks ago
"I've not studied in in any depth"? You can be one of the top "minds" in Christian apologetics without knowing the just the Gospels forward and back?
IoEstasCedonta 2 weeks ago 7
@IoEstasCedonta And this event was on the day of the ressurection. The most central day.
Stipoon 2 weeks ago 8
I love how Hitchens just makes Craig destroy himself. LOL
Rymaldub 2 weeks ago
Craig is the absolute best ever at taking what should be a 2 second response and turning it into a 30 second nonsensical rambling so he doesn't have to take a definitive stand on a particular topic.
titans091052 2 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Is it just me, or does anyone else think William Lane Craig is actually David Lee Roth?
watch?v=3WfQ-hV3WtA
ninjamojo711 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
When someone says "as a christian..." they're really saying "as a human being I can't say I believe it, but as a christian I must say I believe it". Well, they should say "as a hypocrite..."!!!
12Monkeys8u 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
12Monkeys8u 2 weeks ago
False prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive you.
gwalj 2 weeks ago
watch out Craig is back-peddling! lol
Marzattacz 3 weeks ago 14
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
Static822 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
Static822 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitch always did a masterful job of surgically exposing the logical inconsistencies and absurdities of the Christian belief system. Where he failed was that he persistently argued against the existence of god when he should have agreed that a supernatural presence is at the heart of creation. This would have left guys like Craig with the unenviable task of having to justify how their absurd belief system has ANYTHING at all to do with this transcendence. Something Craig has always failed at
LoganFiive 3 weeks ago
The passage about the saints resurrecting is in Matthew 27:45-56. If you asked Craig about any other detail of that passage (Jesus dying, the temple curtain ripping, the earthquake, the guards saying Jesus was the son of God, etc), he would say it was to be taken as a historical account, but once it comes to the saints rising he retreats so he won't have to defend what he knows is a ridiculous position. If you can't see the problem with this religious mentality then your mind is lost.
WorkOverTime 3 weeks ago
@WorkOverTime Yeah. Matthew's context was that the saints rose AT THE TIME of the event. It doesn't say it "will happen" but that it DID happen. It's listed alongside every other event that Craig takes as a historical account of what happened during the crucifixtion. More apologetic wankery of cherry picking.
TempleOfInanna2 3 weeks ago
AMAZING.. When Craig is asked if he believed ONE of the MOST STUNNING MIRACLES in the bible, i.e. The raising of the dead of Jerusalem in Matthew, suddenly it appears Craig has done little study of the bible. He suddenly feigns ignorance as to whether it was literal or allegorical!! Sure Craig, you never even considered ZOMBIES on the streets of Jerusalem, I believe ya... BAT SHIT CRAZY MAN!!!
MitchStarRepublic 1 month ago
Other videos suggest Craig won this debate but this video alone shows who really came here with sense and sensibilities and the other with dogma.
Game over Craig, Hitch wins again.
Dgoosh1000 1 month ago 16
@Dgoosh1000 Bullshit, Hitch wasn't nearly as dogmatic an atheist as Richard Dawkins is, yet Dawkins - the self appointed grand master of atheism in the world today - is metaphorically cowering in a corner somewhere afraid to debate this guy, even other high profile atheists are traducing him for his epistemological cowardice, try explaining that bizarre state of affairs away...
Kenmorfdublin 3 weeks ago
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
Static822 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
Static822 3 weeks ago
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
Static822 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
Static822 3 weeks ago
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. It's a waste of time.
Static822 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. It's a waste of time.
Static822 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
Static822 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
Static822 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenmorfdublin Dawkins stated that nothing more can be gained from debating Craig, apart from helping Craig sell books and get bigger audiences at debates. At the end of the day when someone says "As a Christian i believe it, but i can't prove it" How long can you keep banging your head against a brick wall? This man is delusional, and until we have hard evidence as to how the universe was created, you will never win an argument with this sort of rigid, closed minded apologist. Waste of time.
Static822 3 weeks ago
@Kenmorfdublin Debating Craig is like fingerbanging your mum, a thouroghly unenjoyable state of affairs. I'm not surprised Dawkins wont debate him. He's a scientist for christ sake! He has got some work to do and will debate other scientists on the merits of punctuated evolution not Craig who presuposes a 6000 year old earth.
Dgoosh1000 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kenmorfdublin Debating Craig is like fingerbanging your mum, a thouroghly unenjoyable state of affairs. I'm not surprised Dawkins wont debate him. He's a scientist for christ sake! He has got some work to do and will debate other scientists on the merits of punctuated evolution not Craig who presuposes a 6000 year old earth.
Dgoosh1000 2 weeks ago
@Dgoosh1000 Hitch always won :) Guess He still will.
austinjames666 3 weeks ago
@Dgoosh1000 Watch the whole debate. It's funny how you so desperately want Hitchens to win that you would cling to 4 minutes of a 1.5hour debate. A weak 4 minutes at that. "OMG THIS IS WHY Hitchens owns Craig!!!!!!!!!!!" lol get real.
jwtrevor 2 weeks ago
@jwtrevor Oh, there's more of course from the debate, like when Hitchens points out that Craig holds the position that no scientifical or historical evidence (discovered or in the present) can challenge the subjective ('inner') witness of the holy spirit.
I wonder how Craig can square that with calling himself an intellectual and his debate partners unintellectual.
Stipoon 2 weeks ago
@Stipoon For Craig, his personal experience is very real to him(an experience not so different from love). All he is saying is that if one of his arguments is knocked down entirely, it would not necessarily change his belief in God because of his personal experience. Arguments are often knocked down over time. This is why he states that he can not absolutely prove the existence of God, but that currently, the evidence for a God right now is much stronger than evidence against.
jwtrevor 2 weeks ago
@Stipoon You should examine Craig's "evidence" with an unbiased opinion. For Hitchens, that meant evading the questions and arguments, mumbling a lot of nonsense, and asking Craig a lot "what if" questions that led to nothing. You can attack Craig as a person and call him "unintellectual", but what can you say about his arguments. How well does Hitchens respond to them? In fact I believe he says 2 of the 5 are quite interesting and may hold some weight. Particularly the fine tuning.
jwtrevor 2 weeks ago
@jwtrevor I have whatched the whole debate before. And yes Craig was the more Confident speaker. He still did not bring to the table arguments that didnt require huge leaps of faith or a facile presupposition. Hitchens was not feeling too good either. (yknow stage 4 cancer can be a bitch). And besides if Hitch did lose this one that would make it 20:1 in favour of Hitchens. Soooo does that proove the argument? According to Christians yes. Well BELIEVE THAT TOO!
Dgoosh1000 2 weeks ago
@Dgoosh1000 Unless you can be specific, it does no good to claim Craig's arguments make "facile presuppositions". Craig is a serious philosopher and publishes new stuff in academic journals regularly. If you watched the debate, you should have been surprised on how little evidence Hitchens bases his beliefs on. About your last point, Craig does not claim to prove anything except that he finds it more rational to believe in God than not. What do your petty statistics have to do with anything?
jwtrevor 2 weeks ago
@jwtrevor I have whatched the debate before. The excessive throat clearing that Craig undergoes before making his point is something that Hitchens avoids whilst conducting the debate on a substantially higher level. Just as Plato does in 'The Republic' Hitchens starts with the logical work of his arguments already laid down whilst Craig does very little in the way of grounding himself before he starts arguing his point. Too call Craig a philosopher well.... you would have work to do.
Dgoosh1000 2 weeks ago
@Dgoosh1000 well, well, well well said
SHIBBYiPANDA 2 weeks ago
@Dgoosh1000 Lol!! Okay. If you can convince yourself of that, you can convince yourself of anything. A fellow atheist blogs "Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child."
But, believe whatever will get you through the night.
the full review is at common sense atheism.
jwtrevor 2 weeks ago
@jwtrevor
"A fellow atheist blogs "Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child."
This is my favorite bit. Craig's proponents have found a single atheist bloger who thought that Craig actually won this debate and so they quote him repeatedly.
Of course they don't quote the parts where the same atheist blogger explains why Craig's arguments are terrible.
I'd encourage folks to watch for themselves and see who makes sense and who is talking in circules & playing word games.
citizenghosttown 2 weeks ago
@jwtrevor Well just remember this.
When Athiests disagree its called a debate.
When Religionists disagree its called a schism and ultimately war.
I have no problem holding a contrary view to another human being.
I wont go to his house and force him to agree.
I wont raise my children under the threat to believe or die.
And i wont force schools to abolish anything I dont agree with.
Thats just the way I roll.
Dgoosh1000 2 weeks ago
@Dgoosh1000 When atheists disagree, they disprove their own atheism.
Hoogz20 2 weeks ago
@Hoogz20 Derp
Dgoosh1000 2 weeks ago
@Hoogz20 So when two theists disagree, they disprove all of their gods? And before you try, yes, theists disagree on EVERYTHING.
FALCO64125 1 week ago
@FALCO64125 Well I was just making the point that if athiesm were true then we could never actually know anything for certain given we are not omniscient. It doesn't make any sense to assert anything with absolute certainty if you are an athiest. There's actually more than one way that engaging in debate proves that the athiest isn't consistent with his athiesm but that's just one. Do you sort of understand what I'm trying to get at?
Hoogz20 1 week ago
@Hoogz20 Atheism is just the not believing there is a god, nothing more. Just because atheists don't agree completely in other fields doesn't mean a thing. As for never knowing anything for certain because we're not omniscient, that's nonsense. We know the earth will continue spinning bringing the sun back into view tomorrow. We know exactly how to shape an airplane wing and make it fly. We know many things based evidence, trial and error, and observation.
FALCO64125 1 week ago
@FALCO64125 I'm not saying athiests can't know anything for certain. They indeed do know things for certain and that's exactly what I'm getting at. They know and even rely upon things with absolute certainty such as the uniformity we see in nature , the basic reliability of their senses, etc. However, if athiesm were true then the consistent athiest has no basis for making a knowledge claim of any sort. This idea of certainty simply doesn't make sense in athiestic worldviews.
Hoogz20 1 week ago
@Hoogz20 "I'm not saying atheists can't know anything for certain... This idea of certainty simply doesn't make sense in atheistic worldviews."
You're not making any sense.
FALCO64125 1 week ago
@Hoogz20 "Do you sort of understand what I'm trying to get at?"
No. It makes no sense.
"if athiesm were true then we could never actually know anything for certain"
Bullshit. The opposite is true. If there was a "supernatural variable", what good would any test result be? If an unseen being could influence anything at a whim, nothing, no experiment, no theory, would be reliable. The world would be subject to haphazard findings and dark ages. All information would be suspect and useless.
AtheistRex 1 week ago
@AtheistRex It makes perfect sense but maybe I didn't explain it well enough. Youtube is a little limiting lol. Quick question: If you believe the universe and everything contained within it came about by a random chance process then why is there a certain degree of regularity in nature in the first place? Did everything just cease to be random? Why do we have laws that govern nature and make science possible in the first place?
Hoogz20 1 week ago
@Hoogz20 There is no degree of regularity in nature. On earth we have temperature extremes of well below freezing to many thousands of degrees. It gets even worse in space and on other planets.
We don't yet understand everything about the beginnings of the universe and The Big Bang, but we do know that hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. Hydrogen condenses into gas clouds which form into new stars. Heavier elements are formed throughout a star's life.
FALCO64125 1 week ago
@Dgoosh1000 Yeah? Atheists have never wage war on the religious? Atheism is one of the pillars of communism and we know that communist rule in the USSR and China have done awful things to religious people. However none of this relevant has to do with arguments in video. I do however pity your children because they not likely to get any sort of balance perspective on life for you. Just the irrational rantings of a jaded person. Just the way you roll though.
jwtrevor 2 weeks ago
@jwtrevor I never usually do this but..
1. Atheism is an afterthough of Communism by Marx. Not a "Pillar".
2. Persecuted people of communist countries were punished for opposing the absolute rule of the party. Not their religion.
3. Without the past 2000 years of obtrusive religion no totalitarian system could ever establish itself.
4. Are you suggesting I foster my children just to make sure that they have "balance."
5. What about my limited posts suggest a jaded personality?
Dgoosh1000 2 weeks ago
@Dgoosh1000 "Religion is the opium of the people: this saying of Marx is the cornerstone of the entire ideology of Marxism about religion." - Lenin
The USSR was the first state to seek the ideological elimination of religion. FACT! Research "the league of the militant godless".
By balance, I meant understanding history as it is, not just what you like to believe.
The fact that you pick and choose history that agrees with you makes me believe you are jaded. That's whats really sad.
jwtrevor 1 week ago
@jwtrevor The first half of your comment is stretching common sense to the limit in ways I wont go into now. (you'll have to take my word for it that I can counter such remarks)
And the second half. I am of the opinion that there was no such person as Jesus of Nazareth based on the evidence. Now! I cant then go and say to my children "Hey guys just so you know the bible says he did exsist and unbelief means hell" That isnt balance.
It's a complete non-sequiter.
Dgoosh1000 1 week ago
@Dgoosh1000 What's a stretch? The fact that the USSR had a militant atheist state and oppressed and killed people of every religion to establish a ideologically secular state? It's well documented. But whatever you win...congrats.
jwtrevor 1 week ago
@jwtrevor Not secular. Communist. There is no room for secularism in a communist state. First study, then argue. Not t'other way round.
Dgoosh1000 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jwtrevor" Atheism is one of the pillars of communism and we know that..." You are so full of shit. Atheism is one of the pillars of communism?!?!? What utter bullshit. Also, Russia, nor China, were ever communist. They are/were dictatorships. My country of Canada has many communist ideals inherent in it, such as welfare, health care, food banks, free education,OSAP, etc. You should understand the concepts you use, before you use them.
pillsareyummy 21 hours ago
@jwtrevor what journals does Craig publish regularly in? What new stuff does he have to offer? He certainly seems a presuppositionalist to me and a joke of a person. He's admitted, in many areas, that his belief in Christianity comes before his rational thinking..
SHIBBYiPANDA 2 weeks ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA Hes published hundreds of peer reviewed articles including articles in the following journals :
The Journal of Philosophy (the most prestigious philosophy journal), American Philosophical Quarterly, Philosophical Studies, Philosophy, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, Modern Theology and Religious Studies
jwtrevor 2 weeks ago
@jwtrevor I looked at his website and, from my quick count, in the past ten year, Craig has published one article that's not about God or Christianity. He's a theologian, thru and thru. He's admitted in his testimony that he was an extremely bitter, sour, dark, person before he became a Christian, with few friends and a great amount of animosity towards people. He's admitted that he thinks life without God would be unlivable. He seems the very definition of someone with an axe to grind
SHIBBYiPANDA 2 weeks ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA LOL! How is God not a philosophic topic?! Its one of the oldest and most important topics in philosophy. In the preview for this debate, Hitchens said that Craig is a force to be reckoned with and a goliath. The reason why Hitchens didn't speak as free as he normal does is because he knows Craig will call him out on anything he says that is incorrect. But i see your happy to attack the person rather than the arguments, and thats fine. It must help you sleep better at night.
jwtrevor 2 weeks ago
@jwtrevor I'm fine to call out a coward when I see one & that's what Craig seems to me. He seems afraid to me. He has basically said, both, that life wouldn't be worth living if God didn't exist and that he was darkly miserable before he accepted Christ. God is a phil topic, but it's Craig's ONLY phil claim to fame.. I think these reasons cause him to be extremely close minded and intellectually stunted..
I'm sorry I'm being rude, btw, the internet temps it out of me.
SHIBBYiPANDA 2 weeks ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA
I may sound like one of 'those guys' but...
Just like in Nazi Germany, there were those that could not contemplate a world without Hitler and when remindered of life prior, say, 1933 can recolect the great depression and inflation and the great war. Craig is the same. Whether he had a tough childhood is none of my concern the fact remains, only evil totalitarian systems ask you to hand over your life for the great leader.
secular societies ask for co-operation.
Dgoosh1000 2 weeks ago
@Dgoosh1000 Haha no I get you, fine point. The facts certainly do remain. But I think it's very worth pointing out to Craig fans that Craig has SOOO terribly much motivation to pursue reasoning to support his beliefs, so much more than anyone he's ever debated. Watch his speech about "the absurdity of life without god" where he blatantly says that suicide become a viable option if God didn't exist. Who the Hell says that? He seems like a huge looser to me.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 week ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA
And since not everyone is suicidally depressed that proves my point that there is a god.
This is the sort of circular reasoning one has to train in in order to fool people into saying foolish a wiked things. Wait actually it's called doublethink.
Dgoosh1000 1 week ago
@Dgoosh1000 Because every living person isn't suicidal is proof of God? That's a new one...
FALCO64125 1 week ago
@FALCO64125 Ummm read the rest of the stuff with that guy before that comment and it will make more sense.
Dgoosh1000 1 week ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA He is also a prominent philosopher of time. But you don't see my point. You are close-minded, not Craig. You keep talking about the him life as if it is relevant. You've already closed your mind completely to scholarly discussion, therefore, the arguments are irrelevant to you. There are many (not the majority by any means), but there are many religious/Christian scientists and philosophers today. if it helps you to think that they are all jaded individuals thats your prerogative
jwtrevor 1 week ago
@jwtrevor I have his book on time and God. & you couldn't possibly know if I'm close minded or not, so your claim is dumb. I'm merely pointing out good evidence that Craig is mentally and emotionally unable to examine his own or others arguments. He's indicated that his very well being depends on Christianity being true, and by extension, his own arguments.
I'm friends with the head of philosophy at DBU who himself told me he thought Craig was over enthusiastic about his arguments.
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 week ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA LOL i made the same claim you did about Craig. Only im sure my claim is much truer. Cry more! You can't keep saying that Craig is mentally unable to respond to problems that are raised against his arguments without giving specific examples. He spends his life answer to these objects in a public forum and on papers! He studies his opponents more rigorously than anyone else. You're intellectually dishonest because you can't examine evidence. you prefer ad hominem attacks.
jwtrevor 1 week ago
@jwtrevor I've given specific examples. Examine his "absurdity of life without God" speech. Its ridiculous. He approvingly quotes philosophers who have stated that suicide becomes a viable option if God doesn't exist, then he goes on to say that "man cannot live happily or consistently with atheism" & otherwise has also admitted that he was very depressed and angry at people before becoming a Christian, you do the math. I'm sure others will attack his arguments, I'm attacking his brain
SHIBBYiPANDA 1 week ago
@Dgoosh1000 Are you kidding me!?!?! I know you're not. You're just in denial. :)
BurntToast355 1 week ago
So burn anyone who practices sorcery, because they are evil. And yet, Jesus is the messiah because he commands the forces of evil.
How many people who claimed to be sorcerers also claimed to be the child of some higher power? More than just Jesus. And yet when he does the exact same thing it is proof of him being a genuine messiah.
Well if you aren't convinced by that then what will convince you? Erm, well if that's the best you've got then nothing because I think... with my brain...
callum936 1 month ago
Dr Craig is a well educated and persuasive debater who is very good at giving reasons for a broad belief in God. However, when it comes down to it, he is a fundamentalist and he starts to look shifty and and uncomfortable when it comes to the details such as exorcism which sound absurd to many of us today.
gextvedde 1 month ago
@gextvedde yes, good point. I think he is stuck with an argument like the resurrection of Jesus which he needs the gospels to be valid, but has to explain the uncomfortable parts...which is embarrassing to a modern person....terrible position to be in...it appears his faith can overcome this dissonance.....so far.
adstanra 1 month ago
"No it wouldn't be [sorcery], it would be a demonstration of jesus' ability to command even the forces of darkness"
that's what sorcery is, Mr. Craig.
BigBallaShotCalla15 1 month ago
@BigBallaShotCalla15 Yes it could be sorcery but according to the bible(sorry for saying that, but this is important and what its about) Jesus was predicted in the old testament in the book of Daniel so therefore sorcery is a weak basis.
MrLinkinparkrules 1 month ago
@MrLinkinparkrules At the end of the day, it is sorcery. Call a spade a spade, regardless of the hand that played it.
BigBallaShotCalla15 1 month ago
@BigBallaShotCalla15 Sorcery as in magic, I guess you could call it that, but do you mean by saying that, that Jesus was a sorcer?
MrLinkinparkrules 1 month ago
@BigBallaShotCalla15 No, because there's a difference between commanding dark forces out of a persons body, using sorcery, and doing it NOT using sorcery. Jesus did the latter.
It should be clear to anyone understanding the difference.
Not using sorcery while performing miracles, means no sorcery was involved, while by using sorcery, you involve sorcery as a tool of accomplishing your goals, i.e., driving out dark forces of a persons body. BIG difference...
HKragh 4 weeks ago
@HKragh Sorcery, necromancy, elementalism, alchemy, miracles...all magic, all BS.
HKOverlord117 3 weeks ago
Hitch looks high!
ChaaruziK 1 month ago
@ChaaruziK How comfortable Craig looks, seems to make Hitchens annoyed, because Craig is a philosopher and Hitchens is just a journalist, Dawkins is just Biologist!! U cant beat philosophy!!!
shoussam 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ChaaruziK "Hitch looks high!"
He was often drunk, and though I don't know if he is here, the ruddy complexion is likely a marker of his time spent boozing. Whether one considers it foolish of him to have ever debated while drunk, impressive that he was able to possess enough lucidity while under the influence to stand his ground with other intellectuals, or whether it would be considered entirely unremarkable is at the discretion of the viewer. I myself was certainly proud of him, regardless.
themediocrenontheist 1 month ago
"As a christian, I believe..." is the equivalent of saying "When I switch off my brain and stop any kind of autonomous thought..."
phezla 1 month ago
@phezla No sir, it's atheists such as yourself that their brain are switched off, im not even going to bring the faith card up again, because just the thing that u didnt get what was this debate about, is enough for anyone to see how mind limited atheists are!!
shoussam 1 month ago
@shoussam yeah, right. I pity you, sincerely. What a sad, sad thing, living in the 21st century with the superstitious and scared mind and world view of medieval times.
phezla 1 month ago
@phezla Nothing sad about belief in God. Nothing fear-driven about it either.
omsct 1 month ago
@omsct living life based on untrue, false childish superstitions = sad.
"do as i command or burn in hell for all eternity" = fear
"do as i command and be rewarded with eternity in paradise" = hypocritical selfishness
phezla 1 month ago
@phezla A christian would do the right thing and good deeds and what God commands him to because he loves God and the people. Not because he is afraid of hell or because he expects golden streets and in heaven.
chris241289 1 month ago
@chris241289 a christian feels compelled to do so because that's what he is taught, not what he is conviced of. define "good" without recurring to "god". well, there you have one dilemma called "moral relativism". or, like stepehn fry calls it: "thought". who knows maybe it'd be your first step towards reason and common sense - also called atheism.
phezla 1 month ago
@phezla I don't agree. You mean that a theist has no common sense or good reasoning? I cannot imagine how this rationally intelligent universe can exist without God (a Creator). But you are free to believe what you want. But what can you gain by atheism? By faith you have nothing to lose even if you are wrong about what you believe, but by atheism you're completely screwed if it turns out to be wrong.
chris241289 1 month ago
@chris241289
Look up Pascal's Wager Debunked... You will find hundreds of sources for your silly assertion...
igotsachubby 1 month ago
@igotsachubby ...since when are theists interested in questioning themselves?
phezla 1 month ago
Comment removed
gwangjuboy1 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chris241289 It depends on what your faith requires you to do. Remember that Muslims think that Christians are going to hell and vice versa. You cannot be both a Muslim and a Christian for example. Either way a lot of equally vehemently believers are going to hell according to their chief proponents.
gwangjuboy1 1 month ago
@gwangjuboy1 Hey I wasn't talking about being a christian or about being a muslim. I admit I am a christian but I do not tell other people that if they are not going to believe what I believe they will go to hell. I was just talking about believing in God and have some respect for Him as an Authority you arrogant asshole. Just be decent and admit that there must be a Creator for the universe you arrogant asshole.
chris241289 1 month ago
@chris241289 Is the acceptance of Jesus not a precondition to entering heaven according Chrsitian doctrine? Is there a third place for people to go outside heaven or hell? With respect to the arguments about creationism, the evidence for intelligent design is not strong enough but the absence of evidence does not preclude the possibility. Even if you could prove it, you cannot go beyond deism without impinging on science.
gwangjuboy1 1 month ago
@gwangjuboy1 Well accepting Jesus is a condition to entering heaven but ONLY for people like you who heard of Him, not for people who never heard of Him. If a muslim never heard of Jesus like He is presented in the New Testament as God he can enter in heaven if he had a good heart and if he worked according to the light he could ever know.
chris241289 1 month ago
@chris241289 So with respect to muslims (and others) who have heard of Jesus but still refuse to accept him where are they going? I would guess that a huge number of muslims have at least heard of him. Indeed they regard him as a prophet themselves, but not as the son of god.
gwangjuboy1 1 month ago
@gwangjuboy1 It is not my business to say where they go after they die or if they will be saved. The only thing I can say is that if someone refuses to accept the truth then he is doomed, completely screwed. All depends on how willing is someone to accept the truth. I can't say I know the heart and thoughts of everyone to say whether they will be or not be saved.
chris241289 1 month ago
@chris241289 If they are 'doomed' what do you mean? That sounds like a euphemism for 'hell bound' but you just can't say it because it would make you look foolish in light of your earlier claims. Also, why do I do voluntary work for the poor? Why have I literally donated 100s of hours to helping people suffering social injustice? Now I don't want a medal, but clearly my desire to help the less fortunate exists irrespective of my position on religion.
gwangjuboy1 1 month ago
@gwangjuboy1 If it would be true what you said I would be very glad to hear that. If you really are that willing to fight agianst unjusticeness and to help the poor people then I can easy name you a good person. I don't know why you don't want to accept that God exists but I do not really care. Maybe one day you will become a believer. Keep going on doing so. I can't tell whether you will be or not in heaven. It depends on you.
chris241289 1 month ago
@chris241289 Well, it is genuinely nice that you acknowledge the good I do. I don't usually play the 'I do voluntary work' card in my normal life, but in debates about the existence of god I think it's relevant. I help my fellow (and downtrodden) man because I believe that my happiness is at least partly contingent on the happiness of my neighbour.
gwangjuboy1 1 month ago
@gwangjuboy1 Well why wouldn't I admit what's good? It is good, very good that you help other people and that you are concerned about unjusticeness, but it is also a very bad thing of you if you know that the stories about Jesus are real, and you do not want to admit them because they will make you look silly. It's so sad to do all those good things and yet still refuse to believe in God. End of discussion.
chris241289 1 month ago
@chris241289 Well I have spoken to religious people who argue that nothing can be considered good unless it is inspired by faith in god. At least you don't go that far. Also, I don't believe in something unless there is very strong evidence for doing so. Noone of religious belief (Christian or otherwise) has ever presented persuasive evidence. Also, if you had been born in Saudi Arabia you would almost certainly not be Chrisitian, and every Saudi knows who Jesus was.
gwangjuboy1 1 month ago
@chris241289
Thou sayest:
"... god and have some respect for Him as an Authority you arrogant asshole. Just be decent and admit that there must be a Creator for the universe you arrogant asshole"
- just like the "good" christian that you obviously are.
Well done.
Anything else you would like to add .. ?
tellnet 1 month ago
@chris241289 can it be that YOU are the one being an arrogant asshole? What does the evidence show?
MagnusNyborg 1 month ago
@chris241289 the reason itself someone is a theist is kind of a big hint towards irrational thinking and blind brainlessness. the fact you "can't imgine something" could also give you the other, a bit more humble option, of admitting you don't know, or don't understand, instead of saying "the guy who did all this is my buddy." You are not free to believe or not believe reality,unless you don't care about beiong dillusional. So faith is about "gain". there we go again. selfish fear.
phezla 1 month ago
@phezla I am not that selfish as you say I am. The fact that I want what's best for me does not make me selfish. What would make me selfish is if I would want the best ONLY for me. But I want the best for anybody. And this selfishness, as you name it, it is spiritual desire for something better than this world full of corrupt and desensitised people like evolutionists who claim they are better than the religious people. I do not want what's best ONLY for me. You are a hypocrite.
chris241289 1 month ago
@omsct simply untrue
D3viouz1 1 month ago
@omsct I'm sorry but why is the most popular threat to non believers eternal damnation in hell?
maccas1329 1 month ago
Craig is being disingenuous by referring to 'historians' supporting the christian story, etc. Matthew and John are the only two who could attest to any of it, and they are hardly unbiased sources. It wouldn't be the only time people were sucked in by a guru type figure either. For example Sathya Sai Baba is a recent Indian guru who was reported to be have produced many miracles.
The fact that WLC resorts to such lies about the historicity of Jesus pretty much says it all about his arguments.
Whoknowsuknow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Whoknowsuknow
"Craig is being disingenuous by referring to 'historians' supporting the christian story"
He's not saying that. Rather, he is saying that historians agree with those 3 facts that he gives. Even skeptical scholars such as Richard Carrier and Bart Ehrman agree with them. They just disagree that the best explanation is the Resurrection.
"Matthew and John are the only two who could attest to any of it"
Who's saying that only primary sources can be accurate? I guess you did.
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
Which 3 facts are you referring to? That jesus was a professed excorcist/mystic?
What I'm referring to are the miracle workings of Jesus and Craig clearly refers to one of them 'resurrection' as historical.
Whoknowsuknow 1 month ago
@Whoknowsuknow
"they are hardly unbiased sources"
No sources are unbiased.
Furthermore, historians try to figure out what actually happened by relying on agreements between Mark (the earliest Gospel, based off of an ever earlier source), and both Matthew and Luke (as these are based off of something known as the "Q" Gospel, which is also very early). These sources are independent, meaning whatever they agree upon probably happened.
"says it all about his arguments."
So one of his...
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Most sources are verifiable regardless of bias. Nothing of Jesus' story is. Furthermore the role of Matthew John as evangelists or apostles means their story is the definition of biased, rather than simply somewhat biased.
the Q gospel is hypothetical. The agreements you're speaking of rely largely on the gospels borrowing from "Mark". Far from independent. Despite their shared ancestry there are plenty of contradictions between them.
Whoknowsuknow 1 month ago
@Whoknowsuknow
"Most sources are verifiable regardless of bias. Nothing of Jesus' story is"
Please explain to me the difference between, say, Herodotus' histories and the Gospels, and why we can regard the former as accurate, despite the overwhelming bias, and not the latter.
You appear to be saying that we can't trust the evangelists because they had an agenda. Richard Dawkins specifically said in his book "The God Delusion" that his goal is to turn Theists into Atheists by the time they...
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Of course Dawkins has his own agenda, I'm not arguing that at all. And if Dawkins wrote the gospel, it would be an atheist one. But I'm not getting my version of history from Dawkins.
Herodotus studied and canvassed materials and societies, his research is seen as flawed in part but based on ideas/perceptions not merely his own. The gospels did not do this since most others at the time saw jesus a fraud. Therefore it's not so much history as just their story.
Whoknowsuknow 1 month ago
@Whoknowsuknow
...put it down. Does that mean we can't trust anything he says? If not, please explain to me how this is different than the Gospels. You can't make special exceptions for your beliefs.
"the Q gospel is hypothetical"
Most historians support its existence.
"there are plenty of contradictions between them"
Such as?
"unfalsifiable doesn't mean good"
Two things:
1) The existence of God is not unfalsifiable.
2) If it is unfalsifiable, then Atheists should not assert that...
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
Do I really need to list the contradictions? They are numerous and uncontested.
The existence of God is unfalsifiable by humans, which is the important distinction, since the argument for God is made by humans.
The Q gospel is theorized and would only explain why some of the gospels are practically word for word. It basically deletes the argument that the stories ring true since because the evangelists never met.
Whoknowsuknow 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@THEEVANTHETOON
"please explain to me how this [Dawkins agenda] is different than the Gospels"
Simple. Dawkins isn't bearing witness to anything. He's simply making an argument. Whether the argument is good or bad, every factual represention me makes can be checked out.
No scientist or fan of Dawkins,has ever said "this is true because Dawkins says it's true."
Huge difference.
citizenghosttown 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON
"The existence of God is not unfalsifiable"
Can you explain that? What method would you accept for the falsification of God's existence?
citizenghosttown 1 month ago
@Whoknowsuknow
...God does not exist.
"he has a burden of proof"
And he would agree. He just points out that Atheists have a burden of proof as well. If both sides fail, we have to confess ignorance; it does not follow that God does not exist.
"even though that isn't necessarily hitchens' stance"
It was; Hitchens was on the negating side for the question Does God exist?
"so reason hasn't been shown as a way to 'know god'"
You still don't get it. I am inferring that we can know that God..
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON It depends on the atheist. Positive Atheists need to prove God's non-existence, other atheists do not.
Was Hitchens ever introduced as being 'for the negative'. Not all debates are structured that way. Hitchens makes his beliefs quite clear, and he's not changing them for the sake of the debate.
Whoknowsuknow 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Atheists don't have a burden of proof regarding the existence of God. That's absurd. Atheism is the rejection of God because there is no evidence for one. The only Atheists that would have a burden of proof placed on them would be gnostic atheists (positive atheists).However, I don't know of any true gnostic atheists.
pillsareyummy 21 hours ago
@Whoknowsuknow
...exists through reason and logic. There is no reason to think that empirical data is the only way to arrive at the truth.
"Which 3 facts are you referring to?"
1) The tomb was found empty.
2) The disciples believed they saw post-mortem appearances of Christ.
3) Believe in the Resurrection is the best explanation for the behavior of the disciples.
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Who said empirical data was the only way? Even in science it's not, and there are ways besides science. We're talking one such way now: history.
So the historians believe ONLY that the disciples believed in Jesus. Good, but what of the initial dispute that Jesus' actual miracles are not historically proven? That was my comment. So the resurrection isn't a historical fact at all. What of Craig mentioning the demon pigs as historically correct? Where's the history on that?
Whoknowsuknow 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON Reason and logic alone cannot substantiate existence, it is an ontological proposition; it asserts proof by logic and reason alone of something that reason alone cannot prove. Rationalism is only good for purporting ideas and concepts; it is Empiricism which substantiates said ideas and concepts. No contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus or the disciples are known to exist; Craig assumes the historical legitimacy of the Bible, without external validation.
RebelWrestler45 1 month ago
@Whoknowsuknow
...arguments are wrong, therefore all of them are? Wow.
Besides, you haven't refuted the argument from the Resurrection, contrary to your claim. All you did was show that you are unaware of the methods of inquiry in New Testament scholarship.
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
@Whoknowsuknow
I might also care to mention that historians rely on pre-New Testament creeds, such as the one found in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, as these are extremely early too.
THEEVANTHETOON 1 month ago
@THEEVANTHETOON This may be an early creed ( Mike Licona..lol) , or an interpolation ( Price) , but even if it is actually Paul