Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
I think Craig's arguments about the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning argument, and the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ are very very strong. However, I think his argument about objective moral values is somewhat weak. He seems to assume that we all "know" that there are objective morals, but offers no proof for that.
@REDRAGON12345 there is nothing strong here! You can't make any statistical calculations concerning the universe because we have only one (sample size =1) . You can't tell if "universes" are always made up like we have it or if it is rather improbable like we have it. Hawking is misquoted here. And Jesus has never existed because we have no neutral observers writing about him and Roman historians are konow to be very accurate. The first report about Jesus was written 50-70 years by his followers
Atheism is illusion about God. Atheists believe like Christians in distorted version of God, which isnt true. Hawking: "God didnt create universe". God: "Enjoy your chair".
He says that atheists see nothing really wrong with raping someone, well that is dead wrong. I guess he can't say anything good so he has to say something like that.
@josephboy1000 Keep listening - he finishes the thought at around 6:10. Objective reality does exist...deep down. There is an inert reaction we all have to rape...that it is wrong.
I'm really excited about WLC's upcoming debate with Lawrence Krauss this march...As you can see from this video, he loves quoting theoretical physicists, now lets see how he can debate one.
@bmatsnig yeah and i think when religion.. especially the jesus resurrection comes in, it's where his arguments start to become comical.. and his next argument isn't even an argument - it's basically witnessing the holy spirit in his heart..If there is no personal experience, and this is one of those key ways that we can know god, that until it occurs, anyone who has not had an experience of god is justified in their atheism. just making the conversation go dead.
Why do you find it comical? I'm just interested hy you think the story of Jesus is comical. I'm a Deist bodering on the line of Christianity, but Jesus is the only reason a Deist would be a Christian. Why do you find that the ressurection of Jesus is comical? Is that your argument in its essence? Wouldn't that be an appeal to ridicule fallacy?
@ogirv101 i checked my brothers room last night.. it was empty - the only conclusion i could come up with that was rational and well thought out was - he was abducted by aliens.
The analogy is weak... and it was more of an appeal to ridicule fallacy if anything. Also, you forgot to mention that your brother wasn't cut under his ribs and then appeared to around 400 witnesses after that happening.
sometimes i wonder what craig is actually arguing for... it's not christianity.. it's theism.. he's arguing for a designer, an invisible space wizard.. not the tribal god of war that we know that should have been handed a warhammer to help his chosen people smite~!.
posflow, You're missing the arguement: is an act of murder wrong, in and of its self, or is it the breaking of a social contract? As social animals, it is possible that unjustified killing of an innocent person could be in the best interest of the social whole. Does it then become right? You said: "if they committed murder, they did something morally wrong even if they deny it". You are forced to appeal to an ultimate source of morality in that statement, rather than a contract.
oh come on atheists dont think that rape and child abuse is wrong!? just because theres no scary dictator threatening us with hellfire doesnt mean we dont think these things are wrong. to harm anyone is wrong, and you dont need a god to tell you that. if we went around raping and abusing everyone our communities would be chaotic. it is essential for survival to get along with everyone and look after each other.
@LauraKathleen05 Who gives anyone the authority to say anything is wrong? Is rape wrong in the mind of the rapist? Is corruption wrong in the mind of the corrupt? Does man set the standard for what is right or wrong? If so, which Man?
@dreamerd2004 well i think that most people agree that to hurt someone else or infringe on their rights is wrong, and by that we can decide what is right and what is wrong
LauraKathleen05 said: "well i think that most people agree that to hurt someone else or infringe on their rights is wrong, and by that we can decide what is right and what is wrong"
This is NOT spam. Shame on whoever flagged it as such.
@dreamerd2004 No one 'gives' the authority as then it would not be authority (note the word author). Authority is fought for through wars, social activism and the evolution of our our moral and cultural systems. That's what makes our beliefs so important: the fact that we fight for them; that's what you and I are doing right now. Your relativistic objection can be just as easily applied to a position supporting God: who decides who God is? Who decides what God said? Who decides what God wants?
@coolioto The answer to questions is NO ONE! God is the Ultimate authority, he sets the rules we are supposed to follow them. God is the mind prior to the human mind from whence absolute morality comes my friend.
@PosFlow Think about this logically; Let me try and answer this by first asking you a number of questions. Have ever watch the news and seen something which you thought was so vile, so disgusting that you screamed out "That is absolutely WRONG"? Now, what is the basis of such a statement? Does the person committing the act which believed to be absolutely wrong believe it is absolutely wrong? Is a persons idea of moral objectivity based on their culture or their experience?
@dreamerd2004 Yes, I've said things like that when I see something I think is wrong. But if you base morals on the social contract, like I do, your argument is basically nullified. As social animals, it's in our best interest to do as little harm as possible and as many positive things as possible to each other. Whether or not an individual recognizes the contract, he/she is still bound by it. Therefore if they committed murder, they did something morally wrong even if they deny it.
@PosFlow posflow, You're missing the arguement: is an act of murder wrong, in and of its self, or is it the breaking of a social contract? As social animals, it is possible that unjustified killing of an innocent person could be in the best interest of the social whole. Does it then become right? You said: "if they committed murder, they did something morally wrong even if they deny it". You are forced to appeal to an ultimate source of morality in that statement, rather than a contract.
@LauraKathleen05 Yes ur right but the argument isnt weather or not it is wrong its weather or not it feels wrong. We can say that its essential for survival not to kill. But if it just comes down to that, that means we dont kill people only because were not allowed. So if u were able to go out and kil someone right now. Someone innocent who did nothing to hurt u, would u feel ok about it. Because what ur stating is just that it is essential for survival not to kill, but if it wasnt
@squint1991 would u feel bad about it. And if u would feel badly about i, than why. After all we dont kill only because of the fact that were not allowed to. But most people would say that they would feel bad, so where does that feeling of guilt come into place? That is the argument at hand
@squint1991 I think the guilt is a natural reaction (which is an evolutionary development) we have thats like a safety and learning mechanism. It tells us if we do something bad or have done something bad that we shouldnt do it again.
what u said is incorrect, guilt is not a natural reaction, safety/learning mechanism is an undesirable outcome resulting from an attempted event. But guilt is something that u know inherently or learned as wrong. If there were no norms and morality, one might find raping sombody a source of pleasure if gruoup/society allows it. Thus, guilt stem from moral responsibilty towards the group then toward onself
@chakssam I tend to disagree. If i was to rape someone and they were crying and in pain, then i would know that what i am doing is wrong and i would feel badly about it inside.
a young child would not know what's right and wrong, they trust adults in everything...although they may seem unconfortable, they would not express themselves, especially if they were too young. In ancient times, ppl killed each other just for belonging to other clans..., After all, guilt is tied with morality.
@chakssam I work with children and yes, they need to be taught things like safety, but i think that when it comes to hurting each other, they know innately that it is wrong. I have observed this. If a child accidentally kicks a ball at another child, instantly they stop and you can see on their face that they are shocked and worried for the other child.
@chakssam I believe that these instincts have evolved over thousands of years, because they are needed for survival. If we go around hurting and killing each other our species would die out. We call someone who doesnt know right from wrong a sociopath. Obviously a sociopath has something wrong with the wiring in their brain, so they dont have this instinct to know right from wrong.
first off there is no such thing as faulty wiring in the brain or biochemical imbalances in the brain, it's all mental and cognition, dont be buying that stuff off, it's all to sell drugs. now, like i said, it was acceptable as recently as two centuries ago in some places in the world to kill just for having a different race, let alone slavery. contnd
@chakssam I have a chemical imbalance in my brain which affected my mood. I was told this by multiple doctors. I would have severe mood changes ranging from rage to depression to euphoria and so on. We have chemicals in our brain which affect our behaviour.
unfortunately...all that chemical imbalance is natural and is rather due to an underlying psychological problem. it is this psychological problem that does problem, not the other way around...i know a psychologist who affirms that it's all for the drug industry, 10's of billions of dollars of profit.
@chakssam Its the chemicals that affect the brain, not the psychological problem that affects the chemicals. The way your saying doesnt explain anything. Its simply a statement.
@chakssam I'm saying that gay people have something different in their brains. It has been shown through scientific studies that a homosexual males brain is different to a heterosexual males brain. Yes it is definitely mental and also they think hormonal and they are still trying to work out the specifics of it. And just to clear up, i wasnt saying that the wiring is faulty, i was saying that it is just differently wired.
that's a lie, nothing..and i say nothing is about the wiring, it's all cognitive. studies have been done for decades...ther is nothing biological nor genetic. So don't make excuses like those filthy deviants.
@chakssam The difference between a homosexual and a paedophile is that a child cannot consent to a sexual relationship, whereas with two homosexuals, they can give consent. An adult having sex with a young child is like rape, because the child doesn't give consent. I would have thought you would know the difference. I think you actually do, but you are trying to insult gay people.What two gay people do in their own home should be none of your concern.
How will it be, then, when we bring from every people a witness and bring you as a witness against these?
42- on that day will those who disbelieve and disobey the apostle desire that the earth were leveled with them, and they shall not hide any word from allah.
@chakssam Maybe if you would stop being so ignorant and read a book once in a while, look up the scientific studies, they determine that it is something that is biological. I dont know how many times i have to spell it out for you to understand.
if the wiring is different amongst human it would lead to neurophisiological impairments, the maps of human brain by which they study CT scans are the same, if the wiring was different, they would have to have different type of map for each type of individual, os that they can study the probelm. CT scan and MRI of the brain show the normal human brain and that of an unpaired can be seen physiologically.
@chakssam I have a first class hons degree in Psychology from one of the top universities in the world, and I have spent more than 10 years studying the subject in depth. I have many friends undertaking doctorates, and I have probably spoken with more psychologists, psychiatrists, and university professors than you have even heard of. I get the impression you have no real idea of what you are talking about. To say everything is cognitive is so absurd... I do not have enough space to educate you!
And when it is said to them, follow what Allah has revealed, they say: nay! We follow what we found our fathers upon. What! And though their fathers had no sense at all, nor did they follow the right way. 171- And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand.
So it's not natural evolution here, it's about norms set by society. as much as i dont like to say evolution, but it's about realizing the right from wrong based on morals. When morals vanish, soceity is in danger. from the last statement u made, do u mean that all the americans before lincoln were sociopaths, slavery and killing. u seem to want to extedn evolution even into morals. that is not the case.
@chakssam I still believe that our morals have evolved. We have over time changed our ideals, to suit the trends of the time. There is so much that has changed. Women have changed their roles from being house wives to moving into the work force. We now believe in womens rights, animal rights, black rights, gay rights etc.
u r contradicting the terms of evolution in ur statement. natural selection entails also the survival of the fittest and most verile...so competition for food and mates give rise to confrontation and killing....in essence if ur statement was true, the wrold would bunch of neighboring clans rather than co-existance.
if these instinct were natural u wouldnt see phenomena like abortions and homos, cause such wrong acts dont lead to survival by any means. In conclusion, morals are something much greater than mere instinctive reaction.
@squint1991 Well it does feel wrong to kill for a sane person but it must feel wrong for a reason, this i think has to be an evolutionary development for us to have guilt and repulsion at the thought of killing as to make it harder for us to do so, for our safety and for others to ensure the propagation of our genes
G. E. Moore's fallacy. So it was also an evolutionary mechanism for us to be prone to violence as well?Also, wouldn't an evolutionary morality create a utilitarian morality? As altrusim in evolutionary behaviorism is merely a mechanism to perpetuate our genes, this would be a totally utilitarian morality. We don't see this everywhere though. Like when we leave soldiers beind we may risk more lives to save them? Or the unethical belief in quarantine of people with HIV.
@ogirv101 Well i dont think that everyone is prone to violence. Alot of people will resort to violence if they feel threatened or like they have to attack rather than be attacked. I believe that there is a utilitarian morality for violence as the result of evolution because it is useful to propagate our genes if we triumph over someone else and survive.
The exception is not the rule, man genetically is prone to violence; just because some aren't, doesn't mean it's an accurate protrayal of the human species. Survival is not a utilitarian morality... a utilitarian morality would be one which doesn't take into the individual, rather the whole. Also, you still haven't provided a refutation of , my statement on marking people with HIV or risking the lives of troops to save a smaller ammount of troops.
@ogirv101 Ok so lets say that we are violent people. That doesnt mean that we would go out raping and killing each other. Our species wouldnt survive long in this case. I wasnt saying that survival was a utilitarian morality im saying that we have mechanisms such as resorting to violence that are useful to us and our survival if necessary to use them.
Why shouldn't we? If it's in our disposed nature? Also, not necessarily, violence is a necessary. Also by that logic, then why shouldn't we stamp people who have HIV? That will keep our society healthy by knowing who is infected? Why don't we just leave soldiers behind, we can save lives like that?
@ogirv101 Yes violence is not necessary in most cases but in some as a last resort its what has to happen. If a nazi is beating a jew us then i say its the jews natural reaction to see the threat and become violent to the nazi. Yes i think we should know who has HIV and they should always tell their partner straight away at the start of a relationship and use protection every time. We dont leave soldiers behind if there is a chance to save them.
It's not necessary? Why does it's necessity make it immoral to do. Furthermore, yes we should know who has HIV. So should we stamp them for the public to see? Invade their privacy for the benefit of the community? So you're saying we should risk more lives to save soldiers? even if that is going against the welfare of the majority.
@ogirv101 Its immoral if its not necessary to use violence. For example to be violent towards a young child who hasnt done anything wrong. I think its up to the person who has HIV to tell the people that they sleep with.
@ogirv101 I dont think they should be demonized for having something that they probably didnt know they would get. Its bad enough having to live with HIV than to be discriminated against because of it. I dont think a soldier has to risk their lives to save soldiers if they dont want to or they are scared or its not safe to do so.
AHHHHHHHH! went crazzy when he started saying that there is no absolute rights or wrongs without god, what a load of shit. hes saying were seeing it from reletvivally which is a load of crap there is a thing called utilitarianism. that deals with universal ethics you might want to read into it lane.. and also its funny how he says you can have aboslute morals from god though... yeah so lets go kill some homosexuals and lynch some cunts because god said it is right. this is the worst paragraph
@mygodDYLAN1 Utilitarianism is intrinsically pragmatic and is no basis for moral objectivity, without God morality can only be subjective because different minds define morality in different ways, in some cultures cannibalism is acceptable in others its not. If there is no mind prior to the human mind to define what is right and wrong then despite philosophical attempts to come to a moral absolute it can never truly attained.
@dreamerd2004 yeah ok i take that in thankyou wish i herd this before i wrote my exam the other day haha. so does that mean it is morally right to kill homosexuals?
@mygodDYLAN1 Before I answer your question, let me tell you that just like Dr Craig I am a clear thinking Christian man, so I will be answering your question from a Christian perspective. I believe that murder is wrong completely! The bible is extremely lucid on the fact that all life is sacred and no man has the authority to take another mans life irrespective of a persons sexual preference whether heterosexual, homosexual or paedophile because ultimately God is the Judge of all.
@dreamerd2004 okay but why does god tell isac to kill his son david? (im not sure if thats the right names) and why does the bible mention stoning homosexuals
@mygodDYLAN1 Read the story firs! It is Abraham who is asked to kill Isaac - but when He rised his knife on Him - God told him do not harm his son!!! as this was only to test Abraham's faith and Him (God) does not need neither want sacrifice from human's life. Then Abraham scrificed a lamb instead!
@mygodDYLAN1 Its amazing that most detractors of the bible are ignorant of proper biblical exegesis in other words they bash it without even understanding it, it seems like your not that type of person, in fact you come across as quite an open person.
@mygodDYLAN1 In response to your question, yes God did punish homosexual behavior by means of stoning, as he did with murder, adultery, rape, beastiality, lying, stealing and other acts that God considered to be evil. You see the problem wasn't homosexuality in isolation the problem was evil, the God of the bible absolutely abhors sin and evil and demonstrated it by completely crushing it out the camp of his people hence why they used stones.
@mygodDYLAN1 If you actually read the account in Genesis, when Abraham is told to kill Isaac and understand the bible properly you see that God is not only testing the faith of Abraham but also painting a wonderful picture or foreshadow of what he is to do in the future for all of mankind. You see that Issac Abraham's son carried all the wood for the sacrifice, Just like Jesus carried the cross up a hill for the sacrifice. You also should notice that before Abraham is about to sacrifice,
@mygodDYLAN1 Issac asks the question "Where is the lamb for the sacrifice?" and Abraham responds and says "God will provide and lamb" and just before anything happens God stops everything and provides a lamb to sacrifice in Issac's place to cover their sins and its interesting that in the book John, John the baptist points to Jesus and says these words " behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". What an absolutely wonderful thing God has done.
i am a atheist/undecided but i do agree with alot with lane craig says except the part at 0:45ish he says that if gravity or the weak force was the slightest bit different life would not exist. i think that is a very weak argument, maybe life as we know it would not exist but life could still evolve under different circumstances (as evolution prooves to us) have to watch the rest of these later pretty boring in a big dose haha or maybe i just want to play some more star craft 2..
Its Cool to be a "Philosopher"... And Cooler to Bullshit in Society...The "God One may Know is no "God Of Ones Friends...If their was not a need to find purpose, "Life would transit as purpose "Life...
Although Dr. Craig is describing the Anthropic Principal, I do believe in the specific quantities and cosmological constants are imperative in order to permit a life friendly universe; however, I suspect the our origins have something more to do with us being a result of these constants instead of a predetermined disposition from a supreme being outside of or known space-time continuum. However, I do refer these known and unknown cosmic constants as sacred.
@VerseInfinitum It took me over a year just to be comfortable with the conclusion that there is a God. I am still uncertain that we (meaning human beings) were ever intended exist or the possibility of an after-life. Our existence being intentional is potentially fueled by an egotistical thought that we are separate from nature which has always been proven false through science. However, we are very fortunate as a species to be able to ask and discover answers for such big questions.
The "amazing" odds of the constants of the universe being what they are isn't amazing at all, BECAUSE, I suggest that universes have "potentially formed" before this one, but this one happens to be stable. Indeed, this universe may be a "successful species of universe." Since we're talking infinite time, this can overcome all odds. In other words, infinite time is long enough for an infinite number of monkeys to type the entire works of Shakespeare... As unlikely as that may seem, it's sound.
@pburto while i do believe what you are saying to be true the point of his using the odds/chances is to indicate which is more plausible god or no god and thats why he "disproves" (attempts to) infinity as a possibility before starting on the what are the chances part of his argument.
What?!?! Did he just say most historian scholars believe jesus said he was divine! Well I guess I should just throw that religious studies course about historical jesus right out the fucking window. I mean even catholic scholars (such as; Raymon E. Brown, F.J Crehan, McCool, Schoof) generally agree jesus never saw himself as divine or the son of god. The scholarly claims about churches making divining embellishments of jesus of nazareth have been going on for more than a century, fail again wlc.
Why does he keep going on about rape, cruelty and child abuse being wrong when the Bible has NO commandments against these things?? It condones rape, and rewards a rapist by giving his victim to him in marriage to be raped whenever he wants! It condones child abuse - beat the children! Stone them if they're disobedient! Rape your enemies' girl children!
It is a sorry world when human beings are motivated to not harm other by the fear of judgement from another being. Do you believe that the motivations for not damaging the lives of other individuals and communities did not exist prior to the teachings of the bible? Are these the same motivations that drive the animal kingdom? I haven't read the ant bible.
Shalom....as a Jew, we have a great difference in our beliefs in G-D, but it is a belief in that G-D that we agree upon. Great points Christian brother.
@Zurielx Funny how you post a response to me and then delete it so nobody else can read it. And you accuse me of being childish, yet you believe in fairy tales and ghosts and are afraid to spell GOD. Any GOD that needs to be feared, requires no worship. All-loving my ASS. Oh and gOd, gOd.
An estimation means there is a probability, a probability means there is chance, therefore, an infinite quantity can be produced and there is no absence of that infinite quantity.
As Christian apologetics would profusely exclaim, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," meaning, in a simplified term, so long as there is a chance, then something will happen.
Mr. Craig is more of a philosopher than he is a teleologist. I would rather argue the validity of free will existing.
An estimation means there is a probability, a probability means there is chance, therefore, an infinite quantity can be produced and there is no absence of that infinite quantity.
As Christian apologetics would profusely exclaim, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," meaning, in a simplified term, so long as there is a chance, then something will happen.
Mr. Craig is more of a philosopher than he is a teleologist. I would rather argue the validity of free will existing.
An estimation means there is a probability, a probability means there is chance, therefore, an infinite quantity can be produced and there is no absence of that infinite quantity.
As Christian apologetics would profusely exclaim, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," meaning, in a simplified term, so long as there is a chance, then something will happen.
Mr. Craig is more of a philosopher than he is a teleologist. I would rather argue the validity of free will existing.
An estimation means there is a probability, a probability means there is chance, therefore, an infinite quantity can be produced and there is no absence of that infinite quantity.
As Christian apologetics would profusely exclaim, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," meaning, in a simplified term, so long as there is a chance, then something will happen.
Mr. Craig is more of a philosopher than he is a teleologist. I would rather argue the validity of free will existing.
An estimation means there is a probability, a probability means there is chance, therefore, an infinite quantity can be produced and there is no absence of that infinite quantity.
The Lord has already proven Himself to all of civilized humanity. All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist, whose beliefs are in the extreme miniscule minority worldwide.
The lunatic atheist must present a viable argument in favor of his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist before being taken seriously, which he has failed to do, sadly.
God has been proven for countless centuries, and atheist dogma™ is a new invention, a newcomer attempting to upset a long-established scientifically factual conclusion -- therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist.
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the exact same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.
The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific facts of God's appearance and activities.
The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.
All of God's scriptures prohibit violence and killing, and disobedience to God's scriptures is atheistic. Therefore, all violence and killing are atheistic activities, and real Theists are always in accordance with God's injunctions to be peaceful.
Would Jesus have approved of Hitler's well-known campaign to exterminate all Jews and all Catholics? Certainly not! Jesus WAS a Jew, and also a pacifist!
If the atheist posits that Hitler was honest in his statements, then the atheist acknowledges his sick hero-worship of Hitler.
The Theists understand that Hitler was a liar, a believer in atheist dogma™, and a mass-murderer of Theists.
Only an atheist fool would quote Hitler's lies as if reliable.
Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.
The number one tenet of official atheist dogma™ is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as you do, above.
CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma™, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.
The Lord has already proven Himself to all of civilized humanity. All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist, whose beliefs are in the extreme miniscule minority worldwide.
The lunatic atheist must present a viable argument in favor of his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist before being taken seriously, which he has failed to do, sadly.
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings easily comprehend the ample scientific and logical evidence for God's factual appearance and activities is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
"Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God."
what claims? The only claim I have made is that in 20 years of asking no one has shown me a shred of a scrap of evidence, argument, data or reasons to think there is such an entity.
Aside from that I have made no such claims, which you might realise if you did something aside from posting the same 6 messages over and over again and spamming this channel.
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the exact same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
There is ample observational evidence that all human beings ever born were born from other human beings.
Conversely, there is absolutely no evidence that any human being or group of human beings could ever have been born from any member of any different species. Such a phenomenon has never been observed, and is nothing but a fantastic, unsupported, irrational, and unscientific belief of atheist dogma.
All of God's scriptures prohibit violence and killing, and disobedience to God's scriptures is atheistic. Therefore, all violence and killing are atheistic activities, and real Theists are always in accordance with God's injunctions to be peaceful.
Would Jesus have approved of Hitler's well-known campaign to exterminate all Jews and all Catholics? Certainly not! Jesus WAS a Jew, and also a pacifist!
If the atheist posits that Hitler was honest in his statements, then the atheist acknowledges his sick hero-worship of Hitler.
The Theists understand that Hitler was a liar, a believer in atheist dogma™, and a mass-murderer of Theists.
Only an atheist fool would quote Hitler's lies as if reliable.
Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.
The number one tenet of official atheist dogma™ is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as you do, above.
CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma™, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.
The Lord has already proven Himself to all of civilized humanity. All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist, whose beliefs are in the extreme miniscule minority worldwide.
The lunatic atheist must present a viable argument in favor of his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist before being taken seriously, which he has failed to do, sadly.
God has been proven for countless centuries, and atheist dogma™ is a new invention, a newcomer attempting to upset a long-established scientifically factual conclusion -- therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist.
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the exact same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.
The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities.
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
Would Jesus have approved of Hitler's well-known campaign to exterminate all Jews and all Catholics? Certainly not! Jesus WAS a Jew, and also a pacifist!
If the atheist posits that Hitler was honest in his statements, then the atheist acknowledges his sick hero-worship of Hitler.
The Theists understand that Hitler was a liar, a believer in atheist dogma™, and a mass-murderer of Theists.
Only an atheist fool would quote Hitler's lies as if reliable.
"atheist acknowledges his sick hero-worship of Hitler."
Excuse me but it was the church that in fact celebrated hitler and his birthday during mass, not the atheist. Its you guys that worshiped him, not the rest of us.
Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.
The number one tenet of official atheist dogma™ is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as you do, above.
CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma™, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.
I'm a neutral third party, and I do not represent God. I have simply noticed that the Theists have a much more sound scientific stance on this issue than the atheist.
The atheist has never observed God, but the Theists have observed Him. Therefore, the atheist cannot engage in the steps of the scientific method in God's regard, but the Theists can, and have.
The Theists' conclusions are scientifically valid, but the atheist's statements about God are all unscientific and premature.
There is ample observational evidence that all human beings ever born were born from other human beings.
Conversely, there is absolutely no evidence that any human being or group of human beings could ever have been born from any member of any different species. Such a phenomenon has never been observed, and is nothing but a fantastic, unsupported, irrational, and unscientific belief of atheist dogma.
There are several Youtube features on my channel that provide scientific and logical evidence that atheist dogma™ promotes violence and killing by attempting to sidestep or degrade God's scriptural injunctions to be peaceful. Please watch:
Wow, you think they were the same person? I have met people who know nothing about history before, but I have never met anyone who thinks someone born in 1809 is the same person as someone born in 1889.
Not just a false lie, but also entirely relevant. Something is not more or less true because of WHO believes it, but why. So even if this was not a total lie on your part, it would not even be partially relevant.
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
I think Craig's arguments about the origin of the universe, the fine-tuning argument, and the life, death, resurrection of Jesus Christ are very very strong. However, I think his argument about objective moral values is somewhat weak. He seems to assume that we all "know" that there are objective morals, but offers no proof for that.
REDRAGON12345 5 months ago
@REDRAGON12345 there is nothing strong here! You can't make any statistical calculations concerning the universe because we have only one (sample size =1) . You can't tell if "universes" are always made up like we have it or if it is rather improbable like we have it. Hawking is misquoted here. And Jesus has never existed because we have no neutral observers writing about him and Roman historians are konow to be very accurate. The first report about Jesus was written 50-70 years by his followers
atheistfromaustria 5 months ago
Josephboy100 if we're just meaningless products of chance then why is rape a bad thing? If the rapist gets pleasure out of it then why not?
willpetetom 7 months ago
Atheism is illusion about God. Atheists believe like Christians in distorted version of God, which isnt true. Hawking: "God didnt create universe". God: "Enjoy your chair".
MrGlape 8 months ago
He says that atheists see nothing really wrong with raping someone, well that is dead wrong. I guess he can't say anything good so he has to say something like that.
josephboy1000 8 months ago
@josephboy1000 Keep listening - he finishes the thought at around 6:10. Objective reality does exist...deep down. There is an inert reaction we all have to rape...that it is wrong.
rexy5 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@josephboy1000 He said that God is necessary for the existence of objective moral values. Not belief in God.
diln5 7 months ago
@josephboy1000 he says they have no moral authoritative reason to feel that way, and, they dont. take the logic out, and youll get it.
SixStringDeity 1 month ago
If only atheist could see of how God see, then they would understand almost everything about life.
KevinVang1000 9 months ago
Comment removed
Dordrius 10 months ago
I'm really excited about WLC's upcoming debate with Lawrence Krauss this march...As you can see from this video, he loves quoting theoretical physicists, now lets see how he can debate one.
tipoomaster 1 year ago
haha so many @:ts
eagleeye2102 1 year ago
@bmatsnig yeah and i think when religion.. especially the jesus resurrection comes in, it's where his arguments start to become comical.. and his next argument isn't even an argument - it's basically witnessing the holy spirit in his heart..If there is no personal experience, and this is one of those key ways that we can know god, that until it occurs, anyone who has not had an experience of god is justified in their atheism. just making the conversation go dead.
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2:
Why do you find it comical? I'm just interested hy you think the story of Jesus is comical. I'm a Deist bodering on the line of Christianity, but Jesus is the only reason a Deist would be a Christian. Why do you find that the ressurection of Jesus is comical? Is that your argument in its essence? Wouldn't that be an appeal to ridicule fallacy?
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101 i checked my brothers room last night.. it was empty - the only conclusion i could come up with that was rational and well thought out was - he was abducted by aliens.
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2:
The analogy is weak... and it was more of an appeal to ridicule fallacy if anything. Also, you forgot to mention that your brother wasn't cut under his ribs and then appeared to around 400 witnesses after that happening.
ogirv101 1 year ago
what i'm hearing is -
i want to be special
without god i'm not special
therefore a god has to exist
... he's strawmanning an atheistic view, religion cannot hijack morality
lukeism2 1 year ago
sometimes i wonder what craig is actually arguing for... it's not christianity.. it's theism.. he's arguing for a designer, an invisible space wizard.. not the tribal god of war that we know that should have been handed a warhammer to help his chosen people smite~!.
lukeism2 1 year ago
@lukeism2
This debate is not about Christianity per se , it's about God. There are other debates posted on here for that argument.
RetSquid 1 year ago
posflow, You're missing the arguement: is an act of murder wrong, in and of its self, or is it the breaking of a social contract? As social animals, it is possible that unjustified killing of an innocent person could be in the best interest of the social whole. Does it then become right? You said: "if they committed murder, they did something morally wrong even if they deny it". You are forced to appeal to an ultimate source of morality in that statement, rather than a contract.
strigoi4321 1 year ago
oh come on atheists dont think that rape and child abuse is wrong!? just because theres no scary dictator threatening us with hellfire doesnt mean we dont think these things are wrong. to harm anyone is wrong, and you dont need a god to tell you that. if we went around raping and abusing everyone our communities would be chaotic. it is essential for survival to get along with everyone and look after each other.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05 Who gives anyone the authority to say anything is wrong? Is rape wrong in the mind of the rapist? Is corruption wrong in the mind of the corrupt? Does man set the standard for what is right or wrong? If so, which Man?
dreamerd2004 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dreamerd2004 well i think that most people agree that to hurt someone else or infringe on their rights is wrong, and by that we can decide what is right and what is wrong
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LauraKathleen05 said: "well i think that most people agree that to hurt someone else or infringe on their rights is wrong, and by that we can decide what is right and what is wrong"
This is NOT spam. Shame on whoever flagged it as such.
enderandpeter 1 year ago
@dreamerd2004 No one 'gives' the authority as then it would not be authority (note the word author). Authority is fought for through wars, social activism and the evolution of our our moral and cultural systems. That's what makes our beliefs so important: the fact that we fight for them; that's what you and I are doing right now. Your relativistic objection can be just as easily applied to a position supporting God: who decides who God is? Who decides what God said? Who decides what God wants?
coolioto 1 year ago
@coolioto The answer to questions is NO ONE! God is the Ultimate authority, he sets the rules we are supposed to follow them. God is the mind prior to the human mind from whence absolute morality comes my friend.
dreamerd2004 1 year ago
@dreamerd2004 And who say's 'he' is the ultimate authority ? On this occasion it is you on 9/11 it was some other person.
coolioto 1 year ago
@dreamerd2004 Can you clarify your last sentence about absolute morality coming from god? How do you know that?
PosFlow 1 year ago
@PosFlow Think about this logically; Let me try and answer this by first asking you a number of questions. Have ever watch the news and seen something which you thought was so vile, so disgusting that you screamed out "That is absolutely WRONG"? Now, what is the basis of such a statement? Does the person committing the act which believed to be absolutely wrong believe it is absolutely wrong? Is a persons idea of moral objectivity based on their culture or their experience?
dreamerd2004 1 year ago
@dreamerd2004 Yes, I've said things like that when I see something I think is wrong. But if you base morals on the social contract, like I do, your argument is basically nullified. As social animals, it's in our best interest to do as little harm as possible and as many positive things as possible to each other. Whether or not an individual recognizes the contract, he/she is still bound by it. Therefore if they committed murder, they did something morally wrong even if they deny it.
PosFlow 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PosFlow posflow, You're missing the arguement: is an act of murder wrong, in and of its self, or is it the breaking of a social contract? As social animals, it is possible that unjustified killing of an innocent person could be in the best interest of the social whole. Does it then become right? You said: "if they committed murder, they did something morally wrong even if they deny it". You are forced to appeal to an ultimate source of morality in that statement, rather than a contract.
strigoi4321 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05 Yes ur right but the argument isnt weather or not it is wrong its weather or not it feels wrong. We can say that its essential for survival not to kill. But if it just comes down to that, that means we dont kill people only because were not allowed. So if u were able to go out and kil someone right now. Someone innocent who did nothing to hurt u, would u feel ok about it. Because what ur stating is just that it is essential for survival not to kill, but if it wasnt
squint1991 1 year ago
@squint1991 would u feel bad about it. And if u would feel badly about i, than why. After all we dont kill only because of the fact that were not allowed to. But most people would say that they would feel bad, so where does that feeling of guilt come into place? That is the argument at hand
squint1991 1 year ago
@squint1991 I think the guilt is a natural reaction (which is an evolutionary development) we have thats like a safety and learning mechanism. It tells us if we do something bad or have done something bad that we shouldnt do it again.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05
what u said is incorrect, guilt is not a natural reaction, safety/learning mechanism is an undesirable outcome resulting from an attempted event. But guilt is something that u know inherently or learned as wrong. If there were no norms and morality, one might find raping sombody a source of pleasure if gruoup/society allows it. Thus, guilt stem from moral responsibilty towards the group then toward onself
chakssam 1 year ago
@chakssam I tend to disagree. If i was to rape someone and they were crying and in pain, then i would know that what i am doing is wrong and i would feel badly about it inside.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05
a young child would not know what's right and wrong, they trust adults in everything...although they may seem unconfortable, they would not express themselves, especially if they were too young. In ancient times, ppl killed each other just for belonging to other clans..., After all, guilt is tied with morality.
chakssam 1 year ago
@chakssam I work with children and yes, they need to be taught things like safety, but i think that when it comes to hurting each other, they know innately that it is wrong. I have observed this. If a child accidentally kicks a ball at another child, instantly they stop and you can see on their face that they are shocked and worried for the other child.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@chakssam I believe that these instincts have evolved over thousands of years, because they are needed for survival. If we go around hurting and killing each other our species would die out. We call someone who doesnt know right from wrong a sociopath. Obviously a sociopath has something wrong with the wiring in their brain, so they dont have this instinct to know right from wrong.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05
first off there is no such thing as faulty wiring in the brain or biochemical imbalances in the brain, it's all mental and cognition, dont be buying that stuff off, it's all to sell drugs. now, like i said, it was acceptable as recently as two centuries ago in some places in the world to kill just for having a different race, let alone slavery. contnd
chakssam 1 year ago
@chakssam I have a chemical imbalance in my brain which affected my mood. I was told this by multiple doctors. I would have severe mood changes ranging from rage to depression to euphoria and so on. We have chemicals in our brain which affect our behaviour.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05
unfortunately...all that chemical imbalance is natural and is rather due to an underlying psychological problem. it is this psychological problem that does problem, not the other way around...i know a psychologist who affirms that it's all for the drug industry, 10's of billions of dollars of profit.
chakssam 1 year ago
@chakssam Its the chemicals that affect the brain, not the psychological problem that affects the chemicals. The way your saying doesnt explain anything. Its simply a statement.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@chakssam I'm saying that gay people have something different in their brains. It has been shown through scientific studies that a homosexual males brain is different to a heterosexual males brain. Yes it is definitely mental and also they think hormonal and they are still trying to work out the specifics of it. And just to clear up, i wasnt saying that the wiring is faulty, i was saying that it is just differently wired.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05
that's a lie, nothing..and i say nothing is about the wiring, it's all cognitive. studies have been done for decades...ther is nothing biological nor genetic. So don't make excuses like those filthy deviants.
chakssam 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05
next are pedophile's right...WTF. Unbelievable.
chakssam 1 year ago
@chakssam The difference between a homosexual and a paedophile is that a child cannot consent to a sexual relationship, whereas with two homosexuals, they can give consent. An adult having sex with a young child is like rape, because the child doesn't give consent. I would have thought you would know the difference. I think you actually do, but you are trying to insult gay people.What two gay people do in their own home should be none of your concern.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05
fuck them, seems like u buying into their agenda. u degenarate.
chakssam 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05 Quran:
(Surah-4-the women-vs-41)
How will it be, then, when we bring from every people a witness and bring you as a witness against these?
42- on that day will those who disbelieve and disobey the apostle desire that the earth were leveled with them, and they shall not hide any word from allah.
quranresponse 10 months ago
@quranresponse quoting the quran isnt going to do anything, it doesnt mean anything to me
LauraKathleen05 9 months ago
@LauraKathleen05
it's seems like u and like lot of ppl r misinformed, it's not hormonal....it's freaking degenaracy.
chakssam 1 year ago
@chakssam Maybe if you would stop being so ignorant and read a book once in a while, look up the scientific studies, they determine that it is something that is biological. I dont know how many times i have to spell it out for you to understand.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05
u look it up. distort even science. WTF
chakssam 1 year ago
@chakssam call me a degenerate for being gay huh,well i cant help it. im not hurting anyone so leave me alone
LauraKathleen05 9 months ago
@LauraKathleen05
if the wiring is different amongst human it would lead to neurophisiological impairments, the maps of human brain by which they study CT scans are the same, if the wiring was different, they would have to have different type of map for each type of individual, os that they can study the probelm. CT scan and MRI of the brain show the normal human brain and that of an unpaired can be seen physiologically.
chakssam 1 year ago
@chakssam I have a first class hons degree in Psychology from one of the top universities in the world, and I have spent more than 10 years studying the subject in depth. I have many friends undertaking doctorates, and I have probably spoken with more psychologists, psychiatrists, and university professors than you have even heard of. I get the impression you have no real idea of what you are talking about. To say everything is cognitive is so absurd... I do not have enough space to educate you!
aliasbrush 1 year ago
@aliasbrush BAHAHA muthafucka got told!
frogprincekissr 11 months ago
@aliasbrush Quran:
(Surah-2-the cow-vs-170)
And when it is said to them, follow what Allah has revealed, they say: nay! We follow what we found our fathers upon. What! And though their fathers had no sense at all, nor did they follow the right way. 171- And the parable of those who disbelieve is as the parable of one who calls out to that which hears no more than a call and a cry; deaf, dumb (and) blind, so they do not understand.
quranresponse 10 months ago
@LauraKathleen05
So it's not natural evolution here, it's about norms set by society. as much as i dont like to say evolution, but it's about realizing the right from wrong based on morals. When morals vanish, soceity is in danger. from the last statement u made, do u mean that all the americans before lincoln were sociopaths, slavery and killing. u seem to want to extedn evolution even into morals. that is not the case.
chakssam 1 year ago
@chakssam I still believe that our morals have evolved. We have over time changed our ideals, to suit the trends of the time. There is so much that has changed. Women have changed their roles from being house wives to moving into the work force. We now believe in womens rights, animal rights, black rights, gay rights etc.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05
u r contradicting the terms of evolution in ur statement. natural selection entails also the survival of the fittest and most verile...so competition for food and mates give rise to confrontation and killing....in essence if ur statement was true, the wrold would bunch of neighboring clans rather than co-existance.
chakssam 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05
if these instinct were natural u wouldnt see phenomena like abortions and homos, cause such wrong acts dont lead to survival by any means. In conclusion, morals are something much greater than mere instinctive reaction.
chakssam 1 year ago
@squint1991 Well it does feel wrong to kill for a sane person but it must feel wrong for a reason, this i think has to be an evolutionary development for us to have guilt and repulsion at the thought of killing as to make it harder for us to do so, for our safety and for others to ensure the propagation of our genes
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05:
G. E. Moore's fallacy. So it was also an evolutionary mechanism for us to be prone to violence as well?Also, wouldn't an evolutionary morality create a utilitarian morality? As altrusim in evolutionary behaviorism is merely a mechanism to perpetuate our genes, this would be a totally utilitarian morality. We don't see this everywhere though. Like when we leave soldiers beind we may risk more lives to save them? Or the unethical belief in quarantine of people with HIV.
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101 Well i dont think that everyone is prone to violence. Alot of people will resort to violence if they feel threatened or like they have to attack rather than be attacked. I believe that there is a utilitarian morality for violence as the result of evolution because it is useful to propagate our genes if we triumph over someone else and survive.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05:
The exception is not the rule, man genetically is prone to violence; just because some aren't, doesn't mean it's an accurate protrayal of the human species. Survival is not a utilitarian morality... a utilitarian morality would be one which doesn't take into the individual, rather the whole. Also, you still haven't provided a refutation of , my statement on marking people with HIV or risking the lives of troops to save a smaller ammount of troops.
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101 Ok so lets say that we are violent people. That doesnt mean that we would go out raping and killing each other. Our species wouldnt survive long in this case. I wasnt saying that survival was a utilitarian morality im saying that we have mechanisms such as resorting to violence that are useful to us and our survival if necessary to use them.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05:
Why shouldn't we? If it's in our disposed nature? Also, not necessarily, violence is a necessary. Also by that logic, then why shouldn't we stamp people who have HIV? That will keep our society healthy by knowing who is infected? Why don't we just leave soldiers behind, we can save lives like that?
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101 Yes violence is not necessary in most cases but in some as a last resort its what has to happen. If a nazi is beating a jew us then i say its the jews natural reaction to see the threat and become violent to the nazi. Yes i think we should know who has HIV and they should always tell their partner straight away at the start of a relationship and use protection every time. We dont leave soldiers behind if there is a chance to save them.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@LauraKathleen05:
It's not necessary? Why does it's necessity make it immoral to do. Furthermore, yes we should know who has HIV. So should we stamp them for the public to see? Invade their privacy for the benefit of the community? So you're saying we should risk more lives to save soldiers? even if that is going against the welfare of the majority.
ogirv101 1 year ago
@ogirv101 Its immoral if its not necessary to use violence. For example to be violent towards a young child who hasnt done anything wrong. I think its up to the person who has HIV to tell the people that they sleep with.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
@ogirv101 I dont think they should be demonized for having something that they probably didnt know they would get. Its bad enough having to live with HIV than to be discriminated against because of it. I dont think a soldier has to risk their lives to save soldiers if they dont want to or they are scared or its not safe to do so.
LauraKathleen05 1 year ago
AHHHHHHHH! went crazzy when he started saying that there is no absolute rights or wrongs without god, what a load of shit. hes saying were seeing it from reletvivally which is a load of crap there is a thing called utilitarianism. that deals with universal ethics you might want to read into it lane.. and also its funny how he says you can have aboslute morals from god though... yeah so lets go kill some homosexuals and lynch some cunts because god said it is right. this is the worst paragraph
mygodDYLAN1 1 year ago
@mygodDYLAN1 Utilitarianism is intrinsically pragmatic and is no basis for moral objectivity, without God morality can only be subjective because different minds define morality in different ways, in some cultures cannibalism is acceptable in others its not. If there is no mind prior to the human mind to define what is right and wrong then despite philosophical attempts to come to a moral absolute it can never truly attained.
dreamerd2004 1 year ago
@dreamerd2004 yeah ok i take that in thankyou wish i herd this before i wrote my exam the other day haha. so does that mean it is morally right to kill homosexuals?
mygodDYLAN1 1 year ago
@mygodDYLAN1 Before I answer your question, let me tell you that just like Dr Craig I am a clear thinking Christian man, so I will be answering your question from a Christian perspective. I believe that murder is wrong completely! The bible is extremely lucid on the fact that all life is sacred and no man has the authority to take another mans life irrespective of a persons sexual preference whether heterosexual, homosexual or paedophile because ultimately God is the Judge of all.
dreamerd2004 1 year ago
@dreamerd2004 okay but why does god tell isac to kill his son david? (im not sure if thats the right names) and why does the bible mention stoning homosexuals
mygodDYLAN1 1 year ago
@mygodDYLAN1 Read the story firs! It is Abraham who is asked to kill Isaac - but when He rised his knife on Him - God told him do not harm his son!!! as this was only to test Abraham's faith and Him (God) does not need neither want sacrifice from human's life. Then Abraham scrificed a lamb instead!
pawel86able 1 year ago
@pawel86able thanks i didnt no this before
mygodDYLAN1 1 year ago
@mygodDYLAN1 Its amazing that most detractors of the bible are ignorant of proper biblical exegesis in other words they bash it without even understanding it, it seems like your not that type of person, in fact you come across as quite an open person.
dreamerd2004 1 year ago
@mygodDYLAN1 In response to your question, yes God did punish homosexual behavior by means of stoning, as he did with murder, adultery, rape, beastiality, lying, stealing and other acts that God considered to be evil. You see the problem wasn't homosexuality in isolation the problem was evil, the God of the bible absolutely abhors sin and evil and demonstrated it by completely crushing it out the camp of his people hence why they used stones.
dreamerd2004 1 year ago
@mygodDYLAN1 If you actually read the account in Genesis, when Abraham is told to kill Isaac and understand the bible properly you see that God is not only testing the faith of Abraham but also painting a wonderful picture or foreshadow of what he is to do in the future for all of mankind. You see that Issac Abraham's son carried all the wood for the sacrifice, Just like Jesus carried the cross up a hill for the sacrifice. You also should notice that before Abraham is about to sacrifice,
dreamerd2004 1 year ago
@mygodDYLAN1 Issac asks the question "Where is the lamb for the sacrifice?" and Abraham responds and says "God will provide and lamb" and just before anything happens God stops everything and provides a lamb to sacrifice in Issac's place to cover their sins and its interesting that in the book John, John the baptist points to Jesus and says these words " behold the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world". What an absolutely wonderful thing God has done.
dreamerd2004 1 year ago
@mygodDYLAN1 Remember that these two books were written hundreds of years apart. I guess this is some food for thought.
dreamerd2004 1 year ago
@mygodDYLAN1 PLEASURE! :)
pawel86able 1 year ago
Comment removed
mygodDYLAN1 1 year ago
i am a atheist/undecided but i do agree with alot with lane craig says except the part at 0:45ish he says that if gravity or the weak force was the slightest bit different life would not exist. i think that is a very weak argument, maybe life as we know it would not exist but life could still evolve under different circumstances (as evolution prooves to us) have to watch the rest of these later pretty boring in a big dose haha or maybe i just want to play some more star craft 2..
mygodDYLAN1 1 year ago
Its Cool to be a "Philosopher"... And Cooler to Bullshit in Society...The "God One may Know is no "God Of Ones Friends...If their was not a need to find purpose, "Life would transit as purpose "Life...
NrrN00 1 year ago
Although Dr. Craig is describing the Anthropic Principal, I do believe in the specific quantities and cosmological constants are imperative in order to permit a life friendly universe; however, I suspect the our origins have something more to do with us being a result of these constants instead of a predetermined disposition from a supreme being outside of or known space-time continuum. However, I do refer these known and unknown cosmic constants as sacred.
VerseInfinitum 1 year ago
@VerseInfinitum It took me over a year just to be comfortable with the conclusion that there is a God. I am still uncertain that we (meaning human beings) were ever intended exist or the possibility of an after-life. Our existence being intentional is potentially fueled by an egotistical thought that we are separate from nature which has always been proven false through science. However, we are very fortunate as a species to be able to ask and discover answers for such big questions.
TheMrDeist 1 year ago
Comment removed
VerseInfinitum 1 year ago
what is the chance that i'll type this - wizardconswollip956738injebustombs ?. probably 1 in 1095903589320578390285932058932053
lukeism2 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lukeism2 "what is the chance that i'll type this - wizardconswollip956738injebustombs ?."
What is the chance that was the product of some intelligent mind? 1 in 1. Thanks for proving his point.
acts541 1 year ago
one in a zillion is still one in a zillion, not zero.
superextremelaser 1 year ago
The "amazing" odds of the constants of the universe being what they are isn't amazing at all, BECAUSE, I suggest that universes have "potentially formed" before this one, but this one happens to be stable. Indeed, this universe may be a "successful species of universe." Since we're talking infinite time, this can overcome all odds. In other words, infinite time is long enough for an infinite number of monkeys to type the entire works of Shakespeare... As unlikely as that may seem, it's sound.
pburto 1 year ago
@pburto while i do believe what you are saying to be true the point of his using the odds/chances is to indicate which is more plausible god or no god and thats why he "disproves" (attempts to) infinity as a possibility before starting on the what are the chances part of his argument.
badguyswearblack1 1 year ago
What?!?! Did he just say most historian scholars believe jesus said he was divine! Well I guess I should just throw that religious studies course about historical jesus right out the fucking window. I mean even catholic scholars (such as; Raymon E. Brown, F.J Crehan, McCool, Schoof) generally agree jesus never saw himself as divine or the son of god. The scholarly claims about churches making divining embellishments of jesus of nazareth have been going on for more than a century, fail again wlc.
socrstreets 1 year ago
LOL at the mathematical chances. You can't help but laugh at that.
7tylerjb 1 year ago
@7tylerjb the lottery fallacies?
lukeism2 1 year ago
Why does he keep going on about rape, cruelty and child abuse being wrong when the Bible has NO commandments against these things?? It condones rape, and rewards a rapist by giving his victim to him in marriage to be raped whenever he wants! It condones child abuse - beat the children! Stone them if they're disobedient! Rape your enemies' girl children!
queenastilon 1 year ago
It is a sorry world when human beings are motivated to not harm other by the fear of judgement from another being. Do you believe that the motivations for not damaging the lives of other individuals and communities did not exist prior to the teachings of the bible? Are these the same motivations that drive the animal kingdom? I haven't read the ant bible.
TheProgress4 1 year ago
William Lane Craig = Fallacy king!
knineu02 1 year ago
Shalom....as a Jew, we have a great difference in our beliefs in G-D, but it is a belief in that G-D that we agree upon. Great points Christian brother.
ZURIELX 1 year ago
@ZURIELX Your "o" key must be broken, let me help you, God, God, God, God, God...
knineu02 1 year ago
@knineu02 No, it's out of reverence actually, but judging by that childlike response or yours, you must obviously have nothing intelligent to say.
ZURIELX 1 year ago
@Zurielx Funny how you post a response to me and then delete it so nobody else can read it. And you accuse me of being childish, yet you believe in fairy tales and ghosts and are afraid to spell GOD. Any GOD that needs to be feared, requires no worship. All-loving my ASS. Oh and gOd, gOd.
knineu02 1 year ago
I LOVE THE CREATOR
cifa2510 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An estimation means there is a probability, a probability means there is chance, therefore, an infinite quantity can be produced and there is no absence of that infinite quantity.
As Christian apologetics would profusely exclaim, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," meaning, in a simplified term, so long as there is a chance, then something will happen.
Mr. Craig is more of a philosopher than he is a teleologist. I would rather argue the validity of free will existing.
redninjastarx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An estimation means there is a probability, a probability means there is chance, therefore, an infinite quantity can be produced and there is no absence of that infinite quantity.
As Christian apologetics would profusely exclaim, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," meaning, in a simplified term, so long as there is a chance, then something will happen.
Mr. Craig is more of a philosopher than he is a teleologist. I would rather argue the validity of free will existing.
redninjastarx 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An estimation means there is a probability, a probability means there is chance, therefore, an infinite quantity can be produced and there is no absence of that infinite quantity.
As Christian apologetics would profusely exclaim, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," meaning, in a simplified term, so long as there is a chance, then something will happen.
Mr. Craig is more of a philosopher than he is a teleologist. I would rather argue the validity of free will existing.
redninjastarx 1 year ago
An estimation means there is a probability, a probability means there is chance, therefore, an infinite quantity can be produced and there is no absence of that infinite quantity.
As Christian apologetics would profusely exclaim, "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence," meaning, in a simplified term, so long as there is a chance, then something will happen.
Mr. Craig is more of a philosopher than he is a teleologist. I would rather argue the validity of free will existing.
redninjastarx 1 year ago
An estimation means there is a probability, a probability means there is chance, therefore, an infinite quantity can be produced and there is no absence of that infinite quantity.
redninjastarx 1 year ago
Any chance of the channel operator dealing with all this spam? It is the same 8 or 9 messages being posted repeatedly over and over again.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
The Lord has already proven Himself to all of civilized humanity. All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist, whose beliefs are in the extreme miniscule minority worldwide.
The lunatic atheist must present a viable argument in favor of his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist before being taken seriously, which he has failed to do, sadly.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
God has been proven for countless centuries, and atheist dogma™ is a new invention, a newcomer attempting to upset a long-established scientifically factual conclusion -- therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the exact same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
The atheist is always angry, scared, and confused, and that is why the world laughs at him.
The reason why the whole world rejects the atheist's arguments so readily is that they are all firmly convinced of the scientific facts of God's appearance and activities.
The Theists have nobody left to convince, but the atheist has the whole world to convince.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
All of God's scriptures prohibit violence and killing, and disobedience to God's scriptures is atheistic. Therefore, all violence and killing are atheistic activities, and real Theists are always in accordance with God's injunctions to be peaceful.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Einstein was a Theist (a Jew), Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a mass-murderer of Theists (Jews).
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Hitler hated all Jews, especially Jesus.
Would Jesus have approved of Hitler's well-known campaign to exterminate all Jews and all Catholics? Certainly not! Jesus WAS a Jew, and also a pacifist!
If the atheist posits that Hitler was honest in his statements, then the atheist acknowledges his sick hero-worship of Hitler.
The Theists understand that Hitler was a liar, a believer in atheist dogma™, and a mass-murderer of Theists.
Only an atheist fool would quote Hitler's lies as if reliable.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.
The number one tenet of official atheist dogma™ is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as you do, above.
CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma™, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
The lower animal, such as the sand-flea, the snail, and the pig, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God.
The atheist is on the exact same level of intelligence as those creatures, and their ignorance of the facts does not change the facts.
God's factual appearance and activities are as much scientific facts as any other scientific fact known to man.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
The Lord has already proven Himself to all of civilized humanity. All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist, whose beliefs are in the extreme miniscule minority worldwide.
The lunatic atheist must present a viable argument in favor of his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist before being taken seriously, which he has failed to do, sadly.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God.
The reason why the vast majority of human beings easily comprehend the ample scientific and logical evidence for God's factual appearance and activities is that they are smarter than animals. The reason why you don't is because you're not.
You fantasize that someone will someday believe you, but it won't happen: face reality.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"Problem is, nobody believes you, and that's because you have no evidence for your bizarre claims about God."
what claims? The only claim I have made is that in 20 years of asking no one has shown me a shred of a scrap of evidence, argument, data or reasons to think there is such an entity.
Aside from that I have made no such claims, which you might realise if you did something aside from posting the same 6 messages over and over again and spamming this channel.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the exact same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
There is ample observational evidence that all human beings ever born were born from other human beings.
Conversely, there is absolutely no evidence that any human being or group of human beings could ever have been born from any member of any different species. Such a phenomenon has never been observed, and is nothing but a fantastic, unsupported, irrational, and unscientific belief of atheist dogma.
atheist total fail
Purushadasa 1 year ago
All of God's scriptures prohibit violence and killing, and disobedience to God's scriptures is atheistic. Therefore, all violence and killing are atheistic activities, and real Theists are always in accordance with God's injunctions to be peaceful.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Einstein was a Theist (a Jew), Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a mass-murderer of Theists (Jews).
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Hitler hated all Jews, especially Jesus.
Would Jesus have approved of Hitler's well-known campaign to exterminate all Jews and all Catholics? Certainly not! Jesus WAS a Jew, and also a pacifist!
If the atheist posits that Hitler was honest in his statements, then the atheist acknowledges his sick hero-worship of Hitler.
The Theists understand that Hitler was a liar, a believer in atheist dogma™, and a mass-murderer of Theists.
Only an atheist fool would quote Hitler's lies as if reliable.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.
The number one tenet of official atheist dogma™ is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as you do, above.
CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma™, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
The Lord has already proven Himself to all of civilized humanity. All of mankind already accepts His appearance and activities as scientific facts, with the single exception of the deluded atheist, whose beliefs are in the extreme miniscule minority worldwide.
The lunatic atheist must present a viable argument in favor of his bizarre personal belief that God somehow doesn't exist before being taken seriously, which he has failed to do, sadly.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"extreme miniscule minority worldwide."
More argument ad populum. Look it up, it is a fallacy.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
God has been proven for countless centuries, and atheist dogma™ is a new invention, a newcomer attempting to upset a long-established scientifically factual conclusion -- therefore the burden of proof is on the atheist.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"God has been proven for countless centuries"
Really, then how come you havent got a single shred of evidence TODAY? So far all you have given is lies, insults and fallacy.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
The lower animals, such as the pig, the mosquito, and the jellyfish, also lack the intelligence to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities that the vast majority of intelligent human beings comprehend easily.
Sadly, the fact that a single Youtube member is on the exact same intelligence level as the lower animal disproves nothing about God's factual appearance or activities.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"the fact that a single Youtube member is on the exact same intelligence level as the lower animal"
When you are finished just insulting people maybe you can get on with some actual... you know.... evidence?
irishmauddib 1 year ago
talk about a troll
dinkolino2 1 year ago
@dinkolino2
Sure If you like. What would you like to say about them?
irishmauddib 1 year ago
Where is your evidence for your claims? You have none -- everything you posted is nothing but your own unsupported, dogmatic, personal belief.
The vast majority of human beings disagree with you, and only the lower animal is on your excessively low level of "intelligence," unable to grasp any portion of the ample scientific evidence for God's factual appearance and activities.
I will pray for you.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Where is your evidence for your claims? "
What claims? I have made none except to ask you for yours.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
"The vast majority of human beings disagree with you"
With who? You are not replying to everyone.
Also Argument ad Populum is a fallacy. The number of people that disagree has nothing at all to do with how true it is.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
With the single exception of the crackpot atheist, everybody already accepts God's appearance and activities as scientific facts, so who exactly do you expect me to convince?
The atheist, in the extreme miniscule minority, insists that he has made no claim contrary to the long-accepted scientific facts anyway, so there is truly no challenge to meet.
The scientific facts stand unchallenged and universally accepted.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"crackpot atheist"
Insults demean only the insulter and never the insulted, raise your game and have some decorum please.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
"God's appearance and activities as scientific facts"
Then maybe you can get around some day to presenting the scientific evidence it is based on?
irishmauddib 1 year ago
Einstein was a Theist (a Jew), Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a mass-murderer of Theists (Jews).
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"Einstein was a Theist "
I love that you keep saying this, as it shows the world what a liar you are.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
Hitler hated all Jews, especially Jesus.
Would Jesus have approved of Hitler's well-known campaign to exterminate all Jews and all Catholics? Certainly not! Jesus WAS a Jew, and also a pacifist!
If the atheist posits that Hitler was honest in his statements, then the atheist acknowledges his sick hero-worship of Hitler.
The Theists understand that Hitler was a liar, a believer in atheist dogma™, and a mass-murderer of Theists.
Only an atheist fool would quote Hitler's lies as if reliable.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"atheist acknowledges his sick hero-worship of Hitler."
Excuse me but it was the church that in fact celebrated hitler and his birthday during mass, not the atheist. Its you guys that worshiped him, not the rest of us.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
"Only an atheist fool"
You do know insults are not evidence and only demean the person who uses them right?
irishmauddib 1 year ago
Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense, and he based his eugenics program on it directly. Thus Hitler is one of the main "heroes" of atheism.
The number one tenet of official atheist dogma™ is to lie at every opportunity, and Hitler was clearly a liar. Only a fool puts his faith in the words of a liar like Hitler, as you do, above.
CONCLUSION: Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma™, a hater of Theists (Jews and Catholics), and a ruthless killer and liar.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"Hitler loved Darwin's nonsense"
Even if this lie was true it is irrelevant. WHO believes something has nothing to do with whatever it is true or false.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
"Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma"
False, he was a Christian. Read his book.
irishmauddib 1 year ago 2
I'm a neutral third party, and I do not represent God. I have simply noticed that the Theists have a much more sound scientific stance on this issue than the atheist.
The atheist has never observed God, but the Theists have observed Him. Therefore, the atheist cannot engage in the steps of the scientific method in God's regard, but the Theists can, and have.
The Theists' conclusions are scientifically valid, but the atheist's statements about God are all unscientific and premature.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"I'm a neutral third party, and I do not represent God."
Your biggest lie today. You are all about god. Except for actually showing it exists that is.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
"The atheist has never observed God"
The first accurate thing you have said all day. But apparently neither has the theist, which is why you have not got a shred of evidence.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
"The Theists' conclusions are scientifically valid"
Nope, because your conclusions have arrived without any evidence, data, arguments or reasons to back them up. Just lies and insults so far from you.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
CONCLUSION:
There is ample observational evidence that all human beings ever born were born from other human beings.
Conversely, there is absolutely no evidence that any human being or group of human beings could ever have been born from any member of any different species. Such a phenomenon has never been observed, and is nothing but a fantastic, unsupported, irrational, and unscientific belief of atheist dogma.
atheist total fail
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"Such a phenomenon has never been observed"
False. Speciation is observed all the time. Both in the fossil records and in the living world today.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
The lower animal, such as the sand-flea, the snail, and the pig, also lack the intelligence to apprehend the ample scientific evidence for God.
The atheist is on the exact same level of intelligence as those creatures, and their ignorance of the facts does not change the facts.
God's factual appearance and activities are as much scientific facts as any other scientific fact known to man.
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"The atheist is on the exact same level of intelligence as those creatures"
You seem to think insults make up for your lack of evidence. They do not.
irishmauddib 1 year ago
There are several Youtube features on my channel that provide scientific and logical evidence that atheist dogma™ promotes violence and killing by attempting to sidestep or degrade God's scriptural injunctions to be peaceful. Please watch:
"atheist dogma™ claims nazis moral"
"atheist dogma™ = moral bankruptcy"
"hitler reacts: mankind rejects atheist dogma™"
"heroes of atheism: dahmer"
"atheist says rape is morally okay"
"darwin = hitler"
"heroes of atheism darwin to hitler"
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"There are several Youtube features on my channel "
Ah so your campaign of lies on this channel is just you trying to spam support your own channel. A lot of things make sense now.
irishmauddib 1 year ago 2
"darwin = hitler"
Wow, you think they were the same person? I have met people who know nothing about history before, but I have never met anyone who thinks someone born in 1809 is the same person as someone born in 1889.
irishmauddib 1 year ago 2
Einstein was a Theist (a Jew), Hitler was a believer in atheist dogma, a mass-murderer of Theists (Jews).
Purushadasa 1 year ago
"Einstein was a Theist"
Not just a false lie, but also entirely relevant. Something is not more or less true because of WHO believes it, but why. So even if this was not a total lie on your part, it would not even be partially relevant.
irishmauddib 1 year ago 2