@signofthehammer His so-called arguments are usually fake. He'll misrepresent kalam or cosmo, leave out parts to make it easier for him to fool his numb-nut christian audiences into believing he's "taken down" some atheist's argument while he has really just "taken down" a retarded strawman.. It's pathetic. I'll give you links to a couple of videos where he's busted doing that and similar dishonest acts if you want:)
Yeah. I had trouble learning to tie my shoelaces, but some people do actually take lessons in shoe lace tying and very seriously.
Craig really should have hired a lawyer... at least then he could have sued Hitchens and Harris for failing to give him any challenge whatsoever in debate as was promised.
Like what? Atheists are the ones making bold claims with pisspoor evidence like the clown I am. Reciting the bible to prove the bible is called reading the bible.... and that's why Craig is fair with his opponents!
The guy doesn't need to prove that consciousness can exist without a physical body, so his entire argument is valid. A worthwhile argument should be COMPLIMENTED much like Craig does, with sound reasoning and logic and not devoid of it.
THIS is the reason that people like me insult idiots like you. People like you are deserved of it!
Instead of actually ADDRESSING my points, you create a new account similar to mine, solely to post something completely opposite of my original statement! You are a complete fuckup!
@BattleshipAgincount First of all Craig did not recite the Bible, nor did he seek to prove the Bible in this video. He did however support his claims with reliable evidence and sound reasoning. He makes an empirically based argument for evolution from a Christian perspective, so that a materialist like yourself can absorb it if you only take the blinders off. Also, atheists make plenty of bold claims. Macro-evolution is only one of them.
Like what? Atheists aren't the ones making bold claims with pisspoor evidence like the clown in the video. Reciting the bible to prove the bible is circular logic... and that's all that Craig has to throw at his opponents!
The guy also failed to prove that consciousness can exist without a physical body, thereby leaving his entire argument without a foundation. A worthwhile argument should be COMPLIMENTED by evidence, not defy it.
Without understanding how he reached his conclusion about the improbability of human life, it's difficult to comment. I think WLC overestimates the numbers and underestimates the amount of time planet earth has existed.
@katrinalisa2002 "....I think WLC overestimates the numbers and underestimates the amount of time planet earth has existed...." or you have overestimated the the time planet earth has exited and underestimated the numbers:-)
@Sean1Sullivan because there are speces that have not gradually changed for several hundreds of million years and mutations are random natural selection supposed to keep gradual change.
@girtkaz Natural selection does not require change, it simply allows the most fit organisms to survive. If they have not changed, that means there was no need for them to do so. The ants, sharks, and alligators have not changed in millions of years because there is no need for them to do so. Mutations are random, the survivors aren't.
@Sean1Sullivan "Natural selection does not require change, it simply allows the most fit organisms to survive...." problem is that the process is to be blind or it would be God guided.organisms do not chose to mutate or not to sellect certain gene or not.Survivers are the ones who were better adapted.
William Lane Craig as a fellow believer you know not what your saying. You need to do some serious research with AIG before you start clearly throwing out the 6 day creation model as unimportant. It is critical for Christians to remain consistent with scripture which is very clear on a 6 day creation model.
Craig only argues that a Christian can be open to the evidence.. You cannot honestly suggest that someone's belief in a 14 billion year old universe, puts their salvation in jeopardy. There are no good reasons to defend 6 day creationism against evidence contemporary science.. if that is the case.
@acceptjesusorburn I'm not sure I understand what your saying... but if I was on the other side of the fence, if a Christian came up to me and said I believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth and questioned the literally interpretation of scripture I could tear them to shreds in seconds. Their inconsistencies would open up all kinds of doors to taking scripture as allegory. Was their an ark? literal Adam and Eve? 900 year old men? Was Mary a virgin? Was Christ resurrected? See?
Not really.. considering there are an array of literary styles throughout the Bible. For example psalms and gospels. It's quite acceptable to take an allegorical interpretation of Genesis without sacraficing biblical inerrancy. Genesis teaches creation ex-nehilo, and the fall of man into sin, besides there is no account of the age of the earth in Genesis.
I'm sorry. This is not an intellectual. Intellectuals don't put it out with that smug, ridiculing preacherman mountebank style. Hitchens' look says it all: "Where do you start with this question mal pose walking on two legs?"
Not once, not one single time have I ever heard that hack Craig utter a decent argument in favor of chirstianity. The closest he ever comes is saying that evolution is really difficult, which in no way supports any particular worldview. He tries to support a singular belief structure by attempting, and failling, to attack a well grounded one.
I can't decide if Craig actually thinks he knows what he's talking about when it comes to scientific subjects simply because he's capable of learning the correct 4-syllable words, or if he's really just a dishonest snake in the vein of Swaggart and Pat Henderson.
@Narseln - I have that same problem. When an intelligent person says such stupid things you must suspect their integrity (but you must take into account the awesome power of childhood religious indoctrination).
On the whole though I think he's intellectually dishonest and deceitful
What I really have issue with--is exactly what I thought though. Many of you try to take on my arguments about the Gen interpretation--but not one of you brought up any arguments about how it's prophecy and the fact that I backed it up with Scripture. I can back it up more too, that's just the beginning. Study the Jubilee cycles also, they total 6,000 years with the prophecy of Gen 6:3.
The first 300 years of the church held strictly that it was 6 days creation, 7 day rest. Literal days. What I find with WLC is that he knows philosophy and a number of other subjects well, but he doesn't really understand the prophecy for the end times and Revelation. Anyone who discounts the 6 day creation doesn't understand how they break prophecy. One small example, 6 days = 6,000 years of apostasy/curse, 7th day= 7,000th year, millenial reign of Christ. 2 Peter 3:1-9, Heb 3 and 4, Gen 1-2
@droptozro How the 'day' in Genesis 1 be the 24hrs day as we have now? The ' 24 hr day with daylight and night' is the effect of planet earth self-rotating in relation to the sun. The Genesis stated that on the 4th 'day' only God set the lights as signs to mark seasons and days and years (Gen 1:14). The 'day' for each creation narratives clearly different from the 'day' that only measurable after there was fixed course of planetaries.
How does God setting the "sun/lights" on the 4th day in any way prove your point? It still means "day"--read the Hebrew word rule I said to another also.
In your view, there would also be an issue with the fact that God had light BEFORE the sun/moon were created. You also have an issue with Gen 1:3-5--same cycle is given without the sun. In a Jewish day, evening is the beginning of a new day and morning is the end.
@droptozro 1) In Hebrew, the word "yowm" and the root "yom" can means a whole range of things that which are related to time: - age, time, continually, always, daily, birth, year, etc... It is never limited to the meaning of 24 hrs period of time. Just take Genesis 1:5. God called the light day (yowm), and the darkness he called night.... the first day (yowm). So, 'yowm' is 12 hrs or 24 hrs, or at the summer 16 hrs or winter 8 hrs? "Yowm" never have to be a definate length of time.
"Yowm" never have to be a definite length of time."
You would be correct except for the fact that in the context---an evening and a morning denotes a normal 24 hour day.
I'm sorry, logic speaks clearly in this--there is nothing to denote these ages are MOY. There is a reason God did it in 6 days(Exo 20:11, Lev 25) to represent the calendar He was going to set up to keep the ages of 1000 years(2 Peter 3:8). 6000 years under the curse, 1000 year reign(Rev 20). Read it.
@droptozro 1) "There is a reason...." - That is your own reason, there is no any necessity to link the "yowm" in creation period to 'years' in 2 Peter & Rev. As I said, the measurable 'days', 'seasons' and 'years' only made possible in Genesis 1:14 after God made the planets in accurate courses.
The 'morning' and 'evening' in Genesis can't be as what we on earth have now, where earth self-rotating aganist the sun, as only in Genesis 1:14 God set the courses on planets and galaxies.
@droptozro 2) On Light before the creation of sun. You may need to read up the Big Bang theory. 'Photon' (element of light) appear in very much begining of the Big Bang (ext 10 seconds after 0 time). And after that, there was periods of opacity and transparent, called 'Dark Ages'.....>> the was evening (ereb) and there was morning (boqer)....
@droptozro Where did you get the information that the first 300 years of the church "held strictly that it was 6 days creation, 7 day rest. Literal days."? Simply because Augustine was the first person to bring up the matter doesn't mean that the early church taught a literal 24-hour day understanding of the Genesis narratives. You only have an argument from silence.
"You only have an argument from silence" --video maker, bear with me on response comment quotes.
Go read Barnabas, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Methodius. They all represent the first 300 years of it being 6 days, literal days. Origen was one of the first to depart.
Hebrew word "Yom" means "day"---it can mean a longer period, but you have issue with the Hebrew grammatical rule that says if a number is before "Yom"--it means "day"--not MOY. I take the text literally, and it's prophecy.
@droptozro First of all, they were almost entirely dependent on Greek and Latin translations of the OT rather than the actual Hebrew in which Genesis was written. None of the church fathers were fluent in Hebrew until Jerome and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Main interest in them stems from the assumption that they were closer in language to the Bible’s writers. While that is largely true for the NT, the early church lacked a clear understanding of Hebrew and the Jewish culture of the OT.
@droptozro It is well-acknowledged that the church fathers were by no means unified on how to understand the creation days. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine rejected a calendar-day view, believing instead that everything was created instantly. We should include Hilary of Poitiers and the Jewish scholar Philo who believed likewise.
@droptozro There was genuine disagreement in the early church over how to best understand the days of creation, with a small but significant number rejecting the idea that they were “ordinary” days. Second, the church allowed for charitable disagreement on this point and did not view it as an issue of orthodoxy.
In addition to the above points, the original Hebrew has "echad" AFTER "yowm". Thus, you did not take the text literally.
@Dante666 I don't see it as orthodoxy, I see it as showing one's ignorance of Scripture as a whole People need to study less human philosophy and scientific theories and more Scripture. The more I study Scripture the more is revealed to show the worldly dates, ideals, and philosophies are wrong--so often. Scripture is internally consistent on dates and prophecy fulfilled all through-out. If you think it's not 6 days, but somehow MOY--you've edited prophecy, read the Hippolytus quote.
@droptozro Nobody is talking about human philosophy and scientific theories here. On mere basis of Scripture alone you are already wrong. Who's talking about "MOY"? Do you know how to read Hebrew? So you believe Hippolytus when he said that human history would last exactly 6000 years, and that the end times already happened in the 6th century A.D.? Obviously his exegesis has already been proven wrong by virtue of us living in the 21st century A.D. now.
@droptozro Lastly, since this is an argument from the Old Testament, it should be noted that ancient Jewish commentators also held that the Genesis narrative does not refer to a literal 24-day period. In terms of interpreting Genesis, their views, as speakers of the original language of the Old Testament, hold more water than the church fathers who do not know Hebrew.
Actually the Hebrew commentators hold no water, for the Scripture even says they're BLIND to the prophecies. 2 Cor 3:15. The early church were mostly Jews who became Christians originally, and they began to understand the prophecies and shadows of things to come. I know they used the Septuagint--which was written before even the Masoretic used today, and the Septuagint is quoted more often. It's days, I haven't seen a single good premise to support all these bad conclusions.
@droptozro 2 Corinthians 3:15 is not talking about prophecies. You know what was used by the Jewish commentators? The Tanakh in its original Hebrew, written long before the Septuagint or even the Greek language itself. Of course the Septuagint was quoted more often by the church fathers, since they didn't know Hebrew. DUH. And I agree, I haven't seen a single good premise to support all these bad conclusions of yours.
@Dante666 Craig was showing that a different interpretation of the story of creation existed well before the theory of evolution. So, accepting a non-literal view of the creation story is not a response or a retreat from Darwinism. If St. Augustine thought the creation story did not have to be exactly 7 days than a Christian is within tradition to not accept such an interpretation. Craig's greater point is that the interpretation of creation does not affect any fundamental doctrines.
@kaliber1234 I understand this point; I was only refuting droptozro's earlier comment, "The first 300 years of the church held strictly that it was 6 days creation, 7 day rest. Literal days" which I have shown not only to be untrue (Clement of Alexandria of the 2nd century A.D. being an example who rejected the 24-hour view), but entirely irrelevant.
Moreover, according to the 24-hour interpretation, the end times would have to have happened in the 4th century. Did it? Nope. QED.
"..greater point is that the interpretation of creation does not affect any fundamental doctrines"---actually, it does. It affects prophecy. I'll ask you the same question, do you think our God even needed 6 days to create everything? No, probably not.
So the fact is that it's got a reason behind it, and the Jubilee calendar, Sabbath, Rest, Christ all these things point to the fact that it was 6 literal days because if it's not--then the 6 days, 7th rest loses its meaning.
@droptozro Of course they do have significant meaning, but not in the way you think. If you agreed with the views of most of the church fathers, then you would have needed to believe that the end times came about in the 4th century (or the 6th century, according to Hippolytus). Didn't happen then, did it? Therefore, FAIL. QED.
"So Jesus only...1000 years?" No, the millenium represents the separation of the two resurrections and the final attempt of satan to overthrow Christ's Kingdom. The second judgment occurs also at the end of the millenium. This is all in Scripture, go read Rev 20-21.
"...Jesus is reigning right now?" No, do you see Jesus here reigning? Even Scripture affirms this, read Matt 22:44, Psalm 110:1, read Hebrews chap 1&2. Christ will reign on a renewed earth, but not yet.
@droptozro Pretty sure that Jesus said that all authority has been given to Him by His Father. Pretty sure that He already has the title of "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords." The only kind of king that can possibly exist that does not reign is a king in exile. Is Christ in exile? I think not. Just because men do evil, it does not mean that Christ is not King before the foundations of the earth, now and forever.
"Jesus said that all authority has been given to Him by His Father"--Yep, you're right. And the King of kings and the Lord of lords is His titles.... but you still don't understand Revelation and the prophets, and you keep proving it. Respond to the quotes, see Rev 20-21. Now go read Revelation 11:15-19... see what the angel says at the 7th trumpet? "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord..." the 7th trumpet is at Christ's return. He's not reigning
@droptozro WHAT. The 7th trumpet sounded during the FIRST Advent, made especially clear if you read Revelation 12, which follows immediately AFTER Revelation 11 (and remember, the Scriptures were originally written WITHOUT chapter or verse numberings), which describe Mary and baby Jesus. Christ is ALREADY reigning and is STILL reigning.
If you think also(which I seem to think I see implied in your writings) that the Revelation chapters are all in perfect order(meaning it's one after another in sequence), you show you don't understand them or the prophets either. That's not how they're all laid out.
I don't think you understand, Christ going to LITERALLY REIGN on THIS Earth(albeit renewed and curse removed) from the New Jerusalem. Read Isaiah 65-66--He is not reigning yet, He is not here. Matt 5:5, Psalm 37
@droptozro Thus you deny Christ's victory at the cross, and because Christ's reign necessarily begins at his return to the Father, per Daniel, you also deny that Christ has returned to the Father. Reflect on your heretical and blasphemous views.
It was 6 days. This is the same issue I bring up over and over again with WLC, which I why I would like to have a sit down with him if I ever could to discuss the issue. Genesis is not open to multiple interpretations, and his justification for it aren't even good authorities to quote---Augustine(the former 9 year Gnostic) is over 300 years into the early church--why not quote someone prior to Augustine? Because they'd all refute this ideal that the creation is older...
@droptozro Origen of Alexandria (An influential and important Church Father) advocated an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. And this came well within the first 300 years of the church.
Yes you're correct, he was one of the first to depart... Origen had some odd ideals. I haven't studied to see if he really understood the prophecies that arose from it though. Read prior to him, you won't see anything but 6 days except for the Gnostic teachers or philosophers of their time... which isn't a good proof for your side.
@droptozro This is hilarious. Your ignorance is really showing. I can go back even further. Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - c. 215) advocated for an allegorical reading of Genesis. As did Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD).
The truth of the matter is, many early Jewish and Christian figures did NOT advocate for a literal interpretation of Genesis. Biblical Literalism is mainly a by-product of the protestant reformation. Sorry you don't like that, but it's fact.
@BronyEditorFascinating. I always assumed the reformation was right about everything but they may have indeed got this point wrong. Teach me more sir.
@kaliber1234 Well, as far as human efforts go, the Reformation did get a great number of things right, just not every single thing. For example, Martin Luther even considered the Epistle of James to be a false epistle. All denominations still have much to go to be Biblical.
@kaliber1234 I think they're completely wrong about everything. Men like Martin Luther and John Calvin had some strange ideas. Which is why I identify closer to Catholicism.
@BronyEditor Interesting. I have some reading to do. What a relief to Christians that they are within tradition to not be literalist for stories in the old testament. This is great because the evidence for Christ's resurrection is so overwhelming.
"Your ignorance is really showing...Clement, Philo"----want to quote it? Because I have a feeling you're just going to prove my point. It's not allegorical, it's prophetic. This is why those who muddle it up and throw evolution in there destroy the prophetic nature of the Genesis 6 day creation story. I have Clement quotes on hand that say 6 day, and others who say the philosophers of their day said the earth was ages of ages old--yet they respond it's not even 6,000 yet.
@droptozro Here's Hippolytus for 1 example of about 10 at least that I can find so far.
"And six thousand years must needs be accomplished… for 'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.' Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled"
Question for you, do you think an all powerful God even NEEDED 6 days to create? No, probably not--so the issue is your burden of proof to show "day" doesn't mean "day." The ante-Nicene church was literal, quote?
@droptozro Did the end times come to pass in 6th century A.D.? Hippolytus seemed to believe that Christ would return at that point in history. I'm sure there is no need to say more about his huge failure in exegesis, is there?
No Christ is not reigning, He's still at the right hand of the Father. Go read Hebrews. He's not here, do you not understand the promises or what Christians even inherit? Probably not, Christ will reign 1000 years(and us with Him) at His return(Rev 20-21, Isaiah 65-66). He's going to inherit the land, New Jerusalem and share it with us... Christ is not here at the moment reigning, there are many not under His control, that's quite obvious.
@droptozro Christ's reign began as soon as he is at the right hand of the Father. Go read Daniel. Not having any under his control in no way indicates that he is not reigning.
I don't think you're understanding the definition of "reigning"--that's our issue possibly. I don't mean to say that Christ is not in power, that He's not in control in the ultimate sense. I mean, He's not physically reigning on this earth from Jerusalem as prophesied yet--that prophecy has not yet come true, and that's what will happen when He receives the inheritance, and then He will give to the Father at the end of the 1,000 year reign. Read Psalm 2, this is a description His
If Christ does reign on the earth itself, the earth would not be fleeing from the presence of God. Christ's kingdom is one that will last forever, not one that will pass away, as the earth eventually will.
So... Psalm 2, Christ returning to save Jerusalem, also described in Zechariah 14... it isn't on this earth?
What about the fact that Abraham and his Seed(Gal 3-4, Gen 13:15) were promised the land Abraham walked? So did God lie to Abraham, had him walk around and live on that land in a tent for nothing?(answer this)
Christ says we will reign with Him over nations(Psalm 2, Rev 5:8-10, Rev 21)... that's not possible if it's not here.
@droptozro Of course it is not. What does that have to do with Abraham? God did not lie to Abraham, of course, but does the fact that the earth will pass away not mean that this is only temporal?
No, we do not reign with Christ.
1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
Yep, the word is renewed.. It's the same word Paul used to describe us being a new creation in Christ. Are you still you? Maybe you should go read Isaiah 65-66. It describes the new earth, how people will live a long time again--since it will be like before the fall again... children will die at 100(born not under the curse). Men who die at 100 would still be under the old curse. Rom 8 says the lifting of the curse is what we await.
@droptozro It is not the same word Paul used to describe us being a new creation in Christ. Children will die at 100? Nonsense. Read the text properly. It says that those who die at 100 are like children, not that children will die at 100. However, we have eternal life in Christ, eternal being infinite, not limited by years, and since Death will be defeated at the end.
EVERYTHING. This is what the Jews misunderstood(well at least the leaders). They thought they were physical descendants of Abraham and the land was theirs--but the text says "Seed"(singular, Christ). Galatians 3-4 describes this well.
"we do not reign with Christ"
Uh...2 Tim 2:12, Rev 2:26-29, Rev 3:20-21, Gal 3:29---we are heirs of the land, the same promise made to Abraham thousands of years ago. We are heirs in Christ, this is basic.
Not heirs of the land. We, at the present age, when Christ is already in full reign, do not reign with Christ. The time for those persecuted has passed.
"Did the end times come to pass in the 6th century A.D?"
This question alone proves you didn't even READ the quote I gave you, nor do you understand the early church and biblical position.
Go read it again, it says 6,000 years... 6th century AD would be 600 years...even still, its not from Christ's death, but the FALL and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. I don't know why I'd even have to reply to the rest when you didn't even understand my premise/conclusions.
@droptozro You are the one who failed to understand what the church fathers thought. It's 6000 years from the beginning of Creation, stupid. Indeed, it is now long past 6000 years since the Fall. Do you even know what you're talking about? Guess not
@Dante666 ...return. He's not reigning until that occurs, when the armies of the nations are waiting to try to overthrow Him. He's going to wipe them out.
"...church fathers thought. 6,000 years from the beginning of Creation, stupid"
Your ad hominems are showing now, and proof is not on your side--go read Irenaeus:
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. V, xxvii, this quote shows it's from the fall clearly.
And no, the Jubilee(not secular calendar) shows we're at around 5975. Biblical chronology
@droptozro How is that an ad hominem when I clearly showed the reason why you are wrong? Irenaeus thinks it begins from the Fall, but not the rest of the church fathers, including Hippolytus himself, who clearly taught that Christ came to the earth in the year 5500 since Creation.
We're currently in the Jewish year 5772, according to the Masoretic date, but according to the Septuagint, we're in the Jewish year 6378. So what's that about using the Septuagint?
Nope Jews are off if they're only at 5772, you probably mean by Josephus---he forgot to incorporate some of the Jubilee years properly(unless you have a different source), all the dates are clearly laid out in Scripture. And I know the Septuagint has a 100 year difference on many of the patriarchs, haven't figured out why that is yet----but of course that would throw off the date to some ECF. Ouch yeah, read that Hippolytus one in more of a fuller context, I retract that one.
@droptozro No, I meant the Masoretic date, not Josephus. The Septuagint translation is different, that is why there is such a big difference to begin with. For example, the Septuagint says that Seth was born when Adam was 230, while most others would read that Seth was born when Adam was 130, not 230. The same error continues until Jared, thus there's almost a 600 year difference between the two.
I mean, there are multiple Scriptures besides prophecy that even prove it was 6 days... why don't we go with the Jubilee Calendar from Lev 25? 6 years of farming, 1 of rest==7. Then the weeks of years meaning the 7 weeks of years, 7X7=49 + the Jubilee(50th). Then the 120 cycles prophecy from Gen 6:3, cycles of what? Jubilees, 120 jubilees is 6,000 years. Or the simplest one, the Sabbath...every 7 days. Exo 20:11 It's 7 days, morning and evening--be logical don't twist the text
@droptozro Bullshit. None of them show that the creation account in Genesis took place over 6 24-hour periods. In fact, the events of the 6th ”day” alone would have required more than a 24-hour period. All this goes to show is that Creation was divided into 6 individual indeterminate periods of time, and as Paul says, each of us must strive to enter into God's rest, the seventh ”day” which includes the present age.
The fact that you're cursing is also telling, go and read Col 3:8... you profess to be a Christian, put your tongue back and repent for your words are a flame of fire you shall be judged for it. This is a simple dialogue and you're making it personal by revealing your emotion.
I agree with some of the rest of this comment though, but it doesn't say JUST that, there are multiple other proofs. How does it "require" more than 24 hours? It's 6 millenia, 2 Peter 3:8
@droptozro Cursing? Do you know the Biblical meaning of cursing? It means invoking calamity or bad luck on another, so my condemnation of your misjudgment is not a curse at all. The fact that you think that this word is "cursing" and somehow emotional is also telling of the extent of your ignorance. In fact, God uses far worse imagery and condemnation on Israel.
2 Peter 3:8 uses a figure of speech to indicate a long indeterminate period of time, not a literal thousand years.
"2 Peter 3:8 uses a figure of speech to indicate a long INDETERMINATE period of time, not a literal thousand years"
That's about as contradictory to the text as one can get. Peter's not giving an exaggeration, he's stirring them up by reminder of what the prophets have said about Christ's return. 2 days = 2000 years, after Christ's ascension. Try Hosea 5-6:3. It's about Israel returning to God and His restoring them.
Okay, now we're just stretching definitions... Col 3:8 says no filthy language. I just used cursing as another way to describe in in modern day language. You know you used it in an improper manner, don't be hard-hearted.
Rev 20:11 is also at the very end of the 1000 year reign after Satan rises up one last time with nations(check that v. 8)(since that's the resurrection of the unrighteous or 2nd resurrection), it's not really described how it's going to continue much from there.
Dembski makes the same argument, The whole of Chapter 10 called 'Chance and Necessity—and Intelligent Design?' they refute any claim that Evolution is improbable.
I can't link it but type in:
'Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism quotes on tipler'
and it should be the 5th one down called 'Why does intelligent design fails.'
Lol craig is all (° )_( ,). But srsly though, evolution would work both with and without special creation. So the creation of life is an irrelevant point with regard to the theory of evolution.
@EdyMar77 Thing is, though, that there is no evidence for any past-universe creation theory; yet there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that our universe began to exist.
Show me the evidence that says that the universe beging to exists out of nothing , the fact is , that there is no evidence at all , we cant trace back in some point , and thats all , theres is no way to suggest that all has been created in that point , theres no evidence of that , and matter cant be created or destroyed , and that is Basic Science.
Poor guy..expended too many words to show just his ignorance. To respond briefly to him its
enough to say that:
1) Science dosen´t need "god" assumption to explain origin/evolution of milions lifeform on our planet."god" is irrelevant to science (supernatural being was created by mankind mind as a supstitution for the absence of science thounsands years ago, as u actually mrCraig still do)
2)Improbability in evolution means just a very rare event (what`s miraculous is in it?)
Most scientists believe the universe is finite. Since the universe is not infinite, and you don't believe it was created, you are, by logical necessity, saying it created itself.
@gunner23 I thought the current model describes all that happens right after the beginning, but not the beginning itself. Like how evolution isn't about abiogenesis but it is about all that comes after it.
@EdyMar77 wrote "hypothesys" and "knoy". How about learning to spell, before taking on tougher subjects like the universe's origins?
All time, space, and matter were compressed into a single small point at the Singularity. So, by necessity, whatever created the Singularity exists OUTSIDE time, space, and matter.
Sounds a bit like the supernatural being you don't believe in.
@Prologicful So , singularity has not been created , what evidence do you have to say that???, and ... sorry for my bad spelling , but how many languages do you speak? Im a Spanish speaker from a Spanish speaker country , I do my best with english and i make mistakes sometimes , its not so difficult to read anyways.
I knew that WLC was bad, but falling for that nonsense probability argument? Perhaps he should take an introductory probability course and learn that the field is predictive- not descriptive.
The first minute or so of this video is just Craig arguing why Christians have had to accept that the bible is not the inerrant word of their god, which is delightful to hear. The backpedalling will continue (I hope) for the foreseeable future.
If modern theists don't acknowledge SOME of the reality that is undeniable to rational thinkers, they realize they will go the way of the dodo and the worshippers of Zeus.
The fact is, there are no sound arguments for a specific theistic god.
@|xAgnoticx| - In fact I have .....and the 1st thing I ask the poor soul trying to make the argument is: What would an "unfinely" tuned universe look like and how would it function?
The evidence points to life being a CONSEQUENCE of natural phenomenom. There is nothing that indicates that the universe was caused for the intended purpose of spawning life.
Well the probability of any other living thing being alive today is just as improbable an yet... But of course us humans get the privilege of being worthy of a deity.
Finally, to the I.D./creationism crowd -- complexity does not implicate design - much less, intelligence.
Excercise: Take a handful of multi-colored paintballs & throw them against a wall. You'll get various patterns, designs, & complexed color schemes.
Point to any individual ridge or angle on the wall, and then assert that the resulting picture is "finely tuned" for the existence of that particular pattern.
Its the same principle thing that you're professing with the idea of I.D.
Why would such a loving, all knowing, all powerful god create such a violent, destructive, imperfect universe? ......and I'm NOT simply speaking to human affairs with that question.
Also, if there really is a "designer" .... it isn't very intelligent.
Oh stop it ...... intellient design is just creationism by another name. It insinuates (or downright asserts) that there is an inelligent agency behind the cause of the universe .... that has purposely set the universe in motion with specified inentions. Let's not toy with terms and definitions.
If anything, the existing universe displays an aimless order of erractic phenomenom that has resulted in the existence of life followed by consciousness. Chance.
Ha ! Typical Craig! - When he has no reasoning to support his "Biblical god". He quotes argument for authority. When, despite this, the bible fails him, he goes for the laws of mathmatical improbability, whilst ignoring the blatent observation that his facts and statistics have long negated the original source of his version of "God" - i.e: The bible
Is the William Lane Craig who says that atheists are unable to go where the evidence leads the same William Lane Craig who says that even if the evidence went against the existence of God he would still believe in him?
If anybody's interested, Craig gets those ridiculously small numbers from Barrow and Tipler who used the probability of the human genome "spontaneously assembling" and not "evolving" as Craig says. Also, their ten steps include things like the development of the eye which we know isn't unlikely at all. So again, Craig tries to impress by quoting others and fails.
2:28 "the Christian can be open to the evidence to follow it where it leads."
Vintage Craig. He doesn't really commit himself to the reality of evolution here. So cynical.
Just like later in the debate when he says that he hasn't "committed himself to the reality of demons" right after saying that Jesus exorcised demons. What? Huh?
Christians of all stripes can believe pretty much anything they choose to believe about Craig's positions on the biblical texts. He has books to sell.
Jesus and Paul believed genesis is literal. There is a genealogy of jesus traceing back to adam. How can a metaphor have kids?
Metaphor indeed! If genesis is a metaphor then there is no literal original sin. No original sin- no need for heysoose. No need for heysoose- christianity's without foundation. I will give Craig credit for giving an impassioned speech.
Even if evolution IS wrong, even if scientists ARE retarded liars, and that it IS improbable for the human genome to evolve into what it is.
Does that somehow prove the existence of God?
Nope.
You see, this is what religious people do. They can't find evidence for God (because there is none), so instead, they try to take down science. They think it's a game, where if the opposing side loses a point, it automatically transfers to you. But it isn't. You can't make religion seem credible.
Sadly Craig doesn't understand evolution, thats the classic fault statement the creationist make, you can not apply directly the genes variation to any stage to another and calculate the probability directly, YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT the natural selection process to narrow most of the possible variations, so the probability to get the desired/most adaptable genetic variation becomes very probable.
Ken Miller and Bob Pennock, doctors who are much more intelligent than this video's originator, would have something to say about Craig's misunderstanding of evolution. Even the religious zealot Dempski knew not to tangle with them. He chickened out of facing them at the Dover trial. I'm glad a Bush appointed Conservative christian judge didn't allow creationist propaganda, that creationists like Craig and Dempski believe, to be taught in Dover classsrooms.
I can't listen to the dumb turd for more than a few seconds. His voice, the way he speaks, it's all disgusting..yuuck!:)
winterstellar 1 day ago
@winterstellar nice ad hominem attack, but his arguments are still undefeated.
signofthehammer 1 day ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@signofthehammer His so-called arguments are usually fake. He'll misrepresent kalam or cosmo, leave out parts to make it easier for him to fool his numb-nut christian audiences into believing he's "taken down" some atheist's argument while he has really just "taken down" a retarded strawman.. It's pathetic. I'll give you links to a couple of videos where he's busted doing that and similar dishonest acts if you want:)
winterstellar 1 day ago
Comment removed
BattleshipAgincourt 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HellspawnICX
Yeah. I had trouble learning to tie my shoelaces, but some people do actually take lessons in shoe lace tying and very seriously.
Craig really should have hired a lawyer... at least then he could have sued Hitchens and Harris for failing to give him any challenge whatsoever in debate as was promised.
BattleshipAgincount 2 days ago
@Damonferal
Like what? Atheists are the ones making bold claims with pisspoor evidence like the clown I am. Reciting the bible to prove the bible is called reading the bible.... and that's why Craig is fair with his opponents!
The guy doesn't need to prove that consciousness can exist without a physical body, so his entire argument is valid. A worthwhile argument should be COMPLIMENTED much like Craig does, with sound reasoning and logic and not devoid of it.
BattleshipAgincount 2 days ago
Comment removed
BattleshipAgincourt 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BattleshipAgincount
THIS is the reason that people like me insult idiots like you. People like you are deserved of it!
Instead of actually ADDRESSING my points, you create a new account similar to mine, solely to post something completely opposite of my original statement! You are a complete fuckup!
BattleshipAgincourt 2 days ago
@BattleshipAgincount You're fuckign retarded
dabomb1357 1 day ago
@BattleshipAgincount First of all Craig did not recite the Bible, nor did he seek to prove the Bible in this video. He did however support his claims with reliable evidence and sound reasoning. He makes an empirically based argument for evolution from a Christian perspective, so that a materialist like yourself can absorb it if you only take the blinders off. Also, atheists make plenty of bold claims. Macro-evolution is only one of them.
Damonferal 1 day ago
@BattleshipAgincount
you stupid?
theblueisyou 18 hours ago
People are actually dumb enough to believe this dude? Must be a joke, no way people are THAT stupid.
HellspawnICX 4 days ago
@HellspawnICX
Yeah. I had trouble buying it myself, but some people do actually take this clown very seriously.
Craig really should have been a lawyer... at least then he could have put his talents to good use.
BattleshipAgincourt 3 days ago
@BattleshipAgincourt All you guys can do is throw insults. Plainly evident that you have nothing worthwhile to say against the arguments.
Damonferal 2 days ago
@Damonferal
Like what? Atheists aren't the ones making bold claims with pisspoor evidence like the clown in the video. Reciting the bible to prove the bible is circular logic... and that's all that Craig has to throw at his opponents!
The guy also failed to prove that consciousness can exist without a physical body, thereby leaving his entire argument without a foundation. A worthwhile argument should be COMPLIMENTED by evidence, not defy it.
BattleshipAgincourt 2 days ago
Craig Rulz!!!!!!
RLK1967 4 days ago
Without understanding how he reached his conclusion about the improbability of human life, it's difficult to comment. I think WLC overestimates the numbers and underestimates the amount of time planet earth has existed.
katrinalisa2002 4 days ago
@katrinalisa2002 "....I think WLC overestimates the numbers and underestimates the amount of time planet earth has existed...." or you have overestimated the the time planet earth has exited and underestimated the numbers:-)
girtkaz 4 days ago
I'm still confused as to why people think that evolution is simply random chance, not gradual change.
Sean1Sullivan 5 days ago
@Sean1Sullivan because there are speces that have not gradually changed for several hundreds of million years and mutations are random natural selection supposed to keep gradual change.
girtkaz 4 days ago
@girtkaz Natural selection does not require change, it simply allows the most fit organisms to survive. If they have not changed, that means there was no need for them to do so. The ants, sharks, and alligators have not changed in millions of years because there is no need for them to do so. Mutations are random, the survivors aren't.
Sean1Sullivan 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Sean1Sullivan "Natural selection does not require change, it simply allows the most fit organisms to survive...." problem is that the process is to be blind or it would be God guided.organisms do not chose to mutate or not to sellect certain gene or not.Survivers are the ones who were better adapted.
girtkaz 3 days ago
William Lane Craig as a fellow believer you know not what your saying. You need to do some serious research with AIG before you start clearly throwing out the 6 day creation model as unimportant. It is critical for Christians to remain consistent with scripture which is very clear on a 6 day creation model.
cctman 6 days ago
@cctman
Craig only argues that a Christian can be open to the evidence.. You cannot honestly suggest that someone's belief in a 14 billion year old universe, puts their salvation in jeopardy. There are no good reasons to defend 6 day creationism against evidence contemporary science.. if that is the case.
acceptjesusorburn 5 days ago
@acceptjesusorburn I'm not sure I understand what your saying... but if I was on the other side of the fence, if a Christian came up to me and said I believe in a 4.5 billion year old earth and questioned the literally interpretation of scripture I could tear them to shreds in seconds. Their inconsistencies would open up all kinds of doors to taking scripture as allegory. Was their an ark? literal Adam and Eve? 900 year old men? Was Mary a virgin? Was Christ resurrected? See?
cctman 5 days ago
@cctman
Not really.. considering there are an array of literary styles throughout the Bible. For example psalms and gospels. It's quite acceptable to take an allegorical interpretation of Genesis without sacraficing biblical inerrancy. Genesis teaches creation ex-nehilo, and the fall of man into sin, besides there is no account of the age of the earth in Genesis.
acceptjesusorburn 4 days ago
Lol...Lil Craigy doesn't understand probabilities. Awww
QuantumGh0st 1 week ago
129 people (likes) in denial
gocrazy432 1 week ago
I'm sorry. This is not an intellectual. Intellectuals don't put it out with that smug, ridiculing preacherman mountebank style. Hitchens' look says it all: "Where do you start with this question mal pose walking on two legs?"
manthasagittarius1 1 week ago
Not once, not one single time have I ever heard that hack Craig utter a decent argument in favor of chirstianity. The closest he ever comes is saying that evolution is really difficult, which in no way supports any particular worldview. He tries to support a singular belief structure by attempting, and failling, to attack a well grounded one.
13shadowwolf 1 week ago
I can't decide if Craig actually thinks he knows what he's talking about when it comes to scientific subjects simply because he's capable of learning the correct 4-syllable words, or if he's really just a dishonest snake in the vein of Swaggart and Pat Henderson.
Narseln 1 week ago
@Narseln Or perhaps you're simply in denial.
Dante666 1 week ago
@Narseln - I have that same problem. When an intelligent person says such stupid things you must suspect their integrity (but you must take into account the awesome power of childhood religious indoctrination).
On the whole though I think he's intellectually dishonest and deceitful
shumble32 1 week ago
2:20 Hitchens is not impressed... lol
ST3V342 1 week ago
While I respect WLC and enjoy his debates and philosophy in general, he is dead wrong on this issue. Genesis is literal.
blurryshiny 1 week ago
68 young earth creationists disliked this video.
HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR
MaximusArurealuis 1 week ago
The difference being biological evolution is a truth as in a fact and the 'Truth' of christian theism is a useless presupposition.
TheScienceFoundation 1 week ago
66 atheists disliked the video.
KingDcome11 1 week ago 15
Comment removed
IR17171717 1 week ago
@KingDcome11 Yeah... no shit
blablaidontcarewhour 6 days ago
@KingDcome11 78 now. it's sad to see how many people are more interested in what's good for them as individuals and not what's actually true.
thetheistexperience1 4 days ago
The face of Hitchens at 2:19 kills me x)
Fantasticlist 1 week ago
What I really have issue with--is exactly what I thought though. Many of you try to take on my arguments about the Gen interpretation--but not one of you brought up any arguments about how it's prophecy and the fact that I backed it up with Scripture. I can back it up more too, that's just the beginning. Study the Jubilee cycles also, they total 6,000 years with the prophecy of Gen 6:3.
droptozro 1 week ago
What is this guys IQ? ?!
MriBackup 1 week ago
@MriBackup well it must be higher than the late christopher hitchens because even commonsenseatheism website admitted that Hitchens lost.
FamousDave2186 1 week ago
The first 300 years of the church held strictly that it was 6 days creation, 7 day rest. Literal days. What I find with WLC is that he knows philosophy and a number of other subjects well, but he doesn't really understand the prophecy for the end times and Revelation. Anyone who discounts the 6 day creation doesn't understand how they break prophecy. One small example, 6 days = 6,000 years of apostasy/curse, 7th day= 7,000th year, millenial reign of Christ. 2 Peter 3:1-9, Heb 3 and 4, Gen 1-2
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro How the 'day' in Genesis 1 be the 24hrs day as we have now? The ' 24 hr day with daylight and night' is the effect of planet earth self-rotating in relation to the sun. The Genesis stated that on the 4th 'day' only God set the lights as signs to mark seasons and days and years (Gen 1:14). The 'day' for each creation narratives clearly different from the 'day' that only measurable after there was fixed course of planetaries.
yohanesmalaysia 1 week ago
@yohanesmalaysia
How does God setting the "sun/lights" on the 4th day in any way prove your point? It still means "day"--read the Hebrew word rule I said to another also.
In your view, there would also be an issue with the fact that God had light BEFORE the sun/moon were created. You also have an issue with Gen 1:3-5--same cycle is given without the sun. In a Jewish day, evening is the beginning of a new day and morning is the end.
droptozro 1 week ago
Comment removed
yohanesmalaysia 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@droptozro 1) In Hebrew, the word "yowm" and the root "yom" can means a whole range of things that which are related to time: - age, time, continually, always, daily, birth, year, etc... It is never limited to the meaning of 24 hrs period of time. Just take Genesis 1:5. God called the light day (yowm), and the darkness he called night.... the first day (yowm). So, 'yowm' is 12 hrs or 24 hrs, or at the summer 16 hrs or winter 8 hrs? "Yowm" never have to be a definate length of time.
yohanesmalaysia 6 days ago
@yohanesmalaysia
"Yowm" never have to be a definite length of time."
You would be correct except for the fact that in the context---an evening and a morning denotes a normal 24 hour day.
I'm sorry, logic speaks clearly in this--there is nothing to denote these ages are MOY. There is a reason God did it in 6 days(Exo 20:11, Lev 25) to represent the calendar He was going to set up to keep the ages of 1000 years(2 Peter 3:8). 6000 years under the curse, 1000 year reign(Rev 20). Read it.
droptozro 4 days ago
@droptozro 1) "There is a reason...." - That is your own reason, there is no any necessity to link the "yowm" in creation period to 'years' in 2 Peter & Rev. As I said, the measurable 'days', 'seasons' and 'years' only made possible in Genesis 1:14 after God made the planets in accurate courses.
The 'morning' and 'evening' in Genesis can't be as what we on earth have now, where earth self-rotating aganist the sun, as only in Genesis 1:14 God set the courses on planets and galaxies.
yohanesmalaysia 3 days ago
@droptozro 2) On Light before the creation of sun. You may need to read up the Big Bang theory. 'Photon' (element of light) appear in very much begining of the Big Bang (ext 10 seconds after 0 time). And after that, there was periods of opacity and transparent, called 'Dark Ages'.....>> the was evening (ereb) and there was morning (boqer)....
yohanesmalaysia 6 days ago
@droptozro Where did you get the information that the first 300 years of the church "held strictly that it was 6 days creation, 7 day rest. Literal days."? Simply because Augustine was the first person to bring up the matter doesn't mean that the early church taught a literal 24-hour day understanding of the Genesis narratives. You only have an argument from silence.
Dante666 1 week ago
@Dante666
"You only have an argument from silence" --video maker, bear with me on response comment quotes.
Go read Barnabas, Irenaeus, Theophilus, Methodius. They all represent the first 300 years of it being 6 days, literal days. Origen was one of the first to depart.
Hebrew word "Yom" means "day"---it can mean a longer period, but you have issue with the Hebrew grammatical rule that says if a number is before "Yom"--it means "day"--not MOY. I take the text literally, and it's prophecy.
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro First of all, they were almost entirely dependent on Greek and Latin translations of the OT rather than the actual Hebrew in which Genesis was written. None of the church fathers were fluent in Hebrew until Jerome and Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Main interest in them stems from the assumption that they were closer in language to the Bible’s writers. While that is largely true for the NT, the early church lacked a clear understanding of Hebrew and the Jewish culture of the OT.
Dante666 1 week ago
@droptozro It is well-acknowledged that the church fathers were by no means unified on how to understand the creation days. Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Augustine rejected a calendar-day view, believing instead that everything was created instantly. We should include Hilary of Poitiers and the Jewish scholar Philo who believed likewise.
Dante666 1 week ago
@droptozro There was genuine disagreement in the early church over how to best understand the days of creation, with a small but significant number rejecting the idea that they were “ordinary” days. Second, the church allowed for charitable disagreement on this point and did not view it as an issue of orthodoxy.
In addition to the above points, the original Hebrew has "echad" AFTER "yowm". Thus, you did not take the text literally.
Dante666 1 week ago
Comment removed
droptozro 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dante666 I don't see it as orthodoxy, I see it as showing one's ignorance of Scripture as a whole People need to study less human philosophy and scientific theories and more Scripture. The more I study Scripture the more is revealed to show the worldly dates, ideals, and philosophies are wrong--so often. Scripture is internally consistent on dates and prophecy fulfilled all through-out. If you think it's not 6 days, but somehow MOY--you've edited prophecy, read the Hippolytus quote.
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro Nobody is talking about human philosophy and scientific theories here. On mere basis of Scripture alone you are already wrong. Who's talking about "MOY"? Do you know how to read Hebrew? So you believe Hippolytus when he said that human history would last exactly 6000 years, and that the end times already happened in the 6th century A.D.? Obviously his exegesis has already been proven wrong by virtue of us living in the 21st century A.D. now.
Dante666 1 week ago
@droptozro Lastly, since this is an argument from the Old Testament, it should be noted that ancient Jewish commentators also held that the Genesis narrative does not refer to a literal 24-day period. In terms of interpreting Genesis, their views, as speakers of the original language of the Old Testament, hold more water than the church fathers who do not know Hebrew.
Dante666 1 week ago
@Dante666
Actually the Hebrew commentators hold no water, for the Scripture even says they're BLIND to the prophecies. 2 Cor 3:15. The early church were mostly Jews who became Christians originally, and they began to understand the prophecies and shadows of things to come. I know they used the Septuagint--which was written before even the Masoretic used today, and the Septuagint is quoted more often. It's days, I haven't seen a single good premise to support all these bad conclusions.
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro 2 Corinthians 3:15 is not talking about prophecies. You know what was used by the Jewish commentators? The Tanakh in its original Hebrew, written long before the Septuagint or even the Greek language itself. Of course the Septuagint was quoted more often by the church fathers, since they didn't know Hebrew. DUH. And I agree, I haven't seen a single good premise to support all these bad conclusions of yours.
Dante666 1 week ago
@Dante666 I fully agree with this. Jewish authorities would be more relevant to this case in point.
kaliber1234 1 week ago
@Dante666 Craig was showing that a different interpretation of the story of creation existed well before the theory of evolution. So, accepting a non-literal view of the creation story is not a response or a retreat from Darwinism. If St. Augustine thought the creation story did not have to be exactly 7 days than a Christian is within tradition to not accept such an interpretation. Craig's greater point is that the interpretation of creation does not affect any fundamental doctrines.
kaliber1234 1 week ago
@kaliber1234 I understand this point; I was only refuting droptozro's earlier comment, "The first 300 years of the church held strictly that it was 6 days creation, 7 day rest. Literal days" which I have shown not only to be untrue (Clement of Alexandria of the 2nd century A.D. being an example who rejected the 24-hour view), but entirely irrelevant.
Moreover, according to the 24-hour interpretation, the end times would have to have happened in the 4th century. Did it? Nope. QED.
Dante666 1 week ago
@Dante666 I misunderstood what you wrote. My apologies. I would have backed you up on that.
kaliber1234 1 week ago
@kaliber1234 It is only human to err. You are forgiven.
Dante666 1 week ago
@kaliber1234
"..greater point is that the interpretation of creation does not affect any fundamental doctrines"---actually, it does. It affects prophecy. I'll ask you the same question, do you think our God even needed 6 days to create everything? No, probably not.
So the fact is that it's got a reason behind it, and the Jubilee calendar, Sabbath, Rest, Christ all these things point to the fact that it was 6 literal days because if it's not--then the 6 days, 7th rest loses its meaning.
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro Of course they do have significant meaning, but not in the way you think. If you agreed with the views of most of the church fathers, then you would have needed to believe that the end times came about in the 4th century (or the 6th century, according to Hippolytus). Didn't happen then, did it? Therefore, FAIL. QED.
Dante666 1 week ago
@droptozro So Jesus only gets to reign for 1000 years? You don't think Jesus is reigning right now?
ITTutorCanada 1 week ago
@ITTutorCanada
"So Jesus only...1000 years?" No, the millenium represents the separation of the two resurrections and the final attempt of satan to overthrow Christ's Kingdom. The second judgment occurs also at the end of the millenium. This is all in Scripture, go read Rev 20-21.
"...Jesus is reigning right now?" No, do you see Jesus here reigning? Even Scripture affirms this, read Matt 22:44, Psalm 110:1, read Hebrews chap 1&2. Christ will reign on a renewed earth, but not yet.
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro Pretty sure that Jesus said that all authority has been given to Him by His Father. Pretty sure that He already has the title of "King of Kings" and "Lord of Lords." The only kind of king that can possibly exist that does not reign is a king in exile. Is Christ in exile? I think not. Just because men do evil, it does not mean that Christ is not King before the foundations of the earth, now and forever.
ITTutorCanada 1 week ago
@ITTutorCanada
"Jesus said that all authority has been given to Him by His Father"--Yep, you're right. And the King of kings and the Lord of lords is His titles.... but you still don't understand Revelation and the prophets, and you keep proving it. Respond to the quotes, see Rev 20-21. Now go read Revelation 11:15-19... see what the angel says at the 7th trumpet? "The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord..." the 7th trumpet is at Christ's return. He's not reigning
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro WHAT. The 7th trumpet sounded during the FIRST Advent, made especially clear if you read Revelation 12, which follows immediately AFTER Revelation 11 (and remember, the Scriptures were originally written WITHOUT chapter or verse numberings), which describe Mary and baby Jesus. Christ is ALREADY reigning and is STILL reigning.
Dante666 1 week ago
@Dante666
If you think also(which I seem to think I see implied in your writings) that the Revelation chapters are all in perfect order(meaning it's one after another in sequence), you show you don't understand them or the prophets either. That's not how they're all laid out.
I don't think you understand, Christ going to LITERALLY REIGN on THIS Earth(albeit renewed and curse removed) from the New Jerusalem. Read Isaiah 65-66--He is not reigning yet, He is not here. Matt 5:5, Psalm 37
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro Thus you deny Christ's victory at the cross, and because Christ's reign necessarily begins at his return to the Father, per Daniel, you also deny that Christ has returned to the Father. Reflect on your heretical and blasphemous views.
Dante666 1 week ago 2
It was 6 days. This is the same issue I bring up over and over again with WLC, which I why I would like to have a sit down with him if I ever could to discuss the issue. Genesis is not open to multiple interpretations, and his justification for it aren't even good authorities to quote---Augustine(the former 9 year Gnostic) is over 300 years into the early church--why not quote someone prior to Augustine? Because they'd all refute this ideal that the creation is older...
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro Origen of Alexandria (An influential and important Church Father) advocated an allegorical interpretation of Genesis. And this came well within the first 300 years of the church.
BronyEditor 1 week ago
@BronyEditor
Yes you're correct, he was one of the first to depart... Origen had some odd ideals. I haven't studied to see if he really understood the prophecies that arose from it though. Read prior to him, you won't see anything but 6 days except for the Gnostic teachers or philosophers of their time... which isn't a good proof for your side.
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro This is hilarious. Your ignorance is really showing. I can go back even further. Clement of Alexandria (c.150 - c. 215) advocated for an allegorical reading of Genesis. As did Philo of Alexandria (20 BC – 50 AD).
The truth of the matter is, many early Jewish and Christian figures did NOT advocate for a literal interpretation of Genesis. Biblical Literalism is mainly a by-product of the protestant reformation. Sorry you don't like that, but it's fact.
BronyEditor 1 week ago
@BronyEditorFascinating. I always assumed the reformation was right about everything but they may have indeed got this point wrong. Teach me more sir.
kaliber1234 1 week ago
@kaliber1234 Well, as far as human efforts go, the Reformation did get a great number of things right, just not every single thing. For example, Martin Luther even considered the Epistle of James to be a false epistle. All denominations still have much to go to be Biblical.
Dante666 1 week ago
@kaliber1234 I think they're completely wrong about everything. Men like Martin Luther and John Calvin had some strange ideas. Which is why I identify closer to Catholicism.
BronyEditor 1 week ago
@BronyEditor Interesting. I have some reading to do. What a relief to Christians that they are within tradition to not be literalist for stories in the old testament. This is great because the evidence for Christ's resurrection is so overwhelming.
kaliber1234 1 week ago
@BronyEditor
"Your ignorance is really showing...Clement, Philo"----want to quote it? Because I have a feeling you're just going to prove my point. It's not allegorical, it's prophetic. This is why those who muddle it up and throw evolution in there destroy the prophetic nature of the Genesis 6 day creation story. I have Clement quotes on hand that say 6 day, and others who say the philosophers of their day said the earth was ages of ages old--yet they respond it's not even 6,000 yet.
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro Here's Hippolytus for 1 example of about 10 at least that I can find so far.
"And six thousand years must needs be accomplished… for 'a day with the Lord is as a thousand years.' Since, then, in six days God made all things, it follows that 6,000 years must be fulfilled"
Question for you, do you think an all powerful God even NEEDED 6 days to create? No, probably not--so the issue is your burden of proof to show "day" doesn't mean "day." The ante-Nicene church was literal, quote?
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro Did the end times come to pass in 6th century A.D.? Hippolytus seemed to believe that Christ would return at that point in history. I'm sure there is no need to say more about his huge failure in exegesis, is there?
Dante666 1 week ago
@Dante666
No Christ is not reigning, He's still at the right hand of the Father. Go read Hebrews. He's not here, do you not understand the promises or what Christians even inherit? Probably not, Christ will reign 1000 years(and us with Him) at His return(Rev 20-21, Isaiah 65-66). He's going to inherit the land, New Jerusalem and share it with us... Christ is not here at the moment reigning, there are many not under His control, that's quite obvious.
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro Christ's reign began as soon as he is at the right hand of the Father. Go read Daniel. Not having any under his control in no way indicates that he is not reigning.
Dante666 1 week ago
@Dante666
I don't think you're understanding the definition of "reigning"--that's our issue possibly. I don't mean to say that Christ is not in power, that He's not in control in the ultimate sense. I mean, He's not physically reigning on this earth from Jerusalem as prophesied yet--that prophecy has not yet come true, and that's what will happen when He receives the inheritance, and then He will give to the Father at the end of the 1,000 year reign. Read Psalm 2, this is a description His
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro Nonsense. There is no such earthly reign.
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them.
Revelation 20:11
If Christ does reign on the earth itself, the earth would not be fleeing from the presence of God. Christ's kingdom is one that will last forever, not one that will pass away, as the earth eventually will.
And Zion is not on earth.
Dante666 6 days ago
@Dante666
"Nonsense. There is no such earthly reign"
So... Psalm 2, Christ returning to save Jerusalem, also described in Zechariah 14... it isn't on this earth?
What about the fact that Abraham and his Seed(Gal 3-4, Gen 13:15) were promised the land Abraham walked? So did God lie to Abraham, had him walk around and live on that land in a tent for nothing?(answer this)
Christ says we will reign with Him over nations(Psalm 2, Rev 5:8-10, Rev 21)... that's not possible if it's not here.
droptozro 6 days ago
@droptozro Of course it is not. What does that have to do with Abraham? God did not lie to Abraham, of course, but does the fact that the earth will pass away not mean that this is only temporal?
No, we do not reign with Christ.
1 Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea.
Revelation 21:1
Dante666 6 days ago
@Dante666
"Rev 21:1" 'new heaven and a new earth"
Yep, the word is renewed.. It's the same word Paul used to describe us being a new creation in Christ. Are you still you? Maybe you should go read Isaiah 65-66. It describes the new earth, how people will live a long time again--since it will be like before the fall again... children will die at 100(born not under the curse). Men who die at 100 would still be under the old curse. Rom 8 says the lifting of the curse is what we await.
droptozro 6 days ago
@droptozro It is not the same word Paul used to describe us being a new creation in Christ. Children will die at 100? Nonsense. Read the text properly. It says that those who die at 100 are like children, not that children will die at 100. However, we have eternal life in Christ, eternal being infinite, not limited by years, and since Death will be defeated at the end.
Dante666 6 days ago
@Dante666
"What does that have to do with Abraham?"
EVERYTHING. This is what the Jews misunderstood(well at least the leaders). They thought they were physical descendants of Abraham and the land was theirs--but the text says "Seed"(singular, Christ). Galatians 3-4 describes this well.
"we do not reign with Christ"
Uh...2 Tim 2:12, Rev 2:26-29, Rev 3:20-21, Gal 3:29---we are heirs of the land, the same promise made to Abraham thousands of years ago. We are heirs in Christ, this is basic.
droptozro 6 days ago
@droptozro
29 If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.
Galatians 3:29
Not heirs of the land. We, at the present age, when Christ is already in full reign, do not reign with Christ. The time for those persecuted has passed.
Dante666 6 days ago
@droptozro "Seed" can be used as a mass noun. "What kind of seed was planted?" for example.
Libervurto 6 days ago
@Libervurto
"Seed" can be used as a mass noun.
Go read Galatians 3-4... Paul explains it pretty well.
droptozro 4 days ago
@Dante666
"Did the end times come to pass in the 6th century A.D?"
This question alone proves you didn't even READ the quote I gave you, nor do you understand the early church and biblical position.
Go read it again, it says 6,000 years... 6th century AD would be 600 years...even still, its not from Christ's death, but the FALL and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. I don't know why I'd even have to reply to the rest when you didn't even understand my premise/conclusions.
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro You are the one who failed to understand what the church fathers thought. It's 6000 years from the beginning of Creation, stupid. Indeed, it is now long past 6000 years since the Fall. Do you even know what you're talking about? Guess not
Dante666 1 week ago
@Dante666 ...return. He's not reigning until that occurs, when the armies of the nations are waiting to try to overthrow Him. He's going to wipe them out.
"...church fathers thought. 6,000 years from the beginning of Creation, stupid"
Your ad hominems are showing now, and proof is not on your side--go read Irenaeus:
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Bk. V, xxvii, this quote shows it's from the fall clearly.
And no, the Jubilee(not secular calendar) shows we're at around 5975. Biblical chronology
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro How is that an ad hominem when I clearly showed the reason why you are wrong? Irenaeus thinks it begins from the Fall, but not the rest of the church fathers, including Hippolytus himself, who clearly taught that Christ came to the earth in the year 5500 since Creation.
We're currently in the Jewish year 5772, according to the Masoretic date, but according to the Septuagint, we're in the Jewish year 6378. So what's that about using the Septuagint?
Dante666 6 days ago
@Dante666
Nope Jews are off if they're only at 5772, you probably mean by Josephus---he forgot to incorporate some of the Jubilee years properly(unless you have a different source), all the dates are clearly laid out in Scripture. And I know the Septuagint has a 100 year difference on many of the patriarchs, haven't figured out why that is yet----but of course that would throw off the date to some ECF. Ouch yeah, read that Hippolytus one in more of a fuller context, I retract that one.
droptozro 6 days ago
@droptozro No, I meant the Masoretic date, not Josephus. The Septuagint translation is different, that is why there is such a big difference to begin with. For example, the Septuagint says that Seth was born when Adam was 230, while most others would read that Seth was born when Adam was 130, not 230. The same error continues until Jared, thus there's almost a 600 year difference between the two.
Dante666 6 days ago
@Dante666
I mean, there are multiple Scriptures besides prophecy that even prove it was 6 days... why don't we go with the Jubilee Calendar from Lev 25? 6 years of farming, 1 of rest==7. Then the weeks of years meaning the 7 weeks of years, 7X7=49 + the Jubilee(50th). Then the 120 cycles prophecy from Gen 6:3, cycles of what? Jubilees, 120 jubilees is 6,000 years. Or the simplest one, the Sabbath...every 7 days. Exo 20:11 It's 7 days, morning and evening--be logical don't twist the text
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro Bullshit. None of them show that the creation account in Genesis took place over 6 24-hour periods. In fact, the events of the 6th ”day” alone would have required more than a 24-hour period. All this goes to show is that Creation was divided into 6 individual indeterminate periods of time, and as Paul says, each of us must strive to enter into God's rest, the seventh ”day” which includes the present age.
Dante666 1 week ago
@Dante666
The fact that you're cursing is also telling, go and read Col 3:8... you profess to be a Christian, put your tongue back and repent for your words are a flame of fire you shall be judged for it. This is a simple dialogue and you're making it personal by revealing your emotion.
I agree with some of the rest of this comment though, but it doesn't say JUST that, there are multiple other proofs. How does it "require" more than 24 hours? It's 6 millenia, 2 Peter 3:8
droptozro 1 week ago
@droptozro Cursing? Do you know the Biblical meaning of cursing? It means invoking calamity or bad luck on another, so my condemnation of your misjudgment is not a curse at all. The fact that you think that this word is "cursing" and somehow emotional is also telling of the extent of your ignorance. In fact, God uses far worse imagery and condemnation on Israel.
2 Peter 3:8 uses a figure of speech to indicate a long indeterminate period of time, not a literal thousand years.
Dante666 6 days ago
@Dante666
"2 Peter 3:8 uses a figure of speech to indicate a long INDETERMINATE period of time, not a literal thousand years"
That's about as contradictory to the text as one can get. Peter's not giving an exaggeration, he's stirring them up by reminder of what the prophets have said about Christ's return. 2 days = 2000 years, after Christ's ascension. Try Hosea 5-6:3. It's about Israel returning to God and His restoring them.
droptozro 6 days ago
@droptozro 2 Peter is in no way talking about Christ's return.
Dante666 6 days ago
@Dante666
Okay, now we're just stretching definitions... Col 3:8 says no filthy language. I just used cursing as another way to describe in in modern day language. You know you used it in an improper manner, don't be hard-hearted.
Rev 20:11 is also at the very end of the 1000 year reign after Satan rises up one last time with nations(check that v. 8)(since that's the resurrection of the unrighteous or 2nd resurrection), it's not really described how it's going to continue much from there.
droptozro 6 days ago
@droptozro And how does "bullshit" fit the definition of "filthy language"? How is it improper at all?
Dante666 6 days ago
atheism is pretty boneheaded.
whiteliketar 1 week ago
Frank Tipler assumed all proteins need to be simultaneous that's not the case evolution doesn't involve 'goals'.
In Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism
Matt Young &Taner Edis have already refuted this.
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl Good to know. Do you know the page and chapter where Matt Young and Taner Edis refute Tipler?
BronyEditor 1 week ago
@BronyEditor
Dembski makes the same argument, The whole of Chapter 10 called 'Chance and Necessity—and Intelligent Design?' they refute any claim that Evolution is improbable.
I can't link it but type in:
'Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism quotes on tipler'
and it should be the 5th one down called 'Why does intelligent design fails.'
lxAgnosticxl 1 week ago
@lxAgnosticxl Thanks. I've just downloaded the book. Can't wait to read it. =)
BronyEditor 1 week ago
61 atheists disliked this video!
KingDcome11 1 week ago
@KingDcome11
Actually I'm a Christian, I disliked it.
droptozro 1 week ago
61 atheists dislike this.
KingDcome11 1 week ago
60 people in denial
kingddot 1 week ago 21
@kingddot No 60 lost souls! Yeah
Donking595 1 week ago
Pwned.
MysteryoftheGods 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Lol craig is all (° )_( ,). But srsly though, evolution would work both with and without special creation. So the creation of life is an irrelevant point with regard to the theory of evolution.
FHomeBrew 1 week ago
@EdyMar77 Thing is, though, that there is no evidence for any past-universe creation theory; yet there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that suggests that our universe began to exist.
serpentinessarecute 1 week ago
Show me the evidence that says that the universe beging to exists out of nothing , the fact is , that there is no evidence at all , we cant trace back in some point , and thats all , theres is no way to suggest that all has been created in that point , theres no evidence of that , and matter cant be created or destroyed , and that is Basic Science.
EdyMar77 1 week ago
Craig already has said that any evidence that contradicts his beliefs should be discarded in favor of his beliefs.
So what is the point of discussing evidence? Even when mountains of evidence contradict those beliefs, just ignore them because he says so.
greyeyed123 1 week ago
Poor guy..expended too many words to show just his ignorance. To respond briefly to him its
enough to say that:
1) Science dosen´t need "god" assumption to explain origin/evolution of milions lifeform on our planet."god" is irrelevant to science (supernatural being was created by mankind mind as a supstitution for the absence of science thounsands years ago, as u actually mrCraig still do)
2)Improbability in evolution means just a very rare event (what`s miraculous is in it?)
MU5IKFR3aCk 1 week ago
@MU5IKFR3aCk
Most scientists believe the universe is finite. Since the universe is not infinite, and you don't believe it was created, you are, by logical necessity, saying it created itself.
That's really smart!
Prologicful 1 week ago
@Prologicful Wrong , the principal hypothesys is the singularity , do you knoy what a singularity is? Go chek it out !!! Einstein!!
EdyMar77 1 week ago
@EdyMar77 The Big Bang created time space matter and energy, none of these were present at the point of singularity. Thats basic science.
gunner23 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gunner23 I thought the current model describes all that happens right after the beginning, but not the beginning itself. Like how evolution isn't about abiogenesis but it is about all that comes after it.
FHomeBrew 1 week ago
@gunner23 No sir , you are Wrong , all that stuff was compressed at the singularity , and thats the point of a singularity .
EdyMar77 1 week ago
@EdyMar77 wrote "hypothesys" and "knoy". How about learning to spell, before taking on tougher subjects like the universe's origins?
All time, space, and matter were compressed into a single small point at the Singularity. So, by necessity, whatever created the Singularity exists OUTSIDE time, space, and matter.
Sounds a bit like the supernatural being you don't believe in.
Prologicful 1 week ago
@Prologicful So , singularity has not been created , what evidence do you have to say that???, and ... sorry for my bad spelling , but how many languages do you speak? Im a Spanish speaker from a Spanish speaker country , I do my best with english and i make mistakes sometimes , its not so difficult to read anyways.
EdyMar77 1 week ago
I knew that WLC was bad, but falling for that nonsense probability argument? Perhaps he should take an introductory probability course and learn that the field is predictive- not descriptive.
LeonhardEuler1 1 week ago
Cont'd.
2:48 Craig here is just being silly. There is NO reasonable evidence for intelligent design.
TheTexanCanadian 2 weeks ago
The first minute or so of this video is just Craig arguing why Christians have had to accept that the bible is not the inerrant word of their god, which is delightful to hear. The backpedalling will continue (I hope) for the foreseeable future.
If modern theists don't acknowledge SOME of the reality that is undeniable to rational thinkers, they realize they will go the way of the dodo and the worshippers of Zeus.
The fact is, there are no sound arguments for a specific theistic god.
TheTexanCanadian 2 weeks ago
watch?v=p3nvH6gfrTc
This video calls out Dembski's bullshit that Craig used.
And it has been demonstrated in the fossil record backed my medical test (unbiased method) and tested human chromosome 2.
Evolution has nothing to say about any god. Using evolution to prove or disprove the existence of some god is stupid.
DrEelectricbio 2 weeks ago
@|xAgnoticx| - In fact I have .....and the 1st thing I ask the poor soul trying to make the argument is: What would an "unfinely" tuned universe look like and how would it function?
The evidence points to life being a CONSEQUENCE of natural phenomenom. There is nothing that indicates that the universe was caused for the intended purpose of spawning life.
MrKeenoRossi 2 weeks ago
Selling my books LOL!
DrEelectricbio 2 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
What a bell-end
owlzowlz 2 weeks ago
Well the probability of any other living thing being alive today is just as improbable an yet... But of course us humans get the privilege of being worthy of a deity.
OhmgrownCron 3 weeks ago
Finally, to the I.D./creationism crowd -- complexity does not implicate design - much less, intelligence.
Excercise: Take a handful of multi-colored paintballs & throw them against a wall. You'll get various patterns, designs, & complexed color schemes.
Point to any individual ridge or angle on the wall, and then assert that the resulting picture is "finely tuned" for the existence of that particular pattern.
Its the same principle thing that you're professing with the idea of I.D.
MrKeenoRossi 3 weeks ago
@MrKeenoRossi
Have you even herd the fine tuning argument?
lxAgnosticxl 2 weeks ago
Why would such a loving, all knowing, all powerful god create such a violent, destructive, imperfect universe? ......and I'm NOT simply speaking to human affairs with that question.
Also, if there really is a "designer" .... it isn't very intelligent.
MrKeenoRossi 3 weeks ago
Oh stop it ...... intellient design is just creationism by another name. It insinuates (or downright asserts) that there is an inelligent agency behind the cause of the universe .... that has purposely set the universe in motion with specified inentions. Let's not toy with terms and definitions.
If anything, the existing universe displays an aimless order of erractic phenomenom that has resulted in the existence of life followed by consciousness. Chance.
MrKeenoRossi 3 weeks ago
Ha ! Typical Craig! - When he has no reasoning to support his "Biblical god". He quotes argument for authority. When, despite this, the bible fails him, he goes for the laws of mathmatical improbability, whilst ignoring the blatent observation that his facts and statistics have long negated the original source of his version of "God" - i.e: The bible
Such ridiculous sophistry!!
Tobytrim 3 weeks ago
lightsabers don't lie.
bryanttillman 3 weeks ago
Is the William Lane Craig who says that atheists are unable to go where the evidence leads the same William Lane Craig who says that even if the evidence went against the existence of God he would still believe in him?
Naiant 3 weeks ago
If anybody's interested, Craig gets those ridiculously small numbers from Barrow and Tipler who used the probability of the human genome "spontaneously assembling" and not "evolving" as Craig says. Also, their ten steps include things like the development of the eye which we know isn't unlikely at all. So again, Craig tries to impress by quoting others and fails.
7373walker 3 weeks ago
2:28 "the Christian can be open to the evidence to follow it where it leads."
Vintage Craig. He doesn't really commit himself to the reality of evolution here. So cynical.
Just like later in the debate when he says that he hasn't "committed himself to the reality of demons" right after saying that Jesus exorcised demons. What? Huh?
Christians of all stripes can believe pretty much anything they choose to believe about Craig's positions on the biblical texts. He has books to sell.
HellRehab 4 weeks ago
Jesus and Paul believed genesis is literal. There is a genealogy of jesus traceing back to adam. How can a metaphor have kids?
Metaphor indeed! If genesis is a metaphor then there is no literal original sin. No original sin- no need for heysoose. No need for heysoose- christianity's without foundation. I will give Craig credit for giving an impassioned speech.
loosecannon6765 1 month ago
Even if evolution IS wrong, even if scientists ARE retarded liars, and that it IS improbable for the human genome to evolve into what it is.
Does that somehow prove the existence of God?
Nope.
You see, this is what religious people do. They can't find evidence for God (because there is none), so instead, they try to take down science. They think it's a game, where if the opposing side loses a point, it automatically transfers to you. But it isn't. You can't make religion seem credible.
Jobbeybob 1 month ago
Comment removed
Jobbeybob 1 month ago
Sadly Craig doesn't understand evolution, thats the classic fault statement the creationist make, you can not apply directly the genes variation to any stage to another and calculate the probability directly, YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT the natural selection process to narrow most of the possible variations, so the probability to get the desired/most adaptable genetic variation becomes very probable.
agustinbs 1 month ago
Ken Miller and Bob Pennock, doctors who are much more intelligent than this video's originator, would have something to say about Craig's misunderstanding of evolution. Even the religious zealot Dempski knew not to tangle with them. He chickened out of facing them at the Dover trial. I'm glad a Bush appointed Conservative christian judge didn't allow creationist propaganda, that creationists like Craig and Dempski believe, to be taught in Dover classsrooms.
wearegettingthere 1 month ago
Did God guide evolution or did the Monolith from 2001: A Space Odyssey do it? :)
MisterTutor2010 1 month ago
how do ppl think this guy is smart? i cant even make myself watch the whole video its so filled with fallacy
meatwax 1 month ago