I love this guy; so eloquent, that he takes an opposing point that was meant to be venomous and then turns it into a profound question that unbelievers must now deal with. How you like dem apples?
The message is good. I think that if Greg had a lavalier Microphone it would be better, or at least amplification. of the final sound track. Keep up the great work
Greg did nothing to show that the Jesus crutch, even if we assume it actually exists rather than simply being a comforting idea, addresses an actual problem. If we're sinners and Jesus is the answer, OK, but why imagine that that is true?
I write about issues like this at the Galileo Unchained blog.
@GalileoUnchained Not sure how familiar you are with Koukl's work, but this issue is rooted in an 'insult' against theists. It's a response to the 'just a crutch' argument. Greg's just unpacking it a bit more.
This video doesn't answer your question because your question wasn't covered in the video. Just find a video that does cover that question.
@zenowing Understood. I certainly can't expect Greg to explain everything in one short video. I was just commenting on (what was perhaps obviously) an open issue.
A rubber crutch is bad, but a nonexistent crutch is worse. Does Jesus exist? Sure doesn't look like it. True, there are many millions of Christians who think he does, but then there are many more millions of followers of other faiths who don't.
@GalileoUnchained I don't think that Greg is arguing that there is a physical person that a Christian will literally lean against for support.
At a bare minimum, we're talking about the Bible, and that certainly exists. Or, are you arguing that Jesus didn't exist? If so, again, this is covered elsewhere.
Also, a 'head counting' argument isn't very powerful.
@zenowing Is Christianity true? If so, then it could be something powerful to lean on. If not, then ... not so much. Obviously, the Bible exists. As for a person who got Christianity started--could be. It's the supernatural component of Christianity that I find hard to accept.
@GalileoUnchained Thanks for your pleasantness. I totally understand the supernatural objection. There doesn't appear to be a way to empirically prove it. Though, there are other proofs that do work, and also rational inferences that can be made. I fall towards the side that accepts the accumulation of these latter ideas.
@NoDeities Thus, Greg's analogy serves as a simplistic proposition to those who have belief in Jesus. This video does not try nor will it serve as a justification for any statements about. If hungry for a debate or argument, head over to WLC's website (search reasonablefaith) on his open forum. Definitely folks over there who would be grateful to have a discussion with you!
@NoDeities So reading your criticism, Greg's analogy doesn't mean to suggest that Jesus is the only way to live life; on the contrary he makes the point that Christian's need someone to lean on. Why? We are abominable creatures who sin. It is possible of course to live in a delusion, so I think that is the matter of difference.So, Does the Supernatural warrant greater belief than oneself? Your goal as in any argument will be to tear down a Supernatural case, as well as erecting a case yourself.
Good turn of the tables. Instead of defending against the idea of a crutch, embrace it. The employment of this crutch criticism is for the purpose of declaring that religious people, in general, are weak-minded, implying that the person doing the criticism is strong and doesn't need such an aid to get through life. But when such a person has to deal with the inevitable cruelties of life - tragedy, old age, sickness, loss, pain, and death, what will they have for support; where will they go?
@NoDeities: the "no evidence for God" mantra just isn't going to cut it. Inference to design in creation is a form of evidence (ex - I don't need a great deal of evidence to infer intelligent design when I look at Mt. Rushmore...the high degree of specified information infers design). You're going to have to mount a compelling case for the emergence of matter/energy/consciousness that is not an infinite regression of "first causes." God is the thing that meets that challenge.
@tozerscarpet Please show me your evidence! To infer design in nature does not make a creator. Also, there is no design to infer. Please stay on topic. Design is a different subject. The video is about using religion as a crutch. Focus man Focus...
@NoDeities So another garden variety atheist who hijacks the comments, and then gets condescending? I didn't have time to read 3 pages of your running monologue, so I just responded to one of the last ones: something about the absence of evidence & Bigfoot. Just following your lead. Since you don't accept inferential evidence, as science does, and since the truly empirically observable (as you insist God be) is a taxing demand even for science, exactly how do you define evidence?
@link17ny Evidence of absence is not evidence of absence. Well actually in this instance it is. If Bigfoot hunters keep making excuses for not finding a Bigfoot, at some point you have to agree that there is no evidence.
@link17ny That depends on what you mean by "meaningful" and "reasonable"? If it requires philosophy to essentially conger up a god that has no evidence then you have no god.
Just as there is no clear evidence that there IS a god, there is no clear evidence that there isn't. Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
If theists can provide meaningful information to make it reasonable to believe in something like God (which they have and Greg Koukl has), then where is the hole in the rationale?
My apologies for fluding this thread. I plead ignorance to character limits! I am guessing now that there are character limits and time limits! And are these moderated by the channel owner? Again my apologies.
@ztox12 Now... Does belief in the supernatural have merit? Yes! Anything that can be equated to lifting ones spirits or giving them strength is of merit. But, you have a problem when you say that it is specifically your particular belief or Jesus that is the crutch that is doing the uplifting when you have other faiths that make the same claim. And again there are 30% of the worlds population (15% in the US) that have these same uplifting moments that do not share in any supernatural belief.
@ztox12 I would never criticize anyone that actually needs an external implement to help them in their daily activities nor do I know anyone that would. That is not to suggest that nobody would, but seems to skirt the boundaries of what people do and what people might do and seems to be a bit of a Red Herring.
@zetox12 However, there is a bit of poisoning the well when saying that it is not PC to criticize somebody for using a crutch then implying that the same consideration should be applied to believers.
@zetox12 But to then imply that appealing to supernatural as a crutch helps people when we can show that people can do the same task without the supernatural or those that have no belief at all creates a hole in the argument and is a false analogy.
@zetox12 The analogy is flawed because people that need a step stool to see over a bench clearly need a stool or something equivalent to perform that task. Just as somebody who is crippled requires a cane or something equivalent (e.g.) stick or even a wheel chair to help with mobility. These infer variety, amount and characteristic.
@zetox12 relevant information is the crux. And we lean on each other as we have always done. To imply that there is something other than ourselves infers relevant information. We have foundation in culture, family and law that does not require appeal to supernatural.
@NoDeities A false analogy implies incorrect variety, amount, relevant information, or a characteristic that is too numerous being compared to. Greg's analogy is coherent in that we humans need a foundation, a crutch to lean on. Using our own ideas from within ourselves self-destructs: whom is there to lean on?
I am not quite sure what you mean by here today and gone tomorrow. But to lean on the exaistance of an inproven belief is far more detrimental than the false analogy of the rubber crutch.
Those who make this accusation also have their own "crutches". To counter this, what could we suggest as their "crutch"?
arphaxadish 2 weeks ago
Awesome to know we rest in the Hands of a good and gracious God... Resting/ leaning on Him -3
NotAFanOfLogins 4 weeks ago
I love this guy; so eloquent, that he takes an opposing point that was meant to be venomous and then turns it into a profound question that unbelievers must now deal with. How you like dem apples?
M3PanoS 1 month ago
Never though of this side of the argument...thank you.
atl3630 1 month ago
this is good
yon7788 1 month ago
The message is good. I think that if Greg had a lavalier Microphone it would be better, or at least amplification. of the final sound track. Keep up the great work
TimmyBurkett 1 month ago
Greg did nothing to show that the Jesus crutch, even if we assume it actually exists rather than simply being a comforting idea, addresses an actual problem. If we're sinners and Jesus is the answer, OK, but why imagine that that is true?
I write about issues like this at the Galileo Unchained blog.
GalileoUnchained 1 month ago
@GalileoUnchained Not sure how familiar you are with Koukl's work, but this issue is rooted in an 'insult' against theists. It's a response to the 'just a crutch' argument. Greg's just unpacking it a bit more.
This video doesn't answer your question because your question wasn't covered in the video. Just find a video that does cover that question.
zenowing 1 month ago
@zenowing Understood. I certainly can't expect Greg to explain everything in one short video. I was just commenting on (what was perhaps obviously) an open issue.
GalileoUnchained 1 month ago
A rubber crutch is bad, but a nonexistent crutch is worse. Does Jesus exist? Sure doesn't look like it. True, there are many millions of Christians who think he does, but then there are many more millions of followers of other faiths who don't.
GalileoUnchained 1 month ago
@GalileoUnchained I don't think that Greg is arguing that there is a physical person that a Christian will literally lean against for support.
At a bare minimum, we're talking about the Bible, and that certainly exists. Or, are you arguing that Jesus didn't exist? If so, again, this is covered elsewhere.
Also, a 'head counting' argument isn't very powerful.
zenowing 1 month ago
@zenowing Is Christianity true? If so, then it could be something powerful to lean on. If not, then ... not so much. Obviously, the Bible exists. As for a person who got Christianity started--could be. It's the supernatural component of Christianity that I find hard to accept.
I agree that numbers don't count for too much.
GalileoUnchained 1 month ago
@GalileoUnchained Thanks for your pleasantness. I totally understand the supernatural objection. There doesn't appear to be a way to empirically prove it. Though, there are other proofs that do work, and also rational inferences that can be made. I fall towards the side that accepts the accumulation of these latter ideas.
zenowing 1 month ago
@zetox12 Thank you zetox12 for staying on topic. Must sleep now may get back with you later.
NoDeities 1 month ago
@mbabbitt98011 Where everybody else goes... To their family, friends, doctor or caretaker.
NoDeities 1 month ago
@NoDeities Thus, Greg's analogy serves as a simplistic proposition to those who have belief in Jesus. This video does not try nor will it serve as a justification for any statements about. If hungry for a debate or argument, head over to WLC's website (search reasonablefaith) on his open forum. Definitely folks over there who would be grateful to have a discussion with you!
zetox12 1 month ago
@NoDeities So reading your criticism, Greg's analogy doesn't mean to suggest that Jesus is the only way to live life; on the contrary he makes the point that Christian's need someone to lean on. Why? We are abominable creatures who sin. It is possible of course to live in a delusion, so I think that is the matter of difference.So, Does the Supernatural warrant greater belief than oneself? Your goal as in any argument will be to tear down a Supernatural case, as well as erecting a case yourself.
zetox12 1 month ago
Good turn of the tables. Instead of defending against the idea of a crutch, embrace it. The employment of this crutch criticism is for the purpose of declaring that religious people, in general, are weak-minded, implying that the person doing the criticism is strong and doesn't need such an aid to get through life. But when such a person has to deal with the inevitable cruelties of life - tragedy, old age, sickness, loss, pain, and death, what will they have for support; where will they go?
mbabbitt98011 1 month ago
Christianity a crutch? For me it's been a "stretcher" !
Steeeeeeed 1 month ago
Jesus is a crutch, because we can't even limp into heaven without him.
pretoshohmoofc 1 month ago
Thanks for the video.
scooter17568 1 month ago
@NoDeities: the "no evidence for God" mantra just isn't going to cut it. Inference to design in creation is a form of evidence (ex - I don't need a great deal of evidence to infer intelligent design when I look at Mt. Rushmore...the high degree of specified information infers design). You're going to have to mount a compelling case for the emergence of matter/energy/consciousness that is not an infinite regression of "first causes." God is the thing that meets that challenge.
tozerscarpet 1 month ago
@tozerscarpet Please show me your evidence! To infer design in nature does not make a creator. Also, there is no design to infer. Please stay on topic. Design is a different subject. The video is about using religion as a crutch. Focus man Focus...
NoDeities 1 month ago
@NoDeities So another garden variety atheist who hijacks the comments, and then gets condescending? I didn't have time to read 3 pages of your running monologue, so I just responded to one of the last ones: something about the absence of evidence & Bigfoot. Just following your lead. Since you don't accept inferential evidence, as science does, and since the truly empirically observable (as you insist God be) is a taxing demand even for science, exactly how do you define evidence?
tozerscarpet 1 month ago
Err ~absence of evidence~
NoDeities 1 month ago
@link17ny Evidence of absence is not evidence of absence. Well actually in this instance it is. If Bigfoot hunters keep making excuses for not finding a Bigfoot, at some point you have to agree that there is no evidence.
NoDeities 1 month ago
@link17ny That depends on what you mean by "meaningful" and "reasonable"? If it requires philosophy to essentially conger up a god that has no evidence then you have no god.
NoDeities 1 month ago
Just as there is no clear evidence that there IS a god, there is no clear evidence that there isn't. Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
link17ny 1 month ago
If theists can provide meaningful information to make it reasonable to believe in something like God (which they have and Greg Koukl has), then where is the hole in the rationale?
link17ny 1 month ago
Comment removed
link17ny 1 month ago
Ugh ~flooding~
NoDeities 1 month ago
My apologies for fluding this thread. I plead ignorance to character limits! I am guessing now that there are character limits and time limits! And are these moderated by the channel owner? Again my apologies.
NoDeities 1 month ago
@NoDeities
NoDeities 1 month ago
@ztox12 Now... Does belief in the supernatural have merit? Yes! Anything that can be equated to lifting ones spirits or giving them strength is of merit. But, you have a problem when you say that it is specifically your particular belief or Jesus that is the crutch that is doing the uplifting when you have other faiths that make the same claim. And again there are 30% of the worlds population (15% in the US) that have these same uplifting moments that do not share in any supernatural belief.
NoDeities 1 month ago
@ztox12 I would never criticize anyone that actually needs an external implement to help them in their daily activities nor do I know anyone that would. That is not to suggest that nobody would, but seems to skirt the boundaries of what people do and what people might do and seems to be a bit of a Red Herring.
NoDeities 1 month ago
@zetox12 However, there is a bit of poisoning the well when saying that it is not PC to criticize somebody for using a crutch then implying that the same consideration should be applied to believers.
NoDeities 1 month ago
@zetox12 But to then imply that appealing to supernatural as a crutch helps people when we can show that people can do the same task without the supernatural or those that have no belief at all creates a hole in the argument and is a false analogy.
NoDeities 1 month ago
@zetox12 The analogy is flawed because people that need a step stool to see over a bench clearly need a stool or something equivalent to perform that task. Just as somebody who is crippled requires a cane or something equivalent (e.g.) stick or even a wheel chair to help with mobility. These infer variety, amount and characteristic.
NoDeities 1 month ago
@zetox12 relevant information is the crux. And we lean on each other as we have always done. To imply that there is something other than ourselves infers relevant information. We have foundation in culture, family and law that does not require appeal to supernatural.
NoDeities 1 month ago
@NoDeities A false analogy implies incorrect variety, amount, relevant information, or a characteristic that is too numerous being compared to. Greg's analogy is coherent in that we humans need a foundation, a crutch to lean on. Using our own ideas from within ourselves self-destructs: whom is there to lean on?
zetox12 1 month ago
I am not quite sure what you mean by here today and gone tomorrow. But to lean on the exaistance of an inproven belief is far more detrimental than the false analogy of the rubber crutch.
NoDeities 1 month ago