@vygotsky17... you are misinformed. Matthew and John WERE disciples of Jesus and were with him at all times. Mark was written off of the eyewitness accounts of Peter and Luke was written off the accounts of Paul. Also, you say nobody agreed that Jesus was divine until Constantine made them vote for it. Again, false. Read John 20:28, John 10:30.. If the bible is not reliable for you then maybe Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110) will help. "God himself appearing in the form of man."
The people who wrote the gospels never met Jesus (MML&J were not 4 of the apostles, contrary to popular belief). St Paul never met Jesus, yet he wrote his epistles before the Gospels were written down. Matthew is just a copy of Mark, Luke about 50% copy. The earliest gospel was written 30yrs after the crucifixion and John about AD100. Nobody could agree what Jesus really meant or even whether or not he was divine until pagan Constantine forced a decision from them, by voting. Reliable?
FACT: NOTHING in science gives us reason to believe in the supernatural, including gods. The universe consistently appears to operate under natural laws of physics, not the whim of a hiding omnipotent wizard.
FACT: Mountains of material evidence show that we came from simpler life forms, and explains why we would be predesposed to supersticion and weaknesses, such as a desire to believe we will live forever.
FACT: Pretending that there is a god, and that you know it's motives, is DISHONEST.
Mr Craig, what can you remember from your personal life in 1980 (30 years span). How accurate would be your description? Who could deny your description knowing that their memory is not better?
This isn't a good argument though because you're assuming that the "evidence" is still completely in tact after 2000 years of different cultural and governmental changes throughout without ever being tampered with. This is simply not the case as there have been other books that were originally in the Bible that had been taken out like the dead sea scrolls. Even without the example of the scrolls, the assumption being made is that the original writers of the Bible didn't have their own agendas
@blackbandana01 You obviously have no idea what the Dead Sea Scrolls are then and haven't heard of the finely tuned and highly technical practice of textual criticism which helps us determine with overwhelming accuracy the original text. Moreover, the preservation methods used by scribes were extremely meticulous. Our Bibles aren't simply based upon uncritical sources!
"Even without the example of the scrolls, the assumption being made is that the original writers of the Bible didn't have their own agendas"
What agenda could the biblical writers possibly have? You do realize that many of the Hebrew prophets were they themselves persecuted and many were martyred by their own countrymen. So unless being a social pariah was somehow their "agendas" then presuming they even had one is nonsensical.
@Samc023 The writers of the NT had an agenda.To unite the Pagan religion with the God of the OT.The idea was probly originally concieved in ancient Alexandria in Eygpt.
The ancient Alexandrians used to make-up alergorical stories using the OT, incorporating them with ancient Pagan Philosophical ideas.Such a mixture of ideas became known as "Ancient Wisdom", hidden from the ages.As refered to by Paul at 1Cor2:7...Mystery,even the hidden Mystery..
@Samc023 "What agenda could the biblical writers possibly have?" To start his own religion brand. The reasons can be several: to give his people hope, to pursuit his own deluded view of reality and so forth. People face martyrdom for lesser reasons, why not to change the world? In fact no religion goes off the ground without some sort of lunatic behavior that has deleterious implications that can´t be forged, like death or real risk of death. That´s a field proven method to earn people´s minds.
Reports of miracles are fairly common today, and very few of us tend to lend these much credibility. Why is it that these miracles become so much more profound when placed in Jerusalem 2000 years ago?
@Torfinnmadssen It's not about time. It's about Jesus. The only reason a Jesus' miracles are so important is because they are used to prove his divinity. That's not done today.
Today many people reportedly experience miracles, but Jesus reportedly performed miracles.
It's not like miracles today are unimportant either. People just don't know where the line is between lies and real miracles so they end up discounting all miracles to prevent being lied to.
1. The era is relevant as the people of the time were far more uneducated when compared with todays standards and therefore more prone to scamming/delusion.
2. Dr Craig's logic could be used to defend the Islamic faith, and would in fact make the case for Islam superior to the one for Christianity as the Quran was written during Muhammad's lifetime.
The biggest problem I have with Dr, Craig's reasoning is that he forgets about the many other documents out there that can rival the claims of the canonical gospels. I'm not talking about the Gnostic gospels; They were written too late. However, the Gospel to the Hebrews, Gospel to the Nazarenes, and the Gospel to the Ebionites, which have all been lost except for quote we have from them, could even be earlier and it is possible that they don't support the divinity of christ.
@linkmymuffin 1. That's an oft repeated assumption of early man that is not substantiated by much of anything. Knowledge accrues over time, so we might appear more intelligent simply because we are more knowledgeable, but there is little reason to assume people from the past were imbeciles.
2. This is only one facet of an argument for The Bible, so even if this argument would work even better for The Quran, that doesn't mean that The Quran wins in every other point or argument.
"If the gap between the events and the evidence for those events is short, then how long it has been since the evidence in those events to the present day, is irrelevant."
Why do Theist always state an argument which has little support and evidence and on top of that, they state an example, which is totally out of topic to make it sound good?
I agree, how old the evidence is has no impact on whether it is good or not. However, the sole evidence being a book with an agenda that has been edited and mistranslated many times does not qualify as good evidence. If anything, it's evidence to the contrary.
There is no actual evidence for the xistence of the biblical Jesus.None whatsoever.
None of the gospel writers ever met Jesus.Paul never met him.He claims to have had some sort of 'revelation', which is completely unverifiable.Just as Muhamed and Joseph Smiths so called revelations.Unverifiable.Prophecy and such 'divine revelations' should not be taken as having Truth.To believe that the Creator contacts 1 man and tells him to tell the rest of us how to live life is complete & utter Delusion.
We do have good evidence of Jesus, fair enough, but the historical evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates that the Book of Genesis was added to the Biuble after Jesus's death. That and the Christian church's agreed revisions, which eliminated details like past lives from the text make the gap betwen the writing time and now hjighly relevant.
I can't believe he just said that. Humans used to believe in alchemy. Now we don't. That "not important" time between the evidence and now holds a lot of scientific changes.
Alchemy could be disproven. Simply put. Alchemy proposed things for which there was an alternative explanation. The arguments for God do not; at least not yet. So you can't disprove it with the evidence we have, you can't rebut it with the evidence we have. All you can do it deny it, and people can deny anything, without resorting to evidence. Currently, therefore, any "destruction of God" that occurs in society is a child of insistence, not science.
@karozans if I may introduce a thought, science has nothing to do with God. Science is about what is able to be tested and proven. The very idea of what God is puts him outside the realm of science. Sciecne must assume the existence of the universe to begin with therefore it can never go before the creation of the universe and make any factual statements. Thirdly, to say one only believes what science can prove is a philosophical statement and science can not prove philosophy.
@karozans Because God has nothing to do with alchemy. God is God, alchemy is not. Antibiotics destroy bacterial infections, but they can not destroy God.
@karozans cause alchemy rfers to natural phenomenoms tht happen in the natural world, & natural world is what science is about, if you go beyond it just doens't matter how big the science advances are, because you put god beyond the natural world. I don't really think we can use science to prove or dissprove religion, it's just a matter of faith, just that. I think this video is a great example for the real existence of Jesus, there are people who think he didn't exist, but not to prove he's god
@karozans Science cannot comment on the supernatural, that's why. Since it rests on methodological naturalism, it must remain neutral about whether god(s) exist. There are things/beliefs for which science cannot account for, but people are rational to believe in. Take metaphysical truths like belief that the external world is real or that there are other minds other than one's own. Can't be proven scientifically, only assumed/believed. And "God" belongs in the metaphysical category as well.
@karozans The root of todays science is Alchemy.The root of todays astronomy is ancient astrology. The root of todays religions is Superstition, which is still flourishing in all the different faiths.Irrational beliefs are hard to get rid of.It will probly linger for some time, but as man becomes more educated hopefully belief in angels, demons and even the God of Moses will consigned to the shelf marked,' Mythology '.
Well you’re close but, originally religion was science, used to explain the world. At 10,000 BCE with the arrival of cities and government we see the rise of organized religion and that is it abandoned its scientific role and transformed into what it is today, a con game of power and control. Science is a powerful tool but superstition is much more powerful. Governments use religion to control their population and take what they want from their citizens.
WLC needs to get schooled on what real evidence is. Jesus christ almight, this guy is smarly little sleaze ball. If he ever gets charged with a crime I certainly hope he won't complain about the prosecutor using 'hearsay evidence' to 'prove' him guilty.
jesus died around AD30, constantine compiled the bible in 325, thats 300 years before their was consensus of wether Jesus was god or a human, over 10 books were disputed at the time, how can we trust the bible if they couldn't trust half of it then? the bible was translated from hebres to latin, to french, to english and reedited several times before modern versions so you can't trust it word for word, any jew can tell you the first verse of genisis is wrong, god created A world not THE world
@mrgibins2 Christ divinity was established in the first church well before 325, in the orthodox Christian church which Christ himself established. Also the bibles books were chosen by the orthodox Christian churches history and tradition/documents which remains the same till this day. Other books were rejected because they were heresy and went against the well preserved orthodox Christian history/tradition and documents.
@mrgibins2 Christ divinity was established in the first church well before 325, in the orthodox Christian church which Christ himself established. Also the bibles books were chosen by the orthodox Christian churches history and tradition which remains the same till this day. Other books were rejected because they were heresy and went against the well preserved orthodox Christian history/tradition and documents.
My problem with the Christian bible is not that it was written 2000 years ago, but rather 1700 years ago. It wasn't until 325 that a council was convened to decide on the content of the bible and another 60 years before the foundations of the modern bible were written.we have over 300 years before the church decides on wether Jesus was even a human! Then consider this, the bible you read is a translation of a translation, can you take it word for word if every word has changed at least twice?
No, Dr. Craig, the crucial gap is the Christian Dark Ages, where scientific advancement was held back 1,000 years by a bunch of people who believed the most important thing to do was to murder people who didn't believe in God.
none of the evidence of regarding Alexander the great attempts to define the universe and construct the idea of a personal being that is th creator of all existence.
I think your mixing two diffrent things. His no talking about God, Christian religion etc. He is referening to Jesus himself. Did Jesus turn wather into whine? Well that up for debate. Was he a real person? It would be a hypocrassy to say no if we axept stories about Alexandres which where writen 400 years after his life, while we ignore stories of Jesus that where writen short piriot after his life just beacose few fantastic elements. Not that there are ad least three historians
I think your mixing two diffrent things. His no talking about God, Christian religion etc. He is referening to Jesus himself. Did Jesus turn wather into whine? Well that up for debate. Was he a real person? It would be a hypocrassy to say no if we axept stories about Alexandres which where writen 400 years after his life, while we ignore stories of Jesus that where writen short piriot after his life just beacose few fantastic elements.
@crackthecorn good enough for the judicial system. any testimony is personal because you the individual experienced it personally. you cant be serious.. must be sarcasm
No William Lane Craig. The crucial gap is the copies of copies of translated copies of long since lost manuscripts of writings by unknown authors documenting heresy of heresy, decades upon decades after the supposed extraordinary events took place.
Thinking God does exist is one thing, but believing that your version of Him is the only correct one is something completely different. It requires a lot more assumptions to be correct, thus being religious is pointless as all religions have the same amount of evidence-none.
@crtunematt so you believe in the genesis myth, rather than the evolving world and the big bang?aka Adam&eve vs cavemen-evolving, two things wich are mutually exclusive?
He's right that the time gap of the evidence to the present day is irrelevant. But the point of this objection is the trustworthiness of the people of that era and the means for recording the purported events. Back in those days, people were superstitious and gullible. There wasn't rigorous reporting methods, such as modern police report or video. Plus, the reporting wasn't exactly timely. Mark was written 40years after the crucifixion.
"Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it.
-Alan Albert Snow (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)"
"All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.
-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)"
"The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist – not literary, not archaeologically, and not historically. The Encyclopaedia Biblica says: "We cannot venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." Nazareth is not mentioned in any historical records or biblical texts of the time and receives no mention by any contemporary historian. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha or in any early rabbinic literature."
"No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Not a single contemporary writing Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings."
How can you compare Alexander with Jesus? Alexander's biography did not say anything which is scientifically impossible like riding flying horses (walking on water). If they did, we would definitely disregard that too.
Bibliotheca historica (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Cleitarchus and Hieronymus of Cardia. It is the oldest surviving Greek source (1st century BC).
Additional we have epigraphy directly from the time of Alexander the great. Craig is lying.
@MrRichard991 I looked in my Alexander book here. There is epigraphy showing his union of macedonia and greece. And there epigraphy showing (at leat partially) his bloodshed through persia, which fits perfectly with the Bibliotheca historica. Craigs argument is invalid.
If I tell a story, and somebody within earshot goes home and remembers what they can, fills in what they can't and uploads it to the internet, then somebody reads it, tells someone in real life they made it up, that person goes home and writes a different version, so on and so forth, the story will go from, "I ate a great sandwich at this place." to, "This guy I knew ordered pizza and the delivery was late so he got it free." The source knew what they meant, everyone after made it up.
@Hec7orGunzal which is why you write it down and copy from text, not hear say. like roman history, the romans kept a very good record of events and we look in them now and see what happened during the roman empire from atleast 2000 years ago. keep the same text and you keep the proper history. you failed this objection but nice try.
@RCACsurvivorman Except that you have no way of knowing whether or not the text is accurate or was changed. You can insist that you know, but the fact is you don't, nor can you back it up.
@RCACsurvivorman So then using that logic the Egyptian hieroglyphics are more reliable, infallible even because we've got the source material written all over tombs by the Egyptians themselves, not just somebody who copied their story, that we're only now getting to(so they cannot have been forged), AND they were written before yours. Are you saying they were right all along?
@Hec7orGunzal i fail to see your point here and what they were right or wrong about. i didnt say anything about anything being right or wrong, just merely pointing out that looking at the orignal text is obviously more accurate than reading a copy of that text, well thats what common sense tells me atleast but i could be wrong, if u point it out to me.
@RCACsurvivorman But you aren't reading any of the original text, and even if you could find and read it, why should it be trusted? You think nobody ever lied about speaking to a god to get people to follow their every word because they got it "from god"?
First off, we are 99% sure of what the original manuscripts said. There are about 100 verses in which we are not completely sure what was originally said, but none of which affect any essential doctrine. We have about 25,000 manuscripts of the NT, 5000 of which are Greek, most of which date 300 years after the originals, some of which less than 50 years. Compare this to Plato's "Republic": there are only 7 manuscripts, the first of which dating 1,300 years after the original.
As for the disciples inventing Christianity, this fails for a number of reasons:
1) It turns the disciples, most of whom were executed for their faith, into decievers. John R. W. Stott writes:
"[The belief that the disciples were deciervers) simply does not ring true. It is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. If anything is clear from the Gospels and the Acts, it is that the apostles were sincere. They may have been deceived, if you like, but they were not...
...deceivers. Hypocrites and martyrs are not made of the same stuff".
The burden of proof is on the sceptic, not the Christian, to show what the disciples expected to gain by dying.
2) It does not account for the length of time between the actual events and the writings, as Dr. Craig specifically points out in the video. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, for example, is a pre-Pauline creed that most scholars place within 5 years of Christ's life, some within 18 months. With...
...1000's of witnesses still alive, this is hardly enough time for a legend to form.
3) It does not account for the fact that numerous Gospel events are attested to in multiple independent sources. Such would not be expected in a completely made-up tale.
@Hec7orGunzal the gospels were written only about 30 years after Jesus' death. in the gospels it even goes to say that there were atleast 500 witnesses of the ressurection of Jesus. if this was some elaborate hoax and the writers were lying, it would have been shot in the dirt right away by the generation who supposed witnessed this very event. but it wasn't, it was the opposite, it was accepted and spread out. there is no way a lie would go unnoticed like that.
@RCACsurvivorman And in the 1820s Joseph Smith Jr. was given the golden plates by an angel, eleven people testified to it, and believing it is now called being Mormon.
Anybody can make anything up, and as long as people believe it, it's true? Or are you going to pull out, "But the Mormons are wrong!"?
@Hec7orGunzal christianity is true because of the records and archaeology we have concerning that time period apart from the bible. there were 500 witnesses, how would you get 500 to testify like that without other people claiming hogwash. and Joseph Smith wasnt given golden plates, he supposedly found them, wrote them down and then, very conveniently, an angel took them away. you have that one source, which isnt even here anymore, compared to thousands from the bible.
@RCACsurvivorman - The books of the Canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150AD. There sure were documents ATTRIBUTED to the apostles circulating some years before, but that is it. No "good evidence" if you ask me.
@RCACsurvivorman So if a lot of people believe it it's true? Then why is the Muslim faith not true? Why are the Mormons wrong? Why are children wrong about Santa Claus? Large groups of people believing something does not make it true.
@RCACsurvivorman Who aren't here anymore. And are gone long enough that anyone can tell you it was thousands, when it very easily could have been the same ten or eleven, just like the Mormons.
@logoRH Are you a NT scholar like WLC? Parts of Mark's account of the resurrection were taken from even earlier sources than Mark, the earliest gospel. Furthermore, we know Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 wrote in defense of why the early Christians believed, citing 500 who claimed to have seen Jesus following his death at Golgotha (This was even earlier than Mark). In a sense, Paul is challenging early critics. It would have been easy to debunk the resurrection if it were untrue, yet it never was.
His evidence would not hold up in court, it is all heresay. The books of the new testament were written many years after the so called events, none were actual witnesses.
". Being intellectually dishonest pays and it pays big!"
Of course, you do need to be willing to have your mind warped beyond repair by the numerous inconsistent things you have to believe. And of course everybody who DOES think critically laughs at you. But hey, if you can handle that (and boy, can WLC ever) , you can laugh all the way to the bank!
The Arrian and Plutarch records of "Alexander the Great" reference a mortal man who lived and functioned within the bounds of his physical limits and our physical realm; therefore these accounts merit plausibility. The New Testament tells of a man who performed feats of supernatural prowess such as miracles and rising for the dead.
Eyewitness accounts of anything within the bounds of our reality = plausible
Eyewitness accnts of supernatural events = implausible
@TryTheRedPill Its not eyewitness accounts of Alexander. As the man just said they came several hundred years later. Just becaue you feel it's claims are implausible means nothing. You just stated you believe a literary biography written several hundreds years after a person's death above the writings of eyewitnesses within the first century of someone's death, simply because it doesnt have anything supernatural in there. What logic is this?
@rgatlin04 " What logic is this?" I could ask you the same question! lol
I never made any contention as to the whether the Alex/the Grt accounts were eyewitness based or not. My use of the term "eyewitness" was meant to illustrate Craig's willful dishonesty when he positively claims the eyewitness accounts of supernatural events in the New Test as being plausible
" You just stated you believe a literary biography...."
Where in my comment do I make such an assertion??
well, Sathya sai baba died less than a year ago, and the records of his miracles were recorded seconds after they occurred (in the age of electronic media)... which leads me to conclude that SATHYA SAI BABA IS THE REAL MANIFESTATION OF THE GODS
the funny thing is if you really listen to craig go through his "spit-all-over-the-place, hocus focus, transcendental, mumbo-jumbo" reasoning as to why his god exist in all his apologetic debates and his reasoning on the credibility of his faith book, the only connecting factor is himself... his own belief that it's true. all these talking points can be applied basically on most any religion one happened to belong to.
craig could very well be a muslim or a jew and he'll be talking the same way.
so, if jesus was real and he resurrected from the dead... and a book was written about his life and his teachings, what made him the son of god? i don't see the connection at all... shouldn't they prove that there is a god first???
Back then atheism was a non-issue. Even the greek philosophers were deists.
But satan has succeeded in so inflating the pride of mankind in these days, to the point where man has come to the conclusion that he is too smart to believe in a God. Interestingly enough the Majority of the world is still theistic/spiritual to some extent or another. The problem is that the minority of atheists/agnostics occupy the top cohort of influence (scientists/entertainers/musicians/actors) etc.
Read the Bible...my friend...read it like you've never read before. It is an illogical book to the carnal mind, and rightly so, because the world's wisdom is foolishness in the eyes of God. You WILL find however, TRUTH - life saving, soul saving truth.
"How long it has been since those events occurred is irrelevant?" That's dumb even by his standards.
This explains why Craig can ACTUALLY BELIEVE in 1st century superstitious nonsense such as zombies and pigs possessed by demons. Unhappy demon-pigs hurling themselves into a sea and dead people walking around Jerusalem are completely plausible to Craig.
@VibrantNTingling That does, in no way, refute his scholarly work or standing. Have you considered that it is not surprising that someone who finds the evidence coherent with a belief in the validity of the Gospels believes in what they intimate? For example Bart Ehrman, leading sceptic included his work in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research in 1994. Do you suppose a sceptic scholar as editor would accept shoddy work? They may disagree, but quality is quality.
@VibrantNTingling Yes, but my reply to that is we can know precisely how the texts were reshaped and developed. We can also be spectacularly confident of the original documents via textual analysis of the variants that exist through time and through geographical spread. It is true that other 'material' was left out ie the gnostic gospels. However for very good reason. They came from a cult that had an agenda, and far later in time than the material selected.
@VibrantNTingling Hardly. Take Daniel Wallace, he states confidently that the sheer number of documentation available allows us to percieve the full panoply of variants of the gospels that have ever existed since their first inception. However only 1% of those variants have any substantive effect on the meaning therein. Literally we have sufficient text material to know what the 'changes' or 'edits' made were. Further this comment more correctly pertains to the 'other gospels' ie gnostic.
@VibrantNTingling To continue. Centuries, no, that simply isn't held by the concensus of scholars when it comes to the Gospel texts. In general you are well within the lifetimes of eye witnesses to Christ. Next what you call hearsay, if related by an eye witness or reliable relator of such an account has long been considered gold dust in historical documentation. Further we know that at least in part, the gospels are based on even earlier texts eg Q. We further know Paul met eye-witnesses.
@VibrantNTingling That would be a fallacy. The Christian Bible clearly is evidence on its own, what you possibly mean is 'proof.' Second, we actually have good reason to believe that Matthew and John, whilst not written by these disciples were the product of their direct influence ie relating of tales to a scribe or similar. Luke may have been the companion of Paul (at worst scholars say 'we can't be sure'). Further we know Mark did write down material, however not the gospel attributed there.
@VibrantNTingling I think comparing Christ and Alexander has limited validity, and does illustrate that texts written well outside the lifetime of any contemporaneous witnesses are given credance. Beyond that though you would expect far more artifactual evidence for Alexander given a) his status and b) actions in the world. Christ was only a small time spiritual leader/trouble maker in one far flung corner of the Roman empire. There further are independent sources about Christ. See Tacitus.
@VibrantNTingling Second, the 'turning black of the sky' could have been due to a heavy storm, in which case not particularly of note. Christ was not the only person being crucified that day further so making a straight connection for the 'uninformed' would not be automatic. If it was an eclipse yes you might expect a record but then again a) most ancient historical documents do not survive and b) eclipses are not exhaustively recorded in history either.
@VibrantNTingling Ok First, the 'Dead in Jerusalem.' This only appears in one gospel to begin with and so is immediately less reliable, and a variation that the 'central' narrative does not depend upon. However if it did occur, and I am not in opposition to the possibility, then we are given no insights as to the visibility of the phenomena. The 'appearances' appear to have been personal, and so a) unlikely to appear to agents of the state or b) people of note whose experience might be recorded.
@VibrantNTingling Christianity's interactions with other faiths after the fact of Christ is irrelevant to this discussion and does not impact upon discussion of the Gospels significantly. Yes the Christian Bible is more reliable than other scriptures. 1) It came into existence within the lifetime of eye witnesses 2) Sufficient copies of the work are available to be sure of the original wording 3) It represents 4 different takes on the same event. The Hebrew Bible is irrelevant to this discussion
@VibrantNTingling Further to say there are no contemporaneous Roman records as if it is significant is irrelevant. There is no extant, exhaustive record of executions carried out to expect Christ to feature in. It's hardly devastating to historians given that there was not a single contemporaneous historian who could be expected to a) hear of and b) write about Christ. Posthumous documentary based upon eye witness testimony, first or second hand, and other sources is not a lack of evidence.
@VibrantNTingling That's a ridiculous summary of the available evidence. The extant documentary for historical figures of comparable or older age than Jesus are generally entirely non contemporaneous, in many cases by centuries. To say there aren't any is just non-sense. The Christian Bible is evidence on its own. Aside from that you have historical references (even allowing for redaction) which establish the historicity of Christ's existance.
@VibrantNTingling Nope, because you also find copyright, author name, rights reserved, artist name, and disclaimers as to depictions of 'real' people. You also have to suppose that no other sources of information on that age persist. If they do it can be placed in context and if they speak of 'superman' at all, it will again be with explicit fictional assertions ie tv guide, comic guide, movie (again with disclaimers) etc etc. Context is king.
@VibrantNTingling The first half of Genesis is not first person recorded history, and has never been claimed as such, see Augustine in the 4th century. First we must define terms. In scholarly terms it is regarded in two distinct parts: Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible. In terms of documentary availability, the Christian Bible simply is the most and earliest available ancient 'history' in existence, to the stage where we can be 99%+ sure of the original texts. The same can be said of no other.
@VibrantNTingling Actually I would be more than happy to accept your argument here apart from your final conclusion. For example going back to the first part of Genesis, it's probably highly influenced by ancient Babylonian beliefs/tales. However I disagree you cannot place one above the other. On a material basis alone the Christian Bible is the most 'available' ancient text, the most examinable, and testable. It aims to be a 'history' (The CB) and is unique amongst its 'peers.'
@crtunematt I thought your response was well written mate. Youtube athiests can be some serious haters. No answer you say will be given any credibility
@VibrantNTingling The 'Bible' is a library of books, not one article. It has different authors, from different geographical areas, at different times, in different languages. It would be crass to force the same interpretation on each as a result. You don't 'make up' anything, further, you reasonably interpret the material at hand based on context to produce the best explanation for the available facts. Study of these other texts does not give any cause for credance.
@crtunematt if you say that some parts of the bible are figurative, who are you to say what is real and what is figurative? you are picking and choosing based on a modern moral compass which has evolved over years, the bible approves of slavery and women are under men, but in today's society, we abolished slavery, we give equal rights to women, these have come about by an evolution of society not any holy scripture, as a species WE decide what is right and wrong, by logic and reason
Craig always argues on the importance of "eye witnesses". There are literally thousands of so called eyewitness that say they have seen sai baba (fraud Indian god man) bring people to life etc. Would Craig believe these eyewitness ?
You ignore the similarities, you also misread my comment. I clearly stated "non-crucified Christ-like figures". Also, the earliest 'most reliable' gospel is Mark, and we all know how that ends.
Yes, evidence doesn't become less valid over time. But there was no evidence to begin with. Bible scholars have identified that the scriptures were written by different authors, at different times, with different political agendas - and more importantly, the bible is a re-branded version of past religions. Jesus wasn't the first deity to die on a tree/cross. Dr. Craig forgot to mention that part.
@sandrock605 Hare Khrisna, Thammuz. Esus, Mithra, Quexalcoati of Mexico, (all before christ), non-crucified christ-like figures include Horus, Attis, Zarathustra, Glycon, Hercules, Dionysus, Romulus, Odysseus, Buddha. The early scriptures were written around 30-70 years after Christ's death. As far as political agendas are concerned, you'd have to look into that more yourself (i don't know all the details).
@peterlikesthis You actually read about Hare Khrisna, Quetzalcoatl, Mithra, Buddha, Horus etc? They resemble nothing like Jesus. Buddha left his wife and children fled into the forest to be an aesthetic and Horus didnt sacrifice himself. Zeitgeist said Horus was the Sun God a pun for Son of God. Ra is sun god not Horus. Mithra was a war god. How can Jewish writers who shunned paganism end up imitate them.
Scripture written 30-70 years later affect authenticity? Many apostles were still living.
@sandrock605 The story of Jesus follows a pattern, much like other earlier belief systems.The pattern contains some similarities.But they all have the pattern of dying and reviving gods.With some variations and some similarities.When Paul was in the Areopaugus describing 'This new thing', this is possible what the philosphers said to him.They had heard it all before.The only difference this time was that it was the god of the ancient Isrealites who had sent his son to help mankind.
Whats the significance of forbidden fruit in the garden of eden? And who put it there and for what purpose? MAybe that would clear out our purpose in this life.
There is no evidence that the Jesus described in the bible was resurrected from death. Only hearsay and a healthy dose of my fellow primates all too happy to pretend there is some evidence.
@Angelsword135 Dear Angel, did you know the most atheist countries in the world (for example Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland) are among the safest countries in the world with the most healthy society? Low crime rates in general, low murder- and rape rates, low percentages of STD's, teenage-moms and ABORTION! (Holland has allmost the least abortions on a global scale). Compare that to more religious countries and you will see where Satan has it's seat.
A lot of people like to push this argument that the Scandinavian countries are so atheistic but what they never point out that in those very countries are not in fact anywhere near as Atheistic as they are made out to be. What the surveys in those countries show is that on average only around 20% of the population said that they don't believe in a Spirit, God or Life Force - 20% isn't very Atheistic is it?
The most Atheistic country in Europe is France and it has many problems.
@tommymech Wikipedia on Sweden: high formal membership-rate of the church, but with one of the highest levels of atheism. According to various studies, 46-85% of Swedes do not believe in a God. Eurostat survey: 23% believes there "is A God"; 53% believe in a "spirit", therefore rejecting the label atheism, but a lot are still going to church. So, the meaning of theistic religious belief is marginal, and the church only has a social/ cultural value for them.
Oh I see you are claiming that belief in a Spirit or Life Force is Atheistic? I suspect that those who ticked the belief in a Spirit or Life Force (53% in Sweden) would be surprised to see you calling them Atheistic
Well I suppose Buddism is Atheistic as well since they don't believe in a God as such. They are very religious Atheists - agree?
Those who said that they neither believe in a God, Spirit or Life Force were Norway 17%, Denmark 19% - 81% believe in the supernatural.
@tommymech Yes, they believe in "something supernatural", this is more spiritual than religious and not theistic. Something I, as a Dutch citizen, can confirm. They live secular, largely non-religious lifes. In Norway 72% does not believe in a personal God. In Denmark atheists and agnost comprise 43-80%, the third highest proportion in the world. There is a difference between a personal theistic God, and something supernatural. This distorts your calculation.
@tommymech As to France; they have a lot of problems with the people living in France that originate from their former colonies, including their offspring. Despite that, youngsters in the USA have 70 times more chance of having gonorea I read somewhere. So it really depends on how you define the problem here.
Oh, atheists are fools because the Bible says so! Isn ´t there anything else on atheists in the Bible? We are so tired of hearing this verse over and over again.
Life exists. Matter exists. The universe exists. It's undeniable. ANYTHING that exists requires a cause for its existence. Just like we see today, from your house to your shirt, car etc etc, they all were made by somebody. Life doesn't make sense without a God, Jesus. "It is a fortuitous situation indeed that God really does exist-- lest the poor atheist would not have a purpose in life at all " PPSimmons. The fool says in their heart there is no God. psalm 53 Psalm 14-1
@MrPsalm53 "ANYTHING that exists requires a cause for its existence." Right! So adding a God in at the very beginning of time makes it even more complicated. Where did he come from?
Can I recommend a lecture to you about the secular thinking on cosmo genesis? "A universe from nothing" by Laurence Krauss just tap it into the search bar.. You can pretty much skip the Richard Dawkins bit at the start. Please message me if you have any questions on it (I'm a physics grad)
The phrase "ANYTHING that exists requires a cause for its existence." needs a qualifier and the qualifier is "anything NATURAL that exists must have a cause for its existence". It also follows that to create all that is natural you need somtehing greater than the natural since it has never been observed for something natural to come out of nothing.
It's also logical that rules that govern the natural do not govern the greater than natural so the rules of physics cannot apply there.
".....just because you have heard someone make the assertion that it is logical doesn't make it true." Oh I see. You think that I just recieve uncritically what others say. What an arrogant person you are. It is also the case that just because you can't see something it doesn't mean its not so.
Given that you are a physicist name (of the many you no doubt know about) a few instances of natural things coming into existence from nothing - quoting L. Krauss' conjectures don't count.
@tommymech How does that make me arrogant? Arrogance is being irritatingly self important and has nothing to do with how I view others. Please apologise.
All I can really say on your second point is that I can't (apart from matter anti matter pairs). Clearly the beginning of a universe is more complicated to understand than you're trying to make it sound. The people at the LHC are working on an answer for us. When/ if they find the natural cause will you change your mind about God?
It's arrogant to assert without a scintilla of evidence that someone believes something simply because someone else said it - the apology needs to be from you to me for that assertion.
So let me get this right - you are saying that anti-matter is nothing? What is your definition of nothing? Is it like Krauss' definition of nothing? Certainly Krauss' defintion of nothing is like no definition of nothing I ever heard before - Krauss' definition of nothing is very much something.
@tommymech It isn't. I suppose it was slightly mean spirited to assume you are like every other Christian I've spoken to. Yes, physics is a very confusing and non intuitive subject its true. I'm going to try and move away from the subject of physics (it is tiresome when talking to people who haven't studied it, no offence) and move to probability. What is more likely, an all powerful super being that can do anything pops into existence or a universe does?
"What is more likely, an all powerful super being that can do anything pops into existence or a universe does?" - but you miss the most elementary point. Physicists accept that time started with the 'Big Bang'. In order to create the Universe God needs to be independent of the Universe and so it follows that he is also independent of time and therefore timeless or eternal or 'having always existed'. The alternative is some sort of infinite regression.
Where did I say anything that implied the beginning of the Universe wasn't complicated from a physical point of view? Assertions without evidence again - hardly the behaviour of a good physicist.
The discoveries being made at the LHC are causing physicists many difficulties because they do not fit in with what was expected.
When the discoveries at LHC don't produce a naturalistic answer for the origin of the Universe will you accept God as a valid premise for origin?
@tommymech Answering continuation... You were trying to make it seem as if I should be able to discuss in detail the origin of the universe with 500 characters.
What discoveries do you think are giving them difficulties? The whole point of the experiment was to find new data that could be discussed.
If it doesn't and a new naturalistic answer isn't thought of I suppose I could be persuaded to be a deist. Will you answer my question now?
Well just to mention one - the recent discovery that the quark-gluon plasma does not behave at all as predicted in the extremely high temperatures believed to have existed immediately after the Big Bang and reproduced at the LHC.
Since my belief in God is ultimately based on my own direct personal experience of Him (the Bible makes it clear that He is knowable) then I cannot concieve of any natural thing undermining this belief.
I'm not talking about feelings but things that have no natural explanation. I was healed of a physical condition about 20 years ago. The way it happened was quite extraordinary and I have been completely freed of the need to take powerful steroids from time to time to control the condition. As I said that was 20 years ago and my medical record is a testimony to my changed condition.
More recently, my wife was miraculously healed of a documented tumor without treatment.
@tommymech I'm glad that that happened for you but if God was happy to do that for you and your wife why is he so capricious and callous with everyone else who is suffering. In many many cases in much worse ways, just because you don't know how something happened doesn't mean you get to choose the religion that fits best with what happened to you.
You ask a pertinent question but it's not an argument against the existence of God. The point is that I can show two events that I have direct knowledge of and access to medical documents that witness things that have no natural explanation and in my wife's case had the surgeon who was to operate on the tumor so slack jawed (I was there) that I thought he was going to keel over at one point.
Both instances involved prayer directed to Jesus Christ.
I wish there was space to go into detail for both events. Other than we both got healed in a situation involving prayers to Jesus (my wife's case was recent (2009) mine some 20 years ago) the circumstances were very different.
I also have experienced / know of many other extraordinary events involving me personally and / or people I know very well.
True Christian faith is not blind. Jesus did not expect people to simply accept who He was. He performed miracle upon miracle.
Period between events and evidence don't matter if events didn't happen.
Apiaanilol 2 weeks ago
@vygotsky17... you are misinformed. Matthew and John WERE disciples of Jesus and were with him at all times. Mark was written off of the eyewitness accounts of Peter and Luke was written off the accounts of Paul. Also, you say nobody agreed that Jesus was divine until Constantine made them vote for it. Again, false. Read John 20:28, John 10:30.. If the bible is not reliable for you then maybe Ignatius of Antioch (AD 110) will help. "God himself appearing in the form of man."
rybizz24 3 weeks ago
The people who wrote the gospels never met Jesus (MML&J were not 4 of the apostles, contrary to popular belief). St Paul never met Jesus, yet he wrote his epistles before the Gospels were written down. Matthew is just a copy of Mark, Luke about 50% copy. The earliest gospel was written 30yrs after the crucifixion and John about AD100. Nobody could agree what Jesus really meant or even whether or not he was divine until pagan Constantine forced a decision from them, by voting. Reliable?
vygotsky17 4 weeks ago
FACT: NOTHING in science gives us reason to believe in the supernatural, including gods. The universe consistently appears to operate under natural laws of physics, not the whim of a hiding omnipotent wizard.
FACT: Mountains of material evidence show that we came from simpler life forms, and explains why we would be predesposed to supersticion and weaknesses, such as a desire to believe we will live forever.
FACT: Pretending that there is a god, and that you know it's motives, is DISHONEST.
themsfightinwoids 1 month ago
Mr Craig, what can you remember from your personal life in 1980 (30 years span). How accurate would be your description? Who could deny your description knowing that their memory is not better?
LaHomEnt 1 month ago
We know dinosaurs ruled the earth 100 million years ago.
gregrutz 2 months ago
HAHAHA the dislikes and the likes depends on if it's a religeus person or not hahahaa
chrstilen5 3 months ago
@chrstilen5 No, I based my thumb on whether I think Dr. Craig's argument is coherent or consistent or even logical. Which is why I thumbed down.
VampirePraemium 2 days ago
This isn't a good argument though because you're assuming that the "evidence" is still completely in tact after 2000 years of different cultural and governmental changes throughout without ever being tampered with. This is simply not the case as there have been other books that were originally in the Bible that had been taken out like the dead sea scrolls. Even without the example of the scrolls, the assumption being made is that the original writers of the Bible didn't have their own agendas
blackbandana01 4 months ago
@blackbandana01 You obviously have no idea what the Dead Sea Scrolls are then and haven't heard of the finely tuned and highly technical practice of textual criticism which helps us determine with overwhelming accuracy the original text. Moreover, the preservation methods used by scribes were extremely meticulous. Our Bibles aren't simply based upon uncritical sources!
JudgeJred1 4 months ago
@blackbandana01
"Even without the example of the scrolls, the assumption being made is that the original writers of the Bible didn't have their own agendas"
What agenda could the biblical writers possibly have? You do realize that many of the Hebrew prophets were they themselves persecuted and many were martyred by their own countrymen. So unless being a social pariah was somehow their "agendas" then presuming they even had one is nonsensical.
Samc023 3 months ago
@Samc023 The writers of the NT had an agenda.To unite the Pagan religion with the God of the OT.The idea was probly originally concieved in ancient Alexandria in Eygpt.
"Out of Eygpt have I called my Son." Matt2:15.
The ancient Alexandrians used to make-up alergorical stories using the OT, incorporating them with ancient Pagan Philosophical ideas.Such a mixture of ideas became known as "Ancient Wisdom", hidden from the ages.As refered to by Paul at 1Cor2:7...Mystery,even the hidden Mystery..
GARYWERSLEY 3 months ago
@Samc023 "What agenda could the biblical writers possibly have?" To start his own religion brand. The reasons can be several: to give his people hope, to pursuit his own deluded view of reality and so forth. People face martyrdom for lesser reasons, why not to change the world? In fact no religion goes off the ground without some sort of lunatic behavior that has deleterious implications that can´t be forged, like death or real risk of death. That´s a field proven method to earn people´s minds.
lfzadra 1 month ago
Reports of miracles are fairly common today, and very few of us tend to lend these much credibility. Why is it that these miracles become so much more profound when placed in Jerusalem 2000 years ago?
Torfinnmadssen 4 months ago
@Torfinnmadssen It's not about time. It's about Jesus. The only reason a Jesus' miracles are so important is because they are used to prove his divinity. That's not done today.
Today many people reportedly experience miracles, but Jesus reportedly performed miracles.
It's not like miracles today are unimportant either. People just don't know where the line is between lies and real miracles so they end up discounting all miracles to prevent being lied to.
TheJohnVandivier 4 months ago
1. The era is relevant as the people of the time were far more uneducated when compared with todays standards and therefore more prone to scamming/delusion.
2. Dr Craig's logic could be used to defend the Islamic faith, and would in fact make the case for Islam superior to the one for Christianity as the Quran was written during Muhammad's lifetime.
The man is a hack.
linkmymuffin 5 months ago
The biggest problem I have with Dr, Craig's reasoning is that he forgets about the many other documents out there that can rival the claims of the canonical gospels. I'm not talking about the Gnostic gospels; They were written too late. However, the Gospel to the Hebrews, Gospel to the Nazarenes, and the Gospel to the Ebionites, which have all been lost except for quote we have from them, could even be earlier and it is possible that they don't support the divinity of christ.
Bakmoon 5 months ago
@linkmymuffin 1. That's an oft repeated assumption of early man that is not substantiated by much of anything. Knowledge accrues over time, so we might appear more intelligent simply because we are more knowledgeable, but there is little reason to assume people from the past were imbeciles.
2. This is only one facet of an argument for The Bible, so even if this argument would work even better for The Quran, that doesn't mean that The Quran wins in every other point or argument.
Sickopath333 4 months ago
We know there wasn't a global flood in the past, just look at Geology.
gregrutz 5 months ago
"If the gap between the events and the evidence for those events is short, then how long it has been since the evidence in those events to the present day, is irrelevant."
no. just no.
MarkMetalHead 5 months ago
Why do Theist always state an argument which has little support and evidence and on top of that, they state an example, which is totally out of topic to make it sound good?
SujinHitoshi 5 months ago
I agree, how old the evidence is has no impact on whether it is good or not. However, the sole evidence being a book with an agenda that has been edited and mistranslated many times does not qualify as good evidence. If anything, it's evidence to the contrary.
AchronTimeless 5 months ago
yo do realize that the bible was written in the bronze age right?
red666111 5 months ago
There is no actual evidence for the xistence of the biblical Jesus.None whatsoever.
None of the gospel writers ever met Jesus.Paul never met him.He claims to have had some sort of 'revelation', which is completely unverifiable.Just as Muhamed and Joseph Smiths so called revelations.Unverifiable.Prophecy and such 'divine revelations' should not be taken as having Truth.To believe that the Creator contacts 1 man and tells him to tell the rest of us how to live life is complete & utter Delusion.
GARYWERSLEY 5 months ago
We do have good evidence of Jesus, fair enough, but the historical evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls indicates that the Book of Genesis was added to the Biuble after Jesus's death. That and the Christian church's agreed revisions, which eliminated details like past lives from the text make the gap betwen the writing time and now hjighly relevant.
leconfidant 6 months ago
I can't believe he just said that. Humans used to believe in alchemy. Now we don't. That "not important" time between the evidence and now holds a lot of scientific changes.
Rogersmith026 6 months ago
@Rogersmith026
It still doesn't matter.
The reason why alchemy didn't survive is because of science.
Since science spelled the destruction of alchemy, please explain why science cannot spell the destruction of God?
karozans 6 months ago
@karozans
Alchemy could be disproven. Simply put. Alchemy proposed things for which there was an alternative explanation. The arguments for God do not; at least not yet. So you can't disprove it with the evidence we have, you can't rebut it with the evidence we have. All you can do it deny it, and people can deny anything, without resorting to evidence. Currently, therefore, any "destruction of God" that occurs in society is a child of insistence, not science.
mytruepower2 6 months ago
@karozans because god is an unfalsifiable construct whose definition and methods of intervention are constantly in flux and dispute?
KevinBreuninger 5 months ago
@karozans if I may introduce a thought, science has nothing to do with God. Science is about what is able to be tested and proven. The very idea of what God is puts him outside the realm of science. Sciecne must assume the existence of the universe to begin with therefore it can never go before the creation of the universe and make any factual statements. Thirdly, to say one only believes what science can prove is a philosophical statement and science can not prove philosophy.
sonofcohen 5 months ago
@karozans Because God has nothing to do with alchemy. God is God, alchemy is not. Antibiotics destroy bacterial infections, but they can not destroy God.
LivonianKnight 5 months ago
@karozans cause alchemy rfers to natural phenomenoms tht happen in the natural world, & natural world is what science is about, if you go beyond it just doens't matter how big the science advances are, because you put god beyond the natural world. I don't really think we can use science to prove or dissprove religion, it's just a matter of faith, just that. I think this video is a great example for the real existence of Jesus, there are people who think he didn't exist, but not to prove he's god
mygeekystuff 5 months ago
@karozans Science cannot comment on the supernatural, that's why. Since it rests on methodological naturalism, it must remain neutral about whether god(s) exist. There are things/beliefs for which science cannot account for, but people are rational to believe in. Take metaphysical truths like belief that the external world is real or that there are other minds other than one's own. Can't be proven scientifically, only assumed/believed. And "God" belongs in the metaphysical category as well.
gmn545 5 months ago
@karozans The root of todays science is Alchemy.The root of todays astronomy is ancient astrology. The root of todays religions is Superstition, which is still flourishing in all the different faiths.Irrational beliefs are hard to get rid of.It will probly linger for some time, but as man becomes more educated hopefully belief in angels, demons and even the God of Moses will consigned to the shelf marked,' Mythology '.
GARYWERSLEY 2 months ago
@GARYWERSLEY
Well you’re close but, originally religion was science, used to explain the world. At 10,000 BCE with the arrival of cities and government we see the rise of organized religion and that is it abandoned its scientific role and transformed into what it is today, a con game of power and control. Science is a powerful tool but superstition is much more powerful. Governments use religion to control their population and take what they want from their citizens.
mymojorisin 1 month ago
WLC needs to get schooled on what real evidence is. Jesus christ almight, this guy is smarly little sleaze ball. If he ever gets charged with a crime I certainly hope he won't complain about the prosecutor using 'hearsay evidence' to 'prove' him guilty.
GawdOfThunder 6 months ago
jesus died around AD30, constantine compiled the bible in 325, thats 300 years before their was consensus of wether Jesus was god or a human, over 10 books were disputed at the time, how can we trust the bible if they couldn't trust half of it then? the bible was translated from hebres to latin, to french, to english and reedited several times before modern versions so you can't trust it word for word, any jew can tell you the first verse of genisis is wrong, god created A world not THE world
mrgibins2 6 months ago
@mrgibins2 Christ divinity was established in the first church well before 325, in the orthodox Christian church which Christ himself established. Also the bibles books were chosen by the orthodox Christian churches history and tradition/documents which remains the same till this day. Other books were rejected because they were heresy and went against the well preserved orthodox Christian history/tradition and documents.
jwmarco21 5 months ago
@mrgibins2 Christ divinity was established in the first church well before 325, in the orthodox Christian church which Christ himself established. Also the bibles books were chosen by the orthodox Christian churches history and tradition which remains the same till this day. Other books were rejected because they were heresy and went against the well preserved orthodox Christian history/tradition and documents.
jwmarco21 5 months ago
@mrgibins2 what was compiled?...first generation accounts...
PathThroughSamaria 5 months ago
My problem with the Christian bible is not that it was written 2000 years ago, but rather 1700 years ago. It wasn't until 325 that a council was convened to decide on the content of the bible and another 60 years before the foundations of the modern bible were written.we have over 300 years before the church decides on wether Jesus was even a human! Then consider this, the bible you read is a translation of a translation, can you take it word for word if every word has changed at least twice?
mrgibins2 6 months ago
No, Dr. Craig, the crucial gap is the Christian Dark Ages, where scientific advancement was held back 1,000 years by a bunch of people who believed the most important thing to do was to murder people who didn't believe in God.
ChipArgyle 6 months ago
none of the evidence of regarding Alexander the great attempts to define the universe and construct the idea of a personal being that is th creator of all existence.
Blondiesel 6 months ago
@Blondiesel
I think your mixing two diffrent things. His no talking about God, Christian religion etc. He is referening to Jesus himself. Did Jesus turn wather into whine? Well that up for debate. Was he a real person? It would be a hypocrassy to say no if we axept stories about Alexandres which where writen 400 years after his life, while we ignore stories of Jesus that where writen short piriot after his life just beacose few fantastic elements. Not that there are ad least three historians
MissWordek 6 months ago
@Blondiesel
I think your mixing two diffrent things. His no talking about God, Christian religion etc. He is referening to Jesus himself. Did Jesus turn wather into whine? Well that up for debate. Was he a real person? It would be a hypocrassy to say no if we axept stories about Alexandres which where writen 400 years after his life, while we ignore stories of Jesus that where writen short piriot after his life just beacose few fantastic elements.
MissWordek 6 months ago
@MissWordek please could you tell me where can I find old writings about Jesus besides the bible?
SASSJMSCBC 5 months ago
since when is personal testimony "good evidence" ..am sorry but that is just foolish,
crackthecorn 6 months ago
@crackthecorn good enough for the judicial system. any testimony is personal because you the individual experienced it personally. you cant be serious.. must be sarcasm
therealistone2003 6 months ago
No William Lane Craig. The crucial gap is the copies of copies of translated copies of long since lost manuscripts of writings by unknown authors documenting heresy of heresy, decades upon decades after the supposed extraordinary events took place.
JesusSatanAllah 6 months ago
Thinking God does exist is one thing, but believing that your version of Him is the only correct one is something completely different. It requires a lot more assumptions to be correct, thus being religious is pointless as all religions have the same amount of evidence-none.
bobovaca 6 months ago
@crtunematt so you believe in the genesis myth, rather than the evolving world and the big bang?aka Adam&eve vs cavemen-evolving, two things wich are mutually exclusive?
mihaimoldo 6 months ago
He's right that the time gap of the evidence to the present day is irrelevant. But the point of this objection is the trustworthiness of the people of that era and the means for recording the purported events. Back in those days, people were superstitious and gullible. There wasn't rigorous reporting methods, such as modern police report or video. Plus, the reporting wasn't exactly timely. Mark was written 40years after the crucifixion.
JesusSatanAllah 6 months ago
"Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it.
-Alan Albert Snow (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)"
LegionarioCruel 6 months ago
"All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.
-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)"
LegionarioCruel 6 months ago
"The evidence for a 1st century town of Nazareth does not exist – not literary, not archaeologically, and not historically. The Encyclopaedia Biblica says: "We cannot venture to assert positively that there was a city of Nazareth in Jesus' time." Nazareth is not mentioned in any historical records or biblical texts of the time and receives no mention by any contemporary historian. It is not mentioned in the Old Testament, the Talmud, nor in the Apocrypha or in any early rabbinic literature."
LegionarioCruel 6 months ago
"No one has the slightest physical evidence to support a historical Jesus. All claims about Jesus derive from writings of other people. There occurs no contemporary Roman record that shows Pontius Pilate executing a man named Jesus. Not a single contemporary writing Jesus. All documents about Jesus came well after the life of the alleged Jesus from either: unknown authors, people who had never met an earthly Jesus, or from fraudulent, mythical or allegorical writings."
LegionarioCruel 6 months ago 2
How can you compare Alexander with Jesus? Alexander's biography did not say anything which is scientifically impossible like riding flying horses (walking on water). If they did, we would definitely disregard that too.
pranaysharmadelji 6 months ago
@pranaysharmadelji uhm, you could disregard it, but you would be doing it solely on faith that those miraculous events never occurred.
JesseMoshe 6 months ago
Time does matter, but it's also the freaking claims of a god man cheating death and doing parlour tricks in the desert
lukeism2 6 months ago
test
TampaCary 6 months ago
Just wikid this.
Bibliotheca historica (Library of world history), written in Greek by the Sicilian historian Diodorus Siculus, from which Book 17 relates the conquests of Alexander, based almost entirely on Cleitarchus and Hieronymus of Cardia. It is the oldest surviving Greek source (1st century BC).
Additional we have epigraphy directly from the time of Alexander the great. Craig is lying.
steffenbieber 6 months ago
@steffenbieber Or is the freely-editable Wikipedia lying?
MrRichard991 6 months ago
@MrRichard991 I looked in my Alexander book here. There is epigraphy showing his union of macedonia and greece. And there epigraphy showing (at leat partially) his bloodshed through persia, which fits perfectly with the Bibliotheca historica. Craigs argument is invalid.
steffenbieber 6 months ago
@steffenbieber Alright, fair enough. However, his example - and not his entire argument - is invalid.
MrRichard991 6 months ago
@MrRichard991 Agreed. :)
steffenbieber 6 months ago
Why anyone would believe that the writings of bronze age man hold any truths is beyond me.
Hornadayfan 6 months ago
lol even in todays court of law that wouldnt hold up, its called heresay
lordrazr 6 months ago
OBJECTION!
If I tell a story, and somebody within earshot goes home and remembers what they can, fills in what they can't and uploads it to the internet, then somebody reads it, tells someone in real life they made it up, that person goes home and writes a different version, so on and so forth, the story will go from, "I ate a great sandwich at this place." to, "This guy I knew ordered pizza and the delivery was late so he got it free." The source knew what they meant, everyone after made it up.
Hec7orGunzal 6 months ago
@Hec7orGunzal which is why you write it down and copy from text, not hear say. like roman history, the romans kept a very good record of events and we look in them now and see what happened during the roman empire from atleast 2000 years ago. keep the same text and you keep the proper history. you failed this objection but nice try.
RCACsurvivorman 6 months ago
@RCACsurvivorman Except that you have no way of knowing whether or not the text is accurate or was changed. You can insist that you know, but the fact is you don't, nor can you back it up.
Hec7orGunzal 6 months ago
@Hec7orGunzal you can if you have thousands of manuscripts all of which say the exact same thing and date back to the time of it being written.
RCACsurvivorman 6 months ago
@RCACsurvivorman So then using that logic the Egyptian hieroglyphics are more reliable, infallible even because we've got the source material written all over tombs by the Egyptians themselves, not just somebody who copied their story, that we're only now getting to(so they cannot have been forged), AND they were written before yours. Are you saying they were right all along?
Hec7orGunzal 6 months ago
@Hec7orGunzal i fail to see your point here and what they were right or wrong about. i didnt say anything about anything being right or wrong, just merely pointing out that looking at the orignal text is obviously more accurate than reading a copy of that text, well thats what common sense tells me atleast but i could be wrong, if u point it out to me.
RCACsurvivorman 6 months ago
@RCACsurvivorman But you aren't reading any of the original text, and even if you could find and read it, why should it be trusted? You think nobody ever lied about speaking to a god to get people to follow their every word because they got it "from god"?
Hec7orGunzal 6 months ago
@Hec7orGunzal
First off, we are 99% sure of what the original manuscripts said. There are about 100 verses in which we are not completely sure what was originally said, but none of which affect any essential doctrine. We have about 25,000 manuscripts of the NT, 5000 of which are Greek, most of which date 300 years after the originals, some of which less than 50 years. Compare this to Plato's "Republic": there are only 7 manuscripts, the first of which dating 1,300 years after the original.
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@Hec7orGunzal
As for the disciples inventing Christianity, this fails for a number of reasons:
1) It turns the disciples, most of whom were executed for their faith, into decievers. John R. W. Stott writes:
"[The belief that the disciples were deciervers) simply does not ring true. It is so unlikely as to be virtually impossible. If anything is clear from the Gospels and the Acts, it is that the apostles were sincere. They may have been deceived, if you like, but they were not...
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@Hec7orGunzal
...deceivers. Hypocrites and martyrs are not made of the same stuff".
The burden of proof is on the sceptic, not the Christian, to show what the disciples expected to gain by dying.
2) It does not account for the length of time between the actual events and the writings, as Dr. Craig specifically points out in the video. 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, for example, is a pre-Pauline creed that most scholars place within 5 years of Christ's life, some within 18 months. With...
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@Hec7orGunzal
...1000's of witnesses still alive, this is hardly enough time for a legend to form.
3) It does not account for the fact that numerous Gospel events are attested to in multiple independent sources. Such would not be expected in a completely made-up tale.
THEEVANTHETOON 6 months ago
@Hec7orGunzal the gospels were written only about 30 years after Jesus' death. in the gospels it even goes to say that there were atleast 500 witnesses of the ressurection of Jesus. if this was some elaborate hoax and the writers were lying, it would have been shot in the dirt right away by the generation who supposed witnessed this very event. but it wasn't, it was the opposite, it was accepted and spread out. there is no way a lie would go unnoticed like that.
RCACsurvivorman 6 months ago
@RCACsurvivorman And in the 1820s Joseph Smith Jr. was given the golden plates by an angel, eleven people testified to it, and believing it is now called being Mormon.
Anybody can make anything up, and as long as people believe it, it's true? Or are you going to pull out, "But the Mormons are wrong!"?
Hec7orGunzal 6 months ago
@Hec7orGunzal christianity is true because of the records and archaeology we have concerning that time period apart from the bible. there were 500 witnesses, how would you get 500 to testify like that without other people claiming hogwash. and Joseph Smith wasnt given golden plates, he supposedly found them, wrote them down and then, very conveniently, an angel took them away. you have that one source, which isnt even here anymore, compared to thousands from the bible.
RCACsurvivorman 6 months ago
@RCACsurvivorman - The books of the Canon of the New Testament were written mostly in the first century and finished by the year 150AD. There sure were documents ATTRIBUTED to the apostles circulating some years before, but that is it. No "good evidence" if you ask me.
LegionarioCruel 6 months ago
@RCACsurvivorman So if a lot of people believe it it's true? Then why is the Muslim faith not true? Why are the Mormons wrong? Why are children wrong about Santa Claus? Large groups of people believing something does not make it true.
Hec7orGunzal 6 months ago
@RCACsurvivorman Who aren't here anymore. And are gone long enough that anyone can tell you it was thousands, when it very easily could have been the same ten or eleven, just like the Mormons.
Hec7orGunzal 6 months ago
@logoRH Are you a NT scholar like WLC? Parts of Mark's account of the resurrection were taken from even earlier sources than Mark, the earliest gospel. Furthermore, we know Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 wrote in defense of why the early Christians believed, citing 500 who claimed to have seen Jesus following his death at Golgotha (This was even earlier than Mark). In a sense, Paul is challenging early critics. It would have been easy to debunk the resurrection if it were untrue, yet it never was.
mr2bmr2b 6 months ago
His evidence would not hold up in court, it is all heresay. The books of the new testament were written many years after the so called events, none were actual witnesses.
cdhanks 7 months ago
@cdhanks LOL now everyone knows you haven't done your homework.
gallantentry 7 months ago
@cdhanks Did you watch the video at all?
hughesjd83 7 months ago
@TryTheRedPill
". Being intellectually dishonest pays and it pays big!"
Of course, you do need to be willing to have your mind warped beyond repair by the numerous inconsistent things you have to believe. And of course everybody who DOES think critically laughs at you. But hey, if you can handle that (and boy, can WLC ever) , you can laugh all the way to the bank!
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
*SIGH* ...Poor Craig.
The Arrian and Plutarch records of "Alexander the Great" reference a mortal man who lived and functioned within the bounds of his physical limits and our physical realm; therefore these accounts merit plausibility. The New Testament tells of a man who performed feats of supernatural prowess such as miracles and rising for the dead.
Eyewitness accounts of anything within the bounds of our reality = plausible
Eyewitness accnts of supernatural events = implausible
TryTheRedPill 7 months ago
@TryTheRedPill
Correct. But even worse...they aren't eyewitness accounts. So it's
Non-eyewitness accounts of supernatural events = beyond implausible
HellRehab 7 months ago
@TryTheRedPill Its not eyewitness accounts of Alexander. As the man just said they came several hundred years later. Just becaue you feel it's claims are implausible means nothing. You just stated you believe a literary biography written several hundreds years after a person's death above the writings of eyewitnesses within the first century of someone's death, simply because it doesnt have anything supernatural in there. What logic is this?
rgatlin04 7 months ago
@rgatlin04 " What logic is this?" I could ask you the same question! lol
I never made any contention as to the whether the Alex/the Grt accounts were eyewitness based or not. My use of the term "eyewitness" was meant to illustrate Craig's willful dishonesty when he positively claims the eyewitness accounts of supernatural events in the New Test as being plausible
" You just stated you believe a literary biography...."
Where in my comment do I make such an assertion??
TryTheRedPill 7 months ago
@TryTheRedPill
"Poor Craig."
He's making lots of money from this idiocy, so don't you go pity him.
MomoTheBellyDancer 7 months ago
well, Sathya sai baba died less than a year ago, and the records of his miracles were recorded seconds after they occurred (in the age of electronic media)... which leads me to conclude that SATHYA SAI BABA IS THE REAL MANIFESTATION OF THE GODS
94jmcorrea 7 months ago
It's an illogical book to a logical mind.
HellRehab 7 months ago
the funny thing is if you really listen to craig go through his "spit-all-over-the-place, hocus focus, transcendental, mumbo-jumbo" reasoning as to why his god exist in all his apologetic debates and his reasoning on the credibility of his faith book, the only connecting factor is himself... his own belief that it's true. all these talking points can be applied basically on most any religion one happened to belong to.
craig could very well be a muslim or a jew and he'll be talking the same way.
BReasonable44 7 months ago
The bottom line is, WLC,
We don't believe in magic; you do.
StrumstickJoe 7 months ago
so, if jesus was real and he resurrected from the dead... and a book was written about his life and his teachings, what made him the son of god? i don't see the connection at all... shouldn't they prove that there is a god first???
BReasonable44 7 months ago
@BReasonable44 Brilliant!
StrumstickJoe 7 months ago
@BReasonable44
Back then atheism was a non-issue. Even the greek philosophers were deists.
But satan has succeeded in so inflating the pride of mankind in these days, to the point where man has come to the conclusion that he is too smart to believe in a God. Interestingly enough the Majority of the world is still theistic/spiritual to some extent or another. The problem is that the minority of atheists/agnostics occupy the top cohort of influence (scientists/entertainers/musicians/actors) etc.
ricplay7890 7 months ago
@ricplay7890 in other words that the top scientist, by using their critical faculties, have emancipated themselves from this nonsens.
doyoublush 7 months ago
Respond to this video...
Read the Bible...my friend...read it like you've never read before. It is an illogical book to the carnal mind, and rightly so, because the world's wisdom is foolishness in the eyes of God. You WILL find however, TRUTH - life saving, soul saving truth.
ricplay7890 7 months ago
:30
"How long it has been since those events occurred is irrelevant?" That's dumb even by his standards.
This explains why Craig can ACTUALLY BELIEVE in 1st century superstitious nonsense such as zombies and pigs possessed by demons. Unhappy demon-pigs hurling themselves into a sea and dead people walking around Jerusalem are completely plausible to Craig.
He never ceases to amaze.
HellRehab 7 months ago
@HellRehab Well said!
StrumstickJoe 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling That does, in no way, refute his scholarly work or standing. Have you considered that it is not surprising that someone who finds the evidence coherent with a belief in the validity of the Gospels believes in what they intimate? For example Bart Ehrman, leading sceptic included his work in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research in 1994. Do you suppose a sceptic scholar as editor would accept shoddy work? They may disagree, but quality is quality.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Yes, but my reply to that is we can know precisely how the texts were reshaped and developed. We can also be spectacularly confident of the original documents via textual analysis of the variants that exist through time and through geographical spread. It is true that other 'material' was left out ie the gnostic gospels. However for very good reason. They came from a cult that had an agenda, and far later in time than the material selected.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Hardly. Take Daniel Wallace, he states confidently that the sheer number of documentation available allows us to percieve the full panoply of variants of the gospels that have ever existed since their first inception. However only 1% of those variants have any substantive effect on the meaning therein. Literally we have sufficient text material to know what the 'changes' or 'edits' made were. Further this comment more correctly pertains to the 'other gospels' ie gnostic.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling To continue. Centuries, no, that simply isn't held by the concensus of scholars when it comes to the Gospel texts. In general you are well within the lifetimes of eye witnesses to Christ. Next what you call hearsay, if related by an eye witness or reliable relator of such an account has long been considered gold dust in historical documentation. Further we know that at least in part, the gospels are based on even earlier texts eg Q. We further know Paul met eye-witnesses.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling That would be a fallacy. The Christian Bible clearly is evidence on its own, what you possibly mean is 'proof.' Second, we actually have good reason to believe that Matthew and John, whilst not written by these disciples were the product of their direct influence ie relating of tales to a scribe or similar. Luke may have been the companion of Paul (at worst scholars say 'we can't be sure'). Further we know Mark did write down material, however not the gospel attributed there.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling I think comparing Christ and Alexander has limited validity, and does illustrate that texts written well outside the lifetime of any contemporaneous witnesses are given credance. Beyond that though you would expect far more artifactual evidence for Alexander given a) his status and b) actions in the world. Christ was only a small time spiritual leader/trouble maker in one far flung corner of the Roman empire. There further are independent sources about Christ. See Tacitus.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Second, the 'turning black of the sky' could have been due to a heavy storm, in which case not particularly of note. Christ was not the only person being crucified that day further so making a straight connection for the 'uninformed' would not be automatic. If it was an eclipse yes you might expect a record but then again a) most ancient historical documents do not survive and b) eclipses are not exhaustively recorded in history either.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Ok First, the 'Dead in Jerusalem.' This only appears in one gospel to begin with and so is immediately less reliable, and a variation that the 'central' narrative does not depend upon. However if it did occur, and I am not in opposition to the possibility, then we are given no insights as to the visibility of the phenomena. The 'appearances' appear to have been personal, and so a) unlikely to appear to agents of the state or b) people of note whose experience might be recorded.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Christianity's interactions with other faiths after the fact of Christ is irrelevant to this discussion and does not impact upon discussion of the Gospels significantly. Yes the Christian Bible is more reliable than other scriptures. 1) It came into existence within the lifetime of eye witnesses 2) Sufficient copies of the work are available to be sure of the original wording 3) It represents 4 different takes on the same event. The Hebrew Bible is irrelevant to this discussion
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Further to say there are no contemporaneous Roman records as if it is significant is irrelevant. There is no extant, exhaustive record of executions carried out to expect Christ to feature in. It's hardly devastating to historians given that there was not a single contemporaneous historian who could be expected to a) hear of and b) write about Christ. Posthumous documentary based upon eye witness testimony, first or second hand, and other sources is not a lack of evidence.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling That's a ridiculous summary of the available evidence. The extant documentary for historical figures of comparable or older age than Jesus are generally entirely non contemporaneous, in many cases by centuries. To say there aren't any is just non-sense. The Christian Bible is evidence on its own. Aside from that you have historical references (even allowing for redaction) which establish the historicity of Christ's existance.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Nope, because you also find copyright, author name, rights reserved, artist name, and disclaimers as to depictions of 'real' people. You also have to suppose that no other sources of information on that age persist. If they do it can be placed in context and if they speak of 'superman' at all, it will again be with explicit fictional assertions ie tv guide, comic guide, movie (again with disclaimers) etc etc. Context is king.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling The first half of Genesis is not first person recorded history, and has never been claimed as such, see Augustine in the 4th century. First we must define terms. In scholarly terms it is regarded in two distinct parts: Hebrew Bible and Christian Bible. In terms of documentary availability, the Christian Bible simply is the most and earliest available ancient 'history' in existence, to the stage where we can be 99%+ sure of the original texts. The same can be said of no other.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling Actually I would be more than happy to accept your argument here apart from your final conclusion. For example going back to the first part of Genesis, it's probably highly influenced by ancient Babylonian beliefs/tales. However I disagree you cannot place one above the other. On a material basis alone the Christian Bible is the most 'available' ancient text, the most examinable, and testable. It aims to be a 'history' (The CB) and is unique amongst its 'peers.'
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@crtunematt I thought your response was well written mate. Youtube athiests can be some serious haters. No answer you say will be given any credibility
JordanRossMackenzie 7 months ago
@VibrantNTingling The 'Bible' is a library of books, not one article. It has different authors, from different geographical areas, at different times, in different languages. It would be crass to force the same interpretation on each as a result. You don't 'make up' anything, further, you reasonably interpret the material at hand based on context to produce the best explanation for the available facts. Study of these other texts does not give any cause for credance.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@crtunematt if you say that some parts of the bible are figurative, who are you to say what is real and what is figurative? you are picking and choosing based on a modern moral compass which has evolved over years, the bible approves of slavery and women are under men, but in today's society, we abolished slavery, we give equal rights to women, these have come about by an evolution of society not any holy scripture, as a species WE decide what is right and wrong, by logic and reason
TheLionelbodestrung 7 months ago
@cujagu haven't watched Sam for a while. Thanks for the reminder - I'll go watch some immediately
Nobullporfavor 8 months ago
Craig always argues on the importance of "eye witnesses". There are literally thousands of so called eyewitness that say they have seen sai baba (fraud Indian god man) bring people to life etc. Would Craig believe these eyewitness ?
Nobullporfavor 8 months ago
@Nobullporfavor Sounds like somebody's been watching Sam Harris's videos :)
cujagu 8 months ago
Craig always argus
Nobullporfavor 8 months ago
You ignore the similarities, you also misread my comment. I clearly stated "non-crucified Christ-like figures". Also, the earliest 'most reliable' gospel is Mark, and we all know how that ends.
peterlikesthis 8 months ago
Yes, evidence doesn't become less valid over time. But there was no evidence to begin with. Bible scholars have identified that the scriptures were written by different authors, at different times, with different political agendas - and more importantly, the bible is a re-branded version of past religions. Jesus wasn't the first deity to die on a tree/cross. Dr. Craig forgot to mention that part.
peterlikesthis 8 months ago
Just out of curiosity, what were these agendas, what were these past religions, and who also died on a cross like Jesus?
sandrock605 8 months ago
@sandrock605 Hare Khrisna, Thammuz. Esus, Mithra, Quexalcoati of Mexico, (all before christ), non-crucified christ-like figures include Horus, Attis, Zarathustra, Glycon, Hercules, Dionysus, Romulus, Odysseus, Buddha. The early scriptures were written around 30-70 years after Christ's death. As far as political agendas are concerned, you'd have to look into that more yourself (i don't know all the details).
peterlikesthis 8 months ago
@peterlikesthis You actually read about Hare Khrisna, Quetzalcoatl, Mithra, Buddha, Horus etc? They resemble nothing like Jesus. Buddha left his wife and children fled into the forest to be an aesthetic and Horus didnt sacrifice himself. Zeitgeist said Horus was the Sun God a pun for Son of God. Ra is sun god not Horus. Mithra was a war god. How can Jewish writers who shunned paganism end up imitate them.
Scripture written 30-70 years later affect authenticity? Many apostles were still living.
emmthreejonny 8 months ago
@sandrock605 The story of Jesus follows a pattern, much like other earlier belief systems.The pattern contains some similarities.But they all have the pattern of dying and reviving gods.With some variations and some similarities.When Paul was in the Areopaugus describing 'This new thing', this is possible what the philosphers said to him.They had heard it all before.The only difference this time was that it was the god of the ancient Isrealites who had sent his son to help mankind.
GARYWERSLEY 8 months ago
No.
somethingonmyhip 8 months ago
Whats the significance of forbidden fruit in the garden of eden? And who put it there and for what purpose? MAybe that would clear out our purpose in this life.
zatoichiable 8 months ago
He is Risen
camthejock 9 months ago
There is no evidence that the Jesus described in the bible was resurrected from death. Only hearsay and a healthy dose of my fellow primates all too happy to pretend there is some evidence.
newfagscanttrif0rce 9 months ago
@Angelsword135 Dear Angel, did you know the most atheist countries in the world (for example Iceland, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland) are among the safest countries in the world with the most healthy society? Low crime rates in general, low murder- and rape rates, low percentages of STD's, teenage-moms and ABORTION! (Holland has allmost the least abortions on a global scale). Compare that to more religious countries and you will see where Satan has it's seat.
doyoublush 9 months ago
@doyoublush
A lot of people like to push this argument that the Scandinavian countries are so atheistic but what they never point out that in those very countries are not in fact anywhere near as Atheistic as they are made out to be. What the surveys in those countries show is that on average only around 20% of the population said that they don't believe in a Spirit, God or Life Force - 20% isn't very Atheistic is it?
The most Atheistic country in Europe is France and it has many problems.
tommymech 9 months ago
@tommymech Wikipedia on Sweden: high formal membership-rate of the church, but with one of the highest levels of atheism. According to various studies, 46-85% of Swedes do not believe in a God. Eurostat survey: 23% believes there "is A God"; 53% believe in a "spirit", therefore rejecting the label atheism, but a lot are still going to church. So, the meaning of theistic religious belief is marginal, and the church only has a social/ cultural value for them.
doyoublush 9 months ago
@doyoublush
Oh I see you are claiming that belief in a Spirit or Life Force is Atheistic? I suspect that those who ticked the belief in a Spirit or Life Force (53% in Sweden) would be surprised to see you calling them Atheistic
Well I suppose Buddism is Atheistic as well since they don't believe in a God as such. They are very religious Atheists - agree?
Those who said that they neither believe in a God, Spirit or Life Force were Norway 17%, Denmark 19% - 81% believe in the supernatural.
tommymech 9 months ago
@tommymech Yes, they believe in "something supernatural", this is more spiritual than religious and not theistic. Something I, as a Dutch citizen, can confirm. They live secular, largely non-religious lifes. In Norway 72% does not believe in a personal God. In Denmark atheists and agnost comprise 43-80%, the third highest proportion in the world. There is a difference between a personal theistic God, and something supernatural. This distorts your calculation.
doyoublush 9 months ago
@tommymech As to France; they have a lot of problems with the people living in France that originate from their former colonies, including their offspring. Despite that, youngsters in the USA have 70 times more chance of having gonorea I read somewhere. So it really depends on how you define the problem here.
doyoublush 9 months ago
When did people saying, "hey I saw this dude walk across water." become evidence?
Ridiculous.
Moreover, why does this guy Craig actually call this "good evidence". What a nut.
dweeper1020 9 months ago 2
THIS GUY HAS A CLEAR LOGICAL APPROACH
severnkenpo 9 months ago
Oh, atheists are fools because the Bible says so! Isn ´t there anything else on atheists in the Bible? We are so tired of hearing this verse over and over again.
54321Adela 9 months ago
Life exists. Matter exists. The universe exists. It's undeniable. ANYTHING that exists requires a cause for its existence. Just like we see today, from your house to your shirt, car etc etc, they all were made by somebody. Life doesn't make sense without a God, Jesus. "It is a fortuitous situation indeed that God really does exist-- lest the poor atheist would not have a purpose in life at all " PPSimmons. The fool says in their heart there is no God. psalm 53 Psalm 14-1
MrPsalm53 9 months ago
@MrPsalm53 "ANYTHING that exists requires a cause for its existence." Right! So adding a God in at the very beginning of time makes it even more complicated. Where did he come from?
Can I recommend a lecture to you about the secular thinking on cosmo genesis? "A universe from nothing" by Laurence Krauss just tap it into the search bar.. You can pretty much skip the Richard Dawkins bit at the start. Please message me if you have any questions on it (I'm a physics grad)
jenko4292 9 months ago
@jenko4292
The phrase "ANYTHING that exists requires a cause for its existence." needs a qualifier and the qualifier is "anything NATURAL that exists must have a cause for its existence". It also follows that to create all that is natural you need somtehing greater than the natural since it has never been observed for something natural to come out of nothing.
It's also logical that rules that govern the natural do not govern the greater than natural so the rules of physics cannot apply there.
tommymech 9 months ago
@tommymech That really doesn't follow mate, just because you have heard someone make the assertion that it is logical doesn't make it true.
jenko4292 9 months ago
@jenko4292
".....just because you have heard someone make the assertion that it is logical doesn't make it true." Oh I see. You think that I just recieve uncritically what others say. What an arrogant person you are. It is also the case that just because you can't see something it doesn't mean its not so.
Given that you are a physicist name (of the many you no doubt know about) a few instances of natural things coming into existence from nothing - quoting L. Krauss' conjectures don't count.
tommymech 9 months ago
@tommymech How does that make me arrogant? Arrogance is being irritatingly self important and has nothing to do with how I view others. Please apologise.
All I can really say on your second point is that I can't (apart from matter anti matter pairs). Clearly the beginning of a universe is more complicated to understand than you're trying to make it sound. The people at the LHC are working on an answer for us. When/ if they find the natural cause will you change your mind about God?
jenko4292 9 months ago
@jenko4292
It's arrogant to assert without a scintilla of evidence that someone believes something simply because someone else said it - the apology needs to be from you to me for that assertion.
So let me get this right - you are saying that anti-matter is nothing? What is your definition of nothing? Is it like Krauss' definition of nothing? Certainly Krauss' defintion of nothing is like no definition of nothing I ever heard before - Krauss' definition of nothing is very much something.
tommymech 9 months ago
@tommymech It isn't. I suppose it was slightly mean spirited to assume you are like every other Christian I've spoken to. Yes, physics is a very confusing and non intuitive subject its true. I'm going to try and move away from the subject of physics (it is tiresome when talking to people who haven't studied it, no offence) and move to probability. What is more likely, an all powerful super being that can do anything pops into existence or a universe does?
jenko4292 9 months ago
@jenko4292
"What is more likely, an all powerful super being that can do anything pops into existence or a universe does?" - but you miss the most elementary point. Physicists accept that time started with the 'Big Bang'. In order to create the Universe God needs to be independent of the Universe and so it follows that he is also independent of time and therefore timeless or eternal or 'having always existed'. The alternative is some sort of infinite regression.
tommymech 9 months ago
@jenko4292
Continuing...
Where did I say anything that implied the beginning of the Universe wasn't complicated from a physical point of view? Assertions without evidence again - hardly the behaviour of a good physicist.
The discoveries being made at the LHC are causing physicists many difficulties because they do not fit in with what was expected.
When the discoveries at LHC don't produce a naturalistic answer for the origin of the Universe will you accept God as a valid premise for origin?
tommymech 9 months ago
@tommymech Answering continuation... You were trying to make it seem as if I should be able to discuss in detail the origin of the universe with 500 characters.
What discoveries do you think are giving them difficulties? The whole point of the experiment was to find new data that could be discussed.
If it doesn't and a new naturalistic answer isn't thought of I suppose I could be persuaded to be a deist. Will you answer my question now?
jenko4292 9 months ago
@jenko4292
Well just to mention one - the recent discovery that the quark-gluon plasma does not behave at all as predicted in the extremely high temperatures believed to have existed immediately after the Big Bang and reproduced at the LHC.
Since my belief in God is ultimately based on my own direct personal experience of Him (the Bible makes it clear that He is knowable) then I cannot concieve of any natural thing undermining this belief.
Cont...
Cont...
tommymech 9 months ago
@jenko4292
Continuing...
I'm not talking about feelings but things that have no natural explanation. I was healed of a physical condition about 20 years ago. The way it happened was quite extraordinary and I have been completely freed of the need to take powerful steroids from time to time to control the condition. As I said that was 20 years ago and my medical record is a testimony to my changed condition.
More recently, my wife was miraculously healed of a documented tumor without treatment.
tommymech 9 months ago
@tommymech I'm glad that that happened for you but if God was happy to do that for you and your wife why is he so capricious and callous with everyone else who is suffering. In many many cases in much worse ways, just because you don't know how something happened doesn't mean you get to choose the religion that fits best with what happened to you.
jenko4292 9 months ago
@jenko4292
You ask a pertinent question but it's not an argument against the existence of God. The point is that I can show two events that I have direct knowledge of and access to medical documents that witness things that have no natural explanation and in my wife's case had the surgeon who was to operate on the tumor so slack jawed (I was there) that I thought he was going to keel over at one point.
Both instances involved prayer directed to Jesus Christ.
Cont...
tommymech 9 months ago
@jenko4292
I wish there was space to go into detail for both events. Other than we both got healed in a situation involving prayers to Jesus (my wife's case was recent (2009) mine some 20 years ago) the circumstances were very different.
I also have experienced / know of many other extraordinary events involving me personally and / or people I know very well.
True Christian faith is not blind. Jesus did not expect people to simply accept who He was. He performed miracle upon miracle.
Cont...