Dr. Craig, who is one of the first Christian philosophers I gratefully discovered, is as impressive as usual. Dr. Craig is a stand out master class in apologetics. For me, atheism, simply put, is illogical for a host of reasons. I'm no acedemic, yet apologist and Christian philosophers alike have not only solidified my faith but given me the tools to effectively defend my faith as Dr. Craig points out. Continued good health and blessings, Sirs.
@@rodrigorivers2469 Atheism is the position that God (as defined) does not exist. Thus, I only need to show that this definition of God is incoherent. 1. Infinites relate to events, qualities or spatial relations, but not to substances, and therefore, the concept of an infinite substance makes a category error. Non-material beings lack spatial dimensions and thus cannot be infinite. Infinite qualities, properties or aspects engages in special pleading. Furthermore, actual infinites are incoherent, and potential finites (which require beginnings) pertain only to events, not substances. 2. Creation as the emergence of a distinct spatial substance from nothing contradicts "ex nihilo nihil fit". Alternatively, creation as a transformation of pre-existing substance encounters the interaction problem and Hume's Dictum, negating necessary connections between distinct substances. There are no contingent things in reality unless one can prove it is metaphysically possible. 3. Minds are not separate/distinct substances but mere labels for cognitive events grounded in material substances. Mental states, thus, are events, not properties or entities independent of physical substrates. The use of S5 modal logic cannot establish the metaphysical possibility of non-material substances without begging the question. Non-material substances, being un-empirical, cannot be validated through empiricism, which is necessary to determine metaphysical possibilities. Thus, there is only one metaphysically possible world. 4. The material universe is the totality of existence since nothing else can be established to exist, it is ontologically independent and does not require sustenance from anything external since there cannot be anything external to the totality of existence. 5. Mental states are not caused by brain events but are identical to brain events which is supported by empirical evidence. There are necessary correlations between mental states and brain activity and scientific consensus that cognitive events are dependent on the functioning of a brain. Furthermore, it cannot be shown that any mental state can be static or exist independently of it, without assuming platonism which is false due to an existential fallacy. While correlation does not imply causation, I do not claim brain events cause mental states, rather I am claiming they are identical. The consistent and predictable correspondence between specific brain activities and mental states supports the conclusion that mental states are brain events. Necessitarianism (Contingency is False) p1. If all that exists is substantiated and empirically verifiable, then all events are the result of the emergence of change p2. It is metaphysically impossible to prove that events could have occurred differently than they have, given the same initial conditions of substances. c1. Therefore, all events are necessary consequences of preceding states of affairs (Necessitarianism). Nominalism (There are no abstract objects) 1. Abstract entities, like universals, cannot be empirically verified. 2. Empiricism is the only valid method to establish metaphysical truths. 3. Therefore, abstract entities do not exist, and only particular, observable entities are real (Nominalism). Determinism (Free Will is Incoherent under Libertarianism) 1. If physical laws govern all material substances and their interactions, then all events are subject to these laws. 2. The universe consists only of material substances governed by physical laws. 3. Therefore, all events are determined (Determinism). Substance Monism 1. The Big Bang Theory suggests the first measurable event of the universe was due to the instability of a static, unified, singular, spatial substance. Density implies space and heat implies substance. 2. In philosophy, Time and space are better defined as change and points, both of which imply the existence of a spatial substance that can change (the singularity). 3. Therefore, all that exists is one kind of substance, namely spatial or material. Brain Identity Theory and Functionalism 1. Mental states require the unfolding of an event(s) to be conceivable, intelligible or explicable 2. Anything that requires the unfolding of events to be conceivable, intelligible or explicable that also isn't grounded in a substance, must be an event 3. Therefore, mental states are identical to events and can be understood in terms of their functional roles (Brain Identity Theory with Functionalism). Events must be grounded in a spatial substance because change implies either a spatial change. Empiricism vs Rationalism/Intuitionism: Rationalism and intuitionism may establish logical possibilities, but empiricism is necessary to determine metaphysical possibilities. It cannot be shown that non-empirical means can establish metaphysical possibilities. Big Bang and Spatial Substance: By rejecting physics definitions of time and space and relying on philosophical definitions, one can argue that the Big Bang Theory supports the existence of a spatial substance from the earliest known point in the universe. Points and changes can be understood in relational terms. This perspective aligns with a relational view of space and time, as opposed to an absolute or substantivalist view which is compatible with Quantum Mechanics. It also solves Paradoxes such as the EPR paradox or Schrödinger's Cat to name a few. Ontological Independence and Brute Facts: If substances are all that exist and are governed by deterministic laws, this reinforces the idea that the universe (or existence) is ontologically independent and is a brute fact. This view supports a materialist perspective that does not require external sustenance or explanation. One Metaphysically Possible World: By combining necessitarianism and determinism, it follows that the unfolding of events could not have been otherwise, leading to the conclusion that there is only one metaphysically possible world. Existence is defined as the totality of what exists (a single spatial substance) i.e. Being, and what happens (an unfolding event(s)) i.e. Becoming. Existence is a brute fact. 1. Existence is defined as the totality of what exists. Assuming platonism, this encompasses all substances, events, properties, and any other conceivable entities or phenomena. 2. Explanations, by their nature, are events or processes that provide understanding or reasoning about phenomena. They must be grounded in substances, as they are not self-sustaining entities but rather dependent on the elements they seek to explain. 3. If explanations are not events grounded in substances and yet exist, they become part of the totality of what exists. This inclusion in the totality of existence raises a critical issue: anything that is part of the totality cannot explain the totality without being self-referential. 4. A self-referential explanation, one that attempts to explain itself as part of the totality it seeks to explain, results in an epistemic circularity. It is an epistemic possibility but does not establish an ontological fact, as it fails to provide an external standpoint or foundation. 5. Since any explanation that is part of the totality of existence cannot explain the totality without explaining itself, and self-explanation is insufficient for establishing ontological truths, this leads to an impasse in seeking an ultimate explanation for existence. 6. Consequently, while existence can have explanations in parts, the very existence of these explanations, and by extension, the existence of everything, must be taken as a brute fact. A brute fact is something that does not have an explanation outside of itself; it simply is. Therefore, the existence of the totality is a brute fact - an ontological reality that does not have and does not require an explanation beyond itself.
I won’t be able to respond until monday but I want to engage. This is what I’ve learned from atheists. They’re willing to admit that atheism is the position of not accepting God claims, freewill is either deterministic or a fantasy, call materialism science, ignore serious logical issues in origin of life research, not know what the principle of superposition is in stratigraphy, never mention the Cambrian explosion, worship science without noticing it, confuse science with scientism, adhere to supervenince physicalism without noticing it, can’t explain the objectivity of moral values and duties and sometimes flatout reject that such a thing exist, think that we’re evolved primates but have no freewill, think that the prophecies in the Bible are not good evidence for God, redefine objectivity as a thing generated from an outside source, are baffled by the teleological argument and would rather commit to the inverse gambler fallacy (multiverse hypothesis) than to acknowledge a Creator, and deny the Lord Jesus who gave them life. And I want them to come to truth because I love them.
@@ramigilneas9274 Did you check each one individually? Why do you make comments like this? Are you insecure about your position, or are you hurt and trying to discredit Christianity and anything related to it to validate yourself?
Praise God. I love this side of you Dr. Craig. Praise God for these men attacking you, for it brings the persuasion you confess beyond the pure intellectual format and to see you fully responding with all your mind, heart and will is refreshing. May God continue to bless your ministries and many come to our Lord and Savior.
It's ironic that Derek criticizes apologetics for 'starting with the answers' when he and many of his guests, such as Richard Carrier, do the exact same thing. I mean, the guy literally runs a channel called 'MythVision' and used to be a Jesus mythicist not too long ago (and even now only goes as far as saying that Jesus PROBABLY existed). I mean, physician, heal thyself.
In other words… you proved that Derek changed his mind based on the new evidence that he heard. Would you say that it’s a fact that Jesus existed? Zero chance that the entire story is made up? Not even 0,001%? That would be very unreasonable… most historians wouldn’t say something like that. I would say that a historical Jesus who had almost nothing in common with the legendary Jesus of the Bible most likely existed… I’d give it a 99,9% probability.
@@ramigilneas9274 I mentioned that he changed his mind just a little while ago, and even now, he still uses terms like 'PROBABLY.' The fact that he supported an ultra-fringe theory and continues to support scholars who adhere to said theory raises questions about his objectivity, making it quite ironic when he accuses others of being biased. And yes, I'd say it's almost definite that Jesus existed, as scholars universally agree. I'd also say that many of the accounts in the Gospels, such as his baptism and crucifixion, are almost certainly historical, as, again, most scholars agree.
@@rodrigorivers2469 Ok… most scholars agree that Moses is a fictional character and that the Exodus didn’t happen. One in three scholars say that Jesus wasn’t buried in a tomb and that this part was added to the story decades later. I am just a layperson… I am not a trained historian. My default is that I trust the experts… but sometimes I disagree with their arguments. So I agree that Jesus most likely existed… but I also agree that many characters of the Old Testament most likely didn’t exist.
@@ramigilneas9274 Sure, I agree that Moses did not exist. However, that doesn't change anything I said about Derek's and your positions being considered fringe by scholars. It's richly ironic given how much both of you talk about what 'scholars say.' It's almost as if, for you and him, it's more than just about scholarship...
My gut reaction was that there was something ad-hominem about the young fellow's objections. Something unduly sarcastic in tone. Bill's responses seemed clear and more than adequate.
Derek is an apologist for his conspiracy secular views on Christianity and the church. He doesn't apply his skepticism to the works of carrier and many of the other myths. Yet for the church its all a conspiracy..
@@legron121Only until very recently, and even then he only posted a video saying that Jesus PROBABLY existed. I don't know about you, but it's quite clear that Derek has a bias and contempt against Christianity, and it really shows on his content.
A bit silly to argue you can change your mind if your only examples are that you thought that the ontological and Leibnizian arguments aren’t sound and now you do. You need an example of coming to reject an argument that supports something important to you.
@@ramigilneas9274 That's simply not true. He publishes in academia and is critiqued within academia. Paulogia and his guest are amateur TH-camrs. It's good for WLC to respond from time to time, but this shouldn't be a habit
@@Beastinvader Well, Craig has no qualifications whatsoever to talk about history, cosmology or biology… but does it all the time. In most of the topics he talks about he is also just an amateur just like Paulogia… the main difference seems to be that Craig peddles fringe nonsense that actual experts don’t take seriously.
@@ramigilneas9274 You're kidding, right? His PhD in Theology focused on New Testament history while his PhD in philosophy was the Kalam argument, which necessitated knowledge about cosmology
Derek can be uninterested in whether atheists have a worldview or anything to defend but for me I am uninterested in someone who wants to debate without a position of their own. When atheists want to only attack and Christians only defend, it is like playing a game where the Christians have a goal to defend and the atheists do not. Imagine a game of football where one team has no end zone. When the Christian gets possession of the ball what can they really do? Move it down the field when it accomplishes nothing? I believe it is past time to demand Atheists take a position. They don’t have to all take the same position but if they are going to engage in public debate we should all be informed on what they personally believe to be true. When their own beliefs are hidden it gives them great advantage in influencing any audience and I have no doubt most Atheists are well aware of the game they are playing. Christian and debaters need to demand an even playing field or refuse to engage further.
I never see christians on the atheist channels. They either don't contribute or just don't watch them. I come here to avoid getting stuck in a positive feedback loop. I do the same with any topic, try to get both sides.
"It attracts atheists to argue without it being atheist dominated" I think it would be more accurate to say it attracts atheists to troll and then inadvertently becomes atheist dominated (in terms of number of trolls commenting) in the comments.
If they want to be taken seriously, they could start by getting rid of the cartoons. Can you imagine William Craig using a cartoon with his voice to explain serious philosophy. It seems infantile. What is this? I apologize in advance if I am missing something.
No I agree with you. You're absolutely correct. Trent Horn does similar things in some of his thumbnails. While it's not quite as bad as what Paulogia does it bears a similaity nonetheless.
I completely agree and I will add my annoyance with Thaddeus of "Reasoned Answers" which is a fine Christian apologetics channel who INSISTS on sprinkling his videos with the most cringey and stupid animations imaginable.
I mean it doesn't have any bearing on their arguments but at least I can approach William Lane Craig's videos and recognize professionalism, with theirs I hardly feel like it's an argument from an academic background
So Derek (Mythvision) at 17:00 thinks he can spot flaws (I'd guess like contradictions in differing atheist positions) and his reaction is to what? Keep quiet about them? Doing that makes it such an exercise in propaganda. What would he do for example if he found examples of Christopher Hitchens's praise for William Lane Craig? Bury that reality and hope that it sees very little daylight?
Bill suffers from Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome since his birth. It is getting more obvious, the older he is getting. But he has been open about that for decades.
1. He agreed with your definition of apologist, but he doesn't want to admit he is one. Well, if you agree there, then you are one. Just say so, but you can't. 2.What did they tell you? How feeble you are. How you cannot win, because no one cares. *How the world will soon be his!* Ok. 3. So should you care what they say or watch them? Not if you are looking to save people, no. If you want an argument, yes.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thanks but I meant in the video description so others can find the full video and better understand the context of Craig's detractors.
It seems like the average Atheist cares and knows a lot more about Apologetics than the average Christian because they constantly hear about it from people who try to convert them. But scientists, historians and philosophers don’t seem to care about Apologetics at all because in their fields those arguments aren’t taken seriously by the vast majority of academics and experts.
And yet, people like you and Derek dedicate their time to whining about how bad apologetics is and trying to point out why it's wrong. If it were truly so dumb, wouldn't you avoid wasting your time on it? Also, your idea that people like Derek and Miller are somehow unbiased and just following the evidence is completely absurd. Everybody starts with certain presuppositions, and counter apologists, like you, are no exception.
@@rodrigorivers2469 I also waste a lot of time arguing with trans activists and other woke people. I guess that means that their arguments aren’t dumb. Obviously in reality the opposite is the case… the dumber the arguments are the more I feel the need to correct them.😉
@@ramigilneas9274 I know you hate the Bible and all, but maybe there are some things you can learn from it. 'Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.' - Proverbs 26:4-5
This is awkward for me but I agree that I don't like WLC saying "if it was 1 in a million...". He's more rigorous than that. I liken this to Dr. James Tour getting glassy-eyed when he describes how much he loves Jesus. I'm absolutely delighted he loves Jesus BUT stay rigorous for the wicked and arrogant atheists watching.
I agree… it definitely doesn’t help Christians when the supposedly best experts on their side openly admit that in end the evidence doesn’t matter… that evidence isn’t the reason for their conversion to Christianity… and that no amount of contradicting evidence could ever change their minds. That’s the same way that the people in QAnon telegram groups talk.
Dr Craig says that remaining a Christian for him personally doesn't entail he accept the Kalam or other arguments for God. That's all fine and good but his career as an apologist DOES entail this (not that he would ever actually reject those arguments which he has famously spent his career arguing in favor of).
What about the nonsense that New Progressive Christians like Craig talk about? He says that the Genesis account is mytho history, that Evolution is true, that God created Adam and Eve 750k years ago after humans already evolved and that almost all details of the Genesis account didn’t happen as described.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 That's not progressive Christianity. Having polemics for the age of the earth, and the interpretation of Genesis is not progressive Christianity. You are taking that like a Dogma, or an intrinsic Christian doctrine, and is not!
@@TheAdeptusChrist0s Ok… you are correct… for most Christians it doesn’t matter if Adam and Eve existed or not… or when they existed… or if they evolved… or if they were the first humans. They will simply change their interpretation of scripture when a previous interpretation gets disproven by science. But for many fundamentalists that’s already too progressive.😉
Dr. Craig, who is one of the first Christian philosophers I gratefully discovered, is as impressive as usual. Dr. Craig is a stand out master class in apologetics.
For me, atheism, simply put, is illogical for a host of reasons.
I'm no acedemic, yet apologist and Christian philosophers alike have not only solidified my faith but given me the tools to effectively defend my faith as Dr. Craig points out.
Continued good health and blessings, Sirs.
Well, let's debate. I bet I can prove Theism is illogical and Atheism is logical. First, define God for me and we can start.
@@CMVMic An infinite, eternal, all powerful non-material being that creates and/or constantly sustains the material universe in existence.
@@rodrigorivers2469
Atheism is the position that God (as defined) does not exist. Thus, I only need to show that this definition of God is incoherent.
1. Infinites relate to events, qualities or spatial relations, but not to substances, and therefore, the concept of an infinite substance makes a category error. Non-material beings lack spatial dimensions and thus cannot be infinite. Infinite qualities, properties or aspects engages in special pleading.
Furthermore, actual infinites are incoherent, and potential finites (which require beginnings) pertain only to events, not substances.
2. Creation as the emergence of a distinct spatial substance from nothing contradicts "ex nihilo nihil fit". Alternatively, creation as a transformation of pre-existing substance encounters the interaction problem and Hume's Dictum, negating necessary connections between distinct substances.
There are no contingent things in reality unless one can prove it is metaphysically possible.
3. Minds are not separate/distinct substances but mere labels for cognitive events grounded in material substances. Mental states, thus, are events, not properties or entities independent of physical substrates.
The use of S5 modal logic cannot establish the metaphysical possibility of non-material substances without begging the question. Non-material substances, being un-empirical, cannot be validated through empiricism, which is necessary to determine metaphysical possibilities. Thus, there is only one metaphysically possible world.
4. The material universe is the totality of existence since nothing else can be established to exist, it is ontologically independent and does not require sustenance from anything external since there cannot be anything external to the totality of existence.
5. Mental states are not caused by brain events but are identical to brain events which is supported by empirical evidence. There are necessary correlations between mental states and brain activity and scientific consensus that cognitive events are dependent on the functioning of a brain.
Furthermore, it cannot be shown that any mental state can be static or exist independently of it, without assuming platonism which is false due to an existential fallacy. While correlation does not imply causation, I do not claim brain events cause mental states, rather I am claiming they are identical. The consistent and predictable correspondence between specific brain activities and mental states supports the conclusion that mental states are brain events.
Necessitarianism (Contingency is False)
p1. If all that exists is substantiated and empirically verifiable, then all events are the result of the emergence of change
p2. It is metaphysically impossible to prove that events could have occurred differently than they have, given the same initial conditions of substances.
c1. Therefore, all events are necessary consequences of preceding states of affairs (Necessitarianism).
Nominalism (There are no abstract objects)
1. Abstract entities, like universals, cannot be empirically verified.
2. Empiricism is the only valid method to establish metaphysical truths.
3. Therefore, abstract entities do not exist, and only particular, observable entities are real (Nominalism).
Determinism (Free Will is Incoherent under Libertarianism)
1. If physical laws govern all material substances and their interactions, then all events are subject to these laws.
2. The universe consists only of material substances governed by physical laws.
3. Therefore, all events are determined (Determinism).
Substance Monism
1. The Big Bang Theory suggests the first measurable event of the universe was due to the instability of a static, unified, singular, spatial substance. Density implies space and heat implies substance.
2. In philosophy, Time and space are better defined as change and points, both of which imply the existence of a spatial substance that can change (the singularity).
3. Therefore, all that exists is one kind of substance, namely spatial or material.
Brain Identity Theory and Functionalism
1. Mental states require the unfolding of an event(s) to be conceivable, intelligible or explicable
2. Anything that requires the unfolding of events to be conceivable, intelligible or explicable that also isn't grounded in a substance, must be an event
3. Therefore, mental states are identical to events and can be understood in terms of their functional roles (Brain Identity Theory with Functionalism).
Events must be grounded in a spatial substance because change implies either a spatial change.
Empiricism vs Rationalism/Intuitionism: Rationalism and intuitionism may establish logical possibilities, but empiricism is necessary to determine metaphysical possibilities. It cannot be shown that non-empirical means can establish metaphysical possibilities.
Big Bang and Spatial Substance:
By rejecting physics definitions of time and space and relying on philosophical definitions, one can argue that the Big Bang Theory supports the existence of a spatial substance from the earliest known point in the universe. Points and changes can be understood in relational terms. This perspective aligns with a relational view of space and time, as opposed to an absolute or substantivalist view which is compatible with Quantum Mechanics. It also solves Paradoxes such as the EPR paradox or Schrödinger's Cat to name a few.
Ontological Independence and Brute Facts: If substances are all that exist and are governed by deterministic laws, this reinforces the idea that the universe (or existence) is ontologically independent and is a brute fact. This view supports a materialist perspective that does not require external sustenance or explanation.
One Metaphysically Possible World:
By combining necessitarianism and determinism, it follows that the unfolding of events could not have been otherwise, leading to the conclusion that there is only one metaphysically possible world.
Existence is defined as the totality of what exists (a single spatial substance) i.e. Being, and what happens (an unfolding event(s)) i.e. Becoming.
Existence is a brute fact.
1. Existence is defined as the totality of what exists. Assuming platonism, this encompasses all substances, events, properties, and any other conceivable entities or phenomena.
2. Explanations, by their nature, are events or processes that provide understanding or reasoning about phenomena. They must be grounded in substances, as they are not self-sustaining entities but rather dependent on the elements they seek to explain.
3. If explanations are not events grounded in substances and yet exist, they become part of the totality of what exists. This inclusion in the totality of existence raises a critical issue: anything that is part of the totality cannot explain the totality without being self-referential.
4. A self-referential explanation, one that attempts to explain itself as part of the totality it seeks to explain, results in an epistemic circularity. It is an epistemic possibility but does not establish an ontological fact, as it fails to provide an external standpoint or foundation.
5. Since any explanation that is part of the totality of existence cannot explain the totality without explaining itself, and self-explanation is insufficient for establishing ontological truths, this leads to an impasse in seeking an ultimate explanation for existence.
6. Consequently, while existence can have explanations in parts, the very existence of these explanations, and by extension, the existence of everything, must be taken as a brute fact. A brute fact is something that does not have an explanation outside of itself; it simply is. Therefore, the existence of the totality is a brute fact - an ontological reality that does not have and does not require an explanation beyond itself.
I won’t be able to respond until monday but I want to engage. This is what I’ve learned from atheists. They’re willing to admit that atheism is the position of not accepting God claims, freewill is either deterministic or a fantasy, call materialism science, ignore serious logical issues in origin of life research, not know what the principle of superposition is in stratigraphy, never mention the Cambrian explosion, worship science without noticing it, confuse science with scientism, adhere to supervenince physicalism without noticing it, can’t explain the objectivity of moral values and duties and sometimes flatout reject that such a thing exist, think that we’re evolved primates but have no freewill, think that the prophecies in the Bible are not good evidence for God, redefine objectivity as a thing generated from an outside source, are baffled by the teleological argument and would rather commit to the inverse gambler fallacy (multiverse hypothesis) than to acknowledge a Creator, and deny the Lord Jesus who gave them life. And I want them to come to truth because I love them.
@@rodrigorivers2469 What no argument? How disappointing! It thought you had the tools to defend your faith?? lol
Congratulations, Dr Craig and the RF team, for 100 thousand subscribers!
Most of those accounts seem to be dead.
@@ramigilneas9274 Did you check each one individually? Why do you make comments like this? Are you insecure about your position, or are you hurt and trying to discredit Christianity and anything related to it to validate yourself?
@@ramigilneas9274 How would you know that, rat boy?
@@20july1944
Based on the views that the videos get?
You can’t all be boomers here…😂
@@ramigilneas9274 What does that have to do with anything, Wakanda?
Praise God. I love this side of you Dr. Craig. Praise God for these men attacking you, for it brings the persuasion you confess beyond the pure intellectual format and to see you fully responding with all your mind, heart and will is refreshing. May God continue to bless your ministries and many come to our Lord and Savior.
Always grateful for these videos.
EXCELLENT VIDEO DR. CRAIG
It's ironic that Derek criticizes apologetics for 'starting with the answers' when he and many of his guests, such as Richard Carrier, do the exact same thing. I mean, the guy literally runs a channel called 'MythVision' and used to be a Jesus mythicist not too long ago (and even now only goes as far as saying that Jesus PROBABLY existed). I mean, physician, heal thyself.
Yes I agree it is outright hypocrisy
In other words… you proved that Derek changed his mind based on the new evidence that he heard.
Would you say that it’s a fact that Jesus existed?
Zero chance that the entire story is made up? Not even 0,001%?
That would be very unreasonable… most historians wouldn’t say something like that.
I would say that a historical Jesus who had almost nothing in common with the legendary Jesus of the Bible most likely existed… I’d give it a 99,9% probability.
@@ramigilneas9274 I mentioned that he changed his mind just a little while ago, and even now, he still uses terms like 'PROBABLY.' The fact that he supported an ultra-fringe theory and continues to support scholars who adhere to said theory raises questions about his objectivity, making it quite ironic when he accuses others of being biased. And yes, I'd say it's almost definite that Jesus existed, as scholars universally agree. I'd also say that many of the accounts in the Gospels, such as his baptism and crucifixion, are almost certainly historical, as, again, most scholars agree.
@@rodrigorivers2469
Ok… most scholars agree that Moses is a fictional character and that the Exodus didn’t happen.
One in three scholars say that Jesus wasn’t buried in a tomb and that this part was added to the story decades later.
I am just a layperson… I am not a trained historian.
My default is that I trust the experts… but sometimes I disagree with their arguments.
So I agree that Jesus most likely existed… but I also agree that many characters of the Old Testament most likely didn’t exist.
@@ramigilneas9274 Sure, I agree that Moses did not exist. However, that doesn't change anything I said about Derek's and your positions being considered fringe by scholars. It's richly ironic given how much both of you talk about what 'scholars say.' It's almost as if, for you and him, it's more than just about scholarship...
Really appreciate this!
My gut reaction was that there was something ad-hominem about the young fellow's objections. Something unduly sarcastic in tone. Bill's responses seemed clear and more than adequate.
I found the young fella honest and true and Bill's response as word salad bloviation with a delicious dressing of name dropping ...
Derek is an apologist for his conspiracy secular views on Christianity and the church. He doesn't apply his skepticism to the works of carrier and many of the other myths. Yet for the church its all a conspiracy..
He *does* express skepticism towards the works of Carrier. He doesn't accept Carrier's argument that Jesus never existed, for example.
@@legron121Only until very recently, and even then he only posted a video saying that Jesus PROBABLY existed. I don't know about you, but it's quite clear that Derek has a bias and contempt against Christianity, and it really shows on his content.
Hmmm this should be great
A bit silly to argue you can change your mind if your only examples are that you thought that the ontological and Leibnizian arguments aren’t sound and now you do. You need an example of coming to reject an argument that supports something important to you.
These people are beneath Craig's attention
There are lots of academics who disagree with Craig… unfortunately they seem to think that Craigs videos aren’t worthy of a response.
@@ramigilneas9274 That's simply not true. He publishes in academia and is critiqued within academia.
Paulogia and his guest are amateur TH-camrs. It's good for WLC to respond from time to time, but this shouldn't be a habit
@@Beastinvader
Well, Craig has no qualifications whatsoever to talk about history, cosmology or biology… but does it all the time.
In most of the topics he talks about he is also just an amateur just like Paulogia… the main difference seems to be that Craig peddles fringe nonsense that actual experts don’t take seriously.
@@ramigilneas9274 You're kidding, right? His PhD in Theology focused on New Testament history while his PhD in philosophy was the Kalam argument, which necessitated knowledge about cosmology
You have that backwards. Craig is low hanging fruit.
Derek can be uninterested in whether atheists have a worldview or anything to defend but for me I am uninterested in someone who wants to debate without a position of their own. When atheists want to only attack and Christians only defend, it is like playing a game where the Christians have a goal to defend and the atheists do not.
Imagine a game of football where one team has no end zone. When the Christian gets possession of the ball what can they really do? Move it down the field when it accomplishes nothing? I believe it is past time to demand Atheists take a position. They don’t have to all take the same position but if they are going to engage in public debate we should all be informed on what they personally believe to be true.
When their own beliefs are hidden it gives them great advantage in influencing any audience and I have no doubt most Atheists are well aware of the game they are playing. Christian and debaters need to demand an even playing field or refuse to engage further.
I am pretty sure that Christians wouldn’t complain about the burden of proof if they had real evidence.
A likely bonus for this video/channel is that it attracts atheists to argue with without it being on an atheist-dominated channel.
I never see christians on the atheist channels. They either don't contribute or just don't watch them.
I come here to avoid getting stuck in a positive feedback loop. I do the same with any topic, try to get both sides.
@@somerandom3247 You used to see me on a few atheist channels but it is too stressful to be one against 50
"It attracts atheists to argue without it being atheist dominated"
I think it would be more accurate to say it attracts atheists to troll and then inadvertently becomes atheist dominated (in terms of number of trolls commenting) in the comments.
@@extract8058 I want to fight with atheists and I prefer not to do that in a forum controlled by atheists.
If they want to be taken seriously, they could start by getting rid of the cartoons. Can you imagine William Craig using a cartoon with his voice to explain serious philosophy. It seems infantile. What is this? I apologize in advance if I am missing something.
No I agree with you. You're absolutely correct. Trent Horn does similar things in some of his thumbnails. While it's not quite as bad as what Paulogia does it bears a similaity nonetheless.
I completely agree and I will add my annoyance with Thaddeus of "Reasoned Answers" which is a fine Christian apologetics channel who INSISTS on sprinkling his videos with the most cringey and stupid animations imaginable.
I mean it doesn't have any bearing on their arguments but at least I can approach William Lane Craig's videos and recognize professionalism, with theirs I hardly feel like it's an argument from an academic background
@@tomkuz_the cartoons look better than the actual people! LOL 😂
@@davidjanbaz7728 ha good point. Maybe that's the reason for it then 😂
So Derek (Mythvision) at 17:00 thinks he can spot flaws (I'd guess like contradictions in differing atheist positions) and his reaction is to what? Keep quiet about them? Doing that makes it such an exercise in propaganda. What would he do for example if he found examples of Christopher Hitchens's praise for William Lane Craig? Bury that reality and hope that it sees very little daylight?
Why do Bill's hands shake? Does he have some motor neuron thing going on?
Bill suffers from Charcot-Marie-Tooth syndrome since his birth. It is getting more obvious, the older he is getting.
But he has been open about that for decades.
1. He agreed with your definition of apologist, but he doesn't want to admit he is one. Well, if you agree there, then you are one. Just say so, but you can't.
2.What did they tell you? How feeble you are. How you cannot win, because no one cares. *How the world will soon be his!* Ok.
3. So should you care what they say or watch them? Not if you are looking to save people, no. If you want an argument, yes.
Why not link the video being critiqued?
Here you go: th-cam.com/video/IYSjEJFWa0c/w-d-xo.htmlsi=tsCjha9l4TOmtwLn. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Thanks but I meant in the video description so others can find the full video and better understand the context of Craig's detractors.
It seems like the average Atheist cares and knows a lot more about Apologetics than the average Christian because they constantly hear about it from people who try to convert them.
But scientists, historians and philosophers don’t seem to care about Apologetics at all because in their fields those arguments aren’t taken seriously by the vast majority of academics and experts.
And yet, people like you and Derek dedicate their time to whining about how bad apologetics is and trying to point out why it's wrong. If it were truly so dumb, wouldn't you avoid wasting your time on it? Also, your idea that people like Derek and Miller are somehow unbiased and just following the evidence is completely absurd. Everybody starts with certain presuppositions, and counter apologists, like you, are no exception.
@@rodrigorivers2469
I also waste a lot of time arguing with trans activists and other woke people.
I guess that means that their arguments aren’t dumb.
Obviously in reality the opposite is the case… the dumber the arguments are the more I feel the need to correct them.😉
@@ramigilneas9274 I know you hate the Bible and all, but maybe there are some things you can learn from it. 'Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.' - Proverbs 26:4-5
Having a hyphothesis then testing it
3:11
"Terms need to be defined"? No way.
This is awkward for me but I agree that I don't like WLC saying "if it was 1 in a million...". He's more rigorous than that.
I liken this to Dr. James Tour getting glassy-eyed when he describes how much he loves Jesus.
I'm absolutely delighted he loves Jesus BUT stay rigorous for the wicked and arrogant atheists watching.
I agree… it definitely doesn’t help Christians when the supposedly best experts on their side openly admit that in end the evidence doesn’t matter… that evidence isn’t the reason for their conversion to Christianity… and that no amount of contradicting evidence could ever change their minds.
That’s the same way that the people in QAnon telegram groups talk.
Dr Craig says that remaining a Christian for him personally doesn't entail he accept the Kalam or other arguments for God. That's all fine and good but his career as an apologist DOES entail this (not that he would ever actually reject those arguments which he has famously spent his career arguing in favor of).
The same can be said about any academic who has consistently held and promoted a particular view, in religion, philosophy, politics, whatever.
As we all know, God designed and manufactured Adam perfectly.
So one would expect Adam to be exceedingly good.
Just like the cakes.
There's a reason they are depicted as cartoons.
I wish these channels would stop with the cartoons. Just go on camera like a normal person.
Awesome, destroying the nonsense that the new atheists talk about, it's a mission field for the Gospel!
What about the nonsense that New Progressive Christians like Craig talk about?
He says that the Genesis account is mytho history, that Evolution is true, that God created Adam and Eve 750k years ago after humans already evolved and that almost all details of the Genesis account didn’t happen as described.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 That's not progressive Christianity. Having polemics for the age of the earth, and the interpretation of Genesis is not progressive Christianity.
You are taking that like a Dogma, or an intrinsic Christian doctrine, and is not!
@@TheAdeptusChrist0s
Ok… you are correct… for most Christians it doesn’t matter if Adam and Eve existed or not… or when they existed… or if they evolved… or if they were the first humans.
They will simply change their interpretation of scripture when a previous interpretation gets disproven by science.
But for many fundamentalists that’s already too progressive.😉
The challenger is obviously biased, he doesn't think straight and he's passing a judgment without any philosophical argument... No match for Dr Craig
Yea atheist never have presupposition.
There is no sound argument for theism!