List of books mentioned during the livestream: 1. The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz - amzn.to/3cgRXJa 2. The Kalām Cosmological Argument - amzn.to/2YMry1J 3. The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe 4. The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy - amzn.to/3bhpn92 5. Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus - amzn.to/3dtmxPM 6. The Son Rises - amzn.to/2yusGN6 7. Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? - amzn.to/2WGajMT 8. Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Ludemann - amzn.to/2WBL9z3 9. The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents from Aristotle to Suarez - amzn.to/2xLF3nx 10. Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience - amzn.to/3bhgI6u 11. The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human Freedom - amzn.to/3dwB3pV 12. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views - amzn.to/2Wg2M8G 13. The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination - amzn.to/2LdR0We 14. The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination - amzn.to/2WeOo0r 15. God, Time, and Eternity: The Coherence of Theism II: Eternity - amzn.to/3bm9VJ7 16. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time - amzn.to/35M7luv 17. God and Time: Four Views - amzn.to/3chpmDo 18. God and Abstract Objects: The Coherence of Theism: Aseity - amzn.to/2WAzpgg 19. God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism - amzn.to/3fuQ51t 20. The Atonement (Elements in the Philosophy of Religion) - amzn.to/35H1irf 21. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics - amzn.to/3bgeZP9 22. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision - amzn.to/2LdhPty 23. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology - amzn.to/3besbnz 24. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview - amzn.to/3bc6GDX For more books, visit Dr. Craig's web store: www.reasonablefaith.org/store/
Capturing Christianity, great work again Cameron, pray to meet you at EPS one day. Thanks for listing the books. I had been looking for it. Reasonable Faith Anchorage will continue to promote this great work!
@@drewbatey8856 I look for that stuff on ebay & Amazon. There's a song by Harry Nilsson, The Lottery Song, there's no sheet music. But something else I discovered is that one Nilsson's song book is about of print. Prices get *jacked!*
@@AnchorApologetics315 I got a Rhema Word from God about two weeks ago, *mooring* or "anchorage." To the God deniers, "You have religious commitments, religious positions the same as I do, you're just religiously *moored* differently than I am." I first heard that word in a religious context when Dr. Anthony Campolo was giving a talk he had in a quasi-debate during a Q & A at a one time women's college, I'm guessing Vassar, where they had lost their _religious mooring._ It's been a long time. I recall he was dealing with women who were claiming when the relationship with their men became loveless it was time to "Get the hell out of there." Dr. Campolo was countering with God's type of Love, Agape and related a true anecdote about a minister whose wife had passed. It's unusual for a woman to proceed her husband into the afterlife. So, after the funeral he's sitting on his porch with his two sons and said, "It's been a very good day, she went ahead first." Meaning that she was saved having to buy him. He took the brute force associated with the loss of a loving relationship that ended for a time with physical separation. Dr. Tony said "Right then _I knew I had them."_ The women who thought love could be demonized.
Dawkins has authored 30 books. OUTGROWING GOD Should we believe in God? In this brisk introduction to modern atheism, one of the world’s greatest science writers tells us why we shouldn’t. Here's Dawkins most recent book (for children of all things) released October 8th, 2019. Dawkins is to the coronavirus (covid-19) what Psychic Friends Network was right before the 9/11 attacks.
William Lane Craig writes in his Article, “No Other Name” …. "Now we have seen that it is possible that God wants to maximize the number of the saved: He wants heaven to be as full as possible. Moreover, as a loving God, He wants to minimize the number of the lost: He wants hell to be as empty as possible. His goal, then, is to achieve an optimal balance between these, to create no more lost than is necessary to achieve a certain number of the saved. But it is possible that the balance between saved and lost in the actual world is such an optimal balance. It is possible that in order to create the actual number of persons who will be saved, God had to create the actual number of persons who will be lost. It is possible that the terrible price of filling heaven is also filling hell and that in any other possible world which was feasible for God the balance between saved and lost was worse. It is possible that had God actualized a world in which there are less persons in hell, there would also have been less persons in heaven.” Emphasizing in the above … ** God had to create the actual number of persons who will be lost. ** ---- That is just basically Calvinism. God creates non Elect and Elect. That is Morally Repugnant.
When he talks about his debate opponents, and *"clash,"* he said there has been none. God haters are not the intelligentsia they claim to be. It's easy to be the smartest person in the room when everyone else is a dope. How smart exactly is a person who claims, "There's never been any evidence provided for a god"? God isn't a god, or any god; they're different and incompatible terms. "Atheists" call us childish names, and they really aren't any good at it.
This is wonderful! I remember watching a light hearted moment between Michael Licona and WLC, where the former asks him about what he was working on at that point of time. Craig tells him about his work on God and Abstract Objects that he's been involved with for over a decade, to which Licona quips, "This is the kind of stuff I like to tease him about. He's answering all the questions NOBODY is asking."
Dr. Craig's enthusiasm and his humble approach to his work is infectious and motivating. Aside from his books, WLC, (affectionately), has penned nearly 200 peer reviewed articles in some of the most prestigious philosophy journals. WLC has almost singlehandedly mainstreamed apologetics in Christian thought and discourse arming whole generations with rational arguments for God's existence and the validity of Christianity to the distress and detriment of atheist the world over. The scorn and vitriol atheist direct at such a deminutive unassuming gentlemen as Dr. Craig is nothing more than unbridled fear as Sam Harris so unabashedly invoked God to impress. Dr. Craig is an inspiration both as a scholar and Christian. (Can't wait for your review of the Craig/Carroll debate with WLC so many years after the actual event. I hope Dr. Craig points out Carrols desperate appeal to authority) Peace and continued Blessings, Brother.
It was really something watching Dr. Craig's reaction to Lawrence Krauss in their debate when Larry was pacing back and forth in big red shoes and jumping up & down like a Satanic Jack-in-the-Box yelling at him.
@@oursecretlord9008, Little Larry Krause has been relegated to the dustbin of self inflicted obscurity. My favorite is when Lawrence was caught red handed lying about Velinkin's email using ellipses to mischaracterize what Velinkin wrote. Peace.
@@utopiabuster I remember that. You have me cracking up over here. Dr. Craig telling Hitchens and the audience, "You have presented nothing where I would want to accept atheism and so I invite you to take Jesus into _your_ heart." And then in a debate between Lennox & Dawkins, John says (answers), "Well of course Richard, believing in _man-made_ gods *would be* a delusion but we _don't believe in the gods you don't believe in."_ Dick said, "Quite right John, quite right."
@@oursecretlord9008 , Dawkins further clowned himself when he asserted that God is more complex than the universe which started the whole audience laughing, including everyone on the discussion panel he was a member of, prompting Dawkins to obtusely ask what was so funny and if he'd said something funny. Until a member of the panal, a memeber of clergy, explained his critical error in reason. Dawkins never got over the embarrassment and has since refused to debate philosophers. Peace.
@@utopiabuster Another huge belly laugh, my innie became an outy (Belly button) I laughed so hard "clowned himself." I've got that copied out of my friend's book: God, Science & MInd: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D. Physics Ph.D. Notre Dame, philosophy major Loyola Marymount, President's Prize winning philosopher (President of the school award). The "atheists" used to rail against me, "It's just a Loyola award, not the US President's award" like they did their usual 2 second search to "Debunk" everything put to them. "What difference how many awards he has and from who, just tackle the argument." _*God is too Complex to Exist *_ Dawkins has an argument not on Stenger's list of "disproofs." He argues that God's existence is extremely improbable because God must be ultimately complex and the more complex a thing is, the more improbable.51 Using Julian Huxley's definition of complexity as "heterogeneity of parts," he argues, "a God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle universe cannot be simple." If God were material, monitoring the cosmos would require a material representation of the position and velocity of each particle. Such a representation would necessarily have at least as many particles as the universe it represents. However, the assumption that God is material begs the question. It is simpler to say, "If all objects are material, there is no God."
God is an intentional, not a material, reality. Thus, God does not have a material representation of the universe. As Aquinas saw, God knows the universe by knowing His own creative act.52 Since knowing is a relationship between a subject and its objects, its multiplicity can derive from either term. God can remain simple while knowing multiple objects because the simplicity of knowledge can derive from its objects rather than its subject. Dawkins is inconsistent, for as a reductionist he sees cosmic complexity as controlled by a few simple laws of physics. It is irrational for him to suppose God must be complex to control the universe, when the laws he admits control the universe are simple. He begs the question of materialism again by applying Huxley's definition of complexity. While material reality is extended, and so has parts outside of parts, intentional reality is not extended, and has no parts to be heterogeneous. Lastly, as we shall see (p. 61f), the probability depends on our knowledge and ignorance. Clearly, Dawkins is ignorant of God's nature if he thinks God has parts to be heterogeneous. I am happy to stipulate that a God with heterogeneous parts is not only improbable, but also impossible. 51 Dawkins (2008), pp.178ff. For an alternate discussion of Dawkins argument, see Plantinga (2007), review of The God Delusion, "The Dawkins Confusion." 52 STI, q. 14, a.5.
Love this! William Lane Craig is my favorite Christian apologists! I also have nearly every book in the image he sent Cameron! Fortunate enough to have several of them signed by him as well! Great interview Cameron and Dr. Craig!
Wow, that's really neat! Do you have the book he co-wrote with JP Moreland - 'Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview.' I haven't read it yet...
I first discovered him in 1993, on a cassette tape recording of 'Atheism VS Christianity - Which Way Does The Evidence Point?' ("Cassette tapes" by the way, were something that existed shortly after the dinosaurs went extinct LOL)
Cameron, you and your channel are brilliant. Top notch, top quality, and you ask intelligent questions, not rehashed run-of-the-mill questions. Thank you.
A smart attorney who lives next door, a man who wrote all the decisions for the probate judges here in Riverside CA, a man who had the keys to the courthouse, gave me a lengthy explanation of the word "Apology." He said (remembering) it comes from the word Logos all us Christians are familiar with, he said it meant, "A defense." We have an advocate with the Father, His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus acts in our defense. Jesus is our defense attorney. Not to spoil your journey, just thought it was interesting. I don't make any apologies.
Dr. Craig's a prolific writer *The Rising Son* is probably his most notable "trademark" book next in line, i guess, would be The Reasonable Faith, The Kalam Argument, then anything about The Timelessness & Eternity, so on & so forth
You should have asked him what other languages his books have been translated into. Or about his children's books. But, I LOVED this interview, thank you!!!
We call the Philosophy and Theology library at Oxford, the "PhilThe" (Filthy) library. Idk why but it's caught on---you'll never forget the two PhDs now haha.
I'm a fan of Dr. Craig, and I'm a fan of money. I'm duty bound to help you - I've found too much content from Dr. Craig for free to ever spend any money to learn what he has to say. I think he has a lot of different streams of income. This is something I found from his webby where he had a colleague answer a question for him. Good stuff: www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P70/god-and-mind-body-dualism
Topher Tough to say, as it depends on what information you’re looking for. His best book for a cumulative case for the existence of God in general and Christianity in particular is Reasonable Faith 3rd edition. The introductory level entry version of that is On Guard. However, he has other books that are incredible but they are more specific, such as books on dealing with divine omniscience, divine eternity, foreknowledge and freedom, divine aseity, etc. He does great work though!
Thankyou very much for creating this video, very useful to have a summary like this about all the books this great man has written. I'll definitely be buying myself a few of these.
I'm a lapsed Catholic, evolutionary biologist, was an irritating atheist for a long time. Recently personal experiences and to some degree 'growing up' have made me re-think everything. Many of Craig's arguments that I used to think were ridiculous now make more sense to me - and certainly seem more philosophically profound than those of the new atheists. I'm in a state of confusion! Great channel though.
I took a couple of classes from Stuart Hackett at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Amazing mind and down to earth man. Wore knit sweaters knitted for him by his wife
Just when I was getting uneasy about comments like, "I want Dr. Craig to live long enough to write some book I want to read," Dr. Craig says, "I want an author I like to get on the ball before I'm too old to read his book!"
LoveYourNeighbour not sure if you were talking to me or Drew Batey, but for me it is how strong a case he makes for middle knowledge and Molinism and how strong his criticisms of fatalism and determinism are. He does a great job making it concise without losing any of the force or potency of the arguments. Good stuff!
Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins and Sam Harris sat down for a chin-wag, the video has The Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Apocalypse in the title. A smart fellow like you wrote, "It must have been one of the happiest days for Richard Dawkins to sit down next to his idol, Charles Darwin (standing for Daniel Dennett).
I counted how many books that were in the first picture with William Lane Craig (where he’s leaning over three piles of books). I counted a total number of 55 books. Btw, if there were any repeated books, I couldn’t tell so I didn’t take that into account.
Cam reminds me of Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker, especially with those glasses. They don't actually look very similar, but I think it's something about his voice combined with a slight resemblance. Maybe it's just me though.
@@ekpiyalichai Your _spice up_ emoji is ken to Edgar Rubin's Vase. Ambiguous or bi-stable two dimensional forms. There are the celebratory hands, and a homunculus. In our series on knowledge we've learned that knowledge is awareness of present intelligibility. God is omnipresent and intelligible so He is available for knowledge yet most of the time most of us are unaware of God. Why is this? Well, something similar can be seen in foreground/background images (Edgar Rubin's Two Face/Vase image). FIGURE-GROUND PERCEPTION. The same image can appear to be a vase or two facing faces. How we perceive it depends on where we focus our attention. Most of the time we focus our intention on the sensible when we focus our attention on ourselves, but as we've learned God holding being in existence is being, being held in existence by God. It is the identical event. By shifting our focus between the finite being held in existence and God holding in existence we have mystical experience. Thank you for watching, I hope to see you again. - Dfpolis #45 Knowledge and Mysticism. Part 9 of the knowledge series. How mystical experience fits into human knowledge. The phenomenology of mystical experience according to R. M. Bucke, William James & W. T. Stace. Why it is rational to think it is an experience of God. Its relation to the Foreground-background paradox. Here's my mentor, Dr. Craig is not my first go to Christian instructor.
Where can we find footage of Dr. Craigs first debate Cameron and/or friends? Also can someone please translate his debates on you tube into Spanish? Would get a lot of Catholics converting to Christianity in the Spanish speaking world I think. Dios le bendiga Profesor Craig.
I have watched countless hours of WLC content on TH-cam. Should I buy Reasonable Faith or will it be knowledge that I may already have from watching his TH-cam content? If Reasonable Faith may not offer much new knowledge what is another book of WLC that would be good? Thanks!
Bill created a personal god of his very own and shares that relationship with his audience. He calls it the Holy Spirit. Sadly, I haven't seen anyone but Bill so far.
I'd say you captured the quintessential meaning for all humanity. Now we see through a _glass dimly_ but then face to face. Bravo, major kudos. Rowan Atkinson was hilarious in the movie Keeping Mum. This is not irrelevant as I'm sure you'd get more out of that than all of Dr. Craig's books. Seriously.
I only need maybe five or so to have them all! He has done incredible work and multiple topics! I have referenced most of them, unfortunately haven’t read them all😢
Tell me about it. One of his books in my country is almost R$250, which is almost 1/4 of the minimun wage. Not saying that they're not wroth it, they surely are! But I'm broken. xD
*I've read:* 1. Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology 2. Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity 3. The Blackwell Companion to Natural theology I didn't agree with much of it but it was enjoyable to read. *What about everyone else?*
I read most the Blackwell Companion, that's about it. Waiting for Infinity Causation and Paradox by Alexander Pruss to ship to me (first order got cancelled).
I've read: 1. Reasonable Faith 2. Kalam Cosmological Argument 3. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (co-written with Moreland) Also I've read some books where Craig was one of the major contributors. Also, I own and/or have skimmed/read sections of some of his other books.
William Lane Craig’s Theological position of Molinism is just another version of Calvinism. God has chosen to create certain people ( the Elect ) who will be saved and live eternally with Him. And certain other people ( The majority of humanity and who are the Non Elect ) who will not be saved and go to Hell. WLC writes in his Article, “No Other Name” …. "Now we have seen that it is possible that God wants to maximize the number of the saved: He wants heaven to be as full as possible. Moreover, as a loving God, He wants to minimize the number of the lost: He wants hell to be as empty as possible. His goal, then, is to achieve an optimal balance between these, to create no more lost than is necessary to achieve a certain number of the saved. But it is possible that the balance between saved and lost in the actual world is such an optimal balance. It is possible that in order to create the actual number of persons who will be saved, God had to create the actual number of persons who will be lost. It is possible that the terrible price of filling heaven is also filling hell and that in any other possible world which was feasible for God the balance between saved and lost was worse. It is possible that had God actualized a world in which there are less persons in hell, there would also have been less persons in heaven.” Emphasizing … ** God had to create the actual number of persons who will be lost. ** - WLC also writes in his book, “The Only Wise God” …. "Yet as a loving God he wants to minimize the number of the lost. He wants hell to be as empty as possible. His goal, then, is to achieve an optimal balance, to create no more lost than is necessary to actualize a certain number of the saved. But it is possible that the balance in the actual world is such an optimal balance. It is possible that in order to create the number of persons in our world who will be saved, God had to create the number of persons who will be lost.” Emphasizing … ** It is possible that in order to create the number of persons in our world who will be saved, God had to create the number of persons who will be lost. ** As the Philosopher, Gordon Knight, writes in his article “Molinism and Hell” … …. The God of the Molinists is indeed one who has great providential control over creation. But far from allowing an escape from the problem of hell, this providential control only makes the problem more intense. God’s fine tuning of creation presents us with the image of a deity who intentionally creates persons who God knows will suffer eternally in hell. This deity is like the general who sends out many of his troops as cannon fodder, as sacrificial casualties in the name of ultimate victory over the enemy. Such a heartless strategy may lead to victory in battle, but it is hardly one befitting the God of overflowing love and perfect goodness. Emphasizing …. ** God’s fine tuning of creation presents us with the image of a deity who intentionally creates persons who God knows will suffer eternally in hell. ** - Once you have seen the above, you either ignore it or try and justify WLC’s morally horrendous position, or you face it head on and come to the understanding that WLC’s position is morally horrendous.
I don't think the type of divining God's mind as I'm seeing here is remotely possible. I have 3 life after death experiences including the Gift of Rapture, and the time I've spent there has revealed nothing about "saved and lost." GOR (Gift of Rapture) was the good, the bad and the ugly in me and 100% acceptance by God. *A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist* 1. If God exists, then He is not the perfect creator of the universe. 2. If a being is perfect, the universe He creates must be perfect. 3. But the universe is imperfect. 4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist. It is not necessary that the universe conform to human ideas of perfection, only that it conform perfectly to God's creative intent. Conscious acts in time are generally means to ends. Without fully knowing the ends, and the feasible means, we can't judge the efficacy of chosen means. As we have no independent knowledge of God's intent, or of the constraints consistency places on creating a universe, we can't judge how perfectly the universe mirrors God's intent. God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D.
@@JM-19-86 You wrote ….. // If He chooses not to create He deprives millions of the bliss they could have enjoyed, all because there would be millions who freely choose to reject God and create a hell for themselves by separating themselves from God for eternity (Craig doesn't think hell is a torture chamber and God a torturer). So why should the bliss of the saved be curtailed simply because the damned deliberately and freely choose hell for themselves? // God is depriving millions, billions, and even trillions of people ( who would love God ) of the bliss they could have enjoyed by not creating them. Why think that God is limited on the amount of people that He could bring into existence ? Why think that there would only be a limited number of possible people that could love God ? You wrote … \\ The damned don't want eternal bliss, that's fine God leaves them to their free choice. But why should they get to dictate the destiny of others who would want to be saved, and enjoy God for eternity? \\ Non existent people who would be damned if they were to be created are not dictating anything. Namely, because they do not exist so as to dictate anything. I can imagine Joe. He wears a red and blue baseball cap and lives in Alabama. Is he stopping me from doing anything ? Is he dictating to me what I can do or not do ? Is he holding any veto power over me ? No. Of course not. Namely, because he does not really exist. He is just a figment in my imagination. William Lane Craig’s answers to this subject are just abysmal.
I agree that Molinism does appear to be, at least in effect, a version of Calvinism. It doesn't really deal with the problematic idea of God creating people who would have no hope of salvation and thus to deliberately consign them to hell. Instead, the issue can be addressed like this: God creates all people with free will (when it comes to salvation), and those who choose consistently to reject Him will be consigned to hell because this is consistent with their choice. Yes, God knew that they would make this choice but it doesn't make it any less of a choice. If he had deprived them of the opportunity to exist he would also have deprived them of the opportunity for eternal life. An analogy: A parent decides to have a child, knowing full well that the child may grow up to be a miserable murderer behind bars for life, but hoping that instead they will grow up to be a joyful, morally upright, free person. The (good) parent will give that child every opportunity to choose the right kind of lifestyle. Crucially, EVEN THOUGH the parent knows either is a possibility (and anything in-between), and that ultimately it will come down to their offspring's choices, the parent still chooses to have children.
Also a historian! "William Lane Craig is an American analytic philosopher and Christian theologian, historian, and apologist." en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig Peace.
@@vincentiormetti3048 But under the field of theology, which does not have the same standarts for "historicity" than the field of history. As per the results of a quick search, he was researching for this thesis under a theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg, whoby the way is defending that theology should be considered as rigorous and critical as history or even the natural sciences and who thinks these other fields should be studied with a christian point of view (especially the idea of redemption)... not exactly the objectivity and standarts you'd come to expect from historians. And at the end of his research, WLC was awarded a doctorate in theolgy, not history. So I wouldn't give him the title "historian" in any official manner, and his views on history shouldn't be considered any more than the ones of an individual very interested in the field, although not an expert.
![Every Argument for God [Has Not Been] DEBUNKED! (feat. WLC)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/O4Hu720zsWI/mqdefault.jpg)
List of books mentioned during the livestream:
1. The Cosmological Argument from Plato to Leibniz - amzn.to/3cgRXJa
2. The Kalām Cosmological Argument - amzn.to/2YMry1J
3. The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe
4. The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy - amzn.to/3bhpn92
5. Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus - amzn.to/3dtmxPM
6. The Son Rises - amzn.to/2yusGN6
7. Will the Real Jesus Please Stand Up? - amzn.to/2WGajMT
8. Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?: A Debate Between William Lane Craig & Gerd Ludemann - amzn.to/2WBL9z3
9. The Problem of Divine Foreknowledge and Future Contingents from Aristotle to Suarez - amzn.to/2xLF3nx
10. Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom: The Coherence of Theism: Omniscience - amzn.to/3bhgI6u
11. The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge & Human Freedom - amzn.to/3dwB3pV
12. Divine Foreknowledge: Four Views - amzn.to/2Wg2M8G
13. The Tensed Theory of Time: A Critical Examination - amzn.to/2LdR0We
14. The Tenseless Theory of Time: A Critical Examination - amzn.to/2WeOo0r
15. God, Time, and Eternity: The Coherence of Theism II: Eternity - amzn.to/3bm9VJ7
16. Time and Eternity: Exploring God's Relationship to Time - amzn.to/35M7luv
17. God and Time: Four Views - amzn.to/3chpmDo
18. God and Abstract Objects: The Coherence of Theism: Aseity - amzn.to/2WAzpgg
19. God Over All: Divine Aseity and the Challenge of Platonism - amzn.to/3fuQ51t
20. The Atonement (Elements in the Philosophy of Religion) - amzn.to/35H1irf
21. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics - amzn.to/3bgeZP9
22. On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision - amzn.to/2LdhPty
23. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology - amzn.to/3besbnz
24. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview - amzn.to/3bc6GDX
For more books, visit Dr. Craig's web store: www.reasonablefaith.org/store/
Capturing Christianity, great work again Cameron, pray to meet you at EPS one day. Thanks for listing the books. I had been looking for it. Reasonable Faith Anchorage will continue to promote this great work!
Capturing Christianity
If you were to be stranded on an island and could only take one of his books which would it be?
Does anyone know where the rerelease of the kalam cosmological argument with the original cover can be found?
@@drewbatey8856 I look for that stuff on ebay & Amazon. There's a song by Harry Nilsson, The Lottery Song, there's no sheet music. But something else I discovered is that one Nilsson's song book is about of print. Prices get *jacked!*
@@AnchorApologetics315 I got a Rhema Word from God about two weeks ago, *mooring* or "anchorage." To the God deniers, "You have religious commitments, religious positions the same as I do, you're just religiously *moored* differently than I am."
I first heard that word in a religious context when Dr. Anthony Campolo was giving a talk he had in a quasi-debate during a Q & A at a one time women's college, I'm guessing Vassar, where they had lost their _religious mooring._ It's been a long time.
I recall he was dealing with women who were claiming when the relationship with their men became loveless it was time to "Get the hell out of there." Dr. Campolo was countering with God's type of Love, Agape and related a true anecdote about a minister whose wife had passed. It's unusual for a woman to proceed her husband into the afterlife. So, after the funeral he's sitting on his porch with his two sons and said, "It's been a very good day, she went ahead first." Meaning that she was saved having to buy him. He took the brute force associated with the loss of a loving relationship that ended for a time with physical separation. Dr. Tony said "Right then _I knew I had them."_ The women who thought love could be demonized.
I'm geeking out over this. Awesome
Mike Winger you and me both!
I think we all are!
Dawkins has authored 30 books.
OUTGROWING GOD
Should we believe in God? In this brisk introduction to modern atheism, one of the world’s greatest science writers tells us why we shouldn’t.
Here's Dawkins most recent book (for children of all things) released October 8th, 2019. Dawkins is to the coronavirus (covid-19) what Psychic Friends Network was right before the 9/11 attacks.
@mozak plesa Hi, let me do something for you that you have no idea right now I can.
"no educated atheist takes"
heyyyyy
Gosh I love Craig. His smile makes my day. He’s just full of joy because he exists.
William Lane Craig writes in his Article, “No Other Name” ….
"Now we have seen that it is possible that God wants to maximize the number of the saved: He wants heaven to be as full as possible. Moreover, as a loving God, He wants to minimize the number of the lost: He wants hell to be as empty as possible. His goal, then, is to achieve an optimal balance between these, to create no more lost than is necessary to achieve a certain number of the saved. But it is possible that the balance between saved and lost in the actual world is such an optimal balance. It is possible that in order to create the actual number of persons who will be saved, God had to create the actual number of persons who will be lost. It is possible that the terrible price of filling heaven is also filling hell and that in any other possible world which was feasible for God the balance between saved and lost was worse. It is possible that had God actualized a world in which there are less persons in hell, there would also have been less
persons in heaven.”
Emphasizing in the above …
** God had to create the actual number of persons who will be lost. **
----
That is just basically Calvinism. God creates non Elect and Elect. That is Morally Repugnant.
Bill smiles because he has an invisible friend he wants to share.
A Systematic Theology by William Lane Craig was in my fantasies. May God keep him healthy and safe to finish the work.
I would pay thousands for it.
You already have his systematic theology in his defenders series
Airsoft Corps MilSim Listened to them almost twice 🙂. Still, what is written is written.
Rocio just print the transcripts
Airsoft Corps MilSim Thanks🙂. Stil waiting for the book.
1 Reasonable Faith
2 On Guard
3 Time and Eternity
3. Currently reading Phil Foundations
Steven Carr
Which was your favourite?
Is Reasonable Faith too difficult to understand after only having read On Guard?
Anytime WLC is on, drop everything and tune in. God has used this man mightily.
literally a living legend
Don't drop your electronic device though. So you can watch WLC on it.
When he talks about his debate opponents, and *"clash,"* he said there has been none. God haters are not the intelligentsia they claim to be. It's easy to be the smartest person in the room when everyone else is a dope. How smart exactly is a person who claims, "There's never been any evidence provided for a god"? God isn't a god, or any god; they're different and incompatible terms. "Atheists" call us childish names, and they really aren't any good at it.
Wow this has helped realize me how indebted we are to Craig.
The Kingdom of God suffereth (allows for) violence, and the violent *take it by force!*
This is wonderful! I remember watching a light hearted moment between Michael Licona and WLC, where the former asks him about what he was working on at that point of time. Craig tells him about his work on God and Abstract Objects that he's been involved with for over a decade, to which Licona quips, "This is the kind of stuff I like to tease him about. He's answering all the questions NOBODY is asking."
Dr. Craig's enthusiasm and his humble approach to his work is infectious and motivating.
Aside from his books, WLC, (affectionately), has penned nearly 200 peer reviewed articles in some of the most prestigious philosophy journals.
WLC has almost singlehandedly mainstreamed apologetics in Christian thought and discourse arming whole generations with rational arguments for God's existence and the validity of Christianity to the distress and detriment of atheist the world over.
The scorn and vitriol atheist direct at such a deminutive unassuming gentlemen as Dr. Craig is nothing more than unbridled fear as Sam Harris so unabashedly invoked God to impress.
Dr. Craig is an inspiration both as a scholar and Christian.
(Can't wait for your review of the Craig/Carroll debate with WLC so many years after the actual event. I hope Dr. Craig points out Carrols desperate appeal to authority)
Peace and continued Blessings, Brother.
It was really something watching Dr. Craig's reaction to Lawrence Krauss in their debate when Larry was pacing back and forth in big red shoes and jumping up & down like a Satanic Jack-in-the-Box yelling at him.
@@oursecretlord9008,
Little Larry Krause has been relegated to the dustbin of self inflicted obscurity.
My favorite is when Lawrence was caught red handed lying about Velinkin's email using ellipses to mischaracterize what Velinkin wrote.
Peace.
@@utopiabuster I remember that. You have me cracking up over here. Dr. Craig telling Hitchens and the audience, "You have presented nothing where I would want to accept atheism and so I invite you to take Jesus into _your_ heart." And then in a debate between Lennox & Dawkins, John says (answers), "Well of course Richard, believing in _man-made_ gods *would be* a delusion but we _don't believe in the gods you don't believe in."_ Dick said, "Quite right John, quite right."
@@oursecretlord9008 ,
Dawkins further clowned himself when he asserted that God is more complex than the universe which started the whole audience laughing, including everyone on the discussion panel he was a member of, prompting Dawkins to obtusely ask what was so funny and if he'd said something funny. Until a member of the panal, a memeber of clergy, explained his critical error in reason.
Dawkins never got over the embarrassment and has since refused to debate philosophers.
Peace.
@@utopiabuster Another huge belly laugh, my innie became an outy (Belly button) I laughed so hard "clowned himself."
I've got that copied out of my friend's book: God, Science & MInd: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D. Physics Ph.D. Notre Dame, philosophy major Loyola Marymount, President's Prize winning philosopher (President of the school award). The "atheists" used to rail against me, "It's just a Loyola award, not the US President's award" like they did their usual 2 second search to "Debunk" everything put to them. "What difference how many awards he has and from who, just tackle the argument."
_*God is too Complex to Exist
*_
Dawkins has an argument not on Stenger's list of "disproofs." He argues that God's existence is extremely improbable because God must be ultimately complex and the more complex a thing is, the more improbable.51 Using Julian Huxley's definition of complexity as "heterogeneity of parts," he argues, "a God capable of continuously monitoring and controlling the individual status of every particle universe cannot be simple." If God were material, monitoring the cosmos would require a material representation of the position and velocity of each particle. Such a representation would necessarily have at least as many particles as the universe it represents. However, the assumption that God is material begs the question. It is simpler to say, "If all objects are material, there is no God."
God is an intentional, not a material, reality. Thus, God does not have a material representation of the universe. As Aquinas saw, God knows the universe by knowing His own creative act.52 Since knowing is a relationship between a subject and its objects, its multiplicity can derive from either term. God can remain simple while knowing multiple objects because the simplicity of knowledge can derive from its objects rather than its subject.
Dawkins is inconsistent, for as a reductionist he sees cosmic complexity as controlled by a few simple laws of physics. It is irrational for him to suppose God must be complex to control the universe, when the laws he admits control the universe are simple.
He begs the question of materialism again by applying Huxley's definition of complexity. While material reality is extended, and so has parts outside of parts, intentional reality is not extended, and has no parts to be heterogeneous.
Lastly, as we shall see (p. 61f), the probability depends on our knowledge and ignorance. Clearly, Dawkins is ignorant of God's nature if he thinks God has parts to be heterogeneous. I am happy to stipulate that a God with heterogeneous parts is not only improbable, but also impossible.
51 Dawkins (2008), pp.178ff. For an alternate discussion of Dawkins argument, see Plantinga (2007), review of The God Delusion, "The Dawkins Confusion."
52 STI, q. 14, a.5.
Please keep bringing Craig on. You don’t understand how entertained and excited I am to see him doing interviews.
Love this! William Lane Craig is my favorite Christian apologists! I also have nearly every book in the image he sent Cameron! Fortunate enough to have several of them signed by him as well! Great interview Cameron and Dr. Craig!
Wow, that's really neat! Do you have the book he co-wrote with JP Moreland - 'Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview.' I haven't read it yet...
LoveYourNeighbour yep, first and second editions, my first edition is signed by Dr. Craig😀
Honestly, I’m torn between William Lane Craig and Ravi Zacharias. Craig has participated in far more debates, but Ravi is such a powerful speaker.
Joseph Logsdon
Ravi is too hard to understand sometimes lol. WLC keeps it real
@@batman5224 Are you still torn post scandal?
One of the best apologists out there
I have so much respect for Dr. Craig's work. He is one of the greatest Christian minds that i ever saw. Let God continues to bless this man!
I first discovered him in 1993, on a cassette tape recording of 'Atheism VS Christianity - Which Way Does The Evidence Point?' ("Cassette tapes" by the way, were something that existed shortly after the dinosaurs went extinct LOL)
Cameron, you and your channel are brilliant. Top notch, top quality, and you ask intelligent questions, not rehashed run-of-the-mill questions. Thank you.
CC you are a great interviewer. May God bless this ministry more and more
Thank you so much! I am new in apologetics so this video is very helpful .
A smart attorney who lives next door, a man who wrote all the decisions for the probate judges here in Riverside CA, a man who had the keys to the courthouse, gave me a lengthy explanation of the word "Apology." He said (remembering) it comes from the word Logos all us Christians are familiar with, he said it meant, "A defense." We have an advocate with the Father, His Son Jesus Christ. Jesus acts in our defense. Jesus is our defense attorney. Not to spoil your journey, just thought it was interesting. I don't make any apologies.
Minute 25: "I'm a common sense philosopher". Nice! Thomas Reid is unbeatable.
Thanks for the introduction.
Dr. Craig's a prolific writer
*The Rising Son* is probably his most notable "trademark" book
next in line, i guess, would be The Reasonable Faith, The Kalam Argument, then anything about The Timelessness & Eternity, so on & so forth
This man its amazing ✌
You should have asked him what other languages his books have been translated into. Or about his children's books.
But, I LOVED this interview, thank you!!!
My amazon cart just got bigger! Thank you very much for this!
I thought for sure you were going to say (as I was reading), "My Amazon cart is *full!"*
How can you not remember the Great WLC's PhDs? Philo and Theo. This is the 2nd time man :(
Won't happen again.
We call the Philosophy and Theology library at Oxford, the "PhilThe" (Filthy) library. Idk why but it's caught on---you'll never forget the two PhDs now haha.
Thank you Dr. Craig for all your work for the body of Christ.
What a cool guy, can't wait to order a stack of his books for lay-people :D
Love that Man! What a blessing he and his work has been in the life of Christians today! Thank you for putting this video together!
Im getting a copy of 'The Only Wise God' and 'Time and Eternity' asap.
Trevor Hodge both are excellent! You definitely won’t be disappointed!
I'm a fan of Dr. Craig, and I'm a fan of money. I'm duty bound to help you - I've found too much content from Dr. Craig for free to ever spend any money to learn what he has to say. I think he has a lot of different streams of income. This is something I found from his webby where he had a colleague answer a question for him. Good stuff: www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P70/god-and-mind-body-dualism
Faithful Apologetics
What would you say is his best book?
Topher Tough to say, as it depends on what information you’re looking for. His best book for a cumulative case for the existence of God in general and Christianity in particular is Reasonable Faith 3rd edition. The introductory level entry version of that is On Guard. However, he has other books that are incredible but they are more specific, such as books on dealing with divine omniscience, divine eternity, foreknowledge and freedom, divine aseity, etc. He does great work though!
Faithful Apologetics
Thanks !
Ima need you to stop growing my list of books to read for the next couple years or so.
Bill is such a nice guy and such a charitable debater and Christian. Would love to meet him !
This awesome!
This video.. Thank you 🙏
Thankyou very much for creating this video, very useful to have a summary like this about all the books this great man has written. I'll definitely be buying myself a few of these.
I'm a lapsed Catholic, evolutionary biologist, was an irritating atheist for a long time. Recently personal experiences and to some degree 'growing up' have made me re-think everything. Many of Craig's arguments that I used to think were ridiculous now make more sense to me - and certainly seem more philosophically profound than those of the new atheists. I'm in a state of confusion! Great channel though.
I’m gonna have to do some more book shopping now...😉
I took a couple of classes from Stuart Hackett at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Amazing mind and down to earth man. Wore knit sweaters knitted for him by his wife
Is his book Dr. Craig always refers to available anywhere?
@@ojibwayinca8487 Yes, it is actually, it's one Amazon. It's titled "Ressurection of Theism". Extraordinary mind, it's a masterpiece, enjoy.
Just when I was getting uneasy about comments like, "I want Dr. Craig to live long enough to write some book I want to read," Dr. Craig says, "I want an author I like to get on the ball before I'm too old to read his book!"
Great stuff. I do think he's wrong about foreknowledge, and a couple other matters; but I'm a fan of his work, his rigor, and his approach in general.
41:45 - Yep.
Do you know when the Systematic Philosophical Theology book(s) will be released?
I have read several books by Dr. Craig, but The Only Wise God is my favorite!
Drew Batey great book for sure!
So far I've read Reasonable Faith, and On Guard. What was your favorite thing about The Only Wise God?
LoveYourNeighbour not sure if you were talking to me or Drew Batey, but for me it is how strong a case he makes for middle knowledge and Molinism and how strong his criticisms of fatalism and determinism are. He does a great job making it concise without losing any of the force or potency of the arguments. Good stuff!
LoveYourNeighbour
Which would you recommend more of the 2 you read ?
Topher Which two books are you referring to?
Spider Man and David Lee Roth had a nice conversation.
lol
funny times when Tobey Maguire sits down with Dr Craig for a casual theology discussion.
Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins and Sam Harris sat down for a chin-wag, the video has The Four Horsemen of the New Atheist Apocalypse in the title. A smart fellow like you wrote, "It must have been one of the happiest days for Richard Dawkins to sit down next to his idol, Charles Darwin (standing for Daniel Dennett).
Dr. David Lee Roth look alike.
I counted how many books that were in the first picture with William Lane Craig (where he’s leaning over three piles of books). I counted a total number of 55 books.
Btw, if there were any repeated books, I couldn’t tell so I didn’t take that into account.
thank you very much
Cam reminds me of Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker, especially with those glasses. They don't actually look very similar, but I think it's something about his voice combined with a slight resemblance. Maybe it's just me though.
Finally someone said it 🙌
That makes 5 of us so far in the comments seeing it.
@@ekpiyalichai Your _spice up_ emoji is ken to Edgar Rubin's Vase. Ambiguous or bi-stable two dimensional forms. There are the celebratory hands, and a homunculus.
In our series on knowledge we've learned that knowledge is awareness of present intelligibility. God is omnipresent and intelligible so He is available for knowledge yet most of the time most of us are unaware of God. Why is this? Well, something similar can be seen in foreground/background images (Edgar Rubin's Two Face/Vase image). FIGURE-GROUND PERCEPTION. The same image can appear to be a vase or two facing faces. How we perceive it depends on where we focus our attention. Most of the time we focus our intention on the sensible when we focus our attention on ourselves, but as we've learned God holding being in existence is being, being held in existence by God. It is the identical event. By shifting our focus between the finite being held in existence and God holding in existence we have mystical experience. Thank you for watching, I hope to see you again. - Dfpolis #45 Knowledge and Mysticism. Part 9 of the knowledge series. How mystical experience fits into human knowledge. The phenomenology of mystical experience according to R. M. Bucke, William James & W. T. Stace. Why it is rational to think it is an experience of God. Its relation to the Foreground-background paradox.
Here's my mentor, Dr. Craig is not my first go to Christian instructor.
WLCs book sounds like the new Summa theologica
Anybody offering a group discount on all 40 books😉. I don’t know how to describe just how amazing and historically significant this interview is.
Where can we find footage of Dr. Craigs first debate Cameron and/or friends? Also can someone please translate his debates on you tube into Spanish? Would get a lot of Catholics converting to Christianity in the Spanish speaking world I think. Dios le bendiga Profesor Craig.
I have watched countless hours of WLC content on TH-cam. Should I buy Reasonable Faith or will it be knowledge that I may already have from watching his TH-cam content? If Reasonable Faith may not offer much new knowledge what is another book of WLC that would be good? Thanks!
The opening chapters of the relationship between faith and reason and its history would be new, everything else you probably would have watched.
Get, "Reaonable Faith"!
As a textbook, it's more concise and explanatory than his lectures and debates.
You absolutely need to read his work.
But reasonable faith is an introductory book, almost all his other books will be full of material you've never seen.
@@CapturingChristianity will do. I'm going to get Reasonable Faith and Time and Eternity. Keep up the great content!
Where in ATL is Dr Craigs defenders class?
From vitriolic atheist?
It's nothing less than fear!
Bill created a personal god of his very own
and shares that relationship with his audience.
He calls it the Holy Spirit.
Sadly, I haven't seen anyone but Bill so far.
Gotta give it to the young guy, he is trying his best to be a nice inquisitive host
I didn't know David Lee Roth was so smart
Nice glasses, Cameron. They suit you.
(Entirely irrelevant but oh well)
I'd say you captured the quintessential meaning for all humanity. Now we see through a _glass dimly_ but then face to face. Bravo, major kudos. Rowan Atkinson was hilarious in the movie Keeping Mum. This is not irrelevant as I'm sure you'd get more out of that than all of Dr. Craig's books. Seriously.
I have a feeling I may get stranded on an island sometime soon. Which one book of his should I always have on me?
My count is *sixty.* You know, *sixty-books.* FYI, & BTW, not counting the books of the Bible and books in high school, altogether I've read about 6.
Wow
Thumbs up if you plan to read all of these books.
The Melodist Sorry WLC said some of them weren’t good today
I only need maybe five or so to have them all! He has done incredible work and multiple topics! I have referenced most of them, unfortunately haven’t read them all😢
WLC kind of looks like David Lee Roth.
He does. :)
Over 50
This video was not good for my bank account
Tell me about it.
One of his books in my country is almost R$250, which is almost 1/4 of the minimun wage.
Not saying that they're not wroth it, they surely are! But I'm broken. xD
It’s a shame someone on the left like Rogan wouldn’t have Dr Craig on
*I've read:*
1. Theism, Atheism and Big Bang Cosmology
2. Einstein, Relativity and Absolute Simultaneity
3. The Blackwell Companion to Natural theology
I didn't agree with much of it but it was enjoyable to read. *What about everyone else?*
I read most the Blackwell Companion, that's about it. Waiting for Infinity Causation and Paradox by Alexander Pruss to ship to me (first order got cancelled).
@@logos8312 I haven't read the whole book either, some of it wasn't really interesting to me but I read Craig & Sinclair's article and a few others.
Yeah, he didn't mention his Kalam debate book you mention, book 1 in your list.
I've read:
1. Reasonable Faith
2. Kalam Cosmological Argument
3. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (co-written with Moreland)
Also I've read some books where Craig was one of the major contributors. Also, I own and/or have skimmed/read sections of some of his other books.
William Lane Craig’s Theological position of Molinism is just another version of Calvinism. God has chosen to create certain people ( the Elect ) who will be saved and live eternally with Him. And certain other people ( The majority of humanity and who are the Non Elect ) who will not be saved and go to Hell.
WLC writes in his Article, “No Other Name” ….
"Now we have seen that it is possible that God wants to maximize the number of the saved: He wants heaven to be as full as possible. Moreover, as a loving God, He wants to minimize the number of the lost: He wants hell to be as empty as possible. His goal, then, is to achieve an optimal balance between these, to create no more lost than is necessary to achieve a certain number of the saved. But it is possible that the balance between saved and lost in the actual world is such an optimal balance. It is possible that in order to create the actual number of persons who will be saved, God had to create the actual number of persons who will be lost. It is possible that the terrible price of filling heaven is also filling hell and that in any other possible world which was feasible for God the balance between saved and lost was worse. It is possible that had God actualized a world in which there are less persons in hell, there would also have been less
persons in heaven.”
Emphasizing …
** God had to create the actual number of persons who will be lost. **
-
WLC also writes in his book, “The Only Wise God” ….
"Yet as a loving God he wants to minimize the number of the lost. He wants hell to be as empty as possible. His goal, then, is to achieve an optimal balance, to create no more lost than is necessary to actualize a certain number of the saved. But it is possible that the balance in the actual world is such an optimal balance. It is possible that in order to create the number of persons in our world who will be saved, God had to create the number of persons who will be lost.”
Emphasizing …
** It is possible that in order to create the number of persons in our world who will be saved, God had to create the number of persons who will be lost. **
As the Philosopher, Gordon Knight, writes in his article “Molinism and Hell” … ….
The God of the Molinists is indeed one who has great providential control over creation. But far from allowing an escape from the problem of hell, this providential control only makes the problem more intense. God’s fine tuning of creation presents us with the image of a deity who intentionally creates persons who God knows will suffer eternally in hell. This deity is like the general who sends out many of his troops as cannon fodder, as sacrificial casualties in the name of ultimate victory over the enemy. Such a heartless strategy may lead to victory in battle, but it is hardly one befitting the God of overflowing love and perfect goodness.
Emphasizing ….
** God’s fine tuning of creation presents us with the image of a deity who intentionally creates persons who God knows will suffer eternally in hell. **
-
Once you have seen the above, you either ignore it or try and justify WLC’s morally horrendous position, or you face it head on and come to the understanding that WLC’s position is morally horrendous.
I don't think the type of divining God's mind as I'm seeing here is remotely possible. I have 3 life after death experiences including the Gift of Rapture, and the time I've spent there has revealed nothing about "saved and lost." GOR (Gift of Rapture) was the good, the bad and the ugly in me and 100% acceptance by God.
*A Perfect Creator Cannot Exist*
1. If God exists, then He is not the perfect creator of the universe.
2. If a being is perfect, the universe He creates must be perfect.
3. But the universe is imperfect.
4. Hence, it is impossible for God to exist.
It is not necessary that the universe conform to human ideas of perfection, only that it conform perfectly to God's creative intent. Conscious acts in time are generally means to ends. Without fully knowing the ends, and the feasible means, we can't judge the efficacy of chosen means. As we have no independent knowledge of God's intent, or of the constraints consistency places on creating a universe, we can't judge how perfectly the universe mirrors God's intent.
God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D.
@@JM-19-86
You wrote …..
// If He chooses not to create He deprives millions of the bliss they could have enjoyed, all because there would be millions who freely choose to reject God and create a hell for themselves by separating themselves from God for eternity (Craig doesn't think hell is a torture chamber and God a torturer). So why should the bliss of the saved be curtailed simply because the damned deliberately and freely choose hell for themselves? //
God is depriving millions, billions, and even trillions of people ( who would love God ) of the bliss they could have enjoyed by not creating them.
Why think that God is limited on the amount of people that He could bring into existence ? Why think that there would only be a limited number of possible people that could love God ?
You wrote …
\\ The damned don't want eternal bliss, that's fine God leaves them to their free choice. But why should they get to dictate the destiny of others who would want to be saved, and enjoy God for eternity? \\
Non existent people who would be damned if they were to be created are not dictating anything. Namely, because they do not exist so as to dictate anything.
I can imagine Joe. He wears a red and blue baseball cap and lives in Alabama. Is he stopping me from doing anything ? Is he dictating to me what I can do or not do ? Is he holding any veto power over me ?
No. Of course not. Namely, because he does not really exist. He is just a figment in my imagination.
William Lane Craig’s answers to this subject are just abysmal.
@@JM-19-86 I most certainly do get the Molinist perspective.
How long does it take for someone to be annihilated ??
I expect an answer on this.
May I ask, how did you come to the conclusion that this god you've mentioned exists?
I agree that Molinism does appear to be, at least in effect, a version of Calvinism. It doesn't really deal with the problematic idea of God creating people who would have no hope of salvation and thus to deliberately consign them to hell.
Instead, the issue can be addressed like this:
God creates all people with free will (when it comes to salvation), and those who choose consistently to reject Him will be consigned to hell because this is consistent with their choice. Yes, God knew that they would make this choice but it doesn't make it any less of a choice. If he had deprived them of the opportunity to exist he would also have deprived them of the opportunity for eternal life.
An analogy:
A parent decides to have a child, knowing full well that the child may grow up to be a miserable murderer behind bars for life, but hoping that instead they will grow up to be a joyful, morally upright, free person. The (good) parent will give that child every opportunity to choose the right kind of lifestyle. Crucially, EVEN THOUGH the parent knows either is a possibility (and anything in-between), and that ultimately it will come down to their offspring's choices, the parent still chooses to have children.
Postmodernism is lame 😊
CC, WLC is a THEOLOGIAN, NOT A HISTORIAN. LOL
Also a historian!
"William Lane Craig is an American analytic philosopher and Christian theologian, historian, and apologist."
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig
Peace.
@@utopiabuster You right.
@@utopiabuster Don't you need a degree in a specific field to gain the right to be called an expert in that field?
@@thierry2720 I believe his dissertation was on the historicity of the New Testament though.
@@vincentiormetti3048 But under the field of theology, which does not have the same standarts for "historicity" than the field of history. As per the results of a quick search, he was researching for this thesis under a theologian, Wolfhart Pannenberg, whoby the way is defending that theology should be considered as rigorous and critical as history or even the natural sciences and who thinks these other fields should be studied with a christian point of view (especially the idea of redemption)... not exactly the objectivity and standarts you'd come to expect from historians.
And at the end of his research, WLC was awarded a doctorate in theolgy, not history. So I wouldn't give him the title "historian" in any official manner, and his views on history shouldn't be considered any more than the ones of an individual very interested in the field, although not an expert.
lol nerds