Responding to YouTube Critics | Reasonable Faith Podcast
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.พ. 2025
- Dr. Craig answers a variety of criticisms including recent statements from Ken Ham.
For more resources visit: www.reasonable...
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonable...
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg
I like that Craig always treats his detractors within Christianity as brothers even though his detractors would not consider him a brother in the faith, such as Ken Ham and some Catholics.
and other catholics would just participate in bombing of womens' health care clinics. never mind that your prophet hero is depicted as wandering common-era-judea and handing out free healthcare.
obviously today YHWH disapproves of anything like nationalized healthcare.
Since babies are apparently supposed to die of medically exotic causes. And no longer depend upon "Traditional Values" where babies mostly died of profound stupidity.
And where in mothers died in huge numbers just from complications of pregnancy or birth.
By all means let's go back to that.
@@jorgen-55I cannot think of ONE example
He's a heretic according to the majority of Christians. But i think we do consider him as a christian.
Edit: He endorse the heresy of Monothelitism: the view that Jesus Christ has only one will. The Church has already condemned this teaching as heresy.
@@calson814 I don't beleive the majority of Christians think he is a heretic. It seems to be a handful of people who take YEC as a salvation issue, but even many in that group respect him for his work. i know i do
@@calson814 The vast majority of Christians are not young earth creationists by far. He differs the most with fundamentalist Christians who seem to downplay the value of reason and evidence as a tool for reaching skeptics or that non-Christians can know certain truths about nature independent of any commitment to the authority of the Bible. Many fundamentalists seem to believe all you need to do is quote Scripture and anything more than that is devaluing the Bible and "relying on man."
Craig is awesome. His argument with Hitchens at Biola is what has sent me into wanting to pursue an academic path in divinity. I was an atheist, and when I first heard that debate, I didn't even listen to WLC. I then heard him talking to Alex O'Connor and thought he seemed like a very genuine guy and went back for another listen.
As a kid, I always hated the word faith. It felt like a cheap answer to an important question. WLC gave me a real answer and it turned my world upside down. I'm not a christian or anything, but I can say that I am at least a deist now, and I am transferring out of comp-sci to go into humanities and hopefully do seminary in grad school.
💜
Thank you for sharing. Look into the claims of Christianity.
Josh McDowell, J. Warner Wallace, Lee Stroble, were all committed atheists that set out to disprove Christianity. They are believers today.
You're on your way. If there's a God...which is the conclusion you have reached and he's the creator of everything, matter, space, time, and energy...wouldn't it be plausible for that creator to come down to our level and reveal something about himself?
Christian theism is the most plausibly true worldview. It is the most parsimonious, has the most explanatory power and scope, and overall is the best explanation of our existence. Until a better explanation that fits the criteria is offered up, Christian theism is the most rational view to hold about why something exists instead of nothing.
God exists, and He loves you. Those who seek God, willing to follow Him and are open to accepting His goodness and love, will find Him. There are numerous arguments, pieces of evidence, and reasons to believe in God's existence. Start here: the Kalam Cosmological argument, the cosmic consciousness argument, the introspective argument, the digital physics argument, the teleological argument, the contingency argument, the moral argument, the historical facts about the resurrection/Life of Jesus, the applicability of mathematics, the ordered universe, countless testimonies ranging from experiencing God to witnessing miracles, biblical prophecy, and much more! Some sources include:
Books: "Reasonable Faith" by William Lane Craig, "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" by Norman Geisler & Frank Turek, "The Kalam Cosmological Argument" by William Lane Craig. TH-cam and TikTok channels: "Reasonable Faith," "Inspiring Philosophy," "Cross Examined." To see both sides, watch "William Lane Craig debates" and "InspiringPhilosophy debates" on TH-cam.
Matthew 7:7 teaches that those who seek truth find it. Leave bias and preferences aside. If you are willing to follow God and also be open to understand why he’s good apart from your bias and preference and enter into a loving saving relationship with him (if he exists,) you will find him. If God exists, heaven and hell are real, life has objective purpose, morality is objective, etc. It's worth looking into. Feel free to contact me for a more in-depth discussion. God bless!
I did that and realized the languages, a study of church history, and hermeneutics was extremely helpful. I took several classes on hermeneutics and interpretation and that set me on a lifetime of learning. I would suggest that all scripture must be interpreted in the same way it was interpreted when it was written. Historians know that documents must be interpreted in the same way. I would suggest a study of biblical theology, character theology, and cultural differences is very helpful.
What a pleasant surprise. These responses are extremely helpful and do matter. I hope Dr. Craig's team continues to suggest response-worthy videos to Dr. Craig since he doesn't surf TH-cam like the rest of us. 😊
Super grateful for the shout out 20:00 🎉
@RuslandKD I was thrilled to hear them comment on the petition you brought up (and I've signed). I'll be checking out your content after this 👍😉
Great! Prayers for you Mr Craig! 🙏
certainly god needs people like william craig,
and apparently yourself, to tell her how to run heaven.
Or maybe just conduct an interview that soft-pedals questions amounting to "so what's your favorite color".
Craig's ideology is that satan is still running the earth, so his trinitarian org-chart seems to leave out the obviously most powerful christian god.
@@tracyavent-costanza346 Classic atheist cringe. You don't know anything about who I am but as soon as you see me support the guy you don't like, you just write a bunch of nonsense. God has proven himself without doubt just be merely creating the universe, moreover, he didn't stop doing miracles after he ascended into Heaven, rather, you should research about Zeiotun, Lourdes, Fatima and the miracle of Calanda, as well as the recorded Eucharistic miracle of Betainia Venezuela just to name a few. I've had some mystical experiences myself. You guys are the ones that make the accusations, so God just lets his followers defend his word. Mr.Kraig isn't doing anything but refuting erroneous accusations.
Also I noticed the small detail of you calling God a "her". First I should notice that even though there isn't agreement amongst all Christians, church history tells us that God has let Mary as the greatest feminine aspect of creation, and even since around 150 ad she has been depicted in icons, and there have been prayers dedicated to her since at least 200 ad. That's to say Christianity isn't sexist. Jesus was breaking all Jewish tradition by taking to women. God refers to himself as the LORD.
If you people are so respectful of pronouns, why wouldn't you respect how God refers to himself? Even if he isn't a gendered being, he calls himself the LORD. Or what will you say? "I don't have to respect an non-existent Sky Fairy"? Then why are you here commenting. Man. Just accept Jesus and be happy lol
Thank you for your work and gentleness. Your patience in the face of this is commendable.
Watched Ken Ham's interview with Allie Beth Stuckey. Realized how wrong he was. Even the majority of early church fathers before science never held on to young earth creationism. God bless you, William!
Physics is strong evidence. The "Ark" model would have collapsed under its own weight by now except that it is propped up by a modern hotel building attached behind it, which is itself composed of not antiquarian steel-reinforced concrete. Apparently SOMEONE in the state of KY building-code-office, was NOT asleep at the wheel when "answers in genesis" applied for a building permit.
@@tracyavent-costanza346 Haha!! Answers in Genesis is wrong on so many things.
That doesn't appear to be true. The majority of church history through the reformers held the view of a recent 6 day creation just thousands of years ago. The same as what YEC believe. Craig acknowledges this "traditional view" of church history in his book on Adam. These newer novel interpretations of Genesis like Craig’s are largely a recent aberration in an attempt to cope with and harmonize Genesis with modern secular historical science.
@@justifiedFaith209 First of, Ken Ham's claims was that Young Earth creationism was what ALL the early church fathers practiced and that there is no other interpretation. That other interpretation is going outside the scripture and that it's a pressure on the Christians by science. That's a false statement and it has been established that the early church fathers had wide variation of opinion on how long creation took. Some said only a few days, while others argued for a much longer, indefinite period.
Seeing that there are other interpretation, it destroys your argument that there could be no other interpretation. So you, like Ken are absolutely wrong!
@@justifiedFaith209I believe it will always be a mistake for religion to offer spiritual explanations to mechanical questions. They aren't needed and will only be superceded by mechanical answers later down the line as science advances.
Therefore I view early religion's attempts to explain physical phenomena such as the stars, lightning etc, as mistakes, and evidence neither for nor against the existence of a god.
One of the huge factors in my pushing away from the YEC community was their mistreatment of Dr.Craig. He is one of the most humble, genuine, and honest public Christian intellectuals out there. I remember a clip from Wretched radio of Todd Friel and a major pastor from MacArthur’s church and they were just negligently, ignorantly bashing Craig in a terrible way. I quit following their content after that.
i'd say that is a factor of pushing away from Ken Ham. personally i still find YEC arguments compelling, but Ken Ham is so dogmatic and viscious to anyone who disagrees with him. id love to see an organization of YEC that continued to work on the science but were less preachy and dogmatic
Ken Ham has become toxic
Stop it you're lying Ken ham simply disagrees with William
The truth is Some parts of Genesis maybe allegorical but the bulk isn't not
And God didn't use death to make man
@@ifthatthenthis3797 God created Adam from the dust of the earth brand new on day 6 . Gen 3:19.Ken Ham is a Christian who holds to a 24 hour day creation week which is fine ,but he believes that if you don’t hold to a young earth view ,you don’t believe the Bible.That’s just simply not true .
@@Terrylb285 actually exact opposite
The Bible says Adam was the first
And gives a genealogy from Adam to Jesus
LITERALLY no person born before evolution science believed that the universe was billions of years old.
Evolution is wrong
God created human 6000 or so years ago
The universe may look old but that's by design.
Ex light travels the speed of light NOW
but when GOD said let there be light it was an instance which is much faster than the speed of light.
God's word totally over the evil lie of evolution
Young Earth vs old Earth is fascinating but I just can't see how it is critical to Christian beliefs. The question is do we base our views on all things solely on the Bible and then never look for any real world evidence? Is Biblical literalism the only way to read the Bible?
to craig and his cabal, such details are critical since their own body of "teaching" is quite elaborate and they can ill-afford to have to face critique relating to any OBVIOUS CONFLICTS when potential monetary support sources are at stake.
It's one thing if new-earthers claim to know some detail about "genesis" that craig and turek have not beaten to death already.
It's quite another if donations and purchases of their recordings or BIOLA sign-ups show some "drop" as a possible
result of an inconveniently exposed disagreement that makes the populist ideology not look so shiny and perfect.
@@tracyavent-costanza346 You need to release yourself of that pent up envy and rage, boy.
@@RepublicConstitution
1) you evidently mistake disagreement for envy. perhaps you have never actually experienced the two and do not know the difference.
2) I wonder what else you misjudge about "deadly sins", especially those you commit on your own. rather than the ones you project upon other people.
3) my rage isn't pent up. that is why I express it with reasonable control.
Most people call it "anger" unless it is profoundly unfocused. Mine is focused.
But you are free to use whatever simpler words your vocabulary is adequate to provide you
4) nevertheless my "rage" remains an improvement over the traditional christian historical "rage". since the latter was just a notorious excuse to kill people while claiming that god said it was okay to do that.
5) so maybe you are misjudging "rage" too, depending on how you were trained to view the rest of the world outside your cultural bubble.
@@tracyavent-costanza346how many scientists would have to be in on the conspiracy to cover up that the earth is 6000 years old? Whose payroll are they on?
@@tracyavent-costanza346 there R plenty of Educated Christians who don't follow the ignorance of YEC.
As a Biola graduate there R plenty of hyper literalist schools that these hyper YEC fundamentalists can go to.
Don't fret SH.
You cant even imagine how helpful you have been for my life, and how you inspire me. Thank you so much! God bless you a lot
Everyone of us can respect the fervor and dedication that Ken Ham has for what he believes is a faithful understanding of the Scriptures; however, his acerbic and accusatory tone and indignation against his fellow brethren who are not engaged in open sin border on Pharisaical spirit--at least in other videos. Ken Ham in this footage seems to have softened his tone. Good for him. Good for all of us. Vigorous disagreements between brethren regarding nonessentials of the Christian faith can be had without animosity.
I saw nothing of that here in this clip. Honestly, I don't think I have ever since Ken Ham get angry or emotional about anything. He simply stating what he believes. It is a different opinion. I'm open to look at it. Maybe I'm weird but I like Ken Ham and I like William Lane Craig. I disagree with both of them on things. So what? Now Ken Hovind on the other hand. 😂 I guess sometimes it is best to say something nice. I have even seen a few clips of Ken Hovind where I thought he did a good job.
@@bassmanjr100 Well, that was my point. Ken Ham had a better tone in this video.
Craig’s graciousness reflects Christ in a way that inspires me even more than his wisdom
I agree. He is a role model of mine. A wonderful man
I’m with Ken Ham on this one.
I have much respect for Dr Craig but he is not biblical and science doesn’t trump scripture.
“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.” WC of Faith
You're interpretation of Scripture is far different than the original Biblical writers and I want their worldview: not some interpretation from Helen G. White's prophetic dreams of the 19th century.
That U have bought into!
William Lane Craig agrees that science doesn’t trump Scripture. Glad you agree with both of them.
I so appreciate Dr Craig's calm, gracious manner in responding to critics. Fruit of the Spirit in evidence.
Aside from Christ and Scripture, Dr. Craig has has the greatest impact on my spiritual life. I am extremely grateful for his work.
People like Ken Hamm , Steve Myer , Rodger Penrose , Jordan Peterson , and more , have been on Joe Rogan show , as Kevin Harris said there’s a petition trying to get you on his show , I hope it happens because Joe is getting closer like Jordan Peterson . To God we will pray that we can bring more people to God .✝️☮️
Thank you Kevin and Dr. Craig.
Nice to be able to pick and choose the parts of the good book that you want.
How Ken Ham has more subcribers than Reazonable Faith, is beyond me. It should be totaly the other way around.
welp maybe that word "reasonable" (sp regardless) just offends people who are trained to be offended by actual physical evidence
We interpret our bible through our 21st century worldview. We tend to forget that it wasn’t written to us in our culture,and we need to bridge our culture to the original audience
It's not about what should be but what is. Perhaps Ken Ham has more followers is because Ken Ham resonates with more people. While Craig is an extremely smart man, Ken runs an organization of extremely smart people who study what Craig claims to investigate.
Craig is not reasonable and even in this video insults YEC's.
@@aaronhaskins9782 YEC is ignorant and should be criticized !
Great video was hoping to see WLC responses to these clips
I mean… I'd watch a discussion (or debate if all parties are civil) between Craig and Ham.
Around 5:35 - "There is poetry in the Psalms, there is wisdom literature in the Proverbs, there is epistolary literature in the letters of Paul, there is history in the Book of Acts, there is ancient biography in the Gospels"
Good point about Psalms. But I would contend that the Gospels are just as much historical accounts as Acts, especially noteworthy is how Acts and Luke commence with words to the effect of "O Theophilus, here's what happened..."
And in the Gospels we read that the Lord Jesus Christ makes reference to the early chapters of Genesis as one cites history: "from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias." That verse in Matt 23 cites the account of Genesis 4 as just as historical as 2 Chronicles.
@6:00
so if the bible ("Acts") is "history" then why are the awkward statements by "Luke" not given more prominence in exegetical sermons:
especially about simon-peter having met saul and commenting later that he himself did not understand saul's version of the teaching.
Really that statement DOES NOT seem to be a ringing endorsement of saul's ideology.
nor the other item in "Acts" where saul pretty much admits to "Luke" of never having met yeshua. ever.
and the prior statement really blows holes in the populist
ideology that somehow during the "damascus road incident" that saul was magically imbued with the entire teaching in the space of about
two hours.
Obviously simon-peter did not think so, and up until that time it would seem to me that simon-peter-cephas would be vastly
more of such an authority since HE DID PERSONALLY KNOW YESHUA.
I was once a YEC. Reading "Science Held Hostage" reformed me.
can you tell me the arguments/evidence that convinced you otherwise? asking as a christian or likes to hear other peoples opinions
I was once a Yec and set out to defend 24 hour days ,and the earth is 6000 years old . At this point I can no longer entertain a young earth viewpoint.
@@Terrylb285 You should have evidence or at least reasoning. But to just dismiss the claims for no reason other than it seems unlikely to you is unhelpful and pointless.
@@benjaminwatt2436 It’s based on exegetical reasons,and the scientific evidence supports it.
@@Terrylb285 can you give an example? I am asking authentically. I'm YEC, but ive been exploring the topic especially with IP and Dr. Gavin Ortland
Thank you Dr Craig!
Sadly, we know from 2 Tim that people will wander off into all sorts of errors, and I see some examples of this in these different criticisms against Dr. Craig. I'm so thankful for Dr. Craig and Reasonable Faith not only for the incredible, thoughtful, intelligent apologetics, but also for the strengthening it gives to the body of Christ. This is the true mission for us all - to proclaim the Gospel and build up the church! I have so much to learn!
Dr. Craig, I would love to see you on Joe Rogan too! ❤
I wish I had WLC's wisdom when it comes to dealing with detractors. I really need to work on that.
same
He's not perfect. I have heard him say thing he shouldn't about fellow Christians that are his detractors. It's OK. I still like what he does, and he's a good man.
When Jesus dealt with the Pharisees he used the entire Old Testament. When he dealt with the Sadducees he used the first five books. He did that because he communicated with them on what they had in common.
There is room for Both old and new earthers. If it helps you in your faith(reasoned knowledge not just blind following), there you go. But it shouldn't be a divisive point between Christians.
Very inspirational to see such an intellectual approach to something mistaken as anti-intellectual
welp it's obviously only anti-intellectual when compared to better intellect.
If William Craig ever goes on Joe Rogan, I will cancel all plans for the night to listen to it! That would be such a treat. And there is so many philosophical topics Joe can talk to him about, such as 'time' and existence itself..I really think Joe should invite WLC to his podcast.. c'mon Joe, don't let us down!
So what are the indicators that fenisis is not a historixal.nariative and more allegorical? Is ther a deeper explaination i cam look up with the evidence to back the claim?
Genesis is to be taken literally. We don't need mainstream science to help me to interpret Genesis. The Bible doesn't tell us how old the earth is. If the earth is billions of years old we can still interpret Genesis literally.
lol good video, I myself am convinced of the young earth, and the evidence sure points to it...But I understand where WLC comes from also. We're not called to harvest, but we're called to plant the seeds, so plant away as many as you can, and allow the Holy Spirit to change lives! God Bless you guys.
Evidence of young earth?
Is Genesis 1:27 "non-essential"? Genesis 3:15? What are other uses of the term "Mytho-history"?
yep that was a rather amusing throw-away-line.
I wonder how many "believers" did not even hear the ideological clunking sound as some element of their theology was dropped on the floor.
Clearly it would have been heavy, since it is made from "iron wood" or whatever substitute
Ken Ham's minions came up with, to build their ark.
@3:40 no ken ham. PHYSICS is drastically closer to "god's word" than any cocka-mamey story that you could cook up.
If the earth is only 6000 years old, how is it that there are human artifacts that c-14 and geological strata evidence strongly
indicate are in deposits much older than that. And for example, the ruins of stonehenge and the recently discoveries in
Turkey which are closer to 10,000 years old.
Feel free to explain this away. I am in the mood for cheap entertainment.
Since the consensus of Science says, a man Crucified cannot raise himself from the dead are we to believe now, that the resurrection is also false, since it does not confer with modern science? or do you simply deny the supernatural element of Creation?
Creation is miraculous because it is something from nothing. The processes by which the earth and universe appear today do not have to be and were most likely not miraculous, although certainly they were providentially caused by God. We say that God creates plants and knits us together in the womb, are those miraculous interventions or God's use of the natural processes he created?
@@jonathanw1106 "The processes by which the earth and universe appear today do not have to be and were most likely not miraculous," ... sorry I just can't take you seriously with that comment. By what standard are you saying they are not miraculous?
@aaronhaskins9782 the common definition of the word? A miracle is by definition something in contravention to the laws of nature. I'm having a hard time taking you seriously if you can't look up the definition of miraculous or see that I used it in its common usage
@@jonathanw1106 water to wine would you call that a miracle?
@@jonathanw1106 again I can't take you seriously. If spontaneous genesis is not miracle enough for you, nothing will. Now go play with your block toys.
Ken Ham has an estimated net worth of $50+ million. He is laughing all the way to the bank by selling his nonsense to the most gullible Christians on earth. At least Craig, by comparison, has some semblance of moral honesty and intellectual credibility.
Do you know WLCs net worth? I don't and don't care. I don't care about Ken's net worth either. Being wealthy or having status is no sign of being wrong or right. Joseph, David, Daniel, Abraham all had status. Wealthy people helped support Jesus' ministry. If you don't have wealth yourself how can you help support others. There us nothing inherently virtuous about being in poverty.
@@bassmanjr100 Depends on whether you came by your wealth honestly. Ken Ham is a grifter.
What’s wrong with going with the flow of scientific consensus? We certainly rely on scientific advancements whenever we take a pill or have surgery? This distinction that secular scientists are somehow skewed in their interpretation of reality or the past because it somehow threatens someone’s interpretation of Genesis I believe is misconceived.
Medical science gets it right, except for when it gets it wrong. Our first president was bled to death by state-of-the-art medical practice while whacko nut jobs that believe that book cover2cover would claim "the life of the flesh is in the blood."
Ken Ham would teach William......
Been a fan for years on FB, not as long here. I respect that you have an opinion but my opinion backed up by Biblical facts. You are perverting the word of the Bible. I will pray God opens your eyes and mind. Can you seek his guidance on this.
Wish you the best,
Benjamin.
@1:30 as for trying to shore up any appearance of discord, would that effort be "FUTILE" or "FEUDAL" by craig's estimation.
I agree with Dr Craig on a lot but I believe Dr ken Ham is correct on the date of the earth
Gotta remember, God created the universe before Adam and Eve. Genesis doesn't have a specific date but Angel's and Satan rebellious towards God was way before humans.
@@tlor8922 umm okay. What does that have to do or how does it relate to my comment? Either make a point or just go make your own comment instead of replying to mine
@@tlor8922 Got a question for you. At what point do you believe the Bible to be true? Genesis? Exodus? Numbers? Matthew? Where do you start believing the Bible?
@christking85 it does relate. Genesis speaks about how the world was created. But no one knows for sure the gap between when earth was formed and when Adam and eve were created after. All I know is that since there were other beings created (angels) and Satan betraying God. It would make sense that Ken Ham is not accurate. Jesus said he was the one who witness Satan get kicked out of heaven. And that was before Adam and even.
I believe the whole Bible is true. You can probably date back when humans existed. But not the universe.
@@tlor8922 You cannot believe the Bible is true if you dont believe what is says. You can pretend. When it explains the genealogy and you dont believe it you are contradiciting what it said.
Would you consider a response video to the many "Rationality Rules" challenge videos he has made. I know you did reply to some of his comments early this year. Thank you. 😊
To me the greatest problem with the old earth view is, that there are so many "reductio ad absurdum"-type arguments against it. This leads there having to be countless number of "ad-hoc"-type explanations to explain all the contradictory data.
Examples of these might be something like (not sure of all of these, shooting from the hip) the RATE-project and helium in the rocs, weakening of earths magnetic field, C14 in coal and diamonds, dinosaur soft tissue, moon receding from earth, salt increase of the seas (gives maximum age of 60 million years or so), number of supernova remains, shape of the galaxies. If hominids appeared 3 million years ago, every base pair of their mithocondrial DNA would have mutated several times during their history.
These are just examples of processses that might give much yonger age than the old earth/universe view allows. Lord knows how many processes like this there are, that all have to be somehow explained with some currently unknown process. Oort cloud is typical example of such explanation.
How about the work of ex-Cornell professor John Sanford and genetic entropy? Individual mutations are so small, that natural selection won't weed them out, so they end up cumulating and destroying the DNA long before millions of years (100 mutations or so every generation). I used to have his several times peer reviewed simulation software called "Mendel´s accountant" on my computer. Craig should really engage with Harward trained dr. Nathaniel Jeanson. He is doing the most cutting edge work that I know in the area of YEC and genetics.
Well thought out comment, but if I may, the argument for old earth has philosophical components in addition to scientific ones, so we can't simply exclude those when discussing the issue. But more to your specific points, whether their are gaps in our understanding as to various natural principles does not invalidate the titanic amount of evidence that earth must be significantly older than 6000 years. Most of the objections to that are cherry picked in favor of YEC tend to simply overlook this, and try to paint the scientific position as hinging entirely on one or two troublesome processes, when that is simply not the case. Even if everything you point out is correct, it does not imply the earth must be 6000 years old. Further the YEC position has the unenviable position of needing to be exact and precise, meaning variances in scientific information are far more detrimental to the YEC position than simply interpreting the data independently which is what old age does. An example of this is that if you proved that trees fossilize in 50000 years instead of 1000000, it doesn't prove the earth is 6000 years old,but also does not disprove the earth is millions of years old
When I hear that these are the detractions. I realize how much of an echo chamber exists within the faith. It saddens me that there ia not even a questioning of the assumptions laden to the criticisms, or William Lane Craig's responses that would lead to fruitful discussion as opposed to repetition of presuppositions.
Echo chambers exist everywhere. No one is immune.
I am with Ken Ham as the age of the Earth/Universe. 1. Genealogy 2. Soft tissue "million" old dinosaur bones. 3. Miracle of loaves and fishes. 4. Texts as read in its entirety. 5. The dead comes to life. And other miracles. 6. Doubting Thomas syndrome 7. What has been revealed to me.
Loaves and fishes 😂
And indeed, there must be differences among you to show which of you are approved. (1 Cor. 11:19)
Ken Hamm is standing in the way, blocking the door to salvation turning away millions, perhaps billions. I would not like to stand next to him on Judgement!
I agree wholeheartedly. His dogmatic insistence that YEC is a litmus test for “real Christianity” is harming people and has turned many young people away from the faith.
The entire foundation of Hams ministry is built on 24 hour days and a global flood ,and he’s not going to let anything wash it away .I believe he thinks his interpretation of genesis is infallible.
@@scottylamm9673I don’t think Ken Ham technically claims this, but your criticism is still on point. I kinda wished church leaders would address the absurd dogmatism of YEC advocates; we sorely need to.
You think he’s gonna face damnation for believing the Bible?
@@JohnnyBeeDawg Ken Ham is a Godly man and wants to serve our Lord and Savior.YEC and OEC are Brothers and Sisters in Christ.It’s Ken Ham who says unless you believe the earth is 6000 years old ,you don’t believe the Bible . That is something that needs to be clarified.
Harmony and unity in the body of Christ must come about IN the Truth, not in spite of the Truth.
We CANNOT lead the wicked world to repentance and faith in Jesus by conforming to it!
19:00 this answer was so good
Amazing video!
3:13 , Dr. Craig, do you hold to a methodological naturalist approach to empirical research? I know that you hold to a metaphysical dualist worldview, however. Is this correct? Thanks!
No, Dr. Craig does not hold to methodological naturalism. On p. 375 of Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (2nd edition), he and J. P. Moreland say this:
"[Theistic science], more than any of the [other views], allows for the possibility that science and theology may directly interact with each other in epistemically positive or negative ways."
- RF Admin
Thank you for the reply.
What does "theistic science" mean in the context of a Dualist worldview? Theism is generally used as a noun not an adjective. Theism is a proper noun, I think.
This claim only addresses Dr. Craig's view related to epistemology. The interaction between theism and science does not address my question. Methodological naturalism (Spiegel, 2023) relates to a metaphysical claim, not an epistemological claim. @@ReasonableFaithOrg
Thank you for the clarification,
The clip with Mythovision really tells you what you need to know about Mythovision’s claims to objectivity.
ken ham doesnt assume he's done the research
WLC is one of my personal heros. I hope to meet him one day.
Become a Reasonable Faith chapter director! All chapter directors have an open invitation to meet Dr. Craig every year at an annual meeting. - RF Admin
Dear Bill, it’s crucial that we understand the Spiritual meaning behind God’s Holy Word, if not…we would just read the plain text as catholics do, and take most things literally. When Jesus said, I am “The Way, The Truth, and The Life”….He is actually proclaiming His divinity. The Way means the way to Salvation, the Truth means The Word aka Jesus is Truth, The Life means Eternal Life in Him.
Romans 10:17
“So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”
WRT "... When Jesus said, I am “The Way, The Truth, and The Life”….He is actually proclaiming His divinity. .."
never mind that we do NOT KNOW that yeshua ("jeezus") ever said that.
at best we have evidence that "john" said it about "jeezus"
but there is that minor problem where "John" is NEVER directly depicted in any of the other narratives as EVER HAVING PERSONALLY MET YESHUA in the first place.
Evidently such standards are unimportant to "believers" since the same appears true of "Luke" and Saul of Tarsus (aka "Paul") yet their works dominate the tone of the KJV/NT
and even if VAGUELY ACCURATE as represented after around five translations, the phrase means NOTHING IN ENGLISH. A person is not a "way" and is unlikely to be "the truth" nor "the life" for that matter. each human has his/her/their own life. They do not have anyone else's.
@@josemoody1743
it is amusing but not that funny, how the "john" phrase gets quoted but rarely does anyone point out that it makes no syntactical sense.
@@josemoody1743
that is certainly true, so it would be fully incumbent upon a competent translator to take all of that imprecision into account and do the best translation possible.
barring which, AT LEAST notate the translation with OTHER POSSIBLE WAYS it could have been interpreted.
I have seen some online language concordances which did exactly that, hence the way the translation reads, could come out quite differently.
@@josemoody1743 …
You asked: What is a ' way ? '
Way has various meanings but in this context...
A means of passing from one place to another
Is this difficult to understand?
-You’re right, if I read this saying of Jesus at 23, I would have said the same thing, but the amazing thing is that at 24 I truly repented of my sins and realized that I was totally hopeless without Him and His awesome payment for my sins he paid on the cross. That day I cried my eyes out in humbleness and the next morning I realized that something had taken place. I was with a friend who had already been born again and he was able to explain my new thoughts and feelings.
You asked: What is life?
do you need a definition?
-Life is opposite of death…the Bible tells us that “the wages of sin is death”
Death is not just a natural thing like we all like to think…but death is actually a bad thing that came about due to our sin nature. We can only be restored to new life after we die and be resurrected with new bodies if we are born again, covered by His blood He shed for us.
You asked: What is truth?
What is truth for you anyway?
-Truth is what’s factual or reality…and Jesus is King of Righteousness, and everything that is Right, is fact and real.
Jeremiah 23:6
“In his days Judah will be saved, and Israel will dwell securely. And this is the name by which he will be called: ‘The Lord is our righteousness”
1 Corinthians 1:30
“And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption”
@@tracyavent-costanza346 … the best and only evidence you need will come from His Holy Spirit, all you need to be concerned with is repenting of your sins and truly calling out to Jesus as your life depends on it (because it does). Blessings
I'm not committed to "young earth creationism" but the point could be made that you, Craig, are deeply committed to "old earth creationism" and are therefore not open to any other evidence.
If you think it's non essential then you shouldn't care when your viewpoint is challenged. WLC list me years ago when his means of interpreting scripture was on the basis of philosophy rather than active biblical study.
Craig is great and l will continue to respect and listen him. But it is sad that he does not take Genesis literally. Genesis is not poetry but description. And yes, let's remember YEC or OEC we are still brothers.
Have you read or listened to his genre analysis of Genesis 1-11? If so, on what points do you disagree? - RF Admin
We want more videos like that
I really love Dr Craig but I’ll have to agree with Ham on this one, I always felt that Dr Craig goes with the scientific establishment more that the Bible.
If you read his book on the historical Adam, you'll see that the entire first half of the book is dealing first with the biblical data and doing a genre analysis of the creation texts. Only after that does he compare the text with the scientific data. - RF Admin
We need to realize that the messages of the Bible do not have only one relevance or interpretation. There are unlimited layers there that under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, can provide many many truths and messages. Even where the Bible is stating literal truth, symbolic messages often (possibly always) also exist. The Bible itself, is a Miracle form God. It IS perfect.
I do believe and have a huge FAITH, that all of the Bible is literally true, and also has meaning for us on whatever level we care to examine it. Perfect, remember.
Unless given unquestionable proof via other Bible passages (the Bible never contradicts itself), we should and must take it at it's word as the literal truth. Though perhaps most of Revelations might be figurative language, and indeed it's impossible to understand Revelations without reference to many passages of the Old Testament, even some of Revelations maybe also literal.
Yes Sir, those beasts of Revelation while representing other things, could be easily also literal. Make no mistake, it's very reasonable and logical, to speculate that for instance where the beasts target only the non-saved, those with the "mark of the beast", that factor, the targeting of only the un-saved, could be based upon the potential fact that the mark of the beast might be represented by DNA modifications that would render humans technically non-human. God HAS gone to a great deal of trouble/work in the past, to maintain the purity of our human DNA. His eradication of the Giants, etc etc.
This argument is assuming that what defines humanity IS the specific human body design, as represented by the code (DNA). If this is the case than modified humans become abominations in God's sight, to which Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross could not apply, also explaining why and how Satan obtains the authority to murder en-mass those with the mark.
p.s. It highlights the huge potential dangers of accepting the mark of the beast. I hope you all remained unva**ed, because I at least DO NOT TRUST those mega corporations. They care only for money and profit, never for anyone's health or well being. Worse, they are non-Christian, have rejected God and his morality, so are thus vulnerable to demonic influence. Do they already have body wide DNA modification technology? I don't know. But if not, I'll bet that they're working on it!.
The argument is supposition of course. My point is that it could logically be true - we DON'T know, showing that a literal interpretation could easily have very important information and truth for us.
Just adding up the genealogy listed in the Old Testament gives us a projected age directly in line with about 6000+ years. The whole structure of the Earth's surface as devastated by the flood, also only really makes sense when viewed from a young Earth perspective. Then there is the recent Christian based DNA tracking research, that very strongly suggests (pretty much proves - though atheists are trying to argue around it) the same short time scales since Adam. Our one true creator God of the Bible IS all powerful. WHY exactly are we questioning what the Bible appears to say as literal fact? Oh, because current "science" - the World's wisdom, suggests and teaches huge time scales in efforts to prop up the failed Evolution theory?. A theory that seeks to replace God's design work of creation with "random occurrence". Hmm.
God Bless.
[from one of craig's wiki pages]: "...a cause which brought the universe into being ex nihilo ... "
william craig is especially fond of making this rather flimsy point in a variety of his public appearances and debates.
I was rather disappointed that christopher hitchens (RIP) did not call him out for this, but I certainly will:
the "big bang" is not a "something from nothing" event, professor. rather any model approximating it, would begin with
the presumption of profound CONCENTRATION of matter and energy. NOT an absence of it. After which it imploded/exploded
in a profoundly violent manner which supposedly cast the matter of the known universe in every direction in 3-D space (but oddly
not in an especially uniform fashion it would seem).
Therefore there is NO EVIDENCE for the universe existing "ex nihilo".
Nor especially is there any reason to regard the "big bang" as UNIVERSALLY UNIQUE. Rather applying the general principle of conservation of matter
and energy according to thermodynamics, it may eventually be held that the most RECENT big-bang (roughly 13 billion years ago) was simply one of a
regression thereof. The part that is missing of course, is any compelling model of how the concentration/implosion would take place.
Moreover your other implied premise that "therefore it needed some extraordinary creator-intelligence to help it along" has ZERO BASIS for
"sequitur" and even less for implying that "christianity"
is somehow critical for these supposedly-miraculous events to take place nor to hold-together the known universe either.
The same dismissal applies to your specious claim about the Kalam Argument somehow supporting christian ideology.
It was supposedly presented by a feudal-period MOSLEM even according to what appears to be your own published article(s).
Evidently el-Kalam DID NOT THINK that christianity was critical for the universe to "work" either.
But given that the influence of dark-matter/dark-energy is just lately being considered in terms of general impact to cosmology, I would
think it very unlikely that our existing models adequately account for all of the major forces which would influence a regression of re-mophing
if that concept is implied by the rest of the details as they become evident.
Nor of course, given a possibly vastly MORE COMPLEX model, involving mutiple or nested parallel realities where big-bangs are CONSTANTLY HAPPENING
in one relative-universe or another (as is presumed for our own universe in regard to black holes and stellar supernovae) can your own rather superficial
analyis of how "things came to be as they are" possibly hold more than a drop of water. Nor would your "outside-of-time" creator-god likely survive such a catalysm when it took place in HIS CONTEXT OF UNIVERSE since none of them would be likely immune to being re-morphed.
Yeah sure you can say that it’s possible that the Big Bang was just one in a long line of events, but you have no evidence of that, it’s just speculation.
It also doesn’t free you from the problem of having to explain the origin of all of these events. Even if we assume the Big Bang wasn’t the beginning of the universe, the universe still has a beginning, it didn’t create itself.
Really like a lot of Dr. Craig's stuff. But just like Ken Ham and the rest of us, he's human and has the 13 billion year old earth and his exegesis of Genesis wrong. If he posits that Ken Ham has to accept being wrong on some things then he also must accept the same. He's wrong on this one.
I was trained by Mary and given correct theology
Lol yeah Myth Vision is not a scholarly channel. It is atheist apologist. That clip claiming they take the high ground was cringy
I can't imagine what kind of mental gymnastics Mr. Craig must go through to deny the plain meaning of the Historical book of Genesis. I'm sure it's original hearers took it to mean what it said, as clearly, did Jesus (Mark 10:6), Paul (2 Cor. 11:3 ) Peter (1 peter 3:20). If he doesn't get the first book of the Bible right, he denies the reason we need redemption, that creation originally reflected God's nature. The unbeliever can point to the problem of the existence of evil without it. Are we going to believe God's word or the shifting opinions of humans who use evolutionary speculation to deny God's existence or relevance?
Are you familiar with Dr. Craig's work on the genre identification of Genesis 1-11? It's not straightforward history. - RF Admin
@5:54 "epistolary literature" in the pauline epistles? Did I hear you right?
the term above seems (according to search engine hits) to be used with the word "novel" (as in fantasy/fiction see...)
otherwise "epistolary" if claimed to be FACTUAL CONTENT, would imply that the "letters" WERE NOT INTENDED FOR WIDE AUDIENCE
EVALUATION but were rather PRIVATE CORRESPONDENCES. Made evident by the frequent complaining that saul seems to ramble about,
with respect to supposed rivals in the preaching business and how terrible it would be if anyone believed whatever they were preaching.
you know, since saul's message is so obviously sacrosanct. as bible text, it is sacrosanct because it says it is.
What's not surprising, but always saddening, watching the last 2 clips; is the meanspirited nature, the condescending attitudes. How can meaningful civil discussions be had, when some involved, insist on insulting others?
Is the academic method petty, catty insults, at people they believe are incorrect because other people said they are incorrect(irony coming from rogan as much of what he's come to believe is precisely because of *what other people have said, or told him*)?
I'd rather have "meanspirited nature" than witch hangings. so much for traditional values and the great gifts they provided to humanity.
@@tracyavent-costanza346 none of what you wrote relates to anything I posted. So what you are trying to infer is unclear to me.
@@tracyavent-costanza346 how many people alive today have personally witnessed a "witch hanging" ?
Something about Craig watching Ruslan is hilarious to me.
i dont think calling ruslan an apologist is a good idea. He is more of a podcast host.
@@HickorySpringsKY Do not judge by appearances, but judge with right judgment.” John 7:24
He is a business man attention chaser to stay relevant. He understands that if his audience is silly enough to believe in talking snakes then most of his audience is silly enough to allow him to speak to them on behalf of god. Speaking for god is lucrative.
Can we all agree that God created the universe out of nothing and that there was an original created couple, Adam and Eve? I don’t think we can say for certain what the age of the Earth. However if we don’t have Adam and Eve, can we have original sin, without which it seems to me that the Gospel doesn’t make sense?
Science reveals and it’s always revealing new things that were always there. Why do ppl always have to try to wedge the Bible into some current worldview. We don’t even know what some of it means. Why is this a problem.
It's too bad there is so much confusion in the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation.People have been believing so many things for hundreds/thousands of years not really knowing what the actual truth is.Science progresses and Philosophy progresses and the confusion gets worse.
Genesis is different from revelations in that Genesis is past and Revelations is future, the past is set in stone, but the future is a mystery...also God himself says twice in the book of Exodus (outside of Genesis) that He created the universe in 6 days (Exodus 20:11 and Exodus 31:17)
in regards to the creation of the universe, scientist can only tell you what things look like, they cant tell you what actually happened...human beings define reality and truth based on perception and scientist are no exception, however reality and truth isnt dependent on perception...also keep in mind that the creation of the universe was not a natural event but a supernatural event, the natural cannot explain or comprehend the supernatural
For thousands of years, humans thought the earth was flat, why, because it looked flat, now was it flat? no, it just looked flat, and so we were certain that it was flat...our definition of reality is determined by perception, only God knows the truth
For example, God turned Moses staff into a real fully grown snake in an instant, however if scientist were to examine that snake, they would come to the conclusion that the snake is a few years old, but in reality the snake is just a few minutes old, now if you told the scientist that they were wrong and that the snake is actually minutes old, they would probably look at you like your crazy and give you all the scientific evidence to show that the snake is years old, but they would be wrong...reality transcends perception, reality is God
The angel of God told Mary that she would have a child, and Mary wondered how that could be since she is a virgin, the angel of God shows Mary that she doesnt know or understand the power of God...True reality is God, but for us humans reality is based on our perception, so we have a "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it must be a duck" mentality and approach to reality and truth
We dont have the ability to see things for what they truly are, but for what they appear to be...and that is why revelation (not the book of revelation) is crucial, there is truth that simply cannot be deduced it must be told to you unless u wouldn't know...the creation of the universe is one of those revelational truths
Unfortunately this would contradict the Bible when it says the heavens declare the glory of God. If the universe is 6000 years old but God made it to appear to be billions, then it would mean that God intentionally made a world and heavens designed to deceive otherwise honest investigators into believing something which is not true
William, I disagree with the response to Ken that he is wrong when your reason for believing the secular scientists and not with what God says states in His word. I love you and enjoy most of your debates but Ken is right on what Gods word says and you put your trust in those who reject God. If there was an evolutionary process there was death before the fall. This is very troubling. I wonder also if you even know of the arguments and evidence for a young earth. May God direct our hearts and minds on these very important understanding.
Lets be quite clear here however...Id wager a tiny, tiny fraction of the commenters here have ever spent any meaningful time reviewing YEC arguements. WLC included. It is completely uninteresting to the vast majority. Entertaining a YEC position would damage his effectiveness in debate. It's too much to take on.
There is tremendous evidence for a young earth. The problem is that "mainstream" science is itself an enterprise greatly influenced by politics, culture, amd ideaology.
The only way to tell the age of the earth is to believe God, who was there at the beginning. Scientists have to make unproven assumptions to get billions of years. That’s not science, it is simply a worldview. When God said “Let there be stars in the heavens and let them give light to the earth”, did God have to obey the speed of light, or did the speed of light have to obey Him.
If doctor examine adam and eve, they will conclued they are old. but the fact is they only 1 day old. Think about it. Same as the universe.
The body of Christ would benefit from a WLC vs KH debate.
MAKE IT HAPPEN 🙌🏻
WLC would tie KH in knots
@jdalessi At first, I assumed that you meant William Lane Craig vs Kevin Harris.
@@MojoPin1983 NOPE - Kevin is his co-host - Ken Hamm
I love you all, so quit fighting
@5:21 how convenient that doctor craig calls out ken ham for some issue about literal interpretation of genesis.
never mind that his own ideology TOTALLY DEPENDS on very specious "interpretation" of NT text (especially the rather inconsistent and convoluted versions of yeshua's execution story).
Craig has no license to claim any superior means to undertake such supposed interpretation (nor claim his exegeses to be inherently superior either).
Not that I am in the least way agreeing with Ham on anything. I just do not agree with either one of them.
Ken Ham is bluntly arrogant and Craig is sort of less outwardly abrasive (never mind Frank Turek).
But neither of the three have a factual leg to stand upon.
I don’t think James Charlesworth is a good example of a supporter of the views in myth vision.
The problem with the Kalaam in views of Biblical Creation, is the Bible does not say the universe was made out of nothing. God was over the waters of the deep and said, Let there be Light. There was something before something was created. Lastly there is no reason to hold Gen 1 as metaphor. Since GOD said, Adam was in the beginning, and the beginning was not over Billions of years. Just make a timeline and look and see if it's over a billion years. ... Adam was at the beginning not the end according to GOD, not WLC.
As Dr. Craig has noted, Gen 1:1 is a Hebrew idiomatic expression indicating God's creation of all things. Colossians 1:16 echoes this.
Your comment also indicates that you have not come to terms with the genre analysis of Genesis 1-11, which is mytho-history. Just as one would not read poetry literalistically, so too do scholars recognize that mytho-history is not to be read literalistically. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg the Jews and the early Church did not consider it mytho-history another pagan nonsense idea slang term you guys came up with. They had the writing of the Patriarch's, Jasher, Jubilee's the histories that was used by Josephus etc. Seriously, you're in heretical territory here. ... you can literally count the years back to Adam, sure it might be off a few years, but not billions you pagan.
@@ReasonableFaithOrg Colossians 1:16 does not lead credence to your argument, all it says is All things were created by Him and for Him, and gives no short time duration or long term duration. NOR does it state that out of nothing was something created. You people honestly make stuff up and push it on the naive. Gen 1:2 "And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters." Waters is something, not nothing. Also, since the Angels were present at creation, it lends to a reality outside of our own, meaning Gen 1 only deals with our reality, not the reality of God's dwelling habitation of that of the Elohim.
Ken Hamm is an embarrassment to the Christian community, particularly those that follow him. He is not a scholar in any way, shape, or form, and yet he openly criticizes scholars in their own fields of expertise. A person can have an opinion, but don't claim know all things in all areas counter to all evidence. Furthermore, Hamm has made boatloads of money from his 'ministry' while Christian scholars like Dr. Craig, continue to do their work every day for a normal paycheck.
I think Ken Ham is more right in this isst
GET CRAIG ON ROGAN!!! 🙏🙏🙏
Only one Gospel:
The Gospel of Reconciliation.
Jesus Christ came into THEIR kingdom
to reconcile fallen angels unto Himself.
We are the fallen angels (ELOHIM) kept in DNA chains of darkness.
If you do not confess being a fallen angel in Lucifer's kingdom, then you are an unbeliever.
Unbeliever = those that claim to be made in the image of God.
Essentially you folks are willing to deny scripture for a secular conclusion. Based on the intro, It also sounds like your willing to compromise truth in exchange for unity.
Must be frustrating to have a conversation with someone who won't move from a dogmatic position, Dr. Craig.
I might actually pay a small sum, just to be a fly on the wall when craig and frank turek talk "privately" about how to claim their brilliant
theological insights apply to current events and decisions of secular political leaders.
since any development not agreeing with their own espoused views, couldn't possibly be the work of any trinity members. It would have to instead be the work of that fourth christian god.
Atheism is a dogmatic position in it's own rite.
BUT WLC, you have BIAS, and Bigotry at fellow Christians yourself.
Evolution use be the current scientific accepted view.
Ken Ham’s hermeneutics 🤦🏼♂️ Unfortunately he uses his platform to push faulty fundamentalist handling of God’s word.
WLC denies the scripture, and insulted YEC quite blatantly. WLC will eventually learn his views of YEC is incorrect. If God's word won't convince WLC, then maybe God will explain it to him ... again.
Dr. Craig does not deny Scripture. He simply denies a particular faulty, unwarranted interpretation of Scripture. - RF Admin
@@ReasonableFaithOrg sure he does, was Adam at the beginning of Creation of the end of Creation. Can you post a timeline and show evidence of your belief?
@@aaronhaskins9782 Even asking for a timeline presupposes a certain genre analysis of Genesis. But, again, it doesn't seem like you've come to terms with the mytho-historical nature of the text. It's like asking where the home of the sower in the Parable of the Sower is located. - RF Admin
2 christians can't agree on things they can't possibly know to exist. Awesome
There is a lot of hubris in this podcast. The reality is the quantum physics is main stream science. But quantum physics is erroneous and should be abandoned. There is no microwave background. 4:36 shows that y’all don’t consider the Bible as the message from
The creator and that the physics of the creation is more authoritative than scripture. Your basically claiming that God is real but ineffective at communicating. Lol😂