Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-by him this man is standing before you well. This one is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:8-12)
@@brettske178 nonsense! I was declared dead more then once. I reside across the street from a cemetery. Believe me when one is dead one is dead, there is no coming back. Being dead and being declared dead are two completely and unrelated things.
Asan atheist I don't claim to disprove God. I say that I have not seen sufficient evidence that a god exists. I'm very comfortable with this position. I don't mind if someone else believes in God.
4:05 ”Stop believing in man”? If the chairs keep breaking do i stop believing in them or the carpenter. Or do you notice they have to make themselves into that mix of broken and barely working, all with no carpenter in sight? Maybe if we could have chair support groups without requiring all the carpenter stuff? Just a thought.
@@ConsumeristScroffa Christianity is anti civilizational. Nobody can pay for my sins but me. Can I arrive in court and declare, Jesus has already paid for my crime and then go about my business? If you say that is a false understanding, then what was the bit about Let him without sin cast the first stone? That is exactly that. That was not a virtue. It was an appeal to anarchy.
@@thedeifiedjulius2310 No it isn't. The burden of proof is on the person who says something is not as it appears. You're confusing a legal doctrine with a principle of intellectual inquiry.
The only logic is that humankind need to get on top of dying gracefully. We are born. We live. We die. We have such an opportunity to exist and experience life now.. why is now never enough. Because it is. And it is all we have.
You can't disprove the existence of Elves. Not even by employing the same dodgy semantic sleight of hand. Bertrand Russell's teapot is real.too, and beckoning you to worship it.
/rolls eyes Existence cannot arise from non-existence Existence Exists Therefore, Existence is Eternal Thus, it follows that ''Creation'' is both unnecessary and impossible. God is merely a name for the eternal nature of existence, which is fine, I guess, as far as a it goes, but attributing anything to that name is mere projection of the human imagination.
Hear ! Hear! Why is that so difficult for most to understand We are born from dust and return to dust at death. We have zero idea what happens outside that time frame if anything. So best to live our life’s the best we can. Sadly humanity is still nothing more then glorified barbarians it was millennia ago. Civilisation, what nonsense.
"Existence cannot arise from non-existence" strikes me as a tautology. How could you possibly know that? IF we are nothing more than elevated earthworms adapting to our environment for survival, how does that limited awareness have the hubris to make such a sweeping non-sequitor? What does the earthworm know about the farmer's plans for crop rotation? Nothing. An earthworm is only driven by it's own instincts for survival. That does not make the farmer unreal or even insignificant.
@@robertholland7558 From my perspective, this sweeping dismissal of civilization could only be made by one who has no idea of how tragically difficult it would be to survive outside of civilization. Nothing can be more blinding than the loss of gratitude for what has been given us.
@@merriemerrie7378 what gratitude has been given us? What nonsense. One can not what one does not have. Like I stated, it is best to live our life as best we can, and means being on the path of enlightenment, not submitting to some Deity. When you have learned the difference then, and only then, may we talk about gratitude.
But we are also not in a position, nor do we have a single shred of evidence, to suggest the existence of God; or that even if such a God exists, that such a God is moral, empathic, or benevolent.
why "empathic" of all things? (which, Jesus would work for that desire to have the ultimate Good (highest of ideals etc. and so unreachable by 'mere mortals' and all that)/divine understand the mortal man's plight. Those 40 years in the desert and all)
Atheists frequently assert that God does not exist, and that they are justified in denigrating those who differ. They also *act* as though good and evil exist, while providing no justification for doing so beyond temporary convenience. Nor have you bothered to offer a logical proof of your own assertion regarding the burden of proof. Double standard?
You are mistaken in your belief in free will, which negates the existence of a god; it's simply a product of your mind playing tricks on you. The real question is how humans attain agency when we are fundamentally composed of the same cosmic elements, as famously articulated by Carl Sagan in Astrophysics. Now, turning to the insights of biologists like Charles Darwin, we must inquire at what stage in the process of evolution we acquired this agency. The notion of an Abrahamic God has long lost its relevance, as it's easy to identify inconsistencies within those narratives. So, one must ask, how many contradictions are needed to prompt a change in your perspective? If you approach this rationally, even a single contradiction suffices. To reconcile this, start by defining your concept of God, free will, and your understanding of the self, denoted as "I," in any way you see fit. You may encounter confusion, as the English language often separates ownership from identity - for example, when we say, "I will get my teeth fixed," it seems as though we possess the teeth rather than being intrinsically connected to them. In the end, the crux of the matter is to establish your definitions of God, free will, and "I" in a manner that makes sense to you. If you still maintain a belief in an Abrahamic God, free will, and an "I" with agency, I can demonstrate the inconsistencies in your definitions. This approach will not prove effective unless you are willing to invest the effort into precisely defining what you mean by the Abrahamic God, the concept of free will, and your understanding of the self as represented by "I." To truly grasp the essence of your beliefs and potentially recognize any delusions, it's crucial to engage in a process of introspection and definition. While I may offer insights, you might not fully appreciate or accept them until your own mind grapples with these definitions. It's through this introspective process that your beliefs can be more clearly understood and evaluated.
I think Professor Craig is quite right. But I think we can go a step further and say that if there is evil, then God exists (a claim Craig has also made). Ironically, evil creates a logical problem for atheism. Evil is a moral property. But moral properties can't exist in the absence of God. Thus, if there is evil, then God exists. The atheist cannot eat their cake and have it. If atheism is true, no evil exists. But if evil does exist, then atheism is false.
@@dennismenace4188 ….. and I don’t need you to agree with me. But you’ve felt free to comment negatively in a public forum, without meeting the standard that you expect of others.
The closing comments say it all. It is because of free will granted to man by God that suffering comes into being. Without suffering there can be no true choice. We could opt to be colourless meaningless robots that have lives where nothing goes wrong. Even God knows suffering when he sent his son to redeem mankind
Train of thought question, in curiosity & good will: animals don't have free will, and they don't agonize over "evil," "shame," "guilt," "anger," "despair." Their "suffering" will only be limited the "fear" (or maybe "anger" crosses over, not sure, but it's one of those base & simple instincts with fear & disgust) of the immediate & material things. Is their a better word for that material level of suffering? As separate to that 'suffering' as having to do with the same level of abstraction as despair. "pain"? physical pain? I've found that the more I read into the metaphysical, abstract, & theology, the more I expand my English vocabulary; "magnanimous" for example.
@@EA_Kar Nice one! I get what you say. Yes, it very much distinguishes the difference between humans and animals. They suffer too but in a completely different way, yet I fall short of a word to differentiate
But there is a long tradition within Christianity that the existence of God can be proved, chief among them Anselm's Ontological Argument, and the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas, The Catholic Church accepts (indeed mandates) these 'Proofs'. A long tradition in Philosophy, led by Kant, Hume and others, show these 'Proofs' do not hold water.
@@saltburner2explain the satanic subtext of this world? Why is everything satanic in the secular world? Throughout music, even classical music. Throughout this post modernist world. From churches to Muslim to Buddhism to Hindu. Masonic symbols at your local war memorial. Baphomet worship in LGBT. It can be seen everywhere, including in your local church of satan. If there is nothing going on in your secular world, why do people bow down to satanic symbols as much as they do?
If "God" has given us free will, then, perhaps, all suffering is optional. What causes one person to suffer, may not phase another person. Whether or not a person suffers, depends upon how he views the situation. Therefore, a person may use his free will to choose to suffer. For example, a young man may want to become a Navy Seal. His father points out to him that this will involve a lot of suffering. The young man replies that he knows that this is true, but he is willing to suffer to become a Navy Seal. In fact, learning to endure suffering is part of the attraction of becoming a Navy Seal. And the fact that we can learn to endure suffering demonstrates that our level of suffering is a choice. The less a person knows about and accepts "Human Nature", the more likely they are to suffer as they are constantly surprised by human behavior. The more experienced person suffers little, because they are no longer surprised by human behavior. When someone says that something is evil or inhumane, it simply means that they have been surprised. Therefore, the presence of suffering confirms that God exists and has given us free will to suffer or not to suffer depending upon how we decide to perceive the situation.
1 - You mix physical and emotional sufferings. 2 - Not only humans, but every living beings in the world being capable to suffer has nothing to do with any god.
But, that's not the entire case, in the animal kingdom, animals are causing suffering to other animals, predators strangle and choke their prey to death, some predators eat their prey alive and the prey feels the pain of each bite, there are severe horrible diseases, parasites, animal babies that get preyed upon or cannibalized. Heck even good People who have done nothing wrong also might go through tremendous suffering and pain. No matter what, if i was an intelligent designer, i would never create a world where i am testing the faith of my creation by causing them tremendous suffering. And animals are sentient but they don't have ability to reason, they just live by their instincts, why would an intelligent design create life that is solely based on instincts but that life still has to suffer horrible pain and tremendous cruelty. There truly is no justifiable explanation of suffering. I can still cope with the idea that Humans suffer due to their ignorance. But what about animals? Why would God cause sentient life such as as animal life to suffer tremendously? Animals don't have an ability to reason, or judge, or morals. They just live by their instincts, but they can still feel pain, and many animals go through horrible and tremendous pain. What is the reason for that?
@@BangMaster96 excellent points. First, in this type of discussion a difference is usually made between physical pain and emotional pain. Emotional pain is usually labeled "suffering". Emotional pain is a result of someone taking offense at something that has happened. If offense is taken, that is a choice, which can be changed in the future. Thus, by learning to accept things as they are, we can let go of our emotional pain. On the question of whether someone would intentionally endure physical pain, consider someone who signs up to be a Marine, Navy Seal or football player knowing that the training will involve physical pain. Or people who get tattoos or piercings. If people intentionally do that, might a "spirit" signup to endure a life involving physical pain, if they thought that enduring physical pain would teach them things that would make them a better "spirit". And if we do choose to come to earth from a spirit world, that choice is undoubtedly made knowing that it involves physical pain. And if we "incarnate" multiple times, it is with the knowledge that incarnation will likely bring physical pain. I will not speculate on "animals", but that is a valid question. So, in closing, if God has given us free will, because true love cannot exist without free will, then every choice we make is made freely. We can even choose to pretend that our choices are not made freely.
Whatever God is, it is an entity or Deity. There is no creation, at least not one humanity can understand and comprehend. Once we learn to accept that reality, that we do not know, there be no need for Deity/religion
I am an atheist and don't need to prove or disprove God. I just dont' beleive it. There is also of course the logic fail of putting the onus on atheists to disprove anything, as they are not the ones making the God claim. The onus lies with those making the claim.
Of course, none of this is an argument for God. Merely the tired old game of “well you can’t prove He doesn’t exist”. Atheists, in general, don’t care to prove God doesn’t exist, just as this fellow doesn’t care to disprove the existence the Rainbow Serpent, Mbombo, Pangu, Lord Brahma, the plethora of other theistic creators, or indeed any of the non-creator origin stories of the universe. To quote Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
ah so you don't believe in consciousness or existence? do you think they are defined? For your very very basic arguing ability - One reason is that consciousness is unobservable. You can't look inside someone's head and see their feelings and experiences. If we were just going off what we can observe from a third-person perspective, we would have no grounds for postulating consciousness at all. So i could say you are delusional if you say you have consciousness or exist.
@@Vesnic8 "so you don't believe in consciousness or existence?" Is that your definition of "God"? Stop being so vague. Just define what God is, then we can talk. You can certainly define what consciousness is. One definition is "the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself." Without a definition of consciousness it wouldn't be meaningful to have the word "consciousness". We wouldn't be able to contrast it with anything - with non-consciousness. Each element which makes up consciousness must necessarily be non-consciousness.
William isn't actually listening. When John was making a point in apparently in support of Craig (About the solder) finishing of the story Craig interrupts. Without fully acknowledging what John said. He just wants to push his view. William seems more smug. Than convincing.
He’s not “pushing religion”, he’s discussing issues that interest him, with people who understand the topic. No-one is forcing you to watch every video John puts up. Given the number of people who openly denigrate people whose beliefs differ from theirs - without actually understanding *what* they believe and *why* - it is not unreasonable to discuss those views.
Not trying to push religion, and I am not particularly religious, but that statement almost feels like you have some demons you gotta work out. Not sure why you would have to stop watching all together just because "god"is mentioned from time to time.
@@peterwebb8732 What a thoroughly disingenuous reply. He only invites on those with fundamentalist Christian views, he never gives the other side a chance. This is nothing but Christian Apologetics.
@@saltburner2 Come off the grass. He invites people whose views he thinks are important, and which are missing from the current social discourse. It’s not about “sides” in the sense you imply. So why are you even here if it’s not what you want to hear?
John, I love your moderate and sensible conservatism, of the secular Australian kind, precisely *because* you avoid the exhausting American Christian Right Wing rhetoric in which the internet is drowning. Please don’t ruin a good thing
Narcissists not psychopaths. The bible teaches you to grow out of that narcissism and that self righteousness you are born with. Bet you believe you are a good person? See what I mean? Self righteous. So what do you do about this delusion of yours?
An interesting take. For me it's a little like this. The Universe is a volatile system of creation and destruction. In the first moments according to physics there should have been an equal amount of matter and anti matter and both should have canceled each other out, but for some reason there came to be more matter than antimatter and the material universe with it's worlds as we know it today came to be, and we know that this is good. We all ride on a ship being washed along by that tide of volatility and have no power of the tides origin or destination, but we do have some degree of free will with regards to how we treat our shipmates. Certainly some will be washed overboard by the volatility and their is likely little we can do about that and some adrift may even be washed aboard, but dare we decide to push each other overboard.. Well that is evil.
This is a good example of the "backasswardness" of theistic thinking. The OPERATIVE words for Craig is "POSSIBLE" and second "Logically". It makes me entertain the idea he doesn't understand their underlying "concept". Let's take Possible first. He's a man willing to stake his life on nothing but possibility. The old adage that "anything is possible" from a philosophical viewpoint be a sensible claim. Possibility translates into "hypothetically". Which means there is no evidence that such a thing or relationship exists. etc. And most importantly, the idea that "possibility doesn't mean Actually or Probability and that probability at least to some extent IS supported by some degree of empirical evidence. For example, I look out at a tree just 20 yrds away and I see something apparently sitting on a branch. I think... is that one of our local hawks or just a clump of leaves? It's hard to discern any distinct features, it's just the shapes seem very similar. What do I do if I want to draw a clear conclusion? I wait for more evidence. Leaves bunched together, Stuck in the intersection of two or more branches can lay there for weeks. A hawk on the other hand will only sit still long enough to spot prey and one way or another fly away under its own power. The collection of more evidence is the proper way to draw a definitive conclusion. Theists seem to have little interest in being able to draw clear conclusions. Evidence doesn't mean much to them. What does seem to matter is "belief" and it makes no difference if the belief [or conclusion] is entirely wrong. It's a repeat of what the entire world used to think about the Sun - Earth relationship. Just a few hundred years ago [virtually] EVERYONE believed the Sun revolved around the Earth because it was the Sun that moved across OUR sky. And that the Earth was the "center of the universe". And besides, they didn't feel any movement under their feet so the Earth Must be standing still. Even though it is now known that the Earth rotates on its own axis at close to 1000 mph. Even evidence some times can be misleading, but some evidence is far better than no evidence. On the subject of Logic that Craig refers to... "logically possible"..... reason for permitting evil. What theists can't seem to grasp is logic in and of itself doesn't REALLY prove anything. In logic, a person formulates an argument in a certain manner. So logic is just a method of Formulating arguments. In order arrive at a "convincing" conclusion the person formulating the argument must propose REAL evidence. In other words, the premises must be True [supported with evidence]. There is No evidence for the existence of god. The arguments in favor of god are all based upon premises that aren't proven True. A person could formulate a seemingly "logical" argument for the existence of purple unicorns. If the premises aren't true then the conclusion won't be true. Now... in Craig's claim that atheists would have to prove "that god could have no logically possible reason that god could have for permitting evil and suffering in the world." That assumes that 1. god exists 2. evil and suffering is a HUMAN [mental] construct. They don't exist for the rest of the life on Earth. We humans tend to think that if something happens that is not in our favor then it's evil and causes suffering. Fear might very well be something other life forms experience as a matter of survival. But I very much doubt other animals think to themselves; "Well that was an evil thing to say or do." Because the rest of the life on Earth accepts the world "AS-IS" and whatever the animal life form is, they remember the experience and the consequences. That's different than a sense of Evil and Suffering. An atheist doesn't have to "prove" ALL possible possibilities. An atheist is likely to only believe what can be proven with evidence. Whereas, it appears theists don't need evidence to believe something. But if a theist wants to argue in favor of something one ought to have something of more substance than "possibility".
(Romans 1:18-21) "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; {19} Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. {20} For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {21} Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
Jesus tried to tell the Jews where they are going wrong. They rejected his word. And where are the Jews today? At war, but even worse, in eternal conflict. Interesting 🧐
@geraldharrison5787 I think you're right that the probabilistic argument that God does not exist due to all the evil and suffering in the world could be applicable to an agnostic's doubt that there is an all good, all powerful God.
@@johnz8843 But his point is that regardless of whether one is agnostic or not, the evils of the world do not constitute prima facie evidence of God's non-existence, as we simply cannot determine the likelihood that such evils would exist given God's existence. So, if you're an agnostic you should not be moved more towards atheism by the evils of the world. And if you're an atheist on the basis of the evils of the world, then your atheism is not justified. That's his point, as I take it.
@@geraldharrison5787 But I believe that many agnostics retreated from their atheism due to the arguments he presented and settled on remaining agnostic when it comes to God's existence.
It's not really about "philosophy" now, is it? God gave man "Free Will", something I've been saying since the 80s. 1984, to be exact. This being the case? How can God take away something given, just because the soul it's been given to, uses it for evil? How is this "God Allowing", anything? We are NOT to "obey" God. We are to do God's Will? By CHOICE. THIS is why God wants. What good has it ever done, to force a man to do that, which they absolutely do not wish to do? All kinds of evil bloom from men doing such things. Just look at the Government in America 2023. "WE THE PEOPLE" have FREE WILL- it is a GOD-GIVEN GIFT. But this is also a gift ALL MANKIND has. This way? ALL responsibility for the choices we make in this life? REST WITH US. Now, let us get to the REAL PROBLEM- ACCOUNTABILITY. NONE wish to accept any, and many won't hold others to it. HERE lies the problem today. And this? Was done INTENTIONALLY - so that EVIL MAY THIRVE. Hows bout y'all try dwelling on this for a time? Or... will you ignore, as usual? I'll guess the latter, of course.
You are mistaken in your belief in free will, which negates the existence of a god; it's simply a product of your mind playing tricks on you. The real question is how humans attain agency when we are fundamentally composed of the same cosmic elements, as famously articulated by Carl Sagan in Astrophysics. Now, turning to the insights of biologists like Charles Darwin, we must inquire at what stage in the process of evolution we acquired this agency. The notion of an Abrahamic God has long lost its relevance, as it's easy to identify inconsistencies within those narratives. So, one must ask, how many contradictions are needed to prompt a change in your perspective? If you approach this rationally, even a single contradiction suffices. To reconcile this, start by defining your concept of God, free will, and your understanding of the self, denoted as "I," in any way you see fit. You may encounter confusion, as the English language often separates ownership from identity - for example, when we say, "I will get my teeth fixed," it seems as though we possess the teeth rather than being intrinsically connected to them. In the end, the crux of the matter is to establish your definitions of God, free will, and "I" in a manner that makes sense to you. If you still maintain a belief in an Abrahamic God, free will, and an "I" with agency, I can demonstrate the inconsistencies in your definitions. This approach will not prove effective unless you are willing to invest the effort into precisely defining what you mean by the Abrahamic God, the concept of free will, and your understanding of the self as represented by "I." To truly grasp the essence of your beliefs and potentially recognize any delusions, it's crucial to engage in a process of introspection and definition. While I may offer insights, you might not fully appreciate or accept them until your own mind grapples with these definitions. It's through this introspective process that your beliefs can be more clearly understood and evaluated.
John 6 : 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
It's the same old argument that the reasons behind God's actions are unknowable by humans. (Tell that to a baby born with half a brain, or a lost, starving dog.) Sorry, either God is omniscient, all-powerful and *benevolent* -- or is not God.
Craig seems oblivious to the logical problem with a God which is the only Necessary Being, and all else Contingent: That means that such a God is fully responsible for all evil. This is the fundamental problem with normative Judeo-Christian theology, which has allowed neoplatonism to replace biblical theology. William Lane Craig is trying to excuse the inexcusable by fronting for that failed normative Judeo-Christian tradition.
Yes you can. There's no evidence of the Easter bunny and it's not a self-evident truth of reason that the easter bunny exists. Thus it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that the easter bunny does not exist. It's logically possible that the easter bunny exists, but it is not reasonable to believe that the easter bunny exists. By contrast, not only is it logically possible for God to exist, there is positive evidence of God's existence. Evil itself is such evidence, for evil is a moral property and moral properties would not exist unless God existed. Thus evil proves God. Evil doesn't prove the easter bunny, for evil can exist regardless of whether the easter bunny does. But evil does prove God, for evil can't exist unless God does.
Evidence: the Universe has a beginning (as opposed to disproved Steady State Universe of atheists of old) ; the implausible fine tuning of the many physical constants that permit life to exist (ie, an infinite number of 'settings' that wd make any life impossible, and an essentially infinitely minute range of settings that allow any life to exist - yet we do) . And on and on. The Fingerprints of a Creator are everywhere. Atheists do not explain away any of this well. Either mere skepticism which they mistake for knowledge. The idea of a multiverse, which is based on Marvel Comics not Science. So there you go.
"I hold to the ridiculous position that NOTHING created EVERYTHING." - Foolish Atheist 🤪 "I believe in the preposterous notion that the most highly advanced & sophisticated code on the planet (DNA) designed itself." - Absurd Atheist 🥴
Why in the world do I need to provide YOU with "evidence"? Since when is that MY responsibility? It is YOUR responsibility to FIND evidence for YOURSELF. I have my evidence. I was shown to me September 24th, 1984. I did not ask for it. I didn't not believe it was even something possible. I was asked a question: "Do you believe God can heal that?", my response: "I guess, if he actually wanted to. But God doesn't do things such as this for myself, never has". Then I was asked one other question, "Do you want me to pray for this"? My response: "Not really... but I guess if you want to try, have at it". I was actually going to use nothing happening against him. Except I couldn't. Now tell me, how am I supposed to give YOU evidence of what I experienced? And why would I be RESPONSIBLE to do such a thing? I never asked OTHERS to, "Prove God exists to me". What is that THEIR job? It's MY job to seek, and find the answers myself. Not other peoples. So I really don't see any humor in your ignorant statement. You not only rely on others for your own information, you DISMISS, what you know nothing about. Not very intelligent, if you ask me. But that's just one man's opinion. Believe what you will, or dismiss what you will, for yourself. Just show me who's given you the power to dismiss, for OTHERS, what other people, believe? As you did above. Yourself. No one else. Pretty frigging selfish, again, imo.
It pains me to say I actually agree with WLC on this one. By making the claim that the existence of evil makes god non-existent or unlikely, the atheist is indeed making a claim that needs to be substantiated. The atheist literally falls into a trap dug by themselves. Atheists need to stop playing this silly game and maintain the position that theists own the burden of proof for the god claims they make. It is true that an atheist cannot disprove the existence of god, but neither can WLC disprove the existence of Carl Sagans invisible dragon in his garage.
Indeed, classic theodicy, from the Bible onwards, attributes the existence of evil to Adam's disobedience, which (for Christians) required the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Ascension as 'proof' of the Atonement.
The beauty of arguing for the existence of something that doesn't evidently exist is that you can just make up whatever you like to support your arguments. As long as you can get enough believers to agree with you, you won't be chewed out too badly over what you made up.
But you just made up that he's arguing for the existence of something that doesn't exist. He's arguing for someone who does exist. You've made up that he's arguing for someone who doesn't.
@@geraldharrison5787 What point were you trying to make then? Because I haven't made up the thing you're saying I made up. Nowhere in my comment does it say that God doesn't exist, because that's not what "doesn't evidently exist" means.
For millennia, all the theologians, philosophers, and just, thinking men, in general, were asking and wondering and pondering the question of why there is so much evil pain and suffering in the world and why would God need so much of it. All of them failed to give a satisfying answer or explanation and this is why, till these days, we continue to ask the same question over and over again. As a follower of Christ, I ask this question daily, sometimes several times a day, and understand well that it is almost certain that I won't get it in this life but eventually everything will make sense.
David Hume concluded (I paraphrase from the First Enquiry) that the First Cause, must be perfectly good, perfectly evil or indifferent. Rejecting the first 2, on the basis of what we find in the world, he opted for indifference.
@@saltburner2 Biblically speaking, evil erupted into existence later, meaning that the first cause was perfectly good but the fall into corruption happened, so evil is not a part of eternity with good, no, it is a fallen and imperfect condition that had the beginning and will have an end. Only good is eternal that existed in the beginning and will exist in the end.
As to the philosophy of men. You have to be joking. I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, and my heart aches for those that don’t believe. I pray they will have a change of heart 🙏🙏🇦🇺
You are mistaken in your belief in free will, which negates the existence of a god; it's simply a product of your mind playing tricks on you. The real question is how humans attain agency when we are fundamentally composed of the same cosmic elements, as famously articulated by Carl Sagan in Astrophysics. Now, turning to the insights of biologists like Charles Darwin, we must inquire at what stage in the process of evolution we acquired this agency. The notion of an Abrahamic God has long lost its relevance, as it's easy to identify inconsistencies within those narratives. So, one must ask, how many contradictions are needed to prompt a change in your perspective? If you approach this rationally, even a single contradiction suffices. To reconcile this, start by defining your concept of God, free will, and your understanding of the self, denoted as "I," in any way you see fit. You may encounter confusion, as the English language often separates ownership from identity - for example, when we say, "I will get my teeth fixed," it seems as though we possess the teeth rather than being intrinsically connected to them. In the end, the crux of the matter is to establish your definitions of God, free will, and "I" in a manner that makes sense to you. If you still maintain a belief in an Abrahamic God, free will, and an "I" with agency, I can demonstrate the inconsistencies in your definitions. This approach will not prove effective unless you are willing to invest the effort into precisely defining what you mean by the Abrahamic God, the concept of free will, and your understanding of the self as represented by "I." To truly grasp the essence of your beliefs and potentially recognize any delusions, it's crucial to engage in a process of introspection and definition. While I may offer insights, you might not fully appreciate or accept them until your own mind grapples with these definitions. It's through this introspective process that your beliefs can be more clearly understood and evaluated.
If you are a follower, then you are a loser. As you have no idea where your leader, Jesus, is taking you. Instead walk side by side with your fellow humans as we create a path for life!
Their is FATHER MOTHER GOD (regularly visits me) a beautiful white intelligent loving light. Then their is overseer creator god then their is a creator god ( Yahweh was one now deceased, Yeshua is now one) in seventh dimension . The Roman/Greek and Deity gods live in the seventh dimension as well. Our Universe is an experimental Beta Universe with various density E.T's in it.
William Lane Craig is the absolute antithesis of rational, enlightened discussion. You, John Anderson, simply Can Not expect people to view you as an unbiased, fair interpreter of facts, and simultaneously give dishonest critters like this a chance to void his horrid 'faux-intellectual' cloaca on others.
I can prove there are fairies riding unicorns in my garden.
Seen them myself through my hallucinants eyes!
Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders, if we are being examined today concerning a good deed done to a crippled man, by what means this man has been healed, let it be known to all of you and to all the people of Israel that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead-by him this man is standing before you well. This one is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:8-12)
@@brettske178 nonsense! I was declared dead more then once. I reside across the street from a cemetery. Believe me when one is dead one is dead, there is no coming back. Being dead and being declared dead are two completely and unrelated things.
@@robertholland7558 are you perchance a drug user?
Asan atheist I don't claim to disprove God. I say that I have not seen sufficient evidence that a god exists. I'm very comfortable with this position. I don't mind if someone else believes in God.
So, you are an agnostic, not an atheist
4:05 ”Stop believing in man”? If the chairs keep breaking do i stop believing in them or the carpenter. Or do you notice they have to make themselves into that mix of broken and barely working, all with no carpenter in sight?
Maybe if we could have chair support groups without requiring all the carpenter stuff? Just a thought.
Atheist's can't disprove god. Facepalm. You can't prove a negative. The claim is yours to substantiate.
Indeed, the onus of proof on a disputed matter is always on the proponent, never on the denier.
So many logical fallacies in such a short clip. Well done🎉
Uhmmm, did we watch the same video? Because he didn't say that at any point. Do you even understand what the subject here is?
@@ConsumeristScroffa Christianity is anti civilizational. Nobody can pay for my sins but me. Can I arrive in court and declare, Jesus has already paid for my crime and then go about my business? If you say that is a false understanding, then what was the bit about Let him without sin cast the first stone? That is exactly that. That was not a virtue. It was an appeal to anarchy.
@@williamvorkosigan5151 He paid for the "original sin," what any one person does there after? Well that's our own cross to bear
Using his logic, he cant disprove the spaghetti monster behind the moon
I’ve seen him, and am writing a book about him.
I will be sure to fill my writings with historical inaccuracies.
Well yes, of course he can. The spaghetti monster is material. And we’ve been to the moon and have seen no spaghetti monster.
Your thoughts are not your own. Try and think of something new.
Exactly - the burden of proof lay upon he who makes a positive claim.
@@thedeifiedjulius2310 No it isn't. The burden of proof is on the person who says something is not as it appears. You're confusing a legal doctrine with a principle of intellectual inquiry.
The only logic is that humankind need to get on top of dying gracefully. We are born. We live. We die. We have such an opportunity to exist and experience life now.. why is now never enough. Because it is. And it is all we have.
You can't disprove the existence of Elves. Not even by employing the same dodgy semantic sleight of hand. Bertrand Russell's teapot is real.too, and beckoning you to worship it.
Exactly
Your thoughts are not your own.
The whole point of faith is believing without evidence.
/rolls eyes
Existence cannot arise from non-existence
Existence Exists
Therefore, Existence is Eternal
Thus, it follows that ''Creation'' is both unnecessary and impossible.
God is merely a name for the eternal nature of existence, which is fine, I guess, as far as a it goes, but attributing anything to that name is mere projection of the human imagination.
Hear ! Hear!
Why is that so difficult for most to understand
We are born from dust and return to dust at death.
We have zero idea what happens outside that time frame if anything.
So best to live our life’s the best we can.
Sadly humanity is still nothing more then glorified barbarians it was millennia ago.
Civilisation, what nonsense.
"Existence Exists" is a tautology; it carries no information.
"Existence cannot arise from non-existence" strikes me as a tautology. How could you possibly know that? IF we are nothing more than elevated earthworms adapting to our environment for survival, how does that limited awareness have the hubris to make such a sweeping non-sequitor? What does the earthworm know about the farmer's plans for crop rotation? Nothing. An earthworm is only driven by it's own instincts for survival. That does not make the farmer unreal or even insignificant.
@@robertholland7558 From my perspective, this sweeping dismissal of civilization could only be made by one who has no idea of how tragically difficult it would be to survive outside of civilization. Nothing can be more blinding than the loss of gratitude for what has been given us.
@@merriemerrie7378 what gratitude has been given us? What nonsense.
One can not what one does not have. Like I stated, it is best to live our life as best we can, and means being on the path of enlightenment, not submitting to some Deity. When you have learned the difference then, and only then, may we talk about gratitude.
But we are also not in a position, nor do we have a single shred of evidence, to suggest the existence of God; or that even if such a God exists, that such a God is moral, empathic, or benevolent.
why "empathic" of all things?
(which, Jesus would work for that desire to have the ultimate Good (highest of ideals etc. and so unreachable by 'mere mortals' and all that)/divine understand the mortal man's plight. Those 40 years in the desert and all)
Those who assert must prove. Atheists dont need to prove good doesn't exist, religion needs to prove that God does exist and they simply can't.
Atheists frequently assert that God does not exist, and that they are justified in denigrating those who differ.
They also *act* as though good and evil exist, while providing no justification for doing so beyond temporary convenience.
Nor have you bothered to offer a logical proof of your own assertion regarding the burden of proof. Double standard?
@peterwebb8732 nope, no double standard, i don't have to prove anything, you do, but you can't.
You are mistaken in your belief in free will, which negates the existence of a god; it's simply a product of your mind playing tricks on you. The real question is how humans attain agency when we are fundamentally composed of the same cosmic elements, as famously articulated by Carl Sagan in Astrophysics. Now, turning to the insights of biologists like Charles Darwin, we must inquire at what stage in the process of evolution we acquired this agency. The notion of an Abrahamic God has long lost its relevance, as it's easy to identify inconsistencies within those narratives. So, one must ask, how many contradictions are needed to prompt a change in your perspective? If you approach this rationally, even a single contradiction suffices.
To reconcile this, start by defining your concept of God, free will, and your understanding of the self, denoted as "I," in any way you see fit. You may encounter confusion, as the English language often separates ownership from identity - for example, when we say, "I will get my teeth fixed," it seems as though we possess the teeth rather than being intrinsically connected to them. In the end, the crux of the matter is to establish your definitions of God, free will, and "I" in a manner that makes sense to you. If you still maintain a belief in an Abrahamic God, free will, and an "I" with agency, I can demonstrate the inconsistencies in your definitions.
This approach will not prove effective unless you are willing to invest the effort into precisely defining what you mean by the Abrahamic God, the concept of free will, and your understanding of the self as represented by "I." To truly grasp the essence of your beliefs and potentially recognize any delusions, it's crucial to engage in a process of introspection and definition. While I may offer insights, you might not fully appreciate or accept them until your own mind grapples with these definitions. It's through this introspective process that your beliefs can be more clearly understood and evaluated.
@@rexross1461 Yet there you are, making assertions without proof.
@@rexross1461 Keep making those assertions, my hypocritical friend.
I think Professor Craig is quite right. But I think we can go a step further and say that if there is evil, then God exists (a claim Craig has also made). Ironically, evil creates a logical problem for atheism. Evil is a moral property. But moral properties can't exist in the absence of God. Thus, if there is evil, then God exists. The atheist cannot eat their cake and have it. If atheism is true, no evil exists. But if evil does exist, then atheism is false.
Religions offer the least convincing arguments for a god/gods etc.
You haven’t offered a convincing argument as to why I should agree with you.
@@peterwebb8732 I don't need you to agree with me.
@@dennismenace4188 ….. and I don’t need you to agree with me.
But you’ve felt free to comment negatively in a public forum, without meeting the standard that you expect of others.
What standard is that?
@@mimetype Read his post.
The closing comments say it all. It is because of free will granted to man by God that suffering comes into being. Without suffering there can be no true choice. We could opt to be colourless meaningless robots that have lives where nothing goes wrong. Even God knows suffering when he sent his son to redeem mankind
Robots fail sometimes.
Train of thought question, in curiosity & good will:
animals don't have free will,
and they don't agonize over "evil," "shame," "guilt," "anger," "despair."
Their "suffering" will only be limited the "fear"
(or maybe "anger" crosses over, not sure, but it's one of those base & simple instincts with fear & disgust) of the immediate & material things.
Is their a better word for that material level of suffering? As separate to that 'suffering' as having to do with the same level of abstraction as despair.
"pain"? physical pain?
I've found that the more I read into the metaphysical, abstract, & theology, the more I expand my English vocabulary; "magnanimous" for example.
@@EA_Kar Nice one! I get what you say. Yes, it very much distinguishes the difference between humans and animals. They suffer too but in a completely different way, yet I fall short of a word to differentiate
it's ok, they can't disprove, you can't prove 😂
But there is a long tradition within Christianity that the existence of God can be proved, chief among them Anselm's Ontological Argument, and the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas, The Catholic Church accepts (indeed mandates) these 'Proofs'. A long tradition in Philosophy, led by Kant, Hume and others, show these 'Proofs' do not hold water.
@@saltburner2explain the satanic subtext of this world? Why is everything satanic in the secular world? Throughout music, even classical music. Throughout this post modernist world. From churches to Muslim to Buddhism to Hindu. Masonic symbols at your local war memorial. Baphomet worship in LGBT. It can be seen everywhere, including in your local church of satan. If there is nothing going on in your secular world, why do people bow down to satanic symbols as much as they do?
@@saltburner2 Because arguments are not, and never have been the sort of proof that most people talk/think about.
And the fact is, when someone is making a POSITIVE claim, the burden of proof is on THEM!!!
@@thedeifiedjulius2310 And all you have for god are broken arguments
If "God" has given us free will, then, perhaps, all suffering is optional. What causes one person to suffer, may not phase another person. Whether or not a person suffers, depends upon how he views the situation. Therefore, a person may use his free will to choose to suffer.
For example, a young man may want to become a Navy Seal. His father points out to him that this will involve a lot of suffering. The young man replies that he knows that this is true, but he is willing to suffer to become a Navy Seal. In fact, learning to endure suffering is part of the attraction of becoming a Navy Seal. And the fact that we can learn to endure suffering demonstrates that our level of suffering is a choice.
The less a person knows about and accepts "Human Nature", the more likely they are to suffer as they are constantly surprised by human behavior. The more experienced person suffers little, because they are no longer surprised by human behavior.
When someone says that something is evil or inhumane, it simply means that they have been surprised.
Therefore, the presence of suffering confirms that God exists and has given us free will to suffer or not to suffer depending upon how we decide to perceive the situation.
Excellent, thank you for this very reaffirming. "He has RISEN!"
Amen 🙏
1 - You mix physical and emotional sufferings.
2 - Not only humans, but every living beings in the world being capable to suffer has nothing to do with any god.
But, that's not the entire case, in the animal kingdom, animals are causing suffering to other animals, predators strangle and choke their prey to death, some predators eat their prey alive and the prey feels the pain of each bite, there are severe horrible diseases, parasites, animal babies that get preyed upon or cannibalized. Heck even good People who have done nothing wrong also might go through tremendous suffering and pain.
No matter what, if i was an intelligent designer, i would never create a world where i am testing the faith of my creation by causing them tremendous suffering. And animals are sentient but they don't have ability to reason, they just live by their instincts, why would an intelligent design create life that is solely based on instincts but that life still has to suffer horrible pain and tremendous cruelty. There truly is no justifiable explanation of suffering.
I can still cope with the idea that Humans suffer due to their ignorance. But what about animals? Why would God cause sentient life such as as animal life to suffer tremendously? Animals don't have an ability to reason, or judge, or morals. They just live by their instincts, but they can still feel pain, and many animals go through horrible and tremendous pain. What is the reason for that?
@@BangMaster96 excellent points. First, in this type of discussion a difference is usually made between physical pain and emotional pain. Emotional pain is usually labeled "suffering". Emotional pain is a result of someone taking offense at something that has happened. If offense is taken, that is a choice, which can be changed in the future. Thus, by learning to accept things as they are, we can let go of our emotional pain.
On the question of whether someone would intentionally endure physical pain, consider someone who signs up to be a Marine, Navy Seal or football player knowing that the training will involve physical pain. Or people who get tattoos or piercings.
If people intentionally do that, might a "spirit" signup to endure a life involving physical pain, if they thought that enduring physical pain would teach them things that would make them a better "spirit". And if we do choose to come to earth from a spirit world, that choice is undoubtedly made knowing that it involves physical pain.
And if we "incarnate" multiple times, it is with the knowledge that incarnation will likely bring physical pain.
I will not speculate on "animals", but that is a valid question.
So, in closing, if God has given us free will, because true love cannot exist without free will, then every choice we make is made freely. We can even choose to pretend that our choices are not made freely.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but religion can't even give ordinary evidence." - You know who
Old low bar Bill
Whatever God is, it is an entity or Deity.
There is no creation, at least not one humanity can understand and comprehend.
Once we learn to accept that reality, that we do not know, there be no need for Deity/religion
Which God? All of them or just one of them?
I am an atheist and don't need to prove or disprove God. I just dont' beleive it. There is also of course the logic fail of putting the onus on atheists to disprove anything, as they are not the ones making the God claim. The onus lies with those making the claim.
Of course, none of this is an argument for God. Merely the tired old game of “well you can’t prove He doesn’t exist”.
Atheists, in general, don’t care to prove God doesn’t exist, just as this fellow doesn’t care to disprove the existence the Rainbow Serpent, Mbombo, Pangu, Lord Brahma, the plethora of other theistic creators, or indeed any of the non-creator origin stories of the universe.
To quote Dawkins: "We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
You can't disprove something that is never defined.
Nor can you believe in something that is never defined.
ah so you don't believe in consciousness or existence? do you think they are defined? For your very very basic arguing ability - One reason is that consciousness is unobservable. You can't look inside someone's head and see their feelings and experiences. If we were just going off what we can observe from a third-person perspective, we would have no grounds for postulating consciousness at all. So i could say you are delusional if you say you have consciousness or exist.
@@Vesnic8 "so you don't believe in consciousness or existence?"
Is that your definition of "God"? Stop being so vague. Just define what God is, then we can talk.
You can certainly define what consciousness is. One definition is "the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself." Without a definition of consciousness it wouldn't be meaningful to have the word "consciousness". We wouldn't be able to contrast it with anything - with non-consciousness. Each element which makes up consciousness must necessarily be non-consciousness.
Sick of arguing this moot point. Not going there again.
William isn't actually listening.
When John was making a point in apparently in support of Craig
(About the solder)
finishing of the story Craig interrupts.
Without fully acknowledging what John said.
He just wants to push his view.
William seems more smug.
Than convincing.
Indeed, Craig is convinced by his own rhetoric.
@@saltburner2and I bet you are convinced by your own self righteousness.
@@deanpd3402 "And as he believed, so it was for him" - Richard Bach
Your observation seems to be a stretch, as if reading in more than a little presumption. Wonder why you would be inclined to do that.
If you keep pushing religion, I'm going to have to leave. Glad the Voice was defeated but.
He’s not “pushing religion”, he’s discussing issues that interest him, with people who understand the topic. No-one is forcing you to watch every video John puts up.
Given the number of people who openly denigrate people whose beliefs differ from theirs - without actually understanding *what* they believe and *why* - it is not unreasonable to discuss those views.
Not trying to push religion, and I am not particularly religious, but that statement almost feels like you have some demons you gotta work out. Not sure why you would have to stop watching all together just because "god"is mentioned from time to time.
Are you Ned Flanders?
@@peterwebb8732 What a thoroughly disingenuous reply. He only invites on those with fundamentalist Christian views, he never gives the other side a chance. This is nothing but Christian Apologetics.
@@saltburner2 Come off the grass. He invites people whose views he thinks are important, and which are missing from the current social discourse.
It’s not about “sides” in the sense you imply.
So why are you even here if it’s not what you want to hear?
John, I love your moderate and sensible conservatism, of the secular Australian kind, precisely *because* you avoid the exhausting American Christian Right Wing rhetoric in which the internet is drowning. Please don’t ruin a good thing
Suffering is not a problem of God. Because I am not suffering.
atheists themselves admit that in almost all his debates against topnotch atheists he won, that is the clear proof that he is right
It's like listening to a kindergarten class full of little psychopaths.
Narcissists not psychopaths. The bible teaches you to grow out of that narcissism and that self righteousness you are born with. Bet you believe you are a good person? See what I mean? Self righteous. So what do you do about this delusion of yours?
An interesting take.
For me it's a little like this. The Universe is a volatile system of creation and destruction. In the first moments according to physics there should have been an equal amount of matter and anti matter and both should have canceled each other out, but for some reason there came to be more matter than antimatter and the material universe with it's worlds as we know it today came to be, and we know that this is good. We all ride on a ship being washed along by that tide of volatility and have no power of the tides origin or destination, but we do have some degree of free will with regards to how we treat our shipmates. Certainly some will be washed overboard by the volatility and their is likely little we can do about that and some adrift may even be washed aboard, but dare we decide to push each other overboard.. Well that is evil.
This is a good example of the "backasswardness" of theistic thinking. The OPERATIVE words for Craig is "POSSIBLE" and second "Logically". It makes me entertain the idea he doesn't understand their underlying "concept".
Let's take Possible first. He's a man willing to stake his life on nothing but possibility. The old adage that "anything is possible" from a philosophical viewpoint be a sensible claim. Possibility translates into "hypothetically". Which means there is no evidence that such a thing or relationship exists. etc. And most importantly, the idea that "possibility doesn't mean Actually or Probability and that probability at least to some extent IS supported by some degree of empirical evidence. For example, I look out at a tree just 20 yrds away and I see something apparently sitting on a branch. I think... is that one of our local hawks or just a clump of leaves? It's hard to discern any distinct features, it's just the shapes seem very similar. What do I do if I want to draw a clear conclusion? I wait for more evidence. Leaves bunched together, Stuck in the intersection of two or more branches can lay there for weeks. A hawk on the other hand will only sit still long enough to spot prey and one way or another fly away under its own power. The collection of more evidence is the proper way to draw a definitive conclusion.
Theists seem to have little interest in being able to draw clear conclusions. Evidence doesn't mean much to them. What does seem to matter is "belief" and it makes no difference if the belief [or conclusion] is entirely wrong. It's a repeat of what the entire world used to think about the Sun - Earth relationship. Just a few hundred years ago [virtually] EVERYONE believed the Sun revolved around the Earth because it was the Sun that moved across OUR sky. And that the Earth was the "center of the universe". And besides, they didn't feel any movement under their feet so the Earth Must be standing still. Even though it is now known that the Earth rotates on its own axis at close to 1000 mph. Even evidence some times can be misleading, but some evidence is far better than no evidence.
On the subject of Logic that Craig refers to... "logically possible"..... reason for permitting evil. What theists can't seem to grasp is logic in and of itself doesn't REALLY prove anything. In logic, a person formulates an argument in a certain manner. So logic is just a method of Formulating arguments. In order arrive at a "convincing" conclusion the person formulating the argument must propose REAL evidence. In other words, the premises must be True [supported with evidence]. There is No evidence for the existence of god. The arguments in favor of god are all based upon premises that aren't proven True. A person could formulate a seemingly "logical" argument for the existence of purple unicorns. If the premises aren't true then the conclusion won't be true.
Now... in Craig's claim that atheists would have to prove "that god could have no logically possible reason that god could have for permitting evil and suffering in the world." That assumes that 1. god exists 2. evil and suffering is a HUMAN [mental] construct. They don't exist for the rest of the life on Earth. We humans tend to think that if something happens that is not in our favor then it's evil and causes suffering. Fear might very well be something other life forms experience as a matter of survival. But I very much doubt other animals think to themselves; "Well that was an evil thing to say or do." Because the rest of the life on Earth accepts the world "AS-IS" and whatever the animal life form is, they remember the experience and the consequences. That's different than a sense of Evil and Suffering. An atheist doesn't have to "prove" ALL possible possibilities. An atheist is likely to only believe what can be proven with evidence. Whereas, it appears theists don't need evidence to believe something. But if a theist wants to argue in favor of something one ought to have something of more substance than "possibility".
This is an incredibly strange and outlandish argument.
I agree with what theologian, Prof. DB Hart, says about this man. Spot on.
the guy that believes in fairies?? XD
@@dontcrydoomer4787 Better than the guy who believes in talking snakes. 🤣
Can't prove God either. What a strange title.
Lower that bar WLC! Keep on lowering it! How low is it now?
(Romans 1:18-21) "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; {19} Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. {20} For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: {21} Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
Jesus tried to tell the Jews where they are going wrong. They rejected his word. And where are the Jews today? At war, but even worse, in eternal conflict. Interesting 🧐
The Jews are defending their very existence, while another religion, which may not be named, is intent on their total destruction.
It does seem that he uses the atheist and not the agnostic as his main object of criticism.
No, the object of his criticism are those who think the evils of the world constitute evidence that God does not exist! Do pay attention.
@geraldharrison5787 I think you're right that the probabilistic argument that God does not exist due to all the evil and suffering in the world could be applicable to an agnostic's doubt that there is an all good, all powerful God.
@@johnz8843 But his point is that regardless of whether one is agnostic or not, the evils of the world do not constitute prima facie evidence of God's non-existence, as we simply cannot determine the likelihood that such evils would exist given God's existence. So, if you're an agnostic you should not be moved more towards atheism by the evils of the world. And if you're an atheist on the basis of the evils of the world, then your atheism is not justified. That's his point, as I take it.
@@geraldharrison5787That helps.
@@geraldharrison5787 But I believe that many agnostics retreated from their atheism due to the arguments he presented and settled on remaining agnostic when it comes to God's existence.
A lot of angry people in this comment section and I get it, it’s hard to endure and witness suffering.
It's even harder to endure and suffer witnessing.
Lol. Debunks™. Benevolence is definitely not an attribute that can be assigned to any fictional deity.
You can't disprove the Tooth Fairy either...
It's not really about "philosophy" now, is it? God gave man "Free Will", something I've been saying since the 80s. 1984, to be exact. This being the case? How can God take away something given, just because the soul it's been given to, uses it for evil? How is this "God Allowing", anything?
We are NOT to "obey" God. We are to do God's Will? By CHOICE. THIS is why God wants. What good has it ever done, to force a man to do that, which they absolutely do not wish to do? All kinds of evil bloom from men doing such things.
Just look at the Government in America 2023. "WE THE PEOPLE" have FREE WILL- it is a GOD-GIVEN GIFT. But this is also a gift ALL MANKIND has.
This way? ALL responsibility for the choices we make in this life? REST WITH US.
Now, let us get to the REAL PROBLEM- ACCOUNTABILITY. NONE wish to accept any, and many won't hold others to it. HERE lies the problem today. And this? Was done INTENTIONALLY - so that EVIL MAY THIRVE.
Hows bout y'all try dwelling on this for a time? Or... will you ignore, as usual? I'll guess the latter, of course.
You are mistaken in your belief in free will, which negates the existence of a god; it's simply a product of your mind playing tricks on you. The real question is how humans attain agency when we are fundamentally composed of the same cosmic elements, as famously articulated by Carl Sagan in Astrophysics. Now, turning to the insights of biologists like Charles Darwin, we must inquire at what stage in the process of evolution we acquired this agency. The notion of an Abrahamic God has long lost its relevance, as it's easy to identify inconsistencies within those narratives. So, one must ask, how many contradictions are needed to prompt a change in your perspective? If you approach this rationally, even a single contradiction suffices.
To reconcile this, start by defining your concept of God, free will, and your understanding of the self, denoted as "I," in any way you see fit. You may encounter confusion, as the English language often separates ownership from identity - for example, when we say, "I will get my teeth fixed," it seems as though we possess the teeth rather than being intrinsically connected to them. In the end, the crux of the matter is to establish your definitions of God, free will, and "I" in a manner that makes sense to you. If you still maintain a belief in an Abrahamic God, free will, and an "I" with agency, I can demonstrate the inconsistencies in your definitions.
This approach will not prove effective unless you are willing to invest the effort into precisely defining what you mean by the Abrahamic God, the concept of free will, and your understanding of the self as represented by "I." To truly grasp the essence of your beliefs and potentially recognize any delusions, it's crucial to engage in a process of introspection and definition. While I may offer insights, you might not fully appreciate or accept them until your own mind grapples with these definitions. It's through this introspective process that your beliefs can be more clearly understood and evaluated.
It was also what Big Brother demanded in George Orwell's1984.
John 6 : 40 For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
This is complete sophistic nonsense, and such speculations are a fatuous waste of time.
Believers cannot prove he exists
It's the same old argument that the reasons behind God's actions are unknowable by humans. (Tell that to a baby born with half a brain, or a lost, starving dog.) Sorry, either God is omniscient, all-powerful and *benevolent* -- or is not God.
Craig seems oblivious to the logical problem with a God which is the only Necessary Being, and all else Contingent: That means that such a God is fully responsible for all evil. This is the fundamental problem with normative Judeo-Christian theology, which has allowed neoplatonism to replace biblical theology. William Lane Craig is trying to excuse the inexcusable by fronting for that failed normative Judeo-Christian tradition.
You're thinking WAY past the sale. It's not on atheists to disprove gods. It's on YOU to prove yours (and presumably no others) exists.
You can’t disprove the existence of the Easter Bunny either.
Yes you can. There's no evidence of the Easter bunny and it's not a self-evident truth of reason that the easter bunny exists. Thus it is true beyond a reasonable doubt that the easter bunny does not exist. It's logically possible that the easter bunny exists, but it is not reasonable to believe that the easter bunny exists. By contrast, not only is it logically possible for God to exist, there is positive evidence of God's existence. Evil itself is such evidence, for evil is a moral property and moral properties would not exist unless God existed. Thus evil proves God. Evil doesn't prove the easter bunny, for evil can exist regardless of whether the easter bunny does. But evil does prove God, for evil can't exist unless God does.
That’s just comical. What is claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. There is no evidence of a god or gods.
Evidence: the Universe has a beginning (as opposed to disproved Steady State Universe of atheists of old) ; the implausible fine tuning of the many physical constants that permit life to exist (ie, an infinite number of 'settings' that wd make any life impossible, and an essentially infinitely minute range of settings that allow any life to exist - yet we do) . And on and on. The Fingerprints of a Creator are everywhere. Atheists do not explain away any of this well. Either mere skepticism which they mistake for knowledge. The idea of a multiverse, which is based on Marvel Comics not Science. So there you go.
"I hold to the ridiculous position that NOTHING created EVERYTHING." - Foolish Atheist 🤪
"I believe in the preposterous notion that the most highly advanced & sophisticated code on the planet (DNA) designed itself." - Absurd Atheist 🥴
Why in the world do I need to provide YOU with "evidence"? Since when is that MY responsibility? It is YOUR responsibility to FIND evidence for YOURSELF.
I have my evidence. I was shown to me September 24th, 1984. I did not ask for it. I didn't not believe it was even something possible. I was asked a question: "Do you believe God can heal that?", my response: "I guess, if he actually wanted to. But God doesn't do things such as this for myself, never has".
Then I was asked one other question, "Do you want me to pray for this"? My response: "Not really... but I guess if you want to try, have at it". I was actually going to use nothing happening against him.
Except I couldn't.
Now tell me, how am I supposed to give YOU evidence of what I experienced? And why would I be RESPONSIBLE to do such a thing? I never asked OTHERS to, "Prove God exists to me". What is that THEIR job? It's MY job to seek, and find the answers myself. Not other peoples.
So I really don't see any humor in your ignorant statement. You not only rely on others for your own information, you DISMISS, what you know nothing about.
Not very intelligent, if you ask me. But that's just one man's opinion.
Believe what you will, or dismiss what you will, for yourself. Just show me who's given you the power to dismiss, for OTHERS, what other people, believe? As you did above. Yourself. No one else. Pretty frigging selfish, again, imo.
"The more I study science the more I believe in God." - Albert Einstein
"He who thinks half-heartedly will not believe in God; but he who really thinks has to believe in God." - Isaac Newton
It pains me to say I actually agree with WLC on this one. By making the claim that the existence of evil makes god non-existent or unlikely, the atheist is indeed making a claim that needs to be substantiated. The atheist literally falls into a trap dug by themselves. Atheists need to stop playing this silly game and maintain the position that theists own the burden of proof for the god claims they make. It is true that an atheist cannot disprove the existence of god, but neither can WLC disprove the existence of Carl Sagans invisible dragon in his garage.
Indeed, classic theodicy, from the Bible onwards, attributes the existence of evil to Adam's disobedience, which (for Christians) required the Incarnation, the Crucifixion and the Ascension as 'proof' of the Atonement.
That was the perfect answer.
:-O WLC, OMG.
The beauty of arguing for the existence of something that doesn't evidently exist is that you can just make up whatever you like to support your arguments. As long as you can get enough believers to agree with you, you won't be chewed out too badly over what you made up.
But you just made up that he's arguing for the existence of something that doesn't exist. He's arguing for someone who does exist. You've made up that he's arguing for someone who doesn't.
@@geraldharrison5787 ”…something that doesn’t *evidently* exist…”
You missed a word there.
@@Griexxt And you've missed the point. Good job.
@@geraldharrison5787 What point were you trying to make then? Because I haven't made up the thing you're saying I made up. Nowhere in my comment does it say that God doesn't exist, because that's not what "doesn't evidently exist" means.
@@Griexxt That you've begged the question.
William Lane Craig is the master of the straw man.
I don't think this dude exists
For millennia, all the theologians, philosophers, and just, thinking men, in general, were asking and wondering and pondering the question of why there is so much evil pain and suffering in the world and why would God need so much of it. All of them failed to give a satisfying answer or explanation and this is why, till these days, we continue to ask the same question over and over again.
As a follower of Christ, I ask this question daily, sometimes several times a day, and understand well that it is almost certain that I won't get it in this life but eventually everything will make sense.
David Hume concluded (I paraphrase from the First Enquiry) that the First Cause, must be perfectly good, perfectly evil or indifferent. Rejecting the first 2, on the basis of what we find in the world, he opted for indifference.
@@saltburner2
Biblically speaking, evil erupted into existence later, meaning that the first cause was perfectly good but the fall into corruption happened, so evil is not a part of eternity with good, no, it is a fallen and imperfect condition that had the beginning and will have an end. Only good is eternal that existed in the beginning and will exist in the end.
As to the philosophy of men. You have to be joking. I am a follower of the Lord Jesus Christ, and my heart aches for those that don’t believe. I pray they will have a change of heart 🙏🙏🇦🇺
You are mistaken in your belief in free will, which negates the existence of a god; it's simply a product of your mind playing tricks on you. The real question is how humans attain agency when we are fundamentally composed of the same cosmic elements, as famously articulated by Carl Sagan in Astrophysics. Now, turning to the insights of biologists like Charles Darwin, we must inquire at what stage in the process of evolution we acquired this agency. The notion of an Abrahamic God has long lost its relevance, as it's easy to identify inconsistencies within those narratives. So, one must ask, how many contradictions are needed to prompt a change in your perspective? If you approach this rationally, even a single contradiction suffices.
To reconcile this, start by defining your concept of God, free will, and your understanding of the self, denoted as "I," in any way you see fit. You may encounter confusion, as the English language often separates ownership from identity - for example, when we say, "I will get my teeth fixed," it seems as though we possess the teeth rather than being intrinsically connected to them. In the end, the crux of the matter is to establish your definitions of God, free will, and "I" in a manner that makes sense to you. If you still maintain a belief in an Abrahamic God, free will, and an "I" with agency, I can demonstrate the inconsistencies in your definitions.
This approach will not prove effective unless you are willing to invest the effort into precisely defining what you mean by the Abrahamic God, the concept of free will, and your understanding of the self as represented by "I." To truly grasp the essence of your beliefs and potentially recognize any delusions, it's crucial to engage in a process of introspection and definition. While I may offer insights, you might not fully appreciate or accept them until your own mind grapples with these definitions. It's through this introspective process that your beliefs can be more clearly understood and evaluated.
If you are a follower, then you are a loser.
As you have no idea where your leader, Jesus, is taking you.
Instead walk side by side with your fellow humans as we create a path for life!
Their is FATHER MOTHER GOD (regularly visits me) a beautiful white intelligent loving light. Then their is overseer creator god then their is a creator god ( Yahweh was one now deceased, Yeshua is now one) in seventh dimension . The Roman/Greek and Deity gods live in the seventh dimension as well. Our Universe is an experimental Beta Universe with various density E.T's in it.
William Lane Craig is the absolute antithesis of rational, enlightened discussion.
You, John Anderson, simply Can Not expect people to view you as an unbiased, fair interpreter of facts, and simultaneously give dishonest critters like this a chance to void his horrid 'faux-intellectual' cloaca on others.