Dr. Craig: What Views that You've Defended are You Most/Least Confident in?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 ก.ย. 2019
- In this clip, Dr. William Lane Craig is asked what views he's defended throughout his career that he's most and least confident in. His answers will SHOCK you! They shocked me!
Link to the full interview: • Answering Objections t...
----------------------------------------- GIVING -----------------------------------------
Support us on Patreon: / capturingchristianity
One-time Donations: donorbox.org/capturing-christ...
Thanks to all of our patrons for your continued support! You guys and gals have no idea how much you mean to me.
------------------------------------------- LINKS -------------------------------------------
Website: capturingchristianity.com
Free Christian Apologetics Resources: capturingchristianity.com/fre...
The Ultimate List of Apologetics Terms for Beginners (with explanations): capturingchristianity.com/ult...
------------------------------------------- SOCIAL -------------------------------------------
Facebook: / capturingchristianity
Twitter: / capturingchrist
Instagram: / capturingchristianity
SoundCloud: / capturingchristianity
------------------------------------------ CONTACT ------------------------------------------
Email: capturingchristianity.com/cont...
#WilliamLaneCraig #Apologetics #Christianity
The humility in his answers, especially the answer to the second question, is remarkable - but fits with the kind of man he is.
00:50
I love how humble he is and what delight he takes in building other people up. His last remark and his final giggle...he always reminds me of the spirit of a fun loving little boy living in the brilliant mind of a genius with the body of a gentle granddad...and I always always feel a healthy envy for his wife, kids, grandkids, anyone who gets to have him in their lives, what a treasure!
I couldn’t help but smile during this entire video with just how much fun it seemed you guys were having. Really enjoyed it! Looking forward for more
I love these short clips brother! 👍 No time to watch the full interview!
I love how much thought Craig put into it before he answered
THANK YOU FOR THESE VIDEOOSSSS!
Really well done Cameron. 👍 Next level
Yo Cam this channel is beautifully crafted I must say. I hope the intro, the music, the equipment used to give your ministry a modern twist is not overlooked by your subscribers, because I certainly haven’t 👏🏼👏🏼
I was very impressed with how knowledgable you are in the field of philosophy.
Excellent video brother.
For me, I still need this video to be translated into English, jk.
Papa Smurf There are two competing theories of time. The A theory, or the tensed theory, holds that temporal becoming, the movement of time from one sequential event to the next is reality. This is the “common” understanding of time. As a moment passes, it no longer exists, and as the future has not yet occurred it does not exist.
The B theory of time, or the tenseless theory, holds that temporal becoming is nothing more than the perception of the finite creature experiencing it. The past exists just as real as the present and the future. While the A theory of time might be thought of as actors on a stage, the B theory might be thought of like a roll of film for a movie. People, events, etc never truly pass out of existence but instead are not presently viewed through the experience of the creature. This would mean that there are an infinite number of “yous” that exist simultaneously and that what ever version of you that exists in the present is merely the version that your stream of consciousness moves through at any given point in time.
Papa Smurf I was replying to your comment about not knowing what Craig’s A theory of time is. I was explaining his position and helping to illustrate it by juxtaposing it with the B theory of time. I did not endorse either, or make a comment about the reality of God.
If you are curious, I am a follower of Christ and endorse the A theory of time. However, there are many Christians who endorse the B theory of time and many atheists who endorse the A theory of time.
Love your intro!
I would pay good money to have William lane Craig be my grandfather for a day.
I'll be your daddy for an hour!
No, I want him to be my daddy and for a week! Another option is my husband but I would have to become a girl first and you know there's that wife of his.
Hey cameron ! Really love your videos !
Could you do one on creationism and how it stands with science ? How can one make sense of it ?
This is GOLD.
Awesome stuff, a brilliant mind
Bro love the video
When WLC talks and his voice goes deep he sounds like Optimus Prime from Transformers 😆
I am surprised by the second answer too.
That ending tho 😆
Bravo
I didn’t expect Craig to actually come up with a proper answer, but he did, which is pleasantly surprising, as this hints at a capacity for self-scrutiny.
Both of his answers surprised me.
that was fun
Miss you over there Cam, but you are reaching the people who can be reached.
Great video. Too bad he didn't expand on his motivations for antirrealism about abstract objects. Would've been interesting.
I've read his book on tense theory of time.. he's very convincing
"Of what use is it to discourse learnedly on the Trinity, if you lack
humility and therefore displease the Trinity? Lofty words do not make a
man just or holy; but a good life makes him dear to God. I would far
rather feel contrition than be able to define it. If you knew the whole
Bible by heart, and all the teachings of the philosophers, how would
this help you without the grace and love of God?"
(Thomas a Kempis)
it is how he makes his living, the fact of what he believes dose not matter as he is not paid to argue a different point
I love WLC so very much!
I wonder if Craig has read anything from Robin Le Poidevin on tenseless time. Especially his book “Change Cause and Contradiction: A Defense of the Tenseless Theory of Time” or Siders’ book “Four Dimensionalism”
He studied philosphy of time for 11 years, he covers quite a good bit in A Tensed Theory of Time and its very solid book in which he lays out his arguments against the Tensless Theory.
He has read and already answered in his books. Did you read anything from Craig? Or is it just one more who has heard of the philosophy of time?
I would love to be able to see inside just a glimpse of Dr. Craig's brilliant mind
It’s the same old trite, refuted Kalam crap.
He is brilliant
Read the Q&A on Reasonable Faith, a few of his books and his articles. Lots of good insights.
@@Scyllax I am not a proponent of Kalam but I have yet to hear it refuted or debunked. I have seen challenges to it that are good but I have also seen responses to those.
If you don’t mind, can you share one of the arguments or evidences that you think debunk the Kalam?
There is also so much more to Dr. Craig than Kalam.
It’s one thing to disagree with someone. That’s awesome to do. But it’s a different thing to skewer them. For example, I think atheism is a superstition and generally incoherent. However I do acknowledge there are brilliant atheists such as Graham Oppy who have coherent, thought-provoking arguments in defense of atheism. So, just because we disagree with someone or think they are very wrong, doesn’t mean they are not intelligent.
@@gfujigo oh I have and I do! 😊
I have to say I read about his A-theory of time a bit, haha, and the "tense"-stuff, but I don't remember what that even means right now...
I mean...on the Wikipedia entry about him...
Ah...I'm surprised what he doubts the most...wouldn't have thought...
Hmm...It's strange... Even WLC in "The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology" (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009) said that it is "a pertinent objection":
"A more pertinent objection to the justification of (1.0) on the basis of the metaphysical
principle that something cannot come from nothing issues from the partisans of the BTheory
of time." (p. 183)
how do you understand the concept "pertinent"
What he meant was that the objection deserved a long answer, worthy of a book. It is not that it is a good objection (the fact that he does not think it necessary to include answers of any kind in his work on kalam proves this. Presentism is based on the most guaranteed of our experiences).
Great fighting warrior for our lord Jesus Christ.
craig is good philosopher
Evet öyle
@J w Garbage philosopher for children
Can someone explain his words in the most simple way? it feels like I am hearing formulas in the most technical way and I am lost. 🥺
What’s the name of the outro
Craig, one of the best!
At convoluted nonsense
@@Scyllax Interesting response...as opposed to atheistic nonsense to support a felt need to avoid God, I'll stick with Craig.
@@flamingswordapologetics There are most likely no gods to avoid, so you are wasting your tiny, limited life on empty speculations.
@@Scyllax I have life eternal, you don't; so actually you are the one who is wasting his life by avoiding the obvious creation around you. I would encourage you to dig deep and ask yourself why you would believe such nonsense, when it is clear something had to make all of this - including us. Appearance of design, which even Dawkins admits to, and perfect fine tuning to mathematical perfection, reveals God to us.
Psalm 19:1-The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
@@flamingswordapologetics When you die, you will cease to exist. That’s it. These fictions are wastes of time in your tiny, limited life.
Was really surprised when he said A theory of time. Nevertheless, he’s put the “time” into studying it! Love WLC.
Joshua Cole After reading his book “Time and Eternity” I have trouble understanding why anyone would endorse the B theory of time. Ultimately, it makes make the universe co-eternal with God, and in a very uncomfortable way it means that evil is never truly done away with.
Andrew Scott Eames It’s certainly on my must read list!
@@andrewscotteames4718 I dont understand your position against B theory of time. Can you explain it?
@@andrewscotteames4718 - B theory of time is supported by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. Why would you endorse a conflicting view of time (A theory) that is at odds with well supported, empirical science?
Billy, you are a funny guy.
It’s so crazy to me that a philosopher whose work has been so influential to me, and whose arguments have so resonated with my intuitions, says that the very positions that he holds which I find to be least convincing are the ones that he’s most convinced of and vice versa.
Same
"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after
the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ."
(Colossians 2)
A theory is a funny choice. Dr. Craig had a friendly debate with fellow Christian Hugh Ross about this. I find scientists generally believe in B theory and philosophers generally believe in A theory.
William lane craig is amazing.
I believe there should be a scientific cosmological argument in honour to William Lane Craig. The only way to reason with atheists is based upon science
So-
everything that begins to exist & everything science has discovered to exist has a cause
The universe & the things tested via science began to exist
Therfore the universe has a cause
You first have to prove everything began. Atheism doesn't claim anything, just that you need evidence for your own claims.
C0110
Everything studied and witnessed began to exist.
We can only base our scientific testing on our witnessed reality. otherwise if you don’t base it on our witnessed reality and base it on logic. you are left with irrationality and no answers.
If you think something wasn’t caused that began to exist
Then I would say you are going against
1. Our witnessed reality
2. Science
And I would ask you what you think begins to exist without a cause?
And we also have science to back up that existence isn’t eternal, such as the 2nd law of thermodynamics therfore we also base the fact the universe began to exist upon that factor aswelll as causation.
@@dwayneab1 I would agree that the universe had a cause. But there's no reason for me to make the huge leap into assuming that it was caused by a deity or some other supernatural entity, much less any specific one.
Also, how does the 2nd law of thermal dynamics, in any way, disprove that the cosmos is eternal?
Susse Kind that’s why other arguments are used to get to a n intelligent creator/God
Thermodynamics show how existence is decaying therfore
It proves existence can’t be eternal it has to have a beginning and will have an end
Good questions in this video! I am an atheist but I must give credit to WLC for his honesty about the contengy argument for which he is the least convinced about.
Capturing Christianity, i know its a bit to ask but can you please link me to the "a faultless model of ontological argument"? I'd be really happy if you do. Thanks
capturingchristianity.com/a-faultless-modal-ontological-argument/
@@Abishekep thanks! Really appreciate it
@@realityhits3022 No problem :)
That's interesting, I figured Pascal's wager would be the argument he would have the least confidence in.
Perhaps he doesn't use this argument anymore.
@@debaterofeverythingpresent2775 I've at least seen it used as an argument. I know it was hotly debated back in Pascal's time and a considerable amount of time there after.
Professional apologists don't seem to use it nearly as much anymore, probably because it breaks down rather quickly after even just a few minutes of thought. I do however, see it being used by amateur apologists, although sometimes I believe it is an attempt to convince themselves, rather than to convince others.
Susse Kind You’d be surprised, there’s actually a lot of contemporary literature defending the wager and Pascal’s thoughts.
@@sussekind9717 Most defense of it today seems to be as a reason to give God a chance or to shift the burden of proof a bit. I never see it used, even by Pascal, as evidence for God- just a reason for a fence sitter to go one way.
Beautiful 😍
I don’t understand how he can think A theory of time is his strongest belief when it’s solely based on intuition. Sure, temporality is fundamental to our thought processes, but temporality doesn’t go away in B theory of time. The notion is merely changed from thinking time flowing to us flowing. I’d call it similar to switching from the geocentric model top heliocentric model. Just as our intuition of the earth can be wrong so can our intuition of time... though this does explain why he embraces unscientific ideas such as the Lorentzian interpretation instead of relativity or Bohmian mechanics instead of classical QM or quantum information theory.
It is not just an exchange. In theory B, something is really lost, something that we know exists with more certainty than anything else (except ourselves).
In fact, it is debatable whether there is time in theory B. It is not possible to establish any objective difference between time and a dimension of space in this case.
But today's eternalists are not expected to know this. Most are ignorant of the philosophy of time and language, while trying to hold on to physics. The fact that they are unsuccessful explains the ignorance of even this subject, except that they know the number of experts who support their opinions.
@@caiomateus4194 as you said, time would be more like a dimension of space than the dynamic thing we perceive. That means in B theory time would be equally as real as space. And there would be a meaningful distinction between the two given that there's a difference between temporal location and spatial location.
The only reason you "know" time is dynamic is because that's how you perceive it. The problem is you can't assume that because you perceive something in a certain way that therefore it is that way. When we look at reality we perceive it with all sorts of shapes and colors, yet we know these perceptions only exist in our minds. Green does not exist in reality, it's just how we perceive certain wavelengths of light. Why then should we assume that our perception of time is perfectly accurate but our perception of everything else is not?
@@chipan9191
What is the difference between spatial and temporal location in B theory?
Unlike becoming with a static dimension, colors are not incompatible with electromagnetic waves. The dualism between mental ideas and real referents is unsustainable in the case of time. It is impossible to derive the dynamic from the static, by its very nature. In fact, your argument would be totally counterproductive. If all qualities of perception can be said to be secondary, then we cannot know anything about the sensitive world. Therefore, the comparison is absurd. The experience we have is not a way of perceiving time, because there is no time regardless of becoming and the present. We perceive the existence of something irreducible (the """passage of time"""), and we don't need to justify the belief based on that experience any more than we need to justify the belief that the external world exists independent of ideas.
Furthermore, mental becoming is sufficient to objective becoming, insofar as real relations with becoming provoke becoming.
@@caiomateus4194 well for one it is possible to conceive of having a different temporal location but the same spatial location and vice versa. We appear to have direct control over our spatial location but no control over our temporal location. There are many differences which seem quite obvious.
Sure you can derive dynamic from static... Do you know how film video works? You use static pictures which move across a light and lens in a projector which creates the illusion of moving pictures. Even in modern digital equipment they still use this method without film.
And I don't think you quite got the point of my analogy. The point is that our perceptions can be mistaken. I don't see how it's inconceivable that are temporal experience does not line up with reality. We have an intuition that the sun moves across the sky, but we now see it is us moving not the sun and it's our perspective which misleads us. For b theory of time it would be much the same, our experience of the dynamic movement of time is merely the result of our own movement through dimensions of time. Yet again, it is our perspective which misleads us.
@@chipan9191 It is possible to be at the same point on an X axis and at different points on an Y axis, and vice versa. Still, they are two spatial dimensions (I'm talking about a Cartesian plan).
If the B theory is true, there is no real movement across spatial dimensions, because the very notion of movement is tensed. All that exists is a static four-dimensional block, without any qualitative distinction between the fourth dimension and the other three.
There is no illusion of movement in a film. Although all the images already exist, only one appears at a time. That is, the scenes are really taking place, and this would be impossible if the B theory were true (because, in this case, there would be no perception from time to time). It is a demonstration of how ingrained our experience of becoming is, which cannot be reduced to static states.
The fact that we make mistakes in our perceptions does not mean that this is not a source of knowledge. That would be absurd; it is like saying that we cannot know that the external physical world exists only because we sometimes confuse shapes and colors. How certain a perceptual belief is guaranteed depends on the degree of depth that is maintained. The belief that the sun revolves around the earth has never been guaranteed, because the opposite belief is equally intuitive (after all, heliocentrism does not depend on the mere consideration that the earth is moving, but also on the applied scale notion of a intuitively way).
Anyway, the case here is on another level, because it is undeniable that there are dynamic objective facts from the flow of ideas and the internal experience of the present. His own attempt to derive dynamism from static states is a hybrid of theories A and B, which commits what C.D. Broad called the hypertime fallacy. You do not eliminate the present, you just move it to a higher instance of tensed time while transforming physical time into a fourth spatial dimension. Ultimately, there are objective past, present and future in this scenario, as consciousness moves through the coordinates of the four-dimensional block. While you can avoid the biggest problem of pure B theory with this, you do so at the expense of introducing many smaller ones (like non-interactionist dualism between mind and brain).
I was shocked that William lane craig would say that he is least confidence in Argument from God. Especially contingency .....
I would say because both the argument for God and the unknown of the quantum realm are both on par for the most part. Both cannot be proved with any significance.
Me too
Coherence doesn't entail possibility, hence even if they could establish internal coherence within divine attributes, possibility doesn't follow.
Defending Tense is a thing??
What’s his reason for anti-realism?
As long as he keeps on speaking at a level above the level of the faithful.
God existing is the main proof
God not not existing is the second most convincing imo
WLC subtly admitting to having ignored the Swinburne interview.
Whats tense....you should have explained that..
Sorry I'm lost in this interview .Paul said I did not come with interlect.Would this lead the average thickies to Jesus
I mean I like Dr Craig but here !!
I was anticipating Craig would have had the least confidence in free will given the theological implications on Christian doctrine.
Craig has pointed to human free will as a primary explanation of sin. Wheter you describe "evil" as the harmful choices of people or think of sin more as a quality introduced into the world after humans exercised free will in Eden, the bottom line is that free will enables sin to exist.
So is there free will in Heaven?
I'm guessing few Christians if any believe free will is to be stripped away from people in the afterlife. That seems to fly in the face of how crucial free will is reported to be so the human love and worship of God is genuine, not programmed. So guessing there's not many who would answer "no".
But if you say yes, people will retain their free will, then why wouldn't there be sin in the afterlife?
I've heard some people say that humans won't feel the desire to sin or rebel if in the presence of an almighty good, but apparently, that didn't stop Satan or a legion of his followers who had the first-hand experience of God's power and still decided to rebel.
And if you argue that there will be special circumstances after the second coming, that everything will finally be as it should have been and somehow God will make it all work, then it's a clear admission that God could have originally created an Earth where humans had free will (freely loving god, not robots) but no temptation to sin.
Edit: "Allmighty" only has one "l". hehe
Interesting thoughts, can I ask what your view on the matter is?
@@Ivann1005 So somehow God or Heaven removes the desire to do certain things? How can we call that maintaining free will?
@@Ivann1005 If Satan was a highly favored servant of God, in his presence constantly, but still mustered the desire to rebel and take a host of others with him, how can we possibly assume no human soul in heaven won't feel the same thing?
@@Ivann1005 To be fully transparent, I don’t engage in these discussions for the reasons you might imagine. I want the undecided or otherwise hesitant onlookers who read these comments to see theists defending their claims and the thinking behind their beliefs. So I prefer keeping these discussions together for easier reading.
Doh, sorry about the lost comment. Hate when that happens!
Edit: dang autocorrect
@@Mr.H-YT42 This is a very interesting point Scott. As a believer I am going to look much more into this. Have you watched any good videos or read any good books on the matter? I assume nothing that would have been convincing since you are posing the question here.
If Dr. Caig would give up, say, omnipotence, to keep an ontological argument, I wish he would explain someone with limited power would still be the first cause.
I am a christian, but it seems to me that the ontological argument has got to be one of the weaker arguments I have heard. The idea of "greatness" only applies if there is some kind of standard to be met. That standard can only exist if God already exists, so I feel like the argument kind of smuggles the idea of God into the first premise. I could be wrong.
You are right. If the universe has a cause, that cause is simply asserted to be a god by Craig and his gang of idiots.
M. Hall that is not the ontological argument that is the cosmological argument. If it is not some kind of immaterial, timeless, spaceless deity then what is a better explanation. God seems to me to be the best explanation. If you can think of a better one I am all ears
@@josephtattum6365 Explanation for what? Gods are never an explanation for anything. Craig is a proponent of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which does not get you to a god. All the arguments assume a god exists at some point. It’s the reason theology is now reality-free.
@@Scyllax Explanation for everything. I ask again (though VERY RARELY do people give me a straight answer) can you think of a better explanatory ultimate for the existence of anything, for mathematics, for love, for abstract concepts, for the material and immaterial, for the beginning of time the passage of time, natural laws that govern our lives?
If you can give me a better explanation than a being that is eternal, outside of time, immaterial, spaceless and personal. I really want to know what your explanation is. No one has every given me a better explanation. They usually just give me angry diatribes about how belief in the immaterial is stupid. That is fine but what is your justification.
I am not being facetious or mean, I really want to know what you think is the best explanation for the existence of the universe and the immaterial things beyond it.
So what is your explanation?
@@josephtattum6365 There isn’t one. Your propositions from your script are filled with falsehoods, but you already know that, and I will not waste my time. I have no answers, and, unlike you, I don’t pretend I do. Now, I am waiting for your non-responsive response.
he should say, "eternal conscious torment". .....cause it is false..
oh thats a doctrine
...
my bad
and God bless 'em
both of you
Yeah eternal punishment is brutal but that doesn't disprove omegaGOD just the God of the Bible
God existing is easy to believe, God of Bible obviously harder
It's in Scripture...
Second question he should have answered Arminianism. Because I’m quite sure he’s wrong.
Wait, so craig has defended antirealism? I would have thought that he held to some type of realism when it comes to universals.
I believe the reason he defends anti-realism is due to the challenge to God’s aseity Platonism presents.
@@andrewscotteames4718 You're referring to the notion that abstract objects somehow exist in a third realm right?
Evidence Based Faith Right, the idea that concepts like he number 2 are actual things that exist. I believe a good number of Christian theologians hold to a form of divine conceptualism in this regard where as Craig holds to a form of anti-realism. I may be mistaken, but believe his position is that abstract objects like the number two are not things but rather used in an adjectival sense. He doesn’t believe that the statement “there are three members of the trinity” commits you to the existence of the number three. I know that he has said that he is sympathetic to that view, though I am not certain that it is precisely what he adheres to.
@@andrewscotteames4718 Yea, I'm somewhat familiar with the different forms of realism. I find them pretty interesting. But I don't find platonism to be very convincing, because abstract objects like the number 2 don't have any causal power of their own. Although I do find scholastic realism to be quite convincing.
I appreciate your response though.
I kind of think the Ontological argument is one of the worst arguments for God's existence. It's basically the theist equivalent of the Paradox of the Stone argument, -amusing to think about, but holds no water beyond philosophical jargon.
"Anti-realism of abstract objects" is just a totaligy. Abstract objects are by definition are not real. Why did he even bother including that?
So, numbers doesnt exist?
Abstract objects are by definition abstract. What is real?
You are presupposing antirealism there.
@@spectre8533 Correct. Numbers dont exist in reality. They are abstract tools used by humans to represent things and make predictable calculations that are observed in reality.
@@isaiasperez2018 Thanks Antonio. But i dont think I'm presupposing antirealism. Can you explain?
@@James-yi1vk Numbers definitely exists. I see that you wrote ONE phrase.
Just because its abstract, doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
If that was the case, order wouldnt exist because order is abstract.
And no, numbers arent creations, they exist independent from hunans.
Does Dr Craig teach on end times and prophecy ? 25% of Bible is prophecy that is 100 % accurate. Game changer !
if there are contradictions in an all-knowing god, you just need to go one step below and that being will be god? oh, so backpedalling and moving the goalpost then? how do people like this not see the level of mental gymnastic they're tapdancing to. i mean if that wasn't bad enough, that ad hoc idea is then used as a premise for other arguments.
Wait so he is more confident in the A theory of Time then God’s existence?
Not necessarily, he was asked what views he defended that he was most, and least confident in. He uses A theory as a means to get to God, if I remember what I read from him and saw in debates from him correctly. I think he mainly first accepted God on personal experience though - which he might source as his strongest personal thing he is confident in. But he realizes that wouldn't be useful as an argument. I applaud him for pointing out what many Christians imo wrongly think are their strongest cases as the weakest - contingency, and ontological, because I would agree with him as a long time student of philosophy. I think they all ultimately fail, but there are definitely better and worse arguments, and I think this is just more evidence that of why he is a cut above the average Christian thinker.
@@JacquesduPlessis11 Why do you think they all fail?
@@minetime6881 I agree with Plantinga that the arguments only work if you already are a believer. Which is to say they don't really work as persuasive arguments. Take for example the contingency argument - it fails to be persuasive because even if you accept all the premises you could for example think it would be an equally acceptable (maybe even more acceptable) conclusion that everything rests on something which is non-contingent which has no mind. A Espinosa type of universe. So the argument doesn't get you to God, and it definitely does not get you to Christianity. But to the person who is already a Christian they go - of course what else could it be but the Christian God, and to the Muslim they go - of course what else could it be but Allah. This is a step which needs to be better justified, but which to a believer is the 'obvious conclusion'.
I am not religious, but I would still agree with that if I was. The only really good way to believe is to just accept it is just on faith - Kierkegaard argues this in a way that I think is the best a theist can do. Anyway I hope that answers your question. Have a lovely day.
@@JacquesduPlessis11 Well they don’t only work if you had already believed it in every case. Lee Strobel wasn’t a Christian but then he looked into the evidence and then he became a Christian, I guess he looked into the evidence for Jesus’s Resurrection rather then deductive arguments. Francis Collins is a famous scientist and he became a Christian based on the moral arguments from C.S. Lewis’s book “Mere Christianity.” He saw that people did altruistic things, with no evolutionary advantage, and everybody praises it. Also I think the only thing that most of the philosophical arguments are trying to do is to convince that atheist stick God exists, yes until you do more things you don’t get into the God of Christianity. Like the cosmological argument attempts to show that there is an uncaused, spaceless, timeless, immaterial, immensely powerful, personal being that created the universe. Yes, this does Sound like pretty much any theistic God and that is kind of the goal, to show that he is in is true. That’s why There is evidence specifically for Christianity like the evidence for Jesus’s resurrection which then shows that christianity is true.
Wow, I'm lost wondering how A B time theories have any relevance to whether a god exists or what flavor it might be (pantheist, Islamic, Christian, alien, etc). Craig has always amazed me when he is challenged about the existence of his god by arguing about causes of causes and theories of time as if they have any explanatory power to describe whether a god exists and what its attributes might be if it *did* exist. I guess I'm just too stoopid to understand how the things Craig offers as "evidence" point to a god and to his particular flavor of god. I guess that means, if Craig is correct, I was made by his god with the inability to recognize his existence so I was made as amusement for that god by spending eternity being tortured maximally (as only a god would know how) and screaming in agony. I guess that screaming is pleasing to Craig's god since MOST people that have ever lived either never heard of his god or were raised in different cultures with different gods or were incapable of believing in any god at all (my particular case).
Don’t take it personal, I believe in god and completely lost in those A-B theories as well 😄
About your own personal assertion, ironically it is you, together with religious fanatics, who are stuck in the middle-ages my friend 🙏🏻
@@GrGal Huh, I just re-read my comment and failed to find the assertion you claim I made - fanatical or not. Maybe you can help me identify my assertion and how I'm "stuck in the middle-ages [sic]" so I can clear up any misunderstanding.
@@robertekis2450 - Well, i’m not native english speaker and now I see in dictionary that assertion has a few meanings, I don’t know which is the common one, but I will use another 2 words - argument, claim. And please, don’t tell me you used the word “guess”, we are not in court nor we are lawyers here 😊 people usually do exactly that after saying they “guess”, they go further to their own argument, with reservation indeed, but yet an argument.
By the way, nice to know you are here with us after those 2 years 🙋🏻♂️
As to why middle ages? Well, because you present the exact claims made by religious fanatics in the middle-ages, claims that persist to this day by them but also by militant atheists (not saying you are by the way, only the claims you presented), which can be seen in the bible itself too if we pick very specific passages and cut them out of context, but are so, so far from the “spirit” of the bible as a whole (a text which middle-age folks had barely to no access to).
@@GrGal I can see that you are not a native English speaker now. You mistakenly equate guess with a claim or argument. They are not equivalent at all. Since I don't accept the existence of any god, I can only "guess" at the attributes believers attribute to specific gods and use the books referred to by those believers to help me get a grasp on their view of things. I assumed that you are a Christian, as Craig claims to be, and that your "holy" book was included the Hebrew Old Testament and the Christian New testament. I've read both and did not take any part of them "out of context". I do specifically pick out particularly egregious parts since it would not be beneficial to refer to the entire Bible for every concept. Most Christians have never read the Bible and ALL Christians that I have met do exactly what you claim I'm doing even if they have read the Bible. They ALWAYS ignore the parts that are inconvenient (like the parts that provide rules on how to go about enslaving non-Hebrews and the parts where the virgin girls of conquered neighboring tribes are allowed to be taken as slaves, or stoning people to death (just that alone is incredibly repugnant) for collecting firewood for cooking on specific days, etc). Have you actually read the Bible?
Also, are you suggesting that because a truth was recognized in the middle ages and still recognized as true today it's invalid? For example, murder was considered as a crime in the middle ages and is still considered a crime. Same goes for theft. Does the fact that I make these claims make me a militant atheist or religious fanatic?
@@robertekis2450 Oh but I am a Christian (Messianic-Jew to be more precise), just not from US lol. It seems you eagerly jump immediately to the next arguments with your "guessing" hahaha. Yes my friend, I read the bible both old and new testament, not all of it I must admit, but it’s a work in progress. Nothing of your claims here "holds water" - not inside the inter-context of the old testament itself, not when taking Jesus’s words about Moses’s testament in consideration, not when taking actual brutal history of the time in consideration.
For example, lets take the man who collected wood on Saturday - lets get the context here right. It wasn’t some peaceful, sunny Saturday in the Hawaii. It was in the harsh desert, on the way to the promised land and on the process of building a nation out of dark, hard, ignorant and very, very violent people who just free after ~400 years of enslavement. That very nation was in questioning of being completely exterminated by god just a chapter before the story in the example, after severe and brutal violations of his orders, time and again, after being saved by him miraculously time and again, after witnessing first hand with their own eyes his power, after hearing his voice! Now, just a passage before the man collecting the wood, God speaks to Moses about what happens when someone sins as a mistake, and what happens when someone sins out of strict uprising… and here comes, what? The story about the man collecting wood in Saturday. This man was part of a repeating motive of rebellious sin throughout the whole Exodus story (not just Exodus book). This way of story-telling is repeating through the bible time and again - giving you the general idea of what happened through the large mcontext and not directly through the passage itself.
Now, you can definitely argue here that the punishment that poor man received was brutal, and you will be absolutely right. But, taking in consideration it was a very bold uprising on his part, after being saved and warned time and again and witnessing with his own eyes and ears which is the power who command all of that, taking in consideration the process the whole nation was involved in at the time and how fragile it was, and of course taking in consideration those times in general which were extremely brutal - it sadly and painfully was what it was.
How many more executions of this kind, regarding the Saturday, do we see more in the bible by the way? None. Is it because the nation became such faithful and loyal? Definitely not, vise versa, at times and as a general tendency, it went only further and further away from god. Yes, there were many more "executions" later on, pointing more directly to the big scheme of problem the bible tries to describe - rebellion against god, along cruel nature and war between men and all the death and destruction it brings.
I won’t go with you further to other examples you brought, they really are all on the same boat with the one I just attended, and I really sat here typing all that essay (hahaha sorry for that 😄) and I just can’t afford this time my friend, especially since I got myself involved here into a mini-debate which will probably bear very little fruit if at all to both of us. I did put my time into this one with a "fools-hope" that maybe you will have a 2nd look somehow on what you think you know about the bible, but I guess (and here is a real guess hahaha) that all you saw here was "blah blah blah".
Good luck my friend, I wish for you to flourish up away from the middle-ages of the mindset 😁🙏🏻
Presupositionalism intensifies
To judge by his answer, he has greatest confidence in certain philosophical positions rather than theological positions.
Can you blame him? You can't prove the Bible by the Bible itself and there's no foolproof argument for the existence of God.
steve hays If we have any sense of understanding something counterintuitive, like about time or God's attributes, many of which I think Dr. Craig understands poorly, it should humble us that God intends for us to find out that our minds cannot span the extent of reality and we are absolutely dependent on Him not to be left to our own intuitions.
"Knowledge puffs up" when that is the last thing it should do. Dr. Craig loves God much more than I do, which ought not to be.
@@lizicadumitru9683 Well only if you treat the Bible as an everyday modern ordinary book. And disregarding it's original form. The Bible is a collection of multiple separate ancient texts written by different authors across great distances and hundreds of years. To disregard this is intellectual suicide. And an foolproof argument for God, really you'll need cartesian certainty in this life to create and affirm something like that.
Perhaps because the two he named he can rule out the opposite. You can't infer from his short and thoughtful response that he is more (or less) confident about certain premises or facts concerning other arguments or cases respectively (which he didn't name) .
@@lionhound2506 Agreed...
To me WLC makes me cling to my simple faith in what the bible says & repels me away from trusting in some proof of an apologetic argument.
Valid Core I don’t think Dr Craig would object to that. He typically teaches that the most fundamental argument for God’s existence is the inner witness of the Holy Spirit in a believer’s life. This makes faith a “properly basic belief” which is powerful enough to over come any and all objects. Rather, his work on apologetics comes from two sources: first, as a faithful obedience to 1 Peter 3:15, and second, to help create a cultural milieu in which the gospel can be heard as a viable message. Evangelism doesn’t happen in a vacuum, and God can use apologetic arguments as the instrument of his grace to a believer. For example, CS Lewis was converted on the basis of apologetic arguments, the Apostle Paul used apologetics in much of his preaching, and many early church fathers, such as Polycarp wrote extensively on apologetics.
With all that, it can also be said that apologetics can be a great source of edification in a believers life. During times of doubt, which all of us experience, knowing that we have sound reasons for our belief in Jesus Christ can be a great source of strength. Be blessed brother!
So he is not most confident that Christ was God and died for our sins? Sad.
Justas399
That’s wasn’t the question.
I am pretty sure that God existing is more likely than Jesus being God
@@EricSmyth2Christ Jesus proved that God exist because He did what only God could do.
@@Justas399 God can exist without Jesus but Jesus cannot exist without God
@@EricSmyth2Christ True. However, God cannot exist without the 2nd person of the Trinity because God is trinitarian in nature.
WLC is great and I agree with most of his work but he's operating under two false presuppositions:
1) That the Heliocentric model is true.
2) That academia is a valid source of authority.
He understands Evolution theory is false but trusts academia beyond that too much. This could be because he did well with academia and likes to put faith in it as a result.
Trust the word of God, not the word of man. Read carefully what the Bible says about Earth.
It breaks my heart to see a person as intelligent as WLC to dumb down his vast cognative ability to meet the expectations of a religious industry that rewards willful ignorance.
Yeah but philosophy is dead so......