Cameron Bertuzzi's top five apologetics books mentioned in this video, but watch the video for why: 0:58 5. Tactics (Greg Koukl) 2:30 4. The Son Rises (William Lane Craig) 4:10 3. Is There a God (Richard Swinburne) 9:08 2. How Reason Can Lead to God (Josh Rasmussen) 11:35 1. God, Freedom, and Evil (Alvin Plantinga)
I read Tactics several years ago and I found it very appealing because it shows how to better interact with unbelievers by learning how to listen and how to lead by asking specific questions, knowing that the outcome will help you asking new questions. But then I started an other book on apologetics called the Ultimate proof of Creation, by Dr Jason Lisle which was a kind of revelation an much better approach to apologetics because it was totally a Bible centered approach.
Some of my favorites are *Tactics *Greg Bahsen- Always Ready * Keller- Reason for God * Scruton- Being Human *Martin- Kingdom of the Cults I also found have a good college level textbook on philosophy is good to have around to review from time to time.
Books: For self 1. Tactics by Greg Koukl (small) (how to discuss) 2. The son Rises by Craig (small)(case for resurrection)(abridged version of larger book) 3 Is there a God? By Richard Swinburne (abridged version of larger book) (Compares with other types/categories of God/Gods like Polytheism etc) 4 How Reason leads to God by Josh 5 God, freedom and evil by Plantiga (Non-apologetic) (analytical approach to religion just like apologetic) 6. The God delusion by Richard DawkinDawkins
The best apologetics book is probably the Blackwell companion to natural theology. To kinda balance it out, I’d recommend J Howard sobels Logic and Theism, though I think Sobels criticism doesn’t work, he raises good points, and we theists have to thank him for pushing us to further the arguments
@@tinanikkillz8570 yeah so take your time through it, I did not read the whole thing, I found what I thought the simplistic one was and read it first then went on to the next. This should help
Some of these may not be geared towards apologetics specifically, but they are usable in apologetic arguments: 1. How Reason can Lead to God by Josh Rasmussen (and it's only been out for a year) 2. Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology by William Lane Craig et al. (esp. McGrew on miracles) 3. The Resurrection of the Son of God by NT Wright (Resurrection) 4. A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos by Luke Barnes (Fine Tuning Argument, co-written with an atheist counterpoint) 5. Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity edited by Stump and Padgett Can I have a 6th? If so 6. Debating Christian Thiesm edited by Moreland and Meister (with counter arguments, esp Morriston)
A buddy of mine is reading through Tactics right now! Might have to borrow it from him once he’s finished. I’ve actually started reading More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell. I think it does a great job at using scholarly research and logical reasoning to conclude that Christ was/is truly the Son of God. Also, the book is quite easy for anyone to understand.
I recommend "Five Views on Apologetics" (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) to get a better understanding of the different apologetic methods out there.
@Ruby Badilla Your comment is too long. This is TH-cam (just for fun), not a serious academic discussion. If you have a point to make, keep it concise.
@32:00 "fresh coat of paint" God is a necessary being, all actions are by through and for Himself, which defines such actions as good. Evil is not necessary it is contingent, however it is by the forgiveness of sins in the absolute that the Necessary being for whom infinite justice is to show infinite Mercy, is necessarily displayed in His assuming the evil of contingent beings upon Himself. It's all about the Logon of the Nuomenon of the One God, Jesus.
Dr. Greg Bahnsen - Presuppositional Apologetics is great also. I hope i spelled it right, English is not my native language :) Dr. Bahnsen had some brilliant debates while he was alive.
Not sure if perfection is the most fundamental property of God, scripture tells us that God is love and so we know that God is infinite love and every question that can be asked about God can be answered by that statement: God is love. Why is God a Trinity? Because God is love. Why is God just? Because God is love, etc etc.
@@CapturingChristianity hi Cameron, thanks for replying, i am not sure what you mean, can i ask you if you agree that God is infinite love and that infinite love is the essence of His being?
@@padraicmkelly God is perfect. Completely perfect. He is Pure and Good. *(Psalm 18:30)* Everything is Black and White to Him. Good and Evil. With Him being so Good and so Pure, *(1 John 1:5)* why would he excuse anybody for their sin?. He hates it, loathes it even. *(Romans 6:23)* Ofc He loves us, but that doesn't mean we are exempt from being punished *(Matthew 25:46)* Because punishment is a given. When somebody does something wrong, consequences follow. A perfect example would be court of law with a judge and a lawbreaker. A just judge will always convict the person who has been found guilty. If that judge did not pursue justice for the crime, he would not be a just judge *(Deuteronomy 32:4)* It's the same with God. He gave us infinite chances : free will. A choice to choose him or anything else, why then would he not punish those who went against him? They chose evil over him, why wouldn't he punish them? Obviously there is a way out of it, and that is to accept Him as God, Repenting, and Believing Jesus as the Savior. (Romans 5:9). As Christians we have a way of being saved. Others have that option as well. If they choose to willfully leave him/ignore him and never turn back, what else is he to do but order Justice?
For me an atheist and former Christian, the hurdle for the return religion is brightly clear. The hurdle is the Bible. The word smithing within these books are unpersuasive. I could grant most every assertion and only arrive to a destination of a god who isn’t worthy of worship. To accept a Christian god, a person must walk from a vista that offers views to equality, curiosity, and fairness. To turn away from this vista, I need more than a tangle of words where the writer of the words is simply arriving to the god of his or her culture. I need a solid evidentiary argument. Yet even with a solid evidentiary argument for god, I would would still have the obstacle of the moral nature of the Christian god. The question remains is the price of god too steep? Assuming a Christian god, is the release of soaring concepts like equality a fair sacrifice to worship this god? I say it is not.
Got a bit lost in your “wordsmithing” but I think I got the gist. You think you hold yourself to a higher moral standard than the God of the Bible. sure... Morality...fairness...equality...in the atheistic worldview those are just your opinions. The next man might just happen to have a different standard than yours and it’d be just as valid. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You have no way of objectively grounding your moral beliefs unless you borrow that standard...a transcendental moral standard that exists because God exists. Some things in the bible require in-depth study of context and vocabulary or aren’t easily interpreted; approach scripture with humility not arrogance. If you think something doesn’t add up you need not renounce your faith, you must seek answers wholeheartedly. The mindset should be that God knows best not that you know better. I’ll give you this much, there are many supposed difficulties/discrepancies in scripture. Most have been dealt with though. But no amount of evidence or explanations are enough for some people when it comes to the Bible or God in general. There’s no way getting around a hardened heart. In any case, I pray the Lord softens your heart so you can find your way back to Him. In Jesus Christ you’ll find all your answers. God bless you brother.
Jon Deaoux you are correct...my morality and ethics is superior to Biblical morality. There isn’t a reason to abandon fairness and equality. An example: I think war crimes are immoral.
Jon Deaoux Not necessarily. Why does there have to be a moral lawgiver in order for there to be morality? If consciousness is just a part of reality then why can’t morality exist in the same way. Morality in this case is just an inherent part of being a conscious being.
Hello Cameron, I rarely post comments on TH-cam, but I just had to when I heard what you had to say about Philosophy. I am a graduate Philosophy student. I might be able to convince you. "I don't need a degree to do what I'm doing now" Well, that is either trivial or speculative. If you meant to say that it is not a necessary requirement to have a Philosophy degree to do what you do, then yes, but by the same token, you don't need a degree in biology to talk about that stuff either. Does it follow that it wouldn't benefit you to have a degree in biology as a biology channel? If you meant to say that a degree wouldn't benefit your channel...what is your evidence for that? Now you say that you are not the expert here. So you might think that this is your unique selling position: a layman that interacts with the experts and gives his view as a layman. And you might not want to lose that position. But I ask you, why that USP is really that important? A professional Philosopher who interacts with other TH-camrs could also be a USP. How many professionals do that for a living? Professionals Philosophers on TH-cam that interact with other TH-camrs and their views? Also, try to broaden your horizon. You might think: Well, how does that benefit my ministry or channel? The more appropriate question might be: How does it benefit me generally in life? Now imagine someone offers a class that promises to raise IQ by 20 points. Well, sounds great, I am on board. Now you say: But I don't need that to do what I do. Well...who cares? Isn't it still great though? Still worth pursuing? If so, then why not? And even though you might not strictly need it to do what you do, you could still benefit from it. The same goes for a Philosophy degree: It might not be necessary, but your channel might still benefit from it. "Well, yeah, I now have a Ph.D in Philosophy and gained all that knowledge and skills in argumentation and logic and all that and I am know able to play with the experts on their playing field, but it is still hard to see how that could benefit my channel where I talk with Philosophers and interact with Philosophy." Sounds stupid? You say: I draw from the work of experts and showcast their work. Well, a degree in Philosophy would hardly stop you from doing that. "But I can to that without a degree". Well, again, I could also have a biology channel without a degree and have the experts on. It does not follow from this that a degree wouldn't benefit me or my channel. Now to answer your question: "What would be the point of getting a Philosophy degree? Maybe it is because I would grow in knowledge." You don't get a degree in Philosophy just to gain knowledge. You pursue a degree to become a better thinker, to learn how to philosophize, to become more analytical, a more careful thinker and so on and on top of that, maybe, also to gain knowledge. Knowledge is a great add on. You are impressed by thinkers like Plantinga. You think he was born like that and always thought that way? Was he always so analytical even before he studied Philosophy? What about the other Philosophers that are such careful thinkers? Were they always like that and just happened to pursue degrees in Philosophy? Or did Philosophy change the way they think? But normally people don't think like that. They are typically not that analytical and careful, but much more sloppy. So what happened? Did many or even most of the clear headed thinkers just happen to study Philosophy or did studying Philosophy and putting their skills to the test again and again by writing papers and arguing, getting graded and receiving feedback made them the way they are? If you study Philosophy, you get your hands dirty, you interact with philosophical arguments by professionals and have to put your reasoning to the test, get graded and, hopefully, get feedback and criticism. This could help you to improve.
@@BRNRDNCK Whether IQ can be changed or not is neither here nor there. That was just used as a hypothetical example to make a point. That might be like saying: "Imagine someone offers you 20 million dollars, wouldn't you..." and then you respond "but nobody would offer you 2 million dollars". Who cares? That would be besides the point. Your claim is also questionable. There are some studies suggesting that IQ is changable, but again, that is irrelevant to my point. You could change IQ in my example to something else like memory or better health, whatever...
@@brolithelegend I am a school-aged girl so please excuse my ignorance. when you said- _"Whether IQ can be changed or not is neither here nor there. That was just used as a hypothetical example to make a point"_ Did you need a degree in philosophy to say the above only it seems to me that the statement, _" IQ cannot be changed"_ if true is more valid than what you said? My teacher at school often marks me down if I write something she doesn't agree with even if what I said was factually true since she is quite far left. The people marking your papers may simply be making you one of them, and one of them may make a statement like _"Whether IQ can be changed or not is neither here nor there. That was just used as a hypothetical example to make a point"_ I think from what I have seen from some intellectuals, university is a place where reason and logic goes to die, but I may be wrong. I would rather get married and have a family of my own that I could love and care for than spend 4 to 6 years in a safe space, and finish up marrying dopey Ryan or worse poring out my affections on cats. it's not as though academics are carrying us forward, they are the first to bend the knee to the left. but I might be wrong. but I am not wrong when I wrote the best way not to become pregnant is to stay pure until you marry even if a university-educated SRE teacher says differently.
@@dr.shousa Yes, but, Capturing Christianity at the time of typing this post had over 5300 people listen to what he had to say. and he didn't have to spend upwards of $100,000 to get them to listen. You on the other hand only got a school-age girl interested enough in what you had to say and only then because you are at my level of intellect. We both have much to learn.
@@dr.shousa _"Sorry you have a bad teacher, but your comment about universities is completely, and utterly wrong."_ She isn't a bad teacher, but a bad human being, since she shouldn't tell girls immoral things that the girl's dad wouldn't want her doing as dads rule as he has invested in his daughter. Further, it is true university have safe spaces and are propagating nonsense. _"It's actually sad that you think learning to think critically for yourself is somehow bad."_ I think its actually sad that you do not realise I am critically thinking about university. Is it the case I am not allowed to critically think about what a university actually is. oddly you sound a lot like my SRE teacher she too thinks critical thinking isn't allowed if it challenges her views. _" If you'd learn to think critically for yourself, you would understand that "the universities are the first to bend the knee to the left" is completely fallacious."_ Oh, I am critically thinking for myself. how do you think I came to the conclusions I have. I simply critically thought who is the most rational and logical. I came to the conclusion that universities that had riots if they had speakers from a conservative viewpoint and the students the following day were told they could receive counselling if they were triggered by someone with conservative views. Wasn't a place of rational and logical views, the fact, you disagree only proves my point. _"I work at a university and I have colleagues that are republicans, libertarians, classical liberals, democrat, etc (I actually don't know anyone who would be classified as radical left) and we get along and discuss topics like adults, because we are able to think critically for ourselves, understand that there are nuances, and respect each other's opinion. Sure, there are some examples where some professors in humanities make stupid claims, or students protesting for no reason, but these are a very very small minority in the overall university system."_ No, you are lying as what you are saying here doesn't match with your previous post. So, tell me, why a university would allow immature students to be taught nonsense by your hard-left professors? Why do you criticise CC and not sort your own house out, is it because you would have to get off your knees to do so? _"You would know this, if you learn how to think critically for yourself and learn a bit about statistics, which you learn to do during higher education."_ oh, what are the statistics of those taught by your far left professors of ever getting their $100,000 fees back? _"Finally, academics are carrying us forward. Would you have the life you have without academics that make it possible? How can you type a comment on youtube without the academics that built it?"_ Well, I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but, all the big tech creators didn't have a university degree. Those taught lesbian dance theory, and the ones who lose their mind if they cross paths with a conservative are not contributing much to moving forward, as the university has left them permanently in reverse gear. _" If you get sick, how would you get better without the academics that help cure illnesses?"_ I would have medical schools. _"Do you want to go back to not having the internet, cell phones, comfortable living, etc and live in a world where half of children die before they're 15?"_ Well, the university didn't produce any of those things, companies did via capitalism. Hmm, tell me, what do your indoctrinated students think of capitalism, and where did they get such beliefs from? I can help here, the girls in my class get their immoral beliefs from the SRE teacher. Those in your university who run to safe spaces, you have intellectually killed them. _"Don't be so bleak and cynical."_ I am not bleak and cynical, but observant and critically think. it's just you do not like critical thinkers perhaps. _"Academia, overall, do advance our society and make our lives better."_ Yes, your lives are made better. I was concerned for the fee-paying clients lol. _"Just because there are a few bad apples, doesn't mean you can throw away everything (and throw away your potential)."_ Well, you could simply remove the bad apples, but you can't as the bad apples have taken over. The only solution is to starve the universities of money as you have created a society of destroyers. _"If you think otherwise, why are you on this channel? Most people who appear are members of academia, and have gone through years (10+ years) of education."_ Lol, you need to remember your lies, sir, read what you said in your previous post. You really need to hone your critical thinking, sir, you are struggling to hold your own with a teen girl. Shocking output from a university. oh, my dad said I have to sleep now. time to dream about pink balloons, wedding dresses, and I do's. night, night sir.
If you look at Ravi Zacharius' testimony he said his life was empty and he sought meaning. He spent his life arguing for the existence of God. That is not Christianity. That is a different gospel.
I share your opinion of God, Freedom, and Evil. There's a simple reason why theists should read that book. It will teach you how to think logically and rigorously, period.
"The first cause can't have a cause because otherwise it wouldn't be a first cause". That argument is useless against anybody who thinks there is no such thing as a first cause and who believes in some infinite regression of causes. It is a purely verbal argument: anybody who accepts the concept of a "first cause" has obviously excluded that this cause is the second, third, nth or infinitieth cause.
It's obvious my consciousness had a first cause, my knowledge of my bloodline is presumed from experience, but observation and intellect are obviously limited. My observation of causality posited a first cause of all things like myself over which I own no real control. The logic by which I post the question is the cause which is not original in me, but is original in itself, see John 1:1
When the new world translation inserted the indefinite article at John1:1c, many protested that Jesus was not a God. Well if you insists, but how can he then be JEHOVAH who is a God? DeuteronomyASV"For Jehovah thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God."
Of course the Bible is the best book for apologetics but if you want one that isn't hard to decipher I would vote Cold Case Christianity James Warner Wallace
@Mikemenn God has chosen "foolish" things to confound those who think themselves wise. Matthew 11:25 Jesus said I thank you Oh Father you have hidden your word from the "wise" and prudent and revealed them to children. So God deliberately chooses silly sounding stories for people who think they're smarter than their Maker. Jonah and the big fish, Noah and the Ark etc which are all literal stories but anyone with any intellectual dignity won't believe these stories. That's the wisdom of God. Unless you humble yourself and become as a little child you will not enter... So what's my point. Most of us, including you and I aren't to this level of low yet, we don't fully humble ourselves as children to grab all the information and wisdom in the "best" book aka the Bible. That is why apologetic books are there to aid in clearing things up.
They're not a Christian but if you want an interesting conversation around consciousness vs materialism, you should look at inviting Bernardo Kastrup on.
I like the Book Philosophical Foundation of a Christian Worldview by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig As well as Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults.
That is what the gnostic gospels are, also the reworking of ancient myths like osiris and mithras to make them look like Jesus. Or the quaran, the book of mormon, the urantia book, the new age maitreya. These are human or demonic efforts to rewrite the gospel. Oh don't forget the da vinci code, all fit for the dung hill. As you point out, their sheer absurdity under logical scrutiny makes the gospel of the bible shine.
I think God is limitless because He is the first cause and the infinite existence that surrounds all existence? If God wasn't infinite He wouldn't be limitless? God is the ultimate container that contains all finite containers, for example God contains a multiverse (if it exists) the multiverse contains our universe, the universe contains the Milky Way galaxy, the Milky Way contains our Solar System, etc etc. If God is not infinite then He is contained in something greater? idk.
On Guard by WLC and Mere Christianity by C S Lewis. We were given On Guard in Sunday School and I love the lion the witch and the wardrobe by C.S. Lewis. My mum read it to me when I was very young, and now I read it to the children I babysit, obviously stopping at a cliff hanger. The children will demand from their mum I am their babysitter if one is needed again. I love children. I collect and read anything by C.S.Lewis, God in the Dock is an easy read and could have been written today. Oh, they are my favourite books, but they aren't for the adults on here perhaps, but kids watch this channel too, therefore, the above, are my recommendations to my peers.
I know you assume the scriptures is understood to be the one "Book" that all the others are contingent of/to BUT I think it should be touted as the "Best". Disappointed
@@evangelistkimpatrik I ask again. How did you come to know the identity of those that wrote the various gospels? What methodologies did you employ to identify them? These are straightforward questions. I'm looking forward to you ignoring them.
I read "How Reason Can Lead to God". Wasn't very convincing. Necessary Existence on the other hand is far far better. Anecdotally, my cousin, who is already a Christian, read "How Reason..." and he didn't see much in there that he could use to convince someone else. He preferred "Tactics" by Koukl or "On Guard" by Craig, at least as a primer. I convinced him out of some of the arguments in "On Guard" in favor of either stronger versions of those arguments, or abandoning the arguments altogether, but it's a good intro. Out of everything we both agree that Tactics holds up the best. Some atheists and I did a reading of Plantiga's "God, Freedom and Evil" in a Discord group. There were too many assumptions in that book that the Atheists didn't know why they should accept from Plantiga, and without them the argument crumbled pretty quick.
Cameron, I love videos like this, but you should really make some videos on essential Christian doctrines. You haven't covered the Doctrine Of Justification at all (which is why you're still flirting with Catholicism), even though it's the heart of Christianity. You haven't made any videos on the Doctrine of Man, the Doctrine of Sanctification, or had any serious Protestants on your channel. Your recent video "The Best Argument Against Catholicism" was highly critiqued by James White, who could present better arguments against Catholicism in his sleep, as could John MacArthur. As you said in the video, virtually nobody is an atheist or ever has been an atheist, because, as Newton said, "atheism is so senseless and odious that it never had many professors." The vast majority of people who you could be reaching already believe in a higher power, but also believe in their own moral character (which is contrary to Christianity) or are stuck in a false "Christian" system like Orthodox Christianity or Roman Catholicism, which advocate forms of salvation that are potentially damning (Read Galatians 5). Atheism is not the big issue. The big issue is defending The Bible historically and authoritatively and convicting people of their sin to expose their need for Christ, or at least exploring these issues to reach your own conclusions.
@@Mikemenn I'm a former atheist so I don't even believe in Biblical inerrancy. I lean toward Calvinism but I haven't done enough study to argue successfully for any branch.
@@Mikemenn I was raised Presbyterian but it was a false church in PCUSA, not PCA. I'm a sophomore at university and I haven't attended church since I left for school, so I'm not committed to a branch yet, but I'm in Nashville so I have every option I could ask for! Where do you fall?
@@anglozombie2485 That's the point. It is meant to be polemical. It was written against the New Atheists at their peak popularity, and Feser thought the tone was necessary.
Are you really unsure if the body and spirit are two separate things? Scripture repeatedly tells us this is the case. What do you think Paul means when he says to depart from the body is to be with the Lord? I could go on and on providing scripture to demonstrate this. I don’t think you can refute this from scripture so maybe I misunderstood you. Were you talking about the nature of the spirit and body? I think this is more of a miscommunication or misunderstanding of what you said rather than your uncertainty of the existence of the spirit and the body. My understanding of dualism is the distinction between the spirit being immaterial and the body being material. This is juxtaposed with idealism that in my understanding considers everything immaterial or mental. Either position in my understanding doesn’t deny the body and spirit but does disagree about the nature of the body and spirit. That being said what is it that you’re unsure about regarding the existence of the body and spirit because denial of either contradicts scripture? God bless you.
I agree with Daniel here. I think you should clarify yourself on dualism. You are a Christian so the Word Takes precedence over man's arguments. You shouldn't deny dualism simply because you haven't heard a good argument for it yet. You should affirm it because it is clear in God's Word even at creation. God breathed (spirit) into man after forming him from dust. There's also some trouble with the death and resurrection of Christ and our future resurrection in denying dualism. Of course i could see if you were an atheist needing the argument. I love and study apologetics but remember its only a small portion of our walk with God. Love Him with Mind, Body, Soul, and Strength...don't stop at the Mind. Loving your work brother and encourage you to keep up the good fight! Looking forward to what your future holds!
Isn't it funny. This entire channel is dedicated to the truth of Christianity. Why does something that holds so much truth need people to defend it? Truth usually can stand on its own merit. The fact that Christianity NEEDS apologetics should be a big red flag to any body with half a brain!
@Cogitationes Are people indoctrinated into atheism from birth? People aren't trying to argue that atheism is true, they're showing that theism isn't. Big difference buck wheat.
Buddy, your argument cap apply to atheism, any scientific theory, any historical theory and all human knowledge. If it doesn't fit in a 40 character tweet, it's false. When you enter a library, ask yourself: why all these authors need to defend the truth in these books. They should apprehend the truth directly like in Buddhist enlightenment because rational argument is useless
@Cogitationes Indoctrination- the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically. This applies to religion. I know critical thinking is hard when you've been brain washed since birth into a belief system but give it try.
@@derechoplano Libraries have to sections, fiction and nonfiction. Not everything written in a book is truth and not everything written in a book is defending truth. What a dumb argument! I understand why this is hard for theists to grasp. Tell me the apologetics for math? How about science? You really can't see the difference?
Cameron Bertuzzi's top five apologetics books mentioned in this video, but watch the video for why:
0:58 5. Tactics (Greg Koukl)
2:30 4. The Son Rises (William Lane Craig)
4:10 3. Is There a God (Richard Swinburne)
9:08 2. How Reason Can Lead to God (Josh Rasmussen)
11:35 1. God, Freedom, and Evil (Alvin Plantinga)
Am I the first comment? Love the suggestions, keep up the great work. I’m reading Tactics right now!
I'm going through the study guide with my brother. Greg's book is awesome!
I read Tactics several years ago and I found it very appealing because it shows how to better interact with unbelievers by learning how to listen and how to lead by asking specific questions, knowing that the outcome will help you asking new questions. But then I started an other book on apologetics called the Ultimate proof of Creation, by Dr Jason Lisle which was a kind of revelation an much better approach to apologetics because it was totally a Bible centered approach.
Some of my favorites are
*Tactics
*Greg Bahsen- Always Ready
* Keller- Reason for God
* Scruton- Being Human
*Martin- Kingdom of the Cults
I also found have a good college level textbook on philosophy is good to have around to review from time to time.
And a systematic theology textbook.
Love Keller. Reason for God is amazing!
Missing:
The Sun Rises by William Lane Craig
Good video ! Please make more videos about apologetics books ! Greetings from Peru 🇵🇪
Books: For self
1. Tactics by Greg Koukl (small) (how to discuss)
2. The son Rises by Craig (small)(case for resurrection)(abridged version of larger book)
3 Is there a God? By Richard Swinburne (abridged version of larger book) (Compares with other types/categories of God/Gods like Polytheism etc)
4 How Reason leads to God by Josh
5 God, freedom and evil by Plantiga
(Non-apologetic) (analytical approach to religion just like apologetic)
6. The God delusion by Richard DawkinDawkins
Thanks, this list helps a lot.
The God Delusion book by Richard Dawkins is not included in the list in the video. It's an atheistic book.
The best apologetics book is probably the Blackwell companion to natural theology. To kinda balance it out, I’d recommend J Howard sobels Logic and Theism, though I think Sobels criticism doesn’t work, he raises good points, and we theists have to thank him for pushing us to further the arguments
@@tinanikkillz8570 yeah so take your time through it, I did not read the whole thing, I found what I thought the simplistic one was and read it first then went on to the next. This should help
I now might have something to do on my vacation. I’m excited
Just a quick note - Plantiga is still alive.
Yea 👍
He is but he is not well.
Plantinga.
Capturing Christianity seriously??
@@CapturingChristianity brother... i need Apologetics book for debunking other religion
Why the need for apologetics? Wouldn't presenting evidence circumvent this need? You know, an honest and direct approach.
Exactly! Truth can stand on its own merit.
@Cogitationes Presenting evidence? Well then I yearning for some apologetics.
Why the need for triangles? Wouldn't a polygon with three sides circumvent this need? You know, a geometric figure
@Edmund Spenser That is exactly my point. I never sounded so good! Thanks.
Some of these may not be geared towards apologetics specifically, but they are usable in apologetic arguments:
1. How Reason can Lead to God by Josh Rasmussen (and it's only been out for a year)
2. Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology by William Lane Craig et al. (esp. McGrew on miracles)
3. The Resurrection of the Son of God by NT Wright (Resurrection)
4. A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos by Luke Barnes (Fine Tuning Argument, co-written with an atheist counterpoint)
5. Blackwell Companion to Science and Christianity edited by Stump and Padgett
Can I have a 6th? If so
6. Debating Christian Thiesm edited by Moreland and Meister (with counter arguments, esp Morriston)
Thanks bro for sharing such info with us....your work really help people like me a lot.....may god bless you and your family :)
A buddy of mine is reading through Tactics right now! Might have to borrow it from him once he’s finished. I’ve actually started reading More Than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell. I think it does a great job at using scholarly research and logical reasoning to conclude that Christ was/is truly the Son of God. Also, the book is quite easy for anyone to understand.
I recommend "Five Views on Apologetics" (Counterpoints: Bible and Theology) to get a better understanding of the different apologetic methods out there.
@Ruby Badilla Your comment is too long. This is TH-cam (just for fun), not a serious academic discussion. If you have a point to make, keep it concise.
@Ruby Badilla What does this have to do with my comment?
Thanks for de video!
I need that hat! Where can I get one!?!?
Very helpful thank you
I'm noticing Greg Koukl books are on everyone's list of top recommendations.
The best apologetics book has to be Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview
Salem Blackwell isn’t an apologetics book imo
Then we have Against All Opposition, by Dr Greg Bahnsen! Recently released!
sold on Rasmussens book. ordering it
@32:00 "fresh coat of paint" God is a necessary being, all actions are by through and for Himself, which defines such actions as good. Evil is not necessary it is contingent, however it is by the forgiveness of sins in the absolute that the Necessary being for whom infinite justice is to show infinite Mercy, is necessarily displayed in His assuming the evil of contingent beings upon Himself. It's all about the Logon of the Nuomenon of the One God, Jesus.
Dr. Greg Bahnsen - Presuppositional Apologetics is great also. I hope i spelled it right, English is not my native language :) Dr. Bahnsen had some brilliant debates while he was alive.
Not sure if perfection is the most fundamental property of God, scripture tells us that God is love and so we know that God is infinite love and every question that can be asked about God can be answered by that statement: God is love. Why is God a Trinity? Because God is love. Why is God just? Because God is love, etc etc.
Padraic Kelly Love is a perfection :)
@@CapturingChristianity hi Cameron, thanks for replying, i am not sure what you mean, can i ask you if you agree that God is infinite love and that infinite love is the essence of His being?
Just to add to my original comment, why did God create hell? Because God is love, why does God punish sinners for eternity? Because God is love.....
@@CapturingChristianity Cameron, i would really like to know your views on that question i asked in this thread, please
@@padraicmkelly God is perfect. Completely perfect. He is Pure and Good. *(Psalm 18:30)* Everything is Black and White to Him. Good and Evil. With Him being so Good and so Pure, *(1 John 1:5)* why would he excuse anybody for their sin?. He hates it, loathes it even. *(Romans 6:23)* Ofc He loves us, but that doesn't mean we are exempt from being punished *(Matthew 25:46)* Because punishment is a given. When somebody does something wrong, consequences follow. A perfect example would be court of law with a judge and a lawbreaker. A just judge will always convict the person who has been found guilty. If that judge did not pursue justice for the crime, he would not be a just judge *(Deuteronomy 32:4)* It's the same with God. He gave us infinite chances : free will. A choice to choose him or anything else, why then would he not punish those who went against him? They chose evil over him, why wouldn't he punish them? Obviously there is a way out of it, and that is to accept Him as God, Repenting, and Believing Jesus as the Savior. (Romans 5:9). As Christians we have a way of being saved. Others have that option as well. If they choose to willfully leave him/ignore him and never turn back, what else is he to do but order Justice?
For me an atheist and former Christian, the hurdle for the return religion is brightly clear. The hurdle is the Bible.
The word smithing within these books are unpersuasive. I could grant most every assertion and only arrive to a destination of a god who isn’t worthy of worship.
To accept a Christian god, a person must walk from a vista that offers views to equality, curiosity, and fairness. To turn away from this vista, I need more than a tangle of words where the writer of the words is simply arriving to the god of his or her culture.
I need a solid evidentiary argument. Yet even with a solid evidentiary argument for god, I would would still have the obstacle of the moral nature of the Christian god.
The question remains is the price of god too steep? Assuming a Christian god, is the release of soaring concepts like equality a fair sacrifice to worship this god? I say it is not.
Got a bit lost in your “wordsmithing” but I think I got the gist. You think you hold yourself to a higher moral standard than the God of the Bible.
sure...
Morality...fairness...equality...in the atheistic worldview those are just your opinions. The next man might just happen to have a different standard than yours and it’d be just as valid.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
You have no way of objectively grounding your moral beliefs unless you borrow that standard...a transcendental moral standard that exists because God exists.
Some things in the bible require in-depth study of context and vocabulary or aren’t easily interpreted; approach scripture with humility not arrogance. If you think something doesn’t add up you need not renounce your faith, you must seek answers wholeheartedly.
The mindset should be that God knows best not that you know better.
I’ll give you this much, there are many supposed difficulties/discrepancies in scripture. Most have been dealt with though.
But no amount of evidence or explanations are enough for some people when it comes to the Bible or God in general.
There’s no way getting around a hardened heart.
In any case, I pray the Lord softens your heart so you can find your way back to Him. In Jesus Christ you’ll find all your answers.
God bless you brother.
Jon Deaoux you are correct...my morality and ethics is superior to Biblical morality. There isn’t a reason to abandon fairness and equality.
An example: I think war crimes are immoral.
Jon Deaoux Not necessarily. Why does there have to be a moral lawgiver in order for there to be morality?
If consciousness is just a part of reality then why can’t morality exist in the same way. Morality in this case is just an inherent part of being a conscious being.
Philosophical Thinker
*subjective morality vs objective morality
Jon Deaoux What about it?
Hello Cameron, I rarely post comments on TH-cam, but I just had to when I heard what you had to say about Philosophy. I am a graduate Philosophy student. I might be able to convince you.
"I don't need a degree to do what I'm doing now"
Well, that is either trivial or speculative. If you meant to say that it is not a necessary requirement to have a Philosophy degree to do what you do, then yes, but by the same token, you don't need a degree in biology to talk about that stuff either. Does it follow that it wouldn't benefit you to have a degree in biology as a biology channel? If you meant to say that a degree wouldn't benefit your channel...what is your evidence for that? Now you say that you are not the expert here. So you might think that this is your unique selling position: a layman that interacts with the experts and gives his view as a layman. And you might not want to lose that position. But I ask you, why that USP is really that important? A professional Philosopher who interacts with other TH-camrs could also be a USP. How many professionals do that for a living? Professionals Philosophers on TH-cam that interact with other TH-camrs and their views?
Also, try to broaden your horizon. You might think: Well, how does that benefit my ministry or channel? The more appropriate question might be: How does it benefit me generally in life? Now imagine someone offers a class that promises to raise IQ by 20 points. Well, sounds great, I am on board. Now you say: But I don't need that to do what I do. Well...who cares? Isn't it still great though? Still worth pursuing? If so, then why not? And even though you might not strictly need it to do what you do, you could still benefit from it. The same goes for a Philosophy degree: It might not be necessary, but your channel might still benefit from it.
"Well, yeah, I now have a Ph.D in Philosophy and gained all that knowledge and skills in argumentation and logic and all that and I am know able to play with the experts on their playing field, but it is still hard to see how that could benefit my channel where I talk with Philosophers and interact with Philosophy." Sounds stupid?
You say: I draw from the work of experts and showcast their work. Well, a degree in Philosophy would hardly stop you from doing that. "But I can to that without a degree". Well, again, I could also have a biology channel without a degree and have the experts on. It does not follow from this that a degree wouldn't benefit me or my channel.
Now to answer your question: "What would be the point of getting a Philosophy degree? Maybe it is because I would grow in knowledge."
You don't get a degree in Philosophy just to gain knowledge. You pursue a degree to become a better thinker, to learn how to philosophize, to become more analytical, a more careful thinker and so on and on top of that, maybe, also to gain knowledge. Knowledge is a great add on. You are impressed by thinkers like Plantinga. You think he was born like that and always thought that way? Was he always so analytical even before he studied Philosophy? What about the other Philosophers that are such careful thinkers? Were they always like that and just happened to pursue degrees in Philosophy? Or did Philosophy change the way they think? But normally people don't think like that. They are typically not that analytical and careful, but much more sloppy. So what happened? Did many or even most of the clear headed thinkers just happen to study Philosophy or did studying Philosophy and putting their skills to the test again and again by writing papers and arguing, getting graded and receiving feedback made them the way they are? If you study Philosophy, you get your hands dirty, you interact with philosophical arguments by professionals and have to put your reasoning to the test, get graded and, hopefully, get feedback and criticism. This could help you to improve.
IQ cannot be changed
@@BRNRDNCK Whether IQ can be changed or not is neither here nor there. That was just used as a hypothetical example to make a point. That might be like saying: "Imagine someone offers you 20 million dollars, wouldn't you..." and then you respond "but nobody would offer you 2 million dollars". Who cares? That would be besides the point. Your claim is also questionable. There are some studies suggesting that IQ is changable, but again, that is irrelevant to my point. You could change IQ in my example to something else like memory or better health, whatever...
@@brolithelegend I am a school-aged girl so please excuse my ignorance.
when you said-
_"Whether IQ can be changed or not is neither here nor there. That was just used as a hypothetical example to make a point"_
Did you need a degree in philosophy to say the above only it seems to me that the statement, _" IQ cannot be changed"_ if true is more valid than what you said?
My teacher at school often marks me down if I write something she doesn't agree with even if what I said was factually true since she is quite far left. The people marking your papers may simply be making you one of them, and one of them may make a statement like _"Whether IQ can be changed or not is neither here nor there. That was just used as a hypothetical example to make a point"_
I think from what I have seen from some intellectuals, university is a place where reason and logic goes to die, but I may be wrong. I would rather get married and have a family of my own that I could love and care for than spend 4 to 6 years in a safe space, and finish up marrying dopey Ryan or worse poring out my affections on cats. it's not as though academics are carrying us forward, they are the first to bend the knee to the left. but I might be wrong. but I am not wrong when I wrote the best way not to become pregnant is to stay pure until you marry even if a university-educated SRE teacher says differently.
@@dr.shousa Yes, but, Capturing Christianity at the time of typing this post had over 5300 people listen to what he had to say. and he didn't have to spend upwards of $100,000 to get them to listen. You on the other hand only got a school-age girl interested enough in what you had to say and only then because you are at my level of intellect. We both have much to learn.
@@dr.shousa _"Sorry you have a bad teacher, but your comment about universities is completely, and utterly wrong."_
She isn't a bad teacher, but a bad human being, since she shouldn't tell girls immoral things that the girl's dad wouldn't want her doing as dads rule as he has invested in his daughter.
Further, it is true university have safe spaces and are propagating nonsense.
_"It's actually sad that you think learning to think critically for yourself is somehow bad."_
I think its actually sad that you do not realise I am critically thinking about university. Is it the case I am not allowed to critically think about what a university actually is. oddly you sound a lot like my SRE teacher she too thinks critical thinking isn't allowed if it challenges her views.
_" If you'd learn to think critically for yourself, you would understand that "the universities are the first to bend the knee to the left" is completely fallacious."_
Oh, I am critically thinking for myself. how do you think I came to the conclusions I have. I simply critically thought who is the most rational and logical. I came to the conclusion that universities that had riots if they had speakers from a conservative viewpoint and the students the following day were told they could receive counselling if they were triggered by someone with conservative views. Wasn't a place of rational and logical views, the fact, you disagree only proves my point.
_"I work at a university and I have colleagues that are republicans, libertarians, classical liberals, democrat, etc (I actually don't know anyone who would be classified as radical left) and we get along and discuss topics like adults, because we are able to think critically for ourselves, understand that there are nuances, and respect each other's opinion. Sure, there are some examples where some professors in humanities make stupid claims, or students protesting for no reason, but these are a very very small minority in the overall university system."_
No, you are lying as what you are saying here doesn't match with your previous post.
So, tell me, why a university would allow immature students to be taught nonsense by your hard-left professors? Why do you criticise CC and not sort your own house out, is it because you would have to get off your knees to do so?
_"You would know this, if you learn how to think critically for yourself and learn a bit about statistics, which you learn to do during higher education."_
oh, what are the statistics of those taught by your far left professors of ever getting their $100,000 fees back?
_"Finally, academics are carrying us forward. Would you have the life you have without academics that make it possible? How can you type a comment on youtube without the academics that built it?"_
Well, I shouldn't have to point this out to you, but, all the big tech creators didn't have a university degree. Those taught lesbian dance theory, and the ones who lose their mind if they cross paths with a conservative are not contributing much to moving forward, as the university has left them permanently in reverse gear.
_" If you get sick, how would you get better without the academics that help cure illnesses?"_
I would have medical schools.
_"Do you want to go back to not having the internet, cell phones, comfortable living, etc and live in a world where half of children die before they're 15?"_
Well, the university didn't produce any of those things, companies did via capitalism. Hmm, tell me, what do your indoctrinated students think of capitalism, and where did they get such beliefs from? I can help here, the girls in my class get their immoral beliefs from the SRE teacher. Those in your university who run to safe spaces, you have intellectually killed them.
_"Don't be so bleak and cynical."_
I am not bleak and cynical, but observant and critically think. it's just you do not like critical thinkers perhaps.
_"Academia, overall, do advance our society and make our lives better."_
Yes, your lives are made better. I was concerned for the fee-paying clients lol.
_"Just because there are a few bad apples, doesn't mean you can throw away everything (and throw away your potential)."_
Well, you could simply remove the bad apples, but you can't as the bad apples have taken over. The only solution is to starve the universities of money as you have created a society of destroyers.
_"If you think otherwise, why are you on this channel? Most people who appear are members of academia, and have gone through years (10+ years) of education."_
Lol, you need to remember your lies, sir, read what you said in your previous post. You really need to hone your critical thinking, sir, you are struggling to hold your own with a teen girl. Shocking output from a university.
oh, my dad said I have to sleep now. time to dream about pink balloons, wedding dresses, and I do's. night, night sir.
If you look at Ravi Zacharius' testimony he said his life was empty and he sought meaning. He spent his life arguing for the existence of God. That is not Christianity. That is a different gospel.
I share your opinion of God, Freedom, and Evil. There's a simple reason why theists should read that book. It will teach you how to think logically and rigorously, period.
"The first cause can't have a cause because otherwise it wouldn't be a first cause". That argument is useless against anybody who thinks there is no such thing as a first cause and who believes in some infinite regression of causes. It is a purely verbal argument: anybody who accepts the concept of a "first cause" has obviously excluded that this cause is the second, third, nth or infinitieth cause.
Logic dictates that there must be a first cause. Something that triggered the universe.
It's obvious my consciousness had a first cause, my knowledge of my bloodline is presumed from experience, but observation and intellect are obviously limited. My observation of causality posited a first cause of all things like myself over which I own no real control. The logic by which I post the question is the cause which is not original in me, but is original in itself, see John 1:1
The massive 'Christian Apologetics' by Douglas Groothuis
@Roger Mills ???!!!
I have read Tactics and I found it not very impressive. I actually forgot all about it until Cameron brought it up.
When the new world translation inserted the indefinite article at John1:1c, many protested that Jesus was not a God. Well if you insists, but how can he then be JEHOVAH who is a God?
DeuteronomyASV"For Jehovah thy God is a devouring fire, a jealous God."
Of course the Bible is the best book for apologetics but if you want one that isn't hard to decipher I would vote Cold Case Christianity James Warner Wallace
@Mikemenn God has chosen "foolish" things to confound those who think themselves wise. Matthew 11:25 Jesus said I thank you Oh Father you have hidden your word from the "wise" and prudent and revealed them to children. So God deliberately chooses silly sounding stories for people who think they're smarter than their Maker. Jonah and the big fish, Noah and the Ark etc which are all literal stories but anyone with any intellectual dignity won't believe these stories. That's the wisdom of God. Unless you humble yourself and become as a little child you will not enter...
So what's my point. Most of us, including you and I aren't to this level of low yet, we don't fully humble ourselves as children to grab all the information and wisdom in the "best" book aka the Bible. That is why apologetic books are there to aid in clearing things up.
@@Mikemenn What's strange is that you understand what the Bible's main message was. So I guess you weren't confused.
They're not a Christian but if you want an interesting conversation around consciousness vs materialism, you should look at inviting Bernardo Kastrup on.
Try to get Plantinga for an interview. Thanks
I like the Book Philosophical Foundation of a Christian Worldview by J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig As well as Walter Martin's Kingdom of the Cults.
Guys, is there any book about the extrabiblical proofs for the Apostles and ancient jews oral tradition? Good bless you.
A book that us a rewrite of the gospels and change it to be how a made up version would have been different To make it plain in contrast
That is what the gnostic gospels are, also the reworking of ancient myths like osiris and mithras to make them look like Jesus. Or the quaran, the book of mormon, the urantia book, the new age maitreya. These are human or demonic efforts to rewrite the gospel. Oh don't forget the da vinci code, all fit for the dung hill. As you point out, their sheer absurdity under logical scrutiny makes the gospel of the bible shine.
Thanks
I think God is limitless because He is the first cause and the infinite existence that surrounds all existence? If God wasn't infinite He wouldn't be limitless? God is the ultimate container that contains all finite containers, for example God contains a multiverse (if it exists) the multiverse contains our universe, the universe contains the Milky Way galaxy, the Milky Way contains our Solar System, etc etc. If God is not infinite then He is contained in something greater? idk.
the problem is the books mentioned isnt in the shopee in online shop her in the Philippines gosh
Punta nalang tayo sa book store
Is CC an reformed natural theology Protestant?
On Guard by WLC and Mere Christianity by C S Lewis. We were given On Guard in Sunday School and I love the lion the witch and the wardrobe by C.S. Lewis. My mum read it to me when I was very young, and now I read it to the children I babysit, obviously stopping at a cliff hanger. The children will demand from their mum I am their babysitter if one is needed again. I love children. I collect and read anything by C.S.Lewis, God in the Dock is an easy read and could have been written today. Oh, they are my favourite books, but they aren't for the adults on here perhaps, but kids watch this channel too, therefore, the above, are my recommendations to my peers.
I know you assume the scriptures is understood to be the one "Book" that all the others are contingent of/to BUT I think it should be touted as the "Best". Disappointed
every body? Why not to the souls?
What's it say about the anonymous authors of the gospels?
The early church fathers knew very well who were the authors of the gospels. Nice try though.
@@evangelistkimpatrik Oh, did they? So they just waited another 300 years to give the gospels names. Got it.
Theo Skeptomai Good. We know the authors of every book in the New Testament, except for the book of Hebrews.
@@evangelistkimpatrik And how do you know the authors?
@@evangelistkimpatrik I ask again. How did you come to know the identity of those that wrote the various gospels? What methodologies did you employ to identify them? These are straightforward questions. I'm looking forward to you ignoring them.
Best apologetic book for debating muslim: No God But One by Nabeel Qureshi
I read "How Reason Can Lead to God". Wasn't very convincing.
Necessary Existence on the other hand is far far better.
Anecdotally, my cousin, who is already a Christian, read "How Reason..." and he didn't see much in there that he could use to convince someone else. He preferred "Tactics" by Koukl or "On Guard" by Craig, at least as a primer. I convinced him out of some of the arguments in "On Guard" in favor of either stronger versions of those arguments, or abandoning the arguments altogether, but it's a good intro. Out of everything we both agree that Tactics holds up the best.
Some atheists and I did a reading of Plantiga's "God, Freedom and Evil" in a Discord group. There were too many assumptions in that book that the Atheists didn't know why they should accept from Plantiga, and without them the argument crumbled pretty quick.
I never knew WLC liked puns lol
Cameron, I love videos like this, but you should really make some videos on essential Christian doctrines. You haven't covered the Doctrine Of Justification at all (which is why you're still flirting with Catholicism), even though it's the heart of Christianity. You haven't made any videos on the Doctrine of Man, the Doctrine of Sanctification, or had any serious Protestants on your channel. Your recent video "The Best Argument Against Catholicism" was highly critiqued by James White, who could present better arguments against Catholicism in his sleep, as could John MacArthur.
As you said in the video, virtually nobody is an atheist or ever has been an atheist, because, as Newton said, "atheism is so senseless and odious that it never had many professors." The vast majority of people who you could be reaching already believe in a higher power, but also believe in their own moral character (which is contrary to Christianity) or are stuck in a false "Christian" system like Orthodox Christianity or Roman Catholicism, which advocate forms of salvation that are potentially damning (Read Galatians 5). Atheism is not the big issue. The big issue is defending The Bible historically and authoritatively and convicting people of their sin to expose their need for Christ, or at least exploring these issues to reach your own conclusions.
Amen brother, that is the one thing lacking on this channel.
@@Mikemenn Catholicism teaches a blatantly heretical view on salvation. It's a pagan religion and a false form of Christianity.
@@Mikemenn I'm a former atheist so I don't even believe in Biblical inerrancy. I lean toward Calvinism but I haven't done enough study to argue successfully for any branch.
@@Mikemenn I was raised Presbyterian but it was a false church in PCUSA, not PCA. I'm a sophomore at university and I haven't attended church since I left for school, so I'm not committed to a branch yet, but I'm in Nashville so I have every option I could ask for! Where do you fall?
@@Mikemenn I don't blame ya! I've seen a lot of churches I wouldn't like around here. Yeah, I'm studying at Vandy. Where are you from?
Love your hat lol
The Last Superstition - Dr Edward Feser.
I thought that book has way to many passive aggressive attacks by Feser. 5 proofs is his best book.
@@anglozombie2485 That's the point. It is meant to be polemical. It was written against the New Atheists at their peak popularity, and Feser thought the tone was necessary.
walang ganiyan sa shopee dito sa Pinas awit sakin
Are you really unsure if the body and spirit are two separate things? Scripture repeatedly tells us this is the case. What do you think Paul means when he says to depart from the body is to be with the Lord? I could go on and on providing scripture to demonstrate this. I don’t think you can refute this from scripture so maybe I misunderstood you. Were you talking about the nature of the spirit and body? I think this is more of a miscommunication or misunderstanding of what you said rather than your uncertainty of the existence of the spirit and the body. My understanding of dualism is the distinction between the spirit being immaterial and the body being material. This is juxtaposed with idealism that in my understanding considers everything immaterial or mental. Either position in my understanding doesn’t deny the body and spirit but does disagree about the nature of the body and spirit. That being said what is it that you’re unsure about regarding the existence of the body and spirit because denial of either contradicts scripture? God bless you.
I agree with Daniel here. I think you should clarify yourself on dualism. You are a Christian so the Word Takes precedence over man's arguments. You shouldn't deny dualism simply because you haven't heard a good argument for it yet. You should affirm it because it is clear in God's Word even at creation. God breathed (spirit) into man after forming him from dust. There's also some trouble with the death and resurrection of Christ and our future resurrection in denying dualism. Of course i could see if you were an atheist needing the argument. I love and study apologetics but remember its only a small portion of our walk with God. Love Him with Mind, Body, Soul, and Strength...don't stop at the Mind. Loving your work brother and encourage you to keep up the good fight! Looking forward to what your future holds!
trick question, there are none
BTW, Christianity is true 🙂
Idkwho so what are you trying to say?
I see they are all books from the fiction section of the bookshops
Pardon the gross ignorance of those bookshops staffs. They are ignorant human being who probably never went to college.
Is this supposed to be an argument? It is the best you can do with your brain?
Nice video
Heil odin
Is Odin still demanding involuntary human sacrifice still to this day? When is Fenrir gonna take out Odin in Ragnarok?
@@lycanthropegaming3432 ask him what are you afraid of
@@lycanthropegaming3432 well he dosnt demand blood they gave it so he would be more satisfied
@@lycanthropegaming3432 is your fake god gonna want our blood again.
Dont have a Christmas tree this year its too heathen
@@lycanthropegaming3432 you aren't answering cuz you know I'm right
Isn't it funny. This entire channel is dedicated to the truth of Christianity. Why does something that holds so much truth need people to defend it? Truth usually can stand on its own merit. The fact that Christianity NEEDS apologetics should be a big red flag to any body with half a brain!
@Cogitationes Are people indoctrinated into atheism from birth? People aren't trying to argue that atheism is true, they're showing that theism isn't. Big difference buck wheat.
Buddy, your argument cap apply to atheism, any scientific theory, any historical theory and all human knowledge. If it doesn't fit in a 40 character tweet, it's false. When you enter a library, ask yourself: why all these authors need to defend the truth in these books. They should apprehend the truth directly like in Buddhist enlightenment because rational argument is useless
@Cogitationes Indoctrination- the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
This applies to religion. I know critical thinking is hard when you've been brain washed since birth into a belief system but give it try.
@@derechoplano Libraries have to sections, fiction and nonfiction. Not everything written in a book is truth and not everything written in a book is defending truth. What a dumb argument!
I understand why this is hard for theists to grasp. Tell me the apologetics for math? How about science? You really can't see the difference?
@@jacoblee5796 You've never read Kuhn and Popper on science?