Q1. Can you (and please do, if so) cite a proposed model for an immaterial cause being responsible for material change? Q2. If god caused the universe to come into existence, did it do so using pre-existing materials, or did it do so out of nothing? Q3. Does god exist? If so, is it special pleading to say that god and only god did not require a beginnng (cause) yet exists in spite of that "fact", in its own special way? Q4. If one were to have the option, would it be better to exist or better to not exist? If existence is better, why? What is the reason for anyone to believe that existence is in fact better than non-existence? Q5. Did Jesus love god? If so, was it perfect, i.o.w., could two or more Jesuses love god more than just one, or could any number of humans love god more than even just one Jesus? Piece of cake, right?
"Q1. Can you (and please do, if so) cite a proposed model for an immaterial cause being responsible for material change?" - I don't understand why you're asking this. You know the Christian view is that God created the universe and is immaterial. I assume you have some follow-up here? "Q2. If god caused the universe to come into existence, did it do so using pre-existing materials, or did it do so out of nothing?" - Ex nihilo, out of nothing. Again, I assume you're setting the "garden path" and have some follow-up in mind here? "Q3. Does god exist? If so, is it special pleading to say that god and only god did not require a beginnng (cause) yet exists in spite of that "fact", in its own special way?" - Atheists routinely misconstrue the idea of "special pleading." It is obvious that things true of God would not be true of the things he's made. Special pleading would be a double standard being irrationally applied and for no discernible reason. God's distinctiveness from the things he made is not in that category. "Q4. If one were to have the option, would it be better to exist or better to not exist? If existence is better, why? What is the reason for anyone to believe that existence is in fact better than non-existence?" - This is an interesting expansion of the sort of Rawlsian "Original Position." Obviously, any Christian will say existence is better, especially when that existence comes with free will and the possibility of choosing to enjoy God forever. The common fear of death, existential crises, etc. seem to imply that most people innately prefer existence to non-existence. "Q5. Did Jesus love god? If so, was it perfect, i.o.w., could two or more Jesuses love god more than just one, or could any number of humans love god more than even just one Jesus?" - Another question I don't understand. Yes, Jesus loves God. Yes, his love was perfect. No, love cannot be measured mathematically, so the remainder of the question is incoherent.
@@KoryRQueen Okay, finally tracked this stuff down . . . Let's go one at a time, in random order. Q5. If no amount of humans could provide god with love equal to that of Jesus, and more than one Jesus doesn't make sense, then it would be impossible for god to gain anything by creating (becoming himself in human form, I guess?) anything more than a singular Jesus. In that case, creating mankind was pjhointless, unless god just wanted an excuse to murder his own son. No humankind = no sin; no sin = no reason for Jesus to die and be resurrected. Do you see why this makes no sense? By creating one perfectly loving Jesus alone, god would have received perfect love for eternity. For some reason, you people believe he chose otherwise. Why did he choose otherwise? This seems to me more like a story made up by people uncomfortable with the possibility of never knowing why or how we're here.
@@KoryRQueen Q4. Do you the fallacy of assuming the conclusion? ("IF a maximally powerful god exists, of course it could create a universe, of course it could justify genocide", yada, yada. - I borrowed this from Billy Craig, by the way.) Pay attention: There is no 'better' or 'worse' to something that does not exist! And, every one of us is going to die not knowing if heaven is real, which is exactly the same for all of us, EVEN IF HEAVEN IS NOT REAL. Of course, this supposed god could change that, he's just, what, binging on our uncertainty, or something?
@@KoryRQueen Q3. (RE special pleading) Try on this argument: P1. Material change requires a material cause. P2. God is immaterial. Therefore: God cannot be the cause for material change. (note: I'm not a philosopher, but I hope you get the point.)
@@KoryRQueen Q2. The point of this is that WL Craig scoffs at, audibly laughs, even, at the notion of "something from nothing" when he lies about currently accepted, scientifically rooted cosmology, yet "something from nothing" is a requirement according to his explanation of the universe beginning and his definition of god.
Is there an easy way to recognize truth? Is there an easy way to show something is untrue? Is it possible to have consistent beliefs about things that are untrue? Is this why there are vast schisms within all religions and god beliefs? Today let's focus on the schisms that exist in Christianity! From Catholics, to Protestants to Calvinists to Mormons...Christian beliefs are all over the map. What if the Calvinist's have it right...God has already chosen who will be saved and who will be condemned to hell so none of it matters anyway:). That is also why you had Christian's who supported Hitler and why you have Christians who support Trump now and you had and have Christians who believe both these men are abhorrently evil. You have Christians who vote to force raped little girls to give birth, vote for never ending gun violence, vote for inaction on climate change and health care costs and tax breaks for billionaires and you have Christians who vote exactly the opposite. Because in the end Christians are just flawed human beings who are good, evil and in between just like all other human beings. Now Christian's apologists will attempt to divert these oberservations by claiming it is because of "sin". But why would those who believe in christ do evil things and those who don't believe in him do good works? Why does it take the lie of Christ or Muhammad or Joseph Smith to make people who would fall naturally on the good and peaceful side of society do evil? Why do 99% of people know that Earth is a globe? Because truth leads to consistent belief something that Christianity fails at completely!
@@KoryRQueen The definition is irrelevant because however you define those terms...Christians fall on both sides of terms. Therefore, Christ plays no role in either being "good" or 'evil" because every human being on the planet is a mixture of good and evil whether they believe in Christ or not. But it does take the lie of Christ or Muhammad to make people kill doctors or fly planes into buildings. Would those people have naturally done those things if they didn't believe in Christ or Muhammad? Why do you believe Christians can't find consensus on the most important question(s) that exists? Every Christian sect claims to have ulimate truth...but when there are thousands of different ultimate truths they cease to matter at all.
@@KoryRQueen The definition is irrelevant because however you define those terms...Christians fall on both sides of terms. Therefore, Christ plays no role in either being "good" or 'evil" because every human being on the planet is a mixture of good and evil whether they believe in Christ or not. But it does take the lie of Christ or Muhammad to make people kill doctors or fly planes into buildings. Would those people have naturally done those things if they didn't believe in Christ or Muhammad? Why do you believe Christians can't find consensus on the most important question(s) that exists? Every Christian sect claims to have ulimate truth...but when there are thousands of different ultimate truths they cease to matter at all.
@@KoryRQueen The definition is irrelevant because however you define those terms...Christians fall on both sides of terms. Therefore, Christ plays no role in either being "good" or 'evil" because every human being on the planet is a mixture of good and evil whether they believe in Christ or not. But it does take the lie of Christ or Muhammad to make people kill doctors or fly planes into buildings. Would those people have naturally done those things if they didn't believe in Christ or Muhammad? Why do you believe Christians can't find consensus on the most important question(s) that exists? Every Christian sect claims to have ulimate truth...but when there are thousands of different ultimate truths they cease to matter at all.
I'm sorry ... if you're impressed by William Lane Craig ... the guy who says that we need to LOWER the bar for belief ... that's not a good sign. And apologetics itself is questionable. If your god exists, it should be easy to demonstrate that. You really shouldn't have to rely on argumentation. You'd have evidence. It just seems dishonest to use apologetics.
> apologetics itself is questionable... It just seems dishonest I love to read this on attorney's TH-cam channel. But, seriously speaking, it looks like you don't really disagree on this: the section "How to Prove Christianity," starting with the sweet orange metaphor, addresses the same idea.
@@hermannsorgel Yeah, oranges exist. And we know how taste works. That example explains how we use facts and evidence to understand reality. Apologetics is different. If the video were proposing that there were some magical 6th flavor, and that all you have to do is taste an orange and believe that it exists ... that would be a comparable analogy. Again ... if some god exists, you'd be able to use ONLY evidence. You wouldn't need apologetics at all. But these people rely almost entirely on apologetics, with nearly zero real evidence.
@@idahogie well, I'm not sure if I understand the way you contrast evidence and apologetics. It seems to me that evidence is part of forming a conclusion, while apologetics is a systematic approach to proving a specific worldview. Which includes the presentation of evidence. But you see it differently, right?
@@hermannsorgel "Apologetics" is just semantics and argumentation to try to prove that a specific entity exists in reality. It ONLY exists in theism, and only to try to logically prove that some deity has to exist. Apologetics isn't part of science. It isn't part of education. It isn't part of engineering. It isn't part of lawyering. It exists only for theistic purposes. And they need it because they lack evidence. Every argument requires that premises be supported by evidence. And apologetics does attempt to do that (albeit very weakly). But nowhere else in all of human society is apologetics required in order to establish that something exists.
@@hermannsorgel "Apologetics" is just semantics and argumentation to try to prove that a specific entity exists in reality. It ONLY exists in theism, and only to try to logically prove that some deity has to exist. Apologetics isn't part of science. It isn't part of education. It isn't part of engineering. It isn't part of lawyering. It exists only for theistic purposes. And they need it because they lack evidence. Every argument requires that premises be supported by evidence. And apologetics does attempt to do that (albeit very weakly). But nowhere else in all of human society is apologetics required in order to establish that something exists.
Don't even have to watch this video. . . Q. 1 How would you falsify the claim that Christianity is true (or that god exists, for that matter)? In other words, how would you know if your claims about Christianity are false? Q.2 Could you be wrong? Q.3 Have you by chance put a few too many eggs in this apologetics basket? I think you have. Your effort here is juvenile. Sorry. Engage with more people who do not agree with you, and perhaps you'll better address the audience you HOPE to have, rather than the pitifully minded who are already among you. (You guys just aren't that smart, but I don't have to tell you that, yes?) Recommendation: Use evidence to demonstrate your beliefs; rhetoric is how so many of us were indoctrinated as children. I know you resort to this because you begin in a hole, but this is really weak, yo.
Engage more people who don't agree with me? My first video on this channel was responsive to the most popular atheist I could find (Alex O'Connor) and spent two hours walking through the evidence and responding to his evaluation of it. His followers have been swarming me ever since, and I've been dialoguing with them. My brothers are also atheists, and I was an atheist myself for several years. Perhaps you should take your own advice before making confident assertions about videos you haven't watched, people you haven't met, and arguments you haven't addressed.
@KoryRQueen As soon as you propped up Craig as some sort of authority RE the content of his arguments, you gave yourself away. The likes of O'Conner and even the most basic reasonably minded among us are obviously not your audience. Craig unconscionably invokes complicated scientific concepts to ground his flightless religious philosophy, then ADDS HIS NOVEL CONCLUSIONS that the professional scientists who actually did the work DID NOT not come to. This is blatantly dishonest, and I'm tired of pseudo intellectuals continuing to take this man as a serious thinker. "Everything that comes into existence has a cause"? Yeah, everything we know of that comes into existence seems to have a cause - a material cause. It is fallacious to equate that material cause with an immaterial cause, such as a god. Craig should know better, but at this point, I'm pretty sure he just doesn't care. He's lined his pockets quite thickly by now. BTW, those scientists Craig tries to prop himself up on . . . are at best 10% theists or so, including the brilliant atheist, Sean Carroll, who embarrassed Craig to his knees a decade ago. I look forward to the day when universities start pulling in people like you to question the credentials they gave you to your faces. Shame on you (yet oh, so Christian)!
@@kevinfancher3512 I thought it was just lovely when Sean Carroll destroyed WLC in their debate, after WLC misrepresented the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
@idahogie . . . with a direct quote from one of that trio. AND, Craig continues to misrepresent that very science and much more. The dishonesty has got to hit these guys upside the head someday, yeah? Actually, to answer my own question, I venture that if one of these famous apologists like Craig had an end-of-life deconversion, they would tell NO ONE, in deference to maintaining their reputations for the sake of their families. Of course, this destroys the idea that the apostles wouldn't die for a lie. If they believed it more beneficial to keep their deconversion a secret, it is absolutely reasonable that they would maintain the lie. Anyway, thanks for the good response.
@KoryRQueen I hope you'll respond to some of my actual questions, rather than merely knit-pick a point I made about a point YOU made regarding audience. I've made myself clear about that. You're the pro, I am not. Now, your turn.
Q1. Can you (and please do, if so) cite a proposed model for an immaterial cause being responsible for material change?
Q2. If god caused the universe to come into existence, did it do so using pre-existing materials, or did it do so out of nothing?
Q3. Does god exist? If so, is it special pleading to say that god and only god did not require a beginnng (cause) yet exists in spite of that "fact", in its own special way?
Q4. If one were to have the option, would it be better to exist or better to not exist? If existence is better, why? What is the reason for anyone to believe that existence is in fact better than non-existence?
Q5. Did Jesus love god? If so, was it perfect, i.o.w., could two or more Jesuses love god more than just one, or could any number of humans love god more than even just one Jesus?
Piece of cake, right?
"Q1. Can you (and please do, if so) cite a proposed model for an immaterial cause being responsible for material change?"
- I don't understand why you're asking this. You know the Christian view is that God created the universe and is immaterial. I assume you have some follow-up here?
"Q2. If god caused the universe to come into existence, did it do so using pre-existing materials, or did it do so out of nothing?"
- Ex nihilo, out of nothing. Again, I assume you're setting the "garden path" and have some follow-up in mind here?
"Q3. Does god exist? If so, is it special pleading to say that god and only god did not require a beginnng (cause) yet exists in spite of that "fact", in its own special way?"
- Atheists routinely misconstrue the idea of "special pleading." It is obvious that things true of God would not be true of the things he's made. Special pleading would be a double standard being irrationally applied and for no discernible reason. God's distinctiveness from the things he made is not in that category.
"Q4. If one were to have the option, would it be better to exist or better to not exist? If existence is better, why? What is the reason for anyone to believe that existence is in fact better than non-existence?"
- This is an interesting expansion of the sort of Rawlsian "Original Position." Obviously, any Christian will say existence is better, especially when that existence comes with free will and the possibility of choosing to enjoy God forever. The common fear of death, existential crises, etc. seem to imply that most people innately prefer existence to non-existence.
"Q5. Did Jesus love god? If so, was it perfect, i.o.w., could two or more Jesuses love god more than just one, or could any number of humans love god more than even just one Jesus?"
- Another question I don't understand. Yes, Jesus loves God. Yes, his love was perfect. No, love cannot be measured mathematically, so the remainder of the question is incoherent.
@@KoryRQueen Okay, finally tracked this stuff down . . .
Let's go one at a time, in random order.
Q5. If no amount of humans could provide god with love equal to that of Jesus, and more than one Jesus doesn't make sense, then it would be impossible for god to gain anything by creating (becoming himself in human form, I guess?) anything more than a singular Jesus. In that case, creating mankind was pjhointless, unless god just wanted an excuse to murder his own son.
No humankind = no sin; no sin = no reason for Jesus to die and be resurrected.
Do you see why this makes no sense? By creating one perfectly loving Jesus alone, god would have received perfect love for eternity. For some reason, you people believe he chose otherwise. Why did he choose otherwise? This seems to me more like a story made up by people uncomfortable with the possibility of never knowing why or how we're here.
@@KoryRQueen Q4. Do you the fallacy of assuming the conclusion? ("IF a maximally powerful god exists, of course it could create a universe, of course it could justify genocide", yada, yada. - I borrowed this from Billy Craig, by the way.)
Pay attention: There is no 'better' or 'worse' to something that does not exist! And, every one of us is going to die not knowing if heaven is real, which is exactly the same for all of us, EVEN IF HEAVEN IS NOT REAL. Of course, this supposed god could change that, he's just, what, binging on our uncertainty, or something?
@@KoryRQueen Q3. (RE special pleading)
Try on this argument:
P1. Material change requires a material cause.
P2. God is immaterial.
Therefore: God cannot be the cause for material change.
(note: I'm not a philosopher, but I hope you get the point.)
@@KoryRQueen Q2. The point of this is that WL Craig scoffs at, audibly laughs, even, at the notion of "something from nothing" when he lies about currently accepted, scientifically rooted cosmology, yet "something from nothing" is a requirement according to his explanation of the universe beginning and his definition of god.
Is there an easy way to recognize truth? Is there an easy way to show something is untrue? Is it possible to have consistent beliefs about things that are untrue? Is this why there are vast schisms within all religions and god beliefs? Today let's focus on the schisms that exist in Christianity!
From Catholics, to Protestants to Calvinists to Mormons...Christian beliefs are all over the map. What if the Calvinist's have it right...God has already chosen who will be saved and who will be condemned to hell so none of it matters anyway:). That is also why you had Christian's who supported Hitler and why you have Christians who support Trump now and you had and have Christians who believe both these men are abhorrently evil. You have Christians who vote to force raped little girls to give birth, vote for never ending gun violence, vote for inaction on climate change and health care costs and tax breaks for billionaires and you have Christians who vote exactly the opposite.
Because in the end Christians are just flawed human beings who are good, evil and in between just like all other human beings. Now Christian's apologists will attempt to divert these oberservations by claiming it is because of "sin". But why would those who believe in christ do evil things and those who don't believe in him do good works? Why does it take the lie of Christ or Muhammad or Joseph Smith to make people who would fall naturally on the good and peaceful side of society do evil?
Why do 99% of people know that Earth is a globe? Because truth leads to consistent belief something that Christianity fails at completely!
What do you mean when you say people are a mixture of “good” and “evil”? How do you define those terms?
@@KoryRQueen The definition is irrelevant because however you define those terms...Christians fall on both sides of terms. Therefore, Christ plays no role in either being "good" or 'evil" because every human being on the planet is a mixture of good and evil whether they believe in Christ or not. But it does take the lie of Christ or Muhammad to make people kill doctors or fly planes into buildings. Would those people have naturally done those things if they didn't believe in Christ or Muhammad? Why do you believe Christians can't find consensus on the most important question(s) that exists? Every Christian sect claims to have ulimate truth...but when there are thousands of different ultimate truths they cease to matter at all.
@@KoryRQueen The definition is irrelevant because however you define those terms...Christians fall on both sides of terms. Therefore, Christ plays no role in either being "good" or 'evil" because every human being on the planet is a mixture of good and evil whether they believe in Christ or not. But it does take the lie of Christ or Muhammad to make people kill doctors or fly planes into buildings. Would those people have naturally done those things if they didn't believe in Christ or Muhammad? Why do you believe Christians can't find consensus on the most important question(s) that exists? Every Christian sect claims to have ulimate truth...but when there are thousands of different ultimate truths they cease to matter at all.
@@KoryRQueen The definition is irrelevant because however you define those terms...Christians fall on both sides of terms. Therefore, Christ plays no role in either being "good" or 'evil" because every human being on the planet is a mixture of good and evil whether they believe in Christ or not. But it does take the lie of Christ or Muhammad to make people kill doctors or fly planes into buildings. Would those people have naturally done those things if they didn't believe in Christ or Muhammad? Why do you believe Christians can't find consensus on the most important question(s) that exists? Every Christian sect claims to have ulimate truth...but when there are thousands of different ultimate truths they cease to matter at all.
@@KoryRQueen I tried to respond but my replies never show.
I'm sorry ... if you're impressed by William Lane Craig ... the guy who says that we need to LOWER the bar for belief ... that's not a good sign.
And apologetics itself is questionable. If your god exists, it should be easy to demonstrate that. You really shouldn't have to rely on argumentation. You'd have evidence. It just seems dishonest to use apologetics.
> apologetics itself is questionable... It just seems dishonest
I love to read this on attorney's TH-cam channel. But, seriously speaking, it looks like you don't really disagree on this: the section "How to Prove Christianity," starting with the sweet orange metaphor, addresses the same idea.
@@hermannsorgel Yeah, oranges exist. And we know how taste works. That example explains how we use facts and evidence to understand reality. Apologetics is different.
If the video were proposing that there were some magical 6th flavor, and that all you have to do is taste an orange and believe that it exists ... that would be a comparable analogy.
Again ... if some god exists, you'd be able to use ONLY evidence. You wouldn't need apologetics at all. But these people rely almost entirely on apologetics, with nearly zero real evidence.
@@idahogie well, I'm not sure if I understand the way you contrast evidence and apologetics. It seems to me that evidence is part of forming a conclusion, while apologetics is a systematic approach to proving a specific worldview. Which includes the presentation of evidence. But you see it differently, right?
@@hermannsorgel "Apologetics" is just semantics and argumentation to try to prove that a specific entity exists in reality. It ONLY exists in theism, and only to try to logically prove that some deity has to exist. Apologetics isn't part of science. It isn't part of education. It isn't part of engineering. It isn't part of lawyering. It exists only for theistic purposes. And they need it because they lack evidence.
Every argument requires that premises be supported by evidence. And apologetics does attempt to do that (albeit very weakly). But nowhere else in all of human society is apologetics required in order to establish that something exists.
@@hermannsorgel "Apologetics" is just semantics and argumentation to try to prove that a specific entity exists in reality. It ONLY exists in theism, and only to try to logically prove that some deity has to exist. Apologetics isn't part of science. It isn't part of education. It isn't part of engineering. It isn't part of lawyering. It exists only for theistic purposes. And they need it because they lack evidence.
Every argument requires that premises be supported by evidence. And apologetics does attempt to do that (albeit very weakly). But nowhere else in all of human society is apologetics required in order to establish that something exists.
Yeah, Dr. Craig defends the ontological argument. In what world that is "unadorned logic", it's pure, unaltered word salad.
Don't even have to watch this video. . .
Q. 1 How would you falsify the claim that Christianity is true (or that god exists, for that matter)? In other words, how would you know if your claims about Christianity are false?
Q.2 Could you be wrong?
Q.3 Have you by chance put a few too many eggs in this apologetics basket? I think you have. Your effort here is juvenile. Sorry. Engage with more people who do not agree with you, and perhaps you'll better address the audience you HOPE to have, rather than the pitifully minded who are already among you. (You guys just aren't that smart, but I don't have to tell you that, yes?)
Recommendation: Use evidence to demonstrate your beliefs; rhetoric is how so many of us were indoctrinated as children. I know you resort to this because you begin in a hole, but this is really weak, yo.
Engage more people who don't agree with me? My first video on this channel was responsive to the most popular atheist I could find (Alex O'Connor) and spent two hours walking through the evidence and responding to his evaluation of it. His followers have been swarming me ever since, and I've been dialoguing with them. My brothers are also atheists, and I was an atheist myself for several years.
Perhaps you should take your own advice before making confident assertions about videos you haven't watched, people you haven't met, and arguments you haven't addressed.
@KoryRQueen As soon as you propped up Craig as some sort of authority RE the content of his arguments, you gave yourself away. The likes of O'Conner and even the most basic reasonably minded among us are obviously not your audience. Craig unconscionably invokes complicated scientific concepts to ground his flightless religious philosophy, then ADDS HIS NOVEL CONCLUSIONS that the professional scientists who actually did the work DID NOT not come to. This is blatantly dishonest, and I'm tired of pseudo intellectuals continuing to take this man as a serious thinker.
"Everything that comes into existence has a cause"? Yeah, everything we know of that comes into existence seems to have a cause - a material cause. It is fallacious to equate that material cause with an immaterial cause, such as a god. Craig should know better, but at this point, I'm pretty sure he just doesn't care. He's lined his pockets quite thickly by now.
BTW, those scientists Craig tries to prop himself up on . . . are at best 10% theists or so, including the brilliant atheist, Sean Carroll, who embarrassed Craig to his knees a decade ago. I look forward to the day when universities start pulling in people like you to question the credentials they gave you to your faces. Shame on you (yet oh, so Christian)!
@@kevinfancher3512 I thought it was just lovely when Sean Carroll destroyed WLC in their debate, after WLC misrepresented the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem.
@idahogie . . . with a direct quote from one of that trio. AND, Craig continues to misrepresent that very science and much more. The dishonesty has got to hit these guys upside the head someday, yeah?
Actually, to answer my own question, I venture that if one of these famous apologists like Craig had an end-of-life deconversion, they would tell NO ONE, in deference to maintaining their reputations for the sake of their families. Of course, this destroys the idea that the apostles wouldn't die for a lie. If they believed it more beneficial to keep their deconversion a secret, it is absolutely reasonable that they would maintain the lie.
Anyway, thanks for the good response.
@KoryRQueen I hope you'll respond to some of my actual questions, rather than merely knit-pick a point I made about a point YOU made regarding audience. I've made myself clear about that.
You're the pro, I am not. Now, your turn.