Dr. WLC is the MVP of 2020. He deserves an award of appreciation or something fresh. It'd be so deece if we could all chip in on getting him a nice wrist watch or an attractive briefcase.
Regarding the 1st question: I am from Germany and our Sunday school teacher used to teach us this about sin. "sin" translates into "Sünde". And the word "Sünde" comes from "sondern" or "absondern", translated back into English it would be "to separate". So, to sin is in itself the act of rejecting God.
@Jon Son, correct. And another way to say it logically is, if God is the source of Goodness, and it flows from Him, then not living by His will is departing from Him. And that's what we call 'sin'. Both way it works.
I can hardly imagine a greater waste of Dr Craigs time. You cannot put such a person in their place, they are too far removed from reason and responsibility to even begin to be embarrassed enough to be properly chastised by one like Dr Craig. May as well attempt to tame a rabid animal.
WLC is like a black belt mma fighter in these matters and Aron Ra is a dude cosplaying the Undertaker while claiming what you see is reality and that Vince McMahon isn't really producing the outcomes.
Off the top of my head, I’m about 99% sure he believes they are. I think what he might say is that the author of the written story of Adam and Eve did not intend the story to be read the same way we read a 21st century history textbook, but rather the story is written by the author as a blend of historical truths and extensive metaphorical language. Upon linguistic investigation, one of the historical truths would be the existence of Adam and Eve, but some of the issues of timeline may not be intended to be taken so “literally”
@@willcraig7414 Genesis is pretty explicit about this, hence there is not much room for metaphors (unless you want to deny Genesis). In scientific terms, Genesis is wrong. You cannot cherry-pick what you consider "true" or "metaphorical" if the latter is factually wrong. That's a problem with many biblical stories.
@@phu878 Given that we have an ancestral Y Adam and and ancestral mitochondrial Eve, your statement is pretty funny. You should see how people like Augustine understood Genesis 1 before you claim that modern Christians are somehow making ad hoc explanations of a type that ancients would reject. The claim simply holds no water.
I have difficulty with Dr. Craigs answer to the first question. It sounded like he was saying murderers, rapest, theives, or terrorist will be punished temporarily while those who don't believe in God even if they didn't commit these Sins will be punished forever?
Everyone sins. Hell is separation from God. Some sins are greater than others, punishment will be different for everyone. If people don't want God in this life, why would they want him for eternity?
@@JB-xp6tg I believe in God out of faith and experience not natural science. If a person needs more evidence to believe, it doesn't mean that they don't want God. So, why shouldn't God provide more evidence that they can relate to in the natural world, or give them more options in the next life for living a good life now rather than send them to hell for all eternity?
@@fredricthomas6654 I understand your qualm, but I don't think people want to believe. They don't like being held morally responsible for things they don't see as wrong. Especially when it comes to sex. To quote Thomas Aquinas: To one with faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.
@@JB-xp6tg There is alot of truth in what you're saying, for only God knows the motivations of the heart ( and God may have good reasons for not providing more evidence...such as people may feel afraid and think they have no choice or free will if an all powerful being exist ) And, whether a staunch atheist or a religious fanatic both can lose their true facualties if they become part of groupthink or herd mentality. Those who are being authentically honest and doing/being good may simple need more evidence? What happens to them? Of course even the most intellect person can be self deceiving making them impossible to reach.....
@@fredricthomas6654 You have to remember that God is the reference point of good. Have you read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis? He explains the nature of good very well. No one is a good person, especially not compared to the ultimate good. Kierkegaard's story of a prince was a great metaphor for why God doesn't reveal himself more or totally, if you haven't checked that out. It pretty much says what you stated. I believe all we can do for people with good will but reject God is to pray for them, and maybe in the end God finds a way. Like you said, who knows?
Stating that there isn't necessarily a truth MAKER behind all truth doesn't compute for me. While we may not be able to trace any given truth to the original SOURCE, but that doesn't negate its source, right? People don't establish truth, we discover truth...truth has always been existent. The whole idea that there is no truth maker to the proposition that Baal does not exist is not valid. You can go to the bible (THE SOURCE BEING GOD), and build your case from there.
Everything I pretty much agree with except for the Hugh Ross old earth take on Christianity. Hugh Ross definitely has many loopholes in his philosophies and I definitely don’t think the evidence is actually there. I used to believe in this as well.
AGREED WITH EVERYTHING EXCEPT wlc SAYING HE WOULDNT HAVE WOMEN AS SENIOR PASTORS---or teaching sunday school lessons to men-- This seems pretty odd to me-Who cares who gives someone the gospel? does a missionary who is a woman not go on mission trips or is it only relegated to established churches?
You're putting progressive politics ahead of the Paul, the founder of the church. Men and women are different generally speaking, so they have different roles. It's not diminishing of women.
Referring to question 1, an unsatisfactory answer considering eternal torment is beyond hideous and forever. The idea that any human being is deserving of such horror implies the need for deep doublethink.
There are levels of torment, you're assuming God will absolutely torture everyone to the extreme no matter what they did or try to do. You're saying God will torture even those who almost made it to heaven but went to hell will be tormented forever with the worst of things. Which means you're saying "God is unjust" by saying the previous, and then you're using it to say either God is evil or He doesn't exist. Your premise is false, because those who didn't make it will be separated from God, and the worst will have the worst. Why forever? If God is real, he's eternal, there is no end to His goodness and justness, and therefore we'll burn automatically infront of God if we're not saved by Him. Our own sins will be burning us in His pure light, by our own choice, which God tried to prevent, but we didn't listen. God can't be not God, because He is eternal and He is. This is why "I Am" the name of God is so correct. God is so much for freedom that He won't stop us or force us to love or obey Him, that's why we fell and that's why many goes to hell otherwise no one would because then God'd force everyone to love Him and so he won't be good because that's unlikely of God and that contradiction can't happen if he's eternal and good and invincible in the first place. Think man, I have been for 12 years and never regretted believing. Life is short and there is nothing as amazing to know God, and how he loves us.
1:11:55 If that is the case then Old testament and NewTestament are wrong. Bible loses its authority. How God can be all powerfull if he couldnt give accurate revelation? I believe what bible says. / Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. Gen. 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth, and every man: 7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered. 1Pet. 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. / It says in the psalms that the mounatains rised up and waters go to the valleys thats why water wasnt so much. Water came mostly under the crust leaving space iside earth crust to sink making more difference in the earth level water came with pressure (job) so it was shooting mud and barried all the plants and animals like dinosaurs. These became oil and gas.
'How God can be all-powerful if he couldn't give accurate revelation?' 1) How?? ... Can ?? Powerful? Couldn't?? Give?? Accurate?? Revelation? Sorry, I am pretty dumb but ... *Do You want to be God ??* ... By your question, it seems that you are seeking for knowing about some 'How' ... Then, a 'How' implies a procedure, some interrelated procedures, or a series of parallel procedures for performing something ... Next, you add to that 'How' the Word 'God' followed by attributing to that 'Word' an active capacity for Displaying its Omnipotence ... therefore, *Do you want to know how to be omnipotent??* Next, you assume that Your Omnipotent God is infallible by A Literary Revelation ... Next, you quote the biblical narrative and write your personal interpretation about what you believe the text tells to everybody and what you believe is an accurate subjective inner model of geological ontogeny of this planet ... My next question: *Do you believe that Your mind is equal to The God's Mind ??* or worst, *Do you believe that You are God ??* ... another question ... Or Are you a ridiculous atheist trying to find some meaningful scientific content in the Old testament ??? ( by questioning others to provide a How to that and contrasting your subjective explanations ) I don't know ... But If you want to know, How God does his chit ?? Don't question that to humans, fool ... go directly to the original source ... abstrusegoose.com/395 ...
@@firstnamesurname6550 I said I believe the bible. So Im not atheist. Otherwice I dont want to be boxed in to the one side of the binary argument. I cant go along with your questions because you have invalid conclution of my post. I Didnt try to define God but I was using bible as reference point. You can say I use bible figuratively as mathematichal theory is it wrong or right. This big formula needs lot of calculating. This I can say I guess like an argument - We need to have revelation from the MostHigh if He wants somethng from us./ wants to relate with us b Otherwice you are not countable and you can make (your) God to be like whats your own imagination. - Bible makes that claim ( that its revelation from the MostHigh ) b2. thus its true as MostHigh can preserve His revelation, or its not true and we dont have revelation and we dont have reference point how to conduct our life ( exept e.g HolySpirit ) // Gen 7.21 .. and every living substance that I have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth. // Ps. 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. Ps. 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Ps. 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. 2Tim. 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: Ps. 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. Ps. 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple. Ps. 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. 2Pet. 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Rom. 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
@@firstnamesurname6550 Jeremiah 1.11And the word of the LORD came to me, asking, “Jeremiah, what do you see?” “I see a branch of an almond tree,” I replied. 12“You have observed correctly,” said the LORD, “for I am watching over My word to accomplish it."
@@firstnamesurname6550 second argument could be like this A.If the evolution is true there is not many proven lies in the text books. B. there is many proven lies in the textbooks and things presented as facts even they have opposite possibility combatible with creation story. C. Evolution is a lie. th-cam.com/video/pm3rxrS_Fo4/w-d-xo.html
@@Hbmd3E Ok, but Why it seems that you can't see the difference between going to The Town and getting stuck moving the fingers in a map zillions of miles from The Town??
First Name Surname Allow me to translate. Atheist says: Word salad and mind gymnastics. Atheist means: I don't understand what's being said so I'm going to insult the theist.
@@kylexinye1990 Wrong, Lost in Translation. 1) I am not an Atheist. 2) Are You assuming that logic is superior than Art, Music or Poetry to express Aesthetic and Emotional Numinous Experiences ?? 3) Why it seems that by Your translation you believe That Poetry and Chanting are inferior than Non Rhythmic Logical Reasoning Prose for making allegorical noises about God and literatures about writers writing about God's Pastimes and Qualities of The Pastimes??
@@firstnamesurname6550 Okay now I just have no idea what you're saying or what language you're speaking in. And I'm a metaphysical idealist for crying out loud.
@@kylexinye1990 Easy, Imagine .... Tomorrow, Some "angels" comes to your presence and tell to you ..."In A week from now, We will take You into Heaven because Our Lord told Us that He want to Listen in your own voice, "What do you feel/think about Him?" ... ... Then, My question/scenario for Your Soul: What do you believe/feel/intuit would "satisfy" (1) Him more?? a) A philosophical and logical narrative where You tell to God , What is him according to Your Intellectual baggage and Reasoning. b) A poem song where You fail to try to express your more deep and honest feelings about the "promised encounter with Him" but at least, that's what you got for "The Divine Audience" predicted by The Angels .... ........ (1) Assuming that God can bypass His equanimity about Everything and some how show "personal aesthetic preferences" over "other aesthetic preferences" ....
Did I hear that right, if you say God doesn't exist, hence being an atheist, deserves infinite punishment, but terrorism and murder deserve finite punishment? That's some very odd morality right there. If God is as powerful as believers claim, what difference does not believing in it make to it? None, yet, we are punished for holding a theological opinion
@@ghost_of_jah5210 I'm criticising the absolute nature of this authority. Apparently, he is very powerful but yet feels compelled to punish if you simply aren't convinced of its existence. One could be the most generous and considerate human being alive yet would still be damned to hell for atheism. Apparently, that's moral, odd
Craig thinks it's theoretically extravagant and implausible to posit abstract objects, but he happily lets in an infinity of brute counterfactual conditionals through the backdoor. Classic ad hoc gymnastics from a man who has his conclusion beforehand and must uphold it at all costs.
Hey there hope you are well and safe. Can you expand on that a bit more. From my understanding you were saying that Craig doesn't think abstract objects ( an object that doesn't exist in a time or place, more like an idea) exist as entities outside the mind, but allows for counterfactual conditionals ( things that would be true if in another circumstance, like if I studied, I would have gotten a pass mark. But in reality I haven't studied so I don't have a pass mark). How are these contradictory and can you be specefic and explain it in Depth? Thanks for the help and btw sorry if I got anything wrong I am not an expert in these things so if I got something wrong please forgive me and do point it out. Aight have a good one mate.
@@abelj5145 Craig resists Platonism on the basis that it violates divine aseity, yet he happily accepts that certain kinds of counterfactuals are true, especially counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. There are at least two, if not contradictions, conflicting ideas here: 1) Prime facie, it is just as unparsimonious to posit an infinity of brute contingents as it is to posit an infinity of abstracta. 2) Counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are immutably and eternally true independent of the divine will, which seems to violate God's infinity and his aseity, since these truths limit his creative power and are co-eternal with him. Craig will reply that these truths are not objects and therefore do not violate divine aseity, since ipso facto they are not uncreated objects. But this belies the fact that the truths are about possible objects, in this case possible persons (what Plantinga called haecceities), and these possible objects do much of the same explanatory work as abstracta, and therefore are functionally equivalent in many important respects. For example, the property 'wisdom' explains the state of affairs of both Plato and Socrates being wise; and the counterfactual 'C' explains why Peter denies Christ after Christ was arrested rather than affirming his connection to him.
My only scar from my love life in my youth is from a relationship with a christian, who made it unbearable due to red lines all over the place. Claim that having relationships outside of marriage is in any way bad is objectively false.
That person is labelled Christian but surely does not follow the teachings of christ. Craig refers to couples who are both submitted to the teachings of Christ under the guidance of the holy spirit. That relationship is the best
@@alexp8924 Well yes cheating your spouse isn't the best. As well as jumping from one lady to another when you aren't commmited it's not the best at all. When you are in a relationship with someone you love and someone who loves you and you are commited to in marriage that's usually the best platform especially if both of you are true Christians
That's ridiculous. You claiming that it is objectively false entails an emormous burden of proof. Perhaps for you it is true that having relationships outside of marriage was no problem, but for many people it is. In fact, for one person to have such an experience is a defeater to your claim.
![ทุกครั้งที่หลับตา (Lucid Dream) - AYLA's [ Official MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4i1OBAQyv58/mqdefault.jpg)
Dr. Craig looks deeply satisfied and happy.
7:42 Because his avatar is comfortable with encompassing mind! 💗🧠
We want more videos like this. God bless you WLC
Dr. WLC is the MVP of 2020. He deserves an award of appreciation or something fresh. It'd be so deece if we could all chip in on getting him a nice wrist watch or an attractive briefcase.
I think he's satisfied with being one of the chosen. But I'm sure he'd appreciate it.📦
Man this was good!
Regarding the 1st question: I am from Germany and our Sunday school teacher used to teach us this about sin.
"sin" translates into "Sünde".
And the word "Sünde" comes from "sondern" or "absondern", translated back into English it would be "to separate".
So, to sin is in itself the act of rejecting God.
Thank you for this! It explains so much!
@Jon Son, correct.
And another way to say it logically is,
if God is the source of Goodness, and it flows from Him,
then not living by His will is departing from Him. And that's what we call 'sin'.
Both way it works.
Brasil acompanhando Criag
Operação GÊNESIS uhuuuuuuul, vai Brasil!
Awesome
I would love to see a debate between Dr. Craig and AronRa. Dr. Craig would put AronRa in his place.
I can hardly imagine a greater waste of Dr Craigs time.
You cannot put such a person in their place, they are too far removed from reason and responsibility to even begin to be embarrassed enough to be properly chastised by one like Dr Craig.
May as well attempt to tame a rabid animal.
@@SomeChristianGuy. Just what I was thinking.
WLC is like a black belt mma fighter in these matters and Aron Ra is a dude cosplaying the Undertaker while claiming what you see is reality and that Vince McMahon isn't really producing the outcomes.
how do they do the superchat?
Help me out. Did Craig just say that Adam and Eve were not historic figures?
Off the top of my head, I’m about 99% sure he believes they are. I think what he might say is that the author of the written story of Adam and Eve did not intend the story to be read the same way we read a 21st century history textbook, but rather the story is written by the author as a blend of historical truths and extensive metaphorical language. Upon linguistic investigation, one of the historical truths would be the existence of Adam and Eve, but some of the issues of timeline may not be intended to be taken so “literally”
(I feel I must add that the shared name is merely coincidental. My actual name is also William Craig)
@@willcraig7414 Genesis is pretty explicit about this, hence there is not much room for metaphors (unless you want to deny Genesis). In scientific terms, Genesis is wrong. You cannot cherry-pick what you consider "true" or "metaphorical" if the latter is factually wrong. That's a problem with many biblical stories.
@@phu878 Given that we have an ancestral Y Adam and and ancestral mitochondrial Eve, your statement is pretty funny.
You should see how people like Augustine understood Genesis 1 before you claim that modern Christians are somehow making ad hoc explanations of a type that ancients would reject. The claim simply holds no water.
I have difficulty with Dr. Craigs answer to the first question. It sounded like he was saying murderers, rapest, theives, or terrorist will be punished temporarily while those who don't believe in God even if they didn't commit these Sins will be punished forever?
Everyone sins. Hell is separation from God. Some sins are greater than others, punishment will be different for everyone. If people don't want God in this life, why would they want him for eternity?
@@JB-xp6tg I believe in God out of faith and experience not natural science. If a person needs more evidence to believe, it doesn't mean that they don't want God. So, why shouldn't God provide more evidence that they can relate to in the natural world, or give them more options in the next life for living a good life now rather than send them to hell for all eternity?
@@fredricthomas6654 I understand your qualm, but I don't think people want to believe. They don't like being held morally responsible for things they don't see as wrong. Especially when it comes to sex. To quote Thomas Aquinas: To one with faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.
@@JB-xp6tg There is alot of truth in what you're saying, for only God knows the motivations of the heart ( and God may have good reasons for not providing more evidence...such as people may feel afraid and think they have no choice or free will if an all powerful being exist ) And, whether a staunch atheist or a religious fanatic both can lose their true facualties if they become part of groupthink or herd mentality. Those who are being authentically honest and doing/being good may simple need more evidence? What happens to them? Of course even the most intellect person can be self deceiving making them impossible to reach.....
@@fredricthomas6654 You have to remember that God is the reference point of good. Have you read Mere Christianity by CS Lewis? He explains the nature of good very well. No one is a good person, especially not compared to the ultimate good. Kierkegaard's story of a prince was a great metaphor for why God doesn't reveal himself more or totally, if you haven't checked that out. It pretty much says what you stated. I believe all we can do for people with good will but reject God is to pray for them, and maybe in the end God finds a way. Like you said, who knows?
Stating that there isn't necessarily a truth MAKER behind all truth doesn't compute for me. While we may not be able to trace any given truth to the original SOURCE, but that doesn't negate its source, right? People don't establish truth, we discover truth...truth has always been existent. The whole idea that there is no truth maker to the proposition that Baal does not exist is not valid. You can go to the bible (THE SOURCE BEING GOD), and build your case from there.
Why don't u have a good podcast mic Dr. Craig?
Sounds fine to me. What problems are you detecting?
@@RepublicConstitution its ordinary, seems its his earphone mic.
@@OneStepToday Oh, I'm on a treadmill so I haven't noticed anything yet.
Everything I pretty much agree with except for the Hugh Ross old earth take on Christianity. Hugh Ross definitely has many loopholes in his philosophies and I definitely don’t think the evidence is actually there. I used to believe in this as well.
Agreed, I find Kent Hovinds arguments for young earth very convincing.
@@aquacandela3705 same, but I am not entirely convinced (partially due to the lack of popular scientific support for the theory)
@@ghost_of_jah5210 I didn't know science was a consensus? Either a theory has evidence or it doesn't.
Start julio Jones or Robert woods
AGREED WITH EVERYTHING EXCEPT wlc SAYING HE WOULDNT HAVE WOMEN AS SENIOR PASTORS---or teaching sunday school lessons to men-- This seems pretty odd to me-Who cares who gives someone the gospel? does a missionary who is a woman not go on mission trips or is it only relegated to established churches?
correct it's for churches and it's biblical that's why we need to care
Dominic J it’s incredibly sexist-
@@Gatorbeaux what can I say, take it up with God.....lgbt community think its incredibly hateful to disagree with their lifestyle
You're putting progressive politics ahead of the Paul, the founder of the church. Men and women are different generally speaking, so they have different roles. It's not diminishing of women.
It is for churches, there's no problem for women to be missionaries
Referring to question 1, an unsatisfactory answer considering eternal torment is beyond hideous and forever.
The idea that any human being is deserving of such horror implies the need for deep doublethink.
Mark Brown Depends on what you mean by eternal torment, but I would ask why you think such a thing is unjustifiable.
There are levels of torment, you're assuming God will absolutely torture everyone to the extreme no matter what they did or try to do.
You're saying God will torture even those who almost made it to heaven but went to hell will be tormented forever with the worst of things. Which means you're saying "God is unjust" by saying the previous, and then you're using it to say either God is evil or He doesn't exist.
Your premise is false, because those who didn't make it will be separated from God, and the worst will have the worst.
Why forever?
If God is real, he's eternal, there is no end to His goodness and justness, and therefore we'll burn automatically infront of God if we're not saved by Him. Our own sins will be burning us in His pure light, by our own choice, which God tried to prevent, but we didn't listen. God can't be not God, because He is eternal and He is. This is why "I Am" the name of God is so correct. God is so much for freedom that He won't stop us or force us to love or obey Him, that's why we fell and that's why many goes to hell otherwise no one would because then God'd force everyone to love Him and so he won't be good because that's unlikely of God and that contradiction can't happen if he's eternal and good and invincible in the first place.
Think man, I have been for 12 years and never regretted believing. Life is short and there is nothing as amazing to know God, and how he loves us.
1:11:55
If that is the case then Old testament and NewTestament are wrong.
Bible loses its authority. How God can be all powerfull if he couldnt give accurate revelation?
I believe what bible says.
/
Gen 7:4 For yet seven days, and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty
days and forty nights; and every living substance that I have made will
I destroy from off the face of the earth.
Gen. 7:21 And all flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl,
and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth, and every man:
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
1Pet. 3:20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering
of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing,
wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.
/
It says in the psalms that the mounatains rised up and waters go to the valleys thats why water wasnt so much.
Water came mostly under the crust leaving space iside earth crust to sink making more difference in the earth level
water came with pressure (job) so it was shooting mud and barried all the plants and animals like dinosaurs. These became oil and gas.
'How God can be all-powerful if he couldn't give accurate revelation?'
1) How?? ... Can ?? Powerful? Couldn't?? Give?? Accurate?? Revelation?
Sorry, I am pretty dumb but ... *Do You want to be God ??* ...
By your question, it seems that you are seeking for knowing about some 'How' ...
Then, a 'How' implies a procedure, some interrelated procedures, or a series of parallel procedures for performing something ...
Next, you add to that 'How' the Word 'God' followed by attributing to that 'Word' an active capacity for Displaying its Omnipotence ...
therefore, *Do you want to know how to be omnipotent??*
Next, you assume that Your Omnipotent God is infallible by A Literary Revelation ...
Next, you quote the biblical narrative and write your personal interpretation about what you believe the text tells to everybody and what you believe is an accurate subjective inner model of geological ontogeny of this planet ...
My next question:
*Do you believe that Your mind is equal to The God's Mind ??*
or worst,
*Do you believe that You are God ??*
... another question ...
Or Are you a ridiculous atheist trying to find some meaningful scientific content in the Old testament ??? ( by questioning others to provide a How to that and contrasting your subjective explanations )
I don't know ...
But If you want to know, How God does his chit ??
Don't question that to humans, fool ... go directly to the original source
... abstrusegoose.com/395 ...
@@firstnamesurname6550
I said I believe the bible. So Im not atheist.
Otherwice I dont want to be boxed in to the one side of the binary argument.
I cant go along with your questions because you have invalid conclution of my post.
I Didnt try to define God but I was using bible as reference point. You can say I use bible figuratively as mathematichal theory is it wrong or right. This big formula needs lot of calculating.
This I can say I guess like an argument
- We need to have revelation from the MostHigh if He wants somethng from us./ wants to relate with us
b Otherwice you are not countable and you can make (your) God to be like whats your own imagination.
- Bible makes that claim ( that its revelation from the MostHigh )
b2. thus its true as MostHigh can preserve His revelation, or its not true and we dont have revelation and we dont have reference point how to conduct our life ( exept e.g HolySpirit )
// Gen 7.21 .. and every living substance that I have made will
I destroy from off the face of the earth. //
Ps. 1:1 Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
Ps. 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.
Ps. 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
2Tim. 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
Ps. 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.
Ps. 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
Ps. 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
2Pet. 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
Rom. 16:25 Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith:
@@firstnamesurname6550 Jeremiah 1.11And the word of the LORD came to me, asking, “Jeremiah, what do you see?” “I see a branch of an almond tree,” I replied. 12“You have observed correctly,” said the LORD, “for I am watching over My word to accomplish it."
@@firstnamesurname6550
second argument could be like this
A.If the evolution is true there is not many proven lies in the text books.
B. there is many proven lies in the textbooks and things presented as facts even they have opposite possibility combatible with creation story.
C. Evolution is a lie.
th-cam.com/video/pm3rxrS_Fo4/w-d-xo.html
@@Hbmd3E Ok, but Why it seems that you can't see the difference between going to The Town and getting stuck moving the fingers in a map zillions of miles from The Town??
Nice pre-poetical mind puzzle gymnastics, Willie.
Where are your Poems and Songs ???
First Name Surname Allow me to translate.
Atheist says: Word salad and mind gymnastics.
Atheist means: I don't understand what's being said so I'm going to insult the theist.
@@kylexinye1990 Wrong, Lost in Translation.
1) I am not an Atheist.
2) Are You assuming that logic is superior than Art, Music or Poetry to express Aesthetic and Emotional Numinous Experiences ??
3) Why it seems that by Your translation you believe That Poetry and Chanting are inferior than Non Rhythmic Logical Reasoning Prose for making allegorical noises about God and literatures about writers writing about God's Pastimes and Qualities of The Pastimes??
@@firstnamesurname6550 Okay now I just have no idea what you're saying or what language you're speaking in. And I'm a metaphysical idealist for crying out loud.
@@kylexinye1990 Easy, Imagine .... Tomorrow, Some "angels" comes to your presence and tell to you ..."In A week from now, We will take You into Heaven because Our Lord told Us that He want to Listen in your own voice, "What do you feel/think about Him?" ...
...
Then, My question/scenario for Your Soul:
What do you believe/feel/intuit would "satisfy" (1) Him more??
a) A philosophical and logical narrative where You tell to God , What is him according to Your Intellectual baggage and Reasoning.
b) A poem song where You fail to try to express your more deep and honest feelings about the "promised encounter with Him" but at least, that's what you got for "The Divine Audience" predicted by The Angels ....
........
(1) Assuming that God can bypass His equanimity about Everything and some how show "personal aesthetic preferences" over "other aesthetic preferences" ....
@@firstnamesurname6550 yes, logic is more convincing than a song.
Did I hear that right, if you say God doesn't exist, hence being an atheist, deserves infinite punishment, but terrorism and murder deserve finite punishment? That's some very odd morality right there. If God is as powerful as believers claim, what difference does not believing in it make to it? None, yet, we are punished for holding a theological opinion
An atheist criticizing gods morality...
@@ghost_of_jah5210 I'm criticising the absolute nature of this authority. Apparently, he is very powerful but yet feels compelled to punish if you simply aren't convinced of its existence. One could be the most generous and considerate human being alive yet would still be damned to hell for atheism. Apparently, that's moral, odd
Craig thinks it's theoretically extravagant and implausible to posit abstract objects, but he happily lets in an infinity of brute counterfactual conditionals through the backdoor. Classic ad hoc gymnastics from a man who has his conclusion beforehand and must uphold it at all costs.
Hey there hope you are well and safe.
Can you expand on that a bit more. From my understanding you were saying that Craig doesn't think abstract objects ( an object that doesn't exist in a time or place, more like an idea) exist as entities outside the mind, but allows for counterfactual conditionals ( things that would be true if in another circumstance, like if I studied, I would have gotten a pass mark. But in reality I haven't studied so I don't have a pass mark).
How are these contradictory and can you be specefic and explain it in Depth?
Thanks for the help and btw sorry if I got anything wrong I am not an expert in these things so if I got something wrong please forgive me and do point it out.
Aight have a good one mate.
@FruitGod repent before it's too late. Jesus is Lord
@@abelj5145 Craig resists Platonism on the basis that it violates divine aseity, yet he happily accepts that certain kinds of counterfactuals are true, especially counterfactuals of creaturely freedom. There are at least two, if not contradictions, conflicting ideas here:
1) Prime facie, it is just as unparsimonious to posit an infinity of brute contingents as it is to posit an infinity of abstracta.
2) Counterfactuals of creaturely freedom are immutably and eternally true independent of the divine will, which seems to violate God's infinity and his aseity, since these truths limit his creative power and are co-eternal with him. Craig will reply that these truths are not objects and therefore do not violate divine aseity, since ipso facto they are not uncreated objects. But this belies the fact that the truths are about possible objects, in this case possible persons (what Plantinga called haecceities), and these possible objects do much of the same explanatory work as abstracta, and therefore are functionally equivalent in many important respects. For example, the property 'wisdom' explains the state of affairs of both Plato and Socrates being wise; and the counterfactual 'C' explains why Peter denies Christ after Christ was arrested rather than affirming his connection to him.
But arent contrafactuals in a mind? Like in a perfect rational counscioness? I am not a neutralist but i dont agree that it makes sense.
@Evenson Alps gay
My only scar from my love life in my youth is from a relationship with a christian, who made it unbearable due to red lines all over the place. Claim that having relationships outside of marriage is in any way bad is objectively false.
That person is labelled Christian but surely does not follow the teachings of christ. Craig refers to couples who are both submitted to the teachings of Christ under the guidance of the holy spirit. That relationship is the best
Toyosi Oyejobi you can tell yourself whatever you want I guess but it clearly came across as relationship outside of marriage being somehow bad.
@@alexp8924 Well yes cheating your spouse isn't the best. As well as jumping from one lady to another when you aren't commmited it's not the best at all. When you are in a relationship with someone you love and someone who loves you and you are commited to in marriage that's usually the best platform especially if both of you are true Christians
That's ridiculous. You claiming that it is objectively false entails an emormous burden of proof. Perhaps for you it is true that having relationships outside of marriage was no problem, but for many people it is. In fact, for one person to have such an experience is a defeater to your claim.
Kyle Xin Ye That depends on how you define “objectively bad”.
This host is far too undereducated for his job.
he is saved, are you?