William Lane Craig Destroys Paulogia - Empty Tomb Part 3
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 21 ก.ย. 2024
- Elusive intellectual, William Lane Craig, took time on his Reasonable Faith podcast to not only pick apart my critique of his Evidence for Jesus' Resurrection video... but also to poke at me as a person, lest anyone get any funny ideas about listening to what I have to say.
THE RESPONSE CHRONOLOGY -
1. Original • Did Jesus Rise from th...
2. My Response • How Not to Defend Jesu...
3. Response to Response (part 1) www.reasonable...
4. Response to Response (part 2)
www.reasonable...
5. Response to Response to Response (part 1)
• William Lane Craig Des...
Are the Gospels Independent Sources? (with William Lane Craig and Paulogia)
• Are the Four Gospels I...
Huge thanks to Shannon Q ( / @shannonq ), / unheilbargut and / li_en .
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/p...
www.buymeacoff...
teespring.com/...
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord
“Exegesis is to history as astrology is to astronomy.”
Stop, Paul, stop! He’s already dead 😭😭😭😭😭
WHAT! Astrology isn'r true science!
then how can my horoscoop perfectly match what happened to me this week?
(even when it was in a paper from about three years ago)
Platinum slam - spot on. Bravo!
Not dead enough for me.. Yeah I'm a ruthless mfer
Bill Craig needs to go... For the good of us humans. He's not even a human, just a walking talking pile of rotten disgusting shit
That was fantastic
"The bible is 100% true and accurate! Except for this bit, that's an allegory, and this bit, and this bit and…"
I'd love to see the Jefferson bible some day. I hear ol' Tommy took a knife to it and cut out all the magical nonsense from the text. I imagine there's five pages left.
@@EdwardHowton americanhistory.si.edu/jeffersonbible/ reproduces the book online. He cut the NT to twenty pages, but since he put it together in four languages, the actual volume, including front and end matter, comes to eighty four. It's something to see.
Yeah, I can't find God's footnotes in the text indicating what's factual, allegory, only applicable to a certain group or time, etc.
@@jhill4874 : if only we did not have to rely on faillible humans to obtain the word of god.
@@nicolasandre9886 Yeah, if only God would just show up up and tell what he (she?) really wants. Hello, God? Are you reading this?
Listening to Paul responding to Bill Craig is like listening to a sober and slightly-amused adult attempting to calm a naive but precocious, hyperactive child.
Robert Brown - hilarious but true!! 😂😂😂
Naive but precocious, hyperactive child? Try abusive, perverted pedophile.
I suggest the child in question eagerly displays haughtiness, and delivers his slippery, category-shifting sophistry in a squeaky, gushing voice that calls to mind that most popular girl in the clique. She's just thrilled by her self-importance.
A voice that sounds like a cartoon character.
I really enjoy your videos on WLC. My brother the Baptist preacher is always citing him to me and I just can't help laughing when he does.
Hope you're sending your brother this way, and to every other person who is pointing out WLCs flaws (which are many)
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 yeah, my brother could use a good dose of mental detoxification, but he is in too deep. Thinks I should be impressed because he almost has his PhD in church history or some such.
@@oldmandan4244
I understand, you'd probably feel bad if you did pull the rug out from under him anyway, some people just have to figure it out for themselves I suppose.
Some take the long road and some don't.
I've had a few discussions with my father in law who is (now) a retired Lutheran Pastor, he actually got quite worked up because he felt I was attacking his faith and he considers himself as a man of faith, so he took it as a personal attack.
I walked away from the whole thing understanding that his whole belief is based purely on emotion, he can't talk about the topic purely on a logical, reasonable and rational level and detatch his emotions from it, he can't understand that I'm challenging his beliefs and ideas and not him as a person.
Basically he told me that I needed things to make sense before I believed them (I remember thinking, yes and so does everyone else don't they?)
He said that he doesn't, he just believes it because he has faith that it will all makes sense one day. (WOW!!)
Basically said that life would have no purpose or meaning if he didn't believe in God and he couldn't cope with that and wouldn't want to live.
I remember asking him the falsifiable question, that is is there anything that if proven true would render your belief as false?
And he said "No"
I explained why that was a problem if he wanted to believe true things but he didn't seem to care he just said nothing could make his belief false.
So he's pretty much not open to the possibility that he could be mistaken.
At that point it's a waste of time continuing to talk to someone, at the end of the discussion he said he won't talk to me about the subject again, said that it won't do us any good and it's driving a wedge between us.
I didn't feel that way at all, but I've respected his wishes.
@@oldmandan4244 A PhD in Church History. That's going to be really useful. NOT!
@@crazyprayingmantis5596 My family is full of Southern Baptist Preachers. My dad, my brother, my great uncle, my former father-in-law, a couple of cousins, and more. Some of my cousins have turned to extreme groups like Westboro and NiFB, and one cousin even went to the International House of Prayer in Kansas City.
A bunch of them are also Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones acolytes, Liberty University supporters, and it is funny how butt hurt they get if I even say the name, "Trump."
I was home schooled from grade 6 on because the schools in Texas taught that "evil satanic lie, evolution."
I lost my faith in that kind of religion by chapter three of Darwin's "Origin of the Species when I was in my thirties. I feel slightly embarrassed it took me so long. I feel extremely embarrassed for my family that hasn't figured it out yet.
I don't talk religion and politics with most of them anymore, unless I have a couple of hours for their ranty gish-gallop responses.
Jesus came to me and said that WLC is wrong in all his arguments. This could be true according to him.
WLC is not a mystic.
@@konroh2 Considering that Craig has openly said that “The witness of the Holy Spirit in [his] heart” trumps all evidence, I’d say that’s open to debate.
He came to me and said the same thing. Independent corroboration.
What a coincidence, he came to me too. Now we have 3 independent sources.
@@konroh2 Dis WLC not say something of the Holy spirit doing something in him? This sounds mystic to me.
The most amazing thing here is that, by now, several amateur youtube video makers have completely annihilated the world's foremost Christian apologist's two favorite arguments for Christianity and the existence of God. Theoreticalbullshit (a soap opera actor) destroyed the Kalam, and Paulogia is dropping thermonuclear ordnance on claims about the historicity of the Resurrection. It's hilarious.
It is logically incorrect to say that "the Bible is bullshit, therefore there is no God." There is not one single original concept or idea in the entire Bible. The difference is that prior to Christianity none of it was taken literally.
@@seanhammer6296 Your point being?
@@atomisedman6235 That was my point. Read my last sentence. The concept of resurrection did not begin with the Biblical account of Jesus. The story of Jesus is a retelling of an already existing story. Also, Christianity was most likely a political fracturing amongst Jews who were sick of all the bullshit (literally even) they were subjected to under Judaism.
See also TMM videos, e.g. "WLC vs an Actual Scientist"
@@PaulEmsley That is an excellent vid. "Elbow from the fucking sky."
If the zombies were not recorded anywhere, how did Matthew know about them? The only answer I can think of is that he made the story up.
Well, whoever wrote the book of Matthew, since they were written anonymously.
Or he thought it neccessary to insert some ancient text from the Tanach to boost his story.
Probably the Christian communities were in a desperate need for a historical Jesus ( something Paul did not provide ) so the Gospel writters provided in that need.
Question then is: "Why did they need a historical Jesus? Were they so feeble in the faith already they relied on make belief stories?"
@@kamion53 Which text from the Tanakh?
_"Probably the Christian communities were in a desperate need for a historical Jesus ( something Paul did not provide )"_
Much, much more likely is that they started knowing that Jesus existed, and added the miracle stories to that.
As for Paul, while he certainly did not give a full biography of Jesus, there can be no doubt that the thought the Jesus had been a normal, walking-around human. "But when the fullness of time had come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, … " (Gal 4:4); "... but I did not see any other apostle except James the Lord’s brother." (Gal 1:19). If Jesus never existed, he couldn't have had a mother and a brother.
@@michaelsommers2356 I may have painted me in a corner by refering that professies of the OT were included in the Gospels, without knowing exactly which.
Maybe when I've read Carriers book I could point them out, til then it is what I remember from Carriers speeches. I also have a very general knowledge of the Epistles of Paul and rather not plow through all the stuffy texts of the 17th century Dutch Bible translation I have. But what I more or less concluded from Carrier's video's is that the existance of a historical Jesus is more or less redundunt to explain the origin and rise of Christian communities,
Bluntly stated they were the local products of intergration and exchange of various groups and believes in the Hellenistic world. Spreading not by preaching, but along family and relation lines.
For exemple when a Jehovah's Wittness goes preaching door to door, he has a change of converting only one person out of a thousand. When however he meets someone new at the home of someone both know, his changes can go up to 50%. The first Mormons were the closest relatives of Joseph Smith. Mutual trust based on relation is a key factor of establishing a new religion and I have no reasons to assume it was different in Ancient Times then it is nowadays.
But when those tiny early and varieated communities grew contacts with other tiny communities also grew and so did the differences in practice and opinion. Paul's Epistles could thereby be seen as an attempt to bring unity in the variations.
Paul as the organiser so to say more then the converter. We have his letters, we have his mentioning about the travels he made and that's it. And Acts which attributing him preaching and converting comes decades after that.
Again why the Gospels and Acts?
My hypothesis is that the communities started to outgrow the house churches and the original closenitted networks, thereby requiring a new level of organisation and a new level of authory in that organisation. And the best level of authory at that time was the True Word of the Living Jesus, someone just HAD to write that down. It took a lot of ink to write it down better and in the end only four Gospels remained.
Guide to Christian Apologetics:
1. Listen to assertion
2. Interpret assertion in most favorable way to sustain pre-existing Christian beliefs
3. Repeat steps 1-2 ad infinitum
Congratulations! You might as well have a PhD in Christian theology.
I got a PhD in Truthology from Christian Tech. Does that count?
Interpret the words of god? You could have been burnt at the stake for that.
I agree we all have a worldview that shapes how we view reality, but we can't say that all Christianity is assertion.
You are looking through the eyes of a dad man. Jesus came to give life to your dead spirit. Why you still wearing those chains Bro ?
read new scientist, when new discovery is made hastily make notes on how to give god the credit, try not to forget previous incongruous arguments.
These have been awesome. I doubt Craig will watch these but its great to see him debunked as he makes his claims.
Nah Craig might want to make a followup video to continue mud slinging with Paul so he can keep himself relevant.
@@barbiquearea Even WLC will learn the first law of holes. Eventually.
When you're in a hole over your head, *stop fucking digging.*
I thought this was more nitpicking, not really debunking WLC.
@Nick Nack WLC is a debater, and a good one. Often the point is to carefully pick out small problems, but also to address the larger points. In this video Paulogia doesn't address the larger points, the cumulative case of 4 gospel accounts and Paul's testimony.
@@konroh2 Really? The cumulative case of the 4 anonymous documents written 30-70 years after the fact, by men whose primary language was Greek rather than Aramaic, which were only assigned the names of authors a couple hundred years later in an effort to make it appear they had apostolic authority? Those gospels?
1.2k views in 43 minutes?!?
I believe Paulogia, if it was not already obvious, has "made it."
An excellent and clinically precise dissection of WLC. Hopefully he will be aware of the exacting scrutiny in store for him in future. Great job!
It warms my heart when WLC is this butthurt when someone (finally) tells him how bad his arguments are. Also says a lot about what kind of bubble the dude lives in.
Craig's dishonesty is often so overwhelming it is almost humorous.
WLC is deliberately dishonest and deceptive. Absolutely disgusting behavior for a believer.
@@gregorygreenwald5678 I thought this is the Christian standard. Is not every Christian taught to look down on others most often even other Christian denominations as they claim to have the only truth and the only god
Craig is hapless as a theologian and even worse as a philosopher, but he IS a talented comedian... completely unintentionally
It must be frustrating as hell for Craig to be taken apart by someone whom he holds in such professional contempt.
Paul, you handle these video responses as clearly and concisely as anyone, you are one of the best!
Paul, you continue to impress me with your deep dive into research and the effort you put in to really break down the real-time equivocations Craig makes (ex. conflating scholars and exegetes). It really shows how an authoritative figure who speaks with conviction can convince others, even though what he says is untrue and/or nonsensical.
It's true that Craig could be more precise, but overall that's a pretty weak point.
@@konroh2 I tend to agree; it's a weak point overall against craig. The reason I raise it, however, is that such thing would have convinced former-christian-me that my faith was rooted in secular scholarship. Whether intentional or not, it is problematic in the message that it gives to people who are casually listening to WLC in an attempt to strengthen their faith.
I'm happy because if they think that they have to address you, it's because you're pushing the right buttons inside their group. Keep going.
Wait, the empty tomb is literal but zombies are not??? wowzers!
Oh, look at the story about the zombies walking around the streets of Jerusalem right after the crucifixion.
Yah, the zombies aren't real (except for zombie-jesus of course) but the 500 unnamed "witnesses", they are tots real.
@Marilyn Newman despite the stomac pain, I might actually watch a debate between the ex-con and MR C.
I am trying to imagine the crinch, but I don't think anyone can prepare for that. Could there actually be a worse match up?
Thats really funnyman Cause you are seeing through a dead mans eyes , your spirit is dead , you are the zombie
@@jwsanders1214 your so-called "zombie eyed" people are not as bad off as the people looking through IMAGINARY RESURRECTION eyes.
Another deliciously deft response, calm and measured, and as usual I love the visuals, Paul.
First hint that someone is lying on TH-cam is that there is no way to leave a comment. Never believe anyone that isn't open to rebuttable.
Nah, go deeper.
Making false or exagerated claims fills WLC pockets and leaves the doubting Christians with a warm feeling that they can belief in the fantasy as the expert told them to.
😁👍
Lol, well, a historian ( ahem- yep im trained for dat) would not accept the bible as a primary or even a secondary document. Since i am unaware of any primary or secondary document with any corroborating documrnts or physical evidence I'm gonna say this doesn't pass the basic test of even a poorly trained historian
I THINK in court that kind of evidence wouldn't be accepted ,even for a minor case,no witnesses to question.
of course religions of all kinds,(not just Christian) accept incredible stories just on hearsay.
But these people are just looking for excuses to keep believing - nothing more. I heard a minister telling his flock that historians accept the Bible narrative, by telling them of three expeditions of historians and archaeologists that made discoveries of towns in the region working from (among other sources - but he didn't mention that) the Bible. As if accepting that in almost any mythology there are likely to be certain factual elements means they trust the whole narrative.
The Bible does claim to be a primary source. I agree we then need to examine it's coherence, but it is a primary source.
@@konroh2
And I claim that I fart gold - so what? The Bible claiming to be a primary source means NOTHING! I truly cannot believe that a person who can write in complete sentences could write something that silly!
@@pdoylemi It's how we do history. I agree we can't take every primary source as completely factual, we have to examine the evidence. But I can try to write in incomplete sentences. If you like.
Brilliant video Paul! You should be quite proud of this work.
I hope you can continue to put out such well made content in the future.
My Dog! I am having so much popcorn with these videos. Love it. Love your animations, too!
your spirit is dead
@@jwsanders1214 I do die a little inside whenever I hear WLC speak. Paulogia brings me back, though. Some people would claim that makes him some sort of messiah.
@@amazingbollweevil you need to set your sights a little higher, way higher. What is your expectation from this life that you have been given to use at your own discretion ? have you ever considered the offer that Jesus holds out to you?
@@jwsanders1214 Set my sights higher than what? I have no expectations from this one and only life, so I am free to do as I choose; unlike theists who are compelled to dedicate time and money to their imagination. What is this offer of Jesus? As I recall, the offer is for another life after this one if you give up everything you own. Say, can I interest you in a bridge?
@@jwsanders1214 Let me guess being 40 years a farmer in some rural backwater in the US?
This was the best yet, Paul. Keep up the good work!
I think the very first event in my life, that chipped the first shrapnel of my now long dead faith in Christianity, was in my fifth or, sixth grade, when my teacher described to my class, how ancient Greeks who were ever curious about new things in the world, and we're quick to adopt them, if, they found them fitting .(but, sadly, not so much any more)
Reacted to Christianity when it was presented to them.
I don't recall the exact quote, but, after listening about the dead coming back to life, they laughed, and walked away.
And some also believed. You need to read the quote in context.
Well done. Great fun. I wish this could be done live with Craigie trying to dance away in real time.
Is it just me or does WLC sound more and more hysterical as these vids progress?
Every time hi comes back with the bit about his full work you should have hit back with the Critic “Buy my book! Buy my Book!”
The conflation of appearances with physical resurrection was just absolutely a brilliant take down of WLC. Just… amazing.
It has been entertaining to watch Paul wipe the floor clean using Craig as a mop :)
I love this guy. I love his condescending preacher affectation. I love his 4th grade Sunday School theology. It is so cute how confident he is. He is the poster child for the Dunning-Kruger Effect and there is something kind of sweet about that. I would love to sit down with Dr. Craig for a couple of hours and really drill down on all of the utter nonsense he believes. It is delightful.
You're so patient, pointing out the BS he said. He distorts the meaning of words, uses them interchangeably. It is tilted at windmills and you fight them so bravely. Bad thing is, the people he wants to reach are only seldom critical enough (some will do for sure) to listen to arguments as soon as what he said supports their already existing belives.
Keep fighting, hearing you arguing almost feel like a personal victory :)
Scholars are exegetes. That's actually a pretty weak point. And there is bias on all sides.
Nice video. Thanks for sharing it with us and keep up your great work. We appreciate your efforts.
(Tommy Wiseau voice) "ef William Lane Craig was honest with himself, the WURLD would be a better place to live. O hai PureFlix! Tahaha!"
If Craig is considered an authority, then i take some comfort that we're probably living in a time, when religion is finally making its descent into obscurity. Paul, your secular 'sainthood' should be forthcoming. We thank you for your service. 👏
I look forward to seeing 3 or 4 Paulogias nested in the screens.
I just discovered your channel. I grew up in a progressive Christian house and church. Like you I ended up loosing my faith after studying the bible in seminary. I still find church history really fascinating though as well as textual criticism of the biblical texts
Excellent series, Paul! Craig certainly underestimates you.
Watching WLC stammering around the whole zombie thing made my day.
I have watched my fair share of WLC debates and, as a skeptic, I was always struck with his, '5 FACTS' choice of wording. Enter Paulogia's patient, composed, 'point by point' evisceration of Craig's arguments.
When an argument is weak it's not surprising that Craig moves on to showcase his credentials, while attempting to belittle or embarrass his "less qualified" challenger, in ad hominem fashion.
This strategy backfires on him as it only exposes his failure to address Paulogia's SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENTS. Believers must turn in their academic credentials the moment their religious doctrine becomes non-negotiable. If Craig can't see how much his, '5 facts' rely on heresay and the gossamer thread known as, 'cause the bible tells me so', he truly is delusional but of course, delusion is a close bedfellow of devout supernatural beliefs.
Kudos on another watertight response Paulogia's.👈💪😎
Paulogia has his worldview that he interprets from.
@@konroh2 Poignant. Really.
I personally think WLC is just incredibly dishonest. In his debate with Sean Carrol, he literally cedes multiple points. He then uses those same exact points in future debates - completely negating the spirit of these types of debates.
@@heckingbamboozled8097 Can you give me an example? Because one of the issues with quantum physics is there seems to be some fluidity.
Paulogia, isn't it amazing how easily you can dismantle all of wlc's arguments? He, with his 'degrees', you with...knowledge! 👏 👏 👏 👍💓✌🎃
If you've ever watched WLC debate he is a very knowledgeable person.
@@konroh2 On philosophy. He's clearly not knowledgeable on the historicity of Jesus Christ. Remember the Sean Carrol debate, when WLC admits that his points on Quantum Physics is uninformed before proceeding to cede that argument? He uses the exact same argument in future debates. He's intellectually dishonest, and will change his mind on a dime if it's convenient for him. You really ought to find better debaters
@@heckingbamboozled8097 What's an example of him changing his mind? What's an argument that he makes that he's changed? WLC has been doing this a long time.
I paused the vid at the 20:00 mark to read what the titles of Craig's other podcasts were. Top one says that "Dr. Craig [...] takes tough questions from the audience".
Yeah. In a pig's eye he does. Answers dumb soft-ball questions more like.
Or, as I've seen him do so on other videos, answers a different question to the one that was asked, if it's too tricky for him.
Prophet of Zod did a breakdown of Craig "answering" someone's question, link below:
th-cam.com/video/NIH9Czf2MHQ/w-d-xo.html
I love this... "If I learned that 75 percent of apple store employees recommended the iPhone, I would not be impressed, I would wonder why the percentage is so low"
I've about overloaded on the arrogant smugness of Mr Craig.
I've said it before, but again, I'm amazed at how fervent some people argue for what would be one of the most immoral incidents found in the Bible.
The immoral incident of the crucifixion?
It's fun to hear WLC squirm! Great job, Paul!
The empty tomb argument is one of the most disingenuous, circular arguments out there. Good video.
That last fact, that WLC’s video doesn’t allow comments, is the most telling. When videos don’t allow comments, that’s typically a huge red flag that they are saying something wrong.
Great video, as I expected WLC and his PhD were taken to school and given the dunce cap and a corner!
I am applauding at my phone.
Boone (my husky/malamute mix) is quite confused, but excited about it nonetheless.
Well done, Paul.
Smarticus in his fuzzy-nosed defense, he had a toy in his mouth when I began applauding. He clearly thought it was for him. My dog’s a bit of an egotist. Heh.
Did I miss something, or is it really rude that William won't address Paul as either Paul or Paulogia?
I think it’s an intentional gambit meant to decrease the ability of his listeners to search out Paul’s channel so Craig can keep them tucked inside his echo chamber.
You did not miss a thing. It is. And it is done so the laity remains unfamiliar with Paul’s name, channel, or any other counterapologetic work
The Critic. Like he's a supervillian.
@@FrankHarrison12 In the next thrilling episode, Bible-Man faces his deadliest foe yet -- _The Critic!_
It is an intentional insult because WLC is an arrogant Ahole. If you watch the first of this series he spends 10 minutes insulting and degrading Paul, then complains that he doesn't have enough time left to review the entire video.
"If you allow people comment on your videos ". 3 videos later. You finally said it
I laughed so hard. 3 people started at me at the gym
This is really embarrassing for you. This video CLEARLY shows that you haven't read WLC's 20 books on the subject or even bothered to listen to his 45 lectures that are each 4 hours long. Maybe you should do your research before you comment Paulegesis! You can't expect him to cram all that knowledge or even be bothered to be completely accurate in in his language in a TH-cam video targeted to dumb lay people.
(For those that can't read humor through the internet. This is a joke.)
The (' ' ' ' ) part was unnecessary
I nearly fall in Poe's law...
@@mariusbecker303 The president of the United States said on camera with, perfect sincerity, that the sound from wind turbines causes cancer. I saw a guy on Twitter claim that the reason Obama didnt run in 2016 was because he knew Trump would win... What I said is not out of bounds of plausibly being something someone would really say in this day in age.
i personally have trawled through the teachings of all 4200 religions, their interpretations, oh jeez i can't be arsed with this joke.
@@SapphWolf I've been starting to add "/s" or "/sarcasm" to my jokes for that very reason.. always 1 person who thinks I'm legit.. and I really can't blame em.
I really think you actually somehow managed to rattle his cage. Very impressive.
Another nice rebuttal from "The Critic"!
Please forever hold their feet the the fire. Thank you.
"Exegesis is to history as astrology is to astronomy" HA! Good one, that.
Yikes! It’s such a cringe to witness someone owning themselves so while claiming the guise of historical research.
Extremely impressed with the high level of scholarship and research displayed on this channel. Subscription added! Looking forward to viewing the other vidz here: please keep doing such good work! 😸
Welcome!
@@Paulogia Thank you, very much! Most kind to welcome me; a first, for all my years on YT !! 🐱👌
Best series ever!
Apologetics is nothing more than the development of excuses, interpretations and lies to attempt to make the absurd fairy tales in the bible seem more plausible than they are.
You are right. It's an academic study that does not propose new hypothesis, but rather attempts to find new ways to wrap old arguments to prove the fairytale.
@@dozog No. apologetics are lies that are used to protect an "approved" reading of the bible. The bible is garbage. Fairy tales and contradictions. Reading it has made more atheists than any other action.
@@walkergarya Let's say that you're right, that reading the Bible has made many atheists. But it's also overwhelmingly true that reading the Bible has also made many Christians.
@@konroh2 Fewer and fewer as time goes on because it is easier than ever to fact check the bible and show it up for the pile of steaming bullshit it is.
konroh2 Not from my experience, at least. Being taken to a church as a child, much more prevalent.
0 dislikes. Guess WLC hasn't seen this yet.
Its baffling to me how the actual existence of apologetics isn't a direct counter to the idea that their perfect deity supposedly inspired their idiot book.
I view apologetics as *proof* that the Babble is a load of bollocks. A perfect, omnipotent, all-loving, benevolent gawd could write a book that did not need apologetics to make its meaning clear and did not need an advanced degree in theology to make sense of it. Such a being could have ensured that copies were *perfect* and that translations were *perfect.*
I've bought cheap electronic crap on eBay that came with instructions that were clearer than the Babble. I think they'd been translated from Chinese into Urdu, then from Urdu into Welsh, then from Welsh into English, all using Google Translate. And they were for something different than what was delivered. And they still made more sense and were more useful than the Babble.
@@bdf2718 Amen. ;)
@@bdf2718
😊
Previously i had only seen Craig appear in debate and conversation with atheists. He seemed like a respectable and intelligent man to me, i honestly quite liked his character. But as of lately I have seen more and more videos where he is just interacting with other believers. It strikes me that his tone and argumentation is completely different when he knows his audience already believes the claims.
"paulogetics" we atleast he's not calling you "the critic" all the time...
There were no chapters, verses, and worst: it was written in "Scriptio continua", meaning there was NO SEPARATION BETWEEN WORDS. So, to claim a convenient change of meaning from one group of letters to another group of letters next to it, without having ANY NECESSARY indication in the text, is a stretch of the 9th commandment, Dr. WLC.
Christians are not cannibals! "eat of my flesh and drink of my blood" ok, but that is taken out of context. xD
That is also not a concept that is original to Christianity. The Eucharist idea goes all the way back to the Egyptian rituals. The "miracle of the loaves" is just another version of this.
@@seanhammer6296 almost as if Christianity or the Bible in general is a "best of" of a bunch of previous bands... I mean religions.
@@RawbeardX Ya, imagine taking a bunch of classic rock tunes, reworking them into hip-hop for a target audience and generation, then somebody comes along 100 years later claiming the hip-hop versions were the originals. Oh and btw, this is my land so I can kill you for it because God said so. Smh
Good anology.
@Ad Lockhorst There are no problems of overpopulation, global warming or veganism.
@@seanhammer6296 You only have to listen to Scissor Sisters destruction of Pink Floyd's Comfortably Numb to appreciate just how dangerous that can be.
The required statement of faith tells me all I need to know. Of course If the holy zombies can be dismissed as symbolic hallucinations, so can the empty tomb.
Once you understand parts of your holy text are untrue, it is like a leak in a dam eventually it all crumbles.
Keep up the good work Paul!
Just a quick note.
As my name suggests I am Greek. "exegesis" is Greek for explanation.
Great series.
I don't know how you can stand listening to Lane Craig - he is so much about himself. Nonetheless, thanks for doing so and showing him for what he is - a rather poor scholar but a great speaker - of the converted!
For this he really have a "You dare doubt my words" kind of tone
Great job Paul.
It's so obvious the hand he is playing. Craig knows the people who listen to him won't actually look at things for themselves. He knows they'll take what he says as gospel (pun int.) and go about their day with no worries about that mean ol' atheist.
More to the point, he disables comments on his videos so his intended audience won't even learn by accident that there are problems with what he says.
On the contrary, as a Christian I love looking at other arguments. And I think Craig could be more precise. But I don't think Paulogia has debunked the arguments for the resurrection.
Craig: I hope our listeners are sophisticated enough to realize these weren’t actual zombies in the traditional sense, they were merely dead people walking around in the streets. Totally reasonable.
Paul has torn down WLC's arguments in a way even Hitchens couldn't
I like to say "he handed him his ass."
That's why I like these debates more than live ones. You can check people's sources
@@chadwoods2364 Yes, that's one reason why WLC comes across better in live debates. He has a background in competitive debating as a youngster.
He has mastered the art of fast talk--like an auctioneer--and can use that to shift meanings by equivocation--like a shell-game confidence man.
@@greense65 Yep. I've even seen him get over on Hitchens in live debate.
@@greense65 It's called the Gish Gallop -- say so many wrong things that your opponent can barely begin to correct them before running out of time and declare victory.
Had an ad for Pureflix before this video. Hahahahaha
When you criticize religious ideas the religious attack you personally accusing you of things they can't possibly know about you. Making the argument personal is the most common way of avoiding the original issue. Avoidance is religions' best hope.
The bigger picture here, is that the guy sitting next to Dr. Craig is already de-converted. He brought Craig here.
He is just preserving his job.
Not being able to comment kills my interest in watching any of these Christians videos! It’s like a sermon- listen-but don’t question! If sermons were a back and fort conversion- I think I may go back to church too!🤣😂😂😉
Yeah, _so many_ Christian videos don't allow comments. It's almost as if they _know_ they have nothing they can defend.
They don't want someone in the comments to make their whole video look stupid that's why.
You’d do well in a UU church.
There are plenty of places for back and forth conversations.
Well done for keeping Craig honest
I love how Dr Craig is this world renown Christian apologist who absolutely gets pummeled by a simple guy with a simple TH-cam channel. You are awesome Paul! I wonder if WLC wakes up sweating to the thought of your avatar?
No, not at all. WLC has debated some of the top scholars worldwide.
konroh2
Yea, and he asserts that his opponents “failed to bring evidence against god”, he did this to Hitchens. This is called “proving a negative”, it’s a logical fallacy, yet WLC, superstar apologist, told his audience that Hitchens “did not bring evidence against god”. WLC used that fallacy, because he knows his audience is into feelings, and not being logical or consistent. I think it’s a dick move to basically call your audience “fools”, but that’s what WLC does, glad he’s on your side.
@@quantumrobin4627 Hitchens often made bold anti-religious claims, and he also did so to appeal to his audience. When WLC and Hitchens debated, Hitchens really was quite off-topic, and while I appreciate Hitchens' wit I don't think he won that debate. In a topic as transcendent as this, both sides need evidence.
@UCxW5AxRYgffHA0GIaGJgQeQ We've seen religious wars that cost lives, we've also seen atheistic philosophies which have killed millions. There's enough evil on both sides. So the question would be let's affirm the good, and the basis for good. And striving for ultimate meaning isn't a bad thing.
konroh2
Name the regime that killed millions in the name of atheism? And let’s remember that atheism is only a lack of a belief in gods.....let’s not make the typical theist mistake of claiming Hilter killed the Jews in the name of atheism or Stalin who acted towards his interests in a communistic regime.....NO WARS where ever fought in the lack of belief in gods, get a real argument. There is no “atheistic philosophy”, this has always been a theistic term, coined by theists, used by theists.
3:12 Yeah Paulogia, we hear it. Lol. Mr Craig was recently on a livestream, I was one of relatively few people watching live, and he got totally reamed in chat for saying things somewhat along this line. I felt bad at the time, but hearing him say this here, I don't feel bad about it anymore. This is why supporting sloppy compromising apologists like Mr Craig is such a problem; it would be better if Mr Craig were too unpopular to have a career in apologetics. But, it is good opportunity to see that a perspective such as Craig's is not true, so we can be geared toward the Truth such as Young Earth Creationism etc.
I look forward to hearing you on Unbelievable? in a few hours. Erik Hovind (hey! you mentioned him!) is not a very satisfactory representative either (as I remember), but I've enjoyed arguing with you from time to time, so it'll be cool to see your face and hear you in a live debate. (EDIT: saw Josh McDowell's pic, and mixed him up with Erik, big mistake, Josh is much better) Unbelievable? is a really good show to, more discussion than debate.
"Glorified persons" are not visions, Mr Craig is being very sloppy here. But don't worry about us Paulogia; Messiah sets our precedencies, not Mr Craig.
I've never known a Christian to conflate Paul's meeting with Messiah as being bodily, just that Paul literally met Messiah even though it was not a physical meeting. People have literal meetings on skype, which are also not physical meetings... it's not a confusing concept.
Mary Schweitzer's career is just as much on the line if she goes against the dogma of academia, as Biblical scholars if they go against the documents they sign; but secular academia is sneakier and more manipulative to not put that fact in writing. Scientific data is open to assessment apart from correlating academic interpretations (which often apply assumptions which are often stated in the papers; I read a paper yesterday which said "assuming a human-chimp split 6.5 million years ago"). It requires someone extremely naive to believe that animals, with blood cells and various soft tissues found in their remains, went extinct millions of years ago.
Atheist.
Get the heads of all religions together and get them to invite their God's to fight it out amongst themselves.
Preferably on live TV.
When I hear the word apologist I think of someone saying "I'm sorry for Christianity." Too bad this isn't the case
if anyone has made himself an easy target, it's WLC himself, even if he doesn't realize it. It's pretty clear he doesn't realize it.
Guards only appear in Matthew. The massacre of the innocents only appears in Matthew. The zombie apocalypse only appears in Matthew. It's almost as if Matthew just made this stuff up.
You're just picking off the low-hanging fruit now, Paul.
You should look at [insert random name no-one heard of before here].
For all the time spent on it, we need to recognize that the empty tomb "argument" is not an argument for the resurrection of Jesus.
The most that we could plausibly infer from an empty tomb is either that nothing was in it to begin with or that whatever was in it was removed. We cannot plausibly infer that a dead occupant rose and walked out of the tomb.
The only role that an empty tomb can play in the apologist's argument for Jesus' resurrection is to counter one possible objection to claims that people saw Jesus bodily walking and talking after he had died--that objection being, "No way! His body is right now over in yon tomb."
But if anyone ever has objected to alleged sightings of a resurrected Jesus by pointing to a tomb in which his body still lies, we have lost any record of it.
That said, I think Paulogia has done a great job of showing that we know nothing about Jesus being, or not being, in a tomb. Time to put this matter to bed and spend our life times on other, more useful pursuits.
And miss out on eternal life? I find the Bible incredibly useful to my life, my marriage, raising kids, understanding politics, nations, leadership. And the true reality of redemption.
I love the adds for PureFlix movies that play before these WLC smack down videos 😂
I too love the human cringe compilations PureFlix recommends.
All these apologetics are desperately trying to save a dying industry. They can never offer a shred of truth or evidence to counter Paulogia's explanations and resort to character assassination, omissions, half truths, lies and even ridiculing him when they have no answers. Keep up the good work👍👍👍👍👍
Yay Paul!
Dear Paulogia. It's always a pleasure to watch your videos. Also this series. But can't you soon correct the titles so the names come in the right order: "Paulogia destroys William Lane Craig"?
Yours sincerely, Uffe
I love the "facts" that they cite to support the Resurrection. It's no different from citing "facts" from Grimm's Fairy Tales to confirm the existence of witches that live in gingerbread houses.
Theyre not even inventive. The best evidence for someone rising from the fucking dead is... An empty tomb. A hole in a cave with nobody inside. Must mean its zombies!
Regardless of which historians one might think should have reported the zombie apocalypse, the fact is that none did (in any surviving writing).
WLC has to get that dislike in there rofl.
Great video and work as always Paul.
Must be pretty embarrassing for Craig, not only losing a debate to a layperson but losing handily. Yikes. On second thought, his policy of not debating laypeople was probable a wise one- losing a debate to a non-expert must be humiliating for him.
I don't think he can recognize, when he loses...
Based on his performance against Sean Carroll, he certainly doesn't.
Let's see.
WLC's original youtube video: comments disabled.
WLC's responses on reasonablefaith.org say that I'll be missing out on important stuff because I have an ad blocker enabled.
Tells me pretty much all I need to know about his motives for his "ministry" (it's about the money; it's *always* about the money) and his honesty and willingness to learn from others.
Why is it all about the money? Simply because of advertising?
@@konroh2 Not simply because of the advertising. Not even because it detects ad blockers and ask you to disable them. Because it says you won't get all the benefits of the site unless you disable your ad blocker: that there is content you ought to see (for your own good, of course) that you will miss unless you disable your ad blocker.
They accidentally said the quiet part out loud. It's not getting their message over that is important, it's making money that is important.
And even if they hadn't said it out loud, making money is the purpose of *all* religions. Even if its itinerant "religious" beggars, it's all about getting people to give you some of their money. *Always.*
@@bdf2718 If that's true then all the richest people would be religious. But it's exceedingly not true. Besides, you're overgeneralizing. Billions of people are religious, and not for the money.
@@konroh2 Are you really that stupid or are you just trolling?
How rich are the televangelists who buy their own private jets? How poor are the suckers who put money on the collection plates so those jets can be bought?
It's the poor who believe. It's their only hope, that god will reward them in this life or the next. Most of the televangelists don't believe in a god, just in fleecing suckers of money. As I said, it's *always* about the money.
@@bdf2718 I agree there are rich televangelists, but does this mean that all religious leaders are only in it for the money? No, and it's quite an absurd argument to make. And it's not only the poor who believe, we have theists from all classes of life.
And the majority of religious leaders, pastors, priests, clerics, nuns, imams are not rich, and they certainly don't show only the desire to be rich.
At the very least, the records of the Sanhedrin would have recorded a zombie walk happening. This is the kind of thing a religious ruling body takes note of.