20 Christian Academics Speaking About God

Speakers in order of appearance:
1. Professor George Coyne, Astronomer, Vatican Observatory
2. Robin Collins, Professor of Philosophy
3. Dr Benjamin Carson, Paediatric Neurosurgeon
4. John Lennox, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
5. Francis Collins, National Human Genome Research Institute Director
6. John Polkinghorne, Cambridge Professor of Mathematical Physics
7. JP Moreland, Professor of Philosophy, Biola University
8. William Dembski, Research Professor of Philosophy
9. Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
10. Dinesh D'Souza, Hoover Research Fellow, Stanford
11. Dr Ravi Zacharias, Renowned Christian Apologist
12. Brian Leftow, Oxford Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion
13. Dr William Lane Craig, Renowned Apologist and Philosopher
14. Nicholas Saunders, Science and Religion Scholar, Cambridge
15. NT Wright, Leading New Testament Scholar
16. Alvin Plantinga, Notre Dame Professor of Philosophy
17. Alistair McGrath, Oxford Professor of Historical Theology
18. Freeman Dyson, Physicist, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
19. RJ Berry, Professor of Genetics, UCL
20. Denys Turner, Yale Professor of Historical Theology
Intro Music - Mozart: Requiem Mass in D minor - Lacrimosa
INTERVIEW SOURCES:
For those interested in watching the full interviews, here are the links from which these clips were sourced:
FARADAY INSTITUTE (www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/farad...)
5. Francis Collins, National Human Genome Research Institute Director
14. Nicholas Saunders, Science and Religion Scholar, Cambridge
19. RJ Berry, Professor of Genetics, UCL
CLOSER TO TRUTH (www.closertotruth.com/particip...)
2. Robin Collins, Professor of Philosophy
6. John Polkinghorne, Cambridge Professor of Mathematical Physics
7. JP Moreland, Professor of Philosophy, Biola University
8. William Dembski, Research Professor of Philosophy
12. Brian Leftow, Oxford Professor of the Philosophy of the Christian Religion
16. Alvin Plantinga, Notre Dame Professor of Philosophy
18. Freeman Dyson, Physicist, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
1. Professor George Coyne, Astronomer, Vatican Observatory
• Father George Coyne In...
3. Dr Benjamin Carson, Paediatric Neurosurgeon
• Richard Dawkins & Dani...
4. John Lennox, Oxford Professor of Mathematics
vimeo.com/27834228
9. Dr Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury
vodpod.com/watch/4430254-richa...
10. Dinesh D'Souza, Hoover Research Fellow, Stanford
• Part 1 - D'Souza, Hitc...
11. Dr Ravi Zacharias, Renowned Christian Apologist
• Video
13. Dr William Lane Craig, Renowned Apologist and Philosopher
• Video
15. NT Wright, Leading New Testament Scholar
• N.T. Wright on Heaven 1
17. Alistair McGrath, Oxford Professor of Historical Theology
• Video
20. Denys Turner, Yale Professor of Historical Theology
• Video
Copyright disclaimer--"Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use."

[@Freethinker1958]

Did anyone else laugh uncontrollably during the Alistair McGrath segment when he confidently explains why his sky-fairy saves one child from an earthquake while thousands of others are killed?

[@jeffdunlap2754]

So, I'm God, and I'm going to create evil, and occasionally do something to save some from it, while I allow atrocities to happen. That's my plan.

[@Highley1958]

The first guy is like "because if I don't say I believe in the virgin birth and the resurrection, they will fire my ass".

[@Rarae192]

Cheers. Thanks for making this series - it is very enlightening.

[@TheDvnty]

There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. Søren Kierkegaard (1813-1855)”

[@PInk77W1]

“Lord make me holy, but not yet.” St Augustine

[@stevekennedy5380]

There are facts and there are beliefs. Many people cannot tell the difference.

[@JPararajasingham]

"Also, what's your definition of "logical thinking"? and do you ALWAYS think logically?" Logical thinking (or reason) is to use critical thinking to evaluate things, basing beliefs on established facts and logical premises, and using the best available information and evidence to justify beliefs and actions. The brain is not intuitively logical. Hence why intuitive beliefs are often found (with new evidence) to be in error. So I TRY to always think logically, but I'm as fallible as anyone.

[@andytsa]

Fantastic upload.Subbed. Such debates arent meant to be via youtube comments. I myself prefer to read Herman Hesse;s thoughts about man and god.

[@nugley]

It's all about the conversation. Thankyou.

[@AtamMardes]

"Religion began when the first scoundrel met the first fool." *Voltaire*

[@VogonJ]

Nice work! Thanks for upploading these videos JP-- It hurts my brain hearing these otherwise intelligent ppl using "logic" and metafysical acrobatics around their beliefs.Some brains must be wired differently in some places. I think they can be unwired/rewired, but it takes some selfcritic, (self)honesty and courage.

[@PInk77W1]

“10,000 difficulties don’t equal one doubt.” St John Henry Newman

[@JPararajasingham]

It says "Comment removed Author withheld" on your last comment. Did you remove it or is this a glitch?

[@JPararajasingham]

Thank you for your comment, another good example of the way theists think :)

[@ivlfounder]

@ultraollie The video's maker has taken brief clips of respectable academics in the hope that it will discredit them.

[@chikkipop]

*"The video's maker has taken brief clips of respectable academics in the hope that it will discredit them."* And he has succeeded, showing that "respectable academics" can also hold untenable beliefs due to emotional need. As Saul Bellow said, *"A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep."*

[@KingJorman]

the very last bit of dialogue with Denys Turner is brilliant and too my mind gets to the core of true religion

[@braindeadbonobo]

dumbski and dinesh never fail to make me rage

[@jameshahn7296]

This seems to be nothing more than a collection of elaborate fallacies.

[@danieljanca]

@JPararajasingham So how do we discern who understands the arguments best?

[@sgtOOX]

very interesting

[@cristianfcao]

I loved this one: 10:06. The bishop's conclusion at the end was a great piece of self pwnage.

[@shumbusgumbuli]

"knowing that you don't know what you're talking about" is what these twenty geniuses are talking about.

[@danieljanca]

@JPararajasingham Just in general, I don't know how more evident you need it to be. There are the cosmological, ontological, teleological, design, moral, resurrection, consciousness, properly basic belief, and dozens of other arguments in addition to personal experience, and all the people you encounter in your life trying to convince you, all pointing to the existence of God. It's incredible how many ways are provided for us.

[@timothyvandewater1295]

Dr. Carson's argument about evolution (Volkswagon's evolved to Rolls Royces) almost makes sense, but there's a major flaw. Rolls Royce's don't evolve from Volkswagon's just as I didn't evolve from you (given that you aren't my mother or father). However, if one traces back through the ancestors of these vehicles, we come down two distinct paths that leads us to a common ancestor which the two evolved from (such as the Benz in 1885/86). Same with humans.

[@JPararajasingham]

Precisely. Thank you for the comment.

[@LOKILOKI230]

Dear author, could you give me an answer on why christian scientists are interviewed personally by Dawkins while atheistic scientists, as far as I've mentioned after watching two parts of two different videos (the part of this one and the part of the first part of atheistic scientists speech video), were not bothered that honor by him? I understand that the probability of you having this information is extremely low, but i'd like to hear your personal hypothesis.

[@boblong101]

Do you mean spiritual in a supernatural sense? If so, how do you reconcile this with the truths of physics?

[@ivlfounder]

@JPararajasingham You hold up Collins honest statement that he can't envision what a suspension of physical laws would look like as though it was a failure on his part.

[@ultraollie]

@ivlfounder exactly what was taken out of context here? Besides I don't "hate" faith in a deity any more that I "hate" pixie belief or astrology. I just consider it nonsense.

[@ivlfounder]

@ultraollie I may need a refresher course in logic and critical thinking. I wrote quote mining when cherry picking was more apt.

[@Roy__Batty]

Very well said.

[@JPararajasingham]

I don't see where you're getting all this subtext information from. I don't know how to respond if you think they're saying one thing but mean another.

[@BenjaminLithgow]

what is the intro music?

[@brianhill5009]

It is amazing how these men attribute and project qualities and characteristics to a being that they have encountered only in their minds and imaginations.

[@Wrath0fKhan]

@ivlfounder "SJG had some harsh words for people like you" Relevant or irrelevant (e.g. words)? Thats the key question, right?

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham WLC point is that unless there is a specific meaning (meaning that transcends personal preference ie objective) our individual meanings are indistinguishable from background noise. Now you may disagree with that conclusion, but just like the car analogy, disagreement doesn't mean it's illogical nor irrational.

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham "Cosmic significance" considering I have not used this phrase, you have, I would say it is a description of an event or being that's effects affect more than a single planet, star, solar system or even galaxy. It is a description of a being or event that is universal in scope.

[@JPararajasingham]

"with *sincerity and ask Jesus to reveal himself to you" I've done that. Now what? Presumably you will tell me I wasn't being sincere. More importantly, I fail to see how anything "revealed" to me would overturn my objective study of the evidence of reality. I'm referring to the far-from-benevolent design of the universe, the wanton suffering of innocents, the hiddenness of God, the nonsensical/immoral Biblical narrative, the brain's massive limitations/biases in comprehending reality, etc.

[@dickenssayshi]

What is your point?

[@luckydave328]

@@dickenssayshi He made his point. Read it again.

[@marquisarms7397]

I am confused because many such misunderstanding occur. For example, many say that they do not understand why God told them to kill the.caananites. Now, the commandments say not to kill but not to commit criminal homicide in the Greek which is to murder. The Canaanites murdered innocent children as part of their ritual and no one but the dark skinned people who would later become part of the tribe of Judah stand for them. God told them to kill the Canaanites for that reason. The Jewish people said that they wanted to do something much sooner than before, but God withheld them and said not yet. Their sims are not yet full. Another such misconception is that Adam is the.first human being. Is this biblical or part of the.christian tradition? Those are two.different things. The first of the hand are mentioned in Genesis chapter 1verses 26-31. Adam is not mentioned until.chapter 2 and the Hebrew that is used is et ha adam meaning The man Adam so.what.do you mean if I may ask?

[@luckydave328]

@@marquisarms7397 Why didn't God just kill the Canaanites Himself ? Why ask the Israelites to clean up His mistakes by bloodying their hands and damaging their minds with slaughter ? And God was upset with the Canaanites sacrificing children right ? Yet he told them to kill every man woman...and child ! How inconsistent and lacking in any logic, let alone morals or ethics is this God ?

[@marquisarms7397]

Well, you mentioned a pretty large argument to.say the least. It would pretty difficult to.cover.everythimg in one single post. My response was towards the argument of a nonsensical narrative. May I ask what.evidemce do you.speak of. Unless one clearly understands what is being argued, one cannot respond effectively and so I ask what evidence you mean.

[@JPararajasingham]

"if doing one irrational thing brings you the evidence instantly why not take the chance?" What irrational thing are you referring to?

[@O748159263O]

You get "all this subtext information" by familiarizing yourself a little with the varieties of religious belief, having an interest in telling the difference between them, and knowing a little bit about the way religious organizations work to be able to recognize PR when you see it and understand how that differs from academic theology. I didn't learn this stuff from golden plates; it's pretty obvious once you know what to look for.

[@Faydid]

I am a Hermann Hesse followed myself. My empirical outlook on life has been molded by Narcissus and Goldman archetype personal journeys

[@hadtomakeachannel]

Why is Brian Leftow 12:49 an android?

[@Muonium1]

I was just looking up the word embarrassing in Websters and it didn't give me any definition, it just linked to this youtube video. Weirrrrd.

[@JPararajasingham]

My position is it is unjustifiable to believe anything without reason or evidence, especially deep cosmological concepts which science shows are beyond our intuitive understanding. Ideas like time varies with speed, or that subatomic particles can exist simultaneously in two places, are beyond intuition. This coupled with the neuroscientific evidence of cognitive bias etc, shows that we need evidence to justify beliefs about (esp deep) reality. No evidence for gods = irrational to believe.

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham "By inconsistent I mean it is illogical/incoherent to suggest that all significance is lost without cosmic significance." 1) thats misusing a specific term. Inconsistent does not mean illogical. 2) As I said, its not ALL significance it's that your actions hold any significance BEYOND YOURSELF. If he defines objective meaning to be meaningful beyond your personal opinion, than it's NOT illogical it's actually spot on. Once again your disagreement doesn't mean he's illogical.

[@JPararajasingham]

As I've said to the many theists who've come here making the same complaint as you, please show an example of the "context" that has been removed which affects the point being made by any of these speakers. I've provided links to the full interviews in the description, as there's nothing to hide. I invite anyone to view them to find this all important removed "context" which you believe magically make these theists not sound ridiculous. Face facts. THEY made themselves sound stupid, not me.

[@mertonhirsch4734]

I would propose the "Belief" is supernatural. We either 1) believe because of material determinism in which case we have no reason to trust that our beliefs are rational and not a deterministic delusion of physics on one level and evolution on another, and also in which case, calling our beliefs rational, or presupposing that they line up with an underlying reality is a logically superfluous (Russel's teapot), and faith-based claim that can not be justified by any materialistic scientific or logical process, or 3) come to our beliefs because we have freedom to do so, in which case we have to appeal to a super natural mechanism that enables true not-deterministic free will.

[@Here0s0Johnny]

this video is great in comparison to the one where nonreligious scientists talk about god. it shows the fundamental difference in the approach and the different world views that result. best example: rj berry talking about 'homo divinus'.

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham "Meaning beyond ourselves." It is a euphemistic way of referring to objective meaning. it is not subjective ie its not limited in perspective to merely ourselves, it transcends into what exists objectively and purposefully.

[@sooshi67]

@JPararajasingham The claim that we're discussing is the rationality of Christians, not whether evolution is true or not. But since Carson's rationality depends on the veracity of evolution, this discussion is important. Furthermore, it's beneficial, because if you're right, then I'll learn something, and if I'm right, then you'll learn something. I have no intention of supergluing myself to anti-evolutionism if there's good evidence for evolution, so I'd appreciate you sharing your views.

[@JJPHILLYLG]

What is the difference between laws of nature that have yet to be understood and something that is supernatural?

[@ricardomaman]

@JPararajasingham i didn't say logic/reason doesn't apply to God, i said not all that he is can be explained logically, i.e. there is some of Him that can, and that's what some theists try to discuss (his desires would be an example of something about him that can be explained logically). And, no, i do not agree that logic is greater than what comes from within the universe because we make sense of our world by what we see and feel.

[@Neueregel]

It's better not to even finish the Elementary school and be a Skeptic rather than being in Academia and being so deluded.

[@whackthedog]

And here I was waiting for religious people to speak some sense at least about their beliefs.

[@saintlysimon]

Why is it now allowing me to view this video in the UK?

[@JPararajasingham]

You don't need to have a dogmatic belief in a deity for it to be irrational or unjustified. Belief in god(s), in whatever form it takes, is irrational, and requires compartmentalisation for those who understand reason and the evidence of reality to continue having any such belief.

[@coutsoulis]

Can I favour this video more than once?

[@JPararajasingham]

"Brain anatomy and its evolutionary history form important foundations for the work in our lab and underpins our functional investigations. Our work has adopted comparative approaches to ask questions about the evolution of the human cerebellum and its connections with the cerebral cortex" - Brain, Action and Cognition Lab, Royal Holloway, University of London So you see, even us simple folk who "cut up brains" should understand evolution, considering we use functional imaging.

[@JPararajasingham]

I think you're forgetting the context of this completely. I am a simple citizen expressing a view. This is a personal video of mine, where I am showing what I personally find to be evidence that theistic claims are unjustifiable, even by the more learned, well known theists around. I chose to put clips rather than splice entire interviews together because most people won't watch a 20 hour video. I have however put the full interview links in the description.

[@JPararajasingham]

So, as I've said to the countless others making the same accusation, provide the context for any of the comments made which makes them NOT look stupid. I have provided the links to the full interviews, but no one actually responds with specifics. The reason for taking clips is not to remove anything, but rather to show what I personally have found to not make sense. Your comment implies you haven't even seen the full interviews, so how you can be so certain in your criticism, I haven't a clue.

[@roccomp]

Would be great, for the non-perfect English speakers, to have subtitles for the entire video .

[@danieljanca]

@JPararajasingham It matters little whether the entire video's lengthy, when 1 individual "answer's" limited 2 merely few sentences, especially on such topics. That's why I don't recommend basing your opinion ultimately on these picked "excerpts". That "they cannot respond sensibly" and "their faith is ubdefensible" or that I agree doesn't follow from a suggestion to look elsewhere. Moreover, I'd say the same thing if atheists'd be our concern.

[@JPararajasingham]

I've made multiple replies to this point in the comments section. The point of the video is precisely to show what I have found problematic in the interviews. People can agree or disagree, and if they disagree they can look at the full interviews which I have provided links for. To suggest I should make a video with the full interviews, which would amount to a 20 hour video, is a laughable suggestion, especially because links are provided and the full videos are all over youtube elsewhere.

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham The failure is yours to recognize the distinction. Subjective importance is NOT the SAME as objective importance. Glossing the two so that they mean the same thing demonstrates only your ability to argue using equivocation. What are you a Dr. of?

[@HugoOneYT]

@ivlfounder exactly and he still asserts that those suspensions of physical laws occur, he does not do that with (other) scientific subjects.

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham " So your "beyond ourselves" is comparable to "cosmic", and your "meaning" is comparable to "significance"." Meaning is not the same as significance, although it is less differentiated than cosmic and God. But as I am using them, significance is a quantifiable difference being made,while meaning is concerned with a quality of difference being made. I don't know why you keep purposely confusing term.

[@Seychelllian]

Love the closing line here .... "but it could also be claimed that what lies beyond the possibility of being expressed or said is something about which you had better be silent in order not to talk nonsense". So often religious rhetoric is just word play that makes baseless propositions as fact only to refer back to as some sort of bedrock of evidence.

[@danieljanca]

@JPararajasingham Quoting myself: "God's ultimate will is not that people *only* believed he exists,...". God wants us to come into a saving relationship with him beyond just knowing he exists. You (or an atheist) would need to show that if God all of a sudden convinced everyone of his existence, more people would freely accept him and come into a saving love relationship with him, which is obviously impossible. You can choose this relationship right now.

[@JepMaster8]

Also, what's your definition of "logical thinking"? and do you ALWAYS think logically?

[@Ital21]

Revealing and very interesting video! Even in light of confronted faith, religious people admit that religion IS in no way based on common sense or on real evidence, and thus conflicts with science and reality in many evident ways. A lesson to learn by all christians specially in America, I think.

[@JDFatalist]

"But my brain was getting in my way" trolololol

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham " I have said that holding that belief (i.e. if I go along with that premise) seems to produce many irrational statements" which, as I said results from your refusal to examine any other premise other than "God exists" There are other things going on, other than: god exists therefore life is pointless without God. You have to examine the context of the belief and judge it from within to see if it holds it's own logical rationality.

[@VOICEOFCHID]

@1marcelo Yes, because whether one holds a Nobel Prize or not determines the validity of a position, right?

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham "Your opinion seems to be that WLC is saying that without cosmic significance there is no cosmic significance." How did you get that from "With out God there is no objective meaning?" God is not the same as "cosmic significance."

[@therougesage7466]

Why are some comments in quotes

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham "For me, the fact that a personal gain does not occur as a result of someone's actions but rather a gain for others/society makes someone MORE of a hero." yes because YOU benefited from HIS actions. The term hero is applied to someone other than yourself who you gain from their sacrifice. In other words it's a manipulative word to get a person who should ONLY be concerned with his own well being to sacrifice himself for your benefit. Yeah that's not "stupid" thats "heroic"

[@PInk77W1]

“I always thought I would be arrested and beaten and jailed for life, but now I realize I’m not worthy of such a grace.” St John Vianney

[@tylerjourneaux4352]

That's very interesting. I wonder, if I may be permitted to throw a philosopher's wrench in the works, and I much look forward to hearing your reply; what evidence would you cite for such things as i) the reality of the past, ii) the reality of the external world, iii) logical and mathematical theorums beyond both intuitive understanding and strictly empirical verification, and the likes of such? For want of space: I am both a Catholic academic, and in large agreement with the interviewees.

[@chikkipop]

The evidence for your 3 areas of inquiry is in how we verify them sufficiently to be justifiably convinced. But of far more interest is why anyone would be in agreement with any of the interviewees, each of whom essentially made fools of themselves in their attempts at justifying what is little more than emotional need to believe what is comforting. No one should be a "Catholic academic"'. I trust that in the ten or so years since your comment that you have discovered this!

[@tylerjourneaux4352]

@@chikkipop I have not. ;p In fact, I find myself as dissatisfied today with an answer like yours as I did 10 years ago.

[@chikkipop]

​@@tylerjourneaux4352 "A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep." -- Saul Bellow

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham "I didn't say they were. I am denying that there is importance beyond humanity." the second sentence is completely irrelevant to whether or not WLC meant the same thing as Kagan. Please stay on topic.

[@cperez1000]

There are many atheists that believe in objective moral values (including myself) and there are theists that believe that morality is independent from God who believe God is good because he chooses only the good things, not just because he's God.

[@jimtrueblue99]

@plimbuff I'm not avoiding your question; I didn't see it. The section with Alister McGrath is out of context; it is a recapitulation of a previous topic. In the raw footage, Dawkins resumes the topic; McGrath is momentarily confused and asks the director a question. Even he doesn't understand the context. All you see in this video is that small section; you see nothing of the much longer prior discussion. That's the definition of "out of context." The purpose was to make McGrath seem foolish.

[@JPararajasingham]

I'd disagree for a number of reasons: 1. I've specifically chosen the best of the theist camp, unfair would be to quote mine any of the numerous fringe-view theists around. 2. I've specifically chosen answers to key questions about the core aspects of their faith. 3. Many theists (including the speakers themselves) don't think their answers are portraying them badly, rather they consider their answers to be good. The fact that you don't is precisely my point.

[@ultraollie]

@ivlfounder Please give me an example of something that was out of context. If you want to talk about the Collins quote: yes, it was a failure, but it was a failure of his belief system. He is certainly a very smart man (head of NIH, mapper of the human genome) and I like him, but I think that his religious beliefs are irrational.

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham Imagine a steward on flight that is about to crash. He gets up and tries to hand everyone napkins. When asked why he's doing it, he responds. "I think it's important to have napkins." Great. But it's purposeless and futile. It may make you feel better, but nothing more. It cannot stop the crash, it will help no one. Its an exercise in futility. Handing out napkins on a doomed flight may be personally satisfying, but in no way can it be called, significant.

[@jimtrueblue99]

@plimbuff Let's play dueling dictionaries. From dictionary com: "Context: the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect." As in the beginning and middle of a conversation that precede its end. Capiche? McGrath was thoughtful when he wasn't talking? Are you telepathic too? Can one be thoughtful without being reasonable or think without reason? I'm still waiting for you to grasp the idea of "context."

[@JPararajasingham]

"Prove to me that you've done it with sincerity. Where is your evidence?" The "evidence" which we use to base trust and other social constructs, are small cumulative pieces of evidence of a person's background, character, personality, behaviour, etc. So it is possible to show you evidence but it would take time for you to get to know me, realising I am the type of person who would do this. This is not dissimilar to the evidence used in establishing people's characters in court trials.

[@jimtrueblue99]

@JPararajasingham Why don't you email Richard Dawkins and see if he thinks your representation of his discussion with Alister McGrath is fair both to McGrath and to him?

[@pinkhippie135]

If you showed all the full interviews you would notice how it all goes together. If you show certain parts, then you are just like the media which edits videos to show their points of views.

[@Hybridspasser]

Sure, in that sense you're right. But prayer can also be about finding answers or peace of mind. I don't pray often, but when I do, it helps :) Regardless of whether this is because of God or because of something I'm subconsciously doing myself (people might argue one or another), I think it's a positive thing. If people find help in praying to God for their sick daughter - irrational as some may say it is (I'm not sure what I think), then by all means, let them.

[@danieljanca]

@yaucharkuai Yours is a question, not an argument. For a number of reasons, including the resurrection of Jesus; the moral values we apprehend are best explained and in line with what Christianity expresses, gods of other religions have self-contradictory properties; it is right in line with mainstream science, in other words you can follow the evidence where it leads; and last but not least the personal experience of the Holy Spirit.

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham "He says, "In light of that end, it's hard for me to understand how our moral choices have ANY sort of significance". He's saying, as I have said, that he believes this to be the case. Your saying not just that that is wrong. Your saying that assertion is illogical and irrational. That's not WLC burden. He doesn't have to PROVE it's not illogical. It's YOUR burden of proof to say that it IS illogical. Repeating what he says doesn't mean it's illogical.

[@JPararajasingham]

But, as shown in this video, if you're questioned on the details of your faith, the compartmentalisation will likely become apparent.

[@Rarae192]

This video may seem like cherry picking Christian academics at their worst, but I think this is Christianity at its finest. This is the raw substance of Christian belief; this is how the finest minds rationalise Christianity with a modern, educated understanding of reality after significantly stilling their tap-dancing toes. This is it folks, with such gems as: "There was a time when God did something special," & "I choose this miracle to be true" - it really doesn't get any better than that.

[@JPararajasingham]

Look, I think you've completely lost sight of this. I am interested in whether theism is true. I have researched it honesty and openly, and find it to be unconvincing. This video is showing some of the things said by even sophisticated theologians which I find problematic. I believe what they say. If they have other agendas for lying about their beliefs as you claim, that doesn't really help the side of theism either. To not believe in the resurrection is to not believe in Christ's divinity.

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham "Objective meaning" This would be meaning that is independent of personal perspective. For example we may both perceive a tree, we perceive it through our own perspectives. Objective perspective would a perspective of the tree that is not bounded by limited "perspectives" It is seeing the tree "as it really is" Kant talked about this as the thing it is in itself vs the thing as we perceive it.

[@gregory747]

You have had your say be at peace. Nuff said. :)

[@MR-iw1xp]

6:56 - a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years is like a day for God. The "intellectuals" make many skewed assumptions in their logic.

[@mike10121996]

@JPararajasingham "WLC is saying (as you are) that saving a puppy has no significance unless there is significance beyond ourselves." No, listen to your own video! he says it calls everything we do into question. It causes us to view these things as trivial. Trivial is not the same as no significance at all. It means, it may have some but not very much. What's the meaning between living 14 years or living 13.5 or 1? It's numerically DIFFERENT, but how can you qualify which is better?

[@mertonhirsch4734]

For an atheist, suffering only exists on a relative pragmatic scale. There is "worse than average," "average" and "better than average" so "pragmatic pleasure" only exists relative to pragmatic "suffering". If everyone being in the cosmos experiences pleasure relative to our cosmos, those who experienced the least pleasure would be experiencing suffering relative to everyone else. You either have to accept that definition of "relative" suffering or evil, or you have to have an external standard of absolute suffering or evil.