A deep dive review of the Dawkins-O'Connor interview with Dr. William Lane Craig

In Alex O'Connor's interview with Richard Dawkins, a lot was said about the existence of God and Christianity. Is he right? Do his criticisms really affect Christianity? Eminent apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig provides an analysis of his words.
____________________
Mike Licona is Professor of New Testament Studies at Houston Christian University. HCU offers an accredited Master of Arts degree in apologetics that may be completed entirely online or on the HCU campus in Houston.
📜For more information, visit bit.ly/2Wlej6Z
🎓You can also earn a Master of Divinity degree that can be completed entirely online at bit.ly/3po5uEX
👨🏻‍🎓 HCU offers a rigorous Doctorate of Ministry degree: hc.edu/houston...
🌐WEBSITE: www.risenjesus...
💻FACEBOOK: / drmikelicona
📱TWITTER: / drmikelicona
📚 Buy “Jesus, Contradicted”: bit.ly/48H0FNM
📚 Buy "The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus": amzn.to/38vTfNU
📚Buy "The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach": amzn.to/2NOOZkT
📚Buy "Paul Meets Muhammad": amzn.to/2RdEFoB
📚Buy "Why Are There Differences in the Gospels?": amzn.to/36dzc5C
🅿️ If you like Mike's work, become a patron by visiting his new Patreon page at / risenjesus or make a tax-deductible contribution(s) as allowed by law by going to Mike's secured website:
✋www.risenjesus...

[@stu1002]

Can we recognise what a blessing Alex O'connor is to the apologetics community at the moment? Sounds a strange thing to say, because he's an atheist obviously - but I genuinely feel that his open irenic and non-combatitive style is so helpful...he has a tendency to catch fellow atheists off guard, as I think he did with Dawkins here.

[@batman5224]

He’s good at playing Devil’s advocate. He does that with all of his guests. He’ll ask questions of atheists that they would never tolerate coming from a Christian.

[@utopiabuster]

No such thing as a friendly atheist.

[@UniteAgainstEvil]

Yes sir....

[@sirshramp5934]

Lot of respect for Alex. Unlike most popular athiests, he seems very respectful towards the theists he interviews. He has a very humble, thoughtful demeanor. I don't mind listening to athiests' arguements, but I don't want to be sneered at and mocked. It's old. I wonder what his viewership demographics are. Haven't seen a lot (or any) of hate from Christians directed towards him.

[@No_BS_policy]

Alex is an agnostic. He said it himself.

[@MikeShining]

Dr Craig is so easy to listen to. He has this rare ability to clarify complex concepts and to present them in a very engaging way.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Well… he is a popularizer… it’s his job.😉

[@JohnVandivier]

As an engineer (software) yes I do love Craig's clarity on premises and structure

[@adamduarte895]

One of the best parts of his work and analytic philosophy!

[@johncook19]

When he is answering a tricky question william, don't blame him because of his ability to obviscate in the English language and so fast in what seems to be a foreign language. William has mastered the skill of lieing at speed, while he claims to be a Christian. I have met children who know their parents lie to them all the time but, do it for a godly cause of course, its after all a good cause isn't it?

[@blakerice7928]

Craig is a stand up guy. Always a blessing to listen to him and Licona

[@killerboba]

Makes a living on either being stupid or lying? Great guy

[@ivanmorales3422]

What a beautiful conversation. I was laying in bed listening to the conversation and was so engaged, knowing very well that I had to get up at 5:30 the next morning, so I had to turn it off but picked it up immediately the next day. Again, what a beautiful conversation.

[@aaron_johnson]

Really appreciated this conversation. Thank you Dr. Licona!

[@Starrboy94]

As an engineer I agree that WLC’s style is attractive because ambiguity in our line of work gets us nowhere. I wouldn’t be a believer had WLC not been around.

[@trinitymatrix9719]

Why not?

[@oliverjamito9902]

Thank you Pops for attending unto our OWN! Love ye both too! Gratitude and Honor. Noone can pluck away! Thy shared I AM and came with conversations just for thee! My pop Mike thank you for having sincere conversations with my pop William. Knows WHO? Keep the sincere conversations going = sincere answers will be given

[@Philip__325]

Is Dawkins still spending his time dodging a debate with Bill Craig?

[@charlescarter2072]

He’ll always be remembered for that

[@vladtheemailer3223]

The debate would resolve nothing.

[@charlescarter2072]

@@vladtheemailer3223 perhaps but regardless, it would be good to see

[@lucacuradossi1040]

​@@charlescarter2072it wouldn't, Dawkins doesn't drown in holy water. Superstition has only place on the brains of indoctrinated minds or weak people that cant see life for what it actually is

[@vladtheemailer3223]

@charlescarter2072 A debate about whether or not God is real. It would do nothing more than make you feel better about yourself.

[@turealidad9624]

Dawkins is very intellectually dishonest when it comes to refuting christianity, because he misunderstand and misrepresent christian concepts, and then criticizes christianity based on his own misconceptions about it. And on top of that he criticizes with a tone of total intellectual authority.

[@John-ot7si]

Indeed, those are called “straw man arguments” I also find it funny imagining a debate where the opponent always scoffs when presented with an argument. It’s meant to make the person who does it sound unaffected, when in reality it’s often the opposite.

[@lucacuradossi1040]

Dawkins is a scientist and there is no way he is going to believe in "miracles" that are superstition. Christianity is founded by truth claims that are impossible, he just disregards the religion because it is FALSE. He has said that there is wisdom to be found but the reality is that the bible just like any other book (now with ai is not true) was written by humans guided by their own subjective experience

[@thedude882]

I don't think it's intellectual dishonesty. He simply does not understand christianity and philosophy of religion. It's just ignorance.

[@Jamienewman0]

@@thedude882 : There's nothing to understand, except for the fact that Christianity rests entirely upon a set of preposterously bizarre texts, of completely dubious provenance, composed by people who thought that cosmos consisted of flat disc-shaped Earth floating on water, heaven above, underworld below. It persists only as the result of indoctrination in early childhood and the fact that humans are, on average, laughably credulous and very needy emotionally.

[@justchilling704]

@@thedude882I think it’s both. Also I think Dawkins has some deep rooted emotional wound that partially keeps him hostile towards Christianity.!

[@homoduplex]

I don't think Peterson does it for PR reasons. He cares deeply about the issue, did the Biblical lectures and seminars and is now writing his book "We Who Wrestle With God". My hunch is that he knows that as soon as he says "yes" or "no", people put him in a box and think they understand his views, and he doesn't want that because his views really go much deeper than that. And not only his, I mean, he frequently points out that people don't really know what they believe themselves. He doesn't want people to think they've figured this stuff out because he thinks that nobody has. At the same time, it's of course very legitimate to criticise him for being evasive.

[@narendrasomawat5978]

I think he wants to limit his work as Carl Jung. He has different view of religion which is goodness. He's great thinker his first book maps of meaning is great.

[@LordBlk]

Yes. I'd agree. I have heard a good analogy for him. He is like the unauthorized exorcist. Because he does fight against the reductionist naturalist veiw. And it seems his veiw is more along trying to find the ground of being, that idea that Christ is the ideal and God permeates our existence in a fractal sense.

[@Sam-m6o3j]

People mistake scripture as the word of God, but the word of God has no specific language. The Bible is a culmination of human experiences and interpretations. It would be a mistake for any great thinker to adhere to a book of spells over our god given conscious mind, which is why I think Peterson refuses to do so.

[@GospodinStanoje]

I think this is the best description of Jordan Peterson I've read. I like the guy and his lectures helped me, however sometimes even on non-religious question I feel he tends to overcomplicate answers for some reason. Sure, many questions are deeper than we think, but that is not to say we should make it even more complicated by, ironically, not being precise in our speech.

[@matthewthomasjames]

I think Jordan Peterson does believe in God, but presently doesn’t feel he’s informed enough in Christian apologetics to support his own views publicly in a debate.

[@AtamMardes]

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

[@Melissa-ju1pm]

I loved this humble, intellectual, honest, and inspirational conversation, the whole 1:43.10 of it! Thank you!

[@marynunn1708]

Such a valuable and insightful conversation between two gifted and articulate wise men. Thank you both so much!

[@aaronjohnsamuel2024]

Wonderful! Thanks a lot champions of the faith. Lots of love and respect for what you do, how you do it and why you do it. Praying that God would continue to strengthen, encourage and empower you both.

[@ProfYaffle]

Did you guys see Francis Collins and Dawkins on Unbelievable? Dawkins likes Collins cos of how he helped Hitchens. Dawkins confessed he woukd not believe if Jesus appeared in front of his face.

[@ramigilneas9274]

Well, Low Bar Bill admitted that no amount of evidence could ever convince him that Christianity isn’t true.😂

[@dagkaszlikowski8358]

And how that Jesus would convince me he is divine ? He would be looking like what? A Galilean Jew with dark skin and unkempt beard? And what would he do, walk on water or resurrect someone?

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

​@ramigilneas9274 WLC has said that, if they found remains that conclusively belonged to Jesus, he would be compelled to give up Christianity.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@Freethinkingtheist77 So Low Bar Bill purposely chose a standard that is impossible to meet… or do you think that it’s possible to determine the identity of a pile of bones from the first century? How would that look like? Also… even if we found the remains of Jesus… that wouldn’t disprove the resurrection. All explanations are literal magic… so Jesus could have simply respawned in a new body.

[@tymmiara5967]

So nice that for once we get to hear a longer (more than 1h) interview with him!

[@kevingp12]

God bless you both. Wonderful convo

[@johnwheeler3071]

I'm pleased Mike doesn't pussy foot around Jordan Peterson like virtually every other Christian does. Mike says its "the responsibility of the Christian to acknowledge Christ if you are one". Jordan Peterson deffinitely doesn't do that. And even if Jordan does believe in a God which God does he believe in?

[@elainejohnson6955]

It would take a really bad designer to design a universe that can easily be destroyed if anything changes the slightest bit within it. Any designer who put people on an Earth that has hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc. was a horrible designer. Any designer who made very few places where a human can survive is a poor designer if its goal was to create humans. Any designer who made our bodies able to get easily injured, subject to illnesses, and made us so our breathing tube is next to our eating tube was an incompetent designer.

[@meyerius]

And yet we have been a highly successful species for many millennia. And plenty of animals breathe and eat through their mouths. But as the clay said to the potter, “Why have you formed me thus?”

[@oscargr_]

If god "created" the universe for the sole benefit of having us, free willing humans, to praise him for eternity... I wouldn't call "him" perfect. Looks like a middle school science project finished literally in the last week. (And took a rest on the 7th day) "That'll do" is more appropriate than "He saw that it was good" (But that's exactly what a middle schooler would say, isn't it)

[@mikek7029]

I remember musing over those things in 9th grade over bong hits with friends

[@crisjones7923]

The idea that if Christianity is not true we should reject it in order to "go have some fun" indicates a severe misunderstanding. God does not give us rules to stop us from enjoying life, but rather for the benefit of all. A society that rejects christian morality will become a hellscape.

[@markb3786]

Christian morality? Exactly what is that?

[@TrevorJamesMusic]

Great video, thoroughly enjoyed this discussion

[@Lillibulero1]

A very minor point: if the Private Eye you're referring to is the UK publication of that name it's actually a satirical magazine. I very much appreciated this conversation - much food for thought.

[@prime_time_youtube]

Thank you, Dr. Licona.

[@dagkaszlikowski8358]

How dare Craig tell me i can’t be leading a fulfilling life as an atheist? He was first saying that we can’t be judgmental and then he says this? A typical christian hypocrisy lol!

[@ProfYaffle]

Dawkins' snide comments is all I remember. I stopped listening. How can I respect his opinion? Sadly I missed Alex taking Dawkins apart subtley

[@Mr.Goodkat]

Dawkins takes himself apart, Alex just points out that he's done so, that's frequently what happens in discussions with Dawkins, it's always Dawkins exposing Dawkins.

[@jaredmatthews1561]

Next time, it could be great to play clips from the actual discussion before reacting to it, but otherwise, great conversation!

[@jasongillis1336]

At approximately 27:30, Dr. Craig and Licona go into the problem of consciousness. Could this be one of the biggest challenges to atheism, and one of the strongest evidences for theism? What are the strongest arguments against substance dualism and the mind, and or soul? Incredible discussion! Thank you guys, God bless you both🙏🏻

[@KaijuOfTheOpera]

Consciousness is not a challenge at all for an Atheist actually. You should see the tests that have been done on brains. It all has to do with the brain. Souls dont exist and personalities can change in an instant. Some people get hit in the head, take the wrong thing and so on. You are no longer the same person. Consciousness is this temporary thing that is subject to change at any moment if you dont protect your brain. Funny enough, this is actually proof against theism and the existence of a soul.

[@danhiebert9478]

Paul Copan has addressed the so-called repugnant passages in the Bible (see "Is God A Moral Monster" and is Is God A Vindictive Bully")

[@theautodidacticlayman]

34:56 It’s also possible that, being a psychologist, Jordan Peterson is being cautious because he knows he could influence many people to accept theism simply based on his authority rather than on the data itself-a real change of mind and heart. So he could be trying to prevent a surge of superficial believers by keeping his beliefs to himself.

[@Mr.Goodkat]

He isn't cautious when it comes to condoning things which will indeed lead to horrid outcomes when it is against defenceless children as in his book 12 rules for life, he condones violence against them, he is a misopedist and his misopedy is so strong it overrides any caution he might have about green lighting that, he's hasty when it comes to that. Having a bunch of superficial believers wouldn't really be any different than most believers and it's certainly a step closer to a deep believer than a non-believer.

[@DemonCrusher7]

Dr. Licona, I am curious on both your view and Dr. Craig regarding Dr. Michael Heisers books and other work regarding the unseen realm (book and documentary) and passages like the Genesis 6 event etc. and it's relation to the objections Dawkins and others propose regarding the Canaanites and other similar instances in OT

[@bigol7169]

Aside from the wholly political nature of Ayaan's conversion, I would advise any Christian to not get too excited about her (at least) third faith conversion... the same way I'd advise a friend to not get too excited at the prospect of a long term relationship with a promiscuous woman. Conversions of faith are unbelievably taxing; they're literally a change in _worldview_ . Such a change seems to be benal to Ayaan.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

She's been on a wild and terrifying journey and adventure. She isn't merely ideologically promiscuous. Don't be so quick to deny

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Ps. I was YEC for a long time. And I had a legit period of agnosticism. Now I feel confident in classical theism (with all due respect to a Josh Rasmussen style of neoclassical theism given overlaps). I've changed my mind on eternal conscious torment. Etc I'm not "promiscuous." I've thought deeply . I've wrestled. I've struggled. And, yes, my views have changed. Imagine being a refugee escaping Muslim extremists. Yah, new atheists would be a blessing. After having a chance to breathe and rest, it makes sense to THEN wonder about Christianity-- especially if one has had genuine divine experience...

[@meyerius]

I like Dr Craig’s take on her conversion a lot better than yours.

[@danielferguson3784]

The argument about intelligent design in the Universe is not the same as that for belief in a God, & particularly for any version of the Biblical God. The God of the Old testament is a typical tribal Deity of the Hebrew people in their struggles to survive in hostile times. This has little to do with the later 'loving' Christian God of the New Testament. To grant that some events in the scriptures may be historically true does make the whole corpus true, nor does seeing falsehoods in the same mean it is all lies. Death may well be oblivion, for it seems to me that Christ was more concerned with how people conducted themselves in the present life than in any 'afterlife' for his resurrection was physical not supernatural. Let the dead bury the dead, he said. God's Kingdom was to be found on Earth through people living by his precepts. Death was not to be feared, it might even be embraced in a just cause. Religion is caused by curiosity about life, death, & all the mysteries around us, & attempts to understand & explain these. All attempts are insufficient, but to Mock these as Dawkins does is just not good enough. One still has to explain the idea of the 'self' which feels distinct from the physical. Even a dog has feelings, & many animals show empathy, even altruism on occasion, sometimes to species other than their own. Evil is not a person it is an attitude. God is the soul of the Universe, of which all living things are a part.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@danielferguson3784 I prefer broader scholastic style teleological arguments over fine tuning and bio ID. But fine tuning isn't totally irrelevant either, IMO (even if it fails to establish classical theism in the end)

[@iknowyourerightbut4986]

Private Eye is a left-leaning political satire magazine. It is not a magazine for sleuths!

[@22julip]

I was waiting to hear Dr Craig respond to Dawkins insults and misinformation, but you didn’t have any clips of Dawkins for Bill to respond to , and you talked as much as your guest . I wanted him to respond. I’ve heard Sam Harris and others say vile things about believers that should be brought to the public’s attention. Not to ridicule the man , but to show their true intentions. Thank you and God bless ,

[@samdg1234]

I was disappointed to see that Alex found it necessary to laugh at Dawkins's ridiculous sneering at Craig. Dawkins said at ~40;50 of that video, "I have no time for him. I mean he's got this sort of loud rather pompous voice and he says, premise one, deduction two, and things like that and and the audience I suppose is supposed to be impressed." Well, yes, the audience should take note of true premises and valid deductions. At that moment, Alex, if he'd been in a mood of sincerity, would have referenced his engagement with Craig on the Kalam. Alex, expecting to take Craig down a notch or two on the Kalam with its syllogism, unloaded everything he had at Craig on the Kalam. Alex had nothing left and was required to smirk at Craig's concluding compliment to him that what Alex had done was to reveal the intellectual price tag of atheism. To Alex's credit, he thereafter made a video titled, "COSMIC SKEPTIC DEBUNKED". I would have been much less pandering if Alex had challenged Dawkins on his sneer, that *"premise one, deduction two"* is the speech of actual logicians, and if Dawkins wants to eschew logic, he should do so in straightforward speech and that Alex would not be following him on that path.

[@matthewm7590]

@@samdg1234yeah that criticism seems valid

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@samdg1234 If Craig finds real evidence one day then maybe he will no longer need his highly speculative arguments with questionable premises.😂

[@samdg1234]

@@ramigilneas9274 I'm convinced you have no idea what even you mean by that comment. If I'm wrong, define what you mean by evidence.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@samdg1234 Oh no… another Theist who doesn’t know the definition of evidence. Claims aren’t evidence. Questions aren’t evidence. Arguments aren’t evidence… especially not philosophical arguments that most philosophers disagree with.😂

[@RowanAldridge]

One minor note - as far as I know Alex's "Cosmic Skeptic" moniker was not intended as a label to describe his views, but rather just a catchy-sounding KZbin name. Obviously the skeptic part did represent his views, but I think the cosmic part was just intended to be a cool-sounding add-on which didn't really mean anything (similar to other "skeptic" KZbinrs, such as Genetically Modified Skeptic).

[@deschain1910]

I don't think Peterson is being intentionally evasive, but rather he's wrestling with these things in his own mind. I think that evasiveness is a genuine peak into his thoughts on the issue and the internal conflict and discomfort he feels surrounding the topic.

[@jobinkoshy8197]

Mike, where can i find the 36 debates, i have watched all your debates on youtube but it wasnt more than 15 or 20

[@patrickbarnes9874]

44:00 The implication is that it is worse to call for the death of a woman than a man. Why is that? Why is God's judgment on the Canaanites worse because it included women? The standard explanation for this part of scripture is that God was judging the Canaanites because they practiced child sacrifice. The women were full participants in that crime, so why shouldn't they also suffer the consequences of it?

[@KaijuOfTheOpera]

I find it fascinating that Christians want to pretend that the Canaanites were these evil people who practiced child sacrifice. We will ignore that the Jewish people were Canaanites for a moment. Is it not weird that Christians say that the Canaanites practiced child sacrifice when Christianities entire religion is child sacrifice? Think about it for a moment, Christians believe God sacrificed his child( child sacrifice) to save them. So why play the moral card that child sacrifice is wrong when your religion is based off of that? Christians even go further by symbolically drinking the blood and eating the flesh of this sacrificed child of God. Its really weird to me how Christians react to the Canaanites.

[@NightShade671]

It's shocking that Evangelicals don't seem to care about Craig's heresies, such as Apollinarism, his rejection of Nicene Orthodoxy, his comparing the Holy Trinity with the three headed dog Ceberus, and his false teaching and dating of Adam and Eve

[@lepidoptera9337]

Adam and Eve are happening every day. You are Adam and Eve. You were once in Eden, you did meet the snake and you did eat the fruit... just not enough of it. ;-)

[@dt.m4675]

@ 31:48....to be consistent though, if one does hold the belief that everything (then / therefore anything) can come from nothing, then why not self or consciousness come from nothing also... I think if you already accept that anything can just happen that needs to happen to get to where we currently are to observe, then it seems consistent to apply that to anything. Seems a bit odd to me that if one does accept everything ultimately coming from nothing, then finding difficulties with certain things existing...you could just posit those also come from nothing.

[@TheHayKitty]

Have you gentlemen watched the Exodus biblical studies with Jordan Peterson from the Daily Wire? In my humble opinion, I do not think Dr. Peterson is evasive; rather, I think he is in quest for Truth.

[@CMVMic]

If God does not exist, then one should live a hedonistic lifestyle? Non-sequitur! By all means, go have fun if you want. There is no objective right or wrong.

[@bike4aday]

The main takeaway for me on this point was that the way to end suffering is the same on a fundamental level whether God is part of the interpretation or not. To get to the top of the mountain, you can take the dirt path or scale the rocky cliff, but both are fundamentally the same - the direction is up. Stopping half way to fight over which path is true or right is a distraction from the goal which is to go up. Likewise, regardless of which path you choose, if you go horizontally, you're still not going up. No matter what you believe or what your background is, if the goal is to end suffering, then the first step is to learn what "up" is and if you can figure that out then the details don't matter. TL,DR; Whether "God" means anything to a person or not, hedonism won't save them from suffering.

[@wet-read]

The idea that if God doesn't exist, all things are permitted is ridiculous. Consequences for actions can and do still exist, and negative consequences for certain things are often not the only reason not to engage in them. Christians bring up guys like Stalin all the time, but Stalin, as a documentary I watched showed, was quite miserable, as he constantly had to worry about being assassinated. It's like that saying "The bigger they are, the harder they fall". There doesn't need to be some ultimate authority to smack us down.

[@CMVMic]

@@bike4aday sure, but it depends on what the goal is and humans decide what the goal is, there is no objective goal. Matter will still exist regardless of what form it takes or how it behaves

[@lovingdevotions]

for those who dont have 1hr 3/4 does anyone have a time link to when W L Craig responds to the accusation of "premise 1 deduction 2" etc...

[@johncook19]

I remember well a discussion between William Lane Craig and anterviewer talking about Dawkins and Archbishop Pell in which William accused Richard Dawkins of being unkind to Archbishop Pell by the questions he was putting to Pell at the debate. William Lane Craig forgot to mention that it was the Debates organiser that asked these unkind question of Pell and not Richard Dawkins. William never apologised for his error which one would expect from a wonderful Christian like the great and good William Lane Craig. C'est la vie William or so it seems.

[@meyerius]

Maybe Dr Craig was mistaken? Maybe it’s not that significant? Dawkins has certainly said many unkind things about Christianity in general and certain specific Christians, like Dr Craig himself.

[@utopiabuster]

Yeah, sure, that happened! No, it didn't! Dawkins was obviously unkind to Pell.

[@jeffscottkennedy]

A question I’ve always wondered with Plantinga’s brilliant argument from naturalism is: Why can’t the production of true beliefs be part of our survival extinct? In other words, why think that the development of both religious beliefs (which on atheism only have a kind utility for survival) and true scientific beliefs (beliefs that comport with reality) are both evolved to aid in survival? I can see them arguing that we developed beliefs about the sun rising and setting (technically a false belief) but ancient farmers relied upon their experience of it to gauge seasons for sowing and reaping. Likewise, we developed true beliefs to aid in survival. Somebody help me out here.

[@zunayedahmed]

Yes, the production of true beliefs is part of survival as well as false beliefs. But the problem is that the belief formation is a result of survivability and not the truth. As a result, we are not in any 'apriori' position of determinig which of of our beliefs is true, which undermines the belief in naturalism in conjunction with evolution. That's the heart of Plantinga's argument. By no means, Plantinga tried to prove that all our beliefs are false.

[@jeffscottkennedy]

@@zunayedahmed got it thanks.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@zunayedahmed Well… humans are deeply irrational. That’s why it took us thousands of years to develop tools like the scientific method to reduce our biases and naïve intuitions.

[@gingrai00]

I love WLC! Listening to him comment on Dawkins laundry list of excuses for not engaging WLC in debate was so fun! It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find out that it pleased God to bring about such an improbable article as the one WLC mentioned in the PI magazine knowing that WLC would find it and cite it in a conversation like this one😂

[@istvannagy7946]

It’s absolutely mind-boggling how one man can be so smart and deluded at the same time…

[@samdg1234]

Interesting comment. Applauding him for his smartness would indicate he just might be smarter than you. And yet, somehow, you've acquired the capability to assess him as deluded. Maybe I'll depend on another assessment. Christopher Hitchens maybe.

[@istvannagy7946]

@@samdg1234 I know, it’s funny how the universe works, with all the paradoxes and contradictions…but hey, logic does, after all, state that Two statements can be true simultaneously 🤷🏿‍♂️Nomatter how he slices-dices and bends it,ultimately all he can produce is circular logic ….he assumes that the necessary cause is god-what,why,how???

[@fernandoformeloza4107]

Dawkins doesn't want to debate dr. Craig? Hey, he knows his limitations, and Dawkins doesn't want to be embarrassed. A 4 horseman of atheism? Not by the way he evades Craig

[@vladtheemailer3223]

There is no point to them debating. It would resolve nothing.

[@MSA-uj7cp]

@@vladtheemailer3223 It would resolve the question that Dawkins is out of his depth.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

@MSA-uj7cp Dawkins is not an expert at debate. You want it to happen so that a meanie gets put in his place and so you can feel better about your beliefs. Is there anything real that would be resolved? I'm talking about something that actually matters.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@MSA-uj7cp Craig has nothing to offer that hasn’t been refuted a million times. But maybe they could debate Craigs ridiculous views about the historical Adam and Eve and Dawkins could educate him about why none of that is possible.

[@praxitelispraxitelous7061]

RD always uses Darwinism as a stick to stab belief in God and at the same time refuses to debate folks like Michael Behe. It seems quite pathetic to my eyes

[@samdg1234]

Has Dawkins refused to debate Behe too?

[@praxitelispraxitelous7061]

Yep. For example on the premier radio when Dawkins was called to a debate on Darwin's Black Box. He said that he didn't want to give Behe the oxygen of publicity he needed. Keith Fox went to the debate instead. Dawkins has even refused to debate the lawyer (!) Phillip Johnson on Darwinism. To be fair, I don't think there is many notable Darwinists willing to debate ID folks anymore.

[@samdg1234]

@@praxitelispraxitelous7061 Have you heard of Joshua Swamidass. He’s a Christian who doesn’t agree with ID. He debated Behe. I’ve listened to it more than once and still can’t figure out what he disagrees with him on.

[@praxitelispraxitelous7061]

@@samdg1234 Yes, I have watched the debate. As far as I remember I did not hear any positive arguments from him. But at least he appeared in the debate

[@samdg1234]

@@praxitelispraxitelous7061 But you've got to admit that Dawkins pretty much destroyed Craig with his, "His voice is pompous sounding," Now that is some scientific rigor, is it not? Alex, having had to pull his punches, was left to deliver a blow I don't even think Dawkins knows was delivered. At the end of Dawkins's vacuous rant, Alex said, "In the interest of diplomacy, I will offer no further comment except that that's certainly not my experience with the man." And Dawkins expects to woo Ayaan back to the atheist camp with such tripe?

[@tedgrant2]

We all need a Willy

[@anthonyearly2455]

I'm with James Randi on Consciousness. I'm not convinced it's real. All animals react to stimuli. Humans just think we've got something special.

[@supersmart671]

I believe in Christ. The area that struggle with is, why is my situation is not changing?

[@anaccount8474]

You believe in an invisible magic being who's his own son and you're wondering why your situation is not changing?

[@mynameis......23]

9:30~

[@daneumurian5466]

Re: 55:00 ff.: I humbly submit that a bit of sarcasm is not out of line if the opponent's premises or arguments are absurd. Consider our Lord's talk about swallowing a camel or putting it through the eye of a needle. Hence my song "Thank God I'm an Atheist, That I know that no one knows it all...." Pm me for more.

[@curious_thinker]

Dawkins has debated a philosopher. Richard Swinburne

[@Wondermass]

00:57 'woodshed'!

[@Greyz174]

Mike Licona is such a good egg

[@marinusswanepoel1825]

32:30 Pan-psychism does not remove the need for a first mind since it still fails to bridge the gap between non matter and matter. All it does is explain why creation would respond to the voice of its creator. I actually have way less of a problem with pan-psychism than with naturalism.

[@truthgiver8286]

Low Bar Bill the bible itself is all the proof we need for the bible being true.

[@naomicolton8749]

Euthanasia is indeed a merciful act, condolence to you and your family. Richard Dawkins has debated the subject of death many times on umpteen KZbin channels.

[@jyothibasuchodavarapu5789]

Can I get William Lane Craig KZbin channel please I am following this channel I want to follow Craig also please anyone send me

[@User58747]

It would be nice to have the opportunity to reject an hedonistic lifestyle!! 😥

[@Ksvtjhyb7]

He is dishonest. Dawkins summed her up correctly.

[@samdg1234]

Can someone point me toward where I can find Dawkins saying something like, "Our understanding of the origin of life has not advanced essentially since the time of Charles Darwin."? see Craig at ~22;35

[@ramigilneas9274]

He is probably just parroting James Tour… and I doubt that any OOL researcher remembers talking with Billy and telling him that they have no clue how life started.

[@samdg1234]

@@ramigilneas9274 You say, *"He is probably just parroting James Tour… "* And are you aware of something that Jim Tour said that is incorrect? You said, *"and I doubt that any OOL researcher remembers talking with Billy and telling him that they have no clue how life started."* But did anyone say that any OOL researcher talked to Billy about this? Are you the same clapping seal that I challenged just a short while ago to define the word "evidence" immediately after you used the word "evidence" and you declined to do so? I don't doubt that Dawkins may have said what Craig credits him as saying, but nevertheless, the possibility exists that he did not. That's why I asked for help in locating the quote. You sound like you might be a subscriber to Duffus-or Dave's "thinking".

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@samdg1234 Oh no… so you are a creationist… no wonder that you are clueless about the definition of evidence. Low Bar Bill claimed in THIS video that OOL researchers have no idea how life started. So he probably only talked with Low Bar Jim… and Billy simply doesn’t know that Jimmy has no qualifications whatsoever to say nonsense like that and that all experts disagree with him and don’t take Jimmy seriously.😂

[@samdg1234]

@@ramigilneas9274 So, in summary, you don't know how to read a comment. You don't know how to listen to a video. You don't know how to define words you yourself incoherently use. You've contributed to about the most useless interaction I've yet had on KZbin. And that's saying a lot. But not all is a loss. Take heart, you've at least given an exhaustive list of the things Jim Tour is wrong about. Good on that one at least.

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@samdg1234 So... are you a science denier like Jimmy? Do you disagree with the academic consensus of the experts that Evolution is a proven scientific fact? You can try to sound smart... but your answer will tell me more about you than anything else you might say.😉

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

Notice the lack of respect given to Doctor Dawkins. Yet the man who is steeped in supernatural myth and fable is given the respect of being called a doctor. Same thing happened when this doctor of myth and fable was asked to comment on dr Carl Sagans thoughts on gods. The host couldn't bring himself To give Carl's education the respect he gives Bill's.

[@samdg1234]

And yet, if I'm not mistaken, nowhere do either of these guys deliver the devasting grade school takedown delivered by *DOCTOR* Dawkins that Craig sounds pompous. Wow. Thank you *DOCTOR* Dawkins for demonstrating some of the side benefits of your doctorate.

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

@@samdg1234 I cutDawkins a break it's gotta be frustrating arguing with so many supernatural fan fictionalists

[@samdg1234]

@@RobertSmith-gx3mi You say, *"I cutDawkins a break"* What a surprise! But I imagine you are as cowardly as Dawkins himself. Most atheists are. However, not all. Here is Michael Ruse, "Second, unlike the new atheists, I take scholarship seriously. I have written that The God Delusion made me ashamed to be an atheist and I meant it." Must suck to have to live in your wish-fulfillment imaginary land.

[@Reclaimer77]

@@samdg1234 Craig is pompous because he talks to us like we're idiots. As if he can just use philosophical terms and fallacies and thought-exercises to magic up a real living god. Making bold declarations that this must be and that must be, and you must agree - etc etc. All without providing any evidence at all because he full well knows none exists.

[@Reclaimer77]

@@samdg1234 It would have been easier for me to charge a whole platoon of enemies in a battle, than having to tell my whole family I'm an atheist. While suffering their obvious disappointment, their harsh words, and judgements. Hearing that from people I've loved my whole life while standing my ground, was and will be the hardest thing I've ever experienced in my whole life. I'm quite sure millions of atheists feel the same way. Cowardly?? You have no clue what courage even is. Little lamb following the herd.

[@sambarbasa1643]

What do you think those powerful atheist like Matt Dillahunty and Aron Ra who loves to curse in there show to Jesus who they call a liar. Pls debunk these guys.

[@oscargr_]

What is the opposite of poisoning the well？

[@bubbillionaire2423]

Fluoridizing the spring?

[@oscargr_]

@@bubbillionaire2423 😁

[@charitysimon-peraboh5555]

❤❤❤❤❤

[@majm4606]

To me Dawkins _did_ address that by saying, _"I care about what's true."_ And in response we hear the stark silence of theists, who are unable to provide reasonable evidence of a god (so they lack a good reason to believe it's true). In response we see theists focus on the hope that the idea provides, _the same hope a fake cancer cure can also provide._ That should be eye-opening, that theists focus on something (hope) that doesn't reliably indicate truth. A thing (hope) that's consistently been exploited throughout human history to scam others into believing bad ideas on bad evidence. As for hedonism? * well what's typically meant by hedonism involves extreme pleasure-seeking, but I'm just optimizing for well-being (by avoiding belief in an apparent falsehood) * but if you only mean pursuing well-being by "hedonism" then ironically _everyone's_ doing that! * after all, theists choose to believe in their idea because they believe it will result in things like a better civilization or eternal life. That's well-being. That's pleasure-seeking. Hedonism, if we use that term a bit generously. * it just seems like they don't have a good reason to believe that their strategy for seeking well-being is actually a good one. (They don't have evidence of a god, and we don't need a god in order to enjoy a life full of well-being in this life (the one life we know we get).)

[@timfallon8226]

Dr Craig is one of the best apologist Christianity has ever had. This may explain why Christianity is in such a steep decline.

[@jesterlead]

Complex life didn't exist here 700M years ago nor will it be here in 1B years (Earth will be a smokin' hot ball). That's not fine tuned, that's fortunate timing. Cheers.

[@trinitymatrix9719]

isnt perfectly timed destruction finetuning?

[@jesterlead]

@@trinitymatrix9719 Not if we aren't on the planet. :) The planet is toast, doesn't mean we can't figure out a plan B.

[@trinitymatrix9719]

lool, sure bro. "amazing" answer😂😂😂😂 @@jesterlead

[@TheIMD09]

Reality and the natural world need to be set aside for God ? We demand evidence for Dawkins and demand you disprove our claims which have no evidence. #Grifters

[@Ksvtjhyb7]

Presumptuous he ought look in the mirror. Dawkins has WLC summed up right too

[@les2997]

Darwin success LOL. Over 160 years after Darwin’s book was first published, and still no one knows how to test the claims he made. "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find no such case." What kind of logic is this? Science can never prove that something is impossible. This is a total misunderstanding of science and logic.

[@misscameroon8062]

of course ,you`ll tell us,i`m sure,NOT!

[@hillstrong715]

​@@misscameroon8062It is clear from your comment that any science education you may have received wasn't worth your time during that education. The only kinds of things that science could prove is the falseness of some hypothesis or theory. It cannot prove anything true as we don't know all of the relevant data.

[@ikemiracle4841]

At 58:02 I thought i was the only one that noticed 😅 And not to sound rude, i think Dawkins has gotten too old for these debates

[@MSA-uj7cp]

He is too old now.... but he has been avoiding WLC for many years now....

[@johncook19]

Why does William Lane Craig refuse to dabate Matt Dillhanty? Is it that Matt is not a good enough scholar?

[@jeremyluce4354]

Do not throw pearls before swine

[@narendrasomawat5978]

Matt is clown. Andrew beat him

[@theautodidacticlayman]

Matt is a scholar?? 😳

[@ramigilneas9274]

@@narendrasomawat5978 Andrew conceded the debate and was too afraid to defend Christianity against an Endboss like Matt.😂

[@CMVMic]

I can prove abiogenesis is true and biogenesis is false. Anyone wants to hear it?

[@theautodidacticlayman]

ALL EARS!!

[@CMVMic]

@@theautodidacticlayman P1. Life is dynamic P2. If life is dynamic, then life is not static. P3. If the initial state of existence is static, then life must comes from a static state. P4. The initial state of existence is static because change cannot regress infinitely; otherwise, there would be no present experience of change. P5. Life must come from non-life, which is the initial static state of existence. P1. Life as a Behaviour is observed P2. Observations are changes P3. An infinite regress is metaphysically impossible. P4. Change cannot be an infinite regress P5. All change must have a cause that is changeless P6. Anything that is changeless is static P7. That which is static qualifies as non-life since it cannot qualify as a behaviour Conclusion. Therefore, life comes from non-life!

[@theautodidacticlayman]

@@CMVMic By static, do you mean a state of absolute motionlessness, such as absolute zero?

[@CMVMic]

@@theautodidacticlayman Yes, a state prior to the first instance of change

[@theautodidacticlayman]

@@CMVMic Are you aware of the science around absolute zero and how it’s mathematically impossible? Also, I have a few counter-arguments: The “What Moved” Argument: P1) There is a state in which every and all objects are absolutely motionless. P2) None of those objects have a mind or a will. P3) None of those objects can begin to move on their own. C) There could never be motion following from those initial conditions. The Mass-Energy Equivalence Argument: P1) If an object has zero energy, it has zero mass. P2) If an object has zero mass, it has zero physical existence. P3) An absolutely motionless state has zero energy, so it has zero mass. C) Therefore, an absolutely motionless state has zero physical existence.

[@mbrum3230]

Craig a grifter that no one should respect. Think more.

[@samdg1234]

Thanks for your opinion, but I think I'll depend more on Hitchens's opinion of Craig.

[@mbrum3230]

​@@samdg1234 hitch hated these guys so ok

[@samdg1234]

@@mbrum3230 Hardly.

[@samdg1234]

Craig causes his haters to go off ranting without knowing what they are even on about and resorting to the most pathetic grade-school yard name-calling. Seriously? The height of Dawkins’s criticism is “He has a pompous voice.” Could he become more vacuous?

[@userx6679]

Alex is a cool kid, Dawkins is a little bit of an ass. Maybe it's the British accent or just his attitude towards Christianity. As for Christianity well a good chunk of theists don't even know the history of the God you worship. Warrior storm god and all. There's certain people who William won't debate because he'll get demolished by real facts that he can't dispute as we actually have evidence to show. Written evidence. Go read Dr robin faith Walsh's books for starters. As for Williams argument about life on other planets, it might not be intelligent life but I'm sure there's life out there. Currently NASA is pointing to a moon in our solar system. Under ice ocean with twice the amount of water we have here on earth. They are getting ready to send a couple things there to investigate it.

[@michaelpudney]

I'm an atheist and don't believe in anything but I practice meditation which gives me great spiritual benefits in that I feel more connected and have deeper insights into life which makes me really appreciated it... In short I get all the benefits of 'spirituality without the silly beliefs or the gobbledegook and exploitation that standard religions offer. I appreciate the specialness of life and how precious it is, I know there is no God and that the universe doesn't care about me personally ...don't you see how that makes us so special wonderful and unique so we aught to look after each other because of this. I'm atheist but that does mean I'm hedonistic or despairing. There is no purpose in life and that is WONDERFUL. My meditation consists of me just sitting quietly for 1 to 2 hours each day, no beliefs or faith necessary.

[@justaguy328]

If there's no God then it doesn't matter what you do at all. There is no "spiritual benefits" to be had because there is no spirit. You're not connecting to anything deeper, because there is nothing deeper to connect to. You are no more special than a tick or an ant. You're just an accident. Nothing you do ultimately matters. There is absolutely no reason to look after each other. If you decide to look after others, and Hitler decides to kill millions of Jews, it matters not. There is absolutely no purpose to your life if there is no God. There is no "right" way to live life, so there is no way to condemn the people that don't take care of others. If somebody decides to rape and pillage, who are you to denounce their actions? All this talk of spiritual benefits and connecting to something deeper is the exact type of gobbledygook that you are accusing religious people of believing in. You can't smuggle in that stuff to a worldview that doesn't allow for that. You also seem to have a very childish, caricatured understanding of religion. I would also be more humble in your pronouncements about that vast majority of humanity are idiots for believing "gobbledygook", but Michael Pudney, somehow has the key to reality. It's important to remember, you hold a very fringe worldview for humanity. The vast majority of across time and across cultures knows there is a God, and God will continue to exist whether Micheal Pudney believes in him or not. I would recommend to lose the pride and take the issue seriously because it's clear you haven't genuinely looked into this.

[@UniteAgainstEvil]

I'm sorry.

[@KaijuOfTheOpera]

​@@justaguy328 If there is no god it doesn't matter what you do? This literally doesnt make any sense because people live their lives every day with out God, doing things that matter. It wasnt God that almost eradicated Polio. Go on, go look at those pictures of children with Polio. Know whats interesting? It is religious people who arnt getting the vaccine and letting their kids suffer... Want to prove to me that if there is no God nothing matters? Send me all of your things and show me how your God takes care of you. Wait? Your not going to? Because God doesnt exst and the things that do exist matter. Because when you get rid of those, your God isnt doing anything for you. Why? Because God doesnt matter. It took me a paragraph to show how bad your argument is. It took me a sentence to show you have no idea what your talking about. We are no greater then ants and ticks. We exist with them and will fade into nothing with them. Like 99.9% of species that has existed before us. Dont lie and make things up like there's no purpose with out God. You try and say someone has a childish understanding of religion after everything you just said? You cant prove God exists and then you have the audacity to say nothing matters with out your made up being? You know nothing about your religion and want to pretend that you do? You require a made up being to see that things matter subjectively to people? Theres something wrong with you, not an atheist.

[@michaelpudney]

@@UniteAgainstEvil I'm sorry that you can't see morality comes from perceiving how unique and special we all are and not from some imagined deity.

[@meyerius]

“Spiritual benefits”? What is this spirit you speak of? And sitting quietly is not meditation.

[@Wondermass]

Minor point but Private Eye is political satire, not a detective magazine.

[@anthonyearly2455]

I'm with James Randi on Consciousness. I'm not convinced it's real. All animals react to stimuli. Humans just think we've got something special.

[@charlescarter2072]

Love WLC

[@saraneufeld4582]

You don't choose to not believe in god so you can live a hedonistic lifestyle. You're either convinced there is a god, or you're not. How you choose to live your life after that is independent. I can't force myself to believe something I'm not convinced is true. It's amazing how religious people do not understand this concept.

[@TheGuy..]

You're missing the other use of the word believe. When I say I believe in my wife, that means I have reasons to have trust and confidence in her. So when the Christian says they believe in Christ, that means they have trust and confidence in his promises. It's amazing how atheists constantly overlook and don't understand this, lol.

[@oscargr_]

​@@TheGuy..That's not the definition of "believe" Christians use, generally. You are using the fact there is another meaning as an excuse. If all Christianity was , was "trust and confidence", people like William Craig would be out of a job.

[@TheGuy..]

@@oscargr_ Christians are conflicted on many things. What really matters is, since we're talking about Christianity, is what is the Biblical meaning of "believe". It goes back to the original language. When reading the NT, both "believe" and "faith" are translated from one word, πίστις. When Paul and Silas said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus and be saved" (Acts 16:31), we see that word πίστευσον (same word but modified for correct grammar). Here, we see that usage that I was talking about. The guards already knew that Jesus existed. Now, they were telling them to place their trust and confidence in Him. Notice the guard now had "evidence" for having belief/faith in Christ...the hundreds of claims of the risen Christ, the missing body and the event freeing Paul and Silas, so it wasn't an unjustified "leap" of belief/faith. Sometime Christians are asked, "how am I supposed to believe in Jesus without seeing Him or God" and the Christian will answer "you just need to believe", meaning "place your trust and confidence without any evidence", and I would agree with you that this would be wrong. The Christian should provide sufficient reasons. The Christian faith/belief is to be rooted in evidence, in which there is plenty. So, back to my wife, I believe (or have faith, same word-meaning when using the Greek definitional usage) in her because of the evidence...the sufficient amount of time of her displaying her trust worthiness. This is what the typical non-believing atheist constantly don't understand. They try to ignore this definition as an excuse to trivialize the Christian belief/faith, or, maybe they've been conditioned to respond this way to Christians.

[@saraneufeld4582]

@@TheGuy.. do you disagree that we don’t choose our beliefs? I’m confused at your response.

[@TheGuy..]

@@saraneufeld4582 I agree with what you are saying. I see you saying that correctly. However, we can choose to not follow what we believe. For example, people, living at the time of Christ believed "that" Christ existed but they chose not to believe "in" Christ. They chose, for whatever their personal reasons, to not place their belief/faith in Him. Usually, they would prefer their own autonomy from any higher authority or they got a skewed message about Him. There were people back then that never laid eyes on Him, but because of all of their family and friends that they trusted who saw Him over a long period, they had a high degree of certainty, without knowing for sure, "believed" He existed yet did not place their belief (faith) "in" Him. Now, the other kind of faith/belief is dangerous. Believing in someone without good reason can lead someone to believing in things that are truly false, like Islam or Mormonism. This is the kind of belief some of my Christian friends try to tell unbelievers and when someone tries to believe that way, they wind up falling away from the faith... unless in the meanwhile they come across good reasons for remaining with that belief.

[@achristian11]

Praise Jesus Christ

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Dear Dr Craig, re 1:21:20, those people (on gender) are Tomas Bogardus, Kathleen Stock., etc

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

Less than 10min into this and turning it off. Typical WLC. "Well that's very judgmental to make a statement like that. We don't know a person's heart.' Jesus spent a whole chapter in Matthew teaching His followers how to know another's heart. In the same chapter He tells us that MOST self-professing Christians aren't. And then he says that he "simply takes her at her word and that when she says she believes for these reasons that she is sincere." That is indicative of one who believes that Belief is nothing more than an intellectual assent to a set of information provided. Which is NOT Faith. WLC may well be an outstanding philosopher and master debater. But he never seems to fail to show that his theology is sub par at best and severely lacking. Of course, he pretty well removed all doubt about that when he wrote his "The Historical Adam" essay claiming that Adam and Eve were the result of evolution from hominids.

[@ProfYaffle]

Did Jesus tell us we can know the heart of someone that we have never met? Craig was taking her at her word for the sake of argument. Why is that wrong? Who says faith isn't evidence based? You marry a spouse and put your faith in them because of their behaviour that you observed. You wouldn't marry someone just cos they give you a fuzzy feeling. It sounds like your faith us blind. Maybe you would benefit from applying some of your God given intelligence too. Or you might find yourself wedded to the wrong ideas.

[@justaguy328]

Dude come on, he says one thing you don't agree with, not even an important theological issue, just about a pop culture figure, and you just turn it off? You have to be more mature than that. Christians disagree about things all the time. You don't seem to be showing a lot of grace to a brother who has been defending the faith for decades. We are saved by what Jesus did, not whether we believe in an evolutionary aspect to adam and eve. I would recommend that you check your own heart before castigating a fellow brother who is trying to be charitable to a new professing Christian.

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

@@ProfYaffle //Did Jesus tell us we can know the heart of someone that we have never met?// Yes. //Craig was taking her at her word for the sake of argument. Why is that wrong?// How do you know that's why Craig was taking her at her word? You don't take him at his word? I did. Does that answer your quesion? //Who says faith isn't evidence based?// Not me. //You marry a spouse and put your faith in them because of their behaviour that you observed.// You wouldn't marry someone just cos they give you a fuzzy feeling.// People do that all the time. Your SINFUL faux-omniscience exercised from your high and lofty SINFUL self-built throne crafted out of your SINFUL self-imposed god-complex has failed you miserably. //It sounds like your faith us blind.// Get outta the Flesh and/or get saved and your hearing will improve,. //Maybe you would benefit from applying some of your God given intelligence too. Or you might find yourself wedded to the wrong ideas.// “Even a fool who keeps silent is considered wise; when he closes his lips, he is deemed intelligent.” (Pro. 17:28) "A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind." (Pro. 18:2) "A fool's mouth is his ruin, and his lips are a snare to his soul." (Pro. 18:7)

[@RoyceVanBlaricome]

@@justaguy328 - LOL The boy who hides behind a fake moniker starts off calling a 65yo man "dude" is gonna school me on maturity! LOLOLOLOLOL And what you call not an important theological issue doesn't make it so. Jesus certainly didn't think so given the amount of time he spent teaching the subject. Obviously you're so Biblically ignorant you didn't even pickup on the subject I spoke about NOR the Scriptures I alluded to. Otherwise you would KNOW there are plenty of folks who have defended the faith for decades and will get the shock of their Eternity when their turn comes to be at the front of the Matt. 7:21-23 line I was quite specific about why I turned it off and if you had half a brain and an ounce of discernment you might've picked up on the fact that I've seen WLC numerous times. My heart is just fine thank you very much. It was given to me by God. And at least my heart knows what a crock of hogwash it is to claim that God didn't create Adam & Eve as He said He did but rather picked them outta a long line of evolved hominids. I spose that's a unimportant theological issue to you too. NEWSFLASH for ya puppy. Just claiming to be a Christian don't make ya one. NOR does holding to Christian beliefs. Even Mike alluded to the fact that there are some who question whether she's ever been Born Again because of things she's said. Now get the GIANT Sequoia Tree outta your eye socket, get outta the Flesh, get saved if need be, and then go practice what you preach.

[@ProfYaffle]

@@RoyceVanBlaricome Lol! I see you think you know my heart. You are wrong. So the silent fool who you deem intelligent... do you know his heart? I really don't know what motivates you. I could make assumptions, but could easily be wrong. I shall leave that to between you and God. I can see that because evidence is unimportant to you, I shall keep quiet.