Ask William Lane Craig Anything! on Unbelievable?

Dr. Craig answers all sorts of questions from virtual audience members on the Unbelievable? podcast hosted by Justin Brierly and Ruth Jackson.
The questions range from Philosophy to Adam & Eve, Jesus, Suffering, and Bad Arguments for God.
Special thanks to Justin Brierly and Premier Unbelievable? for this interview.
/ @premierunbelievable
For more resources visit: www.reasonablefaith.org
We welcome your comments in the Reasonable Faith forums:
www.reasonablefaith.org/forums/
Be sure to also visit Reasonable Faith's other channel which contains short clips: / drcraigvideos
Follow Reasonable Faith On Twitter: / rfupdates
Like the Reasonable Faith Facebook Fan Page: / reasonablefaithorg

[@bornagaingg6223]

And I'd like to know how I go about to register myself for Equip? That sounds like something interesting that I'd like to do.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

You can register completely for free here: knowwhyyoubelieve.org/. - RF Admin

[@bornagaingg6223]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg thanks 🙏

[@NMLP92]

Dr. Craig’s debates were instrumental in my journey. I was called back to God just recently, and I have such respect and thankfulness to you Dr. Craig. The Kalam was a lever that lifted the heavy weight of my disbelief. It opened the door me being open to the moral and teleological argument. And i was encouraged to take a step to Jesus by your discussion with Cosmic Skeptic.

[@Jewonastick]

The Kalam is a horrible failed argument

[@NMLP92]

@@Jewonastick the two premises required are almost undeniable. I have yet to hear a solid argument against it. (1) everything that begins to exist has a cause (2) the universe began to exist. If both are true then the beginning of the universe had a cause. And what possible cause could it be? You might say, well the universe has always been here! To which I’d say, you’ve found the right KZbin channel to find an answer to these questions. He calls to us through music of the universe. The universe thrums a rhythm of “why, why, why”. The relentless churning of time asks a question of every conscious being. It says “what purpose have I”? There’s good arguments both ways. What I’ll say is that as a result of this is that it comes down to a decision. One side has meaning, hope, forgiveness and love versus 0. Without a God the universe ends in heat death and nothing you can do will matter. You assign arbitrary meaning to your life, yet there is this gigantic void. That void is your spiritual deprivation, and there’s only one way to fill that void.

[@Jewonastick]

@@NMLP92 the premises sound reasonable, that's not the problem. The problem is that theists use it to slide in their god like a well lubed dildo which isn't part of the Kalam. Saying that your god is eternal is special pleading and has no evidence to support that claim.

[@les2997]

@@Jewonastick The Kalam has never been refuted b/c infinite causal chain are likely not possible, and thus there was the first cause, which could not have had a natural origin.

[@Jewonastick]

@@les2997 The Kalam doesn't prove or disprove anything. We have no method to investigate anything outside of our observable reality so we don't have a fuqing clue what caused our universe to exist. That's it. Everything else is pure speculation. Just look at what you wrote yourself; "infinite casual chain are LIKELY not possible"...... So that makes eternal, immaterial beings that can make everything from nothing possible? Seriously? WLC believes that there is a god because he wants to believe in a god.... His own words! He'll use ANY argument as an excuse to slide in his god like a well lubed dildo.

[@bornagaingg6223]

God bless the man Lane Craig, he's done a wonderful work in the Lord and he's never moved by criticism or by the objections of the unbelievers. A true man of God.

[@user-rd5ye5jn9y]

William Lane Craig is on a category by himself. The goat of intellectual christianity. I hope he keeps with his stunning content that blesses so many people! 🙏🏻

[@jjevans1693]

Master of twisting facts into false premises to argue against. Word salad loser!!! Big fraud. Only people indoctrinated since birth or weak minded delusional people would believe his BS.

[@valkyrieloki1991]

Dr. Craig is a blessing.

[@gowanderlustwithme]

Can I say how much I love this man?! His influence while in seminary for me was profound - especially his debates. Now I’m pursuing Biola’s apologist certificate to continue to broaden my knowledge. Thank you Dr. Craig for your passion and your commitment.

[@davidmontoya6672]

It would be so cool to meet him. I love how he is incredible at debating but also emphasizes it is more important to have faith and a deep relationship with God not just an intellectual reasonable faith. He brought me back to Jesus from pantheism.

[@ronniemillsap]

God bless your new journey

[@MeatEatingVegan777]

This is beautiful! It's soo great to have Dr.Craig on the show. The man is such a blessing to Christianity! 💗

[@paulhaynes3688]

What do you have to say regarding the apparent approval of ownership and beating of slaves Exodus 21

[@dani4157]

​@@paulhaynes3688 Ask someone that would care to answer. Not some random in a comment section

[@MeatEatingVegan777]

@@paulhaynes3688 Hello there, Paul. So, I am a very new Christian, and am still learning the bible myself. It may be that someone who has been a Christian longer than me could answer this better. I'll give it a shot the best I can. To my understanding, a "servant" in this context is someone entering into an agreement to work for their debt collector. It was a choice made in order to pay off a debt. The master-servant relationship is a temporary means of payment for a debt, then they are to be let free. But the master in this relationship is not allowed to own or break his promise of releasing his "slave." Once the debt is paid off, the slave is free. The slave in this context is essentially someone that chose to work for his debt collector. Slavery? A different form, yes. The following are anti-slavery passages: "If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand them over to their master." Deuteronomy 23:15 This looks like it could possibly be for a debt payment type arrangement. I say that because the next chapter in Deuteronomy talks about a debt payment form of servitude. So, if a slave runs away, you are not supposed to give them to their master. I can only assume that's because you're inserting yourself in a situation where you were never meant to be. I'm unsure. “If a man is found stealing one of his brothers of the people of Israel, and if he treats him as a slave or sells him, then that thief shall die. So you shall purge the evil from your midst." Deuteronomy 24:7 Judging by the fact that someone was stolen away, this couldn't be a debt payment type arrangement. A debt payment type arrangement requires an agreement between the "master" and "slave." This could only be a situation where there was no agreement, and the term slavery here to me looks like an actual sinful ownership of a human being. "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper’s possession." Exodus 21:16 Once again, looks to me like modern day slavery. We are not to own another human being. I'd think that if God was for modern slavery, he would have also stopped Moses when he had freed his people from Egypt. And this doesnt seem to be servitude for the sake of paying off a debt. This is a race of people owning, and controlling Moses' people. ******Now, for the beating of slaves, that is something I do not agree with. I believe that that is cruel, but this law is no longer valid. Most old testament laws are not valid, but some carry over in a different way. Like, not wearing mixed materials. Symbolically, this law means to us now that we are not to blend in with others, be different from the world. Do not participate in the cultures and customs of others. Shellfish was deemed an abomination in the old testament, because it was seen as unclean to eat. But after Jesus, all food was considered clean, since he had fulfilled the law. This is why Jewish people only eat Kosher. There's food that isn't deemed clean for them to eat. They follow all the laws of the old testament. Christians believe that most old testament laws were done away with or fulfilled because of Jesus. We still keep the ten commandments, we obey what Jesus taught us, we must obey government, authority, and some of the laws we look to as a reminder to not be of the world, they're symbolic laws that in a sense still carry over. Example: Do not wear mixed material clothing essentially translates now to- do not mix with the world, try to keep yourself pure. Do not mix with the ways of the world. We keep the mixing of fabrics law symbolically. But, back to the slavery part.....If the debtor is to die from a beating, so does the master. If the debtor survives and recovers, then there's nothing. I'd believe that anyone who willingly harms anyone would face their judgement after their passing. If no justice is served in life, it will be served after death. This part is something I'd have to investigate further, admittedly. Below are some verses regarding beating.****** "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished,-but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property." Exodus, the verses regarding beating. 21:20, 21:21. I can understand how the bible looks pro-modern day slavery, but as with everything, I think it requires a little bit of investigation. Looks like debt slavery was a common practice. Maybe modern day slavery was too. Both cases, I don't really of. If these were the customs from back then, I wouldn't find them agreeable at all. Luckily, its not law. Abolitionists had even used the bible as their inspiration to free slaves. I believe if mainly has to do with how Moses freed his people from slavery. Now, I don't know or have an answer to everything, and there's things that even look abit weird to me.....for example, in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot tries to offer his virgin daughter to the townsfolk that wanted to "know" the angels that accompanied him. Lot isn't really a man of good morals, however. He was given protection because he was related to Abraham, from my understanding. But Lot was abit shifty himself to me. But, Abraham was the man that was blessed by God, not necessarily Lot. Anyhow, I'm still learning myself. I plan to to keep learning to my faith, and I enjoy doing so. I don't speak for all Christians with my answer. I'm just one christian trying to answer. I believe most Christians have no problem answering questions. As a matter of fact, I think Christians should be questioning things, learning, studying, and answering questions. Your faith shouldn't be just emotional. It also needs to be intellectual. Wanted to add this....the debt collector-debtor form of slavery is still not right. I am explaining the difference, but don't condone it. It's still owning someone, and having them give up their life for you, for a certain amount of time... still not agreeable.

[@jkpiii4513]

Really? He claimed man has existed 750,000 years ago. That turned me off immediately.

[@paulhaynes3688]

@@jkpiii4513 Really are you one of the deluded people who believe that the earth is no older than ten thousand years and man existed with dinosaurs

[@mtac99]

Great job

[@ryanm7915]

Thank you Dr. Craig, I treasure and immensely enjoy this resource, your ministry has been a great blessing to my life!

[@sandratagaban5541]

Watching from Alaska

[@planahath]

I always like listening to Dr. Craig. I might not agree with some of what he espouses, but it still fascinates me.

[@pepperachu]

Just found him in the last year and he's become my favorite apologist very quickly

[@TwoKrows]

It drives me crazy how little people understand about AI/ML. Justin’s questions reflect this. AI is optimized (through training) statistical reflections of the data set is is trained on (so human artifacts, nothing more) and anthropomorphised. AI will never, can never, discover purpose and meaning without first the gift of life and second the image of God, however well we create this technology in our own image. It is merely an image of our humanity we use as a mirror to trick ourselves into believing we are Gods.

[@CynHicks]

Some apparently don't understand the dangers/powers of predictive analysis nor the reality of Q processing and its connection with the "meta-world" aka meta-physics. You assume that all programming is as simple as "if a+b = c then output x." Some also make naive assumptions based on their naive understanding. The Beast will fool many...

[@TONyjustRoCks]

A jumbled up bunch of algorithms and equations based on existing data. A machine can never be conscious, no matter how good you calculate. Surprised Craig thinks it's even intellectually possible for a machine to become conscious.

[@dani4157]

​@@TONyjustRoCks Well it's not really his expertise so not surprised he thinks that maybe they will

[@TONyjustRoCks]

@Dani Yeah but to even consider the fact they could become conscious, is to consider humans could be just advanced machines. It should be an easy answer, unless you are a Christian who thinks God created advanced flesh robots on advanced software -- exactly what atheists think, minus the God part. We are more than machines. The "Me" is an actual person with awareness, not a collection of equations. Hence, when I die I still retain the "Me." Do robots do that?

[@dani4157]

@@TONyjustRoCks If robots can become conscious it says nothing about us. Cause we created the AI. We basically are advanced machines. Doesn't mean the machine could make itself

[@michaelnardini4934]

Well, this video confirms, I was born at just the right time.

[@InterestedInDansk]

William Lane Craig is the best Christian philosopher who can explain it in simple terms. I have seen so many so called scholars that have channels supported by hundreds of *sycophantic commentators* but WLC does not need such supporters.

[@linkbiff1054]

Dr. Craig, can you debate Dan Barker? I think that’ll be the best debate since Hitchens

[@musthurt2473]

Although I really, seriously and honestly don't have the time for religion in my life, I can recognize and value the effort and sincerity of Dr William Craig's work .. (I can't help but add, that I find your debate skills quite satisfying!)...

[@oscargr_]

Dripping of sarcasm.

[@musthurt2473]

@@oscargr_? No I'm not saying that... The fact that I don't have time for God, it doesn't mean He doesn't exist...

[@ethanrayment8157]

​@Must hurt Vanity Vanity all is Vanity. You put God off because you lack the time? God gives you everything you hold dear and to think it'll all burn up. And you'll suffer for eternity because you chose to be seperated from the only source of goodness, repent before its to late friend. Put your faith in the Lord Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

[@musthurt2473]

@@ethanrayment8157, mmmm, actually.... I think you are right...

[@michaell1425]

@@ethanrayment8157 you are disgusting if you think God will torment anyone forever.

[@jbsweeney1077]

would like to see craig and jonathan pageau have discussion.

[@davidrobinson5180]

I think Craig and N.T. Wright REALLY should talk through what Craig points out starting at 25:43. That would be such a fascinating discussion.

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

William Lane Craig would be welcome round our house for Christmas dinner any time.

[@gailpurcell1649]

I love question and answer formats! Years ago I was reading about the true definition of myth - a way for people to explain an observed fact or truth. The observed fact or truth may be true, but the explanation (myth) may or may not be true. I think that the Bible when it uses myth is that sense like Dr. Craig explains. When I understood that, it helped me understand other religions. What we observe is true but the Hindu or Muslim explanation about the truth may or may not be true.

[@I-Am-He]

The square that I often find hard to circle is the idea that we have freewill… and yet at the same time in Jeremiah 1:5 it explains that God knows us before we are born. How do we have freewill if our destination is already pre-planned by God? If he knows us before we are born then that means he designed us with either a win feature or lose feature, as believers or as nonbelievers. In essence why would God create beings with the concept of “whoever believes in me shall have everlasting life,” if the outcome is pre determined. There cannot be freewill if God is all knowing and knows our will. With that being said we as humans don’t have hindsight built in so we perceive there to be freewill… but for an all knowing God that has predestined our future… this could only be a game.

[@JustAPuffin]

I know this is old as can be, but one of the things Lane Craig is most knowm for is his belief in Molinism or the nature of God's omniscience in relation with counterfactual statements on the future and how that can reconcile free will and God's nature. You can watch his debate with Dr White if you're interested. Calvinists have their own take on free will, of course haha

[@ArielIsaac8111]

💙💙

[@lightinthedarkness316]

Wow his explanation that Adam and Eve were mortal , really caught me off guard. That they only died when expelled from the garden because they no long had access to the tree of life. Anyone else have comments on this?

[@lightinthedarkness316]

@@AwesomeWrench Thank you for your opinion. Neither of us KNOW exactly what is true here but I will trust Jesus and His belief that Adam and Eve were real.

[@growtocycle6992]

@@AwesomeWrench all genetic modelling and research link to at least one woman (mitochondrial DNA)... Eve is certainly not scientifically disproven

[@lightinthedarkness316]

@@AwesomeWrench You dont know that. You believe it. And if I had to guess you also hope it to be true.

[@uttamraj3786]

@@lightinthedarkness316 So, you believe that two people populate the whole earth?

[@thecloudtherapist]

​@@AwesomeWrenchYou've clearly not been reading up any articles and peer reviewed journals in this field. Josh Swamidas's book is very good in this area, as is WLC's book, but you'd (you know), need to read them first and not just spit out opinions.

[@melchisedecsomba8237]

Why on earth does Dr Craig look a lot like Elon Musk on the thumbnail?

[@oscargr_]

Wonder what would be the reason it's so difficult to "intellectually engage with their faith" ?

[@stephenszucs8439]

I think the woman means that the lessons will resonate with the person. The person does not resonate, one hopes. I might get shaky at a sudden loud noise, but I hope no piece of information would cause me to vibrate like a bell.

[@kevingridermissionair8020]

Get behind me Satan!!!!!🙏🙏🙏

[@paulhaynes3688]

Please explain Exodus 21. And does he really believe that man coexisted with dinosaurs

[@pepperachu]

Yes sometime described that sounds like a dinosaur can be found in the book of Job. What is it exactly your wondering about in Exodus 21?

[@paulhaynes3688]

@@pepperachu Think it’s most likely what is being described is either a Elephant, Hippo, or crocodile. Exodus 21 describes the owning and beating of slaves

[@Jewonastick]

@@paulhaynes3688 and how gawd thinks that's all okay!

[@paulhaynes3688]

@@Jewonastick l don’t seems to get many replies to the approval of owning slaves and it’s fine to beat them . Just does not seem very Christian to me or am l missing something

[@Jewonastick]

@@paulhaynes3688 no, you aren't missing anything. Well, apart from Christians willing to admit that their bible says things like that.

[@constructivecritique5191]

Should men hate women and themselves forgetting kicked out of paradise in the garden? Or should we just follow Jesus back to paradise?

[@EuropeanQoheleth]

37:40 On Protestantism all the non-Christians go to Hell. That is an enormous loss.

[@markadams3423]

Q1. Why are many of William’s views contradictory to the Bible? These issues are concerning God, which are of first importance. Q2. Why does William refer to actual Born Again believers as heretics? Those that believe the Doctrines of Grace are biblical is what I’m referring to.

[@AdamLeis]

... w-what?? 🤔 I don't follow..

[@traceyedson9652]

Re: Genesis - in Eastern Orthodox understanding, God walking in the garden would be seen as one of many, many occasions in which the Son, the Second Person of Yahweh, is appearing to a human. Our texts speak of His incarnation being “revealed,” since in His ascension He returns in His humanity to “heaven” - the realm of eternity, “timelessness,” if you will. So, that, while His incarnation occurs in the realm of time at a certain point on the continuum, it is a reality that has entered eternity, which is why in the Revelation the Lamb is “slain from the foundation of the world,” though it’s temporal occurrence is untold years after the creation (which itself is a present reality & not a past event). So, in our iconography it us the incarnate Word Who creates the cosmos. We’d still not read Gen 1-11 in a wooden literalistic manner as though it were modern history let alone “science.” Just food for thought.

[@AgonizedCandle]

33:30 Isn't the burden of proof on Christians to explain why God lets his children suffer? Whether the question is intellectual or emotional (isn't it both?), why do atheists have the burden of proof?

[@343jonny]

If the atheist is asserting that the existence of evil is incompatible with God, then the atheist has the burden of proof to show that the existence of evil is logically incompatible with an all-loving, all-powerful God. As long as it's possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting the evil and suffering in the world, this burden of proof is unsustainable by the atheist. Remember, it is the person making the claim that has the burden of proof. The Christian is not claiming that evil is incompatible with God's existence! - the atheist is! The only burden of proof the theist would have is to show that it's possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil and that's not a difficult one to sustain. The question is both, correct. But the emotional component is not an argument for God's non-existence as that would be an argument from emotion fallacy. Rather, it is only the intellectual argument that could purport to show that God does not exist, which it cannot, as most prominent atheists have conceded.

[@noahwatson4884]

Dr. Craig shows a major misunderstanding of Hebrew Bible literature!! -From the heart of a Christian leader who loves Dr. Craig, but is disappointed with [some of] his remarks: >Read carefully the following quote from Benjamin D. Sommer, professor of Bible and Ancient Semitic Languages at the Jewish Theological Seminary: >>"Th[e] difference between the Jewish model of divine embodiment and the Christian emphasis on incarnation nullifies, indeed overturns, an entire tradition of anti-Christian polemic within Judaism. The Maimonidean, of course, still has the right to reject Christianity's theological model; but many a modem Jew recognizes the extraordinarily strained nature of the hermeneutic through which Maimonides attempts to deny the corporeality of the biblical and rabbinic God. For such a Jew, Maimonides' rejection would also compel a rejection of most of the Written and Oral Torahs. It would entail, in other words, the creation of a new religion whose earliest sacred document would be found in the tenth century c.e. philosophical writings of Maimonides' predecessor, Saadia Gaon" (Sommer, The Bodies of God, p. 136) >>>>Keep this quotation in mind. Before continuing, let me say that I deeply respect Dr. Craig, and I am convinced that the Lord has used him tremendously in my life. The specific point, or points, with which I will take exception in this comment relate to Dr. Craig’s remarks from approximately minute 19:30-20:00. To be clear, my problem is not chiefly with his view, per se, of the historical Adam. Now, to the point… - If the Hebrew Bible, in general, and Genesis 1-11, in particular, are indeed the word of God, this would simply mean that this particular literary work has as it’s ultimate origin God Himself. What it would not mean is that this literary work is not also a literary work in and of itself. As literature, it must be approached on literary grounds. It must not be approached with a whole host of pre-determined assumptions - let’s say, philosophical assumptions - which must be then projected upon the text. In short, the Bible is more than a book, but it is not less than a book. In summary form, there a few major steps that must be taken when one approaches the Hebrew Bible’s narratives as theology. First, answer the question, what does this narrative mean taken in its literary context? Second, answer the question, is this actually true? Third, what, if any, are the further implications of this truthful narrative? Are these implications theological, and, if so, in what way(s)? It seems that Dr. Craig’s approach is backwards. He seems to have a predetermined set of propositions that must be true, and then he assesses what the literature must be saying, and therefore, what kind of literature it must be. This backwards approach is felt in a specifically poignant way as one considers his comments about Genesis 2-3. To wit, theologians have been in this awful habit of imposing their predetermined “higher meanings,” “morals,” and “ethical lessons” on the actual literature of the Bible. So, Doctor Craig is in “good company,” as it were, with his backwards methodical approach. Nevertheless, his statements evince a terrible sort of Biblical modernism when, in order to demonstrate the point that Gen. 1-11 is mytho-history, he asserts the apparent ridiculousness of taking the anthropomorphic language of Genesis 2-3 as it stands, or in his word, “literally.” As a note, I can hardly think of an adverb more deeply and pervasively misunderstood and abused than “literally,” but I digress. With this in mind, and as someone who does love and respect Dr. Craig, I am terribly disappointed with what seems to be his overall handling of the Hebrew Bible. As a scholar who seems careful not to speak outside of his specialty, I was surprised by the sort of 19th century German rationalist approach that he seemed to take when referencing the contents of the Hebrew Bible. Compare this approach to his immediate deference as it pertained to the AI question. I humbly suggest that Dr. Craig desperately needs to study up-to-date scholarship on the Hebrew Bible. Please note (again): my contention is not specifically aimed at the claim(s) that Dr. Craig makes about the historical Adam. I take issue, however, with this kind of methodological approach. More clearly, I assert that any approach to the Hebrew Bible which turns every plain reality into a symbol - a symbol the “real” meaning of which was waiting millennia for medieval and modern philosophers to be able to tell us - is an approach foreign to both the author(s) and intended audience(s) of the Hebrew Bible. In short, it is pure, modernistic conjecture. I say “modernistic” rather than “modern/modernist,” because, while this approach is not new in the world, it does commit the same kinds of errors that modernist movements usually make. Approaches like these tend to tell us a lot more about their authors and a lot less little about the texts they aim to “demystify.” More succinctly put, there is no evidence whatever that the ancient Israelites (or any other ANE culture for that matter) took their foundational stories to be non-literal symbolical etiological constructs that were somehow imbued with “greater meaning” from the unknowable Divinity. Let’s return to the example above about the anthropomorphism of Gen. 2-3 (and the entire Hebrew Bible, for that matter). To state as if it were a joke that God was “literally” walking in the garden is to evince a terrible ignorance of the body of Hebrew Bible and ANE literature. To the complete contrary, the burden of proof is on those who would try to declaim the Hebrew Bible’s anthropomorphism (see Sommers’ quote, above). Despite the best attempts of St. Thomas Aquinas (whom I love) and the “Rambam” - interesting as they may be - the “image of God” did, at least, pertain to the actual appearance Adam. That is, Adam’s nature and appearance were derivative of and immediately influenced by the very nature and appearance of God Himself. We might say that God is more than an embodied Divine Being in the Hebrew Bible, but He is certainly not less than that. God appears as He so chooses to appear, and that is as an embodied Deity. In contradistinction to Dr. Craig’s expressed view, the author of the Pentateuch was accustomed to speaking to God “face to face.” He, the 70 elders of Israel, Nadab, and Abihu, “saw the God of Israel; and there was under His feet the like of a paved work of sapphire stone, and the like of the very heaven for clearness” (Exodus 24:10). [Indeed, Jesus - whose every word was the Father’s word - attributes the Pentateuch to Moses, the man of God.] Naturally, the author of the Pentateuch also consistently recounts real encounters with the Divine Man (Hebrew “ish” not “adam”)/ Angel of the Lord (cf. the Targumic “Memra” and “Shekhinah”). Dr. Craig’s idea that the author of the Pentateuch had Maimonidean assumptions about the incorporeality of God is terribly anachronistic and totally unsubstantiated - in fact substantially refuted - by the text itself. To be clear, the anti-anthropomorphic view came about as a result of a polemic against the incarnation. We could also say that the platonistic God of Maimonides was nearly totally foreign to Second Temple Judaism. In short, Dr. Craig’s whole methodology as it pertains to the Hebrew Bible needs to be reevaluated. Specially pertaining to my comments above, I recommend he read the following: “Word and Glory” by Craig Evans “The Bodies of God and the world of ancient Israel” by Benjamin Sommers “The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology” by John Ronning “The Lost World” series by John Walton “Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus” (5 Volumes, see especially v3 “Messianic Objections” and v2 “Theological Objections”) by Michael L. Brown “The Unseen Realm,” “Angels,” and “Demons” all by Michael Heiser. All these works are by eminent scholars from a range of intellectual and scholarly backgrounds. In the end, I believe that Dr. Craig will benefit from a deep and abiding look at Hebrew Bible and Second Temple literature, rather than the sort of one-eye-closed-when-can-I-get-back-to-reading-romans-and-New-Testament-Biblical-criticism kind of attitude towards the Hebrew Bible that seems all too common in the world of Christian apologetics. As far as the historical Adam issues go, it is my conviction that, by reevaluating his view of the Hebrew Bible, Dr. Craig will more properly be poised to speak into the issues surrounding the historical Adam. With brotherly love, Pr. Noah

[@thesongtowoody]

When will the Lord put an end to all the debates by returning? so the discussion is over? and we dont have to provide any apologetic anymore, ad nauseum.

[@mashah1085]

Can Jews get into Heaven if they die as Jews?

[@InterestedInDansk]

Yes, God has never reneged on His fidelity to the Jews, in fact Jesus as a Jew has provided the main means of Christian absorption into becoming *Israelites* through adoption and the sacraments especially Baptism. Therefore Ezekiel's statement *You are gods, all of you but you will die like men* applies to both Jews and Christians, but we will all become celestial children prior to the Resurrection.

[@mashah1085]

@@InterestedInDansk So Jews can get into Heavan?

[@andrewschafer8986]

How is it the burden of the atheist to disprove god when the Christian is the one making the claims?

[@silence8806]

"Religion poisons everything." - Christopher Hitchens

[@anthonyaduhene]

What do we do with the seeming contradiction where the ages of a prophet differ. One says 24 the other 42. Muslim Dawahs are keen to push this argument. Thanks Anthony, Nottingham, England

[@micahprice2807]

I actually heard a possible explanation for this on a livestream from Ancient Egypt And the Bible on YT, unfortunately I don’t remember which livestream, and his streams are like 4+ hours long do hunting it down might be a life’s work.. lol

[@jimcricket8334]

How can Craig say that the onus of proof is on the atheist to show that the existence of suffering is incompatible with the existence of an all powerful, merciful god? It’s absurd.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

Because in debate, the one who makes a positive claim bears a burden of proof. This means demonstrating that the premises yield the asserted conclusion. The atheist is the one making the positive claim that suffering is incompatible with an all-powerful, merciful God. Therefore, the atheist bears a burden of proof. - RF Admin

[@jimcricket8334]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg isn’t “suffering is compatible with an all-powerful, loving and merciful god” a positive claim?

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

@@jimcricket8334 Yes. Both of those are positive claims. The point, though, is that Dr. Craig is talking about atheists who have made the positive claim and who, therefore, bear a burden of proof. - RF Admin

[@jimcricket8334]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg I disagree. God believers are the ones who have to make the case. It’s frustrating to hear Dr. Craig’s arguments on such matters, because a non-believer can never meet his burden of proof. It’s completely rational to think that an all-powerful being should not allow suffering, or should be able to prevent it when appealed to; we would never rationalize such passivity in a worldly leader. But the Christian responses to such objections are theological: arguments about free will and the maximum number of people becoming Christians, or our inability to understand God’s reasoning, or other such statements that require belief in a theological structure. Dr. Craig’s arguments often appear to be tricky shell games, in which the ball pops up in different locations, depending on argumentative need.

[@elgatofelix8917]

@@jimcricket8334 "believers are the ones who have to make the case" Well, you're a believer in secular leftism so there you go. All you're doing is regurgitating dogma you've been indoctrinated to believe that was fed to you by your secularist demagogues.

[@MrJohnmartin2009]

T 43 - Craig paraphrase - Christian doctrine is always derived from scripture. Answer - Christ, the apostles, oral tradition, the Pentecost Spirit, the Jerusalem council and the canon are all prior to the scriptures. The biblical text is enmeshed with the church authority to bind and loose with oral tradition required to affirm, confirm and determine Christian doctrine. Criag's position is both unhistorical and unbiblical. T 43:30 - Craig paraphrase - There is no scriptural basis for the Immaculate Conception. Answer - there is no scriptural proof for the biblical canon, nor any basis for scripture alone, or the denial of church authority or oral tradition, which Craig believes. The IC is derived from the worthiness of Mary's divine maternity and her antitype as the second Eve. Mary's Assumption is found in Rev 12 vision of the woman standing the moon. Contrary to Craig's belief in Christ's singular will, known in Church history as monophysitism, there is no evidence for only one will in Christ. And further, there are very many problems with penal substitution as Craig attempted to defend at a conference on penal substitution.

[@cholodesanfe87]

I think William lost against the Jewish rabbi

[@fotoman777]

Here is the question I would love to hear Dr. Craig's comment on: All claims that "God is good" are subjective human interpretations of what one imagines (or hopes) that God would be, if he exists. There is no way to get from a subjective human hope that "God is good" to the conclusion that God is the "absolute objective standard" for all morality. The argument is circular -- "we subjective humans declare God to be good, so he must be the absolute standard of good, because we subjectively say so." This is the fatal logical flaw in the moral argument for God's existence.

[@questioner6307]

God incarnate equals bodiless body, a contradiction.

[@jkpiii4513]

Did he say 750,000 years ago? Smh

[@KevC1111]

Genesis 1-11 are literal.

[@TwoKrows]

Many sincere committed and faithful Christians would disagree with this assertion.

[@KevC1111]

@@TwoKrows That's fine but it doesn't mean they are right. If you read Genesis 1-11 and say its allegory or "quasi-myth" then you might as well say the entire Bible is like that as well.

[@TwoKrows]

@@KevC1111 The problem with your argument is that you are neither reading the text in its original language nor its original context. It’s presumptuous of you to say the Holy Spirit cannot or did not inspire quasi-myth. He inspired Law, History, Wisdom, Poetry, Song, Gospel, Epistles, Prophecy, and Apocalyptic Literature. You make God too small when you say he could only inspire Genesis to be literal .. especially in English. In humility, you should consider you may be wrong.

[@KevC1111]

@@TwoKrows You are the only one presuming anything. I never said the Holy Spirit couldn't do something. I'm well aware that the Bible contains all of those things you mentioned. However Genesis 1-11 is literal. Jesus confirms this in the NT. You should know this and so should WLC. Edit:Being able to read Hebrew or Greek is not exegesis.

[@TwoKrows]

@@KevC1111 Myth does not mean ‘false’. It means ‘a narrative making a theological point’, not ‘history as history’. If a modern English literalist is unable to discern quasi-myth directly in text, they are also unable to discern its use as such by latter persons. Jesus was not a literalist. See John 10:9. Jesus treated Genesis as a creation myth not as creation history. He understood Genesis as establishing theological points (God as creator, the scope of sin etc.). Genesis performs the same role and has the same structure as all other contemporary creation myths such as Mesopotamian and Egyptian. His use of Genesis in every case was to highlight theology not history. It does violence to the text to misuse its genera. There was no history genera at the time. It is anachronistic to see in Jesus one’s own Eisegesis.

[@GodlessGubment]

Why did Fox News settle for 787 million dollars?

[@chocolatestraw3971]

Ask him anything? Why does he lack a spine in actually debating Matt Dilahunty instead of just making response videos to stuff he says?

[@randallhatcher6028]

The fear of God ? Not the authority of God though. He has a old earth philosophy . That's not biblical. I use to watch and listen to him until I found he agrees with evolution also . You can't have both .

[@mentalwarfare2038]

He does not necessarily agree with evolutionary biology. He’s largely agnostic on evolution, but he’s open to it being correct.

[@dani4157]

You can have both. Genesis is too old to be known as fact or allegorical so he is open to both and so should all of us

[@truthseeker8118]

There are many Christians who believe in old earth. And there are also ppl who believe God use evolution and even if evolution was true you still need God who control what to mutate and evolve.

[@uganda_mn397]

@@mentalwarfare2038 that's wrong i feel to compromise Scripture honestly

[@savedwretch]

"...lived around 750,000 years ago" 😂. Oh those that think they are so smart, yet are wrong about so many things. No people the Earth is about to enter the 7th day (7000th year)...the millennium reign. Where there will be peace on Earth for a 1000 years...(Sabbath). There is a reason why genealogy from Adam is mentioned in the Word.

[@velkyn1]

and yet more completely made up nonsense.

[@jkpiii4513]

I caught that too. 750,000 years ago? Really? Smh

[@velkyn1]

@@jkpiii4513 and unsurprisingly, creatoinists have nothing to support their nonsense.

[@brisadelcastillo2840]

The Apostle Paul taught that the dead were dead until the resurrection (1 Cor 15, 1 Thess 4:14-17) and that is what the Old Testament teaches. The Roman Catholic church teaches that people have a disembodied spirit that keeps on living after death, which means that you don't really die. I believe brother Craig is confused on this point. Psa 115:17 The dead praise not Yah, neither any that go down into silence. Psa 30:9 What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? Shall the dust praise thee? shall it declare thy truth? Psa 13:3 Consider and hear me, Yahweh my God: lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death; Job 7:9,10 As the cloud is consumed and vanisheth away: so he that goeth down to the grave shall come up no more. He shall return no more to his house, neither shall his place know him any more. Job 14:12 So man lieth down, and riseth not: till the heavens be no more, they shall not awake, nor be raised out of their sleep. Job 14:14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. Ecc 9:5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. Ecc 9:10 Whatsoever thy hand findeth to do, do it with thy might; for there is no work, nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in the grave, whither thou goest.

[@velkyn1]

and as always chrisitans just can't agree on the basic. it's just as if they are making everything up.

[@velkyn1]

why can't christians agree on where the supposed "empty tomb" is? Why do prayers fail despite this god's promise that any prayer will be answered, no exceptions or excuses, and answered quickly?

[@JustAPuffin]

The evidence for the truthfulness of the gospel story is overwhelming. It's easy to latch onto one minor detail and say "ah ha, checkmate Christians" but that's equivalent to a sort of "Atheism of the gaps." I suggest you broaden your scope a bit when it comes to determining the truth of Christ's claims. Minimal facts argument for the resurrection comes to mind. Answering prayers does not mean giving us everything we ask for. It means that our concerns are resolved in God's time and according to His will and hopefully, we can serve that and learn and grow from it.

[@velkyn1]

@@JustAPuffin And unsurprisingly, John can't offer a single bit of this supposed "evidence". How not surprising. Unfortunately, for you, John, I haven't just latched onto a "minor" detail and you cannot support that false claim, as usual. It's rather amusing that Christians managed to lose their supposed most important site. It's like it never existed at all. The minimal facts argument is amusing since it depends on presupposition and no evidence at all, John. Alas, per your bible, answering prayers *is* giving everything asked for. Christians have invented the excuses since their god fails at the following: “22 Jesus answered them, ‘Have[b] faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea”, and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received[c] it, and it will be yours.” - Mark 11 “Go into all the world and proclaim the good news[d] to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes in their hands,[e] and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’” Mark 16 “7 ‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” Matthew 7 “1 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in my name you ask me[e] for anything, I will do it.” John 14 “ 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. “ John 15 “13 Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. 14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.” James 5

[@20july1944]

@Velkyn: Are you better educated in history or in physics? I'd like to engage you in your strength

[@velkyn1]

@@20july1944 take your pick. I'm strong in both. this should be fun. "Are you better educated in history or in physics? I'd like to engage you in your strength"

[@alexworkman460]

Regarding the claim of unanswered prayers…..the Bible does not claim that prayers will be answered with no conditions and without exception. There are actually clear conditions laid out in scripture to have prayers answered but the issue is many times we don’t meet those conditions. I’ll just give two references… John 15:7-10 “If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. By this my Father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the Father has loved me, so have I loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.” This says that obedience and abiding relationship with God is required before I can expect answers prayer. Unfortunately, most claiming Christians don’t have a abiding obedient relationship with the Lord and they only have a faith of belief with intellectual ascent and no commitment. I’ll give one more…. James 1:6-7 “But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord;” ‭‭ This says that if I doubt I shouldn’t expect to receive anything from the Lord. Those are just a couple of verses to show that we have conditions to meet for answered prayer. I’ll respond to the other in just a bit when I have a few moments to type it out. ‭‭

[@gledatelj1979]

Reasonable faith is a contradiction in terms

[@mentalwarfare2038]

That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

[@truthseeker8118]

There are evidence for God. Listen to his podcast before you criticize.

[@Jewonastick]

@@truthseeker8118 I've listened to WLC many times..... Never heard anything remotely convincing. What do you see as his best argument?

[@Telamonian]

@@Jewonastick Kalam cosmological argument, Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

[@Jewonastick]

@@Telamonian As far as I can tell everything that "begins to exist" is always made up from something pre-existing. I've never heard of anything that came into existence ex nihilo. But let's say I agree with you... The universe has a cause. Do we know what this cause is? Can we investigate it? Detect it

[@joshjeggs]

Craig nooo this genesis interpretation is terrible.

[@williammcenaney1331]

Dr. Craig is a monothelite. He believes that Christ, God the Son, has only one will, his divine will. He knows that a council condemned monothelitism. But that doesn't bother him because he gets his theologIcal information from the Bible. Maybe there are two major theological problems for his belief. First, though he believes that Christ is a divine person who has a complete human nature. Since he has a human nature, we can call him a man and a human being. But every other human being has a human will. Second, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Our Lord says something like, "If possible, let this cup pass from me, but not my will, but yours, be done." This suggests that he has a human will.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

Dr. Craig is a monothelite because wills are properly predicated of persons, not natures. - RF Admin

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg In The Thomist, a Thomistisc philosopher argued that if God the Som lost his human nature, it would survive as. a human person. We usually say that people have natures. But in the Garden of Gethsemane, Our Lord still talks as though he has a human will when Dr. Craiig tells us that Our Lord's only will is the divine one. So, please explain how part of Our Lord's Prayer differs essentially from "not my will but mine." Dr. Craig is a superb scholar and a brilliant apologist. But if he were a Catholic, his monothelitism would get him fully excommunicated because he denied what an ecumenical council taught infallibly. After that excommunication, he would need to join the Catholic Church as though he had never been a member of it. Let me end with a general point. From my perspective, the Protestant revolt was tragedy. Today, that tragedy explains why Prof. Craig argues for mere Christianity. He knows that each time anyone believes a proposition, he agrees implicitly with every other proposition it entails. Any proposition that follows from a false statement will be another false statement, too. Since he believes that God the Son Incarnated, Dr. Craig commits himself at least implicitly to the belief that Our Savior is fully human and fully divine. Christ is a divine person with a human nature. He is not a pair of persons sharing a human body. Anyone who would believe he was one would be a Nestorian heretic. After all, the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorianism infallibly in 431 A.D. A human organism with a human will is no human person. For us Thomists, a new human person has a human intellect and a human will when his farher's sperm fertilizes his mother's ovum. Fertilization produces the new baby made up of his human body and his human soul. But he's still too young to use either his human intellect or his human will ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.x.ii.html The good professor seems confused.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

​@@williammcenaney1331 //So, please explain how part of Our Lord's Prayer differs essentially from "not my will but mine."// As previously noted, Dr. Craig predicates wills of persons, not natures, contrary to Roman dogma. This seems correct, both experientially and conceptually. What would it even mean for human nature to have a will? If that were true, then all instances of human nature would have the same will, which is clearly absurd. If wills are predicated of persons, as Dr. Craig claims, then there is no issue with Jesus' prayer "not my will but thine be done," since one person of the Trinity can submit its will to another. //Since he believes that God the Son Incarnated, Dr. Craig commits himself at least implicitly to the belief that Our Savior is fully human and fully divine. Christ is a divine person with a human nature. He is not a pair of persons sharing a human body. Anyone who would believe he was one would be a Nestorian heretic. After all, the Council of Ephesus condemned Nestorianism infallibly in 431 A.D. A human organism with a human will is no human person.// Right. On Dr. Craig's neo-Apollinarian Christology, Jesus is one person with two complete natures, human and divine. The human nature is a body of human DNA and an immaterial soul, the soul being the Logos, the second person of the Trinity. The divine nature is instanced by the Logos, the second person of the Trinity. You may disagree with Dr. Craig's model due to your submission to the authority of the Roman church, but that does nothing to demonstrate that his view is false. - RF Admin

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg Dr. Craig may need to review what Catholics believe about how a person relates to his nature.. Catholics don't believe that human natures. We think that having a human intellect and a human will is a necessary condition for having a human nature. If Dr. Craig knew that, maybe he wouldn't believed the monothelite heresy. Dr. Craig is the only Protestant I know of who said publicly that he believed a heresy. He knows that an ecumenical council condemned monothelitism. But he doesn't feel a duty to agree with that council when he takes Christian doctrine to "the bar of Scripture." Here's the problem with that. Councils determined what books already belonged in the Bible when there was no New Testament scriptural bar to consult. If Dr. Craig believes it's alright to ignore Church councils. why does he believe the Protestant canon is correct when the Third Council of Carthage included the deuterocanon in 397 A.D. Maybe after Dr. Craig reconsiders my points, He'll know he doesn't need to be a monothelite. Monothelitism is a heresy. So if he believes it, he's at least a material heretic, i.e., someone who unknowingly believes a heresy after he's been baptized. A formal heretic know he believe a heresy. A subjective formal heretic deserves blame because he knows he believes a heresy. I've never heard Dr. Craig say what a human nature consists of. I'm an analytic Thomist who knows the analytic traction can mislead people by making them focus on details when they need to see the big picture instead. Please forgive me for saying so. But if you're telling us what Dr. Craig believes about Christ's human. nature, by Cath0lic standards, his theological opinion is demonstrably false.

[@williammcenaney1331]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg Maybe I know what's confusing us. It seems we're treating a human nature as something like a Platonic form, as a pure abstraction. I'm a Thomistic hylomorphism. But Dr. Craign sounds like a Platonist. Prof. Alvin Plantinga. misinterprets the dogma about divine simplicity when he reads Platonism into it and says that divine simplicity makes God a property. No Catholic believes that God is a property. Dr. Craig seems to treat a human nature as an abstraction, a very Platonic thing to do. Instead, let's identify the necessary and jointly sufficient conditions for having a a human nature. Then we can tell whether a particular object meets those requirements. Our Lord is not an abstraction. He's a divine person who adopted a human nature. Since he as a human nature, he has a human intellect and a human will besides his divine intellect and his divine will. These faculties are not abstractions. They're specific examples of properties you can describe in an abstract way. Monothelitism is a heresy. For Catholics, there are three general kinds of heresy: material heresy, formal heresy, and subjective formal heresy. A material heretic believes a heresy when he doesn't know it's a heresy. A formal heretic knows he believes one. A subjective formal heretic knows he believes a heresy and. is to blame for believing it. Dr. Craig knows that he believes monothelitism and that it's heresy. So, by Catholic and Eastern Orthodox standards, he's at least a formal heretic. But I'm nor judging his intentions. It's not for me to say that he's sinning by believing monothwlistism. Either way, monothelitism a a heresy. Christ talked about his human will in the Garden of Gethsemane when he said something like, "If possible, let this chalice pass from me. Though not my will but thine be done." He distinguished clearly between his human will and God the Father's divine will. Since Christ is fully divine and fully human, he has the divine will and a human one. It's absurd to think he meant his divine will when he said "not my will but thine be done." Since the Father and the Son are equally divine, i.e., 100% divine, they always agree on everything. But since Our Lord has a human nature, hi passion was still difficult for him.

[@michaell1425]

I like Dr. Craig. But he teaches God will torment forever anyone who doesn't believe in Jesus. And that is truly reprehensible of him.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

The question isn't whether a view sits well with your sensibilities. The question is whether a view is true. Do you have any reasons to think Dr. Craig's view is false outside of mere revulsion? - RF Admin

[@michaell1425]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg Your reply assumes our sensibilities, including moral revulsion, are not evidence of truth. But, of course, our sensibilities are some of the strongest evidence of truth that we possess. Dr. Craig, like me, believes we are creatures of God. Well this of course means our moral reason, our "sensibilities" as you described it, are from God. It is God who has programmed us to be revolted at what the Nazis did to the Jews or to celebrate the heroic sacrifices of a Gandhi or a Jesus. So the fact that my moral sensibilities as well as those of the vast majority of human beings, especially those of high character, find the idea of God tormenting forever even a single creature, much less all who do not become Christians, revolting is the strongest evidence I can conceive against the traditional doctrine of eternal torment which Dr. Craig teaches. This is as good as God himself telling me directly this doctrine is not true. This evidence is so decisive that I need not even appeal to the other evidence from the Christian scriptures, tradition, and reason, although I easily could. I like Dr. Craig, but his defense of this utterly indefensible, disgusting doctrine is extremely disappointing. And your haughty dismissal of my moral revulsion at the doctrine -- revulsion shared by all who do not mindlessly follow the erroneous interpretation of ancient documents written in dead languages -- reveals an amateur theological methodology or prolegomena typical of evangelical Christians, sadly.

[@jjevans1693]

This guy is doing humanity a disservice by perpetuating the superstitious mindset.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

What's superstitious about it? - RF Admin

[@jjevans1693]

@@ReasonableFaithOrgWhy do you have to ask? Come on belive in legions of invisible beings. Humans are wired to be susceptible to superstitious behavior. We are slowly growing out of it.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

@@jjevans1693 So you know for a fact that invisible beings don't exist? How did you come to that conclusion? - RF Admin

[@jjevans1693]

@@ReasonableFaithOrg I haven't seen any evidence that suggests anything supernatural exists.

[@ReasonableFaithOrg]

@@jjevans1693 Are you familiar with any of the arguments for the existence of God or the immateriality of the soul? - RF Admin

[@ivansanabria6633]

Of course you can ask Craig anything and he will have the answer. All he has to do is mention his imaginary friend and, there you go, hi is right.

[@oioi9372]

William, you claim that God is spirit and that he created us. You also claim that each of us possess a soul which can be seen as spiritual essence of being. Now, since souls are immaterial, and therefore eternal, they are essentially uncaused and uncreated. That means that God never produced souls since it would imply that x created x, which is a self contradiction. The best claim you can express would be saying that God created physical universe and therefore human bodies. But that would still mean that spirit created physical, meaning, we were operationally relative as individual spiritual persons, but substantially involved in spirit, with the creation act, which means that we can potentially invoke that event in our consciousness. You also claim that only 3 persons are persons of God. If God is spirit, and persons are unique in survival of physical death, we can say that the persons are essentially non human. If persons are souls, or better, if souls are non human/non biological persons and souls are identical to spirit, therefore all souls are persons of spirit which means, they are persons of God.

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

Your comment was very interesting. I would question your claim that that which is immaterial is therefore eternal. What do you base that on?

[@oioi9372]

@@Freethinkingtheist77 I base that on logic and definition of the word. Immaterial stuff obviously have no properties of matter and therefore are not ontologically subjected to passage of time or modified by it. Since immaterial stuff possess properties of immutability, timelessness, endlessness etc., the conclusion is obvious. Matter of fact, your question is trivial and plausibly rhetorical.