Craig Explains the Incoherence of God

[@Riftsrunner]

I really hate when theists make claims of knowledge to their deity, but when they walk down the blind alley and trap themselves, suddenly God is beyond human comprehension.

[@j8000]

They're all ad hoc arguments, that's why they're only occasionally coherent with each other.

[@RuSosan]

Indeed. *A single baby somehow survives a terrible train crash* "Glory to God, he literally saved that baby! God is good!" *100+ people, including six other babies died horrible deaths in that crash* _"Oh wElP, gAaWd woErkS iN mYstErioUs wAyS!"_

[@OpenBiolabsGuy]

It’s what George Orwell called double think. Before Orwell was born, let alone thought I’d Big Brother, Big Father (organized religion) did thought control first and did it more effectively.

[@TaeyxBlack]

@@j8000i’ve often described apologetics (especially craig’s sort) as akin to spinning plates. they’ll give an explanation for something which spins one plate, but which causes two other plates to fall. then their efforts to salvage those two plates make five others fall. their answers only make sense if you don’t consider the other claims, but when you point that out, they claim you’re “jumping around to different topics” (at least that’s what my mom told me)

[@FourDeuce01]

You’d think that with thousands of years to plug all those holes in their fairy tales they’d have managed to fix them all, but when you start with bullshit, it’s impossible to fix all the holes.😈

[@Griexxt]

"Here's some shit I made up to explain some other made up shit."

[@MrCanis4]

👍👍👍

[@TheTruthKiwi]

😂😂😂

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

😂 in a nutshell, this is brilliant 👏

[@racuncai]

Best summary ever.

[@j0j0dartiste21]

I love how his argument is really just "so you think God isn't infallible, but have you considered: you're wrong"

[@drlegendre]

Billy Craig is so smart, he can talk himself into accepting anything!

[@bigbennybuckets3788]

One chance in a MILLION

[@Ploskkky]

Craig lowered the bar for his ridiculous god fantasy. He admitted this openly. What a moron.

[@jimbob8992]

But God loves Billy. Don't you know?

[@shassett79]

I take it that this is tongue-in-cheek, but I really get the sense that pseudo-academic self-deception is at the heart of religious apologetics. It's all about coming up with an argument that's "good enough" to justify ignoring any deficiencies or contradictions.

[@jimbob8992]

​@shassett79 that was highlighted for me in Craig's debate with Sean Carroll. Now I'm not saying carroll disproved the idea of a "God", but rather how Craig didn't understand Quantum mechanics, and regardless of how many times carroll corrected him, he persisted in making the same fatuous claims. Craig is selling what believer's want to hear.

[@MothIncarnate]

"The more we know about God.." WLC says with a smug af grin. Reminds me of my mates in my teens who worked out the mechanisms of the universe while stoned and held onto that self-assured attitude long after the buzz was over

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

The only difference is that Low Bar Bill had replaced THC with the dopamine of the Holy Spirit. Otherwise the process of "worked (it) out" is exactly the same as you described.

[@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh]

Granted, you are probably correct to not trust the wisdom of the stoners. Instead, follow the sage behaviour of the ancient Persians, who ruminated on important decisions both while completely sober and then again while blotto drunk. If they reached the same conclusions in both circumstances, they knew their reasonings were sound.^^

[@loganleatherman7647]

@ColinWrubleski-eq5sh How does that make any sense? That’s not how you determine if a position is sound

[@blastortoise]

​@@ColinWrubleski-eq5shHow well did that work out?

[@HangrySaturn]

Nice

[@scienceexplains302]

*”What is God like?”* Or “Let’s pretend to know things we couldn’t possibly know.”

[@onedaya_martian1238]

@leob3447 Sadly, that's exactly what preachers say to make a living. An honest one? I don't think so.

[@WaveFunctionCollapsed]

ur so called science cant even explore nearest star 😂😂😂

[@scienceexplains302]

@@WaveFunctionCollapsed There’s the Parker Solar Probe. It’s coming closer to exploring the nearest star than anything else. Obviously you get a good laugh at the Bible. The authors didn’t understand anything about the sun except that it gives off light… and even then they thought the moon was a light giver of the same type 😂 😆 😹

[@WaveFunctionCollapsed]

@@scienceexplains302 i said about alpha centauri 😂 nearest star to sun not about sun ur so called science will never explore 100% of universe so tell that god doesnt exist

[@scienceexplains302]

@@WaveFunctionCollapsed You said “nearest star.” The sun is the nearest star. Without science, nothing beyond the Earth would be explored. You have nothing and you laugh at science because it doesn’t have everything.

[@docmatthy]

It is amazing what WLC "knows" about god.

[@MrCanis4]

If you imagine your god in your own head. Well, that explains everything.

[@n0etic_f0x]

I still love that people will tell you how unknowable God is then proceed to tell you hundreds of it attributes. Like... you just told me they are unknowable, so you don't know them, you said so.

[@Monolith1616]

God is made in the image of man, after all.

[@aubreyleonae4108]

I wonder if he likes God's farts, surely he would know !

[@brilanto]

Everybody - including god - has his dark sides, we're all just humans 🤭

[@pansepot1490]

Billy “knows” that his imaginary friend has blue eyes, blond hair, a charming smile and bakes delicious cookies. And we can’t meet her because she goes to another school.

[@chickenpants]

In Canada.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

😂 that's pretty much it

[@SystemsMedicine]

Both of these men suffer from the same ailment: they believe they can successfully apply puny human logic to a being said to be infinite in many respects, including intelligence. This of course is ultimately completely untenable. Sometimes Christian apologists will begin (or end) by saying that they are not equipped to fully understand (their) God. After all, Christianity is sometimes classified as a ‘mystery religion’, i.e., it contains central elements which are mysterious. [ I suppose Craig would readily admit this, but I am uncertain that he would. ] How far are these two from being able to fully comprehend an infinitely intelligent being, whether one exists or not? INFINITELY FAR.

[@Kevin_Williamson]

The thing that strikes me the most is that a majority of what WLC is asserting as facts aren't even supported by the Bible. In fact, reading the OT would lead one to conclude the opposite of his claims. All WLC is doing is stating theological explanations dreamed up in the minds of scholars in an attempt to patch up the holes in Christian belief that have been pointed out by others. Which most often make other holes stand out to be patched. Which ends up being a mess and just points out how badly constructed the entire thing was to begin with.

[@Uryvichk]

Yahweh isn't the God of the Philosophers, and cannot possibly be, but boy do Christian philosophers throughout history really, really want him to be.

[@zenkim6709]

This reminds me of a classic issue in software engineering -- the issue of "critical mass".... If a piece of software becomes sufficiently large in size & complexity, then the difficulty of "debugging" the software increases by orders of magnitude. Specifically, the likelihood increases exponentially that, every time you successfully locate & eliminate a "bug" (a flaw in the code), you will end up *creating* new bugs as you go along! This holds true even for "cleanly written" code & properly designed modular software ... but the Bible doesn't even come close to that much. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, God would have to be the worst software engineer imaginable. If He had any competition, He'd be out of business.

[@alittleofeverything4190]

Theists like to talk about the problem of "evil" when it is really the problem of needless suffering.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

THAT IS A GREAT, GREAT POINT !!! I'll use that expression in future. Huge difference !!!

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

I just find it weird that people try to make excuses for something that hasn't been confirmed to even exist.

[@goldenalt3166]

The same could be said of scientific theories. The problem is not explanations themselves but the fact that they don't make any predictions and don't fit with each other. God can make every rape work out for the best, but two people in a garden corrupted the whole world?

[@Uryvichk]

It's also weird to me that he says "If this particular concept of God we Christians hold is incoherent, then God cannot and does not exist." Playing Krishna's Advocate here, doesn't that simply mean the CHRISTIAN God does not and cannot exist? OTHER concepts of God might still be coherent, if they don't have the same commitments that lead to contradictions. He seems to be drawing a line in the sand that either Christianity is true or we're in a Godless atheistic cesspool, but couldn't we convert to Buddhism or something if Christianity proves to be false? Hell, it doesn't even prove the Christian God doesn't exist, really. It would just prove he can't have those particular traits. Maybe he does exist but just has different properties. Maybe he's just very powerful, very smart, and very good, without being omni- in any of those categories. Just compromise on your assumptions and accept whatever God "actually is," if God is anything. It's weird that I have better safety valve apologetics than Craig does when I'm not even a Christian.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

@@Uryvichk Yeah it gets into all sorts of territory doesn't it. I'm still waiting for theists or christians to come to a consensus and provide a coherent, concise, definition of exactly what they're referring to when they use the word God. What is God? You can ask 10 people from the same church and you'll get 7 different answers. I've asked my father in law who is a retired Lutheran pastor and he doesn't really know how to answer. I asked him if God knows everything? He said yes So i asked him, does God have a brain? He thought about it and said, we'll I don't think so because he's not physicall. I asked him if God is a disembodied mind? And he said he'd never thought about it. I then asked him if a mind could exist without a brain? He didn't know and had never thought about it. I then asked how could God know everything without a physical brain? Once again the same answer. He said I ask very interesting questions. I thought to myself, you probably should have asked yourself these questions before you started believing this God thing actually exists. It seems he believes purely for emotional reasons, he'd like God to be real, it makes him feel better that a god exists and he couldn't imagine life without a god. So basically god is his comfort blanket, and he'll defend it against all logic and reasoning because life is too hard without it. But once you start asking questions his comfort blanket starts to unravel.

[@PigglePigSwillbucket]

Not only has it not been confirmed to exist, but I would say it's not even possible

[@antediluvianatheist5262]

Step one. Before you can tell us about the characteristics of a thing, you need to show that the thing exists.

[@aaronlietz]

"Everything that Santa knows..."

[@weirdwilliam8500]

"God knew how every possibility would play out, in every alternative possible state of affairs he could've chosen to create, but he chose this specific state of affairs. Also, you have free will and it is possible for you to choose any action, so long as it is exactly what god knew in advance that you would choose." 🤪

[@flowingafterglow629]

2:00 The good things that can only happen because of evil... I think it was JMike who said, "A guy can't be a hero unless I throw a hand grenade for him to fall on to save his buddies" When you put it that way, you see how big of a folly it really is.

[@nicolasandre9886]

Basically the argument that Zorg makes in the Fifth Element to justify his actions.

[@roscius6204]

We should worship evil, for all the good it does....

[@bike4aday]

But the point is that if everything you think is evil didn't exist then your mind would take whatever is left over and split it between good and evil. Then you'd remove the evil stuff and again it would split what's left in half until eventually there's nothing left.

[@Abyzz_Knight]

​@@bike4adayyour entire argument makes no sense. If there is no evil then how can your mind take what's left and split it into good and evil? There's only good left, how can you take good and split it into good and evil?

[@DadPoolReturns]

Craig stacks contradictory statements right next to one another and says (with raised eyebrows and a smile) "Isn't that amazing?!" Great work cutting through his verbal clutter.

[@marcdc6809]

he's basically telling people... it's a confirmation of the old adaggio... the lord works in mysterious ways... isn't it mysterious enough, making this prophecy so undeniably true... duh...

[@primerye]

Instead of the "heaviest rock" analogy, I got a chuckle when I heard this one dude say, "can God create a burrito so spicy, that even he couldn't eat it"

[@joostvanrens]

What happens when an unstoppable force meets a very spicy burrito?

[@primerye]

@@joostvanrens you know it after that turd hits the water the next day.

[@markhackett2302]

@@joostvanrens However humans have the ability to "create" a rock too heavy for them to lift, meaning they are more powerful than an all-powerful god. The point is that the term "all powerful" is illogical and incoherent, and any god, if it exists, cannot be ALL powerful, and any god claimed to be all-powerful doesn't exist.

[@shriggs55]

Splat!

[@juanausensi499]

My favourite version is: "What would happen if God punched himself in the face?"

[@JosephKano]

Low Bar Bill is very good at convincing me this god can't exist.

[@whoviating]

Three things: - The video seemed to end rather abruptly. No summation or even "That's enough for tonight." Made me think something was wrong or lost. - That said, I want to compliment you on how you responded. Unlike so many other response videos I've seen where the poster jumps in after a few words with a lengthy discourse on some particular point or even word, you let Craig express his thought before you rebutted it. On the whole quite effectively, too. - Craig's entire thesis boiled down to "I know the concept of God is incoherent. Shut up and believe it anyway."

[@JosephKano]

That's a stylistic choice of TMM. It's always abrupt.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Excellent comment. And the complements to the OP are spot on !!

[@whoviating]

@@onedaya_martian1238 Thank you. :-)

[@LS-zu4oy]

The problem of evil has existed for the history of mankind, good to know Billy will answer this in a five minute tiktok....

[@guytheincognito4186]

The problem of evil isn't the problem of having it. It is the problem of having evil in a world governed by an allegedly all good and all powerful God. So the problem of evil has only existed as long as this conceptualized God has. Once the concept drops one of the contradictory attributes, the problem of evil dissappear. Evil only exists in a world where God knows how to get rid of evil but lacks the power to get rid of it. And evil exists in a world were God lacks the knowledge to get rid of Evil even if he had the power to do so. In any other world evil doesn't exist because it's just a descriptor of harmful and malicious actions and events. That only holds coherence to an intelligent species that has these concerns and the ability to understand them.

[@brilanto]

I see individuality as a problem: what is good for one, might be bad for another - there are so many different interests and needs (also for power: not everybody can be a leader at the same time).

[@guytheincognito4186]

@@brilanto It isn't right to condemn individuality as a whole. You're probably also talking of individualism but I don't know your mind, so I have no clue as to what you're on about. But I can guess. There's a number of 'individualists, that push warped and paranoid ideas in regards to how to be an individualist and push notions like making the collective a 'mystical entity, ala religion. That athority et all is to be distrusted rather than sifted through, because they all have to be watched 24/7 or the athority will shank you. Making in out group mentality calling those who want to live socially and collectively the 'we group and the in group the 'Me group. They're individualist yet They're firmly intrenched in the us vs them mentality ala 'I vs them mentality. And view everything through the lens of ownership to an point of irrationality. Ofcourse there's rotten apples making society hard to gain themselves but individualism isn't immune et al to this phenomenon either and this is why we're seeing a more toxic incarnation of an otherwise inoculous philosophy regarding personal rights and individual freedom. 💁‍♂️

[@cnault3244]

Evil is not a problem unless you believe a loving god exists. If no god exists, or a malevolent or indifferent god exists, there is no problem of evil.

[@ilmt]

This is nice example how a person with high education in phylosophy (where a huge part is studying logic I believe) can fight the cognitive dissonance of belief in God and applying logic. Whenever he comes to the point where logic would say "this can't possibly work in reality" he switches to "ooh, aah, how great he is that he can make even the incomprehensible true".

[@onedaya_martian1238]

And WLC can make a good living with that one simple trick.

[@BrimirMe]

I'll wait here while God explains the incoherence of Craig.... ... ... ...

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

I'll wait down here

[@neonshadow5005]

He has whatever character traits he needs to have in for them to sell him to converts even if those traits directly contradict the Bible's own accounts which they claim are perfect.

[@goldenalt3166]

Yes, they say "God is perfect" then show us the Bible and say "the Bible is perfect". In that case, no thanks.

[@MichaelAronson]

00:35 If we ignore the fact that you can't have familiarity with something that doesn't exist, then this is still wrong, because one of the fundamental problems with theist claims is that an omnipotent being cannot simultaneously be omnibenevolent, and vice versa.

[@summerlovinxx]

I don't think that's true. you can have the capability to do bad while choosing to do good. omnibenevolence doesn't bar God from being ABLE to do bad, it just means he won't. atheist by the way, just interested in the discussion lol.

[@Griexxt]

@@summerlovinxx If there's something stopping you from doing something such that you will literally never do it, isn't that effectively the same as being incapable of doing it?

[@MichaelAronson]

@@summerlovinxx I'm trying to think up a better explanation than Griexxt provided. I suppose I could say, "I could think up a better explanation, but I won't." This would be indistinguishable from my inability to do so.

[@summerlovinxx]

​@@Griexxt if I have the strength to crush a can with one finger but never actually go out of my way to prove I can, you can doubt the claim, but that has no bearing on the reality of the situation. possibility and probability are two different things. there are many things that can be done that won't, simply by way of it being unlikely, but that doesn't literally cancel out the possibility of it happening.

[@Griexxt]

@@summerlovinxx But if the reality is that you will never do it, then how is that different from not being able to do it? We’re not talking about infinitesimal probabilities here, we’re talking zero percent.

[@wunnell]

WLC really just asserts a whole bunch of stuff and, when it doesn't make sense, simply asserts that it does because god. Sure, Bill. Sure it does.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Low bar Bill makes a good living off this schtick, so it makes "cents" for him .. lots of cent$ plus prestige amongst the hard of thinking. When the bar is low and religion is all you got, WLC seems to be doing "ok".

[@randomusername3873]

The level of constant cognitive dissonance these people are constantly in always baffles me They could talk for hours about how good god is, then suddently "we can't possibly expect to understand god"

[@slenders1ckn3ss]

Imagine knowing the possible thoughts and actions of billions and trillions of beings. Imagine being a being outside of time and reality and still trying to manage all of these thoughtcrimes as well as listen and answer prayers, put souls in bodies, and fine-tune reality in real time. Probably just easier to throw everyone in hell and have it done with.

[@marcdc6809]

I try to imagine him doing all this micro-management and at every intervention making it look like the entire fine-tuned reality never ceased to follow the laws of physics in a deterministic universe... also this deterministic universe that follows from empiric evidence in science... doesn't make it morally right for a god to judge decisions that people inevitable make because they don't have the luxury to just experiment with really important decisions... or they don't have enough mental restraint to stop coveting... coveting is the killer-commandment, it takes a lobotomy to stop coveting...

[@pineapplepenumbra]

@@marcdc6809 "coveting is the killer-commandment, it takes a lobotomy to stop coveting...." That reminds me of what I said about "sin": The concept of “sin” was made up to control people. It is immoral, very damaging and illogical. Here's how it works; _pretend_ that being Human and Normal is a problem, then _pretend_ that there will be huge consequences if you fail to not be Human (which is, of course, impossible), THEN PRETEND that you've got a solution (which, of course, includes paying money to a church, and giving up some autonomy, thus giving those who promote the con _more power over you)._ It is so hugely damaging a concept that I’m starting to think that spreading it to others should be a criminal offence.

[@marcdc6809]

@@pineapplepenumbra it's like institutionalised and distilled narcissistic abuse

[@pineapplepenumbra]

@@marcdc6809 Succinctly put.

[@marcdc6809]

@@pineapplepenumbra a loving caring god would not stand for such crazymaking abuse as happens in our organised religions...

[@HoneyTone-TheSearchContinues]

Can Low Bar Bill demonstrate that his god thingy actually has these characteristics he asserts? Or does he just pull this stuff out of his backside to get out of the corner into which he painted himself when he decided to believe in a tri-omni sky wizard? Like Augustine and Aquinas and all the other theist philosophers he has to dress up his Barbi god in all kinds of pretend clothes so that it can do and be everything he wants, and refuses to acknowledge it’s just a fantasy.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

You can't say that, you just want to sin 😂

[@stylis666]

Low Bar Bill does show how we can control his asserted characteristics in the bible. He must have a different bible, because in mine the god character changes his mind, lies, genocides, regrets genocide, can't get past iron chariots, and so on and so forth. Doesn't seem like a loving, knowing, or powerful god at all. More like a weak narcissist with a perpetual need to gaslight people into pretending he is somehow responsible for anything good that is demonstrably the result of natural processes and the social, cooperative nature of humans, and that we are somehow responsible for his shortcomings in fixing anything or giving useful advice on anything. Edit: Oh! And I forgot the inability to sacrifice anything and recalling his son out of his prison of flesh to rain supreme for eternity in heaven, that christianity hinges on being a sacrifice that it can't be. An immortal god can't sacrifice anything, or die.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

The "not so hard of thinking" understand what you said. The rest just take WLC's gibberish, and the gibberish in their set of mythical stories in that ancient anthology as: "sounds good enough for me!". With that, they think they have found "The Truth(tm)" and "you skeptics" can go to this place called "hell". LOL This is part of the reason there is needless suffering in the world...religion as an explaination for it, instead of people using that time to prevent it.

[@HoneyTone-TheSearchContinues]

@@onedaya_martian1238 Well, of course, you can’t expect people of average ignorance to have thought through the intricacies of whatever assumptions they have accepted to cope with life on this planet. But Billie boy here is supposed to be highly educated. Listening to him I can imagine that 500 years ago he would have earnestly engaged in debates about which bouts of thunder and lightning were caused by gods playing 9-pin bowling versus 10-pin.

[@DarkMatter2525]

Watching a man Craig's age go through his same old defense of ancient MCU makes me sad. What a waste of life.

[@lilrobbie2k]

Theists: "God is mysterious and unintelligible... now, let me tell you all about him!"

[@davidhitchen5369]

It's interesting that when Craig talks about "middle knowledge" he quotes Luis de Molina, but what makes him an authority on the nature of God? How did he discover this middle knowledge that the intangible deity allegedly has?

[@dougbryant5417]

How does Craig know all this stuff? It sounds suspiciously like he’s just making it up.

[@Jeewanu216]

He is. His extension of the Kalam required him to arbitrarily choose A-theory time over B-theory time, come up with an illogical "metaphysical spacetime" and also accept Neo-Lorentzian physics which was abandoned by damn near every physicist 108 years ago. WLC is a charlatan.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

He knows all sorts of stuff about beings that haven't been confirmed to exist

[@TaeyxBlack]

you’ll notice nothing he said had a scripture attached to it. not that it would have added much credence, but at least he could have honestly been working within his religion’s playbook. instead, all of his assertions are, at best, broad extrapolations based on what he feels the god of the bible would need in order to exist.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

@@TaeyxBlack Shhhh you're ruining it for him

[@dougbryant5417]

@@crazyprayingmantis5596 😂😂😂

[@KaiHenningsen]

WLC: "Here are some damn good reasons why God can't have these attributes." Also WLC: "We know God has these attributes." *In one and the same video!*

[@onedaya_martian1238]

WLC....telling the hard of thinking that abstracting a being with contradictory attributes is easy...so let's all fall for believing that and calling it worshiping. No greater waste of time for solving human problems is being religious.

[@cnault3244]

Going by what the Bible says about god, you could compare god to a Swiss army knife. God is whatever you want him to be in a given moment or in a particular situation.

[@NielMalan]

If healing is a good and necessary thing, and we need injury to get healing, then I'd argue that being wounded by a rose thorn is injury enough, or perhaps being scratched by a kitten.

[@noxabellus]

Wow the background matching his eyes so well is deeply unsettling the man is completely hollow

[@oscargr_]

My first thought... It looks like finally everyone can see right through him.😂😂

[@rabbitpirate]

I don't think the background does match WLC's eyes, I think there are holes in his head where his eyes should be and we are seeing the background through them. This video is much creepier when viewed that way.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

😂 stop it

[@timothymulholland7905]

When early Christians tried to Helenize Judaism, they had to adjust the ancient, brutish, violent god of the Hebrew to conceptual absolutes derived from Greek philosophy. That has been full-time job of the Craigs of the faith ever since. Tough job.

[@deepashtray5605]

Can God create a race of sentient beings who glorify Him so highly that even He cannot live up to the hype?

[@Griexxt]

Apparently.😛

[@rjserrano2]

It's mind-boggling that a being that seems to be wholly fictitious magically has whatever characteristics that believers want it to have? I think that reflects more on the ease with which Craig's mind gets boggled than anything else.

[@zenkim6709]

"Oh, he's makin' it up as he goes along!!" -- from the movie "Life of Brian"

[@Maya_Ruinz]

9:50 Craig is able to wiggle his way through the free will debate by saying that middle knowledge allows God to know what people might do and what they actually will do all at the same time, this is the heart of his denomination called “Molinism” and explains why many Christians call him a heretic.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

If there were this abstraction that religious people think exists, then yes WLC would be a heretic. Since there isn't, the whole lot of these beLIEvers are simply crackpots.

[@goldenalt3166]

But they still claim that God made that "free will". They should just admit that God's best attribute is the supernatural ability to be immune to blame. How else can the perfect creator of everything not be responsible for what happens?

[@Maya_Ruinz]

@@goldenalt3166 Craig’s ideas are not taken seriously by other apologists so really he is on his own island inventing solutions to problems of his own creation. The biggest problem with the Bible is that it was written by men and it has scripture that supports both free will and determinism.

[@Uryvichk]

Many Christians call him a heretic because he has numerous wild-ass conceptions of the Trinity which amount either to tritheism or to "the Trinity" being the only thing that can properly be called God (i.e. "The Trinity" is God, but the Father, Son, and Spirit are not each God), which is obviously heretical because the Father is called God all the dang time in the New Testament, including by Gospel Jesus, Paul, and even Fake Paul (not to be confused with Jake Paul).

[@jthememeking]

Why cant they understand that the issue with describing god as some sort of being thats outside space and time and can do anything, but also not interact with reality is just not what they preach. They preach about having a personal relationship with god who interacts with them and has conversations with, at the very least, pastors. The more abstract you try to make God to seem more likely to exist goes against what Christians actually believe.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

The more questions you ask the more abstract their God becomes until its that abstract that it sounds like even if it did exist it would be utterly useless

[@NewNecro]

Not to mention that conceptually speaking, existing "outside space and time" actually means god exists nowhere and never.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

It is not possible for anything to be both just and merciful as these are mutually exclusive propositions.

[@gsp3428]

that is just a silly statement.

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@gsp3428 Only if you do not know the meaning of the words "just" and "merciful."

[@gsp3428]

@@wesbaumguardner8829 have you ever forgiven someone for something they have done to you, and not given them what they deserved?

[@wesbaumguardner8829]

@@gsp3428 Yes, and it is unjust.

[@EatHoneyBeeHappy]

Why am I not surprised Craig uses the term Judeo-Christian. A meaningless label used exclusively by Christians to try and mask the shame of Christians' historical persecution of Jews. As well as an attempt to fuse the two religions back together, and give the impression that Christians actually care about the Tanach, instead of abandoning it and breaking the commandments to worship the man Jesus.

[@Genarii]

4:37 - This sentence repeats twice in a row.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

Yeah I thought I was stoned for a second

[@si6a590vBxbyjuz3IDqFscMRyvn]

yep

[@oddviews]

He offends the ears, insults the intelligence and crucifies the notion of wisdom!

[@onedaya_martian1238]

If there is just one chance in a million that WLC is right, maybe we should beLIEve his explanations. ROFLOL !!

[@goldenalt3166]

To be fair, that is what Jesus would do.

[@AlexS-pv4rn]

@@onedaya_martian1238 You can't spell Bible, Belief or Religiion without an L, I, and E

[@oscargr_]

@10:26 Billy laughing at his own assertions.

[@oscargr_]

On the subject of middle knowledge: "God does not only know everything that will happen, but he also knows everything that would have happened if circumstances were different..." But how CAN circumstances be different in the eyes of "someone" who without mistake knows what will happen (and hence knows the circumstances that precede what happens and the circumstances that follow what will happen. Middle-knowledge is an vacuous term for an all knowing god.

[@scienceexplains302]

*A rock so heavy…* So the god in WLC’s head is limited by logic in at least one way

[@jursamaj]

It's amazing how he talking about knowing so much about a god that can't be observed.

[@EdwardHowton]

1. A familiarity with God's attributes allow us to defend to coherence of Theism. Also theism: "God is unknowable, his ways are not our ways." WELP! Guess that settles that. Thanks, Low Bar Billy! "Purple monkey dishwasher. Therefore God." -Billy Craig.

[@Venaloid]

But remember, when God acts like an asshole, then he's suddenly mysterious, and we are arrogant for thinking we can understand him.

[@n0etic_f0x]

If god was either just or merciful there would just be no sin, but sin is so broadly defined and the cost so high that he _can be_ neither and that being either is _impossable_ for him.

[@n0etic_f0x]

@leob3447 oh yeah. I mean sadly it does.

[@farrex0]

What I always find so baffling is how Christians immediately assume perfection of God on everything. But how can a perfect being create an imperfect creation? It doesn't logically follow. So how can they reconcile both ideas? Well they blame creation instead of the creator. As if we are somehow responsible for the way we were made. We are all sinners due to our fallen nature, and therefore we all deserve Hell... But God is SO merciful, he would forgive us with the condition that we submit to God. That would follow, ONLY IF, God wasn't responsible for creating us. But God made us flawed on purpose, just so he could sell the cure.

[@AssassinoJake]

9:19 OK, this gets into what I like to call "the problem of sin." If you define sin as "a violation of divine law or an act that violates the divine's commands," then we have a problem with the omni traits. If god knows every hypothetical timeline and has the power to influence things to make a certain timeline come to pass, then there's a problem. God chose THIS timeline with all of its sin. But if god knows what is going to happen in this timeline and still allowed it, then he chose for those sins to happen, but if we go back to the definition of sin above, how can God call it sin if he wanted it to happen? Let me give an example, god would know what would happen if Adam and Eve were to eat the fruit of good and evil. He also knows what would influence the outcome, meaning the serpent (you know Satan or Lilith, whatever interpretation you are going with). If god didn't create the servant, then A&E wouldn't have eaten the fruit. But he did create the serpent knowing what would happen and he punished everyone, but himself, for what he KNEW would happen. If this idea of god, that WLC is presenting, is true, then you can't blame A&E for original sin. You can't even call it original sin cause Gid knew this could happen and let it happen, and he punished them (and by extension, every human being) for it. That tarnished the imagine of God being "just" and it ruins the idea of the "mercy" that came from Jesus's "sacrifice". God wronged us and we have to be the ones begging for mercy? And WLC calls this "all good"? Luckily, it's just a story that apologists have to bend over backwards and do Olympic mental gymnastics to sell it to people.

[@Uryvichk]

That's why I don't think sinning is even in principle possible under any model of divine providence: If you did something, even if God didn't somehow "cause" it to happen, God knew that it would happen, God expected it to happen, God could have prevented it from happening, and God chose to allow it to happen anyway. So it's what he wanted. So you're always doing his will, as you cannot ever do anything else. Even if you think you know God's will and openly defy it, God knew you were going to do that too and didn't stop it. Also note that Classical Trinitarian Christians believe that God the Son was the Savior from eternity, meaning sin must have ALWAYS been God's plan, as otherwise what would anyone need a savior for? If being the redeemer of sin is just part of the Son's eternal unchanging nature, what does that even mean in a world where no sin happens? Surely such a world was possible, otherwise one is saying God can't actualize a world that doesn't require salvation from sin, meaning God can't actualize a world that doesn't have sin... but God could always refrain from creating and actualize no world at all, which would be sinless, or actualize a world without moral agents, which would also be sinless, so what gives? Could God actually NOT have done that? Open theism maybe can avoid this, since there not even God knows the future, but that has other issues, and God still presumably assumed the risk under open theism (omniscience surely entails knowing all the things that COULD happen even if you don't know WHICH things will happen). If he assumes the risk, he accepts the consequences, and is solely morally responsible for that, because who else would be? Nobody else made the decision. I'm not convinced it's ever moral to create, and as such, I'm not convinced the notion of a "perfectly good creator God" is coherent.

[@dane947]

Dr. William Lane Craig became a believer on an "appeal to emotion" and then went to higher education so he could become an "appeal to authority". And remember folks: "If there's 1 chance in a 1,000,000, that Christianity is true, it's worth believing." - WLC

[@tropicaussie4572]

IF ONLY A GOD COULD EXPLAIN THE INCOHERENCE OF CRAIG !

[@oscargr_]

Only an actual all powerful god could explain it TO Craig (in a way he would understand it)

[@andrewsm00]

4:37 whoa neo, I think there’s a glitch in the matrix!

[@RunningOnAutopilot]

2:14 Big enough relief is top 5 sensations so good that it’s impossible to say this one is better than that one because it’s maxed out I still think that not having 7/10 pain is worth not having top tier relief

[@gogeta5654]

It's simple. God is the ultimate macguffin. He has whatever powers he needs, whenever he needs them.

[@ExtremeMadnessX]

And support morals of specific groups of believers. If they are conservative, God is conservative, and gays are sinners. If they are liberal, God is liberal and being gay is normal.

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

No he doesn't because that's what my God Zorg has and Zorg can kick your God's ass

[@felixgraphx]

You should address the fact that he speaks in the way a hypnotist speaks to get his subjects to be under hypnosis.

[@malcolmchambers4934]

William Lane Craig, can not help himself he make the arguments against God, or at least the big God type of god for us.

[@TheBastius]

Would love to see you introduce Low Bar Bill as "Here's a guy...".

[@oscargr_]

Yeah, Willy Lane Craig isn't a philosopher, he is a philosophical *theologist* (and a grifting apologist to boot)

[@markhackett2302]

I can't believe how many people "forget" WLC's "infinite good" for the canannite babies. WLC should not only be 100% for abortion, but he should take on all the sin of thousands of other christians "who believe correctly" and send them to heaven before satan can corrupt them. That he doesn't proves even he doesn't believe god exists.

[@oscargr_]

@@markhackett2302 He might, if he believed it for 100%, but he has to live in a reality where the chance is just one-in-a-million.😁

[@markhackett2302]

@@oscargr_ Ah, but he lowered his epistemic bar because it would mean he sent millions to heaven, right, and that is so astoundingly good that it MUST be true! (that he doesn't is proof he doesn't lower the bar like he claims)

[@AssassinoJake]

​@markhackett2302 I mean, there is a God sanction abortion potion in Numbers.

[@oscargr_]

@@AssassinoJake I don't know the numbers, but if it's god-sanctioned abortion, that's a whole nother case. 🙄🤔 Welcome to Christian mental gymnastics.

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

Incoherent nonsense is what we would expect to hear from men who defend the gods other men create. A clear and concise message every Human being on the planet could not deny hearing from an all powerful and benevolent deity might be something we would expect if the gods were anything other than figments of the very imaginative human mind.

[@tomsenior7405]

I simply do not find WLC to be in the least bit genuine. There is something of the Dark about the man. His façade tries to mask his sinister side. Or, in plain language: He is in it for the money.

[@Kruppes_Mule]

The fantastic thing about things that don't really exist is you can make up whatever you like about them. Unfortunately for Bill in his case the process used to make shit up was disparate and disjointed. That's why we're left with armies of apologists trying to make sense of nonsense.

[@pvoshefski]

Crag inevitably ends up in the weeds and sounds completely incoherent.

[@cnault3244]

He needs to end up in the weeds so he will have something to make his word salad from.

[@rodbrewster4629]

Low Bar Bill's mental gymnastics are what's "mind boggling"

[@MatthewCaunsfield]

I hear a lot of claims from WLC but little to substantiate them

[@chrisgrill6302]

"But if the very concept of God is incoherent then it follows immediately that He cannot exist". Yes Bill. Yes.

[@halthammerzeit]

Drug cartels would embrace christian way of doing prison time. Cells full of paid vicarious farmers in no time.😂

[@loganleatherman7647]

I heard a whole lot of suppositions and assertions without any actual evidence to back any of it up, but I’ve come to expect that from the entire field of theology

[@howlrichard1028]

3:20 But that's because there are certain rules of logic that state that such things can't happen. An all-powerful being should be able to override logic itself and do things that our mind just can't comprehend and defy all laws of logic. Otherwise miracles also shouldn't happen, since they're just a more complex version of the unliftable rock.

[@Jeewanu216]

How is any person supposed to prove a being that violates logical consistency? If God does, then by definition, even a miracle isn't proof. We cannot comprehend the subject we seek to know. Very similar to the philosophical "nothing." It's literally incomprehensible.

[@trentlytle7289]

The background color is actually called PragerblUe

[@Zahaqiel]

I mean, it's not so much that you won't be able to understand what his existence means based on those incoherent attributes, it's more that... I wouldn't trust anything or anyone claiming to have those attributes. That person or thing, if it exists, is clearly just a liar.

[@oscargr_]

Yeah, I have a friend who is the best at everything. The US had a president who was the best at everything. I think it's called narcissism.

[@Uryvichk]

I mean even if I don't outright call it a liar, I cannot really know that it actually has the properties it claims to have if my only sources are the claims that being makes. It might indeed be very powerful, so powerful that it can do anything I could imagine asking it to do, but not omnipotent. It might be able to answer any question I can think up, but not be omniscient. It might be very nice to me and everyone I know, but not be omnibenevolent. It might seem to be everywhere, yet not be omnipresent. It might be very old but neither atemporal nor eternal, and how would I know? Possibly, a "true God" needs all the omni-properties. Possibly, Yahweh exists. But also possibly, Yahweh does not actually have all the omni-properties which would qualify him to be the "true God," and just says he does (or even maybe incorrectly thinks he does, a claim of some gnostics).

[@Zahaqiel]

@@Uryvichk Being tri-omni is not a requirement of being a deity. Plenty of deities - _including YHWH_ - have not had those traits in the past. It's something monotheists specifically like to claim, and they have a motivated reason to want to claim it.

[@deepashtray5605]

If God is all knowing then it knows the thrill a rapist experiences when planning for and assaulting a child. God would also know the hell that child will live in for the rest of his or her life, which would be decades, as well as the collateral damage to the victim's family, community and society. Google the case of James Edward Duncan III and ask yourself what kind of a life God knew in advance that the surviving sister and the rest of the family will endure every day for the remainder of their days in this reality. Once again WLC has demonstrated just how deeply idiotic his apologetics can get.

[@Color-Painter-Blue]

Craig: "God knows all Truths!" As he was speaking about that his God-Thingy knows all ... alternate Timelines. But that is a weird statement if we would assume that only one of the Timelines exist and not all equaly.. what would make alternate Timelines .. Not True... what would mean there is only 1 true Timeline and not something that could be considered ... all Truths. What would then mean that this God-Thingy... IF.. we assume one to exist.. knows 1 truth and lots of wrongs. Must be weird to have 1% true information and 99% false information in the Mind. :P

[@AtheismActually]

That looks like a PragerU video, judging by the color palette and overall graphics L&F. In which case, it is Bill's eyes that match the background.

[@PadraigG8]

Wait, if God doesn't perceive or learn, but just 'innately' knows everything. Then how does God know if the things he 'knows' are true?

[@autonomouscollective2599]

Have you _not_ been paying attention? The answer is - because.

[@cathyharrop3348]

10:35: WLC: The more stuff I make up about God, the more confusing I become.

[@Foojaleeckalikeelamaka]

The main problem with an all powerful entity is that there cannot, by definition, be any 'but', 'had to' or 'therefore' when explaining their actions. If it is without limits (aka all powerful) then it cannot be limited, even by the laws of nature, causality or logic. An all powerful being WOULD be able to create a universe where there is no evil and we have free will, only a limited being would have to act within their limitations to do as best they could. Its all silly anyways as the theists have no way of knowing if God is all powerful as they cannot test God in any way. Heck i could just say I'm all powerful, you have to believe me & you're not allowed to test me. I'd still have one over on God though; I'm demonstrable. Just silly.

[@TheBarelyBearableAtheist]

I can imagine a god who can achieve the results he wants _without_ requiring the assistance of sin and evil, so my imaginary god is better than Bill's, and therefore Bill's cannot be perfect.

[@Mallory-Malkovich]

It's hilarious that his full-time job is to explain this and he's still _so bad at it._

[@onedaya_martian1238]

WLC is bad at it because it only works on the hard of thinking. The rest of the folks who listen to it are likely amused and or appalled (or both) that a supposed intellectual can make a living propounding this used diaper content.

[@zenkim6709]

That's because the true, intended purpose of apologetics isn't to convert the unbelievers -- it's to comfort & reassure the faithful. Over the course of the past several centuries, the net effect of secularism has been the chipping away at the social & political strength of religious movements & institutions, to the point where the fastest growing segment of the human population is that which self-identifies as "non-religious" or "not affiliated" w/ any 1 religion, including atheists & agnostics. To paraphrase Robert Pirsig (from the book "Zen And The Art of Motorcycle Maintenance"), when members of a belief system are at their most vocal & strident, it is never done from a position of superior strength: it is because the power of their position has fallen under doubt. The Jesuits arose not because the Catholic Church was at the height of its power, but because the previously unquestioned authority of the Vatican was being challenged by the Reformation & the rise of Protestantism. To put it more simply, for thousands of yrs no one went around shouting fanatically that the Sun moves across the sky because we can see it rise in the east & set in the west every day & night. Everyone already "knew" that as unquestionable fact. It was only during the introduction & rise of Copernican thought -- that it was a spinning Earth which revolved around the Sun which created the day-night cycle & the apparent motion of the "heavenly bodies", not vice versa -- when people began loudly insisting that it was the Sun that moves, not the immovable Earth ... until the truth eventually won out. People like WLC are not waging a triumphant campaign against atheism, they're fighting a losing battle. The apologists are attempting a holding action against the trend of increasing secularism & humanistic social values around the globe ... and, like holding back the tide, it is just as likely to succeed in the long run.

[@urklenurkle]

“If by awe you mean complete incomprehension” 😂😂😂 yes

[@KaiHenningsen]

"scripture and perfect being theology" ... because the latter is *not* contained in scripture. On the contrary, scripture shows god as lacking all three attributes: he is surprised and regretful, he does evil, and he fails at doing things he tries to achieve. In short, he is not perfect. (And of course, the Bible is neither inerrant nor univocal - and Christian theologians have known that pretty much from day one. (And I believe pretty much the same can be said for Jewish ones.)

[@LGpi314]

“Theology is ignorance with wings.” ― Sam Harris

[@martinnyberg71]

It is one of the greatest mysteries that a person who has an actual PhD degree from a real university can allow himself to spread the same grift that diploma-mill-trailer-in-the-desert dino-dumdums do.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Kinda makes saying real and theological in the same sentence regarding a PhD or university, a joke.

[@goldenalt3166]

That "mystery" has actually been studied quite a lot. Intelligent people are actually better at holding contradictory and nonsensical ideas as well as explaining away those problems.

[@AlexS-pv4rn]

And be just as bad at actually justifying their positions to anyone other than their gullible target demographic.

[@oscargr_]

You can earn a living as a serious philosopher, but it's much easier to do as a Christian apologist. That's something you learn after graduation.

[@martinnyberg71]

@@oscargr_ 🤣

[@plattbagarn]

William "Low Bar Bill" Craig's most prominent evidence for the truth of the bible should be that he was the snake in the tree.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

3:30 *"In any universe in which there is an unstoppable force, there, by definition, cannot be any immovable objects and vice versa."* --- This isn't clear to me, they seem to be able to coexist if they'll never be on a collision course.

[@kwahn106]

Nah, one must theoretically be able to stop the other, unless the universe is one where it is logically impossible for them to collide, I guess? What would the physics of that look like?

[@albrecht4067]

If an "unstoppable force" is defined as something that can move any object within its universe, and an "immovable object" is defined as an object that cannot be moved by any force within its universe, then a universe that is hypothesized to contain one by definition cannot contain the other, regardless of whether it is possible to empirically verify whether the otherwise unstoppable force can actually move all objects, or if the otherwise immovable object can be unmoved by all forces.

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

@@kwahn106 Hmmm complex! Logical impossibility isn't local to possible universes, so, it doesn't really make sense to talk of just one possible world where it's logically impossible for them to collide. It's logically impossible in all possible worlds. It's logically impossible in _this_ universe. What does the physics of that look like, you wonder? Well, any consistent set of physics will exclude inconsistent things like that :) But the physics of reality is one example

[@HeyHeyHarmonicaLuke]

@@albrecht4067 Nice one! Under those definitions, I see how it works :)

[@Wertbag99]

One way I've heard it said is that these talk of infinites. An infinitely powerful force and an infinitely immobile object, so we are already beyond our physical universe. But if two such things did collide then the result should be an infinite release of energy. Infinitely bright, infinitely loud, infinitely hot for an infinite length of time.

[@thomasg627]

What helps best in these cases is called "reality check", i.e. as it happened in Lisbon in 1755. They had a big earthquake in Lisbon in 1755, on a saturday morning where many people were in church. The churches almost all collapsed and many of the people in there died because the roofs fell on their heads. In the red light district, where buildings were very cheaply and light weight made, almost nobody died. This "reality check" that this earthquake killed many believers but left all the sinners alive made so many people rethink their religion that to this day, over 250 years later, Lisbon is out of all the big European cities the one with the largest percentage of atheists.

[@MrCanis4]

It took me an hour to decide whether to listen to Craigy. And just like so many times before, I made the wrong choice. Wasted time.

[@gsp3428]

you have probably made a lot of wrong choices in your life.

[@MrCanis4]

@@gsp3428 Yes I did. But those were good lessons for the future.

[@terrencelockett4072]

It's crazy that the points mentioned by WLC here jump over the point of actually believing in a god in the first place. To get to believing what he believes about his god, we have to believe in a god first.

[@stussysinglet]

You know someone has a simplistic biased projected view of God when they keep referring to God as a He.

[@oscargr_]

It's antropomorfism, and it strongly suggests humans created (all kinds of) gods rather than the other way around.

[@guytheincognito4186]

​@@oscargr_ Exactly.

[@Kickiusz]

"Many contemporary objections to the existence of god are based" - William Lane Craig

[@TootieVirus]

What’s so interesting about Christianity is that it almost all makes perfect sense if you concede that God can be all-powerful but also fallible. It drives me insane because the Bible is actually really interesting if you interpret Christ as God’s atonement for his own mistake in the garden of Eden. Consequently, Christ died for ALL mankind’s sins, not just those who accept him as their savior. His sacrifice makes no sense if there are still people going to hell. Instead we have to play these asinine games and watch apologists bend over backwards to explain why it’s just for a child to burn for eternity in hell.

[@guytheincognito4186]

Indeed. An fallible God can't have all the attributes they prescribe to it. A God with those attributes cannot be fallible but so cannot its actions be either. Hence why they can't keep their cake and eat it.

[@Jeewanu216]

I could agree somewhat with that God. It's no worse than a shitty but good intentioned parent. I might even forgive it. I would require some answers as to meaningless suffering before doing so, and I would require somr satisfying answers. But afterward, sure. Still not worshipping it.

[@wet-read]

Exactly. It can't be called a sacrifice, because a proper sacrifice requires nothing from those it is intended to benefit. It can't be called a gift, because a proper gift allows the recipient to do with it what they wish, including rejecting it, without negative consequences. It's all nonsense. Monstrous nonsense*, in fact. * in scientific parlance, N to the Mth

[@TootieVirus]

@@Jeewanu216 yes! An interesting conversation!!

[@TootieVirus]

@@wet-read precisely my line of thinking!

[@tomrestajr]

One more, and I hope to leave you alone. Circa 4:45. Allowing people to pay the fines of others. That's a good analogy. People I've heard describe the crucifixion, death, and resurrection of Jesus as acts of love as well as mercy. Finite, sinful, and not the hypostatic union of God and humanity, we are incapable of eternal life in paradise on our own.

[@Martial-Mat]

Craig is literally just making up stuff about his invisible friend now. It's embarrassing watching him spiralling down the drain and becoming ever more ridiculous.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

WLC is still making good money doing spirals. Religion still is a reliable cash enterprise.

[@Zift_Ylrhavic_Resfear]

Thanks for the video :)

[@donparker4521]

Evil isn’t the opposite of good, bad is. Evil is that which does not comport with the mind of a god, or unholy. If there is no god there is no evil, no problem. 😊

[@autonomouscollective2599]

Most people use the word “evil” to mean intentionally or morally bad. An atheist can certainly use “evil” in those terms. Of course, then up pops the argument: can there be morality without a god? A theist says no, an atheist says yes. And then round and round the circle they all start running.

[@donparker4521]

@@autonomouscollective2599 Most people use the word “evil” to mean intentionally or morally bad. -"Most people" argument is a fallacy. Adding modifiers to bad does change the meaning or its negation in any way. Evil isn't even immoral, moral is. Conflating terms to obfuscate meaning is also a fallacy. But it is "good" apologetics. An atheist can certainly use “evil” in those terms. -Definitionally, you mean? Not allowing make believers control of the narrative through semantics? Of course, then up pops the argument: can there be morality without a god? -Erm, yes. We do it ALL the time. A theist says no, an atheist says yes. -Everyone picks out the parts of any "god" they like; everyone is ultimately their own arbiter of what they accept or don't. And then round and round the circle they all start running. -only running around in circles with folks to show 'em they can stop running. Boddhisatva, won't you take me by the hand. 😄 May everyone come to be disabused of all evil,... 🕊& ❤

[@donparker4521]

This isn’t meant to address the problem of evil as internal critique of xtrianity. Reread, please 🙏

[@autonomouscollective2599]

@@donparker4521 Okay…. Too much to unpack here, so I’ll just concentrate on your first response: “Most people” argument is a fallacy. You don’t say which fallacy, but I’m guessing the _ad populum_ fallacy. But that doesn’t apply here because _ad populum_ only refers to beliefs. I never said “believe,” I said “use.” That is, the general use of the word “evil” implies something that is intentionally or morally bad. This is not a conflation either but opposing the position of something being unintentionally or amorally bad. You accidentally hitting my car while turning left is bad, but intentionally ramming my car to hurt me is evil. I think your position that the word “evil” can only be used theologically is unfounded,and I doubt you can find any documentation that backs it up. However, my position that the word “evil” incorporates the word “bad” can be shown in virtually any dictionary.

[@donparker4521]

@@JDO36 Did I make an entire implication, or any at all? Seems rather explicit to me. And I'll bite; where's the contradiction?

[@moodyrick8503]

*God/Santa ;* He knows when you are sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows when you've been bad or good so be good for goodness sake, _or else._

[@waveman0]

can 'god' create a prison so secure he/it cannot escape from it?

[@crazyprayingmantis5596]

WLC just did