David Bentley Hart on William Lane Craig

[@NateBostian]

"I would rather that the apologists for that kind of view [of Biblical inerrancy] loose the debate." Amen. It took me over a decade to see it this way. But he's right. Inerrancy does not set out to demonstrate the adequacy of Theism. It sets out to prove a book is our standard of perfection. And that is to place the book above God in a form of bibliolatry.

[@ScotBontrager]

At least within my sphere, the debate about biblical authority really has less to do with the authority of a book (whatever that could possibly mean--seems like a category error of the most crass sort to me) and more to do with the authority of a particular hermeneutic. That is, it is the way the book MUST be interpreted, that has become the idol. Speaking of the book (and the interpretative methods) as "the Truth" elevates the word about the Word to the same status as the Word. Calvin was right on at least one thing: we sure to love to fabricate us some idols.

[@henrik_worst_of_sinners]

Agnes Philomena Craig’s ordo theologiae is closer to Eastern Orthodoxy than Hart’s is. Theology starts with humility and faith. Not worldly philosophy. Because all epistemology starts with faith in one form or another. So why not start with faith in God? Too much to ask? Evidently yes because Hart starts with pagan philosophy and adds the Christian system on top of it like a wig. But he could just as easily added any other religion. Which he also does placing them next to Christianity. You Catholics have done the same since Aquinas if not earlier. This is why Pope Francis now says his pagan god wills all religions. Publically breaking the first commandment. You cannot reason back to God by observing a fallen world. Heretics commonly deny or downplay the significance of the fall. Orthodox doctrine on the Fall is that Adam’s and the Cosmos’ ontology were significantly changed. Catholic doctrine says it always was natural and Adam only lost some grace during the fall. St Paul clearly contrasts the ”wisdom of this world” (which is fallen) to the ”Wisdom of God”. One cannot trust reason if one first doesn’t trust the Logos from which reason comes. Moses saw the backside of the Logos which means he followed HIM faithfully as a guide on a trail knowing the Greatest of all minds was leading him. Faith is in the heart, the organ which sees God and when properly disposed is the Nous. Faith was the rock which on Jacob built Isreal and St Peter built the Church (yes it was his faith! Not him as a godemperor like you Catholics believe). Pilate did not follow Christ who is the Way but faced Him square on, that is he was travelling the opposite direction, and Pilate cannot see the truth even if he stares right at Him who is the Truth and who leads to eternal Life. Intellect is only to follow and assist, not to lead or steer. Because Minerva who Pilate probably worshipped did not help him one bit, now did she?

[@henrik_worst_of_sinners]

@@anahata3478 Divine Simplicity yes, but not Absolute Divine Simplicity. Orthodoxy holds the Essence / Energies distinction, which is not compatible with ADS. So if you mean ADS you are absolutely (pun intended) wrong. Hart adheres to universal salvation which has been condemned at councils. Also Hart's Bible translation starts with a quote from the "Gospel of Thomas". He's a raging heretic, plain and simple.

[@DanielEBurnette]

What is the context that all of this is being broadcasted in? William Lane Craig does not have any arguments, or defend any arguments, for the existence of God based on the inerrancy of Scripture. Nate, what are you and David Hart referring to?

[@NateBostian]

My comment from 7 years ago is based on what he is saying about inerrancy as a way of understanding Scripture. I am not a WLC scholar, nor am I particularly interested in him based on his books and articles I have read. My point is simply to echo DBH that inerrancy is a dead end spiritually and philosophically, and a pernicious misread of Scripture that is entirely a modern phenomenon.

[@StJoseph777]

Protestants are very hard for any orthodox-based Christians to talk to, but the hardest are the Evangelicals; their approach to scripture and thus the entire faith is so alien from the orthodox view it's almost easier to argue with a Jew or a Muslim. I know Evangelicals don't like hearing it, but while we do embrace them as Christians there's a reason we have a hard time agreeing even if "we all believe in Jesus." Too much is just different. They're barely recognizable as the same religion, although again, we do have to accept that they are Christians. This is particularly acute in the English-speaking world, but I know it's spreading through Catholic and Orthodox lands quickly, and will be at least as much challenge as other faiths to orthodoxy.

[@theonetruechazz598]

I'm Evangelical, and honestly yeah our viewpoints are way too out there. We really need to start reining in our ideology. It's just impossible to convince non Christians that Christianity is true if we don't approach it carefully enough not to make us seem crazy. But you do have a point, and I do agree Evangelism is kinda wack. I've been looking more and more into orthodox Christianity however, and it does look interesting. I still really like WLC though, he's a very good debater.

[@theonetruechazz598]

@David Joseph Yeah ok bud

[@DanielEBurnette]

Im not trying to throw fire on tribalism here, but DB Hart says that he disagrees with WLC's concept of God, which, he says, is the same view held by Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne... both Orthodox Christians. So it doesnt seem that this can be boiled down to a Protestant v Orthodox issue since Hart disagrees with Orthodox who hold the same view as, the Protestant, William Lane Craig.

[@stefang.9763]

@@DanielEBurnette Rightly pointed out, Daniel. As one coming from eastern Europe, I'm still under the impression that modern eastern orthodox are one of the most fundamentalist and un-orthodox christian groups out there. Meanwhile I also start getting the point about evangelicals in America being on the same track. There is a certain self-sufficiency related to christian groups when in majority - seems that it makes us worse in watching over ourselves. Then, of course, group adherence biases in the way we approach each others are so damaging to the christian unity.

[@bradvincent2586]

I’m an evangelical and I agree with you but we be makin a comeback!! Watch out, the first could be last 😅

[@vincentparrella272]

Not a fair assessment of Dr.Craigs view.

[@77goanywhere]

Craig is a good apologist on the evidences for the resurrection, and on evidences for the existence of God, but he lost my respect when he attempted to justify his view of eternal conscious torment for unbelievers. Unsophisticated and cartoonish.

[@gfujigo]

@@77goanywhere I am curious, what view do you think the Bible supports about hell?

[@billybagbom]

While I appreciate Hart's critique of some of Craig's exegetical forays, I don't quite understand what he means by charging Craig with believing in an amplified Zeus instead of the God of classical theism. Can someone please enlighten me on this point?

[@davea18]

I had a somewhat lengthy reply typed up and youtube somehow deleted it. So instead you can read essentially what I was going to say at: www.theguardian.com/news/oliver-burkeman-s-blog/2014/jan/14/the-theology-book-atheists-should-read

[@billybagbom]

Dave Andrea Thank you for this link. It was exactly what I was looking for.

[@billybagbom]

Dave Andrea Thanks again, Dave. Hart and Feser don't always seem to agree, but when they do, I think it wise to pay attention!

[@Satarack]

billybagbom There's a problem though with emphasizing too much the "classical" view of god on the matter, namely that you end up devolving into a what is essentially a Taoist. You have to walk this tight rope between saying God's not a person, but saying that God isn't just some inanimate ultimate force or being. Saying that something that isn't a person nevertheless has properties and powers we normally associate with personhood (intention, knowledge, love, etc.)

[@reglyfr64626]

I think Hart points out that all too often God becomes hemmed in by human surmise and that one invariably then ends up with a stunted caricature of the Lord. God/ Jesus then is framed by the interpretation we levy upon the Scriptures.

[@toddlewis8715]

Who is Hart even talking about? Really he acts as if William Lane Craig is six day creations literalist southern Baptist. He is not. Also Hart is flat out wrong when he says that the patristics did not believe the historical meaning of a given text was unimportant to the text's meaning. For example Basil's Hexaemeron Homily II: "Now twenty-four hours fill up the space of one day- we mean of a day and of a night; and if, at the time of the solstices, they have not both an equal length, the time marked by Scripture does not the less circumscribe their duration. It is as though it said: twenty-four hours measure the space of a day, or that, in reality a day is the time that the heavens starting from one point take to return there. Thus, every time that, in the revolution of the sun, evening and morning occupy the world, their periodical succession never exceeds the space of one day. But must we believe in a mysterious reason for this? God who made the nature of time measured it out and determined it by intervals of days; and, wishing to give it a week as a measure, he ordered the week to revolve from period to period upon itself, to count the movement of time, forming the week of one day revolving seven times upon itself: a proper circle begins and ends with itself. " And Aquinas in the Summa Theologica First Part Question 74 Article 3 Reply to Objection 7: The words "one day" are used when day is first instituted, to denote that one day is made up of twenty-four hours. Hence, by mentioning "one," the measure of a natural day is fixed. Another reason may be to signify that a day is completed by the return of the sun to the point from which it commenced its course. And yet another, because at the completion of a week of seven days, the first day returns which is one with the eighth day. The three reasons assigned above are those given by Basil (Hom. ii in Hexaem.). Hmmm. I did not know that Basil and Aquinas were literalist positivists? Maybe Hart needs to check himself. I guess Hart would wish Basil to lose in a debate with Dawkins, since Basil affirms a literal twenty-four hour day in genesis.

[@45calebt]

Todd Lewis Perhaps his views changed over time, but at one time, Origen wrote, in reply to the pagan Celsus: "After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated." St. Augustine wrote: "...we reckon, from the evidence of the holy Scriptures, that fewer than 6,000 years have passed since man's first origin." Theophilus of Antioch wrote: "For my purpose is not to furnish mere matter of much talk, but to throw light upon the number of years from the foundation of the world, and to condemn the empty labour and trifling of these authors, because there have neither been twenty thousand times ten thousand years from the flood to the present time, as Plato said, affirming that there had been so many years; nor yet 15 times 10,375 years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out..." I think its pretty clear that this reading of Genesis isn't uniquely a product of some kind of "modern Protestant fundie wackiness" as is sometimes intimated by guys like Hart.

[@toddlewis8715]

45calebt Exactly. You make good points. If I'm not mistaken the Augustine quote comes from the City of God. It's weird how the literal interpretation is always sidelined as fundy, even when it was standard Catholic and Orthodox belief for centuries.

[@Breckmin]

Todd Lewis i believe Hart might be a universalist or sympathy for it... in which case all wisdom begins to go out the window and it is replaced with historical lies.

[@toddlewis8715]

Breckmin If true that would make sense.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Er, except many in the early church were also universalists (Fathers and lay believers alike), and even today it's considered a possibility by the Catholic Church (Catholic theologians Dennis, Sheila, and Matthew Linn wrote a pro-universalism book called "Good Goats" which received official approval from the Church, indicating, not agreement, but that the Linns weren't stepping outside of Catholic bounds). The case for Christ-mediated universalism is much stronger than typically acknowledged. See (among others): -- The 2003 volume "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate" available at tinyurl.com/ycyzgavj -- Reitan and Kronen's philosophical case "God's Final Victory: A Comparative Philosophical Case for Universalism (Bloomsbury Studies in Philosophy of Religion" at tinyurl.com/yb592jef Parry's "The Evangelical Universalist" available at tinyurl.com/ya2jps3k Talbott's "Inescapable Love of God" available at tinyurl.com/y752v2df In these books (written by philosophers and theologians) you'll find plenty of (a) philosophical, scriptural, and theological arguments for Christ-mediated universalism, (b) some discussions of the early church (I can recommend better sources for that), and (c) interactions with their critics (e.g. Parry has an appendix devoted entirely to William Lane Craig, and it's worth the read) Hart's embrace of universalism is *not* a flaw, even if you disagree with him.

[@Seraphim-Hamilton]

Hart is full of it on the history of biblical interpretation, and he should know it. The comments about the ark are laughable. Whatever you think about the story, St. Augustine himself calculated up the ark's dimensions and argued in detail for its plausibility. The idea of thrusting the label of "modernist" on those who affirm the historicity of Scripture is a cheap trick, and anybody who is actually acquainted with Patristic readings of the OT knows it.

[@ObjectiveBob]

Hart acknowledged your point: //Augustine believed the story of the Garden of Eden; no reason he shouldn't--they didn't have geology at the time; Origen believed that that was allegorical all the way through. But none of them was a literalist; none of them believed that the truth of the Bible had anything to do with whether it simply always was describing a historically objective event. That was not the question. [The question] is whether the Holy Spirit could speak to the inspired reader.// It is the latter point which is relevant here. Hart is being somewhat sloppy (informal) in his enunciation of the point here due to limited time, but he develops the topic in his lecture (on my channel: "David Bentley Hart on the Intersections of Scripture and Theology").

[@patricks4401]

Is there a video of the whole talk?

[@jameswatrous1777]

William Lane Craig is a nice man and a smart man in many ways but he tends towards fundamentalism. Instead of seeing debate between Craig and Dawkins I would rather see a debate between Hart and Dawkins. Incidentally Dawkins and Keith Ward had a debate in the mid 90's. In my opinion Ward won.

[@RomTankin]

Agreed. I always wondered why Hart gets very little action when it comes to the more public debates.

[@jameswatrous1777]

ColdRoses Good question.

[@bananimal45]

ColdRoses It's because Hart's definition of the word 'God' is radically different than Dawkins's definiton or WLC's definition. So, half of the debate (at least) would be explaining to them what he means by the word God. In other words, they can't just have a normal debate because they are talking about two qualitatively different definitions of the word 'God.' Dawkins is actually closer (in a sense) to Hart than is WLC.

[@RomTankin]

This is true. You'd have to start with an introductory class in Theology 101 on "What God is and what it means to believe in such a thing," and touch on aesthetics. And, really, who's going to put that on?

[@bananimal45]

ColdRoses I don't think the vast majority of theology students nor instructors of theology understand Hart's definition either. I consider myself an 'atheist' for the most part, but if 'God' is defined in a way similar to Hart's definition or the other, similar orthodox/postmodern theologians, then I am not really able to maintain my 'atheism' in any meaningful sense. I still consider myself an atheist (again, for the most part) because it simply is a fact that the Western culture is oblivious to pre-modern conceptions of 'God' or reality, and it seems to be more confusing than clarifying to identify as a 'theist' because of that cultural fact. I believe that Hart's entire philosophy and metaphysical arguments towards his conception of 'God' could be reworded in a way that uses no mention of the word 'God' and would even seem more-or-less unrelated to the study of theism in general in the eyes of most modern-day philosophers. Hart is talking purely about mankind's metaphysical presumptions of reality, which is a starkly different conversation than what most people tend to identify as a 'religious' debate or conversation.

[@chrisdoke5214]

Interesting. I do enjoy William Lane Craig and quote him frequently but I can see Where Hart is coming from. Its interesting to see different views from such great thinkers.

[@Thomasrice07]

Lane Craig has a strange view of the Trinity. That each Person has a different center of consciousness, and denies that Christ has a human soul.

[@rtgray7]

Mr. Hart you are MISREPRESENTING Craig's view of "literal interpretation" of scripture. He has the same view as you do.

[@claymcdermott718]

Hart is unprofessional and straw mans other Christians frequently.

[@rtgray7]

@@anahata3478 Lol! Look up "strawman".. And, I'm not a Craig defender per se, I just think Hart is the most overrated christian "intellectual"in the world.

[@Eric123456355]

Absurd

[@rtgray7]

@@Eric123456355 Yes he is.

[@Eric123456355]

@@rtgray7 in which point? 2 different gods one a being second Being itself

[@401Northwestern]

Damn, many of the criticisms of Hart seem to be the product of a narrow minded fundamentalist. The ignorance on this thread makes Harts point. Smh

[@lament22]

spot on

[@danielswaim5566]

Is he suggesting that Craig is a literalist? He isn't.

[@crusaderking5387]

WLC is an evangelical but he sounds very Catholic in his debates. Most of his arguments come from Aquinas, Aristotle and Plato.

[@danielswaim5566]

***** Reasonable Faith pages: 96-97, he draws on Aquinas' version of the cosmological argument and the problem of infinite regress; 114, he draws on Aquinas to demonstrate the absurdity of the "what caused God?" objection; 152, he discusses Aquinas and classical theistic conceptions of God's nature and the logical conditions that a first cause would be required to meet; 209-210, he discusses Aquinas' view of signs as evidence for the truth of Christianity. Craig uses Aquinas quite a bit. The only real difference between Craig and the classical theists is Craig's commitment to divine personalism.

[@crusaderking5387]

Daniel Swaim Agree! I've seen many of Mr. Craig's debates And have read the chapters on the existence of God in the "Suma Contra Gentiles" by Aquinas. There is no doubt that his cosmological argument is almost exactly the same as St. Thomas'. It's possible Mr. Craig did not get it from there. He may have got it from somewhere else,or he may have figured it out himself. If he did get it from St. Thomas he will never admit it; he is pretty anti Catholic from what I can tell. But whether anti Catholic or not he sure sounds Catholic in his philosophy. He sounds more like Aristotle than Plato, that is he sounds more Catholic than Protestant.

[@bananimal45]

Daniel Swaim Hart thinks that the strongest logical argument is the argument from ontological contingency via Aquinas. Read his book and you will see. He refers to it throughout the book. WLC doesn't understand the different between physical contingency and ontological contingency, and therefore he doesn't see Aquinas's argument from contingency as a viable argument.

[@ChristvsVincit]

Hart is well spoken and speaks to interesting and varied point in a way that i think is easier for contemporary people to understand and see as relevant. With that said, dont go too early into this mode of "i prefer Hart over Craig" or vice versa. Before buying into this whole set of questions (particularily on "thomism" vs "personal theism/monopolytheism"), take more time to learn about it. I think this debate may overestimate the capacities of philosophy and theology and unless you are a professional theologian, capable of really seeing alot of the implications, it may be a bad idea to get too heavily invested in this debate. My mind is not made up, but im open to the idea that this debate is a fruit of modernity and not a necessary part of truly classical theology. Also, on Hart, before forming your opinion of him as a theologian, check out what he is saying. In one video, he claims that the major world religions got its basic theology about God figured out in roughly the same way, and claims that the rest of religious divergences are more or less cultural artefacts. If this is Harts view, he should not be posited as some champion "classical theology". If this is his view indeed, what you got is a theology of being and an allegorical approach to scripture. He sits right there with Origen, as a universalist! Being and allegories, is that what Christ died for? No meat and potatoes there. Basically, just a very good philosopher making a case for liberal theology. Im not saying "this is Hart"! i am saying, take a closer look both at Hart and at this debate before buying it.

[@jordancox8294]

Universalism is true

[@kccgurl]

You're suffering under quite a few conceptual confusions if you think Hart is in any way liberal. But, I suppose, for many people "liberal" is simply the word they use to describe people who disagree with them.

[@ChristvsVincit]

I dont think your answer reflects what im getting at in my comment. Regardless of all the flaws in comment, my case is quite evidently not that "Hart is liberal, therefore disregard". I have not even said that he is liberal. I have said he is a very good philosopher making a case that, on key points, converges with 19th century liberal theology. I am not unknowledgeable, currently doing PhD in theology. What I am advocating is an openness to the idea that Hart is not the kind of theologian who he says/think he is. He is fresh and okay with taking lone route (his latest book on universalism shows this), he is obviously intelligent and well spoken, and he has many merits going for him. But i am not convinced he is as aligned to antiquity as he says/thinks he is, and im advising caution before accepting his own narrative.

[@mburumorris3166]

@@ChristvsVincit Not aligned to antiquity but you claim his reading is closer to Origen's. What does antiquity mean to you ?

[@internetenjoyer1044]

I dimly recall Craig's exegesis of the text in question, and from memory Craig was making a defence of it on the ASSUMPTION of a literal reading and on the assumption of divine moral authority. I think said said to Krauss: "If you're not reading this literally, then the moral problem doesn't even arise"

[@jfrontier1]

Brian Davies offers an interesting discussion and thoughts on theistic personalism in his book an introduction to the philosophy of religion. And can we not also suggest that William Paley and contemporary “Intelligent Design” theorists work/state at least (or somewhat) implicitly with an essentially theistic personalist rather than classical theist conception of God? I do like WLC but do think he is incorrect on how he views Divine Simplicity and that it is the classical theist who tends to start from the idea that whatever else God is, he is essentially that reality which is absolutely ultimate or fundamental, and the source of all other reality (some theists might refer to God as actus purus). I tend to disagree with the theistic personists as they seem to view God as simply "a being" only without the limitations that other beings have (a view that essentially is an anthropomorphic conception of God). God is no more a person alongside other persons than He is a being alongside other beings.

[@pclafferty1]

does the full "interview" exist somewhere?

[@delbertclement2115]

@CosmicSkeptic I find this guy to be the best theologian out there. What do you think?

[@Truthsayer1979]

Anyone who thinks this is an accurate description of the way William Lane Craig reads the Bible hasn't read his book on Adam and Eve. Of course, Hart said this over a decade ago, but even then Craig was saying similar things.

[@bayreuth79]

The Bible was read as a _positivist_ text in the early modern period. By 'positivist' D B Hart means that it was read as a set of facts, somewhat akin to a science textbook: historical facts, etc. However, this is not the how the Bible was read in the Patristic period. To read _ad literam_ was to follow the logic of the text through, not to read it as a collection of facts. Genre, for instance, is important. Genesis is _mythos_ and to read it _ad literam_ involves reading it precisely as mythological. Moreover, the reading of scripture requires not only the inspired text but also an inspired reader.

[@Breckmin]

I prefer to criticize WLC's arguments rather than him personally. I think D.B.H. here is out of touch with the Holiness of the God of Abraham and the Tanakh apologetic. The fact that he agrees with Dawkins is very telling...

[@spilkafurtseva1918]

Anyone have the whole original video?

[@Meta_Myself]

I think Hart is mistaking William Lane Craig for Ken Ham.

[@greenmarine500]

I don’t know what Craigs position on this is, but it really does sound like Ken Ham

[@ericday4505]

DBH does not have to criticize Bill Craig, it is Craig that is on the front line in debate after debate. While I love both these guys it is shameful to go after Bill Craig here, just not necessary.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Craig has never won a Debate because he gives no actual evidence but untestable nonsense

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Jarrid Gable kzbin.info/www/bejne/jYa8g6KPoZycbLc

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Jarrid Gable Maybe... but if Christianity is true,life would be immortal but what would that actually be!? When life is short,it has more intensity and meaning!!

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Ariiel11RP Dr Richard Carrier has challenged that notion....the Scholars you cite are not checking their sources or are Theists: Richard spent 6 years on his PhD at Berkeley to find mythic man because the sources you think show Jesus existed are not reliable! Check his evidence:

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Ariiel11RP kzbin.info/www/bejne/o6i4i4KQg5JsmsU

[@jmdb7895]

Do you even perfect being theology bro? That's hardly an amplified Zeus my friend.

[@danielulisesalberdi7319]

It is and amplified zeus, because according to that theology God is the "greatest being" among others beings. God is not a being, but the "Ground of Being".

[@markdaniels1730]

A perfect being is still A being. He is a subset of all that exists and thus cannot be the Source of all that exists.

[@MakeTheStand]

biblical inerrancy isn't biblical fundamentalism. as is being implied here. hart mentions Augusitine. Catholics are the farthest from fundamentalism there is.

[@justchilling704]

This guy either doesn’t know what he’s talking about or he’s intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting William Lane Craig, and inerrancy.

[@eidos1975]

One should give Hart (DBH) the benefit of the doubt as this video is off-the-cuff commentary, but that said, he doesn't offer anything substantive to the questioner regarding his supposed disagreements with Craig (WLC) or Plantinga or Swinburne. E.g., First, although DBH finds himself in agreement with Dawkins, the problem is that Dawkins never bothered to offer a rebuttal to WLC's Canaanite argument in the first place (sure, DBH might agree with Dawkins's conclusion, but that's not very interesting--anyone can do that! We need to know how Dawkins or DBH justify that conclusion). Moreover, "crudity" and "moral offensiveness" of an argument are irrelevant to its soundness; so on what logically valid grounds does DBH object? Second, wrt to the sense in which Scripture is literal, WLC and DBH actually agree, as WLC has no dog in the fight on days of creation, evolution (as such), Noah's ark, or, ironically, in this context, even the destruction of the Canaanites. (Or at most, they're much more shallowly ingressed compared to, say, the Resurrection, or theism itself.) Third, wrt the Zeus comparison, how does the falsity of classical theism follow from the claim that God is a person (actually, tripersonal), albeit a sui generis person? I know what Ed Feser says on this, and I have immense admiration for him, but objections on the order of where one "begins from" (a la "views of P tend to begin with the idea that Q") wrongly treat psychological factors as if they have relevance to logical validity.

[@blubblubber9460]

As if logical validity alone was some kind of gold standard when it comes to religious belief. "There exists a flying spaghetti monster". Find the logical flaw.

[@randomperson2078]

One can be a man of profound intellect and a debased character. When Craig justified the murder of infants by saying “Their murder was their salvation,” one begins to grasp that to some Christians, the decision to worship Christ rather than King Herod is a matter of convenience.

[@1JAMINben]

I'm not a theistic personalist, but I don't think Craig believes in a being akin to Zeus. Also this barely was about Craig and more about literalism. Also his assessment of the literal understanding of Scripture really seemed rather short sighted and simplistic.

[@micahscanz]

Instead of making up our own version of how Scripture should be read and interpreted, why don't we just observe the way Jesus and the writers of inspired Scripture thought it should be done? The authors of Scripture give us a clear delineation of hermeneutical principles if we only would observe how they themselves interpreted God's Word.

[@markdaniels1730]

Well, if you want to simply ignore 2 millenia of the development of Christianity, Philosophy, and observable facts that can be confirmed beyond a doubt by modern science and instead think that you actually have the capacity to completely reconstruct the hermeneutical principles that Jesus and the Apostles had all on your own from just a smattering of passages that could possibly give us an insight into that, sure, go right ahead. But then don't complain when your worldview comes crashing down like a house of cards when you try to take it out into the real world.

[@gre8]

Well, if they did, it really isn't what modern evangelicals expect. Just take Paul's interpretation of Isaac and Ismael in Galatians. He says so himself that it is an allegory for something else. Bible reading was a far more creative and interesting practice than modern evangelical attempts to make each Bible verse a positive statement with a single definite meaning which on cannot go beyond.

[@jonathanthompson4734]

Late to the party but Craig disagrees with classical theism? I think he'd disagree with your construal of his idea of what God is like. Zeus?! Come on! I can understand the lack of Divine Simplicity but I don't see how God being personal is so problematic.

[@kccgurl]

I think you misunderstand Hart's position here. God is not a person, but that does not mean he is not personal. The classical theist draws the distinction between him having personhood and him being personal.

[@scarfhs1]

So god communicates with humanity via a book which we are not supposed to take literally?

[@ezrawilson6986]

No, God dialogues with humanity via a series of books that span the full array of literary types, from poetry to narrative.

[@isishart6277]

God is alive

[@greatsea]

David Hart here is blatantly (although I hope not intentionally dishonestly) misrepresenting William Lane Craig's position.

[@akimoetam1282]

greatsea that’s philosophical debate for ya

[@lament22]

i mean hes really not, your comment aged very poorly

[@tabrizi79]

thanks, please upload more

[@piusvapor]

I am skeptical of all critiques (even Craig's) upon someone who can not defend themselves, by virtue of their physical absence!!!

[@chrisray9653]

How someone like WLC could get the education he did and still remain an American Evangelical is treachery.

[@bayreuth79]

None of the Church fathers were _literalists_ in the sense that the truth of the Bible is not dependent on it giving us factual information about objective historical events.

[@theguyver4934]

Just like biblical and historical evidence proves that jesus and his apostles were vegatarians biblical and historical evidence also proves that the trinity, atonement, original sin and hell are very late misinterpretations and are not supported by the early creed hence its not a part of Christianity I pray that Allah swt revives Christianity both inside and out preserves and protects it and makes its massage be witnessed by all people but at the right moment, place and time The secred text of the Bible says ye shall know them by their fruits So too that I say to my christian brothers and sisters be fruitful and multiply Best regards from a Muslim ( line of ismail )

[@uroszivkovic9988]

Original sin is not part of Orthodox Christianity and is a fabrication of the Catholic church, the Holy Trinity, on the other hand, is absolutely central to the doctrine of the early and Ofthodox Church. To claim otherwise is to be un/misinformed pr simply deceitful.

[@theguyver4934]

@@uroszivkovic9988 Okay let me ask you something if the trinity is so dame important then why is the concept so alien to the jews jesus and his apostles were jewish and jews don't believe in a triune godhead but one unified being known as Yahweh

[@Μύρων-β7τ]

He kind of mixes up the "literalism" on scientific facts and the Bible, with the historical fastc presented there. Nearly all of the Church Fathers believed that historical facts (e.d. Noah's ark) were historical. There soylhd be no debate between "literal" and "metaphorical" exegesis here. Either you believe that the Bible contains some historic fastc, or you do not.

[@jimperry4108]

Dawkins won't debate Craig because it takes too long to address the constant BS that piles up when Craig and others like him speak. They can say what they want without a shred of proof and their followers eat it up without understanding much of it. it just sounds good and they get a good feeling from it. they don't question it. there...fixed it for ya.

[@justchilling704]

That’s a long way of saying Dawkins was just scared to debate Craig.

[@jimperry4108]

@@justchilling704 No, I'm saying Craig spews nonsense such as wanting you to disprove a god.

[@bobwilson360]

Oops. Both wrong. How dat happened?

[@Christian_Maoist.]

Why are so many Orthodox theologians so... Pompous?

[@johnsinclair4621]

Didn’t know Craig was orthodox...

[@heavybar3850]

To be fair, William lane craig isn't a young earth creationist and takes many verses on a figuirative level.

[@Liminalplace1]

This man is not Orthodox or orthodox in any sense. he just uses that place to question things

[@Vedioviswritingservice]

Why doesn't he do the debates then ? Or someone else ? Every time I see a debate Atheism vs Christianity its always William Lane Craig. Every single time. All the great divinity schools we have in this nation and we can't produce anyone else willing to do it ? Craig does Christianity a disservice. Surely there must be someone else.

[@sheriffackerman9520]

You should check who is John Lennox. He was debating with Dawkins, Hitchens or Krauss and he is even better then WLC in my opinion...

[@ericday4505]

Cyric London WLC surely doesnt do Christianity a disservice that is blatantly unfair, he stands up and debates all comers and wins just about everytime. I have yet to see Hart debate anyone.

[@ericday4505]

Kamil Farba Lennox is more personable then WLC, I would agree.

[@ericday4505]

AZ Outcast I am not quite sure of your point, but it would have been nice to see. Hart debate Harris or Hitch, obviously he wont be debating Hitchens but someone, and I am not talking WLC.

[@theodorearaujo971]

Dawkins won't debate Craig because Craig has stated that he believes genocide is justified because it is in the old testament. Dawkins also refuses to debate this psychopath because Craig never responds to any of the arguments of his opponent, he just repeats a logical argument over and over again to try and establish that it is not irrational to have faith. He is wrong, of course, because faith is per-se irrational when there is no evidence to support the belief.

[@LeoPriester]

OMG, you're so wrong....lol

[@franciscafazzo3460]

So Moses was wasting this time recounting the history.

[@ManForToday]

Very unfair and disingenuous assessment of Craig's views. Simply misinformed.

[@aleasebabu319]

William Lane Craig is probably the Finest Theologian and Apologist of this past half century.

[@blablabubles]

he is a good apologist but he's theology is quiet lacking, especially his monopolytheist understanding of a God.

[@bananimal45]

blablabubles Woah. "Monopolytheist" is an excellent description of Craig's theology. I love the word and will incorporate it into my vocabulary. Thanks!

[@blablabubles]

bananimal45 your welcome;)

[@TorianTammas]

If this would be true then Theology would be in a very bad shape. WLC uses over and over and over the same kind of tricks. In some ways he is a used car salesman. May be the best of his kind but not a theologian in any way shape or form.

[@ericday4505]

TorianTammas WLC is much more of a philosopher then theologian. He is a very good religious philosopher.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

*Initially,* Dawkins said, "I don't know who Craig is, and while a debate would look good on Craig's resume, it wouldn't look good on mine." (a) If Dawkins didn't know who Craig was, then *how* could he know one way or another *whose* resume would be improved? (b) Dawkins has said religious debate opponents need to "at least be Bishops." But Craig has two doctorates, one in theology and one in philosophy (specializing in philosophy of science and philosophy of religion) (c) Craig has published in mainstream academic philosophy and theology journals, often with skeptical editors/referees. Only much later -- presumably after Dawkins looked up Craig -- did Dawkins *change* his rationale about not wanting to share a stage with someone who has morally-repugnant views on certain OT stories... Except Dawkins had *already* debated people who share Craig's views! I agree with Hart and Dawkins that it's moral garbage to defend some of these OT stories, but Dawkins is using that as an excuse to save face.

[@kenlee9045]

Dawkins was right in this respect: it didn't look good on his resume after he debated Craig. Logic and argument are clearly beyond him. From Craig's debates, I don't get the idea that he thinks God is of existence, but rather that he created existence, so to speak. But he does use the common parlance, "does God exist?" and that confuses the issuie.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Craig doesn’t argue that God “created existence,” which is a self-refuting contradictory claim.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

But yah, instead of asking “does God exist?” I prefer asking, “is theism true?” I usually prefer specifying “classical theism,” but one can still ask whether Craig’s theistic personalism is true.

[@skyeangelofdeath7363]

Well.....I guess it takes an apologist to make another apologist seem reasonable.......

[@lysanderofsparta3708]

David Bentley Hart -- he looks like Orson Welles and talks like Jim Morrison.

[@CGoldthorpe]

He disagrees with him bravo!, Let;s see if he can come to reason.

[@JRRodriguez-nu7po]

As an agnostic I rejected the theory of macroevolution and remained agnostic for over a year. Had this man taught me, I would still be an agnostic. I take the Bible as the patristics didvtaje it, as real history. This man is lying to himself.

[@shostycellist]

Nonsense. And in what way is Craig even a "literalist"?

[@rocio8851]

William Lane Craig is wrong because David Bentley Hart is envious! WLC is one of the toughest Christian apologists in our time. Not to say that he is the best debater by far!

[@ericday4505]

Who has David Bentley Hart ever debated? Just curious.

[@BigG99]

So Jesus refers to the Old testament accounts mentioned as historical events. Therefore I will go with Jesus on this one and not David Bentley Hart.

[@ObjectiveBob]

I suppose the real question is not whether you should "go" with Hart or "go" with Jesus; rather, the question is, Did Christ have perfect knowledge as a human being during his incarnation? Mark says that the Son doesn't know "the day and the hour." Luke says that Jesus grew (or increased) in wisdom and stature. Hebrews says, "Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered." How could Jesus "increase in wisdom" and "learn obedience" if he was all-knowing in his human consciousness during his incarnation? This certainly seems to imply that the God-man chose to temporarily set aside his ability to know everything; or as John Calvin said, that "the Son of God condescended on our account" and "was willing, for a time, to be deprived of understanding." It shouldn't surprise us that, during his incarnation, Jesus adopted the pre-scientific worldview of his time, given that he was fully human--a man with a human consciousness in real space and time.

[@BigG99]

ObjectiveBob Yes but Jesus was also fully God and as such he could take back up full knowledge at any time he pleases. Now that Christ is in his fully divine state once again, do you not think that as the scriptures were breathed out by God, that we have an accurate account of teaching from Christ? That the nature and historicity of Christs teaching is in fact accurate? Are you saying that because Jesus chose to withhold some knowledge, that he was therefore fallible?

[@ObjectiveBob]

BigG99 Regarding your claim that Jesus "could take back up full knowledge at any time," it seems like you're implying that Christ could somehow, on a whim, "switch" between his human knowledge and his pre-incarnate knowledge (the latter of which is an utter mystery, btw). I see no evidence of this in the New Testament whatsoever. Jesus remained fully human until his death. As to your question about whether or not I believe we have an accurate account of Christ's teachings--yes, I trust the historical accuracy of the Gospels, and of course I believe that the nature and historicity of Christ's teachings are accurate. That doesn't mean that Christ had perfect *empirical* knowledge while on earth. If by "fallible" you mean that the incarnate Jesus of Nazareth didn't know the discoveries of quantum physics, then yeah I suppose he was "fallible" (but I think that's a very crude definition of fallibility).

[@BigG99]

ObjectiveBob the incarnate Jesus of Nazareth created quantum physics. He was fully man and fully God. He had it all at his disposal. That is different than his willing refusal to engage in its fullness.

[@ObjectiveBob]

BigG99 To say that the incarnate Jesus created quantum physics makes no sense (did he wake up one morning and decide to whip up some quantum physics?). No, the operation of quantum physics was there billions of years before the incarnation. Like all modern science, quantum physics is merely the discovery of deeper facets of a spatiotemporal cosmos that, as you know, is created and sustained by God from eternity. But I fear we're getting sidetracked by my "quantum physics" example (which really was meant as a mere example!). I agree that the Logos "had it all at his disposal" as you say, but the point is that he "emptied himself," as the New Testament says. My only point is that in that self-emptying, he possessed the empirical knowledge of his time, which was non-scientific in nature. He had to do that if he was going to be truly human.

[@robertlight3396]

The deity is no more, the Christians bored god to death! Why are theologians so dull?

[@dynamic9016]

Very interesting.

[@SheplerStudios]

Parsing a vacuum. You cannot divide that which does not exist.

[@ObjectiveBob]

How do you know God doesn't exist?

[@Breckmin]

***** but your "heart" is... Question everything.

[@Markhuntonio]

The two kinds of gods,the first the god of the holy books with prophets for tellers,a God absolutely man shaped and fabricated with man maded ridiculous and contradictory laws and guidelines with injustice,cruelty and popcorns for all sinning for too much superfluous information as for too litle or missed out necessary facts and directives for life,life then and life now,this god is a farse,so sad could make a rock cry.THIS IS THE GOD WHO FILLS MAN'S SCARED HEART. The second God i supose is Einstein's God,the God of the Cosmos,the God Creator of whom we know nothing,never came to earth,was never revealed,the God like wind that makes us feel his presence but never see him,his essence is proved in the simple architecture of space,in the intelligent behind everything we presence and sense,a God much harder to be disproved.THIS IS THE GOD WHO FILLS THE UNIVERSE'S NEEDS FOR A REASON TO BE. Well,which one is real?None in my opinion. An abstract intelligence? A Causal Magic Entity? An Unknown kind of Something? A "Thing" that created EveryThing? As a last resource i prefer the dificulty of not knowing than knowing a dificulty.

[@bananimal45]

You seem interested in this subject, so I would invite you to read Hart's book: "The Experience of God." Basically, Hart's conception of "God" (along with the pre-modern theologians) is of "necesary Being." This is very different from "A necessary Being." God, to Hart, is not some object or "thing" that has "existence," but rather the necessary Being that needs to be in place in order for all contingent "beings" to have existence. So, Hart and company would actually deny the statement "God exists." God is not something that 'has' existence. But is the inevitable result of the radical ontological contingency of the universe.

[@seankennedy4284]

Mr. Hart cites "geology" as a reason for why the biblical text ought not be taken in a historically literal manner. I doubt very much that Mr. Hart has any expertise in geology. Upon what basis, then, does he justifiably suppose that the Genesis account of Noah's flood (for which, shockingly, there indeed exists substantial geological evidence) should necessarily demonstrate any LESS of the miraculous than does the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, for example. Simply, he has been misled by the errors of an unbelieving mainstream culture---in this case, mainstream geological science, which denies in all of its endeavors the very possibility of God.

[@jeffrourke2322]

My main point of contention with William Lane Craig is his eagerness to state that nature, specifically in biology, is inadequate to properly explain the origin of life in the universe. Of course he is right at the present time, but he deduces from this observation that it must be a supernatural, miraculous cause that brings life forth in the universe. This is the problem with a God of the gaps explanation. I have faith that science will one day answer that question. What does an appeal to supernatural tweaking say about the majesty of God? That his creation is inadequate to produce complex living systems without Him reaching out from his timeless existence to tinker with the rules? I’ve seen John Lennox, another man that I admire, make this same argument. If you believe in a God with the power and imagination to create a universe as glorious and massive as ours, surely you must believe that he has made a physical system capable of producing life through its own natural processes. If we discover this mechanism, we are not explaining God away; we are merely gaining new insight into the incredible ingenuity of His mind. The theistic personalism that Hart describes here is a topic that I have yet to research enough to make a sound opinion, but I strongly suspect I will end up agreeing with David Bentley Hart. Believe in God as the ground of existence and you won’t have to worry about any of this stuff.

[@bananimal45]

for all end and purposes, David Bentley Hart is an atheist, at least in the sense we understand the word today based upon Western culture. He doesn't believe anything the "William Lane Craigs" of the world are spewing out. But he could also defeat the "new" atheists by only telling a brief story of history in Modernity. His conception of what the word "God" means is much more complex than most people watching this video understand. This is postmodernism people, and the future of philosophy.

[@Nomosowicz]

agreed.

[@ObjectiveBob]

DBH is not a postmodernist. His most extensive and most scholarly book, "The Beauty of the Infinite," is a refutation of postmodernism. Also, his concept of God is not "new" or "modern". It is the classical view of God expounded by the philosophical likes of Aquinas, Avicenna, and Maimonedes. Read them and you'll see. (Or just read "The Experience of God.")

[@bananimal45]

ObjectiveBob I didn't really mean 'postmodern' as much as 'anti-modern.' I have read "The Experience of God" twice so far this year, which is what actually got me into the study of this area of philosophy. I am familiar with his conception of God, and I believe that it is, for all practical purposes, most identifiable with atheism from the perspective of the average American. His conception of God is radically different from most people's.

[@shayneswenson]

The "average American" is a functional deist, or a disengaged nihilist unaware. God, to most of them, is either a divine, anthropomorphized vending machine, or a far off relative they've never met, but have "heard good things about". DBH holds to quite an Orthodox position, and I'm not surprised that the majority of his criticism emanates from within the cognitive dissonance of the aforementioned dogmatic preferences of the "average American's" theistic predilections.

[@gregbrougham1423]

The pagans of antiquity thought Christians were atheists...so yes DBH is an atheist in that his conception of God is different than most Americans.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Those who think Hart or WLC are correct,check your sources:.

[@TorianTammas]

Mr. Hart: "finite Zeus character" how cute. I agree it is a bit harsh on Zeus to compare him with the Jahweh god who drowns nearly all humanitry personally and endulges in sending out murdering angels to kill firstborn and commands to kill homosexuals, kill family members who choose another religion and kill disobedient children by stoning.

[@DrgOctavian]

God is killing all of us. Get over it.

[@TorianTammas]

Simon Amin What is your point?

[@DrgOctavian]

Your sarcasm is childish, that is my point, and it reveals a poor sophism. God is evil so God does not exists. Also trying to attribute a human like moral standard to a divine being is at least childish.

[@DrgOctavian]

Have a nice day.

[@TorianTammas]

Simon Amin Have a great SATURN-day. Saturn is a roman god and he is the reason for the Saturnalia festival which happened in late December. The time were today it is a claimed a certain Jewish boy way born. Isn't it amazing how some younger religions adapt older traditions? By the way at Saturnalia presents were exchanged.

[@ShadowMoses900]

William Lane Craig is a fundie. He's not a scholar or an intellectual, he's an apologist for Evangelical theology.

[@glutinousmaximus]

... I don;t think WLC has believed in the supernatural for quite some time now. But he's a good actor, and knows how to play on the emotions of his audience. Besides, the business he's in pays well enough and will handsomely cover his pension.

21th century - people still debate god...

[@martinb2213]

Why give Craig any attention he is just another theist trying to use warped arguments to logic a god into existence in a desperation as there is zero evidence for this imaginary being. I can never understand why anyone would give him the time of day Sean Carol handed him his backside a while ago.

[@TBOTSS]

Carroll Actually lost that one pretty badly. Even Vilenkin wrote that Carroll get the cosmology wrong and misinterpreted the BVG theorem. I remember when Craig spanked Larry Kruass the little fanboys were screaming the same crap. Vilenkin pointed out that Krauss was wrong as well.

[@tylerlynch2849]

A brilliant excoriation of a really disappointing lack of philosophical, moral, and theological rigour that Dr. Craig demonstrates

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Dr Richard Carrier BA,MA,MPhil,PhD...on Hart: "Just another self deluded Apologist who doesnt understand Ancient History or Reality...I have already caught him and Craig lying"

[@TBOTSS]

Dr Richard Carrier who was spanked like a silly little boy by William Lane Craig.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

TBOTSS Really when? He lost once many years ago...since then he has caught Craig lying...check your facts!! Craig lies and lies...he has no training in Evolutionary Science,Cosmology or Ancient History! He lost against Sean Carroll,Victor Stenger and Lawrence Krauss!!L rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hugh_Ross kzbin.info/www/bejne/mILQfnmHr9d4qcU kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3mmiIB7j7GjiNk Acharya S- Exposing Christianity: kzbin.info/aero/PLE7a2nnRT4JfSvwoWbc6LiR3hN7sHL7J1 kzbin.info/www/bejne/qoPVomapaLVmhtk kzbin.info/www/bejne/nHSZhWN3lraiqsk kzbin.info/www/bejne/lWaQkIGHltKfp7s kzbin.info/www/bejne/apvFf4WqZ8uYa5o kzbin.info/www/bejne/apvFf4WqZ8uYa5o kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6jClIGFg82bgas kzbin.info/www/bejne/qmKTl3eCm7iJbpo kzbin.info/www/bejne/kGqyZqqOqMykqMU kzbin.info/www/bejne/d5DHdaafe7-UZ7c www.skepticink.com/tippling/2014/02/08/william-lane-craig-is-either-lying-or-getting-things-very-wrong/ conwayhall.org.uk/ethicalrecord/william-lane-craigs-eight-reasons-for-god-refuted/ godisimaginary.com/ kzbin.info/www/bejne/m3OloHp3fah9Y5o&feature=share kzbin.info/www/bejne/fYK0dZ6rds2MhdU&feature=share www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15182 kzbin.info/www/bejne/e4uVnHqAoJl9pZY kzbin.info/www/bejne/p3XXaKqZatOhbac kzbin.info/www/bejne/goXPnXZticeAbq8 kzbin.info/www/bejne/h5Kof4Nnh5KfmLs kzbin.info/www/bejne/hHm7aXZ3mch4pMk www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/how-to-prove-that-god-doesnt-exist/ www.kyroot.com/ www.atheistalliance.org/thinking-out-loud/eight-reasons-christianity-is-false/ kzbin.info/www/bejne/emrPl413gqtqfrM kzbin.info/www/bejne/nV6YYYuaf5tkeKs kzbin.info/www/bejne/e2fceWOHnNyFbLM kzbin.info/www/bejne/d3yTdIyQq8Z9gtk

[@rationalsceptic7634]

TBOTSS This lady spoke 10 languages...also one of the greatest Scientists of the 20C Paul Dirac said of Theists; "If we Scientists are honest,as we must be,Religion is a jumble of false assertions,not grounded in reality..and God is a product of the human imagination" We have 3000 fake Gods,4000 fake Religions..what does that tell you?? kzbin.info/www/bejne/qKTEg4R6rdJ_p7s

[@TBOTSS]

@@rationalsceptic7634 Richard Carrier "And the only way Craig got a technical win against me is that he ran out the clock. If you think preventing me from stating my rebuttals is a fair way to win a debate, you have a problem." www.richardcarrier.info/archives/4212 Carrier is one little cry baby.

[@rationalsceptic7634]

TBOTSS thelogicofscience.com/2018/03/13/life-constantly-arises-from-nonliving-matter/

[@JoshuaHults]

i am not a big fan of WC, he rides to high on the horse these days, he really thinks he is God's gift to mankind.

[@JoshuaHults]

***** You're absolutely right, this is my interpretation of the evidence which is all over youtube for all to come to their own conclusion. Perhaps i am way off base, i don't know, but this is definitely the view i walk away with. I am beginning to see the parable of the seed Yeshua spoke about in deeper and deeper depth as the years roll by. I realized 1st in myself how i was the seed where other plants such as " LIFE " strained the growth process of its growth. I then began to notice this quality in others. If you have a weakness in yourself, it is easier to spot in others for some reason, it is just how it works. It is similar to owning a certain car, once you own it, you notice all the others who also own it, which you did not notice prior. Is Craig a bad man ? Of coarse not, there are a lot of things we can all learn from Craig. His work ethic, his ministry, his wit and bravery. But there are things which are obvious no no's as well which are totally ok to point out from time to time, especially to other followers of Yeshua. We are to constantly hold followers to a higher standard, and especially followers who claim to represent our position.

[@rtgray7]

***** Correct. Craig is a kind hearted, humble-yet genius scholar and MUCH more orthodox than Mr. Hart. I would advise everyone posting to study some of the very UN-orthodox teachings of the church-like praying for the dead and such...

[@giantpizzafish]

Joshua Hults I wonder if your view of Craig comes fromt the way he debates. He can speak very forcefully about things and that can rub people, myself included, the wrong way. What we have to remember, though, is that in certain spheres it is considered respect to speak your views forcefully, not because you think you are absolute, but because you expect you opponent to express himself just as forcefully. Behind this force there must be sincerity and humility or else nothing good will come from it, but we should be careful not to equate forceful speech with prideful thought.

[@JoshuaHults]

giantpizzafish I have no issue with force Giantpizzafish. Jesus spoke with authority as well. Jesus disciples spoke with authority. The problem is that Craig puts too high an emphasis on mans argumentation and not enough on the simple straight forward gospel message. Craig quotes secular scholars far more than he does scriptures. His best argument is for a generic creator, does not even talk about Jesus, his argument is for any mono theistic creator. I have nothing against philosophy and pointing out scientific error, but that should never be our main argument. That does absolutely nothing to advance Christ.

[@Freethinkingtheist77]

Joshua Hults Further to the earlier answers, I can understand why someone might come away with that impression. I think the problem lies however with the people who big up Craig rather than with Craig himself. A person's popularity coupled with the confidence that person holds can come across as arrogance. Craig is certainly very confident in his own arguments, but I think that is a wonderful thing. But to hear him outside of debate he seems a humble guy who truly believes what he preaches.

[@sjk2cor517]

Pfffft!

[@bork43210]

Arrogant

[@afreethnkr1078]

Dawkins won't debate craig because he says the same shit like a parrot when he has been told our position and still dishonestly starts from 0 each time with us just to do his best not to understand so he can carry on with his agenda. He has no want to learn anymore he only wants to parrot he's talking points.

[@patrykhajdul7495]

a freethnkr Dawkins won't debate Craig because Craig has died few years ago. What you said is also true.

[@afreethnkr1078]

Really?

[@patrykhajdul7495]

a freethnkr yup he died in 2011. You can check it on internet. It would be a very interesting debate if he was still alive. I guess William Craig is an atheist now so there is no need for a debate.

[@afreethnkr1078]

How'd he die?

[@afreethnkr1078]

Sorry I'll look it up.

[@karcharias811]

Hart doesn't even understand the doctrine of inerrancy. He is a classic modern Sadducee who robs the scriptures of their super natural elements because he is essentially a secularist. Jesus rebuked the Sadducees for "not understanding scripture" and "not understanding the power of God". This is precisely what Hart and all the others like him do. They do not believe God can do or does do miracles and so anything remotely supernatural in the Bible is just automatically dismissed to serve their bias. In so doing they are NOT Christian at all, but are Atheish.

[@jeffreyrodrigoecheverria2613]

How is Hart a secularist?

[@REDCAP32X]

Total rubbish spoken in this video

[@librulcunspirisy]

Put the magic book back on the shelf with all the other fairy tales and grow up.

[@toobsterdude]

What pomposity.