What is God Like?

[@williamwilson6499]

A god can be anything you like. When you need an imaginary friend, you can give them any attributes you want them to have. The scary part is how so many people want a Sado-Masochistic relationship with their imaginary sky god.

[@drcraigvideos]

If "A god can be anything you like," then God can be actual. If God can be actual, then a god is actual (S5 modal logic). Therefore, God is actual. So, God exists. - RF Admin

[@johnharrison6745]

"A god can be anything you like.": That would depend-upon the god. "When you need an imaginary friend, you can give them any attributes you want them to have.": Cool. I give mine the attributes of being REAL, and, of eliminating anti-theists/New-Atheists from the earth, via slow "torch err". "The scary part is how so many people want a Sado-Masochistic relationship with their imaginary sky god.": What; you're not cool-with 'Fifty Shades of Grey' style "secs."? Then you're bigoted, intolerant, and "phobic". And, you know what that means: It's *CANCELING* Time. 😏😉🤪

[@JuanRPF]

​@@drcraigvideos😂😂😂😂 👏🏼

[@christianprinceears4653]

@@drcraigvideos seriously, Trinity is the most confusing thing ever, my simple question is: will I ever be able to know which Person am i speaking to in Trinity, If I am to meet God, will I ever be able to get this answer from the Person itself?

[@CMVMic]

If "A god can be anything you like," then God can be actual. If God can be actual, then a god is actual (S5 modal logic). Therefore, God is actual. So, God exists. - RF Admin Whilst S5 doesn't itself make ontological pronouncements, its axioms raise ontological implications can be reasonably denied. TS5 is false because it is incompatible with necessitarianism which denies modal realism. Using s5 modal logic within the ontological argument for God conflates strict logical possibility with broad metaphysical possibility since the first does not entail the other. However, if the argument asserts metaphysical/ broad logical possibility from the beginning as implied, then such an assertion requires justification. The conditional premise "if God can be actual, then God is actual" is a strictly logical statement, which does not get one to broad logical possibility. This move would result in a non sequitur, as logical possibility doesn't necessarily entail metaphysical existence. Therefore, this conditional premise leads to an existential fallacy as strict logical possibility doesn't guarantee metaphysical actuality. Moreover, the argument assumes the axiom that there can be more than one metaphysically possible world. This assumption would require further support since it assumes contingentarianism especially since S5 and necessitarianism are incompatible. Furthermore, the argument seems to make a category mistake by assuming that propositions, which are events can seamlessly transition to discussions of substances. This raises questions about the coherence of the argument, especially when the nature of God is not adequately defined. Without a clear definition of God, the statement could become semantically ambiguous and render it meaningless. The concept requires defining to address its coherence.

[@rickintexas1584]

Many thanks to Dr. Craig and everyone involved in this project. We will all benefit greatly from your knowledge and efforts.

[@EitherSpark]

great vid; deserves more views

[@lovespeaks777]

Thank you for all you do, Dr. Craig! God bless 🙏

[@user-gn5vt2of7k]

The cleverest funniest most loving & knowledgeable person you'll ever know. Relatable yet perplexing. Forgiving yet just. Loving yet firm in His righteousness. On high. Awesome. The greatest. Ever.

[@juanjosehenaogomez6823]

Beautiful, in order to know God we must know about God. Lovely. His greatness is unsearchable!

[@amyelaine9073]

Thank you so much for this video! I just sent it to my junior high Biblical Worldview class to watch and discuss next week. Thank you for this ministry and for making truth accessible and reasonable for young people to understand.

[@raphaelfeneje486]

Wow!! I love this. God bless you immensely 🙏❤️✝️

[@Christian-ut2sp]

Beautiful

[@runyanproperties2302]

I had no idea Dr. Craig had his own video series until now. Been watching his debates with atheists for a couple years. Dr. Craig is a beautiful mind with a sugar cookie of a soul. I'd love to meet him some day.

[@SupermanCrypto1]

Excellent video Dr Craig

[@rebelresource]

Craig been coming out with some bangers... haha

[@solomonnallapu]

Can someone please share some best resources to learn Christian philosophy. Thank you!

[@SpaceCadet4Jesus]

"Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview" by William Craig and J.P. Moreland.

[@panzerjäger_1]

The bible

[@rebelresource]

Check out Joshua Rasmussen as well. He is amazing.

[@rebelresource]

@@panzerjäger_1that would be biblical ideas not necessary philosophical

[@panzerjäger_1]

@@rebelresource I know I wasn’t really being serious, I know how hard the bible can be to process sometimes without a bit of help

[@DadeRonan]

Love it. 👍

[@rightpa]

Is it possible for God to make a reality in which there is free will and yet no suffering?

[@sheri2554]

He already did. It is called Eden. Adam and used used their free will to disobey God. This lead to suffering to enter the world through their choices. Suffering is a consequence. God sent His Son so that we may again be able to be with God in reality without suffering. For those who reject Christ, they choose to live eternally separated from God and ,thereby,eternally suffering.

[@rightpa]

@@sheri2554 is there anything that happens that is not part of this god's plan?

[@JoinUsInVR]

Hold up... @ 6:25 don't forget Isaiah 43:10 (NKJV) Before Me there was no God formed, Nor shall there be after Me (there is ONLY 1 God)

[@kiwisaram9373]

Who can do many things but simply does not do all they can do? Our unwillingness to do as others want us to do may mean we are dead to them, but certainly it does not mean we do not exist.

[@stephenkaake7016]

God trained me for 6 months, I should be helped but God says he can't get anyone to help, he said he will begin nuking the earth if no one will help

[@gybx4094]

I think the Christian Mystics were correct in thinking God has more incomprehensible characteristics than we can imagine. We only know a very small amount about God. The ancient mystic, Angelus Silesius, wrote "The Cherubic Wanderer" that reads like Christian Zen koans. Female Christian mystic, St.Hildegard Von Bingen wrote mystical chants she called "Hymns of Ecstasy".

[@alittax]

Isn't this a reupload?

[@Kamil-mo3kj]

A perfect God must have - to the maximum- such qualities as omnipotence, omniscience, self-existent, sovereign, and so on BUT it is by no means logically necessary to include attributes such as goodness, love, mercy, kindness, etc. We could replace the second set of attributes with their antonyms and still call the entity perfect since they are not objectively decidable unlike the attributes in the first category.

[@analizandoliteratura9958]

An utopic concept is like the super heroes of antique mythology, and nowadays mythology. Isis Osiris Dionysus, and Flash Super man, Batman Harry porter respectively.

[@philipbenjamin4720]

There are two issues on my mind to do with the character attributes of God which I am hoping will be well handled by William Lane Craig in this series and in the systematic theology he is working on. 1. When defining God's character attributes our definitions must not be oriented around us and our sin. God existed before there were human beings - before there was sin in the world. With that in mind what does it mean when for example we say that God is merciful? How was God's mercy expressed before there were human beings and before there was sin? Only when we can answer this can we know if we rightly understand God's mercy in the context of us and our sin. Let me hold myself to the standard I just sought to impose on others by attempting to define the mercy of God without the definition being oriented towards human beings and their sin. I believe that the mercy of God is God's ensuring that the way in which he affirms his own character doesn't ultimately defeat his own welfare - due to the maintenance of his own welfare also being an essential element of his character. 2. I am hoping that William Lane Craig will show that the following three principles which are provable from scripture and which are widely accepted in the church concerning God and his character leads to a fourth (listed below) which is certainly not widely accepted - which is certainly not well understood. (I wrote to William Lane Craig about this issue and unfortunately didn't receive a reply - and yet I cannot imagine a theological issue more important than the one I about to outline): - Each one of God's character attributes is unchanging (Heb 13:8) - God is unified of character - his attributes of character are never in conflict with each other - God acts only under the influence of his own unchanging character (he would otherwise be a less than optimumly great god). So for example he never responds to someone's suffering only on the basis that they suffer. And he does not answer prayer except in circumstances which are not inconsistent with his character/will. So then - to the point that I don't believe is well understood - if the above three principles are true it should lead us to the conclusion that there is only one possible MOTIVE for ALL of God's actions. It therefore cannot for example be right to talk about BOTH God's restorative justice - and his retributive justice - since that implies that the motives for God's justice vary. To see what the single unchanging motive for all of God's actions is we only need to look to the cross - where we find out that the ultimate aim of God's justice is ALWAYS to if possible create the circumstances in which it is possible to open a path to offering a person mercy (I say if possible because God respects free will - the cross doesn't seek to erase the fact that someone may choose to exercise their freedom to refuse to know God). Not only is God's justice only restorative - so is his holiness, his mercy, and his grace. What about God's vengeance (for example see Nahum 1)? Isn't this his retributive justice - isn't this God 'paying people back'? No - God's vengeance is his HOLINESS. Whenever we see examples of God expressing his holiness we must interpret such passages in a way that is consistent with God AT ALL TIMES acting restoratively - unless all possibility of restoration is extinguished. God never allows his holiness to extinguish the possibility of restoration if the possibility exists. If I am right then it is wrong to think of God as love only up to the point when he becomes fully and finally angry with someone. "God is love until he gets angry" is a pretty good definition for an abusive father. And if I am right hell must be a necessary doctrine to preserve instead of contradict the love of God. We already know in scripture that while God delights in his justice (Psalm 37:28) this does NOT mean that God delights in the punishment of the wicked - but rather that the wicked should turn to him and live (Ezekiel 33:11). In Lamentations 3:31-33 we read that when God punishes he does not afflict 'FROM THE HEART'. However this does not completely explain how the eternal nature of hell relates to God being love and ONLY love. To explain how it does let me point out that God's love is HOLY. This means that it isn't enough for God only that HE show love - he wants love to be everywhere - he wants it to reign - God believes in the absolute necessity of love - as part of his unlimited love for his own character. God has an unlimited love for love. The logical corollary of this is that God has unlimited hatred for all that is freely, knowingly, and wilfully opposed to love - evil. If hell was not an expression of God's UNLIMITED hatred for evil - it would be the same as saying that God's love for love was limited - which would imply that there might be a point in eternity where God's love for love would run out - a horrific thought. (This is true while at the same time hell is NOT eternal punishment for sin - but rather punishment for eternal sin - people go on sinning and therefore go on being punished - the sin is eternal - not the punishment - or otherwise hell would contradict God's restorative justice. Although I cannot prove this from scripture no-one can prove the other view - that hell is eternal punishment for sin - we can only prove that hell is punishment for sin - and that hell is eternal. However only hell being punishment for eternal sin is consistent with God's restorative justice - and so this is the option we must choose without any other factors present). In conclusion our doctrine of hell must be consistent not just with God's holiness - but also with his justice.

[@CMVMic]

But God doesnt exist.

[@philipbenjamin4720]

. @CMVMic I believe that your comment just proved he does exists - since either the Christian god is God - or if not - in your certainty that he does not exist - you reveal yourself to be all knowing - in which case - since this is not a human trait - I conclude that you must be God.

[@CMVMic]

@@philipbenjamin4720 That doesnt follow. I do not need to be all knowing to know something does not exist and sure, you can label a person that knows things as God but it wouldnt follow that I am distinct from existence itself. You can claim existence is God but someone can equally be justified in calling existence not God. Also, how is knowledge not a human trait? Sounds like special pleading. Also, you seem to be defining God as a being that has knowledge. Therefore, those terms would require a definition to be coherent. What is a being and what is knowledge according to you? Also, are you suggesting that it is impossible to have certainty about propositions? Are you certain that the law of non-contradiction is true? Are you certain that you are justified in believing things? Are you certain that an incoherent concept does not exist? Even if God was a logical possibility, it would NOT entail that such a concept is a metaphysical possibility. Nor can an epistemic possibility prove ontological truths with certainty, so I can still be justified in claiming something does not exist even if knowledge itself can never establish certainty in regards to ontological truths.

[@philipbenjamin4720]

@@CMVMic Wow, that's a lot of complicated stuff (which I mostly don't understand) in response to someone who simply made the point that God may lie outside of your current understanding. To suggest he may isn't the same as suggesting that three headed unicorns might lie outside of our understanding - since there are reasons why we should presuppose that there is a 'god'. One doesn't have to know 'god' to know that he, she or it is the creator of a universe which must have had a beginning, that he, she or it is outside time since the universe is inside time, that he or she is capable of making decisions since there must have been a moment when the universe didn't exist - and now it exists. For these reasons I don't see any basis for someone having absolute confidence that there is no god - I only see a basis for people presuming there is a God even when they claim not to have any INTELLECTUAL knowledge of a God. I may not reply to your next response - I am a Christian - that means that I believe there is such a thing as relational knowledge - not just intellectual knowledge. It is because of relational knowledge that I know you exist - that there is such a thing called love - and that God is real and reaching out to human beings. I therefore don't want to spend hours having an intellectual argument with you - since I am already happy to concede that it isn't possible to find one's way to God using the mind. Imagine if it was possible - it would prove that the god who our minds eventually encountered was unfair. Why? Because God has chosen to create people with different intellectual capacity. It might therefore be a waste of time to spend your life not finding God with your mind.

[@CMVMic]

@@philipbenjamin4720 ok alot to respond to here. in response to someone who simply made the point that God may lie outside of your current understanding Sure, if a concept is incoherent to me, I see no reason to ascribe it existence. Claiming something is epistemically possible, does not establish it is metaphysically possible. This conflates Epistemology with Ontology. *To suggest he may isn't the same as suggesting that three headed unicorns might lie outside of our understanding* I disagree. It is analogous to me because I see both three headed unicorns and Gods as metaphysically impossible. There are reasons why we should presuppose that there is a 'god' Sure, anyone can come up with a reason for postulating a thing. I do not see any action as entirely arbitrary even if the reason is not apparent to someone. However, having a reason for doing something, does not entail that doing such is coherent. One doesn't have to know 'god' to know that he, she or it is the creator of a universe which must have had a beginning This is a loaded statement. Firstly, if God cannot be known, then we cannot determine anything about such a concept. We cannot therefore claim God is a creator because then that would be something we know. Also, it does not follow that the Universe had a beginning. However, this hinges on how Universe is being defined. Please elaborate. I define the Universe as the totality of what exists and what happens. So unless, you can present a convincing case to prefer a prescriptivist approach to such a concept, I see no reason to accept that the Universe had a beginning. Nor do I think this can be demonstrated simply by referring to big bang cosmology as theists tend to do. *I believe there is such a thing as relational knowledge - not just intellectual knowledge. It is because of relational knowledge that I know you exist - that there is such a thing called love - and that God is real and reaching out to human beings.* This statement incorporates a reification and existential fallacy. I am already happy to concede that it isn't possible to find one's way to God using the mind. If it isnt possible, then this would be an appeal to faith, experience, intuition or emotion which are not reliable indicators of truth. If you cannot differentiate between what is real and imaginary, then I see no reason to grant that such a concept is tenable or coherent. The assertion that such a being exists would be a form of special pleading, no different than a person claiming fairies or the boogey man exists.

[@mikey6214]

God is not a being with attributes....God IS those attributes.

[@rationalreview5178]

I'd be interested to know how other people can reconcile perfection and creation. For me, a pre-existent perfect being would not want to create anything because perfection had already been achieved by its very nature. A perfect, pre-existent being would look at itself and immediately revel in its blissful state eternally. Surely, only a being with emotional frailties or some other weakness would choose to make a world that would lead to it having unpleasant feelings such as wrath, jealousy and regret.

[@josephtattum6365]

Easy, if you want to criticize the design, you have to know the intent of the designer. Since we don’t, we are simply not in any sort of position to say whether the universe is or is not “perfect” to Gods ultimate ends. He may have many purposes for creating the universe. Assuming that physical death, suffering and so forth are evil is to assume we know that it could have been better. But how could we know that?

[@rationalreview5178]

@@josephtattum6365 If God is a higher being with the ability to conceptualise greater worlds than us, then it is correct that we limited humans can't know what those greater worlds are. My question, however, is why did that greater world not already pre-exist in the being of God? Before the beginning of time, God was the entirety of existence. Why was He not already maximally great?

[@josephtattum6365]

@@rationalreview5178 I apologize I don’t quite understand what you mean. Maybe try asking in a different way. I wanna make sure I understand your position

[@rationalreview5178]

@@josephtattum6365 Fair enough. This argument has a lot of assumptions, and if you disagree with any of them, it becomes incoherent. Here are the key assumptions: 1. God is the only pre-existent thing 2. God's will is aligned with working towards perfection. 3. God is perfect. 4. God is aware of His own nature. Okay, so if those are acceptable, I then ask that we put ourselves at the point in God's existence when nothing but God existed. If God is aware of His own nature, He would know that there is nothing that could create that would improve reality. So why did He create anything at all? If that doesn't make sense, I'll just withdraw my question. I'm no philosopher and so I don't think I can articulate it any better than this.

[@josephtattum6365]

@@rationalreview5178 ok thanks for clarifying that helps. I think it is important to understand that god is not a mathematical equation trying to solve some kind of problem. God is a person with volition and desire. God can be perfect and yet create more things to add to reality. Try and think of it this way: I once went fishing with my niece. It was in my eyes a “perfect” day. If I had caught an extra fish that day, or found 20 bucks, I don’t think it would have added to the “perfectness” of the day. Gods perfection lies in his moral superiority, his knowledge of all true things, his ability to do what is logically and metaphysically possible etc. I don’t know why God would have chosen to make the universe, but it is not contrary to his perfection to do something like that. He is an artist, not just a robot.

[@dre6289]

If God is perfect does that mean he doesnt make mistakes? When the bible says God regretted making humans before the flood, does that mean God made a mistake? Doesnt regret follow after a mistake? Maybe I have fundamental misunderstanding of the word regret.

[@OsakaJoe01]

I made man perfect in my image. Except for the 🍆. Snip snip please. 😀

[@Luiz__Silva]

God is eternal, infinite, timeless, unchangeable. This is not a modern understanding but are clearly taught in the Bible and believed by Jews and Christians since they exist. It's beyond our comprehension how an timeless and unchangeable being interacts with a time-bound, limited, and ever changing creation. The Bible does describes God sometimes as having human feelings at a certain time. How could it be otherwise? God is always the same but it doesn't mean he's static like cube if ice in the refrigerator. The Bible also tells us God knew man would sin, that the Lamb of God, Jesus our Lord and Savior, had died before the creation of the world, the God had foreknow his chosen people also before creation. There are numerous prophecies in the Old testament about blessing and curses that would occur depending on God's people obedience and yet those same prophecies would tell what would happen. Just because God says he expects one thing from people, as expressed in his law, it doesn't mean he doesn't know whether they are going to obey or not. He knows. That's why the Bible says God's ways are higher than ours and... "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law". So, God knows the next time you will ignore when he has commanded you to do and sin. At that time, we can say God will be saddened by your decision to sin. Yet, we also know God knew about that since eternity past. He's not really surprised. The Bible asks us to not grieve the Holy Spirit. It's just a way to express God's approval or disapproval for our temporary behavior. This is as true for our individual actions as it's for nations or the human population in general. I think sometimes we're so narrow focused with our "scientific" mindset that we easily forget the whole point of what God's trying to communicate. What many people considered to be logical today is no more than mere ignorance. We need more literature, language, imagination and less silly syllogisms.

[@markb3786]

@@Luiz__Silva too many words. He either knows everything or he doesn't. "God's trying to communicate" Sounds like God is failing

[@Luiz__Silva]

@@markb3786 Too many words is not an argument. "God's trying to communicate" I was imprecise in my words. I apologize. I didn't mean God was "trying" in the sense He did His best but that wasn't enough. I meant that God communicated what He wanted to communicated. The failure is on the human side that's unwilling or unable to understand. The fact that most people don't know or don't want to know the truth is not a problem for God. It would only be a problem if the Bible expressed that would be the case, which it does not. On the contrary, God specifically say in Isaiah that he would not allow some people to understand the message. Jesus specifically says that understanding Who He is can only be revealed by a gift of God. It's God's design that humans are limited and don't know all things. We're not gods and thus it's expected that we have to learn and grow. Whatever control you think you have over your life, is only an illusion. You are not self-sufficient, you didn't being yourself into existence, and you there's nothing you can do to extend your life over the few years you have on earth. But God is sovereign and is accomplishing His purposes throughout history. His attributes can be known through observation of the creation (nature). We're all accountable to Him, regardless of our acknowledgment of the fact the He is.

[@drewj4297]

It’s interesting how the Hebrew god has evolved over the last 3000 years. From the god of the Hebrews in a world filled with gods. Where he didn’t know everything and was just above us, peering down from the white peep holes in the night sky. To the god of everyone, who knows everything and exist outside space and time.

[@michaelcarrington7336]

Now if God’s nature is such that He is obligated in such a way that He MUST foreknow as absolutely certain how everything will come to pass whether He wants to foreknow it as certain or not then to what extent can God freely choose to make changes to the future? To what extent then can God freely make decisions at all and to what extent can God freely choose to make a truly brand spanking new decision? If He were to make a change to the future He would naturally experience a change in His knowledge for He would go from knowing that although things were going to happen one way they ended up happening a different way due to the changes He made. Problem is that closed theism theology denies that God can experience changes in His knowledge so therefore the future that He faces is a future that He is stuck with and cannot make changes to. Therefore He does not rule sovereign over a future that He can make changes to but rather a fixed and written in stone future that He cannot make changes to rules sovereign over Him. The price to be paid for making exhaustive definite foreknowledge of absolutely everything an obligation that God faces is that we end up with an all- knowing finite deity who is still finite even though He is all-knowing due to the fact that He cannot decide anything and is therefore no better off with the knowledge that He has than He is without it. A finite all-knowing cosmic fate machine who can only do only what He always knew He would do and cannot avoid doing any of the things He always knew that He would do. It is certainly not the belief that we have free will that drives me into the arms of open theism. Rather it is the belief that the all-powerful and sovereign and truly perfect God that we pray to that He has a free will of His own to freely make His own decisions that drives me into the arms of open theism.

[@I_Am_Monad]

Surely, you understand that the problem of the rock too heavy for God to lift is in the term, "all-powerful." Like the terms eternal and all-knowing and supernatural, we have no experience of them whatever. We cannot define them, we cannot discover them, we cannot employ them in thought experiments without results that are contradictory and absurd and inconsistent and incoherent--all terms which are easily defined and employed.

[@zarleymcalpine3131]

The Rock analogy..God can create an infinitely heavy rock,and lift it

[@pepethunder]

I think God is even beyond what us conceivable and is in fact able to act beyond the laws of nature and logic that we know. Just think of how an optical illusion can sometimes even make you lose your footing, imagine if it was a reality bending revelation. We would likely break. We are not made to comprehend some things. I have seen arguments for God taking a rest day after creation as proof that He is limited. I say there is deeper meaning to the rest, and not a necessity of God. He made things that were good, and in resting He also added the goodness of rest to the world. Resting is good. It is balance and it is above all enjoyable. It is a gift from God that He himself enjoys. We can all relate to this. God set things up in a way that in irder to interact with it He too follows the rules most of the time. Hence why He doesnt just snap His fingers and eliminate sin. There is a purpose to the process. In fact, the purpose seems to BE purpose. Easily attainable things mean nothing. God however has set things up in a way where we grow organically. I believe this also explains why atonement means that Jesus had to die for us. There is weight to it but most importantly, without a process, there is no justice, no goodness, no mercy. To dismiss evil without concequence and call it mercy would be like printing money to pay a debt. It is meaningless, and God, being God, is responsable for giving purpose and meaning. It is in fact an important aspect of the creation process. God honors the gold standard that backs up His mercy through the blood of Christ. It would otherwise be a meaningless justice/mercy.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

Since omnipresence is an attribute that indicates Divinity, that leads one to ask: what observable entity exhibits this attribute? The answer is clearly The Universe. Hence Pantheism.

[@hugofernandes8545]

God is the only logical and reasonable way to explain the existence of the whole contingent reality, it means the existence of the entire Universe.

[@markb3786]

Yes praise the one true God who created the entire universe . Shivakamini Somakandarkram. Praise Shiva!

[@hugofernandes8545]

@@markb3786 Shiva is not the Creator of the Universe. Actually hindús believe in millions of Gods. Moreover Shiva is not a historical person, it is just a myth, but thanks for your fallacy.

[@metagalaxy-go-the-distance]

How if God can lift the rock, he can't be all powerful?

[@petrvokas8506]

Because then he didnt created a rock so heavy he cannot lift.

[@JesyB2023]

To the atheists: What are you talking about, "Where is God"? God is everywhere. He is firstly present in the voice of your mother while you are still in the womb. He then is present in the care of your parents, then in the shelter of your home and protection of your loved ones. He then is present in the multiple layers of society that offer a sense of control and protection to calm down the anxieties of the ego. Then, he is present in multiple reasoning offered to explain unknown phenomena. He is present in the figure of a president, of a teacher, of a doctor. He is present at the gym, in a healthy diet. He is then present in the hospital, at your dying bed, in the form of medicine, and finally, he is present in the form of God, when ALL OTHER FORMS of sense of control have failed. He then is God. We need God, because we are too small to be without "God".

[@pathfinding4687]

Dr Craig does seem a little preoccupied with ‘punishments’. I find this odd in the context of this videos theme as he is asserting that knowing God’s nature is key to understanding theology. That being the case, as the bible says ‘God prefers mercy to sacrifice’. Apart from being our creator, one of the core aspects of God’s nature is that he is a loving parent. Loving parents may punish as a form of correction, but they do not punish just for the sake of punishment itself. That would be revenge. And to suggest that God would ‘punish’ an innocent party in Jesus for the sins of others would imply that God feels some need to dish out punishment and doing so takes priority over who gets the punishment. What would you think of a person who feels wronged and wants to punish the wrong doer but is unable to instead asks an innocent person to put him or herself forward to be punished so the punisher can feel satisfied? That would not be justice, that would be injustice, petty and vindictive. Someone bearing suffering and making a sacrifice that is unavoidable in order to help or save someone is reasonable when there is no other way. But that is not a punishment, it is just a practical necessity. The word forgive is old English and it means to ‘give up’. The wronged party, in this case God, forgives us by giving up his resentment, anger or hurt. It does not mean a price has to be paid. That would not be ‘giving’. God offers his reconciliation with we fallen children freely. Just as the story of the prodigal son shows. In that parable, no one had to be punished. Jesus being murdered was a tragedy not a required human sacrifice that God demanded in order to forgive us. This is just an idea that was theologically ‘retconned’ after the fact and Old Testament phrases were repurposed to come in line with this. For example ‘he must be pierced for our transgressions’. Well, did Jesus not describe a process of salvation being that we are branches of an evil, sickly tree and we must detatch from it and engraft ourselves to the healthy, holy tree of life that is Jesus? How do you think ‘actual’ engrafting of shoots onto other plants or trees is done? The healthy, host tree is pierced to make a wound for the engrafting branch to connect and fuse to. But this phrase ‘pierced’ was re-taslked to mean the crucifixion. When Jesus was asked what the will of God is, he was unequivocal his answer. It was ‘that you believe in him who was sent’. Jesus did not answer ‘that you murder me’. God seeks to save us and sometimes that process is difficult or even painful. But ‘punishment’ is not a necessary component of the salvation. And in any case, those born with an inherited spiritual condition are not guilty of being so and so substitutive punishment doesn’t even make any sense. Check out my KZbin channel where I will be giving more talks on these matters.

[@AquinasBased]

Why did he say, I will rise up in 3 days. Do you doubt the divinity of Jesus or something? Thats rejection of the council of Nicea

[@gknight4719]

This psychotic narcissistic god of the bible, if that god does exist, then its behavior is truly revolting, drownd billions of animals in the days of Noah's flood allows 15,000 children to die every day and some are raped to death, yep that god is a dick!

[@pathfinding4687]

I love and worship God, not some dark ages theologians who argued about the meaning of Christ's divinity over three centuries after the crucifixion. They came to a view but many of them disagreed with that view just as I do. And Jesus did indeed rise again. But not in a physical body. Just as Elijah and Moses and all the angels and even the ones who ate physical food with Lot, seemed physical but were not. The spirit body, arms and legs etc, is on a different plane, perhaps like matter existing at different frequencies. It is not physical but it is substantial. The world of the afterlife and the bodies we occupy in that world are not on the physical plane, but it can depend what you mean by physical. If you extend that to 'anything substantial' then that's fine. @@AquinasBased

[@bradharford6052]

God has many wonderful attributes but there are only 3 declarations of His being, His essence. He is love, He is light, and He is life. These are nouns that define God and not adjectives that speak about Him. If we really want to know what God is like, simply read 1 Corinthians chapter 13 and His essence, (agape), is plainly described.

[@ConservativeMirror]

So essentially "Perfect Being Theology" is what humans made up about God.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

As a pantheist, I don't purport God to be perfect.

[@mugsofmirth8101]

Then again, "perfection" can be a subjective concept.

[@Luiz__Silva]

Actually, God himself revealed his attributes in the Bible. Then, yes, people have made up more specific theology on top of that.

[@Zuluparaszt3]

U said in 1 of ur video, without god life has no value and meaning. I would like to point out if u have infinity amout of something it worthless. Why would the life o Earth matter if u live forever after that? That makes the life on Earth super meaningless. Living forever without changing and progress is the hell itself. Also a god wont use a book to communicate with ppl. He would be able o speak to every one, he wot use abook to limit himself by languange and borders.

[@roniecarino2987]

actor Fernando Colunga Isaiah 9:6 i sentenced you craig extinct megadeth - countdown to extinction revelation 20:12

[@paulsparks4564]

I have read the OT and even if the Christian god does exist, I would not want to worship him. His attributes are dictatorial and petty. It's not justice for the use of a scapegoat to take the punishment for someone else. All powerful? ... what has the Christian god done recently that is an example of his almighty power? The title of this video is misleading as I didn't really find out much about god's personality, character or his preferences. Just a load of high-level adjectives relating to his supposed attributes.

[@notloki3377]

you lost me completely when you cited the bible. it's circular reasoning for the nonbeliever. not a good first axiom, just preaching to the choir. study nature to learn the attributes of the mind or minds behind it. everything else bears the mark of human contrivance.

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

Low Bar Bill, at it again. Wishful thinking out the wazoo. Lower the epistemic bar, believe against 1 in a million odds, worth believing as long as any evidence exists at all -- because the narrative sounded nice to Lil Billy and he hasn't dared to risk cognitive dissonance or thinking about it ever since.

[@bigol7169]

Imaginary

[@rosamorales729]

Congratulations. You spelled a word correctly. Do you want a trophy or something?

[@abuzarnizamani6398]

Allah is the only true god. God is not a man. God is one without partner.

[@hima1one]

Al Lah has no Spirit/Life. It's just a stone

[@derekardito2032]

Like nothing anyone has ever seen, simply because it has no evidence of ever being in existence

[@munafghori4052]

Have you seen gravity or vitamin d or boundaries of universe. Things could be proven by logic if something is not accessible to senses. This is what all dr Craig is doing and in his some research he is right and in some other he is wrong. Like his proof for existence of God according to me is correct but his disbelief in Islam is wrong.

[@derekardito2032]

@@munafghori4052 no he is not, hd is using sophistry and philosophy , he is demonstrating nothing or providing any tangible evidence, one FACT stands out, he or no other theist in the history of the world has ever proven their BELIEVED, CLAIMED, ALLEGED, ASSERTED GOD TO EXIST.

[@Zuluparaszt3]

@@munafghori4052 "Have you seen gravity or vitamin d or boundaries of universe. Things could be proven by logic if something is not accessible to senses. " Just drop ur pen u will see the evidence... If u follow the steps how to test it, u can get the evidence. This is how science works. U have to prove urself by an experiment which is repetable by anyone. Its working othervise u could nt use ur pc/phone ect. For religion its depends on which part of the globe u born. Also the basic concept of the living forever after dead itself is not makes any sense.

[@drdarrylschroeder5691]

Hello - The One in the Centre, the Core of All, is the Universe of GOD Himself. Around are the circles of the other Universes, ours being the Twelfth and Last. In the Heart of the Twelve Universes dwells Father/Mother GOD Himself, being the SUN in His Universe. All the Universes are experiments from the first to the last. The Twelve Rays/Sons beginning with Jesias are the Adept Archangels in their own Solar Planes. GOD sleeps during the Nights of Brahma. Only the Spirit of the Universe still breathes as IT has always done from time immemorial. At the new Day of Brahma, being the so-called next Big Bang, all are again awakened for a new Round of existence. Blessings - RevDrD/Ministry

[@CMVMic]

Mute, Invisible, Made-up, Pretend.... that about sums it up!

[@munafghori4052]

The real God is Allah. He is unique and no one is like him. The supreme and absolutely one and eternal. There is nothing like him. He is one but not three. Understanding one is more comprehensive than understanding God as three which is complex and concluded it can never be understood.

[@williammemecraig1357]

No. Shush.

[@munafghori4052]

@@williammemecraig1357 no, I will speak and spread the truth. I hope some true hearted people will heed on Islam and tries to learn about in depth in the hope of finding truth which they cannot find in Christianity which is filled with contradictions, irrationality, immorality and unscientific statements.

[@viciadoemhalo3]

"The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (Latin: Trinitas, lit. 'triad', from Latin: trinus 'threefold') is the central doctrine concerning the nature of God in most Christian churches, which defines one God existing in three coequal, coeternal, consubstantial divine persons: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ) and God the Holy Spirit, three distinct persons (hypostases) sharing one essence/substance/nature (homoousion). As the Fourth Lateran Council declared, it is the Father who begets, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds. In this context, one essence/nature defines what God is, while the three persons define who God is. This expresses at once their distinction and their indissoluble unity. Thus, the entire process of creation and grace is viewed as a single shared action of the three divine persons, in which each person manifests the attributes unique to them in the Trinity, thereby proving that everything comes "from the Father," "through the Son," and "in the Holy Spirit.""

[@rickintexas1584]

Muhammad was the most obvious false prophet in history. Only an internet troll would go to a Christian channel such as this and preach about Allah. Go away troll.

[@viciadoemhalo3]

Arabic speaking christians also call the Holy Trinity Allah, and they worship the God even before Muhammed was born.