William Lane Craig ATTACKS ME AGAIN! (feat. Bart Ehrman)

[@Paulogia]

SIGN UP for Ehrman's new Gospel Course www.tinyurl.com/BartUnknown

[@williamdowling7718]

I love how all these big name apologists routinely respond to Paul's videos, meaning they watch his videos, meaning they hear Paul himself pronounce "paulogia" every single time. And yet they still insist on playing these childish games of "I'm not exactly sure how to pronounce this..." or just simply pronounce it incorrectly every time. Wlc is the biggest offender.

[@Jargonloster]

It drives me crazy

[@FlamingChickenG]

I am glad I am not the only one who gets really annoyed at this.

[@nathanjora7627]

In fairness, especially from WLC’s or other similarly big names, they don’t react to his videos that often, usually at most a couple times a year (this one is like the third or fourth in total for WLC ?) and in the mean time they probably listen to and read a bunch of other names so it’s not that surprising that they’d forget. For people like Cameron though it has to be deliberate given the amount of time he spends on youtube per his job being youtuber, I don’t believe for a second he hasn’t heard it enough by now that he can’t recall it properly.

[@FlamingChickenG]

@@nathanjora7627 I would agree with your first point more if it wasn't for the fact he says his name at the start of every video and I am sure they watch more than once preparing for their video.

[@dave9242]

It's his defense mechanism. He's so afraid of his bullshit being proven to be exactly what it is that he tries to make Paul seem to be so unimportant that he can't even pronounce his name. He's a child.

[@PoH42069]

God I can't roll my eyes harder whenever Christians say ex Christians weren't true Christians, or "brain dead" Christian faith. I know why, I was a Christian, too. It's taught that you cannot deny God once you're saved, you know it down to your core. Since it's written in the Bible, it can't be wrong.

[@DianaCHewitt]

When you can't attack an argument you attack the person. "We'll that argument is invalid because you were never a true Christian." Everyone disagrees what counts as a true Christian and the qualifications are constantly shifting. It's a pathetic coping mechanism to allow people to ignore those they perceive as outsiders.

[@taylorlibby7642]

The Bible can't be wrong, but it can be edited. ; )

[@thinkingaboutreligion2645]

Well, when I hear "brain dead faith", I think 'look who's talking'

[@rembrandt972ify]

Nothin' worse than a brain dead faith. Except maybe a mutton lettuce and mayonnaise sandwich when the mutton is sliced really thin.

[@SpaceLordof75]

I think that someone who once believed, and was knowledgeable about their Christian faith, and now rejects it, is a deeply frightening concept for apologists.

[@robertfelton8374]

"Paulogia is intellectually stagnant" says the guy whose been using the same debunked arguments for several decades.😛🤓

[@Julian0101]

And dont forget not even WLC believe in his own arguments, he believes in christianity for a whole different reason

[@FrikInCasualMode]

Craig is SISO kind of apologist: Shit In, Shit Out.

[@littlecoloreddots]

Excellent point. Thank you.

[@tomnanD3]

That's psychological projection.

[@noneofyourbusiness7055]

@@Julian0101 That's not quite true, now, is it? Plenty of people believe Craig's arguments. It really shows why the apologetics business is booming that this includes countless christians who don't care that he's done the equivalent of a muscle dummy making a living selling his "top secret protein powder of instant buffness" going on record declaring his physique to be entirely due to steroids and that he believes protein powder does not affect him. Rationalwiki even sourced the exact quote...

[@lisaboban]

I want all these scholars (Ehrman included) to acknowledge before every debate that the reason these facts are so hard to pin down is that for many decades people were not permitted to ASK THESE Questions! People like Ehrman and Paulogia were killed for these questions. Documents were destroyed or lost. So both apologists and skeptics are piecing together this history from the bones left behind.

[@enzoarayamorales7220]

Left behind by the apologist's ancestors.

[@ingridschmid1709]

@@enzoarayamorales7220 You mean those successive apologists allowed to survive at all or in unaltered form . Paleontology, as small as fossilization probabilities are has left us with way more material evidence than apologetics have. Could it be that this lot was and is so prone to suppress or alter prior information to suit what they fuzzily defined as probable, expedient or both that the only intellectually honest argument they can resort to is to affirm their interpretation of the faith is inspired by god himself . A form of solipsism they are desperately running away from .

[@Paulogia]

good point

[@blueglassdave]

My dad, a conservative Lutheran minister, would send my sister to her room when she asked him questions he couldn't answer. At the time, I was dumb enough to buy it all. He couldn't face the uncertainty and cognitive dissonance and just admit that he didn't know. I've seen hundreds of incidents in primarily Conservative believers confirming that tendency to resort to pat answers and often irritation when anything bumps up against their beliefs. Pastors are seldom scholars because it's not their job to be. It's their job to maintain their congregants' beliefs which, given the usual lack of interest among believers in examining their own faith, requires very little depth of knowledge

[@TheAntiburglar]

I can't get over how condescending "Bill" is towards Dr Ehrman. He consistently refuses to credit him with his proper title, constantly gives him diminutive nicknames, and honestly is a pretty petty and condescending person in general. It's kinda sad and disheartening if he's the best defense that can be offered for his beliefs.

[@anthony7960]

Try *extremely and blatantly petulant, sad, pathetic, and intellectually dishonest

[@alrenobenjamin6566]

I also hate how they act as if it's only Ehrman who posits these views, it shows that they've never interacted with that much on NT scholarship

[@PrometheanRising]

@@alrenobenjamin6566 you assume that this isn't a tactic.

[@PrometheanRising]

He's also condescending toward Paulogia. WLC is long on bluster. I would simply observe that he is yet another example of a Christian who, when one of his arguments is trounced, simply walks that argument out again later when arguing with someone new.

[@don_5283]

Maybe if we all started referring to Craig as "Wee Willie" at every opportunity, he would grow up a little and start acting like a person of his imagined stature?

[@SC-zq6cu]

Craig's response is proof that you triggered him. It means that whatever you are doing its working. Keep doing it.

[@joanbarbano4244]

Hahaha yeah, that’s pretty apparent.

[@jimbob8992]

In a similar manner to how he was triggered when some of the world's leading mathematicians and scientists refuted his kalam cosmology argument ( some of whom he had quoted).

[@MrJacobegg]

@@jimbob8992 Yep. And the fact that he will then turn around and repeat the same arguments again, without missing a beat, proves he's not at all mistaken but simply a liar. If apologetics is a world of intellectual used car salesmen, WLC is one of the sleeziest.

[@robertl4824]

being attacked by these "geniuses" can be seen that Paulogia is a real threat to their fantasy world. Good job Paul and Bart!

[@HarryNicNicholas]

it's not too hard, even for the christians, to tell who is presenting facts and who is trying not to offend god. WLC and habermas are actually doing more damage than they are reassuring fellow believers. this is the whole problem with religion, atheists can speak their minds, can even accept the possibility of "the supernatural", but the religious aren't allowed to even entertain the thought there is no god, it makes them dishonest.

[@timecube6616]

It's bizarre to me that Craig thinks he can respond to Bart correcting Gary on what Bart thinks

[@jeffparent2159]

Really? Of all of them I would think WLC would be the first to stand up and do this, at the behest of no one.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Bill does not like the godless world that surrounds him so he creates his own.

[@jimbob8992]

When you are as smug as WLC, it's second nature.

[@uninspired3583]

Most of us use electricity, but Craig prefers gaslight.

[@angelmendez-rivera351]

What makes you think this is bizarre? Craig is the same guy that has spent going around telling dozens of cosmologists how they are wrong about the cosmological models they came up with, and that he understands, better than them, that the universe has a cause. WLC is one of the most openly dishonest individuals out there. Why would this be bizarre?

[@alevaldezcabrera1106]

I'm a statistician, and each time an apologist tries to do probability calculations to prove God, I implode into a ball of pure cringe

[@jonv22]

As a statistician, what's your opinion on using Bayesian Inference to analyze the probability of historical events (either miraculous or not) ?

[@B.S._Lewis]

Not a statistician, but totally agree. They always want to compare small probabilities (say, naturally formed proteins) to God did it. Then are completely unable to formulate a probability for the supernatural. How am I supposed to assign less than, greater than or equal to to an incomplete equation?

[@alevaldezcabrera1106]

@@jonv22 Truth being told, I've never read a pair reviewed historical paper that uses statistics (my area of research is on applications to biology, specifically phylogenetics). Nevertheless, I'd imagine that to do it correctly, careful care must be applied to both determine prior and posterior probabilities. For example, I'd say that prior probabilities should be assigned by reviewing other historic events that may inform us of the general probability of something: "We've seen several migration events from region A and B to region C, so let's assume a prior probability of 60% that this new found settlement in C is actually a group of people that came from region A, and 35% B, 5% others", and the probabilities of observing certain evidence given each possibility should be informed in prior work as well: "We know people in region A developed metal instruments before people in region B, so the probability of finding these tools given the settlement is from people of region A is 90%, while only 30% if coming from region B and 50% other". From these informed guesses, we could estimate the probability of it being an actual settlement from region A if we didn't find any metal instruments. I'm absolutely simplifying this, and also talking from my limited knowledge on how historic studies go. But what I'm absolutely sure about is that to start doing probability calculations that mean anything, we need a sample size of events that would inform good guesses of prior probabilities to be able to even start trying Bayesian theory or construct a probabilistic model.

[@alevaldezcabrera1106]

@@jonv22 And I am realizing maybe my previous answer was not answering your question directly. My opinion is that Bayesian inference is a useful tool when applied correctly (as any other statistical tool) and gives you estimators that might be your best guess with your current knowledge. Depending on the aim of the study, it may be good to use it to draw conclusions. But always with the idea that your conclusions might be proven wrong when more information is gained (as science usually goes).

[@Oswlek]

Sounds painful. Let's hope they finally realize how idiotic they sound and stop doing it.

[@lnsflare1]

Any apologist who can't pronounce Paulogia's name can be dismissed immediately since they are either too stupid to remember how he clearly pronounces it in his videos, too lazy/intellectually dishonest to watch the videos in the first place, or deliberately mispronouncing it because they are still kindergartners, mentally. Any apologists who *can* pronounce his name correctly should probably also be dismissed immediately, since religious apologetics is an inherently disingenuous concept, but hey, who knows, maybe one of them will finally think of a position that wasn't debunked at least 50 years ago.

[@sypherthe297th2]

Oh its intentional. I guaran-f*cking-tee it. It happens far too often and they know damn well Paulogia is a play on apologia which the can certainly pronounce.

[@reinku]

HE SAYS IT AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY VIDEO! Fucking hell it's frustrating.

[@ziploc2000]

Nearly 100 years. Bertram Russell gave a great presentation in 1927 that covers all the usual apologist excuses for god, and shoots them down in flames It's right here on KZbin. If WLC had any self-respect he'd never have had a career in pushing BS.

[@EdwardHowton]

I've said this before but I don't think it's _just_ childishness. I think it's a deliberate tactic used to avoid exposing cultists to anything that would help them break free of their indoctrination. By mispronouncing the names of their betters or inventing jargon nobody uses but themselves (like "evolutionist") they make it more difficult for any cult victim still capable of being curios to google stuff for themselves, which would inevitably lead to them abandoning the lies they've been forced into believing their entire lives. Think of it as the same thing in practice as telling cultists not to go to college because of all those satanic atheist professors who will make them lose their faith. They want their victims trapped, and getting EVERYTHING wrong is an important step in poisoning any potential escape attempt.

[@xipheonj]

@@EdwardHowton It's certainly true about their made up terms like evolutionist since that's cheating the search algorithms, but mispronouncing the name doesn't change anything. If anything it's the opposite, they're pronouncing it phonetically so it would be EASIER to spell and lookup.

[@biffedya]

William Lane Craig talking to cartoons is such a perfect platform for him

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

Imagine yourself being a Jew, following your personal messianic master, and abstaining from eating the blood with the meat, and suddenly he "presents his impending death" as giving his body and blood together for you to drink and eat. And then he died the cursed death, but it was really a sacrifice for you, and he is alive again to show his power, but then he had to go to never be seen again. And of course that subversion of your beliefs, makes instant total sense to you... so the story says. The tale is so contrived that one can understand why Jews kept being Jews, and it can only thrive with the "gentiles"!

[@lancetschirhart7676]

You mean the last supper doesn't sound plausible. Right?

[@rainbowkrampus]

@@lancetschirhart7676 It sounds like high school level creative writing from someone who just learned what foreshadowing is.

[@joanbarbano4244]

Tovia Singer does a good job explaining why the gospel writers were gentiles who had a very limited understanding of the tanakh. No Jew is likely to “drink the blood” whether symbolic or not. There’s also no Jewish custom then or now for anointing a dead body after it’s buried. And, certainly women do not attend dead males. The women at the tomb is nothing more than a plot device. The gospels are a train wreck. My favorite is the Jesus Barabas subplot. Clearly some wires got crossed when this story was finally written down.

[@MidlifeCrisis82]

How about Isaiah chapter 7? King Ahaz has two potential enemy kingdoms surrounding him. If you follow Christian apologists then Isaiah came to him reassure him that he will be ok. God will give him a sign. 700 years later a virgin will give birth to a child and he shall be called Emmanuel. Crazy that Christian apologists convinced believers that's what the passage meant when it really meant that when a young maiden gives birth to a child and when the child is old enough to know right or wrong, the danger of the two kingdoms will go away.

[@TheCheapPhilosophy]

@@MidlifeCrisis82 It always amuses me how Immanuel was not the name as it says, but a cryptic code for Jesus instead... #MentalGimnastics.

[@XphR]

Whilliyam lone Chraug has such a difficult time getting Paulogias name right.

[@MythVisionPodcast]

I'm an eye witness 👀 to Paulogia's majesty!

[@Soapy-chan_old]

"One should not leave out the fact of the empty Tomb" No Craig, one should start with facts. What you are bringing up is not facts.

[@JD-wu5pf]

"The Empty Tomb" is 100% a fact* *for certain arbitrary definitions of "The", "Empty", and "Tomb" 🤡

[@Soapy-chan_old]

@@JD-wu5pf Nice one xD

[@26beegee]

Does an empty cookie jar prove the cookies were resurrected? 🤣

[@adrianblake8876]

@@26beegee Does it even prove what cookies were inside it!?

[@ChJuHu93]

Oh, there are empty tombs, no problem. But the requirement was that a specific tomb was filled with a specific item at a somewhat specific time and was emptied afterwards.

[@letefte]

A very easy way to determine whether someone is dishonest in their scholarship is this: Do they begin by examining the evidence and then follow said evidence wherever it leads or, do they assume their conclusions on the onset and then discard any evidence that proves them wrong? I think we can all agree that Garry “I don’t like the fact that Bart Ehrman refutes my claims” Habermas falls in the latter category. Also, Dr. Craig’s comments on Paul show what kind of a man he really is. He will get his nickname soon.

[@PaulEmsley]

Hahaha - you mean of course: William "Willful Piece of S**t" Craig. (Hat-tip PoZ).

[@ramigilneas9274]

It’s: William Lane "Even if all of the evidence would be against Christianity… the self authenticating witness of the holy spirit would still be reason enough to be a Christian.“ Craig.

[@Steelmage99]

@@ramigilneas9274 Exactly!

[@Steelmage99]

"Now what is the implication of all this for the problem of doubt? Simply this: doubt is controllable so long as reason does not usurp the magisterial role. So long as reason operates in its ministerial role, the spiritual assurance of our faith cannot be undermined. It is only when we allow reason to usurp the magisterial role and take the place of the Holy Spirit that doubt becomes dangerous."

[@fudgesauce]

The book "Subliminal", by Leonard Mlodinow, has a comment towards the end that I liked a lot. I don't recall if this is an exact quote or my restatement of it but this is what I wrote down. "There are two ways of proving things. One way is that of the scientist: collect as much data as you can, and then try to find the principle that unifies everything you know. The other way is like a lawyer: determine your conclusion, then work hard to find confirming evidence and discredit disconfirming evidence. It turns out we are half way decent scientists when we want to be, but we are naturally really great lawyers."

[@Oswlek]

If the phrase _"smarmy con artist"_ came to life and took human form, it would be indistinguishable from William Lane Craig.

[@BeardslapRadio]

I can think of better examples.

[@phillyphakename1255]

You are wrong. It would look like Kenneth Copeland. But for the phrase "Professor smarmy con artist", William Lane Craig is a great example.

[@williambeckett6336]

It's impressive just how much of a threat Paulogia has become to these types. trying to discredit him means he's haveing a real, demonstrable impact and is freeing minds from xian nonsense.

[@joanbarbano4244]

I would use their term and say these Bible loons stand “convicted” by rationality.

[@WolfA4]

For centuries they've been able to lie and just assert without evidence because most critics wouldn't have instant access to the information, and they couldn't call on other critics to help develop their arguments. I wish I could travel into the future and see what they say about this era and it's impact on popular religions.

[@simongiles9749]

It kind of reminds me of the Garth Ennis graphic novel True Faith, wherein a young man is burning down churches so as to lure out God so the he can kill Him. The more annoyed these "big" apologists get, the closer their God is to defeat.

[@ElusiveEel]

A few weeks ago he freed my mind!

[@resurrectionnerd]

Here are some ways "Luke" contradicts Mark's original story or deliberately rewrites the sequence of events. A lot of people like to claim he depicted things accurately in his gospel and Acts. When did the women buy/prepare the spices? Mark 16:1 says they bought them "when the Sabbath was over" while Luke 23:54-56 and Lk. 24:1 say this: "It was Preparation Day, and the Sabbath was about to begin. The women who had come with Jesus from Galilee followed Joseph and saw the tomb and how his body was laid in it. Then they went home and prepared spices and perfumes. But they rested on the Sabbath in obedience to the commandment. 24:1 - On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb." When did the Sanhedrin trial take place? Mk. 14:17 says "when evening came" then narrates his arrest and trial occurring the same night. Luke 22:66 says it happened "when day came." Mark 9:2 says the Transfiguration happened "After six days" while Luke 9:28 says "About eight days after." Now for the appearance tradition - we know from the evidence for Markan priority that Luke copied Mark. In other words, when Luke was composing his gospel, he had a copy of Mark in front of him. We can tell Luke is deliberately altering the tradition because he changes the angels prediction at the tomb. Here's what the angel says at the tomb in Mark and Matthew: Mark 16:7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, *‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee.* There you will see him, just as he told you.” Matthew 28:7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and *is going ahead of you into Galilee.* There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.” Now watch how Luke deliberately alters the prediction. At the exact same part in the story, Luke has the (now 2) angels say this: Luke 24:6-8 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ ” Then they remembered his words. Luke changes the prediction of an appearance in Galilee to a *remembrance of Jesus' past teaching in Galilee.* This is in order to setup all the appearances happening in or around Jerusalem. Further supporting the hypothesis that Luke intentionally rewrote the story is that he also removes the reference to a future appearance in Galilee from the prediction of Peter's denial - Mk. 14:28 cf. Mt. 26:32. The phrase *"But after I have risen, I will go ahead of you into Galilee”* has been omitted from Luke 22:54-62. In fact, Luke leaves no room for any appearances in Galilee because he has the disciples "stay in the city" (Jerusalem) until Pentecost - Lk. 24:49, "do not leave Jerusalem" - Acts 1:4. So if you ask yourself "what would we expect *if* Luke intended to write out the Galilean appearance tradition?" then the data fits perfectly. Whereas if you ask yourself "what would we expect if Luke was presenting an honest version of events as he knew them?" the data does not fit as well. It would seem to follow, then, that Luke's appearance report simply cannot be trusted. If you only had Luke/Acts you'd never think Jesus appeared to anyone in Galilee. Even though Acts has the otherwise unattested claim that Jesus appeared for "40 days" there is still no evidence in Luke/Acts Jesus actually did appear in Galilee - that's because the evidence points to Luke erasing the Galilean appearance tradition. Luke was also writing at a time period when Jesus original imminent apocalyptic message was wearing out. Throughout Luke we can see the Parousia being delayed. Luke mutes/alters Jesus' imminent predictions from Mark and by the time of John they are almost completely non-existent. Luke rewrites Mark 14:62 in Lk. 22.69. Mark says "You will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven" to the High Priest while Luke alters this to "From now on the Son of Man will be seated at the right hand of God." So the prediction of a witnessed parousia in the near future has been replaced by a statement about the present state of Jesus. Luke also has to explain the delay by adding to the verse 19:11 that the parable was told because the disciples "thought that the kingdom of God was about to appear immediately." Mk. 9:1 And he said to them, “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” Lk. 9:27 "But truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God.” By omitting "come with power" Luke alters the meaning of the prediction of a witnessed cosmic event to something more ambiguous that is open to alternative interpretations. Luke 21:8 adds the warning "And he said, “Beware that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name and say, ‘I am he!’ and, ‘The time is near!’ Do not go after them." which is an addition to Mark 13:5-6 which does not have the warning of some claiming "the time is near!" This contradicts Jesus' own words from Mark 1:15!

[@johnnehrich9601]

Rabbi Singer, who knows Jewish law forward, backwards, sideways, points out that all of Jesus's followers by Sunday morning would believe Jesus had already been buried Friday night. His body may or may not have been anointed with oils by Joe of Bestdiscipleville when he took the body off the cross, but for the women attempting this Sunday morning would be seen as desecrating a corpse - a hideous offense. Nor would they go there without planning on how they would roll away the stone. Singer (and many others) believe the band of ladies was a plot device because without that, no one would know the tomb was empty. Mark's "evidence" for the resurrection was merely the empty tomb. IF Jesus had risen and showed himself to his followers subsequent, then discovery of the empty tomb was unnecessary. And if it had been "proved" by his post-death appearances, the story could have been expanded to say they went back and opened the tomb to see if his body was still there.

[@donnievance1942]

Very interesting. Well reasoned and well written. Thanks for an actually literate YT comment. It's so rare.

[@onedaya_martian1238]

Very, very well done !! Copied and printed for my back pocket to be read back during one of those excruciating times some evangelical folks in conversation talks about "inerrancy" and "no contradictions".

[@justincapable]

"There are two different probabilities we are talking about here." What is the prior probability of a resurrection? Near 0. What is the posterior probability of a resurrection? Near 0.

[@condorboss3339]

OTOH, WLC keeps bringing back dead arguments. 😁

[@Uryvichk]

Yeah it's strange. He's basically summing up Bayes, but conveniently dodging the actual contributing factors to the posterior probability or the math resulting from that. And accepting the Gospels as history doesn't help his case, because every additional improbable factor that must be taken as true (e.g. that there even was a tomb AND that the tomb was empty) makes the odds LESS likely, not more. Very little could actually increase the baseline odds that a resurrection actually occurred, and being as generous as possible and assuming that all the evidence makes it more likely rather than less... it's still almost certainly the least likely explanation for what could have happened.

[@LcdDrmr]

@@Uryvichk Yes, this is what apologists never consider. You could take every unverifiable part of the Jesus story and change it to something wildly different, without changing that Jesus is Christ and gave rise to Christianity, and it could all still be just as "true". eg: Jesus is crucified but miraculously flies right off the cross and straight up to heaven, witnessed by 500 people who are never mentioned again. If this were in the Bible, it would be just as likely as anything else that already is. Probably, the whole New Testament could be rewritten this way. Maybe Jesus dances a jig to turn the water into wine (or whiskey, I mean, he's from Ireland, after all).

[@montagdp]

If you watch the debate between Ehrman and Craig, Craig refuses to actually do the probability calculation himself but cites Swinburne, who came up with a value of 97%. That was one of the more humorous parts of the debate.

[@findsharon]

I love that WLC is so arrogant that he thinks he can tell a historian how to do history. I'm going to start calling this "craigsplaining".

[@michaelsommers2356]

Well, he tells cosmologists how to do cosmology.

[@thejudgmentalcat]

🤣

[@donnievance1942]

@@michaelsommers2356 Yeah, no shit. He cherry picks interpretations of cosmology, the Bord-Guth-Velenkin Theorem, etc. to suit his theological needs, often picking the interpretations that are considered most fringe by actual physicists.

[@Nocturnalux]

@@michaelsommers2356 Yep. That’s the level of hubris we’re dealing with. If he were to die and as it turns out, Jesus is indeed divine but not part if the trinity, Craig would correct Jesus.

[@richardscottmills]

Your ability to refrain from mangling their names intentionally in retaliation is admirable.

[@Paulogia]

I do what I can.

[@somersetcace1]

If that con artist is spending time attacking you personally, you're on the right track! Keep it up! I would warn you that he didn't get where he is because he's bad at being a con artist so watch out for his logic traps, but that would be like telling Superman to be careful of Lex Luthor's gun. lol I think you got this!

[@Marine_Veteran_Vegan_Gamer]

This dude reminds me of Jordan Peterson, with all his "logical" nonsense.

[@suzannahdarcy6903]

Yes! And they both have the hugest egos. They're so impressed with themselves

[@donnievance1942]

@@suzannahdarcy6903Yes, and they both have voices with an excess of unstable overtones. This is one of the most annoying types of voice. You could say that it's unfair to criticize them for an annoying trait that they can't help, but really, if God exists, it may a divine marker for bullshit artists.

[@FGuilt]

The Trinity is what happens when a contradiction is defined as a doctrine.

[@AndMakrid]

It's not a contradiction. The Trinity was a very well known theme in the Egyptian art of the time, with statues of a god bearing the symbols of another two gods. A Trinity was somehow taught by Pythagoreans, as it is written by Aristotele in his treatise "On the heavens": "For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it, is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an 'all', and the number they give is the triad. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it, we make further use of the number three in the worship of the Gods." In neo-Platonism (Proclus) we find another Highest Trinity: "Being - Life - Mind". The Haldeans, too...

[@AndMakrid]

@@hamoudd.661 Nobody obliges you to accept something that doesn't fit in your logic-sphere. Fact is though, that there are no less asinine doctrines that people accept without questioning, under the notion that "our logic is not capable to perceive it". Jews and Muslims for instance, accept that God is all-present but that pantheism is wrong and that we are not part of God. That God is infinite but He can fit in the Bible or the Quran (the Protestants tend to think the same of the Old and New Testament, too). Science is admittedly asinine, using the "imaginary numbers" of the great Carl Friedrich Gauss and the non-Eucledian geometries of Lobachewski and Hilbert. The Trinity is much less asinine than you think. We, humans, are not single: Other than the well known dichotomy between our minds and bodies, there is also a dichotomy in our mind: There is no more difficult a task than to stop your own mind from running. The greatest difference between humans and animals, lies not in their IQ as many of us believe, but in our abillity to objectify our own selves - the source of our civiization but also of our constant angst. A trinity as a form regarding humans, is also met in our languages: The I (subject), the verb (indication of constant life) and the predicate (the way of existance) form a trinity which describes a singularity. Ideas don't just fall from the sky. Nobody woke up one day and declared something ridiculous out of the blue.

[@billyskyline570]

Lemme sum up, WLC is cringe. Lemme sum up again, the idea of vicarious redemption by human sacrifice is a primitive and horrible scapegoating idea that belongs to a barbaric period of human history.

[@jeffreylehman1159]

Jesus as sacrifice = Blood magic!

[@MODea-pq7ei]

Thanks Paul! Loving you across the Atlantic from France! You are truly a hero to me and my family!!! Have a great day!!!

[@Paulogia]

Wow, thank you!

[@MODea-pq7ei]

@@Paulogia No, I thank you8 My children watch you and then we discuss. We are from a majority Atheist country and wish that the US can get there too! You are so great, we just love you to bits! Much love from France!

[@CharonTheSabercat]

I feel like editing never gets enough credit, because I laugh every time at "EAT IT, GARY!" The timing is absolutely perfect.

[@mablenorman5915]

Studying the apocryphal texts that were eventually excluded from the Bible was one of the main reasons I moved away from Christianity. Who is to decide which books are credible or not? Even with the books currently in the Bible, there are still soooo many instances of Christians picking and choosing what is credible or not; and the various denominations cannot agree.

[@hank_says_things]

Billo "Kalam" McLowBar accusing anyone else of intellectual stagnation is the biggest LOL since Habermas' claim to have new - hell, *any* - evidence for the Resurrection.

[@gristlybillow7050]

36seconds in and am getting massive "no true scotsman" vibes already. this'll be good

[@__Andrew]

15:50 Bart's book there, "How Jesus Became God" is an amazing read. And really helped me deal with my lingering anxieties about hell when i left religion. Because even tho i knew the Christian god was a myth, decades of a fear of hell is hard to over come. One of the ways i helped myself was learn more about _HOW_ Christianity was formed because it tears the veil away. Sort of like as a kid dealing with a scary movie was to remember "that is not really a wolfman, its just a dude in a mask". Bart's book wonderfully walks through how the Jesus as divine narrative was formed, built up, and altered through time and why it did so based on the culture early Christianity was birthed into. Cant recommend that book enough.

[@nate7810]

@LeoB Still dealing with this pretty much on a daily basis. It may be just a deep fundamental thing that, for me, manifests in a specific way in my head due to how I was brought up.

[@markula4]

Listening to Bart Ehrman's lectures on the Bible and it's history similarly relinquished the power the threat of hell still had on me; even after watching the Atheist Experience and listening to numerous atheist arguments that didn't completely take it away. Finidng out that the story of Jesus and the woman who was to be stoned to death was actually a later addition from 100 years later (I think) upended the "perfection" of certain stories to me that were still significant in my life. Same with the idea that some of Paul's writings being complete forgeries boggles the mind to me.

[@VengefulAngeI]

The "empty tomb" as evidence of anything other than an empty tomb is something I'll never understand

[@Oswlek]

Yes, it's like using an empty bed as evidence for alien abduction. 😄

[@bodricthered]

Or actually the story of an e mpty bed, since the fact of the empty tomb is missing a tomb, empty or otherwise

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@bodricthered I disagree. I can show you _lots_ of beds in Jerusalem. And they're all empty a good part of the day. Checkmate, atheist!

[@Nocturnalux]

There is no empty tomb to check either. All we have is a story about an empty tomb. An empty tomb would prove nothing but what we have if even less.

[@VengefulAngeI]

@@Nocturnalux That's true, good point

[@daviydviljoen9318]

31:13 so Dr Craig, are you going to accept the rain miracle of Marcus Aurelius... Remember that the Romans gave the Egyptian Gods credit for that. See I didn't have to go with Hume here, I just have to cite a historical miracle where pagan gods got credit.

[@raywingfield]

I don't have words for how good this is. 🤩 Thanks to both Bart and Paul!!!

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Bill has mastered the art of talking. Stop talking and show me your god.

[@adrianthom2073]

New videos from Paul and Rhino, a great night.

[@CMDRunematti]

Listening to Craig reminds me of listening to someone explaining how Gandalf the grey became Gandalf the white

[@MANversusGRAVITY]

Can I just say that it brings me so much joy that your animated characters blink... Btw... your Taco Bell reference is one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a long time... same 3 ingredients, new grande crunch super fire taco...

[@andresvillarreal9271]

Isn't faith braindead to begin with? Faith means don't use your brain, just believe. So, when William Lane Craig says "[Paulogia] had a braindead Christian faith", that sounds to me almost like a compliment. If Craig had said "Paulogia used reason and evidence to reach the Christian faith" I would surely ask Paulogia, why does he not understand what faith is?

[@phillyphakename1255]

I mean, William Lane Craig's faith is moderately compatible with science. Old earth creationism, got of the gaps, etc. If you have Paul's version of fail, biblical literalism and inerrancy, science denial, etc, any provable contradiction to the Bible is a domino which can lead to their faith being destroyed. William Lane Craig's on the other hand, if you have a contradiction, you adapt your faith, adapt the truth, apologist your way to keeping your faith. Paulogia really was braindead, blindly trusting and accepting Christianity. Once your eyes are opened, there is no way you can stay in the binary literalism and inerrancy. The best way to stay in the religion is to not be a radical.

[@andresvillarreal9271]

@@phillyphakename1255 I agree partly with you. All of us scientists push the facts a bit toward our individual comfort zones. Contradictions are usually not black-and-white and we adapt grudgingly as off-white becomes grey and then dark grey. But William Lane Craig only pretends to adapt when contradictions appear. He declares that his rational mind is impervious to falsehood and repeats his ideas with fervor even after being demonstrated wrong time after time. He looks like a very rational man, an expert in logic and accepting of science, but he is only a facade. As an example, he declares himself a believer in evolution. He accepts that animals evolve and even accepts that humans evolved from other apes. But then he decided that two apes evolved from the rest of the apes and those were Adam and Eve. Any biologist will tell you that this idea is preposterous, that it is almost as bad as the totally religious idea that humans are not animals. And the most important part is that the process of thought by WLC to reach his conclusion is totally devoid of any scientific thinking whatsoever.

[@phillyphakename1255]

@@andresvillarreal9271 I agree as well that WLC isn't uhhh ...scientific... in his faith or arguments or whatever. But I am okay with that. He is a philosophy doctor if I recall correctly, not a science doctor. The highest level science class he took was probably in high school. I think the more interesting thing is that he tries to use a bit of science combined with logic and philosophy to create his faith, and adds a heaping dose of god of the (logical) gaps. He adapts his faith to his own inquiry, no matter how misguided or fallacious that inquiry is. My point here is to separate him from the likes of Kent Hovind or Ken Ham. If you are rigidly literalist like they are, if someone convinces you that evolution exists, your whole faith shatters. I think old Paul was like that, but unlike Hovind et al, he was open to learning and his faith was shattered as a result. WLC on the other hand doesn't take such a rigid faith, which enables him to accept (some) new information without his faith failing catastrophically.

[@andresvillarreal9271]

@@phillyphakename1255 Well said. And if he had even an ounce of humility, I would almost declare him an acceptable human being. Mixing science into your unscientific mind is okay. Doing so and teaching that to other people as authoritative information is not okay.

[@GoD1014]

Its such a pleasure to have Bart Ehrman on

[@MattSingh1]

*It's a badge of honour to be attacked by an intellectual minnow like Lane Craig.*

[@AT-ng9ju]

It’s absolutely hilarious that these big time, Serious Apologists (TM) with PhDs and Sophisticated Arguments spend so much time on some KZbinr who makes cartoons. Don’t get me wrong, Paul, I love your videos, I think they’re invariably well-researched, entertaining, and scrupulously fair. But if these guys’ position was really as secure as they make out (cf. Andrew Loke of “I only debate PhDs” fame) would they really expend so much energy debunking amateurs on the internet?

[@Angelmou]

They do not even bother how to pronounce his name - while his name is mentioned almost every video. You would think self declared experts would get something mundane right. So what do you await? They are just in for money and self betrayal. There was never any valid points to this apology circus. Apologists making up vague childish excuses only to fake legitimacy.

[@Forest_Fifer]

Their problem is that the amateurs on KZbin are coming up with better arguments than they are

[@jemborg]

They're jealous of his voice.

[@MatthewCaunsfield]

Wow you really triggered WLC Keep it up! 😁

[@Forest_Fifer]

Rent free. In his head. It's glorious

[@raymondsanders3584]

What I think it’s quite interesting is the fact that these people believe this individual, who may or may not have actually lived, is telling the truth, that he is God, or the son of God, by today, if somebody was to walk around and do exactly the same things they would say he’s mentally ill.

[@condorboss3339]

The principal difference between Joshua ben Joseph and David Koresh is we have physical evidence of the latter.

[@jeanettecook1088]

He actually may have been. Remember in at least one gospel, Jesus was said to have been kicked out of his house as a very young man, as it was common practice in those days to put mentally ill or disordered individuals out into the street. I always wondered at that story. I asked my religious indoctrination coordinator... I mean "Sunday school teacher"... about it once, and got kicked out of the group. I guess one good kicking out begets another!! 😄

[@timeshark8727]

Why do so many apologists think that saying "expert says X" when they obviously said "y", then when presented with their expert saying "y", or completely contradicting the apologist, the apologist retorts with "expert says X"?

[@Oswlek]

Because dishonesty is a feature of religious apologetics, not a bug.

[@ericcraig3875]

WLC makes my skin crawl. Annoying listening to two theologians arguing fictional stories, especially when one pretends to be a historian.

[@Oswlek]

Yes, he is like the human personification of "smarmy con artist". It's hard to listen to.

[@ericcraig3875]

WLC has been reading nearly the same unintelligent script for like 30 years and is a millionaire.

[@Alan-gi2ku]

He oozes smugness.

[@davidofoakland2363]

I am shocked! SHOCKED! that Paulogia didn't play "So the Bible Tells Me So" at least once.

[@rossgalbraith3878]

The apologist's entire position can be summed up by that jingle.

[@thucydides7849]

It’s really a testament to your hard work that you constantly have big name apologists and philosophers attempting to critique your work.

[@foppishdilletaunt9911]

I’m really looking forward to this outing today. An apologetics apologist defending brain dead arguments. This should truly reveal the hand in the puppet head, whatever that means. My money is on Messers Ogia & Ehrman.

[@stevendaddario8803]

Thank you for another great video!

[@Paulogia]

Thank you so much, Steven!

[@KZSoze]

I’m fascinated with Craig invoking the bulk of scholars as a defense for his beliefs. The bulk of experts or academics in commensurate fields, do not accept the flood. They do not accept young earth creationism. They do not accept the exodus … What he should say is, “people who I cherry pick, that I agree with” …

[@Nocturnalux]

Craig does not believe in Young Earth creationism. Ironically, he considers it to be “dumb”, when a lot of his fans most definitely think the Earth is young.

[@drrickmarshall1191]

I see your "bulk of scholars" and I raise you my "bulk of medical professionals" who attest Crucified people whom have died do not come back to life 3 day's later. Checkmate Theists.

[@tomasrocha6139]

WLC considers YEC an embarassment.

[@stefanowohsdioghasdhisdg4806]

"What would make anyone think that the early Christians believed that Jesus was just a normal human who was exalted by God to be a divine being? Look! It says right here that Jesus was exalted by God and raised to his right hand! That obviously means that Jesus was always equal because of reasons I guess" Thank you, William Lane Craig. Your logic is truly infallible.

[@guuspot923]

I remember the days when William Lane Craig was supposed to be considered respectable... Not fondly, but I remember.

[@11kravitzn]

This is seriously addictive. Gimme more critiques of Christian apologists and apologetic arguments by experts. Delightful.

[@Paulogia]

You should find plenty more from me on this channel. 😁

[@callingdrbob]

I go to church because my wife’s a Christian, but when the pastor misses because he’s sick,he doesn’t stay home and just pray he goes to the doctor. So my take is if you believe so much then stop going to the doctor when you’re sick show me that you can be cured just by prayers.

[@johnalderson1370]

Yay a new paulogia on my birthday

[@Bill_Garthright]

Happy Birthday!

[@justindoud8842]

We’re watching a video of Paul and Bart watching a video of WLC watching a video of Paul and Bart watching a video of Gary Habermas.

[@51elephantchang]

I wouldn't be too worried about being attacked by Ned Flanders!

[@bovinejonie3745]

If you used to be a Christian: "You weren't a true Christian." But now you're an atheist: "You still believe in God, you just don't know it." ... So which is it guys? Can't have both.

[@mouthofspaghetti7817]

Its a Jedi Mind Trick; "These aren't the christians you are looking for"

[@horsewithnoname5264]

I appreciate level-headed analysis and contemplation of the historicity and development of Christianity. Widens one's perspective. Thank you.

[@nagranoth_]

That response WLC gave to the first point "but Jesus said so before his crucifixion" must be the dumbest apologetic I've ever heard. Those stories were written down decades after the supposed events, obviously if they came up with the story that it must've been a sacrifice, they also could come up with foreshadowing it earlier in the story... Saying "but the story says so" makes no sense whatsoever. Authors can make the story say anything, that's the whole reason to check whether these "minimum facts" are actually facts in the first place. I keep being amazed at how stupid WLC is, that he can't see such MASSIVE problems with his excuses. Or maybe he just thinks so little of his audience that he doesn't care. Or both.

[@mathewperring]

It make me wonder if when a believer hears this spelt out the way Bill Craig does that the plot hole becomes rather obvious, pushing people to have a second thought when if no one had found it necessary to defend it they never would of. Keep up the good work apologists.

[@Bill_Garthright]

_That response WLC gave to the first point "but Jesus said so before his crucifixion" must be the dumbest apologetic I've ever heard._ Yes, I agree. And the funny thing is, I'm no expert _at all._ I'm just an ordinary guy with a rather mild interest in this stuff. I am _absolutely_ a layman with no particular expertise, while WLC is supposed to be the expert, right? But even I was astonished at how ridiculous that was. You don't have to be an expert to see the obvious problem with that. It was just _so_ dumb. Astonishing so, don't you think? I think WLC is too used to preaching to the choir. It doesn't seem to make any difference how dumb an argument is when you're making it to faith-based people who already believe what you're claiming and really, really want to _keep_ believing it.

[@Nocturnalux]

Apologetics serve to keep the believer soothed and avoid cognitive dissonance. So long as believers do not push back, the apologist need not up his game or even try that hard.

[@jeremypnet]

I think that might be the dumbest thing he says in the whole video.

[@rachelthompson9324]

Craig is very good at self justification by way of self delusion. Ron White said. "you can't fix stupid." It also seems reality can't fix self-delusion.

[@FrikInCasualMode]

What self-delusion? Spreading and defending fairy tales is this guy's livelihood. He will fight for his main source of fame and income tooth and nail. Craig is fully aware what he's doing.

[@fred_derf]

The simple fact that he purposely mispronounces your name is enough to show that he's a disingenuous piece of human excrement. As if that's not enough, the fact that he says you weren't "a real christian" makes it unarguable.

[@Chrismas815]

Coming here straight from Viced Rhino. This is a good day lol

[@babotond]

thanks, I missed my Rhinotification!

[@matthewgagnon9426]

It kills me that these people still can't say the name right, despite it being said at the onset of *every single video ever released on this channel.* That's a level of willful ignorance that sociologists are going to be studying for decades to come.

[@littlecoloreddots]

It speaks to the type of brain these people have. How I perceive it is how it is. No matter how broad or narrow that might be. It's a form of Dunning Kruger that is common to flat earthers, young Earth creationists, climate deniers, anti-vaxxers...

[@shinobi-no-bueno]

Sad that when a de-convert tells their story, believers have to tell themselves that said now-atheist wasn't a believer or whatever. They just can't accept that even people born on their side can realize gods are a delusion

[@nickbrasing8786]

Love the Monty Python and the Holy Grail clip about being in peril. More of those please! But I hate that you cut it off before Michael Palin says "Bet your gay". But maybe it should be "jay" since Craig and the rest have a hard time with the whole hard or soft "G" pronunciation...

[@elainejohnson6955]

What evidence is there that Jesus was born, let alone crucified? Are there trial documents or firsthand witnesses who wrote about the crucifixion when it happened?

[@michaelsommers2356]

Ehrman wrote an entire book on whether Jesus existed.

[@elainejohnson6955]

@@michaelsommers2356 I just bought Ehrman's book. I haven't read it yet. In his lectures and interviews, he spends a lot of time proving there are a ton of contradictions in the Bible, says the Bible isn't a reliable source for multiple valid reasons, says he doesn't believe what the Bible says Jesus did... and then concludes Jesus was historical. I hope his book is better.

[@bodricthered]

It's not unfortunately

[@michaelsommers2356]

@@elainejohnson6955 Perhaps you should read it before dismissing it.

[@elainejohnson6955]

@@michaelsommers2356 Can't you read? I'm dismissing Bart's conclusions given in his lectures and interviews that I have seen. Not once did I dismiss his book. I would not have bought it if I thought it could not give me some possible new insights into why he draws a totally opposite conclusion as what his own evidence points to.

[@MartinAlix]

I’m never convinced by anything William Lame Craig says… he has nothing but « for the bible tells me so » 🤷‍♂️ But Dr Ehrman on the other hand is fantastic and very convincing! Also WLC mentioning « trying to enunciate » is hilariously ironic as he always seems to be rambling or gashgalloping 🧐

[@Marniwheeler]

Easy to understand, educational, funny. Fantastic video.

[@grapeshot]

Interesting how there's tombs to jebus in Israel as well as one in India and one even in Japan. My thoughts personally is if he existed he was nothing more than a first century Galilean cult leader, no super powers and when he died he stayed dead like all the rest of us humans.

[@PaTrick-cf6ev]

Yup most probably. There is also a theory that today's Jeebus is just a compilation of various apocalyptic cult leaders/preachers from that time.

[@irwinshung809]

But are they all empty?

[@petersage5157]

It's interesting, distressing, and insulting to hear how many different ways these apologists can mispronounce Paulogia.

[@mikewiz1054]

There was a boxer named Larry Holmes. He went 48-0 before facing Michael Spinks. It was a big deal because going 49-0 would have tied Holmes with Rocky Marciano for the longest heavyweight unbeaten streak. Holmes lost to Spinks then bitterly said, “Rocky Marciano couldn’t carry my jockstrap”. It was a statement to differentiate the competition faced by Holmes compared to that of Marciano. So I will say with all gusto… William Lane Craig couldn’t carry Ehrman’s jockstrap

[@Seapatico]

I ALMOST pooped my pants at the "Eat it Gary!" clip

[@lewisfitzsimmons1271]

Great video :) I’m so here for the subtle Fringe reference! *applause* *applause*

[@Paulogia]

Glad you liked it!

[@Clancyfan004]

Thanks!

[@Paulogia]

Thank you!

[@darkeyed.lowlander]

God wud rather chill with Christopher Hitchens than these fools, i bet

[@X1Y0Z0]

Excellent presentation!

[@phlarg2]

I love it how Professor Ehrman ends with "see you..." :-)

[@hovis13579]

William Lane Craig's verbal gymnastics is tedious to listen to.

[@xipheonj]

I die a little inside whenever I hear philosophers talk about probabilities. They speak about it in the same esoteric terms as the rest of their etheric fluff and it's so antithetical to the mathematical core behind probabilities.

[@JenniSeven7]

3:57 I thought for sure you’d add the one of the “Three -Five!” Monty Python clips here!

[@whenaravencries]

Excellent as always! Thank you both! 🙂✌🏼

[@sasha1suz]

Whenever I listen to an apologist, I picture an ORV spinning wheels in the mud.

[@Marconius6]

10:00 I love the weird double think WLC seems to have... when it's about the Bible, it's all just taken at face value, it's all historical, no modifications could have possibly happened after the fact; but when talking about a source he doesn't consider holy, suddenly he's treating it like an actual historical document, that might have just some kernel of historical information to it.

[@WolfA4]

I don't see how WLC can be taken seriously by anyone, his clear his faith gets in the way of critical thinking and analysis. I don't care how many PhD's he has, if he can't put aside his personal superstition and accept new information he can't be trusted to make a worthwhile analysis.

[@98based30]

The fact that how much apologetic guys hate Ehrman is a proof that he is on right track.

[@andreadiamond7115]

Happy to 100k subs Paul. ✌🏼❤️

[@arnulfo267]

Bart Ehrman is my favorite biblical scholar. He's non bias. He doesn't buy into apologetic nonsense. He's a great scholar.

[@ChJuHu93]

Afaik Godless Engineer has some critizism about Ehrman regarding the assumption of a historical Jesus. It's about the reasoning Ehrman uses for dismissing the mysticism hypothesis.

[@kalords5967]

@@ChJuHu93 Every scholar is biased towards one group or another.

[@ChJuHu93]

@@kalords5967 And your point? I was pointing out the potential flaw in one scholar and you answered with a hypothetical flaw of human nature.

[@simongiles9749]

@@ChJuHu93 I like GE, but he does have a bit of a blind spot when it comes to the mythicist viewpoint. Personally it seems that a mythicist like Carrier has to make as much if an assumption fir their view as a historicist like Ehrman, and it largely doesn't matter to the end effect- there was not, ever, a person who was literally also God. I don't think Ehrman helps by being quite so dismissive of Carrier as to consider it not worth having a discussion with him, though.

[@ChJuHu93]

@@simongiles9749 Well, I take a middle position, the stories are so out of place that if there was an underlying figure people would not equate the historical and mythological figures. But my point was to put some awareness that Ehrman is not void of critizism, as no one is. A cautionary tale to question ones rolemodels at least as much as ones opposition.

[@fmtpulmanns7593]

As far as I know, Hume's reasoning includes posterior probability. It doesn'teven preclude the possibility of a miracle; it merely directs you to reject the greater miracle after considering all the evidence.

[@myopenmind527]

You have to think that WLC is becoming more desperate and less credible as time goes on.

[@michaelsommers2356]

Less credible as time goes on? When was he ever credible?

[@myopenmind527]

@@michaelsommers2356 fair point. He does in my opinion seem increasingly desperate to be believed.

[@brunozeigerts6379]

Is there going to be a response to this response to ... lost track of who's responding to whom here...

[@bengreen171]

Am I wrong or is WLC so desperate to find fault with Bart that he entangles himself with contradictions? At about the 20 minute mark - when trying to dispute Bart's objection to Habermass insisting that 'By Lord I mean Jehovah' - he actually starts claiming that early Christians appealed to the Old Testament in order to identify Jesus with Yahweh - while trying to claim that Christians did not identify Jesus and Yahweh as the same person. He definitely wants to eat his cake and have it too. He so badly wants to insert his idea of trinity into the original context of early Christian theology, and also defend Habermass at the same time, that he has to pretend that Habermass didn't actually say the words "by Lord I mean Jehovah". WLC is literally attacking Bart for something Habermass said. It's either academic ignorance or just intellectual dishonesty. Or both.

[@Oswlek]

Cake and eat it to is fundamental to religious apologetics. Contradicting an earlier argument while pretending both responses stand unscathed is a feature, not a bug.

[@dod-do-or-dont]

My favorite apologetics, William "i argument from calam but i believe because i feel holly spirit works inside of me" Craig

[@owenoulton9312]

Had a "brain-dead" Christian faith - is there any other kind?

[@CYBRLFT]

Signed up and SUPER EXCITED.

[@brucemibus9523]

WLC is just crying bitter tears for being refuted. He badly needs to understand the evidence that denies his faith in any god. Fancy word games don't prove that a god exists much less that belief actually makes a difference.

[@Darisiabgal7573]

Is this like the Southpark episode were Cartman is covering a guy who is covering a guy who is covering a guy playing world of warcraft?

[@Ironsuaba]

WLC is a joke anyway. One doesn't expect anything from a joke.

[@SilverMKI]

A laugh would be nice, but we don't even get that...

[@dod-do-or-dont]

2:36 Craig isn't philosopher, he is preacher and sophist in bad meaning of this word.