Why God Must Exist, according to Logic | William Lane Craig

[@franciscosanchezcabrera2157]

Always amazing to listen to Dr. Lane Craig

[@EddieRicks-i8v]

I actually understand what he is saying and he has been studying this subject matter for decades and if someone doesn’t understand is because they have experienced a world that has a secular view point opposed to his views on the evidence . It takes years to study and most would not .

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

@@EddieRicks-i8v Yeah, in other words, one must presuppose a god.

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

To be clear, I do not.

[@EddieRicks-i8v]

@ 😂 it takes years of study and most won’t

[@EddieRicks-i8v]

@ not really more like ask him to reveal himself to you and through that process is the way to understand him it takes years of study

[@stevehiggerson7328]

​@singwithpowerinfo5815 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

In a moment of actual honesty, WLC admitted that this is only a thought exercise and not any kind of proof or evidence for the existence God.

[@NathanielMSA]

Good question

[@davidstaffell]

That's not a question

[@lonelyp1]

Because if he doesn't, I have wasted my whole life saying he does.

[@elmohuaerte6082]

But if He does exist, you wouldn't regret it, and you will regret it if you rejected Him

[@portalingstudiosgaming7705]

You, most probably, wasted your life, because there is no evidence for gods existance.

[@lonelyp1]

@portalingstudiosgaming7705 I was being sarcastic and answering the question for Mr. Craig.

[@leolacic9442]

HA HA HA

[@johnglad5]

Without God your life has no meaning. Meaning itself would be an illusion. You are more than molecules, that should be apparent.

[@JimmyYoung-p4e]

If you say nothing is accidental or causeless, then you must accept infinite regress. But if you don't accept infinite regress, then u must accept everything can be accidental or causeless. You can't make an exception to keep ur Creation BS intact. That is a Special pleading fallacy.

[@elliotthyde5623]

An explanation of the explanation of the explanation is not only fair but fascinating as well.

[@thecommiesalami9217]

God needs to exist because how can anything exist without God because god needs to exist because how can anything exist without God because god needs to exist because how can anything exist without God because god needs to exist. I'm a sane and rational person

[@jamesppesch]

Word salad and circular. Bam. nailed it.

[@Artiscetic]

Its either that or the atheistic view which doesnt have an answer for existence 🤷‍♂️

[@alajos-derek1669]

@@Artiscetic There is an answer to existence. Existence has no alternative.

[@Artiscetic]

@@alajos-derek1669 that would be nothing. And existence is something.

[@Brunosonn]

​@@Artiscetic We got many steps to get from deism to theism to a certain religion.

[@boonraypipatchol7295]

Everything is Nature, Nature of all Nature, Nature of all Beings, Nature of all Minds....

[@dougsmith6793]

Folks may argue about specific points about the natural universe, but no one argues about the existence of the natural world itself, for obvious reasons. God is not just any ol' existence, but is by definition the Most Existent Thing. If the Most Existent Thing really existed, no one would be arguing about that any more than they argue about the existence of the natural world, and for the same reasons. Why hold the Most Existent Thing to a lower standard than we apply to determining the existence of everything else? Isn't that how psychology becomes theology?

[@infini_ryu9461]

Atheists and Theists could have much more productive discussions about topics once Theists stop Straw Manning and Asserting what Atheists believe.

[@johnalexir7634]

All "proofs" for God contain at least one logical fallacy. This doesn't mean there's no God, but the proofs are all fallacious.

[@James-ll3jb]

Actually, fallacious is the onething they are not😅

[@nickpereira4047]

What about all "proofs" for the non-existance of God you empty headed fool?

[@forall1796]

God must exist because the word ‘god’ is defined as ‘god must exist’ and furthermore, god must exist so that existence can exist.

[@jimnewl]

God is existence.

[@riverbank2193]

Unless he doesn't. The word exists, of that we can be sure. The rest is a big unknown. We do know that human beings seem to come up with lots of gods throughout different cultures. There is a feeling that there must be larger forces in charge. There just isn't any evidence.

[@James-ll3jb]

@@forall1796 God is identical with Reality

[@forall1796]

@@James-ll3jb What is god ?

[@James-ll3jb]

@forall1796 Go to your google search engine, and type "God." I know you can do it, if you try!

[@WaveFunctionCollapsed]

Best philosopher in the world love from india ❤

[@JukeboxJunkie7]

I implore anyone tempted by this sort of thinking to read The Blind Watchmaker.

[@GabrielMorenoHagelsieb]

I'd implore them to learn to actually think. Otherwise reading the blind watchmaker won't do any good to them.

[@someonefromsomeplace]

I'm wondering if you happen to recall if Dawkins presented evidence for his claims that the eye evolved step by step, for example? I mean, were they suppositions/claims, or did he show real-life examples of species with the what he claims the first eye might look like, and then examples of those intermediate steps that he claims may have happened to get to the human eye?

[@JukeboxJunkie7]

@@someonefromsomeplace Yes, that's discussed in The Blind Watchmaker (1986), along with numerous other examples, but eyes get a detailed chapter which includes what you're asking, and much more, in Climbing Mount Improbable (1996). The latter book also gives whole-chapter treatment to flight (and he later gave it whole-book attention in Flights of Fancy from just a few years back). The broader evidence (as opposed to clearing away conceptual misunderstandings) is given in The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution. Jerry Coyne's Why Evolution Is True is also worth anyone's time.

[@GabrielMorenoHagelsieb]

@@someonefromsomeplace Awesome of you to ask. Though @JukeboxJunkie7 gave you a most excellent answer, I have to tell you that Darwin, yes, Charles, gave real-life examples of living organisms with eyes that look like different stages in the evolution of eyes like ours. So, even back then. The "new" cosmos series also shows such life forms, both, from fossils and from today's life forms. Lots of books do that as well, and the scientific literature has been filling gaps in our knowledge about the evolution of eyes, including the evolution of molecules involved in the development of eyes, and fossils found that help us figure out when different versions of eyes first evolved. The more science advances, the more interesting and profound the evolutionary history of the eye becomes. This is not about Dawkins, all he had to do is check the literature. So, it's not Dawkins' claim, it's an example that Darwin started, and later scientists have followed, both for being a classic, and for obvious scientific curiosity. We really want to know. Right?

[@adriancatalin1229]

Boring dude with ridiculous arguments for...nothing. He.s just making a living from others stupidity.

[@ertongaming6994]

If you have experience in the occult then you will realize that there are things that cannot be explained by common logic.

[@GabrielMorenoHagelsieb]

@@ertongaming6994 Goor thing then that we have Craig's illogic.

[@MrMattSax]

For Craig, god must exist because it helps him with his existential angst. That is according to his own words.

[@zrakonthekrakon494]

How do you explain the 10-5-6-5 pattern in histamines, and lamidae protein in the shape of a cross, or the alignment of Jupiter with the constellation signifying kingship near the historical date of Jesus’s birth, there are too many coincidences at a cosmic level that keep me believing in God.

[@MrMattSax]

@ very easily: with our cognitive biases towards patternicity, our desire to confirm our preexisting biases by projecting patterns and meaning into external phenomena where there may not be actual patterns or agency. One can subjectively imbue things with meaning and significance, especially if they seem to be connected with presupposed beliefs in the indemonstrable.

[@zrakonthekrakon494]

@ Nah, that seems like a stretch these patterns align exactly with scriptural symbols on multiple accounts in matters, places, and dates of symbolic significance, it makes less sense to claim our pattern seeking brains are trying to find meaning in them, than it does to accept them as intentional. The only reason you would claim otherwise is if your are already convinced of the irrationality of believing in a God and must fine some explanation for anything on the contrary, your are entrenched in your presuppositions and no evidence will change your mind.

[@MrMattSax]

@@zrakonthekrakon494 the patterns only seem that way to you: the willing believer desiring to believe. The things you enumerated don't point to your god in any way that can be demonstrated, they just have significance to you. Numerology exists in many faiths: Numbers can be given significance per the will of the numerologist. There are hardcore maga qanon people who apply "gematria" to the English language to prove Trump is their godking. That doesn't mean that he is, it means they've worked to fit the numeric ideas into their belief system (patternicity). Laminin is another great example. Under a microscope, it doesn't look anything like a cross, but the scientific diagram looks like two intersecting perpendicular lines (a very common shape), and so the Christian maps that idea to the symbology of the cross. A direct correlation to your faith cannot be demonstrated it can only be intuited by feelings and biases. The reason I lack a belief in what you believe is that I don't feel the evidence available is sufficient. My only presupposition is that the universe exists and we experience it. If sufficient evidence for a god, or even the specific version of god that you believe in, were available, I'd have no option in the matter but to believe. As it stands, though, I am unable to believe due to the lack of sufficient evidence and the availability of evidence to the contrary.

[@dougsmith6793]

​@@zrakonthekrakon494 [zrak]: "Nah, that seems like a stretch these patterns align exactly with scriptural symbols on multiple accounts in matters, places, and dates of symbolic significance, it makes less sense to claim our pattern seeking brains are trying to find meaning in them, than it does to accept them as intentional." Lol. Confirmation bias. You will find what you look for. []zrak]: "The only reason you would claim otherwise is if your are already convinced of the irrationality of believing in a God and must fine some explanation for anything on the contrary, your are entrenched in your presuppositions and no evidence will change your mind." Lol. The only reason you would make this claim is if you're already convinced that you must believe in God and must not find some explanation for anything on the contrary ... you are entrenched in your presuppositions and no evidence will change your mind. < < < y a w n > > >

[@eldarpuntushashvili1087]

That is how Philosophers speak and give an explanation! Dr. Craig is brilliant.

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

What are you talking about? He’s a pinhead.

[@johnnkurunziza5012]

@@DummyAccount-f1q on what basis can you elaborate?

[@dougsmith6793]

Lol. He's as brilliant as Jordan Peterson.

[@zrakonthekrakon494]

@ the only pinheads are the one’s who insult people when presenting an argument in good faith

[@vlastermaster]

@dougsmith6793 LMAO

[@lordcivin9465]

Why must it be God? Why not God's?

[@aarifboy]

Trinity is actually three gods, father, son n holy spirit, u wanna believe in 3 gods? lol.

[@StevenHughes-hr5hp]

​@@aarifboyThree? If the Holy Spirit lives inside people there are billions of him alone.

[@evan-du3vk]

​@@aarifboy it was real big problem for the church at some point. Is it 3 different beings or one in three "persons"

[@aarifboy]

Chris'tians r con'fused whether Jesus was father or he was son, thats y they mixed both to combine them as one, glue they used to attach both was holy spirit. God was neither defined as father, son nor holy spirit, Usually Creator of fathers, sons n holy spirits was called the God hehe

[@chuckgaydos5387]

If God is a necessary being, I'm going to worship whoever designed necessity.

[@terminat1]

Nobody designed such a concept.

[@chuckgaydos5387]

@@terminat1 So a god that designed everything else doesn't exist, right?

[@terminat1]

@@chuckgaydos5387 "Design" is an abstract object. It need not be created by God first any more than God needed to create the concept of strength before He could create other things.

[@chuckgaydos5387]

@@terminat1 It will be interesting to see how others deal with my claim.

[@portalingstudiosgaming7705]

​@@chuckgaydos5387 Yeah, it would be, because I think, that you are right.

[@EdwinDelPilar-o4n]

I am with him, william Lane Craig, in this logical idea.

[@tedgrant2]

The explanation for the world is God The explanation for God is Supergod. The explanation for Supergod is Superdupergod.....

[@bitofwizdomb7266]

If so, it sure ain’t the biblical monster version of the concept of G od

[@rickwyant]

He basically makes up a definition of a god therefore he says god exists.

[@ryanprice9841]

This guy admits if he saw direct proof god didnt exist, he would assume he was being tricked because it "means too much to him" that a god exists. Thats openly admitted bias, not a logic nor reasoning based conclusion.

[@Chris-w2p6j]

Or it could be a trick

[@stevehiggerson7328]

I keep seeing these types of comments where you put words in his mouth... how about a time stamp? I watched the whole video and didn't hear that but maybe I missed it. Or maybe you're being deceptive

[@ryanprice9841]

@@stevehiggerson7328 neither of your options are correct, it's in another interview he gave. It's incredibly easy to find if you put in the tiniest amount of effort. If you were really interested, you would have found where he said that with less effort than you put into your misplaced arrogant comment

[@adamdarby43]

God stands outside of time and space. When I died at age 16, I met him but was told it wasn't my time yet.

[@vladtheemailer3223]

You didn't die. Nobody has actually died(literally) and came back.

[@FaithBro777]

​@@vladtheemailer3223Yes, Jesus did.

[@Aurealeus]

@@FaithBro777 Prove it!

[@FaithBro777]

@@Aurealeus Even if I would give you proof, you wouldn't believe it... Faith is the hope for the unseen and not based on evidence or proof. God wants you to believe in him and not proof him. The creation of the most practised religion and the most selled book in the world, as well as the martyrdom of many early Christians, is proof enough that Jesus indeed rose from the dead. Nobody would die for something which they would not 100% believe in. Why would the gospel writers, write a fake story and then die for it? Also the death and the ressurection of the Messiah was prophesied in the Old Testament, which Peter quoted in Acts 13:33-35: "he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm: “‘You are my son; today I have become your father.’ God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said, “‘I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.’ So it is also stated elsewhere: “‘You will not let your holy one see decay.’"

[@stevehiggerson7328]

​​@@vladtheemailer3223when considering the comparison of the size of your brain to the vastness of the universe and the amount of information it would be to explain it's entire history, composition, function, and orgin; it really baffles me how confident you seem to be on what you 'know' (literally)

[@beemer2869]

This makes such great sense and is full of wisdom, thank you Our God is beyond amazing.❤❤❤

[@souliseverlasting]

Those who love God will receive things that no one has even imagined

[@MasterSpade]

So true!!! And my god is the one and ONLY true god!!!!! With out our Lord and Savior, life would be Impossible!!! So Praise be the one and ONLY true god. Praise be the Magic Toe Nail. AMEN!!!!! Glad you all agree.

[@EchoesOfMeaning]

The funny part, in the beginning when he talked about the end of life and universe, is that even with a belief in God the end is the same. All belief in God does is provide comfort for the minds that can't stomach reality.

[@mada5326]

you are being short sighned. Not everyone puts the same importance in the death of the matter as you may think, and you are assuming everyone has to accept the same belief about the end of all things, or the purpose (or lack of, as you probably believe) of the universe and that believing in God is just a way to mitigate it. Become comfortable with the idea that spirituality may simply be logical to some people.

[@portalingstudiosgaming7705]

​@@mada5326 I understand those people, but the problem is, that spirituality is logicaly wrong.

[@Jesse-x4o]

The end isn't the same, in fact death is the beginning. Do some study of NDE and how many people confirm we are eternal beings. Where you spend the rest of that time is of the utmost importance. Our belief or disbelief doesn't change what the truth is ultimately.

[@EchoesOfMeaning]

@@mada5326 I agree that spiritually is logical to some people. To me, spirituality is the same as studing energy, or metaphysical energy. Once you take away the mystery language, it becomes plain to see through.

[@0i7PX72Nga]

Do you mean your reality? What if God really exists? That means there is not really an end, which is very thought-provoking, and that can make people uncomfortable. So it is just better and easier if He doesn't exist. Problem solved.

[@efo0l]

Craig says, "Dawkins is so popular because people are so unsophisticated in their thinking. I am appalled honestly when I read the stuff that's out there on the internet. How inept and sophomoric people are. I'm afraid that many young people just have never been exposed to good, rigorous argumentation with regard to these matters, and therefore they're taken in by these Dawkins types because they've never really read sophisticated treatments of these problems." Earlier in the conversation Craig presented essentially the ontological argument for God. He then described God as a disembodied mind [a ghost] who invented the universe. Craig is also the guy who champions the Kalam cosmological argument even after having its issues described to him by a cosmologist (see Carroll vs Craig debate). I don't think Craig has ears to hear.

[@shieldmcshieldy5750]

Or the arguments against his are just really weak

[@fearitselfpinball8912]

In my own experience with atheists (who are intellectually engaged in this debate) a majority are reasoning ‘out of’ or from a philosophical foundation forward. Lennox called ‘scientism’ on Dawkins a long time ago and the word itself is perhaps contentious but the more I think about it the clearer it is: he was dead on. If you start from 1. materialism 2. The philosophical commitment that ‘science has the only method that finds/validates the only truths there are’ 3. Our minds are (why question it?) obviously sufficient to (not insufficient to) reality… Once all of that is in place God is either an object (like a mug) or simply doesn’t exist. There’s nothing controversial _once_ we are committed physicalists about not believing in God. What Dawkins did was to say, believing 1. 2. & 3. _is_ ‘scientific’. Yet on closer examination none of these claims follow from science (as though the evident outcome of some experiment, repeated)… they are all philosophical positions requiring a justification science cannot provide.

[@James-ll3jb]

A disembodied mind is not a ghost. Read Don Hoffman and Bernardo Kastrup

[@iriemon1796]

​@@fearitselfpinball8912 ["If you start from 1. materialism 2. The philosophical commitment that ‘science has the only method that finds/validates the only truths there are’ 3. Our minds are (why question it?) obviously sufficient to (not insufficient to) reality… Yet on closer examination none of these claims follow from science (as though the evident outcome of some experiment, repeated)… they are all philosophical positions requiring a justification science cannot provide."] That is an interesting analysis. I think you can eliminate #1 as a necessary point because it follows from #2. If you posit that science is the only rational method for validating "truths", then #1 becomes redundant. We know the natural world exists because we have almost unlimited scientific evidence of it. If #2 is true, so is #1. I'm not really sure of you point on #3 ("3. Our minds are (why question it?) obviously sufficient to (not insufficient to) reality… ") Maybe you can explain that concept which is not comprehendable to me. Our minds are sufficient to reality? What does that even mean? So I'm going to put aside #3 for now. So we are left with #2. Now, I'm not intimately familiar with Dawkins, but is his position that science is the *only* method you can find truth? Or is it that science is the best or only reliable way to find truth? I think the latter; I believe Dawkins allows for the possibility of the existence of a god, but he just thinks it is not probable. Your definition turns #2 into a philosophical question, I agree. The latter definition, however, is not. So is it your position that scientific evidence is not the most reliable evidence? If so, what kind of evidence do you claim is more reliable? If you concede that scientific evidence is the most reliable kind, then in our worldviews, we are making a choice between 1) the natural world (for which there is almost infinite scientific evidence, and 2) a supernatural/magical world for which there is zero scientific evidence (tho there could be) the evidence is of a kind that is less reliable than scientific evidence (i.e. individual testimony). I submit that if you are logical, your "faith" would be in a world view (naturalism) for which there is infinite scientific evidence (which is of a greater reliability), as opposed to a world view (supernatural/magic) for which there is zero scientific evidence; and all evidence for which is of a less reliability. This of course does not prove the non-existence of a supernatural being; it posits that the probability of such a being is less than the probability of a purely natural world. Which, again, I believe is Dawkin's position.

[@efo0l]

@@fearitselfpinball8912 You're in the ballpark. The feedback from your senses into your mind is how you explore the world and form a model. Since your mind can come to incorrect conclusions, some kind of interaction with the external world would be required to verify your model. I assume that's what someone would mean by "scientific," though I don't follow Dawkins closely.

[@ta3p-theannex3project84]

God excist because otherwise i dont have a dayjob.

[@lonelyp1]

This is my thought for the original post for this thread

[@Austinole]

All this shows is philosophy, like statistics, can "prove" anything. You can't define something into existence.

[@richardventus1875]

As a person who has totally detached from the ways of the World and has picked up my cross to follow Jesus, I can tell everyone that He very much exists and I have a personal relationship with Him.

[@lonelyp1]

Well, that's good for you personally, but can you prove it in any way shape or form? Or is it only your own personal hallucination? I think if there is any god he should just SHOW HIMSELF. Here I am, SEE, now behave yourselves. I have been behaving myself anyway, while not even believing.

[@stevehiggerson7328]

​@@lonelyp1as well behaved as I'm sure you are, something tells me if he did reveal himself (again), nothing substantial would change with how you live.

[@jackjackal1768]

why must we worship a perfect being?

[@shieldmcshieldy5750]

I ask narcissists the same thing

[@johnglad5]

@@jackjackal1768 it is your choice, he has given you free will.

[@aarifboy]

Well That being doesn't need our worship, whether we need to worship That perfect being is debatable. Remember I m using 'That' not a Biblical 'He' here lol

Its argument by tone of voice.

[@GabrielMorenoHagelsieb]

By condescending tone of voice, no less. Sooooo convincing!

[@Westrwjr]

20:17 “Dawkins is so POPULAR because people are so unsophisticated in their thinking.”🙌🏼🎯🎯🎯

[@YAWTon]

I agree. And WLC is so popular because people confuse sophistry with sophisticated reasoning...

[@Westrwjr]

@@YAWTon Your sarcasm is too evident, tone it down a bit..

[@YAWTon]

@Westrwjr No. I genuinely agree with 20:17. But I also see the symmetry. I am not a fan of Dawkins, nor am I a fan of WLC. And I believe in freedom of expression.

[@Jopan471]

Good arguments for belief in God

[@bw2191]

God was a placeholder for science.

[@Chris-w2p6j]

This guy is special

[@JohnCamacho]

Anyone who agrees with WLC, I have a question. Could the God that exists be different from the one you worship? E.g. can the God be indifferent and not care about the events in the universe?

[@dexio8601]

Well you could worship God and have an idea about him but you would probably never be able to understand him in his totality. Based on what I felt God 100% exists. As in really real.

[@JohnCamacho]

@@dexio8601 well I'm not even talking about totality. "Based on what I felt God 100% exists" So you base the likelihood of existence of something immaterial and undetectable on what you feel? That sounds like succumbing to your confirmation bias

[@dexio8601]

@JohnCamacho Have you ever felt the feeling of falling in love? Sorry to get personal.

[@JohnCamacho]

@dexio8601 how are you comparing the feeling of love, which is an emotion, with the existence of an immaterial and undetectable being?

[@dexio8601]

@JohnCamacho Because I detected that Immaterial being via the feeling of love in broad daylight walking to the train station after work in 2009. Said a prayer at 12...5pm came and I left work..was walking alone and this feeling of love overcame me, it was overwhelming, felt like the feeling of falling in love x1000. Just extraordinary, way way beyond anything human, really just took my breath away,right in the heart region but it felt like it engulfed my whole being, that lasted probably a couple of minutes, and the peace from it 3 days. I was totally awake, totally relaxed and totally sober. And alone. It was incredible. This happened in Sydney on Martin Pl Australia it was a Thursday, just unforgettable. It's hard for me to talk about it, because it's so personal.

[@bhantekovida6039]

Our minds are conditioned with dualistic thinking - beginning and ending, creation and creator, subject and object. In the calmness and stillness of meditation, one is in touch with the timeless dimension of the Universe, no beginning, no ending; always was and always will be. The Big Bang is only a theory. Theere is no creator God who is separate from the Universe, the world and nature. God is only a symbol, a mental image, of Mother Nature, Awareness and Reality and the Universe. When the Buddha was asked if there was a God or Creator, whether there was a beginning or ending of the Universe, he kept silent and smiled. Later, the Buddha would say that these questions were not important. What was important was to understand the suffering and mental delusion in your mind - fear, worry, anxiety, craving, frustration, selfishness and jealousy and hatred - and to make the effort to purify our minds towards peace, loving kindness and compassion.

[@satepestage3599]

I used to believe all this. Consider this though, deception exists. How do you know you are not currently deceived? If you were, what would it look like? You might think you have "the truth" but it's just a false set of beliefs. Jesus is the way the truth and the life and He loves you friend ❤

[@Rootimachus]

@@satepestage3599 Tell mr eggs that I am that I AM

[@bhantekovida6039]

@@satepestage3599 Hello Friend, Thanks for your comment. There is a big difference between believing something and having a clear and deep understanding that comes from years of meditation practice/mind training , investigation and reflection. You don't know the story about the missing years of Jesus, between 12 and 30 years old. Apparently, he was taken by his teachers and relatives to India via Persia/Iran. There was a trade route between Palestine and India via Persia, He learned from Buddhist monks and Yoga teachers. Buddhism was already 500 years old. Interestingly, Jesus taught the same spiritual values as the Buddha - loving kindness, compassion, forgiveness, brotherhood, calmness and patience, not being judgemental, and so on. However, you are free to believe what you wish to believe. Stay humble and open-minded. Be well, be happy, be peaceful.

[@F_Cad]

​@@bhantekovida6039Actually friend, everything Jesus taught was deep-rooted in Judaism. It was their God, who He called Father, and it was only their beliefs He spoke from. The fact is there is absolutely no proof for your theory of His travels, much less what He supposedly "learned" in those travels. Take care.

[@bhantekovida6039]

@@F_Cad Thanks for your comment. If you're curious and open-minded, there are a few videos on YT about Jesus being in India. His shrine is in Kashmir.

[@JohnCamacho]

Isn't it funny how apologists get to make up whatever they want and as long as it's unfalsifiable, the argument can last forever. 1 Just because something is logically possible, doesn't mean it is. 2 We don't know if a God is logically possible. 3 We don't know if an immaterial being is possible

[@nickpereira4047]

What a lazy thinker you are. We don't "know" anything for sure. Give your empty head a wobble.

[@dimetriwatt7334]

What 😅 You do know that both apologists and agnostic and atheist does this. Right? Since we are homosapiens it’s hard for us to remove our biases or it just might be impossible to do. Either way, the speaker here does raise great questions and present a solid argument for his theistic point of view

[@JohnCamacho]

@@dimetriwatt7334 give me an example of an atheist or agnostic, with academic qualifications, who claims something unfalsifiable to uphold their world view.

[@dimetriwatt7334]

@@JohnCamacho1. Lawrence Krauss his argument that the universe could have risen from nothing. The unfalsifiable touch here is: the idea that the universe could have risen from nothing through quantum mechanics. I don’t have to tell you what critiques think about that one. Alex Rosenberg - hopefully you have read the Atheist guide to reality. His premise is that free will is an illusion The unfalsifiable touch here is: if free will is an illusion, then any argument against determinism is also determined, making the claim circular and beyond empirical falsification. The arrogance of Christian’s and Atheist is actually hilarious imo. I do think atheists are far more arrogant though lol

[@RedJesus666-k9z]

Craig’s “objective” morality and meaning for existence are all dependent on words written on ancient scrolls by human beings. There is nothing objective about these ideas they are only the product of the human mind and personal tastes of people. Imagine three thousand years from now people will be able to say they can appeal to objective morality that was written down by the great Christopher Hitchens or William Lane Craig…😂

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

Right. It's all human, too, too human.

[@cardcounter21]

Well done Bill! Its so obvious that Zeus exists and do you know why Christians completely deny his existence - because they _hate_ him!

[@sulongenjop7436]

Creation is the logic that the Creator really exists!

[@cardcounter21]

Agree! People need to accept the existence of Zeus!

[@profession_jobs_money]

I liked it very much. Because all normally say they are knowledgeable, so much knowledgable they have made me jobless,money less. You get proof of existence of God,depending on humanity is practicing profession or all are practicing worship in this yugo/era When you were practicing worship , professionals were walking in heaven.

[@robinwarren7169]

What?? Circular work salad. Somewhere I missed the "logic".

[@Aurealeus]

Yep, that's why he is known as 'Word Salad Craig' on the religious debate circuit.

[@refuse2bdcvd324]

Indeed, God is a logical requirement.

[@MaximilianoMendes]

After reading stuff written by a philosopher called Yujin Nagasawa ive became convinced the ontological argument is indeed preety good and the convlusion inescapable. However, it is hard to grasp, you can see in the comments here, people trying to mock it, didnt fully understand it. Someone should explain it in simpler terms one day.

[@defenestratedalien1448]

It still has its flaws. Almost like trying to define god into existence

[@jamesppesch]

You don't accept the argument? It's not because it's invalid or sound, you didn't understand it. Ok, bro. Nice mansplain.

[@Artiscetic]

Indeed, logic doesnt give the answer to either the theist or atheist. Theists at least are willing to step outside of logic to make an attempt. Which is extremely admirable and frankly, our only (ironically) next logical step as a species.

[@Artiscetic]

​@@defenestratedalien1448 And you are right. It just means theists make the attempt and atheists dont. Which would make atheists pessimistic and theists optimistic.

[@defenestratedalien1448]

@@Artiscetic you are free to make an attempt, but should be intellectually honest enough to admit that your conclusion cannot be objectively verified. Every theistic argument I have encountered either smuggles an unsound premise somewhere or the conclusion is not necessarily the god they describe. Simply put, we may simply be unable to answer the question as humans and claiming to have an answer may be a mistake or just dishonest. Speaking wrt classical definitions and attributes given to god

[@lightclock9761]

God is light. Without light, we cannot see anything. In daily life what we see is not material stuff but the information of light reflected from the material stuff.

[@bilal5354]

Even if we were to accept that a God exists, how would we know what he wants, does, etc.? Even if you prove your religion is from God, why would you follow it? In other words, how do you know God is not fooling you with it? Bc God says he is good?

[@Briii.]

Because it FEELS right The religious books are the guides to what their gods want Living the way God would like you to just feels better internally You learn to love and respect others just as much as yourself People who are truly of God bring nothing but peace and love

[@nicobiggamer8338]

Because once you take all of the previous steps, you fall into the conclusion that god is righteous, and that he is just. Therefore he can’t lie. This God we’re talking about Can not be deceitful. That’s why we can firmly believe anything he says

[@Tdtz05643]

​@@nicobiggamer8338 I never heard God say anything. Just ppl speaking on his behalf claiming he said X.

[@Tdtz05643]

​@@nicobiggamer8338 I've only seen ppl _claiming_ to speak for God.

[@bilal5354]

@@nicobiggamer8338 but he can be righteous here. What about afterlife? Or myb he deceives you to achieve some higher purpose that we can't understand right now.

[@sathiahalya3003]

Biochemistry determines human nature. Psychology understands human nature.

[@skykingOH58]

How many books have these critics written or how many degrees do they have?? Best to respect this scholar and his wisdom your fate after death is at stake.

[@ashcross]

This is weak stuff. Asserting that God must exist necessarily, but then not being able to prove this or even provide a possible justification, shows that he is reliant on assertiveness itself or on a circularity which states that "God must exist because God must exist", which is tantamount to what he is saying. It will not do.

[@teenwolf9204]

He is trying to avoid, god of the gaps I really thought I could learn something new, perspective wise

[@Chris___J]

1 minute in the video and already don't trust this guy, if you can't break down your knowledge so a high schooler can understand you're not wise or smart either yet "god exists I can't make myself clearer than that" oh you can, or were all those fancy words in the beggining supposed to fool me?

[@GabrielMorenoHagelsieb]

They were supposed to fool you. So, start over until they do.

[@StevenHughes-hr5hp]

If there are countless sentient life forms across the universe someone's interpretation of religion must be true.

[@EcoTHEgrey]

This is a circular explication

[@rosenamdensuden]

This florid word salad sounds profound. Yet I think it is a smoke screen that obscures a profound, sad shallowness.

[@JeanValJean-t2j]

It is inconceivable for the human mind who what and why all of that there is got to be no one knows no one will know inspire of all of those strongly held. Beliefs ideas or ideologies that one and only valid answer I do not know

[@meafordhaunt]

god is necessary to your beliefs WLC so he MUST exist

[@hangoutwithdeggers]

Which god ? 🤔

[@aarifboy]

The Creator hehe

[@kayojen8827]

God may exist but it doesn't have to be the God of the Old Testament. That guy is not nice. I prefer the Great Spirit of the American Indians.

[@Ronaldo-xm6dx]

Nothing comes from nothing!

[@rudysimoens570]

Not even an imaginary god!

[@Aurealeus]

Nothing doesn't exist, if it did that would be something.

[@portalingstudiosgaming7705]

​@@Aurealeus Ehm, actually, nothing can exist. It is a concept, that is relative to something.

[@Aurealeus]

@ Concepts are subjective, not material. Concepts are just a thought in one's mind. Nothing doesn't exist. If it did, it would be something, not nothing. Nothing is nonexistence. Only something can exist.

[@cszn8081]

@@Aurealeus That's brilliant logic. Its not a question of something can't come from nothing. Nothing can't exist because all there is is something.

[@yibaibashimu6223]

0:49 What he means is: no matter what universe, omniverse, macroverse you can imagine, you can't imagine it without G'd. Now, you might imagine G'd to be something he is not but that's just your imagination since THAT G'd, the uncreated G'd, has to be the G'd that he is--the G'd he described himself as. The "I Am". The Alpha and Omega--a being outside of time, and therefore outside of space, speed and change--within whom all else exists, at least until he separates out that which has chosen not to be with G'd.

[@singwithpowerinfo5815]

@@yibaibashimu6223 Oh, brother. It is easy to imagine all universes without a god. Maybe not for you, but you might not have much of an imagination. That is why you make your claims from utter credulity.

[@yibaibashimu6223]

@singwithpowerinfo5815 Can you? Can you really imagine even one universe without G'd? You see, you either didn't read, or you failed to grasp my point. No matter what, you must imagine the universe includes: All the space, All the time All the energy All the information All the causes And all the results. If I say that another way: The universe/macroverse etc. contains Omnipresence Omnipotence Omniscience Since we can all agree that those are the exact ways one describes a creator God then at very least the universe/macroverse must, taken as a whole, be at very least a reflection of some sort of god and that's only if you don't believe in extra nonphysical dimensions. But when you consider that all that had to come FROM "something" --since matter itself is dependent on the existence of time and therefore can't have come from outside of it--and that "something" had to be outside of time and space. You are dealing with an origin that contains ALL of the aspects of God from which emanates the time bound physical universe you exist within. You may; deny the Christian God if you want. But you can't actually imagine your own universe without SOME sort of God--that is, if you can imagine the universe at all.

[@prestonbacchus4204]

Logic, not to mention the scientific method, requires the offering, first, of an explicit intended definition and use of the subject term (God). Otherwise, no matter how impressive the logic, folks will not be on the same page.

[@Birdieupon]

15:10 Craig absolutely shreds Dawkins' central argument from The God Delusion (no wonder Dawkins ran scared!)

[@Jonesimedes-q6f]

At 15:10, Craig employs a straw man argument, a common logical fallacy.

[@Birdieupon]

​ @Jonesimedes-q6f How is it a straw man? He quotes Dawkins directly. Do you deny that Dawkins claims that the designer hypothesis creates a problem of "who designed the designer?" and that Dawkins claims the designer would have to be "complex"? It's all there in chapter 4 of Dawkins' book, and Dawkins himself says this publicly at every opportunity. Do you deny that Dawkins defines complexity as requiring the entity to have many constituent parts (if so, have you read the opening chapter of The Blind Watchmaker)? I ask all these questions, and give you all those specifics, because you did nothing at all to support your accusation (which is usually what people do when they have no argument).

[@Jonesimedes-q6f]

Thank you for your reply. Your response employs what is known as a Gish Gallop. Read Dawkin’s book. Craig misrepresents it. Thus, the straw man fallacy.

[@Birdieupon]

@ I have read it, indeed I quoted from it while defending Craig’s response. I gave you just three points (what Dawkins says about “who designed the designer?”, complexity, and having parts). If you think that qualifies as an overwhelming number of points to respond to then I feel sorry for you. You are taking the lazy and cowardly option of not bothering to substantiate your objection.

[@Jonesimedes-q6f]

Now we’re getting somewhere: the ad hominem. Nonetheless, you’re right. I yield. Thank you. Take care and have a lovely day.

[@mynorgonzalez2625]

Apologetic is disgusting, they can come up with the most ridiculous argument just to prove or justify a belief

[@TheAtheistPerspective868]

God is a logical impossibility

[@Brunosonn]

How so?

[@antiochiaadtaurum3786]

has Craig ever considered therapy?

[@tristanmaxwell8403]

Have you?

[@nonprogrediestregredi1711]

Sadly, he probably has not. To speak with such confidence and simultaneously have such poor reasoning skills is truly astounding.

[@johnglad5]

@@antiochiaadtaurum3786 For what?

[@Rootimachus]

@@antiochiaadtaurum3786 God's been his therapist since 1965.

[@antiochiaadtaurum3786]

@Rootimachus that's why he's so deluded then

[@sathiahalya3003]

Human nature. It is what it is.

[@istvannagy7946]

😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡😂😂😂😂🤡🤡🤡🤡😂😂😂rehashing Anselm and Kalam 🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

[@atheistcomments]

Your god does exist. It exists as an imaginary character. This is why after decades of just talking about it, WLC has never even atrempted to present a god in reality as real as he is.

[@James-ll3jb]

How can the ynimaginable be imaginary?

[@zrakonthekrakon494]

People are not as self deprecating or deceitful as you think, billions believe in the existence of God not for some ulterior or social gain, but because despite all of the changes in our paradigms of thought in the modern age, something still persuades them of the existence of a very real God, you outright dismiss people choosing to believe in God over their own lives when they stand to gain nothing from that commitment as ignorant is to remain tone deaf to the nuance of their sacrifices.

[@atheistcomments]

@@zrakonthekrakon494 Gods are characters in the minds and imagination of the believer. You mistakenly perceive it outside of yourself because even though it is your perception what you think about your god is coming from your own mind.

[@zrakonthekrakon494]

@ Than how do you explain people who have no involvement with God but after a religious experience, despite their family or community not believing, they suddenly convert in a singular transformative moment, people don’t behave that way with fictional characters. If they did than we would have all sorts of gods, yet gods all retain these similar properties across all of the minds that conjure them. They also all derive from the same root origin, pantheons and later religions are iterations of the same foundational one.

[@dumitrumarian9796]

​@@atheistcommentsBut this has to do with perception, hunger, thirst, hapiness, pain are all coming from the mind, does that make them unreal or untruthful? If you tell me don't worry your pain doesn't exist it's just in your mind I would appreciate that but still I would consider that you really don't understand me and you don't know what you're talking about. Not to mention, pain and hunger and cold and happiness are all characters created in and by my mind. How would you feel if I saw you are cold and in I'd tell you ah, you are not really cold, cold is just another character created by your mind? Would you endorse that?

[@robotaholic]

Now you're making a claim as if you know that a God exists in every possible infinite number of universes that is the most arrogant know-it-all thing I've ever heard in my entire life your fourth point is invalid next

[@xerox9591]

I believe because I want to believe, I cannot prove anything, I believe that too, because I cannot prove anything I believe that god exists, if i say every 10 words ‘god’ in the end i will believe that there is a god.

[@andrewwalker3502]

The thing that's annoying about these apologists is that none of there arguments actually convinced them. They already believed through some kind of revelation or personal experience. By all other accounts, they're intellectual people, so they feel the need to back their beliefs with evidence even though said evidence didn't convince them in the first place.

[@stevehiggerson7328]

Very wrong, many intelligent believers came to faith through the door of skeptical scrutiny. Look at C.S. Lewis or Lee Strobel. It makes perfect sense to think that there would be many logical and reasonable people that came to their faith by that way because that's how God made them. Even if they were raised Christian, which many of them weren't, they probably all at some point questioned their faith to such a level that they were forced to either abandon their faith altogether or defend it with conclusive reason. Again because that's how they were created and because the Great I Am is the OG of logic and reason. If you don't believe that try reading some of the parables or the sermon on the mount or even the book of Proverbs

[@ericmichel3857]

This idea that you could forget or be made to forget about loved ones suffering so you could be "happy" all the time is absurd and monstrous. If this is what this religion believes, no thank you.

[@ArminiusReturn]

I don't have a problem believing in God and ultimate intelligence and Power. I have a problem with YOUR God. The Old Testament God is a terrible excuse for a ultimate deity.

[@BJtheMountaineerguy]

Atheist willingly taking time out of their day commenting and arguing about something they say doesn’t exist makes absolutely no sense. I would never waste my time arguing against Santa Claus because I know he doesn’t exist

[@markhaunert5029]

On the surface I get it but Santa's little helper's aren't trying to run governments and ruining peoples lives with unproven beliefs.

[@BJtheMountaineerguy]

@@markhaunert5029 Christianity is all about love sacrifice and forgiveness so to say it ruins people’s lives is just wrong. You’re literally arguing against an all-good God. It makes no sense unless you desire to do evil

[@markhaunert5029]

@BJtheMountaineerguy well you left out the government part so I'm assuming you're in some agreement that's not a good combination and if you really haven't seen absolute horror stories done to people in the name of religion i suggest you research more about this. Thanks for responding.

[@BJtheMountaineerguy]

@@markhaunert5029 You’re talking about Islam not Christianity.. Christianity is all-good which means it’s true because God is all-good. It teaches to love your neighbor as yourself and not to do evil

[@BJtheMountaineerguy]

@@markhaunert5029 If I may ask what are some things that you do not like about Christianity if you’re saying it’s trying to run the government? What are those things you dislike?

[@RonCarr4israel]

Which god

[@phoenixgamer1565]

Jesus Christ.

[@Joshua52391]

​@@phoenixgamer1565is Jesus christ God himself? Or is he God's only begotten son?

[@Artiscetic]

Well thats your next personal dilemma isnt it? I believe its fine to "settle" on a choice, just be intellectually honest with yourself that you are agnostic and not an atheist once you realize God exists.

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

Don’t you mean, “Jesus Christ!”

[@beaulavergne5557]

@@Joshua52391 He's the son of the father, son and holy spirit 1 nature and 3 persons. He lived and died on the cross and rose after 3 days and was seen by at least 500-1000 after death--enemies as well as disciples.. This is the only God that exists. Anything that doesn't include Jesus/Trinity is a cult.

[@Chriliman]

Base reality might actually be mutual relationship instead of a single monotheistic god that’s at the top of the hierarchy.

[@EricClark-hp6nb]

God was an God is an God always

[@carlosmarquez4883]

Too much subjectivity WLG , and way too many assumptions,Doctor …

[@ss-rh2hk]

Why aliens must exist, according to logic 😂

[@ahmedandalous2878]

"...And none knows the forces of your Lord except He." (Qur'an 74:31)

[@stenblann9784]

Ain't no philosophizing like Christian philosophizing... assume God magic and use metaphysics to suggest it could be true... an undetectable God that theologians claim has revealed himself to anonymous authors.

[@James-ll3jb]

😅childish

[@stenblann9784]

@James-ll3jb You right, Christianity is childish, like believing in Santa Claus. Some people never grow up enough to deal rationally with death. So they pretend they are immortal and will have all the comforts in a pretend afterlife that they never had in the only life they will ever have. Grow up, deal with it. Make the best of it.😁

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

Human imagination can bring it into being. There's a lot of New Age thought in Christianity, apparently.

[@erikt1713]

"Undetectable" is a good one. God is also invisible, without matter, without energy, but this describes him in one word.

[@terminat1]

Every human knows God exists.

[@CoolPigeon98]

Why does Lane Craig wear so much makeup

[@thephilosophicalagnostic2177]

This entire Aquinas argument is based on the assumed power of human imagination. A bad argument based on bad logic.

[@UnliHighlights]

can't resist the easy money eh? 10% tax free eh.

[@shamjb2278]

What logic when 3 is 1??🤔🤔🤔

[@aarifboy]

Christians not good in Maths hehe

[@charliewilson2565]

Unexpectedly, I found myself feeling a little sad while listening to his life-long delusion. To be so intelligent and yet so misguided is disturbing, yet fascinating.

[@andrewwalker3502]

Well said. I kind of touched on this in my comment but you hit it better. He already believed and these arguments didn't actually convince him in the first place. It's just pure, unadulterated word salad that makes no sense to anyone who doesn't already believe

[@vivcourtis6220]

Does anyone know what on earth he's talking about? Gobbledygook is a word that springs to mind.

[@erikt1713]

He's referring to the "ontological argument". It was a bold attempt to apply logic to religion. There are multiple problems with it and of course it does not prove God, but it has been intellectually stimulating for many great thinkers.

[@Artiscetic]

So you dont understand?

[@beaulavergne5557]

its philosophy-high level philosophy.

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

@@Artiscetic So you don't understand apostrophes?

[@DummyAccount-f1q]

@@erikt1713 In the little I could stand to watch he seems to me not so much "referring" to the ontological argument as trying, ineptly, to invoke it. Re: "It was a bold attempt to apply logic to religion". Well, it was one of several (long since thoroughly debunked) historical attempts to prove the existence of God with logical argument.

[@seanfried5583]

Blah blah blah, just talking in circles and saying nothing.

[@jeffclark2675]

I would not say this if you had not just mocked and attempted to humiliate this man... In attempting to humiliate him you actually just revealed A LOT about yourself....I found PROFOUND meaning in what he said... But yet you did not comprehend that meaning... What do you think is the logical conclusion of that?

[@Rootimachus]

@@jeffclark2675 He ate macaroni and cornbread energy and had lunch with my dad, and he said he would be nice to king Kory

[@seanfried5583]

@@jeffclark2675You just made as much sense as the guy yapping in the video. You could be a nice person maybe he made a nice person but neither of you r making sense.

[@iriemon1796]

1st argument on why there must necessarily be a God: 'the very concept of God is a concept of a greatest conceivable being. Because "if you could conceive of a greater being then that would be God." Therefore God must be the greatest conceivable being. Think about that "logic". 1) Why does whether something can be conceived have anything to do with whether there is in fact a God? The fact that you can conceive of something certainly doesn't make that a fact or truth. 2) Why does there have to be only one God being conceived? There have been many conceptions of multiple Gods. 3) Why does God have to be the greatest thing you can conceive? Again, many Gods have been conceived that are not omnipotent. Craig doesn't address any of these things. He just makes a flimsy assertion (God is necessary) based on the flimsiest of arguments (God is the greatest thing we can conceive) and sets the foundation of his positions upon what we can "conceive." This is not logic or reason, its apologitic blather. And this guy is supposed to be brilliant?

[@Carcaroff87]

i clearly remember a debate in which theists (don't remember if it was Craig himself) were particularly honest about this argument and actually stated that a) they don't claim to know it for sure and b) that the argument rests on a premise, so if the premise is not true, the argument falls. But in many occasions, by the proponents and even more frequently by other people like youtubers, the argument is presented as logically ironclad, like a definite proof. Sadly, similar stuff happens with some scientists when they purposely present ideas in a misleading way, like Lawrence Krauss's universe from nothing, and then you realize that's not the case, but they're not always 100% transparent about the weakness of their arguments and theories, for obvious reasons.

[@iriemon1796]

@@Carcaroff87 ["...Sadly, similar stuff happens with some scientists ..."] I certainly can't deny that some scientist make dubious claims, on some occasions outright fraudulent. But I don't think any honest scientist would claim that their theories are irrefutable truth. Science by its nature constantly challenges its beliefs; religion does not and is dogmatic. To me the bottom line comes down to this. We know there is a natural world; it can be scientifically proved in infinite ways. We also know that, throughout history, there have been many things we did not understand (and often attributed to a god or gods), but through advances in knowledge, we now do. OTOH, there is zero scientific evidence of a supernatural realm, or supernatural beings with magical powers to manipulate the laws of nature, or that such supernatural being created the universe, and life, and volcanoes, rainbows and eclipses. So when I have to put my "faith" on whether something we don't completely understand is because of natural processes (for which we have infinite scientific evidence) or a magical supernatural being, for which we have zero scientific evidence, the logical choice is pretty clear to me.

[@iriemon1796]

@@Carcaroff87 [My reply deleted]

[@iriemon1796]

@@Carcaroff87 [My reply deleted 2d time]

[@renaudli5834]

Why god must exist, according to logic. "Must" is a self mental imposing posture.

[@Kramer-tt32]

I used his same arguments and came to the conclusion that their must exist a super duper meta meta God that created the God of Christianity. And now I confused.

[@Polisart-05]

It by definition wouldn’t be the God of Christianity because it can’t be. The God of Christianity claims that he is the most of everything.

[@Kramer-tt32]

@Polisart-05 yea but the super duper meta meta god created the god of Christianity. It spoke to me in a dream last night.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

Very silly comment meant to be funny but really only illustrates ignorance from the person writing.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@Kramer-tt32man, the worst part is that you actually think you’re making a serious point.

[@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns]

@@Kramer-tt32the cringe is painful 🤦‍♀️ 🤦‍♂️ 🤦

[@markpigliavento2951]

Man made God to control behavior and give people a coping mechanism during times of grief.

[@ravenhill_night_visitor_1968]

too many AI bot comments in this comment section, they need to be purged from youtube.

[@charlesbadrock]

Intelligent Design hypothesis is a possibility among a multitude of possibilities totally separate from all of Man's theisms throughout human history all part of World Mythology

[@DianaOng-z9i]

There is not a single argument he makes that makes logical sense. It is very telling, that when he talks about the different, and in one fell swoop he declare that Christianity is the only true religion. He just rubbish off Islam and Buddhism without attempting even to give any reasonable explanation. I can only say that he is an articulate madman. His madness comes from his total immersion and life investment in his belief and what he is doing is justifying his belief in the face of scientific logic and truth. I liken him to AI whose base learning is that god exist and that produce all the argument to support that. So the result is a very articulate cold technical presentation.

[@2Snakes]

LOL

[@artax7664]

That’s a completely different case than what he makes here.