William Lane Craig destroys atheists

[@unstablepacifist1672]

Craig is the Final Boss of Christian Apologetics.

[@kaliepmurangi1497]

NOPE. That title would fall upon the late Ravi Zecharias.....in my humble opinion

[@colinmatts]

Well, when you consider that apologetics is mainly lies and smoke screens, Lane Craig is the boss of that

[@unstablepacifist1672]

@@colinmatts whoa, a stinging retort, great work there 👏

[@unstablepacifist1672]

@@kaliepmurangi1497 He will be greatly missed

[@antrodaze910]

@@colinmatts lol.... LIES... no, it's called logical reasoning. And for you to equate that to a lie just suggests that you are either lying to yourself or have severe comprehension deficiency... take a critical thinking tablet supplement for that

[@mlgfrog2470]

"William Lane Craig puts the fear of God into atheists" - Sam Harris

[@John2028Apologetics]

Absolutely

[@stueyapstuey4235]

well, he tries to... he doesn't succeed.

[@monsmeg9657]

Well you should not be frightend of God he or she do not exist.

[@Bi0Dr01d]

@@stueyapstuey4235 then why did an atheist himself (Sam Harris) say that he does? That opinion either comes from him alone or it is spoken of amongst atheistic peers...

[@faikerdogan2802]

@@Bi0Dr01d he is basically probably saying wlc is playing guilt tackticks like every religion.

[@williamparsley6831]

Dr Craig has made me turn back to Christ!!!

[@ABB14-11]

Welcome home!

[@John2028Apologetics]

Amen

[@tonydardi332]

Awesome!!!!! That’s a decision you’ll never regret.

[@sillybears4673]

You made the most logical and ethical decision. It just makes sense .. and it’s funny because sense and cents are the same sounding word .. and things that make sense are valuable. And so are cents lol 😂

[@duncanbryson1167]

You're easily convinced, like him 🙄

[@danstenmou9913]

Through KZbin, I started watching late Dr Ravi Zachariah, then Professor John Lennox, Dr David Berlinski and other scientists, philosophers and yet they all are Bible believers. They debated with atheists and it makes me appreciate their effort in defending the Faith. Thank you Dr Craig, you and your friends are champions of the believers and God fearing masses of the world. May God richly bless you.

[@a5dr3]

Check out Greg Bahnsen. He was the GOAT.

[@Itsatz0]

Get real. The bible is a proven fairytale. Christianity brings in lots of money and some of it is used to pay liars like the ones you mention.

[@theconspiracyterrorist4412]

@@Itsatz0 that is subjective don't you think because i see Christians adopting babies, going against immorality, i see the church feeding the poor, i see the church getting people together after worship to have a cup of coffee and biscuit, i see churches funding funerals so you can actually just keep your mouth closed because all i see with an atheist is complaining about the world around them like an ape eating it's crap Oh happy accident chance forth it's bounty!! You are proof of why humans can't progress and come to conclusions on differently you pretend as if you matter in this world with you're naturalist beliefs because according to you you're nothing but meat and bones with no sense of anything no foundation for belief except personal opinions but you naturalist also say opinions don't matter in an argument you contradict yourself more than the bible with your so called justification for everything Oh happy accident proved i live proved i die! Yet you don't even know why you die i wish you luck in your so called perfect view on existence

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Zeus lives in his magic kingdom in the clouds above Mt. Olympus. Yahweh lives in his magic kingdom in the clouds above Mt. Sinai. Brahma created the universe. Pure BS.

[@Itsatz0]

@@JamesRichardWiley Zeus is very angry with you. If you do not sacrifice to him, you will have to listen to William Lane Craig audio books for 10 hours straight. If you can live that long.

[@MiwaTamu]

That poor first guy, he kept digging his hole deeper.

[@John2028Apologetics]

Yep haha

[@8slkmic]

Hell no...

[@calson814]

@@8slkmic hell yes

[@8slkmic]

@@calson814 he didn't dig himself a hole. WLC just didnt accept the answer so he kept asking the same question as if it wasent valid. I understood completely.

[@frankvee]

@slkmic8 Exactly. Some people are simple minded.

[@prime_time_youtube]

15:55 For those who did not understand why it is so funny. Steven Pinker is her husband! LOL!!!! Craig is a beast!!!

[@PInk77W1]

Thx. I didn’t. Know.

[@rasmith_99]

wow!!

[@erastusc4908]

Thank you.

[@stevan538]

Lmao

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

LOL, I had forgotten that tidbit since the last time I saw this one. The poor lady is clearly in over her head, and she could barely formulate a sentence, while WLC ran circles around her without breaking a sweat.

[@BCliftonFirefighter]

The fact that Jordan Peterson told the lady, “You underestimate women.” 😂😂 JP is the G.O.A.T.

[@jesusgavemeaids]

Grossest of all time???

[@yuzzi9190]

@@jesusgavemeaids thats you

[@cregancousins9826]

@@jesusgavemeaids you discust me.

[@phil-f716]

@@jesusgavemeaidsI will pray Jesus humbles you.

[@metaljacket8128]

lol😊

[@bryant475]

12:16 She tries that whole feminist nonsense and tries to shift the arguments, but against WLC and JP, now that's a duo you do not want to debate if you're an atheist! Bring in Frank Turek and Hugh Ross to that equation, and it's a done deal.

[@aaronbarlow4376]

The trope of the tired, nagged to death husband, and pussy-whipped boyfriend proves her wrong about male dominance.

[@Mixamii]

Literally none of those you’ve mentioned are convincing to any atheist who actually listens to them - their work is designed to appease those already converted and those easily susceptible to conversion - the less educated, vulnerable or grieving. The fact this channel has to quote mine, edit and doctor this work so much to make cheap shots at low fruit is because none of them achieve any substantial arguments or points in their debates.

[@aaronbarlow4376]

​@@Mixamii There are many arguments that are sound rebuttals to the atheist positionor at least providing reasonable doubt, the fine tuning of the universe, the irreducible complexity of the simplest cell, the fact that something cannot come from nothing, that only something beyond time/space could give birth to time/space and such a state is beyond our comprehension therefore God is as likely as anything else, the phenomenon of consciousness.... It doesn't have to be purely about moral guidance, there are good logical and scientific reasons to postulate the existence of God.

[@Mixamii]

@@aaronbarlow4376 Fine tuning is a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution and physics while it discredits your own Gods power (could God not make life in any universe? Is he confined to these parameters?). Of course life develops where it can develop, where else would you expect it to? But you can’t say with any degree of certainty that it couldn’t occur under any other conditions - the mathematical precision of numbers is countable infinite there could be immense change at the lower end of this with very few, if any, ramifications. What you mean is you wouldn’t exist and you define your life as meaningful, good for you, I hope it makes you happy - that doesn’t mean the entire universe was designed for you. The watch maker or teleological argument runs into a similar problem that we already know who designed everything that was designed - hence why it’s called design. The universe we don’t and we have no reason to believe it is. Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance that asserts a refutation in itself that something can come from nothing (an issue once again with your creator and creation) while ignoring every bit of evidence we have which states otherwise. Who’s claiming ex nihilo? No one, except you - your God would be ex nihilo. But to be created without time is a nonsensical term, time as we understand it doesn’t exist externally to the universe - it breaks down at the points right after the Big Bang and so we cannot understand it - doesn’t mean it came from nothing it’s simply where our current understanding hits a wall. So your claim here is an argument from ignorance, again. No, God as defined is a self contradiction - you’d have to clarify your definition and then realise that naturalist explanations are logically more efficient and therefore more likely (ockhams razor). To claim that it’s beyond understanding is appealing to an argument from ignorance. Your entire point here is a God of the gaps. Consciousness once again isn’t something we fully grasp - argument from ignorance - but it doesn’t mean there’s a soul or designer, we can track movement in the brain to physical and mental responses, while we might not understand it currently we already have technology which can track our brain activity to create real time responses. My definition of a mind is a physical process carried out by a brain - with physical being all we know and understand (reality). You’re calling for something external to that to operate in a completely undetectable or repeatable way with no evidence, that’s known as faith. Oh the God of the Bible is immoral as anything and everyone no matter how religious doesn’t actually stick to their religious codes constantly - we all take agency, whether that’s determinism or not I can’t say. Then they usually pull a no true Scotsman fallacy to either cover or shame others for being different and not following their interpretation and lifestyle. So far you haven’t demonstrated a single scientific or logical reason to believe in any God let alone yours. You’ve simply made several arguments from ignorance to cover a god of the gaps. It’s fine to be faithful just don’t pretend like it’s grounded in logic - have your belief and I hope it brings you comfort but lying to the rest of us isn’t helping your case.

[@Mixamii]

@@aaronbarlow4376 so far you haven’t given me any of those “many arguments” or “sound rebuttals” I assume as those were as solid as gas.

[@jkm9332]

That first guy was clearly embarrassed.

[@jwatson181]

I felt a little bad for him there.

[@greatunwashed9116]

Given that he was slumming in the company of WLC who could blame him.

[@jwatson181]

@@greatunwashed9116 Dont be jelly! Not everyone can be as accomplished as craig!

[@jkm9332]

@cH Pinki Nah.

[@jkm9332]

@cH Pinki WLC clearly points out Shook's bad reasoning. Shook's argument: 1. Nature exists. 2. There is no bridge to a supernatural reality. 3. Therefore, nature is all there is. It's an argument from ignorance and a hasty conclusion. Also, take another look at 4:28-5:35. It's cringe, man.

[@LawrenceB123]

Love how the first guy tries to argue logic with a philosopher!

[@duncanbryson1167]

If you're talking about WLC no he's not. He bamboozles the indoctrinated mind with his learned erudite delivery. Male bovine excrement, even when presented in an erudite manner, is still just bull shit.

[@Robobotic]

@@duncanbryson1167 That's still not an argument against anything he says. Good luck next time.

[@duncanbryson1167]

@@Robobotic Yes it is. All he's got is talk and his bearing, presentation and delivery may impress some but what he says won't convince any skeptical person who actually analyses his claims. He's just a pretentious prick.

[@Robobotic]

@@duncanbryson1167 I mean you can analyze claims, but so far you haven't given any analysis to discredit his whole worldview. Being skeptical is an issue of itself. Can you be skeptical of skepticism?

[@duncanbryson1167]

@@Robobotic I don't need to. I don't think any deities exist nor anything else supernatural, it's quite simple. All religious people have is their claims based on ancient books of mythology. OK woven round some factual matters maybe but the supernatural aspects have never been substantiated so probably made up by people. I'm quite content with that assessment and any arguments by mere humans won't convince me otherwise so don't bother trying.

[@assyriaaaaa]

Wonderful, well made video. Thank you sir for sharing these highlights of our brother WLC

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Talking snakes, zombies, demons, angels and hellfire. You could not make this up. But they did, and its sacred.

[@darkeen42]

These are the highlights you must be kidding me on these has to be bloopers? This has to be the worst of his arguments

[@justin10292000]

@@JamesRichardWiley Truth is stranger than fiction. But...don't take MY word for it: you will find out for yourself soon enough!!

[@justin10292000]

@@darkeen42 Huh?

[@darkeen42]

@@justin10292000 sorry fixed it

[@kalew37]

Idiots are typically smug. How Craig has patience with this guy is beyond me.

[@germaan1]

The fruit of the Holy Spirit is patience

[@PixelPixie86]

All atheists are idiots, which is why they’re all so smug and arrogant all the time.

[@karlschmied6218]

Atkins is by no means an idiot. But how could an idiot be the judge.

[@josephno1347]

because Mrs WLC is king of idiots

[@karlschmied6218]

@@germaan1 Patience is good. Holy Spirit is bad.

[@erf7217]

If playing victim was cinematic role that lady in the middle would achieve oscar definitely

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

Everywhere she goes, she seems to imagine that a gorilla on both sides of her is desperate for her attention. It's very interesting, what it says about her.

[@darkeen42]

You're kidding Christian to claim to be being prosecuted while they have been the prosecutors for most of history and in the worst way the absolute worst prosecutions ever perpetrated whereby Christians..

[@rogernjebuhnzembayie1992]

I see reason to believe in God. I thought i was a dreamer but William Lane Craig gave me a boost

[@bartbannister394]

Are you sure you're not dreaming?

[@gfujigo]

@@bartbannister394 God is the best explanation of reality. Period.

[@Silver77cyn]

@@gfujigo Even if God is real, there is no reason to believe the God in the Bible Yaweh is the God that created it all. It’s not even the oldest religion.

[@gfujigo]

@@Silver77cyn How does the age of a view or framework relate to whether or not it’s true? I don’t understand the connection. Why does that matter? For example, in science, relativity theory is much younger than Newtonian frameworks but that doesn’t mean that relativity theory is not true because it’s younger. The concern is whether a framework or view is supported by facts not how old it is. The Bible easily meets the standard of according with reality and the God to which it refers is the best explanation of reality as we observe it.

[@Silver77cyn]

@@gfujigo The Bible meets the standard according to reality? Are you sure about that? A book that talks about a man who can walk on water, talking animals, dragons, unicorns, bringing back the dead, etc. doesn’t sound like reality to me, more like fairy tales written by superstitious sheep herders who didn’t know even the vaguest idea of how the Universe operates. And the reason I say it’s not the oldest religion is shouldn’t it be? If there was a God why wouldn’t it communicate with its creation since it’s very inception. Suppose you were born before Christianity, before the law of Moses even came to be, then you would just believe in Gods that were worshipped before that time.

[@ronpatton5721]

Very well organized compilation of one of our greatest apologists for morality and, by extension, faith.

[@John2028Apologetics]

glad you enjoyed it!

[@TrumpCantRead]

Morality is subjective, and faith is not a virtue

[@Nomorealcoholplease]

Faith? You mean believing something for no good reason? 😂sick people yes

[@ailanshangpliang4162]

I'm watching William Craig for this first time. He's quite good to listen to. His acumen, articulation are brilliant. But for me, I have to rewind and open a dictionary time and again to be able to comprehend all. I may perhaps digest only 50 percent of the debate since those already complex philosophical terminologies are hard to make out when used in a sentence. Anyway I must say God does exist.

[@rekaadang]

Of course there are more, but on my limited experience with KZbin, other than William Lane Craig, there are Jordan Peterson and Jay Dyar. Whenever they talk seriously, I only understands like 40% of whatever they mean.

[@KRIZZKRINGLE]

It'll get easier as you go you'll even start adding it into your daily conversations. More you listen the more you'll learn Jordan Peterson is also good for this

[@ailanshangpliang4162]

@Said Bale Thanks. Will do so.

[@TheAD5000]

@@rekaadang JP is good in his field, but WLC is dependent on fallacies disguised under a gish gallop delivery against strawman opponents - he rarely makes a good point and rather appeals to common sense and draws false analogies and huge leaps of faith in his inferences, drawing the a priori out of the a posteriori.

[@maxodgaard1335]

@@TheAD5000 WLC is a pure nutcase. JP have great moments when he leaves God out of the equation....

[@FranzVonGaart]

18:18 was the beginning of the absolute strongest dunk in an argument of anyone anywhere

[@jesot]

It was a string of terrible points.

[@tomkuz_]

​@@jesotas an atheist you should be embarrassed if you argue even these points because of your disbelief rather than the fact that they are absolutely correct

[@tomkuz_]

​@@jesotat least argue a reasonable point instead of making every viewer recognize your irrationality

[@Falcontf]

Shame it had nothing to do with theism or atheism

[@aparajitroy629]

​@@tomkuz_It was completely wrong, you're just stupid.

[@yngve1925]

The ateists are always angry and try to mock their opponents. So they show how weak their arguments are.

[@ChristIsKing4Eva]

Always, my friend. They have no real arguments and so they condescendingly try to mock and deride their opponents to win a few laughs from the audience. But I'm not surprise about that pride and arrogance. If I decide to convince my self against all evidence that there is no God, why should I keep my behavior within any standards. I can be prideful, arrogant and mock others instead of present logical arguments.

[@twosheds1749]

The Atheist comes across as most logical and rational here!

[@LGpi314]

Well low bar Bill at its best. LOL

[@Steve52344]

That's because the logically concluded NON existence of "God" makes far more sense and is FAR more rational than claiming the possible existence of something that presents no evidence Actually, there IS evidence for God's NON existence by virtue of observing nature doing what it's always done and not NEEDING a supernatural commandant. Craig is very good at playing his word game but couldn't care less about knowledge or truth. He's a God addict. He openly admitted to this, on camera, by stating that even if there was absolute proof that God did NOT exist, he would still continue to believe. See, it's not truth that drives Craig, it's just his self-convincing way to avoid what depresses him. In other words, he's a very clever fraud.

[@kevinjackson4933]

Male physical dominance over women didn't change due to moral pondering, It happened due to technological and economic shifts. It emerged due to many shifts, including central planning on a scale never before seen. The feminist justifications were actually a reaction to the change, not the cause of it. Women never thought of those things 500 years earlier because it wasn't possible.

[@flamingswordapologetics]

Dr. Craig rocks! May God raise up others to take the mantel when he's gone.

[@kevr8482]

Which God?

[@heavnxbound]

Kev R, I think you know that very well. This is a Christian channel, anyone here is referring to YHWH/Jesus.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Why does an all powerful god need defenders?

[@kevr8482]

@@heavnxbound Just wanted to be clear....Human history has documented at least 1000 Gods that have been in good standing at one point or another....but hey I'm glad you picked the right one....It must make you feel all warm and cozy and to hell with the billions who made the wrong choice👍...The elitist attitude of Christians never ceases to amaze me....

[@mhah21]

Maybe god can raise up "heasuus"....now that would be something ...hey?????

[@ShanerMcGrainer]

WLC was one of the apologists who brought me to God

[@hitman5782]

Can you give a single example of how? I would really like to hear because i would argue that this moron doesn´t have a single valid point.

[@ciprianpopa1503]

What about jesus christ?

[@GarciaonlyJesus]

Team Dr WLC !!!!! Love this man!!

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Bill was lost and depressed until he met his savior - a smiling Catholic girl who introduced him to Jesus. Now he no longer has to live in a godless world that isn't going anywhere.

[@jmsmanroe]

Dr Craig is servant of God. May God give him wisdom and knowledge to preach the gospel.

[@stultusvenator3233]

That alone disproves god in that case.

[@guywilletts2804]

Ah, but the wrong god.

[@Sonoftheking77]

@@stultusvenator3233 where 😂

[@christopherianlister5212]

the bible claims 6,000 years or so its 13 billion so its fiction obviously, no other god showed up so that's willy failing...

[@darkeen42]

No he's a lying con man kzbin.info/www/bejne/pniulmmPr62cg6c

[@soarworship380]

I know Dr. Shook is always the go to for a ground and pound, but I learned something new from the clip recently. Dr. Craig doesn’t let Shook have ANYTHING. Not even comedically. It seems like he’s arguing to make sure that there’s no loose ends, any doubts, and he’s not giving the atheist any leeway to play around with his arguments. So even a joke must be addressed so the opponent doesn’t get an wiggle room in argumentation.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Craig assumes and believes what he cannot prove with actual evidence. Instead he prefers an ancient Hebrew book full of weird stories and unnatural events.

[@soarworship380]

@@JamesRichardWiley 'Kay!

[@somesoccerguy4817]

What an excellent point, Soar.

[@oif3gunner]

@@JamesRichardWiley How did space and time begin?

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

@@JamesRichardWiley This sounds oddly anti-Semitic. Are you a Nazi, by chance?

[@Shytot-1]

William Lane Craig does what every other so called "top apologist" does, he talks about his god as if it is real, then when the other person can not prove his god is not real (no one can prove or disprove a negative) it sounds as if he is winning the argument. Millions of gullible people have been taken in by this stunt and Craig has made a good living doing it.

[@MiScusi69]

EXACTLY

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

He is winning the argument because we have the BIBLE. Name another religious manuscript that even compares to it, makes account from the beginning, includes miracles as evidence for Gods power, has the strictest laws, makes the greatest claims.

[@Shytot-1]

@@jacobostapowicz8188 Includes magic as evidence for an imaginary beings power and makes the most stupid mind blowing claims. All religions are called faiths for a very good reason, there is no evidence to support any of them. William Lane Craig takes advantage of the gullibility and the fears of not very bright people. Good luck to him. 7.5 billion people, 2 billion Christians, 5.5 non-Christians, Craig says those 5.5 billion are all going to hell, that is one wonderful god.

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

@@Shytot-1The laws of physics allow for miracles, its not magic. Abiogenesis is magic, especially considering that magic is usually an illusion and God is our 'Magician', Actually the bible specifically states that God has power to cast human souls into hell and that it was not created for humans but for the devil. It doesn't say that He uses that power, how can someone die forever?

[@Shytot-1]

@@jacobostapowicz8188 The laws of physics allow for miracles, only for cave men. One question, how did you find out there was a god? Please don't say "I read the bible" because that would mean you think the Quran and every other "holy" book is true as well.

[@levelwithz3779]

@5:25 *He subtly nodded in agreement hoping his students who were clapping wouldnt catch it and hoping WLC would let it slide but WLC called him out on it and he had to try to backpedal on the spot lol.*

[@sidepot]

Wow that is a real stretch you are trying to sell. Have anything of substance moron?

[@utxalpha11]

I agree on his point about agnosticism but many of the god claims today can be disproven including Christianity.

[@andchaos1]

Yes, he is playing with terminology gray area to have a place to put the false concept a God in it. Like him declaring that T-Rex does not exist, that is a false analogy, because the existence a T-Rex has being already prooven, so we can proove that T-Rex is just gone extinct, thats not prooving its not exist, they still exist in the form of its remains. We can only prove that they no longer alive, but not that they dont exist.

[@yaserthe1]

Rebbeca talks alot of stuff, mostly irrelevant.

[@AndysMusicPod]

Why are you here lol. Just curious 😅

[@bertinalechner8437]

I watched the whole thing some time ago and cringed so hard, how unfit she is for that kind of discussion. She talks a lot with saying nothing except "me, myself and I" plus some feminism and ideology. Sometimes it seemed to me like she didn't understood what WLC said in the first place. Her ramblings only wasted time, unfortunately.

[@exioz99]

Bertina Lechner Marry me!

[@mitchellc4]

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

[@bertinalechner8437]

@@exioz99 I didn't expect this comment. It's flattering and confusing at the same time.

[@shomshomni2314]

Craig has a gift from God. Glory to Jesus 🙌🏽

[@colinmatts]

He has a gift for something...BS

[@josegaleano1530]

Bull shit craig is a bullshit lucrative liers scumbag

[@josegaleano1530]

@@shomshomni2314 god is bullshit dead only on the mind of prreatchers liers that pray on fools Why not beliving on the leprechaun you also found gold at the end of the rainbow if your mind is lucrative but don't teach you're poison lies to others only becouse you wanted to be reach frome you're negative ideas asshole

[@pup1008]

He is such a gift from *Lord Jeepers* that he can't even come close to proving his existence!

[@shomshomni2314]

The athiests in this thread are so pressed! 😂 Go enjoy your meaningless lives. Some of us actually have a purpose. Satan loves athiests eventhough he isn't one himself. Look how he has you all wasting your lives being keyboard warriors 😭.

[@Gutslinger]

This world needs an army of people to rise up and be like William Lane Graig, and more importantly, Jesus.

[@John2028Apologetics]

Amen

[@lnielse1]

So what exactly is WLC‘s evidence for God? I did not seem to catch it through all of the word salad…

[@ChristIsKing4Eva]

Oh yea, usually you won't with a closed heart :). Open up your heart my friend and Jesus will reveal himself to you. No one can proof anything to you in an objective sense, all they can do is give you evidence and whether that convinces you or not depends on a whole lot of other things going on in your subjective world. That's why the same evidence that fails to convince you, convinces other people (like reputable scientist who are considered highly intelligent by many standards) and that serves to them as enough proof. It's not an intellectual issue my friend, it's a heart issue. May Jesus open your eyes by His grace.

[@heartfeltteaching]

What one too many atheists here consider good arguments: "Consider me skeptical" "I can support what I said" (no support offered) "I don't think you're really accurate" (no reason given) "I am not required to explain anything" "No, and your inability to understand is not my problem" "I have already explained" (no explanation given) "We don't want to demonstrate anything" "You're a Christian troll" (no Christian involved in the conversation) Y'all are hilarious. Keep it coming!

[@heartfeltteaching]

@tj mckay There is decent evidence lMfAoOoOoOoOoOoOo

[@heartfeltteaching]

tj mckay Don’t be absurd. The modal ontological, Leibnizian contingency, and moral arguments are good evidence for the existence of a supremely perfect being. Whether any of the religious traditions that posit the existence of God are true is a separate matter. I happen not to subscribe to any particular organised religion, but I do maintain a belief in God and ultimate moral accountability. One thing that gets lost in the debates WLC has had with atheists is that between traditional theism and outright atheism there are many concepts of God with which to work. In western thought, figures like Kant, Voltaire, Rousseau, Darwin, and Einstein did so. Why can’t we?

[@heartfeltteaching]

tj mckay We’ve read all the objections and they’ve been more than adequately resolved. The video is just bad. There’s no fallacy of equivocation. God is being defined in exactly the same way in both what the speaker calls (1) and (2). There’s no such thing as a contingent God, and even if God could only create logically possible worlds that are not infinite, it would not follow that God is contingent. All that’s needed to proceed from possibility to necessity is S5. You’re not as bitter and angry as your atheist comrades here, but you’re the basic kEeP bUleEvInG iN uR mAgIc sKy dAdDy type of atheist. Boring. Come back when you’ve got something interesting or compelling to say 🥱

[@tonymitchell8563]

@@heartfeltteaching Modal ontological argument? Leibnizian contingency? Moral argument? BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! Baseless assertions without evidence. You need to provide evidence for your assertions not just claim them. Ridiculous. Provide evidence for your claims.

[@georgedoyle7971]

tj mckay “If only someone had some decent evidence for god... or god would get off his bender and come down” Many have “faith” that he did this already. Equally, it speaks volumes regarding the strength of the evidence, such as religious experiences including the way in which peoples lives have been unbelievably transformed from misery, depression and nihilism to one of healing and peace, not to mention the fact here we all are including you Micky during a pandemic still debating the divinity of a peasant who lived 2000 years ago. What kind of evidence do you want? because a giant with a long grey beard in the sky would be absurd and many would justifiably dismiss this as a mass hallucination. Nevertheless, the fact is “no science proves its first principles” (Aristotle). All knowledge is ultimately founded on “faith” in something you can’t empirically prove. The brilliant mathematician Kurt Godel proved this with his incompleteness theorems and many brilliant mathematicians and logical positivists went to their graves in denial of this but it still stands today. You can’t even carry out basic scientific experiments without metaphysical, that is philosophical concepts such as knowledge, identity, being, time and space. Science can not prove as it can only infer and is provisional . Only the logic contained in philosophy can provide proofs as such. You can’t prove logic with empirical science. To argue different is to argue in a circle. Obviously you can make predictions from the data/evidence collected during empirical research which is very useful in specialities such as medicine. However, science is useless to humanity without a “philosophy of care”. The natural “Sciences” can not supply a philosophy of care as attempts to use utilitarianism inevitably lead to absurd and harmful assumptions regarding morality. For example advocates for people with disabilities do not care for utilitarianism because the famous atheist philosopher Peter Singer has used it to publicly justify killing disabled newborn infants . Science is founded on concepts such as “matter” and “energy” and we don’t even know what “matter” and “energy” are but we still believe in them because just like the concept of a divine mind when it comes to love, altruism, ethical decisions and objective morality we accept they’re explanatory power even though most of it remains a mystery. Nevertheless there is clearly no greater burden of proof or less explanatory power for the theists world view because wether you are an atheist..... Whether you believe in Jesus, Buddha, the Beatles, crystals, mother earth, or anything else that takes your interest, all are held to be on the same footing; all have equal validity for the relativist. All the best to you and your family and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis ❤️

[@js1817]

All this talk of "destroying" and "owning" someone in a debate is immature. Debate is about presenting and defending one's beliefs. Reject the impulse to simply gloat when you feel that the speaker you support has made his opponent look bad.

[@Old_Demon04]

lol funniest part was when the first dude said something behind nature could just be more nature😂😂

[@santiagoarroyob]

what he meant was the big bang is explained by a natural cause (behind nature there could be more nature), dont misrepresent what he said to win the argument, you´ll lose the debater and the argument

[@3irdcity902]

@@santiagoarroyob 5:14 - "There could be something beyond it [nature] and I've already told you, it could be more nature..." Honest q - how do you know what he meant, and not that he was just illogical with this 1 point?

[@santiagoarroyob]

@@3irdcity902 what do you mean how do i know? ive listened carefully, thats how i know. to me, he was very logical throughout the whole exchange

[@3irdcity902]

@@santiagoarroyob To me, he used circular logic to say that there may be something beyond nature, and it might be more nature. Another honest q - in this one clip, what did they say that helped you conclude that they were referencing the big bang?

[@santiagoarroyob]

@@3irdcity902 thats not circular, thats saying god of the gaps is unexistant. They were talking against the big bang because thats the only thing left which cant yet be explained by nature

[@jamesanderson1135]

The only thing William Lang Craig Destroys is his credibility as an intellect. Terrible apologetics.

[@kevinarmes9804]

19:57 "So put that in your pipe and smoke it..." 🤣🤣🤣

[@angelodc7371]

Hahaha troll 🤣🤣

[@guesswho6925]

Never forget to pray for those who are lost or in denial! God will show them if we all pray for it

[@Brugar18]

All as in who? All the christians?

[@guesswho6925]

BRUGAR prayers your way brother

[@Brugar18]

@@guesswho6925 so are the prayers from every single christian or just you?

[@guesswho6925]

BRUGAR question is do u believe in prayer?

[@Brugar18]

@@guesswho6925 in prayer as if it works? I would say no

[@Von_Gamerstein]

A clip with Jordan Peterson that doesn't focus on Jordan Peterson? insanity

[@rekaadang]

He is one brilliant guy, but Craig is also a very smart guy. I wonder what would happen if they talk behind the camera.

[@flimsyjimnz]

WLC outshines JP

[@mankemista-ps3qs]

This guy is incredible, i've rarely seen such a structured and clear mind

[@TheDotransporter]

When I was 24, I saw a metal pole on the side of the highway wiggle back and forth like a car antenna, we were four in a ranger, I was front passenger. My friend behind me started screaming, "did you see that?" I frooze and I remember it everyday single day of my short life. It happened in a Michigan highway traveling south towards Kalamazoo.

[@grandvianna8551]

I too have froozen four in a ranger

[@MrSamiGigi]

Alot of angry Atheist in comments 😂 WLC got the guys in the video and the comments real good! 😂😂

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Yahweh needs Bill to defend him.

[@daryldaix3350]

James Richard Wiley what you said made no absolute sense??

[@theunholinesswithin70]

So, christianity is about getting atheists angry?

[@daryldaix3350]

@@theunholinesswithin70 no please read the Bible it’s all explained in there. In the New Testament

[@theunholinesswithin70]

@@daryldaix3350 I don't need anything explained. You're laughing at the angry atheists, and badly representing this religion.

[@sheld803]

yep Jesus Christ is Lord and brought the spiritual into the physical

[@theunholinesswithin70]

Why do you want a lord?

[@sheld803]

@@theunholinesswithin70 Why do you smoke weed?

[@theunholinesswithin70]

@@sheld803 When did I say I do?

[@sheld803]

@@theunholinesswithin70 ...the name says it all

[@theunholinesswithin70]

@@sheld803 Answer my question.

[@zelmoziggy]

The correct answer is that we don’t know.

[@petermetcalfe6722]

He couldn't destroy a wet paper back.

[@RichardPetrocelli-cd3yu]

Good thing he’s dealing with the Bible then. “It seems to me that your reasoning here is logically invalid .” lol

[@petermetcalfe6722]

@@RichardPetrocelli-cd3yu He has no idea what evidence, reason and logic is.

[@petermetcalfe6722]

@@RichardPetrocelli-cd3yu Ok he could destroy a wet paper bag but his defence of Christianity is pathetic.

[@RichardPetrocelli-cd3yu]

@@petermetcalfe6722I agree as far as to specifically Christianity.

[@aggressiveoatmealmemes6881]

Damn that first guy got thrashed

[@mckaymckay5168]

How?

[@fernandomargueri7234]

The Truth u mad bro??

[@patrickmcardle952]

The Truth I would say that he was thrashed. He tried to reframe what naturalists believe from being of the view that nature is all that there is to not being convinced that there is anything beyond nature. I see atheists do this all the time when reframing atheism from being the belief that there are no Gods to the lack of belief in God. The tactic of reframing positions that saddle you with the burden of proof which naturalists are unable to meet with regards to proving that nature is all there is is a weasely and slippery tactic that is used to avoid getting put on the defensive, which WLC took apart in his reasoning in order to (rightfully) go on the offensive against his opponents views

[@patrickmcardle952]

The Truth Haha, whatever. If you want to seriously engage with the points that I presented then I’d be more than happy to respond :)

[@patrickmcardle952]

The Truth You have done nothing in this thread but ad hoc assert that he wasn’t thrashed while padding the rest of your replies with childish name calling. You have yet to present a thoughtful rebuttal in any of your replies thus far

[@joewilliam1183]

Lol, God Bless WLC!

[@John2028Apologetics]

Amen!

[@milkshakeplease4696]

Hi I AM NPC ATHEIST I believe in evidence. And currently, I do not find the evidence compelling for the supernatural. It is very clear to me that people of faith believe because they are either deluded or are weak and want the comfort of some mystical creator. Obviously, us atheists are vastly more intelligent than these silly religious people. Evidence for the resurrection? Ha! Information in DNA?! Fulfilled prophecy? None of these arguments are convincing because you must first define God. Unless you can give me a proper definition of God we cannot even begin to continue the conversation. By the way, my farts smell glorious.

[@John2028Apologetics]

@@milkshakeplease4696 care for a debate and I'll stream it on my channel. We can do evidence of the resurrection reliability of the new testament the historical beliefs of the church pick it I dont care

[@Melesx2]

@@John2028Apologetics Why would anyone want to debate the brick wall that is your religious delusion. Every time someone debates you zealots you comprehensively lose. Zealots are not rational so what the fuck is the point.

[@sidepot]

John 20:28 Apologetics You are a fucking shit for brains moron.

[@lazerathhome]

What an incredible compilation video. Truly beautiful and science cannot prove or disprove that either! Hahaha Godbless!

[@tonyisnotdead]

science can't prove anything

[@eldritchpalmerable]

I have seen dozens of similar debates but I have never seen someone’s arguments obliterated in a manner like Dr Craig does with Dr Atkins’. To the extent that Dr Atkins says at some point that he was hallucinating

[@rationalsceptic7634]

Craig is a Liar...doesnt understand Cosmology or Evolution His God only exists between his ears... 98% of Ancient Historians and Philosophers are Atheists who would destroy Craig in 1O minutes

[@Joaaugustus]

Ahahah

[@christopherianlister5212]

the bible claims 6,000 years or so its 13 billion so its fiction obviously, no other god showed up so that's willy failing...

[@darkeen42]

How the hell did he obliterate anything Williams arguments be just as legitimate for dragons and zombies and unicorns and fairies do you believe in all them just because you can't prove they're not real?

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

@@darkeen42 That's not true. You should actually watch a lot more of WLC, because he'll explain it for you. Unfortunately, so-called 'atheism' is more of an emotional condition (rebellion against God, and probably daddy issues) than a logical position. I can't help you get over your emotional stuff, so you'll have to choose for yourself to watch more WLC videos.

[@geliefdeliefde2339]

That is why most Nobel Laureates are Christians and not Atheists :)

[@geliefdeliefde2339]

@Paul Morgan it does because Heaven is not for fools :P

[@geliefdeliefde2339]

@Paul Morgan it depends what you would understand as evidence because Christianity is faith. Hebrews 11:1 New King James Version (NKJV) By Faith We Understand 11 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. All Christians have unique stories of how they began to believe but Our God promises if you look for Him with all your heart you will find Him. His Nature is Love and you need to respond to Love. And there is evidence for Love for God is Love.

[@geliefdeliefde2339]

@Paul Morgan science has no evidence of how life started so I do not accept your theology of we are not special. We are very special. And life is not a coincidence. And there is no reason for you to think rationally if you think otherwise.

[@HansBezemer]

Actually, 90% of top scientists are atheist. That's a fairly recent statistic. You also don't provide any source for this.

[@HansBezemer]

@@geliefdeliefde2339 You also have no evidence that life was *not* a coincidence. So in that regard, it's a stalemate. It is a fact, however, that science has assembled more pieces of the puzzle than religion has. To begin with, that there *was* a creator at all. And yes, you carry "the burden of evidence".

[@boni2786]

Doctor Craig knows how to dismantle the shallow arguments of believers in blind chance.

[@PixelPixie86]

Christianity is the only worldview that validates other worldviews (such as Judaism, and C.S. Lewis saw some truth in Taoism). There is scientific evidence for intelligent design. There is historical evidence that Jesus existed and rose from the dead. Oh, but don’t worry atheists! Your worldview is the only correct one because you say so! How convenient that only you know everything about the universe! 😁 (That was sarcasm btw, atheists. Don’t get your already enormous egos inflated.)

[@pauls7803]

Do you not believe there will be an outcome when you toss a dice? We are here due to chemical and physical processes and yes blind chance does play a role. What is your problem with that?

[@boni2786]

@@pauls7803 But then you need the dice to have come into existence and an intelligent mind to roll it. And dice is nothing compared to the complexity of the encoded information that makes life possible. Coded information needs an intelligent reporting source. I'm not even going to mention here the ultra-complex biological robots that exist in cells.

[@pauls7803]

The 'dice' may have always been there or may have come about through another process that we do not understand yet. Evolution can lead to DNA and complex organic organisms. Life on earth is testament to that. Saying coded information needs a creator or intelligent source is an unevidenced assertion.

[@PortlandMan]

All this proves is that we don't know if the supernatural exists.... that's still no reason to believe in it, does nothing to prove whether God exists or not

[@chrismarek7864]

When WLC immediately tried rebutting the stock market anaolgy, he was using the faith argument right off the bat. And any atheist worth their weight knows that’s not a reliable argument.

[@Telamonian]

True, but it’s more of a plausibility issue not a faith issue.

[@jacobostapowicz8188]

Many people create false dichotomies in debates, Craig isnt saying the market will definitely go up, he is saying the evidence is in favor of the market going up, and definitely no evidence it will crash. Nothing is certain in life, science can never be 'proved', metaphysics is even more intangible and uncertain. Be there is reason to believe

[@samlee2593]

10:18 that’s the “im bout to end you” position

[@mitchellc4]

The gospel is the GOSPEL OF THE KINGDOM! Repent and believe the gospel! Follow Jesus’ teachings! Jesus is going to return and set up the kingdom of God ON THE EARTH! God’s government ON THE EARTH! The Messiah will resurrect his people! The destiny of the Messiah and his people is to be ON THE EARTH! The renewed restored earth! God also dwelling with them! Rev 21 Jesus said the Father is the only true God! John 17 3 And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. RSV Only-monos God-theos Monos theos Monotheism The Father Jesus is the one sent by the true God (the Father)! Jesus never claimed to be God, Jesus said he has a God! Jesus has a God! Jesus died! God can’t die! God raised Jesus from the dead!

[@daryldaix3350]

@@mitchellc4 dude what are you talking about u must be a jehovah witness and JESUS DID SAY HE WAS GOD. Jesus is the word the Bible says: John 1:1 ESV In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. It clearly says Jesus whom is the word IS GOD. John 10:30 ESV I and the Father are one.” Jesus deliberately claims he’s EQUAL with the FATHER. John 8:58 ESV / 406 helpful votes Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Jesus claims that he was BEFORE Abraham hence he’s the one who introduced himself as I AM to Abraham. Bible also says Jesus is THE FULLNESS OF GOD Colossians 2:9 ESV For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,

[@mitchellc4]

@@daryldaix3350 I’m not a JW who is the God of Jesus??? Rom 15 6 that together you may with one voice glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort, 2 Cor 11 31 The God and Father of the Lord Jesus, he who is blessed for ever, knows that I do not lie. Eph 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, Eph 1 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give you a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of him, Col 1 3 We always thank God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, when we pray for you, 1 Pet 1 3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! According to his great mercy, he has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, ??

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

Still don't see why Christians think Craig is unbeatable in debates. He carries presuppositions in every argument that are hidden in the premises and uses those unjustified assumptions to build valid (but not sound) arguments. That's not rational justification, that's speculation used to support previously held beliefs.

[@justin10292000]

ALL worldviews are just as you described: based on presuppositions which are accepted on faith a priori. Science itself is based on philosophical assumptions that cannot be proved with absolute certainty: e.g., scientific knowledge is worth knowing; the human brain and mind can be trusted to discover and process evidence accurately and truly; we were NOT created by aliens ten minutes ago with the appearance of age; etc. ALL worldviews, religious or not, are faith-based. ALL! The real question is what does the actual evidence support, and Dr Craig is unassailable on that point. I have watched these debates for decades, and WLC and his evidence has never been bested. To say otherwise is mere wishful thinking...

[@MathewSteeleAtheology]

@@justin10292000 Here's the problem, though. "ALL worldviews are just as you described: based on presuppositions which are accepted on faith a priori." Do animals have faith that they're experiencing reality? If yes, you're drawing a distinction between a thinking being and an unthinking being. If no, then I have only to point out that we're also animals. Either way, until the age of 18 months or so, every human being has yet to develop any self-awareness. We exist and experience reality without any higher cognitive functions. This is demonstrable. It means that experience of reality comes before worldviews. Now if you want to argue that this is still a presupposition, I won't contest that, but you would then have to give arguments for why, and THOSE arguments would contain numerous presuppositions... whereas I would not. "Science itself is based on philosophical assumptions that cannot be proved with absolute certainty" Demonstrate that absolute certainty is logically possible, please. Otherwise, that's an unrealistic, unnecessary expectation. "scientific knowledge is worth knowing; the human brain and mind can be trusted to discover and process evidence accurately and truly; we were NOT created by aliens ten minutes ago with the appearance of age; etc." Again, animals have no need of such beliefs, and they get along just fine without them. Otherwise, I would refer to my previous points in this post so far. Additionally, assuming it's possible that we were created by aliens ten minutes ago is itself an assertion that requires justification to even consider, otherwise it's baseless speculation. "ALL worldviews, religious or not, are faith-based. ALL!" The problem here is that you're presupposing mind-body dualism, idealism and several other metaphysical notions to arrive at that conclusion, and I daresay no one can justify them as even logically possible. "The real question is what does the actual evidence support, and Dr Craig is unassailable on that point." Actually Occam's Razor annihilates every one of Craig's arguments. I'll be happy to explain why, if you genuinely care about what's true. " I have watched these debates for decades, and WLC and his evidence has never been bested. To say otherwise is mere wishful thinking..." To say otherwise is intellectual honesty. Shelly Kagan and Sean Carroll decimated him in debate, just as two examples.

[@saltui64]

New sub thanks for sharing

[@John2028Apologetics]

Thank you!

[@therambler3713]

William Lane Craig, John Lennox, Frank Turek....just to name a few have completely dismantled the famous FOUR HORSEMEN in the last decade. I've watched almost every debate and frankly I'm no longer impressed by Harris or Dawkins.

[@SamIAm-kz4hg]

Those three farts? Are you serious? Lennox simply asserts there is a god who exists outside of time and space. I've never seen him give evidence. And he's the smartest of the lot. Ouch.

[@therambler3713]

@@SamIAm-kz4hg lol, clearly you don't understand Lennox's argument. But I'm glad you're clicking on William Lane Craig videos. I used to be like you a long time ago. Stay curious. God will find you.

[@SamIAm-kz4hg]

@@therambler3713 So THIS is your response? Simple claims? That's funny. Isn't that what I said that Lennox did? You missed the irony there, didn't you? Can I please get someone who is intelligent to respond with a decent answer?

[@MrSamiGigi]

Samiam 666 You are a fool if you dont look up on the sky and dont think its designed by a designer

[@SamIAm-kz4hg]

@@MrSamiGigi "You are a fool if you dont look up on the sky and dont think its designed by a designer" So first off, do you speak English? I'll assume you meant to say: "You are a fool if you look up at the sky and think it is not designed." You might want to check out how things like punctuation work. But, you are also guilty of a logical fallacy called Personal Incredulity. It's another way of saying "I don't believe it JUST BECAUSE." Thankfully the universe doesn't care what you think (and your lack of reasoning to back it up). If you really want to have your mind blown, you should study particle physics. NOTHING about it makes any sense. But, just for fun, how does my belief regarding the design of the sky in any way mean that it is designed? Your ability to reason is on par with William Lane Craig.

[@victoriousdemon6076]

I AM MUSLIM BUT I LOVE HOW HE DESTROYS ATHESIM

[@nelsnoel4463]

William Lane Craig did a debate with a Muslim scholar Dr. Shabir Ally about Jesus resurrection, I would appreciate it if you could watch it if you can. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, satisfying the wrath of God, and rose from the dead. Only by believing and trusting in him can we be saved.

[@digitalscale76]

@@nelsnoel4463 there wasn't really any other alternative?

[@nelsnoel4463]

@@digitalscale76 Jesus said there is no other way to be saved than to believe in Him in John 14:6. I love the fact that he loves William Lane Craig, but there isn’t an alternative to Jesus.

[@blackkman1324]

BULLSHIT!!REALLY? THIS GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE OF 70 BILLION LIGHT YEARS OR MORE, IN 6 DAYS BUT ONLY TALK TO A FEW FIRST CENTURY GOAT HERDERS ? AND TALK BACK THROUGH TALKING SNAKES AND DONKEYS?

[@ProgressIsTheOnlyEvolution]

@@blackkman1324 Hmm can you prove the Universe was created in 70 billion light years or more? Can you prove the age of the earth? And can you prove that the 6 day refence in the Bible is the term we use today of 24 hours which was a concept not commonly used before 200 bc, with the original term "day" coming from the old english term dæg, which means a lifetime from hebrew yom which means a period of light. Ancient Greece had 12 hour days. And by the way the snake, just like dragon, behemoth and leviathan is symbolic. I would have thought you would know the Bible is full of symbolism, since you evidently is such a Biblical scholar that you don't need to write everything in all caps to be heard or seen.

[@lazylenni1017]

9:12 "Inconsequential" for whom? Just saying, "your choices are inconsequential.", is an incomplete statement, as they certainly are consequential for 100% of our human lifes! Craig's whole point here, is merely about emotion.

[@kennyehm2004]

Dr. Craigs logical argument. 1. If Thunder does not exist, Thor does not exist. 2. Thunder exists. 3. Thor exists. if the premises are true then the conclusion follows logically. Amazing.

[@richardgoss4777]

William Lane Craig does not argue in the material realm, but the moral one.

[@kennyehm2004]

@@richardgoss4777 I am aware of what he does I find his arguments insufficient.

[@richardgoss4777]

@@kennyehm2004 Then I would present a more substantial rebuttal than the one you did.

[@kennyehm2004]

@@richardgoss4777 I literally formed the same argument he makes. 🤣

[@richardgoss4777]

@@kennyehm2004 We can explain and demonstrate the phenomenon of thunder. Don't be so disingenuous.

[@jamalkhan3708]

Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman. Well done Dr William Lane Crag 👍❤️

[@KenMasters.]

@unknown person That’s not what he meant by “find”.

[@TheAD5000]

What a poor analogy

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

Yes, exactly -- atheism is actually an emotional condition of rebellion against God, and most have Daddy issues as well.

[@aparajitroy629]

​@@hxhdfjifzirstc894Not really. Christianity is an emotional crutch that's illogical.

[@stultusvenator3233]

WLC is really crap and many times has admitted he can't prove any god. Yet he is probably the best they offer up. A sad indictment. I wish he would stop trying to interrupt and talk over this guy.

[@random-kr7gr]

Proving something is extremely difficult in many cases. He is able to give philosophically sound case for his worldview. That is quite a lot. Many people are not able to do so. Can you prove your worldview?

[@warrencolegrove1]

Except he doesn’t destroy anything. He can’t prove his god he can’t prove the resurrection he can’t prove life after death. He makes assertions.

[@Jeroen4]

Name me one argument he made in this debate you disagree with instead of saying things that weren’t actually the subject of discussion.

[@warrencolegrove1]

@@Jeroen4 none of his arguments are good arguments. His famous defense of the Kalam never gets you to a god or even a cause yet somehow he will massage it all the way to the Christian god. With zero evidence and assertions. He has said in a video I have watched that ultimately if Christianity was falsified he would still believe it, because of the Holy Spirit. Sorry that won’t cut it. Revelation is necessarily first person testimony -unfalsifiable. I just have to take his word for it. He definitely would not take my word for my testimony , unless it was his religion , maybe even his sect.

[@desaad1725]

2:43 thats how atheists act when they get crushed in a debate

[@greg5145]

Both Christianity and atheism are stupid. No one knows what’s out there, anyone who says they do are liars.

[@digitalscale76]

@@greg5145 there are fossils and evolution, lies!

[@RestoredRandom]

He can't prove there is a market

[@hxhdfjifzirstc894]

Unfortunately, I have yet to see an atheist maintain intellectual honesty in debate with WLC. They always resort to snarky empty rhetoric such as Pasta Boogey Men...

[@snuffyballparks6501]

Craig destroys Atheists by claiming the Bible is true and then uses the Bible as a source to prove it. Clever.

[@Vic2point0]

Imagine finding yourself in the unfortunate predicament of disagreeing with both Jordan Peterson and William Lane Craig.

[@pup1008]

What? Being right you mean?

[@Vic2point0]

@@pup1008 Right about what, exactly? Or are you just trolling? 😉

[@pup1008]

@@Vic2point0 Right that we know the origins of the planet & method of its populating through evolution & see no hand of the many conflicting & contrasting geographically ordained flavours of god in any of it. Other than that what do Craig & the other guy really stand for or say? The sum total of their "position" are arguments from incredulity & ignorance?

[@Vic2point0]

@@pup1008 You're not really identifying just what they got wrong here. And they weren't even talking about that particular subject, but I'm guessing you're referring to Craig's KCA? "We see no hand of god in (the creation of the universe)" isn't a refutation of that though, even still...

[@pup1008]

@@Vic2point0 We don't know the exact cause for the beginning of the universe but do you know what? There have been a lot of those - "We don't knows!" From thunder & lightning to volcanoes & the weather to evolution & do you know what? Whenever we have found an explanation it has *ALWAYS* been naturalistic! We have *NEVER* found the hand of any "god!" If I said to you 300 years ago that you could power or destroy cities with a particle of matter that it was impossible to even conceive seeing with the human eye you would think I was crazy! Yet nuclear physics is now a well understood & utilised area of science. That will be the shape of future discoveries! You are beyond rational thought. You have probably been so indoctrinated & locked inside your cultural echo chamber it is impossible for you to even consider other possibilities - vague fuzzy feelings & hopeful allusions like Craig's are more important to you than empirical truths. Your faith can't let you question as that questioning could lead you to a truthful future free of it & it's mental & financial demands & constraints on you. If I was taking to a Muslim or Hindu or some idiot from the Church of Scientology they would *ALL* say with the identical arrogance, conviction & certainty that THEY are right. Simple logic should tell you that you can't all be right & further objective use of that same logic should tell you that you could all be wrong!

[@setorious]

i really disagree with the point he made that it's easy to prove things doesn't exist. He uses examples like T-rex roaming the earth and yea that is easy to disprove but you can't disprove fairies and supernatural stuff.

[@seekerhonest]

But do we have to disprove everything that one says might exist? Isnt it rather that he has to prove that they exist? Especially when they come with a claim of subjectve moralities that they want to sell as objective moralities.

[@hapithotz]

The first guy was absolutely on point. Either we believe or we don’t. Either the money is invested or it isn’t. Craig is playing word games.

[@thekrazycow]

If you think what he said is "word games", it shows how you do not understand reasoning.

[@donaldkeith139]

Man.... Craig's intellectual prowess is awesome.. I am just in awe at how he's able to cut through all the BS that people lace their arguments with...

[@LGpi314]

WLC is the BSing, not the other way around. Do you think Adam was created from dirt and Eve from his rib? They then repopulated the earth. Isn't that magic? Did Adam have sex with his daughters? Is that what the bible is referencing? Do you believe earth is only 6000 years old? Do you believe it is flat as well? Do snakes talk?

[@aparajitroy629]

Craig is a total idiot. You're stupid for not being able to see it too.

[@arealniggah]

Craig need some ranch with all that word salad. I love how he says withhold judgement when in fact his mind is made up about an invisible dude in the sky.

[@JohnBoen]

WLC seems to have a point that you cannot disprove gods. But the atheists are not arguing against that. They are saying they support the claim with the most positive evidence. I expect there are many religious naturalists, so pitting atheists against WLC is really weak... it is all who accept naturalism against WLC...

[@filmeseverin]

Question no atheist can answer, without recognizing the existence of God: *Are you and this world the result of no intelligence?* As from just nothing, nothing comes (by itself), in the same way *from no intelligence involved, no intelligence comes.* That is why *the existence of the Creator of this reality (God) is proved* (it is proved by the existence of this reality with intelligence into it).

[@filmeseverin]

The atheists, taking this reality for granted, continue to ignore the obvious truths reasoned into my messages, posted on this kind of videos, such as: - Everything is evidence for the existence of the Creator of this reality because *this reality, with us into it, is not the result of nothing, or the result of no intelligence.* - This reality has been made by an in-commensurable power and intelligence, starting it with such a tremendous event, the so called Big Bang, to obtain intelligent beings able to feel / understand / admire / enjoy / respect / love perfection, God (Divinity). - As there are billions of cells required for us to be able to live this earthly life, in the same way there are required billions of galaxies for the intelligent life to be created intentionally to have 100% freedom, like humans on Earth (think how wonderful the Creator is, the opposite of a dictator, to create this reality in this way, with 100% freedom). He has told us to live in freedom but to not use freedom as a cover-up for evil. Unfortunately, Satan, the fallen angels, respectively their tools in this reality - the evil=stupid humans - have used (are using) the freedom offered by God to do evil. However, all will be judged 100% correctly by God/Jesus and all will receive what they deserve. - God is not showing intentionally direct evidences (as atheists want) because He wants to see our *free* choices, how much we love perfection (100% goodness, justice, pure love....) and how much we detest evilness=stupidity. - If/when we will have direct evidences of God, as atheists want, then we ALL will have immediately interested love regarding our Heavenly Father, but now, the really good humans, who love God/Jesus only from the revelation of the truth, can prove their true love for Divinity, for perfection, while living here with 100% freedom. - Regarding the nature of God etc., our power of comprehension will always be like how much the cups can think to understand the man who made them (comparison mentioned in the Bible to make us realize the HUGE difference between us and Divinity), but *we have Jesus Christ, the human form of Divinity, to be able to see God and what He expects from us.* - Only Jesus Christ (the human form of Divinity) has said: *_"I am the way, the truth and the life."_* He also said: *_"The sky and the earth won't last forever, but my words will."_* Matthew 24, 35 _Paul, an apostle-sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead [...] I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that _*_the gospel I preached is not of human origin._*_ I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ._ - If Hitler, Stalin... the shooters... *all the criminals, all the evil=stupid people* (over history and nowadays) would have followed the main commandment from Jesus Christ, *besides to love / respect our Heavenly Father, to love / respect (care for) the other humans as we love / respect (care for) ourselves,* all the crimes and the tremendous useless suffering would have never happen. - *the Parable of the weeds,* implies that the fallen angels, ruled by Satan, have altered this world, the DNA... (even the Bible),... making the carnivores, the parasites, the viruses, bad bacteria etc.... all the havoc... all the killings, so that those who do not want to follow God's perfection into their life, to be able to make excuses to not believe the truth. - *All evil has been done because of stupidity and the main/worst stupidity has always been to not listen by God/Jesus.* - The unbelievers of the truth are like those who live in "a house" (this world) but do not want both to follow the rules of the Builder/Owner (they denying Him) and to pay "the rent" (which means, in brief, to strive always only for good, for perfection, to never do evil, especially to not do evil intentionally) so that in the end, when they will face the Builder/Owner of the house (at the Judgment), they will regret their incorrect and undeserved using of the house (their earthly life), but then it may be too late for most of them, unfortunately. The wise people will not be deceived by the tools of Satan, because the truth is very clear. In Heaven are only those who have understood that freedom has to be used always just/only for good. Those who truly love perfection will prove this by their deeds in their earthly life to be accepted into Heaven, to experience the 100% goodness, while the others, who follow the fallen angels into their earthly life, by doing evil intentionally, will experience the 100% evil in hell. Any reader of my messages (posted on such videos), who reads them *entirely and carefully,* can understand, at least, the fact that the Creator of this reality (Divinity) wanted it in this way, to let every human choose *freely* between good and evil, to prove through his/her deeds how good, respectively how evil he/she is, and after the Judgment to receive what he/she deserves, after God/Jesus will forgive what can be forgiven for each of us. *_"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive his due for the things done in the body, whether good or bad."_* 2 Corinthians 5, 10

[@HansBezemer]

Yes. And as a computer scientist an biologist, it's actually quite easy. There is such a thing as the "genetic algorithm". It works like natural selection and can serve as a primitive artificial intelligence algorithm. I even used to to generate *working* computer code. I even did a YT video on that experiment. Now, the code it produces is not optimal. It's not what a skilled programmer would produce - but it works. We see the same thing in DNA. There are superfluous sequences, inefficient sequences - you name it. The conclusion must be that if God is a programmer, He's a very lousy one. Note that (just in real life) there is no room for dead ends. These are taken out of the gene pool quite quickly. Gods perfection is built on a huge pile of dead corpses, which are the result of an amoral natural world. Matthew 5:5 is actually demonstrably wrong.

[@charlesatty]

To see the true Craig see his debate with Sean Carroll when his spouting on physics get called out and game set match is either lying or just use to using word salad like Peterson to appear gawd like. Must admit the woo woo is strong in him.

[@josephmoya5098]

I really appreciate your grammar. You communicate so effectively. It's stunning.

[@josephsaab7208]

You only accuse peterson of using word salad cuz you don't understand what he's saying😂😂 maybe slow it down and watch it again, you might get it

[@iqgustavo]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🧠 Craig challenges the idea that naturalism is correct solely based on inability to prove the existence of a reality beyond the natural world. 01:05 📊 Analogy: Craig uses a stock market analogy to highlight that lack of positive arguments doesn't mean the opposite position is true. 03:41 🤔 Agnosticism vs. Naturalism: Craig argues that agnosticism might be more appropriate since naturalism cannot establish its own view. 07:37 🤯 Science and the Unprovable: Craig presents examples of things unprovable by science, suggesting science cannot account for everything. 18:14 🔎 Genetic Fallacy: Craig counters Harris's claim that the origin of belief in God implies its falseness, asserting origin doesn't determine truth. 22:44 🧠 Harris's Argument Misuse: Craig points out Harris's misuse of terms like "good" and "bad" in his argument about the nature of morality. 27:53 🔑 Harris claims that being good is identical to creaturely flourishing. Craig presents a knockdown argument against this radical identity claim. 28:19 🔄 Harris's moral landscape could become a continuum of well-being without distinct moral peaks if even bad people experience happiness. 29:03 🔗 Craig highlights a possible world where well-being peaks could be occupied by evil individuals, indicating well-being and moral landscape aren't identical. 29:17 ⛓️ Identity as a necessary relation: Craig argues that if two entities can be non-identical in any possible world, they can't be identical in actuality. 29:45 💥 Craig claims that since well-being and moral goodness can possibly be distinct, Harris's assertion that they are the same is undermined by the knockdown argument.

[@Dr.Funk8864]

6:34 this is a shit analogy, you can prove their are no dinosaurs but no one is saying they are outside of the natural world like they are god, you cant disprove something you cant see.

[@vilicus77]

WLC has never "destroyed" an atheist; he has merely made soft serve arguments for the credulous.

[@rexdida9228]

Yes he did destroyed them

[@vilicus77]

@@rexdida9228 It figures you would think that; you can't even get your syntax correct.

[@rexdida9228]

@@vilicus77 under skirt, you will see syntax

[@vilicus77]

@@rexdida9228 Ha--dumb ass.

[@destinationjesuschrist7043]

Caliban Your nose is as BIG as your pride. HUGE

[@lazylenni1017]

"There could be something beyond it." Just like there could be unicorns or the tooth fairy.

[@lazylenni1017]

The second clip is similar to this. Here, Craig is just talking about rhetoric, rather than making his position any more believable.

[@treasurecave431]

"Stick that in your pipe and smoke it" That second last one is truly one of the best mic drops in a debate

[@upsax7576]

I swear WIlliam Lane Craig is the greatest contribution to Christian in our time. He totally destroys these men who are ruining people's lives with their ideas.

[@jerdal6825]

These apologists simply abuse philosophy and scream gotcha when their opponents can’t untwist the ridiculous crap they just heard.

[@filmeseverin]

Those who use the SORT BY newest first option to read carefully all my recent posts, can see that *I have proved* that this reality has been created by an Intelligence (called God / the Creator) whose nature will never be really comprehended by humans (because of our proved limitations) except through Jesus Christ, the human form of God.

[@Kimkong2]

what was that Rebecca lady even talking about ??!!

[@traerick9688]

Dude I have no idea lol. She didn’t belong with WLC

[@RandomGuy-xj7mp]

Currently wondering how that woman got that position on stage

[@flimsyjimnz]

Rebecca Goldstein -an American philosopher, novelist, and public intellectual, written ten books, both fiction and non-fiction. She holds a Ph.D. in philosophy of science from Princeton University. ....Go figure!

[@bartbannister394]

I'll tell you. When WLC debates a good debater he ends up looking like an idiot. This is a vids where he debates someone who isn't a good debater. kzbin.info/www/bejne/fpbVYYGAgayeprs

[@sharplikecheddar2]

She’s the epitome of an academic who has only dialogued with those who agree with her and uphold her world view. I would venture to guess this was one of the few times she’s actually put her theories to the test against someone that wasn’t in alignment with her. Thus the problem with modern day academia and why these conversations are so important.

[@ApolloThyrteen]

@@flimsyjimnz shes out of her league.

[@raymondsciara]

The more I see theists defend their position the more dishonesty is shown on their end. Whether a supreme being created everything, or not it will not change the way I value life, social constructs, ertc

[@rwsjr123]

I didn't hear an argument that didn't rest on semantics. Man created god. Man created words. If you think he won these arguments, you're probably looking for a person that reiterates your bias for religion who sounds intelligent. "You can't prove it doesn't exist" is ridiculous and wouldn't be an acceptable standard except from the thing that we all fear most; that this, the natural world, is all there will ever be. It can be liberating after you get past the fear.

[@justinlewis8889]

rwsjr123 well said

[@Darksaga28]

Prove it or shut up

[@petarvasiljevic8764]

Why do you think atheism is the right worldview?

[@valiyapurakkalNarayanankutty]

@@Darksaga28 Fuck yeah! Unicorns exist....dont try to be silly to disprove it, you caint!

[@Darksaga28]

Arun K actually I don’t mind if unicorns exist, not my problem

[@geraldtomkins5545]

We are quick to assign what we don't understand as supernatural. When the first gentleman used the term "more nature" he meant that we have learned. What was believed to be supernatural has been found to be nature that we now understand. The only argument for a god seems to be that you can't prove there isn't one.

[@josephmoya5098]

That isn't true. Craig himself provides positive arguments for the existence of God. You might not find them all convincing, I certainly don't, but theists have reasons for what they believe, even if they don't all know and understand them. Craig is well aware that this man means more nature relative to what we have found. His arguments don't address a single causal unknown but attempt to reach across all possible physicality. They may fail to do so, but that is what he is trying to do. Further, it isn't true that the supernatural was found to be nature. The God of the gaps fallacy was made popular only in the late 16th and early 17th centuries and was often from people who were less interested in philosophy than they were in the natural sciences. It really started with Newton, who thought he had found God's hand since he couldn't explain the orbiting planets. But no serious theistic philosopher has ever used such arguments.

[@joeaddison7120]

William couldn’t destroy his way out of a paper back, much less atheism.

[@Dane2177]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The best that can be said is that we don't know. This old debate goes on, however, perhaps because people believe what they want to believe.

[@thetruthapologetics879]

He'll think harder before deciding to debate Dr. William Name Craig again. [The first guy]

[@thetruthapologetics879]

@cH Pinki well actually he destroyed the point of that guy and left him speechless. If you understood you'd understood why she should have tried a different approach other than trying to figure out a way around that same type of argument he just presented, he should have seen he left a vulnerable spot especially against someone who has famous for doing that. I think you missed his point, try to note it in a book you'll see how much deeper the response was. Without noting it's easy for beginners and even somewhat experts to miss those points. Noting might help.

[@thetruthapologetics879]

@cH Pinki God bless 😊

[@thetruthapologetics879]

@cH Pinki at least you believe in thoughts, and not that all of your thoughts are driven by chemicals. I too believe we can believe in consciousness. Otherwise again, we have no meaning, even we aren't we, our interactions are real conscious interactions of our own, and we do everything because of our brain chemistry. I don't believe that, I believe the brain chemistry happens after consciousness acts. That's how motivation, psychological counseling can work change a person and his/her brain chemistry dramatically. Don't worry, all of the above isn't a statement or response or anything. I just explained my thoughts about thoughts. They are real. 😊 Beware of materialists. LOL.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

Craig appeals to a frightened gullible audience that looks to others for support and will believe almost anything their spokesperson says.

[@julie7267]

Not only is WLC a wonderful Christian apologist he is a master debater. I have never seen anyone face him with the same ability to organize thoughts and articulate his reasoning. He is very gracious and does not rely on petty attacks on his opponents. Love him.

[@julie7267]

@L Ron Cupboard yes, I have noticed him veering in directions that I wasn’t sure about. I believe all of God’s creation shares common genes. Instead of jumping to the conclusion that we have evolved from apes, I believe God made us superior to animals, as we are made in His image. So if WLC argues with me on that I would have to agree with you. I believe the Bible to be 100 percent true, but will agree with WLC that it is not always clear what parts are literal and what parts are figurative in Revelation. It is meant to allude to something spectacular, yet to come, that cannot be explained through words. I know scholars will mention their opinion and speculate but what is clear is that God will not reveal it in clarity until those days are among us. We just have to be ready and faithful. In the meantime, I pray that WLC most importantly, is a born again believer, and not just a scholar. He is a great debater none the less and destroys the emotional arguments and fallacies often decried by naturalists in defense of the Bible and people of faith.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@julie7267 How did you come to conclude that this god you've mentioned exists?

[@julie7267]

@@theoskeptomai2535 He has been with me my entire life. I know He’s there. He makes His presence known. I would not be the person I am today, without Him. The few times I have turned my back on Him, He has come after me and revealed Himself even more. It is truly an awesome experience! I would be more than happy to share more.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@julie7267 Have you observed this god?

[@julie7267]

@@theoskeptomai2535 an earthworm knows nothing of the Sun, yet feels it’s heat.

[@vashna3799]

Here’s a question, why doesn’t the all powerful all knowing Christian god that Craig believes in just give us all a “religious experience “ as a 13 year old like he did? I never had one, Albert Einstein never had one. What makes him so special and why should I believe in a god because of someone else’s experience, or “delusion” hey?

[@vanessac0382]

Because every body is different and we have our own interest. It is possible that the 13 year old wlc was more inclined in the most important questions in life and significance of faith and truth than any person no matter how intellectual they are. This guy must be a thinker at a young age and have a more mature understanding of things than his peers

[@vashna3799]

@@vanessac0382 he’s based his entire career and reputation on a delusion he had as a 13 year old. Again, the greatest scholars, thinkers and scientists throughout history, Socrates, Lucretius, Confucius, Epicurus, Spinoza, Voltaire, Benjamin Franklin, David Hume, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain, Nikola Tesla, Einstein, Bertram Russell, Richard Feynman, David Attenborough, Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss , all far greater minds and much more important figures in history in teaching and influence unlike the lawyer point scoring tactics Craig uses, and will remembered in history much more than Craig, none of whom had any religious experience as a 13 year old and we’re all critical of religious belief. Craig as an very high opinion of himself that god gave him a “vision “ and excluded all the rest I’ve listed.

[@vanessac0382]

@@vashna3799 what vision are you talking about? What makes non God belivers statements true and God believers false? How can those people that you mentioned make sense of their statements and studies if they didn't Use the rationalization that God provides? In fact, the moment you discount God out of the equation to make sense of the world that's the time you live in an illusion. Science cannot makes sense of itself because it presuppose the use of logic to know right and true. The God of bible gives set of standard how to know right and true, And His words is found objectively true in reality.

[@vashna3799]

@@vanessac0382 well simply you and every other religious believer, your assertion that “god” exists lies simply in blind faith, nothing more. You haven’t a scrap of good evidence to prove that your god does exist, and which god pray tell? The Muslim one Allah? The Hindu gods Vishnu, Shiva, Krishna? Thor? Odin? Zeus? And how can you disprove any of those gods? You just find yourself as a victim of “accident of birth” that by sheer random chance you were born in a time and place and culture were Christianity happens to be the prevalent religion, just like Craig. Had you been born in the Middle East you’d be a Muslim or 8th century Scandinavia worshiping Odin. It’s says nothing whatsoever that any of those gods are real. Science is about testing , measuring, observing the real world around us and through the hundreds of years of scientific progress which “works “ whether it be physics, chemistry or biology, a god becomes absolutely redundant and religion totally incompatible with scientific fact.

[@vanessac0382]

@@vashna3799 genetic fallacy has been debunked a long time ago and being baptized as a Christian didn't made me a christian. It is a conscious decision and submission to Truth not by relying my knowledge on someone else's belief. I did study Christianity for a long time, long enough to conclude that I am convinced it is true. A believer, believing a blind faith is an ignorant assumption of our belief. The Bible encourages us to test our belief if it is true. All of the gods that you mentioned are just man made gods since we cannot infer if they truly exist. Also, they all defies the laws of logic. What makes you think that I am an accident? If you believe that you are, how can you even think? If God doesn't exist what are the chance that I'm a Christian and you're not a nd we are talking about God? Like i said, science cannot makes sense of itself, you need a standard to rationalize science. If God doesn't exist you cannot infer the phenomenas happening in the natural world, hence science cannot be possible. If God doesn't exist your position in this argument is invalid, because it is foolish to argue against a non existent being. But if God exist, your position is valid but more foolish because it doesn't make sense not to believe in God in a world where God exist

[@mnamhie]

Yes, Mr. Craig, we don't know if there is anything beyond nature. So why then would anyone create a God that we don't know exists? Why involve yourself in a religion which holds specific beliefs about a God which are not based on any empirical evidence? That is simply wish thinking and mythology.

[@filmeseverin]

Everything is evidence for the existence of the Creator of this reality because *this reality, with us into it, is not the result of nothing, or the result of no intelligence.* Christianity is verified/makes sense by/with everything: human history, science, human behavior etc. Only those who want to use freedom for evil are opposing to God/Jesus.

[@mnamhie]

@@filmeseverin what an extremely incoherent reply. If by "creator" you mean the natural processes by which we see things, including the universe, coming into and out of existence, then no one will argue with you. But you obviously propose that Jesus in nothing less than The Creator and Ruler of all things. In that you have only your disjointed faith. This is not something that can be proven to be factual. And your pitiful faith and propositions do not square up with the evidence subsumed therein. It's unsettling to say the least that a modern Homo sapien can still cling to long disconfirmed Bronze Aged mythology.

[@filmeseverin]

Jesus Christ has warned us about such a bad receiving of the truth: _"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me."_ Matthew 5, 11

[@mnamhie]

@@filmeseverin Yet another incoherent reply. Various leaders of other religions and cults have made similar statements. You don't even know if Jesus said this. It is written of him, for sure, but we don't even know who wrote the gospel stories. They certainly weren't written by the putative authors ascribed to them long ago, of that we are sure. There are many who believe these stories are even Roman propaganda. So you see, you can quote these inane and worthless sayings but you have no idea where or by whom they originated. Again, all you have is your faith. The same worthless faith that Hindus, Muslims or Buddhists have. That is to say, belief without evidence. The modern and evolving Man values corroboration, evidence and fact. Mythology has no place in the modern Cosmos.

[@steven_suave]

If David Lee Roth was a Christian debater ! Lol love this guy

[@papillonvu]

😂

[@thewalruswasjason101]

The first guy needs to give up analogies. Forever. ( note the irony in my use of “ forever?😉)

[@dragonplayzgamez513]

Just came here to say that Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life!

[@dragonplayzgamez513]

@@AwesomeWrench In heaven, seated at the right hand of God.

[@dragonplayzgamez513]

@@AwesomeWrench Do I need a photo when I can trust the word of God because we have plenty of evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? So much so that people have had to make theories about Jesus having a twin brother?

[@dragonplayzgamez513]

@@AwesomeWrench All you would need is evidence that Jesus rose from the dead, that's evidence we can actually uncover in this world. We cannot find physical evidence of a realm beyond the physical, sorry. But, if Jesus really did rise from the dead, we know that the natural is not all there is, and we have evidence that happened. :)

[@dragonplayzgamez513]

@@AwesomeWrench I didn't think someone would expect physical evidence of a throne not within our physical realm. Would you prefer evidence of Jesus' resurrection instead?

[@dragonplayzgamez513]

@@AwesomeWrench That I can give.

[@robertortiz-wilson1588]

Brilliantly man. God bless him. There is always more to contemplate!

[@ofinterest2007]

If Craig destroyed Shook, I'm not seeing it. Godel proved that no deductive system can be internally consistent. Meaning that a proof cannot occur from a purely deductive system. Craig still has to support his first conditional: "If God exists,...", which he never does. He sets up multiple unsupported syllogisms and tries to use their circularity to make his case. It doesn't work.

[@JamesRichardWiley]

John Newby is a Christian apologetic who needs to defend his belief in his god with this mislabeled video claiming a false victory. Bill cannot prove his god exists. He can only declare his belief in an ancient Hebrew narrative and reintroduce a debunked Kalam argument from the 9th century.

[@betterthanmost9549]

If mental gymnastics were an Olympic event Craig would be a gold medalist.

[@davidmontoya6672]

Mental gymnastics... I freakin love that!

[@acemxe8472]

How did you come to that conclusion?

[@Dwooswa]

We shouldnt make these "X destroys Christianity/Atheism" videos but rather strive to stimulate conversations in good faith about these issues. All these videos do is provoke.

[@Hommer167]

I agree. The title makes it a hostile environment rather encouraging people to seek truth. I recommend changing the title.

[@Tennethums1]

What WLC fails to understand is that he’s presupposing the arguments for/against the supernatural carry any weight in reality. That’s to say, an argument about whether or not Voldemort from Harry Potter was just “misunderstood” or not, is one thing. Arguing that Voldemort EXISTS is something else entirely. The supernatural does not exist as much as Gandalf doesn’t exist. Anything of a supernatural nature (pun intended) is fictional and always has been. It’s INTENT is to be fictional. So in a way, all WLC is doing is arguing that Voldemort is real and failing to understand that no matter what sort of “logic” he thinks he’s putting forward, Voldemort still doesn’t exist. 🤷🏻‍♂️

[@petermeyer6873]

"William Lane Craig destroys atheists" All-clear: No atheists were actually harmed during the makings of those videos. The title is just childish language. ;)

[@cameronhesketh6814]

Just because some evolutionist(Normal Person) is a poor debater, doesn't mean all of a sudden, all evolutionary science gets kicked out and thrown in the junk science trash can. That is a ludicrous idea. All our work on biology is based on modern evolutionary science, which Charles Darwin started with his great work 160 years ago, there's been a hell of a lot of work done since Darwin wrote his Origin of the Species. Of course, Christians are singularly obsessed with so called Darwinism, and equally obsessed about Neo Darwinism. Modern biology and evolutionary science aren't Darwinism, and it isn't Neo Darwinism. There is so much more to evolutionary science and biology than Darwinism. Darwinism was 160 years ago.