GET DR. WILLIAM LANE CRAIG ON THE JOE ROGAN PODCAST PLEASE!!! It would be amazing for Joe, Dr. Craig, and the world!!

@DerMelodist

Жыл бұрын

That would both be the weirdest and coolest conversation ever. I would love to see it take place, but I doubt it will happen.

@ricksonora6656

Жыл бұрын

Joe who?

@bubbillionaire2423

Жыл бұрын

Honestly, don't think Joe has ever interacted with a Christian powerhouse on the level as Craig. Would be fun.

@alexivonkuciak3786

Жыл бұрын

@@bubbillionaire2423 Yeah.. I don't think Rogan is ready for that kind of powerhouse hehe

@ricksonora6656

Жыл бұрын

@@bubbillionaire2423 I don’t know. Craig’s style is polite and scholarly. Would he even get a chance to make his points?

I will never be able to comprehend any of that. Oh my gosh, my head hurts so much.

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

Don't worry. In time, your headache will go away.

It's like to see Dr Strange debates with Kang about time and Peter Parker is mediating the debate

Timelessness is hard to conceive as temporal, finite creatures.

@johnbrzykcy3076

Жыл бұрын

I agree. Timelessness and time itself are a mystery to me.

I've been looking forward to this conversation for a long time. I've been confused by Dr. Mullins' theory for a long time. However, I'm not sure if I understand it yet.

I hope Dr Craig does discussion/debate on kalam argument with Majesty of Reason.

Personal struggle: Having a hard time looking past the black fingernails. 😆 Love the discussion though.

@DerMelodist

Жыл бұрын

Dr. Mullins is my favorite 2000's Emo-Theologian Philosopher. And if you think the nails are bad, look at his hair. Should you read my comment Dr. M, I love them both.

@Dhorpatan

Жыл бұрын

@timmy Facts on your part.

Most Holy Family Monastery ☦️ ⛪️ ✝️, also, strongly proves that God exists and that God is the creator of time. Christianity is true ✝️ ⛪️ ☦️ ✝️ ⛪️ ☦️ MHFM✝️

If God is omniscient, and knows all true counterfactuals of creaturely freedom, he surely knows counterfactuals of himself, right? So wouldn't God have always known which world out of all the possible worlds he would choose to create? If so, wouldn't that mean there was no state in which God was ignorant of what will happen, since he always knew which world he would create, and thus always knew what will happen?

@Dhorpatan

Жыл бұрын

You finally are getting to not believe in the occult Jackson Plummy? Good for you. You sure had to engage in dishonesty to believe it.

@jackplumbridge2704

Жыл бұрын

@@Dhorpatan lol are you delusional or something?

@Dhorpatan

Жыл бұрын

Don't be like that Plummy. Please leave belief in the occult and magic and embrace logic, reality and mighty Science. Thanks Jackson Plummy!

@Mark-cd2wf

Жыл бұрын

Sounds like Molinism, combined with God’s omniscience. Good!😁🤔

@whatsinaname691

Жыл бұрын

Molinism has traditionally held that God’s creative act is an arbitrary choice of a best possible kind of world, so, suppose God has a trillion best feasible worlds, God elects without regard to the choice of the elect within that world so that none may boast

You have the wrong middle initial for Mullins - it is T, not C. Interesting discussion.

@ReasonableFaithOrg

Жыл бұрын

Fixed! Thank you! - RF Admin

A definition of ‘event’ that references time is not circular. A circular definition would require defining ‘event’ relative to ‘event(s)’. I think “God is either in time or timeless” is a false dichotomy. If the dichotomy is true, God in time cannot exist as three Persons without dividing. But the three Persons are one God and consubstantial. Since God created the universe, God has creative power over time, which is external to Him. Being external to time, He can view all time, which explains prophecy. His creative power enables Him to enter and experience time as three Persons, which explains the Trinity. If time is an attribute of God, and moments are contingent and separate from time, then moments are locations in an attribute. That seems to be a category error. If moments are locations in time, all time exists, and time is (an attribute of) God, then God can be divided. We knew a bit of God yesterday that we no longer know today, there exists a bit of God today that we will no longer know tomorrow, and there exists a bit of God tomorrow that we cannot know today. If time is such that only now exists, and time is (an attribute of) God, then God is divided between part of God that no longer exists, that zero-duration portion that exists in this instant, and that infinite portion that exists between now and eternity. Since time began with the universe, if time is an attribute of God, God gained that attribute along with creation of the universe, God is not the Creator, and… either the universe had a separate Creator (a prior God), so our God is a second god; or God was either incomplete before creation or diminished by creation.

As an Arsenal supporter you will be fully aware of what a 'long time' feels like.

@ReasonableFaithOrg

Жыл бұрын

XD

Will you be responding to Joe Schmidts most recent argument against the Kalam? He makes some claims that seem to need a clear refutation.

@Dhorpatan

Жыл бұрын

Looked it up; found nothing. You have links?

@Dhorpatan

Жыл бұрын

Oh, I see what might have happened. You misspelled his name.

@Dhorpatan

Жыл бұрын

Nevermind, I found it on my own. Which is good, since based on historical precedent for me on this platform, you likely weren't going to respond period, let alone with helpful information🤣

@UncensoredChristian

Жыл бұрын

@@Dhorpatan Oh! his YT channel is Majesty of Reason

I've always noticed that the one who does the most talking, has the weakest case.

@vinchinzo594

Жыл бұрын

That principle makes zero sense and has absolutely no warrant or justification.

Having a hard time looking past the black fingernails

@americanexploring7440

Жыл бұрын

Maybe he was born like that :) The poor guy is no match for someone like Dr. Craig.

@bassmanjr100

Жыл бұрын

And the hair, and the apparent lipstick??? It is hard to take it seriously.

@Dhorpatan

Жыл бұрын

Yeah, this is not the right crowd for that type of stuff. To put it mildly.