Nice job. I can't even _imagine_ how someone could find William Lane Craig convincing. For him, this seems entirely about believing what he _wants_ to be true. It's all just wishful-thinking.

9:05 Unless I’m mistaken, Craig is on record as saying that the inner witness of the holy spirit is a “defeater of all defeaters”. So even if he recognized the existence of defeaters of Christianity, it wouldn’t matter to him anyway. Why couldn’t a Muslim or a Mormon argue in the same way?

@watcherfox9698

Жыл бұрын

If I remember correctly, I think I've once seen Craig basically argue that people from other religions would ultimately cave because their version of inner witness isn't the real thing. Of course there is absolutely zero evidence for any of that, but I guess that's how he justifies his bias in his head.

@tahaghassemi2381

Жыл бұрын

Can you explain inner witness? I’m not familiar with it.

@drawn2myattention641

Жыл бұрын

@@tahaghassemi2381 I understand it's a strongly felt inner experience of the presence of the holy spirit, who often communicates a powerful sense of faith and confidence to the subject. Like all such private, unverifiable experiences, how do others know it's not indigestion?

@tahaghassemi2381

Жыл бұрын

@@drawn2myattention641 lol, is there someone famous who asked that question or did you think of it?

@drawn2myattention641

Жыл бұрын

@@tahaghassemi2381 It's such an obvious question, I do hope someone has posed it.

Craig is quoted as saying that if the facts of Christianity were to turn against Christianity, he would still believe it based on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. He said this years ago. This new problem is just an extension of what he said years ago. I have always said that debates between competing theistic religions are the best. When you have a Muslim arguing why Christianity is false and a Christian arguing why Islam is false, it's not only entertaining but you learn a lot about the defeaters to both religions.

@tahaghassemi2381

Жыл бұрын

Can you explain inner witness? I’m not familiar with it.

@Overonator

Жыл бұрын

@@tahaghassemi2381 I think you are replying to the wrong comment.

@chipan9191

Жыл бұрын

I think you misquoted him. I believe he said that in the absence of any argument for God he would still believe based on the inner witness of the Holy Spirit. That's not the same as the facts being against Christianity.

@Overonator

Жыл бұрын

@@chipan9191 Actually you are incorrect. See the latest video on this channel, it has the quote in it straight from Craig. It's at 4:38 in the video entitled "William Lane Craig's Double Standards for Belief - In his own words!"

@chipan9191

Жыл бұрын

@@Overonator except he's only taking about a first impression of evidence. He's basically saying that if he's confronted with new evidence which turns against Christianity, that given his experience, he's confident that the evidence would turn the other way with time and earnest investigation.

One of my earliest videos on this kind of subject has a response I think still works, "Stop criticising other religions for not holding doctrine that they don't believe in." it's in response to the similar argument that WLC said, "hinduism is wrong, because it doesn't give you salvation from sin." well they either don't believe in sin, or have the same concept of it, to them it's not quiet the same issue, and always annoys me when Christians act like another religion is wrong for not holding the exact same standards as they do or beliefs. You first have to prove sin is an issue that needs fixing befor eyou can complain that another religion doesn't fix it.

Underrated video. 👍

Don't you love how WLC says that Atheist or naturalism is false base on the intellectual cost it intel just for Craig embracing Doxastic voluntarism in order to be a christian?

When it comes to WLC's Jericho-ian wall of books vs a CRT & arcade cabinet, I'm going with the latter. 📺🕹

William Lane Craig walked into a bar ... an epistemic bar. (insert foot amputation joke here ... the bar's so low it cut off his foot.) (Normally I would've put a decapitation joke here)

@misterdeity

Жыл бұрын

kzread.info/dash/bejne/hqZk05mHc5yupKw.html

As the years go by and the same lame and unsubstantiated claims for 'god' continue, one has to wonder why The Great Absent One refuses to help the theist out with something....anything of substance to help them make the case for its own existence. That 'god' is not even in the game should be a concern for the faithful.

I'd put more stock in what Craig was saying if he said it on Paulogia or Drew's channel. Did Cameron push back at all or was it softball objections & cheerleading the whole time? Edit: My own question is answered 19 minutes in. Leaving my comments in for the algorithm.

What is the naturalist explanation for the inner witness of the holy spirit?

WLC admits up front his god's love is conditional. What if he had never learned of how god "loves" him & Bill died oblivious to it? On his present worldview, his first interaction with the divine would've been torment & suffering. 😬

@ratamacue0320

Жыл бұрын

All love is conditional, to various extents.

@TK-iq1nc

Жыл бұрын

God judges people based on their knowledge.

WLC's defense boils down to Pascal's Wager

great summary of the issues john. further, to craig's future thinkings: hardcore christians will NEVER give up on the notion of free will - its core to their ontology

@Nocturnalux

Жыл бұрын

Not necessarily so. Calvinists are a thing, especially in America. And they are about as hardcore as ir gets.

@haydenwalton2766

Жыл бұрын

@@Nocturnalux interesting thought. didn't know anything about them. just did some quick reading. not sure if calvin was actually against man having free will per se. If he truly did, it would seem to go against the whole man/god relationship shtick

@Nocturnalux

Жыл бұрын

@@haydenwalton2766 He most definitely was against it, it is one of the defining traits of Calvin’s doctrine. Even if Calvin himself did not, Calvinists throughout history are against free will. There are variations when it comes to Calvinist, usually regarding just how “depraved” people are, and very likely regarding how limited the will is but Calvinism, as a whole, holds that humans have no free will. It does throw a spanner in the works.

@haydenwalton2766

Жыл бұрын

@@Nocturnalux thanks for that. yeah, I got the 'people are depraved' bit looks like more reading for me

@Nocturnalux

Жыл бұрын

@@haydenwalton2766 You’re welcome. I was raises Catholic and free will was a very big deal. It was only as a teen that I even found out some Christians did not believe in it.

I think Craig's body of work is bigger than these quotes you sampled out here. It's true that if someone you don't know says something like that your assumptions are valid, but when you go back and study Craig's presentations and writings you see how much he explains why he believes one way and not the other, and it goes beyond "all I need is the Holly Spirit as proof".

@CounterApologist

Жыл бұрын

I never said he didn't have other justifications, in fact this channel has counters to his most famous and often used arguments. But he *does* state expressly that all you need is the holy spirit to be justified and you can appeal to that to overcome "defeaters" for your belief that you can't answer. Except he claims that other religions can't appeal to their religious experiences/assurances because Craig supposedly has defeaters for those religions. This is special pleading on its own, but now he also admits he wants it to be true and so lowers the bar.

It shows that Craig never started off valuing what's actually true. The attractiveness of the claims Christianity portrayed to him were more important. He already must've had a concept of god and sin before hearing the gospels so I don't entirely believe that he was non-Christian or at least non-theisitic at first. He didn't and doesn't value truth. His "witness of the holy spirit" crap is just dishonest, and a way of deceiving himself into believing he cannot possibly be fallible in his warm and fuzzy conclusions. How does he know god's real? Well the holy spirit tells him so? How does he know that's right? Regardless of any new data or discoveries? Because that same good ol' spirit has made it clear to him, and that's a built-in defeater for everything that might (or really does) prove him wrong. He's setup an internal scenario where he's always right no matter what, and that's the delusion he accuses atheists and naturalists of having.

I dont know man. I think you are judging Dr. Craig for how low he went for believing, to have his personal faith or convictions, he shouldn't have to justify to others the bar level he sets to himself. On the contrary when he speaks about philosophy and christianity on a macro level, to teach or to lecture he never uses these standards, he uses very deep arguments. In this specific case he is opening his heart and his experiences, how happened this things in his life, the important thing is that he is not trying to convince anyone with these statements. he is just simply testifying what has happened in his life. You are terribly used to having him debating and philosophying and you have the necessity to debate everything he says even when it is not the case. I mean, you can say what you want about christianity, people will still find beauty and peace in it whether you like it or not

@Nai61a

Жыл бұрын

Stefano merino: If "beauty and peace" were ALL that people found in Christianity, I doubt that we would spend much time on it. If it were personal and private and had no impact on others, there would be little point in discussing it. After all, there aren't many people making videos against Buddhism or Quakerism. The problem with Christianity (and Islam, come to that) is that it cannot keep its mouth shut and its nose out of politics and other people's private lives.

I think you're being very uncharitable to Craig here. You claim that he lowers the bar for criticisms of his arguments, but this just seems to be baselessly assumed. He said he lowers the bar for what he would accept as evidence, not lowering the bar for what counts as valid criticism of the evidence. And the statement was specifically to counter the idea that we should accept grand miracles to be performed to us personally in order to be justified epistemically. But it's also an issue when you claim that any criticism is a defeater, like logical problems with the Trinity. If I listed a ton of problems for atheism like the hard problem of consciousness, the problem of moral grounding, the problem of more responsibility given determinism, the problem of logical grounding, the problem of epistemic ground... Is it fair to me to assume that the fact that all of these criticisms are defeaters? No? Then why are you making that assumption?

Get a new mic, I can't understand half of what you say. Turned you of 47 seconds in.

@rogerkearns8094

Жыл бұрын

Perhaps, mention this difficulty of yours to your GP?