For full-length videos subscribe to kzread.info
--------
Reasonable Faith invites you to comment on Dr. William Lane Craig's videos in the Reasonable Faith forums: www.reasonablefaith.org/drcraigvideos
--------
William Lane Craig is Research Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology. A respected debater, prominent Internet presence, and author of Reasonable Faith, Dr. Craig is one of the most influential defenders of Christianity in our day.
Dr. Craig pursued his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College and graduate studies at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, the University of Birmingham (England), and the University of Munich (Germany).
William Lane Craig's official website, Reasonable Faith:
www.reasonablefaith.org
Twitter: twitter.com/rfupdates
Facebook: facebook.com/pages/Reasonable-Faith/31578213228
Visit www.reasonablefaith.org for Q&A, articles, podcasts, and more.
Пікірлер
Amen, thank you WLC.
Using the bible as proof itself is a fallacy. There is no definitive physical or archaeological evidence of the existence of Jesus. The reality is that we don’t have archaeological records for virtually anyone who lived in Jesus’s time and place.
The historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus doesn't assume that the Bible is inspired. It applies the standard methods of historiography to the texts. This is why the argument is so strong. Even atheist historians largely recognize the facts outlined in the video. They simply disagree that the best explanation of those facts is the resurrection, largely due to a presupposition of naturalism. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos No jesus no resurrection. You still haven't met your burden.
Another aspect of this was addressed by Dr. Stephen Meyer in his book, Return of the God Hypothesis. In Chapter 16, he points out that an inflationary-string multiverse (the only kind that skeptics can posit to seemingly account for the fine-tuning of our universe) - this multiverse itself must be extremely fine-tuned (in its universe-generating mechanism) in order to exist and to produce multiple universes, which are necessary in order to seemingly account for OUR universe’s fine-tuning as if it arose by random chance. However, this won’t work because the multiverse itself requires extreme fine-tuning to begin its production of universes! Therefore, whether it’s to account for the fine-tuning of our universe (Meyer, Chapters 7, 8, & 13) OR to account for the fine-tuning of a feasible multiverse (that could hypothetically account for the fine-tuning of our universe), an intelligent Fine-Tuner or Designer of at least one universe, and possibly of a multiverse, must exist! (Meyer, Chapter 16) In essence, a Creator God must exist; there are no realistic alternatives, as long as we precisely follow the details of this evidence. The only way to avoid this conclusion is to NOT follow the evidence where it leads, in terms of its details. This is one of several reasons why I, a former atheist, am now a believer in the Christian God, which makes the most sense considering all forms of evidence.
Personally speaking, it's pure folly to believe that our magnificent universe and all the splendid wonders within it could exist without a creator, to wit, God.
These are all terrible answers with the possible exception of the last one. What we know of the origin of the universe is completely at odds with Genesis and every other origin myth. If God is the answer to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" then it ignores the fact that God himself is something. The best and only answer is, "We don't know." Fine tuning, while remarkable, can be used in support of a prime mover, but it comprehensively rules out any kind of PERSONAL god. Fine tuning indicates life arising against all odds rather than life being placed in some equivalent of the Garden of Eden.
This passage was preached on just last Sunday in our local church. *This* video has cleared up a lot of confusion. (Sunday morning, as it is every night, my wife was writhing in pain from her physical disability. Several hours later in church, the preacher was quoting, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy. I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." He is an irregular preacher at our church, and I wished that I had skipped church that day.) Kind regards from Australia.
But does the fact that god does not prevent bad things from happening make his morals not that good? If a doctor can help a patient having a allergic reaction with a simple epi pen and choses to let the person die that mean he is not moral right?
If naturalism is true, then there is no free will. No free will = no moral accountability. Free will = moral accountability.
Ah, i remember when Christopher Hitchens used to slap Craig around like a rag doll. The world misses Hitch!!
Yes
I am on a mission to find out if Neanderthals had the spliced second genome like we do, there is proof of the fact modern humans are genetically altered we are all hybrids.... so I want to know if they possess this altering as well. Human is just another word for primate and in the oldest scriptures known to man it states that higher beings took their own DNA and genetically altered a primate alive at that time to do it. If Neanderthals are natural primates they may just be one of the many types of natural primates alive at that time .... we should know this about all of our ancient primates. I hope someone finds the answer.
“All praise be to God, the Lord of ALL WORLDS.” ~ The Qur’an 1:2 ❤
hmm, since christians have so many different versions of this god, which one exists? As usual, Craig fails since he has no evidence for his claims. Christians can't even agree on where the "empty tomb" is so he has nothign for his cult's resurrection nonsense. All craig has are the first cause argument which never needs his imaginary friend. Math is simply describing reality, it isn't magic. There is no fine tuning, since if this god did design things, christains need to explain if it was just stupid, or malicious, when it made our main source of energy give humans cancer, and when it designed the human body to guarantee that thousands of humans choke to death every year. He then tries the nonsense of that if his god could it exist, it does exist, which his no more than the ontological argument, which is meaningless since there is no agreed definition of "maximally great". Any human can always think of something greater. And ah, the argument from testimony, which every single cult uses and gee, there is no evidence to support their claims. Craig is quite an idiot.
What about the categorical imperative? "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you". That seems like an ethical code without god
The only thing 'Lost' about John Walton's 'Lost' books is his highly debatable, confusing, contradicting metaphysical ideas about Genesis. It smacks of modern day Gnosticism where only special scholars with special enlightenment can interpret the biblical record with authority. I've met more serious biblical thinkers who have serious problems with Walton. His ideas are dangerous and should be approached with caution and great biblical discernment.
If God exists, why there are babies getting cancer and dying because of it?
With all the unnecessary sufferings existing in the world, the only excuse for God is that he doesn't exists. If God exist, he would beg for my forgiveness. I don't care even if he exists, I won't worship him neither even if he does for being unimaginably cruel.
So God should apologize for dying on your behalf even though you don't deserve even a shred of His mercy? Your pride and foolishness, but I repeat myself, is nauseating.
But if there is no God your message is for others to suffer in silence? The very fact that men call upon God in their suffering, suggests God is not there to prevent our sins or our suffering but to save us in it and them rather than prevent us from ever know such things exist.
Given the availble evidence, most likely not.
This may suggest you are being selective in your gathering of evidence and may well be teying to gather only that evidence which excuses you from the demands real evidence would llace on you. The question you need to answer is, What evidence would there be that a God exists? You can not say suffering is any evidence that God does not exist as the bible explicitly says suffering exists and is a direct consequence of our unbelief and sin. You may say it is wrong for God to punish us for our sins, but you should know that is just an excuse for the athiestic world view would not make such a judgement call for apart from God there is no such thing.
@@somethingtothinkabout167 What evidence do you have for the existence of a god?
I always struggled to answer this question. I thought it would have to be a scientific answer to be satisfactory until I came across WLC many years ago. The cumulative effects of the philosophical and scientific reasons given do make a powerful case of God’s existence.
Obviously, this 'God' only exists in human imagination, as there is not one known fact that goes toward demonstrating this 'God' to be a reality.
You've got no closer to finding God than the last time we heard from you. Tons of intellectual discourses are available online from ancient sources to recent discussions, myriads of books and you still can't find one known fact. Anything you've been given in the past in discussion you reject, nothing is good enough for you. Why are you wasting your time (and our time) on something that you believe doesn't exist and then harass people who believe and have experienced otherwise?
@SpaceCadet4Jesus That is correct. Are you aware of any _evidentiary facts_ I may have missed?
@SpaceCadet4Jesus Are you suggesting that earnestly searching for that which is true is "wasting time"?
@@SpaceCadet4Jesus What evidence have I been given in the past? Be specific. State ANY evidentiary fact I have been presented with to consider.
@@Theo_Skeptomai Except you're not earnestly searching. You're just trolling. You're a known troll And not even an imaginative one, I might add.
👍🏽
Thank you, Dr. Craig!
Truth!
I can't prove God exists but there is evidence that he does.
No. There's not. If there were, you would be able state one _evidentiary fact,_ stated in a complete sentence that goes toward demonstrating this 'God' to be a reality. But won't do so even now when encouraged to. WATCH!
@@Theo_SkeptomaiYES, there is just from pure logic that your intelligence didn't come from a nonintelligence source. But obviously if
@@Theo_Skeptomai your Oxymoron belief that something NONINTELLIGENT created your intelligence is self defeating and A good reason NOT to believe anything you can't prove.
@@davidjanbaz7728 THAT is not an _evidentiary fact._ That is a baseless claim. Do you not know the difference? Yes or no.
@Theo_Skeptomai nothing can't come from nothing, everything as a cause, there's also the fine tuning of the universe and morality to name a few.
All those are solid reasons that can be defended quite well, especially if we make the effort of understanding them carefully. God is the one ultimate (and only true) perfect Being lacking nothing, not even Will and Consciousness or else He would not be Being in its utmost degree. And He is love because he GIVES of His Being to actualize living possibilities for all contingent beings to exist without ever exhausting Himself. Moreover, Consciousness is the Awareness of Being and Being is the Reality of Consciousness and created, contigent living creatures reflect this. I align myself with PaNENtheism in that we (and Nature with all its possible and expressed dimensions of contingent existence - universes) exist in God's Being as His real, noble dream even if God infinitely transcends all contingent existence. Finally, God contains ALL Possibilities, even the - illusory - possibility of contradicting God under the concept of "non-Being." Thus, the possibility of committing mistakes is allowed.
What solid reason was given? State one evidentiary fact that WLC presented that went toward demonstrating this 'God' to be a reality. State this fact in a complete sentence.
Craig is best philosopher ❤ people ask his iq and say about 150 but iq≠knowlegde he got phenomenal knowledge in philosophy and his intellectual skills are unbeatable Love from india 🇮🇳
Would not the "best philosopher" be able to present a _sound _ argument supporting his position - that this 'God' is a reality? Yes or no.
Dr. Craig was ready for this question. It’s almost like he’s heard it asked before. 😊
You think so dude?😅
I actually lol'd... out... loud 😉
Short answer: yes. Long answer: yes. Praise Yahweh the one true God. Revealed Triune as Father, Spirit, and Jesus the Son, each member fully God of which there is only one. 3 distinct Persons coexistant, coequal, and coeternal sharing 1 Divine Essence. Jesus lives and is God, Christ, King. Repent of your sin and believe in Him and be saved to eternal life!
I always felt that God existed. It was an emotional, spiritual feeling. I am Not one to have to justify or prove to others.
But it’s good to be able to discuss the issue with people who are seeking in a way that’s helpful to them.
First hope get heart from dr craig ❤
The FT universe argument fails to establish anything. A universe with constants that are consistent with our biological existence is the ONLY universe that we biological observers could possibly observe. We cannot logically observe a universe that is incompatible with our existence! So, observing that our universe is compatible with our existence as observers is not at all surprising. On the contrary, what *would* be surprising (if not impossible) is to observe a universe that is Incompatible with our existence!
Question. How do Protestants know the 27 books of the NT are the only inspired books that should be included in the canon? Hebrews, for example, was heavily debated in the early church as to whether it should included since authorship is uncertain. Same with Revelation. Where in the bible do we see a table of contents of which books should be included? Where in the bible do we see guidelines for how to select said books?
As a muslim (which is irrelevant) , i still struggle with this question (it does not trouble me or make me uneasy nonetheless) specifically on the part of limiting god, and i think that is actually a good objection. Well, one can summarize or rephrase the question in this way: can god break the rules of logic whenever he please? (No rocks or square circles are needed!). The problem is that i see that the rules of logic are the creations of god, if he cannot disobey the rules, then he is obedient to them (and that they are stronger than him) which i do not accept. See, it is not necessary for god to obey physical laws (since you would say that we can have different laws in a different universe which is evident) then why should he follow the rules of logic? Surely they are of stronger type and form and we did not observe (not a single time, that they got broken), now we can ask, are the rules of logic must be the same even in a different universe or they can be different in different universe just like physical laws? This question may not seem as obvious as that of the physical laws. You see, the notion of the impossible seems to be imposed on us and on the universe. The question can not be tackled due to limitations on human mind. More tools are needed for this question to be answered which i do not think we have (or we will in the future).
To be saved by Grace is explained in scripture. The grace of God leads you to repentance. Grace is the way we come to faith and is given to us by God. The reason we come to God is because he calls us and gives us ears to hear. That is what you might call Grace. And that is why you’ll see in scripture that says those that come to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of those who. diligently seek him. Four without faith it is impossible to please him. So you cannot come on your own. You have to be given the gift of faith which is given to you by God. And it is by the scripture by preaching that one here’s the word of God, by which God has opened our ears and given sight to the blind so that we can hear and see it and believe. Faith is the evidence of what it’s not seen, and the substance of what is hope for.
The person who wrote Genesis 1:1 verse took and knew obviously what they were writing so either they were smart or stupid to have or not have believed it
Whoever wrote the first line sentence of Genesis 1:1 verse believed what they were writing at first obviously
People give their own lives purpose. No gods required.
Yes but ultimately you have to concede that if there is no central point by which all our ambitions and self given purposes can be grounded with, we ultimately must face the fact that giving yourself purpose is simply that. You who have no authority, giving yourself, who has no actual worth (on a naturalist world view) purpose. You can call a rock a squirrel, and then later a cloud, but it is still a rock, and you are still dreaming if you think self imposed purpose means anything, when you could wake up the very next day and 180 on your beliefs and nothing meaningful would actually change. Once again this is only for those who hold to a naturalist worldview. But don't take my words for it, see what your own prominent scholars are saying about it
Your life ultimately has no purpose if God does not exist. Doesn’t matter how much fun you have or how much money you make if you’re just gonna cease to exist anyway. We didn’t create ourselves, and our parents didn’t create themselves. The first humans didn’t create themselves, and to say an explosion from absolute nothingness created everything is a really ignorant, illogical and comical thing to believe. You don’t believe because you don’t want to. It’s not that there’s no evidence. There’s plenty. I searched for not longer than a month or so and the amount I found makes me laugh at atheism. You only believe in God if you want to believe.
@@hezikiawilliams392 Ultimately, my life has whatever purpose I choose to give it. No gods required. Our actions in life affect other people, and continue to affect them after we die. That matters.... I don't believe that anything exploded from nothing, and I'm not sure of anyone who does. What evidence do you have for a god? I hear lots of theists claim there is plenty of evidence, but I'm yet to see any of it.
Even if the LCA succeeds, the 'necessary being' could be the universe itself. The proposition that 'nothing exists' is logically incoherent. So something HAS to exist, necessarily.
The universe had a beginning. A necessary being doesn't begin to exist. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos No, the big bang does not necessarily indicate that the universe had a beginning. While the big bang theory describes the early expansion of the universe from a hot, dense state, it does not imply that this state was the absolute beginning of time and space. The big bang may not necessarily be the beginning of all existence. There could have been a universe (or an infinite number of universes) that came prior to ours, making our universe just one phase in the cycle of universes.
Can god create a stone only without making a strong gravity with his own power to attract that stone the answer is no probably.... but if you say the stone needs gravity and may with his power is a good question, but the answer is yes... if god makes a gravity so strong to attract that stone with his full power and he has to lift it with his own power then he might not be able to lift it.... none could lift it as it would be a gravity god with a strong stone that doesnt get obliterated by that strong gravity.
Let’s go Craig! ✝️✝️✝️
That’s why I never forget to send my slaves to make sacrifices to Zeus. Essential.
What does that have to do with anything?🤨
Wow that was so funny. Ha ha ha ha. You should of said Thor it probably would of been funnier *slaps knee* ha ha haaaaaa
@@Shyguy71588 tough crowd.
Ephesians 1:11-12 teaches middle-knowledge because it says that v11 "made an inheritance, having been predestined" [...] "to the end" [are] v12 "we who *first* have hoped in Christ". In other words: God knowing who will hope in Him comes *first* and then we are made and inheritance having been predestined to the end of glorifying him
Technically, this would show God's foreknowledge, but not necessarily middle knowledge, since it doesn't teach that God knew *logically prior to the creative decree* what people would freely do. This is why Dr. Craig says that middle knowledge is consistent with Scripture and is the best explanation for much of the biblical data, but not explicitly taught by Scripture. - RF Admin
“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.” Philippians 2:5-8 KJV
Aliens created us not God
How do you know? And... shifting the beginning of life to another place in the universe does not answer anything about the beginning of fysical life. And surely does not mean human life has any purpose. Why do anything if your/my life is without purpose and meaning?
Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 LSB [13] The end of the matter, all that has been heard: fear God and keep His commandments, because this is the end of the matter for all mankind. [14] For God will bring every work to judgment, everything which is hidden, whether it is good or evil. Praise Yahweh the one true God. Revealed Triune as Father, Spirit, and Jesus the Son, each member fully God of which there is only one. 3 distinct Persons coexistant, coequal, and coeternal sharing 1 Divine Essence. Jesus lives and is God, Christ, King. Repent of your sin and believe in Him to be saved in eternal life!
Life would be *more* meaningful if there were a loving God who interacted with us. Sadly, in our experiences, there is no such God. Thankfully, life can have *some* meaning without God. Before Christianity, before the Bible, humans were able to get on with life just fine. They lived to maximize their flourishing and the flourishing of their loved ones, which is what even Christians end up doing anyway in this life on earth. It's perfectly rational to live for this flourishing, or eudaimonia as Aristotle called it. The naturalist commits no epistemic error here. There is no grand purpose to life on naturalism, which is tragic. But the tragedy of life is a truth we need to face head on instead of running away from.
It is sad indeed that you have no experience with the just, wise and loving God yet. You can if you want, as many people have experienced. Look at Ayaan Hirschi Ali for example. Naturalistic material is not the only thing that exists. You exists, if that means anything to you. You are more then brainwaves. There are deterministic things and there is freedom, there is hate and love, there are lies and there is truth, there are automatic things and there are living things, there is missing your goal and there is purpose, there is (hell like) dispair and there is hope. Come on, go and have the adventure of asking, listening and experiencing that God is real and turns lives around for the better and can give also you a new, whole, spiritual heart and cleanse your consiousness. I pray that you dare to accept the challenge of your life!
It’s funny you desire for God to interact with you when you refuse to believe in him anyway. God will interact with you if you truly desire to believe.
This is exactly what I think. The essential part of Christianity is the resurrection. If Christ is resurrected, he could have even had a human father, and God could have still worked his divinity and nature through him. I don't think this is the case, but I do believe Jesus to be resurrected/risen from the dead.
Bingo, and God used Israel's rejection, His Elect people, to bring salvation to the Gentiles, His Grafted In people!! But when "The fullness of The Gentiles come in" He'll turn back to Israel whom He foreknew, and so, "all Israel shall be saved"!!
The purpose for this material flesh is for humans to realize who they actually are and to better themselves so they can move higher to Self-realization. The earth is the manifestation of material for the enjoyment of the flesh. But a tool to enlightenment.
What you’re saying is humans will evolve to be like Gods, which is not gonna happen. That’s a hilarious theory and it’s a substitute for people who refuse to believe in God.