Jesus effing christ, between Goodare, or Goodacre, whatever is correct, and the host, how much more could you both interrupt Carrier as he calmly and politely explains the error of your assumptions that are so in conflict with not just your beliefs, but what I must assume is also a core part of your identity.
3 месяца назад
« Let’s let Mark talk » the moderator’s constant refrain. He is so BIASED. So evident. Terrible moderator
Jesus must have existed - I once saw him on TV. If Dr Carrier was was gifted Blurays regarding all the dramatised Jesus movies and series out there - surely it is obvious Jesus existed.
Dr Carrier obviously believes Student Loans exist - as he had everyone else exercise charity to pay it off for him. How's that for contradicting the Protestant Work Ethic?
No one can say with certainty that the Jesus of the Bible existed what I find ludicrous is that theists seem to say it with such certainty which is ridiculous and laughable
@@Lobsterwithinternet my point being all of this could be a simulation. So no way of knowing if you’re real or maybe we are a figment of someone else’s imagination…
The moderator is kind of garbage. Richard let’s mark talk till he’s done and then they constantly interrupt Richard to “let mark talk.” How about let Richard finish. I also think it’s hilarious that they said Richard has the stronger bias because this would help an atheist destroy Christianity. What an intellectually dishonest thing to say. If Richard is wrong, it’s a discovery. If Mark is wrong, his worldview is shattered. Yeah, Richard has the bigger bias. This debate really should be had between athiest scholars because the theological bias is too big.
20 minutes in Are you kidding me The moderator only interrupted carrier once and that was because he interrupted mark And mark isn't really a christian He rejects traditional authorship if the gospels and major doctrines like the Trinity and alot more I always thought he was an atheist But apparently he is a liberal mainline christian And what the heck are you talking about are you saying that christian perspectives should be automatically dismissed just because you think they are biased
Justin is oily-notice how Goodacre gets in that reference to James, “brother of the Lord”, after which Justin quickly redirects the conversation so Richard never gets a chance to respond to that old canard.
@@MidlifeCrisis82 First off Jesus isn’t pro roman, He’s just non violent. That being said, many of the “pro roman” attitudes are just saying to keep peace, they are echoed in the many beliefs of sadducees, pharisees and individuals like Josephus. Anti jewish is probable, because He was an apocalyptic jew; the qumran sect was notorious for saying that everyone else but them would be destroyed.. it’s not a stretch for a apocalyptic preacher to have that same zeal.
@@MidlifeCrisis82 First off Jesus isn’t pro roman, He’s just non violent. That being said, many of the “pro roman” attitudes are just saying to keep peace, they are echoed in the many beliefs of sadducees, pharisees and individuals like Josephus. Anti jewish is probable, because He was an apocalyptic jew; the qumran sect was notorious for saying that everyone else but them would be destroyed.. it’s not a stretch for a apocalyptic preacher to have that same zeal.
Mark is a liar, quoting fake passages that aren't there. Typical apologist arm waving and misdirection. Richard and others have shown that Jews did expect a crucified savior in that time based on Daniel 9 and Isaiah 53.
@@ApolloThyrteen Nothing in the gospels happened. It's all fiction to cope with the daniel prophecy failing for a third time and the temple being destroyed with no messiah coming.
@@tomasrocha6139 He doesn't need to. He is relying on mainstream hebrew scholars to make his arguments. he cites all of his sources. nothing is even controversial in what he is saying.
I find the arguments for God--cosmological, teleological, ontological, moral, etc. to be shallow at best. These arguments can be used for ANY god. I want to know how WLC zeroed in on the Christian god.
At 1:12:28, WLC states that none of his arguments commit logical fallacies. He obviously doesn't consider circular arguments and cherry-picking to be logical fallacies.
"Objective moral values do exist, and deep down we all know it." That's just an argument from emotion. There are no facts behind this. He just "feels it". I for one do not feel it. I don't think there are objective moral values. We don't need a god to know what is right and wrong. We need an understanding of what we mean by right and wrong. I have moral values. They are not objective. I'm just fine with that. They work, and I would argue they are used by the vast majority of people, including Christians like WLC.
I love the sermon very thought-provoking, but I'm assuming this isn't a series and I can't find the rest of it. It would definitely be helpful if there was no link in the bio for the rest of the series
Excellent word! I count all things as. Dung compared to knowing Jesus. My job, my status, my religion, my family, my possessions, my accomplishments and even my religious works…I count as Dung compared to my relationship with JESUS👏🏻🙌🏻🙏🏼
Calvin is a sad human being. To devote your life’s work to disprove the existence of Jesus and his resurrection is so perverted. No regard for historical evidence which is not different to someone like my spouse who believes in reincarnation and necromancy. When the heart is of stone it is virtually impossible to accept the Spirit of truth 😪
It’s amazing! I praise The Lord for His Holy Word! I’m a Portuguese speaker and I’m learning English and I’m following who preach the gospel! Thank you for sharing that. So, I pray God bless everyone may know Jesus!
Could Peter not have learned how write Greek? I cannot write in Chinese but I am sure in 3-5 years I will be able to write a letter in Chinese. If I am passionate about the Gospel and want to impact people I will learn how to do it. Is that not a possibility?
Correction. Dr. Ehrman is not an atheist. Now, the first conflict clearly shows the theist is out of bounds. No evidence when asked numerous questions. Theist are snakes. By that meaning when presented with a solid objection that they cannot answer they slide around and view the soild objection is clear.
Gotta love how WLC presents no end of pathetic logical arguments that are 'probably' true, or close enough to believe in. But in defending the problem of suffering in the world he wants to place the burden of proof on the person pointing out that a supposedly perfectly moral God allows a child to die needlessly every 3.6 seconds. How probable is it Mr Craig that allowing millions of innocent children to die is the most moral thing possible? It's a ridiculous argument, and so typical of WLCs style. He has no problem lying, totally avoiding questions, or avoiding the burden of proof. Winning debates is what's important - not being a scumbag isn't.
WLC is such a stooge. He has to insist on the false definition of atheism. Atheism is not the claim that god definitely does not exist. Some atheists think this, but they are few and far between. I've never met one. Craig knows this. He has to lie to make his point.
Actually Dr Craig gives both a literal meaning of the word “atheist” as well as a philosophical definition (even THE INTERNET ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PHILOSOPHY starts with this definition - see link below). That many have redefined the word to include agnosticism does not change the literal meaning of the word itself. From the Greek “a” as a prefix means “no” or “not” and “theos” meaning “God”. A theist is one who believes in the existence of God. An atheist is one who does not believe in the existence of God. An agnostic is one who does not know if there is a god or not. Or one who claims that the existence of God cannot be known. Why abandon these standard definitions? Secondly, why resort to an ad hominem argument? Name calling only weakens an argument. Link: www.iep.utm.edu/atheism/
One has to admire Bart Ehrman’s patience in doing these debates. I am not sure someone like say Christopher Hitchens, would have put up with the arguments Dr. Licona presented here. I can very easily imagine Hitchens calling him out as a fraud (or worse) to his face. Dr. Licona’s whole presentation and his arguments really make a mockery of historical and even logical analysis. He is blatantly disingenuous, he distorts facts, and he intertwines empirical scrutiny with Christian theology - all while saying he is not doing so. It is revolting. His performance is a treatise on how to lie, distort the facts, all while appearing to be erudite and professorial. No, Hitchens would not have put up with this fraud - which probably explains why Dr. Ehrman is invited to debate in places like the Southern Evangelical Seminary. He treats Dr. Licona with the respect normally reserved for those who are not blatant frauds. What I am not really sure about is if this is a good thing or not. Is Dr. Ehrman inadvertently helping the fraudulent Dr. Licona - and others in the Seminary who aspire to be religious frauds - to refine their skills? Skills, I would add, that will come handy when these guys go out in a campaign to convert the ignorant? Or does Dr. Ehrman really believes he is advancing the noble cause of history by engaging in scholarly debate with disingenuous frauds that are only taken seriously within the confines of the fanatic religious South? I think the fact that Dr. Erhman comes from the evangelical tradition skews his feelings on engaging with the likes of Dr. Licona, even when the debate is really a charade. Or maybe, just maybe he thinks those who are honest to themselves will see the gaping holes in logic and historicity and perhaps come around to reason? We can hope.
Another easy win for Craig. Drange takes his time presenting only a few very weak arguments and doesn't defend them well at all. He starts with making the claim that if there were a god, he would make sure more people believed in him. But that seems to simply state "If it's not the way I think it should be, then there's no god", which doesn't logically follow. The problem of evil/suffering argument has always been a weak one. Problem is, it doesn't logically follow that to love someone you have to prevent all of their suffering. Indeed, we ourselves bring beings into the world knowing they *will* suffer! What's more, we don't even know for sure that the good will outweigh the bad; we just *hope* it will. And this is all because we just plain want a kid, so it’s quite self-interested. So if we can say we love our children, the Christian god can still be said to love human beings. At very least, this is true in Christian *Universalism,* which contends that everyone goes to heaven eventually. Universalists have dealt with the verses used in support of the hell doctrine, and the following verse presents an illustration of Universalism’s accuracy: John 12:32 "And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me." So there are but four possibilities here: 1. Jesus lied. 2. Jesus never ascended to heaven. 3. Jesus went to hell, and everyone's going to go there with him. 4. Jesus went to heaven, and everyone's going to go there with him. It seems to follow that, according to the bible, everyone's going to heaven sooner or later. So by what logic would we emphasize our temporary suffering over eternal happiness? But way to destroy your emotional argument, Drange, by suggesting in front of the world that the youngest children in families with more than 2 or 3 kids shouldn't have ever been born! Lol. Drange continues to say what god *could* have done but never gets around to logically tying these suggestions to why god *should* have done them. And the suggestions of making people smarter and especially more altruistic would of course entail hindering free will, which I thought was what his suggestions were supposed to *avoid.* Making someone "more altruistic", while not forcing them to help others, is like drugging up a woman to make her more accepting of sexual advances while not *making* her have sex with you. Doesn't quite change the fact that you're messing with their free will. His suggestion that god could've made it so that more people believed by altering how he (supposedly) handled Jesus' death and resurrection kind of destroys itself, when you stop and realize that obviously whatever *did* take place was enough to secure Christianity as a religion that eventually spread all over the entire world. So obviously, nothing more was needed. And his suggestions of continued, incessant warnings also seem to affect free will, in my view. If I want to watch an episode of Seinfeld online but god won't let me (insisting that I read a message from him instead), where is the free will in that? Drange also contends that knowing god was real would help people "be moral". But is it *really being* moral to just do the right thing because you know you're being watched and if you do something bad you'll be punished for it? I would say no. So in a way, this *too* would affect free will, in the sense that it would prevent even the *possibility* of actually choosing to do the right thing without any degree of coercion. Moreover, does this contention inadvertently support the idea some Christians hold, that belief in god will increase your likelihood of doing the right thing? I think so. And therefore as an atheist, I find it somewhat offensive. Drange begins his rebuttal on Craig's arguments with the usual "The concept of god is hard to understand" routine (despite he himself defining "god" moments earlier). But it didn't work for Sean Carroll in *his* debate with Craig, so I doubt it will work here. Especially seeing as how all of the characteristics Craig gave to god in his arguments are indeed perfectly coherent. Even "timeless" is fathomable, as many physicists and cosmologists (including atheists) talk of a "first moment in time". Asking them to explain what was "before" that first moment in time will not make sense. It is the same for this term "timeless". Drange ignores Craig's arguments (both philosophical and scientific) for the beginning of the universe, suggesting we should just "leave open" the possibility of it being past eternal. That sounds like something a *Christian* would say in response to any detrimental arguments against the existence of a god! Drange also refuses to even try and counter Craig's fine tuning argument, instead nitpicking that Craig worded it wrong. As I'm sure Craig will point out, you can't deny the second premise of the moral argument ("Objective moral values do exist.") in one part of your speech but then start talking about how there is evil in the world. Drange is indeed doing the same thing he's saying Craig *can't* do. He's attempting to explain the objective reality of evil in the world with the argument that god doesn't exist! So why can't Craig attempt to explain the objective reality of moral values with the argument that god *does* exist? Drange also refuses to concede that the bible can be regarded as a historical document just like any other. And he twists Craig's argument up to be "The resurrection itself is a historical fact", when that is not what Craig said. He said the three historical facts involving Jesus' death are best explained by the resurrection hypothesis.
Now in addressing Craig's cosmological argument, Drange says that he can think of other explanations but only follows with "It seems to me that the universe *could* be past eternal" but of course that's not actually giving alternate explanations! And it's certainly not dealing directly with any of Craig's arguments on the matter, either the philosophical or the scientific one. He continues to push the argument from nonbelief. But there is still no reason given for insisting that god would want everyone to believe in him *right now.* Again, especially according to Universalism, everyone will come to believe in him regardless (without it being too late to get to heaven), so it seems baseless to think everyone should believe in him during their natural lives. Drange points out several verses in the bible that show god acting in a way that require a process of time. But that's not referring to god's existence as a timeless being at the origin point of the universe; Craig's argument is that he became temporal in that first moment. He also argues that causes much precede their effects, but Craig refutes that later with the example of a bowling ball resting on a mattress. Drange doesn't get it, but it's true that if both came into being at the exact same moment in time and in those exact positions, the ball would be the cause of the mattress being pressed down despite not preceding the effect. At this point, he dismisses the fine tuning argument (again) by simply saying he doesn't think "the god hypothesis" is a good one. But of course it was *design* the argument's conclusion was pointing to, not a god per se. He pretty much waves the fine tuning problem away, and then eventually appeals to the multiverse theory, which assumes even more than a designer on no evidence. Drange claims that WLC didn't address his question about salvation but he did. It's Drange who fails to respond to Craig's reiteration that god could have a perfect understanding of whether or not knowledge of god would indeed lead to more desire to actually "know and love" god. And that's besides my earlier point about if Universalism is true. He states that so long as one of his explanations are better than Craig's god hypothesis, then that's enough, but he doesn't defend... *any* of them in that speech! For example, he doesn't address Craig's refutation of his use of the multiverse hypothesis *at all.* Craig explained how it was actually *worse* than the god hypothesis, and Drange neglects to say otherwise. He questions the logic of the concept of a cumulative case itself, which strikes me as desperate. Craig is right, though. The way I would word it is to say that the fine tuning argument's conclusion is made that much more probable by the *cosmological* argument's conclusion, and the resurrection argument's conclusion is made that much more probable by *those* two conclusions, etc. He suggests that we ignore Occam's Razor as well, and entertain the idea that the cause of the universe, designer of the universe, grounding of moral values, and explanation of Jesus' apparent resurrection are all *different.* Lol, that would be even sillier than just agreeing with a single one of these arguments and calling it a day. Drange then continues to get the moral argument wrong, thinking this time that the fact that people *disagree* on moral questions has some effect on its objectivity. But that doesn't follow at all. Indeed, the very point is that people *can* disagree, even unanimously, with a moral truth and it would still be a moral truth! In his closing speech, he reasserts that there would less immoral acts if everyone knew there was a god. Again, I find that to be insinuating that we need knowledge of such a being to be at our best morally speaking. And more importantly, if there is no such thing as objective moral values (which is what Drange argues) then there's no reason to expect or demand "god" to do anything at all. If there's no evil, then nothing god does or doesn't do can be considered evil. He ignores Craig's refutation of the argument that less suffering would better serve god's ultimate desire (to influence more people to seek a "relationship" with him), by just waving the facts about less well-to-do countries converting to Christianity more often away. Drange consistently misses the point about the ball and pillow analogy, choosing to fixate on how Craig said they could both exist for eternity. This is twice Drange has neglected to respond to the actual point by choosing to harp on grammar errors or misspeaking instead. Yes, Craig should've simply said "They could've come into being at precisely the same moment", but I think Drange knows what Craig meant and is just pretending to not have been corrected. Finally Drange, after waiting until his closing speech (where he knows WLC won't have the opportunity to respond) takes a swing at the resurrection argument by saying a lot of the accounts were written a long time after the supposed events. But I think historians would take that into consideration before agreeing on these facts about Jesus' death. And again, this sort of explanation doesn't account for the unlikely rise of Christianity in that time and place to begin with, considering how "unJewish" the idea of a savior dying and rising again was. Drange closes with reminding us that he still doesn't thoroughly grasp the resurrection argument to begin with. Again, it's not saying the resurrection itself was a historical fact, but rather the resurrection hypothesis would best explain the facts about Jesus' death.
So this is crazy. I just happened upon your excellent comment here when I searced for this debate. But your avatar is so distinctive I immediately recognized it from an FFVIII let's play I watched years ago. I love that we have this connection as well brother. I see you have some more FFVIII content I'll have to check out. Despite the critics WE know it's the best in the series. ;)
Have you ever looked into the history of other religions before christianity. Don't you see anything wrong with the fact that the unique ideas of christianity or even judism have all been done before ? Do you believe in angels and the devil? How can you preach something that you have no interest in how it started? Do you know I've been searching and can not find any historians that lived at the time or directly after jesus that talk about him at all like a magical god. The only one's that mention him sound like they are talking about a regular guy named "christ'. Oh and i saw a video of you laughing at shock of god asking atheists the question "Can you give evidence that atheism is true and correct? I can answer this question.. The proof that atheism is accurate and correct? So just to make more clear the proof that there is no god? The proof is anything that does not exist falls into a brain numbing loop hole of not being able to have proof of existence or have proof of its non existence.. So all you have to do is take anything you want to prove exist and ask 2 questions . 1.Is there any evidence that it exists? (can't be circumstantial) 2. Is there any evidence that it doesn't exist? If the answer is NO in both questions then it does not exist yet...so in summary if something does not exist it cannot have evidence for or against it & that itself is evidence that it does not exist...
Creationists always get confused about the Wellhausen/Documentary hypothesis. While it is indeed the case that the majority of academics no longer accept this model, it is still very very much a mainstream view that the Pentateuch/Torah was not written by Moses, but by many different people much much later than the 13th or 14th century BCE. The end of Deuteronomy speaks of Moses' death btw!
Another clear victory for Craig. Bill brings no arguments in support of the idea that God does not exist. Not one. Craig, on the other hand, brings his tried and true arguments for the existence of God, and as usual - there's no refutation of them. For anyone who reads this - I'd personally really like to see *some* atheist bring a valid argument against the existence of God... can someone point me to such an argument?
Shifting the burden of proof. One has to show a God exists before you should believe in it. We don't go around believing everything until it is disproved.
