For full-length videos subscribe to ru-vid.com -------- 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
Church won't drive people off religion, it will drive them out of that church and into another one. "Who hurt you?" is in the top ten of stupid things people say to atheists. Not only that, the "Who hurt you?" defense because you can't fathom people has very good reasons to not believe the same as you is childish, reductive and frankly insultingly condescending. Can't expect less from WLC and ilk.
Bible genesis first chapter contains so many scientific mistakes. Look Zakir naik debate with William Campbell on Quran and the Bible in the light of science. Hope christian people benefits from this debate because muslims already benefited alot from this debate.
Do you really see Zakir Naik as a good debater? I think the Qu’ran has plenty of errors of all kinds. However, I think, even more so, that Allah is not God. I think the Christian message is much greater than Islamic Soteriology and that Allah cannot even qualify as God. you. I want the give you a simplified and less technical explanation of the Christian message while also giving reasons for why I believe Allah cannot be God. So, you could ignore me, but I REALLY hope you don’t. I want you to know that I care about you and I want you to know the truth. You seem like an intelligent person, so, while what I’m about to tell you may not change your mind, I hope you seriously ponder it and consider it’s rationality: To put it simply: 1.) God is perfect and set laws for us to follow. 2.) We have broken those laws and must offer a perfect sacrifice/payment (because God and His laws are perfect) in order for Justice to be served. 3.) Humans broke the law, so humans must pay. 4.) We are sinful and we cannot become a perfect sacrifice. 5.) God is perfect, but He cannot pay because He is not a human. 6.) God is perfect and just, so He can not just forgive people without any justice (any god who claims to be perfect, but is unjust by simply forgiving people is not God at all. this “God” would not fit the definition of God: a maximally great being.) 7.) God is loving and does not want us to be punished. 8.) Therefore, because God is all powerful, He became truly human, but He remained truly God at the same time. 9.) God needed to be truly human (in order to pay) and truly God (in order to be sinless.) 10.) That’s who Jesus is. He lived the life of a human but without the sin (even the Qu’ran and Hadith affirms this (Surah Maryam 19 and Sahih al-Bukhari 3286). His flesh died on the cross. And, in doing so, fulfilled perfect justice, grace, love, mercy, and wrath (demonstrating His omnibenevolence). Then, Jesus rose from the dead in order to show His power over death because He is truly God. Allah cannot demonstrate his omnibenevolence; rather Allah shows his cruelty by causing Jesus to merely “appear” like He died (Surah An-Nisa 157-159). In doing so, Allah creates the biggest false religion in history and deceived billions of people, which he will send to Jahannam. No other religious deity can ever demonstrate such omnibenevolence. And, because no other deity can, no other deity fits the definition of God: a maximally great being. Here is a syllogism: If God is defined as a maximally great being, which would include omnibenevolence, then, if Allah isn’t omnibenevolent, Allah can’t be God. God is defined as a maximally great being. Allah is not omnibenovelent. Therefore, Allah cannot be God. Please, bro, turn to Jesus 🙏🏽. He is THE way, THE truth, and THE life. There is no other name under heaven by which we are saved. It is through Christ ALONE that we are saved. I hope you seriously think about what I have written ❤.
Alex O'Connor, Joe Schmid, and Liz Jackson (atheist, agnostic, and Christian, respectively) are the three horseman of the AWESOME young philosophers of religion.
To understand the 'unpardonable sin', let us ask ourselves what is the purpose of The Holy Spirit of Truth? His purpose is to draw us and seal us in relationship with God and His Christ. What then would be the antithesis of this? It would be knowingly willingly giving ourselves in relationship to His archenemy, the deceiver, the father of lies (and flies), the one whose royal name has been removed, the god of this broken world....THAT one! There is NO pardon for this because: 1) the adversary jealously keeps what belongs to him...and 2) there is no death available as a pardon for those who are marked with his mark.
well not quite, it's more complicated than that. Specifically, we don't know what happened at the big bang, or before the big bang. There could very well have been something there when the big bang happened. We don't know. and also obviously the big bang does not prove the biblical narrative of creation events :P
You misunderstand the video. First the case is made as to what the scripture themselves imply regarding a created beginning from nothing. Regardless if you believe it or not. Second, you misunderstand that nature of knowledge. We can't "prove" anything with absolute certainty any more than you can prove with absolute certainty you exist. So it all boils down to what we think we know and are we justified in believing it. With that understanding, Christians are justified in believing in God based on the evidence from arguments such as the Cosmological arguement and the scientific evidence that supports the premises, as well as the moral arguement, and the fine tuning arguement. The theist position is much more justified than the atheist position. And if we are justified believing the universe was created, finally tuned for life, and contains moral beings with objective moral values and duties, then we are well on our way to consider the rest of the biblical creation narrative.
The Hebrew of Gen 1:1 has long since been recognized as being better translated as "In the beginning, when God began to create the heavens and the earth, the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Meaning that the formless earth and waters of the deep were already there before God does anything. That is, primordial elemental chaos precedes creation. Also, I'm pretty sure the sun and stars are a lot older than plants. What did the plants photosynthesize before the sun existed?
I could be wrong, but I think it's a better translation to just omit the "in the beginning" altogether, as it is replaced by "began". "When God began to create the heavens and the earth..." I believe that God created ex nihilo (see John 1:1) by the Big Bang, and the creation (formation) of Earth starts at verse 9 of Genesis 1. Verses 3-8 describe the creation (again: formation) of the heavens ("outer space" and the "sky").
It's shocking that Evangelicals don't seem to care about Craig's heresies, such as Apollinarism, his rejection of Nicene Orthodoxy, his comparing the Holy Trinity with the three headed dog Ceberus, and his false teaching and dating of Adam and Eve.
First, Dr. Craig's view is different from that of Apollinaris. That's why he calls it "neo-Apollinarianism." If you don't know the difference, he explains it here: www.reasonablefaith.org/podcasts/defenders-podcast-series-3/s3-doctrine-of-christ/doctrine-of-christ-part-5. Second, why think these things are heresies? Can you support your assertions? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos If it's not Apollinarism, then Craig should use another term, rather than Neo-Apolinarism. However he spins it, it's a denial of the incarnation. Further, All the Church Fathers reject progressive creationism (affirmed by Craig), and they were all young earth creationists. This is proven in the books "Genesis, Creation and Early Man", by Fr. Seraphim Rose; and "The Doctrines of Genesis 1-11," by Warkulwiz. And his rejection of Nicene Orthodoxy alone places him in the category of heretics. Lastly, his analogy of Ceberus is totally impious and blasphemous.
The sola scriptura argument has been good practically because those who don't follow scripture tend towards heterodoxy. However, it is essentially a circular argument and without scriptural support.
First, note that this is not a debate. Ben Shapiro doesn't debate Christianity, as that would deflect a lot of his income. The problem with the "Son of Man" in Daniel 7 is he's clearly not supposed to be God-in-the-flesh, or anything like that. Jesus keeps referring to himself as the "Son of Man," a term used by prophets like Ezekiel (never as the "son of God," which his non-literate worshippers keep proclaiming.) Daniel also refers to "a man" and someone "like a man" in later chapters, some of which might be angels, and other of which might be kings & princes of Persia, but none of whom are Jesus. Jesus also can't be God-incarnate if God is really his father -- Nobody (not even a god) can be his/her own father, nor can that person be his/her own mother. Since God didn't clone himself (or put on a human body and descend to Earth,) the whole idea that Jesus is God is clearly a contradiction of terms, especially when the Bibles says that "God is not a man." In Daniel, the "Son of Man" is brought before the "Ancient of Days" (presumably God,) and given "glory and a kingdom" which some presume is on this Earth, but might well be on another planet, or even in the spirit-realm. Still, none of this applies to Jesus, who never ruled a kingdom, anywhere -- certainly not on this planet. As for "glory?" I'll just presume that being flogged as a criminal and executed by asphyxiation on a cross & ensured to be dead is a suitable explanation that he received no "glory." Certainly, anyone can read praise & worship as a type of post-death glory, but we can also attribute that to people like Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and even people like Julius Caesar & Joan of Arc who (unlike Jesus) fought battles in war, but who (like Jesus) were executed for their transgressions -- be they against humanity or the Church -- but whose legends we still remember.
All Jews believed in at least binitarianism, that God has at least 2 natures, at the time of Jesus's life. It wasn't until afterwards that the Jewish leaders rejected it because of how many Jews were converting to Christianity.
Jews were looking for messiah but not god incarnate who is also God and part of Trinity. Jews were looking for a messenger like prophet Muhammad. Islam says that Jesus was a prophet and messenger that was send for the jews.
Eleven Reasons Why God Allows Pain and Suffering 1. Every evil act of man or men has been allowed by God as part of the gift of free will that God has given mankind. God will not tamper with our free will because if he did, then we would be robots and, therefore, not responsible for our actions. Furthermore, free will is a requirement in order for a being to be able to love in the agape sense of the word. Love is a choice, and choices can only be made by beings of free will. God made a promise to man to give him dominion over the earth, and God cannot go back on his promises. Mankind could have continued in paradise, but man’s sins have made our earth full of suffering and misery. While evil seems to run rampant in our world today; ultimately, no one gets away with anything. There will be a payday one day. 2. Pain and suffering will make us go to God, but good times, blessings, and prosperity usually keep us distracted from God. So if pain and suffering turns a person towards God it would seem logical that God allows the consequences of sin to run its normal course; into pain and suffering. Moral evil is the result of humans with free will acting on their selfish, sinful desires and lusts. 3. Just like a muscle needs resistance to be built up, likewise, adverse circumstances are needed to build up and test our faith in Christ and the Bible. Pain and suffering result from adverse circumstances. 4. God wants mankind to learn experientially that in spite of a man recognizing the truth about sin and his self-determination to be good, sin inside of man inhibits the ability to be good. No matter who a person is or where they are in the world if they were to examine themselves and all of mankind and be honest, they would realize everyone has inherent selfishness that cannot be overcome by education, training, medications, or any other way. 5. God has allowed sin to continue so that its consequences can be seen in the lives of people throughout history. The history of the human race is a testimony as to why sin is so bad that it cannot be allowed to continue into eternity; that’s why sin must be eternally separated from those who are holy. That’s why hell is real and eternal. 6. People will talk at length about the existence of God as an intellectual philosophical exercise but pain and suffering make people more serious about understanding and seeking God. Pain and suffering can draw a person to God OR a person’s pain and suffering can cause their anger to lash out and blame God. But it seems like no one wants to blame the devil for anything. 7. Satan's, Adam's, and Eve's choice to sin gives God an opportunity to display his attributes of mercy, forgiveness, and grace. God uses what is selfish and sinful and works it out for the ultimate good and for His glory. Everything that has happened and will happen is being used by God for an ultimate purpose. 8. One reason God allows evil to run its horrible course through human history is to give a glimpse of how bad the universe would get without God to intervene against sin. Do we believe in God’s Word that says the sufferings in the world are temporary? Our life on earth is but a vapor. 9. The physical world that we live in is a temporary stage of existence by which we have the opportunity to develop a faith relationship with God. The way we are now, the way we think and act towards God and others in our mortal bodies will be the way we think and act towards God and others in our immortal bodies. Do we believe God that all things are for our good even if everything appears to be bad and out of control? 10. For Christians, God sometimes uses pain and suffering to move us into action or to change. 11. The pain and suffering caused by evil is a tool to train and prepare believers for eternity where they will have an intimate personal relationship with God and rule and reign over a part of God’s kingdom. Ultimately, we are to take on the character and unselfish holy nature of God. We are to grow up and become like our heavenly father. 1 Peter 1:14-16 (NLT) tells us, “So you must live as God's obedient children. Don't slip back into your old ways of living to satisfy your own desires. You didn't know any better then. But now you must be holy in everything you do, just as God who chose you is holy. For the Scriptures say, ‘You must be holy because I am holy.’” No greater love has anyone but this - that a man (or woman) lays down their life for those they love. That’s why Jesus says to take up your cross and follow after me. Deny your self. If we love Jesus with our whole heart, then we will love the world by telling them the truth of the Gospel even if they reject, persecute, and kill us. These things we could never understand or learn to do except when there is pain and suffering from sin in the world.
This view must necessarily reject that God is the universal cause of goodness, thus rejecting His universal causality and thus His simplicity, and this is no surprise from Craig who rejects simplicity
//This view must necessarily reject that God is the universal cause of goodness, thus rejecting His universal causality and thus His simplicity, and this is no surprise from Craig who rejects simplicity// First, Dr. Craig's view is that God is the locus or ground of goodness by his nature, not by his causality. If it were by causality, then God himself would not be good unless he caused goodness, which entails that he is not necessarily good. Second, it's unclear why you think there's a necessary connection between causality and Thomistic simplicity (which is the type of simplicity that Dr. Craig rejects). Perhaps you can elaborate. - RF Admin
VAST multitudes seeking truth *fail to find* because they're easily *led astray* by worldly logic, specious religions, vain esoterism or mysticism. *I know I was.* I'm an ex neo-vedantic (hindu roots) new ager. I used to be into so much "cosmic/spiritual" stuff: trance channelings, ancient wisdom, gnosticism, psychedelic drugs, hindu gurus and buddhist variants. I was illuminated by the *kundalini (serpent) spirit* then 8 years ago I got rightly enlightened by the *Holy Spirit* which proceeded to show me what a *fool* I was before..... Spirit led to the REAL *Yahusha/Jesus Christ* and everything changed - *Paradigm Shifted* ..... This is being *BORN AGAIN* (John 3) and it's an ongoing surprise to me 😁 Turns out Spirituality is a *soul serious* business taken way too lightly by *far too many* ..... The end-times are clearly *dead ahead;* a time of *Antichrist* is near. What escapes the notice of our *self-absorbed,* glamour-saturated world is that we're in a spiritual WAR for souls. The immensity of *ignorance* is astonishing: supernal powers are BEDAZZLING the minds of the masses (Ephesians 6:12). We've inherited *ancient* SPIRITUAL *subversion:* *the Earth is fallen* ..... the holistic fields of nature are fallen state. *"Morphic Resonance"* is OUT of affinity with DIVINITY; *Death is all too familiar:* natural life hunts, KILLS and *feeds* on itself. Humanity is a spiritually *fallen race* highly prone to *deceit and delusion.* FRANKLY, we *need* a SAVIOUR and by Jesus Christ we have a GREAT ONE. As a new ager I couldn't believe (I was *damn sure* I knew better) but by the *Light of Spirit* Jesus really is the *Way, the truth and the Life* just like He said: no one comes to GOD except through Jesus, there's no other way (Matthew 7:13-14). Being a neo-vedantist I wasn't convinced, yet it transpires that the Bible is Spirit breathed, written by men inspired by the *Holy Spirit.* Jesus is vividly portrayed and endorsed in the new testament, in fact he's apparent in the old testament too (Luke 24:27 & 44) and by *His LIGHT* we're allowed to *see* that and *know Him.* Any intellectual concerns or previously perceived discrepancies/contradictions are ironed out and the supernatural narrative flows most beautifully.... The Bible is the Revelation of *Jesus Christ* (Isaiah 2:2-4; 9:6-7, 11:1-10 & 45:23, Daniel 7:13-14, Matthew 28:18, Mark 14:61-62, Revelation 1:7-8 & 18, Rev 19:11-21)
Why think they're baseless? The Gospel of Luke begins with the author stating that he interviewed eyewitnesses. Don't you think eyewitness testimony has evidential value? - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos Because they are not supported by evidence, and they rely on other clearly fictional stories being true. Like the one with the talking donkey, or the magic zoo boat. An anonymous author claiming to have interviewed anonymous people who claim to have seen supernatural events isn't sufficient to justify believing. That wouldn't hold up in any court, and you'd be a fool to believe in any other setting either.
@@somerandom3247 //Because they are not supported by evidence, and they rely on other clearly fictional stories being true. Like the one with the talking donkey, or the magic zoo boat.// Let's suppose that those examples are in fact "fictional stories." That doesn't entail that everything in the biblical documents is fictional. For example, there are no historians at any accredited universities in the US who deny that Jesus actually existed and was crucified to death by the Romans. Those are historical facts. So, the question is, how do you think they arrived at those facts? //An anonymous author claiming to have interviewed anonymous people who claim to have seen supernatural events isn't sufficient to justify believing. That wouldn't hold up in any court, and you'd be a fool to believe in any other setting either.// First, it's incorrect that the writer is anonymous just because he doesn't include himself in the text. The earliest records all indicate that the text was known to recipients as having been written by Luke. J. K. Rowling didn't include her name in any of her Harry Potter novels. But obviously that doesn't mean that the novels are anonymous. Second, it's not just the testimony of Luke. There are at least five independent sources for the burial of Jesus, which, of course, entails that Jesus was a real person who was really killed. Historians are thrilled to have two independent sources for an account, so the amount of confirmatory evidence for this and other facts is actually more than enough to establish them as historical. - RF Admin
@@drcraigvideos All my Harry Potter books have J.k Rowling's name in them... Im happy to say that a man named jesus existed at the time, and was killed by crusifiction. The question is how do we know that he was god? If all you have to go off is a book full of clearly fictional stories that it tries to pass off as the truth, then belief is unjustified.
@drcraigvideos Your claim that no historians at accredited universities doubt the historicity of Jesus is simply FALSE. Not only is this claim false, I attest that you are deliberately lying in that five minutes of responsible research would reveal clearly this is simply not true. Here is a partial list of accredited Biblical scholars and historians who have expressed profound doubt as to the historicity of Jesus Christ: Robert M. Price Kurt Noll Thomas L. Thompson Rafael Lataster J.D. Crossan Thomas Brodie Esko Ryökäs Burton L. Mack Hector Avalos Justin Meggitt Johnathan Z. Smith Matti Kankaanniemi Phillip Davies Carl Ruck J. Harold Ellens Richard C. Miller Herman Detering Arthur Drodge David Trobish Thomas Römer Christopher Hartney Juuso Loikkanen Zebra Crook Tom Dykstra Petteri Nieminen Norman Simms Darren Slade Chip Alsopp Fernando Barmejo-Rubio Gerd Lüdemann Richard Carrier Burton Mack Marian Hillar Carole Cusack Francesca Stavrakopoulou Emanuel Pfoh Christophe Batsch Derek Murphy Nicholas Peter Allen David Madison Clint Heacock Milan Milani Steve Mason Rodney Blackhirst John Kloppenborg Uriel Rappaport Dennis R. MacDonald Kipp Davis
Actually, most of the bitterness I see comes from the supposed believer than from the atheist. Most of the atheists I've encountered seem happier and free. Religion has ruined so many lives it's not even funny.
But don't you love little baby Jesus? You do know that the Virgin Mary wrote "What Child is This?". The guitar she played when composing the song is on display at the Hard Rock casino in Tampa. Honest.😊
@@at1970Some clown in 16th century Englishman named Richard Jones stole the melody from Mary and wrote "Greensleeves". The copyright infringement was settled a few years back and Jones was order to recite 50 "Hail Marys" while holding little baby Jesus.
No, WLC, _first_ we must determine if Jesus Christ was an actual historical person. I am not aware of a single _evidentiary fact_ that suggests he was. THAT is where an honest person would start.
hm... id say they didn't start there because it's already been established by undisputed historical evidence /professionals. They would sound idiotic if they started there. this is a conversation amongst learned men. They know Jesus historically was there just like Alexander the Great, Socrates, and Cleopatra
"Established by undisputed historical evidence"?!? Please state ONE evidentiary historical fact that goes toward demonstrating the historicity of Jesus. If you are aware of more than one, please submit the FIRST ONE. I would like to consider and discuss such a fact with you. State this evidentiary historical fact in a complete sentence. I am not interested in proselytizing or claims there is plenty if undisputed facts as you have _already_ claimed. I want ONE evidentiary fact to consider.
Well then your data needs to be updated my friend. Pretty much every single respectable scholar today (non-theists for sake of this conversation) notes that Jesus was definitely real, even if they don’t believe what he said. So update yourself: read Bart Ehrman, Josephus, Mara Ben Sarapon, even Robert Eisenman. All non-Christian. Christian mysticism today in the scholarly world, is just about as nonsensical as believing that the earth is flat. It’s a complete disregarding of all of the evidences for history, even from a non-theistic point of view. Once you update yourself on this, the answer to ask is this; what is the reliability of the gospels, and what does this mean for m3?
Jesus never existed as described in the bible. Some person named jesus probably existed back then. But the son of god with magical powers never existed. God doesnt exist either.
@@drcraigvideos there is no evidence any religion is true. I can make those assertions because I've seen no evidence presented by anyone for any god. It's all nonsense. It takes removing reason and logic to accept the myths in the bible. If there was evidence it would have been presented already.
@@drcraigvideos furthermore there is no evidence jesus existed. So I can assert that he didnt exist as portrayed in the bible. Sure there were grifters in the desert doing magic tricks. But the actual son of god never existed. God would have to exist first. He doesnt. The bible is so full of contradictions and flat out nonsense.
@@Science_Always_Wins //there is no evidence any religion is true. I can make those assertions because I've seen no evidence presented by anyone for any god. It's all nonsense. It takes removing reason and logic to accept the myths in the bible. If there was evidence it would have been presented already.// First, there are hundreds of arguments for the existence of God which have nothing at all to do with the Bible (www.camcintosh.com/theistic/). If you've never seen any evidence, then one has to wonder whether you've sincerely looked. Moreover, perhaps your concept of evidence is too narrow. If by "evidence" you mean something verifiable with the physical senses, then you're dangerously close to something called "verificationism," which is a self-defeating principle. It's self-defeating because it claims something which cannot be verified by the physical senses, namely the assertion that "Truth is only that which can be verified by the physical senses." - RF Admin
@@Science_Always_Wins //furthermore there is no evidence jesus existed. So I can assert that he didnt exist as portrayed in the bible. Sure there were grifters in the desert doing magic tricks. But the actual son of god never existed. God would have to exist first. He doesnt. The bible is so full of contradictions and flat out nonsense.// Even atheist historians don't go so far as to say that Jesus never existed. That's like the flat-eartherism of historical studies. Maybe you don't think he did miracles, but it's undeniable that Jesus existed. Also, the strongest historical arguments for the resurrection don't rely on the Bible being entirely without contradictions. They simply apply the methods of historiography to the New Testament texts. If you're not familiar with the actual arguments, we suggest you check out Dr. Craig's work on the resurrection at reasonablefaith.org, as well as books by Michael Licona, Gary Habermas, Craig Blomberg, N. T. Wright, Craig Evans, and Richard Bauckham. - RF Admin
I’m not sure how you can believe Christ existed and not believe his Claims to be the Son of God. ‘Claim’ is the key word here. This is the Lewis paradox… he either was who he said he was, or, he was insane. We can debate was he Devine or Insane, I don’t believe however we can debate whether or not he Claimed to be Devine. By doing this you are being selective of Christ’s accounts. And how do you know what to select?
Because there is insufficient evidence to show that he was the son of god..... We don't have any accounts from christ.... at best we have the accounts anonymous people claiming that jesus made these claims. Written long after jesus died.
Because that's where you must start when speaking with a non-Christian. You can't start by saying Jesus IS the Messiah. The non-Christian doesn't believe that. So instead you establish what Jesus thought of himself. THEN you move to why we should BELIEVE these claims of Jesus. The reason we should believe Jesus's claims is that his claims were substantiated through his miraculous resurrection from the dead. Then you move on to show why we should believe Jesus's resurrection is historical fact and not myth.
@@brendan9218 not simple! The real problem is all the different dominations and versions of the Bible!! Hello, yes Jesus I hope and pray for him to come back soon still there's too many different dominations and versions of the Bible
Jesus was the son of God and our savior and Lord without him we won’t go to heaven, and I hope everybody on earth excepts him into their heart before the Lord comes back!!!!!!!
Do you realize that you have asserted several claims to truth and, thus, have incurred a burden of evidence demonstrating the truth of those claims? Just wondering.
Mutlab there is someone who just decided that I am going to say all of this and then he is god till today and for how many more centuries I don’t know. Atheism works for me.
How much more proof do you need? Borne of a virgin, healed people who just touched his clothing, healed the blind, healed the mute, healed the leper, walked on water and of course there is the fact he rose from the dead. Thats kinda of a big one!!!
They don’t have any proof. The poor followers have been brainwashed into believing. Personally I don’t believe in anything until I see something myself.
No matter what evidence is being presented to them they will still not believe And because of that they will spend eternal separation form Jesus and the Father and the Holy Spirit
That’s because there is no proven valid piece of evidence. Logically, it doesn’t make sense. People who just ‘believe’ without any evidence or proof are not logical thinkers. Meaning the followers of religion are obviously not logically inclined.
Before you can make that claim, you'd have to present evidence and see how people react to it. Given the fact that no evidence has ever been presented, you can't honestly make the claim you made.
The problem is that NO _evidentiary facts_ whatsoever have been presented that go toward demonstrating the truth of these Chriatian claims. Do you agree?
@@unsulliedsickness8979 oh my! do you really think that you’re the first atheist in history to ask that question? You refuse to look at the evidence and you refuse to believe it. That’s the problem.
