Atheist Scientist gets DESTROYED after Challenging William Lane Craig on the Existence of God DEBATE 

"I realized, the God did create such rocks. He created your souls, and sometimes by rejected him, he describes it like a stony heart. Because of His gift of Free Will, without your help or allowing it, He can't move it. You have to let Him in. Same thing, He won't require that you go to heaven, he won't force you. But also you can't force him to let you in. You have to ask, and agree to His rules. He'll help you with the rules, and replace your stony heart, but only if you ask." That's not really the same thing, is it? God CAN manipulate people's wills...it says so in the Bible where it alludes to him 'hardening' the heart (ie making sure he refused to allow the Hebrews to leave) of the pharoah....but you think he just won't do it because he chooses not to do it.

That seems like a good answer to the question. It's along the same lines as there being certain things that God cannot do because they violate His own nature. Like God cannot lie. His word cannot return void. He cannot disown Himself. Etc. The question makes the assumption that God can do absolutely anything, but it has no grounding to assume that. The question is also a hypocritical logic trap. If God makes a rock so big he can't move it, then he can break it into smaller pieces and move it, or otherwise create within Himself the ability to move it. It is possible to be both powerful enough to create something beyond your capabilities to control and to then grow in capacity until you are able to control it. We do it all the time. If we can do it, I'm sure God is capable of it. Although, I'm not sure that's how God manages things from his position.

The too-heavy rock is an illogical concept that has nothing to do with God’s power. It’s like claiming God can’t make a square circle, so therefore He doesn’t exist. It’s foolishness.

@@BPond7not really. Had it been a god like shiva, then your argument would be valid, however the attributes given to Yahweh make the point completely valid

@@oponentgull186others4 So God can’t be omnipotent unless He turns logical contradictions into reality?

No, what happened to Job was evil and God permitted it and same applies to Joseph when he was sold to Egypt but at the end we all know what happened.

@LeaveChildrenAlone83 Hence He permitted it, He was aware and was present but never absent.

@LeaveChildrenAlone83 OP said “saying God permits evil is like saying light permits darkness “ well this statement is a bad correlation. In fact in the Bible time and time again has shown that God permits evil but at the end he used it for good either as a lesson or a test of character.

That’s not true at all. Light and darkness are two sides of the same coin. Good and evil are not the same way. Does the phrase “in the beginning there was only god” ring a bell? Notice how it doesn’t say good, evil, and god?

@LeaveChildrenAlone83 "Of course He’s always present, again, that’s not the point of the OP’s comment, it’s that God removes his protection, like removing a light, the darkness takes over." So removing protection is the same thing as allowing. If I open the screen door, I am allowing the mosquitoes in. And if God removes light he allows darkness to take over.

Well spoken

Hmmm. The same advice was given by Satan to Eve in Paradise. You must be atheist.

Where are you going with this? What lack of ability?

@@missleaneous2603 the ability he speaks of represents the free will that we are all born with. If you had a husband or wife that was programmed to love you, would you really feel loved? In other words regarding this specific analogy… why would a “yes” matter if I had no other choice but to say yes?

Well, it wouldn't, because eternal punishment or doing what you are being told wouldn't really be an actual choice now, would it ?

Waiting to do what? god lets 15,000 children die every day, is that number going to increase?

So when natural science is gone you find god?😂 anther way to say I’m arguing from ignorance

@@sonny8456 Religion is the best Ponzi scheme ever! so it will try any trick to convince you there's a magic man in the sky!

If that were true, believers would be providing strong, logical evidence of a god. Yet the silence continues.

@@majm9309 thank you sir

😂

Lol

Huh? He is staring with incredulity at the foolish scientist.

The face I make when looking at something disgusting

I was wondering why they picked this kid to have the debate with...

​@@nate78824 to look smart

@trapd00rspider Yes because we high iq redditors know that wlc and ben have only EVERR debated college students, totally no one else, lmao.

This was a very old video by today's standards. Craig has debated lots of types of ppl from high school math teachers, Calgary physicists, Pulitzer winning journalists, to RU-vidrs. Basically anyone that would get some screen time, and I'm sure Craig feels the circus is a form of ministry. My absolute favorite debate was against Sean Carrol when he schooled him on his strongest evidence that he was misrepresenting, the bord guth valenkin theorem. I'm the debate Carrol played a video message stating exactly that the research couldn't make any claims on the universe past the big bang. Craig stammered a bit, but later on after the debate reached out to guth who is sympathetic to theistic origins, to sort of revive Craig's position.

@@dited358 When Craig does go up against an actual, credentialed scientist, like Sean Carroll, he shits himself embarrassingly.

Haha he just looks like David Lee Roth period 😂

Don’t need an objective morality in absolute sense to object to the behaviour of a biblical character. Morality is ultimately subjective because it’s about preference In fact I don’t think a objective moral is even possible with or without a deity because both require a subjective start point

​@@Gumpmachine1We do not have your worldview where God is a pagan demon like god who is petty and finite. Human: limited God: infinite. For morality, which is a ought to be claim, it requires a perfect mind that knows all things, that can judge all things fairly. Then it can be true and objective. Humans having only finite minds can only come up with a subjective and therefore false morality. To exist at all and make sense God is the prerequisite for objective morality. Therefore God is the standard for morality.

@@realdiculous1 of course you’ve just interpreted all that through your own self admitted limited mind so it still boils down to your subjective view point that a deity serves as an objective start point It’s just whistling in the wind without a demonstration My opinion is that deity concepts were and are used as an extremely lazy attempt to solve a deeply troubling philosophical problem. Essentially the adult version of “mom says so”

Exactly

Gump, as a Catholic, my parents never used “because I said so” there was always a reason. Don’t do a because of b. We are made in God’s image meaning we are creative and thinking beings, we have to question but it has to genuine questioning. Subjective morality has led to people being sacrificed to gods, albino child used as ingredients for potions, people believe showing sexual acts a front of children is good. Etc etc. Objective morality has stopped those things. Our country is deteriorating because we are doing Subjective morality.

Can you prove that unicorns and leprechauns dont exist? You see why you cant disprove a negative? Its just the weak grounds of the argument i dislike

​@@darthnightstrike1808Unicorns do exist :) the Arab word for rhyno means unicorn. Idk about leprechauns though, I haven't been to Ireland

@@nikoRa656 i am friends with some short irish people... wonder if any of them are ginger.

@@darthnightstrike1808 sure, but that doesn’t excuse the *fact* that atheism is also faith.

@@Milton_Friedmanite but it isnt a faith, its the lack of one. What makes atheism a faith?

Bacon didn't at all invent the scientific method. Too bad you didn't attend one of those universities that in reality are rarely built by Christians in the modern reality we call reality.

Well said lol

@@evidenceplz I doubt it's true.

So?

Atheist build arguments. Also atheists: “arguments are not evidence”

yes!

I see not the slightest destruction taking place here. "The presence of evil is fully consistent with the existence of a loving god. Hence the burden of proof lies with the atheists." These are two bland and axiomatic statements for which no reason, no grounding is adduced. If the presence of evil is fully consistent with the existence of a loving god, then it would be indispensable to explain the difference of such a world and a world without a god. And the burden of proof continues to lie with the Christians, respectively any other theist. The statement that there is a god is made by the them. Atheists, in principle, demand evidence for this statement. It is, in essence, not a statement that there is no god but the rejection of the god statement in the absence of evidence. This is a fundamental epistemological principle, valid far beyond questions of theology. And no theist in the history of human thought has provided evidence for his belief. Including Dr. Craig.

@@Ashoerchen if u r an atheist u know that there is no God. If u r an agnostic u don't know whether God exist. For naturalist, nature is all there is.

Low-bar Bill has no beat. Only fallacies.

@@nagaseminarian NO!!!! I win

Duuuuuuuude 😂😂😂😂

😅😅😅

I think you'll find, Im the Beet magnet @@Beetmagnet

Ha

When did he change? Last I remember him he was spreading anti-semitic theories and attacking some Jewish rabbi.

It is, but he is the side show in this exchange.

Quite the word salad he conjured up there

I think you meant William, but I understand...

@@inquisitive_stranger You're clearly the clown.

You meant William I think. He loves droning on and saying nothing. Lying for Jesus.

>Gives you a pinpoint of God’s motives and design >You seethe over it and pretend it’s all meaningless. Little snakes, you lot are.

"Dr Peterson " Is it the crying baby Jordan Peterson? LMAO.

@@LGpi314if that is all you know of him, you are really missing a lot. Put your judgment aside and listen more.

​@birgittabirgersdatter8082 Well here is from someone who watched all his videos and followed him for years. Peterson is a joke. In his earlier days he was against the idea of religion. It was a useful tool to learn from about culture. Then his ass became a grifter and now he swears by the thing that made him so much money, just like most people who make money in the church. His drug addicted ass contradicts this shit outta himself and only makes sense to people who can't pay attention or are far to dumb to realize what he is saying is nonsense. JP has also been called out not only by his friends and peers on psychology but by numerous others on the fact he spews endless bs and admits to it(or use to) but will continue on as if he wasn't just called out on it.

​@@LGpi314 your stupidity is so profound it actually rejects you as one of its sons

@@birgittabirgersdatter8082 Put YOUR judgment aside and learn some more. Pot, meet kettle.💩

Wait, can't a god fantasy resurrect him?

​@highroller-jq3ix Absolutely but it's not time yet

@@stevennieves6590 But it always isn't time yet. It hasn't been time yet despite regular promises that it was time for 2,000 years.

I think many theists want a god because he encourages them to interfere in the politics, ideology and sexual matters of other people.

Another atheist Elliot Gould said that atheism was created so that we can have our sexual freedoms & other immoralities!! BTW atheist do not believe in aliens & ufos!!

Who is how?

@@LGpi314 Who you think and why?

@@MitchellWilmot low bar Bill is full of bullcrap and fallacies.

Its a little strange but in that era of Craig's touring debates, his most publicized appearances were against either the unskilled in debates of that format, or the uninformed. I like the level of refinement he has and ability to follow the formal debate style, but that doesn't mean his position was based on the correct reason of the research. Often times Craig appealed toward an alternative definition, or left the definition up to the listener to define for themselves as a sort of trap.

​@@HH-ru4bjDr. William Craig is a 70 year old professor, it used to be that Atheists were people of science... not many today know such docturn in complexity like a Christian like Dr. Craig knows his bible's contents... I'm an Atheist btw, in case you call me biased

Never gets old. LMAO

And yet he chooses to use the worst possible answers... Or maybe he doesn't have any good ones?

His answer that fire can be used to warm you or burn or water give you life or drown you was excellent because it shows that good and evil are a choice. It answers the question why there's evil, it's not because of God's design, it's because of our free will gone awry.

@@ristonalaimo5048 Sorry, but WLC answer is non-answer. It implies that God purposely has created world with pain and suffering. But we are talking about God who's, all powerful, all knowing, and all loving. It is a contradiction because such God knows and has power to create world were suffering is not necessary to accomplish his goals. We can remove the free will from the equation because not all evil is caused by human actions; volcanoes, wild fires, floods, earthquakes, diseases, parasites... What "greater good" can be derived from the pain of a 3-year-old child dying of cancer? WLC describes mechanisms of the biological evolution i.e. natural selection and adds to it a magical puppeteer without reason. His answer is nothing more than list of speculative assertions without providing any tangible evidence.

​@@tjblues01 Like WLC said, God didn't want to build a terrarium. If you read the Bible, you will see 1) God created the world perfectly i.e. the Garden of Eden 2) Man rebelled, eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil and the devil's behest, bringing in sin from our free-will, eating from the ONE TREE that God said was forbidden, and now we live in a fallen world. I don't see how those things you mentioned can't be explained by mankind disobeying God and ruining eternal perfection by our own fault, including earthquakes etc. I think, also, to assume that God doesn't have a greater good stored up in eternity is short-selling God's ability (which, ironically, includes interfering with free-will if He wanted). You know, I look at God as a computer programmer (and this is a poor illustration) and He can program whatever He wants. But, God created everything, and weather or not you agree with it is not even important, what's important is that He is in total control anyway and sovereign, but, for a brief time, we get to see what the world is like with God not in control and our free-will and where it leads us and how much evil it causes and how evil we are WITHOUT God in control. We need God's control, that's the point: the point of life is not happiness and pleasure, it's about discovering how good God is and how evil mankind and the world left unregulated is.

​​​​@@tjblues01without the presence of darkness, how could you ever take light for anything but granted? Likewise, without the presence of evil, the concept of good becomes meaningless. That's not an accident.The dichotomy exists so that our choices GENUINELY matter in the most meaningful capacity. If there was no evil, you couldn't help but do good, and if you're not consciously making a decision to do good, then you are not actually *doing* anything. You would essentially be some kind of weird living art piece, or an exotic oddity living in a menagerie. Because Good and Evil exist, every choice we make becomes binary. You ALWAYS have the option to do something evil, and you ALWAYS have the option to do something good. Nothing exist within a gray area. Even something like "I'm eating a sandwich" falls along the binary of Good and Evil. If you are ACTUALLY hungry, need the sandwich for nourishment, and you mind not to overindulge/are not depriving your starving child in order to secure more of the sandwich for yourself, then that is probably a relative GOOD. God wants us to be healthy and to nourish our bodies when we're hungry. On the other hand, if you stole the sandwich from a starving child, then threw up the contents of your already full stomach in order to make room for that sandwich, that is probably going to land in the Evil camp. Now some things are more evil than others, For example; if you are just eating a sandwich because you're bored, while not nearly as evil as the scenario mentioned before, it would still be considered gluttonous, so therefore it would fall into the category of evil. (Albeit mild in its expression) No decision is objectively neutral, ever.

Kgeo...yes. John Mcarthur does a wonderful sermon on why God allows evil....the best I've ever heard. Finally satisfied my heart.

We know pain is a good. Those born with CIPA (without the ability to feel pain) rarely live past the age of 25. This is because they injure themselves without knowing it. Similarly the numbness caused by leprosy can greatly contribute to resultant symptoms and cause death through unnoticed injuries becoming infected, leading to blood poisoning. Pain is a necessary biological function in order to help maintain our lives. But apart from that, emotional pain, or suffering, can motivate us to overcome dire situations that we might otherwise obliviously remain in until it's too late.

@@madwhitehare3635 Next time you listen to someone make excuses for fairy tales, try using your brain, if you can.

You're straw manning and question begging.

Stumps us, huh? Are you denying the evidence of historical documentation of Jesus Christ? Is that not sufficient for you? Christian historians, Jewish historians, Muslims and even secular historians have recorded that Jesus really existed in the first century. The question is no longer whether Jesus was a genuine historical figure or not. The question is ‘Who Is He?’…

You have copies of copies of copies of copies from lost manuscripts by unknown authors. That is merely a thin claim. No, we need physical evidence for a physical claim. It's called logical parity. @@steveculver6116

And Ayer also came to believe in God. He was ultimately led to believe by the power of reason.

Hahaha! This just gave me the image of atheists being a bunch of Karens after they die. 'I demand to speak to the manager!' 😂

This does not explain atheist or say Muslims or bhuddists having NDEs and seeing Jesus.

"Manager of the Universe." So his atheisim couldn't even say the word "God of the Universe." at his point of death. Wow, just wow.

Did you mean to type "while he was dead?" After I die, I won't be near death. I'll have stopped living. It seems to me that each human person is composed of a human body and an immortal human soul. My soul will survive after I die. But I won't. Christ will need to "put me back together" when he returns. My body and my soul are parts of me, So, I'm neither of them.

I never understood this claim. It's always used as a theodicy to justify the worst evils that routinely happen in the world. But obviously there are tons of people who live charmed lives devoid of the worst suffering imaginable. There's nothing that requires such suffering, like childhood leukemia to make it possible for us to have a wonderful honeymoon or birthday.

God is eternal. God is good. Good things have always existed with God long before any evil came about.

@@bobbyadkins6983so then why did god bring evil into the world?

@@jonathan4189 He didn't bring moral evil into the world. Satan was created as a good angel. But he turned against God. He wanted to be worshipped. Pride filled his heart.

@@bobbyadkins6983 but satan was evil. And God created him and created him knowing what he would do so it’s not like it was an accident. In fact knowing the outcome for certain means the god created satan to revel on purpose. There’s no other way to understand it if God remains both all knowing and all powerful. God created other angels who didn’t rebel. He created them on purpose in that way.

As long as humans exist in their current form, there is always a potential for evil

But we have His word and His word tells us His plans for us. “ But God demonstrates His own love for us , in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us. “ Romans 5:8. Now that’s God’s plan to reunite us with Him. You either accept or reject it, that’s on you.

@@gingercake0907 Is that sarcasm? LMAO

@@LGpi314 No , that is a statement that debunks what you just commented. You can pick up a Bible and read it with intentionality and you will learn what “ God wishes, traits, goals & what he wants you to do with your life.”

God didn’t write the bible. At best it’s hearsay, at worst it’s completely fabricated

@@gingercake0907 Too bad you can’t prove any god exists.😂

If you have to use philosophy to justify superstition then you are inventing circular argument. Religion has to be reinvented and inflicted on every new generation by a decrepit group of child tormentors. Curiously phonies like you like to use the word evolution when you deny it exists. Your self mockery seems pernicious.

Says the person who can't spell atheist.

@@bvm3925 …Lol, you proved my point exactly!!!! Hook line and sinker!!!

@@freedom4life312 wow, so clever...too cunning for me. I probably won't sleep tonight.

😂 pure gold

I don’t think he’d approve of Dave’s lifestyle 🤣😂🤣.

It probably also depended on hallucinogenic drugs, dreams and near death experiences. People who used drugs would be easily led to believe there's a whole 'nother world populated by demons and deities. So the scoundrel used that to his advantage.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.

@@rizdekd3912 The biggest scam is to tell people they're sinful and there's a better place after death, but to be saved a spot they must make donations.

@@AtamMardes "The biggest scam is to tell people they're sinful and there's a better place after death, but to be saved a spot they must make donations." And oddly enough both places are 'created' by this 'god' meaning god chose to make this world so that sin would corrupt it, but chose to make the other world so sin would NOT corrupt it.

​@@rizdekd3912false

That is what low-bar Bill. LMAO

The atheist destroyed him self by stupidity yah

I do believe it’s literal but if you have an understanding of ancient Hebraic literature you would see that it’s a poem, and so to believe that it was perhaps just a quick way for God to explain what we needed to know from creation is not so unforgivable. It’s even somewhat likely given how complicated we see life truly is now that we’ve got a better understanding of it through science.

Do you believe the human race is 6000 years old?

No god has made themselves known to every single human that ever lived. Thus, we know that a god which is omnipotent and wants a relationship with every single human......cannot exist.

@@christianhayter it’s not that simple. I suggest reading the Old and New Testament and thinking deeply about God’s character and you will see that it is not that simple

@@stactionsmedia3318 if that is true I feel sorry for him.

@@joefriday2275 Yikes. No, of course you're right. God magically created Adam and Eve from mud and all of humanity is descended from them. Yep, for sure no question about it!

@@josh8491 Oh no, life magically came from a muddy pool, formed into the vastly complex cell, all the while without collapsing into chemical equilibrium then for no apparent reason 'evolved' into completely different organisms for which we have no evidence...unless you count the cartoon pictures in books and the merry game of affirm the consequent that evolutionists play.

@@joefriday2275 that’s only something creationists say; few million evangelicals mostly in the US and some extremist Muslims. Everyone else on the planet accepts gravity, time, evolution, and the shape of the earth.

@@joefriday2275 Pretty much the whole world knows that science never claimed that "nothing exploded, then rocks came to life.", that is, as Jonathan says, something that only dumb creationist 'muricans keep saying. Go study some actual science.

That wasn’t his point at all 😄. It’s a popular thing for atheists to say that they are smarter than theists. Craig is just pointing out that scholarly people in universities are also Christian. You’re saying Craig is appealing to authority, but that’s precisely what the other side always does. It doesn’t prove anything either way. He wasn’t making his only case for God in this 6 minute video. You should look into his lectures.

how would we rebel if we were forced to do what god wants?

Ok? Doesn’t make it wrong. You cannot prove a negative.

​@oponentgull186others4 I can easily prove you there's never been a middle eastern united States president.

@@critianclassico8208 respectfully, no you can’t. More than a few politicians have fake documents of some kind tied to them. How do you know that birth certificates aren’t one of them?

Science actually often uses negatives to prove things. A null hypothesis would be a great example. We generally assume things are true until proven otherwise. A regular hypothesis is something that someone tries to prove, while a null hypothesis is something that someone tries to disprove. Veeeeeery common in scientific research.

@@ieatsparklez Where tf did you get this definition of a null hypothesis? Urban dictionary? Null hypothesis is a test against something assumed as true to find proof that it is not always the case. A null hypothesis isn’t proving that an assumption is wrong. It’s proving that there is a point where it isn’t true. It isn’t proving a negative, it’s proving a different positive claim.

thanks!

No god has made themselves known to every single human that ever lived. Thus, we know that a god which is omnipotent and wants a relationship with every single human......cannot exist.

@@christianhayter when the first two people who ever existed walked the earth, documented history tells us God revealed himself to them. They were the only people on the earth so he revealed himself to every single human who lived at that time. The problem with atheists is they are notorious history deniers. That said, William Shakespeare hasn't revealed himself to every single human who ever lived. Does that mean he cannot exist? Your point is a non sequitur. God does reveal himself to everyone. The issue is not everyone accepts him when he reveals himself. So the question is what evidence would you accept? Please accept documented history; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).

If there is no God, then there can be no logical necessity, right? So there would be no logical fallacy if there is no god.

@@rizdekd3912 if there can be no logical necessity then your comment is not based in logic. Please accept logic; declare Jesus as your Lord, believe in your heart that God raised him from death and you will be saved (Romans 10:9).

If someone is accused of murder you don’t just prove “aah yes he murdered the person”. You prove a bunch of things and CONCLUDE that the person murdered the other. I see your profile picture is a South African flag, so I’m gonna use examples you’ll know: 1. Take Oscar Pistorius, no one saw him kill Reeva Steenkamp… in the trial the prosecutor, however, proved that Oscar didn’t have his legs on, that he shot for shot through the door, that he didn’t check to see if Reeva was not in the bathroom. He shot through the door while being fully aware that there is a chance that it could be her. He tried to smash the door with a cricket bat. He didn’t put on his legs and try to break through the door. He didn’t shoot the lock. He didn’t give you if it was inside an opportunity to come out and reveal themselves. Because of all these facts and factors, you can reasonably conclude that Oscar did, in fact murder Reeva. You can’t say it with 100% certainty, but you can say that it is the most likely explanation. It’s the same way with apologetics , if you can prove each and every objection to be an invalid objection, when the person who object has to concede, that the most likely conclusion is the correct one, or if not correct, the most reasonable, to accept at the very least. I’ll give you another example that you might know: 2. Was Nelson Mandela, a hero or a terrorist? Well, let’s look at the facts: The ANC of which he was a member under his direction planted bombs in Pretoria with the intention to kill civilians, the reason why they killed the civilians was for political gain, to pressure the reigning apartheid regime to stop the apartheid policies. The definition of a terrorist is “someone who uses unlawful violence and intimidation against civilians in pursuit of political aims”. The same can be said about Oliver Thambo who famously told his supporters to make South Africa ungovernable. Now, of course, the majority of the world don’t recognize Nelson Mandela for his terrorist acts, but to see him as a hero. But looking at the facts, one can prove that he was not a hero, but a terrorist murderer. So why if one can from all the facts conclude that Oscar murdered Reeva, and Mandela is a terrorist, are people so split on their view, claiming that Oscar is innocent, and Mandela is a hero? Obviously, because proving something by means of proving facts about the topic will not always be satisfactory grounds for everyone to reach the same conclusion. If someone believes that each fact proven by the apologist is not convincing when all 100 facts are put together, then it is because they chose to not except the evidence, not because the evidence does not exist. And the very reason why people can do this is explained in this video where Craig says that God made free agents who can decide what they want to do or not.

I'm not impressed. The problem with these apologetics is that anyone can make up a God in their head which has characteristics that explain away things with free will and supposed love, my objection is that these kind of apologetics beat around the bush. Not only can they NOT prove "each and every objection to be invalid" but their proofs don't get them ANY closer to positively proving the existence of their God and the truth of their religion. @@TinyFord1

@@TinyFord1 What facts proven by the apologist demonstrate a god?

Keep going and mock them harder, please 🙏. I, too, did as u. Oh, thank my lord he was merciful to mind my ignorance for so long.

Proof only exists in math. Christianity does have a unique body of evidence compared to other theistic systems, though. CF: 1. The archaeological: "Excavating the Evidence for Jesus" by Dr. Titus Kennedy. 2. The historical: "The Historical Jesus" by Dr. Gary Habermas 3. The philosophical: "Five Proofs for the Existence of God" by Dr. Ed Feser 4. The testimonial: "There is a God" by notorious atheist Anthony Flew. That book really points to deism. For a Christian perspective, try "God is Real: the Eyewitness Testimony of a Former Atheist" by Kim Endraske. 5. The philosophy of science: "Science at the Doorstep to God" by Dr/Fr Robert Spitzer. 6. The miraculous: "Prayer is Good Medicine" by Dr. Larry Dorsey 7. Even the scientific: "A Cardiologist Examines Jesus" by Dr. Franco Serafini. I'll also mention here the corroborating reports by Drs. Sobianiec--Lotowska, Sulkowski, Engel, López, Zugibe, and Castañon. If you read Polish or Spanish, there are good primary sources available by these authors. Dr. Zugibe wrote his in English but published it in an apologetics collection, so it tends to lose some of its weight there. And much, much more.

Because kids getting cancer is not an objectively bad thing in an atheist's world of subjective morality. It's only bad in the mere opinion of the parents, the kids, and perhaps many other people but it's still just an opinion, no different than "vanilla ice cream is better than strawberry ice cream." So what if kids get cancer? You say it's a bad thing, someone else says it's a good thing, and someone else says it's a neutral thing. There's no definitive right or wrong, good or bad, it's all just opinion.

Everything. Adam and Eve used their free will and sinned against God. Now we are plagued with sin and death. That includes children with cancer.

@@stevied3400 So if your great grand dad commits a crime, it's okay to put you in jail. That's God's logic.

I think the debate goes in the wrong direction. Firstly, how does a materialist (as most atheists are, unless they are classical Buddhists, but then they have other problems) know there is objective evil? How do they know that 'evil' is not just what they find inconvenient, personally upsetting, or merely dislike or find emotionally confronting. All very subjective if not arbitrary reactions. They have to explain the robust meta-ethical frame by which they can say that evil has any objective reality. How do they even admit that 'evil' seems contrary to their (mis-) reading of the biblical documents? How can they detect it? I know from scriptural grounds why: they are made in God's image and have a built-in sense of evil, although this is variously suppressed across history, cultures and personal apprehensions. But they deny this; so whence 'evil'? But what do we Christians say about it? We are in a fallen world and as creatures in God's image have effective will and can make real choices. It is only as being in God's image can we have a relationship of fellowship with God (and that is available by no other means. The Stepford Wives approach doesn't cut it. Without true personhood, there is no will, love or genuine enjoyment); and it is only by being in a now fallen world are we able to understand what it is to fall short of our human calling: and experience evil. As the creation was given to mankind's stewardship, it all fell along with Adam's fatal mistake; as a totality it was alienated from God; but there is salvation from this choice; we are forgiven and only need to respond in repentance (otherwise we stand in rejection of God's fellowship). Yet we remain in this quagmire of evil: yet there is the kingdom and eternal life with God to come. We see suffering in this context: it is an alarm for the great danger we face if we stand in rejection of God. Yet we can easily turn to God in repentance and suffering fades into nothingness personally as we know the Spirit of God within us. As myriads of Christian martyrs and other heroes attest; suffering is irrelevant! New life awaits. Most Christian theology sees this as including children before the age of responsible decision, and perhaps those mentally incapable of decision. Now, as an atheist, how has that gone in dealing with suffering? Personal, in loved ones, by the weak and helpless? All better now? No, I thought not. Dead end! Ball in your court.

@@dagwould "Firstly, how does a materialist (as most atheists are, unless they are classical Buddhists, but then they have other problems) know there is objective evil? " The materialist doesn't have to believe in objective evil...just point out the problem of evil by asking that IF there is an omnipotent good God why is there evil? That's the way the problem of evil works. It's an 'in the presence of god why is there evil and why can't god create a world not vulnerable to evil?' It's a problem IF there is a god. Without a god, a materialist can recognize there is suffering and suffering can be problematic, but there is no problem explaining suffering. Suffering occurs in a natural world but it's not difficult to understand. So the problem of evil doesn't apply in a world without a god. And without a god, folks can identify goals of a society and the identify actions that tend to move us toward those goals or away from those goals. IOW, the goal...ie having a good society is subjective, but once a society agrees on the goal, then there are objective ways to try to reach that goal. "We are in a fallen world and as creatures in God's image have effective will and can make real choices" Why would God create the world so it would fall due to man's actions? Was he unable to or did he choose not to? Did he intend for the world to eventually fall? Is that why he released sin into the world in the form of the evil tempter in the Garden of Eden? Was it....programmed evil? The only reason the world fell in the face of evil is if it was designed so it WOULD fall/fail in the face of evil. If Adam's sin caused a change in the world or in humans, it is because God created the world and mankind TO be vulnerable to sin. That was a choice on God's part, to create the world so it WOULD become corrupted by sin.

@@dagwouldcan you demonstrate objective evil? What is it? How do you know?

he doesn't need to. His opponents posit it as standardized fact, or absolute fact (evident in the statements they are making in this thread also). The burden is on the one using the term as evidence against God existing. If you say there is evil, you have to demonstrate proof of said evil and what makes it "evil" or you are saying nothing... and you will fail to prove it is evil except to say you don't like something and you will try to self-define it as evil without any reasoning or logic to support what you are saying. @@jonathan4189

@@dagwould too bad that the existence of mythical adam has no archeological proofs. on the contrary, archeology shows that 10,000 to 20,000 years ago (an age older than the biblical adam) there exists already, advanced human civilizations that built monumental buildings such as the Gunung Padang pyramid.

Really? The ones who want to seek answers truthfully are the ones needing correction and not the ones who don’t want any answers unless it furthers their belief?

​@@oponentgull186others4 You've proven @keithrobert5117's point.

@@MothOnWall I have? Because anyone who reads my comment can say for certain that I haven’t. I hope you didn’t read my comment because I want to assume you are smarter than a 2nd grader.

First of all, that’s not true. Atheists don’t want to believe. You can’t reason with their ideas and philosophies, they are right in their own minds and cannot be reasoned with. They suppress the truth, professing to be wise when they are fools (Roman’s 1) Second, @oponent has no idea what he’s talking about. He’s never had a serious debate with a Christian apologist, otherwise he would know how serious Christian’s are with evidence and truth

A number of well known atheists were asked “what type of evidence would it take for you to believe that God exists.” They all responded very similarly and said that even if God revealed himself or spoke to them that they would think that they had gone insane and that nothing would convince them at this point.

On the contrary if atheists claim there is no God then what is your explanation for the origin of life?

@@darrenhaverlock7025 I guess you have never talked to an actual atheist. Atheist doesn't believe there is a god- doesn't mean they have to explain the origins of life or the universe. The bible explanation is not proof of anything. You can't say - no one knows - so it's god, prove it isn't. Just like the guy said - you can't prove a negative. If I tell you that the world is run by an invisible alien at the north pole - and then demand you prove it isn't. Same thing.

If you don’t believe in God- why do you even bother to argue about it ?

Atheism is a claim: it is a claim that god does not exist, thus a-theism; it is the inverse of theism: God exists. It is not a mere subjective disinclination to believe in god. To say so is a mere game and a deceitful one at that.

​@@joefriday2275 He didn't have a theory; it was a mere conjecture with scant evidence for the grand speculation that while organisms and environment seemed to have an interaction that led to variations in organisms, there was no reasonable observed basis for his speculation that all come by innumerable small adaptions from a 'simple' (sic) cell. In fact the more we've learnt about organisms, the more risible that notion has become. Behe's work is the great demonstration of this, but it doesn't even touch the need for NDE to explain the coordinated changes of multiple non-deterministic interlocking biological systems needed to enable any (new) function. Yet we see these systems with robustly defined and 'parsimonious' interfaces that enable joint delivery of uber-functional attributes. Vision is an example. So is every sense, balance, proprioception, digestion, locomotion, manipulaiton, the immune system, etc.

I would not like WLCs fallacies and the title.

Unless you’re saying Christians don’t sin, that’s one of the worst bs arguments.

@@G_Demolished Of course Christians sin. Where did you pick out that Christian’s do NOT sin, from what I said previously? All people sin.

@@colt10mmsecurity68 Read your original comment. It is a variant of the “atheists just want to sin” trope. But since we’ve established that you sin too, I fail to see how that is a feature of atheism. I could just as easily say “Christians just want to get away with their sinning.”

@@colt10mmsecurity68 I guess if there’s something I’d leave as a takeaway, it would be this: As an atheist, I take in content such as this looking for reasons to believe it. I do this with other religions as well. So when I’m hit with pseudo-psychological generalizations about my motives, it’s not really moving my needle. What I would really like to see is a Christian with an answer to 1 Peter 3:15 that I find convincing enough to believe myself. Because that’s the actual reason I’m an atheist. I just don’t believe it.

by embracing Christ, it means you are no longer the god of yourself in control of your own life. For most people, this is not something they want to give up. We all desire to be in control, thanks to our fallen nature.

Well when god says in the mythology book that he is the creator of evil and he has the power to harden hearts so that events will go according to his plan amd everything that happens is part of his plan..... how can you take credit for anything when you are just a character in his story?

@@danielessex2162 the fact that you mention it like that just shows how little you know about the bible and your lack of study of it. There’s something called Free Will, that was given to us. One cannot be loved if it’s forced. God seeks a relationship with you, but you have to make the choice.

@@danielessex2162 evil is just the absence of God, like darkness is the absence of light. Light did not create darkness, it just exists when there is no light.

@@landinization lol, it's always somebody who wants to pretend to be such a scholar. I did study in several different ways. You did not. I can tell because you just spew the same senseless bs that ever apologist does. Now, as I already debunked your free will nonsense, and yet you ignored my point to push your bs gish gallop. You didn't even address it. As usual, for an apologist, especially one like you. Then you spew a second idiot reply on which it shows you ignored, once again, the point I made, which was text from your mythology book. In which the god character says outright that it created the light and the dark that it created good and evil. That nothing happens that is not a part of his plan. Just as all you apologist losers do, you ignore my points , all the information I present, and then you deflect to some other bs in which you claim I am lacking in knowledge. If you are so learned, then why is your best reply a deflection? Why is it not one of you mental patients who can do any better than fallacy after fallacy? Address my points and stop deflecting. Your mythology book declares god has a great plan. That nothing happens against God's will. So who's will is greater mine or your God's? If everything that does happen does so by his will then how can I have freedom? That is like saying the character in my book is using freewill to decide the path I wrote for him to follow. God hardens not only the Pharaoh's heart but also King Heshbon's, and both lost their free will, so god could have events happen the way he wanted so he could show off to a handful of people. Address this without deflection or some bs gish gallop word salad.

@@landinizationfree will is a con. You do, say, eat, pray to whatever you have been exposed to. There are two dogs. One is aggressive, the other loving and caring and loyal. If I told you that one of the dogs was abused, which one would you think was? Exactly. The living organism is not matter which it is, is directly affected by their surroundings. The good folks at canon produce printers. These printers print. What else can they do? Can they drive? Can they invest money? Can they win the Super Bowl? Of course not. They weren’t designed to do so. We kill, murder, rape to name just a few. If you believe in a god, surely you must know that the creator designed us in such a way. He designed us so we couldn’t fly into space. He could have designed us not to fall ill, not to rely on food for survival. He didn’t. Well, not that he didn’t, rather he doesn’t exist. But if you believe in him, you should be aware that he is not all good and loving if he has designed this place in the way that it is. Remember, atheists would love an eternal paradise. Who wouldn’t. But we just know since there is zero evidence that this is a fairytale. An atheist believing in a god is the same as you believing in a unicorn. We can’t just switch it off and pretend that there is a god when in fact we know there isn’t.

so your argument is to tear down the credibility of atheists, great argument

Who abused the child? Did God do it? If you go and stab someone today, are you going to blame someone else?

Hello! I'm a follower of Christ; and, I want to ask something. Evil cannot exist without good, I agree. However, why cannot evil or good exist without God?

@@zealed. Because there is no morality at all without God.

@@nono7105 That is rather circular. Theists really can't make a good case for God's existence, yet morality exists despite knowing if any Gods exist. Taking a man made book like the bible and asserting that it is God's Word doesn't make it so and the amount of human ignorance found in the bible would seem to contradict the intelligence one might expect from a God.

Actually I don't think that is correct. Morality is about behavior and is relative to the good and bad we perceive. We can have an okay moral stance on an issue and replace it with a better moral stance through reasoning. Without reasoning, you cannot be a moral agent. That is how we know when the God of the bible is acting immoral. If it is good because God says so, then you are not a moral agent. In terms of the evil that a Satan could unleash on this world, that doesn't appear to exist, yet morality does. In terms of what we label as evil, it is relative to the badness that occurred and why. Someone out of their mind doing very bad things isn't as evil as someone in their right mind doing the exact same thing. The world simply doesn't operate as though a God or Satan exists. It operates how it should based on nature and our intellect getting us into trouble.

@@scottguitar8168 You don't find ignorance in the Bible, you find wisdom. That's the opposite. And no, it's not circular. Theists have several compelling arguments for the existence of God, atheists just don't listen. And if you're certain that morality exists then you're saying that God exists. Because without God there is no morality. Only the delusion of morality.

Well have a really good look around you . can you imagine a world with a God , oh sorry did not realise he is here !!

One of the arguments

If you're looking for a god who's a dictator you're not going to see the god that wants you to freely choose him. You are your own God and you are going to suffer the consequences one day because you're not going to be with the God who created you. Just like you rejected him he will reject you because you wanted to rule your own life. You say I don't see God, but it's because you don't want God. God could crush you like a bug right now, but he's too loving to deprived you of your heart's desires to be without Him.

@@ristonalaimo5048 Which God are you referring to ? there has been over 4000 man made Gods in 5000 years . But of course like all the other religious people it is YOUR god that is above all , am i correct ?

@@tasspafitis848 The God of Israel stomped on the imposters as foreshadowed in Exodus. In Psalms, he sentenced the false Gods with death.

Oh you really showed that stawman whos boss, lol.

@@dited358 Are you self-upvoting here? LMAO You would not know what strawman is if it hit you in your face. LMAO Show us the evidence of your god.

Atheism is blind faith too

@@JonathanVachon777 Maybe if you would grab a dictionary and learn what word faith is then you could have known that atheism does not have faith. Definition of faith "strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof."

@@LGpi314 cool story bro. Are you trying to convince me or yourself? Because if its me, it didnt work. Prove me atheism is true scientificly

Lol. “God didn’t kill him”? Read it again. “You shall surely die”. By all means, show him to me.

@@Mangolorian-je3eothe original texts say “on this day” they took it out because that makes god a liar. You should listen to the podcast “Data over Dogma” by Dan McClellen. He’s a very learned biblical historian, language expert, and very knowledgeable AND he’s religious. He tells you exactly what they meant when they said certain things and tells you what the original texts actually say, not what they’ve been translated, then translated from that, then again from that, and again and again. You should really study the history of your religion, not just what it says in the book.

@@Mangolorian-je3eo That is the point. God lied.

@@LGpi314 Please tick one: Adam is [ ] Alive [ ] Dead

Unless you can 'destroy' all atheist argument then you are propping up an invisible sky monster. Until you produce some evidence, any evidence for your invisible sky monster then you will have to rely on the assumption of his existence. All deist philosophy starts with an assumption of a sky monster. A very old and fallacious argument: this therefore that.

No god has made themselves known to every single human that ever lived. Thus, we know that a god which is omnipotent and wants a relationship with every single human......cannot exist.

What does not comport to the reality we observe is false. No known religion comports to reality

His explanation is bogus and cmpletely ignores that this so called god allegedly is almighty and all knowing. That makes everything that happens in the time-space continuum entirely his choice, and there is no free will. So all evil and suffering is god's design and intention.

God exists

@@elucidativo7Well where is he? He is long overdue for a tribunal for all those crimes against humanity he committed (still commits).

What you just defined is called Agnosticism not Atheism.

@@ndudujohn345 atheism, agnosticism, and theism exist on a spectrum like virtually all human positions on a claim. Plus the nuance of OP’s distinction is not about proving all gods don’t exist, it’s about saying if you have a god, prove that it exists, or I’m not going to believe in it. You can’t neatly put these stances into three buckets. Always better to ask the person what they mean by what they identify with than try to gate keep rapidly evolving words.

Words have specific meanings and implications... atheism is a denial of theism (which is a belief in the existence of deities. If you are still questioning and looking for evidence then that's being an agnostic. Don't event spectrums to an ideology that's so straight to the point. And what's bad about saying "I'm agnostic".

He refused him on the multiple knowledgeable philosophers being christians when he wanted to say that it wasn’t true but he didn’t completely destroy him in the 6min of this vid yeah No douts he actually destroyed him on the full debates

@@lasy_hope5597 "destroyed him on the full debates" WHAT!?!? WHERE!?!?! Low-bar Bill can't destroy anyone.

​@@LGpi314I don't always agree with WLC, but he countered the guy in the video with about a 7 punch combo. I thought it was a fun retort.

@@johndalton1043 I don't agree with WLC at all because he is full of shiiit. This video was montage as much as the title is full of bull crap. Tell me what exactly was the punch.

@@lasy_hope5597 So why didn't they show the destroying part in the video that mentions it in the title?

your God

@@Doc-Holliday1851 I don't have a 'god'. What does "god" even mean?

@@xenomorph6961 you do whether you like it or not

@@Doc-Holliday1851I don't, whether you want to believe it or not. There was never a worldwide flood and DNA proves we don't come from 2 individuals a few thousand years ago. The rest of that belief system can therefore be dismissed as myth because of those 2 facts....

Surprisingly, your sentences are generally coherent (despite the clear attempt to use the fanciest words you could). Unfortunately that means it's clear how empty the post is of any actual good points. Basically truth is the set of facts about reality, known only by evidence (detections of reality), which we don't have for any gods. In other words, we don't know "god exists" is true. If we're honest about that, we shouldn't believe. That isn't changed by spreading myths of whether we were intrinsically designed for communion with a "Creator". In fact the more non-evidenced claims you stack (like that we _are designed_ like that), the worse the theist position looks.

Well the atheist refused to give any argument whatsoever, so he destroyed himself more than anything else.

Low-bar Bill has nothing except the fallacies.

If being an atheist makes you an intellectual teenager, then a believer is an intellectual infant.

" until William Lane Craig sits down across from you." and give you his bull crap. You are to naive to believe WLC can prove anything.

The second law of thermodynamics/entropy proves that the universe had a being, therefore it is NOT eternal. Also, the evolutionary process would claim that things become better with time. Obviously, that's a lie because as we age we deteriorate.

He can grasp it, we all can, but the fact of the matter is scientist have proven beyond ANY doubt that the cosmos DOES have a beginning. So your comment could’ve read “Bill can’t grasp a time on the clock like 26:78, yet he has no problem in believing 14:00 means 2 o’clock” You can’t fault someone for not believing the impossible, simply because the believe the probable (or you’d use the word “improbable” even still the chance exists that there is a God, there is however NO chance that the universe doesn’t have a beginning, and even Dawkins conceded that against Lennox, and Hitchens conceded that against Craig)

The issue with an eternal cosmos is that it flies in the face of modern cosmology and is also logically inconsistent. This is the reason that Einstein became a theist once the big bang theory was accepted as true.

How is it logically inconsistent?

@@bluestorm9651 if there is an infinite number of days before today than you can never reach today. There is a problem known as the hotel problem that deals directly with an actual infinite. It is widely regarded as true and doesn't have a defeater yet. If it is true it proves you can't have an actual infinite, only theoretical infinites.

No it’s not. It’s an argument for Free Will, and that destroys the argument from evil every time

"The atheist lacks nuance and insight." LMAO You are funny. Tell me what does WLC has except bullcrap and fallacies.

​@@LGpi314Does your knees hurt from sucking penis?

​@@joe5959 Wrong forum bud, find a medical one they might be able to help with your sore knees 😉

I was looking for this comment.

"...that's just an assertion with no backing evidence,..." It's so weird when ppl say this. 9 times out of 10 they are simply denying evidence.

And yet atheist ideas lead to the greatest suffering and more deaths than all religions of the world combined…

Somebody told you that and you believed it 👍

the human race is 6,000 years old, same as the Earth

If we all came from the same first event as noted in the scientific consensus and all matter obeys natural laws, also affirmed by the scientific consensus, why is modern science believe in random chance as the driving force for all things? How can you have random chance and well defined natural laws in the same universe?