In other words, unbelievers are what they are by CHOICE. Anything else they say is just a lie intended to distract and confuse. They know they are liars and don't care.
He went off the rails when he started saying "Let the evidence speak for itself." The issue here is that evidence doesn't speak. Evidence is always viewed through one's philosophical pre-commitments or presuppositions. If the unbeliever isn't granted repentance and given a new worldview with new presuppositions, he will never see the evidence for God as it is, because his presuppositions will always demand that he suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness. What the apologist has to do is expose this problem, which is rooted in sin, and present the Gospel. Dr. Craig was so close, but yet so far.
To John T. - for some reason your rebuttle has not posted, but I will answer you anyway. The complete lack of imagination that atheists display is always a source of amazement to me, even after 40 years of debating those like yourself. The short piece by Craig here lines out exactly what the crux of the matter really is...it is perfectly logical and proper for atheists to take presuppositions into a discussion, but if the Christian does so, it is nothing more than bigotry and hate speech. Atheism cannot bear the scrutiny it requires of the Christian's beliefs. You know...the old different playing rules gambit? Hypocrisy is atheism's middle name. The present-day guru of atheists is Matt Dillahunty. Watch him get schooled like a 6 year-old on a playground by Sye Ten Bruggencate and you would cry yourself to sleep. I say "would" instead of "will" because you and I both know already that even though Dilly-bar is convicted by his OWN words, your presuppositions make the result of the debate meaningless before it began. Repent...there's still time for you.
I like the way this was delivered. Easy to understand. Thanks for sharing. Shalom.
Fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.
+Blake R True.
In other words, unbelievers are what they are by CHOICE. Anything else they say is just a lie intended to distract and confuse. They know they are liars and don't care.
He went off the rails when he started saying "Let the evidence speak for itself." The issue here is that evidence doesn't speak. Evidence is always viewed through one's philosophical pre-commitments or presuppositions. If the unbeliever isn't granted repentance and given a new worldview with new presuppositions, he will never see the evidence for God as it is, because his presuppositions will always demand that he suppress the truth about God in unrighteousness. What the apologist has to do is expose this problem, which is rooted in sin, and present the Gospel. Dr. Craig was so close, but yet so far.
To John T. - for some reason your rebuttle has not posted, but I will answer you anyway. The complete lack of imagination that atheists display is always a source of amazement to me, even after 40 years of debating those like yourself. The short piece by Craig here lines out exactly what the crux of the matter really is...it is perfectly logical and proper for atheists to take presuppositions into a discussion, but if the Christian does so, it is nothing more than bigotry and hate speech.
Atheism cannot bear the scrutiny it requires of the Christian's beliefs. You know...the old different playing rules gambit?
Hypocrisy is atheism's middle name. The present-day guru of atheists is Matt Dillahunty. Watch him get schooled like a 6 year-old on a playground by Sye Ten Bruggencate and you would cry yourself to sleep. I say "would" instead of "will" because you and I both know already that even though Dilly-bar is convicted by his OWN words, your presuppositions make the result of the debate meaningless before it began.
Repent...there's still time for you.
You are correct, Tigerlilly.