I think most modern apologetics kind of ignores problems with the Old Testament, and kinda goes, "Well, if I can just prove Jesus rose from the dead, then that'll, by implication, prove the validity of the OT." And while that's possibly true, the relationship is reciprocal. If one were to prove that the OT is questionable at best, then that would have implications for the plausibility of Christ's claims, since He seemed to accept the authority of the OT. We have to go beyond "this is perhaps at least a possible historical reconstruction" and really wrestle with some of the OT texts, including the issue of whether or not these are literal history. You can teach your children that Moses sat down one day and wrote the Pentateuch, but when your kid goes to College and that's the first time he learns about the Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly sources, obviously that's going to shake his faith.
That’s an interesting point but I’m not convinced the relationship is reciprocal. If you can prove Jesus rose from the dead and you take the necessary steps to say that it validates the OT (because as you mentioned Jesus obviously accepted it as true), then all that a “questionable” OT would prove is that we either have the wrong understanding of the OT or the wrong understanding of Jesus’s validation of the OT.
@@jamesmarshel1723 Thats true but my point is this: if Christianity is true via Jesus’s resurrection and it entails the validity of the OT then any conception of the OT that is questionable is false. Something along the lines of the following: Where A is the truth of Christianity, B is the validity of OT, and C is our understanding of the validity of OT A -> B ~C A Then it logically follows that B≠C
@@HauxYZ250 @James Marshel I think there are a few ways to look at it. Your garden-variety Millenial skeptic or New Atheist is going weigh very heavily passages like the slaughter of the Canaanites when he/she is considering whether or not to potentially take the claims of Christ, or the evidence for His Resurrection, seriously. For example, if a well-known miracle worker endorsed another religious figure who taught abominable moral doctrines, then that's going to weigh heavily on whether you take his moral claims seriously. I think working backwards from Christ to the OT works for those who are already Christians, but for an increasingly quizzical and irreligious public, it doesn't always work. I'm not saying we need to establish a very wooden form of OT inerrancy (with the monstrosities that that results in, e.g. The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties), but at the very least, Christ stands in a living narrative of the people of Israel, God's people. He's not just some religious sage that emerges out of the woodwork, but he stands as part of an already-established religious tradition--we're not Marcionites Thus, we would need to give plausibility to the main points of the OT narrative, such as: * God established a covenant with His people Israel and delivered them from Egypt * The validity of temple orders as somehow approved by God (priests, Levites, etc.) * The basic validity of the Davidic kingly line as approved by God, and Christ's somehow standing in that line * The existence of a prophetic line that foretold, at least in general terms, of a future deliverance of which Christ would be the fulfillment For this kind of argument to work, we need not prove that we prove every word in the Old Testament, even in the "historical" books, is literal history (Indeed, some events, like a literal worldwide flood, seem so highly scientifically and historically implausible that it's hard to label them as other than some sort of myth). But we have to give plausibility to at least the basic outline, or there's no reason to even consider the claims of Christ. And I think New Atheists are often going to start with the Old Testament because there's so much "fresh meat" for them there in terms of what seem to be prescriptions that strike us as morally repugnant. We need to deal with these squarely as well.
@@jackdispennett744 Exactly. For the New atheists, it's easier to attack the historicity of the flood or Adam and Eve than the resurrection. The apologist finds the resurrection easier to defend than the story of babel say. The believer takes a Modus Ponens; the non-believer the Modus Tollens that I referred to earlier.
I spend most of my time volunteering and working with zoomers. You hit the nail on the head, these are the actual objections to Christianity from this generation.
Having read all of "On Guard" and a large portion of "Reasonable Faith," I would say "Reasonable Faith" is too dense for the average laity. "On Guard," on the other hand, is crisp and to the point. I'd recommend "On Guard" to the average person any day.
Once again my hat goes off to Randal for recognising these obvious difficulties and facing them rather than denying them, deliberately missing the point, logic chopping or weaseling around them. I don't think there's actually a tenable solution but at least he tries, without any dirty shenanigans. If there is a heaven I believe he'll go there with integrity intact, unlike so many others.
I think your central thesis is right about Reasonable Faith not being a good text for church laymen to study for apologetic purposes and evangelism. I also agree with others in that I think On Guard would have some benefit for most lay people to read once through. And to be fair, I think WLC has several other good and relevant books where he is addressing many of the topics you mentioned. For example, his latest book on the historical adam, his book on time and eternity, and his book on philosophical foundations (which talks about the body, soul, neural science, and promotes an inclusivist salvation). But it's impractical to recommend multiple long and detailed books to someone looking to lead a course on apologetics at their church, not to mention that they leave out the several other important topics you mentioned. I would also recommend others work as someone who leans toward a Condionalist view of hell and someone still thinking through sexual ethics, civil rights, and biblical violence. Maybe this kind of book would exist one day!
I see what you're trying to say but the arguments in the book can be applied to the point you made, for example: 1) the kalam argument and the fine tuning shows how science actually supports a believe in a creator 2) Sexual and ethics & civil rights : the moral argument can be integrated to show that without God there are no objective moral laws therefore no rights also. 4) biblical violence: the chapter on the problem of evil can help to understand that there wouldn't be any evil if there wasn't a God
I would add: Randal Rauser states William Lane Craig's book, _Reasonable Faith,_ "is less relevant to the average church goer." Rauser is correct IF he imagines the apologetics enterprise Craig promotes is aimed _inward,_ at fellow believers. Instead, Craig's focus is *secularism, as exemplified by atheism.* This is the primary target of his apologetics efforts. Craig has repeatedly stated: Primary care, for young people in the church with the questions Rauser names, should be *bible study,* not apologetics. - HA
@@mediaassassin wow, WLC's focus is atheists? Have you heard him state this? This seems unlikely to me, since he still uses arguments like Anselm's ontological argument.
@@leslieviljoen well Anselm’s argument has been objected to on the argument that existence is not a perfection. WLC’s argument isn’t subject to that objection. I think in combination with other arguments for God’s existence it adds to the cumulative case and hasn’t been hit with any particularly good objections that I’ve heard.
I would agree with you on what are the more important apological issues to address. However, if someone was to read an apological work from an evangelical apologist, I hope it would be a work like Reasonable Faith, where Craig (thank goodness) fails to address the issues you listed. Nothing is more horrific, cringeworthy, and damaging to the faith than when Evangelicals address these big issues, trying to justify eternal conscious torment and genocide and the rest.
More or less agree on #3-5. On #3 WLC has pretty much demonstrated the "slippery slope" that evangelicals are on with regards to the morality of leaders, in that before the 2020 election, he pretty much said that the personal morality of leaders should be secondary to their policy stances in our consideration of whom to vote for. This is a VERY thinly-velied endorsement of Trump. On #4 I couldn't agree more. There are many modern people who've read the Bible and rejected it because of these accounts, so we really have to wrestle with them. I've heard Catholic apologists give the "literal history" argument as at least one option in considering the slaughter of the Canaanites==>slaughter is bad when we do it on our own, but because God is the author of life, He can order it licitly. What's funny about this argument is that it's just post-purchase rationalization. None of the people using this argument would take it seriously when applied to other worldviews--e.g. if a Fundamentalist Muslim argued that the 9/11 hijackers were doing the will of God in killing innocents, NO ONE would take such an argument seriously. On #5, I think that it presupposes that human beings have an adequate amount of information when they make their religious decisions, and by-and-large this has not been the case. For example, members of some religions have a knowledge of Christianity that has about as much nuance and accuracy as a Saturday Night Live skit making fun of Christianity. On #6 I disagree with you, as I think there's just not any Biblical support of this view. Also, as a Roman Catholic, I'm a bit more constrained than you are as a Protestant; annihlationism is a heresy in our theology. Also, we don't know what the balance of saved to lost is--it might be higher than we think. Also, it's possible (though perhaps not likely) that all human beings will be saved. We do know that God does not desire anyone to go to Hell, but we see Hell as the guarantee of human freedom. God does not force anyone to accept His love.
Have you ever checked out any of the videos on the UA-cam channel Rethinking Hell? They make a pretty solid biblical case for annihilation, showing that on close inspection, every single proof text cited in support of eternal torment proves to be better support for annihilation. The only leg that eternal torment really has to stand on is Tradition. And I get that as a Catholic you have to adhere to it, but I thoroughly disagree with the idea that eternal torment is biblical.
@@markdaniels1730 We see Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as two feet, one is the right foot and one is the left, you need two healthy feet to walk. Indeed, the Canon of Scripture itself (e.g. the 27 books of the New Testament) is based on Sacred Tradition, because the Bible itself (the text itself) never tells you what books should be in the Bible. The older I've gotten the more I've seen that you can prove just about anything you want to from the Bible, so I really don't get a lot into proof-texting. I think a more orthodox approach is a hopeful universalism (e.g. I HOPE that everyone will be saved, not that I "believe" everyone will be saved, because the number of people who are saved has never been dogmatically defined.) In fact, Cyril of Alexandria points out that Jesus (in the Gospel of Luke) never answers the question "Will few be saved" because it's kind of a worthless question. I think I kind of see his point: If we say that we know (de fide) that few will be saved, that leads to a sort of despair and perhaps even damage to our belief that God is good and truly wills the salvation of all. If we say we know (de fide) that most/all will be saved, that can lead to a presumption on our part that we don't work out our salvation with fear and trembling. There have been a few saints in our tradition (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Edith Stein) who leaned towards a more universalistic worldview, so it's not a forbidden position to say we hope that all will be saved. Nevertheless, because of the existence of Free Will, the possibility of Hell exists for me, you, and every other believer or non-believer.
@JD Apologetics It's just kind of crazy, having been a teenager in the Bill Clinton era, and remembering around that time that evangelicals were referencing the Clinton sex scandals and saying that these sexual sins do matter in leaders. Now it's changed to "Sexual sins do matter in leaders, unless they agree with us about abortion." (Now, the issue of abortion is very important to me, which is why I couldn't vote for Joe Biden and ended up voting 3rd party.) But Donald J. Trump is NOT the poster-boy you want for the pro-life cause. He's a Trojan Horse for the pro-life movement.
@@jackdispennett744 I think that's a very respectable position. I still disagree with the Free Will defense of eternal torment, I think it fails to take into account that sheer choice in and of itself is not freedom, and that the more irrational a choice is (i.e. choosing eternal torment), the less free it must necessarily be... but I can respect Roman Catholics for at the very least believing in the universal salvific will of God, even if not the final accomplishment of that will.
"We do know that God does not desire anyone to go to Hell, but we see Hell as the guarantee of human freedom." So people are free to choose not to go to Heaven (ignoring the fact that most people aren't even aware of this choice before they die), but they cannot choose to end their own existence but instead are forced to suffer conscious torment for eternity? How is that "a guarantee of human freedom?" No wonder so many Christians end up rejecting the faith. The logic used to justify stuff like this gets more tortuous the deeper you dig.
Reasonable faith is a way to counter the rise of people like Dawkins, Hitchins who are trying to get believers to be atheist. Craig himself says these arguments are not necessary for belief . The way you phrase your video reads like click bait .
Randal you go after C.S Lewis by saying he was only a deep thinker now you go after William Lane Crag for his apologetic. While you take us down a whole new world of well whatever I feel pure Modernity
In his book? That's the point. He's talking about using Craig's book in an apologetics course, not a bunch of his UA-cam videos. The irony of using a completely bogus argument to call Randal's argument bogus...
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._* I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
These all sound like reasons, if taken seriously, as I do, for agnosticism, not atheism. That is, even if you “have no good reason to acknowledge the existence” of God, it doesn’t mean God does not exist. - HA
@@mediaassassin I am an agnostic atheist and these facts concern my position of atheism (having not acknowledged the existence of a god) rather than my claim to have insufficient knowledge or information to know if a god does exist. To further explain: There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism regards. And that is the 'theistic' claim that "God(s) exists." Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim; *_acknowledgement_* of the claim; and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to the claim. The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no middle ground. And it is our approach to answer _this_ dichotomy that determines our position and the proper definition of an identity associated with such a position. The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as true (theism), or does _not_ acknowledge the claim as true (atheism). Again, there is no middle ground. The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism). The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time. The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning a given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time. This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "god(s) exists." The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from or personal relationship with the deity mentioned in the claim. The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence. The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'. And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._ Of the four populations, only the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions.The agnostic atheist is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist. This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an agnostic atheist.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Thanks, Theo Skeptomai. If, as you say, theism “sets the ground floor"… (quoting you, below) _"There is but one claim that the position of atheism regards. And that is the 'theistic' claim that "God(s) exists."_ …then, I’d argue, and always have, that the only sufficiently responsive, or even meaningful, atheistic claim is this one: "God does not exist." *That* is atheism. That is even how it has classically been defined; e.g.: "An atheist is a person who says that the following statement - GOD EXISTS - is _false."_ An “agnostic atheist,” then, is a *_superfluity._* It is, because to say, "I lack evidence God exists" is not positional. It's self-diagnostic. - HA
I think most modern apologetics kind of ignores problems with the Old Testament, and kinda goes, "Well, if I can just prove Jesus rose from the dead, then that'll, by implication, prove the validity of the OT." And while that's possibly true, the relationship is reciprocal. If one were to prove that the OT is questionable at best, then that would have implications for the plausibility of Christ's claims, since He seemed to accept the authority of the OT.
We have to go beyond "this is perhaps at least a possible historical reconstruction" and really wrestle with some of the OT texts, including the issue of whether or not these are literal history. You can teach your children that Moses sat down one day and wrote the Pentateuch, but when your kid goes to College and that's the first time he learns about the Yahwist, Elohist, and Priestly sources, obviously that's going to shake his faith.
That’s an interesting point but I’m not convinced the relationship is reciprocal. If you can prove Jesus rose from the dead and you take the necessary steps to say that it validates the OT (because as you mentioned Jesus obviously accepted it as true), then all that a “questionable” OT would prove is that we either have the wrong understanding of the OT or the wrong understanding of Jesus’s validation of the OT.
If A then B. -B then -A by Modus Tollens, where A is the resurrection and B is the OT. I think this is the stronger point.
@@jamesmarshel1723 Thats true but my point is this: if Christianity is true via Jesus’s resurrection and it entails the validity of the OT then any conception of the OT that is questionable is false. Something along the lines of the following:
Where A is the truth of Christianity, B is the validity of OT, and C is our understanding of the validity of OT
A -> B
~C
A
Then it logically follows that B≠C
@@HauxYZ250 @James Marshel I think there are a few ways to look at it. Your garden-variety Millenial skeptic or New Atheist is going weigh very heavily passages like the slaughter of the Canaanites when he/she is considering whether or not to potentially take the claims of Christ, or the evidence for His Resurrection, seriously. For example, if a well-known miracle worker endorsed another religious figure who taught abominable moral doctrines, then that's going to weigh heavily on whether you take his moral claims seriously. I think working backwards from Christ to the OT works for those who are already Christians, but for an increasingly quizzical and irreligious public, it doesn't always work. I'm not saying we need to establish a very wooden form of OT inerrancy (with the monstrosities that that results in, e.g. The Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties), but at the very least, Christ stands in a living narrative of the people of Israel, God's people. He's not just some religious sage that emerges out of the woodwork, but he stands as part of an already-established religious tradition--we're not Marcionites Thus, we would need to give plausibility to the main points of the OT narrative, such as:
* God established a covenant with His people Israel and delivered them from Egypt
* The validity of temple orders as somehow approved by God (priests, Levites, etc.)
* The basic validity of the Davidic kingly line as approved by God, and Christ's somehow standing in that line
* The existence of a prophetic line that foretold, at least in general terms, of a future deliverance of which Christ would be the fulfillment
For this kind of argument to work, we need not prove that we prove every word in the Old Testament, even in the "historical" books, is literal history (Indeed, some events, like a literal worldwide flood, seem so highly scientifically and historically implausible that it's hard to label them as other than some sort of myth). But we have to give plausibility to at least the basic outline, or there's no reason to even consider the claims of Christ. And I think New Atheists are often going to start with the Old Testament because there's so much "fresh meat" for them there in terms of what seem to be prescriptions that strike us as morally repugnant. We need to deal with these squarely as well.
@@jackdispennett744 Exactly. For the New atheists, it's easier to attack the historicity of the flood or Adam and Eve than the resurrection. The apologist finds the resurrection easier to defend than the story of babel say. The believer takes a Modus Ponens; the non-believer the Modus Tollens that I referred to earlier.
I spend most of my time volunteering and working with zoomers. You hit the nail on the head, these are the actual objections to Christianity from this generation.
Having read all of "On Guard" and a large portion of "Reasonable Faith," I would say "Reasonable Faith" is too dense for the average laity. "On Guard," on the other hand, is crisp and to the point. I'd recommend "On Guard" to the average person any day.
There is a book by James Fodor called unreasonable faith as an answer to reasonable faith
Once again my hat goes off to Randal for recognising these obvious difficulties and facing them rather than denying them, deliberately missing the point, logic chopping or weaseling around them. I don't think there's actually a tenable solution but at least he tries, without any dirty shenanigans. If there is a heaven I believe he'll go there with integrity intact, unlike so many others.
I think your central thesis is right about Reasonable Faith not being a good text for church laymen to study for apologetic purposes and evangelism. I also agree with others in that I think On Guard would have some benefit for most lay people to read once through. And to be fair, I think WLC has several other good and relevant books where he is addressing many of the topics you mentioned. For example, his latest book on the historical adam, his book on time and eternity, and his book on philosophical foundations (which talks about the body, soul, neural science, and promotes an inclusivist salvation). But it's impractical to recommend multiple long and detailed books to someone looking to lead a course on apologetics at their church, not to mention that they leave out the several other important topics you mentioned. I would also recommend others work as someone who leans toward a Condionalist view of hell and someone still thinking through sexual ethics, civil rights, and biblical violence. Maybe this kind of book would exist one day!
I see what you're trying to say but the arguments in the book can be applied to the point you made, for example:
1) the kalam argument and the fine tuning shows how science actually supports a believe in a creator
2) Sexual and ethics & civil rights : the moral argument can be integrated to show that without God there are no objective moral laws therefore no rights also.
4) biblical violence: the chapter on the problem of evil can help to understand that there wouldn't be any evil if there wasn't a God
I would add:
Randal Rauser states William Lane Craig's book, _Reasonable Faith,_ "is less relevant to the average church goer."
Rauser is correct IF he imagines the apologetics enterprise Craig promotes is aimed _inward,_ at fellow believers.
Instead, Craig's focus is *secularism, as exemplified by atheism.* This is the primary target of his apologetics efforts.
Craig has repeatedly stated: Primary care, for young people in the church with the questions Rauser names, should be *bible study,* not apologetics.
- HA
@@mediaassassin wow, WLC's focus is atheists? Have you heard him state this? This seems unlikely to me, since he still uses arguments like Anselm's ontological argument.
@@leslieviljoen he doesn’t use Anselm’s ontological argument. He uses a Plantingian version of the ontological argument.
@@eliasarches2575 is it less silly?
@@leslieviljoen well Anselm’s argument has been objected to on the argument that existence is not a perfection. WLC’s argument isn’t subject to that objection. I think in combination with other arguments for God’s existence it adds to the cumulative case and hasn’t been hit with any particularly good objections that I’ve heard.
I would agree with you on what are the more important apological issues to address. However, if someone was to read an apological work from an evangelical apologist, I hope it would be a work like Reasonable Faith, where Craig (thank goodness) fails to address the issues you listed. Nothing is more horrific, cringeworthy, and damaging to the faith than when Evangelicals address these big issues, trying to justify eternal conscious torment and genocide and the rest.
More or less agree on #3-5. On #3 WLC has pretty much demonstrated the "slippery slope" that evangelicals are on with regards to the morality of leaders, in that before the 2020 election, he pretty much said that the personal morality of leaders should be secondary to their policy stances in our consideration of whom to vote for. This is a VERY thinly-velied endorsement of Trump.
On #4 I couldn't agree more. There are many modern people who've read the Bible and rejected it because of these accounts, so we really have to wrestle with them. I've heard Catholic apologists give the "literal history" argument as at least one option in considering the slaughter of the Canaanites==>slaughter is bad when we do it on our own, but because God is the author of life, He can order it licitly. What's funny about this argument is that it's just post-purchase rationalization. None of the people using this argument would take it seriously when applied to other worldviews--e.g. if a Fundamentalist Muslim argued that the 9/11 hijackers were doing the will of God in killing innocents, NO ONE would take such an argument seriously.
On #5, I think that it presupposes that human beings have an adequate amount of information when they make their religious decisions, and by-and-large this has not been the case. For example, members of some religions have a knowledge of Christianity that has about as much nuance and accuracy as a Saturday Night Live skit making fun of Christianity.
On #6 I disagree with you, as I think there's just not any Biblical support of this view. Also, as a Roman Catholic, I'm a bit more constrained than you are as a Protestant; annihlationism is a heresy in our theology. Also, we don't know what the balance of saved to lost is--it might be higher than we think. Also, it's possible (though perhaps not likely) that all human beings will be saved. We do know that God does not desire anyone to go to Hell, but we see Hell as the guarantee of human freedom. God does not force anyone to accept His love.
Have you ever checked out any of the videos on the UA-cam channel Rethinking Hell? They make a pretty solid biblical case for annihilation, showing that on close inspection, every single proof text cited in support of eternal torment proves to be better support for annihilation. The only leg that eternal torment really has to stand on is Tradition. And I get that as a Catholic you have to adhere to it, but I thoroughly disagree with the idea that eternal torment is biblical.
@@markdaniels1730 We see Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition as two feet, one is the right foot and one is the left, you need two healthy feet to walk. Indeed, the Canon of Scripture itself (e.g. the 27 books of the New Testament) is based on Sacred Tradition, because the Bible itself (the text itself) never tells you what books should be in the Bible. The older I've gotten the more I've seen that you can prove just about anything you want to from the Bible, so I really don't get a lot into proof-texting. I think a more orthodox approach is a hopeful universalism (e.g. I HOPE that everyone will be saved, not that I "believe" everyone will be saved, because the number of people who are saved has never been dogmatically defined.) In fact, Cyril of Alexandria points out that Jesus (in the Gospel of Luke) never answers the question "Will few be saved" because it's kind of a worthless question. I think I kind of see his point: If we say that we know (de fide) that few will be saved, that leads to a sort of despair and perhaps even damage to our belief that God is good and truly wills the salvation of all. If we say we know (de fide) that most/all will be saved, that can lead to a presumption on our part that we don't work out our salvation with fear and trembling. There have been a few saints in our tradition (e.g. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Edith Stein) who leaned towards a more universalistic worldview, so it's not a forbidden position to say we hope that all will be saved. Nevertheless, because of the existence of Free Will, the possibility of Hell exists for me, you, and every other believer or non-believer.
@JD Apologetics It's just kind of crazy, having been a teenager in the Bill Clinton era, and remembering around that time that evangelicals were referencing the Clinton sex scandals and saying that these sexual sins do matter in leaders. Now it's changed to "Sexual sins do matter in leaders, unless they agree with us about abortion." (Now, the issue of abortion is very important to me, which is why I couldn't vote for Joe Biden and ended up voting 3rd party.) But Donald J. Trump is NOT the poster-boy you want for the pro-life cause. He's a Trojan Horse for the pro-life movement.
@@jackdispennett744 I think that's a very respectable position. I still disagree with the Free Will defense of eternal torment, I think it fails to take into account that sheer choice in and of itself is not freedom, and that the more irrational a choice is (i.e. choosing eternal torment), the less free it must necessarily be... but I can respect Roman Catholics for at the very least believing in the universal salvific will of God, even if not the final accomplishment of that will.
"We do know that God does not desire anyone to go to Hell, but we see Hell as the guarantee of human freedom."
So people are free to choose not to go to Heaven (ignoring the fact that most people aren't even aware of this choice before they die), but they cannot choose to end their own existence but instead are forced to suffer conscious torment for eternity? How is that "a guarantee of human freedom?"
No wonder so many Christians end up rejecting the faith. The logic used to justify stuff like this gets more tortuous the deeper you dig.
Craig's book is efficient for intellectualy inclined people, not for the majority.
+1 for emulating William Lane Craig's condescending tone in your comment, but -1 for the misspelling... :)
Interesting
Insightful as always
Reasonable faith is a way to counter the rise of people like Dawkins, Hitchins who are trying to get believers to be atheist. Craig himself says these arguments are not necessary for belief . The way you phrase your video reads like click bait .
Randal you go after C.S Lewis by saying he was only a deep thinker now you go after William Lane Crag for his apologetic. While you take us down a whole new world of well whatever I feel pure Modernity
Sorry but this guy's arguments for not using William Lang are bogus. Craig does speak on these other points in different interviews.
In his book? That's the point. He's talking about using Craig's book in an apologetics course, not a bunch of his UA-cam videos. The irony of using a completely bogus argument to call Randal's argument bogus...
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently hold to such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which also employed sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that a god(s) exists.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed has *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of a god.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
These all sound like reasons, if taken seriously, as I do, for agnosticism, not atheism.
That is, even if you “have no good reason to acknowledge the existence” of God, it doesn’t mean God does not exist.
- HA
@@mediaassassin I am an agnostic atheist and these facts concern my position of atheism (having not acknowledged the existence of a god) rather than my claim to have insufficient knowledge or information to know if a god does exist.
To further explain:
There is _but one_ claim that the position of atheism regards. And that is the 'theistic' claim that "God(s) exists."
Like all claims to truth, this claim breaks down on three dichotomous axes: *_truth_* of the claim; *_acknowledgement_* of the claim; and *_sufficiency of knowledge_* as to the claim.
The first dichotomous axis addresses the truth _position._ Like any claim to truth, the 'theistic' claim is either true or _not_ true (false). There is no middle ground.
And it is our approach to answer _this_ dichotomy that determines our position and the proper definition of an identity associated with such a position.
The second dichotomous axis addresses the acknowledgement _position._ The recipient evaluating the claim either acknowledges the claim as true (theism), or does _not_ acknowledge the claim as true (atheism). Again, there is no middle ground.
The third dichotomous axis addresses the _sufficiency of knowledge_ as to the claim _position._ Either the recipient evaluating the claim has sufficient knowledge or information as to the truth of the claim (gnostism), or does _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information concerning the claim (agnosticism).
The default 'acknowledgement' position on the claim that "god(s) exists" is _atheism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim for the first time. It would be impractical to acknowledge the truth of a claim _before_ hearing it for the first time.
The default position addressing 'sufficiency of knowledge or information' is _agnosticism_ for this is the position the recipient begins with _prior_ to hearing the claim. One can not claim to have sufficient knowledge or information concerning a given claim _until_ he or she hears the claim for the first time.
This presents four populations of recipients evaluating the claim that "god(s) exists."
The 'gnostic theist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) to theism by acknowledging the claim. Often this population claims to acquire "sufficient knowledge" from revelation from or personal relationship with the deity mentioned in the claim.
The 'gnostic atheist' claims to have sufficient knowledge or information to justify remaining in the position of atheism (default) by _rejecting to acknowledge_ the claim. This population is sometimes referred to as 'strong atheists'. This population may or may not make the additional claim "god(s) don't exist." If so, like the theists in the original claim, those that make such a claim now encumber a burden of proof to substantiate such claim with evidence.
The 'agnostic theist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their position from atheism (default) by does so _anyways_ by acknowledging the truth of the claim _through_ 'faith'.
And last, the 'agnostic atheist' claims to _not_ have sufficient knowledge or information to justify changing their initial position of atheism so they _continue to suspend acknowleging the truth of the claim until sufficent evidence is presented._
Of the four populations, only the 'agnostic atheists' are *_justified_* in their final positions.The agnostic atheist is justified in suspending such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced, and therefore remain atheist.
This is how I can demonstrate that I am indeed an atheist - an agnostic atheist.
@@theoskeptomai2535 Thanks, Theo Skeptomai.
If, as you say, theism “sets the ground floor"… (quoting you, below)
_"There is but one claim that the position of atheism regards. And that is the 'theistic' claim that "God(s) exists."_
…then, I’d argue, and always have, that the only sufficiently responsive, or even meaningful, atheistic claim is this one: "God does not exist."
*That* is atheism. That is even how it has classically been defined; e.g.:
"An atheist is a person who says that the following statement - GOD EXISTS - is _false."_
An “agnostic atheist,” then, is a *_superfluity._*
It is, because to say, "I lack evidence God exists" is not positional. It's self-diagnostic.
- HA
@@aidanmacpherson7513 Hundreds probably.
@@aidanmacpherson7513 What do you think of that post. Do you think I am rationally justified in my position of atheism?
Who the heck are you?