@@SupremeSquiggly What's this pip-squeak saying?? Can you refute his argument? Prove to me you are intelligent. All these internet atheists are more dumber than Richard Dawkins and Hitchens combined 😂
The texts on those labels have objective meaning because those words have been demonstrated to be true. Your religious gibberish hasn't been demonstrated to be true.
I think it would be great if he ran just to see him in action during the debates. Alas, Dr. Craig deliberately avoids political topics like the plague. It's kind of disheartening really.
In another interview I heard Dr. Craig say something like "most of the culture" remains modernist rather than postmodernist for the same reason posited here, that people are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, and he pointed out the large number of people saying "trust the science" in regard to Covid. While I'm reluctant to disagree with Dr. Craig about anything, I think I might disagree here, because I'd be willing to bet that many of the same people (not all) who trusted the science regarding Covid do not trust the science regarding the transgender issue. They trust science only insofar as it suits their purposes and political agendas. That is to say that, not just scientific truth, but truth in general, takes a back seat to their power. And putting power over truth is not Modernism, that's Postmodernism. I could concede that most of the culture may still not be postmodernist, but if it were, let's say 85% modernist and 15% postmodern 15-20 years ago, I think we would have to say that today it has changed to about 60% modernist and 40% postmodern. Moreover, that postmodern minority, obsessed with power as it is, bullies anyone it can so that many of the modernist types remain silent for fear of being cancelled, and the postmodern views control even the executive branch of our government at the moment. Taking a step back further, while I used numbers that add up to 100%, modernists and postmodernists do not make up the entire population. In fact I bet that most people, if asked, would have difficulty defining either. And if both schools of thought are relativistic regarding religion then it follows that Christianity is not compatible with either term and that Christians make up another segment of the population. The point I'm trying to make here is that, whether modern or postmodern, both are on the side that is in open rebellion against God.
They trust science only insofar as it suits their purposes and political agendas." Well that wouldn't be science now would it? aha Also the transgender issue is despite science not because of it. Ask a transgender if the 'science' didn't agree with them (it doesn't) would they change. When the obvious "no!!" is screamed, the argument from science is completely killed than and there.
@@adamduarte895 He's not really wrong, but he's not spot on right either, which I think is due to his tendency to be too conceptually reductionistic, unfortunately. The thing you're saying has accelerated, Dr. Craig would call Marxism, and then he would remind you that Marxism is modernism. But this is where I think Jordan Peterson might be helpful with a term he likes to use: Postmodern NeoMarxism. It sounds like it should be contradictory if you only ever look through a very narrow lens of analytical philosophy, and Dr. Craig thinks that because analytic philosophers don't take it seriously anymore that no one worth listening to does either, which is one reason he's behind the curve. But consider that the postmodernists were discontented Marxists who didn't become any less Left wing, but they just became more nihilistic. Critical Theorist Herbert Marcuse's protege, communist Angela Davis isn't so much different from Kimberle Crenshaw who said in her paper Mapping the Margins that "Intersectionality is a provisional concept linking contemporary politics with postmodern theory." But when you reduce postmodernism just to being subjectivist regarding science and textual interpretation in addition to the modernist subjectivizing of religion and ethics, then it becomes easy to get behind the curve. And if we remember to look at the big picture and being more mindful of the word of God, it's much easier to see that at the end of the day they are all antichrist, just different forms of it.
@@tchristian04 you could be right… but these interviews are quite old. His new podcasts really illuminate much of his cultural critique, but there even amongst the most radical of cultural leftists, in their day to day lives, they still read certain items with objective meaning behind them because all in all it’s absolutely absurd to be able to live completely subjective in your life, they just want to expand the window as far as possible. Also, regular people are not radical leftists like that and still tend to think in a more modernist way tbh, at least amongst religious nones who just wanna work and are center left politically but just live an almost apathetic lifestyle. I think in the end we all see the issue that is going on
This is a strawman of post-modernism. A post-modern critique of a warning label may note that the instructions might be there to protect my health, protect the producer from litigation and/or promote me using more of their product. I can realise that there is no single objective purpose for the instructions and yet follow them just fine.
Not just your 5 senses. Some religious claims are not verifiable at all. There is no universal method to verify religion the way you can verify the ingredients of an aspirin for example, that's why it's all up to personal taste
Ok, that's not postmodernism that he described. Post modernism does not make you choose to don't use tou're experience of reality. It recognise the inexistence of absolute in a human perspective. This medecine is good because I can experience it as good. Not because it's good outside of our perspective.
If science is objective and not relativistic And you claim morality is relativistic amd subjective You claim morality isn't true I wish people would finally understand this.
@@HarryNicNicholas Respectuflly that isn't right. If yoi believe the world is without G-d, you cannot develope amy objecrive moral system. If you believe that, say, murdering innocent kids walking down the street is *objectiviely* bad, you believe there's an objective standart for morality. Objective morality cannot come from a purely naturalist reality. If there is an objective morality there has to be an objective lawmaker
I think almost all religions people pray when they are sick, the bible tells us to James 5:14 states "Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord", God's normal way of bringing healing is through modern medicine, however he occasionally will miraculously heal.
@@carterwoodrow4805alibi is good when you aint got nothing to backup your claim😁🤣 theres ZERO evidence that god/s heal people, because there's ZERO valid evidence that they exist😁🤣🤣
@@davidjanbaz7728 the claim was that atheists are irrational to believe the text on medicine and not believe the text in the bible so my argument was that there are actual reasons to believe in the text on medicine and not in the text of a fictional story.
@@RobertSmith-gx3miIf there is a universe there has to be a creator. Many scientists find things that were in the Bible so explain how could the Bible be faked. This isn’t about Zeus’s isn’t about Buddha isn’t about Mohammed. The Bible is explained in ways that scientists can understand and have been found evidence or it’s claims to be true. The Bible is true and all the evidence is shown in archeological records. And You don’t even need the records you just have to see or feel Gods glory or the Holy Spirit work and then you will know that Jesus is God and he dead and resurrected again. His coming back! God bless 😊
@@ChristEnlightenmentSomething convincing would help... I'd think the all powerful creator of the universe would be able to convince little old me atleast.
MICS. Make-believe Imaginary Character Syndrome. Here we are in the present. Still, Yahweh has never been demonstrated to exist as a sentient being in reality in real-time. You understand this is just a belief. Your God, the one you speak about, exists only in your imagination. Decades of just talking about it.
@@rodbrewster4629 You really haven't been keeping up with your favourite atheists lately. Before Christopher Hitchens died, what did he say about William Craig?? You atheists are not intelligent enough to hold a logical debate with Craig. Most of your favourite atheists not even know their own argument
@@raphaelfeneje486 you have to work a bit to refute him, sometimes. But, in this speech he just gave, what he didnt lock in was what happens when both sides are trying to use word games where they claim relativistic positions as scientific. Am i a patriot or traitor? Did i kill an enemy of the tribe, or backshoot a kid?
@@techfoolcasey4348 Well, nobody has successfully refuted him. He's stating fact. You can't live out your life as a relativist. It's impossible. And isn't most part of science objective??
Our house of reason is built upon the foundation of absolute truth, I like to say. We need a foundation of what we know is true to compare every new idea to. If two sane people disagree on what the truth is, the can agree that at least one of them is wrong
@HarryNicholas I know that truth is true, no matter what either one of us thinks. I don't put much faith in religion, nor do I expect that everything I believe to be true is true. I try to know the truth. It is very uncritical to just give up and declare that truth is subjective. If we do that, we have no anchor in reality.
It's gotten worse since he said this...now we're really seeing full absurdity. It may be that people would become so dull minded that they might just suggest that they would think it's a matter of opinion when they read that box of rat poison.
@utilitymonster8267 Well, according to this "emperical evidence", gender is subjective. I would disagree, it has deep roots in biology. Anyone who was born with female bodyparts and chromosomes would be a woman, and anyone that was born with male bodyparts and chromosomes is a man. Anyone that is an exception to that defenition would intersex and so rare that they would be exceptions to the norm and not the norm itself. Now this flies in the face that many people want to identify as opposite genders than what they actuallly are. So, what they do is take the objective world (biology) and the subjective world (thoughts and feelings) and make them completely independent so that they can still identify as what they want even though they are not that. But of course, if you can seperate the subjective world and the objective world with gender, then why not just do that with anything about yourself at that point? Why not seperate the two in height, race, weight, and age? I can even identify as God and demand worship even though i am not if I seperate the two in whether or not i am God. I can identify as God and demand worship for the same reason a man can identify as a woman and demand to play on woman sports teams. That is why gender theory is absurd.
@@ir0nic303 I’m sorry, but no. Gender is rooted in biology as well, and can be demonstrated in brain scans: males that claim to feel like a woman, have a brain structure that is more similar to that of a female. In other words: you can be a woman in a male’s body. If you admit that male and female brains are different (and only feminists ever deny it), then you must also admit that when a male has a female brain, this is a female. It’s a misconception that people identify as what they “want”. Some people are born with brains that simply do not belong in that body. Again, this is all emperical, nothing subjective about it. You can’t do the same with weight, since there are no “fat” or “skinny” brains that influence any identity. Weight is only an objective number. Age the same: it’s only a claim about how long you’re around on this planet. You can’t have the brains of an 80 year old when you’re 30. This is totally different with gender: you can have female brains in a male body. You may call all of this absurd because you simply don’t like it, but every relevant scientific institute agrees that gender dysphoria is a real thing and that gender identity exists.
Because the effects of each item are… you guessed it, Demonstrable. The only things WLC knows for sure is what side of the bread is buttered and the gullibility of the common denominator.
Let me see if I have this right. Postmodernists do not exist Dr. Craig is very concerned about postmodernists Therefore, Dr. Craig is very concerned about non-existent entities Dr. Craig is also very serious about God Since Craig is concerned about non-existent entities and is concerned about God, It seems reasonable that God does not exist
I guess I could say I’m a postmodernist when it come to medicine. It could be the case that we eventually find out that modern medicine will lead the human race for dependancies on it so that we will suffer serious consequences by not taking and/or will have been a major influence in our evolution, such that we are significantly alter by us mucking with our bodies. Ironically, this is precisely the kind of “conspiracy theory” kind of fear mondgering that a large swath of Christianity likes to promote. #vaccines
Just tell us you're dumb and don't understand the statement. Don't stylishly expose your ignorance. I know you don't relate with intelligent conversation
Yeah, and he’s a very smart guy, too… Not quite sure where he’s ever going with any of this. I’ve watched a number of his videos debating the four horsemen in years gone by and I appreciate his intellectual capacity and expertise as a debater, but if he thinks he’s winnng hearts and minds for some doctrinaire, religious belief based on being more clever than his opponents, I think he’s wasting his time
@@paulaltfornorge You're the one who's not even intelligent. He has argument for the existence of God, your "intelligent" Atheists haven't been able to refute it. Even atheists know how smart and intelligent he is, noone cares about the opinion of a nobody like you 😩
Yeah, let's do some reading about objective meaning Bill. Mark 16:17-18 those who “take up serpents” will remain unharmed. In the very same passage, the Gospel of Mark’s Jesus tells his disciples that, “if they drink anything deadly it will by no means hurt them.” So go ahead Bill, let's see if you're willing to put your faith to the test. 🐍☣️
@@Doc-Holliday1851 And yet people pray, funny that. It was included because it's easy to convince people that unfalsifiability is somehow equal to infallibility.
There isn't 10,000 interpretations of an aspirin bottle because it's written clearly. There is however 10,000 interpretations of the Bible. It's almost like we need some way to... verify...
@@lauramann8275 use a search engine and look up how many denominations there are. The vast majority exist as a named entity because they carry different beliefs than the group they split from. Look at the people who do study the Bible, do we see converging views or a full spectrum with no way to tell which actually corresponds to reality. They can't all be right, but they could all be wrong.
@@lauramann8275 When your readers like to pretend instead of reason then no matter how many versions of a religious text there are there will be many more different ways to 'interpret' them.
@@lauramann8275 studying is not pretending, although charlatans can/do study in order to be better at pretending, and some people pretend to study. Here's another word: obfuscation. It is not commonly used in a sentence by charlatans and those they fool, even though their sentences are full of it.
@@doctoreggman21 not here to win enything. Just stating that asking for proof is not that bad. A lot of religions and their denominations are saying they telling the true truth.
Jesus Saves!
Amen!
Amen!
Amen Dr. Craig!
I keep you and yours in prayer. 🙏
@@HarryNicNicholas Still throwing emotions around with refuting a statement??😂
Emotional atheists in the chat. Making noise, yet can't refute anything 😂🤣
@@SupremeSquiggly What's this pip-squeak saying?? Can you refute his argument? Prove to me you are intelligent. All these internet atheists are more dumber than Richard Dawkins and Hitchens combined 😂
The texts on those labels have objective meaning because those words have been demonstrated to be true. Your religious gibberish hasn't been demonstrated to be true.
Craig for president
I think it would be great if he ran just to see him in action during the debates. Alas, Dr. Craig deliberately avoids political topics like the plague. It's kind of disheartening really.
Craig for God because he is smarter than God 😂😂😂😂
@@HarryNicNicholasSnakes do talk. They're called preachers 😂😂😂
@HarryNicholas He's a joke but with no sense of humor? Make it make sense.
Maybe running for president would give him the incentive for a full medical which will finally find and remove the huge stick he has up his butt...
It's antinomian gnosticism. Good speech. Most ordinary people use relativism only and solely as long as it suits their immediate goals and desires.
Based?
Or other people.
1) what about flat earthers and no vax?
2) science isn't an opinion as ethics
In another interview I heard Dr. Craig say something like "most of the culture" remains modernist rather than postmodernist for the same reason posited here, that people are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science, and he pointed out the large number of people saying "trust the science" in regard to Covid. While I'm reluctant to disagree with Dr. Craig about anything, I think I might disagree here, because I'd be willing to bet that many of the same people (not all) who trusted the science regarding Covid do not trust the science regarding the transgender issue. They trust science only insofar as it suits their purposes and political agendas. That is to say that, not just scientific truth, but truth in general, takes a back seat to their power. And putting power over truth is not Modernism, that's Postmodernism.
I could concede that most of the culture may still not be postmodernist, but if it were, let's say 85% modernist and 15% postmodern 15-20 years ago, I think we would have to say that today it has changed to about 60% modernist and 40% postmodern. Moreover, that postmodern minority, obsessed with power as it is, bullies anyone it can so that many of the modernist types remain silent for fear of being cancelled, and the postmodern views control even the executive branch of our government at the moment.
Taking a step back further, while I used numbers that add up to 100%, modernists and postmodernists do not make up the entire population. In fact I bet that most people, if asked, would have difficulty defining either. And if both schools of thought are relativistic regarding religion then it follows that Christianity is not compatible with either term and that Christians make up another segment of the population. The point I'm trying to make here is that, whether modern or postmodern, both are on the side that is in open rebellion against God.
They trust science only insofar as it suits their purposes and political agendas."
Well that wouldn't be science now would it? aha
Also the transgender issue is despite science not because of it. Ask a transgender if the 'science' didn't agree with them (it doesn't) would they change. When the obvious "no!!" is screamed, the argument from science is completely killed than and there.
Postmodernism is Marxism
I think he’s not wrong, it’s just accelerated since he said this a while back… which is crazy.
@@adamduarte895 He's not really wrong, but he's not spot on right either, which I think is due to his tendency to be too conceptually reductionistic, unfortunately. The thing you're saying has accelerated, Dr. Craig would call Marxism, and then he would remind you that Marxism is modernism. But this is where I think Jordan Peterson might be helpful with a term he likes to use: Postmodern NeoMarxism. It sounds like it should be contradictory if you only ever look through a very narrow lens of analytical philosophy, and Dr. Craig thinks that because analytic philosophers don't take it seriously anymore that no one worth listening to does either, which is one reason he's behind the curve. But consider that the postmodernists were discontented Marxists who didn't become any less Left wing, but they just became more nihilistic. Critical Theorist Herbert Marcuse's protege, communist Angela Davis isn't so much different from Kimberle Crenshaw who said in her paper Mapping the Margins that "Intersectionality is a provisional concept linking contemporary politics with postmodern theory." But when you reduce postmodernism just to being subjectivist regarding science and textual interpretation in addition to the modernist subjectivizing of religion and ethics, then it becomes easy to get behind the curve. And if we remember to look at the big picture and being more mindful of the word of God, it's much easier to see that at the end of the day they are all antichrist, just different forms of it.
@@tchristian04 you could be right… but these interviews are quite old. His new podcasts really illuminate much of his cultural critique, but there even amongst the most radical of cultural leftists, in their day to day lives, they still read certain items with objective meaning behind them because all in all it’s absolutely absurd to be able to live completely subjective in your life, they just want to expand the window as far as possible. Also, regular people are not radical leftists like that and still tend to think in a more modernist way tbh, at least amongst religious nones who just wanna work and are center left politically but just live an almost apathetic lifestyle. I think in the end we all see the issue that is going on
This is a strawman of post-modernism. A post-modern critique of a warning label may note that the instructions might be there to protect my health, protect the producer from litigation and/or promote me using more of their product. I can realise that there is no single objective purpose for the instructions and yet follow them just fine.
Texts do have a meaning.
Matthew 5:19-20 says that if you aren't a devout Jew, you aren't getting into heaven.
Not just your 5 senses. Some religious claims are not verifiable at all. There is no universal method to verify religion the way you can verify the ingredients of an aspirin for example, that's why it's all up to personal taste
Full video?
🔥🔥🔥
I Love this clip❤❤❤
Wow, a point of agreement between WLC and Sam Harris. That may never happen again.
Ok, that's not postmodernism that he described. Post modernism does not make you choose to don't use tou're experience of reality. It recognise the inexistence of absolute in a human perspective. This medecine is good because I can experience it as good. Not because it's good outside of our perspective.
Craig living rent free in atheists heads!
If science is objective and not relativistic
And you claim morality is relativistic amd subjective
You claim morality isn't true
I wish people would finally understand this.
@@HarryNicNicholas Respectuflly that isn't right. If yoi believe the world is without G-d, you cannot develope amy objecrive moral system.
If you believe that, say, murdering innocent kids walking down the street is *objectiviely* bad, you believe there's an objective standart for morality.
Objective morality cannot come from a purely naturalist reality.
If there is an objective morality there has to be an objective lawmaker
Which came 1st; any person who can function naturally in a natural world, or, the charlatan who tries to use mere words to trap gullible folk minds.
Grind down the entire universe and show me one atom of morality.
Most people do not live up to their worldview or philosophy, but yeah relativists are utterly inconsistent in their life.
Exactly. And religious people don't pray when they're sick. They go to the doctor. Ridiculous.
I think almost all religions people pray when they are sick, the bible tells us to James 5:14 states "Is anyone among you sick? Let them call the elders of the church to pray over them and anoint them with oil in the name of the Lord", God's normal way of bringing healing is through modern medicine, however he occasionally will miraculously heal.
@@carterwoodrow4805 and they go to the doctor. God is just unreliable. Maybe it's because he doesn't exist...
@@carterwoodrow4805alibi is good when you aint got nothing to backup your claim😁🤣 theres ZERO evidence that god/s heal people, because there's ZERO valid evidence that they exist😁🤣🤣
@@HarryNicNicholas good question the answer is to glorify God and for the good of those who love God
@@HarryNicNicholas Why not create a world where this is no suffering and no sickness.
What that was a lot of words to say nothing
There are actual reaon to believe that the text on medicine are accurate unlike your favorite book
Nice one, I’m sure you’re the first person to make that clever remark. You’re now a level 4 Atheist.
@@joshuahackler2184 the use of sarcasm isn't an argument
@@lucasbusselen9137your presupposition opinion ISN'T either! LOL 😂
@@davidjanbaz7728 the claim was that atheists are irrational to believe the text on medicine and not believe the text in the bible so my argument was that there are actual reasons to believe in the text on medicine and not in the text of a fictional story.
@@lucasbusselen9137Don't count on defenders of the faith to argue in good faith.
Some people have some odd ball ways of attempting to prove their deity exists.
Prove that you exist
@@jackloo7233 Do you often ask questions to things that don't exist?
I mean besides gods?
@@RobertSmith-gx3miIf there is a universe there has to be a creator. Many scientists find things that were in the Bible so explain how could the Bible be faked. This isn’t about Zeus’s isn’t about Buddha isn’t about Mohammed. The Bible is explained in ways that scientists can understand and have been found evidence or it’s claims to be true. The Bible is true and all the evidence is shown in archeological records. And You don’t even need the records you just have to see or feel Gods glory or the Holy Spirit work and then you will know that Jesus is God and he dead and resurrected again. His coming back! God bless 😊
@RobertSmith-gx3mi how much more proof do you need for Jesus?
@@ChristEnlightenmentSomething convincing would help... I'd think the all powerful creator of the universe would be able to convince little old me atleast.
When someone has to resort to yelling sophistry, then you know they are talking BS.
If that's yelling, what's screaming??
WLG has a headache and prays to every god that has a one in a million chance to exist, and hopes for the best.
MICS. Make-believe Imaginary Character Syndrome.
Here we are in the present. Still, Yahweh has never been demonstrated to exist as a sentient being in reality in real-time.
You understand this is just a belief.
Your God, the one you speak about, exists only in your imagination.
Decades of just talking about it.
Craig is full of trickery and slick talk!
Yet atheists are scared of him
@@raphaelfeneje486 Afraid of low bar bill. No not scared at all. Other apologists probably are.
@@rodbrewster4629 You really haven't been keeping up with your favourite atheists lately. Before Christopher Hitchens died, what did he say about William Craig?? You atheists are not intelligent enough to hold a logical debate with Craig. Most of your favourite atheists not even know their own argument
@@raphaelfeneje486 you have to work a bit to refute him, sometimes.
But, in this speech he just gave, what he didnt lock in was what happens when both sides are trying to use word games where
they claim relativistic positions
as scientific.
Am i a patriot or traitor? Did i kill an enemy of the tribe, or backshoot a kid?
@@techfoolcasey4348 Well, nobody has successfully refuted him. He's stating fact. You can't live out your life as a relativist. It's impossible. And isn't most part of science objective??
Our house of reason is built upon the foundation of absolute truth, I like to say. We need a foundation of what we know is true to compare every new idea to. If two sane people disagree on what the truth is, the can agree that at least one of them is wrong
@HarryNicholas I know that truth is true, no matter what either one of us thinks. I don't put much faith in religion, nor do I expect that everything I believe to be true is true. I try to know the truth. It is very uncritical to just give up and declare that truth is subjective. If we do that, we have no anchor in reality.
“People are not relativistic when it comes to matters of science…” enter gender theory, queer theory, and critical theory.
It's gotten worse since he said this...now we're really seeing full absurdity. It may be that people would become so dull minded that they might just suggest that they would think it's a matter of opinion when they read that box of rat poison.
What is relativistic about that? It’s based on objective emperical research.
And abortion
@utilitymonster8267 Well, according to this "emperical evidence", gender is subjective. I would disagree, it has deep roots in biology. Anyone who was born with female bodyparts and chromosomes would be a woman, and anyone that was born with male bodyparts and chromosomes is a man. Anyone that is an exception to that defenition would intersex and so rare that they would be exceptions to the norm and not the norm itself.
Now this flies in the face that many people want to identify as opposite genders than what they actuallly are. So, what they do is take the objective world (biology) and the subjective world (thoughts and feelings) and make them completely independent so that they can still identify as what they want even though they are not that.
But of course, if you can seperate the subjective world and the objective world with gender, then why not just do that with anything about yourself at that point? Why not seperate the two in height, race, weight, and age? I can even identify as God and demand worship even though i am not if I seperate the two in whether or not i am God. I can identify as God and demand worship for the same reason a man can identify as a woman and demand to play on woman sports teams. That is why gender theory is absurd.
@@ir0nic303
I’m sorry, but no. Gender is rooted in biology as well, and can be demonstrated in brain scans: males that claim to feel like a woman, have a brain structure that is more similar to that of a female. In other words: you can be a woman in a male’s body. If you admit that male and female brains are different (and only feminists ever deny it), then you must also admit that when a male has a female brain, this is a female.
It’s a misconception that people identify as what they “want”. Some people are born with brains that simply do not belong in that body. Again, this is all emperical, nothing subjective about it.
You can’t do the same with weight, since there are no “fat” or “skinny” brains that influence any identity. Weight is only an objective number. Age the same: it’s only a claim about how long you’re around on this planet. You can’t have the brains of an 80 year old when you’re 30. This is totally different with gender: you can have female brains in a male body.
You may call all of this absurd because you simply don’t like it, but every relevant scientific institute agrees that gender dysphoria is a real thing and that gender identity exists.
Because the effects of each item are… you guessed it,
Demonstrable.
The only things WLC knows for sure is what side of the bread is buttered and the gullibility of the common denominator.
Is there such a thing as objective truth
@@Doc-Holliday1851
Relevance?
@@rogerbee697 this is a discussion about post modernism, that’s the relevance
@@Doc-Holliday1851
Not in this thread. I’m simply calling out a word salad spewing charlatan who has no sound argument no matter how he spins it.
@@rogerbee697 OK so then you’re the one who is saying something irrelevant
Let me see if I have this right.
Postmodernists do not exist
Dr. Craig is very concerned about postmodernists
Therefore, Dr. Craig is very concerned about non-existent entities
Dr. Craig is also very serious about God
Since Craig is concerned about non-existent entities and is concerned about God,
It seems reasonable that God does not exist
This is what you get when you're a graduate from the philosophy class of atheistic keyboard warriors.
Jesus Saves
I guess I could say I’m a postmodernist when it come to medicine. It could be the case that we eventually find out that modern medicine will lead the human race for dependancies on it so that we will suffer serious consequences by not taking and/or will have been a major influence in our evolution, such that we are significantly alter by us mucking with our bodies.
Ironically, this is precisely the kind of “conspiracy theory” kind of fear mondgering that a large swath of Christianity likes to promote. #vaccines
Craig ftw
For sure, Craig ftw
wtf maybe.
This guy is just shouting into a tin cup. He is making no sense.
Он несёт лишь информацию
@@abiMart what
@@dancingdan1994 i from russia 🇷🇺🇷🇺
@Viachek511 OK... well done? Hope you are pleasing putin during your difficult time
@@dancingdan1994 I don't think you wrote a reasonable message. If these are postmodern jokes, then great!)
ιδιοφυια ιδιοφυια ιδοφυια !!!
Amazing how someone can ramble on and mean nothing.
@@HarryNicNicholas Yet no Atheists can refute his argument, neither can you. Throwing your emotions all over the place 😂
Just tell us you're dumb and don't understand the statement. Don't stylishly expose your ignorance. I know you don't relate with intelligent conversation
Nice failed "gotcha"
Yeah, and he’s a very smart guy, too… Not quite sure where he’s ever going with any of this. I’ve watched a number of his videos debating the four horsemen in years gone by and I appreciate his intellectual capacity and expertise as a debater, but if he thinks he’s winnng hearts and minds for some doctrinaire, religious belief based on being more clever than his opponents, I think he’s wasting his time
@@paulaltfornorge You're the one who's not even intelligent. He has argument for the existence of God, your "intelligent" Atheists haven't been able to refute it. Even atheists know how smart and intelligent he is, noone cares about the opinion of a nobody like you 😩
WLC mis represents post modernism for most of the layman audience... he is disingenuous as he should know better being a philosopher.
Postmodernism, yet another thing Craig doesn't understand.
Is there objective truth?
That is an extremely good comparison.
Yeah, let's do some reading about objective meaning Bill.
Mark 16:17-18 those who “take up serpents” will remain unharmed.
In the very same passage, the Gospel of Mark’s Jesus tells his disciples that, “if they drink anything deadly it will by no means hurt them.” So go ahead Bill, let's see if you're willing to put your faith to the test. 🐍☣️
"Oh that's just metaphorical and allegorical, please, put the Adder infested bleach bottle away, please."
Matthew 4:7 you shall not put your Lord God to the test.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 A convenient caveat for sure, makes you wonder why it was included at all?
@@drrickmarshall1191 it was included because God is not your plaything, nor his a laboratory experiment.
@@Doc-Holliday1851 And yet people pray, funny that. It was included because it's easy to convince people that unfalsifiability is somehow equal to infallibility.
Well you're just as bad as the religious people trying to help by preaching your word
Tell me you don't understand postmodernism without telling me you don't understand postmodernism:
Can you tell us what that means, please?
There isn't 10,000 interpretations of an aspirin bottle because it's written clearly. There is however 10,000 interpretations of the Bible. It's almost like we need some way to... verify...
There is not 10,000 interpretations of the Bible. That's why it's important to study it.
@@lauramann8275 use a search engine and look up how many denominations there are. The vast majority exist as a named entity because they carry different beliefs than the group they split from.
Look at the people who do study the Bible, do we see converging views or a full spectrum with no way to tell which actually corresponds to reality. They can't all be right, but they could all be wrong.
@@lauramann8275 When your readers like to pretend instead of reason then no matter how many versions of a religious text there are there will be many more different ways to 'interpret' them.
@@wadler00 studying is pretending 🤔 would you care to elaborate?
@@lauramann8275 studying is not pretending, although charlatans can/do study in order to be better at pretending, and some people pretend to study.
Here's another word: obfuscation. It is not commonly used in a sentence by charlatans and those they fool, even though their sentences are full of it.
Love the BS I just saw...
You got it right, its realistic to ask for proof. Aparently the Santa storys arent proven also.
atheists when typing “Santa” doesn’t win a debate
@@doctoreggman21 not here to win enything. Just stating that asking for proof is not that bad. A lot of religions and their denominations are saying they telling the true truth.
But... The cookies... They were gone when I woke up...