Are you Robert's mother? ;)

@@ROForeverMan I'd say too much spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo.

the whole conversation is brain shrinking. I am stupider for watching some of this.

Yes so mind expanding that your head will explode

Very poor attitude ​@@scambammer6102

😂😂😂😂😂

Exactly

Yeah, I wish the same thing about many scientists.

It would hardly qualify as religion if it were open minded :)

@@AlphaOne2009 all religions are equally false. BTW, the majority of credentialed, respected scientists in their applied science do indeed present their evidence, their findings as interpretations. That’s the difference in religion and science. Where have you been? Hanging out in Church I assume.

@@frankkockritz5441 You’re probably just a troll. If you’re not a troll, then your view is profoundly narrow.

Interpretations are many but truth is one.

it is very easy to believe what you want to believe. also what you make a living from.

I'm still not sold that Craig isn't just another con man. The amount of times philosophers have tore his "word salad magic"(I like that) apart to his face and in writing and he still uses the same trash 40 years later suggests that he is just doing it for the dollars.

It seems as though he started with an immutable conclusion and then tried to build arguments to support that conclusion, even if those arguments completely ignore accepted rules of logic.

/// if the future is definitely knowable by anyone, including Yahweh---then their actions are determined/// demonstrate the contradiction or zip it. no one's interested in faith based assertions that freewill and determinism are incompatible. They grow some tiresome. and FYI: Craig is a libertarian. Not a determinist. But even if he was a determinist, you still can't prove your claim.

@@robertsaget9697 If the future can be known with certainty, this means that events could only unfold in one way. If events can only unfold in one way, then whatever people think or do is part of that unfolding. The person may feel they are acting freely...this feeling too would be part of the immutable unfolding of events. I'm not a determinist, and I realize Dr. Craig isn't either. I was just pointing out the inconsistency. As for its demonstration, you'll have to think it through for yourself. Dr. Craig suggests that God would know all possible outcomes, and then says that God can know which of these the person will 'freely' choose. Putting in the word 'freely' does not make it so. In my view, the Bible does not actually present an omniscient God in the way that modern believers conceive of it. You have to distort the text to get that view of Yahweh. And Jesus...he even admits he doesn't know when Judgement Day will come, only Yahweh. This further raises the issue of how one person of the trinity can have secrets from another person of the trinity. Yahweh is continually surprised by his creation and people's actions. He doesn't know that Adam and Eve will succumb to the snake's temptation. He doesn't realize he will have to destroy nearly his whole creation. Yahweh is sorry that He made man at all. Moses has to talk Him out of killing a bunch of His own people and starting a new covenant with him. It goes on and on. You just have to read the text without imposing later philosophical concepts upon it. Yahweh is a tribal god with limited knowledge, limited powers and very limited compassion...much like the other gods of the Ancient Near East pantheon.

it's like middle earth, only without the hobbits

since god (allegedly) knows what will happen all the rest is rigmarole. also, there was no point in creating the earth, humans or anything. It was a completely pointless exercise.

"Could be" refers to All possible things, events ect. "Would be" deals with actuals, things, events that will actually occur under given circumstances

Theists break at the simplest of queries: 1. Q: Is God omnipresent? 2. Theist answer: Yes. 3. Q: Is God present in hell? 4. Theist answer: No. 5. Thanks for participating.

​@@g0d182 Not really what I was talking about but sure, heh, sometimes it's silly stuff like that but no matter what it is they'll find some wiggle room to make "sense" of it ("Well, god could be in hell but it chooses not to," et cetera). The goal is to keep their beliefs above all else (outside of deconversion, which the faithful are primed not to do by default). Cognitive dissonance is a simple yet powerful thing and can provide absurd levels of motivation to hold on to some way of seeing things irrespective of it being logical or not. I've learned by living with devoutly religious people for a long time that logical arguments simply don't work 99% of the time. You'd have to find out what that individual gets from their belief and present alternative ways to reap the same kinds of benefits without needing to buy into their dogma. If it still serves a purpose for them, they won't let go of it, especially so if they've believed at an earlier age; it's their whole motivation behind their existence at that point. Perhaps when I was a child I'd think, "Well, their beliefs aren't hurting anything so let it go," but as I've grown to learn, political action can be motivated by such dogmatic concerns. Not to say all religious people think and vote the same, but it seems to be quite a significant proportion, heh. "Who's to say what's right?" All of us democratically (not a perfect idea but there are worse ideas), but if you use your horoscopes, tea leaves, or religious doctrine to tell you how to vote, therein lies the rub. If there is a god I want to know what they (singular or plural, having either no sex or all equally; I'll forever be annoyed when I hear people talk of god as a "he") actually are, not what some people who wrote some books long ago say it is that one is to take on faith alone. I don't see much reason to believe I'll have access to any such truth perhaps until I die (and stay dead, not some borderline, psychedelic, near death experience). If god exists, all I can hope is that it has pity on my ignorance and infinite shortcomings. Maybe they won't. Who knows. Not me. Sorry for being a bit wordy. I don't get out much.

Black holes used to be a speculation too. But Nassim Haramein finally showed that every proton is a tiny black hole...

@@ROForeverMan We also need to mention a false body mind, the Ego. Humans have tendency to confuse the Ego with the true I AM

@@eugene-bright No, but people will believe what they will.

God can not know what I would not know what to do. If he knows this part with certainty then there is no free will, everything is predestined, and we don't understand reality.

@@ROForeverMan god is a loser posting comments on KZfaq?

I got a little lost logically, but I think I agree with you. God knows everything real. An unwritten, future event in a nondeterministic universe is not real. With those things, God leaves them up to us. We’re made in his likeness, so we can alter the way events play out with our free choices. It doesn’t mean you can outsmart him, undo his overarching purpose, or catch him off guard.

Two propositions: either I will eat pizza tomorrow or I will not eat pizza tomorrow. If God is omniscient then He knows only true propositions… even if I don’t know them. Also - read about Dr. Craig’s response to the grounding or truth-maker objection. There doesn’t have to be a truth maker that you describe. Lastly, God’s knowledge of what “could” be is just to say His knowledge of anything that is logically possible. Gods knowledge of what “would” be is taking the agents free decision into account. For example - it’s possible that Peter could have affirmed Christ (and not denied him 3 times), but maybe there weren’t any worlds where Peter actually affirmed because the decision was based in Peter. Certainly it was logically possible, but may never have been actualizeable. That’s what it means for God to give us free will. He gives us the freedom to co-actualize the world.

"Wouldn't God's knowledge of what you would do fall under his knowledge of all possibilities?" - Yes and no. God's middle knowledge is a subset of his natural knowledge. A bit like how the even numbers are a subset of the natural numbers. So his knowledge of people would do is part of both. The distinction is that what free creatures would do will determine which worlds are feasible for God to create and which worlds are not feasible for God to create. "Also, if God has knowledge (of anything), there has to be a truth-maker. There has to be something that makes it the case that I choose a over b." - Not all truths require truth-makers. No one and nothing makes it true that superman does not exist, for example. And in your example, you are the reason why you choose A over B. That is the very nature of a free will decision. "A truly free act wouldn't be able to be known because there is no fact of the matter until the decision is made." - You are going to need to provide a defence of this claim. I think this claim is clearly false. Having knowledge of a person allows you to know what they will do under certain circumstances. For example, I know myself much better than I know you (I know nothing about you!), hence I can more accurately predict what I will do in a given circumstance than what you will do in a given circumstance. For example, I know that I would choose a bowl of grapes over a bowl of raisins if I was given the choice. But I do not know what you would pick if you were given that choice. The more accurate knowledge you have of a person, the more accurately you can predict how they will act in any given situation. Since God has perfect knowledge of all people, he can perfectly predict how any given person would act in any given situation. Hence, he knows how every person would freely choose to act in any situation they were placed in. "If God "knows" the future, it would necessarily have to be determined." - This just doesn't follow at all. Knowing that something is the case does not cause it to be the case. God knows that if I drop a pen over my table, it will fall onto the table. God's knowledge of that event does not cause the event to take place. Gravity is what causes the pen to fall onto the table. Very simply, knowledge of an event does not cause the event to take place.

Craig does not think backward causation possible, he was thinking along with Kuhn and using examples to get a rough and ready idea in mind of how God's knowledge works. The insights are not after the fact rationalizations but, rather, they are genuine insights that might explain what is a very difficult question... ironically a question you articulated. On the model that Craig is affirming, God was free to bring about any of the worlds he contemplated or not to bring any of them about at all. What he knows as "will be" is not something he knows and cannot avoid, it is something that he knows and it ultimately reduces to an act of his will given that he could have chosen to have no world where nothing "will be". The middle knowledge explanation answers the question of how it might be the case that God exercised providential control over the affairs of free creatures and it was put forward because it seemed, to Molina, that the reformers (Luther, Calvin etc.) had espoused models of God's sovereign control that eliminated human freedom... Molina thought this was impious as it made God the cause of evil and he felt this was unacceptable. The contemplation of this sort of thing is, like Kuhn is finding to be the case, quite intellectually stimulating and pleasurable. If one, like Craig, thinks that God exists and that God does posses this sort of omniscience they are moved to respond as Craig does... to worship. I know that worship seems silly to many people as it did to me for the longest time but, if God does exist and if God does possess such knowledge, it seems to me to be right to stand in awe of God and to worship God.

Exactly...I have my conclusion, now I need to find reasons WHY its MUST be correct.

@@RoninTF2011 Which he did successfully. Biased does not mean incorrect. Edit: That said, he's already substantiated the plausibility of God with other independent arguments, so this "magical thinking" approach doesn't even apply.

@@temptemp961 lol, nope, he didn't provide anything to support his premises...so any "reasoning" is dead in the water...circular

@@RoninTF2011 This is a clear misunderstanding on how philosophy works. There are numerous videos (possibly hundreds at this point) of Craig giving arguments for his initial premises. Those premises are being assumed in this video so the topic can proceed. Hence, the name of the video. If philosophers had to defend every single starting premise before they proceeded with a topic, literally nobody would be able to speak until they successfully argued against Descartes skeptical hypothesis. Would you say Dawkins' book "The Selfish Gene" is invalid because he doesn't give an argument for material objects outside of his subjective sphere? Of course not. That would be stupid given that wasn't the purpose of the book. However, if you are bothered by this, you can watch one of the billion videos showing Craig's position on the existence of God and the moral argument.

@@ROForeverMan wow... So is Bill right? Middle knowledge is the missing piece that makes foreknowledge and free will compatible???

Everything you said is wrong.

@@NeverTalkToCops1 in what way? Why do you say so? What is your competing vision of who God is or is not?

Lol, outstanding effort in makebelieve...

@@RoninTF2011 whatever

The number one problem with your position ( Open Theism ) and it most definitely is a problem is Biblical Prophecy. God tells a Person in the Bible something that will happen hundreds of years in the future. But if your position is correct, then it puts God in the position of possibly being wrong. Namely, because People could make choices and decisions that will actually cause the prophecy to not come to pass.

But aren't you forgetting that everyone is free to choose what ever they want in those worlds.. in the world where craig chooses evil craig could have chosen good.. the worlds that God sees are for the most part up to us.. you seem to be conflating determinism and freedom in your final point.

That's why we pray " lead us not into trial. But deliver us from evil "

You are overlooking the fact that people are still freely choosing how they act in the actual world. The fact that God chooses which possible world to actualise does nothing to remove the responsibility of the free agents in that world. If I were to commit a murder, first degree murder in cold blood, and when placed on trial my defence is "Yes, I freely chose to end this persons life without justification, BUT, if God had actualised a different possible world then I would not have ended up being a murderer, therefore, you cannot judge me or hold me accountable for actually committing murder", no one would take such a defence seriously.

It is so easy to 'prove' your made up being when you also get to make up the attributes and how they work.

Imagine a creature straining each morning to eliminate the waste its body produces, like a pet or any other creature in nature... and imagine a creature having such a limited intellectual and perceptual ability as you, along with all the rest of us have such that we know very little of the present, less of the past and much of that with error and none of the future... and imagine that the best estimate of our best physicists is that by far and away we are only able to see / perceive a very small fraction of the energy and matter in the universe... and imagine the great amount of prejudice that fills the mind of many, maybe even your mind; a prejudice often motivated by a blinding arrogance... Now imagine all this and more in a creature who offers such a sage comment as the one you offered... that the things Craig spoke of are mere fairy tails because we know there is no such being as God. Such a statements, on the lips of such a creature would be just silly... foolish even.

he is not alone :)

A paycheck. If he used logic and rationale he wouldn't sell any books to crazy people.

Religion definitely can be misused... However, I don’t see William’s Personal Faith in GOD as a danger to society that say the Jesuits were to the indigenous peoples of the New World.

Yup. He is definitely brainwashed by religion. Nothing will convince him that Christianity isn't true.

Lol...read his books. He has spent an entire life presenting arguments and evidence for theism.

"Religion is a powerful and potent controller of minds" as much as militant atheism, scientism, scientific nerdism, nihilism... since no one knows the ultimate truth there are no evidences backing up any claim. But religion, science, spirituality can all help in the path to understand a bit the reality we live in

Well, the bible condones slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46). What a great guideline - not.

Tell me you know nothing about philosophy and religious studies without telling me you know nothing about philosophy and religious studies.

Clown. God did the evidence of His existence but you'll rejected it as fake science. Universal Functions ... is the scientific explanation ... for Sir Issac Newton's Watchmaker Analogy over 300 years ago. Everything is an abstract ( time, space, Laws of nature) or physical ( matter, energy) FUNCTION ... with clear & obvious purpose, form, & design ... and can only be made by an intelligence. Man has known for thousands of years ... what a "function" is .... and who makes them. Only an intelligence ( like Man) makes rules & laws ... and anything with clear & obvious function, purpose, form, design. Again. God made a Universe for Man ... that screams, "I am, made it all" ... but you reject the OBSERVATION for not being proof, and conveniently forget the God is an intelligence ( like Man) and the Universe, Sun, Earth, Atmosphere, Air, water, life ... are physical Functions ... with clear & obvious purpose, form, design & properties. Nature can not make & operate the simplest machine. This is a fact that you is true. The three types of machines are mechanical, electrical & molecular ( LIFE ). Oh no. This can be right? Because we know nature created the first "machine" 4 billion years ago ... and the nature made simple machines more complex. When pigs fly. lol. And intelligence ( like Man) has a mind, free will & nature ... to think, believe, say & do as he wants ... with the evidence for God. ... as well as the sciences, arts, law, politics, culture, environment, oneself, family, friends, community, others. The Function, Intelligence & Mind CATEGORIES ... prove an intelligence made the Universe & Life ...the Mind of an intelligence is Unnatural & non-physical, and Man does indeed have a body & soul for the Mind of Man is natural (brain) & unnatural (soul). Looks like Genesis was correct after all.

@@joshheter1517 If it takes advanced degrees in philosophy and religion to preform the mental gymnastics to correlate the omniscience of god with reality then omniscience is nonsensical.

@@ak2n218 That’s not what “nonsensical” means. It doesn’t take advanced degrees; it takes a minimum of sophisticated thought which apparently you lack. When you don’t understand or agree with an argument, you can call it “mental gymnastics”, but you aren’t fooling anyone.

@@joshheter1517 Well, nonsensical was used correctly and attempting to correct grammar and personal attacks aside, Craig is attempting to explain something he or anyone else can have any knowledge of. Unless you do, if so, please explain. First there has to be proof there IS a god, then the attributes of this being can be explained.

You are missing the fact that God certainly knows that you wouldn't do it under those circumstances, so the question of wether God can tell you that or not is really asking if God is capable of lying.

You’re right. If God tells me what I will do tomorrow, and I can freely choose NOT to do it, only if God lied in telling me that can I not disprove God’s omniscience. But if God can’t lie (which most theists believe), and God has the power to communicate to me what he already knows I will do tomorrow (which most theists also believe is possible for God to do), then if I do have free will (also a theistic belief), I would have the power to disprove God’s foreknowledge, which if God really is omniscient, disproves God. This would mean that God has the means of disproving himself, which no real thing has the power to do.@@ChumX100

@@charlesvandenburgh5295 this seems to be a version of the omnipotence paradox (Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it?). WLC argues that these arise because of a faulty/naive definition of omnipotence. Omnipotence, he says, does not mean that God can do anything at all but, rather, that he can do anything that is possible according to his nature. Another way to look at it is that a contradictory task is no task at all, is just a linguistic construction with no truth attached to it. So, similar to a false premise, anything can derive from it. God could simply create the rock and then lift it. You may say that is contradictory, and He could say the same thing from the task.

If God knows what I will do tomorrow, what logically prevents God from communicating that information to me today? He’s just telling me something he knows. Where’s the logical impossibility in doing that? We communicate information all the time; proof there is nothing logically impossible about it.@@ChumX100

It may be the God’s word or it may not if you are wrong. Your statement imposes others to accept your own conclusions.

Well said!

@@rotorblade9508 You must be underestimating the validity of God’s word. People are ignoring known human history. The actual historical records and DNA migrations show that everyone spread out from Mesopotamia. Ancient history is essential for everyone to know, especially the sixteen original civilizations… from the sixteen grandsons of Noah. Learn ancient history before trying to learn science. 1. The first inhabitants of Italy (K) Tubal 2. Thracians (L) Tiras 3. Mediterranean Greek sea people (T) Javan 4. Siberians (N) Meshek 5. East Asians (O) Magog 6. Medes (PQ) Madai 7. Western Europeans (R) Gomer 8. Hebrews and Arabic (IJ) Arphaxad 9. Elamites (H) Elam 10. Assyrians (G) Asshur 11. Arameans (F1) Aram 12. Lydians (F2) Lud 13. Cushites (AB, C) Cush 14. Egyptians (E3) Mitzrayim 15. Canaanites (E2, D) Canaan 16. Original North African Phoenicians (E1) Phut The D paternal haplogroup Sino descendants of Canaan migrated from Canaan east to China all the way to Japan and Tibet. The C paternal haplogroup descendants of Nimrod migrated as far as South Asia, the Pacific, Mongolia and all the way to the Americas accounting for the Olmec civilization as well as the Q haplogroup descendants of Madai ancestor of the Medes that crossed the Atlantic to Central America. The A maternal mtDNA haplogroup belonging to the Semitic N lineage accompanied the Eurasian Q paternal haplogroup to Central America. The C&D maternal haplogroups belonging to the Eurasian M lineage also accompanied the Atlantic crossing of the Q paternal haplogroup Medes and probably the C paternal haplogroup to Central America. The Semitic B maternal mtDNA haplogroup seems to have crossed the Pacific Ocean to South America. The Mediterranean paternal R1b and the maternal X2a also found in Galilee represent another Atlantic crossing of the Phoenicians in the days of King Solomon considering also the Mediterranean paternal haplogroups of T, G, I1, I2, J1, J2, E and B in addition to the R1b in Native American Populations. J1 and J2 is Arabs and Jews. (I1 is most likely Dan and I2 resembles the movements of the tribe of Asher) Of course there is also the Cohen modal haplotype of J1 P58 as well which identifies the IJ lineage of Hebrews and Arabs that are descended from Arphaxad. J2 M172 is the largest group of descendants probably of the House of the kings David and Solomon. Now you know a lot more of what is verified human history.

There is a difference. "Would" implies the multiverse and the all it's possibilities

It lies outside of the linear frame of reference of the average man

"Could" implies the same

@@maxwelldillon4805 In truth you are right. But in their limited framework humans usually think of only one exclusive alternative

He made his career by publishing in prestigious peer-reviewed journals, writing books (with highly respected presses), and giving a number of distinguished lectures. It sounds like you don’t know what you’re talking about.

@@joshheter1517 I know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm sorry that you are a member of his gullible base.

@@jimscott9974 What am I gullible about exactly? Please be very specific.

@@joshheter1517 ..if you cant figure it out then nobody else complete utter nonsense

@@davenchop Huh?

EDIT: Another thought I just had to defend free will is that, maybe God is REACTIVE to our free will. Meaning that when we decide to do something that goes against his sovereignty, God will CORRECT what was wronged. For example, I decide to steal a Lamborghini and drive dangerously through neighborhoods. God might cause me to be caught right away or cause me to crash... he might have angels or some type of spirits intervening in these kinds of situations in order to allow the free will to choose, but then to correct the decision in order to keep it in line with his sovereignty? 🤷🏽‍♂️ But then that still begs the question is that really free will.... it's very confusing

There is no free will in Molinism or Middle Knowledge because once the World has been created you must do what God knew you would do. You must do it. You are forced to do it by God creating that World.

and not very well

Maybe you should tell all of those prestigious peer-reviewed journals he’s published in. They should know!

That's essentially what's called open theism.

@@Joseph-un8jk Thanks Joseph. I've heard about open theism, but wasn't sure exactly what it was. Hey! I'm an Open Theist! It's a really good way to be. :)

Stop being silly. God knowing everything and every outcome for the Human Race from that Fall for Man ... has no bearing at all on free will. And God does know everything. God created the Angels before He created Man. God created every single Angel and there a billions of them ... male, extremely powerful Spirits .... with free will & a nature .... to be Helpers & servants of God. God only created Adam & Eve ... with free will & nature ... to Children of God ... and with the ability to pro-Create mankind. Adam & Eve were warned by God that if they broke one simple rule/law ... they will have sinned and therefore will die. The Angles where told that if they sinned then they will not die ... but be punished forever in Hell. God was never going to say to powerful Angels like Lucifer ... that if you sin ... you will be destroyed, because of free will. Lucifer still sinned every though he knows he's going to be punished forever in Hell. If Lucifer had known the punishment would have simply been death & complete destruction ... he would have sinned earlier. The Angels are extremely powerful Spirits with free will ... so God had to make the punishment forever. God can easily destroy Satan & the demons. But he won't because the rule & punishment was set, and God must follow the Law. Man is not a powerful spirit There is nothing in the bible that suggests the soul has any supernatural powers. Man is to be God's Children .... with billions of powerful Angels being Helpers & servants of God( & His Children). Can you see why God made the Angels first and extremely powerful ... and made Man with only a puny body & soul ... to become His children? If God had made Man with a powerful soul like the Angels ... then he would have to punish Man forever if he sins. God created Man to become His children, and he loves all of His creation and doesn't want any to be lost ... neither does He want them to be suffering forever in Hell. So God deliberately made His Children puny ... and have powerful Angels being their Helpers & servants. Hell was made to punish fallen Angels forever. The Human soul is puny and will eventually be destroyed(die) in Hell. The assumption with Jesus taking our punishment in Hell ... is that it takes 3 days for a soul to be destroyed in Hell. And again, God & Jesus warned of the Horrors in Hell. Because Time is not the same in Hell & on Earth. So there is no quick & painless end to all existence. You will eventually be destroy ... in a place where powerful Demons are being punished forever. Yikes. God knows everything and you have free will.

@@ROForeverMan no, you aren’t... I’m an adult... you should try to have a conversation with me as an adult.... Starting a conversation in that way gives the person you are addressing the idea that your jokes suck, or you have mental issues.... I’m just going to give you the benefit of thinking Your Jokes are lame. Try to actually have meaningful discussion instead of obtuse off-topic claims.... put your education to good use.... I think you could if you wanted to.....

@@ROForeverMan that’s quasi-Hindu

He evidently wants to convey the impression that has certain knowledge about all things unknowable, yet my impression is that he's in self-inflicted anguish through constant struggle with inner conflicts and doubts. May he find peace of mind.

I never heard there is fantasy novel that complex, can you provide one?

Have ever read any philosophy on metaphysics? Just curious.

As a “believer”, I can’t say he made much of an impression.... sometimes when folks try TOO hard, they faceplant.... that’s the case in this video. I wonder if Robert Lawrence Kuhn will have a video at some point that will “sum up” his thoughts and how his views have changed, if they’ve changed at all.... After all, this is about HIS journey of discovery. We are merely allowed to view his search, and should be on our own individual journeys.

@@richardsasso8043 yes but this is completely different. He doesn't start with any evidence and start climbing around, for example in the case of personal identity you start with some evidence and you build an argument around it (that you can never prove because it's metaphysics), but I don't any reason for this kind of discourse. Speculation based on evidence is good, it can be fun and sometime it's a waste of time. Speculation without any evidence and some other speculation on top of that? cmon...

Because he is making it all up to earn a living.

As if God talks to him every night on the affairs of the world

@@ROForeverMan You are blocked.

@@TurinTuramber 😂😅😂🤣

Well, RL Kuhn asked him the questions and he answered them to the best of his abilities.... I guess the host forced him into it....

You realize that William Lane Craig is a millionaire, right?

It's called the bible doofus. Hence why it's called "the word of God" what sand and funny is you atheist trying to figure out what is a woman and saying that men can get pregnants, you atheist are ridiculous.

Agreed, but there is documentation that is authoritative....

@@paultorbert6929 no there isn't. there's old books made up by primitive humans

@@scambammer6102 tell that to Democritus.... and since you brought it up, it is a shame the Library of Alexandria didn’t have microfilm or hard drive backups of all the ancient texts that were destroyed in the catastrophic fire.... But of course you did read my post properly, in that I implied that the Bible is that authoritative text.

@@ROForeverMan no one believes what you are saying, and you totally discredit anything that you might say that IS truthful and scientifically accurate.... once you make that claim, everyone automatically ignores everything else you say.... Don’t you get that ?????? If you want attention, be informative or be a professional actor .....

By temporal bifurcation in regards to Scrooge, are you saying anything more than Scrooge had a choice? I must say that I may not be smart enough to digest what you are serving up but it is hard for me to not see this as some sort of word salad. When you say all inclusive modal totality, what exactly are you attempting to say? That a person can choose A or -A and that this is the total range of choices? Middle knowledge is the idea that God can create creatures with free will and that God knows what such creatures would freely do under any circumstances God might place these creatures in. These creatures could choose one way or another (in any circumstances where they can choose) and this choice is known to God logically prior to the movement God’s will to create the. Craig’s use of Pilate is an example to help explain the sort of counterfactual knowledge that he is saying God has… trust me, Craig knows that he could not be Pilate… it’s an example.

@@gingrai00 On pain of inconsistency, you cannot assert that you do not understand an argument and then proceed full-steam to criticizing it. As for the notion of the all-inclusive modal totality, it means that ALL possible worlds are out there in the modal space, where the universal quantifier ALL is unrestricted within the universe of modal discourse. So, by definition, no possible world, alternatively no possibility, can be added to this totality as there is none extra. Please, first learn the vocabulary of modal discourse and then come back to me with your criticism.

@@dr.edwardfreeman word salad was more of an insult than a critique… but not a mean one… a playful one❤️😊 The worlds where Scrooge freely chooses to or not to repent are, of course, a part of the set of all possible worlds. There is no attempt to add to this set. Craig is not saying “would be” he is saying “would do”… there is a possible world where Scrooge would freely repent and there is a world where he would not. Craig’s claim is that God knows what Scrooge would do in the world where he was presented with this choice. There is no attempt to reshuffle anything🤓 Is the qualifier “all-inclusive” really necessary when we are speaking of modal totality? Is there some modal totality that isn’t all inclusive? I just want to be parsimonious, not verbose, when I repeat the smart things I read.

@@gingrai00 I got it in the first place that you were trying to insult me. And there is nothing benign about this; no matter how many positive emojis you use. I just gave you benefit of the doubt which you obviously do not deserve. Do not expect any further replies to your graphospasms.

One more quick thought to clarify things for those who might find there way here... "could" is the word used by Craig to define the entire realm of what is possible and it logically precedes "would". Would is a subset of the logically possible but would is dependent on the free acts of creatures which is affected by situations. "Will" as in "will do" is a subset of the "would" worlds and is creature and creator dependent. The logical priority is: could > would > will and these correspond to the knowledge God possess in this way: natural > middle > free.

@@ROForeverMan You may say it till the end of the world , nothing will happen without super knowing far more than artificial intelligence combined with biotechnology even creating inorganic humans,,

@@ROForeverMan I will that that for you , Because Iam not able it could take reason thousands or million of years

Your moon god ... decides everything people do ( good & evil) ... and then judges the people arbitrarily. All blacks god to Hell ... and Heaven is only for whites. Moon god made the blacks ... black ... and then sent them to hell for being black. lol. Hell has mostly woman ... because woman have half a brain & are not going to prayer because the bleed every month. Again. Your Moon god made woman with half a brain .. and monthly cycles. Stop using the word "God." Islam is a satanic pagan cult that worships a false pedophile false prophet, his moon & sun god, and a Black Stone which was copied from Hinduism. Only the Jews & the Christians know who God is.

@@ROForeverMan this is probably your best comment, because it equates god to a joke

Thanks for weighing in, Jeff!

@@r.w.4089 where not having a debate. I hold the privilege of mocking anything I feel like mocking. I don’t care if it’s your deepest and cherished belief. The comment in this thread who says that “ I am god’ is worthy of mockery. I’m sure that’s his deepest belief.

@@r.w.4089 we have evidence that Saint Nicholas existed. Unlike the evidence for god. So it’s epistemologically juvenile to believe in something we have evidence for.

Always proofread when you’re trying to make a dismissive, snide remark.

Do you know what an atheist actually is? You seem confused about this.

Hahaha, calm down...... The Bible teaches us that GOD draws his children to Himself. The folks you are addressing are the people addressed in the parable of The Sower and The Seed. THEY are as much GOD’s creation, as you and I..... they can change their lives, so don’t help turn them away🙏

@@ROForeverMan you are confusing religion with faith

By my count, you said more that one thing here.

I’ve watched that video. Where does WLC say that slavery is a good thing? Can you provide a time stamp? I’m pretty sure that’s not in there. Perhaps you’re thinking of a different video?

@@joshheter1517 The fun starts at 2:20. You're welcome.

@@thomasb7464 He doesn’t say slavery is good at that point (or anywhere else) in the video. He gives a nuanced argument that a system of limited, indentured servitude (which might be *called* “slavery”, though it is quite different of how we use the term today) was preferable to what would’ve been alternatives in the ancient world. Maybe you’re thinking of a different video. Or, maybe if you weren’t so dismissive of philosophy, you’d be better equipped to think about these issues in a more sophisticated way.

@@joshheter1517 You're right. WLC doesn't say slavery is good. HE SAYS IT'S BETTER! WLC: "[slavery] was actually an anti poverty programme and in some respects *I think it's better than what we have in modern western culture."* How nuanced.

@@thomasb7464 Nice edit. You are not a serious person. You are committed to misreading Craig.

Wel the Atheist he debates tried and failed. You call it bs but that's simplybecause you don't like what he say or you're too dumb to comprehend what he's saying. Most likely both

False, and if you had done 3 seconds of research in Middle Knowledge you would know this had been debunked 500 years ago. This is both a non sequitur and fallacy in modal logic. Shifting the modal operator "necessary" from God's knowledge to your acts is a fallacy. It is also a non sequitur for the same reason. All that follows from God necessarily knowing that X will occur, is that X will occur. To say X must necessarily occur is a modal fallacy and non sequitur. Middle Knowledge allows God to know the future without determining the actions of free agents.

It really isn't but sure Mr. Smartpants go on and try to explain how he's wrong.

@@StallionFernando dude chill..... believe and do what is written!!!! 1. Serve GOD 2. Love your fellow humans(and chill)

@@ROForeverMan because of the law of non contradiction. A=A.

@@ROForeverMan go to a buffet

@@ROForeverMan prove it

What does that even mean?

Can you provide arguments against what he’s said here?

@@joshheter1517 are youserious?

@@alfonsosolis401 Yes. Anyone can just throw around accusations and insults. “Alfonso Solis is a charlatan. He might sound very scholarly, but he’s exceptionally good at distorting the truth.” See? If you think WLC is a charlatan; if you think he’s distorting the truth… prove it.

@@ROForeverMan Truth is inconceivable by the human pseudo mind kzfaq.info/get/bejne/obmerbiYxq2RoKM.html

You’re literally just name calling at this point.

@@joshheter1517 it's really simple Josh. WLC stops lying. And intellectually honest atheists will stop calling him out. What's the problem? Why do you have so much invested in white knighting for this widely ridiculed huckster who puts your profession to shame?

@@midlander4 You’re either unwilling or unable to raise any reasonable objections. So, you sling mud. Huh. You’re right. It is very simple.

@@joshheter1517 while Billy Liar and his sycophants continue tapdancing around the slavery thing. But he's a "philosopher", so that's OK!

He does define God in other arguments… an uncaused, maximally great, metaphysically necessary being

@@ROForeverMan why?

@@ROForeverMan you are bio robot and your algorithm is written in dna. You did not know? Are you not being because of that?

@@ROForeverMan in whose consciousness and how to check that?

@@ROForeverMan strange that people can build devices like the one you post from using “imagination”

@@ROForeverMan so create Santa clause or move faster then light

Anyone can just assert anything they want, I guess.

@@ROForeverMan Mine is stronger..

Ford or Chevy?

Ignorance and arrogance. Not a good combo.

@@StallionFernando I prefer the words logic and rationale.

@@TurinTuramber rationale can not create anything new.

@@matterasmachine Maybe but rationale helps us from accepting obviously any made up non sense as truth.

@@TurinTuramber like Big Bang