William Lane Craig Retrospective III: Divine Foreknowledge | Closer To Truth Chats
Vložit
- čas přidán 20. 07. 2022
- Analytic philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig discusses God’s Omniscience, God knowing everything, and reconciling God knowing the future with human free will. We look back on his 1987 book, The Only Wise God: The Compatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom.
Craig's latest book, In Quest of the Historical Adam: A Biblical and Scientific Exploration, is available for purchase now: bookshop.org/books/in-quest-o...
William Lane Craig is an analytic philosopher and Christian theologian. He is known for his work in the philosophy of religion, philosophy of time, and the defense of Christian theism.
Register for free at closertotruth.com for subscriber-only exclusives: bit.ly/2GXmFsP
Closer To Truth, hosted by Robert Lawrence Kuhn and produced and directed by Peter Getzels, presents the world’s greatest thinkers exploring humanity’s deepest questions. Discover fundamental issues of existence. Engage new and diverse ways of thinking. Appreciate intense debates. Share your own opinions. Seek your own answers.
If I had found out later today what this was going to be about, I would have watched it tomorrow.
Great conversation.
This is the best show in all of media
Are you Robert's mother? ;)
@@ROForeverMan I'd say too much spiritualistic mumbo-jumbo.
I really like the rules or measures layed down by Robert. Affirmation and negation, logic and accuracy, meaning and intent.
Awesome! Middle knowledge is mind expanding.
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
David Lee Roth is so insightful here…
😂😂😂😂😂
I wonder what are the top 3 books both Robert and William recommend.
I myself am building a book collection -- actually I consider myself building an Ark of books.
Any kind of measurement involves things that are part of the universe and these always interact, interfere with it or whatever, I don't think we have a super clear demonstration of how the consciousness determines the clump pattern instead of the interference pattern. But these experiments may potentially help us better understand consciousness or if we understood consciousness by other means we could better understand this experiment and ultimately more about quantum world.
.
"The observer gives the world the power to come into being, through the very act of giving meaning to that world; in brief, No consciousness; no communicating community to establish meaning? Then no world!" - Physicist John Wheeler
excellent critical thinking skills.
Middle Knowledge is really a very interesting model.
it's like middle earth, only without the hobbits
Surely the proud will fall, the humble will win ****
another great discussion between these two men.
Sincerity and struggle and good will and intellect. 👏🏻
@@ROForeverMan wow... So is Bill right? Middle knowledge is the missing piece that makes foreknowledge and free will compatible???
I've respected Craig for years now for his argumentative abilities, but I've never bought into any of them.
I don't believe in any god that is contained within any religion as we know it, but this doesn't mean there cannot exist a god that no one alive has ever or will ever truly understand. I'm agnostic on the existence of god, but I do believe that none of the world's religions have gotten the concept right if there is one. I also don't have reason to believe in free will (yes, I can snap my fingers and write a book, among many other things, but that's not what I mean by free). This is what causes my brain to break: How does a god exist in a world (or infinitely many) in which no one has free will? What's the purpose? How does it make sense? What are their (genderless) intentions? This is not to say that it can't make sense and therefore we either must have free will or there is no god, I just think it makes making sense of it more absurd.
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.
Wouldn't God's knowledge of what you would do fall under his knowledge of all possibilities? 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. If the future is truly open, there wouldn't be a truth-maker either way, so God wouldn't be able to know until it happens. Omniscience includes knowing everything that's possible to know. A truly free act wouldn't be able to be known because there is no fact of the matter until the decision is made. If God does know an act, it would have to be determined (aka. have a truth-maker). If God "knows" the future, it would necessarily have to be determined.
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 CZcams?
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.
Luis de Molina’s original approach is much closer to the measurement problem in the sense the divine providence and middle knowledge are coupled and once God observes what will be it will be, unless God himself wants otherwise. Before He pays attention to the micro, action by action, he knows all the macro possibilities and foresees where the events will end up but how it will end up that way is still human action and choice freely decided at an action by action basis. Think of objective reduction of the state vs relative reduction of the state; spontaneous collapse of the wave function vs measured collapse of the wave. That’s all. Sum it up with the Orch-OR theory for consciousness powering humans free will to act and you are done with enough consistent theory, which might be at last partially falsifiable.
Present time happens through free will?
Human knowledge is necessary divine knowledge is contingent on imagination of the divine.
What is the end purpose of God's providential control?
If the future can be known, there is no free will. Though one may feel as if they are choosing freely, if the future is definitely knowable by anyone, including Yahweh---then their actions are determined, regardless of how they feel. Dr. Craig smuggles in certain words and phrases that lead the listener in his preferred direction. He used the words 'freely chosen' in scenarios that would suggest a determined outcome. I also admire his ability to make sentences that sound perfectly rational and reasonable on the face of it. It requires mental work to go through his reasoning and find the missing or ill-fitting pieces. He knows most listeners will not do that. I used to wonder if Dr. Craig was a con man...weaving his word salad magic for the adoring crowds. But I've since come to think that he is sincere. He's a really smart guy that embraced a belief system with lots of irrational and archaic ideas about the nature of reality. To hold on to his beliefs, he has used his intelligence to twist and turn and make a bazillion square pegs fit into an equal number of round holes. He is a master of mental gymnastics...willing to torture reason without mercy to make Christianity seem true. Despite all that, I hear he is a really nice guy.
Just a suggestion, Robert...next time, why don't you invite Dr. Craig to explain his version of divine command theory? I'd especially enjoy hearing his defense of Yahweh's order to murder all the Canaanite men, women and children. (Slaughter of the Canaanites)
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.
I wish a religionist would say "this is our interpretation" or "that is my interpretation." Would there be less division and wars on this planet?
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.
God has perfect knowledge of all time from outside of it. God is absolutely humble and inserts itself into time in a way to maximize love - including respect for freedom of people in the moment. Time is a dance between God and sentient creatures.
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?
We're everywhere
Human choice determines what will be?
I love how Robert ends these bits with something like "yeah thanks Bill, that's a weak as hell position but it was useful", like come on Robert, try to debate the man then instead of just downplaying his views.
Oh, oh, omnipience, onmiessence ehh??? Very good, weedhopper.
Who was the,study, that found that, description.
Divine justice, which seems to be what worries people, is a human invention. Justice is about justification. Love and humility need no justification. This is important for atheists to get because it is the best way to reject the officiousness of the Church.
And also God mentioned in a verse on the Quran the circumstances when the second Big Bang will take place ,
Not in terms of time but through description of what humans will teach in terms of knowledge and claim they are God himself.
It’s crystal clear
God foreknows conscious awareness in the future?
William Craig has a good knowledge of philosophical and logical concepts and without studying them well it becomes difficult to give a proper reply.
For example “freedom (free will) and foreknowledge of God” at the same time doesn’t make sense at all to me but perhaps it’s not that illogical idk
then the “infinite mind”, honestly I think potentially infinities are logical but not real infinities. An infinite mind that is not even made of something like a brain, it’s just “something” impossible to define, again I don’t understand this logic. We have knowledge of minds being able to work without being correlated to a mechanism that has constituent parts
So what is the difference between "what could be" (all possibilities), and "what would be" (under various circumstances)? "Various" circumstances is embedded in "all" possibilities.
The "could be" and the "would be" are both included in the "will be" for God. Ultimately, either he knows what WILL happen (period), or he is forced to predict outcomes based on approximation (guessing just like us).
Maybe I'm missing something but Mr Craig is famous for using similar word salads that lead to nothing rather than something.
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
Didn't know theologist was a word. I always thought theologian was the correct way to refer to someone who studies theology.
I think it would have been better if Craig sited an example from scripture instead of Scrouge, such as what the Prophet Jonah did where he carried a message for Nineveh to repent otherwise, they would suffer judgement. Because they repent. The future didn't happen. Which means humans were given the choice to avoid their grimm future that "could" have happened which was "would" at that time.
Chris Alar in his series "explaining faith" also exemplified St Padre Pio in the hospital praying for his grandfather who died 20 yrs ago. When the Dr asked him why, he said God is outside time and he would know that I will pray 20 yrs later and would use it to carry the prayer to his grandfather in the past.
Lol, outstanding effort in makebelieve...
@@RoninTF2011 whatever
Does this person have a direct line to God? How can he be so sure about all this?
It is all a conjecture
Exactly
Apologetics is an exercise in "backwards causation". It's magical thinking.
Here answering the question: "with which definition of *omniscience* and *free will* can I keep my definition of god "
And then if it seems implausible, you just say "oh, but that just proves how magnificent god really is" (@14:00)
God's knowledge of "what *would* be under different circumstances" is irrelevant because his knowledge of what *will* happen won't let him come onto a situation where the circumstances are any different from what he knew them to be in advance.
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.
With my little understanding of Molenism, I still don’t think middle knowledge gets God off the hook for predetermining the outcome of every person’s life. He had to have selected this world out of all possible worlds that would have been, knowing what every individual would choose. I.e., he could have selected a world in which I chose not to believe in Christ, rather than one in which I do.
An omnipotent god has less limitations on his omniscience because he can circumvent the unknowable by making it knowable. For example if the future is unknowable he can simply actualize it and then reverse time, gaining an unknowable knowledge as a result because he wouldn't have to derive the knowledge but simply observe it. In short if god can observe the unobservable and in fact does so in all possibilities it is only a matter of his ability to destroy all possibilities he doesn't like for him to gain full omnipotence and omniscience, in that sense we would be perfectly free to grow like a tree, and also perfectly free to get pruned or turned into a bonsai.
You may imagine there are 2 or 3 lines for left turn at a traffic light. The guidelines are easy to be seen at different conditions as rainfall, in the dark…if the guidelines are good, the traffics will be flowing in a order without collisions. Without these guidelines, people will have more chances for creating accidents from different conditions and circumstances. Religions may be created as guidelines also, if they are understood well by people.
Well, the bible condones slavery (Leviticus 25:44-46). What a great guideline - not.
An interesting question would be: If God is all powerful then He could tell me what He foreknows I will do tomorrow. If I have free will, I could choose not to do it, thereby disproving God's foreknowledge. So if I do have free will, it would allow God the means to disprove Himself, which should be logically impossible. This means that either God lacks the power to communicate His knowledge about the future and so is not all powerful, or I have no free will. Both cannot be true.
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
Time is the will of God in creation, time and space is the mind of God in creation.
The problem with the concept some people have of God is that they are biased with the idea that God knows everything. But God designed things so that there is one thing he does not known. He does not know exactly the choices a human being will make. He does know all the choices a human CAN make and fully knows all possible outcomes. But he can not know which outcome is going to be realized. Freedom of choice is certainly an illusion if the choices are preditermined and fully predictable. Guilt feelings about doing wrong would be pointless if it was all predetermined. Consciousness would be an illusion. Existance not real. And the Earth flat. Finding the truth can only be done with unbiased reasoning. For a person to see only reality he must adjust his personality accordingly. It is bad personality traits keeping people from the truth.
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.
God is in all right?
Rule One (Axiom One) off all true theology is that God is not an asshole. Any proposition that is not based on that axiom is faulty - especially if it is considered to be moral law.
I think Craig did not really answer Kuhn's question towards the end about God having too much control. Let me rephrase it: According to the middle knowledge hypothesis God knows how each one of us would freely choose under any circumstances we might find ourselves. And among all possible world he chooses to actualise one in particular (probably the one with the greatest amount of freely chosen good). But here's the problem. In the world God chose to actualise Craig given the circumstances has freely chosen to be a good person. Had God actualised another world the same Craig would find himself living in circumstances such that he would freely choose to be an evil person. And we all (whether universalists or infernalists) agree that how we freely choose has consequences in the afterlife. But this seems to be unjust. After all the evil persons in the actual world will point out that had God actualised a different world they would have freely chosen to be good, and therefore any afterlife bad consequences they have to pay are the result of which world God chose to actualise, and not fully their responsibility. And thus it is unjust that they will have to pay the consequences.
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.
God's foreknowledge of conscious awareness for what could be?
What "could" be and what "would" be are the same thing. There's no way to distinguish them.
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
This is also why freedom and free will does not exist because true freedom is not being bound by laws rules and regulations, free will does not exist if you are ONLY given choices.
God's providential control advances choice for what will be?
I am the mountain Sadhu, you have neglected to interview. The 3 in the 1, are Awareness (Father), Presence (Son), & Holy Ghost (Memory)........... “God” is the name for AWARENESS itself... Doc Johnsen............
The problem with middle knowledge and free will is that in order for God to have sovereignty, he has to place you in the world in which you will make a particular decision "freely" in order to achieve God's will. And then as he highlighted, God would have to have done that with with the 100 billion people that ever lived and the trillions of decisions they've made, in order to align everyone's free will in a way that would serve God's ultimate purpose. Middle knowledge feels like an infringement on free will because God is placing you in a world where you will make a particular decision intentionally. The only explanation I have that would defend free will in this scenario is that maybe not all of your decisions are that important because most people are pretty average, so if you eat tacos tomorrow it doesn't matter that you chose tacos because it doesn't effect God's overall plan and so God allows a certain PERCENTAGE of free will that is arbitrary, and he only actualized this particular world while regarding PARTICULAR decisions that will have an important impact. In other words, maybe we have 90% free will and the other 10% is divine sovereignty in order to fulfill God's purpose, which is why he actualized this particular world.
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.
God can be unsure but He is not false. James 1:19...He doesn't bark orders at people. He coaxes and coaches.
I like William Craig as a charismatic and respectful speaker, but I’m still at a loss as to how someone as articulate, and seemingly intelligent, can devote his life to pure speculation without an ounce of evidence to back up his claims. Religion is a powerful and potent controller of minds.
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
Is God obligated to know everything? In most cases I could pretty easily discover what everyone in my family is giving me for Christmas, but why would I want to do that? It would ruin the surprise. I use my free will and choose not to know what I am getting for the sake of the better world it creates. Can't God do the same? I believe He uses His own free will and chooses not to know what people will do, in order to give us the gift of free will.
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.
EDIT: Wait, Craig is saying can humans have freewill when God has foreknowledge? He's assuming God has foreknowledge and freewill so of course humans can. The problem is he is assuming. God himself can't have foreknowledge and freewill it's A and ~A:
Here Craig says God has knowledge of everything that could be. He also has knowledge of what will be: God knows he could create Adam or not (possibilities) and knows he will create Adam (what he knows he certainly does) = A&~A.
He can't know for certain he creates Adam and know for certain he creates Adam or doesn't create Adam. He either knows he creates Adam (what he will do) or doesn't know he creates Adam so has options (to create him or not. What he could or could not do). If the case of Christianity and Islam he knows he creates Adam so has to.
It's like saying, in the context of creating Adam, that God can do one possible thing only, create Adam, and God can do one of two things, create Adam or not create Adam: One possible thing and one of two things = A&~A.
Allah and Yahweh DISPROVED unless you're a fatalist etc: 1) God knows he creates Adam. 2) If you say God has the option to choose not to create Adam that is A &~A/impossible. 3) Therefore God must create Adam he has no choice/no freewill. C: Allah and Yahweh are impossible.
A lot of people don’t know much at all about God because they underestimate the validity and truth of God’s word.
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.
The Godless powerful have money and power but no peace of mind, the humble and contented is truly rich in peace and harmony and order, the Godless society is chaotic ***
You realize that William Lane Craig is a millionaire, right?
GOD is quantum.
@@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
This poor man has spent years “studying” an unstudyable construct.
Imagine spending decades investigating the lives and abilities of fairies. Writing books about them. Discussing how they fly. What they do in their spare time. Etc. Etc.
All based on an assumption they exist, because no-one has proved they don’t.
What a waste of an education.
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 :)
I find it sad that thinking people, especially thinking believers, would have foundational arguments about God, his foreknowledge and human freedom, and using the term 'theology' without explaining what they understand under the term.
What is theology. i) It is a non-Biblical term, which Bible believing Christian do not need. ii) It means knowledge of God, even the 'science' of God, ie scientific knowledge about God. iii) People use 'theology' also for Biblical knowledge. Theology is therefore, the scientific study of the Bible, as well as of God. But how can humans, who are created by God, study their Creator? And how can human beings scientifically study the Bible? God did not create his law. He spoke or gave his law. Scientists discover God's laws by studying God's creation over which God's law was given.
And, of course, serious discussion about 'theology' and 'science' should also be clear about what is meant by 'science'. Science is knowledge, but not naive knowledge. Science is knowledge testably tested against an accepted criterion or law.
Now we are ready and better equipped to think about other foundational, basic questions.
God's foreknowledge? Of course God is God as He reveals Himself infallible in the Bible. He is omniscient (cf Ps139).
Man's freedom of choice? Of course man has freedom of choice, otherwise he cannot be truly guilty before God and his law. And God's Word clearly reveals man as truly guilty because of his free choice to do sin. It is only a truly guilty person who can by truly saved by God's Son, Jesus Christ.
Let us be true scientists by testing what is testable (God's creation) testably against God's laws, and not mumble in the darkness outside the one, true norm we have -- the infallible Word of God!
Like all religious apologists, WLC has created a well-paying career out of making complete BS sound intellectual. And his gullible base just eats it up.
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?
How does William Lane Craig take it upon himself to define god and god's abilities?
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....
These type of apologetics astonish me. Craig and others through history are just guessing what a god could be or would be with very little vague information from the bible and zero proof or evidence. All of this is total speculation and guess-work, nothing but a big "thought experiment". If god existed he could just give the answer but it is up to apologetic to guess and speculate what an imaginary creature COULD do, not what is actual or provable.
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.
It's incredible he knows so much without a single empirical evidence. Can't distinguish this from a fantasy novel.
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...
First
It’s very interesting to search deep into the creations intelligent design, and human role in finding out and discovering the unknown that god has stipulated clearly but vaguely in the Quran, and specifically said that he has created us with complete freedom to choose between good and evil, obey him or disobey,
And this is the only way to express freedom through No and not Yes ,,
He does know the future and the unknown, but he doesn’t interfere with humans fate at all , he doesn’t know for example what will do from one minute to another , but he does record every word and every action we do in a special record book for everyone,,
So for example he wouldn’t know if John is going to kill jack , by shooting him or otherwise , it’s not his decision or note will he tell anyone to commit any sins .
But he totally admires scientist s and researchers who work do hard in discovering how the universe was created and what is consists of ,,
He gave us a drop of knowledge the day he separated us from the animal kingdom knowing in advance that one day will study the planets and control it ,
And there is a theory in the Quran that says , humans will go to space ,, penetrate the human body ,, and go deep in bottom of seas ,,
God talked about the Big Bang in the Quran and the universe took 10 very long periods of time of darkness until the first element pops up which is the hydrogen,, and he also mentioned the proton and neutron,, and photons and how the light began to unveil throughout darkness,
And he also mentioned them at the majority of the universe is mad out of darkness and light is only a skin ,,
That’s how we discovered the dark energy and dark matter , 95% of the whole universe.
To be continued
Iam still trying to understand the Quran through philosophy based on knowledge
Epistemology with string Arabic language,
17 years now on a daily bases I could not reach even 10% if it’s content,,
To be continued
@@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.
God just knows. Jesus said that Sodom would have repented if they saw the miracles that Jesus did. God is currently proving what is in your heart to do since it is what you are doing.
Subjunctive claims about persons seems incoherent. It's not like if I were Pontius Pilate I would be different than Pontius Pilate. The fact that "I" would have Pontius Pilate DNA and Pontius Pilate's exact experiences and put in the same exact situation would (I think) entail I do the same exact thing. To me the idea of Free Will has no meaning.
X-Files
Freedom
Earthling human beings (love) think that "free will" means freedom to appreciate this paradise planet lifeboat and the miraculous works of fine art called "life" that inhabit it. And not be imprisoned and enslaved by hostile alien vampires (greed) and their ignorance (hate).
But the hostile evangelical vampires (greed) think that "free will" means freedom to suck the joy out of life and devour the planet like a ravenous cancer. And freedom to imprison and enslave humans.
Vampires (greed) are blind and cannot see the ignorance of transforming heaven (peace) into hell (war). The capitalist counting corpses are also blind and cannot see the ignorance of destroying the planet.
Vampires (greed) who suck the joy out of life have joined the zombies who eat the futures of their children.
Zombie Apocalypse is here and happening now.
what exactly do you mean God can't have a false thought? Because He knows all the possible false thoughts that men and angels can, did & will have? 🤔🤔
Funny how many people tell us what god is and does but we never hear a word from god. If it weren't so sad it could be funny.
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 .....
Scrooge's repenting/not repenting are the two possible future outcomes of the present. As such, we have here temporal bifurcation. Alternatively, these are the two possible worlds -- the two constituents of the all-inclusive modal totality. 'Would be' is not a modal addition here as ex vi termini, the all-inclusive modal totality is not reshufflable in principle. The concept of middle knowledge is based on the confusion that there can be something more to the all-inclusive totality, a second-order all-inclusive modal totality, so to speak, which is a blatant contradiction in terms. 'What would be the case if the all-inclusive modal totality is reshuffled in such and such way' is nonsensical. Dr. Craig's example of what he would do if he was Pontious Pilate is nonsensical; and not just because of the involvement of reverse causality, but because this world is already a constituent of the all-inclusive modal totality. So, Dr. Kuhn's reservation about the object of middle knowledge is well-founded Dr. Craig does implicitly assume the-would-reality in addition to the all-inclusive modal totality (the-could-reality).
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.
Craig has lost all credibility as a philosopher. Just a guy with a PhD doing Christian Apologetics for money.
and not very well
Maybe you should tell all of those prestigious peer-reviewed journals he’s published in. They should know!
What about the deep question of Santa Claus. Obviously this series holds the fantasy of god as a privileged position.
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.
WLC - "I am an Occomist"
Also WLC - "It was all done by an invisible supernatural all knowing super alien"
@@ROForeverMan this is probably your best comment, because it equates god to a joke
1) On divine foreknowledge: it could be said that there is only the divine.
2) On free will: it could be said that the divine is always free but wills companionship (hence the why of life: companionship aka love).
All one. One love. Blessings.
The ignorance and pompous arrogance in the comments is unreal, you atheist can't even define what a woman is let alone God lol.
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
Just so you know: William Lane Craig thinks that slavery is a good thing!
(See "William Lane Craig Debunks the Top Atheist Arguments" on Ben Shapiros channel)
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.
I'm going to say one thing William Lane Craig sounds very scientific if you are scientifically ignorant he's lying
By my count, you said more that one thing here.
This idea of “free will” is wishful thinking in order to relieve god of responsibility for sending people to hell.
Such nonsense 🤦♂️
Always proofread when you’re trying to make a dismissive, snide remark.
Who will take it upon themselves to call BS directly to Mr Craig's face? He is still talking only due to a lack of social pressure.
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
I’m confused. This is logically incoherent
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
WL Craig's take is a strangely, astonishingly, unspiritual take on religion. Everything is specified with such certitude. Anthropocentrism & Earthcentrism on steroids (at 4:21 and 5:17 his emphasis is on *human* freedom & beginning at 8:13 clearly Earthcentric). In his confidence in God's omniscience, Craig can entertain no reverence for the mysteries of the unknown and how the unknown interfaces with the cultural known (middle knowledge beginning at 8:14) - nor, for that matter, the unknown of the quantum void. Craig's reverence is presumably for a male, controlling Creator that has no female dimension nor obligation to the feminine (you don't need to be a feminist to appreciate this). Elephant in the room: Why would such an all-powerful, omniscient god care for the mundane, silly minutiae that occupy the lives of woke and unwoke humans on one, average planet in an average galaxy within an otherwise sterile, lifeless universe? If I were Him, in all His for-knowledge, in anticipation of Clown World 2022, I'd have directed a massive asteroid in Earth's direction on that fateful day of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.
Because I'm evil,
I'm truly evil,
Absolute evil,
Everyday.
There is only one way to be, eevviill, that is when you are alone and naked with the female.
Billy Liar
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!
God chooses to create a World where He knew you would do X. Once that World has been created, you must of necessity do X because if you don’t do X, then God was wrong in His knowledge regarding what you would do. That is Determinism. The Creation or Manifestation of the World makes your actions necessary. No Libertarian Free Will to be found. Too bad for Craig that he does not seem to see this.
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.
'Middle Knowledge' is more religious nonsense.
Of course the human free will is compatible with God's foreknowledge: there are no humans, no human free will, there is only One Mind that precisely knows that it choses
@@ROForeverMan Truth is inconceivable by the human pseudo mind
czcams.com/video/kSnzUgaG-po/video.html
It seems like William Lane Craig is the love child of Lord of the Rings & Back to the Future.
he wasted his life learning nothing.
This is unnecessary detail for a belief in God. Child’s play.
What does that even mean?
William Lane Craig is a charlatan he might sound very scholar but he's exceptionally good at distorting the truth
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.
Always laugh when I hear Craig speak with such conviction about things he knows nothing of. Such as the characteristics of God which he normally talks of as a person but never defines what he means by God.
He does define God in other arguments… an uncaused, maximally great, metaphysically necessary being
There is no problem: the two things are compatible when God in his almighty power has also the ability to see into the future. Let's make an example: you must choose a number between 1 and 10 and God, sitting in front of you already has hidden under his hand the number you will choose (8). Does that imply you have now no free will for your choice? Not at all. God's eyes are able to look into the future - some minutes ahead of the present time - to see what you have done, to see what number you have chosen WITH FREE WILL (8) and then He goes back to the present moment, before your choice. Now you will choose with FREE WILL the number 8 while God already keeps the number 8 hidden under his hand. In short, God knows what you will do, yet you have free will.
God was primitive being, discrete machine. And that can be checked indirectly - in experiment
@@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
foreknowledge of all the death, suffering and carnage that happened in this world? that makes god either incompetent or evil
Ahhh it's imaginary friends time.
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
Mr Lawrence, I will not do anything to look bad. because I wish to stop on earth more often. Like this it will be smoother. as a cool cat. To say hello. I am here. Who are you, and how it is me God of quantum gardening. I am sorry never ear of it. Don't ever calling me it. So what, look my name is but you will not know. Listen it is those scriptures it is all about those scipture. I what you really try to say God spircp. Ok pall I am better going before déjà vue?
l am God. Ask me anything.
Ford or Chevy?
The philosopher always tries to deliberately make simple things to become complicated -- surely there is incompatibility of Divine Foreknowledge and Human Freedom.
Anyone can just assert anything they want, I guess.
It must have taken a lot of nerve for Craig to appear on a channel that allows comments. He's never been an icon of integrity.
What a way to waste intelligence and education over a fairy tale.
@@ROForeverMan Mine is stronger..