How can atheists even compete?

Why can't atheists avoid getting BTFO by this alpha Christian philosopher?

youtube.com/watch?v=3vnjNbe5lyE

youtube.com/watch?v=go6m-KNUmG4

youtube.com/watch?v=gmnRQ3P3Bwo

youtube.com/watch?v=f_vO6H-iIvM

youtube.com/watch?v=XcnZRctcleM

Answer: because atheism is for intellectually inferior people.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=VM4jk8FrLb8
youtube.com/watch?v=WDLIR71Pe0A
youtube.com/watch?v=Tpv4ns52pJo
youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo
youtube.com/watch?v=2j3VU1T8ALU
youtube.com/watch?v=CTOoYxOf92s
youtube.com/watch?v=LPBdaz0n094
youtube.com/watch?v=vRTUrvTTRAQ
youtu.be/jGWCxBiCt7Y
plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Isn't he just famous for debating?
Sam Harris did admit on his podcast a week ago he got his shit rocked by him though

I like William Lane Craig, David Wood, and Peter Hitchens.
Any more recommendations?

Nope he is also well known in academia as well.

Yup Sam got BTFO so did Hitchens.

>intellectually inferior

Christcuck.. no better then a jew

How can Dr. Craig even compete?
youtube.com/watch?v=VM4jk8FrLb8

>literal autistic screeching

Dr. John Lennox

Jordan Peterson.

youtube.com/watch?v=WDLIR71Pe0A

youtube.com/watch?v=Tpv4ns52pJo

J Warner Wallace, has a good criminal case approach that is worth checking out. Nothing in the way of debates, and a lot of his material is very "buy my book", but... unlike a lot of that tripe I can't actually argue with what he's delivering. Really just a matter of presentation.

Dr. Michael Brown if you want to watch some debates of a jew blasting jews.

Ravi Zacharias if you want some more eloquence without necessarily abandoning intellect. Again, not much in the way of debates, but good sermons.

Dr. John Lenox was mentioned. Love this guy, but do yourself a favor. Watch one of his 1-2 hour presentations, and 1 or 2 of his debates. You'll have seen it all. It's good stuff, and honestly there is only ever so much that really needs to be said, so I can't fault the guy, but if you're hungry for more you're going to have to find someone else.

Gary Habermas. A few debates. Some good ones with Anthony Flew, where Flew was a better skeptic than modern nu-atheists, who are just cynics. One in particular you might want to check out, though less a debate, involved Habermas, Lenox, and Christopher Hitchens. It's probably about what you would expect, but interesting since Christopher couldn't lean on his typical emotional appeals, even though he tried. Out of his league, but the community accepted him gracefully.

Also of note, check out Craig's debate with Dr. Sean Carrol. Carrol isn't a nu-atheist, and by virtue of taking his opponents seriously, rather than deferring to mockery of emotional appeals, the debate was all the better for it. REALLY put Craig's understanding of the science and philosophy behind it to the test. Would love to see more stuff like this, but it seems to reveal more the philosophic anemia in academia that a professional theologian is standing pretty competently with the professional theoretical physicist in his own field. Carrol did a great job, though. No two ways about it.

Greg Bahnsen - prepositional
Alvin Plantinga - philosophy

Watch him getting utterly destroyed by Shelly Kagan

youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

his cosmological argument sucks btw. Premise is weak af. But he is a good debater i give you that.

While it is true that many -- perhaps most -- atheists have a neurological deformity affecting the left temporal region of their brains, that does not necessarily mean that they are ALL intellectually inferior.

There are some notable exceptions.

There are some properly functioning intellectuals who adopt atheism.

Although these types tend to reject it as they grow older and wiser, it still shows that it is possible for one to embrace atheism with a working brain. Not the norm, but it's possible.

Antony Flew is an example. He is a legit intellectual, and embraced atheism as an act of rebellion in his youth.

When he thought about it more, he eventually disavowed atheism and argued that the evidence suggests there is indeed some kind of higher agency responsible for bringing about life.

So, please do not stereotype atheists, and do not make fun of them for being intellectually impaired. It is ableism. If you were born with a neurological deformity, you would also be dying your hair blue and saying "fuck god" on the internet. It could happen to anyone really. Show some compassion.

#NotAllAtheists

Flew is an interesting case. Absolutely nothing like the nuatheism, and by large, an honest skeptic. But check out some of his debates with Habermas. The two were well acquainted, so it is interesting to see some of his more enthusiastic responses that would conclude with "it's strange isn't it...".

As if you could see the gears turning, but right as he gets to the conclusion they just stop, like something was interrupting their process and he would be waiting for Habermas to take him over that one last little step. No objection to Habermas' argument.

So with that said, where I appreciate Flew, he's actually a really good case of demonstrating that sort of impairment you're describing. The separation really just occurs in delivery. Flew could stand to insist there is something about the resurrection account that cries out for explanation. Your typical nuatheist by comparison won't even self reflect on the absurdity of mass-hallucinations that by their own account would be miraculous, nevermind fail to address all of 'the data'. They'll simply shovel it out as if that's the extent of the merit it deserves.

You are right, however. There are basically 4 camps. I don't adopt the agnostic theist/atheist thing, but that's really the jist of it. Flew may have leaned far toward atheism, but he didn't divorce himself from reason.

More importantly, it brings up a good point. IF there is a god, this legitimately is an impairment, so even among the nuatheists they can hardly be blamed for being 'blind'. If there are no god(s)... then what matter is any of it any which way?

>One in particular you might want to check out, though less a debate, involved Habermas, Lenox, and Christopher Hitchens.
Any idea where this could be found? I've had no luck.

More philosophical work needs to be done on the concept of sin and the notion of a fallen species.

It could turn out that sin is more than just a moral failing, but a biological dysfunction as well.

Even a serial killer could point to problems with his brain. Does that mean it isn't a "sin"?

Salvation would take on a more literal meaning.

Human creatures are not always blameworthy for their failings. Many times they are suffering from an impairment. In which case (from the perspective of a Creator) they would literally need to be saved for their own good.

In the same sense we would save a blind man from walking off a cliff.

The obvious example of something like this would be a lie. It literally doesn't exist , but in our experience it has very real consequences, and often well beyond the scope of the lie. Untruth basically being on of the most destructive things, even rendering truth difficult to distinguish once you are aware of a lie. It corrupts not simply what it touches, but what the corrupted touches as well. I'm not even speaking in metaphor. If you have ever been the subject a painful lie, even that which would set your orientation straight is liable to look menacing.

There are all sorts of analogies to this. Broken machines, incapable of repairing themselves, and in need of a mechanic.

A sick person in need of medicine, else their illness is terminal.

I'm a fan of the machines, but sin is literally "missing the mark" as in archery, so I am at wonder how that might relate to a context of salvation.

Having trouble digging it up again myself, but I'll see what I can do before the thread dies.

Aha! Knew I would have to make a post before finding it. Also I gave a major red herring, Habermas and Lenox weren't part of the discussion. My fault.

youtube.com/watch?v=2j3VU1T8ALU

Thanks. Shame about that, sounded like a really interesting grouping.

ahhhhhhhhh so much shit, is no one going to watch that

I never understood why someone like William Lane Craig would waste time debating someone like Christopher Hitchens. He is a complete joke.

Everything rant he goes on is the biggest NON ARGUMENT that I hear. He's just dismissive and alright obnoxious. Nothing he says is of substance.

> utterly destroyed
Reddit is attaway. Also if you are going to post a video please give is selections of the videos. So far I have no seen a good rebuttal to Craig's premise that objective morality cannot exist in a naturalist worldview.

Other atheist philosophers would agree with Craig that morality cannot exist in atheism.

Read Paul Vitz. Professor of psychology at New York University who converted to Catholicism from atheism. He discusses exactly this. He even gives a psychological profile of key figures of atheism like Freud.

I am not a Roman Catholic but Edward Feser is great.

youtube.com/watch?v=CTOoYxOf92s
Another atheist master debater.

There have been many intelligent theists. Euler, Da Vinci, Decartes, Berkley, Aquinas, Newton, Pascal, Plato and Scotus.

There are also many intelligent atheists. But a reoccuring theme among super intelligent atheist is that atheism did not consume of their professional life. They were dedicated to science, atheism was merely a tertiary matter. It wasn't something they gave much afterthought to. I know many educated people that I have spoken to, give me really weak arguments against Christianity.

The important thing to keep in mind is that not all people reject Christianity (the majority in fact) for intellectual reasons but rather emotional ones. Sexual pervets and homosexual are going to find themselves very uncomfortable, and we see that with a lot of Enlightenment philosophers and thinkers.

Think I was confusing Wilson for Habermas. Still might be worth a look, since Christopher couldn't get any momentum.

Bonus for the 'moderator' stepping out of turn, which did help illustrate how effective Christopher COULD be.

Did blunder across a debate between Lenox and Christopher Hitchens though. Looks like there is another out there as well on "Is God Great", but I'm not finding more than fragments. Honestly more interested in the one I just found though - very Sup Forums

youtube.com/watch?v=LPBdaz0n094

wlc is famous for debating which is why his "arguments" are of essentially no interest to academic philosophers, unlike say, Plantinga or Swinburne, who are real philosophers

>God is the source of all morality so everything he does is just
>It's okay to destroy most of humanity because you don't like it anymore.

David Wood is a riot holy shit. But his arguments against Atheism are absolute garbage.

It's quite ironic that you would say David Wood's argument against atheism are bad when you straw man divine command theory. It's like you are warning ahead of time to ignore what you have to say.

How can you strawman something this hard, with two lines of >greentext, and expect a response? Seriously, do you think your post is anything but absolutely useless? It's what people do in the absence of an actual argument.

Strawman? How so? William Craig literally says God kills children to bring them to him and he finds the Great Flood perfectly justified.

I was really interested in that other one but it seems they're keeping it behind a paywall for whatever reason.

You do know winning a debate proves nothing? You won a game of words good job! Still didn't prove god exists.
Scientists prove shit, he talks about it.

>The important thing to keep in mind is that not all people reject Christianity (the majority in fact) for intellectual reasons but rather emotional ones.
Most definitely. My experience is absolutely that. Most intellectual arguments have really aren't concerns, and digging through it with them is more to uncover whatever emotional contention that is really bothering them.

Of course it's never one size fits all, even if all of the arguments are generally the same.

And we're still left considering whether or not it is really an impairment (if there is no god(s) nothing is wrong), and if if it is a disability, in what way is someone like myself still disabled?

His debates are for a general audience but he also does proper academic philosophy.

He does theology, not proper philosophy, which would be continental or anglo analytic.

He's really only debating scientific method and a strawman just does it very well

>Scientists prove shit, he talks about it.
While I otherwise agree with you, since all OP provided were 'zingers', the quoted text isn't really what scientists do, or even what science is practically even capable of.

The most conclusive thing science is capable of is DISproving something, and only within the scope of the experiment. If we really want to get pedantic, it can only even apply to the exact experiment, in only the exact time/place it occurred, but my contention is really elsewhere.

Science is a good process, but with as many "100% proofs" I see thrown around from all camps, people really have an unfortunate perception of scientific proofs. Scientific proofs are simply impractical and we don't really have any.

What you probably want to be addressing is evidence, in which case purely logical points are valid. Induction being the obvious one that we use everyday. It isn't proven, and short of omniscience there would be no way of ever proving it, but you would be mad to believe the inductive principle was invalid.

Science isn't a perfect method, but it's the best we have with our limited intelligence.

I looked into J Warner Wallace, but the guy is not worth reading. He has no historical qualifications and came up with a load of ad hoc theories about gospel authorship, stuff that no historian (including Christians) would ever accept like Luke being written a few years after Jesus' death.

William Lane Craig has actually studied this stuff and isn't a crank, read him instead. He did a good debate with New Testament historian Bart Ehrman about whether it's possible to believe in the resurrection based on historical evidence.

youtube.com/watch?v=vRTUrvTTRAQ

lol, are you educated at all? Science cannot prove the things that philosophy debates, nor does it claim to. kill yourself, atheist faggot

I didn't make any argument to the contrary.

However, conceding it's limitations is precisely why you should seriously consider arguments that are necessarily beyond those inherent limitations.

You have to remember that contemporary dating of scripture is going to presuppose the impossibility of the miraculous.

Based on other assumptions, like Mark being the first because it is the shortest, will automatically place the texts later than about 70ad because the "first", testifies Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple.

At best you might get instances of textual critics believing something like the destruction of the temple was added later (it would be easiest to add it to the shortest book, as the scroll length factored/scribe cost into the length of the books). You usually won't have many Christian scholars contesting these points because they simply don't need to. The case is so strong, even if they're stuck dating shortly after 70ad.

But Wallace's stuff is definitely popular level material for believers who otherwise do not already have an evidential case for their belief. I just point it out because the approach of considering what is supposedly witness testimony as if a criminal investigator is basically exactly what anyone should be doing from the start. One of his video recorded presentations is plenty. The books are probably unnecessary unless you're the sort who simply prefers reading.

Using cosmological arguments or other tricks of the Quinque Viae may well prove that an Aristotelean prime mover god exists in a metaphysical sense.

But to link this metaphysical god to the Christian god as described in the Bible is a whole other matter, and there is no way to prove we are talking about the same entity.

It is obvious you are making up shit as you go along, poser.

Craig started his career with a two-volume treatise on the philosophy of time and space, in the analytic tradition. In it he examined tensed and tenseless views on time corresponding to the A- and B-theoretic accounts respectively. It is one of the most rigorous treatments to date.

He moved to debating for a more popular audience, and still does scholarly work in analytic ontology even while debating. He is well respected within the broad philosophical community and among the world's leading cosmologists and philosophers of science, both naturalists and theists. Neophyte internet atheists such as yourself would not know that because you have never been to an actual conference where this occurs but prefer to imagine whatever world best fits with your presuppositions.

It is obvious you are making up shit as you go along, poser.

Craig started his career with a two-volume treatise on the philosophy of time and space, in the analytic tradition. In it he examined tensed and tenseless views on time corresponding to the A- and B-theoretic accounts respectively. It is one of the most rigorous treatments to date.

He moved to debating for a more popular audience, and still does scholarly work in analytic ontology even while debating. He is well respected within the broad philosophical community and among the world's leading cosmologists and philosophers of science, both naturalists and theists. Neophyte internet atheists such as yourself would not know that because you have never been to an actual conference where this occurs but prefer to imagine whatever world best fits with your presuppositions.

>hurr durr how can something be bad if sky daddy didn't say that it is
t. Christian Intellectuals

Hitchens tore him a new one every single time they've met.

Also let's remember the glorious debate with Harris and his "Christian morality" speech.
How can Christcucks even compete?
youtu.be/jGWCxBiCt7Y

Didn't he get wrecked by Rabbi Tovia Singer?

You're absolutely correct. The antagonistic OP did not provide enough to make such a leap to the Christian God. You are completely justified and your conclusions perfectly reasonable

except
>there is no way to prove we are talking about the same entity.
Are you sure about that? Is there really nothing that could convince you of its entity, Christian God or otherwise?

If not, are you being justly skeptical, or just cynical?

Fortunately a handful of 'Craig's greatest hits' are not the entirely of the Christian apologetic case for God. I really only mean to encourage you to reflect on the notion of a metaphysically necessary first cause, because it seems to me that if such a thing exists you have the most significant motivation possible to investigate it further. I would even contest it would be sufficient motivation even if it were impossible to know one way or the other, but reflecting on what would be convincing to you would probably be a better place to start.

I have investigated further. I have always been interested in christianity from a cultural/traditionalist perspective (I come from a long line of catholics) and I'm majoring in both philosophy and theology at the moment.

Whenever this subject comes up (making the bridge between a metaphysical god and the Christian god) my peers refer to the Bible, which is circular reasoning.

I don't think belief in God can be (or should be) rationally proven. I am open to the possibility of having a so-called "faith experience" but deductive reasoning is not the way to get there. I'm just a bit stuck on where to go from here.

James White

That's similar to what Kant concluded, he thought religious knowledge couldn't be arrived at rationally, and that faith was a different kind of knowledge.

> But to link this metaphysical god to the Christian god as described in the Bible is a whole other matter, and there is no way to prove we are talking about the same entity.

You are unfamiliar with Craig's method. He has a 5 point argument. In which he establishes a God. Essentially refuting metaphysical naturalism and atheism.

He then shows that atheism can't account for objective morality.

He makes the case for the reliability of the NT and sets out his arguments for the resurrection. This is how he ties it in with the Christian God.

> Whenever this subject comes up (making the bridge between a metaphysical god and the Christian god) my peers refer to the Bible, which is circular reasoning.
You should pay attention in philosophy class. How is it circular reasoning?

> I don't think belief in God can be (or should be) rationally proven.

That's because you are intellectually lazy. I doubt you've acquainted yourself with the literature on theistic proofs. 72% of philosophers of religion are Christian. Atheist philosophers usually establish (circularly albeit) naturalism as true and then use this undercut belief in God as impossible.

see

Creationist here. He's not even a Creationist... He debates Christianity mixed with Darwinian evolution. How can anyone take that seriously.

Follow the bible. Books hand chosen by humans thousands of years after christ. Superior.
Yeap

>He makes the case for the reliability of the NT and sets out his arguments for the resurrection. This is how he ties it in with the Christian God.
No, this is still the stumbling block. First of all, history has a low bar for what counts as a fact compared to any of the sciences, nevermind philosophy. Secondly the evidence for the resurrection isn't conclusive. It's not enough to base your metaphyics on.

In any case, you can't believe in Christianity through pure reason, there's always an element of faith. The real question for me is whether faith can provide justified true belief, and I'm not convinced it can, so I remain agnostic.

>You are unfamiliar with Craig's method.
True. I have only seen the videos posted in this thread. I haven't heard of him otherwise.

>You should pay attention in philosophy class. How is it circular reasoning?
The validity of the bible is ensured by the existence of God. But it is the existence of God we are trying to prove. To lend credence to anything said in the bible, you must presuppose that God exists.

>That's because you are intellectually lazy.
I guess that makes people like Kant, Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein intellectually lazy too.

>I doubt you've acquainted yourself with the literature on theistic proofs.
I have. The fact remains that while I might reasonably believe in an Aristotelean God, there is no conclusive way to make the bridge to the Christian god. If you have such a proof I'll be glad to see it and convert.

Pure arrogance.

I read that as communist.

I agree. He often speaks disparagingly of young Earth creationism.

William Lane Craig's has shed off all the parts of Christianity he deems to be hard to defend. He often states he holds to a 'mere Christianity' as held by C.S Lewis.

It's funny that people with degrees from secular institutions hold to creationism and there are many unbelieving scientists who reject neo-Darwinism, yet Craig speaks very disparagingly about creationism. Dr Jonathan Sarfati has responded to his claims and they even had a debate on the interpretation of Genesis 1. Go to creation.com

This is why I don't pay attention to apologetics. It seems to me like puffed up and vain jangling with people leaning on the understandings of mankind. I have a testimony of the Holy Spirit and I believe every word of the King James Bible, life is good and God has and will continue to reveal all I need to know.

> First of all, history has a low bar for what counts as a fact compared to any of the sciences,
That's a category error. Historical facts, by definition, are not repeatable. Science deals with observable and repeatable facts.

> econdly the evidence for the resurrection isn't conclusive.
It was 'conclusive' to convince Anthony Flew, successor to Bertrand Russell, to agree that the resurrection is the best attested miracle out there.

> It's not enough to base your metaphyics on.
First of all, naturalism is untenable and is refuted by other evidences like paranormal encounters, demonic possession, near-death experiences and can't account for rationality, laws of logic, laws of nature and abstract objects. See Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism.

> In any case, you can't believe in Christianity through pure reason, there's always an element of faith.
Christianity is more reasonable than atheism. It's just that atheist set a high standard of evidence (inconsistent) on Christianity. See Plantinga's book on "Warranted Christian Belief" or view his lectures on Reformed epistemology which he co-developed with Peter van Inwagen.

> The validity of the bible is ensured by the existence of God. But it is the existence of God we are trying to prove. To lend credence to anything said in the bible, you must presuppose that God exists.
True. The Bible is special revelation. The Old Testament was written for the Jews before Christ, and the New Testament was written to the early Jewish and Gentile converts in Asia Minor, ME and South Europe. It of course assume the reader has belief in God.

Regarding Dr Craig's approach. He realizes this and thus establishes the case for God.

Apologetics is very important. Also personally I find it helps you in times of doubt and in presenting and defending faith as we are commanded to do. 1 Peter 3:15.
I find people who hold to fringe ideas tend to avoid it because they are afraid of having their beliefs scrutinized. I am a conservative Christian and I find my beliefs vindicated by science, history and philosophy.

> I have. The fact remains that while I might reasonably believe in an Aristotelean God, there is no conclusive way to make the bridge to the Christian god. If you have such a proof I'll be glad to see it and convert.
I didn't have enough space to comment.

I would argue that there is a great deal of historical evidence in favour of many Old Testament events, and of course the Resurrection. I believe there to be great deal of evidence against neo-Darwinism, and good deal of material if you would like references.

I'm not even a fedoralord but can we just drop William Lane Craig?
He just repeats a modified Kalaam cosmological argument until his opponent stops debating and goes home
He's a pointless parasite making a living by being obnoxious in front of a crowd of bootyblasted hatwearers, there's no point debating God's existence with "Rationalists" because it's a question of faith
Aquinas would physically slap him if he could hear the shit he was chatting

craig, Plantinga and Swimburne are good

But Presupp and Ken hams suck

> Aquinas would physically slap him if he could hear the shit he was chatting
I always love it when morons speak disparagingly and in a very dismissive way about intellectuals who are well published and are well-educated. I also like how talk like some village atheist. He would "slap the shit out of him".

Like mate, that's NOT AN ARGUMENT. He's cosmological argument is SOUND.

> But Presupp and Ken hams suck
Firstly, Ken Ham is a very respectable man and is doing a good job with defending YEC. Stop trying earn good boy points from other atheists by speaking in such a way towards another brother.

Presupp is actually a solid form of apologetics however most people who use it watch like an one hour lecture and start "using" it. In other words, they state their premise but never their argument and they think they've made an argument.

The idea of attacking your opponent's presuppositions is rather obvious to anyone and is not new, nor are transcendental arguments for theism.

More like a few hundred years for the canon(s) we have today, the earliest canon we know of is from the Muratorian Fragment, from the latter half of the 2nd century, and it's very similar to the current New Testament. It's a very interesting document. The anonymous author classified the NT canon in this order:

>Accepted
Matthew
Mark
Luke
John
Acts
1 Corinthians
Ephesians
Philippians
Colossians
Galatians
1 Thessalonians
Romans
2 Corinthians
2 Thessalonians
Philemon
Titus
1 Timothy
2 Timothy
Jude
1 John
2 John
Wisdom of Solomon
Apocalypse of John (Revelation)
Apocalypse of Peter*

* "though some of use are not willing that the latter be read in church"

>Spurious
Laodiceans

mark of beast, waffle man.

I don't exactly agree pointing to the Bible is circular, as IF a first cause is personal, AND IF it chose to reveal itself to us, AND IF it did so through a particular Nation, that no one person could ultimately manipulate, would eventually produce in one individual spoken about through prophecy a full generation before his birth, the perfect reflection of His person and character, THEN there would be nothing else you could point to but His own word.

>The validity of the bible is ensured by the existence of God. But it is the existence of God we are trying to prove. To lend credence to anything said in the bible, you must presuppose that God exists.

Yeah, this looks like your hang up though. You're already "convinced" of a first cause, just not its identity. Pointing to the Bible to validate it's identity is in respect to the authority of His works (all those IFs).
>But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." -John 10:38

So what would He need to do to personally satisfy your standard for evidence beyond a reasonable doubt? It's introspective just remember... if you demand more evidence than is necessary for conviction beyond a reasonable doubt... you're literally being unreasonable.

But seriously. Think it over. Here's a simple example. IF a first cause, I suggest it must be personal, else without agency it could not cause anything. IF personal, what possible avenues of revelation (religion) does it rule out? How might it reveal itself, assuming it even bothers. I suggest it would bother, as what it would cause might be intentional; NOTHING would happen without it's agency.

What options do you have for a personal god that is specifically interested in you, and therefore is actively revealing/has revealed itself?

Nobody takes Ken Ham seriously but liberal Bill Nye who wants brownie points or fedoras who want to act smart and funny.


Secondly, there is no one in philosophy who takes Presuppositionalism seriously. It's just fallacious circular reasoning

I know that the Bible is the word of God because the Holy Spirit testifies to me when I read it. Anything that contradicts Gods word is a lie.

The Bible says in Romans 10:17 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

If a person hears the true Gospel or the word of God preached and does not believe then it really is down to that person. You don't need to come at someone with scientific facts to get them saved you need to preach the Gospel from the scripture.

If you go through the Gospel with a person and explain the doctrines of salvation by faith, eternal security of the believer from the scripture etc and they don't get saved, then ultimately you are not responsible for their unconversion.

You did not provide any sufficient grounds to trust it

Mormons also say the Holy Spirit testifies to them when they read the Book of Mormon. You need additional justification to accept a religious experience as reliable, because even fraudulent scripture like the BoM can fool people.

The same reason nobody takes Ken Ham seriously is the same reason no one takes Flat Earthers seriously. Plus his entire approach is not built on accepting evidence or self evaluation but simply YEC groupthink.

By Ken Ham's own logic for example, we cannot trust forensics because nobody was there.

And whoops, you simply brought up more Calvinists rather than any serious philosopher

I made a few spelling mistakes I wanted to change.

In response to what you said, NOT AN ARGUMENT

>village atheist
>He's cosmological argument is SOUND
But he's just arguing for a prime mover, it's literally "I'm sure you picked the right one!"-tier
Half the time he sits there smugly satisfied that he's teleologically (((proved))) the existence of "something" and completely glosses over whether it's God or Krishna

>if you would like references.
References are always welcome, please do post them.

John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me

The Holy Spirit lives inside me and I know the voice of the Lord. When I read Catholic or Mormon doctrine I know that it is not the voice of the Lord because i don't recognise it as being so, the Holy Spirit guides me into all truth.

But other people are guided by the "Holy Spirit" to believe different things. They're just as convinced as you are. How do we know which one of you is right, or if you're all wrong?

>He then shows that atheism can't account for objective morality.
You mean the morality which does not exact? nothing in Christianity points to an objective morality in fact all of God's morals are his subjective beliefs on the matter (Killing is wrong unless you kill infidels).

Society has not had any objective morals throughout history as they change from society to society (aka slavery was right in this society but not that one etc).

>You need additional justification to accept a religious experience as reliable

No you don't. I believe on the Lord Jesus Christ so I am saved. I am no expected to stand before God and debate him on why I believe. I believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and it's as simple as that. Just because a Mormon has a testimony of the Holy Spirit it doesn't mean it's true. You could say the same for me, but ultimately one is right and one is wrong. I put my faith in Jesus because I know he will save me despite all my iniquity, I know he won't let me down.

I have also came to the same conclusion. True Christians aka the elect those who will be saved in the end are in the small minority. Most Christians end up in hell.

God bless you, Christbro. Keep walking in the narrow path.

Ultimately if you are not completely trusting in the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for salvation then you're not saved and if you die in this state of unbelief you will spend an eternity in hell. You can debate apologetics until you are blue in the face and use lots of long and complicated words and sound very clever but if you are not trusting in Christ for your salvation then you will perish.

Because atheism is pure materialism ,laughs ,mockery ,demagoguery and cynicism.

Even Harris who is the best that atheism has to offer is a close minded ignoramus when it comes to certain arguments.

Presuppositionalism is the basis for the Abrahamic religions.

I love WLC. Glad to see him getting some recognition on Sup Forums.

He triggers the fuck out of atheists if you post him because he has the clean cut appearance and affect of a typical evangelical preacher, so they want to just write him off as a typica,l not so sophisticated evangelical preacher. But he is an extremely sophisticated philosopher and he knows the arguments for and against God better than anyone.

You don't understand what objective morality is

I responded to the Belgian on this point

Check it out

On the resurrection I recommend you read

NT Wright's the Resurrection of the Son of God
Michael Licona's the Resurrection of Jesus Christ
Check out Gary Habermas's book too on the topic

Depends on what you define as presuppositionalism

The Bible definitely presupposes the existence of God of Israel. But it does not lay out an argument for God or contain any theistic proofs.

>You don't understand what objective morality is
Objective morality would be unchanging to society and culture and would stick to them all.

There are no objective morals in society or those in the past and if so then name one?

deb8s are pointless. Atheism sucks btw.

True. Especially on Sup Forums of all places. Where atheists just start spewing more asinine stuff.

plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

HURR DURR IM PHOLOSAFURR!

No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney.

I'm going to repeat that quote.

You don't understand objective morality.

IF morals are objective it wouldn't matter if absolutely zero societies throughout history ever held to any objectively right moral standards. They would simply all be wrong.

>I like people that I agree with beforehand

It isn't. Otherwise Abrahamic religions wouldn't devote time to postulate arguments for god's existence and formulate theodicies

>protestant
>Christian

Pick only one

Imagine the pain a true retard like Bill or NDT would feel if they tried to debate him.

Richard Dawkins wont do it because he knows he is full of shit and cant compete.

Craig is considered a serious philosopher. And he roasted Hitchens

He's an analytical philosopher, so he is in no way serious.

>Richard Dawkins wont do it because he knows he is full of shit and cant compete.
No he's full of nothing. Which is something.