Is there anyone who makes the case for God better than him? (In

>>2455879
He gives no evidence.

>>2455879
I like Francis Collins.

>>2455879
>literally defends against the idea that Jesus told a false prophecy about "this generation" being the last by saying that the gospels are too unreliable to know what the original context of this statement was
>somehow the gospels are still a reliable enough witness for Jesus's resurrection to be a historical fact beyond dispute

>evidence and reason
These do not make one believe in God, so no.

>>2456268
Irrelevant, neither evidence nor reason lead to God, so they have no place in 'making the case for God.'

>>2456248
well OP is comparing people who do try to make an logical argument for God. of course we could say that sly appeals to emotion in fact do make them more convincing, even if it isn't purely using the method they claim to

>>2456278
No, there is absolutely no place for "lawwwwjik" in making a case for God.

It's the current year, Renaissance nonsense is filth.

File: 225611986.jpg (101KB, 658x960px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 658x960px

>>2456287
did you even read what I posted? whatever you're opinion of logical arguments for God there are people who try to do so and OP said he was comparing these people and thought Craig was the best of them

>>2456291
>the best at [...] making a case for God
Read niqqa

>>2456296
keep reading
>(In terms of evidence/reason, rather than the "well you should believe it's better" emotional arguments you often get)

>>2456301
That's subordinate to the main point: making a case for God. If the method is wrong, then no case is being made.

>>2456319
that's defining what he meant by "making a case for God". anyways what method do you think makes a better case for God? I'm pretty sure you're the fag who says that you just "know" that God exists, meaning that you have no method to convince anyone

File: 1438057985754.jpg (134KB, 450x547px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 450x547px

>>2455879
pic related

>>2456337
Direct and awful experience.

>>2456346
In order to make a case for God, you're going to have to have something to convince someone else. your experience means nothing to someone who hasn't had it. at the very least you're going to have to say how someone else can get this experience and how you can be sure that this experience is genuinely from God

>>2456367
>convince
No, that is just what you think because you have been meme'd on for your entire life.

>>2456399
that's what it means to make a case for something. You can seriously fuck off because you have no intention of any discussion, all you want to do is shitpost and declare that you know more than anyone else. You reject any form of argument because "it's a meme". All that anyone sees from you is someone acting like a retard shouting his ideas into the void. and maybe you are right, but there is no way for anyone else besides you to know. lucky you, to have the personal experience to knowing the truth when everyone else just happened to have personal experience that led them to believe in a lie

>>2455879
He literally assumes with no good reason or evidence that an "unembodied mind" created the universe because it was either that or something like "numbers or letters", setting up an absurd false dichotomy.

>>2456411
way u need 2 convince me becuz i sed so

>>2455879
He is small time even among Christian philosophers, completely overrated thanks to youtube videos

>>2456272
>le reason is only science meme
back to /sci/

>>2455879
what did he say

File: 1437802514304.gif (17KB, 306x426px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 306x426px

>>2456247
Read the Gospel of Mark yesterday.

Mark 13:30 fucked me up too. Are there really no good Christian argument about this apparent false prophecy?

Also what sort of philosophical point is there of having basically every fucking person asking Jesus to do shit for them?

>>2455879
It's all these first cause arguments, categorizing everything down to a transcendent causing thing beyond the universe and then tacking on a "mind" to the transcendent thing and labeling it "God". Seems pretty contrived.

>>2457761
Traditionally guys like Aquinas, Scotus, and the other great figures of the Middle Ages would write hundreds of pages rigorously demonstrating and clear path to justify why we can move from a first cause argument to adding on God's properties. Many modern Christian apologetics are lazy and think that it is enough to make their way to the first cause and then skip over really justifying the rest and just assume that God's existence is granted if they can make it that far. Or they just give a few incomplete arguments because they know that that will be better than most of their opponent's have, and will make religious laypeople feel that their beliefs are well founded. It's not as if either the hardline anti-theists nor your average Christian are going to be able to comprehend a 1200 page sustained chain of argumentation anyways.

His entire apologetic is predicated on libertarian free will. He even goes to Molinism to keep this nutty belief. He's also super simple and shallow in his moral arguments. The discussion with Shelly Kagan shows how crappy he is at arguing a serious philosopher.
I like NT Wright, personally, or Francis Collins. I'm an atheist though, so take that with a grain of salt.

>>2457781
You are right, I have to admit I can't possibly care about all that.

atheists on suicide watch

>>2457708
he means the generation will repeat itself, we'll continue to see the same cultural cycles until the savior leads us into heaven.

>defends the existence of god from the perspective of a false religion
I guess when your religion is false your only way to convince people is dropping a bucketful of words as opposed to the miracles you should be doing.

File: mpw.png (378KB, 622x475px) Image search: [Google]

378KB, 622x475px

>evidence/reason
>faith

Honestly, as a Christian, no one annoys me more than William Lane Craig does. Theology in general annoys me, but William Lane Craig takes the cake.

The whole point of Christianity is that it looks beyond the world. It looks beyond what is, and looks towards what can be. The whole point of the Gospels is that we don't have to be violent animals, obsessed with gaining more power over others, but that we can see ourselves within others, and that God can reveal to us a world and a self that is better than the world we live in today, and the self we are today.

Then along comes William Lane Craig, who reduces the whole awe inspiring reconsilliation with God and with the mystery of His Creation, to boring, dry proofs and 'evidence'. Gone is the open and grand vision of the Gospels, and in comes some geek with his nerd shit about how, if you take some axioms, you'll be able to prove your specific ideology.

Seriously, if you need 'proofs' and some PR arsehole like William Lane Craig to make a 'case' for God, all that says is how little faith you have

You can find great stuff from Reformed/Protestant Christian theologians, philosophers and pastors.

>Postmodernism and Society
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r9L8lPCY_M
This message will explain the pervasive influence of postmodern thinking on every aspect of contemporary culture: politics, business, education, entertainment, etc.

>The Disappearance of God
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTvcrAmj_lY
G.K. Chesterton once said that when people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing, they believe in anything. The rejection of Christianity by our culture has resulted in a spiritual vacuum that is being filled by all manner of aberrant teachings. In this session, Dr. Albert Mohler will provide guidance to Christians who are confused by all the falsehoods swirling around them every day.

>Welcome to the Machine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx9T1WaOv8k
When a culture rejects God, it always replaces Him with something else. For many in our post-Christian culture, the new “god” is science, the new priests (those whom we must not question) are the scientists, and the new religion is a materialistic scientism. In this session, Dr. Albert Mohler will explore the changing place of science in our culture and explain how Christians should respond to the claims of science.

>>2459426
>Post-Christian Christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG_ZUWiM_50
When the surrounding culture changes, one approach that has been taken by many churches over the centuries is to capitulate to the new thought-forms and change the message of Christ to suit the world. This was true of nineteenth-century liberalism, and it is true in many churches today. In this session, Dr. R.C. Sproul explains the dangers of following the ever-shifting tides of contemporary culture and calls the church to walk in the ancient paths.

>How to Study the Bible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRmWSB1c6L8
Have you ever a read passage in the Bible and discovered something you never noticed before? How many interpretations can one Scripture passage have? Are all interpretations valid? While the basic message of Scripture is clear, those who do not understand and apply the basic principles of biblical interpretation can easily misinterpret it. In this message, Dr. R.C. Sproul, Sr. will introduce some of the more important tools and concepts that are necessary in order to properly study and understand the Bible.

>Back to Basics
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXcLCPtWu08
In every age and in every nation, the church is tempted to capitulate to the values and ideals of the surrounding culture. In every age and in every nation, the solution is the same: repentance and faith. To be faithful, the church must recover the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Him crucified. In this message, Dr. R.C. Sproul looks at the essentials of the Gospel and explains why it is necessary in every generation to re-emphasize the centrality of these basic truths.

>>2459422
>reconsilliation

I meant 'reconciliation', of course

Atheists Don't Exist

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDX6F_O5XB0

In this film it's recognized there's no point in endlessly giving "atheists" classical or evidentialist arguments since their fallen nature and faulty unbelieving presuppositions prevent them from accepting them. Plus it is dishonoring to God to let them autonomously weigh evidence for God as if He was on trial and they were the judges. Rather, we reduce the unbeliever's worldview to absurdity noting it can't account for valid human experience (and that Christianity does), and show the God they know deep down is needed to rescue them from such absurdity.

>>2459435
>In this film it's recognized there's no point in endlessly giving "atheists" classical or evidentialist arguments since their fallen nature and faulty unbelieving presuppositions prevent them from accepting them.

Right, because that's really humble. It's totally humble to assume that, just because someone disagrees with you, they're intrinsically worth less than you.

>>2459435
So whoever made that is aghast that someone would dare hurt their feelings and question their wonderful fantasy so they blame others for being evil. Also it's disingenuous and self-serving to assume that your opponents secretly agree with you.

That's childish, you have my pity.

>>2459662
>>2459449
>It's OK when we do it!

Atheists showing their hypocrisy.

>>2459666

>666

ARGH! BEGONE, SATAN! YE LORD OF NEUROTYPES! THE POWER OF AUTISTIC CHRIST COMPELS YOU!

>>2459666
Nice try Beelzebub.

>>2459666

Nice post, Satan.

>>2459695
>>2459685
samefag

File: Mark-of-The-Beast-666[1].gif (139KB, 478x358px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 478x358px

>>2459666
LEAD US OH KING OF KINGS
SAVE US FROM ATHEISM

ITT: atheists getting destroyed

I can't believe how badly religiontards have been annihilated in this thread.

the Sadducees in the time of Jesus also believed the soul dies with the body. It's nothing new.