Dope Tech Episode 2

<<@francischewe3196 says : Great mind, great thinkers. I am thankful I came to know them>> <<@DemonCrusher7 says : It makes no logical sense to say it's 6,000-10,000 years old when we have archaeological sites like Gobekli Tepe and it's sister site Karahan Tepe. Gobekli Tepe has human artifacts determined to be at around 10,000 years... Additionally, it's absurd to me that Christians are skeptical about the big bang when it is not in opposition to the Bible whatsoever>> <<@matswessling6600 says : cosmologic argument might be "sound" in some meaning but it doesnt say anything useful.>> <<@OkopTTioC says : The respect, the pauses, the listening to each other, the importance, the well knowing of the themes, this is impecable, amazing interview!>> <<@reality4330 says : Atheists best argument is “ nothing “. LOL. Self explanatory. I literally laugh at atheists now>> <<@reality4330 says : I believe 1 of the best arguments for the existence of God is the complete lack of evidence atheist have for their absurd religion !>> <<@vatsakorah5750 says : I’m a humble believer and in my book Earth Turns Heaven I have compared the six days of creation with the Big Bang Theory and found them to be in agreement.>> <<@MarkJones-fw3mo says : It's Never been a critical argument.>> <<@Brucec-x6r says : Sorry,there is no external god.the kingdom of God is within you and you are that.we are dreaming this all up>> <<@WatchingThere says : If there was no literal Adam, then there was no literal original sin, if there was no literal original sin then there is no need of a literal saviour, if there is no literal saviour then that puts Jesus in the realm of the unemployed>> <<@salvadoralvarado8685 says : how does ID explain those errors in DNA replication that lead to mutations, and often to diseases like cancer ??>> <<@williammcenaney1331 says : Dr. Craig believes the uncaused cause must be timeless. But he tells us that God is timeless without creation and temporal after it. As a Thomist, I need to disagree with him on that point since it implies that God can go from being timeless to being temporal. If God did that, he was possibly temporal. So, his belief suggests that timelessness isn't built into God. If Dr. Craig is right, who or what made God enter time? Classical theists believe that God can't change in any way. That makes me hope Dr. Craig will explain who or what activated God's ability to change if he can change. Thomists distinguish between linear causal series and hierarchical ones. You already know about linear ones because you know married couples procreate. They give their children life. But those children can have children, too, because they don't need their parents to help them do that. My parents died. But I can still be a natural father. In hierarchical causal series, there must be a cause that makes other series members exist and enables them to be causes. The reason they rely on explains why they exist now, not only why they began to exist. So here's an analogy. Imagine an Amtrak train composed of an engine, a passenger car, a dining car, and a caboose. When the engine pulls the passenger car, pulling power flows to each other car. The train needs its engine because no car in it can propel itself. It could roll down a mountain. But to do that, it would need someone or something to launch it. The engine represents God, existence, and causality in the train analogy. A significant challenge emerges for atheists. If atheism were true, it would imply the absence of everything. Without anything, there would be no universe, atheists, or truth. This line of thought invites deep contemplation on the nature of existence and its origins. Dr. Craig's belief that God can change produces a vicious infinite regress of causes. If it does that, his belief implies that there's no God.>> <<@williammcenaney1331 says : The video description suggests that some events could stop requiring causes. If that could happen, would someone or something make them stop needing one?>> <<@gracearmor says : Very, very informative video. I was struggling with my faith and this helped me tremendously 💯🙏>> <<@TheGocemakedon says : GOD BLESS YOU BROTHERS!>> <<@markuse3472 says : I would so much appreciate for a creationist historian/archaeologist PHD to start publicly supporting these scientists to add to what these guys don't do, and get into public debates with "academic" historians and evolutionists who are against God and The Bible. There is plenty evidence for The Bible from Genesis to the first century AD. I hardly hear anyone of them (Lennox, Craig, these guys, and others) ever talk about it except about Jesus. There is MUCH evidence for The Bible from it's beginning to its end.>> <<@j7odnorof777 says : Not only is God a God of order and of things seen and unseen but He's a God of great intelligence and complexity.>> <<@francischewe3196 says : Three great minds!!! I will listen to this over and over. Thanks Frank.>> <<@8vI says : Ahh yuss I learned about presumptionalism early in my faith and it was instrumental in understanding my faith or any belief from a more rational perspective. I should say I struggle to understand the idea that personhood in the nature of god follows naturally. Like your guest said Diesm is all logic seems to get us.>> <<@martinskov861 says : You couldn't find a better lineup of host and guests!>> <<@Sundayschoolwmurph says : 1:04:45 QUESTION, why is Genesis 1:5 ignored as the establishment of the cycle of time?>> <<@Steelmage99 says : What do you mean "still" sound. It wasn't sound to begin with.>> <<@height5558 says : 1:12:30 YOBA>> <<@petezharhoel says : I see it as old space and Earth with young creation in 7 literal days. I agree with just about everything Kraig says but to say young earth is an embarrassment and needs to be done away with is a ridiculous thing to say>> <<@litigioussociety4249 says : I disagree with the deep time view of creation. Death before the fall of man creates a theological dilemma when it comes to sin and redemption. Also, in Exodus 20 when it says God created everything in six days and rested the Sabbath, it is clearly expressed as one week as we know it, as Moses and the Israelite audience would have understood it, so you have to believe in a God that can double speak in a deceptive manner at times. I really don't know why people like these guys feel a supernatural explanation for the formation of earth, animals, plants, etc. is a problem, but God creating the universe and raising the dead is not a problem. I think it's an issue of lack of faith similar to the way the disciples are the time of Christ's first coming believed many things about him, but were unwilling or unable to believe the rest.>> <<@goldenstar7400 says : Your second premise must be proven. To know for certain that the universe began to exist we must prove it with either a mathematical proof or an absolute experimental proof. I agree that it looks like it began but I have never seen a proof of it and if any statement is true then the proof of that statement exist somewhere even if we can't find it.>> <<@TruthNBible says : Turek needs new frames->> <<@janetbaker1945 says : With regard to the 'Christian problem' of end-of-time balancing the beginning of time for all material objects, including humanity (please forgive my awkward rendition), Christians do not in fact believe in the material persistence of the human body and soul. We believe in the persistence of a *glorified* body, one which is not material in the sense that we know it, to be re-united with the non-material soul at the end of time. This is such a common teaching among Christians that it is surprising to me that these three men haven't heard of it!>> <<@jonathans.219 says : Dr. Craig is such a chill dude. If I were to debate or have a discussion with someone, it would be him.>> <<@jimp8607 says : QUESTION: While time and matter "began", one thing I don't hear addressed, is how time itself is relative to the observer (based on Einsteinian theory). We have debates on the age of earth (or everything), is it realistic to see that you may have both young and old earth depending on the relativistic nature of the observer due to where the observer is observing?>> <<@averagejoe8839 says : Explosions that unintentionally leave logical purposful functionality in their wake instead of chaos.!? In this scenario it is plausible to concieve somewhere in space and time an explosion has unintentionally manifested a fleet of space shuttles fully feuled and ready to fly in its wake! Wow. What a concept the scientific arbiters of truth have came up with! Non intent is in fact the supreme creator of purposful functionlity!! All hail the god of mindles luck! Wake up people. The scientific community is purposfully postulating the inverse of witnessed reality as some kind of pseudo junk science logic which is worthy of being disseminated to the populous. The illogical absurdity of athiesm is so far below reality based logic it will forever remain unquantifiable and in fact is simply a lowly thought exercise which desends into a shallow dead end rabbit hole of futile pointless absurdity.>> <<@jvt_redbaronspeaks4831 says : Terrific Guests. More Stephen Meyer please. Maybe he can pull WLC out of his evolutionary wanderings.>> <<@PearlmanYeC says : Per Pearlman YeC 'a' not 'The' big bang. So yes a hyper-dense start followed by hyper-cosmic expansion, but 'thousands not billions ' of years ago. see Creation Science and Big Bang Cosmology volume II of the Pearlman YeC for the alignment of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ.>> <<@artfigueroa7506 says : 2 Samuel 22:8 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved and shook, because he was wroth. 9 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. 10 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; and darkness was under his feet. 11 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind. 12 And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies. 13 Through the brightness before him were coals of fire kindled. 14 The LORD thundered from heaven, and the most High uttered his voice. 15 And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and discomfited them. 16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils. Peace, my fellow human!>> <<@afham5510 says : Is that a real human skull on Craig’s bookshelf?!>> <<@AzariahWolf says : I'm always confused that someone who claims that they believe that Jesus was a literal incarnation of God the Son who lived, died, and rose literally and physically from the grave would balk at the concept of Young Earth Creationism, to the point of wishing that it would end completely. Like, I don't think you have to believe in the literal six day Creation account or a roughly 6000-7000 year old earth in order to be saved, but why the hostility? Having read a cliff notes summary of Dr. Craig's book on the historical Adam, it sounds like he argues that it's ridiculous on its face to take Genesis 1-11 literally. I contend that I haven't yet heard an internally consistent hermeneutic that holds to the mythological, allegorical, or polemic interpretation of those eleven chapters that doesn't immediately call into question all other history in the Bible. If you're ceding the first eleven chapters of Genesis to the skeptics, it seems more honest to call yourself a skeptic than any breed of Christian. Based on Dr. Craig's very wishy-washy response when pressed on the evidence, that seems like a better description for him, anyway. He isn't a Believer, he's a "hoper." Like, "gee golly, I sure hope that literally only the parts of the Bible that offer an escape from Hell are true, and literally everything else could mean anything, oh golly gosh!">> <<@michaels2480 says : In your smugness and rush to denounce young-earth creationists, besides the fact that you seem to have forgotten that calling fellow believers "an embarrassment" is a bit of a no-no ... you also are skipping blissfully over some really important facts. You state that is difficult to know how long a day (="yom") was before Day 4 when the time markers like the sun and moon were created. Fair enough. But yours is a bit of a straw-man argument, though, because there's so much more to your old-earth beliefs that you're NOT stating in this context. Hidden inside your long-earth beliefs lie some impossible-to-reconcile assumptions. Chief among them (although this video doesn't specifically mention this) is the fact that, since you are interpreting the evidence (fossil and otherwise) to say that the earth is very old, then you must also believe in millions of years of death, disease, decay and destruction before the fall of humans. One of the hosts even derisively mentioned the "Biblical Adam" ... and ha ha ha, how funny that is ... which brings up the question: Do you believe there was a Biblical Adam? If so, when did he live? Because if he "arrived" with humans *after* those millions of years of death, destruction, etc., then we've got a problem, and it is this: If there was no Biblical Adam who fell into sin whose consequence was death, then there was no original sin from which we needed to be saved, and that begs questions around the purpose for Jesus' work. Do you see the problem? If it wasn't Adam's sin that brought death into the world ("For by one man sin came into the world, and death by sin"), but instead death existed for millions of years before Adam, then you may as well erase huge swaths of the Bible! And if you choose not to believe some of the Bible (and I assure you, when the Bible says "yom" it means "day" the way you and I mean it) then what other parts of the Bible do you choose to believe are untrue? It is difficult to explain Christian belief with an old-earth philosophy. The Christian belief system revolves around Jesus (the "last Adam") who was born, lived an innocent life, and died an unjust death to save humans from the consequences of the sin brought into the world by the first Adam. That is plainly stated in the Bible. It's not even in Genesis -- it's in the New Testament, for example 1st Corinthians. It's clearly explained. I took your snickers and guffaws as an indication that you think we shouldn't believe in silly little things like the Biblical Adam. But then your whole belief system falls like a house of cards. Our Christianity can't just be based on "being a good person" or "following the teachings of Jesus" -- we've got to believe the whole thing.>> <<@briendoyle4680 says : Do NOT rant or debate!!! If a god existed -- NO arguments of any kind would be necessary --> A real god would be obvious!!>> <<@londonlester6871 says : No reason to think that the earth is 6,000 years old? We have God's word that gives us lineage and timelines of everything that took place. I know these men love the Lord but don't put science over God's word. "Let God be true though every one were a liar">> <<@tasmanwalker8750 says : Sounds to me like you guys are trying to impose your cultural beliefs on Genesis. Hmmm.>> <<@GavinMCox says : There we have it, according to both Craig and Meyer, both the Lord Jesus and the Apostle Paul were wrong about something as fundamental as origins, and sin bringing death? If the fossil bones (Neanderthals etc.,) really do predate the bible's history, then Adam and Eve had human parents that lived, sinned, and died? Bang goes the foundations to the gospel, any semblance of biblical authority, or the inerrant Christ, not to mention His heavenly Father allowing his Son Jesus and the NT writers to teach falsehood. And God Himself was wrong to tell Moses and the Israelites that He created all things in 6 days and rested on the 7th, so establishing the Sabbatical covenant? (Exodus 31:17). Is God Himself not capable of telling us what a day is? Or how long it took Him to create without a process of death for billions of years? The thinking that Craig and Meyer represents the real barrier to people coming to faith, not young earth creationism.>> <<@substax_dnb8245 says : The problem with that and all cosmological arguments based on the big bang-heliocentric theory is, that they are based on a nonbiblical, unscientific and ultimately false cosmology. At this point I have trouble understanding people which say they study the bible, yet don't see the glaring contradictions with Genesis 1 and the cosmology that so called "science" is claiming to be true. As a fellow christian all I can say is: Look into, and I mean, really look into and pray to God about, the true biblical cosmology, which is the 7 day creation story of a flat, immovable and by a firmament enclosed earth. No Big Bang, No outer space. Waters above and below the firmament. NASA and all of science is in part knowingly, in part unknowingly lying to us all. Wake up! God bless in Jesus' Name>> <<@tasmanwalker8750 says : In Exodus 20.11 God said He took 6 literal days. Just like our 6 day work week. Are you saying that was too hard for Him? Are you saying He was not able to do what He said he did?>> <<@kiviakengassa says : 💪✌️😎✝️>> <<@larrywilliams5490 says : This is one of the best conversations I have ever listened to.Extremely stimulating to not only the mind but the spirit as well. William F. Buckley 🤣I miss him.>> <<@geno4god says : 1:03:50 That is why I do believe that W.L. Craig is not a christian in a Biblical sense nor born again either. He promotes some theoretical, philosophical, deistic, men made heresy, which gives up the historicity and truthfulness of Biblical account. But The Biblical Jesus (not Jesus of W.L.C), accepted and quoted account of Creation at face value - "But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female" Mark 10:6. And this account is only 6K years old. I personally have zero problems to believe that at the Creation "Ex Nihilo", my Almighty God of the Bible created the universe the way we see it now, with all "red shifts" as a package. In addition to that and as a consequence of that ideas of W.L.C. he opens the door to deny the supreme authority and historicity of the Bible per se cause if the first three chapters are wrong and metaphorical, then all the rest of the Bible is not trustworthy too. He opens the door for all perversities of post modern world. If there is no supreme authority of the Bible so there is no authority at all. And hence as we see today Romans 1:18-32 in action. "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed." Galatians 1:8>> <<@flashoftruth says : LOL, it was never "sound". 🤣>> <<@themeek351 says : These 3 Christians are essentially calling Jesus and Moses liars when they literally said and wrote in stone that the creation event took 6/24 hour days! The Bible mentions numerous times that God stretched out the heavens after creating it! This scientifically explains all of the expansion and red shifting that we see! You combine this evidence with many other age limiting factors in our solar system and age limitations in the Earth and our very own DNA itself, when combined with Biblical and secular human history it all squares with observable science and a Biblical time frame of roughly 6,000 years old! Beware of the leaven of the pharisee's! Satan is fooling the elect!>> <<@fcastellanos57 says : One question I have concerning the Kalam cosmological argument, when it comes to objects or even matter, I am talking about physical stuff that we can touch, all that had a beginning because it is formed or composed by particles such as electrons etc. however according to the First Law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed only transformed, so does the Kalam argument applies to energy also? therefore energy could not have been created according to that First Law of thermodynamics. My take is that energy comes from God himself and it is not a creation but a result of God’s transformation which we know it does not have a beginning.>> <<@hillstrong715 says : Actually the embarrassment is with William Lane Craig and Stephen Meyer. To determine the age of the earth or the age of the universe, we need to know a couple of things. Unfortunately, there is no way to determine this by any scientific methodology. The two factors required are: 1). The one-way speed of light. All we know or can know is the two-way speed of light. There is nothing in physics that would require the speed of light to be the same in each direction. All that is required is that the average speed over both direction be what we measure. 2). The other measure we use is radioactive decay. We can know the actual decay rates of particular radioactive materials. However, the problem we have is that there is no way to determine how old any natural sample is because we do not know what the original sample composition is. In both cases, we only have our presuppositions of these aspects. So it is not possible to determine scientifically how old the universe is or the earth is. If you want to argue otherwise, you have to demonstrate that you can measure the one-way speed of light and/or you can determine the actual original composition of any samples used for dating. Even the simple use of C14 dating requires you know the historical levels of C14 and this is not know only assumed.>>