Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do you believe an atheist is capable of loving Jesus and acknowledging Jesus is real, while still being an atheist ?
Exactly. You can't do it. For any number of the reasons you give. You say you can, but you can't. Go ahead, jump and that roof and confess that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. But you won't. There is the proof.
You are greatly incorrect on this. Craig has said that if presented with such a defeater, he would have to consider the possibility that what he believes to be witness of the Holy Spirit is really just own delusion (I am greatly paraphrasing him). But given the lack of any good defeaters to his properly basic belief, he is justified in believing in that. For example, one could tell him that he is really just a brain in a vat and that all he thinks is reality is just a delusion. But lacking any defeater to prove that, he is perfectly justified that his senses are telling him the truth...that there really is a world outside of his own self.So what's the point of debating it, then? You clearly have no interest, regardless of what the evidence says, of changing your mind. I wonder if you extrapolate that as far as WLC does, to the point where you could be shown Jesus rotting in the tomb and his ostensibly dead body being moved by disciples and buried in an unmarked grave elsewhere via a time machine and still have faith that he rose from the dead. And then I'm reminded that WLC thinks that a personal revelation at one point should supercede his own repeatable observable experience, and I get really sad.
I do not presuppose that the English language in layman's terms is capable of adequately framing the period of time prior to the current expansion of the cosmos in a manner that supports your position. The astrophysicists do not seem concerned about it.
Thus rendering the word useless.
His book has been heavily criticized by fellow atheists. One such atheist wrote that his "nothing" is really not "nothing" at all, but a definite something. When Christians say nothing, they mean "not anything". This is not the same as what Krauss argued in his book.
Butting in:
You're right. It doesn't. But what does help is, scientifically speaking, there are some evidences that prove that the universe is NOT eternal (forgive me for not remembering the sources I had). Which leaves us with a Creator. (Although it doesn't prove WHO did it). One thing that helped me with the previous little tidbit (though you might argue more reasonably) is the question "why do we have something rather than nothing at all?". As one put it: The argument for God can be presented very easily. Something exists. You do not get something from nothing. Therefore, a necessary and eternal Being exists.
Citation needed.
Not necessarily. People of different religions also claim that their own theological commitments are justified by their "inner witness," or something to that effect. This should be enough to give him pause to reflect.
This has been addressed. You ignored it.
Some cosmological models are eternal, others are not. What relevance does this have, other than to show that the premise is contestable?
So there is nothing that could lead you to reconsider your theological commitments?
The universe runs like the universe. What would lead one to conclude that it is "designed"?
