Not a lot of speaking by me in this video, I wanted to play Craig in his own words at each step talking about how he wants Christianity to be true, so he lowers the bar for belief in Christianity AND raises the bar for defeaters for Christianity.
Then he talks about how other religions have similar justification for belief, but he supposedly has defeaters for those religions.
But then he admits that if he were presented with a defeater for Christianity that he couldn't answer, he would keep on believing based on his subjective religious experience.
He even dodges the problem related to how other religions could do this to his supposed defeaters to them by begging the question.
References to everything played in this video, I encourage you to watch/listen/read them to ensure I have taken nothing out of context:
Craig talks about epistemic justification on the basis of subjective religious experience and how he supposedly has defeaters for other religions, but not his own: youtube.com/watch?v=yp5MK1GP3OM
Craig talks about how if he is given defeaters, arguments and evidence he can't answer, his subjective religious experience overrides those defeaters and he keeps on believing: youtube.com/watch?v=2C3T17aKPCI
William Lane Craigs Double Standards for Belief - In his own words!Counter Apologist2022-08-26 | Oh my god, he admit it!
Not a lot of speaking by me in this video, I wanted to play Craig in his own words at each step talking about how he wants Christianity to be true, so he lowers the bar for belief in Christianity AND raises the bar for defeaters for Christianity.
Then he talks about how other religions have similar justification for belief, but he supposedly has defeaters for those religions.
But then he admits that if he were presented with a defeater for Christianity that he couldn't answer, he would keep on believing based on his subjective religious experience.
He even dodges the problem related to how other religions could do this to his supposed defeaters to them by begging the question.
References to everything played in this video, I encourage you to watch/listen/read them to ensure I have taken nothing out of context:
Craig talks about epistemic justification on the basis of subjective religious experience and how he supposedly has defeaters for other religions, but not his own: youtube.com/watch?v=yp5MK1GP3OM
Craig talks about how if he is given defeaters, arguments and evidence he can't answer, his subjective religious experience overrides those defeaters and he keeps on believing: youtube.com/watch?v=2C3T17aKPCI
You can watch Cam's original video here: youtube.com/watch?v=kOmOLre6CyMCountering the Greater Goods Necessitate Evil TheodicyCounter Apologist2023-08-11 | It seems one of the most reliable ways to get me to make atheism and philosophy of religion videos lately is to show me something so stupid I feel the need to respond.
Well congratulations to Capturing Christianity, because he's done it with this attempted theodicy and pathetic attempt at a reversal on the problem of evil.Should Atheists & Secularists ally with the Religious Right against Wokeism?Counter Apologist2023-06-13 | I know it's been a long time since I've put anything out, but life has really been a bit crazy.
I saw something so incredibly stupid, the idea that atheists and secularists should ally with the Religious Right in order to stop "the woke" which basically means trans people.
Yeah. I saw that and just wanted to make a quick video discussing how utterly insane that is.
You can read the article here: europeanconservative.com/articles/commentary/believe-in-believersInterview with Dr. Joshua Rasmussen on Universalism & his Philosophical TheologyCounter Apologist2022-11-18 | I was very excited to be able to talk to Dr. Joshua Rasmussen about his views on universalism and questions related to that, but then when we got to actually have the discussion it really went beyond my expectations.
We touch on those initial topics, but we really hit a wide variety of topics and different models of god, specifically with relation to what omniscience and omnipotence means or doesn't mean and the ways that Dr. Rasmussen squares those views with Christianity.
Honestly I can't remember a time when I have been more sympathetic to a sort of theism than after talking with Josh about these topics. I can honestly say that I'm agnostic towards the sort of god we discussed.
Of course the sort of god we discussed is not the classical kind of omnipotent and omniscient god of classical or personal theism.The Utter Failure of the Free Will TheodicyCounter Apologist2022-10-18 | This video gets quite technical and it's a good reminder that you can find a transcript of this on my blog here: counterapologist.blogspot.com/2022/10/the-utter-failure-of-free-will-theodicy.html
It is highly recommended that you follow along if things get confusing with an audio presentation.
This video is aimed at showing how the Free Will Defense to the Logical Problem of Evil fails, even if we grant that Libertarian Free Will exists and is coherent.
The central part of the critique is aimed at Molinism, the theological solution to god having omniscience of our "free choices" while somehow preserving the libertarian free will of creation and how that ends up not precluding a that god could create what I call "Heaven World" where any natural number of beings never do any evil and always freely choose to love god.
I also point out how William Lane Craig's attempted to response to this problem about god not having free will is demonstrably false.
References: Definition of Rigid Designator: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rigid-designators/ Dr. William Lane Craig's Demonstrably False Attempt at saying his god has free will even if he can't freely choose to do otherwise: reasonablefaith.org/writings/question-answer/is-god-able-to-do-evil Dr. Joshua Rasmussen's paper on why having Free Will results in a "better situation" if not a better person or place: philpapers.org/rec/RASOTVAnswering @TestifyApologetics on Whether Doubting Christians Should Avoid Critics of ChristianityCounter Apologist2022-10-07 | Erik from @TestifyApologetics has stirred up some controversy with his advice for doubting Christians telling them to avoid atheist videos or books until they're able to steelman their Christian faith.
He then went on Braxton's channel to expand on this and I believe exposed some double standards and some cherry picked criteria to favor his views and dismiss others. In particular he ends up contradicting his argument against my Countering the Resurrection video, and the argument against miracles.
Note that while I'm critical of Erik here, I am criticizing his arguments. He himself is an honest person that is simply mistaken, do NOT engage in insults or straw mans of his position.
Emerson's Channel: youtube.com/c/EmersonGreen Real Atheology's Channel: youtube.com/c/RealAtheologyWilliam Lane Craig Cherry Picks His Standards for Christian BeliefCounter Apologist2022-08-25 | I held my fire on criticizing Doctor William Lane Craig for his comments on "lowering the epistemic bar" for Christian belief until he made clarifications on Capturing Christianity. Suffice it to say I think his Pascal's Wager take on the standards to believe or disbelieve something have a lot of problems.
Here are the links to the videos I'm sampling in this critique.
Doctor Craig's Original Podcast where he talks about "lowering the bar for Christian belief" because he finds Christianity to be so beautiful: youtube.com/watch?v=K-5Q_zx9Etc
Doctor Craig goes on Capturing Christianity to respond to his Critics: youtube.com/watch?v=yp5MK1GP3OMNo @CapturingChristianity Atheism doesnt logically lead to despair!Counter Apologist2022-07-14 | Today @CapturingChristianity posted a video with Dr. McIntosh about how Atheism Logically leads to despair (youtube.com/watch?v=qJ0ayWlrVfM) and it wasn't the usual claptrap about how life has no meaning on atheism, an argument I've already responded to on this channel.
Rather he goes on to make a very weird and what I feel is self-contradictory argument about how life gets "too much meaning" if we cease to exist when we die and we can't know what actions to take in order to maximize our meaning.Answering Dr. Browns Questions for AtheistsCounter Apologist2022-07-07 | Dr. Michael Brown put some questions for atheists out there and I was tagged as possibly giving him an answer. He said he's asking to genuinely get an understanding of atheists and I decided to meet him at his word.
I also wanted to get myself going on making some videos again and this was an easy way to grease the wheels.
I hope you find this enjoyable, the questions were decent and I was happy to summarize my current views on them.Countering Trent Horn on Trans RightsCounter Apologist2022-02-24 | @TheCounselofTrent put out a video alleging that there is One Question Transgender Advocates Can't Answer that I came across today that I watched because of my recent interactions with Trent and I decided to make a response video, especially in light of what's going on with Trans rights in Texas right now.
I do my best to show the flaws in Trent's biological reductionist view of gender on its own terms, and point out how his "simple answer" has a lot of philosophy baked into it that is not at all simple.
I then present what I think is a far better view of gender that is trans inclusive and why that fits far better with the vast majority of interaction with other people regardless of whether they're cis, trans, non-binary, or genderfluid.
I welcome feedback if I've made any mistakes.
If you'd like to get far more in depth answers on Philosophy of Gender I strongly recommend both ContraPoints and Philosophy Tube both of which are channels run by trans people who have formal philosophy training and have done quite a lot of work on the topic:
This video gives a counter to the Contingency Argument and defends the notion of brute facts, attempting to show how any world view, including theistic ones where they claim god is a necessary being end up with Brute Facts or they get stuck with a modal collapse, where nothing is contingent.
I also counter a defense of the Trinity as not being Brute, provided by a Christian Apologist I both like and respect, @DryApologist You can check out his video on the topic that I quote in this video here: youtube.com/watch?v=c0ZdrUU0eKMWilliam Lane Craig badly responds to the Problem of Heaven + EvilCounter Apologist2022-02-06 | Very impromptu video this morning as I happened to see @CapturingChristianity posted a short video with William Lane Craig on the problem of evil, or at least why we weren't created directly in heaven since heaven is a place where there is no sin.
I literally sat down and did a one take recording and response because I think the problems with his response are pretty blatant once you've gotten to know his schtick.William Lane Craigs Self-Referentially Incoherent Meta-Ethical TheoryCounter Apologist2022-01-31 | I was made aware of William Lane Craig responding to the incoherence of grounding "objective" moral values in god's nature, where he defines Objective = Mind Independence and says that god is literally a disembodied mind.
I cover why exactly why Craig's defense fails and his meta-ethical theory is still incoherent.
I go over how if his solution had worked, it would end up undermining his moral argument for the existence of god.
I conclude by pointing out how Craig's definition of objectivity doesn't
Craig's attempted defense of god's nature being mind independent: youtube.com/watch?v=onnG3cMG_c0&t=4454s (1:14:14 - 1:16:57)Yes, Repeatable Empirically Verifiable Miracles would prove god exists! (Response to Trent Horn)Counter Apologist2022-01-21 | Trent Horn, a Catholic apologist, recently brought up my thought experiment about how repeatable empirically verifiable miracles wouldn't actually prove that god exists, and that atheists who say it would are actually making a mistake, or even contradicting themselves if they have ever used the "god of the gaps" objection.
I tackle his argument related to this to show where I think he's wrong.
You can watch Trent's original video on this topic here: youtube.com/watch?v=D8Dnm6gqKDsIs there an Objective Evidential Filter for Historical Miracle Claims? (Response to @Testify Pt. 2)Counter Apologist2022-01-21 | This is Part 2 of my response to @TestifyApologetics and his video about DOUBTS, an evidential filter for miracle claims. You can watch Erik's video here: youtube.com/watch?v=q06a2ztp_N0
Basically Erik presents an evidential filter developed by Christian philosopher and apologist Tim McGrew and I break down how the resurrection story actually would violate some of these criteria and how it's not really "objective" or "religiously neutral", and why in principle we couldn't come up with such a thing without having god need to continually interact with the world with repeatable verifiable miracles.Responding to @TestifyApologetics on Miracles (Part 1)Counter Apologist2022-01-19 | Links:
This video is both defending the idea that atheists can celebrate Christmas without being hypocritical AND defending the fact that many of these celebrated Christmas traditions are not actually pagan in origin.
The last link from Tim contains a LOT of resources for further reading about a variety of claims regarding supposed pagan origins of Christmas traditions.What Evidence do I have for Atheism (Responding to Camerons 3 Questions for Atheists)Counter Apologist2021-12-02 | Cameron from Capturing Christianity had "3 Sincere Questions for Atheists" video and since I already had something written up to address the meatiest question he had, I figured I'd put out a quick response.
The main question is "What Evidence do you have for your atheism?".
You can view Cameron's questions here: youtube.com/watch?v=89tcsb2aPLICountering Frank Tureks Dishonesty, Pop Apologetics About Sex, and Diet PresuppositionalismCounter Apologist2021-10-22 | Capturing Christianity released a video with popular level Christian apologist Frank Turek that was so bad I felt it needed to be responded to immediately.
Please bear with me in this video as it's my first time attempting to do some live playback and commentary.
Unfortunately as a result of the impromptu nature of this video, I do not have a transcript.
Also I'm adding a pre-emptive correction that came after recording: Frank's book released in 2014, so this isn't a book tour to cover for a lost one during the pandemic. Frank and Cameron were just doing product placement.Gun Politics: Terrible Arguments for Gun Control in the Supreme Court NYSRPA v Bruen CaseCounter Apologist2021-09-26 | This is a big diversion from my normal Philosophy of Religion videos where instead I discuss gun politics. Please let me know how you feel about non PoR videos on my channel!
Link to data showing Concealed Carry Permit Holders are among the most law abiding populations in the US: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3463357Epistemology Discussion with Randal RauserCounter Apologist2021-07-07 | After my last video critiquing Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology in combination with Randal Rauser's apologetic in his newest book Jesus Loves Canaanites, we had a discussion about it on his channel which you can view here: youtube.com/watch?v=IdVPHM8Yczw
After our discussion I had thought of some potential pitfalls for his positions, but rather than trying to make another "Countering" video I decided it would be best to have another discussion about those issues instead.
Please excuse the sudden jump about 22 minutes in, my youngest daughter gave us a small interruption. Also editing isn't really my forte.
Reading Randal's latest book "Jesus Loves Canaanites" I realized there's a contradiction in his wider apologetic effort and his endorsement and defense of Alvin Plantinga's Reformed Epistemology, putting modern apologists in a dilemma with no good options.Interview with Elephant PhilosophyCounter Apologist2020-11-02 | A few weeks ago I came across a theistic YouTube channel named Elephant Philosophy and I really came to appreciate his approach even though we disagree. His video on how his views changed seemed almost exactly like my journey except he started as an atheist and then ended up as a Christian theist.
He really focuses deeply on the latest in philosophy of religion and I knew I would love to sit and have a chat about our respective journeys.
You can check out his great channel here: youtube.com/channel/UCFAApTW3CQHEClUvNALUTcgThe Nature of the Atheist/Theist Debate (A Response to Braxton Hunter)Counter Apologist2020-10-30 | I've been thinking a lot about the nature of the Atheist/Theist debate and the subjective argumentative stalemate it ends up being and then I saw this video by Braxton Hunter of Trinity Radio that really motivated me to put my thoughts into a video and talk about why it's important we start extending olive branches to each other.
If you would like to attempt a rebuttal, or just like what you hear and want more in depth analysis, please checkout the longer video on my channel here: youtu.be/zz6GapB6DMI
This session was with Christian apologist and theologian Randal Rauser and we covered a lot of topics from Metaphysics to Morality and had what I think was a great conversation.
This is the first attempt at doing this, and I didn't know how to use Google Hangout's On Air, so instead of swapping between Randal and me talking, the video turned out to only show Randal. My apologies to Randal, I thought it was showing the full screen view that I saw on the controls.The Argument from Hell (Part 1)Counter Apologist2013-05-14 | This argument presents a challenge to Christians who hold to the doctrine of hell. It is an internal critique of Christian theology that shows an inconsistency between the existence of hell and the coThe Argument from Hell (Part 2)Counter Apologist2013-05-14 | This video goes into great detail to address most objections Christian apologists have against the Argument from Hell.
This is a condensed version of my much more detailed series in Countering the Kalam Cosmological Argument. I made this so people didn't have to watch almost an hours worth of material to get a basic understanding of why the Kalam doesn't provide a reason to believe in a god, let alone prove one exists!