Alex O Connor Confronts William Lane Craig On Evidence For Resurrection And Answers Brilliant

The shocking truth about Jesus' resurrection challenges our understanding of faith and history. Join us as we explore William Lane Craig's compelling arguments for Christianity's credibility. Is personal experience enough, or does historical evidence matter? Dive into this thought-provoking discussion on the foundations of faith, the power of belief, and the impact of Jesus' resurrection on our lives today. Whether you're a skeptic or a believer, this video offers fresh insights into age-old questions. What's your take on the resurrection? Share your thoughts below and let's continue this important conversation. #FaithJourney #BelievingInJesus #FaithAndSpirituality

Remember to like, share, and subscribe for more content that explores the depths of faith and its relevance in our modern world. Your perspective matters – let's grow in understanding together.

#apologetics #crossexamined #philosophy #frankturek #bartehrman

CHAPTERS:
00:00 - Emotional necessity
02:14 - Persuasion factors
05:15 - Evidentialism principles
12:41 - Historical evidence
14:25 - Resurrection evidence analysis
17:06 - Pragmatic justification
19:58 - Extraordinary claims and evidence
24:35 - Prior probabilities explained
28:04 - Key evidence for resurrection
29:44 - Disciples' credibility

[FrvrTmrrw]

i hope more atheists follow in Alex's footsteps and ditch the arrogance and bias, it makes the discussion so much more valuable.

[kensmith]

In all due respect to Craig, I myself came to believe the gospel through biblical prophecies which are far more convincing than any philosophical or logical arguments. Such as Isaiah 52:13- chapters 53 respectively ; Daniel chapter’s 2, 7, 8, and 9 respectively

[jsak-rocf]

Believing in God is one thing. Becoming Christian becomes personal because you have to look at yourself and make a decision on whether you are going to give up vices that have come to be part of your identity, or reject God in the knowledge of His existence and a authority

[GXP]

Dr. William Lane Craig is exceptional at providing the best evidence for Christ and resurrection !
Thank you for showing this debate. Dr Craig thoroughly and sincerely, explains his points very clear so that the average person can understand it.
🙌🏾👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾🙏🏾

[willievanstraaten]

Well done Alex. Craig had nothing but philosophical wishful and circular trash talk.

One must be totally imbued and indoctrinated with fear of the cruel, evil, malevolent, always angry, punishing and killing biblical deity to think that way.

[noknownthrone]

Right on man, I've been watching your channel just grow and grow. I don't know how old you are, but you look pretty young, possibly early twenties? You also look like the type of person that might also just have a younger looking face (baby face) like me unless you grow a beard... but you speak well and carry yourself well and very professionally. I appreciate this content very much, and as a 38 year old man, I just want to encourage you to keep going. If you are still young, you are on an excellent path. Coming from someone entering into their middle age, I wish I had the drive like this when I was young. So just keep at it dude, you are doing something good for the world. And most importantly, honoring God. Bless you Elijah, and I'll be here to tune in as you keep moving.

[Theo_Skeptomai]

Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as suspending any acknowledgment as to the reality of any particular god until sufficient credible evidence is presented. My situation is that *_I currently have no good reason to acknowledge the reality of any god._*

And here is why I currently hold to such a position. Below are 11 facts I must consider when evaluating the claim made by certain theists that a particular god exists in reality. To be clear, these are not premises for any argument which _concludes_ there to be no gods. These are simply facts I must take into account when evaluating the verity of such a claim. If any of the following facts were to be contravened at a later time by evidence, experience, or sound argument, I would THEN have good reason to acknowledge such a reality.

1. I have never been presented with a functional definition of a god.
2. I personally have never observed a god.
3. I have never encountered any person who has claimed to have observed a god.
4. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing or able to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
5. I have never been presented with any _valid_ logical argument, which also introduced demonstrably true premises that lead deductively to an inevitable conclusion that a god(s) exists in reality.
6. Of the many logical syllogisms I have examined arguing for the reality of a god(s), I have found all to contain a formal or informal logical fallacy or a premise that can not be demonstrated to be true.
7. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
8. Several proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
9. I have never knowingly experienced the presence of a god through intercession of angels, divine revelation, the miraculous act of divinity, or any occurrence of a supernatural event.
10. Every phenomenon that I have ever observed appears to have *_emerged_* from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance, system, or being) that was created _ex nihilo_ - that is instantaneously came into existence by the solitary volition of a deity.
11. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have been presented have either been refuted to my satisfaction or do not present as _falsifiable._

ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the reality of any particular god.

I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Atheism is simply withholding such acknowledgment until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. *_It is natural, rational, and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstantiated claims, especially extraordinary ones._*

I welcome any cordial response. Peace.

[waldo]

Wow this man is so smart and so full of knowledge from God. God bless him

[etherealblacketernal]

Im a fan of Alex O Connors style of respect, listening to his guest until they're done talking, and being genuine with his questions. I'm actually a fan of Dr Lanes style too. He tries to be reasonable and logical in his arguments. And to his credit, he does a decent job with the tools he has to work with. Unfortunately, he's wrong at every turn because he starts from, "my postion is correct, let me tell you why", instead of, "I have evidence for this position so this is what should be believed".

[SurferKroky]

Fantastic debate. I really like Alex o Connor. Such a respectful debater . I truly hope he finds the truth in Jesus Christ

[DannyHorn-xx]

Love Dr Craig I'm an OG young man Elijah great channel keep it up God bless you keep your Holy armor on.✝️👍

[donnadeau]

Hey Willy, how many historians have come to Jesus because of the resurrection myths?

[johnnybgood]

The reason why I’m an atheist is because even the most renowned apologists like WLC say things like “god is the best explanation for the universe”. How can the best explanation for something be a thing that you can’t demonstrate exists? It’s functionally the same as saying fairies did it.

[alexanderseton]

Porque la palabra de la cruz es locura para los que se pierden, pero para los que se salvan, es decir nosotros, es poder de Dios.

Pues está escrito:
Destruiré la sabiduría de los sabios, y desecharé el entendimiento de los entendidos.

¿Dónde está el sabio?¿Dónde está el escriba?¿Dónde están los disputadores de este siglo?¿No ha enloquecido Dios la sabiduría del mundo?
Pues porque a través de la sabiduría de Dios los hombres no conocieron a Dios, le agradó a Dios salvar a los creyentes por medio de la predicación de la cruz, para algunos ciertamente tropezadero y para los otros locura

[willievanstraaten]

William Lane Craig 17:30: “Pascal wager – great benefits to be had if it turns out to be true.”

No not at all. I would not like to be a slave or servant (as explained in Revelation) for eternity to an evil slave master.

God, Satan, Heaven, hell, demons, and angels are all ancient myths and were stolen from many other ancient religions that faded away.

But if they were real, I would rather be with Satan than with the jealous cruel, and evil god from whom even angels fled.

There is nothing in the Bible that indicates that Satan is a bad evil monster like the God in the Bible. The god never shows love, kindness, or gentleness, oh no he is always angry, punishing, killing, murdering and plundering.

[SurferKroky]

Love that closing statement Elijah . God bless you

[nataliamundell]

Extraordinary evidence wouldn't be believed as it is extraordinary. Why would we trust that kind of evidence.
We prove extraordinary claims all the time in courts with big standard evidence

[generyan]

People should have permission to believe in rationality in order to thwart bias claims that have no merit of evidential truth to them. Craig is stuck on a one and a million chance according to his rationality of presupposing his beliefs to be true. The heart is a pump and not a brain. Don't disregard the only tool you have for assessing the only reality that all of us have been able experience just for wishful desire, Craig.

[LifeFitness]

Luke claims that "many" have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us... How many is "many?" I tend to believe it's more than 3. The evidence in the first century may have been extraordinary (in additional to being able to speak with eye witnesses). It seems to me that it would take extraordinary evidence for the church to have thrived in an empire that just had Jesus crucified. And for that religion that stemmed from the armpit of the Roman Empire to be accepted as the religion of the empire just a few hundred years later is part of that "extraordinary proof" needed to convince a skeptic...if they're intellectually honest of course.

[bestofnesia]

Hope Craig comes to understand how wrong he is.