Q&A: Is Christianity Credible? | Assembly Buildings - Belfast, Northern Ireland

perhaps as you're thinking I might invite dr. Craig to come back up and use the term encouraged and asked the first one and it is this dr. Craig you have in a very fascinating way sued hi there has been a revival of interest in Christianity in the in orthodoxy among philosophers and scientists and that in some ways traditionally atheism of the 1960's has Peter died hi then would you be able to explain the rise of the so-called New Atheists in the last couple of decades this is a good question David and I think it's very important to understand that the so-called New Atheism spearheaded by people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris is not an academic movement this is not a movement within academia this is a movement within pop culture and the writings of these persons reflect an obsolete scientistic or positivistic view of the world that as I explained was characteristic of the 1940s and 50s they are blissfully unaware of the revolution that has transpired within philosophy over the last half century or so and frankly are still mouthing the popular istic atheistic slogans from the 1950s and that is why in fact these persons have been rather roundly denounced by fellow academics whether atheist or theist so this is a pop cultural movement and not one that is characteristic of the Academy thank you very much so please if we have our first questioner and as folks are coming up to the microphone if you think you've got one ready to ask maybe you would join the queue at the microphone nearest to you and I'll seek to spot you I think of one coming in there in the middle aisle here either - Craig thank you for your lecture it was really interesting on and I wanted to ask you a question that wasn't really address or things of anything in the lecture itself but it certainly linked to the topic of Christianity and trying to have a consistent picture of it and understanding that that's rationale it's linked to something I think it's a responsibility or what the Gallants call someone call alternate responsibility and I think it's important to have an account of that to understand faith because I think knowing that somehow we have the response will be able to be responsible for actions essential to Christianity faith itself but it seems difficult to see how that could be the case that we could be ultimately responsible for for our own actions so this is assuming we have a certain picture throughout let's say let's say if we assume that we're responsible for what we do if well if if we if we do what we do because of how we are then to be responsible for what we do we have to be responsible for how we are and so I was wondering how how can you get some how can you go back to be responsible for how you are how can you be as a little self creative the Creator the stander of your own ends and purposes and how does that link in which save how does God how can if we can't have that something that some of them self created how can we have a god that would punish us for being a circle yes okay I think you've highlighted one of the differences between a naturalistic view of human being which sees man as simply the determined product of sociology and biology and the very elevated view of humanity that Christianity has which sees us as responsible moral agents able to make significant choices I indeed able to determine our eternal destiny by how we respond to God's grace and I think the key here is to understand that from the New Testament perspective as I said in the end of the talk God has not left us to work out by our own devices and cleverness whether or not he exists rather through the witness of the holy spirit to every person God seeks to draw persons to himself by convicting them of sin and by enabling them to respond to his offer of salvation in a free and uncoerced way so it is ultimately how we react to the drawing of God's Spirit on our hearts that will determine I think our eternal destiny and God will bring it to a point to every person where he can overcome those obstacles that are the result of upbringing and conditioning and so forth so as to make a free response to his grace okay thank you very much indeed thank you I will take a second there's more than the middle adds we take a second once in the middle aisle and then we'll go over there later dr. break on your burger gospel depressing first of all Oh truth seeker as well I'm telling physics it would love to thank you totally alert the pure physics toughest posers might be someone else here with you do a better job anyway in the future as she better to jump over the top I do care about your opinion so the guy here right brick for reckon morning he represented cosmic nihilism month symbols here on the planet around one star and the context is stars there's a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe we can see our thirteen point six million years it probably is like 64 million years you know we have a quest which are observable do you think at the default believer you have to enter tree in this cosmic nihilism as part of your seeking of truth you have to live cold you know what I mean if you were to read my work you would see that the opening chapter of my book both reasonable faith and on guard is an exploration of what you call cosmic nihilism I think this is what motivates the search for God I derive great insight from the work of existentialist philosophers like syrup and c'mere as well as Russell and Nietzsche because of their analysis of the human predicament I think that a consistent atheistic view of the world leads to cosmic nihilism that is to say that life is meaningless valueless and purposeless and that therefore life is absurd and then what I argue is that however no one can live consistently and happily within the framework of such a worldview and you see atheists themselves betraying their view by affirming meaning to their choices purposes in life and the value of certain things especially when they feel that they have been wronged by someone else what Christianity offers then is a view of the world which is able to be lived consistently and happily so I definitely think this needs to be considered it raises the stakes of what is it issue with respect to the existence of God and so I definitely think that this is an important consideration oh sorry I'm not sure that we do have time for following the doctor dr. Craig is available afterwards if you would like to talk to him it's just out of deference for the other source timing but I appreciate a previous Adam let's go over to the side here okay hello dr. Craig hello I want to say I really enjoyed your story about how you came to faith I really resonated with it personally and I understand they have a very enlightened view of religion I wanted to ask what you think because I'm highly interested on them coming to God through other religions and other paths of faith and spirituality I don't think that anyone can come to a saving knowledge of God if he rejects consciously and intelligently Jesus Christ Jesus is the only one who has died for our sins and therefore they're only two persons who can pay the penalty for your moral wrongdoing and guilt you or Jesus and if a person deliberately rejects Jesus he rejects God's gracious provision for sin and thereby separates himself from God now having said that I think that there could be people in other religions who have never heard of Christ and therefore never rejected him but who can come to a knowledge of God not so much through those religions as in those religions and I think we have examples in the Bible of people like that people like Joel in the Old Testament job wasn't a Jew he wasn't even a member of the Old Covenant much less than new and yet God refers to him as my righteous servant so job was responsive to the light of revelation that God had given him and was justified before God as a result now does that mean he could be saved apart from Christ no what it means is that he could be the beneficiary of Christ's atoning death without having a conscious knowledge of Christ and I think there could be modern-day jobs in the world today I sincerely hope I don't have any confidence I sincerely hope that we'll see Aristotle and Plato in heaven because when you read what they wrote it sounds like Paul's opening chapter of the book of Romans or Acts chapter 17 these men seem to be responsive to the light of general revelation in nature and conscience that God had given them thank you thank you very much let's meet back to the middle thank you most and if you had people portunities of a conversation with debris or I I don't even know how to answer that question I'm sorry you could caught me quite off guard I read the work of Anselm and Aquinas with great appreciation but I can't think of any question I'll pop my head but I've been dying to ask them so I'll have to think about that one more before I could give an intelligent response okay we have somebody on this playing syllable here so it likes appear at all I'm sure it's personally you amongst other Christian apologist that's a statement they have a crisis four years ago the medicine Nina called evident and it's finally about to convince hearts are open do not curse to lose is hard to close why didn't he have been resurrected more horses it's image that stated people appeared the epithet a but the moment God make in that way in full thankful love where they end up I see hell now are you asking why isn't the evidence that we do have for the resurrection coercive or are you saying why didn't God give more evidence of the resurrection to make it coercive it wasn't clear to me what you were asking yeah are you saying here's the evidence we have for the resurrection and I said it's not coercive are you saying well yeah it is this is really compelling this really is coercive or are you saying yes the evidence for the resurrection isn't coercive but why didn't God give us more than and make it coercive big more than that awful a second limit well my belief is that God could certainly have made his existence and the truth of Christianity more evidently true than he has God could have written his name on every atom made by God or he could put a neon cross in the Stars saying Jesus Saves he could make his existence as plain as the nose on your face but as I read the Bible it's a matter of relative indifference to God to get people to believe that he exists rather his interest is in bringing people freely into a saving love relationship with himself and I think that God knows what evidence is sufficient to do that for those with open minds and open hearts but sufficiently vagues was not to compel people whose hearts are closed so we can trust that God has given evidence of the resurrection which is sufficient for any person who really wants to know the truth and I think that that's all that God needs to do okay thank you we have the middle aisle here and thank you desiccated I was just wondering and clearly that it's more important to have an expert on the price could Jesus changed the course of history rather than ever bringing the Bible for everything that he did I didn't understand the question David could you repeat it a thousand for me and I just wondering and do you consider and for important to get an emphasis on Jesus having changed the course has strayed rather than there being evidence in the Bible for everything he did the Crescent seems to be and do we is it more important to place an emphasis in the fact that Jesus has changed the course of history as an apologetic argument ah rather than believing everything in the Bible that is accurate the doubling so suppose it's the difference between the historical argument on the horodyski okay I think that's a false dichotomy if I understand the question it's not an either/or I don't think the argument from changing history is a good argument at all because falsehoods can change history I do not think that Muhammad had a genuine revelation from God that is called the Quran and yet that has certainly changed history today something like 1.3 billion people in the world adhere to the religion of Islam so you cannot judge the truth of a worldview by its impact upon history and therefore I think that argument isn't a good one but that doesn't mean that one's argument for Christianity is based upon everything that the Bible says what I am suggesting is that when ancient historians look at the New Testament documents not as a holy inspired book but is the way they would look at the writings of other ancient historians like lucidity Zoar Herodotus and so board that the gospel's emerges pretty credible records of the life and teachings of this first century Jew named Jesus of Nazareth and that among the facts that the Gospels report that are generally accepted by critical historians today are the four that I mentioned that after his crucifixion Jesus was buried in the tomb the tomb was found empty there were post mortem appearances of Jesus two different individuals and groups and the original disciples suddenly and sincerely claimed came to believe that God had raised him from the dead and then the question will be if those are the facts how do you best explain them and I can't think of any historical hypothesis that is better than the hypothesis that the original disciples themselves gave namely God raised him from the dead so this is not appealing to everything in the Bible it's appealing to these core facts that are widely agreed upon by contemporary historians thank you very much I'm gonna have to go over to this laying that income what are some of the challenges biggest challenges if any facing those considering teaching unit theology and a university setting and what advice would you give them what are some of the challenges that a professor faces in teaching theology at the in the university of setting here well let me say that I don't teach theology in a secular university setting my affiliation is with Talbot School of Theology which is a school of theology and so I do not encounter their hostility or discrimination against my views as a Christian if I were teaching at a secular university I think that I would probably emphasize very strongly the rationale credibility of the Christian world and life view in the way that I've sketched tonight there's so much more that could be done all we've done is look at the thin ice flow on the surface there's nine tenths of the iceberg below the surface and so I think that would be very strong emphasis in teaching in a secular setting to emphasize the rational credentials of Christian belief and back across to my left here so my question is isn't it a human condition that we are pattern-seeking animals so telling us to keep our hearts open to seek and whistle fight exclude that one condition just in validating any discovery of God within ourselves isn't it just an exercise that is elitist or the personal and the gamblers fallacy of finding faces in inanimate objects okay I'm going to need help again I didn't understand the question so in essence my christening since we're just better faking animals and the saying that speaking with your fine does not exploit the fact those values and I think I think that I think the questions had to do or was presupposing that we are simply a higher degree of animal life as human beings is that what you're saying yes and so this idea of seeking and finding and you know is that is that is that valid it was it's an anthropological question about the relation of us to the animal kingdom is that that fair enough sorry I couldn't make out everything but okay well I think this is related to the earlier question about cosmic neol ism if atheism is true then I think the most plausible version of atheism is some sort of naturalism that is to say we're just relatively evolved primates and I don't see any reason on such a view of humankind to think that the morality evolved by Homo sapiens on this planet is objectively binding and true nor would I see any objective purpose in life for these tiny life-forms on that speck of dust called planet Earth I don't think there would be any ultimate meaning or significance to them so I think you've just underlined the same question that the earlier fellow asked namely is it true that we are just electrochemical machines that are the products of blind evolutionary processes or are we something more are we creations of God made in a way that we can know him and find him and I've given some arguments to suggest that the latter is the case okay if that wasn't for some reason exactly your question kind of encouraged you maybe to come to dr. Craig afterwards and and see if he can unpack that a little bit more for you so thanks I have am I just looking at see a couple more people at each mic just to give you I think look at probably kick maybe at least three more one one on each I'll just if you're wondering should I get up and out the question we will have time for the use and maybe two or three more okay so that's where we're headed and we'll go here now these are my questions I guess this is quite a small one but let's come to the mic yeah add the question what do you have to say about how to interpret the Bible to compound the rationality of faith essentially by not denying scientific truth alright I'm again I'm not sure I understand the question it began with a question about biblical interpretation about how do you interpret the Bible right and then you transition to science and what is the question there so how would I read the Bible and take things away from it without denying scientific oh well I think that a proper hermeneutical approach to the Bible that is to say a prominent theory of literary interpretation is to try to understand these documents as they were originally written and as the original author would have understood them so I think it's quite the legitimate to try to import modern science into the text I know there are some Christians who look at Genesis chapter 1 and they try to read modern evolutionary theory back into the text I think that's just bad hermeneutics what you want to do is try to understand the way this original ancient author within his horizon would have understood the text and then it is the task of the systematic theologian to take these texts and their meaning and to formulate a coherent synoptic worldview that takes account of the data of modern science history psychology and so on with the biblical data to craft a coherent worldview or veldt unshown and this is what I am burdened to do as a systematic deal turning Christian philosophers take the data of Scripture understand it accurately and then integrate it into a coherent Christian worldview that takes account of the findings of modern science I'm going to allow you the privilege of just explaining in case there was a specific issue where you felt that the scientific data and scripture were at variance did you want to yeah all right thank you very much for asked about the whether the Bible was created in six 24-hour days and I would underline what I said there I think it's illegitimate to try to read modern science back into this ancient text we need to understand it as the author would have understood it and I think that when you read a text in that way that there are some indications in the text itself wholly apart from modern science that suggests that this author is not thinking of seven consecutive 24-hour days for example the seventh day is clearly not a 24-hour period of time it never ends we're still in the seventh day of God's Sabbath rest so at least the seventh day is not twenty-four hours long moreover I think there are indications in the text that the author is thinking of long periods of time elapsing for example on the third day when the vegetation and fruit trees are created God does not say let there be vegetation let there be fruit trees and it was so No the text says and God said let the earth bring forth vegetation bearing seed after its kind and fruit trees bearing fruit after its kind and it was so the earth brought forth vegetation bearing seed after its kind and fruit trees bearing fruit after its kind now we all know how long it takes for an apple seed to sprout grow into a sapling grow into a tree finally reach maturity and blossom and bear apples now unless the author of Genesis one was imagining this like time-lapse photography where the little tree pops out of the ground and it grows up and all the branches shoot out and the flowers and then there's leaves and apples popping out all over the place he must have thought that this took a long period of time he knew how long it takes for trees to grow and so I don't think that this author of this ancient text did think that what he was describing was like time-lapse photography and therefore that suggests again that this could be a considerable amount of time and that therefore we're not talking about seven consecutive 24-hour periods of time okay I think that I think we're probably just going to stick with the the questioners we have and make like this if there's one more person wants to join align but we'll probably have to draw a line there and we'll go over to the right-hand side Oona hey William you said earlier that evidence is certainly surprised the proof God is real so do you think the argument for religious experience is viable for the Briscoes existence you know I haven't worked on the argument from religious experience my friend Chi Minh Quan who is a professor philosophy at Hong Kong Baptist University has written a doctoral thesis on this and defended the argument from religious experience and you might look at the chapter in the Blackwell companion to natural theology that I and my colleague JP Moreland edited I understand religious experience to be not an argument for God's existence but rather the claim that we are justified on the basis of our experience in believing in God unless and until we have a defeater of that experience to suggest that it is wholly delusory I think of it on the analogy of Sense experience on the basis of my five senses I believe that there's a world of physical objects around me that I am perceiving now if this were an argument for sense experience then I'd be vulnerable to the skeptic who says well how do you know you're not a brain-in-a-vat of chemicals being stimulated by electrodes by a mad scientist to think that you're in Belfast in an auditorium surrounded by people there's no way you could refute that you can't get outside your senses to verify they're for ridic allottee but if it's not an argument but rather the claim that this is a properly basic belief that is grounded in experience which you are perfectly rational to hold and lesson until you have a defeater of that sense experience then I think it's it's perfectly rational to believe that there is a world of physical objects around me and in the same way for the person to whom God is experientially real I think in the same way that is a properly basic belief grounded in his experience of God which he is perfectly rational to believe unless and until he has some sort of defeater of that experience that would show that it's a psychological delusion and there is no such defeater so that's how I would understand religious experience and the justification of belief in God thank you very much over to the last air thank you one question I guess we reconcile Christian young of man and man as distinct from other animals us instinctive special creation of God with the Kenneth waters activities around similarities between humans of higher brushing my hips hurt on the review of a month marketed a study that is showing that ownership circumstances should not be condemned successful experience before and for me not always been something that I've deserved but yes I think that the distinction between human persons and other animals is that we have souls we have rational souls so I do not think that we are just material objects brains in electrochemical machines and in that sense we are different from animals we are created in the image of God in that we are minds we are souls connected with the body and so any sort of evolutionary account of human origins will be an account of the origin of the body of the physical mechanism but it won't say anything about the soul as a creation of God and so I see it as the the soul that marks us off as distinct from animals and I would disagree with the claim that there is anything in the animal kingdom that is moral what they're probably talking about would be certain behavior patterns like reciprocity empathy even altruism these sorts of behaviors are exemplified by social animals like baboons and even elephants even pigs but there isn't any moral quality to that it's just purely behavioral whereas in human beings I think because we are Souls we are moral agents who can make three decisions about how to behave for which God holds is accountable okay thank you very much and this gentleman's been waiting for a while here evening oh great I love questions pretty simple and can you summarize your evidence for Christianity in your speech because I think in your speech you spend a lot a large bit of your Swedish arguments against atheism but instead of evidence for Christianity for example you at the front page you spell off time painting about image of atheists and then in the second bit you saw disproving asia's ideas like you your argument against big the Big Bang Theory is sound but like it's only one of the theories of the universal origin so disproving that doesn't mean Christianity it doesn't prove Christianity so can you summarize your evidence now if I understood the question if I understood the question you completely misunderstood my talk this evening did you say that I presented arguments against atheism but no arguments in favor of Christianity okay because that's exactly absolutely well I didn't give any arguments against atheism tonight what I gave was positive arguments for theism I gave arguments for the existence of a creator based upon the origin of the universe at a point in the finite past and evidence for the existence of a cosmic designer on the basis of the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the Big Bang for intelligent life these two data points as I say seem to me to cry out for a creator and designer of the cosmos and then I appealed to the historical evidence concerning Jesus of Nazareth as a basis for believing that God raised him from the dead in vindication of those allegedly blasphemous claims for which he was crucified that is to say this creator and designer has verified those claims that he is the revelation of God so this case Knight is entirely a positive one in favor of Christian theism now again if you you may not regard it as a proof if by proof you mean coercive but that was what I spent the first part of my talk on I don't think that the evidence needs to be coercive it just needs to make faith reasonable that's the name of the ministry that I've involved in reasonable faith and I think the person who believes in a creator and designer of the universe who has revealed himself in Jesus is perfectly reasonable to do so so I hope to have discharged my responsibility as you've laid it out this evening I think to be fair to the of the question of ID how is that affirmative of Christianity was covered in the second part on the resurrection and the private jesus christ so right the first part gets you a kind of generic monotheism a creator and designer of the universe now that is a significant conclusion because that already rules out many of the world's great religions the pantheistic religions such as Taoism of Buddhism Hinduism as well as a theistic religions like Confucianism it leaves you with the great monotheism Judaism Christianity Islam and deism and so of those four remaining candidates which all affirm the existence of a creator and designer of the universe which one has the best claim to being true well there I think the evidence concerning the radical personal claims and the resurrection of Jesus gives good grounds for thinking that it's Christian theism that is true okay we're going to have to probably limit these remaining questions to about three minutes so try to be brief and how you ask the question and I'm sure dr. Craig be succinct employee answers at the start over here dr. Craig Markham the Bell part but my creations probably more thought experiment and if what you believe to be true was in fact false how differently think the word would look today okay if what I said is in fact false what difference would it make to the world if there was a lien that we're lost in cosmic nihilism it would mean that fellows raisa was up here at the mic earlier that there's no ultimate meaning no ultimate value Nome ultimate purpose to life and that therefore life is absurd I speak into the mic sorry why would the world history I mean that might be true individually existentially but would the words actually be any better or worse I'm not concerned about that as I said to someone else the girl in the wheelchair I don't think you judge the truth of a worldview by its impact upon history so it just doesn't matter whether the world would be better or worse if what I said is true or false because you don't judge the truth of a view by how it impacts the world but what I mean if I were speaking as a sociologist the impact of Christianity upon the history of mankind is incalculable just think of its contributions to art medicine the founding of universities of the raising the status of women relief of the poor and orphanages and so forth its contributions to literacy remember the book how the Irish saved civilization several years ago whereas the your plunged into the dark ages is only in the Irish monasteries that literacy and writing was preserved for the West when it then began to surge again so the contribution of Christianity to the world has been absolutely enormous and so if you took this away if it were removed the world would be all the worse for that thank you very much indeed over to the left dr. Kurian you stood already a little bit Genesis highly the dolphin original decision back into creation includes micro evolution how does the doctrine of original sin factor into creation I'm inclined to think that the doctrine of original sin requires the existence of an original human pair which the Bible calls Adam and Eve and so I'm inclined to think that Adam and Eve are not just symbolic figures but actual people that really lived and it was through them that then sin entered into the human race with all of its catastrophic consequences you can follow that up later on we just stay on this side and work our way across so if you would like to ask your agent my questions my seminar it was just that if there is six and twenty five we don't believe in sex 24-hour days of creation then there must have been dead before the sin entered into the world if you deny six consecutive 24-hour days of creation then there would be death before the human fall right and I see nothing in the scripture to suggest that there was no animal death prior to the human fall when you read Genesis chapter three about the consequences of the fall it involves the cursing of the ground pain in childbirth things of that sort but there's no suggestion whatsoever that there was no animal death before the fall indeed when Adam or rather when God gives Adam dominion over the fish of the sea what else could that mean but fishing eating fish how else would you have dominion over the fish of the sea when you turn to Romans five clearly Paul is talking about human not animal death there's no suggestion in Romans five that animal death as a result of the human fall so I just don't have any problem theological II would say that there was animal death prior to the fall of mankind into sin you very much very much doctor creating in dimensions unionism a popular culture movement and I find quite often in his view being reading Dawkins and hits it out of inches in life they would break plan Buddha's argument and bringing it by evil in the world of mentioning animal testament as super crystal hedges ruby gold is not create approximately Old Testament use these are called atrocities of the Old Testament so I wonder to show you because I feel an argument the brackets are gone but being good all right terrific question that opens a Pandora's box so let me try to be brief I defend what CS Lewis called mere christianity that is to say those central doctrines are truth claims of the Christian faith principally that God exists and that he has revealed himself decisively in Jesus by raising him from the dead what you do with these Old Testament stories of the invasion of Canaan and other sorts of things is in house discussion among Christians if you believe that God exists to raised Jesus from the dead that's enough you ought to become a Christian and then it's an in-house discussion what you want to do with these other things if you're interested in this topic I can recommend no better book than Paul copains book is God a moral monster in which he explores Old Testament ethics in great detail and I think sheds a good deal of light on these troublesome passages you also might look at my question of the week number 16 on our reasonable faith website where I deal with the question of the invasion of Canaan and expelling the king and knights from the land and I argue there that there's no inconsistency between God's being all loving and all good and his commanding the Israeli Army's to go into Canaan and drive them out and to kill those who stay behind and try to resist and no one that to my knowledge has yet offered a reputation of my argument in that question they have simply responded emotionally to it but haven't engaged the argument itself a group concerned about my endorsement today is got a moral monster that can very very helpful in that issue so final question on our right dr. Craig we talked about intelligent design earlier on in terms of the universe and one of the responses would be from the Atheist side would be that we are just one of multi universes throughout the world and and as Christians how do we then kinder that argument that they come back with the questioner is quite right that the argument over the fine-tuning of the universe that I explained basically comes down in today's discussions between two options either an intelligent designer of the universe or the multiverse what is the multiverse the multiverse is the hypothesis that there exists an infinite number of unseen randomly ordered parallel universes and the idea there is that in that ensemble of universes finely-tuned worlds like ours would appear by chance somewhere in the ensemble and so there's no need to explain the fine tuning by recourse to a designer look at my book reasonable faith or on guard for a discussion of the multiverse hypothesis Roger Penrose of Oxford University has offered what I think is a crushing objection to the multiverse as an explanation of fine-tuning and it is this in order for this objection to even get off of the ground the multiverse proponent would have to show that the the preponderance of observable universes in the ensemble are finely tuned and he cannot show that indeed the most probable observable universe would be a universe in which a single brain fluctuates into existence out of the quantum vacuum with illusory perceptions of the external world a simple world like that a single brain is incomprehensible more probable than a vast finely tuned universe like ours so it's simply not the case that the that observable universes are probably finely tuned and therefore the argument from the multiverse can't even get off the ground if you believe that the multiverse is the explanation for the fine-tuning then you are rationally obligated to believe that you your brain is all that exists and that everything else these other people this auditorium the earth your body everything you perceive is an illusion of your brain and no sane person believes such a thing and so print Penrose says that the multiverse hypothesis is worthless as an explanation of fine-tuning well with that final question let me just say thank you very much for entertaining us here in Belfast I've enjoyed our time together this evening and I wish you God's very best blessing [Applause] you

Channel: ReasonableFaithOrg

Views: 50,130

Keywords: William Lane Craig, Ireland, Existence of God, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Christianity, The Resurrection, Evidence for God, Atheism, Atheists, Apologetics, Christian Apologetics, Morality, Theism, Philosophy, Historicity of Jesus, Origin of the Universe, Christian Philosophy, Theology, Belfast, Queen's University

Id: V7Kp2lNJbos

Length: 47min 12sec (2832 seconds)

Published: Mon May 22 2017