Is it just me or is there something "off" with William Lane Craig? Not his arguments but the man himself, it's like something is not quite right.
Is it just me or is there something "off" with William Lane Craig?
Is it just me or is there something "off" with William Lane Craig? Not his arguments but the man himself, it's like something is not quite right.
How much would you be willing to get paid for you to throatfrick this man?
XD
he's a scam
groomer vibes? sure as hell
You mean the old WLC (say, pre 2010) or the current WLC? The current one stopped giving a shit around that period of time.
Yeah the old one seemed way more normal, more in tune.
The short version is that the old WLC had to do a lot more work into becoming what he is now, now that he's famous there's a of baggage behind so he doesn't need as much effort so he's more direct.
The long version is that WLC is one of the few boomer-ish Christian apologists left of the Evangelical flavour.
When younger, he had some charisma which greatly improved his speech and aspect in debates and speeches. Not only with the Christians listening him, but also non-Christians, his figure of speech and way of tinkering with words really makes you think when you're listening to him for the first time, regardless of your beliefs.
Boomers loved him because he sounds sophisticated yet also accessible: an elegant man who can say what they more or less think one hundred times better than they're able to in front of "the enemy", while also being gracious enough to not insult or mock them. Boomer youngsters loved him because they could resonate: he sometimes explained why he became a Christian after having severe doubts about the world and nihilistic ideas, yet now he's a very confident professor at a respected university, a figure to respect and look up to. Non-Christians hate him as he was a very though figure to refute: WLC could use reason so easily to defend Christianity that it was implicit if you "lose" to him in public you were seen as either a fool or a biased and unreasonable person.
This enabled him to become THE apologist of the period: he wrote several books, put up a website to show how it is possible to defend the faith with reason, and kept going into debates. Which worked as long as he had that charismatic air around him.
1/2
2/2
He had a lot of momentum and was started named alongside the less "sophisticated" but more personal apologists: Ravi Zacharias and CS Lewis (there are many more but they're less relatively influential than these two). If you wanted to shut up an annoying atheist in your work or something WLC was the guy you relied on. If you were doubting Christianity was "true", you read one of his books. If you felt down, you listened to him and it cheered you up. Christians of all denominations loved him.
However, he had two huge weak points. His story of "becoming" a Christian was touching (for them), but it revealed what drove him into trying so hard, his deep and crippling fear of nihilism: Why would the uncaring universe care about something so insignificant such as humans walking on a random planet? If you don't know about the story, it's better you listen directly from the source. The second was that, despite his complex approach to apologetics, it was always the same topics of morality, the Kalam, the short list of five arguments, and more importantly in the same delivered vehicle. This enabled people to adapt to them over time, and sooner or later someone would refute him live.
He was (and still is) SO used to always have the advantage that he can't handle people disagreeing with him. He's so used to his own tactics that he can't help but to keep assuming what his opponents say, instead of listen to them and prepare accordingly. His first big loss was vs Carroll (watch it if you haven't yet), it DESTROYED the "evidential basis" as WLC says, of the Kalam.
Regardless, at that point he was already done. He has hundreds of formal debates, lots of books, lots of arguments. He dropped most of the "sophistication" and started relying more of what actually convinced him in the past. Which is not bad per se, but it's wayyy less convincing and attractive for most people, so it isn't as remotely as effective as his formal apologetics was back in the 1990s.
How did Carroll destroy him or the kalām? Some Australian philosopher managed to crack it a bit but not that much IIRC.
>Carroll (watch it if you haven't yet), it DESTROYED the "evidential basis" as WLC says, of the Kalam
No, he didn't
>ok so the Kalam is now supported by cosmology
>no it isn't, here's why
>s-so that's just Guth's opinion h-haha
>no it isn't, here's a video of him explaining it how you don't understand what he said in that paper
>a-a-anyways the Kalam is fully supported by the existing evidence I-I take this as a concession from the s-secular scientists
The kalam is such a shit argument anyway, nobody in currentyear gives a frick about aristotelian/scholastic metaphysics. It's the perfect example of apologetics serving only to lull doubting believers back to a sense of security.
Another thing that I find exceedingly dishonest about Christian apologists particularly people like WLC is how they forcefully try to reconcile evolution with belief in God and particularly Christianity. You can tell he himself is desperately trying to cling onto his faith or maybe he doesn't believe anymore but knows he can't make a living doing anything else.
I really don't find that in particular very strange. Not even my very religious grandma who was born in the late 1920s interpreted Genesis literally.
Literal genesis interpretation is still a big topic and commonly found in Christian circles.
WLC doesn't believe in evolution, not all of it anyway. He doesn't believe in macro evolution, which is a pretty big part of evolution.
I think you're more obsessed with WLC than any Christian ever could be lmao. He has some great books, watching him in debates and all that is fine and a good introduction but it's completely watered down intellectually. Unless you think of it as an MMA sport as you seem to be doing, which is fine for entertainment but not for learning. That lowering the epistemic bar was obviously just atheist 'tuber drama they drummed up to make money from his giving pastoral advice btw
He’s regarded as one of Christianity’s best apologists by Christians and basically admitted its bullshit but he doesn’t care because he’s afraid
I've heard many anti theists effectively admit to having authority issues with God being in command. It's just meaningless Ad hom, everyone has motivations and they don't matter unless you treat it as an MMA sport like I said.
I don’t care man I’m not even against theism, I just am praising a guy who was visibly dishonest for at least having one moment of honesty where he admitted that he refuses to admit Christianity is false even in a 1 in a million situation because he’s scared.
Pretty sure that's not what he meant as I said, but I truly couldn't care less about ad hom so u do u lol
>Pretty sure that's not what he meant
That’s what he said except “deeply fears the alternative” that means he’s scared. It’s not exactly rare anon, lots of the creepy obviously larping/disingenuous Christians will let that slip on occasion.
In a way it’s funny. I remember my grandmothers, genuine good Christians who did not have to do this stuff because they actually believed.
Here you go https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nIJpJjGSU-k
Lol bro time stamp it. I appreciate the source but I’m not listening to an hour of a larping christcuck
Shit I'm not watching it, it's a pointless dispute. if you wanna run an ad hom then at least have the honesty to hear his defense
>f you wanna run an ad hom
He literally said that, holy shit. You don't need to damage control the guy, he doesn't care
Just remember your criticisms are dishonest until you watch that video
Mate I did watch it, like one month ago, that's why I paraphrased him in the first place. Why are you so insecure about this.
Cameron Bertuzzi is an apostate
I'm home again and lmfao the state of the thread.
Anyways, if anyone still cares, here's the question with timestamp https://youtu.be/K-5Q_zx9Etc?t=156 where Kyle (the rando) asked WLC the question.
I tried to copy the transcript for those people that can't or don't want to watch the video, but it's way too long (Kyle's question alone is around 1300 characters). WLC's response is shorter and starts around 4:05:
>When I first heard the message of the gospel as a non-Christian high school student, that my sins could be forgiven by god, that god loved me, he loved Bill Craig, and that I could come to know him and experience eternal life with god, I thought to myself and I'm not kidding, I thought: if there is just one chance in a million that this is true, it's worth believing. And, so my attitude toward this is just the opposite of Kyle's.
Continuing immediately after (4:45):
>Far from raising the bar or the epistemic standard that Christianity must meet to be believed, I, I lower it. Um I think that this is a message which is so wonderful, so fantastic, that if there's any evidence that it's true, then it's worth believing in, especially when you compare it to the alternatives. Like naturalism, or atheism, or other forms of life (...)
He continues (5:19) asking if Kyle really knows what's like "to experience the love of God" that he will naturally gravitate towards what he calls "the Christian life" and thus disprove his doubts. Then he explains what he mean when talking about the witness of the Holy Spirit (5:51). WLC finally ends his response at 6:53.
Anon's video is from another channel, where the host invited WLC to further elaborate what he meant by the two phrases.
he's just a more sophisticated teleevangelist
motherfricker looks like that one villain in that dinosaur movie
He's one of the higher IQ apologists, which is why so many people hated to debate him.
His apologetic is terrible. "The greater preponderance of the evidence generally supports the existence of a god" is not Christian apologetics
It is because it's a starting fact
>"The universe seems to have a cause for its existence"
>"This obviously means my Iron-Age desert myth that hates gays and women is true"
>"I am very smart"
You will never be a woman
Notice the difference between it and the 'starting fact' in the apologetic of Greg Bahnsen: "My commitment is to the Triune God and the Christian worldview based on God’s revelation in the Old and New Testaments. So, first I am defending Christian theism."
>You will never be a woman
And you will never have a white ethnostate.
Ok?
Wakanda will never exist
These are the people who are against Christ, why anyone takes atheists seriously is beyond me.
Reminder that it isn't Christ who hates gays, it's Darwin
Is Christ YHWH?
Epilogue
I don't blame WLC for stop giving a shit. He's old, but food has to come from somewhere, so he attend shows and interviews, just these are much more casual than a formal debate. This is usually not bad for him (I mean he's a rockstar, Christians are still ecstatic, he definitely enjoys the spotlight and give his message)... until people caught him off-guard.
The two most recent examples I can think are when he had a "casual" conversation with some Scott guy at a Christian channel. They were talking about the Kalam, but on a very dense philosophical way. The important thing here is that someone could disagree with him live, but not for the reasons WLC expected, so he kept assuming the guy was arguing the same old and busted "the universe came from nothing" over and over again. Just to be told no every time, but WLC didn't listen beyond trying to either explain the terms for the audience or talk to what would be a strawman.
The second is much more damning, and happened only two months ago or so. Some rando called to one random show where WLC was taking questions. The guy is a Christian yet he was having doubts, specifically doubts about the evidential basis for Christianity, specifically about how such basis seems incomplete for someone who's not a Christian. WLC replied something very long and nuanced. Until he ruined it ALL, saying and I'm paraphrasing:
>Given how Christianity is so fulfilling for a Christian, even if the chances of the evidence pointing to it being true were one in a million, I would go with Christianity being true
and
>Because for Christianity I don't need to raise the bar
The worst thing of all is that this is 100% in character with him. Remember, he became a Christian *because* he deeply fears the alternative. He uses reason and philosophy not because it is convincing to him, but to other people, and even then it's personal revelation, which isn't convincing if you lack it. This is the basis of all apologetics.
All evidentialist apologetics*
>Remember, he became a Christian *because* he deeply fears the alternative. He uses reason and philosophy not because it is convincing to him, but to other people, and even then it's personal revelation, which isn't convincing if you lack it. This is the basis of all apologetics.
What alternative are Christian’s so afraid of? The fact that they’re not immortal?
Good post btw
Different Christians fear different things, in the case of WLC is that
I missed this, pure philosophical apologetics lacks this problem, but the more you add on to it the harder it is to defend
Pretty much. Despite everything he's ultimately honest about his belief
I enjoy listening to them. Also not, you can go listen WLC say that. I mean, there's the public interview for everyone to go check
Why would he say that lol, I mean it's his opinion and not within his logical system but still.
>Given how Christianity is so fulfilling for a Christian, even if the chances of the evidence pointing to it being true were one in a million, I would go with Christianity being true
Probably the most honest thing a Christian can say.
Yeah surprising to get that level of honesty from them
What's wrong with being dishonest in your worldview?
Hmmmm. This anon thinks there’s no reason for him to be honest without Christianity so he had decided that dishonest christlarping justified by pre-suppositional apologetics is justified because he likes it.
That's a nice cope but the correct answer was "it's not I'm borrowing from your worldview"
Which is exactly what a dishonest pre-suppositionalist Christlarper would say. Anon don’t you think getting a job and a girlfriend would be easier at this point? And since I know you won’t respond earnestly I want you to think about it in private.
I still haven't heard what's wrong with being dishonest in your worldview. Aren't you just a bag of atoms in a universe that doesn't care about you? Can we have some consistency please?
>Aren't you just a bag of atoms in a universe that doesn't care about you
For guys that hate Reddit you sure do think exactly like them lmao
Is that incorrect in your worldview? Explain why.
This redditor is incorrect. Just like a fighter jet is not accurately described as a bag of metal pieces, a human is not a bag of atoms.
Not only is it clearly not the most accurate short description, it’s spectrum-y. Extremely Reddit.
He’s also mad rocks and clouds don’t care about him likely because he has no real people in his life that care about him.
What aspect of a human is not mere atoms? If nothing cares about you other than some other bags of atoms, what's wrong with being dishonest toward you?
>What aspect of a human is not mere atoms
The most important parts which are the electromagnetic fields. Anyway, the same applies to a fighter jet. No one calls a fighter jet a bag of metal pieces, it’s just not accurate. It’s a lot of pieces working in tandem, not a disorganized non-functional pile.
It’s fundamentally Reddit and dishonest, which tracks because this redditor cannot stop hinting at the fact that he does not care about being dishonest.
Ok, so you're a bag of atoms working in tandem in a universe that doesn't care about you
>dishonest, which tracks because this redditor cannot stop hinting at the fact that he does not care about being dishonest.
There's nothing wrong with being dishonest in your worldview, so you calling me dishonest is empty, it doesn't really hurt
If this guy had people that cared about him he would not care that clouds, rivers and stars don’t care about him.
God cares about me.
Further, if this guy is anything like he is here in real life it is 100% his fault that no living human cares about him.
Plenty of people care about me irl
Please cope
Lol okay man that’s why the idea of the universe not caring about you is an absolute horrible disaster to you
It's not that it's a horrible disaster to me, how much I like or dislike the prospect is no more relevant to its truth value than your hatred of your creator is to the fact He exists. What it is is a disaster for your worldview and your capacity to pass meaningful moral judgements on anything whatsoever.
No it is very telling that you tried to scare or hurt me with “the universe doesn’t care about you” That could only come from a person who doesn’t actually have real love from people in his life. You’d be a sympathetic character if you weren’t such a rotten wienersucking scumbag.
>scare or hurt me
Expressly not my intention, I want atheists to turn off their emotions and turn on the reasoning capacity for once
>if you weren’t such a rotten wienersucking scumbag.
Why is the sack of protoplasm complaining about the other sack of protoplasm? And who cares?
>Why is the sack of protoplasm complaining about the other sack of protoplasm? And who cares?
Anon you are fundamentally a Reddit atheist. Pseudo-intellectual and slightly autistic.
Yes, and? Can you stop derailing the thread now?
Your problems with not being a Christian wholly stem from the fact that left to your own devices, you are a half autistic Redditor. It is your personal problem.
My disdain for the folly of atheism proceeds from its absurd and demonic nature, that's it. Doesn't have any relevance to the refutation of it.
Not an atheist.
Anyway, your rejection of a secular life based on your arguments is fully rooted in the fact that when left to your own devices, you have the same half autistic, unsatisfying, pseudo-intellectual nihilist worldview as a Redditor.
Agnostics are atheists.
It’s not accurate to say I don’t believe in god, I think agnostic theist might even be the best label though it requires some explaining.
Oh sorry I forgot you are likely autistic so need everything explicitly spelled out for you. I don’t have this problem, you do.
0 arguments detected
When you think about the world without Christianity, your brain frames it in an uninteresting, unemotional, unfulfilling, incorrect and autistic manner. That is your problem with stopping your christlarp.
I don’t have that problem. My worldview is satisfying and functional to me and I’m always altering it to be closer to true when I get more information. I mean you calling a person a bag of atoms is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s unnecessarily autistic, emotionless and it’s not even correct in the first place though a pseud redditor might agree with you.
Still not seeing an argument here
Then you should work on your reading comprehension.
Ok. Gonna stop shitting yourself now?
Ok, I'm an autistic pseudo-intellectual Reddit atheist, I'm a "rotten wienersucking scumbag", so what? Who cares? Why is that wrong, who says?
My autism detector is absolutely screaming
>the same type of people absolutely furious about men identifying as women base their entire lives around being atheists who falsely identify as a Christian
Lmao
>catcuck already full throttle damage control
Dude frick off to your containment thread
I’ve had a foot injury so I’ve been on IQfy too much lately and he is posting in threads doing this same thing almost constantly for the past several days at least! Is he always like this? If not he is clearly in a worsening mental health crisis. Should have chosen honesty instead of forcing beliefs on himself he doesn’t take to heart.
Oh well, some people dig their own graves.
>catkek so mind = broken he showed up on a WLC thread to have his fifth day consecutive meltdown about reason or something
Man you're really obsessed with me, you must think about me in the shower. Do you want to cut off my face and wear it as a mask or something?
A lot of people don’t like you and you do pretty much ruin every thread you join.
They don't like me for the same reason they didn't like Socrates.
>catfrick is sweating all over the place
>again
Last time he rejected his own God btw
Meds now
He’ll probably kill himself soon or end up homeless at this rate. Based on his posting he certainly doesn’t have a job anymore.
He’s doing so much worse than he was when he was posting more coherent stuff in the past. He even seemed more confident but he took way too many L’s lol
Please cope
The degradation in quality and coherency of your arguments from taking L’s is so dramatic that it mirrors brain damage. Clearly serious mental health problems.
>catgay is so pissed he's having fun
Let it go dude this is bad for your mental health
The atheists on this board are incredibly unstable
Five days and counting
That's not me. Do you see me everywhere in real life too? Do I invade your dreams?
Anon you are as recognizable as the guy who posts T mobile screenshots with the same words every time. In fact exactly like you, he stopped posting identifying images but couldn’t stop using the exact wording and arguments.
Like the other anon said, you’ve been posting for 5 days straight, often the same wording. I would give you good advice if you didn’t deserve every second of the pain you feel right now from constantly antagonizing people.
That still isn't me, take your meds. What do you mean I deserve pain? Why? Says who? By what standard?
No one believes you anon, multiple people recognize you.
The T-mobile screenshot guy also denies that he’s continuously posting. You are full heading full speed toward his same level of psychosis. You’ve been posting the same things nearly non-stop for 5 days if not more.
Ok, multiple people are having a mental breakdown. Maybe you should just embrace the truth instead of having a breakdown because what you believe was proved wrong. Jesus will forgive you, I promise
You really should see a doctor.
You’ve been making these posts
and getting into arguments off them for 5 days straight. Multiple people recognize you. Your mental health is in serious crisis.
I've been destroying atheism for a lot longer than that, you're projecting your own pathological obsession onto me, the object of your obsession.
I don’t care about atheism, I would not be surprised if you’ve turned more people off if Christianity. You certainly pushed me away from it.
I know you’ve been posting for a long time, but your coherency has degraded and your non-stop posting over the past 5 days is flashing sirens for the mental health crisis you’re currently in. Hell you can’t even keep it straight that I’m not an atheist, your brain just is not working right anymore.
Take your meds Anon
I don’t have nor need any, and I’m glad you’re too superstitious to seek out professional psychiatric help. You deserve every second of this spiraling and pain.
He represents the last gasp of evangelical Christianity.
Pretty solid, but I can't get behind his thing with neanderthals.
Looks like David Lee Roth with short hair
No he's normal but American culture encourages you to be weirdly smiling all the fricking time and pretend that you are on cloud 9, that and his evangelical brainwashing which promotes acting like a shifty used car salesman when evangelizing.
I'm sure acting like a depressed homosexual has done you wonders for sure, Hans
>Hans
germans don't do the depressed homosexual thing
What is Schopenhauer, Mainlander, Von Hartmann?
to me he always just struck me as a genuinely decent, wholesome, harmless, salt of the earth type guy, not sleazy at all. There's no worldliness on him ( at least , his presentation), he is just a decent, average guy who doesn't normally have a spotlight on him , he doesn't resemble your typical public personas at all.
He may have a bit of a polished up form of public presentation, but it doesn't have a slick used car salesmany vibe at all to me.
I just don't get why he thinks some guy rising from the dead 2000 years ago means the stories people wrote about him is the word of God
>some years later I realized my argument was not forceful against people who hold a certain theory of time
>so I invented an ad hoc theory of time, which if you hold, makes it forceful
woooow
What the hell is an ad hoc theory of time.
ad hoc, by which I mean he made it up after the fact he started using stories about hotels to prove God is real
not because believing time works like Craig thinks is well motivated by science or philosophy, but because he needed it
For Craig's arguments to work, he needs an infinite past to be impossible
But Craig also want the future to be infinite
Craig gets this by asserting the past actually exist, but the future just "potentially exist", something like that.
I don't think Craig's theory of time is entirely intelligible. You get weird problems with reference frames that he cannot address. I don't think Craig knows what it is either, just what it's supposed to do for him.
What I'm saying is to not take it too seriously, it's not well developed. I think it's basically just him coping by not having anticipated certain counter-arguments.
You think the A theory of time, which is intuitive and accepted by everyone who isn't autistic enough to even know the B theory exists, is ad hoc? Lmao, and kek.
HAHAHAHA this kind of stuff is so bizarre. The guy developed a different way to interpret time so it doesn't clash with his arguments. Too bad the new interpretation is not only ad hoc but is also not actually solving the issues he tried to address.
not really. He just comes across as a clean cut mid western guy of that generation, sort of fits the bill of a mid western pastor of that age and generation. He's kind a nerd, maybe has aspergers or something, but who gives a shit. He always struck me as a nice guy
I think it's super sleazy to not be upfront about his apologetic's main purpose being to reduce doubt in insecure Christians
You have a demon, Anon. Repent and believe in the Lord Jesus and He will cast it out of you
Am I not supposed to say that out loud?
you can say it but we still think you're being an edgelord . People with have do have doubt and insecurities about it thats just the human condition, but the point of it isn't some intellectual exercise, they're trying to do life
*people with faith
his apologetic's purpose is to be apologetics.
There is nothing sleazy about him not coming out and articulating your own personal judgements in your own words for you.
People have faith in their life as a source of strength, its not some gaping mouth soi reddit intellectual debate, its a matter of the human spirit and the harsh realities of life, things that heckin wholesome redditors are largely insulated from
I converted to Roman Catholicism, but now the Kalam cosmological argument stopped working
It's silly when he tries to explain how God sits around outside time as a disembodied mind
THEN choose to create the world with time in it
Why doesn't God just remain unchanged forever?
Craig's answer is something like: free will, lol
I don't even know what that means, that God chose to create the world for no reason? He could have created it, he could also not have done so
He chose to do it. But there is no possible explanation that differentiates this choice from the other choice.
We don't know that minds without bodies are possible
We don't know that it's possible for wills to have chosen otherwise
Lots of weird extra baggage only people who already believe in God accepts. That you need to accept for his cosmological argument to work.
If we somehow proved the human mind was entirely material, would that falsify Craig's argument?
I don't think so.. It's already asserting entirely new kinds of things that we have no knowledge of existing
>It's silly when he tries to explain how God sits around outside time as a disembodied mind
>THEN choose to create the world with time in it
>Why doesn't God just remain unchanged forever?
>Craig's answer is something like: free will, lol
>I don't even know what that means, that God chose to create the world for no reason? He could have created it, he could also not have done so
>He chose to do it. But there is no possible explanation that differentiates this choice from the other choice.
look into : kabbalah, process theology, manis friedman, that should give you some satisfying or at least stimulating and though provoking answers. It won't necessarily make you a believer but it will make the belief system / paradigm you're interesting in questioning make a bit more sense.
I don't tthink that kalam or william lain craig are attempting to answer the ultimate, spiritual reason behind God's creation and why he chose to create, they're just articulating some of the metaphysics between Creator and Creation, to buttress an intellectual argument that backs up their faith. Its sort of more about apologetics and philosophy / intellectualism then their spirituality per se.
It just seems like if God always existed, he would always have chosen to create the world and the world should share its existence with the eternal God
But the world is only 6000 years old, it got a finite past
NTA but yeah that's kinda the point,the argument is that only a immaterial mind with libertarian free will could produce an effect from eternity without needing an eternal cause, which would result in a non-eternal universe with a finite past. Also a co eternal universe with B theory is compatible with it as well to an extent, also YEC is separate as wlc is a theistic evolutionist
>YEC is separate as wlc is a theistic evolutionist
I'm a young earth atheist, the fossil record is totally a hoax
Well the kalam is mainly argued philosophically, so it's neutral to YEC/OEC.
>It just seems like if God always existed, he would always have chosen to create the world and the world should share its existence with the eternal God
yeh thats pretty much the point that process theology makes
>But the world is only 6000 years old, it got a finite past
Well actually the hebrew of beresheit (genesis) doesn't say "in the beginning", it says "in a beginning", and seems to be talking about the formation of the earth anyway, not the entire universe.
It also begins from the point of a primordial void of unstable , chaotic energiies, with God's spirit moving (better english word to capture the sense would be "fluttering") over it and then vibrating and causing the energies to collapse and coalesce and order themselves.
So for all we know, that represents one point in an eternal process, at the stage of when everything is in a dissolute state of chaos, which could be taking place after the dissolution of a previous state of order . In other words, that wouldn't be the begginning of the very first universe it would just be the point in an eternal cycle after which the previous universe was destroyed , and now a new one is about to be created again
>kabbalah, process theology
most of process theology is christian
Process theology is heresy
well, then the theology that the bible best represents and describes is "heresy" to your belief system, basically because it is heresy to aristotelian metaphysics, which are not biblical.
>the theology that the bible best represents and describes
Lol. I remember watching the Dividing Line once, and James White related a story about a seminary class he was in where the professor went through the pros of process theology, and then said "the biggest problem with process theology is it has nothing to do with the God of the bible". He was right.
Maybe if you ignore the Tanakh
No not at all
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+40&version=ESV
there's nothing in here that contradicts process theology
Does WLC believe in contemporary miracles?
>James White
There's a hilarious video with James White and WLC where they basically go like:
WLC: The doctrine of TULIP is not found in the Bible
JW: Well, neither is your Molinism
WLC does weirdass quote mining that nobody should let fly
It's his obvious fake teeth.