Frases de William Lane Craig

página 2

“Se podría pensar de la reciente avalancha de best-sellers ateos que la creencia en Dios es intelectualmente indefendible en la actualidad para las personas racionales. Pero una mirada a los libros por Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, y Christopher Hitchens, entre otros, revela rápidamente que el llamado Nuevo Ateísmo carece de músculo intelectual. Es felizmente ignorante de la revolución que ha tenido lugar en la filosofía angloamericana. Refleja el cientificismo de una generación pasada en lugar de la escena intelectual contemporánea.”

“Dios puede ser conocido de un modo inmediato a través de la experiencia personal.”

“El hombre moderno pensó que al librarse de Dios, se había librado de todo aquello que lo reprimía y ahogaba. Sin embargo, descubrió que al matar a Dios, se había dado muerte a sí mismo. Porque si no hay Dios, la vida del hombre se vuelve absurda.”

“No pretendo sugerir que el ateísmo es irracional.”

“Hay una gran cantidad de cosas que la ciencia no puede probar pero son aceptadas racionalmente; por ejemplo las verdades metafísicas: El pasado no fue creado hace cinco minutos con apariencia de pasado.”

“Doubt is never simply an intellectual problem. There is always a spiritual dimension to doubt, as well. There is an enemy of your souls, Satan, who hates you intensely and is bent on your destruction and who will do everything in his power to see that your faith is destroyed. And therefore when we have these intellectual doubts and problems we should never look at them as something that is spiritually neutral or divorce them from the spiritual conflict that we are involved in. Rather we need to take these doubts to God in prayer, to admit them honestly, to talk to our Christian friends about them, to not stuff them or hide them, we need to deal with them openly and honestly and talk to people about them and seek God's help in dealing with them.”

“The way in which I know Christianity is true is first and foremost on the basis of the witness of the Holy Spirit in my heart. And this gives me a self-authenticating means of knowing Christianity is true wholly apart from the evidence. And therefore, even if in some historically contingent circumstances the evidence that I have available to me should turn against Christianity, I do not think that this controverts the witness of the Holy Spirit.”

“Finally, the argument from personal existence - this is perhaps the coup de grace against naturalism:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not exist. He says there are no selves, there are no persons, no first-person perspectives.
# But, I do exist! I know this as certainly as I know anything. From which it follows:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Seventh is the argument from enduring:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I do not endure for two moments of time.
# But, I have been sitting here for more than a minute. If you think that you are the same person who walked into the room tonight then you should agree that:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“Fourth is the argument from moral praise and blame:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I am not morally praiseworthy or blameworthy for any of my actions because, as I said, on his view objective moral values and duties do not exist.
# But, I am morally praiseworthy and blameworthy for at least some of my actions. If you think that you have ever done something truly wrong or truly good then you should conclude:
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.”

“First is the argument from intentionality:
# According to Dr. Rosenberg, if naturalism is true then I cannot think about anything. That is because there are no intentional states.
# But I am thinking about naturalism. From which it follows,
# Therefore, naturalism is not true.
So, if you think that you ever think about anything you should conclude that naturalism is false.”

“What can we say about metaphysical naturalism? Again, I want to make two points.
# My arguments for the existence of God show that metaphysical naturalism is not true. There is a personal, transcendent reality beyond the physical universe.
# Secondly, I think that metaphysical naturalism is so contrary to reason and experience as to be absurd.
In the following arguments, the first premise in every case is taken from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Rosenberg Dr. Rosenberg]’s own book.”