Will think on this. I'm not sure I agree with some of the absolutes being used in the video. I've questioned why so many believe God is good (using our standards). Could be God is either not aware of us (in the same way we are not aware of the goings on of ourselves on a molecular structure for the most part), or perhaps we are so far beneath God it is a true gift if this being interacts in any way of kindness with any of us.
The great pizza argument maybe eluding me, as it seems the argument was that a great pizza doesn't exist when I know from experience that it has existed. Now the argument could be that because it was eaten (or spoiled over time) that it's possible there will never again be a great pizza. Extrapolating from that line of thinking, a Deist could argue (playing devils advocate here) that God once existed like the great pizza, but had an expiration like the pizza. Or, not supported here but also possible, grew bored of It's insubordinate creations and moved It's attention elsewhere.
I will need to revisit this video again if/when I have time. Something about it felt off, and I don't think I captured it fully with my quick layout on the great pizza observation.
This video caught my attention because it was played as a paid advert on yo.utube.
William Lane Craig is paying good money to force people to watch this propaganda which William Lane Craig believes supports his version of Christianity (spoiler alert, it does nothing of the sort).
It makes the bald-assertion that "a maximally great god" is a "coherent concept" without any supporting definitions or logical structure to support such a claim.
And yet, it is eager to show the "incoherence" of a maximally great pizza, again, without any supporting definitions or logical structure to support such a claim.
It's a pet project of mine to point out that DEISM = ATHEISM, and I find it interesting that Christians seem to think that "the ontological argument" somehow "supports" their case(???).
By the way, I believe it's worth mentioning that an ontological argument is basically a bald-assertion.
I define a word, and then assert that word represents something that "exists". End of ontological argument.
"A maximally great god" could be any god. It could be Brahman, it could be Ein Sof, it could be The Great Spirit, it could be Magnum Mysterium (the unknowable, NOUMENON).
Nothing about "a maximally great god" suggests "YHWH" specifically.
I'm just trying to make it perfectly clear there is no straight line between DEISM (the ontological argument) and any particular specific god or gods.
Either there is a god or there is no god. I'm fine with either option. I believe in God. But people can say that I am wrong. That is fine. Because I am not saying there is a God. I don't know. Well, I think I know. But I'm choosing to believe in God. But if there was no God, then why does our heart says there is a god? Why do we tell our heart to shut up? As we grow older, we tend to drift from what we believe and our hearts grow colder and colder and harder and harder.
I would think because we come to the rationalization, for whatever reason(s), there is no god.
I would assume it's because our belief in god came from those whose actions come with best intentions for us. Especially if instilled from one's parents. Heart here being implied as our inner being of love and trust, as children that comes with a blind faith as they are incapable to distinguish otherwise, that can be seen with studies done with abused children attachment to their abusers. Individuals are driven by what they come to know, their level of trust is based on that. That changes over the course of one's lifetime.
If you assume there is no god, you do so without knowing everything which means you could be wrong. You could be right and you can be wrong. So, people who say there is no god are making statements they cannot prove. You may wish there was no god. But there is a god. But you choose to reject Christ from your life. You have no idea what you are missing. Children have faith. It seems that you lost your inner faith in eternal principles. Life is full choices. So, as we grow, our trust level can change if we let it in either direction in a variety of ways.
We can posit any god you like as an AXIOM. HOWEver, your (any) god is functionally indistinguishable from NO-god.
You are only "right" or "wrong" when verifiable facts are revealed.
Up to and until that point, you're merely entertaining a hypothesis.
Your god is functionally indistinguishable from NO-god. There is nothing to "prove".
You may wish there was no Santa Claus. But there is a Santa Claus. But you choose to reject Santa Claus from your life.
Why do you hate Santa Claus so much?
You have no idea what you are missing. Children have faith (in Santa Claus). It seems that you lost your inner faith in eternal principles. Life is full choices. So, as we grow, our trust level can change if we let it in either direction in a variety of ways.
Santa:
We can talk about Santa. We can talk about history. People can believe in what they want to believe in. When we talk about Santa, we can talk about different versions to his story and then we can talk about source materials for Saint Nick and/or others.
God
We can do the same thing with God by tracing back the story of the fictional and/or non-fictional character and/or creator through history. We can look at how cultures from all around the world would pass on their own version of some kind of world flood.
Origin
What I would ask you is where do we come from. Was it evolution via the big bang and/or creation through some kind of creator and/or other things?
Are you suggesting you believe in Gilgamesh (flood story predates Abraham's account by a wide margin)?
Why would you deny reality? When you say Abraham's account, what do you mean? What did Abraham do? Do you mean Moses who may have wrote the first five books of the Bible? It is said that these books or scrolls were based on other scrolls that were written by other people, some even before the birth of Moses and some before Noah's Flood.
It is important to maintain a constant awareness of and vigilant respect of our epistemological limits. There is no reason to jump to any conclusions without hard evidence or logical necessity.
Look, even if everything was created by some "intelligent designer", that supposition alone provides zero support for any version of "YHWH".
It also provides zero support for any specific human moral framework.
DEISM (intelligent design) = ATHEISM
The two are functionally indistinguishable.
I don't disagree with you.
If there is a God, would He want us to be robots or to have freewill which means people doing good and sometimes doing bad?
Well, if you're talking about the mythical "YHWH", it didn't seem to like "freewill" too much for Adam & Eve or for Noah, or for Sodom & Gomorrah.
It all seems a bit slap-dash for something that's supposed to be "all knowing" and "all powerful".
How do you know what you do not know is mythical or not mythical?
REAL-TRUE-FACTS must be scientifically verifiable and or logically necessary (like NOUMENON).
Everything else is indistinguishable from pure imagination (myth).
How do you know that? You have nice theories that you call facts. I don't necessarily disagree with you. But you do not if your brain, your logic, your way of thinking, is pure imagination or not. So, you have faith in your God, your Savior, which you call REAL-TRUE-FACTS and you bow down to it. You swear to it. So, you can have fun with your religion.
I'm perfectly willing to consider your definition of "facts".
How do you personally distinguish "fact" from "fiction"?
Does it matter if I can't go with my gut?
Of course you can do as you please, but going with one's gut (to determine facts) is not a rigorous definition and informs no Uniform Standard of Evidence (USOE) to resolve any interpersonal conflicts regarding what exactly qualifies as "fact" for any particular individual gut.
"Intelligent Design" = DEISM = ATHEISM
Speaking of Intelligent Design, I watching a video by Answers of Genesis (AIG) and Ken Ham was once my teacher at WOLBI NY. I prefer him over Bill Nye. I prefer observational science over excessive dependency on historical science which relies too much on guessing.