Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)
- Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
or sign in to load a different list.
Loading...Saving...
Loading...Saving...
This has been flagged as spam show
I think Licona is making that same mistake that Craig made in his debate against Ehrman. The key factor is the probability that any person would have arisen from the dead after three days (whether supernaturally or otherwise), given that there existed for that person a body of evidence of the type found in the New Testament. If the inherent probability were 1 in a billion (think about it), a 0.01% chance of a false alarm would still give you an overall probability of 0.000998990021088679%.
InductionRules 1 week ago
I feel bad for Bart's opponent. This is a beat down in every aspect.
ProofPleez 1 month ago
This is one of the better debates I've seen with Bart Ehrman, because they actually often answered each other's points, which hasn't been the case in most other Ehrman debates. Ehrman mentioned finding this less interesting about 3/4's of the way thru this debate, but I'd have to disagree with him. I find it much more interesting when they respond to each other.
crucisnh 1 month ago
Also, superb performance by Ehrman.
ludogogo 1 month ago
Mike Licona's logic is backwards. He is arguing that historically, Jesus can be proven to have risen from the dead. Licona acknowledges that miracles must be the least probable by natural causes. Of course, because historians only deal with reality. He than says that if God does exist, then the "miracle" is the most probable event. Sure, but now you have to prove God exists because of the now theological underpinning of your assertion. Cannot have your cake and eat it too.
ludogogo 1 month ago