I am an atheist... but after watching this, I am embarrassed for Christians that Craig would represent them. Craig fell out of the sane spectrum of this debate when he started offering up mathematical proofs.
I've watched this for all of 8 minutes and this opening speaker's case is a joke. Calling the Bible an "independent source" is completely silly. This guy's entire case can be summed up as "Jesus rose because the Bible says so".
@TheBowsersMario I don't know if I prefer Bart Ehrman beating Craig's opinions down with historical logic or Hitchens bluntly dismissing him for 2 hours, but either way I agree with you.
These formulae are highly symmetrical! Substituting -R for R we get :-
P(-R/B&E) = P(-R/B) x P(E/B&-R) / (P(-R/B) x P(E/B&-R) + P(R/B) x P(E/B&R)) which has the form Y / (Y + X) and Craig is hoist with his own petard! By his own exacting standards he must now do the hard work of proving that P(-R/B&E) LT 0.5 iff X GT Y if he's going to claim that resurrection is not an improbable (is a probable) event. Otherwise Craig too has fallacy at the heart of his argument; vindicating both Ehrman & Hume!
Evangelists shouldn't dabble in Mathematics. If we entertain the idea that the probability that `God can resurrect Jesus correlates with the probability that God exists` then it follows that we may substitute anybody for Jesus including Apollonius, so that the likely-hood that either one of them was resurrected is the same; as Ehrman has been arguing for years! If Ad Hominem man must use this sledgehammer to crack a nut he'd better mind his fingers - I like to call this Craig's comeuppance!
Ehrman fails again...what a history blocker & teaser. Sell them books Ehrman by jumping to erroneous conclusions & ignoring what you want dude, like Dan Brown & Zeitgeist, etc. Even his old teacher told Him 90% of the NT hadn't been tampered with & the part that was will not show any new revelations against Jesus The Christ. Study for yourselves people!!! Archaeology has NEVER found anything against NT accuracy = always supports it.
The church killed millions of Christians also. Not just millions of non-Christians, it killed over 1500 years, hundreds of thousands if not millions on bible believing, confessed and baptized believers in Jesus. Burned, hung, drowned, capitation and a few other nice ways to die since they did not believe the same way the RCC church taught. Once the reformers came to power in 1520's even more died at their hands also. Dangerous to believe in believer in Jesus by the people who believe in Him.
@MRGV7373 Who were these "baptized believers" b4 1520? If you say "the albigensians" ...they are around today and they are self described GNOSTICS.They are not Christians. Who are these people that "even more (of them) died? The protest-ants also burned , hung, drowned etc. Look what happened in Ireland under Henry VIII. Your "history" is severely lacking.
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4: 3
As a mathematician, I say that Swinburne commits several flaws in his analysis. He "proves" that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the old testament and that, therefore, he is God incarnate. That is a theological claim which is historically wrong.
Besides, he simply guesses the probability of God's existence and incarnation as 1/2. Total absurd.
Bart Ehrman is totally right, there is no way you can circumvent the fact that a resurrection is highly improbable, even applying that given formula.
1:28:30 here Bart ironically shows himself to be dishonest by claiming that Craig is just an apologist wanting to change peoples minds to believe in Christianity. I mean come on, is he seriously claiming that he has no intention of changing peoples minds? If not then why is he debating Craig and why does he continue to write books for the public to read about his work?
WLC is being grossly dishonest when he counts the gospels as 4 independent accounts - every biblical scholar knows that the later gospels copied from earlier ones.
I'm 37:00 in and BE is making no sense. He's adamantly rejecting the miracle explanation because by nature a miracle is extremely improbable. Is probability the only factor involved in determining the historicity of an event? Of course not. Besides, no one claims that the resurrection is the most probable explanation. It is favored because it fits the evidence. Am I to understand that BE is saying that WLC's evidence is irrelevant simply because the event is improbable? 35:40
Are you saying that there is a more likely explanation that also fits the evidence? Or are you saying that the resurrection is the most likely explanation that fits the evidence?
@Naj11 Ah, but don't forget that Bart makes the point that the alleged evidence is deeply flawed. From what I understood, he argues that the sources are not independent, not consistent, not unbiased and not eyewitnesses.
@glower125 Honestly.. why do people like you even watch debates? Its ''obvious'' anyone who believes in god is instantly ''owned'' no matter how good or bad their arguments are. You would say the same thing in any theist vs atheist debate.Stop having such a one sided mind and pull you damn fingers out of your ears.
Bart misses one thing when talking about the accounts (stories) and how they can be identified as more likely to be true, physical evidence. For example there may be evidence of a volcanic eruption to collaborate a story about an eruption. If there is no evidence of an eruption the story about it is likely made up.
There is nothing about Ehrman's quote from The Historical Jesus that suggests he is only referring to R/B and nor R/(B+E). Debating with WLC... not even once.
william lane craigs main fallacy: WHO SAYS THE BIBLE ACCOUNTS ARE EVEN RELIABLE TO BE TRUSTED IN THE FIRST PLACE? each story contradicts the other, william just says oh well i'm not here to debate the accuracy and reliablity etc, EXCUSE ME? if the stories are filled with contradictions and error, they show themselves to be unreliable, and hence untrusworthy.
@SamiZaatari the bible doesn't matter. Here is the catch. Jesus is the word of God to us and the only way to know him is to know him. you can't read about him to know him. the bible is a trick. THE BIBLE IS THE MARK OF THE BEAST. King James was born 6, 1566, 6th out of the house of Stuart. He authorized 66 books and gave them power to speak (the bible says). You can't buy the word of God. More then 2 billion people say "the bible teaches me truth" but they all believe something different
Of course the atheists say that ehrman won... I mean,, come on... they said that Hitchens beat craig. I think this was a good debate... and hats off to Ehrman for his efforts agains someone like WLC. I think I'd agree with AgnosticPopular Front though.... I'd call it a draw, and a 4 star debate
Yeah, except no N.T. historian or textual scholar places the Gospel accounts under a "myth" genre. In the study of N.T. history and historical Jesus research, the Gospel and Paul's epistles are taken very seriously.
Does it say jesus is the risen son of god and savior? It depends which gospel you rea... oh wait no it doesn't. Ehrman will repent and believe the gospel or be subjected in damnation forever.
Craig always uses the Christ resurrection as a 'proof' that God exists. In this debate, he tells a historian that he has to show God doesn't exist before he accepts that resurrection is not an historical event. Circular logic?
@iliveon I know you are not litterally asking, and I am not litterally answering.. Just to be fun, I decided to share. You wanted proof for a unicorn.. Look up the Narwhal: since uni- means one and corn-means horn... i just proved that a 1 horned animal exists! SHABAM!
And as I've said before, take a huge bag of Hydrogen, toss it into space...wait...and Pee-wee Herman will come riding out on his bicycle. So say the witch doctors with their apeshit science.
Well done Bill! Jesus did rise, and the historical evidence is clear on this. The Romans said to the early Christians - say you didn't see Him rise and that He isn't Lord, and we'll leave you alone, keep saying this and we will kill you!
If the early Christians had made this up, they would have admitted it under that pressure. But because the Apostles saw Him rise, they were willing to die for it to proclaim it.
They knew it was true because they saw Him with their own eyes ( ex John 20:27-29)
When I hear Craig blathering on I almost feel like vomiting. This charlatan talks like 9/11 truthers, birthers and any number of other conspiracy theorists.
The four gospels are NOT independent sources. There's quite a bit of plagiarism going on in the Matthew-Mark-Luke gospels. But you're not going to get that fact out of a dishonest hack like WL Craig.
Regardless of misquotes, false translations, variations of all theologies and atheisms, and so forth; NOT ONE , not one shred of logical thinking can prove OR disprove the existence of ONE GOD!
(2) (cont) and has, so it is written, later proclaimed to his friends and classmates that she saw no banana in the bag. Therefore it only logically follows that "the most probably explanation remains the magical conjuration of said banana by Johnny, because the lack or evidence for alternative explanations are sufficiently negated and weighs in to make the magical conjuration more probable." << The fallacious mathematical probability Craig tries to promote in a nut-shell.
Matthew was written to the Jewish audience, Mark to the Roman audience, Luke to the Greek audience. This is why there are differences of emphases and details! These are supplementary details, not contradictory details! My YouTube video "Contradictions of the Resurrection Explained" looks at some of the more common differences. Jesus Christ saves you from your sins by repentance and receiving him into your life and committing your daily life to him! Luke 24:44-47.
Oral tradition in the early churches was primarily personal testimonies of individuals in group worship settings and neighborhood encounters. The Gospel accounts did NOT change over the years because the eyewitnesses kept RETELLING about their experiences with Jesus. Matt 8:4, 33-34; 26:13; John 4:28-30, 39-42; 5:15. This is explained in greater detail in my YouTube video, "Oral Tradition in the Early Churches." Again, repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ makes you more Christ-like!
If you listen to William Lane Craigs opening 20 minute speech, i have to say, he does put forward a pretty good case for the resurrection of Christ. However, Bart Ehrman expertly and logically demolishes Craigs arguments bit by bit.
What Dr. Lane Craig should have said, if he was honest:
"In preparing for this debate I just cobbled together all the rubbish I've been spouting for years. I have no intention of ever admitting that I could possibly be wrong.
Even if I was able to go back in time before the crucifixion and stand in front of the tomb, see Jesus' body interred, then weeks later go into the tomb and see the body rotting, I would still believe in the resurrection, because that is what the bible says.
this ehrman guy is a mess. craig had to point out a lot of gaps, inconsistencies, nonsenses, in his thinking and arguments. i tend to believe that someone threatened him with losing his job if he doesn't stick with atheism ( as it is pretty common these days ) and right after that it was promised a raise if he went to a few debates
At 46:00--crucial error by Craig. The critic doesn't have to provide a better alternative than the resurrection. There are myriads of explanations, when you consider the questions that need to be answered. Suppose resurrection is the best hypothesis--the NY Yankees of hypotheses. NYY won 1/4 of all WS. But they've also haven't won 3/4. Ehrman is taking 'the field'--every other team. Not the Red Sox, but the Sox, the Cards, the Reds, Phils...if any of those 'teams' win, resurrection is invalid
It is true that Ehrman is clear and honest. It's also true that Craig is a skilled rhetorician. I've watched both make public appearances many times, and I've read much literature by them both. I must say, however, that Craig took this one home. Ehrman does in fact misunderstand Hume's argument, and Hume's argument is in fact what Ehrman is himself arguing. Craig is, more importantly, correct that Ehrman confuses R|B with R|B&E. The other half of the debate is an interesting back and forth
Dr. Craig, Saul or Paul never met with Jesus nor heard Jesus' voice in person throughtout his life is a historical fact. Saul (Paul) merely halluciated of seeing a bright light with a voice in his head claiming to be Jesus, coz his traveling companions heard no voice that Saul (Paul) claimed he heard in Acts 22:9.
craigs arguments are very poor especially his maths calculationx-y etc that is just extremely embarrasing... craigs sophistry will only work for the dullards and ignorant. Ehrman is a brilliant scholar craig is a fool.
The style differences of these two are incredibly different. B.Erhman is competent and secure in what he is saying backing his words up with facts not dogma. In complete contrast WCL sounds much more like a used car salesman reading a scripted sales pitch than a serious debater. He resorts to the typical sarcastic arrogance against Erhman that Christians of his particular persuasion use when pinned down and isn't interested in getting to the truth of the matter or being objective.
At 1:40:32 Craig says "this is not a debate over Biblical inerrancy". However, the validity of the Gospel narratives as reliable historical documents depends entirely on the accuracy of the narratives. Therefore, for Craig simply to simply dismiss this issue out of hand is "demonstrably fallacious".
@wlemusic If you think the Bible has to be inerrant in order to prove the resurrection, either you are insane, or you don't understand the meaning of the word "inerrancy." No offense.
@mrsungles William Lance Craig is an evangelist. But I think that's something that debaters in general do, they like to avoid admitting criticism. I don't feel convinced either way about most of the 4 "facts". I'm told that most historians accept the empty tomb for example, but it seems like it's contingent upon how much weight that this so-called "multiple attestation" of writings counts for. Whether it's a repeated story they heard or they all witnesses gave the authors the message.
If Craig is the standard for christians, he fits the belief christians are liars and will do anything including lies, avoidance, twisting words and leading astray, just to try to win.
This proves to me Lane,christtianity's hero, had nothing but bad faith with is laughable.
Lane is definitely the most honest and blows him out of the water.Christianity is a pagan religion of blood.
@SHIBBYiPANDA :Do you think it is because he is a professional philosopher and theologian who, by comparison to most laymen understanding, is more advanced in this field of knowledge? This would put him in the role of teacher and explainer I suppose. Oh yea, he does teach as a PhD Professor at a University and has written 30 weeks. Guess this could be why possibly.
@wlemusic The Bible can have errors in it and still contain historical data. I doubt anyone accepts all historical texts as inerrant. Some Christians have a belief that God played a role in the writing of Biblical books. Craig was saying that theological belief is irrelevant, we should be treating the Biblical books just as we would treat any other ancient history book.
@wlemusic Biblical Inerrancy means believing the bible is miraculously lacking error...but you don't need to believe that to believe that the gospels are essentially historically accurate. Just like any other history book, the bible could contain errors but still be basically true and reliable. Hence Biblical inerrancy is not relevant. Biblical accuracy of course IS, and Craig doesn't not deny that.
Ehrman`s beginning argument is full of assumptions and holes I look forward to the day I get a better computer and can make a video response pointing out his weaknesses in his speech .
@oscargordon: Why does he think that the Jewish Scriptures were constructed out of whole cloth? The same with the New Testament. I suspect because someone has told him so, and probably because the Bible presents a worldview that different from his own.
See Jesus' resurrection is historically probable because you can use math and statistics to make almost anything seem probable whether it occurs in the realm of reality or not. Basically a debater with a powerpoint is possibly a master debater and that could make you go blind, statistically speaking of course.
Just as the Old Testament books were written around 500 BCE and have no basis in historical fact to create a history for the Jewish people, it is also quite probable that there was no historical Jesus and that the Jesus stories are created out of whole cloth. On the other hand, if supernatural beings exist, then anything is possible. But I assure you, there is nothing in ANY ancient text that can be used as evidence for the supernatural.
@oscargordon outside of biblical accounts tacitus,thallus,suetonius and josephus all wrote of Jesus to name a few...believe what you want on the divinity of Christ but it is quite dishonest to say he never existed
Where is the Christian evangelist, in the tradition of Elijah, John the Baptist, and Apollos, who is able to boldly challenge Bart directly, publicly, blasting his criticisms and calling Bart to repentance and submission to the resurrected Jesus of history!
Dr. Craig, as a representative of Jesus Christ is to be commended for defending the faith, but he should have answered at least some of his opponents claims of Gospel contradictions.
As a Christian I have to wonder who places people like Dr. Craig in their positions? I could have done better than this and I am not a scholar. This stupidity of mathematical proof of a miracle ticks me off and embarrasses all Christians.
I as a Christian apologize for Dr. Craig's stupidity and arrogance! He wasted the time of all the people watching him here and in person.
@onemarktwoyou Interesting to hear. Usually Christians on Youtube seem to get most of their arguments from WLC and regard him as a star of apologetics.
I just have one thing for you all to ponder. If the historical evidence is so remote, how is it that Christianity survived even with all the lack of historical evidence, when all other stories never made it.
@MsSarabruno It was done as a shrewd political move by the Roman empire and people were tortured, killed, burned at the stake etc if they deviated from the version of Christianity they wanted to push. It didn't survive because of love it survived because of the fear, murder and terror forced on people by the people who used it.
@MsSarabruno - "how is it that Christianity survived"? Three reasons:
1. Children are taught the myths when they are too young to think for themselves (brainwashing).
2. Children are taught that if they don't believe, God will have them tortured forever.
3. In 391, Christianity was declared the only legal religion of the Empire. The Church spent the next 1500 years trying to convert or simply murdering non-Christians BY THE MILLIONS.
Christians in the 21st Century really should give it up as hopeless. Christianity started out as a doomsday cult based on a ghost story about a guy who rose from the dead. Today's christians have pinned their hopes on THAT?
Craig's opening comments make a remarkably good case, with well established facts that most philosophers demonstrably and relatively uncontrovertibly agreed to by most scholars and the vast majority of widely accepted historians. Thus early sources , the remarkable number of which are extraordinarily early sources, almost inexplicable, and very probably,virtually universally acknowledged...etc. etc. most new testament critics concur, most scholars conclude,
Didn't Paul actually invent "Jesus"? I think he probably did, he borrowed a bit from very similar myths in the area and made his own tarded myth.. : )
the outcome of a debate does not prove nor disprove that christ knows he is resurrect and I know that I have been resurrected because of christs actions
It should be obvious to anyone that not only was Craig pwned in the debate, and that Craig has too much at stake in reversing his position in the face of historically valid evidence. Craig will loose his nice lifestyle if he stops lying, misdirecting, and clouding the facts.
Ehrmann has already given up a nice life as a charlatan, because he has an internal integrity
Note: the "Christian" has less of a conscience than the non-christian
Craig is living proof that faith fries your brain cells. He can't seem to get the point that his so called 4 facts presuppose a belief in the resurrection based on faith. The resurrection as an historical fact cannot be proven.
Four historical "facts" 1. Jesus burial 2. the discovery of his empty tomb 3. his post-mortem appearances 4. the origin of his disciples belief in his resurrection the only way these are considered facts is if you take the bibles accounts of the resurrection as true and reliable (they are not). And the best explanation of these "facts" is that Jesus rose from the dead is also a fallacious statement that requires faith. Faith is the only way that Craigs argument holds water.
@AlessioDAlessandro Ehrman is great, I now know. But come on, who wouldn't pwn D'Souza. If I was still a believer I'd write him: ""Dear Mr. D'Souza; I believe in Christianity and free speech, but please stop embarrasing yourself and the rest of us with your non-sensical aguments."
WLC is so illogical, "You have to believe in god to argue that god did not raise jesus from the dead." Does this mean you have to believe in god to believe that god does not exist?
The Tomb of Jesus Christ was found empty 3 days after He was buried on Friday at dusk. A Biblical day is measured from dusk to dusk. No question, Jesus tomb was found empty after 3 days when He arose from the dead, but it is impossible He arose on a Sunday. The first possible day He could have arisen would have been on Monday, but more likely He arose on Tuesday A.M.
@waketheoblivious There is no evidence that there was a tomb, let alone that it was "found empty". Did you watch the video?
That's kinda the point. IF Yeshua ben Joseph was a real person (and I disagree with Ehrman on that), he would have been buried in a mass grave with the other criminals or, more likely and ironically, burned in the garbage dump of Gehenna.
I still find it odd that this person was so important as to have these legends surrounding him, yet no contemporaneous records exist
wow the fact that these guys are so serious about such dribble did anyone fall asleep? thumbs up if you nodded off before the end of 2:12:57 I did 5 mins or less
I'm saddened to think that I live in a country where a dishonest, delusional hack like William Lane Craig somehow garners enough attention and credibility to allow him to share the same stage as a legitimate scholar like Bart Ehrman.
@matrixlone I think he wanted you to substantiate WHERE Ehrman was being dishonest. You can't make a claim like that without backing it up with evidence.
@jcwallac - Craig has a PhD in history. WHY is Richard Dawkins afraid to debate Craig? Get your facts straight before you make silly statements. When it's all said and done: first, you haven't done the first bit of actual historical research into these issues (if you are like 99.9% of skeptics I have spoken to) and second, you are rebellious against God and you despise Him. That is the reason you reject this. There is enough evidence, but you hate God because you love your sin.
Jesus called Paul a ravenous wolf who climbed over the wall of approval.NOBODY approves Paul.2Peter was not written by Peter and early church fathers said such.Ephesians rejected Paul and Jesus commends.Jesus corrects Pergamus for following Paul by eating idol meat.Rev2.
All churches of Jesus are in Asia.Rev1.Everyone in Asia REJECTED Paul.2Tim1:15. Why did Jesus not confirm Paul in Rev?No...He only condemns him.The 7churches of Jesus were destroyed by Paul's 7 church
In reference to Dr. Swinburne's probability argument; this argument was meant to be an INDUCTIVE case for the existence of the supernatural, not deductivly proving God through statistics.
I'd agree Craig could of done a better job representing swinburne's argument. But I would encourage those following this debate to look up Swinburne's essay on analytical philosophy. Most secular philosophers would consider him the most well-respected Christian philosopher today.
@boyinthedrain actually they take a poll at the end of the debate and they said Craig won. So what you think is weak. Then again you are an atheist you are used to weakness.
Lets see, a country in which 75+% of people are indoctrinated from birth to believe in a zombie uprising in ~32Ad, and I'm supposed to be surprised their minds are made up ahead of time?
The Bible is soooo full of inconsistencies, errors, contradictions etc etc honestly it cant be denied by rational people.
notionSlave 17 hours ago
I am an atheist... but after watching this, I am embarrassed for Christians that Craig would represent them. Craig fell out of the sane spectrum of this debate when he started offering up mathematical proofs.
kryshek 2 days ago
The difference between the learned and the athiest debates is amazing.
BizzoMustard 3 days ago
Bart Ehrman:
The sky is blue.
William Lane Craig:
It could be Turquoise, and let me tell you how.
Dr. Craig is a professional debater. That is all.
Rocketryman 5 days ago
I've watched this for all of 8 minutes and this opening speaker's case is a joke. Calling the Bible an "independent source" is completely silly. This guy's entire case can be summed up as "Jesus rose because the Bible says so".
crucisnh 1 week ago
Omg I just had to set here and laugh at Bart, poor fella.
DiatonicSoul 1 week ago
@TheBowsersMario I don't know if I prefer Bart Ehrman beating Craig's opinions down with historical logic or Hitchens bluntly dismissing him for 2 hours, but either way I agree with you.
Noxshus 1 week ago
These formulae are highly symmetrical! Substituting -R for R we get :-
P(-R/B&E) = P(-R/B) x P(E/B&-R) / (P(-R/B) x P(E/B&-R) + P(R/B) x P(E/B&R)) which has the form Y / (Y + X) and Craig is hoist with his own petard! By his own exacting standards he must now do the hard work of proving that P(-R/B&E) LT 0.5 iff X GT Y if he's going to claim that resurrection is not an improbable (is a probable) event. Otherwise Craig too has fallacy at the heart of his argument; vindicating both Ehrman & Hume!
NUAGESA 1 week ago
Test message.
NUAGESA 1 week ago
Evangelists shouldn't dabble in Mathematics. If we entertain the idea that the probability that `God can resurrect Jesus correlates with the probability that God exists` then it follows that we may substitute anybody for Jesus including Apollonius, so that the likely-hood that either one of them was resurrected is the same; as Ehrman has been arguing for years! If Ad Hominem man must use this sledgehammer to crack a nut he'd better mind his fingers - I like to call this Craig's comeuppance!
NUAGESA 2 weeks ago
REID SIMMS
HaligonianType1 2 weeks ago
Ehrman fails again...what a history blocker & teaser. Sell them books Ehrman by jumping to erroneous conclusions & ignoring what you want dude, like Dan Brown & Zeitgeist, etc. Even his old teacher told Him 90% of the NT hadn't been tampered with & the part that was will not show any new revelations against Jesus The Christ. Study for yourselves people!!! Archaeology has NEVER found anything against NT accuracy = always supports it.
GoodyBob 2 weeks ago
@GoodyBob Actually no it doesn't. Not even close really.
bbammel0003 1 week ago
The church killed millions of Christians also. Not just millions of non-Christians, it killed over 1500 years, hundreds of thousands if not millions on bible believing, confessed and baptized believers in Jesus. Burned, hung, drowned, capitation and a few other nice ways to die since they did not believe the same way the RCC church taught. Once the reformers came to power in 1520's even more died at their hands also. Dangerous to believe in believer in Jesus by the people who believe in Him.
MRGV7373 2 weeks ago
@MRGV7373 Who were these "baptized believers" b4 1520? If you say "the albigensians" ...they are around today and they are self described GNOSTICS.They are not Christians. Who are these people that "even more (of them) died? The protest-ants also burned , hung, drowned etc. Look what happened in Ireland under Henry VIII. Your "history" is severely lacking.
bheadh 1 week ago
Dr.Ehrman points are Dam Good
kingtim41 3 weeks ago
"For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4: 3
Zwemer100 3 weeks ago
William Lane Craig holds nice patristic methods of argumentation: Pure apologetics plus quite a poor sense of what evidence means.
code933k 4 weeks ago 3
In tonights debate I will be defending two main contentions...
HaligonianType1 4 weeks ago
Why do comments need to be approved here?
smhussain62 1 month ago
As a mathematician, I say that Swinburne commits several flaws in his analysis. He "proves" that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the old testament and that, therefore, he is God incarnate. That is a theological claim which is historically wrong.
Besides, he simply guesses the probability of God's existence and incarnation as 1/2. Total absurd.
Bart Ehrman is totally right, there is no way you can circumvent the fact that a resurrection is highly improbable, even applying that given formula.
gugamilare 1 month ago 6
1:28:30 here Bart ironically shows himself to be dishonest by claiming that Craig is just an apologist wanting to change peoples minds to believe in Christianity. I mean come on, is he seriously claiming that he has no intention of changing peoples minds? If not then why is he debating Craig and why does he continue to write books for the public to read about his work?
philosophizer149 1 month ago
WLC is being grossly dishonest when he counts the gospels as 4 independent accounts - every biblical scholar knows that the later gospels copied from earlier ones.
deathray32 1 month ago in playlist Religion 4
If he says the phrase "probability calculus" one more time my head will explode.
Kralizec55 1 month ago
I'm 37:00 in and BE is making no sense. He's adamantly rejecting the miracle explanation because by nature a miracle is extremely improbable. Is probability the only factor involved in determining the historicity of an event? Of course not. Besides, no one claims that the resurrection is the most probable explanation. It is favored because it fits the evidence. Am I to understand that BE is saying that WLC's evidence is irrelevant simply because the event is improbable? 35:40
Naj11 1 month ago
Are you saying that there is a more likely explanation that also fits the evidence? Or are you saying that the resurrection is the most likely explanation that fits the evidence?
johnflux1 1 month ago
@Naj11 Ah, but don't forget that Bart makes the point that the alleged evidence is deeply flawed. From what I understood, he argues that the sources are not independent, not consistent, not unbiased and not eyewitnesses.
hawaiigopher 1 month ago
lol wow this debate almost seems to get personal. bart seems pretty angry
lravenhill 1 month ago
i feel sorry for WCL. he is so brainwashed. his reasoning is utterly petrified in paradigms long debunked.
glower125 1 month ago 4
@glower125 Honestly.. why do people like you even watch debates? Its ''obvious'' anyone who believes in god is instantly ''owned'' no matter how good or bad their arguments are. You would say the same thing in any theist vs atheist debate.Stop having such a one sided mind and pull you damn fingers out of your ears.
emnity33 1 month ago
Bart misses one thing when talking about the accounts (stories) and how they can be identified as more likely to be true, physical evidence. For example there may be evidence of a volcanic eruption to collaborate a story about an eruption. If there is no evidence of an eruption the story about it is likely made up.
faircompetition1 1 month ago
There is nothing about Ehrman's quote from The Historical Jesus that suggests he is only referring to R/B and nor R/(B+E). Debating with WLC... not even once.
blu2penguin 1 month ago
I respect Craig, but he is so brainwashed
lupianwolf 1 month ago 2
william lane craigs main fallacy: WHO SAYS THE BIBLE ACCOUNTS ARE EVEN RELIABLE TO BE TRUSTED IN THE FIRST PLACE? each story contradicts the other, william just says oh well i'm not here to debate the accuracy and reliablity etc, EXCUSE ME? if the stories are filled with contradictions and error, they show themselves to be unreliable, and hence untrusworthy.
SamiZaatari 1 month ago
@SamiZaatari the bible doesn't matter. Here is the catch. Jesus is the word of God to us and the only way to know him is to know him. you can't read about him to know him. the bible is a trick. THE BIBLE IS THE MARK OF THE BEAST. King James was born 6, 1566, 6th out of the house of Stuart. He authorized 66 books and gave them power to speak (the bible says). You can't buy the word of God. More then 2 billion people say "the bible teaches me truth" but they all believe something different
MarkofBeastRevealed 1 month ago
I have the highest respect for intellectual honesty .. and for that I have to give it to Bart Ehrman .
kkdkk7 1 month ago 3
Of course the atheists say that ehrman won... I mean,, come on... they said that Hitchens beat craig. I think this was a good debate... and hats off to Ehrman for his efforts agains someone like WLC. I think I'd agree with AgnosticPopular Front though.... I'd call it a draw, and a 4 star debate
fatrob1711 1 month ago
@fatrob1711 Jaysus I'd say Hitchens was an unorganised mess, but in this one Craig is reduced to preaching, it gets embarrassing
moroney1 1 month ago
Ehrman not only won, but Craig unequivocally lost.
MrPhilosopher1950 2 months ago 4
Craig's probability calculus. bwahahaha!!! How absolutely ridiculous. He should be shrinking in embarrassment.
mouthyweasel 2 months ago
Occam's Razor, Dr Craig.
RichieJohnSauls 2 months ago in playlist The Bible
As long as you're trying to prove Batman with an issue of D.C comics, I'm not going to listen to you.
Noxshus 2 months ago
@Noxshus
Yeah, except no N.T. historian or textual scholar places the Gospel accounts under a "myth" genre. In the study of N.T. history and historical Jesus research, the Gospel and Paul's epistles are taken very seriously.
AgApE010 2 months ago
@Noxshus you win :)
armanduk2010 1 month ago
Boy... Bart is an angry man.
codex21pm 2 months ago in playlist Biblical History
@codex21pm Faced with Craig's idiocy it comes as no surprise.
RichieJohnSauls 2 months ago in playlist The Bible
Interesting debate!
Tlevids 2 months ago
It looks like Dr. Ehrman won this debate.
FrankHubeny 2 months ago
Ehrman rocked this. Either reason is right or continue to believe in unoriginal fairy tales.
donovn1 2 months ago
Does it say jesus is the risen son of god and savior? It depends which gospel you rea... oh wait no it doesn't. Ehrman will repent and believe the gospel or be subjected in damnation forever.
twistedbydsign99 2 months ago
Craig always uses the Christ resurrection as a 'proof' that God exists. In this debate, he tells a historian that he has to show God doesn't exist before he accepts that resurrection is not an historical event. Circular logic?
Pickle900 2 months ago 4
@Pickle900 But it's such an effective argument!! I want to see YOU prove God doesn't exist? Can't do it?!? Then Craig wins!
crazycarlsju 2 months ago
@crazycarlsju no, that's like saying you want to see a unicorn be disproved or unicorns exist, you're done!
iliveon 1 month ago
@iliveon I know you are not litterally asking, and I am not litterally answering.. Just to be fun, I decided to share. You wanted proof for a unicorn.. Look up the Narwhal: since uni- means one and corn-means horn... i just proved that a 1 horned animal exists! SHABAM!
Also, some Rhinos have 1 horn.
Inverita1 3 weeks ago
"Dr. Ehrman needs to show that God's existence is improbable."
Uh, no. As Bob Price said, "One can believe God capable of anything without believing God DID everything believers say he did."
Simply saying "God could have done it" doesn't give one any reason to think God DID.
Hektor88 2 months ago
And as I've said before, take a huge bag of Hydrogen, toss it into space...wait...and Pee-wee Herman will come riding out on his bicycle. So say the witch doctors with their apeshit science.
loonpolice1 3 months ago
Dear God, Craig was totally owned. For his final speech he could do nothing but preach, I almost felt sorry for him.
TheAnteMatter 3 months ago 5
you are absolutely right Dr Craig, maths proves that a man-god was raised from the dead 2000 years ago
ZEEECHET 3 months ago
it's ridiculous that they even need to debate these crazy claims, gods are humans first attempts at making sense of the world.... get over it
jadagod 3 months ago 5
Brilliant, Professor Ehrman.
Freethinking2010 3 months ago 4
Welcome to the world of William Lane Craig. Where any claim that jesus rose from the dead counts as "evidence".
TheBowsersMario 3 months ago 31
@TheBowsersMario Not true: they found the fossil that proves Jesus' resurrection. The name of that fossil is William Lane Craig. Hee hee.
whauffend 3 months ago
@drg860 Last I checked, the religious were the ones throwing and wearing bombs...
Unikraken 3 months ago
His debates with Hitchens and Harris were much more interesting, the quality is partly to blame
dunno194 3 months ago
William Lane Craig PWNED that atheist!
korus1234 3 months ago
Well done Bill! Jesus did rise, and the historical evidence is clear on this. The Romans said to the early Christians - say you didn't see Him rise and that He isn't Lord, and we'll leave you alone, keep saying this and we will kill you!
If the early Christians had made this up, they would have admitted it under that pressure. But because the Apostles saw Him rise, they were willing to die for it to proclaim it.
They knew it was true because they saw Him with their own eyes ( ex John 20:27-29)
Road2Jesus 3 months ago
@Road2Jesus so you're using the bible to prove the bible is true? wow, how original and imaginative of you.
The26Dude 3 months ago 2
When I hear Craig blathering on I almost feel like vomiting. This charlatan talks like 9/11 truthers, birthers and any number of other conspiracy theorists.
BartBVanBockstaele 3 months ago 5
Bart Ehrman why
yourmother438 4 months ago
The four gospels are NOT independent sources. There's quite a bit of plagiarism going on in the Matthew-Mark-Luke gospels. But you're not going to get that fact out of a dishonest hack like WL Craig.
onlylettersand0to9 4 months ago
Regardless of misquotes, false translations, variations of all theologies and atheisms, and so forth; NOT ONE , not one shred of logical thinking can prove OR disprove the existence of ONE GOD!
EGMAG 4 months ago in playlist Bart Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus. Stanford Lecture
If god existed it would be Bart Ehrman!!!
This guy is the epitome of the human capabilities of common sense & rationale.
ParramattaSoldier 4 months ago
(2) (cont) and has, so it is written, later proclaimed to his friends and classmates that she saw no banana in the bag. Therefore it only logically follows that "the most probably explanation remains the magical conjuration of said banana by Johnny, because the lack or evidence for alternative explanations are sufficiently negated and weighs in to make the magical conjuration more probable." << The fallacious mathematical probability Craig tries to promote in a nut-shell.
Notharah 4 months ago
Matthew was written to the Jewish audience, Mark to the Roman audience, Luke to the Greek audience. This is why there are differences of emphases and details! These are supplementary details, not contradictory details! My YouTube video "Contradictions of the Resurrection Explained" looks at some of the more common differences. Jesus Christ saves you from your sins by repentance and receiving him into your life and committing your daily life to him! Luke 24:44-47.
WayneVA1 4 months ago
That's why we muslims say Islam is the only way and watch muslim christians debate
LieExtinguisher 4 months ago
Oral tradition in the early churches was primarily personal testimonies of individuals in group worship settings and neighborhood encounters. The Gospel accounts did NOT change over the years because the eyewitnesses kept RETELLING about their experiences with Jesus. Matt 8:4, 33-34; 26:13; John 4:28-30, 39-42; 5:15. This is explained in greater detail in my YouTube video, "Oral Tradition in the Early Churches." Again, repentance of sins and faith in Jesus Christ makes you more Christ-like!
WayneVA1 4 months ago
If you listen to William Lane Craigs opening 20 minute speech, i have to say, he does put forward a pretty good case for the resurrection of Christ. However, Bart Ehrman expertly and logically demolishes Craigs arguments bit by bit.
A very good debate, I enjoyed the whole 2 hours.
bonnie43uk 4 months ago 2
What Dr. Lane Craig should have said, if he was honest:
"In preparing for this debate I just cobbled together all the rubbish I've been spouting for years. I have no intention of ever admitting that I could possibly be wrong.
Even if I was able to go back in time before the crucifixion and stand in front of the tomb, see Jesus' body interred, then weeks later go into the tomb and see the body rotting, I would still believe in the resurrection, because that is what the bible says.
Genechanger 4 months ago
Exactly.
atheistram 4 months ago
@Genechanger I love this comment. lol
johngeetar 3 weeks ago
this ehrman guy is a mess. craig had to point out a lot of gaps, inconsistencies, nonsenses, in his thinking and arguments. i tend to believe that someone threatened him with losing his job if he doesn't stick with atheism ( as it is pretty common these days ) and right after that it was promised a raise if he went to a few debates
CumSeNumesteMelodia 4 months ago
@CumSeNumesteMelodia "i tend to believe that someone threatened him with losing his job if he doesn't stick with atheism"
That would be strange since he identifies as an agnostic, and has a PhD from Princeton Theological Seminary. Keep reachin'.
DarkEmergence 2 months ago
At 46:00--crucial error by Craig. The critic doesn't have to provide a better alternative than the resurrection. There are myriads of explanations, when you consider the questions that need to be answered. Suppose resurrection is the best hypothesis--the NY Yankees of hypotheses. NYY won 1/4 of all WS. But they've also haven't won 3/4. Ehrman is taking 'the field'--every other team. Not the Red Sox, but the Sox, the Cards, the Reds, Phils...if any of those 'teams' win, resurrection is invalid
mjt532 4 months ago
It is true that Ehrman is clear and honest. It's also true that Craig is a skilled rhetorician. I've watched both make public appearances many times, and I've read much literature by them both. I must say, however, that Craig took this one home. Ehrman does in fact misunderstand Hume's argument, and Hume's argument is in fact what Ehrman is himself arguing. Craig is, more importantly, correct that Ehrman confuses R|B with R|B&E. The other half of the debate is an interesting back and forth
alkalinerush 4 months ago
@alkalinerush
Craig got owned. Patently obvious
MrGunwitch 1 month ago 2
Ehrman is so clear, honest, and correct. It is very hard for an honest person, sincerely searching for the truth to not accept his views.
mlcollins10 4 months ago 2
Dr. Craig, Saul or Paul never met with Jesus nor heard Jesus' voice in person throughtout his life is a historical fact. Saul (Paul) merely halluciated of seeing a bright light with a voice in his head claiming to be Jesus, coz his traveling companions heard no voice that Saul (Paul) claimed he heard in Acts 22:9.
FactualVSFictional 4 months ago
craigs arguments are very poor especially his maths calculationx-y etc that is just extremely embarrasing... craigs sophistry will only work for the dullards and ignorant. Ehrman is a brilliant scholar craig is a fool.
faustus999 5 months ago 4
William Lane Craig's second speech was a joke.
If Bart does not prove God's existence, his conclusions is erroneous.
Therefore I win. (William Lane Craig).
Not even my daughter argue that bad.
MoveOrder 5 months ago
Ehrman seems hot under the collar. The shouting is taking away from his points.
estevancarlos 5 months ago
The style differences of these two are incredibly different. B.Erhman is competent and secure in what he is saying backing his words up with facts not dogma. In complete contrast WCL sounds much more like a used car salesman reading a scripted sales pitch than a serious debater. He resorts to the typical sarcastic arrogance against Erhman that Christians of his particular persuasion use when pinned down and isn't interested in getting to the truth of the matter or being objective.
TheAmethystScorpion 5 months ago
At 1:40:32 Craig says "this is not a debate over Biblical inerrancy". However, the validity of the Gospel narratives as reliable historical documents depends entirely on the accuracy of the narratives. Therefore, for Craig simply to simply dismiss this issue out of hand is "demonstrably fallacious".
wlemusic 5 months ago 32
@wlemusic If you think the Bible has to be inerrant in order to prove the resurrection, either you are insane, or you don't understand the meaning of the word "inerrancy." No offense.
owchywawa 4 months ago
@wlemusic i am a christian but i don't like how Craig avoided a lot of Barts questions and theories.
mrsungles 3 months ago 15
@mrsungles William Lance Craig is an evangelist. But I think that's something that debaters in general do, they like to avoid admitting criticism. I don't feel convinced either way about most of the 4 "facts". I'm told that most historians accept the empty tomb for example, but it seems like it's contingent upon how much weight that this so-called "multiple attestation" of writings counts for. Whether it's a repeated story they heard or they all witnesses gave the authors the message.
RuinSonic 3 months ago
@mrsungles
If Craig is the standard for christians, he fits the belief christians are liars and will do anything including lies, avoidance, twisting words and leading astray, just to try to win.
This proves to me Lane,christtianity's hero, had nothing but bad faith with is laughable.
Lane is definitely the most honest and blows him out of the water.Christianity is a pagan religion of blood.
thedagonjones 3 days ago
@wlemusic LOL!!!! Nice terminology.. William Lane Craig is so queer in his speech patterns... He always sounds like he's talking to 5th graders...
SHIBBYiPANDA 2 months ago
@SHIBBYiPANDA :Do you think it is because he is a professional philosopher and theologian who, by comparison to most laymen understanding, is more advanced in this field of knowledge? This would put him in the role of teacher and explainer I suppose. Oh yea, he does teach as a PhD Professor at a University and has written 30 weeks. Guess this could be why possibly.
jgoltz37 2 months ago
@wlemusic The Bible can have errors in it and still contain historical data. I doubt anyone accepts all historical texts as inerrant. Some Christians have a belief that God played a role in the writing of Biblical books. Craig was saying that theological belief is irrelevant, we should be treating the Biblical books just as we would treat any other ancient history book.
bm359 1 month ago
@wlemusic Biblical Inerrancy means believing the bible is miraculously lacking error...but you don't need to believe that to believe that the gospels are essentially historically accurate. Just like any other history book, the bible could contain errors but still be basically true and reliable. Hence Biblical inerrancy is not relevant. Biblical accuracy of course IS, and Craig doesn't not deny that.
stu1002 1 month ago
47:00 WLC is blatantly shifting the burden of proof. Sad for a philosopher.
daemonowner 5 months ago in playlist A Vids
ok Bart Ehrman wins. Good debate!
angellicvoices 5 months ago
Read the messianic prophecies such as Isaiah 53:10, Psalm 16:10-11, and Psalm 49:15. Yeshua HaMashiach (JESUS CHRIST) did rise from the dead.
knightsofstjoan2004 5 months ago
craig , you suck !!! its okay to let go bud, your evolved, not created, admit it and the mystery goes away !!!
Blackout949597 5 months ago 4
@Blackout949597 are you a darwinist? do you believe in primordial soup?
dog22boy 4 months ago
@dog22boy Since when does Darwinism talk about anything primordial? Are you creationist? Do you have even a kindergarten understanding of evolution?
AR333 4 months ago
I've never seen Ehrman so worked up.
DrHowbeit 5 months ago
Ehrman`s beginning argument is full of assumptions and holes I look forward to the day I get a better computer and can make a video response pointing out his weaknesses in his speech .
FeignofCordor 5 months ago
Craig is getting destroyed! Bart Ehrman FTW!!!
shawndimery 5 months ago 4
Trying to use Bayes' theorem to prove the resurrection is just retarded. But this was William Lane Craig so I'm not surprised by any means.
TheMathLife 5 months ago 3
@oscargordon: Why does he think that the Jewish Scriptures were constructed out of whole cloth? The same with the New Testament. I suspect because someone has told him so, and probably because the Bible presents a worldview that different from his own.
JRobbySh 5 months ago
See Jesus' resurrection is historically probable because you can use math and statistics to make almost anything seem probable whether it occurs in the realm of reality or not. Basically a debater with a powerpoint is possibly a master debater and that could make you go blind, statistically speaking of course.
captainmjs 5 months ago 4
Just as the Old Testament books were written around 500 BCE and have no basis in historical fact to create a history for the Jewish people, it is also quite probable that there was no historical Jesus and that the Jesus stories are created out of whole cloth. On the other hand, if supernatural beings exist, then anything is possible. But I assure you, there is nothing in ANY ancient text that can be used as evidence for the supernatural.
oscargordon 5 months ago 4
@oscargordon outside of biblical accounts tacitus,thallus,suetonius and josephus all wrote of Jesus to name a few...believe what you want on the divinity of Christ but it is quite dishonest to say he never existed
treasureinthesnow217 1 month ago
Where is the Christian evangelist, in the tradition of Elijah, John the Baptist, and Apollos, who is able to boldly challenge Bart directly, publicly, blasting his criticisms and calling Bart to repentance and submission to the resurrected Jesus of history!
Dr. Craig, as a representative of Jesus Christ is to be commended for defending the faith, but he should have answered at least some of his opponents claims of Gospel contradictions.
WayneVA1 5 months ago
GO CRAIG xDDD
s1lvrinferno 5 months ago
What is the probability that the Jesus resurrection story would be remarkably similar to other resurrection stories that came BEFORE?
therugburnz 5 months ago in playlist Bart Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus. Stanford Lecture
Aw that guards killing the relatives and doing away with the body is unforgivably bland
ThorFan4Life 5 months ago
As a Christian I have to wonder who places people like Dr. Craig in their positions? I could have done better than this and I am not a scholar. This stupidity of mathematical proof of a miracle ticks me off and embarrasses all Christians.
I as a Christian apologize for Dr. Craig's stupidity and arrogance! He wasted the time of all the people watching him here and in person.
onemarktwoyou 5 months ago
@onemarktwoyou Interesting to hear. Usually Christians on Youtube seem to get most of their arguments from WLC and regard him as a star of apologetics.
DrHowbeit 5 months ago
@onemarktwoyou im a christian and thought wlc was terrific so try not to speak for all christians(if your truly a christian)
treasureinthesnow217 1 month ago
FTW
GabPapi26 5 months ago
Islam is the only true religion of our Creator. Go to my channel to learn more, peace.
redflw 5 months ago
I just have one thing for you all to ponder. If the historical evidence is so remote, how is it that Christianity survived even with all the lack of historical evidence, when all other stories never made it.
MsSarabruno 5 months ago
@MsSarabruno
The Romans.
1Munro3000 5 months ago
@MsSarabruno It was done as a shrewd political move by the Roman empire and people were tortured, killed, burned at the stake etc if they deviated from the version of Christianity they wanted to push. It didn't survive because of love it survived because of the fear, murder and terror forced on people by the people who used it.
TheAmethystScorpion 5 months ago
@MsSarabruno - "how is it that Christianity survived"? Three reasons:
1. Children are taught the myths when they are too young to think for themselves (brainwashing).
2. Children are taught that if they don't believe, God will have them tortured forever.
3. In 391, Christianity was declared the only legal religion of the Empire. The Church spent the next 1500 years trying to convert or simply murdering non-Christians BY THE MILLIONS.
Any questions?
libomann 2 weeks ago
Well, Craig will never do this again.
delataylor 5 months ago 17
Christians in the 21st Century really should give it up as hopeless. Christianity started out as a doomsday cult based on a ghost story about a guy who rose from the dead. Today's christians have pinned their hopes on THAT?
MrAdvancedAtheist 5 months ago 3
My, this is probably the best beating Craig has ever taken.
JaguarEscarlata 6 months ago 5
This time I saved my work.
HellRehab 6 months ago
Craig's opening comments make a remarkably good case, with well established facts that most philosophers demonstrably and relatively uncontrovertibly agreed to by most scholars and the vast majority of widely accepted historians. Thus early sources , the remarkable number of which are extraordinarily early sources, almost inexplicable, and very probably,virtually universally acknowledged...etc. etc. most new testament critics concur, most scholars conclude,
Case closed. Amen.
HellRehab 6 months ago
wow!
HellRehab 6 months ago
Didn't Paul actually invent "Jesus"? I think he probably did, he borrowed a bit from very similar myths in the area and made his own tarded myth.. : )
winterstellar 6 months ago
@gage816
Please see Ad Hominem and Argument from Ignorance
thank you
:)
JustVengence 6 months ago
the outcome of a debate does not prove nor disprove that christ knows he is resurrect and I know that I have been resurrected because of christs actions
breomeo 6 months ago
can somebody subtitled this conference, because some Spanish people is better at reading than listening?
Thanks in advance
mjurado71 6 months ago
Even though Craig lost this debate he does not look shaken at all
r0baa 6 months ago
It should be obvious to anyone that not only was Craig pwned in the debate, and that Craig has too much at stake in reversing his position in the face of historically valid evidence. Craig will loose his nice lifestyle if he stops lying, misdirecting, and clouding the facts.
Ehrmann has already given up a nice life as a charlatan, because he has an internal integrity
Note: the "Christian" has less of a conscience than the non-christian
drfoxcourt 6 months ago 3
1h27m overt preaching lol
RPFS2008 6 months ago
Great video except the sound is out of sync. Why does that happen?
Guitcad1 6 months ago
Craig is living proof that faith fries your brain cells. He can't seem to get the point that his so called 4 facts presuppose a belief in the resurrection based on faith. The resurrection as an historical fact cannot be proven.
chatpilot 6 months ago
Four historical "facts" 1. Jesus burial 2. the discovery of his empty tomb 3. his post-mortem appearances 4. the origin of his disciples belief in his resurrection the only way these are considered facts is if you take the bibles accounts of the resurrection as true and reliable (they are not). And the best explanation of these "facts" is that Jesus rose from the dead is also a fallacious statement that requires faith. Faith is the only way that Craigs argument holds water.
chatpilot 6 months ago
WL Craig is a real piece of work. The guy could disprove gravity.
Guitcad1 6 months ago 4
@AlessioDAlessandro Ehrman is great, I now know. But come on, who wouldn't pwn D'Souza. If I was still a believer I'd write him: ""Dear Mr. D'Souza; I believe in Christianity and free speech, but please stop embarrasing yourself and the rest of us with your non-sensical aguments."
JaguarEscarlata 6 months ago
WLC is so illogical, "You have to believe in god to argue that god did not raise jesus from the dead." Does this mean you have to believe in god to believe that god does not exist?
uknichu 6 months ago 3
im missing a 20 dollar bill from my wallet . . . does craig think god took it?
keggerous 6 months ago 6
The Tomb of Jesus Christ was found empty 3 days after He was buried on Friday at dusk. A Biblical day is measured from dusk to dusk. No question, Jesus tomb was found empty after 3 days when He arose from the dead, but it is impossible He arose on a Sunday. The first possible day He could have arisen would have been on Monday, but more likely He arose on Tuesday A.M.
waketheoblivious 6 months ago
@waketheoblivious There is no evidence that there was a tomb, let alone that it was "found empty". Did you watch the video?
That's kinda the point. IF Yeshua ben Joseph was a real person (and I disagree with Ehrman on that), he would have been buried in a mass grave with the other criminals or, more likely and ironically, burned in the garbage dump of Gehenna.
I still find it odd that this person was so important as to have these legends surrounding him, yet no contemporaneous records exist
johnycannuk 6 months ago
wow the fact that these guys are so serious about such dribble did anyone fall asleep? thumbs up if you nodded off before the end of 2:12:57 I did 5 mins or less
NecipPerver 6 months ago
The winer of this debate didn't make an after-party video about his opponent, trying to debunk him.
Im just sayin'
Forgetible1 6 months ago
I'm saddened to think that I live in a country where a dishonest, delusional hack like William Lane Craig somehow garners enough attention and credibility to allow him to share the same stage as a legitimate scholar like Bart Ehrman.
jcwallac 6 months ago 24
@jcwallac please bart is dishonest
matrixlone 6 months ago
@matrixlone what is bart dishonest about??
scottpastry 6 months ago
@scottpastry hes dishonest on the new testament
matrixlone 6 months ago
@matrixlone I think he wanted you to substantiate WHERE Ehrman was being dishonest. You can't make a claim like that without backing it up with evidence.
RonBurgundy161 6 months ago
@jcwallac - Craig has a PhD in history. WHY is Richard Dawkins afraid to debate Craig? Get your facts straight before you make silly statements. When it's all said and done: first, you haven't done the first bit of actual historical research into these issues (if you are like 99.9% of skeptics I have spoken to) and second, you are rebellious against God and you despise Him. That is the reason you reject this. There is enough evidence, but you hate God because you love your sin.
nathanandnicoleuk 5 months ago
@nathanandnicoleuk
Jesus called Paul a ravenous wolf who climbed over the wall of approval.NOBODY approves Paul.2Peter was not written by Peter and early church fathers said such.Ephesians rejected Paul and Jesus commends.Jesus corrects Pergamus for following Paul by eating idol meat.Rev2.
All churches of Jesus are in Asia.Rev1.Everyone in Asia REJECTED Paul.2Tim1:15. Why did Jesus not confirm Paul in Rev?No...He only condemns him.The 7churches of Jesus were destroyed by Paul's 7 church
thedagonjones 5 months ago
@nathanandnicoleuk Why would one be rebellious against someone who doesn't exist?
zooterkin 5 months ago
In reference to Dr. Swinburne's probability argument; this argument was meant to be an INDUCTIVE case for the existence of the supernatural, not deductivly proving God through statistics.
I'd agree Craig could of done a better job representing swinburne's argument. But I would encourage those following this debate to look up Swinburne's essay on analytical philosophy. Most secular philosophers would consider him the most well-respected Christian philosopher today.
smithcm14 5 months ago
@jcwallac How is he dishonest?
Damonferal 4 months ago
In sum: Bart Ehrman is a contemporary version of Tome, and so does the most part of today people.
jefersontorres 6 months ago in playlist Teísmo, ateísmo, deísmo e agnosticismo
WLC is a grown man who studies dressed up common sense and believes in ghost stories..
burnhardship 6 months ago 2
1:50:00 Craig owned him hahaha
HaShim383 7 months ago
4:25... when he starts listing the facts it is a complete and utter failure for Craig
boyinthedrain 7 months ago
@boyinthedrain actually they take a poll at the end of the debate and they said Craig won. So what you think is weak. Then again you are an atheist you are used to weakness.
shockofgod 7 months ago
@shockofgod HAHA thats true
matrixlone 7 months ago
@shockofgod
Wow, didnt know that! Who would have thought that people would vote for Craig in the College of the Holy Cross.
aaKonda 7 months ago 3
@shockofgod
Creationist talking about someone else having a weak argument.
Pot, meet kettle.
TheTexanCanadian 6 months ago
@shockofgod You calling someone else weak? That's a laugh.
WolfGuyX 6 months ago 4
@shockofgod
Lets see, a country in which 75+% of people are indoctrinated from birth to believe in a zombie uprising in ~32Ad, and I'm supposed to be surprised their minds are made up ahead of time?
mordinvan 6 months ago
Bart Ehrman hit the bullseye when he said that "Craig is an imaginist trying to disguise himself as an historian."
freakclub99 7 months ago 6
Jesus Christ is Lord!
SoldierOfChrist110 7 months ago