I think Craig is confused about what his probability equation is actually saying. Craig is solving for the probability that any person would have actually 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 probabality were 1 in a billion (think about it), a 0.01% chance of a false alarm would give you an overall probability of 0.000998990021088679%.
Probability calculus really ?? no wonder Craig thinks the Fine Tuning Argument is a good argument. He is just to easily impressed by unbelieveably bogus probability calculations.
Craig wouldn't know philosophy if it smacked him in the face. I don't care what his qualifications are, very very few philosophers agree with him and I can't understand why people think he is good. He reminds me of a dodgy salesman, show enough confidence in your product and you can sell anything to anyone. Well I see right through his crap, his arguments are highly polished turds.
The problem with most biblical historians is their christian bias and covert apologetics, I think if more skeptical historians and secular students took up theology we might get a better view.
If WLC uses probability to prove Jesus resurection is fact then whats to say Joseph Smith finding golden tablets or speaking to god didnt happen. He would have to conciede all other religions have the same probability of divine accounts happening in thier sources.
I feel the use of mathematical probability (those so very impressive looking formulae), to lend weight to his motion that jesus was resurrected from the dead, was actually an exercise in garnering credibility for himself by posing as a logical or scientific thinker.
I like the fact that Craig doesn't put numbers to his equations to really give a good idea of probabilities. I think that he does this for the simple reason that it is impossible to assign a value for the probability that he is asking for or using.
WLC uses Bayes Theorem to make the argument from ignorance sound good. Entertaining.
Sure, Dr. Craig: *if* you were able to consider *every* naturalistic alternative (we can't) and *if* you were able to determine their relative probabilities (we can't) then MAYBE you could push "he came back from the dead supernaturally" to a higher probability. But again, we can't do these things. Yours is, essentially, a fancy version of the argument "you can't prove it didn't happen, so it did."
Finally, he leverages the philosophical expertise of John Ehrman to "prove" his contention that Bart Erhman is commiting a "mathematical fallacy" by not endorsing the superiority of the resurrection hypothesis, insinuating either irrationality or lack of integrity. John Ehrman, as well..."Not a believer but an agnostic." At least the two Ehrman's fall on the same side of "irrationality", leaving Craig to triumph alone.
...naturalistic explanations for such claims are the only alternatives given the agreed upon presupposition i.e. Craig's assertion that this formula will calculate naturalistic probability. In the end, as Ehrman has stated, Craig's is a theological argument and can only gain a foothold if God is assumed to be part of the equation. If excluded, my own calculation puts Pr(R) at about 0.0000000000000000000000001. Assuming a naturalistic background, does anyone here think otherwise?
Craig argues that the formula will generate the naturalistic probability for the Resurrection, then seeks to reverse such by smuggling the existence of God into the background knowledge of the equation. His "E" is, additionally problematic, in that he assumes factual post-mortem appearances as part of his established evidentiary base, thus begging the question. "Claims to such appearances" is how he should conceptualize it. When such claims are assessed against a naturalistic background...
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Craig is forgetting one crucial factor on which all his assertions in favor of the Resurrection hinge.
He must prove that human beings of the 1st century were incapable of embellishment, exaggeration, and lying. Modern humans aren't...why should the apostles be any exception?
And just because the supernatural can't be disproved, where is his evidence giving Christianity exclusivity to the supernatural. Where is his evidence that it has its origins in the supernatural? I have yet to hear any.
I would be more inclined to keep my silence if William Craig stated "Jesus raised himself from the dead" Isn't Jesus, God himself? Or maybe Jesus was incompetent so God has to do it. If the latter was the case, then Jesus is not God himself. Oh wait... I forgot about the concept of TRINITY in Christianity. It is a common belief in the Christian domain that the devil can also raise dead people (I am just raising consciousness).
Calculus to support claims of human interaction with the supernatural??
Oh man, if there was ever an example of someone desperately reaching, this has to be it! The default position when it comes to matters of the supernatural is to humbly say "I don't know." Even if Craig could prove we are the products of the supernatural, He still has a looooooong way to go before he can ever demonstrate a plausible link between Christianity and the supernatural.
I watched just now a lecture of his, wherein he completely refuses to acknowledge the Pauline epistles as historically reliable. What's more, he tricks the audience of laymen by saying that the first Pauline mention of the resurrection was in 1 Corinthians, which is false, the resurrection is explicitly mentioned in his much earlier epistle 1 Thessalonians.
Dr. Craig wins, and has won every debate I have seen him in.
And you do realize he is not deceiving if he thinks 1 Thessalonians is not authentic, right? I mean by the rules of logic, whether or not you think he is right about the authorship of 1 Thess, if he thinks Paul didn't write it, then he isn't a deceiver. He thinks Corinthians is authentic, hence he says its the first time Paul mentions it.
If you can't grasp that fundamental level of logic, I wouldn't take your word on who "wins" debates.
But the curious thing is that 1 Thessalonians is one of the only undeniable texts written by Paul, it is completely undisputed, why don't you take the time to look that up yourself before insulting my rationality please. Scholars can justly consider some other letters as spurious (e.g. ephesians, colossians, 1 & 2 tim) but 1 & 2 Thessalonians are absolutely and unassailably written by St. Paul of Tarsus.
@R0FLLWAFFL3 You did not say where he says this, you did not answer my following question.
Answer the question and let's see how your logic works. I didn't insult your logic, I said "if this will be your answer, that's bad logic". So answer the question.
And don't tell me to learn something before I insult your logic, when ironically I didn't even do that. Learn to read.
I asked: Where does he say that - no answer
I asked, "you do realize If x-->y? because if you don't..." - no answer
Where does Paul say that? Or where does Ehrman say that? In the latter case I'm afraid I forgot, but he was giving a lecture at a church in it, with a TV behind him, look up 'Bart Ehrman' and you should get it somewhere. For Paul saying that consult Galatians 1 & Philippians 3 & more.
And apparently you didn't insult my logic by saying 'If you can't grasp that fundamental level of logic, I wouldn't take your word on who "wins" debates.' then I don't know what an insult is.
@R0FLLWAFFL3 "'If you can't grasp that fundamental level of logic, I wouldn't take your word on who "wins" debates.' then I don't know what an insult is." Read the preceding statement. If I said "if you can't understand what 2 + 2 is, you don't know basic math" it's not an insult if the antecedent is false. Read the antecedent and tell me if you agree with it or not - third time I ask.
And I clearly asked where does Ehrman say that. If you're going to say he tricks people, you better have a ref
"he completely refuses to acknowledge the Pauline epistles as historically reliable."
Paul's writing are not evidence for the existence of Jesus. Paul even admitted himself that he did not meet Jesus in person.
"Dr. Craig wins, and has won every debate I have seen him in."
When it comes to facts and evidence, Craig ALWAYS loses. All he does is repeat that what he says must be true because "Magic Man Dunnit!". That's only convincing to an audience who believes that anyway.
I would suggest you first familiarize yourself with Paul before you say he never met Jesus (or said he met Jesus), in fact, he said he did, but that is totally irrelevant to my point. Paul represents the first EXTANT Christian thinker, and he was intimately close with the apostles. Now, I would like to ask you how the Jesus 'myth' came into being. Who invented the 'myth'?
Did the apostles invent the myth? Why yes of course that seems logical, seeing as all (except John) were brutally murdered for preaching the Gospel. What motives did they have? Wealth? Power? The two things they eschewed for themselves, embracing destitution, persecution and torturous deaths to further a made up fable and they themselves knew it to be false? Then who else made up the Jesus myth? Perhaps Paul, but wait! He was imprisoned and beheaded for the Gospel. Hmmmm...
YES the apostles absolutely existed, no-one doubts their existence (after all we do have the bodies of more than a few), and yes many other religions have people dying for them, but NOT their founders, Jesus and his apostles died, Muhammed & Buddha built up empires and were worshipped, not crucified upside down like Peter. "Long process of storytelling" please, do yourself a favour and learn something before opening your mouth. Study history before you can teach it.
Even with all the knowledge in the world you still have no evidence for the existence of your god. I told you: even if I would grant you Jesus and all of his "miracles", you'd still be empty-handed. Millions of people claim that Sai Baba is performing miracles RIGHT NOW, and he never even makes the news.
Plus, why would an omnipotent being communicate with its creation by means of a book filled with holes and vague passages?
@MomoTheBellyDancer I'm no longer going to pursue this argument, you have shown yourself to be completely naif in History and biblical scholarship by denying the apostles, misquoting Paul, and by exhibiting a general lack of knowledge. I would be glad to continue this debate with someone who had a mind behind their blabbering mouth.
My Church feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, treats the sick, gives hope to the abandoned and guides the lost. What does your church do?
No surprise, seeing how you got utterly destroyed. Failing to answer any question and stomping your feet, shouting "Is so! IS SO!" does not constitute any kind of argument.
"you have shown yourself to be completely naif in History and biblical scholarship"
Translation: "How dare you to formulate valid critiques I cannot answer! I'm a BELIEVER and above silliness like reason and knowledge!"
Somehow the only way to tell Craig's debates apart ist by looking at his opponents. He keeps arguing the same things over and over again, including his incorrect definition of atheism.
YES! The probability of somebody coming back from the dead is almost zero. I completely agree with that. But thats the damn point isn't it? If people coming back from the dead were an everyday occurence then it wouldn't really matter if Jesus came back from the dead to show us that we can conquer sin and death through him. I agree that the resurrection was a one time in history event.
"it wouldn't really matter if Jesus came back from the dead to show us that we can conquer sin and death through him"
Actually, in the Bible a lot of other people got raised from the dead too, but nobody thought those cases were that special. Being raised from the dead seemed to be a bit of a banality.
And by the way, the proper use of the transitive verb " commit" does not apply to fallacies. You can say a statement is fallacious or say that an argument is a fallacy, but you can't "commit" a fallacy. A high school education would be nice before arguing philosophy.
@blublu451, ignorant? Your arrogance is quite annoying. You go as far to imply that I have not received a high school education... based off the fact that I committed (har har har) a gramatical error. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the only critique you have offered of my comments (much was written a year ago and a good portion of my arguments have since been refined)... meaning instead of offering a meaningful critique you merely insult. The worst part is you know full well that if this is (cont)
(cont) the only argument offered, not only have you thrown a red herring in the middle of the conversation, but you would also throw an ad hominem on the end. You know better. Oh, BTW, I was not offered philosophy until college, although I was only able to take one course (if I remember correctly) and most of what I know about the subject is what I have attempted to learn on my own. You know the whole point I bother posting is because I learn things? It's kind of the point. I believe it (cont 2)
(cont 2) was shakespeare who wrote that "the fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." If I could get you to step off your high horse for two seconds, maybe you just might learn something too. I will tell you one thing, in the long run someone who is "ignorant" of a matter but maintains a sense of humility will get much farther in the search for truth than a pompous, self-righteous ass.
@naejimba My mentioning your faulty use of the English language was to give some context to the extent of your education. The fact that you don't understand how language is used makes anyone doubt you understand the arguments. You DID NOT come up with arguments or read anything I wrote. Incoherent ramblings do not constitute an argument. As to ignorance.... I am just stating a fact. Definition.."lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant" Learn that asshole.
@blublu451, here is the difference between you and I. I would (and did) readily admit that I was incorrect, while you attempt to maintain that you did not just present two fallacious arguments. Let me explain how weak your argument is btw. The definition of "commit" is: "To do, perform, or perpetrate." The definition of the word "perpetrate" is: "To be responsible for; commit." Since you "did" something (present a fallacy) and I would say you are "responsible for" the fallacy, it is easy (cont)
(cont) to see from the definition of the words how one might think such a word would be appropriate to use. Your idea that this miniscule error that had NOTHING to do with any of my arguments somehow can give you ANY insight into anything else is a dangerous line of reasoning, at best. You know full well that if you were to even imply that this mistake had any influence over the validity of ANYTHING else I say it would be flawed reasoning. In short, just because the English language is (cont 2)
(cont 2) fucking confusing, and people sometimes are mistaken (you literally act as if you have never been in error yourself, which we both know is not true) that doesn't say jack shit about anything else I said. You got a problem with something I said? Tear it the fuck apart! I want to hear it... because I actually care if I learn something in these conversations. Your goal instead, as stated in your own words, was to "educate ignorants." Like I said most of these comments were from (cont 3)
(cont 3) quite a while ago and I continually attempt to challenge my own position, so tear it apart, let me refine my position if necessary and we'll see what sticks, and when I am shown to be in error this only gives me an opportunity to increase my knowledge. You, on the other hand, only see yourself as "educating" those around you who you obviously assume are less knowledgeable than you. Would you at least admit the possibility that I might know something you do not? If so, would it (cont 4)
(cont 4) not be possible that I might present information to you you have never heard, a perspective you have yet to imagine? Is it not possible, at least, that you yourself might learn something from the conversation? If so, why do you have the attitude you do? If one is not willing to admit when they are in error how the hell do you think they will be able to learn something from it? If one is so certain how can they begin to question what they think is true? If nothing else, if your (cont 5)
(cont 5) goal is indeed to educate, it is quite obvious that the approach you use of insulting and belittling someone interspersed with actual points is not an effective method of getting people to listen to your perspective, let alone convince them of anything. Call this an "incoherent rambling" if you will, but I still contend that a sense of humility is conducive to the search for truth. You know, the more one learns in life, the more they realize just how much they do not know. (cont 6)
(cont 6) This leads naturally to a sense of humility (something I have recently been trying to improve upon). You have MUCH to learn in life, as does everyone around you. If you are unwilling to admit this, you are not being intellectually honest. So, can we make a deal? If you wish to "educate" this wretched "ignorant" I will be willing to listen so long as you stop being such a fucking dick. It's goddamned childish and unnecessary.
@naejimba Clearly stated "It is what is called "argumentum ad veracundiam" which is again a form of ad ignorantiam. That is an appeal to authority. Two big problems ...1) experts DON'T AGREE 2) The historical veracity of the story is not attested by extrabiblical sources.
The constantly cited Suetonius quote refers only to the existence of christians not to the existence of Christ. Even today you could find more eyewitnesses to alien abduction or the resurrection of Elvis. Again circular
@blublu451, unfortunately, I have no idea what this is in reference to. Some explanation of where this quote is coming from.. or explanation of how it relates to the argument.. or even what precisely we are arguing at the moment is necessary for me to say anything meaningful. You just have to keep in mind I originally viewed and commented on these videos a year ago.
@naejimba reasoning." That is the argument. It was you that started the "asshole" bit so don't try to pretend that you are humble and open to arguments. Of course everyone has something to learn, but that does not mean you learn something from everyone. My "ad hominems" were meant to be facetious not insulting, but you have a big chip on your shoulder. When YOU started insulting coming back was easy. State your arguments clearly and we can have a conversation.
@blublu451, I merely called you an asshole after you implied that I had not received a high school education. Now, you claim that you did not mean this to be insulting, but I'm sure if you were talking to someone else and another person butted in simply to point out an error not in your logic or reasoning, but rather some small error that had nothing to do with the substance of the argument.. that person would probably come off as a complete dick. .. but apparently I just "have a chip (cont)
(cont) on my shoulder," right? Either way, that has no bearing on whether I exhibit any amount of humility (which again I will state is something I am currently attempting to improve upon) nor does it say anything about how open I am to any argument. Quite true that you do not learn something from everyone, however, I am more concerned with your elitist attitude. It would seem, from your comments, that you have no intention or desire to learn anything yourself.. at least that is how it (cont 2)
(cont 2) comes off when you display the sheer amount of arrogance that your original comments contained. In an unrelated note, I would like you to define your position on the subject of religion. Seems like a good place to start and I can assume nothing at this point.
@naejimba Religion is pointless superstition which leads only to poisoning of the mind. All religions should no longer exist in the 21st century. Believing in bronze age middle eastern magicians as superior beings and following the rules written by semiliterate shepherds who had no idea whatsoever of what the world is really like is just plain stupid. That is why I get so worked up with people like William Lane Craig who try to give some respectability to this nonsense.
@blublu451, while I agree with you entirely, I think it would be much more entertaining for both of us if at this point I played "devil's advocate." After all, if our preconceived notions are not challenged, how can we refine our arguments? One might argue that religion is not necessarily "pointless" as it does serve some function... even if one views religion as Marx does (the opium of the people) this serves some purpose. False hope could give emotional comfort. Faith can allow one to (cont)
(cont) one to entirely ignore cognitive dissonance. You see, religion could possibly aid as a psychological defense mechanism, the purpose of which is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety, social sanctions or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope. I'm sure you have noted such examples in the comments of theists, as I have including: delusional projection, denial, distortion, splitting, both projection and extreme projection, idealization (cont 2)
(cont 2) Note that all of these are categorized as either "pathological" or "immature" defense mechanisms. Is this unhealthy? I would argue so. It is also unnecessary. Once I was having a conversation with my mother, in which she described how she was "telling all of her friends to pray" for someone who was sick. I naturally brought up the conflict between the idea of an all-knowing god who has a "plan" and purpose for everything and intercessory prayer. Essentially, if everything is (cont 3)
(cont 3) predetermined according to god's "perfect" plan, the prayer would have no effect on the outcome. Furthermore, the idea that the more people that prayed for this person would somehow increase the chance of her being healed, as if this would cause god to "change his mind" defies logic. Of course I also brought up the fact that numerous scientific studies have been done on intercessory prayer, and the consensus seems to be it has no effect on reality, so the empirical evidence (cont 4)
(cont 4) we DO have seems to show otherwise (and man, did that ever piss her off). Her response, however, surprised me. She claimed that the emotional "support" and comfort she received from prayer was more than enough to justify it. To her it serves an important function. If nothing else, throughout history religion has been used to fill gaps in knowledge... often times to people it does not matter as much if an answer is correct, so long as it serves some purpose. If you want (cont 5)
@naejimba Ok, sounds like fun. False comfort is not a good or moral thing to do. Imagine a physician not telling one of his patients he has a cancer that is incurable. While the thought might make him happy he will die a deluded man, and even worse, he might not make things that will improve his health or prolong his life. Time will be wasted. The same applies for religion. It may make you happy to think that your dead mother is in heaven with the angels, and if you pray and go to church
@naejimba@naejimba the singularity. Even though I found the debate between them not as devastating as I thought I would I found this link which takes you to an article which Krauss states his position in a much clearer fashion. My distaste of WLC has taken me to every debate and interview this individual has given......talk about the irony of the situation.
@naejimba you will join her, but it is not true. You are going to waste your time believing moral teachings that are totally lacking morality. Reading Deuteronomy will make that clear. Marx himself followed the statement with"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness." Which was the whole point. False bliss might feel good, but sooner or later there is a hangover. There is a more real numinous feeling in the contemplation of
@naejimba I agree totally. Why do people claim KNOWLEDGE of these events? The scientific answer to the question is I don't know. But I'd love to point you towards a fantastic conference by one of my favorite physicist, Lawrence Krauss, " A Universe from nothing" which explains how much we DO know. My ignorance in the matter of physics notwithstanding, I found that it explained things sooooo clearly that even an idiot like myself could glimpse at what science now knows about the
@naejimba the marvels of the universe and of science.......How about the often asked question... what then do you believe in? Where did everything come from? Is it all just be accident? Can't you see the hand of the creator? I ask this very difficult question because it is the ONLY question that can hold some water as it is a deist not a theist question, and it is Lane Craig's starting point for all his debates for now twenty years. Thoughts?
@blublu451, "where did everything come from?" Concerning anything prior to the big bang, I would say, "I don't know... and if you're honest neither do you." Intellectually unsatisfying? Perhaps. Intellectually honest? Yes. "Is it all just [an] accident?" If we define accident as: "an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance," then yes, I see no convincing evidence that the universe was "forseen" or "planned." "Can't you see the hand of the creator?" It depends on the particular (cont)
(cont) claim of god. If we are arguing for a "personal god" that interacts with the universe, then I think it is not a category error to say we could potentially have empirical evidence to support the notion. We may never be able to measure in any meaningful way anything inside a black hole. However, it would be possible to measure the black hole's effects on visable matter. Even if such a god is immaterial, it is at least POSSIBLE that we can observe the effects he/she has on matter. (cont 2)
(cont) On the other hand, if we are arguing that god does not or no longer interacts with the universe, then I can't think of a way to be able to determine this.
That is what is called "argumentum ad veracundiam" which is again a form of ad ignorantiam. That is an appeal to authority. Two big problems ...1) experts DON'T AGREE 2) The historical veracity of the story is not attested by extrabiblical sources.
The constantly cited Suetonius quote refers only to the existence of christians not to the existence of Christ. Even today you could find more eyewitnesses to alien abduction or the resurrection of Elvis. Again circular reasoning.
Craig's argument about the "two different probabilities" was preempted by Ehrman specifying that miracles are the least probable explanation IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION.
Crane's conclusions are right. But he is right IF AND ONLY IF you believe in deities.
So again circular reasoning, the bible is true because it is God's word. How do you know? Because it says so in the Bible. The probability that Jesus rose naturally from the dead is very low, but SUPERNATURALLY is very high??????? Idiotic, unsophisticated arguments based on circular reasoning.
You have committed an enormous strawman and need to stop misrepresenting the arguments. Dr. Craig's argument for the resurrection is NOT based on his belief in the Bible to be inspired because he's appealing to facts that are agreed upon by scholars who do not believe the Bible to be inspired.
"But he is right IF AND ONLY IF you believe in deities." - You are confusing the support and implications of theistic belief with the basis for his argument.
Furthermore, you cannot give a sound explanation for the origin of the universe nor for the reality of objective moral values. What reasons do you have for believing that atheism is true? What arguments do you have? If you redefine atheism as "lack of belief in God" then you cannot give any arguments for it. but if you cannot give arguments for it, then you cannot establish it as true! Moreover it is highly fallacious to think that if our arguments fail, that's a proof for atheism.
You really don't understand atheism. It is a LACK of belief. I don't want to argue for it, because I don't need to. It is like proving that fairies don't exist. The argument is a logical fallacy ..."argumentum ad ignorantiam" that is .. a proposition is true because it can't be proven false. C'mon this is basic philosophy ... don't come up with puerile arguments to a gunfight.
WLC lays out the fatal flaw of his own argument, "Jesus rose *SUPERNATURALLY* from the dead"... until he can demonstrate a reliable probability for such an unreliable effect... any and all arguments he makes to that have zero validity.
Sorry WIll, until you can point to a factual miracle and say they DO happen, you cannot point to a STORY of a miracle and say that one is probable.
Before talking about the probability of resurrection, I suggest talking about the probability of Jesus death have been 'just' after several hours (6 hrs max) on the cross... when there are surmountable records that crucified persons/criminals die slow death (3-4 days), thats the purpose of such penalty, to inflict cruel, slow death so others can learn and think twice before commit treason to romans authority.. so died after 6 hrs on the cross has small probability.. no death no resurrection...
@dado0876: You ignore that in Jesus' case the crucifixion was "whipped up" quickly by the Jewish leaders, in pressuring Pilate. You also ignore that Jesus was cruelly tortured PRIOR TO being crucified, when the Roman soldiers whipped Him to a point of being nearly dead. He was so weakened by the whipping that He could not carry His cross the full distance to the hill. Furthermore, Jesus died of a broken heart, something that all the stress He endured could easily have accomplished quickly.
It seems that in this equation, Craig would like to call "y" the SET of all alternatives, and show that the COLLECTIVE set of alternatives is low; this is not sound math or logic. I am a math teacher and have taken several math logic courses.
But beyond simple math like this, at what point can you be called desperate? When you are claiming events as HISTORY and TRUTH, but your definition of truth is so dumbfounded that you must find mathematical TRICKS to justify your logic.
Again I must point out Dr. Craig's "tricks." In his first equation with (x)/(x+y), if the y term becomes nearly zero, then yes the entire term nears 1 because (x)/(x+0) = x/x = 1. But we must understand that the resurrection is ONE CLAIM, and can only be compared to ONE alternative at a time using this equation. So he must show that for EVERY y, or every alternative, the probability of the resurrection is much higher than that alternative....
Craig wants to argue that Jesus's resurrection was probable, if performed by god. But to show that a resurrection is probable, IN ANY FORM, supernatural, by god, natural, or any other means of resurrection someone would like to posit, you would have to argue that it has happened MORE THAN ONCE, not just in Jesus's case. So to claim something is HISTORICALLY TRUE, you must show that an event of that type has at least HAPPENED once in history!
How can anyone be convinced by Craig's nonsense???
Can somebody give me another topic in history where accounts of such poor credibility are ever presented as evidence? The answer is simply NONE. I honestly feel insulted in case Craig expects us to not see this obvious double standard. The question is: What should our standards for evidence be so that his "evidence" can be counted credible, and if we apply the same standards everywhere else, where do we end up? The "evidence" Craig presents does not deserve credibility and begs for a privilege.
ok... are we all aware that Craig's claiming here that we can confirm that any event in history as long as we call it magic?
he doesn't require sources to be contemporary or consistent... pretty much anything can happen as long as you say it's "supernatural" and then it's the best explanation.
Less than a minute into this clip, and Craig has already lost all my respect. Jesus rising naturally is impossible, but there's no problem with supernaturally?? What does that even mean? This is an apriori establishment of the efficacy of the supernatural, when the word has yet to even be defined by Craig. From what I've seen though, his definition would probably amount to a wordy equivalent of "supernatural is when god did it."
OMG! I can hardly stand listening to Craig. He's WAY too smart and capable of deep critical thinking to really believe any of the crap he pushes on the masses! REALLY, Craig? Something Supernatural is WAY more possible than something Natural? How is a SUPERnatural resurrection way more probable? Again...the probability of something supernatural happening is extremely low simply because it is SUPERnatural, it is outside of the natural world.
Shorlock holmes: When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". The mistace Crage does is to ignore the fact that many many other scenarios... applied with the same mathematical formula... would have a higher possiblity than the ressurection. To bring in god which defines everything logical will also make the logic of his formula irrelevant. So craigs argument is defeated either with or without God.
they actually both have some very valid points, to be perfectly honest....sounds like they're basing their assumptions on two different sets of criterion.
Oooh he nailed him in the balls. But Craig is wrong - if Ehreman cannot say whether the ressurection is improbable, that only means that craig wishes that he as a historian merely say: "I cannot say whether it was God or not but as a historian I can say that this is improbable" - and that is essentially what Ehreman was saying. If you talk about historical facts it is a historical debate first and foremost.
This probablities thing that WLC is trying to pull is a hallmark of pseudoscientific woo. You put up a bunch of numbers and then add in the factor of "god could do it!"
It's really just obfuscated circular reasoning. It's the same as the old "Jesus is really god because Jesus himself claimed to be god...YOU'RE NOT CALLIN' JESUS A LIAR, ARE YOU!?!" canard that is the main argument of most apologist con-men.
I really don't understand why Craig is spending so much time on this Hume/probability thing when the bulk of Ehrmans argumentation surrounds the historical validity of Craigs 4 "facts"... But I guess he had prepared a script and didn't want to waste it...
@pedertyve you know, Ehrman agrees with those four facts, which is why he uses Hume's anti-miracle argument in order to dispute the interpretation of those facts.
@cravenns Well, if that's true it doesn't really help. Seems like Craig has misunderstood Hume's argument. As far as I can tell, at least, Hume was arguing against the occurrence of miracles in general. The debate here is on the other hand about whether a specific event is the result of a miracle. Two very different things. One can disagree with Hume and still think that a specified event was not caused by a miracle. Accepting miracles isn't the same thing as accepting all claims of miracles.
@pedertyve Hume did not argue against the occurrence of miracles, he argued against the IDENTIFICATION of miracles, he claimed that one could never be rational to believe that a miracle has occurred, since miracles are by definition rare improbable events, a alternative explanation would always be more probable since miracles are by definition highly improbable. Ehrman was using this same type of reasoning which has been thoroughly refuted. Craig pointed all this out in the debate.
@cravenns Btw, I would really appreciate a source of some kind on Ehrman agreeing with the 4 facts. Has been some time since I watched the video, but as I remember it he doesn't come across as being in agreement. Thanks.
Isn't Craig just faffing around with figures & ideas when the brute fact of the matter is that people don't normally (to say the least) don't rise from the dead. In order to prove that someone really did this you'd have to have more than a few disperate facts woven together into a narrative.
Craig's probability analysis is bogus. First, he fails to note that the term he denotes by Y, the naturalistic probability must be a sum over all possible naturalistic scenarios. Second, he treats the *reports* of the resurrection events as though they were *facts*. The reports themselves have naturalistic explanations, as Ehrman points out. It should be called Craig's Crap Calculation.
That would have been fine...couts function on that premise everday, this doens't mean that there IS no evidence. That's a big diffence. In addition Ehrman's criteria IS NOT decided as he claims. He's making a subjective appeal...
I actually like Craig. Though I do find his position on the trinity doctrine to be down right bizarre.
I mean... were looking at a man with a very rigorous determination to all rational assessments, however... where the trinity is concerned he sets aside said diligence in exchange for a rather weak set of criterion.
The issue only gets compounded as the doctrine in question is nowhere to be found within the covers of the bible let alone worthy of being called holy in any way shape of form.
"I see no reason why one cannot INFER that Jesus rose from the dead." Inference is hope, not proof. Craig is making a sophomoric philosophical error. He is the one making the assertion that Jesus DID arise from the dead. All that Ehrman is saying is that there is no conclusive evidence for this - only relative probabilities, and that the evidence dictates a very LOW probability.
At 3:06 Craig says that Ehrman's wish list for historical evidence is too ideal as to be practically irrelevant to work of practicing historians...it's only purpose is psychological, to set the bar so high that the gospels "appear" to fall short. He says no sources for ancient history measure up to this wish list.
Ehrman never said they did. That's why Ehrman said we can only establish a "degree of confidence."
But Ehrman isn't making extraordinary claims based on flimsy evidence - Craig is!
What about those inconsistencies that William Lane Craig wants you to ignore?
The claim is that the Bible is "God Breathed"....that God inspired the writing of the Bible and therefore it is without error.
Those inconsistencies are errors. We must hold God to a very high standard if indeed he inspired the writing as is claimed. The errors point to the fact that the gospels are the fictional work of fallible men.
God Breathed =/= God Dictated. This is seen throughout the Bible as every book shows the personality of the author all the way back to Genesis. That's why it's called "inspiration". The fact that the details vary actually argues for the truth of the core of the story. If these guys were collaborating with the intent to deceive, wouldn't the accounts be nearly identical? The differences show their independence.
It is very evident to even someone under a "God Delusion" that the Gospels all follow the same "outline" in telling the story. In many instances in the synoptic gospels they are "word for word."
But the gospels vary in the details of each periscope. The evidence is that Luke and Matthew are edits of Mark, and John is a new and improved update of Mark.
1. We're not talking about the whole of the gospels here. We're talking about the narratives of the last week of Jesus' life, which most scholars agree were the main purpose of writing the gospels and the first parts of the story to be put to papyrus.
2. The "evidence" for your point is very scant and not at all agreed upon. In fact, there is evidence that Matthew was written first. And John doesn't follow anyone's outline.
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.
The son of his mother and not his father was a bastard. So Matthew edited this verse to correct Mark's candor.
The first night that Jesus' body was in the tomb, the tomb was unguarded, because the Jewish Priests did not approach Pilate about a guard until the next day.[Matthew 27:62-66]
Jesus was buried with 75 lbs of valuable spices [myrrh]. Isn't it more probable that thieves removed the corpse for the spices, and replaced the stone to hide their theft. Or do you believe it is more probable that Jesus resurrected?
it is a very negative word indeed. for example, it wouldn't be nice to go back in time and curse all the people who think the earth is flat as delusional. but they are wrong. if aliens come to us from the future and prove to us that the earth is a donut, we were just wrong, not really delusional, were we?
right or wrong, surely no one can deny that Craig is highly intelligent and well spoken. And also that he means well. So where does that leave us? That he is either delusional or he isn't. I'll just say that I don't think he is.
I don't like that word delusion either, being used in religious matters with people of faith. it is coarse, if not even rude.
need to refute existence of god before showing miracles are low...that's fair but it works the other way too. theists (or deists) need to prove the existence of god to show that miracles, despite the contrary in which everybody else experiences life, is actually not impossibly unlikely.
religion is the one making the assumption of god. science observes, thus far, no god.
i notice religious people usually do not understand circular arguments. teach them this and watch religion vanish.
Ehrman's argument amounts to "I am a historian and history shows that miracles are improbably therefore Jesus did not rise from the dead." Craig does a great job refuting him showing in order to refute Christ's resurrection you need to refute the existence of God. If God exists then the supernatural is not improbable. This is Hume's same lame argument which has been refuted time and time again. Yawn! As usual the atheist who post know little about metaphysics and less about philosophy.
Except you have fallen for WLC shifting the burden of proof. In order to posit that JC's resurrection is probable you need to proove God exists.
Furthermore, using WLC's own mathematical representation of probability it further suggests the resurrection was incredibly unlikely as Ehrman pointed out there are more probable explanations (this is the denominator WLC discussed). Even with God's existence I would argue that Ehrman's grave robber scenario is more likely.
"In order to posit that JC's resurrection is probable you need to proove God exists."
This suggests that all observed evidence must be explained by phenomena that can be directly observed or attested. In order to establish the existence of anything without refute, one would need to posit the hypothesis against empirical observations of the alleged cause.
Unfortunately, such observations are rare for many hypotheses: gravity is one example. One does not have to prove gravity exists first.
True, JC rising from the dead does not in itself suggest God exists. I think my point was in relation to the existence of God being a premise of WLC's argument that was not supported in this debate.
In Craig's argument of the resurrection being intrinsically improbable I find one giant flaw. There is not, or has never been, any evidence of anything supernatural. Simply claiming something that completely defies everything we know about the world around us is not a sound argument. The idea is laughable to take seriously.
No your comments are flawed. Dr. Craig adequately refuted David Hume and Ehrman. You obviously don't understand the argument because you just repeated Erhman's logical fallacy and then went on to commit an ad-hominem fallacy. LOL!
This has been flagged as spam show
I think Craig is confused about what his probability equation is actually saying. Craig is solving for the probability that any person would have actually 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 probabality were 1 in a billion (think about it), a 0.01% chance of a false alarm would give you an overall probability of 0.000998990021088679%.
InductionRules 1 week ago
William Lane Craig is definatly a very very skilled debator. He may be pretty sneaky in his arguments. Honestly I'm not smart enough to tell.
pplus0440 1 month ago
Probability calculus really ?? no wonder Craig thinks the Fine Tuning Argument is a good argument. He is just to easily impressed by unbelieveably bogus probability calculations.
EisEisBaby 1 month ago
@EisEisBaby lol you dismiss 100 years of philosophical arguments because you don't want to believe him? or do you have an actual argument?
pplus0440 1 month ago
@pplus0440
Craig wouldn't know philosophy if it smacked him in the face. I don't care what his qualifications are, very very few philosophers agree with him and I can't understand why people think he is good. He reminds me of a dodgy salesman, show enough confidence in your product and you can sell anything to anyone. Well I see right through his crap, his arguments are highly polished turds.
pezzamange 2 weeks ago
Craig is right , Bart's position is self refuting! Haha
CyprusHot 1 month ago
Comment removed
CyprusHot 1 month ago
The problem with most biblical historians is their christian bias and covert apologetics, I think if more skeptical historians and secular students took up theology we might get a better view.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 1 month ago
If WLC uses probability to prove Jesus resurection is fact then whats to say Joseph Smith finding golden tablets or speaking to god didnt happen. He would have to conciede all other religions have the same probability of divine accounts happening in thier sources.
mrsaizy 2 months ago
So according to WLC, the resurrection is probable, as long as you believe in magic.
punnet2 2 months ago
So much bloviation...
riaamaan 3 months ago
I feel the use of mathematical probability (those so very impressive looking formulae), to lend weight to his motion that jesus was resurrected from the dead, was actually an exercise in garnering credibility for himself by posing as a logical or scientific thinker.
AllyWheels 4 months ago
I like the fact that Craig doesn't put numbers to his equations to really give a good idea of probabilities. I think that he does this for the simple reason that it is impossible to assign a value for the probability that he is asking for or using.
huntmatuk 4 months ago
WLC uses Bayes Theorem to make the argument from ignorance sound good. Entertaining.
Sure, Dr. Craig: *if* you were able to consider *every* naturalistic alternative (we can't) and *if* you were able to determine their relative probabilities (we can't) then MAYBE you could push "he came back from the dead supernaturally" to a higher probability. But again, we can't do these things. Yours is, essentially, a fancy version of the argument "you can't prove it didn't happen, so it did."
philosofrenzy 4 months ago
Comment removed
philosofrenzy 4 months ago
WLC @ 5.39 "that is incredible"
Took the words out of my mouth you pseudo intellectual tit.
1878EFC2008 5 months ago
Finally, he leverages the philosophical expertise of John Ehrman to "prove" his contention that Bart Erhman is commiting a "mathematical fallacy" by not endorsing the superiority of the resurrection hypothesis, insinuating either irrationality or lack of integrity. John Ehrman, as well..."Not a believer but an agnostic." At least the two Ehrman's fall on the same side of "irrationality", leaving Craig to triumph alone.
MultiSimplify 5 months ago
Cont...
...naturalistic explanations for such claims are the only alternatives given the agreed upon presupposition i.e. Craig's assertion that this formula will calculate naturalistic probability. In the end, as Ehrman has stated, Craig's is a theological argument and can only gain a foothold if God is assumed to be part of the equation. If excluded, my own calculation puts Pr(R) at about 0.0000000000000000000000001. Assuming a naturalistic background, does anyone here think otherwise?
MultiSimplify 5 months ago
Craig argues that the formula will generate the naturalistic probability for the Resurrection, then seeks to reverse such by smuggling the existence of God into the background knowledge of the equation. His "E" is, additionally problematic, in that he assumes factual post-mortem appearances as part of his established evidentiary base, thus begging the question. "Claims to such appearances" is how he should conceptualize it. When such claims are assessed against a naturalistic background...
MultiSimplify 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
Craig is forgetting one crucial factor on which all his assertions in favor of the Resurrection hinge.
He must prove that human beings of the 1st century were incapable of embellishment, exaggeration, and lying. Modern humans aren't...why should the apostles be any exception?
And just because the supernatural can't be disproved, where is his evidence giving Christianity exclusivity to the supernatural. Where is his evidence that it has its origins in the supernatural? I have yet to hear any.
sammy2trees 6 months ago
"God raised Jesus from the dead"
I would be more inclined to keep my silence if William Craig stated "Jesus raised himself from the dead" Isn't Jesus, God himself? Or maybe Jesus was incompetent so God has to do it. If the latter was the case, then Jesus is not God himself. Oh wait... I forgot about the concept of TRINITY in Christianity. It is a common belief in the Christian domain that the devil can also raise dead people (I am just raising consciousness).
SEEANDPEA 6 months ago
Comment removed
SEEANDPEA 6 months ago
@666Infantryman
""Historians can't say that God's existence is improbable""
No, Craig, you dishonest bastard. You can't place the burden of proof on Erhman's shoulders.
I hereby tell you to demonstrate that the Invisible Pink Unicorn does not exist. Good luck.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
Calculus to support claims of human interaction with the supernatural??
Oh man, if there was ever an example of someone desperately reaching, this has to be it! The default position when it comes to matters of the supernatural is to humbly say "I don't know." Even if Craig could prove we are the products of the supernatural, He still has a looooooong way to go before he can ever demonstrate a plausible link between Christianity and the supernatural.
TryTheRedPill 7 months ago
Here is my Bayer probability about WLC.
what Is the probability that WLC will lie to obfuscate facts? let us call it:
P (wlc | h)
wlc = probability he normally tells the truth when expresing his positions.
h = probability that he will accept a fact.
wlc = infinitesimally small, because empirical evidence show that every debater consider him a liar.
h = also very small, since every debate shows that he is ideologically driven to lie.
P = 100%.
a complete certainty.
JerezJulio 7 months ago
Ehrman is a deceiving coward.
I watched just now a lecture of his, wherein he completely refuses to acknowledge the Pauline epistles as historically reliable. What's more, he tricks the audience of laymen by saying that the first Pauline mention of the resurrection was in 1 Corinthians, which is false, the resurrection is explicitly mentioned in his much earlier epistle 1 Thessalonians.
Dr. Craig wins, and has won every debate I have seen him in.
R0FLLWAFFL3 7 months ago
@R0FLLWAFFL3
What video does Ehrman say this in?
And you do realize he is not deceiving if he thinks 1 Thessalonians is not authentic, right? I mean by the rules of logic, whether or not you think he is right about the authorship of 1 Thess, if he thinks Paul didn't write it, then he isn't a deceiver. He thinks Corinthians is authentic, hence he says its the first time Paul mentions it.
If you can't grasp that fundamental level of logic, I wouldn't take your word on who "wins" debates.
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333
But the curious thing is that 1 Thessalonians is one of the only undeniable texts written by Paul, it is completely undisputed, why don't you take the time to look that up yourself before insulting my rationality please. Scholars can justly consider some other letters as spurious (e.g. ephesians, colossians, 1 & 2 tim) but 1 & 2 Thessalonians are absolutely and unassailably written by St. Paul of Tarsus.
Learn the facts before you can insult my logic.
R0FLLWAFFL3 6 months ago
@R0FLLWAFFL3 You did not say where he says this, you did not answer my following question.
Answer the question and let's see how your logic works. I didn't insult your logic, I said "if this will be your answer, that's bad logic". So answer the question.
And don't tell me to learn something before I insult your logic, when ironically I didn't even do that. Learn to read.
I asked: Where does he say that - no answer
I asked, "you do realize If x-->y? because if you don't..." - no answer
AR333 6 months ago
@AR333
Where does Paul say that? Or where does Ehrman say that? In the latter case I'm afraid I forgot, but he was giving a lecture at a church in it, with a TV behind him, look up 'Bart Ehrman' and you should get it somewhere. For Paul saying that consult Galatians 1 & Philippians 3 & more.
And apparently you didn't insult my logic by saying 'If you can't grasp that fundamental level of logic, I wouldn't take your word on who "wins" debates.' then I don't know what an insult is.
R0FLLWAFFL3 6 months ago
@R0FLLWAFFL3 "'If you can't grasp that fundamental level of logic, I wouldn't take your word on who "wins" debates.' then I don't know what an insult is." Read the preceding statement. If I said "if you can't understand what 2 + 2 is, you don't know basic math" it's not an insult if the antecedent is false. Read the antecedent and tell me if you agree with it or not - third time I ask.
And I clearly asked where does Ehrman say that. If you're going to say he tricks people, you better have a ref
AR333 6 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@R0FLLWAFFL3
"he completely refuses to acknowledge the Pauline epistles as historically reliable."
Paul's writing are not evidence for the existence of Jesus. Paul even admitted himself that he did not meet Jesus in person.
"Dr. Craig wins, and has won every debate I have seen him in."
When it comes to facts and evidence, Craig ALWAYS loses. All he does is repeat that what he says must be true because "Magic Man Dunnit!". That's only convincing to an audience who believes that anyway.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I would suggest you first familiarize yourself with Paul before you say he never met Jesus (or said he met Jesus), in fact, he said he did, but that is totally irrelevant to my point. Paul represents the first EXTANT Christian thinker, and he was intimately close with the apostles. Now, I would like to ask you how the Jesus 'myth' came into being. Who invented the 'myth'?
R0FLLWAFFL3 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@R0FLLWAFFL3
"in fact, he said he did"
Yes, Paul "met" Jesus in a hallucination.
"Paul represents the first EXTANT Christian thinker, and he was intimately close with the apostles."
So he claimed. Of course, it's more likely he was nuts.
"Now, I would like to ask you how the Jesus 'myth' came into being. "
Just like any other myth, by people telling each other stories that get ever more embellished.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Did the apostles invent the myth? Why yes of course that seems logical, seeing as all (except John) were brutally murdered for preaching the Gospel. What motives did they have? Wealth? Power? The two things they eschewed for themselves, embracing destitution, persecution and torturous deaths to further a made up fable and they themselves knew it to be false? Then who else made up the Jesus myth? Perhaps Paul, but wait! He was imprisoned and beheaded for the Gospel. Hmmmm...
R0FLLWAFFL3 6 months ago
@R0FLLWAFFL3
"Did the apostles invent the myth?"
Did the apostles even exist?
"embracing destitution, persecution and torturous deaths to further a made up fable and they themselves knew it to be false?"
Adherents of other religions also died for their beliefs, so according to this logic their convictions must have merit too.
"Then who else made up the Jesus myth? "
The myth is the result of a long process of storytelling tradition, just like most other religions.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
YES the apostles absolutely existed, no-one doubts their existence (after all we do have the bodies of more than a few), and yes many other religions have people dying for them, but NOT their founders, Jesus and his apostles died, Muhammed & Buddha built up empires and were worshipped, not crucified upside down like Peter. "Long process of storytelling" please, do yourself a favour and learn something before opening your mouth. Study history before you can teach it.
R0FLLWAFFL3 6 months ago
@R0FLLWAFFL3
"YES the apostles absolutely existed,"
SO you claim. Please point to any extra-Biblical sources confirming this.
"yes many other religions have people dying for them, but NOT their founders"
The apostles didn't found Christianity. Paul did. And even if they did your argument is pretty stupid.
"Jesus "
What? I thought that guy was resurrected three days later. At least get your own story straight!
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Ok there "Paul" founded Christianity.
As to extra-Biblical sources I'd invite you to check out Livy, Tacitus & Josephus.
You keep asking the questions, but you still havent answered mine: "Who then, invented Christianity if neither Jesus nor his apostles nor Paul did?
I simply refuse to argue with someone who has no knowledge of history and the Bible, but claims to attack the Bible using history.
Bloody idiotic if you ask me. Read something, pick up a bloody book then talk.
R0FLLWAFFL3 6 months ago
@R0FLLWAFFL3
"Livy, Tacitus & Josephus."
Tacitus and Josephus were not contemporaries. Jospehus' passage about Christ is likely even a forgery.
And even though Livy was a contemporary of Christ, he had absolutely nothing to say about him. Curious.
"Who then, invented Christianity"
I DID answer it. The base of Christianity is the same as of any other religion: oral tradition and stories that got ever more embellished.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@R0FLLWAFFL3
"no knowledge of history and the Bible"
Even with all the knowledge in the world you still have no evidence for the existence of your god. I told you: even if I would grant you Jesus and all of his "miracles", you'd still be empty-handed. Millions of people claim that Sai Baba is performing miracles RIGHT NOW, and he never even makes the news.
Plus, why would an omnipotent being communicate with its creation by means of a book filled with holes and vague passages?
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer I'm no longer going to pursue this argument, you have shown yourself to be completely naif in History and biblical scholarship by denying the apostles, misquoting Paul, and by exhibiting a general lack of knowledge. I would be glad to continue this debate with someone who had a mind behind their blabbering mouth.
My Church feeds the hungry, clothes the poor, treats the sick, gives hope to the abandoned and guides the lost. What does your church do?
R0FLLWAFFL3 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@R0FLLWAFFL3
"I'm no longer going to pursue this argument"
No surprise, seeing how you got utterly destroyed. Failing to answer any question and stomping your feet, shouting "Is so! IS SO!" does not constitute any kind of argument.
"you have shown yourself to be completely naif in History and biblical scholarship"
Translation: "How dare you to formulate valid critiques I cannot answer! I'm a BELIEVER and above silliness like reason and knowledge!"
You're pathetic.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@R0FLLWAFFL3
"I would be glad to continue this debate with someone who had a mind behind their blabbering mouth."
And yet another theists runs off with his tail between his legs. Stage, exit left!
"What does your church do?"
And yet another Christian who thinks that Churches are the only ones doing charity. Will their arrogance ever stop?
Besides, this has NOTHING to do with the veracity of the Bible. But of course you know that.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
@R0FLLWAFFL3 i do all those things without a church
lordrazr 6 months ago
Somehow the only way to tell Craig's debates apart ist by looking at his opponents. He keeps arguing the same things over and over again, including his incorrect definition of atheism.
ThePixel1983 8 months ago
YES! The probability of somebody coming back from the dead is almost zero. I completely agree with that. But thats the damn point isn't it? If people coming back from the dead were an everyday occurence then it wouldn't really matter if Jesus came back from the dead to show us that we can conquer sin and death through him. I agree that the resurrection was a one time in history event.
AegeanKing 8 months ago
@AegeanKing
"it wouldn't really matter if Jesus came back from the dead to show us that we can conquer sin and death through him"
Actually, in the Bible a lot of other people got raised from the dead too, but nobody thought those cases were that special. Being raised from the dead seemed to be a bit of a banality.
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
And by the way, the proper use of the transitive verb " commit" does not apply to fallacies. You can say a statement is fallacious or say that an argument is a fallacy, but you can't "commit" a fallacy. A high school education would be nice before arguing philosophy.
blublu451 8 months ago
@blublu451, thanks for the tip asshole. At least I learned something.
naejimba 8 months ago
@naejimba You are most certainly welcome. Educating ignorants is my mission in life.
blublu451 8 months ago
@blublu451, ignorant? Your arrogance is quite annoying. You go as far to imply that I have not received a high school education... based off the fact that I committed (har har har) a gramatical error. Unless I'm mistaken, this is the only critique you have offered of my comments (much was written a year ago and a good portion of my arguments have since been refined)... meaning instead of offering a meaningful critique you merely insult. The worst part is you know full well that if this is (cont)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont) the only argument offered, not only have you thrown a red herring in the middle of the conversation, but you would also throw an ad hominem on the end. You know better. Oh, BTW, I was not offered philosophy until college, although I was only able to take one course (if I remember correctly) and most of what I know about the subject is what I have attempted to learn on my own. You know the whole point I bother posting is because I learn things? It's kind of the point. I believe it (cont 2)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont 2) was shakespeare who wrote that "the fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool." If I could get you to step off your high horse for two seconds, maybe you just might learn something too. I will tell you one thing, in the long run someone who is "ignorant" of a matter but maintains a sense of humility will get much farther in the search for truth than a pompous, self-righteous ass.
naejimba 8 months ago
@naejimba My mentioning your faulty use of the English language was to give some context to the extent of your education. The fact that you don't understand how language is used makes anyone doubt you understand the arguments. You DID NOT come up with arguments or read anything I wrote. Incoherent ramblings do not constitute an argument. As to ignorance.... I am just stating a fact. Definition.."lack of knowledge, information, or education; the state of being ignorant" Learn that asshole.
blublu451 8 months ago
@blublu451, here is the difference between you and I. I would (and did) readily admit that I was incorrect, while you attempt to maintain that you did not just present two fallacious arguments. Let me explain how weak your argument is btw. The definition of "commit" is: "To do, perform, or perpetrate." The definition of the word "perpetrate" is: "To be responsible for; commit." Since you "did" something (present a fallacy) and I would say you are "responsible for" the fallacy, it is easy (cont)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont) to see from the definition of the words how one might think such a word would be appropriate to use. Your idea that this miniscule error that had NOTHING to do with any of my arguments somehow can give you ANY insight into anything else is a dangerous line of reasoning, at best. You know full well that if you were to even imply that this mistake had any influence over the validity of ANYTHING else I say it would be flawed reasoning. In short, just because the English language is (cont 2)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont 2) fucking confusing, and people sometimes are mistaken (you literally act as if you have never been in error yourself, which we both know is not true) that doesn't say jack shit about anything else I said. You got a problem with something I said? Tear it the fuck apart! I want to hear it... because I actually care if I learn something in these conversations. Your goal instead, as stated in your own words, was to "educate ignorants." Like I said most of these comments were from (cont 3)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont 3) quite a while ago and I continually attempt to challenge my own position, so tear it apart, let me refine my position if necessary and we'll see what sticks, and when I am shown to be in error this only gives me an opportunity to increase my knowledge. You, on the other hand, only see yourself as "educating" those around you who you obviously assume are less knowledgeable than you. Would you at least admit the possibility that I might know something you do not? If so, would it (cont 4)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont 4) not be possible that I might present information to you you have never heard, a perspective you have yet to imagine? Is it not possible, at least, that you yourself might learn something from the conversation? If so, why do you have the attitude you do? If one is not willing to admit when they are in error how the hell do you think they will be able to learn something from it? If one is so certain how can they begin to question what they think is true? If nothing else, if your (cont 5)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont 5) goal is indeed to educate, it is quite obvious that the approach you use of insulting and belittling someone interspersed with actual points is not an effective method of getting people to listen to your perspective, let alone convince them of anything. Call this an "incoherent rambling" if you will, but I still contend that a sense of humility is conducive to the search for truth. You know, the more one learns in life, the more they realize just how much they do not know. (cont 6)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont 6) This leads naturally to a sense of humility (something I have recently been trying to improve upon). You have MUCH to learn in life, as does everyone around you. If you are unwilling to admit this, you are not being intellectually honest. So, can we make a deal? If you wish to "educate" this wretched "ignorant" I will be willing to listen so long as you stop being such a fucking dick. It's goddamned childish and unnecessary.
naejimba 8 months ago
@naejimba Clearly stated "It is what is called "argumentum ad veracundiam" which is again a form of ad ignorantiam. That is an appeal to authority. Two big problems ...1) experts DON'T AGREE 2) The historical veracity of the story is not attested by extrabiblical sources.
The constantly cited Suetonius quote refers only to the existence of christians not to the existence of Christ. Even today you could find more eyewitnesses to alien abduction or the resurrection of Elvis. Again circular
blublu451 8 months ago
@blublu451, unfortunately, I have no idea what this is in reference to. Some explanation of where this quote is coming from.. or explanation of how it relates to the argument.. or even what precisely we are arguing at the moment is necessary for me to say anything meaningful. You just have to keep in mind I originally viewed and commented on these videos a year ago.
naejimba 8 months ago
@naejimba reasoning." That is the argument. It was you that started the "asshole" bit so don't try to pretend that you are humble and open to arguments. Of course everyone has something to learn, but that does not mean you learn something from everyone. My "ad hominems" were meant to be facetious not insulting, but you have a big chip on your shoulder. When YOU started insulting coming back was easy. State your arguments clearly and we can have a conversation.
blublu451 8 months ago
@blublu451, I merely called you an asshole after you implied that I had not received a high school education. Now, you claim that you did not mean this to be insulting, but I'm sure if you were talking to someone else and another person butted in simply to point out an error not in your logic or reasoning, but rather some small error that had nothing to do with the substance of the argument.. that person would probably come off as a complete dick. .. but apparently I just "have a chip (cont)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont) on my shoulder," right? Either way, that has no bearing on whether I exhibit any amount of humility (which again I will state is something I am currently attempting to improve upon) nor does it say anything about how open I am to any argument. Quite true that you do not learn something from everyone, however, I am more concerned with your elitist attitude. It would seem, from your comments, that you have no intention or desire to learn anything yourself.. at least that is how it (cont 2)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont 2) comes off when you display the sheer amount of arrogance that your original comments contained. In an unrelated note, I would like you to define your position on the subject of religion. Seems like a good place to start and I can assume nothing at this point.
naejimba 8 months ago
@naejimba Religion is pointless superstition which leads only to poisoning of the mind. All religions should no longer exist in the 21st century. Believing in bronze age middle eastern magicians as superior beings and following the rules written by semiliterate shepherds who had no idea whatsoever of what the world is really like is just plain stupid. That is why I get so worked up with people like William Lane Craig who try to give some respectability to this nonsense.
blublu451 8 months ago
@blublu451, while I agree with you entirely, I think it would be much more entertaining for both of us if at this point I played "devil's advocate." After all, if our preconceived notions are not challenged, how can we refine our arguments? One might argue that religion is not necessarily "pointless" as it does serve some function... even if one views religion as Marx does (the opium of the people) this serves some purpose. False hope could give emotional comfort. Faith can allow one to (cont)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont) one to entirely ignore cognitive dissonance. You see, religion could possibly aid as a psychological defense mechanism, the purpose of which is to protect the mind/self/ego from anxiety, social sanctions or to provide a refuge from a situation with which one cannot currently cope. I'm sure you have noted such examples in the comments of theists, as I have including: delusional projection, denial, distortion, splitting, both projection and extreme projection, idealization (cont 2)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont 2) Note that all of these are categorized as either "pathological" or "immature" defense mechanisms. Is this unhealthy? I would argue so. It is also unnecessary. Once I was having a conversation with my mother, in which she described how she was "telling all of her friends to pray" for someone who was sick. I naturally brought up the conflict between the idea of an all-knowing god who has a "plan" and purpose for everything and intercessory prayer. Essentially, if everything is (cont 3)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont 3) predetermined according to god's "perfect" plan, the prayer would have no effect on the outcome. Furthermore, the idea that the more people that prayed for this person would somehow increase the chance of her being healed, as if this would cause god to "change his mind" defies logic. Of course I also brought up the fact that numerous scientific studies have been done on intercessory prayer, and the consensus seems to be it has no effect on reality, so the empirical evidence (cont 4)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont 4) we DO have seems to show otherwise (and man, did that ever piss her off). Her response, however, surprised me. She claimed that the emotional "support" and comfort she received from prayer was more than enough to justify it. To her it serves an important function. If nothing else, throughout history religion has been used to fill gaps in knowledge... often times to people it does not matter as much if an answer is correct, so long as it serves some purpose. If you want (cont 5)
naejimba 8 months ago
(cont 5) religion to die... this must be addressed. Thoughts?
naejimba 8 months ago
@naejimba Ok, sounds like fun. False comfort is not a good or moral thing to do. Imagine a physician not telling one of his patients he has a cancer that is incurable. While the thought might make him happy he will die a deluded man, and even worse, he might not make things that will improve his health or prolong his life. Time will be wasted. The same applies for religion. It may make you happy to think that your dead mother is in heaven with the angels, and if you pray and go to church
blublu451 7 months ago
@blublu451, that is a great example.
naejimba 7 months ago
@naejimba @naejimba the singularity. Even though I found the debate between them not as devastating as I thought I would I found this link which takes you to an article which Krauss states his position in a much clearer fashion. My distaste of WLC has taken me to every debate and interview this individual has given......talk about the irony of the situation.
blublu451 7 months ago
@naejimba you will join her, but it is not true. You are going to waste your time believing moral teachings that are totally lacking morality. Reading Deuteronomy will make that clear. Marx himself followed the statement with"The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness." Which was the whole point. False bliss might feel good, but sooner or later there is a hangover. There is a more real numinous feeling in the contemplation of
blublu451 7 months ago
@blublu451, when I was a christian, my favorite book was psalms. Now that I'm not, my favorite is deuteronomy. XD
naejimba 7 months ago
@naejimba I agree totally. Why do people claim KNOWLEDGE of these events? The scientific answer to the question is I don't know. But I'd love to point you towards a fantastic conference by one of my favorite physicist, Lawrence Krauss, " A Universe from nothing" which explains how much we DO know. My ignorance in the matter of physics notwithstanding, I found that it explained things sooooo clearly that even an idiot like myself could glimpse at what science now knows about the
blublu451 7 months ago
@blublu451, I'll be sure to check that out.
naejimba 7 months ago
@naejimba the marvels of the universe and of science.......How about the often asked question... what then do you believe in? Where did everything come from? Is it all just be accident? Can't you see the hand of the creator? I ask this very difficult question because it is the ONLY question that can hold some water as it is a deist not a theist question, and it is Lane Craig's starting point for all his debates for now twenty years. Thoughts?
blublu451 7 months ago
@blublu451, "where did everything come from?" Concerning anything prior to the big bang, I would say, "I don't know... and if you're honest neither do you." Intellectually unsatisfying? Perhaps. Intellectually honest? Yes. "Is it all just [an] accident?" If we define accident as: "an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance," then yes, I see no convincing evidence that the universe was "forseen" or "planned." "Can't you see the hand of the creator?" It depends on the particular (cont)
naejimba 7 months ago
(cont) claim of god. If we are arguing for a "personal god" that interacts with the universe, then I think it is not a category error to say we could potentially have empirical evidence to support the notion. We may never be able to measure in any meaningful way anything inside a black hole. However, it would be possible to measure the black hole's effects on visable matter. Even if such a god is immaterial, it is at least POSSIBLE that we can observe the effects he/she has on matter. (cont 2)
naejimba 7 months ago
(cont) On the other hand, if we are arguing that god does not or no longer interacts with the universe, then I can't think of a way to be able to determine this.
naejimba 7 months ago
@blublu451
"And by the way, the proper use of the transitive verb " commit" does not apply to fallacies"
Yes, it does. I have no clue what side you are on or what the discussion is about, but I just couldn't let this one slide ;)
MomoTheBellyDancer 6 months ago
That is what is called "argumentum ad veracundiam" which is again a form of ad ignorantiam. That is an appeal to authority. Two big problems ...1) experts DON'T AGREE 2) The historical veracity of the story is not attested by extrabiblical sources.
The constantly cited Suetonius quote refers only to the existence of christians not to the existence of Christ. Even today you could find more eyewitnesses to alien abduction or the resurrection of Elvis. Again circular reasoning.
blublu451 8 months ago
Craig's argument about the "two different probabilities" was preempted by Ehrman specifying that miracles are the least probable explanation IN ANY GIVEN SITUATION.
PerilocutionAZ09 10 months ago
The "Jesus rose SUPERNATURALLY" thing was a moment of epic facepalmness.
infernvsnecrohag 10 months ago
Crane's conclusions are right. But he is right IF AND ONLY IF you believe in deities.
So again circular reasoning, the bible is true because it is God's word. How do you know? Because it says so in the Bible. The probability that Jesus rose naturally from the dead is very low, but SUPERNATURALLY is very high??????? Idiotic, unsophisticated arguments based on circular reasoning.
blublu451 11 months ago
@blublu451
You have committed an enormous strawman and need to stop misrepresenting the arguments. Dr. Craig's argument for the resurrection is NOT based on his belief in the Bible to be inspired because he's appealing to facts that are agreed upon by scholars who do not believe the Bible to be inspired.
"But he is right IF AND ONLY IF you believe in deities." - You are confusing the support and implications of theistic belief with the basis for his argument.
seattlefs 8 months ago
@blublu451
Furthermore, you cannot give a sound explanation for the origin of the universe nor for the reality of objective moral values. What reasons do you have for believing that atheism is true? What arguments do you have? If you redefine atheism as "lack of belief in God" then you cannot give any arguments for it. but if you cannot give arguments for it, then you cannot establish it as true! Moreover it is highly fallacious to think that if our arguments fail, that's a proof for atheism.
seattlefs 8 months ago
@seattlefs
You really don't understand atheism. It is a LACK of belief. I don't want to argue for it, because I don't need to. It is like proving that fairies don't exist. The argument is a logical fallacy ..."argumentum ad ignorantiam" that is .. a proposition is true because it can't be proven false. C'mon this is basic philosophy ... don't come up with puerile arguments to a gunfight.
blublu451 8 months ago
WLC lays out the fatal flaw of his own argument, "Jesus rose *SUPERNATURALLY* from the dead"... until he can demonstrate a reliable probability for such an unreliable effect... any and all arguments he makes to that have zero validity.
Sorry WIll, until you can point to a factual miracle and say they DO happen, you cannot point to a STORY of a miracle and say that one is probable.
bozzutoman 11 months ago
"It’s the hypothesis that Jesus rose supernaturally from the dead."
And thus the probably that Jesus rose from the dead is even lower.
"But Dr. Ehrman says that the historian cannot say anything about God. Therefore,
he cannot say that God’s existence is improbable."
True, but using common sense you *can* say God does not exists.
jimmo42 11 months ago
using god to prove god, what a fallacy
tristandelforge01 1 year ago
So... many... fallacies...
laflugantabastardo 1 year ago
Before talking about the probability of resurrection, I suggest talking about the probability of Jesus death have been 'just' after several hours (6 hrs max) on the cross... when there are surmountable records that crucified persons/criminals die slow death (3-4 days), thats the purpose of such penalty, to inflict cruel, slow death so others can learn and think twice before commit treason to romans authority.. so died after 6 hrs on the cross has small probability.. no death no resurrection...
dado0876 1 year ago
@dado0876: You ignore that in Jesus' case the crucifixion was "whipped up" quickly by the Jewish leaders, in pressuring Pilate. You also ignore that Jesus was cruelly tortured PRIOR TO being crucified, when the Roman soldiers whipped Him to a point of being nearly dead. He was so weakened by the whipping that He could not carry His cross the full distance to the hill. Furthermore, Jesus died of a broken heart, something that all the stress He endured could easily have accomplished quickly.
DouglasJBender 10 months ago
Barts blunder..lol. Craigs arguments holds up once again.
pinkhousemob 1 year ago
It seems that in this equation, Craig would like to call "y" the SET of all alternatives, and show that the COLLECTIVE set of alternatives is low; this is not sound math or logic. I am a math teacher and have taken several math logic courses.
But beyond simple math like this, at what point can you be called desperate? When you are claiming events as HISTORY and TRUTH, but your definition of truth is so dumbfounded that you must find mathematical TRICKS to justify your logic.
capoman1 1 year ago
Again I must point out Dr. Craig's "tricks." In his first equation with (x)/(x+y), if the y term becomes nearly zero, then yes the entire term nears 1 because (x)/(x+0) = x/x = 1. But we must understand that the resurrection is ONE CLAIM, and can only be compared to ONE alternative at a time using this equation. So he must show that for EVERY y, or every alternative, the probability of the resurrection is much higher than that alternative....
capoman1 1 year ago
Craig wants to argue that Jesus's resurrection was probable, if performed by god. But to show that a resurrection is probable, IN ANY FORM, supernatural, by god, natural, or any other means of resurrection someone would like to posit, you would have to argue that it has happened MORE THAN ONCE, not just in Jesus's case. So to claim something is HISTORICALLY TRUE, you must show that an event of that type has at least HAPPENED once in history!
How can anyone be convinced by Craig's nonsense???
capoman1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Can somebody give me another topic in history where accounts of such poor credibility are ever presented as evidence? The answer is simply NONE. I honestly feel insulted in case Craig expects us to not see this obvious double standard. The question is: What should our standards for evidence be so that his "evidence" can be counted credible, and if we apply the same standards everywhere else, where do we end up? The "evidence" Craig presents does not deserve credibility and begs for a privilege.
alperduru 1 year ago
Comment removed
alperduru 1 year ago
Listening to all these complicated mathematical equations makes me want to wonder why the hell I should care.
SamonMarquis 1 year ago
ok... are we all aware that Craig's claiming here that we can confirm that any event in history as long as we call it magic?
he doesn't require sources to be contemporary or consistent... pretty much anything can happen as long as you say it's "supernatural" and then it's the best explanation.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
What the hell isCraig talking about?
cjjt2000 1 year ago
Jesus was resurrected by a god and thats the only conclusion that Dr. Craig can come up with that sounds very close minded too me.
wachnathan 1 year ago
@wachnathan
not the only conclusion, just the best according to his opinion. That's where the line is between believers and non believers....just faith now.
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
@AceofDlamonds I agree.
wachnathan 1 year ago
Less than a minute into this clip, and Craig has already lost all my respect. Jesus rising naturally is impossible, but there's no problem with supernaturally?? What does that even mean? This is an apriori establishment of the efficacy of the supernatural, when the word has yet to even be defined by Craig. From what I've seen though, his definition would probably amount to a wordy equivalent of "supernatural is when god did it."
Eldritch78 1 year ago
I don't understand a word of what Craig is saying.
LovingScrubbies 1 year ago
OMG! I can hardly stand listening to Craig. He's WAY too smart and capable of deep critical thinking to really believe any of the crap he pushes on the masses! REALLY, Craig? Something Supernatural is WAY more possible than something Natural? How is a SUPERnatural resurrection way more probable? Again...the probability of something supernatural happening is extremely low simply because it is SUPERnatural, it is outside of the natural world.
khandiss80 1 year ago
@khandiss80
The problem with smart people is that they can find any kind of rationalization to support their beliefs, even if its way out there.
ImExtraGood 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Wow. 3:20 the start of his tu quoque fallacy.
AthiestJames 1 year ago
Wow. 3:20 the start of his tu quoque fallacy.
AthiestJames 1 year ago
Shorlock holmes: When you remove the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth". The mistace Crage does is to ignore the fact that many many other scenarios... applied with the same mathematical formula... would have a higher possiblity than the ressurection. To bring in god which defines everything logical will also make the logic of his formula irrelevant. So craigs argument is defeated either with or without God.
ehsanshariati 1 year ago
they actually both have some very valid points, to be perfectly honest....sounds like they're basing their assumptions on two different sets of criterion.
anddudewaslike 1 year ago
Oooh he nailed him in the balls. But Craig is wrong - if Ehreman cannot say whether the ressurection is improbable, that only means that craig wishes that he as a historian merely say: "I cannot say whether it was God or not but as a historian I can say that this is improbable" - and that is essentially what Ehreman was saying. If you talk about historical facts it is a historical debate first and foremost.
8DX 1 year ago
This probablities thing that WLC is trying to pull is a hallmark of pseudoscientific woo. You put up a bunch of numbers and then add in the factor of "god could do it!"
It's really just obfuscated circular reasoning. It's the same as the old "Jesus is really god because Jesus himself claimed to be god...YOU'RE NOT CALLIN' JESUS A LIAR, ARE YOU!?!" canard that is the main argument of most apologist con-men.
jimbrown257 1 year ago
I really don't understand why Craig is spending so much time on this Hume/probability thing when the bulk of Ehrmans argumentation surrounds the historical validity of Craigs 4 "facts"... But I guess he had prepared a script and didn't want to waste it...
pedertyve 2 years ago
@pedertyve you know, Ehrman agrees with those four facts, which is why he uses Hume's anti-miracle argument in order to dispute the interpretation of those facts.
cravenns 1 year ago
@cravenns Well, if that's true it doesn't really help. Seems like Craig has misunderstood Hume's argument. As far as I can tell, at least, Hume was arguing against the occurrence of miracles in general. The debate here is on the other hand about whether a specific event is the result of a miracle. Two very different things. One can disagree with Hume and still think that a specified event was not caused by a miracle. Accepting miracles isn't the same thing as accepting all claims of miracles.
pedertyve 1 year ago
@pedertyve Hume did not argue against the occurrence of miracles, he argued against the IDENTIFICATION of miracles, he claimed that one could never be rational to believe that a miracle has occurred, since miracles are by definition rare improbable events, a alternative explanation would always be more probable since miracles are by definition highly improbable. Ehrman was using this same type of reasoning which has been thoroughly refuted. Craig pointed all this out in the debate.
cravenns 1 year ago
@cravenns Btw, I would really appreciate a source of some kind on Ehrman agreeing with the 4 facts. Has been some time since I watched the video, but as I remember it he doesn't come across as being in agreement. Thanks.
pedertyve 1 year ago
@pedertyve In his Lecture "From Jesus to Constantine: A History of Early Christianity," Lecture 4: "oral and written traditions about jesus".
cravenns 1 year ago
Isn't Craig just faffing around with figures & ideas when the brute fact of the matter is that people don't normally (to say the least) don't rise from the dead. In order to prove that someone really did this you'd have to have more than a few disperate facts woven together into a narrative.
gextvedde 2 years ago
Craig's probability analysis is bogus. First, he fails to note that the term he denotes by Y, the naturalistic probability must be a sum over all possible naturalistic scenarios. Second, he treats the *reports* of the resurrection events as though they were *facts*. The reports themselves have naturalistic explanations, as Ehrman points out. It should be called Craig's Crap Calculation.
meekerdb 2 years ago
ha Craig I am still waiting for you to show me some actual evidence that Jesus was resurrected.
Ilikejpgs 2 years ago 2
You do realize Craig's a philosopher right?
SmalltimR 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Ilikejpgs
"ha Craig I am still waiting for you to show me some actual evidence that Jesus was resurrected."
Tell us what this "actual evidence" should be, given that apparently the entire discipline of historical scholarship isn't enough to satisfy you.
Birdieupon 2 years ago
Ehrman should NEVER use his probability argument again...it's a roasted duck waiting to be sliced!
PastorBurnett 2 years ago
I agree.
He would have been better off simply stating that he didn't find the evidence compelling enough to satisfy a positive conclusion.
SmalltimR 2 years ago
That would have been fine...couts function on that premise everday, this doens't mean that there IS no evidence. That's a big diffence. In addition Ehrman's criteria IS NOT decided as he claims. He's making a subjective appeal...
PastorBurnett 2 years ago
I irony of William Lane Craig is that he sets out to prove his belief, where Jesus preached that faith is the virtue that drives Christianity.
Craig is a good debater, but I do not like him at all.
woody198900 2 years ago
I actually like Craig. Though I do find his position on the trinity doctrine to be down right bizarre.
I mean... were looking at a man with a very rigorous determination to all rational assessments, however... where the trinity is concerned he sets aside said diligence in exchange for a rather weak set of criterion.
The issue only gets compounded as the doctrine in question is nowhere to be found within the covers of the bible let alone worthy of being called holy in any way shape of form.
SmalltimR 2 years ago
"I see no reason why one cannot INFER that Jesus rose from the dead." Inference is hope, not proof. Craig is making a sophomoric philosophical error. He is the one making the assertion that Jesus DID arise from the dead. All that Ehrman is saying is that there is no conclusive evidence for this - only relative probabilities, and that the evidence dictates a very LOW probability.
daleshankins 2 years ago 2
At 3:06 Craig says that Ehrman's wish list for historical evidence is too ideal as to be practically irrelevant to work of practicing historians...it's only purpose is psychological, to set the bar so high that the gospels "appear" to fall short. He says no sources for ancient history measure up to this wish list.
Ehrman never said they did. That's why Ehrman said we can only establish a "degree of confidence."
But Ehrman isn't making extraordinary claims based on flimsy evidence - Craig is!
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
What about those inconsistencies that William Lane Craig wants you to ignore?
The claim is that the Bible is "God Breathed"....that God inspired the writing of the Bible and therefore it is without error.
Those inconsistencies are errors. We must hold God to a very high standard if indeed he inspired the writing as is claimed. The errors point to the fact that the gospels are the fictional work of fallible men.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago 5
God Breathed =/= God Dictated. This is seen throughout the Bible as every book shows the personality of the author all the way back to Genesis. That's why it's called "inspiration". The fact that the details vary actually argues for the truth of the core of the story. If these guys were collaborating with the intent to deceive, wouldn't the accounts be nearly identical? The differences show their independence.
CMoesta 2 years ago
It is very evident to even someone under a "God Delusion" that the Gospels all follow the same "outline" in telling the story. In many instances in the synoptic gospels they are "word for word."
But the gospels vary in the details of each periscope. The evidence is that Luke and Matthew are edits of Mark, and John is a new and improved update of Mark.
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
1. We're not talking about the whole of the gospels here. We're talking about the narratives of the last week of Jesus' life, which most scholars agree were the main purpose of writing the gospels and the first parts of the story to be put to papyrus.
2. The "evidence" for your point is very scant and not at all agreed upon. In fact, there is evidence that Matthew was written first. And John doesn't follow anyone's outline.
3. The word is "pericope", not "periscope".
CMoesta 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Mark 6:3
"Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of James and Joses and Judas and Simon? Are not His sisters here with us?" And they took offense at Him.
The son of his mother and not his father was a bastard. So Matthew edited this verse to correct Mark's candor.
Matthew 13:55
"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary, and His brothers, James and Joseph and Simon and Judas?
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
So what exactly "would" lead you to conclude that the book is mythical. If you say nothing, you simply destroy your own credibility.
fusedchromosome 2 years ago
The first night that Jesus' body was in the tomb, the tomb was unguarded, because the Jewish Priests did not approach Pilate about a guard until the next day.[Matthew 27:62-66]
Jesus was buried with 75 lbs of valuable spices [myrrh]. Isn't it more probable that thieves removed the corpse for the spices, and replaced the stone to hide their theft. Or do you believe it is more probable that Jesus resurrected?
Come on be honest!
Ebal the Atheist
ebaltrace 2 years ago
you know what they say:
when it's one person, it's delusional.
when it's a lot, it's religious.
it is a very negative word indeed. for example, it wouldn't be nice to go back in time and curse all the people who think the earth is flat as delusional. but they are wrong. if aliens come to us from the future and prove to us that the earth is a donut, we were just wrong, not really delusional, were we?
matthewpng 2 years ago
right or wrong, surely no one can deny that Craig is highly intelligent and well spoken. And also that he means well. So where does that leave us? That he is either delusional or he isn't. I'll just say that I don't think he is.
I don't like that word delusion either, being used in religious matters with people of faith. it is coarse, if not even rude.
peacewalker7 2 years ago
oh, so let me just throw in Hitchen's quote on Laplace.
In response to why god was not included in his heliocentric theory of the universe:
"I had no need of that hypothesis"
matthewpng 2 years ago
need to refute existence of god before showing miracles are low...that's fair but it works the other way too. theists (or deists) need to prove the existence of god to show that miracles, despite the contrary in which everybody else experiences life, is actually not impossibly unlikely.
religion is the one making the assumption of god. science observes, thus far, no god.
i notice religious people usually do not understand circular arguments. teach them this and watch religion vanish.
matthewpng 2 years ago
Ehrman has to smuggle in a naturalistic view of the resurrection in order to fit with his pre-conceived outcome. Poor scholarship fella!
hairychest45 2 years ago
Ehrman's argument amounts to "I am a historian and history shows that miracles are improbably therefore Jesus did not rise from the dead." Craig does a great job refuting him showing in order to refute Christ's resurrection you need to refute the existence of God. If God exists then the supernatural is not improbable. This is Hume's same lame argument which has been refuted time and time again. Yawn! As usual the atheist who post know little about metaphysics and less about philosophy.
doggysector 2 years ago
Except you have fallen for WLC shifting the burden of proof. In order to posit that JC's resurrection is probable you need to proove God exists.
Furthermore, using WLC's own mathematical representation of probability it further suggests the resurrection was incredibly unlikely as Ehrman pointed out there are more probable explanations (this is the denominator WLC discussed). Even with God's existence I would argue that Ehrman's grave robber scenario is more likely.
anwyll 2 years ago 4
"In order to posit that JC's resurrection is probable you need to proove God exists."
This suggests that all observed evidence must be explained by phenomena that can be directly observed or attested. In order to establish the existence of anything without refute, one would need to posit the hypothesis against empirical observations of the alleged cause.
Unfortunately, such observations are rare for many hypotheses: gravity is one example. One does not have to prove gravity exists first.
sueandthehufflepuffs 2 years ago
True, JC rising from the dead does not in itself suggest God exists. I think my point was in relation to the existence of God being a premise of WLC's argument that was not supported in this debate.
anwyll 2 years ago
In Craig's argument of the resurrection being intrinsically improbable I find one giant flaw. There is not, or has never been, any evidence of anything supernatural. Simply claiming something that completely defies everything we know about the world around us is not a sound argument. The idea is laughable to take seriously.
naejimba 2 years ago 10
No your comments are flawed. Dr. Craig adequately refuted David Hume and Ehrman. You obviously don't understand the argument because you just repeated Erhman's logical fallacy and then went on to commit an ad-hominem fallacy. LOL!
doggysector 2 years ago