@CyprusHot No, actually Bart is a very good historian. You're simply upset because the truth has planted doubt in your conscience, doubt that your supposed savior really rose from the dead. You'll do anything to block the doubt even insult a historian who has the CREDENTIALS and has spent 30 years studying the NT and greco roman times. You're comment is immature, it fails, and it has ZERO evidence to support your pathetic claim.
Dr. Craig avoids all of Ehrman's questions, and keeps repeating the straw man arguments he's positioned for the debate. Once you get outside his straw man arguments he has nothing. He's a very articulate speaker...what he says sounds good, but there is no substance. Ehrman nails him at the end of the debate. He's an evangelist who's trying to pretty up the message and make it sound scientific and historical, but fails at every point.
Trying to "prove" the resurrection by math, history, or anything else that is tangible is pointless. You can only believe in religion by faith. There is no evidence for the events portrayed in the bible. If you believe the bible to be true and inerrant then you believe that "God" drowned every living creature (babies, mommies, and daddies) when he flooded the earth and saved only Noah, his family, and the animals two by two.
@sundude5 Yet, many scientists agree there was a world flood and many catastrophic events in our world's history that killed millions of people. If God does not exist, the forces of nature must be as evil/bad etc etc
Craig got cornered, danced in circles and dodged the shit out of key questions. Once this tool realized he was in debate with an actual historian, he tried to take the argument and the ball out of the "historian's" court and pretty much stayed on defense. Evasiveness... its Craig's best weapon.
He does this in every debate. When he loses ground he starts this, "He has failed to PROVE a miracle DIDN'T happen, so I win" shit. But HE is the one making the CLAIM!
@Shadowofcreation Ehrman is not a historian at all. Check out wikipedia on him he says he is a historian but he is not. Bart Ehrman has said the New testament clearly claims Jesus is God so he destroys himself. Bart was on a radio show and admitted it lol. So sorry bro you mad? It's over. Bart has admitted it on audio. Go to reasonablefaith . o r g And you can hear it on the podcast there.
@shockofgod "he says he is a historian but he is not"
He says he is a historian and he is an historian. He "does" actually have a phd.
" Bart Ehrman has said the New testament clearly claims Jesus is God so he destroys himself"
I'm going to skip the part where I assume you are brain dead or malfunctioning, but how does this destroy Bart Ehrman? Ehrman is the leading intellectual voice on the time of Christ in the new testament.
I've seen your other troll posts. You aren't a bright person.
The only way to miss that WLC won this debate is to be ignorant of the structure. Combine that with how vanishingly little people know about the study of MSS evidence and epistemology. Ehrman plays dodge ball with references to marginalized traditions and loads of embarrassingly less provable speculation. Nearly every argument Ehrman gave, but certainly the underlying logic, has been used by holocaust deniers: redefining the terms "history" and "evidence," hallucination, Jewish conspiracy, etc.
So why did WLC debate an erudite historian on the historicity of the resurrection? He is a hugely intelligent man and must have been able to anticipate that he could never 'win' the debate.
I think that he is an excellent obscurantist and obfuscator, who by muddying the waters, hopes to achieve a draw.He also then adds another respectable name to his resume and some reflected credibilty. no wonder Dawkins refuses to debate with him.
@HellRehab No, muslims kill for their faith as directed in their quran... Anyway, the disciples didn't believe he was who Jesus said he was. After seeing his resurrection, they all died martyrs deaths and John was boiled alive. If I was lying, I dont think i'd let myself be boiled alive, I think i'd recant....Unless I saw it like John and his disciples did. Oh, yeah, and his own family worshipped him as God. Dont suppress the truth....
Once in a great while I get a comment from a theist that deserves some kind of an award.
I wrote "muslims die for their faith." You responded with "No, muslims kill for their faith." These two statements aren't in contradiction. Moreover, both statements could be applied to Christians.
William Lane Craig believes in demon possessed pigs as part of the historical record. (matthew 8:32) He believes in the historicity of the bible. This is all a rational person needs to know of Craig.
@HellRehab You (An Atheist) believe that the whole universe just somehow happened and you understand this and understand there is no future for human existence YET you still attach meaning to every decision you do in life such as going to university or getting a job yet your whole entire life is an accident and futile...and you call Craig irrational? YOU FOOL
I was criticizing Craig's beliefs. You can feel free to weigh in on Craig's belief in "demon-pigs" if you want. The subject is Erhman and Craig, not you or me. But thanks for the insult. Was that "christian love?"
@HellRehab A father cant teach his son by being nice all the time, but the son still knows the fathers love...just as i called you a fool doesn't change my love for any human being, including you. You criticize Craig's beliefs, christian beliefs, my beliefs so i criticize yours and trust me if you experienced christian love you would know there is a god, because no other motivation can change people to be so freely truly caring.
I'm not calling you a fool, I'm quoting you. I avoid name calling. That's why I'm trying to stick to the subject. Craig's beliefs, vs. Erhman's beliefs. Got it?
"no other motivation can change people to be so freely truly caring." (quoting you again.) Do "truly caring" people post insults such as "YOU FOOL" in all caps in YouTube boxes? I'm puzzled.
@tublet13 You (a Christian Theist) believes that the whole universe was designed with just YOU in mind and understand by shirking responsibility through human sacrifice, you'll get a heavenly reward and yet you still live your life when you could just end it and enjoy eternal bliss instead of enduring exams and getting job. Your whole life is planned, making you an object in a cruel experiment, whereby you are created sick and commanded to be well.
@FryderykFChopin You (A Person with no understanding of christian doctrine)
-Human sacrafice itself doesn't give you a reward, the claim is Jesus (god) died for humanity to give eternal life..
- The funny thing is no one wants to die, thats what God wants to give eternal life so you live forever, so even if i die, I LIVE., but you my friend have absolutely no reason but your own delusion to keep on living.
- People arent puppets of god's hand thats not christian belief...
@tublet13 You have not even addressed my question. Why live, when you could enjoy eternal bliss right now. So are you claiming Jesus wasn't human? Well to most Christians, thats blasphemous. They play on the paradoxical idea that Jesus is 100% flesh and 100% divine. So I think I am perfectly justified to say that Christianity is based on human or if you want, god sacrifice. 'Go read a book'. Thanks for the advice but unlike you, truly 'a man of one book', I do read books.
@FryderykFChopin The answer is (for me anyways) the bible teaches to preach the word of Jesus and to live your life glorifying and praising god (Not to kill yourself) thats why i choose to live, but you have no reason to live the only question you must answer is why not commit suicide..so please tell me..why shouldn't you? without giving a superficial answer to life.
I believe Jesus is 100% man and god i never denied that, the fact is any human being wouldn't do it had to be god in human form.
@tublet13 So to supervise this 'life', is installed a celestial dictatorship which is greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk and swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. However, let no one say there's no cure: salvation is offered, redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties.
@FryderykFChopin Nice job quoting Christopher Hitchens im guessing you share his uneducated christian and emotional point of view on Christianity as well so im not going to begin with this.
@tublet13 'Why would I not commit suicide'? Well I think there is a distinction between two views here. I do not accept that my life needs to have a cosmic significance for it to matter. Just because it all ends up the same (or not) doesn't mean that it doesn't really matter. This also happens to be my favorite part about Christianity. I am so humble and so modest but the whole universe was designed for me, God himself has a mission for me and died for me. Only now is there a reason to live.
@FryderykFChopin You completely avoided the question..WHY shouldn't you commit suicide? Even if i grant what you said and you dont have to have a cosmic significance and you live for the here and now (which is a superficial answer to life, surely you dont live making decisions in this thought process) you still have to answer why not kill yourself? I agree with your comment about the universe, with all the probabilities against it happening, i do conclude it truly was for human beings, do you?
@tu I didn't avoid your question as evident in you responding to my answer. Say you do grant that you don't need cosmic significance for it to matter, then I do have a positive reason to live hence I won't kill myself.
'all the probabilities against it happening, i do conclude it truly was for human beings'
All the probabilities against it happening, I do conclude that it truly was for cockroaches
probabilities against francium (rarest element) occurring on earth, i conclude it was for francium
@FryderykFChopin When i say all the probabilities, the probability of just francium, or cockroaches is more likely than humans, the book by Barrow and Tippler called The Anthropic Cosmological Principle lists 10 steps needed for the evolution of the human genome to be as it is today and it estimates to be 4 to -180 zeros to 4 -110 zeroes..each step so improbable that the sun would of burnt up as a main sequence star of light, are you REALLY going to posit human beings to chance on this earth?
@tublet13'the probability of just francium or cockroaches is more likely than humans' How do you know that and how much more likely? What about the probability of apes or whales etc. 'Are you REALLY going to posit human beings to chance on this earth?'. Therefore anything that is improbable = God - moreover Jehovah, moreover Jesus. How improbable must an event be to conclude God? Does getting a royal flush satisfy? You obviously don't accept evolution right?
@FryderykFChopin It doesnt take a genius to realize how much more likely, Take a look at all the planets, all made of certain elements and minerals, we know that they are considered common maybe even some with water (amazing) and 1 with humans. The problem is things that are more probable than humans that we should see occurring in the universe we dont see. Anything that is more than 50 zeroes is usually considered impossible in maths, show me something occuring with the same odds as humans.
@tublet13 You still have not answered how whales and apes are any less improbable than humans. The existence of a particular whale is far more improbable than the existence of a particular human as male whales produce 400 gallons of sperm when it mates. Considering there is about 20million sperm per mL, you do the math of the probability of that particular whale existing esp. when its ancestors also produce the same amount. Venus orbiting earth every 224.7 Earth days is 1/planets in universe.
@FryderykFChopin I dont understand your venus analogy, my argument is not why there isnt more whales because they have so much sperm or less sperm only that for LIFE to be permitted on planet earth from a single cellular organism to macro evolution to multi cellular complex organisms is an event that is truly once in a lifetime to be seen on any planet if ever seen and i say there was the hand of god in the process of this on planet earth and not by chance.
@tublet13 Oh now you change your stance and humbled down a bit. From 'The universe was designed for humans' to 'universe designed for life'. You have not demonstrated logically what is so special about 'life'. Earth is unique because it has life sure, but Venus' 96.5% carbon dioxide atmosphere is also unique. What makes life any more unique than Venus' carbon dioxide atmosphere. It certainly isn't more improbable as there are an infinite amount of no.s b/w 96.5 - 96.51.
@FryderykFChopin Thats the funny thing, this universe is actually a life inhibiting universe, thats why the chance of life is so small even single cellular life yet we have human beings with conscious brains! Well obviously your stance on life is subjective, you can value it or not, but the question is if you dont value it (like your implying) why not just kill yourself? And if you do value life and understand what it takes to create life than you will see life as special, prb why Venus isnt.
@tublet13 I'm sorry, but an emotional response is no logical argument. You still have not addressed my question. Why is it that the improbability of a 'life inhibiting' earth, is any more special than the improbability of Venus having a particular amount of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere?
@FryderykFChopin “The only philosophical question I cannot answer is why I don't commit suicide.” Jean-Paul Sartre, famous french philosopher who uses reason and logic just like scientists do. im not sure i understand what your saying, are you asking me why life is important? Louis Pasteur *law of bio-genesis* life does not come from non life, scientists have tried to replicate conditions for this for years in test tubes with no luck, if scientists cannot create it how can natural causes create?
@FryderykFChopin If you want to use this same logic than everyone is relative to interpretation, theres no difference in someone stabbing you and eating your body than there is a lion killing a deer for food, with your logic nothing matters at all, nothing merits importance, nothing deserves credit if you try live this way but cannot, is this not an indicator that your are not simply an advanced primate with a monkeys brain?
@tublet13 You're an intelligent design advocate right? Whats the evidence of this 'design'? 'I say there was the hand of god in the process'. Well even the proponents of ID don't conclude that it was 'god', partly because they want to be considered 'scientific' and also because there is no direct logical pathway to god - especially to Adam and Eve, Jesus etc. There are people who believe the ancient astronaut conspiracy - that aliens engineered life on earth etc. Your argument can support this.
@FryderykFChopin Yes i am, dont include Adam and Eve to origin of universe it has no relevance, but dont you understand the origin of the universe cannot be physical because Time and Space began at that singularity, fact. That means only things that can transcend time and space can exist, do you know anything that can transcend time and space? It surely cannot be physical. Aliens = Physical = Astronaut = Physical
@FryderykFChopin I accept scientific evidence for evolution as it shows, (Fossil record is extremely week, HUGE gap in between species), but i gave u the odds of evolution by chance occuring, (almost 0%) yet you believe your life with it, you can call it chance, i dont make decisions based on those percentages in life sorry.
@tublet13 'fossil record is extremely weak'. Right, 'weak' enough to convince 97% (Pew 2009) of the scientific community accept that humans and other animals have evolved over time. On what grounds besides reading a couple of discovery institute books do you believe in a conspiracy against the overwhelming majority of scientists - to say to their face, that 'you're wrong'. The odds of your existence: male produces 180mil sperm you are 1/180m X no of your ancestors. Safe to say 'almost 0%'
@FryderykFChopin Dont appeal to people as authority, the same scientists are convinced time and space started at the big bang but try and make ridiculous reasons how *oscillating universes* *Multi-verses* Which all are still inside a time frame which is impossible. Even if i grant your fossil evidence doesnt take away from the fact of chance and not just 1 off chance im talking consecutive steps of chance independently of each other over millions of years..maybe 500Mill royal flushes IN A ROW.
@tublet13 'the same scientists are convinced time and space started at the big bang'. In that case, why do you accept the 'scientists' Barrow and Tipler's conclusions? You do realise, this is conspiracy theory against 97% of scientists - to say the majority of scientists are charlatans and liars. It just so happens that 51% of the scientists who took part in the poll, are believers in a higher power.
@FryderykFChopin This isnt a conspiracy theory, Barrow and Tipler are 2 mainstream physicists and mathematicians that have simply calculated that the human genome (3 BILLION chemical base pairs that make up human DNA) dont forget each of these had to form by RANDOM mutation not just once, 3 billion times, consecutively and independantly, not just a once off AND with time not on their side as the sun could cease to be energy, they simply derive the probability and explain its basically impossible
@tublet13 Still have not answered my question. On what grounds do you condemn 97% of scientists as liars when they have far superior scientific knowledge to you.
@FryderykFChopin Im not sure i understand, where am i calling them liars? il admit they know more than me and im happy to follow the evidence they supply. Wheres the problem?
@tublet13 Not a conspiracy theory. Did you not just say that 'the same scientists (97% who accept evolution) are convinced time and space started at the big bang but try and make ridiculous reasons how *oscillating universes* *Multi-verses*'. From what you said, one can come to two conclusions. Either all these scientists are evil and contrived an elaborate lie (remembering 51% are believers) or that you are superior to them all and that they are all inept.
@FryderykFChopin I like the word evil quite ironic, it seems you have extreme faith in science, why do you believe it as the only rational way to knowledge? Do you regard historical, philosophical or experience as ways of knowledge as well or only science? All im saying is from the evidence we have it isnt logical to infer a physical cause for the physical universe which will lead into an infinite regress of causes. 51% believers, my question is do you believe in a god? (Seems not)
@tublet13 How is this relevant? Instead of red herrings, can you not answer my question? You said 'the same scientists (97% who accept evolution) are convinced time and space started at the big bang but try and make ridiculous reasons how *oscillating universes* *Multi-verses*' and I submitted that there are two possible conclusions - either all these scientists are evil (or intellectually dishonest) and contrived an elaborate lie or that you are superior to them all and that they are all inept.
@FryderykFChopin Im simply appealing to other evidence besides this argument which im happy to debate, Once scientists figure out time and space came into existence at the singularity, any explanation for how and why this would come into existence should be consistent and logical with what we know. Since we are dealing with time and space its a bit trickier, if you say there was time before the big bang then you imply time didnt actually start at the singularity it just continued from a chain.
@tublet13 Again you have not answered my question. Which view is it that you take? Either 97% of scientists are intellectually dishonest and liars, or you believe that they are all inept and that you have superior scientific knowledge to them.
@FryderykFChopin Your question is quite stupid its not even asking the right question your question should sound like this *Do you believe scientists are inferring wrongly about what they know about the singularity? and my answer is yes. If i have to answer you id say their being intellectually dishonest, with what they know about what occurred before the big bang its stupid to give some unfounded models and assume 1 of them is correct. All assumptions that say the space created space time2time.
@tublet13 When did I ever mention anything about the singularity? I asked specifically whether you believe the 97% scientists who accept EVOLUTION to be intellectually dishonest and lying to everybody or that you have superior scientific knowledge to them as your grounds for denying evolution.
@FryderykFChopin Oh..well we can sort this real quick, i dont deny evolution. I hold that evolution would have been impossible to occur by natural causes and that god governed the process if it did occur.
@tublet13 Right finally, so you're a theistic evolutionist as well as an intelligent design advocate (to me seems paradoxical). Now tell me, where in the evolutionary timeline, did God suddenly decide 'right, those are my first human beings aka Adam and Eve'. Were the neanderthals human? Did they sin against God and liable to eternal torture?
@FryderykFChopin I dont know when god would decide that, i do know that the human beings god decided would be Adam and Eve would have had 1) Conscious Minds and 2) Knowledge of God's presence. If only 1 or neither was present then i dont believe they would be liable for eternal torture, saying this would think god is an unjust monster who says *Oh well, bad luck*, The bible doesn't explain judgment on those who have not heard of god. Atleast we know you have, and you are eligible for judgement.
@FryderykFChopin Do you agree that evolution smells of design or are you still going to hold it was chance? Do you agree the universe came into being by a non physical cause or you hold to oscillating models?
Do you reject the historicity or Jesus Christ, if so why?
@tublet13 'Design'. What do you mean by design? How do you come to that conclusion: namely the universe is designed? As for the origins of the universe AKA what was before or what caused the Big Bang, I'm just like the rest of the scientists: I don't know. You claim to know. How do you know that?
I reject the 'historicity' of Christ because there is no 'historicity' just as you reject the 'historicity' of the Quran or the Egyptian book of the dead.
@FryderykFChopin Design, in the observation of evolution (not universe) is it more plausible to posit it to chance or to design, and if chance than what does it take for you to believe something is designed rather than created by chance?.
I dont claim to know what was before the big bang, but from what we do know we can rule out some possibilities, even scientists agree time doesnt go infinitely into the past.
I dont reject the history of quaran, i believe it doesn't portray god accurately.
@tublet13 'I don't claim to know what was before the big bang'. Yes you do. You claim it to be god. It seems as if when faced with philosophical questions which lead to an infinite regress, you claim that to be evidence for 'God' by plugging him in.
@FryderykFChopin Well if we use reason and science i think its more reasonable to think God is not just *Plugged* but necessary for the universe to begin. If you disagree fine, please give me reasons why you think it cant be god? In practical terms nothing can have a physical infinite regress its logically impossible even an osculating universe model takes you back to a beginning point where time or space did not occur. If you disagree than you disagree with science (your father).
@tublet13 Order can form from unconscious processes, i.e. crystal formation, so why does it need to be a conscious intelligent creator? Why one god and not two, or even billions? How do we know that we were the point of its creation? In a universe which constantly behaves counter to our intuitions, i.e. cosmology and quantum physics, something so similar to earthly experience with human inventors and human power-mongering rulers seems really likely to be made up.
@OneEightZeroZero Crystal formation is an unconscious process indeed my query is regarding how that process came about? We both see the same thing but disagree of how it came to be. The questions you ask about is there 1 god or billions and its purpose etc are not questions that should hold an atheist back as they are regarding theology. If you have arguments for why you think there is no god please lay them out and dont appeal to emotional response.
@tublet13 Everything we've found in the cosmic scale has been counter-intuitive, it's more consistent to assume that it came about via something counter-intuitive.
I don't believe in a god as described by any religion because we already know nearly all religions are invented just by their mutual incompatibility, and there's no way to single out any one of them as the "real one."
@OneEightZeroZero If we both examine the forces of the universe it would be intuitive to say life cannot exist due to the probabilities, but its counter-intuitive to say life can exist yet we believe that obviously. It seems intuition should not be a method of acquiring knowledge of the universe and making conclusions.
I admire your truth searching but the mistake is assuming because some disagree they are all incorrect, i would say there is a way to find the real one.
@tublet13 Intuition is useful, but limited by familiarity. The further from the mid-sized Earth object scale we get, the less it works, so it's useless for inferring the characteristics of a super-universal deity.
I said NEARLY all are incorrect, which at least exposes flawed methods. If something like Craig's "personal experience" leads to false religions as easily as a "true" one, can it be trusted? I can find no trustworthy method that points to one particular religion's truth.
@OneEightZeroZero I agree, but i feel as if your melding logic and intuition to be the same thing. When inferring characteristics about the universe Craig uses logic and critical thinking and id say minimal intuition.
I also feel a bit uneasy about Craig's personal experience argument for God, but as a Christian i experience God personally everyday of my life through the Holy spirit promised by the historical Jesus. But intellectually i examined Mohammad, Budha and Christ.
@tublet13 Craig using minimal intuition isn't really true. We know nothing about atemporal or non-physical causation whatsoever, yet the cosmological argument infers things through that barrier.
I don't doubt your experiences, but Buddhist monks can tell you how their spirituality affects their lives daily as well, so either they're lying, or spiritual experiences aren't enough to vindicate a belief. I don't trust things that would fixate me on an untruth rather than exposing it.
@OneEightZeroZero Well i like Craig's argument for it he says the universe can either be caused by
1. God
2. Abstract Objects
3. In necessity of its own cause
I guess in your case your not satisfied with it being god and are leaning towards number 3 and Craig using current knowledge of how physical space can be formed and how time is carried out has deemed it implausible for it to occur b4 hand.
I guess personal experience is only good when combined with the other evidence.
@tublet13 "Cause" may not even be appropriate with time converging on the Big Bang, but it's a huge leap to suggest the necessity of intelligence and supernaturalism in a gigantic cosmic explosion. Why not a natural process? Or even if not, what about an unthinking supernatural process? What do we even know about "causation" when non-physical causative agents are involved? What does "non-physical" even mean if it affects physical objects?
@OneEightZeroZero I would argue that anything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist so it has a cause. You ask about a natural process well a lot of theories are based on natural processes such as multi verse or oscillating universe hypothesis. Even these hypothesis i would argue have major physical and practical flaws. A non physical agent could be a number but we know these dont have causal power. The question is whats the best explanation for the caus
@OneEightZeroZero Non physical is exactly what it is, a non physical entity which we can conceive of what could be a god and if that being all powerful it would be perfectly logical that it could create a physical universe.
@tublet13 But can those qualities be inferred from the creation, or is it just one possibility among many? I don't think "non-physical" or "supernatural" are even valid concepts if describing things that interact with physical and natural objects, but even if they were, why not some mindless Gaia-esque "spirit energy?" Or a pantheon of gods?
We simply can't derive something like monotheism or intelligence from creation, or omnipotence from anything (it would require infinite proof).
@OneEightZeroZero I agree that the creation argument cannot show a monotheistic god on its own but when combined with other arguments it can form a solid case. I would say its the best possibility of the others, given what it would take to create a universe that entity would need those qualities or it would be impossible. If you doubt the omnipotence for ex what would be your alternative? Also god acting in the physical world while being eternal is a debate for Christians lol.
@FryderykFChopin You havent given me any good reason why you reject the historicity of Jesus, you just said its the same reason i dont regard the Quaran or Egyptian books, but i do believe the historicity of the Quran, but historical texts undergo criteria they must pass to be considered fictional non fictional, mythical, poetic or literal. Egyptian books = Mythical, Quran is literal and non fictional, the question is does Mohammad reveal god accurately? Which you can ask further questions.
@FryderykFChopin Even Bart believes the historicity of Jesus Christ but doesn't believe he resurrected due to his naturalistic world view, miracles for him are absurd from the beginning. If the debate was is the supernatural real? Than Craig would of given arguments for that....watch John Shook vs WLC, i think you would enjoy that debate as John Shook is a science freak and atheist who im guessing would share a lot of your views on a lot of things, watch it open minded and make a decision.
@tublet13 You still have not answered my question. What do you mean by 'design'? 'Even Bart believes the historicity of Jesus Christ'. Now lets clarify our terms here. 'historicity' means historical authenticity. Bart Ehrman does not accept the authenticity of these texts - written what 3 decades after the events which it describes by Greek speaking anonymous authors and are strewn with contradictions. Sure he accepts the existence of a man named Jesus if that is what you mean by 'historicity'.
@tublet13 Ehrman 'doesn't believe he (jesus) resurrected due to his naturalistic worldview'. Firstly, Ehrman was a most devout Christian before he lost his faith so he certainly didn't have the 'naturalistic worldview' of which you speak. Secondly, why would one be inclined to doubt the supernatural. Its obvious. Is it more likely that the laws of nature have been suspended or that you are under a serious misapprehension.
@FryderykFChopin So this may sound like an oscillating universe model or a multi-verse, as smart as scientists are (and not evil, id like to know your definition of evil actually if your a moral relativist) it has been pointed out it is illogical to posit an explanation such as that because of what we know of time and space beginning, anything before this point had no time or space, i feel like im repeating myself, these are established within science and even moved Einstein to become a deist.
@FryderykFChopin With your sperm analogy your touching on more of a philosophical identity crisis here, you dont know if i would be *me* if i was another sperm, i could be the same person i am now you dont know. Big difference between 180 milion and 4 - 160 zeros, either way the difference between the probability of sperm and evolution of humans is the consecutive independent chance occurrings over millions of years. Yet scientists say it was random chance mutations give me a break
@tublet13 Well you would certainly be genetically different than what you are now. So you're still comparing probabilities? Note its not 180mil, its 1/180mil multiplied the 1/sperm of your ancestors multiplied by 1/failed fertilisation + the probabilities of the eggs of your female ancestors (could probably add in even more factors if you want). You still have not given any reason to condemn 97% of scientists who most likely have far superior scientific knowledge than you, as liars.
@HellRehab disciples dying for faith is such a ridiculous arguement,so many pagans died for their faith in d gods nobody believes anymore at d hands of christians,muslims died for their religion all d time,people have died for zeus,thor,apollo,mormons are ready to die for dat charlatan joseph smith,in pakistan ahmadis are killed for believing in mirza ghulam ahmed,in iran muslims kill bahais many of whom prefer to die bahai over converstion to shia islam,wat a ridiculous arguement
@thescorpionking2020 What makes the disciples death above other martyrs for religions is that the disciples wrote the bible and then died. Now the argument is.. what person would die for something they know not to be true? Muslim suicide bombers claim their religion is true because they believe it..if they knew it was false they wouldn't do it..on the contrary the disciples did die for what they believed and wrote giving their claims credibility which in turn gives Jesus praise.
@tublet13 go n study about sikhism,3 of its gurus wer brutally killed by muslims for refusing to convert to islam,even 7 and 8 year old children wer bricked alive for refusing to convert to islam,they died in d most disgusting ways with sum being split part into 2,sum boiled alive and they r d ones who wrote d holy book of d sikhs,now surely they must hav seen sumthing otherwise y wud they prefer to die in such brutal ways over conversion to islam,and surely u dont believe in sikhism do u ?
@thescorpionking2020 Sikhism religion is based on the philosophy of Guru Nanek Dev he says there is one god and started the foundation for general guidelines for Sikhism but i would argue they were all unfounded as Nanek had no evidence for anything he believed he just merely asserted. In the case of Jesus Christ there was independent eye witnesses who actually had no bias to believing Jesus was god and actually believed god couldnt be a man yet they still believed, see the difference?
@tublet13 ur arguements does not prove anything,there wer many jews who lived during dat time who wer killed by romans for being seditioners and messiah claimants trying to upsurge roman rule
@thescorpionking2020 Your missing the point, of course they were killed but they did not die for what they knew to be a lie, they believed what they believed was the truth just as Islam suicide bombers die for what they believe to be true..they would not die if they knew Islam was false and Mohammad was lieing to them. Not 1 historical figure has more manuscript evidence then Jesus Christ..in this whole world.
Does anyone believe that some ppl can experience Near Death Experience. Meaning someone die and comes back alive after a few days later. Google "Near Death Experience" for testimonials. Thus, resurrection is not a miracle solely to Jesus. These ppl who experience NDE are not resurrected by God; it just mean that their time is not up yet.
It annoyed me how Craig didn't answer any the questions Ehrman posed about whether he believes any of the gospels contain errors, or are less reliable than others. It was also annoying how he pointed out Craig's error in saying that Paul supported the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea and then in response Craig says it even more explicitly, even claiming that Paul mentions burial of Joseph of Arimathea it in 1 Corinthians in the "second line." Don't know where he pulled that one from.
William Lane Craig is definitely NO match for Bart Ehrman. Ehrman. he completely destroyed every idiotic argument that Craig came up with. Right On!!!
I was a believer in the Bible until a few months ago. I spent six months writing a book I was going to call "rationalized faith". In it I was going to argue for the authenticity of the text and explain the seemingly unexplainable. Well....turns out the unexplainable is only explainable as merely a sad formulation of human consciousness. The book is scrapped and I am left pondering life. I use to hold Craig on a pedestal but now through this debate he has become a foolishly blind follower.
@AndrewStewart7 I know how you must feel, I have been through a similar journey except it has taken me many years.. I was also writing a book which I put aside. Maybe I still will one day, and it will make more sense than iot would have. I hope your pondering leads somewhere good, I still gain a lot of strength from certain parts of scripture, but now I don't have to live with the cognitive dissonance of trying to rationalize away errors etc. PS I think "A Rational Faith" is a better title.
@AndrewStewart7 Perhaps the journey you have taken is the story you should write. You may be surprised at how many people can identify with you and the questions you have faced. Considering there is so much misunderstanding between believers and non-believers I think that to help believers understand why you no longer believe, and to help non-believers know what it is like to believe can only be a good thing.
Bart Ehrman did remarkably well against Craig - something that doesn't happen to often as anyone can attest who has watched Craig prevail time and again in his debates. Ehrman gives one lots of food for thought. She shows that the gospels viewed outside an ecclesial context don't make the overwhelming case they appear to make in favor of the resurrection.
Vision of Jesus! What a lame argument. How does Paul have a vision of Jesus when he didn't even believe Jesus was the Messiah. Paul persecuted and had Christians killed. To say he had a vision makes no sense.
The Gospels clearly state that they touched, saw his wounds, and ate with him. Can't do this with a vision.
@ToBeSaltnLight: Paul had a vision of the living Jesus -- what Paul saw was no mere "vision", because it MANIFESTED "itself" not only to him, but to those who were with him (though they heard a voice, they could not discern what it was saying, but Paul could). That is, Jesus physically appeared to Paul, but in glory.
One day Craig may actually listen to the person(s) he is debating and respond accordingly in the 'response' portion of his debates rather than just reiterating his opening statement over and over. Then again, probably not.
@RonBurgundy161: I suppose if one counts the number and vigor of gesticulations, and how often one raises one's voice in anger and frustration, then by these criteria Dr. Ehrman trounced Dr. Craig.
@DouglasJBender Then you are objectively wrong. You insist that Ehrman is wrong for providing alternative explanations and not evoking supernatural causes to an event that can only be subjectively attested to.
@RonBurgundy161: I see that my sense of delicious irony and self-abnegating humor is not always apparent. However, aside from mathematical "certainty", I am not aware of any other sort of "certainty" which would come close to "absolute", aside from that which would of necessity be at least partially subjective. So I think it might behoove us, or you, to define the term, "absolute certainty".
@DouglasJBender Exactly, if absolute certainty is a concept of mathematics then any opinion on the history of our species is therefore subjective. You can't know if history is objectively true, and you also can't say that what Ehrman had claimed is untrue, it's a logical leep and determines bias on your part.
Another arguement is that ,why is the messiahs resurrection not widely excepted world wide.Was he racist?If he was connected to god then why didn't he make it widely known worldwide that he died and resurrected for everyones sins?
Historians use methods which help to strengthen/validate their case, this should not be characterised as a weak limitation as Lane attempts. Like the scientific method it is a mark of strength which tries to correct or compensate for the weakness of human bias. Lane actually demonstrates this point well but not to his credit.
I suppose that Christians want to believe that Craig won & none believers visa-versa - but frankly that is just cheer-leading. The fact is that Craig is a very skilled debater who uses tactics & techniques honed over decades to win debates. His favourite technique is the 'Shotgun' where he swamps his opponent in arguments & demands rebuttals.
This time, Craig failed. The topic was too specific for him to do that & Ehrman was able to blow his arguments apart as we see again in his conclusion.
The apocalyptic Christians would have had to deal with a great deal of cognitive dissonance in the face of the death of Jesus. They obviously did search the scriptures for explanations and some may have had visions of Jesus exalted to heaven. The empty tomb tradition, apparently not known by Paul, develops and is embellished by Mat, Luke and John. Mark actually has no resurrection appearances to anyone or any birth scene..legends added to the story.
LOLL Visions of Jesus... And he says he is an historian? Craig won. I really tought he would have been more convincing but he is so poor in argument and invent theories out of nothing to make his points. Craig Craig Craig!
Paul could have had visions. Bart made it clear that's not a position he holds or defends, simply that it's more likely for that to have happened, than a miracle...which is true.
@EddieSchultz62 LOL You must be blind to even consider Bart as the winner of this debate! By the way your comment has nothing but Ad Hominem fallacies without any meat! Typical Trolling! Craig smashed him :) God bless
@axe414 Uh....I don't believe I said anything about who I think won the debate. I said you are like WLC because you must defend the bible. Don't need any blessings from a god, you can keep em'. Read what SAHBfan said below, that pretty much sums it up.
@EddieSchultz62 ''.I don't believe I said anything about who I think won the debate'' Sure you didn't! people would laugh at you for even considering Bart as the winner :) Sure you don't like Blessing from my God you're a troll! Trolls are Luciferians working to build their New World Order. The goal of the new world order is to destroy Christianity and bring their New age Luciferian government and kill 90% of the population. My God will smash them. Repent before its too late TROLL
@axe414 "people would laugh at you for even considering Bart as the winner" I guess you've been ignoring the comments left by others that state Bart won, and WLC lost the debate. The majority of the comments left back Ehrman in the debate. Repent for what? NUTJOB!! lolol
Anyone else think this guy is in need of some help?
I'd be interested in research on any story prior to the time of Jesus of individuals who died and rose. It appears this was a 'story' that was told about a number of people to give credence to the passive rebellion fad against Rome and local leaders (i.e. Jewish priests) who were in bed with the Romans. Wld be interesting.
A very cogent explanation for the rise of Christianity by Dr. Ehrman. I recommend a book by Hyam Maccoby entitled "Paul the Mythmaker" which explain how Paul basically invented Christianity. The original Christians were observant Jews to the day they died. Paul was the one trying to spread Christianity to non-Jews, and in the process he invented many new beliefs. If you've read the bible you know that he got in trouble with Peter and James several times for doing this.
What I wonder is why skeptics debate believers to begin with (and I'm not just talking about religion here; ESP debates or holocaust denial debates could make the point just as well). Debating something has no effect on whether or not a proposition is true, so a debate format never serves dispassionate evaluation of evidence.
Debates make sense for normative things like politics or moral philosophy. For matters of fact, they're retarded.
A fantastic debate. IMO, Craig dominated at the beginning, but Ehrman came through at the end. I really think that Craig is the best Christian debator around. That said, despite his inability to out-style Craig, I find that Ehrman occupies the most reasonable position.
I agree with you; the alternate hypothesis at the end was a great flourish that deals with a religion on the basis of presently observable emerging cults (compounded by the fact that we're also dealing with rampant superstition, illiteracy, and ignorance). Ehrman still lost the debate, but it wasn't his fault. If the debate were "Is there evidence for a risen Elvis?", all Craig would need would be a few tabloids. That's bad evidence, but the answer's still yes.
Yes, but I decided not to upload it due to ownership rights for distribution. The full transcript and video should be available at Dr. Craig's website.
Bart Ehrman scenario is completely absurd. For him the early disciples have been self persuaded by the lies they made up about the Resurection of Jesus and his divinity. Yet lying is a sin according to their venerated master Jesus Christ. Can Bart Ehrman convinced himself right now that Saddam Husein be raised from the dead, and at the same time held contrary values to the infamous man to the point to die defending his own lies? Completely absurd as you can see!!!
One thing I have always wondered is why would the Romans waste a tomb on someone they had crucified. They would have just dumped him in a mass grave with all the other criminals they killed that day. They never would have wasted an entire tomb on some crazy rabbi.
Also, Ehrman gives an excellent reason for the disciples wanting to make up a resurrection story.
Also, what about all the resurrections stories that predate Jesus; this one happens to be real??
well if ur talking about pagan mythologies, specify them but most of all remember, Highly critical scholars like Ehrman often leave more room for the New Testament than past and pagan resurrection stories because of their tall tales from the start.
Attis, Adonis, Osiris, Dionysus are just a few of the pre-Jesus myths that had the resurrection theme. Even Hercules went on a three day trip to Hades/Hell and back.
"because of their tall tales from the start."
...I'm not sure what you mean; do you mean they were admittedly myths? If so, I can't see what that would matter, they can use something from a story they believe is true or false. Or did you mean something else?
yeah, ur using an outdated and largely ignored idea resurrected from the 19th century files by Acharya S. There are outright lies and blank ideas in her little theories too. Respected scholars like Ehrman and even John Dominic Crossan have no time for such theories that don't hold much water.
Regardless of anyone's theories, discredited or not, there are many pre-Jesus myths that involve the "life-death-rebirth" cycle. Do you deny that there are?
Apologists often try to say that "well, there are a lot of differences between the stories" or make other excuses that try to minamize the parallels.
Are you saying it's all a mere coincidence and this one story of a demi-god who came back to life after being killed is really true??
Jesus' life wasn't a life-death-rebirth cycle. It wasn't based o agricultural cycles that we know of either. It was purely from Jewish antiquity, all serious scholars can attest to that, unless ur name is Acharya S and want to lie on some details of each "Christ inspiration".
Truly, there are not enough convicing "parallels" that make them sound.
Is that last sentence concrete? idts.
Ok im doing this exact debate on another thread, but if u want ill debate about it here.
dr craig ususally comes across winning these debates (due to his charm and confidence rather than his arguments in my opinion) but bart ehrham really wins this debate. he makes wlc look completely deluded.
Craigs knowledge of early Christianity lets him down badly. He may be well qualified in philosophy (though that would seem questionable from some of the bollocks he talks during this debate) but Erhman kicks arse when it comes to history. His knowledge of sources, texts & languages from NT times is superior to Craigs.
Also why is Craig so naive as to think that people don't just make this shit up sometimes? Sometimes stories just gain momentum no matter how ungrounded in fact.
Where exactly does Ehrman "kick arse" when it comes to history? I've said this a thousand times before so I'll repeat it again. Ehrman ACCEPTS the historicity of all of the facts Craig cited. Therefore all of Ehrman's waffling back and forth about them is basically pointless. Craig's contention is undisputed by Ehrman (in his professional published work) and his second contention has much to do with philosophy of whom Craig is an expert and Ehrman isn't. Does Ehrman look good now?
Like I said his knowledge as a NT scholar is based on years of study of early Christian writings in the original languages. As it happens he does dispute the 'facts' that are layed out by Craig (and he even refers to that fact in this debate).
Listen to this section of the debate again, it's right at the beginning.
You didn't answer any of the points I brought up about Ehrman's virtual agreement with Craig's first contention or the fact that Craig is a professional philosopher who clearly has a right to speak authoritatively on his second contention.
Why so angry? I fail to see anything in my other comment that leads you to believe I'm angry. Your reading too much into it.
@Christianjr4 erm.. yes I did. Erhman says right here in this part of the debate that he takes issue with Craigs 'facts'. I then pointed out that you should listen to this part of the debate again. I'm not going to repeat Erhmans argument here when he says it better himself.
Sorry, yes you did try to point out Ehrman's supposed disagreement with those facts. I evidently responded to quickly without reading the second part of your comment. That said, Ehrman still does not deny the probable historicity of those 4 facts. In his published work he agrees with their historicity. Notice also in the debate he says his alternatives are "improbable". Therefore his disputes in this debate don't translate into actual disagreement.
@Christianjr4 "Ehrman still does not deny the probable historicity of those 4 facts.... in the debate he says his alternatives are "improbable". Wrong. Ehrman states repeatedly and emphatically that there are any number of naturalistic explanations that are *more* probable. So, using Craig's own probability equation, the probability of the resurrection hypothesis on the background of numerous other more probable naturalistic hypothesis is still extremely low.
No real winner as neither debator directly adressed the other's main objections.
pplus0440 1 week ago
craig, troll, synonymous?
EisEisBaby 2 weeks ago
Bart has gone from being a historian to personally venting his personal disagreements with Christianity. FAIL.
CyprusHot 3 weeks ago
@CyprusHot No, actually Bart is a very good historian. You're simply upset because the truth has planted doubt in your conscience, doubt that your supposed savior really rose from the dead. You'll do anything to block the doubt even insult a historian who has the CREDENTIALS and has spent 30 years studying the NT and greco roman times. You're comment is immature, it fails, and it has ZERO evidence to support your pathetic claim.
99minerkc 3 weeks ago
Dr. Craig avoids all of Ehrman's questions, and keeps repeating the straw man arguments he's positioned for the debate. Once you get outside his straw man arguments he has nothing. He's a very articulate speaker...what he says sounds good, but there is no substance. Ehrman nails him at the end of the debate. He's an evangelist who's trying to pretty up the message and make it sound scientific and historical, but fails at every point.
sundude5 1 month ago
Trying to "prove" the resurrection by math, history, or anything else that is tangible is pointless. You can only believe in religion by faith. There is no evidence for the events portrayed in the bible. If you believe the bible to be true and inerrant then you believe that "God" drowned every living creature (babies, mommies, and daddies) when he flooded the earth and saved only Noah, his family, and the animals two by two.
sundude5 1 month ago
@sundude5 Yet, many scientists agree there was a world flood and many catastrophic events in our world's history that killed millions of people. If God does not exist, the forces of nature must be as evil/bad etc etc
CyprusHot 3 weeks ago
Bart Ehrman is an apostate. He got destroyed here. Check out Christopher Hitchens losing in debate at shockawenow . n e t
shockofgod 2 months ago
@shockofgod You're shitting me.
Craig got cornered, danced in circles and dodged the shit out of key questions. Once this tool realized he was in debate with an actual historian, he tried to take the argument and the ball out of the "historian's" court and pretty much stayed on defense. Evasiveness... its Craig's best weapon.
He does this in every debate. When he loses ground he starts this, "He has failed to PROVE a miracle DIDN'T happen, so I win" shit. But HE is the one making the CLAIM!
Shadowofcreation 2 months ago
@Shadowofcreation Ehrman is not a historian at all. Check out wikipedia on him he says he is a historian but he is not. Bart Ehrman has said the New testament clearly claims Jesus is God so he destroys himself. Bart was on a radio show and admitted it lol. So sorry bro you mad? It's over. Bart has admitted it on audio. Go to reasonablefaith . o r g And you can hear it on the podcast there.
shockofgod 2 months ago
@shockofgod "he says he is a historian but he is not"
He says he is a historian and he is an historian. He "does" actually have a phd.
" Bart Ehrman has said the New testament clearly claims Jesus is God so he destroys himself"
I'm going to skip the part where I assume you are brain dead or malfunctioning, but how does this destroy Bart Ehrman? Ehrman is the leading intellectual voice on the time of Christ in the new testament.
I've seen your other troll posts. You aren't a bright person.
Shadowofcreation 2 months ago
@shockofgod TROLL
99minerkc 3 weeks ago
@Shadowofcreation well said
99minerkc 3 weeks ago
@shockofgod TROLL
99minerkc 3 weeks ago
The only way to miss that WLC won this debate is to be ignorant of the structure. Combine that with how vanishingly little people know about the study of MSS evidence and epistemology. Ehrman plays dodge ball with references to marginalized traditions and loads of embarrassingly less provable speculation. Nearly every argument Ehrman gave, but certainly the underlying logic, has been used by holocaust deniers: redefining the terms "history" and "evidence," hallucination, Jewish conspiracy, etc.
israeltribes12alive 2 months ago
So why did WLC debate an erudite historian on the historicity of the resurrection? He is a hugely intelligent man and must have been able to anticipate that he could never 'win' the debate.
I think that he is an excellent obscurantist and obfuscator, who by muddying the waters, hopes to achieve a draw.He also then adds another respectable name to his resume and some reflected credibilty. no wonder Dawkins refuses to debate with him.
AllyWheels 3 months ago
And even if the disciples died for their faith, so what? Lunacy doesn't prove anything. Muslims die for their faith all the time. Face palm.
HellRehab 5 months ago
@HellRehab No, muslims kill for their faith as directed in their quran... Anyway, the disciples didn't believe he was who Jesus said he was. After seeing his resurrection, they all died martyrs deaths and John was boiled alive. If I was lying, I dont think i'd let myself be boiled alive, I think i'd recant....Unless I saw it like John and his disciples did. Oh, yeah, and his own family worshipped him as God. Dont suppress the truth....
MrSB1274 5 months ago
@MrSB1274
Once in a great while I get a comment from a theist that deserves some kind of an award.
I wrote "muslims die for their faith." You responded with "No, muslims kill for their faith." These two statements aren't in contradiction. Moreover, both statements could be applied to Christians.
William Lane Craig believes in demon possessed pigs as part of the historical record. (matthew 8:32) He believes in the historicity of the bible. This is all a rational person needs to know of Craig.
HellRehab 5 months ago
@HellRehab You (An Atheist) believe that the whole universe just somehow happened and you understand this and understand there is no future for human existence YET you still attach meaning to every decision you do in life such as going to university or getting a job yet your whole entire life is an accident and futile...and you call Craig irrational? YOU FOOL
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13
I was criticizing Craig's beliefs. You can feel free to weigh in on Craig's belief in "demon-pigs" if you want. The subject is Erhman and Craig, not you or me. But thanks for the insult. Was that "christian love?"
HellRehab 3 months ago
@HellRehab A father cant teach his son by being nice all the time, but the son still knows the fathers love...just as i called you a fool doesn't change my love for any human being, including you. You criticize Craig's beliefs, christian beliefs, my beliefs so i criticize yours and trust me if you experienced christian love you would know there is a god, because no other motivation can change people to be so freely truly caring.
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13
"YOU FOOL"
I'm not calling you a fool, I'm quoting you. I avoid name calling. That's why I'm trying to stick to the subject. Craig's beliefs, vs. Erhman's beliefs. Got it?
"no other motivation can change people to be so freely truly caring." (quoting you again.) Do "truly caring" people post insults such as "YOU FOOL" in all caps in YouTube boxes? I'm puzzled.
HellRehab 3 months ago
@tublet13 You (a Christian Theist) believes that the whole universe was designed with just YOU in mind and understand by shirking responsibility through human sacrifice, you'll get a heavenly reward and yet you still live your life when you could just end it and enjoy eternal bliss instead of enduring exams and getting job. Your whole life is planned, making you an object in a cruel experiment, whereby you are created sick and commanded to be well.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin You (A Person with no understanding of christian doctrine)
-Human sacrafice itself doesn't give you a reward, the claim is Jesus (god) died for humanity to give eternal life..
- The funny thing is no one wants to die, thats what God wants to give eternal life so you live forever, so even if i die, I LIVE., but you my friend have absolutely no reason but your own delusion to keep on living.
- People arent puppets of god's hand thats not christian belief...
-Go read a book
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 You have not even addressed my question. Why live, when you could enjoy eternal bliss right now. So are you claiming Jesus wasn't human? Well to most Christians, thats blasphemous. They play on the paradoxical idea that Jesus is 100% flesh and 100% divine. So I think I am perfectly justified to say that Christianity is based on human or if you want, god sacrifice. 'Go read a book'. Thanks for the advice but unlike you, truly 'a man of one book', I do read books.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin The answer is (for me anyways) the bible teaches to preach the word of Jesus and to live your life glorifying and praising god (Not to kill yourself) thats why i choose to live, but you have no reason to live the only question you must answer is why not commit suicide..so please tell me..why shouldn't you? without giving a superficial answer to life.
I believe Jesus is 100% man and god i never denied that, the fact is any human being wouldn't do it had to be god in human form.
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 So to supervise this 'life', is installed a celestial dictatorship which is greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk and swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. However, let no one say there's no cure: salvation is offered, redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Nice job quoting Christopher Hitchens im guessing you share his uneducated christian and emotional point of view on Christianity as well so im not going to begin with this.
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 'Why would I not commit suicide'? Well I think there is a distinction between two views here. I do not accept that my life needs to have a cosmic significance for it to matter. Just because it all ends up the same (or not) doesn't mean that it doesn't really matter. This also happens to be my favorite part about Christianity. I am so humble and so modest but the whole universe was designed for me, God himself has a mission for me and died for me. Only now is there a reason to live.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin You completely avoided the question..WHY shouldn't you commit suicide? Even if i grant what you said and you dont have to have a cosmic significance and you live for the here and now (which is a superficial answer to life, surely you dont live making decisions in this thought process) you still have to answer why not kill yourself? I agree with your comment about the universe, with all the probabilities against it happening, i do conclude it truly was for human beings, do you?
tublet13 3 months ago
@tu I didn't avoid your question as evident in you responding to my answer. Say you do grant that you don't need cosmic significance for it to matter, then I do have a positive reason to live hence I won't kill myself.
'all the probabilities against it happening, i do conclude it truly was for human beings'
All the probabilities against it happening, I do conclude that it truly was for cockroaches
probabilities against francium (rarest element) occurring on earth, i conclude it was for francium
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
Comment removed
tublet13 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin When i say all the probabilities, the probability of just francium, or cockroaches is more likely than humans, the book by Barrow and Tippler called The Anthropic Cosmological Principle lists 10 steps needed for the evolution of the human genome to be as it is today and it estimates to be 4 to -180 zeros to 4 -110 zeroes..each step so improbable that the sun would of burnt up as a main sequence star of light, are you REALLY going to posit human beings to chance on this earth?
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13'the probability of just francium or cockroaches is more likely than humans' How do you know that and how much more likely? What about the probability of apes or whales etc. 'Are you REALLY going to posit human beings to chance on this earth?'. Therefore anything that is improbable = God - moreover Jehovah, moreover Jesus. How improbable must an event be to conclude God? Does getting a royal flush satisfy? You obviously don't accept evolution right?
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
Comment removed
tublet13 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin It doesnt take a genius to realize how much more likely, Take a look at all the planets, all made of certain elements and minerals, we know that they are considered common maybe even some with water (amazing) and 1 with humans. The problem is things that are more probable than humans that we should see occurring in the universe we dont see. Anything that is more than 50 zeroes is usually considered impossible in maths, show me something occuring with the same odds as humans.
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 You still have not answered how whales and apes are any less improbable than humans. The existence of a particular whale is far more improbable than the existence of a particular human as male whales produce 400 gallons of sperm when it mates. Considering there is about 20million sperm per mL, you do the math of the probability of that particular whale existing esp. when its ancestors also produce the same amount. Venus orbiting earth every 224.7 Earth days is 1/planets in universe.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin I dont understand your venus analogy, my argument is not why there isnt more whales because they have so much sperm or less sperm only that for LIFE to be permitted on planet earth from a single cellular organism to macro evolution to multi cellular complex organisms is an event that is truly once in a lifetime to be seen on any planet if ever seen and i say there was the hand of god in the process of this on planet earth and not by chance.
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 Oh now you change your stance and humbled down a bit. From 'The universe was designed for humans' to 'universe designed for life'. You have not demonstrated logically what is so special about 'life'. Earth is unique because it has life sure, but Venus' 96.5% carbon dioxide atmosphere is also unique. What makes life any more unique than Venus' carbon dioxide atmosphere. It certainly isn't more improbable as there are an infinite amount of no.s b/w 96.5 - 96.51.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Thats the funny thing, this universe is actually a life inhibiting universe, thats why the chance of life is so small even single cellular life yet we have human beings with conscious brains! Well obviously your stance on life is subjective, you can value it or not, but the question is if you dont value it (like your implying) why not just kill yourself? And if you do value life and understand what it takes to create life than you will see life as special, prb why Venus isnt.
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 I'm sorry, but an emotional response is no logical argument. You still have not addressed my question. Why is it that the improbability of a 'life inhibiting' earth, is any more special than the improbability of Venus having a particular amount of carbon dioxide in its atmosphere?
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin “The only philosophical question I cannot answer is why I don't commit suicide.” Jean-Paul Sartre, famous french philosopher who uses reason and logic just like scientists do. im not sure i understand what your saying, are you asking me why life is important? Louis Pasteur *law of bio-genesis* life does not come from non life, scientists have tried to replicate conditions for this for years in test tubes with no luck, if scientists cannot create it how can natural causes create?
tublet13 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin If you want to use this same logic than everyone is relative to interpretation, theres no difference in someone stabbing you and eating your body than there is a lion killing a deer for food, with your logic nothing matters at all, nothing merits importance, nothing deserves credit if you try live this way but cannot, is this not an indicator that your are not simply an advanced primate with a monkeys brain?
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 You're an intelligent design advocate right? Whats the evidence of this 'design'? 'I say there was the hand of god in the process'. Well even the proponents of ID don't conclude that it was 'god', partly because they want to be considered 'scientific' and also because there is no direct logical pathway to god - especially to Adam and Eve, Jesus etc. There are people who believe the ancient astronaut conspiracy - that aliens engineered life on earth etc. Your argument can support this.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Yes i am, dont include Adam and Eve to origin of universe it has no relevance, but dont you understand the origin of the universe cannot be physical because Time and Space began at that singularity, fact. That means only things that can transcend time and space can exist, do you know anything that can transcend time and space? It surely cannot be physical. Aliens = Physical = Astronaut = Physical
tublet13 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin I accept scientific evidence for evolution as it shows, (Fossil record is extremely week, HUGE gap in between species), but i gave u the odds of evolution by chance occuring, (almost 0%) yet you believe your life with it, you can call it chance, i dont make decisions based on those percentages in life sorry.
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 'fossil record is extremely weak'. Right, 'weak' enough to convince 97% (Pew 2009) of the scientific community accept that humans and other animals have evolved over time. On what grounds besides reading a couple of discovery institute books do you believe in a conspiracy against the overwhelming majority of scientists - to say to their face, that 'you're wrong'. The odds of your existence: male produces 180mil sperm you are 1/180m X no of your ancestors. Safe to say 'almost 0%'
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Dont appeal to people as authority, the same scientists are convinced time and space started at the big bang but try and make ridiculous reasons how *oscillating universes* *Multi-verses* Which all are still inside a time frame which is impossible. Even if i grant your fossil evidence doesnt take away from the fact of chance and not just 1 off chance im talking consecutive steps of chance independently of each other over millions of years..maybe 500Mill royal flushes IN A ROW.
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 'the same scientists are convinced time and space started at the big bang'. In that case, why do you accept the 'scientists' Barrow and Tipler's conclusions? You do realise, this is conspiracy theory against 97% of scientists - to say the majority of scientists are charlatans and liars. It just so happens that 51% of the scientists who took part in the poll, are believers in a higher power.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin This isnt a conspiracy theory, Barrow and Tipler are 2 mainstream physicists and mathematicians that have simply calculated that the human genome (3 BILLION chemical base pairs that make up human DNA) dont forget each of these had to form by RANDOM mutation not just once, 3 billion times, consecutively and independantly, not just a once off AND with time not on their side as the sun could cease to be energy, they simply derive the probability and explain its basically impossible
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 Still have not answered my question. On what grounds do you condemn 97% of scientists as liars when they have far superior scientific knowledge to you.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Im not sure i understand, where am i calling them liars? il admit they know more than me and im happy to follow the evidence they supply. Wheres the problem?
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 Not a conspiracy theory. Did you not just say that 'the same scientists (97% who accept evolution) are convinced time and space started at the big bang but try and make ridiculous reasons how *oscillating universes* *Multi-verses*'. From what you said, one can come to two conclusions. Either all these scientists are evil and contrived an elaborate lie (remembering 51% are believers) or that you are superior to them all and that they are all inept.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@FryderykFChopin I like the word evil quite ironic, it seems you have extreme faith in science, why do you believe it as the only rational way to knowledge? Do you regard historical, philosophical or experience as ways of knowledge as well or only science? All im saying is from the evidence we have it isnt logical to infer a physical cause for the physical universe which will lead into an infinite regress of causes. 51% believers, my question is do you believe in a god? (Seems not)
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 How is this relevant? Instead of red herrings, can you not answer my question? You said 'the same scientists (97% who accept evolution) are convinced time and space started at the big bang but try and make ridiculous reasons how *oscillating universes* *Multi-verses*' and I submitted that there are two possible conclusions - either all these scientists are evil (or intellectually dishonest) and contrived an elaborate lie or that you are superior to them all and that they are all inept.
FryderykFChopin 2 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Im simply appealing to other evidence besides this argument which im happy to debate, Once scientists figure out time and space came into existence at the singularity, any explanation for how and why this would come into existence should be consistent and logical with what we know. Since we are dealing with time and space its a bit trickier, if you say there was time before the big bang then you imply time didnt actually start at the singularity it just continued from a chain.
tublet13 2 months ago
@tublet13 Again you have not answered my question. Which view is it that you take? Either 97% of scientists are intellectually dishonest and liars, or you believe that they are all inept and that you have superior scientific knowledge to them.
FryderykFChopin 2 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Your question is quite stupid its not even asking the right question your question should sound like this *Do you believe scientists are inferring wrongly about what they know about the singularity? and my answer is yes. If i have to answer you id say their being intellectually dishonest, with what they know about what occurred before the big bang its stupid to give some unfounded models and assume 1 of them is correct. All assumptions that say the space created space time2time.
tublet13 2 months ago
@tublet13 When did I ever mention anything about the singularity? I asked specifically whether you believe the 97% scientists who accept EVOLUTION to be intellectually dishonest and lying to everybody or that you have superior scientific knowledge to them as your grounds for denying evolution.
FryderykFChopin 2 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Oh..well we can sort this real quick, i dont deny evolution. I hold that evolution would have been impossible to occur by natural causes and that god governed the process if it did occur.
tublet13 2 months ago
@tublet13 Right finally, so you're a theistic evolutionist as well as an intelligent design advocate (to me seems paradoxical). Now tell me, where in the evolutionary timeline, did God suddenly decide 'right, those are my first human beings aka Adam and Eve'. Were the neanderthals human? Did they sin against God and liable to eternal torture?
FryderykFChopin 2 months ago
@FryderykFChopin I dont know when god would decide that, i do know that the human beings god decided would be Adam and Eve would have had 1) Conscious Minds and 2) Knowledge of God's presence. If only 1 or neither was present then i dont believe they would be liable for eternal torture, saying this would think god is an unjust monster who says *Oh well, bad luck*, The bible doesn't explain judgment on those who have not heard of god. Atleast we know you have, and you are eligible for judgement.
tublet13 2 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Do you agree that evolution smells of design or are you still going to hold it was chance? Do you agree the universe came into being by a non physical cause or you hold to oscillating models?
Do you reject the historicity or Jesus Christ, if so why?
tublet13 2 months ago
@tublet13 'Design'. What do you mean by design? How do you come to that conclusion: namely the universe is designed? As for the origins of the universe AKA what was before or what caused the Big Bang, I'm just like the rest of the scientists: I don't know. You claim to know. How do you know that?
I reject the 'historicity' of Christ because there is no 'historicity' just as you reject the 'historicity' of the Quran or the Egyptian book of the dead.
FryderykFChopin 2 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Design, in the observation of evolution (not universe) is it more plausible to posit it to chance or to design, and if chance than what does it take for you to believe something is designed rather than created by chance?.
I dont claim to know what was before the big bang, but from what we do know we can rule out some possibilities, even scientists agree time doesnt go infinitely into the past.
I dont reject the history of quaran, i believe it doesn't portray god accurately.
tublet13 2 months ago
@tublet13 'I don't claim to know what was before the big bang'. Yes you do. You claim it to be god. It seems as if when faced with philosophical questions which lead to an infinite regress, you claim that to be evidence for 'God' by plugging him in.
FryderykFChopin 2 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Well if we use reason and science i think its more reasonable to think God is not just *Plugged* but necessary for the universe to begin. If you disagree fine, please give me reasons why you think it cant be god? In practical terms nothing can have a physical infinite regress its logically impossible even an osculating universe model takes you back to a beginning point where time or space did not occur. If you disagree than you disagree with science (your father).
tublet13 2 months ago
@tublet13 Order can form from unconscious processes, i.e. crystal formation, so why does it need to be a conscious intelligent creator? Why one god and not two, or even billions? How do we know that we were the point of its creation? In a universe which constantly behaves counter to our intuitions, i.e. cosmology and quantum physics, something so similar to earthly experience with human inventors and human power-mongering rulers seems really likely to be made up.
OneEightZeroZero 1 month ago
@OneEightZeroZero Crystal formation is an unconscious process indeed my query is regarding how that process came about? We both see the same thing but disagree of how it came to be. The questions you ask about is there 1 god or billions and its purpose etc are not questions that should hold an atheist back as they are regarding theology. If you have arguments for why you think there is no god please lay them out and dont appeal to emotional response.
tublet13 2 weeks ago
@tublet13 Everything we've found in the cosmic scale has been counter-intuitive, it's more consistent to assume that it came about via something counter-intuitive.
I don't believe in a god as described by any religion because we already know nearly all religions are invented just by their mutual incompatibility, and there's no way to single out any one of them as the "real one."
OneEightZeroZero 2 weeks ago
@OneEightZeroZero If we both examine the forces of the universe it would be intuitive to say life cannot exist due to the probabilities, but its counter-intuitive to say life can exist yet we believe that obviously. It seems intuition should not be a method of acquiring knowledge of the universe and making conclusions.
I admire your truth searching but the mistake is assuming because some disagree they are all incorrect, i would say there is a way to find the real one.
tublet13 2 weeks ago
@tublet13 Intuition is useful, but limited by familiarity. The further from the mid-sized Earth object scale we get, the less it works, so it's useless for inferring the characteristics of a super-universal deity.
I said NEARLY all are incorrect, which at least exposes flawed methods. If something like Craig's "personal experience" leads to false religions as easily as a "true" one, can it be trusted? I can find no trustworthy method that points to one particular religion's truth.
OneEightZeroZero 2 weeks ago
@OneEightZeroZero I agree, but i feel as if your melding logic and intuition to be the same thing. When inferring characteristics about the universe Craig uses logic and critical thinking and id say minimal intuition.
I also feel a bit uneasy about Craig's personal experience argument for God, but as a Christian i experience God personally everyday of my life through the Holy spirit promised by the historical Jesus. But intellectually i examined Mohammad, Budha and Christ.
tublet13 1 week ago
@tublet13 Craig using minimal intuition isn't really true. We know nothing about atemporal or non-physical causation whatsoever, yet the cosmological argument infers things through that barrier.
I don't doubt your experiences, but Buddhist monks can tell you how their spirituality affects their lives daily as well, so either they're lying, or spiritual experiences aren't enough to vindicate a belief. I don't trust things that would fixate me on an untruth rather than exposing it.
OneEightZeroZero 1 week ago
@OneEightZeroZero Well i like Craig's argument for it he says the universe can either be caused by
1. God
2. Abstract Objects
3. In necessity of its own cause
I guess in your case your not satisfied with it being god and are leaning towards number 3 and Craig using current knowledge of how physical space can be formed and how time is carried out has deemed it implausible for it to occur b4 hand.
I guess personal experience is only good when combined with the other evidence.
tublet13 1 week ago
@tublet13 "Cause" may not even be appropriate with time converging on the Big Bang, but it's a huge leap to suggest the necessity of intelligence and supernaturalism in a gigantic cosmic explosion. Why not a natural process? Or even if not, what about an unthinking supernatural process? What do we even know about "causation" when non-physical causative agents are involved? What does "non-physical" even mean if it affects physical objects?
OneEightZeroZero 1 week ago
@OneEightZeroZero I would argue that anything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist so it has a cause. You ask about a natural process well a lot of theories are based on natural processes such as multi verse or oscillating universe hypothesis. Even these hypothesis i would argue have major physical and practical flaws. A non physical agent could be a number but we know these dont have causal power. The question is whats the best explanation for the caus
tublet13 5 days ago
@OneEightZeroZero Non physical is exactly what it is, a non physical entity which we can conceive of what could be a god and if that being all powerful it would be perfectly logical that it could create a physical universe.
tublet13 5 days ago
@tublet13 But can those qualities be inferred from the creation, or is it just one possibility among many? I don't think "non-physical" or "supernatural" are even valid concepts if describing things that interact with physical and natural objects, but even if they were, why not some mindless Gaia-esque "spirit energy?" Or a pantheon of gods?
We simply can't derive something like monotheism or intelligence from creation, or omnipotence from anything (it would require infinite proof).
OneEightZeroZero 4 days ago
@OneEightZeroZero I agree that the creation argument cannot show a monotheistic god on its own but when combined with other arguments it can form a solid case. I would say its the best possibility of the others, given what it would take to create a universe that entity would need those qualities or it would be impossible. If you doubt the omnipotence for ex what would be your alternative? Also god acting in the physical world while being eternal is a debate for Christians lol.
tublet13 1 day ago
@FryderykFChopin You havent given me any good reason why you reject the historicity of Jesus, you just said its the same reason i dont regard the Quaran or Egyptian books, but i do believe the historicity of the Quran, but historical texts undergo criteria they must pass to be considered fictional non fictional, mythical, poetic or literal. Egyptian books = Mythical, Quran is literal and non fictional, the question is does Mohammad reveal god accurately? Which you can ask further questions.
tublet13 2 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Even Bart believes the historicity of Jesus Christ but doesn't believe he resurrected due to his naturalistic world view, miracles for him are absurd from the beginning. If the debate was is the supernatural real? Than Craig would of given arguments for that....watch John Shook vs WLC, i think you would enjoy that debate as John Shook is a science freak and atheist who im guessing would share a lot of your views on a lot of things, watch it open minded and make a decision.
tublet13 2 months ago
@tublet13 You still have not answered my question. What do you mean by 'design'? 'Even Bart believes the historicity of Jesus Christ'. Now lets clarify our terms here. 'historicity' means historical authenticity. Bart Ehrman does not accept the authenticity of these texts - written what 3 decades after the events which it describes by Greek speaking anonymous authors and are strewn with contradictions. Sure he accepts the existence of a man named Jesus if that is what you mean by 'historicity'.
FryderykFChopin 2 months ago
@tublet13 Ehrman 'doesn't believe he (jesus) resurrected due to his naturalistic worldview'. Firstly, Ehrman was a most devout Christian before he lost his faith so he certainly didn't have the 'naturalistic worldview' of which you speak. Secondly, why would one be inclined to doubt the supernatural. Its obvious. Is it more likely that the laws of nature have been suspended or that you are under a serious misapprehension.
FryderykFChopin 2 months ago
@FryderykFChopin Now answer my questions and stop carrying on like scientists know everything in this universe.
tublet13 2 months ago
@FryderykFChopin So this may sound like an oscillating universe model or a multi-verse, as smart as scientists are (and not evil, id like to know your definition of evil actually if your a moral relativist) it has been pointed out it is illogical to posit an explanation such as that because of what we know of time and space beginning, anything before this point had no time or space, i feel like im repeating myself, these are established within science and even moved Einstein to become a deist.
tublet13 2 months ago
@FryderykFChopin With your sperm analogy your touching on more of a philosophical identity crisis here, you dont know if i would be *me* if i was another sperm, i could be the same person i am now you dont know. Big difference between 180 milion and 4 - 160 zeros, either way the difference between the probability of sperm and evolution of humans is the consecutive independent chance occurrings over millions of years. Yet scientists say it was random chance mutations give me a break
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 Well you would certainly be genetically different than what you are now. So you're still comparing probabilities? Note its not 180mil, its 1/180mil multiplied the 1/sperm of your ancestors multiplied by 1/failed fertilisation + the probabilities of the eggs of your female ancestors (could probably add in even more factors if you want). You still have not given any reason to condemn 97% of scientists who most likely have far superior scientific knowledge than you, as liars.
FryderykFChopin 3 months ago
@MrSB1274 LOL... where does it say that his family worshiped him as God? The Bible. (dull)
atheistram 3 months ago
@HellRehab disciples dying for faith is such a ridiculous arguement,so many pagans died for their faith in d gods nobody believes anymore at d hands of christians,muslims died for their religion all d time,people have died for zeus,thor,apollo,mormons are ready to die for dat charlatan joseph smith,in pakistan ahmadis are killed for believing in mirza ghulam ahmed,in iran muslims kill bahais many of whom prefer to die bahai over converstion to shia islam,wat a ridiculous arguement
thescorpionking2020 3 months ago
@thescorpionking2020 What makes the disciples death above other martyrs for religions is that the disciples wrote the bible and then died. Now the argument is.. what person would die for something they know not to be true? Muslim suicide bombers claim their religion is true because they believe it..if they knew it was false they wouldn't do it..on the contrary the disciples did die for what they believed and wrote giving their claims credibility which in turn gives Jesus praise.
tublet13 3 months ago in playlist RESURRECTION DEBATE! William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman
@tublet13 go n study about sikhism,3 of its gurus wer brutally killed by muslims for refusing to convert to islam,even 7 and 8 year old children wer bricked alive for refusing to convert to islam,they died in d most disgusting ways with sum being split part into 2,sum boiled alive and they r d ones who wrote d holy book of d sikhs,now surely they must hav seen sumthing otherwise y wud they prefer to die in such brutal ways over conversion to islam,and surely u dont believe in sikhism do u ?
thescorpionking2020 3 months ago
@thescorpionking2020 Sikhism religion is based on the philosophy of Guru Nanek Dev he says there is one god and started the foundation for general guidelines for Sikhism but i would argue they were all unfounded as Nanek had no evidence for anything he believed he just merely asserted. In the case of Jesus Christ there was independent eye witnesses who actually had no bias to believing Jesus was god and actually believed god couldnt be a man yet they still believed, see the difference?
tublet13 3 months ago
@tublet13 ur arguements does not prove anything,there wer many jews who lived during dat time who wer killed by romans for being seditioners and messiah claimants trying to upsurge roman rule
thescorpionking2020 3 months ago
@thescorpionking2020 Your missing the point, of course they were killed but they did not die for what they knew to be a lie, they believed what they believed was the truth just as Islam suicide bombers die for what they believe to be true..they would not die if they knew Islam was false and Mohammad was lieing to them. Not 1 historical figure has more manuscript evidence then Jesus Christ..in this whole world.
tublet13 3 months ago
Does anyone believe that some ppl can experience Near Death Experience. Meaning someone die and comes back alive after a few days later. Google "Near Death Experience" for testimonials. Thus, resurrection is not a miracle solely to Jesus. These ppl who experience NDE are not resurrected by God; it just mean that their time is not up yet.
netelsg 7 months ago
It annoyed me how Craig didn't answer any the questions Ehrman posed about whether he believes any of the gospels contain errors, or are less reliable than others. It was also annoying how he pointed out Craig's error in saying that Paul supported the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea and then in response Craig says it even more explicitly, even claiming that Paul mentions burial of Joseph of Arimathea it in 1 Corinthians in the "second line." Don't know where he pulled that one from.
illegalbrain 8 months ago
William Lane Craig is definitely NO match for Bart Ehrman. Ehrman. he completely destroyed every idiotic argument that Craig came up with. Right On!!!
N8kednoiZ 9 months ago
I was a believer in the Bible until a few months ago. I spent six months writing a book I was going to call "rationalized faith". In it I was going to argue for the authenticity of the text and explain the seemingly unexplainable. Well....turns out the unexplainable is only explainable as merely a sad formulation of human consciousness. The book is scrapped and I am left pondering life. I use to hold Craig on a pedestal but now through this debate he has become a foolishly blind follower.
AndrewStewart7 9 months ago
@AndrewStewart7 I know how you must feel, I have been through a similar journey except it has taken me many years.. I was also writing a book which I put aside. Maybe I still will one day, and it will make more sense than iot would have. I hope your pondering leads somewhere good, I still gain a lot of strength from certain parts of scripture, but now I don't have to live with the cognitive dissonance of trying to rationalize away errors etc. PS I think "A Rational Faith" is a better title.
illegalbrain 8 months ago
@AndrewStewart7 Perhaps the journey you have taken is the story you should write. You may be surprised at how many people can identify with you and the questions you have faced. Considering there is so much misunderstanding between believers and non-believers I think that to help believers understand why you no longer believe, and to help non-believers know what it is like to believe can only be a good thing.
TheMortalhuman 7 months ago
craig talks about "four fundamental facts which are, I think, credibly attested by multiple, independent attestation"
but how can the four gospels be considered "independent" when matt and luke are largely based on mark.
and how can they be "credible" when craig admits older and more embellished texts (matt and luke compared to mark) are less historically trustworthy
all you really have is mark. and a very, very little bit from paul's letters. that's it.
nubbs 9 months ago
@nubbs I was wondering this too, was surprised Ehrman didn't point it out.
illegalbrain 8 months ago
Bart Ehrman did remarkably well against Craig - something that doesn't happen to often as anyone can attest who has watched Craig prevail time and again in his debates. Ehrman gives one lots of food for thought. She shows that the gospels viewed outside an ecclesial context don't make the overwhelming case they appear to make in favor of the resurrection.
apologeticacattolica 9 months ago
Vision of Jesus! What a lame argument. How does Paul have a vision of Jesus when he didn't even believe Jesus was the Messiah. Paul persecuted and had Christians killed. To say he had a vision makes no sense.
The Gospels clearly state that they touched, saw his wounds, and ate with him. Can't do this with a vision.
ToBeSaltnLight 9 months ago
@ToBeSaltnLight: Paul had a vision of the living Jesus -- what Paul saw was no mere "vision", because it MANIFESTED "itself" not only to him, but to those who were with him (though they heard a voice, they could not discern what it was saying, but Paul could). That is, Jesus physically appeared to Paul, but in glory.
DouglasJBender 9 months ago
One day Craig may actually listen to the person(s) he is debating and respond accordingly in the 'response' portion of his debates rather than just reiterating his opening statement over and over. Then again, probably not.
SirBenthr 10 months ago
Ehrman trounced Craig. Why doesn't he debate more often?
RonBurgundy161 10 months ago
@RonBurgundy161: I suppose if one counts the number and vigor of gesticulations, and how often one raises one's voice in anger and frustration, then by these criteria Dr. Ehrman trounced Dr. Craig.
DouglasJBender 9 months ago
@DouglasJBender If you extend it to that criteria also, that's fine by me.
RonBurgundy161 9 months ago
@RonBurgundy161: Can one "extend" from something that is untrue?
DouglasJBender 9 months ago
@DouglasJBender Can one determine absolute certainty from their subjective opinion?
RonBurgundy161 9 months ago
@RonBurgundy161: In my opinion, I am absolutely certain that one can. Or, in other words, yes.
DouglasJBender 9 months ago
@DouglasJBender Then you are objectively wrong. You insist that Ehrman is wrong for providing alternative explanations and not evoking supernatural causes to an event that can only be subjectively attested to.
RonBurgundy161 9 months ago
@RonBurgundy161: I see that my sense of delicious irony and self-abnegating humor is not always apparent. However, aside from mathematical "certainty", I am not aware of any other sort of "certainty" which would come close to "absolute", aside from that which would of necessity be at least partially subjective. So I think it might behoove us, or you, to define the term, "absolute certainty".
DouglasJBender 9 months ago
@DouglasJBender Exactly, if absolute certainty is a concept of mathematics then any opinion on the history of our species is therefore subjective. You can't know if history is objectively true, and you also can't say that what Ehrman had claimed is untrue, it's a logical leep and determines bias on your part.
RonBurgundy161 9 months ago
@RonBurgundy161 Probabilities. Is there a high probability or not to having a certain kind of faith.
ray7685 5 months ago
Another arguement is that ,why is the messiahs resurrection not widely excepted world wide.Was he racist?If he was connected to god then why didn't he make it widely known worldwide that he died and resurrected for everyones sins?
kmichael212 11 months ago
@Christianjr4 If you were an unbiased watcher of this debate, who would you think won it? Your answer will tell us a lot of what you believe.
EddieSchultz62 11 months ago
Historians use methods which help to strengthen/validate their case, this should not be characterised as a weak limitation as Lane attempts. Like the scientific method it is a mark of strength which tries to correct or compensate for the weakness of human bias. Lane actually demonstrates this point well but not to his credit.
mutbutyt 11 months ago
It's interesting how Ehrman stayed on topic while Craig danced around it like he was afraid to touch it.
Ticky21 11 months ago
I suppose that Christians want to believe that Craig won & none believers visa-versa - but frankly that is just cheer-leading. The fact is that Craig is a very skilled debater who uses tactics & techniques honed over decades to win debates. His favourite technique is the 'Shotgun' where he swamps his opponent in arguments & demands rebuttals.
This time, Craig failed. The topic was too specific for him to do that & Ehrman was able to blow his arguments apart as we see again in his conclusion.
SAHBfan 11 months ago
Welp, WLC you FAIL again!!! You might want to stop before all the PWNAGE makes your head explode!
bloodties1 1 year ago
The apocalyptic Christians would have had to deal with a great deal of cognitive dissonance in the face of the death of Jesus. They obviously did search the scriptures for explanations and some may have had visions of Jesus exalted to heaven. The empty tomb tradition, apparently not known by Paul, develops and is embellished by Mat, Luke and John. Mark actually has no resurrection appearances to anyone or any birth scene..legends added to the story.
adstanra 1 year ago
LOLL Visions of Jesus... And he says he is an historian? Craig won. I really tought he would have been more convincing but he is so poor in argument and invent theories out of nothing to make his points. Craig Craig Craig!
axe414 1 year ago
@axe414
I think Craig lost.
Paul could have had visions. Bart made it clear that's not a position he holds or defends, simply that it's more likely for that to have happened, than a miracle...which is true.
ialvarez357 1 year ago
@axe414 You're just like WLC, one who is a theologian who must defend the bible, that is why you gave such a weak comment.
EddieSchultz62 11 months ago
@EddieSchultz62 LOL You must be blind to even consider Bart as the winner of this debate! By the way your comment has nothing but Ad Hominem fallacies without any meat! Typical Trolling! Craig smashed him :) God bless
axe414 11 months ago
@axe414 Uh....I don't believe I said anything about who I think won the debate. I said you are like WLC because you must defend the bible. Don't need any blessings from a god, you can keep em'. Read what SAHBfan said below, that pretty much sums it up.
EddieSchultz62 11 months ago
@EddieSchultz62 ''.I don't believe I said anything about who I think won the debate'' Sure you didn't! people would laugh at you for even considering Bart as the winner :) Sure you don't like Blessing from my God you're a troll! Trolls are Luciferians working to build their New World Order. The goal of the new world order is to destroy Christianity and bring their New age Luciferian government and kill 90% of the population. My God will smash them. Repent before its too late TROLL
axe414 11 months ago
@axe414 "people would laugh at you for even considering Bart as the winner" I guess you've been ignoring the comments left by others that state Bart won, and WLC lost the debate. The majority of the comments left back Ehrman in the debate. Repent for what? NUTJOB!! lolol
Anyone else think this guy is in need of some help?
EddieSchultz62 11 months ago
I'd be interested in research on any story prior to the time of Jesus of individuals who died and rose. It appears this was a 'story' that was told about a number of people to give credence to the passive rebellion fad against Rome and local leaders (i.e. Jewish priests) who were in bed with the Romans. Wld be interesting.
mitstop1 1 year ago
Having watched all the debates, I can't help feeling that both sides ignored each other at major points. (Hopefully the Q&As answered some things).
jonathanhelix 1 year ago
Interesting debate.
jakemonrean 1 year ago
A very cogent explanation for the rise of Christianity by Dr. Ehrman. I recommend a book by Hyam Maccoby entitled "Paul the Mythmaker" which explain how Paul basically invented Christianity. The original Christians were observant Jews to the day they died. Paul was the one trying to spread Christianity to non-Jews, and in the process he invented many new beliefs. If you've read the bible you know that he got in trouble with Peter and James several times for doing this.
twiedenfeld 1 year ago
What I wonder is why skeptics debate believers to begin with (and I'm not just talking about religion here; ESP debates or holocaust denial debates could make the point just as well). Debating something has no effect on whether or not a proposition is true, so a debate format never serves dispassionate evaluation of evidence.
Debates make sense for normative things like politics or moral philosophy. For matters of fact, they're retarded.
Eyedunno 1 year ago
A fantastic debate. IMO, Craig dominated at the beginning, but Ehrman came through at the end. I really think that Craig is the best Christian debator around. That said, despite his inability to out-style Craig, I find that Ehrman occupies the most reasonable position.
AlmightScoop 1 year ago
@AlmightScoop
I agree with you; the alternate hypothesis at the end was a great flourish that deals with a religion on the basis of presently observable emerging cults (compounded by the fact that we're also dealing with rampant superstition, illiteracy, and ignorance). Ehrman still lost the debate, but it wasn't his fault. If the debate were "Is there evidence for a risen Elvis?", all Craig would need would be a few tabloids. That's bad evidence, but the answer's still yes.
Eyedunno 1 year ago
you should put the q&a up.
if anyone finds it, post the link
BodybuildingMike 1 year ago
Do you have the Q/A section or is this the end?
MauricXe 1 year ago
@MauricXe
Yes, but I decided not to upload it due to ownership rights for distribution. The full transcript and video should be available at Dr. Craig's website.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 Thanks. I will look for it.
MauricXe 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 Upload it damnyou!
relarerfhjk 10 months ago
Bart Ehrman scenario is completely absurd. For him the early disciples have been self persuaded by the lies they made up about the Resurection of Jesus and his divinity. Yet lying is a sin according to their venerated master Jesus Christ. Can Bart Ehrman convinced himself right now that Saddam Husein be raised from the dead, and at the same time held contrary values to the infamous man to the point to die defending his own lies? Completely absurd as you can see!!!
flypejose 1 year ago
i thought there was a Q&A period?
Buggz21 1 year ago
Ehrman is a great debater. His construction of what happened with Jesus at the end is impressive. And he even doesn't need supernatural intervention.
spiminator 1 year ago
One thing I have always wondered is why would the Romans waste a tomb on someone they had crucified. They would have just dumped him in a mass grave with all the other criminals they killed that day. They never would have wasted an entire tomb on some crazy rabbi.
Also, Ehrman gives an excellent reason for the disciples wanting to make up a resurrection story.
Also, what about all the resurrections stories that predate Jesus; this one happens to be real??
jimbrown257 1 year ago
@jimbrown257
well if ur talking about pagan mythologies, specify them but most of all remember, Highly critical scholars like Ehrman often leave more room for the New Testament than past and pagan resurrection stories because of their tall tales from the start.
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
@AceofDlamonds
Attis, Adonis, Osiris, Dionysus are just a few of the pre-Jesus myths that had the resurrection theme. Even Hercules went on a three day trip to Hades/Hell and back.
"because of their tall tales from the start."
...I'm not sure what you mean; do you mean they were admittedly myths? If so, I can't see what that would matter, they can use something from a story they believe is true or false. Or did you mean something else?
jimbrown257 1 year ago
@jimbrown257
yeah, ur using an outdated and largely ignored idea resurrected from the 19th century files by Acharya S. There are outright lies and blank ideas in her little theories too. Respected scholars like Ehrman and even John Dominic Crossan have no time for such theories that don't hold much water.
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
@AceofDlamonds
Regardless of anyone's theories, discredited or not, there are many pre-Jesus myths that involve the "life-death-rebirth" cycle. Do you deny that there are?
Apologists often try to say that "well, there are a lot of differences between the stories" or make other excuses that try to minamize the parallels.
Are you saying it's all a mere coincidence and this one story of a demi-god who came back to life after being killed is really true??
jimbrown257 1 year ago
@jimbrown257
Jesus' life wasn't a life-death-rebirth cycle. It wasn't based o agricultural cycles that we know of either. It was purely from Jewish antiquity, all serious scholars can attest to that, unless ur name is Acharya S and want to lie on some details of each "Christ inspiration".
Truly, there are not enough convicing "parallels" that make them sound.
Is that last sentence concrete? idts.
Ok im doing this exact debate on another thread, but if u want ill debate about it here.
AceofDlamonds 1 year ago
@jimbrown257 Hercules went to Hades in order to capture Cerberus, as one of his 12 labors. It had nothing to do with death and rebirth.
OneEyedJack1970 1 year ago
dr craig ususally comes across winning these debates (due to his charm and confidence rather than his arguments in my opinion) but bart ehrham really wins this debate. he makes wlc look completely deluded.
jjonson099 1 year ago
Anyone change their mind after watching this?
Entropy56 1 year ago
haha. ehrman shits on craig (excuse my language)
jjonson099 1 year ago
Forgett history in school. Bart Ehrman teached me what historians do and how interesting the subject can be.....
spiminator 1 year ago
Craigs knowledge of early Christianity lets him down badly. He may be well qualified in philosophy (though that would seem questionable from some of the bollocks he talks during this debate) but Erhman kicks arse when it comes to history. His knowledge of sources, texts & languages from NT times is superior to Craigs.
Also why is Craig so naive as to think that people don't just make this shit up sometimes? Sometimes stories just gain momentum no matter how ungrounded in fact.
gextvedde 1 year ago
Where exactly does Ehrman "kick arse" when it comes to history? I've said this a thousand times before so I'll repeat it again. Ehrman ACCEPTS the historicity of all of the facts Craig cited. Therefore all of Ehrman's waffling back and forth about them is basically pointless. Craig's contention is undisputed by Ehrman (in his professional published work) and his second contention has much to do with philosophy of whom Craig is an expert and Ehrman isn't. Does Ehrman look good now?
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 Why are you so angry?
Like I said his knowledge as a NT scholar is based on years of study of early Christian writings in the original languages. As it happens he does dispute the 'facts' that are layed out by Craig (and he even refers to that fact in this debate).
Listen to this section of the debate again, it's right at the beginning.
gextvedde 1 year ago
@gextvedde
You didn't answer any of the points I brought up about Ehrman's virtual agreement with Craig's first contention or the fact that Craig is a professional philosopher who clearly has a right to speak authoritatively on his second contention.
Why so angry? I fail to see anything in my other comment that leads you to believe I'm angry. Your reading too much into it.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 erm.. yes I did. Erhman says right here in this part of the debate that he takes issue with Craigs 'facts'. I then pointed out that you should listen to this part of the debate again. I'm not going to repeat Erhmans argument here when he says it better himself.
gextvedde 1 year ago
@gextvedde
Sorry, yes you did try to point out Ehrman's supposed disagreement with those facts. I evidently responded to quickly without reading the second part of your comment. That said, Ehrman still does not deny the probable historicity of those 4 facts. In his published work he agrees with their historicity. Notice also in the debate he says his alternatives are "improbable". Therefore his disputes in this debate don't translate into actual disagreement.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4
". Notice also in the debate he says his alternatives are "improbable". "
didn't he said that are improbable but more probable than resurrection?
ciprianzet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Christianjr4 "Ehrman still does not deny the probable historicity of those 4 facts.... in the debate he says his alternatives are "improbable". Wrong. Ehrman states repeatedly and emphatically that there are any number of naturalistic explanations that are *more* probable. So, using Craig's own probability equation, the probability of the resurrection hypothesis on the background of numerous other more probable naturalistic hypothesis is still extremely low.
paulurban2 1 year ago