"He needs not only to tear down all the evidence FOR the Resurrection, but he needs to erect a positive case of his own in favour of some naturalistic alternatives" - This is something that atheists just don't get.
@Hannodb1961 Because it is simply untrue. It is a shifting of the burned of proof from the person making the claim (Like if I claimed that I own an invisible submarine in my garage), to the person saying that it probably isn't true (Then you need to erect a positive case in favor of some naturalistic alternatives!). Showing my claim of invisible submarines is good enough. Would you put someone in prison because they didn't establish their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt?
@beriukay Would you let a guilty person go free when an excellent case has been made for his guilt, and his only defense is that he didn't do it? The fact is, WLC HAVE lived up to the burden of proof, and he HAS made an excellent case. This DOES move the burden of proof to his critics, and they DO reject his case without giving a better alternative. This is HARDLY what one would call "Reasonable doubt". It is very easy to dismiss credible evidence when you're not forced to think about it.
@beriukay Put another way. Suppose the prosecution makes a positive case for someone's guilt, and they cite many eyewitnesses and other evidences. Suppose then the defense lawyer stands up and say: "Your honor, I am not convinced. This is not evidence of anything, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that my client is guilty. The defense rests." Do you think that the judge would conciser this "reasonable doubt"? Well, this is exactly what WLC's critics are doing.
@beriukay Or, lets look at EB's approach. The lawyer ("sceptic") tells the judge: "Your honor, I have worked with my client (nature) for two years now (The sceptics very limited view of reality). NEVER have I ever seen him commit a crime (Miracle) and I must conclude that it is not in his nature to do so .It is IMPOSSIBLE that he could do it. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE that evidence can exist that he did do it,and whatever evidence is presented,must be a misrepresentation.The defense rests."
@Hannodb1961 This is a flawed analogy. The attorney may have never seen the defendant commit a crime, and indeed many people who know him might not have. But we're all aware that people (generally) commit crimes, and often try to keep them secret. "His neighbors described him as a quiet man..." So it's plausible that the seemingly nice guy is nonetheless guilty. A better analogy would be if someone were accused of killing someone 5,000 miles away using telekinesis. The court would throw it out.
@bcgonynor I KNOW it's a flawed analogy. It's MEANT to be a flawed analogy to illustrate a point. The point I'm trying too expose the absurdity of materialists that say: "Well, just because I've never seen people rise from the dead in my life time, no amount of evidence could ever proof that it happened in the past, because such a thing is impossible". People shouldn't ask for evidence of something if they're not even willing to consider it.
@Hannodb1961 I understood what you were saying. it's you who missed my point. There is a difference between being surprised that a friend of yours ended up being a murderer, in a world where murders happen every day, and having to "consider" whether someone rose from the dead based on ancient documents, when this violates everything we know about our bodies. Any far-fetched alternative - that the apostles were liars, that Jesus was in a coma, that he had a secret twin - is more plausible. Sorry!
@bcgonynor All three those options have been discredited years ago. The fact of the matter is, there is no scenario that can make sense of all the historical documentation WITHOUT Jesus rising from the Dead. WLC does an excellent job at explaining why, and there's no point in repeating it all. It is easy to dismiss the evidence when you refuse to study it.
@bcgonynor My posts leading up to this analogy is still very much uninterrupted. As you can see, I responded to beriukay who said: "Would you put someone in prison because they didn't establish their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt?". I simply pointed out that WLC HAS provided his case, and HAS fulfilled his burden of proof. In other words, saying "he's shifting the burden of proof" no longer counts as a valid counter argument.
The use of mathematics here is pure posturing and obscurantism. The essential point WLC is erroneously trying to make here is that the ressurrection of Jesus is a certainty when the probability of it not having happened is 0. Pretty impressive mathematics indeed.
All this makes me wonder if the romans had Hellenistic apologists defending their gods, I know some of the newer religions do like islam, christianity, buddhism, and others.
So Bart assumes that the gospels were written many decades after by random people who didn't even see or know Jesus....Um sorry Bart, but your fellow scholars disagree with your fringe beliefs and conjecture.
@MrSB1274 "So Bart assumes that the gospels were written many decades after by random people who didn't even see or know Jesus....Um sorry Bart, but your fellow scholars disagree with your fringe beliefs and conjecture. "
No, they don't. They teach that at the undergrad level, i.e. it's not a debated issue by scholar. The fact that the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus is one of the things which there is the highest degree of consensus on.
@AR333 : Actually they weren't. See youtube vid "greg koukl debate deepak chopra" Greg lists the facts about the gospels and the book of acts. Its pretty obvious from history when these were written.
@MrSB1274 So when I talk about NT scholarship, you refer me to a non-scholar and think you've offered a rebuttal? I didn't find a video with that title, but if in that video he says that the gospels + acts was written by the actual followers of Jesus, he is wrong.
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
What's tragically ironic for Craig is that the point he makes at the end with regards to x / (x+y) is IN Hume's work "On Miracles".
Hume's maxim is something along the lines of "a miracle can only be believed in if its not having occurred is more miraculous than it having occurred".
This is exactly what Craig argues for, that given all the "specific evidence", the natural explanation being the right one would be highly improbable, i.e. miraculous.
As usual, WLC is manipulating math he does not know at all. In order to apply any statistical tools for finding out probability, we should be sure we are dealing with random variables. Second we have to have some knowledge of what limits the values our variable can have. Third we have to have observations on this variable or on another variable that is correlated to our variable. The event resurrection does not meet any of these requirements. We cannot even think of using statistics here.
"Almost every single comment on this video is done by atheists."
As an atheist I make it no secret that I love to see Craig go down in flames. Craig is well-hated for being a disingenuous prick with an ego the size of a planet. And then some.
@MomoTheBellyDancer But your boys can't tear him down. Even Sam Harris admits that Craig tends to rip atheists to shreds. I am so glad to see this happening. Craig attacks the structure holding arguments together. I have always known that an insightful debater will learn to do this well. William Craig Lane is one of the top debaters I've seen. He is a rare one, but not the only one out there on these types of debates.
He's been torn a new one each and every time, but he insists every time that he has won. The only people who agree with him on that are the uninformed members of his sheeple, who don't check his citations and who don't trace the amounts of logical fallacies the man piles up in one debate.
"William Craig Lane is one of the top debaters I've seen"
Anyone who lies as much as Craig does cannot possible be called a top debater.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Not according to one of your 4 horseless men, Sam Harris. Go to the first video and hear it for yourself. If you disagree with him, send Harris an email about it. I just happen to agree with him. At least Harris can admit it. Oh, didn't Antony Flew admit that Craig and others were instrumental in changing his thoughts on the issue of evolution? If you disagree, send Flew an email about it. I just happen to agree with him.
@MomoTheBellyDancer Oh, I see... you don't care about their daddy any more. You know he was their daddy, right? You know they looked up to him, right? I think Sam Harris will be next to unsaddle himself from the horseman. We'll see.
Really. NOBODY cares about Flew. I never even heard of the guy before all the creationists started spewing his "conversion" story.
Besides, atheists don't have authority figures. That's more of a theist thing. The only thing that unifies atheists is that they don't believe in any gods. And most of them do it because there's simply no evidence.
@MomoTheBellyDancer You must be new to all of this. That's cool. Momo, are you really searching for objective truth, or have you determined there is no truth? When you talk of God, are you searching, or have you determined there is no God? Faith will always be present regardless which way you turn. We both look at intellect, but I say there is evidence that a greater intellect exists. You say that intellect came from no-intellect. It takes more faith to believe what you believe.
"When you talk of God, are you searching, or have you determined there is no God?"
You got that backward. It's YOU who talks about this god, so YOU will have to provide evidence for its existence. As long as you fail to do so, I reserve the right not to believe you.
"I say there is evidence that a greater intellect exists"
Cool. Let's see it then.
"You say that intellect came from no-intellect. "
No, I say intellect comes from firing neurons in brains.
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh ha ha ha ha... Craig is such an ignoramus! x/(x+y) does not tends to one as x tends to zero. On the contrary, x/(x+y) tends to ZERO as x tends to zero.
I can imagine Sunday school, with nuns gathering children around them, saying: "Boys and girls, there is a God." "How do you know, sister?" 'Because if you look at this equation, let's postulate that E is the existence of Jesus, in a world of possibilities, which we will call A. E will then equal the square root of B divided by C....
Craig's a loon. Pr(R/B) "TELLS" how probable the resurrection is given the basis of evidence? Bullshit; it's just a bunch of symbols. Does Craig even UNDERSTAND what a probability is? No, he does not, or else he'd be talking about the probability of miracles as taken from EMPIRICAL PRECEDENT (number of miracles divided by number of circumstances that could POTENTIALLY be explained by miracles)...which--OH!--is literally COMPLETELY ABSENT.
To all of the skeptics who made comments, notice how you've done the same thing you accuse Christians of doing; automatically assuming your postion is correct (at all costs I might add-circular reasoning), while ignoring the strong points of Craigs' arguments, (that self-deception). Meanwhile, you're blind to the fact that apart from the truths of Christian Biblical teachings, you have absolutely no justification to assume things like induction, reason itself, all of the laws of logics, etc.
For Atheists, i's all about their "statement of faith" that they follow, and have to defend. Anyhting that goes against what the scientists say, they automatically say it's false, without even researching to see if what a person is claiming is true or not. It's all circular reasoning with people who MUST defend their atheism.
For Christians, i's all about their "statement of faith" that they follow, and have to defend. Anyhting that goes against what the bible says, they automatically say it's false, without even researching to see if what a person is claiming that goes against the bible is true or not. It's all circular reasoning with people who MUST defend their bible and their gods.
It's funny that no one mentions that there are no original biblical documents in existence. What we have are copies of copies of copies, that have been rewritten and edited over and over again. This alone serves as an explanation for the many contradictory accounts of the so called resurrection of Jesus. I personally think that the very existence of Jesus cannot be proven conclusively outside of the scriptural accounts.
@unprofessionalvids No, it proves that WLC is intellectually dishonest with his presentation, if one truly thinks about what he is trying to do to prove his point.
Let me get this straight, the philosopher, William Lane Craig, thinks he can mathematically quantify a probability for the truth of the claim that Christ was resurrected using entirely unquantifiable things like literary testimonies while completely undefining how we would extract numerical values from this supposed evidence or what the significance of such values would be? Is he an idiot?
Did WLC actually listen to a word Bart Ehrman said???
What on earth was all that pseudo mathematical nonesense for? There is absolutely no sense in constructing complex mathematical formula (actually, they were cumbersome rather than complex...) if you have no figures to put into them?
Ehrman said, very clearly, that there were any number of plausible explanations, so the value of "Y" in WLC's formula is HUGE, hence the probability of the resurrection is TINY.
"Historians can't establish miracles as the most probably occurrence because miracles by their very nature are the least probably occurrence." Hear, Hear!
another way to formulate Bayes theorem here is using Odds.
O R/E&B= O R/B X O pE / R&B/ p E/~R&B. If the prior odds( R/B) are excessively low, it is going to take a huge likelihood ratio to make the posterior Odds high enough to make it reasonable to conclude R. WLC must show p E/R>>>pE/~R.
I don't think he has done this at all.Ehrman effectively argues p R/B is excessively low and that p E/~R is not so low.
how does anyone take Ehrman so seriously? the entire basis of his argument is that he doesn't believe in miracles. yes, miracles would be the least likely occurrence in general, even believers know that. but the Resurrection is the exact event in discussion here. so his objection to miracles really isn't an argument at all. he might as well just say, "i just don't believe in miracles, therefore I'm too skeptical to believe in a Resurrection." we didn't need him to show up for the debate!
Am I wrong here or was the last little bit by William "You must show the evidence is not true AND explain the evidence through natural means" Looks to me like an apologist trap by setting up a contradiction.
True, but since any naturistic explanation is by far more likely than f(x,y) still approaches zero. By definition, a miracle is a violation of physical laws and thus its probability is essentially 0, no matter how unlikely the naturalistic explanation. Further, there are *multiple* naturistic explanation which Dr. Craig "accidentally" ignored.
Lim PR(R/B)--->0 is pretty debatable. Indeed, it's just question begging to set it that way. And of course B and R are causally linked. If they aren't, then why did you write PR (R/B)---->0. The probability of the Resurrection depends on certain background information (ie. the possibility of supernatural phenomenon in your metaphysical worldview etc) so B and R are clearly linked to each other.
Here is an analogy: A student does not have his homework assignment to hand in. He tells the teacher that a leprichan stole his homework. Using Craig's logic, can we rule the student's explanation out? Or must we first consider the likelihood of the natural alternatives? If we find the natural alternatives to be "unsatisfactory explanatory" and also cumulatively improbable, can we the CONCLUDE that leprichans are real? I argue that using Craig's logic, most anything is mathematically PROVEN.
Craig really tries to trick his listeners. He wants you to believe that the way that we determine if something is true is by a. determining the event's "power to satisfactorily explain" something, and to b. determine the probability of the alternatives to that event.
What Craig conveniently leaves out, is that to consider any possibility, it IMPERATIVE that we first have knowledge of some such similar event. So we can't posit an UNKNOWN event as the most probable one.
Craig says "mathematically fallacious!" Oh he slays me. I love that Craig thinks that he can prove supernatural probabilities using math; this is hilarious and embarrassing to mathematicians.
Nowhere in this debate did Craig say he could prove supernatural probabilities using math. He pointed out that Ehrmans' reasoning is fallacious on mathematical grounds (specifically on the mathematical Baynesian probability theory). Judging by all your comments on my videos in the last few days it would seem like you're too focused on finding every fault possible with Craig that you miss the substance of his remarks. Try to take a step back a bit from your own presuppositions.
@Christianjr4 I'm not really concerned with your judgement of my comments or history of comments. Refute the comment, not my character or tendencies. Others can read your comments, and mine and DECIDE for themselves! They don't need you to moderate my comments in order to come to agreements.
Thanks for watching the videos. With respect to my comment, however, I did respond to your remarks about Craig using math to justify the resurrection. Again, I pointed out that wasn't true. Thx for your comments! You're always welcome to post here.
@LittleSn00py, care to elaborate a bit, or are you simply content with an appeal to ridicule? (which is a logical fallacy). Either way, contribute something of use to the debate or don't bother to speak at all.
Miracles are like cicuit breakers for believers,otherwise they will go crazy if they didnt have in their religious believes.think about your electrical layout at your home .If high voltage comes many things will burn .Not to have this they put circiut breakrs.
@milkywayone hmm, I think we watched entirely different debates. In all fairness I think this is a great debate, both sides presented strong arguments but to say that craig got destroyed is a bit naive...
I find it astonishing that Christians have to desperately resort to denying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! Craig literally used to argue that since he himself couldn't think of an argument for it, that therefore it wasn't true! The hubris! (see Keith Parsons debate)
Mike Licona is a classic for denying that XClRqXE; he actually said the testimony of ONE PERSON would make him believe that Richard Carrier owned an intersteller spacecraft!
The problem of evil? There is no source of cold in the universe. Cold is the absence of heat. Same can be said of evil. Evil is the absence of good. Therefore, with free will, people who seperate themselves from good caused evil seperated from any Godly influence.
To say, because the universe is designed by God, and there is evil in it, that God is therefore evil, is an argument long dispelled with.
The Free Will Defense doesn't work. God himself is supposed to be a free agent, yet he always FREELY CHOOSES to do what is right (supposedly), therefore you can have free agents and still have little to no evil.
Whats so good about free will anyway? Why would it be better for example if I could freely choose to speed up and slow my heart down? The only time free will has any value is when it is used to do GOOD things.
I'm sorry, I really don't see what your getting at here.
Sorry, this effort at a rationalisation just does not work.
Yes cold is absence of heat, (less movement of atoms). We know what it is, can quantify it. A physical phenomenon.
Good and evil on the other hand do NOT exist as such, in and of themselves. They are merely labels we use to loosely identify acts that take place, with intent.
Remove any sentient living beings from this universe. The movement of atoms, (what we term heat) still exists. Good and evil however, now do NOT.
This is an attempt to show that just because God created the universe (if you believe that) and there is evil in the universe, does not mean God created evil. Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat).
Yes exactly, as I said this is an attempt at a rationalisation, an analogy. But it is fantasy. As is the idea of a deity. That's the reason you are reduced to making these rationalisations, instead of showing actual EVIDENCE for such an entity.
Evil and good are TERMS that we have coined to describe actions. That is all. They do not exist as physical realities.
BTW, it is apparently impossible to get down to absolute zero. Absolute zero would mean NO atomic movement at all.
Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot.
I apply this logic to good and evil. Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man
5:55 "specifically, dr Ehrman just ignores the crucial factors of the probability of the naturalistic alternative. if these are sufficiently low..."
in a nutshell, (hidden behind mountains of rhetoric) his position is that there are no naturalistic explanations that are sufficiently probable (ie. more probable than miracles)
Ehrman provided one in part 4. He didn't ignore them, Craig is just determined to continue with his premade slides.
Dr. Craig is equivocating with the term "probable." In his case, the word probable means that his is the best explanation. Now it means some kind of numerical probability? Can't be done without the number of possible outcomes (fact is not subject to probability regardless....it's a red herring).
Also....Ehrman does NOT have to come up with some other kind of naturalistic explanation. He has to come up with any possible explanation which explains the given facts...but he did that already in P4.
So I multiply the evidence by the resurrection, divide that by the background information, add that by its reciprocal, and divide that by resurrection times competing hypotheses?
This gives a 50% numerical probability, right?
Get a load of this goon. He's trying to calculate probabilities for which the number of possible outcomes are unknown (actually, infinite...Ehrman already demonstrated he can fart viable hypotheses)...based on evidence? The pretension....
So if we take the PRooooobable explanation of X, and put it over the proooobable basis of Y, we get a near certainty. Therefore, Jewish zombie sorcerers exist!
Aha! I've been a skeptic all my life, but his insult of David Hume and irrefutable logic have convinced me. Now I will go to the temple and eat the flesh of an undead messiah and worship the GOD!
Does anyone know what operation the '&' in his equation is referring to? Is that a logical 'AND' or is it a bitwise AND operator? And it is taking what I assume is a numerical value E/B and doing a & operation to a truth value R. Also Pr() is supposed to be a function which spits out the probability within the range [0, 1] of the resurrection occurring... Does this equation make sense to anyone?
This is a farce. A way to look intellectual, not address a point. Do you really think anyone in the audience, or Ehrman (or perhaps even Craig himself) understands a bit of the mathematics on display? There is no time to study, no time to stop the procession to address a single variable, and even if someone has an issue with a point... by the time they may be able to say something, they've almost certainly forgotten it.
This is the equivalent of a magician's misdirection to pull off a trick.
My respect goes down for him everyday. His twisted moral code alone is a major turn off. Anyone who tries to justify smashing a childs head open on a rock just because it was ordered by Yahweh deserves condenmation.
Craig's just trying to dazzle people with the fancy formula, but Ehrman already made the point that the probability of X is infinitely small and that he could think of many somewhat probable Y's. Making the probablility of R really small. But Craig says his stuff with such confidence it almost sounds convincing.
This is just stupid. Craig offers no data whatsoever that establishes that some kind of magic, supernatural world exists anywhere but his imagination and demands we accept the possibility because it fits his "evidence" (which he has ever so graciously supplied to us). We all agree that the "natural world" (reality) exists; unless he at some point establishes the "supernatural" (whatever that may be) his entire argument is nothing more than an eloquent gush of hot air.
Craig ignores the point Ehrman made, and that was that miraculous explanations are be defnition the most improbable ones, because they require a suspension of the laws of nature and that is infinitely improbable.
Look up the Craig Carrier debate and you'll see that he expresses the exact same argument, down to the very wording, each time he's on the podium. WLC is a professional arguer, and obviously unconcerned with learning anything (at all) from the people he debates.
Of course, when you're under the delusion that you have god on your side, that mistake is easily made.
@TheAndrewMan1000 Thanks for the vote of confidence. I hate it when people like WL Craig and K Hovind pass of pseudo-science as valid because they think nobody will stop and "do the math."
Religious literalists of every stripe need to stop trying to justify their faith with science. Not gonna happen.
I haven't done the research (though I may get round to it one day) but couldn't the sort of argument Craig uses here be used to prove the probability of many other religious stories which Craig would presumably reject on the basis that they are not Christianity & Christianity is the only true religion?
Oh dear, I spent the last 2 minutes of this part yelling at the screen "he already answered it". The grave robbing theory Bart Ehrman gave was part of Y, but William Lane Craig repeatedly stated "he just ignores it." Ehrman may have ignored it in his book (I don't know), but he certainly didn't in the debate. This is why you can't just stick to your script in a debate.
You should have listened to the debate. The facts that are agreed upon by NT historians, which pass the criteria for historical authenticity was Jesus death by crucifixion, his burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb by his women followers, claims of his postmorterm appearances and the origin of his disciples belief in ressurection. A hypothesis has to account for all of these facts or else it does not have explanatory power.
That's a very naive view about NT scholarship and if fact shows you're own biasedness. Those facts that I mentioned are accepted by the broad spectrum of NT scholars - both left and right, secular and religious. For example, people like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg who belong to the radical Jesus Seminar. Even Bart Erhman did not dispute those facts. Rather than worrying about my shoes, you should account for those facts and provide an alternative viable hypothesis.
". Those facts that I mentioned are accepted by the broad spectrum of NT scholars"
And I don't care. Not at all. The only view I am interested in is of that of qualified historians who approach the issue without bias. Or are you claiming Ehrman is simply saying what he says because he has a bias?
Yes there is, we have the premarkan accounts, we have the prepauline creed in 1 Corinthians 3:15, we have multiple independent sources from the Gospels.
Your biasedness is really coming out now. Upon what basis are you claiming that NT scholars don't count? Are you assuming that they are all religious? If you are, then that just shows how ignorant you are. I already explained that the broad scope of NT scholars, both conservative and liberal, both religious and secular, agree with those facts. There's even one in front of you...Bart Erhman.
"they state a priori that the Bible is historical"
That's very naive. NT scholars use certain criteria in a systematic way to determine whether something is historical or not.
"I don't care what NT scholars think" - Well, you should. I wouldn't go to a biologist or chemist to learn the rules of historicity.
"Erhman...he's wrong" That's an assertion, you didn't say why hes wrong. No credible historian denies Jesus' existance, you have taken a very radical position.
"If they did, they'd realize the NT is anything but historical."
That's an assertion, you haven't shown why. By your own standards, the same criteria used to deny the historicity of the NT documents can be used to deny the existence of other historical events like Napoleon's battles. Also, you haven't shown how NT scholars "bend" history. In fact, that is so improbable that it fails to account for the motives a secular or atheist NT scholar would have in "bending" facts.
No because, what I said is in line with what NT scholars conclude by using criteria for determining a historicity of an event. They use things such as early, multiple independent sources, the principle of embarassment, the principle of disinterested comments, explanatory scope, etc. You haven't provided a postive case, and your mere assertion is not a case.
"Yes, they do. How would an omnipotent being leave so little evidence behind anyway?"
You don't need God to determine whether Jesus existed or not, just like we do not need God to determine whether Abraham Lincoln existed or not. The fact remains, we have sufficient evidence to look at to determine whether Jesus existed or not. We have early, multiple and independent sources. What criteria are you using to determine that the "little" evidence is insufficient?
"You don't need God to determine whether Jesus existed or not, just like we do not need God to determine whether Abraham Lincoln existed or not."
There's a lot of concrete evidence for the existence of Lincoln. None of such evidence exists for Jesus.
Plus, if you claim this Jesus is the guy I should be groveling to so he can set me up with his "dad", you'd better have much better evidence for his existence than for Lincoln.
I know that there is concrete evidence for Lincoln, that is not in dispute. What I'm pointing out is your inconsistency. The same standards that you use against the existence of Jesus can be used against the existence of Lincoln. Furthermore, to claim that Jesus existed does not mean that you have to "be set up with his 'dad.'" That does not logically follow. The existence of Jesus, in itself, is a religiously neutral statement.
Not only are you inconsistent about historical events, you are also inconsistent in your use of Ehrman. First, I explained how Erhman does not dispute the historical facts that I mentioned. You responded by saying "Erhman is wrong." Then you use Erhman to support using "criteria for accepting historical evidence." You just cornered yourself. Why wouldn't Erhman's own criteria, which you support, be valid for supporting the NT facts, which he himself uses for the NT?
"What historical events?" The ones I mentioned concerning the death and post death events surrounding Jesus. You said they are not historical and you used Erhman to support your view. But Erhman does not help you because he believes in those facts. When I mention that to you, you say "Erhman is wrong." So on the one hand you want to use Erhman for historical criteria, but then you don't want to use him for historical criteria. That is called a double standard.
"Those are not historical events. They are merely stories, without any corroboration"
That's an assertion, but you finally gave a reason for it, good job! You said there is no corroboration. Yes, there is, that's why I mentioned the criteria of early, multiple independent sources. "I merely agree with what he said about how historians verify historicity." The same criteria that he says about historicity is the same criteria he uses for those facts.
". Yes, there is, that's why I mentioned the criteria of early, multiple independent sources"
There are no independent sources. There is only the Bible. ONE source. HIGHLY biased. HIGHLY suspect. A source that is wrong about EVERY factual detail. .
"I respect Ehrman when his opinions match up with his fellow historians"
You're in luck here. It just so happens that Erhman agrees with the vast majority of NT scholars and historians.
"when he's making stuff up, he's on his own"
No he used the available evidence and used criteria of historicity to come to a conclusion. If you want to deny that, then you have to show which criteria is wrong and you have to provide an alternative hypothesis using the same criteria.
"Erhman agrees with the vast majority of NT scholars and historians."
Okay, let's end it right here then: I don't really care about Ehrman either. Unless anybody provides any concrete evidence for the historicity of Jesus, NOT based on textual criticisms of the Bible, I stand firm in my conviction he is as real as Batman. And at least Batman made a lot more sense.
The NT does provide concrete historical evidence for Jesus, you are just not willing to accept it. Not only that, we have various extra-biblical sources from non-christians which attest to and corroborate Jesus' existence such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, etc.
"Non-contemporary" - Um, that's why i mentioned Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Bart Erhman - all contemporary historians, non-christians, who all agree with the 5 lines of evidence that I mentioned. You're just not familiar with the scholarship.
I didn't claim that in order to believe in the historicity of Jesus that you have to worship him. Otherwise, Bart Erhman and Gerd Luddeman would have been Christians, but they are not. What I claimed was that Jesus existed and I also poined out some facts surrounding his burial and post death events. Those facts, in themselves are religiously neutral. You are simply being naive here.
"I didn't claim that in order to believe in the historicity of Jesus that you have to worship him."
My argument is the other way around: if you want me to worship him, first show he exists. THEN show he indeed is she son of some god. And THEN you have to show that his god is worth worshiping (since I sure as hell won't worship the megalomaniacal asshole depicted in the Bible).
All you are doing is presenting red herrings. The argument was never that we have to worship Jesus. The original argument was, given the 5 facts concerning the death and post death events concerning Jesus, what is the best hypothesis which accounts for those facts. I already showed you the criteria that historians use determine Jesus' existence. Since you already agreed to that criteria via Erhman, you have to show us, using the same criteria why he did not exist.
"given the 5 facts concerning the death and post death events concerning Jesus, what is the best hypothesis which accounts for those facts."
No, seeing the utter lack of evidence for any of those "facts", the best hypothesis is that it has all been made up. People do come up with all kinds of stories all the time, so it's not a stretch by any means.
You haven't shown how the evidence is lacking, you haven't shown how the criteria used to determine its authenticy is invalid, you haven't provided evidence for it being "made up." You said "people come up with stories all the time." Yeah, they do. And do you know how we guard against that? By using the criteria of multiple independent sources. That would make it highly unlikely that it's made up. That's what the 5 facts have, and you haven't shown why to disgard them.
"There are none. We have only ONE source. A highly biased source at that"
That just shows your ignorance of the NT. Before the books and letters were canonized into one book, they were all independent sources. Even the Gospels have independent material and derived their material from multiple lines of traditions, all of which corroborate each other . The only person who is biased is the one who refuses to apply the same standards of historicity for the NT, that is you.
I didn't hear all of that debate because the guy who had it only played bits and pieces but I heard enough to know that no sane person can believe in that god.
I agree. I have heard other christians say that same thing. "You just don't want to obey your creator" I have also heard Craig say my best evidence is what I know in my heart. Have you heard his arguments to justify hell in his debate with Raymond Bradley? It's insane.
'well it's POSSIBLE the world was only created last Thursday with the appearance of age! Plus the fact that I know the God of Last Thursdayism to be true because of his immediate reality in my life, this gives me good grounds for saying my faith is perfectly rational'
The only reason Craig wins so many debates is because he is extremely organized and he always comes well prepared. His actual arguments leave alot to be desired.
Yeah that and he has a lot of experience at debating. And that is a skill that can be develped like any other. I myself do not desire to speak in public at all. Much less in front of a huge crowd of people.
"I have also heard Craig say my best evidence is what I know in my heart."
Worse, he actually says, and I quote:
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter."
He also states to believe that Satan is the cause of why people don't believe in his religion. Why is anybody taking him seriously?
Why does Craig get a fancy powerpoint?
htiberian 2 months ago
Christians' attempts to save their disgraced beliefs are amazing. No modern conspiracy theory can compete with it.
SPQRAquila 2 months ago
"He needs not only to tear down all the evidence FOR the Resurrection, but he needs to erect a positive case of his own in favour of some naturalistic alternatives" - This is something that atheists just don't get.
Hannodb1961 3 months ago
@Hannodb1961 Because it is simply untrue. It is a shifting of the burned of proof from the person making the claim (Like if I claimed that I own an invisible submarine in my garage), to the person saying that it probably isn't true (Then you need to erect a positive case in favor of some naturalistic alternatives!). Showing my claim of invisible submarines is good enough. Would you put someone in prison because they didn't establish their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt?
beriukay 2 months ago
@beriukay heh, "burned of proof." Whoops.
beriukay 2 months ago
@beriukay Would you let a guilty person go free when an excellent case has been made for his guilt, and his only defense is that he didn't do it? The fact is, WLC HAVE lived up to the burden of proof, and he HAS made an excellent case. This DOES move the burden of proof to his critics, and they DO reject his case without giving a better alternative. This is HARDLY what one would call "Reasonable doubt". It is very easy to dismiss credible evidence when you're not forced to think about it.
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@beriukay Put another way. Suppose the prosecution makes a positive case for someone's guilt, and they cite many eyewitnesses and other evidences. Suppose then the defense lawyer stands up and say: "Your honor, I am not convinced. This is not evidence of anything, and the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to prove that my client is guilty. The defense rests." Do you think that the judge would conciser this "reasonable doubt"? Well, this is exactly what WLC's critics are doing.
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@beriukay Or, lets look at EB's approach. The lawyer ("sceptic") tells the judge: "Your honor, I have worked with my client (nature) for two years now (The sceptics very limited view of reality). NEVER have I ever seen him commit a crime (Miracle) and I must conclude that it is not in his nature to do so .It is IMPOSSIBLE that he could do it. Therefore, it is IMPOSSIBLE that evidence can exist that he did do it,and whatever evidence is presented,must be a misrepresentation.The defense rests."
Hannodb1961 2 months ago
@Hannodb1961 This is a flawed analogy. The attorney may have never seen the defendant commit a crime, and indeed many people who know him might not have. But we're all aware that people (generally) commit crimes, and often try to keep them secret. "His neighbors described him as a quiet man..." So it's plausible that the seemingly nice guy is nonetheless guilty. A better analogy would be if someone were accused of killing someone 5,000 miles away using telekinesis. The court would throw it out.
bcgonynor 2 months ago
@bcgonynor I KNOW it's a flawed analogy. It's MEANT to be a flawed analogy to illustrate a point. The point I'm trying too expose the absurdity of materialists that say: "Well, just because I've never seen people rise from the dead in my life time, no amount of evidence could ever proof that it happened in the past, because such a thing is impossible". People shouldn't ask for evidence of something if they're not even willing to consider it.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@Hannodb1961 I understood what you were saying. it's you who missed my point. There is a difference between being surprised that a friend of yours ended up being a murderer, in a world where murders happen every day, and having to "consider" whether someone rose from the dead based on ancient documents, when this violates everything we know about our bodies. Any far-fetched alternative - that the apostles were liars, that Jesus was in a coma, that he had a secret twin - is more plausible. Sorry!
bcgonynor 1 month ago
@bcgonynor All three those options have been discredited years ago. The fact of the matter is, there is no scenario that can make sense of all the historical documentation WITHOUT Jesus rising from the Dead. WLC does an excellent job at explaining why, and there's no point in repeating it all. It is easy to dismiss the evidence when you refuse to study it.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@bcgonynor 9
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
@bcgonynor My posts leading up to this analogy is still very much uninterrupted. As you can see, I responded to beriukay who said: "Would you put someone in prison because they didn't establish their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt?". I simply pointed out that WLC HAS provided his case, and HAS fulfilled his burden of proof. In other words, saying "he's shifting the burden of proof" no longer counts as a valid counter argument.
Hannodb1961 1 month ago
The use of mathematics here is pure posturing and obscurantism. The essential point WLC is erroneously trying to make here is that the ressurrection of Jesus is a certainty when the probability of it not having happened is 0. Pretty impressive mathematics indeed.
AllyWheels 3 months ago
All this makes me wonder if the romans had Hellenistic apologists defending their gods, I know some of the newer religions do like islam, christianity, buddhism, and others.
Requiemxtoxinnocence 3 months ago
So Bart assumes that the gospels were written many decades after by random people who didn't even see or know Jesus....Um sorry Bart, but your fellow scholars disagree with your fringe beliefs and conjecture.
MrSB1274 5 months ago
@MrSB1274 "So Bart assumes that the gospels were written many decades after by random people who didn't even see or know Jesus....Um sorry Bart, but your fellow scholars disagree with your fringe beliefs and conjecture. "
No, they don't. They teach that at the undergrad level, i.e. it's not a debated issue by scholar. The fact that the gospels were written decades after the death of Jesus is one of the things which there is the highest degree of consensus on.
AR333 4 months ago
@AR333 : Actually they weren't. See youtube vid "greg koukl debate deepak chopra" Greg lists the facts about the gospels and the book of acts. Its pretty obvious from history when these were written.
MrSB1274 4 months ago
@MrSB1274 So when I talk about NT scholarship, you refer me to a non-scholar and think you've offered a rebuttal? I didn't find a video with that title, but if in that video he says that the gospels + acts was written by the actual followers of Jesus, he is wrong.
AR333 4 months ago
@MrSB1274
Oh dear, you've just embarrassed yourself there, i'm afraid.
1878EFC2008 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK (DONATED) FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: WINNING ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 5 months ago
What's tragically ironic for Craig is that the point he makes at the end with regards to x / (x+y) is IN Hume's work "On Miracles".
Hume's maxim is something along the lines of "a miracle can only be believed in if its not having occurred is more miraculous than it having occurred".
This is exactly what Craig argues for, that given all the "specific evidence", the natural explanation being the right one would be highly improbable, i.e. miraculous.
AR333 5 months ago
As usual, WLC is manipulating math he does not know at all. In order to apply any statistical tools for finding out probability, we should be sure we are dealing with random variables. Second we have to have some knowledge of what limits the values our variable can have. Third we have to have observations on this variable or on another variable that is correlated to our variable. The event resurrection does not meet any of these requirements. We cannot even think of using statistics here.
cosmopolite66 5 months ago
Almost every single comment on this video is done by atheists. Why are atheists so obsessed with their own unbelief?
AegeanKing 7 months ago
@AegeanKing What's more they get thumbs up in a video that prevents thumbs up from being given.
You know how stubborn atheists are when they listen to Dr. Craig and still don't believe, or have even opened their minds up at all to Christ.
God bless
R0FLLWAFFL3 6 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@AegeanKing
"Almost every single comment on this video is done by atheists."
As an atheist I make it no secret that I love to see Craig go down in flames. Craig is well-hated for being a disingenuous prick with an ego the size of a planet. And then some.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer But your boys can't tear him down. Even Sam Harris admits that Craig tends to rip atheists to shreds. I am so glad to see this happening. Craig attacks the structure holding arguments together. I have always known that an insightful debater will learn to do this well. William Craig Lane is one of the top debaters I've seen. He is a rare one, but not the only one out there on these types of debates.
ray7685 5 months ago
@ray7685
"But your boys can't tear him down."
He's been torn a new one each and every time, but he insists every time that he has won. The only people who agree with him on that are the uninformed members of his sheeple, who don't check his citations and who don't trace the amounts of logical fallacies the man piles up in one debate.
"William Craig Lane is one of the top debaters I've seen"
Anyone who lies as much as Craig does cannot possible be called a top debater.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Not according to one of your 4 horseless men, Sam Harris. Go to the first video and hear it for yourself. If you disagree with him, send Harris an email about it. I just happen to agree with him. At least Harris can admit it. Oh, didn't Antony Flew admit that Craig and others were instrumental in changing his thoughts on the issue of evolution? If you disagree, send Flew an email about it. I just happen to agree with him.
ray7685 5 months ago
@ray7685
"Not according to one of your 4 horseless men, Sam Harris. "
I think Sam Harris' is always way too nice. But he also tore Craig a new one. Heck, Craig tears HIMSELF a new one regularly, with his own stupidity.
"didn't Antony Flew admit that Craig and others were instrumental in changing his thoughts on the issue of evolution?"
Who cares about Anthony Flew?
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Oh, I see... you don't care about their daddy any more. You know he was their daddy, right? You know they looked up to him, right? I think Sam Harris will be next to unsaddle himself from the horseman. We'll see.
ray7685 5 months ago
@ray7685
".you don't care about their daddy any more"
Really. NOBODY cares about Flew. I never even heard of the guy before all the creationists started spewing his "conversion" story.
Besides, atheists don't have authority figures. That's more of a theist thing. The only thing that unifies atheists is that they don't believe in any gods. And most of them do it because there's simply no evidence.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer You must be new to all of this. That's cool. Momo, are you really searching for objective truth, or have you determined there is no truth? When you talk of God, are you searching, or have you determined there is no God? Faith will always be present regardless which way you turn. We both look at intellect, but I say there is evidence that a greater intellect exists. You say that intellect came from no-intellect. It takes more faith to believe what you believe.
ray7685 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ray7685
"You must be new to all of this."
You don't know me too well, 'ey?
"are you really searching for objective truth, or have you determined there is no truth?"
All we can do is expand our knowledge. If that leads to any kind of "truth", that's all swell, but I personally don't care that much.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@ray7685
"When you talk of God, are you searching, or have you determined there is no God?"
You got that backward. It's YOU who talks about this god, so YOU will have to provide evidence for its existence. As long as you fail to do so, I reserve the right not to believe you.
"I say there is evidence that a greater intellect exists"
Cool. Let's see it then.
"You say that intellect came from no-intellect. "
No, I say intellect comes from firing neurons in brains.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhh ha ha ha ha... Craig is such an ignoramus! x/(x+y) does not tends to one as x tends to zero. On the contrary, x/(x+y) tends to ZERO as x tends to zero.
hernantoro 8 months ago
Craig is so full of shit....
I can imagine Sunday school, with nuns gathering children around them, saying: "Boys and girls, there is a God." "How do you know, sister?" 'Because if you look at this equation, let's postulate that E is the existence of Jesus, in a world of possibilities, which we will call A. E will then equal the square root of B divided by C....
This is literally excrement.
Narwal88 9 months ago
Comment removed
bigcrouton 9 months ago
Craig's a loon. Pr(R/B) "TELLS" how probable the resurrection is given the basis of evidence? Bullshit; it's just a bunch of symbols. Does Craig even UNDERSTAND what a probability is? No, he does not, or else he'd be talking about the probability of miracles as taken from EMPIRICAL PRECEDENT (number of miracles divided by number of circumstances that could POTENTIALLY be explained by miracles)...which--OH!--is literally COMPLETELY ABSENT.
PerilocutionAZ09 9 months ago
WLC's "not probable" side of the equation is based on HIS selected factors... that gives me serious pause as to the credibility of his calculus.
bozzutoman 10 months ago
I like how Bill mentions that Bart Ehrman was just using a refined version of David Humes' reasoning...*cough* Kalam cosmological argument *cough*
RonBurgundy161 10 months ago
To all of the skeptics who made comments, notice how you've done the same thing you accuse Christians of doing; automatically assuming your postion is correct (at all costs I might add-circular reasoning), while ignoring the strong points of Craigs' arguments, (that self-deception). Meanwhile, you're blind to the fact that apart from the truths of Christian Biblical teachings, you have absolutely no justification to assume things like induction, reason itself, all of the laws of logics, etc.
JohnO318 11 months ago
Craig wins again.
JohnO318 11 months ago
Craig wins again.
JohnO318 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For Atheists, i's all about their "statement of faith" that they follow, and have to defend. Anyhting that goes against what the scientists say, they automatically say it's false, without even researching to see if what a person is claiming is true or not. It's all circular reasoning with people who MUST defend their atheism.
unprofessionalvids 11 months ago
For Christians, i's all about their "statement of faith" that they follow, and have to defend. Anyhting that goes against what the bible says, they automatically say it's false, without even researching to see if what a person is claiming that goes against the bible is true or not. It's all circular reasoning with people who MUST defend their bible and their gods.
EddieSchultz62 11 months ago
It's funny that no one mentions that there are no original biblical documents in existence. What we have are copies of copies of copies, that have been rewritten and edited over and over again. This alone serves as an explanation for the many contradictory accounts of the so called resurrection of Jesus. I personally think that the very existence of Jesus cannot be proven conclusively outside of the scriptural accounts.
chatpilot 11 months ago
all this proves is that William Lane Craig us intellectually superior than Bart Ehrman. it doesn't prove jesus exist
unprofessionalvids 11 months ago
@unprofessionalvids No, it proves that WLC is intellectually dishonest with his presentation, if one truly thinks about what he is trying to do to prove his point.
EddieSchultz62 11 months ago
Let me get this straight, the philosopher, William Lane Craig, thinks he can mathematically quantify a probability for the truth of the claim that Christ was resurrected using entirely unquantifiable things like literary testimonies while completely undefining how we would extract numerical values from this supposed evidence or what the significance of such values would be? Is he an idiot?
Ticky21 11 months ago
Did WLC actually listen to a word Bart Ehrman said???
What on earth was all that pseudo mathematical nonesense for? There is absolutely no sense in constructing complex mathematical formula (actually, they were cumbersome rather than complex...) if you have no figures to put into them?
Ehrman said, very clearly, that there were any number of plausible explanations, so the value of "Y" in WLC's formula is HUGE, hence the probability of the resurrection is TINY.
What a silly bit of nonsense!
SAHBfan 11 months ago
"Historians can't establish miracles as the most probably occurrence because miracles by their very nature are the least probably occurrence." Hear, Hear!
Ricardius1710 1 year ago
Wow !!! Craig mathmatically proved himsefl wrong ... With a "complicated" ratio ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
another way to formulate Bayes theorem here is using Odds.
O R/E&B= O R/B X O pE / R&B/ p E/~R&B. If the prior odds( R/B) are excessively low, it is going to take a huge likelihood ratio to make the posterior Odds high enough to make it reasonable to conclude R. WLC must show p E/R>>>pE/~R.
I don't think he has done this at all.Ehrman effectively argues p R/B is excessively low and that p E/~R is not so low.
adstanra 1 year ago
how does anyone take Ehrman so seriously? the entire basis of his argument is that he doesn't believe in miracles. yes, miracles would be the least likely occurrence in general, even believers know that. but the Resurrection is the exact event in discussion here. so his objection to miracles really isn't an argument at all. he might as well just say, "i just don't believe in miracles, therefore I'm too skeptical to believe in a Resurrection." we didn't need him to show up for the debate!
venom769 1 year ago
@venom769 - Keep trying to put that square peg in the circular hole.
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
Am I wrong here or was the last little bit by William "You must show the evidence is not true AND explain the evidence through natural means" Looks to me like an apologist trap by setting up a contradiction.
arithine 1 year ago
This is a great debate. I believe in the resurrection, but I enjoy hearing the exchange between Craig and Ehrman.
ebeatworld 1 year ago
@ebeatworld - I have a bridge in Brooklkyn you may be interested in ...
MaitreyaRocket 1 year ago
aw, COME ON! x/x+y, lim x--->0, f(x,y)=0
take a facking calculus course!!
lianghaochen 1 year ago
@lianghaochen
It's actually x/x+y, lim y--->0, f(x,y)=1
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 yes, but that would require Pr(R/B)*Pr(E/B&R)-->inf, that is not established.
lianghaochen 1 year ago
@Christianjr4
True, but since any naturistic explanation is by far more likely than f(x,y) still approaches zero. By definition, a miracle is a violation of physical laws and thus its probability is essentially 0, no matter how unlikely the naturalistic explanation. Further, there are *multiple* naturistic explanation which Dr. Craig "accidentally" ignored.
jimmo42 10 months ago
calculation is bullshit
lim PR(R/B)--->0, Pr(R/B&E)=0
besides, this assumes that B and R have some causal link.
"if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit. "
lianghaochen 1 year ago
@lianghaochen
Lim PR(R/B)--->0 is pretty debatable. Indeed, it's just question begging to set it that way. And of course B and R are causally linked. If they aren't, then why did you write PR (R/B)---->0. The probability of the Resurrection depends on certain background information (ie. the possibility of supernatural phenomenon in your metaphysical worldview etc) so B and R are clearly linked to each other.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 my metaphysical worldview has no influence on a factual event. possibility of supernatural phenomenon~=0
lianghaochen 1 year ago
Light both illuminates and it blinds.
clintmmartin 1 year ago
Here is an analogy: A student does not have his homework assignment to hand in. He tells the teacher that a leprichan stole his homework. Using Craig's logic, can we rule the student's explanation out? Or must we first consider the likelihood of the natural alternatives? If we find the natural alternatives to be "unsatisfactory explanatory" and also cumulatively improbable, can we the CONCLUDE that leprichans are real? I argue that using Craig's logic, most anything is mathematically PROVEN.
capoman1 1 year ago
Craig really tries to trick his listeners. He wants you to believe that the way that we determine if something is true is by a. determining the event's "power to satisfactorily explain" something, and to b. determine the probability of the alternatives to that event.
What Craig conveniently leaves out, is that to consider any possibility, it IMPERATIVE that we first have knowledge of some such similar event. So we can't posit an UNKNOWN event as the most probable one.
capoman1 1 year ago
Craig says "mathematically fallacious!" Oh he slays me. I love that Craig thinks that he can prove supernatural probabilities using math; this is hilarious and embarrassing to mathematicians.
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
Nowhere in this debate did Craig say he could prove supernatural probabilities using math. He pointed out that Ehrmans' reasoning is fallacious on mathematical grounds (specifically on the mathematical Baynesian probability theory). Judging by all your comments on my videos in the last few days it would seem like you're too focused on finding every fault possible with Craig that you miss the substance of his remarks. Try to take a step back a bit from your own presuppositions.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@Christianjr4 I'm not really concerned with your judgement of my comments or history of comments. Refute the comment, not my character or tendencies. Others can read your comments, and mine and DECIDE for themselves! They don't need you to moderate my comments in order to come to agreements.
Thanks for posting these videos, I like them.
capoman1 1 year ago
@capoman1
Thanks for watching the videos. With respect to my comment, however, I did respond to your remarks about Craig using math to justify the resurrection. Again, I pointed out that wasn't true. Thx for your comments! You're always welcome to post here.
Christianjr4 1 year ago
@naejimba Delusional atheist.
LittleSn00py 1 year ago
@LittleSn00py, care to elaborate a bit, or are you simply content with an appeal to ridicule? (which is a logical fallacy). Either way, contribute something of use to the debate or don't bother to speak at all.
naejimba 1 year ago
@mojorhythm Delusional atheist.
LittleSn00py 1 year ago
@LittleSn00py
I love people like you. So true to the message and example of Jesus Christ, meek and mild.
mojorhythm 1 year ago
man, Mr. Craig's mathematical gymnastics sure have me convinced ....
philosothink 1 year ago
@philosothink Delusional atheist.
LittleSn00py 1 year ago
Miracles are like cicuit breakers for believers,otherwise they will go crazy if they didnt have in their religious believes.think about your electrical layout at your home .If high voltage comes many things will burn .Not to have this they put circiut breakrs.
Demcoy1 1 year ago
erhman just destroy craig in this debate!
milkywayone 1 year ago
@milkywayone hmm, I think we watched entirely different debates. In all fairness I think this is a great debate, both sides presented strong arguments but to say that craig got destroyed is a bit naive...
beto88keys 6 months ago
I find it astonishing that Christians have to desperately resort to denying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence! Craig literally used to argue that since he himself couldn't think of an argument for it, that therefore it wasn't true! The hubris! (see Keith Parsons debate)
Mike Licona is a classic for denying that XClRqXE; he actually said the testimony of ONE PERSON would make him believe that Richard Carrier owned an intersteller spacecraft!
H-ly.F-cking.Sh-t.
mojorhythm 1 year ago
@mojorhythm
The problem of evil? There is no source of cold in the universe. Cold is the absence of heat. Same can be said of evil. Evil is the absence of good. Therefore, with free will, people who seperate themselves from good caused evil seperated from any Godly influence.
To say, because the universe is designed by God, and there is evil in it, that God is therefore evil, is an argument long dispelled with.
ZakBrownrigg123 1 year ago
@ZakBrownrigg123
The Free Will Defense doesn't work. God himself is supposed to be a free agent, yet he always FREELY CHOOSES to do what is right (supposedly), therefore you can have free agents and still have little to no evil.
Whats so good about free will anyway? Why would it be better for example if I could freely choose to speed up and slow my heart down? The only time free will has any value is when it is used to do GOOD things.
I'm sorry, I really don't see what your getting at here.
mojorhythm 1 year ago
@ZakBrownrigg123
Sorry, this effort at a rationalisation just does not work.
Yes cold is absence of heat, (less movement of atoms). We know what it is, can quantify it. A physical phenomenon.
Good and evil on the other hand do NOT exist as such, in and of themselves. They are merely labels we use to loosely identify acts that take place, with intent.
Remove any sentient living beings from this universe. The movement of atoms, (what we term heat) still exists. Good and evil however, now do NOT.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
@martiangrundy
This is an attempt to show that just because God created the universe (if you believe that) and there is evil in the universe, does not mean God created evil. Cold does not exist. According to the laws of Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat).
ZakBrownrigg123 1 year ago
@ZakBrownrigg123
Yes exactly, as I said this is an attempt at a rationalisation, an analogy. But it is fantasy. As is the idea of a deity. That's the reason you are reduced to making these rationalisations, instead of showing actual EVIDENCE for such an entity.
Evil and good are TERMS that we have coined to describe actions. That is all. They do not exist as physical realities.
BTW, it is apparently impossible to get down to absolute zero. Absolute zero would mean NO atomic movement at all.
martiangrundy 1 year ago
@martiangrundy
Absolute Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don't have body heat or we are not hot.
I apply this logic to good and evil. Evil does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man has created to describe the result of the absence of God's presence in the hearts of man
ZakBrownrigg123 1 year ago
*sigh* really craig? that's your point?
5:55 "specifically, dr Ehrman just ignores the crucial factors of the probability of the naturalistic alternative. if these are sufficiently low..."
in a nutshell, (hidden behind mountains of rhetoric) his position is that there are no naturalistic explanations that are sufficiently probable (ie. more probable than miracles)
Ehrman provided one in part 4. He didn't ignore them, Craig is just determined to continue with his premade slides.
blackplatypus 1 year ago
Dr. Craig is equivocating with the term "probable." In his case, the word probable means that his is the best explanation. Now it means some kind of numerical probability? Can't be done without the number of possible outcomes (fact is not subject to probability regardless....it's a red herring).
Also....Ehrman does NOT have to come up with some other kind of naturalistic explanation. He has to come up with any possible explanation which explains the given facts...but he did that already in P4.
Redfingers 1 year ago
Let me get this straight here.
So I multiply the evidence by the resurrection, divide that by the background information, add that by its reciprocal, and divide that by resurrection times competing hypotheses?
This gives a 50% numerical probability, right?
Get a load of this goon. He's trying to calculate probabilities for which the number of possible outcomes are unknown (actually, infinite...Ehrman already demonstrated he can fart viable hypotheses)...based on evidence? The pretension....
Redfingers 1 year ago
embarassing
bigtopofun 1 year ago
So if we take the PRooooobable explanation of X, and put it over the proooobable basis of Y, we get a near certainty. Therefore, Jewish zombie sorcerers exist!
Aha! I've been a skeptic all my life, but his insult of David Hume and irrefutable logic have convinced me. Now I will go to the temple and eat the flesh of an undead messiah and worship the GOD!
JiangZiyaTabooDays 1 year ago
just sayin
larkingclogger 1 year ago
Does anyone know what operation the '&' in his equation is referring to? Is that a logical 'AND' or is it a bitwise AND operator? And it is taking what I assume is a numerical value E/B and doing a & operation to a truth value R. Also Pr() is supposed to be a function which spits out the probability within the range [0, 1] of the resurrection occurring... Does this equation make sense to anyone?
ColdSHeep 1 year ago
This is a farce. A way to look intellectual, not address a point. Do you really think anyone in the audience, or Ehrman (or perhaps even Craig himself) understands a bit of the mathematics on display? There is no time to study, no time to stop the procession to address a single variable, and even if someone has an issue with a point... by the time they may be able to say something, they've almost certainly forgotten it.
This is the equivalent of a magician's misdirection to pull off a trick.
Eldritch78 1 year ago
@mojorhythm Craig has struck out *at least* three times.
He was also trounced by Victor Stenger and Shelly Kagan, and with Kagan even seemed excruciatingly aware of it.
No fully sane, genuinely intelligent person can watch those three debates and come away with any real respect for Craig.
polymath7 1 year ago
@polymath7
My respect goes down for him everyday. His twisted moral code alone is a major turn off. Anyone who tries to justify smashing a childs head open on a rock just because it was ordered by Yahweh deserves condenmation.
mojorhythm 1 year ago
Craig's just trying to dazzle people with the fancy formula, but Ehrman already made the point that the probability of X is infinitely small and that he could think of many somewhat probable Y's. Making the probablility of R really small. But Craig says his stuff with such confidence it almost sounds convincing.
snaboofypopable 1 year ago
This is just stupid. Craig offers no data whatsoever that establishes that some kind of magic, supernatural world exists anywhere but his imagination and demands we accept the possibility because it fits his "evidence" (which he has ever so graciously supplied to us). We all agree that the "natural world" (reality) exists; unless he at some point establishes the "supernatural" (whatever that may be) his entire argument is nothing more than an eloquent gush of hot air.
sfeltmate 1 year ago
Craig ignores the point Ehrman made, and that was that miraculous explanations are be defnition the most improbable ones, because they require a suspension of the laws of nature and that is infinitely improbable.
8DX 1 year ago
ROFL @ 4:20+
These are what the theists have come to, a probability calculus that not 1 in 100 Christians care to understand.
11111011 1 year ago
Look up the Craig Carrier debate and you'll see that he expresses the exact same argument, down to the very wording, each time he's on the podium. WLC is a professional arguer, and obviously unconcerned with learning anything (at all) from the people he debates.
Of course, when you're under the delusion that you have god on your side, that mistake is easily made.
11111011 1 year ago
@AngryLittleBirds Faith is evidence, dispite way it is used today. Evidence of things not seen is faith.
whwsjackfrost 1 year ago
Which one of these guys got their ass kicked?
Entropy56 1 year ago
Pr(E/B) is extremely close to y zero (~0), < 1 per 10 billion
~0*X=is also nearly zero (~0) , provided X ≠ infinity.
Craig's Y (essentially chance of no resurrection) is a very high probable value, close to 1 (~1).
~0/(~0+~1) = ~0, still a miracle and massively unlikely.
Nice try WLC. Almost misleading enough.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago 2
@drfoxcourt Im gonna subscribe to you based on that comment alone.
TheAndrewMan1000 1 year ago
@TheAndrewMan1000 Thanks for the vote of confidence. I hate it when people like WL Craig and K Hovind pass of pseudo-science as valid because they think nobody will stop and "do the math."
Religious literalists of every stripe need to stop trying to justify their faith with science. Not gonna happen.
drfoxcourt 1 year ago
@drfoxcourt Yup, but its ok, because Ehrman destroyed Craig in this debate pretty easily.
TheAndrewMan1000 1 year ago
I haven't done the research (though I may get round to it one day) but couldn't the sort of argument Craig uses here be used to prove the probability of many other religious stories which Craig would presumably reject on the basis that they are not Christianity & Christianity is the only true religion?
gextvedde 1 year ago
Very true.
pedertyve 1 year ago
Oh dear, I spent the last 2 minutes of this part yelling at the screen "he already answered it". The grave robbing theory Bart Ehrman gave was part of Y, but William Lane Craig repeatedly stated "he just ignores it." Ehrman may have ignored it in his book (I don't know), but he certainly didn't in the debate. This is why you can't just stick to your script in a debate.
conradleviston 2 years ago 4
@conradleviston
Except that the grave robbing theory has very weak explanatory power.
Mkvine 6 months ago
@Mkvine
"Except that the grave robbing theory has very weak explanatory power."
It's still better than claiming that some entity, which we have never observed, somehow resurrected Jesus.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
So far that hypothesis accounts for all the facts. Hence it has the best explanatory scope.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"So far that hypothesis accounts for all the facts."
What facts? All we have are some stories written decades later.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
You should have listened to the debate. The facts that are agreed upon by NT historians, which pass the criteria for historical authenticity was Jesus death by crucifixion, his burial by Joseph of Arimathea, the discovery of his empty tomb by his women followers, claims of his postmorterm appearances and the origin of his disciples belief in ressurection. A hypothesis has to account for all of these facts or else it does not have explanatory power.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"The facts that are agreed upon by NT historians"
The word used are "NT Scholars", who are biased by definition. Historians like Erhman generally agree that the evidence is too flimsy.
"A hypothesis has to account for all of these facts"
I wonder: how can you even tie your shoes in the morning if you can't distinguish a fact from a story?
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
That's a very naive view about NT scholarship and if fact shows you're own biasedness. Those facts that I mentioned are accepted by the broad spectrum of NT scholars - both left and right, secular and religious. For example, people like John Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg who belong to the radical Jesus Seminar. Even Bart Erhman did not dispute those facts. Rather than worrying about my shoes, you should account for those facts and provide an alternative viable hypothesis.
Mkvine 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mkvine
". Those facts that I mentioned are accepted by the broad spectrum of NT scholars"
And I don't care. Not at all. The only view I am interested in is of that of qualified historians who approach the issue without bias. Or are you claiming Ehrman is simply saying what he says because he has a bias?
"provide an alternative viable hypothesis."
It's all made up. There.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@Mkvine but they are not facts. Of course nt historians are going to say they are facts.
lordrazr 5 months ago
@lordrazr
Why are they not facts?
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"Why are they not facts?"
Because there's no evidence to back them up.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Yes there is, we have the premarkan accounts, we have the prepauline creed in 1 Corinthians 3:15, we have multiple independent sources from the Gospels.
Mkvine 5 months ago
Comment removed
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"How come no historian recognizes those as evidence? Are they all biased against your religion?"
No historian? That's not true, I already said that the vast majority of NT scholars, including Bart Erhman believe in those sources as evidence.
"Using the Bible as evidence for the veracity of the Bible is nothing but circular reasoning."
The NT documents are historical sources, just bec centuries later they were canonized into the bible doesn't make them any less valuable.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"I already said that the vast majority of NT scholars"
Cram it into your think skull that NT scholars don't count.
"The NT documents are historical sources,"
The vast majority of historians disagrees.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Your biasedness is really coming out now. Upon what basis are you claiming that NT scholars don't count? Are you assuming that they are all religious? If you are, then that just shows how ignorant you are. I already explained that the broad scope of NT scholars, both conservative and liberal, both religious and secular, agree with those facts. There's even one in front of you...Bart Erhman.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"Upon what basis are you claiming that NT scholars don't count?"
NT scholars are biased in that they state a priori that the Bible is historical.
"agree with those facts. "
I really don't care what NT scholars think of the NT.
". There's even one in front of you...Bart Erhman. "
If Erhman thinks that there's evidence for the existence e of Jesus, he's wrong.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"they state a priori that the Bible is historical"
That's very naive. NT scholars use certain criteria in a systematic way to determine whether something is historical or not.
"I don't care what NT scholars think" - Well, you should. I wouldn't go to a biologist or chemist to learn the rules of historicity.
"Erhman...he's wrong" That's an assertion, you didn't say why hes wrong. No credible historian denies Jesus' existance, you have taken a very radical position.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"NT scholars use certain criteria in a systematic way to determine whether something is historical or not."
If they did, they'd realize the NT is anything but historical. It's religious propaganda.
"Well, you should."
Nope. I am not going to listen to people who bend history to what they want it to be.
"No credible historian denies Jesus' existance"
Yes, they do. How would an omnipotent being leave so little evidence behind anyway?
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"If they did, they'd realize the NT is anything but historical."
That's an assertion, you haven't shown why. By your own standards, the same criteria used to deny the historicity of the NT documents can be used to deny the existence of other historical events like Napoleon's battles. Also, you haven't shown how NT scholars "bend" history. In fact, that is so improbable that it fails to account for the motives a secular or atheist NT scholar would have in "bending" facts.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"That's an assertion"
Yes, and everything you say is indisputable truth because ... uhm ... you say so?
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
No because, what I said is in line with what NT scholars conclude by using criteria for determining a historicity of an event. They use things such as early, multiple independent sources, the principle of embarassment, the principle of disinterested comments, explanatory scope, etc. You haven't provided a postive case, and your mere assertion is not a case.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Yes, they do. How would an omnipotent being leave so little evidence behind anyway?"
You don't need God to determine whether Jesus existed or not, just like we do not need God to determine whether Abraham Lincoln existed or not. The fact remains, we have sufficient evidence to look at to determine whether Jesus existed or not. We have early, multiple and independent sources. What criteria are you using to determine that the "little" evidence is insufficient?
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"You don't need God to determine whether Jesus existed or not, just like we do not need God to determine whether Abraham Lincoln existed or not."
There's a lot of concrete evidence for the existence of Lincoln. None of such evidence exists for Jesus.
Plus, if you claim this Jesus is the guy I should be groveling to so he can set me up with his "dad", you'd better have much better evidence for his existence than for Lincoln.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I know that there is concrete evidence for Lincoln, that is not in dispute. What I'm pointing out is your inconsistency. The same standards that you use against the existence of Jesus can be used against the existence of Lincoln. Furthermore, to claim that Jesus existed does not mean that you have to "be set up with his 'dad.'" That does not logically follow. The existence of Jesus, in itself, is a religiously neutral statement.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"The same standards that you use against the existence of Jesus can be used against the existence of Lincoln"
Not so. Ehrman explains very well what the criteria are for accepting historical evidence.
"The existence of Jesus, in itself, is a religiously neutral statement. "
No, not if you claim that I have to worship this guy. In that case, the evidence for his existence had better be MORE than rock solid.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
Not only are you inconsistent about historical events, you are also inconsistent in your use of Ehrman. First, I explained how Erhman does not dispute the historical facts that I mentioned. You responded by saying "Erhman is wrong." Then you use Erhman to support using "criteria for accepting historical evidence." You just cornered yourself. Why wouldn't Erhman's own criteria, which you support, be valid for supporting the NT facts, which he himself uses for the NT?
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"Not only are you inconsistent about historical event"
What historical events?
"you are also inconsistent in your use of Ehrman."
I respect Ehrman when his opinions match up with his fellow historians, but when he's making stuff up, he's on his own. No inconsistency there.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"What historical events?" The ones I mentioned concerning the death and post death events surrounding Jesus. You said they are not historical and you used Erhman to support your view. But Erhman does not help you because he believes in those facts. When I mention that to you, you say "Erhman is wrong." So on the one hand you want to use Erhman for historical criteria, but then you don't want to use him for historical criteria. That is called a double standard.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"The ones I mentioned concerning the death and post death events surrounding Jesus."
Those are not historical events. They are merely stories, without any corroboration.
"you used Erhman to support your view."
How can I use a PERSON for that? I merely agree with what he said about how historians verify historicity
"Erhman is wrong."
He is when he claims there is evidence for the existence of Jesus.
"That is called a double standard."
You present a false dichotomy.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"Those are not historical events. They are merely stories, without any corroboration"
That's an assertion, but you finally gave a reason for it, good job! You said there is no corroboration. Yes, there is, that's why I mentioned the criteria of early, multiple independent sources. "I merely agree with what he said about how historians verify historicity." The same criteria that he says about historicity is the same criteria he uses for those facts.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
". Yes, there is, that's why I mentioned the criteria of early, multiple independent sources"
There are no independent sources. There is only the Bible. ONE source. HIGHLY biased. HIGHLY suspect. A source that is wrong about EVERY factual detail. .
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I already address this, read my previous post.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"I respect Ehrman when his opinions match up with his fellow historians"
You're in luck here. It just so happens that Erhman agrees with the vast majority of NT scholars and historians.
"when he's making stuff up, he's on his own"
No he used the available evidence and used criteria of historicity to come to a conclusion. If you want to deny that, then you have to show which criteria is wrong and you have to provide an alternative hypothesis using the same criteria.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"Erhman agrees with the vast majority of NT scholars and historians."
Okay, let's end it right here then: I don't really care about Ehrman either. Unless anybody provides any concrete evidence for the historicity of Jesus, NOT based on textual criticisms of the Bible, I stand firm in my conviction he is as real as Batman. And at least Batman made a lot more sense.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
The NT does provide concrete historical evidence for Jesus, you are just not willing to accept it. Not only that, we have various extra-biblical sources from non-christians which attest to and corroborate Jesus' existence such as Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, etc.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine All non-contemporary historians. Sorry, you fail.
atheistram 3 months ago
@atheistram
"Non-contemporary" - Um, that's why i mentioned Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, and Bart Erhman - all contemporary historians, non-christians, who all agree with the 5 lines of evidence that I mentioned. You're just not familiar with the scholarship.
Mkvine 3 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
I didn't claim that in order to believe in the historicity of Jesus that you have to worship him. Otherwise, Bart Erhman and Gerd Luddeman would have been Christians, but they are not. What I claimed was that Jesus existed and I also poined out some facts surrounding his burial and post death events. Those facts, in themselves are religiously neutral. You are simply being naive here.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"I didn't claim that in order to believe in the historicity of Jesus that you have to worship him."
My argument is the other way around: if you want me to worship him, first show he exists. THEN show he indeed is she son of some god. And THEN you have to show that his god is worth worshiping (since I sure as hell won't worship the megalomaniacal asshole depicted in the Bible).
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
All you are doing is presenting red herrings. The argument was never that we have to worship Jesus. The original argument was, given the 5 facts concerning the death and post death events concerning Jesus, what is the best hypothesis which accounts for those facts. I already showed you the criteria that historians use determine Jesus' existence. Since you already agreed to that criteria via Erhman, you have to show us, using the same criteria why he did not exist.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"given the 5 facts concerning the death and post death events concerning Jesus, what is the best hypothesis which accounts for those facts."
No, seeing the utter lack of evidence for any of those "facts", the best hypothesis is that it has all been made up. People do come up with all kinds of stories all the time, so it's not a stretch by any means.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
You haven't shown how the evidence is lacking, you haven't shown how the criteria used to determine its authenticy is invalid, you haven't provided evidence for it being "made up." You said "people come up with stories all the time." Yeah, they do. And do you know how we guard against that? By using the criteria of multiple independent sources. That would make it highly unlikely that it's made up. That's what the 5 facts have, and you haven't shown why to disgard them.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine
"By using the criteria of multiple independent sources."
There are none. We have only ONE source. A highly biased source at that.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer
"There are none. We have only ONE source. A highly biased source at that"
That just shows your ignorance of the NT. Before the books and letters were canonized into one book, they were all independent sources. Even the Gospels have independent material and derived their material from multiple lines of traditions, all of which corroborate each other . The only person who is biased is the one who refuses to apply the same standards of historicity for the NT, that is you.
Mkvine 5 months ago
@Mkvine So you're saying that Dr. Ehrman is biased??
atheistram 3 months ago
@atheistram
What are you talking about?
Mkvine 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mkvine
"Yes there is, we have the premarkan accounts"
How come no historian recognizes those as evidence? Are they all biased against your religion?
"1 Corinthians 3:15" "sources from the Gospels"
Using the Bible as evidence for the veracity of the Bible is nothing but circular reasoning.
But even if I would grant you those, it's still extremely pathetic evidence for someone who was supposedly god on earth.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
I didn't hear all of that debate because the guy who had it only played bits and pieces but I heard enough to know that no sane person can believe in that god.
Ilikejpgs 2 years ago
I agree. I have heard other christians say that same thing. "You just don't want to obey your creator" I have also heard Craig say my best evidence is what I know in my heart. Have you heard his arguments to justify hell in his debate with Raymond Bradley? It's insane.
Ilikejpgs 2 years ago 4
It would be like me saying:
'well it's POSSIBLE the world was only created last Thursday with the appearance of age! Plus the fact that I know the God of Last Thursdayism to be true because of his immediate reality in my life, this gives me good grounds for saying my faith is perfectly rational'
The only reason Craig wins so many debates is because he is extremely organized and he always comes well prepared. His actual arguments leave alot to be desired.
mojorhythm 2 years ago
Yeah that and he has a lot of experience at debating. And that is a skill that can be develped like any other. I myself do not desire to speak in public at all. Much less in front of a huge crowd of people.
Ilikejpgs 2 years ago
@Ilikejpgs
"I have also heard Craig say my best evidence is what I know in my heart."
Worse, he actually says, and I quote:
"Should a conflict arise between the witness of the Holy Spirit to the fundamental truth of the Christian faith and beliefs based on argument and evidence, then it is the former which must take precedence over the latter."
He also states to believe that Satan is the cause of why people don't believe in his religion. Why is anybody taking him seriously?
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago