The Problem of Proving Jesus Resurrection Answering William Lane Craig

[AustriaRollerblading]

If you are a christian then I would love for you to respond too me without talking about faith and the bible. QUESTION: If jesus resurrected then why was his tombs location not recorded? This would proove that he did not resurrect.

[letmelookify]

aznGBaller412 this is a good point to make, but we have reason to believe that god do's not exist because there is no evidence that supports that he do's. But you are right, this do's not prove that's he do's not exist just because there's a lack of evidence, but that doesn't mean he's real that just means that we can never be 100% sure if he is real or isn't. And that applies with everything that is not supported with evidence.....so this is a stupid argument.

[StopSpamming1]

Nice approach.

Believers can't provide proof or even evidence for the existence of any deity. They resort to finding artificial arguments for a "good probability" of the existence of their own particular god, which brings it right back to faith. Which, in turn, would not be necessary were a god to exist.

[irishboy55520]

@StopSpamming1 That's a excellent point you raised and very true.

[gekritzl]

Well done, epaminodas.

[megaman9307]

we also know that dingo's can concieve babies (in the form of pups) and leave them on your doorstep, i've seen it happen. Just thought i'd add that in there. :)

[counterstryke]

This is pure and utter foolishness.

[De4sher]

@counterstryke people rise from the dead....

and chocolate can eat itself.... i read about it in an ancient book.

[counterstryke]

@De4sher

From which ancient book did you read that chocolate can eat itself?

[De4sher]

@counterstryke well the book doesn't have a name, lol.

and an alien took it away, so i can't show it to you.

[drcraigvideos]

Dr. Craig actually debated Dr. Avalos and whipped him: watch?v=NHQJvn4Hnh8

[epaminodas]

i heard a recording a while back.

why do you think you're warranted in saying he "whipped" avalos? the debate showed two opposite approaches to the gospels. Avalos didn't want to engage in historicity and WLC didn't address Avalos' concerns regarding the "on the first day" Aramaic language issue. (he's never issued a response to avalos' claims surrounding the printer error issue)

each was laying out their own case but never addressed the other. i don't see how that counts as a "win"

[ddisil]

@drcraigvideos I watched that debate on your channel I think. It is a good debate and a lot of drama. Dr Avalos' voice is so annoying so it was hard to listen to the debate.

[rokkvi1]

@drcraigvideos what a surprise that Craig´s biggest fanboy would have the opinion that Craig "whipped" his opponent in a debate. Craig is a BS artist. He´s admitted he´ll believe in god regardless of whatever evidence comes up against him. He´s a member of the anti-scientific Discovery Institute, whose goal, as revealed in the Wedge document, is to teach creationism in schools at all levels and take out the teaching of evolution. Craig is an anti-scientific, propaganda spewing tool.

[AceofDlamonds]

One problem I think is that the Bible can't be exactly taken as a whole. The "take all or take none" seriously "dilemma" was basically taken in by early Church leaders and applied to the faith, which is not right at all.

[epaminodas]

I'd agree with you. The bible seems a collection of very different types of literature that don't necessarily mesh together - of course, fundies see the psalms and small prophets as containing prophecies and types of christ - which only the holy spirit can reveal to be true i guess

[VicTheVicar]

i thought the oldest half-complete manuscripts were from the late 1st or early 2nd century , but then i checked wiki - and you're damn right! thanks for bringing this to my attention!

[crazy4carolyn]

Very good video. Good logic and sound reasoning! Now if we could just get christians to use the same!

[fhkjds]

Also you said that there are no manuscripts from the first century after the event, but as Craig pointed out we don't have early manuscripts of Aristotle's work from within the first millennium, yet we still believe them accurate.

[epaminodas]

I understand your point. - however:

- Aristotle's works do not claim to contain THE exclusive truth for ALL of mankind as the Bible does (as such whether or not we believe all/some of A's works is not of such grave consequence when compared to the bible)

- Aristotle's works are subjected to skeptical scrutiny as much as other ancient works (i.e. Plato's works etc).

- THe point of the argument is to show that for being a Revelation from God to man the chain of transmission isn't impressive.

[fhkjds]

Right, but I think in what you just wrote you have 2 hidden premises/assumptions. 1. "We should evaluate religious historical documents more skeptically than other historical documents." and 2. "If the Bible were really a revelation, the chain of transmission would be better." Again I'm not a Christian, but I'm not sure those 2 premises are good assumptions.

[epaminodas]

these "hidden assumptions" are parts of my standard of methodology. 1. it makes more sense to evaluate religious docs more skeptically than historical docs because of what is being claimed. the level of assertions made usually increases the level of evidence required to believe the claims 2. If the Xtian God really inspired people to write his revelation to mankind why do i have to base my eternal destiny on their words and later traditions. Why aren't revelations granted today?

[epaminodas]

Forgot to add - why are these 2 premises bad assumptions? If they're wrong i'm willing to discard them and adopt better ones. So far they're the ones that seemed most reasonable to me. Which assumptions would be more reasonable. Again, the God of the Bible is not a flimsy God, but the all mighty, omniscient, all good creator of the universe. He can do whatever he wants whenever he wants - including meeting the standards skeptics consider to be reasonable. maybe i'm wrong

[fhkjds]

Your idea of being more skeptical because of what is being claimed comes back to the big issue -- is God real? If he is, then why should we be more skeptical of supernatural claims? I'm open to the idea that we should be more skeptical of supernatural claims, but many people of faith won't be.

Second, you're assuming that if the almighty COULD meet all our standards of skepticism, he WOULD. Of course religious people don't believe this, God doesn't talk to everybody in a burning bush.

[epaminodas]

1 - To me it's not about whether or not God is real or not - it's whether he is knowable and experienced materially or not (thus the problem of Divine Hiddeness). if people of faith cannot comprehend this point there's too much of a disconnect here and they cannot claim that faith necessarily means "trusting IN the evidence" as opposed to "trusting WITHOUT evidence". Believers ARE skeptical of miracle claims just not when it comes to their own religion. I.e. SPecial Pleading

[epaminodas]

2 - I'm Assuming b/c The Bible has tons of examples of God/Jesus resolving people's skepticism - i.e. Thomas, Gideon, Moses - if God went through all that trouble to meet the reasonable doubts of such people back then why can't he do so today?

[fhkjds]

You have more to go on today than Thomas did, though. Even so, if God treats you differently than Thomas, doesn't follow that the gospel is not true.

[epaminodas]

Thomas was a disciple, saw miracles, walked/talked w/ Jesus for 3.5 years AND he STILL doubted ....And Jesus MET his standard of proof - I have neither seen Jesus, nor witnessed his miracles - I'm a skeptic because i don't find the 1st/2nd century fathers to be reliable sources AND b/c God has not granted me an experience to leave me no doubt that He exists

this doesn't mean the Bible is untrue - it proves that God is selective in his revelation yet universal in judgment - as calvinists say

[epaminodas]

2 Cont - The Biblical God states that he wants all men to repent and come to him - he met doubters standards of belief and they beliveed - if he did such acts in the past and does not do them today why not? why should i be held to differing standards than Thomas when i'm in the same boat as THomas? It would not be genuine on my behalf to believe in something i cannot reasonbly be certain about and i doubt God would be pleased with it.

[fhkjds]

Even according to the Bible, though, many saw Jesus' miracles and still did not have faith. Maybe you would do that, as well.

[epaminodas]

for me to have a genuine chance at rejecting/accepting God/Jesus I would have to be certain about him/his attributes - when i no longer have any reason to doubt i am truly free to reject/accept God/Jesus. Those people who saw the miracles and rejected were within their right to do so, just as Gideon/Thomas were within their rights to accept/submit to God/Jesus.

[fhkjds]

Why would you have to be more certain than you are now to accept/reject?

Many people in the same boat as you, in fact have less knowledge than you demonstrated in this video, and do accept/reject. I'm not saying you need to accept/reject, but it's not true that you don't have a "genuine chance."

[epaminodas]

herein lies the rub, mate - "why would i have to be more certain?"

1. because the subject at hand is no mere trifling matter. it carries eternal consequences and necessitates that once i believe my mission is to tell the rest of the world that they need to convert just as i have. "belief" carries substantial responsibilities with it. I'm not fearful to carry them out but i must be convinced of their veracity before i do so.

many believe b/c they have a lesser standard of proof - i don't.

[epaminodas]

2. each person's burden of proof differs- however God is All mighty, all good and omniscient He knows what it would take for me to believe! He knows if i need a mere Jesus on my toast or a revelation like Paul, or a face to face meeting like Thomas or a miracle like Gideon. If they were privy to these manifestations why can't i be as well? why should i believe but not be given the same revelation/divine experience? I can't have a choice when i don't have the certainty of what i can choose/reject

[rturnerful]

Don't you find it rather odd....that back in Jesus's time God was out and about speaking to this one and that one.. Jesus was performing miracle after miracle and as ALL KNOWING as this God is supposed to be....we in our lifetimes now are not allowed to be witnesses to some of those same miracles today..Not just hearing stories, but being allowed to see them as they did back then? Doesn't the all knowing...Know how much mankind could use this today!!!!-?

[epaminodas]

i wholeheartedly agree! now that we finally have the means to test things and decide whether they're genuine or just hoaxes God decides to just stop the miracles....we just have to depend on the words of people 2000 years ago - would God really want his message to mankind to hinge on us taking people at their word without being able to confirm its veracity for ourselves? i doubt it - that's why the "just have faith" card is unconvincing

[rturnerful]

PS... if you're going to reply to this, could you please reply in Strait Blunt language so many and there will be many...can understand what you may have to say about this. I am too, the doubting Thomas from the stories in the Bible, and this writing of blessed are those who do not see and still believe....Sorry, in this world of today.... We who are trying so hard to stay believers - could really use some help... and please don't answer about "having Faith" that's been destroyed long ago.

[epaminodas]

ultimately imo if you're not willing to embrace the "have faith" card and ignore your questions you will end up being an agnostic/atheist - if you decide to embrace faith and no longer dwell on questioning issues you'll remain a xtian - i think it almost entirely has to do w/ the type of personality you have - some people are compliant and make good followers and others are inquisitive by nature and unwilling to accept things just because others told them to do so

[fhkjds]

Not a Christian, but some problems--some points are very damning but others not. The simplest explanation is that humans conceived that baby, not martians. Martians are not a known cause. But to a person who believes in god, the supernatural is in fact a known cause, so the martian example won't convince them. This argument will only "convince" a naturalist, who doesn't believe anyway.

[epaminodas]

i disagree with your interpretation - the theist believes in the supernatural; he does not "know" it to be a cause because he cannot prove it to the skeptic.

Just because one believes something doesn't prove it's veracity. This is where the theist must come in and say that we should not limit our "facts" to just what is verifiable - something most people disagree with.

[edejardin]

Oh, that should've been:

(2) All sentences are composed of three words or *fewer* [not 'less'].

[edejardin]

Myintellectualjourney, as I explained, it's self refuting.

Consider the following sentence:

(2) All sentences are composed of three words or less.

Clearly, (2) establishes a criterion it cannot itself meet, for (2) is a sentence, yet it contains more than three words.

It's the same with (1) in my first post above. (1) is neither empirically verifiable nor a truth of logic, so, like (2), it cannot withstand the onslaught of its own criterion. It's self referentially inconsistent.

[edejardin]

You said,

(1) A fact is only whatever can be verified with our five senses of with logic.

Now, you're treating (1) as if it's a fact. However, it's neither verifiable with the five sense, nor is it verifiable logically. Hence, (1) is self referentially inconsistent.

Craig would've knocked this one out of the park (as he did with Avalos), since you (and Avalos) are resting your entire argument on a long since disproven version of the verification principle of logical positivism.

[epaminodas]

hahahahahaha - nice! - please see the info box for a response

If you don't mind what is your epistemology? and what makes it and/or william lane craig's method superior to avalos' method? just curious that's all : )

[edejardin]

Whoever wrote that 'response' doesn't know what he's talking about. Do some research into the historical development and eventual abandonment of logical positivism's verification criterion, and you'll see the role self-refutation plays in philosophy. Honestly, the claim that self refutation is a truism is as patently uninformed and manifestly absurd a claim as I've ever seen. To claim that self refutation is of no consequence is to claim that contradiction is of no consequence!

[epaminodas]

i am a philosophy novice and i will look into what you stated.

meanwhile, would you be willing to give me your method of epistemology? and perhaps tell me whether you thought WLC's responses to avalos' 1st century to 3rd century transmission problems was adequate - i wasn't impressed

[myintellectualjourny]

How is (1) not logical?

How is this approach to fact-finding inconsistent with the dictionary definition of the word?

We treat something as factual that we either know from first hand experience (the senses) or logically conclude to be real through facts/evidence that go beyond our experience.

Where exactly is the problem?

Sometimes I get the impression that Christians question reality itself... like they think its all an illusion... like they're really Buddhist underneath or something ;o)