Did Jesus Rise From The Dead -Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig

Did Jesus Rise From The Dead Bart Ehrman Vs William Lane Craig

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Did
• Jesus
• Raise
• From
• The
• Death
• Bart
• Ehrman
• Vs
• William
• Lane
• Craig

[gugamilare]

As a mathematician, I say that Swinburne commits several flaws in his analysis. He "proves" that Jesus fulfills the prophecies of the old testament and that, therefore, he is God incarnate. That is a theological claim which is historically wrong.

Besides, he simply guesses the probability of God's existence and incarnation as 1/2. Total absurd.

Bart Ehrman is totally right, there is no way you can circumvent the fact that a resurrection is highly improbable, even applying that given formula.

[MrPhilosopher1950]

Ehrman not only won, but Craig unequivocally lost.

[HWCWTD]

So weird watching a debate where people don't applaud between arguments/rebuttals.

[bevillenz]

Craig cracks me up. In every single debate I've listen to he always has 4 or so main arguments. In his concluding remarks, no matter how badly his arguments are debunked, he says " I've given 4 arguments and tonight we have not seen these arguments challenged" what a joker.

[TomFynn]

Craig used probability to prove miracles? Don't you just love the fact that theist constantly bang on about hoe science cannot tell us about the supernatural and then go ahead and use the tools of science to "prove" their point?

[DrummerBoyJason]

Craig is totally wrong for attempting to calculate a probability for what is definitionally a zero-probability event.

Ehrman is totally correct. All he has to do is construct any other plausible account that does not invoke divine causation and the historian has no justification to accept the resurrection narrative. Since an infinite number of accounts can be constructed, we have no reason for choosing to accept the resurrection.

Ehrman's arguing is astoundingly elegant.

[infernoboi92]

i think what ehrman is trying to prove is that, we shouldn't take anything with 100% certainty, especially with regards to the bible...but the narrow-minded xian are just goddamn sure that the bible is 100% historically accurate because it chimes with their faith

[InductionRules]

I think Craig is confused about what his probability equation is actually saying. Craig is solving for the probability that any person would have actually arisen from the dead after three days (whether supernaturally or otherwise), given that there existed for that person a body of evidence of the type found in the New Testament. If the inherent probabality were 1 in a billion (think about it), a 0.01% chance of a false alarm would give you an overall probability of 0.000998990021088679%.

[garfrain]

it is entirely dishonest for lane craig to talk about anything that remotely resembles history, not a clue

[am101171]

@ghostsade3 Craig mixes, philosophy, theology, and historic background and he jumps from one to the other, in a very logical manner, though I would dish theology out, he is not someone to be dismissed as a joke. Even though I´m not a theist and vary from ignostic to agnostic theist to agnostic atheist, I think if Craig proves something is that theism can not be lightly dismissed as a joke, or stupid, even if it turns out to be wrong. At the very least know the your opponent.

[stratocaster1986able]

@teejay89656 Because Thiests don't want to listen to the truth, and within these debates......it usually arises.

[teejay89656]

Why is it that so many more atheists look up these debates than theists?