William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman 6/12

A debate on the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection between the prominent Christian philosopher and apologist William Lane Craig and the prominent New Testament historian Bart D. Ehrman.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Bart
• Ehrman
• Resurrection
• Jesus
• History

[pezzamange]

@pplus0440

Craig wouldn't know philosophy if it smacked him in the face. I don't care what his qualifications are, very very few philosophers agree with him and I can't understand why people think he is good. He reminds me of a dodgy salesman, show enough confidence in your product and you can sell anything to anyone. Well I see right through his crap, his arguments are highly polished turds.

[pplus0440]

William Lane Craig is definatly a very very skilled debator. He may be pretty sneaky in his arguments. Honestly I'm not smart enough to tell.

[pplus0440]

@EisEisBaby lol you dismiss 100 years of philosophical arguments because you don't want to believe him? or do you have an actual argument?

[EisEisBaby]

Probability calculus really ?? no wonder Craig thinks the Fine Tuning Argument is a good argument. He is just to easily impressed by unbelieveably bogus probability calculations.

[CyprusHot]

Craig is right , Bart's position is self refuting! Haha

[Requiemxtoxinnocence]

The problem with most biblical historians is their christian bias and covert apologetics, I think if more skeptical historians and secular students took up theology we might get a better view.

[mrsaizy]

If WLC uses probability to prove Jesus resurection is fact then whats to say Joseph Smith finding golden tablets or speaking to god didnt happen. He would have to conciede all other religions have the same probability of divine accounts happening in thier sources.

[punnet2]

So according to WLC, the resurrection is probable, as long as you believe in magic.

[riaamaan]

So much bloviation...

[AllyWheels]

I feel the use of mathematical probability (those so very impressive looking formulae), to lend weight to his motion that jesus was resurrected from the dead, was actually an exercise in garnering credibility for himself by posing as a logical or scientific thinker.