William Lane Craig 4: Craigshead Revisited (Refuting WLC's Proofs For God, Part IV)

I first encountered WLC in a debate with Antony Flew; I've taken my clips from the videos, which start with this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maoGIt...

WLC is an odd one. Read his Wikipedia entry and you form the impression of some minor deity fallen to earth for the purposes of theological instruction. Then, upon seeing him speak, you realise two things: he's a more than usually convincing orator with a soothing voice (in fact his arguments tend to be presented practically identically in different circumstances), and his logic is as fallacious as that of any less loquacious Christboys. In fact he is, in at least some senses, totally batshit. His primary evidence for God is his own personal witness of the holy spirit, and even if proof arises against his belief (which to my thinking it already has) he doesn't think it matters. That is the mark of a profoundly broken mind. Bear in mind the proofs he's given are not what convinced him in the first place.

This time - Craig assumes that the only possible explanation for a body vanishing from a tomb is God at the controls.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• william
• lane
• craig
• antony
• flew
• apologist
• apologetics
• jesus
• christ
• god
• atheist
• atheism
• league
• of
• reason
• science
• resurrection

[MoonwalkerWorshiper]

Ok let's try this one. All alternate explanations for the resurrection you mentioned have already been tried by numerous people who - unlike yourself - have studied the gospels in details and they haven't been able to disprove christianity. Historical evidence and reasoning points to that Jesus rose from the dead.

People die when they are crucified - it's a death punishment, so naturally he did die. You speculate with no basis. The shroud of the body wasn't even untied. 6:12 - your best argument

[Th1sWasATriumph]

"Reasoning points to that jesus rose from the dead"

An event that breaks natural law as we know it, an event without precedent or antecedent, which was described in a book which you will take literally as gospel but presumably at the same time dismiss miraculous claims from other religions. If you're seriously defending the resurrection, you are either a troll or broken in the head. Which would you prefer?

[MultiUniv3rsal]

BTW David Blaine would kick the pants off Derren Brown.

[Th1sWasATriumph]

@MultiUniv3rsal Well, that's an opinion, ain't it? I prefer Derren from what I've seen. Blaine seems too into the notion, whether self-aware or not, that he is actually magic. Derren is nicely upfront with how secular all of his tricks are. Also, he dresses better. And THAT is an opinion as well :)

[MultiUniv3rsal]

@Th1sWasATriumph Dude, he can hold his breath for like 18 minutes. That's ridiculous. Plus he can steal your watch without you ever noticing.

I'll be honest, I've never even heard of Derren Brown ;)

[Th1sWasATriumph]

@MultiUniv3rsal Well, breath holding is hardly a magic trick. You can't compare physical prowess with magic!

Blaine might be able to steal your wallet, but Derren can do that . . . AND just ask you for it, and you'll give it to him. Not even kidding!

He's really worth looking into if you didn't know him. He converted a roomful of atheists into theists. It was awesome and creepy (he turned them back afterwards).

[TruthSurge]

"NT historians" he means, Christians.

[basmithtx]

I wonder how many non-Christian historians believe in the veracity of resurrection.

Confirmation bias much?

[theGroveMan]

He is one smug son of a bitch

[Keeban3]

I'm surprised that you accept that Craig's argument that Jesus was put in a tomb that was later found open, and he was seen walking around. Why not just say that such claims are legend. People didn't see him or the tomb, and the whole thing got into popular culture (as legends tend to do) and then was copied down 20-100 years later by fourth or fifth hand accounts that have little bearing on the truth? But since these sources are not independent, they agree with each other (somewhat).

[GohModley]

His beard tickles.

[atheistcommonsense]

hey thanks man these videos are great. you call him out on all his bullshit

[brianhar100]

Is Lazarus still walking around? The bible really is not clear on that. I mean if your brought back from the dead do you die?

[Greyclouds40]

One funny fact that many Christians are unaware of (since it has been edited out of the English translation of the bible): Barabbas' first name was also Jesus. The actual Hebrew transliteration to phonetic letters would be Yeshua bar abbas, or (the translation:) "Jesus, son of the father." So, the Jews in the "passion" were choosing between Yeshua bar yosef (Jesus son of Joseph) and Yeshua bar abbas (Jesus son of the father). Interesting huh?

[Th1sWasATriumph]

@stargate353 Well, quite. Figures of myth like Mithras also point to this conclusion. However, I prefer to refute such arguments as if the foundation is true, as it allows for so much more fun than simply cutting Craig off at the start.

As for much more powerful? Not really. Attacking Craig on the basis of history has less mileage than attacking his logic, if you want to expose the kind of man he really is.

[GoodyBob]

@MrPositivekarma Also, there's been countless atheists/skeptics, etc. who have attacked the Bible as historical, but ended up proving it's accuracy. McDowell can be challenged, but Strobel is correct. I've never heard of Geisler/Turek. Check out "Bible Accuracies", Biblical archeology, ETC. Not the new age pin-heads. Bye!