Richard Carrier vs William Lane Craig on Faith Under Fire

More about Richard Carrier's case for the "two body" theory concerning St. Paul's views can be found here http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/resurrection/3.html and the entire case can be found in the book, "The Empty Tomb: Jesus Beyond the Grave" http://www.amazon.com/Empty-Tomb-Jesus-Beyond-Grave/dp/159102286X The FAQ responding to the most common objections can be found here: http://www.richardcarrier.info/SpiritualFAQ.html

William Lane Craig's book "The Son Rises" can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Son-Rises-William-Lane-Craig/dp/1579104649 and the closest thing I can find on his site responding more at length to the "spiritual body" stuff is here: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/bodily.html If anyone has any better links on behalf of Craig, please let me know. Christian CADRE has a post on this video as well and they point to the same article. http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2004/10/faith-under-fire-richard-carrier-a...

Not a lot of time to get into anything, and it seems they got kind of tangled in different discussions at the end. Rick was asking about the appearance evidence from the epistle era (when Paul wrote) and asked Bill if he thought Paul was describing heavily interactive physical appearances like the later versions that we find in the gospels (especially Luke and John). Somehow we side stepped into talking about the validity of Acts which is a different conversation given Acts is tied to the later gospel of Luke and not the early first hand Pauline evidence that only speaks directly of revelations and visions.

Viewers, I suppose, are left with two options. Either Rick (and other atheists) are close minded crazy people or perhaps some Christians are intellectually retrofitting their subjective religious experiences into a shaky historical case for a variety of phenomena (miracles) that we can't confirm today.

Rick's response to the part of N. T. Wright's book, "The Resurrection of the Son of God" dealing with physical vs. spiritual body resurrection can be found here:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/SpiritualFAQ.html#wrightsupport

For a much longer in-depth debate on this issue, Rick goes up against Mike Licona and the video of that is here:

http://blip.tv/play/Aab0WomkJQ

and part two is here:

http://blip.tv/play/Aab3C4mkJQ

As a semi-follow up to that debate Rick takes on Frank Turek here:

http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/1232788

And currently Rick is engaged in a written debate with Jake O'Connell and it is going on at infidels.org on this same issue here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-oconnell/

To understand how Rick's position here squares with his updated views on the ahistorical Jesus hypothesis go here:

http://www.richardcarrier.info/SpiritualFAQ.html#ahistoricity

For some important lessons on how ahistoricity should *not* be justified listen to this audio interview:

http://audio.xanga.com/WAR_ON_ERROR/cb1b22649243/audio.html

Not that it matters too much, but I've posted my own commentary on migkiller2 and DrunkAtheist's little scuffle in the comment section here on my xanga:

http://weblog.xanga.com/WAR_ON_ERROR/684574792/itchy-theist--scratchy-atheist...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Richard
• Carrier
• William
• Lane
• Craig
• Faith
• Under
• Fire
• Lee
• Strobel
• resurrection
• Jesus
• atheist
• Christian
• debate

[ZEEECHET]

I have just found a huge contradiction in WLC's beliefs.

He says in (4.18) that christianity could be falsified and so is dependant on evidence

But everywhere else he says that he knows christianity is true because of the witness of the holy spirit, so independant of any evidence

These are irreconcilable

[Johnf85]

Whoa, Craig was much more fundamental back then. Uses circular logic saying the bible says that every man can find god if he tries, therefor there is no excuse, and hell is justified. haha this is exactly why I run from this crazy religion. Believe the bible and its contents or burn forever!!

[Klash92]

Hitchens admits defeat? where is that???

[Kailoa36]

Label this: Two idiots try to gang up on a genius and fail miserably.

[atheistcommonsense]

@AegeanKing i can define a scholary debate, but there is more than 1 type of debate genius

[AegeanKing]

@atheistcommonsense Its not semantic troglodyte, its the facts. A discussion is not a debate. You are so dumb you don't even know how to define a scholarly debate. I suggest turning your brain on and educating yourself on what constitutes a scholarly debate. There is a reason that the Veritas forum asked him SPECIFICALLY not to tun the discussion into a debate.

[atheistcommonsense]

@AegeanKing lol fuck off with the semantics a discussion is a debate. Either way kagan won. And where does the hitchens thing come from? Just throw that in there y dont you. Watch arif ahmed destroy craig, at one point the audience roared in cheer when ahmed told craig that his arguments may pass at talbot but not cambridge. Bart ehrman beat him on the resurrection as well. I suggest turning the blinders off.

[COEXISTential]

@AegeanKing "Hitchens also called him 'a serious and rigorous scholar'"

Interestingly the only place that phrase turns up anywhere on the web is here. Link/citation? WLC is a rigorous scholar, for individual facts, where he falls down is his logical connections between those facts. Also, when all else fails he engages in clumsy ad hominems (as here) and baseless assertions starting with, "On the atheist world-view..." for which the only correct close (that he doesn't use) is 'there is no god.'

[AegeanKing]

@atheistcommonsense His "debate" with Kagan was not a debate. It was a discussion. Moreover, Craig was under directions from the host not to turn it into a debate on stage. Secondly, Christopher Hitchens himself ADMITTED defeat to Craig after their debate. Hitchens also called him "a serious and rigorous scholar". So, it is obvious that you are just a butthurt atheist that can not get over the fact that Craig wins all his debates and his opponents respect him.

[atheistcommonsense]

@AegeanKing he is a bad thinker and only the theists think he wins the debates. Kagan had turned him into a stuttering baboon. Solid arguments- you do realize that they have been refuted dozens of times, just b/c WLC refuses to admit it doesnt mean they havent

[thejewishagnostic]

as for the conversions

james: is thaught by some scholars to be an over write to smear the character of james as he was not well liked by paul & his crew

paul: theres no idependant conformation of this. but its hard to tell whats an accurate discription of what hes saying since he was known to change his tone to suit his needs.