William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman 12/12

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

[richaldeano]

...and Erhman for the win!

[jghairghai]

I find it interesting that I just heard Ehrman on a broadcast talk discussing his opinion that Peter didn't write either of the two books of Peter in the bible because he was an illiterate fisherman and couldn't have written in Greek. So now we are to believe that these 'fisherman' actually colluded to concoct a story about his resurrection and spread it to the four corners of the Roman Empire and all died for that lie. Right.

[tublet13]

@OneEightZeroZero I agree that the creation argument cannot show a monotheistic god on its own but when combined with other arguments it can form a solid case. I would say its the best possibility of the others, given what it would take to create a universe that entity would need those qualities or it would be impossible. If you doubt the omnipotence for ex what would be your alternative? Also god acting in the physical world while being eternal is a debate for Christians lol.

[OneEightZeroZero]

@tublet13 But can those qualities be inferred from the creation, or is it just one possibility among many? I don't think "non-physical" or "supernatural" are even valid concepts if describing things that interact with physical and natural objects, but even if they were, why not some mindless Gaia-esque "spirit energy?" Or a pantheon of gods?

We simply can't derive something like monotheism or intelligence from creation, or omnipotence from anything (it would require infinite proof).

[tublet13]

@OneEightZeroZero Non physical is exactly what it is, a non physical entity which we can conceive of what could be a god and if that being all powerful it would be perfectly logical that it could create a physical universe.

[tublet13]

@OneEightZeroZero I would argue that anything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist so it has a cause. You ask about a natural process well a lot of theories are based on natural processes such as multi verse or oscillating universe hypothesis. Even these hypothesis i would argue have major physical and practical flaws. A non physical agent could be a number but we know these dont have causal power. The question is whats the best explanation for the caus

[pplus0440]

No real winner as neither debator directly adressed the other's main objections.

[OneEightZeroZero]

@tublet13 "Cause" may not even be appropriate with time converging on the Big Bang, but it's a huge leap to suggest the necessity of intelligence and supernaturalism in a gigantic cosmic explosion. Why not a natural process? Or even if not, what about an unthinking supernatural process? What do we even know about "causation" when non-physical causative agents are involved? What does "non-physical" even mean if it affects physical objects?

[tublet13]

@OneEightZeroZero Well i like Craig's argument for it he says the universe can either be caused by

1. God

2. Abstract Objects

3. In necessity of its own cause

I guess in your case your not satisfied with it being god and are leaning towards number 3 and Craig using current knowledge of how physical space can be formed and how time is carried out has deemed it implausible for it to occur b4 hand.

I guess personal experience is only good when combined with the other evidence.

[OneEightZeroZero]

@tublet13 Craig using minimal intuition isn't really true. We know nothing about atemporal or non-physical causation whatsoever, yet the cosmological argument infers things through that barrier.

I don't doubt your experiences, but Buddhist monks can tell you how their spirituality affects their lives daily as well, so either they're lying, or spiritual experiences aren't enough to vindicate a belief. I don't trust things that would fixate me on an untruth rather than exposing it.