The Problem of Proving Jesus Resurrection Answering William Lane Craig

http://www.stuorg.iastate.edu/isuaas/

scroll to bottom for mp3 of the debate

http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=hector%20avalos&um=1&...

related videos


NOTE: regarding the "self refuting epistemology" of rationalists as stated by william lane craig - i found a great post which summarizes it better than i can ever say it:

"I apologize if this is off-topic, but it is relevant to Craig's debating style. I think Craig uses some pretty lame arguments actually. They are like philosophical card tricks. The problem is that most opponents don't point them out. For example, I know most will disagree with me, but I did not think he won the Avolos debate, in substance. Maybe he won rhetorically, but it seemed pretty hollow to me. Because Dr. Avalos said repeatedly that Craig's four "facts" were not facts at all. And I thought Avalos gave good reasons. Craig's main recourse to try and reaffirm his "facts" were fallacious appeals to authority and majority, which should immediately have been pointed out. Then Craig used one of his favorite philosophical party tricks and said that Dr. Avalos' empirical rationalism is "overly restricitive and self-refuting". Craig loves that phrase and has used it before..it sounds so final and devastating but it is really just fatuous pretentious blather. On the "self-refuting" point, he said that it cannot affirm itself. And here is where it pays to know some philosophy..all he is doing is a verbal expression of Godel's proof that a theorem or system cannot proove its own axioms without contradiction. So it doesn't actually refute itself, he is just demonstrating a "self-referrential incoherence"- which turns out to be a universal truism. And the reason Dr. Craig claimed that Dr. Avolos' epistemic methodology was "overly restrictive" was because it doesn't explain how we know that something is morally good, beautiful, etc.. But here Craig is doing a slight-of-hand trick, because, as he surely knows, Dr. Avolos' stated epistemic methodology was in reference to determining historical truth. So it involves a different language-game (to borrow Wittgenstein's term) than aesthetic or moral judgments. So his claim that Avolos' methods were "self-refuting and overly restricitive" is pure B.S. Ironically, he complained about Avalos pulling some academic tricks on an "untrained audience"; but Craig depends on an untrained audience to pull off his nonsensical refutations. I expect I would discover the same kind of intellectual chicanery if I explored the cosmological arguments in depth as well. Anyway, just an observation." - Will77

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:je21lgzQ-BgJ:debunkingchristianity.blogsp...

Category:

Film & Animation

Tags:

• william
• lane
• craig
• response
• resurrection
• historical
• fact
• reliability
• of
• biblical
• accounts
• jesus

[drcraigvideos]

Dr. Craig actually debated Dr. Avalos and whipped him: watch?v=NHQJvn4Hnh8

[epaminodas]

i heard a recording a while back.

why do you think you're warranted in saying he "whipped" avalos?

 the debate showed two opposite approaches to the gospels. Avalos didn't want to engage in historicity and WLC didn't address Avalos' concerns regarding the "on the first day" Aramaic language issue. (he's never issued a response to avalos' claims surrounding the printer error issue)

each was laying out their own case but never addressed the other. i don't see how that counts as a "win"

[AceofDlamonds]

One problem I think is that the Bible can't be exactly taken as a whole. The "take all or take none" seriously "dilemma" was basically taken in by early Church leaders and applied to the faith, which is not right at all.

[epaminodas]

I'd agree with you. The bible seems a collection of very different types of literature that don't necessarily mesh together - of course, fundies see the psalms and small prophets as containing prophecies and types of christ - which only the holy spirit can reveal to be true i guess

[rokkvi1]

@drcraigvideos what a surprise that Craig´s biggest fanboy would have the opinion that Craig "whipped" his opponent in a debate. Craig is a BS artist. He´s admitted he´ll believe in god regardless of whatever evidence comes up against him. He´s a member of the anti-scientific Discovery Institute, whose goal, as revealed in the Wedge document, is to teach creationism in schools at all levels and take out the teaching of evolution. Craig is an anti-scientific, propaganda spewing tool.

[De4sher]

@counterstryke well the book doesn't have a name, lol.

and an alien took it away, so i can't show it to you.

[counterstryke]

@De4sher

From which ancient book did you read that chocolate can eat itself?

[De4sher]

@counterstryke people rise from the dead....

and chocolate can eat itself.... i read about it in an ancient book.

[AustriaRollerblading]

If you are a christian then I would love for you to respond too me without talking about faith and the bible. QUESTION: If jesus resurrected then why was his tombs location not recorded? This would proove that he did not resurrect.

[letmelookify]

aznGBaller412 this is a good point to make, but we have reason to believe that god do's not exist because there is no evidence that supports that he do's. But you are right, this do's not prove that's he do's not exist just because there's a lack of evidence, but that doesn't mean he's real that just means that we can never be 100% sure if he is real or isn't. And that applies with everything that is not supported with evidence.....so this is a stupid argument.

[irishboy55520]

@StopSpamming1 That's a excellent point you raised and very true.

[StopSpamming1]

Nice approach.

Believers can't provide proof or even evidence for the existence of any deity. They resort to finding artificial arguments for a "good probability" of the existence of their own particular god, which brings it right back to faith. Which, in turn, would not be necessary were a god to exist.