WHERE WE ARE There are at least two kinds of pleasure for a skeptic who critically examines the arguments of Christian apologists: Although I have already provided sufficient reason to conclude that the first premise of Kreeft’s argument (constituting his Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory) is DUBIOUS, I’m going to continue to hammer on … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 6: The Ignorance of Peter Kreeft

WHERE WE ARE In Part 4 of this series, I argued that Peter Kreeft’s Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory was a MISERABLE FAILURE.  This is because the first premise of his argument constituting this objection implies 102 specific historical claims about people who lived two thousand years ago, and yet Kreeft FAILED to provide … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 5: Historical Evidence about Mary Magdalene

THE CLARIFICATION OF KREEFT’S ARGUMENT FOR OBJECTION #2 In his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) Peter Kreeft presented his Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory in just two brief sentences: Presenting an argument for the falsehood of the Hallucination Theory in just two brief sentences is IDIOTIC.  One reason this is IDIOTIC is that this … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 4: Were There Qualified Witnesses?

WHERE WE ARE Peter Kreeft’s first three objections against the Hallucination Theory in his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter HCA) can be summarized this way: Objection #1:  There were too many witnesses.  (HCA, p.186, emphasis added) Objection #2: The witnesses were qualified. (HCA, p. 187, emphasis added) Objection #3: The five hundred [eyewitnesses] saw Christ … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 3: The Witnesses Were Qualified