Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 13: Two Problems with Eyewitness Testimony
WHERE WE ARE I am currently examining Peter Kreeft’s third objection against the Hallucination Theory. His first three objections are all concerned with the TESTIMONY of WITNESSES, namely EYEWITNESSES. The first three objections by Kreeft thus evoke the centuries-old idea of proving the resurrection of Jesus in a court trial. If we take that idea … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 13: Two Problems with Eyewitness Testimony
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 12: Preliminary Investigation
WHERE WE ARE I am working my way through Peter Kreeft’s 14 objections against the Hallucination Theory, the view that one or more of Jesus’s disciples experienced a hallucination or dream about Jesus after the death of Jesus, and this experience was mistakenly believed to be an ordinary sensory experience of a living and embodied … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 12: Preliminary Investigation
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 11: The Group Hallucinations Historical Claim
WHERE WE ARE On page 187 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft presents his second of fourteen objections against the Hallucination Theory. In Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, and Part 7 of this series, I clarified, analyzed, and evaluated Peter Kreeft’s Objection #2 (Witnesses Were Qualified) … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 11: The Group Hallucinations Historical Claim
Evidence that Doesn’t Demand a Verdict
I am a left-wing atheist who hates Donald Trump and who is disgusted with every White Evangelical Christian SHITHEAD who supports Trump and his evil racist, sexist, anti-immigrant basket-of-deplorables. I spend much of my time critically examining the arguments of Evangelical Christian apologists like Norman Geisler, Peter Kreeft, and Josh McDowell. I have come to … Evidence that Doesn’t Demand a Verdict
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 10: Evaluation of the Group-Hallucination Principle
WHERE WE ARE In Part 9 of this series I began to examine the core argument of Kreeft’s Objection #1 (Too Many Witnesses) against the Hallucination Theory: B. IF on multiple occasions more than two persons had the same experience of an alleged appearance of the risen Jesus at the same time, THEN it is … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 10: Evaluation of the Group-Hallucination Principle
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 9: Clarification of the Hallucination Principle
WHERE WE ARE In Part 8 of this series, I focused on Peter Kreeft’s VERY UNCLEAR argument constituting his Objection #1 (“Too Many Witnesses”) against the Hallucination Theory. I argued that this was a brief and UNCLEAR version of Josh McDowell’s “Very Personal” objection against the Hallucination Theory (found in his book The Resurrection Factor, … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 9: Clarification of the Hallucination Principle
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 8: Too Many Witnesses
WHERE WE ARE In Chapter 8 of his Handbook of Christian Apologetics (co-authored with Ronald Tacelli; hereafter: HCA), Peter Kreeft attempts to disprove the Hallucination Theory, as part of an elimination-of-alternatives argument for the resurrection of Jesus. Kreeft thinks that by disproving four skeptical theories, he can show that the Christian theory is true, that … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 8: Too Many Witnesses
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 7: More Problems with Objection #2
WHERE WE ARE Here is my clarified version of Peter Kreeft’s argument constituting his Objection #2 against the Hallucination Theory: 1a. The witnesses who testified about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus were simple, honest, moral people. 2a. The witnesses who testified about alleged appearances of the risen Jesus had firsthand knowledge of the facts. … Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 7: More Problems with Objection #2
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 6: The Ignorance of Peter Kreeft
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
Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 5: Historical Evidence about Mary Magdalene
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