Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus – Part 2
Although Christian apologists bear the burden of proof to show that ‘Jesus actually died on the cross’, William Craig usually ignores this issue in his books, articles, and debates defending the resurrection of Jesus. In my previous post, I pointed out that there is at least one book in which Craig does make a case … Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus – Part 2
Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus
Anyone who asserts that ‘Jesus rose from the dead’ takes on a burden of proof, and because this is an extraordinary claim, the proof required is extraordinary proof. Make a miracle claim and you take on a heavy burden of proof. So, when William Craig asserts that ‘Jesus rose from the dead’, he takes upon … Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus
The Failure of William Craig’s Case for the Resurrection
According to the Christian apologist Norman Geisler: Before we can show that Jesus rose from the dead, we need to show that He really did die. (When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, p.120) After making this common-sense point, Geisler then proceeds to lay out eight points in support of the claim that “Jesus … The Failure of William Craig’s Case for the Resurrection
Are Norm Geisler and Frank Turek Dishonest?
Those of you have been following my writing for years know that I am very cautious about questioning another person’s integrity. (If you’re not familiar with, do a search on Jeff Lowder, William Lane Craig, and dishonesty or lying.) But this time I have stumbled across something so egregious I am having a very hard time coming … Are Norm Geisler and Frank Turek Dishonest?
Some Skeptical Thoughts on the Resurrection
I met a fellow skeptic at a Starbucks a month or two ago. We recently bumped into each other, had a brief chat, and I found out that he was also interested in questions about the historical Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the historicity of Jesus. He was especially interested in my thoughts about … Some Skeptical Thoughts on the Resurrection
Stupid Apologetics Tricks
Here are some stupid apologetics tricks I’ve come across lately in things I’ve been reading. Feel free to add your own in the combox. If I like it enough, I may just add yours to the list! Stupid Apologetics Trick #1: (1) Really crappy debaters used stupid arguments and objections against H. (2) Therefore, H … Stupid Apologetics Tricks
God and Massive Deception about the Resurrection – Part2
The key question at issue is whether (S2) is true or false: (S2) But God would neither perpetrate nor permit grand deception regarding the Incarnation and Resurrection. I have raised two objections against one reason that Cavin and Colombetti give for their conclusion that “(S2) is patently false”. One reason they gave was a passage … God and Massive Deception about the Resurrection – Part2
God and Massive Deception about the Resurrection
Robert Cavin and Carlos Colombetti have written an article raising some significant objections to Richard Swinburne’s case for the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus: “Swinburne on the Resurrection” (Philosophia Christi, Vol. 15, No. 2; hereafter: SOR). LINK I’m fully on-board with their overall conclusion that “…Swinburne’s argument for the Incarnation and Resurrection…is seriously undermined by … God and Massive Deception about the Resurrection
WLC’s Debate Quotation of Anthony Kenny
Here is WLC’s quotation of Kenny: A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing. And here is a critique: LINK Your name Your email Subject Your message (optional)
Stan Stephens’s Categorical Misunderstandings of Atheism, Part 3
I’m now going to comment on Stan’s post, “What I Learned at Patheos.” Stan’s Integrity-Challenged Description of His Interactions at the Secular Outpost My foray into patheos–land is over. I don’t usually venture into other blogs because they are commonly infested with nasty hangers-on (PZ anyone?), but this one seemed different… at first. And it … Stan Stephens’s Categorical Misunderstandings of Atheism, Part 3