links

Critical Evaluation of William Craig’s 21st-Century Case against the Swoon Theory – Part 2

WHERE WE ARE In a previous post, I pointed out that William Craig had a 20th-century case against the Swoon Theory and that he modified that case sometime in the last decade of the 20th century so that he now has a 21st-century case against the Swoon Theory: Craig’s 20th-century case against the Swoon Theory Critical Evaluation of William Craig’s 21st-Century Case against the Swoon Theory – Part 2

The Evil God Challenge

There is a helpful post by Daniel Mocsny on the Evil God Challenge over on the Debunking Christianity website: https://www.debunking-christianity.com/2025/03/the-evil-god-challenge-part-one.html The post includes a link to this interesting video of Stephen Law discussing the Evil God Challenge: The post by Mocsny also includes a number of other helpful links to more articles on the Evil The Evil God Challenge

Careful Argument Analysis of William Craig’s Deceptive-Jesus Objection to the Swoon Theory

THREE OBJECTIONS TO THE SWOON THEORY FROM WILLIAM CRAIG In his book The Son Rises (Chicago, IL: Moody Press, 1981; hereafter: TSR), the Christian apologist William Craig raises three objections against the Swoon Theory: Craig’s Objection #1: Jesus’ Physical InjuriesCraig’s Objection #2: The Deceptive Jesus ObjectionCraig’s Objection #3: The Sickly Jesus Objection Craig’s Objection #3 Careful Argument Analysis of William Craig’s Deceptive-Jesus Objection to the Swoon Theory

Eyewitness Testimony is Unreliable

WHERE WE ARE In a series of posts about the Hallucination Theory (the view that Jesus’ disciples had experiences of the risen Jesus because they had hallucinations of Jesus), one key point that I argued for is that eyewitness testimony is unreliable. This point is also of general relevance to the question: Did God raise Eyewitness Testimony is Unreliable

Evaluation of Definitions of the Word “Miracle”- Part 5: A Good Definition

WHERE WE ARE In my initial post on miracles, I analyzed eight different definitions of the word “miracle” into seven different elements: IMPACT – the emotional or psychological effect of a miracle GENUS – the most general category to which a miracle belongs SPECIES – the sub-category (of the most general category) to which a miracle belongs AGENT/CAUSE – Evaluation of Definitions of the Word “Miracle”- Part 5: A Good Definition

Evaluation of Definitions of the Word “Miracle”- Part 4: The Element of Purpose

WHERE WE ARE I have previously analyzed eight different definitions of the word “miracle” into seven different elements: In Part 1, I examined the elements of Impact, Genus, and Species. In Part 2, I examined the elements of Cause/Agent, Exception, and Baseline. In Part 3, I argued that we should eliminate the Exception and Baseline Evaluation of Definitions of the Word “Miracle”- Part 4: The Element of Purpose

Evaluation of Definitions of the Word “Miracle”- Part 3: Aquinas & Hume on Miracles & Nature

BASELINE AND EXCEPTION ELEMENTS I have analyzed eight different definitions of the word “miracle” into seven elements: Two elements found in most definitions are what I call the “Baseline” and “Exception” elements: BASELINE – the ordinary or normal circumstances from which a miracle departs EXCEPTION – the way in which a miracle departs from ordinary or normal Evaluation of Definitions of the Word “Miracle”- Part 3: Aquinas & Hume on Miracles & Nature

Evaluation of Definitions of the Word “Miracle”- Part 2: Agent, Exception & Baseline

WHERE WE ARE In my initial post, I analyzed eight definitions of the word “miracle” into seven different elements. I am not satisfied with any of these definitions, so in my previous post I began to evaluate these definitions to make clear the problems I see with them. In this current post, I will continue Evaluation of Definitions of the Word “Miracle”- Part 2: Agent, Exception & Baseline