resurrection

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

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: First, there is the pleasure of shooting fish in a barrel.  When I am dealing with the arguments of intellectually deficient philosophers like Peter Kreeft and Norman Geisler, finding problems with their crappy 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

Defending the Hallucination Theory – Part 4: Were There Qualified Witnesses?

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?