Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 6: More about Our Ignorance
According to Peter Kreeft, there are only five possible theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus: The Conspiracy Theory (hereafter: TCT) is one of those five theories. Kreeft raises seven objections against TCT. Objection #1 FAILS, because it makes various historical assumptions about the twelve apostles without providing any historical evidence for those assumptions. OUR … Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 6: More about Our Ignorance
Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 5: Our Ignorance of The Twelve
There are five different possible theories about the alleged resurrection of Jesus, according to Peter Kreeft: The Conspiracy Theory is one of the skeptical theories about the resurrection. See Part 3 of this series for my clarification of the content of TCT. THE ABSENCE OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE In Part 4 of this series I replied … Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 5: Our Ignorance of The Twelve
Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 4: Objection #1
There are five different possible theories, according to Peter Kreeft, about the alleged resurrection of Jesus: Peter Kreeft raises seven objections against The Conspiracy Theory (hereafter: TCT). See Part 3 of this series for my clarification of the content of TCT. In today’s post, I will consider Kreeft’s first objection to TCT. OBJECTION #1 AGAINST … Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 4: Objection #1
Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 3: Improved Definition
In Part 2 of this series, I argued that Peter Kreeft suggested at least seven different definitions of “The Conspiracy Theory” (herafter: TCT), each of which was WRONG. In order to refute TCT, Kreeft must clearly characterize or define TCT, so his refutation FAILS right out of the starting gate. But in order to evaluate … Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 3: Improved Definition
Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 2: Defining the Theory
Handbook of Christian Apologetics (hereafter: HCA) was co-authored by Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli. In HCA, Kreeft attempts to prove that Jesus rose from the dead by disproving four skeptical theories related to the alleged resurrection of Jesus. One of the skeptical theories that Kreeft attempts to disprove is called “The Conspiracy Theory” (which I will refer … Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 2: Defining the Theory
Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 1: Defeating an OLD Apologetic Argument
At the NW Miracles Conference, I discussed the question “Is it ever reasonable to believe miracle claims?” with Christian thinker Hans Vodder, who has graduate degrees in both philosophy and theology. We were, however, just the warm-up act for the big closing event of the conference: a debate between Michael Shermer and Luuk van de … Defending the Conspiracy Theory – Part 1: Defeating an OLD Apologetic Argument
Belief in Miracles – Part 1: Summary
I was invited to be a speaker at the NW Miracles Conference, thanks to Bob Seidensticker who suggested to the conference organizer that I could represent a skeptical viewpoint on the question “Is it ever reasonable to believe miracle claims?” I came prepared with a PowerPoint presentation called “Belief in Miracles”, but because of time constraints … Belief in Miracles – Part 1: Summary
Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 3: Clarification of My Reasoning
WHERE WE ARE AT In Part 1 and Part 2 of this series, I have shown that Dr. Erasmus’ objection to my skeptical reasoning (a) attacks a STRAW MAN, and (b) is based on an INVALID INFERENCE. In doing so, I also argued that Dr. Erasmus does not have a good understanding of probability calculations, especially … Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 3: Clarification of My Reasoning
Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 2: Straw Man and Invalid Inference
In this post I will reply to an objection that was raised by Dr. Jacobus Erasmus against my reasoning in one of my skeptical posts about the resurrection of Jesus. DR. ERASMUS COMMITS THE STRAW MAN FALLACY The most basic problem with the objection raised by Dr. Erasmus is that he commits the all-too-common STRAW … Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 2: Straw Man and Invalid Inference
Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 1: Untrained in Probabilistic Logic?
MY UNDERSTANDING OF PROBABILITY Dr. Jacobus Erasmus has raised an objection to one of my posts on the resurrection. Before presenting his objection he takes a swipe at my credibility: …Bowen’s argument is an example of what happens when a blogger who is untrained in probabilistic logic tries their hand at probability. …Bowen does not … Reply to Dr. Erasmus – Part 1: Untrained in Probabilistic Logic?