The Resurrection is it provable?

[Muffled]

Is there any scientific proof or historic proof that Jesus was resurrected and crucified?

I don't believe so. The eyewitnesses writing about it are the closest thing to history.

 

[Muffled]

You have your order reversed. Being crucified is the easy part and there is weak evidence for that. The only "evidence" for his resurrection is from the Bible and it is not a reliable source.

I don't believe you are a reliable source. The Bible is the most trustworthy book I know.

 

[Muffled]

And the Quran contradicts the Bible on the topic.Islamic views on Jesus' death - Wikipedia

I believe those are apparent contradictions. At any event Mohammed was not an eyewitness.

 

[leroy]

LOL!

Sorry, Craig was shown to be wrong. You lost already.

Why ? because you say so?

I am asking for a specific example of a claim made by WLC that is wrong and you failed to provide an example

 

[leroy]

He is still using the same bogus arguments after shown that they do not fly. When on tires to claim that one's beliefs are rational, and not only rational when they have shown not to be one is not being honest.

But then he is an admitted apologist. One has to lie to be an apologist.

Ok so WLC is dishonest because you personally think that his arguments are bogus

Besides there is a big difference between

1 the arguments don’t fly as good as he makes it seem (your current claim)

and

2 he is deliberdly lying and making false assertions un purpose (your original claim)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe so. The eyewitnesses writing about it are the closest thing to history.

What eyewitnesses? There do not appear to be any;

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't believe you are a reliable source. The Bible is the most trustworthy book I know.

Then you appear to be incredibly ignorant. It is not a reliable book at all. I never claimed to be a "reliable source" but I can use reliable sources to demonstrate that many parts of the Bible are wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok so WLC is dishonest because you personally think that his arguments are bogus

Besides there is a big difference between

1 the arguments don’t fly as good as he makes it seem (your current claim)

and

2 he is deliberdly lying and making false assertions un purpose (your original claim)

No, because I know that his arguments have been refuted. Any person that debates rationally and honestly will admit to this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why ? because you say so?

I am asking for a specific example of a claim made by WLC that is wrong and you failed to provide an example

Because I demonstrated that it was so. But as usual when you know that you are wrong you use the ostrich defense. That happens to a lot of people with strong irrational beliefs. It is also why others will call you dishonest, not that you necessarily are so. Cognitive dissonance can be a very strong force in a person's life. I see a lot with guys or girls whose partner is cheating on them. They will rather do anything than admit that the evidence everyone else can see is true. It does not make them a liar when they defend their loved one, it just makes them a bit pathetic.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well if all you did was watch a 5 minute youtube video of WLC making the argument I understand why you have that impression…….. but in his published work (and even in longer videos and blogs) he doesn’t simply assume that the cause of the universe is a “God-like” being he provides reasons for why it must be the case.

What I did was read his argument. It's two syllogisms merged into one, with the conclusion of the first serving as a premise for the second. The argument is fallacious. You're now saying that there is more to his argument that wasn't included in it. That doesn't rescue the argument. It simply emphasizes its defect.

You may recall that I called that argument the most impressive non sequitur I've ever witnessed. It's analogous to saying, I see bicycle, bicycles require creators, therefore a 63 year-old, six-foot tall man from Caltech created it. What? And then somebody tells me that a part of the argument has been left out. The bicycle was found on a private island where a 63 year-old, six-foot tall man from Caltech lives alone and where nobody visits or drops items by parachute. OK, now it's not a non sequitur. Maybe you provide the missing content that connects "must have a cause" with that oddly specific cause described.

for centuries philosophers have been working on this and have concluded that a cause of the universe by definition should be a God-like being…………. Obviously you can disagree with the arguments that are provided, but accusing WLC for simply concluding without justification that the cause must be God because he says so is a false accusation

If godlike being means a supernatural intelligent designer, then that is a non sequitur as well. And if Craig accepts that, then he is committing the same error. Incidentally, all I'm accusing Craig of here is flawed arguments motivated by faith in how they should conclude, and closed-mindedness to contradictory evidence.

if you had a personal experience that seemed genuine, you are rationally justified in to believing that the experience was genuine until conclusive evidence to the contrary is given

Yes, but I would be swayed by compelling evidence. Craig is telling you that he cannot be reached that way, meaning he can't be reached at all. It means that if he's demonstrably incorrect, there is no way for him to discover that.

But he's not alone. All of these people are telling us what Craig did: If they're wrong, there is no way to show them. Their minds are closed:

• The moderator in the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham on whether creationism is a viable scientific field of study asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

• “If somewhere in the Bible I were to find a passage that said 2 + 2 = 5, I wouldn't question what I am reading in the Bible. I would believe it, accept it as true, and do my best to work it out and understand it."- Pastor Peter laRuffa

• “When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data. The only Bible-honoring conclusion is, of course, that Genesis 1-11 is actual historical truth, regardless of any scientific or chronological problems thereby entailed.” – creationist Henry Morris

this is just WLCs opinion one cant be accused for being dishonest just because he doesn’t have the same opinion than you

I haven't called Craig dishonest, just a poor thinker for somebody who touts himself as an intellectual and a philosopher. We've got two on this site that fit that description, although both of them are more extreme. They'll both tell you what geniuses and groundbreaking scientists they are, but you can't have a coherent discussion with either. Craig does much better than that, but it's a matter of degree. He still makes mistakes that belie and undermine his claims for himself.

Well feel free to provide an alternative explanation

I already have. There was no resurrection or empty tomb, just an embellishment added to the story. Or, the early Christians removed the body from its grave and buried it surreptitiously in support of an agenda to deify Jesus. Or, Jesus was buried in a mass grave. Or Jesus never lived. All of these are more likely than miracles.

Granted if you build an analogous case around a miracle that Mohamed made I would be intellectually obligated to say that there is good evidence for such a miracle

Then you are a rare breed. I'd bet money that more than 19 out of 20 Christians would reject the claim that Mohammad was resurrected by Allah based on the same evidence you have for Jesus - Quranic scripture, where it was reported that Muhammed had been placed on a funeral pyre ready to be cremated, but was resurrected by the flames rather than burned, stood up, walked out of the fire, and was transported to heaven by 72 virgin angels. It is written, and it is written that there were several independent witnesses such as Malik of Mecca and Pasha of Damascus, and people have died for this belief. Why would they do that if they didn't witness a miracle?

I really don't believe you'd buy that that was history rather than legend. Most Christians would call it mythology or else Satan's resurrection of Mohammad. But if you would accept the story as accurate based on such reports, you've got to be a rare exception.

we do have the resurrected Jesus on record and the authors of the gospels tells us what he did after being resurrected, he talked to his disciples, ate with them, preached, etc.

I am unaware of all of that. All I've read about Jesus after the crucifixion is that Paul saw a vision of him. Either way, we could have saved a lot of time and effort had you offered this answer originally when I asked you what was seen that could be interpreted as evidence of a resurrection. I'd like you to notice these things, so that you can do better. I like to think that you're considering what transpired between us and how inefficient and unnecessary it was. What did they see to convince them of resurrection? Candidate answers include, the risen Jesus spoke to them, the empty tomb, a body wandering around the gravesite - any of those answers would have gotten us to this place in one step. Why did it take so long to see such an answer? I gave up expecting to even answer after several failed attempts. I would hope that you would see that as an area you'd like to better in - giving full, direct answers the first time.

It was like asking you what you favorite color is. First no answer. I ask again. You tell me you didn't understand the question, but you like primary colors, and did that answer my question. Not quite, I ask, and repeat: what is your favorite color. Red, you say, and I wonder why that wasn't said first. All one needs to do to do better is give an answer that meets the requirement of an answer - it tells the questioner what he wants to know.

God is not claimed to be constrained by the laws, he could have created a different universe, with different laws. …. I honestly don’t see your point.

Then this wouldn't be fine tuning if the universe could have been made any way and still function like this one. The fine tuning argument is an argument for the need for intelligence to have set discovered and those parameters. If just about any set of values for fundamental physical constants could still lead to this universe, it can't be said to be finely tuned, and if it is called finely tuned, then an intelligence was necessary to determine what those parameters needed to be and set them to those values.

 

[leroy]

No, because I know that his arguments have been refuted. Any person that debates rationally and honestly will admit to this.

You are confusing

1 the arguments have been refuted

With

2 my favorite atheist influencers disagree with WLC

 

[leroy]

Because I demonstrated that it was so. But as usual when you know that you are wrong you use the ostrich defense. That happens to a lot of people with strong irrational beliefs. It is also why others will call you dishonest, not that you necessarily are so. Cognitive dissonance can be a very strong force in a person's life. I see a lot with guys or girls whose partner is cheating on them. They will rather do anything than admit that the evidence everyone else can see is true. It does not make them a liar when they defend their loved one, it just makes them a bit pathetic.

Then why is it so hard for you to quote a specific mistake?

 

[leroy]

You may recall that I called that argument the most impressive non sequitur I've ever witnessed. It's analogous to saying, I see bicycle, bicycles require creators, therefore a 63 year-old, six-foot tall man from Caltech created it. What? And then somebody tells me that a part of the argument has been left out. The bicycle was found on a private island where a 63 year-old, six-foot tall man from Caltech lives alone and where nobody visits or drops items by parachute. OK, now it's not a non sequitur. Maybe you provide the missing content that connects "must have a cause" with that oddly specific cause described.

Well borrowing for your analogy the thing is that WLC provides reasons for why the designer is a 60yo six foot tall man / so it is not a non-sequitor ….

in this article he expalins some of the reasons for why the cause has to be some sort of "monotheistic God"
The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith (reed from this sentense "What properties must this cause of the universe possess")

Yes, but I would be swayed by compelling evidence. Craig is telling you that he cannot be reached that way, meaning he can't be reached at all. It means that if he's demonstrably incorrect, there is no way for him to discover that.

Well if WLC ever said that (and meant what you said he meant) then I would agree with you, that would make him a poor thinker.

I already have. There was no resurrection or empty tomb, just an embellishment added to the story. Or, the early Christians removed the body from its grave and buried it surreptitiously in support of an agenda to deify Jesus. Or, Jesus was buried in a mass grave. Or Jesus never lived. All of these are more likely than miracles.

Ok then develop any of those alternatives and explain why is it better than the resurrection hypothesis.

Quranic scripture, where it was reported that Muhammed had been placed on a funeral pyre ready to be cremated, but was resurrected by the flames rather than burned, stood up, walked out of the fire, and was transported to heaven by 72 virgin angels. It is written, and it is written that there were several independent witnesses such as Malik of Mecca and Pasha of Damascus, and people have died for this belief. Why would they do that if they didn't witness a miracle?

I really don't believe you'd buy that that was history rather than legend. Most Christians would call it mythology or else Satan's resurrection of Mohammad. But if you would accept the story as accurate based on such reports, you've got to be a rare exception.

Each document falls or stands by it´s own merits, I don’t think the Koran is nearly as good as the new testament in terms of historical value.

If you have evidence for any other miracle and the evidence is as good as the evidence for the resurrection I would simply admit that there is good evidence for such miracle.

Then this wouldn't be fine tuning if the universe could have been made any way and still function like this one. The fine tuning argument is an argument for the need for intelligence to have set discovered and those parameters. If just about any set of values for fundamental physical constants could still lead to this universe, it can't be said to be finely tuned, and if it is called finely tuned, then an intelligence was necessary to determine what those parameters needed to be and set them to those values.

An intelligent designer could have created a life permitting universe that is not FT or a life permitting universe that is FT
For example he could have created a universe where it doesn’t matter how strong gravity is, stars and planets would have formed anyway (rather than collapsing in a black hole)

It just happened to be the case that God created a FT universe with FT “rules” such that if you change the parameters a little bit, the universe would fail to be life permitting. I am not trying to be arrogant, I honestly don’t see your point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are confusing

1 the arguments have been refuted

With

2 my favorite atheist influencers disagree with WLC

Wrong. You yourself admitted that WLC has been refuted. The problem is that you do not understand logic or evidence. Or even probavility.

Let's begin with the logical argument. You already conceded that we do not know if the universe is finely tuned. That was an unsupported claim of WLC. Carroll explained that it may be finely tuned. But we don't know that for sure. In fact some of the specific "fine tuning arguments" fall flat on their face. He gave an example with the expansion rate of the universe argument.


The universe may be finely tuned, but we can't say either way for sure. And the problem with WLC's argument is that he puts it into a logical form. Those are absolute. If one bases it on a false premise. And a false premise does not mean that the premise is automatically wrong, it merely means that the base for the argument is not proved therefore the argument cannot be proved. The claim that the universe is finely tuned is a false premise since that has not been shown to be the case.

WLC loves to use logical arguments but does not realize that he negates his own argument by doing so.

Do you realize that his attempt to use a logical argument has failed? If you disagree then you clearly do not understand what a logical argument is.

And you can take comfort in the fact that he failed in his logical argument that does not mean that God is refuted. He merely has not been proved or even supported by that.

Do you understand this? Can you at least admit that WLC failed in the logical argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then why is it so hard for you to quote a specific mistake?

I did. You even admitted the he made that mistake.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well borrowing for your analogy the thing is that WLC provides reasons for why the designer is a 60yo six foot tall man / so it is not a non-sequitur

I think you misunderstand what the term non sequitur fallacy means. It refers to an argument with a piece missing that connects what came before the non sequitur with that idea. It doesn't even mean that the conclusion is wrong, just that it can't be derived from the argument preceding it. My wife does that a lot. Were having a discussion and she'll say something to me that I can't connect to the discussion to date. I'll ask her why she chose to speak those words just then, and she'll tell me. I'll tell her that I could never have connected her comment to that discussion without that missing piece that she left unspoken, and we both laugh. Craig's conclusion also doesn't derive from his argument.

in this article he explains some of the reasons for why the cause has to be some sort of "monotheistic God"
The Kalam Cosmological Argument | Reasonable Faith (reed from this sentence "What properties must this cause of the universe possess")

Thanks, but it doesn't rescue Craig. If he had inserted this into his argument, then it would change the non sequiturs to the following conclusions that don't derive from what preceded them:

Craig: "What properties must this cause of the universe possess? This cause must be itself uncaused because we’ve seen that an infinite series of causes is impossible. It is therefore the Uncaused First Cause. It must transcend space and time, since it created space and time. Therefore, it must be immaterial and non-physical. It must be unimaginably powerful, since it created all matter and energy."

No, we haven't seen that an infinite series of causes are impossible. It not only need not transcend space and time, it cannot. One cannot exist outside of time, since being in time is part of the definition of existence. Also, the idea of a creator being outside of time is incoherent, since creation, like existence and thought, require before and after states. First, no creation, then an act of creation, then the creation appears. Before and after. That's time.

I've explained to you what the characteristics of the nonexistent are, things like werewolves, and how they differ from things that do exist, like wolves. Take a moment to think about it. One difference is that there is a place one can go to to see a wolf, but not a werewolf. There is a time that that wolf exists between it's birth and death, but werewolves have no birthdays. Also, one can touch a wolf and be touched by one, whereas werewolves cannot be detected or affect their surroundings.

So, once again: exists mean is real and a part of reality, occupies space and a string of consecutive instants, and can interact with other elements of reality and thus are detectable with the right detector in the proper place. The god Craig describes fits the description of the werewolf, not the wolf. He claims it affects reality, but we have no evidence it even exists much less affects our world, and we are told that it resides in a supernatural realm beyond the ability of matter to detect it, or beyond science as we are told. But to add to the incoherence of the concept, we are also told that it can affect us - a sort of one way causality that allows the supernatural realm to impact ours while being undetectable even in principle.

Do you disagree with any of that? If so, please be explicit and explain why these ideas are incorrect in your opinion. If not, can we agree that what Craig describes is incoherent? Empiricists wouldn't make such claims about a multiverse. It can be made of a substance and exist in time. Our time would have begun in the middle of its time. Our substance is derived from its substance. It affects our universe and ours affects it if they are still causally connected because both would coexist in the same reality, the same natural world, just bigger than just our universe as we previously thought.

Well if WLC ever said that (and meant what you said he meant) then I would agree with you, that would make him a poor thinker.

You read his words. Are you unsure what they meant? Don't they mean the same thing as the other examples of closed-mindedness I provided did? They all say that evidence cannot change their minds.

Ok then develop any of those alternatives and explain why is it better than the resurrection hypothesis.

Any naturalistic process that is not impossible is more likely that any supernatural one according to Occams Razor. It dispenses with gods and supernatural realms, which do not appear to be necessary or even helpful to explain reality. The empiricist can explain the belief in the resurrection without invoking either of those two. The creationist needs both.

Each document falls or stands by it´s own merits, I don’t think the Koran is nearly as good as the new testament in terms of historical value.

So you believe the Bible's claims but not the Qur'an's because the latter doesn't have the same historical value to you? Not that it's relevant to evaluating extraordinary, supernatural claims, but I thought it had more history. Jesus was just a religious leader. We know little about his family or how he grew up. Mohammad established a religion AND military empire, and we are told about his wives, the government he established, and his succession. Even so, if you look closely, I'll bet you see that you really wouldn't have any grounds for believing one story but not the other. Your claim that the Bible has more historical value is irrelevant to the matter even if correct. It doesn't make the resurrection of Jesus likely and an analogous resurrection of Mohammad had the Qur'an also chosen to deify him with a larger-than-life story.

It just happened to be the case that God created a FT universe with FT “rules” such that if you change the parameters a little bit, the universe would fail to be life permitting. I am not trying to be arrogant, I honestly don’t see your point.

I don't think you're being arrogant, but I don't think I can make the argument any more clearly. Maybe this video, which makes the same argument, will help. Here we have a young Yahweh conversing with his mentor. It's really pretty informative video, but I've taken you to the part that covers what we're discussing here. Skip ahead to the nine minute mark (9:00):

 

[leroy]

Wrong. You yourself admitted that WLC has been refuted. The problem is that you do not understand logic or evidence. Or even probavility.

Let's begin with the logical argument. You already conceded that we do not know if the universe is finely tuned. That was an unsupported claim of WLC. Carroll explained that it may be finely tuned. But we don't know that for sure. In fact some of the specific "fine tuning arguments" fall flat on their face. He gave an example with the expansion rate of the universe argument.


The universe may be finely tuned, but we can't say either way for sure. And the problem with WLC's argument is that he puts it into a logical form. Those are absolute. If one bases it on a false premise. And a false premise does not mean that the premise is automatically wrong, it merely means that the base for the argument is not proved therefore the argument cannot be proved. The claim that the universe is finely tuned is a false premise since that has not been shown to be the case.

WLC loves to use logical arguments but does not realize that he negates his own argument by doing so.

Do you realize that his attempt to use a logical argument has failed? If you disagree then you clearly do not understand what a logical argument is.

And you can take comfort in the fact that he failed in his logical argument that does not mean that God is refuted. He merely has not been proved or even supported by that.

Do you understand this? Can you at least admit that WLC failed in the logical argument?

The problem is that you are confusing

1 We don’t know for sure

With

2 there is no evidence / therefore the argument fails


Sure the FT tunning argument and all the other arguments are based on premises and assumtions that we don’t know for sure that they are correct, but nobody is being dishonest, WLC doesn’t claim to be sure about any of his premises.

You cant accuse WLC for being a lier just because he doesn’t have the ridicusly high standards that you have.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is that you are confusing

1 We don’t know for sure

With

2 there is no evidence / therefore the argument fails

No, you are absolutely wrong here and have demonstrated that you do not understand a logical argument at all. Logical arguments end with a "proof". If any part of the argument fails, and this one fails utterly, then it fails as a logical argument You really need to take a basic class in logic.

You seem to be afraid. The fact that the argument fails so badly does not disprove God. It only shows that WLC was full of crap. Anyone that can understand the basics of logic can see how his arguments fail. Logical arguments are very hard to prove at times. It is why scientists do not use logical proofs. The recognize that they are all but impossible.

Sure the FT tunning argument and all the other arguments are based on premises and assumtions that we don’t know for sure that they are correct, but nobody is being dishonest, WLC doesn’t claim to be sure about any of his premises.

You are not being dishonest, but WLC is. He as some schooling in logic. He has to either know how his arguments fail or he is class A idiot. Do you want to go over the basics of a logical argument?

You cant accuse WLC for being a lier just because he doesn’t have the ridicusly high standards that you have.

There are no "my standards". They are the standards of a logical argument. Why try to make it personal? When you say something so incredibly wrong you make yourself look incredibly ignorant at best. When it comes to WLC liar or idiot, those are the only two choices here. You decide.


So he failed at the logical argument. Are you ready to move on or do we need to go over the basics of logic?

 

[leroy]

No, you are absolutely wrong here and have demonstrated that you do not understand a logical argument at all. Logical arguments end with a "proof". If any part of the argument fails, and this one fails utterly, then it fails as a logical argument You really need to take a basic class in logic.

You seem to be afraid. The fact that the argument fails so badly does not disprove God. It only shows that WLC was full of crap. Anyone that can understand the basics of logic can see how his arguments fail. Logical arguments are very hard to prove at times. It is why scientists do not use logical proofs. The recognize that they are all but impossible.



You are not being dishonest, but WLC is. He as some schooling in logic. He has to either know how his arguments fail or he is class A idiot. Do you want to go over the basics of a logical argument?



There are no "my standards". They are the standards of a logical argument. Why try to make it personal? When you say something so incredibly wrong you make yourself look incredibly ignorant at best. When it comes to WLC liar or idiot, those are the only two choices here. You decide.


So he failed at the logical argument. Are you ready to move on or do we need to go over the basics of logic?

Again if you think that an argument fails because we “don’t know for sure” that the premises are correct, then we simply disagree on semantics, my understanding of a failed argument is not the same as yours.

People are not liars nor idiots just because they are not as strict as you are.

Logical arguments end with a "proof".

Says who? Besides this is just semantics, you don’t have to label the argument as a logical argument is you don’t want.

 

[Sheldon]

Then you had ears but didn't listen.

Why do you not understand by know, that this is an irrational no true Scotsman fallacy.