The best reversal of an Atheist argument I have ever heard.

[1robin]

Hello guys, many of you know me very well as we have debated everything under the sun, to the point I have over 12,000 debates. However I have decided that this is almost a waste of time (from God's point of view at this point) and decided to go to Biola and get my masters certificate in Apologetics (which is simply a word from the Greek - Apologia) which simply means to give a defense of. And to use all that I have learned through a several decades long passion for debate to train local evangelistic teams.

I don't watch William Lane Craig much anymore. He sticks to the same dozen arguments or so which have no refutation worth putting up with. However I happened to catch a new argument he made and anyone familiar with debate will appreciate the simple wisdom in his response.

1. The Atheist said what anyone that is familiar with debate or philosophy sees as a legitimate demand of a miraculous claim. He said a resurrection (Jesus) is an extraordinary event and requires extraordinary evidence. All of us would probably heartily agree with this seemingly absolute requirement.

a. My response would have been to show the evidence we have for the resurrection compared to any in ancient history is extraordinary. BTW that what countless lawyers and historians do say. However we are not quite in Craig's league.

2. Craig responded that in this case only two things were necessary to prove a resurrection of Christ occurred. No extraordinary evidence was required, two easy and mundane things were all that was necessary.

A. The ability of those responsible to know a person is actually dead. The Romans (at peril of their own lives) were experts at knowing when a person was dead. They even knew how to keep a person at the point of death, but not cross the line until they decided to. So as to exact maximum suffering. Those assigned to actual crucifixion were experts at knowing that a person had died (again at the peril of their own lives). They even ensured it whether they doubted it or not but thrusting a 4 inch spear through the heart, or breaking both legs.

B. The ability of people afterwards to know if a guy was alive or not. Only two candidates are known in accepted history to have lived through Roman crucifixion. A guy who was taken down as soon as put up (forget his name but it is easily google-ed), when the order was rescinded, and Jesus Christ being the only other well known possibility.

I do not offer this as proof of Christianity, I offer it as the wisdom God gives those on his side that makes a mockery of man's simplistic axioms and demands. I do not intend to defend every desperate argument dredged up to refute this. I simply offer it as a thing of philosophical excellence. Maybe you can find secondary faults in the argument as a whole but you must admire how that time honored demand traditional demand for extraordinary evidence was completely dismantled.

As I said I don't debate here much any longer, but only wanted this thing of philosophic beauty available to as many as I could. I will read any responses but make no promise to respond to them. I did not intend to start a debate over an un-debatable response. I have seen him use this three times and not one opponent contradicted it, refuted it, or showed that it was unsatisfactory in any way. They simply changed subject.

Hello to any of my old debate opponents, that might see this.

 

[viole]

Hello guys, many of you know me very well as we have debated everything under the sun, to the point I have over 12,000 debates. However I have decided that this is almost a waste of time (from God's point of view at this point) and decided to go to Biola and get my masters certificate in Apologetics (which is simply a word from the Greek - Apologia) which simply means to give a defense of. And to use all that I have learned through a several decades long passion for debate to train local evangelistic teams.

I don't watch William Lane Craig much anymore. He sticks to the same dozen arguments or so which have no refutation worth putting up with. However I happened to catch a new argument he made and anyone familiar with debate will appreciate the simple wisdom in his response.

1. The Atheist said what anyone that is familiar with debate or philosophy sees as a legitimate demand of a miraculous claim. He said a resurrection (Jesus) is an extraordinary event and requires extraordinary evidence. All of us would probably heartily agree with this seemingly absolute requirement.

a. My response would have been to show the evidence we have for the resurrection compared to any in ancient history is extraordinary. BTW that what countless lawyers and historians do say. However we are not quite in Craig's league.

2. Craig responded that in this case only two things were necessary to prove a resurrection of Christ occurred. No extraordinary evidence was required, two easy and mundane things were all that was necessary.

A. The ability of those responsible to know a person is actually dead. The Romans (at peril of their own lives) were experts at knowing when a person was dead. They even knew how to keep a person at the point of death, but not cross the line until they decided to. So as to exact maximum suffering. Those assigned to actual crucifixion were experts at knowing that a person had died (again at the peril of their own lives). They even ensured it whether they doubted it or not but thrusting a 4 inch spear through the heart, or breaking both legs.

B. The ability of people afterwards to know if a guy was alive or not. Only two candidates are known in accepted history to have lived through Roman crucifixion. A guy who was taken down as soon as put up (forget his name but it is easily google-ed), when the order was rescinded, and Jesus Christ being the only other well known possibility.

I do not offer this as proof of Christianity, I offer it as the wisdom God gives those on his side that makes a mockery of man's simplistic axioms and demands. I do not intend to defend every desperate argument dredged up to refute this. I simply offer it as a thing of philosophical excellence. Maybe you can find secondary faults in the argument as a whole but you must admire how that time honored demand traditional demand for extraordinary evidence was completely dismantled.

As I said I don't debate here much any longer, but only wanted this thing of philosophic beauty available to as many as I could. I will read any responses but make no promise to respond to them. I did not intend to start a debate over an un-debatable response. I have seen him use this three times and not one opponent contradicted it, refuted it, or showed that it was unsatisfactory in any way. They simply changed subject.

Hello to any of my old debate opponents, that might see this.

All this relies on the assumption that the accounts are reliable.

If what is written in a book, or what people transmitted via oral tradition, would not require additional and independent evidence for its claims and proportional to their extraordinary character, then Excalibur has magical powers.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Except we have zero contemporary accounts from anyone who was around at the time of Jesus' supposed death who recorded it, and we have zero contemporary accounts from anyone who was around at the time of Jesus' supposed resurrection who recorded it. That is, as far as I'm aware.

Also, it's very telling that Craig's standard of evidence for such an extraordinary claim is so absurdly low. By this logic, he has no basis on which to deny almost any miraculous or supernatural account given by any other religion in the world's history.

 

[Shad]

Could a mod merge the replies from the 1 of double posts into one thread. Thanks

 

[RedDragon94]

All this relies on the assumption that the accounts are reliable.

Well how do we know that the scientist's accounts on their findings are reliable? That's what happens when they collect data, it's an account of their findings.

 

[McBell]

Well how do we know that the scientist's accounts on their findings are reliable? That's what happens when they collect data, it's an account of their findings.

how this not anything more than a sad attempt at dragging science down to the level of religion?

 

[McBell]

As I said I don't debate here much any longer, but only wanted this thing of philosophic beauty available to as many as I could.

if the OP is an example of "philosophical beauty", you have merely reinforced the idea that philosophy is about worthless when it comes to truth.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Hello guys, many of you know me very well as we have debated everything under the sun, to the point I have over 12,000 debates. However I have decided that this is almost a waste of time (from God's point of view at this point) and decided to go to Biola and get my masters certificate in Apologetics (which is simply a word from the Greek - Apologia) which simply means to give a defense of. And to use all that I have learned through a several decades long passion for debate to train local evangelistic teams.

I don't watch William Lane Craig much anymore. He sticks to the same dozen arguments or so which have no refutation worth putting up with. However I happened to catch a new argument he made and anyone familiar with debate will appreciate the simple wisdom in his response.

1. The Atheist said what anyone that is familiar with debate or philosophy sees as a legitimate demand of a miraculous claim. He said a resurrection (Jesus) is an extraordinary event and requires extraordinary evidence. All of us would probably heartily agree with this seemingly absolute requirement.

a. My response would have been to show the evidence we have for the resurrection compared to any in ancient history is extraordinary. BTW that what countless lawyers and historians do say. However we are not quite in Craig's league.

2. Craig responded that in this case only two things were necessary to prove a resurrection of Christ occurred. No extraordinary evidence was required, two easy and mundane things were all that was necessary.

A. The ability of those responsible to know a person is actually dead. The Romans (at peril of their own lives) were experts at knowing when a person was dead. They even knew how to keep a person at the point of death, but not cross the line until they decided to. So as to exact maximum suffering. Those assigned to actual crucifixion were experts at knowing that a person had died (again at the peril of their own lives). They even ensured it whether they doubted it or not but thrusting a 4 inch spear through the heart, or breaking both legs.

B. The ability of people afterwards to know if a guy was alive or not. Only two candidates are known in accepted history to have lived through Roman crucifixion. A guy who was taken down as soon as put up (forget his name but it is easily google-ed), when the order was rescinded, and Jesus Christ being the only other well known possibility.

I do not offer this as proof of Christianity, I offer it as the wisdom God gives those on his side that makes a mockery of man's simplistic axioms and demands. I do not intend to defend every desperate argument dredged up to refute this. I simply offer it as a thing of philosophical excellence. Maybe you can find secondary faults in the argument as a whole but you must admire how that time honored demand traditional demand for extraordinary evidence was completely dismantled.

As I said I don't debate here much any longer, but only wanted this thing of philosophic beauty available to as many as I could. I will read any responses but make no promise to respond to them. I did not intend to start a debate over an un-debatable response. I have seen him use this three times and not one opponent contradicted it, refuted it, or showed that it was unsatisfactory in any way. They simply changed subject.

Hello to any of my old debate opponents, that might see this.

I dont understand. We have more evidence of our four fathers: not just what is written but by how our American nation has been designed. I dont have to ask if Nazi killed over 1,000 jews even though I was not alive at the time. Instead, I can talknwith witnesses and those who have lived during that period to confirm what is written in my History book. Even then, I am going by hear and readsay because I have not met any Jew who can confirm himself the horror I hear and read about. This is recent.

Going back more, I have proof the Church exist. The popes are still carying the teachings of the Church. So I have some springlingly of evidence Peter may have existed. However, I only have hearsay and readsay of Jesus Christ. He existed long before the Church even existed.

Go further back to paganism. All I have is readsay and what Pagans today use as their source of belief and/or practice. I have no history that Pagans as defined by the Church (christianity) ever existed. I just read about it and trust the sources true because they have a long continuation of people still practicing the same thing.

It has not changed as christianity did from Judaism. If anything Judaism is more true than Christianity. Their nation may not be still standing but their community and customs are not readsay. I can actually talk to a Jew from an unbroken heritage.

I cannot do that with Christianity. Christians are a clogamerate of gentiles all around the globe (as so Acts) that decides to believe in Jesus. Has anyone met him? All say faith.

Jews say fact. I would ask a Jew if Jesus existed not the Church. Romans (speaking from a historical perspective not individual) have a knack for political "overups" for power etc. What makes Christians think they have the right information from the Apostles? Who was it? Peter was half Roman.

Anyway, I know this isnt a debate. Im just giving you what I learned and experience in christianity.

I honestly dont see why christians defend their faith as a whole. Their history is not pretty. I woulent consider myself Christian if I believed in Christ. However, according to the apostles gentiles were not "gods children" unless saved (if I said that right)

Christianity lives on the backs of the apostles who say they speak for god (holy spirit in Acts)

Judaism from how I see it gets their info straught from god. I never heard a Jew say "The Bible is Gods Word". I could be wrong. Jews please correct me. Im sure the connotation is different than a christian when deciphering how both see the bible and Torah and its author.

I remember reading from a Jew member here "why woule you (me) expect us (jews) to have the same Books as Christians when we are a different religion?"

That got me thinking. If christianity says they come from judaism and jews have a different book, when did their (christian) books started and can we trust them as the word of god or the word (not Word) interpreted through prophets.

Out of all this, how can one possible believe that this history is true beyond claims and readsay? Its beyond individual experience.

 

[RedDragon94]

how this not anything more than a sad attempt at dragging science down to the level of religion?

I believe they're on the same level (that is, reality) and you won't change my mind about it. The burden of proof leads people to be intellectually dishonest with themselves because it implies that if a person cannot see something then it must not be true. If you had never seen a picture of the grand canyon by following that line of thinking you would disbelieve in its existence.

 

[Koldo]

Hello guys, many of you know me very well as we have debated everything under the sun, to the point I have over 12,000 debates. However I have decided that this is almost a waste of time (from God's point of view at this point) and decided to go to Biola and get my masters certificate in Apologetics (which is simply a word from the Greek - Apologia) which simply means to give a defense of. And to use all that I have learned through a several decades long passion for debate to train local evangelistic teams.

I don't watch William Lane Craig much anymore. He sticks to the same dozen arguments or so which have no refutation worth putting up with. However I happened to catch a new argument he made and anyone familiar with debate will appreciate the simple wisdom in his response.

1. The Atheist said what anyone that is familiar with debate or philosophy sees as a legitimate demand of a miraculous claim. He said a resurrection (Jesus) is an extraordinary event and requires extraordinary evidence. All of us would probably heartily agree with this seemingly absolute requirement.

a. My response would have been to show the evidence we have for the resurrection compared to any in ancient history is extraordinary. BTW that what countless lawyers and historians do say. However we are not quite in Craig's league.

2. Craig responded that in this case only two things were necessary to prove a resurrection of Christ occurred. No extraordinary evidence was required, two easy and mundane things were all that was necessary.

A. The ability of those responsible to know a person is actually dead. The Romans (at peril of their own lives) were experts at knowing when a person was dead. They even knew how to keep a person at the point of death, but not cross the line until they decided to. So as to exact maximum suffering. Those assigned to actual crucifixion were experts at knowing that a person had died (again at the peril of their own lives). They even ensured it whether they doubted it or not but thrusting a 4 inch spear through the heart, or breaking both legs.

B. The ability of people afterwards to know if a guy was alive or not. Only two candidates are known in accepted history to have lived through Roman crucifixion. A guy who was taken down as soon as put up (forget his name but it is easily google-ed), when the order was rescinded, and Jesus Christ being the only other well known possibility.

I do not offer this as proof of Christianity, I offer it as the wisdom God gives those on his side that makes a mockery of man's simplistic axioms and demands. I do not intend to defend every desperate argument dredged up to refute this. I simply offer it as a thing of philosophical excellence. Maybe you can find secondary faults in the argument as a whole but you must admire how that time honored demand traditional demand for extraordinary evidence was completely dismantled.

As I said I don't debate here much any longer, but only wanted this thing of philosophic beauty available to as many as I could. I will read any responses but make no promise to respond to them. I did not intend to start a debate over an un-debatable response. I have seen him use this three times and not one opponent contradicted it, refuted it, or showed that it was unsatisfactory in any way. They simply changed subject.

Hello to any of my old debate opponents, that might see this.

I am afraid a facepalm image with a properly suited size for this OP would stretch through our entire galaxy.

 

[YmirGF]

Never mind, I hate how with online interactions it's so hard to know what tone a person is trying to say things in.

I usually bank on that one.

In regards to the OP, @1robin , I'm afraid that you are going to have to do a bit better than this. It's not a particularly persuasive argument, let alone the best argument.

 

[Revoltingest]

I believe they're on the same level (that is, reality) and you won't change my mind about it. The burden of proof leads people to be intellectually dishonest with themselves because it implies that if a person cannot see something then it must not be true. If you had never seen a picture of the grand canyon by following that line of thinking you would disbelieve in its existence.

The wonderful thing about science is that we can replicate anyone else's calculations & experiments.
(And scientific claims are often refuted, eg, cold fusion. To falsify the work of others is much of scientific endeavor.)
Religions based upon historical records lack that verifiability & falsifiability.
Of course, the "we" I speak of won't apply well to those not versed in science.
But they may take the meta-analytical approach, & evaluate efforts of independent scientists.

 

[Nietzsche]

Hello guys, many of you know me very well as we have debated everything under the sun, to the point I have over 12,000 debates. However I have decided that this is almost a waste of time (from God's point of view at this point) and decided to go to Biola and get my masters certificate in Apologetics (which is simply a word from the Greek - Apologia) which simply means to give a defense of. And to use all that I have learned through a several decades long passion for debate to train local evangelistic teams.

I don't watch William Lane Craig much anymore. He sticks to the same dozen arguments or so which have no refutation worth putting up with. However I happened to catch a new argument he made and anyone familiar with debate will appreciate the simple wisdom in his response.

1. The Atheist said what anyone that is familiar with debate or philosophy sees as a legitimate demand of a miraculous claim. He said a resurrection (Jesus) is an extraordinary event and requires extraordinary evidence. All of us would probably heartily agree with this seemingly absolute requirement.

a. My response would have been to show the evidence we have for the resurrection compared to any in ancient history is extraordinary. BTW that what countless lawyers and historians do say. However we are not quite in Craig's league.

2. Craig responded that in this case only two things were necessary to prove a resurrection of Christ occurred. No extraordinary evidence was required, two easy and mundane things were all that was necessary.

A. The ability of those responsible to know a person is actually dead. The Romans (at peril of their own lives) were experts at knowing when a person was dead. They even knew how to keep a person at the point of death, but not cross the line until they decided to. So as to exact maximum suffering. Those assigned to actual crucifixion were experts at knowing that a person had died (again at the peril of their own lives). They even ensured it whether they doubted it or not but thrusting a 4 inch spear through the heart, or breaking both legs.

B. The ability of people afterwards to know if a guy was alive or not. Only two candidates are known in accepted history to have lived through Roman crucifixion. A guy who was taken down as soon as put up (forget his name but it is easily google-ed), when the order was rescinded, and Jesus Christ being the only other well known possibility.

I do not offer this as proof of Christianity, I offer it as the wisdom God gives those on his side that makes a mockery of man's simplistic axioms and demands. I do not intend to defend every desperate argument dredged up to refute this. I simply offer it as a thing of philosophical excellence. Maybe you can find secondary faults in the argument as a whole but you must admire how that time honored demand traditional demand for extraordinary evidence was completely dismantled.

As I said I don't debate here much any longer, but only wanted this thing of philosophic beauty available to as many as I could. I will read any responses but make no promise to respond to them. I did not intend to start a debate over an un-debatable response. I have seen him use this three times and not one opponent contradicted it, refuted it, or showed that it was unsatisfactory in any way. They simply changed subject.

Hello to any of my old debate opponents, that might see this.

We have evidence of a Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. What we're lacking is proof he rose from the dead. The only evidence of that is the Bible. There was no explosion of Christians after the events, the people of the area largely stayed Jews or whatever they were before. It would take a number of decades(perhaps a numer of centuries even) for Christianity to gain ground. And even then, it didn't happen in Palestine, where the thing took place.

It happened in Rome.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

B. The ability of people afterwards to know if a guy was alive or not. Only two candidates are known in accepted history to have lived through Roman crucifixion. A guy who was taken down as soon as put up (forget his name but it is easily google-ed), when the order was rescinded, and Jesus Christ being the only other well known possibility.

If Jesus lived through the crucifix, he couldn't have died, he couldn't have descended to Hell, and he couldn't have ascended victorious from death because he wasn't dead to begin with.

a. My response would have been to show the evidence we have for the resurrection compared to any in ancient history is extraordinary.

There is no evidence to support the hypothesis that Jesus existed. He seems so improbably that despite his "supernatural" abilities, his healing, and his miracles, and his teachings, nobody during the alleged time of his life was writing about him. They weren't doing that until decades after-the-fact.
Your other point isn't much of a point, because many cultures of old who practiced torture as a way of life could hold the very threads of life-and-death in their grasp, maximize agony, inflict heightened amounts of pain, and some are said to even be able to skin someone alive and keep them alive.

 

[Nietzsche]

@OP, did you mean to create two threads?

The forum service this place uses has a habit of bugging out and creating a topic or post twice every so often.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

The burden of proof leads people to be intellectually dishonest with themselves because it implies that if a person cannot see something then it must not be true. If you had never seen a picture of the grand canyon by following that line of thinking you would disbelieve in its existence.

This is patently untrue. The burden of proof states that the person making the positive claim is required to prove it. Until such time as it is proven, then another person can reject it.

However i think you are correct about the kind of materialistic thinking prevalent amongst some atheists.

This is why i prefer the term falsifiability.

 

[RedDragon94]

The wonderful thing about science is that we can replicate anyone else's calculations & experiments.
(And scientific claims are often refuted, eg, cold fusion. To falsify the work of others is much of scientific endeavor.)
Religions based upon historical records lack that verifiability & falsifiability.
Of course, the "we" I speak of won't apply well to those not versed in science.
But they may take the meta-analytical approach, & evaluate efforts of independent scientists.

You can't experiment scientifically with something that isn't material. And when is the last time you ever repeated an experiment by a well known scientist? My guess is never. You just choose to trust the scientist's observations because you assume they are fact.

 

[RedDragon94]

This is patently untrue. The burden of proof states that the person making the positive claim is required to prove it. Until such time as it is proven, then another person can reject it.

I am aware that a person can reject a religious premise, but what I think we agree on is people cannot reject the possibility of what the religion teaches. They at least think it might be true. What non-theistic evolution teaches is that everything that happens in nature just happens, there's no rhyme or reason. I cannot accept that because there's a cause to everything except for the ultimate initiator (God). Cells send pain signals up and down our body, why? Because they are caused to do that. Do I think everything happens for a reason? No. But I do believe that the ultimate initiator can intervene at any moment in history.

 

[Revoltingest]

You can't experiment scientifically with something that isn't material. And when is the last time you ever repeated an experiment by a well known scientist? My guess is never. You just choose to trust the scientist's observations because you assume they are fact.

As an engineer (aerospace, automotive, heavy machinery, control systems, bio-medical),
I used scientific principles on the job. Science has been pretty reliable.
Here's an experiment.....
Try driving from Ann Arbor to Miami FL 2 different ways.....
1) Using a GPS (which depends upon math, algorithms, general relativity, computer science, etc).
2) Try using spiritual guidance.
See which gets you there sooner & safer.
Btw, I've tried #1, but not #2.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Try driving from Ann Arbor to Miami FL 2 different ways.....
1) Using a GPS (which depends upon math, algorithms, general relativity, computer science, etc).
2) Try using spiritual guidance.
See which gets you there sooner & safer.
Btw, I've tried #1, but not #2.

Well, the spiritual guidance could lead someone to study some maps, I suppose. And there's always the advice of people who know the roads - I shaved off a few hours going from the Pigeon Forge area back up here by taking the advice of a friend of my dad's, and that route is definitely not on a GPS, or a commonly suggested route when people take the trip (it's usually the longer route through Ohio). By it's very nature, science does have limitations, and that it's only perspectives are those doing it. Ideally it should be that way, but at the same time, things would be very different if more people were educated in science and it was easier to access equipment, labs, and publishing.