1robin
Christian/Baptist
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 A guy who was taken down as soon as put up (forget his name but it is easily google-ed), when the order was rescinded, and Jesus Christ being the only other well known possibility.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 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.
