(July 4, 2015 at 6:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Okay. So, based on one retraction by me (since I was out of my own depth in that discussion), you assume that Craig would not have a better response than I did?

Not at all. I conclude that Craig would not have a better response because I've seen his response: this issue was brought up with him long before I brought it up to you, in debate with Sean Carroll. When given the exact same argument I gave you- only in the Carroll debate that came from an actual physicist, rather than some guy relating his words, Craig sputtered out a baseless dismissal ("Maybe that's just his personal opinion, or what he'd like to be true...") and moved on. He ran from that point just as fast as he could, and in fact it's one of the few times I've ever seen Craig lose his cool on stage.

My point was, however, that I find it odd that you have such confidence in the content of Craig's arguments, given that in all the cases that these have been debated here that you've seen, Craig has been exposed as being exactly wrong in his position. I am assuming, of course, that when you said you think Craig could mop the floor with us, you meant that his arguments could do so, because that's really the thing that matters there; if Craig himself could beat us in a debate, but not with his arguments, then that's really not such an impressive claim. It's the arguments that matter, not the person making them.

Quote:BTW- You do know he's not a preacher, right? He's a philosophy professor at the Talbot School of Theology in Los Angeles.

I know he's not a preacher by trade, but in my opinion he's certainly one by intellectual content. He doesn't have a pulpit, but by the same token he also doesn't have any material that couldn't be seen in one. His motivation is largely identical; for a philosopher, Craig is absolutely horrendous at philosophy.

(July 5, 2015 at 1:03 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 4, 2015 at 6:13 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Okay. So, based on one retraction by me (since I was out of my own depth in that discussion), you assume that Craig would not have a better response than I did?

Not at all. I conclude that Craig would not have a better response because I've seen his response: this issue was brought up with him long before I brought it up to you, in debate with Sean Carroll. When given the exact same argument I gave you- only in the Carroll debate that came from an actual physicist, rather than some guy relating his words, Craig sputtered out a baseless dismissal ("Maybe that's just his personal opinion, or what he'd like to be true...") and moved on. He ran from that point just as fast as he could, and in fact it's one of the few times I've ever seen Craig lose his cool on stage.

My point was, however, that I find it odd that you have such confidence in the content of Craig's arguments, given that in all the cases that these have been debated here that you've seen, Craig has been exposed as being exactly wrong in his position. I am assuming, of course, that when you said you think Craig could mop the floor with us, you meant that his arguments could do so, because that's really the thing that matters there; if Craig himself could beat us in a debate, but not with his arguments, then that's really not such an impressive claim. It's the arguments that matter, not the person making them.

Quote:BTW- You do know he's not a preacher, right? He's a philosophy professor at the Talbot School of Theology in Los Angeles.

I know he's not a preacher by trade, but in my opinion he's certainly one by intellectual content. He doesn't have a pulpit, but by the same token he also doesn't have any material that couldn't be seen in one. His motivation is largely identical; for a philosopher, Craig is absolutely horrendous at philosophy.

I provided a link to an article in which WLC discusses the role of the Holy Spirit, and this article, while not directly written in response to the charge you are making, may give you some insight into what he is or was thinking.

(July 5, 2015 at 8:08 am)Randy Carson Wrote: I provided a link to an article in which WLC discusses the role of the Holy Spirit, and this article, while not directly written in response to the charge you are making, may give you some insight into what he is or was thinking.

I think you may be misunderstanding me? I was referring to Craig's use of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem to confirm Kalam.

With regards to Craig's ideas about the holy spirit, I've actually seen that article before, while researching another debate about Craig I was having; it has problems up the wazoo.

For starters, Craig lists a set of criteria by which the model of christian theism stands, the first being:

Quote:(i) it is epistemically possible, that is to say, for all we know, it may be true;

And we have a problem right there, because epistemic possibility needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. When it comes to many of the claims of christian theism we have no evidence that they are possible in any way. I don't think I'm saying anything controversial when I point out that only possible things may well be true, so without some verification that the miracle claims central to the religion are possible, we certainly cannot say they could be true. This is a, to use Craig's words, de facto objection to christianity; if the miracle claims are not possible, then they cannot be factually true.

I also have problems with Craig's justification of his belief in christianity: when asked how he knows christianity is true, he says that he knows because he feels the holy spirit. The obvious next question is, how does he know that's what he's feeling?

That's kind of the important part of this, here; Craig asserts subjective feelings that cannot be measured, cannot be shared, and cannot be reliably replicated in others. They don't apply to any external referent or being; it's literally all in his head. So how does he know that he's applying the correct label to that feeling, when he calls it the holy spirit? He doesn't say, and so we're back at the same unspoken premises, that he can't be wrong about his subjective experiences, that he can't be fooled by his brain chemistry, that he can't be given additional information later that will show him something different, and so on.

Craig asserts certainty where none can be found. That's the problem with this argument, not that it's circular. It's not circular, it's just utterly baseless and presuppositional.

(July 5, 2015 at 11:43 am)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 5, 2015 at 8:08 am)Randy Carson Wrote: I provided a link to an article in which WLC discusses the role of the Holy Spirit, and this article, while not directly written in response to the charge you are making, may give you some insight into what he is or was thinking.

I think you may be misunderstanding me? I was referring to Craig's use of the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem to confirm Kalam.

Yes, I know. We are talking about two things: the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and the statement that pandaemonium quoted in which WLC states his position regarding the testimony of the Holy Spirit.

I linked to an article that I thought might help explain the latter.

Quote:With regards to Craig's ideas about the holy spirit, I've actually seen that article before, while researching another debate about Craig I was having; it has problems up the wazoo.

For starters, Craig lists a set of criteria by which the model of christian theism stands, the first being:

Quote:(i) it is epistemically possible, that is to say, for all we know, it may be true;

And we have a problem right there, because epistemic possibility needs to be demonstrated, not merely asserted. When it comes to many of the claims of christian theism we have no evidence that they are possible in any way. I don't think I'm saying anything controversial when I point out that only possible things may well be true, so without some verification that the miracle claims central to the religion are possible, we certainly cannot say they could be true. This is a, to use Craig's words, de facto objection to christianity; if the miracle claims are not possible, then they cannot be factually true.

I also have problems with Craig's justification of his belief in christianity: when asked how he knows christianity is true, he says that he knows because he feels the holy spirit. The obvious next question is, how does he know that's what he's feeling?

That's kind of the important part of this, here; Craig asserts subjective feelings that cannot be measured, cannot be shared, and cannot be reliably replicated in others. They don't apply to any external referent or being; it's literally all in his head. So how does he know that he's applying the correct label to that feeling, when he calls it the holy spirit? He doesn't say, and so we're back at the same unspoken premises, that he can't be wrong about his subjective experiences, that he can't be fooled by his brain chemistry, that he can't be given additional information later that will show him something different, and so on.

Craig asserts certainty where none can be found. That's the problem with this argument, not that it's circular. It's not circular, it's just utterly baseless and presuppositional.

You can always send him your questions directly via his website...

Quote:My own opinion is that not one person in this forum could last five minutes on stage in front of a live audience with him.

We've seen the validity of your opinions.  In general they suck.

(June 24, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty

In subsequent posts, I will present the evidence in support of each of these facts.

Oh, okay. By "Minimal Facts" I thought you meant a minimal reliance on facts! 

1. Granted.
2. Granted.
3. Granted.
4. Not granted. How skeptical was he? How do you know?
5. Not granted. Why does nobody know, nor seem interested, in this empty tomb, until decades after the Resurrection myth has developed to mean a corporeal, earthly body? 

Do you think if one grants all 5, that constitutes "evidence" for a Resurrection? Why even attempt to supplement your conclusion with these possible facts when such an irrational and improbable inference is required anyway?

What he means are "no facts."  Can't get any more minimal than that.

(July 5, 2015 at 12:05 pm)Nestor Wrote:

(June 24, 2015 at 9:25 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: The Minimal Facts are:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion
2. Jesus' disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them
3. Saul, the persecutor of the Church, was suddenly changed
4. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus, was suddenly changed
5. Jesus' tomb was found to be empty

In subsequent posts, I will present the evidence in support of each of these facts.

Oh, okay. By "Minimal Facts" I thought you meant a minimal reliance on facts! 

1. Granted.
2. Granted.
3. Granted.
4. Not granted. How skeptical was he? How do you know?
5. Not granted. Why does nobody know, nor seem interested, in this empty tomb, until decades after the Resurrection myth has developed to mean a corporeal, earthly body? 

Do you think if one grants all 5, that constitutes "evidence" for a Resurrection? Why even attempt to supplement your conclusion with these possible facts when such an irrational and improbable inference is required anyway?

Nestor-

I'm pleased to see you online again...I was beginning to wonder what had happened to you.

I'm also pleased with your granting of the first three points of my OP. I have not posted the evidence for points 4 & 5, yet, but I will soon.

As for James' skepticism, we have multiple attestation for this:

Mark 3:20-21
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

John 7:1-5
7 After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. 2 But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

(July 5, 2015 at 12:15 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Nestor-

I'm pleased to see you online again...I was beginning to wonder what had happened to you.

I'm also pleased with your granting of the first three points of my OP. I have not posted the evidence for points 4 & 5, yet, but I will soon.

As for James' skepticism, we have multiple attestation for this:

Mark 3:20-21
20 Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. 21 When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, “He is out of his mind.”

John 7:1-5
7 After this, Jesus went around in Galilee. He did not want[a] to go about in Judea because the Jewish leaders there were looking for a way to kill him. 2 But when the Jewish Festival of Tabernacles was near, 3 Jesus’ brothers said to him, “Leave Galilee and go to Judea, so that your disciples there may see the works you do. 4 No one who wants to become a public figure acts in secret. Since you are doing these things, show yourself to the world.” 5 For even his own brothers did not believe in him.

Well, my reply was swallowed up by the forum somehow, so I'll try again.
Hey, thanks! I decided to take a break from posting as I was pretty busy with class and found the ineptitude of some here utterly obnoxious. But I'll still poke my head in every now and then, even if less frequently.

I think you're making a couple of amateur mistakes here. 1st, you are relying on unknown sources whose credibility has not been established, and is doubted for good reason. You have no way of verifying where the author of John, writing many decades after Mark (the author of which was himself writing many decades after the supposed fact), received his information and if it is reliable. He may simply be repeating the tradition that, as Pliny the Elder wrote, "Protogenes was not highly thought of by his own countrymen, as is very often the case with a prophet in his own land." 2ndly, the passages in question only say that "his own brothers did not believe in him." Did all of his brothers possess the exact same amount of skepticism in every respect? It tells us nothing about James' skepticism --- if he is meant to be included with the other brothers, regarding to what specifically he did not believe, and to what degree. It would appear, contrary to your claim, that they were initially skeptical of his credentials as a prophet/sage/miracle-worker, and not anything to do with a resurrected body.

The court of law analogy doesn't really help because someone being guilty or not guilty is not uncommon like a bodily resurrection. If we go with beyond a reasonable doubt bodily resurrection doesn't look so good given that corpses don't normally resurrect after being dead for days, which casts doubt on the conclusion. Claiming there was a bodily resurrection isn't purely a historical claim, it's a claim about biology of corpses. So, biological evidence is needed not pure conjure by armchair historians.

---

What counts as sufficient evidence? People just claiming something happened?  If someone claimed you were a murderer or a rapist is that enough evidence or would more be needed?  How about if you accused of raping and murdering people you never met in another state or country with astral projection powers? Is mere testimony enough?

---

What "scholars?" What expertise make them authoritative on bodily resurrections?  How many  bodily resurrections have these scholars seen or tested? How do they research bodily resurrections?
Why prefer hypothesis over another? Why physical resurrection produce by Yahweh over one produced by mindless natural processes? Why not the swoon theory? People do sometimes survive things that normally kill people, ex. people surviving being shot in the face. Why not other paranormal hypotheses like Jesus was a ghost? Why not a demonic resurrection and Jesus was a false prophets? Why not Jesus was an alien and not a god? Why are we even assuming deities resurrect people from the dead?