The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Esquilax]

In the article to which you linked, Craig wrote:

As to your point about my defense of the witness of the Spirit undermining my apologetic efforts, I have no choice but to hold to the religious epistemology that I think is true, whatever the consequences. Ironically, I have in my published work and debates offered a more robust natural theology and presentation of Christian evidences than most self-described evidentialists. I find it odd that because I also believe that there is a self-authenticating witness of the Holy Spirit, that fact is thought to somehow undermine the arguments and evidence I present. I suspect that people are just reacting emotionally to my claims about the witness of the Spirit rather than making the effort to engage my arguments in detail premise by premise.

I understand that we will disagree on this point, but I don't find Craig's statements to be as damning as you do, and the last line is particulary on target.

So I guess poisoning the well by intimating that people who disagree with you are merely doing so for emotional reasons is just kinda your thing, then.

To illustrate, just as Craig says people are finding his "witness of the Spirit" statement to be an excuse to not deal with his philosophical arguments, so in like manner, you will now use my quotation of WLC as an excuse to avoid actually engaging the arguments I make since merely by association I "have lost all credibility."

But I have engaged with your arguments before, and have done so since; I gave sufficient evidence for why WLC should not be considered a reliable source of information, as he's always going to find some way to twist whatever he's talking about back to his preferred conclusion, or not talk about it at all, and now you're dodging this point by attempting to insinuate things about my character instead. Aside from being a gross tactic in general, and profoundly dishonest to boot, it also ignores the facts.

But let me ask you this: would you take a citation from a person asserting precisely the same things as I've shown WLC asserts, but for a religion you don't already agree with, or a secular position, at all seriously? And if you wouldn't, if you'd treat it as suspect, why would you expect anything different from us?

Anyone taking that tack was already looking for an excuse to dismiss me without engaging me.

Which is a hilariously ironic statement for you to make, considering that your next response is:

I did read that elsewhere. Meh.

"Meh." You accuse us of looking for excuses to dismiss you, and your next response is... a fiat dismissal of damning evidence. So, are you being a hypocrite, intellectually lazy, or don't you have an actual response?

Or much more likely, all three?

I probably will. Primarily because while you do not like his presuppositions, you have not formally defeated his arguments. And if I asked to be "honest", I don't think that you can.

Oh yeah? Present them.

I'd say I like a challenge, but you're presenting me with WLC arguments, so I won't be getting one. But your hilariously misplaced bravado is entertaining and all. I'll even be doing you a favor by allowing you to blatantly shift the burden of proof, here!

Oh hey, will you accept "meh" as a defeater for his arguments?