Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Esquilax]

I'm waffling on whether you are on my ignore list, Esq, but you've asked a fair question which deserves an answer.

In another thread, I pointed out that Cato was arguing based upon his presuppositions. Oddly, since Cato cannot be an evidentialist, folks have taken issue with that. So, now you think I'm being hypocritical for recommending William Lane Craig. I'm not.

Is Craig a presuppositionalist or an evidentialist? He has said:

"Presuppositionalism commits the informal fallacy of begging the question, for it advocates presupposing the truth of Christian theism in order to prove Christian theism. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could with a straight face think to show theism to be true by reasoning, 'God exists, therefore God exists.' A Christian theist himself will deny that question-begging arguments prove anything."(Five Views on Apologetics, 233.)

To be clear, Craig may not label himself as a presuppositionalist, but in his words and deeds, his position surely is presuppositional in nature, though he flees from the label as hard as he can.

I believe it's actually in Reasonable Faith itself that Craig asserts that, were he to go back in time and confirm that the resurrection of Christ never occurred, he would still believe that it did. He's on record, both on his website and in talks, as saying that his feeling that god exists, his "self authenticating witness of the holy spirit," beats out all evidence and argument that it is possible to bring to bear; his subjective opinion that god exists is apparently better than all of that. Have you ever heard him speak on reason? Craig favors a two-genre approach to reason, wherein reason can be either "ministerial or magisterial." Magisterial reason is reason applied to the gospel in such a way that the conclusions drawn can either support or contradict the biblical narrative, whereas ministerial reason- the type of reason Craig has affirmed to be the only valid one- is reason that is used exclusively to support the gospel and nothing else, regardless of where the evidence would actually point one. I can provide written statements and video from Craig of all of these things.

You see, I didn't say that Craig was a presuppositionalist, in the same way that you never said Cato was one. No, I said Craig has presuppositions, which is exactly the same language you used with Cato and others, which you seemed to think at the time was sufficient rebuttal of anything Cato had to say. Only in Craig's case, the existence of those presuppositions can be confirmed by his own words, wherein he explicitly lists them. Cato has done no such thing. So on the one hand you'll accept the word of someone who proudly flaunts his presuppositions, while at the same time dismissing others due to- what you assert to be- theirs, while offering no evidence of them. That's the problem here.

Have you ever read Reasonable Faith? How many of Craig's debates have you watched on YouTube? Have you studied the transcripts? Craig argues as an evidentialist, Esq...not as a presuppositionalist.

Moot point: you're misunderstanding me.

Does that mean that he (and I) don't have presuppositions? Probably not. But in the course of his apologetics work, it is clear that he is focused on providing evidence from which it may be deduced that the resurrection of Jesus is the MOST REASONABLE conclusion in terms of explanatory scope and power, etc. of all the facts that is available.

Considering Craig's idea of what valid reason is, this statement becomes perfectly circular. If you consider reason to only be reason if it supports the presupposed truth of the gospel, then of course the resurrection of Jesus will turn out to be reasonable.

Most people don't want to share in Craig's self-serving sophistry, however.