RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
July 3, 2015 at 8:03 pm
(This post was last modified: July 3, 2015 at 8:04 pm by Randy Carson.)
(July 3, 2015 at 7:54 pm)pocaracas Wrote: Not really from the book, Esq
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_cra...le%20Faith
Quote:In my twenty minute discussion with Craig, in the process of getting his signature, I asked him about his views on evidence (which to me seem very close to self-induced insanity). In short, I set up the following scenario:
Dr. Craig, for the sake of argument let's pretend that a time machine gets built. You and I hop in it, and travel back to the day before Easter, 33 AD. We park it outside the tomb of Jesus. We wait. Easter morning rolls around, and nothing happens. We continue to wait. After several weeks of waiting, still nothing happens. There is no resurrection- Jesus is quietly rotting away in the tomb.
I asked him, given this scenario, would he then give up his Christianity? Having seen with his own eyes that there was no resurrection of Jesus, having been an eyewitness to the fact that Christianity has been based upon a fraud and a lie, would he NOW renounce Christianity? His answer was shocking, and quite unexpected.
He told me, face to face, that he would STILL believe in Jesus, he would STILL believe in the resurrection, and he would STILL remain a Christian. When asked, in light of his being a personal eyewitness to the fact that there WAS no resurrection, he replied that due to the witness of the "holy spirit" within him, he would assume a trick of some sort had been played on him while watching Jesus' tomb. This self-induced blindness astounded me.
I'm not aware that WLC as refuted this...
I don't presume to speak for WLC, but it appears to me that he simply saying that because he has personal experience of the risen Jesus, if a time-machine scenario such as the one described suggested that Jesus did not rise from the dead, he would have to assume that some trick had been played upon him and that he would go with his own experience to the contrary. IOW, Craig would go with what he KNOWS to be true rather than with what simply appears to be true.
The person recounting this interview with Craig then poisons the well by declaring this "self-induced blindness".
