Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Esquilax]

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.

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.