Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach

[Minimalist]

Fuxxake, Randy, if you're going to irony at least give a warning. I very nearly choked on my drink there.

But, but, Stim....his bullshit is 'different' you know?

[Cyberman]

Of course; I keep forgetting.

[Randy Carson]

It's time for an honest answer, Esq:

Why did Mark have a character in his narrative say, "He is risen!" if Mark thought Jesus' body was still in the tomb?

The honest answer is that I neither know nor care: I don't have sufficient evidence to consider that book an accurate historical record, and even if I did I certainly don't have reason to take those beliefs to be an accurate representation of what objectively happened.

I'm not asking you to make a judgment about the historical accuracy of gMark.

I'm asking you to read the text and tell me whether you think Mark really thought Jesus' body was still in tomb after seeing that one of the characters in Mark's play said, "He is risen!"?


Read the text. What did Mark think had happened?

[Minimalist]

The only one who seems to care is you.  You are way too deeply invested in this bullshit.

[Cato]

I'm not asking you to make a judgment about the historical accuracy of gMark.

Bullshit! It's precisely gMark's resurrection claim that you are asking us to accept as fact.

[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.

[Randy Carson]

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:

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.

That's a pretty big claim you're making, Esq. I own the book, but I'm not doing your homework for you. If such a passage exists, I'd be interested in reading it in context. Let me know if you find it.

FWIW, other evidentialists (such as J. Warner Wallace) would be quick to say that if it could be proved that Jesus did NOT rise from the dead, they would cease to be Christians.

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.

That would be true for HIM (in his own faith journey), but not for apologetics purposes. IOW, if you met Jesus personally (as Paul did), no amount of "evidence" from the outside would be greater then your own personal knowledge.

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.

Please. I'm interested in learning more from Craig.

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.

So, just to be clear, it is your opinion that Cato, a self-described "anti-theist", does not have any presuppositions about God?

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.

Perhaps, but I'm still interested in knowing just how familiar you actually are with the man you take such great exception to.

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.

Esq-

Have you actually read Reasonable Faith?

[pocaracas]

Not really from the book, Esq
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_cra...le%20Faith

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...

[Ravenshire]

Let's clarify this claim a bit shall we? The only atheists I've seen here that make this claim are saying they wouldn't serve or worship the gawd described in the christer buy-bull because it's described as such a narcissistic monster. Can I imaging a god I would willingly, even joyfully serve? Sure. The christer faith doesn't believe in one because the christer holy book doesn't describe one.

What's to clarify, I said the God of the Bible and they did say if He were to appear before them, seems I stated as it was stated by them.

GC

What's to clarify? The reason most give for their refusal which you were ignoring in order to shed a very different light on the matter.

[Randy Carson]

Not really from the book, Esq
http://www.jcnot4me.com/Items/contra_cra...le%20Faith

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".