Toto

~M~: you can read what I wrote in 2002, and other criticisms of Craig in the II library.

Or check out this thread: on Craig started by another of his fans.

Ehrman mopped up the floor with Craig in a debate noted here and here.

I think that Craig's reputation goes back to one particular debate with Frank Zindler, where Zindler did a very poor job. Secular debaters (like Jeff Lowder) who value debate as an art form, started to take him very seriously. But his skill is the technical side of debate, not scholarship.

~M~

I read the debate and I disagree with you on this. I didnt see anything within the content of the debate that would show Craig got 'mopped' at all. But, feel free to briefly show me.

I am not interested in your reading assignments.

Jehanne

Not to derail this thread, but I listened to that debate here a few months ago. (The debate was back in 1993, I believe.) Zindler made a wonderful point that Craig did not refute or deny: The Biblical authors believed in a flat earth. Ironically, no one, to my knowledge, has brought up this fact with Craig since then. Here is a wonderful debate where Craig loses badly:

William Craig versus Hector Avalos

Doug Shaver

I'm sure many people have told him to his face that he is wrong, if that's what you mean, but I don't know who those people are.

I have a response to Craig's analysis of Ludemann's hypothesis on my Web site, and toward the end it includes a discussion of Craig's texonomy of visions. http://dougshaver.com/christ/craig/craig03.htm.

KrisK10

Doug,

Really impressive work putting your ideas down in a format where others can look at them. I've only briefly scanned your writeup, but it looks pretty good, and I did notice that you touch on my question toward the end. I'll be printing this out and looking at it more closely. Thanks!

Kris

~M~

I don't find your criticism to be compelling and a bit too skeptical, Doug.

But, I take a great interest in this analogy:
The assumption here is that these historians ought not to. Craig has consistently argued (although with a horrible effort...other philosophers do far better) that the resurrection of Christ given our background knowledge P(h/k), while intrinsically improbable--the roadblock for historians--can still be inferred if the evidences increase the probative value of the resurrection to P(h/k.e) >0.5.

What was Ehrman's response to this: 'You can't do that!'--pffft.

And, what craig was trying to say with the 'no competing hypothesis' reference was that there is no hypothesis, h1..hn, that, if true, would better or equally explain the the set of evidences, e than h. in other words P(h/k.e) > P(h1/k.e), etc. This is called abductive reasoning. Neat-o.

Toto

Craig's "reasoning" is based on smoke and mirrors. He designates certain claims as facts that are not well established, and fails to consider any explanations involving the untruthfulness or unreliability of the Bible.

He claims that there must have been an empty tomb, but the basis of this claim is that 75% of authorities agree that there was an empty tomb - but he doesn't tell you who these authorities are, or what the basis for their opinion is. He then tries to find an explanation for the allegedly empty tomb, but ignores some of the most obvious explanations, from moving the body, to the whole account being fiction.

I fail to see how any intelligent, educated person cannot see the holes in his arguments, unless blinded by ideology.

punkforchrist

Hi Kris,

The phrase, "heavenly vision", in Acts 26:19 may be a reference to a later appearance of Jesus to Paul and Ananias in Acts 9:10ff. Acts 2:29-32 also indicates a bodily resurrection. Peter states, "Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day. But he was a prophet and knew that God had promised him on oath that he would place one of his descendants on his throne. Seeing what was ahead, he spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to the grave, nor did his body see decay. God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact."

~M~

Oh? Well, what about was the naturalistic presuppositions are absent? "I, for one, am happy to accept that, for certain supernaturalists in certain epistemic circumstances, belief in the resurrection can be rational."--jeffery Lowder.

Toto

Your first sentence doesn't make any sense. Did you leave a word out?

I can't locate that quote from Lowder. It sounds like a phrase in one of his reviews, taken out of context.

Are you under the misimpression that the only reason to reject the Resurrection is a general rejection of the supernatural? This is not the case. And even if there are some circumstances where it is rational for a supernaturalist to believe in the resurrection, Craig still has no basis for claiming that this is one of those cases, and a resurrection is the best explanation of the evidence.