TheDiddleyMan

William Lane Craig and Dr. Brian Edwards debate the resurrection at <a href="http://www.rzim.org." target="_blank">www.rzim.org.</a> Has anyone listened to this debate? I don't have time right now.....

Any thoughts on the debate?

Kevin

madmax2976

I took the time to listen to the whole thing. My synopsis: Like most debates of this type there is far too little time to really get into the issues and it becomes a matter of who is the most impressive speaker, who can come up with the best sound bites, who might pause or stutter the most, or who might inadvertently fumble their words.

From what I heard, the debate is an even draw regarding these criteria. No one made any serious goofs, or had any memorable zingers.

As to the question of whether Jesus really rose from the dead and whether such a thing was demonstrated to likely be true, Craig's arguments are the same ones I've heard before. They never impressed me before and I find them as equally unimpressive here. I think its noteworthy that Christian apologists are stuck using one of the weakest disciplines there is in order to validate their claims - that being historical evidence.

Everytime I hear these arguments the phrase "mountains out of mole hills" echos incessantly in the back of my mind.

Peter Kirby

I think that Brian Edwards made three points in his initial response:

1. The NT accounts are hearsay.
2. A resurrection is bizarre to human experience.
3. There is no empirical evidence for God.

I think that (3) is a correct point, but it is one that I would rather not be made in a debate about the resurrection, if only for the reason to show that one need not be an atheist in order to discount the "evidence" for the resurrection. I believe that a Jew or a Hindu or a deist, who believe in a supernatural God, can quite rationally disbelieve in the resurrection of Jesus. Edwards says, "I suppose the problem is believing that God exists." But I don't think that is the *only* problem with belief in a resurrection.

On the second point, Craig says, "You can only exclude miraculous explanations if you know first that God does not exist. Otherwise you've got to be open to them." I think that this is incorrect, as the claim of a resurrection is still alien to human experience if there is a God. Human experience says that God generally does not raise people from the dead. Any particular resurrection is still an extraordinary claim and demands extraordinary evidence.

On the first point, I wish that Edwards would have pressed the point that Craig's "evidence" is shoddy by even ordinary standards. I wonder if Edwards has read very much in the field of the New Testament. Craig's arguments could have been picked apart better than they were.

best,
Peter Kirby