God and Massive Deception about the Resurrection – Part2

The key question at issue is whether (S2) is true or false:(S2) But God would neither perpetrate nor permit grand deception regarding the Incarnation and Resurrection.I have raised two objections against one reason that Cavin and Colombetti give for their conclusion that "(S2) is patently false". One reason they gave was a passage from the gospel of Mark which they think shows that the author of Mark, and probably Jesus too, had a concept of God which was such that God could (and would) … [Read more...]

God and Massive Deception about the Resurrection

Robert Cavin and Carlos Colombetti have written an article raising some significant objections to Richard Swinburne's case for the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus: "Swinburne on the Resurrection" (Philosophia Christi, Vol. 15, No. 2; hereafter: SOR). LINKI'm fully on-board with their overall conclusion that "...Swinburne's argument for the Incarnation and Resurrection...is seriously undermined by the failure to satisfy the requirement of total evidence." (SOR, p.37) As with other … [Read more...]

Swinburne on the Resurrection: Negative versus Christian Ramified Natural Theology

ABSTRACT: We consider the impact of negative natural theology on the prospects of Christian ramified natural theology with reference to Richard Swinburne’s argument for the Incarnation and Resurrection. We argue that Swinburne’s pivotal claim—that God would not allow deceptive evidence to exist for the Incarnation and Resurrection—is refuted by key evidence from negative natural theology. We argue, further, that Swinburne’s argument omits dominating items of evidence of negative natural theology … [Read more...]

Torley’s Response to Cavin & Colombetti on the Resurrection of Jesus

This was apparently published last December, but I wasn't aware of it until today. Vincent Torley provides an interesting Intelligent Design perspective on C&C's slide presentation on the resurrection of Jesus.LINK … [Read more...]

Cavin and Colombetti on the Resurrection of Jesus Part 3: The Projection and Unknown Removal Theories

What I want to do in this post is to summarize (and offer my own interpretation of) Cavin’s third main contention in his debate with Michael Licona on the Resurrection of Jesus: CC3. There is an alternative theory to the Resurrection that is a far superior explanation. 1. Explanatory Power RevisitedAlthough repetitive, for the convenience of the reader, I'm going to repeat what I wrote at the beginning of Part 2 since it bears directly upon Part 3. In order to properly assess CC3, ... i … [Read more...]

Just In Time for Easter: Notable Secular Outpost Content on the Resurrection

Cavin and Colombetti on the Resurrection1. MUST READ: Greg Cavin’s Case Against the Resurrection of Jesus2. Video of Licona-Cavin Debate on the Resurrection of Jesus3. Cavin and Colombetti on the Resurrection of Jesus Part 1: The Anti-Resurrection Prior Probability Argument4. Cavin and Colombetti on the Resurrection of Jesus Part 2: The Failure of the Resurrection ‘Explanation’5. Cavin and Colombetti on the Resurrection of Jesus Part 3: The Projection and Unknown Removal Theor … [Read more...]

Best of All Possible Persons – Part 2

What do you get if you cross 'the best of all possible worlds' (from Leibniz) with 'the being than which none greater can be conceived' (from Anselm)? You get: the best of all possible persons, which is another way to conceive of God.Here are two proofs of the non-existence of God, based on this way of understanding the concpet of God:DISPROOF OF GOD #11. Person P is the best of all possible persons only if P creates the best of all possible worlds.2. No person ever has or ever … [Read more...]

Did Jesus Exit? – Part 22

I have argued that the agreement that exists between the seven gospel sources concerning the Minimal Jesus Hypothesis, could be explained on the basis of the common cultural idea of a 'Messiah'. I conceded, however, that the crucifixion of the Messiah was not a part of the expectation of first century Palestinian Jews, but pointed out that the crucifixion of Jesus and surrounding events are described only in Mark and the Gospel of Peter, and not in the other gospel sources that Ehrman points us … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X