Craig’s “Historical Evidence” for the Death of Jesus

Anyone who asserts that ‘Jesus rose from the dead’ takes on a burden of proof, and because this is an extraordinary claim, the proof required is extraordinary proof. Make a miracle claim and you take on a heavy burden of proof. So, when William Craig asserts that ‘Jesus rose from the dead’, he takes upon himself a heavy burden of proof, and part of that burden of proof is to provide powerful historical evidence for the claim that ‘Jesus actually died on the cross.’ It should … [Read more...]

The Failure of William Craig’s Case for the Resurrection

According to the Christian apologist Norman Geisler: Before we can show that Jesus rose from the dead, we need to show that He really did die. (When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook on Christian Evidences, p.120) After making this common-sense point, Geisler then proceeds to lay out eight points in support of the claim that “Jesus actually died on the cross”(the title of this sub-section of the Chapter “Questions about Jesus”). Geisler’s case for this claim is made on pages 120, … [Read more...]

An Evidence Puzzle: Radio Shack Apologetics

Let's assume that the Radio Shack catalog is perfectly factually correct about items for sale and their prices. Now assume it reports a miracle occurred, say, Adobe Acrobat Reader doesn't require annoying security updates every few days. (Sorry, that was an IT industry insider joke.) Or assume it reports that someone rose from the dead. Does the catalog's general reliability give us a good reason to believe the miracle it reports? … [Read more...]

Are Norm Geisler and Frank Turek Dishonest?

Those of you have been following my writing for years know that I am very cautious about questioning another person's integrity. (If you're not familiar with, do a search on Jeff Lowder, William Lane Craig, and dishonesty or lying.) But this time I have stumbled across something so egregious I am having a very hard time coming up with a charitable explanation. In their book, I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Christian apologists Norman Geisler and Frank Turek write the following … [Read more...]

Some Skeptical Thoughts on the Resurrection

I met a fellow skeptic at a Starbucks a month or two ago. We recently bumped into each other, had a brief chat, and I found out that he was also interested in questions about the historical Jesus, the resurrection of Jesus, and the historicity of Jesus. He was especially interested in my thoughts about the resurrection, so I did a quick brain dump of some of my skeptical thoughts about the resurrection. Here is what I jotted down as a quick summary of some of my thinking on this … [Read more...]

The Carrier-Barnes Exchange on Fine-Tuning

Reader GGDFan77 asked me for my thoughts on the exchange between Dr. Richard Carrier, who I respect and consider a friend, and Dr. Luke Barnes regarding fine-tuning arguments. I initially responded in a series of comments in the combox for my post about Hugh Ross's estimates for the probability of life-permitting prebiotic conditions. But those turned out to be so lengthy that I think the topic deserves its own dedicated post. Here's some brief context for readers not familiar with the … [Read more...]

Sketch of an Argument from Substance Dualism to the Falsity of Classical Theism

LINK … [Read more...]

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...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X