Response to William Lane Craig – Part 11

Here is my main objection to William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus:It is not possible for a person to rise from the dead until AFTER that person has actually died. Thus, in order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But in most of William Craig's various books, articles, and debates, he simply ignores this issue. He makes no serious attempt to show that it is an historical fact that Jesus died on the cross.  For that reason, … [Read more...]

Response to William Lane Craig – Part 10

Here is my main objection to William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus:It is not possible for a person to rise from the dead until AFTER that person has actually died. Thus, in order to prove that Jesus rose from the dead, one must first prove that Jesus died on the cross. But in most of William Craig's various books, articles, and debates, he simply ignores this issue. He makes no serious attempt to show that it is an historical fact that Jesus died on the cross.  For that reason, … [Read more...]

Response to William Lane Craig – Part 9

I have finished my discussion of Luke Timothy Johnson's views on the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus, and I will begin my discussion of  Robert Funk's views on the alleged crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus in the next post, after a brief review here of the CONTEXT of this series of posts (i.e. my main objection to WLC's case for the resurrection, and WLC's main response to my objection). =========================================Excerpts from my post The Failure of William … [Read more...]

Response to William Lane Craig – Part 8

I have one final objection to raise against Luke Johnson’s use of the “method of convergence".  I have been using the phrase "the devil is in the details" to summarize a number of problems with, or objections to, Johnson's use of the "method of convergence" to establish some key claims about Jesus.  But there are some specific DETAILS about the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that I have not yet mentioned but that represent more such details that raise doubt about the claim that "Jesus died on the c … [Read more...]

In Defense of Dwindling Probability – Part 2

I see that Plantinga's skeptical argument refers to "Dwindling Probabilities" rather than "Dwindling Probability".  Sorry about my failure to get the name of this topic quite right.I should mention that I did not learn about this sort of skeptical argument from the Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga.  I learned about the Multiplication Rule of probablity in high school math, and then again in one of many courses on logic and critical thinking that I took in college and as a graduate s … [Read more...]

In Defense of Dwindling Probability

Dwindling Probability

One claim involved in the case for the resurrection of Jesus is this:D.  Jesus died on the same day he was crucified.The truth of this claim depends on the truth of some prior claims:E.  Jesus existed.C. Jesus was crucified.A probability tree diagram can illustrate how claim (D) involves dwindling probability (for a better view, click on the image):                                                                                                                              … [Read more...]

Response to William Lane Craig – Part 7

Simple Gant Chart

I have another objection to raise against Luke Johnson's use of the "method of convergence" to support the reliability of the Gospels or the "historical framework" of the Gospels (emphasis added by me):As I have tried to show, the character of the Gospel narratives does not allow a fully satisfying historical reconstruction of Jesus' ministry. Nevertheless, certain fundamental points on which all the Gospels agree, when taken together with confirming lines of convergence from outsider … [Read more...]

Response to William Lane Craig – Part 6

In Part 4 of this series, we saw that in a table (presented by Johnson in The Real Jesus) listing seventeen different claims about Jesus that are based on the Gospel accounts (and allegedly supported by various other “outsider” and “insider” writings), that about half of those claims were trivial, vacuous, or very vague, so that the evidence from “outsider” and “insider” writings supporting these claims is worthless or insignificant in relation to confirming the historical reliability of the Gosp … [Read more...]


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X