I’m slightly incredulous that Craig doesn’t see the irony when he uses words like “fanciful” or “improbable” to describe Ehrman’s naturalistic explanations for the resurrection. Like... he’s claiming that a supernatural being raising his son (who is also himself) from the grave is somehow less fanciful?
The naturalistic explanations are extremely improbable... therefore my impossible supernatural explanation that has never been observed anywhere ever must be true.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 Actually not the case. Both of you guys are doing a scarecrow fallacy. Theses guys are talking about history in a historical point of view, when Dr. Craig says fanciful or improbable he's talking in a historical perspective. If you want to talk about supernaturallity then we can talk about philosophy and God and so on, but IT'S WAS NOT THE CASE IN THIS DEBATE. Don't act in this way when you don't even understood his point.
@@alienboy9847 silly. OP's not making any argument/inference about Craig's position, just noting their own incredulity at a perceived irony: there is no fallacy. Fallacies are illicit inferences (premise->conclusion); even if the OP is incorrect (they're not, it is an outrageous and rather amusing irony) to accuse them of fallacy is just a category error. Why do people think citing a name of a fallacy is an argument, especially when they evidently don't know what a fallacy even is on a basic basic level? You just make yourself look like a buffoon.
@@alienboy9847 The supernatural claims are also historical claims, to argue otherwise is pointless because the point is to establish which is the most probable set of events. WLC argues: -Ehrman's proposed set of events (Ehrman's theory) is unlikely. -Events which are unlikely are less probable of happening that events which are likely (definition of "unlikely"). Conclusion 1: the set of events presented by Ehrman is improbable of having happened (by definition). But Zardoz and Gami know that he has a favorite theory that he positively proposes which summarised is: - The set of supernatural claims roughly presented on the Gospels (Craig's theory) is the most likely explanation for the beginning of Christianity (if not he would not be a Christian theist after all). Conclusion 2: by the definition of "likely", the best explanation for the beginning of Christianity is Craig's theory (Craig's position). And then Zardoz and Rami come and acknowledge that: *Conclusion 3: Craig believes necessarily that in some situations supernaturalistic explanations are more likely than naturalistic ones.* *And then, they claim that "haha, I personally find rather amusing that someone could claim that a naturalistic explanation is less likely than a supernaturalistic one"* Did they misrepresent Craig's believes? How are they strawmaning Craig's position please explain.
To be honest this debate could have been so much better. They didn’t even get to debate at all because they never could agree on what counts as “historical.” The entire debate was WLC giving arguments, Bart not tearing them down but rather labeling them as a category mistake, and that was the tone for the entire debate.
Craig strawmaned Ehrman When Ehrman said “ historians cannot access god , therefore cannot day what god did “ Craig claimed that meant, Ehrman couldn’t say that the resurrection did not happen . Ehrman was not saying the resurrection didn’t happen He was saying it could not be shown that it did , with the historical evidence.
I like these debates. Dr. Ehrman always shows himself to be a person commited to finding the truth, he is not afraid to change his mind when evidence to the contrary persuades him to this change. What I always see on the other side is an attempt after attempt to hammer the only opinion again and again. I see a huge lack of flexibility, reflection, lack of the benefit of the doubt. Sort of a stuck mentality. However, I agree and support Craig's claim that a personal spiritual experience can be extremely powerful. We can all argue about the source of this experience. However, its very real and in and of itself seem to open up certain unknown side of reality.
Aside: Craig REALLY likes to stack the deck and shift the burden of proof with his whole "he must tear down ALL of my arguments and make his own positive case." Usually he hides behind "atheism is actually a denial of god claims" but he can't do that with Ehrman.
@@karcharias811 he says exactly why we don't know and can't know with the information we have. Because we don't have the quality of evidence required by historians to determine historical fact. No contemporaneous accounts, no eye witnesses and conflicting details.
@@UK_WMB conflicting details? Please explain where you find a confliction. Contemporaneous accounts? For an event that happened 2000 years ago, that would be impossible. But thankfully we have accounts of people that were there 2000 years ago.
@@arandompanda1349 Contemporaneous accounts from that period exist in abundance for events that happened in Rome and China. Judea being an unimportant backwater full of illiterate peasants does make the lack of contemporaneous accounts of an unremarkable apocalyptic prophet that was crucified understandable though sure. Weird that Jesus didn't reveal himself in Rome or a major city in China where we would have excellent records isn't it?
The core problem with Craigs thesis (including the Statistics formula) is that the basis for his assumptions are mostly theological so when you start with this assumption you cannot come up with a historical solution to the problem being studied: the historicity of the resurrection
Is it me or is Craig grasping at straws -- pulling in an algorithm to explain a fact that does not require mathematics -- and splitting hairs? In the equation used to determine probability, "Y" would have to be FACTS, otherwise their probability is just as bad as the ultimate probability being calculated.
@@keithtorres5743 interesting how you are making it sound like it is either atheism or christianity....Being critical of one of the pillars of this faith does not mean someone rejects the almighty, anyway may god guide us all !!
@@keithtorres5743 The problem comes when you can't seperate fiction and reality. We know gravity is real because it exist, if your ID says Keith, that's enough (unless you are criminal, but we can know that with enough investigation). If you said 2000 years ago there was a wizard who was the son of god because his ""followers"", decades after his death, said that (followers that can't agree with each other on nothing), then there is not difference between that and a con man.
The biggest problem with Dr Craig's proposition, is that the 4 Gospels are simply Gospels which were actually accepted as Orthodox, there were many beliefs about Jesus around that time. Many even believed that Jesus did not get physically resurrected.
Craig is basically Ray Comfort with a thesaurus... That might sound flippant but if you listen closely to what they both say it boils down to the exact same argument from personal experience: "No evidence can convince me I'm wrong because my god has personally contacted me and confirmed that I'm right."
Have you heard of a "properly basic belief"? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like you're more in the habit of maligning people that don't share your beliefs than reading, but I thought I'd ask.
elkellenhabla I'm aware that he has a label for his argument from personal experience. I'm fine with him calling it whatever he likes. It still boils down to faith that he rests his belief on (the belief that his particular god is real) instead of evidence. When asked for evidence for his specific god Dr Craig either dodges the question or starts talking deism.
+Ian G so you don't think there are any properly basic beliefs? What evidence do you have that the world around you actually exists and you're not just a brain in a vat being stimulated by a scientist?
Craig's last answer to the question refuted everything he claimed in this debate - he is not applying the same rational to the bible as he is doing for other writings. Strange...
For those who say "Debater 'A' is horrible and Debater 'B' is great misses the whole point of two people coming together to discuss opposing points of view. I respect both men who are involved in this debate and I thank them both for participating.
Angelize Tuco: You can't sit on the fence with something like this. I'm a Christian and I know there is absolutely no evidence for the resurrection. People like Craig are misleading the public. Bart Ehrman bases a lot if his interpretations on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the texts; but in this argument he correctly identifies Craigs position as weak and personal with no real evidence to support his claim. There's no room for both men to be right, not here.
1:07:10 I cannot wrap my head around why WLC thinks 1 Corinthians 15 attests to an empty tomb. Why does he say that it acts as a summary of the stories of the Gospels, when the Gospels were written afterwords, which may have themselves filled in the gap and included the empty tomb narrative after Paul’s letter? It seems that Paul’s letter is logically consistent with there being empty tomb, but it is equally consistent with it not having been true and the Gospels adding on that piece later. Further, I think we would expect certain things if the empty tomb were true- we would expect Paul to mention it, we would expect early Christians to identify and venerate the tomb
On your last point, I think an interesting case can be made that the tomb was, in fact, venerated. I'm not an expert by any means, but the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, purportedly the burial site of Jesus, seems to have a really early tradition. The Church as it is today has existed since the 4th century, and there was a Roman temple built on top of the site that dates back to the 2nd century. It's possible that Constantine just demolished a random temple and claimed that Jesus' tomb was under it for popular reasons or whatever, but it seems equally or more plausible that the Roman temple was built on top of a popular Christian site to suppress the growing religion (this would have been in the time period when the Christians faced more significant persecution). The tomb seems to fit what is recounted in the Gospels, both in its characteristics and in location. I'm not saying this is definitive or anything, but it does seem like it could possibly answer your last objection.
Sorry, Dr. Craig, but the "best explanation" of the story of the resurrection is that it's a story --- just as the best explanation of the story that Hanuman flew from Sri Lanka to the Himalayas is that it's a story.
@TheCosmicWarrior You think so? I think Ehrman did very well, especially against a seasoned debater like Craig. Keep in mind Ehrman is an academic, not a debater. That said, I thought it was good on both sides
Thanks. It's always amazing how interesting your debates and lectures are to me. It's never been a topic of personal interest to me but rather a topic of personal interest to others in my life who routinely pestered me about it! Anyway, it's a big help. 👋😏
I’ve been watching a series of Dr.Craig’s debate. He definitely has some smart and convincing arguments but it frustrates me so much because he never answer the opponent’s questions directly. And also, that’s not how probability works...
Was Buddha born through a slit in his mother's side? It's not impossible. It's not even improbable - we do C-sections all the time in the modern day. The question isn't whether or not it's possible or even probable. It's whether or not it actually happened and if we have enough evidence to say whether or not it's likely that it happened as it was reported to have happened. There are accounts of miracles and virgin births all throughout history, including accounts from witnesses to the events. And yet, the only miraculous accounts that WLC accepts as real are the ones that form the basis for his religion. Wasn't he so lucky to have found the one true religion in all the world? And it just happened to be the dominant religion in his culture! Wow!
@@INFINITEMODIFICATIONS Except that his context is not just an oversimplified, reductionist "dead guy" who studied enough to use the term "rational," and thinks he knows it all. A lot of Scientism ideologues want to say Freud´s "TAlk Therapy" doesn´t heal, and that Psychosomatic Medicine doesn´t heal. And yet they do, and so on. Saying Rasputin in Russia around 1916 was just some mooch and charismatic guy or shyster doesn´t quite explain that healing Prince Alex´s hemophilia wasn´t not some card trick. Lourdes healings have been subjected medical scrutiny up to modern times, as have numerous kinds of psychospiritual and religious healings, including Christian Science. Besides that, any Western "rational thinking person (rtp)" who has a healthy conscience owes a total debt to Jesus´ legacy and its unprecedented complexity. Or maybe you are ready to move to China, etc because it´s all the same. Not by a long shot. And not to invalidate their culture totally, because that´s not the full truth since Christian Civilization´s greatest strength has been educational learning. Secondly, any "rtp" has studied enough history, Social Sci, and the Bible can see the connections from Jesus´ loving commandments to the Reformation, democratic experiments, abolition of slavery, Social Movements, socio-ecological market economics, and the UN etc Human Rights community of nations.
@@robinhoodstfrancis In reality it took Christians almost 2k years to find out that slavery is bad and that women should have equal rights. And it’s probably also just a coincidence that all of this only happened after the enlightenment and after the secularization of the western world, after Christianity lost a lot of influence.😂
@@keithtorres5743 What happened to Peter Sutcliffe? If God had commanded him to punish prostitutes, surely the judge would be subverting Deuteronomy 22:13 and God's divine will?
Ehrman demolishes Craig's arguments for the third time and Craig stands up and says I don't think he answered my arguments. When his arguments aren't facts in the first place. What a dumbbell
He's been debating since High School. It's a common debate tactic. You need to verbally voice it assertively. It increases the likelihood that your audience that are already leaning into your position will find what you have to say convincing. He's a good debater, no doubt. However, sometimes his material is so weak when he's up against scholars in fields that are way out of his expertise such as History with Bart Ehrman and Sean Caroll with Physics.
@@keithtorres5743 Craigs arguments: The Bible says it... therefore it’s true. Some superstitious savages who had no way of knowing if the claims are true converted. That’s basically the entire argument... 😂
Well yes, but considering what we call hallucinations today (i.e. hearing voices and thinking they are telling you to do illogical things) would easily compare to the 'Voice' that Jesus heard saying 'This is my son. . . .'.
Lol, you have no evidence. The four "facts" that Craig talked about are NOT evidence in rising from the dead. Explain how being buried proves someone rose from the dead. It's simply not evidence of rising from the dead. Craig is a great bull$hit artist but anyone can see it's bull$hit unless that person is brainwashed with his same supernatural belief background.
RawTruth Don’t be ignorant. How exactly you do you know who heard what? You don’t stop asserting assertions and presuppositions as if they are facts, when they’re not. It’s one claim in one book made by one author not multiple authors or independently attested witnesses.
WLC: "The majority of NT scholars agree with my 4 facts." BE: "That's because most NT scholars are Christian." WLC: "You're views are in the minority among NT scholars." BE: "That's because most NT scholars are Christian."
@@Felipe-sw8wp Fraud is a strong word. I think he's suggesting they may be irreconcilably biased. The simple fact is that the vast majority of non-Christians have very little motivation to devote their lives to studying the Bible.
Erhman is involved in assuming the bias fallacy. He assumes that because they are Christian they accept the facts Craig is talking about. He doesn't acknowledge the idea that perhaps they accept the facts and therefore as a result they are Christian.
The two debaters seem to have argued from two diametrically opposite sides. Bart claimed that you can't impose theological interpretations to prove the historicity of some NT events. Craig claimed that the historical veracity of the NT assertions ( the specific evidence/E that he used for his calculus) indicate that a supernatural ressurection of Jesus is the most likely explanation, which if true, augments the value of the theological proposition, namely that God exists. At this point, they should have focused the debate entirely on the authenticity of the 4 ''facts'' that Craig presented, and suspend any explanation of them, until and if they have a common basis.
Well, you can use Bayes Theorem to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus probably didn’t exist. It’s all about the prior probabilities that you insert in your formula. If you start with the belief that the God of the Bible exists and that he certainly wants to resurrect Jesus then of course you might insert a high probability for that claim. And if you are a little bit more reasonable you might use a prior probability that is very close to zero, maybe 1 in 100 billion.😂
Hey buddy mind your own business we muslims have nothing to do with this why don't you start looking at scholars who study and appreciate the new testament
I like how Dr.Erhman had to preface his intro with « I’ll rebut his points with my next speech » because otherwise Craig would do his slimy « but note how my opponent didn’t rebut X and Y argument », as if it was caused by anything other than the shameless gish gallop he likes to do.
William Lane Craig's argument in a nutshell: I cannot think of any reason why it wasn't a miracle so it must have been a miracle. I cannot think of any reason why William Lane Craig hasn't been brainwashed by extraterrestrial beings so he must have been brainwashed by extraterrestrial beings.
Truthwarrior Logic? By the same logic we should be accepting most other supernatural/paranormal claims. I do not call that logic. Logic is about drawing a necessary conclusion, not presenting debatable historical occurrences and drawing a sweeping, non-sequitur conclusion.
If anyone thinks Craig ignored Ehrman's question about the reliability of the gospels, then you must certainly believe Ehrman avoided answering Craig's 3-points rebuttal about the gospel inconsistencies.
As a former 26 year fundamentalist christian Craig lost me at "experience equals evidence"...rubbish! Many Christians claim experiences that turned out to never have happened for a fact. I have been a personal witness to this. This is the exact problem in the church right now, believing in a faith blindly at the get go without understanding the historicity or evidence behind it. He believed it first to be true then studied the material that has complemented his beliefs, probably on a confirmation bias with maybe a few challenges along the way. Whats even more bizarre is Craig's argument on probability, Bart is correct with what he is saying. My sibling has an honors degree studying history and agrees supernatural events such as the Resurrection cannot qualify as a historical event because its simply supernatural, and shes a conservative christian! If so we would have to consider the claims of Islam and every other supernatural event that holds value. Ehrman is the only bible scholar i actually like listening to, he knows his shit, backs it up in his debates and isnt afraid to have to change his mind! He did it before when he was in Craig's position and believe me its not easy, especially when you loose people in your life for it. Happy i found out about him!
Sounds good and all, but as a former pagan who practiced necromancy I can tell you it was my direct experience with the power of the name of Jesus Christ that secured my faith in God. I was having very intrusive and violent paranormal experiences and after exhausting all other options it was His name that ended the terror. In the five years since this has happened to me I have read and listened to as much as I could stand concerning these matters....my theological beliefs keep changing as I learn more, and I am overwhelmed by all the various positions....but one thing I am certain of is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ. He is my Lord, and He is alive! Had I never even read the bible I would still be belong to Him all for the sake of that beautiful name which did indeed save me and give me a new life!
A miracle is by definition the least plausible explanaition for an event. Hume made this point a few hundred years ago, and it`s still the best put down argument for the resurrection.
@@susanthroop7041 he inferred a miracle when there are better explanations. Also, we know how stories get changed. So what got written down after decades as gospels was probably not even in this form. Are we to believe someone walked on water and raised the dead and says resurrected because someone wrote it down? There are so many examples of alleged miracles and we know all of them are rubbish so why think this is any different?
Bible: Claims that there was an empty tomb, that Jesus Ressurected from the dead and that there were eye witnesses Debate topic: What is the Historical evidence to support these Biblical claims? Craig: These Biblical claims
That'd be a cool retort if that's actually a debate you could point to, but I've seen WLC discuss the historical evidene to support the key Biblical claims and it looks nothing like your cute little 3-word rhetorical trope. Have you seen Craig take up that topic? please show me the reference for where his entire defense of the claim can be reasonably summed up in those 3 words. otherwise, you're just sniping. Go somewhere else, troll
Keith McKinley My comment is entirely accurate to Craigs views. The Bible is not evidence for the Bibles claims. You cannot prove theologic claims by using theology. Not a single historian ever wrote about the tomb being empty, yet Craig believes it as a historical fact. He uses the Bible as his source for his “4 facts”. He believes the empty tomb is a historical fact because the majority of Christian theologans believe it’s a historical fact. No self respecting Christian would actually deny that the tomb was empty. So that is not evidence. And before you give me the names of a few athiest who believe the empty tomb is historical, just know most of them actually don’t believe that. Not a single part of my comment was a lie. The idea of the Ressurection comes from Biblical theology. Craig then uses the same Biblical theology to try and prove the Biblical theology. He didn’t provide any historical documents to prove the ressurection because they don’t exsist.
Keith McKinley He obviously didn’t say three words. He said hundreds of words straight from the Bible. Which are the Biblical claims I was refering to. I was not trolling. The snobs that follow Craig think any form of humor is fallacious. Nothing I said was wrong. Let me break it down for you if you don’t understand. 1. Were does the idea of the reserrurection come from? : The Bible 2. What documents does Craig use to defend this idea? : The Bible
Craig's probability calculus is valid. However, he makes some assumptions that make his conclusion unsound. Since we probably cannot legitimately assume either naturalism or theism on this, then at best, the highest prior probability one can assign to a resurrection is .5 and so the highest final probability one could get would be .5. And this would involve maximally generous assumptions otherwise. I mean even if we allow that God may exist, what is the probability that he would want to resurrect Jesus? Being agnostic as to Gods existence and whether he would want to resurrect Jesus already knocks us down to a max prob of .25. Further assumptions being made by Craig are that the probability of the evidence having a naturalistic explanation are low. What evidence? A bunch of fantastic stories? What is the probability that a bunch of fantastic stories could have arisen due to the tendency of human beings to concoct fantastic stories. I certainly wouldn't rate that as low probability. My assessment of his probability calculus? Garbage in, garbage out.
@@snuzebuster You're right about all this. The fact that he wants to assign a nontrivial probability to someone being resurrected by any means given our background knowledge of the world already tells you how downright loony his assumptions are. Ehrmann is exactly right about that having to have a vanishingly low probability when compared to all demonstrably possible explanations such as the wild imagination that Ehrmann dreamt up in his opening speech. How high is the probability that the four specifics of the stories arose (ignoring that they aren't even identical in the separate accounts) given that Jesus didn't actually get resurrected and given our background knowledge of the world? No idea, but a damn sight higher than the probability that he was resurrected, given our background knowledge of the world. And obviously the probability that he wasn't resurrected given our background knowledge of the world is pretty close to 1.
I keep looking for a good debate from WLC as he seems to be so highly regarded. I'm yet to find one. If anyone has a link please share. Unless you think his math/probability material is good, in which case don't worry about it.
I m chritians and i believe in jesus ... erhman does make s a lot of sense .. he is a chalenge for chritianity in a good way ! A good test for our faith
I did the probability calculation for the resurrection of Jesus using Craig's formula. I heard that a result of a probability calculation cannot be 0, so I took a limit of it and my result is... the probability tends towards 0. :D Although I would like someone to do the calculation and show how it's actually done, I'm pretty far from being sure about how it's done.
"If I believe that the ocean is full of invisible unicorns and the ocean is the color of invisible unicorn pee, how can that NOT be the most likely explanation?" WLC
Then you will have to follow the probability mathematical model. What's the probability invisible unicorn pee relative to the probability of background and evidence for it? I'd say the background and evidence for it is close to null. Thus the probability of it occuring is likely infinitesimal
@ 1:49:40 Classic Ehrman. "Im sorry but I can't believe we are having a discussion on the statistical probability.....of resurrection of Jesus...of God. A room full of academics would howl us off the stage....maybe in the school that you teach at...: Bart's humanity and genuine nature are priceless. WLC is about the best apologists can offer. Bart is essentially telling him what I say to all my friends who are religious.....It is a matter of faith. Once you step outside of faith and try to "prove" things related to that faith, even a very smart person can appear like an idiot. On the flip side of this, I often wonder about how strong is the faith of believers who feel they need to perform gymnastics to "prove the Judeo/Christian, Hindu, or Muslim god is true"
Not only does Craig generally say stupid things, he almost never retracts his arguments even when their falsity is clearly explained to him. He is an eloquently stubborn goon.
that's why he is feared and respected by most atheists... what I just said is a fact, by the way, but something tells me you'll ignore that fact, as well. Look at your statements, emotional hatred you bare towards the man says it all...
WLC dismisses Apollonius as myths and legends post-Jesus deliberately constructed to compete with Christianity, using the same reasoning Noah's Flood is a myth and legend constructed to compete with the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh.
William Lane Craig will take his rightful place as the greatest performing illusionist of all-time. Nobody can magically pull as many items out of their tight ass as Craig does, and with so little effort.
I think a good way to see the debate is that, there is definitely a Historian Jesus, but there hasn´t been found a body, so you have 2 options: option A, there are other explanations for that, like the body was taken etc etc. You have historical evidence to take that option. Option B God resurrected Jesus from the death, you have historical evidence to take that option. but neither you can prove or disprove one from other. You have to take a decision to wich you have evidence to support you.
What?! Craig is defending his deity and not just the deistic deity if the Kalam? Well, this is the second Christian apologist I have seen defend Christianity instead of just a deistic deity. That means the Christian apologists have go the message that they need to step up and defend what they actually believe.
When I was a fundamentalist Christian, I spent the better part of 7 years training to be an Apologist -- William Lane Craig was one of my heroes. And then I read Dr. Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted" -- and I realized (a) how duped I had been by Christianity peddled as fact, and (b) how depraved, nonsensical, and fallacious Apologists like Bill are. Thank God for Bart Ehrman! (pun, see?)
Why does Craig insist on using the word "Know" every time he speaks of how Christians "know" that jesus is risen. Why even debate these idiots. at least get the terms correct. It is impossible to prove, therefore you don't know. You guess. You have faith.
@@susanthroop7041 there's a woman who personally knows and has a relationship with a ferris wheel at a fair. That doesn't mean the ferris wheel is actually a sentient being.
I have to admit, I hold WLC in great contempt, and funnily enough I admire him in a way, he has this amazing ability to look his audience in the eyes and tell the most amazing "pork pies". He really is a pork pie guru. The best of all about dear WLC, is when he walks to the podium to deliver a new batch of pork pies, is the sound of his feet colliding with the floor. I could recognise this "pork pie" teller anywhere.
"we dont have access to string theory or parallel universes either" I feel like he doesnt truly understand what he is implying. If all he says is that God is a possible theory thats awaiting validation then welcome to the atheist group. Can someone clarify it as Im pretty unfamiliar with historical evidence. Are 5 sources from the same group considered 5 different sources in historical sciences? It seems like a ridiculous idea but I dont see people call Craig out on it. I wouldnt trust a peer reviewed paper if it was tested by only one interest group 5 times
To clarify: the point is that the stories derive from different individuals, specifically 4 if we are talking about the synoptic gospels + acts; “Luke” also authored acts. The significance is theoretically the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, however (and don’t quote me on this because this is where I get fuzzy), I believe that Mark and Matthew share a common source, denoted as Q, Luke is an amalgam, and John is so theologically distinct and later than the others, you can ask any apologist with a shred of honesty and they will tell you John is an apologetic gospel and is where 90% of Christian theology flows (I am the way and truth and life, the Word made flesh, etc.) From the above, obviously the gospels are not primary sources, they are secondary, but the salient point is that they are unique generations of the same basic story (synoptic). They were not generated by a group of early Christians or a church for the purposes of conversion, but rather they are purported to be the account (testament) of those who knew, heard, or saw Jesus in his lifetime. I apologize if that might have seemed overly-simplistic; I am not presuming on your intelligence or anything like that! I just wanted to clarify all the things I suspected you might be asking about. Erhman has a lot of great resources on these topics, but I agree with you that it is weird it is never contended in a debate, but properly understood it is such a modest claim and is one of those things that apologists emphasize because it gets you a lot of mileage from people who don’t really understand what it means. It just sounds impressive.
I love how Bart is always so blunt and how he corners his opponents, and he really put craig in his place wich you rarely see, Craig didnt stand a chance !!
I find it telling that Dr Ehrman has the good will to allow comments on his channel while WLC disables the comments to this very same debate on his channel.
William Lane Craig is to New Testament scholarship as Lee Strobel is to journalism. He builds a straw man on stupid evangelical talking points and calls it Christ resurrected based on the facts.
The probability of finding a way of calculating Pr(R/B&E), which is the probability of resurrection, is lower than the probability of resurrection itself which is extremely small
Why does Craig speak in such absolutes, saying a “fact” has been “established” (like Jesus’s burial in a tomb)- when he really means probable (or plausible) claims that are supported by not-infallible historical evidence and weakened by some opposing information (like the commonality of unmarked mass graves)? Also- “any later legendary account would Certainly have made make disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb [as opposed to women]”. False, no this is not certain, for perhaps women and slaves would more often add spices to the dead body than men did, so it makes for a more believable story to have women find the empty tomb than male disciples. And perhaps the male disciples had skipped town, so Mark accommodated that in his story. And perhaps Mark was trying to indicate a message. Craig shows his hubris when confidently stating that Certainly it would have been men that found the tomb empty if the story were made up.
All of Craigs "facts“ don’t exist outside of the stories of the gospels. In reality it’s extremely unlikely that Jesus was put in a tomb at all. Also, if the story said that male disciples found the empty tomb then Apologists like Craig would claim that this must be true because it was the job of women and slaves to anoint dead bodies and it would have been extremely embarrassing for men. Of course Apologists would also explain away the fact that the text says that the disciples fled and were hiding somewhere.
And look, comments. No comments on the Christian channels. Look, fellow believers, you are not going to bring people to God by denying another human beings agency. Discussion must take place.
I find it amazing just how Craig maintains that God is an all powerful intelligent designer and fine-tuner. Throughout the old testament, God directed that things be written down so that they wouldn't be forgotten. He was so zealous about this that he personally wrote stuff down, namely the Ten Commandments. Given this point about writing stuff down, God sent Jesus to earth to perform the most important task since he created Heaven and Earth. Yet, neither God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit (which is responsible for bringing things to people's memory), the angels nor any other member of the heavenly hosts, directed or reminded(?) Jesus to choose a scribe to write down his life story and all that he said and did. Come to think about it, was there ever a bigger blunder? That colossal omission has cost untold millions and maybe even billions of innocent people their lives. We haven't heard a word from Jesus on the matter. Craig is making a fortune off of Jesus' heavenly failure, however. Speaking of being omnipotent, Jesus said in Mat. 28:18 that all power in heaven and earth have been given to him. Did anyone tell the Jews about this? I guess God retired and so the Jews had better look for a replacement. That being the case, I have to wonder, why is it that he, Jesus, has taken no action to correct his mega blunder. All he has to do is think of it and the world will have a heavenly correctly printed bible. Muhammad and Joseph Smith got stuff. Then, the two hundred plus error-filled versions we are having to deal with can be recycled into something better and more useful. I would ask Craig, isn't it time we be treated to our own miracle? We should be sick and tired of shouting over Moses' and Pharaoh' multiple miracles and Joseph's (Mary husband) virginal dreams.
"Paul tells us Jesus appeared to one guy, then Paul tells us Jesus appeared to another few guys, then Paul tells us Jesus appeared to a shit ton of dudes. So, OBVIOUSLY, a billion people saw that Jesus was risen from the dead, and so we can believe what this one guy said."
Craig's reasoning is inframental. And it seems he finds it so fabulous. How to mix Math and History and get something that is worse than em isolated. Is there any antonymous for Sinergia?
Patrick Walsh Yes, there is no historical evidence too. None of his companions reported they saw him. The only witness is Muhammad. No, Jesus's resurrection and Muhammad's miraz is not same. Think.
Jesus resurrection and Muhammad flying to heaven are very similar. Both are extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof. Think what would happen if someone claimed they rose from the dead today? All the eyewitnesses would be separated and give sworn statements to make sure they all saw exactly the same thing. Even then without a lot of csi forensic evidence to back up the claim it would be considered a mass hallucination or some sort of misunderstanding. James Randi foundation has been offering a million dollar reward for many years for proof of the supernatural and no one has claimed it. All any Christian has to do to claim it is demonstrate prayer works. Just walk in and pray for something and demonstrate what you prayed for actually happens and that an invisible third party agent in carrying out your requests in the real world. Things that are true are true in any frame of reference regardless of what religion a person is. If Jesus rose from the dead and it was a historical fact Jews would believe it too. Just like all religions believe King Tut and Cleopatra were Egyptian rulers. Based on all the evidence we have now (and are very likely ever going to have) nearly every other rational explanation is more plausible than Jesus rose from the dead. Think.
There's no such thing as a "dedicated non-Christian." Either you buy the story, or you don't. Belief is a conviction, not a choice. Meaning that if you aren't convinced, then you are not a believer. That's all there is to it. Why would I be kind to my opponents? If I think you are wrong about something, I might not hold any animosity to you personally, but that does not mean at all that I will pull my punches in demolishing your silly beliefs.
In this debate and other places, Bart Ehrman concedes all of the facts. You might want to actually listen to the debate and other material before acting smart in the Yt comments.
@@BRNRDNCK Well, those facts don’t exist outside of the gospels. Historians provisionally agree that they are probably true because those are just mundane irrelevant claims. -Jesus died by crucifixion. -One or more of his followers had some unspecified experiences(dreams, visions or post bereavement hallucinations) that led them to believe that Jesus rose from the dead. -His followers preached their interpretation of the message of Jesus. -Paul, who claims that he persecuted Christians and claims that he had a vision of Jesus became the most import figure in the Christian cult. Very mundane claims, none of them lead to: Therefore the story is true.😂
Dr. Erhman was quite good in this debate. This is just not a topic Craig is apt to discuss. His use a Bayesian probability argument was absurd, given it requires that he & Erhman have the same priors (e.g. theism) & evaluate the totality of the relevant evidence. That is not how historical matters are settled ever, lol.
not only that Bill put the wrong number into the denominator. It doesn't go to zero ..it goes to infinity which makes the ratio of occurance for a ressurection nearly zero and effectively zero.
1:28:48 Ehrman should have spent more time disputing the historical premises in Craig’s argument. He’s a better historian than philosopher. And I like his exposition of his counter-explanation of the family stealing his body. I think he does well to dispel Craig’s objections to it (1:29:36), and shows that not all plausible naturalistic explanations of his four premises (which Ehrman disputes the certainty of) have been exhausted.
I find Erhman’s counter arguments incredibly dishonest. Craig is not arguing that he has conclusive evidence for the resurrection. Rather, Craig is arguing that the Resurrection is the best plausible explanation that we have. Ockam’s Razor
Ugh, I debated with myself quite a bit before clicking on this debate. In the end, my support/appreciation for Bart Ehrman won over my distaste for WLC. Seriously, I hadn't thought anyone could be more smug, slimy, and condescending than Ted Cruz. I was wrong.
@@@leondiegodelpino Poor old Bart tried and failed to get this debate from reaching the public. He also engaged in a series of personal attacks on WLC. Bart is one hell of a guy.
Lol he didn't want it out?? This is his RUclips channel. Watch To via Singer a master Rabbi drill a hole in Will Craigs arguments on Trinity with an endless supply of Passages in tenackh disproving and laying waste to Trinity. Dr Craig concedes its not in Jewish doctrine
@Maria The gospels are questioned as soon as you read them side by side and see that the gospels don't agree with each other, then if you're honest and care about the truth, you have to ask what they got right and what they got wrong and figure out a reliable way for you to decipher which is which. From there you realize that you can't rely on the gospels for truth. Assumption is when you take it at face value, that's what you are demonstrating.
I love how no one claps after Bart destroys Dr Craig after Bart's first dissertation...proof he just destroyed Dr Craig... Dr Craig's uses the bible as his source. The source itself is inconsistent...
He didn't destroy anyone, he uses the same schtick that's quite easy to do..He studies alot, yes, but his bitterness and bias is so evident. He uses points and certain differences in the gospels and yes I admit, the Bible has a history of fingerprints and human errors. But they all agree He was resurrected and there are too many witnesses that were reported. It's so easy to argue miracles aren't likely, it's lazy actually and has no relevance to this topic. There are non biblical sources giving credence to the resurrection as well.
Hey WLC worshippers: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore the universe has a cause. It now follows: Everybody who dies stays dead. Jesus died. Jesus is still dead.
@guia Gaston that’s not how it works a deductive argument rests on the premises of the arguments if there true then the conclusion is true, not another deductive argument and in the video they’re basically arguing over your first premise
Is math is just a complicated way of staying that both: 1: believing that the supernatural is possible And 2: thinking that alternative explanations of his 4 facts aren't that plausible Each increase the degree of confidence we can have in / likelihood of Jesus reserecting. So in fact, if you believe in another religion (like you suggest in your comment), then 1 is true and the historical evidence has more weight. So the historical evidence is a good argument for why you should believe Christianity as opposed to other religions.
I wonder what Dr Ehrman thinks of the possibility that Jesus did not actually die on the cross. I read that one possibility is that Jesus may have gone into a coma and then got revived subsequently.
Personally I have thought in the past that these ancient people would not recognize if someone was actually dead. You had bells and other ways of notification of someone buried alive in the Middle Ages. Sad to say but in our slightly more modern world we have had cadavers sit straight up at the morgue.
TheCosmicWarrior one of his first arguments were sightings of the tomb. Those historical connections don’t exist. That’s literally for the Bible tells me so Your trained historian is making up historical facts. If a trained nutritionist starts telling you to eat steaks everyday because of industry funded studies. That nutritionist loses credibility. It doesn’t matter if they have a degree
Are we not going to take a notice to some blatant comments who actually didn't watch the whole video? Dr. Ehrman argues mainly what makes this "historical" in the basis of category, then Craig defends. That's what actually happens. They both agree in their recent interview that the debate was just about the acclimation of that history being "a history". "it was a good discussion" - Craig & Erhman.
It's frustrating to me how very intelligent people like Dr craig continue to uplift and defend this 2,000 year old nonsense. This stuff is ancient history. We are exploring the surface of mars, but people continue to cling to these ancient outdated beliefs, and try to convert you to their beliefs.... so frustrating. I'm so grateful for people like Bart who really put themselves out there to get the truth out to a deluded world. Sure Bart makes a comfortable living for himself doing what he does, but I am sure it comes at a cost. He's made enemies for himself. There are people on the other side, who would love to discredit him and see him crash and burn. I'm glad he's on our side 😊
I’m slightly incredulous that Craig doesn’t see the irony when he uses words like “fanciful” or “improbable” to describe Ehrman’s naturalistic explanations for the resurrection. Like... he’s claiming that a supernatural being raising his son (who is also himself) from the grave is somehow less fanciful?
The naturalistic explanations are extremely improbable... therefore my impossible supernatural explanation that has never been observed anywhere ever must be true.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 Actually not the case. Both of you guys are doing a scarecrow fallacy. Theses guys are talking about history in a historical point of view, when Dr. Craig says fanciful or improbable he's talking in a historical perspective. If you want to talk about supernaturallity then we can talk about philosophy and God and so on, but IT'S WAS NOT THE CASE IN THIS DEBATE. Don't act in this way when you don't even understood his point.
@@alienboy9847
Could you articulate Craig's argument as you understand it?
@@alienboy9847 silly. OP's not making any argument/inference about Craig's position, just noting their own incredulity at a perceived irony: there is no fallacy. Fallacies are illicit inferences (premise->conclusion); even if the OP is incorrect (they're not, it is an outrageous and rather amusing irony) to accuse them of fallacy is just a category error.
Why do people think citing a name of a fallacy is an argument, especially when they evidently don't know what a fallacy even is on a basic basic level? You just make yourself look like a buffoon.
@@alienboy9847 The supernatural claims are also historical claims, to argue otherwise is pointless because the point is to establish which is the most probable set of events.
WLC argues:
-Ehrman's proposed set of events (Ehrman's theory) is unlikely.
-Events which are unlikely are less probable of happening that events which are likely (definition of "unlikely").
Conclusion 1: the set of events presented by Ehrman is improbable of having happened (by definition).
But Zardoz and Gami know that he has a favorite theory that he positively proposes which summarised is:
- The set of supernatural claims roughly presented on the Gospels (Craig's theory) is the most likely explanation for the beginning of Christianity (if not he would not be a Christian theist after all).
Conclusion 2: by the definition of "likely", the best explanation for the beginning of Christianity is Craig's theory (Craig's position).
And then Zardoz and Rami come and acknowledge that:
*Conclusion 3: Craig believes necessarily that in some situations supernaturalistic explanations are more likely than naturalistic ones.*
*And then, they claim that "haha, I personally find rather amusing that someone could claim that a naturalistic explanation is less likely than a supernaturalistic one"*
Did they misrepresent Craig's believes?
How are they strawmaning Craig's position please explain.
To be honest this debate could have been so much better. They didn’t even get to debate at all because they never could agree on what counts as “historical.” The entire debate was WLC giving arguments, Bart not tearing them down but rather labeling them as a category mistake, and that was the tone for the entire debate.
Professor Ehrman, your are damn good! Must be frustrating to debate someone who just repeats his own arguments and never considers anything else!
Craig strawmaned Ehrman
When Ehrman said “ historians cannot access god , therefore cannot day what god did “
Craig claimed that meant, Ehrman couldn’t say that the resurrection did not happen .
Ehrman was not saying the resurrection didn’t happen
He was saying it could not be shown that it did , with the historical evidence.
TheCosmicWarrior Wait what? It’s the other way around...
Aren't you such an idiot? Do a simple Google search on their backgrounds
I like these debates. Dr. Ehrman always shows himself to be a person commited to finding the truth, he is not afraid to change his mind when evidence to the contrary persuades him to this change. What I always see on the other side is an attempt after attempt to hammer the only opinion again and again. I see a huge lack of flexibility, reflection, lack of the benefit of the doubt. Sort of a stuck mentality. However, I agree and support Craig's claim that a personal spiritual experience can be extremely powerful. We can all argue about the source of this experience. However, its very real and in and of itself seem to open up certain unknown side of reality.
Anyone else get distracted by the creepy dude standing in the doorway?
HAHAHAHAHA this is my favorite comment.
I could not concentrate on the speakers because of that! I had to stop watching and just listen to them.
Lol I just noticed him....very funny
That's frickin hilarious. Now I cant pay attention. Thanks a lot. LOL
I think he is a security guard making sure no one interferes with the presentation.
Elvis died. Thousands saw him alive afterwards.
Aside: Craig REALLY likes to stack the deck and shift the burden of proof with his whole "he must tear down ALL of my arguments and make his own positive case." Usually he hides behind "atheism is actually a denial of god claims" but he can't do that with Ehrman.
Why shouldn't Ehrman back up his own claims. We can't know? Really why not? He should answer such questions. His approach is purely speculative.
@@karcharias811 he says exactly why we don't know and can't know with the information we have. Because we don't have the quality of evidence required by historians to determine historical fact. No contemporaneous accounts, no eye witnesses and conflicting details.
@@UK_WMB conflicting details? Please explain where you find a confliction.
Contemporaneous accounts? For an event that happened 2000 years ago, that would be impossible. But thankfully we have accounts of people that were there 2000 years ago.
@@arandompanda1349 Care to explain what people or accounts you are referring to here?
@@arandompanda1349 Contemporaneous accounts from that period exist in abundance for events that happened in Rome and China. Judea being an unimportant backwater full of illiterate peasants does make the lack of contemporaneous accounts of an unremarkable apocalyptic prophet that was crucified understandable though sure.
Weird that Jesus didn't reveal himself in Rome or a major city in China where we would have excellent records isn't it?
The core problem with Craigs thesis (including the Statistics formula) is that the basis for his assumptions are mostly theological so when you start with this assumption you cannot come up with a historical solution to the problem being studied: the historicity of the resurrection
Is it me or is Craig grasping at straws -- pulling in an algorithm to explain a fact that does not require mathematics -- and splitting hairs? In the equation used to determine probability, "Y" would have to be FACTS, otherwise their probability is just as bad as the ultimate probability being calculated.
I'm not sure I see the point in this debate as both are approaching it from completely different fields.
BART: I've studied EVERY text from the first 500 years.
WC: I have a list of 4 things.
What a stupidly simplistic summary of the debate. What is your age?
@@keithtorres5743 interesting how you are making it sound like it is either atheism or christianity....Being critical of one of the pillars of this faith does not mean someone rejects the almighty, anyway may god guide us all !!
@@keithtorres5743 huh?
@@keithtorres5743
So??
Prove that Jesus ressurected.....
Don't change topic and don't fool others like paul did
@@keithtorres5743 The problem comes when you can't seperate fiction and reality. We know gravity is real because it exist, if your ID says Keith, that's enough (unless you are criminal, but we can know that with enough investigation). If you said 2000 years ago there was a wizard who was the son of god because his ""followers"", decades after his death, said that (followers that can't agree with each other on nothing), then there is not difference between that and a con man.
The biggest problem with Dr Craig's proposition, is that the 4 Gospels are simply Gospels which were actually accepted as Orthodox, there were many beliefs about Jesus around that time. Many even believed that Jesus did not get physically resurrected.
Craig is basically Ray Comfort with a thesaurus...
That might sound flippant but if you listen closely to what they both say it boils down to the exact same argument from personal experience:
"No evidence can convince me I'm wrong because my god has personally contacted me and confirmed that I'm right."
"Ray Comfort with a thesaurus" is probably the best description of Craig that I've ever heard. Humorous, pithy, accurate and illustrative. Nice work!
Have you heard of a "properly basic belief"? Doesn't sound like it. Sounds like you're more in the habit of maligning people that don't share your beliefs than reading, but I thought I'd ask.
elkellenhabla I'm aware that he has a label for his argument from personal experience. I'm fine with him calling it whatever he likes. It still boils down to faith that he rests his belief on (the belief that his particular god is real) instead of evidence. When asked for evidence for his specific god Dr Craig either dodges the question or starts talking deism.
elkellenhabla oh I forgot one. Or he restates the claim itself and pretends it's "evidence."
+Ian G so you don't think there are any properly basic beliefs? What evidence do you have that the world around you actually exists and you're not just a brain in a vat being stimulated by a scientist?
Craig's last answer to the question refuted everything he claimed in this debate - he is not applying the same rational to the bible as he is doing for other writings. Strange...
For those who say "Debater 'A' is horrible and Debater 'B' is great misses the whole point of two people coming together to discuss opposing points of view.
I respect both men who are involved in this debate and I thank them both for participating.
Angelize Tuco:
You can't sit on the fence with something like this.
I'm a Christian and I know there is absolutely no evidence for the resurrection. People like Craig are misleading the public.
Bart Ehrman bases a lot if his interpretations on a misunderstanding of the meaning of the texts; but in this argument he correctly identifies Craigs position as weak and personal with no real evidence to support his claim.
There's no room for both men to be right, not here.
@@timw4383 You can respect both men and not sit on the fence. : )
1:07:10 I cannot wrap my head around why WLC thinks 1 Corinthians 15 attests to an empty tomb. Why does he say that it acts as a summary of the stories of the Gospels, when the Gospels were written afterwords, which may have themselves filled in the gap and included the empty tomb narrative after Paul’s letter? It seems that Paul’s letter is logically consistent with there being empty tomb, but it is equally consistent with it not having been true and the Gospels adding on that piece later. Further, I think we would expect certain things if the empty tomb were true- we would expect Paul to mention it, we would expect early Christians to identify and venerate the tomb
On your last point, I think an interesting case can be made that the tomb was, in fact, venerated. I'm not an expert by any means, but the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, purportedly the burial site of Jesus, seems to have a really early tradition. The Church as it is today has existed since the 4th century, and there was a Roman temple built on top of the site that dates back to the 2nd century. It's possible that Constantine just demolished a random temple and claimed that Jesus' tomb was under it for popular reasons or whatever, but it seems equally or more plausible that the Roman temple was built on top of a popular Christian site to suppress the growing religion (this would have been in the time period when the Christians faced more significant persecution). The tomb seems to fit what is recounted in the Gospels, both in its characteristics and in location. I'm not saying this is definitive or anything, but it does seem like it could possibly answer your last objection.
Funny how in Dr. Craig's RUclips page, the comments are turned off
He's scared of how many people are gonna roast him for his stupidity
Yeah
What s funny about that and why would you want them turned on?
@@samiasaeed3120 go on and try friend. No one is stopping you from doing so, the comments here are on as you know.
@@samiasaeed3120 because all the time the minority of atheists want to feel nice by ad hominem and attacking.
Sorry, Dr. Craig, but the "best explanation" of the story of the resurrection is that it's a story --- just as the best explanation of the story that Hanuman flew from Sri Lanka to the Himalayas is that it's a story.
Bill still shuffling papers. He's always filing his taxes during these debates.
Will
Lol he looks like a lawyer at his first trial.
Hey honey my keys were on the table they are no longer there.
They were raised to heaven.
Possible but not likely
He's got to conger up some rebuttal.
@TheCosmicWarrior You think so? I think Ehrman did very well, especially against a seasoned debater like Craig. Keep in mind Ehrman is an academic, not a debater. That said, I thought it was good on both sides
Thanks.
It's always amazing how interesting your debates and lectures are to me.
It's never been a topic of personal interest to me but rather a topic of personal interest to others in my life who routinely pestered me about it!
Anyway, it's a big help. 👋😏
I’ve been watching a series of Dr.Craig’s debate. He definitely has some smart and convincing arguments but it frustrates me so much because he never answer the opponent’s questions directly. And also, that’s not how probability works...
Was Buddha born through a slit in his mother's side? It's not impossible. It's not even improbable - we do C-sections all the time in the modern day. The question isn't whether or not it's possible or even probable. It's whether or not it actually happened and if we have enough evidence to say whether or not it's likely that it happened as it was reported to have happened.
There are accounts of miracles and virgin births all throughout history, including accounts from witnesses to the events. And yet, the only miraculous accounts that WLC accepts as real are the ones that form the basis for his religion. Wasn't he so lucky to have found the one true religion in all the world? And it just happened to be the dominant religion in his culture! Wow!
It must be designed, hence it is evidence for god.
@@keithtorres5743 Theres no reason any rational thinking person should believe a dead guy came back to life.
@@INFINITEMODIFICATIONS Except that his context is not just an oversimplified, reductionist "dead guy" who studied enough to use the term "rational," and thinks he knows it all. A lot of Scientism ideologues want to say Freud´s "TAlk Therapy" doesn´t heal, and that Psychosomatic Medicine doesn´t heal. And yet they do, and so on. Saying Rasputin in Russia around 1916 was just some mooch and charismatic guy or shyster doesn´t quite explain that healing Prince Alex´s hemophilia wasn´t not some card trick. Lourdes healings have been subjected medical scrutiny up to modern times, as have numerous kinds of psychospiritual and religious healings, including Christian Science. Besides that, any Western "rational thinking person (rtp)" who has a healthy conscience owes a total debt to Jesus´ legacy and its unprecedented complexity. Or maybe you are ready to move to China, etc because it´s all the same. Not by a long shot. And not to invalidate their culture totally, because that´s not the full truth since Christian Civilization´s greatest strength has been educational learning. Secondly, any "rtp" has studied enough history, Social Sci, and the Bible can see the connections from Jesus´ loving commandments to the Reformation, democratic experiments, abolition of slavery, Social Movements, socio-ecological market economics, and the UN etc Human Rights community of nations.
@@robinhoodstfrancis
In reality it took Christians almost 2k years to find out that slavery is bad and that women should have equal rights.
And it’s probably also just a coincidence that all of this only happened after the enlightenment and after the secularization of the western world, after Christianity lost a lot of influence.😂
@@keithtorres5743 What happened to Peter Sutcliffe? If God had commanded him to punish prostitutes, surely the judge would be subverting Deuteronomy 22:13 and God's divine will?
If you are looking for intellectual honesty, Ehrman is Supreme!
People do not rise from the dead. The fact this is being argued and believed by many in the United States does not bode well for our nation's future.
The workings of the individual human mind will never cease to confound me.
Ehrman demolishes Craig's arguments for the third time
and Craig stands up and says I don't think he answered my arguments. When his arguments aren't facts in the first place. What a dumbbell
The fact it. Dr. Craig destroy every Erhman's arguments.
"Ehrman demolishes Craig???🤨"...On WHAT planet???...Certainly not THIS 1!
He's been debating since High School. It's a common debate tactic. You need to verbally voice it assertively. It increases the likelihood that your audience that are already leaning into your position will find what you have to say convincing.
He's a good debater, no doubt. However, sometimes his material is so weak when he's up against scholars in fields that are way out of his expertise such as History with Bart Ehrman and Sean Caroll with Physics.
@@keithtorres5743
Craigs arguments:
The Bible says it... therefore it’s true.
Some superstitious savages who had no way of knowing if the claims are true converted.
That’s basically the entire argument... 😂
Sorry, Dr Craig, calling something a fact, doesn't make it one no matter how many times you say.
and calling it a hallucination, don't make it one also.
Well yes, but considering what we call hallucinations today (i.e. hearing voices and thinking they are telling you to do illogical things) would easily compare to the 'Voice' that Jesus heard saying 'This is my son. . . .'.
Lol, you have no evidence. The four "facts" that Craig talked about are NOT evidence in rising from the dead. Explain how being buried proves someone rose from the dead. It's simply not evidence of rising from the dead. Craig is a great bull$hit artist but anyone can see it's bull$hit unless that person is brainwashed with his same supernatural belief background.
@@AntoineLamond1 please don't make ignorant statements, the voice from heaven that you're referring to was heard not only by Jesus. Try again
RawTruth Don’t be ignorant. How exactly you do you know who heard what? You don’t stop asserting assertions and presuppositions as if they are facts, when they’re not. It’s one claim in one book made by one author not multiple authors or independently attested witnesses.
WLC: "The majority of NT scholars agree with my 4 facts."
BE: "That's because most NT scholars are Christian."
WLC: "You're views are in the minority among NT scholars."
BE: "That's because most NT scholars are Christian."
Good stuff but it's WLC* : )
Is Ehrman implying that the Christian scholars of the NT are commiting frauds in favor of their belief?
@@Felipe-sw8wp Fraud is a strong word. I think he's suggesting they may be irreconcilably biased. The simple fact is that the vast majority of non-Christians have very little motivation to devote their lives to studying the Bible.
@@endofscene" It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"
Erhman is involved in assuming the bias fallacy. He assumes that because they are Christian they accept the facts Craig is talking about. He doesn't acknowledge the idea that perhaps they accept the facts and therefore as a result they are Christian.
Dear Zeus, it is painful to listen to WLC.
The two debaters seem to have argued from two diametrically opposite sides. Bart claimed that you can't impose theological interpretations to prove the historicity of some NT events. Craig claimed that the historical veracity of the NT assertions ( the specific evidence/E that he used for his calculus) indicate that a supernatural ressurection of Jesus is the most likely explanation, which if true, augments the value of the theological proposition, namely that God exists.
At this point, they should have focused the debate entirely on the authenticity of the 4 ''facts'' that Craig presented, and suspend any explanation of them, until and if they have a common basis.
Well, you can use Bayes Theorem to arrive at the conclusion that Jesus probably didn’t exist.
It’s all about the prior probabilities that you insert in your formula.
If you start with the belief that the God of the Bible exists and that he certainly wants to resurrect Jesus then of course you might insert a high probability for that claim.
And if you are a little bit more reasonable you might use a prior probability that is very close to zero, maybe 1 in 100 billion.😂
Hi...Prof DR Bart D Ehrman. I am from Indonesia, I leant so much from you. Please keep up the good job. You are very smart person. Thank you.
In case you are a Muslim, Islam is also as fake as Christianity btw.
@@anothercath You are entitled to your opinion.
What did you learn from him?
Hey buddy mind your own business we muslims have nothing to do with this why don't you start looking at scholars who study and appreciate the new testament
I like how Dr.Erhman had to preface his intro with « I’ll rebut his points with my next speech » because otherwise Craig would do his slimy « but note how my opponent didn’t rebut X and Y argument », as if it was caused by anything other than the shameless gish gallop he likes to do.
Pythagoras is rolling in his grave.
William Lane Craig's argument in a nutshell: I cannot think of any reason why it wasn't a miracle so it must have been a miracle.
I cannot think of any reason why William Lane Craig hasn't been brainwashed by extraterrestrial beings so he must have been brainwashed by extraterrestrial beings.
Clearly you misunderstand his logic.
Craig doesn't even understand how probability works. His attempt at mathematically proving the resurrection is laughable.
Truthwarrior Logic? By the same logic we should be accepting most other supernatural/paranormal claims. I do not call that logic. Logic is about drawing a necessary conclusion, not presenting debatable historical occurrences and drawing a sweeping, non-sequitur conclusion.
The baconized he was drawing a necessary conclusion. Based on much positive evidence to his claim, and a serious lack of evidence for counter claim
If anyone thinks Craig ignored Ehrman's question about the reliability of the gospels, then you must certainly believe Ehrman avoided answering Craig's 3-points rebuttal about the gospel inconsistencies.
That was not exactly the case and WLC avoided nearly every direct question Ehrman put out. And they were not exactly hard questions either.
Herman’s questions weren’t hard, but they also didn’t address the central question in the debate.
As a former 26 year fundamentalist christian Craig lost me at "experience equals evidence"...rubbish! Many Christians claim experiences that turned out to never have happened for a fact. I have been a personal witness to this. This is the exact problem in the church right now, believing in a faith blindly at the get go without understanding the historicity or evidence behind it. He believed it first to be true then studied the material that has complemented his beliefs, probably on a confirmation bias with maybe a few challenges along the way. Whats even more bizarre is Craig's argument on probability, Bart is correct with what he is saying. My sibling has an honors degree studying history and agrees supernatural events such as the Resurrection cannot qualify as a historical event because its simply supernatural, and shes a conservative christian! If so we would have to consider the claims of Islam and every other supernatural event that holds value. Ehrman is the only bible scholar i actually like listening to, he knows his shit, backs it up in his debates and isnt afraid to have to change his mind! He did it before when he was in Craig's position and believe me its not easy, especially when you loose people in your life for it. Happy i found out about him!
madi88
So you feel better now that you are a pagan.? You better practice your opening statement your gonna need it without an advocate.
@@bobgriffith1810
Is Allah your God?
She's pagan? @@bobgriffith1810
Y'all act like Scientologists after a member leaves. @@jeffersonianideal
Sounds good and all, but as a former pagan who practiced necromancy I can tell you it was my direct experience with the power of the name of Jesus Christ that secured my faith in God. I was having very intrusive and violent paranormal experiences and after exhausting all other options it was His name that ended the terror.
In the five years since this has happened to me I have read and listened to as much as I could stand concerning these matters....my theological beliefs keep changing as I learn more, and I am overwhelmed by all the various positions....but one thing I am certain of is that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ. He is my Lord, and He is alive!
Had I never even read the bible I would still be belong to Him all for the sake of that beautiful name which did indeed save me and give me a new life!
A miracle is by definition the least plausible explanaition for an event. Hume made this point a few hundred years ago, and it`s still the best put down argument for the resurrection.
Not according to this presentation by Craig. He didn't use a miracle. He used 4 established historical facts.
@@susanthroop7041 he inferred a miracle when there are better explanations. Also, we know how stories get changed. So what got written down after decades as gospels was probably not even in this form. Are we to believe someone walked on water and raised the dead and says resurrected because someone wrote it down? There are so many examples of alleged miracles and we know all of them are rubbish so why think this is any different?
I'm so happy to have come across a debate. I'm a big fan of both.
Bible: Claims that there was an empty tomb, that Jesus Ressurected from the dead and that there were eye witnesses
Debate topic: What is the Historical evidence to support these Biblical claims?
Craig: These Biblical claims
That'd be a cool retort if that's actually a debate you could point to, but I've seen WLC discuss the historical evidene to support the key Biblical claims and it looks nothing like your cute little 3-word rhetorical trope. Have you seen Craig take up that topic? please show me the reference for where his entire defense of the claim can be reasonably summed up in those 3 words.
otherwise, you're just sniping. Go somewhere else, troll
Keith McKinley My comment is entirely accurate to Craigs views. The Bible is not evidence for the Bibles claims. You cannot prove theologic claims by using theology. Not a single historian ever wrote about the tomb being empty, yet Craig believes it as a historical fact. He uses the Bible as his source for his “4 facts”. He believes the empty tomb is a historical fact because the majority of Christian theologans believe it’s a historical fact. No self respecting Christian would actually deny that the tomb was empty. So that is not evidence. And before you give me the names of a few athiest who believe the empty tomb is historical, just know most of them actually don’t believe that. Not a single part of my comment was a lie. The idea of the Ressurection comes from Biblical theology. Craig then uses the same Biblical theology to try and prove the Biblical theology. He didn’t provide any historical documents to prove the ressurection because they don’t exsist.
Keith McKinley He obviously didn’t say three words. He said hundreds of words straight from the Bible. Which are the Biblical claims I was refering to. I was not trolling. The snobs that follow Craig think any form of humor is fallacious. Nothing I said was wrong. Let me break it down for you if you don’t understand.
1. Were does the idea of the reserrurection come from? : The Bible
2. What documents does Craig use to defend this idea? : The Bible
I’m a Christian and have Been watching quite a few wlc debates recently during quarantine I thought this was the first one he clearly lost.
@Apostate Pauly I haven't! I'll check it out thanks for the recommendation
WLC is more of a philosopher than a historian and this is a historical debate
@@jordanduran964 wlc is good to argue for a classical theist view of god. But not for the god of the bible
@@t7u5ebuvduhyye34t what he's not a classical theist lmao
Watch craig/Bradley debate. It was painful to watch. Craig was first time shuddering and speechless.
Isn't Craig's probability calculus the same methodology that really good used car salesmen use to sell lemons.
What did the apostles and Paul suffered martyrdom for him? If they were selling used cars wouldn’t they hav3 just moved on to a better place to sell?
@@donaldshelton1720 He said Craig, not Paul. But the argument you are making re: martyrdom could just as well apply to Joseph Smith.
Craig's probability calculus is valid. However, he makes some assumptions that make his conclusion unsound. Since we probably cannot legitimately assume either naturalism or theism on this, then at best, the highest prior probability one can assign to a resurrection is .5 and so the highest final probability one could get would be .5. And this would involve maximally generous assumptions otherwise. I mean even if we allow that God may exist, what is the probability that he would want to resurrect Jesus? Being agnostic as to Gods existence and whether he would want to resurrect Jesus already knocks us down to a max prob of .25. Further assumptions being made by Craig are that the probability of the evidence having a naturalistic explanation are low. What evidence? A bunch of fantastic stories? What is the probability that a bunch of fantastic stories could have arisen due to the tendency of human beings to concoct fantastic stories. I certainly wouldn't rate that as low probability. My assessment of his probability calculus? Garbage in, garbage out.
@@snuzebuster You're right about all this. The fact that he wants to assign a nontrivial probability to someone being resurrected by any means given our background knowledge of the world already tells you how downright loony his assumptions are. Ehrmann is exactly right about that having to have a vanishingly low probability when compared to all demonstrably possible explanations such as the wild imagination that Ehrmann dreamt up in his opening speech. How high is the probability that the four specifics of the stories arose (ignoring that they aren't even identical in the separate accounts) given that Jesus didn't actually get resurrected and given our background knowledge of the world? No idea, but a damn sight higher than the probability that he was resurrected, given our background knowledge of the world. And obviously the probability that he wasn't resurrected given our background knowledge of the world is pretty close to 1.
How would you revise the equation?
I keep looking for a good debate from WLC as he seems to be so highly regarded. I'm yet to find one. If anyone has a link please share. Unless you think his math/probability material is good, in which case don't worry about it.
I m chritians and i believe in jesus ... erhman does make s a lot of sense .. he is a chalenge for chritianity in a good way ! A good test for our faith
Ehrman's incredulity about Craig's "statistical probability of the resurrection" is classic Bart.
I did the probability calculation for the resurrection of Jesus using Craig's formula. I heard that a result of a probability calculation cannot be 0, so I took a limit of it and my result is... the probability tends towards 0. :D
Although I would like someone to do the calculation and show how it's actually done, I'm pretty far from being sure about how it's done.
mr ehrman your closing was as good as it get great job
i got secondhand embarrassment with him trying to calculate historical probablity lool
"If I believe that the ocean is full of invisible unicorns and the ocean is the color of invisible unicorn pee, how can that NOT be the most likely explanation?" WLC
Vince buckley… which unicorn you talking about? Biblical or Greek mythology. 1 exist and 1 doesn't.
Then you will have to follow the probability mathematical model.
What's the probability invisible unicorn pee relative to the probability of background and evidence for it?
I'd say the background and evidence for it is close to null.
Thus the probability of it occuring is likely infinitesimal
@@JWu-jt7fz yes! exactly like a resurrection
@ 1:49:40 Classic Ehrman. "Im sorry but I can't believe we are having a discussion on the statistical probability.....of resurrection of Jesus...of God. A room full of academics would howl us off the stage....maybe in the school that you teach at...: Bart's humanity and genuine nature are priceless. WLC is about the best apologists can offer. Bart is essentially telling him what I say to all my friends who are religious.....It is a matter of faith. Once you step outside of faith and try to "prove" things related to that faith, even a very smart person can appear like an idiot. On the flip side of this, I often wonder about how strong is the faith of believers who feel they need to perform gymnastics to "prove the Judeo/Christian, Hindu, or Muslim god is true"
Does WLC EVER go second in a debate?
I've yet to see it.
He likes to go first so he can try to set out what the other side needs to do to "win".
Thank you for your honest in studying New Testament, Prof. Bart Ehrman. Your works are valuable source for any person who seek the truth.
Hey buddy mind your own business we muslims have nothing to do with this
Not only does Craig generally say stupid things, he almost never retracts his arguments even when their falsity is clearly explained to him. He is an eloquently stubborn goon.
Confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. This reminds me of creationist debates. Reason can be abandoned at any moment because "magic."
He just uses big words and avoids answering directly.
he seriously brought out equations and formulas to prove god to people in church...if ever you needed an example of irony
Davit Magaldadze Reminds me of my dad...unfortunately.
that's why he is feared and respected by most atheists... what I just said is a fact, by the way, but something tells me you'll ignore that fact, as well. Look at your statements, emotional hatred you bare towards the man says it all...
WLC dismisses Apollonius as myths and legends post-Jesus deliberately constructed to compete with Christianity, using the same reasoning Noah's Flood is a myth and legend constructed to compete with the earlier Epic of Gilgamesh.
How can Craig claim to have a PhD and debate at such a banal level?
William Lane Craig will take his rightful place as the greatest performing illusionist of all-time. Nobody can magically pull as many items out of their tight ass as Craig does, and with so little effort.
What tricks of his can you reveal?
I think a good way to see the debate is that, there is definitely a Historian Jesus, but there hasn´t been found a body, so you have 2 options: option A, there are other explanations for that, like the body was taken etc etc. You have historical evidence to take that option. Option B God resurrected Jesus from the death, you have historical evidence to take that option. but neither you can prove or disprove one from other. You have to take a decision to wich you have evidence to support you.
What?! Craig is defending his deity and not just the deistic deity if the Kalam? Well, this is the second Christian apologist I have seen defend Christianity instead of just a deistic deity. That means the Christian apologists have go the message that they need to step up and defend what they actually believe.
When I was a fundamentalist Christian, I spent the better part of 7 years training to be an Apologist -- William Lane Craig was one of my heroes.
And then I read Dr. Ehrman's "Jesus, Interrupted" -- and I realized (a) how duped I had been by Christianity peddled as fact, and (b) how depraved, nonsensical, and fallacious Apologists like Bill are.
Thank God for Bart Ehrman! (pun, see?)
Should have been Pentecostal :-P
similar experience here. indoctrination is really psychologically abusive, I'm still recovering but so happy to be free.
@TheCosmicWarrior wlc doesn't even claim to be a historian. Wilful ignorance is a sin.
Why does Craig insist on using the word "Know" every time he speaks of how Christians "know" that jesus is risen. Why even debate these idiots. at least get the terms correct. It is impossible to prove, therefore you don't know. You guess. You have faith.
If you know the Lord personally then you know Him. That's a different than "proving."
@@susanthroop7041 there's a woman who personally knows and has a relationship with a ferris wheel at a fair. That doesn't mean the ferris wheel is actually a sentient being.
I have to admit, I hold WLC in great contempt, and funnily enough I admire him in a way, he has this amazing ability to look his audience in the eyes and tell the most amazing "pork pies". He really is a pork pie guru.
The best of all about dear WLC, is when he walks to the podium to deliver a new batch of pork pies, is the sound of his feet colliding with the floor. I could recognise this "pork pie" teller anywhere.
@@susanthroop7041 You don’t know, you pretend to know.😉
"we dont have access to string theory or parallel universes either" I feel like he doesnt truly understand what he is implying. If all he says is that God is a possible theory thats awaiting validation then welcome to the atheist group.
Can someone clarify it as Im pretty unfamiliar with historical evidence. Are 5 sources from the same group considered 5 different sources in historical sciences? It seems like a ridiculous idea but I dont see people call Craig out on it. I wouldnt trust a peer reviewed paper if it was tested by only one interest group 5 times
To clarify: the point is that the stories derive from different individuals, specifically 4 if we are talking about the synoptic gospels + acts; “Luke” also authored acts. The significance is theoretically the difference between a primary source and a secondary source, however (and don’t quote me on this because this is where I get fuzzy), I believe that Mark and Matthew share a common source, denoted as Q, Luke is an amalgam, and John is so theologically distinct and later than the others, you can ask any apologist with a shred of honesty and they will tell you John is an apologetic gospel and is where 90% of Christian theology flows (I am the way and truth and life, the Word made flesh, etc.)
From the above, obviously the gospels are not primary sources, they are secondary, but the salient point is that they are unique generations of the same basic story (synoptic). They were not generated by a group of early Christians or a church for the purposes of conversion, but rather they are purported to be the account (testament) of those who knew, heard, or saw Jesus in his lifetime.
I apologize if that might have seemed overly-simplistic; I am not presuming on your intelligence or anything like that! I just wanted to clarify all the things I suspected you might be asking about. Erhman has a lot of great resources on these topics, but I agree with you that it is weird it is never contended in a debate, but properly understood it is such a modest claim and is one of those things that apologists emphasize because it gets you a lot of mileage from people who don’t really understand what it means. It just sounds impressive.
I love how Bart is always so blunt and how he corners his opponents, and he really put craig in his place wich you rarely see, Craig didnt stand a chance !!
TheCosmicWarrior Another sock account.😂
I find it telling that Dr Ehrman has the good will to allow comments on his channel while WLC disables the comments to this very same debate on his channel.
Oh my, haha...I had no idea this was Bart Ehrman's channel...oh my...I thought this was a random person's upload...
Hell...I didn't even know he would have a RUclips channel...
Not only in this very debate but in all of his debates. He have it like in all of his debates. That's nothing.
William Lane Craig is to New Testament scholarship as Lee Strobel is to journalism. He builds a straw man on stupid evangelical talking points and calls it Christ resurrected based on the facts.
The probability of finding a way of calculating Pr(R/B&E), which is the probability of resurrection, is lower than the probability of resurrection itself which is extremely small
We need better footage than that. It's a really interesting feud, but you can't watch it.
Why does Craig speak in such absolutes, saying a “fact” has been “established” (like Jesus’s burial in a tomb)- when he really means probable (or plausible) claims that are supported by not-infallible historical evidence and weakened by some opposing information (like the commonality of unmarked mass graves)?
Also- “any later legendary account would Certainly have made make disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb [as opposed to women]”. False, no this is not certain, for perhaps women and slaves would more often add spices to the dead body than men did, so it makes for a more believable story to have women find the empty tomb than male disciples. And perhaps the male disciples had skipped town, so Mark accommodated that in his story. And perhaps Mark was trying to indicate a message. Craig shows his hubris when confidently stating that Certainly it would have been men that found the tomb empty if the story were made up.
Oners82 lol. Ouch. That’s a painful lack of awareness there.
All of Craigs "facts“ don’t exist outside of the stories of the gospels.
In reality it’s extremely unlikely that Jesus was put in a tomb at all.
Also, if the story said that male disciples found the empty tomb then Apologists like Craig would claim that this must be true because it was the job of women and slaves to anoint dead bodies and it would have been extremely embarrassing for men.
Of course Apologists would also explain away the fact that the text says that the disciples fled and were hiding somewhere.
At the risk of repeating myself,I say again, thank you Dr Bart for all your work 😊 ❤️
And look, comments. No comments on the Christian channels.
Look, fellow believers, you are not going to bring people to God by denying another human beings agency.
Discussion must take place.
Bart really knows what he's talking about
As does Dr. craig :)
+Truthwarrior Craig got demolished, he brought a butter knife to a bazooka fight. Craig doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground.
The bible is true because it says so in the bible
Good pointless babble. He never addressed any pont raised by Craig.
Erman refuted all Craig's points. It was Craig who never responded to Erman's question on bible accuracy.
WLC; How probable is it that Merlin moved the stones to Stone Henge?
Did the cameraman fall asleep during the Q&A?
This video is also on Dr. Craigs channel, but the comment section is disabled. I wonder why he did that😂
@TheCosmicWarrior Yea, yea already said that... not true btw
I find it amazing just how Craig maintains that God is an all powerful intelligent designer and fine-tuner. Throughout the old testament, God directed that things be written down so that they wouldn't be forgotten. He was so zealous about this that he personally wrote stuff down, namely the Ten Commandments. Given this point about writing stuff down, God sent Jesus to earth to perform the most important task since he created Heaven and Earth.
Yet, neither God, Jesus, the Holy Spirit (which is responsible for bringing things to people's memory), the angels nor any other member of the heavenly hosts, directed or reminded(?) Jesus to choose a scribe to write down his life story and all that he said and did. Come to think about it, was there ever a bigger blunder? That colossal omission has cost untold millions and maybe even billions of innocent people their lives. We haven't heard a word from Jesus on the matter. Craig is making a fortune off of Jesus' heavenly failure, however.
Speaking of being omnipotent, Jesus said in Mat. 28:18 that all power in heaven and earth have been given to him. Did anyone tell the Jews about this? I guess God retired and so the Jews had better look for a replacement. That being the case, I have to wonder, why is it that he, Jesus, has taken no action to correct his mega blunder. All he has to do is think of it and the world will have a heavenly correctly printed bible. Muhammad and Joseph Smith got stuff. Then, the two hundred plus error-filled versions we are having to deal with can be recycled into something better and more useful. I would ask Craig, isn't it time we be treated to our own miracle? We should be sick and tired of shouting over Moses' and Pharaoh' multiple miracles and Joseph's (Mary husband) virginal dreams.
Whats your point? If Jesus poofed a bible out of nowhere would you be convinced?
@@arandompanda1349 a good start
@Shae Tallent you mispelled "christian"
There are hundreds of YT videos of bright, rational people who attest to the miracle of their conversion.
@@66fredo99
You probably mean conversions to Islam.😉
Bart is very honest
"Paul tells us Jesus appeared to one guy, then Paul tells us Jesus appeared to another few guys, then Paul tells us Jesus appeared to a shit ton of dudes. So, OBVIOUSLY, a billion people saw that Jesus was risen from the dead, and so we can believe what this one guy said."
Did....did WLC say it's more probable a person rose from the dead than that people stole a body?
Did he REALLY?
Have you ever stolen a body with armed guards keeping watch?
Why would armed guards be guarding a grave? If they allowed his body to be placed their what were they guarding? Sounds like bs.
is it just me, or does anyone else find Craig's intonation to be overly dramatic for an academic debate?
Craig's reasoning is inframental. And it seems he finds it so fabulous. How to mix Math and History and get something that is worse than em isolated. Is there any antonymous for Sinergia?
1:53:40 Craig says he doesn't believe that Muhammad flew to heaven because there isn't any evidence. I almost laughed out loud at the irony
Patrick Walsh Yes, there is no historical evidence too. None of his companions reported they saw him. The only witness is Muhammad.
No, Jesus's resurrection and Muhammad's miraz is not same. Think.
Jesus resurrection and Muhammad flying to heaven are very similar. Both are extraordinary claims that require extraordinary proof. Think what would happen if someone claimed they rose from the dead today? All the eyewitnesses would be separated and give sworn statements to make sure they all saw exactly the same thing. Even then without a lot of csi forensic evidence to back up the claim it would be considered a mass hallucination or some sort of misunderstanding. James Randi foundation has been offering a million dollar reward for many years for proof of the supernatural and no one has claimed it. All any Christian has to do to claim it is demonstrate prayer works. Just walk in and pray for something and demonstrate what you prayed for actually happens and that an invisible third party agent in carrying out your requests in the real world. Things that are true are true in any frame of reference regardless of what religion a person is. If Jesus rose from the dead and it was a historical fact Jews would believe it too. Just like all religions believe King Tut and Cleopatra were Egyptian rulers. Based on all the evidence we have now (and are very likely ever going to have) nearly every other rational explanation is more plausible than Jesus rose from the dead. Think.
Patrick Walsh good job making a false equivalency
Right, there is zero evidence for the crucifixion let alone the resurrection. William failed hard here.
What's the irony
How can we know that the Gospels have independent sources for their reports of certain events?
I love the ammo you give me when I deal with Christians.....or any religious beliefs....thanks for the videos
There's no such thing as a "dedicated non-Christian." Either you buy the story, or you don't.
Belief is a conviction, not a choice. Meaning that if you aren't convinced, then you are not a believer. That's all there is to it.
Why would I be kind to my opponents? If I think you are wrong about something, I might not hold any animosity to you personally, but that does not mean at all that I will pull my punches in demolishing your silly beliefs.
Christian Geiselmann My gosh, are we not allowed to speak metaphorically any more?
Guess you'll have to go to some other videos because theres' no ammo here.
Bart wins the debate hands down. Craig's arguments are almost comical since they are not based on history or reason
But he had that fancy equation that only works when you presuppose that god exists and that the gospels are historically accurate sources.😂
4 facts that have been proven over and over and over again. They're established facts from history. Did you watch the video??????
I like WLC's "facts" lol
It's like finding out there's no land of Oz and then wondering where the yellow brick road leads to.
In this debate and other places, Bart Ehrman concedes all of the facts. You might want to actually listen to the debate and other material before acting smart in the Yt comments.
@@BRNRDNCK
Well, those facts don’t exist outside of the gospels.
Historians provisionally agree that they are probably true because those are just mundane irrelevant claims.
-Jesus died by crucifixion.
-One or more of his followers had some unspecified experiences(dreams, visions or post bereavement hallucinations) that led them to believe that Jesus rose from the dead.
-His followers preached their interpretation of the message of Jesus.
-Paul, who claims that he persecuted Christians and claims that he had a vision of Jesus became the most import figure in the Christian cult.
Very mundane claims, none of them lead to: Therefore the story is true.😂
Dr. Erhman was quite good in this debate. This is just not a topic Craig is apt to discuss. His use a Bayesian probability argument was absurd, given it requires that he & Erhman have the same priors (e.g. theism) & evaluate the totality of the relevant evidence.
That is not how historical matters are settled ever, lol.
not only that Bill put the wrong number into the denominator. It doesn't go to zero ..it goes to infinity which makes the ratio of occurance for a ressurection nearly zero and effectively zero.
Naturally, 0 / not0 is still 0.
Absoloutely
Probability assessments don't use probability. Lol. Ok.
@@videolifeca If you want it to go to infinity, you have to make a positive case for it, thing that Dr. Ehrman didn't do as Dr. Craig pointed out.
1:28:48 Ehrman should have spent more time disputing the historical premises in Craig’s argument. He’s a better historian than philosopher.
And I like his exposition of his counter-explanation of the family stealing his body. I think he does well to dispel Craig’s objections to it (1:29:36), and shows that not all plausible naturalistic explanations of his four premises (which Ehrman disputes the certainty of) have been exhausted.
I find Erhman’s counter arguments incredibly dishonest. Craig is not arguing that he has conclusive evidence for the resurrection. Rather, Craig is arguing that the Resurrection is the best plausible explanation that we have. Ockam’s Razor
Ugh, I debated with myself quite a bit before clicking on this debate. In the end, my support/appreciation for Bart Ehrman won over my distaste for WLC.
Seriously, I hadn't thought anyone could be more smug, slimy, and condescending than Ted Cruz. I was wrong.
same here, realy I did exactly that.
@@@leondiegodelpino Poor old Bart tried and failed to get this debate from reaching the public. He also engaged in a series of personal attacks on WLC. Bart is one hell of a guy.
Lol he didn't want it out?? This is his RUclips channel.
Watch To via Singer a master Rabbi drill a hole in Will Craigs arguments on Trinity with an endless supply of Passages in tenackh disproving and laying waste to Trinity.
Dr Craig concedes its not in Jewish doctrine
@@TBOTSS Huh?
TBOTSS Why would he do that? Craig is exposed as a con artist in this debate.
very nice speach Prof. Ehrman , much appreciated, I prefer the explanation of the historian, not an supernatural assumption
asumption is when you say that the apostales didn't write the gospels,and from there you make up everything that goes after that.
@Maria The gospels are questioned as soon as you read them side by side and see that the gospels don't agree with each other, then if you're honest and care about the truth, you have to ask what they got right and what they got wrong and figure out a reliable way for you to decipher which is which. From there you realize that you can't rely on the gospels for truth.
Assumption is when you take it at face value, that's what you are demonstrating.
true wlc is a joke.
he is not, he is a philosopher.
@TheCosmicWarrior He has a doctorate in Philosophy of religion and another in Theology. Not in history.
I love how no one claps after Bart destroys Dr Craig after Bart's first dissertation...proof he just destroyed Dr Craig...
Dr Craig's uses the bible as his source. The source itself is inconsistent...
Lots of sources are inconsistent across history.
He didn't destroy anyone, he uses the same schtick that's quite easy to do..He studies alot, yes, but his bitterness and bias is so evident. He uses points and certain differences in the gospels and yes I admit, the Bible has a history of fingerprints and human errors. But they all agree He was resurrected and there are too many witnesses that were reported. It's so easy to argue miracles aren't likely, it's lazy actually and has no relevance to this topic. There are non biblical sources giving credence to the resurrection as well.
Bart's argument was actually disappointing and weak honestly..
Hey WLC worshippers:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore the universe has a cause.
It now follows:
Everybody who dies stays dead.
Jesus died.
Jesus is still dead.
"Everything that begins to exist has a cause."
Quantum mechanics: let's generate particles and antiparticles from nothing just because we can.
@guia Gaston that’s not how it works a deductive argument rests on the premises of the arguments if there true then the conclusion is true, not another deductive argument and in the video they’re basically arguing over your first premise
@bbravoo that’s not nothing it’s something
Does WLC math apply to Islam, Mormonism, Flying Spaghetti Monster?
What is WLC math?
@@susanthroop7041 WLC = William Lane Craig
Is math is just a complicated way of staying that both:
1: believing that the supernatural is possible
And
2: thinking that alternative explanations of his 4 facts aren't that plausible
Each increase the degree of confidence we can have in / likelihood of Jesus reserecting.
So in fact, if you believe in another religion (like you suggest in your comment), then 1 is true and the historical evidence has more weight. So the historical evidence is a good argument for why you should believe Christianity as opposed to other religions.
Please stop saying Flying Spaghetti Monster. clichéd beyond belief (ha)
@@geoffstemen3652 and mot even logically coherent.
I wonder what Dr Ehrman thinks of the possibility that Jesus did not actually die on the cross. I read that one possibility is that Jesus may have gone into a coma and then got revived subsequently.
Personally I have thought in the past that these ancient people would not recognize if someone was actually dead. You had bells and other ways of notification of someone buried alive in the Middle Ages. Sad to say but in our slightly more modern world we have had cadavers sit straight up at the morgue.
Camera person fail! The whole Q&A is focused on Santa Claus @ the podium.
Not very nice.
It's impossible to debate history with apologetics lol
TheCosmicWarrior one of his first arguments were sightings of the tomb. Those historical connections don’t exist. That’s literally for the Bible tells me so
Your trained historian is making up historical facts.
If a trained nutritionist starts telling you to eat steaks everyday because of industry funded studies. That nutritionist loses credibility. It doesn’t matter if they have a degree
@TheCosmicWarrior
WLC isn’t a historian.😂
Are we not going to take a notice to some blatant comments who actually didn't watch the whole video? Dr. Ehrman argues mainly what makes this "historical" in the basis of category, then Craig defends. That's what actually happens.
They both agree in their recent interview that the debate was just about the acclimation of that history being "a history". "it was a good discussion" - Craig & Erhman.
William lane Craigs demeanor grosses me out. Oh yeah, and he makes his money by being intellectually dishonest while claiming he is reasonable.
Stop crying.
It's frustrating to me how very intelligent people like Dr craig continue to uplift and defend this 2,000 year old nonsense. This stuff is ancient history. We are exploring the surface of mars, but people continue to cling to these ancient outdated beliefs, and try to convert you to their beliefs.... so frustrating. I'm so grateful for people like Bart who really put themselves out there to get the truth out to a deluded world. Sure Bart makes a comfortable living for himself doing what he does, but I am sure it comes at a cost. He's made enemies for himself. There are people on the other side, who would love to discredit him and see him crash and burn. I'm glad he's on our side 😊
Every time I see Craig debate its just a long thought experiment but has nothing to do with truth or fact.