Richard Carrier's On the Historicity of Jesus

[he_who_is_nobody]

I would love to hear Carrier destroy Sye Ten Bruggencate.

[sarcasm]Sye Ten Bruggencate? Who is that?[/sarcasm]

EDIT: Added snark.

 

[Inferno]

I would love to hear Carrier destroy Sye Ten Bruggencate.

Sye Ten Bruggencate? Who is that?

You're joking, right? Can't tell without someone using the sarcasm function...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Sye Ten Bruggencate? Who is that?

You're joking, right? Can't tell without someone using the sarcasm function...

Yes.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I would love to hear Carrier destroy Sye Ten Bruggencate.

While I might like to know it happened I don't really want to have to hear Sye Ten speak ever again. He really has no argument and really just uses audiences as opportunities to preach.

 

[Mugnuts]

I'd rather listen to Sye than William Lain Craig any day.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I think there should be a picture of the shroud of Turin right next to Richard Carrier when he talks.As the critics of the shroud can only produce something similar to the shroud with powerful equipment that produces light and radiation and no such equipment existed back then.The shroud is evidence for Jesus's cricifixion and resurrection as it shows wounds for the crown of thorns,scourge wounds,nails through his hands and feet,spear in his side from both the front and the back and critics of the shroud proved that to produce something like the shroud the person would have to remain wrapped inside the shroud and that the person inside the shroud would cause the image.Keep in mind Jesus is the light of the world.The shroud has blood stains and the only reason the DNA cannot be matched up is because Jesus is at the right hand of God until he returns.Look up shroud university and look at the image on the shroud.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

I'd rather listen to Sye than William Lain Craig any day.

Richard Carrier lost the debate against WLC.

 

[Collecemall]

I only thought you were a nut before. Now I'm certain. Thanks for clearing it up. Is there a crazy ass Christian theory you don't agree with?

 

[Rumraket]

I'd rather listen to Sye than William Lain Craig any day.

Richard Carrier lost the debate against WLC.

Yes he's admitted this himself. It should be noted however that they debated the proposition "did Jesus rise from the dead?", not "Did Jesus exist?" so the relevance to this thread is not really there.

Craig is an excellent debater, he's full of shit and as delusional as basically any fundamentalist christian, but he's good at debating you can't take that away from him.

But since you brought up billyboy:

Craig lost to Bart Ehrman, Sean Carroll and Shelly Kagan.

Ehrman showed the resurrection to be more implausible than basically almost any naturalistic theory, Carroll showed that the Kalam and fine-tuning shite is a giant fallacy, and Kagan showed that divine command theory is inhuman and immoral. Those are Craig's four most important arguments. So that's basically Craig's entire case for god out the door.

It doesn't matter that Craig has defeated all sorts of atheists (and I'll be generous and say he has), there are actual refutations of his arguments that he can't run away from. His case for god is bunk and it's been debunked in debates he's had. So since actual refutations of his most important arguments exist, that's it we're done. Craig's case for god is flawed.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Abel, are you raising these threads from the dead to demonstrate that resurrection is possible?

 

[Dustnite]

To Abel:

 

[abelcainsbrother]

="Rumraket"]

I'd rather listen to Sye than William Lain Craig any day.

Richard Carrier lost the debate against WLC.

Yes he's admitted this himself. It should be noted however that they debated the proposition "did Jesus rise from the dead?", not "Did Jesus exist?" so the relevance to this thread is not really there.

Craig is an excellent debater, he's full of shit and as delusional as basically any fundamentalist christian, but he's good at debating you can't take that away from him.

But since you brought up billyboy:

Craig lost to Bart Ehrman, Sean Carroll and Shelly Kagan.

Ehrman showed the resurrection to be more implausible than basically almost any naturalistic theory, Carroll showed that the Kalam and fine-tuning shite is a giant fallacy, and Kagan showed that divine command theory is inhuman and immoral. Those are Craig's four most important arguments. So that's basically Craig's entire case for god out the door.

It doesn't matter that Craig has defeated all sorts of atheists (and I'll be generous and say he has), there are actual refutations of his arguments that he can't run away from. His case for god is bunk and it's been debunked in debates he's had. So since actual refutations of his most important arguments exist, that's it we're done. Craig's case for god is flawed.

[/quote]


I agree WLC has lost some debates but he has been very effective with his KCA it is sound both scientifically and philosophically. All atheists really do against him is kick the can down the road scientifically without an explanation of how you get a universe without a creator.They have no explanation,yet deny God.

He is best when he debates scientifically and I think it does matter that he's beat atheist scientists in debates because they really have nothing to present to counter it and this really sticks out,all they have is theoretical science that has yet to be verified,like the big bang.Atheists like to make you think they know science but they ignore the big bang which is established science right now and how it points to the God of the bible.

As far as Erhman?I've seen him lose in at least 2 debates he had against other real Greek bible scholars like he is.I respect Erhman even though I disagree with him.

Not sure about the others.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Both premises of the KCA are unsubstantiated. Both Sean Carroll and Victor Stenger have demonstrated that Craig's scientific claims are unsound.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

WLC is certainly is a very crappy philosopher and not at scientist at all.
The entirety of WLC work, everything he ever made in his life can be discredited with one simple statement.
Arguments without observation can not prove existence.
That is literally all it takes to dismiss WLC as an intellectual worth noting.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Both premises of the KCA are unsubstantiated. Both Sean Carroll and Victor Stenger have demonstrated that Craig's scientific claims are unsound.

They cannot be unsound because the big bang theory is established science,people like Sean Carroll and Victor Stenger ignore the big bang theory and how it points to the God of the bible and a creator.They just deny it with woo woo science that might or might not be substantiated like the big bang theory is. The big bang theory points to the God of the bible and rules out a natural cause for the universe.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Stuff like this is interesting but has yet to be substantiated like the big bang theory is.
Nothing is certain, outside of "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."Right now! You can kick the can down the road and believe something else,but nothing is substantiated and it might never be.

http://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

They cannot be unsound because the big bang theory is established science

The big bang theory does not justify any of the premises of KCA.

But let's be supper generous and grant for the sake of argument every single premise and the conclusion to KCA. Ok, all that you would have established by that is that the universe had a cause (nonsensically as that may be as far as physics is concerned), the argument doesn't even conclude with the existence of a God. That's the all reason the argument is thrown around, it tries to establish by words that God exists and doesn't even conclude that God exists.
And this is considered one of his best arguments. It uses fallacious semantics, non of the premises are supported, and doesn't even come close to touching the subject it was designed to establish. WTF?

And let's go further than that, let's even grant for sake of argument that it establishes the existence of God. How does that establish that such a God is the christian God?
The argument is just hopeless.

All WLC life's work amount to nothing but an exercise in futility.

You can't prove the existence of a God by means of philosophy alone, you can't prove the existence of anything by philosophy alone. That is impossible.

 

[SpecialFrog]

I don't think Craig cares if his arguments are valid or true. He's not trying to convince non-Christians. He's just trying to help Christians pretend that Christianity is intellectually and scientifically sound. And people who don't know how to evaluate evidence but only cherry-pick bits that seem to support them find him convincing.

 

[Visaki]

I don't think Craig cares if his arguments are valid or true. He's not trying to convince non-Christians. He's just trying to help Christians pretend that Christianity is intellectually and scientifically sound. And people who don't know how to evaluate evidence but only cherry-pick bits that seem to support them find him convincing.

Actually Craig himself has admitted that his arguments don't really matter, since he's admitted he'll believe what he does because of the selfevident testament of the holy spirit within him even if (well, when really and repeatedly) all his arguments are refuted.

Even worse than that he's stated publicly that even if we could take him with a time machine to see the crusifiction and the entombing of Jesus and have him as a witness that no resurrection happened, sitting next to the rotting corpse of that galilean carpenter-turned-apocalyptist for weeks, he would still believe the Biblical resurrection of Jesus happened.

 

[Deleted member 619]

They cannot be unsound because the big bang theory is established science,

'The big bang theory' (not that there is really any such beastie, let alone as 'established science') doesn't deal with the beginning of anything, let alone the universe. More importantly, no iteration of big bang cosmology has anything whatsoever to say on the subject of P1 of the Kalam Fallacy, which deals with outmoded Aristotelian notions of causation that have exactly fuck all to do with science.

people like Sean Carroll and Victor Stenger ignore the big bang theory

Hmmmm, to whom should we listen in a 'know-about-physics off', Kalamity Lying Fuckwit Cunt Kraig and his lying moron random internet nobody sidekick, or two of the world's most renowned cosmologists... That's a toughie, to be sure.

and how it points to the God of the bible and a creator.

What, both of them? :lol:

They just deny it with woo woo science that might or might not be substantiated like the big bang theory is.

No, they simply note that your contention is bollocks, and that there's no good reason to posit a creator of any sort, let alone the impossible cunt in the hokey blurble, who's so full of holes that, if jeebus had been his earthly incarnation, they could have nailed him to his fucking plank without making any fucking fresh ones!

The big bang theory points to the God of the bible and rules out a natural cause for the universe.

Cause? Who fucking says the universe requires a cause, natural or fucking otherwise? I know that I know more about cosmology than you do, and I see no justification for such a conclusion, or I'd be a stupid cunt with an imaginary friend too.

The simple act is that Aristotle was an idiot by today's standards, and his conclusions are about as discardable as it's possible to get.