http://stevencarrwork.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] stevencarrwork.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] nameandnature 2009-04-02 07:12 am (UTC)

'Craig's argument seems to be that there's sufficient evidence to believe in the Resurrection if you already believe that God is the sort of God who'd do something like raise Jesus from the dead'

Strange. Because Craig's standard speech for the existence of God uses the resurrection of Jesus as a proof that the Christian God exists (rather than the Islamic God)

So we should believe the resurrection happened because a god would do that sort of thing?

And how do we know there is such a god who would raise Jesus?

Well, the resurrection proves it.

Of course, Craig does not argue in a circular fashion like this.

But his arguments are so slippery that even a clever person like Paul can't grasp them without them slipping through his hands.

Craig only *seems* to say that we should not give a low prior probability to a resurrection (If he did, he would go into that circular argument above)

But I'm sure Craig does not lose too much sleep if some people think that they should assign a high probability to a resurrection, because there is a God who would do such things.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting