William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 3: The Rest of the Core Argument

SEVEN CLAIMS IN THE CORE ARGUMENT

In Part 2 of this series, I showed that the core argument of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus was a deductive argument that consists of at least the following claims:

1. IF these three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence AND alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts can be shown to be implausible, THEN IF IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts, THEN the preferred explanation for these three facts ought to be the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).

2. These three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence AND alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts can be shown to be implausible.

3. IF IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts, THEN the preferred explanation for these three facts ought to be the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).

4. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts.

5. The preferred explanation for these three facts ought to be the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).

6. These three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence.

 7. Alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts can be shown to be implausible.

THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE SEVEN CLAIMS 

The following argument diagram shows the logical relationships between these claims in Craig's core argument: 

The seven claims constitute three sub-arguments and three inferences in the core argument of Craig's case. The three inferences represented by the red arrows in the above argument diagram are all valid deductive inferences.

However, this is not the complete content of the core argument, because each of the above seven claims includes the phrase "these three facts" and this phrase has no meaning outside the context of the paragraph from which the seven claims were asserted by Craig.

Here is the previous part of the paragraph that specifies what the phrase "these three facts" means:

In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.  The inductive grounds for the inference of this explanation consist primarily of the evidence of three independently established facts: (1) the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion, (2) various individuals and groups thereafter experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearrances of Jesus alive, and (3) the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions. ... (Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., p.360) 

The phrase "these three facts", which occurs repeatedly in the rest of the core argument, clearly refers to the following three claims or premises that are asserted in the above quotation[1]:

8. It is an established historical fact that: the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion.

9. It is an established historical fact that: beginning on the first day of the week following Jesus' crucifixion, various individuals and groups experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive. 

10. It is an established historical fact that: the first disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions.

The Meaning of the Phrase "These Three Facts"

To state the obvious, there are billions of facts, not just three! That is part of the reason the phrase "these three facts" is unclear and problematic.  In this context, however, we can specify the scope of "facts" with some qualifications.  First, Craig is concerned with "historical data", so his three facts are historical facts.  

Craig also uses the qualification "established". This term seems a bit redundant, because one should clearly distinguish the difference between a historical claim and a historical fact, and this distinction corresponds directly to the question of whether the historical claim in question has been firmly established on the basis of evidence or not. If a historical claim has NOT been firmly established on the basis of evidence, then that claim does NOT constitute a historical fact.  Thus, the qualification "established" is redundant.  

However, this redundancy is a good reminder of the important distinction between historical claims and historical facts, so I am going to retain Craig's phrase "established facts" and just add the qualification "historical" to narrow down the general kind of facts that Craig has in mind: 

established historical facts

Nevertheless, it still remains the case that there are millions or billions of "established historical facts", so there is still something unclear and problematic about the phrase "these three established historical facts".

The context indicated in the first sentence of the key paragraph that we have been closely examining provides a further narrowing of the scope of "established historical facts":

In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate. (Reasonable Faith, 3rd ed., p.360) 

Craig is focused on "the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate." Some established historical facts are relevant to Jesus' final fate, and other established historical facts are NOT relevant to Jesus' final fate.  It is the former collection of established historical facts that Craig is interested in for the purpose of evaluating "the hypothesis 'God raised Jesus from the dead'".  So, the scope of facts has been narrowed to this:

established historical facts that are relevant to Jesus' final fate

HOW MANY SUCH FACTS EXIST? 

Because there are billions or trillions of "established facts", the phrase "these three facts" is both unclear and problematic.  However, we have narrowed the scope of facts that Craig is focused on to: established historical facts that are relevant to Jesus' final fate.  

This narrowing of the scope helps to reduce the number of  facts that we need to consider, but it is still clearly the case that there are probably hundreds or thousands of facts that fall under this scope.

Does Craig believe that there are ONLY THREE CLAIMS that constitute established historical facts that are relevant to Jesus' final fate? This assumption seems very dubious, especially in terms of the historical claims and beliefs of Christian apologists concerning the trials, crucifixion, death, and burial of Jesus.

END NOTES

1. Craig asserts that these are "independently" established facts, but it is not clear what he means by this, and it is not clear why this is significant.  So, I have dropped that qualification for now.  If at some point in Craig's presentation of his case, he explains what he means by this term and why this is significant, then we will probably need to add this qualification back into these three premises. 

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 2: The Logic of the Core Argument

IS THE CORE ARGUMENT A DEDUCTIVE ARGUMENT?

The first comment I received on Part 1 was an objection about how I characterized the logic of the core argument of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus:

It seems to me that in restating Craig’s argument as a deductive proof, you are disregarding the original type and intent of the argument that Craig put forth in  Reasonable Faith. 

My initial response was that I had NOT restated Craig's core argument as a deductive argument.  I never stated that his core argument was a deductive argument.  I never implied that his core argument was a deductive argument. Furthermore, the core argument, as I stated it, did not have the form of a valid deductive inference (e.g., it was not in the form of a modus ponens or a modus tollens or a disjunctive syllogism).

However, when I took a second look at the long paragraph I had quoted from Craig, which was the basis for my statement of the core argument in his case, it became clear to me that the core argument is, in fact, a deductive argument.

THE LOGICAL FORM OF THE MAIN PREMISE

The logical form of the main premise in the core argument of Craig's case is a conditional statement.  That is to say, the main premise has this form:

IF P, THEN Q

This is a big clue indicating that the logical form of the core argument is a modus ponens:

IF P, THEN Q

P

THEREFORE:

Q 

I will now show that the main premise in the core argument is a conditional statement.  

Craig put the main premise of his core argument into one long sentence. In fact, nearly the entire core argument is contained in that one sentence:

...If these three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence (and it seems to me they can) and if alternative naturalistic explanations for these facts can be shown to be implausible (and the consensus of scholarship is that they can), then unless the resurrection hypothesis is shown to be even more implausible than its failed competitors (and my experience in debating the comparative merits of the hypotheses convinces me that it cannot), then the preferred explanation ought to be the one given in the documents [of the New Testament] themselves: God raised Jesus from the dead. (Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition, p.360) 

Notice that Craig asserts three different claims in three parenthetical remarks.  Those three claims are three premises in Craig's core argument. But they are separate from the main premise of the core argument, so let's delete the parenthetical remarks to focus on just the main premise:

...If these three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence... and if alternative naturalistic explanations for these facts can be shown to be implausible... , then unless the resurrection hypothesis is shown to be even more implausible than its failed competitors... , then the preferred explanation ought to be the one given in the documents [of the New Testament] themselves: God raised Jesus from the dead. (Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition, p.360) 

Now I will use different color fonts to identify four different statements that constitute parts of this complex sentence:

If these three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence and if alternative naturalistic explanations for these facts can be shown to be implausible, then unless the resurrection hypothesis is shown to be even more implausible than its failed competitors, then the preferred explanation ought to be the one given in the documents [of the New Testament] themselves: God raised Jesus from the dead.   

(Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition, p.360) 

We can assign letters to each of these parts of the above complex sentence:

R: These three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence.

S: Alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts can be shown to be implausible.

T: The resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts.

U: The preferred explanation for these three facts ought to be the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).

Now we can more easily see the logical structure of Craig's complex sentence by replacing these ideas/statements with the letters we have just assigned to them:

IF R and S, THEN unless T, then U. 

This is a conditional statement in which the first part of the conditional, called the antecedent, is the conjunction of two claims:

R AND S

The second part of the conditional statement, called the consequent, can itself be understood as a conditional statement:

IF NOT T, THEN U

This is a reasonable way to represent the logic of the statement "Unless T, then U". 

Using parentheses, we can represent the main premise of Craig's core argument, using the above abbreviations:

IF (R AND S), THEN (IF NOT T, THEN U).

We can simplify this representation of the main premise a bit further by using the letter P to stand for the conjunction in the antecedent: (R AND S), and we can use the letter Q to stand for the conditional in the consequent: (IF NOT T, THEN U):

IF P, THEN Q

Now it is very clear that the main premise of Craig's core argument is a conditional statement.  

THE CORE ARGUMENT INCLUDES A MODUS PONENS

The fact that the main premise is a conditional statement strongly suggests that the core argument includes a modus ponens inference:

 IF P, THEN Q

P

THEREFORE:

Q     

In fact, in addition to the main premise, Craig clearly implies that the antecedent of the conditional statement (that constitutes the main premise) is true. This confirms my suspicion that the core argument has a modus ponens inference. 

Recall that P represents a conjunction of two statements:

R AND S

Craig asserts that R is the case in a parenthetical remark:

...If these three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence (and it seems to me they can)...   (Reasonable Faith, p.360) 

The parenthetical remark here basically asserts the claim that "these three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence", and that is the claim that R represents:

R: These three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence.

Craig also asserts that S is the case in a parenthetical remark:

...if alternative naturalistic explanations for these facts can be shown to be implausible (and the consensus of scholarship is that they can)...

The parenthetical remark here basically asserts the claim that "alternative naturalistic explanations for these facts can be shown to be implausible", and that is the claim that S represents:

S: Alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts can be shown to be implausible.

So, in the complex sentence where Craig summarizes the core argument of his case, he asserts claim R, and he also asserts claim S.  We can draw a valid deductive inference from these two assertions to this conjunction:

R AND S

Recall that this conjunction is the antecedent of the conditional statement that constitutes the main premise of Craig's core argument:

IF (R AND S), THEN (IF NOT T, THEN U)

By the valid deductive inference known as modus ponens, we may now infer the consequent of the main premise:

1. IF (R AND S), THEN (IF NOT T, THEN U)

2. R AND S

THEREFORE: 

 3. IF NOT T, THEN U

Furthermore, in the complex sentence that we have been examining, Craig also asserts that NOT T is the case; in other words, Craig asserts that T is not the case:

...unless the resurrection hypothesis is shown to be even more implausible than its failed competitors (and my experience in debating the comparative merits of the hypotheses convinces me that it cannot)...

The parenthetical remark here basically asserts the claim that it is not the case that "the resurrection hypothesis has been shown to be more implausible than alternative naturalistic explanations for these facts", and that is the denial of the claim that T represents:

T: The resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts.

 So, Craig is asserting that claim T is NOT the case:

4. NOT T

If we combine this assertion with the conclusion of the above modus ponens argument, then we can make another valid deductive inference: 

3. IF NOT T, THEN U

4. NOT T

THEREFORE: 

5. U

We can now represent the core argument of Craig's case in terms of two valid deductive inferences: 

1. IF (R AND S), THEN (IF NOT T, THEN U)

2. R AND S

THEREFORE: 

 3. IF NOT T, THEN U

4. NOT T

THEREFORE: 

5. U 

Let's fill in the statements that the various letters stand for, to return to a more meaningful statement of the core argument:

1. IF these three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence AND alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts can be shown to be implausible, THEN IF IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts, THEN the preferred explanation for these three facts ought to be the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).

2. These three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence AND alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts can be shown to be implausible.

THEREFORE: 

3. IF IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts, THEN the preferred explanation for these three facts ought to be the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).

4. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT the resurrection hypothesis (i.e. God raised Jesus from the dead) has been shown to be more implausible than the alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts.

THEREFORE: 

5. The preferred explanation for these three facts ought to be the resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).

This is clearly a deductive argument.  

There is also a valid deductive sub-argument for premise (2):

6. These three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence.

 7. Alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts can be shown to be implausible.

THEREFORE:

2. These three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence AND alternative naturalistic explanations for these three facts can be shown to be implausible.

Here is the new and improved argument diagram showing the logical structure of the deductive argument that constitutes Craig's core argument:

There is, however, a significant problem with the meaning of each premise in this core argument.  The phrase "these three facts" occurs in all seven premises. But that phrase has no meaning outside of the context of the paragraph from which these statements or premises were taken.  

So, we need to either replace this unclear phrase with the "facts" to which it refers, or we need to add more premises to the core argument to define the meaning of the phrase "these three facts".

I will attempt to fix this problem in the next post about Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus. 

William Craig's Case for the Resurrection of Jesus - Part 1: An Overview of Craig's Case

 WHO IS WILLIAM CRAIG?

Here is how Craig is described by a fellow Christian philosopher and apologist:

It is hard to overstate the impact of William Lane Craig has had for the cause of Christ. He is simply the finest Christian apologist of the last half century, and his academic work justifies ranking him among the top one percent of practicing philosophers in the Western world. I do not know of a single thinker who has done more to raise the bar of Christian scholarship in our generation than Craig.  He is one of a kind and I thank God for his life and work. - J.P. Moreland, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, Talbot School of Theology

(from the back cover of the 3rd edition of Reasonable Faith)

If Craig is the finest Christian apologist of the last half century, and if his academic work justifies ranking him among the top one percent of practicing philosophers in the Western world, then Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus should be taken very seriously. 

Furthermore, if Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails, then that would be significant evidence for the claim that it is probable that no Christian apologist has ever provided a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.  If Craig cannot do the job in the 21st century, then it is unlikely that any other Christian apologist has ever managed to do the job.

A SKEPTICAL ARGUMENT ABOUT THE RESURRECTION

Here is one of my skeptical arguments about the resurrection of Jesus:

1. If William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails, then it is probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

2. William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

THEREFORE:

3. It is probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

I have previously written a book (not yet published), showing that the case for the resurrection of Jesus made by the philosopher and Christian apologist Peter Kreeft fails.[1] Based on that conclusion, we could make the above skeptical argument stronger: 

1a. If Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails, then it is probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

2a. Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

THEREFORE:

3a. It is probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

In the future, I plan to write another book showing that the case for the resurrection of Jesus made by the philosopher and Christian apologist Gary Habermas fails.  

Since Gary Habermas has made what appears to be the best and strongest case for the resurrection ever made by any Christian apologist[2], showing that his case fails would allow me to further enhance the above skeptical argument:

1b. If Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and Gary Habermas's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails, then it is very probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

2b. Peter Kreeft's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and William Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails and Gary Habermas's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.

THEREFORE:

3b. It is very probable that no Christian apologist has ever produced a strong and solid case for the resurrection of Jesus.

It will be a year or two before I can make this enhanced version of my skeptical argument, because that requires me to provide a strong justification of the claim that Gary Habermas's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails.  However, for now, I will focus on showing that William Craig's case fails. 

THE LOGICAL STRUCTURE OF CRAIG'S CASE

Before we can reasonably evaluate or criticize Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus, we must first have a clear understanding of his case.  A clear understanding of Craig's case requires understanding the logical structure of his case and understanding the basic assumptions and claims of his case.

Craig presents his case for the resurrection of Jesus in many different books and articles.  I will focus on one of the more recent presentations of his case, specifically on the case he makes in Chapter 8 of the 3rd edition of his book Reasonable Faith.[3]

Craig nicely lays out the high-level logical structure of his case:

Any historical argument for Jesus' resurrection will have two steps, even if they are not clearly delineated: (1) to establish the facts which will serve as historical evidence and (2) to argue that the hypothesis of Jesus' resurrection is the best or most probable explanation of those facts. Step (1) will involve an investigation of the historicity of events such as the discovery of Jesus' empty tomb; step (2) will assess the comparative merits of rival hypotheses offered as explanations of the facts established in step (1).  (Reasonable Faith, p. 350) 

THE CLAIMS OR PREMISES OF CRAIG'S CASE 

Craig also summarizes his case for the resurrection of Jesus, including his main premises, in one paragraph:

In my estimation the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" furnishes the best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate.  The inductive grounds for the inference of this explanation consist primarily of the evidence of three independently established facts: (1) the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion, (2) various individuals and groups thereafter experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearrances of Jesus alive, and (3) the first disciples came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions. If these three facts can be historically established with a reasonable degree of confidence (and it seems to me they can) and if alternative naturalistic explanations for these facts can be shown to be implausible (and the consensus of scholarship is that they can), then unless the resurrection hypothesis is shown to be even more implausible than its failed competitors (and my experience in debating the comparative merits of the hypotheses convinces me that it cannot), then the preferred explanation ought to be the one given in the documents [of the New Testament] themselves: God raised Jesus from the dead. ...           (Reasonable Faith, p.360) 

Based on these two paragraphs by Craig, we can spell out the core argument of Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus[4]:

1. It is an established historical fact that the tomb of Jesus was found empty by a group of his women followers on the first day of the week following his crucifixion.

2. It is an established historical fact that beginning on the first day of the week following Jesus' crucifixion, various individuals and groups experienced on different occasions and under varying circumstances appearances of Jesus alive. 

3. It is an established historical fact that the first disciples of Jesus came sincerely to believe in Jesus' resurrection in the absence of sufficient antecedent historical influences from either Judaism or pagan religions.

4. Alternative explanations (i.e., alternatives to the Christian resurrection hypothesis) for claims (1), (2), and (3) can be shown to be implausible.

5. The Christian resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead) has not been shown to be more implausible than alternative explanations. 

THEREFORE:

6. The best explanation of the historical data relevant to Jesus' final fate is the Christian resurrection hypothesis (i.e., God raised Jesus from the dead).

Here is the argument diagram for this core argument:

I suspect that the logical structure of the core argument might be a bit more complex than this diagram indicates, but this diagram will suffice for now. 

In future posts, I will examine the logic and the premises of this core argument, and this will include analysis and evaluation of the sub-arguments that Craig gives in support of the premises of the above core argument in his case. 

 END NOTES

1. See this blog post about the book on the resurrection that I'm working on getting published: 

Thinking Critically about the Resurrection of Jesus, Volume 1

2. See this blog post about Gary Habermas's case for the resurrection of Jesus:

Gary Habermas is the Leading Defender of the Resurrection of Jesus

3. William Craig, Reasonable Faith, 3rd edition (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008).

4. It should be noted that Craig's current case for the resurrection of Jesus, which is now (in 2026) presented on his Reasonable Faith website, includes one additional historical claim:

After his crucifixion, Jesus was buried in a tomb by Joseph of Arimathea. 

"The Resurrection of Jesus", an article by William Craig on the Reasonable Faith website (viewed 4/6/26):

The Resurrection of Jesus

The Lousy Track Record of Psychics

PEOPLE CANNOT SEE THE FUTURE

There are at least two different kinds of evidence about whether precognition (the alleged supernatural ability to see the future) exists.  First, one can focus on individuals who claim to be psychics and who claim to see the future, to determine if some of them actually have the ability to see the future. Second, one can focus on people in general to determine if some or most people have some ability to see the future (by means of experiments about precognition).

In this series of posts about psychics, I will focus on the first sort of evidence.  Here are some of the most well-known psychics who have claimed to see the future:

• Nostradamus
• Edgar Cayce
• Jeane Dixon
• Baba Vanga
• Sylvia Browne
• Uri Geller

If these famous psychics do not have the ability to see the future, then that would be a good reason to conclude that nobody has the ability to see the future:

1. IF Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, Jeane Dixon, Baba Vanga, Sylvia Browne, and Uri Geller do not have the ability to see the future, THEN it is very likely that nobody has the ability to see the future.

2. Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, Jeane Dixon, Baba Vanga, Sylvia Browne, and Uri Geller do not have the ability to see the future.

THEREFORE:

3. It is very likely that nobody has the ability to see the future.

THE WIDE RANGE OF HUMAN ABILITIES

Human abilities almost always come in a wide range of levels or degrees.  For example, the ability to lift weights in a bench press comes in a wide range of levels:

A woman with no training in lifting weights might only be able to bench press about 80 pounds, while a man who is a competitive weight-lifting athlete with several years of training and experience might be able to bench press 360 pounds or more.  

Obviously, young children are not able to lift as much weight as adults. Furthermore, some people cannot lift any weight in a bench press because their arms are missing, severely damaged, or paralyzed.  The ability to lift weights in a bench press ranges from 0 pounds to 782 pounds (the current world record for bench press).[1]

The ability to run long distances also occurs in a wide range of levels or degrees: 

Most people can run half a mile without stopping. With a few weeks of consistent training, most people can run about two miles without stopping.  Trained athletes with years of training and experience in long-distance running can run for about 100 miles.  One long-distance athlete ran 450 miles in 4.5 days.

Some people cannot run any distance because their legs are missing, severely damaged, or paralyzed. Thus, the distance that people can run without stopping ranges from 0 miles to 450 miles. 

Human intellectual abilities also occur in a wide range of levels or degrees.  For example, the ability to read varies widely:

• 21% of adults in the U.S. have low literacy or are functionally illiterate. 
• 33% of adults in the U.S. are literate but read below a sixth-grade level. 
• 46% of adults in the U.S. read at or above a sixth-grade level. 

Furthermore, over 98% of young children (ages 1 to 5) cannot read:

There is also a significant range of ability to read and write among Americans who are literate, as can be seen by the range of scores achieved on standardized college-entrance exams.  

People who are not literate usually won't bother to take the SAT college-entrance exam, because they know they don't understand most of the questions on the SAT, so they have almost no chance of achieving even a modest score on the SAT.  Among the mostly literate students who take the SAT, there is a wide range of scores for the reading and writing portion of the exam:

A wide range of scores are acheived on the reading and writing portion of the SAT[2]:

• A score of 780 or higher puts one in the top 1% of SAT test takers.
• A score of 680 puts one in the top 10% of SAT test takers.
• A score of 630 puts one in the top 20% of SAT test takers.
• A score of 520 puts one in the top 50% of SAT test takers.
• A score of 490 puts one in the bottom 40% of SAT test takers.
• A score of 430 puts one in the bottom 20% of SAT test takers.
• A score of 390 puts one in the bottom 10% of SAT test takers.
• A score of 320 or less puts one in the bottom 1% of SAT test takers.

So, among mostly literate college-bound students in the U.S. there is a wide range of abilities in reading and writing, with SAT reading and writing scores that range from 200 (very poor) to 800 (excellent).

There are three-year-old children in the U.S. who cannot read or write a single word of English, and there are college-bound teenagers and young adults who score in the top 1% of the reading and writing portion of the SAT. Clearly, the range of the ability to read and write varies widely among humans. 

The sensory abilities of humans also include a wide range of levels or degrees.  For example, the sensory ability of vision varies widely among people.  The designation "20/20 Vision" refers to normal visual acuity:

The ability to see clearly varies widely among people:

A very small portion of people have better than 20/15 vision.[3]

There are, of course, various degrees of visual impairment among people who cannot achieve 20/20 vision even with prescription eyewear:

The ability to see varies from total blindness (no light perception), to legal blindness, to vision impairment (where 20/20 vision cannot be achieved even with prescription eyewear), to 20/20 vision achieved with eyewear, to 20/20 vision without eyewear, to 20/15 vision without eyewear, to 20/10 vision without eyewear.

The sensory ability of hearing also occurs in a wide range of levels or degrees among humans.[4]

PREMISE (1) OF MY SKEPTICAL ARGUMENT

Because human abilities almost always have a wide range of levels or degrees, we may infer a significant conclusion:

4. Human physical abilities almost always have a wide range of levels or degrees.

5. Human intellectual abilities almost always have a wide range of levels or degrees.

6. Human sensory abilities almost always have a wide range of levels or degrees.

THEREFORE:

7. IF people have the ability to see the future, THEN it is very likely that at least a few people will clearly have a strong ability to see the future.

This conclusion supports premise (1) of my skeptical argument, because we have good reason to believe that if humans have the ability to see the future, then there should be at least a few humans who have this ability to a high level or high degree, and thus there would be at least a few humans who would clearly have a strong ability to see the future. 

If there are at least a few people who clearly have a strong ability to see the future, then we would expect that such people would notice they have this ability and would tell others about it.  Such people would often claim to be psychics or seers or prophets. Therefore, it is reasonable to examine famous psychics who claim to see the future, to determine if they actually have the ability to see the future.  If famous psychics don't have this ability, then we may conclude that it is very likely that NOBODY has this ability.

The above is the thinking behind premise (1) of my skeptical argument:

1. If Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, Jeane Dixon, Baba Vanga, Sylvia Browne, and Uri Geller do not have the ability to see the future, then it is very likely that nobody has the ability to see the future.

In future posts on this topic, I will examine these six psychics to determine whether any of them have the ability to see the future (i.e. whether they have the supernatural ability known as precognition). Those future posts will provide support for premise (2) of my skeptical argument:

2. Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, Jeane Dixon, Baba Vanga, Sylvia Browne, and Uri Geller do not have the ability to see the future.

END NOTES

1. "The raw (unequipped) bench press world record is 355 kg (782.6 lbs), set by Julius Maddox on February 21, 2021." - Google AI response to "what is the world record for bench press" viewed 4/5/26. Here is a YouTube video about this world record: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezySzMd5unE&t=30s

2. Percentiles given here are based on this table:

3.  About 1% of people in the U.S. have better than 20/15 vision:

4. 

The Lousy Track Record of Astrology

 DOES ASTROLOGY ACTUALLY WORK?

REASONS TO CONCLUDE THAT ASTROLOGY DOES NOT WORK

Here are six good reasons to conclude that astrology does not work:

1. Western astrology is typically based on false assumptions about astronomy.
2. Recent experiments and studies show that sun-sign astrology does not work.
3. A recent experiment shows that natal-chart astrology does not work. 
4. Decades of scientific investigations have shown that Western astrology does not work.
5. Recent experiments show that Indian/Vedic astrology does not work. 
6. Recent studies show that Chinese astrology does not work. 

For the rest of this post, I will provide evidence supporting these six claims.

WESTERN ASTROLOGY IS  TYPICALLY BASED ON FALSE ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT ASTRONOMY

 

What is sidereal astrology?

 

Sidereal measurement uses the most accurate astronomy for your chart, while Tropical measurement (the most standard of modern Western Astrology) uses a fixed snapshot of the cosmos, which now in the 21st century is astronomically inaccurate.

[...]

When most people look at their Sidereal chart compared to their Tropical chart, a majority of the placements they’ve come to know can shift by a whole sign as Tropical astrology is astronomically off by 24 degrees.

An example is that if you born on April 1st, you would astronomically be a Sun in Pisces vs. a Sun in Aries. I know… what a big change, huh? (excerpted from the above article)

Western astrology is typically based on false assumptions about the position of the sun relative to constellations of stars in the sky:

Bill Nye on Astrology

RECENT EXPERIMENTS & STUDIES SHOW SUN-SIGN ASTROLOGY DOES NOT WORK

Can astrological sun signs (or zodiac signs) predict facts about people's lives?

In our data Astrological sun signs had literally zero predictive ability across all 37 outcomes. The correlation coefficients, or ‘r values’, were all 0, meaning that the zodiac signs had no ability whatsoever to predict any of the 37 outcomes!

[...] 

Our study provides evidence that sun sign astrology does not make accurate predictions about any of a wide variety of aspects of people’s lives and, therefore, cannot be relied on as a method for developing accurate beliefs about those aspects. (excerpted from the above article) 

Love signs Fail world's largest tests 

Three recent studies (Sachs 1998, Castille 2004, Voas 2007) with a combined sample size of 27 million couples have failed to find the slightest evidence for sun sign effects, thus confirming the results of earlier studies (which are briefly reviewed). Studies of sun sign compatibility largely avoid the problems that plague the testing of individual signs, namely those due to demography (depending on place and country some months have more births than others) and astronomy (due to the Earth's elliptical orbit some signs have more days than others), which here generally cancel out. We follow the tests in some detail to see how huge samples can tease out apparent astrological effects only to find them explained by recording bias and other glitches in the data. Despite the giant magnifying glass of huge samples, no sun sign effects could be detected. ... In short, lonely hearts (and anybody else including astrologers) who worry about sun signs (and by extension astrology itself) are absolutely wasting their time.

A RECENT EXPERIMENT SHOWS NATAL-CHART ASTROLOGY DOES NOT WORK 

152 Professional Astrologers vs Science

Does astrology work? We put 152 astrologers to the test

The test, which remains publicly available so that anyone can use it to test their own astrology skills, consists of 12 multiple choice questions. For each question, participants are shown a great deal of information about one real person's life, reflecting real person’s answers to 43 different questions. These questions were chosen by asking astrologers what they would ask someone if they wanted to be able to accurately guess that person's astrological chart. 

 [...]

Alongside this information about each real person, astrologers were shown 5 astrological charts. Only one of these was the real natal chart of that person (based on their birth date, time, and location), and the other four were "decoy" charts that were generated based on random dates, times, and locations. The astrologer’s task was to determine which one of these five charts is the real one. (excerpted from the above article)

In total, we tested 152 astrologers who believed they would do better than chance at the tasks we gave them ...

Someone guessing at random would, on average, only correctly answer 2.4 questions out of 12, whereas those astrologers in our study with the least experience believed they had gotten 5 right, on average (right after they completed all the tasks), and those with the most astrology expertise believed they had gotten 10 right, on average. 

Despite their high-degree of confidence in their performance, astrologers as a group performed no better than chance - that is, their distribution of results closely resembled what you'd see if they had all been guessing at random. And the number of charts they matched correctly, on average, was not statistically significantly different than random guessing either.  

Not a single astrologer got more than 5 out of 12 answers correct - even though, after completing the task, more than half of astrologers believed they had gotten more than 5 answers correct.

More experience with astrology had no statistically significant association with better performance, and the astrologers with the most experience didn't do any better than the rest. (excerpted from the above article)

Study Report: Can astrologers truly gain insights about people from entire astrological charts?

DECADES OF SCIENTIFIC INVESTIGATIONS HAVE SHOWN THAT WESTERN ASTROLOGY DOES NOT WORK

Grand summary of entire website

The research revolution

Astrologers say the heavens reflect our destiny from the cradle to the grave. Could this be true? The question has been furiously debated for more than twenty centuries, but an answer has been possible only since the 1970s, when advances in relevant areas (astronomy, psychology, statistics, research design) and a decisive technology (home computers) led to a revolution in scientific research into astrology. 

Hundreds of empirical studies

Before 1950 almost no empirical studies of astrology existed. But by 2000 over one hundred had appeared in psychology journals and four hundred in astrology journals, equivalent to about 200 man-years of scientific research. For 91 typical studies see Research results and for overviews see Meta-analyses, both under Doing Scientific Research. The findings have been clear and consistent whether obtained by astrologers or by scientists -- astrology has not contributed to human knowledge, it has failed hundreds of tests, it has no acceptable mechanism other than hidden persuaders (see below), and users do not usefully agree on basics such as which zodiac to use or even on what a given birth chart indicates. Today, for the first time in twenty centuries, we can say with some certainty that no, the heavens do not reflect our destiny. (excerpted from the above article)

Research results (91 abstracts)

 Abstract -- Contains abstracts of 91 studies, most of them empirical, from four astrological research journals. ... At the time the first three journals were the world's only peer-review astrological journals devoted to scientific research, whereas Kosmos was more an astrological journal than a scientific research journal, hence the fewer abstracts. The abstracts are comprehensive, averaging 270 words (range 80 to 950), and are annotated with later information where necessary. Most are from 1980-2000 when scientific research into astrology was at its peak. ... They illustrate the topics then being investigated by astrologers and others, the immense labour that could be involved, the results that were invariably incommensurate with astrological claims, and the then intense scientific interest in astrology that (in view of the negative results) will most likely never arise again. (excerpted from the above article)

 What tests are easy? A guide for students doing projects

 Projects about sun signs

Signs are the most researched topic in astrology with well over one hundred empirical studies. Most studies are simply counts of people born under various signs, but such counts are too contaminated by ordinary influences (astronomy, sampling, demography, age incidence) to mean anything. ...

The remaining studies, if adequately controlled against non-astrological influences, have invariably been negative. Signs are not only the most researched topic in astrology but are also the most disconfirmed. Signs are simply not valid, not even slightly. ... (excerpted from the above article)

Projects about serious astrology

The bad news is that many tests are difficult, time consuming, and have already been done. For example testing whether an astrologer can identify people from their charts has already been done in 54 studies, some of which took several years to complete. Overall 742 astrologers and more than 1400 charts were tested but the results showed no support for astrology. (The support shown by some early tests was later found to be an artifact of sampling.) Another 20 studies involving nearly 500 subjects tested whether people can pick their own chart reading but again the results showed no support for astrology. ... (excerpted from the above article)

 Understanding Astrology: A critical review of a thousand empirical studies 1900-2020

Fifty years ago empirical studies (studies based on experiments) were the hardest things to find in astrology. There were only opinions. Today there are more than a thousand empirical studies hidden in a hundred journals and dozens of books, plus academic theses, conference reports, websites, unpublished studies, and little-known hard-to-find specialised collections. For the first time Understanding Astrology brings together ALL of these highly scattered studies -- not just the ones conveniently available or selected to prove a point -- and subjects them to rigorous critical thinking. It puts astrology under the microscope in a concise style free of waffle. ... (excerpted from the above article) 

RECENT EXPERIMENTS SHOW THAT INDIAN/VEDIC ASTROLOGY DOES NOT WORK

Indian Astrology: A Reality Check

The double-blind experiment conducted by the noted astrophysicist and science communicator Jayant Narlikar should be viewed as a pioneering effort to test astrology in India. Narlikar, recipient of the Padm Vibhushan, India’s second highest civilian award, published the results of the test widely, including in an article in Skeptical Inquirer (Narlikar 2013). His research generated a lot of debate because it revealed that none of the astrologers could perform better than chance, 50 percent. However, as in many double-blind experiments, particularly when the outcome is negative, astrology’s supporters tried to create ambiguity by questioning whether the results were due to the limitations of astrology or the astrologers themselves. Against this backdrop, we present the results of new empirical tests of a few fundamental principles of Indian astrology, leveraging the same dataset that was used in Narlikar’s double-blind test. Interestingly enough, our results showed why Indian astrology failed the double-blind test. It is little wonder that other versions of astrology are found to fail on the same grounds. (excerpted from the above article) 

 

These results explain why in double-blind tests of astrology in general—and in the 2008 test by Narlikar et al. in particular—none of the astrologers could hit a better success rate than 50 percent. In our view, though astrologers have their own sets of rules used for predictions, the rules are mostly based on the fundamental principles tested above. These principles do not act as a differentiator themselves, nor do they produce a differential negativity when they are summed up together. Hence, no one could achieve a success rate better than random chance. It is thus the limitation of astrology, and not of the astrologers, that astrology failed. (excerpted from the above article) 

An Indian Test of Indian Astrology

Our experiment with twenty-seven Indian astrologers judging forty horoscopes each, and a team of astrologers judging 200 horoscopes, showed that none were able to tell bright children from mentally handicapped children better than chance. Our results contradict the claims of Indian astrologers and are

consistent with the many tests of Western astrologers. In summary, our results are firmly against Indian astrology being considered as a science. (excerpted from the above article)

RECENT STUDIES SHOW THAT CHINESE ASTROLOGY DOES NOT WORK

Neither Western nor Chinese zodiac signs predict key aspects of personality:

Neither Western nor Chinese zodiac signs predict COVID or COVID-caused deaths:

Does Western or Chinese Zodiac Sign Predict COVID Infections and Death?

Astrology once held a significant impact on beliefs in medicine and continues in Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine. Our study utilized local data to determine if COVID-19 infection rates and mortality might have a relationship to astrological designations of Chinese and Western zodiac signs. Data analysis demonstrated that there was no statistical significance found between Western and Chinese Zodiac signs and mortality or infections. 

Chinese astrology fails to predict the causes or timing of death in general:

Chinese Astrology fails to predict the gender of infants:

Chinese Astrology fails in the prediction of the success of people born in Dragon years:

Ka-Fu Wong & Linda Yung, 2005. "Do Dragons Have Better Fate?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 43(3), pages 689-697, July.

CONCLUSIONS

Scientific experiments and studies conducted for the past five decades have shown that Western sun-sign astrology does not work, that Western natal-chart astrology does not work, and recent scientific studies show that Indian/Vedic astrology does not work and that Chinese astrology does not work.  

Objective scientific investigation of the supernatural claims of astrology shows that those claims are false.