THIS POST IS STILL IN WORK - Please check back in a few days.
THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (B)
In Part 24 of this series, I showed that Craig's case for the resurrection of Jesus fails because the sub-argument for premise (B) is an unsound argument. Here, again, is that sub-argument:
1c. IF Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts and no plausible nautural explanation can account for them as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead", THEN the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
C. Craig's three key historical claims can be established as being historical facts AND no plausible nautural explanation can account for Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts as well as the hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead."
THEREFORE:
B. The hypothesis "God raised Jesus from the dead" is the most plausible explanation of Craig's three key historical claims being historical facts.
This argument is unsound and should be rejected because premise (1c) is false, as I showed in Part 24 of this series.
THE SUB-ARGUMENT FOR THE KEY PREMISE (C)
No comments:
Post a Comment