Church Voices

I’m listening to a debate about the resurrection of Christ between Dr. Brian Edwards and Dr. William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig takes the position that the resurrection did happen. Naturally much of the discussion centered around the possiblity of miracles (I’m speaking of miracles within a theistic context).

The first point I want to make is that the only way to definitively rule out the possiblity of miracles is to take a positive atheistic stance. A positivistic atheistic view is one that says definitively that God does not exist. This is not someone who merely doubts the existence of God, or finds theism to be unconvincing, but rather someone who argues for the non-existence of God. Virtually everyone I’ve dealt with personally who labels themselves as an atheist, are not postive atheists, and most admit that arguments proving the non-existence of God are impossible. The fall back position is that its not up to them to prove the non-existence of God, but for the theist to prove the existence of God (BTW, this is a perfectly valid argument for someone who is a skeptic, or agnostic). But if you are claiming miracles cannot happen because God does not exist then you need to make the case that God does not exist. Dr. Edwards is consistently inconsistent on this issue. He simultaneously argues that you can’t argue for the non-existence of God and that because God doesn’t exist miracles cannot happen.

The second thing I find interesting is that Dr. Edwards doesn’t ever actually attack Dr. Craig’s arguments. Dr. Craig spends his first five minutes making a historical argument. Dr. Craig basically argues that the disciples and other people living at the time came to a rational decision based on the available evidence. Dr. Edwards completely ignores this argument and begins constructing an argument against the existence of God.

Dr. Edwards makes the argument that you have to separate philosophical questions from day-to-day life. Of course, this means very narrowly defining “philosophical questions”. He raised this point when it came to objective moral values. Dr. Edwards was willing to concede that moral values are nothing more than societies preferences. When Dr. Craig pressed him on the point he made the earlier statement. If philosophy is able to at least partially reveal truth, yet it can’t be applied to day-to-day life then why bother with it at all?

Overall Craig shreds Edwards pretty well. Its really a one-sided debate.