qertrent.blogg.se - Mike lacona

He cited that hallucinations, which was the most common naturalistic explanation put forward by skeptics when considering appearances, had rarely been documented amongst groups of people at one and the same time with the same details. Mike Licona said the Resurrection hypothesis better fitted these criteria than any naturalistic explanation, especially when considering “Fact 3” (group appearances). Mike Licona concentrated on the criteria (2) to (5) as detailed by McCullagh, namely Explanatory Scope, Explanatory Power, Plausibility, and Least ad-hoc.

They believed that these experiences were “historical” i.e., actual events that occurred at a specific time.

The experiences were believed to be of a physical being, and not of a ghost.

Paul, who once opposed Christians, had an experience that he believed was of the risen Jesus, which caused him to convert to be a follower of Jesus.

Groups had experiences that they believed were of the risen Jesus.

Individuals had experiences that they believed were of the risen Jesus.

Mike Licona listed various “facts,” about Jesus’s Resurrection, which he believed were widely agreed upon by scholars both religious and secular.

CB McCullagh (1984), Justifying Historical Descriptions, CUP Licona’s “facts” (7) It must exceed other incompatible hypotheses about the same subject by so much, in characteristics 2 to 6, that there is little chance of an incompatible hypothesis, after further investigation, soon exceeding it in these respects. (6) It must be disconfirmed by fewer accepted beliefs than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject that is, when conjoined with accepted truths it must imply fewer observation statements and other statements which are believed to be false. (5) The hypothesis must be less ad hoc than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject that is, it must include fewer new suppositions about the past which are not already implied to some extent by existing beliefs. (4) The hypothesis must be more plausible than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject that is, it must be implied to some degree by a greater variety of accepted truths than any other, and be implied more strongly than any other and its probable negation must be implied by fewer beliefs, and implied less strongly any other. (3) The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory power than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject that is, it must make the observation statements it implies more probable than any other. (2) The hypothesis must be of greater explanatory scope than any other incompatible hypothesis about the same subject that is, it must imply a greater variety of observation statements. (We will henceforth call the first statement ‘the hypothesis’, and statements describing observable data, ‘observation statements’.) (1) The statement, together with other statements already held to be true, must imply yet other statements describing present, observable data. The theory is that one is rationally justified in believing a statement to be true if the following conditions obtain: These now-famous criteria for establishing historical reliability are listed below:

This line of argumentation has also been employed by the apologist and philosopher William Lane Craig.

McCullagh’s (An Australian Philosopher of History) historical criteria relating to the “Inference to the Best Explanation” based on the known facts surrounding an event in the past. (There are several video analyses you can find online).Īrguing for the historicity of Jesus’s resurrection, Mike Licona referenced C. It is not possible to detail all that occurred in this very long discussion, so I will focus on a few of the main arguments raised for and against. McCullagh & “Inference to the Best Explanation” The Resurrection of Jesus has been a topic of much discussion here at A Tippling Philosopher due to Pearce’s recent book on the subject. Recently, there was a seven-hour debate between Mike Licona (Christian) and Bart Ehrman (Agnostic), on the subject of “Did the Resurrection of Jesus Really Happen?” that had been well-anticipated by people in certain corners of the internet.