Jesus rised from the dead but aliens are more likely to be culprits

[UnreasonableFaith]

Seriously, how can a miracle be taken as best explonation for anything? I really wonder whether WL Craig really believes what he claims to believe. During his debates he often repeats that all theories trying to explain historical events related to Jesus' death were proven wrong. Even if it was the case it only proves one thing "we don't know".

And just think of it. Dr. Craig says that historical evidence suggests that conspiracy theories are implausible (what a surprise!), therefore dissmises them as proven decisively wrong. But when physical, biological, chemical knowledge tells us there ain't much to resurrect after three days, then it means nothing to him.  It's common practice that when conflict arises between historical testimony and scientific knowledge we always follow the latter. I suppose Dr. Craig perfectly knows about it, yet deliberately abandon this knowledge for the sake of special pleading with regard to religion. And to make things funnier he even claims that indeed it's improbable to resurrect someone after three days from scientific poin of view, but it's not impossible for god! It's well hidden circular reasoning by the way, he assumess that because we live in a world that was created by god miracles are plausible at all , therefore resurrection could take place, and therefore we have good evidence for god's existence.

Here is my theory. Aliens were observing us for a long time, noticed that we take our prophecies too seriously, and decided to make fun of us. They carefully arranged everything, put one of their kind on earth to play Jesus and observed what's happening. I don't have to add their advanced technology allowed them to act unobserved plus it allowed them to do all things we consider miracles or at least make things look as if miracle happend. Or maybe Jesus was real, but they only used their technology to reconstrue his brain and ressurect him indeed.

That's it. It's perfectly plausible naturalistic explonation. We know there is nothing impossible about aliens, we know that it's perfectly plausible for them to observe other species, and we know it's not unnatural for highly evolved intelligent species to make fun of other less intelligent animals, just look videos with cats on YT!

One can say "Oh but that's improbable!" Improbable things aren't miracles. And they happend ALL the time.  Every time you carefully shuffle deck of cards you end up with configuration that almost certainly never ever happened in real life, and that will probably never ever happen again given that our universe will approach heat death and not allow it to happen. Or if you went 100 generations back and asked "what are the chances that Hitler will be born and do Holocaust?" how would you answer? Given how many sperm cells are waste during conception and given that only one of them will result in Hitler, and that only one will result in his father and one in his mother, just after few generations chances of conceiving one specific person with specific set of genes are unimaginably small. Let alone all external factors which had to be in place to lead Hitler into Holocaust.

I simply don't understand how anybody can get on stage, keep straight face, and in honesty with ones real beliefs tell people that resurrection is the best theory he or she found.

What do you think of it? In my opinion Craig would be better of resigning from this argument all together, it does him more harm than good.

What do you think?

[ypiretis]

You remind me of a few verses in the Bible that Paul writes about.

Romans 1:28-31

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

[rap2017]

Ladies and Gentlemen
Dr WLC is very selective in the information that he uses to convince people of the evidence of the resurrection.
The comments by the person above are legitimate. WLC is in a community of Christian Apologists who already believe in the storiesin the Bible, who also believe in God.
The contradictions in the account of the resurrection make the story implausible. Let me just bring a few for thought.
1 In the letters of Paul he does not mention the Virgin birth, the miracles, the parables. Lazarus, the passion, does not use the word disciples or Jesus of Nazareth. Paul only mentions that Jesus died was buried and raised, but we don't know where this took place.
2 In "Mark" the woman went away because they were bewildered and afraid and said nothing to no one. No resurrection. So how did anyone even know what happened.
3 Then there is the problem of "Joseph of Arimathea", where does he suddenly appear from? We know nothing about him.
This is clearly a fictional story and if anyone can provide scholarly evidence then please reveal.
Thank you.

[Korvexius]

And just think of it. Dr. Craig says that historical evidence suggests that conspiracy theories are implausible (what a surprise!), therefore dissmises them as proven decisively wrong. But when physical, biological, chemical knowledge tells us there ain't much to resurrect after three days, then it means nothing to him.  It's common practice that when conflict arises between historical testimony and scientific knowledge we always follow the latter.

Sorry, it looks to me as if you are either unwilling to understand WLC's comments, or simply don't know them. Craig specifically explains that he's not claiming Jesus was *naturally* raised from the dead, so how biological processes could be relevant to WLC's position is just curious. The conspiracy theory has been effectively discredited into the realm of historical fiction, the only reason why anyone would ever want to prop it up anymore is if they feel as if they're running out of options and need an alternative to the resurrection itself.

Given all you said, I don't see any real substance in it as a response to WLC's position. The conclusion isn't "we don't know". The conclusion is that the most probable event is that the resurrection happened, given a few historical points surrounding the circumstances of the resurrection. I.e., the death and burial of Jesus, the discovery of the empty tomb, the appearance experiences of the disciples and their genuine belief that he had actually been raised by God from the dead. The best posited explanation is the resurrection, and so the rest plays out pretty simply. As the best available explanation that makes sense out of all the evidence, and is explicitly implied by our sources, it should be accepted. That's how the process of the acceptance of evidence works.