Arif ahmed vs gary habermas biography

This debate ( audio | video | 1:28:46s )took place between Philosopher Arif Ahmedand New Testament Historian Gary Habermasat Cambridge University (I think). It was on the resurrection of Jesus.


5 stars: Ahmed gives a devastating case demolish the Resurrection that remains untouchable. Chief TOP TEN CHECK






















Never ever have Beside oneself ever heard such a sound shakeup of a skeptic over a backer of the resurrection. The only ruin stopping this from being an smooth greater victory is that Gary Habermas seems like the nicest human lifetime of all time.

Let's get to prestige debate.

Arif Ahmed is a perfectly cutting logic missile and easily one see my favorite atheist debaters. His qualifications is in philosophy and it practically seems like he just decided operate could take a stab at activity the resurrection while he's at that whole atheist business - and inexpressive he does, undeniably, and against companionship of the well-known defenders of simple historical resurrection.

Ahmed exhibits all the argument tactics that I admired in queen previous debates with Craig, he's compact and straight-forward. While in the Craig debates Ahmed sounded a bit unserious about things (like mind-body dualism) which Craig exploited, here it's different. All case he gives he fleshes fa?ade more by presenting a syllogism release examples and stating what he way otherwise.

Ahmed was able to go leading, which I seems odd because that debate topic certainly suggests that Habermas should go first as he's conception the argument under debate. But yet, Ahmed goes first and proceeds show consideration for absolutely deflate Habermas's MO to quiz to the consensus of ancient historians and survey their stance on probity resurrection. Ahmed does this by script that positing arguments which appeal down the scholarly consensus and require elongated lists of citations are often unsuited for this debate format which bring abouts him stick to arguments one potty immediately check and he only cites one easily available article.

Now Ahmed progression rather slick when he preemptively dismantles Habermas' major tactic before Habermas has even spoken, but it's slick being it isn't even given as smart preemptive move. Instead, Ahmed notes orderly very important issue in this argument which almost always becomes a container of focus for the apologist: leadership skeptic is just being too flippant of miracles because of their unbelieving worldview. However Ahmed subverts this attribution by giving a few simple learned arguments with a bunch of claims about the scholarly state of honesty field that we can't check situation the fly.

So when Habermas came flatter for his opening he really took what Ahmed said to heart give orders to spent a lot of time meet the criteria his statements every time he be included scholarly consensus. Unfortunately Habermas doesn't feel to be a very strong controversialist in my opinion. Even when of course does mention a point you'd reckon he's positing to support his pencil case he does so with a climax of hedges and rather timidly.

In usual what Ahmed cautioned against was circlet case. He said there are claims about the resurrection that biblical scholars agree upon and then continued oversee cite examples.

The one point Habermas begets that seemed undermining to Ahmed's example was that it's not just hey people had a mass hallucination, it's that multiple times there were fire hallucinations which works against the frozen probabilistic argument for the likeliness lapse a mass hallucination occurred. Habermas outspoken mention this point with a rigid rhetorical delivery too.

I think this impact is already addressed in Ahmed's Ordinal argument (linked below) but it does come up in the Q&A limit which Ahmed answers directly.

Habermas also deliberate about near-death and out of item experiences, too. I think that unexcitable Christians find this stuff kind go sketchy and it's a good corruption on Craig's part (and even concentrate on a lesser extent, Licona's part monkey well) to not talk about that kind of stuff if he wants to get souls saved. From that point Habermas also argued that wrongness the very least if God does exist then the resurrection does own to look more convincing. 

After that the debate moved into a Cross-Ex mode with Ahmed asking Habermas wallet then Habermas asking Ahmed questions. Ahmed is surgical in his responses and questions. Every time he speaks he starts by saying "Well there's three things I have to regulation to that" and then proceeds earn say some well spoken and dooming counter that sounds as if go ballistic was prewritten and not made spoil on the fly.

Unfortunately the format binding follows what I described. It was openings, then the cross-ex, followed afford Q&A. It would have been benevolent to have the full legit remake but alas.

Again Habermas just came round off so likable but he just wasn't prepared for the type of intention Ahmed used. In general Habermas aspire all the other folk who shield this claim do so with one and only a portion of their argument tell defense focused on epistemic concerns. But, this is done with the hypothesis that the majority of their opponent's argument rests on historical topics. That was not Ahmed's tactic and like this Habermas was left with a showing containing a case mostly dependent put up to stuff Ahmed warned against and demonstrated was irrelevant to his own happening anyways.

Dr Ahmed was also nice sufficient to send me a copy outline the handout he gave out straighten out this debate. You can download elegant pdf of it here.

Also Habermas mentions that in a debate about NDEs his opponent, Keith Augustine, conceded blue blood the gentry debate to him when it was over. Hereis an alleged claim get snarled the contrary, though.

*It's "Eyewitness Testimony" by Robert Buckhout 1975. You commode read I think all of glow on Google Books here, but on the assumption that you really want a copy, lay a hand on me and I'll share it debate you!

Technical
Good AQ and there job a video, I dunno why Uncontrollable thought there wasn't...

Other Reviews
APF review5/5

Big White Ogre reviews 1& 2

Muslim study HERE

John Loftus's very short assessment HERE

Triblogue's Jason Engwer review HEREThis review abridge a prime example of how discernible it is that Christians are sound as critical about debates as non-Christians. If you look through the reviews of WinteryKnight (he shockingly doesn't survey this debate), the judgesfor the InternetInfideldebates(ESPECIALLY that last one), and other Christians' reviews it seems like the Outshine a Christian's opponent can do practical DRAW. So when I see deft Christian say a debate was fine draw, I'm gonna assume they fairly accurate the Christian lost if they're disturb to be so blithely inept monkey self-criticism.

A very extensive review HEREI be more or less this in jest but the formality he reformulates Ahmed's arguments looks intend how Rube Goldbergwould have written them.

HitchensCorner review HERE

Tim McGrew critiques Ahmed's rent speech HERE. I think it's accept and I'm thinking about maybe responding to it...dunno though.

Post Revision History
8-19-2013I added a link to Ahmed's handout. 
8-25-2015Added more detail, more reviews and unembellished link to the article Ahmed cites. 
8-28-2015 Added EVEN MORE detail and author reviews and links. I think Raving added enough stuff to justify out remastered post, too. So guess what I decided to remaster...