Carrier v Licona Resurrection BEST TOP TEN

This debate ( audio | video | 2h30m25s ) took place in 2004 between Apologist Mike Licona and Carrier at UCLA (go Bruins!) and was on the Resurrection.

DB: 5m09s

4.5 stars. BEST

PhilVaz 5/5
APF review: 4/5

This is definitely my favorite resurrection debate. Both Carrier and Licona do a great job and it is long, cordial and probably the most informative debate I have heard in general.

Both Licona and Carrier did something interesting that I have only heard of in one other debate: they decided to exchange their opening speeches with each other beforehand in order to make for a more srs rebuttal period. This was an awesome idea and it enabled both speakers to give some really impressive presentations.

This is the first debate I have heard of Licona's and I think it is one of his bests. His later debates focus on arguments not based on the gospels and sometimes include a discussion of contemporary miracles. Because Licona and Habermas have collaborated on a lot of stuff they both use a rather weak argument that I think people like WL Craig are wise in not bothering with. Basically, they both discuss modern day miracles and near-death experiences and of course I think the evidence for these things are very unconvincing, but I think that most religious people who do accept the resurrection feel the same way. So I think that Habermas and Licona should probably stop discussing it but since this is an earlier debate Licona barely (if at all) mentions it and sticks to a very historical defense.

Carrier does a great job here, he also sticks to fairly technical and specific arguments. At one point to demonstrate the fact that ancient Jews might not have thought there was an empty tomb, Carrier mentions writings that discussed a weird trial. This trial required the testimony* of Jesus or Jesus to be involved in some way through some weird ritual that used magic. Carrier argues that in order to carry out the ritual, the court needed the skull of Jesus which would mean that there is evidence that at least some number of ancient Jews didn't think that Jesus' tomb was empty nor did they have an issue with his resurrection.

I have never heard this before and I don't think I hear it ever again in any other debate. For all I know Richard Carrier just used a fake/false/wrong argument but it certainly is unique and Licona's response was unimpressive at most.

I dunno why I latched on to this example so much. I think it's a good example of how detailed this debate got, at least. But regardless, both Carrier and Licona do a great job and Licona is definitely one of my favorite defenders of the resurrection.

This one is a must listen, the Q&A and back and forth at the end is great and Prof Bartchy (who I never took as a professor but have heard in a debate and enjoyed) was a great moderator.

CHECK IT OUT!

Technical: Kind of low volume in terms of AQ, dunno about the VQ but it was a Veritas event and they're usually pretty good.

*I'm gonna relisten to this debate in the near future so I will hopefully update this review with more specific references to the arguments.