Theism.net
Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster
.gif){kind=small}
e-mail: jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Cavin’s position
is that his Twin Theory is more scientifically probable than Christ having
resurrected. Cavin rejects all other secular
explanations on the basis of scientific probabilities (Baye’s Theorem). He is convinced that his Twin Theory is the most
probable explanation. His position assumes that only science can explain the
event, eliminating the possibility that Christ proved Himself God.
Craig
contends historians (rather than scientists) do not apply probabilities (Cavin is a science philosopher, not an historian). I side
with Craig as to not applying scientific theorems to historical equations. So
far as I can determine, if we did, the
I am
sincere in claiming that the Twin Theory, indeed, would serve as a marvelous
Mel Brooks or Woody Allen styled comedy. It is, for the truth seeker, absurd.
That is my opinion, for to embrace the Twin Theory, one must accept:
1)
Jesus was mistakenly
switched as a baby with another baby.
2)
The new Mary’s baby
just so happened to have an identical twin.
3)
The twin had no
knowledge of the Christ figure’s likeness until the twin just so happened to
travel (by coincidence) to a city where his twin had just been crucified.
4)
The twin (quick to
think) realized that he could claim his unknown twin’s identity, therefore
allowing him the glamour of being a hated, despised, blasphemous, criminal whom
the religious order and Roman authorities executed. Actually, had the mistaken
identity placed the other twin on the cross, he most likely would have let the
mistaken identity stand and hightail it out of that town. Or, at least consider
he better leave soon before the authorities confused him for the criminal they
sought. They might have also crucified him just to be safe they got the right
guy.
5)
The twin either on
his own or by enlisting the aid of others did away with Christ’s corpse.
6)
The twin cosmetically
altered himself to reflect scars appropriate to that of a crucified person.
7)
The twin’s personal
characteristics of speech, mannerisms, etc. were close enough to Christ’s that
those who had been closest to Christ never detected the deceit.
8)
The twin’s motive
remains to be learned.
9)
The Twin Theory does
not account for Paul’s road-to-Damascus conversion.
10) The Twin Theory does
not explain what the 500 people saw when witnessing Christ’s ascension to
heaven. To quote Cavin, “A mass hallucination to
Jesus’ followers only would have involved 500-plus individuals having the same
hallucination.” Apparently, he accepts the validity of the passage yet rejects
mass-hallucination theory but offers no Twin Theory apologetic.
Perhaps Cavin’s upcoming book will enlighten us. Until then, it
would be wise for us to discard scientific theorems from historical hypotheses
and adhere to historians’ formulas such as Ocam’s
Razor (i.e., the simplest explanation is the most likely). Or
as Tim presents:
Instead of saying, "the
simplest explanation is the most likely," I think Ocam's
razor can be articulated more precisely as: "Do not increase the number of
causes beyond what is necessary to explain something" (credit: Geisler).
When applying Ocam’s
Razor to the resurrection event, it actually complies with probabilities, for
it is more probable that only one improbable happening (i.e., Christ resurrected)
than numerous improbable happenings such as the items above took place.
I rest
my case.
e-mail: jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Theism.net
Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster