Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
It is sometimes described as the "Lunatic, Liar, or Lord", or "Mad, Bad, or God" argument. It takes the form of a trilemma—a choice among three options, each of which is in some way difficult to accept. A form of the argument can be found as early as 1846, and many other versions of the argument preceded Lewis's formulation in the 1940s.
There had been also criticism, which was primarily directed towards Lewis's "Liar, lunatic, or Lord" trilemma. [16] The Lewis biographer and Christian apologist Alister McGrath, while commending the book in general, felt that his trilemma is a weak defence for the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus, calling this the book's "most obvious concern ...
Another argument is that the resurrection of Jesus occurred and was an act of God, hence God must exist. Some versions of this argument have been presented, such as N. T. Wright's argument from the nature of the claim of resurrection to its occurrence and the "minimal facts argument", defended by scholars such as Gary Habermas and Mike Licona, which defend that God raising Jesus from the dead ...
Know Why You Believe is written from the perspective of evidential apologetics, and Little expands Lewis's trilemma into four possibilities: Jesus was either a liar, lunatic, legend, or Lord. [3]
A trilemma is a difficult choice from three options, each of which is (or appears) unacceptable or unfavourable. There are two logically equivalent ways in which to express a trilemma: it can be expressed as a choice among three unfavourable options, one of which must be chosen, or as a choice among three favourable options, only two of which are possible at the same time.
Lewis's trilemma is a famous example of this type of argument involving three disjuncts: "Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic, or Lord". [3] By denying that Jesus was a liar or a lunatic, one is forced to draw the conclusion that he was God. But this leaves out various other alternatives, for example, that Jesus was a prophet. [3]
A tense confrontation erupted late Tuesday evening in the “spin room” on the sidelines of the presidential debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump in Philadelphia.. While many reporters ...
He used the quote to support the apologetical argument of Lord, liar, or lunatic. He is stating that those who consider Jesus a great moral teacher (which he never refutes) have to reflect upon whether as a man of great morality, he would lie about his divine state, knowingly or unknowingly (liar or lunatic).