Hey Paul, You made mention that an infinite regress must end in a brute fact, why? There appears nothing logically wrong with an actual infinite regress, and to demand some necessary terminator must be the case seems intuitive but not necessary at all. There are a few cosmogony( universe origin accounts ) hypothesis that do entail such infinite regressions, e.g. Roger Penrose's CCC( Conformal Cyclic Cosmology ). At this time we do not have evidence to secure any of these accounts ( though we are actually looking some predication's made by some of these models in the CMB as I write ) so obviously "I do not know" is an appropriate response to the question of the nature of the origin. But it would appear we can conceive at least physical models that invoke infinite regressions, and thus cannot rule them out, yet. It maybe I misunderstand you usage of "brute fact" in the context you used it.
@Dr Karl Pagan I only saw one very short atheist comment. The responses were how we are are too proud and full of our own egos to humble ourselves and believe in Jesus, lol. There are only 10 or 20 comments posted for the entire video, which seems very strange. How do people remain so sheltered in their thoughts on the INTERNET? It's bizarre to me.
I love how "if you want to be an atheist", we need to explain everything from the beginning of time (if there was such a thing), but theists don't need to explain their god. Special pleading much?
@@JamesRichardWiley Jesus was not invisible And he constantly referred to the Kingdom of Heaven and who would go there Luke 16:19-31 New International Version The Rich Man and Lazarus 19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ 25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ 27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ 29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ 30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ 31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Typical ignorant internet atheist. Never open to learning. Just call theists 'irrational' and 'without evidence'. Learning the specifics of Craig's metaphysics of time or reading his scholarly defenses of the Kalam is far too much effort. Don't bother learning modal logic (or any formal logic at all); just say the continency argument 'proves nothing' or blurt out 'the Universe just exists'. For all your talk of 'reason' and 'rationality' you display so little in criticizing the work of apologists. People explain Allah constantly you just never listen; content to drift in a dream world of unconsidered assumptions, self-refuting philosophical systems and misconceptions about science.
@@bilalhussein9730 I can't speak for all atheists, but I don't think that thiests are irrational. I think that some of their positions are irrational but we all are prone to irrational thinking from time to time. And I don't say you "lack evidence", I say that I have not seen sufficient evidence to convince me. If you believe in a god, then good on you. No need for hostility towards those who hold a different view.
I laughed when you showed that he blocked you on twitter, these Christians really love their echo chambers, so much for "I learn from these people" 🤦♂️
Maybe he used the same tactics as a police investigator whenever his pet theory was questioned... Detective: Sir, I know you think the butler did it, but we just received confirmation that he's been dead and buried for two years. JWW: OK, that just means he came back to life to commit the murder! D: Shouldn't we consider the possibility that someone else was the culprit? JWW: OMG YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN MIRACLES?!? *click* D: Hello? Sir? *calls back* "We're sorry, the number you are trying to reach has been disconnected. Goodbye."
'people willing to die in their confidence that x is true' kind of in bad taste to say during a pandemic where millions are refusing to wear masks because of their confidence in influential people downplaying it. The modern day must be hard for apologetics, all this arguing that often boils down to 'a false belief couldn't have become popular' , in a world filled with actually demonstrably false beliefs being really popular.
Yep. You nailed it. It's wild to watch them rationalize their own confirmation bias while also recognizing the clear issues with, say, alien abduction stories. Even with modern technology and countless resources to fact check information on the spot, society is still not immune to widespread nonsense becoming mainstream.
How about their confidence in basic facts? Like the fact that this is an airborne virus which is far smaller than the smallest pore in a cloth or paper mask? The air in your lungs comes through such masks, meaning if you're shedding viral particles, they're coming right through that mask. There's a reason we wear fitted N95 masks in hospital negative pressure rooms when treating patients with airborne viral illnesses. We don't wear paper or cloth masks. There are studies that came out well before the pandemic that even argue that N95 masks are pretty well ineffective in stopping airborne viral transmission. You could make an argument that a symptomatic person who is coughing or sneezing and flinging droplets everywhere should wear one, but an asymptomatic person who is simply breathing in public would offer no protection with a regular mask. Social distancing and regular hand washing are likely far more effective in reducing transmission than are masks. If you want to wear a mask, go for it, but to mandate it for everyone else is not supported by common scientific knowledge and experience.
@@kevindavis5966 According to Amy Price, PhD, a senior research scientist at Stanford: "Many people argue that cloth masks can’t be effective because they can’t filter out viral particles, which are extremely tiny. But, as Larry explained, most of these particles leave the mouth and nose in much larger droplets that become smaller through evaporation as they move away from the body. Trapping droplets with the mask means not nearly as many viral particles escape. So, when all parties in a gathering are wearing well-constructed, well-fitting masks, it provides an extra layer of safety for everyone. If two people are wearing masks, the viral particles can travel about 5 feet away from each individual. When an infected person is not wearing a mask, those particles can floatthrough the air 30 feet or more and stay alive for up to 30 hours." med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/stanford-scientists-contribute-to-who-mask-guidelines.html I think it's perfectly reasonable to mandate wearing masks, especially since we have seen infections and subsequently deaths decrease in areas where they are required.
@@DarkSilverCloud So if I understand it correctly the actual disease sticks to either water or air particle to enter to your body? Did I get that right ?
@@unknowndane4754 The virus is not completely limited to water droplets and moisture from your body. It can still be transmitted through the air, and some viral particles can still easily escape the mask. However, a significant amount of the virus is stuck to the water droplets and moisture, which the mask helps contain. This makes it more difficult for the virus to travel far from you if you are infected and, to a much lesser extent, enter your body from someone else. This analogy is very lacking, but think of a burglar trying to enter your home. Even with a locked door, they can still get in. They can break the lock or find another entrance. But having a locked door can sometimes be enough of a deterrent to stop them in some cases. Masks are not 100% effective, but so far very little of anything actually is. In short, masks prevent a portion of the virus from getting as much range and effectiveness by trapping the viral particles in the water droplets from your breath.
@@BigHeretic if you still don't know (been a while so someone else may have said it) it's basically the copyright laws and corptubes biggest issue to my knowledge.
Jesus was a delusional messianic preacher who stirred up the people, committed public blasphemy, and criticized the authorities. Naturally the authorities were very unhappy and decided to get rid of him - which they did. The miracles were added to the written narrative later by his promoters. Compare this story with the qualities assigned to Yahweh of omnipotence, infinite love and impeccable planning and there is no connection.
My favorite apologist "evidence" for the resurrection is all the non-biblical "evidence". WLC will beat this drum and say it over and over again. Then when asked about the non-biblical "evidence" he almost always says "Well, the gospel writers..." and its face met palm.
I don't think this is a fair assessment. He believes something and has reasons which he thinks justify that belief. It is entirely normal to repeat "I believe X because of reasons Y" over and over to people, not because you think this magically makes it true, but because you're just trying to convince people of what you believe is true with what you think is good reasoning. It would be a different story if he were just asserting that X is true, without appealing to any reason.
@@amaryllis0 Honestly I'd say that's fair, but if they just repeat that reasoning over and over after it's been refuted it does get rather annoying.. Especially at a debate.
@@querceusaspeaker6727 It is tricky, because apologists have been mimicking their opponents. They'll claim that the refutations are invalid or implausible. They'll claim that you were using a strawman.
That reminds me of how Ben Shapiro frequently mentions his wife, who is a doctor. Did you know his wife is a doctor? Because his wife is totally a doctor and he is legally married to her.
Claiming to be a detective isn't saying much either. I've heard that approximately 80% of crimes go unsolved. 90% of criminals eventually get caught only because they repeatedly break the law and are usually not very bright and leave obvious clues.
@@Never-mind1960 of those crimes that ARE "solved", how many are solved correctly, and how many are pinned on some hapless sap so authorities can proclaim the case "solved"? When we see representations of the investigative arms of law enforcement on TV, which is more accurate - the dudes from CSI or Roscoe P. Coltrane?
Theist talking about the Resurrection: "We can make forensic inferences about the Bible!" Me, later: brings up evolution and geology Theist again: "You can't know if you weren't there!"
suicide, accidental, natural, or murder.... why not miracle? Why is miracle excluded from the possibilities? Does J Warner Wallace have an anti-miracle bias? (Edit: made this comment before watching the video though. Looks like Paulogia thought the same thing XD )
Like Paul said, most people probably don't take the time to think about what they're actually saying, but when I hear someone call something super, or extra natural, to me, they're subconsciously saying they know this does not exist Because if it did, it would just be natural
This this this. Scott Clifton brought this up in a talk once but never made a TBS video about it. I wish he had because noone, religious or otherwise, ever seems to address this rather fundamental conceptual problem, other than the occasional throwaway sentence. I've never seen anyone define supernatural in a way that makes sense and doesn't end up circling right round to - as you say - "something that doesn't exist". Even in a religious worldview this problem still exists - God would be the absolute definition of THE natural being, after all. Religious folk have an incentive to keep the word around for it's confusing effect, but non-religious people should really start pointing out this problem more loudly - taking on the concept of "supernatural" from this angle would hit basically all woo industries, from religion to ghost sightings and beyond, since they use the word to vaguely wave away problems. Getting them to at least agree that ghosts and such are part of a grander "natural" world that we don't fully understand is at least a step in the right direction and gets them thinking along lines where they can't just pull out their reverse Uno "supernatural!" excuse to support claims. Feels like a variation of the famous Tim Minchin quote from Storm. 'You know what they call the 'supernatural' that's been proved to exist? Natural."
@@SS2Dante And the end of the day they are playing word games with negations, as if "negations of things" are things themselves. I feel if helps to shift it from "natural vs not natural" to "real vs not real". At the end of the day...referring to "supernatural" ultimately ends up meaning the same thing as "immaterial" or "not material". When you elaborate on language and linguistics, and show them they are just playing a language game, I find it helps. There's no such "thing" as a "non thing"...the whole point of the negations is to say "this isn't the case"....there's no such thing as "not a dog". If I point to a truck and ask what is that...telling me "it's not a dog" doesn't tell me what it is. So if it's "not material" then what is it...."it's consciousness". Right...point to the thing we don't fully understand scientifically, to try and justify a bald assertion based on shitty thinking of the past, that's been constantly refuted by science...good job. It's all "justified by ignorance".
I think JWW made the right call not to engage here! It takes certain minimum depth of character and intellectual honesty to constructively interact with someone who disagrees with you. If you lack that then it's better to not even try. 😄
@@Never-mind1960 To be fair, Ben Carson was a very good brain surgeon(specialized in children I think) was world renown among those in the field and a little beyond. His personal beliefs have little to do with his expertise and skill at his (former?) job. I'm not a fan of Carson, bit I do think the medical field is worse without him. Ann like Carson I'm not going to say good riddance to the detective because of his personal belief, that in all likelihood didnt affect his professional life.
Whenever a Christian thinks they have some 'Gotcha!' about not being able to explain beyond The Big Bang ( 13:02 ), despite science being so close and with so much evidence, I simply ask "would you lose your faith if it DID explain the creation of the universe tomorrow? Then why does that matter?" They just want to hear an "I don't know" so they can say they do. There's no honesty there. They would just move on to something else we don't know to hear those 'magic' words again.
@@ericpierce3660 Joke that went over my head as a kid: It's a "mail" plane... Don't you see it's little balls? I love watching movies I loved as a kid and realizing how inappropriate it was for me to have watched lol. And that was most 80s movies.
@@furryskeptic5456 That reminds me of: What's the difference between beer nuts and deer nuts? Beer nuts cost a little over a dollar, and deer nuts are just under a buck.
There is the possibility that someone greased someone's palm to get the body and make it disappear. Thus empty tomb. And there are the people who think he did not die on the cross, thus tomb, thus empty, thus seen after his "death" ... and we all know that sometimes money talks. Do I care? Nope. Does this make him deity? Nope.
A “plethora” of weird rationalizations by many different Christians sects mean there is NOT one Christian “theory”... He is clearly selling a product based on his background. Hope he’s making money, but that doesn’t make his explanation true.
Salkafar I laughed when someone parroted William Lane Craig’s “it’s just a disagreement amongst friends” response as to why there are so many sects of Christians. I have Irish Catholic ancestors that died fighting the English Protestant and I have an English Protestant ancestor that died at the hands of rebel Irish Catholics... ...one Christian theory my ass.
But .. but . but ... each one of them only has 1 theory! ... One of the attractions of religion in general and in particular the immutable, perfect, "holy" book that comes with it is that it gives the absolute and final answer, God's own word. It is no longer necessary to ask anything anymore, or to learn anything. It's all there in the book, everything God says you need to know. The ONE theory. The ONE right answer. Unfortunately it never quite lives up to its promise and you end up with a dozen different sub-cults fighting over how to worship Jesus, as Salfakar pointed out.
Stephen Harrison thanks, but I didn’t know them. I feel bad that they lost their lives and suffered for something so stupid. I’m a few generations removed. It’s just one of those things that I roll my eyes at when Christians try to make sound like it’s a benign, happy-go-lucky discussion as to who’s got the correct and true version.
The bit I love is the tapdance over what is and isn't ludicrous in other people's arguments while confidently asserting an empty tomb, a host of eyewitness accounts, the independence of the gospels, the solid evidence of non-biblical evidence, etc....
If I were a detective and I saw that another detective blocks people on Twitter who politely disagree with him, I would probably conclude that his motivation is simply that he doesn't want to hear evidence that might refute his conclusions, and he is not a good detective who is actually looking for the truth. He just wants to be right.
So, I wonder why his inductive reasoning doesn't lead him to believe that the murderer was the child's doll being possessed by a demon. The idea that it was the butler just seems so lame.
I love it when they try and make that ridiculous leap from "We don't know all of the specifics about the universe at around the point of the initial expansion" to "Therefore there's a great bearded wizard in the sky who grants you wishes if you worship his immortal son" I just...how do so many people not realize how childishly absurd that sounds?
It's unnerving to me that so much of debate and discussion has become echo chamber; happens too much on all sides of the fence. Grateful to you for bucking that trend and maintaining a higher standard, even if your opponents apparently can't/won't reciprocate.
While I have heard miracles described as events we can't explain by natural means, I don't think I've heard it argued that the inability to explain something by natural means requires something to be a miracle. That sounds a bit like that Sherlock Holmes fallacy, because we cannot rule out all possibilities unless we know all possibilities. Wallace's attitude about evidence does not fill me with confidence about how he evaluated evidence in his years in law enforcement.
@@neilzientek Read that article and it's flawed as shit. She can't identify differentiate between armored personnel carriers and tanks and writes as if she is an authority on intelligence and adds in her own spin.
@@neilzientek it's the same in Australia.. back when i was in school there was a couple of kids told by the guidance councillor that they needed really good grades to get into the police force so they worked hard to get good grades and were knocked back when they went to join the police because they were to intelligent, there was a big who ha about it because they blamed the guidance councillor for giving bad information that destroyed any chance of them going into their chosen profession
Hmm, why does the organised religious movement have a single agreed explanation while the disjointed people who independently reject said movement each have their own explanation? I can't imagine why that would be
Is it just me, or does this guy serve as yet another good argument for abolishing the police? I mean, sure, detective work is important, but if someone who thinks “god did it” is a good explanation to give, comparable to evidence in a court, and thinks the bible provides solid evidence for its claims, can make detective, maybe we need to revise the requirements to become one.
The Big Bang theory series intro does not say “singularity”. “Hot dense state” may or may not imply a singularity. I think that’s a very nuanced and deliberate move by the authors of the song.
"You can't explain how the universe got here, therefore you must believe that this guy in this story from a couple thousand years ago rose from the dead!" Is there *_ANY_* other context in which saying something like that would be seen as reasonable?
None that I’m aware of. I’m also not aware of any judge or jury that has accepted miracle as an explanation. I guess this guy didn’t have a very high conviction rate.
Oh hey, my former youth pastor sent me a Wallace video a few days ago. It wasn’t this one, but actually a sermon he gave at Gateway church earlier this week.
I left him this question; Jim, You fully believe in miracles (supernatural), or so you state, but when you come into a cold case do you include "Miracle" in your list of natural, accident, homicide or suicide as causes. How would you go about proving "Miracle" to everyone's satisfaction?
Ok Paul, I left a link to your video in his comments section now that it seems to have opened up (or the moderator too a lunch break!) 😄 I also extended a polite invitation on your behalf to watch and respond to your refutation. Let's hope he puts his money where his mouth is and accepts it! The experience with you and Eric Hovind was great and I'd love to see more long form civil discussions in that vein. ♥️
Even small children can understand how ridiculous this stuff is. I remember sitting in church at around 8 years old and being completely disturbed by the fact that all the adults in that room could possibly believe it. I also had this vague sense that Jesus knew I didn’t believe in him so it’s not like I had an adult-like mind either.
Given the knowledge the gospel writers had of geography and local customs, and that the earliest texts were easily within living memory of Jesus' death, the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure is absurd. It would be accurate to compare him to spiderman, only if the US government corroborated the existence of Peter Parker, and if there were people alive today who were willing to die for the sake of spiderman. I havent investigated whether there really was an empty tomb or not.
_We say we don't know_ And there it is, the number one difference. Simply pushing it back to an entity that has to be defined as a first cause isn't terribly satisfying, it also looks like a bait and switch to stop the inevitable question about the origin of the deity (and since there are so many, my money is on the creative power of the human brain for that one).
J. Warner Wallace. . . A former cop who has shown through his apologetics work that he should be in prison for tampering with evidence and perjury as he lied to make convictions.
I think he's a lot like William Craig. His arguments sound intelligent but honestly are not impressive. Neither have any new or good ideas but they sound very intelligent. Once you break down their arguments you find they lack real substance and are made near entirely of assumptions. Also both of them refuse to have a direct debate with hardly anyone but throw jabs at people who show their arguments to not be as good as they think
I find it more confusing than anything. He "came back to life," but wasn't healed of his wounds. So was he actually alive, or was he just a reanimated corpse? No wonder he didn't hang around very long. He was probably starting to stink. Is this the kind of resurrection that Jesus is promising for some of his followers- zombie life? No wonder some Christians are worried about cremation.
I thought he was alive and well and is on an island with Elvis, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, and Janis Joplin. Quite PC for such a small population. Obviously they don't just let anybody in
I was brought up Catholic. One question I often asked and was never answered was if Jesus had twelve disciples, why does the Bible contain only four gospels? Why do we have no accounts from 2/3 of his closest companions?
I really hate one argument apologists use, saying the disciples died for their convictions. Besides there being no proof of this at all, I want to ask them one question. Have they heard of Heavens Gate, the Peoples Temple, the Order of the Solar Temple, and the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God. All these cults committed mass suicide (and some, even murders) in the dozens to hundreds for their convictions and beliefs. So even if someones dies for their convictions, doesn't mean those beliefs were justified or correct. That's not a cogent defence of their argument.
Hi thank you for your great video. When I read The Gospel of Mark recently I noticed, that both resurrection and reincarnation are discussed. Jesus argues with Sadducean about the physical resurrection - "anastasis". Jesus is claimed by Herod to have powers because of John the babtist reaincarnated into him (ibbur) - "egejro" Describing Jesus' resurection in Mark, there is twice used "egejro" and once "anastasis". The message gets even more confusing, when the gospel sais he showed to two disciples in a different form... What are your ideas about this?
Physics and chemistry are just descriptions of behavioral patterns. There is nothing stopping either from incorporating new information into their models if the "before" was radically and fundamentally different. Why do apologists insist on dishonestly suggesting they are limited constraints?
I remember reading as a kid, a story of a retired polce officer who said he saw and was captured by a flying saucer. It was a mix of clear and distorted images that seemed so vivid to him. He had been found wandering in a field and everybody wondered how a stalwart veteran of the police could have puuling such hoax. A little digging revealed he had been retired due to irraric behavior and it was no surprise to friends and relatives that he eventually commited to a hospital
I recently read Lee Strobel's, "The Case for Christ" section on the resurrection and it's remarkable how he does essentially the same thing. They both drastically misrepresent the likelihood of the gospels giving an accurate description of the events after Jesus's crucifixion.
The narrative after the Crucifixion is plagiarized fiction. See how easy that was? The "The Case for Christ" was needed to explain why Jesus failed to fill his end of the bargain.
His argument that because there's 8 naturalistic theories it is somehow weaker than 1 good theory is fallacious thinking. What matters is the probability of each. Honestly, there are probably thousands of possible naturalistic explanations one could dream up. Even if none of them are plausible and even if every single one has less than a 1% chance of being true, that doesn't matter. Their sum could still make up say 98%, and the supernatural explanation is left at 2% it doesn't matter that the supernatural explanation is the best single explanation. Being the best single explanation doesn't make it likely. Non-Christians aren't wed to any single explanation. For us, it doesn't matter even slightly which one is true. But Christians are wed to their one explanation. Non-Christians could put forth 20,000 different naturalistic explanations, every single one of them being independently unlikely, and it still tears down and obliterates the Christian theory. The best explanation can still be a terrible explanation, especially when we are so far removed into history that investigation is almost impossible.
Allowing for multiple possibilities is the rational approach to take when you don't know something. It's similar to me guessing what I did this date twenty years ago. I don't know exactly, but I do remember roughly what kinds of things I was into back then, so I can make a list based on educated guesses. Saying with conviction that I went to the hairdresser, on the other hand, would be very irrational since I only go once every 6 to 8 weeks, while there's a much more reasonable chance that I was working, especially if I figure out that this date wasn't during the weekend.
*Darth Vader's Empty Tomb is in my basement.* I can _prove_ it too ... because when you come and visit his tomb, Darth Vader won't be there! ... sigh ... All jokes aside, this "empty tomb" rubbish has to be one of the lamest Christian apologetic tactics of all time.
At a superficial level, it appears Wallace's law enforcement background (along with the OCD shrine in the background) is being leveraged to lecture from a point of desperation. The finger wagging and preaching are tiresome examples of a vapid argument and position.
Wish TH-cam had a way of giving more than one like or giving a review out of 5*. I’d give these all resurrection video series 5🌟. You argue to the point and discuss the historical facts. That is highly commendable. Sure your approach has attracted a few criticism but your ideas have not been refuted and the narrative you give is the most probable account of what happened given our knowledge of Roman practices and human nature.
Maybe, maybe not. I think people have the ability to compartmentalize their delusional thinking. I am an engineer and I have worked with a couple of very good engineers who are devout believers in the rapture. But it doesn't affect their engineering work.
And a whole lot of killers who got off because he called it a suicide so he could get home in time to watch the game. If this guy's not a charlatan who bought all that cop memorabilia on eBay, then he must be/have been a horrifyingly bad detective.
I know, right? Pharaoh Khufu's tomb was empty, so obviously the fact that we don't know everything about cosmology proves that he is in fact the Living Horus.
Wallace has a presuppositional bias against *Islamic* miracles, but I bet he regards that bias as a virtue. _He's just hypocrite._ I have a bias against _all_ miracle claims, Christian or otherwise, without any fear or favour. Because that's the only reasonable position to hold.
@@pauligrossinoz Or, he just says, "Oh sure, the Islamic miracles happened, along with flying saucers, Bigfoot and all the rest, it's just that they're all done by demons. But somehow the 'done by demons' explanation can't be applied to the miracles I like."
@@kevincrady2831 - yeah ... it's equivalent to the arrogant claims of the presuppositionalist. They love to claim a magical ability to always be able to distinguish between the "good" magic of their fav-god and the "bad" magic that anyone else claims is also real. But without any justification of their magical ability ... beyond their own "feels". Sad.
@@pauligrossinoz "Yeah? Well, if you're not omniscient and infallible, you have to presupposed that -I am- the god I got taught about in Sunday School is." Even when I was a Christian fundamentalist, Presuppositionalists made me cringe.
I’d love to ask j w Wallace if he were a detective during jesus trial. Would he put up charges on Pilate and the Sanhedrin for manslaughter. Or knowing that jesus blood and crucifixion atones for sin go along with Pilate and the gang
To roughly quote Sam Harris when asked what kind of evidence he was looking for concerning the existence of God, "the same type of evidence you require in every other aspect of your life except religion". The good detective seems to easily accept the existence of a deity and miracles with no good evidence in the religious aspect of his life but in the other aspects of his life just as easily rejects the possibility of miracles or the intervention of a deity in his job as a detective.
So, I wonder what Mr. Smart Detective Man would do under the following scenario. He is called to a hospital where a nurse has been caught injecting an old man with a lethal dose of barbiturates, resulting in his death. The nurse admits to Mr. SDM that she did indeed commit the act, but tells him it's OK, because she is, in fact, an angel who has been sent by His Ephemeralness Himself to put the old gentleman out of his misery so that he can go and join the bitching party that's raging on upstairs. Would Mr. SDM consider this to be a valid possibility and investigate it as thoroughly as any other, or would he throw her skank arse in jail? If the former, then I would love to hear about the exact methodology he would use to ascertain the veracity of her claim. If the latter, I would like to know why he would dismiss the possibility of the supernatural so readily in this case while being all over it whenever it affords him the comfort of clinging like a leech to the baby Jesus.
Regarding 'the beginning' of the universe, what we know is that the universe is here. If you want to assert that the universe was not anywhere, but then it was, you need to demonstrate that. The detectives whole argument is just a bad attempt at burden-shifting.
3:00 Why does it have to be a “secular” historian? Just a wonderin’. And aren’t these secular historians some 2,000 years removed from the event in question? Does that not then hinder their textual chain of evidence, like copies of copies of copies of stories, both oral and written, of why there might not be an empty tomb?
If a secular historian agrees with a religiously biased historian on a specific historical interpretation, that lends it an extra level of credibility, since parties with conflicting interests both agree on at least that one point. Conversely, if a position is supported by one side and one side only, that indicates a possibility of bias; and so that position is less reliable than it would be if it had a wider acceptance among historians.
Just putting forward for thought that “lame” is an ablist term, equating disabled with bad or insufficient. It is a hard one to stop because it is so common, and I have a very hard time not using it myself, but I keep working at it. I think, like other ableist terms, it is worth discontinuing.
Just apoint of contention. You used the term " unknowable" but perhaps " unknown" would be better suited as there is a certain finality in the former term. As in it COULD never be known as opposed to it is not CURRENTLY known.
I really wish more people would take the passage in Josephus’s autobiography seriously. He says he passed three of his friends crucified. He asked the Roman general Titus to take them down. At this point Josephus had become a Jewish turncoat and befriended the Flavians. Two of the crucified die. One survives. Josephus given name was Josephus BAR mathias. (Jospeh of arimathea). So I believe this is where the gospel authors got the tomb burial from. Which would push the gospels later than they’re believed to have been penned. But makes sense to me
@paulogia going by what was said in the clip you showed, that "as many other crucified people simply left to be eaten by scavengers". Could it not be then that someone had watched that, and then stolen the body from wherever it was dumped to give it a burial then?
Detective Wallace has comments open on the source video... but not for me. I'm blocked. Be polite and kind. th-cam.com/video/g6yXkuNyWiQ/w-d-xo.html
Talk about Lame😑
Ah, yes, the classic strategy of "if I can't see you, you don't exist."
Real classy, Mr. Wallace 🙄
Hey Paul,
You made mention that an infinite regress must end in a brute fact, why? There appears nothing logically wrong with an actual infinite regress, and to demand some necessary terminator must be the case seems intuitive but not necessary at all. There are a few cosmogony( universe origin accounts ) hypothesis that do entail such infinite regressions, e.g. Roger Penrose's CCC( Conformal Cyclic Cosmology ). At this time we do not have evidence to secure any of these accounts ( though we are actually looking some predication's made by some of these models in the CMB as I write ) so obviously "I do not know" is an appropriate response to the question of the nature of the origin. But it would appear we can conceive at least physical models that invoke infinite regressions, and thus cannot rule them out, yet.
It maybe I misunderstand you usage of "brute fact" in the context you used it.
@@tdsdave Does what you're describing have anything to do with fractals?
@Dr Karl Pagan I only saw one very short atheist comment. The responses were how we are are too proud and full of our own egos to humble ourselves and believe in Jesus, lol. There are only 10 or 20 comments posted for the entire video, which seems very strange. How do people remain so sheltered in their thoughts on the INTERNET? It's bizarre to me.
I love how "if you want to be an atheist", we need to explain everything from the beginning of time (if there was such a thing), but theists don't need to explain their god. Special pleading much?
I don't understand science
but I am sure there is no invisible man hiding in his magic kingdom in the clouds.
@@JamesRichardWiley
Jesus was not invisible
And he constantly referred to the Kingdom of Heaven and who would go there
Luke 16:19-31
New International Version
The Rich Man and Lazarus
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day.20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Typical ignorant internet atheist. Never open to learning. Just call theists 'irrational' and 'without evidence'. Learning the specifics of Craig's metaphysics of time or reading his scholarly defenses of the Kalam is far too much effort. Don't bother learning modal logic (or any formal logic at all); just say the continency argument 'proves nothing' or blurt out 'the Universe just exists'.
For all your talk of 'reason' and 'rationality' you display so little in criticizing the work of apologists.
People explain Allah constantly you just never listen; content to drift in a dream world of unconsidered assumptions, self-refuting philosophical systems and misconceptions about science.
@@bilalhussein9730 I can't speak for all atheists, but I don't think that thiests are irrational. I think that some of their positions are irrational but we all are prone to irrational thinking from time to time. And I don't say you "lack evidence", I say that I have not seen sufficient evidence to convince me.
If you believe in a god, then good on you. No need for hostility towards those who hold a different view.
@@raysalmon6566 We don't even know if Jesus really said this...
I laughed when you showed that he blocked you on twitter, these Christians really love their echo chambers, so much for "I learn from these people" 🤦♂️
I guess that explains why he didn't know about your videos when they came out.
JWW must have learned that Paul makes too much sense. "Oh, no! I'm being beaten at my own game." ~block
Maybe he used the same tactics as a police investigator whenever his pet theory was questioned...
Detective: Sir, I know you think the butler did it, but we just received confirmation that he's been dead and buried for two years.
JWW: OK, that just means he came back to life to commit the murder!
D: Shouldn't we consider the possibility that someone else was the culprit?
JWW: OMG YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN MIRACLES?!? *click*
D: Hello? Sir? *calls back*
"We're sorry, the number you are trying to reach has been disconnected. Goodbye."
'people willing to die in their confidence that x is true'
kind of in bad taste to say during a pandemic where millions are refusing to wear masks because of their confidence in influential people downplaying it.
The modern day must be hard for apologetics, all this arguing that often boils down to 'a false belief couldn't have become popular' , in a world filled with actually demonstrably false beliefs being really popular.
Yep. You nailed it. It's wild to watch them rationalize their own confirmation bias while also recognizing the clear issues with, say, alien abduction stories.
Even with modern technology and countless resources to fact check information on the spot, society is still not immune to widespread nonsense becoming mainstream.
How about their confidence in basic facts? Like the fact that this is an airborne virus which is far smaller than the smallest pore in a cloth or paper mask? The air in your lungs comes through such masks, meaning if you're shedding viral particles, they're coming right through that mask. There's a reason we wear fitted N95 masks in hospital negative pressure rooms when treating patients with airborne viral illnesses. We don't wear paper or cloth masks. There are studies that came out well before the pandemic that even argue that N95 masks are pretty well ineffective in stopping airborne viral transmission. You could make an argument that a symptomatic person who is coughing or sneezing and flinging droplets everywhere should wear one, but an asymptomatic person who is simply breathing in public would offer no protection with a regular mask. Social distancing and regular hand washing are likely far more effective in reducing transmission than are masks. If you want to wear a mask, go for it, but to mandate it for everyone else is not supported by common scientific knowledge and experience.
@@kevindavis5966 According to Amy Price, PhD, a senior research scientist at Stanford:
"Many people argue that cloth masks can’t be effective because they can’t filter out viral particles, which are extremely tiny. But, as Larry explained, most of these particles leave the mouth and nose in much larger droplets that become smaller through evaporation as they move away from the body. Trapping droplets with the mask means not nearly as many viral particles escape. So, when all parties in a gathering are wearing well-constructed, well-fitting masks, it provides an extra layer of safety for everyone. If two people are wearing masks, the viral particles can travel about 5 feet away from each individual. When an infected person is not wearing a mask, those particles can floatthrough the air 30 feet or more and stay alive for up to 30 hours."
med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/stanford-scientists-contribute-to-who-mask-guidelines.html
I think it's perfectly reasonable to mandate wearing masks, especially since we have seen infections and subsequently deaths decrease in areas where they are required.
@@DarkSilverCloud So if I understand it correctly the actual disease sticks to either water or air particle to enter to your body? Did I get that right ?
@@unknowndane4754 The virus is not completely limited to water droplets and moisture from your body. It can still be transmitted through the air, and some viral particles can still easily escape the mask.
However, a significant amount of the virus is stuck to the water droplets and moisture, which the mask helps contain. This makes it more difficult for the virus to travel far from you if you are infected and, to a much lesser extent, enter your body from someone else.
This analogy is very lacking, but think of a burglar trying to enter your home. Even with a locked door, they can still get in. They can break the lock or find another entrance. But having a locked door can sometimes be enough of a deterrent to stop them in some cases. Masks are not 100% effective, but so far very little of anything actually is.
In short, masks prevent a portion of the virus from getting as much range and effectiveness by trapping the viral particles in the water droplets from your breath.
He acts like you are stealing his content instead of critiquing his ideas.
@Supernintendo Chalmers venom fang x was 1 of them, thunderf00t made him do a public apology video 🤣
Implying that his content is worth something. The delusional side is strong with him.
@Supernintendo Chalmers If I knew what DMCAs were I'd probably agree with you.
@@BigHeretic if you still don't know (been a while so someone else may have said it) it's basically the copyright laws and corptubes biggest issue to my knowledge.
This guy has comments disabled on his channel, should all you need to know about this guys channel.
He knows he has zero argument
@Terncote Really? I've viewed a few of his videos and the comments were always disabled.
I've been commenting all day today. I've beat my head against a wall but keep on watching.
I just commented on the mentioned video. Comments are open, but close-minded ;)
In other words he is not willing to look for outside argument he just believes it is what it is and that's it?
"You think a miracle is unreasonable." Umm, that's literally the definition.
Jesus was a delusional messianic preacher who stirred up the people, committed public blasphemy, and criticized the authorities. Naturally the authorities were very unhappy and decided to get rid of him - which they did.
The miracles were added to the written narrative later by his promoters.
Compare this story with the qualities assigned to Yahweh of omnipotence, infinite love and impeccable planning and there is no connection.
@@JamesRichardWiley That begins to make trump sound a bit like Jesus, though.
@@markhackett2302
Trump could be Jesus' twin brother - there is so little difference it is scary.
Yes miracle is utterly unreasonable ! wanna prove that by any chance ?
@@gowdsake7103 that's the definition. A miracle is something that can't reasonably happen
My favorite apologist "evidence" for the resurrection is all the non-biblical "evidence". WLC will beat this drum and say it over and over again. Then when asked about the non-biblical "evidence" he almost always says "Well, the gospel writers..." and its face met palm.
Imagine never hearing of the Bible or the characters that appear on its pages. Would life be possible.?
How many tombs exist that DON'T have Jesus in them? Are they ALL proof that the bible is true? Even the ones from before the bible?
@@markhackett2302 Ohh yesss much like all the cross parts
Apologists seem to think that if they say something enough, over and over again, it some how makes it true.
I don't think this is a fair assessment. He believes something and has reasons which he thinks justify that belief. It is entirely normal to repeat "I believe X because of reasons Y" over and over to people, not because you think this magically makes it true, but because you're just trying to convince people of what you believe is true with what you think is good reasoning.
It would be a different story if he were just asserting that X is true, without appealing to any reason.
@@amaryllis0
Honestly I'd say that's fair, but if they just repeat that reasoning over and over after it's been refuted it does get rather annoying..
Especially at a debate.
@@querceusaspeaker6727 It is tricky, because apologists have been mimicking their opponents. They'll claim that the refutations are invalid or implausible. They'll claim that you were using a strawman.
Absolutely no credible evidence that the gospel stories about Jesus represent an actual person who lived in the first century
That's called DMV magic 😊
Wallace reminding his audience that he is or was a detective every other sentence in all his interviews is so tedious.
That reminds me of how Ben Shapiro frequently mentions his wife, who is a doctor. Did you know his wife is a doctor? Because his wife is totally a doctor and he is legally married to her.
Claiming to be a detective isn't saying much either. I've heard that approximately 80% of crimes go unsolved. 90% of criminals eventually get caught only because they repeatedly break the law and are usually not very bright and leave obvious clues.
It's not much different than creationists wearing lab coats and calling themselves "doctor."
@@Never-mind1960 of those crimes that ARE "solved", how many are solved correctly, and how many are pinned on some hapless sap so authorities can proclaim the case "solved"? When we see representations of the investigative arms of law enforcement on TV, which is more accurate - the dudes from CSI or Roscoe P. Coltrane?
Yes, he's very impressed with himself.
Theist talking about the Resurrection: "We can make forensic inferences about the Bible!"
Me, later: brings up evolution and geology
Theist again: "You can't know if you weren't there!"
You may have not been there but the rocks were. 👍
They can't know that we weren't there because they weren't there.
@Terncote Nah, I was there and I didn't see you...
I wasn't "there" in Genesis or at the Resurrection so how can I be a knower?
@@BigHeretic We didn't have eyes back then. Duh.
suicide, accidental, natural, or murder.... why not miracle? Why is miracle excluded from the possibilities? Does J Warner Wallace have an anti-miracle bias? (Edit: made this comment before watching the video though. Looks like Paulogia thought the same thing XD )
Great minds and all that! LoL I was thinking the same thing!
11:37 You called it! Lol
That part was awesome, really hit the nail on the head!
Suicide, accidental, natural, murder or an onion with a mind. Or would that be a mind with an onion? I'm so confuzzled.
"You're just biased against miracles."
Do these people hear themselves? How can a fully grown adult say this with a straight face?
"I don't know some things, because I'm not omniscient. Therefore God. _Someone_ has to be omniscient, right?"
The word "god" replaces "I don't know."
Why does there have to be a someone?
@@R0swell5104 Because god.
@@cy-one Ok then, which one?
Like Paul said, most people probably don't take the time to think about what they're actually saying, but when I hear someone call something super, or extra natural, to me, they're subconsciously saying they know this does not exist
Because if it did, it would just be natural
This this this. Scott Clifton brought this up in a talk once but never made a TBS video about it. I wish he had because noone, religious or otherwise, ever seems to address this rather fundamental conceptual problem, other than the occasional throwaway sentence. I've never seen anyone define supernatural in a way that makes sense and doesn't end up circling right round to - as you say - "something that doesn't exist".
Even in a religious worldview this problem still exists - God would be the absolute definition of THE natural being, after all. Religious folk have an incentive to keep the word around for it's confusing effect, but non-religious people should really start pointing out this problem more loudly - taking on the concept of "supernatural" from this angle would hit basically all woo industries, from religion to ghost sightings and beyond, since they use the word to vaguely wave away problems. Getting them to at least agree that ghosts and such are part of a grander "natural" world that we don't fully understand is at least a step in the right direction and gets them thinking along lines where they can't just pull out their reverse Uno "supernatural!" excuse to support claims.
Feels like a variation of the famous Tim Minchin quote from Storm. 'You know what they call the 'supernatural' that's been proved to exist? Natural."
@@SS2Dante And the end of the day they are playing word games with negations, as if "negations of things" are things themselves. I feel if helps to shift it from "natural vs not natural" to "real vs not real". At the end of the day...referring to "supernatural" ultimately ends up meaning the same thing as "immaterial" or "not material". When you elaborate on language and linguistics, and show them they are just playing a language game, I find it helps. There's no such "thing" as a "non thing"...the whole point of the negations is to say "this isn't the case"....there's no such thing as "not a dog". If I point to a truck and ask what is that...telling me "it's not a dog" doesn't tell me what it is. So if it's "not material" then what is it...."it's consciousness". Right...point to the thing we don't fully understand scientifically, to try and justify a bald assertion based on shitty thinking of the past, that's been constantly refuted by science...good job. It's all "justified by ignorance".
"I dont engage" because only the best detectives only look at one source of evidence and nothing to the contrary
I think JWW made the right call not to engage here!
It takes certain minimum depth of character and intellectual honesty to constructively interact with someone who disagrees with you. If you lack that then it's better to not even try. 😄
I suppose it's better that he isn't a detective any longer.
Just like it is a good thing Ben Carson doesn't do brain surgery anymore.
@@Never-mind1960 To be fair, Ben Carson was a very good brain surgeon(specialized in children I think) was world renown among those in the field and a little beyond. His personal beliefs have little to do with his expertise and skill at his (former?) job. I'm not a fan of Carson, bit I do think the medical field is worse without him. Ann like Carson I'm not going to say good riddance to the detective because of his personal belief, that in all likelihood didnt affect his professional life.
@@EM-vw7im Maybe, but the key word is: "was".
@@Never-mind1960 I must have missed where being conservative necessarily makes someone bad at practicing medicine.
@frankos rooni Oh, certainly. As a scientist, he's garbage.
But doctors are not scientists.
Whenever a Christian thinks they have some 'Gotcha!' about not being able to explain beyond The Big Bang ( 13:02 ), despite science being so close and with so much evidence, I simply ask "would you lose your faith if it DID explain the creation of the universe tomorrow? Then why does that matter?" They just want to hear an "I don't know" so they can say they do. There's no honesty there. They would just move on to something else we don't know to hear those 'magic' words again.
It is a game of domination.
If I am selling god or Jesus and you must submit to them to be saved then I have control over you.
3 Amigos is how I learned that word as a kid, and never forgot what a plethora means. :)
Furry Skeptic:Good night, Ned.
It's a sweater!
I learned "Jefe, when she is ready, she will open up her flower to you." I was 8 and had to think about that for a while.
@@ericpierce3660 Joke that went over my head as a kid: It's a "mail" plane... Don't you see it's little balls? I love watching movies I loved as a kid and realizing how inappropriate it was for me to have watched lol. And that was most 80s movies.
@@furryskeptic5456 That reminds me of:
What's the difference between beer nuts and deer nuts? Beer nuts cost a little over a dollar, and deer nuts are just under a buck.
There is the possibility that someone greased someone's palm to get the body and make it disappear. Thus empty tomb. And there are the people who think he did not die on the cross, thus tomb, thus empty, thus seen after his "death" ... and we all know that sometimes money talks. Do I care? Nope. Does this make him deity? Nope.
Paul your the best! I bet you get under the skin of most of the apologist people but I just love the way you get your word out!
Aussie chrisso 🇦🇺 🎉
I hope that his response to you leads to more people finding the excellent content you share.
A “plethora” of weird rationalizations by many different Christians sects mean there is NOT one Christian “theory”...
He is clearly selling a product based on his background. Hope he’s making money, but that doesn’t make his explanation true.
Salkafar I laughed when someone parroted William Lane Craig’s “it’s just a disagreement amongst friends” response as to why there are so many sects of Christians. I have Irish Catholic ancestors that died fighting the English Protestant and I have an English Protestant ancestor that died at the hands of rebel Irish Catholics...
...one Christian theory my ass.
@@losttribe3001 same.
@@losttribe3001, sorry for your loss.
But .. but . but ... each one of them only has 1 theory! ... One of the attractions of religion in general and in particular the immutable, perfect, "holy" book that comes with it is that it gives the absolute and final answer, God's own word. It is no longer necessary to ask anything anymore, or to learn anything. It's all there in the book, everything God says you need to know. The ONE theory. The ONE right answer.
Unfortunately it never quite lives up to its promise and you end up with a dozen different sub-cults fighting over how to worship Jesus, as Salfakar pointed out.
Stephen Harrison thanks, but I didn’t know them. I feel bad that they lost their lives and suffered for something so stupid. I’m a few generations removed. It’s just one of those things that I roll my eyes at when Christians try to make sound like it’s a benign, happy-go-lucky discussion as to who’s got the correct and true version.
The bit I love is the tapdance over what is and isn't ludicrous in other people's arguments while confidently asserting an empty tomb, a host of eyewitness accounts, the independence of the gospels, the solid evidence of non-biblical evidence, etc....
When will Jesus bring the pork chops?
George Carlin.
If only Jesus would bring the pork chops
we could end this stupid debate.
If I were a detective and I saw that another detective blocks people on Twitter who politely disagree with him, I would probably conclude that his motivation is simply that he doesn't want to hear evidence that might refute his conclusions, and he is not a good detective who is actually looking for the truth. He just wants to be right.
So, I wonder why his inductive reasoning doesn't lead him to believe that the murderer was the child's doll being possessed by a demon. The idea that it was the butler just seems so lame.
I truly wish I could maintain my composure the way you do when discussing these topics. Keep up the great work!
I love it when they try and make that ridiculous leap from "We don't know all of the specifics about the universe at around the point of the initial expansion" to "Therefore there's a great bearded wizard in the sky who grants you wishes if you worship his immortal son" I just...how do so many people not realize how childishly absurd that sounds?
I spent some time at J Warner Wallace's blog chatting with his followers. But His Cold Caseness never deigned to reply to me Himself.
Did you expect him too ?
@@gowdsake7103 Hope springs eternal.
Saw you on SciManDan ... GREAT content brother!
It's unnerving to me that so much of debate and discussion has become echo chamber; happens too much on all sides of the fence. Grateful to you for bucking that trend and maintaining a higher standard, even if your opponents apparently can't/won't reciprocate.
That's why Paulogia is one of the few content creators that I directly financially support. 😁.
The empty tomb argument always confused me.. how could it even be convincing? All we have is a story of an empty tomb. Show me the tomb
Hi there! Obligatory mythicist comment here.
Everyone stay healthy! 😷
This is one of my favorites of your videos. Well done, Paul.
Wow, thanks!
While I have heard miracles described as events we can't explain by natural means, I don't think I've heard it argued that the inability to explain something by natural means requires something to be a miracle.
That sounds a bit like that Sherlock Holmes fallacy, because we cannot rule out all possibilities unless we know all possibilities.
Wallace's attitude about evidence does not fill me with confidence about how he evaluated evidence in his years in law enforcement.
I used to solve crimes.
That qualifies me to preach from an ancient Hebrew manuscript.
How is this guy a detective when he has no understanding of how to evaluate evidence or make a logical inference from it?
Police departments won't hire people who are smart: www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-smart-to-be-a-cop/5420630
@@neilzientek WOW, that explains a lot.
The key word is - "was"
@@neilzientek Read that article and it's flawed as shit. She can't identify differentiate between armored personnel carriers and tanks and writes as if she is an authority on intelligence and adds in her own spin.
@@neilzientek it's the same in Australia.. back when i was in school there was a couple of kids told by the guidance councillor that they needed really good grades to get into the police force so they worked hard to get good grades and were knocked back when they went to join the police because they were to intelligent, there was a big who ha about it because they blamed the guidance councillor for giving bad information that destroyed any chance of them going into their chosen profession
"Our confirmation bias and Strawman arguments prove Jesus existed just like the inerrant Bible tells us". Sigh...
Thats the summary of the christian position
I tried to read the Bible at different times in my life.
Did not care for it.
Too crazy.
Hmm, why does the organised religious movement have a single agreed explanation while the disjointed people who independently reject said movement each have their own explanation? I can't imagine why that would be
But they don't even have a single explanation: see young Earth creationists.
Why are there so many organised religious movements?
One of your best Paulogia. Your rejoinder was flawless. Game, set and match.
Well we might as well release every convicted prisoner. I was supernaturally framed is now a legitimate air tight defense.
Is it just me, or does this guy serve as yet another good argument for abolishing the police? I mean, sure, detective work is important, but if someone who thinks “god did it” is a good explanation to give, comparable to evidence in a court, and thinks the bible provides solid evidence for its claims, can make detective, maybe we need to revise the requirements to become one.
A devastating critique for those who are rationally minded. Well played, Paul!
You just keep getting better and better! Great video, Paulogia! Thank you.
I can't speak for everybody but everybody that I have known that has died they are still very dead.
It isn't so much as they are dead but there isn't any known mechanism they could be alive. I even have doubts about those in cryogenic suspension
fair enough. but I haven't checked Granny's tomb lately, could be it's empty and nobody noticed
Why would I believe that death is the end of me?
James Richard Wiley There is insufficient evidence to believe otherwise.
@@JamesRichardWiley there's only one way to find out.
Love your discussions. Keep it up. Thank you.
The Big Bang theory series intro does not say “singularity”. “Hot dense state” may or may not imply a singularity. I think that’s a very nuanced and deliberate move by the authors of the song.
I would agree with you, but then I'd be describing Big Bang Theory with the words "nuanced and deliberate." 😄
"You can't explain how the universe got here, therefore you must believe that this guy in this story from a couple thousand years ago rose from the dead!"
Is there *_ANY_* other context in which saying something like that would be seen as reasonable?
None that I’m aware of. I’m also not aware of any judge or jury that has accepted miracle as an explanation. I guess this guy didn’t have a very high conviction rate.
Oh hey, my former youth pastor sent me a Wallace video a few days ago. It wasn’t this one, but actually a sermon he gave at Gateway church earlier this week.
I love all your videos, they keep me educated.
I left him this question;
Jim,
You fully believe in miracles (supernatural), or so you state, but when you come into a cold case do you include "Miracle" in your list of natural, accident, homicide or suicide as causes. How would you go about proving "Miracle" to everyone's satisfaction?
Ok Paul, I left a link to your video in his comments section now that it seems to have opened up (or the moderator too a lunch break!) 😄
I also extended a polite invitation on your behalf to watch and respond to your refutation. Let's hope he puts his money where his mouth is and accepts it!
The experience with you and Eric Hovind was great and I'd love to see more long form civil discussions in that vein. ♥️
I did a video on Wallace too and sent it to him on Twitter. He blocked me too. Excellent video, as usual.
Even if miracles are possible, does it mean that legends are impossible?
Beautifully deconstructed. Smart, polite and brutal all at the same time.
Even small children can understand how ridiculous this stuff is. I remember sitting in church at around 8 years old and being completely disturbed by the fact that all the adults in that room could possibly believe it. I also had this vague sense that Jesus knew I didn’t believe in him so it’s not like I had an adult-like mind either.
Well done. Thanks for sharing this with us and keep up your great work.
For a coldcase Defective he sure doesn't use crtical thinking.
I think you found the crux of the situation. Pun intended.
Belief in the "super" natural blocks critical thinking.
Given the knowledge the gospel writers had of geography and local customs, and that the earliest texts were easily within living memory of Jesus' death, the idea that Jesus was a mythical figure is absurd. It would be accurate to compare him to spiderman, only if the US government corroborated the existence of Peter Parker, and if there were people alive today who were willing to die for the sake of spiderman.
I havent investigated whether there really was an empty tomb or not.
_We say we don't know_ And there it is, the number one difference. Simply pushing it back to an entity that has to be defined as a first cause isn't terribly satisfying, it also looks like a bait and switch to stop the inevitable question about the origin of the deity (and since there are so many, my money is on the creative power of the human brain for that one).
J. Warner Wallace. . . A former cop who has shown through his apologetics work that he should be in prison for tampering with evidence and perjury as he lied to make convictions.
“No one would die for a lie” argument is also absolutely destroyed by Matt and Tracie on episode #623 of Atheist Experience (More On Martyrs)
I think he's a lot like William Craig. His arguments sound intelligent but honestly are not impressive. Neither have any new or good ideas but they sound very intelligent. Once you break down their arguments you find they lack real substance and are made near entirely of assumptions. Also both of them refuse to have a direct debate with hardly anyone but throw jabs at people who show their arguments to not be as good as they think
Btw I mean the cold case detective not paul
Faith is the absence of good evidence and the core of all religious arguments.
I love how your ads are all about Bible study colleges etc.
then use an ad blocker !
As if a magic man died, came back to life for a while, and then ascended to a supernatural realm to reign as a god, ISN'T LAME?
I find it more confusing than anything. He "came back to life," but wasn't healed of his wounds. So was he actually alive, or was he just a reanimated corpse? No wonder he didn't hang around very long. He was probably starting to stink. Is this the kind of resurrection that Jesus is promising for some of his followers- zombie life? No wonder some Christians are worried about cremation.
Nah, it's kinda metal. 😎
I thought he was alive and well and is on an island with Elvis, Jim Morrison, Jimi Hendrix, and Janis Joplin. Quite PC for such a small population. Obviously they don't just let anybody in
I was brought up Catholic. One question I often asked and was never answered was if Jesus had twelve disciples, why does the Bible contain only four gospels? Why do we have no accounts from 2/3 of his closest companions?
It's worse. Only 2 of the 4 gospels are given the names of apostles. No account from 5/6th.
@@Paulogia I realize that but try to keep the question simple for people who take the Bible at face value.
Paulogia, you are freaking awesome
Very well argued Paul.
I really hate one argument apologists use, saying the disciples died for their convictions. Besides there being no proof of this at all, I want to ask them one question. Have they heard of Heavens Gate, the Peoples Temple, the Order of the Solar Temple, and the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God. All these cults committed mass suicide (and some, even murders) in the dozens to hundreds for their convictions and beliefs. So even if someones dies for their convictions, doesn't mean those beliefs were justified or correct. That's not a cogent defence of their argument.
You whooped this poor man's ass with logic...love it!
"Not fair. Logic's of the devil!!!!!"
He could fail on the Resurrection case and still be a good detective.
No he didn't
Paulogia didn't try to deconstruct your video...he DID!
It's hard to take the word of people who have proven over and over again that their word can't be trusted.
This was as gentle an evisceration of an apologist video I've seen in a while...
Hi thank you for your great video.
When I read The Gospel of Mark recently I noticed, that both resurrection and reincarnation are discussed. Jesus argues with Sadducean about the physical resurrection - "anastasis".
Jesus is claimed by Herod to have powers because of John the babtist reaincarnated into him (ibbur) - "egejro"
Describing Jesus' resurection in Mark, there is twice used "egejro" and once "anastasis". The message gets even more confusing, when the gospel sais he showed to two disciples in a different form...
What are your ideas about this?
Physics and chemistry are just descriptions of behavioral patterns. There is nothing stopping either from incorporating new information into their models if the "before" was radically and fundamentally different. Why do apologists insist on dishonestly suggesting they are limited constraints?
"Where did the universe come from?"
Ah yes, the oldest and laziest argument from ignorance in the theist playbook.
Please go comment this on one of Ray Comfort's living waters videos and see what kind of reaction you get
The human brain cannot answer that.
Therefore god.
Instead of "I don't know".
I remember reading as a kid, a story of a retired polce officer who said he saw and was captured by a flying saucer. It was a mix of clear and distorted images that seemed so vivid to him. He had been found wandering in a field and everybody wondered how a stalwart veteran of the police could have puuling such hoax. A little digging revealed he had been retired due to irraric behavior and it was no surprise to friends and relatives that he eventually commited to a hospital
I recently read Lee Strobel's, "The Case for Christ" section on the resurrection and it's remarkable how he does essentially the same thing. They both drastically misrepresent the likelihood of the gospels giving an accurate description of the events after Jesus's crucifixion.
The narrative after the Crucifixion is plagiarized fiction.
See how easy that was?
The "The Case for Christ" was needed to explain why Jesus failed to fill his end of the bargain.
His argument that because there's 8 naturalistic theories it is somehow weaker than 1 good theory is fallacious thinking. What matters is the probability of each. Honestly, there are probably thousands of possible naturalistic explanations one could dream up. Even if none of them are plausible and even if every single one has less than a 1% chance of being true, that doesn't matter. Their sum could still make up say 98%, and the supernatural explanation is left at 2% it doesn't matter that the supernatural explanation is the best single explanation. Being the best single explanation doesn't make it likely. Non-Christians aren't wed to any single explanation. For us, it doesn't matter even slightly which one is true. But Christians are wed to their one explanation. Non-Christians could put forth 20,000 different naturalistic explanations, every single one of them being independently unlikely, and it still tears down and obliterates the Christian theory. The best explanation can still be a terrible explanation, especially when we are so far removed into history that investigation is almost impossible.
Allowing for multiple possibilities is the rational approach to take when you don't know something. It's similar to me guessing what I did this date twenty years ago. I don't know exactly, but I do remember roughly what kinds of things I was into back then, so I can make a list based on educated guesses. Saying with conviction that I went to the hairdresser, on the other hand, would be very irrational since I only go once every 6 to 8 weeks, while there's a much more reasonable chance that I was working, especially if I figure out that this date wasn't during the weekend.
Also. what empty tomb?
How is that supposed to be an argument?
*Darth Vader's Empty Tomb is in my basement.*
I can _prove_ it too ... because when you come and visit his tomb, Darth Vader won't be there!
... sigh ...
All jokes aside, this "empty tomb" rubbish has to be one of the lamest Christian apologetic tactics of all time.
Just a fancy version of "muh hully book sez so!!"
How about Pharaoh Khufu's empty tomb? Therefore, Khufu (life, health, strength) is the Living Horus!
“I think the tomb is empty.” Okay, well, let’s start with finding archeological proof or multiple contemporary attestations of a tomb at all.
At a superficial level, it appears Wallace's law enforcement background (along with the OCD shrine in the background) is being leveraged to lecture from a point of desperation. The finger wagging and preaching are tiresome examples of a vapid argument and position.
Agree he totally comes across as completely desperate.
If he was a detective, it must have been in Police Squad
TH-cam comment of the day. Only six episode of Police Squad were aired, but they were classic. A gem of a comedy, and IN COLOR!
🤣😂🤣 "A presuppositional bias against the miraculous." 🤣😂🤣
Wish TH-cam had a way of giving more than one like or giving a review out of 5*.
I’d give these all resurrection video series 5🌟.
You argue to the point and discuss the historical facts. That is highly commendable.
Sure your approach has attracted a few criticism but your ideas have not been refuted and the narrative you give is the most probable account of what happened given our knowledge of Roman practices and human nature.
I think there is a very strong possibility there is at least one innocent man in prison or was in prison because of this guy.
Maybe, maybe not. I think people have the ability to compartmentalize their delusional thinking. I am an engineer and I have worked with a couple of very good engineers who are devout believers in the rapture. But it doesn't affect their engineering work.
And a whole lot of killers who got off because he called it a suicide so he could get home in time to watch the game. If this guy's not a charlatan who bought all that cop memorabilia on eBay, then he must be/have been a horrifyingly bad detective.
@13:30 what does the creation of the universe have to do with whether JESUS's putative tomb was allegedly empty?
I know, right? Pharaoh Khufu's tomb was empty, so obviously the fact that we don't know everything about cosmology proves that he is in fact the Living Horus.
" You have a presuppositional bias against the miraculous".... well all righty then...
Wallace has a presuppositional bias against *Islamic* miracles, but I bet he regards that bias as a virtue. _He's just hypocrite._
I have a bias against _all_ miracle claims, Christian or otherwise, without any fear or favour. Because that's the only reasonable position to hold.
As if that's a bad thing. ;-)
@@pauligrossinoz Or, he just says, "Oh sure, the Islamic miracles happened, along with flying saucers, Bigfoot and all the rest, it's just that they're all done by demons. But somehow the 'done by demons' explanation can't be applied to the miracles I like."
@@kevincrady2831 - yeah ... it's equivalent to the arrogant claims of the presuppositionalist. They love to claim a magical ability to always be able to distinguish between the "good" magic of their fav-god and the "bad" magic that anyone else claims is also real.
But without any justification of their magical ability ... beyond their own "feels". Sad.
@@pauligrossinoz "Yeah? Well, if you're not omniscient and infallible, you have to presupposed that -I am- the god I got taught about in Sunday School is." Even when I was a Christian fundamentalist, Presuppositionalists made me cringe.
Watching an educated and well-spoken man argue passionately about nonsense is unsettling.
It telling that people lose their common sense when it comes to religion. It almost like a type of temporary insanity.
I’d love to ask j w Wallace if he were a detective during jesus trial. Would he put up charges on Pilate and the Sanhedrin for manslaughter. Or knowing that jesus blood and crucifixion atones for sin go along with Pilate and the gang
Pilate*
Suicide. The gladiatorial matches start at the local coliseum in an hour, and murder is too much paperwork.
To roughly quote Sam Harris when asked what kind of evidence he was looking for concerning the existence of God, "the same type of evidence you require in every other aspect of your life except religion". The good detective seems to easily accept the existence of a deity and miracles with no good evidence in the religious aspect of his life but in the other aspects of his life just as easily rejects the possibility of miracles or the intervention of a deity in his job as a detective.
So, I wonder what Mr. Smart Detective Man would do under the following scenario. He is called to a hospital where a nurse has been caught injecting an old man with a lethal dose of barbiturates, resulting in his death. The nurse admits to Mr. SDM that she did indeed commit the act, but tells him it's OK, because she is, in fact, an angel who has been sent by His Ephemeralness Himself to put the old gentleman out of his misery so that he can go and join the bitching party that's raging on upstairs. Would Mr. SDM consider this to be a valid possibility and investigate it as thoroughly as any other, or would he throw her skank arse in jail? If the former, then I would love to hear about the exact methodology he would use to ascertain the veracity of her claim. If the latter, I would like to know why he would dismiss the possibility of the supernatural so readily in this case while being all over it whenever it affords him the comfort of clinging like a leech to the baby Jesus.
Regarding 'the beginning' of the universe, what we know is that the universe is here. If you want to assert that the universe was not anywhere, but then it was, you need to demonstrate that. The detectives whole argument is just a bad attempt at burden-shifting.
3:00 Why does it have to be a “secular” historian? Just a wonderin’. And aren’t these secular historians some 2,000 years removed from the event in question? Does that not then hinder their textual chain of evidence, like copies of copies of copies of stories, both oral and written, of why there might not be an empty tomb?
If a secular historian agrees with a religiously biased historian on a specific historical interpretation, that lends it an extra level of credibility, since parties with conflicting interests both agree on at least that one point.
Conversely, if a position is supported by one side and one side only, that indicates a possibility of bias; and so that position is less reliable than it would be if it had a wider acceptance among historians.
Just putting forward for thought that “lame” is an ablist term, equating disabled with bad or insufficient. It is a hard one to stop because it is so common, and I have a very hard time not using it myself, but I keep working at it. I think, like other ableist terms, it is worth discontinuing.
Just apoint of contention. You used the term " unknowable" but perhaps " unknown" would be better suited as there is a certain finality in the former term. As in it COULD never be known as opposed to it is not CURRENTLY known.
I really wish more people would take the passage in Josephus’s autobiography seriously. He says he passed three of his friends crucified. He asked the Roman general Titus to take them down. At this point Josephus had become a Jewish turncoat and befriended the Flavians. Two of the crucified die. One survives. Josephus given name was Josephus BAR mathias. (Jospeh of arimathea). So I believe this is where the gospel authors got the tomb burial from. Which would push the gospels later than they’re believed to have been penned. But makes sense to me
@paulogia going by what was said in the clip you showed, that "as many other crucified people simply left to be eaten by scavengers".
Could it not be then that someone had watched that, and then stolen the body from wherever it was dumped to give it a burial then?
@0:35 - "I don't typically engage those folks". I'm guessing he's gonna regret the decision to engage this time.