I have heard Christians claim that WLC invented the cosmological argument. I am fully aware why they're hesitant to teach church history to lay people, but also COME ON.
@tealbricks the way he talks about it himself i could certainly see people reading that off him. Even though in reality he just sorta took one centuries old that had a clear special pleading issue and made it not about god
@@tealbricks Ask them where the word "kalam" comes from. It's those heretical muslims. 😱 The irony of trying to prove the truth of your own beliefs by using the arguments of heretics is huge.
A very convincing argument especially to ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶ other philosophers to point out that they are expanding on the ideas of others. I guess we will just ignore standing on the shoulders of giants. This is almost as bad as Stefan Molyneux' argument of "This is boring". Seriously how do people take him seriously, especially given he touts himself as a philosopher? A philosopher should immediately recognize that this is not a valid argument in response as it doesn't do anything to dismantle the argument. If this would be enough to dismantle an argument then you could just say that Craigs accent isn't appealing to you therefore he is wrong. It would do the same amount of debunking.
Well, when you're right, you're right. It's like Craig is simply saying that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is "warmed over Pythagoreanism," rather than having an actual argument against it. 🙄
I mean, the way he's gasping for breath got me thinking he might've tried to pray for protection against covid instead of wearing a mask and washing his hands. So here's hoping. Hoping that Pat Robertson is calling Billy home, I mean. To hell with the son of a bitch.
I consider myself a connoisseur of Christian apologetics and there's nothing quite like the WLC vintage. It's just an overwhelming explosion of flavors. It has a consistent full deep hypocrisy as the foundation, very rich tones of smarmy patronization, a veritable symphony of outright misrepresentation, and ends with subtle condescension. If you ever want to find it just look for the label "You're obviously not familiar with my work".
A man who made his entire career expanding on the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God, blaming Bart for following Hume…the irony, it knows no end.
two things relating to religion on youtube that give me boundless pleasure, sean carroll at skepticon and sean carroll trouncing everything WLC in debate.
@@HarryNicNicholas sean carroll provided a public ass whipping to WLC. One of the favorite moments was having a particular physics guy [don't recall name] appear by VIDEO and say WLC was misrepresenting his work.
@@GodlessGubment "say WLC was misrepresenting his work." Where was this? I think you must mean Guth who claimed that he thought that the universe was eternal. He was talking about a model that evaded the BGV theorem. However Guth's model was merely another time-reversal model that completely fails to describe our FLRW universe OR the model is merely discribing a creation event producing two universes. I do not think that Guth officially published his model. Which was wise.
@@HarryNicNicholasThere is more irony there, WLC is complaining Bart is overstepping his bonds when WLC himself goes off on physics without having any qualification in the field. None. Doesn’t stop him.
“You give them an inch, they take a mile.” Dr. Bart Ehrman should have been even more charitable with the avatar-euhemerism mythicist position, it has far more evidence going for it than supernaturalism. Same thing with the skeleton-and-lipstick imitatio (scaffolding-and-highlights intertextual mimesis) textual criticism between Greek text influence upon Judaism and heavy Greek text influence upon Christian bibliolatry. We still need to take a closer look into any Zoroastrian and Kemetic-Egyptian texts available as well.
@@letsomethingshine Your bar is sooooooo low. There's really one group of people who think that mythicism has a lot going for it, and that group is random people on the internet who don't study ancient languages and texts professionally. This should tell us something, that to those most capable of assessing it, mythicism is not only a fringe position, but generally elicits an eyeroll. There are a few scholars out there too, but this goes for young earth Creationism as well.
@@jackfrosterton2530 So because only some people believe it, it's false? That doesn't follow. I personally find it entirely plausible that Jesus wasn't a historical person based on the evidence presented, but I'm more like 50/50ish on that. Historicist-agnostic, I guess. Ehrman is way too dismissive of the idea and his reasons for dismissing it are suspect and poorly-articulated. I also think it's a bit hypocritical for him to say Craig doesn't take the Romulus story seriously based on weak evidence, but then he takes Jesus's historicity seriously based on weak evidence. He ought to at least acknowledge the genuine strangeness of the paucity of reliable evidence for the existence of such a supposedly important man.
@@Uryvichk No, that isn't what I said, what I said is what I said. When unqualified people think they know more than expert consensus, well.... think for yourself for a few minutes about all of the other cases where you see people with that sort of mindset and self confidence on the internet, and look at the conclusions they believe, because they think they understand more than they actually do. It's not good company to be in.
I don't think Ehrman is as erudite as you think. He really dismisses some things with that laugh and not argument. He represents himself as a historian but he was educated in theology. I think he wants to sell books. He avoids certain topics because he knows his audience. It's a bit flippant the way he treats certain scholarly ideas. He's not necessarily wrong but, he isn't what I'd cal honest about how he arrives. That dismissive laugh irks me. Anyway, nothing in this video that I could disagree with.
Edit: this has been one of the most frustrating videos I've ever watched, and I cannot fathom how Dr Ehrman managed to review Bill and his "critique" without flipping a desk. I'm astounded at the disrespect and disingenuous LIES Craig is content to throw out without consideration. I didn't think Billy Boy Craig could get any more disingenuous and dishonest, but there's me having more faith in him than is warranted. I'm amazed at your charity and restraint in discussing "Dr Craig" and his honestly staggering disrespect, Dr. Ehrman.
It is really sad to see that this is where scholarship versus 'theology' or, apologetics winds up, but the truth for WLC has already been demonstrated and no dissent from that will be tolerated. A credit to BE and Paulogia that their approach, has been to take emotional and derisive commentary out of the debate and concentrate on what can be reasonably demonstrated. Theologians are notorious for privileging their version of dogma over any attempt to establish facts. Modern Christian apologists are no different.
I think we will start to see lies brought out a little more as we move forward. They used to spout their classic arguments for the existence of their particular flavour of deity. Though as the debunks of these arguments spread amongst sceptics, these arguments get dismissed, the classic Kalam Cosmological argument gets puts to bed as a god does not form any part of that, until "therefore God" is randomly thrown in at the end, hoping no-one noticed the deceit. One might as well say "look at the trees.... therefore God".
@@jhill4874 and I completely disagree with that. I think that Paul can be pretty disingenuous, trollish, and condescending with his holl “ the bible tells me so jingles” he was completely uncharitable to Lydia McGrew and her position.
It’s crazy to me how when I was a Christian I held WLC up in really high regard as a shining example of intellectual faith, and now, I just see him as a snake oil salesman through and through. He’s a very compelling orator if you already agree with everything he’s saying.
Wow, kind of same. WLC was one of the first apologists i turned to (via Lee Strobel's Case for Christ). I found him so wise and insightful back then... I think about it every time i watch him play these mind games now
Yes the same. Although I hadn't really looked in detail at what he and his opponents were saying, only what he 'says' in Case for Christ and Case for Easter, which is obviously as one sided as it gets. Now i think he comes across as a bit of a dick ...
11:46 - William Lane Craig has had physics explained to him multiple times and yet has chosen to ignore it. William Lane Craig has had non-theistic moral realism explained to him, and yet has chosen to pretend that there is no such thing, claiming to have no clue how anyone could possibly defend such an idea. William Lane Craig is the king of invincible ignorance. This bit right here is the purest form of projection I have ever seen from William Lane Craig.
Craig is not: - A historian - Scientist in general - Physicist - Astronomer - Biologist - Mathematician and many more things, yet that never seems to stop him from making grand proclamations on those topics, even when corrected on it by actual historians, physicists etc.
Reminds me of this guy with the last name "Peterson." It's really strange how people like this believe being an expert in one field makes them experts in everything else.
That's because Bart works at an accredited institution doing research founded in reality. His reaction is how 99% of other actual academics react to WLC's ludicrous claims.
@@BlueBarrier782 no, it´s simply because that Adam and Eve book is not history, it´s adjacent to archeology and biology but reading a summary makes it obvious that it´s all theology. It´s trying to answer the question if and how it might be possible to believe in the actual existence of Adam and Eve based on what science tells us about human development and evolution. If you don´t already believe in the bible, this book won´t do anything for you and it was obviously never supposed to.
@@mekullag Yeeup. 17:00 and the response was bang on. "No no no, I'm talking about HISTORY". Yep. There's room for study there, but it's not history unless it's accepted as true. And so far there's very little reason to accept it as anything other than a fable or myth. Fables and myths can have value, but we don't think there was an actual historical figure called Pandora for example... Do we?
It takes a while of watching WLC speak and debate (and I've done plenty of watching) to pick out the specific techniques he uses to try to convince people of his views. He'll specifically try to attack the credibility and legitimacy of his opponent rather than trying to address their arguments, and he'll attempt to portray their views as some crazy fringe ideas that no rational person believes anymore. He frequently will act "shocked" and "surprised" that his opponent could believe something so "outdated" and "debunked". But when you drill down beneath all of that to his actual arguments, you find nothing of substance.
Exactly. I remember when he responded to Paulogia: he started by criticizing his appearance, his age and I kid you not, he mocked him for having been indoctrinated into young earth creationism as a kid. Abject individual, the type of guy who in another age would have been applauding from the first row at the burning of heretics.
Your analysis of his tactics is much kinder than mine. I've found him to outright blatantly misrepresent his opponents arguments while framing his interlocutors as not understanding him. Portraying their views as crazy is exponentially better if he's at least portraying their actual views. His original interactions with Scott Clifton are a great example of his dishonest smarmy condescension. I highly recommend the video "William Lane Craig isn't doing himself any favors", but then again I'm "obviously not familiar with his work".
He is also a massive clout-seeker, an attention-grubber of a sort, and respect is the currency he trades in. He wants to be respected as the smartest and most important intellectual in the room, and since he can't just DEMONSTRATE that by ACTUALLY BEING the smartest person in the room, he has to bring down anyone who might threaten him by implying they lack education, training, expertise, experience, the ability to fairly judge evidence, etc. The less people are buying that, or the more respect anyone other than WLC receives, the angrier he gets. It's shockingly childish.
Brilliantly said. That nails WLC modus operandi perfectly. Chocolate coated BS served on a platter of snide-ness and condescension. He more than tarnishes the name christian.
Craig’s affectation of amused dismissiveness, as if he is on the verge of laughing at every argument against his arguments, seems to me his most significant contribution to his debates. His confident tone, unconcerned by any opposing view is a winning tactic, though irrelevant to any actual argument.
I haven't read anything from Gary Larson in 20 years and not much of it even then, but your writing style still sounds exactly like his to me when his captions are exposition. I just googled his name and went to images and this was the first exposition caption. "Donning his new canine decoder, Professor Schwartzman becomes the first human being on Earth to understand what dogs are actually saying." *shrug* alright g2g
If Bart ever debates WLC again, make sure a set of pearls and a fainting couch is nearby so WLC doesn't injure himself. My dog, the pearl clutching theatrics here is next level.
Ehrman mentions Apollonius of Tyana and Romulus as two examples of divine translation with appearances. Interestingly enough, in both cases, their physical body disappears: "Others say that he died in Lindos after passing into the sanctuary of Athena and vanishing inside. Another version is that he died in Crete even more miraculously than is related at Lindos. Apollonius was staying in Crete, admired even more than before, when he visited the sanctuary of Dictynna at dead of night. Protection of the sanctuary is entrusted to dogs that guard its treasures, and the Cretans consider them nothing short of bears or other animals equally savage. But they did not even bark when Apollonius arrived, but ran up and greeted him even more than they did those they were fully accustomed to. The officials of the sanctuary put him in chains as a sorcerer and a robber, claiming that he had thrown something to the dogs to pacify them. But at about midnight he set himself free, and after calling his jailers so that they would notice, he ran to the doors of the sanctuary, which flew open. As he entered, the doors returned to their original position, and there emerged the sound of girls singing, and their song went, “Proceed from earth! Proceed to heaven! Proceed!” In other words, “Ascend from earth.” (Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 8.30) "And after Romulus had reigned thirty-seven years, and established those two excellent foundations of our commonwealth, the auspices and the senate, his great achievements led to the belief that, when he disappeared during a sudden darkening of the sun, he had been added to the number of the gods;" (Cicero, The Republic 2.10) Disappearance, either of a living person or of a corpse, was a recognized way to signalize that the person underwent divine translation. Some other examples include Aeneas, Alcmene, Ariadne, Aristeas of Proconnesus, Cleomedes of Astypaleia, Diomedes, Heracles, Himilcar I, Gaius Epidius of Nuceria, Metioche and Menippe. Alexander the Great reportedly wanted to throw himself into Euphrates so that his body is not found and the belief in his divinity is cemented (Arrian, Anabasis 7.27.1-3).
Kamil, Jesus told my friend he’s returning and that settles it. 500 witnesses we defined as witnesses said so too. Pfft never bring facts to a faith fight. #Liberalscholarsimmaright
“Never bring facts to a faith fight” 🤣 … thanks, that tasty morsel will help lower my frustration level when listening to brainwashed apologetical pundits.
Mr. Paulogia, you've really opened my eyes to the complexity of history and other arguments against religion with the guests you've had and the arguments and videos you've made.
The best part of that debate was when Dr. Bass was trying to use the sightings of Jesus post-resurrection as "evidence" and Dr. Ehrman hit him with the fact that 100's of people in South America were going to wake up and see the Virgin Mary tomorrow morning and you could see realization in Dr. Bass' eyes that what he was trying to defend was ridiculous and he had no grounds to dismiss the sightings of Mary, without special pleading for Jesus. He still tried though. 🤣
I've visited Fátima and read accounts of the people who "saw" the virgin Mary. These were written within days, some even hours, of the event. These have been microfilmed- but not translated, so knowledge of Portuguese is required- and can be accessed by scholars. We know who these people were, and in some cases have quite a lot of information on them. This is not an account of someone saying "500 people saw this" but several, individual accounts...and yet it is very clear, no miracle happened. My favorite is a very Catholic lady who wrote to a friend that she did not see anything...and proceeded to blame her own lack of faith!
Actually Catholic apologist Tent Horn have said multiple times before that the miracle of "lady of Fatima" has better evidence for it than the resurrection of Jesus, and he uses it as an argument against non-catholics lol
@@Nocturnalux "My favorite is a very Catholic lady who wrote to a friend that she did not see anything...and proceeded to blame her own lack of faith!" And this is why I think that this sort of religious ideation is harmful regardless of how overtly harmful one may or may not be. This woman was essentially abusing herself for not falling in with a psychogenic hallucination. She adopted negative attitudes towards herself out of FOMO for something that isn't real. It's such a messed up social dynamic in a world where we already have plenty of them.
@@rainbowkrampus It is truly amazing. Having failed to hype herself into seeing anything, she assumed it was her own fault. It is also worth mentioning that while plenty of people claimed to have seen something, individual accounts vary radically when it comes to what was seen. Some saw Mary alone, others also saw Jesus and a combination of biblical figures and saints that also varies from person to person. There is one particularly vivid and detailed account from the man who went to build the statue, and it includes a rainbow stairway that absolutely no one else saw. If you compare them all, I’m not even sure there are two that match.
@@Nocturnalux It's wild that we've got well studied events like this and cargo cults and all the rest and people still want to special plead for their particular iteration. What really kills me is that there's a reasonable argument to be made that "the 500" is really just a copying mistake that should have read "at pentecost". So we have two entirely plausible explanations for this and people want to go for door number three which is the least probable option available.
So WLC can't find a good rebuttal to Hume's point so WLC just says it is an old argument. Why doesn't he give us a rebuttal to destroy Hume's point instead of trying to distract from the argument?
I have to say...of all the channels that Ehrman regularly appears on, he always seems to have the most fun and has the best rapport with Paulogia. I always enjoy when you two work together.
After watching his reactions & explanations, it's evident WLC thinks his hyperbolic incredulity itself supports his argument. The more flabbergasted, nearly overwhelmed & theatrical he acts, the better he thinks he supported his argument. It's annoying at best and disingenuous at worse. I wonder if WLC is having doubts in his old age and this is how it's manifesting? 🤔
I fully expect him to go to his grave thinking he's about to see the proverbial light. But I do think that he's probably at a place in his life where he's secure in his position and so the barriers might be coming down a bit as a result. Who knows, if he ever retires and spends some time out of the spotlight, he might find himself quietly deconverting and then acting like his whole career never happened.
@@rainbowkrampus Oh, I'm sure WLC knows by now that when he dies, this is the end. He's just getting pissy because his prestige is waning rapidly. And this is because atheism (read that as recognizing religion is bullsh-t) is becoming more mainstream. So those painful hidden cognative dissonances that people covered up are now being relieved, by people calmly pointing out the reasoning and logic behind not using "faith" as an excuse for accepting crap. In short, more people are recognizing WLC as a sleazy, fast talking pitch man and it makes him venomously upset.
Maybe. He does have some serious physical ailment that he is battling, too, so maybe that is taking a toll on him. I also think that Bart (in the Bass debate) is going after the lynchpin of Christianity, the Resurrection, and so Craig's "defender mode" is strongly activated.
"Honest apologist" is only second to "biblical truth" in the list of christian oxymorons. At the end of the list, one can drop the oxy part to describe the losers er users of those terms.
Same is true for "anti apologists" like Ehrman. It's two sides of the same coin. These debates are always bad faith debates. Lies on both sides, as well as exaggeration, misunderstanding, etc. The problem is that Ehrman comes from an evangelical background himself but lost his faith. So like some of the people he debates, he makes the same fallacies. Like, "if there is a mistake or contradiction in the gospels, it's all worthless." Or claims like, "it's all copies of the copies, etc" as if that "proves" anything. Quite clearly papyrii just don't survive all that long. But the first Christians came from the Jewish background where you had to be quite thorough when copying texts. So it's not a "game of telephone". Another point - claiming that the gospel of Mark was written 70 CE and then assuming it's always 10 years more for every following gospel isn't "historical science". It's only based on the texts and assumptions about the texts and on the good old "vaticinia ex eventu". An argument that is quite easy to debunk. This is not how reality works, it's not historical science. It's only one theological opinion vs another.
@MrSeedi76 I do not know if I am responding to an intentional, perfect piece of meta commentary about the nature and use of tu quoque in debates involving apologists. I do not know if I'm responding to an unintentionally perfect, meta example of the nature and unironic use of tu quoque, presented in commentary lambasting the character of someone who has debated an apologist. I feel the former is less likely, but hope springs eternal. Regardless of the accuracy, or lack thereof in my evaluations, I remain confused about the opening assertions in the comment. Could you elaborate on what you mean by "anti apologists"? I'm reading it to mean literally anyone who debates/debunks an apologist, ever. - I can't square this conclusion with the statement that they're two sides of the same coin. I'd appreciate it if you could clarify the definition, as I would like to understand the point made, but am unable to sans proper context.
As soon as Low Bar Bill says, "I think that he thinks that is the case [that, as a historian, he has a perceived intellectual advantage]." He is a poker player trying to bluff his way to victory, then when his bluff is called, instead of showing his hand, he tries convincing the entire table that he holds the winning hand. When they don't buy it and make him show his hand, he has no cards at all, but continues to bluff and say that Actually, his cards are beyond space and time, they never began to exist, so they are the greatest of all cards, and that he wins by default. Might not be the GREATEST analogy, maybe Logicked could work out the kinks, but the point is solid.
Some philosophers have this sense that their discipline is BY FAR the most important of all and bristle at the notion that people who, uh, study specific things that actually exist, might know more than them about, uh, the specific thing they study. This definitely isn't true of all of them! But it's certainly true of WLC.
People like Craig are impossible to debate to begin with. But when they start spouting nonsense like "beyond space / time", it's time to leave. Wtf does "beyond space / time" mean? Htf can something exist nowhere? If it doesn't exist anywhere, then it doesn't exist by definition. Same thing goes for existing outside of time. If it doesn't exist at any time, then it doesn't exist by definition.
@@Andres64B Haha, you're absolutely right. It becomes a game where the best bullshitter wins... hey, maybe I should try my hand at philosophical debate! In all seriousness though, I will admit that, personally I can at least sit through ten minutes of a WLC debate (an older one, anyway) without causing irreparable damage to the device I'm watching it on, my hope for humanity, and my brain. I can not say the same for Kent Hovind. I think many apologists take a Troll approach to argumentation: "I don't need to make a solid argument, or even win the debate. I just need to frustrate rational people enough that I can snap back with a 'Look at how mad these Evolutionists/Atheists are. They know I'm right. That's the only explanation for them being so frustrated.'"
Excellent point by Dr. Ehrman about opponents saying his views are just a version of those of X, especially when X was an insightful and influential person such as Hume and Hegel. The issue isn't who else has had the same or similar views, it's whether the views are well grounded.
Its like trying to get the reverse effect when name-dropping: He wants to poison the well by hanging hume on ehrman (its not, but to _christians_ it most certainly is)... _without rebutting either hume or ehrman at all_ I just realized he also tried to weel-poison by talking about credentials. Why does anyone who isnt a christian talk to this buffoon?
I started having trouble with the logic of Christian faithfuls when I was 16. I am in my seventies now and I have no patience with the likes of Craig. The fact that I was trained as a mathematician probably did nothing to tolerate bad logic - or good logic starting from shaky premises. The sense I constantly have with the likes of Craig is that their faith dictates what their conclusions need to be and they make the "appropriate" argument to get there. Paulogia bats 1000 and is infinitely more patient than I am.
I can't attribute my critical analysis skills to mathematics, but I guess savants come in many disciplines. It's hard sometimes having a natural talent for this and to see people struggle to apply even basic criticism
Dr. Bart Ehrman is one my favorites of your regular guests! I've watched that Justin Bass debate from a few different angles now. I too was amazed at Dr. Ehrman's legendary level of patience. Thanks for another great video! 💖
The odd thing here is that Craig seems to have misunderstood Bayes Theorem or at least is trying to run it backwards. Bayesian probability is actually a lot harder for him to argue from that frequentest probability. The prior probability for a case like this has to be that a non-supernatural event is more likely than a supernatural one. Getting a posterior probability that the resurrection actually happened would have to involve ruling out every single non-supernatural explanation-including those that no one has ever thought of.
Craig often only partially understands the ideas he espouses. He is well read in the sense of the sheer topics he tries to cover and tie together but he often connects too many dots that shouldn't be connected due to his rudimentary comprehension of the subjects. The back and forth between physicists and WLC on the cosmological argument and his (mis)understanding of the theoretical models he calls to his defense is a great example.
Well, he thinks the priors for the supernatural are high enough that it’s more likely than say, another God/their satan doing this as a trick, Or aliens doing this as a practical joke. I suppose he just finds any possible naturalistic explanation for the resurrection weak enough to not consider it as an alternative. That and his namesake “low bar,” as well as he probably believes the Bible prophecies are real, raising his prior such that it’s quite likely that Jesus is the messiah mentioned in the prophecies, and they mentioned him rising
As someone who's worked with Bayes professionally for years, I'm constantly ranting about apologists' misappropriation and misunderstanding of it. All of them, without exception, focus solely on the conditional probabilities and completely ignore priors, when every Bayesian knows that one is useless without the other. This is especially problematic in fine-tuning arguments. It's also the "dirty little secret" of Bayesian probability that it's very difficult to justify priors without some formal Solomonoffian/Kolmogorovian proofs, and nobody does that; most don't even know that such things exist, and would have no idea how to go about estimating them.
The prior for resurrection hypothesis is low but if the likelihood ratio is high enough it will offset it. The idea is that the reaurrection hypothesis explains the facts better than any rivals and that offsets the low prior.
@@natokafa5238 The conditional probabilities are not high and low enough respectively to offset a 1 in ~100 billion prior. To even get to a 50/50 scenario you'd have to assume that if a resurrection happened we'd expect such evidence 100% of the time, and if it didn't happen we'd expect such evidence around 1 in a 100 billion times. The former is not that high and (more importantly) there's no way the latter is that low. We have ample evidence of people mythologizing history, of legends growing, especially around important figures, and especially decades after the fact after a ton of word-of-mouth tale-telling.
It's "cannon" now so he can't back down! I also wonder if he got loads of emails from supporters telling him how much that comment has made their faith even stronger. Scary just how effective echo chambers can and do work.
Yes, I suspect he regrets saying it. I saw his defense of that statement, and while I agree there may be some specific situations in which adopting a specific belief you know to be improbable (e.g., "I am going to beat this cancer") might be helpful in a pragmatic sense, you cannot extend that same strategy to an all-encompassing belief system like Christianity. In my opinion, Craig was trying to encourage a young man who was struggling with his faith, he got a little too personal and emotive, and he said too much. He forgot that he is the subject of scrutiny, and the internet never forgets.
The thing is, WLC/LBB hasn't just gotten more arrogant and dismissive of other people's opinions, he has always been that way. imagine claiming an empty tomb is good evidence of anything! That reminds me my bank account is empty, clearly someone stole the 10 million pounds I had in it.
"Why not deal with the argument?" There's this thing where apologists seem to think that if they can point out an objection to their ideas is old, that is the same thing as responding to it. Because it's all just posturing. "Look at me. Look what a smart and special boy I am. I can connect what you said to a famous name." It's totally without value as something to say in an argument or discussion, but it serves the purpose of looking smart.
I hope Ehrman doesn't get too upset about this. I mean after all, Craig's made a career out of lying for money. Why does anybody take him seriously at all if they haven't fallen for his baloney? It's not worth even considering his position after what he's done.
I tend towards the "Paul is a lot like modern day religious evangelists and apologists, and would write or say anything to keep the grift going" school of thinking.
Billy L Craig vs America’s favourite Xristenator. I was convinced that Xianinanity should be called Paulism quite a while ago. This should be an interesting discussion. Thank you, Dr Erman. Who is doing what to Hume ?
WLC starts "fact finding" without an actual fact. And yet people give him money to pedantically fantasize, thinking this is what smart people sound like. If I were that slick I'd start my own cryptocurrency, not mock being what a christian by representing it like he does.
bart is such a genuine guy, we can watch him struggle with the concept of someone exhibiting bad faith lol. he's like what is this guy hard headed?? keep being awesome doc!
Miracles do have tremendous explanatory power: anything can be explained by “a miracle happened.” What miracles lack are things like persuasive and predictive power.
@@markhamstra1083 -- "then a miracle happened" explains nothing. An explanation gives more details and reveals relevant facts. It gives us information on the thing or process involved. Saying a miracle happened just kicks the can down the sidewalk to get us to the same questions: Exactly how did that happen? Using what mechanism(s)? What are the facts involved? In other words: Me: How did that happen? WLC: It was a miracle. Me: OK. And how did that make the thing happen?
@@Kevin_Williamson That just means you weren’t persuaded by the “a miracle happened” explanation. On the other hand, for believers in miracles they have tremendous explanatory power, and can be used to explain anything to the believers’ satisfaction. And pretty much any explanation just kicks the can down the road since it is generally always possible to ask for more or deeper explanation. Whether an explanation is satisfactory of persuasive for you is largely a matter of whether you have exhausted your desire to kick the can further. Believers in miracles are easily satisfied with just the “a miracle happened” kick.
@@markhamstra1083 -- it has nothing to do with persuasion. It has to do with information. Just because a believer is satisfied with Godidit doesn't mean it's an explanation. It's simply a response; a filler on the right side of a question mark. Let's try another example. Someone sees a ball rolling down a hill. He asks two people standing nearby what made that happen. The first man says, "God did it." The second man explains in detail facts like the force of gravity, the effect of the prevailing wind to set the ball in motion, angle of the hill, lack of obstacles to stop the ball, so that the initial observer now knew how it all really happened. The first person offered a response to the question. Not an explanation. The second person gave factual details that fully explained the processes involved in the observed phenomena. The first response doesn't really tell anyone exactly how it happened. It explained nothing in reality. Not how it worked, the mechanics of it, how it affected the object, what forces or physics were involved. The second explanation tells us what happened -- the actual process and causes -- and why. Another bystander could believe the first person but not the second. That doesn't change that the first one wasn't an explanation and the seconds one was.
Plus, I think I heard from Dr. Richard Carrier that Jews at that time allowed capital punishment criminals to be temporarily placed in rented tombs for a holiday and then have their bodies taken out and dumped with the mass criminal grave ditch.
I was trying to analyze what is was that makes this animation even more enjoyable than some of the others. Contrasting the inset frame, well timed with the conversation, added thrust to the dialog and set the context visually. The animated and photographed faces were caught in funny poses, which were expressed at just the right time. Thanks for making me LOL.
It doesn't matter how "warmed over" an argument is, if it is a VALID argument with all the power of its veracity intact... ... and losing to an OLD argument is just as much of a loss as ever it was!
This was a great video Paul! I appreciate this so much. Bart is just a smart man, he seems kind and humble, I say that just because I don't know him personally. From what I've seen Bart is a great historian and wonderful to listen to. He really does want to get to the truth of what we really know, he doesn't mind having ideas, but he wants facts. I like that about him. But, something I love even more about Bart is how he's a nice guy, and a intellectual man, so when he cuts people down or says they sound stupid it comes out just awesome. He makes me laugh, and he's right, he's just smarter than these guys. I know Bart is a intellectual so he would never say he's smarter than someone or anything like that, but he is, I'll say it for him lol.
WLC is the genius who said that animals feel pain but do not suffer because, lacking self awareness, they do not know that they feel pain. That’s enough WLC for one lifetime.
3:40 -- WLC: _"You could tell that Bart Ehrman used to be a preacher because the remainder of the debate it was basically preaching: yelling and lots of rhetoric and never came to grips with the argument"_ -- Man, it's nice to see someone like WLC openly say how idiotic and ridiculous preaching is.
My expertise is respiratory therapy, for 27 years now. And my expert hypothesis after listening to William Lane Craig in this video is that he has early stages of emphysema. He gasps with each sentence. Lol
"Sound and fury signifying nothing" was actually written about apologists. They're not playing to anyone beyond people who believe what they're "proving" to start with.
William "Limbo" Craig is gradually approaching the point where he can't go a day without metaphorically caking his trousers. The ultimate, desperate, grasping used-god salesman - a perfect example of where a career in convincing yourself you're right can lead you. Also, it's interesting to see that Craig's understanding of how history is done is only slightly worse than his one-eyed grasp of philosophy. And for someone who exhorts others to read his published work, he seems to have actively avoided doing so regarding Bart, preferring instead his own narrative. Just keep dropping that bar, Billy.
My wife arranged a sit-down with her pastor (i attend church with her as a non-believer) I told the pastor I explored both sides of the claims of Christianity and became unconvinced. The guy then went off about how Bart got a divorce and now he's angry at god. Then he trashed Ehrman's scholarship. Funny thing is Frank Turek frequents "our" church and his books are garbage...
I would love to see Craig have a discussion with a historian of an unrelated time or place (be it somewhere in Asia or the Americas or who focuses on 1000ce or 500bce) and simple have them have a discussion about how history is done.
Using the Gospels and Paul instead of just Paul in a debate against Bart is like playing Michael Jordan in basketball with 2 hands instead of one. Lol what a legend.
As a professed atheist I must take issue with Bart Ehrman's ever-present "commercial announcements". I am getting that "big bank", rather than essential truths, are his motivation. It is very sad to see someone sell out.
Wow I really regained a lot of respect for Bart Ehrman watching this. I needed to appreciate Bart in the context of his expertise rather than the things I disagree with him about.
Great video! I hope that Dr. Ehrman will eventually start applying some of these Bayesian ideas to some of the other claims of the NT, such as regard Jesus' own physical existence.
No, Bart is not keen on probabilities where one's own numbers can provide an outcome (he's said as much). Check out Richard Carrier who loves Bayesian theory and uses it to "prove" Jesus never existed.
The likelihood of Jesus existing is like extremely high, for one, because the gospels only make sense as a rationalization of why he as a messianic claimant failed. messianic claimants were extremely common, and especially among apocalyptic Judaism- it should be noted. There’s nothing exceptional about a Jewish rabbi of this time claiming to be the messiah. A close reading of the gospels finds improbable inconsistencies that are unlikely to be invented, coupled with the aspects of the stories that are likely to be invented - meaning that it is extremely unlikely that he was anything but a Jewish rabbi who thought the end was nigh, made a big fuss of it, got on the wrong side of the authorities, and got crucified- he didn’t know he would get crucified, he likely didn’t think of himself as a sacrifice, etc. Most mythicists don’t seem to understand how different the conception of the messiah was to Jewish society at the time, that messiah as a title implied that you would come down and set right the world, bring about the kingdom of god. Even between Mark and Mathew versus things like John, it’s clear that we are operating within two different paradigms of what or who he was. The narrative of him anticipating his own death and him being resurrected make sense as justifications for why god would abandon him. And Jesus when asked in the earlier gospels, doesn’t say ‘ you need to believe in my resurrection’ he says ‘give your things to the poor’ ‘treat your neighbours with compassion’ Because the historical Jesus believed that god would bring about his kingdom on earth within the next couple of years and so all of that wouldn’t matter.
Honestly, the idea of Jesus dying and being resurrected is an extremely confusing thing theologically, and it’s only through years of people rationalizing it that it makes any sense. Why the hell does that save anyone. It took Paul to start coming up with justifications and rationalizations to kind of mash together ideas (his death makes unnecessary the Jewish law) If Jesus was a myth, then would he not simply have said ‘I am here to invalidate the Jewish law, I am god’ It doesn’t because the idea that Jesus was god isn’t even in the New Testament really, only that he was in some sense divine - in what sense, who knows. It’s not even until the nicene creed that we even get the idea that Jesus is 100 percent equal to God and or part of the Godhead and even then people would complain about it. There are so many less theologically tedious ways that Jesus could have been ‘written’ as a character. They could have had god ‘break off a piece of himself’ and send it to earth. They could have added all sorts of cosmic fluff to rationalize it, but they hadn’t worked that out yet because all they were really doing (the writers of the gospels) is rationalizing why it was okay that he died (why the messiah meant something other than what Jewish society understood it to mean, and why god was still favourable to him (resurrecting him)
@@PasteurizedLettuce Paul figured out that if folks believed the story of jebus's "sacrifice" then the tradition of killing animals for sin or as an offering would go away. One can see how, having a barbeque with your own livestock would be soo much better than handing over your best goat or sheep to some priest as part of some ancient "law" , would be a very attractive idea. Religion is a way to manipulate superstitious people...and that sh-t STILL works ... look at all the crackpot preachers making a living off it.
I bet you never imagined being mentioned in the same breath as Craig and Ehrman back when you first started lol You're still one of my favorites, keep up the good work
Bertrand Russell said that Hume’s arguments are often disliked by some types of philosophers, but they can’t refute them. WLC seems to fit this definition.
10:37 whereas WLC has completely new arguments. oh. is it me or is there this slight tone of desperation in WLC's voice? he sounds like he's trying to convince himself. (edit) he sounds like he's in need of a respirator, he needs to take it easy.
Since the 1800s “originality” has been highly lauded by academia. However, pop culture has always preferred “good remixes” which is to say “rehashing old stuff with slight presently applicable changes.”
Now I understand why my Jewish girl friend doesn't believe in any of this. She says that Jesus is just one of MANY people who claimed to be the messiah and none of them fulfilled scripture.
Philosophy is quite useful for exploring various thought experiments; unfortunately some philosophers, like Craig, often believe that these thought experiment model accurately represent the real world. This is analogous to believe that our mathematical or physics models exactly represents the world. They are model, some more accurate than others. Craigs consistently wanders down philosophical paths and arrogantly states the conclusions are real
The defining characteristics of WLC are his intellectual dishonesty, his intellectual condescension, and.... well everything else I'm thinking of is covered by those first two....
SIGN UP FOR "Paul & Jesus - The Great Divide" SEMINAR www.tinyurl.com/BartDivide
Is it just me or is WLC having breathing problems? He wheezes at the end of every sentence.
If I had the money I'd buy it... Love Bart Ehrman as a consistent guest.
❤Jesus power wants all sheep to be in good condition for judgement day
WLC: "That's just warmed-over Hume!"
Also WLC: "Let me tell you about this totally fresh concept called the Kalam Cosmological Argument."
Perfect
I have heard Christians claim that WLC invented the cosmological argument. I am fully aware why they're hesitant to teach church history to lay people, but also COME ON.
@tealbricks the way he talks about it himself i could certainly see people reading that off him. Even though in reality he just sorta took one centuries old that had a clear special pleading issue and made it not about god
@@tealbricks Ask them where the word "kalam" comes from. It's those heretical muslims. 😱 The irony of trying to prove the truth of your own beliefs by using the arguments of heretics is huge.
A very convincing argument especially to ̶r̶e̶a̶l̶ other philosophers to point out that they are expanding on the ideas of others. I guess we will just ignore standing on the shoulders of giants.
This is almost as bad as Stefan Molyneux' argument of "This is boring". Seriously how do people take him seriously, especially given he touts himself as a philosopher? A philosopher should immediately recognize that this is not a valid argument in response as it doesn't do anything to dismantle the argument. If this would be enough to dismantle an argument then you could just say that Craigs accent isn't appealing to you therefore he is wrong. It would do the same amount of debunking.
The most fun part is that neither Craig, nor any other critics of Hume, have proven that his critique of miracles is nothing but right in the spot.
@@michaelsommers2356 You are right. My mistake.
@@michaelsommers2356 Corrected.
It still says “Ehrman” in the O.P. Instead of “Craig”
They'd have to actually engage with Hume's point to even begin to attempt that.
Well, when you're right, you're right. It's like Craig is simply saying that a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is "warmed over Pythagoreanism," rather than having an actual argument against it. 🙄
Damn William, calm down. If there's a one in a million chance that you could have a stroke over this argument, it's worth avoiding it.
That's gold, Jerry! Gold!
I mean, the way he's gasping for breath got me thinking he might've tried to pray for protection against covid instead of wearing a mask and washing his hands. So here's hoping.
Hoping that Pat Robertson is calling Billy home, I mean. To hell with the son of a bitch.
😆
Lmao
El Oh El!
A close-minded apologist complaining that other people don't learn from their interactions with others is internet gold
Considering a lot of their arguments are a whole lot older then 20 years as well
Especially since Craig learned absolutely nothing from his debate with Sean Carroll.
@@RurikeWell... the older an argument the more true it is duh.
@marcomoreno6748 then Gilgamesh is the ultimate true story since it predates any other story by hundreds of years
@@nickburns8096 no, Aboriginal stories are even older so they MUST be true. Lol 😆
I consider myself a connoisseur of Christian apologetics and there's nothing quite like the WLC vintage. It's just an overwhelming explosion of flavors. It has a consistent full deep hypocrisy as the foundation, very rich tones of smarmy patronization, a veritable symphony of outright misrepresentation, and ends with subtle condescension. If you ever want to find it just look for the label "You're obviously not familiar with my work".
Funny how Bart said the same thing about Billy in this video.😂
He offers arguments that while they weren't good to begin with, have aged like a fine milk left under the couch in a child's sippy cup.
How Christian in spirit
😂
@@uninspired3583 Yikes!
A man who made his entire career expanding on the Kalam cosmological argument for the existence of God, blaming Bart for following Hume…the irony, it knows no end.
can't have that dangerous empiricism getting in the way of a good myth
two things relating to religion on youtube that give me boundless pleasure, sean carroll at skepticon and sean carroll trouncing everything WLC in debate.
@@HarryNicNicholas sean carroll provided a public ass whipping to WLC. One of the favorite moments was having a particular physics guy [don't recall name] appear by VIDEO and say WLC was misrepresenting his work.
@@GodlessGubment "say WLC was misrepresenting his work." Where was this? I think you must mean Guth who claimed that he thought that the universe was eternal. He was talking about a model that evaded the BGV theorem. However Guth's model was merely another time-reversal model that completely fails to describe our FLRW universe OR the model is merely discribing a creation event producing two universes. I do not think that Guth officially published his model. Which was wise.
@@HarryNicNicholasThere is more irony there, WLC is complaining Bart is overstepping his bonds when WLC himself goes off on physics without having any qualification in the field. None. Doesn’t stop him.
Bart is erudite, witty, intelligent and most of all - very charitable to his opponent.
Bill, on the other hand....
“You give them an inch, they take a mile.” Dr. Bart Ehrman should have been even more charitable with the avatar-euhemerism mythicist position, it has far more evidence going for it than supernaturalism. Same thing with the skeleton-and-lipstick imitatio (scaffolding-and-highlights intertextual mimesis) textual criticism between Greek text influence upon Judaism and heavy Greek text influence upon Christian bibliolatry. We still need to take a closer look into any Zoroastrian and Kemetic-Egyptian texts available as well.
@@letsomethingshine Your bar is sooooooo low. There's really one group of people who think that mythicism has a lot going for it, and that group is random people on the internet who don't study ancient languages and texts professionally. This should tell us something, that to those most capable of assessing it, mythicism is not only a fringe position, but generally elicits an eyeroll. There are a few scholars out there too, but this goes for young earth Creationism as well.
@@jackfrosterton2530 So because only some people believe it, it's false? That doesn't follow. I personally find it entirely plausible that Jesus wasn't a historical person based on the evidence presented, but I'm more like 50/50ish on that. Historicist-agnostic, I guess. Ehrman is way too dismissive of the idea and his reasons for dismissing it are suspect and poorly-articulated. I also think it's a bit hypocritical for him to say Craig doesn't take the Romulus story seriously based on weak evidence, but then he takes Jesus's historicity seriously based on weak evidence. He ought to at least acknowledge the genuine strangeness of the paucity of reliable evidence for the existence of such a supposedly important man.
@@Uryvichk No, that isn't what I said, what I said is what I said. When unqualified people think they know more than expert consensus, well.... think for yourself for a few minutes about all of the other cases where you see people with that sort of mindset and self confidence on the internet, and look at the conclusions they believe, because they think they understand more than they actually do. It's not good company to be in.
I don't think Ehrman is as erudite as you think. He really dismisses some things with that laugh and not argument. He represents himself as a historian but he was educated in theology. I think he wants to sell books. He avoids certain topics because he knows his audience. It's a bit flippant the way he treats certain scholarly ideas. He's not necessarily wrong but, he isn't what I'd cal honest about how he arrives. That dismissive laugh irks me. Anyway, nothing in this video that I could disagree with.
Edit: this has been one of the most frustrating videos I've ever watched, and I cannot fathom how Dr Ehrman managed to review Bill and his "critique" without flipping a desk. I'm astounded at the disrespect and disingenuous LIES Craig is content to throw out without consideration.
I didn't think Billy Boy Craig could get any more disingenuous and dishonest, but there's me having more faith in him than is warranted. I'm amazed at your charity and restraint in discussing "Dr Craig" and his honestly staggering disrespect, Dr. Ehrman.
It is really sad to see that this is where scholarship versus 'theology' or, apologetics winds up, but the truth for WLC has already been demonstrated and no dissent from that will be tolerated.
A credit to BE and Paulogia that their approach, has been to take emotional and derisive commentary out of the debate and concentrate on what can be reasonably demonstrated.
Theologians are notorious for privileging their version of dogma over any attempt to establish facts. Modern Christian apologists are no different.
I think we will start to see lies brought out a little more as we move forward. They used to spout their classic arguments for the existence of their particular flavour of deity. Though as the debunks of these arguments spread amongst sceptics, these arguments get dismissed, the classic Kalam Cosmological argument gets puts to bed as a god does not form any part of that, until "therefore God" is randomly thrown in at the end, hoping no-one noticed the deceit. One might as well say "look at the trees.... therefore God".
I think that Craig’s passion certainly showed I don’t think he was disingenuous at all though I don’t think we should jump to attacking his motives.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 I'm sorry, but in my opinion, Craig is nothing but disingenuous.
@@jhill4874 and I completely disagree with that. I think that Paul can be pretty disingenuous, trollish, and condescending with his holl “ the bible tells me so jingles” he was completely uncharitable to Lydia McGrew and her position.
It’s crazy to me how when I was a Christian I held WLC up in really high regard as a shining example of intellectual faith, and now, I just see him as a snake oil salesman through and through. He’s a very compelling orator if you already agree with everything he’s saying.
Wow, kind of same. WLC was one of the first apologists i turned to (via Lee Strobel's Case for Christ). I found him so wise and insightful back then... I think about it every time i watch him play these mind games now
For me it was Ravi Zacharias. Imagine my embarrassment now. Yeesh.
Yes the same. Although I hadn't really looked in detail at what he and his opponents were saying, only what he 'says' in Case for Christ and Case for Easter, which is obviously as one sided as it gets.
Now i think he comes across as a bit of a dick ...
My first experience with Craig was his debate with Sean Carrol.
So you could say i never had that problem, lol.
@@BluePhoenix_ Yeah. That was fun. Craig simply wasn´t able to understand even the beginnings of the physics Carroll so patiently explained to him.
11:46 - William Lane Craig has had physics explained to him multiple times and yet has chosen to ignore it. William Lane Craig has had non-theistic moral realism explained to him, and yet has chosen to pretend that there is no such thing, claiming to have no clue how anyone could possibly defend such an idea. William Lane Craig is the king of invincible ignorance. This bit right here is the purest form of projection I have ever seen from William Lane Craig.
Exactly. I was going to point this out, but you've already done the leg work.
This episode is an instant classic.
Psychological projection of insults is a desperate coping mechanism, Mr. Low Bar Craig. Lol
I wanted to say the same, yet used too many words. Thanks for saying it better 😊
@@letsomethingshine
Low-bar Billy. Good description.
Just quoting Hume scoffs the man who has ridden the Kalam to death😂
It's hard not to see the irony.
@@oscargr_ it's made harder because it's hidden behind all the hypocrisy
Craig is not:
- A historian
- Scientist in general
- Physicist
- Astronomer
- Biologist
- Mathematician
and many more things, yet that never seems to stop him from making grand proclamations on those topics, even when corrected on it by actual historians, physicists etc.
It's amazing how much information Craig has to know in order to be SO WRONG about nearly all of it.
Believable.
I think your list is missing both 'honest' & 'competent'
No, he's something better...a believer.
Reminds me of this guy with the last name "Peterson."
It's really strange how people like this believe being an expert in one field makes them experts in everything else.
I love how quickly Bart laughed away the Adam and Eve book 😂😂😂
That's because Bart works at an accredited institution doing research founded in reality.
His reaction is how 99% of other actual academics react to WLC's ludicrous claims.
@@BlueBarrier782 no, it´s simply because that Adam and Eve book is not history, it´s adjacent to archeology and biology but reading a summary makes it obvious that it´s all theology. It´s trying to answer the question if and how it might be possible to believe in the actual existence of Adam and Eve based on what science tells us about human development and evolution. If you don´t already believe in the bible, this book won´t do anything for you and it was obviously never supposed to.
@@mekullag Yeeup. 17:00 and the response was bang on. "No no no, I'm talking about HISTORY". Yep. There's room for study there, but it's not history unless it's accepted as true. And so far there's very little reason to accept it as anything other than a fable or myth. Fables and myths can have value, but we don't think there was an actual historical figure called Pandora for example... Do we?
It takes a while of watching WLC speak and debate (and I've done plenty of watching) to pick out the specific techniques he uses to try to convince people of his views. He'll specifically try to attack the credibility and legitimacy of his opponent rather than trying to address their arguments, and he'll attempt to portray their views as some crazy fringe ideas that no rational person believes anymore. He frequently will act "shocked" and "surprised" that his opponent could believe something so "outdated" and "debunked". But when you drill down beneath all of that to his actual arguments, you find nothing of substance.
Exactly. I remember when he responded to Paulogia: he started by criticizing his appearance, his age and I kid you not, he mocked him for having been indoctrinated into young earth creationism as a kid. Abject individual, the type of guy who in another age would have been applauding from the first row at the burning of heretics.
Your analysis of his tactics is much kinder than mine. I've found him to outright blatantly misrepresent his opponents arguments while framing his interlocutors as not understanding him. Portraying their views as crazy is exponentially better if he's at least portraying their actual views. His original interactions with Scott Clifton are a great example of his dishonest smarmy condescension. I highly recommend the video "William Lane Craig isn't doing himself any favors", but then again I'm "obviously not familiar with his work".
@@88mphDrBrown Excellent analysis of WLC
He is also a massive clout-seeker, an attention-grubber of a sort, and respect is the currency he trades in. He wants to be respected as the smartest and most important intellectual in the room, and since he can't just DEMONSTRATE that by ACTUALLY BEING the smartest person in the room, he has to bring down anyone who might threaten him by implying they lack education, training, expertise, experience, the ability to fairly judge evidence, etc. The less people are buying that, or the more respect anyone other than WLC receives, the angrier he gets. It's shockingly childish.
Brilliantly said. That nails WLC modus operandi perfectly. Chocolate coated BS served on a platter of snide-ness and condescension. He more than tarnishes the name christian.
Craig’s affectation of amused dismissiveness, as if he is on the verge of laughing at every argument against his arguments, seems to me his most significant contribution to his debates. His confident tone, unconcerned by any opposing view is a winning tactic, though irrelevant to any actual argument.
I haven't read anything from Gary Larson in 20 years and not much of it even then, but your writing style still sounds exactly like his to me when his captions are exposition. I just googled his name and went to images and this was the first exposition caption.
"Donning his new canine decoder, Professor Schwartzman becomes the first human being on Earth to understand what dogs are actually saying."
*shrug* alright g2g
Bingo ! WLC is a smart guy for the hard of thinking. And it seems the hard of thinking like confidently spoken big words and smarmy put downs. Sad.
@@jackfrosterton2530 It seems to me that this is, indeed, the writing style of a very large portion of authors.
@@BlockyBookworm lol
If Bart ever debates WLC again, make sure a set of pearls and a fainting couch is nearby so WLC doesn't injure himself. My dog, the pearl clutching theatrics here is next level.
Very well said, my friend. 😅
Ehrman mentions Apollonius of Tyana and Romulus as two examples of divine translation with appearances. Interestingly enough, in both cases, their physical body disappears:
"Others say that he died in Lindos after passing into the sanctuary of Athena and vanishing inside. Another version is that he died in Crete even more miraculously than is related at Lindos. Apollonius was staying in Crete, admired even more than before, when he visited the sanctuary of Dictynna at dead of night. Protection of the sanctuary is entrusted to dogs that guard its treasures, and the Cretans consider them nothing short of bears or other animals equally savage. But they did not even bark when Apollonius arrived, but ran up and greeted him even more than they did those they were fully accustomed to. The officials of the sanctuary put him in chains as a sorcerer and a robber, claiming that he had thrown something to the dogs to pacify them. But at about midnight he set himself free, and after calling his jailers so that they would notice, he ran to the doors of the sanctuary, which flew open. As he entered, the doors returned to their original position, and there emerged the sound of girls singing, and their song went, “Proceed from earth! Proceed to heaven! Proceed!” In other words, “Ascend from earth.” (Philostratus, Life of Apollonius of Tyana 8.30)
"And after Romulus had reigned thirty-seven years, and established those two excellent foundations of our commonwealth, the auspices and the senate, his great achievements led to the belief that, when he disappeared during a sudden darkening of the sun, he had been added to the number of the gods;" (Cicero, The Republic 2.10)
Disappearance, either of a living person or of a corpse, was a recognized way to signalize that the person underwent divine translation. Some other examples include Aeneas, Alcmene, Ariadne, Aristeas of Proconnesus, Cleomedes of Astypaleia, Diomedes, Heracles, Himilcar I, Gaius Epidius of Nuceria, Metioche and Menippe. Alexander the Great reportedly wanted to throw himself into Euphrates so that his body is not found and the belief in his divinity is cemented (Arrian, Anabasis 7.27.1-3).
Wow thanks!
Kamil, Jesus told my friend he’s returning and that settles it. 500 witnesses we defined as witnesses said so too. Pfft never bring facts to a faith fight. #Liberalscholarsimmaright
“Never bring facts to a faith fight” 🤣 … thanks, that tasty morsel will help lower my frustration level when listening to brainwashed apologetical pundits.
@@JimmyTuxTv Jesus told my friend that he is coming very soon 2000 years ago.
@@angelman906 yes Paul says don't have kids or household build as the time is soon like now...liiiikkkeee now! now? how bout now...
Mr. Paulogia, you've really opened my eyes to the complexity of history and other arguments against religion with the guests you've had and the arguments and videos you've made.
This was so fun watching this! 😂
The best part of that debate was when Dr. Bass was trying to use the sightings of Jesus post-resurrection as "evidence" and Dr. Ehrman hit him with the fact that 100's of people in South America were going to wake up and see the Virgin Mary tomorrow morning and you could see realization in Dr. Bass' eyes that what he was trying to defend was ridiculous and he had no grounds to dismiss the sightings of Mary, without special pleading for Jesus. He still tried though. 🤣
I've visited Fátima and read accounts of the people who "saw" the virgin Mary. These were written within days, some even hours, of the event. These have been microfilmed- but not translated, so knowledge of Portuguese is required- and can be accessed by scholars. We know who these people were, and in some cases have quite a lot of information on them. This is not an account of someone saying "500 people saw this" but several, individual accounts...and yet it is very clear, no miracle happened.
My favorite is a very Catholic lady who wrote to a friend that she did not see anything...and proceeded to blame her own lack of faith!
Actually Catholic apologist Tent Horn have said multiple times before that the miracle of "lady of Fatima" has better evidence for it than the resurrection of Jesus, and he uses it as an argument against non-catholics lol
@@Nocturnalux "My favorite is a very Catholic lady who wrote to a friend that she did not see anything...and proceeded to blame her own lack of faith!"
And this is why I think that this sort of religious ideation is harmful regardless of how overtly harmful one may or may not be.
This woman was essentially abusing herself for not falling in with a psychogenic hallucination. She adopted negative attitudes towards herself out of FOMO for something that isn't real. It's such a messed up social dynamic in a world where we already have plenty of them.
@@rainbowkrampus It is truly amazing. Having failed to hype herself into seeing anything, she assumed it was her own fault.
It is also worth mentioning that while plenty of people claimed to have seen something, individual accounts vary radically when it comes to what was seen. Some saw Mary alone, others also saw Jesus and a combination of biblical figures and saints that also varies from person to person.
There is one particularly vivid and detailed account from the man who went to build the statue, and it includes a rainbow stairway that absolutely no one else saw.
If you compare them all, I’m not even sure there are two that match.
@@Nocturnalux It's wild that we've got well studied events like this and cargo cults and all the rest and people still want to special plead for their particular iteration.
What really kills me is that there's a reasonable argument to be made that "the 500" is really just a copying mistake that should have read "at pentecost".
So we have two entirely plausible explanations for this and people want to go for door number three which is the least probable option available.
Only thing better than starting with "if there is only one chance in a million . . . " is to have Paul's jingle immediately follow.
I prefer Billy's "I lower the bar" bit to the "if there's only one chance" one. The bar-lowering is more of a self-own, I feel.
So WLC can't find a good rebuttal to Hume's point so WLC just says it is an old argument. Why doesn't he give us a rebuttal to destroy Hume's point instead of trying to distract from the argument?
Because he’s got nothin’ 🙂
Apparently if you've read Hume, you would already know the magic rebuttal. Basically the "because it's obvious" argument.
While I find his rebuttals weak WLC has rebutted Hume's argument multiple times.
I musty have missed that, I've only heard him disagree with them.@@tomasrocha6139
Craig literally wheezing in desperation as he assassinates Erhman's character and mischaracterizes him.
it just shows his desperation. low-bar Bill's got nothing.
Yo! Billy Lame Craig sounds like 50 years of 2 packs of Marlboro Reds a day in this video.
@@kilgore2345 he seems angry. maybe he now realizes that his position is untenable but does not want to admit it to himself.
Ok arguments aside, why does Craig sound like he's making them while treading water in the deep end? It's exhausting to listen to.
It's literally all he's got. Warmed over Bill Craig.
I have to say...of all the channels that Ehrman regularly appears on, he always seems to have the most fun and has the best rapport with Paulogia. I always enjoy when you two work together.
I just want to give mad props to your "warmed over Hume" image 😂
Thank you.
After watching his reactions & explanations, it's evident WLC thinks his hyperbolic incredulity itself supports his argument. The more flabbergasted, nearly overwhelmed & theatrical he acts, the better he thinks he supported his argument. It's annoying at best and disingenuous at worse.
I wonder if WLC is having doubts in his old age and this is how it's manifesting? 🤔
I understand that’s always been his modus operandi. He has no facts or reason on his side so he has to discredit the opponent.
@@pansepot1490 Sure, but it's gotten more egregious in his old age.
I fully expect him to go to his grave thinking he's about to see the proverbial light.
But I do think that he's probably at a place in his life where he's secure in his position and so the barriers might be coming down a bit as a result.
Who knows, if he ever retires and spends some time out of the spotlight, he might find himself quietly deconverting and then acting like his whole career never happened.
@@rainbowkrampus Oh, I'm sure WLC knows by now that when he dies, this is the end. He's just getting pissy because his prestige is waning rapidly. And this is because atheism (read that as recognizing religion is bullsh-t) is becoming more mainstream. So those painful hidden cognative dissonances that people covered up are now being relieved, by people calmly pointing out the reasoning and logic behind not using "faith" as an excuse for accepting crap.
In short, more people are recognizing WLC as a sleazy, fast talking pitch man and it makes him venomously upset.
Maybe. He does have some serious physical ailment that he is battling, too, so maybe that is taking a toll on him. I also think that Bart (in the Bass debate) is going after the lynchpin of Christianity, the Resurrection, and so Craig's "defender mode" is strongly activated.
WLC always here to prove that the term "honest apologist" is an oxymoron.
"Honest apologist" is only second to "biblical truth" in the list of christian oxymorons. At the end of the list, one can drop the oxy part to describe the losers er users of those terms.
Same is true for "anti apologists" like Ehrman. It's two sides of the same coin. These debates are always bad faith debates. Lies on both sides, as well as exaggeration, misunderstanding, etc.
The problem is that Ehrman comes from an evangelical background himself but lost his faith. So like some of the people he debates, he makes the same fallacies. Like, "if there is a mistake or contradiction in the gospels, it's all worthless." Or claims like, "it's all copies of the copies, etc" as if that "proves" anything. Quite clearly papyrii just don't survive all that long. But the first Christians came from the Jewish background where you had to be quite thorough when copying texts. So it's not a "game of telephone".
Another point - claiming that the gospel of Mark was written 70 CE and then assuming it's always 10 years more for every following gospel isn't "historical science". It's only based on the texts and assumptions about the texts and on the good old "vaticinia ex eventu". An argument that is quite easy to debunk. This is not how reality works, it's not historical science. It's only one theological opinion vs another.
@MrSeedi76
I do not know if I am responding to an intentional, perfect piece of meta commentary about the nature and use of tu quoque in debates involving apologists.
I do not know if I'm responding to an unintentionally perfect, meta example of the nature and unironic use of tu quoque, presented in commentary lambasting the character of someone who has debated an apologist.
I feel the former is less likely, but hope springs eternal.
Regardless of the accuracy, or lack thereof in my evaluations, I remain confused about the opening assertions in the comment.
Could you elaborate on what you mean by "anti apologists"?
I'm reading it to mean literally anyone who debates/debunks an apologist, ever. - I can't square this conclusion with the statement that they're two sides of the same coin.
I'd appreciate it if you could clarify the definition, as I would like to understand the point made, but am unable to sans proper context.
??
Only oxymoron here is you…
As soon as Low Bar Bill says, "I think that he thinks that is the case [that, as a historian, he has a perceived intellectual advantage]." He is a poker player trying to bluff his way to victory, then when his bluff is called, instead of showing his hand, he tries convincing the entire table that he holds the winning hand. When they don't buy it and make him show his hand, he has no cards at all, but continues to bluff and say that Actually, his cards are beyond space and time, they never began to exist, so they are the greatest of all cards, and that he wins by default. Might not be the GREATEST analogy, maybe Logicked could work out the kinks, but the point is solid.
Some philosophers have this sense that their discipline is BY FAR the most important of all and bristle at the notion that people who, uh, study specific things that actually exist, might know more than them about, uh, the specific thing they study. This definitely isn't true of all of them! But it's certainly true of WLC.
People like Craig are impossible to debate to begin with. But when they start spouting nonsense like "beyond space / time", it's time to leave. Wtf does "beyond space / time" mean? Htf can something exist nowhere? If it doesn't exist anywhere, then it doesn't exist by definition. Same thing goes for existing outside of time. If it doesn't exist at any time, then it doesn't exist by definition.
@@Andres64B Haha, you're absolutely right. It becomes a game where the best bullshitter wins... hey, maybe I should try my hand at philosophical debate! In all seriousness though, I will admit that, personally I can at least sit through ten minutes of a WLC debate (an older one, anyway) without causing irreparable damage to the device I'm watching it on, my hope for humanity, and my brain. I can not say the same for Kent Hovind. I think many apologists take a Troll approach to argumentation: "I don't need to make a solid argument, or even win the debate. I just need to frustrate rational people enough that I can snap back with a 'Look at how mad these Evolutionists/Atheists are. They know I'm right. That's the only explanation for them being so frustrated.'"
Excellent point by Dr. Ehrman about opponents saying his views are just a version of those of X, especially when X was an insightful and influential person such as Hume and Hegel. The issue isn't who else has had the same or similar views, it's whether the views are well grounded.
Its like trying to get the reverse effect when name-dropping:
He wants to poison the well by hanging hume on ehrman (its not, but to _christians_ it most certainly is)...
_without rebutting either hume or ehrman at all_
I just realized he also tried to weel-poison by talking about credentials. Why does anyone who isnt a christian talk to this buffoon?
I started having trouble with the logic of Christian faithfuls when I was 16. I am in my seventies now and I have no patience with the likes of Craig. The fact that I was trained as a mathematician probably did nothing to tolerate bad logic - or good logic starting from shaky premises. The sense I constantly have with the likes of Craig is that their faith dictates what their conclusions need to be and they make the "appropriate" argument to get there. Paulogia bats 1000 and is infinitely more patient than I am.
What bad logic? What shaky premises? Don't lie again.
I can't attribute my critical analysis skills to mathematics, but I guess savants come in many disciplines. It's hard sometimes having a natural talent for this and to see people struggle to apply even basic criticism
@@EdithBromfeldDid you even watch the video?
@@JCW7100 I need specifics. Not one of you atheist clowns can demonstrate an actual problem. Just lies, quotes out of context and vague accusations.
@@JCW7100 "Edith" is a frequent troll and just likes to argue for the sake of it.
WLC criticising someone for not correcting their mistakes after they've been pointed out, is both insanely hilarious and disgustingly hypocritical.
♪Every Accusation Is A Confession♫
Dr. Bart Ehrman is one my favorites of your regular guests!
I've watched that Justin Bass debate from a few different angles now. I too was amazed at Dr. Ehrman's legendary level of patience.
Thanks for another great video!
💖
Yeah, he did a fine job of editing, too. I'm assuming there was editing, since the transitions were so smooth and quick. Good stuff.
I love seeing Ehrman on your show, everytime he's on I learn something new.
The odd thing here is that Craig seems to have misunderstood Bayes Theorem or at least is trying to run it backwards. Bayesian probability is actually a lot harder for him to argue from that frequentest probability. The prior probability for a case like this has to be that a non-supernatural event is more likely than a supernatural one. Getting a posterior probability that the resurrection actually happened would have to involve ruling out every single non-supernatural explanation-including those that no one has ever thought of.
Craig often only partially understands the ideas he espouses. He is well read in the sense of the sheer topics he tries to cover and tie together but he often connects too many dots that shouldn't be connected due to his rudimentary comprehension of the subjects. The back and forth between physicists and WLC on the cosmological argument and his (mis)understanding of the theoretical models he calls to his defense is a great example.
Well, he thinks the priors for the supernatural are high enough that it’s more likely than say, another God/their satan doing this as a trick,
Or aliens doing this as a practical joke. I suppose he just finds any possible naturalistic explanation for the resurrection weak enough to not consider it as an alternative.
That and his namesake “low bar,” as well as he probably believes the Bible prophecies are real, raising his prior such that it’s quite likely that Jesus is the messiah mentioned in the prophecies, and they mentioned him rising
As someone who's worked with Bayes professionally for years, I'm constantly ranting about apologists' misappropriation and misunderstanding of it. All of them, without exception, focus solely on the conditional probabilities and completely ignore priors, when every Bayesian knows that one is useless without the other. This is especially problematic in fine-tuning arguments. It's also the "dirty little secret" of Bayesian probability that it's very difficult to justify priors without some formal Solomonoffian/Kolmogorovian proofs, and nobody does that; most don't even know that such things exist, and would have no idea how to go about estimating them.
The prior for resurrection hypothesis is low but if the likelihood ratio is high enough it will offset it. The idea is that the reaurrection hypothesis explains the facts better than any rivals and that offsets the low prior.
@@natokafa5238 The conditional probabilities are not high and low enough respectively to offset a 1 in ~100 billion prior. To even get to a 50/50 scenario you'd have to assume that if a resurrection happened we'd expect such evidence 100% of the time, and if it didn't happen we'd expect such evidence around 1 in a 100 billion times. The former is not that high and (more importantly) there's no way the latter is that low. We have ample evidence of people mythologizing history, of legends growing, especially around important figures, and especially decades after the fact after a ton of word-of-mouth tale-telling.
I wonder if Craig’s animated ramblings about Ehrman stem from jealousy over Ehrman’s scholarly reputation and accomplishments.
Also, the irony of WLC accusing someone else of not taking correction. I'm dying over here.
WLC telling anyone else to "stay in your lane" is RICH.
Never in the entire history of mankind, has a 'supernatural' explanation for any event or phenomena ever proven correct.
WLC: If there's just one chance in a million...
Paulogia: That'll never get old.
Me: So true, Paul, so true.
The entire Video can be summed up as:
"Your honor. I object!"
"On what grounds?"
"It's Devastating to my case!"
Great video. I'm amazed Bart can remain so composed while WLC casts aspersions
It's the same way I remain composed when Santa cast aspersions.
It's easy if you don't consider Santa a serious ( real) person.
Practice. Bart has taken a lot of heat through the years. But I agree: I admire his patience with this. If it were me, I'd lose my temper.
Craig's biggest arguments are bashing the opposition and "i really want it to be true"
And hyperbolic incredulity / flabbergasted theatrics.
@utubepunk " I think if there's even a chance in a million that it's true you should take it" Craig might have a gambling problem
He would never publicly admit to regretting this, but do you think Bill Craig wishes he hadn't said out loud that he lowers the bar for Christianity?
It's "cannon" now so he can't back down!
I also wonder if he got loads of emails from supporters telling him how much that comment has made their faith even stronger. Scary just how effective echo chambers can and do work.
Yes, I suspect he regrets saying it. I saw his defense of that statement, and while I agree there may be some specific situations in which adopting a specific belief you know to be improbable (e.g., "I am going to beat this cancer") might be helpful in a pragmatic sense, you cannot extend that same strategy to an all-encompassing belief system like Christianity. In my opinion, Craig was trying to encourage a young man who was struggling with his faith, he got a little too personal and emotive, and he said too much. He forgot that he is the subject of scrutiny, and the internet never forgets.
The thing is, WLC/LBB hasn't just gotten more arrogant and dismissive of other people's opinions, he has always been that way. imagine claiming an empty tomb is good evidence of anything! That reminds me my bank account is empty, clearly someone stole the 10 million pounds I had in it.
It will be returned soon
/s
@thinbox dictator that'll be nice, seeing as I've been hard at work convincing everyone the money is real and spent most of it all ready.
"Why not deal with the argument?"
There's this thing where apologists seem to think that if they can point out an objection to their ideas is old, that is the same thing as responding to it.
Because it's all just posturing. "Look at me. Look what a smart and special boy I am. I can connect what you said to a famous name."
It's totally without value as something to say in an argument or discussion, but it serves the purpose of looking smart.
I hope Ehrman doesn't get too upset about this. I mean after all, Craig's made a career out of lying for money. Why does anybody take him seriously at all if they haven't fallen for his baloney? It's not worth even considering his position after what he's done.
these videos and debates might help others who believe Craig to see behind the curtain
@@Soapy-chan_old That's absolutely true
I tend towards the "Paul is a lot like modern day religious evangelists and apologists, and would write or say anything to keep the grift going" school of thinking.
Was cursing Paul for not putting a new video out an hour ago 😭😭😂😂 now we are here. Thanks a lot Paul.
Holy crap I’ve never heard Dr. Ehrman so fired up
Billy L Craig vs America’s favourite Xristenator.
I was convinced that Xianinanity should be called Paulism quite a while ago. This should be an interesting discussion. Thank you, Dr Erman.
Who is doing what to Hume ?
I don't think that WLC could identify a fact if it hit him in on the top of the head with a low bar.
WLC starts "fact finding" without an actual fact. And yet people give him money to pedantically fantasize, thinking this is what smart people sound like.
If I were that slick I'd start my own cryptocurrency, not mock being what a christian by representing it like he does.
Great video dr bart and paulogia! Nothing makes me happier than to see the veil removed from apologetics. Lies laid bare!
Strange noises were reported from Old Calton Cemetery, Edinburgh today. Almost sounded like someone turned in their grave.
bart is such a genuine guy, we can watch him struggle with the concept of someone exhibiting bad faith lol. he's like what is this guy hard headed?? keep being awesome doc!
The rationalwiki entry on William Lane Craig is still a useful source for reminding yourself what a slippery character he is.
If there's just a 1% chance that what William Lane Craig is saying it's true, then it's worth believing.
Haha no.
Gotta love WLC's assertion that "then a miracle happened" has explanatory power.
Very serious scolarship.
Miracles do have tremendous explanatory power: anything can be explained by “a miracle happened.” What miracles lack are things like persuasive and predictive power.
@@markhamstra1083 -- "then a miracle happened" explains nothing. An explanation gives more details and reveals relevant facts. It gives us information on the thing or process involved.
Saying a miracle happened just kicks the can down the sidewalk to get us to the same questions: Exactly how did that happen? Using what mechanism(s)? What are the facts involved?
In other words:
Me: How did that happen?
WLC: It was a miracle.
Me: OK. And how did that make the thing happen?
@@Kevin_Williamson That just means you weren’t persuaded by the “a miracle happened” explanation. On the other hand, for believers in miracles they have tremendous explanatory power, and can be used to explain anything to the believers’ satisfaction. And pretty much any explanation just kicks the can down the road since it is generally always possible to ask for more or deeper explanation. Whether an explanation is satisfactory of persuasive for you is largely a matter of whether you have exhausted your desire to kick the can further. Believers in miracles are easily satisfied with just the “a miracle happened” kick.
@@markhamstra1083 -- it has nothing to do with persuasion. It has to do with information. Just because a believer is satisfied with Godidit doesn't mean it's an explanation. It's simply a response; a filler on the right side of a question mark.
Let's try another example.
Someone sees a ball rolling down a hill. He asks two people standing nearby what made that happen. The first man says, "God did it."
The second man explains in detail facts like the force of gravity, the effect of the prevailing wind to set the ball in motion, angle of the hill, lack of obstacles to stop the ball, so that the initial observer now knew how it all really happened.
The first person offered a response to the question. Not an explanation. The second person gave factual details that fully explained the processes involved in the observed phenomena.
The first response doesn't really tell anyone exactly how it happened. It explained nothing in reality. Not how it worked, the mechanics of it, how it affected the object, what forces or physics were involved. The second explanation tells us what happened -- the actual process and causes -- and why.
Another bystander could believe the first person but not the second. That doesn't change that the first one wasn't an explanation and the seconds one was.
I'd like to hear Craig's explanation of how a resurrection is more probable than the alleged evidence for a resurrection simply have been made up.
Hed word it way longer with more complex words but essentially cause "the bible says so"
Especially given that he likely accepts that far more resurrections are made up than real.
Plus, I think I heard from Dr. Richard Carrier that Jews at that time allowed capital punishment criminals to be temporarily placed in rented tombs for a holiday and then have their bodies taken out and dumped with the mass criminal grave ditch.
@@Rurike That's no answer.
@@michaelsommers2356 indeed
I was trying to analyze what is was that makes this animation even more enjoyable than some of the others. Contrasting the inset frame, well timed with the conversation, added thrust to the dialog and set the context visually. The animated and photographed faces were caught in funny poses, which were expressed at just the right time. Thanks for making me LOL.
Thank Paul. Glad to see you still producing. Hope your health is good. I very much enjoyed this segment.
Bart Ehrman is such a gentleman
It doesn't matter how "warmed over" an argument is, if it is a VALID argument with all the power of its veracity intact...
... and losing to an OLD argument is just as much of a loss as ever it was!
This was a great video Paul! I appreciate this so much. Bart is just a smart man, he seems kind and humble, I say that just because I don't know him personally. From what I've seen Bart is a great historian and wonderful to listen to. He really does want to get to the truth of what we really know, he doesn't mind having ideas, but he wants facts. I like that about him. But, something I love even more about Bart is how he's a nice guy, and a intellectual man, so when he cuts people down or says they sound stupid it comes out just awesome. He makes me laugh, and he's right, he's just smarter than these guys. I know Bart is a intellectual so he would never say he's smarter than someone or anything like that, but he is, I'll say it for him lol.
WLC is the genius who said that animals feel pain but do not suffer because, lacking self awareness, they do not know that they feel pain.
That’s enough WLC for one lifetime.
This is a respectable amount of comments for a just dropped video. Here’s another offering for the algorithm.
3:40 -- WLC: _"You could tell that Bart Ehrman used to be a preacher because the remainder of the debate it was basically preaching: yelling and lots of rhetoric and never came to grips with the argument"_ -- Man, it's nice to see someone like WLC openly say how idiotic and ridiculous preaching is.
My expertise is respiratory therapy, for 27 years now. And my expert hypothesis after listening to William Lane Craig in this video is that he has early stages of emphysema. He gasps with each sentence. Lol
Maybe inhaling deeply is just WLC's "tell" that he is lying !! Lines up with "...every sentence." LOL.
"Sound and fury signifying nothing" was actually written about apologists. They're not playing to anyone beyond people who believe what they're "proving" to start with.
William "Limbo" Craig is gradually approaching the point where he can't go a day without metaphorically caking his trousers. The ultimate, desperate, grasping used-god salesman - a perfect example of where a career in convincing yourself you're right can lead you.
Also, it's interesting to see that Craig's understanding of how history is done is only slightly worse than his one-eyed grasp of philosophy. And for someone who exhorts others to read his published work, he seems to have actively avoided doing so regarding Bart, preferring instead his own narrative. Just keep dropping that bar, Billy.
To a net worth of around $2 million, unfortunately.
_"used-god salesman"_ I like that a lot.
@@vespa2860 Two million isn't that much. A nice house will get you most of that. Saving instead of spending will easily get you the rest of the way.
My wife arranged a sit-down with her pastor (i attend church with her as a non-believer) I told the pastor I explored both sides of the claims of Christianity and became unconvinced. The guy then went off about how Bart got a divorce and now he's angry at god. Then he trashed Ehrman's scholarship. Funny thing is Frank Turek frequents "our" church and his books are garbage...
I would love to see Craig have a discussion with a historian of an unrelated time or place (be it somewhere in Asia or the Americas or who focuses on 1000ce or 500bce) and simple have them have a discussion about how history is done.
Using the Gospels and Paul instead of just Paul in a debate against Bart is like playing Michael Jordan in basketball with 2 hands instead of one. Lol what a legend.
I love how passionate Dr Ehrman has talking about this
Good ole Low Bar Bill! :D
WLC: "I can't believe someone from our debate twenty years ago is still spouting the same drivel!"
... where's a mirror
As a professed atheist I must take issue with Bart Ehrman's ever-present "commercial announcements". I am getting that "big bank", rather than essential truths, are his motivation. It is very sad to see someone sell out.
Wow I really regained a lot of respect for Bart Ehrman watching this. I needed to appreciate Bart in the context of his expertise rather than the things I disagree with him about.
The "best" explanation for life, the universe and everything is probably one that nobody has thought of yet.
I love Bart mentioning the Baal Shem Tov ❤
Great video! I hope that Dr. Ehrman will eventually start applying some of these Bayesian ideas to some of the other claims of the NT, such as regard Jesus' own physical existence.
No, Bart is not keen on probabilities where one's own numbers can provide an outcome (he's said as much). Check out Richard Carrier who loves Bayesian theory and uses it to "prove" Jesus never existed.
The likelihood of Jesus existing is like extremely high, for one, because the gospels only make sense as a rationalization of why he as a messianic claimant failed.
messianic claimants were extremely common, and especially among apocalyptic Judaism- it should be noted. There’s nothing exceptional about a Jewish rabbi of this time claiming to be the messiah.
A close reading of the gospels finds improbable inconsistencies that are unlikely to be invented, coupled with the aspects of the stories that are likely to be invented - meaning that it is extremely unlikely that he was anything but a Jewish rabbi who thought the end was nigh, made a big fuss of it, got on the wrong side of the authorities, and got crucified- he didn’t know he would get crucified, he likely didn’t think of himself as a sacrifice, etc.
Most mythicists don’t seem to understand how different the conception of the messiah was to Jewish society at the time, that messiah as a title implied that you would come down and set right the world, bring about the kingdom of god. Even between Mark and Mathew versus things like John, it’s clear that we are operating within two different paradigms of what or who he was.
The narrative of him anticipating his own death and him being resurrected make sense as justifications for why god would abandon him.
And Jesus when asked in the earlier gospels, doesn’t say ‘ you need to believe in my resurrection’ he says ‘give your things to the poor’ ‘treat your neighbours with compassion’ Because the historical Jesus believed that god would bring about his kingdom on earth within the next couple of years and so all of that wouldn’t matter.
Honestly, the idea of Jesus dying and being resurrected is an extremely confusing thing theologically, and it’s only through years of people rationalizing it that it makes any sense. Why the hell does that save anyone. It took Paul to start coming up with justifications and rationalizations to kind of mash together ideas (his death makes unnecessary the Jewish law)
If Jesus was a myth, then would he not simply have said ‘I am here to invalidate the Jewish law, I am god’
It doesn’t because the idea that Jesus was god isn’t even in the New Testament really, only that he was in some sense divine - in what sense, who knows. It’s not even until the nicene creed that we even get the idea that Jesus is 100 percent equal to God and or part of the Godhead and even then people would complain about it.
There are so many less theologically tedious ways that Jesus could have been ‘written’ as a character. They could have had god ‘break off a piece of himself’ and send it to earth. They could have added all sorts of cosmic fluff to rationalize it, but they hadn’t worked that out yet because all they were really doing (the writers of the gospels) is rationalizing why it was okay that he died (why the messiah meant something other than what Jewish society understood it to mean, and why god was still favourable to him (resurrecting him)
@@PasteurizedLettuce Paul figured out that if folks believed the story of jebus's "sacrifice" then the tradition of killing animals for sin or as an offering would go away. One can see how, having a barbeque with your own livestock would be soo much better than handing over your best goat or sheep to some priest as part of some ancient "law" , would be a very attractive idea.
Religion is a way to manipulate superstitious people...and that sh-t STILL works ... look at all the crackpot preachers making a living off it.
3:08 If there is one chance in a million wlc has never prepared at all for any of his debates, it is worth to believe it.
I bet you never imagined being mentioned in the same breath as Craig and Ehrman back when you first started lol
You're still one of my favorites, keep up the good work
I always love to see Craig and his ego taken down a few pegs.
Bertrand Russell said that Hume’s arguments are often disliked by some types of philosophers, but they can’t refute them. WLC seems to fit this definition.
10:37 whereas WLC has completely new arguments.
oh.
is it me or is there this slight tone of desperation in WLC's voice? he sounds like he's trying to convince himself. (edit) he sounds like he's in need of a respirator, he needs to take it easy.
Since the 1800s “originality” has been highly lauded by academia. However, pop culture has always preferred “good remixes” which is to say “rehashing old stuff with slight presently applicable changes.”
WLC breaths deeply before he lies. Seems to be with each sentence.
Now I understand why my Jewish girl friend doesn't believe in any of this. She says that Jesus is just one of MANY people who claimed to be the messiah and none of them fulfilled scripture.
Philosophy is quite useful for exploring various thought experiments; unfortunately some philosophers, like Craig, often believe that these thought experiment model accurately represent the real world. This is analogous to believe that our mathematical or physics models exactly represents the world. They are model, some more accurate than others. Craigs consistently wanders down philosophical paths and arrogantly states the conclusions are real
By that logic, William Lane Craig is just presenting "warmed over Bible"...
Some really good points here. Man, Craig has really trashed his reputation in recent years.
More like, more people are seeing the real WLC who didn't deserve a reputation ,... any more than Ravi Zacharias.
I report seeing a Unicorn. Which is more likely?
(A) Unicorns exist
(B) Someone glued a horn on a horse
(C) I'm having a laugh
(C)
WLC demonstrating the act of "projection".
"Still using that same old warmed-over mathematical argument that two plus two equals four!"
The defining characteristics of WLC are his intellectual dishonesty, his intellectual condescension, and.... well everything else I'm thinking of is covered by those first two....
WLC strives for respect. His cult followers are mentally like the folks at Jonestown, as his words are like sweet Kool-Aid.
Tangential, "legends don't grow that fast". There's a disturbing number of people who think Mr Beast cured 100,000 people's blindness.
Whelp, that's why his new nickname Low Bar Bill sticks so well...
WLC must think we are all idiots.
Beast mode Bart truly is something to behold...
Excellent work. Thanks for breaking down the ignorance of the apologist