Atheist Debates - Debate Review: The Resurrection Part 1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ก.ย. 2024
- A review of a debate with Than Christopoulos on whether the purported resurrection of Jesus was a historical event.
If you think it'd be worthwhile to have Than and Matt work together to review the details of this debate - add your comment below!
I am a biologist and use Bayesian stats regularly. I never have understood this use of Bayes Theorem by apologists. It seems like they use a very informative prior on the possibility of god/resurrection/etc, but in science, unless we have prior information (hence the term “prior”), we use a vague prior to reflection our uncertainty in the value of a parameter. Essentially, it seems like apologists bias their “Bayesian analysis” by assuming their hypothesis has a lot of supporting info when it has quite the opposite.
You're right, the apologists don't really use a Bayesian approach. They pretend to so that their arguments sound scientific to an uninformed crowd. Some apparently may have even have convinced themselves...
Like when Deepak Chopra talks about quantum physics.
I would assume that the prior probability for a miracle should be zero by definition.
@@bravante5927 Probably, but even if you put a vague prior on it, the evidence doesn’t support the miracle one way or the other, since there’s nothing explicitly tying the observations to the miracle. So at best you end up with your prior, meaning we still don’t know anything about the probability of a miracle.
Maths and PhD degree holder ... for a prior to work, regardless of how vague, then it must be a demonstrable possibility; supernatual beings are not a demonstrable possibility ..hence cannot have a prior; but as other commenters have observed theists either do not comprehend this or are dishonest. Essentially, by their reasoning ANY hypotheticl could have a prior (and hypothetical are as wild as the human imagination).
@@tariq_sharif After watching the opening statements and rebuttals of this debate, I think us arguing the proper/improper use of priors is moot. It seems Than uses the language of Bayesian stats but really just trots out all the same old apologist arguments. He doesn’t even try to put a number on a prior probability for the resurrection, just says it’s not so low that the stories in the Bible can’t overcome the prior. I think a big problem he has is that he’s saying, “Given the resurrection actually happened, what’s the probability we get the stories we do?” rather than asking, “Given the data (i.e., the stories), what is the probability that the resurrection happened?” In the former, the stories make a good deal of sense if the resurrection occurred, but in the latter, there are a whole lot more likely explanations for the stories than a resurrection. Like a lot of apologists, Than is starting with the presupposition that what he believes is true then making the data fit it.
That beard is getting powerful. May gain sentience soon.
i wish i could grow a full beard. i just have a red goatee at most
@@theflyingdutchguy9870 grass is always greener. Be happy with you.
@@Soliloquy-gy6zf you seem like a hoot at party's
@@theflyingdutchguy9870 hamas are terrorists
I think you and Than going through your openings together on the debate would be a really cool idea. Glad to see this debate was not a bait-and-switch move.
It's nice to hear you were in a mutually good-faith, intellectually honest debate for a change :)
When was he not in a mutually good faith and intellectually honest debate?
@@johnferranti3566 quite often recently. There have been multiple on MDD for example where the opponent wasn’t there to debate the subject as much as to try to “destroy” Matt. Multiple times the debates ended with the opponent trying to get on his nerves on purpose by being very bigoted and disrespectful to rile him up, instead of arguing any points.
@@johnferranti3566 Yeah, quite a lot of them. Matt goes to debate honestly, lots of his debate partners lately have been clout-farming or outrage farming.
@@johnferranti3566
Are you new here?
Ya but the debate was pretty boring actually. I'm not saying it needs to be full Jerry Springer but there needs to be some tension for entertainment purposes. I find the fact we are even having these debates about ancient, proven false myths in 2024 disturbing.
I definitely think that doing additional content with ANY honest opponent would be great
ooo.... I've been waiting for this one!
Why would anyone debate something as dubious and unfalsisifiable as the resurrection?
Honestly, now. We've gone over this for how long, two thousand years, and there's still no solid evidence in favor of it?
Why are we still even discussing it, it's a dead issue.
Because there are billions of people who believe it's true and they vote and make decisions based on that belief.
Because it keeps resurrecting it🫣
Because, without an analysis of what made people willingly let themselves in 90 AD (well within the direct memory of people who were there to witness "something utterly extraordinary", and too little time for a man's life to become superhero mythologic legend) be set ablaze to illuminate Emporer Nero's garden parties, an explanation for what was confirmed to be history is absent.
It would take your father's or grandfather's first-hand testimony that something more than an utterly ravaged pale stinking but somehow half-alive corpse, clearly left for dead in a tomb to convince you,Ike the Apostles, men at risk themselves of being imprisoned or tortured or killed a fter their leader was, to keep joyfully preaching their dead Messiah's message.
If Jesus did not speak the words attributed to him, why would anyone who came up with his profound teavmvhings attribute them to someone else, a mythical, non-wxistent person, rather than become famous for originating them?
👏thank you Matt Dillahunty for all you do towards the progress of humanity!
Besides his ethical/ logical inconsistency when it comes to veganism.
@@archangelarielle262I believe Dillahunty is atheist, not a vegan supstitionist.
“Progress of humanity.” … “The heart is deceitful above all things; who can know it.”
@@exceptionallyaverage3075 he's not just an atheist. He's also a proponent of humanism, in which, veganism is a natural extension. There is no superstition in not violating the well-being of any sentient beings, in the same way that you would not want to be infringed upon.
@@archangelarielle262 Nah. You just wish your vegan religious supstitionism was an extension of humanism. Humans evolved eating meat, and your personal preferences won't change that.
I would appreciate seeing you and Than go through the debate. That isn’t something I have seen to get both sides with honest feedback. I think you could pull it off.
After watching Matt's debades on modern day debates for the last couple of years, this debate was a nice refreshing change and I caught myself smiling all throughout the evnt, thinking this is how debades should be. Would love to see a review/discussion with both you and Than.
I liked Than. I obviously disagreed with the greatest majority of what he said but I enjoyed your conversation.
I watch everything that you put out Matt, always interesting to me. At the end of the day it seems, everything I’ve seen from theists, no matter what evidence or argument they present, it just ends up being “I believe it because I believe it. I have faith that it’s true, and I just believe it.”
You're right, of course. I enjoy Matt's incisive debates and critiques, but when it comes to Christianity at least, there's not much point in debating Christians since they virtually always rest their arguments on faith.
This is why Christianity never worked for me. The desire to have faith - and it is clearly a _desire_ - doesn't verify _any_ Christian claims. It merely tells me that it's very important to believers to espouse that particular belief system. When you ask them, "So, why is it wrong for me to have faith that, say, Islam is accurate?", the logical gymnastics begin.
@@BassByTheBay I hear you for sure, I agree. I’ve seen the mental gymnastics firsthand. My father, a Christian pastor for 45 years now, told me “all I can tell you is, I have faith, and I just have to hope that in the end it all makes sense.”
This was of course after years of conversation, arguing and debating together. I told him that would be our last conversation about Christianity. For every person that is as unmoved as my dad, hopefully there is one person open to reason, and that’s why Matt’s debates are still and always will be worth it.
Any naturalistic explanation is automatically far better than a supernatural one.
The complete improbability of the resurrection is what it makes it a miracle. A miracle by definition is a departure from natural causes.
How do you define natural? In the purely deterministic sense?
@@CryoftheProphetI think the main distinction is the one made by those who believe in the supernatural.
That the supernatural is that which isn't bound by the laws of nature, including the ones that we still don't understand yet.
@@Fernando-ek8jp Quantum entanglement by your definition is super natural.
Do you reject that too?
@@CryoftheProphet How on earth does that make sense?
We don't fully understand quantum mechanics, that doesn't mean that it breaks the laws of physics, it is part of physics.
People who believe in the supernatural tend to assert that such phenonema is outside of the realm of physics or natural laws.
In the case of the resurrection, the claim is basically that it is completely impossible for any natural means for anyone to resurrect unless something outside of nature, unbound by its rules, intervenes.
I thought I was pretty clear when I said that the distinction was brought up by those who BELIEVE in the supernatural.
A Matt and Than debate review sounds like an amazing video.
I would be excited to watch that!
I had respect for Than when I watched your debate. I then watched how he conducts himself with non-believers. His response is generally:
*"I've already addressed this."*
Meanwhile, he hasn't addressed it.
Additionally, he misuses Bayes like crazy. You can basically sum up his position that he believes God exists and thus Jesus' resurrection is very likely in his worldview. He just creates a system of beliefs. All of this could be done and have the same coherency if you just substituted in magic pixies.
You were spamming my comments sections. Over 100 comments in less than 24 hours initially. I don’t have time to respond to comments that give objections I’ve already addressed, and I told you what videos I addressed your objections in. If you didn’t find them satisfactory responses that’s fine.
@ExploringReality Maybe you should stick with critical scholarship, because you're going against the vast majority of Biblical scholars. Your claim that the gospels are eyewitness accounts is laughable. I have yet to come across an honest apologist.
Look up the article referenced below, titled *"How Did The Gospel Writers Know?"* by Doston Jones.
---------------------------------------------------------
*"Neither the evangelists nor their first readers engaged in historical analysis. Their aim was to confirm Christian faith (Lk. 1.4; Jn. 20.31). Scholars generally agree that the Gospels were written forty to sixty years after the death of Jesus. They thus do not present eyewitness or contemporary accounts of Jesus’ life and teachings.*
Unfortunately, much of the general public is not familiar with scholarly resources like the one quoted above; instead, Christian apologists often put out a lot of material, such as The Case For Christ, targeted toward lay audiences, who are not familiar with scholarly methods, in order to argue that the Gospels are the eyewitness testimonies of either Jesus’ disciples or their attendants. *The mainstream scholarly view is that the Gospels are anonymous works, written in a different language than that of Jesus, in distant lands, after a substantial gap of time, by unknown persons, compiling, redacting, and inventing various traditions, in order to provide a narrative of Christianity’s central figure-Jesus Christ-to confirm the faith of their communities."*
*As scholarly sources like the Oxford Annotated Bible note, the Gospels are not historical works (even if they contain some historical kernels).*
*"Majority of Scholars agree: The Gospels were not written by Eyewitnesses - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
Also, look up:
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
*"When Were the Gospels Written and How Can We Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*
*"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53
*"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
*"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"*
*"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
@@ExploringRealityYou had the time to find and then respond to this comment though. Just sayin’…
@@ExploringReality Three realities can be true.
1) Yes. I posted a lot on your video. You're the content creator and you can always block me. Your channel. Your call.
2) Yes. Your replies were not substantive in nature. Your videos where you "Address" what I wrote to you did not actually address what I wrote. I went and watched the video and gave you a reply. You never replied.
3) Your Bayesian frame work is just presuppositional apologetics in disguise. You start with high priors on everything related to the Bible and shockingly end up with a posterior where you believe in God. This is why people like Digital Gnosis (The person you said Cam didn't want to talk to) talks about Bayes being misused.
@@ExploringReality The video you asked me to watch (Which I did watch) listed out all the alternatives to the resurrection and why they are lacking.
I explained how the hypothesis of the church making up what Christians now believe around the resurrection explains everything. I challenged you to tell me one thing, "The church made that up" fails to explain.
Given the explanatory power of "People made that up" and our knowledge of the world that "People make things up", it's more logical to believe the "They made it up" hypothesis over the "Jesus is God" hypothesis.
*NOTE:* I won't be replying more here unless you want to engage with the theory of "They made it up" and show how it fails to explain something.
When performing a Beysian analysis the prior must be real data, not a guess. So the only valid prior for a resurrection is zero.
I'm always skeptical when they start the explanation by redefining probability.
would be so cool if we find out how to travel back in time. but i bet that even if we show people that what they believe happened didnt actually happen, they would still believe anyway
*Miracles and Apotheosis in the Ancient Mediterranean World*
*"It should first be noted that miracle stories are not uncommon in the literature of this period.* Ancient people believed in a world permeated by the supernatural and readily accepted stories of miracles and believed in stories of visions and visitors from the world of the divine all the time. *Even very sober and sometimes sceptical historians like Tacitus will pass on accounts of miracles that he clearly accepts and expects his audience to believe as historical.*
So when we read stories of how the emperor Augustus was *miraculously conceived by the god Apollo,* or how his birth was *presaged by a new star in the heavens,* or how Julius Caesar was seen *ascending into the heaven* after his death or how Vespasian *healed lame and blind people* who asked him for a miracle, we accept that these stories represent the kinds of things ancient people genuinely believed about great men. Or we accept that they are at least told to indicate that the man in question was great. *What we don't do is accept that simply because people believed these stories they must mean that they really happened.*
And this is even when the stories are presented to us by a very careful historian and given to us as verified fact. Take Tacitus' account of the miracles of the emperor Vespasian:
"In the months during which Vespasian was waiting at Alexandria for the periodical return of the summer gales and settled weather at sea, many wonders occurred which seemed to point him out as the object of the favour of heaven and of the partiality of the Gods. One of the common people of Alexandria, well known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. .... And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. *The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood."* (Histories, IV, 81)
Tacitus was closely connected to the court of Vespasian's sons and successors, Titus and Domitian, and so in a position to know the "persons actually present" and to consult them long after Vespasian's death "when nothing is to be gained by falsehood". He was also a very careful historian who scorned those who took rumour and stories as fact without checking them against sources and eye witnesses and who condemned those who "catch eagerly at wild and improbable rumours in preference to genuine history" (Annals, IV,11).
*Despite this, I don't know anyone who would read the account above and conclude that the emperor really had magical healing powers and genuinely used his supernatural abilities to heal people.* The fact that even a judicious and often sceptical analyst like Tacitus accepted this story shows us just how readily people in the ancient world accepted claims of the miraculous.
*One form of miracle that was widely believed in was the idea of apotheosis, where a great man is physically taken up in to the heavens and raised to divine status.* It was claimed that Romulus, the founder of Rome, underwent this process and *later appeared to his friend Julius Proculus to declare his new celestial status.* The same claim was made about Julius Caesar and Augustus, *with supposed witnesses observing their ascent into the heavenly realm.* Lucian's satire The Passing of Peregrinus includes his scorn for the claim that the philosopher was *taken up into the celestial realm and was later seen walking around on earth after his death.* The Chariton novel Callirhoe has its hero Chaereas visiting the tomb of his recently dead wife, saying he *"arrived at the tomb at daybreak"* where he *"found the stones removed and the entrance open. At that he took fright."* Others are afraid to enter the tomb, but Chaereas goes in and finds his wife's *body missing* and concludes she has been *taken up by the gods."*
If you want to read how the resurrection legend grew over time, read the below article by Tim O'Neill who is a former Christian and has been studying the scholarship for over 25 years.
*Answer*
What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1 - Quora
You can also read the below article by a former Christian apologist on how he agrees with the mainstream scholarship that Jesus was a failed apocalyptic prophet.
*"ex-apologist: On One of the Main Reasons Why I Think Christianity is False (Reposted)"*
Also, how cognitive dissonance possibly explains early Christianity.
*“The Rationalization Hypothesis: Is a Vision of Jesus Necessary for the Rise of the Resurrection Belief?”* - by Kris Komarnitsky | Κέλσος - Wordpress
*"How do we know that the biblical writers were* ***not*** *writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei"*
*"How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Yes, the Four Gospels Were Originally Anonymous: Part 1 - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Are Stories in the Bible Influenced by Popular Greco-Roman Literature? - The Doston Jones Blog"*
*"Gospels Not Written By Matthew, Mark, Luke or John - The Church Of Truth"*
*"February 2015 - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"* - Isaiah 53
*"Jesus and the Messianic Prophecies - Did the Old Testament Point to Jesus? - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
*"Did Jesus Fulfill Prophecy? | Westar Institute"*
*"Jesus Was Not the Only “Prophet” to Predict the Destruction of the Temple - Escaping Christian Fundamentalism"*
*"What Do the Apostles’ Deaths Prove? Guest Post by Kyle Smith. - The Bart Ehrman Blog"*
Excellent take, hope Christians read your post and research the sources provided.
@@skepticsinister Thank you. I hope so too. They'd be much better off sticking with critical scholarship rather than dishonest apologists.
@@ancientfiction5244 as I understand it, the problem with apologists (and in a certain measure with biblical scholars) is that they are totally unfamiliar with ancient Greek and Roman authors so they obviously can’t see the parallels and just assume there aren’t any.
That’s why you get Christian historians like Mike Licona assert that modern historians are biased for not accepting the supernatural claims made by ancient Christian authors, when it’s standard practice to discard supernatural claims wherever they are found.
@@pansepot1490 >Christian historians like Mike Licona assert that modern historians are biased for not accepting the supernatural claims made by ancient Christian authors
He actually says that? How insane, lol. Who the hell would expect a historian to read stories about dragons and giant krakens destroying ships and think "Yeah, I'll definitely take these stories as true"? Same thing.
that's great an all but isn't it just beating a dead horse ? how anyone can argue absurdities and expect to be taken seriously given what we now know about reality and human cultures is beyond me.
Matt, I was there and maybe we'll have that tequila sometime ;). I'd very much like to see you and Than sit down and hash this stuff out more. I agree that a conversation with someone who seems to be honestly defending his position without the debate guard rails would be really useful. I'd like for him to address this issue of the prior probability being greater than 0 for some kind of resurrection given that it wasn't demonstrated that resurrections are even possible.
Yes, absolutely agree that open and honest interaction is (for me at least) the most valuable form of discussion !
Thank you so much Matt, for sharing your time and thoughts.
❤
Please seek out the follow up discussion you proposed at the end of this video. It sounds like something truly productive and would be a breath of fresh air.
Hey Matt! I don't know how you put up with these Theist, you're an amazing person and I have become a much more knowledgable person because of watching you. I have a better outlook of life and I thank you for opening my eyes to the reality of the world.
Matt, you obviously enjoyed your debate with Than. So often we see you get upset with certain opponents who apparently are reluctant (or just down right terrified) to engage honestly and actually answer your questions. I hope to see you in more debates like this with honest interlocuters who want to have constructive conversations.
Are you talking about his previous debates or the call in show? Because his debates are usually close to on par with this.
I think that talking the whole thing through with Than would be awesome. It's really nice to have a debate opponent who would actually be able to do that with you amicably.
I can't understand how this can even be a topic for a debate. Clearly, when we have no evidence whatsoever for a resurrection ever happening, it can't even be considered to be a possibility. And if it can't be demonstrated to be possible, it certainly isn't probable
Happy belated birthday, Matt!
I like your idea of you both coming back together and discussing in detail what you thought.😁👍
matt is slowly turning into the allfather
😂🤣😂🤣
Santa is real!
I don't know why people are gushing over Than so much, is the bar so low for apologists that as long as they are somewhat pleasant everyone just cheers them on?
The guy was still completely dishonest, completely sneaky, and honestly said some outright disgusting things. When he says it's okay that some people are going to hell because it gives Christians an interesting debate, does it make it better when he says it with a smile on his face and shakes hands with his opponent?
Paulogia did a great video on this, but I was eagerly awaiting your Debate Review! Very excited to see it’s a multipart review! Thanks for another great video, Matt
It's been a long time since there has been a debate where it went well enough that you would sit down and do a review together with them. I'm all for it.
Yes please. It was a real pleasure and actually relaxing.
I enjoying talking to honest, actually-open-to-a-discussion religious people. My primary goal is just for us both to understand why they are religious and if it's a good reason.
I understand that your goal, Matt, will be different during the discussion but I'd still be interested in hearing how he thinks and why he believes that his reasons for belief in the resurrection are justified.
You saying that Than was an honest interlocutor is like saying that because someone you just met didn't stab you to death, they're a kind and sincere person. Than lied and is a liar. His claims on historicity were completely at odds with historical research methods. It's understandable why you've lowered your expectations so low, considering all the brain dead, dishonest, abusive apologists you've debated. Than and the other theists you debate couldn't last 5 minutes in a high school level debate. They'd be laughed off of the stage. Than knows as much about Bayesian statistics as a corpse knows about orgasms. His statistical protestations are just more lies.
This is my exact critique of Than and Cam. They misuse Bayes and then protray the usage of it as though they're doing some amazing groundbreaking work! Discussions like this receive no comment from Than or Cam. Than will likely just say he has addressed this in a video.
They just mock people pointing out the misuse of Bayes. I think they have just memorized how the formula works to sound smart but don't understand it at the theoretical level and how it can just become circular reasoning with junk priors. Frankly, saying they don't understand is the most charitable view because if they do understand it, they're blatantly misusing it on purpose to deceive.
I’d just like to point out that trying to usurp Easter by having your birthday on the same weekend was a dick move.
I'd love to see a review with the two of you, particularly given all the points when you felt pressed for time and couldn't ask as many questions of Than as you wanted. It's always beneficial to ensure total understanding of someone's position, especially if it's the opposite of your own. How else does one avoid arguing against a strawman of one's interlocutor? You'll never dissuade me of my positions if you can't accurately portray and refute them. Thank you for the educational series!
I'd love to see you both go over things and discuss it in more detail. Some of the other comments are making me concerned about it being useful, but I don't really know Than.
If you think it'll turn out well, I'd love to see it, and I'm sure it would be useful to me
it is a common thing in writing fantasy books, something I heard Robin Hobb say, went along the lines of, if you can convince the reader you got your horses correct they are more likely to believe what you have to say about dragons.
I would love to see Than walk you through his analysis and explain the justification for the specific values/probabilities chosen.
Yes to debate reviews & discussions. Thanks.
I am definitely in favour of what you propose here, Matt. 👍
It’s quite a rare thing to have two such congenial debaters, so I think it would be productive to have a joint review session delving deeper into your thought processes with a reduced risk of devolving into squabbling.
Thanks for these videos Matt. They really fill a hole in my life. No one I know is as interested in rationality and religion as I am. I don't blame them lol
I enjoyed the debate. One of the few where both debate partners conversed in good faith.
What about presenting questions to each other ahead of time and agreeing on an allotted time to answer them? Mixed in with ad hoc conversation.
when my grandma died in the hospital years ago. we where there and we where able to see her and even touch her. it was not easy seeing her lay there. but im glad we could. not even an hour after she passed she was already turning yellow. and that was in a hospital. just imagine what jesus would have looked like in 2 days in a lot more heat, in the open air. he would literally look like a walking dead zombie atter ressurection
I am loving the beard, by the way.
Also, great synopsis.
I'm not a fan, gives me Amish vibes.
Paying homage to Daniel Dennett with your beard?
Kinda sad that "opponent shows up to debate agreed upon topic" is an accolade instead of a base assumption
Do it matt, we need more better conversations
I wish i knew about this. I'm in the Tampa area. Would have loved to be there.
What I find interesting is the question of how the narrative has changed since the event. Which accounts have been removed (and what did they say)? Where do we know that new interpretations / embellishments have been added?
yes
I would be so happy if theists tried more to convert believers in different gods to believe in this particular god of theirs.
These already believe in the existence of god, while we atheists do not.
You would think that converting work would be easier then.
I'd say go for it!
Happy birthday brother
What I learned from the debate that floored me was Than saying that there are ZERO anonymous gospel manuscripts. And damn, he’s right! HOWEVER…that’s because all the oldest surviving manuscripts we have were written AFTER author names were attached. We know they were originally anonymous because the earliest church fathers NEVER mentioned names.
The gospels are signed? Wow. It was my understanding the church attributed them to the authors by deciding to.
All surviving manuscripts today are not anonymous
I’d like to see a joint debate review! The more discussion the better
I am very partial to the Spider-man analogy. I've used it to try and frame to my faith-loving relatives how I view their proposition.
I haven't watched his debates in a while. Does anyone have a link to the original debate for me?
I met Matt once when he was in UK and is a surprisingly tall and physically imposing man.
He looks quite small on TV.
Great content as usual, but more importantly; should Santa be worried?
Matt really went from “…and fits in your butt” to Santa Claus. 😂😂
So aside from considering whether the gospel accounts are reliable witnesses - The other questions that need to be considered are 1) are there any precedents for dying/rising god stories in antiquity? Is Jesus' resurrection unique for religious figures?, and 2) would the writers of religious literature be motivated to promote a story they had no proof of? Do religious motivations cause stories without direct evidence to be promoted? Do the gospel stories solve theological problems, like sacrifice no longer available in the temple after 70CE? The gospel writers are not the same as historians, the gospels aren't written like histories of that day. It's questioning and weighing the probability of the "other", more obvious, side. Occam's razor would make these explanations the first ones to consider. I guess I'm not looking at a resurrection event, as much as how did literature claiming a resurrection come about. Of course as resurrection actually occurring would be one explanation, but the least likely.
Would love to see you two do a "walk-through".
Great vid.
I just find it funny that Christians say Jesus "died" for us when according to the story he resurrected. How does a god die? The bio matter did, but thats it, in their paradigm. Which is why it's obvious no sacrifice was actually involved or why logically such a god would have to take such convoluted actions to "forgive" humanity for their nature it programmed them with.
I have always had great respect for the Ol Romans, they took a god and killed it.
Just like that.
This is a worrying exemplar of pseudophilosophical and pseudoscientific argumentation, and I'm an atheist, and a naturalist. Dillahunty simply does not use any of these terms in any rigorous way.
Dillahunty distinguishes between logical possibility and 'empirical' possibility, where the former is presumably only constrained by the principle of non-contradiction and the latter (implicitly) relies on a notion of knowledge ("given everything that we know, is this possible in reality") that leaves the concepts of knowledge and reality utterly undefined. This is a caricature; one may distinguish between physical, natural, metaphysical, and logical possibility as modal spaces. There are others (epistemic, material...), but for now these will suffice.
Physical possibility pertains to what is constrained by the coherence principles of fundamental physical theories, or physics more broadly understood to include also experimental or applied physics. But here there are obviously incompatible spaces of possibility depending on what physical theory or explanation one takes, and how one interprets the range of admissible physical theories. If everything that is possible needs to answer to fundamental physics, then what understanding of physics, range of physical theories are in question, seeing that these are not always compatible coherence frameworks? And how you explain non-physical scientific explanations under this conception of physical possibility?
Natural possibility more generally may refer to what is considered possible within the domain of any theoretical explanation of nature as a whole, where nature need not be constrained by what is compatible or continuous with explanations in physics alone, i.e. it may include coherence frameworks native to biology or chemistry that may not be compatible always with fundamental physics. Many examples of such explanatory gaps occur when pondering the relation between fundamental physical theories and the special sciences.
Metaphysical possibility more broadly pertains to the modal spaces pertaining to any consistent conceivable ontological framework in which a theory of being or existence is formulated, and this includes not only naturalistic or materialist positions of whatever stripe (physicalist or otherwise) but also idealist, pluralist frameworks that for instance include the theoretical principles and phenomena explained by the social sciences, the formal sciences (mathematics, formal logic...) or other domains of enquiry (the humanities).
Dillahunty claims to adhere to naturalism, but he never has explained what form of naturalism he endorses, let alone how to explain the relation between natural science and the social sciences, or other domains of enquiry. Is he a physicalist? If so, of what kind? An eliminativist? A reductionist? How does he conceive of the relation between observables and unobservables, which forms the debate between empiricists and naturalists? Is he a modal realist? An instrumentalist or realist about theoretical entities? What is the relation between abstract entities, including universals, and particulars? Is he a nominalist or Platonist, as far as his naturalism goes?
None of these fundamental questions receive any explicit treatment, because he spends his time arguing against the lowest common denominator. Being a naturalist is not an article of faith, it requires that one show how one can with natural scientific explanation do everything one needs to explain with regard to phenomena not native to the natural sciences, like psychological, social, biological, economic, normative, epistemic phenomena. One does not count as a naturalist in any serious sense unless one clarifies this relation; one is rather a dogmatic metaphysician. Which is ironic considering his entire platform is based on challenging the valences of dogmatic fanaticism.
Finally, logical possibility pertains to the coherence frameworks postulated by logical theories. Dillahunty talks as if the only constraint for logical theories is non-contradiction. But this is again a caricature: there are para-consistent logics developed first by the Brazilian school (da Costa) that adhere to the principle of the excluded middle but not the principle of non-contradiction. How these consistent logical frameworks, whether classical, intuitionistic, or paraintuitionistic, relate to ontological or epistemological domains of possibility is at the interstices of logic, metaphysics, and empirical science.
It is very easy to be seduced by this form of rhetoric because it empowers people who actually would not read or learn anything about philosophy, logic, or science for that matter, and wax platitudes that give a false sense of intellectual emancipation. But this is hogwash.
At one point in this presentation it sounded like you were saying;
'A used car salesman can make their statement sound more probable' and i know you didn't say this but it came close to 'the used car salesman statement is more likely to be correct'
Yesss do itt
"endboss" 🤣 it's a compliment of sort i guess xD
It sounds like an event that would easily garner my interest. Honest Christian debaters are all too rare nowadays, although it appears lately the Islamic variations have basically given up on the notion of honest debate entirely. At least Christians debaters mostly agree on the actual words in their holy scriptures and what they supposedly mean.
Well, it's odd that all of those miracles happened before history could be recorded for posterity. Before cameras, journalists, acid free archival paper, etc... A resurrection would be talked about and written about everywhere. The phenom of the century. The Romans would have written about it. etc...
I would grant him that each answered prayer is a data point in favor of the ressuection as long as he counts every unanswered prayer as a data point against, then ask him to do the math.
Than was pleasant and I would like to see another discussion
We have a vast amount of cross-referenced data concerning Reality, as well as these mundane events which both do occur & can potentially (be predicted to) occur in the future.
For example:
▪︎ _"I bought a kitten"_
▪︎ Somebody else, in a future time, will buy a kitten.
We have previous evidence of "people" (identified in the first person), "kittens", "the act of buying things", and so on (to a pretty detailed degree).
But when it comes to extraordinary things, events, etc. they are by their very nature both rare & unlikely, making it necessary to provide a massive amount of evidence to support this assertion.
▪︎ An event has occurred which seems to be Supernatural.
How can you tell that it isn't some unknown Natural occurance? What criteria would eliminate the possibility of a Natural Occurrance?
How does the Supernatural even interact with the Natural Reality?
And just so, so many more questions would need to be answered before you could even begin to generate some Beysian probabilities of it having been linked to a specific belief structure / religion (which includes the Supernatural).
So, if there are flying cars one thousand years from now, does that increase the probability that The Jetsons were real?
Noooo! I want a review with you totally destroying him!
..
..
J/K, you two having a conversation sounds like a great idea.
Yes, I'd watch a joint debate review.
Does anybody remember the book "how to lie with statistics"? Every time I see bayesian stats used in a discussion it seems like a subtitle could have been "(or deceive yourself)". No shade on Than, I just don't find it convincing and it seems clear from the 10k view that the person using the method has presupposed a conclusion is definitely true, without evidence that it actually is true, and backfilled the math until it all adds up. There's no ultimate way to see whether your math actually proved out barring the 2nd coming so it swing back to an untestable hypothesis
I think the author of Marc gospel did make it clear that his story is not about actual events, as he himself named it evangel, not biography not history. Luke then was about a god lover, (Theophilius) who was to be teached. It does not read to me as the author later (almost certainly wrongly) identified as Luke thought he would be historically accurate. Though I consider him a great story teller, the gospel of Luke is well written. I read Luke as clearly spiritual story put into a historic-sounding tale.
The Matthew author seemingly wanted to make the new faith more palpatable for Jews and adjusted a few things. Not sure if he believed that he would tell what actually happened. John is, as one can see right in the intro, an author for a spirtual gospel. His gospel is clearly not meant to be taken literally as what happened. All in all I think the gospels are honest in what they want to be, only later some claimed it the gospels describe historic events.
Hey Matt !
First off, Happy Memorial Day, and thank you for your Service. I'm a 24 yr retired Veteran myself. From 1988 to 2012.
I recently watched a podcast on the Koncrete channel about the resurrection. His guest was a PHD Professor who is supposedly the "expert" on ancient Greek language translation and laid out the case that Christians have translated the resurrection of Jesus completely wrong. His "literal" translation reveals the Ancient Greek witnesses who saw Jesus crucified, say it was because he was a Pedophile and drug abuser. Supposedly he was arrested for this, and explains why the "angry mob" showed up at his crucifiction . He also laid out that Jesus was high on drugs and supposedly took Viper Venom poison prior to him being put on the cross. He claims that Jesus died rather quickly too..........according to the ancient greek translation.
I'm sure you've heard of this before. Is this guy crazy, or does it have some truth ?
THanks !
Mark
i need to go back and check but some of the other sites were more of a victory for them, I don't trust them.
The thumbnail made matt look like a crazy gold rush miner
Whats wrong with modern day debate?
My main issue is that if he were logically consistent, he would also have to accept Islam by the same epistemology
I once went to a presentation of John Lennox who among other things confidently claimed that the ressurrection is a historical fact. That was the most disappointing part of this speech. Even though he did the entire thing in German (I am a German and he went to Munich for that presentation).
Matt I am a none intellectual, none religious guy that knows god exists. Would you discuss with me the concept of God?
Call one of the shows
❤
I reckon it would be great for you pair to sit down together and go through your positions in detail - a conversation rather than the 'proposition/rebuttal' formality of a debate. I think you'd be able to really open up the details and talk about them seriously - without the forced aspect of the debate atmosphere where the goal is often to stake out your position and defend it to the death, purely for the sake of defending it to death.
Story is weird. Jesus served food after rising from dead. But, no mention of him having bathed, after being dead for three days.
He didn't have to, "his body was well convered by Sudarium of Oviedo and Shroud of Turin. Hallelujah!!". (I actually got this answer from some of the Christians).
But wait... Shroud of Turin turned out to be a medieval fake from 1390 😂.
Noticed the original debate is not linked: /watch?v=OSQWIWY9gYg
Thanks. It was already linked to on patreon.
You really should use Spiderman more. Eg. The graveyard in the Spiderman comics is completely consistent with graveyards of the time. Hundreds of witnesses are depicted. Etc. There are no contradictions of what happened.
You resemble the amazing James Randy
I'm pretty surprised to hear you are still willingly engaging with anyone trying to use Bayesian apologetics. The whole framework seems like the most obvious non-sequitor in their limited toolbox, and basically boils down to presupposing their god, or piling up mundane facts to simulate weight under supernatural claims. It's gotten to the point where I believe I can safely dismiss any argument out of hand if it even mentions Bayes and god in the same breath.
Is there some special value to be found in engaging with this type of argument in particular?
I wanna see it.
Sam Shamoun would smoke your boots in a debate.
Santa?
He might be a decent guy, but the real question, in order to like him as a person, needs to be whether or not he would support his religion if they took over the world and re-instituted inquisition, crusades, torture and burning "witches." If he WOULD, then he is lying to you and EVERYONE and unworthy of anything other than scorn.
Jesus dying and being resurrected serving as a blood sacrifice is like god doing the coin on a string trick in his own vending machine
Just curious. How often do you get asked to play Santa Kloss during the Christmas season. Or, do Christians ask you to play the role of Moses?
Oh! No insult, or disrespect intended.