This is unfair. I wrote the same comment before you and you have more likes 😭😭😭 Edit: or did I? I just wrote the same thing independantly and you responded to the comment and then I noticed you commenting the same thing.
Paulogia is pulling what I call the "Matt Dilahunty end of debate strategy" right from the start. That is to say: "Well, you've provided what you think is evidence, but I remain unconvinced and find your evidence lacking!" Therefore God doesn't exist because "I remain unconvinced!" When you presuppose what your opponent is debating is false, everything you're doing is in bad faith. Good on Than for putting his position in (neutrality) good faith prior to Paulogia throwing himself in front of his own lack of valid arguments. Also, addressing his opinion of testimony as evidence and assuming all testimony has some if not all of it being false/mis-remembered as he's giving a testimony about testimonial evidence. Is his testimony then false? His own words say it is so.
I agree with the title. In my opinion, I think the biggest hurdle or setback that faces the "internet atheist" community is their scientism, the idea that the best method or guide to reality is science or the scientific method. Many of their arguments (or lack of) and poor thinking are built on this one assumption. If any atheist is reading this or any person that identifies with this community, just please read smart atheists like Graham Oppy, Alex Malpass, Paul Draper, or J.L. Mackie. They will absolutely improve your thinking and reasoning compared to watching atheists from the Internet.
@@Theo_Skeptomai I'm not sure what you mean by real phenomena and the various scientific methodologies. For the hard sciences, you can get by with the scientific method. For history, the historical method seems to be prime. Knowledge concerning morality, reflective equilibrium is heavily used in philosophy but also in practice (think of the many moral arguments that involve reductios). All in all, the best methods seem to be those that are best equipped to investigate their respective domains. I'm *very* skeptical of a person saying, through the scientific method, things such as free will, morality, abstract objects, qualia, causality, or God do not exist because they aren't proven by the scientific method. Why should the scientific method dictate what is and isn't real when it comes to these things? Seems like we're in a completely different domain that requires a different methodology. Though, I am skeptical that the scientific method "does all the work" here. It seems all these scientific claims are accepted based on pure pragmatism or on authority when it comes to the online atheist community.
@tuav This is probably my biggest gripe with internet atheists. Like don't get me wrong, Science is a great tool, but like any tool, it performs well in one area and awful in others. It's not the be all end all of Human knowledge.
Paulogia really needs to address this as he has had a bad rap at doing this kind of stuff in the past. This really showed he is not well read on this and is trying to make content on it while literally not grasping the content.
Paulogia grasps the content. The content is interpreted. There are 2 hypothesis for the written testimony of the resurrection. 1 The resurrection happened 2 It didn't happen. He is making a case for 2. It would be the same for the moon being split in Islam. There are about 22 named people along with a whole valley of people and an Indian king who supposedly saw the moon split. Paulogia would make the same sort of case for the moon being split. It didn't happen. If you are closed to the idea of the resurrection not happening, almost nothing can change your mind. Paulogia was a devout Christian and understands your point of view. The first crack in his faith was realizing the bible was probably written by fallible men and probably a God had nothing to do with it. Try reading the Old Testament with the mindset Yahweh was the made up tribal war God of the Hebrews and see if it makes more sense. Now read the new testament as if Paul had a mental breakdown and the 4 gospel writers were hired educated Greek writers collecting embellished stories of the life and times of an apocalyptic preacher a religion formed around. See if the New Testament makes more sense.
Attempt # I-don't-even-know of asking wether IP will update the recommended reading list bc IP has recommended some books which aren't in the recommended reading. Also attempt # I-don't-even-know-anymore of asking IP to break it Down funky style. Edit: emailed him through his website; got a response. It's actually happening
1:35:28 "So Paul is misunderstanding the argument here" Ah. I see, you applied the principle of Charity here in your reply to Paul Not sure by now that it is warranted, but ok. From what i have seen in Pauls videos, his explanations are always either 1: Single focussed (i.e. only his view can be correct) 2: Misunderstanding 3: based on not being able to follow the argument at all. Often i suspect his misunderstanding is deliberate, but that would be uncharitable to assume....
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 one thing I try doing to avoid miss understanding is to try and repeat back my opponents argument until they agree with me. It’s not perfect and can only really be done in live discussion, but it avoids single focus and most misunderstandings Just wanted to add this here since I don’t see a lot of formalized “techniques” so to speak for avoiding miss understandings
Coming from someone who's studied human biology for nearly a decade, under which I took a keen interest in "instincts", there's absolutely proof God exists just through us alone. "Instincts", or more properly described as genetic expression, comes about through consistent patterns over the course of all human history. For example, in modern times, men still have issues with marrying a woman who's sexually reckless because for all of human history, women being chaste was a consistent pattern that could be relied upon. Because instincts require CONSISTENT patterns over thousands of years to develop any type of genetic expression, that MUST mean these patterns initially didn't exist and had to start SOMEWHERE. There had to be a FIRST action for a pattern to begin.
@@eddyeldridge7427for one, that is all true. Secondly, because that is all true, that means one man and one woman had to be the beginning of any type of consistent behavior in order to lead to genetic expression, which heavily correlates with exactly what the Bible says about mankind. When sin entered the world, this began the need to survive, which also means adaptation for the best chance of survival started at the same time as well.
@@JJ_Adventures None of that is true, neither. We can see all throughout history how standards change in gender expression not because there was one paragon of the gender, but because it was slowly cobbled together by numerous people of both genders and it slowly changes every day by contributions from both genders. And even then, there are outliers, people who prefer what's not the popular expressions. You're demonstrably wrong.
Than was overly nice (maybe too nice) to Matt in this debate being fully charitable. Paul sees this and refuses to provide the same standard to Than, although I doubt Paul even realized his inconsistencies before you guys made this video. Even then…he might not
For example, he says it’s a problem that Before Christianity there wouldn’t have been an expected resurrection. So there is no reason to say that the probability of theism is higher given a resurrection being intuition of theists at that time. While in this along with many of his videos he relies on current science to defend naturalism although intuitions pre scientific findings would not have been consistent with the unexpected outcomes??? Also complaining about presuppositions (in many of his videos, another example is the critique he did of the ark and the darkness) while relying on presuppositions to make his points…I’m pretty sure they cover that early in the stream. Did you not watch this stream?
@@Theo_Skeptomai Don't worry, there aren't any. These commenters insult Paul to make themselves feel better. I think he must be striking a nerve that deep down they know he's right.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn your cope for a failure flash artist literally no one cares about or talks to outside deconstructing his terrible attempt at a video is insane this isn't hitchens worthless life where he at least pretended to have charisma. Paul is iust embarassing even for an atheist propagandist his speaking, his art, his intellect. Are embarassingly low tier.
IP - I was under the impression that John Earman was an agnostic, not an atheist. I think McGrew mentions this in his miracle talks Tim - transitivity of confirmation fails. See chapter 6 of titelbaum’s fundamentals of Bayesian epistemology. Or maybe you corrected this later, I haven’t finished the video just yet.
Wow! I was really surprised that a "professional" atheist will say the things starting at minute 46:00 I've had arguments with keyword warriors that don't go for such propositions...
@@Noir_Nouveau I'm not a Christian nor a big fan of IP. I do think some of his points are dubious, especially when it comes to Bible interpretation ("hate" means "love less" comes to mind). In my opinion, he's too eager to embrace saving arguments, but not intentionally dishonest. It is still true that his criticism of online atheists and anti-Christian is on point.
@@andreab380 I would disagree, with the example you gave specifically. Translations will never be perfect and it's always best to look at how a word or phrase was used when written.
@@jahamilton I seem to recall that hate was still quite a strong word. Regardless, one of my criticisms of IP's reading is that it still diminishes the likelihood of God's supposed direct saving message. If everything that was written through His inspiration and even His own Son and Messiah's direct words are so complex, distant, nuanced, and not literal that they require layers and layers of interpretation, and that they are so easily corrupted not by dishonesty but by unavoidable ignorance, He didn't do a perfect job at saving us. I say this not with malice but with genuine intellectual doubt. Arguments for the non-material nature of the Source of reality and of consciousness I can understand and even accept (I tend towards metaphysical Idealism a lot). Arguments for the Bible as the inerrant Word of God I just can't.
Didn’t watch the debate but I’ve heard it got good reviews from both sides for the cordial way it went. That’s good. And if at some point Matt responded to Than’s arguments with “I’m not convinced,” then I hope Than asked him to explain why. Just as believers should be able to tell skeptics why they’re convinced, skeptics should be able to tell believers why they’re not convinced.
The probability of something existing is 100% or 0%. From a purely ontological perspective, something exists or doesn't-its actual state is binary, either 0% (does not exist) or 100% (does exist). However, when we talk about probability in Bayesian epistemology, we're referring to our degree of belief or confidence in the existence of something, given the evidence we have, not the actual existence itself.
1:14:00 The prince could travel north, he could travel up a mountain, he could create an ice cube machine. He doesn't have to take it on testimony that water freezes. It can be demonstrated to the prince that water freezes.
You're right. The prince may have the option of getting other supporting evidence for the idea that water freezes. Sometimes though in some situations we don't have that luxury. For instance, imagine if 500 years from now all that's left as a proof that you or I lived is some written documents mentioning us. How can anyone in the future tell anything about who we were? In history, we likewise only have access to this kind of testimonial data. Therefore, the best we can do is determine if the testimonies of the people in those documents are trustworthy or not (by internal consistency, cross referencing, etc.)
Besides if he leaves his kingdom, his enemies will execute a coup, and then execute his familie, and then send assassins after the prince. The Prince might have different priorities than travelling for many months just to see if someone is phantasising.
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 ah but what if he did it in secret? Perhaps leaving a decoy, then he could travel with the man who thinks the prior probability of Santa existing in the South Pole is 0.
Matt Dillamonkey shouldn't be taken seriously since he rage quit his debate with Andrew Wilson. He's also been made a fool of by Trent Horn and Jay Dyer.
If you want to see someone nuke an objection into the Stone Age, check out Trent’s utter destruction of Matt’s “claims aren’t evidence” shtick. Ever since I first heard that objection I knew that even though it _sounded_ good, something about it was wrong. Trent brilliantly explains what it is, but I’m sure TH-cam won’t let me post the link. It’s on his website The Counsel of Trent.
1:47:08 It is worth noting that testimony is one of the fundamentals of the scientific process. Peer review being a functional part of the Scientific Method assumes that the testimony of other witnesses is something which is reliable in the establishing of consensus and proper advancement of knowledge. As such, the question is not whether testimony is reliable evidence. The question is what best explains the testimonial data. In situations like these, establishing a valid hypothetical framework which best explains that data is the goal, and you must simply evaluate how well the hypotheses actually interact with and account for the evidence.
Miracles have to always be the least probable for an event. Miracles are not supposed to be possible. If they are probable, it's not a miracle it's just a regular event. How can we determine something is miraculous if it's probable?
I think a lot of people lack the understanding that people win every challenge they don’t accept. So by not allowing their emotion-based belief to be challenged by evidence for God have a perfect record of never having lost a logic-based challenge to their belief. Having perfect evidence means very little to people who don’t care about evidence which is everyone who doesn’t already agree. So having evidence is good for having an answer and a defense, but actions of love that make no logical sense are what God uses to break through the defenses people build around their hearts to invite them to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior. We know this because it makes no sense to sacrifice yourself for strangers who are even the ones destroying and insulting you, that is, for the Son of God to enter His creation as a human, be tempted, and take on the sin of the world when he himself never sinned, but we all understand how it still makes sense when a person loves someone, they will sacrifice for their betterment despite how irrational it is. If someone says they can’t believe Jesus is Lord and Savior, that is God, because the death and resurrection doesn’t make sense, they don’t ever say that about anyone else being willing to sacrifice themselves for their child even if that child is adopted.
Fan of IP here, but the fact that apologists can NEVER pronounce Paulogia’s channel name right is absolutely hilarious. This has been going on for years.
Despite saying "surprising" is an appeal to emotion, that doesn't stop Paulogia from using the word "unsurprising" twice here (unironically), one instance accompanied by a stock photo of someone looking bored. (That's not counting his own use of "surprising" in an "intentional parody but we clearly knew what he meant" sense)
46:46 To be fair, we don't know what sort of "creating" Paul is saying that God is supposed to have been capable of doing, here, such that Heaven is full of those who would not sin. He *could* mean that if the Sanctification process is legitimate and eventually all those who go to Heaven by way of Christ purifying and perfecting them will have no sinful desire and thereby will sin no more, he *almost* has an argument that is valid, there. The only issue is that what Paulogia would be advocating for is a God that creates a bunch of will-bereft puppets that don't actually have any real memories to bring them to that point; therefore no sincere regret or desire to remain Holy post-purification (for all sin and fall short of the glory of God), and no love and gratitude toward God to speak of outside of what was programmed into them. It is a very strange thing to contemplate and find desirable a world that is made by an entity such as this. For, you see, what he describes is a god that is a pathetic puppetmaster clinging to the animated toys he will have made to comfort and amuse himself, rather than a being worthy in the truest sense of worship and affection-- for I dare say it is not just the creative faculties and power of YHWH which make Him worthy of worship, but also His character as the archetypal source of Love, Beauty, and Virtue. Such things would not be maximally present in the entity which he described, and so his argument for such a being being a more perfect god falls flat.
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 the ONLY way that the biblical god can make any sense is if he IS evil… what kind of “good” god punishes people regardless of their finite “sins” by throwing them in a lake of fire because they didn’t worship his narcissistic @$$ for all of eternity? 😡
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 I never said that they stopped “sinning” I said that they were thrown into a “infinite hell” for “finite sins” committed in their lifetimes… and somehow YOU Christian’s don’t get the memo. 😠
@@benclark4823 And somehow you don't understand it either. 1: these people don't want to be in heaven. To be in the same place as an "evil" god 2: They might get out if they stop sinning in hell. But they don't. So they keep adding punishment. Try it in prison. Go there for 10 years And every year assault a guard, kill another inmate etc and see when you get out... here is a hint. Not after 10 year (minus absent good behaviour).. But you have decided yourself to be the standard for good and evil. You cannot be evil, therefore god must be evil. You don't want to be where that evil god is, so you go to the only place he leaves free from his presence. Oh how evil, in the end, instead of forcing you to be in his presence, God tells you: Your will be done. And still you are not happy. Of course not. Because you never will be.
When the funny cartoons are not playing (which is most of the time), is there any way for you to enlarge the windows of those who are talking? Communication is much enhanced when we can clearly see the expressions of those who are speaking. Just a thought.
Hey IP how do I get in touch with you? I found some really cool evidence for the gospels that I haven’t seen anyone here on TH-cam talk about and I’d love to get your thoughts
@@noahalban6384 The book of Daniel predicted everything that happened in the first century following Jesus’s earthly ministry including the year of the 4 emperors, Jesus’s crucifixion, that the Jewish Roman war would last approximately 7 years, that the temple would be destroyed in the middle of the war (3.5 years in), which emperor precisely would do it, that the gospel would fill the whole earth, and that the Roman Empire would convert to Christianity
Aside from the genuine academics, most of the A crowd are really in need of formal classes in logic. I’ve come to the point where Alex O’Conner is te only one worth even paying any attention. The cringe is just soooo bad with the others.
question about theistic/atheistic bayesianism: if God is all-powerful and can do anything, how is it an empirical claim? how is it a probabilistic claim when every possible observation coheres with God's existence?
So you are expressing that god/miracles can proven or reasonably shown to be probable through math. I could potentially be convinced by this. Do you have a place where you lay out how you determine the probabilities laid out for someone like me to follow and learn?
Essentially the concept is that with each piece of evidence for some event, the probability that it happened increases. This is the Bayesian probability portion. This is then applied to Jesus' resurrection to show that the collection of evidence raises the probability of this incredibly improbable event to where it is no longer incredibly improbable. This is a "maximalist case" format where the most evidence possible is presented. Combined with Bayesian probability, you get a high likelihood that Jesus rose from the dead. This is mathematical due to the Bayesian portion, it's not necessarily exactly a "proof from math". However, there IS an apologetic argument that is essentially a proof from math based on "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences," a 1960s article from Eugene Wigner. th-cam.com/video/wL6Vt6S22ws/w-d-xo.htmlsi=iEaaRdALRhtDR_iU I don't have anything else precisely to direct you to, except to perhaps look into Bayesian probability and the maximalist case for evidence for Jesus' resurrection. I would expect the original debate this video is discussing would be useful, but I haven't watched it yet.
@withlessAsbestos heard most variations of those and they really are not convincing especially compared to saying we just don't know and likely have no way of knowing especially with the holes in all the arguments
Honestly, Miracles being probable is stupid, the very definition of a Miracle has to be something that is out of the ordinary if its not like that then it would just be normal n shi
I am kind of back to the channel for a while. I was curious what sort of happened with paulogia? I remember years ago IP and him had a cool sort of debate that seemed kind. Now it’s like he makes a lot of videos against IP. I do get maybe talking about disagreements, but it seems like in a lot of videos he is being uncharitable. I guess I was wondering when stuff changed lol!
If you spend your life committed to Christ and following Christ you grow into His likeness, so if you do the exact opposite of that maybe you get the opposite result.
@@harrygarris6921 I’m not sure. I would say that over the cycle of the past 10 years it seems as though people are just more divided. I can’t really prove this in the case with data because I haven’t researched it, but it seems that over the past 4 years people have changed. They have been less willing to listen to the other side on issues. Granted my personal experience can’t be generalized to everything (Not should it be).
gotta love when atheists say where they gospels aren't exactly the same it means they are unreliable. Also wherever they are in line, that also means they are unreliable
31:00 No one had an expectation of resurrection before Jesus was? Um, better check that... But looks like "Paul" found a sale on straw. But basically about God being simple and visible. 1. Do you really want to se 2. Can one look away, shade or block something that could be clear? All circles around one word. Agape. Not hard to write a book on that one word...
The atheists are critical of Jesus's resurrection while believing all life arose from a perfectly sterile, barren, dumb as the rock of Jesus's empty tomb, warm little pond, primordial soup or whatever? That's so rational!
@@Theo_Skeptomai Can you reference the documented, eyewitnessed account of anybody demonstrating the prebiotic chemistry required for life having a natural origin?
@@Theo_Skeptomai: How is this question nonsense? Here is a artifact that scientists have gone over using scientific methods and have determined that the image on the cloth that with high probability is the image of the risen Christ is something that cannot be made or duplicated even with all the technology we have today! It’s hologram, a negative positive photograph, an X-ray, and a data storage device! I’m not going to go into all the details of it, but I encourage you to do the deep research yourself and open you mind. Just don’t dismiss it without learning the facts first. By the way the carbon dating from twenty years ago has now been falsified. Using newer and better techniques has dated it to the time of Christ and that the original testing was incorrectly done!
Hi IP.. just to say, I think you should avoid phrases like "for the love of God", of "oh my God", unless you're really wanting to talk about God Himself. Not simply because some people see it as "taking the Lord's name in vain" - and I'm guessing you disagree with them - but because it sort of cheapens the name "God". I think that when people say and hear the name "God", people should associate it with God Himself. It should cause people to think about Him - to remember things like his holiness, beauty, glory and love. Maybe that's too much to hope for from a sinful race. But I think we have more hope of that happening when we use God's name to refer to Him alone.
@@raphaelfeneje486 Hey, thanks for your reply. I wondered if that objection would come up, but I didn't want to complicate my post by preempting it. Simply put, I don't think that what I'm saying hinges on whether "God" is God's name, or just a term that refers to him. I can use the term "Dad" to refer to my father, or I can talk about "a dad" or "someone's dad". I'm not going to say that every time someone talks about "a dad" they should think of their own father, or that every time someone talks about "a god" (whatever they mean by that) that they should think about The Living God. But if someone uses an expression like "My God" or talks about "the love of God", I think it's clear who they are referring to '(or rather, who they're not referring to). I think someone who loves God and wants him to be revered, should want to avoid using the term "God" in a sense that trivialises the word, or weakens the mental connection between the term and the God it refers to. I'm also guilty of misusing God's name (or terms referring to him), and I find the more I hear it misused, the easier it is to involuntarily misuse it myself, so I'm not looking to throw any stones here. But I think we should really want to use the term more carefully.
This is very interesting, and I'm not a philosopher as such, but I do wonder why you hold out hope that Paul is interested in arguing with more philosophical and intellectual integrity, when he has consistently behaved otherwise and failed to acknowledge the flaws in his approach. Rather, it appears that he dips his toes into the philosophical pool because he helps with his rhetoric, rather than because he's trying to produce a more honest message. Paul and Matt D may be lovely people, but when it comes to debating them I see both acting in bad faith. It may be that they don't realize what they're doing, or even that they can't help themselves, but neither seem to be able to entertain two contradictory ideas at once, in the style of the "Oxford manner" described by Wilde. So their rhetoric always boils back to their materialist axioms. They can't help but impose this on other peoples' views and arguments. It makes it very difficult to argue against them, because they can't budge, and any time the ineffective or inconsistent manner of their arguments is shown, they run or resort to "I don't believe you nyah nyah nyah" skepticism.
They’re both making what I think is the most fundamental mistake you can make epistemologically. This idea that Logos is or can be contained by the human intellect.
Paulogia is disengenuous, i think he misleads his audience because they already have the presupposition of being atheist and against YHWH, and he knows they dont have biblical knowledge just hatred towards Jesus
34:12 I just want to say: Even if this were not ludicrous simply for the reasons you are saying here, he is also very much wrong about resurrection being a thing that mythologies around the world contemplated happening throughout humanity's time on Earth. I mean, even if you don't look at the very obvious "Jews believed there would be an Endtime Resurrection," and Abraham implicitly believing that God would raise Isaac from the dead even if he sacrificed him, you both have all kinds of gods resurrecting in ancient myths, and some even resurrecting *from humans, to become gods* (Dionysus, Herakles, and Romulus being obvious choices amongst the second sort; Inanna and Tammuz, Quetzalcoatl, arguably Osiris, and many others fit into the first mold), and heck, you even have *humans* who figure out how to bring the dead back to life in some myths, like Asclepius being capable of doing so before being killed for undermining the power of the gods and then legitimized as a minor god thereafter. It is somewhat shocking that someone who acts as learned as he does would claim that the idea of resurrection was unfamiliar to the ancients, honestly.
@@reyis_here945 The claim is not that the ideas of Christianity were not innovative or anything of the sort. It's that the possibility of resurrection, especially one sponsored by a divine power, would not be something that was alien to people living in ancient cultures.
@@reyis_here945 Well, you are certainly free to judge that as being the case. The matter in question is one where it is necessarily to discern whether something (or a group thereof) have affinity to a sufficient degree that the declaration on his part was not reasonably reflective of the reality of things in the ancient world. I am willing to admit that at the very least the matter is complicated enough by a lack of perfect matches that it is not unreasonable to declare the correct answer is not 100% clear; however, I also must insist that it is very much wrong wrong to say that absolutely no human thought in such a way for the entirety of humanity's history until Christianity arrived on the scene. The claim that he is making is far too strong to say it accurately reflects the reality of human experience up to that point.
You... do realize that Mr. Jones has several videos covering many of the other resurrections posited by atheists that Christianity copied from, right???
I think Dillhunty is gay. He is often going on about that Arden Hart (who is transgender) saying his love for "her" is different than his love for [insert name]. Definitely suspect.
"I think Dillhunty is gay. He is often going on about that Arden Hart (who is transgender) saying his love for "her" is different than his love for [insert name]. Definitely suspect." It is well known that he is in a romantic relationship with Arden Hart. He is very "sensitive" on the subject even though he likes to trash theists all the time with the same old stuff. That was a highlight of a debate with Andrew Wilson where Dillahunty rage quits: th-cam.com/video/S8U34ezKvrU/w-d-xo.html Here is an analysis of the situation including tweets from Anden: th-cam.com/video/u7I3ChyE33U/w-d-xo.html
That doesn't make someone "gay" if what you mean by it is binary attractions. Would you call me "gay" if I self-reported 5% of my attractions are to anatomically trans women, people 20% to average anatomical males and 75% average anatomical women? Seems like you're taking a very reductionist view of attraction in human sexuality.
This may be a very reductionist question, but why is it even a question who resurrected Jesus? We know only God can do that. I love good debate when it comes to theology but there are certain things that seem to spur and drive divisions that are seemingly nonsensical. When you start questioning things like that, it often leads to bad outcomes.
It can imply that they wouldn't actually care if they somehow hypothetically came to believe it was true or an unwillingness to take the idea of God acting by doing something, seriously and thus nothing might be able to convince them given their epistomological framework. A couple of years ago, an atheist chemist called Peter Atkins said on Unbelievable? with John Lennox and Justin Brierely that even if he saw Jesus being raised with himself standing at the foot of the cross, he would assume he was hallucinating so it doesn't seem he would ever reach that conclusion anyway.
Well yeah because the human intellect cannot be the basis for the Logos itself. There’s no way to justify this epistemologically. The good atheist philosophers know this and don’t make this basic error that’s why they always either appeal to materialism because the universe itself can serve as your source of truth if you believe in material eternality, or they adopt some form of existentialism.
@@seankennedy4284 well yeah we’ve kind of written off material eternality as reasonable in the western tradition but there’s a rich tradition of eastern philosophy where they accept the premise. I don’t know enough about it to fully explain the justification but it comes down to a slightly different view of causality than we have in the west.
@@harrygarris6921 _"we’ve kind of written off material eternality as reasonable in the western tradition"_ Didn't stop you from calling it good philosophy. Equivocate much? _"I don’t know enough about it to fully explain the justification"_ Yet it's good philosophy, so you say. Sure it is.
Philosophies are explanations, not evidence, philosophies can explain science, but they are not the science itself, they are an abstract. You can have a philosophical argument, with ZERO evidence, you cannot have science without evidence, science has the data , a philosophy can explain the data , however the data will still exist without philosophy.
@@insanelogical8996 Mathematics can explain some science, without philosophy, which part of “ philosophy can explain science, but it’s not the science itself “ Has you so confused ? Do I have to put it in ignorant Christian terms , for you to understand ?
@@Theo_Skeptomai You've gone under multiple comments asking for examples, and yet you refuse to watch the actual video that addresses the examples. Do your own research dude, nobody wants to spoon-feed "specific examples" to you.
He didn't need to come with human nature as Christ to experience human nature. There are some Christians who assert that Christ came so God could "understand us" or "experience life as a human," but what must be understood is that this is a heresy. The Catholic Church does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that Christ (God) took a human nature to experience humanity, I.e. to 'learn humanity," or such like. The ancient churches of the East don't teach that either. There are some Protestant sects that teach this idea. Again though, it is considered a heresy by the original Church that Christ founded, the one with Apostolic succession, all the sacraments, etc. This can't he stressed enough, because this is typical of so many critiques that atheists and skeptics make of Christianity: often times, the critique of "Christian doctrine" or a "Christian dogma," is levelled on what is in fact a heresy.
@@mysotiras21 couldn’t he just saved us from sin? The hero’s actions must be deemed necessary in order to be deemed heroic. If a knight’s trying to save a princess and saw a sleeping dragon and he intentionally wakes the dragon up, putting him and the princess in danger should we applaud him? Sure sacrifice I would say is loving. But what is god even losing or “sacrificing”? nothing, it’s only the physical sacrifice of spilling blood which ig god sees as actual sacrifice.
@@kingmango4054 in that lil analogy of your, he took the princess and ran off as you say... what would have stop the dragon from getting up and coming after them?
“Post mortem resurrection” What does this say about how Jesus came back? Can we really call Jesus human, if he was born of a virgin and incarnated? Saying Jesus “rose from the dead”, could be confusing, since Lazarus is also said to have “risen from the dead”, but we all know this is different.
It is different. Lazarus was raised **by** Jesus; Jesus **raised himself** from death by **his own power**. Jesus Christ was and is fully God, incarnate, while Lazarus is not God.
LMAO...i remember when you were called out for needing lessons in biblical scholarship. You literally whined about it and here you are throwing stones while living in a glass house.
26:30 The prior probability of Santa Clause (flying sleigh, etc) is not zero. Santa can do all the things he does because of magic. The prior probability of magic is not zero. Let's assign the same prior probability of the resurrection the same as the prior probability of Santa Clause and let's set the prior probability of God the same as magic. Now do the baysein analysis of the resurrection.
You misunderstand logic. You could get someone to agree to the probability of resurrection and Santa clause being equal and the existence of God and magic being equal. Then, you still have the issue that these Christian philosophers are saying “the evidence is great enough that the probability isn’t too low. Are you arguing that the evidence for magic and Santa is enough that the probability isn’t too low? Check 1:20:00 We believe there is specific evidence that proves the probability of resurrection isn’t too low to have occurred.
@@airkami "Then, you still have the issue that these Christian philosophers are saying “the evidence is great enough that the probability isn’t too low." We have uncountable testimony of children for a long time getting presents from Santa and seeing Santa give presents in their homes. If you don't like Santa, how about "evil spirits make people sick"? If we didn't have the scientific method to show that was false, people would still believe it including Christian Philosophers. The problem with the resurrection was it was a one time event and there is nothing besides testimony. It is sorta like the moon being split. There are about 22 named people who "saw" the noon split. What is the prior probability the moon was split? about the same as Santa or evil spirits making people sick?
Addressing poor arguments and criticising them is not the same thing as attacking people. One can respectfully make arguments and one can also criticise arguments as long as it does not spiral into attacking people themselves. I’m not aware of any case where IP has dissolved into ad hominem attacks. I stand corrected if IP has engaged in any of this but I’m not aware of any time that he has.
@@samueljennings4809 they constantly call others dishonest or say others are making disingenuous claims without explaining why they are making those accusations etc they may not be adhominen attacks but they're unfair and consistently so.
is this reall just 2 hours of ramble about the least important semantics, without actually addressing any real points or countering any argument? So anticlimactic...
![Fall Asleep Listening to Genesis: Bedtime Scripture for Deep Sleep [Holy Bible Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/46IfXNk8YI8/mqdefault.jpg)
Day #1 of Asking IP to break it down funky style
👍
This is unfair.
I wrote the same comment before you and you have more likes 😭😭😭
Edit: or did I?
I just wrote the same thing independantly and you responded to the comment and then I noticed you commenting the same thing.
@@DominikĎurkovský life isn’t fair, but that doesn’t mean we can’t all demand IP to break it down funky style
@@benjaminschaefer1646 fair .
It is inevitable
It would be cool however, if we Also got an updated recommended reading list
Paulogia is pulling what I call the "Matt Dilahunty end of debate strategy" right from the start. That is to say: "Well, you've provided what you think is evidence, but I remain unconvinced and find your evidence lacking!" Therefore God doesn't exist because "I remain unconvinced!" When you presuppose what your opponent is debating is false, everything you're doing is in bad faith. Good on Than for putting his position in (neutrality) good faith prior to Paulogia throwing himself in front of his own lack of valid arguments.
Also, addressing his opinion of testimony as evidence and assuming all testimony has some if not all of it being false/mis-remembered as he's giving a testimony about testimonial evidence. Is his testimony then false? His own words say it is so.
Bingo! Moreover, the argument from personal incredulity is a logical fallacy.
@@mysotiras21 I’ve never heard of that fallacy, do you know where I can learn more about it?
Where does he say "God doesn't exist because I'm not convinced?"
The dilahunty dodge
@@eddyeldridge7427 in every word and action in his weak videos mostly.
What does Than run on his computer? ThanOS
Probably needs all the philosophical stones.
😂
@@arno_groenewaldthat’s clever… I didn’t even catch that at first😂
🤣
Cuts the processing time in half.
I agree with the title. In my opinion, I think the biggest hurdle or setback that faces the "internet atheist" community is their scientism, the idea that the best method or guide to reality is science or the scientific method. Many of their arguments (or lack of) and poor thinking are built on this one assumption. If any atheist is reading this or any person that identifies with this community, just please read smart atheists like Graham Oppy, Alex Malpass, Paul Draper, or J.L. Mackie. They will absolutely improve your thinking and reasoning compared to watching atheists from the Internet.
@@Theo_Skeptomai I'm not sure what you mean by real phenomena and the various scientific methodologies. For the hard sciences, you can get by with the scientific method. For history, the historical method seems to be prime. Knowledge concerning morality, reflective equilibrium is heavily used in philosophy but also in practice (think of the many moral arguments that involve reductios).
All in all, the best methods seem to be those that are best equipped to investigate their respective domains.
I'm *very* skeptical of a person saying, through the scientific method, things such as free will, morality, abstract objects, qualia, causality, or God do not exist because they aren't proven by the scientific method. Why should the scientific method dictate what is and isn't real when it comes to these things? Seems like we're in a completely different domain that requires a different methodology.
Though, I am skeptical that the scientific method "does all the work" here. It seems all these scientific claims are accepted based on pure pragmatism or on authority when it comes to the online atheist community.
@tuav This is probably my biggest gripe with internet atheists. Like don't get me wrong, Science is a great tool, but like any tool, it performs well in one area and awful in others. It's not the be all end all of Human knowledge.
Paulogia really needs to address this as he has had a bad rap at doing this kind of stuff in the past. This really showed he is not well read on this and is trying to make content on it while literally not grasping the content.
You don’t gotta address counter arguments when your audience refuses to watch them because of the brainwashing.
Step 1: Assume Christianity is false
Step 2: close eyes
Step 3: Confirmation bias
Step 4: Paulogia uncharitable response video
Pretty convinced he's just an egomaniac grifter.
@@TheMeekTheMild
Step 1: Assume Christianity is true
Step 2: close eyes
Step 3: Confirmation bias
Step 4: IP uncharitable response video
Paulogia grasps the content. The content is interpreted. There are 2 hypothesis for the written testimony of the resurrection. 1 The resurrection happened 2 It didn't happen. He is making a case for 2. It would be the same for the moon being split in Islam. There are about 22 named people along with a whole valley of people and an Indian king who supposedly saw the moon split. Paulogia would make the same sort of case for the moon being split. It didn't happen. If you are closed to the idea of the resurrection not happening, almost nothing can change your mind.
Paulogia was a devout Christian and understands your point of view. The first crack in his faith was realizing the bible was probably written by fallible men and probably a God had nothing to do with it. Try reading the Old Testament with the mindset Yahweh was the made up tribal war God of the Hebrews and see if it makes more sense. Now read the new testament as if Paul had a mental breakdown and the 4 gospel writers were hired educated Greek writers collecting embellished stories of the life and times of an apocalyptic preacher a religion formed around. See if the New Testament makes more sense.
Also, I’m offended Tim thinks Santa is from the South Pole…not the North Pole. I may never recover from such blasphemy
He lied, he disappoints me
Santa would never
Attempt # I-don't-even-know of asking wether IP will update the recommended reading list bc IP has recommended some books which aren't in the recommended reading.
Also attempt # I-don't-even-know-anymore
of asking IP to break it Down funky style.
Edit: emailed him through his website; got a response. It's actually happening
I’m joining your crusade brother!
@@withlessAsbestos I've Seen many try and many fall.
I've attempted this more than 15 times.
Hopefully, the list will be updated
Don’t give up
@@DominikĎurkovský OH… that too, but I was mostly focusing on the Second thing.
Thanks
It’s “sus” as in suspicious, and rizz is short for charisma.
Matt “get my girlfriends name out of your mouth” Dillahunty
Lol that was a good one 😂
That is known as an ad hominem. Try to contribute to the discussion
Thank you brothers for all your work!
lying for jesus squad
1:35:28 "So Paul is misunderstanding the argument here"
Ah. I see, you applied the principle of Charity here in your reply to Paul
Not sure by now that it is warranted, but ok.
From what i have seen in Pauls videos, his explanations are always either
1: Single focussed (i.e. only his view can be correct)
2: Misunderstanding
3: based on not being able to follow the argument at all.
Often i suspect his misunderstanding is deliberate, but that would be uncharitable to assume....
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 one thing I try doing to avoid miss understanding is to try and repeat back my opponents argument until they agree with me.
It’s not perfect and can only really be done in live discussion, but it avoids single focus and most misunderstandings
Just wanted to add this here since I don’t see a lot of formalized “techniques” so to speak for avoiding miss understandings
"Im desperate for paul to get a win so im going to ignore explained answers. Wild bro.
Calling "internet atheists" intellectually dishonest is about as redundant as saying the Pacific Ocean is wet.
@@Panwere36 well they are.
@@AbcdWxyz-c6o , yes, they absolutely are. Just pointing out the redundancy.
Coming from someone who's studied human biology for nearly a decade, under which I took a keen interest in "instincts", there's absolutely proof God exists just through us alone. "Instincts", or more properly described as genetic expression, comes about through consistent patterns over the course of all human history.
For example, in modern times, men still have issues with marrying a woman who's sexually reckless because for all of human history, women being chaste was a consistent pattern that could be relied upon.
Because instincts require CONSISTENT patterns over thousands of years to develop any type of genetic expression, that MUST mean these patterns initially didn't exist and had to start SOMEWHERE. There had to be a FIRST action for a pattern to begin.
Even if that were all true, why would that be evidence of a god?
@@eddyeldridge7427for one, that is all true.
Secondly, because that is all true, that means one man and one woman had to be the beginning of any type of consistent behavior in order to lead to genetic expression, which heavily correlates with exactly what the Bible says about mankind. When sin entered the world, this began the need to survive, which also means adaptation for the best chance of survival started at the same time as well.
@@JJ_Adventures
None of that is true, neither.
We can see all throughout history how standards change in gender expression not because there was one paragon of the gender, but because it was slowly cobbled together by numerous people of both genders and it slowly changes every day by contributions from both genders. And even then, there are outliers, people who prefer what's not the popular expressions.
You're demonstrably wrong.
@@eddyeldridge7427trying to make arguments based on outliers is always a bad faith argument. Here's your L
@@JJ_Adventures
The argument was based on the totality of humanity, including the outliers.
You strawmanning me is your L.
Than was overly nice (maybe too nice) to Matt in this debate being fully charitable. Paul sees this and refuses to provide the same standard to Than, although I doubt Paul even realized his inconsistencies before you guys made this video. Even then…he might not
For example, he says it’s a problem that Before Christianity there wouldn’t have been an expected resurrection. So there is no reason to say that the probability of theism is higher given a resurrection being intuition of theists at that time. While in this along with many of his videos he relies on current science to defend naturalism although intuitions pre scientific findings would not have been consistent with the unexpected outcomes??? Also complaining about presuppositions (in many of his videos, another example is the critique he did of the ark and the darkness) while relying on presuppositions to make his points…I’m pretty sure they cover that early in the stream. Did you not watch this stream?
It’s sad to see Paul’s descent from someone who genuinely engaged with Christianity to someone who misrepresents Christianity for clicks
@@Theo_Skeptomai Don't worry, there aren't any. These commenters insult Paul to make themselves feel better. I think he must be striking a nerve that deep down they know he's right.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn your cope for a failure flash artist literally no one cares about or talks to outside deconstructing his terrible attempt at a video is insane this isn't hitchens worthless life where he at least pretended to have charisma. Paul is iust embarassing even for an atheist propagandist his speaking, his art, his intellect. Are embarassingly low tier.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fnStop drinking the koolaid. You’re appropriating Jones Town Culture.
IP - I was under the impression that John Earman was an agnostic, not an atheist. I think McGrew mentions this in his miracle talks
Tim - transitivity of confirmation fails. See chapter 6 of titelbaum’s fundamentals of Bayesian epistemology. Or maybe you corrected this later, I haven’t finished the video just yet.
Wow! I was really surprised that a "professional" atheist will say the things starting at minute 46:00 I've had arguments with keyword warriors that don't go for such propositions...
I like the William Lawrence Shirer example of an eyewitness drawing on other sources. I've not heard that before.
Paulogia is just intellectually dishonest. Full stop.
IP has been intellectually dishonest on several occasions, he means well but misleads you all from time to time.
@@Noir_Nouveau I'm not a Christian nor a big fan of IP. I do think some of his points are dubious, especially when it comes to Bible interpretation ("hate" means "love less" comes to mind). In my opinion, he's too eager to embrace saving arguments, but not intentionally dishonest.
It is still true that his criticism of online atheists and anti-Christian is on point.
@@andreab380 I would disagree, with the example you gave specifically. Translations will never be perfect and it's always best to look at how a word or phrase was used when written.
@@jahamilton I seem to recall that hate was still quite a strong word.
Regardless, one of my criticisms of IP's reading is that it still diminishes the likelihood of God's supposed direct saving message.
If everything that was written through His inspiration and even His own Son and Messiah's direct words are so complex, distant, nuanced, and not literal that they require layers and layers of interpretation, and that they are so easily corrupted not by dishonesty but by unavoidable ignorance, He didn't do a perfect job at saving us.
I say this not with malice but with genuine intellectual doubt.
Arguments for the non-material nature of the Source of reality and of consciousness I can understand and even accept (I tend towards metaphysical Idealism a lot). Arguments for the Bible as the inerrant Word of God I just can't.
@andreab380
No translation issue affects salvation
Whole convo was very bayes-t
Ya know what, shoulda said Bayes-ed
Cest la vie
@@benjaminschaefer1646you can edit comments y’know?
@@withlessAsbestos yes but is it funnier to edit a comment? Or to reply to your own comment?
Didn’t watch the debate but I’ve heard it got good reviews from both sides for the cordial way it went. That’s good.
And if at some point Matt responded to Than’s arguments with “I’m not convinced,” then I hope Than asked him to explain why.
Just as believers should be able to tell skeptics why they’re convinced, skeptics should be able to tell believers why they’re not convinced.
The probability of something existing is 100% or 0%.
From a purely ontological perspective, something exists or doesn't-its actual state is binary, either 0% (does not exist) or 100% (does exist). However, when we talk about probability in Bayesian epistemology, we're referring to our degree of belief or confidence in the existence of something, given the evidence we have, not the actual existence itself.
1:14:00
The prince could travel north, he could travel up a mountain, he could create an ice cube machine. He doesn't have to take it on testimony that water freezes. It can be demonstrated to the prince that water freezes.
You're right. The prince may have the option of getting other supporting evidence for the idea that water freezes.
Sometimes though in some situations we don't have that luxury. For instance, imagine if 500 years from now all that's left as a proof that you or I lived is some written documents mentioning us. How can anyone in the future tell anything about who we were? In history, we likewise only have access to this kind of testimonial data.
Therefore, the best we can do is determine if the testimonies of the people in those documents are trustworthy or not (by internal consistency, cross referencing, etc.)
Barring the Prince being forcibly taken to the frozen water, the Prince would have to use his legs and walk to the frozen water he's heard of
Besides if he leaves his kingdom, his enemies will execute a coup, and then execute his familie, and then send assassins after the prince.
The Prince might have different priorities than travelling for many months just to see if someone is phantasising.
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 ah but what if he did it in secret? Perhaps leaving a decoy,
then he could travel with the man who thinks the prior probability of Santa existing in the South Pole is 0.
Matt Dillamonkey shouldn't be taken seriously since he rage quit his debate with Andrew Wilson. He's also been made a fool of by Trent Horn and Jay Dyer.
Yep I debated a reddit athiest on TAG and he told me matt destroyed jay 😂😂😂
If you want to see someone nuke an objection into the Stone Age, check out Trent’s utter destruction of Matt’s “claims aren’t evidence” shtick.
Ever since I first heard that objection I knew that even though it _sounded_ good, something about it was wrong.
Trent brilliantly explains what it is, but I’m sure TH-cam won’t let me post the link. It’s on his website The Counsel of Trent.
1:47:08 It is worth noting that testimony is one of the fundamentals of the scientific process. Peer review being a functional part of the Scientific Method assumes that the testimony of other witnesses is something which is reliable in the establishing of consensus and proper advancement of knowledge. As such, the question is not whether testimony is reliable evidence. The question is what best explains the testimonial data.
In situations like these, establishing a valid hypothetical framework which best explains that data is the goal, and you must simply evaluate how well the hypotheses actually interact with and account for the evidence.
Its sad that someone can be so disingenuous. You all gave a solid response.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
Do people really think that if jesus showed up today and it was on camera people would beleive ?
In the age of A.I. ?
No, American Christian nationalists would crucify him on the spot for being woke...
There are a lot of people with videos out there who need to learn philosophy and especially basic rhetoric
Miracles have to always be the least probable for an event. Miracles are not supposed to be possible. If they are probable, it's not a miracle it's just a regular event. How can we determine something is miraculous if it's probable?
It can't be done. These "philosophers" need lessons in common sense.
I think a lot of people lack the understanding that people win every challenge they don’t accept. So by not allowing their emotion-based belief to be challenged by evidence for God have a perfect record of never having lost a logic-based challenge to their belief.
Having perfect evidence means very little to people who don’t care about evidence which is everyone who doesn’t already agree. So having evidence is good for having an answer and a defense, but actions of love that make no logical sense are what God uses to break through the defenses people build around their hearts to invite them to accept Jesus as Lord and Savior.
We know this because it makes no sense to sacrifice yourself for strangers who are even the ones destroying and insulting you, that is, for the Son of God to enter His creation as a human, be tempted, and take on the sin of the world when he himself never sinned, but we all understand how it still makes sense when a person loves someone, they will sacrifice for their betterment despite how irrational it is.
If someone says they can’t believe Jesus is Lord and Savior, that is God, because the death and resurrection doesn’t make sense, they don’t ever say that about anyone else being willing to sacrifice themselves for their child even if that child is adopted.
Fan of IP here, but the fact that apologists can NEVER pronounce Paulogia’s channel name right is absolutely hilarious. This has been going on for years.
Despite saying "surprising" is an appeal to emotion, that doesn't stop Paulogia from using the word "unsurprising" twice here (unironically), one instance accompanied by a stock photo of someone looking bored.
(That's not counting his own use of "surprising" in an "intentional parody but we clearly knew what he meant" sense)
46:46 To be fair, we don't know what sort of "creating" Paul is saying that God is supposed to have been capable of doing, here, such that Heaven is full of those who would not sin. He *could* mean that if the Sanctification process is legitimate and eventually all those who go to Heaven by way of Christ purifying and perfecting them will have no sinful desire and thereby will sin no more, he *almost* has an argument that is valid, there.
The only issue is that what Paulogia would be advocating for is a God that creates a bunch of will-bereft puppets that don't actually have any real memories to bring them to that point; therefore no sincere regret or desire to remain Holy post-purification (for all sin and fall short of the glory of God), and no love and gratitude toward God to speak of outside of what was programmed into them. It is a very strange thing to contemplate and find desirable a world that is made by an entity such as this.
For, you see, what he describes is a god that is a pathetic puppetmaster clinging to the animated toys he will have made to comfort and amuse himself, rather than a being worthy in the truest sense of worship and affection-- for I dare say it is not just the creative faculties and power of YHWH which make Him worthy of worship, but also His character as the archetypal source of Love, Beauty, and Virtue. Such things would not be maximally present in the entity which he described, and so his argument for such a being being a more perfect god falls flat.
And remember, They will also argue that a puppetmaster God is Evil....
To the impure everything is impure...
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 the ONLY way that the biblical god can make any sense is if he IS evil… what kind of “good” god punishes people regardless of their finite “sins” by throwing them in a lake of fire because they didn’t worship his narcissistic @$$ for all of eternity? 😡
@@benclark4823 Why do you assume that people in hell stop sinning?
What is your source?
@@j.p.vanbolhuis8678 I never said that they stopped “sinning” I said that they were thrown into a “infinite hell” for “finite sins” committed in their lifetimes… and somehow YOU Christian’s don’t get the memo. 😠
@@benclark4823 And somehow you don't understand it either.
1: these people don't want to be in heaven. To be in the same place as an "evil" god
2: They might get out if they stop sinning in hell. But they don't.
So they keep adding punishment.
Try it in prison.
Go there for 10 years
And every year assault a guard, kill another inmate etc and see when you get out...
here is a hint. Not after 10 year (minus absent good behaviour)..
But you have decided yourself to be the standard for good and evil. You cannot be evil, therefore god must be evil.
You don't want to be where that evil god is, so you go to the only place he leaves free from his presence.
Oh how evil, in the end, instead of forcing you to be in his presence, God tells you: Your will be done.
And still you are not happy.
Of course not. Because you never will be.
When the funny cartoons are not playing (which is most of the time), is there any way for you to enlarge the windows of those who are talking? Communication is much enhanced when we can clearly see the expressions of those who are speaking. Just a thought.
So being edgy and snarky isn’t enough?
Hey IP how do I get in touch with you? I found some really cool evidence for the gospels that I haven’t seen anyone here on TH-cam talk about and I’d love to get your thoughts
You’re basically guaranteed a response on patreon. What sort of evidence? I’m dying to know.
@@noahalban6384 The book of Daniel predicted everything that happened in the first century following Jesus’s earthly ministry including the year of the 4 emperors, Jesus’s crucifixion, that the Jewish Roman war would last approximately 7 years, that the temple would be destroyed in the middle of the war (3.5 years in), which emperor precisely would do it, that the gospel would fill the whole earth, and that the Roman Empire would convert to Christianity
@@lyongreene8241oh dear. Do a bit of googling on the scholarship and you'll see why this is a bad theory
@@lyongreene8241
Just to be clear, the crucifixion happened first, then the resurrection. Not the other way around.
@@fridge3489 edited
Aside from the genuine academics, most of the A crowd are really in need of formal classes in logic. I’ve come to the point where Alex O’Conner is te only one worth even paying any attention. The cringe is just soooo bad with the others.
1:06:02 But what if it was neither graverobbing nor resurrection, but vampirism instantiation?! O_o
question about theistic/atheistic bayesianism: if God is all-powerful and can do anything, how is it an empirical claim? how is it a probabilistic claim when every possible observation coheres with God's existence?
HAHA Best intro!!!!!
a surprise to find you here but a welcome one
So you are expressing that god/miracles can proven or reasonably shown to be probable through math. I could potentially be convinced by this. Do you have a place where you lay out how you determine the probabilities laid out for someone like me to follow and learn?
Essentially the concept is that with each piece of evidence for some event, the probability that it happened increases. This is the Bayesian probability portion. This is then applied to Jesus' resurrection to show that the collection of evidence raises the probability of this incredibly improbable event to where it is no longer incredibly improbable. This is a "maximalist case" format where the most evidence possible is presented. Combined with Bayesian probability, you get a high likelihood that Jesus rose from the dead. This is mathematical due to the Bayesian portion, it's not necessarily exactly a "proof from math". However, there IS an apologetic argument that is essentially a proof from math based on "The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences," a 1960s article from Eugene Wigner.
th-cam.com/video/wL6Vt6S22ws/w-d-xo.htmlsi=iEaaRdALRhtDR_iU
I don't have anything else precisely to direct you to, except to perhaps look into Bayesian probability and the maximalist case for evidence for Jesus' resurrection. I would expect the original debate this video is discussing would be useful, but I haven't watched it yet.
There are really old playlists on the Channel on the “Ontological” and “Cosmological” Arguments. Those might be a good place to start.
@withlessAsbestos heard most variations of those and they really are not convincing especially compared to saying we just don't know and likely have no way of knowing especially with the holes in all the arguments
@@QuiqueFuenteSIT What holes?
Honestly, Miracles being probable is stupid, the very definition of a Miracle has to be something that is out of the ordinary if its not like that then it would just be normal n shi
Frat boy energy.
I KNOW TIM FROM TIKTOK I WAS THE FIRST TO DISCOVER YOU ON
I am kind of back to the channel for a while. I was curious what sort of happened with paulogia? I remember years ago IP and him had a cool sort of debate that seemed kind. Now it’s like he makes a lot of videos against IP. I do get maybe talking about disagreements, but it seems like in a lot of videos he is being uncharitable. I guess I was wondering when stuff changed lol!
If you spend your life committed to Christ and following Christ you grow into His likeness, so if you do the exact opposite of that maybe you get the opposite result.
@@harrygarris6921 I’m not sure. I would say that over the cycle of the past 10 years it seems as though people are just more divided. I can’t really prove this in the case with data because I haven’t researched it, but it seems that over the past 4 years people have changed. They have been less willing to listen to the other side on issues. Granted my personal experience can’t be generalized to everything (Not should it be).
What about the internet Christians who need philosophy lessons?
Anyone attempting to engage in debate should take philosophy lessons. This video simply addresses a specific example of why.
@@onionsans It's rather one sided because of it. And frankly, I think the makers of the video should get a few more lessons.
The problem with that is that most philosophers are atheist. Christians don't won't their beliefs challenged.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Neither do Atheist philosophers. No one wants their core beliefs changed
@@Whatsisface4- What specifically in the video did you think showed they needed to study philosophy more? Exactly what errors did they make?
Paul: I’m not convinced, therefore no God. Exactly the same as Dillamonkey
Ohh Paulogia let's use Paul for now on.... Hmmm maybe Saul?
58:20 nonresistant unbelief if I've ever seen it.
gotta love when atheists say where they gospels aren't exactly the same it means they are unreliable. Also wherever they are in line, that also means they are unreliable
What is the spelling of Joshua’s full name? Scholar on the trinity and incarnation?
31:00 No one had an expectation of resurrection before Jesus was? Um, better check that... But looks like "Paul" found a sale on straw.
But basically about God being simple and visible.
1. Do you really want to se
2. Can one look away, shade or block something that could be clear?
All circles around one word. Agape. Not hard to write a book on that one word...
Sorry as soon as you said Santa doesn’t exist you lost me unsubbed and reporting your channel
The atheists are critical of Jesus's resurrection while believing all life arose from a perfectly sterile, barren, dumb as the rock of Jesus's empty tomb, warm little pond, primordial soup or whatever? That's so rational!
@@Theo_Skeptomai Can you reference the documented, eyewitnessed account of anybody demonstrating the prebiotic chemistry required for life having a natural origin?
@@Theo_Skeptomai I recommend the book: The Stairway to Life: An Origin of Life Realty Check by Tan and Stadler
I would love to ask all these atheists about the shroud of Turin!
@@Theo_Skeptomai: There’s a one million dollar prize then if you can duplicate it!
@@Theo_SkeptomaiI think he was referencing "who wants to be a millionaire" dude
But yeah out of curiosity
Why do you think the Turin vest is fake?
@@Theo_Skeptomai: How is this question nonsense? Here is a artifact that scientists have gone over using scientific methods and have determined that the image on the cloth that with high probability is the image of the risen Christ is something that cannot be made or duplicated even with all the technology we have today!
It’s hologram, a negative positive photograph, an X-ray, and a data storage device!
I’m not going to go into all the details of it, but I encourage you to do the deep research yourself and open you mind. Just don’t dismiss it without learning the facts first. By the way the carbon dating from twenty years ago has now been falsified. Using newer and better techniques has dated it to the time of Christ and that the original testing was incorrectly done!
@@kensmith8152There is a prize if you can duplicate the Lycurgus Cup without a particle accelerator.
Can you do it?
@@Wasteofenlightment104The man had arms almost like an orangutan.
There is NO way to assign a probability to a miraculous event. Pretending to have some "formula" or "Bayesian analysis" is nonsensical.
Hi IP.. just to say, I think you should avoid phrases like "for the love of God", of "oh my God", unless you're really wanting to talk about God Himself.
Not simply because some people see it as "taking the Lord's name in vain" - and I'm guessing you disagree with them - but because it sort of cheapens the name "God".
I think that when people say and hear the name "God", people should associate it with God Himself. It should cause people to think about Him - to remember things like his holiness, beauty, glory and love.
Maybe that's too much to hope for from a sinful race. But I think we have more hope of that happening when we use God's name to refer to Him alone.
God is not his name. Divine beings are also god
@@raphaelfeneje486 Hey, thanks for your reply.
I wondered if that objection would come up, but I didn't want to complicate my post by preempting it.
Simply put, I don't think that what I'm saying hinges on whether "God" is God's name, or just a term that refers to him.
I can use the term "Dad" to refer to my father, or I can talk about "a dad" or "someone's dad". I'm not going to say that every time someone talks about "a dad" they should think of their own father, or that every time someone talks about "a god" (whatever they mean by that) that they should think about The Living God.
But if someone uses an expression like "My God" or talks about "the love of God", I think it's clear who they are referring to '(or rather, who they're not referring to).
I think someone who loves God and wants him to be revered, should want to avoid using the term "God" in a sense that trivialises the word, or weakens the mental connection between the term and the God it refers to.
I'm also guilty of misusing God's name (or terms referring to him), and I find the more I hear it misused, the easier it is to involuntarily misuse it myself, so I'm not looking to throw any stones here.
But I think we should really want to use the term more carefully.
This is very interesting, and I'm not a philosopher as such, but I do wonder why you hold out hope that Paul is interested in arguing with more philosophical and intellectual integrity, when he has consistently behaved otherwise and failed to acknowledge the flaws in his approach. Rather, it appears that he dips his toes into the philosophical pool because he helps with his rhetoric, rather than because he's trying to produce a more honest message.
Paul and Matt D may be lovely people, but when it comes to debating them I see both acting in bad faith. It may be that they don't realize what they're doing, or even that they can't help themselves, but neither seem to be able to entertain two contradictory ideas at once, in the style of the "Oxford manner" described by Wilde. So their rhetoric always boils back to their materialist axioms. They can't help but impose this on other peoples' views and arguments. It makes it very difficult to argue against them, because they can't budge, and any time the ineffective or inconsistent manner of their arguments is shown, they run or resort to "I don't believe you nyah nyah nyah" skepticism.
They’re both making what I think is the most fundamental mistake you can make epistemologically. This idea that Logos is or can be contained by the human intellect.
And his name ain’t Jesus his name is his name is his name is Yash
Paulogia must spend 10’s of minutes in research and thought prior to producing his videos. It ‘s a living I guess.
Paulogia is disengenuous, i think he misleads his audience because they already have the presupposition of being atheist and against YHWH, and he knows they dont have biblical knowledge just hatred towards Jesus
Could you provide a time stamp for where anyone said. "I dont find yout evidence compelling therefore god does not exist."
34:12 I just want to say: Even if this were not ludicrous simply for the reasons you are saying here, he is also very much wrong about resurrection being a thing that mythologies around the world contemplated happening throughout humanity's time on Earth. I mean, even if you don't look at the very obvious "Jews believed there would be an Endtime Resurrection," and Abraham implicitly believing that God would raise Isaac from the dead even if he sacrificed him, you both have all kinds of gods resurrecting in ancient myths, and some even resurrecting *from humans, to become gods* (Dionysus, Herakles, and Romulus being obvious choices amongst the second sort; Inanna and Tammuz, Quetzalcoatl, arguably Osiris, and many others fit into the first mold), and heck, you even have *humans* who figure out how to bring the dead back to life in some myths, like Asclepius being capable of doing so before being killed for undermining the power of the gods and then legitimized as a minor god thereafter.
It is somewhat shocking that someone who acts as learned as he does would claim that the idea of resurrection was unfamiliar to the ancients, honestly.
None of those myth correlate with your claim well
@@reyis_here945 The claim is not that the ideas of Christianity were not innovative or anything of the sort. It's that the possibility of resurrection, especially one sponsored by a divine power, would not be something that was alien to people living in ancient cultures.
@@CeleriaRosencroix no I understand that part... I'm saying they are not consistent enough for that to be the case
@@reyis_here945 Well, you are certainly free to judge that as being the case. The matter in question is one where it is necessarily to discern whether something (or a group thereof) have affinity to a sufficient degree that the declaration on his part was not reasonably reflective of the reality of things in the ancient world.
I am willing to admit that at the very least the matter is complicated enough by a lack of perfect matches that it is not unreasonable to declare the correct answer is not 100% clear; however, I also must insist that it is very much wrong wrong to say that absolutely no human thought in such a way for the entirety of humanity's history until Christianity arrived on the scene.
The claim that he is making is far too strong to say it accurately reflects the reality of human experience up to that point.
You... do realize that Mr. Jones has several videos covering many of the other resurrections posited by atheists that Christianity copied from, right???
51:56
I think Dillhunty is gay.
He is often going on about that Arden Hart (who is transgender) saying his love for "her" is different than his love for [insert name].
Definitely suspect.
@@Theo_Skeptomaihe is literally in a homosexual relationship with a male claiming to be female
"I think Dillhunty is gay.
He is often going on about that Arden Hart (who is transgender) saying his love for "her" is different than his love for [insert name].
Definitely suspect."
It is well known that he is in a romantic relationship with Arden Hart. He is very "sensitive" on the subject even though he likes to trash theists all the time with the same old stuff. That was a highlight of a debate with Andrew Wilson where Dillahunty rage quits: th-cam.com/video/S8U34ezKvrU/w-d-xo.html
Here is an analysis of the situation including tweets from Anden: th-cam.com/video/u7I3ChyE33U/w-d-xo.html
That doesn't make someone "gay" if what you mean by it is binary attractions. Would you call me "gay" if I self-reported 5% of my attractions are to anatomically trans women, people 20% to average anatomical males and 75% average anatomical women? Seems like you're taking a very reductionist view of attraction in human sexuality.
@@niddy-2.0 "Would you call me "gay" if"
Yes
@@briandiehl9257 Then you clearly lack intellectual honesty about language and understanding human sexuality.
1:45:50
1:33:00
Jay Dyer bulldozed Dillahunty. That's the be all, end all.
1:12:20
15:05
This may be a very reductionist question, but why is it even a question who resurrected Jesus? We know only God can do that. I love good debate when it comes to theology but there are certain things that seem to spur and drive divisions that are seemingly nonsensical. When you start questioning things like that, it often leads to bad outcomes.
It can imply that they wouldn't actually care if they somehow hypothetically came to believe it was true or an unwillingness to take the idea of God acting by doing something, seriously and thus nothing might be able to convince them given their epistomological framework.
A couple of years ago, an atheist chemist called Peter Atkins said on Unbelievable? with John Lennox and Justin Brierely that even if he saw Jesus being raised with himself standing at the foot of the cross, he would assume he was hallucinating so it doesn't seem he would ever reach that conclusion anyway.
When has an internet atheist presented an argument sans an error of reasoning? A very rare event.
Well yeah because the human intellect cannot be the basis for the Logos itself. There’s no way to justify this epistemologically. The good atheist philosophers know this and don’t make this basic error that’s why they always either appeal to materialism because the universe itself can serve as your source of truth if you believe in material eternality, or they adopt some form of existentialism.
@@harrygarris6921 _"if you believe in material eternality"_
Well look at you kick that can, and call this good philosophy to boot.
@@seankennedy4284 well yeah we’ve kind of written off material eternality as reasonable in the western tradition but there’s a rich tradition of eastern philosophy where they accept the premise. I don’t know enough about it to fully explain the justification but it comes down to a slightly different view of causality than we have in the west.
Or a Christian or anyone really. Shrug
@@harrygarris6921 _"we’ve kind of written off material eternality as reasonable in the western tradition"_
Didn't stop you from calling it good philosophy. Equivocate much?
_"I don’t know enough about it to fully explain the justification"_
Yet it's good philosophy, so you say. Sure it is.
2:09:25
Why does paulogia sound like a bot? 🤖 is this a real person?
Paul intently misrepresents the arguments, it’s his MO. It’s all just anti theism , not a intellectual pursuit at all
@@Theo_Skeptomaithere is an entire lives stream documenting all the ones he misrepresented
Philosophies are explanations, not evidence, philosophies can explain science, but they are not the science itself, they are an abstract.
You can have a philosophical argument, with ZERO evidence, you cannot have science without evidence, science has the data , a philosophy can explain the data , however the data will still exist without philosophy.
Yes , data still exist , but how to explain data without philosophy because u said philosophy is to explain ?
@@insanelogical8996
you can still explain it without philosophy, philosophy is an explanation you can use .
@@Obeytheroadrules
Oh really??
@@insanelogical8996
Mathematics can explain some science, without philosophy, which part of “ philosophy can explain science, but it’s not the science itself “
Has you so confused ?
Do I have to put it in ignorant Christian terms , for you to understand ?
@@Obeytheroadrules some science ? Not all science??
I’m starting to think that Paul is simply dishonest… this is getting bad… I used to somewhat respect hon
@@Theo_Skeptomaijust watch the live stream
@@Theo_Skeptomai You've gone under multiple comments asking for examples, and yet you refuse to watch the actual video that addresses the examples. Do your own research dude, nobody wants to spoon-feed "specific examples" to you.
4:38 if god knows everything why would he need to take on a human body to feel the human experience?
He didn't need to come with human nature as Christ to experience human nature. There are some Christians who assert that Christ came so God could "understand us" or "experience life as a human," but what must be understood is that this is a heresy.
The Catholic Church does not teach, nor has it ever taught, that Christ (God) took a human nature to experience humanity, I.e. to 'learn humanity," or such like. The ancient churches of the East don't teach that either.
There are some Protestant sects that teach this idea. Again though, it is considered a heresy by the original Church that Christ founded, the one with Apostolic succession, all the sacraments, etc.
This can't he stressed enough, because this is typical of so many critiques that atheists and skeptics make of Christianity: often times, the critique of "Christian doctrine" or a "Christian dogma," is levelled on what is in fact a heresy.
He did NOT "need" to do this. He did this to save us from the penalty of sin.
@@mysotiras21 couldn’t he just saved us from sin? The hero’s actions must be deemed necessary in order to be deemed heroic.
If a knight’s trying to save a princess and saw a sleeping dragon and he intentionally wakes the dragon up, putting him and the princess in danger should we applaud him? Sure sacrifice I would say is loving. But what is god even losing or “sacrificing”? nothing, it’s only the physical sacrifice of spilling blood which ig god sees as actual sacrifice.
@@kingmango4054 in that lil analogy of your, he took the princess and ran off as you say... what would have stop the dragon from getting up and coming after them?
@@reyis_here945 the dragon sleeping.
“Post mortem resurrection” What does this say about how Jesus came back? Can we really call Jesus human, if he was born of a virgin and incarnated?
Saying Jesus “rose from the dead”, could be confusing, since Lazarus is also said to have “risen from the dead”, but we all know this is different.
Jesus is fully human biologically, fully God spiritually. Spirit, being non-corporeal, can easily coexist with a biological entity.
@@mysotiras21 Would you say it’s biological to be born of a virgin?
It is different. Lazarus was raised **by** Jesus; Jesus **raised himself** from death by **his own power**. Jesus Christ was and is fully God, incarnate, while Lazarus is not God.
@@LibertysetsquareJack We know it’s different, but why is it called the same?
@@jonathanterol4528 Why is what called the same thing?
LMAO...i remember when you were called out for needing lessons in biblical scholarship. You literally whined about it and here you are throwing stones while living in a glass house.
26:30 The prior probability of Santa Clause (flying sleigh, etc) is not zero. Santa can do all the things he does because of magic. The prior probability of magic is not zero. Let's assign the same prior probability of the resurrection the same as the prior probability of Santa Clause and let's set the prior probability of God the same as magic. Now do the baysein analysis of the resurrection.
There's no reason to give them the same priors
You misunderstand logic.
You could get someone to agree to the probability of resurrection and Santa clause being equal and the existence of God and magic being equal.
Then, you still have the issue that these Christian philosophers are saying “the evidence is great enough that the probability isn’t too low.
Are you arguing that the evidence for magic and Santa is enough that the probability isn’t too low?
Check 1:20:00
We believe there is specific evidence that proves the probability of resurrection isn’t too low to have occurred.
YAWN. False analogy. We all know that Santa is a mythical being, loosely predicated upon St. Nicholas. No one over the age of 8 takes Santa seriously.
@@airkami "Then, you still have the issue that these Christian philosophers are saying “the evidence is great enough that the probability isn’t too low." We have uncountable testimony of children for a long time getting presents from Santa and seeing Santa give presents in their homes. If you don't like Santa, how about "evil spirits make people sick"? If we didn't have the scientific method to show that was false, people would still believe it including Christian Philosophers. The problem with the resurrection was it was a one time event and there is nothing besides testimony. It is sorta like the moon being split. There are about 22 named people who "saw" the noon split. What is the prior probability the moon was split? about the same as Santa or evil spirits making people sick?
@@callums6570 "There's no reason to give them the same priors" Then how does one assign priors for God and the resurrection? WAG (wild a-ssed guess)?
For a channel that's insistent on people being respectful to you you're pretty insistent on attacking others.
Addressing poor arguments and criticising them is not the same thing as attacking people. One can respectfully make arguments and one can also criticise arguments as long as it does not spiral into attacking people themselves.
I’m not aware of any case where IP has dissolved into ad hominem attacks. I stand corrected if IP has engaged in any of this but I’m not aware of any time that he has.
@@samueljennings4809 they constantly call others dishonest or say others are making disingenuous claims without explaining why they are making those accusations etc they may not be adhominen attacks but they're unfair and consistently so.
is this reall just 2 hours of ramble about the least important semantics, without actually addressing any real points or countering any argument? So anticlimactic...
No, what you NEED is some strong evidence god exists. Sir.
Alright guys, get on this comment chain.
Lol, there's evidence everywhere... you want proof.
Yep. Argument over. IP’s done. Paulogia Victory. Billions must cry.
@@Chriscraft-ug3sz LMFAO
@@nosuchthing8 what is evidence based on, in your opinion?
3.5 k views and 3 comments. This is bogus
The stream just ended, the count includes the Stream viewers
It just dropped, but I agree. This was a little slow but I'm here for it
Honestly they’re all a bunch of nerds
😂
So a dearth of comments is what makes a video bogus? Logic is a mystery to you.