Surprised he didn't also think to 'explain' the bench-pressing little girl as the act of a god. He said when you're talking about a supernatural entity like a god, ‘All bets are off’ - but apparently little Ms Muscle is something he'd bet against.
The thing I noticed was he questioned the fact that "Kim" had a metal trash can and lid in her kitchen, but he didn't question the story or if it was supernatural, it's insane
You only mention it in passing at the end of the video, but "the empty tomb" has always been a head-scratcher for me. Apologists talk about it as if they have a Roman deed to the place that was issued under Jesus's name, as well as subsequent records of it being found with a conspicuous lack of human remains. But as far as I'm aware, the only records we have that such a thing as "the empty tomb" actually existed is the bible itself. So I never understood how they could be so confident in declaring it to be strong evidence of the resurrection, when it has no more substance to it than any other claim in the bible...maybe even less because of the inconsistencies in the gospel accounts of that particular event. The word "cringe" gets tossed around to annoying degree, but it seems like a pretty good description of his starting a debate like this with ghost stories. You mention other apologists being nonplussed by it, but how receptive did the audience seem to that tactic?
I'm pretty sure the tomb isn't the only thing that can credit evidence for its existence only to the Bible. An example that comes to mind is Jesus himself.
Quite so, especially when it wasn't even Jesus' own tomb to begin with. We have Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, whose name according to B. Ehrman is a pun for "best disciple-ville." We see Jesus exit stage left with these two guys but no account that they ever reached the tomb with Jesus' body to begin with. The tomb could've been empty (if there really was one to begin with) because they chucked his body down a well or dumped him in a shallow grave. What's worse is the Romans didn't allow crucifixion victims a decent burial. They were left as a message to the rest of the Jews what happened if you crossed Rome, and then buried in a mass grave. We have no reason to think Jesus (if there really etc..) would've been treated differently. My preferred explanation grants virtually everything for the sake of argument, and then shows the story of Josephus' friends who were crucified, and who he pleaded to have taken down. One survived. Then, I point to false (incorrect) diagnoses of death throughout history, including NDEs. Christian apologists say Jesus can't have faked being dead because of the spear that was jabbed in his side, but here are solid cases of people diagnosed and believed to be dead that weren't. Blood and water came out of his side. What was that water? Was Jesus drowning in his own fluid? Did that Roman soldier actually save his life by accident? Instantly, we have a better explanation using the apologists' own minimum facts (and that still doesn't mean it's true - it just means it has far higher probability). Ironically, the consequence of the explanation is that it gives us a reason *why* the disciples *thought* Jesus had been resurrected, and why Thomas was able to put his hand in Jesus' side - because it really was his wound in his side.
True story, I asked a guy once for a non-biblical contemporary source about Jesus. Not even about the resurrection, mind you, just Jesus in general. His response was an inscription declaring a Roman law against stealing bodies from tombs. I was flabbergasted. What the hell did this have to do with anything? It says nothing about Jesus, and it was issued in another province entirely. The guy's reply: "You know, grave robbers don't usually steal bodies!! Usually they steal valuables out of tombs!!!! :)" And I can't properly communicate just how gleeful he was about this. He really thought he'd got me, that I'd stepped right into this brilliant academic trap and now there was no way out and he'd just proved to the world that Jesus was real and rose from the dead, he'd done it at last. One hundred percent sure he had me.
Did you recover from this life changing blow? I don't suppose he happened to elaborate on how the fact that someone, at some point, somewhere stole a body and some Roman didn't like it also proves that the stolen body was divine did he?
Matt thank you for the information you share with people! You opened my eyes and now I am an outspoken atheist that is not afraid to speak my mind. Keep up the great work!
Notice how he provides an example for what Ad Hoc is, and it's essentially Dillahunty's pixie examples, which is a direct comparison to the claims about god. It's a bit ironic, to say the least, that he'd use an example that fundamentally counters his own beliefs as if there's no conflict there. I just couldn't help but find it absolutely hilarious. Of course this was alluded to in the analysis afterwards, but fuck was that a nice laugh for a second there.
Well, it's the same thing as the whole "everything that begins to exist has a cause, and now let me tell you how the only thing I can think of that *_didn't_* begin to exist is my particular God." They either don't know how obvious the special pleading looks to anyone on the outside...or they don't care.
Indeed. And, furthermore, while ignoring the fact that the entire idea behind cause and effect entirely breaks down when referencing the beginning of the universe. Especially since cause and effect necessarily depend upon time, which wouldn't exist pre-universe if time begins when the universe begins. Whenever Craig goes into the whole, "Timeless, spaceless" etc description, before positing said god, he's really just describing the fact that the universe came into existence uncaused. But, of course, he can't accept this. he needs causality so that he can claim god did it. So very strange that educated individuals who should otherwise know better put forward such nonsensical ideas, even after debating people who can show how bogus their ideas are. And that's not even mentioning his dishonest approach to debates, which i find he most obviously employed against Sam Harris who directly refuted a decent amount of Craigs points. but since he didn't expressly state which points his statements refuted Craig just got up and said Harris never addressed what he said. At least Rober Price was able to reveal some of that dishonesty in his own debate with Craig. Anyway, sorry for the wall.
That's because most arguments for God, deep down, try to appeal to common sense. I still hear the watchmaker argument from time to time, and it devolves into the same kind of special pleading.
you have bought into the lie from Satan. When you die you will be judged for your sins, and God will send you to Hell. Trust Jesus, He can give you the TRUTH.
I dream of my pet dog who died 15 or so years ago quite regularly, but that doesn't make me think he's been resurrected. Some of those dreams are vivid.
+Rusty Walker Please reveal more from the Canine Canon, oh Great Prophet Rusty Walker! Where must we make sacrifices? Whom must we hate and judge? How can we obtain self-righteousness?! I yearn for eternal belly-scratching.
Licona keeps using the word "empirical." I think he needs to study a little Philosophy 101 and find out what the word "empirical" actually means. None of what he calls empirical evidence is empirical, and most of it is simply second- and third-hand anecdote.
+Gen Meow I agree. There's no excuse for him to misuse it. He clearly knows the audience won't understand it, though. It's a deception to make his argument wear the trappings of reasoned debate, knowing full well he has nothing of equivalent value to Matt D's logical rigour.
When that guy started talking about the magical trashcan I just took a hammer and smashed my skull in. I just can not stand to listen to these childish superstitious magical stories anymore.
Not only do you come well-prepared for these debates, Matt, but you also reflect on them after the fact. I am impressed by someone who is willing to revisit a debate and honestly look at how you could have done better, not just how your opponent could have done better. This practice will sharpen your skills and offer clarity to your message, and it shows that you are secure in yourself as a person who seeks to present the truth that comports to reality. Don't mean to gush, but thanks for all you do. Looking forward to Part 2 of this series, if it isn't already out.
No. What he did was use a story told to him by a friend that she had used a ouija board and a trash can moved...and somehow, this is what he points to as evidence that the supernatural exists. It wasn't used as proof of the resurrection. As a watcher of the debate, I have to say - it is complete hearsay. I have no idea if ANY of what Licona said is true. I don't know that he actually has that friend, or that that friend told him a story or that the friend herself didn't lie or make it up or was mistaken or tricked (for all we know, someone played a trick on her, and she fell for it).
OK, so is not believable that a 3 year old girl can bench press 300 lbs because a child that age would not be capable of that feat but a trashcan lid flying in the air and then spinning like a top is believable because your friend told you it did. It would be fun to see humorus subtitles whenever Lincona's speaks pointing out all the ridiculous things he is saying
Laura Carson and who the fuck has a metal trash can in their kitchen? And when someone tells me they “dabble” into occult behavior I immediately cant take them seriously. This lady came to speak to my youth group when I was growing up while I was still a Christian and she also claimed she used to be in the occult. She then proceeded to tell us that Konami sacrificed human babies over mortal kombat video games before they released a new one....she also said she could leave her body on command and fly through the air and go into other people’s bodies. She was nuckin futs.
you're saying logical arguments for god(s)/silogisms can't be "debunked", or proven wrong, or have flaws in the premises and/or conclusions shown to be incorrect/not follow logically? is this true of all arguments for god(s)?
Of course they don't get better. They can't. This crap is based on unchanging "truth" from the baaaaable. Of course, we see the religilous sneakily changing their dogma just enough to keep from being crushed by logic and science, which pushes them into an ever-retreating corner of delusion.
Awww...When the video started and Matt was just looking into the camera for a few seconds I almost thought he would just say "No!", then turn off the camera and video ended. That'd be awesome. :)
@28:43: "Undetectable gremlins from Saturn are responsible for all the unexplained phenomena on Earth" is an ad hoc hypothesis, and thus invalid. But if we replace the phrase "Undetectable gremlins from Saturn" with "the supernatural," suddenly it becomes valid? Whaaa?
Atheism often leads to skepticism, skepticism leads to ability to better see untrue things. This leads to believing more true things and less false things.
These debate reviews are fantastic. They really help me to go over objections to the resurrection that I'd otherwise not consider out of wanting to be "nice" to the opposing side :)
He's one of the worst, I thought Sy Ten Bruggencad was the worst debator Matt has gone against or Dinesh D'Souza, but my God this guy makes them look like geniuses, I mean how bad do you have to be to make Sy and Dinesh look good?, It's the equalivelent of how trump makes W look, I always thought there wouldn't be a worse president then W but I was wrong, trump makes him look like a genius
I've never had a supernatural experience but when I was younger I would've said differently. when I was in 4th grade three friends and I swore we were chased by something that had to be a demon or a monster while we were playing in a drainage tunnel. but really I was just the shadows playing tricks on our eyes
16:50 "reality is a little more complex than atheism would claim". Priceless. All these physicists, biologists, chemists, geologists, astronomers, cosmologists, they make it so easy for themselves. They simply don't acknowledge that invisible wizard in the sky that I know.
The Dr's argument essentially went like this: 1> Some people have experienced some weird things. 2> (Skipped this part) 3> Therefore the supernatural exists 4> (Skipped this part) 5> Therefore it is possible that there is a god, and that god could have risen Jesus from the dead 6> The stories in the bible around Jesus's death and resurrection are accurate. 7> Therefore Jesus rose from the dead.
How did you keep from laughing when he talked about the flying trash can lid? Did your presentation consist of anything beyond "This man believes that Ouija boards makes trashcan lids fly. He is crazy--he thinks that you can only believe in the resurrection if you are crazy. There is no point in engaging with him."?
I know Matt doesn't read these but if you put an " ì " in atheist on the title you wont be flagged and have this video demonetized. It will help bypass the youtube algorithms. Everyone like this and maybe Matt will see this. Just trying to help him out.
I watched the debate for the first time a couple days ago. That anecdote about seeing a ghost at 2:30 am sounded, to me, like a classic example of the visions people see during sleep paralysis.
I absolutely love these debate reviews. So many good ideas. I watch all your debates but I can't get myself to listen to the preacher talking for 25 minutes so I always skip their part. This of course makes for a very one-sided viewing experience so it's nice to hear their arguments in this format instead. Keep up the good work :) Lighting pro tip: If you use two lights, have one of them be slightly less bright than the other (or simply move one a bit further away). This gives your face a bit more shape to it and makes it look less flat (one-dimensional).
*Jesus DID RISE from the dead!!!* I know because some high schoolers told me that a garbage can lid was acting spooky. Also once toilet paper was holding onto my shoe in a spooky way.
+OSpore: _there is plenty of evidence of Jesus and God_ I've watched endless content looking for this evidence sincerely. Since there is "plenty" of it, can you give me one small piece of evidence? Perhaps the best evidence in your opinion.
I really enjoy the approach Matt takes. It’s always very respectful, steers clear of ad hominem attacks even when they’re directed at him, and he tries to stay as objective as possible. Unfortunately, he’s got a large swath of his internet followers who are nothing like that. I’d like to see him do a segment where he addresses the crazy, untoward zeal of the anti theist. . . . Unless he already has? Someone feel free to direct me to it, if so.
Did jesus rise from the dead ? I'm still trying to figure out how mortals with three nails and a pointed stick could kill a superhero all powerful god in the first place ! It would have been far more believable if Stan Lee wrote the gospels instead of total amateurs at sci-fi.
TheMetaTron 2.0 lol sci-fi? You are illeterate and very intellectual. Sorry for your degenerate ideas of denial. It'll be more than woe when the resurrection happens and you're hopeless. Let me guess, you'll still deny the king? 😄
Re: Paul being a good witness because he converted from prosecuting christians. This is a classic story line. One of my personal faces is Johnny Utah from the film Point Break. He's a cop, who is trying to prosecute the surfers, only to become enamoured of their life style. Its a good (and common) tool in story telling.
I wish somebody had asked Mike "how do you tell the difference between a) no CURRENT natural explanation, and b) no POSSIBLE natural explanation?" He is asserting that b) is sometimes the case, but seems to be conflating the two.
Mythology is a subject that many religious people could benefit from. When courses are taken in the subject, a student can learn how stories are put together in ways that are and can be related to their particular religion. Understanding the myth and how these myths develop may be a way to get to the truth for the unenlightened religious person. A good mathematical and scientific background doesn't hurt either. When the bible can be picked apart through how certain books were chosen and others were left out, it would be easier for the believer to see who was involved, what were their motivations and how the end product of the bible was put together. I realize that there will still be folks who will look at the assemblage of the bible and the conflicts with history as a subject and still not follow the facts. These same people seem to reject science when it comes to the age of the earth in direct conflict with geology. They reject biology by denouncing the notion of the theory of evolution even though the relatively newer field of genetics have confirmed many of the early thinking on those subjects. These same people don't seem to realize that technology and science build on the knowledge of geniuses of the past that counter their archaic beliefs.
There's good historical evidence for the resurection of Jesus. Just like there's good historical evidence that Muhammad flew to heaven on a horse. Just like there's good historical evidence that the Angel Moroni gave golden plates to Joseph. Etc. The lowest possible standards of evidence we can have is that it weeds out contradictory claims. The "historical evidence" for Jesus does not meet this low bar.
When I was a young lad my girlfriend dumped me for another guy, it broke my little heart in two. I never understood why she left. Now I know, it was supernateral.
In my opinIon, Mr. Licona lost the debate in his opening statement. He then relied on it to be won later by a flurry of innuendo and misdirection that only showed he would not prove his point. It seemed obvious to me his knowledge was too great to attempt and lose the debate "proof of a literal Jesus Christ," but didn't honestly shift the argument from the start, i.e., in the form of the likeable "I come not to praise Ceaser, but to bury him ...." It was hilarious to me to see him lose early and it was instructive for me to see you deal with it. Thanks! I'm not surprised he displayed displeasure you hadn't broken from the debate format and didn't/declined to help support his argument and shift by discussing and falling into the "high school" trap of assisting his change in the real question of the debate.
I cringed a little sensing the audience thinking Matt was being unreasonable in the head-cut-off scenario. I think the problem was that a distinction wasn't made between something actually happening and it LOOKING like that's what happened. The answer Lacona was looking for was contained within the acceptance of him "walking back in". We don't know that he just walked back in. Maybe it LOOKS like he walked back in after it LOOKED like he had his head cut off. Maybe it was a magic trick. Maybe it was an elaborate plan to kill his long-lost twin. Who knows? Without making the distinction between appearances and something true we wade into a swamp of unintelligibility that allows apologists to weasel and equivocate.
Matt, I think your modified opening went over well. I am glad you "called Dr. Licona out" for claiming you had not responded to his claims during your opening statement. His claim that "empirical data _strongly suggests_ that reality has a supernatural dimension" is a clear understanding that he has a critical flow in his idea of what is required, from a sound evidence standpoint, to justify a position. He absolutely is making a "supernatural of the gaps" claim. Apply his stance to the levitation of superconducting magnets. If we had no idea o the science, by his view, it would have to be supernatural. Or the response to photography of isolated human tribes at the turn of the century. To them the science seemed like it conjured up the supernatural. We can make an almost infinite array of similar examples. And in every single case, once the science is understood, the entire process turns out to be natural.
So far at the 7 min mark Matt and I can understand what you're feeling. I recently went through an online debate with a Christian on the Modal Ontological Argument (if you want to read it, I can supply a link) on a forum. The question was "The Modal Ontological Argument: Is it a logically sound/valid Argument for the Existence of God? " and quite frequently, my opponent wanted to bring in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I said I would ignore.
Ghost stories = empirical evidence of the supernatural. I personally shook my head so hard at this opening statement that my head came lose and seperated itself from my neck thereby flying across the room. Luckily, by divine intervention I was able to reattach it again - you can still see the scar though. What? Why wouldn't you believe this totally plausible story? I've got my dog as an eyewitness!
Mike referenced 9/11 toward the end of the debate to show that certain events essentially burn themselves in to people’s memory and they will always have a very accurate recollection of said event. There was a study done about large events like 9/11 and the scientists documented people’s stories after one year then two and so on and they determined that even our memory of significant events are complete dog shit. I always remembered being in first period in high school but now that I think about it the planes didn’t even hit until I would have been in second period, for example. Revisionist history recently did an episode about Brian Williams and he went into greater detail about the study.
It's like, they teach the police to shout "stop resisting" or "he has a gun" or "drop your weapon" etc *after* shooting someone, because people's memories will "correct" it to the more sensible order of "stop resisting" and then a gunshot. Memory is incredibly fallible and susceptible to reshaping itself to fit the internal narrative by which we try to understand events.
The fact that this debate even happened given the topic is pretty interesting to me. Before you can discuss if Jesus rose from the dead or not wouldn't you first have to prove that Jesus existed? Don't get me wrong I'm not stating one way or another if he did or didn't exist, but I've not seen or read any evidence that confirms the positive of that claim. Without it this debate might as well be "Did Superman rise from the dead". Unless of course I'm missing something, which is possible given I've not been sleeping too well and it's pretty late here.
"If you had an engagement with the risen jesus why would you have to discuss anything with anyone else." In fact, this is EXACTLY what Galatians says. It clashes rather violently with version in Acts.
Watched the debate in an earlier video. Licona does not seem to have a good grasp of what evidence for a fact is -- a second fact which tends to make the fact more probable, because there is a recognized connection between the two facts. He also does not seem to recognize that his god of the gaps argument is in fact a god of the gaps argument. I appreciate your efforts and your patience, Matt. It's always good to have a jury when presenting evidence. Were you able to take a casual poll of how many people thought you made the better case?
These debates need to be in front of educated people, people who don't allow myth to rule their lives. That way this christian apologist could be laughed off the stage as he deserves. It jangles the nerves when stupid stands proud.
hey Matt - it would be good for you to do a segment on the miracles of the Catholic Church which are scientifically sound: 1) the Shroud of Turin 2) the tilma of Juan Diego 3) approved Eucharist miracles 4) approved incorruptible saints 5) approved healings (e.g., 70 scientifically approved healings in Lourdes) 6) approved statue miracles (weeping, bleeding, etc. - e.g., Akita, Japan) 7) approved stigmata (e.g., Catalina Rivas in Bolivia) ... I can list many many more ... Good luck! Let me know when you join the Catholic Church.
1. Shroud of Turin is the wrong age to be related to Jesus. 2. A painting on a cloak and a claim of hallucinations by one guy. Best explanation: Fraud. 3. Stories with no providence. 4. Preservation of a corpse has many natural explanations. Bodies failing to decompose happens to people regardless of religious beliefs. 5. At best. all you have are recoveries that are inexplicable to current medical knowledge. "We don't know" does not mean "God did it". 6. Frauds 7. Frauds
@@Kyeudo So this reveals how dull-minded you are, and how little you know about each topic. 1. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut) 2. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut) 3. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut) 4. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut) 5. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut) -- see Lourdes miracles to start, donut 6. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut) 7. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut)
Great video, as always, but I have a very important question. Did you make those patterned wood pieces behind you? If so, what is that method called? They look awesome and I'm starting to build a wood shop in my garage and would be interested in learning how to do that.
When I´m home alone, the door to my bathroom always closes itself with a really loud bang noise. Do i then believe that it was a ghost and therefor god is real, No. I dont have any pets so i rule that out. Later i came to find out i was leaving the window open in the bathroom and the wind was causing my door to close. I feel like if i told Licona this story he would still believe it was a ghost...
Alpha Six well the ghost can't get inside to close the door if you lock it out by closing the window..duh. La fantasma no puede vamos en la casa si cier la ventana. (Mi Espaniol as muy muy mal..se que)
@Matt, I've watched both videos ( not yet to part 2 ), your discussion here @ 25:30ish, you don't mention it and you talk about a few things; to me this seems very much as though his intent is argumentum ad populum. 'All these people believe this group of profits all saw Jesus as a group', he goes on to list the various different groups as though he is citing credible sources, and as he has an accounting of their testimony. Even capitulating the sources gave a testimony in accordance with his account, evidence for the source's beliefs are still required. I can believe Hitler was a good man, I can give testimony being honest and credible, however most people would have a inclination that I am more likely to be irrational than be able to make my case. Argumentum ad populum seems to be his biggest crutch, I think at one point he says ~ ' if god wanted to raise him from the dead that would be a game changer'. This logic is very slippery, Taking the average christian theology with regards to God, I think he (god) has shown a patience for things at the very least. It seems more plausible to me god would have / could have waited on the whole zombie thing. I think god wanted me to be able to travel miles quickly, so man developed cars, I now drive a car. If god wanted us to be able to resurrect people he would have us develop a machine that can deliver an electronic shock to bring us back. God understands time better than any of us, it seems more plausible to have Jesus die after the creation of a defibrillator and not have to make a special case of it, than to have this story play out prior to a time where we can document and comprehend it. We are able to, with all of our knowledge and technology to bring someone back to life after death with a total elapsed time of ? ... 45 minutes, this is an edge case and special circumstances are needed. Thank you Matt for representing atheists.
The other thing is that assuming you accept the supernatural world, one type of supernatural event being possible doesn't mean a completely different supernatural event is possible. Just because a ghost can lift lids or some people become clairevoiant while at death's door doesn't necessarily mean a man can return from death or that if he did, the reason he could is because he's son of God and the rest of the Bible is basically true. In other words, we have neither a natural explaination OR a supernatural one EVEN IF you take supernature seriously. It's not like we have a working model of that side of reality and understand what those forces are and aren't capable of, so not only can you not be sure to rule out all natural explainations since you don't know what they all are since you're understanding of nature is incomplete, you can't rule out all supernatural explainations until ressurection is left. Like, what if a ninja was using some transformation jutsu to look like a ressurected Jesus?
More importantly, I strongly feel your beard isn't perfectly symmetrical. It's setting off my OCD. 😡. Just joking.. 😊. thanks for being the voice of reason for many of us.
The guy, the condescending audience guy that looks to the Bible for truth; ugh, I cringed. He’s a physical representation, of why a “Religious-Idiot-Tax” is not only justifiable, but is a truly necessary corrective action to combat idiocy. I can’t begin to imagine how twisted his reality has become, to KNOW he finds Truth, and answers to questions in life, from the bible. Clearly he’s been wrong, about a lot.
It's usually better not to mention rhetorical ploys during a debate since it's essentially an attack on the honesty of the speaker and you can't demonstrate its intent, but in analysis Licona uses a quite wonderful one often employed by psychics and other conmen. "They're playing with the ouija board and there's this metal trashcan with a metal lid in the kitchen. I said, Kim, a metal trashcan lid in the kitchen?" Now, the passing impression this creates is that he raised a question as to the plausibility of the story, that he questioned it as a sceptical mind would. He's a keen interlocutor gathering evidence. The trick being that this is a completely mundane fact to question. There's nothing that bizarre about what kind of trashcan someone uses relative to a story about dabbling in the occult, summoning spirits, and supernatural events. None of that is questioned or verified, but this little rhetorical trick can create the impression that he did indeed analyse the story before accepting and passing it on as evidence. Could be that Licona is just innocently relaying the details and did indeed find the trashcan odd. Still, it's something of a recurring theme in this kind of BS story to question and explain mundane details to mask the lack of scepticism on display. Look out for it.
"Empirical evidence strongly suggests that reality has a strong supernatural dimension." Even 2.0 GPA Psychology 101 students can call that bullshit. What a top shelf declaration.
Liconna argument: threw garbage (can lid) at the wall -to see- and CLAIMED it stuck. I'm telling you what she said she saw. And, further, I'm telling you that that qualifies as evidence.
If he is presenting two lines of evidence and of them is not needed to substantiate his claim and he spends 50% or more of his time on that one, it tells me he doesn't have that strong an argument to begin with.
I watched the debate. I think one opportunity that was missed was taking his "300 NDE people" and saying that "Let's say you wanted to test which of these were false, which were true" and then positing 3 propositions: 1. All of these stories are true 2. None of these stories are true 3. Some of these stories are true, some are false And get him to identify how exactly he would test for each of these scenarios in terms of knowledge.
silk - we know nothing from Paul outside the stories or letters. He exists only as a character in acts and some letters are claimed to have been written by him. The problem is that half of the letters which are attributed to Paul are contested and considered to be fraud by many scholars. The letters we have in general show signs of editing, appear to be a combination of several pieces. So one could have put in false content into an older one. The nicest letter is the one were Paul warns from other fradulent letter's written in his name. This letter is considered by many scholar's itself a fraud. So what we see here is a dubious character who was never part of the later produced Jesus story of whom some non fraudulent letters might exist. The content is hearsay and or fiction.
You may have made a salami sandwich. I think his argument is more akin to "Matt made a dragonmeat sandwich" where you would need a detour to discuss the existence of dragons, before the contingent possibility of the sandwich.
Prove it. I'm kidding, I'm kidding. That would be a ridiculous thing to ask of you. There's no need, it's obvious you're only joking. He clearly did because people saw his empty tomb.
I know Jesus rose from the dead because a 2000 year old desert holy book (written by folks who didn't know the earth was round) said so. I mean, that's as much proof as a person needs... right?
I think Licona achieved to deviate the topic, for what christians are especialists ("excuses ad hoc"). But, although not as usual, I think you have been quite better.
I mean he failed to show any empiracal evidence of the supernatural, but i would defend his desicion to add that line of argument based on the fact that Matt and others frequently make the correct point that before you can appeal to the supernatural as a "explanation" for anything you need to demonstrate that a supernatural dimension exist.
Listening to the debate, I found it frustrating when the christian states that accumulated probabilities increases the chances that the event is true. If 1 point of evidence is say 60% and a 2nd point of evidence is say 40%, the probability that both are true is .4 x .6 = 24%.
The reason that Licona has to tie the resurrection to the supernatural is that someone could say that Jesus had been in a coma and recovered. He is just preempting that argument. He is not really talking to Matt or any other unbeliever, but trying to shore up the beliefs of Christians in the audience.
I think that your opening statement should lay out your position, not address his. You should let it be known that the only arguments you will rebut (during your rebuttal turn) must be evidential. You're not going to waste time addressing baseless assertions, or you could be there all day doing nothing else, and it produces nothing of any value (this cuts off Gish Gallops, or sets them up for failure right out of the gate). This would free you up to follow your agenda, rather than his, by letting it be known, from the outset, that baseless assertions deserve no rebuttal. If he still goes on a Gish Gallop, call him on it. Tell him to pick his best argument, and you'll address that. Also, let it be known, from the start, that you will not allow him to shift the burden of proof. If a theist insists on the debate format, rather than an informal conversation, control it. Follow your own agenda, don't end up adrift in a sea of unfounded assertions.
Somebody was convinced that Jesus rose, but not necessarily his immediate disciples. Looking at recent religions in the West, it is not usually the first generation that makes the extreme claims, but later ones. Maybe the first batch was too close to the reality to make extreme claims. The later the gospel, the more extreme the claims. This trend is not necessarily universal. Some people who knew a certain rabbi and a certain Hindu leader claimed they had supernatural aspects (e.g. the Hindu was a god)
Does Matt have a reading list anywhere? Or could someone point me to some good books/articles on epistemology, skepticism, philosophy of religion etc? Thanks
8:50 I think the analogy is flawed. Whether salami sandwiches can exist is relevant to the question whether it is plausible that Matt made one. Licona argued not about salami sandwiches but for the existence of knives (and failed to bring any plausible evidence for it) without even demonstrating that you need knives to make salami sandwiches. Or, you know, magical knives that cannot be shown to exist.
When Licona said his _second_ contention would be "historical data strongly suggests that Jesus rose from the dead" I thought "shouldn't that be the *only* contention?"
"Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" This is the most important question because, if the ressurrection is not true, then all the rest of Christianity is false. To be convinced of any claim, we must evaluate both the claim itself and its supporting evidence. In this particular case, the claim is that a supernatural being came down to earth in human-form as a matter not of myth or metaphor, but as an actual real-time, historical event, and sacrificed himself to serve as a loophole for rules that he, himself, had already invented. This is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence, but the fact that it is a supernatural claim is irrelevant because it should be possible to demonstrate that there is good reason to accept the historicity of the ressurrection without having to know its cause, let alone whether or not its cause was supernatural. And, in any case, because we can't actually define what the supernatural is, we cannot begin to develop any formal or reliable method of investigating, let alone confirming it. So, let's evaluate what actual evidence there is for the ressurrection claim. Firstly, there is no evidence from contemporary sources. Secondly, all the alleged events of Jesus's life are not recorded anywhere other than in the gospels. The gospels are inherently unreliable for the following reasons: 1) Their authorship is anonymous. 2) They are copies of copies of translations of copies, with no originals and even contain word-for-word copying - e.g., between Matthew and Mark. 3) They report a verbal history. 4) They were written decades after the events they describe are alleged to have occurred. 5) They contain no confirmed, eyewitness accounts and, in any event, eyewitness testimony, let alone verbal, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Even Paul, who taught the gospel of Christ in the first century and whose writings are the earliest, predating the gospels, never met the living Jesus and was neither present at his crucifixion or alleged ressurrection. We cannot accept the idea that Paul stopped being a sceptic and became a Christian after supposedly experiencing a vision of the risen Jesus as evidence of the ressurrection because a vision or revelation is merely an individual's interpretation of a personal event he experienced, internally, inside his own brain. And, how do we even know Paul was telling the truth? After his alleged vision, Paul met with the apostle, Peter, to make sure he was preaching the right gospel - this is highly suspicious because, if he had in fact had an actual encounter with the risen Jesus, why would he need to seek anyone else's advice about what he was supposed to be teaching, unless, of course, it were to get his story straight? The fact that Peter and John's students claim that Paul was "accurately relaying an oral tradition" of the gospels is also irrelevant because the accuracy with which a person relays a story to another person is independent of whether or not the original story itself is true. Neither does the claim that multiple people, both individually and in groups, believed that Jesus appeared to them, demonstrate anything because the fact that people are convinced of something is independent of whether or not the thing itself is actually true. Group hallucinations are not impossible and, in any case, we're still stuck with the problem that none of these claims address the ressurrection directly, but only what people believed about it, afterwards. If, for example, someone told you they'd met Elvis Presley this morning, they'd just be presenting you with a claim without any evidence. So, it doesn't matter how many people claim to have met the risen Jesus because, just like the Elvis analogy, these are merely their claims. Furthermore, claiming that Jesus was the son of God as an attempt to explain away his ressurrection is not only not evidence, but also commits the fallacy of "special-pleading." So, without sufficient evidence for the ressurrection, we are stuck with a series of candidate explanations for what might have happened. These could, for example, include: conspiracy, exaggeration, fabrication, reburial, etc. Why should we include ressurrection in that list? After all, we have no other evidence of anyone ever being ressurrected in the entire course of human history and all the evidence we do have about reality suggests that a ressurrection is impossible. Whereas, on the other hand, we can easily cite copious examples of conspiracies, exaggerations, fabrications and reburials. We therefore have no good reason to even consider a ressurrection as a candidate explanation. So, returning to the original question: "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?" A better question would have been "is it reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead?" because the answer to "did he rise from the dead?" is "we don't know and therefore, until we do, we're forced to conclude that it is unreasonable to believe in his ressurrection and must accept the default position of disbelief, in accordance with the null-hypothesis, until evidence which indicates otherwise emerges, in a similar manner to that in which a defendant of a jury trial is presumed innocent until proven guilty." In other words, nothing permits us to rationally conclude that the only possible explanation of this claim is that Jesus actually rose from the dead and, until it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did, we are constrained, rather like a jury, to find him "not guilty" of doing so. Note: according to the "null-hypothesis," we begin, by default, by saying that there is no connection between A and B, or, in the context of this question, there is no connection between someone reportedly being raised from the dead and someone actually being raised from the dead.
Whether or not group hallucinations are possible we know group delusions are impossible. The fact that a group didn't all have the same hallucination at the same time doesn't mean the one member that did couldn't convince the others that they saw something they didn't
Surprised he didn't also think to 'explain' the bench-pressing little girl as the act of a god. He said when you're talking about a supernatural entity like a god, ‘All bets are off’ - but apparently little Ms Muscle is something he'd bet against.
I was expecting the crowd to erupt into raucous laughter when he mentioned ouija boards, demonic possession, etc.
That crowd was a Baptist crowd.
The thing I noticed was he questioned the fact that "Kim" had a metal trash can and lid in her kitchen, but he didn't question the story or if it was supernatural, it's insane
The audience was asked not to respond during the debate.
It's fascinating to me that a man like Licona could earn a doctorate with such lack of intellectual capability.
MsMsmak doctorate in New Testament Studies is like having a doctorate in Mein Kampf
I laughed when i heard the moderator say “PHD in New Testament” yeaaaa i got a PHD in Star Wats and a Masters in Breaking Bad.
Name me a sincere scientist who accepts ghost stories as empirical fact that reality has a supernatural dimension.
You only mention it in passing at the end of the video, but "the empty tomb" has always been a head-scratcher for me. Apologists talk about it as if they have a Roman deed to the place that was issued under Jesus's name, as well as subsequent records of it being found with a conspicuous lack of human remains. But as far as I'm aware, the only records we have that such a thing as "the empty tomb" actually existed is the bible itself. So I never understood how they could be so confident in declaring it to be strong evidence of the resurrection, when it has no more substance to it than any other claim in the bible...maybe even less because of the inconsistencies in the gospel accounts of that particular event.
The word "cringe" gets tossed around to annoying degree, but it seems like a pretty good description of his starting a debate like this with ghost stories. You mention other apologists being nonplussed by it, but how receptive did the audience seem to that tactic?
I'm pretty sure the tomb isn't the only thing that can credit evidence for its existence only to the Bible. An example that comes to mind is Jesus himself.
Quite so, especially when it wasn't even Jesus' own tomb to begin with. We have Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea, whose name according to B. Ehrman is a pun for "best disciple-ville."
We see Jesus exit stage left with these two guys but no account that they ever reached the tomb with Jesus' body to begin with. The tomb could've been empty (if there really was one to begin with) because they chucked his body down a well or dumped him in a shallow grave.
What's worse is the Romans didn't allow crucifixion victims a decent burial. They were left as a message to the rest of the Jews what happened if you crossed Rome, and then buried in a mass grave. We have no reason to think Jesus (if there really etc..) would've been treated differently.
My preferred explanation grants virtually everything for the sake of argument, and then shows the story of Josephus' friends who were crucified, and who he pleaded to have taken down. One survived. Then, I point to false (incorrect) diagnoses of death throughout history, including NDEs.
Christian apologists say Jesus can't have faked being dead because of the spear that was jabbed in his side, but here are solid cases of people diagnosed and believed to be dead that weren't.
Blood and water came out of his side. What was that water? Was Jesus drowning in his own fluid? Did that Roman soldier actually save his life by accident?
Instantly, we have a better explanation using the apologists' own minimum facts (and that still doesn't mean it's true - it just means it has far higher probability).
Ironically, the consequence of the explanation is that it gives us a reason *why* the disciples *thought* Jesus had been resurrected, and why Thomas was able to put his hand in Jesus' side - because it really was his wound in his side.
not to mention if it happened there is natural explanations for a tomb being empty! like people moving a body!
True story, I asked a guy once for a non-biblical contemporary source about Jesus. Not even about the resurrection, mind you, just Jesus in general. His response was an inscription declaring a Roman law against stealing bodies from tombs.
I was flabbergasted. What the hell did this have to do with anything? It says nothing about Jesus, and it was issued in another province entirely. The guy's reply: "You know, grave robbers don't usually steal bodies!! Usually they steal valuables out of tombs!!!! :)"
And I can't properly communicate just how gleeful he was about this. He really thought he'd got me, that I'd stepped right into this brilliant academic trap and now there was no way out and he'd just proved to the world that Jesus was real and rose from the dead, he'd done it at last. One hundred percent sure he had me.
Did you recover from this life changing blow? I don't suppose he happened to elaborate on how the fact that someone, at some point, somewhere stole a body and some Roman didn't like it also proves that the stolen body was divine did he?
Matt thank you for the information you share with people! You opened my eyes and now I am an outspoken atheist that is not afraid to speak my mind. Keep up the great work!
Licona's opening statement was full of bad arguments.
It was full of something.
bonnie43uk Licoma did lie to the people or he is ignorant. What he called over and over "empirical evidence" are baseless anecdotal claims.
no such thing as bad arguments just wrong claims as evidence in arguments
Notice how he provides an example for what Ad Hoc is, and it's essentially Dillahunty's pixie examples, which is a direct comparison to the claims about god. It's a bit ironic, to say the least, that he'd use an example that fundamentally counters his own beliefs as if there's no conflict there. I just couldn't help but find it absolutely hilarious. Of course this was alluded to in the analysis afterwards, but fuck was that a nice laugh for a second there.
Well, it's the same thing as the whole "everything that begins to exist has a cause, and now let me tell you how the only thing I can think of that *_didn't_* begin to exist is my particular God." They either don't know how obvious the special pleading looks to anyone on the outside...or they don't care.
Indeed. And, furthermore, while ignoring the fact that the entire idea behind cause and effect entirely breaks down when referencing the beginning of the universe. Especially since cause and effect necessarily depend upon time, which wouldn't exist pre-universe if time begins when the universe begins. Whenever Craig goes into the whole, "Timeless, spaceless" etc description, before positing said god, he's really just describing the fact that the universe came into existence uncaused. But, of course, he can't accept this. he needs causality so that he can claim god did it. So very strange that educated individuals who should otherwise know better put forward such nonsensical ideas, even after debating people who can show how bogus their ideas are. And that's not even mentioning his dishonest approach to debates, which i find he most obviously employed against Sam Harris who directly refuted a decent amount of Craigs points. but since he didn't expressly state which points his statements refuted Craig just got up and said Harris never addressed what he said. At least Rober Price was able to reveal some of that dishonesty in his own debate with Craig. Anyway, sorry for the wall.
That's because most arguments for God, deep down, try to appeal to common sense. I still hear the watchmaker argument from time to time, and it devolves into the same kind of special pleading.
devolve is too sympathetic a word.
Do you just put words in a bucket and throw them out on the table?
Thank you Matt for being so open and brave. You've given me more confidence in being true to myself.
you have bought into the lie from Satan. When you die you will be judged for your sins, and God will send you to Hell. Trust Jesus, He can give you the TRUTH.
I dream of my pet dog who died 15 or so years ago quite regularly, but that doesn't make me think he's been resurrected. Some of those dreams are vivid.
..but he does have a message for us. It's "Woof!"
how's life after death?......."Ruff"
+Rusty Walker Please reveal more from the Canine Canon, oh Great Prophet Rusty Walker! Where must we make sacrifices? Whom must we hate and judge? How can we obtain self-righteousness?! I yearn for eternal belly-scratching.
_"Whom must we hate and judge?"_
Rabbits mainly. He's very firm on that. And the occasional cat, but it's okay to pretend if it huffs itself up.
Woof.
Licona keeps using the word "empirical." I think he needs to study a little Philosophy 101 and find out what the word "empirical" actually means. None of what he calls empirical evidence is empirical, and most of it is simply second- and third-hand anecdote.
He thinks it means "really good".
I find it difficult to believe that Licona doesn't know exactly what it means. It's just more definition-play from an apologist.
+Gen Meow I agree. There's no excuse for him to misuse it. He clearly knows the audience won't understand it, though. It's a deception to make his argument wear the trappings of reasoned debate, knowing full well he has nothing of equivalent value to Matt D's logical rigour.
I like empanadas. they are really good too.
MAking assertions through proclaimations cause research is too hard - paraphrasing Stanton T Friedman
When that guy started talking about the magical trashcan I just took a hammer and smashed my skull in.
I just can not stand to listen to these childish superstitious magical stories anymore.
Not only do you come well-prepared for these debates, Matt, but you also reflect on them after the fact. I am impressed by someone who is willing to revisit a debate and honestly look at how you could have done better, not just how your opponent could have done better. This practice will sharpen your skills and offer clarity to your message, and it shows that you are secure in yourself as a person who seeks to present the truth that comports to reality. Don't mean to gush, but thanks for all you do. Looking forward to Part 2 of this series, if it isn't already out.
Wait, he uses a Ouija board as proof of the resurrection? What the...
No. What he did was use a story told to him by a friend that she had used a ouija board and a trash can moved...and somehow, this is what he points to as evidence that the supernatural exists. It wasn't used as proof of the resurrection.
As a watcher of the debate, I have to say - it is complete hearsay. I have no idea if ANY of what Licona said is true. I don't know that he actually has that friend, or that that friend told him a story or that the friend herself didn't lie or make it up or was mistaken or tricked (for all we know, someone played a trick on her, and she fell for it).
My grandmother had better stories!
OK, so is not believable that a 3 year old girl can bench press 300 lbs because a child that age would not be capable of that feat but a trashcan lid flying in the air and then spinning like a top is believable because your friend told you it did. It would be fun to see humorus subtitles whenever Lincona's speaks pointing out all the ridiculous things he is saying
Laura Carson and who the fuck has a metal trash can in their kitchen? And when someone tells me they “dabble” into occult behavior I immediately cant take them seriously. This lady came to speak to my youth group when I was growing up while I was still a Christian and she also claimed she used to be in the occult. She then proceeded to tell us that Konami sacrificed human babies over mortal kombat video games before they released a new one....she also said she could leave her body on command and fly through the air and go into other people’s bodies. She was nuckin futs.
"Dabbled in the occult" translates to - silly teenagers playing with a ouija board they purchased from a toy store.
Do they ever get any better at apologetics though? It seems they just keep falling back on the easily debunked arguments that have long had their day.
There are also hard facts for the resurrection, like evidence? lol
These arguments date back to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. They get debunked, so they get reworded, but the logic never improves.
Sadochrist The only thing that they have left is the bullshit of presupposition.
you're saying logical arguments for god(s)/silogisms can't be "debunked", or proven wrong, or have flaws in the premises and/or conclusions shown to be incorrect/not follow logically? is this true of all arguments for god(s)?
Of course they don't get better. They can't. This crap is based on unchanging "truth" from the baaaaable. Of course, we see the religilous sneakily changing their dogma just enough to keep from being crushed by logic and science, which pushes them into an ever-retreating corner of delusion.
Awww...When the video started and Matt was just looking into the camera for a few seconds I almost thought he would just say "No!", then turn off the camera and video ended.
That'd be awesome. :)
I remember this debate... so painful to get through.
I couldn't watch after the guy used the Ouija Board and anecdotal evidence for proof of the super natural.
@28:43: "Undetectable gremlins from Saturn are responsible for all the unexplained phenomena on Earth" is an ad hoc hypothesis, and thus invalid. But if we replace the phrase "Undetectable gremlins from Saturn" with "the supernatural," suddenly it becomes valid? Whaaa?
yeah people resurrect as much as fires burn in reverse
Atheism often leads to skepticism, skepticism leads to ability to better see untrue things.
This leads to believing more true things and less false things.
These debate reviews are fantastic. They really help me to go over objections to the resurrection that I'd otherwise not consider out of wanting to be "nice" to the opposing side :)
Is this really one of the best debaters for apologists? Because he's terrible. I mean really, really terrible.
He's one of the worst, I thought Sy Ten Bruggencad was the worst debator Matt has gone against or Dinesh D'Souza, but my God this guy makes them look like geniuses, I mean how bad do you have to be to make Sy and Dinesh look good?, It's the equalivelent of how trump makes W look, I always thought there wouldn't be a worse president then W but I was wrong, trump makes him look like a genius
I've never had a supernatural experience but when I was younger I would've said differently. when I was in 4th grade three friends and I swore we were chased by something that had to be a demon or a monster while we were playing in a drainage tunnel. but really I was just the shadows playing tricks on our eyes
16:50 "reality is a little more complex than atheism would claim". Priceless. All these physicists, biologists, chemists, geologists, astronomers, cosmologists, they make it so easy for themselves. They simply don't acknowledge that invisible wizard in the sky that I know.
The Dr's argument essentially went like this:
1> Some people have experienced some weird things.
2> (Skipped this part)
3> Therefore the supernatural exists
4> (Skipped this part)
5> Therefore it is possible that there is a god, and that god could have risen Jesus from the dead
6> The stories in the bible around Jesus's death and resurrection are accurate.
7> Therefore Jesus rose from the dead.
How did you keep from laughing when he talked about the flying trash can lid? Did your presentation consist of anything beyond "This man believes that Ouija boards makes trashcan lids fly. He is crazy--he thinks that you can only believe in the resurrection if you are crazy. There is no point in engaging with him."?
It was an audience of mostly Christians, and he is a Christian, and Matt is an Atheist. My guess is most of the believed him.
When he said empirical evidence, I thought he was going to talk about the mysteries of quantum physics, the "measurement problem".
46 k plus not a bad start matt ! Always a pleasure to hear you thx...
I know Matt doesn't read these but if you put an " ì " in atheist on the title you wont be flagged and have this video demonetized. It will help bypass the youtube algorithms. Everyone like this and maybe Matt will see this. Just trying to help him out.
Haywood Giablomi yeah thanks man damn audio correct
I watched the debate for the first time a couple days ago. That anecdote about seeing a ghost at 2:30 am sounded, to me, like a classic example of the visions people see during sleep paralysis.
I love these reviews! Yes I know it's an older one but it's at least as informative as the debate itself.
I absolutely love these debate reviews. So many good ideas. I watch all your debates but I can't get myself to listen to the preacher talking for 25 minutes so I always skip their part. This of course makes for a very one-sided viewing experience so it's nice to hear their arguments in this format instead. Keep up the good work :)
Lighting pro tip: If you use two lights, have one of them be slightly less bright than the other (or simply move one a bit further away). This gives your face a bit more shape to it and makes it look less flat (one-dimensional).
*Jesus DID RISE from the dead!!!* I know because some high schoolers told me that a garbage can lid was acting spooky. Also once toilet paper was holding onto my shoe in a spooky way.
capoman1 well these particular "highschoolers" are probably saintinist and yep there is plenty of evidence of Jesus and God him self
capoman1 they were probably high off their heads too
MrJohnlennon007 haha no offense but take a look in the mirror man
+OSpore: _there is plenty of evidence of Jesus and God_ I've watched endless content looking for this evidence sincerely. Since there is "plenty" of it, can you give me one small piece of evidence? Perhaps the best evidence in your opinion.
I really enjoy the approach Matt takes. It’s always very respectful, steers clear of ad hominem attacks even when they’re directed at him, and he tries to stay as objective as possible.
Unfortunately, he’s got a large swath of his internet followers who are nothing like that. I’d like to see him do a segment where he addresses the crazy, untoward zeal of the anti theist.
. . . Unless he already has? Someone feel free to direct me to it, if so.
Did jesus rise from the dead ? I'm still trying to figure out how mortals with three nails and a pointed stick could kill a superhero all powerful god in the first place ! It would have been far more believable if Stan Lee wrote the gospels instead of total amateurs at sci-fi.
TheMetaTron 2.0 lol sci-fi? You are illeterate and very intellectual. Sorry for your degenerate ideas of denial. It'll be more than woe when the resurrection happens and you're hopeless. Let me guess, you'll still deny the king? 😄
oSporezy was that a serious post? Lol.
parametalhead are you a real liberal?😂
oSporezy don't understand the question.
parametalhead yeah sounds like a liberal response. Let me guess you dropped out of school?
So when is the part 2 coming? Love these debate reviews.
Re: Paul being a good witness because he converted from prosecuting christians.
This is a classic story line. One of my personal faces is Johnny Utah from the film Point Break. He's a cop, who is trying to prosecute the surfers, only to become enamoured of their life style. Its a good (and common) tool in story telling.
I wish somebody had asked Mike "how do you tell the difference between
a) no CURRENT natural explanation, and
b) no POSSIBLE natural explanation?"
He is asserting that b) is sometimes the case, but seems to be conflating the two.
Thank you for doing this Matt!
thanks for this Matt, keep em coming
Hey Matt!!! I had a vision and fell on my face speaking in tongues!!!
I saw the face of Jesus on my French Toast!!!
😁😁😁😁 Lol
Mythology is a subject that many religious people could benefit from. When courses are taken in the subject, a student can learn how stories are put together in ways that are and can be related to their particular religion. Understanding the myth and how these myths develop may be a way to get to the truth for the unenlightened religious person. A good mathematical and scientific background doesn't hurt either. When the bible can be picked apart through how certain books were chosen and others were left out, it would be easier for the believer to see who was involved, what were their motivations and how the end product of the bible was put together. I realize that there will still be folks who will look at the assemblage of the bible and the conflicts with history as a subject and still not follow the facts. These same people seem to reject science when it comes to the age of the earth in direct conflict with geology. They reject biology by denouncing the notion of the theory of evolution even though the relatively newer field of genetics have confirmed many of the early thinking on those subjects. These same people don't seem to realize that technology and science build on the knowledge of geniuses of the past that counter their archaic beliefs.
What i find interesting is that you will not see the pope on a debate.
If anyone can tell something significant, The pope should be able to.
Not really put him on "ARE YOU SMARTER THAN A 5th GRADER this Pope would lose his mind
Became a patron thanks to my respect for Dillahunty and his commitment to the cause. Give a few bucks per video in support
There's good historical evidence for the resurection of Jesus. Just like there's good historical evidence that Muhammad flew to heaven on a horse. Just like there's good historical evidence that the Angel Moroni gave golden plates to Joseph. Etc.
The lowest possible standards of evidence we can have is that it weeds out contradictory claims. The "historical evidence" for Jesus does not meet this low bar.
When I was a young lad my girlfriend dumped me for another guy, it broke my little heart in two. I never understood why she left. Now I know, it was supernateral.
In my opinIon, Mr. Licona lost the debate in his opening statement. He then relied on it to be won later by a flurry of innuendo and misdirection that only showed he would not prove his point. It seemed obvious to me his knowledge was too great to attempt and lose the debate "proof of a literal Jesus Christ," but didn't honestly shift the argument from the start, i.e., in the form of the likeable "I come not to praise Ceaser, but to bury him ...."
It was hilarious to me to see him lose early and it was instructive for me to see you deal with it. Thanks!
I'm not surprised he displayed displeasure you hadn't broken from the debate format and didn't/declined to help support his argument and shift by discussing and falling into the "high school" trap of assisting his change in the real question of the debate.
I cringed a little sensing the audience thinking Matt was being unreasonable in the head-cut-off scenario. I think the problem was that a distinction wasn't made between something actually happening and it LOOKING like that's what happened. The answer Lacona was looking for was contained within the acceptance of him "walking back in".
We don't know that he just walked back in. Maybe it LOOKS like he walked back in after it LOOKED like he had his head cut off. Maybe it was a magic trick. Maybe it was an elaborate plan to kill his long-lost twin. Who knows? Without making the distinction between appearances and something true we wade into a swamp of unintelligibility that allows apologists to weasel and equivocate.
Matt, I think your modified opening went over well. I am glad you "called Dr. Licona out" for claiming you had not responded to his claims during your opening statement.
His claim that "empirical data _strongly suggests_ that reality has a supernatural dimension" is a clear understanding that he has a critical flow in his idea of what is required, from a sound evidence standpoint, to justify a position. He absolutely is making a "supernatural of the gaps" claim.
Apply his stance to the levitation of superconducting magnets. If we had no idea o the science, by his view, it would have to be supernatural. Or the response to photography of isolated human tribes at the turn of the century. To them the science seemed like it conjured up the supernatural.
We can make an almost infinite array of similar examples. And in every single case, once the science is understood, the entire process turns out to be natural.
So far at the 7 min mark Matt and I can understand what you're feeling. I recently went through an online debate with a Christian on the Modal Ontological Argument (if you want to read it, I can supply a link) on a forum. The question was "The Modal Ontological Argument: Is it a logically sound/valid Argument for the Existence of God? " and quite frequently, my opponent wanted to bring in the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which I said I would ignore.
Ghost stories = empirical evidence of the supernatural. I personally shook my head so hard at this opening statement that my head came lose and seperated itself from my neck thereby flying across the room. Luckily, by divine intervention I was able to reattach it again - you can still see the scar though. What? Why wouldn't you believe this totally plausible story? I've got my dog as an eyewitness!
Mike referenced 9/11 toward the end of the debate to show that certain events essentially burn themselves in to people’s memory and they will always have a very accurate recollection of said event. There was a study done about large events like 9/11 and the scientists documented people’s stories after one year then two and so on and they determined that even our memory of significant events are complete dog shit. I always remembered being in first period in high school but now that I think about it the planes didn’t even hit until I would have been in second period, for example. Revisionist history recently did an episode about Brian Williams and he went into greater detail about the study.
It's like, they teach the police to shout "stop resisting" or "he has a gun" or "drop your weapon" etc *after* shooting someone, because people's memories will "correct" it to the more sensible order of "stop resisting" and then a gunshot.
Memory is incredibly fallible and susceptible to reshaping itself to fit the internal narrative by which we try to understand events.
I pray that god attends all of Matts debates and answers any questions he may have, on video.
Matt and Aronra are so fucking cool.
The fact that this debate even happened given the topic is pretty interesting to me. Before you can discuss if Jesus rose from the dead or not wouldn't you first have to prove that Jesus existed? Don't get me wrong I'm not stating one way or another if he did or didn't exist, but I've not seen or read any evidence that confirms the positive of that claim. Without it this debate might as well be "Did Superman rise from the dead". Unless of course I'm missing something, which is possible given I've not been sleeping too well and it's pretty late here.
Yes it was on the very same level as Superman as it was about characters in a story.
"If you had an engagement with the risen jesus why would you have to discuss anything with anyone else."
In fact, this is EXACTLY what Galatians says. It clashes rather violently with version in Acts.
Watched the debate in an earlier video. Licona does not seem to have a good grasp of what evidence for a fact is -- a second fact which tends to make the fact more probable, because there is a recognized connection between the two facts. He also does not seem to recognize that his god of the gaps argument is in fact a god of the gaps argument. I appreciate your efforts and your patience, Matt. It's always good to have a jury when presenting evidence. Were you able to take a casual poll of how many people thought you made the better case?
Licona's mode of argument is shockingly illogical. I admire your restraint. I'd have blown up.
These debates need to be in front of educated people, people who don't allow myth to rule their lives. That way this christian apologist could be laughed off the stage as he deserves. It jangles the nerves when stupid stands proud.
hey Matt - it would be good for you to do a segment on the miracles of the Catholic Church which are scientifically sound:
1) the Shroud of Turin
2) the tilma of Juan Diego
3) approved Eucharist miracles
4) approved incorruptible saints
5) approved healings (e.g., 70 scientifically approved healings in Lourdes)
6) approved statue miracles (weeping, bleeding, etc. - e.g., Akita, Japan)
7) approved stigmata (e.g., Catalina Rivas in Bolivia)
... I can list many many more ...
Good luck! Let me know when you join the Catholic Church.
@micro volts true - you'd have to do your own research - here's a start: th-cam.com/video/4G4sj8hUVaY/w-d-xo.html
1. Shroud of Turin is the wrong age to be related to Jesus.
2. A painting on a cloak and a claim of hallucinations by one guy. Best explanation: Fraud.
3. Stories with no providence.
4. Preservation of a corpse has many natural explanations. Bodies failing to decompose happens to people regardless of religious beliefs.
5. At best. all you have are recoveries that are inexplicable to current medical knowledge. "We don't know" does not mean "God did it".
6. Frauds
7. Frauds
@@Kyeudo So this reveals how dull-minded you are, and how little you know about each topic.
1. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut)
2. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut)
3. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut)
4. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut)
5. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut) -- see Lourdes miracles to start, donut
6. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut)
7. scientifically inexplicable (look at the scientific studies, you donut)
special pleading³
How so?
.... like columbus denying the flat earth .....
Sorry, my question was directed to david thompson.
I know, I just cant wait for his response.... :)
lol............Don't hold your breath!!
Great video, as always, but I have a very important question.
Did you make those patterned wood pieces behind you? If so, what is that method called? They look awesome and I'm starting to build a wood shop in my garage and would be interested in learning how to do that.
I thought, we would have ' hear - say ' argumentation hundreds of years given up.
When I´m home alone, the door to my bathroom always closes itself with a really loud bang noise. Do i then believe that it was a ghost and therefor god is real, No. I dont have any pets so i rule that out. Later i came to find out i was leaving the window open in the bathroom and the wind was causing my door to close. I feel like if i told Licona this story he would still believe it was a ghost...
Alpha Six well the ghost can't get inside to close the door if you lock it out by closing the window..duh.
La fantasma no puede vamos en la casa si cier la ventana. (Mi Espaniol as muy muy mal..se que)
@Matt, I've watched both videos ( not yet to part 2 ), your discussion here @ 25:30ish, you don't mention it and you talk about a few things; to me this seems very much as though his intent is argumentum ad populum. 'All these people believe this group of profits all saw Jesus as a group', he goes on to list the various different groups as though he is citing credible sources, and as he has an accounting of their testimony.
Even capitulating the sources gave a testimony in accordance with his account, evidence for the source's beliefs are still required. I can believe Hitler was a good man, I can give testimony being honest and credible, however most people would have a inclination that I am more likely to be irrational than be able to make my case.
Argumentum ad populum seems to be his biggest crutch, I think at one point he says ~ ' if god wanted to raise him from the dead that would be a game changer'. This logic is very slippery, Taking the average christian theology with regards to God, I think he (god) has shown a patience for things at the very least. It seems more plausible to me god would have / could have waited on the whole zombie thing.
I think god wanted me to be able to travel miles quickly, so man developed cars, I now drive a car. If god wanted us to be able to resurrect people he would have us develop a machine that can deliver an electronic shock to bring us back. God understands time better than any of us, it seems more plausible to have Jesus die after the creation of a defibrillator and not have to make a special case of it, than to have this story play out prior to a time where we can document and comprehend it.
We are able to, with all of our knowledge and technology to bring someone back to life after death with a total elapsed time of ? ... 45 minutes, this is an edge case and special circumstances are needed.
Thank you Matt for representing atheists.
The other thing is that assuming you accept the supernatural world, one type of supernatural event being possible doesn't mean a completely different supernatural event is possible. Just because a ghost can lift lids or some people become clairevoiant while at death's door doesn't necessarily mean a man can return from death or that if he did, the reason he could is because he's son of God and the rest of the Bible is basically true. In other words, we have neither a natural explaination OR a supernatural one EVEN IF you take supernature seriously. It's not like we have a working model of that side of reality and understand what those forces are and aren't capable of, so not only can you not be sure to rule out all natural explainations since you don't know what they all are since you're understanding of nature is incomplete, you can't rule out all supernatural explainations until ressurection is left. Like, what if a ninja was using some transformation jutsu to look like a ressurected Jesus?
More importantly, I strongly feel your beard isn't perfectly symmetrical. It's setting off my OCD. 😡. Just joking.. 😊. thanks for being the voice of reason for many of us.
The guy, the condescending audience guy that looks to the Bible for truth; ugh, I cringed.
He’s a physical representation, of why a “Religious-Idiot-Tax” is not only justifiable, but is a truly necessary corrective action to combat idiocy. I can’t begin to imagine how twisted his reality has become, to KNOW he finds Truth, and answers to questions in life, from the bible.
Clearly he’s been wrong, about a lot.
I dig those puzzle boxes behind you! How many steps?
It's usually better not to mention rhetorical ploys during a debate since it's essentially an attack on the honesty of the speaker and you can't demonstrate its intent, but in analysis Licona uses a quite wonderful one often employed by psychics and other conmen.
"They're playing with the ouija board and there's this metal trashcan with a metal lid in the kitchen. I said, Kim, a metal trashcan lid in the kitchen?"
Now, the passing impression this creates is that he raised a question as to the plausibility of the story, that he questioned it as a sceptical mind would. He's a keen interlocutor gathering evidence. The trick being that this is a completely mundane fact to question. There's nothing that bizarre about what kind of trashcan someone uses relative to a story about dabbling in the occult, summoning spirits, and supernatural events. None of that is questioned or verified, but this little rhetorical trick can create the impression that he did indeed analyse the story before accepting and passing it on as evidence.
Could be that Licona is just innocently relaying the details and did indeed find the trashcan odd. Still, it's something of a recurring theme in this kind of BS story to question and explain mundane details to mask the lack of scepticism on display. Look out for it.
I think that it was curious that Licona kept demanding inferences, when he was unable to infer the supernatural conclusions.
You are the cutest atheist I have seen yet)) !!! So much hoping you will escape hell ! God bless you!
"Empirical evidence strongly suggests that reality has a strong supernatural dimension." Even 2.0 GPA Psychology 101 students can call that bullshit. What a top shelf declaration.
Liconna argument: threw garbage (can lid) at the wall -to see- and CLAIMED it stuck.
I'm telling you what she said she saw. And, further, I'm telling you that that qualifies as evidence.
If he is presenting two lines of evidence and of them is not needed to substantiate his claim and he spends 50% or more of his time on that one, it tells me he doesn't have that strong an argument to begin with.
Is that beer bottles behind your head?... Wtf lol
I watched the debate. I think one opportunity that was missed was taking his "300 NDE people" and saying that "Let's say you wanted to test which of these were false, which were true" and then positing 3 propositions:
1. All of these stories are true
2. None of these stories are true
3. Some of these stories are true, some are false
And get him to identify how exactly he would test for each of these scenarios in terms of knowledge.
silk - we know nothing from Paul outside the stories or letters. He exists only as a character in acts and some letters are claimed to have been written by him. The problem is that half of the letters which are attributed to Paul are contested and considered to be fraud by many scholars. The letters we have in general show signs of editing, appear to be a combination of several pieces. So one could have put in false content into an older one. The nicest letter is the one were Paul warns from other fradulent letter's written in his name. This letter is considered by many scholar's itself a fraud.
So what we see here is a dubious character who was never part of the later produced Jesus story of whom some non fraudulent letters might exist. The content is hearsay and or fiction.
I agree with all of that. I'm speaking specifically about the scenarios they went through with NDE stuff.
silk either people believe none of the Bible or they believe in all of it. Cherry picking shows they are lying to themselves
I can't believe we're in 2017 and we still have people that believe in magic.
You may have made a salami sandwich. I think his argument is more akin to "Matt made a dragonmeat sandwich" where you would need a detour to discuss the existence of dragons, before the contingent possibility of the sandwich.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? Easy. The answer is "No."
Prove it.
I'm kidding, I'm kidding. That would be a ridiculous thing to ask of you. There's no need, it's obvious you're only joking. He clearly did because people saw his empty tomb.
Atheist Normalcy Are you saying that it's hard to tell the difference between a theist's position and a joke?
Atheist Normalcy :)
I know Jesus rose from the dead because a 2000 year old desert holy book (written by folks who didn't know the earth was round) said so.
I mean, that's as much proof as a person needs... right?
earliest records say about 140 ad book of john was written
I think Licona achieved to deviate the topic, for what christians are especialists ("excuses ad hoc"). But, although not as usual, I think you have been quite better.
I mean he failed to show any empiracal evidence of the supernatural, but i would defend his desicion to add that line of argument based on the fact that Matt and others frequently make the correct point that before you can appeal to the supernatural as a "explanation" for anything you need to demonstrate that a supernatural dimension exist.
Listening to the debate, I found it frustrating when the christian states that accumulated probabilities increases the chances that the event is true. If 1 point of evidence is say 60% and a 2nd point of evidence is say 40%, the probability that both are true is .4 x .6 = 24%.
The bottom line is, no evidence can be strong enough to convince a fool. Hence they are called 'Fools' in the first place. Psalm 14:1 KJV.
The reason that Licona has to tie the resurrection to the supernatural is that someone could say that Jesus had been in a coma and recovered. He is just preempting that argument. He is not really talking to Matt or any other unbeliever, but trying to shore up the beliefs of Christians in the audience.
I think that your opening statement should lay out your position, not address his. You should let it be known that the only arguments you will rebut (during your rebuttal turn) must be evidential. You're not going to waste time addressing baseless assertions, or you could be there all day doing nothing else, and it produces nothing of any value (this cuts off Gish Gallops, or sets them up for failure right out of the gate).
This would free you up to follow your agenda, rather than his, by letting it be known, from the outset, that baseless assertions deserve no rebuttal. If he still goes on a Gish Gallop, call him on it. Tell him to pick his best argument, and you'll address that.
Also, let it be known, from the start, that you will not allow him to shift the burden of proof. If a theist insists on the debate format, rather than an informal conversation, control it. Follow your own agenda, don't end up adrift in a sea of unfounded assertions.
Somebody was convinced that Jesus rose, but not necessarily his immediate disciples. Looking at recent religions in the West, it is not usually the first generation that makes the extreme claims, but later ones. Maybe the first batch was too close to the reality to make extreme claims. The later the gospel, the more extreme the claims. This trend is not necessarily universal. Some people who knew a certain rabbi and a certain Hindu leader claimed they had supernatural aspects (e.g. the Hindu was a god)
Does Matt have a reading list anywhere? Or could someone point me to some good books/articles on epistemology, skepticism, philosophy of religion etc? Thanks
8:50 I think the analogy is flawed. Whether salami sandwiches can exist is relevant to the question whether it is plausible that Matt made one. Licona argued not about salami sandwiches but for the existence of knives (and failed to bring any plausible evidence for it) without even demonstrating that you need knives to make salami sandwiches. Or, you know, magical knives that cannot be shown to exist.
What is not possible for Man, for Truth nothing is impossible.
Did Jesus rise from the dead? Nah.... sure? Yeah....
Join us next week for did Santa get stuck up the chimney.
When Licona said his _second_ contention would be "historical data strongly suggests that Jesus rose from the dead" I thought "shouldn't that be the *only* contention?"
Mike does great work.
What video were you watching???
"Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"
This is the most important question because, if the ressurrection is not true, then all the rest of Christianity is false.
To be convinced of any claim, we must evaluate both the claim itself and its supporting evidence.
In this particular case, the claim is that a supernatural being came down to earth in human-form as a matter not of myth or metaphor, but as an actual real-time, historical event, and sacrificed himself to serve as a loophole for rules that he, himself, had already invented.
This is an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence, but the fact that it is a supernatural claim is irrelevant because it should be possible to demonstrate that there is good reason to accept the historicity of the ressurrection without having to know its cause, let alone whether or not its cause was supernatural.
And, in any case, because we can't actually define what the supernatural is, we cannot begin to develop any formal or reliable method of investigating, let alone confirming it.
So, let's evaluate what actual evidence there is for the ressurrection claim.
Firstly, there is no evidence from contemporary sources.
Secondly, all the alleged events of Jesus's life are not recorded anywhere other than in the gospels.
The gospels are inherently unreliable for the following reasons:
1) Their authorship is anonymous.
2) They are copies of copies of translations of copies, with no originals and even contain word-for-word copying - e.g., between Matthew and Mark.
3) They report a verbal history.
4) They were written decades after the events they describe are alleged to have occurred.
5) They contain no confirmed, eyewitness accounts and, in any event, eyewitness testimony, let alone verbal, eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable.
Even Paul, who taught the gospel of Christ in the first century and whose writings are the earliest, predating the gospels, never met the living Jesus and was neither present at his crucifixion or alleged ressurrection.
We cannot accept the idea that Paul stopped being a sceptic and became a Christian after supposedly experiencing a vision of the risen Jesus as evidence of the ressurrection because a vision or revelation is merely an individual's interpretation of a personal event he experienced, internally, inside his own brain.
And, how do we even know Paul was telling the truth?
After his alleged vision, Paul met with the apostle, Peter, to make sure he was preaching the right gospel - this is highly suspicious because, if he had in fact had an actual encounter with the risen Jesus, why would he need to seek anyone else's advice about what he was supposed to be teaching, unless, of course, it were to get his story straight?
The fact that Peter and John's students claim that Paul was "accurately relaying an oral tradition" of the gospels is also irrelevant because the accuracy with which a person relays a story to another person is independent of whether or not the original story itself is true.
Neither does the claim that multiple people, both individually and in groups, believed that Jesus appeared to them, demonstrate anything because the fact that people are convinced of something is independent of whether or not the thing itself is actually true. Group hallucinations are not impossible and, in any case, we're still stuck with the problem that none of these claims address the ressurrection directly, but only what people believed about it, afterwards.
If, for example, someone told you they'd met Elvis Presley this morning, they'd just be presenting you with a claim without any evidence. So, it doesn't matter how many people claim to have met the risen Jesus because, just like the Elvis analogy, these are merely their claims.
Furthermore, claiming that Jesus was the son of God as an attempt to explain away his ressurrection is not only not evidence, but also commits the fallacy of "special-pleading."
So, without sufficient evidence for the ressurrection, we are stuck with a series of candidate explanations for what might have happened. These could, for example, include: conspiracy, exaggeration, fabrication, reburial, etc.
Why should we include ressurrection in that list? After all, we have no other evidence of anyone ever being ressurrected in the entire course of human history and all the evidence we do have about reality suggests that a ressurrection is impossible. Whereas, on the other hand, we can easily cite copious examples of conspiracies, exaggerations, fabrications and reburials.
We therefore have no good reason to even consider a ressurrection as a candidate explanation.
So, returning to the original question: "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?"
A better question would have been "is it reasonable to believe that Jesus rose from the dead?" because the answer to "did he rise from the dead?" is "we don't know and therefore, until we do, we're forced to conclude that it is unreasonable to believe in his ressurrection and must accept the default position of disbelief, in accordance with the null-hypothesis, until evidence which indicates otherwise emerges, in a similar manner to that in which a defendant of a jury trial is presumed innocent until proven guilty."
In other words, nothing permits us to rationally conclude that the only possible explanation of this claim is that Jesus actually rose from the dead and, until it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he did, we are constrained, rather like a jury, to find him "not guilty" of doing so.
Note: according to the "null-hypothesis," we begin, by default, by saying that there is no connection between A and B, or, in the context of this question, there is no connection between someone reportedly being raised from the dead and someone actually being raised from the dead.
Matt; it is "jibe" with skepticism, not "jive". Great talk though.
Paul was a Christian (a Greek speaking messianic Jew) years before Mark's Jesus stood before John to be baptized.
Whether or not group hallucinations are possible we know group delusions are impossible. The fact that a group didn't all have the same hallucination at the same time doesn't mean the one member that did couldn't convince the others that they saw something they didn't
So... it's been a month. When is "Part 2" being released?