Was the Resurrection a Historical Event? (Debate Response)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 9 พ.ค. 2024
- Matt Dillahunty and Than Christopoulos went head-to-head in a debate on the resurrection of Jesus, but I couldn't help but having a few things to say about Than's opening statement, and flagrant use of facts not in evidence.
Original Video - • Epic Debate: Matt Dill...
Gospel Names - • What This Scholar Got ...
No Resurrection Required - • NO RESURRECTION REQUIR...
Support Paulogia at
/ paulogia
www.paypal.me/paulogia
Paulogia Channel Wish-List
www.amazon.ca/hz/wishlist/ls/...
Paulogia Merch
teespring.com/stores/paulogia
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @paulogia
Paulogia Audio-Only-Version Podcast
paulogia.buzzsprout.com
Follow Paulogia at
/ paulogia0
/ paulogia0
/ discord - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
It's truly impressive how precisely Christianity predicts all of the data that we already have and none of the data that we'll acquire in the future.
Don't worry, they'll find a way to twist some passage in the bible to kind-of-sort-of match future findings and claim that it was always there, we just didn't have the eyes to see it
Hers a prophesy for you, ther sun will continue to rise in the sky until it blows up
@@utes5532haha yes. Gaslighting !!
Apologists: "The New Testament is historically reliable!"
Me: "Yay, we finally get to talk about the Zombie Passover-pocalypse!"
Ever hopeful, ever disappointed.
mike lincolna has to have the most ad hoc apologetic for that. “it was just a turn of phrase to accentuate the impact of the event.” i really would like someone to find a remotely similar phrase in contemporary literature
@@TaeyxBlack Sometimes you take the Bible literally and sometimes you take it literarily. I've heard apologists say this nonsense 😛.
@@TaeyxBlackYou cannot be serious. There's no way he said that. No human being possessing the ability of using a toilet can be that dumb.
"How was your sister's wedding?"
"Oh, it was very nice - werewolves played Euchre after devouring the children, then we all rode flaming unicorns to Pluto."
"I bet it was a magical evening. I completely understand that 'turn of phrase'".
Holy Hestia, I looked it up and he actually did.
Wow. I'm not sure if I should be more or less surprised, but I feel I'm not the correct amount either way.
@@inwyrdn3691 yea it’s frustrating watching apologists retreat to the world of metaphor and turn-of-phrase when reality conflicts too much with their dogma. it allows them to still *technically* say the bible is “true”, even if that “true” is a combination of little t “truths” and big T “Truths”. it’s semantics and wordgames
I was there!! I remember thinking his entire opening statement boiled down to "if we accept the Bible, then we can have it tell us so on anything!"
If that was the phrasing I think some royalties are owed to Paul
These apologists have to believe that, while they are making their case that an event happened 2000 years ago, Jesus is invisibly and silently standing right behind them, contributing nothing to the conversation, what a strange worldview.
It's more like pay-per-view wrestling. Everybody knows it's fake except some of the audience, who are the intended targets. The "wrestlers" follow the choreography and do the fake moves, and the dunces in the cheap seats cheer.
Pretending they believe Jesus is Ratatouille-ing them is just the crowd-pleaser signature move. Like The Rock doing his eyebrow thing, or Macho Man Randy Savage inhaling sharply to give himself an aneurysm. The background stories are all fake but they let the juvenile audience pick a favorite.
The Lord, God, who is a Sun and a Shield, works in mysterious ways.
@harveywabbit9541 also asinine and counterproductive ways eh? But it seems to me like there's no mystery at all. This god acts in the exact same way as the other gods. As in...not at all as far as anyone can tell. The Christian deity acts in the same way a non-existent being would.
@@harveywabbit9541 Not really. We don't have actual evidence that jesus was more than a literary figure. We have people claiming it, but no physical evidence he actually existed. Not historical other than maybe being a legend from history kind of like Robin Hood or King Arthur. Yes, the actual evidence we do have is that scant. There wasn't even evidence that he existed that the first century people had in their hands. Just, stories. That's all you've got. You might claim to have more or wish you had more, but if there was more evidence than that then people would be parading these artifacts around like they were the most valuable and important objects on earth. But you don't see that because there aren't any to be had. Nothing. Just old scraps of paper, which, doesn't prove or disprove anything.
@@harveywabbit9541 Is it also a kitchen utensil and a semi-conductor?
"why would they lie about something that gave them no earthly reward?"
Dude, Paul became the leader of the most powerful religion on the planet, his first order was demanding believers to come to his commune and bring all of their money, even threatening them by telling them that people who didn't bring all of their money were now dead.
Along with that, "Why would anyone lie about something that got them killed", except they spread the lie for several decades before they were killed, assuming any were actually killed.
Christianity was nowhere near the most powerful religion on the planet at the time, but otherwise you're right.
Paul became leader of religion you can call "powerful" much much later. In Paul days it was relatively small group which was persecuted and Paul was finally beheaded. What are you talking about?
@@LivingAnarchy How much were they really "persecuted"? The persecution complex is the most powerful recruitment tool early Christianity had.
@@LivingAnarchy he had enough social clout to write to communities all over the ancient world to tell them how to live their lives and expect to be obeyed. that's an exercise of power. even if it's only inside chrisitan spaces - and there's reason to believe he held some measure of power outside of those spaces - that's still power.
There's no way Aslan was lion about the claim regarding the existence of Narnia.
It's his mane grift.
"if God exists, he is perfect"
Have these Christians never cracked open the bible? In the Bible God is described as regretting his own actions, changing his mind after debate, losing his temper, and even fearing humans working together or becoming like him.
I recently learned many early Christian sects believed this because it was perhaps THE religious presupposition of the day and that it’s an idea largely associated with Plato. Funnily enough, many of these early Christian sects believed the creator was different from God, and that Yahweh was an evil creator (demiurge), and not God.
Cheating in a wrestling match...
I have lost a bit of my respect for Matt of late. But look up his presentation of the "God of the Old Testament" given in Sydney. It is the best of its kind I have seen.
@@Celtic_ThylacineWhy have you lost respect for Matt?
The only reason the average christian cracks open the bible is so they can slowly fondle the pages while staring lovingly above and to the left of the ceiling while muttering how much they love their imaginary friend.
No, they don't read. They might look at the pages, but that's FAR from the same thing. Emphasis on 'might'. The ones who actually read it tend to wake up... or commit to Crazy full-time.
My spider man fallacy sense is tingling.
My radar for flawed Reddit epistemology is going off!
@@rebelresource Can you expound? How is making note of an informal fallacy flawed or somehow Reddit-related?
@@highroller-jq3ix that’s a Phil 101 freshman comment. This has nothing to do with FaLLaCiEs
@@rebelresource That's a remedial kindergarten comment. Fallacies (even when not spelled with moronic, arbitrary capitalization) apply mainly to rhetoric and argumentation. Whenever claims are forwarded or propositions are set out, fallacies potentially apply. Your neurology has nothing to do with cognition.
@@rebelresource That's a remedial kindergarten comment. Fallacies (even when not spelled with moronic, arbitrary capitalization) apply mainly to rhetoric and argumentation. Whenever claims are forwarded or propositions are set out, fallacies potentially apply. Your neurology has nothing to do with cognition.
The Bayesian stuff was just sophistry disguised as math. Pick an event assign is arbitrary numbers and Bob's your uncle.
I think you meant that "Robert is your father's brother".
@@k98killerOr possibly mother's brother.
@@user-bo8gh9ey6n exactly. The crux of the issue is a lack of precision.
No. Bayes theorem doesn't do what he said it does. It's just misusing the theorem.
whenever people bring Bayesian analysis into this... it always makes me think "are they considering the chance that Jesus of Nazareth had a twin or convincing lookalike living nearby?"
and in case you're about to respond "but Thomas probed his wounds!" I believe that's only in the gospel of John, which would mean *cues Paul's jingle* for the Bible tells me so!
They would if they were doing real Bayesian analysis, but you need data for that. In reality, these are just the premises for an inductive argument, and they boil down to "It makes less assumptions to take claims at face value than to doubt them." Which is a common sentiment about beliefs you were raised with, but obviously incorrect.
I honestly don't understand how apologists can be so confident about all the misinformation and unjustified 'facts' they parrot. And how do they not see that the harder they have to work to make their paradigm fit reality, the less likely it is to be the truth?
Confirmation bias is a strong motivator. Apologetics survives because people remember the hits and ignore the misses.
@@goldenalt3166
true. And cultural allegiance is a whip that shuts down dissent.
@@bengreen171that and fear of hell acts as an intellectual bludgeon.
@@NA-vz9ko Also, at least some of them someone characterized as "used Jesus salesmen". Or as someone else put it, “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” ― Upton Sinclair, I, Candidate for Governor: And How I Got Licked
@bengreen171 Which culture has such religious cults?
How can Than possibly assert that the Roman or Jewish authorities didn't dig up Jesus' corpse and show it to the one or two disciples that asked 'if he isn't risen, show us his body'?
I mean - who would have ever bothered to record that? If no-one was bothered enough to record the names of the 500 - then why would anyone make a note, 'Tuesday - showed corpse to weird cultists, bought steak, lovely evening meal with the wife's parents'.
And how likely is it that any note written would survive for very long in a Christian society known for ensuring rival texts were 'disappeared'?
I think it's more like the authorities didn't care about Jesus after he died. Dead is dead. So when claims of him rising from the dead started circulating 30-50 years later, there wasn't anyone around from that time to even address it. Also, they're not going to go find a body from 30-50 years ago that probably wasn't even put in the tomb. How could they do this? The followers probably wouldn't even believe them. Just look at apologists today:
*Oh that's not the real body! We know Jesus went to Heaven!*
as possible as this is, it’s unfortunately an argument from silence. i prefer mentioning that jesus was most likely thrown in a giant corpse pile and not able to be recovered. there aren’t really extra-biblical sources that mention jesus being buried in a tomb or this joseph of arimathea. it’s only in the bible
@@malirk
Yeah, I agree that's a more likely scenario. Either way - there would be no evidence left proving that's what happened.
@@TaeyxBlack
Yeah - I agree completely. I was just running through the scenario to show that when apologists try to say there would be evidence if that's what happened, they're wrong.
@@TaeyxBlackJoseph of Plot Armorathea.
Do these apologist ever apply this type of reasoning to, say, the claims of Islam? or Buddhism? or the miracle claims of Sathya Sai Baba?
If so, they would have to argue that the moon splits frequently in order to give it a high prior probability.
No.
The first thing he asks in Step 1 is: "What is the prior probability of the miracle in question?" Isn't the probability of a any miracle ZERO ?
I mean, if it has some chance of occurring it isn't really miraculous is it?
Trying to combine a branch of mathematics with supernaturalism is logically absurd and the result is totally incoherent.
This is essentially my view, as well.
Right?
A miracle is, by definition, the least likely event to happen in any given scenario.
Which is more likely, that a bunch of doomsday cultists made up a lie about their leader, that an impersonator took up the mantle of an executed doomsday cult leader, that the executed man was misdiagnosed as dead and survived OR that an intangible, undetectable, timeless being used magic to bring the doomsday cultist to life?
I don't think it is appropriate to define miracles this way.
Instead, let's define a miracle as "an event which is impossible UNLESS the intervention of an entity that we would categorize as supernatural occurs."
It is fair to set this probability so low that testimony alone cannot overcome it, but I think setting it equal to zero is inappropriate because I don't see any logical contradiction in that kind of intervention.
@@michaeleldredge4279 Yes. Zero is incorrect. Should have said there is NO probability of a miracle. Its something that doesn't exist. Mathematics cannot be applied to supernaturalism.
I should have said there is no such thing as the probability of a miracle. Mathematics cannot be applied to supernatural events. @@michaeleldredge4279
If I can improve the story, that means that gos and his plan is not perfect. Here goes…
It would have been much better, much more perfect and convincing if risen Jesus continued to live and walk the earth and teach forever. Asking (requiring) us to believe a story of appearances to a few people in a small corner of the ancient world, which ends by him levitating and flying into the clouds is not perfect evidence or the work of a perfect plan or perfect god.
And God decides to send Jesus to earth during a time when there were no video cameras so it couldn't be documented? Jesus did all of these miraculous things but couldn't write anything down himself? People living thousands of years later are expected to believe this or else they will be sent to hell? This whole scenario is completely absurd. Who would want to worship a god with such a bad plan? If he's omnipotent and omniscient then he knew that his creation would result in billions of innocent good people ending up in hell just because they weren't Christian. I couldn't worship a god that decided to continue with creation knowing that all of these good people are going to suffer during their life and then on top of that, end up in hell because they weren't Christian. The whole scenario is completely absurd and could only have been thought up by humans. I don't know how anyone can actually believe that.
Great video, Paul. I have so much to say about this, but I will never make it to the gym this morning.
You and Paul are couple of my favs.
I tried engaging Than on his video with my objections. He only responded that I need to watch his videos that cover my objections. Needless to say, I don't find Than an impressive apologist. He has the usual tactic of not addressing things by saying he's already addressed them.
Out of curiosity, did you watch through the videos he referenced for you and they were unsatisfying? @@malirk
@@DerivingLove I did. He basically argued the gospels can't be lies. The videos were pretty pointless.
@@malirkAnd you know someone like this would say, "You weren't listening, try watching them again."
There was a man called the son of God who was born of a virgin. He was nearly killed as a baby, but was saved and raised by a poor family. He became a shepherd and was celebrated by the people.
They hailed him as king, but he was eventually killed by the elite. He then resurrected and appeared to a disciple. He instructed him to spread his gospel message then ascended to heaven.
That man was Romulus, mythical founder of Rome.
Bible scholar Bart D. Ehrman relates that he begins his introductory class on the New Testament by describing an important figure from the first century without first revealing he is talking about the stories attached to Apollonius of Tyana:
Even before he was born, it was known that he would be someone special. A supernatural being informed his mother that the child she was to conceive would not be a mere mortal but would be divine. He was born miraculously, and he became an unusually precocious young man. As an adult he left home and went on an itinerant preaching ministry, urging his listeners to live, not for the material things of this world, but for what is spiritual. He gathered a number of disciples around him, who became convinced that his teachings were divinely inspired, in no small part because he himself was divine. He proved it to them by doing many miracles, healing the sick, casting out demons, and raising the dead. But at the end of his life, he roused opposition, and his enemies delivered him over to the Roman authorities for judgment. Still, after he left this world, he returned to meet his followers in order to convince them that he was not really dead but lived on in the heavenly realm. Later some of his followers wrote books about him.
Oh, i almost thought that you're talking about Jesus, but the last line was funny 🤣
Romulus wasn’t born of a virgin. His mother was graped by the god Mars. But I think the same can be said of Mary.
No. In the traditional account, King Amulius ordered them exposed as infants, a she-wolf happened upon Romulus and Remulus, and suckled them until they were found by the king's herdsman, Faustulus, and his wife, Acca Larentia.
Later Romulus and Remulus killed King Amulius, Romulus killed Remulus and founded Rome, he wasn't merely hailed as King by the people.
Lastly Livy says that Romulus was either murdered by the senators, torn apart out of jealousy, or was raised to heaven by Mars, god of war. Not that he resurrected and told anyone to spread his Gospels message.
Romulus wasn’t born of a virgin, raised by poor parents, nearly killed at birth, was ever called a shepherd, wasn’t killed by the elite, didn’t die, didn’t resurrect, and didn’t tell his disciples to spread a message of him. Citations are going to need to be cited.
It is funny that apologists use probability to defend miracles. A miracle is not one-in-a-million, nor billion, nor trillion. Miracles, by definition, are the impossible. So anything possible, even a one-in-quintillion chance, is more likely than an impossible event.
Nope, that's not what apologists are saying. What we are saying is that yes there's probably not a very good chance that someone who is dead wakes up. Now I'm not saying it's "one in a million" or "one in a billion". Those are YOUR words! I'm saying, OK, not very likely, but as it says on money "with God all things are possible". So that means it IS possible- because like the other saying says "In God we trust all others pay cash". So we can trust the money. But let's not try and calculate odds here, because we don't have all the variables. But we DO know it's POSSIBLE God raised Jesus. We all accept that. If you deny that then you are just being unreasonable. Because even if God doesn't exist, he is by definition omnipotent. So there's no point at all to think He's just semi-potent, and therefore limited by actual non-existence. He can raise whomever He likes. And we have good documentary evidence to support the claim that He raised Jesus- it's even in the Book He wrote, with the assistance of the actual humans who, you know, wielded the pens or quills or whatever they wrote with back then.
So in summation, yup, pretty good evidence to support the widely accepted reality that Jesus came back from the dead.
@@brokenrecord3095 “And we have good documentary evidence to support the claim that He raised Jesus- it's even in the Book He wrote”
I guess you’re not familiar with the logical fallacy of “Begging the Question”. There’s a good Wikipedia page on it if you’re interested.
@@brokenrecord3095 You are literally saying that "it happened, because the bible says it happened". Queue the "for the bible tells me so"-tune...
There is no good evidence to support the claim that Jesus rose from the dead and whether something is widely accepted or not does lend it any more credence. The bible has no first hand accounts, nor would it matter if it did, because the books of the New Testament were written with the express purpose of convincing you that Jesus rose from the dead. Do you uncritically accept Russian propaganda as truth? What if they wrote it down, added in a bunch of supernatural events to spice things up and presented it to you in 2000 years? Would you then accept it?
See what I mean? Christians should just stop trying to claim it is all based on historical fact and accept that it may never have happened and it is a matter of faith, not provable fact. You want to believe it and that is fine, just believe it if you want to, but you shouldn't bend scientific theory to make it seem like it is fact, that is just being dishonest to yourself and others. Also, I thought Christians prided themselves on their faith? Why the need to defend it by claiming it is historically proven fact? The only ones that believe it is historically proven fact is people that already believe, ie "have faith". So lean into that, faith is what you need, not fact... Leave the facts to the scientists and historians...
@@brokenrecord3095so your handle is perfectly appropriate, then, yeah?
@@justsomeguy859 Thank you for the recommendation! I will put that on my list of Things To Read!
But speaking of begging, I am sure you are familiar with the Parable of Jesus and the Beggar. That was the story where a Beggar approached Jesus and spake to him "yea verily you are the lord! Do you have any spare change? I ain't et today"
And the Lord spake unto him "No man I don't got any cash on me".
And the Beggar spake unto the Lord "yeah Man look, I just need a quarter for the bus"
And in a deep voice Jesus spake "Sell all you have and give to the poor"
And the Beggar spake unto the Lord "fuck me man, I AM the poor! I ain't got shit!"
And Jesus Laid his Hand upon the Beggar and spake unto to him "Go forth and beg no more".
And Jesus smiled his Smile of benevolent Compassion, but didn't He give the Beggar any Change.
8:44 - 9:32 If our souls are on the line you'd think that god would be damn clear about his existance. No ambiguity.
Just because someone exists doesnt mean that I would worship them.
Not necessarily, the god portrayed seems to be a pretty big asshole, so maybe not
@@ARoll925 True
Paul mentions Star Wars um checking that off the Bingo Card. Paul mentions Star Trek. Another check off the ole bingo card. Nice Data reference.
Than's argument is only convincing if you are already convinced
That's apologetics
@@simonodowd2119Apologists only exist because evidence for Christianity does not.
Than's argument is basically "for the bible tells me so", play the jingle Paul.
📒🎶
That is all it ever is.
I just can't grasp that anyone would take resurrection stories serious, let alone think there's a god behind it if there is even a real event that the story was based on (which of course would've just been thinking someone was dead, but they weren't)
It seems that noone does take the stories seriously. If believers took then seriously, they'd see the contradictions and disagreement with their beliefs. Instead they just assume they agree.
@@goldenalt3166 or, they say they believe in effort to stay within a community and not be excommunicated.
@@logicalmusicman5081 Yes, it is well attested that Catholics lie to the Church about their beliefs.
why not take resurrection stories seriously? I mean, we have supposedly eyewitness testimony from someone believed to be a tax collector and also from someone believed to be a doctor. How do you possibly explain that? Obviously the simplest explanation is that the testimony is correct and Jesus rose from the grave. Yeah, I grant that resurrection seems kinda unlikely, but again: testimony! I'm only following the evidence where it leads.
@@brokenrecord3095 And since the doctor said the disiples were in Jerusalam and the tax collector said they were in Galalee we should believe that the city miraclously teleported. :)
"The New Testament is historically reliable and confirmed by itself and history"
Oh really? What were Jesus' last words, who visited his tomb and what did they find? (There are 4 Gospels, none of them agree on any of the things in these questions) When you get deeper than "there was a tomb, it was empty at some point" the illusion of reliability and confirmation evaporates.
Special pleading the special pleading.
"Let's exclude all examples that don't support my belief and accept all examples, however weak, that support my case."
lol
This was a fantastic video Paul. Idk what it is lately, but the more no nonsense tone really works for you
I had a kid come over, relative of a neighbor who was once religious but now is in that 'shrug and change the topic' phase of dropping out of religious activities. He had sent this kid over because he knew I wouldn't brutalize the kid too much for trying out his apologetics. Every time he said anything like 'It says in the bible' I cut him off and told him that is not convincing. Every time he avoided saying it but tried to sneak in stuff from the bible I opened a book of slavic lore and read to him some of the feats Baba Yaga has performed which are about as plausible. And when he asked if I had anything to say to him at the end, I shared your channel with him. If nothing else he has some entertaining and informative youtube to watch and a new interest in huts with chicken feet running around with an arthritic cranky witch inside!
"Baba Yaga...kostinaya naga..." I remember that from Russian class.
The more I listen to apologists and related, the sadder I become about the amount of damage that's been done by people warping their reason around in order to believe these ancient myths. If you feel (emotionally, consciously or otherwise) that you MUST believe the literal truth of some Christian Bible, it seems like you literally cannot end up as a functionally rational person, and if you aren't a rational person, you can end up believing all SORTS of stuff.
Remember the old saying "That dead men rise up never", a Swinburne quote.
The dead man is the sinew that shrank. This is the phallus god.
'Thy dead shall go down to thee dead...'
Have you referenced where your opening theme came from before? It's beautiful, and I was wondering if there was a longer track to listen to. Great video!
Sweet! Next half hour booked solid
What's with all the logic and stuff, it's soo boring. Can't we just sing songs about god and do sacrifices, sounds more fun 😅
Think with your heart! Never trust your icky brain!
Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?”
Why would anyone trust their heart? 🤔
Reported.
@@mattpeters4700Reported for what?
Save the goats !
I love these types of videos from you. They're always so well done.
Dead people don't come back to life. PERIOD.
Great critique Paul, thanks.
So Good, have you any plans to adress any of N.T. Wright's commentaries ive noticed hes frequently on premier unbelievable.
Hey! I was at that debate. 😊
*500 = a gazillion?*
Claiming 500 unidentified people saw something miraculous sounds like the modern “like a gazillion people”
This kind of thing reminds me of the rabbits in Watership Down and how they couldn't really conceive of amounts over 5 or so.
Thanks for all you do!❤❤❤
It was worth watching the whole video for the clip played in the background as he said "attack the data itself". On-point editing as usual. Also great video generally, I just really enjoyed that.
if New York is real then Peter Parker had to be a journalist
The Sherlock Holmes stories reference real places (London, for instance) and even real people (Queen Victoria, for instance), but the exploits of Holmes and Watson are nonetheless fictitious. Authors throughout history have used real things, places, and people to heighten the sense of realism in their stories and create a more immersive experience for the reader. Even apologists acknowledge that Mark uses the term "immediately" so often in his gospel to keep the reader engaged ("Romans liked action stories").
By this apologist's approach, if Arthur Conan Doyle's backstory is someday forgotten, future audiences would be justified in believing that he was John Watson's scribe in conveying the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, rather like Mark was supposedly Peter's in conveying the story of Jesus.
Thank you for your review! Awesome! You are the best!
Excellent account ! Thank you
How could a perfect god create any imperfections?
Easily?
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a theist, but that argument doesn't hold water.
Just because you are perfect doesn't mean you are incapable of intentionally creating something imperfect. We can ask why God made things imperfect, but ultimately the presence of imperfection says nothing about the perfection of God.
What you should point to instead is the imperfections of the Christian God, like the myriad times he's changed his mind or broken his own laws.
@@utes5532 at one point it is believed that God was all that exist and is never changing and is a perfect being, so how do you you think it is possible for imperfection to exist under those conditions? You can't use the same rules of reality that our universe fallow to explain it.
I have a well educated Christian friend that admitted he became very anxious once evidence emerged that the book of Noah and the epic of Gilgamesh were variations of the same story. As if his entire belief system was being called into question. His inner lawyer then went to work constructing a narrative as to how this fits into his paradigm. Unfortunately, this is how we think. Confirmation bias is incredibly strong. I think that Freudian slip demonstrated an implicit sense of dishonesty in my friend’s epistemology. We should never be nervous that our worldview is challenged by evidence. In sort of a reverse pascal wager, I have nothing to fear if I am wrong, I embrace truth wherever it is. If my friend is wrong, then he loses his grand prize of heaven, and the world becomes the chaotic and depressing. Religion is first and foremost, a psycho technology to hold off anxiety. We did not evolve to search for truth. The trade off is, those of us who value truth over convenience lose that comfort blanket. Many of us suffer from existential angst, depression, etc. Any time my Christian friends see this, they say I should come back to church. They always appeal to convenience. Convenience is their truth.
I’m saving this.
Excellent analysis, Paul!
*You Gotta Have Faith ;*
The gospels merely tell the story of Jesus's death & resurrection, but none of them are told in the 1st person.
They are alleged hearsay stories written down decades after the supposed events.
And we do not have the originals by which to confirm accuracy.
Imagine putting on an entire presentation where every slide said Special Pleading. Now imagine if your lynchpin facts had already been debunked endlessly by every atheist on TH-cam.
Some day I’d like to see an apologist who has actually listened to atheists rather than repeating arguments they were told debunked atheists.
Then they wouldn’t be -apologists- I mean excusigists.
*Unimpressed;*
Christians would never accept this level of evidence, for similar claims of miracles, from other religions.
(Biased acceptance)
Actually we would.
@@rebelresourcethat's why Christians believe that Baal Shem Tov performed miracles, right?
@@simonodowd2119 not all claims, good enough claims.
@@rebelresource you don't think multiple, independent eyewitness accounts are "good enough"?
@@rebelresource Then why don't you believe the other ~15 resurrections in the Bible? Or the obviously existing Messiah narrative of the anointed one from the dead sea scrolls that Jesus fits perfectly? Or maybe the other Greek, and Roman archetypal gods whose narrative Jesus also stereotypically follows? Or the claims from the extra biblical gospels?
Why are these things not good enough evidence for you, yet the conventional evidence that the religious leaders approved for your viewing are good enough? What makes these things less factual, or less convincing?
Impressive. And the graphics!!
Great. Now I want to see a dragon in my local park.
*Gods Forgiveness?*
If you have never demanded that an innocent person be tortured and murdered, as a requirement before you could forgive someone else, then you are more forgiving than God.
Why would promoter of cult lie? Asks a cultist promoting his cult...
Daniel Defoe's, "A Journal of a Plague Year," was written by someone familiar with the events and in 1st person, but the narrator and story are fictional. Defoe uses the narrator to present how the plague spread and how people reacted.
*God the Victim?*
If "sin" is a crime against God, that would make God a victim of crime.
But if God is all powerful, and can't be harmed by humans, that would make sin a victimless crime.
It kinda depends on what "all powerful" actually means. Theologians disagree about how limited omnipotence is, and it's not even a Biblical trait to begin with. God gets defeated, tricked, and persuaded a few times in the Bible.
@@lucyferos205 Then that means god is not all powerfull.
@@lucyferos205 Yes indeed.
That's why I said "if", as Christians believe all kinds of different things about God's traits & goals.
Matt was clearly more impressed with Than's arguments than was Paul... probably because Than was less of an a**hole than most apologists.
Honestly if nothing else, his approach involving an attempt at statistics seems relatively novel, so Matt might just be having a breath of slightly fresher air
Less of one? He did nothing at all even close to remotely offensive. Jesus you guys are so cringe and it’s not even fake. It’s all for real.
@@skimmington They can't find literally any other scientific disciplines that agree with their claims, so they try to explain it with cold hard numbers to see if it sticks.
@@rebelresource i agree with this
Yes it was. And so was Frosty the Snowman putting on a magical hat and dancing all around.
Until any of a gaggle of One True Sun Gods turned him into a puddle or even vapour?
I'm telling you that over 1000 people saw that snowman walking around! How can you possibly argue against 1000 eye witnesses!? Do you think all 1000 of them had some mass hallucination or something? I guess we'll find out after we die which one of us was right 😊
I love this stuff
Thank you.
I always think of David Hume's quote anytime someone wants to create probabilities for miracles "Which is more likely: that the whole natural order is suspended, or that a jewish minx should tell a lie? Especially when that miracle is in your favor nonetheless. Also.. Why would a "perfect" God create anything in the first place? It is perfect, It doesn't need anything, no glory or praise... it already has everything it needs.
If something is perfect, then everything that flows from it is also perfect, otherwise it's not perfect.
The problem with calculating probabilities for miracle claims is the absence of any other demonstrable miracles to put in the sample space. That is, in order to calculate for the probability of a miracle, one has to first presume that the miracle is possible. It's circular reasoning.
A god wanting to be our pals is like us wanting to have microbes as pets ...the imbalance of interests and power is too great to have any meaningful relationship..for both
28:22 having details that interlock indicates credibility, and having details that others do not indicates credibility
🤔
At 4:59, the slide for point 2 bullet 2, shows a list of "What would the life of God incarnate look like?". It then lists eight items from Swinburne. All of the "what would Jesus do" are taken from the bible. Most of them make no sense (esp. b, d, e, & h) and would not be in anyone's list of answers if they were asked without knowledge of the bible. More "because the bible tells me so".
Did someone that lacks any shred of contemporary support for his existence and the incredulous stories about him have something done to him? Stupid question. Where does the Easter Bunny get it's egg coloring kits from?
If the evidence is bollocks it doesn’t matter how much there is
The fact that these people don't understand that the Bible is a series a claims, and that each claims stands or falls on its own merits is incredibly pathetic.
29:07 I love that you included the classic"incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial" from old Ham Burger! You made my day, Paul!
The Bible tells of three resurrections from death in the Old Testament and five in the New Testament. It also says some unnumbered group of people rose from their graves in Jerusalem when Jesus died.
Resurrection, according to the Bible, was relatively commonplace. So if you take the Bible at its word, there was nothing particulaly special about Jesus rising from the dead.
Yeah, turning water into wine is more of a miracle biblically than people rising from the dead
So... to sum up the argument: The bible is true, therefore the bible is true.
I'm not convinced.
Well done, Paul
Excellent stuff again! It’s always interesting to see how stepping back from any religious confirmation bias and use critical thinking gets you to wonder about magical thinking and how anyone can rationalize their own cognitive dissonance to the natural world. Literally, no religious person accepts the same or similar claims ascribed to another religious tradition with apparently the same amount of evidence, or in most cases even peek under the covers of someone else’s religious tome before they decry it.
There is no evidence in the earliest source that the appearances were actually of a physical person.
"Christian Easter faith has its origin in the visionary experiences of Peter, James and Paul and the others named in 1 Cor 15:5-8, who perceived Jesus as a figure appearing to them from heaven.
This conclusion is allowed by the use of the Greek expression ὤφθη + dative in 1Cor 15:5-8; Luke 24:34 and 1Tim 3:16. The Septuagint uses this expression as a technical term to describe theophanies. It denotes appearance from heaven, especially of God himself (e.g., Gen 12:7; 17:1; 18:1; 1Kgs 3:5), of an angel (e.g., Exod 3:2; Judg 6:12; Tob 12:22) or of God’s glory (e.g., Exod 16:10; Lev 9:23; num 14:10)." - Michael Wolter, The Quest For the Real Jesus, p. 15.
Just the fact that Paul says he had one is sufficient to show that he thought they were visions like his.
Paulogia, oh my, his arguments are great! Unfortunately, only to those who already believe, though. So many are just as believable in most of our fiction of today. Especially superhero stories. Basically, Tim Minchins' 'Woody Allen Jesus'! to a tee!👍💙💙💙🥰✌
Fun fact... People are exonerated from bad criminal convictions all the time because a provable alibi was discarded at trial over a witness and circumstantial evidence that suggested if you tilted your head sideways and squinted they might be the culprit
a reference to OG Blade in the intro, nice! 🧛♂
This is all pointless and futile!
I mean, how detached from reality one has to be in order to claim that a human being raised from the dead is more likely than any other possible scenario??? Such a person isn't worth debating! We should only smile gently, and nod, and then continue on our own way!
Is it just me, or did Paul sound pretty Canadian-angry in this one?
I recently learned of and added "California-sober" to my lexicon. Looks like I am now adding "Canadian-angry". Beautiful.
Canadian-angry? Perhaps. But be thankful he hasn't stopped saying sorry. We we stop saying sorry, Germany gets a nervous tick and Geneva schedules a new convention... 😁
Dear Paulogia, don’t ever get rid of the cartoon you! I love this format.
At 5:47 you show art thats of hell. Is that ai or do you know the artist!?! I love it!!!
Google images, as is almost everything I use.
@@Paulogia thanx man:) i’m watchin your channel atm and i have to say, as an artist i absolutely adore your lil cartoon versions of you and your guests:)
'Funny how all these believers in biblical inerrancy always ignore it when Acts says that Peter and John were illiterate.
I think many of them would argue that they used professional scribes to write down their thoughts, at least that's what I've heard in the Evangelical world. I don't know how valid that particular argument is.
@@scripturalcontexts Do they have any actual evidence to support that idea? Of course not. It's just made up.
Is Bayes about as useless as presuppositionalism at changing someone's mind? It seems nothing more than a convoluted re-assertion of what someone already believes.
agree.
When used properly, prior probabilities are set by actual statistical data or default to a normal distribution. In that scenario, it's strong statistical evidence and used in science all the time.
Lucy that's right
@@lucyferos205 I'm sure Bayes can be used properly but I only see it applied to religion where results can be manipulated according to personal bias.
@@lucyferos205 Just wondering - do you have a simple example of Bayes being used 'correctly' in science? Presumably it would clash with the way it's used in religious apologetics.
Love the use of the excusogetics clip.
Like the Blade reference for the bloodbath.
Why would they write a story that sounds ridiculous? What if the writers of some of this stuff were motivated to make it sound ridiculous, such as Jews who didn't want other Jews to go along?
What if Jesus' body was put in this Joseph guy's tomb, but people associated with Joseph didn't like it, so THEY removed the body?
Is it possible that those who attempted to carry on Jesus' legacy did at some point become unconvinced, but took their professed belief to the grave out of fear their families would be embarrassed? What's that criterion called, again? And if this did happen but it was known only to insiders, like some of the bible's authors, those authors or later editors who were motivated to maintain Jesus' legacy would also be motivated to leave stories of "deconversion" by influential early christians out of the bible.
I'm a scholar of nothing, yet I can somehow articulate some pretty basic skepticism on these matters in just a few minutes. Maybe I'm miles off base, but if so, tell me how.
That explanation and many others are more likely than a supernatural event.
What are you thoughts or position on the topic of whether Jesus was buried in a tomb or not? I’m interested In peoples thoughts on this since I myself I am still gathering some thoughts.
@@MrMortal_Ra I think it unlikely that Jesus was buried in a tomb. The story of Joseph of Arimathea sounds like a creation to fit in with Is. chpt. 53.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fn Dale Allison and InspiringPhilosophy (using Alison) will say that the early Christians would have had no reason make up a empty tomb story, however, your point is exactly what I’ve thought recently as well. If early Christians wanted Jesus to fit multiple amount of prophecies, especially those attached to the passion narratives, then Isaiah 53:9 could of served as a reason to come up with stories about Jesus being buried in a tomb by a rich man, Joseph of Arimathea. Early Christians saw the suffering servant in Isaiah 53 to be Jesus, and Jesus as a fulfilment of Isaiah 53 attaching it to the passion. “He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death” all early Christians needed to do was to interpret “grave” as tomb and “with the rich in his death” as people or someone rich (the Sanhedrin or a single Sanhedrin individual like Joseph of Arimathea) who buried Jesus in that tomb. Done. Prophecy fulfilled, and now you’ve got a story of Jesus being buried in a tomb by some rich people in which you can tell and retell. Growing by details getting in embellished as the story got retold and retold naturally, details getting added in order to respond to objections by skeptics. I have not by any means made any conclusions yet, still gathering my thoughts on the matter.
@@MrMortal_Ra As I stated, I am literally a scholar at nothing; I also don't study this stuff at all and haven't picked up a bible in forty years. I reasoned my way out of christianity before I hit puberty, then suffered a bunch more years of Sunday school and church until my folks could no longer force me to go. I also look at it from the viewpoint of an amateur fiction writer. If you need a character to be divine, have him be god-like, write his story to include being raised from the dead. And being resurrected from a tomb is certainly classier and more poetic than from an open trench or directly off the cross, which god most certainly could have done.
As to Jesus' burial in a tomb, it's just not that important to me, and it doesn't get you any miracles without adding something more to the story. As far as I can imagine we're never going to know for sure, and I think it's a mistake for christians to lean so heavily on it. No skin off my nose, though.
I really loved your section on assumptions of what a perfect God would do. 100% these assumptions do not line up well with my own attempts at an a priori assessment of what a truly perfect God would accomplish.
Paul, could you do a video (or recomend one) refuting the claim that Daniel 70 weeks refers to Jesus?
Honestly, his opening is exactly why I can't stand philosophy. It immediately pre-supposes "facts" that have never been shown to be facts. Philosophy, in my opinion, will never answer the questions it asks because it lacks the tools to do so.
This is less of a problem with analytical philosophy, naturalistic philosophy, and philosophy of science. Technically, science is a subset of natural philosophy, that's why scientists have Ph(ilosophy )D(octorate)s
On my third time watching this and I’m still entirely entertained
This is what I love about your channel: You ask apologists to be accountable to their claims. So often, I hear apologists make claims (God is perfect, God is good, God is XYZ), but these claims are generally accepted as part of the definition. They aren't! Anyone can easily make up claims about an imaginary entity, but the key is to prove those assertions.
Heck, yeah!
It's disappointing how much New Testament scholars fixate on Bayesian probability, like they have any clue of the input values that are valid to use or the relationships for the combined probabilities.
It's an attempt to create a probability argument around something for which the probability is incalculable...because they think it makes them sound credible.
The biggest problem with ascribing attributes to a "perfect" god is nobody has the same definition of "perfect". Using my definition of perfect, any god that requires or desires belief in itself AT ALL, is by definition imperfect.
When you were talking about Luke being a doctor I was totally confused.The picture sure looked like Obiwan.
Love the new point you raised about Paul's experience not qualifying him as a "post-resurrection eyewitness" of Jesus. (Moses and Elijah, etc.) I've often thought, if he qualifies as another witness to the resurrection, then more witnesses could continue to pop up all throughout history, even to the present day. Therefore, any sighting of Jesus after the ascension shouldn't qualify as an eyewitness to his resurrection.
Holy presupposition, Batman!
As to the usage of the word "surprising" aa a emotional response (around 16.45): It is common to use it when applying epistemic probalism und thus to argue against it by reasoning why it might not be surprising at all. An even better wording for a reprisal is to argue why that facts stated are "fully expected" (which would be applicable to Paulogias argument here IMHO).
any thoughts on doing a response to the Capturing Christianity response to your minimal witnesses argument ?
Hey, what do I win for recognizing the clip from Three Days Of The Condor?
Fantastic film
Ken Ham and the Ark encounter have pout out some videos recently that require pointing at and laughing.