Habermas is a theologian, not a historian. For instance his 5th premise is false, even according to the New Testament: 5) that James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ" James never became a Christian. He remained exclusively Jewish like his brother Jesus, and living in Jerusalem until his murder. Even in Acts Paul recognizes that James was Jewish. Habermas is a theologian, not a historian.
@@ji8044 Not to defend Gary in any way, but at the time, being Jewish was not in conflict with being Christian according to Christians - in fact, before Paul, Christians believed being Jewish was a requirement for being Christian. That was the reason of the feud between Paul and Peter, Paul said non-Jews can be Christians. To this day, there are a few Jewish Christians ("Messianic Jews").
@@KaiHenningsen "but at the time, being Jewish was not in conflict with being Christian according to Christians" You have just refuted Habermas, not me. At the time there were no Christians as a separate theological entity. That is another reason James could not have "become one" as Habermas says. -" in fact, before Paul, Christians believed being Jewish was a requirement for being Christian" Jesus, his family, and all of his disciples were Jews, not Christians.
@@lyongreene8241 Thank you for sharing that. I did go over and browse through a small number of @TestifyApologetics videos. He certainly doesn't appear to have the typical 100% "belief at any cost means never criticizing other currently believing Christians" that most of the apologists have. Having Dr. Kipp Davis on his channel discussing the debacle with the alleged archeology find of a Mt. Ebal curse tablet was just one example of that. With all that being said, he had a video with Lydia McGrew about "Trusting NT Scholarship" which I did watch about 8-10 minutes before I could stand no more. I was aware of her views regarding the pre-supposition that the Bible is inerrant, which is demonstrably false, before watching this and then add that she doesn't have a degree in any field of NT studies. So, to me, asking her about this topic is no different than asking a cheerleader for a farm team of the New England Patriots what it's like to be the quarterback for the San Francisco 49'ers. I will go back and spend time watching some of his videos. Again, thanks.
Imagine sitting in a debate with someone who have made it abundantly clear that he has no intellectual honesty and will embellish any story in his favor, and he starts telling an unverified tale about NDEs.
Habermas is relatively new to my radar, but I gotta say, I didn't expect a straight-up, unabashed liar. He retells stories just like a friend of mine's narcissist ex.
Wow! What an incredible self-own by Habermas! Giving eyewitness testimony about things that absolutely, 100% provably, did not happen, while arguing that testimony is sufficient proof that something happened. This is priceless.
Vignette of the last 1000 years or so... Person A: "I don't believe there is a God that interacts with reality in detectable and measurable ways." Person B: "There is a God that interacts with reality in detectable and measurable ways." Person A: "Okay, in what detectable and measurable ways does this God interact with Reality?" Person B: "That is not reasonable to ask!"
@@Nocturnalux because if said "old books" are only updated with hypotheticals and theological apologetics and not imperical and evidential verification that can be checked and tested then it holds no use for convincing at all. take darwins evolutionary theory, do we rely on his works alone or have we got more upto date and extra disciplines that help further our knowledge and to show evolution to be true, einstiens theory of relativity has a similar situation. while they were outstanding works of the times they were publisized, in no way are they alone in the ability to convince in modern terms. because they have been furthered, based on these past works, accumilating in retestable and authenticational useage and advancment. 😉
His willingness to have hypothetical convos makes him sound reeeaaaly lonely, and also if that's how he reflects on his debate/interviews I'm guessing that why his memory is so inaccurate lol
I am an old retired guy. I have had close friends and family members die. I have never had a bereavement hallucination. However, I have had extremely vivid dreams in which dead loved ones have spoken with me. I don’t attach any special significance to these. It’s just my subconscious mind attempting to process grief. If I was living in a less rational time and place, however, I might well have concluded that I was genuinely receiving messages from these people. Had I been a first century follower of Jesus and had such a dream after his death, I might have been one of those people sharing stories about his resurrection and ascension into Heaven.
That is especially true of cultures that have preconceived concepts that dreams are messages from supernatural realms. I've had dreams about my dead dogs being alive. If I assumed that these were messages from such a realm, I'd be saying that my dogs have been resurrected in that realm.
“Whoever believes receives the Lords salvation, but whoever does not believe is condemned, because he has not believed in the name of Christ" (Ezekiel 8:12) ✝️
@@LordOfThePancakes I was going to point out that what you quoted was both anecdotal and antithetical to what OP said. But then you included that little purple plus sign at the end and there's no refuting one of those!
If Gary had even *one* instance of a scientific explanation that was later overturned by a supernaturalistic one, his book(s) would be significantly shorter and much more convincing.
It’s absolutely adorable how Habermas ACTUALLY believes that historians believe in these “alternate theories”-the hallucination theory, swoon theory, stolen body theory, etc. 😂😂😂 The thing is, he grew up in a time where people just naturally accepted what was written, but today we realize it’s actually mythology. So he’s stuck in the past, and it’s embarrassing and quite pitiful to watch. Just go watch Mike Winger’s debate with Matt Dillahunty, and Winger was SHOCKED and UNPREPARED for Dillahunty not believing in any of those theories. He just simply believes they’re fiction. Winger couldn’t use any of his stock arguments and was STUCK! Lol.
that's always the funniest to me when they think you're just gonna agree with their premises, as if they think we could agree with the premise and somehow still deny the conclusion
My naturalistic theory of the resurrection is called the Habermas theory. Put simply, it is the theory that ancient Christians told stories with the same level of exaggeration and truth bending as Gary Habermas. This theory alone explains all of the historical facts of the resurrection with no miracle required.
Gary Habermas spent thousands of hours producing hundreds of pages of evidence, but he still ends up saying that when people don't accept his evidence, it is because they won't presuppose the existence of God and miracles. .
Brutal show, Paul. Providing evidence that Gary Habermas’ memory (testimony) is extremely faulty. Will admit, I was expecting Gary’s testimony was going to conclude with “and everybody clapped”
I could not believe my ears!! "Golly! Those theologian pastors sure whooped me!" And Darwin recanted evolution on his death bed. Why the heck is anyone taking this guy seriously?? And sidenote: he's implying that pastors back then were more educated 300 years ago?
This joke is funnier considering, to anyone reading it, you're a completely anonymous source that no one can verify actually witnessed the events you described.
@@goldenalt3166 I suspect it's more like they haven't checked. That they've reworked the debate in their mind over time, thinking and talking about it again and again, gradually shifting the story to favor them more and more. It's a very human thing. It's just that usually for most of us there isn't a recording. :)
Its interesting that someone as advanced in years as habermas would dismiss arguments simply because their proponent is dead. Is he giving us carte blanche to toss his minimal facts as soon as he goes to the hereafter
As long as the checks clear while he is still alive, he doesn't really care. Edit: Especially since he didn't seem to care about convincing people so much as placating believers.
I think he’s trying to suggest that it’s a “dying idea” that will become irrelevant soon because no younger scholars are supporting it. Ironically, it’s his arguments that are losing their appeal to modern audiences. As usual he seems to be projecting his own situation onto others.
@@Kelley_X it has been dismissed, just not by believers. creationism has been PROVED false IN COURT but the religists still claim it's true. for some reason religists are more interested in winning things than their religion. if i though god was my personal friend i'd be doing god stuff, not atheist bashing.
This tells me everything I need to know about the academic standards of Sean McDowell. He's requiring his students to learn from a book he hasn't even read himself yet. No one has had a chance to vet the book or its information and arguments and he's already decided to incorporate it into his class.
No its not, reality isn't just what we empirically observe, even if it were, there is no verification of what our observational faculties that birth this empiricism. You cannot say soundly that a psychological study with polar empirics expresses reality, it can really all be misinformation.
@@drewcoowoohoo Naturalism produces results. Look around at the technological world around you. What technology has religion or belief in God resulted in?
Habermas demonstrates the flaw in his reasoning before the intro music plays!😮 "People who believe IN A SINGLE natural explanation..." Why do 4 separate events require a single explanation? Three people became convinced of something at three different times; why should we expect they were all convinced by the same evidence?
-Someone removed the body from the tomb. We have many options and it’s pretty much irrelevant who did it and why. -One of the disciples had a dream about Jesus that made him believe that Jesus was still alive in some way. He then convinced the other disciples who imagined to feel the presence of Jesus while praying. -James was just a peasant who was suddenly famous for being the brother of a dead cult leader. -Paul was just the Joseph Smith of his time. -The gospels and Acts are mostly fiction written by the next generations of believers after most eyewitnesses were long dead. Those are different explanations for different claims. Of course there can not be one answer that explains all of it… unless I would say that the entire story is fiction.
So basically the same error as when creationists complain that evolution doesn't explain why the universe exists (and/or when they consider the big bang part of evolution); they think that if their dogma "explains" it all one myth, the alternative has to also all be one theory.
@@ramigilneas9274 I really wish we knew James’ story. It would be great to know what his memories of Jesus as a kid were and how he even got involved in the Christian movement.
The idea that these guys are """teachers""" is incredibly disheartening. Careers built on lies, passing those lies on to the next generations. Disgusting.
And making them spend hundreds of dollars on the "textbooks" that carry those lies and misrepresentations of the opposing views, apparently. Pretty disgusting all the way down the line. And this is one of the softer horrors that arise in religious spaces.
@@riluna3695 Yeah...making your students buy your friend/colleague's books is particularly scummy behavior. But then, I guess it does make sense if people like Habermas are the ones who style themselves academics in the field...
@@sbushido5547 Which at least some of them do BECAUSE it allows them to sell books on the topic. Usually not all of a person's motivation, but once you see how well it works, it's definitely gonna be in the back of your mind as you address criticism of your work.
That's not quite right, but the truth is more instructive. They aren't liars. They believe the things they say. From the outside, what they say - and the reasons they give for it - are highly questionable. But even so, they are sincere. Why is this instructive? Because it is very plausibly what was going on with the apostolic and other figures whose testimony or stories they find so convincing: sincere but, very plausibly, completely wrong.
@@methodbanana2676 Very wise, and very true. In reality we always get a mix of true believers, and liars looking for sheep to fleece. It can be pretty hard to tell the difference, especially with minimal information. And they're both similarly harmful to those who follow them. But there are a few rare occasions where it's vitally important that you correctly identify which is which (especially if you're going to confidently claim one or the other of someone), and sometimes for no other reason than not looking foolish and arrogant to those who know they're sincere who you confidently say aren't. As the saying goes, never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. Some people simply don't know, and correcting them gently is the best chance they have of learning the truth. You don't want to push them further in by accidentally confirming all the awful things they're told about nonbelievers.
I envy you. I used the Gd phrase and got myself suspended from RUclips. Does RUclips publish anywhere, the do’s and don’ts of making RUclips comments? I feel I constantly need to curb my language.
@@longcastle4863 Seems random and might depend on the forum. I got a 24 hour suspension and I have no clue what comments triggered it, and since they are deleted I can't refer back to them. Could also be random complaints from someone you disagreed with in the comments. I know when I see some random unrelated religious gibberish in the comments sections of non religious videos I report it as spam.
Could there be a better refutation for eye witness testimony than Gary failing to remember past debates? I wish someone would interview him. Ask for his recollection. Then show him the video and then grill him on why he believes eye witness testimony is so reliable.
he does this for a living and he (a 1st world dude in the 21st century) lives about 2 clicks away from all human knowledge. He KNOWS that is absurd, to say the least. He also KNOWS that is sells well.
He sounds like the guy who tells how he won a fight against 15 guys and you found out later he got beat up by two girls he was trying to drunkenly hit on.
It is damning that the guy who is insisting that first-person testimony is unimpeachable so badly misremembers an event he deems as vital to his own claims.
And hilarious, too, because all he'd need to do to avoid this is present the conversations for what they are - hypotheticals. "Someone might say x, and if they did, I'd counter with y." He'd still be unconvincing to me, but he wouldn't be actively undermining his own credibility while doing it.
I’ve often thought that believing being gay is a life style choice, at least suggest the possibility the person holding this view is bisexual. Most people, otherwise, don’t feel a lot of choice in the matter.
@@danielkirienko1701 op said he has no respect for McDowell. He did not note any questions at hand or claim that McDowell's arguments are false. This is 100% NOT ad hominem. Get good.
@@jamiehudson3661 And habermas still refuses to deal with it despite knowing what it is about, at least licona had the balls to answer the question when asked point blank. Lmao
@@Julian0101 It's a joke. His argument boils down to both Peter and Paul (who was an enemy to christianity) hallucinated, everyone believed them, and they started the greatest movement the world has ever seen. What a joke.
@@jamiehudson3661 Yep, and the best response you could think of is just to giggle while NOT giving any counter. Remember, habermas literally asked for any one naturalistic explanation, and when given one he ran away from it. Lmao Also, don't forget habermas' argument boils down to 'some fables from anonymous people say magic happen'.
Paul, you nailed it! Gary stands on a foundation of alleged testimony. But you showed us that he himself, is prone to reinventing his own past. _To align with what he preferred it to be._
“This is a person with no brain or heart.” Kinda makes it difficult to understand how she woke up afterwards. Could it be that Gary didn’t fully understand the medical situation of this patient?
The reason most naturalists won't "pick a theory" is that, of the several reasonable explanations, there simply isn't enough evidence to prefer one over the other. It's a representation of honesty and a lack of credible accounts.
Exactly, it's completely unlike religious faith that goes all-in and can't seem to allow one to question and doubt. These are not absolute provable hypothesis. Demanding we pick one and act like they do in regards to their dogmas as if we are willing to suffer and die for it is funny!
This. Its also perfectly coherent in a probabilistic epistemology. In the probability space of 1, there is exactly one hypothesis entailing that the guy ressurected (with lower P for every added detail to that story) with all the remaining non-true hypotheses occupying the remaining P. So if "mistaken" can entail the sub-hypotheses of dreaming, bereavement halluzination, etc., it can share some portion of the non-true space alongside e.g. fraud, making up stories, and even aliens and swooning. And i'd argue that there is a LOT of space after accounting for the miracle ones.
Absolutely. We'll never know exactly what combination of incidental events and social forces launched the cult of Christianity. It would be stupid to pretend that we had a naturalistic narrative explanation for the resurrection tale. Why these apologists even think we need a naturalistic alternative to reject their little fable is just hilarious. It's a bunch of BS written in a set of ancient books. Nothing about these books raise them to the status of credible accounts in the first place. They are a set of self-contradictory, ooky-spooky ritualistic magical yarns.
Not to mention that it doesn’t matter which one it is when you’re comparing it with a supernatural theory. Kind of like how discussions on Jesus presuppose he existed because it isn’t the point in contention.
Right after they said 32,000 hours I whipped out my calculator. Then Paul gave me the number of hours,days& years I was going to calculate. Humorous timing. Love your work Paul! Health& Joy to you and those you Love!
I've long held that hallucinations were unnecessary. People dream and in the early common era, dreams were often looked upon as prophetic. Its possible one or more of Jesus' followers dreamed he came back to life and the story spread from there. I know I've often dreamed of deceased friends and family long after they died. I'm guessing I'm not alone.
Or, much easier, one guy (doesn't matter which guy specifically) says "I've met a guy that looked just like Jesus" and everything else spun out from there.
@@WhiteScorpio2 Scenario: Two of Jesus' followers are out of town when he's arrested and killed. They come back a few days later and overhear a street preacher who sounds and looks a lot like Jesus. Mistaking him, they meet up with some of the disciples and tell them they just saw Jesus. The disciples scoff. They insist they saw him. They won't back down. Then they're told about the crucifixion. But they're too embarrassed to admit being wrong. "Well, he did all those other miracles. Maybe he came back to life too." ... and the story spread.
I know a lot of people who have had grief induced hallucinations. 4 instance that cult that believes that Jesus is coming backin 1988 or 1888 i don't remember. They sold their businesses, sold their houses, quit jobs because they were convinced that Jesus was coming back on a very specific day and when he didn't comeback, they were despondent and thought maybe God doesn't exist. Then he had a grief induced hallucination were Jesus told him that he did comeback but that he came back in the heavenly since not earthly and that he missed understood. Sound familiar??? Cognitive dissonance theory shows many times when someone is proven that their deeply held beliefs are wrong, that they will double down. Ie when Jesus was crucified, the reality was too painful to accept that their "messiah" was shamefully executed and was not who they thought he was. So in this extreme grief, they had hallucinations and believed that he had risen. I know two people who had grief induced hallucinations
I dream about my dead dogs all the time. I wish they could come back from the dead, but that doesn't make me think they will. However, I'm a scurrilous atheist.
"I had this debate with a respected atheist, but I won't say who-" Gotcha, so it either didn't happen or you are going to lie about it and don't want us to look up the video.
I would counter with "but I WON a debate with over 500 respected but anonymous theologians, some of whom are still alive." Also, "buy MY book. It is over 40,000 pages, payable in gold bars only."
My guess about Habermas' NDE story is that it was the famous one about Pam Reynolds, remembered so badly that Flew didn't recognize it. Pam Reynolds underwent surgery for an aneurysm, and had to be put in a "cardiac standstill". That is, to be anesthetized, her body temp brought down to just under 60 degrees, and have the blood drained from her head for them to operate. During the operation, she flatlined and almost wasn't able to be revived, becoming legally dead, but they managed to save her life in the end. A year later, she told her psychiatrist about it, and how she saw herself in the room, with 20 doctors, described one of the instruments they used, told what she's heard the doctors saying, and said that she heard Hotel California playing. Out of curiosity, her psychiatrist checked it out and found that that was the number of people in the room, the chief instrument they used looked like what she described, the recounting of the conversation she heard was fairly accurate, and that they did, indeed, play Hotel California. This is super interesting, but the leading hypothesis is that she experienced what is known as "anesthesia awareness", something that happens to about 1 in 2,000 cases of surgeries where anesthesia is administered. It is the phenomenon of regaining partial or full consciousness when anesthetized, but being unable to move, so having some measure of awareness of the operation. Pam Reynolds, notably, did not experience the whole operation, only before the complications where she technically died, spending the rest of it with a more typical NDE of talking to her dead loved ones. This is literally the closest I can find to what Habermas was describing, and if it is what he was referring to, he was *grossly* misrepresenting it. Or proving that even then, his own recollection of information he'd learned cannot be trusted, and demonstrating how much a story can grow when passed by word of mouth. Either way, it's another self-own.
I can feel your frustration adn obsession, talking about what you do not even believe, because not even you knows what you believe in. get out from this cult called atheism ok?
With respect to NDEs, esp, or anything else, we simply investigate the claims. They never pan out. Yet believers all want to insist that they’ve been proven to have actually happened, even though they never have been.
How could Habermas say he sees signs that Naturalism is fading, when it is the basis of the technological world we see all around us, including advancements pertaining to medical procedures and improving the quality of our lives?
That statement was just ludicrous, comical, and delusional. Totally outside of academia even, the level of religious belief in the society as a whole is going steadily down. Wouldn't it be great to live in a future world in which theism was not just regarded as quaint, but viewed on the same level as primitive blood magic and voodoo?
All I can see is that apologist rely on the assumption that the claims in the book they have is a historical fact. Then they build on this muddy foundation and talk as if what ever they built on this mud is not going to sink. 🤦♂️
Yep. A bunch of unknown guys wrote a bunch of unverifiable stuff. How any normally intelligent person sees that as evidence is beyond me. Hearsay of totally unknown provenance is not remotely admitted in any court of law. Well, maybe in North Korea. Who knows?
What does it even matter what happened in a debate or whether his opponent made concessions to him? None of that is evidence for the resurrection. I would never have made the concessions he says his opponent made. The arguments that supposedly nailed them to those concessions were really stupid arguments anyway. Habermas is really lame as a scholar. He reminds me of John Lennox, the mathematician and Christian apologist who also makes dumbass third-grade arguments for theism and Christianity. There is such a stark disconnect between the supposed academic standing of those guys and the super-primitive and philosophically unschooled arguments they make that it just amazes me.
I was involved in a Twitter debate once, and I made the point that any naturalistic explanation for something, no matter how unlikely, is definitionally more likely than any supernatural explanation. Most of the rest of the thread was some guy going on and on about Hume, rather than responding to the point being made. What I said would still be true even if Hume had never been born, but there are some believers who think that if you can dismiss Hume that's basically the same as proving God. So now I cringe every time I hear Hume's name, because I reflexively want to shout "I don't care about Hume, deal with the point being made please!"
That’s because that since they put faith in individuals like Jesus or the Apostles, they think that denouncing or debunking the individual makes what they observed to be false.
@Paulogia Only one thing I would like to add is that when the apostle Paul was arrested in Jerusalem, tried by the Jewish authorities, and was to be executed for heresy, he escaped his "Martyrdom" by the Jews by pleading to the Roman authorities to be tried as a Roman citizen in front of the Emperor. The Romans took him as a prisoner, was sent to Rome and a couple of years later was executed accused of the same crime as Peter without ever receiving a trial. Paul did not die as a Martyr, he intentionally escaped his opportunity for "Martyrdom" when he could, so; when people say the apostle Paul died for refusing to recant Jesus' resurrection, that is a blatant exaggeration of Paul's actions and written accounts made by Christian themselves
@@ratamacue0320 "25 Three days after Festus had arrived in the province, he went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem 2 where the chief priests and the leaders of the Jews gave him a report against Paul. They appealed to him 3 and requested, as a favour to them against Paul,[a] to have him transferred to Jerusalem. They were, in fact, planning an ambush to kill him along the way. 4 Festus replied that Paul was being kept at Caesarea, and that he himself intended to go there shortly. 5 ‘So’, he said, ‘let those of you who have the authority come down with me, and if there is anything wrong about the man, let them accuse him.’ 6 After he had stayed among them for not more than eight or ten days, he went down to Caesarea; the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. 7 When he arrived, the Jews who had gone down from Jerusalem surrounded him, bringing many serious charges against him, which they could not prove. 8 Paul said in his defence, ‘I have in no way committed an offence against the law of the Jews, or against the temple, or against the emperor.’ 9 But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favour, asked Paul, ‘Do you wish to go up to Jerusalem and be tried there before me on these charges?’ 10 Paul said, ‘I am appealing to the emperor’s tribunal; this is where I should be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you very well know. 11 Now if I am in the wrong and have committed something for which I deserve to die, I am not trying to escape death; but if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can turn me over to them. I appeal to the emperor.’ 12 Then Festus, after he had conferred with his council, replied, ‘You have appealed to the emperor; to the emperor you will go.’" Acts 25
@@ratamacue0320 HA!... velkin beat me to it, but yes, in the book of Acts, Paul's trial, he pleads to be tried as a Roman in front of the emperor I will only add that Paul's death is not mentioned in any of the early accounts, it comes from later works, but in the accounts that exist from Paul, there is no mention of him being trial in Rome, and from Roman historians, we do know that Nero either refused or ignored Roman law regarding the trial of Christians (depending on which historical account you prefer) because Nero was accused by Roman senators against him of ignoring Roman Law, and there are no historical records that Nero tried Christians according to Roman Law
@@XDRONIN First extra-biblical mention is in the First Epistle of Clement, late 1st century. Just says that Paul (and Peter) were martyred. Doesn't state a charge, doesn't state a trial, doesn't state if recanting would have saved them, and doesn't say where; it just states that they were martyred and no other details.
@@VulcanLogic Yes, but you know that when Christians say they were "Martyred", they mean that they died for believing in Jesus or that their crime was believing in Jesus, and that was the reason for their "Martyrdom", and that would be correct if Paul, as a Jew; was executed in Jerusalem because the Jews do have laws against heresy, and that is what the entire story of Paul's arrest and trial in Jerusalem from Acts says
@@davidhoffman6980 It is obvious, because Paul was not in Habermas' presence and McDowell was. Paul could hardly ask Habermas questions on a video made when Paul wasn't present. Duh.
pinecreek asked gary for a list of PhD scholars who had been converted to christianity by the evidence (during their research of course) habermas said he did indeed have such a list, but i have yet to see it. did it ever materialise?
I dont write very often, but i just want you to know Paul that your extensive job is well appreciated, you have helped me in so many ways and i truly thank you for your efforts, they don’t resonate in death ears.
I got to give it to Dr. Habermas. At least he’s consistent. He believes based on hearsay evidence, and he hopes people believe him based on hearsay evidence.
My psychology class in college did an experiment involving inducing hallucinations through simple peer pressure. A few of us would stand by a tree looking up and pointing. When people came over to see what we were pointing at, we said there was a snake in the tree. After a few moments (varies between people) the new people would agree, and even argue with each other about where and what color the snake was.
Literally all Habermas does is restate the Bible!!!! He doesn't understand you have to prove the stories in the Bible are true BEFORE you can reference the Bible as a source of truth. He just claims it.
They all do, because that's literally all they have. There is no contemporary attestation, no outside sources, no real eye witnesses with their own accounts. The bible is quite literally all they CAN base their religion on. Without the bible, christianity is gone. That's why they try to inflate the value of Tacitus' account, who basically only said "There's some freaks who worship some guy" as if it was in any way proof of their claims.
Habermas is one more sad case of someone whose self-esteem depends on never conceding he’s wrong. And McDowell is despicable, as all apologists are, for working to reinforce belief even if untrue.
Listening to Dr. Habermas, I am reminded of the saying, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste", or as vice-president Dan Quayle once tried to quote it, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." YES, how true that is. RockOn, Paulogia.
Funny how Gary's own first person account of a conversation and event he took part in, actually demonstrates the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and the tendency to embellish stories over time even by the person who took part in the conversation - let alone how it would be embellished by the people repeating his already-embellished story further down the chain again and again. Imagine Sean telling that story (already misremembered and embellished by Gary) to his dad who then tells it to J Warner Wallace who then tells it to Frank Turek...how far from the original video it would be
"Gary, for a guy whose career is essentially resting on the reliability of testimony, I'd suggest you stop giving testimony about events that can be fact-checked" BOOM😆. Love your content Paulogia, It has been super helpful for me through my deconstruction. Keep up the great work!
Gary: These are the minimal facts that a large majority of relevant scholars accept. Critics: These are some ways the minimal facts can be explained through naturalistic means. Also Gary: But your hypothesis doesn't explain these _other_ facts that aren't generally accepted as being accurate! Is that moving the goalposts?
also, the first thing critics should say is "most THEIST scholars accept them as fact by nothing but assumption. A fact is something you can demonstrate is true. Demonstrate please, otherwise it's just an argument from popularity fallacy"
@nagranoth_ yeah, even secular scholars tend to agree on many of them. Crucifixion, appearances to Paul and Peter. Stuff like that. Much of it is from all four gospels agreeing, or Paul's first-person testimony. I take Paul at his word of what he thinks he saw - not what he actually saw. I don't take the gospels at their word, especially since the earliest and only arguably reliable account (Paul) gives none of the details to corroborate the details. He doesn't even make it sound like he's aware of any aspects of Jesus' life or death.
I'm also a Canadian but from a province very different then Paul : Québec. When I was a teen there was a super big story of an international cult that committed mass suicide to reach the space ship of their religion. Thats how much they believed in their religion. It doesn't make their religious claim true. Being willing to die for what you believe doesn't make it true.
That was Heaven's Gate and it turned out that they really did successfully reach the spaceship like they intended, so your example doesn't work in this case
Having gone to school in the US, I wouldn't even bat an eye at a course requiring $200 worth of textbooks. Seems like maybe we should do something about that.
Universities should have ethical rules that prohibit professors from profiting off of textbooks that they require. Or else they should have to disclose that in the course catalogue. The grifters would be identified then. I had a professor that required an expensive lab kit that was made by a company he owned. You couldn't even buy a used one from a previous student. You had to show one of his grad students a purchase receipt for a new one. Most students had no idea they were on the hook for this lab kit when they signed up for the course. That sh*t is totally corrupt and should never be allowed.
@@donnievance1942 I've had that same experience with books that the prof wrote. I took one class where 3 separate books were required, all had to be that year's edition, and all were written by the prof. We never even used one of them! He was just blatantly using his position to enrich himself at the expense of his students. I reported him to the dean of his section and was told he could require any books he chose for his courses. Our entire education system is falling deeper and deeper into the territory of a straight up scam.
*NDEs* I saw a doctor (woman) on a documentary who was shaken by a patient’s NDE and thought this case was the best evidence. But the details say otherwise. Reporters had gone to the patient’s house days after the recovery and wrote down his memories at the time. We can’t know what the patient remembered upon awakening. The patient got the direction and purpose of the consulting male surgeon’s movements wrong, which would have been impossible if the patient’s spirit had been seeing the surgeon. The doctor relaying the NDE focused only on the things that were vaguely correct, all of which could have been derived by sound, which is apparently the last sense to “die”.
That part around 48:50 seems obviously demonstrative of the unreliability of memory and testimony. Which, as you said, undermines the case he's making and, by extension, the case most theists take regarding the resurrection. Anyway, good luck with your Magnum Opus.
Totally incorrect. It’s hilarious to see you reading into the psyche and motives of others and accuse people of lying either because you don’t like their point or you’re too naive to actually grasp the situation or both. Thx for the laugh.
Wow, all the anecdotes that don't make a point from Gary Habermas, it saddens me that he has such reach while demonstrating such poor critical thinking.
He really doesn't. Apologists aren't taken seriously in academic circles because to call their work sloppy and biased would be extraordinarily generous.
@@sypherthe297th2 Indeed, but that’s not what the general public who don’t necessarily have the education to discern this stuff see, and then this trains them in bad patterns of thought and ends up having a huge effect on how the general public analyses the world and interacts with it. Ends up causing quite a bit of harm.
@@sypherthe297th2 They probably have to be in religious schools to even survive the sense of inferiority they would chronically suffer in the faculty lounge. Imagine being there and being surrounded by a bunch of particle physicists, paleontologists, and biochemistry researchers.
As someone who yearns to know everything in every book but who finds reading to be extremely difficult and time consuming, I can't tell you how much I appreciate the amount of reading and synthesizing you do for us ♥️
The level of respect for dr. Habermas’ integrity I had has declined every time I have heard him speak, after the you just want to sun argument I am going to dismiss him as a clown unworthy of consideration at all.
30:16 "what if someone who didn't know me 20 years later wrote down a story about my dead wife appearing in the classroom, and they claimed that 500 people saw it" -- Gary, probably
I'm having flashbacks to being a doubting teen and having sit-downs with dogmatic old porch-wizard types like Habermas. I feel for McDowell trying to get a point in edgewise.
I too was pretty young when I was introduced to a prattling parson who...good intentions aside...tried to convince me as i was deconverting. His go to was CSLewis book, Mere Christianity I found it completely useless to answer any of the questions I was facing. Eventually the questions won out and I've not looked back toward Christianity.
@22:45 "As far as we know, none of [the disciples] ever recanted." Well if that's compelling then you need to be aware that Joseph Smith and his witnesses never recanted, so I guess either Gary is going to convert to Mormonism or stop using this talking point right?
Ravi Zacharias was a liar, Bill "Low Bar" Craig is a liar, Habermas is a liar, J. Warner Wallace is a liar, ... who am I leaving out of the red-handed liar list?
Tally Ho ! Well well ! Look who it is!!!! My old buddy from across the pond! The one! The only! The most delightfully devious mischief maker ! Hope you’re well! I’ve missed ya. Missed some play and teasing. Really really happy to see your post. Stay well!
Though I do also gotta ask: who is all the erosion caused by folks like Dawkins working out for y’all over there in Britain??? Yikes! Talk about some serious unintended consequences of pushing atheism! (Yes.. we certainly have more than our share of issues here. Not saying we don’t. We definitely do. But it’s a different source). Anyhow… take care Devious Dave.
@@mkl2237 Good to hear from you too. You sound as 'full of beans' as ever 🙂 Not sure what Dawkins has been saying (I'm only a fan of his science-related material) but his influence here is probably not as far-reaching as you might have heard. Keep well yourself!!!
How Habermas continues to be a giant in the field of apologetics is beyond me. Arguing from arguments he never made, misremembering conversations with Antony Flew and all round just making $#!+ up.
*“Put their lives on hold,”* doesn’t help Habermas. People who commit to things often double down when it seems to fail. Hiding Jesus’ body is not out of the question, *especially* for people who put their everyday lives on hold.
Wait, wait wait. Are you trying to tell me that an apologist ... lies? ... like,... for a living? My flabber is most thoroughly gasted. Whatever shall I do now?
“An atheist came up to me - big atheist, strong atheist, tears in his eyes. I said to him, pick a theory! He said to me, sir, sir, I cannot do that, because if I do you will refute it and make me look silly.“ Also, as soon as some excuseologist says “Y’all just wanna sin,“ I no longer take them seriously -if I ever did in the first place.
"I'm not going to address blogs or RUclips videos. Only theories with actual scholarship behind them. So, first, aliens..."
I'm glad that stood out to someone else.
@@1mrs1 I wonder if Gary is angling for a job at the History Channel.
Can't wait to find out his citations for aliens as an explanation for the resurrection in journals and peer-reviewed literature!
The Minimal Spock Theory.
@@MrDalisclockNah. Capturing Christianity.
Gary using testimony alone to attack Hume is poetically ironic
Habermas is a theologian, not a historian. For instance his 5th premise is false, even according to the New Testament:
5) that James, Jesus’ unbelieving brother, became a Christian due to his own experience that he thought was the resurrected Christ"
James never became a Christian. He remained exclusively Jewish like his brother Jesus, and living in Jerusalem until his murder. Even in Acts Paul recognizes that James was Jewish. Habermas is a theologian, not a historian.
👍 _!!!_
@@ji8044 Not to defend Gary in any way, but at the time, being Jewish was not in conflict with being Christian according to Christians - in fact, before Paul, Christians believed being Jewish was a requirement for being Christian. That was the reason of the feud between Paul and Peter, Paul said non-Jews can be Christians. To this day, there are a few Jewish Christians ("Messianic Jews").
@@KaiHenningsen "but at the time, being Jewish was not in conflict with being Christian according to Christians"
You have just refuted Habermas, not me. At the time there were no Christians as a separate theological entity. That is another reason James could not have "become one" as Habermas says.
-" in fact, before Paul, Christians believed being Jewish was a requirement for being Christian"
Jesus, his family, and all of his disciples were Jews, not Christians.
I was actually taking a deep breath to say "objection - hearsay" a moment before Gary outright admitted it.
The fact that other apologists don’t call out Gary on his nonsense just proves how dishonest the whole crew is.
Possibly more self delusion
They do. Have you not heard of Erik Manning’s channel “Testify”?
Starting with Sean McDowell.
@@lyongreene8241you mean, TestifyApologetics?
@@lyongreene8241
Thank you for sharing that. I did go over and browse through a small number of @TestifyApologetics videos. He certainly doesn't appear to have the typical 100% "belief at any cost means never criticizing other currently believing Christians" that most of the apologists have.
Having Dr. Kipp Davis on his channel discussing the debacle with the alleged archeology find of a Mt. Ebal curse tablet was just one example of that.
With all that being said, he had a video with Lydia McGrew about "Trusting NT Scholarship" which I did watch about 8-10 minutes before I could stand no more. I was aware of her views regarding the pre-supposition that the Bible is inerrant, which is demonstrably false, before watching this and then add that she doesn't have a degree in any field of NT studies. So, to me, asking her about this topic is no different than asking a cheerleader for a farm team of the New England Patriots what it's like to be the quarterback for the San Francisco 49'ers.
I will go back and spend time watching some of his videos.
Again, thanks.
Gary is just straight lying about Hume. I can't stand that hack, Habermas. The dishonesty of that guy just makes me puke.
But he writes lots and lots of pages!
About Hume and quite a few other people. It really makes my stomach turn when he lies about things that are _on tape and verifiably false._
Yeah to me it's either Habermas is lying about Antony Flew or his memories are genuinely distorted by pride or age to make him seem cooler than he is.
Imagine sitting in a debate with someone who have made it abundantly clear that he has no intellectual honesty and will embellish any story in his favor, and he starts telling an unverified tale about NDEs.
Habermas is relatively new to my radar, but I gotta say, I didn't expect a straight-up, unabashed liar. He retells stories just like a friend of mine's narcissist ex.
Wow! What an incredible self-own by Habermas! Giving eyewitness testimony about things that absolutely, 100% provably, did not happen, while arguing that testimony is sufficient proof that something happened. This is priceless.
Vignette of the last 1000 years or so...
Person A: "I don't believe there is a God that interacts with reality in detectable and measurable ways."
Person B: "There is a God that interacts with reality in detectable and measurable ways."
Person A: "Okay, in what detectable and measurable ways does this God interact with Reality?"
Person B: "That is not reasonable to ask!"
Person B has a book! More, a bunch of old books!
Why isn’t Person A convinced by very old books…?
@@Nocturnalux 😁
@@Nocturnalux because if said "old books" are only updated with hypotheticals and theological apologetics and not imperical and evidential verification that can be checked and tested then it holds no use for convincing at all. take darwins evolutionary theory, do we rely on his works alone or have we got more upto date and extra disciplines that help further our knowledge and to show evolution to be true, einstiens theory of relativity has a similar situation. while they were outstanding works of the times they were publisized, in no way are they alone in the ability to convince in modern terms. because they have been furthered, based on these past works, accumilating in retestable and authenticational useage and advancment. 😉
Some version of the Kalam has been kicking around since before christianity even existed.
@@rainbowkrampus Some versions of the Kalam do not even posit a God exists. The others lack the detectable and measurable part.
Habermas’ demonstration of the faults of memory and biases towards confirming one’s beliefs was FASCINATING
His willingness to have hypothetical convos makes him sound reeeaaaly lonely, and also if that's how he reflects on his debate/interviews I'm guessing that why his memory is so inaccurate lol
I am an old retired guy. I have had close friends and family members die. I have never had a bereavement hallucination. However, I have had extremely vivid dreams in which dead loved ones have spoken with me. I don’t attach any special significance to these. It’s just my subconscious mind attempting to process grief. If I was living in a less rational time and place, however, I might well have concluded that I was genuinely receiving messages from these people. Had I been a first century follower of Jesus and had such a dream after his death, I might have been one of those people sharing stories about his resurrection and ascension into Heaven.
That is especially true of cultures that have preconceived concepts that dreams are messages from supernatural realms. I've had dreams about my dead dogs being alive. If I assumed that these were messages from such a realm, I'd be saying that my dogs have been resurrected in that realm.
“Whoever believes receives the Lords salvation, but whoever does not believe is condemned, because he has not believed in the name of Christ" (Ezekiel 8:12) ✝️
@@donnievance1942 “But God proved his love for us in this; While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 1:4-1:18) ✝️
@@LordOfThePancakes I was going to point out that what you quoted was both anecdotal and antithetical to what OP said. But then you included that little purple plus sign at the end and there's no refuting one of those!
😂😂😂😂😂 @@paulpinecone2464
If Gary had even *one* instance of a scientific explanation that was later overturned by a supernaturalistic one, his book(s) would be significantly shorter and much more convincing.
100%
It’s absolutely adorable how Habermas ACTUALLY believes that historians believe in these “alternate theories”-the hallucination theory, swoon theory, stolen body theory, etc. 😂😂😂 The thing is, he grew up in a time where people just naturally accepted what was written, but today we realize it’s actually mythology. So he’s stuck in the past, and it’s embarrassing and quite pitiful to watch. Just go watch Mike Winger’s debate with Matt Dillahunty, and Winger was SHOCKED and UNPREPARED for Dillahunty not believing in any of those theories. He just simply believes they’re fiction. Winger couldn’t use any of his stock arguments and was STUCK! Lol.
that's always the funniest to me when they think you're just gonna agree with their premises, as if they think we could agree with the premise and somehow still deny the conclusion
Next you are going to say that we don’t need to explain every individual event in the Iliad to know that it was fictional.
I would not, under ANY circumstances, consider Habermas or McDowell as reputable scholars.
@@johnnehrich9601The most charitable I can be is to call them "book salesmen."
@@dougt7580 More like 2:nd hand god delusion salesmen.
My naturalistic theory of the resurrection is called the Habermas theory. Put simply, it is the theory that ancient Christians told stories with the same level of exaggeration and truth bending as Gary Habermas. This theory alone explains all of the historical facts of the resurrection with no miracle required.
The moment you start to consider, that Paul of Tarsus was just another apologist your faith fades away.
@@CafeteriaCatholic Yep. The BS started early.
Hyperbole & cope are the pillars of Christianity.
I think you mean the Habermas Hypothesis...😁
Gary Habermas spent thousands of hours producing hundreds of pages of evidence, but he still ends up saying that when people don't accept his evidence, it is because they won't presuppose the existence of God and miracles. .
Bingo!
hey how this cult goes? Still obsessed for what they do not even believe to keep you sick and obsessed?
His feelings don't care about your facts sir 😀
@@kevind8240 of course you care... it bring all sickness and frustration to your life, and you do care, get out
@@kevind8240 we need to forget about you, do you know? Humanity will not lose anything.
Minimal facts hypothesis = we literally got nothing, here are several giant tomes of blathering nonsense to pretend that we do.
I usually present it as:
Something happened + Some people believe in a story = Magic is real and we pretend that is history
Gary is strongly giving the impression that's what this book is, yeah.
It's a Gish gallop in written form.
@@rainbowkrampusThat is an absolutely perfect way to describe it.
I see you break his arguments down nicely and explain how they are incorrect. You ole scholar you.
Brutal show, Paul. Providing evidence that Gary Habermas’ memory (testimony) is extremely faulty. Will admit, I was expecting Gary’s testimony was going to conclude with “and everybody clapped”
@@Kelley_X I’m not giving Habermas a pass for faulty memory. He’s a flat out liar.
If a prophet hallucinates a miracle in the woods and there's no one around to persecute him, is there a God?
Good one. I love it.
Did you know that there were 500 eyewitnesses to Hume saying he got philosophically walloped by a pastor in a Scottish pub? Must have happened!
I could not believe my ears!! "Golly! Those theologian pastors sure whooped me!" And Darwin recanted evolution on his death bed. Why the heck is anyone taking this guy seriously?? And sidenote: he's implying that pastors back then were more educated 300 years ago?
This joke is funnier considering, to anyone reading it, you're a completely anonymous source that no one can verify actually witnessed the events you described.
@@readerforlife7292 Truly I tell you, there are are some standing here today who will not taste death before my identity is revealed. :-p
Paulogia, this is great. I'm surprised at how often apologists, like politicians, seem to forget recordings still exist! 👍🏼🌊💙💙💙🌊🥰✌🏼
Or they correctly assume that their followers won't check.
Jesus Christ records everything you corrupt entities do, so don’t even bother.
@@goldenalt3166 I suspect it's more like they haven't checked. That they've reworked the debate in their mind over time, thinking and talking about it again and again, gradually shifting the story to favor them more and more.
It's a very human thing. It's just that usually for most of us there isn't a recording. :)
@@jeffmacdonald9863 They really don't want to admit that eye- witness testimony shifts over time with invented elements.
Its interesting that someone as advanced in years as habermas would dismiss arguments simply because their proponent is dead. Is he giving us carte blanche to toss his minimal facts as soon as he goes to the hereafter
As long as the checks clear while he is still alive, he doesn't really care. Edit: Especially since he didn't seem to care about convincing people so much as placating believers.
I think he’s trying to suggest that it’s a “dying idea” that will become irrelevant soon because no younger scholars are supporting it. Ironically, it’s his arguments that are losing their appeal to modern audiences. As usual he seems to be projecting his own situation onto others.
By that criterion, the bible itself can be dismissed as whoever wrote it is dead now.
@@Kelley_X it has been dismissed, just not by believers. creationism has been PROVED false IN COURT but the religists still claim it's true. for some reason religists are more interested in winning things than their religion. if i though god was my personal friend i'd be doing god stuff, not atheist bashing.
Max Planck observed: "Science advances funeral by funeral. "
This tells me everything I need to know about the academic standards of Sean McDowell. He's requiring his students to learn from a book he hasn't even read himself yet. No one has had a chance to vet the book or its information and arguments and he's already decided to incorporate it into his class.
Afaik he’s a creationist.
One grifter helping another fellow grifter.
I doubt he would care, as long as it has arguments for Jebus the more the merrier.
the empirical evidence for naturalism is called reality.
No its not, reality isn't just what we empirically observe, even if it were, there is no verification of what our observational faculties that birth this empiricism. You cannot say soundly that a psychological study with polar empirics expresses reality, it can really all be misinformation.
Overachiever
Seriously? Look at the trees? What else do you have?
@@drewcoowoohoo Naturalism produces results. Look around at the technological world around you. What technology has religion or belief in God resulted in?
@@longcastle4863 That's a much better response, but not the OP's.
Well, that's like 15 pounds of evidence. I guess I'm convinced. If it were merely 10 pounds, I would remain skeptical.
And counting!
That’s why I believe in the golden plates of Mormonism… they were so much heavier.
What's the old saying "10 pounds of 'evidence' in a 5 pound sack"?
Habermas is making an error commonly committed by students - jumping from "could have happened" to "must have happened."
Habermas demonstrates the flaw in his reasoning before the intro music plays!😮
"People who believe IN A SINGLE natural explanation..." Why do 4 separate events require a single explanation?
Three people became convinced of something at three different times; why should we expect they were all convinced by the same evidence?
That's a great point. What convinces Jesus' disciple/best friend in adulthood Peter may not be what convinces his brother James who grew up with him.
Oh, that's what he was getting at? The single cause fallacy?
-Someone removed the body from the tomb. We have many options and it’s pretty much irrelevant who did it and why.
-One of the disciples had a dream about Jesus that made him believe that Jesus was still alive in some way. He then convinced the other disciples who imagined to feel the presence of Jesus while praying.
-James was just a peasant who was suddenly famous for being the brother of a dead cult leader.
-Paul was just the Joseph Smith of his time.
-The gospels and Acts are mostly fiction written by the next generations of believers after most eyewitnesses were long dead.
Those are different explanations for different claims.
Of course there can not be one answer that explains all of it… unless I would say that the entire story is fiction.
So basically the same error as when creationists complain that evolution doesn't explain why the universe exists (and/or when they consider the big bang part of evolution); they think that if their dogma "explains" it all one myth, the alternative has to also all be one theory.
@@ramigilneas9274 I really wish we knew James’ story. It would be great to know what his memories of Jesus as a kid were and how he even got involved in the Christian movement.
The idea that these guys are """teachers""" is incredibly disheartening. Careers built on lies, passing those lies on to the next generations. Disgusting.
And making them spend hundreds of dollars on the "textbooks" that carry those lies and misrepresentations of the opposing views, apparently. Pretty disgusting all the way down the line. And this is one of the softer horrors that arise in religious spaces.
@@riluna3695 Yeah...making your students buy your friend/colleague's books is particularly scummy behavior. But then, I guess it does make sense if people like Habermas are the ones who style themselves academics in the field...
@@sbushido5547 Which at least some of them do BECAUSE it allows them to sell books on the topic. Usually not all of a person's motivation, but once you see how well it works, it's definitely gonna be in the back of your mind as you address criticism of your work.
That's not quite right, but the truth is more instructive. They aren't liars. They believe the things they say. From the outside, what they say - and the reasons they give for it - are highly questionable. But even so, they are sincere. Why is this instructive? Because it is very plausibly what was going on with the apostolic and other figures whose testimony or stories they find so convincing: sincere but, very plausibly, completely wrong.
@@methodbanana2676 Very wise, and very true. In reality we always get a mix of true believers, and liars looking for sheep to fleece. It can be pretty hard to tell the difference, especially with minimal information. And they're both similarly harmful to those who follow them. But there are a few rare occasions where it's vitally important that you correctly identify which is which (especially if you're going to confidently claim one or the other of someone), and sometimes for no other reason than not looking foolish and arrogant to those who know they're sincere who you confidently say aren't.
As the saying goes, never attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance. Some people simply don't know, and correcting them gently is the best chance they have of learning the truth. You don't want to push them further in by accidentally confirming all the awful things they're told about nonbelievers.
I was literally rewatching an old Paulogia video when this dropped. That rewatch will have to wait lol.
Glad I'm not the only one who can binge Paulogia for hours LOL
Religion. The one thing you can make up and never have to prove a god damn thing!
Actually all conspiracy theories are the same.
@@freddan6fly Yup! Gee, I wonder what the connection is..... :P
People do this with all kinds of things.
I envy you. I used the Gd phrase and got myself suspended from RUclips. Does RUclips publish anywhere, the do’s and don’ts of making RUclips comments? I feel I constantly need to curb my language.
@@longcastle4863 Seems random and might depend on the forum.
I got a 24 hour suspension and I have no clue what comments triggered it, and since they are deleted I can't refer back to them.
Could also be random complaints from someone you disagreed with in the comments.
I know when I see some random unrelated religious gibberish in the comments sections of non religious videos I report it as spam.
Could there be a better refutation for eye witness testimony than Gary failing to remember past debates?
I wish someone would interview him. Ask for his recollection. Then show him the video and then grill him on why he believes eye witness testimony is so reliable.
What's sad is he spent 11 years of his life on the second volume, and the absurdity of what he was writing and researching never occurred to him..
It doesn’t matter if it’s absurd. You hate the miracles of God no matter what evidence is for it. You are absurdly evil to the very end.
he does this for a living and he (a 1st world dude in the 21st century) lives about 2 clicks away from all human knowledge. He KNOWS that is absurd, to say the least. He also KNOWS that is sells well.
He's been writing and saying the same thing for the last FIFTY years. So it's much worse.
It's funny how Habermas can't seem to defend his minimal facts argument by using his supposed minimal facts.
Gary's recollection of his debate with Anthony Flew reminds me of my own shower debates. I've made so many people look like fools in there.
He sounds like the guy who tells how he won a fight against 15 guys and you found out later he got beat up by two girls he was trying to drunkenly hit on.
It is damning that the guy who is insisting that first-person testimony is unimpeachable so badly misremembers an event he deems as vital to his own claims.
And hilarious, too, because all he'd need to do to avoid this is present the conversations for what they are - hypotheticals. "Someone might say x, and if they did, I'd counter with y." He'd still be unconvincing to me, but he wouldn't be actively undermining his own credibility while doing it.
"Misremembers" is the charitable interpretation.
...while rejecting all the "eye witness accounts" of every other religi0n in any magical topic.
“I only deal with scholarly explanations, like aliens” 😂
Every time I see Sean Mcdowell I'm reminded of the fact that he sees being gay as a "Lifestyle Choice".
I have no respect for him.
I’ve often thought that believing being gay is a life style choice, at least suggest the possibility the person holding this view is bisexual. Most people, otherwise, don’t feel a lot of choice in the matter.
sean thinks demons possess people, at best he's dumb, but i think the worst of him, another apologist grifter.
@@longcastle4863 I just had the same thought reading this comment.
This is the definition of ad hominem. He might have stupid beliefs about other matters. It is irrelevant to the question at hand.
@@danielkirienko1701 op said he has no respect for McDowell. He did not note any questions at hand or claim that McDowell's arguments are false. This is 100% NOT ad hominem. Get good.
Wow, an hour Paul vid. I'm ready. Thanks for your hard work Paul
Haven't watched it yet. Always hoping for THE JINGLE. (Yes, yes, yes, comes at 35:44.)
Methinks he doesn't include Minimal Witnesses because he can't attack it in any meaningful way. Great video!
Bingo. Habermas knows better people than him had tried, Iike Mike Licona, and the best they could respond was 'is not what the bible says'.
That because minimal witnesses is a joke. A nice scholarly and peer reviewed article the atheist youtuber has there. Lol
@@jamiehudson3661 And habermas still refuses to deal with it despite knowing what it is about, at least licona had the balls to answer the question when asked point blank. Lmao
@@Julian0101 It's a joke. His argument boils down to both Peter and Paul (who was an enemy to christianity) hallucinated, everyone believed them, and they started the greatest movement the world has ever seen. What a joke.
@@jamiehudson3661 Yep, and the best response you could think of is just to giggle while NOT giving any counter. Remember, habermas literally asked for any one naturalistic explanation, and when given one he ran away from it. Lmao
Also, don't forget habermas' argument boils down to 'some fables from anonymous people say magic happen'.
Paul, you nailed it!
Gary stands on a foundation of alleged testimony.
But you showed us that he himself, is prone to reinventing his own past.
_To align with what he preferred it to be._
“This is a person with no brain or heart.” Kinda makes it difficult to understand how she woke up afterwards. Could it be that Gary didn’t fully understand the medical situation of this patient?
Gary's not like other doctors.
The reason most naturalists won't "pick a theory" is that, of the several reasonable explanations, there simply isn't enough evidence to prefer one over the other. It's a representation of honesty and a lack of credible accounts.
Exactly, it's completely unlike religious faith that goes all-in and can't seem to allow one to question and doubt. These are not absolute provable hypothesis. Demanding we pick one and act like they do in regards to their dogmas as if we are willing to suffer and die for it is funny!
This. Its also perfectly coherent in a probabilistic epistemology. In the probability space of 1, there is exactly one hypothesis entailing that the guy ressurected (with lower P for every added detail to that story) with all the remaining non-true hypotheses occupying the remaining P. So if "mistaken" can entail the sub-hypotheses of dreaming, bereavement halluzination, etc., it can share some portion of the non-true space alongside e.g. fraud, making up stories, and even aliens and swooning. And i'd argue that there is a LOT of space after accounting for the miracle ones.
Absolutely. We'll never know exactly what combination of incidental events and social forces launched the cult of Christianity. It would be stupid to pretend that we had a naturalistic narrative explanation for the resurrection tale. Why these apologists even think we need a naturalistic alternative to reject their little fable is just hilarious. It's a bunch of BS written in a set of ancient books. Nothing about these books raise them to the status of credible accounts in the first place. They are a set of self-contradictory, ooky-spooky ritualistic magical yarns.
Not to mention that it doesn’t matter which one it is when you’re comparing it with a supernatural theory.
Kind of like how discussions on Jesus presuppose he existed because it isn’t the point in contention.
Habermas' memory is predominantly a fantasy generator. He is a hero in his own mind. Everyone else thinks he is weak sauce.
Right after they said 32,000 hours I whipped out my calculator. Then Paul gave me the number of hours,days& years I was going to calculate. Humorous timing. Love your work Paul! Health& Joy to you and those you Love!
I've long held that hallucinations were unnecessary. People dream and in the early common era, dreams were often looked upon as prophetic. Its possible one or more of Jesus' followers dreamed he came back to life and the story spread from there. I know I've often dreamed of deceased friends and family long after they died. I'm guessing I'm not alone.
Or, much easier, one guy (doesn't matter which guy specifically) says "I've met a guy that looked just like Jesus" and everything else spun out from there.
@@WhiteScorpio2 Scenario: Two of Jesus' followers are out of town when he's arrested and killed. They come back a few days later and overhear a street preacher who sounds and looks a lot like Jesus. Mistaking him, they meet up with some of the disciples and tell them they just saw Jesus. The disciples scoff. They insist they saw him. They won't back down. Then they're told about the crucifixion. But they're too embarrassed to admit being wrong. "Well, he did all those other miracles. Maybe he came back to life too." ... and the story spread.
I know a lot of people who have had grief induced hallucinations. 4 instance that cult that believes that Jesus is coming backin 1988 or 1888 i don't remember.
They sold their businesses, sold their houses, quit jobs because they were convinced that Jesus was coming back on a very specific day and when he didn't comeback, they were despondent and thought maybe God doesn't exist.
Then he had a grief induced hallucination were Jesus told him that he did comeback but that he came back in the heavenly since not earthly and that he missed understood.
Sound familiar???
Cognitive dissonance theory shows many times when someone is proven that their deeply held beliefs are wrong, that they will double down. Ie when Jesus was crucified, the reality was too painful to accept that their "messiah" was shamefully executed and was not who they thought he was.
So in this extreme grief, they had hallucinations and believed that he had risen.
I know two people who had grief induced hallucinations
I dream about my dead dogs all the time. I wish they could come back from the dead, but that doesn't make me think they will. However, I'm a scurrilous atheist.
@@donnievance1942 They do pet cloning nowadays.
"I had this debate with a respected atheist, but I won't say who-"
Gotcha, so it either didn't happen or you are going to lie about it and don't want us to look up the video.
I would counter with "but I WON a debate with over 500 respected but anonymous theologians, some of whom are still alive." Also, "buy MY book. It is over 40,000 pages, payable in gold bars only."
@@johnnehrich9601 - Or trump's new cryroscam.
Whenever Hume is mentioned I can't help but think of Monty Python's Philosopher's Song
whenever people resort to quoting old philosophers i wonder if thy have anything of their own.
My guess about Habermas' NDE story is that it was the famous one about Pam Reynolds, remembered so badly that Flew didn't recognize it. Pam Reynolds underwent surgery for an aneurysm, and had to be put in a "cardiac standstill". That is, to be anesthetized, her body temp brought down to just under 60 degrees, and have the blood drained from her head for them to operate. During the operation, she flatlined and almost wasn't able to be revived, becoming legally dead, but they managed to save her life in the end.
A year later, she told her psychiatrist about it, and how she saw herself in the room, with 20 doctors, described one of the instruments they used, told what she's heard the doctors saying, and said that she heard Hotel California playing. Out of curiosity, her psychiatrist checked it out and found that that was the number of people in the room, the chief instrument they used looked like what she described, the recounting of the conversation she heard was fairly accurate, and that they did, indeed, play Hotel California.
This is super interesting, but the leading hypothesis is that she experienced what is known as "anesthesia awareness", something that happens to about 1 in 2,000 cases of surgeries where anesthesia is administered. It is the phenomenon of regaining partial or full consciousness when anesthetized, but being unable to move, so having some measure of awareness of the operation. Pam Reynolds, notably, did not experience the whole operation, only before the complications where she technically died, spending the rest of it with a more typical NDE of talking to her dead loved ones.
This is literally the closest I can find to what Habermas was describing, and if it is what he was referring to, he was *grossly* misrepresenting it. Or proving that even then, his own recollection of information he'd learned cannot be trusted, and demonstrating how much a story can grow when passed by word of mouth. Either way, it's another self-own.
Thousands of people claim to have seen Mandela's funeral on TV back in the 80s therefore Mandela rose from the dead and died twice.
Man, that’s painful. Reminds me of visiting my uncle at the nursing home. He was in mental decline and most of his speech was rambling nonsense.
I can feel your frustration adn obsession, talking about what you do not even believe, because not even you knows what you believe in. get out from this cult called atheism ok?
@@Mar-dk3mp
@@HangrySaturnand rambling nonsense too, like an illustration of the OP comment.
@@Mar-dk3mp - What are you, a witch that reads minds?
With respect to NDEs, esp, or anything else, we simply investigate the claims. They never pan out. Yet believers all want to insist that they’ve been proven to have actually happened, even though they never have been.
How could Habermas say he sees signs that Naturalism is fading, when it is the basis of the technological world we see all around us, including advancements pertaining to medical procedures and improving the quality of our lives?
Because he's a grifter who is blatantly operating off of motivated reasoning.
That statement was just ludicrous, comical, and delusional. Totally outside of academia even, the level of religious belief in the society as a whole is going steadily down. Wouldn't it be great to live in a future world in which theism was not just regarded as quaint, but viewed on the same level as primitive blood magic and voodoo?
@@donnievance1942 I take it you mean Gary's statement, right? Not the OP's?
apologists lie for money. They always have. Not confusing...
@@nagranoth_Not to mention a lot of them were indoctrinated from a young age, making it a fundamental part of their identity.
All I can see is that apologist rely on the assumption that the claims in the book they have is a historical fact. Then they build on this muddy foundation and talk as if what ever they built on this mud is not going to sink. 🤦♂️
Yep. A bunch of unknown guys wrote a bunch of unverifiable stuff. How any normally intelligent person sees that as evidence is beyond me. Hearsay of totally unknown provenance is not remotely admitted in any court of law. Well, maybe in North Korea. Who knows?
Gary "Trust me bro, this definitely happened in a debate" Habermas
What does it even matter what happened in a debate or whether his opponent made concessions to him? None of that is evidence for the resurrection. I would never have made the concessions he says his opponent made. The arguments that supposedly nailed them to those concessions were really stupid arguments anyway. Habermas is really lame as a scholar. He reminds me of John Lennox, the mathematician and Christian apologist who also makes dumbass third-grade arguments for theism and Christianity. There is such a stark disconnect between the supposed academic standing of those guys and the super-primitive and philosophically unschooled arguments they make that it just amazes me.
I was involved in a Twitter debate once, and I made the point that any naturalistic explanation for something, no matter how unlikely, is definitionally more likely than any supernatural explanation. Most of the rest of the thread was some guy going on and on about Hume, rather than responding to the point being made. What I said would still be true even if Hume had never been born, but there are some believers who think that if you can dismiss Hume that's basically the same as proving God. So now I cringe every time I hear Hume's name, because I reflexively want to shout "I don't care about Hume, deal with the point being made please!"
That’s because that since they put faith in individuals like Jesus or the Apostles, they think that denouncing or debunking the individual makes what they observed to be false.
Sounds like the creationists who keep going on about Darwin.
@Paulogia
Only one thing I would like to add is that when the apostle Paul was arrested in Jerusalem, tried by the Jewish authorities, and was to be executed for heresy, he escaped his "Martyrdom" by the Jews by pleading to the Roman authorities to be tried as a Roman citizen in front of the Emperor. The Romans took him as a prisoner, was sent to Rome and a couple of years later was executed accused of the same crime as Peter without ever receiving a trial. Paul did not die as a Martyr, he intentionally escaped his opportunity for "Martyrdom" when he could, so; when people say the apostle Paul died for refusing to recant Jesus' resurrection, that is a blatant exaggeration of Paul's actions and written accounts made by Christian themselves
Do you remember the book & chapter for that?
@@ratamacue0320 "25 Three days after Festus had arrived in the province, he went up from Caesarea to Jerusalem 2 where the chief priests and the leaders of the Jews gave him a report against Paul. They appealed to him 3 and requested, as a favour to them against Paul,[a] to have him transferred to Jerusalem. They were, in fact, planning an ambush to kill him along the way. 4 Festus replied that Paul was being kept at Caesarea, and that he himself intended to go there shortly. 5 ‘So’, he said, ‘let those of you who have the authority come down with me, and if there is anything wrong about the man, let them accuse him.’
6 After he had stayed among them for not more than eight or ten days, he went down to Caesarea; the next day he took his seat on the tribunal and ordered Paul to be brought. 7 When he arrived, the Jews who had gone down from Jerusalem surrounded him, bringing many serious charges against him, which they could not prove. 8 Paul said in his defence, ‘I have in no way committed an offence against the law of the Jews, or against the temple, or against the emperor.’ 9 But Festus, wishing to do the Jews a favour, asked Paul, ‘Do you wish to go up to Jerusalem and be tried there before me on these charges?’ 10 Paul said, ‘I am appealing to the emperor’s tribunal; this is where I should be tried. I have done no wrong to the Jews, as you very well know. 11 Now if I am in the wrong and have committed something for which I deserve to die, I am not trying to escape death; but if there is nothing to their charges against me, no one can turn me over to them. I appeal to the emperor.’ 12 Then Festus, after he had conferred with his council, replied, ‘You have appealed to the emperor; to the emperor you will go.’" Acts 25
@@ratamacue0320
HA!... velkin beat me to it, but yes, in the book of Acts, Paul's trial, he pleads to be tried as a Roman in front of the emperor
I will only add that Paul's death is not mentioned in any of the early accounts, it comes from later works, but in the accounts that exist from Paul, there is no mention of him being trial in Rome, and from Roman historians, we do know that Nero either refused or ignored Roman law regarding the trial of Christians (depending on which historical account you prefer) because Nero was accused by Roman senators against him of ignoring Roman Law, and there are no historical records that Nero tried Christians according to Roman Law
@@XDRONIN First extra-biblical mention is in the First Epistle of Clement, late 1st century. Just says that Paul (and Peter) were martyred. Doesn't state a charge, doesn't state a trial, doesn't state if recanting would have saved them, and doesn't say where; it just states that they were martyred and no other details.
@@VulcanLogic
Yes, but you know that when Christians say they were "Martyred", they mean that they died for believing in Jesus or that their crime was believing in Jesus, and that was the reason for their "Martyrdom", and that would be correct if Paul, as a Jew; was executed in Jerusalem because the Jews do have laws against heresy, and that is what the entire story of Paul's arrest and trial in Jerusalem from Acts says
These were the worst responses I've heard. He didn't answer any of Sean's questions.
Who didn't? Gary or Paul?
And these were softballs…!
@@davidhoffman6980Obviously OP meant the interviewee, Gary.
@@dingdongism it's not so obvious. I've encountered many apologists who say the atheist performed poorly despite that not being the case.
@@davidhoffman6980 It is obvious, because Paul was not in Habermas' presence and McDowell was. Paul could hardly ask Habermas questions on a video made when Paul wasn't present. Duh.
They admit what they're doing isn't history, and it isn't science... so... what are they doing with all these thousands of hours? Cosplay?
The last time I saw this much naked strawmanning was when I inadvertently stumbled across some Wizard of Oz fetish fiction. 😆
Bwa ha ha
Agh! Now that's a horrible vision! If I get temporary blindness I know who I'm blaming! ;-)
"Inadvertently"? Yeah, right...
I don’t know what the actual explanation is. The stories don’t give me reason to believe that a person, dead for a couple of days, became alive.
Gary is reading the same story that I read and drawing a different conclusion.
Who pays these quacks? Thank you for your work Paul.
pinecreek asked gary for a list of PhD scholars who had been converted to christianity by the evidence (during their research of course) habermas said he did indeed have such a list, but i have yet to see it. did it ever materialise?
Yes. Fun fact, that list gave rise to the whole "Is an empty list a list" debacle.
You have to presuppose that it exists first
I think that list got eaten by a shocked dog in Springfield, during the debate! ;-)
I dont write very often, but i just want you to know Paul that your extensive job is well appreciated, you have helped me in so many ways and i truly thank you for your efforts, they don’t resonate in death ears.
Habermas effectively said, “I don’t accept naturalism, so I don’t have to defend my position.”
Then you should tell him to go live like they did before the Scientific Method was a thing and see how he prefers it since he doesn’t believe in it.
The argument from page count. 🤣🤣
This video autoplayed while I was not watching, and I thought Peter Griffin had become an apologist.
I got to give it to Dr. Habermas. At least he’s consistent. He believes based on hearsay evidence, and he hopes people believe him based on hearsay evidence.
My psychology class in college did an experiment involving inducing hallucinations through simple peer pressure. A few of us would stand by a tree looking up and pointing. When people came over to see what we were pointing at, we said there was a snake in the tree. After a few moments (varies between people) the new people would agree, and even argue with each other about where and what color the snake was.
Literally all Habermas does is restate the Bible!!!! He doesn't understand you have to prove the stories in the Bible are true BEFORE you can reference the Bible as a source of truth. He just claims it.
They all do, because that's literally all they have. There is no contemporary attestation, no outside sources, no real eye witnesses with their own accounts. The bible is quite literally all they CAN base their religion on. Without the bible, christianity is gone. That's why they try to inflate the value of Tacitus' account, who basically only said "There's some freaks who worship some guy" as if it was in any way proof of their claims.
I mean he doesn't take the whole bible as an assumption
Just more than he ought
Habermas reifies the reification and the reification is reified.
I'm sure he understands, but since he can't prove that those stories are true, he just assumes they're true
Habermas is one more sad case of someone whose self-esteem depends on never conceding he’s wrong. And McDowell is despicable, as all apologists are, for working to reinforce belief even if untrue.
Listening to Dr. Habermas, I am reminded of the saying, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste", or as vice-president Dan Quayle once tried to quote it, "What a waste it is to lose one's mind. Or not to have a mind is being very wasteful. How true that is." YES, how true that is. RockOn, Paulogia.
God made your mind to honor him, and you wasted it on hating him.
Funny how Gary's own first person account of a conversation and event he took part in, actually demonstrates the unreliability of eyewitness testimony and the tendency to embellish stories over time even by the person who took part in the conversation - let alone how it would be embellished by the people repeating his already-embellished story further down the chain again and again. Imagine Sean telling that story (already misremembered and embellished by Gary) to his dad who then tells it to J Warner Wallace who then tells it to Frank Turek...how far from the original video it would be
"Gary, for a guy whose career is essentially resting on the reliability of testimony, I'd suggest you stop giving testimony about events that can be fact-checked" BOOM😆. Love your content Paulogia, It has been super helpful for me through my deconstruction. Keep up the great work!
Gary: These are the minimal facts that a large majority of relevant scholars accept.
Critics: These are some ways the minimal facts can be explained through naturalistic means.
Also Gary: But your hypothesis doesn't explain these _other_ facts that aren't generally accepted as being accurate!
Is that moving the goalposts?
100%
also, the first thing critics should say is "most THEIST scholars accept them as fact by nothing but assumption. A fact is something you can demonstrate is true. Demonstrate please, otherwise it's just an argument from popularity fallacy"
@nagranoth_ yeah, even secular scholars tend to agree on many of them. Crucifixion, appearances to Paul and Peter. Stuff like that. Much of it is from all four gospels agreeing, or Paul's first-person testimony. I take Paul at his word of what he thinks he saw - not what he actually saw. I don't take the gospels at their word, especially since the earliest and only arguably reliable account (Paul) gives none of the details to corroborate the details. He doesn't even make it sound like he's aware of any aspects of Jesus' life or death.
I'm also a Canadian but from a province very different then Paul : Québec.
When I was a teen there was a super big story of an international cult that committed mass suicide to reach the space ship of their religion.
Thats how much they believed in their religion. It doesn't make their religious claim true.
Being willing to die for what you believe doesn't make it true.
Are you talking about Heaven's Gate?
That was Heaven's Gate and it turned out that they really did successfully reach the spaceship like they intended, so your example doesn't work in this case
@@hammerotongo4677As a hyper-intelligent lobster, I can confirm this is true.
Lol, just wrote a similar comment. I'm sure there were a lot of "true believers" in Jonestown too.
@@Cheepchipsable Truthest place on earth.
Gary will only engage with interlocutors who have certain credentials; certificates of death.
Having gone to school in the US, I wouldn't even bat an eye at a course requiring $200 worth of textbooks. Seems like maybe we should do something about that.
Universities should have ethical rules that prohibit professors from profiting off of textbooks that they require. Or else they should have to disclose that in the course catalogue. The grifters would be identified then. I had a professor that required an expensive lab kit that was made by a company he owned. You couldn't even buy a used one from a previous student. You had to show one of his grad students a purchase receipt for a new one. Most students had no idea they were on the hook for this lab kit when they signed up for the course. That sh*t is totally corrupt and should never be allowed.
@@donnievance1942 I've had that same experience with books that the prof wrote. I took one class where 3 separate books were required, all had to be that year's edition, and all were written by the prof. We never even used one of them! He was just blatantly using his position to enrich himself at the expense of his students. I reported him to the dean of his section and was told he could require any books he chose for his courses. Our entire education system is falling deeper and deeper into the territory of a straight up scam.
that's normal world wide...
*NDEs*
I saw a doctor (woman) on a documentary who was shaken by a patient’s NDE and thought this case was the best evidence.
But the details say otherwise. Reporters had gone to the patient’s house days after the recovery and wrote down his memories at the time. We can’t know what the patient remembered upon awakening.
The patient got the direction and purpose of the consulting male surgeon’s movements wrong, which would have been impossible if the patient’s spirit had been seeing the surgeon. The doctor relaying the NDE focused only on the things that were vaguely correct, all of which could have been derived by sound, which is apparently the last sense to “die”.
Seems like recalling accounts from years ago isn't a good method of history...
That part around 48:50 seems obviously demonstrative of the unreliability of memory and testimony. Which, as you said, undermines the case he's making and, by extension, the case most theists take regarding the resurrection.
Anyway, good luck with your Magnum Opus.
"I'm not telling you who it was, but I debated [...]"
I just can't. I just CAN'T with this guy.
That info is available …. Easy to find out.
@@mkl2237 that's not the point. he's deliberately avoiding naming someone because he knows that he's lying about it
Totally incorrect. It’s hilarious to see you reading into the psyche and motives of others and accuse people of lying either because you don’t like their point or you’re too naive to actually grasp the situation or both. Thx for the laugh.
Ni Fang-Pi, Pengyou.
@@mkl2237 except not incorrect of course
Wow, all the anecdotes that don't make a point from Gary Habermas, it saddens me that he has such reach while demonstrating such poor critical thinking.
Poor, and extremely selective, critical thinking is the main requirement for being a christian. Without it there would be no christianity.
He really doesn't. Apologists aren't taken seriously in academic circles because to call their work sloppy and biased would be extraordinarily generous.
@@sypherthe297th2 Indeed, but that’s not what the general public who don’t necessarily have the education to discern this stuff see, and then this trains them in bad patterns of thought and ends up having a huge effect on how the general public analyses the world and interacts with it. Ends up causing quite a bit of harm.
@@sypherthe297th2 They probably have to be in religious schools to even survive the sense of inferiority they would chronically suffer in the faculty lounge. Imagine being there and being surrounded by a bunch of particle physicists, paleontologists, and biochemistry researchers.
As someone who yearns to know everything in every book but who finds reading to be extremely difficult and time consuming, I can't tell you how much I appreciate the amount of reading and synthesizing you do for us ♥️
This is my morning coffee
"Hume's critique of miracles just wasn't long enough".
"Pastor-philosophers whipped Hume but I won't say how".
LOL.
Oh Gary...
They got all up in his grille!
The level of respect for dr. Habermas’ integrity I had has declined every time I have heard him speak, after the you just want to sun argument I am going to dismiss him as a clown unworthy of consideration at all.
30:16 "what if someone who didn't know me 20 years later wrote down a story about my dead wife appearing in the classroom, and they claimed that 500 people saw it" -- Gary, probably
I'm having flashbacks to being a doubting teen and having sit-downs with dogmatic old porch-wizard types like Habermas. I feel for McDowell trying to get a point in edgewise.
I too was pretty young when I was introduced to a prattling parson who...good intentions aside...tried to convince me as i was deconverting. His go to was CSLewis book, Mere Christianity I found it completely useless to answer any of the questions I was facing. Eventually the questions won out and I've not looked back toward Christianity.
Outstanding video, Paul!
@22:45 "As far as we know, none of [the disciples] ever recanted." Well if that's compelling then you need to be aware that Joseph Smith and his witnesses never recanted, so I guess either Gary is going to convert to Mormonism or stop using this talking point right?
This is possibly the meanest thing you could've put together on Gary.
YES!!!
Great video as always. Don’t be hard on yourself for the frequency of putting out videos. Good work takes time.
Ravi Zacharias was a liar, Bill "Low Bar" Craig is a liar, Habermas is a liar, J. Warner Wallace is a liar, ... who am I leaving out of the red-handed liar list?
Don't know, perhaps all the others?
If you mean not just that they lie but have been caught at it, I'd put Sean's dad at the top of the list.
Apologists top the list.
Lee Strobel and Josh McDowell.
Frank Turek, Joel Osteen, Ken Copeland, Jesse Duplantis....every American televangelist
When I heard Stephen A. Smith I thought “The loud mouth from ESPN? Oh Lawd!! when did he become an expert in biblical scholarship?” 😂😂😂
A naturalistic explanation? - to quote Paulogia, "people were mistaken." - _yes, I'm looking at you, Gary!_ 🙂
And people made a bunch of sh*t up.
Tally Ho ! Well well ! Look who it is!!!! My old buddy from across the pond! The one! The only! The most delightfully devious mischief maker ! Hope you’re well! I’ve missed ya. Missed some play and teasing. Really really happy to see your post. Stay well!
Though I do also gotta ask: who is all the erosion caused by folks like Dawkins working out for y’all over there in Britain??? Yikes! Talk about some serious unintended consequences of pushing atheism!
(Yes.. we certainly have more than our share of issues here. Not saying we don’t. We definitely do. But it’s a different source).
Anyhow… take care Devious Dave.
@@mkl2237 Good to hear from you too. You sound as 'full of beans' as ever 🙂 Not sure what Dawkins has been saying (I'm only a fan of his science-related material) but his influence here is probably not as far-reaching as you might have heard. Keep well yourself!!!
Great video Paul, I look forward to you doing a follow up after you read volume 2.
How Habermas continues to be a giant in the field of apologetics is beyond me. Arguing from arguments he never made, misremembering conversations with Antony Flew and all round just making $#!+ up.
Because he’s been at it a long time and people didn’t have the internet to fact-check his claims.
Thanks for the upload Paul. I appreciate you
*“Put their lives on hold,”* doesn’t help Habermas. People who commit to things often double down when it seems to fail. Hiding Jesus’ body is not out of the question, *especially* for people who put their everyday lives on hold.
Evolving the story and carrying on the disciple lifestyle beats going back to fishing.
@@twowardrobeswardrobes1536 No kidding. Especially in the 1st century. No motorboats or mechanized net hauling gear.
Tell me he hasn’t read _A Tale of Two Cities_ before.
Wait, wait wait. Are you trying to tell me that an apologist ... lies? ... like,... for a living? My flabber is most thoroughly gasted. Whatever shall I do now?
Paulogia probably gives Habermas too much credit and airtime. He is not an honest interlocutor... He is an apologist posing as a scholar
Makes for pretty good content, though.
“An atheist came up to me - big atheist, strong atheist, tears in his eyes. I said to him, pick a theory! He said to me, sir, sir, I cannot do that, because if I do you will refute it and make me look silly.“
Also, as soon as some excuseologist says “Y’all just wanna sin,“ I no longer take them seriously -if I ever did in the first place.